Editorial
Nuclear option unlikely, but time to have the debate
After meeting this week with the state and territory energy ministers to discuss the blowout in the price of gas, the new federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, fronted the media. While Bowen largely kept to the topic, he barely contained his frustration when asked about the Coalition’s advocacy for the introduction of nuclear energy.
In a blunt rebuttal, Bowen asserted that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy and would in no way make lower prices. His voice rising sharply, he asserted: “They want that debate? They really want to argue that? Bring it on. It’s just complete junk.”
Despite Bowen’s exasperation, the debate over the benefits or otherwise of nuclear energy is already bubbling away. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton made that clear when he told ABC Radio National on Monday that he was “not afraid to have a discussion on nuclear”. Then opposition climate and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, told SkyNews that “it absolutely has to be on the table for serious consideration,” and the new leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, called for a “mature” conversation on the issue.
Having been in government for nine years it’s puzzling that senior former Coalition ministers are choosing now, when they are sitting on the opposition benches, to have the discussion. Nevertheless, in an era when the devastating consequences of carbon emissions from fossil fuels are increasingly evident across the globe, the promise of a baseload energy source that does not contribute to climate change might seem attractive to some. Nuclear power plants provide about 10 per cent of the world’s electricity from more than 400 power reactors in 32 countries. France, for instance, has more than 50 nuclear power stations that generate about 70 per cent of the nation’s electricity.
In Australia, there have over the years been periodic bursts of debate on whether nuclear power was right for Australia. It has always fizzled out or been rejected by expert advice as too expensive, impractical and unpopular.
In the past, with an abundance of coal on hand, it has been politically easier in Australia to support the cheaper and technically simpler option of coal-fired power plants to generate the bulk of baseload electricity. But with the need to reduce our carbon emissions, the support for energy produced from fossil fuels is, quite rightly, evaporating.
Does that open the way finally for nuclear energy in this country? Australia has nearly one-third of the world’s proven uranium reserves, making it the third-largest uranium producer. However, under current legislation, constructing or operating a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant or a reprocessing facility is unlawful.
A federal parliamentary report in 2019 made several recommendations that were favourable to advancing our knowledge and opening the possibility of furthering our use of nuclear technology, including undertaking an independent assessment of its economic viability and pushing for Australia’s own national sovereign capability. Once again, little came of the report.
If the global trend in nuclear energy is anything to go by, that is a good thing. As The Sydney Morning Herald’s environment and climate editor Nick O’Malley pointed out this week, the most comprehensive analysis of the global nuclear industry is the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report. The most recent, published before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, shows that despite a surge in activity in China, the global industry is declining. As of mid-2021, there are 23 fewer nuclear power plants than the 2002 peak of 438. It found that 93 were abandoned during construction and another 53 are closed for maintenance.
Even without the major hurdles of ensuring the safety of a nuclear reactor and disposing of the waste, the cost and construction challenges are proving prohibitive. According to John Quiggin, a professor of economics at the University of Queensland, the few new large-scale nuclear power plants recently finished or still under construction have suffered enormous cost overruns and long delays.
This has fostered a lot of interest in “small modular reactors”, which are about a third of the size of a traditional nuclear power plant and designed to be manufactured at a plant and then transported to a site to be installed. This is being heralded as a way to significantly cut the cost and construction time. However, at this point it is far from a proven concept, with only China and Russia each having one in operation. Most companies are still in the design and development stage.
After nearly a decade of lost time due to policy paralysis in Canberra, Australia still has a long way to go in its transition to renewable energy. Whatever the mix of generation we end up with, there will be no shortcuts. Power must be both clean and dispatchable which, for now, presents a conundrum. The number of renewable plants will need to double, then double again, and be geographically dispersed enough that they back one another up. The grid will need to grow hugely in response, and gas will be required as “firming capacity” for some time. The investment required is enormous. In Australia, nuclear is most unlikely to be part of that mix but yes, let’s once again have the debate.
Bevan Shields sends a newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.