Australia is debating nuclear power. Hamilton and Heaney Judge from an important perspective:
Based on much of the conversation about Australian energy policy over the past few years, we can divide nuclear energy supporters into three groups.
The first can be called “ideology”. The reason they prefer nuclear power is not because of zero emissions; despite that. In fact, many people are climate skeptics. They hate renewable energy because the left loves renewable energy. Because the left hates nuclear weapons, they prefer nuclear weapons..
The second may be called “Engineer”. They prefer nuclear power because it’s cool. Like Ferrari, they admire its performance and reliability. They see it as the energy source of the future. The content of science fiction.
The third could be called “pragmatists.” They are not very meticulous or well-informed about the complexities of energy policy. On the surface, they believe nuclear power can serve as a common-sense antidote to the real shortcomings of renewables.
There are noticeably no people called ‘economists’. They didn’t really care how exactly electrons were created. They just want the cheapest energy that meets minimum reliability and emissions standards.
Based on economics, Hamilton and Heeney concluded that nuclear power was expensive in Australia.
CSIRO estimates the cost of 90% renewable energy, including fixed, transmission and integration costs, at $109 per megawatt hour. Based on Korean cost (about one-third that of the US and Europe), 60-year lifespan, 60% economic utilization rate (currently based on coal), and 8-year construction time (based on world average). ), nuclear power costs nearly twice as much at $200 per megawatt hour.
The same electrons are delivered with the same reliability and, in a fairly optimistic scenario, cost twice as much.
Note – this takes into account that the nuke can be used when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, and so are the batteries.
I think Hamilton and Heeney are right. But the most compelling argument is this:
If you need external validation of these basic economics, look no further than the opposition party’s announcement. Instead of lifting the moratorium and allowing private companies to supply nuclear energy where commercially viable, the opposition has chosen to make the government the owner and operator. This is clear evidence that it is not economically viable.
I am optimistic about the potential of s.Shopping Mall Modular Reactor (SMR) based on innovative design. These reactors can be ideally located. Near AI facility. As I argued in Revolutionary Theory of the Limits of Innovation, innovation is a dynamic process. Success is rare on the first try. The key to innovation is continuous improvement and improvement. These small reactors, based on a variety of technologies, offer opportunities for improvement and improvement. To achieve this, we need a complete overhaul of our regulatory system. Nuclear energy is disproportionately burdensomeExcessive regulation compared to —our greenest power source— More dangerous and less environmentally friendly technologies.
An electron is an electron. We must allow all power generation technologies to compete on equal footing in the marketplace. Let the best technology win.
