Peter Dutton can’t seem to take a trick on nuclear power. Any option he puts forward seems to vanish as soon as he makes a commitment.
Since Dutton became opposition leader, he’s pushed the idea of small modular reactors (SMRs). At least in their original concept, these were reactors small enough (say 50-to-70MW capacity) to be built in a factory and shipped to sites where they could be installed in whatever number was required. The leading candidate was NuScale, a US firm that had contracted with a group of utilities in Utah to develop a pilot project of 12 (later reduced to six) SMRs.
The idea had the enthusiastic backing of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the government’s official adviser on nuclear technology. The ANSTO website includes information on how SMRs can be constructed in three to five years, and that the US will have them operational by 2026.
That sounded too good to be true, and sadly, it was — NuScale abandoned its project late last year. After a bit of prodding, ANSTO added a disclaimer and a note that the “three to five year estimate” came from a research paper by the University of Leeds, which in turn could be traced to a dodgy consulting report from 2014.
Having given up hope on NuScale, Dutton needed an alternative.
He settled on Rolls-Royce, a reassuringly familiar name with a long track record of engineering excellence, not always matched by its financial success (it was famously nationalised and broken up by the Conservative UK government in the 1970s). It produces the nuclear reactors to be used in the submarines we will acquire under the AUKUS deal.
Rolls-Royce also offers what it calls an SMR, though this is something of a misnomer. At 470MWe, the reactor scarcely qualifies as small. It’s far too big to be built in a factory and shipped to its installation site. The “modular” description refers to the fact that the design uses 1,500 “modular components”, which are to be produced in a factory then assembled on site.
This is precisely the approach that was attempted, unsuccessfully, in the Westinghouse AP1000 design. Of four AP1000 reactors started in the US, two were abandoned with a loss of billions of dollars while the other two (at Vogtle in Georgia) have finally been completed, years late and billions over budget.
Despite these concerns, Rolls-Royce looked like a frontrunner, at least in the UK. Its design was the first to enter the Office for Nuclear Regulation approval process in 2021, with a target delivery date of 2030. The UK government provided £210 million (about A$400 million) in funding to support the project.
So, late last week, Dutton briefed Simon Benson at The Australian on a plan to deliver Rolls-Royce reactors into the grid by the mid-2030s.
What could go wrong? Plenty it seems. Just as The Australian story appeared, the UK government announced the winners of a grant to build SMRs in County Durham, and Rolls-Royce was not among them. UK deployment of the Rolls-Royce design now seems unlikely.
Rolls-Royce is now talking about building its first plants overseas. Poland has been mentioned as a possibility, but that’s a furphy. Under the now-departed Law and Justice government, Poland announced deals involving a string of different reactor designs: the AP1000, the GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s BWRX-300 (a direct competitor for Rolls-Royce), Last Energy microreactors, and even NuScale. Few if any will actually be built.
So, if Dutton goes ahead with Rolls-Royce, Australia could be in the unenviable situation of building “first of a kind” (FOAK) reactors with an untested design. Even more than nuclear plants in general, FOAK projects are notorious for delays and cost overruns. For a country like Australia, with no established nuclear industry or regulatory structure, it would be madness to try such a thing.
What next for Dutton’s nuclear policy? There’s still time for a climbdown before the policy is officially announced, but it’s unclear that the nuclear true believers in the LNP would accept such a thing. He could switch to a design with slightly better chances, such as the BWRX-300, but that would risk a third embarrassment if the design failed. So he has little choice but to press ahead with the Rolls-Royce dream and hope that it is not finally dispelled before the 2025 election.
Should Dutton abandon his nuclear drime? 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.
Brilliant analysis. One of Crikey’s best. It stands to reason that if we get a future coalition government, they will cast us down the path of nuclear power and possibly into uranium enrichment for weaponry purposes and certainly full scale nuclear waste disposal. It is incumbent on us decent Australians to protest this possibility wherever it raises its ugly head, and I’m not just talking about Barnaby Joyce and Lew O’Brien and that 15 year old nuclear proponent kid who looks like something from the Roswell Incident. This represent Labor’s golden opportunity for negativity which would be fully justified. There has probably never been a better time to talk up and push ahead more with renewables. If Dutton’s plans fall apart Labor could attack his credibility as well. Labor should win either way and if a future coalition government does sign contracts for nuclear power, then Labor should invoke sovereign rights and cancel the project as one of its core policies. It should do that anyway and put the frighters on anyone wanting to invest in such a God-awful concept. Labor should do this anyway otherwise the Greens will take Albo’s and Tanya’s seats finally and not by design.
The COALition has no intention of building nuclear power reactors.
It’s just a talking point get headlines, to wedge the government and kick the renewables tin down the road.
Ask Joyce or Dutton what is the difference between a Neutrino and a Neutron. And what their own half lives are.
