1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:18,000 Welcome to Grumpy Strategist episode 23 brought to you by Strategic Analysis Australia. 2 00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:22,960 I'm Michael Shubridge and I'm here with SAA's head of research, Dr. Marcus Helia. 3 00:00:22,960 --> 00:00:29,120 Hello, Bill. I'm going to call you Bill today after Chano Bill because today we're going to 4 00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:34,640 debate the big issues around nuclear power. So we're going to try and have a civil nuclear debate 5 00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:38,800 and I mean that in both powerful meanings of civil. Yeah, bring it on, Shubridge. 6 00:00:38,800 --> 00:00:45,280 This is not about nuclear weapons or nuclear submarines. It's about civil civilian nuclear power 7 00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:51,840 and the debate, Dr. Helia, is to stay civil. Right. Okay. Stay civil. They're the ground rules. 8 00:00:51,840 --> 00:00:57,120 Okay, Bill. I got that. Our purpose here is to try and have a discussion about the 9 00:00:57,120 --> 00:01:02,720 fundamentals in the energy debate in Australia and the potential role of nuclear and the 10 00:01:02,720 --> 00:01:08,880 pluses and minuses around renewables, nuclear and the current path. We will engage with the 11 00:01:08,880 --> 00:01:15,040 coalition nuclear power plan because that is a part of this bigger debate. But we're really just 12 00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:19,520 trying to sketch the boundaries of the debate so that a bunch of Australians and anyone else 13 00:01:19,520 --> 00:01:26,000 listening to this mighty fine podcast can at least have some common foundations to discuss the issue. 14 00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:30,720 And I'll just note one reason we're doing this is, A, it's an important issue, but B, we'll kind of 15 00:01:30,720 --> 00:01:35,600 seek of agreeing with each other all the time. So we decided we're deliberately going to disagree 16 00:01:35,600 --> 00:01:40,240 and both of our us have children with very distinguished high school debating careers. 17 00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:45,760 And so we thought we would model, take that model where we will pick a side and represent that side 18 00:01:45,760 --> 00:01:52,400 regardless of whether we actually agree with that side or not. So today Marcus is the good guy wearing 19 00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:57,360 a green shirt. I think that tells you all you need to know. He's on the renewables of the answer side 20 00:01:57,360 --> 00:02:03,120 of the debate. I'm in a dark suit and that's quite deliberate. I'm more the Darth Vader, 21 00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:09,600 very big, dark star, nuclear power is our future side of the debate. So that's who we are for the 22 00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:14,880 purposes of the discussion. Let's get started. We're going to cover some core foundational 23 00:02:14,880 --> 00:02:20,160 stuff starting with, look at Australia, how much energy do we need? What are we producing now from 24 00:02:20,160 --> 00:02:26,960 what and can renewables scale in the time and to the volume required to meet future demand? 25 00:02:26,960 --> 00:02:33,200 Can nuclear do that? And what are the ups and downsides around each of these? So Marcus, 26 00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:40,000 how much energy does Australia currently need every day in 2024? Okay, so we'll talk electricity. 27 00:02:40,000 --> 00:02:46,080 So we're talking electricity here, not all energy, but as we move forward in time, more of our energy 28 00:02:46,080 --> 00:02:51,200 usage will be electrified as more of us drive electric vehicles. And there'll also be other 29 00:02:51,200 --> 00:02:57,280 drivers for the use of electricity as AI takes over and will be running lots and lots of huge 30 00:02:57,280 --> 00:03:02,400 servers and storage farms and things like that. So there's no debate that our requirement for 31 00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:06,400 electricity will go up, both new demand and replacing existing demand with electricity. 32 00:03:06,400 --> 00:03:12,320 We've already seen that with crypto, the power demands of generating Bitcoin. So yes, demand 33 00:03:12,320 --> 00:03:18,240 is obviously increasing. But right now, what is it about 30 gigawatts a day? 34 00:03:18,240 --> 00:03:22,960 Yeah, the national energy market, which is essentially the East Coast doesn't include 35 00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:27,840 Western Australia and sort of some of the big iron ore farms and things like that out in the middle 36 00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:34,480 of the desert, sort of averages maybe around 30 gigawatts at any point in time, but obviously 37 00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:39,040 surges up greater than that. And so that when it gets hot and people run their air conditioners, 38 00:03:39,040 --> 00:03:43,440 it gets cold and they run their heaters can go up and down. But we're probably sort of looking 39 00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:50,400 at just for the East Coast market, probably 30 surging to 40 gigawatts. And so that's our starting 40 00:03:50,400 --> 00:03:55,600 point today. But I think predictions are that will probably certainly by the middle of the century 41 00:03:55,600 --> 00:04:01,280 will have at least double die suspect. Well, there's population growth and there's the electrification 42 00:04:01,280 --> 00:04:06,320 of current fossil fuel powered activities. And then there's new sources of demand. And you've 43 00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:11,520 mentioned the big obvious ones, crypto artificial intelligence data centers generally. Yeah, so 44 00:04:11,520 --> 00:04:17,040 if you're looking at at least doubling that demand over the period of time we're talking about, which 45 00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:22,640 is now in 2050, that would be a reasonable foundational plan news for you. The bad news for 46 00:04:22,640 --> 00:04:27,440 you, Michael or Bill is that a civil nuclear reactor generates depending on what kind of 47 00:04:27,440 --> 00:04:33,280 mole you have between one and one and a half gigawatts. So if we are going to have get to, 48 