Monday 23 December 2024
We examine issues in a transition of energy from coal to nuclear
for Australia, and why it is vitally important from a global context for Australia to be a leader in the decarbonization of fossil fuel
- The choice between a renewables mega-grid or an energy mix with nuclear doing the heavy lifting
Perhaps the biggest question for Australian’s is, what do we want Australia to look like? Much the same as it is now, or with a massive network of power lines and wind turbines on farms, mountain ridges, through our national parks and along our coastline. Under the current Labor Government (Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO 2024 Integrated System Plan) the network is to increase grid scale wind and solar from in 21GW (in 2024) to 127GW (by 2050) a 600% increase, together with 10,000km of transmission lines to be built by 2050.
By way of comparison an unobtrusive modern nuclear power station is a similar size to an existing coal power station. It also has far greater energy density. A reactor can produce 1400MW of energy 24/7 (Kepco APR1400), whereas the largest wind turbine in Australia, the Vestas V162 at 200m high, produces 6MW of intermittent energy.
A simple calculation would infer that 1 nuclear reactor produces the same energy as 233 wind turbines, but wind isn’t blowing 24/7, so we need a lot more wind turbines, roughly 3 times this number. So, a single 1400MW nuclear reactor is equivalent to approximately 700 wind turbines.
This situation is even worse for renewables when the wind isn’t blowing across the grid. To compensate for this, dispatchable power is switched on and off to address power supply fluctuations. This comes from batteries, pumped hydro or from gas turbines. Batteries and pumped hydro can’t produce enough energy for cities such as Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane.
But how much is the shortfall? - The dispatchable storage dilemma caused by intermittent renewables
According to AEMO, the renewables mega-grid for the National Energy Market (NEM) will
need 49GW/646GWh of dispatchable storage plus 10GW of gas turbines for peak loads by 2050. Putting this in perspective the world’s first big battery in Hornsdale, South Australia has 0.15GW/0.194GWh and Snowy Hydro 2.0 will provide 2.2GW/350GWh. Batteries are an order-of-magnitude too small to meet this demand.
Regrettably, Australia is constrained because we only have one Snowy Mountains and very limited opportunities for significantly more pumped hydro, certainly nothing anything like the scale that is needed.
This storage limitation creates a paradox. A wind and solar mega-grid requires a massive
investment in battery and pumped hydro storage, plus a further 10GW of gas turbines. The
gas turbines then create carbon emissions that undermine our “Net Zero Emissions”
objectives. - Comparing the longevity of renewables with nuclear
The Labor Government plan requires three systems: the renewables mega-grid; energy storage, as either batteries or pumped hydro; and further investment in gas turbines. Critically, batteries need to be replaced every 10 years, solar panels last for up to 20 years, onshore wind turbines last around 30 years, and offshore wind turbines that are in a highly corrosive environment last from 10 to 20 years.
The short lifespan for batteries, solar panels and wind turbines, isn’t of concern to corporate investors deriving profits from energy sector deals. However, the replacement cost, is a cost for all Australians, that will be reflected in higher power bills, added demands on our already stretched construction sector, and a lot more waste material that needs to be recycled or sent to landfills.
By contrast, nuclear reactors are sealed inside containment buildings that are highly durable. They protect the nuclear reactor and associated plant from external climatic conditions. As a result, nuclear reactors can have an effective operating life of between 80 and 100 years, with ongoing maintenance and long term decommissioning that is factored into the cost of energy. - Benefits for local communities that transition from coal to nuclear energy
Residents, their communities, schools, hospitals, infrastructure, businesses and service industries have grown around coal mines and coal power stations over the past 80 years, with several generations of families living in the same areas, particularly in the Hunter Valley and Latrobe Valley.
These communities are likely to die if coal power stations close and they are not replaced with nuclear. The Labor Government have suggested they will address this issue by providing $1 billion towards manufacturing of solar panels in the Hunter Valley. This proposal ignores the realities of solar panel production that relies on other industries such as glass manufacturing being close at hand. At best it is an expensive stop-gap measure.
Rather than hurting these communities, they can be recognised as important energy hubs in Australia and continue to grow and prosper through a Coal to Nuclear (C2N) transition. - The reuse of coal mining sites for nuclear power plants makes good sense
Factors that make coal power stations ideal for nuclear power include: being of a sufficient size; being connected into the energy grid; and having a water supply (lake or river) to supply steam turbines that are used for both coal and nuclear power stations.
