Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Exposing misleading evidence to the federal nuclear inquiry

Big claims and corporate spin about small nuclear reactor costs, Jim Green, 19 September 2019, RenewEconomy https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-claims-and-corporate-spin-about-small-nuclear-reactor-costs-65726/

The ‘inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ being run by Federal Parliament’s Environment and Energy Committee has finished receiving submissions and is gradually making them publicly available.

The inquiry is particularly interested in ‘small modular reactors’ (SMRs) and thus one point of interest is how enthusiasts spin the economic debate given that previous history with small reactors has shown them to be expensive; the cost of the handful of SMRs under construction is exorbitant; and both the private sector and governments around the world have been unwilling to invest the billions of dollars required to get high-risk SMR demonstration reactors built.

To provide a reality-check before we get to the corporate spin, a submission to the inquiry by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis notes that SMRs have been as successful as cold fusion – i.e., not at all. The submission states:

“The construction of nuclear power plants globally has proven to be an ongoing financial disaster for private industry and governments alike, with extraordinary cost and construction time blow-outs, while being a massive waste of public monies due to the ongoing reliance on government financial subsidies. … Governments have repeatedly failed to comprehend that nuclear construction timelines and cost estimates put forward by many corporates (with vested interests) have proven disastrously flawed and wrong.”

The Institute is equally scathing about SMRs:

“For all the hype in certain quarters, commercial deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) have to-date been as successful as hypothesized cold fusion – that is, not at all. Even assuming massive ongoing taxpayer subsidies, SMR proponents do not expect to make a commercial deployment at scale any time soon, if at all, and more likely in a decade from now if historic delays to proposed timetables are acknowledged.”

Thus the Institute adds its voice to the chorus of informed scepticism about SMRs, such as the 2017 Lloyd’s Register survey of 600 industry professionals and experts who predicted that SMRs have a “low likelihood of eventual take-up, and will have a minimal impact when they do arrive“.

Corporate spin #1: Minerals Council of Australia

The Minerals Council of Australia claims in its submission to the federal inquiry that SMRs could generate electricity for as little as $60 per megawatt-hour (MWh). That claim is based on a report by the Economic and Finance Working Group (EFWG) of the Canadian government-industry ‘SMR Roadmap’ initiative.

The Canadian EFWG gives lots of possible SMR costs and the Minerals Council’s use of its lowest figure is nothing if not selective. The figure cited by the Minerals Council assumes near-term deployment from a standing start (with no-one offering to risk billions of dollars to build demonstration reactors), plus extraordinary learning rates in an industry notorious for its negative learning rates.

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski noted in his evidence to the federal inquiry that “nuclear power has got more expensive, rather than less expensive”. Yet the EFWG paper takes a made-up, ridiculously-high learning rate and subjects SMR cost estimates to eight ‘cumulative doublings’ based on the learning rate. That’s creative accounting and one can only wonder why the Minerals Council would present it as a credible estimate.

Here are the first-of-a-kind SMR cost estimates from the EFWG paper, all of them far higher than the figure cited by the Minerals Council:

  • 300-megawatt (MW) on-grid SMR:    C$162.67 (A$179) / MWh
  • 125-MW off-grid heavy industry:       C$178.01 (A$196) / MWh
  • 20-MW off-grid remote mining:         C$344.62 (A$380) / MWh
  • 3-MW off-grid remote community:    C$894.05 (A$986) / MWh

The government and industry members on the Canadian EFWG are in no doubt that SMRs won’t be built without public subsidies:

“The federal and provincial governments should, in partnership with industry, investigate ways to best risk-share through policy mechanisms to reduce the cost of capital. This is especially true for the first units deployed, which would likely have a substantially higher cost of capital than a commercially mature SMR.”

The EFWG paper used a range of estimates from the literature and vendors. It notes problems with its inputs, such as the fact that many of the vendor estimates have not been independently vetted, and “the wide variation in costs provided by expert analysts”. Thus, the EFWG qualifies its findings by noting that “actual costs could be higher or lower depending on a number of eventualities”.

Corporate spin #2: NuScale Power

US company NuScale Power has put in a submission to the federal nuclear inquiry, estimating a first-of-a-kind cost for its SMR design of US$4.35 billion / gigawatt (GW) and an nth-of-a-kind cost of US$3.6 billion / GW.

