Nuclear technological advances ensures Australia will eventually adopt SMR nuclear power., page-67

SMR technology will be the answer.

Food for thought.

ABC News (AU)

Follow

113.1K Followers

Nuclear power in Australia — a silver bullet orwhite elephant?

Has the Coalitionopened a new frontier in the climate wars over nuclear power? (ABC News: DavidSciasci)© Provided by ABC News (AU)

"It's time to talk nuclear," Ted O'Brien declared in a videomessage filmed on an isolated beach last February.

Appointed shadow energy spokesperson a few months earlier, Mr O'Brien'senthusiasm for nuclear power was already well known, but not yet fully formedas Coalition policy. By many in Canberra, it had been regarded with idlecuriosity.

But it was the choice of beach that raised eyebrows on this occasion: MrO'Brien was in Fukushima.

The small Japanese city was the site of an infamous nuclear accident in2011, when the Daiichi power plant was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.

Mr O'Brien had travelled to visit the plant at his own expense as amyth-busting exercise.

"I've heard many stories about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear PowerPlant, including some unfounded horror stories and wildly untrue claims. Itherefore decided to travel to Fukushima to find out for myself," he said.

"I discovered a beautiful place and wonderful people, and Ireturned home with enormous optimism for their future."

A year on, nuclear energy for Australia has firmed as Coalition policy,and Mr O'Brien's "enormous optimism" has earned derision from EnergyMinister Chris Bowen.

"Tell him he's dreaming," Mr Bowen said last Sunday when askedabout the Coalition's plans. His concern was not safety, where there have beensignificant improvements since Fukushima, but cost and practicality.

"I don't know what expert he's talking to … The average build timeof a nuclear power plant in the United States has been 19 years. Ted O'Brienthinks he can do it in Australia from 10 [years] with a standing start,"he said.

"Throw in the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge and you might sellhim something."

The politics of the nuclear debate are febrile. But what do the factstell us?

Room for nuclear?

The Coalition claim is that nuclear energy should join "themix" of power sources generating energy in the National ElectricityMarket.

The workings of that market are fiendishly complicated, but the broadstrokes are simple.

For a long time, most of our electricity has come from coal, with gas asa backup.

But now we are transitioning away from coal. The main reason for that isthe obvious one: to reduce emissions and meet our climate targets.

But it's also because our fleet of coal plants is falling apart andforcing our hand.

It poses an urgent question for both climate reasons and energy securityreasons: what will fill that gap?

The main answer has been renewables: specifically, solar and wind.

Renewable power has twin benefits: it's green, and it's also cheap.

At least, it's cheap once you have the capacity to store and transmitrenewably generated power, which requires upgrades to our grid.

That's where the story becomes a bit complicated. Those upgrades areexpensive. They also take time to build – time we're running out of.

And in some communities, they encounter stiff resistance. Nationalsleader David Littleproud recently denounced large-scale solar and wind projectsin the regions, declaring "the bush is full".

The CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) tell us thateven with the cost of transmission and storage, renewables are still thecheapest form of power, with the temporary exception of gas, which thegovernment says will play a role in the transition.

But there remain some who are sceptical that renewables can be the wholeanswer, whether for political, ideological, or scientific reasons.

Enter nuclear, says the Coalition.

Nice work if nukecan get it

Nuclear power is already used to generate about 10 per cent of theworld's power, and it generates almost no emissions.

And while noteworthy historic disasters have given nuclear powersomething of a PR problem, the government's nuclear expert agency says thelatest technology is much safer than Chernobyl or Fukushima might suggest.

Nuclear power plants generate cheap, reliable energy in severaldeveloped countries, especially in Europe.

But setting up in the Australian context would be a differentproposition, and would present several hurdles.

First, large-scale nuclear power plants are expensive. The cheap powerproduced by plants in Europe comes only after decades of operation, enough timefor the operators to have recouped their significant upfront capital costs.

It would take a long time – the Coalition hopes for a decade, but Laborsays it would be at least twice that – to get them up and running, and an evenlonger time to bring costs down.

Second, the CSIRO and the AEMO doubt that large-scale nuclear plants arethe right fit for Australia's energy needs.

The east coast electricity market is relatively small by globalstandards, owing to Australia's small population.

A single large plant of the sort used in Europe, according to CSIRO andAEMO, would account for such a huge chunk of our power needs that it would beinadvisable, since the whole grid would falter if the plant went offline formaintenance, or due to some fault.

Instead, the agencies say we would need more than one plant workingtogether, like the coal plants currently do. But that would be even moreexpensive.

Some have called instead for "small modular reactors" (SMRs) –mini nuclear plants, assembled in a factory, which can be set up quickly.Unlike large plants, they can also be switched on and off quickly, which meansthey could "pinch hit" to provide power alongside renewables or otherpower sources.

If this sounds appealing, cool your jets – the technology to do this onany notable scale doesn't exist. Attempts to build them elsewhere, such asin the US, have so far run into fatal cost barriers.

None of that has dimmed the enthusiasm of SMR optimists, including BillGates, Rolls Royce and for a time the Coalition.

But the latter's embrace of nuclear has shifted away from its earlyfocus on SMRs and it now appears set to land on advocating larger-scale nuclearplants on decommissioned coal sites.

A radioactivepolitical issue

This points to a political challenge on top of the practical one.

