The Federal Election has been called, and people are now banging on my door demanding I provide them with some deep analysis on the ‘nuclear debate’. They want to know what I think about Peter Dutton’s grand plan to build nuclear power stations across Australia.
Here’s what I think: I’m not wasting your time or mine.
Not because I’ve got nothing to say. I’ve worked in a nuclear power station in the UK1. I have a good idea of what’s involved in planning, designing, building, regulating, commissioning, running, fuelling and decommissioning the things.
It’s not that nuclear is scary or evil or unsafe. I LOVE nuclear engineering. It’s just not gonna happen here. Not in the next fifty years. Likely not ever.
We don’t have the engineers. We don’t have the institutions. We can’t even build a giant water battery in the mountains without losing six years and ten billion bucks. Snowy 2.0 is what happens when you try to dig before thinking. But sure – let’s pretend we’re just a few policy tweaks away from joining France and South Korea.
80% of respondents to a 2024 survey agreed large Australian infrastructure projects are often over budget and behind schedule. Read it and weep.
Big Hydrogen Energy
It reminds me of the hydrogen power station fantasy the South Australian government cooked up a few years ago. Remember that? They swore it was going to help power the state with otherwise curtailed wind, hired a whole team of expensive public servants to ‘make it happen’, bought the turbines, did the press conferences. Until one day, quietly, they realised it was a dumb idea. Now they’re flogging the gear on Gumtree like it’s a secondhand mower2
This nuclear plan? Same energy.
An ‘artist’s impression’ of South Australia’s Hydrogen plant. No real photos are available because it hasn’t been built.
Technically Interesting, Totally Pointless
Yes, Dutton might win. Yes, he might spend billions prepping Australia to ‘go nuclear’ – all talk, reports, glossy diagrams, and new departments with four-letter acronyms. But a working power station? That’s never getting built.
For those who’ve asked how it’d affect solar owners if one ever got built, sure, nuclear would affect wholesale prices and feed-in tariffs. But so would a time machine, and we’re not building one of those either.
So no, I’m not writing a serious thinkpiece on nuclear. It’d be like writing a fashion guide for Mars – technically interesting, totally pointless.
Call me when they’ve fuelled the core and started raising the control rods. Until then, it’s just noise, and I’d rather focus my energy on real solutions.
About Finn Peacock
RSS - Posts
Hi Finn, agree – I can’t see a commercial scale fission plant being built in Aus. But would be willing to reconsider if fusion becomes viable – which is unfortunately unlikely in the near term (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105813) and therefore doesn’t help from a reliable greenhouse gas reduction point of view.
I would be interested in your expanded perspective on Snowy 2.0 – I’m unclear what the energy / cost return is on the many extra kilometers of of tunneling versus just pump it from the bottom of the dam wall to the top (at least in the first instance) !
Cheers
Thank you Finn for your direct evaluation. It is such a waste of thinking time to even consider Australia going down the nuclear path. It puzzles me that anyone proposes this as an actual feasible policy. Anyone except the old self serving dirty fossil fuel industry that would love us to delay the inevitable transition to sane environmental decisions. It really worries me that we would continue to transport oil thousands of kilometres over oceans to Australia. What a strange form of madness.
I’m with you Finn. I will not bother to discuss it in any detail from now on because it is a truly stupid idea for Australia and is only there to be a sop to the fossil fuel industries and a point of difference to the Government.
Sadly, some otherwise intelligent people seem to have been sucked into the cause.
Remember two other recent issues the LNP did exactly the same thing?
Number 1: NBN: screwing up a rollout of a modern fibre network by forcing it down an outdated, technically inept multi-technology path. So; delayed rollout, increased cost, delays meant competitor technologies got a foothold, decreased business growth due to poor performance and reduced opportunities.
Number 2: Snowy Hydro. The wrong project to solve the problem. Inadequately planned and costed, too expensive for output, redirected funds from projects with better returns, shattered investment interest in cheaper wind and solar projects, made investment capital go overseas.
No more needs to be said.
I agree with your reasoning. There is no point in doing a Nuclear power plant.
We should do a cost benefit analysis on the different options out there without changing the figures to fit out views and keep in mind that we are using taxpayers money and then make a sound decision.
Agreed on both counts.
The round trip efficiency of using Green Hydrogen to make electrons never made sense to me and I’m glad the project fell over.