NuScale doesn’t provide a $/MWh estimate in its submission, but the company has previously said it is targeting a cost of US$65/MWh for its first SMR plant. That is 2.4 lower than the US$155/MWh (A$225/MWh) estimate based on the NuScale design in a report by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared for the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

NuScale’s cost estimates should be regarded as promotional and will continue to drop – unless and until the company actually builds an SMR. The estimated cost of power from NuScale’s non-existent SMRs fell from US$98-$108/MWh in 2015 to US$65/MWh by mid-2018. The company announced with some fanfare in 2018 that it had worked out how to make its SMRs almost 20% cheaper – by making them almost 20% bigger!

Lazard estimates costs of US$112-189/MWh for electricity from large nuclear plants. NuScale’s claim that its electricity will be 2-3 times cheaper than that from large nuclear plants is implausible. And even if NuScale achieved costs of US$65/MWh, that would still be higher than Lazard’s figures for wind power (US$29-56) and utility-scale solar (US$36-46).

Likewise, NuScale’s construction construction cost estimate of US$4.35 billion / GW is implausible. The latest cost estimate for the two AP1000 reactors under construction in the US state of Georgia (the only reactors under construction in the US) is US$12.3-13.6 billion / GW. NuScale’s target is just one-third of that cost – despite the unavoidable diseconomies of scale and despite the fact that every independent assessment concludes that SMRs will be more expensive to build (per GW) than large reactors.

Further, the modular factory-line production techniques now being championed by NuScale were trialled with the AP1000 reactor project in South Carolina – a project that was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of at least US$9 billion.

Corporate spin #3: Australian company SMR Nuclear Technology

In support of its claim that “it is likely that SMRs will be Australia’s lowest-cost generation source”, Australian company SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd cites in its submission to the federal nuclear inquiry a 2017 report by the US Energy Innovation Reform Project (EIRP).

According to SMR Nuclear Technology, the EIRP study “found that the average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from advanced reactors was US$60/MWh.”

However the cost figures used in the EIRP report are nothing more than the optimistic estimates of companies hoping to get ‘advanced’ reactor designs off the ground. Therefore the EIRP authors heavily qualified the report’s findings:

“There is inherent and significant uncertainty in projecting NOAK [nth-of-a-kind] costs from a group of companies that have not yet built a single commercial-scale demonstration reactor, let alone a first commercial plant. Without a commercial-scale plant as a reference, it is difficult to reliably estimate the costs of building out the manufacturing capacity needed to achieve the NOAK costs being reported; many questions still remain unanswered – what scale of investments will be needed to launch the supply chain; what type of capacity building will be needed for the supply chain, and so forth.”

SMR Nuclear Technology’s conclusions – that “it is likely that SMRs will be Australia’s lowest-cost generation source” and that low costs are “likely to make them a game-changer in Australia” – have no more credibility than the company estimates used in the EIRP paper.

SMR Nuclear Technology’s submission does not note that the EIRP inputs were merely company estimates and that the EIRP authors heavily qualified the report’s findings.

The US$60/MWh figure cited by SMR Nuclear Technology is far lower than all independent estimates for SMRs:

  • The 2015/16 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission estimated costs of A$180-184/MWh for large light-water reactors, compared to A$225 for an SMR based on the NuScale design (and a slightly lower figure for the ‘mPower’ SMR design that was abandoned in 2017 by Bechtel and Babcock & Wilcox).
  • A December 2018 report by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator found that electricity from SMRs would be more than twice as expensive as that from wind or solar power with storage costs included (two hours of battery storage or six hours of pumped hydro storage).
  • A report by the consultancy firm Atkins for the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy found that electricity from the first SMR in the UK would be 30% more expensive than that from large reactors, because of diseconomies of scale and the costs of deploying first-of-a-kind technology. Its optimistic SMR cost estimate is US$107-155 (A$157-226) / MWh.
  • A 2015 report by the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency predicted that electricity from SMRs will be 50−100% more expensive than that from large reactors, although it holds out some hope that large-volume factory production could reduce costs.
  • An article by four pro-nuclear researchers from Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering and Public Policy, published in 2018 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, concluded than an SMR industry would only be viable in the US if it received “several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies” over the next several decades.

SMR Nuclear Technology’s assertion that “nuclear costs are coming down due to simpler and standardised design; factory-based manufacturing; modularisation; shorter construction time and enhanced financing techniques” is at odds with all available evidence and it is at odds with Dr. Ziggy Switkowski’s observation in a public hearing of the federal inquiry that nuclear “costs per kilowatt hour appear to grow with each new generation of technology”.

