Paul Murray: Energy Secretary Chris Bowen’s move away from nuclear power in favor of renewables is a costly mistake

How is it that the smartest people in the world are choosing nuclear power, but Labor in Australia keep telling us it’s a bad idea?

The world’s most established technology entrepreneurs are turning to nuclear reactors to provide the massive amounts of reliable electricity needed for their next big thing: the artificial intelligence revolution.

Last month, Google signed a contract with US Department of Energy-backed Kairos Power, which will build 500 MW small modular reactors between 2030 and 2035, meeting the tech giant’s growing needs.

It exposes Labour’s lie that nuclear power cannot play a role in Australia achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“We believe nuclear power has a critical role to play in supporting our clean growth and advancing the development of artificial intelligence,” said Google senior director of energy and climate Michael Terrell.

The quote was part of a CNBC report noting that tech leaders Bill Gates, Sam Altman and Jeff Bezos support nuclear power.

“Constellation Energy is restarting Three Mile Island to power Microsoft data centers, while Amazon bought a data center from Talen Energy that is powered by the Susquehanna nuclear power plant,” CNBC reports.

But here in Australia we are left with Energy Minister Chris Bowen fixated on unreliable renewables and babbling about how wind and solar don’t “send the bills”.

This was his meaningless response to an equally meaningless question from Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter FitzSimons in September about “where are we keeping up with your government’s promise of cutting our electricity bills by $275 annually?”

“The sun doesn’t send bills,” Bowen replied. “The wind doesn’t send bills.”

The deception attempt that these energy sources are free differs from Bowen’s political ploy of viewing the transition away from fossil fuels as a competition between renewables and nuclear power.

One writer this week claimed that the world will install 666 GW of renewable energy compared to just 29 GW of nuclear power over the next two years, as if that proves anything.

“With leadership and political will, installing cost-effective renewable energy sources with storage will make expensive nuclear power not only unattractive, but unnecessary,” the letter said.

Such views ignore the fact that battery power is physically unable to cover the huge shortfall of unreliable and intermittent solar and wind power generation for large energy systems, which is why tech giants are switching to nuclear power.

And that, if the final life cycle is correctly estimated at 20 years, as opposed to 60-plus years for a nuclear reactor, battery energy costs more.

However, this should not be seen as a battle between renewables and nuclear power, which is unfairly played out as a “green virtue” against a radioactive danger.

To guarantee a supply of electricity that it could never provide, even with batteries, the renewable energy revolution needs nuclear power to succeed.

The sooner renewable energy advocates understand this overwhelming truth, the sooner we can make meaningful decisions to replace fossil fuels.

This week the Albana government turned its back on our partners AUKUS’s offer to take part in the next phase of the Generation IV International Forum, which Australia joined in 2017 to accelerate the development of nuclear technology to reduce emissions and strengthen the economy. energy security.

Bowen’s reasoning for our refusal is truly idiotic: we do not have domestic nuclear energy.

“Nuclear power is prohibited in Australia,” the minister’s office said. “Our international partners understand that Australia’s abundance of renewable energy makes nuclear power, including nuclear power using small modular reactors, not a viable option to include in our energy mix for decarbonization efforts.”

This is not true. The US and UK understood that we would continue to explore the nuclear route. Domestic politics determined the Labor Party’s disgraceful abandonment of important international commitments.

The idea that Australia could operate eight nuclear submarines from the early 2040s without developing its own nuclear power capability is simply ludicrous.

Labor is spending $150 million to “start delivering the skills and workforce we need to deliver Australia’s nuclear submarine program through AUKUS,” while pretending ahead of the upcoming federal election that we won’t need to develop nuclear power. Idiotic.

In addition, the government already operates a small reactor that is home to a sophisticated nuclear medicine industry and research organization.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton looked “insanely brave” as he unveiled the Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear reactors across the country to fill emerging supply gaps as coal-fired power stations close.

However, the closer we get to the election, the more it looks like Labor will be caught up in comparisons between its renewable energy transition plan and national energy security.

Last week, Frontier Economics, a respected consultancy that has advised governments of both political persuasions, published the first of two reports on nuclear power.

“The work presented in this report and our second report is funded and directed exclusively by Frontier Economics,” it said. “As part of this work, we consulted with the Federal Coalition to learn more details about their plans and to help clarify how we could model the inclusion of nuclear power in the national electricity market.

“We decided to undertake this work because of the large number of ill-informed and misleading cost comparisons that are made publicly regarding nuclear power, and we believe Australia deserves better analysis and commentary on this important issue.”

Sims has fallen into the trap of believing that renewable energy sources reliably produce at their “nameplate” capacity, which greatly underestimates the true cost of the energy they provide.

By explaining the economics behind the Coalition’s nuclear policy, Frontier brought to life some of the fantasies behind Labour’s transition to renewable energy, highlighting the true costs and risks that the Albana government is never willing to talk about.

Establishing a “base case” transition to renewables without nuclear support, Frontier found that Labour’s system of relying only on wind, solar and energy storage did not include the $62 billion in transmission costs that the Coalition’s plan avoids using existing infrastructure around coal-fired power plants.

This prompted Frontier to conservatively estimate the cost of the Albana government’s renewable energy plan at $642 billion.

Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien was quick to point out that this was five times what Labor told Australians its policies would cost.

In developing a basic case for using renewable energy for direct comparison with nuclear, Frontier has rebutted the analysis of former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chief Rod Sims.

“All studies show that renewable energy costs Australia less than nuclear,” Sims wrote. “Solar and wind energy can provide electricity for about $60 to $80 per megawatt hour, and in some areas it is much cheaper.

“When this is confirmed so that we have reliable power 24/7 using hydro, battery storage or gas peaking generation, the cost will rise to around 110 MWh including additional transmission costs.”

Sims then stated that modern nuclear power plants produce “at best 200-300 MWh when running 90 percent of the time, and that’s in countries that already have well-developed nuclear power.”

Unfortunately, Sims has fallen into the trap of believing that renewable energy sources reliably produce at “nameplate” capacity, which greatly underestimates the true cost of the energy they provide.

“There is a lot that is wrong with Sims’ statements,” Frontier said. “First, wind and solar only work about a third of the time compared to nuclear, which produces electricity more or less constantly.

“And the nature of renewable energy sources tends to be correlated—that is, they tend to work or not work at the same time.

“This means that in order for renewables to produce enough electricity to meet demand at any time, much more renewable capacity is required to generate excess electricity during times when renewables are not running, and then that excess needs to be stored, and also require further backup. to cover cases of prolonged wind and solar drought.

“Roughly speaking, it takes about three times as much renewable capacity to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear generator.

“It is therefore misleading to compare the capital and operating costs of renewable energy per megawatt-hour with the capital and operating costs per megawatt-hour of a nuclear power plant, even if this involves a crude attempt to add the cost of ‘hardening’.”

“To truly compare costs, a more sophisticated approach is needed. The reality is that electricity consumers are provided with a wide range of electrical options that often operate simultaneously.

“In this case, it is only fair to compare the total costs of the combination of generators—either a renewable energy system promoted by AEMO or a system that also includes nuclear power—required to reliably and safely meet demand.”

Some people will find this discussion glazed over. Unfortunately, the future of our energy-dependent society depends on this.

A second Frontier report assessing Australia’s nuclear power potential, due in the next few weeks, will replace Bowen’s bluster with the factual basis for a real election fight.