Leadingscientist warns Australia’s ‘unstable’ power grid will spark blackouts andforced mass outages
A top Australian engineer has warnedthe country’s power grid is unstable and incapable of coping with surgingdemand – and has proposed a controversial solution.
Shannon Molloy
5 min read
December 19, 2023 - 2:39PM
Pause
Unmute
Loaded: 3.64%
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 9:08
Fullscreen
AEMO’s Integrated System Plan doesn’t include ‘allthe costs’
CIS Energy ProgramDirector Aidan Morrison has criticised the Australian Energy Market Operator’sIntegrated System Plan, claiming it doesn’t include “all the costs” needed fora guide on building a low-cost energy grid.
More From Science
Grim post after mum throws dog off carpark
A top Australian engineer has warned the country’s power grid isunstable and incapable of coping with surging demand – and has proposed acontroversial solution.
Adi Paterson is the former chief of theAustralian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and has written to PrimeMinister Anthony Albanese demanding urgent action to keep the nation’s lightson.
“Your electricity plan, for a massiveexpansion of the grid with wind and solar sources is deeply flawed, andexpensive. It will fail to deliver quality, 24-hour electricity,” Dr Patersonwarned.
Mass blackouts in rural areas lastFriday, sparked by strain on the eastern power grid, should serve as a warningsignal to the public and businesses – and are a sign of things to come, headded.
A leading scientistwarns Australia’s power grid is “unstable” and at serious risk of failure –now, and increasingly so. Picture: Supplied
In its Summer Readiness Report, theAustralian Energy Market Operator warned of blackouts and forced power outagesas a result of a feared once-in-a-decade spike in demand.
And Dr Paterson believes things willonly get worse as coal-fired generators exit the grid over time and“intermittent” renewables leave the grid “increasingly unstable”.
Five coal-fired power plants arescheduled to be shuttered in the coming decade, with more expected to follow.
A nuclear contradiction
In his letter to the PM, Dr Patersoncalled for the government to lift a ban on civilian nuclear power to meetcurrent and future energy needs.
“Australia has committed to produceelectricity from nuclear power to propel our future submarines,” he pointedout.
“To do this we have partnered with twomature nuclear countries with nuclear submarine fleets.
“In Australia, it is illegal to developor use nuclear power to produce electricity for civilian use on land, but itwill be legal to have nuclear-powered submarines tied up in navy shipyards withtrained submariners engaged in maintaining and navigating them throughinternational waters.”
That contradiction is “not logical” andthe “antiquated” ban on nuclear energy, implemented in 1999, means that“predictable, low carbon, always-on electricity is no longer assured”.
“Nuclear technology is not the same asit was in the 80s – it’s a safe and cheap way to generate power,” he said.
Dr Adi Paterson isthe former chief of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.
Some of the brightest minds in science,technology, and energy systems are calling for all options to be put on thetable, including the latest technology in nuclear, he added.
‘No net-zero without nuclear’
Australia’s commitment to meet anet-zero carbon goal by 2030 requires an increase of renewable energy out of1.5 times within six years.
“It’s scientifically impossibleconsidering it took over two decades to get where we are today, and there’s avery long way to go if we are to rely on renewables alone,” Dr Paterson said.
“There is no net zero without nuclear.”
Australia’s commitment to the ParisAgreement requires it to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by 2030to meet a net-zero target.
The agreement also calls for moreambitious targets to be set as time goes on.
Major cuts to coal-fired power – whichcurrently accounts for two-thirds of all energy production – will be needed.
Mr Albanese has aimed to have more than80 per cent of energy powered by renewables by the end of the decade.
Dr Paterson said nuclear energyproduction stands apart from wind and solar because it doesn’t require a“massive expansion” of the grid – the cost of which would easily fund the firstnuclear power plants.
In a 2021 opinion piece published inCrikey, Grattan Institute director of energy Tony Wood said nuclear couldprovide “a major source of energy as competitive costs and with near-zerogreenhouse gas emissions”.
