Australia Debates Going Nuclear

A day after the U.S. Senate passed legislation on 18 June to develop advanced nuclear technologies, in Australia, opposition leader Peter Dutton promised, if elected, to build seven nuclear plants along the coasts of the island continent. The U.S. legislation passed with a vote of 82–2, but Dutton’s proposal brought forth fierce dispute from both federal and state governments, as well as energy experts and supporters of green energy.

Though Australia has the world’s largest deposits of uranium, it doesn’t have any nuclear plants for electricity generation. In fact, its federal and state laws prohibit their construction. What’s more, the regional governments of the five states Dutton has earmarked for nuclear-plant constructions have all rejected the plan. Several state leaders cited the high costs involved in establishing a nuclear program from zero, saying it would push up electricity bills rather than lower them. And that “is not to mention how future generations, my kids, your kids, will need to manage dangerous radioactive nuclear waste forever,” Queensland premier Steven Miles told reporters.

In unveiling their plan to the media in a press conference, Dutton and his Opposition backers said they could overcome legal obstacles, in part through negotiation and incentives, by explaining the merits of the strategy, and by pointing out the possible long-term perils if the plan is not adopted. One such peril, according to Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O’Brien, is that the federal government’s narrow focus on renewable energy has stalled the development of natural gas. With “90 percent of Australia’s 24/7 baseload power exiting the grid over the next decade, [there is] no chance of a replacement being ready in time,” he said at the press conference. (Baseload is the continuous generation of electricity needed to meet the demands of the grid.) What’s needed, he argued, is the addition of nuclear and gas to the energy mix.

Why Australia Doesn’t Want Nuclear Power

Critics of Dutton’s plan say switching focus to nuclear power at this stage would hinder the replacement of coal. Deployment of solar and wind technologies is widespread and well underway, so turning to nuclear power now “could distract from the transition away from fossil fuels, send mixed signals to industry, and hamper efforts to deploy renewable technologies at pace,” said Katherine Woodthorpe, president of the Australian Academy of Technology Sciences and Engineering, in comments to the media.

On the other hand, solar and wind power are intermittent energy sources. And though battery technologies can help address intermittency by storing excess energy during peak production times, “current battery technology and storage capacity are not yet sufficient to fully replace the continuous output provided by coal plants,” says Jeremy Jing Qiu, a senior lecturer in electrical engineering at the University of Sydney, who corresponded with IEEE Spectrum.Adding natural gas to the energy mix can serve as a transitional fuel, he says, while in the long term, nuclear energy can be seen “as a promising solution due to its low carbon emissions and ability to provide reliable baseload power, crucial for complementing intermittent renewable sources,” he says.

A major advantage of the Dutton plan, according to advocates, is that end-of-life, coal-fired plant sites could be used as locations for new nuclear power stations. The sites can also serve as storage locations for nuclear waste, and are already linked to existing electricity transmission networks. This is in contrast, says Dutton, to the Labor government’s plan to build “28,000 kilometers of poles and wire” required by green technologies that will go through national parks and prime farming land.

Liam Wagner, an associate professor in sustainable energy systems at Curtin University, in South Australia, calls the idea of using existing sites “fanciful,” because it ignores the special installation requirements for nuclear power plants. “Australia would need to conduct thorough geological and geotechnical investigations in the proposed sites similar to the protocols and requirements of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” says Wagner, who corresponded with Spectrum. He has yet to see any such studies, he says.

Small Modular Reactors Proposed as Solution

Wagner also questions the Opposition’s optimistic estimate that by purchasing small modular reactors (SMR) under construction in several countries, two nuclear plants could come online in Australia as early as the mid-2030s. “Entry timing of nuclear has typically taken longer than expected based on the construction of plants in the United States, France, and South Korea,” says Wagner. And the complexity involved in installing, operating and overseeing plant safety will require trained scientists, engineers, and technicians that Australia doesn’t have. “This lack of human capital could take decades of planning and considerable funding to acquire,” he adds.

But Dutton and his allies point out that the country is not entirely without nuclear expertise. A 20-megawatt nuclear reactor operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organizationin Sydney has provided scientists with research results and medical data, and offered nuclear education and training services, for over 70 years. Dutton says that given the long lead time available for the plan, the coalition would build on the small base of know-how by attracting talent and expertise from overseas.

Given the gulf that exists between the two camps, perhaps a compromise can be made to work. Today’s nuclear plants are designed to provide constant power, but if they’re to work together with renewables in the future, they’ll need to become more flexible to accommodate the variable output from renewables, says Qiu. “Developing hybrid systems where nuclear power supports renewable-energy integration through load-following capabilities, or by paring them with advanced storage technologies, could optimize the overall energy mix,” he says. In this way, “Australia can forge a path towards a sustainable, secure, and independent energy future.”