To the extent that most Australians have heard of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), we know it as a supplier of radio-isotopes for use in medicine and as the operator of a small research reactor at Lucas Heights in the suburbs of Sydney.
So, it may have come as a surprise to hear shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien cite ANSTO as the source for an estimate that a small modular reactor (SMR) could be constructed in three to five years, and a large reactor in eight to 12 years.
Appearing on the ABC’s 7:30 report in mid-March, O’Brien stated “that is the advice from ANSTO. That is the advice of the Albanese government’s nuclear agency”. In view of the fact that widely publicised advice from an extensive study undertaken by CSIRO yields much less optimistic conclusions, that seems like a surprising claim.
But O’Brien is correct. ANSTO is indeed the government agency officially advising on nuclear technology, including nuclear power.
Section 5 of the ANSTO Act mandates the organisation provide advice on aspects of and the application and use of nuclear science and nuclear technology. ANSTO provides such advice to government, parliaments, ministers, departments and agencies, inquiries and investigations, members of the public, and international, multilateral and bilateral partners — in pursuit of the national interest.
In a submission to the Senate standing committee on environment and the communications inquiry into the environment and other legislation amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022, ANSTO stated that SMRs “have the potential to reduce build costs using a variety of strategies, including reducing plant build times from six to eight years for large reactors to two and a half to four years for SMRs via the use of series-production methods“.
These numbers are even more optimistic than those cited by Ted O’Brien. But terms like “potential” can do a lot of work in claims of this kind. Nuclear fusion, for example, has the potential to meet all the energy needs of the planet, but it won’t do so any time soon.
A natural response from an interested member of the public would be to visit the ANSTO website to get more detailed information on the assessment of nuclear technology. This leads us to a webpage titled “What are small modular reactors and what makes them different?”, which leads with the claim “the USA is expected to have its first SMR operating by 2026” and includes the timeframe of three to five years for construction.
A note hastily added in the last week states: “Please note that this content was current at the time of publishing (July 2020), and the projected construction time of SMRs (three to five years) is referenced from a University of Leeds research paper. In November 2023, NuScale [the subject of the 2026 claim] announced it was discontinuing its SMR project in Idaho.”
Even in 2020, this research was out of date. The NuScale project, originally projected to be delivering power in 2023, had already pushed its target past 2026 by then. But given that the project has been abandoned, there’s no need to look too closely at this.
The University of Leeds paper is more interesting. It turns out to be a literature survey covering the period 2004-19. The three- to five-year estimate for the construction time for SMRs is taken from a non-peer-reviewed 2016 report by consulting firm Ernst and Young (which worked with one of the authors on the University of Leeds study). The information used to compile the report is even older, going back to 2014 or earlier. To put it bluntly, this is worthless.
Rather than complying with its legal obligation to keep abreast of nuclear power technology and inform the public of its findings, ANSTO has relied on decade-old, unverified claims, made by a consulting company. This sloppy treatment of an issue that should be a central focus of ANSTO analysis contrasts sharply with the careful assessment undertaken by CSIRO.
I went to ANSTO for a response but didn’t hear back.
Ted O’Brien can scarcely be blamed for taking ANSTO’s word on these matters, particularly when its claims are so convenient to his case. But ANSTO needs to retract its misleading claims as soon as possible. That would give the LNP an opportunity, if it wants it, to drop its nuclear policy and put the blame on an Albanese government agency for misleading it.
One final irony. The ban on nuclear power, which is now the subject of so much controversy, was introduced by the Howard government to secure the passage of legislation that allowed ANSTO to build a new research reactor at Lucas Heights. In light of this history, maybe ANSTO’s remit should be revised to steer the organisation clear of nuclear power once and for all.
I would like to see more in-depth, expert discussion on the ‘Whole of Life’ costs of a large scale nuclear generator project. In my experience, the ‘Whole of Life’ can be broken down into seven fundamental stages that are encountered by all ‘major hazard facility’ projects. Planning, Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Operation, Maintenance, End of Life Decommissioning. Of all major hazard facility projects, Nuclear plants are the most difficult and expensive. Every stage is hugely expensive.
