Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
On May 23, President Donald Trump laid out a four-point plan (via four executive orders) to spark a nuclear energy renaissance in the United States based on his belief that nuclear energy is a superior carbon-free choice to wind and solar.
On May 23, President Donald Trump laid out a four-point plan (via four executive orders) to spark a nuclear energy renaissance in the United States based on his belief that nuclear energy is a superior carbon-free choice to wind and solar.
It was a very tall order.
Achieving his goal of adding 300 gigawatts to the nation’s existing 100 gigawatts of nuclear-generated electricity is quite a challenge, especially since the only new nuclear power plants built in the U.S. this century had massive cost overruns. In the short run, new reactors will be powered by nuclear fission, as fusion technology is still in the developmental stages.
Calling climate change spending one of the biggest malinvestments in human history, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the 10 trillion dollars invested globally “fighting climate change” has gotten solar up to 1.2 percent of global energy and wind up to 1.4 percent. Moreover, where grid penetration of wind and solar is high, as in Germany, the United Kingdom, and California, power prices have skyrocketed.
America’s nuclear power industry, said Wright, was “destroyed” by climate change policies and “regulatory misunderstandings.” The U.S. needs to quickly add 100 GW of reliable capacity that is there at peak demand, said Wright, and the pathway to doubling U.S. generation capacity is not going through wind and solar.
While multiple nuclear companies are working on small modular reactors and even micro reactors to meet special needs (such as powering remote mining operations or for various military purposes), the only pathway to doubling – and eventually quadrupling – U.S. energy capacity is through building large reactors – but not with multi-billion-dollar cost overruns and decades-long delays.
To that end, Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse is planning to start construction of the first of 10 new AP1000 reactors by 2030, just as President Trump demanded. Interim CEO Dan Sumner boasted that the 10 reactor-project will drive $75 billion of economic value across the U.S. and create or sustain more than 55,000 jobs across manufacturing, engineering, and construction.
Westinghouse’s AP1000 pressurized water reactor has a gross power rating of 3,415 MW thermal and a nominal net electrical output of 1,110 MW electric, and its reactor vessel and internals, steam generator, fuel, and pressurizer designs are upgrades from existing PWRs. Westinghouse promises considerable capital savings and lower maintenance costs than with earlier designs.
Longer term, the challenge is not just to build nuclear energy capacity but to address concerns over growing piles of nuclear waste – including the 95 to 97 percent of nuclear fuel unburned in light-water and pressurized-water reactors. Today’s generation IV and V “fast” reactors, including molten salt reactors, can be designed to burn nearly all of what is now deemed nuclear waste – leaving behind tiny amounts of plutonium that some fear could be turned into weapons.
Another reactor design, long in use across Canada, India, and several other countries, is the CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) heavy-water reactor developed by Canadian scientists and engineers. These reactors, which use deuterium oxide as moderator and coolant and natural (not enriched) uranium as fuel, can be refueled while operating at full power, whereas most other reactors require a shutdown for refueling.
The Darlington unit 1 pressurized heavy-water reactor in Canada holds the world record for continuous operation, at 1,106 days, while China’s CANDU-6 reactor in Qinshan set a new record of 738 days of continuous operation – the longest uninterrupted operation for the design.
Overall, the Canadian nuclear industry has been less hampered by regulations than its American counterpart. The renewed interest in nuclear energy in the U.S. has prompted the Canadian firm AtkinsRéalis to pursue a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license for its CANDU reactors – the only ones in the world that do not rely on enriched uranium.
CANDU reactors not only burn natural uranium, they can also easily use spent, enriched nuclear fuel from light-water reactors. The “nuclear waste” from the CANDU reactors can be used as fuel for the fusion reactors that are promised for the not-too-distant future. The chief concern is the potential for a positive void coefficient, in which reactivity increases as steam bubbles form in the coolant.
AtkinsRéalis Senior Vice President of Nuclear Strategy & Commercialization Zabrina Joahl, who is overseeing the firm’s efforts to place more CANDU reactors worldwide, believes the Canadian reactors can play a major role in fulfilling President Trump’s crusade to quadruple America’s nuclear-generated electricity by 2050.
Joahl, a Montana native who spent two decades with San Diego-based General Atomics, says her frustration with the lack of government support for the U.S. nuclear industry prompted her to take the AtkinsRéalis job. Until now, no Canadian firm has sought an NRC license.
President Trump has opened the door, but next month’s meeting with the NRC may determine whether CANDU reactors can become a part of the U.S. nuclear energy mix.
Joahl, who joined AtkinsRéalis last May, says her firm has major advantages over American nuclear startups, having built and maintained over 30 CANDU reactors worldwide. CANDU reactors are now operating in India, Argentina, China, Pakistan, Romania, and South Korea. India has also built 16 other reactors using a modified CANDU design. The firm is also partnering with EDF in France and the United Kingdom in its new nuclear build program.
Back in 2024, AtkinsRéalis joined with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to explore opportunities to collaborate on production of heavy water needed for the CANDU reactors. Canada was already anticipating rapid growth in the nuclear energy industry, including the possibility of new reactors in Ontario.
AtkinsRealis President Joe St. Julian calls CANDU technology “a source of national pride,” and said the new emphasis on producing deuterium also safeguards the supply of the global isotope market with cancer-fighting nuclear medicine. The CANDU reactors in Ontario are the only commercial scale reactors that can produce medical isotopes while also generating electricity; they supply half of the world’s supply of cancer-fighting Cobalt 60.
Canada is also expanding its production of uranium, including developing the Rook I Project in Saskatchewan that NextGen Energy Ltd. says will represent over 23 percent of the world’s uranium production in its first few years of operation. Another Canadian firm, Denison Mines, is also moving forward with its Phoenix in-situ recovery uranium project in Saskatchewan.
Despite any short-term political differences, Canada remains the closest U.S. ally and potential partner in building out the 300 GW of nuclear energy called for in President Trump’s executive orders. While the nonproliferation issue remains unresolved, the revamped NRC will soon decide if CANDU reactors will become a viable option for the much-anticipated U.S. nuclear energy buildout.
Asia is the fastest growing region for nuclear energy production, and the most consequential for major-power competition.
If the United States wants to shape nuclear standards, supply chains, and strategic alignments to its liking and gain markets, it must engage Asia now before China and Russia lock in dominance. Doing so isn’t just smart energy policy; it’s a strategic necessity.
Asia is driving nearly all global nuclear expansion. Some 80-85% of all reactors under construction worldwide are in the region, and most of the reactors built in the past decade were Asian projects. Demand is rising in long-established markets: China, India, Russia, South Korea, and Japan. But countries in South and Southeast Asia are also considering going nuclear, and some have taken steps in that direction, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
Four motivations are powering this nuclear renaissance. First, soaring electricity needs due to the increased electrification of transport, heating, and industry, the rise of data centers, artificial intelligence, crypto mining, and population growth and urbanization. Over half of global electricity demand comes from Asia today, and an additional 85% is expected through 2030, so Asian countries see nuclear power as a solution to such needs.
Second, Asian countries, notably newcomers, want to take advantage of small modular reactors, microreactors, and advanced reactors. These new technologies offer considerable benefits: lower capital cost and investment risk than traditional nuclear power plants, greater grid flexibility, adaptability, and resilience, and enhanced safety and security features.
Third, Asian countries believe that nuclear power can help them transition towards a greener economy in the context of rapid climate change. That’s because nuclear power provides reliable, zero-carbon baseload and can work in tandem with other forms of (renewable) energy.
Fourth, Asian countries want energy options that enhance their autonomy. Given rising geopolitical tensions, many seek to reduce vulnerabilities, such as potential disruptions in energy supplies caused by a U.S.-China crisis or conflict, and they see nuclear power useful in this regard.