From a cost perspective, there are elements of coal power stations that can be reused. This includes roads, miscellaneous buildings, car parks, cooling towers, water cooling ponds, steam turbines, steam turbine buildings, and electrical substations. These can be assessed on a case-by-case basis and may provide some opportunities for savings beyond what is allowed for in preliminary costings. - Advantages of large nuclear reactors rather than small modular reactors (SMRs)
Large nuclear reactors are both expensive and take a decade or more to build, but they do offer important advantages over SMRs. They provide baseload power that can support millions of households. There are proven reactor designs with excellent performance and safety standards, and they can be purchased within a suitable timeframe to meet Australia’s 2050 Net-Zero obligations.
The Coalition are offering a tangible solution to the replacement of baseload coal with baseload nuclear power that will future proof our energy grid well into the next century. Existing coal power stations producing between 1GW and 5GW can be replaced with nuclear power stations and their output can be matched through selecting the appropriate number and size of reactors.
By comparison, the evolution of SMRs has been slow. This has been due to the time taken to develop a new regulatory framework for SMRs and a restricted supply of suitable nuclear fuel. High-Assay Low Enrichment Uranium (HALEU) fuel is enriched with U235 to between 5% and 20%. This is higher than Low Enrichment Uranium (LEU) fuel that has an enrichment limit of 5%, used in most existing nuclear reactors. HALEU fuel is only available in small quantities at present, and production needs to be established to support SMR development.
These factors make the timeline for SMRs too long for Australia for an initial rollout of nuclear reactors in the 2030s. However, SMRs are likely to be important to us in providing firming capacity from 2040 onwards and in supporting the expansion of energy markets in Australia beyond 2050. - Proposing seven nuclear power sites makes sense for Australia
The Coalition policy to consider seven sites for nuclear power stations makes sense for Australia, because it addresses our fundamental challenge of replacing baseload coal power stations. It focuses on reuse of existing coal power stations in a C2N replacement plan, and it provides support to communities that would be otherwise affected by coal power station closures.
The final number of power stations to be built may change subject to a range of factors. This can be accommodated through adjusting the number and capacity of the nuclear reactors at each site. - Government control is needed rather than investment industry control
There are four important benefits that come from the underwriting of nuclear energy investment by Government. Firstly, cost savings occur through uniformity of systems, rather than through a piecemeal approach driven by different investor groups.
Secondly, there are important long term geopolitical considerations in choosing a reactor supplier for Australia. For instance, the Government may consider Russian and Chinese reactors to be too high a risk, if there is the chance of any trade dispute with either country.
Thirdly, institutional investors are looking at returns on investments over a period of 20 years or less. A different investment product offering is needed for 80 to 100 years.
Finally, institutional investors look at short term risks such as project delays that are less of a concern to the government when the investment is amortized over the overall life of the project. - The history of anti-nuclear advocacy in Australia and the importance of decoupling
nuclear weapons from nuclear energy
A history of successful anti-nuclear advocacy in Australia dates back to the Cold War, from nuclear testing particularly at Maralinga in South Australia, Mururoa Atoll in the Pacific, uranium mining protests at Roxby Downs and protesting over the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland.
However, a turning point occurred at the end of the Cold War in 1991, when Ronald Reagan the US President and Mikhail Gorbachev the President of USSR agreed to a significant nuclear weapons disarmament. This has been ongoing for 30 years, with each side retaining vastly reduced stockpiles of weapons, and down-blending weapons grade material to be used for nuclear reactor fuel.
A further change in our perception of nuclear energy occurred in 2006, when Al Gore published ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. He brought the issue of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuel, to the world. In doing this he uncovered a dilemma. How do we provide energy that is critical to humanity, without causing global warming?
The Labor Government believes that wind, hydroelectricity and solar energy must expand by 600% to form a mega-grid by 2050. But even with this, it can’t power big cities when the sun isn’t shining, and the wind isn’t blowing. Batteries and other forms of storage are an order of magnitude too small. As a result, gas turbines are proposed that breach Australia’s Net-Zero emissions obligations.
Activist Patrick Moore, an ex-founder of Greenpeace, recognised in 1986 that nuclear energy is the only practical “carbon free” option to do the heavy lifting and the firming of renewables at critical periods. His position is reflective of all countries in the G20 with the exception of Australia, being the only country having a nuclear energy ban in place. - Learning from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukashima in the context of 440 nuclear reactors, worldwide
The worst nuclear accident in history occurred in 1983, when Chernobyl Reactor 4, a Russian RMBK-1000 reactor, designed in 1968, suffered a melt-down. As a result, 31 people died, and it is estimated that it caused 3,940 subsequent deaths from radiation induced cancer and leukaemia.
