Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Answers to Questions Nuclear Power Nuclear Power The Hon. S.L. GAME Legislative Council Nuclear Power In reply to the Hon. S.L. GAME ().7 March 2024). The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN Legislative Council Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development Minister for Forest Industries Nuclear Power The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries): The Minister for Energy and Mining advises that the Malinauskas government takes an agnostic and realistic approach to energy generation and considers that when the risks to public safety, the environment and the financial risk to South Australians can be appropriately managed, then nuclear power should be further investigated. We are convinced of the need for more nuclear power in the world and committed to South Australia playing its part through the export of uranium. In Australia, the legislative barriers to considering nuclear-powered generation were established by the Liberal-National Coalition, acting in tandem with the Greens. The legislative prohibition against nuclear power in the commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 which was passed by the Howard Coalition government. This complemented the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. These acts prevent the construction or operation of nuclear facilities for power generation, as well as facilities for the fabrication of nuclear fuel, uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of nuclear waste. Any change to those acts is a matter for the Australian government and federal parliament. The former Weatherill government gave serious consideration to nuclear power, establishing the South Australian royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle in 2015. The commission produced a final report published in 2016. The commission considered nuclear energy in South Australia, outlining the risks and opportunities of further engagement in the nuclear fuel cycle, and how this could benefit South Australia, both financially and in job creation. The report noted that nuclear power plants tend to have very high up-front capital costs compared to other forms of electricity generation and are significantly less economically viable where they are not operated at close to capacity. The commission concluded that nuclear power would not be commercially viable in South Australia for the foreseeable future. Nothing has been presented which would change this conclusion. At a national level, we believe the public deserve to know about the considerable risks in pursuing nuclear and stalling investment in renewables. The risks are man—but principally they are the time and the cost as well environmental safety and community acceptance. Changing the legislative instruments would only be the first step in a long timeline before a nuclear plant could be operational. There would also need to be: agreement from foreign nations on Australian access to technology for conversion and enrichment of uranium and/or manufacture, supply and handling of nuclear fuel. creation of an Australian regulatory and approvals framework, the training or assimilation of a skilled workforce, the attraction of capita—from private or public treasuries. Remembering that not one business has declared an appetite to invest in nuclear in Australia, selection of sites, technology and equipment providers, detailed engineering, environmental and life cycle plans, including the eventual storage of nuclear waste. This factor should be considered in the context that after decades of debate in Australia about low level waste storage, there is still no resolution final investment decision commitments, assessment and approval by authorities, construction, connection to electrical transmission (which is already at capacity) and commissioning. Anyone who thinks these steps will be easy or quick are, quite frankly, delusional. This timeline will sit in the context where the Australian Energy Market Operator expects all coal-fired power stations in the nation to have closed by the mid-2030s. Right now, we are building a decarbonised electricity system of renewables firmed by fast-start gas-fired generators and short to long duration energy storage. Imagine if we stop and wait for nuclear—but as has happened in the US, the UK and Europe nuclear fails to meet its delivery targets by years and years. The nation will face power blackouts. Not just for a few hours, but ongoing, economy-wrecking lack of power for years. In regard to the honourable member's focus on cost we should consider independent analysis in Australia and the experience overseas. The GenCost 2023-24 consultation draft by the CSIRO provides an estimate of the levelised cost of electricity generation technologies. It estimated that costs of electricity in 2030 from a nuclear small modular reactor (SMR) would be $212 to $353 per megawatt hour (MWh). This compares to integrated renewables at $69 to $101 per MWh. Of course, costs for small modular reactors are highly speculative because there are no such reactors in commercial operation outside communist states. One SMR of about 70MW operates from a barge in Russia and in China some small experimental reactors are operational and an SMR of 125MW is in construction. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates there are more than 70 SMR designs at various stages of development—and says costs per unit of energy generation are likely to be higher than the costs per unit of conventional large nuclear reactors. In the United States, the most advanced SMR was cancelled before finalising approvals. NuScale Power scrapped its 462MW project, which was to be built at the Idaho National Laboratory by 2030. In the United Kingdom, the most promising SMR project—being pursued by Rolls Royce—has reportedly been set back by cancellation of a plan to build a factory to produce the pressure vessels for reactors. It would now rely on another supplier for the vessels and intends only proceeding with a factory to build the balance of any SMR plants. The most recent large reactor to come online was the Vogtle plant in Georgia in the United States which commenced operation in July 2023. The Georgia plant was seven years late and approximately US$17 billion over budget. The final budget is approximately US$31 billion for a nuclear plant of 1100MW. Similarly, a nuclear plant recently completed in Finland was billions of Euro over budget and about 12 years late in delivery. In the United Kingdom, developers of the flagship new reactor—Hinkley Point C—announced in January this year (2024) that costs had nearly doubled from £18 billion to £31-34 billion (in 2015 terms in line with FID taken in 2016). And, target delivery had been pushed out from 2025 to sometime between 2029 and 2031. It is worth noting that in Australia, the most recent merchant investment in thermal generation was here in Adelaide—the Barker Inlet Power Station. AGL committed $295 million in 2017 to Barker Inlet, and commissioned the 210MW plant just two years later. In rough numbers–Australia could build 150 plants the size of Barker Inlet with combined capacity of 31,500MW for the same price as one Georgian-size nuclear plant. Fast-start plants like Barker Inlet work in harmony with the variability of cheap renewables—filling in the gaps. Nuclear would be pumping out expensive energy when it was not needed—and consumers would pay that bill. Right now, we need to get on with the work of building more cheap renewable power to bring down prices and restore our sovereign capability.