Farewell, small modular reactors, we hardly knew ye.
Last year, the Coalition was all over the purported future of nuclear power, constantly reiterating that SMRs were the solution to Australia’s energy needs. “With the plug-and-play of the new small modular reactors, you can replace the coal-fired generation and distribute through the existing network,” Peter Dutton said.
Indeed, SMRs are “the only feasible firming option” he told an economic conference. The only thing that was in the way was the ideology of “old hippies” in Labor. Otherwise, we could just “plug and play” our way to unlimited atomic power.
Alas, pack your bags, SMRs. As of yesterday, and fresh off what even the press gallery is now describing as a poor outcome in Dunkley, the opposition leader has moved on to large nuclear reactors. In the Financial Review, Phil Coorey cruelly quoted Dutton’s hapless LNP energy shadow Ted O’Brien last year referring to how “nobody wants old Soviet technology, you wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole”.
Well, someone found Dutton a barge pole and he’s sticking it into the reactor core.
What has changed is the only company in the US trying to build an SMR, NuScale Power in Idaho, cancelled its project in November. O’Brien, humiliatingly, had touted NuScale in a piece for News Corp in May. “NuScale’s integrated reactors offer exceptional flexibility with modulars making for simple expansion. Its first build will be in Idaho in 2029,” O’Brien trilled.
O’Brien hadn’t done his research — the Idaho SMR died, despite more than US$1 billion in government subsidies, because no-one wanted to pay $89/MWh for power, which is the cost the company revealed last January. NuScale had previously claimed the SMR would produce power at $58/MWh.
Ah… cost increases. On Monday, French newspaper Les Echos reported that French state-owned utility EDF had raised its already large cost estimate for the construction of six new nuclear reactors from €51.7 billion to €67.4 billion (US$73 billion or A$110 billion) — and flagged costs could rise higher. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power and now needs to build new plans to replace ageing operations built in the 1960s and 1970s.
This is unrelated to the cost blowouts at EDF’s Flamanville project (or “Phlegm Orville” as the Institute of Public Affairs calls it), which is more than a decade late and at least triple its original estimate (it’s been under construction since 2007). Dutton has touted both major EDF projects.
EDF also has to fund the construction of the Hinkley Point reactor project in the UK. Originally budgeted at £20 billion, then £26-27 billion in 2022, last year EDF revised the cost up to £32.7 billion, or more than A$63 billion. Originally scheduled to be completed in 2027, Hinkley Point has been delayed to at least 2029-31.
EDF is the most experienced nuclear power operator in the Western world, and if it can’t get its costings right, then no-one can. The French government’s expensive re-nationalisation of the utility in 2023 was an admission that nuclear power is not a commercially viable sector.
These massive cost increases and delays come with a real cost for consumers. As the NuScale debacle illustrates, endless construction cost increases — and the debt they demand for the companies behind the projects — push up the eventual cost per MWh for consumers.
The poster child for this is the Vogtle project in Georgia — two new nuclear power reactors to go with two older installations, which cost an estimated US$35 billion (A$53 billion), compared to an initial costing of US$14 billion. The Trump administration was forced to step in to guarantee US$12 billion in debt for the project, which ended up eight years late. Vogtle’s estimated electricity costs are US$170–180/MWh — including an extra 10% a month to help offset the final uncovered costs of the reactors.
Never mind the “which electorate will the reactors go in” stuff: this is what Dutton is now selling — decade-long delays, cost blowouts in the tens of billions, monstrously expensive power, government debt guarantees as the very least, and likely a direct government role in funding the power industry.
Many have now cottoned on to the fact that — as Crikey has been saying for years — proposing nuclear power in Australia is simply a delaying tactic to prop up coal-fired power. But Dutton is proposing a colossal big-government policy that will risk the federal budget, force consumers to pay extraordinary power costs, and, of course, deliver nothing until the 2040s.
Still, perhaps we can wait a few months, and Dutton will change his policy yet again. Anyone got a barge pole?
Is there merit to Dutton’s nuclear proposal? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Just one example of many, and it’s the entire explanation why certain politicians and parties cannot get enough of this technology. The amount of money sloshing around in these contracts is mind-boggling, and even better, it grows year after year throughout each project, and each project stretches out into the distant future, pouring those rivers of gold into the capacious pockets of all the participants. It’s a hell of a lot better than robbing banks. Happy days.. years… decades!