Given gas turbine orders are backlogged until 2030, SA may even make a profit on the sale.
Surely the new development Geothermal system like the one at Geretsried at Bavaria must be at least 100 times more cost effective than a Nuclear power plant and if you take into account the ~2 years build time compared to the 20 to 40 years of Nuclear disregarding the cost overruns that is a dead certainty it will even be more viable.
Do you think if I buy that hydrogen gear cheap, I might be able to flog it to Temu Trump at a nice profit for his next alternative energy policy to push out the use of coal fired power stations, when the public wake up to the current one?
We need SOMETHING more than renewables for baseload 24/7, and I don’t feel batteries, be they interconnected VPP type home scale, or large battery farms, will cut it.
If we don’t have good baseload for peak needs, we will lose all our industry and manufacturing on the current (no pun intended) path.
And as citizens, many will have very unreliable power, unless the whole country goes solar / battery installed in every residence, flat, unit, tent (?).
Personally, I feel new coal hele is the way to go, but there’s the ‘must keep running on low, ready to fire up 24/7’ problem, where we probably don’t need it all the time through solar hours (at least summer and shoulder).
We might need it to charge batteries when wind is low through cooler / shorter days of winter / shoulders, 4-5 months ?
Gas ? Quick to fire up, not needed to operate until demand is there, but supposedly the worst for greenhouse gases ??
Whatever they are, and whether or no plants need the Co2.
What’s the answer Finn ?
We need to see the 8.2 MW electrical + 64 MW thermal solid-rock geothermal plant completed in Geretsried, Bavaria – coupla months, now. Yes, there’s more heat exchange bores to drill, as it extracts by conduction, but the cost is OK. Yes, after 30 yrs, output will drop a fair bit, but drill 3 more sets of 7 km deep L-shaped heat exchangers, one each 90 deg, for 120 yrs back to the first set, hot again by then.
Individual plant size is limited – great for distributed regional generators, only 2 yrs to build, anyway. We can have a hundred before one nuke station is done – and for much less cost. Dispatchable too!
Deeper drilling technology is on the way; it’ll increase output & efficiency, but it already beats what has gone before. We are not leaders, so can have an improved model for less, as we pile on to progress later, despite experience with what didn’t work in the unsuccessful past.
I agree with this line of thought and think this is a viable solution to cover the time that we do not have sunshine over the complete area of Australia East to West. If we can give ita year to see if it perform in accordance to the initial requirements and then do the same but instead of two horizontal arrays of holes/ heaters use four and also resears the sealing solutions they use to see if we can use one with high coefficient of conductivity to improve the efficiency of the system. Once the system efficiency drops to where it is no longer economical just drill slightly deaperand repeat the system whilst retaining most of the rest of the infrastructure.
Erik, Geo would be something available for base, and if somewhere suitable with reasonable cost to get the power to the people, then it could be an answer.
Why hasn’t this source of energy been talked about more to date though ?
Is there a reason it might not be suited to our region ?
Piers, yes it will take time, that the whole problem with current govcos push, it’s too rushed, and the country will suffer as I mentioned with loss of capability in manufacturing, and loss of grid reliability for all . . . which shouldn’t be an issue in a country like Australia.
A report the other day showed battery tech improvements and lowering of prices is slowing, and it has now reached a near lower threshold that will be difficult to get down more, with Li battery manufacturing cost for each KWH capacity having dropped now some 98.3% from about US$7500 in 1991, to a supposed US$115 in 2024.
So AU$182.50 cost now for a KWH of Li battery, that’s a battery cost, finished product with no BMS yet.
There have been several attempts of geothermal systems in Australia, none really successful long term. They have just not been able to show they are an economical solution.
Les, most of Australia lacks the shallow hot rock providing the cheapest solid-rock geothermal yield, perhaps because of our big tectonic plate. That means we’ll benefit by waiting 5 yrs, as the first unit only goes down 4 or 5 km. Their development of more economical deep drilling beyond 7 km, running concurrently in New Mexico, is a better bet for us, I’m guessing.
Andrew’s right, old geothermal fails financially – thus the new, yet to be proven commercially. Geretsried is EU funded, pioneering, & they’re improving methods on the go. The next one will be faster & cheaper.
Rock-pipe geothermal is dispatchable, so beats nuclear on renewables compatibility too.
Eavor is quiet now, but when Geretsried produces, we should hear more on multiple follow-up launches, at various planning/approval stages.
