Resolving Our Nuclear Contradictions

Australia’s decision to partner with the US and UK in building a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines shines a bright light on the contradictions that bedevil Australia’s policy on the civil use of nuclear power. We will have nuclear in our navy but not on land; we export our uranium to many countries as fuel for their reactors, yet Australia is not allowed to have its own nuclear energy program. The cause is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, passed by the Coalition government in 1999, prohibiting the construction or operation of nuclear power plants.

It is possible that this legislation is broad enough to stop the submarine deal. Nuclear submarines are propelled by small modular reactors (SMRs), which are the basis of the new-technology reactors being developed in the US and elsewhere for civil power generation and would arguably be very suitable for use in Australia. Repealing the legislation would have the benefit of not only resolving that ambiguity but also redressing the embarrassing contradictions in energy policy. One wouldn’t be surprised if the partners in the submarine deal would want clarification on the issue. It would need bipartisan support to repeal or amend the 1999 legislation.

The ban on nuclear power is increasingly being seen as an impediment to Australia’s ability to use nuclear as part of the strategy to reduce carbon emissions as demanded by the United Nations. The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sounds the climate alarm at decibels higher than ever before, calling for immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The release of the report adds significantly to the pressure being exerted on the Prime Minister and the government to take measures limiting our greenhouse emissions to net zero by 2050. Global accomplishment of that goal is considered necessary if the IPCC’s widely accepted target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees is to be achieved. Australia is morally obliged to play a constructive part, although it is responsible for only 1.3 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

In the report before this one, the IPCC predicted that its 1.5-degree targeted ceiling could not be met without the aid of nuclear power. It follows then that nuclear must play a significant role in achieving the 2050 net zero emissions goal, which is central to the warming limitation strategy.

Scott Morrison points out that technology must be in the toolbox to be used if we are to deal effectively with the climate challenge. While several technologies can be exploited and combined to do the job, nuclear power is clearly one of them—so says the IPCC. Like wind, solar and hydro, it has zero operating emissions. If Australia is to act responsibly, it owes it to the world to consider adding nuclear to its other zero-emission technologies.

It will have to repeal or dramatically amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act first. The dramatic switch to nuclear as choice for the next generation of submarines gives the government the impetus to dump or change this ill-advised piece of legislation to make available this important technology. The government should take note of the many notable advances in nuclear safety, waste disposal and system applications that have occurred around the world over the last two decades.

THERE is a perceptible quiver in the breeze of Australian public opinion about nuclear power. While there is still concern about safety and waste disposal, people are increasingly realising that positive movement has occurred over the last twenty years. Lessons learned at Chernobyl and Fukushima have been incorporated into better reactor designs, and the first long-term, high-level waste storage facility is under way in Finland, using advanced technology. France, which is 70 per cent dependent on nuclear power, and others are following.

But the progress that has attracted the most attention is the advent of the SMRs. These are nuclear plants of 300 megawatts and less—down to 5 megawatts. Capable of being mass produced to a common design in factories and transported on trucks to remote regions, this version of nuclear power has risen to a new level of safety. Not requiring any operator action, backup electrical or water supplies (the system is air-cooled), a suite of SMRs would have survived the Fukushima tsunami. And the price tag is much more affordable than its larger cousins. Besides, these reactors produce very little waste, small enough for the used fuel over a lifetime of a facility to be managed on site.

SMRs can come to the aid of solar and wind to provide base load when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, as large-scale batteries that might provide more than a few minutes backup are still some way off. Because of their flexibility in size and transport capability, SMRs can be deployed in rural areas and remote sites.

The International Energy Agency reports that, from now until 2050, almost half of global emission reductions will come from new technologies currently being developed. These include SMRs.

Cost projections of US-designed SMRs are 40 per cent less than conventional reactors. As indicated in the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report on “The Costs of Decarbonisation”, nuclear is notably competitive in a system where it, instead of fossil fuels, works with renewables. And costs are continuing to come down. It should be noted that SMRs are designed for a sixty-year life, whereas wind farms have a lifetime of thirty years and solar plants twenty-five years. The SMRs could be built alongside the submarines in Australia and be in operation in less than ten years.

Does it make sense to have the equivalent of SMRs at sea but not on land?

Tony Grey was the founder and chief executive of Pancontinental Mining Ltd, which discovered the Jabiluka uranium orebody. He was also Chairman of the Uranium Institute (now known as the World Nuclear Association)