The Liberal Party has tried, and failed, to start a conversation onnuclear power on more than a few occasions.

John Howard took a nuclear policy to the 2007 federal election, hopingpublic perception of the industry had shifted. It hadn't.

Nearly two decades on, the Coalition is hoping it is right this time.

Coalition backbenchers have been agitating on the issue for years,urging the former Morrison government to take up the idea.

Those pleas weren't heeded, beyond a very low-key parliamentary inquiry,as the party feared a scare campaign on nuclear reactors in the suburbs.

But the change in leadership after the 2022 election saw a surprisinglyrapid shift — with new Nationals leader David Littleproud openly calling fornuclear power to be on the table just weeks after polling day.

Peter Dutton also flagged early enthusiasm, although at first only inprinciple. Then, shortly after the Dunkley by-election loss a fortnight ago, heconfirmed this would become official Coalition policy.

An announcement is expected before the budget, which Mr Dutton hashinted will include a list of possible sites for nuclear, likely large-scalenuclear.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can scarcely contain his glee at theprospect of a nuclear fight.

"I'll give you this tip, when they release their policy, you'llhear a very clear response … [from] the communities where these giant nuclearreactors are going to go," he said this week.

"[Peter Dutton] is a guy who's scared of a solar panel but thinksthat a nuclear reactor will be well received. I'll wait and see."

But Coalition MPs are confident they can sell the idea to voters,insisting the issue plays well with younger voters in particular.

They point to published opinion polls, which suggest more than half ofAustralians are now either supportive of nuclear or at least open to the idea.

The most prominent such poll was The Australian's Newspoll, whichsuggested approval from 65 per cent of 18- to 34-year-olds.

That poll question asked about SMRs and described them as"zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stationsonce they are retired".

Nuclear in mybackyard

But if this has created some optimism in the Coalition, the announcementof locations looms as an early political hurdle.

Just a handful of regions have coal-fired power stations that could fitthe bill. This includes the Hunter, Gippsland and Central Queensland.

MPs in those areas would have the difficult task of selling a nuclearreactor to their electorate. So far, they seem cautiously enthusiastic, thoughsome want assurances the technology is safe. Gippsland MP Darren Chesterwarned community concerns would need to be "ameliorated".

There's also the question of where to put the waste. Mr Dutton hassought to "put things in perspective" by pointing out the wastegenerated in the US since the 1950s "would fit in the area the size of afootball field, to a depth of about nine metres".

But if selling locals a nuclear plant is challenging, selling them anuclear dump would be even more so – although as Mr Dutton points out, thesame challenge awaits on waste from nuclear submarines under the AUKUSagreement.

Bonanza orboondoggle?

Even if the Coalition can convince enough voters to back nuclear powerand put them in government, that won't be the last of the political hurdles.

Next comes the question of money.

Labor's Chris Bowen has suggested "eye-watering" amounts oftaxpayer money would be needed to make nuclear viable.

"Every country in the world with nuclear has required massivetransfers of taxpayer wealth to the nuclear constructors," he said.

The Coalition has been coy on whether its policy will include a taxpayersubsidy, but has hinted at details to come in its forthcoming announcement.

And energy experts say that realistically, any private sectorcontribution would only come if investors had enough confidence the projectwould make it through to completion. That would require bipartisan support.

Bipartisan support may also be needed to overturn the federal ban onnuclear power. State-level bans in NSW, Victoria and Queensland would need tobe overturned too.

Labor's national platform currently includes an explicit ban on nuclearpower, and some key unions are resolutely opposed to the industry.

'Niche' at best

All of that points to a difficult road ahead. And it's one many energyexperts say it would lead to a small benefit at best.

Alison Reeve from the Grattan Institute does not see nuclear as part ofthe mix, but says that if anything SMRs could play a "last resort"role, supplementing renewables during winter troughs.

"That would be the only possible niche I could see for nuclear …but you're having to build generation that's only used for a couple of weeksevery year," she said.

"At the moment it looks like the most economic opportunity for thatrole is gas, with offsets to cover the emissions."

Ms Reeve said large-scale plants would not be suitable for this"last resort" role because they take weeks to switch on and off. IfAustralia built a large-scale plant, it would be as a replacement forrenewables rather than the icing on the cake. And it would almost certainly bemore expensive.

"Everyone in the world finds these plants expensive andtime-consuming to build, even countries that have a lot of experience buildingthem," she said.

Globally, nuclear power projects are the third most likely to overshoottheir initial cost estimates, behind only nuclear storage and Olympic Games.

"Given Australia has never built one, and we have a poor record ininfrastructure already, I see no reason to believe we would buck the globaltrend," Ms Reeve said.

"The question then is why would you do it?"

Tennant Reed from the Australian Industry Group said Australia's energyfuture almost certainly lies in large-scale solar and wind because it is cheap,abundant and opens doors to developing green export industries.

But he said overturning the ban would be wise, so the option is there ifthe nuclear revolution eventually arrives.

"It's a sensible thing to do to add to the tools in thechest," he said.

"It's maybe not a great idea to pin all of your hopes on onetechnology, and go have a sit on the couch while waiting for that technology toshow up.

"I don't know that anybody's suggesting that. But theyshouldn't."

Nuclear power in Australia — a silver bullet or white elephant? (msn.com)