It's bad because of Australia's unique situation. They are uniquely well suited for solar while being uniquely unsuited for new nuclear.
Australia has 2x the sunshine of Europe, more spare land for panels, and less seasonal variability.
Australia has no existing nuclear plant experience. No experienced regulator or legal regime. High labor costs and little relevant local labor. And a track record of project cost blowouts and time overruns on large projects.
Australia's small energy needs are also an issue. The marginal cost of new nuclear drops after you build the first few plants but Australia has such small energy needs that it won't reap the fruits of scale benefits.
Australia has large community opposition to nuclear but not to solar. About 35% of the electorate approve of nuclear, with almost all state premiers publicly stating opposition, while 80% approve of solar. This will lead to social licensing risks like what Germany, Japan, Taiwan and California face with planning and legislative delays, and potential early plant closures leading to wasted capex and higher energy costs.
Australia's peak scientific body, the CSIRO, estimates that a mostly decarbonized grid will be 2x more expensive with nuclear than pure renewables with transmission and storage. The above local factors contribute to that conclusion.
In other words, Australia is not China. And even in China, solar is beating nuclear.
FTA: "The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them."
are there limits to the growth (other than the obvious land limitations which only exists in certain parts and the dark winters for some places)? like certain expensive materials that will get harder to find, or where production is limited and can't easily scale up?
In some senses, everything is finite, but the reason crystalline Si cells have beaten all the other fancier technologies in the market is the raw simplicity. Pure boule silicon, phosphorous and boron dopants in very small quantities, then wiring (silver/copper/aluminium). Then a glass/upvc frame structure.
The low kerf diamond wire saw is also a critical technology for this, but the powdered diamond required can be synthetic.
That isn’t the relevant bit. If decarbonisation is your aim, you build both as quickly as you can.
The fact that “the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today” is what sinks nukes. Burn fossil fuels longer, be judicious in adding gas so batteries have a chance to take hold (we’ve already fucked this up in Europe and America), and accept that while the transition will be dirtier you’ll have a cheaper grid in the end.
That said, just as decarbonisation isn’t the only variable, LCOE isn’t either. Australia will have to maintain a nuclear fleet for military purposes. Taking into account that sunk cost, a civilian fleet’s math might change. (I’m doubtful, but maybe.)