Which is exactly why we need to support nuclear…,
This is how the energy market operates.
Renewables are a threat to the energy market and, even if they could supply all our energy needs, they would still face impossible hurdles.
How do you take on governments and billionaires?
No the path of least resistance is nuclear. It diverts vested interests attention and money away from fossil fuels to nuclear, and if it does take years it will give renewables the advantage of being an earlier mover.
And any new coal or gas projects can be rejected because we’re now opening up nuclear plants.
Sigh!
No, I think we’d be much better off with a strategy based on SKGs – small krytonite generators.
All we need to do is send a few space ships to the star where the remains of the planet Krypton are in orbit as asteroids. We mine those asteroids and send the Kryptonite ore back to Earth where we can use it for power generation.
Why would you respond with a made up form of energy when nuclear power has been around for 70 years but Australia has been too backwards to use it?
The level of ignorance in this country is breathtaking but it isn’t really surprising given the influence of the fossil fuel industry.
Neither reading comprehension nor self-awareness are your strong suits, eh?
No, new coal and gas projects would continue to be built while “we get the nuclear power in place”, i.e. for decades yet.
It’s a lack of self-awareness (and knowledge of history) which drives the anti-nuclear movement in Australia.
There’s only a finite amount of time and resources.
It’s called opportunity cost. If we’re doing one (nuclear) we can’t do the other (fossil fuels).
Renewables aren’t as affected because they’re decentralised.
It’s called sarcasm.
I got your sarcasm.
What I didn’t get was your solution to climate change.
#theworldsonfireletscrackjokes.
If you reply in future, try a Joke Flag or Sarcasm Alert. It won’t work but lets you off the hook.
Did you even bother to read the article above?
How many times does it need to be pointed out that large scale nuclear reactors are uneconomic? That the time scales needed to build them are simply incompatible with those needed for an adequate response to the climate emergency?
How many times does it need to be pointed out that small nuclear reactors do not exist as a commercial reality and that by the time they do (if they ever do) it will be too late to save the planet?
How many times does it need to be pointed out that we have a viable technology solution now (a combination of wind, solar and storage) which, while acknowledging that deployment challenges still exist, can be rolled out today and is really the only solution likely to be effective in the timeframe we are constrained by?
How many tens of thousands of pages of data does the IPCC have to produce before it sinks in that we are perilously close to irreversible planetary tipping points and that action is needed NOW?
Instead, we go round and round and round on these same tired tropes. As soon as the news cycle gets bored with his current nuclear furphy, Dutton will resurrect the good old ‘carbon capture and storage’ myth – anything for a few more weeks or months of delay.
I don’t agree with the tactics of the Extinction Rebellion, but by Jupiter I share their frustration.
How many false assumptions can we fit into one argument?
Economic arguments are irrelevant but if you’re going to try and make them understand economics.
High costs create barriers to entry into the energy market which is why nuclear is favoured by the people who control the energy market.
Renewables cannot provide the energy needs for 8b people and AI demanding more energy than at any period in human history.
And how many times are people who are not actual nuclear physicists going to insist on pretending to be actual nuclear physicists!
Thoroughly, persistently, strongly stupid and still yabbering. What a talkative economics and ethics dunce.
You continue to make this point, and it is demonstrably false for AUSTRALIA.
“Renewables cannot provide the energy needs for 8b people and AI demanding more energy than at any period in human history.”
Australia has extensive, reliable and accessible renewable energy resources and these can be implemented faster and at lower cost than ANY form of nuclear power.
In the same way we now export coal to the countries poor in fossil fuel reserves, we will be able to export our excess renewable energy generation to countries who are lacking in renewable energy options. We are well placed to take advantage of our resources and the emerging need for a non fossil fuel economy. Manufacturing green products is another key area.
You are right that the world is becoming energy hungry. Accepting the current massive waste of energy as inevitable is a mistake. We need world wide improvement in energy efficiency programs in ALL sectors.
Some countries may be forced to continue with nuclear and the costs will provide even more competitive advantages to Australia.
