Nuclear plants could use three times more water than current coal plants


Feb 13 2025
ABC News.


In short:   
Analysis of the Coalition's nuclear modelling suggests the plants could use three times as much water as existing coal sites.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has challenged the Coalition to explain how water would be supplied to the plants.

What's next?
The Coalition's plan to establish a nuclear industry in Australia will be tested at the federal election.


The Coalition’s promised nuclear power plants could consume as much as three times more water than existing coal sites, posing a question of where that water would come from.   

The Coalition has promised to begin work from "day one" to build seven nuclear power plants across regional Australia if they win the coming federal election.

It comes as the Australian National University found nuclear power consumes about 1.4 times more water than coal to produce the same amount of electricity, and that they consume more water than any other power source aside from hydropower.

If the proposed nuclear plants were to produce as much energy as the aging coal plants they are expected to replace, it would require 235,000 megalitres of water annually, about 67,000ML above current consumption at the seven coal sites.   

What can we learn from the Coalition's nuclear modelling?
Photo shows Early morning sun shining through steam clouds billowing from a nuclear power plant and transmissions lines.  Early morning sun shining through steam clouds billowing from a nuclear power plant and transmissions lines.
After months of speculation, the Coalition has released the projected costs for its nuclear policy. We spoke to energy experts about what we can and can't take from the modelling, and what it means for you.

And if those sites were to produce the full 104,000 GWhs by 2050 as modelled by Frontier Economics, which is the foundation of the Coalition's policy, it would require more than 500,000 megalitres of water annually — about three times what is currently used.

"Australia is the driest inhabited continent in the world – and due to climate change it’s only going to get drier. Water is our most precious resource – but Peter Dutton wants to spend $600 billion in taxpayer money on one of the most water intensive energies, nuclear," Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said.   

"Peter Dutton needs to find a Sydney Harbour-sized reservoir of water every year to keep his nuclear reactors stable and running."

Coalition asserts water allocations wouldn't be exceeded
The Coalition disputes its proposed nuclear plants would consumer more water than has been allocated.

Littleproud sits on the lower house frontbench.
The Coalition has said it would be direct with the public about plans to establish an Australian nuclear industry.

In August last year, Nationals leader David Littleproud assured that the capacity of the Coalition's proposed nuclear plants would be "limited" by current water allocations.

"The capacity of those plants, let me give you confidence, will be limited by the extent of which the existing water licences that those coal fired power stations currently exist," Mr Littleproud told a regional summit last year.

That assurance also raises a challenge for proposed nuclear plants at Collie in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia, where the government says there are no existing licences for the coal plants there.

Researchers at the University of New South Wales Nuclear Innovation Centre have previously told the ABC they believe there is enough water at the proposed seven sites to supply nuclear reactors.


Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek questioned where the opposition intended to draw water from to supply its proposed nuclear power plants.

Environment and Water Minister Tanya Plibersek said the Coalition must explain how the proposed plants would be supplied.

"Where will the water come from and who will pay for it? Will farmers foot the bill? Or are they going to leave communities without a reliable drinking water supply? What happens during drought?" Ms Plibersek said.

"It’s too slow, too expensive, puts up bills – and will put people's access to water at risk."   

The opposition maintains their nuclear plants — the first of which it says would come online from 2035 or 2037 depending on the type built — will ultimately prove cheaper than a renewables transition using mostly wind and solar power.

My first thought when considering Liddell in the Hunter Valley was ' they're gonna need a bigger moat' .... Vales Point is on Lake Mac - not a safe position for a nuke...

Water?

It's possible that Dutton hasn't thought this out very well.   

Just another scaremongering lie from Labor trying to get people to oppose nuclear power. The factual truth is that nuclear power plants use no more water than coal.

Leroy wrote on Feb 15^th, 2025 at 3:07pm:


So you think chemists know nothing.

lee wrote on Feb 15^th, 2025 at 4:34pm:


I don't recall saying that Lee, but mechanically and electrically I have had to guide engineers on how to solve problems when their drawings work on paper but not in the field.

Leroy wrote on Feb 15^th, 2025 at 4:46pm:


I'll expand on that a bit more Lee, chemists are highly skilled workers and come up with brilliant ideas and plans that do work.
But there is also the application of that plan, at those temperatures and pressures it needs pumps that are reliable and able to withstand extremes. The chemist comes up with the idea but its up to many more people and designs for it to work. The chemist is not concerned about the type of seals and maintenance required on the motive of the product, they leave that to others. Taking nothing from the chemist but you also need other skills to actually implement these ideas.

lee wrote on Feb 15^th, 2025 at 5:31pm:


You misunderstand what I said, I didn't mock the idea or attack the validity of it. It was shelved 70 years ago so there won't be any failures. There is a reason they preferred to have water over salt. Reliability is paramount to power stations and water cooling presents less complexity to your systems. Its a simple pump and water reservoir with coolers, less likely to have complications and is a proven reliable system. Salt mat be cheaper of use less water but it introduces more intricate systems that carry risks not associated with water cooling. Salt requires higher pressures, salt is corrosive so there will need to be another system to counter this. Maintenance will be much higher on the system due to the temperatures and pressures. Something as simple as lubrication will be much more complex on high press and temp systems. You can still use these systems but it will come with more risks. Thats all I wanted to say.