My latest in The Conversation via my Substack
If you believe Newspoll and the Australian Financial Review, Australia wants to go nuclear – as long it’s small.
Newspoll this week suggests a majority of us are in favour of building small modular nuclear reactors. A poll of Australian Financial Review readers last year told a similar story.
These polls (and a more general question about nuclear power in a Resolve poll for Nine newspapers this week) come after a concerted effort by the Coalition to normalise talking about nuclear power – specifically, the small, modular kind that’s meant to be cheaper and safer. Unfortunately, while small reactors have been around for decades, they are generally costlier than larger reactors with a similar design. This reflects the economies of size associated with larger boilers.
The hope (and it’s still only a hope) is “modular” design will permit reactors to be built in factories in large numbers (and therefore at low cost), then shipped to the sites where they are installed.
Coalition enthusiasm for talking about small modular reactors has not been dented by the failure of the only serious proposal to build them: that of NuScale, a company that designs and markets these reactors in the United States. Faced with long delays and increases in the projected costs of the Voygr reactor, the intended buyers, a group of municipal power utilities, pulled the plug. The project had a decade of development behind it but had not even reached prototype stage.
Other proposals to build small modular reactors abound but none are likely to be constructed anywhere before the mid-2030s, if at all. Even if they work as planned (a big if), they will arrive too late to replace coal power in Australia. So Opposition Leader Peter Dutton needs to put up a detailed plan for how he would deliver nuclear power in time. cr
So why would Australians support nuclear?
It is worth looking at the claim that Australians support nuclear power. This was the question the Newspoll asked:
There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
This question assumes two things. First, that small modular reactors exist. Second, that someone is proposing to build and operate them, presumably expecting they can do so at a cost low enough to compete with alternative energy sources.
Unfortunately, neither is true. Nuclear-generated power costs up to ten times as much as solar and wind energy. A more accurate phrasing of the question would be:
There is a proposal to keep coal-fired power stations operating until the development of small modular reactors which might, in the future, supply zero-emissions energy. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
It seems unlikely such a proposal would gain majority support.
Building nuclear takes a long time
When we consider the timeline for existing reactor projects, the difficulties with nuclear power come into sharp focus.
As National Party Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie has pointed out, the most successful recent implementation of nuclear power has been in the United Arab Emirates. In 2008, the UAE president (and emir of Abi Dhabi), Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, announced a plan to build four nuclear reactors. Construction started in 2012. The last reactor is about to be connected to the grid, 16 years after the project was announced.
The UAE’s performance is better than that achieved recently in Western countries including the US, UK, France and Finland.
In 16 years’ time, by 2040, most of Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations will have shut down. Suppose the Coalition gained office in 2025 on a program of advocating nuclear power and managed to pass the necessary legislation in 2026. If we could match the pace of the UAE, nuclear power stations would start coming online just in time to replace them.
If we spent three to five years discussing the issue, then matched the UAE schedule, the plants would arrive too late.
Read more: Dutton wants Australia to join the “nuclear renaissance” – but this dream has failed before
It would take longer in Australia
Would it be possible to match the UAE schedule? The UAE had no need to pass legislation: it doesn’t have a parliament like ours, let alone a Senate that can obstruct government legislation. The necessary institutions, including a regulatory commission and a publicly owned nuclear power firm, were established by decree.
There were no problems with site selection, not to mention environmental impact statements and court actions. The site at Barakah was conveniently located on an almost uninhabited stretch of desert coastline, but still close enough to the main population centres to permit a connection to transmission lines, access for workers, and so on. There’s nowhere in Australia’s eastern states (where the power is needed) that matches that description.
Finally, there are no problems with strikes or union demands: both are illegal in the UAE. Foreign workers with even less rights than Emirati citizens did almost all the construction work.
Despite all these advantages, the UAE has not gone any further with nuclear power. Instead of building more reactors after the first four, it’s investing massively in solar power and battery storage.
Time to start work is running out
The Coalition began calling for a “mature debate” on nuclear immediately after losing office.
But it’s now too late for discussion. If Australia is to replace any of our retiring coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors, Dutton must commit to this goal before the 2025 election.
Talk about hypothetical future technologies is, at this point, nothing more than a distraction. If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.
In summary, it’s time to put up or shut up.
John Quiggin 
I agree the economics and feasibility of small nuclear plants look unfavorable.
But if private firms put up the dough why worry? If firms wish to take the economic risks and satisfy environmental quality standards let them have a go. Of course no government subsidies.