We do not need to saddle ourselves to the nuclear white elephant. The politicization of renewable energy has put the country as a whole behind by a decade, EXCEPT for South Australia where long term planning at the early stages has now put SA into a world leading position.
We averaged 72% renewable energy generation last year and have the most stable grid on the mainland.
Once more storage comes on line, and a new interstate connector is completed soon, we will be able to fully exploit the existing resources. Currently, generation is being curtailed during periods of over supply.
Your argument is let down by contradictory facts.
Time to abandon the false argument and catch up on the realities, or perhaps move to a country that has been forced to continue with nuclear with its exorbitant costs, massive implementation delays, long term radioactive waste problems etc.
The 70 year existence of nuclear power is uninteresting; we’ve been rubbing sticks together for far longer with similarly hit and miss results.
It’s pretty interesting when you consider it could’ve weaned us off fossil fuels 70 years ago.
The Liberals did the sums back in 1970 and stopped looking at a nuclear plant in Jervis Bay. It was too expensive way back then
Money is irrelevant!
Money is not finite. Planet earth is.
And for the powerful money, and our obsession with it, is what ensures their power.
The expense of nuclear is precisely why the vested interests support it. The cost creates barriers to entry to the energy market and allows them to maintain control of it.
That is why they are torpedoing renewables!
We are planning to completely transform all of our energy sources at a time when our energy requirements are rising exponentially and against the wishes and interests of the people who control the energy market and most governments?
Do you not understand how completely unrealistic that is?
Uranium is pretty damned finite. Also, have you seen how much energy goes into refining even high grade uranium before it ever enters the reactor? So its not even “clean and green” from a CO2/kw-h perspective.
Reflect on why it didn’t, anywhere.
It did in a lot of countries that are ahead of Australia.
But of course the fossil fuel industry gave money to Friends of the Earth to oppose it.
Well done everybody!
Back in 1970, the Liberal party did the sums and stopped building a nuclear power reactor in Jervis bay , despite having all the approvals and having started land clearing .
Why? Simple economics! The cost of electricity generated would be more expensive than that from any other source.
“The level of ignorance in this country is breathtaking”. Pretty ironic given how ignorant you clearly sound.
What about cold fusion? Surely that will work?
Agree, aspirational cowardice. Let’s do this thing.
Aspirational cowardice indeed.
I see siding with nuclear as being like the allies siding with the Soviet Union.
Lesser of two evils and all that.
Cost and time lag are the two reasons not to!
Cost is irrelevant except that it creates a barrier to the energy market which is precisely what the people who control the energy market want!
Oops. It was actually the Sudetenland that crossed my mind at the thought of expeditious surrender.
No the fossil fuel industry are the Germans in this story (I say Germans because a reference to a certain group of Germans in the 1930s/1940s will delay this comment).
Nuclear is the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union lead by Stalin who killed more people than that group of Germans.
But without him the war wouldn’t have ended. (Note I say the war ended not that anyone actually won).
What a weird analogy. So many points unaddressed. One example: Stalin killed more Russians than The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei killed everyone else…
Locally it’s about the delay stage of deny, delay and deflect for fossil fuels, allowing more time to wring out value from fossil fuels and related assets; defies ‘free market’ economics by avoiding faster transition to more economic renewables sources.
I’m unable to leave my apartment today, the sky has fallen as the economic orthodoxy since I was a child in the 1980s, to wit that the private sector can provide these services better and cheaper, has been exposed as utter bollox.
Proposing nuclear power for Australia is a way of being a global heating denier without appearing to be a global heating denier. Not obviously. No matter how many nuclear power plants are proposed, none will be built, and the Coalition can continue to denigrate the considerably cheaper renewable energy options. Onshore wind, according to the International Energy Agency, will be one third to one half less expensive than nuclear in 2050.
Rejecting nuclear is a form of climate change denial because it fails to appreciate the scale of the challenge we’re facing.
We need to electrify every form of energy we use.
Cities, where most energy is consumed, are not set up for large scale renewables projects even if we (as in governments pay for) were to supply all buildings with solar (and smart meters and insulation).
Sure we could update the grid system so that energy can be transferred from the regions to the cities but there are technical challenges and cities require 24/7/365 mega energy to power city lifestyles and all of the latest tech from AI to every single vehicle and thing being electric to crypto currencies to things we haven’t thought of yet.