Planning in a representative federal democracy like ours takes years, involving community consultation, government legislation, regulatory approvals etc etc.
Engineering requires large teams of engineering experts, not generally available in Australia and takes years to complete at very high cost, even if using existing designs.
Procurement of suitable equipment certified for nuclear use is logistically difficult with extended time lags and cost overruns. In order to make Nuclear safe a high degree of redundancy is required. No single points of failure can be tolerated. Instrumentation and electrical control systems utilise triple modular redundancy. Critical pumps, valves, vessels etc must all be redundant. For example, there is a huge difference in the cost and availability of a UPS used in general industry and one certified for nuclear plants.
Construction requires a very large highly skilled and highly paid workforce. Australia currently has a skills shortage that will add to the cost. Construction projects of this nature always exceed estimated time to completion.
Operation: Major Hazard Facilities, especially nuclear plants require highly trained operating technicians and critical operating procedures that must be followed without deviation. Waste fuel disposal systems have to be implemented, requiring the most rigorous care, regulatory approval and community acceptance. Again, hugely difficult and expensive.
Maintenance: Detailed equipment strategies and detailed maintenance procedures must be prepared by equipment reliability engineers. Maintenance technicians must be highly skilled and perform work in accordance with those procedures without deviation. Strict management of change systems must be implemented and followed.
End of Life Decommissioning and site remediation. The big daddy of stupendous cost and community disquiet, and the most likely to be eventually foisted onto the taxpayer.
In conclusion, the ‘Whole of Life’ cost of nuclear generation is stupendously prohibitive and no privately owned company would ever contemplate building a large scale nuclear generator in Australia without significant taxpayer funded subsidies and guaranteed government ownership of risk.
I’d like to see less of a discussion about the cost (of saving us from runaway climate change) and more about solutions of which nuclear is one (as evidenced by the fact it exists).
Maybe less focus on red herrings that will never eventuate, and instead looking at practicable solutions (renewables and storage)
It’s literally a proven technology that’s been around for decades and provides a base load power to power a 21st century civilisation.
Renewables and storage will not be able to power AI, cryptocurrencies and other 24/7/365 power hungry technologies including ones we haven’t even invented yet.
Plus there’s the fact that the vested interests who control the energy market will undermine renewables because they’re a threat to their control of the energy market.
You don’t want to talk about cost, OK, let’s talk engineering which I am more familiar with. Actually, distributed wind farms, with Solar and grid sized batteries and other emerging technologies, in a continent like ours, is perfectly capable of providing the energy required by a 21st century civilisation. Distributed wind does require sufficient redundancy to help with wind intermittency issues, and an extensive transmission network and a distributed digital control system to manage load sharing etc. In the short term, while the necessary network is being built, gas turbine generators can provide stopgap power. All of this can be built in far less time than it will take to bring large scale nuclear plants into operation.
You had me until you got to the gas turbine generators….
Plus how are wind turbines going to power AI?
Perhaps it would be better to reduce the amount of energy we consume, through efficiency improvements and not promoting unnecessary technologies, like cryptocurrency.
We’re not going to reduce the amount of energy we consume.
Look at history.
We cannot make that a dependency on winning the war on climate change.
However we do need to roll out every available piece of technology to increase our energy efficiency including insulation, smart meters, more efficient electronics, bicycles, and whatever else we can do.
This is all hands on deck.
You are absolutely correct MH. I’ve installed solar panels, reducing our energy cost from over $1200/qtr (heated swim spa) to a couple of hundred. We have pink bats, thanks to labor’s incentives. I use an e-bike around town and can’t wait to get an EV when they become more affordable, I see the new BYD will be US$12,000 so there’s hope for us down under no matter crap govt incentives. I regard myself very much a deckhand.
You are not the measure.
If more people lived like me the world would be awesome. But they don’t.
What part of history makes you think we can convince more people to live like you?
I think your last point is very valid, i think it will be very difficult to undermine a market based on much cheaper energy, but there is the small matter of poles wires and transmittion. Fossil fuels and their allies will not give up easily and they obviously have a huge very useful investment in media.
Transmittion does look rather strange
Yep, it’s all talk, talk, talk. It’s been all talk and no action for so long that we now have to use every means available whatever the inconvenience and cost and politics.
But no, our fearless leaders continue to pump methane and CO2 out, being in thrall to the profiteers. And the IEA’s plan for net zero by 2050 still relies on CCS. Civilisation as we know it really is about to end, and this is why.
Yep, we have been subjected to decades of imported climate science denial, now that it’s sort of accepted or acknowledged, we are now in the delay stage by mooting nuclear; meanwhile the rest of the world moves on due to the economics of renewables, increasing innovation and faster transition.
Our comparatively small population and dearth of heavy industry, combined with the amazingly rich nature of our renewable assets, means that it is relatively easy for us to make the change. Given leadership with that intention…
Speaking of pumping methane into the atmosphere which i think is a waste byproduct from the refining of oil, LPG pumps are being removed all over the country.
There is a satellite now that tracks methane hotspots. I’m not saying converting methane into co2 by using it in cars is great but neither is petrol and it just gets burnt off the cracking tower at the refinery otherwise and is cleaner than both petrol and diesel.
I believe there are a few such satellites, the latest being French. Touted as being particularly sensitive and accurate, but they would say that wouldn’t they? Of course, natural gas, so called for PR reasons, is methane. Producers swear leaks are all very minor, hand on bible, but if 5% leaks that puts it ahead of coal in the dirtiest fuel competition. I once got lost in SA and found myself in the Moomba gas field. Wellheads and pipelines all over the place, and that was before fracking and horizontal drilling was developed. When the leakage numbers come out, if they do, I fully expect the shit to hit the fan hopefully closing down the gas led recovery which has to be a sham.
Given that we don’t even agree on what to do with waste from Lucas Heights reactor, I don’t have any confidence in Australia being able yo agree on waste from commercial power plants.
This is how we handle the small amount of nuclear waste we have. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nuclear-waste-australia-how-much-why-kimba-lucas-heights
The LNP would outsource the whole thing to tradies, say a mob like Jim’s Nuclear.
“Ted O’Brien can scarcely be blamed for taking ANSTO’s word on these matters, particularly when its claims are so convenient to his case.”
Don’t agree. It’s a bit like ‘doctor shopping’ – look for the evidence that supports your belief/desires and ignore known authoritative counter evidence. O’Brien knew exactly what he was doing and held directly responsible for it. Bah!
…. and *should be* held directly responsible..
Would you trust the Limited News Party Coalition to :-
a) implement any measures that actually worked as promised/sold/planned and for the greater good : or, more likely,
b) to put in place a half-wired cheapjack/money-saving IED petard – that blew up in their face and took out innocent widespread ‘collateral damage’; that sent them into scapegoat hunting mode?
The ANSTO advice is clean compared to the document published by CSIRO. CSIRO’s funding is dependent on them showing a track record of relationships with industry. Note that they only have to publish such “joint publications”, they don’t actually have to do any of the research. If you check the inside cover, you will find that CSIRO washes its hands of any of the conclusions included here in.
“Money is the root of all evil” could be changed to “Money, as presented by economists, is the root of all evil”. Here, we are told it is too expensive to save ourselves. Really? For decades we have known that if we leave the problems of climate change and put off the cure, then it will be more and more expensive and urgent to fix. So here we are. Now.
I don’t think anyone actually believes building sufficient renewables is too expensive, the issue is more about prolonging the fossil fuel industry.
Sure, but my point is that the longer we put off meaningful action the more urgent and expensive it becomes – right up to the point where it really is too late (motor boat traffic on George St, Sydney) and we really cannot afford to change to renewables (because the climate has destroyed our means).
All the science points to this happening. The date of this coming event depends now on our own actions, and we are purposefully accelerating towards it. The roll-out of renewables is not quite keeping up with the increase in demand for electricity, and is not touching transport or heavy industry such as concrete and steel production. Even the survival of fish in the sea is in doubt.
Yet by taking urgent action now we would move to a cleaner, healthier and more sustainable world with a foreseeable future stretching ahead with optimism. Just saying.
More, yarping on again, really.