Today, I had an interesting conversation with a Port Augusta local, Emily, who had a great take on Peter Dutton’s proposal for a nuclear power plant. When I asked what she thought, she said, “Oh, it would be like the Simpsons - dangerous and so many things could go wrong and why would you bother anyway because Port Augusta and Australia have abundant wind and solar.” Emily’s comment hit the nail on the head. It captured the essence of why nuclear power is not the solution Australia needs.
Emily’s Insight
Emily’s reference to “The Simpsons” is humorous but also insightful. For those who aren’t familiar, “The Simpsons” is an iconic US TV show that frequently portrays nuclear power in a satirical light. Homer Simpson, the bumbling safety inspector, serves as a symbol of the potential dangers and mishaps that can occur. While a caricature, it’s also rooted in real concerns - nuclear power is a high-stakes game with significant risks if something goes wrong.
But Emily’s point goes beyond the dangers. She astutely pointed out that with Australia’s abundant wind and solar resources, nuclear power just doesn’t make sense! Why would we put huge amounts of taxpayers’ money in a risky, expensive, and time-consuming technology when we have cheaper, safer, and faster alternatives right at our fingertips? And ones that the private sector is keen to invest in.
A Technology-Neutral Perspective
Now, I want to make something clear: I’m technology-neutral. That means I don’t have any ideological objections to nuclear. My support goes to all technologies that are safe, clean, and, importantly, cost-effective and commercially viable. On this basis, nuclear power doesn’t stack up for Australia.
1. High Costs
Nuclear power is one of the most expensive forms of new energy to develop. Construction of a nuclear plant can cost billions of dollars, and these costs are a ulmost always underestimated at the start of a project. For example, the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in the UK was initially estimated to cost £16 billion but has ballooned to over £23 billion. And it’s still not operational.
In contrast, the costs of renewable energy have plummeted over the last decade. Solar and wind are now among the cheapest forms of new energy generation, and their prices continue to fall. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reports that the cost of electricity from new solar PV plants dropped by 85% between 2010 and 2020, and the cost of onshore wind has fallen by 56%.
2. Long Construction Times
Building a nuclear plant is a lengthy process. On average, it takes at least 10 to 15 years to build a new nuclear plant from start to finish. It can take even longer due to technical delays and regulatory hurdles. This long lead time means that any benefits from nuclear power would be far off in the future - too far to address the urgent need for clean energy today.
In contrast, renewable energy projects can be developed much more quickly. A large-scale solar farm can be up and running in just a couple of years, and wind farms aren’t far behind. Speed is crucial as we race to meet our climate targets and transition away from fossil fuels.
3. Lack of Private Sector Interest
The private sector is typically hesitant to invest in nuclear power due to the high risks and costs involved. Most nuclear projects around the world require huge government subsidies and guarantees. This reliance on public investment is a major drawback, especially when those funds could be used to support more cost-effective renewable energy projects, or to employ more nurses, teachers, disability support workers, or build better roads etc.
In Australia, the private sector has shown no interest in nuclear. In contrast, it is investing strongly in renewables. There are over 100 wind turbines around Port Augusta now. But a decade ago when I came through there were none. According to the Clean Energy Council, in 2020 alone, Australia attracted $4.3 billion in renewable energy investment. This private sector support is driving the rapid expansion of our energy capacity.
4. Redundancy of Base-Load Power
One of the common arguments for nuclear power is the need for base-load power -constant, reliable electricity that can meet demand at all times. But this concept is old school. It is increasingly outdated thanks to advances in battery technology and grid management.
Large-scale batteries, like the ones already operating in South Australia, are proving that renewable energy can provide reliable power even when the sun isn’t shining, or the wind isn’t blowing. These batteries store excess energy generated during peak production times and release it when needed, smoothing out the supply of electricity and ensuring stability. They’re doing it right now while I write this blog.
Rapid evolution of battery technology, along with smarter grids and demand management, is making the old notion of base-load power redundant. We no longer need to rely on large, inflexible power stations to keep the lights on - coal or nuclear!
Conclusion? No Need for Nuclear
So, where does that leave us? From a technology-neutral perspective, nuclear power is simply not needed in Australia. It’s too expensive, too slow, commercially unviable and too risky compared to the alternatives. Australia is blessed with the best renewable energy resources in the world - wind, solar, and even the more innovative technologies like geothermal and pumped hydro.
Emily was right: Why would we bother with nuclear when we have abundant, clean, and safe energy sources all around us?! Port Augusta is already well along the road of its transformation into a hub of renewable energy. It doesn’t need or want Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plant.
Commenti