The result is that nuclear power is becoming a domain of competition between the United States and China, but also with Russia, another major U.S. rival and longtime heavyweight in the nuclear industry. There is competition for nuclear exports, setting nuclear technology standards and governance principles, and exerting broader civil nuclear influence in Asia and beyond.
The administration of Donald Trump is well-aware of these dynamics, and its renewed commitment to nuclear power helps position the United States for success.
Unveiled last May, Trump’s policy emphasizes rapid expansion of domestic nuclear capacity, fast-track licensing, development of advanced reactors, microreactors, and small modular reactors, and rebuilding the U.S. nuclear industrial base. It also stresses the role of nuclear power for energy independence and in national security applications, from defense infrastructure to space systems.
These measures provide a foundation for U.S. engagement of Asia, as a robust U.S. nuclear industry is a prerequisite for influence. By strengthening its domestic nuclear sector, the United States can offer competitive exports, provide reliable fuel, and shape nuclear norms in emerging markets.
The Trump administration has already signed agreements to foster nuclear cooperation with several regional countries. In October, for example, it signed two with Singapore to work on feasibility, research and development, and capacity-building related to new nuclear technologies.
There are challenges, however. The Trump administration focuses on domestic deployment, licensing, and innovation but less on competitive export financing, regional fuel-supply partnerships, and engagement of regional allies and potential clients. It thus risks ceding influence on China and Russia, which push state-backed projects that come with financing, turnkey construction, and supply-chain assurances. Moreover, the administration has yet to integrate safeguards, workforce development, and industrial partnerships into a coherent regional strategy.
So, to capitalize fully on the Asian nuclear boom, the Trump administration should adapt its approach. As a first step, it should ensure that U.S. firms have access to government-backed loans, export-credit guarantees, and insurance to compete with the low-cost, state-financed Chinese and Russian offers.
The administration should also build a nuclear fuel consortium with its closest allies¾Japan, South Korea, and Australia. That consortium should include joint enrichment facilities, long-term fuel contracts, and coordinated uranium supply chains, presenting Asian countries with alternatives to Chinese or Russian proposals. Offering “take-back” options of spent nuclear fuel (or high-level waste) would be judicious given current Russian dominance in this area.
Another step should be providing integrated small-modular-reactor and microreactor packages. U.S. exports should go beyond reactor hardware and include training, maintenance, safety oversight, and long-term operational support, ensuring reliability and building local trust.
Moreover, the administration should go beyond engaging regional countries bilaterally. It should coordinate and leverage its ties with Japan, South Korea, and India and engage Southeast Asian countries using both bilateral and multilateral tracks to form greater cohesion among its partners. U.S. nuclear diplomacy should also be paired with clear nonproliferation requirements, and export approvals should be streamlined with international safeguards.
Finally, the administration should form partnerships with Asian countries to train nuclear engineers and operators, and ensure that nuclear deals highlight ancillary benefits, such as grid resilience, energy security, and support for high-energy applications, be it semiconductor fabrication, artificial intelligence clusters, and space operations.
Taken together, these steps will help the Trump administration transform nuclear power from a domestic priority into a strategic lever, shaping Asia in a way that advances U.S. interests for decades to come.
Dr. David Santoro is President and CEO of the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
Two weeks ago it was Microsoft reviving Three Mile Island’s nuclear plant. Now Google is buying seven small modular reactors, and Amazon is spending $500 million USD on part of a nuclear energy company.
Too bad for the deplorables who get stuck with the expensive wind-solar-battery clunker spaghetti-grid forced on them by the arts graduates in Parliament. An AI datacentre needs all the same thing a human city does — cheap gigawatts, 24 hours a day. The number-nerd men with money have all decided the cheapest reliable answer to running their AI data center cities, while pretending to fix the weather, is nuclear power. (Coal, of course, is cheaper which is why China uses so much, but it’s against the religion).
The unwashed masses won’t get that choice, of course, to sign up with whatever generator they want. Only the uber rich get that kind of luck.
Every one of these tech giants could have poured that money into wind farms and gardens of solar panels, backed up with acres of batteries and ten thousand miles of high voltage towers, pumped hydro, and synchronous condenser flywheels. But none of them want to pour in their own billions anymore, despite the social credit points bonanza and the bragging rights that would bring.
For twenty years these same people have been pushing the renewable hard sell on us, now overnight, without so much as a “sorry” they’ve all flipped, leaving us holding the can of decrepit national grids that can’t do what they were designed to do.
Google will build seven small nuclear reactors, the first by 2030…Our PM and the CSIRO must be feeling hung-out-to-dry. They declared nuclear was the most expensive option and said Australia couldn’t even build one before 2040.
Google has signed a landmark deal to use electricity produced by small nuclear reactors to power its artificial intelligence (AI) efforts.
Under the agreement with startup Kairos Power announced on Monday, the California-based tech giant will back the construction of seven small nuclear reactors capable of generating 500 megawatts of power. The first reactor is scheduled to come online by 2030, with others to follow in the coming years.
“The grid needs new electricity sources to support AI technologies that are powering major scientific advances, improving services for businesses and customers, and driving national competitiveness and economic growth,” Michael Terrell, the senior director of energy and climate at Google, said in a blog post.
Amazon is investing in US firm X-energy to utilise nuclear reactors to power its data centres.
Amazon and X-energy are aiming to have more than 5 gigawatts of SMR-generated power operational by 2039.
The reactors are currently under development, with none currently providing power to the electric grid in the US.
Big investors can help change that, and these announcements could be the “inflection point” that makes scaling up this technology truly possible, Huff said.
Feel the heat. Only weeks ago these same billionaires were raving about renewable energy, downranking and censoring the skeptics… now they are doing exactly what we said all along.
The fact that those pushing net-zero emissions targets aren’t talking seriously about nuclear power, says it all.
If energy policy is left in the hands of the wind and sun cult – and other weather-obsessed lunatics – it won’t be long before we’re all left sitting freezing or boiling in the dark.
The fact that those pushing net-zero emissions targets aren’t talking seriously about nuclear power, says it all.
If energy policy is left in the hands of the wind and sun cult – and other weather-obsessed lunatics – it won’t be long before we’re all left sitting freezing or boiling in the dark.
Those with financial skin in the game keep pushing for the purported elimination of carbon dioxide gas emissions, even if only at a fictional accounting level. A balance sheet somewhere will eventually claim that Nation ‘X’ has reached a (supposedly virtuous) target of net-zero emissions.
Digging into the net-zero narrative always returns to the same question; viz, if eliminating carbon dioxide gas emissions in the electricity generation sector is the object, then why, oh why, does this crowd ignore the only stand-alone power generation source that does not generate carbon dioxide gas in the process?
Nowhere is that question more obvious than in Australia, where lunatics really have taken over the asylum.
In those circumstances, it beggars belief that Labor’s Energy Minister – the witless Chris Bowen – can maintain an argument that Australia (apparently unique amongst all nations) can reject nuclear power generation and somehow meet his net-zero carbon dioxide gas target using nothing but wind and solar.
As the Australian’s Judith Sloan points out below, if Australia wants to meet its suicidal net-zero target, then the only path is nuclear power generation.
Nuclear resistance casts Australia as energy laggard nation The Australian Judith Sloan 22 August 2023
Judged by the reaction to my column last week, many readers share my concerns about the planned transition of the energy system outlined by Energy Minister Chris Bowen. It’s already clear that the vision of an electricity grid powered almost entirely by renewable energy by the end of the decade and linked by many kilometres of new transmission lines is unachievable.
