Nuclear Energy in Australia
A Powerful Question
H. A. G. Longstaff
NUCLEAR POWER IS BANNED IN AUSTRALIA, and in every state and territory. But ironically, Australia has 33% of the world’s uranium and we are its third largest exporter globally. As we face climate change and the need to decarbonise, the nuclear debate is alive and well, ironically led by a Year 12 student from Brisbane, William Shackel. This article summarises the debate to help form your own view.
The Case For
Zero emissions with one quarter less CO2 emissions than solar farms.
It’s proven and works well overseas: Nuclear generated 10% of all global electricity last year. The USA’s 90 nuclear plants produced over 55% of the USA’s ‘green’ energy. France gets 75% of its power from nuclear. Canada’s 19 nuclear reactors produce around 15% of the country’s power. Slovakia, Belgium, Sweden, China and many more have successful operations.
It’s safe: With over 17,000 cumulative years of operation, nuclear is safe and proven. There have been only three incidents with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island decades ago with old technology, and Fukushima an earthquake. Many more people have been killed installing wind turbines and in conventional power stations than by nuclear.
It’s a reliable baseload: Australia’s and many global economies are built on reliable, cheap and abundant energy. The energy transition to renewables will degrade reliability, increase ‘load shedding’, and reduce Australia’s GDP.
It has a smaller ‘footprint’ and uses existing infrastructure: building nuclear in the place of old coalfired power stations can utilise the existing ‘poles and wires’. It has a much smaller footprint that swathes of land with solar and wind farms. This obviates the challenges of the renewables rollout, which requires billions more invested in transmission which has catalysed community opposition, just as the community is frequently opposed to the location of wind and solar.
The Case Against
It’s expensive: The CSIRO’s Gencost 2022-23 report suggests that nuclear has a capital cost of $18,167/kW vs large-scale solar at $1,058 and offshore wind at $1,989. But these numbers are contested as incomplete, not allowing for the considerable capital duplication necessary with renewables to manage intermittence and provide ‘firming’, as well as additional transmission needed. Alternative evidence from Canada shows nuclear provides energy at 7.2c per kW/h vs wind at 15.9c and solar at 51.3c.
It’s a ‘red herring’ to delay renewables rollout: Investment in renewables remains fickle, with investors seeking long-term certainty for long-life assets in an environment of continued policy volatility. If the Government was seen to be considering nuclear, the practical effect may be to increase investment uncertainty and materially reduce investor interest in building renewables.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) aren’t proven: SMRs, a civilian adaption of the systems used in nuclear submarines, are an emerging technology. But so is hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, next-gen batteries and other renewables. It is widely accepted that technology and innovation will be needed to decarbonise.
Safety and social licence: Irrespective of the facts and a nuclear reactor in the middle of Sydney at Lucas Heights, there is a solid public perception that nuclear isn’t safe which will certainly stoke robust community opposition to any nuclear plant.
The waste is dangerous: True, nuclear waste is dangerous. But the last 70 years have shown that waste can be safely stored, especially in Australia, with considerable remote and geologically stable land.
Conclusion
Australia is the only G20 country with a ban on nuclear energy. The question facing Energy Minister Chris Bowen now is whether nuclear power should continue to be banned. If it is uneconomic, then he should release the ban and let the market decide. What’s your view?