Read on Twitter
Bright New World maintains that #nuclear tech needs to be included in Australian energy analysis and discussion if we are to make informed decisions for our energy future.
So why have we called for the 2020-21 GenCost report to exclude SMR?
Thread https://www.brightnewworld.org/media/2021/2/9/gencostfail
So why have we called for the 2020-21 GenCost report to exclude SMR?
Thread https://www.brightnewworld.org/media/2021/2/9/gencostfail
The new Draft was released at the end of December. We reviewed it closely, and were surprised to find no new work, and no changes to input assumptions that had been found to be unverifiable.
There was no inputs and assumptions worksheet for review, as there was for every other included technology. So, we asked for it. No such workbook is available. A black box. We engaged in correspondence with CSIRO to understand the process.
We discovered that absolutely zero further work was done on SMR in the past 12+ months. According to our Australian researchers, nothing has changed. This is despite 2020 racking up major milestones, giving opportunity for better analysis. https://4thgeneration.energy/the-year-a-new-clean-energy-sector-was-born/
The SMR findings are presented in the Draft as equally authoritative as every other new entrant technology. Yet we found no evidence of consultation or analysis to derive the findings, and, worse, no sense that this is any kind of problem.
Australia has a draft, which is destined to become a Final, that will publish a high LCOE value that is nearly *three times* higher than contemporary expert work, and a low LCOE value that is *higher than the high value* of contemporary expert work.
The work we refer to is the Economics and Finance Working Group, SMR Roadmap for Canada. They reviewed 47 referenced capex estimates to reach a position on the cost of SMR. GenCost used 1 estimate – FOAK of AU$16,487 kW, source unknown.
We put it to CSIRO that in light of this absence of effort and interest, the simple and correct decision has to be “out of scope”. Don’t publish what you don’t know, and are not researching or working on.
This was rejected.
We were told “stakeholders” want it included.
This was rejected.
We were told “stakeholders” want it included.
We asked around. Our peers in Australia have told us they either also asked CSIRO to remove SMR, or have pointed to serious continuing errors.
Read their quotes in our article.
We don’t know which “stakeholders” believe this is being done correctly.
Read their quotes in our article.
We don’t know which “stakeholders” believe this is being done correctly.
Hence our public call – exclude it. This is now at the point of actual misinformation. Australia will be worse off if this work is published as a Final. We recommend Australian decision-makers refer to the work of the SMR Roadmap until Australian institutions assign due effort.
That report, from SMR Roadmap is appended to our submission in full.
Canada is acting on this knowledge, with a national action plan, and @opg planning first power from SMR before 2030.
Australia deserves better than we are getting.
End
Canada is acting on this knowledge, with a national action plan, and @opg planning first power from SMR before 2030.
Australia deserves better than we are getting.
End
