Live: Renewables or nuclear — the debate over Australia’s energy future

“Compared to the International Atomic Energy Agency, they conceded that they do not have the same degree of expertise in certain areas, including the timing,which features in their report,” Mr O’Brien said.

“I think the key thing for the market operator, who does the report with the CSIRO, is the capital cost. Because that feeds into their major plan.”

As the politicians are about to be up — we’re keen to know what Australians want to know about energy policy.

So please send in your comments and we will do our best to get some answers where we can.

The Coalition has promised to build seven nuclear reactors on decommissioned coal power sites.

The seven sites are:

• Tarong in Queensland, north-west of Brisbane
• Callide in Queensland, west of Gladstone
• Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley
• Mount Piper in NSW, near Lithgow
• Port Augusta in SA
• Loy Yang in Victoria, in the Latrobe Valley
• Muja in WA, near Collie

In a press conference this morning, Mr Dutton said net zero by 2050 targets would not be reached without nuclear.

“That’s why there’s strong support, particularly from younger people, but increasingly from Australians of all ages,” he said.

CSIRO’s Paul Graham says the main area of uncertainty with Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) is around capital costs. While they are potentially faster to build, they are commercially immature.

“Large-scale nuclear reactors are the lowest-cost form of nuclear generation and they’re the ones we’ve mostly got built around the world. Small Modular Reactors are in that pre-commercial stage,” he said.

“There’s been a couple built in Russia and China, really as more of a government program.

“That means, as a consequence, Small Modular Reactors are still high-cost because they’re pre-commercial but large commercial reactors remain a viable commercial reality.”

There has been a lot of talk about these from the Coalition but examples of them only exist in China and Russia.

So here are some facts to know from the IAEA (The UN’s nuclear agency) about SMRs.

Small — physically a fraction of the size of a conventional nuclear power reactor.

Modular — making it possible for systems and components to be factory-assembled and transported as a unit to a location for installation.

Reactors — harnessing nuclear fission to generate heat to produce energy.

The IAEA says that SMRs would likely have reduced fuel requirements.

Power plants based on SMRs may require less frequent refuelling, every 3 to 7 years, in comparison to between 1 and 2 years for conventional plants.

Some SMRs are designed to operate for up to 30 years without refuelling.

However, SMRs are largely untested and the only ones running at present are located in Russia and China.

Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic backed the report while taking a swipe at Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

“The facts are laid out very clearly in the GenCost report, and our government respects the work of CSIRO scientists and researchers and listens to that advice,” Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic said.

“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy not only threatens to blow out the budget, it also threatens jobs and household power bills.”

Nationals frontbencher Barnaby Joyce dismissed the findings when asked on Sunrise this morning.

“If CSIRO are right, then all these other countries in the world must be wrong,” he said.

“Canada must be wrong, France must be among, America must be wrong, India must be wrong, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina, it is ridiculous.”

He said he could “guarantee” that nuclear power would be cheaper than renewables.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said that was “wrong”.

“Nuclear is the most expensive form and it won’t be available for 20 years, and every expert agrees with that. The only person that doesn’t agree is Barnaby,” she said.

Previous GenCost reports have been criticised by opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, who argued the report did not consider nuclear’s longer operating life.

But CSIRO’s analysis found that the cost advantage was “not unique” as nuclear reactors faced substantial refurbishment costs after a few decades.

“If we had a 60-year nuclear project and a 60-year solar project where you rebuild the solar halfway through, both require re-investments, so you have to reinvest about a third of the nuclear plant and you have to rebuild the solar,” said CSIRO’s chief economist Paul Graham.

“So overall we didn’t find any additional unique benefit from nuclear generation and its long life, and so the relativity between nuclear and renewables hasn’t changed.”

Building a nuclear power plant in Australia would likely cost twice as much as renewable energy even accounting for the much longer life span of reactors, according to a new report from Australia’s leading science agency.

In its latest economic analysis of the cost of building various energy projects, the CSIRO found nuclear plants enjoyed relatively little financial advantage from their long lives, which could be double a solar or wind farm.

It comes as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton prepares to release the much-anticipated costings of the Coalition’s nuclear power policy this week. Mr Dutton has repeatedly said the policy would help bring down power bills, a claim challenged in this latest report.

The CSIRO regularly releases the GenCost report, which looks at the cost of Australia’s energy sources. It has consistently found renewable to be the cheapest option, despite a run of inclusions at the request of critics to make changes to the modelling — the latest being the life span of a nuclear plant.

Read the full story below.