Why Australia needs to consider nuclear power to meet energy needs

Here is a reliable power source that’s almost totally emissions-free and produces no air pollution. Importantly, it's also affordable.

Nuclear power plant in Germany. Picture: iStock.

Here is a reliable power source that’s almost totally emissions-free and produces no air pollution. And while the main rational argument against nuclear power has been the cost, that now appears to be falling.

Rather than wasting millions of dollars on a royal commission that will recommend common sense, Scott Morrison could have channelled the deluge of exhortations to “do something” about climate change into a concrete plan.

“These bushfires are a wake-up call. The only way to seriously slash our carbon dioxide emissions without destroying the economy is to replace our coal-fired power stations with state of the art nuclear energy, which emits zero emissions,” the Prime Minister could have said.

“Wind and solar power will continue to be an important part of the energy mix, but without a reliable, totally emissions-free source of energy we cannot realistically curb our emissions dramatically. One kilogram of uranium has as much energy at 2000 tonnes of coal. Japan and Germany have recently illustrated the folly of shifting away from nuclear power,” he might have added.

“France and Sweden, which now have some of the lowest per capita carbon emissions in the world, replaced their entire coal grid with nuclear power in about 15 years and 20 years, respectively. We can do it too,” he should have gone on.

After a tsunami hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor in 2011, the Japanese and German governments began to close down their nuclear power stations amid public anxiety. The share of nuclear power generation in the third and fourth largest economies collapsed, from 30 per cent to zero within three years in Japan, as 37 reactors were switched off. Germany has shut down 10 of its nuclear plants with the remaining seven due to close by 2022. These have been a very bad decisions for nations otherwise renowned for their industrial smarts.

Research out last month puts the cost for Germany at $US12bn ($17.4bn) a year already, including “substantial” increases in power prices. “Over 70 per cent of the cost is due to the 1100 excess deaths per year resulting from the local air pollution emitted by the coal-fired power plants operating in place of the shutdown nuclear plants,” the three US economist authors say.

In Japan the closures have caused thousands of people to die too, in the cold, far more than were harmed from the Fukushima nuclear disaster itself, according to research from October last year. “The increase in mortality from the higher electricity prices significantly outweighs the mortality­ from the accident itself­, suggesting the decision to cease nuclear production caused more harm than good,” the author­s conclude, putting the number of deaths at about 4500 across three years to 2014. The decis­ion to switch off nuclear power had been “based on emotion and instinct rather than reason and rationality”. “Deaths from higher energy prices are largely unnoticed,” the authors added.

The main rational argument against nuclear power has been the cost, but this appears to be falling. Last year GE Hitachi told a parliamentary inquiry it could build a small nuclear reactor for $1bn. NuScale, another supplier, said it could build a large one for $US3bn. This is affordable; the government already has wasted billions of dollars on ineffective renewable energy schemes.

Cost blowouts on new reactors in Britain and the US stem from a long lull in construction. The West is forgetting how to build them. China, meanwhile, is doubling its nuclear capacity across the next few years, and creating a hi-tech workforce in the process, apprised of the idea that powering an economy of 1.4 billion people solely with solar and wind is ridiculous.

“Reactors are expected to be connected in South Korea, Belarus, Russia, Finland, the United Arab Emirates, India, Slovakia and Argentina by 2022. Constructions are also progressing in Turkey, Abu Dhabi and Bangladesh, with a further 25 countries considering, planning or progressing programs,” Australia’s Department of Industry, Innovation and Science notes in its latest resources quarterly.

In any case shifting entirely to solar and wind power would cost vastly more, even if it were technically feasible. The cost and scale of batteries to ensure reliable power supply when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing would be immense. Economist Geoff Carmody has estimated it would cost, conservatively, more than $400bn in batteries alone to ensure a reliable electricity supply from wind and solar.

If nuclear energy were discovered today, people would think it a miracle. Here is a reliable power source that’s almost totally emissions-free and produces no air pollution. For all the fearmongering, it has the best safety record of any power source in terms of deaths caused.

The standing UN panel on climate change says nuclear energy should be part of national plans to slash emissions. Yet Australia, uniquely among G20 nations, has an outright ban on nuclear power (although we happily export uranium).

“The average person greatly over-estimates the expected costs of a nuclear accident, both in terms of likelihood and number of fatalities,” the authors of the Germany study note. This might not be the case if our political leaders actually led.

Just as the oil price shocks in the 1970s built public support for nuclear power, the tragic bushfires might have been used to inject some rationality into the climate change debate. It seems all we’re getting is a royal commission that will achieve nothing of much value.