00:04:33,280 --> 00:04:42,240 you know, 6070 80 potentially, Mr. Dutton's plan of seven power plants that might do 10 gigawatts 49 00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:48,960 doesn't get us. It maybe gets us to best case maybe 15%. So we're still looking around under 50 00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:54,880 his plan for the other 85%. Let's stay civil here. So I'm not even going to get angry with that 51 00:04:54,880 --> 00:05:00,880 strange formulation of the problem. Because to me, it's the energy mix that is so important here. 52 00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:07,280 I don't think anyone is even suggesting that nuclear power is a 90% solution for Australia's 53 00:05:07,280 --> 00:05:13,360 energy need. To me, to me, isn't that what Mr. Little proud is saying? Well, if I could just 54 00:05:13,360 --> 00:05:19,200 put this on the table, but before before getting quickly getting talked over by my colleague, 55 00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:24,000 that is the parable of the Chinese gardener planning a sapling in the middle of this big open 56 00:05:24,000 --> 00:05:27,920 space. He's an elderly gardener and the young gardener comes up and says, I like how you are 57 00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:32,480 developing our energy policy on the basis of an ancient Chinese parable, but keep going. 58 00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:37,360 The young gardener says to him, what on earth are you doing planning this little sapling here? 59 00:05:37,360 --> 00:05:42,400 Don't you know this tree will take 100 years to grow? Do we have 100 years to start? 60 00:05:44,240 --> 00:05:49,440 The old gardener says, but when it has grown, it'll create beautiful shade and be a place for birds 61 00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:53,920 and people to enjoy. It'd be a wonderful addition of this park. And the young guy says, but what 62 00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:57,840 are you doing? It'll take 100 years to grow. He said, you're right. I should have planted it 63 00:05:57,840 --> 00:06:02,320 yesterday. Anything long term has to be begun. That's the point I'm making. 64 00:06:02,320 --> 00:06:08,080 Now, every journey starts with the first step. I agree, Michael. And when I was a much younger man, 65 00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:12,320 I'm still relatively young, but when I was much younger, I thought nuclear, there was a place 66 00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:18,080 for nuclear. My view now is there's there's really no place left for nuclear because of those time 67 00:06:18,080 --> 00:06:23,040 frames. It's not maybe not 99 years. I think it's news to Peter Dutton and it's going to be 99 years, 68 00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:28,480 but it may not be 99 years, but it is a tiny part of our solution, a tiny part of the solution. 69 00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:30,960 I'll give you an analogy. Okay. So we like to 70 00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:32,560 Before you continue, I just want to say 71 00:06:32,560 --> 00:06:34,480 Sorry, you're talking over the top of me, Bill. 72 00:06:34,480 --> 00:06:39,520 I'd just like to thank you for agreeing that nuclear is a part of the solution. 73 00:06:39,520 --> 00:06:44,320 It is a potential part of the solution. It is a potential. I think there is potentially niche 74 00:06:44,320 --> 00:06:49,600 roles, but let me give you an example of a country that has adopted nuclear as part of its solution. 75 00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:54,080 Let's say Canada. So Canada, a country that in many ways quite analogous to Australia, 76 00:06:54,080 --> 00:06:58,880 that slightly larger population, larger resource about economy, lots of space. 77 00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:06,160 Canada has 19 nuclear reactors that produces a grand total of 12.9% of their electricity 78 00:07:06,160 --> 00:07:10,800 requirements. So seven power plants and I'm not sure how many reactors that includes that is 79 00:07:10,800 --> 00:07:17,520 Mr. Dutton's policy, I think will really only be a very small part of our energy mix, assuming 80 00:07:17,520 --> 00:07:24,160 it can be delivered. This is this could be a whole focus on the 90%. Why are we obsessing 81 00:07:24,160 --> 00:07:29,920 around the 10% this could be a whole separate podcast, but there is the really big issue 82 00:07:29,920 --> 00:07:34,800 that you're pointing to here and I agree with you. The world dropped the ball on nuclear power. 83 00:07:34,800 --> 00:07:42,160 If only those trees had been planted earlier, those saplings, more nuclear power would be online now 84 00:07:42,160 --> 00:07:46,720 possibly would be much further on our transition to a fossil free future. 85 00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:51,840 That's really not. With energy independence. So the lesson that you're teaching is why 86 00:07:51,840 --> 00:07:57,440 haven't we already started and grown that option? Absolutely. And I think that's a 87 00:07:57,440 --> 00:08:04,960 sorry story across the world. It just can't grow fast. Well, this is back to what's happening. 88 00:08:04,960 --> 00:08:09,200 What are we actually producing now and where's the electricity coming from? Clearly we're 89 00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:13,840 meeting that 30 gigawatts a day because we're not having mass brownouts and blackouts. So that's 90 00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:20,320 the good news. There's concerns about resilience. Baselow generators suddenly fail and that will 91 00:08:20,320 --> 00:08:25,520 be a risk in the nuclear system. So if you replace large scale coal generators with large scale 92 00:08:25,520 --> 00:08:30,960 nuclear generators and one drops out and you let's say it was had two reactors with two to three 93 00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:37,440 gigawatts, there is a huge hole in your energy supply. So yes, we may actually I think have a 94 00:08:37,440 --> 00:08:41,840 less reliable grid with nuclear because you are still going to be faced with that risk of big 95 00:08:41,840 --> 00:08:45,680 chunks of it. Unpredictably dropping out. Well, you know, this obviously brings us to one of the 96 00:08:45,680 --> 00:08:51,280 core things to be understood about renewables and think there is some very positive facts, 97 00:08:51,280 --> 00:08:57,280 very positive part of the renewable story in Australia, the growth in renewable supply 98 00:08:57,280 --> 00:09:01,680 over the last five years. So hang on, are you on my side now? I'm trying to have a civil debate 99 00:09:01,680 --> 00:09:06,880 and agree on some core facts. But okay, that's I thought that was our grammar all at the start. 100 00:09:06,880 --> 00:09:15,760 So the trend now is renewables, I think producing about 46% of Australian energy supply and that 101 00:09:15,760 --> 00:09:21,920 waxes and wanes. On what period of time we're looking at it, instantaneously it gets up to 102 00:09:21,920 --> 00:09:28,960 at some points over 60% and in South Australia over 100%. And as low as 30%. And as low as 30%. 103 00:09:29,520 --> 00:09:34,960 So you average that out over months or weeks, you are up into we're getting up into the 30 to 40% 104 00:09:34,960 --> 00:09:40,960 kind of rain. And then but averages are important, but clearly the ups and downs are important too 105 00:09:40,960 --> 00:09:47,440 for what happens for particular days and actual consumers. The real success story in renewables, 106 00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:52,240 I think has been rooftop solar, which I think is now delivery on average about seven and a half 107 00:09:52,240 --> 00:09:58,080 gigawatts a day, which when total demand is 30 gigawatts, you have to say that is a success. 108 00:09:58,080 --> 00:10:02,800 It is a massive. So thanks to all your mums and dads out there that have put those things on your 109 00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:08,240 roofs and we lead the world in rooftop. So the other thing that's happened is there's been a 110 00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:14,560 growing contribution by big scale solar, but it's still the solar contribution is still dominated 111 00:10:14,560 --> 00:10:21,200 by rooftop. And I think that's a key point. So four years ago, there was virtually no large scale 112 00:10:21,200 --> 00:10:25,440 solar in Australia. There was a lot of rooftop solar owned by mums and dads. There was virtually 113 00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:30,880 no large scale solar. So we've gone from virtually nothing to sort of meaningful percentages in a 114 00:10:30,880 --> 00:10:36,080 very, very short space of time. And I think that to me really gets at the heart of the contradiction 115 00:10:36,080 --> 00:10:43,360 between nuclear and renewables. And that renewables scale really fast. And if I can put a call out 116 00:10:43,360 --> 00:10:50,960 to my, my hero, Ben Flivvieg, again, the guru, mega projects, Flivvieg of mega projects. When he 117 00:10:50,960 --> 00:10:56,720 looks at across the span of mega projects, the ones most likely to succeed on the ones most likely 118 00:10:56,720 --> 00:11:01,760 to fail, the ones most likely to fail in terms of going over over schedule over budget and 119 00:11:01,760 --> 00:11:07,360 under delivering outcomes. The worst of all is nuclear waste disposal. The next worst, interestingly, 120 00:11:07,360 --> 00:11:12,720 is the Olympics. And then the third worst is civil nuclear power. If we look at the other end of the 121 00:11:12,720 --> 00:11:19,360 spectrum, the things that succeed are actually truly modular systems such as solar power and wind 122 00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:23,760 power. And the reason for that is if you want solar power, you put in some panels and they generate, 123 00:11:23,760 --> 00:11:27,440 you want some more, you put in some more panels, you put in some more panels. But I want for the 124 00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:34,160 only person, I want for the only person saying, we're going to keep this as a polite discussion. 125 00:11:34,160 --> 00:11:39,440 I'm not going to have you dragging down the Olympics. Paris Olympics are just about to start. 126 00:11:39,440 --> 00:11:45,040 I'm right behind the Aussie team. I think every Australian besides the cringe is right behind 127 00:11:45,040 --> 00:11:52,240 the team. Is this a distraction, Michael? I don't want to tie nuclear power and renewables to the 128 00:11:52,240 --> 00:11:55,920 Olympics. I think we're bigger than that. Aren't we bigger than that? Are you admitting you're losing? 129 00:11:55,920 --> 00:12:00,400 And the other point I make about the Olympics is you can take Professor Flickirk. 130 00:12:00,400 --> 00:12:04,800 He's a professor. He must know what he's talking about. The professor can talk all he likes about 131 00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:09,920 the Olympics being a failure. I think the Olympic movement is one of the triumphs of humanity. 132 00:12:09,920 --> 00:12:14,480 It's resurrection after World War One was a stroke of genius. All right. So how is this 133 00:12:14,480 --> 00:12:19,280 relevant? So there are other factors that play here. And that's important with nuclear energy. 134 00:12:19,280 --> 00:12:25,120 Yes. Okay. All right. I'll just go back to my earlier point that renewables are the most 135 00:12:25,120 --> 00:12:30,800 successful mega projects that you can find. Nuclear energy is the least successful. And 136 00:12:30,800 --> 00:12:35,760 that's based on from the guy who has looked at more mega projects than anybody else in the world. 137 00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:41,280 I think we don't want to get away. We were talking about the contribution to the current energy mix. 138 00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:49,200 Yes. And if I could just mention, coal is still the heavy lifter in the Australian energy mix. 139 00:12:49,200 --> 00:12:57,280 And so what happens to replace that incredibly important base load contribution you get from 140 00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:03,760 coal, given this growth in renewables, but that unfortunate variability we see, 30%, 141 00:13:03,760 --> 00:13:10,080 60%, well, which is it? And for a reliable power system, you need reliable supply. So 142 00:13:10,080 --> 00:13:15,040 replacing that heavy coal contribution, it's not going to be gas because at the moment, 143 00:13:15,040 --> 00:13:20,800 I think about 1.5% of power generation is coming from gas, which is an extraordinary 144 00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:26,960 own goal, isn't it? The problem with gas is that the mega geniuses who've