We should explore nuclear energy while we accelerate renewables

Decades ago, the nuclear disarmament movement successfully pushed for deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Soviet Union. It also opposed nuclear energy, arguing it was prone to catastrophic accidents, radioactive waste leaks and the diversion of fuel by rogue nations and terrorists into makeshift bombs. I was part of that movement.

As the US-Soviet Cold War ended in the late 1980s, the threat of nuclear war began to recede while climate change concerns grew. Nuclear energy was banned here in 1998 in a political deal. Our coal fleet was younger and net zero wasn’t a target, so it was an energy source we didn’t seem to need.

Nuclear risks have not gone away. The accident that disabled Japan’s Fukushima reactor catalysed the closure of much of its nuclear fleet. Permanent nuclear waste disposal has not commenced. Iran wants a nuclear arsenal and North Korea has one.

However, many countries have used nuclear energy safely for decades, and it now has much more value: as a baseload, zero-carbon, large-scale source of electricity. Many countries with large populations and limited energy resources see nuclear as an important, if partial, contributor to their decarbonisation plans.

Australia, by contrast, has a small population, large renewable resources and no real experience with nuclear power. Although the case for a ban has lost force, the case for making nuclear a high priority lacks force too, for several reasons.

• First, there is broad agreement that nuclear would be expensive and late. We would start from scratch on a long and gradual learning curve. Even before a sod could be turned, we would need to build a delivery body, a specialised construction industry and workforce, complex supply chains for inputs and waste, and develop regulations. And before that, we’d need to build enough community trust and political consensus to pass legislation through a parliament that no government is likely to control.
  
  
• Second, a plug-and-play plan – swapping today’s coal plants for reactors – is a compelling idea but hard to deliver. Many coal plants won’t operate reliably for long enough, their transmission lines will increasingly carry renewable power, and the land and water they use have competing claims. Buffer zones around towns need to meet different community expectations and safety standards.
  
  
• Third, nuclear won’t only be late to start, it would also be slow to grow. To start building a second plant well before the first is finished would be risky, until first-of-kind faults have been fixed. Experience would eventually allow parallel projects to proceed, but this is not likely to be until the second half of the century.
  
  
• Fourth, it is inconceivable that we can meet our Paris Agreement commitments to decarbonisation if we slow renewables, extend coal and increase baseload gas until nuclear comes on. The only way to meet our pledges is to accelerate renewables, transmission and storage, and build enough gas-fired peaking capacity to run occasionally as the final backup.
  
  
• Fifth, nuclear won’t help transition our exports from fossil fuels to clean energy, or to chemicals and mineral products made with clean energy. Our trading partners look to Australia to help them decarbonise with our world-class solar, wind, fossil fuel and carbon storage resources. Nuclear power has no competitive export role for the foreseeable future.

So we must push on with renewables, which will create another challenge. The output of large-scale nuclear plants is inflexible, thus hard to integrate into a grid that carries large volumes of variable wind and solar energy. Integration will incur costs of additional transmission and storage, and more curtailment of wind and solar.

It is true that renewables are proving hard to deploy as quickly and cheaply as net zero requires. Supply chains are tight, equipment costs have risen, and the support of regional communities can be hard to win. But these are not reasons to wave a white flag. Renewables with firming are the best alternative to baseload coal for at least two decades, and we are learning how to engage communities as partners and beneficiaries.

Although prioritising nuclear would be a major mistake, it may have potential in a support role, as insurance against the long-run risks of a fully renewable system.

Despite the growth of renewable energy, the road to net zero is a long one. Most of the task of replacing coal still lies ahead, and we have not made significant inroads into oil and gas use. We will have to supply the extra demand of a much larger population in 2050. Even with energy efficiency gains, a very large rise in power demand must be met.

Also, we have not yet worked out how to keep a mostly renewable grid secure in real time, nor how to store and shift renewable energy across seasons and years.

These challenges need to be tackled well before nuclear could help, but success is not guaranteed. And future communities may be grateful for the option to use nuclear to reduce the extensive changes in land use that renewables require.

We should not make nuclear the main game, but it would be wise to work out whether and how it might contribute in the longer term.