Senate inquiry nixes nukes. Here’s why

The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee released a report into nuclear power last Friday.

The majority report, endorsed by Labor and Greens Senators, argued against nuclear power and against the repeal of Howard-era legislation banning nuclear power in Australia.

A dissenting report by Coalition Senators argued for repeal of the legislation banning nuclear power.

The majority report concludes that repeal of the legal ban “would create an unnecessary escalation of risk, particularly given Australia is able to utilise readily available firmed renewable technology to secure a reliable, affordable and clean energy system for Australia’s future.”

The majority report gives the following reasons for its conclusions:

1. Nuclear power is the most expensive energy option for Australia whereas firmed renewable energy is the cheapest option. Introducing nuclear power into Australia’s electricity network would “drive up power prices, causing additional economic pain for everyday Australians who are already struggling with the cost of living pressures.”
2. Next generation nuclear technology is unproven and there are no commercially operational small modular reactors (SMRs) anywhere in the world.
3. Given the “very considerable” lead time that would be involved in establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia, its contribution to the electricity market would likely be negligible given Australia’s projected 83 per cent uptake of firmed renewables by 2030. “The committee recognises that addressing climate change requires immediate action and pursuing nuclear energy would only be a distraction from Australia’s 2030 target and broader efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050.”
4. Nuclear power is inflexible. The energy output of nuclear power plants lacks the flexibility required to meet the needs of a modern electricity market. Firmed renewables are much better suited to the load profiles of modern electricity grids which require greater flexibility.
5. Nuclear carries inherent and consequential safety risks. In addition to other risks, establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia “would unnecessarily add to the local and global problem of managing high-level nuclear waste”.
6. Water scarcity — an issue “close to the hearts of many Australians”. Reactors require “significant volumes” of water for cooling (36-65 million litres per day) and the “necessity of locating nuclear power plants near sea water would likely mean the construction of nuclear reactors near densely populated areas and would create additional environmental and security risks.”
7. Nuclear power would create “potential and unnecessary national security risks” due to “perceived links between civil nuclear industries and nuclear weapons proliferation” as well as the risk of nuclear reactors being the target of hostilities (such as the risks arising from Russia’s attacks on, and seizure of, nuclear power plants in Ukraine).
8. “There is no social license to support the establishment of a civil nuclear industry in Australia. A significant majority of Australians are not comfortable with the prospect of having nuclear power plants, or the radioactive waste they produce, in their backyards. Overwhelmingly, Australians recognise the importance of transitioning to a secure and sustainable energy future, and firmed renewables are the key to achieving that future.”

Coalition Senators’ dissenting report

The Coalition’s dissenting report was endorsed by Senators Matthew Canavan and Gerard Rennick (Qld), Alex Antic and David Fawcett (SA), Hollie Hughes and Ross Cadell (NSW), Richard Colbeck (Tas), and Matt O’Sullivan (WA).

The Coalition has yet to state clearly that it will repeal laws banning nuclear power if elected, but it’s only a matter of time. The nuclear push has the full support of opposition leader Peter Dutton.

The Coalition Senators argue in their dissenting report that nuclear power is expanding worldwide – it is popular; it is important and perhaps essential to underpin the AUKUS nuclear submarines project; SMRs are the bees knees; promoting low-carbon nuclear proves that the Coalition is serious about greenhouse emissions reductions; and renewables are unreliable and more expensive than nuclear.

Is nuclear power growing? No – it has been stagnant for the past 30 years and if there’s any non-trivial change over the next 20 years, it will be downwards.

Just 16 per cent of the world’s countries operate nuclear power reactors (31/195), so clearly the Coalition Senators are wrong in describing Australia as a nuclear “outcast.”

Nine per cent of the world’s countries are building reactors (17/195), 91 per cent are not. Only six countries are building more than two reactors.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects record global renewable capacity additions in 2023 amounting to 440 gigawatts. Nuclear power has gone backwards so far in 2023, with a net loss of one reactor or 2.4 gigawatts.

The IEA projects that in 2027, renewable electricity generation will have increased to 38 per cent of total global generation. Nuclear power has fallen below 10 per cent and will likely never reach double figures again.

Economics

The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report makes a number of absurd economic claims.

It cites Tony Irwin from the SMR Nuclear Technology company, who claims that the costs of nuclear and solar are “basically the same.” He bases his calculation on the assumption that a “small-body reactor” would generate 13 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year.

But reactors generate about 7.2TWh per 1,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity, so a 300MW reactor (the upper end of the range for SMRs) would generate about 2.2TWh – nearly six times less than Irwin claims.

Based on that nonsense, Irwin goes on to make the equally absurd claim that until legislation banning nuclear power is removed, “Australia’s power system will continue to be constrained at great cost to the economy.”

SMR Nuclear Technology also fed economic nonsense to a federal parliamentary inquiry in 2019/20. As RenewEconomy editor Giles Parkinson noted, the company’s claim that 100 per cent renewables would cost four times more than replacing coal with nuclear was based on “Mickey-Mouse modelling” by a husband and wife team who used absurd figures for solar and wind and admitted to deliberately ignoring anticipated cost reductions.

