The Coalition’s nuclear power folly

The Coalition is pushing for nuclear power and talking of cancelling wind and solar contracts. This implies a massive expansion of gas generation and an extension of coal generation. This scheme would result in far more gas generation than nuclear generation. In all, it’s a vastly expensive and destructive direction for Australia. Their hostility towards renewables could spook potential renewable energy investors, slow the renewables revolution, reduce the supply of cheap renewable electricity, and increase the cost of living.

The nuclear scheme would build about 7.2 GW of nuclear capacity, with seven reactors starting up between 2035 and 2050, but probably many years later. It would be a massive project, building:

more nuclear capacity than the current British capacity, and
nearly triple the capacity of the nightmare British Hinkley Point C project, which had massive delays and a cost blowout to AU$93 billion.

Judging by recent nuclear projects around the world, this nuclear scheme could:

suffer many years of delays, and
cost hundreds of billions of dollars,

No significant nuclear generation can start before 2035, so the scheme will leave us with the existing urgent need to replace the 19 GW of closing coal capacity before 2035. The Coalition scheme has not covered this shortfall of 19 GW by 2035, which is enormous, 90% of our current coal capacity.

At the absolute best, the seven nuclear reactors might be generating by 2050. However, (1) all 21 GW of our current coal capacity is due to retire by 2038, and (2) electricity demand will have doubled by 2050. The nuclear project might be a massive project, but its 7.2 GW capacity would be tiny compared to the capacity needed to replace the lost coal capacity of 21 GW and the doubling of demand, which may need another 14 GW of capacity. The Coalition scheme has not covered this shortfall which could amount to 35 GW by 2050.

With the Coalition threatening to cancel solar and wind contracts, and the inadequacy of their nuclear scheme by itself, they will need:

massive expenditure to extend the life of our old coal generators, which break down frequently and are currently the greatest threat to our electricity, and
massive expansion of expensive gas generation.

This nuclear scheme will also:

result in the government owning uneconomic nuclear generators because, much of the time, they would have to pay to avoid stopping. Our current baseload coal generators must do this,
expose Australia to the risks of nuclear power, and
significantly increase carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

Nuclear electricity for Australia is economic stupidity – because we have intense sun and strong winds, which:

generate cheap electricity, and
free us from imported fuels with their possible unpredictable supply restrictions and price increases.

The Coalition will increase the cost of living and make Australian industry less competitive by:

holding back the cheapest electricity from solar, wind, batteries and a little flexible gas, and
relying on the two most expensive sources, nuclear and gas.

The nuclear capacity of about 7.2 GW:

is minor compared to the 21 GW loss of retiring coal capacity, and
could only generate about 23% of the increase in demand by 2050.

The uncosted, massive nuclear project will not generate enough electricity, so an unannounced, massive expansion of expensive gas generation must sit in the wings.

Nuclear cannot start early enough.

One massive problem with the Coalition’s nuclear scheme is that all our coal generators will probably close before nuclear generation starts.

The Coalition mentions coal closures in its press release, yet it makes it seem like nuclear alone is the ultimate solution: building 7.2 GW of nuclear power, perhaps with the first 0.3 GW starting in 2035.

This 7.2 GW figure is massive, slightly larger than the UK’s current nuclear capacity of 6.5 GW. However, despite being massive, it’s massively inadequate.

Our old coal generators are closing because the repair costs are too high, and cheap renewables are reducing coal generation and often forcing them to pay to generate. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) expects that:

90% of Australia’s coal generation will close by 2035, and
all will close by 2038.

Nuclear generation will be inadequate as it can’t start before 2035 to help meet the expected massive 19 GW drop in coal capacity and the rapidly rising electricity demand. The Coalition claims the first nuclear start-up could be a small modular reactor in 2035. However, we can ignore this as it would have a small capacity of about 0.3 GW, and the start-up would be years after 2035.

Nuclear will arrive far too late, so the Coalition must be counting on:

massive support for uneconomic and failure-prone coal generators so they can struggle on for another decade, and
a massive expansion of gas generation.

