We still do not know what nuclear power costs. That is because no-one has figured out how to safely store the radioactive waste, short of putting it on a rocket to the sun. It needs to be securely stored for a long time - longer than any structure ever built by humans has survived. In fact, longer than anatomically modern humans have even existed. This is probably why Peter Dutton was lying on television recently about the quantity of radioactive waste produced.

If we limit ourselves to the immediate costs, nuclear is still by far the most expensive option. The attached figure shows the trend in levelised cost of electricity from various sources since 2009, from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Cost_metrics

Wind and solar cost about 5c/kWh, while nuclear costs about 20c/kWh. Wind and solar are rapidly getting cheaper, while the cost of nuclear is going up. Dutton recently promised us he could build nuclear power plants in 5 years. Then he changed it to 11 to 13 years. By the time they were actually built, the cost disparity would be even greater. Furthermore, Australia actually has experience with building wind and solar plants, but Dutton wants us to jump on the nuclear bandwagon after it has already become obsolete.

Further down the page, a cost (in Australia) of 9c/kWh is given for wind power with storage, and 12c/kWh for solar with storage.

I do not believe the coalition has any intention to actually build nuclear power plants in Australia. This is just another delaying tactic for avoiding the climate change issue. All they will deliver is another decade or two of crippling uncertainty and skyrocketing prices in our electricity industry. Labor and the Greens delivered us the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions a decade ago. The coalition removed it.

Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life          432 years
Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years
Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years
Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years
Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/23/peter-duttons-nuc...




Coalition proposal would cost a minimum of $116bn –
the same as Labor’s plan for almost 100% renewables by 2050, the Smart Energy Council says

The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors as part of its controversial energy plan could cost taxpayers as much as $600bn while supplying just 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix by 2050, according to the Smart Energy Council.

The analysis found the plan would cost a minimum of $116bn – the same cost as delivering the Albanese government’s plan for 82% renewables by 2030, and an almost 100% renewable energy mix by 2050.

The Coalition has drawn widespread criticism for not releasing the costings of the nuclear power proposal it unveiled on Wednesday as part of its plan for Australia’s energy future if elected. On Friday, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said the costings would come “very soon”, but did not confirm whether it would be days, weeks or months.

of Australia’s energy - that's stuff all - it's almost nothing.   

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:09am:


The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 11:36am:


Can it be recycled into something that is not radioactive?

How long does it need to be stored for, and how much much does that cost?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:09am:


Did you mean the dearest option?

You wrote in the OP:

If we limit ourselves to the immediate costs, nuclear is still by far the most expensive option. The attached figure shows the trend in levelised cost of electricity from various sources since 2009, from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Cost_metrics

Wind and solar cost about 5c/kWh, while nuclear costs about 20c/kWh. Wind and solar are rapidly getting cheaper, while the cost of nuclear is going up.

Quote:


If indeed AGW-CO2 is threatening to destroy us, "taxpayers' $trillions"  will be the last of our problems.

And even if Oz can go 100% renewables backed with pumped-hydro storage (and I think we can, though Lee doesn't), many other countries can't do it without nuclear, which is why the US is deciding to recommence research into nulclear power, after falling behind China  (which is currently operating the world's first SMR).    

Note: the treasuries of currency-issuing governments can create money out of thin air (just like private banks do, when they write loans for credit-worthy customers), so 'taxpayer money' needn't be the concern, when it comes to converting the globe to a zero emissions economy. 

Resource mobilization, not money, is the problem to be solved. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 1:10pm:



Well there goes the cost of cheap renewables again.