Of course there’s no need for Tony Irwin, SMR Nuclear Technology director (and coal baron) Trevor St Baker, or any other nuclear enthusiast to get their facts straight. As long as their claims fit the narrative, they will be parroted by the Coalition and by the Murdoch/Sky echo-chamber.

The dissenting report cites John Harries from the Australian Nuclear Association complaining that CSIRO GenCost reports aren’t “looking at the actual builds happening around the world at the moment.”

Be careful what you wish for, John. Does the nuclear lobby really want to draw attention to the six- to twelve-fold cost blowouts in reactors under construction in the US, the UK and France, with the latest cost estimates ranging from $A25-30 billion per reactor?

The dissenting report concludes that: “If nuclear is more expensive than alternatives, as the CSIRO and others claim, then legalising nuclear energy will not change anything because investors will choose to build the cheaper options.”

However there isn’t a single reactor project in the world that isn’t propped up by state support and taxpayer subsidies.

In the UK, the government insisted that reactors would not be subsidised, but the UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for two reactors under construction at Hinkley Point – the only reactor construction project in the UK – could amount to £30 billion (A$58.6 billion) while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £48.3 billion (A$94.4 billion).

A dog whistle to climate denialists

The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report claims that nuclear must be in the mix “if we are serious about the reduction of emissions to meet targets”.

But the Coalition isn’t serious about reducing greenhouse emissions. They oppose the Labor government’s “reckless pursuit” of 82 per cent renewable power by 2030. They oppose the modest emissions reduction target of 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

They waved around a lump of coal in Parliament. They collaborate with the Minerals Council of Australia, who supplied the lump of coal and who made a global top 10 list of climate policy opponents in 2019.

Promoting nuclear power doesn’t provide the Coalition with any cover or credibility. The Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, speaks for those of us with a genuine interest in reducing greenhouse emissions. The Council issued a policy statement in 2019 concluding that nuclear power plants “are not appropriate for Australia – and probably never will be”.

Economist Prof. John Quiggin notes that, in practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal. Prof. Quiggin has also described nuclear advocacy in Australia as a dog whistle to climate denialists:

“Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s call for nuclear power, made as part of his Budget reply speech, should not be taken too seriously. … Dutton’s renewed call can best be understood as a dog whistle to the climate denialists who dominate the party’s base, allowing him to oppose practical measures for decarbonisation without explicitly embracing denialism.”

Public opinion

General polls produce mixed results but nuclear power always flunks when the question is posed as a local issue:

* 2019 Essential poll: 28 per cent of respondents “would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant”, 60 per cent would not.

* 2019 Roy Morgan poll: 19 per cent would agree to a nuclear power plant being built in their area, 58% would be opposed and a further 23% would be “anxious” (so 81 per cent would be opposed or anxious).

* 2011 Roy Morgan poll: 12 per cent of Australians would support a nuclear plant being built in their local area, 73 per cent would oppose it.

* 2006 Newspoll: 10 per cent Australians would strongly support a nuclear plant being built in their local area, 55 per cent would strongly oppose it.

And nuclear always flunks the popularity test when compared to renewables:

* A 2019 survey of 1,960 Australians aged 18 years and older found that only 22 per cent included nuclear power in their top three preferences, behind solar 76 per cent, wind 58 per cent, hydro 39 per cent and power storage 29 per cent. Further, 59 per cent of respondents put nuclear power in their bottom three preferences.

* A 2015 IPSOS poll found that support among Australians for solar power (78-87 per cent) and wind power (72 per cent) is far higher than support for coal (23 per cent) and nuclear (26 per cent).

* 2015: When given the option of eight energy sources, 84 per cent included solar in their top three, 69 per cent included wind, 21 per cent included gas and only 13 per cent included nuclear.

* 2013: Expanding the use of renewable energy sources (71 per cent) was the most popular option to tackle climate change, followed by energy-efficient technologies (58 per cent) and behavioural change (54 per cent), with nuclear power (17.4 per cent) a distant fourth.

Nuclear power is wildly popular on Sky News and in the Murdoch tabloids. The mistake the Coalition is making is to conflate the Sky/Murdoch echo-chamber with the zeitgeist.

Nuclear-powered submarines

When announcing the AUKUS agreement in September 2021, then Prime Minister (and secret energy minister) Scott Morrison said: “Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish … a civil nuclear capability.” He also said that “a civil nuclear energy industry is not a requirement for us to go through the submarine programme.”

However, the Coalition Senators’ dissenting report claims that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”

They argue that even if nuclear power is more expensive than alternative energy sources, those costs are worth bearing “given how it could contribute to our national defence”.

The Coalition Senators’ arguments are flimsy. The current configuration is for Australia to acquire second-hand US nuclear-powered submarines in a decade or so, with new submarines acquired roughly a decade later. The submarines wouldn’t require refuelling. Nuclear waste storage and disposal won’t be required for at least 20 years.

Even flimsier is the claim that “the development of nuclear submarines completely removes the argument against nuclear energy that we do not have waste processing facilities in Australia.”

Successive governments have failed to find a long-term disposal solution for Australia’s existing low- and intermediate-level waste. Managing high-level nuclear waste from nuclear-powered submarines will be even more challenging.

But producing far greater amounts of high-level nuclear waste from a nuclear power industry won’t pose any challenges? That’s jiggery-pokery of the highest order and the lowest repute.

Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and lead author of a detailed submission to the Senate inquiry.