Analysis and Commentary


A realistic time frame for building nuclear- by Peter Farley

Analysis and Commentary




In this, the second in an occasional series about Peter Dutton’s Coalition plans for nuclear power in Australia, Peter Farley finds the earliest conventional nuclear power could be on online in Australia would be 2048-49. Read the first article on reliability here.

It has been said that we could have nuclear power plants running in Australia in 2035. How realistic is that?

Let’s start with an assessment of how long it would take to place an order. The first thing is for the Opposition to win an election, where they control both the House and Senate.

That is possible but quite unlikely before 2028 but lets assume they get into power and draft very detailed legislation and get it passed by the end of 2025.

Then we must vastly expand the nuclear safety agency ARPANSA to include people with experience in nuclear power plants.

The UK has 700 people doing this job with only nine reactors. Will we build a new industry with fewer inspectors?

Then regulations must be drafted which are updated versions of the very antiquated regulations in the UK and US.

This will be a trade-off be between risk of modernisation and making a mistake or copying and pasting very cumbersome foreign regulations which contribute to unnecessary delays in delivery.

Every page has to be scrutinised to ensure conflicts with existing NEM rules and regulations are resolved. This is not trivial.

Let’s say based on other new bureaucratic endeavours, two years from when the legislation is passed.

With luck draft regulations as far as siting, transmission standards and access, safety zones, cooling water priority and access might be delivered a little earlier to allow site selection to proceed.

Site selection for nuclear power

The Coalitions plans to use existing sites has many complications, that have not yet been clarified, so site selection is by no means simple.

For example, modern nuclear power plants are almost never built as isolated units, having two or more reactors in one spot is necessary for reliability of supply, sharing infrastructure etc.

This is the same as mainline coal and gas plants which are almost always built with two to ten generating units.

Then there is no prospect of having an SMR built in Australia by 2035.

Four projects have already failed this year and every other project has announced delays.

So, although the first commercial Proof of Concept reactor might be operating in Canada in 2032 on a site where it will only be producing 10 percent of site output, we would be foolish in the extreme to place orders for Collie or Port Augusta where two SMRs would be 40-60 percent of site output.

Conventional, large nuclear reactors

Thus, we will be focussed on conventional large reactors in SE Queensland, the Hunter Valley or Latrobe Valley.

Nuclear plants use 20-50 percent more water than coal plants, need additional transmission, need seismic rating and high security safety zones and can’t be built next to an old coal mine.

Given that it takes three to nine years for a simple wind or solar farm to get through all the planning and environmental hoops, it will probably be at best three years after preliminary regulations are released before a site is confirmed, taking us to 2030/31.

Now it is likely that preliminary tender documents could be worked on in parallel with the EIS, but they cannot be finalised until three to six months after all planning approvals are obtained.

In the UK and US it has usually taken two or more years from project approval to order placement, so now we are out to 2033/34 before a contract is signed.

But what about China?

There are claims that China can build a reactor in 4.5 years.

There is no evidence of this, the last reactor connected was on an existing site with existing infrastructure and took 7.5 years.

We could look at Korea, Shin Hanul II again on an existing site with established workforce and fifty years experience in building reactors took 11 years.

That the UK took 19 years, Finland 19 years, France 17 years and the US 15 years, all on existing sites with experienced workforces suggests 15 years would be very optimistic for the first Australian reactor.

Thus the first reactor might come on line if all is well in 2048/49. But if there are legal challenges, workforce issues, site issues (Snowy II, Westgate tunnel etc etc etc) 2055 is quite likely.

After that how fast can we build them.

Korea with an electric equipment industry 15 times as big as us and fifty years of experience building reactors has built six in the last twelve years, the US three and Britain is about halfway through two.

For many reasons the Barakah build time of twelve years from order for the first reactor is not applicable in Australia.

Let’s be really really optimistic and say we can commission a new Nuclear plant every four years, so we have six large reactors on line by 2070-75.

By that time demand is expected to be about 500-600,000 GWh/y and nuclear at best would supply 55,000 GWh or eight to 12 percent of demand.

On the other hand at the recent rate of building wind and solar we have been adding 8-10,000 GWh/y from wind and solar – so by 2070 without accelerating build times they would be supplying an additional 400-450,000 GWh/y

Further reading:
Nuclear does not mean reliable power for Australia – by Peter Farley

Peter Farley holds an engineering degree and is a manufacturing leader who built pioneering CNC machine tools for export winning many export and engineering awards. Peter has been studying the electricity sector since his 2012 Election to the Victorian Committee of Engineers Australia.

Picture: Peter Dutton – has proposed nuclear power stations at former coal fired power station sites



Share this Story
Analysis and Commentary



Stay Informed


Go to Top