This is in stark contrast to Three Mile Island Reactor 2 (TMI2), that had a partial meltdown in 1979. At TMI2 there was no loss of life, and only a minor release of radioactive gases, that didn’t result in any health issues. TMI2 was safe, because the failed nuclear reactor was encapsulated in a containment structure.
The Fukashima accident occurred in 2011. A 15m Tsunami breached the power station’s sea wall and flooded the plant’s pumping station. This cut off cooling water and as a result four reactors overheated and were permanently damaged. No one died at the Nuclear Power Plant, but somewhere between 18,500 and 20,000 people were killed by the Tsunami.
At the Fukashima power station, water supplies were reconnected to the damaged reactors. This cooling water was exposed to damaged fuel and as a result it was contaminated. It has been subsequently treated, diluted and is being gradually reintroduced into the ocean at safe levels for marine life.
The failure of Chernobyl demonstrated the essential need for a nuclear containment structure. The Three Mile Island failure resulted in the introduction of passive safety measures to prevent a meltdown due to human error, and Fukashima highlighted the need for backup power and cooling water, plus the need to better consider extra-ordinary design risks. Each of these factors are incorporated into all modern day reactors.
Despite vastly improved safety standards over the past 70 years, and a proven track record provided by 440 nuclear reactors operating worldwide, the anti-nuclear movement continue to distort our perception of the nuclear industry. They adopt scare tactics, whether by repeat runs of Netflix Chernobyl mini-series, Bart Simpson’s 3 eyed fish, or movies like the China Syndrome that suggested a nuclear meltdown would burn through the earth to China, which is clearly nonsense. We owe it to ourselves to develop a more current and informed perspective of nuclear energy and address our reticence to keep up with leading countries and technologies in developing Net Zero energy strategies that include nuclear power. - Radioactive waste, where does it go, and how is it managed
Anti-nuclear activists continue to raise this as one of the biggest concerns they have over nuclear energy. Yet there are 440 nuclear reactors around the world that are managing spent nuclear fuel, without reported environmental or health concerns.
The spent fuel is moved from the reactor into a cooling pond that absorbs heat from the residual radioactivity of spent fuel. It is then put into dry caskets for long term storage, or it is reprocessed. Reprocessing involves separating out the various components of the spent fuel into low, intermediate and high level waste, together with isotopes that can be re-used in mixed oxide fuel (MOX fuel).
The decision to store or reprocess spent fuel is cost driven. Currently it is more cost effective to mine and process uranium ore, or to down-blend weapons stockpile uranium that has been depleted under US / Russian agreements, to reprocess as fuel.
Is there any real concern over radioactive waste from nuclear power stations?
The track record of effective security and safeguards of radioactive materials from the nuclear power industry has been very tightly controlled, this includes block-chain tracking and independent monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Coupled with this, deep repository storage is used for the long term storage of intermediate and high level waste. The images we see of yellow bins with radiation signs on them are used to create a sense of fear, but they are typically used for low radiation level medical and industrial waste, clothing and equipment, this has nothing to do with nuclear reactor fuel – but is excellent for fear mongering. - Political, Legal and Bureaucratic Hurdles for Nuclear Energy in Australia
In 1998 John Howard struck a deal with the Greens, to build a medical and research reactor ANSTO at Lucas Heights, in exchange for a ban on other nuclear reactors in Australia. The ANSTO reactor medical isotopes have saved millions of lives through radiation treatments and scanning isotopes over the past twenty years.
Neither the Greens nor John Howard were aware at the time, that global warming was occurring due to human induced climate change. And they also weren’t aware of an imperative that Australia would need to pivot away from its reliance on coal, oil and gas.
As a legacy of their deal in 1998, Australia finds itself stifled in a series of federal and state bans on the development of nuclear energy. Coupled with this, are rusted-on anti-nuclear activists, the big end of town renewable energy speculators, bureaucrats and even the CSIRO that form the backbone of a very robust and well-resourced anti-nuclear movement.
Not to be outdone, Wokes and mainstream media, have up until now, shared an unreasonable, fear based narrative, without being more objective and informed.
Australians deserve better, not to be manipulated by three-eyed fish, concerns over design flaws in a Russian reactor from the 1960s, and fear mongering over spent nuclear fuel storage, despite it being managed effectively at 440 sites around the world.
