The federal government’s $387 billion price tag to replace Australia’s coal-fired power stations with small modular nuclear reactors “doesn’t make sense,” an executive from US manufacturer Westinghouse Electric has claimed, arguing the price could be much cheaper.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen estimated in September that it would cost $387 billion to replace coal-fired plants with small nuclear reactors, assuming that 70 reactors would be needed. He used the figure to argue they are not viable for future power generation.
Westinghouse executive Rita Baranwal says Australia should consider building small nuclear reactors to meet net zero targets. Peter Rae
“I only have three engineering degrees and that math doesn’t make sense to me,” Westinghouse Electric Company senior vice president Rita Baranwal told The Australian Financial Review Energy and Climate Summit.
The reactors alone, on her estimate, would cost $US1 billion ($1.57 billion) each, or $US70 billion. There would be an additional cost, she noted, from making transmission more robust.
Amid rising power prices and concerns, Australia is not on track to meet its emissions reduction commitments, the Coalition has revived a push for nuclear generation, creating a clear point of difference on energy policy with Labor.
Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien said Australia needed to consider nuclear energy to meet its net zero targets, along with other technologies that would complement increasing renewable energy generation.
Mr O’Brien argued that nuclear reactors could replace coal-fired power plants and help “firm up” renewables.
He said a future Coalition government would consider overturning the Howard government’s 1998 ban on nuclear power in Australia – a policy he said it would take to voters at the ballot box.
“We are assessing zero-emissions nuclear energy as part of Australia’s future energy mix, with consideration for new and emerging technologies,” he said.
However, much uncertainty remains about the total cost of infrastructure that would be needed to support small nuclear reactors, particularly given the current inflationary environment, as well as how to keep them safe from potential terrorist attacks.
There continues to be much apprehension over nuclear power from communities in Australia that don’t want reactors in their backyards.
Fortescue Energy chief executive Mark Hutchinson told the Summit that Australia did not need nuclear energy and that it would be time consuming and complicated to get political support.
Nuclear reactors only made sense in countries that had limited renewable energy sources and required energy security, Mr Hutchinson said. “You’ve got enough resources here.”
But Peter Coleman, the former Woodside Energy boss who now chairs critical minerals producer Allkem, said nuclear needed to “stay on the list”. While solar and wind were much cheaper, with proven technology, there would come a time when communities would worry about how much land solar and wind farms were taking up, he said.
“There will be a bit of tension there and we’re going to have to start looking at other sources of power, maybe that’s where the nuclear debate comes in at that point,” Mr Coleman said. “Not today, but don’t cross it off forever.”
Deloitte Access Economics lead partner Pradeep Philip said Australia had a “skills and supply chain problem” that would make it difficult to build modular nuclear reactors.
“It’s never going to be the biggest part or driver of the transition, it may have some part to play down the track so people need to avoid thinking nuclear is the solution to the energy transition – it’s not,” Mr Philip said.
The chief executive of engineering firm Worley, Chris Ashton, whose company builds and maintains energy infrastructure, said Australia needed to keep an open mind to nuclear. “What might be the most effective technology solution today, may not be the best option tomorrow,” he said.
Ms Baranwal said it would take about a decade for a small modular reactor to get “electrons on the grid”, including getting design and site approvals from regulators and building materials. Westinghouse announced plans in May to build a new small reactor, called the AP300, that would generate about 300 megawatts of energy.
“If Australia started today, I could tell you that in the mid-2030s you could have nuclear operating on the grid,” Ms Baranwal said.
Australia and other countries would need more than “just renewables” to meet their net zero targets,” she said. “A sliver of an energy portfolio should include some nuclear.”
Cities in the US state of Wyoming, which has traditionally produced a lot of coal, were fighting to get nuclear plants after the state overturned a ban on nuclear power, Ms Baranwal said. “It’s driven by jobs.”
Westinghouse is trying to encourage eastern European countries to build nuclear plants by bringing students from Poland, the Czech Republic and the Ukraine to the US and training them in the company’s nuclear technology.
Ms Baranwal said Poland, which has relied heavily on coal for its energy, is starting to deploy big nuclear reactors but acknowledged that its decision was partially driven by a need for energy security following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as reliable power sources.
Follow the topics, people and companies that matter to you.
Fetching latest articles
The Daily Habit of Successful People
Recent Comments