Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: