This post was written by Barry Brook and me and published today in The Conversation


No sooner had foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop announced that Australia should take a fresh look at nuclear power than Prime Minister Tony Abbott responded that nuclear power would only be supported if it was “economically feasible” and would not receive government subsidies.

Tony Abbott can rest easy in his position knowing this much to be true: thanks to an oversupply of incumbent, polluting electricity in the Australian market, nuclear energy is not economically feasible in Australia … but neither is any other new energy source without a policy to guide investment.

We do it for renewables …

Such a policy is exactly what the Renewable Energy Target is doing for renewable sources, and we are currently seeing what happens when you introduce uncertainty into the sector.

Cut the large-scale renewable energy target, and wind development will halt on a dime.

Cut the small-scale renewable energy scheme, and feed-in tariffs and rooftop solar will fall off a cliff.

Remove carbon pricing (as Australia did in July this year), and serious investment in carbon-capture and storage technology becomes a fantasy.

There is no policy-free pathway to replacing Australia’s established and highly polluting coal- and gas-fired power stations.

Too much electricity

Abbott’s position is reinforced by the current level of over-supply in the National Electricity Market.

Thanks to the combination of an exodus of several large industrial customers in the industrial and manufacturing sector, influx of new wind and solar with the assistance of the Renewable Energy Target, and a greater emphasis on energy efficiency in households, we have seen in the last few years a waning demand for electricity while supply remains high.

So there is no market incentive for investment in new large generation such as nuclear power … or anything else for that matter. Even if there were, this would just be new clean generation on top of old dirty generation.

Whether one prefers the flavour of solar, wind, geothermal, wave or nuclear power, the fact is nothing much will change in the foundations of the Australian energy scene in the foreseeable future unless we demand change. We are not running out of cheap coal; we have to choose to DO something.

Cleanest technologies

However, if we decide that we want to generate electricity without increasing carbon emissions, the story is completely different.

According to the updated Australian Energy Technology Assessment 2013, the five lowest-cost electricity-generating technologies, based on dollars per kilowatt hour, are, in ascending order:

  • Wind, on-shore
  • Fixed solar photo-voltaic (no tracking of the sun’s movement)
  • Gigawatt-scale nuclear light-water reactor
  • Other biomass waste power plant (wood)
  • Single axis tracking solar photo-voltaic (tracking the sun in one axis).

These costs are projected for 2020, based on recent trends in electricity costs using the metric “levelised cost of electricity” (LCOE). All of these technologies produce zero carbon emissions at the point of generation, and we would expect all of them would do well under a policy that sought a major increase in zero-carbon electricity.

The problem of supply

But these very different technologies also come with a range of economic advantages and disadvantages.

For instance, solar panels and wind turbines have the advantage of incremental expenditure (you add relatively small amounts of new generation at a time) which is easier to finance.

But the electricity they generate is at the whim of climate: without storage, they depend on the sun shining and the wind blowing.

This is the difference between capacity and generation, which the LCOE costs we refer to above don’t account for. While we can install a certain capacity of wind and solar, we can guarantee it will not generate electricity at that level all the time.

As we explore in an upcoming paper (along with co-author Corey Bradshaw), this is not a big deal when variable generators such as wind and solar are only used at low levels (currently, variable renewables provide less than 5% of total supply in the market). In this situation, there is always spare capacity from other sources such as hydro, coal and gas waiting to take up any slack.

At high levels (literature suggests more than 20-25% of total generation), however, the tables turn very quickly. There comes a point when adding more variable energy sources just won’t make economic sense. Nor will it increase the reliability of the overall system.

To fill the gap, we need a source with a large capacity factor that depends on a storable fuel rather than favourable weather.

On these criteria, nuclear power stands out in the top five. It is more sustainable and is more scalable than biofuels that brings with it major negative impacts in land-use and air quality. And it doesn’t depend on the weather like solar and wind. Nuclear power stations in Australia could provide close to full power at all times.

Another way of saying this is that nuclear offers a complete “plug-in” replacement for the role that coal-fired power stations play in the electricity system, both in the amount of electricity supplied, and its reliability.

Earlier work from one of us (Barry, along with Tom Biegler and Martin Nicholson) confirmed that nuclear is the most cost-effective substitute for coal that would respond earliest to a carbon price.

More recent work from Barry, Sanghyun Hong and Corey Bradshaw at the University of Adelaide found that an optimal scenario of zero-carbon electricity for Australia included nuclear providing more than 40% of total electricity.

