Last week, the new leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, said it was time for Australia to have a “mature” conversation on nuclear power, while his predecessor, Barnaby Joyce, called for a national moratorium. and argued that nuclear power would be “really important” if the country was to be taken seriously when it came to zero net emissions.
On Sunday, Nuclear Energy Lawyer Ted O’Brien was named Coalition’s Climate Change and Energy Spokesman. In an interview with ABC Radio National, opposition leader Peter Dutton said he was “not afraid to have a nuclear discussion,” as the country should not be afraid to “talk about any technology that has the ability to reduce emissions “. and electricity prices ”.
He suggested that nuclear power should be discarded because it was not “fashionable” to talk about it.
So why is the Coalition talking about nuclear energy again?
Because despite not making a serious attempt to start a nuclear industry in its nine years in power, the Coalition has decided to defend one immediately after losing power.
Meanwhile, the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing group with a history of denying climate science backed by fossil fuels and mining interests, published what it described as a survey showing that people were open. to the idea of nuclear power. News Corp newspapers made their arguments without criticism.
Did something happen while the Coalition was in government?
There was a query. In 2019, former energy and emission reduction minister Angus Taylor referred the matter to a parliamentary committee; O’Brien was the chair.
In a report entitled “Not Without Your Approval,” he and other coalition deputies recommended that the government consider partially lifting the ban on “new and emerging nuclear technologies,” expressing hope that those known as to small modular reactors (SMR) may have a future. . There was no desire to allow large nuclear power plants that have become synonymous with catastrophic accidents in Fukushima and Chernobyl.
O’Brien argued that the development of a possible nuclear industry would take time and should be conditional on a government assessment of the technology and the informed consent of local communities.
While this received some support from other coalition MPs, Scott Morrison said the country’s position on nuclear power would not change without bipartisan support. Workers have ruled it out for economic and security reasons.
Sign up for the latest Guardian Australia news every morning.
Has the nuclear case changed since 2019?
Not significantly. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. Costs have risen as technology has advanced.
Despite the global push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the large-scale nuclear power industry is shrinking. More units closed than open in 2020. Construction of only five reactors began; four of them were in China, which is investing in all kinds of energy. Excluding China, global nuclear generation is at its lowest level in 27 years.
The few major power plants under construction in developed democracies have suffered years of delays and cost bursts. In the UK, Hinkley Point C Station, the country’s first new nuclear plant in decades, is 10 years behind schedule and is expected to cost at least A $ 45 billion, almost 50% more than I was initially waiting.
What about SMRs?
At this point they barely exist.
The SMRs are proposed to be between 60 and about 200 megawatts, a fraction of the size of a traditional nuclear power plant. Proponents say they would use a similar technology that is used in nuclear-powered submarines and icebreakers and would be easier to protect than larger plants.
But the report on the state of the global nuclear industry, compiled last year by opponents of nuclear power with a preview by former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, suggested that talks and media coverage about the SMR “was not reflected in any major industrial success on the ground.”
He said SMRs in China and Argentina had been harassed by delays. Chinese media said its first 200 MW SMR unit was connected to the grid in December for an undisclosed price. The report said there had been no concrete steps towards construction anywhere other than Russia, which pursues a model that barely qualifies as SMR, is years behind schedule and lacks the regulatory process expected in developed countries.
In South Korea, an SMR model was approved in 2012 but there were no orders because it costs too much. Plans in the U.S. had stalled; a government-backed model of the NuScale company was approved by the security regulator, but the design was later changed and several municipalities abandoned plans to host them. NuScale is now pursuing deals in Eastern Europe. Supporters agree that no reactor is expected before 2029 at the earliest.
The report concluded that there was growing evidence that “SMRs, like large reactors, will continue to suffer delays and overheads and the high likelihood that they will not be economical even in the most favorable circumstances.”
Is nuclear power needed in Australia?
The story is different in some other countries, but there are many analyzes that say nuclear is not needed here given the range of energy options available.
For example, the Australian energy market operator’s integrated system plan, a plan for an optimal future grid, sets out a vision under which the country would operate mostly on solar and wind energy, backed by better transmission links and supported for a “firm” capacity that can be traveled when needed: batteries, pumped hydraulics, some gas (at least initially) and demand management.
Cost is the key issue. Although estimates are difficult, the latest CSIRO analysis of different energy costs suggested that SMRs would be much more expensive than solar and wind energy and at least as expensive as fossil fuel energy with capture and storage of carbon, which has not been shown to be economically viable.
Why does the nuclear power case persist?
There is a hypothesis on the part of some people, including coalition MPs, that renewable energy cannot do the job, despite the advice of experts who say otherwise. These criticisms rarely address this advice directly.
But there is also a long history of using nuclear energy as a delaying tactic to act on climate change in Australia, even for the interests of fossil fuels.
SMRs may be able to play a global role beyond 2030, but anyone arguing in Australia should be asked why they disagree with nuclear advocates who say otherwise, and why their efforts are not better at supporting zero-emission technologies that are affordable and available now.