The Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering have today made a few comments regarding small modular nuclear reactors SMRs as they're identified as around the world. They're a new form of nuclear energy and largely still in prototype stage being developed. The Academy, the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering saying be a bit risky for Australia to take them on right at the moment. The best option would be to wait maybe a decade or two and see how they operate around the world, and then we either jump in or we don't, depending on what technical issues they may or may not have. From the Academy, Doctor Catherine Woodthorpe is the president and joins me now. Catherine, good morning, Thank you for coming on.

The Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering have today made a few comments regarding small modular nuclear reactors SMRs as they're identified as around the world. They're a new form of nuclear energy and largely still in prototype stage being developed. The Academy, the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering saying be a bit risky for Australia to take them on right at the moment. The best option would be to wait maybe a decade or two and see how they operate around the world, and then we either jump in or we don't, depending on what technical issues they may or may not have. From the Academy, Doctor Catherine Woodthorpe is the president and joins me now. Catherine, good morning, Thank you for coming on.

Thanks Matthew, good morning.

Thanks Matthew, good morning.

So small modular nuclear reactors a little way off, you reckon.

So small modular nuclear reactors a little way off, you reckon.

Yes, there's actually a number of them in development, but there are none that are commercially available, and there are none that will be that have a date attached to that availability. So it's quite a long way off yet before we'll actually see them installed anywhere in the OECD.

Yes, there's actually a number of them in development, but there are none that are commercially available, and there are none that will be that have a date attached to that availability. So it's quite a long way off yet before we'll actually see them installed anywhere in the OECD.

What are we talking a decade more?

What are we talking a decade more?

A decade to see them potentially installed in parts of the OECD, depending on licensing issues and so forth, which are still unknown. It's just too many unknowns to really pin it down, but we can definitely say it won't be in less than a decade.

A decade to see them potentially installed in parts of the OECD, depending on licensing issues and so forth, which are still unknown. It's just too many unknowns to really pin it down, but we can definitely say it won't be in less than a decade.

Okay, So when we say small modular nuclear reactor, what's the difference between that and conventional if you like power plant whatever? That might be.

Okay, So when we say small modular nuclear reactor, what's the difference between that and conventional if you like power plant whatever? That might be.

Two things. One is size and the other is sort of bespokeness. So when we build nuclear plants around the world today, they're one off, major infra structure constructions on the spot to the needs of whatever's been specified. Whereas the SMRs are supposed to be and as I say that, there's none available yet, so this is kind of supposition still. But they anticipate that they will be something that are built in bits in a factory and assembled somewhere else, so it'll be a different style of construction and they will be that much smaller.

Two things. One is size and the other is sort of bespokeness. So when we build nuclear plants around the world today, they're one off, major infra structure constructions on the spot to the needs of whatever's been specified. Whereas the SMRs are supposed to be and as I say that, there's none available yet, so this is kind of supposition still. But they anticipate that they will be something that are built in bits in a factory and assembled somewhere else, so it'll be a different style of construction and they will be that much smaller.

Okay, so what can it power? Then? What does a small modular nuclear react to? Ment to power it a town, a suburb, a city, of building.

Okay, so what can it power? Then? What does a small modular nuclear react to? Ment to power it a town, a suburb, a city, of building.

They're more likely to be used for industry in particular, So for example, they've been considered for a future in large industrial complexes where they'll provide not only electricity but heat, and the process heat they provide is probably one of the most things that they are likely to provide in the future. But as I keep saying, we don't actually know because none of them are in production yet. But one day we'll get to know.

They're more likely to be used for industry in particular, So for example, they've been considered for a future in large industrial complexes where they'll provide not only electricity but heat, and the process heat they provide is probably one of the most things that they are likely to provide in the future. But as I keep saying, we don't actually know because none of them are in production yet. But one day we'll get to know.

Yeah, yeah, Yet we can power a submarine, for instance, with a small nuclear I'll call it a device, an engine, call it what you will, but it can do that. Isn't that a modular reactor.

Yeah, yeah, Yet we can power a submarine, for instance, with a small nuclear I'll call it a device, an engine, call it what you will, but it can do that. Isn't that a modular reactor.

In a sense, it is, but they've never been used in a civilian and be on land around the general public. So again, it's something that potentially people could look at developing into the sort of thing that we could use for powering industry. But there is nobody in the world that's doing that at the moment, and it's up to the companies that make these things to do that development.

In a sense, it is, but they've never been used in a civilian and be on land around the general public. So again, it's something that potentially people could look at developing into the sort of thing that we could use for powering industry. But there is nobody in the world that's doing that at the moment, and it's up to the companies that make these things to do that development.

Yeah, no doubt about that. But it seems to be a no brainer. If you can use it to power up a sub you can use it to power up a factory. Surely, just the same thing. It just doesn't go on something floating or moving through the water.

Yeah, no doubt about that. But it seems to be a no brainer. If you can use it to power up a sub you can use it to power up a factory. Surely, just the same thing. It just doesn't go on something floating or moving through the water.

