Nuclear is Beautiful

The longer we postpone developing nuclear energy, the further behind we will fall in being able to build plants cheaply. By Fred Pawle

In hindsight, one of the most reassuring aspects of the famous meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in 1979 is the ghastly check suit president Jimmy Carter wore when he inspected the stricken plant four days into the crisis.

​As if making a token gesture to safety, Carter tied a couple of plastic bags over his shoes, presumably to prevent puddles of potentially radioactive waste melting his leather soles, but wore nothing to cover up his timeless tribute to 1970s fashion.

Sociologist Frank Furedi describes how safety is no longer the rational assessment of risk but a fundamental moral virtue that has become a cause in itself. Politicians refelct this more than anyone. Hard hats and high-viz jackets have become de rigueur for political excursions to anything other than school fetes and shopping centres. One shudders to wonder what kind of protective outfit will be necessary when a future Australian prime minister officially opens the nation's first nuclear power plant.

Regardless of the ongoing irrational fear of nuclear power, an Australian nuclear plant seems inevitable. Nuclear power is cheap, reliable and produces low emissions. It is also safer to operate. According to Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector (1998) by Stefan Hirschberg, the original and still one of the most authoritative texts on the matter, nuclear energy rates far lower than gas, oil, hydro and coal in frequency of accidents, number of deaths per accident and lives lost per unit of energy produced. An article in Australian Silicon Chip magazine this year said that nuclear power cost 0.04 lives per terrawhat hour; for coal, the figure was 161.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in 2016 there were 450 nuclear plants in operation around the world and another 60 under construction. Twenty-five of the existing plants were in South Korea, which built its first 30 years ago, and is now enjoying the benefits of this long-term infrastructure.

The cost of energy production is often measured in terms of the “levelised cost”, which takes into account the expense incurred in building, generating and supplying the energy. Most of the sunk cost of nuclear is construction, which for nuclear is relatively high. Through experience and expertise, South Korea has significantly reduced this.

“South Korea has built PWRs (pressurised water reactors) continually over the last 30 years and has a levelised cost nearly half that of the UK and the United States, who are only just restarting their new-build programs,” says Australian Nuclear Association president Mark Ho.

The longer Australia postpones its entry into the nuclear energy industry, the further behind we will fall in being able to build plants cheaply.

Even the CSIRO, our environmentally focused science body, advocates nuclear. In its report Low Emissions Technology Roadmap (2017), it lists the power sources that produce little or no emissions: solar, wind, nuclear and fossil with carbon capture. Of these, solar and wind are unreliable and carbon capture is expensive.

The report repeatedly frets about the “social licence” required to implement nuclear. “Significant community engagement would be required to build a nuclear power generation industry in Australia,” it says. Such engagement would be considerably easier if the CSIRO stopped imagining that solar and wind are viable options and scientifically backed nuclear instead.

Despite its conspicuous lack of tragic or even mildly unfortunate consequences, the Three Mile Island meltdown still spawned the modern fear of nuclear energy. This was partly due to the times. Back then, “nuclear” was also associated with another more frightening threat - nuclear missiles.

Most of the people who oppose nuclear energy grew up during the Cold War, and by some degree associate this clean, safe form of energy with some form of Armageddon. Three Mile Island also spawned a Hollywood thriller, The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemon. It was a B-grade plot portraying big business as the villain, and naturally earned a swag of Oscar and Golden Globe nominations. In many ways, nuclear energy is a monster perfectly suited to baby boomers. 

The tidal wave that hit the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011, which caused no deaths from radiation, proved the fear of nuclear power is irrational.

Two years ago, Australia became the 14th nation to sign up to the Generation IV International Forum, a co-operative body to design the next generation of nuclear plants. It will devise six models for varying conditions and levels of output. The first are expected to be deployed in about 2030. A sensible approach for Australia would be to aim to be among those first Generation IV users.

But if Australia is to solve its energy impasse with nuclear, the “social licence” barrier needs to be cleared first.