It can go anywhere if you go deep enough, so drilling cost/technology is the limit. Individual plant size is limited by rock conduction rate. Regional generation dodges grid loss issues.
Batteries won’t cut it right now, but if prices of large scale batteries continue to decline at the same rate they have for the last few years (e.g. 33% in 2024), then batteries will absolutely fill the void in about 5 years time – well before your first nuclear plant is built:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-costs-plunge-solar-and-wind-undercut-new-coal-and-gas-in-almost-every-market
Surely the new development Geothermal system like the one at Geretsried at Bavaria must be at least 100 times more cost effective than a Nuclear power plant and if you take into account the ~2 years build time compared to the 20 to 40 years of Nuclear disregarding the cost overruns that is a dead certainty it will even be more viable.
And you will never hear the Coalition talk about what the electricity prices will be during the next 4 years of government. Their line has been “prices will be 44% lower” at an unspecified future time period, $500b later. Note that none of the politicians pushing this will be around to be held accountable.
By that time, wind and solar will be everywhere, batteries will dominate the grid with their technological capabilities growing every year, accompanied by newer greener solutions, and hopefully my EV will be powering my house by then! We might even have Nuclear fusion (see Helion.com), and a working Snowy 2.0 – ok, maybe I am going too far…..
But we don’t have to wait 20 years for a Nuclear solution, when we can expand effectively on what can work now, and adopt newer technologies as they come along.
Unfortunately prices will have to go up whilst we navigate this transition, relying on coal and gas to get there. Pity it didn’t start a decade ago.
Exactly right in my opinion too !!
Right on the money!
Nuclear is dumb, and dumber.
NOWHERE in the world has it been on time, or on budget. How would we keep the lights on for the twenty years or more that it might take to actually come on line.
It would be cheaper to buy heaps of solar panels and batteries for every home in Australia.
It’s THE most expensive power option even when it does actually work. And nobody dares to mention the biggest unsolved problem- nuclear waste. At the risk of stating the obvious, nobody wants it in their back yard.
And then after running for years there are decommissioning costs which are MASSIVE as well. (Yeah- most of us would not be around to see that. Just pass the cost on to our kids, right?)
They once called us a smart country- I don’t see any sign of that these days!
Nuclear just plain scares me. One bomb and we are gone!
I have two EVs and love them both. One is a Miev for short distance and the other a long range MG ZS. Fuel is free from my panels on the roof and my long range was advertised to go 440 km but I can get 531 – yes I am very happy. Both cars run without any faults, and I would never go back to Petrol or Diesel. As a 77 year old widow I live with two adult grandchildren and share my cars with them when needed.
I have just installed 2 sets of batteries (Alpha ESS) from ‘Green’, giving me 27 kwh of power to use at night. They were installed in half a day and the workmanship and professionalism was amazing. My cost including labour was only $15,120. Support from the office in Sydney was also exceptional as I live in a small town on the Murray River over 600km from Sydney. I recommend these installers without hesitation.
Judith, that’s a very fine price, and the EVE cells said to be used in the Alpha-ESS are every bit as good as CATL, in my view. I used them in my 46.5 kW DIY battery bank. 6,000 cycles to 80% capacity will do me. (Their new MB31 cells are warranted to 10,000 cycles, but at only 70% capacity, so about the same, really. They’re slightly heavier.)
My MG4 only has 320 km range, but the handling is so much nicer than an SUV, that I couldn’t resist. Warning: The coming MG4 model is bigger and lacking all styling panache.
I agree with the assessment of engineering and manufacturing capability in Australia (pretty sad in a country that deems itself to be a ‘clever’ country). I feel there is also little political will for nation building efforts – power, water or otherwise (as the efforts would run beyond a single election cycle).
If the push to nuclear does go ahead (and I’m not convinced that it will, or if it is the best for our needs), perhaps looking at what some USA companies are doing may be options to consider: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/10/15/google-signs-deal-with-startup-to-build-small-nuclear-reactors-to-power-ai
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/sustainability/amazon-nuclear-small-modular-reactor-net-carbon-zero
My concern over larger scale nuclear facilities is that they make a great target in time of war (particularly if a ‘scorched earth’ approach is used).
Thanks Finn, ….and yes I did start to read your article with some trepidation….I thought – “Finn’s a smart bloke, he knows his stuff…what if he’s all in for it? ….F>>>>K I thought! I’ll have to unfriend him!”