been running our economy 145 00:13:26,960 --> 00:13:34,000 decided to lock in all of our gas to overseas export and not reserve any of it for Australians, 146 00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:38,400 with the result that Australians are paying more for Australian gas than overseas customers. And 147 00:13:38,400 --> 00:13:42,960 we're almost getting into the ludicrous situation where those overseas customers are selling it 148 00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:50,320 back to us. So Australia can't afford to buy the gas we produce, even though the gas we produce, 149 00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:56,160 we produce very cheaply and at scale because we insist on selling it to ourselves at the highest 150 00:13:56,160 --> 00:14:02,080 price we can get for it on the international market. Yes. And by the way, so people who say 151 00:14:02,080 --> 00:14:07,360 renewables, look at the price we're paying for electricity now, that's being driven by renewables. 152 00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:12,480 Uh-uh, it is not being driven by renewables. Renewables are helping to keep the price down. 153 00:14:12,480 --> 00:14:17,600 That cost increase is being driven by Mr Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which is driving up the cost 154 00:14:17,600 --> 00:14:22,560 of gas and coal around the world. And because we've locked ourselves into international markets, 155 00:14:22,560 --> 00:14:28,400 we are suffering because of that. So one part of our energy mix over the next 20 and 30 years, 156 00:14:28,400 --> 00:14:34,320 while we're doing this transition in our energy mix away from coal, would be a much more sensible 157 00:14:34,320 --> 00:14:40,400 policy around pricing of domestic gas, even with the ripple effect that might cause in our overseas 158 00:14:40,400 --> 00:14:46,480 markets. Because frankly, Australian energy resilience is so important, us doing something 159 00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:51,840 like the West Australian government, but reserving a share of domestic gas for domestic consumption 160 00:14:51,840 --> 00:14:55,040 makes so much sense. It is a strange thing on the topic, but it is astonishing that the one 161 00:14:55,040 --> 00:15:00,480 jurisdiction that is probably most subject to state capture of any government in Australia 162 00:15:00,480 --> 00:15:04,800 was the one that actually stood up to the energy industry and the gas industry and said, 163 00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:09,600 we are actually going to reserve West Australian gas for West Australian consumers with the result 164 00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:14,880 that they pay the lowest price for gas of anybody in Australia. Yeah. So I just put that there as 165 00:15:14,880 --> 00:15:20,400 when we're talking about the role of different energy sources in our energy production, there's 166 00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:25,760 no way under current policy settings, gas is a bridge to the future. It could be, but unless 167 00:15:25,760 --> 00:15:30,240 you're in Western Australia, it isn't. Now, so the question then is, all right, we're seeing, 168 00:15:30,240 --> 00:15:34,640 we've seen some phenomenal growth rates out of rooftop solar. We're starting to see with big 169 00:15:34,640 --> 00:15:41,520 scale solar, there was a surge in wind that seems to be dying down. Can renewables scale to meet 90% 170 00:15:42,080 --> 00:15:47,840 of our energy demand and can it be sustained over time? And then the same question for nuclear. 171 00:15:47,840 --> 00:15:51,680 Well, I think we've already answered the can nuclear scale. Well, I haven't been given an 172 00:15:51,680 --> 00:15:58,320 opportunity there, but you tell me about renewables first. Well, so on nuclear account, 173 00:15:58,320 --> 00:16:03,120 let me just answer this because as we've already identified, Mr. Dutton's seven nuclear power plants 174 00:16:03,120 --> 00:16:08,240 will probably best case do 10 to 15% of our requirements by the middle of the century. 175 00:16:08,240 --> 00:16:13,360 All of Western Europe at the moment is building two nuclear power plants. So for Australia to 176 00:16:13,360 --> 00:16:18,240 suddenly do not only those seven, but the additional ones you'd need to make a meaningful 177 00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:22,880 contribution to provide the bulk of electricity. I'm not quite sure how that is going to happen, 178 00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:28,800 particularly when they seem to be running at a cost of, well, we're looking at, 179 00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:34,480 Hinkley Point C is already up in the UK is already up to 46 billion pounds. So roughly, 180 00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:39,840 you know, 80 to 90 billion dollars. All Kaluto three, the finished one that was just completed 181 00:16:39,840 --> 00:16:47,440 came in actually was reasonably close to what it was meant to, but it still hit over close to 18 182 00:16:47,440 --> 00:16:52,000 billion dollars. So somehow if we're going to be building all of Mr. Dutton's power plants, 183 00:16:52,000 --> 00:16:58,480 plus you need to maybe triple quadruple quintuple that to do the bulk of our electricity. Okay, 184 00:16:58,480 --> 00:17:02,400 we are looking at hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. What I would say about that, 185 00:17:02,400 --> 00:17:08,880 it cannot scale in the timeframes available to what I would say about that is those European 186 00:17:08,880 --> 00:17:16,080 clear initiatives, they're all based on the lack of investment in nuclear power generation that 187 00:17:16,080 --> 00:17:23,440 we've lived with and now are suffering from of decades. So the peak of nuclear power building 188 00:17:23,440 --> 00:17:29,760 happened in the 70s. It's and we've been coasting on that long term sensible investment without 189 00:17:29,760 --> 00:17:34,880 renewing it. So it's really, I mean, it's ironic, isn't it? There's been no renewal of nuclear power 190 00:17:34,880 --> 00:17:40,640 generation. And so the capacity to build these things has sensibly atrophied and that the 191 00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:47,680 government regulation has hobbled some of those international markets. So US nuclear power production 192 00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:52,800 