Ellen Phiddian
Cosmos science journalist
Nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) might be a feasible source of power for Australia in the mid- to late-2040s, but are unlikely to be of use before then, according to a new report.
The analysis, done by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), finds that the “least risky” option for Australia is to wait until the SMR market is mature and the technology is proven overseas.
“We need to explore every possible option to minimise disruption on our way to a zero-carbon energy system,” says Dr Katherine Woodthorpe, president of ATSE.
“SMRs have been discussed in this context, but it’s important to understand that SMR technology is still developing, and there are many considerations that need to be addressed.”
The report found that prototype SMRs may be built in OECD countries by the mid-2030s, with a mature market emerging by the mid- to late-2040s.
“While large nuclear power stations are a proven technology that we’ve had for more than 50 years, small modular reactors are still at the design and development stage,” says report co-author Professor Ian Lowe, an ATSE fellow.
“You couldn’t write a cheque tomorrow and buy a small modular reactor.”
The report also points out that Australia currently lacks a sufficient nuclear-skilled workforce, and has moratoria on nuclear power both at the federal level, and in several states. This presents both legal and social barriers to the local deployment of SMRs.
Report co-author John McGagh, an ATSE fellow, says that the Academy aimed to collate a neutral report, based on publicly available evidence, on the technology of SMRs and the Australian context. The researchers didn’t take cost, waste management, energy grid stability or energy security into account.
Currently, there are 14 SMRs in OECD countries considered to be in “near-term deployment” by the World Nuclear Association. Most (9) of these reactors are in the US, and they follow one of 5 different types of reactor design. None of these reactors have been built yet.
There are operating small modular reactors in China and Russia, but ATSE didn’t take these into account because there’s no evidence they could be commercialised in an OECD setting.
“Non-OECD SMRs, through the [OECD] Nuclear Energy Agency, are going to be very difficult to license within the OECD,” says McGagh.
Lowe says that the federal opposition’s proposal of an SMR operating in Australia by 2035 is “unrealistic.”
“The only way we could have a small modular reactor operating by 2035 would be to take the higher risk of agreeing to undertake a design that hasn’t yet been proven, and of which we don’t know the cost,” says Lowe.
“We would be shutting off cheap energy to allow expensive nuclear power to run.”
Woodthorpe says that nuclear power stations cannot be built “in time” to meet emissions reduction targets.
“There may be a time where we need to add more capacity, and it might well be that [nuclear power is] the appropriate way to add capacity at a future time,” says Woodthorpe.
“But to combat the climate change that we’re already seeing around us, in the current moment, we will need to be putting in more renewables, because they’re the only thing that can provide energy in the time scale that we need.”
Lowe points out that most coal-fire power stations are expected to be retired before 2040, meaning that technologies other than SMRs will be needed to replace their capacity.
“I think the most promising markets for small modular reactors in the 2040s will be in remote areas that aren’t connected to the national grid, and for the provision of high temperature energy for some industrial processes, rather than supplementing the low carbon technologies like solar and wind with storage, which will then have more or less monopolised the grid,” says Lowe.
The ATSE members agree that other technologies, including hydrogen and solar thermal, are likely to provide part of the mix for the energy transition.
“It will be a matrix of those options,” says Woodthorpe.
“No one will stand alone anywhere. They’ll all be interconnected and producing their bit of the answer.”
The report comes at the same time as an analysis by the Queensland Conservation Council, which finds that a nuclear power station in Queensland would force tens of thousands of rooftop solar systems to be shut off each day.
“Nuclear power stations can’t easily turn off, which means by 2040, we’d have to turn off a staggering 3,700GWh of cheap renewable energy every year just to run one nuclear power station,” said energy strategist Clare Silcock in a statement.
Woodthorpe says that traditional large-scale nuclear reactors face many of the same barriers to the Australian market as SMRs, including skill shortages, cost, and social acceptance.
She points out that experienced nuclear nations, like the UK, are still seeing huge cost and time blowouts for new plants such as the Hinkley Point C station, which could now cost more than A$65 billion.
“If they are having these problems with both the budget blowouts and the time blowouts, Australia – that’s never built one before and has zero in-house capacity to do so – I can’t see how we’re going to suddenly ramp up and be able to do that,” says Woodthorpe.
“It’s not to say that we couldn’t, but the barriers and the likelihood just seem unsurmountable to me.”
