Nuclear: ‘You can prove whatever you like’

The lack of information regarding Australia’s proposed nuclear sites means statements put forth by both government parties don't necessarily show the whole picture.

“I think to be honest, a lot of what you’re going to find with nuclear, (is that) there are enough numbers around that you can pick the ones that you want and you can prove whatever you like.”

This is the view of energy and climate change program director at the Grattan Institute Tony Wood, as the government and opposition go back and forth with each other over the Coalition’s nuclear power proposal.

Last week, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt questioned how much water would need to be taken from farmers to cool the proposed plants.

Mr Watt referenced a study from the Australian National University that said nuclear power could use almost 40 per cent more water than current coal-fired power stations.

While Nationals leader David Littleproud said the comments were “scaremongering” and the opposition’s policy was to use water already at the proposed sites, it begs the question of whether this 40 per cent number is accurate.

Tony Wood, Energy and Climate Change Program Director at the Grattan Institute.

Mr Wood said the numbers aren’t as simple as that, and that the information required to undertake this kind of analysis, especially in a country like Australia that has never before had nuclear power, was lacking.

“There has been very little work done yet on the type of nuclear plants that will be built, what specific technology would be used, and how they’d fit into our electricity grid,” he said.

“There’s no doubt that existing traditional nuclear power stations, similar to the size of the (coal-fired power stations) we run in the Latrobe Valley or the Hunter Valley today, would need more water. But what we need to be careful about is whether we’re talking about traditional existing nuclear power stations, or small modular systems.”

Small modular reactors are growing in popularity with more than 80 designs at different stages of development across 18 countries, and have different advantages and disadvantages than traditional reactors, including using less cooling water.

Currently, the Coalition said they will develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants, and then determine what will be the best option.

Already that is one difference that would alter any analysis. Not to mention the options of using different cooling systems, metals, locations and technologies that would all significantly alter results.

Mr Wood’s view that you can “pick the ones you want” in terms of support for any claims is evident across the research.

The World Nuclear Association said a chart in the World Energy Outlook 2016 showed that for once-through cooling, nuclear and coal plants are similar in consumption and withdrawal of water.

However, a 2019 study from the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal found that in a once-through cooling system nuclear uses more than double the amount of water that coal does (1020 litres per megawatt-hour compared to 400 L/MWh for coal).

Further again, that same study found that coal uses more water than nuclear for a dry cooling system, but less for a closed-loop cooling system.

Until Australians receive more specific information on what these sites will look like, the technology that will be used, and how it will affect farmers and regional communities, producing any analysis that can be relied upon will be difficult.