Thanks for your sane article, and we’re still mates, phew!!
A gorgeously succinct piece of reality therapy. Got it in one. Nice.
Agreed.
As a thought, we could herd all the (useless) politicians into a large captive area, let them debate as much as they like and use the hot waffle as fuel!
(We could call it fools fuel)
Seriously, after the past two submarine debacles, plus the one just started, has nobody thought of taking the funds for those tin cans that will come in about another generation or two or three of new-born kids, and use that money (together with the absolute waste of Olympics money) to put in gas power stations?
Hi Martin,
The problem with gas power stations is the burning of fossil methane.
We simply have to stop setting fire to everything.
Yep agree totally. I was amused to read about the coatings, then to see what happened in the US with cost blowouts!
A pipe dream to say the least.
I am somewhat bewildered that many seem to believe it will happen, on time and within budget.
When I see my first pig fly, I’ll take more interest.
Some of us are old enough to recall the huge government spend on establishing an aeronautical industry in the mid 60’s.
This involved significant taxpayer funding but… we designed and built the Nomad aircraft. Then everything fizzeled out.
Any tilt at nuclear power would just be repeating history.
Long ago some Aussie scientists worked out a practical method to safely dilute and then store nuclear waste but this would probably be forgotten by now, and that wheel would need to be reinvented. Seriously. Maybe in future years we might have the national maturity to tackle something requiring big science and engineering. The over the horizon radar system heading off to Canada is an encouraging sign. However, it took 60 years to develop.
As for the subs…
The obvious solution for Australia is to replace our well used coal fired power stations one by one as required. We own the energy source. The energy source is a stones throw from the power stations and the coal “battery” contains enough fuel for a couple of thousand years, a stones throw away.
Don’t have to touch the transmission infrastructure.
Hi Rasa,
Port Augusta has double the number of cases of lung cancer than the expected state average, according to official figures cited by Health Minister John Hill.
Everyone in Pt Augusta is glad they blew up the coal plant… because coal is only profitable when it doesn’t have to pay for the damage it does to everyone’s health.
It’s the people, the workers, the nearby residents and the kids downwind, they subsidise coal;
with their very lives.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/port-augusta-is-sas-cancer-hotspot/news-story/d2ed7532527bf669df9666b933dc7cd9
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/dozens-of-new-black-lung-cases-qld-advocates-say/10851482
https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/5950821/piper-backs-independent-review-of-damning-lake-macquarie-report/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/29/hazelwood-coalmine-fire-has-had-lasting-health-effects-on-latrobe-valley-residents-study-finds
Thank you for this post and the perspective it offers.
To broaden its appeal, it might be helpful to further explain the intricacies of solar, renewable energy, and nuclear power to those less familiar with these topics. Many people are confused about the current direction Australia has taken with renewables, and the ongoing discussions about nuclear power have introduced further doubt.
For example, many are curious why The Nationals express reservations about renewable energy’s ability to stand alone. Many lack of awareness about success stories like Tasmania, which is 100% self-sufficient in renewable electricity generation, and having achieved net-zero emissions six times in the last seven years. Many don’t know about ElecSome.
It could also be helpful addressing how billions of dollars could be better spent than chasing nuclear power. People need to know that they dont have to compromise with that kind of spending just because it’s an idea of a political party.
We have to get rid of 20GW of old coal by 2038. At the moment we get ~~35% of our electricity from PV, wind , hydro, pumped hydro and batteries and by 2030 it is supposed to be 82% RE.
Nuclear has definitely cost and time problems and with 35% RE, any nuclear plant would idle along just for firming and be inefficient. RE also has cost and time problems as 16GW of “gas firming” will be required as ” …. the sun don’t shine and…”. Where is the gas coming from?
Another RE problem is that to get rid of 20GW of old coal, it will need a three to four times variable RE overbuild and a new grid at 10,000km in the next decade.
The other 19 major economies are just stupid. They should all follow the world leading Australia and ban nuclear!
I’m still unclear why people focus on traditional Nuclear with it’s big budgets,
4 year construction times and unpopular siting options.
Thorium reactors are available on a rental basis where you only pay for the electricity produced, the foot print is smaller, and the inherent danger is nonexistent. The small size enables you to place them where you need them rather than running cables everywhere. No unsightly windmills, loss of valuable farm land, or worry of recycling.
Regards
Bob Aitken