SMR Nuclear Technology claims that failing to repeal federal legislative bans against nuclear power would come at “great cost to the economy”. However the introduction of nuclear power to Australia would most likely have resulted in the extraordinary cost overruns and delays that have crippled every reactor construction project in the US and western Europe over the past decade – blowouts amounting to A$10 billion or more per reactor.

Nor would the outcome have been positive if Australia had instead pursued non-existent SMR ‘vaporware‘.

Dr Jim Green is lead author of a Nuclear Monitor report on SMRs and national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia.

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, politics, reference, secrets and lies, spinbuster, technology | Leave a comment

Nationals MP lashes renewable energy as ‘hoax’ and ‘fraud’ but says nuclear will help solve energy crisis,

Nationals MP lashes renewable energy as ‘hoax’ and ‘fraud’ but says nuclear will help solve energy crisis, 7 News,Matt Coughlan AAP 18 September 2019 Nationals senator Sam McMahon has lashed renewable energy as a “fraud” and a “hoax” as she made the case for oil, gas and nuclear energy.

She became the second government senator in as many days to use their first speech to parliament to talk up nuclear power after South Australian Liberal Alex Antic did the same on Tuesday.

The NT senator said Australia was looking down the barrel of an energy crisis which “quiet Australians” wanted government to solve.

“Research must continue in the development of renewable technologies, but for commercial use they currently remain immature and in many cases fundamentally flawed,” McMahon told parliament on Wednesday.

“A hoax of immature technology replacing safe, clean, reliable and inexpensive power stations has unfolded. “……..

She also said 30 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves were located in the NT.

“The time is right for us to visit and re-examine options for us to utilise this [nuclear] technology.”…….https://7news.com.au/politics/federal-politics/nationals-mp-lashes-renewable-energy-as-hoax-and-fraud-but-says-nuclear-will-help-solve-energy-crisis-c-460357

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

The well-named Liberal Senator Antic goes all out for nuclear power and waste importation

New Lib senator joins nuclear power push, Matt Coughlan   7 News, AAP, 17 September 2019

New Liberal senator Alex Antic has joined the push for nuclear power through capitalising on South Australia’s uranium industry.

Senator Antic’s first speech to parliament on Tuesday signalled he would add another nuclear advocate to the Liberal Party’s parliamentary ranks.

“The reckless rush into the unproven, un-costed world of renewable energy represents both the deceased canary down the coalmine, as well as a masterclass of failed policy from a failed former Labor government,” he said.

The Morrison government has announced an inquiry into nuclear power after the issue was raised by a rump of coalition backbenchers.

Senator Antic said “everything old could be new again” in his state, noting its history of uranium mining dating back to the early 1900s…….

The former Adelaide councillor said small modular reactors would increase efficiency and safety, while reducing the cost of nuclear power generation. …..

South Australia has the capacity to develop a safe nuclear waste facility which could bring billions into the state, he said.

Senator Antic also took aim at the “tyranny” of political correctness…….https://7news.com.au/politics/new-lib-senator-joins-nuclear-power-push-c-458275

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Found – historic film of Aboriginal resistance to uranium mining

Kakadu uranium protest documentary Dirt Cheap unearthed by Northern Territory Library, ABC News By Matt Garrick 18 Sept 19  The rediscovery of an old VHS tape, left forgotten on the shelves of the Northern Territory Library, has unearthed a tense and important piece of Australian history.

Key points:

  • The 1980 documentary Dirt Cheap showcased the Mirarr people’s fight against uranium mining
  • The Northern Territory Library recently hunted down the only digital copy of the documentary so it could be shown at a film festival
  • Filmmaker Ned Lander says the movie created a stir at the time of its release

The rare copy of the nearly 40-year-old documentary Dirt Cheap, which details the early pushback against uranium mining in Kakadu National Park, was practically unwatchable due to its age……..

The film documented the concerns of the Mirarr people during what was a tense period of negotiation in the lead-up to the 1979 Ranger Uranium Mining Agreement.

It also showcased the pressures and broken promises the traditional owners faced. “It was very, very apparent to us that people were not ready to sign the agreement in relation to mining, and this was being done under pressure.

Mirarr resistance inspires protests around nation

Against the push of government and business interests, the Mirarr stood resolute in their bid to protect their land.