We shouldn’t be underestimating the scale of the challenge or our future energy needs. Doing so has resulted is burning more fossil fuels than at any time in human history.
So pissing hundreds of billions of dollars up various nuclear power plant walls is the last thing that we should be doing.
Dollars are irrelevant except to note that those dollars are what’s going to remove the resistance of the vested interests!
You seriously think you can take on the fossil fuel industry and win?
The money available needs to be spent sensibly and effectively. Nuclear is both stupid and ineffective in the time scale needed
There is not a limited amount of money!
Money is not finite.
Resources are.
And nuclear will divert resources away from fossil fuels whilst having less of an impact on renewables which are decentralised.
How do you propose we power the approx 13m formerly petrol cars in Australia once they’re converted to EVs?
How do you propose we power AI, cryptocurrencies, content streaming and the internet?
The people making arguments against nuclear are mostly people who consume energy but don’t produce it (except for some token solar panels on their roof if they’re lucky enough to have a roof they own).
This is the e climate debate in a nutshell. It’s basically consumers demanding action without reducing their consumption.
That’s not a dig it’s just a reality. It’s a product of the divide between urban and regional areas and our shift to a services economy consisting mostly of people with no practical skills or knowledge of where their energy, food or clothing comes from.
It is what it is. But the key is to stop acting like you know what you’re talking about.
We’re talking nuclear energy here.
How are people seriously acting like they’re experts on nuclear energy?
How do you propose we power AI, cryptocurrencies, content streaming and the internet?
I propose there are better ways to spend your time…
How do you propose to deal with the international treaties signed to limit nuclear proliferation? Where do you propose to store the waste products? Or build reactors, in Australia? How would the location deal with Native Title claims?
I’m not an expert on nuclear, are you?
It’s a product of the divide between urban and regional areas and our shift to a services economy consisting mostly of people with no practical skills or knowledge of where their energy, food or clothing comes from.
wow! Arrogant much? Do you presume people who work in the “service industry” are unable to read and reason?
I am saddened that you have such a low opinion of your fellow humans…
and that you think the only way to fight fire (fossil fuels) is with even bigger fires (nuclear)…
“There is not a limited amount of money!
Money is not finite.
Resources are.”
Oh look, the Far Right shill has learned how to use the Copy-paste function.
You are pretending to be an expert on nuclear but have not really demostrated any level of expertise.
You certainly show very little understanding of renewables.
I suspect you spend very little time looking at the whole of the technical information. I do not know if you are suitably qualified to understand the technical aspects.
Electricity generation is extremely complex on its own, without the added elements of politics, economics, ideology etc
Personally, I woul be very happy if we could really have a nuclear power source that fulfilled the utopian idea of clean, safe, limitless and low cost power. The reality is quite different. Engineering is a complex human endeavour and as such has flaws and the potential for disasters and misuse.
I have a background and university quals in electical/electronic engineering. I taught electronics for 32 years. I have been following both the nuclear and renewables developments for decades.
I do not consider myself an expert in either area, they are far too complex.
HOWEVER, I am able to read the technical papers that the experts produce with a reasonable degree of understanding.
I find the general public “renewables vs nuclear” debate to be horrendous.
The level of technical understanding is minimal, as people with NO understanding of basic electrical concepts spruik pseudo technical points arguing about “baseload” and “intermittency”… Generally using the talking points of whatever “news” service they follow… Still using the statewide SA blackout several years ago as an anti renewables argument.
There are many sources of information, but the technical details are beyond the comprehension of the general population.
EG… The AEMO report on the balckout I previously mentioned, gives a millisecond by millisecond account of all the inputs, outputs, fault responses of the various parts of the system and the response of the interstate interconnectors in the system. Most in the general public have no understanding of basics including the term “millisecond”.
They cannot draw a simple circuit diagram or do a basic calculation of currents voltages power etc. Yet they will happily show their complete lack of understanding on a public forum by incorrect use of technical terms, lack of basic data, ignorance of technical advances etc.
How do you qualify as an “expert” in this debate?
How up to date are you on the current state of renewables and nuclear technology?
Are you following the research into fusion, the designs of SSMRs and their current status?
Are you following the latest research on solar technology, battery chemistry, grid stability?