As for the proposition that electricity prices will fall, it’s similarly clear that the modelling on which this appealing idea was based is fundamentally flawed. In particular, the work undertaken by the CSIRO bizarrely assumes all the capital costs of transmission and distribution associated with the transition are simply written off at the end of the decade. The reality is the investors will continue to earn guaranteed returns on these investments and these will feed into higher consumer prices.
It’s anyone’s guess what Bowen will be up to in 2030 but it’s odds-on to a dollar that he won’t be the climate change and energy minister. But the point is that the fate of the electricity grid, and energy generation more broadly, is too important to be left to day-to-day politics; it requires careful planning and implementation by those who really understand how the system works.
Sadly, the leadership and staff of the Australian Energy Market Operator appear to be incapable of this task given the faulty and impractical Integrated System Plans the agency releases. The incompetence of state government ministers and bureaucrats, in combination with starry-eyed fantasies of renewable energy zones, simply adds to the developing nightmare.
The features of the failing transition are obvious already. Snowy 2.0 is behind schedule and now it is predicted that the pumped-hydro project alone will cost $10bn – the original estimate was $2bn. Many billions of dollars for additional transmission will also be needed.
The Marinus Link between Tasmania and Victoria increasingly looks unlikely to go ahead as its cost blows out from $3.1bn to $5.5bn and the fiscally fragile Tasmanian government baulks at bearing the higher figure. Absent this link, the slew of renewable energy projects in Tasmania envisaged as part of the transition is unlikely to proceed. This setback also exposes Victoria’s energy transmission plans.
As for Queensland’s energy transition plans, the inclusion of two large-scale pumped-hydro projects increasingly looks absurd, both in terms of costs and feasibility. There is strong local opposition to the project outside Mackay. The only upside to Queensland’s plan is the intention to keep its (relatively new) coal-fired plants going until renewable energy plus storage can provide guaranteed electricity.
One of the most worrying aspects of this unfolding tragedy is Bowen’s closed mind when it comes to other options to achieve a reliable and affordable grid as well as meeting decarbonisation goals. His muted objection to gas is part of the problem and the fact this energy source is not part of the national security mechanism, the capacity mechanism to provide back-up power to the grid in the event of power shortfalls, is close to incomprehensible. But his fierce and ongoing opposition to nuclear power as the greenest form of 24/7 generation simply beggars belief. His unfounded assertion that nuclear is simply too expensive must be tested by the market on the basis of the government lifting the completely unjustified ban on nuclear power.
There are more and more countries that beg to differ with Bowen’s assertion. France, Sweden, Finland, Britain, Canada, South Korea, the US and others are all ramping up investments in nuclear energy. If nuclear power is too expensive, it’s news to these economic powerhouses. We really run the risk of being left at the starting gate unless we make this shift.
The turning point for Labor is the signing of the AUKUS deal and its commitment to the use of nuclear-powered submarines. As part of this agreement, we are required to ramp up the nuclear-related workforce substantially and to deal with the waste on our shores. It is the perfect correlate to the establishment of a domestic nuclear power industry.
The lessons being learnt by other countries will prove useful and should allow us to short-circuit some of the lengthy delays that have plagued the nuclear industry. Indeed, there is clear evidence that the high expense of nuclear has been partly the result of massive over-regulation and a tendency for heel-dragging by the authorities. The comparison between the US and Canadian regulators is telling in this context, with the Canadian regulator much more efficient and cooperative.
There are several technology choices we could make, including simply using the tried-and-true ones. The South Koreans, for instance, are finalising several plants using the current principal technology. In Australia, these plants could be easily located where coal-fired plants exist or have existed: the sources of water and their proximity to transmission lines make them perfect sites.
There is also the option of providing a pilot site for TerraPower, the new form of nuclear generation promoted by Bill Gates.
Work is proceeding in Wyoming, US; the plant will generate 350 megawatts to 500MW. While the cost of this plant is estimated to be $US4bn ($6.2bn), the expectation is the next ones could cost as little as $US1bn. This form of nuclear generation doesn’t require significant amounts of water or auxiliary power. Interestingly, there was fierce bidding to have the plant located at the various possible sites.
If it were not for Bowen’s, and Labor’s, ingrained opposition to nuclear power that has little justification in the current climate, it could be exciting times for the electricity industry in Australia.
Small modular reactors will also likely be part of the mix; after all, we currently have them floating around the oceans. The Canadians have made a major commitment to their development and Rolls-Royce is working day-and-night to achieve SMRs as a commercial option for that company. In time, Australia may be simply be able to buy them off the shelf.
Of course, the renewable energy industrial complex is likely to arc up because the most sensible thing to do, if decarbonisation is the paramount concern, is simply to go with nuclear and forget short-lived, unreliable intermittent wind and solar, even with the fanciful addition of batteries.
In the short term, it is possible to make nuclear and renewable energy complementary. But as the turbines and panels reach the end of their short lives, it won’t make much sense to replace the landscape-scarring installations. But the key now is to get on with it. The Australian
However, in Australia, and elsewhere in the deindustrialising West, coal-fired power has been declared public enemy number one by a cult that reckons they can change the weather, using thousands of wind turbines and millions of solar panels. Quite how, is anybody’s guess? But there it is.
Without doubt, coal-fired power remains the cheapest and most reliable form of power generation, bar none. Which is why hundreds of new plants are being built across China, India, Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia. However, in Australia, and elsewhere in the deindustrialising West, coal-fired power has been declared public enemy number one by a cult that reckons they can change the weather, using thousands of wind turbines and millions of solar panels. Quite how, is anybody’s guess? But there it is.
The cult tells us that the tiny fraction of carbon dioxide gas generated by human activity (3%) causes all the things that ail us, be it droughts or floods, freezing or hot weather. The naturally occurring stuff (97%), not so much, apparently.
Let’s, for the moment, leave battles about human-generated carbon dioxide gas to one side and assume that the cult has won the day; viz – that power generation systems that generate carbon dioxide gas in the process have no place in what they call the “energy mix”.
It’s the premise that has overtaken energy policy in Australia, the US, parts of Europe and elsewhere where bellies are full and the elites run the show. The result being, that in those countries obsessed with the so-called wind and solar ‘transition’, the construction of new coal-fired power plants has stalled and perfectly functional plants are being destroyed with wanton glee by the cult in question.
Which brings us to safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power. If the anti-CO2 cult were true to their word, they would be banging on about nothing else, because it’s the only stand-alone generation source that does not generate carbon dioxide gas in the generation process.
The fact that end-is-nigh zealots take an entirely contrary position – trotting out risible arguments about the purported dangers and cost of nuclear – speaks volumes about their true objects.
As to the myth about cost, when Finland powered up its latest nuclear power plant in April wholesale power prices dropped 75%, almost overnight. The Olkiluoto 3 plant is fully operational, generating 1,600 MW of electricity on demand (irrespective of the weather), and delivering 15% of the country’s power needs. Nuclear now provides around half of the country’s total electricity generation. The result of adding Olkiluoto 3’s ever-reliable output to the Finnish grid was a decline in average spot electricity prices from €245.98 per MWh in December to €60.55 per MWh hour in April. So much for the wind and solar cult meme about nuclear power being ‘too expensive’.
The Swedes set out to ditch nuclear power and meet a 100% renewable energy target in the 1980s. Having finally worked out that such a move was totally unworkable, Sweden has decided to follow neighbouring Finland, with its own move towards safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power.
Follow the money and you’ll note that the loudest advocates for the grand wind and solar ‘transition’ are those with their snouts in the wind and solar subsidy trough. Politicos and NGOs alike are brazen in their attempts to smear the benefits of nuclear power, merrily ignoring the fact that their proposed ‘solution’ has no hope of ever succeeding – by reason of iron laws of economics, physics and good old meteorology.
Nuclear power doesn’t depend on the weather, it doesn’t require batteries and it doesn’t require backup, and it doesn’t depend upon the whims of despots and cartels that control the rare earths and minerals essential for the construction of wind turbines and solar panels. Uranium, the highly-concentrated energy source at its heart, is abundant and readily extracted. All it takes is the wit and the will to do so.
Now, however, as the effect of Australia’s utterly idiotic energy policy starts to bite, the (notionally conservative) Liberal/National Coalition (in opposition to the Federal Green/Labor government) has finally mustered up the courage to present a case for nuclear power. Albeit 20 years too late.
Last week, Ted O’Brien, the Coalition’s Energy spokesman kicked off with the demand to get rid of the legislative ban on nuclear power plants as he (finally) began promoting an energy source that has been overlooked for far too long in this country.
Coalition set to go nuclear on energy The Australian Geoff Chambers 9 August 2023
A “coal-to-nuclear transition” in the regions and tapping Australia’s world-leading uranium stocks are firming as centrepieces of the Coalition’s 2025 energy policy to secure long-term baseload power, slash emissions and lower electricity bills.
Key election battlegrounds and coalmining regions in the NSW Hunter Valley and central and north Queensland, which are vulnerable to the rapid shift away from coal to renewables, are expected to be leading candidates for the future development of small modular reactors.
Opposition energy and climate change spokesman Ted O’Brien told The Australian that “views of local communities would be front and centre” if the Coalition rubber-stamps a coal-to-nuclear transition.
“A social licence should be a prerequisite for any major infrastructure that impacts people’s way of life. It’s one of the reasons why we’re speaking so openly about these matters now, even before we’ve settled a policy,” Mr O’Brien told The Australian.
“The Coalition is learning lessons from Labor’s misjudged attempts to steamroll over regional communities in their rush to roll out renewables and transmission lines.”
Peter Dutton has put nuclear energy and gas at the heart of the Coalition’s future energy blueprint, which will be finalised before the next federal election.
The Australian can reveal Scott Morrison came close to backing nuclear energy ahead of the 2022 election after conducting extensive research during deliberations on the Coalition’s 2050 net-zero emissions policy.
Coalition sources said Mr Morrison, who believed SMRs would play a role in the future energy mix, dropped the idea over fears of an electoral backlash and Anthony Albanese weaponising nuclear as a central campaign issue.
Despite the majority backing of Coalition MPs in 2021, some inside the Liberal Party were concerned about the economics and polling showing voters remained sceptical about nuclear energy.
The Prime Minister and Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen – who have committed to slashing emissions by 43 per cent and having 82 per cent of renewable electricity in the grid by 2030 – claim nuclear is not a viable option because it is too expensive.
Amid soaring energy bills and fears over grid instability, the Coalition is pointing to post-election polling showing public sentiment on the benefits of nuclear energy has shifted.
Following a recent visit to the US coal state of Wyoming, where locals are backing an SMR project funded by billionaire Bill Gates, Mr O’Brien said “Australians with high energy-IQ know intuitively swapping retired coal plants for nuclear makes sense because they are like-for-like replacements”.
Writing in The Australian, the Queensland MP states: “Like in Wyoming, Australians in towns with power plants and energy-intensive industries aren’t fooled by NIMBY scare tactics of city-based politicians.
“Nuclear plants can plug into the grid, leveraging existing transmission, transportation and water infrastructure left behind by retired coal plants.”
Quoting a US Department of Energy report, Mr O’Brien writes that using the infrastructure of an existing coal plant can “reduce a nuclear plant’s capital costs by up to 35 per cent”.
“Replacing just one of Australia’s 50 coal generators with nuclear power would remove about 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually, equivalent to the emissions created by nearly 900,000 cars running on petrol,” he writes.
“Nuclear would also avoid the environmental damage of thousands of kilometres of transmissions lines connecting new wind and solar projects.
“Nuclear plants deliver more jobs and better-paying ones as they can produce more electricity, rely on more value-added supply chains and higher-educated workers. In replacing coal for nuclear, most plant workers can live in the same town and stay in the same occupation, albeit work in a cleaner and safer workplace.”
Mr O’Brien, who points to coal-to-nuclear transitions in Poland and Wyoming, said Australia had “enormous uranium reserves – the largest in the world – but we have never used nuclear energy to generate electricity”.
A Minerals Council of Australia poll in May found that 45 per cent of voters either strongly or somewhat supported nuclear power as a domestic energy source, with 23 per cent opposed.
The survey of 2600 voters, which was run by research group Insightfully, found that 51 per cent of respondents supported removing bans on nuclear energy, with 19 per cent opposed and 30 per cent neutral. Mining giant BHP is pushing the Albanese government to remove “prohibitions” on nuclear energy to help achieve 2030 and 2050 climate targets, amid fears that restricting power sources in the grid will hold back the clean energy transition.
Mr O’Brien said “Labor’s policies are driving a premature closure of coal plants, with 80 per cent of baseload power set to exit the grid by 2035”. The Australian
Wyoming’s coal-to-nuclear shift a blueprint for Australia The Australian Ted O’Brien 9 August 2023
As coal plants race to exit the grid without any guarantee of a replacement, we should learn from the US state of Wyoming as it embarks on a transformation from coal to nuclear.
Home to the biggest deposits in the US, Wyoming relies on coal to generate around 70 per cent of its electricity. Wyoming also possesses the largest reserves of uranium in the US, but it has never used nuclear energy.
Sound familiar? Australia is also reliant on coal. On average, around 58 per cent of our electricity is coal-generated, but this spikes to over 80 per cent at times.
We too have enormous uranium reserves – the largest in the world – but we have never used nuclear energy to generate electricity. All this is set to change – in Wyoming, that is.
Wyoming has decided to replace its retiring coal plants with nuclear. Kemmerer, in the state’s Rocky Mountains, will be the site for its first nuclear plant, with a Natrium reactor replacing the Naughton coal plant by 2030.
Natrium is a TerraPower technology about one-third the size of a large nuclear plant; it’s a 345-megawatt small modular reactor with sodium-cooling and a molten salt storage system. Unlike coal, SMRs complement renewables by ramping up and down to power the grid when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
Behind TerraPower is Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. Visiting Wyoming in May, Gates told America’s ABC nuclear can help “solve our climate goals” and “get rid of the greenhouse emissions without making the electricity system more expensive and less reliable”. I too visited Wyoming earlier this year. What struck me was the extent to which residents were embracing their nuclear future. Four coal communities had gone head to head in a competitive bid to host the state’s first nuclear plant. On hearing this, I reflected on the NIMBY (not in my backyard) arguments peddled by Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, and queried why Wyoming’s coal communities so eagerly vied to host a nuclear plant.
“They have high energy-IQ,” came the answer from Rita Meyer, who ran the consultation process. These communities understand energy and industry; they are people who “get it” when it comes to big projects and the enduring benefits they deliver. What does this mean for Australia?
Like in Wyoming, Australians in towns with power plants and energy-intensive industries aren’t fooled by NIMBY scare tactics of city-based politicians. Australians with high energy-IQ know intuitively that swapping retired coal plants for nuclear makes sense because they’re like-for-like replacements. Nuclear plants can plug into the grid, leveraging existing transmission, transportation and water infrastructure left behind by retired coal plants.
According to a September 2022 study for the US Department of Energy, using infrastructure of an existing coal plant can reduce a nuclear plant’s capital costs by up to 35 per cent.
It’s not just about the economics, however, but also the environment. Replacing just one of Australia’s 50 coal generators with nuclear would remove around 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually, equivalent to the emissions created by nearly 900,000 cars running on petrol.