“As a child growing up I saw the struggle of my family, including my grandfather — they [had] been struggling,” traditional owner Jimmy Nabanardi-Mudjandi said.

I’m really proud of them, but it’s sad because they’re not here to see what the new future of Jabiru’s gonna be.”

The resistance from the Mirarr had a flow-on effect around the nation.

Banner-waving protesters took to the streets in Melbourne and Sydney in great numbers, scenes which Dirt Cheap captures in vivid detail.

“Mirarr people got major support from around Australia, from around the whole nation,” Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi said.

Next stage of uranium mining looms

In the decades since the film’s release, uranium has been mined at Kakadu, but the Ranger mine is now expected to wind up in 2021.

Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi said it was vital the land was protected during its rehabilitation.

“We are watching them, what they’re doing,” he said.

Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi will be a special guest when Dirt Cheap screens as part of the Darwin International Film Festival at the Northern Territory Library at 5:30pm on Wednesday.  Contact Matt Garrick https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-18/northern-territory-film-uranium-protests-unearthed-for-festival/11519914

September 19, 2019 Posted by | Audiovisual, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, media, opposition to nuclear, uranium | Leave a comment

Revealed: Josh Frydenberg was behind the strange Environment Department decision to block wind turbines on Lord Howe Island.

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Zero-carbon Energy for Asia-Pacific project – a bold plan to make Australia a Pacific energy hub

Green energy plan to make Australia powerplant of Pacific  https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6393402/green-energy-plan-to-make-australia-powerplant-of-pacific/?cs=14230   Scott Hannaford  SEPTEMBER 19 2019 

A radical shift towards renewable energy has the potential to reshape the Australian economy and create exports worth hundreds of billions of dollars, according to the head of a major research project to be announced on Thursday.

 The project, led by director of the Energy Change Institute at the Australian National University professor Ken Baldwin, will seek to identify ways to turn the massive renewable energy potential of northern Australia into a booming export market while dramatically reducing global carbon emissions.

The $10m Zero-carbon Energy for Asia-Pacific project will investigate bold proposals including building massive solar and wind projects in the country’s sparsely populated north and selling that power via undersea cables, or shipping it as hydrogen created through green energy. In time these projects could replace current coal and gas shipments and help solve many of the energy needs of developing countries throughout the region. Singapore has already proposed a $20b project to build one of the largest solar power plants on the planet in the Australian desert and send the energy via an undersea cable from the Northern Territory. Continue reading →

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, energy | Leave a comment

Climate change already damaging Australia’s ecosystems

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

What the pro nuclear people are saying, in Submissions to the Australian Parliament

I have now analysed the available, published, submissions to the FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. Just looking at the 30 pro-nuclear submissions , for a start, I’m here listing the topics, in order of the arguments most often presented:

  • The subject most often discussed was new nuclear reactors – Generation IV, Small Modular Reactors, and especially Thorium reactors .
  • Then nuclear wastes. These were seen as not really a problem, either already solved, or soon to be solved. Indeed, a number of writers saw radioactive wastes as an advantage for Australia. They suggested a waste repository, set up in South Australia could import nuclear wastes, and that business could then fund the development of nuclear power stations for Australia.
  • Economics. Nuclear power was seen as cost-effective, (with only one exception – one writer was dubious on this)
  • Renewable energy was downgraded, (though one writer argued for a renewables+nuclear project)
  • Safety issues were downgraded, including the severity of Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents New nuclear described as safer now – one saw Fukushima as a learning exercise.
  • Education. Several stressed the necessity of public education, including in schools,  on the benefits of nuclear power.
  • Necessity to end Australia’s ban on nuclear activities.
  • Climate change – nuclear needed to combat this.
  • Opposition to nuclear power was described as irrational.
  • Radiation – low dose ionising radiation discussed as harmless, (one suggested beneficial)
  • Carbon price advised by 2 writers.
  • There  were several other suggestions made, notably that the Government should lead and fund nuclear development, and should be advised by highly paid top technical staff.  The full nuclear fuel cycles is needed “cradle – to grave”. Reprocessing was advocated. Korea should supply the reactors. Nuclear power would give Australia international status. Would help prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

More than 40 groups representing millions of Australians say NO to nuclear power

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Australia must not become a missile base, a nuclear target – Young Labor

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

National Party disdains report from Farmers for Climate Action

Nationals MPs snub launch of farming group’s climate change report  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/16/nationals-mps-snub-launch-of-farming-groups-climate-change-report  

Australia’s agricultural production will fall and food insecurity will rise without a climate strategy, report warns, Sarah Martin Chief political correspondent 16 Sept 19,   Nationals MPs have snubbed a farmers’ group launching a major climate change report that warns the Australian agricultural sector faces “significant threats to viability” without a new national climate strategy.

The report, launched by the Farmers for Climate Action group at Parliament House on Monday, warns that agricultural production will fall, farm profits will decline and food insecurity will increase if the government does not come up with a cohesive national strategy on climate change and agriculture.

Lucinda Corrigan, the chair of Farmers for Climate Action, said she had wanted Nationals MPs to attend the event, saying she believed cross-party support was needed given the challenge facing producers.

“It would have been great if they had been there because they need to take this seriously,” Corrigan said.

“Because being green is actually our agenda, it’s actually a conservative agenda, being a conservationist is a conservative agenda, it is not a green agenda, it has been taken from us and we actually want it back.”

She also said Nationals MPs should consider the concerns within the agricultural sector about climate change separately to the issues affecting the energy sector. Continue reading →

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

Australian Capital Territory leads the nation in the climate emergency

Canberra acts ‘first’ in the climate emergency, Canberra Times, Penny D Sackett , 16 Sept 19,   On Monday, the ACT government released its Climate Change Strategy 2019-2025, just a few months after declaring a climate emergency in May, the first Australian state or territory to do so. The document contains several more Australian “firsts,” reflecting the government’s desire to lead climate action. Is this new strategy needed, and what does it mean for Canberrans?

Previous ACT climate strategy documents are out-of-date for three reasons: science, economics, and new legislated emissions targets.

Science indicates that increased global warming carries considerably more risk than was known just 10 years ago. It is therefore more urgent than ever before to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and create a more resilient city in the face of the climate changes that are coming and already upon us.

Second, the rapid advance in new technologies such as battery storage and electric vehicles means that a wider variety of solutions is now economically viable, presenting new opportunities for local investment and job growth. Furthermore, because the monetary and human costs of inaction are so enormous, substantial near-term climate action is responsible both economically and socially.

Finally, the ACT government has recently brought forward its commitment to zero net emissions from 2050 to 2045, and put in place science-based interim emission targets for 2025, 2030, and 2040 to guide the way. These legislated targets, based on advice from the ACT Climate Change Council and in line with global carbon budget responsibilities to hold warming below 2 degrees celsius, are not only an Australian first for states and territories, but world-leading. A new plan is needed to realise the 2025 target of reducing ACT emissions by at least 50 per cent compared to 1990 levels, whilst collecting data that will be vital in meeting the next target in 2030.

So what does the plan hold in store for Canberra and Canberrans?

The starting point of the new strategy is the assumption that the ACT will effectively be powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity in 2020 – an expectation that will likely be met due to the territory’s previous investment in large scale solar and wind generation. Achieving that goal will result in a 40 per cent reduction of emissions from 1990 levels. The additional reduction required to meet the 2025 target will need to come primarily from the transport and gas sectors. After 2020, ACT transport emissions (which overwhelmingly come from private vehicles) will account for 60 per cent of Canberra’s emissions, with gas for heating and cooking making up another 20 per cent or so.

Substantial reduction in emissions from transport and gas use can only be achieved through a change in the choices made by Canberrans, at our work and businesses, and in our homes. Those low-emissions choices must be enabled and supported by government policies and regulations.

The new ACT climate strategy contains several realistic, forward-looking actions that begin to provide the magnitude of support and vision required in these sectors, and many are “firsts” among Australian states and territories. Among these are: ensuring that all new schools and government buildings are all-electric and appropriate for the changing climate; a commitment to maintain 100 per cent renewable electricity supply into the future; and a fossil-fuel-free bus fleet by 2040. …….https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6389173/canberra-acts-first-in-the-climate-emergency/?cs=14246

September 17, 2019 Posted by | ACT, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Medical isotopes without a nuclear reactor: it’s time Australia modernised nuclear medicine.

Dr Margaret Beavis, The Age, 16 Sept 19. So the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has failed yet again in supplying nuclear medicine (Cancer drug drought after nuclear fail, (The Age14/9).

Centralised nuclear medicine production means that one failure can bring down the national supply, as has happened on multiple occasions.

Those failures will continue unless we join with Canada,the U.S. the UK and others in investing in non reactor production.

