Embracing a coal-to-nuclear transformation

Australians with high energy-IQ know intuitively that swapping retired coal plants for nuclear makes sense because they’re like-for-like replacements. By ted o’brien.

First published in The Australian

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.

Ted O’Brien is Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy.