Perplexity AI's: Can Small Modular Reactors Replace Coal?

[Sparty]

I asked Perplexity AI: Nuclear Energy in Australia: Can Small Modular Reactors Replace Coal?

The proposal to replace Australia's retiring coal-fired power stations with small modular reactors (SMRs) including designs similar to those used in nuclear submarines , has sparked intense debate. While proponents argue nuclear could provide reliable, zero-emission baseload power, independent analyses highlight significant technical, economic, and social challenges. Here's a comprehensive breakdown of the key issues.

Technical Feasibility
Reactor Output vs. Coal Plants
Most Australian coal units produce 150-750 MW of electricity. Modern SMRs like NuScale's VOYGR (77 MW per module) or Rolls-Royce's 470 MW design could theoretically match this scale through modular deployment. However, submarine-derived SMRs (50-66 MWe) are far smaller than even the smallest coal units.

Grid Compatibility
SMRs could reuse existing coal plant infrastructure (transmission lines, cooling systems), but naval reactors are optimized for propulsion, not grid stability. Their thermal-to-electrical efficiency (~33%) is lower than modern coal plants (35-40%), requiring more reactors to replace the same capacity.

Economic Considerations
Cost Comparisons
According to the CSIRO GenCost 2024-25 report (https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/New...Cost-2024-25):

SMRs: $230- $382 per MWh (levelized cost of electricity)

Solar: $22 - $53 per MWh

Wind: $45 - $78 per MWh

Firmed renewables (solar/wind + storage): $80-$122 per MWh

The Coalition's claim that SMRs could deliver power at $80/MWh relies on unrealistic assumptions about construction costs ($10,000/kW vs. international averages of $20,000-$30,000/kW) and ignores first-of-a-kind penalties in a country with no nuclear industry.

Timeline Challenges
Coal retirements: 12 GW of coal capacity will retire by 2040.

SMR deployment: CSIRO and AEMO estimate no operational SMRs before 2040 due to regulatory, supply chain, and social license hurdles.

Social License and Community Consent
The 2019 Parliamentary Report (https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/02_Pa...ull_Report.pdf) stressed that nuclear energy should only proceed with the prior informed consent of impacted communities. However, the Coalition's policy:

Proposes seven sites (Tarong, Callide, Liddell, etc.) without consulting local residents.

Does not grant communities veto power, with Nationals leader David Littleproud stating nuclear is a "national interest" priority (https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-...r-site-owners/).

State governments in Queensland, Victoria, and NSW oppose the plan, citing risks to energy affordability and reliability.

Policy and Expertise Gaps
Regulatory Void
Australia lacks a nuclear energy framework, including:

Waste disposal protocols

Reactor licensing processes

Radiation safety standards

All states except New South Wales ban nuclear power, requiring legislative changes unlikely without bipartisan support.

Expertise Shortfalls
No nuclear engineers or project managers are publicly advising the Coalition's policy. Shadow Energy Minister Ted O'Brien has no technical nuclear background, and the policy lacks detailed costings or vendor selections.

Alternatives: Renewables + Storage
The AEMO Integrated System Plan (https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-system...ystem-plan-isp) identifies renewables as the fastest, cheapest path to replace coal:

Solar and wind are already being deployed at scale.

Battery and pumped hydro storage provide grid stability.

Transmission upgrades (e.g., Renewable Energy Zones) reduce curtailment.

For example, the former Hazelwood coal site in Victoria now hosts a 150 MW battery (https://reneweconomy.com.au/hazelwoo...-key-approval/), while the Illawarra coal region is transitioning to green hydrogen and steel (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-...ture/103831772).

Conclusion
While SMRs could theoretically replace coal plants, Australia's lack of nuclear regulation, high renewable competitiveness, and late start make this a high-risk, high-cost pathway. Independent modelling by CSIRO and AEMO shows that renewables with storage are:

2 - 7 times cheaper than SMRs

Already deployable at scale

Socially acceptable compared to untested nuclear technology

For Australia, the evidence overwhelmingly supports renewables as the pragmatic choice for replacing coal, ensuring affordable, reliable, and low-emission energy. Nuclear may play a niche role post-2040, but it cannot address the urgent need to decarbonise the grid this decade.

Key Resources:

CSIRO GenCost Report: https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/New...enCost-2024-25

AEMO Integrated System Plan: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-system...ystem-plan-isp

2019 Parliamentary Nuclear Inquiry: https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/02_Pa...ull_Report.pdf

RenewEconomy Analysis: https://reneweconomy.com.au/duttons-...ained-in-full/

[Sparty]

The LNP's Access to Nuclear Experts and Rejection of CSIRO/AEMO Advice

Lack of Nuclear Expertise in Policy Development
The Liberal National Party (LNP) has not publicly named any nuclear energy experts advising its policy. Key figures driving the policy: Peter Dutton and Shadow Energy Minister Ted O'Brien have no technical background in nuclear science or engineering. Their plan relies on:

Political rhetoric: Framing nuclear as a "common sense" solution to energy affordability and climate change, despite lacking detailed technical analysis.

Thinktank endorsements: Citing non-specialists like Aidan Morrison (Centre for Independent Studies), who acknowledges nuclear's high costs but argues for economies of scale through mass deployment : a strategy untested in Australia's context.

Industry rejection: Major energy companies like AGL and Rio Tinto have dismissed nuclear as too expensive and incompatible with their decarbonisation plans (RenewEconomy).