The Canadian TRIUMF consortium last year demonstrated commercial manufacture of technetium in cyclotrons (which are about the size of a four-wheel-drive car and already make many other types of nuclear medicine).  medical approval trials and funding agreements are underway.

A city like Melbourne would need two or three. If one breaks down, another will fill the gap. Another plus – cyclotrons massively reduce the nuclear waste radioactive for more than 10,000 years.

Secure supply and cleaner production – it’s high time that ANSTO looked beyond its own reactor.

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, health | Leave a comment

Is Australia to be guinea pig for NuScale’s non existent, untested, super-expensive not-so-small nuclear reactors?

Is building small nuclear reactors as ‘loopy’ as it sounds?  news.com.au Charis Chang@CharisChang2  14 Sept 19 Experts have warned of “catastrophic failure” if Australia adopts nuclear power, so why is the Government considering it?

A huge metal structure seven stories high and less than 100 metres wide could contain the key to Australia’s future energy supply.

NuScale’s small nuclear reactors are being spruiked as an exciting new option to supply Australia with reliable and secure electricity as the country shifts away from coal-fired power.

But the jury is still out on this untested technology, which has been called “loopy” and a “fantasy”.

The possibility of Australia lifting its ban on nuclear power is again being debated with politicians like Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce suggesting people living close to reactors could be given free power to help build support for the controversial idea.

Amid growing calls from Coalition backbenchers for the option to be seriously examined, Energy Minister Angus Taylor has called a parliamentary inquiry into whether nuclear is a feasible solution for Australia’s future energy needs. Not everyone is supportive.

In a tweet, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull suggested nuclear was a “loopy” option.

“The bottom line is renewables + storage are cheaper than new coal let alone the loopy current fad of nuclear power which is the current weapon of mass distraction for the backbench,” he wrote.

Labor has also slammed nuclear as too expensive and wants the Coalition to put the “fantasy” to bed, saying it’s three times as costly as other options and would not be operational for decades.

“It is a distraction that will do nothing to solve the energy crisis that is confronting Australian households and businesses now,” Opposition energy spokesman Mark Butler told reporters recently…….

NuScale has developed a small modular reactor (SMR) that can be made up of 12 separate nuclear modules, manufactured in factories and then shipped to site. Each module could generate 60MW of electricity each. …..

NuScale told news.com.au the modules consisted of reactors inside a metal containment vessel that stood about seven storeys high and 4.5 metres wide.

A plant with 12 modules would likely need to be located on a site of about 14 hectares, which is equivalent in size to about 14 rugby fields……..

IT COULD TAKE YEARS

One of the biggest downsides to nuclear is that it takes ages to build and when it comes to small modular reactors, they have yet to be proven.

NuScale is working towards building its first plant at the Idaho National Lab and is set to begin construction in 2021. It will take five years before the first module is expected to come online in 2026, with the full 12-module plant to be operational by 2027.

There is no guarantee this can be achieved within the expected timeline, and even if it was, the reactors may not be available commercially until 2030. Export sales to countries like Australia could take even longer.

Dr Switkowski, who led a Howard government review into nuclear power, said overseas experience showed timeframes were more likely to be longer than expected, and there were also considerable commercial and political risks because the project would be built over five or more political cycles.

“Can you draft a long-term commitment to nuclear energy on to a currently unconfirmed national energy policy? The answer to that is no, in my opinion,” he said…….

Analysis from the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) released in 2018 found the capital costs for a small modular reactor would be $16,000 per kilowatt hour, one-and-a-half times more than previous estimates for large-scale nuclear.

It’s almost twice as expensive as solar thermal and storage, which is $7000 per kilowatt hour and is also expected to halve by 2050. Nuclear is not expected to get any cheaper. 

AEMO chief system design and engineering officer Dr Alex Wonhas told the inquiry that building wind or solar firmed by pumped hydro was roughly about the same price as building a new gas or coal-fired power plant.

“Our expectation is that renewables will further decrease in their cost, and therefore firmed renewables will well and truly become the lowest cost of generation for the National Energy Market,” he said.

It’s likely taxpayers will also have to foot the bill for at least some part of the cost of a nuclear option.

Dr Switkowski said he couldn’t think of any countries that had funded investments in nuclear without government assistance, including through military programs.

“There was no known example that I could see where a country introduced nuclear power on the back of investments from people who were familiar with the infrastructure and were seeking to make an economic return,” he said.

