Antinuclear

Nuclear could cost households an extra $450 or more a year by 2030

Australians for Affordable Energy , https://theaimn.net/nuclear-could-cost-households-an-extra-450-or-more-a-year-by-2030/

New modelling confirms a shift to nuclear power could significantly increase household electricity bills, with Australians for Affordable Energy (AFAE) urging policymakers to back the most affordable energy option.

The analysis, released by the Clean Energy Council, found households could face a 30 per cent increase in power bills by 2030 under a nuclear pathway, with households paying an additional $450 annually.

“Australians want affordable and reliable energy now. Every independent study we’ve seen suggests nuclear power will be a guaranteed hit to household budgets now and in future,” AFAE spokesperson Jo Dodds said.

“The cost of living is what it’s all about for most Australians, with energy prices a major concern. From everything we know so far, nuclear is the far more expensive option, and cheaper practical alternatives exist.

“While we wait decades for expensive nuclear plants Australians will be forced to rely on expensive gas and aging coal plants, driving bills even higher. A 30 per cent hike in power bills would place even more strain on Australian households who are already grappling with cost-of-living pressures. Our energy policies must prioritise affordability.”

The findings mirror concerns raised in the Climate Change Authority’s recent report, which found nuclear energy could add 2 billion tonnes of emissions and delay Australia’s clean energy transition until 2042.

“It says small businesses could expect an $877 increase in their bills by 2030 if we slow down our clean energy rollout,” Ms Dodds said.

“There’s a clear choice here between affordable energy now or higher bills for decades to come.”

“Any energy policy that doesn’t put affordability front and centre is out of touch with what voters actually want. These are tough times for households, we shouldn’t allow energy policy to make them worse.”

Australians for Affordable Energy is urging policymakers to focus on practical, cost-effective energy solutions that can deliver more affordable power right now.

March 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business | Leave a comment

Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could blow out household electricity bills by up to $600 a year by 2030

 https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-plan-will-blow-out-household-electricity-bills-by-up-to-600-a-year-by-2030/ Sophie Vorrath, Mar 4, 2025

A new report has torpedoed Peter Dutton’s claim that the Coalition’s nuclear power plan for Australia would be 44 per cent cheaper than Labor’s plan for renewables, finding instead that it would inflate average consumer electricity bills by up to 41 per cent between now and 2030.

The report, commissioned by the Clean Energy Council, models the outcomes on electricity prices across Australia’s main grid, the NEM, if the build rate of utility scale renewable generation capacity was reduced significantly – as it promises to be under a Coalition government.

The modelling, conducted by global consultancy, Jacobs, sets a base case using the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) Integrated System Plan Step Change Scenario, where 26 gigawatts (GW) of renewables in 2025 grows to 72.7 GW by 2030.

This base case is then contrasted against two scenarios based on the modelling by Frontier Economics for the federal Coalition, which restricts renewables to 49.1 GW by 2030 and relies on coal and gas while waiting for nuclear power.

In that report, Frontier Economics reduced the build rate for renewables, in particular, onshore and offshore wind, big solar and big batteries, in a world where longer term, post 2035 nuclear capacity is installed to meet customer electricity needs.

Frontier’s economic modelling has since been used to underpin claims from Liberal Peter Dutton that his plan for a power system including a significant role for nuclear will be 44% cheaper than a system relying predominantly on renewables. 

As Tristan Edis writes in a series of articles starting here, a range of energy analysts and economists have found an array of problems with how this number was derived, but this hasn’t stopped the LNP leader from repeating it every chance he gets.

The Clean Energy Council has therefore decided to fight fire with fire.

March 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business | Leave a comment

Nuclear power struggling to maintain current level of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth

Alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the weapons proliferation risks, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants (and the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine), and the intractable nuclear waste legacy, the reality is that nuclear power just can’t compete economically.

The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike.

Darrin Durant, Jim Falk & Jim Green, Mar 3, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-struggling-to-maintain-current-level-of-stagnation-let-alone-achieve-any-growth/

The current push in Australia to deploy nuclear power reactors once again contrasts an excessive optimism by nuclear proponents against the continuing stagnant situation of nuclear power worldwide. That contrast is the subject of our new report for the EnergyScience Coalition.

The latest nuclear proposals are built on three speculations. 

First, projected AI-related energy demand where – as with nuclear power proponents in the 1970’s who projected huge demand that never eventuated – there are already signs demand is overblown. For example the new leading AI entrant DeepSeek requires just 10 per cent of the energy of competitors.

Second, speculative techno-optimism that new technologies such as small modular reactors will resolve industry project management issues. Yet these small reactors are unproven. 