Nuclear would also avoid the environmental damage of thousands of kilometres of transmissions lines connecting new wind and solar projects.
It’s good for workers too. Nuclear plants deliver more jobs, and better-paying ones, as they can produce more electricity, rely on more value-added supply chains and higher-educated workers.
In replacing coal for nuclear, most plant workers can live in the same town and stay in the same occupation, albeit work in a cleaner and safer workplace. Wyoming is a case study for North America, as Poland is for Europe. Poland too relies on coal for around 70 per cent of its electricity and it has Europe’s largest reserves. After its Ministry of the Economy identified nuclear as the most cost-effective method to decarbonise, Poland embarked on its own coal to nuclear transformation.
According to a poll by research agency CBOS in December, 75 per cent of residents support the move. Meanwhile, in Australia, the Albanese government’s climate and energy policies are in tatters, yet it still refuses to contemplate zero-emissions nuclear technology. Labor has broken its promise of lower power prices and a reliable grid and it’s falling short of its renewables and emissions reduction targets. It demonises coal, yet Australia’s remaining 17 coal plants are what keeps the lights on – for now.
Labor’s policies are driving a premature closure of coal plants, with 80 per cent of baseload power set to exit the grid by 2035. Without like-for-like replacements, Australia will become weaker and poorer, and communities with coal plants will be the most vulnerable. This is madness and I suspect high energy-IQ communities know it.
Presented with a coal-to-nuclear opportunity, these communities may be as open-minded as those in Wyoming. The Australian
Time to go nuclear before we run out of usable power The Australian Editorial 10 August 2023
In a properly planned energy transition, it would make sense to consider upfront all options to replace existing sources of generation with more efficient ones that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions using existing network infrastructure. The fact that nuclear is only now being put forward as a proposal by the Dutton opposition to replace coal-fired power plants when they are retired is an alarming reality, given the high costs and big risks being faced in our increasing dependence on intermittent technologies. The fact both sides of politics have been unwilling to support changing the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to allow nuclear to even be considered is testament to the political cowardice that has led to the situation we have today.
By any measure, the Albanese government’s decarbonisation agenda – which requires 82 per cent of power to come from renewable sources by 2030 – is already well off course. The transition is characterised by higher-than-expected costs and lower-than-promised returns. There can be little confidence that things will be turned around quickly, given the obstacles that keep appearing. This includes technical problems with big-ticket projects such as the Snowy 2.0 hydro-electricity scheme.
It is also apparent that community sentiment in favour of the renewable transition is sorely tested by proximity to the projects that will be required. Onshore wind farm developments are under pressure in Victoria because of the potential impact on protected brolgas. Queensland is revising its planning laws because many residents have decided the environmental cost and loss of amenity in wind farm developments in environmentally sensitive areas do not stack up. Offshore wind proposals can expect a similar fate to that being experienced by efforts to build the $20bn worth of high-voltage transmission lines that are needed to make the renewables-dependent electricity network function. It is for these reasons that the Coalition’s timid embrace of nuclear must be urgently considered.
Claims nuclear plants are too expensive and communities will not accept them must be put to the test. Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has provided evidence for the defence of nuclear in what is happening in other traditionally coal-dependent communities: Wyoming in the US and Poland in Europe. A Bill Gates-backed company, TerraPower, is building a small nuclear reactor in Wyoming that the Microsoft founder says can help “solve our climate goals” and “get rid of the greenhouse emissions without making the electricity system more expensive and less reliable”.
The TerraPower technology, called Natrium, is fully backed by the US Department of Energy and is designed to integrate into grids with high penetrations of wind and solar. A similar transition is under way in Poland and, contrary to what we were told would happen in Australia, local communities in the US and Poland are keen to be involved. Consultants working on the proposals say this is because workers in coal centres have a high energy-IQ; they understand why energy matters, and what the risks and opportunities are.
It is reasonable to question the energy-IQ of those leading Australia’s low-emissions transition. This is particularly so given the facts exposed by Claire Lehmann that put to the sword claims that renewables are the cheapest option – because they do not take account of the billions of dollars needed for firming, storage and transmission upgrades that will be spent prior to 2030.
By putting nuclear on the table for proper consideration, the federal opposition is doing what should have been done at the outset. Given the imminent risks, removing the legislative ban on considering nuclear energy should be a bipartisan priority. The Australian
Peter Dutton has proposed converting old coal-fired power sites into locations for small-scale nuclear plants as part of the Coalition’s future energy plan as the Opposition Leader launches his most strident attack yet on the “renewable zealotry” of the Albanese government.
190306-N-N0101-125
WASHINGTON (March 6, 2019) An artist rendering of the future Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. The 12 submarines of the Columbia class are a shipbuilding priority and will replace the Ohio-class submarines reaching maximum extended service life. The Columbia-class Program Executive Office is on track to begin construction with USS Columbia (SSBN 826) in fiscal year 2021, deliver in fiscal year 2028, and on patrol in 2031. (U.S. Navy illustration/Released)
SMRs are no right-wing fantasy: 200 small nuclear reactors are presently powering 160 ships and submarines all around the world, and have been for decades.
STT promotes nuclear power because it works: safe, affordable, reliable and the perfect foil for those worried about human-generated carbon dioxide gas – because it doesn’t generate any, while generating power on demand, irrespective of the weather – unlike the forever unreliables: wind and solar.
Australia’s maniacal obsession with wind and solar has just delivered a 25-30% hike in retail power prices – that crushing impost sits on top of increases of between 10-20% in retail power prices that have taken effect throughout the financial year. Which means that many households and businesses will see a 50% jump in their power bills in less than 12 months. And that follows double-digit percentage increases in retail power bills every year since the Green-Labor Alliance ramped up the Federal government’s Renewable Energy Target back in 2010.
But in Australia – with its idiotic, 25-year-old ban on nuclear power generation – the sensible response to their self-inflicted energy woes seen in Europe fails to register, with the solution to Australia’s power pricing and supply calamity hiding in plain sight.
The leader of the Federal Opposition, Peter Dutton is, thankfully, not so blind that he cannot see.
As reported in The Australian, Dutton has hitched his party’s wagon to a nuclear-powered future. And about time, too.
Peter Dutton: turn coal-powered plants to nuclear The Australian Simon Benson 7 July 2023
Peter Dutton has proposed converting old coal-fired power sites into locations for small-scale nuclear plants as part of the Coalition’s future energy plan as the Opposition Leader launches his most strident attack yet on the “renewable zealotry” of the Albanese government.
In a speech to the Institute of Public Affairs on Friday morning, the Liberal leader will double down on the party’s plans to pursue nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels, claiming the “renewables only” agenda was “fanciful” and putting the nation at risk.
Mr Dutton will suggest the site of the decommissioned Liddell Power Station, in the NSW Hunter Valley, was an example of where a small modular nuclear reactor that could power 300,000 homes alone could be located.
The Albanese government has rubbished his proposals for nuclear power bases, arguing they would be too costly, and has previously challenged Mr Dutton to nominate where they would be located.
BHP has also argued for Australia to remove prohibitions on nuclear energy, arguing it could help achieve the 2030 and 2050 climate change targets.
In an attack on the environmental credentials of the renewable energy industry, Mr Dutton will say while renewables were necessary, the pursuit of wind, solar and batteries alone would not solve the energy problem he says has catapulted Australia’s domestic energy to among the highest-priced in the world.
He has also linked the need for nuclear energy to national security, claiming renewables alone would leave the nation vulnerable, outlining three pillars for the Coalition energy policy based on clean power, cost-effective power and consistent power.
“If the government wants to stop coal-fired power and phase out gas-fired power, the only feasible and proven technology which can firm up renewables and help us achieve the goals of clean, cost-effective and consistent power is next-generation nuclear technologies, which are safe and emit zero emissions,” Mr Dutton will say in the speech.