regulation around nuclear power is probably a good thing. I'd just like to finish a couple of sentences here. 193 00:17:53,680 --> 00:18:00,320 Come on already. The US nuclear power providers like General Electric were hobbled in exporting 194 00:18:00,320 --> 00:18:05,760 their nuclear power systems globally because of regulation. I think the good news around climate 195 00:18:05,760 --> 00:18:12,640 change and environmental activism has been a more clear eyed look at nuclear power and seeing it as 196 00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:18,320 part of the past to getting to net zero. You talk to young Australians, people that in previous 197 00:18:18,320 --> 00:18:23,840 generations would have been fervently anti nuclear power. They're among the strongest advocates and 198 00:18:23,840 --> 00:18:30,240 that's because they see it as part of the past to net zero and that renaissance in investment in 199 00:18:30,240 --> 00:18:36,240 nuclear energy will do two things. Drive down the time scales and drive down the costs. Okay, 200 00:18:36,240 --> 00:18:41,520 that was that was a nice homage to nuclear power, but there was not a lot of fact in there, Michael. 201 00:18:41,520 --> 00:18:48,960 Well, South Korea and Japan can build nuclear power stations in three and five years. Well, 202 00:18:48,960 --> 00:18:53,680 Japan is not building nuclear power stations at the moment, but it can build them at those rates, 203 00:18:53,680 --> 00:18:58,640 but it's not. It already has them. Okay, so let's look at sort of comparable countries and people 204 00:18:58,640 --> 00:19:03,440 talk about nuclear renaissance going on. Well, there is not really a nuclear renaissance going on. 205 00:19:03,440 --> 00:19:10,240 So the UK is currently building two reactors at one station. The French are building one and the 206 00:19:10,240 --> 00:19:15,120 United States are not actually building any at the moment. They just completed two reactors in 207 00:19:15,120 --> 00:19:19,760 one station, but they pulled the pin on another project that was building two reactors at one 208 00:19:19,760 --> 00:19:24,480 station because it when so far over budget and we're so far behind schedule. So I think what 209 00:19:24,480 --> 00:19:30,880 the world is realizing is that nuclear is just too slow and too expensive. So I would say you're 210 00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:36,720 talking about countries that already have nuclear in their energy mix. So they've got a luxury we 211 00:19:36,720 --> 00:19:42,560 don't have. We need to create that same luxury for ourselves. Well, I will quote the Australian 212 00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:47,600 Energy Regulator who just came out and said it would take eight years to set up a regulatory 213 00:19:47,600 --> 00:19:53,440 framework to allow the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia. So if we add on sort of 214 00:19:53,440 --> 00:20:01,920 the 15 year construction time, so 15 and eight, 23 years. So if we add 23 on to let's say Mr. 215 00:20:01,920 --> 00:20:08,560 Dutton wins the next election, he'll come in in 2025. We are kind of looking at 2050 for the first 216 00:20:08,560 --> 00:20:14,000 however, however, I would say about the energy market regulator saying it takes eight years. 217 00:20:14,000 --> 00:20:21,040 That sounds very America before the space race, before John F Kennedy laid down that challenge 218 00:20:21,040 --> 00:20:26,800 of putting a man on the moon and energize the nation around it. So and the other thing I'd say 219 00:20:26,800 --> 00:20:32,160 to make this our moonshot. Well, I think a sustained public initiative with the kind of 220 00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:36,880 weight of investment and interest around it can accelerate those timeframes. And frankly, 221 00:20:36,880 --> 00:20:41,760 if I was elected with the policy of putting nuclear power in place quickly and had it regulated 222 00:20:41,760 --> 00:20:46,080 tell me it would take eight years, I'd be finding a new head of that regulatory agency. 223 00:20:46,960 --> 00:20:52,960 Okay, thank you, Mr. Hitler. Okay, I'll just run through some of the project times of recent 224 00:20:52,960 --> 00:20:59,600 Western nuclear projects. So Okolido three, which started generating last year, 23 years from the 225 00:20:59,600 --> 00:21:05,040 start of that project. So only 18 of them were construction. Flammenville three, the French 226 00:21:05,040 --> 00:21:11,840 one, which is about to go online 19 years, Hinckley point C latest estimate is 19 years, 227 00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:20,320 folk tool three and four, 17 and 18 years. So the average there is around about 19 years. 228 00:21:20,320 --> 00:21:26,640 Those are all countries with existing. Let me give you the International Atomic Energy Agency 229 00:21:26,640 --> 00:21:32,000 study that said 15 countries have built a total of 83 nuclear plants over the last 20 years, 230 00:21:32,000 --> 00:21:37,440 among the 31 countries with nuclear power. It took on average 190 months to build each plant. 231 00:21:37,440 --> 00:21:42,880 During that period, Korea built a total of 13. Their average construction period was only 56 232 00:21:42,880 --> 00:21:48,240 months more than three times faster than other countries. And the fastest country was Japan 233 00:21:48,240 --> 00:21:55,200 on average 46 months to build each plant and doing one in 36 months. Japan has stopped. So Michael, 234 00:21:55,200 --> 00:22:01,440 question to you. Do you see us and when you look around at mega projects in Australia being more 235 00:22:01,440 --> 00:22:07,520 akin to South Korea or more akin to Western Europe? Yes, well, I have to say I've written 236 00:22:07,520 --> 00:22:14,160 something about Australia's ability to do large projects quickly and we do not have a good track 237 00:22:14,160 --> 00:22:20,320 record. So building that new optis sports stadium in Western Australia was about 15 years from idea 238 00:22:20,320 --> 00:22:25,200 to finishing it. It's a very impressive stadium, but it's not a massively complex, controversial 239 00:22:25,200 --> 00:22:30,160 public work like a nuclear power station. Putting the second Sydney Airport in a Badgeries Creek, 240 00:22:30,160 --> 00:22:35,360 that's been over 40 years from site selection. It's still not operating. It should have some 241 00:22:35,360 --> 00:22:40,960 freight operating out of it probably next year. We actually