Again, potentially. I don't know what the differences would be in terms of things like cooling, in terms of the waste management and so forth. There are so many issues around trying to transform a bit of technology that's really custom built or purpose built to drive submarines in that case, to turning it into something completely different to power a factory. So there would be an enormous number of steps to do that as well, and often as not, the sort of technologies you find in major pieces of defense equipment actually have a whole load of intellectual property caveats around them, and it would probably be very unlikely that those would ever be released enough to make it a civilian product.

Again, potentially. I don't know what the differences would be in terms of things like cooling, in terms of the waste management and so forth. There are so many issues around trying to transform a bit of technology that's really custom built or purpose built to drive submarines in that case, to turning it into something completely different to power a factory. So there would be an enormous number of steps to do that as well, and often as not, the sort of technologies you find in major pieces of defense equipment actually have a whole load of intellectual property caveats around them, and it would probably be very unlikely that those would ever be released enough to make it a civilian product.

We've had to call off there. While we've been chatting Catherine. Somebody wanting to know a nuclear power plant. I don't know if there's any stats on this at all, but how many wind turbines would it replace or what's at worth? It will depend on its size and capabilities, But any idea on any of that A comparison type thing.

We've had to call off there. While we've been chatting Catherine. Somebody wanting to know a nuclear power plant. I don't know if there's any stats on this at all, but how many wind turbines would it replace or what's at worth? It will depend on its size and capabilities, But any idea on any of that A comparison type thing.

Oh no, I'm sorry, I couldn't wonder how long is a piece of strength. These actual reactors range in size enormously, and so the wind turbines so you know, the wind turbines today are so much larger than those that we've been used to from a decade ago. They're just absolutely massive and absolutely driving huge amounts of electricity, and they're what we need to get into the grid. This whole discussion around SMRs, for me, the solution we need today. We need a solution today to face the problem that we have today, which is to decarbonize our grid. And to do that, we have technologies that are available. We know how to firm them up to make them dispatchable and reliable, So we should just be getting on with that. Otherwise the longer we leave it, the sharper the transition will have to be. The earlier we do the transition, and we're well underway already. But the sooner we carry on with that and upgrade that and augment that, the longer we can take over the transition. But the longer we leave it to start, then we just have to do it all in a horrible hurry. So we're doing the right thing. We need to do a bit more of it. But the solution for the problem we face today is to get more renewables into the.

Oh no, I'm sorry, I couldn't wonder how long is a piece of strength. These actual reactors range in size enormously, and so the wind turbines so you know, the wind turbines today are so much larger than those that we've been used to from a decade ago. They're just absolutely massive and absolutely driving huge amounts of electricity, and they're what we need to get into the grid. This whole discussion around SMRs, for me, the solution we need today. We need a solution today to face the problem that we have today, which is to decarbonize our grid. And to do that, we have technologies that are available. We know how to firm them up to make them dispatchable and reliable, So we should just be getting on with that. Otherwise the longer we leave it, the sharper the transition will have to be. The earlier we do the transition, and we're well underway already. But the sooner we carry on with that and upgrade that and augment that, the longer we can take over the transition. But the longer we leave it to start, then we just have to do it all in a horrible hurry. So we're doing the right thing. We need to do a bit more of it. But the solution for the problem we face today is to get more renewables into the.

Green Why is it renewables and not nuclear. I mean put aside SMRs, why not build conventional as I think the opposition wants to do. In fact, just before you came on here in s eighteen past ten at the moment, and our ten o'clock news had this from Matt Canavan, a National Senator speaking on today Today. I'll just play this. That's not our plan. Our plan is not to rely on small moder reactors. We can build a pressurized water reactor just like exists in France, just like our being built in over twenty countries in the world. We could do that today. So why don't we do that today? Why renewables? Why not a nuclear power plant or seven of them? Is the opposition suggesting.

Green Why is it renewables and not nuclear. I mean put aside SMRs, why not build conventional as I think the opposition wants to do. In fact, just before you came on here in s eighteen past ten at the moment, and our ten o'clock news had this from Matt Canavan, a National Senator speaking on today Today. I'll just play this. That's not our plan. Our plan is not to rely on small moder reactors. We can build a pressurized water reactor just like exists in France, just like our being built in over twenty countries in the world. We could do that today. So why don't we do that today? Why renewables? Why not a nuclear power plant or seven of them? Is the opposition suggesting.

It's this sense of what is today. So, for example, I've been to Hinkley in the UK. They're currently building a power plant, to major nuclear power plant. They have many in the UK. They're very experienced at it. Mister Canavan mentioned France, but you know France, the UK, Germany, the US, they've been doing this for a long time. So Hinkley is so far taken something of the order of about fifteen years, and it's not anticipated that it will be actually online until twenty thirty, probably twenty thirty one. In reality, it will have taken twenty to twenty one years to build, and that's in a country that knows how to do this. In addition, it's cost two point eight times what the original budget was, So when he says today today actually means in twenty five years time, and we can't wait that long. I don't have any issue with the technology and nuclear reactors. It's just that that's not the solution for the problem we face today because time is of the essence to solve the carbon problem in our atmosphere.

