Search

Australia's nuclear future or fantasy?

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

20 Jun, 2024

This post was originally published on Sustainability Matters

The Federal Coalition has today (19 June 2024) released details on its vision for nuclear energy in Australia.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said a future Coalition government will introduce zero-emissions nuclear energy in Australia to work in partnership with renewable energy and gas as part of a balanced energy mix.

The Coalition’s plan named seven locations for proposed nuclear power plants:

  1. Liddell Power Station, New South Wales
  2. Mount Piper Power Station, New South Wales
  3. Loy Yang Power Stations, Victoria
  4. Tarong Power Station, Queensland
  5. Callide Power Station, Queensland
  6. Northern Power Station, South Australia (small modular reactor only)
  7. Muja Power Station, Western Australia (small modular reactor only)

Dutton said each of these locations have technical attributes that make them suitable for a nuclear plant, including cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure, existing poles and wires, and a local skilled workforce.

“A key advantage of modern zero-emissions nuclear plants is they can be plugged into existing grids. This means they can effectively replace retired or retiring coal plants and avoid much of the new spending needed for Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ system, including new transmission poles and wires,” Dutton said in his statement.

According to the plan, if elected, the Coalition government would initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400. “They will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option),” Dutton said.

Dutton said he is expecting scare campaigns opposing nuclear, but “we believe Australians are up for this discussion and are open-minded about including zero-emissions nuclear technology as part of a balanced energy mix”.

Future or fantasy?

The GenCost economic report released by CSIRO in May included nuclear costs for the first time. While the report found no technical barriers to large-scale nuclear power generation in Australia’s electricity system, it determined that nuclear power was more expensive than renewables and would take at least 15 years to develop, including construction.

So what do mining, climate and engineering academia representatives think of the Coalition’s nuclear plan?

Mining views

The Mining and Energy Union said the proposed plan would be no help for coal power workers and it was “disappointed the Coalition has announced this policy with no consultation with these coal power regions about whether they want a nuclear future”.

“Power stations in the proposed sites for nuclear would be long closed before the plants would become operational, and if no support is provided, those workers and communities will have already packed up their lives and moved on,” the union said.

Climate views

Solutions for Climate Australia Director Dr Barry Traill views this announcement as a dangerous distraction from the urgent need to take action to reduce climate pollution this decade.

“Nuclear reactors are the most expensive energy source for Australia, produce toxic waste and would take literally decades to build, during which coal and gas giants would continue to produce billions of tonnes of additional climate emissions,” Traill said.

“Our recent report showed that conservatively at least 2.3 billion tonnes of additional climate pollution would be released if this nuclear reactor fantasy was pursued.”

Engineering views

Dr Asma Aziz, senior lecturer in power engineering from the School of Engineering at Edith Cowan University, said Australia needs diverse generation and storage but also requires proper assessments before making any decisions.

“Nuclear energy’s carbon footprint is comparable to wind and less than solar, but it faces high capital costs, long build times, substantial operating expenses and integration difficulties, making it impractical for addressing the climate crisis,” Aziz said. “Integrating nuclear power plants (NPPs) into the grid involves complex regulatory and engineering challenges due to their constant ‘baseload’ supply, which requires other plants to be ‘load following’.

“Other major drawbacks include safety concerns, high costs and long-term radioactive waste storage. Japan, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Switzerland are phasing out nuclear power due to these issues. In the USA, aging reactors are being retired early due to high costs. France’s reactor in Flamanville is significantly delayed and over budget. Small modular reactors (SMRs) are not yet viable, with recent cost estimates at $20,100 per kW compared to $700–$1700 for solar and wind.”

Image credit: iStock.com/vencavolrab

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Energy Efficiency as an Imperative Climate Strategy

Energy Efficiency as an Imperative Climate Strategy

With mandatory climate statement disclosure rolling out in Australia, businesses need to start reporting on their emissions and sustainability plans for the future. As companies begin assessing the relevant risks and opportunities related to various climate scenarios, energy efficiency presents itself as an immediate climate-strategy with long-term benefits.