know airports in this country. Yes, 242 00:22:40,960 --> 00:22:48,800 and the high point of large project failure, I think if we take defence projects like the French 243 00:22:48,800 --> 00:22:53,520 submarine out of the mix, that was only three and a half to four billion dollars down the door. 244 00:22:53,520 --> 00:23:02,400 We'd have to say Snowy Hydro 2.0 is one of the worst. And by the way, as the advocate for renewables, 245 00:23:02,400 --> 00:23:08,560 I would say Snowy Hydro 2 is not the way to do renewables. Yes, because Billy debogged that tunnel 246 00:23:08,560 --> 00:23:15,440 was still kind of funny. Tunneler. And the other big example of failed public project implementation 247 00:23:15,440 --> 00:23:21,120 is a nuclear waste repository, which the sites were selected twice and have been overturned each 248 00:23:21,120 --> 00:23:28,480 time by federal court challenges. So for nuclear power to happen, there needs to be a sea change 249 00:23:28,480 --> 00:23:34,400 in Australian public policy and regulation because nothing will happen quickly without that. 250 00:23:34,400 --> 00:23:38,960 Well, don't hold your breath waiting for that change. But waste, you raised the waste issue. 251 00:23:38,960 --> 00:23:44,720 How long? How long has the world been generating electricity through civil nuclear power stations, 252 00:23:44,720 --> 00:23:51,600 Michael? How long has that been going on? Since the 60s. Wrong. Wrong, Michael. My understanding 253 00:23:51,600 --> 00:23:58,400 is 1954 was the first civil nuclear power plant in the then Soviet Union. So 70 years. I don't count 254 00:23:58,400 --> 00:24:04,320 the Soviets. Well, they have been generating electricity and along with it waste. Now, 255 00:24:04,320 --> 00:24:10,320 while Mr. Dutton may sort of hold up coat cans to sort of give us an indication of the scale 256 00:24:10,320 --> 00:24:18,400 of the waste problem, there are actually by the figures I could find 392,000 tons of waste fuel. 257 00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:25,280 Now, how many long term waste storage facilities has the world created in those 70 years? I think 258 00:24:25,280 --> 00:24:30,480 there's a very good one just opening in Finland as we speak. That's it. That is it. And this, 259 00:24:30,480 --> 00:24:36,240 I'd say two things about this and they're both about opportunity. The first one is Australia is 260 00:24:36,240 --> 00:24:42,160 the most geologically stable continent on the planet. We have an enormous opportunity, which I 261 00:24:42,160 --> 00:24:48,080 think is part of our nuclear stewardship obligation as a supplier of uranium to store a lot of that 262 00:24:48,080 --> 00:24:52,800 spent fuel. You want to take the 392,000 tons of waste fuel? Some of it. But the other big opportunity 263 00:24:52,800 --> 00:24:59,040 related to that is the reprocessing opportunity. There's some outstanding research about the 264 00:24:59,040 --> 00:25:10,160 ability to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and reuse it. And you do it so many times, you end up with 265 00:25:10,160 --> 00:25:16,000 hundreds of tons, not hundreds of thousands of tons. So yes, this is a case where further 266 00:25:16,000 --> 00:25:21,920 research and technological progress needs to happen. Does it exist? Back to my, this is a long-term 267 00:25:21,920 --> 00:25:28,000 endeavor. If you want a sustainable fossil free energy mix, you need to make long lead investments 268 00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:34,000 and storage and reprocessing. There are two of those. So this is interesting because I think 269 00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:40,400 when I look at the nuclear advocacy at the heart of it is his face in technology. So technology 270 00:25:40,400 --> 00:25:47,520 will solve all the problems. So we've got 392,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, but we haven't bothered 271 00:25:47,520 --> 00:25:53,760 to come up with a way to dispose of it. We can't even dig holes to put it in. So I think underpinning 272 00:25:53,760 --> 00:25:58,400 this is a view that sooner or later we'll find a way to reprocess it. Well, we are finding those 273 00:25:58,400 --> 00:26:03,280 ways. We haven't got that way. But there is this faith in technology that is at the heart of the 274 00:26:03,280 --> 00:26:09,520 nuclear enterprise. Now, you can argue that a lot of it is misplaced. I think a lot of it is misplaced. 275 00:26:09,520 --> 00:26:15,200 But I don't understand why those people don't have the same faith in renewables technology, 276 00:26:15,200 --> 00:26:20,880 even though we can see in front of us that technology taking effect. So the efficiency 277 00:26:20,880 --> 00:26:26,400 of solar panels increasing exponentially, the cost of battery storage going down exponentially, 278 00:26:26,400 --> 00:26:30,400 we can see that occurring in front of us. So why don't we have the faith, faith, 279 00:26:30,400 --> 00:26:33,920 same faith in that technology? Well, that's really interesting because I was going to 280 00:26:33,920 --> 00:26:39,200 put the same argument to you that your side of this argument is based around the phenomenal 281 00:26:39,200 --> 00:26:45,840 promise and delivery of renewables that not so long ago, not so long ago, was seen as just 282 00:26:45,840 --> 00:26:50,560 hypothetical. We're seeing some of that reality, whether or not that can continue. We don't know 283 00:26:50,560 --> 00:26:56,400 yet. But we've seen that we've seen technologies, the solution started to deliver with renewables. 284 00:26:56,400 --> 00:27:02,880 So I have the same faith about nuclear power and solving the problems of storage and reprocessing. 285 00:27:02,880 --> 00:27:07,680 So I actually think I'm half agreeing with you here, even from my side of the argument. 