Thread by @simonahac

⚛️ why #nuclear power is a distraction for australia

if implemented, the #coalition's plan would see:
• increased gas & coal usage
• increased cost
• increased emissions
• higher chance of blackouts

read on to find out why… 🧵

firstly, let me say i have a deep interest in nuclear.

i've visited multiple nuclear plants, met with companies planning to build SMRs and nuclear VCs, taken a nuclear course at @MIT and closely watched the sector for years.

i encourage the use of nuclear where it makes sense.

some context: nuclear has had a long history of nothing in australia, including the start of construction in jervis bay (promptly cancelled by a liberal PM) and a federal ban (under a liberal PM).

important to note there are also state bans, including in NSW, VIC & QLD.

those who say "we need to have a mature conversation" about nuclear must have missed the *six* inquiries held since 2006, including a royal commission.

hundreds of submissions, thousand of pages of expert reports, transcripts and analyses.

the fact is that every time the #coalition has no serious policy, they opt for a pre-commercial technology they have no intention of delivering.

…whether that's carbon capture & storage #CCS, "HELE clean coal" or small modular reactors #SMRs.

it's deja vu, all over again

the transition of our power grid is well underway.

12yrs ago the NEM was ~10% renewable & included 27 coal power stations. almost 1/2 have closed.

we're now up to ~40% RE.

AEMO's 4th #ISP projects ~95% RE 12 years from now, with all but one coal power stations closed.

we're moving at such a pace that it's clear that #nuclear has missed _this_ energy transition.

…there are 4 key barriers to #nuclear in #australia…

1. availability.

firstly, commercial SMRs do not exist.

yes, there are nuclear subs plying the ocean, a pair of small reactors on a barge in russia's arctic circle and a pair of pilot reactors in china… but none are commercially viable.

nothing commercial before the 2030s.

yes, we could build large reactors, but they're not fast nor cheap.

of the 5 nuclear power projects to start construction this century in north america & western europe, one was cancelled and the others will average 21 years from announcement to commercial operation.

this plant, VS summer in south carolina, was cancelled after US$10bn spent.

the utility company folded and the CEO and COO are serving time in jail for lying to regulators.

hinkley point C, in the UK, will be ~24 years from the project announcement to commercial operation… and the cost has blown out to ~A$90bn.

its wholesale cost of power is A$250/MWh… or 2.5x as much as the average in australia over the past 5 years.

you'll see people claim it takes 3 years, or 6 or 10, to build a nuclear power station, but that's usually just the time from pouring first 'nuclear concrete' to first grid connection in countries with mature and warm nuclear supply chains — and excludes many many prerequisites.

i'm not saying it has to take 24 years to build a nuke in australia… but there's really no way we could have our first nuclear kilowatt hour in australia before 2040, and that's a very ambitious timeframe.

2. extraordinary cost.

we have the world's best resources of wind & solar. much lower than most nuclear countries.

CSIRO's estimates that the costs of SMRs would yield energy for ~20c/kWh more than a high-renewables scenario.

nuclear — big & small — is uneconomic in 🇦🇺.

3. intractable politics

the greens, implacably opposed, hold the balance of power. many in labor will die on the same hill — the party wouldn't risk a schism.

i bet labor strategists want the coalition to talk about nuclear energy every day between now and the next election.

polling shows:
• nuclear is almost as unpopular as coal
• coalition voters prefer renewables over nuclear
• a significant number of coalition voters dislike nuclear.

oh, it's also banned in NSW, VIC & QLD — ie. it's a state _and_ federal issue.

4. suitability for our grid

this is the last week in the national electricity market… turquoise = renewables, black = fossils.

that's at ~40% RE… there's some room in that grid for "baseload" generation (in NSW, VIC or QLD).

but that's 2024…

here's a slightly different view of SA over the same period, with ~70% RE.

turquoise = wind and solar, purple = residual demand.

residual demand, "everything else", must be filled with dispatchable power.

this is the same chart, but showing just residual demand. it's very spiky.

the whole NEM will look like this by ~2030 — though the spikes will get skinnier and sparser as renewables and storage increase through the decade.

nuclear wants to supply flat, constant power.

yes, nuclear can theoretically work at a low level in a grid with spiky residual demand… but it's _really_ challenging to operate that way and it smashes the economics.

the #coalition hasn't detailed its plans, but we know this:
• @tedobrienmp objects to the 82% renewable energy target.
• @D_LittleproudMP supports a moratorium on utility-scale wind & solar.

so, what'd happen if we had a moratorium on utility RE?

aap.com.au/news/demo-agai…

if we assume the plan is to slow RE, prolong coal, build nuclear _fast_, and fill the gaps with gas…

by 2050 we could:
• burn 19,000 PJ more gas
• burn 255 Mt more coal
• push emissions up 2,100 MtCO₂
• spend $200bn+ more on electricity

…since our coal power stations are becoming less reliable (see AEMO reports) and we don't have that much gas, @PeterDutton_MP is asking for blackouts.

the gas usage above is 12x current projections, the equivalent of 13.5 years of our export volumes.

…that's just to 2050!

the #coalition has many tough questions to answer as they unveil their policy. it's going to be a wild ride:

…but the biggest question will be left to voters.

which button will you press?

to sum up…

who cares whether you are pro- or anti-nuclear? put aside the culture war.

there's no conceivable world where we #nuclear could play a meaningful role before our coal power stations have all retired.

…unless you want higher prices, higher emissions and blackouts.

…that said, maybe the nuclear sector will get its act together over the coming decades.

maybe the technology… one i greatly admire… will play a role in our next energy transition?

never say never.

…but for now, the coalition is just playing politics.

adapted from a talk given at #SmartEnergy24 — slides available here:
scribd.com/document/71160…

"hey chatGPT, please summarise thread in just 6 words"