A top Australian engineer has warned the country’s power grid is unstable and incapable of coping with surging demand – and has proposed a controversial solution.
Adi Paterson is the former chief of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and has written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese demanding urgent action to keep the nation’s lights on.
“Your electricity plan, for a massive expansion of the grid with wind and solar sources is deeply flawed, and expensive. It will fail to deliver quality, 24-hour electricity,” Dr Paterson warned.
Mass blackouts in rural areas last Friday, sparked by strain on the eastern power grid, should serve as a warning signal to the public and businesses – and are a sign of things to come, he added.
In its Summer Readiness Report, the Australian Energy Market Operator warned of blackouts and forced power outages as a result of a feared once-in-a-decade spike in demand.
And Dr Paterson believes things will only get worse as coal-fired generators exit the grid over time and “intermittent” renewables leave the grid “increasingly unstable”.
Five coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be shuttered in the coming decade, with more expected to follow.
A nuclear contradiction
In his letter to the PM, Dr Paterson called for the government to lift a ban on civilian nuclear power to meet current and future energy needs.
“Australia has committed to produce electricity from nuclear power to propel our future submarines,” he pointed out.
“To do this we have partnered with two mature nuclear countries with nuclear submarine fleets.
“In Australia, it is illegal to develop or use nuclear power to produce electricity for civilian use on land, but it will be legal to have nuclear-powered submarines tied up in navy shipyards with trained submariners engaged in maintaining and navigating them through international waters.”
That contradiction is “not logical” and the “antiquated” ban on nuclear energy, implemented in 1999, means that “predictable, low carbon, always-on electricity is no longer assured”.
“Nuclear technology is not the same as it was in the 80s – it’s a safe and cheap way to generate power,” he said.
Some of the brightest minds in science, technology, and energy systems are calling for all options to be put on the table, including the latest technology in nuclear, he added.
‘No net-zero without nuclear’
Australia’s commitment to meet a net-zero carbon goal by 2030 requires an increase of renewable energy out of 1.5 times within six years.
“It’s scientifically impossible considering it took over two decades to get where we are today, and there’s a very long way to go if we are to rely on renewables alone,” Dr Paterson said.
“There is no net zero without nuclear.”
Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement requires it to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 to meet a net-zero target.
The agreement also calls for more ambitious targets to be set as time goes on.
Major cuts to coal-fired power – which currently accounts for two-thirds of all energy production – will be needed.
Mr Albanese has aimed to have more than 80 per cent of energy powered by renewables by the end of the decade.
Dr Paterson said nuclear energy production stands apart from wind and solar because it doesn’t require a “massive expansion” of the grid – the cost of which would easily fund the first nuclear power plants.
In a 2021 opinion piece published in Crikey, Grattan Institute director of energy Tony Wood said nuclear could provide “a major source of energy as competitive costs and with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions”.
“Countries such as China and Korea have the capability to aggressively drive down the cost, particularly as they standardise their reactors,” Mr Wood wrote.
“Countries want reliable and secure low-emissions power that is cheap over the long term. Nuclear could tick all these boxes.”
But unless Australia relies on fossil fuel electricity with so-called ‘clean coal’ and carbon capture technology, “it’s hard to see how we can make the transition … to a fully renewable future” while keeping prices low and supply secure.
“We need to have an adult conversation about our future energy needs in a time of climate change. Excluding nuclear power from that conversation may be a decision we come to regret.”
Cost claims ‘illogical’
The government has rejected calls for nuclear power in the past, citing prohibitive costs and quoting a $10 billion figure to build a single plant, which would take several years to complete.
“The main criticism from the government is that nuclear power is too expensive and will take too long to bring into service,” Dr Paterson said.
“Experts point out that the government’s figures that it relies upon to make these claims fail to include the cost of additional transmission lines required to bring the power from renewable electricity generators back to the power grid.
“Lifting the ban will allow for free market pricing to determine the true cost of energy.”
Dr Paterson also claimed nuclear power is safer than solar and wind and produces lower emissions over its life cycle.
“The price of nuclear power to consumers is lower than high penetration wind and solar grids as exemplified by France versus Germany, Finland versus Denmark – and many others.”
And nuclear and hydro grids have the lowest carbon footprints globally, he said.
“We will not lead the world in wind or solar industries. However, we can lead the world in next-generation nuclear power and its associated fuel cycle.”
Not all scientists agree.
A recent report plotting how Australia can achieve its emissions targets, the Net Zero Australia project combining the expertise of academic institutions, concluded that developing nuclear is too expensive and too slow.
“Only a dramatic fall in costs and prolonged renewable constraints would prompt a rethink,” the report read.
Calls to lift the ban
When then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a major agreement with the United States to acquire nuclear submarines in 2021, portions of the energy sector said civilian usage should follow.
Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable said at the time there was “no reason” the country shouldn’t consider a nuclear power future.
“This is an incredible opportunity for Australia’s economy – not only will we develop the skills and infrastructure to support this naval technology, but it connects us to the growing global nuclear power industry and its supply chains,” Ms Constable said.
Shortly after, the National Party announced its support for nuclear power. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has also indicated he’s open to the idea.
But Mr Albanese has repeatedly said the case for nuclear “doesn’t stack up”.
Dr Paterson called on the government establish an independent review that includes nuclear power in its scope.
“Australia needs real options. Policy settings can be changed. It is a question of scientifically sound engineering, and economics and practicality.”
Commenting on his letter to the PM, Dr Paterson said Australians should be given in a choice in how their electricity is generated.
“We shouldn’t be making decisions based on the personal preference of Anthony Albanese. This ‘Captain’s Pick’ mindset is stuck in the 80s when he was an antinuclear campaigner at Sydney University.
“It’s time Australia had the option to join the rest of the world, who are already using nuclear to stabilise the grid and power their economies.
“Why should Australia miss out on cheap, clean fuel? Why should Australians pay more to keep the lights on at home? Why not keep businesses doors open and unemployment low?”
Dr Paterson served as chief executive of ANSTO for 12 years, has degrees in chemistry and engineering, sits on the board of HB11 Energy, a company developing laser hydrogen fusion technology, and is now the principal and founder of energy advisory Siyeva Consulting.