286 00:27:07,680 --> 00:27:12,160 I think we both have faith in that human development of technology. The trouble is with the nuclear 287 00:27:12,160 --> 00:27:19,280 enterprise, it's faith not action. We've had 70 years to build long term storage and the 288 00:27:19,280 --> 00:27:26,480 storage facilities. We've done one. But if you have a brief flowering of investment and research 289 00:27:26,480 --> 00:27:32,240 in a nuclear and then you coast on your laurels and do nothing for decades, you can't be surprised 290 00:27:32,240 --> 00:27:36,320 that the progress didn't continue. Well, I'm not sure we have coasted and done nothing. I mean, 291 00:27:36,320 --> 00:27:41,280 that there's the promise, the promise of small modular reactors. Well, one of the things I've 292 00:27:41,280 --> 00:27:46,000 been hearing a lot recently is people say, oh, gosh, it's this debate about nuclear. There's no 293 00:27:46,000 --> 00:27:50,800 one's listening to the engineers. No one's listening to the engineers. Well, I was reading a piece 294 00:27:50,800 --> 00:27:55,200 put out by the engineers, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 295 00:27:55,200 --> 00:27:59,920 they were looking at SMRs, small modular reactors. And they said, you can't expect that to be a 296 00:27:59,920 --> 00:28:06,160 reality in the Australian context until the late 2040s. Okay, so we are looking at another 25 years 297 00:28:06,160 --> 00:28:10,880 before we get small modular reactors that are commercially viable in the Australian context. 298 00:28:10,880 --> 00:28:20,800 I bet if you'd ask establishment outfits like the ATSE about how rapidly electric vehicles 299 00:28:20,800 --> 00:28:26,320 will become well accepted consumable products before Tesla came along, they would have given 300 00:28:26,320 --> 00:28:32,080 you the same kind of time frames. So all I'm saying is the creativity we see in a whole lot of 301 00:28:32,080 --> 00:28:38,160 fields around energy and technology undercut these kinds of analyses. That's that's what I say about 302 00:28:38,160 --> 00:28:43,600 that. This is the establishment speaking. Okay. Well, it's just they would say that based on the 303 00:28:43,600 --> 00:28:48,240 facts they have in front of them, but they've been that that's not kind of analysis. People make 304 00:28:48,240 --> 00:28:53,200 conclusions based on facts. The unfortunate thing for that kind of analysis is new facts rapidly 305 00:28:53,200 --> 00:28:58,640 overtake them. You know, I could say the same about the space industry where the legacy approaches 306 00:28:58,640 --> 00:29:04,240 NASA had became too slow, too expensive, along if you let new entrants in and you get the right 307 00:29:04,240 --> 00:29:09,280 government policies, including a healthy amount of subsidization, you can have outstanding new 308 00:29:09,280 --> 00:29:14,800 results. I do agree there and that if you want to keep doing nuclear the same old way, it's not 309 00:29:14,800 --> 00:29:18,800 going to solve our problems. So you got to look at you wouldn't need a completely new approach to 310 00:29:18,800 --> 00:29:24,000 nuclear. Unfortunately, we don't actually know what that is yet. We do. We can look at the South 311 00:29:24,000 --> 00:29:29,920 Korean and Japanese experiences. We can accept the Japanese have stopped, but they still have the 312 00:29:29,920 --> 00:29:33,840 capacity to produce these things at scale. If they're not building them for themselves, 313 00:29:33,840 --> 00:29:38,960 what a wonderful opportunity to have them help us build ours. So the other thing that we haven't 314 00:29:38,960 --> 00:29:44,160 really talked about is and what about some of the intractable problems? So you've talked about 315 00:29:44,160 --> 00:29:50,160 waste with nuclear, waste with renewables. There is no feasible remanufacturing solutions for 316 00:29:50,160 --> 00:29:55,760 batteries or use solar panels. Or you can recycle bits of them. But they're not going to sit there 317 00:29:55,760 --> 00:30:00,800 for 100,000 years. It is clearly not economic. And the way we're making these things, you know, 318 00:30:00,800 --> 00:30:05,840 let's start at the horrible exploitation at me in the Congo with a lot of those rare earths and 319 00:30:05,840 --> 00:30:11,040 other essentials. Let's talk about the silicon production in Xinjiang with the forced labour 320 00:30:11,040 --> 00:30:16,640 and oppression of the Uyghurs. So people driving around in these Chinese electric vehicles and 321 00:30:16,640 --> 00:30:21,040 sticking these rooftops over, they're feeling good about themselves. But there's a lot of human 322 00:30:21,040 --> 00:30:26,560 misery behind that in the production and the waste. Do we really think we're just going to export it 323 00:30:26,560 --> 00:30:30,880 to landfill in places like Indonesia? They're not accepting this stuff anymore. So I think there's 324 00:30:30,880 --> 00:30:36,240 some downsides. The other big one is your thing about scaling in time. Where do we get these 325 00:30:36,240 --> 00:30:43,280 renewable technologies and systems from if we want them fast? China has built a dominant market 326 00:30:43,280 --> 00:30:49,360 position. We'll be like Europe with Russian oil and gas, hugely dependent on a coercive energy 327 00:30:49,360 --> 00:30:54,960 provider. In this case, the Chinese for our renewable technologies. And don't tell me they 328 00:30:54,960 --> 00:30:59,840 wouldn't use that for ill as well as good. Well, you'll be surprised to know that this is an area 329 00:30:59,840 --> 00:31:05,440 where I do agree with you in that. So supply chain security is important. If we go back to our sort of 330 00:31:05,440 --> 00:31:12,160 day job analysis, which is security in the defence of Australia, supply chain security is very important. 331 00:31:12,160 --> 00:31:17,680 And so yes, this is an issue that we need to look at. And fortunately, fortunately, the good guys 332 00:31:17,680 --> 00:31:23,680 around the world, the free world are recognising this. And so the free world is reinvigorating the 333 00:31:23,680 --> 00:31:31,200 manufacture of wind turbines of solar panels. It is really gripping up the issue of rare earths 334 00:31:31,200 --> 00:31:36,080 and how you break the coercive dominance of the Chinese in the rare earth market. So yes, 335 00:31:36,080 --> 00:31:42,880 these are serious issues, but the good guys are looking at this and trying to break the Chinese 336 00:31:42,880 --> 00:31:47,440 monopoly. Well, it's not going to happen overnight. Well, my concern there is the same concern you've 337 00:31:47,440 --> 00:31:51,920 raised about the whole nuclear power thing, which is the speed of action is not matching the speed 338 00:31:51,920 --> 00:31:55,920 of the problem. No, but as of today, the Chinese are building lots and lots of solar panels, 339 00:31:55,920 --> 00:32:00,880 which we can buy quite affordably. And let's keep doing that. I will note the Australian 340 00:32:00,880 --> 00:32:06,160 government's Future Made in Australia program does involve solar panels. I am generally skeptical of 341 00:32:06,160 --> 00:32:10,880 essentially picking winners and direct subsidies in the commercial space remains to be seen how 342 00:32:10,880 --> 00:32:14,880 that's going to go. I think that Future Made in Australia initiative is based on the butterfly 343 00:32:14,880 --> 00:32:20,240 effect. For butterfly in Mongolia flaps its wings, it changes the weather in Latin America. 