“Namely, small modular reactors or ‘SMRs’. And microreactors or micro modular reactors – ‘MMRs’ – which are also known as ‘nuclear batteries’.
“A single SMR can power 300,000 homes. A microreactor could power a hospital, a factory, a mining site or a military base.
“Chris Bowen has burrowed so deeply down the renewable rabbit hole that he refuses to consider these new nuclear technologies as part of the solution to our energy problems.
“In the Energy Minister’s eyes, he sees nuclear and renewables as competitors. Whereas we need to see them as companions. New nuclear technologies can be plugged into existing grids and work immediately.”
Mr Dutton identified Liddell Power Station, claiming an SMR needed only about 18 hectares of land. Liddell, he said, occupied about 100 hectares. “We could convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites,” he will say. “It’s no wonder more than 50 countries are exploring or investing in new SMRs and nuclear batteries.
“Energy security is a primary reason why Australia must consider new nuclear technologies as part of the energy mix.
“The government has committed to building nuclear-powered submarines in Australia under AUKUS.
“The submarines are essentially floating SMRs. The most modern reactors in the submarines in operation today don’t need to be refuelled for 30 years.”
In remarks likely to ignite a fierce response from the renewables industry, Mr Dutton also questioned the environmental benefit of building 58 million solar panels and 3500 wind turbines he claims would be needed to reach the government’s 2030 clean energy targets.
“Of course, we all understand the need to invest in the development of renewables and the important role they play in the energy mix,” Mr Dutton said.
“But the government is not being technologically agnostic or objective. On the contrary, its ‘renewables only’ mentality – its renewable zealotry – is putting our nation at risk.
“The Albanese government is recklessly rushing to renewables and switching off the old system before the new one is ready.
“We hear too from the ‘renewables only’ campaigners that they are better for the environment.
“By 2050, the plan includes carpeting our landscape with 28,000 kilometres of new transmission poles and wires – the equivalent of almost the entire coastline of mainland Australia – at a cost of more than $100bn.
“Putting aside the fact that a rollout on this scale is fanciful … how on Earth is it environmentally friendly?”
Mr Dutton first flagged nuclear energy as part of the Coalition’s energy plans in September 2022 and again in his budget reply speech in May.
But his speech to the IPA is the first to identify potential locations for the SMR reactors.
Nationals leader David Littleproud on Wednesday praised Mr Dutton for having the “courage” to get the Liberal Party on board with a pro-nuclear position already held by the Nationals. The Australian
The Italian parliament, demonstrating confidence in Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, this week formally backed her plan to reintroduce nuclear power plants into Italy’s energy mix, reversing the nation’s 1987 moratorium on nuclear power. Meanwhile, energy-starved Germany is feeling the pinch from shuttering all of its 17 nuclear power plants.
The Italian parliament, demonstrating confidence in Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, this week formally backed her plan to reintroduce nuclear power plants into Italy’s energy mix, reversing the nation’s 1987 moratorium on nuclear power. Meanwhile, energy-starved Germany is feeling the pinch from shuttering all of its 17 nuclear power plants.
The U.S. has closed 11 nuclear reactors since 2013, with another eight of the 94 remaining reactors scheduled for decommissioning by 2025. Although Presidents Trump and Biden have favored bolstering the U.S. nuclear energy portfolio, America’s bureaucrat-heavy regulatory jungle remains designed to drag out facility permitting and construction for decades.
The sad truth is that the energy crisis is imminent – we don’t have decades to play gotcha political games. Another truth – wind and solar cannot fully power the U.S. grid.
Meloni’s plan would enable Italy to generate up to 35 MW of power from nuclear energy by 2050 (likely from small modular reactors). The plan adds nuclear to the list of low-carbon technologies with guaranteed sales of the energy they produce. The move towards nuclear also bolsters Meloni’s negotiations over Italy’s participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Germany’s removing nuclear power from its energy mix makes little sense, given the cutoff of Russian natural gas. Higher energy prices and shortfalls have led many German manufacturers to shut down or relocate to other, more energy friendly, nations. Germany has had negative economic growth since last October.
The German delusion is perhaps best exemplified by Steffi Lemke, minister for the environment and nuclear safety, who glowingly praised the shuttering of the last German nuclear power plants as an “excellent – indeed, visionary – move.” By contrast, fellow Green Party minister for the economy Robert Habeck recently bemoaned that German industries face an existential threat due to high electricity prices.
Habeck’s proposed solution is a massive (Bidenesque) subsidies program that would guarantee a fixed consumer price per megawatt-hour until 2030 – at a back-end cost to the public of 25 to 30 billion euros (not included in the “fixed” price).
As nuclear energy advocate Todd Royal points out, Congress in 2018 passed the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act that requires the Department of Energy to “develop a versatile fast neutron test reactor that could help develop fuels and materials for advanced reactors.” It also authorized DOE national laboratories to host reactor testing and demonstration projects.”
Congress in 2018 also passed the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to “develop an optional regulatory framework suitable for advanced nuclear technologies.” This February, the Nuclear Innovation Alliance released draft recommendations for addressing barriers to NRC licensing of advanced reactors.
The draft recommended bolstering staff capacity and capability for licensing advanced reactors; upgrading unaccountable regulatory processes and procedures for scheduling, breadth of scope, and depth of review; developing regulatory processes that streamline rather than inhibit the commercialization of advanced reactors; and establishing practices that increase stakeholder understanding and public trust in the regulatory process.
As a follow-up, in April five Republican and five Democrat Senators introduced the bipartisan ADVANCE ( (Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy) Act, which addresses licensing fees, insurance, and a host of other barriers to moving proposed nuclear reactors from drawing board to full operation.
Today, companies that develop and sell new reactors pay up front the government’s $290 per hour cost for analyzing license applications. The 18,000-plus hours for reviewing even small test reactors presents a massive financial hurdle, especially for startups with innovative designs.
The bill recommends deferring these fees until the applicant has a license and can generate revenue from sales. The NRC would be compensated from a small rolling fund seeded by the government. A second proposal adds a time cap for the review of an accepted application, with additional billable hours paid by Congress.
The bill also grants a 20-year extension to the Price-Anderson Act, which pertains to civilian power plants, that would otherwise expire in 2025. The extension gives policy makers sufficient time to tweak the law while reassuring potential investors and developers that its reauthorization will not be a barrier to startups.
Regulatory reform appears to be a hot issue, as President Biden just this week endorsed a reform bill proposed last fall by Sen. Joe Manchin (D, WV) that would streamline permitting for mining of critical minerals and remove barriers for renewable energy.
White House energy spokesman John Podesta said delays caused by the current permitting process “are pervasive at every level of government,” with the result that “we got so good at stopping projects we forgot how to build things in America.”
Manchin last fall stated, “No matter what you want to build, whether it’s transmission pipelines or hydropower dams, more often than not, it takes too long and drives up costs. You can double your cost within a five to six, seven-year period from what the original cost may have been.”
If the regulatory reform momentum that covers transmission lines and mining extends to nuclear, that bodes well for widespread efforts to revitalize the long-bearded U.S. nuclear energy industry. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is spearheading an effort to restart a decommissioned reactor in her state, with help from Holtec Decommissioning International, whose primary focus is, as its name implies, decommissioning old plants.
Whitmer now says that keeping the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station open “is critical for Michigan’s competitiveness and future economic development opportunities.” But the 800-MW reactor that had provided 5 percent of Michigan’s electricity was plagued with complaints about poor maintenance, including instances of nuclear fuel container weakening – serious issues that forced its shutdown weeks earlier than originally anticipated.
