Senators Take Aim at Official Research That Supports Australia Not Going Nuclear

Cooling towers of Belgium's Doel nuclear plant on Jan. 21, 2016. (Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)

Official research from Australia’s CSIRO used to support the claim that nuclear is “the most expensive” form of energy has been criticised by Coalition senators.

It comes after federal Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen posted a video on social media lambasting nuclear as a viable option for Australia’s energy needs, citing the CSIRO’s 2019-20 GenCost report.

The report, which uses data from engineering consultancy Aurecon, claims the capital expenditure for nuclear energy is as high as $16,000/kW.

It then compares this figure to the capital expenditure for wind, which comes in at around $2,000/kW, and solar, which comes in slightly below $2,000/kW.

In response, Liberal-National Senators Holly Hughes, Matthew Canavan, and David Van questioned the CSIRO’s modelling during a Senate inquiry into removing Australia’s federal prohibition on nuclear energy development.

Nationals Senator Matthew Canavan at a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Jun. 22, 2021. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

They claimed the report used by Bowen involved “cherry picking” certain technologies, was “misleading” the public, and did not have a bearing on the “real world.”

“It is not just about [small modular reactors], and falling back on that as an argument is misleading and deceptive to the Australian people,” Liberal Senator Hughes said.

Victorian Liberal Senator David Van said the CSIRO’s estimates on nuclear costs are a “very incomplete process.

“I would argue that you are cherry-picking some technologies and wilfully ignoring others,” he said.

Meanwhile, Queensland Senator Matt Canavan questioned the use of Aurecon as a partner for data collection because the engineering consultancy was also engaged with renewable energy companies.

“Your report is being used to guide government policy and the provision of billions of dollars of government funding,” Canavan told the CSIRO’s chief economist Paul Graham.

“So obviously, they have an incentive [to endorse renewable energy].”

CSIRO Stands By Data, But Problems Still Persist

In response, the CSIRO’s Executive Director for Environment and Energy, Peter Mayfield, said Aurecon is “close to real projects”, and its report goes through a consultation process that invites scrutiny to ensure “the numbers stack up.”

“There’s a very vibrant community associated with [the Australian Energy Market Operator]. It will let you know straight away if something doesn’t look right. So, we’re satisfied that there are enough checks and balances on that,” he concluded.

This is not the first time the CSIRO’s data regarding the cost of nuclear power has come under question.

Adrian Paterson, former boss of Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said that the CSIRO’s numbers on nuclear contained a “category error” when comparing the per-watt cost of nuclear energy to solar and wind.

“One generates power 24 x 7, and the other generates power only when the sun is shining, or the wind is blowing,” he told the Australian Financial Review.

Nuclear engineer and associate professor at the Australian National University, Tony Irwin, agreed.

According to The Australian, Irwin said that after “appropriate adjustments” for firming costs (including backup power for renewables) and new grids were calculated, “small modular nuclear reactor capital costs are less than half those of wind and solar.”

Nuclear Still the Most Efficient

A paper by the Energy Policy Institute of Australia found thee CSIRO’s GenCost report significantly overstated the cost of nuclear generation and understated the cost of ensuring electricity from renewable energy sources was “firm” (and therefore, comparable with the cost of baseload generators).

The global energy authority, the International Energy Agency (IEA), has also come to a similar position.

In its 2020 paper titled “Project Costs of Generating Electricity,” the IEA found that long-term operated nuclear power plants produce power at a cost of about $50 per megawatt hour.

The Agency noted that “electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the lowest cost option for low-carbon generation—when compared to building new power plants—but for all power generation across the board.”

Meanwhile, the cost of solar power—depending on whether it is utility-scale, commercial, residential, or solar thermal—is about $99 per megawatt hour.

The cost of wind—depending on whether it is onshore or offshore wind—is around $69 per megawatt hour.

The efficiency of nuclear energy became more evident after the Finland-based nuclear reactor, Olkiluoto 3, which began operating in April, resulted in electricity prices decreasing by more than 75 percent.

Meanwhile, figures from the Australian Energy Market Operator show that average wholesale power prices in New South Wales have increased by over 300 percent since 2015 on an annualised basis.