2. Dismissal of CSIRO and AEMO Evidence
The LNP has repeatedly rejected findings from Australia's leading scientific and energy institutions:

CSIRO's GenCost Report (https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/New...Cost-2024-25): Estimates nuclear costs at $230 -$382/MWh, far higher than renewables ($22-$78/MWh). The report notes nuclear's long lead times (no deployment before 2040) and lack of cost advantages over renewables.

AEMO's Integrated System Plan (https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-system...tem-plan-isp): Excludes nuclear due to legislative bans and economic unviability, instead prioritizing renewables, storage, and transmission.

Despite this, the LNP:

Accused CSIRO of "political interference" and dismissed its modelling as biased
https://region.com.au/dutton-accuses...stings/833328/
https://www.innovationaus.com/nuclea...iro-modelling/

Claimed its own cost estimates ($80/MWh) are credible without providing transparent modelling or peer-reviewed evidence.

3. Internal and External Criticism
Queensland LNP: State energy spokesman Sam O'Connor rejected nuclear, stating costs "don't stack up" compared to renewables (RenewEconomy).

Parliamentary Inquiry (https://southburnett.com.au/news2/20...e-committee/): A bipartisan committee found nuclear "not viable" due to low social license, regulatory gaps, and high costs. Coalition members dissented but provided no counter-evidence from nuclear experts.

Senate Submission (https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore...subId=769269): Highlighted the LNP's nuclear push as a "stalling tactic" to delay renewables, driven by political optics rather than technical merit.

4. Global Context
SMR Failures: NuScale's U.S. project cancellation (costs tripled to $9.3B) and delays in Canada/Europe underscore the risks of unproven technology.

Renewables Dominance: The International Energy Agency confirms renewables are the cheapest and fastest path to decarbonisation, with global nuclear capacity stagnating.

Conclusion
The LNP's nuclear policy lacks credible technical leadership, relies on contested assumptions, and dismisses independent evidence from CSIRO and AEMO. Its rejection of expert advice aligns with a broader strategy to politicize the energy transition, prioritizing ideological opposition to renewables over cost-effective, evidence-based solutions. Without nuclear expertise or industry support, the policy risks locking Australia into higher energy prices and delayed climate action.

[Sparty]

How does the LNP's nuclear energy plan align with international best practices

The Liberal National Party (LNP's) nuclear energy proposal deviates significantly from international best practices for introducing nuclear power, as outlined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other global bodies. Here's a detailed analysis of the misalignments:

1. Lack of Phased Regulatory and Infrastructure Development
The IAEA Milestones Approach (https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore...4&subId=670089) mandates a 10-15-year roadmap for nuclear readiness, including:

Legislative frameworks for safety, security, and safeguards.

Independent regulator establishment.

Community consent processes.

The LNP's plan skips these prerequisites, proposing reactors by 2035-37 despite Australia having:

No nuclear regulator.

No waste disposal plan.

No resolution of state nuclear bans.

2. Ignoring the "3S" Framework (Safety, Security, Safeguards)
The IAEA's 3S concept requires integrated legislation addressing:

Safety: Robust accident prevention and emergency response.

Security: Protection against sabotage or theft.

Safeguards: Compliance with non-proliferation treaties.

The LNP has not detailed how it will address these, particularly safeguards for highly enriched uranium (HEU) used in submarine-style SMRs.

3. Social License and Community Consent
The 2019 Parliamentary Report (https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/02_Pa...ull_Report.pdf) emphasized prior informed consent for host communities.

However, the LNP:

Nominated seven sites (e.g., Tarong, Loy Yang) without consulting locals.

Rejected community veto power, framing nuclear as a "national interest" priority (https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-...r-site-owners/).

This conflicts with successful models like the UAE, which spent years securing local support before breaking ground.

4. Cost and Timeline Optimism
International projects face severe delays and cost overruns:

Hinkley Point C (UK): Costs ballooned to AUD$88 billion.

NuScale (U.S.): Cancelled due to tripling costs.

The LNP claims reactors will cost $10,000/kW and operate by 2037, but:

CSIRO estimates realistic costs at $20,000 - $30,000/kW (https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/art...lear-explainer).

AEMO rules out nuclear before 2040 due to infrastructure gaps (https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-system...ystem-plan-isp).

5. Dismissal of Independent Analysis
The LNP rejects evidence from CSIRO and AEMO showing renewables are 2-7 times cheaper than nuclear. This contradicts IAEA guidance to use tools like the INPRO Methodology (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...m_Planning.pdf) for transparent, evidence-based planning.

6. Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Gaps
The plan does not address:

HEU proliferation risks: Submarine reactors use weapons-grade fuel.

Waste disposal: No long-term storage solution exists in Australia.

By contrast, Sweden's deep geological repository (https://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/techroa...2015-annex.pdf) took decades of research and community engagement.

7. Workforce and Supply Chain Readiness
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (https://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/techroa...2015-annex.pdf) stresses the need for skilled labor and local supply chains. Australia has:

No nuclear engineering programs.

No domestic reactor manufacturing capacity.

Conclusion
The LNP's nuclear plan fails to align with international best practices on regulatory rigor, community engagement, cost transparency, and integration with renewables. Without adopting IAEA milestones, addressing 3S requirements, or heeding CSIRO/AEMO evidence, the proposal risks exacerbating energy costs, delays, and social discord. For Australia, renewables remain the low-risk, low-cost pathway to replace coal, as validated by global energy transitions.

Key Resources:

IAEA Milestones Approach: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore...4&subId=670089

CSIRO GenCost Report: https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/art...lear-explainer

OECD Case Studies: https://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/techroa...2015-annex.pdf