On the other end of the spectrum, Westinghouse just announced the launch of its AP300 reactor, which it calls “the only small modular reactor offering available that is based on deployed, operating, and advanced reactor technology.” CEO and President Patrick Fragman is confident that the $1 billion per unit, 300-MW reactor design can win NRC approval by 2027.
From these developments, it appears the U.S. is aligning itself more with the so-called “right-wing” Italian government than with the Green Party-infused German leadership – at least on nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has powered U.S. submarines since the U.S.S. Nautilus was commissioned in 1954. And nuclear has supplied up to a fifth of U.S. electricity despite heavy propaganda and lack of government support.
Maybe, just maybe, after seventy years of nuclear submarines, America will finally believe – as Todd Royal believes – that carbon-free nuclear power is the nation’s best hope for meeting growing U.S. demand for electricity and global needs for basic economic growth. With worldwide energy consumption expected to grow by 50 percent by 2050, reliance on wind and solar (and, yes, geothermal) alone to meet that demand is a pipe dream.
Duggan Flanakin is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.
A former Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas.
A brief history of his multifaceted career appears in his book, “Infinite Galaxies: Poems from the Dugout.”
Nuclear power’s timely renaissance is being led by Canada and the US, with plenty of others following suit. Any country that’s serious about reliable and affordable electricity is getting serious about nuclear power.
Nuclear power’s timely renaissance is being led by Canada and the US, with plenty of others following suit. Any country that’s serious about reliable and affordable electricity is getting serious about nuclear power.
Nuclear power is the only, stand-alone generation source that can deliver reliable, affordable power without generating CO2 gas, in the process, which means nuclear should be the perfect candidate for those fretting about carbon dioxide gas emissions in the electricity generation sector.
Putting aside worries about the direction the weather might take in future, the self-inflicted wind and solar calamity playing out in Europe has focused attention on the need to have power around-the-clock, whatever the weather.
Australia’s Federal Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O’Brien recently took a tour of the US to discover just how far behind Australia is, when it comes to the development of nuclear power. Australia is the only G-20 country that does not use nuclear power, thanks to an idiotic ban placed on nuclear power generation, back in 1998.
In the piece below, O’Brien makes some pertinent points and keen observations and, given Australia’s history on the subject, about time, too.
But O’Brien – typical of his class – runs with the ideological notion that nuclear need only form part of an energy ‘mix’, based on an “any of the above” model. By which we take O’Brien to mean that there is a natural place in the ‘mix’ for chaotically intermittent and heavily subsidised wind and solar, as well.
There is, of course, no sensible reason to add wind or solar to any ‘mix’ of power generation sources dispatching to an interconnected grid. Why bother with occasional generation sources that simply can’t deliver power as and when consumers need it? In the absence of sunshine and suitable breezes, wind and solar routinely add absolutely nothing to the mix for hours, and sometimes days, at a stretch.
But, that niggle aside, it’s a rare and beautiful thing to see an Australian politician making the case for reliable and affordable nuclear power generation.
How the US rediscovered its mojo for nuclear energy The Australian Ted O’Brien 3 May 2023
Following the opening of its first commercial nuclear power plant in 1958, the industry flourished with 112 plants operating by the 1990s. But appetite for nuclear energy soon waned as the US “shale revolution” drove gas prices down. Nuclear energy’s days were numbered, or so it seemed.
Now, to the surprise of many, nuclear energy is back. Today, nuclear constitutes 19 per cent of the US energy mix and there are plans to double the capacity of nuclear energy by 2050. Why is it making such a comeback?
I decided to lead a delegation to the US to find out. We travelled from east to west, meeting with a range of stakeholders from industry to government to academia.
I began these meetings by outlining the status of Australia’s climate change debate and the challenges of our energy system. This prompted knowing smiles. As one congressman said: “We get it, because we’ve been there too.”
Fierce debate about climate change beset the US for years, accentuating fault lines between Republicans and Democrats.
The nuclear industry kept a low profile in those early debates. “We just assumed no one liked us much,” said one industry leader.
More recently, the stature of nuclear energy has risen and a remarkable political bipartisanship has converged in its favour.
For the left, climate change was the dominant concern. For the right, energy security was paramount. But both landed in favour of nuclear energy.
The US now recognises that it can’t keep its economy healthy and hit net zero by 2050 without zero-emissions nuclear energy.
Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine reminded the US that energy security is a prerequisite for national security, accentuating the need for nuclear power plants with their level of protection against adversarial threats and fuel density allowing multiple years of supply to be stored onsite, free from supply disruptions.
My trip also revealed other drivers behind US bipartisanship for nuclear energy. First, nothing unites Congress like the geostrategic challenge of China and the contest underway in fields like space, quantum computing, virtual reality and semiconductors.
China and Russia have been rapidly playing catch up in nuclear energy in recent decades, carrying strategic consequences for the US.
Some 50 non-nuclear nations are now considering adopting nuclear energy, and first mover advantage in Small Modular Reactors (SMR) and Microreactors (nuclear batteries) will be critical in setting global norms, standards and protocols for decades to come.
Second, technological innovation has changed the game.
Next-generation nuclear reactors take affordability, reliability and safety to a new level. Generation III+ reactors are mature, proven technologies with improved fuel and passive safety in simple, standard designs with modular construction that operate for up to 80 years.
Take the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 on which our delegation was briefed. This SMR includes the benefits of Generation III+ technology while also giving comfort to regulators by using the same fuel and many of the same components that exist in traditional GE-Hitachi plants.
Add GE-Hitachi’s supply chain and you understand how SMRs can offer lower risk and faster deployment, and lower construction and operating costs than traditional reactors.
We inspected the site of the first BWRX-300 build, due by 2029, in Ontario – one of four Canadian provinces signed-up to a SMR road map.
SMRs are more than just smaller, simplified versions of previous reactors. They’re also designed for decarbonised grids.
When the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, SMRs can generate zero-emissions for the grid. And when the wind picks up and sun reappears, SMRs can either ramp down or be temporarily reassigned for other purposes, such as producing hydrogen.
Not all Generation III+ designs are SMRs. The Westinghouse AP1000, for example, could power around 1 million homes whereas a SMR could power between 50,000 and 300,000 homes. But the AP1000 is still Generation III+ with features including passive safety, allowing it to shut down without operators.
What really caught my eye when we visited Westinghouse in Pittsburgh was its Generation IV nuclear battery, called the eVinci.
Ideal for remote communities, mining sites and islands, nuclear batteries can arrive at site on the back of a truck and be operational within 30 days. During their 5-to-20-year life, they could power 1000 to 20,000 homes without refuelling, after which they can be hauled away. The first nuclear battery will be operating by 2027.
Evidence of a burgeoning nuclear industry for next-generation technology can also be seen in SMRs developed by new players.
NuScale’s integrated reactors offer exceptional flexibility with modulars making for simple expansion. Its first build will be in Idaho in 2029.
X-Energy’s high-temperature reactor will be operational and providing process heat to a petrochemical facility in the US by 2029. And TerraPower’s fast reactor with thermal storage is set to replace a coal-fired power station in Wyoming by 2030.
Economics is a further factor driving nuclear’s re-emergence. Meeting after meeting revealed that nuclear energy brings the cost of energy down for households and businesses. This is the opposite conclusion drawn by Australian critics of nuclear energy.
When asked how policymakers came to appreciate the economics of nuclear energy, one executive said, “they did the maths”.
Environmental advocates, industry, private equity, centre-left and centre-right think-tanks, members of Congress – all told us that near 100 per cent renewables was neither practical nor affordable, and that we needed nuclear in our energy mix.
Jaws dropped when I’d explain that 80 per cent of Australia’s baseload generation is due to exit the grid by 2035.
