It has been demonstrated by the CSIRO, the International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol and the former Chief Scientist (Finkel) that even allowing for additional expenditure on transmission and storage (battery, pumped hydro, thermal) renewables are cheaper and available in a shorter time frame than nuclear in the Australian context.
Dutton seems to be making several key claims about his nuclear proposal and dog whistling, with eager support from David Littleproud, a few more.
His key claims seem to be:
- Our energy costs are too high – by utilizing the existing power distribution network nuclear will reduce energy costs to all Australians
- Building nuclear power plants at seven sites will reduce (dog whistle eliminate) the need for large scale wind and solar farms and associated transmission lines in regional areas. There will be no need for offshore windfarms (dog whistle they kill whales and damage marine wildlife).
- Nuclear will be making a significant contribution to the grid from about 2035.
- Nuclear will improve electricity system stability
- Using more gas will cut energy prices
- We will meet our 2050 target of net zero emissions and therefore there is no damage to the environment (dog whistle, amplified by Littleproud, climate change is a crock of s**t anyway)
It has been demonstrated by the CSIRO, the International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol and the former Chief Scientist (Finkel) that even allowing for additional expenditure on transmission and storage (battery, pumped hydro, thermal) renewables are cheaper and available in a shorter time frame than nuclear in the Australian context. The Dutton response, that almost all other G20 countries have nuclear, and that the IEA shows low relative nuclear energy costs for advanced economies, doesn’t mean that it would be cheaper in Australia. The Dutton admission that the nuclear plants will have to be owned and principally financed by the taxpayer makes it clear that, even were it to have access to the same subsidies available to other zero emission technologies, it is not a commercially attractive option. While Japanese and British companies have expressed interest in building plants (and by the way the only plant under construction in the UK is being built by a Chinese-French consortium) they have indicated they would want a 50 year deal. That would normally take the form of a “take or pay” deal at a nominated electricity price (above the expected market price) which will provide a risk free profit on the investment.
Claim 2 suggests that there will be significantly less, or no (in Littleproud’s dream world) need for large scale renewables and storage sites in regional areas and offshore. Well, how much would building 7 (or even 14) nuclear plants reduce the need for renewable energy? Five minutes on the internet looking at the US Energy department website, UK’s Hinkley Point and Finland’s new plant will tell you that output for plant sites ranges from 1 gigawatt (gw) per plant per annum (the US average actual production over the past decade), through 1.3gw (UK’s two plant Hinkley Point complex) to 2.4gw for Finland’s three unit site which is Europe’s biggest. Seven sites each with one plant will contribute roughly 7gw in total to the grid by 2050. If we allow for two plants at each site (ie no small modular reactors – just biggies) we could get to 14 gw. How does that compare with our projected demand for electricity in 2050? Demand is projected by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to be 300gw so that would have nuclear providing 2-4% of the grid’s required power. If we assume gas provides 5% (available as a backup grid stabilizer), that still leaves 91-93% of the required power being provided by renewables with storage. In short the claim that there will be a significant drop in the need for large scale renewable developments and associated power lines in regional areas and off shore is utter nonsense. It is also untrue that the closure of major coal power stations necessarily means that existing major transmission lines will be unused. They are likely to become sites for major battery plants to provide storage and on demand stabilizing power for the grid.
Claim 3 is about when nuclear will be available. Dutton is suggesting it will make a major contribution by 2035 – just 11 years away. Here we have to distinguish between construction times versus total elapsed time which includes legislation, planning, development of a capable nuclear regulator (it would require a huge upgrade of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)), environmental assessment, any litigation, contracting, as well as construction. Consider how long it takes for our Defence force to move from identification of a force structure need to a selection for example of a ship design and then its delivery.
