As debate about nuclear energy clouds the transition to renewables, we return to the University of Wollongong to seek more information from a local energy expert with a lifetime’s industry experience.
Nuclear energy as an alternative to offshore wind has become a hot topic in the Illawarra as the region awaits the federal government’s decision on its proposed renewable energy zone.
November’s Ask an Energy Expert: Why not nuclear, solar or onshore wind? article featuring Ty Christopher, Director of the Energy Futures Network at the University of Wollongong, triggered discussion in print and online.
After 22 governments endorsed a nuclear declaration at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), Helensburgh reader Rod Gruggen wrote to the Flame in December with a common question: “So many countries are already going nuclear. Why not Australia?”
“There are nations that aren't as blessed with renewable resources as Australia,” said Ty. “There are countries across the globe that do not have access to the solar resource we do, that do not have access to the wind resource we do, that are much smaller in geographic footprint, etcetera.”
For Australia there are three reasons nuclear doesn’t currently add up – timing, size and economics – and the evidence is all numbers based. Speaking at an interview at UOW’s Innovation Campus in January to follow up on readers’ questions about ‘going nuclear’, Ty made it clear: “At a personal level and as a career power engineer and scientist, I am in favour of nuclear energy.”
He sees nuclear as one of several tools in the box to take Australia to net zero, but one that may only be used 20 years from now.
“All of the pathway information that we are on for decarbonisation of our electricity supply and our electricity industry – whether it's targets at a federal level or whether it's the various scenarios that are in the Integrated System Plan that's published by AEMO [Australian Energy Market Operator] – all of them, at best, get us to around 80% decarbonised.
“There's still 20% burning of fossil fuel – fundamentally, gas. What are we going to do about that?
“That is where I see the greatest opportunity for nuclear to actually play a significant role in our energy future.
“The fact that it comes at the last 20%, not the next 20% of decarbonisation, means it bakes in the time that is going to be necessary for it to even happen at all.”
Today timing doesn't add up
“When viewed as an alternative to renewables, the timing of nuclear just doesn't work,” Ty said. “It creates a decade-long – minimum – gap between one technology rolling off and a new one physically being able to exist.”
Unlike the US, which already has legislation, safety requirements and trained people in place, Australia would be starting a nuclear industry from scratch. “It's not even legal to have a nuclear reactor other than for research purposes. And there's only one facility, up there at Lucas Heights.”
The maths to nuclear goes like this:
- Assume (“very optimistically”) Australia takes 5 years to gain a social licence to develop nuclear power.
- Add 15 years to develop a national nuclear industry and get set to build a nuclear reactor. (Source: Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power by the International Atomic Energy Agency, “the world authority on all matters nuclear”)
“That's 20 years,” Ty said.
But coal-fired power stations are old, expensive and at the end of their engineering life, information already factored into AEMO’s Integrated System Plan.
“The remnant life of large coal-fired power stations in Australia is around 10 years,” Ty said.
“That means we've got 10 years between coal shutting down and the first nuclear power plant ever being able to be commissioned.”
“Regarding Mr Duggan's letter … I agree wholeheartedly … the sooner we start the social licence discussion, the sooner it reaches whatever conclusion it's going to reach.
“But let's not have the discussion in the delusion that this is a binary decision between renewables and nuclear. Because just on timing, it can never work.”
Problem with SMRs lies in the S
While debate rages about whether Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) exist, the real issue lies in the number of SMRs required to replace one coal-fired power station, Ty said.
“The biggest problem with SMRs is inherent in their name. It's the S – they're small. Small modular reactors have an output in electricity terms around one-third the size of a big nuclear reactor.
“A big nuclear reactor on average is around a gigawatt in output – electricity demand output capacity. A small modular reactor is around 0.3 gigawatts, or 300 megawatts.”
Ty compares this to Australia’s largest coal-fired power station, Eraring, with an output at capacity of 2.88 gigawatts. “That means you'll need either three big nuclear reactors or either nine or 10 small modular reactors to replace Eraring. Ten SMRs!
“And if you are looking at like for like, for small modular reactors, that would mean literally 50 of them across the nation.”
They wouldn’t be in a suburb far away.
“We’d need one everywhere. That’s what SMRs mean if you're seeing them as an alternative to renewables.
“So all of these people who go, oh, we'll just decommission the coal and we'll put a nuclear reactor in the same site, and all the transmission lines are already there and it's all tickety boo … are not looking at the hard numbers.”
Ty – also a spokesperson for the Blue Energy Futures Lab, representing about 30 UOW academics who aim to share their science with the public – said: “The absolute solid case for offshore wind is because it's multi-gigawatt in scale, high capacity factor, near where you need to use the electricity.
“One offshore wind farm, even with a 50% capacity factor at the Illawarra, is an almost exact match for the capacity of Eraring. One out, one in.
“We don't need small power sources in the grid at the moment. We need large ones, we need gigawatt scale.”
Dollars and sense
Coming in at about five times the cost of offshore wind, nuclear SMRs were the most expensive technology explored in the 2023-24 GenCost draft report, released just before Christmas.
The annual collaboration between national science agency CSIRO and AEMO is an economic report that gives cost estimates of building new electricity generation and storage projects, and hydrogen technologies, up to the year 2050, and the final report is due mid-2024.
“It's been going on since 2018 and it's done by CSIRO and Aurecon, who are an internationally experienced and very well recognised consulting firm who are energy experts in this area,” Ty said. “At a personal level, I rate them very highly.”
The report uses the dollars per kilowatt benchmark, which Ty said is the best like-for-like comparison between nuclear and renewables.
“Nuclear is sitting in the $20 to $30,000 per kilowatt range, which means if you compare it to onshore wind, it's eight to 10 times the cost.
“Wind is punching around the $3000 per kilowatt cost, solar's down below $2000, about $1800, and rooftop about on par.
“Offshore wind is around $6000 per kilowatt. So it's about double onshore wind, which is reflective of the technology costs, the bigger scale, the sheer logistics of where it's located.
“But [offshore wind] is still one-fifth of the cost of nuclear as it stands at the moment.
“The problem that you face with nuclear and benchmarking in all of this is a very small data set. The report acknowledges that. The problem with very small data sets is it means, in general, people can find a data point that gives them an argument of convenience.”
And finally, the politics
“One of the big problems we face is the desire for a polarised discussion,” Ty said. “Pro-nuclear, anti-nuclear. The reality is this is a much more nuanced discussion.
“For many on the right-wing side of politics and the energy debate, nuclear is currently being used as a stalking horse. The agenda here is not to get a nuclear industry up and running. It is merely to obfuscate, slow down and stymie the advancement of the renewable industry for energy here in Australia and to further the financial agendas of the fossil fuel industry.
“That's the political agenda that I'm seeing playing out in all of this. And the one question no one can provide a sensible answer to is: if nuclear is so well supported, heartfelt, and such a great idea from the Coalition, why wasn't it even mentioned over 10 years when they were in government?
“I think that nuclear energy is best described as a missed opportunity for Australia. Had we started it at least 20 years ago, we would be in a very different position as a nation in terms of our energy supply and our carbon footprint here today. But that ship has sailed, that's where we are now.”