We need to know the cost of all this. The Coalition needs to put aside its deceptive nuclear assertions and provide a complete and costed plan.

On this page:

The Coalition’s nuclear scheme

The Coalition is pushing nuclear generation, as described in a two-page media release. It suggests:

Seven locations for nuclear generators, each with a retired or retiring coal generator:
- Liddell, NSW,
- Mount Piper, NSW,
- Loy Yang, VIC,
- Tarong, QLD,
- Callide, QLD,
- Northern, SA, and
- Muja, WA,
The first nuclear reactor will start generation:
- in 2035, if it is a small modular reactor (SMR), or
- in 2037, if it is a large reactor, e.g., an AP1000 or APR1400,
The government will pay the total cost of building, running and maintaining the reactors,
The nuclear plants will generate for 80 years, and
The scheme “will deliver a net-zero electricity grid by 2050”.

Subsequently, they said they will:

consider breaking contracts to stop wind and solar farm development,
make gas generation a big part of their scheme, and
extend the life of coal generators.

In the media release, and subsequently, the Coalition:

has not presented a comprehensive plan for supplying electricity,
has not provided any costing, and
acknowledged that 90% of coal capacity is due to retire by 2035.

A rapid nuclear rollout scenario

Guided by the Coalition media release, Wilkenfeld and Hamilton constructed a scenario for a rapid nuclear build, which they describe as “unrealistically rapid.”

Startup	Type	Gigawatts (GW)
2037	AP1000	1.117 GW
2040	Small Modular Reactor	0.300
2024	AP1000	1.117
2044	Small Modular Reactor	0.300
2046	APR1400	1.485
2048	APR1400	1.485
2050	APR1400	1.485
Total		7.200

The first reactor in this scenario is the AP1000 reactor to start in 2037. It’s one of the possibilities in the Coalition media release. The Coalition also says a small modular reactor could start earlier, in 2035, but as SMRs are both problematic and not commercially available, the moderately sized AP1000 is more likely.

The scenario starts the last reactor in 2050 because the media release says, “Our plan will deliver a net-zero electricity grid by 2050,” which implies that the whole project would be complete by then.

Four recent problematic nuclear builds

We need to see this nuclear scheme in the light of world experience.

Four recent nuclear projects in the Western world provide four arguments against nuclear development:

Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, which started generating in 2023,
Flamanville 3 in France, which reached halting production in 2024,
Hinkley Point C in the UK, with one of two reactors due to start in 2031, and
Vogtle in the USA, which reached commercial operation in April 2024.

The projects display:

cost overruns, all around 300%,
delays ranging from 7 years to 14 years,
final costs between 31 and 132 billion Australian dollars, and
financial dangers for the builders and governments: Of the three firms building these four plants:
- Westinghouse went bankrupt,
- EDF nearly went bankrupt, and the French nationalise it, and
- AREVA became insolvent and restructured.

These bankruptcies and nationalisations starkly present the financial dangers of these nuclear projects and suggest why nuclear power is declining in the Western world.

(Is nuclear the answer to Australia’s climate Crisis? The Conversation: 3 Nov 2023)

Hinkley Point C: Nuclear problems

Looking more closely at the troubled UK Hinkley Point C project (HPC) shows that it is small compared to the Coalition’s nuclear plans.

HPC had to cope with (1) Covid, (2) Brexit, (3) legal challenges, (4) political opposition, and (5) financial difficulties of the builders. Australian nuclear development would not face any Brexit, and would be unlikely to face another world epidemic, but legal, political and financial difficulties come with the territory.

The Hinkley Point timeline:

1981: The UK government announced HPC.
2008: Enabling work started, e.g. building a car park.
2014: Planning for building a sea wall and jetty: 400 staff.
2018: start construction of Reactor 1.
2019: start construction of reactor 2.
2031: Estimated startup of reactor 1.
2033: My guess at the startup of reactor 2.

The first HPC reactor build took 13 years, but the entire process could extend to over 52 years.

The Hinkley Point costs:

The initial cost estimate in 2007 was 9 billion pounds.
The 2024 estimate is 48 billion pounds.
This is 5.3 times the 2007 estimate.
This total cost would be 92.6 billion in today’s Australian dollars.

(Cost of Hinkley Point C blows out to over AU$93 billion: Renew Economy: 18 Oct 2024)

The Hinkley Point project:

a total capacity of 3.2 GW,
two reactors, each of 1.6 GW,
one type of reactor,
on one site, and
in a country that:
- opened its first nuclear reactor in 1956,
- runs nine operating nuclear reactors at 5 locations, and
- has a total capacity of 6.5 GW.

Hinkley Point: A large project

The HPC project is one of the largest construction sites in Europe, involving:

1.6 GW reactors: this capacity is 91% of the world’s largest reactor (1.75 GW in China),
building docks to ship in materials and equipment,
building massive foundations for security,
using 50 cranes, one being the biggest crane in the world,
building a concrete factory,
making consistent, highest-quality nuclear safety concrete,
boring 9 kilometres of tunnels to carry seawater for cooling, tunnels like those for traffic and pumped hydro.

Each reactor had a small pour of concrete (2,000 cubic metres) and a large pour. The large pour:

needed three days of continuous pouring,
used 40 concrete placing booms, and
took a UK record volume of concrete:
- 9,000 cubic metres of concrete,
- 1,406 loads from a concrete truck,
- 3.6 Olympic swimming pools of concrete.

The workforce:

peaked at 5,600 people on site,
included 510 people living in purpose-built accommodation on the site,
required a fleet of 160 buses for site transportation,
will become 900 permanent jobs.

Two assumptions:

An Olympic swimming pool 50 metres long, 25 metres wide and averaging 2 metres deep contains 2,500 cubic meters of water.
A concrete truck with six wheels can deliver 5.6 cubic metres of concrete, and a truck with eight wheels can deliver 7.2 cubic metres. I used an average of 6.4 cubic metres per truck.

The current UK nuclear capacity:

Nine 9 operational reactors
at 5 plants,
providing about 6.5 gigawatts (GW) of capacity.
All but one of these plants are due to shut down before 2030.

(Civil Nuclear Roadmap: House of Common Library: 14 Feb 2024)

Coalition scheme: Far bigger than Hinkley Point C

Alarmingly, the nuclear scheme is far more complex than the Hinkley Point C (HPC) project building:

a total capacity of 7.2 GW, which is:
- more than double HPC’s 3.2 GW, and
- more than the total UK nuclear capacity of 6.5 GW,
seven reactors, which is:
- More than the two HPC reactors, and
- Just less than the UK’s nine reactors,
at seven sites spread across Australia, which is:
- far more complex than the HPC’s one site, and
- more than the UK’s five sites,
at least two types of reactor, compared to HPC’s one type,
small modular reactors for which there is no commercial plan,
several reactors of 1.485 GW, 93% the size of HPC’s 1.6 GW reactors,
reactors in five states, each with different legislation, including legislation in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland prohibiting nuclear reactors, and
in a country with no nuclear generation experience, compared with the UK’s 68 years of experience.

The massive nuclear build is not enough.

Nuclear energy produced

The Coalition’s nuclear reactors would be a massive building project, yet they would not supply enough electricity.

The completed Coalition nuclear plants could have a capacity of 7.2 GW by 2050.
Allowing for maintenance, refuelling and refurbishing, assume that the nuclear generators can run 85% of the time. (This is a high “load factor”; 70% is a more realistic figure.)
There are 365 days a year and 24 hours a day,
So, the nuclear generating time = 85% of 365 x 24 = 7,446 hours per year.
So, nuclear generation after 2050 = 7.2 x 7446 = 53,611 Gigawatt hours per year.

Energy produced compared to demand

This nuclear supply of 53,611 GWh annually is small compared to AEMO’s estimate of our electricity demand.

