Yes, nuclear’s an option. But let there be no confusion about its flaws

The political debate about the role of nuclear power in Australia is so robust it’s a shame we can’t harness its energy. Given there is an election in the wind, it would be unfortunate if this vital conversation about our country’s sustainable energy future became bogged down in political point-scoring.

I have no points to score, but as a technologist with experience in clean-technology policy, perhaps I can shine a spotlight on some key facts in the hope they are remembered in the discussions ahead. Nuclear power is too important to be debated on uncertainties.

The Sizewell C nuclear reactor in the UK; Alan Finkel. Credit: Bloomberg/SMH

Let’s start with a look at its benefits.

From the engineering point of view, it ticks many boxes. It is unequivocally zero emissions during operation and the emissions associated with construction are low. It integrates smoothly with our existing electricity grid and contributes to frequency control and system strength.

Nuclear power can be dispatched on demand independently of the weather and can, in principle, be located near existing transmission lines. The only technological limitation is that – like coal-fired power plants – large nuclear reactors are slow to ramp their output up and down, but small modular reactors (SMRs) are expected to be better in this respect.

The mining resources required for construction are low: no battery materials such as lithium and cobalt, or rare-earth elements such as neodymium and terbium, are needed.

Nuclear power has a tremendous safety record.Credit: Bloomberg

The volume of fuel is small, with only one tonne of uranium needed to produce the same amount of electricity as 100,000 tonnes of black coal.

The land footprint is only about three square kilometres for a one-gigawatt nuclear plant versus about 60 square kilometres for a three-gigawatt solar plant that would generate the same annual output.

And nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Since commercial operations began in the late 1950s, the death rate from accidents and air pollution is as low as the death rate from solar and wind power and much lower than the death rate from coal power.

So, what are the barriers?

The Barakah nuclear power plant in the UAE was built by in a country that has easy access to finance and uncomplicated approval processes, yet it still took 16 years to construct.Credit: AP

The most obvious is that there is a legislated ban on construction of nuclear power plants, introduced by the Howard government in 1998. Removal of this ban is a prerequisite for deeper consideration.

A surprising factor is the declining global commitment to nuclear power. While construction in China, India and Egypt is strong, it has fallen off a cliff in traditionally strong nuclear power generation countries. For example, of the 92 operating large-scale reactors in the United States, only four were built in the past 30 years and there are none – zero – in construction. In nuclear-powered France, there is only one nuclear power plant under construction.

Globally, nuclear power’s share of electricity generation has fallen from more than 17 per cent in 1996 to 9 per cent in 2022.

To create a nuclear power industry in Australia, we would need to identify a waste-storage site, beef up the regulatory system, find the first location, identify the first operator, issue construction contracts, run the environmental regulatory gamut, train a workforce and fight protests in the streets, and in the courts.

Then we would have to choose between large-scale reactors or SMRs. The latter would presumably face fewer problems finding sites for their deployment. But which country’s lead would we follow? Certainly not Russia. They have one SMR in operation, but it is an adapted marine reactor that uses military grade uranium. We would be unlikely to follow the lead of the one and only SMR operating in China, especially given that it is a demonstrator plant, not part of a production series.

We would surely turn to one of the other countries in the OECD. Problem is, there are no operating SMRs in any OECD country. There are no SMRs in construction in any OECD country. There are no SMRs that have completed the regulatory approvals process in any OECD country. Thus, SMRs are on an unknown schedule at an unknown cost.

Let’s turn back to traditional large-scale reactors. They suffer from high capital costs and slow construction times. The Barakah nuclear power plant in the UAE was built by an experienced South Korean company in a country that has easy access to finance and uncomplicated approval processes, yet it will be 16 years from its approval in 2008 until its completion this year.

Hinkley Point C is the only nuclear power plant under construction in the UK. The latest construction cost estimate is a stunningly high $27 billion per gigawatt and if it meets its expected completion date of 2031, that will be 23 years since the initial approval by the UK government.

Hinkley Point C is the only nuclear power plant under construction in the UK.Credit: AP

The recently completed Vogtle 3 reactor in the US was nearly as expensive at $25 billion per gigawatt and commenced operation 15 years after the construction contract was awarded.

Despite the challenges, it is worth considering nuclear power as a long-term option in Australia for two reasons.

The first is to minimise the new land area and additional mining to expand electricity generation as our population continues to grow and as we invest in producing decarbonised versions of our export products, such as green iron, aluminium, ammonia-based fertiliser and sustainable liquid fuels.

The second is to minimise the ongoing mining and landfill from replacing batteries about every 10 years and solar panels and wind turbines every 25 years.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has recently supported nuclear energy.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

However, given the timeframes to develop a nuclear industry capability from scratch, then commission and build our first nuclear power plant, nuclear power cannot help us in our transition to clean energy this decade or next and would not be ready to replace the electricity generation we will lose as our ageing coal-fired power fleet shuts down.

In the short term, there is no alternative other than solar and wind power, supported by battery storage and gas-fired electricity generation.

There’s an election in the wings and this will be a critical issue during the campaign. Let’s just hope everyone bases the debate on the same set of facts.

Dr Alan Finkel is an Australian neuroscientist, inventor, researcher, entrepreneur, educator, policy advisor, and philanthropist. He was Australia’s chief scientist from 2016 to 2020.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.