Tag: Energy Roadmap

A brief update on the nuclear debate

The nuclear debate in Australia continues to rage on. Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released their 6^th report on Climate Change with dire warnings about the rate of global warming and its impacts. The following day in the Australian parliament there was, again, the push for nuclear power. Senators McMahon, Hughes and Lambie all – instead of making constructive contributions in response the IPCC report began the tireless chant for nuclear power and lashing out at opponents. Northern Territory Senator Sam McMahon went as far as to put forward amendments to the already stalled and controversial Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill – seeking to lift the prohibition on nuclear power. Outside the Senate Matt Canavan reckoned Gladstone would be a good spot for a reactor.  

Senator Hanson-Young asked the question where will these reactors go? The next day in the Senate LNP Senator Gerard Rennick casually suggested a nuclear reactor for Chinchilla.

“If we could get a rail line up through there, we could open up new coal deposits. Also, if we didn’t want more coalmines, we could look at putting a nuclear power station in Barakula State Forest, which is just north of Chinchilla. It’s the biggest state forest in the Southern Hemisphere. If you had a big water source there, the Nathan Dam, you could open up a lot of possibilities.”

LNP Senator Gerard Rennick – Wednesday 11th August 2021 – pg 77

This is a spectacular display of the lack of vision of the National Party who don’t care if you dig up coal or uranium – they just want something dug up and burnt. One day nuclear is a solution to climate change on another day climate change is a hoax and we should dig up more coal. Of if you’re Gerard Rennick you can have both coal and nuclear in the same breath.

Weeks earlier Liberal MP Angus Taylor announced the signing of a letter of intent with the UK to form a partnership on low emissions solutions. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNRs) were among the technologies listed in the partnership to receive research funding. At the end of 2020 Minister Taylor released the Technology Investment Roadmap – in which SMNRs were listed as a technology to watch – within 9 months, without independent evidence or advice or public debate, the government’s position on nuclear has gone from watching brief to fund. Using the public purse to fund a prohibited technology in the absence of any public debate and without any mandate is a new, but unsurprising, low.

Outside of the strange debates in the Australian Parliament more and more voices are adding to the detailed and informed discussion on the realities of nuclear in a changing climate:

• Dr Paul Dorfman wrote about the increased risks of operating nuclear in a changing climate.
• David Vetter writing for Forbes asks experts about the need for nuclear – and then explores the hidden agenda of nuclear submarines in defence.
• Ali Ahmad released research looking at the range of technical issues reactors are likely to face with global warming – adding to their unsuitability for addressing the climate crisis. Summary and some interesting technical debate can be seen here.
• Allison Macfarlane, former US Nuclear Regulatory Chairperson wrote “Nuclear Energy Will Not Be the Solution to Climate Change – There Is Not Enough Time for Nuclear Innovation to Save the Planet”
• And Market Insiders reported on more planned nuclear shut downs because of economic failure – reflecting nuclear may not have a role in energy transition…

No doubt the debate will continue to rage on in the lead up to COP26 and as the nuclear industry try to seal their fate. May the reality of the failures and risks of the sector be louder than the false promises of safe & cheap reactors that continue to ignore the feasibility, the increasing risks and the ever mounting stockpiles of nuclear waste and weapons.

Today the Federal Minister for Energy Angus Taylor released an energy roadmap. Not only does the roadmap include an unfortunate “watching brief” on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) – it locks in no new emissions targets and doubles down on supporting and funding fossil fuels. Over 60 groups, representing millions of Australians, made a submission to the federal government calling for urgent action on climate change, supporting renewables and leaving nuclear at the door. The Minister has done the opposite.

Of deep concern is the signalling that the Government will review ‘impediments’ to their ‘stretch targets’ – which includes SMRs. The Ministers comments today about future regulatory changes to remove barriers signals an intent to remove the prohibition on nuclear power which is prudent and popular barrier to nuclear power and SMRs. See more about the risks to the nuclear power ban here Nuclear Ban.