Tax Year	Demand GWh/year	Nuclear supply as a percentage of demand
2023/24	200,000	27%
2049/50	430,000	12%
Demand Growth	230,000	23%

Table: Electricity demand compared to nuclear generation

Nuclear generation from the Coalition’s seven reactors would only supply 53,611 / 430,000 = 12% of the total demand in 2050.
This nuclear generation in 2050 is small compared with the demand growth between now and 2050. The nuclear generation is only 53,611 / 230,000 = 23% of the demand growth. A Coalition plan should include supplying the remaining 77% of the demand growth – and the cost.
The projected nuclear capacity of 7.2 GW by 2050 is small compared to our 21 GW current coal capacity, all of which AEMO forecasts will retire by 2038. The nuclear capacity is only 7.2 / 21 = 34% of the lost coal capacity. A Coalition plan should include replacing the rest, 66% of our current coal capacity – and the cost.

This nuclear generation is small compared to coal closures and demand growth, so the Coalition must be planning:

the massive expense of nuclear reactors, and also
massive spending on coal and gas.

Nuclear will increase the cost of living.

Experts say nuclear will be expensive.

Without releasing any costings, the Coalition claims nuclear will provide “cheaper energy”. Many investigations assert the opposite, for example;

The Australian Energy Management Authority (AEMO) and the CSIRO have examined nuclear in their annual “electricity generation cost report” (Gen-Cost). They found that building nuclear generators is Australia’s most expensive option.
An Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis report found that nuclear generation would increase household energy bills by $665 annually.

Factors increasing costs

Nuclear generation will increase the cost of living, and factors that could exacerbate this follows:

Factor: The proposed Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are a failed technology. There are no operating SMRs in the Western world and two developers have recently abandoned SMR projects. For example, NuScale abandoned its SMR project in Idaho, USA, due to massive cost blowouts.

(The parlous state of the nuclear power sector: Renew Economy: 18 Oct 2024)

Factor: Australia has never built a nuclear generator – and countries with experience have had massive cost overruns, e.g. the Hinckley Point C project discussed above.

Factor: The government would pay a premium to acquire the proposed sites forcibly. For example, AGL does not like nuclear power’s costs and expected delays and has started building a $750 million battery at its Liddell site in NSW.

Factor: We would depend on nuclear fuel from overseas, subject to supply disruption and price hikes. The fuel would also have to travel large distances, possibly from the USA to Australian ports and then by road to the inland sites.

Factor: All nuclear projects need to be super secure. This dramatically increases the costs of building and running the reactors. The risks they need to consider include:

design and construction faults,
human error,
government cost-cutting on maintenance
cyber-attack,
terrorism,
radiation leaks,
extreme weather,
droughts, which could restrict cooling water,
earthquakes and tsunamis, and
warfare.

Factor: Nuclear power will have many easily overlooked costs. For example, we would need emergency plans for farmers near the nuclear reactors—and there are 11,000 farms within 80 kilometres of the seven proposed sites. In the US, such farms have procedures to deal with possible radiation leaks.

Nuclear: Incompatible with renewables

The Coalition claims that Australia needs a mix of generators, including nuclear. This sounds modern, reasonable, and attractive, but a mix of things is not always good. For example, if you mix petrol and diesel in your car, you won’t get far.

** Our high levels of renewable generation

Nuclear baseload generation is incompatible with our current elevated levels of renewable generation, let alone the future levels. We are already generating elevated amounts of renewables.

In 2023, on the east coast grid:

Renewables have generated a peak of 74% of demand over five minutes.
Renewables generated an average of about 40% of electricity in 2023.
The target by 2030 is for 83% of renewable generation over a year.

In South Australia:

In November 2021, wind and solar provided more than 100% of local SA demand for 93 hours straight, day and windy night; a little gas generation provided grid stability, and SA exported its excess electricity.
Wind and solar generated over 70% of SA demand in 2023/24.
Renewables are on track for this to be 100% by 2027.

