Australia's nuclear joke
One reasonableish attitude to addressing climate change is waiting-and-seeing for cheaper technologies to arrive. This line of thinking means we can keep emitting carbon dioxide because future us will fix it. While some climate innovation enthusiasts genuinely believe in this approach, it can be a convenient cover for polluters to justify their behaviour. In Australia, the latest such distraction is the Opposition’s new plans for nuclear.
Nuclear is exciting in theory because it is a low emissions electricity generation technology that can operate around the clock. It could replace coal, which makes up half of Australia’s electricity supply. There are also some technical reasons why Australia is geographically well-suited for nuclear, like vast domestic uranium resources, coastal demand centres where sites could be located near water for cooling, and abundant land to bury nuclear waste. Many of the proposed sites are existing coal power plants, which could make for a popular platform on job creation at the 2025 election.
However, Australia’s conservative party’s nuclear proposal is a joke because of cost. Government bodies rate nuclear as the most expensive technology, particularly because Australia has never had a nuclear industry. New nuclear is costly to build and fraught with delays. “Modular reactors” are the stuff of breathless VC pitch decks but can be even more costly, and impractical due to waste disposal. Yesterday, the Australian Market Electricity Operator released its latest net zero analysis, suggesting that the cheapest way to get to net zero is through renewables with gas peaking and storage and not through technologies like coal or nuclear.
Although the nuclear debate can’t possibly be serious, it is a back-handed way to obstruct progress on decarbonising the grid. Dangling the alluring promise of cheaper and cleaner power that will take decades to materialise gives coal power plants a free pass to continue operating in the meantime. For all the altruistic talk of decommissioning for sustainability, the only plants that have closed are those that were old or inefficient and thus no longer profitable. No one is voluntarily shutting down their viable coal plants for the greater good just yet, despite the best efforts of Mike Cannon-Brookes, a billionaire who tried to take AGL private to switch off its coal.
Nor can they, until enough renewables are installed. Projects take years to be developed and permitted to a point where they can be financed, then even more time to build. Communities and local governments are also starting to push back on renewable energy projects and grid investments. In Victoria, they are floating the idea of compensating land-owners with tens of thousands of dollars if a power line spoils their view.
Australia can make a dent on decarbonising the grid in the next 10 to 20 years by focusing on deploying cost-effective existing technologies. Nuclear pipedreams seem like they will only stoke more opposition to renewables and keep coal power plants online for longer.