Zero carbon, technology neutral

So, what’s the best way to level the playing field?

First, we need to rescind the arbitrary prohibition of nuclear energy in Australia. To that extent we welcome the statements of foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop.

Second, we need a technology-neutral clean energy target. One of us (Ben) argued recently, that a 95% Clean Energy Target that is open to all technologies (not just renewables), which offered differentiated payments between variable and non-variable electricity sources, would likely make big winners out of solar and wind in the early stages, followed by a swing toward nuclear in the near future. Such a policy would put the arguments of economic viability to the only test that really matters: the market.

But, to go back to where we started, in the absence of that type of policy for change in our energy sector, any such future is stalled.

Nuclear, in the current context, is uneconomic in Australia. But so are large-scale renewables that will meet demand.

The marketplace is a societal construct, not a natural law. Provided the atmosphere is treated as a free dump, and climate stability is treated as inconsequential to our well-being, the market winner in Australia is incumbent coal. That won’t alter unless we demand change.


  1. An overall impression of comments on TC is that there is a ‘wall of thickness’ out there. Many simply parrot what Lovins, Caldicott or whomever have told them without trying to do independent verification. The other big disappointment is the poor quality of comments from some who identify themselves as academics. Gawd help us if they are teaching the next generation.

  2. Do you mean
    -(Cut the small-scale renewable energy scheme and feed-in tariffs) will cause rooftop solar to fall off a cliff.

    Cut the small-scale renewable energy scheme which will cause feed-in tariffs cuts and cause rooftop solar to fall off a cliff.

    Also I think rooftop solar (For self consumption only) is very close to being competitive with retail pricing without any subsidy.

  3. I’m surprised Business SA is calling for a PRISM reactor when Australia doesn’t yet have a high level waste problem like the UK
    Another call is for light water SMRs using overseas enriched uranium. That precludes heavy water CANDUs that can use unenriched uranium after startup. Either way we should eventually enrich here for value adding.

    Of major note is that potential ALP leader and PM Tanya Plibersek is anti nuclear so presumably rubs shoulders with the 100% renewables crowd. Do not elect.

  4. I’d say Ben was the clear winner of the stoush on the breakfast TV show. The antinuclear person was rattled and lost his cool. Even though the public may be coming onside the fact remains one side of politics won’t antagonise coal and the other side of politics clings to delusions. Hopefully Ben will score some more points in this long battle.

  5. Good article Ben
    Can anyone remember the basis for Australia’s arbitrary anti-nuclear policy?
    Is it: Uranium too dangerous for people?
    But we’re happy to sell uranium to other countries. Either they can do it safer than we can, or we don’t rate the risk to their people very highly.
    And only of course if the country has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to prevent the uranium being used for weapons.
    Except for India, as they won’t sign the treaty but they’re a lucrative prospect and they’ve promised not to use the uranium for weapons (so why not sign the treaty?)

  6. Just looking at AETA again I see SMR nuclear (Figure 11) is expected to cost $100-$200 per Mwh in 2030.
    However as we speak Loy Yang can produce electricity for $30 a Mwh absent carbon pricing and you’d think Loy Yang B at least will operate until the 2040s. In 2015 Victoria’s brown coal can be expected to replace much of Tasmania’s dwindling hydro and SA’s expensive gas after a July price shock. Expect emissions to increase again in 2015.

    While the words of Stephen Chu seem encouraging as does a nod from Origin Energy nuclear simply can’t compete on price alone and it’s hard to see that changing anytime soon. As well as the hypocrisy of uranium exports I sense there is a growing unease that we are selling ourselves short. As to why the biodiversity and radiation protection acts prohibit nukes I blame faceless bureaucrats. Austin Powers had it in for henchmen but I think faceless bureaucrats and minders have the ear of politicians like Weatherill and federal ALP heavyweights.

  7. Ben, You wrote “Nuclear, in the current context, is uneconomic in Australia. But so are large-scale renewables that will meet demand.” I wrote THORIUM: cheaper than coal because solving this global climate/energy/poverty/pollution issue requires a zero-carbon power source that can undersell coal. Look for a major announcement about mass-producing such plants, Jan 5. A technical synopsis is already available at .

    1. May it reign, Bob.

      To pro-actively displace incumbent generators in Australia, rather than just change the economics of new build, I expect we will need policy regardless. I would love to be wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: