The federal Coalition’s adoption of a policy involving government-owned construction of 7 nuclear power plants around Australia has raised an argument that most people thought was over 30 years ago or more. Labor and the Greens are opposed to it, as are several state Liberal Party branches e.g. the NSW Opposition and Queensland LNP Opposition – soon to be the government again, it seems.
None of that seems to worry federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Presumably his polling shows it as an electoral winner in seats he thinks the Coalition can win at next year’s federal election. Whether he’s right remains to be seen.
But does such a policy make sense?
Former Liberal PM Malcolm Turnbull (interviewed for last night’s Four Corners) seems to think Dutton’s stance is just a political stunt, and he’s probably right. But nuclear isn’t quite as silly as last night’s Four Corners made out at least in one respect. Eric Campbell highlighted the fact that the newest AP1000 reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia were 7 years late. No doubt that’s right, but they were still built in 1o years. Snowy 2.0 looks like taking 11 years from commencement in 2018 until projected full operation in 2028.
If a Coalition government could build a nuclear power plant (or rather several of them all over Australia) within 10 years of winning office next year it could probably avert catastrophe as our ageing coal plants close. But that seems very unlikely. First, as noted above they will need to build new plants all over Australia using a technology with which Australia has no experience except with the tiny Lucas Heights research reactor. Secondly, Dutton has promised to conduct a public consultation over 2.5 years. He would certainly need to do so to have any chance of gaining sufficient public support not to mention that of the various state governments. Thirdly, we would need to get thousands of people trained in a very complex and potentially dangerous technology, presumably in the US. Whether that would be possible is very doubtful. The bottom line is that Dutton is unlikely to get nuclear plants up and running before the early 2040’s, which is much too late for Australia to avoid a catastrophe as coal plants close.
Another problem with nuclear is highlighted by Geoff Edwards in the comment box of my “return to blogging” post:
Nuclear power stations are claimed by Dutton and the Murdoch press to be zero emissions, but the claim is false. Large volumes of conventional petroleum-based fuels are consumed in mining and refining the ore; then large volumes are consumed to produce the cement and the steel, copper and other metals necessary to build the reactors. Large volumes of conventional fossil fuels are then supposed to be used in burying the reactors at the end of their life, if that is to be done.
The biggest problem with nuclear, however, is the cost of construction. The latest Vogtle reactor/s in the US cost about $50 billion (Australian). By comparison, Snowy 2.0, which has been asserted to be a complete financial disaster, is projected to cost $12 billion i.e. less thatn a quarter the price of a modern nuclear plant. Other pumped hydro plants will be much cheaper. By comparison, Victoria’s annual health budget is $13 billion. Of course, the AP1000’s $50 billion cost is a one-off, but it’s still an awful lot of money.
Nevertheless, Australia needs to have a much more developed strategy to move away from fossil fuel power towards clean renewables in a timespan that avoids disaster. We could certainly pursue the nuclear road if there was no viable alternative, but that just isn’t the case. My view (supported by many experts) is that the best option for Australia is to rely predominantly on large-scale wind and solar, supported by “firming” in the short term by large batteries and peaking gas plants, and in the slightly longer term (but much sooner than 2040) by pumped hydro.
As noted above, Snowy 2.0 will be operational by 2028, and earlier this year the Commonwealth, Victorian and Tasmanian governments signed an agreement to deliver the Marinus Link cable that will connect Tasmania to Victoria (and thence take large-scalealso expanding its hydro power generation capacity power into the national grid):
Under the agreement, which took effect on 22 March, a new tripartite ownership will oversee delivery of the crucial project. In the new ownership model, the Commonwealth has an equity share of 49%, Victoria 33.3% and Tasmania 17.7%.
Stage 1 of Marinus Link is expected to cost in the range of $3 billion to $3.3 billion and be operational by 2030.
Marinus Link is an underground and undersea electricity cable. It will run 255 km undersea from North West Tasmania to Waratah Bay in Victoria, then a further 90 km underground to the Latrobe Valley.
At the same time the Tasmanian government is also increasing its hydro generation capacity by increasing the peak capacity of the Tarraleah hydropower scheme from 90 MW to 190 MW and building new turbines at the Gordon Power Station. Tasmania is also pursuing a range of pumped hydro projects.
Snowy 2.0 seems to have given pumped hydro a bad name , even among some who should no better. For example the CSIRO’s GenCost report looks in great detail at the cost of a range of renewable power options, but fails to include any details on pumped hydro.
In fact pumped hydro has huge potential, as ANU scientists have been arguing for some years. This article highlights its most recent work (extended quote):
Some 37 suitable sites are located in Australia. They include the Mount Rawdon and Muswellbrook mining pits already under investigation.
There are a number of potential options in Western Australia: in the iron-ore region of the Pilbara, south of Perth and around Kalgoorlie.
Options in Queensland and New South Wales are mostly located down the east coast, including the Coppabella Mine and the coal mining pits near the old Liddell Power Station. Possible sites also exist inland at Mount Isa in Queensland and at the Cadia Hill gold mine near Orange in NSW.
Potential sites in South Australia include the old Leigh Creek coal mine in the Flinders Ranges and the operating Prominent Hill mine northwest of Adelaide. Tasmania and Victoria also offer possible locations, although many other non-mining options exist in these states for pumped hydro storage. …
The Australian Energy Market Operator suggests by 2050, this nation needs about 640 gigawatt-hours of dispatchable or “on demand” storage to support solar and wind capacity. We currently have about 17 gigawatt-hours of electricity storage, with more committed by Snowy 2.0 and other projects.
The 37 possible pumped hydro sites we’ve identified could deliver 540 gigawatt-hours of storage potential. Combined with other non-mining sites we’ve identified previously, the options are far more numerous than our needs.
This means we can afford to be picky, and develop only the very best sites. So what are we waiting for?
I interviewed Professor Blakers more than 5 years ago with a view to publishing an article about the ANU’s work on Club Troppo, but it was a casualty of my enforced retirement from blogging. Better late than never!