The answer to my last question is that maybe the set of such firms is small or empty. But the general point is that most of our transition to renewables is based on private sector actions. Why not give nuclear supporters the same opportunity.
By Harry Clarke.
The assessed costs of wind and solar energy (as well as nuclear were it an option) will depend on the confidence placed on realizing revenue targets. If revenue targets are not met then the taxpayer will foot the bill of winning private sector bidders to meet the ambitious 2030 targets. The possibility of subsidies is built into the current scheme. With $67b at stake in investment costs and a concentrated supply sector my guess is that the taxpayer will be making payouts for a long time.
Energy distribution costs remain an issue.
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/expanded-renewables-scheme-to-spur-67b-of-energy-projects-20240303-p5f9d1
JQ, your piece includes:
Australia’s former chief scientist, Alan Finkel, indicated the autocratic United Arab Emirates took more than 15 years to complete its first nuclear plant using established technology – see my comment in an earlier thread at FEBRUARY 16, 2024 AT 9:47 PM.
It seems preliminary planning began early 2006. See slide 6 in this document. The milestones for this UAE civil nuclear project:
2006: Energy Planning Study
2008: Nuclear Policy established
2012 Jul 19: BARAKAH-1 construction begins
2013 Apr 15: BARAKAH-2 construction begins
2014 Sep 24: BARAKAH-3 construction begins
2015 Jul 30: BARAKAH-4 construction begins
2020 Aug 19: BARAKAH-1 first grid connection
2021 Apr 01: BARAKAH-1 commence commercial operations (8y:08m:14d after construction commenced)
2021 Sep 14: BARAKAH-2 first grid connection
2022 Mar 24: BARAKAH-2 commence commercial operations (8y:11m:10d)
2022 Oct 08: BARAKAH-3 first grid connection
2023 Feb 24: BARAKAH-3 commence commercial operations (8y:05m:01d)
2024: BARAKAH-4 first grid connection pending
I’d suggest Australia wouldn’t do it quicker than what the UAE has demonstrated it has done, and more likely Australia would do it significantly slower! I’d suggest it would be the mid-2040s at the earliest before Australia could see its first operational civil nuclear power plant.
In the latest RenewEconomy Energy Insiders Podcast: The push for coal to play off the bench, energy analyst David Leitch said from time interval 0:39:29:
“As soon as we start getting some more solar and wind supply, and I want to, you know, there are 7 gigawatts of utility wind and solar under construction right now, and that will take us over 50 per cent renewables. It’s absolutely certain within two years, ah, of today, and probably sooner, ah, depending on how quickly its commissioned. And there’s 5 gigawatts of batteries, ah, being built right now, 5 gigawatts; I don’t have the duration number in front of me, and that’s all going to compete, ah, in the price, ah, for those evening price peaks, so I think there’s a lot of signs that both volume and price are going to be coming down within a couple of years, and we saw that the futures market is showing some of indications of that already.”
In the YouTube video titled Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. The Verdict, published by Just Have A Think on 26 Feb 2024, duration 0:14:41, from time interval 0:10:37:
“There is another American nuclear powerhouse though, that I’m sure you’ve heard of. They’re called Westinghouse. They’re developing what they call their AP300 model, which is a 225 megawatt modular reactor designed to utilize the passive safety systems in the company’s existing full-scale AP1000 nuclear power plant technology. They’ve apparently just signed a deal in the UK that could completely scupper whatever was left of the Rolls Royce SMR dream. According to this February 2024 article at the website Proactive, the US group inked a deal with Community Nuclear Power to install four of their AP300 small modular reactors at a project in the North of England that could potentially provide enough power for up to 2 million homes. It’ll be at least the early 2030s before any electrons actually start flowing through local supply cables though, even assuming nothing at all goes wrong in the meantime, which let’s just say, is far from assured. But all this conjecture is arguably a bit pointless anyway, isn’t it? No doubt you sharp-eyed folks out there will have already spotted that most of the world’s governments are on a big push to convince you and me that they really want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2030, determined as they are to continue suggesting that we have any chance whatsoever of keeping average global temperatures to only 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Even though most climate scientists and energy industry analysts regard that target as palpable nonsense, in a slightly weird sort of way, it still makes quite a lot of sense to keep aiming for it, rather than getting all defeatist and giving up entirely. And to that end, the only available, affordable, rapidly scalable and sustainable technologies that we have at our fingertips right now are wind, solar and battery energy storage, backed up heroically by things like hydropower, a bit of geothermal and high voltage interconnectors, all of which are real, really work, are cheap and safe, and are well understood. And we don’t need to fret about whether or not Small Modular Reactors will work in a safe way at an affordable price, because by the time the developers of the technology get any of their rather prodigal metaphorical ducks into anything that resembles a row, the world will have moved on and we just won’t need them.”
