Why are coal supporters so keen on nuclear?

 From The Guardian

I think it's because they know how long nuclear plants will take to build.  While they're being built, we will (they think) have to go on using fossil fuels.   But then I'm a bit cynical.

The Coalition didn’t do much on nuclear energy while in office. Why are they talking about it now?

Last week, the Nationals’ new leader, David Littleproud, said it was time for Australia to have a “mature” conversation about nuclear energy while his predecessor, Barnaby Joyce, called for a national moratorium to be lifted and argued nuclear power would be “really important” if the country was serious about reaching net zero emissions. [The National Party was one of the parties in the former Coalition government in Australia which is strongly in favour of coal power and against renewables]

Advocates [for nuclear] have acknowledged nuclear power is the most capital-intensive energy technology, takes the longest time to recoup on investment and has not benefited from the economies of scale experienced in solar and wind energy. Costs have increased as technology has advanced.

Despite the global push to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the large-scale nuclear energy industry is going backwards. More units closed than opened in 2020. Construction began on only five reactors; four of those were in China, which is investing in all energy types. Excluding China, global nuclear generation is at its lowest level in 27 years.

The few major plants under construction in developed democracies have suffered years of delays and cost blowouts. In the UK, the Hinkley Point C station – the country’s first new nuclear plant in decades – is running 10 years behind schedule and is expected to cost at least A$45bn, nearly 50% more than initially expected. [The Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia, USA, have more than doubled in cost and still aren't completed] 

What about SMRs?

At this point they barely exist.

SMRs are proposed to be 60 and about 200 megawatts, a fraction of the size of the traditional nuclear plant. Proponents say they would employ similar technology used in nuclear-powered submarines and icebreakers and would be easier to keep safe than bigger plants.

But a report by the World Nuclear Industry last year found talk and media coverage about SMRs was “not reflected by any major industrial achievements on the ground”.

It said SMRs in China and Argentina had been beset by delays. There had been no concrete steps towards construction anywhere else except Russia – which is pursuing a model that barely qualifies as an SMR, is years behind schedule and does not have the regulatory process expected in developed countries.

In South Korea, an SMR model was approved in 2012 but there had been no orders because it costs too much. Plans in the US had stalled; a government-backed model by the company NuScale was approved by the safety regulator, but the design was later changed and several municipalities dropped plans to host them. Backers agree that no reactors are expected before 2029 at the earliest.

The industry report concluded there was growing evidence that “SMRs, like large reactors, will continue to be subject to delays and cost overruns and the high likelihood that they would not be economical even under the most favourable circumstances”.

Is nuclear power needed in Australia?

It is a different story in some other countries, but there are plenty of analyses that say nuclear isn’t necessary here given the range of available energy options.

For example, the Australian Energy Market Operator’s integrated system plan – a blueprint for an optimal future grid – lays out a vision under which the country would run overwhelmingly on solar and wind, supported by better transmission links and backed by “firm” capacity that can be called on when needed: batteries, pumped hydro, some gas (at least initially) and demand management.

Cost is the key issue. While estimates are difficult, CSIRO’s latest analysis of different energy costs suggested SMRs would be far more expensive than solar and wind energy and at least as expensive as fossil fuel power with carbon capture and storage, which has not proven economically viable.

Why does the case for nuclear energy persist?

There is an assumption by some people, including Coalition MPs [the coal-supporting party in Australia], that renewable energy cannot do the job, despite the expert advice that says otherwise. These critiques rarely address that advice head on.

But there is also a long history of nuclear energy being used as a delaying tactic for acting on climate change in Australia, including by fossil fuel interests.

It is possible SMRs could play a role globally beyond 2030, but anyone arguing for them in Australia should be asked why they disagree with the nuclear advocates who say otherwise – and why [their] efforts aren’t better directed into backing zero-emissions technologies that are affordable and available now.