Unsurprisingly the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) has welcomed the energy roadmap in a media release highlighting the mineral industries who will benefit from the energy roadmap. Including uranium, iron ore and bauxite, aluminium, copper, nickel, zinc, base metals, lithium, minerals sands, rare earths and others. The MCA commended the inclusion of SMRs suggesting they could be ready in the next decade for commercial deployment. The energy roadmap has diverted attention to SMRs which are expensive, would produce more nuclear waste per unit of energy, consume as much water per unit of energy as large nuclear reactors with many of the same problems and risks.

The truth about Small Modular Reactors

Adapted from Dr Jim Green.

SMRs would produce more nuclear waste per unit of energy produced compared to large reactors.

A 2016 European Commission document states: “Due to the loss of economies of scale, the decommissioning and waste management unit costs of SMR will probably be higher than those of a large reactor (some analyses state that between two and three times higher).”

The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission report noted: “SMRs have lower thermal efficiency than large reactors, which generally translates to higher fuel consumption and spent fuel volumes over the life of a reactor.”

Every independent economic assessment finds that electricity from SMRs will be more expensive than that from large reactor.

SMRs will inevitably suffer from diseconomies of scale: a 250 MW SMR will generate 25% as much power as a 1,000 MW reactor  but it will require more than 25% of the material inputs and staffing, and a number of other costs including waste management and decommissioning will be proportionally higher.

A December 2019 report by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded that wind and solar power, including two to six hours of storage, is two to three times cheaper than power from small reactors per unit of energy produced. Nuclear lobbyists dispute the construction costs that underpin this estimate but, in fact, they are a neat fit with real-world construction costs (as opposed to self-serving industry speculation). Indeed the CSIRO/AEMO estimate is lower than the average cost of small-reactor projects in China, Russia and Argentina.

SMRs in China, Russia and Argentina are, respectively, 2, 4 and 23 times over-budget. None could be described as “very affordable”.

A handful of SMRs are under construction (half of them to power fossil fuel mining operations in the Arctic, the South China Sea and elsewhere).

Private sector investment has been pitiful and the main game is to find governments reckless enough to bet billions of taxpayer dollars on high-risk projects. SMRs under construction are all being built by government agencies.

In a 2017 Lloyd’s Register report based on the insights of almost 600 professionals and experts from utilities, distributors, operators and equipment manufacturers. They predict that SMRs have a “low likelihood of eventual take-up, and will have a minimal impact when they do arrive”.

A 2014 report produced by Nuclear Energy Insider, drawing on interviews with more than 50 “leading specialists and decision makers”, noted a “pervasive sense of pessimism” regarding SMRs.

SMRs will likely use as much water per unit of energy produced compared to large reactors ‒ possibly more due to lower thermal efficiencies. Nuclear power, large or small, is incredibly thirsty: a typical large reactor consumes 35‒65 million litres of water per day. Gas cooling creates its own set of problems and inefficiencies, leading to higher costs ‒ that is why a very large majority of reactors are water-cooled.

SMRs will be subject to the same risks as large reactors. Burying reactors below-grade would add a new set of problems for example:

“Potential fire and explosion hazards: below-grade facilities present unique challenges, such as smoke/fire behavior; life safety; design and operation of the HVAC [heating, ventilating, and air conditioning] system and removal of waste water. Potential flooding hazards: below-grade reactors and subsystems raise concerns with regard to hurricane storm surges, tsunami run-up and water infiltration into structures. Limited access for conducting inspections of pressure vessels and components that are crucial for containing radiation, such as welds, steam generators, bolted connections and valves.“

identified by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Rolls-Royce sharply reduced its small-reactor investment to “a handful of salaries” in 2018 and is threatening to abandon its R&D altogether unless the British government agrees to an outrageous set of demands and subsidies.

There are disturbing connections between small reactor projects and nuclear weapons proliferation. Rolls-Royce provides one example: part of the company’s sales pitch to the British government includes the argument that a civil small-reactor industry in the UK “would relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability” for its weapons program.

No SMRs are being produced in an off-site factory. No such factories are being built. SMRs are at an early developmental stage. They are not a short-term proposition.