Legislation, planning, upgrading of ARPANSA, environmental assessment and contract negotiation is likely to take a minimum of 4 years if everything goes well and there is no significant litigation. Legislation is necessary to amend the Environment and Biodiversity Conservation Act to remove the ban on nuclear and to enable the Commonwealth to “claim the field” and override any blocking attempts by the States. Claiming the field will involve using the Constitutional interstate trade and commerce powers, the corporations power and the foreign affairs power to assert Commonwealth control over the grid and site acquisition. It is difficult to see the necessary legislation passing through both houses of Parliament quickly unless Dutton wins outright control of the House and the Senate – a remote possibility. The States might wish to contest the legislation in the High Court (although the Commonwealth legal case would be strong). Equally green groups are likely to challenge project decisions even under an amended EPBC Act. In short it will probably take longer than four years before construction can begin. Even if contracting is run in parallel it is implausible to see foreign nuclear construction companies taking the process seriously until they are sure the Commonwealth will deliver and legal risks have been resolved.
Construction times for first of type in a country are highly variable. The plants completed in the US in the 1990s took 19 years on average. Finland’s most recently completed EPR reactor took 17 years to construct. Hinkley Point is currently estimated to be completed in 2031 – 13 years after construction commenced. Repeats are quicker and cheaper. US plants coming on line in 2023-24 took ten years.
So assuming all the preliminary steps can be completed in four years and construction can be completed in 13 years, at the most generous, for first of type we could expect to get a plant operating by 2041-2 rather than 2035.
This leaves 17 years in which on Dutton’s plan we will be propping up coal fired power stations which will have passed their commercial and engineering use by dates. Clearly we will still be needing to bring more renewables on line and possibly building more gas generation if we are to go anywhere near meeting demand and ensuring grid stability.
Claim 4 – that nuclear will underwrite the stability of a grid in transition – is also exaggerated. It will likely contribute nothing before the early 2040s and even if it generates a steady baseload supply at around 4% of demand it is not suited to rapid response (peaking) power to help even out fluctuations in electricity supply from variable renewable sources. Energy storage (battery, pumped hydro, thermal) and gas closed cycle plants are far more effective ways to deliver grid stability.
Claim 5 is that using more gas in our energy mix could deliver lower prices. Well that assumes that we can source and supply gas to the domestic energy market at significantly below world market prices. There is no doubt that there is more gas that can be extracted on the east coast, but the same communities that have lobbied against large scale wind and solar farms and transmission lines are often behind farmer driven, green backed, “lock the gates” movements lobbying against fracking. Gas (new capacity ideally with carbon capture and storage) is critical through to 2050 as peaking power to ensure system stability in periods of low variable power supply and it is important to increase east coast supplies but greater use of gas won’t reduce overall power costs unless the global price slumps.
Claim 6 is that abandoning our 2030 targets and accepting a higher level of greenhouse gas emissions while still hitting our 2050 net zero target is consistent with the Paris agreement aim of limiting global temperature rises to 1.5-2 degrees Celsius. Here we have the classic contrast between stocks and flows. Global temperature responds to the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Once emitted greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for periods ranging from a few months to hundreds of years. But for the major gases like CO2 the dwell time is from 20-200 years as it is slowly reabsorbed by oceans and photosynthesis. Methane, the second most important gas, is usually absorbed by chemical processes within 11 years. So the stream of annual emissions before we reach 2050 is more important to global temperature than the emissions in just 2050 – although of course it is critical to have zero net emissions from 2050 on. Reducing emissions more slowly increases the risk of blowing the Paris aim of limiting temperature increases to 1.5-2 degrees Celsius.
But then there are the issues that haven’t been discussed at any length. They are associated with how far we engage with the nuclear fuel cycle. Do we refine and enrich our own ore, reprocess it and then store the high level waste? Where does this all happen? What are the implications for strategic issues? Do we wish to embrace the full nuclear cycle to provide a head start if we feel that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is breaking down, or that we cannot rely on the US nuclear umbrella, and we wish to develop an independent nuclear deterrent? Is this part of Dutton’s thinking? Apart from a much rubbished Dutton throw-away claim that a small modular reactor would only produce a coke can sized level of high level waste a year these issues have received virtually no attention – but it would be impossible to embrace nuclear power without thinking them through.
Roger was the longest-serving disabled Departmental Secretary (of Environment and Heritage) in the history of the APS – there have only been two since 1901. He contracted polio in 1948 and uses a wheelchair, leg braces and crutches.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