While that may be the intention, Australia has a grim history of absurd policies produced to wedge opponents that become reality anyway, usually because Labor often does not have the nerve to say no. Labor often prefers to dodge the fight being offered by agreeing as quickly as possible. Anything the Coalition can describe as national security falls into this category, AUKUS is an obvious example, and there are others equally egregious such as the Northern Territory Intervention. Don’t underestimate how dangerous it is when these wedge policies are put on the table. The more stupid and reckless the policies are, the bigger the risk.
Why you apparently think it makes the slightest difference whether or not Joyce or Dutton have even the most basic knowledge of the relevant physics behind nuclear power is beyond me. There is not and never has been any requirement for politicians to have any idea what they are talking about. The constitutional thinking behind the way MPs are elected, and then some become ministers, (the requirement that ministers are chosen from parliamentarians more-or-less rules out picking well-qualified or expert candidates to be ministers, and plenty of ex-MPs have described how even so the governing party and whips will take care to exclude MPs with relevant knowledge or experience from ministerial posts) is that the ministers then get advice from people who do know what they are on about. Sadly for us, these days the governing party will often go to considerable lengths to avoid even that much expertise being taken into account, which is why the senior APS has been decimated, many senior appointments have been partisan, and ministers are surrounded by party hack ‘special advisors’ to further insulate them from any contact with reality. It has to be even worse among the shadow ministers, such as Dutton’s mob.
‘Australia has a grim history of absurd policies produced to wedge opponents that become reality anyway, usually because Labor often does not have the nerve to say no’
See all things immigration, NOM, population etc. and attempts to throttle temporary student spike and data noise through media falsely correlating with houses for e.g. FHBs, when in fact the boomer ‘bomb’ are the holders of property and wealth vs millennials… far bigger numbers.
Power of suggestion and misrepresentation of data, especially liked to FIRE sector placing a psychological floor under the housing market eg. FOMO vs. Sydney median house prices have been stagnant for past decade in value terms, i.e. barely doubled, hence, loss of value. Question is where is the demand as the boomer ‘bomb’ transitions to and through retirement, 5 million+ with little demographic powder to follow, ‘pass the parcel’ as the ‘big die off’ starts?
You are correct, but not for the reason you (claim to) think.
Another comment from our old buddy on immigration, boomers, students, matters population – all of which have nothing to do with Dutton and his nuclear energy policy. Why give these non-players in a nuclear debate a guernsey? They are non-players and should be non-starters but you are lighting a fire under your favourite topics through your word salads.
Because SSR’s comments cites ‘talking points’ and how they are used by RW MSM and influencers to ‘wedge opponents’, to change or reinforce perceptions of the public, while avoiding science data and analysis.
Is it coincidental that you respond like much of the RW does with more talking points, beliefs and shooting messengers, to avoid analysis?
Because they are related and central to delaying transition from fossil fuels on behalf of mostly foreign or US subsidiaries, to squeeze out as much income as possible…..
Nuclear protagonists are not stand alone, but linked to fossil fuels and many of the latter to the faux ‘environmental’, ‘population control’ movement of Rockefeller-Exxon ZPG; nothing new….
Other year UK’s generally good ByLine TV hosts & producers, without science literacy, were too easily astroturfed by former Extinction Rebellion activist Zion Lights promoting nuclear as an environmental solution.
Of course what they missed was that she had also been on Sky News After Dark promoting the same as an ‘environmental solution’, like former Labor Senator and patron of SPA, Bob ‘Malthus’ Carr spruiking alleged ‘high immigration’ as an ‘environmental issue’ looking for a ‘solution’; intention is to confuse.
“See all things immigration, NOM, population etc. and attempts to throttle temporary student spike and data noise through media falsely correlating with houses for e.g. FHBs, when in fact the boomer ‘bomb’ are the holders of property and wealth vs millennials… far bigger numbers.”
If I understand you correctly from this garbled paragraph, it is that baby boomers hold the property that they can rent out to students from wherever and bid up the price of their properties if or when they decide to sell or die off and leave something for their children. It is not the fault of long term students here studying the finer points of washing dishes or painting nails that they have to spend 8 or more years learning these skills in addition to the courses they’re supposed to be studying. You throw in a few phrases like “correlating with houses” and I guess and you may be partly correct in saying that the problem in housing is not the fault of students from wherever or younger people. Wouldn’t be more appropriate to lessen in large numbers the inflow of these long term students and other immigrants doing what are often really BS jobs (just in case the Moderator knocks me out)? In this way the demand for said boomer properties would be reduced and those boomers and others who bought an extensive or unaffordable property portfolio, may be forced to sell them for cheaper than they would otherwise be.
Talking of ‘word salads’, talking points and tropes, but evidence and analysis free? 🙂
Just about everything you write is “evidence and analysis” free.
