Philip HOPKINS
A NUCLEAR power station in the Latrobe Valley would create thousands of jobs in construction, operation and maintenance and be a catalyst for spin-off industries, US nuclear exports told a nuclear information night in Morwell.
With an experienced builder of nuclear plants like South Korea, the first 1000 MW unit could probably be built in about seven years and additional units after that within 10 years, they said.
The information meeting on nuclear power, held in the Italian-Australia Club in Morwell last week, was organised by Nuclear for Australia and was attended by up to 300 people. The visit was sponsored by the entrepreneur and philanthropist, Dick Smith, the patron of Nuclear for Australia.
Chief speaker was Grace Stanke, 22, the 2023 Miss America and a nuclear engineer; an American nuclear expert, Mark Schneider, who is Chief Nuclear Officer for UBH Group in Australia; and Kirsty Brabon, Adjunct Nuclear Law Lecturer at the University of Adelaide. They answered numerous questions from the audience.
Ms Stanke said thousands of jobs would be created in construction, while one 1000MW nuclear unit would be run by 700-1000 workers. An outage could bring in another 3000 jobs.
“Add more units to the power plant, multiple reactors, that means more jobs and more electricity for the Australian grid,” she said. “It is not only the industries they actually power such as AI data centres – there is massive international load growth now – they can create more than just electricity. District heating, hydrogen production – there are a lot of different things added on as secondary industries, lots of avenues for growth.”
Construction time and life span
Mr Schneider said he believed a power plant in the United Arab Emirates under the Korean model was built in about seven years. “Not more than seven, seven for one unit online, 10 years for all four units online. They got better with each one – faster and cheaper. That also occurs in the US with the submarine program; the more you do something, the better you get at it,” he said
“The Valley is a good location, already operating power plants and cooling water source. Get the repeal to occur and the regulatory framework in place.”Ms Stanke said a nuclear plant was usually licensed for 40 years, but also had undergone power upgrades. “Even though some of the plants were built in the ’60s and ’70s, they are producing more electricity now because of new technology and upgrades. They can go through subsequent licence renewals, some go up to 60 years, you’ re looking at 80, 100 years,” she said.
“The whole life span, we don’t know where the end is yet. That’s jobs for generations, dads work with sons and daughters; that can have a major impact on communities, jobs for generations.”
Mr Schneider said it would work for communities like the Valley, enabling fathers to work with their sons and daughters. They were well paid. One man, for example, started work as a janitor, then became an operator, aged 27 and making $US330,00 a year. “That is pretty common in the industry,” he said.
Ms Stanke said internationally, the first new nuclear build in the US for 30 years went over time and over budget due to a lack of standardisation and being the first of its kind. This was in contrast to South Korea, which has a standardised design, and a strong supply chain. “They have built reactors for past 40 years. They do it on time and on budget,” she said. Both she and Mr Schneider acknowledged they were not experts in construction.
However, Mr Schneider cited one US company that produced gas, coal, nuclear, wind and solar. “They sell their power at a rate, and when you take that rate and compare it to the cost associated with the generation – these are all power plants on the grid – nuclear has an 11 per cent profit margin, gas 7 per cent profit margin, coal 4 per cent, wind and solar sold at a loss. American taxpayers are paying out the subsidies,” he said, to laughter around the room.
The lawyer, Ms Brabon, said there was a belief in Australia that the country doesn’t have a regulatory framework in place to allow nuclear plan ts to be built. “That’s crap,” she said.
“We regulate and operate the Opal reactor in Sydney, which uses nuclear radioactive isotopes. There is a regulatory model in place, but we would have to make some amendments to the Safety Act to facilitate it – minor amendments, that would not take long.”
Ms Brabon said there were other comparisons. “Australia built the Opal reactor in nine years. That was the first of its kind. That’s not what is being proposed in Australia. In the Senate inquiry, some experts were saying 11 to 13 years (for construction). If Australia can deliver Opal, the first of its kind, in nine years, why can’t we build a nuclear power reactor?”
Obsolescence
Could helium-free fusion, carbon capture, battery technologies developing faster than nuclear built in Australia? Mr Schneider said the fact is, “you want a blended grid, no matter what you are doing”.
“You don’t want 100 per cent nuclear grid. In the US, it produces 20 per cent of our power. Those reactors were licensed for 40 years, but many are on their second subsequent licence, a licence for 80 years of operation, with discussion going out to 100 years of operation,” he said.