“Countries such as China and Korea havethe capability to aggressively drive down the cost, particularly as theystandardise their reactors,” Mr Wood wrote.
“Countries want reliable and securelow-emissions power that is cheap over the long term. Nuclear could tick allthese boxes.”
Blackouts and forcedmass outages are likely due to increased demand on the grid, Dr Paterson warns.
But unless Australia relies on fossilfuel electricity with so-called ‘clean coal’ and carbon capture technology,“it’s hard to see how we can make the transition … to a fully renewable future”while keeping prices low and supply secure.
“We need to have an adult conversationabout our future energy needs in a time of climate change. Excluding nuclearpower from that conversation may be a decision we come to regret.”
Cost claims ‘illogical’
The government has rejected calls fornuclear power in the past, citing prohibitive costs and quoting a $10 billionfigure to build a single plant, which would take several years to complete.
“The main criticism from the governmentis that nuclear power is too expensive and will take too long to bring intoservice,” Dr Paterson said.
“Experts point out that thegovernment’s figures that it relies upon to make these claims fail to include thecost of additional transmission lines required to bring the power fromrenewable electricity generators back to the power grid.
“Lifting the ban will allow for freemarket pricing to determine the true cost of energy.”
Renewables alonewon’t allow Australia to achieve a net-zero goal, Dr Paterson says. Picture:Mike Dugdale
Dr Paterson also claimed nuclear poweris safer than solar and wind and produces lower emissions over its life cycle.
“The price of nuclear power toconsumers is lower than high penetration wind and solar grids as exemplified byFrance versus Germany, Finland versus Denmark – and many others.”
And nuclear and hydro grids have the lowestcarbon footprints globally, he said.
“We will not lead the world in wind orsolar industries. However, we can lead the world in next-generation nuclearpower and its associated fuel cycle.”
Anthony Albanese,speaking after signing the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal, doesn’t supportnuclear power. Picture: Supplied
Not all scientists agree.
A recent report plotting how Australiacan achieve its emissions targets, the Net Zero Australia project combining theexpertise of academic institutions, concluded that developing nuclear is tooexpensive and too slow.
“Only a dramatic fall in costs andprolonged renewable constraints would prompt a rethink,” the report read.
Calls to lift the ban
When then-Prime Minister Scott Morrisonannounced a major agreement with the United States to acquire nuclearsubmarines in 2021, portions of the energy sector said civilian usage shouldfollow.
Minerals Council of Australia chiefexecutive Tania Constable said at the time there was “no reason” the countryshouldn’t consider a nuclear power future.
“This is an incredible opportunity forAustralia’s economy – not only will we develop the skills and infrastructure tosupport this naval technology, but it connects us to the growing global nuclearpower industry and its supply chains,” Ms Constable said.
Shortly after, the National Partyannounced its support for nuclear power. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton hasalso indicated he’s open to the idea.
But Mr Albanese has repeatedly said thecase for nuclear “doesn’t stack up”.
Dr Adi Paterson'sfull letter to Anthony Albanese
Dear Prime Minister,
Australia has committed to produce electricity from nuclear power – to propelour future submarines. We have partnered with two mature nuclear countries,with nuclear submarine fleets, to achieve this objective. Our highly respectedCollins-class submarines are one of the prime reasons we, as a Pacific partner,have been invited into the very small club of nuclear navies. Australiannuclear qualified engineers will operate the reactors in our nuclear-poweredvessels.The United Statesproduced nuclear electricity for the first time in 1951. France and the UnitedKingdom (in separate programs) produced electricity from nuclear in 1956. Todayit is illegal to develop or use nuclear power to produce electricity in ourcountry.
Your electricityplan, for a massive expansion of the grid with wind and solar sources is deeplyflawed, and expensive. It will fail to deliver quality, 24-hour electricity.Sadly, AEMO is not compelled by its structure to provide government withstrategic advice that is fearless, frank and option based.
Lifting the bans oncivilian nuclear power is an urgent, essential step to grow our economy andprotect our way of life. Predictable, low carbon, always-on electricity is nolonger assured.
What are our realoptions? “All of the above” - as President Obama famously stated, when askedhis preferred sources for future energy security in the United States – he wasparticularly emphasising a focus on nuclear power.
The value propositionfor civil nuclear power in Australia is compelling:
1. Adopt nuclear fission immediately and,in future, fusion power.
2. Maintain and grow our leadership asPacific and Asian nations develop civilian nuclear power
programs.3. Mine and enrich Uranium for thecivilian nuclear fuel industry.
4. Underpin advanced manufacturing in thenuclear industry to complement our leadership in isotopes and nuclear medicine.
As a nation, wesurely cannot logically and economically:
1. Develop a nuclear submarine platform(these are “electric boats”) for our national strategic defence objectives and,
2. Simultaneously, exclude access tosociety the benefits of nuclear power for industry,
public services, and households.Australia will notlead the world in wind or solar industries. Our current policy settings are notworking. They lack strategy and foresight.
However, we canaspire to participate in next generation nuclear power and its associated fuelcycle.
Nuclear power ishighly differentiated from wind (40% capacity factor) and solar.
1. It does not require massive expansionof the grid – the cost of the envisaged grid expansion would fund the firstnuclear plants for Australia.
2. Nuclear power is safer than solar andwind and has lower emissions and lifecycle costs.
3. The price of nuclear power to consumersis lower than high penetration wind and solar grids as exemplified by France vsGermany, Finland vs Denmark – and many others.
4. Nuclear and Hydro grids have the lowestcarbon footprint globally.
On Friday 14thDecember the Eastern Grid blackouts in rural areas a sent warning signal to theAustralian public, industry, and future investors, but not it seems to ourpolitical leaders. Tomorrow, we face similar conditions.
More broadly:
1. The increase in electricity prices –not planned by AEMO - surprised you and other senior leaders. They werepredicted by the Australian experts proposing always-on, low carbon nuclearpower.
2. Several independent engineering studiesof grids like ours, and globally, show that saturation of intermittent sourceswill make the grid unstable and expensive - because of the principles ofengineering.
3. Adding a much larger grid will notsolve this fundamental problem – it will exacerbate it.
4. In the short term, using our aluminiumsmelters as part-time batteries (which is the case for a day or two a week atpresent) will fail, potentially very soon.
In meetings over thelast 13 months with a range of stakeholders we found:
1. The technocratic doors in AEMO areclosed and the flawed policy construct is entrenched as exemplified by the 2023Corporate Plan.
2. The political framing by the Ministerfor Climate Change and Energy includes support for the draft 2024 AEMO plan (15December).
In the light of this,it is essential that you urgently apply your mind to establishing anindependent review that includes nuclear power in its scope. Australia needsreal options. Policy settings can be changed. We need to have “all of theabove” available. It is a question of scientifically sound engineering, andeconomics and practicality.
That requiresstatesmanship.
Dr Paterson called on the governmentestablish an independent review that includes nuclear power in its scope.
“Australia needs real options. Policysettings can be changed. It is a question of scientifically sound engineering,and economics and practicality.”
Dr Paterson saysnuclear energy has come a long way.
Commenting on his letter to the PM, DrPaterson said Australians should be given in a choice in how their electricityis generated.
“Weshouldn’t be making decisions based on the personal preference of AnthonyAlbanese. This ‘Captain’s Pick’ mindset is stuck in the 80s when he was anantinuclear campaigner at Sydney University.
“It’stime Australia had the option to join the rest of the world, who are alreadyusing nuclear to stabilise the grid and power their economies.
“Why should Australia miss out on cheap,clean fuel? Why should Australians pay more to keep the lights on at home? Whynot keep businesses doors open and unemployment low?”
Dr Paterson served as chief executiveof ANSTO for 12 years, has degrees in chemistry and engineering, sits on theboard of HB11 Energy, a company developing laser hydrogen fusion technology,and is now the principal and founder of energy advisory Siyeva Consulting.