Third, prospective wish-fulfilment, where dozens of nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries are offered as saviours, despite not having reactor approvals and funding in place in a large majority of cases.

So what is the state of nuclear power in 2024? A review by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report notes that seven new reactors were connected to grids last year while four reactors were permanently closed. The net increase in operating nuclear capacity was 4.3 gigawatts (GW).

Worldwide nuclear power capacity was 371 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2024. That figure is near-identical to capacity of 368 GW two decades earlier in 2005.

As of 1 January 2025, the mean age of the nuclear power reactor fleet was 32.1 years. In 1990, the mean age was just 11.3 years. Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency projects the closure of 325 GW of nuclear capacity from 2018 to 2050 – that’s 88 per cent of current worldwide capacity. Thus the industry faces a daunting challenge just to maintain its pattern of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth.

There were no ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) startups in 2024. Indeed there has never been a single SMR startup unless you count so-called SMRs not built using factory ‘modular’ construction techniques, in which case there is one each in China and Russia.

The SMR sector continues to go nowhere with setbacks in 2024 including the suspension of the Nuward project in France (following previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects) and the bankruptcy of US company Ultra Safe Nuclear. 

Nuclear growth dwarfed by renewables

In striking contrast to nuclear power’s net gain of 4.3 GW in 2024, the International Energy Agency’s October 2024 ‘Renewables 2024’ report estimates 666 GW of global renewable capacity additions in 2024. Based on the Agency’s estimate, renewables capacity growth was 155 times greater than that of nuclear power.

The International Energy Agency expects renewables to jump sharply from 30 per cent of global electricity generation in 2023 to 46 per cent in 2030.

Conversely, nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen steadily since the 1990s. As of 1 January 2025, nuclear power accounted for 9.15 per cent of global electricity production, barely half of its peak of 17.5 per cent in 1996.

A Bloomberg analysis finds that renewable energy investments reached $A1.17 trillion in 2024, up 8 per cent on the previous year, whereas nuclear investment was flat at $A55.1 billion. Thus renewable investments were 21 times greater than nuclear investments.

In contrast to massive cost overruns with nuclear projects, renewable costs have fallen sharply.

Lazard investment firm data shows that utility-scale solar and onshore wind became cheaper than nuclear power from 2010-2015. From 2009-2024, the cost of utility-scale solar fell 83 per cent; the cost of onshore wind fell 63 per cent; while nuclear costs increased 49 per cent.

Nuclear newcomer countries

Claims that 40-50 countries are actively considering or planning to introduce nuclear power, in addition to the 32 countries currently operating reactors, do not withstand scrutiny.

As of 1 January 2025, reactors were under construction in just 13 countries, two less than a year earlier. Seven percent of the world’s countries are building reactors; 93 percent are not.

Of the 13 countries building reactors, only three are potential nuclear newcomer countries building their first plant: Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkiye. In those three countries, the nuclear projects are led by Russian nuclear agencies with significant up-front funding from the Russian state.

The World Nuclear Association observes that apart from those three countries, no countries meet its criteria of ‘planned’ reactors, i.e. “approvals, funding or commitment in place, mostly expected to be in operation within the next 15 years.”

The number of potential newcomer countries with approvals and funding in place, or construction underway, is just three and those projects are funded heavily by the Russian state. That is the underwhelming reality underlying exaggerated claims about 40-50 countries pursuing nuclear power.

There is no evidence of a forthcoming wave of nuclear newcomer countries in the coming years and decades. At most there will be a trickle as has been the historical pattern with just seven newcomer countries over the past 40 years and just three this century.

The number of countries operating power reactors in 1996–1997 reached 32. Since then, nuclear newcomer countries have been matched by countries completing nuclear phase-outs and thus the number is stuck at 32. And less than one-third of those countries are building reactors (10/32).

It is doubtful whether the number of nuclear newcomer countries over the next 20-30 years will match the number of countries completing phase-outs.

Capital strike

Alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the weapons proliferation risks, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants (and the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine), and the intractable nuclear waste legacy, the reality is that nuclear power just can’t compete economically.

The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike. Even with generous government/taxpayer subsidies, it has become difficult or impossible to fund new reactors – especially outside the sphere of China and Russia’s projects at home and abroad.

Who would bet tens of billions of dollars on nuclear power projects when the recent history in countries with vast expertise and experience has been disastrous?

In France, the latest cost estimate for the only recent reactor construction project increased seven-fold to A$39.4 billion for just one reactor. Construction took 17 years. No reactors are currently under construction in France.

