The Nuclear Debate

While researching Pumped Hydro projects, I noticed a recent surge in debate comparing nuclear and renewable energy. Many arguments are being made in favor of nuclear energy as an alternative to the renewable energy transition. A recent post by Nick Fleming GAICD on nuclear power in Australia provides valuable data and references. The complexities and uncertainties surrounding cost comparisons necessitate a broader perspective.?

Recognising nuclear power's divisive nature, this discussion will focus on its feasibility in terms of timeline and capability without delving into the intricacies of cost-benefit analyses, GenCost estimates, etc. While nuclear power offers many advantages, it's essential to consider whether it should complement or compete with the ongoing development of renewable energy sources.

How is Australia different?

The debate around nuclear power often references other OECD countries as models. However, each nation's energy landscape and challenges are unique, leading to diverse approaches to energy transition.

• France: A historical leader in nuclear power, France aims to maintain its nuclear fleet and potentially expand.
• United Kingdom: In the 1950s, the UK developed the world's first commercial nuclear power station, and nuclear energy remains a significant part of the UK's energy mix. The UK government has announced plans to build new nuclear power plants to support its net-zero goals.
• Finland and Sweden: Both operate nuclear power plants and are considering new builds.
• Canada: Primarily reliant on hydropower, Canada has a nuclear industry exploring future options.
• Germany and Belgium: These countries have committed to phasing out nuclear power in favor of renewables.
• USA: The US has witnessed significant growth in solar and wind energy, driven by technological advancements and cost reductions. The US has a significant nuclear power fleet, but new plant construction has been limited due to high costs and regulatory hurdles. There's renewed interest in advanced nuclear technologies using SMR.
• Switzerland: Known for sustainability and renewables, Switzerland has a strong nuclear industry but faces growing pressure for phase-out.? Its energy mix is notably clean and diverse.
• Italy: Having phased out nuclear power, Italy is now exploring its reintroduction as part of its energy transition strategy.

A common thread among countries considering nuclear power is existing infrastructure or experience.

Australia possesses abundant uranium reserves, ranking as the world's third-largest producer. Despite this, the nation has a strict prohibition on nuclear power generation. This discrepancy arises from a combination of public sentiment, technological considerations, and comprehensive legislation at both federal and state levels. Australia exports uranium ore refined to uranium oxide but does not engage in uranium enrichment or fuel fabrication. These are explicitly outlawed under Commonwealth legislation, including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Furthermore, states such as Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales have reinforced these prohibitions with their own laws.???

The nation's current legal framework presents significant hurdles to developing a nuclear power industry. Overcoming these challenges would require substantial legislative changes at both federal and state levels, a process that could be time-consuming and politically complex.

Timeline

Let us say we managed to go through the time-consuming legislative change process and set up a regulatory body in record time. Now, to build a nuclear reactor, it is estimated that an average nuclear power plant takes ~ 8 years to build (based on reactors operational by March 2023). Excluding the Chinese reactors, this average is even higher. Considering Australia will be building its first commercial nuclear reactor for energy generation, and given our regulatory environment, construction could easily stretch to 12 years or more. For example, the UK's Hinkley Point nuclear power plant, their first since the 1990s, started in 2017 and is expected to finish in 2031 – a 14-year timeline. The SMART Infrastructure Facility’s inquiry suggests that Australian infrastructure is more expensive than in other OECD countries, exacerbating construction timelines due to cost-related slowdowns.?

This effectively means that nuclear power cannot be ready by the time our current coal fleet is phased out in 14 years.

To match the power output of our current coal plants with nuclear energy by 2038, we'd need about twenty 1GW nuclear reactors. Without a significant increase in fossil fuels (contradicting our emissions goals), we need alternative energy sources ready to fill the gap left by retiring coal plants even if we have to pursue the nuclear route.

Capability

Australia's engagement with nuclear technology has historically been limited, primarily focused on research and medical applications. Australia’s expertise in nuclear engineering is relatively underdeveloped compared to countries with established nuclear energy sectors like the United States, France, or South Korea.

Educational Infrastructure: Australia's educational institutions currently offer limited opportunities for specialised training in nuclear engineering. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and a few universities offer specialised courses and research opportunities in nuclear science and engineering. However, these programs are small in scale and often oriented toward research rather than energy production. Consequently, the current pool of nuclear engineers is insufficient to support a large-scale nuclear energy program.

Global Competition for Talent: The global nuclear industry is experiencing a similar talent shortage, leading to stiff competition for skilled engineers. Countries with established nuclear sectors are actively recruiting talent, making it challenging for Australia to attract and retain the necessary expertise.

Hence the rapid development of the nuclear energy industry will require targeted investments in education, training, and upskilling. The curriculum of engineering programs must be adapted to incorporate nuclear-specific knowledge and skills.

My hot take

• Prematurely abandoning renewable energy development is a short-sighted approach

• While nuclear power has potential, renewable energy offers a rapid pathway to phasing out Australia's coal and gas-powered energy sources. We will have to continue with AEMO’s roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets.
• Give nuclear energy a longer timeframe to materialise in Australia. It is not a zero-sum game.

But before we can do that, we have to work on

• Public awareness and acceptance of nuclear: Educating the public about the benefits and safety of modern nuclear technology can help shift public perception. Thereby creating a more favourable environment for talent development.

• Enact the legislation to repeal the nuclear prohibition.
• Develop the capability to build and operate nuclear power plants.
• Identify the locations for nuclear waste dump (we still haven't identified the location for our current nuclear waste! ref )

By establishing a level playing field through appropriate policy and infrastructure, the market can effectively determine the optimal energy mix. By playing it right, nuclear energy could have a key role to play when we need to phase out some solar and wind energy plants in the next 20-25 years.