It's this sense of what is today. So, for example, I've been to Hinkley in the UK. They're currently building a power plant, to major nuclear power plant. They have many in the UK. They're very experienced at it. Mister Canavan mentioned France, but you know France, the UK, Germany, the US, they've been doing this for a long time. So Hinkley is so far taken something of the order of about fifteen years, and it's not anticipated that it will be actually online until twenty thirty, probably twenty thirty one. In reality, it will have taken twenty to twenty one years to build, and that's in a country that knows how to do this. In addition, it's cost two point eight times what the original budget was, So when he says today today actually means in twenty five years time, and we can't wait that long. I don't have any issue with the technology and nuclear reactors. It's just that that's not the solution for the problem we face today because time is of the essence to solve the carbon problem in our atmosphere.

All right, So it's all about time, not so much that the technology. And you're right, I mean, we have embarked down the renewable path, particularly here in South Australia.

All right, So it's all about time, not so much that the technology. And you're right, I mean, we have embarked down the renewable path, particularly here in South Australia.

South Australia has been a great leader, so keep going. And it's dollars as well. You know, the gen cost that CSIRO did show that the cost of nuclear the Hinkley B Hinkley c rather, which is now as I've said, two point eight times more expensive in today's dollars, will have cost them ninety eight billion Australian dollars. The private marketplace will not invest in that. They don't look for eighty year returns, so it would be the government having to find ninety odd billion dollars to build a nuclear reactor in today's dollars.

South Australia has been a great leader, so keep going. And it's dollars as well. You know, the gen cost that CSIRO did show that the cost of nuclear the Hinkley B Hinkley c rather, which is now as I've said, two point eight times more expensive in today's dollars, will have cost them ninety eight billion Australian dollars. The private marketplace will not invest in that. They don't look for eighty year returns, so it would be the government having to find ninety odd billion dollars to build a nuclear reactor in today's dollars.

Well, you know what our power line owner here in South Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong Company rather has a ninety nine investments, so I do think they look further ahead. You know, they bought our poles and wires back in two thousand for how of many billion, four or five billion dollars and that's a ninety nine year deal, so they're happy to wait and then get the profits over that period.

Well, you know what our power line owner here in South Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong Company rather has a ninety nine investments, so I do think they look further ahead. You know, they bought our poles and wires back in two thousand for how of many billion, four or five billion dollars and that's a ninety nine year deal, so they're happy to wait and then get the profits over that period.

The Finland chappointment, none of them is there nested in nuclear power.

The Finland chappointment, none of them is there nested in nuclear power.

The Finland experience is interesting where similar to Hinckley, it's come in over time and over budget, no doubt about that, but it has overnight havel their energy bills because suddenly they've got reliable, full on base load power and that's what we're all looking for. Yeah.

The Finland experience is interesting where similar to Hinckley, it's come in over time and over budget, no doubt about that, but it has overnight havel their energy bills because suddenly they've got reliable, full on base load power and that's what we're all looking for. Yeah.

One thing that Finland's done very differently is the way they've gone about their social license. So they have worked with their communities from the beginning in order to get the social license to build those nuclear power plants. And also remember that Europe is very used to this. We currently have laws both at the federal and state level, certainly in the East Coast States, the precluders from doing it. So the first thing we have to do is overturn that federal law, which means that we need probably a government that has the majority in both houses of our parliament. We haven't yet found where we can put our low to medium grade medical waste producing medical radio pharmaceuticals for example. We haven't even got somewhere to put those yet. We've not yet dealt with the orchis waste that we'll be coming. So the social license issues are still absolutely monumental for Australia.

One thing that Finland's done very differently is the way they've gone about their social license. So they have worked with their communities from the beginning in order to get the social license to build those nuclear power plants. And also remember that Europe is very used to this. We currently have laws both at the federal and state level, certainly in the East Coast States, the precluders from doing it. So the first thing we have to do is overturn that federal law, which means that we need probably a government that has the majority in both houses of our parliament. We haven't yet found where we can put our low to medium grade medical waste producing medical radio pharmaceuticals for example. We haven't even got somewhere to put those yet. We've not yet dealt with the orchis waste that we'll be coming. So the social license issues are still absolutely monumental for Australia.

Well, we have found a place, it was Kimber, but then of course court challenges overturn that, so that's the issue. So we still haven't. You're right at the end of the day. But anyway, all right, at the end of the day, we haven't. Yeah, yeah, okay, thank you for your time this morning. Catherine appreciates that you're talking to you, matth You thank you. Doctor Catherine Woodthorpe, who is President Australian Academy of Technological Science, that says no issue. She says with the argument about nuclear just the time got to get on with it and were well advanced with renewables, which is certainly true, but baseload. Baseload is what we want.

Well, we have found a place, it was Kimber, but then of course court challenges overturn that, so that's the issue. So we still haven't. You're right at the end of the day. But anyway, all right, at the end of the day, we haven't. Yeah, yeah, okay, thank you for your time this morning. Catherine appreciates that you're talking to you, matth You thank you. Doctor Catherine Woodthorpe, who is President Australian Academy of Technological Science, that says no issue. She says with the argument about nuclear just the time got to get on with it and were well advanced with renewables, which is certainly true, but baseload. Baseload is what we want.