Nuclear is a stalking horse for coal/gas.
JQ’s piece includes:
Why would the people that were asked by Newspoll/AFR about whether they would support civil nuclear energy in Australia, be adequately informed about this nuclear issue? I’d suggest most of the media is failing to do their jobs properly informing the public about nuclear technology capabilities/limitations, and failing to challenge the Coalition’s dangerous nuclear policy fantasy with compelling evidence/data that nuclear cannot save us.
JQ’s piece also includes:
I’d suggest the Coalition’s nuclear policy is a dangerous distraction that threatens Australia’s mid- to long-term energy security and national security.
I think one should be considering this very important question: Where do you think your affordable, abundant and reliable electricity is going to come from in the coming years/decades?
Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Ted O’Brien MP was on-air on Feb 16, telling Radio 2GB Drive host Chris O’Keefe that “Australia could have nuclear power plants on the grid within a decade.” He was asked how much it would all cost, but he declined to answer at this time.
Sue Higginson MLC, NSW Greens spokesperson for Climate Change, Environment, Planning, Agriculture, etc., was on Sky News’ The Jury recently together with Australian Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Ted O’Brien MP, to discuss the question: ‘Should Australia Go Nuclear?’ Sue Higginson said:
“The Coalition abandoned this space and took us backwards for 10 years.”
…and I’d suggest Australians are now paying for their incompetence.
Ted O’Brien said:
“I believe that it’s within a decade you could get nuclear in Australia.”
Why aren’t Australian journalists asking Ted O’Brien MP what nuclear technologies is he suggesting could be operational in Australia “within a decade”? Why aren’t Australian journalists doing their jobs properly?
JQ, your piece includes:
Why would the people that were asked by the pollsters about whether they support civil nuclear energy in Australia, be adequately informed about nuclear tech? I’d suggest most of the media is failing to do their job properly informing Australians about nuclear capabilities/limitations, and failing to challenge the Coalition’s dangerous nuclear policy fantasy with compelling evidence/data that nuclear cannot save us.
I think one should be considering this very important question: Where do you think your affordable, abundant and reliable electricity is going to come from in the coming years/decades?
I suspect that Nimbyism will be a significant factor, hands up all those who wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard?
This LNP talking point serves to underline the fact that apart from ‘we aren’t labor’ the LNP is without and has never had had any policies of merit.
Their existence is to create then engage in bizarre culture wars
That’s their tactic but not their purpose.
JQ, your piece includes:
There’s a link in your statement to a post by Hannah Richie on 3 Apr 2023 headlined How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor? Her piece begins with:
It seems to me Hannah Richie has conveniently ignored the prerequisite time required to plan, design, procure, and site prepare for these nuclear projects (add a further 5+ years), and “6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor” becomes on average 11 to 13+ years for full project implementation time, provided everything goes to the ideal plan. See the IAEA’s Feb 2012 technical report No. NP-T-2.7, titled Project Management in Nuclear Power Plant Construction: Guidelines and Experience, FIG. 8. Typical durations for the main contracts.
UAE has demonstrated it has taken more than 15 years to complete its first nuclear plant, BARAKAH-1, and more than 18 years to fully complete their fourth (and so far last) unit.
The first licence application for OLKILUOTO-3 was made in December 2000, and commercial operations commenced on 1 May 2023, which means it has taken Finland more than 22¼ years to complete this unit.
EDF initially estimated the cost of FLAMANVILLE-3 at €3.3 billion and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months. The estimated cost so far is now around €13.2 billion. Fuel loading is now forecast for Mar 2024 with grid connection in mid-2024.
In the late 2000s, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was £2 billion (A$3.6 billion). The estimated cost so far for the twin HINKLEY POINT C reactors is now around £35–46 billion. The site was one of eight announced by the British government in 2010, and in Nov 2012 a nuclear site licence was granted. On 28 Jul 2016, the EDF board approved the project, and on 15 Sep 2016 the UK government approved the project with some safeguards for the investment. Construction of HINKLEY POINT C-1 began on 11 Dec 2018, and HINKLEY POINT C-2 on 12 Dec 2019, with current expected completion in 2031.
