Australia is having a debate over nuclear power. Hamilton and Heeney give your opinion with an important perspective:
Based on many discussions about Australian energy policy over the years, we can divide nuclear energy supporters into three groups.
The first could be called the “ideologues”. They favor nuclear power not because of its zero emissions, but despite he. Indeed, many people are climate skeptics. They hate renewable energy because the left loves it, and they are in favor of nuclear power because the left hates it.
The latter could be called the “engineers”. They favor nuclear power because it’s cool. Like a Ferrari, they marvel at its performance and stability. They see it as the energy source of the future. Something from science fiction.
The third could be described as “pragmatic”. They are not very attentive or very informed about the intricacies of energy policy. They superficially believe that nuclear power can serve as a common-sense antidote to the practical drawbacks of renewable energy.
Those absent are those who could be called “economists”. They don’t care at all about how exactly electrons are produced. They simply want the cheapest possible energy that meets a minimum standard of reliability and emissions.
Based on economic considerations, Hamilton and Heeney conclude that nuclear power is expensive for Australia:
The CSIRO estimates the cost of 90 per cent renewable energy, including consolidation, transmission and integration costs, at $109 per megawatt hour. Based on South Korean costs (about one-third of those in the United States and Europe), 60-year lifespan, 60% economic utilization rate (depending on coal current) and a construction time of eight years (according to the world average). ), nuclear power would cost $200 per megawatt hour, almost double.
The same electrons delivered with the same reliability, but only twice as expensive in a rather optimistic scenario.
Note that this takes into account that nuclear is available when the sun isn’t shining and the winds aren’t blowing, so are batteries.
I suspect Hamilton and Heeney are right about the numbers, but it’s this argument that I find most convincing:
If you need external validation of these fundamental economic principles, look no further than the opposition’s announcement. Rather than lifting the moratorium and allowing private companies to supply nuclear power if it is commercially viable, the opposition has opted for the government to own and operate it. An irrefutable proof of economic non-viability if ever there was one.
I am optimistic about the potential ofshopping center modular reactors (SMR) based on innovative designs. These reactors can ideally be located close to AI facilities. As I argued in the Marginal innovation revolution theory, innovation is a dynamic process; success rarely comes the first time. The key to innovation is continuous refinement and improvement. These small reactors based on different technologies offer an opportunity for development and improvement. To achieve this, we need to overhaul our regulatory framework, which has Nuclear power disproportionately overloaded—our greenest energy source—with excessive regulation compared to more dangerous and less environmentally friendly technologies.
Electrons are electrons. We should allow all electricity generation technologies to compete in the market on an equal footing. Let the best technologies win.
