There is an ongoing debate in Australia to finally adopt nuclear reactors for "carbon free" electricity needs. This debate is heightened by reactor companies (eg. GE Hitachi and Rolls-Royce) marketing small reactors.
PETE COMMENT
Tristan Prasser at ON LINE opinion, August 22, 2019 argued
"...Nuclear power could prove to be the circuit breaker needed for Australia to resolve its current energy and climate woes. It is a technology that is already proven to decarbonise large electricity grids in combination with hydro and/or renewable technologies as has been achieved in France, Sweden and Ontario Canada.
According to data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, countries that have the highest shares of nuclear power also have some of the cleanest electricity grids on the planet. Their ability to generate large flows of electrons cleanly, affordably, and reliably means citizens of these countries continue to enjoy modern and energy-rich lives, without worrying about whether they are killing the planet.
...Should Australia choose to go down the nuclear power path, it will be considering designs of the future, not the past. Nuclear reactor designs have evolved since the days of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Today numerous companies...are working on smaller, safer, and more efficient designs often referred to as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
Such reactors promise to overcome the financial burdens and safety concerns that have long plagued conventional reactors, particularly in the West. The ability of SMRs to be deployed as single or multiple modules provides wider flexibility in their applications, from supporting remote and regional communities to combining with other clean energy technologies to provide grid-scale generation. This makes them ideally suited to Australia's diverse range of energy needs..."
___________________________________________________________
PETE COMMENT
Tristan Prasser points to France, Sweden and Ontario, Canada as successful users of nuclear energy. But this success is not from using small (up to 300 MW), new technology, reactors but instead they use VERY LARGE CONVENTIONAL REACTORS. It also needs to be noted that civilian nuclear power in these countries gained initial impetus from nuclear knowledge and facilities for military purposes, ie:
- "France" where:
; all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi GW. A Gigawatt being 1,000
Megawatts. Note France is now constructing reactors
of 1.6 GW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#France
; France mainly began its nuclear investment as a military activity in the late 1940s. France
continues to cross subsidise its knowledge and civilian reactor base with its nuclear
weapon/submarine propulsion base.
- "Sweden", which:
; first embarked on reactors for its 1940s-ended 1970s nuclear weapon
- "France" where:
; all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi GW. A Gigawatt being 1,000
Megawatts. Note France is now constructing reactors
of 1.6 GW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#France
; France mainly began its nuclear investment as a military activity in the late 1940s. France
continues to cross subsidise its knowledge and civilian reactor base with its nuclear
weapon/submarine propulsion base.
- "Sweden", which:
; first embarked on reactors for its 1940s-ended 1970s nuclear weapon
program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
; which provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Sweden's civilian nuclear sector
; where all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi
; which provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Sweden's civilian nuclear sector
; where all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi
GW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Sweden and
- "Ontario Province, Canada". Noting:
; Canada first embarked on nuclear reactors in support of the US MANHATTAN NUCLEAR
WEAPONS PROJECT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Canadian_sites which
- "Ontario Province, Canada". Noting:
; Canada first embarked on nuclear reactors in support of the US MANHATTAN NUCLEAR
WEAPONS PROJECT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Canadian_sites which
subsequently provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Canada's civilian nuclear
sector
; reactors that are operational in Ontario are at the Pickering complex of reactors
sector
; reactors that are operational in Ontario are at the Pickering complex of reactors
equalling 3GW and Darlington complex equalling 3.5GW.
So for France and even for SWEDEN and CANADA they cut some costs by beginning with Nuclear weapons reactor knowledge-infrastructure bases which then transitioned to VERY LARGE civilian electricity reactors
_________________________________________________
So the author falls down when he suggests NON-COMMERCIALLY proven VERY SMALL MODULAR REACTORS (SMRs) (which are up to 300MW) http://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors
Australia's low nuclear knowledge/reactor base and very small electricity market compared to the main reactor building nations (US, UK, France, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, India) means AUSTRALIA by itself CANNOT DEVELOP AND DEPLOY Small Modular Reactors without spending maybe $100+ Billions.
Australia needs to wait for Small Modular Reactors to be:
- developed
- legally/publically accepted
- then cheaply deployed en masse
in North America, Europe and/or Asia.
___________________________________________
Visions of SMALL Modular Reactors being deployed in SMALL Australian country towns-small cities (Alice Springs? Longreach? Kalgoorlie? Broken Hill?) forget
the HUGE public/political/legal/police security opposition that would descend AGAINST EVEN VERY SMALL, HIGH COMMERCIAL RISK, reactor proposals
and delay them at Australian Federal, State and Local GOVERNMENT and COURT (Supreme and High Court) can levels for DECADES.
So for France and even for SWEDEN and CANADA they cut some costs by beginning with Nuclear weapons reactor knowledge-infrastructure bases which then transitioned to VERY LARGE civilian electricity reactors
_________________________________________________
So the author falls down when he suggests NON-COMMERCIALLY proven VERY SMALL MODULAR REACTORS (SMRs) (which are up to 300MW) http://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors
Australia's low nuclear knowledge/reactor base and very small electricity market compared to the main reactor building nations (US, UK, France, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, India) means AUSTRALIA by itself CANNOT DEVELOP AND DEPLOY Small Modular Reactors without spending maybe $100+ Billions.
Australia needs to wait for Small Modular Reactors to be:
- developed
- legally/publically accepted
- then cheaply deployed en masse
in North America, Europe and/or Asia.
___________________________________________
Visions of SMALL Modular Reactors being deployed in SMALL Australian country towns-small cities (Alice Springs? Longreach? Kalgoorlie? Broken Hill?) forget
the HUGE public/political/legal/police security opposition that would descend AGAINST EVEN VERY SMALL, HIGH COMMERCIAL RISK, reactor proposals
and delay them at Australian Federal, State and Local GOVERNMENT and COURT (Supreme and High Court) can levels for DECADES.
Pete