The Energy Simulator
Two ways to deliver the same clean electricity. Drag the slider to size the build, and watch every dimension move — dollars, tonnes of material, China-dependence, firmness, carbon, speed and waste. The cost line is a contested range, shown honestly; the rest aren't close.
10 TWh/yr250 TWh/yr
Wind + solar + storage
- Capital cost (overnight)
- A$90–150bncontested — shown as a range
- Raw material
- 12.0 Mtof which ~8.4 Mt processed/made in China
- Firm capacity
- needs separate firming~5–21% of nameplate counts at peak
- Lifecycle CO₂
- 40 g/kWh≈ 2.0 Mt/yr — both ~10–40× cleaner than coal
- Build speed
- 2–4 (fast)fast to deploy
- Asset life
- 25 yrthen re-procured (fresh mining)
- End-of-life waste
- 1500 kthuge by mass, mostly landfilled
Nuclear
- Capital cost (overnight)
- A$65–110bncontested — shown as a range
- Raw material
- 1.5 Mtof which ~0.2 Mt processed/made in China
- Firm capacity
- ✓ inherently firmruns on demand
- Lifecycle CO₂
- 12 g/kWh≈ 0.6 Mt/yr — both ~10–40× cleaner than coal
- Build speed
- 10–17 + ~15 yr leadthe honest catch — slow
- Asset life
- 60 yrbefore major rebuild
- End-of-life waste
- 5 kttiny, contained, hazardous
Drag the slider to size a clean-energy build, then compare the two ways to deliver it. Per delivered TWh, the headline cost is contested and shown as a range — but material tonnage, China-dependence, firmness, asset life and end-of-life waste are not close. The honest counterweight: renewables build far faster, and the nuclear ban means its clock starts at ~2040.
Coefficients are per delivered TWh/yr, derived from this site's two research sweeps (ABS, AEMO, IEA, IRENA, USGS, CSIRO GenCost) — see REAL_COST_RESEARCH.md. Capex ranges are overnight cost; renewables include a firming uplift. This is a transparent model, not a forecast: it scales sourced averages linearly, so treat the totals as order-of-magnitude. See the full Real Cost breakdown →