I suspect not, but am happy to be proven wrong.
Exactly.
Think of any subject you have properly in-depth, or even dedicated hobbyist, understanding of.
Now think about what the ignorant (in a lacks knowledge, not pejorative, sense of the word) public discourse around that subject is like.
Energy generation is the same.
Pauline. I like your response. Very generous and thoughtful.
You keep saying that nuclear will destroy the enegy market.
Renewables are destroying the market. Roof top solar plus home battery storage is democratizing electricity… People can choose to totally disconnect. At this point it is those with more money who can afford panels and batteries, however there are governments who appreciate this divide and are facilitating referbishmment of public housing and the addition of panels and batteries. Schemes that facilitate or mandate renewables on rental properties are needed.
Corporations are installing large rooftop solar systems on factories and warehouses and shopping centres.
The commissioning of the SA big battery (AKA the Hornsdale reserve) immediately curtailed the gaming of the spot price by the traditional generators. The battery provides grid stability services at low cost and with a faster response time than ANY other source of power. Wholesale electricity prices have dropped and at times become negative. This is absolute market disruption.
Your fantasy scenario that nuclear power will result in destroying the market lacks a mechanism and credibility.
The reality of nuclear ventures is that they end up becoming a huge burden on the taxpayer as governments have to prop up the enormous costs to build.
The gen cost of renewables is far cheaper.
You keep making statements that money is not limited but resources are finite.
The costs to subsidise an expensive nuclear plant will divert government money away from scientific research on climate change, funds for hospitals, schools, land care and environment or any number of programs.
Alternatively, governments will have to raise taxes to provide funds to do both.
Expensive electricity is expensive electricity. Nuclear cannot be done cheaply.
Really????
“Sure we could update the grid system so that energy can be transferred from the regions to the cities but there are technical challenges and cities require 24/7/365 mega energy to power city lifestyles and all of the latest tech from AI to every single vehicle and thing being electric to crypto currencies to things we haven’t thought of yet.”
Yes we CAN upgrade the grid.
The task of upgrading the grid is less of a technical and economic challenge than implementing nuclear power… and it can be achieved in a few years.
ALSO, planning for “mini grids” where power is generated and used locally is sensible and reduces the requirement for larger levels of transmission. Household battery storage is already helping, and with such poor feed in tarif rates it will become an attractive option.
South Australia REGULARLY covers all our electricity demand from just ROOFTOP solar.
Your fanaticism about nuclear is clouding both your judgement and your ability to absorb current realities.
No one spruiking nuclear mentions waste.
Almost all nuclear waste world wide is currently stored in “short term” storage. The oldest containers are deteriorating There is only ONE long term storage facility in the WORLD.
The USA has long ago set up a fund to deal with waste. The fund is unspent because no government has managed to establish an “acceptable” and suitable site for a long term geological depository. The problem is simply being kicked down the road for the next government to similarly ignore.
WHY would you be concerned about the need for fast and urgent action on reducing emissions but remain ideologically and fanatically tethered to a technology that CANNOT be implemented in a timely fashion, will CONTINUE the economic need to consume and grow economies simply to PAY for it, and being fission based, will produce dangerous pollutants for 100s of thousands of years, handing a toxic legacy for many generations to come. There is STILL no storage solutions for the decades of nuclear waste already in existence.
Your position makes no sense.
There are faster, less environmentally problematic and more cost effective solutions based on renewables. The technology is simpler, can be deployed at local and national levels at both small and large scale. Our big nuclear generator (the sun) is at a safe distance and provides 24/7 power through wind and solar and waves somewhere in the world.
I am all for this type of nuclear power which is already fission based!!!
Sorry… My error …should say “is already FUSION based”
There’s a sure-fire way to force Dutton to do a 180 degree turn on nuclear: if the Albanese government came on board Dutton would ditch this risible policy ASAP.
Surely not; if that’s how things work, if Labor decided (for example) to run with the last government’s proposal to introduce vehicle emissions standards, the Coalition would suddenly reverse itself and declare that such standards are a terrible idea! That would be ridiculous!
Well if you were wanting to make the cost and wait times for the Aukus nuclear subs look trivial, embarking on a construction programme for large scale nuclear power generation to replace the coal fleet would certainly be one way to do that.