“Build these, they will be for a long time. The demand for electricity is only going to go up – the demand for AI. There is so much more electricity demand because of this thing called the internet that everyone is using all the time. We welcome all those new things to the grid. ”
Ms Stanke said importantly, Australia should not be building its own reactor. “It is up to the will of the people. New technologies will come through, but let’s build with technologies that are proven and have been operating for decades, or a more modern Westinghouse reactor so there is proven technology we can start building as soon as the ban is lifted in Australia,” she said.”There will always be new technologies, but the most important thing is that it won’t be a first of its kind in Australia.”
Retrofit a current coal generator?
Ms Stanke said this would only be for small nuclear reactors.
“To have a currently existing coal plant and take out some parts and put in new gear – it’s got to be better to build a large reactor that’s going to produce more electricity, provide more jobs, and will be more reliable,” she said.
“It’s better to focus internationally, globally – the US, Canada, France. Concentrate on countries that are actively using nuclear.”
Ms Brabon said where coal stations were located, it was not just about the technology. “It’s especially about the community, the region and the area – the existing transmission lines, workforce and ensuring jobs for communities that are transitioning through closures,” she said.
How can Australia deny domestic use, yet export uranium to other countries?
“Can Australia have its Yellow Cake and eat it too?” quipped Ms Brabon.
“It’s hard, we have uranium mine since 1950 in South Australia. We are well regarded around the world for some time. We export 100 per cent of it, and are considered around the world to be one of the best generators. Yet we ban nuclear power, we ban uranium enrichment, we ban nuclear waste and disposal in some states. It logically doesn’t make sense. Uranium mines are banned in Queensland, Western Australia, NSW and Victoria, yet we can do it safely in SA and export it to the rest of the world? Logically. it doesn’t make sense.”
Civil affected by military use of uranium?
Mr Schneider said it was affected. “Particularly in the US, I am frustrated in the fact, you hear about nuclear leakage, it’s from US weapons production As an operator in the commercial engineer, power plant operator, I have to answer for the sins of the US nuclear weapons community,” he said.
“Frankly, I am tired of it for 23 years, I am tired for answering to the mistakes my US government has made in nuclear weapons production then having to answer, ‘What do you mean, it’s not going to leak?’ I agree, it’s a huge disservice done to the commercial US nuclear industry. Nuclear waste – it’s a solid. Solids don’t leak. I have to explain that because there is radiated water from US nuclear weapons production.”
Chernobyl
Mr Schneider said Chernobyl was a terrible accident.
“It’s also a terribly designed reactor they operated in direct violation (of its conditions) The Chernobyl type reactor – there are several of them still in operation today. There have been no incidence because they fixed themselves from how they operated,” he said.
“No reactor of Western design could undergo the Chernobyl experience in that manner because of the design of the reactor. The physics doesn’t work, and you have containment structures.”
Ms Brabon said Chernobyl was the reason the world has the convention on nuclear safety. “It’s also the reason we have the joint convention on nuclear waste and spent fuel. In response to that accident, the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the rest of the world, came together and they came up with two international treaties to set up schemes to address these problems that arose because of that accident. Australia has signed and implemented those treaties and so has half the world,” she said.
Mr Schneider said in the nuclear industry in the US, “we conduct annual training on Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island”. The worst US accident was in Idaho, where three people were killed.
“If you were to ask me afterwards, I am safer in my submarine and nuclear reactors I operate because of that accident,” he said.
Ms Stanke said: “we get all of the information from nuclear energy operated worldwide”, including Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island.
“More people have died in America in the past 20 years alone from the fossil fuel industry than all global nuclear energy generation has done combined. That puts into perspective the safety standards,” she said.
Catering for any nuclear event, “there are all-encompassing safety plans that look at all scenarios and look at what has gone wrong”. “Number one priority – keep those hot rocks cool and safe.”
Who would be in charge of building a nuclear reactor in the Valley? The master of ceremonies, Logan Smith, an engineer who runs a nuclear podcast, said if the legislation was repealed, a company would be interested in tendering. “Twenty per cent is a ‘nuclear island’; he rest is steam generator, turbine ball, transmission – skills that many in this room would have, I imagine. When it comes to building something, a local contractor would get international assistance. Countries allied with Australia would be very interested to assist,” he said.
Does the lack of a union in the UAE have implications for Australia? Mark Richards, from the energy and mining union, said he did not represent the construction industry, but was eight years in CFMEU.
“These projects are usually fairly well calculated. As long as no expanded bills, which can happen if it’s a big project. If there are decent working conditions and decent bonus in the system, it will finish on time, ” she said.
“I don’t think it’s a big issue. The main thing – have the expertise of someone like the South Koreans.”