In the US, one project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, was abandoned in 2017 after $A14.3 billion was spent. Westinghouse declared bankruptcy and its debts almost forced its parent company Toshiba into bankruptcy. All that remains is the nukegate scandal: an avalanche of legal action including criminal cases.

The only other reactor construction project in the US – the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the state of Georgia – reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates. The final cost was at least $A27 billion per reactor. Completion was six to seven years behind schedule.

No power reactors are currently under construction in the US. Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down over the past 15 years.

The situation is just as bleak in the UK where there have been 24 permanent reactor shut-downs since the last reactor startup 30 years ago, in 1995.

The 3.2 GW twin-reactor Hinkley Point project in Somerset was meant to be complete in 2017 but construction didn’t even begin until 2018 and the estimated completion date has been pushed back to 2030-31.

The latest cost estimate – A$46.6 billion per reactor – is 11.5 times higher than early estimates. The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to $A60.8 billion and the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee said that “consumers are left footing the bill and the poorest consumers will be hit hardest.”

The estimated cost of the planned 3.2 GW twin-reactor Sizewell C project in the UK has jumped to $A81 billion or $A40.5 billion per reactor, twice the cost estimate in 2020. Securing funding to allow construction to begin is proving to be difficult and protracted despite a new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ funding model which foists the enormous risk of enormous cost overruns onto taxpayers and electricity ratepayers.

Lessons for Australia

Those three countries – France, the US and the UK – have vast nuclear expertise and experience. They all enjoy synergies between civil and military nuclear programs – President Macron said in a 2020 speech that without nuclear power in France there would be no nuclear weapons, and vice versa.

All of the above-mentioned construction projects were (or are) on existing nuclear sites. All projects were (or are) long delayed and tens of billions of dollars over-budget.

Claims that potential nuclear newcomer countries such as Australia, without any of those advantages, could build reactors quickly and cheaply are not credible.

Our report expanding on these issues is posted at the EnergyScience Coalition website.

Darrin Durant is Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Melbourne. Jim Falk is a Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Melbourne and Emeritus Professor at the University of Wollongong. Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

March 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business | Leave a comment

New report details nuclear power’s demise

March 3, 2025 AIMN Editorial, EnergyScience Coalition ,  https://theaimn.net/new-report-details-nuclear-powers-demise/

A new report by the EnergyScience Coalition corrects false claims by the federal Coalition and others that ‘the world is going nuclear’.

Co-authors Assoc. Prof. Darrin Durant, Prof. Jim Falk and Dr. Jim Green note that:

• The number of operating power reactors worldwide has fallen to 411, which is 27 fewer than the peak of 438 reactors in 2002.
• In 2024 there were 666 gigawatts (GW) of global renewable power additions compared to nuclear growth of 4 gigawatts, a ratio of 155:1. In China the ratio was 100:1.
• Nuclear power’s contribution to global electricity production fell to 9.15 percent last year, barely half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996. Conversely, the International Energy Agency expects renewables to jump sharply from 30 percent of global electricity generation in 2023 to 46 percent in 2030.
• Global nuclear power capacity is no greater than it was 20 years ago.
• Of the 32 countries operating power reactors, less than one-third (10) are building new reactors.
• The number of countries building nuclear power reactors fell from 15 to 13 last year. Seven percent of the world’s countries are building reactors; 93 percent are not.
• The number of potential nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries with reactor approvals secured and funding in place, or construction underway, is just three and those projects are all heavily funded by the Russian state.
• The ‘small modular reactor’ sector continues to go nowhere with setbacks in 2024 including the suspension of the Nuward project in France and the bankruptcy of US company Ultra Safe Nuclear.

Report co-author Prof. Jim Falk said: “Reactor construction projects in countries with vast expertise and experience ‒ such as France, the US and the UK ‒ have run literally tens of billions of dollars over-budget and construction schedules have slipped by many years. Since those countries have failed to build reactors on-time and on-budget, it would be naïve to believe that a nuclear ‘newcomer’ country such as Australia could do so.”

Co-author Dr. Jim Green said: “This report provides a factual rebuttal to the pro-nuclear disinformation campaign currently underway in Australia. Simple facts are ignored by the nuclear lobby, such as the fact that there has been zero growth in nuclear power over the past 20 years and the number of countries operating reactors is the same as it was in the late 1990s.”

The report, titled ‘Nuclear Power’s Global Stagnation and Decline’, is co-authored by Assoc. Prof. Darrin Durant (Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Melbourne), Prof. Jim Falk (Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Melbourne; Emeritus Professor at the University of Wollongong) and Dr. Jim Green (President of Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group).

March 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business | Leave a comment