Evidence/data I see suggests the ‘Golden Rules for Nuclear Projects’ are:
* More than double the estimated deployment times initially claimed;
* Multiply by 10 to the estimated build costs initially claimed;
…and it would likely be closer to the real outcomes if the projects were to proceed.
“Of course, no government subsidies (for nuclear power).” – Harry Clarke.
Agreed. And also no free negative externalities for nuclear power. While we are at it, we should get rid of government subsidies and free negative externalities for fossil fuels. Given the LCOE (Levelized cost of electricity) of renewables, they would not need subsidies if subsidies for other forms of power were completely removed. I am assume the economy would push the renewables buildout very rapidly in that case. Extra government assistance and planning might be necessary if even that buildout pace is not rapid enough to meet scientifically advised de-carbonising targets. I would say make that assistance, assistance to the most needy people, not assistance to profit making enterprises.
But we, the 99%, should be aware that on this blog, and in all like forums and political debates, we are always saying “should” and “must” to the capitalist and political classes. They don’t care and they are not listening. They despise us and hold us in complete contempt. What’s the next step?
Harry Clarke: – “I agree the economics and feasibility of small nuclear plants look unfavorable.“
You think, Harry? Regardless of any monetary costs, nuclear technologies have demonstrated again and again that they are far too slow to deploy to save us!
Most (if not all) of Australia’s coal-fired power stations will likely close before 2040. Compelling evidence/data I see (see my earlier comments above) indicates it would be highly unlikely for any nuclear generator units to become operational in Australia before the mid-2040s at the earliest. How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy keep Australia’s ‘lights on’ and ease the current cost-of-living crisis in the interim? Answer: It doesn’t, irrespective of how much it may cost!
Harry Clarke: – “Of course no government subsidies.“
Yeah right. As if!
Giles Parkinson wrote in yesterday’s (Mar 5) RenewEconomy post headlined Peter Dutton’s climate denial is morphing into a madcap nuclear fantasy. The ban should stay, including:
I agree with Giles Parkinson’s final summation:
I’d suggest the Coalition’s dangerous nuclear policy fantasy threatens Australia’s mid- to long-term energy security. A threat to Australia’s energy security is a threat to Australia’s national security.
Meanwhile, yet another new record high global sea surface temperature was set on Mar 4, at 21.17°C.
Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted yesterday (Mar 6):
Geoff Miell, You totally miss my point. You and the climate change warriors are acting as if government has the exclusive right to determine our energy future. In fact, most of the action to reduce emissions is being undertaken by the private sector in response to overall Australian emissions targets. These actions do benefit from government subsidies in terms of guarantees of publicly-provided subsidies if revenue targets fall below certain levels. Ask AGL or Origin!
My question was if private firms are willing to have a shot at nuclear power and there are no subsidies and environmental controls are met why not let them have a go? Why are you making moral judgements about what would be purely an issue of confidence in the nuclear option? If firms lose their shirts or if no firms offer such an option then that is not your problem – it might be the problem of shareholders in such firms.
Harry Clarke
Harry Clarke: – “Geoff Miell, You totally miss my point.“
Says you who it seems to me completely ignores my earlier point:
I’d suggest you are conveniently ignoring overwhelming evidence/data on the long deployment durations of a plethora of nuclear projects around the world.
Harry Clarke: – “You and the climate change warriors are acting as if government has the exclusive right to determine our energy future.“
Um… There’s current legislation in force that bans nuclear power plants in Australia. I’d suggest that’s an example of an exclusive right. Governments can encourage, be ambivalent, discourage, or prohibit through a spectrum and intensities of legislation and/or regulation. That’s what governments have exclusive rights within their jurisdictions to do so if they so choose.
Harry Clarke: – “My question was if private firms are willing to have a shot at nuclear power and there are no subsidies and environmental controls are met why not let them have a go?“
How naïve are you, Harry? I’d suggest the Coalition’s nuclear policy primary objective is to delay, delay, DELAY the rollout of renewables. It’s a stalking horse for coal/gas, to look after the Coalition’s political donors’ fossil fuel interests.
Harry Clarke: – “Why are you making moral judgements about what would be purely an issue of confidence in the nuclear option?“
It seems to me you, Harry, like the Coalition, are ignoring the objective evidence/data. But what can one expect from an apparent ideologue that denies reality?
“It seems to me you, Harry, like the Coalition, are ignoring the objective evidence/data. But what can one expect from an apparent ideologue that denies reality?”
Is this an adult response? Again you are concerned with the duration of projects. Why worry if private firms are taking the risk not the community?