Commencing 1 January 2025, businesses that meet two of the three conditions — more than 500 employees, gross assets above $1 billion or $500 million or more in consolidated gross revenue — are required to lodge a climate statement, which discloses their climate-related plans, financial risks and obligations. As part of the gradual roll-out, by 1 July 2027, businesses that meet two of these conditions — more than 100 employees, gross assets above $25 million or exceeding $50 million in consolidated gross revenue — will also be required to report.

This climate statement will need to include the company’s sustainability governance, climate risks and opportunities, including those physical and transition related. They will also need to disclose their Scope 1 and 2 emissions, strategy to decarbonise, and conduct scenario analysis on the short, medium and long term impacts on the business. By the second year of reporting, businesses will also be expected to report on Scope 3 emissions.

Scenario analysis will be based on various assumptions of the state of the climate, one of which includes a possible future where global temperature has increased 2.5°C or more. They will be required to share their climate strategy and steps they are taking long-term in preparation for this scenario.

Common themes within climate strategies will include switching to renewable energy sources, electrifying fleet vehicles, purchasing carbon credits, and carbon capture and storage. Many of these methods look at reducing emissions through the energy source, or targeting the carbon aspect directly; however, climate strategies can also include reducing the amount of energy used. By investing in more energy efficient equipment, sites can maintain production whilst using less energy and producing less emissions.

When increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption first, businesses will see short-term impacts; however, in the long term, they are also improving their foundation for an energy transition. Assuming no other changes, higher energy efficiency can lead to decreased energy demand, allowing for reduced system requirements when specifying and planning for self-generation or energy costs.

To understand what opportunities are available for upgrading to more energy efficient equipment, businesses can start with an energy audit to understand how energy is being consumed across site. Energy audits, like the ABB Energy Appraisal, can provide a roadmap for where and how equipment can be upgraded for the best energy saving potential. An energy audit identifies areas that can be immediately improved with existing equipment on the market, so there is no need to wait for the commercialization or development of more sustainable technology. Going beyond just changing all lights to LEDs, efficiency recommendations may include areas where variable speed drives can be added to control motor speed or upgrading from an IE3 motor to an IE5 ultra-premium efficiency or IE6 hyper-premium efficiency motor to reduce energy losses by 40% or more. This area can often be overlooked on sites as the Minimum Energy Performance Standard (MEPS) in Australia for motors is just IE2.

Mostly used in pumps, compressors, conveyors and fans, motors may seem like a minor part of a site; however, with 45% of the world’s electricity converted into motion by industrial electric motors, there are many opportunities for energy savings. In fact, a recent survey commissioned by ABB IEC Low voltage motors, showed that 92% of surveyed businesses in Australia recognize the important role of electric motors in achieving sustainability targets. In this same survey, participants ranked a reduction in operating cost as a more important driver for investing in energy efficiency than lowering their organization’s emissions. This is because upgrading to newer, more efficient equipment provides benefits beyond just emission reduction. For example, ABB’s Synchronous Reluctance (SynRM) Motors, available in IE5 ultra-premium efficiency or IE6 hyper-premium efficiency, use no rare earth metals or magnets. Running quieter and with bearing temperatures reduced by up to 15°C and winding temperatures by up to 30°, SynRM motors have longer maintenance periods, superior reliability, and contribute to a better operational environment.

Looking ahead, upgrading to an IE5 SynRM motor also provides more visibility into Scope 3 emissions, as SynRM motors meet ABB’s circularity criteria and transparency on environmental impact is provided through Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).

By requiring companies to disclose their climate information, these new legal requirements are opening the door and facilitating more internal discussions on environmental impact and emission reduction. Whilst mandatory climate reporting is only required of large business entities this year, the progressive roll-out and Scope 3 emission reporting requirements mean that businesses of all sizes in Australia will be impacted by these new requirements. As businesses become more conscious of how sustainability should be integrated into their operations and finances, there is no better time to start investing in energy efficient solutions.

For more information, click here.

Image credit: iStock.com/denizunlusu

0 Comments