Nuclear Nonsense Down Under: Australia’s Nuclear Plan is a High-Cost Comedy of Errors
Sieverts and Silliness: The Nuclear Nightmare Planned Down Under
In the early part of my career I spent a few years working in nuclear engineering, absorbing a few millisieverts of radiation along the way and gaining firsthand experience in the field. When I read about Australia’s recent proposal to build not just one but SEVEN nuclear power stations, I started to literally shout at my phone, angered by reading such nonsense.
Australia’s plan to implement nuclear energy, as proposed by the coalition government, is riddled with impracticalities and, quite frankly, impossible to achieve. From my vantage point, having seen the extensive issues with nuclear power plants like Hinkley Point C, decommissioning issues at Harwell, and other areas, it’s clear that the Australian proposal is not only economically unsound but also strategically incompetent.
Subscribe to get my stories directly by email.
Hinkley Hiccups: Why Australia’s Nuclear Dream Is a Costly Comedy
Take Hinkley Point C, for example. This project has been a financial and logistical nightmare. Initially budgeted at $30 billion, its costs have ballooned to over $87 billion, with completion dates continually pushed back. These overruns are not anomalies but rather the norm for nuclear projects. Now lets multiple this by seven power stations and we would easily bypass the entirety of Australia's nation debt!!!
One of the primary reasons the business case for nuclear energy in Australia doesn’t hold water is the lack of commercial viability. The proposed nuclear sites are to be government-owned and operated, no private entity would ever pick this up this deal. Removing the pressure that drives efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the private sector these projects are destined to be financial sinkholes, heavily reliant on taxpayer money.
Let’s compare the cost per megawatt-hour of nuclear energy with other sources. Wind and solar energy, which Australia has already invested in significantly, offer much cheaper alternatives.
The time required to build and commission nuclear power stations is prohibitively long, often taking between 15 to 20 years. Given the advancements in renewable energy technologies and the urgent need to address climate change, suggesting investing in such long-term projects is incompetent. By the time these nuclear plants are operational, renewable technologies will likely be even more advanced and widespread, rendering the nuclear investment obsolete.
The proposal also includes an assumption of a 100-year lifespan for these nuclear plants, which is sheer madness. Such long-term projections are unproven and very high risk.
Insurance risks associated with nuclear energy are another major concern. The business case typically offloads these risks onto taxpayers, exposing the public to potential financial burdens from accidents or disasters. This is in stark contrast to renewable energy projects, where risks are nearly zero, and private insurers can handle potential liabilities more effectively.
All business cases for nuclear energy overlook decommissioning costs, which are substantial and cat be anywhere from 10%–30% of the total build cost. Take the old government research site in Harwell, Didcot. The project plan to decommission and restore this land goes to 2065!
Importing Einstein's: The Pricey Puzzle of Aussie Nuclear Know-How
Building a national capability to support nuclear energy in Australia is an enormous undertaking that goes far beyond just constructing power plants. It requires a complete ecosystem encompassing education, infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks, all of which need substantial investment and time to develop. Unlike established nuclear nations, Australia lacks the necessary infrastructure and trained workforce to operate and maintain nuclear facilities effectively.
One of the most significant challenges will be the importation of international talent. This process is neither easy nor cheap. The reliance on foreign expertise poses long-term sustainability issues, as the country will remain dependent on international talent for decades.
Comparing this with the already established renewable energy infrastructure in Australia highlights the impracticality of shifting focus to nuclear. Australia has made significant strides in renewable energy, particularly in wind and solar power. These sectors have created a robust ecosystem of skilled professionals, supply chains, and regulatory frameworks that support continuous growth and innovation. Diverting resources from these successful areas to develop a nuclear capability would be a step backward.
Solar Success vs. Nuclear Nonsense: Australia’s Energy Odd Couple
Another flaw in this business cases logic is the incompatibility with the existing renewable-focused energy system. To make it clear, Nuclear power plants need to be run at near 100% capacity, all the time, to be economically viable. The spike in current day solar energy already creates negative energy prices due to oversupply for which nuclear would need to be shut off.
Nuclear plants cannot easily ramp up or down their output to match the fluctuating demand and supply patterns of renewable energy. This inflexibility makes them ill-suited to complement the existing renewable infrastructure.
Renewable energy technologies have evolved rapidly, achieving higher efficiencies and lower costs. Wind and solar installations can be deployed quickly, often within months, and start delivering power almost immediately.
Case studies of successful renewable projects in Australia reinforce the argument against nuclear energy. Projects like the Hornsdale Power Reserve, a large-scale battery storage system in South Australia, have demonstrated how renewables can provide reliable and stable power.
Coal Comfort: Is Nuclear Just a Sneaky Way to Save Fossil Fuels?
You cant spell Coalition without Coal. Examining the strategic intent behind the Australian government’s nuclear proposal, it’s hard not to suspect ulterior motives. Potentially this move could be a strategy to prolong the lifespan of existing coal power stations. By pushing for nuclear energy, the government might be attempting to create a scenario where coal remains a necessary part of the energy mix during the long transition period to nuclear. This approach could ensure that coal plants continue to operate for years, if not decades, longer than they would otherwise, benefiting certain powerful stakeholders in the fossil fuel industry.
There’s also the matter of 100-year contracts that could potentially benefit wealthy stakeholders. Such long-term contracts are often designed to lock in financial gains for a select few, securing economic benefits for generations. This could be seen as a way to guarantee lucrative deals for companies and individuals who have vested interests in the energy sector. The implementation of nuclear energy, with its substantial initial investment and ongoing costs, could serve as a convenient vehicle for transferring public funds into private hands under the guise of a national energy strategy.
Additionally, political and economic incentives are likely driving this agenda. Nuclear energy projects, with their large budgets and extended timelines, provide ample opportunities for political maneuvering and economic gains for those involved in their planning and execution. The substantial government contracts associated with building and maintaining nuclear plants can create a network of dependencies and alliances that benefit politicians and their supporters, often at the expense of the taxpayer and public interest.
Reject the Reactor: Why Renewables Rule and Nukes Drool
It’s clearly evident that nuclear energy is not a viable option for Australia. I hope that the coalition had a quiet news day and needed something to get headlines (and bait me to write about it).
Renewable energy sources like wind and solar have already proven to be effective, cost-efficient, and adaptable to the Australian environment. They offer a sustainable and safer alternative that aligns with the global shift towards greener energy solutions.
We need to be proactive in rejecting this nuclear proposal. Public awareness and opposition can influence government decisions, steering the country towards more sustainable and economically viable energy solutions. It’s essential to support policies and initiatives that promote renewable energy, which has already shown immense potential and success in Australia.
I urge everyone to engage in this debate, voice their concerns, and advocate for a future powered by renewables.
Enjoying my articles?
1. Like and comment — I try to reply to everyone.
2. Follow Me