344 00:32:20,240 --> 00:32:24,480 I thought it was Brazil. But the reason I think that is it's such a tiny initiative, 345 00:32:24,480 --> 00:32:30,560 like that idea of producing some solar panels for a tiny, tiny investment compared to the 346 00:32:30,560 --> 00:32:35,520 scale of investment required. I just I think that is a marketing brand, not a program. 347 00:32:35,520 --> 00:32:39,200 Yes, I think you are right to be skeptical there. But I'll get back to this other point 348 00:32:39,200 --> 00:32:44,960 with that we made earlier and that renewable scale really quickly. And so you have a lot more 349 00:32:44,960 --> 00:32:49,920 potential to do it faster. Now, yes, you may want to break the Chinese, your reliance on Chinese 350 00:32:49,920 --> 00:32:54,480 production. The whole world wants to break its reliance on Chinese production. But renewable 351 00:32:54,480 --> 00:33:00,880 scale really I think that supply chain issue will really slow the renewables rate of scaling. 352 00:33:00,880 --> 00:33:07,200 But I think it will never be as slow as nuclear. I think that reliance on Chinese sourcing has to 353 00:33:07,200 --> 00:33:13,360 be broken because that's a strategic and reliability issue. And we've just seen the problem of dependence 354 00:33:13,360 --> 00:33:19,840 on single suppliers with the mass outage of global internet, not Chinese internet with Microsoft and 355 00:33:19,840 --> 00:33:26,400 and cloud strikes. So economic dependence over economic dependence on a supplier based in China 356 00:33:26,400 --> 00:33:31,520 is all bad news that will undercut renewable rollout for a while. So we're pretty much out of time. 357 00:33:31,520 --> 00:33:36,240 The other interesting thing this would be a whole different podcast, I think is whether or not 358 00:33:36,240 --> 00:33:41,680 nuclear power has a potential role in Australia's energy mix and whether or not renewables are 359 00:33:41,680 --> 00:33:48,960 the main answer. These are probably bridges to a future energy solution because of some of these 360 00:33:48,960 --> 00:33:56,720 just intractable issues around scaling and waste and cost with nuclear fusion, clean nuclear energy, 361 00:33:56,720 --> 00:34:02,000 hopefully being humanity's sustainable future. Now that would have sounded, that probably still 362 00:34:02,000 --> 00:34:07,360 sounds crazy to people, but I think to get hung up solely on the kind of energy solutions we have 363 00:34:07,360 --> 00:34:13,280 now and not think about the future of humanity under an even cleaner future would be a mistake. 364 00:34:13,280 --> 00:34:18,400 Well fusion is the unicorn and if it rides in to save us, great. 365 00:34:18,400 --> 00:34:24,240 Well, it's a unicorn that powers the sun. So it's the problem is like most unicorns, it exists. 366 00:34:25,280 --> 00:34:30,960 It exists in the sun back here in the real world, Michael, it doesn't exist and it may well happen. 367 00:34:30,960 --> 00:34:36,320 And that would be terrific. It would be fantastic. But I don't think we can really base our planning 368 00:34:36,320 --> 00:34:42,160 around fusion showing up at a certain point. I agree. I think for the foreseeable future, 369 00:34:42,160 --> 00:34:48,960 and this is 2050, 2060, the solutions we have are the ones we have to scale and use and it's 370 00:34:48,960 --> 00:34:54,080 about the mix. And the issue around those time frames, if you think fusion is going to be here 371 00:34:54,080 --> 00:34:59,600 around 2050, that's about the time you're starting to get a return on your investment in fission in 372 00:34:59,600 --> 00:35:05,440 traditional nuclear. Well, and I would end my part of this debate by saying an energy system 373 00:35:05,440 --> 00:35:11,840 is best having an energy mix and the right time to start long-term initiatives is yesterday, 374 00:35:11,840 --> 00:35:17,360 not today. And some of those investments are going to be in things that you turn out not to need. 375 00:35:17,360 --> 00:35:21,680 But if we could perfectly predict the future, we'd make a whole lot of better choices. 376 00:35:22,320 --> 00:35:27,040 So we have to live in the world we're in. And on that point, I'll just go back to 377 00:35:27,040 --> 00:35:30,960 these engineers. What do they know? So the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences 378 00:35:30,960 --> 00:35:36,480 and Engineering, who I would say they are in and they are self-declared in the energy agnostic 379 00:35:36,480 --> 00:35:40,880 camp. So they're happy to look at any solution as long as it's viable and they don't want to rule 380 00:35:40,880 --> 00:35:46,640 any solutions out. I'll just read their conclusion. In Australia, renewable technologies such as solar 381 00:35:46,640 --> 00:35:51,600 and wind are proven and mature with widespread deployment underway, large-scale nuclear will 382 00:35:51,600 --> 00:35:57,920 be outcompeted by renewables in the current time frame and does not appear a viable economic option 383 00:35:57,920 --> 00:36:02,720 in the short to medium term. So they leave open the longer term. Importantly, focusing on nuclear 384 00:36:02,720 --> 00:36:07,920 power now could distract from the transition away from fossil fuels, send mixed signals to industry 385 00:36:07,920 --> 00:36:13,760 and hamper efforts to deploy renewable technologies at pace. While nuclear technology may eventually 386 00:36:13,760 --> 00:36:19,120 have a role in Australia, Australia's present critical technology mix focuses on renewable 387 00:36:19,120 --> 00:36:24,560 technologies, particularly wind, solar, pumped hydro and battery storage areas where Australia has 388 00:36:24,560 --> 00:36:29,840 a technological geographic and mineral advantage. I don't think I can put it any better than that, 389 00:36:29,840 --> 00:36:34,880 which is yes, there may be a role at some point for nuclear, but don't let it be a distraction 390 00:36:34,880 --> 00:36:41,200 from the absolutely vital transition to renewables. And I'll end by saying I think this has been a 391 00:36:41,200 --> 00:36:46,240 civil nuclear debate and I think the best thing for the country is to have more of that kind of 392 00:36:46,240 --> 00:37:06,480 public discussion. I hope the podcast has helped. Thanks very much. Thank you, Michael.