Nuclear Energy

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:37): Nuclear energy technologies have made huge advancement over the past decades. It is an efficient, low-carbon source of baseload energy and, once established, it is cheap. Let's take a European example: in December 2021, Denmark paid $US0.391 for each kilowatt hour of electricity used per household. Down the proverbial road, France paid $US0.187 per kilowatt hour per household. The reason is that 80 per cent of Denmark's power relies on renewables; 57 per cent was wind power alone in December 2021 when those statistics were calculated.

France, on the other hand, is increasing its baseload capacity on more nuclear reactors. They are the largest exporter of electricity in Europe due to how cheaply they can produce masses of clean energy. Fourteen new nuclear reactors are planned across France. In the same year, 2021, the French derived 69 per cent of their baseload power from nuclear sources, with the remainder a mix of renewables and fossil fuels. As countries continue to diversify their energy portfolios, those receiving a lower cost of energy are those increasing the percentage of power from reactors.

Why is high-tech nuclear energy more attractive than green renewables? Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while in operation and also their physical footprint is tiny in comparison to wind and solar, and they are also highly reliable. The uses of uranium are vast, from important medical applications to powering our new submarines. We need processed uranium in our modern society.

I have found some interesting statistics valid as of July 2022. There are currently 440 nuclear reactors operating at over 220 different nuclear power plants, producing 11 per cent of global energy. There are 55 new reactors currently being built in 19 different countries and a further 100 reactors are on order, and 300 proposed reactors are currently on government tables, up for debate, as they weigh the cost of production, maintenance and benefits to their communities.

In terms of reliability, let us look at another international example. In 2016, nuclear energy provided over 20 per cent of the United States' power needs. Importantly, reactors were efficiently operating for 93 per cent of that year, or 336 days. That same year, hydroelectric systems, which you may envisage as steady providers, were only operable for 138 days; wind turbines, only 127 days; and solar electric was only operable for 92 days. Even coal and gas plants had less days of operable energy output than nuclear, due to energy markets rendering them uneconomic to operate.

Of particular interest to our own energy market in South Australia is the development of small modular reactors. These can be connected directly into our existing energy grid or set up in particular locations, such as regional towns or mining sites, to operate independently as off-grid. These small reactors produce under 300 megawatts of energy, have a lower cost than traditional reactors, produce far less waste than traditional reactors and, if introduced effectively, would become the cheapest 24/7 zero emission power source in the country.

There are small modular reactors designed to use dry-cooling operations rather than water cooling, making this a highly appropriate technology for water-scarce South Australia. They can power our desalination plants. They can power our regional and remote towns and they can form part of the power networks for our mining and manufacturing operations. But this technology is currently inaccessible. Our policies do not allow for nuclear power. We mine uranium, we export it, we store it, but we cannot utilise it for clean, consistent energy. There are several steps we should take swiftly:

we can remove the barriers to incentivise the private sector for investment;

we can encourage global high-tech research and development for nuclear innovation across sectors;

we must establish a working group across states on pathfinding through regulatory blockades;

we must encourage open-mindedness in considering environmental approvals for specific nuclear power generation proposals across the regions; and

we here must encourage our federal colleagues to petition the removal of uranium mining, decommissioning and rehabilitation from the definition of 'nuclear action' in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It needs to be reclassified as mining activities, falling under the Mining Act 1971 and other associated legislation.

I encourage everyone to think about the facts before them and consider opening discussions in their party room. The sooner we start doing our jobs and making necessary legislative and regulatory changes, the sooner we can assess the positive impact small modular reactors could have on our economy.