** Baseload generators must pay to run

Daily, renewable generators bid low and gain dispatch, leaving baseload coal generators struggling, so the baseload generators pay to gain dispatch and keep generating.

Look at the National Electricity Market (NEM) dashboard in the middle of the day to see the 5-minute prices in each state. You will see negative prices set by coal generators paying to avoid stopping.

** Baseload generators trying flexibility

To avoid paying to keep its coal baseload generators running, AGL is trialling abandoning baseload generation by shutting down its Bayswater plant for up to twelve hours at a time. AGL does not want its coal generators providing baseload, and in trying to pause its generator, it shows the Coalition has got baseload wrong. We do not need baseload generation.

(Coal generators are trying brief shutdowns to avoid costly baseload generation: Renew Economy: 1 Oct 2024)

** Baseload increases the excess generation problem

An emerging problem for the grid is having too much generation, particularly when uncontrollable rooftop solar generation is high. If generation exceeds demand, this can disrupt the grid and cause blackouts. In Western Australia, they are building big batteries to increase demand at these times. Any “baseload” coal or nuclear generator that must run all the time increases this problem for the grid.

Coal and nuclear “run all the time” baseload generators are increasingly incompatible with our grid because:

they must pay to generate too often, and
they increase the problem of supply exceeding demand.

We need flexible generators, not inflexible nuclear generators.

Industry opposes nuclear: AGL

Even the energy industry is against the nuclear scheme.

(Energy Giant AGL issues a warning on Dutton’s nuclear plan: The Age: 25 Sep 2024)

High-level nuclear waste

US Government websites say:

The US has no permanent disposal facility for high-level nuclear waste (HLW).
The US has run nuclear generation since 1957, for 67 years.
The US has over 90,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors, increasing by 2,000 tonnes annually.
Commercial reactors store their HLW, like spent nuclear fuel, in storage ponds for 1 or 2 years to cool and then in dry storage casks on concrete pads at their sites.
High-level nuclear waste stays highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years.

This makes it clear that disposing of nuclear waste is highly problematic.

The cost

** The cost of building nuclear generation.

Each Australian nuclear generator might cost $9 billion. So, seven reactors would cost $63 billion. Given the complexity of the Coalition’s scheme and the overseas experience, this would seem highly optimistic.

(CSIRO says a nuclear plant would cost at least $9 billion: The Guardian: 22 May 2024)

** The cost of extending coal.

A new report has warned about the costs of keeping one coal generator running. Keeping Queensland’s Callide B coal plant open beyond its use-by date of 2028 could cost Queensland taxpayers up to $420 million annually, drive up electricity prices, and endanger grid reliability.

(Queensland opposition’s goalkeeper plan could cost taxpayers AU$ 420 million a year: Renew Economy: 18 Oct 2024)

** The cost of expanding gas.

Expanding the use of gas to fill the energy gap while waiting for nuclear generation would mean building new gas generators and pipelines and would cost $70 billion.

(We cannot afford to use gas to fill the nuclear gap: Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis: 9 Oct 2024)

The Coalition climate denial continues.

The two-page Coalition media release uses the words “zero-emissions nuclear” nine times and states, “Our plan will deliver a net-zero electricity grid by 2050”. However, their scheme is for:

only 7 GW of nuclear, completed maybe in 2050, and
maybe 35 GW of gas generation, starting as soon as possible.

The Coalition is being deceptive. Their scheme will not deliver a net-zero electricity grid as it’s a massive gas expansion hidden under a massive nuclear project. It will increase emissions.

Bipartisan support would produce the most rapid move to renewable energy and action to limit climate change. The Coalition’s push for nuclear and gas, with its threat to break wind and solar contracts, is the opposite of this, It will frighten potential investors in renewables and slow the transition away from fossil fuels. This could be one purpose of the scheme. It’s consistent with the Coalition’s past attacks on renewables, and lack of climate action.

Updated 21 Oct 2024