CSIRO report finds renewables a better option than nuclear

ANGLESEA and nuclear power have collided again in the national spotlight after a major metropolitan newspaper reported last week that the town was a possible site for a nuclear power plant.

Local social media platforms were abuzz with chatter about the possibility of a Surf Coast reactor.

This came alongside the release of a CSIRO report reaffirming renewables as the lowest-cost option for new electricity generation in Australia.

The speculation led Wannon federal member Dan Tehan to take to the airwaves to again rule out the Anglesea site.

Since late 2023, the Coalition has been promoting former coal-fired power station sites, similar to those at Anglesea and the Latrobe Valley, as ideal locations for small modular reactors.

The Surf Coast Times had previously reported that Anglesea was ruled out after Mr Tehan contacted this masthead in March and stated that Anglesea was not being considered as a site by the Coalition.

At the time, Mr Tehan said the Coalition’s nuclear policy would be announced in the coming weeks. It has still yet to be released.

“What we see the benefits of Australia considering low emissions nuclear technology is that it enables renewables to be part of our energy mix going forward and provides an option for secure low-cost energy as we seek to achieve net zero by 2050,” Mr Tehan said in March.

The recent wave of speculation followed the release of the CSIRO GenCost 2023-24 report.

This annual report, which provides a comprehensive analysis of electricity generation costs, included large-scale nuclear power for the first time.

It highlights that while nuclear technology is technically feasible in Australia, it remains more expensive than renewables and would require at least 15 years to develop.

“Our approach to the inclusion of large-scale nuclear technology provides a logical, transparent, and policy-neutral method of costing a potential deployment scenario in Australia,” CSIRO’s Chief Energy Economist and GenCost lead author, Paul Graham said.

GenCost’s cost estimations for large-scale nuclear were based on South Korea’s successful nuclear program, adjusted to account for differences by comparing the costs of new coal generation in each country.