Then conspiracy theories about the Coalition. Childish speculations.
I just cannot be bothered.
Harry Clarke
Harry Clarke: – “Is this an adult response? Again you are concerned with the duration of projects.“
Yep, and yep. I’d suggest this is also an adult response from John Quiggin stated in May 2023:
Harry Clarke: – “Why worry if private firms are taking the risk not the community?“
Because the risks of any significant nuclear incident(s) would be borne substantially by Australian taxpayers. All nuclear reactors around the world are not commercially insured for major operational failure, war or terrorist attack and are ultimately underwritten by the hosting government. So when things go wrong, like the catastrophic events at Chernobyl and Fukushima, governments, and therefore taxpayers ultimately pay, and pay dearly.
Harry Clarke: – “Then conspiracy theories about the Coalition. Childish speculations.“
John Quiggin stated in his piece published by Independent Australia in Jun 2021:
Who’s being conspiratorial and childish, Harry?
Harry Clarke: – “I just cannot be bothered.“
…providing any compelling arguments/evidence/data to soundly defend your apparent ill-informed ideological narrative, aye Harry?
CORRECTION: Who’s being conspiratorial and childish… should be Who’s being a conspiracist and childish…
There is a problem with just trusting private enterprise and markets. Perfect markets do not exist and even if they did exist they could not solve the fundamental problem. Markets are dismal failures at managing the whole of the real world, as opposed to managing the human economy (a subset of the whole world.) Then markets really only manage the interests of a subset of persons in the global economy: those possessing the minimum wealth condition necessary to exercise real and meaningful choices as Ernestine Gross puts it.
Consumer preferences, of even those meeting the minimum wealth condition, are not equal to the task of deciding the sets of production and consumption practices which would actually be needed to save the planet and the people at this point. Consumers do not have perfect price information of course. Neither are they rational. Beyond that, ordinary people also do not have perfect or even anywhere nearly accurate enough scientific information as to what is really required to save the planet. There is also a crucial signal lag. The environment has to be all but fully wrecked before the consumers notice and the price signals even start to signal the disaster. By then it is too late. The ultimate crash (of unsustainable exponential growth) comes slowly… and then quickly.
There is also the “aggregation problem” which affects the issue of measurement. The problem is that valuation in the numeraire, mediated by revealed preference, is not in any way related to the objective scientific measurements of what is really happening empirically; what the real dangers are and what is really required to save the world.
You cannot objectively measure real world objects and processes in dollars. You can only measure and compare in scientific units and even then there are aggregation issues. See: “The aggregation problem: Implications for ecological economics” – Blair Fix.
Money and markets fail in the face of these issues when used as an autopilot rather than as an allocation mechanism after the objective science has been done and hard targets assigned and stuck. Faith in money and markets as an autopilot is about to suffer a complete refutation by global catastrophe.
There is a problem with just trusting private enterprise and markets. Perfect markets do not exist and even if they did exist they would not solve the fundamental problem. Markets are dismal failures at managing the whole of the real world, as opposed to managing the human economy (a subset of the whole world) and then only really managing the interests of a subset in the global economy anyway.
Consumer preferences are not equal to the task of deciding the sets of production and consumption practices which would actually be needed to save the planet and the people at this point. Consumers do not have perfect price information. Beyond that, ordinary people also do not have perfect or even anywhere nearly accurate enough scientific information as to what is really required to save the planet. On top of that, there is a crucial signal lag. The environment has to be all but fully wrecked before the consumers notice and the price signals even start to signal the disaster. By then it is too late.
There is also the “aggregation problem” which affects the whole issue of measurement. The problem is that valuation in the numeraire, mediated by revealed preference, is not in any way related to the objective scientific measurements of what is really happening empirically; what the real dangers are and what is really required to save the world.
You cannot objectively measure real world objects and processes in dollars. You can only measure and compare in scientific units and even then there are aggregation issues. See: “The aggregation problem: Implications for ecological economics” – Blair Fix.
Money and markets fail in the face of these issues when used as an autopilot rather than as an allocation mechanism after objective, scien. Even perfect markets would fail because humans measure value subjectively in the money dimension. They aggregate unlike items in the non-scientific money “dimension”. Dollars are not a real scientific dimension. They measure nothing objectively real.
