Debunking the Myths About Nuclear and Renewable Energy

Nuclear power advocates are trying to discredit renewable energy and promote nuclear and fossil gases in its place. This article debunks several of the myths they spread that receive little or no criticism in the mainstream media.

Myth: Renewable energy sources cannot provide 100% of electricity

Denmark, South Australia and Scotland already get 88, 74 and 62 percent of their annual electricity generation from renewable sources, mainly wind. Scotland actually supplies 113 percent of its electricity consumption from renewable sources; the difference between generation and consumption is exported via transmission lines.

All three jurisdictions have achieved this with relatively small amounts of hydropower, zero in South Australia. Given the political will, all three could achieve 100% Internet renewable energy generation by 2030, which two northern German states have actually already done. “Net” means they trade some electricity with their neighbors, but on average it will be 100% renewable energy.

Computer simulations by several research groups – using real hourly wind, solar and demand data spanning several years – show that the Australian power system could be powered entirely by renewable energy, with the main contribution coming from solar and wind. The reliability of a 100% renewable system would be maintained by a combination of storage, building surplus wind and solar capacity (which is cheap), key transmission links and demand management supported by transparent pricing.

Storage to fill irregular channels in variable renewable generation will include existing hydro, pumped hydro (mainly small-scale and off-river), and batteries. Geographic dispersion of renewables will also help manage wind and solar variability. Because of the potential for rare, extended periods Dunkelflaute (literally “dark zone of silence”), gas turbines with supplies of biofuels or green hydrogen could be held in reserve as a safeguard.

Myth: Gas can fill the gap until a nuclear power plant is built

As a fuel for generating electricity, fossil gas in eastern Australia is many times more expensive per kilowatt-hour than coal. It is used only to power gas turbines to meet peaks in demand and help fill valleys. To this end, it contributes about 5% of Australia’s annual electricity production. However, as storage is developed, fossil gas will become redundant in the electricity system.

The fact that Western and South Australia are temporarily still generating electricity from base gas is the result of odd histories that will not repeat themselves. Unlike the eastern states, WA has a domestic gas reservation policy that protects customers from high gas export prices. However, most new gas supplies would have to come from expensive, unconventional sources. South Australia’s old, struggling baseload gas-fired Torrens Island plant produces expensive electricity. It will close in 2026 and be replaced by renewables and batteries.

Myth: Nuclear energy can coexist with a large share of renewable energy

This myth has two debunkings:

Nuclear is too inflexible to be a good partner for variable wind and solar. Its very high capital cost requires continuous operation, not just during periods of low sun or wind. Its capacity can only be ramped up and down slowly, and that is expensive.
Given current renewable growth trends, there will be no place for nuclear in South Australia, Victoria or New South Wales. The shares of renewables in total electricity generation in 2022 in each of these states were 74%, 37% and 33% respectively. Rapid growth from these levels is likely. It is already too late for nuclear in South Africa. Unless renewable growth is deliberately suppressed in New South Wales and Victoria, these states could also reach 100% renewables before the first nuclear plant comes online.

As transport and combustion heating become electrified, electricity demand could double by 2050. This could provide space for nuclear generation in the 2040s in Queensland (23% renewables in 2022) and Western Australia (20% renewables in 2022). However, the cost barrier will remain.

Myth: There is not enough land for wind and solar power plants.

The claim by nuclear advocates that wind and solar occupy “vast areas of land” is misleading. Although a wind farm may span a large area, its turbines, access road, and substation occupy a small fraction of that area, typically about 2%. Most wind farms are built on land that has been previously cleared for agriculture and is compatible with all forms of agriculture. Offshore wind does not occupy any land.

Solar farms are increasingly being built high enough off the ground so sheep can graze beneath them, providing welcome shade. This practice, known as agrivoltaics, provides additional farm income that is especially valuable in times of drought. Rooftop solar panels do not take up any land.

Myth: Longer operating life of nuclear reactors not taken into account

The levelised cost of energy method – used by CSIRO, AEMO, Lazard and others – is a standard way of comparing electricity generation technologies that perform similar functions. It allows comparisons between coal, nuclear and renewables. It automatically takes into account the different lifetimes of different technologies.

Myth: We need baseload power plants

The recent claim that nuclear is not very expensive “when value is considered” is simply a variant of the old, discredited claim that we need baseload plants, i.e. those that operate 24/7 at maximum output most of the time. A renewable system, including storage, provides the same reliability, and therefore the same value, as a traditional system based on a combination of baseload and peaking plants.

When a nuclear reactor fails, it can be unusable for weeks or months. In a conventional large reactor of 1,000 to 1,600 megawatts, the impact on electricity supply can be catastrophic. Large nuclear plants need a large backup, which is expensive. Small modular reactors do not exist – none are commercially available or will be in the foreseeable future.

Final remarks

We do not need expensive, dangerous nuclear power or expensive, polluting fossil gas. A nuclear scenario would inevitably involve irrational suppression of renewable energy sources. The ban on nuclear power should remain because nuclear power never competes in the so-called “free market”. Renewable energy sources – solar, wind and existing hydro – together with energy efficiency can provide all of Australia with electricity.