Your “evidence” is typically unbacked by any source.
Your “analysis” is nearly always ad hominem, straw men, or some other fallacy.
Every negative accusation you level at others, is describing your own behaviour.
Drew’s rather ghoulish belief is that the real cause of the housing crisis and various other population-related issues is that baby boomers & older generations are staying alive too long.
Yes but they don’t have to know this. They don’t have to know business, how business works and finance or anything. They have a class war mentality and a born to rule ethic. It matters nought the details of it. Same with Defence. Same with nuclear. I really fear for this. I’m surprised the people on this forum don’t. There has not been one bad thing a conservative government has not done. You look at Australian history. They can easily get someone else to focus and implement the finer details of nuclear power generation. Who’d a thought that we wouldn’t have the right to strike? Who’d a thought that we would have done away with defined benefit superannuation schemes? Who’d a thought that half the workforce would be contractualised, casualised and offshored? Who’d a thought we would be importing all our industrial products and not have a car industry? Who would have thought that at one stage we would reintroduce conscription (1964-1973) after having defeated it in 2 referenda during the First World War? Who’d a thought that workers’ organisations would be made illegal (IWW IN 1917 and the BLF in 1987) and an attempt to make a political party illegal by referenda (Communist Party 1951)? Who’d a thought that we would lock a mother up for 4 years of a life sentence (overturned on appeal and re-inquest) for the disappearance of her child at Uluru (Ayers Rock) in 1980? Who’d a thought that the Police haven’t solved the disappearance of Juanita Nielsen (1975), Christopher Dale Flannery (1985), Sally Anne Huckstepp (1986), who ser fire to Luna Park (1979) and numerous other suspicious fires? I think you are really taking a punt like a mug playing a game of Russian roulette if you think that the coalition aren’t serious about nuclear. This has been their brainchild for years. Look at the way we let (who’d a thought again) the British conduct atomic testing in our desert in the 1950s and 60s. Look at the idea of the now deceased, totally useless but at times hilariously funny former PM John Gorton decided on one in 1969 for the South Coast. Binned by Bily McMahon who had some nous and a hot wife but it was a near thing. JWH wanted to seriously look at one in 2007 and if this renewables transition goes awry for whatever reason, nuclear will be back on the agenda.
The coalition has every intention of building nuclear power reactors and is just softening us up.
The Liberals had their chance in 1970 when they had all the approvals and had started land clearing at Jervis Bay. That little exercise when they got the tenders back and terrified by the costs, very quickly dumped the idea.
Ha! What a pathetic mob. The Liberals, or rather the Coalition, has got its act together since then. These days a Coalition government would see the colossal costs set out in the tenders and rub their hands with glee at the vast potential for rewarding their mates and taking huge kickbacks. The more costly the project is, the better they like it. More fun for everyone.
With the benefit of hindsight the costs are even more terrifying these days. Not just the up front cost (and time) blowouts, but the clean up cost afterward. The only cleanup cost analysis publicly available I’m aware of is the one done by the UK parliament some 15 or more years ago into a half dozen retired plants (it’s online somewhere). The price was so horrendous, they decided to just fence them and provide security at millions of pounds a year. So, does anyone think dud Dutton or the libs factored any of that in. Of course not…
It casts a long shadow over the lack of robust scrutiny by our pro fossil fuel RW MSM etc. or ‘architecture of influence’ in not even questioning the veracity of claims made around glib nuclear PR, let alone the science and economics; too easy.
It’s more about using nuclear, along with issues, to denigrate and dog whistle the centre, plus delay inevitable transition to renewables from fossil fuels; occurring much faster outside Australia while too many still question whether solar is effective in Australia…..
I wonder when he will commit to building a reactor in the middle of Dickson electorate:
Just as long as they’re not near the mountain bike tracks at Ironbark Gully.
A small modular reactionary.
There should also be space to mention the long list of bribery and corruption offences committed by Rolls-Royce.
“Rolls-Royce” for me conjures up Parker driving Lady Penelope to London in the pink beast FAB 1. A machine delivered promptly and at reasonable cost. Bullet proof canopy. Fantasy, like this variant.
And the various Trent jet engine failures:
From Wikipedia: Qantas Flight 32 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight from London to Sydney via Singapore.On 4 November 2010, the aircraft operating the route, an Airbus A380, suffered an uncontained failure in one of its four Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines.
From The Engineer: Cracking problems in the intermediate pressure (IPT) section of the turbine have plagued the engine since early 2016, five years after its launch. Unscheduled groundings of Trent 1000-powered aircraft cost Rolls-Royce some £450m last year (2018)
Subsidies for fossil fuels, subsidies for nuclear fission fuels …. and screams and claims from both of these usual fossilized suspects about alleged subsidies for sun and wind energy, the ones that come closest to the “too cheap to meter” bragging that the nuclear industry used to put out.