“Stop blowing up your coal plants – you’re not ready to live without them yet,” said one industry leader. She went on to explain the merit of replacing coal-fired power with nuclear power plants.
These views were backed by a representative from the Energy Department who told us: “When it comes to renewables, the last 25 per cent is much harder than the first 25 per cent, so you better find something else that can help you get there – nuclear energy is the only proven, scalable solution”.
A renewables grid requires massive amounts of new transmission lines that the US considers too expensive, too difficult to permit and lacking community consent. But, unlike Australia, US policymakers focus on “total system costs”, not “levelised cost of energy” (LCOE) for individual technologies. It makes sense as it’s the cost of the whole system that hits people’s power bills.
The LCOE method preferred by the Australian government has the unfortunate consequence of pitting technologies against each other in a new and absurd front of the climate wars.
“Total system cost” analyses have shown electricity grids to be cleaner, cheaper and more reliable with the inclusion of nuclear energy – paving the way for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and $US500bn of government spending and tax breaks for leading edge technologies.
Significantly, the IRA, does not preference wind and solar technology over nuclear. It takes an “all of the above” approach.
Individual states have also concluded that grids will be cleaner, cheaper and more reliable with nuclear energy in the mix. Former nuclear-free US states like Wyoming, Montana and West Virginia have been persuaded to pursue nuclear to replace coal.
We found the same in Canada, where the Minister for Energy, Todd Smith, spoke to data from the regulator that showed nuclear energy as the lowest cost of all sources, except hydro-electric.
North America has done the maths. It has mapped its course to a net-zero future and it’s one that sensibly includes next-generation, zero-emissions nuclear energy.
I left enthused for the US and Canada, but concerned about the pathway Australia is taking. We must be bold, ambitious and optimistic in tackling the challenges of climate change and energy.
Our aspiration must be achievable and focused on the type of Australia we want our children to inherit mid-century: a nation that is cleaner and healthier, but also richer, stronger and independent.
The starting point is to take an “all the above” approach and consider all technologies, including zero-emissions nuclear energy.
Ted O’Brien is the Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy The Australian
Sure, why not ‘all of the above’? Except the above and below…
Snow covered solar panels off Flat Rock Road just south of Lowville with Martinsburg windmills in the distance Friday morning.
The fastest way to get people thinking about where their power comes from is to deprive them of it. A lengthy evening blackout will do it, every time.
Australia’s Eastern Grid (that connects Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia) is a veritable house of cards – a coal-fired power plant closure away from complete collapse. Having power is one thing, being able to afford it, is another. Prices are rocketing at unprecedented rates. Retail prices will jump by 20% to 30% in June, following annual, double-digit increases every year, for the best part of a decade
In Australia, with its idiotic ban on nuclear power, the conversation is turning to the only, stand-alone generation source that can deliver reliable, affordable power without generating CO2 gas, in the process.
Both the green-left Labor/Green Alliance and the notionally conservative Liberal party have signed up to the net-zero emissions scam, which means cheap, reliable coal-fired power has very few supporters amongst the political class in this country. They’d rather demonise it – sitting freezing or boiling in the dark – than openly support it.
The only hope Australia has of regaining energy sanity is to maintain its remaining coal-fired plants for as long as it takes to get nuclear up and running. That means overturning the legislation that bans it and getting serious about modern nuclear power generation.
As Claire Lehmann details below, what’s not in doubt is that power consumers will back ever-reliable nuclear power over never-reliable wind and solar, provided they’re given the choice.
Battlers know solution to energy woes: go nuclear The Australian Claire Lehmann 21 April 2023
While Australian leaders are busy debating the voice, many Australians do not know how they will pay their next power bill.
The Melbourne Institute’s most recent Taking the Pulse of the Nation report found that one-fifth of Australian households already are struggling, with many skipping meals and going into debt just to pay their energy bills. And this is before the power bill surge of 20 to 30 per cent that is predicted to hit by July.
The long-term outcomes of energy poverty are dire. A 2021 study published in Energy Economics found that energy poverty predicted a decline in general health. Another large study, published last month in Lancet, found that energy poverty was correlated with a 49 per cent increase in depression and anxiety.
In Europe, energy poverty is associated with senior citizens freezing to death in their homes. In Australia, those on low incomes are vulnerable during summer as well as winter and are especially at risk during heatwaves.
In 2009, I was living in South Australia during its worst heatwave in history. We experienced two weeks above 33C, six days above 40C and four days above 43C. Health authorities in Victoria attributed the extreme conditions to 374 deaths. In Adelaide, a makeshift morgue was set up to house the excess bodies. In extreme weather, energy poverty kills.
Across the past 10 years electricity prices have increased by 100 per cent according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics consumer price index. The number of Australians falling into energy poverty has been steadily rising across the same period.
While Energy Minister Chris Bowen has blamed increasing power bills on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, our current situation has been years in the making. For an advanced economy that is as rich with natural resources as we are, it beggars belief that a sizeable portion of us cannot afford to heat or cool our homes.
According to the TTPN report, more Australians believe the solution to our energy affordability problems is long-term investment in energy infrastructure than temporary government measures.
Contrary to the oft-repeated narrative that nuclear energy is unpopular in Australia, the TTPN report shows those 45 per cent aged between 35 and 64, as well as 45 per cent of those earning the median wage, support investment in nuclear power infrastructure as their preferred solution to Australia’s energy affordability problems.
For voters in these demographics, investment in nuclear was preferred over solar, wind and hydro (at 43 per cent) and it was also preferred over temporary fixes such as rebates and subsidies (at 18 per cent).
This is not entirely surprising given world events. Germany, which has just shut down its last three nuclear power plants (despite public opposition), has the highest household electricity prices in the OECD, while Canada, which operates 19 nuclear reactors, has the cheapest. There appears to be a growing awareness that reliable baseload power is not easy to come by. Politicians have been promising voters that renewables will reduce power prices for at least a decade, yet no country has successfully transitioned from fossil fuels to renewables without relying heavily on hydro-electric and nuclear power in the process.
Sweden is a renewable energy powerhouse but sources 30 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power; France sources 63 per cent; the US 19 per cent; Britain 15 per cent. Yet like Germany, which has made an art out of poor energy policy, the Australian government appears to believe it can move to clean energy on the back of wind and solar alone.
Of course, critics of nuclear power in Australia argue that it is too expensive for us to even consider. Looking at the most recent large reactor project led by a South Korean team in the United Arab Emirates – considered the world’s most competitive – a recent expert report determined that the price of building large reactors would have to decline by “at least 30 per cent” to become locally viable.
Excessive financial risk is a valid criticism when it comes to large reactor projects. Small modular reactors, however, can circumvent many of the risks associated with these large projects, financial or otherwise. And while SMRs are a developing technology, this has not stopped rich nations such as Canada from announcing strategies for SMR research and investment.
In February, the Trudeau government, which is hardly a bastion of right-wing climate denialism, announced it would invest tens of millions in SMR supply chain manufacturing and SMR waste management technology.
Citing the fact Canada is the second largest producer of uranium, the Canadian Environment and Climate Change Minister has described next-generation nuclear power as one way in which the country “will help fight pollution and create sustainable jobs for generations to come”.
There is no SMR strategy on the horizon for us, however. In next month’s budget, Jim Chalmers is expected to provide households with rebates that will provide some relief to offset their surging power bills. But Australians are tired of such temporary measures.
While low-income households are suffering from the financial equivalent of arterial bleeding, a one-off rebate is akin to throwing them a tissue. Across the long term Australians need cheap and reliable baseload energy – not only to power our industrial economy but as a matter of survival. The Australian
You must be logged in to post a comment.