Nuclear won't keep the lights on, or price down

For anyone concerned about how regional areas will fare as Australia transforms to a net zero electricity system, nuclear power might at first glance look like a pretty attractive aspiration.  

Speaking in Sydney on Monday, Federal Coalition leader Peter Dutton has an opportunity to finally reveal how he thinks nuclear power might provide reliable, cheap power.    

But I can bet you what he won’t be talking about is the massive delays plaguing nuclear builds around the world, how water intensive the technology is, and how little electricity their scheme will generate relative to the huge cost to taxpayers.  

My opposition to nuclear power is not ideological. My opposition to nuclear is entirely practical.  

I’m opposed because the energy experts whose job it is to run our electricity networks, are unanimous in saying the opposite of Peter Dutton and David Littleproud: that nuclear is a very bad idea for Australia and it won’t keep the lights on, or bring prices down.  

Rural and regional areas are being short-changed by misinformation that paints nuclear as a so-called golden solution so Australia can stop building solar and wind, or transmission lines.     
Absent any details, the idea of nuclear power might at first appear to be a perfect fix. But so does a mirage appear to be a perfect solution for the thirsty traveler.  

We do know a few things about the reality of nuclear:

•    That making electricity from nuclear uses nearly one and a half times more water than coal. Modern efficiencies in nuclear technology overseas won’t be enough to bridge that gap.    
•    To generate enough nuclear power to replace coal generation at the proposed sites means bigger water licenses, which means taking water allocations away from existing farming operations.    
•    Or, if they maintain the current water usage, it means nuclear will produce less electricity than coal does now.  
We also know the idea of putting nuclear reactors at or very close to existing power plants to make use of existing transmission infrastructure sounds good in theory, but won’t withstand contact with reality.    

At Port Augusta for example, the equivalent electricity production from the now retired coal plant there has already been replaced with cheap, clean, renewable generation. The existing power lines are full. Unless the Coalition builds new lines there, the idea of a nuclear reactor near that site is pointless.  

And we know that however power is generated, Australia’s east coast grid still needs to be modernised to improve reliability across the whole network.  

Electricity travels at close to the speed of light. New interconnectors between states will allow the energy market operator to shift electricity almost instantaneously from the top of Queensland to the bottom of Tasmania, or across to South Australia as supply and demand warrants.  

That nuclear reactors present any kind of serious proposition to power Australia’s future is the kind of misinformation that does a disservice to the communities who are being asked to work with this energy transformation now.  

As it stands, accounting for their self-imposed limits of seven existing coal sites using existing transmission, and no additional water to be taken from farmers, the Coalition’s nuclear reactors wouldn’t provide more than 4 per cent of Australia’s energy needs by 2050.  

The closer you get to the nuclear mirage, the more it looks like a plan to extend coal and fill the huge remaining gap with new gas. It’s almost certain that waiting for the Coalition’s nuclear scheme means large new gas pipelines will need to be built soon through farming areas, and new inland fracking operations opened.  

Our plan includes gas as an essential back-up to renewables. But the coalition’s plan will need a lot more gas, with everything that comes with it.  

Both parties of government are in agreement that securing reliable, affordable energy is critical. The difference is that we listen to the experts, who tell us Australia needs new generation now, and all the evidence shows renewables are the cheapest, cleanest, fastest way to meet demand.  

How things have been communicated and done in energy communities hasn’t been good enough, our Government is working hard to get a better deal for the regions.  

New developments must help unlock genuine long term social and economic benefits – whatever local communities decide those benefits should be, for them.

And more information needs to be made widely available about the transformation that's already well underway, particularly how it intersects with regional areas and the cumulative impact of development.  

We’ve budgeted to increase the scope and impact of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner in recognition of this.  

It’s time the Coalition applied the same principle and provided the regions who will be affected with meaningful detail about what their nuclear scheme really means for Australia’s water needs and energy future.