“One thing is very clear – nuclear energy for generating electricity can be considered one of the most reviewed and assessed technologies in Australia over the past few decades. It re-emerges frequently in response to developments on our energy grid, yet despite all the assessments it seems no closer to realisation locally than in previous decades. Like many things in energy it quickly becomes enmeshed in the political divide.”
https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/nuclear-power-for-australia-a-potted-history/
ICYMI/FYI, the UNCORRECTED transcript of the proceedings of the NSW Parliament Budget Estimates public hearing held on Mar 7 by the PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 7 – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT is now available.
From page 23 (italics my emphasis):
From page 28 (italics my emphasis):
And the responses from Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte to John Ruddick’s questions on the nuclear issue can be seen from page 54. It seems John Ruddick was suggesting a nuclear industry in Australia could be self-regulating (on page 55):
What could possibly go wrong?
An excellent analysis of opinion polls, the relationship between polls and the press and the overall influence on politics.
https://insidestory.org.au/nuclear-power-newspoll-and-the-nuances-of-polled-opinion/
Yesterday (Mar 25), Radio 2GB’s broadcaster host Ray Hadley played on-air an excerpt of audio of Ross Greenwood’s interview with Ontario Minister of Energy, Todd Smith MPP, broadcast on the weekend on Sky News. In some of the audio segment Hadley played, Todd Smith said Canada is (from time interval 0:34:21):
“…at the forefront in the western world in building a small modular reactor. Construction is already underway, and we’re going to be building four of these 300 megawatt GE-Hitachi BWRX-300s on site at the Darlington reactor, just outside ah, Toronto. So that’s another 1.2 gigawatts of electricity, or enough power to power 1.5 million homes.”
What conveniently hasn’t been mentioned is that the Darlington New Nuclear Project (DNNP) process apparently began when Ontario Power Generation (OPG) applied for a site preparation licence to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in 2006, followed by an environmental impact statement (EIS). In 2012, the Government of Canada issued its response report, agreeing with all recommendations directed to federal departments and determining that the DNNP is not likely to adversely affect the environment. The CNSC issued a 10‑year site preparation licence to OPG.
Todd Smith MPP also told Ross Greenwood in the Sky News interview:
“Well, you know, what I can tell you is that we are building a small modular reactor, right now at Darlington. We put shovels in the ground in 2022. We expect to have that small modular reactor producing electricity by late 2028, early 2029.“
That suggests to me that the DNNP, if it all goes to the latest plan, will have taken more than 22 years (i.e. application applied for in 2006 to expected operations beginning in late-2028, early-2029) to get-up-and-running, and that’s all with an experienced Canadian nuclear power industry regulatory body (which Australia doesn’t have). I think this example is certainly not a “rapid” expansion, as Ross Greenwood on the weekend at Sky News has apparently described it.
It seems that nearly every reactor project around the world recently completed has been implemented late. The longer-term perspective confirms that short construction times remain the exceptions. See the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023, Figure 14 · Delays for Units Started Up 2020–2022.
An op-ed by M.V. Ramana & Laura Tanguay published in Canada’s National Observer on 18 Jan 2024 headlined Ontario Power Generation wasting time exploring French reactors, included:
The Coalition, enthusiastically supported by the right-wing media, continue to spruik nuclear technologies for Australia’s energy mix, but conveniently eliminate any negative facts.
The song Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive by Johnny Mercer (and re-imagined by many others including Bing Crosby & The Andrews Sisters) comes to mind, which includes the lyrics:
What could possibly go wrong?
ICYMI/FYI, broadcast last Thursday (Apr 4) on ABC TV during the 7:30 programme was a segment titled The debate over nuclear power is about to heat up by ABC’s Canberra-based National Regional Affairs Reporter, Jane Norman. The transcript for this video segment included:
It seems to me the ABC just takes any old statements from so-called ‘experts’ that are willing to appear without any critical investigations by the reporters to verify the veracities of their statements.
John Quiggin’s Mar 20 Crikey piece headlined On nuclear, Coalition prefers the optimism of misleading, decade-old, unverified claims, notes that:
The construction times are usually quoted—they’re easy enough to find; just look at the IAEA’s PRIS data—but it seems to me the requisite pre-project implementation time is conveniently ignored by the nuclear boosters, and the incurious media.
Some examples I see that provide a closer approximation to how long it actually takes to deploy nuclear technologies include:
Per the World Nuclear Industry Status Report – 2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013–2022—of which 39 in China alone—with an average construction time of 9.4 years , slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012–2021. Add of the order of a further 5-years for pre-project implementation and the total deployment time for civilian nuclear plants on average is closer to 15-years (for experienced countries).
When are Australian journalists going to challenge the Coalition’s misleading, decade-old, unverified claims?