The power produced by a small modular reactor will also be more expensive than one produced by a large reactor or by wind and solar backed up by storage.

Dr Switkowski acknowledged the rise of renewables made the case against nuclear power stronger.

Australia will also have to consider the security issues around who they buy the reactors from, as the leading manufacturers are now China, South Korea, Russia and probably France.

“Would Australia order a nuclear reactor from China?” Dr Switkowski asked.

However, Dr Switkowski supported the lifting of the moratorium on nuclear power to encourage businesses and experts to consider the potential of the technology.

“No one’s put money on the table to fund it because they’re not allowed to fund nuclear power in Australia,” he said.

WE NEED FLEXIBILITY

While discussion about nuclear often focuses on the need for reliable, dispatchable “baseload” power, Dr Wonhas said Australia didn’t need many more plants with a “very stable output profile”.

The AEMO chief system design officer said there were now periods during the day when electricity effectively costs “zero dollars” and the focus was now on new plants that could start up quickly to provide extra energy during peak periods instead.

“I think what we are really looking for is a plant that can increase and decrease capacity relatively quickly and respond to the needs of the market,” he said.

This includes gas, which is a “very effective firming option” because it can respond quite quickly.

“Frankly, there’s a whole range of other technologies out there that can provide similar services. There is, for example, solar thermal with molten salt storage. That’s another technology that is quite dispatchable,” Dr Wonhas said.

While molten salt storage is at a less mature stage than some of the other technologies, Dr Wonhas believes there are many different technology options.

“For nuclear investment to be the optimal choice for Australia it will have to demonstrate, among many other things, that it is more cost-effective compared to alternative technologies and that it is sufficiently flexible so it can be integrated in what we expect to be a highly dynamic future energy market,” he said.

NOT IN MY BACKYARD

One of the major barriers to getting nuclear off the ground is that no one in Australia wants to live next to it or next to a nuclear waste dump.

Labor has tapped into this, highlighting nearly 140 places around Australia that have been mooted as potential locations for nuclear reactors and radioactive waste dumps over the past half century.

The vast majority are around the country’s coastlines, and almost all are near residential communities.

Some sites, like Townsville, Toowoomba and Wagga Wagga, have been proposed multiple times, a map collated by the Parliamentary Library shows.

“Instead of indulging the policy fantasies of his restive backbench, (Prime Minister Scott) Morrison should reject the nuclear option or be upfront with Australians about exactly where he wants to build nuclear reactors,” Labor energy spokesman Mark Butler last week.

Storing nuclear waste is even more of an issue, with Australia struggling to gain support for even a small, low-level waste facility in Central Australia.

RISK OF ‘CATASTROPHIC FAILURE’

If there’s one overarching concern then it has to be the risk of something going wrong.

“After Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, the possibility of catastrophic failing within a nuclear system is non-negligible,” Dr Switkowski said.

No matter how safe a system is designed to be from a technical point of view, there will always be a risk of human error……https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/is-building-small-nuclear-reactors-as-loopy-as-it-sounds/news-story/9e35d409fdc142907190c1a5b89337d3?fbclid=IwAR2m_pty2W9BBf8oBMF3P3zaEO3V93VmQCenhwFJvEXPkbYjzCcRZMKV6e0#.0f155|5hb17

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Push for nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real action on climate change

Environmental groups warn against push for nuclear power in Australia  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/16/environmental-groups-warn-against-push-for-nuclear-power-in-australia  

Joint submission calls nuclear ‘a dangerous distraction’ from real action on climate as Zali Steggall backs 2050 zero-emissions target , Paul Karp @Paul_Karp  16 Sep 2019 Environmental and civil society groups have warned the government nuclear power has “no role” in Australia as crossbench independents urge it to recognise climate change as a health issue.

On Monday submissions to the inquiry on nuclear power will close. A diverse group of stakeholders has called on the government to rule-out changing the law to allow nuclear energy in Australia.

Signatories to the statement include union peak bodies, the Public Health Association of Australia, Uniting and Catholic church organisations, the Smart Energy Council, the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, climate action groups, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The anti-nuclear group warned it is “a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need”.

“If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not,” they said in a statement.

“Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.”

Ziggy Switkowski, who headed a 2006 review of nuclear power for the Howard government, has told the inquiry that the technology had no chance of being introduced unless Australia had a coherent energy policy but nevertheless agreed the prohibition should be lifted.

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »