Nuclear misinformation in Australia is Hail Mary policy by the Opposition
The Fifth Estate, DARRIN DURANT, Dr Darrin Durant is Senior Lecturer in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Melbourne.17 JUNE 2024
Having promised a nuclear power policy for several years, the Australian Liberal-National Party finally announced one: no reactors before 2040 and approving new gas and coal projects instead. At the same time, it is abandoning the emissions reduction target for 2030 (a 43 per cent cut compared with 2005 levels) and refusing to commit to details about nuclear projects until after the May 2025 election.
This is a Nuclear Hail Mary Policy: reduce emissions aspirations and hope a final play two decades from now will work out.
Most commentary has focused on what this nuclear Hail Mary implies for Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. Some suggest the LNP plans to “rip up” the agreement. Others that the LNP plans to “breach the text and spirit” of the agreement.
Closest to the mark, I suggest, is that LNP is internally fractured and confused about both what its nuclear and emissions policy should be and how it should conduct itself regarding international agreements.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s climate backtracking on Saturday, 8 May 2024, pushed from the news cycle a clear marker of the LNP’s policy vacuum on nuclear power, climate emissions and international. On 7 June, the LNP engaged in disinformation about regional cooperation on decarbonization.
The occasion for the LNP’s disinformation campaign was the signing by the Albanese Labor government of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) Clean Economy Agreement. The IPEF was signed by Australia and 13 other nations on 6 June 2024.
Ted O’Brien MP (Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy in the LNP) claimed the ALP signing of the IPEF “exposes rank hypocrisy”, demonstrates a “lack of integrity”, and amounts to “treating Australians like mugs”.
None of the claims by O’Brien and the LNP are true. It is the LNP nuclear disinformation campaign that displays hypocrisy and duplicity and treats Australians like mugs.
The IPEF Clean Economy Agreement
The IPEF agreement aims to build regional economic cooperation across four pillars: trade, supply chains, clean energy, and tax. Australia joined IPEF on 23 May 2022, after the 21 May 2022 election in which Labor swept the LNP from power. Since then, eight rounds of negotiations between the member nations have taken place…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Australian nuclear misinformation goes walkabout
Thus far, Coalition claims about nuclear prospects have been domestic doomsday claims about Australia’s fate if it does not “go nuclear”.
Yet the Coalition’s claims routinely hinge on misinformation: inflating estimations of transmission projects, over-playing the risk of load shedding, over-estimating G20 reliance on nuclear, exaggerating renewables-related land use, and inventing risks from windfarms (on and offshore).
While the international nuclear renaissance has been a farcical (short) history of massive cost and construction blowouts, the Coalition has sidelined those facts at home, leading to claims that Coalition nuclear plans are a delay tactic to perpetuate coal and gas………..
The IPEF stipulates that the Parties should:
“promote transparent licensing, siting, and permitting for clean energy and related generation, transmission, distribution, and storage projects in the electricity sector” (Sect 4, Point 2b)
Furthermore, for those parties supportive of nuclear, they should:
“ensure that sound policy and regulatory frameworks in nuclear safety and waste management are in place when considering the adoption of nuclear energy technologies” (Sect. 4, Point 7a).
The LNP has spent years spruiking nuclear power, yet the Australian public remains in the dark about those two important clauses in the IPEF agreement.
The LNP cannot be ‘transparent’ if it has provided no detail to the Australian public about licensing, siting and permitting. The LNP claims to be considering nuclear, yet where are any serious policy proposals regarding the regulatory frameworks for nuclear safety and nuclear waste?
Instead, the LNP treats citizens as incapable of spotting fabrications and omissions.
For instance, the O’Brien’s/LNP press release tells citizens they will find the IPEF “supporting small modular reactors (SMRs) in the Indo Pacific”. This is a fabrication: the negotiated text of the agreement never mentions SMRs. Similarly, the Coalition omits that the IPEF agreement strongly supports windfarms and energy efficiency, two key elements of the ALP’s Rewiring the Nation plan………….
Treating citizens like mugs
……………………………To be a mug is to be easily deceived. The LNP must assume citizens are mugs if it thinks Australian voters cannot spot the LNP’s misrepresentation of the IPEF agreement. No, Labor is not in contradiction for opposing domestic nuclear and signing the IPEF, because the IPEF favours clean energy in general and advocates for member nations to pursue their own pathway (which may or may not include nuclear power)
Yet even if tempted by the Coalition logic, just remember, the Coalition opposes most of what is supported in the IPEF agreement. The Coalition is not talking straight about either energy policy or international agreements, and voters should keep this in mind as the Coalition obfuscates important international agreements like the Paris Agreement. https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/spinifex/nuclear-misinformation-in-australia-is-hail-mary-policy-by-the-opposition
AUKUS ‘JobGiver’: a non-recourse handout to overseas companies and workers
Pearls and Irritations, by Rex Patrick | Jun 17, 2024
The Morrison Government encountered Opposition scorn for failing to include claw-back provisions in its JobKeeper program. Yet the Albanese Government is making the same mistake with its ‘JobGiver’ submarines program. Rex Patrick reports…………………………………………………………..
The money sinkhole
On 13 March 2023, Prime Minister Albanese announced in San Diego that the AUKUS submarine program would cost a mind-blowing $368 billion. That’s $13,850 per man, woman, and child in Australia. And that’s not including the cost of managing the spent nuclear fuel for 100,000 years.
At the time he offset the cost issue with a ‘jobs at home’ pitch. “The program will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years across industry, the Defence Force and the Australian Public Service including trades workers, operators, technicians, engineers, scientists, submariners and project managers.
In early September 2023, it was revealed that, as part of the program, Australians were to gift almost $4.7B in taxpayer’s money to grow the US submarine industrial base to enable the transfer of US Virginia attack-class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy.
Along with a similar contribution to the UK, ‘JobGiver’ was born.
JobGiver
Shortly after the announcement, I FOI’ed the Submarine Agency for “The agreement between Australia and the United States that goes to Australia making significant financial contributions into the Submarine Special Activities Account”.
I was concerned about the T’s and C’s. How would the money be spent? When would the money be paid to the US? Was there a clawback provision?
The request was answered with a big fat “access denied”.
Access denied (Source: FOI)
The FOI matter is on appeal, but Senator David Shoebridge has been inquiring into the details at Senate Estimates. In an exchange with Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead, the head of the Australian Submarine Agency, he unhelpfully refused to confirm that the $4.7B would be returned to Australia if the US decided not to provide the Virginia submarines in 2035.
Most likely, in other words, there is no clawback, just like ‘JobKeeper’.
A real risk of default
“the risk the US will not deliver a submarine to Australia is high”
Whilst the US Congress passed into law, via the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, permission to transfer the first two of three to five Virginia class submarines to Australia, the approval contains a caveat.
Before any US submarine can be transferred to the Royal Australian Navy, the US President must certify to the Congress that he or she is of the view that the transfer is not inconsistent with US foreign policy and national security interests.
They’re ‘Humpty Dumpty’ words that will mean just what the President chooses them to mean – nothing more, nothing less. A future US President can kill the deal for subjective reasons at any time.
1×1515
4:05 / 5:25
1×1515
0:31 / 5:25
The Morrison Government encountered Opposition scorn for failing to include claw-back provisions in its JobKeeper program. Yet the Albanese Government is making the same mistake with its ‘JobGiver’ submarines program. Rex Patrick reports.
On 23 November 2021, then-opposition Treasurer Jim Chalmers rose in the House of Representatives and delivered a fiery speech on the performance of the Liberal Coalition Government.
When he spoke about managing the economy, Chalmers mentioned ‘JobKeeper and declared it the “defining example” of Coalition economic mismanagement.
“JobKeeper was a great idea,” he said. “Frydenberg, the butterfingers of Australian politics, got his hands on it and he turned a good program into a program that wasted tens of billions of dollars, and that’s why the Financial Review wrote an article headlined ‘Frydenberg fires JobKeeper missile at himself’. If you look at that piece in the Financial Review, I think the key conclusion is that they describe the current Treasurer as ‘lighter than helium’.”
He went on to describe the economy as a piece of software: “Wasting money is not a bug in this government; it is a feature of this government.”
Three months later, opposition leader Anthony Albanese weighed in, describing to the House a Treasurer who had “not put in place appropriate protections for taxpayers’ interests when it comes to the JobKeeper program, resulting in
over $20 billion going to companies that were increasing their profits.
And that leads us to ‘JobGiver’.
The money sinkhole
On 13 March 2023, Prime Minister Albanese announced in San Diego that the AUKUS submarine program would cost a mind-blowing $368 billion. That’s $13,850 per man, woman, and child in Australia. And that’s not including the cost of managing the spent nuclear fuel for 100,000 years.
At the time he offset the cost issue with a ‘jobs at home’ pitch. “The program will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years across industry, the Defence Force and the Australian Public Service including trades workers, operators, technicians, engineers, scientists, submariners and project managers.
In early September 2023, it was revealed that, as part of the program, Australians were to gift almost $4.7B in taxpayer’s money to grow the US submarine industrial base to enable the transfer of US Virginia attack-class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy.
Along with a similar contribution to the UK, ‘JobGiver’ was born.
JobGiver
Shortly after the announcement, I FOI’ed the Submarine Agency for “The agreement between Australia and the United States that goes to Australia making significant financial contributions into the Submarine Special Activities Account”.
I was concerned about the T’s and C’s. How would the money be spent? When would the money be paid to the US? Was there a clawback provision?
The request was answered with a big fat “access denied”.
Access denied (Source: FOI)
The FOI matter is on appeal, but Senator David Shoebridge has been inquiring into the details at Senate Estimates. In an exchange with Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead, the head of the Australian Submarine Agency, he unhelpfully refused to confirm that the $4.7B would be returned to Australia if the US decided not to provide the Virginia submarines in 2035.
Most likely, in other words, there is no clawback, just like ‘JobKeeper’.
A real risk of default
The clawback matters, because
the risk the US will not deliver a submarine to Australia is high.
Whilst the US Congress passed into law, via the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, permission to transfer the first two of three to five Virginia class submarines to Australia, the approval contains a caveat.
Before any US submarine can be transferred to the Royal Australian Navy, the US President must certify to the Congress that he or she is of the view that the transfer is not inconsistent with US foreign policy and national security interests.
They’re ‘Humpty Dumpty’ words that will mean just what the President chooses them to mean – nothing more, nothing less. A future US President can kill the deal for subjective reasons at any time.
But there’s a more objective threat. The US industrial base is not building enough submarines for its own needs, let alone ours. The magic build rate requirement for the US is 2.3 submarines per annum (to meet its attack and ballistic submarine needs, as well as Australia’s). Right now, the build rate is only 1.4, and with issues also plaguing their maintenance shipyards, there’s not a lot of optimism that it’s going to get anywhere near the 2.3 needed (apart from the blind optimism inside the Australian Submarine Agency and the Defence Minister Marles’ office).
But wait. there’s more.
Of course, there are also risks in the UK ‘JobGiver’ payment we will make, again without a claw back. They’re unlikely to walk away from us on account of the perilous state of their submarine industry,
“but they reliably deliver submarines that are late and over budget.”
The UK needs our money to assist them deal with their own moribund state. But their moribund state is exactly the reason they should not be our partner.
When fending off his ‘JobKeeper’ fiducial failure, Frydenberg was at least able to say that the wasted taxpayers largely went back into the Australian economy. Chalmers won’t be able to say that of the ‘JobGiver’ money that’s going to the US.
I say Chalmers, because Albanese’s unlikely to be around when the US say “sorry” to us. But there’s some chance that Chalmers will be Prime Minister in 2034/5. Whoever is shadow Treasurer at that time won’t be calling Chalmers ‘Helium Man’, like he labelled Frydenberg – rather it will be ‘Hydrogen Man’, on account of the fact that hydrogen is even lighter than helium. https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-handout-to-companies-and-workers-elsewhere/
This week: countering the nuclear spin, and more
Some bits of good news: Humanity is making progress on reproductive rights. Scotland’s rainforest revival got a boost. Stork That Went Extinct in the UK 600 Years Ago is Spotted
in the English Skies: ‘It was a great sign’.
TOP STORIES
- Gaza has become a humanitarian catastrophe and Israel will have to answer tough questions – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfJnZAR5P4
- ‘I heard all of my friends’ last breath’: Testimonies from the Nuseirat massacre . When Israel Burned Refugees Alive, Establishment Media Called It a ‘Tragic Accident’.
- (This next one – Long but excellent! -) Putin Offers Reasonable Peace Terms to Ukraine; Zelenskiy Instantly Rejects Them; West Prepares for War.
- Are the prospects for Small Modular Reactors being exaggerated? Five key characteristics examined.
- Surging Renewables Push French Energy Prices Negative, Shutting Down Nuclear Plants.
From the archives. Nuclear power: molten salt reactors and sodium-cooled fast reactors make the radioactive waste problem WORSE
Climate. The ‘extraordinary’ record-breaking data that has climate experts baffled.
Noel’s notes. G7 – and the juggernaut to the destruction of Ukraine rolls on – to the delight of weapons companies. Atrocities upon atrocities – the Israelis have excelled themselves this time. UK and other mainstream media –oblivious of the suicidal danger of attacking Russia.
******************************************
AUSTRALIA.
- Why bet on a loser? Australia’s dangerous gamble on the USA. AUKUS ‘JobGiver’: a non-recourse handout to overseas companies and workers.
- Nuclear options: New research on SMRs raises questions over Australia’s energy debate. Dutton’s nuclear plan wouldn’t even meet net zero by 2050 target, report finds. Energy experts and investors say the Coalition’s nuclear plan is ‘virtually impossible’ without taxpayer funding. Who prepared Dutton’s report on nuclear power? Nationals seats to go nuclear. ABC boss Kim Williams launches stunning attack on Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plan – just days after Laura Tingle said Australia is ‘a racist country’. Dutton’s energy plan to cost $97 billion as we wait for nukes to lumber into action.
- Farmers who graze sheep under solar panels say it improves productivity. So why don’t we do it more?
- Why the AFR economics editor is wrong on GenCost, nuclear and “always on” power. Wind and solar power half the cost of coal and gas, one-third the cost of nuclear, says Lazard.
NUCLEAR ISSUES
| ATROCITIES. Israel committed crime of ‘extermination’ in Gaza, says UN investigation. GAZA HORROR: UN FINDS ISRAELI FORCES GUILTY OF SEXUAL ABUSE AND TORTURE. | ECONOMICS. Building Nuclear Power Is a Bridge Too Far for World’s Private Investors – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/06/06/1-b1-corporate-lobbying-heats-up-around-governments-nuclear-power-plans-despite-concerns-from-anti-nuclear-advocates/ EDUCATION. Nuclearisation of universities. |
| ENERGY. Nuclear power is ‘overblown’ as an energy source for data centers, power company CEO says | ENVIRONMENT. Radioactive Tritium from Monticello Reactor Leaked to the Mississippi River. Oceans. French-Chinese power plant could put 200m UK fish at risk. |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. U.S. Jewish Army Intel Officer Quits over Gaza, Says “Impossible” Not to See Echoes of Holocaust. Saving Gaza Is About More Than Saving Gaza. It’s Also About Saving Ourselves. | HEALTH. Radiation. LANL plans to release highly radioactive tritium to prevent explosions. Will it just release danger in the air? Guam’s fight for radiation exposure compensation ‘far from over’. |
| HISTORY. USING UKRAINE SINCE 1948 | INDIGENOUS. Chief Akagi requests public hearing to review any new governance arrangement for the Point Lepreau nuclear reactor on Peskotomuhkati homeland. Tensions with First Nations threaten to delay nuclear waste facility– ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/06/17/1-a-tensions-with-first-nations-threaten-to-delay-nuclear-waste-facility/ |
| LEGAL. ‘Immense’ scale of Gaza killings amount to crime against humanity, UN inquiry says. Judges Named for Assange Appeal. | MEDIA. The day the West defined ‘success’ as a massacre of 270 Palestinians. | OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . MSP’s claim of support for nuclear power in Highlands challenged, |
| POLITICS.Thousands Protest Gaza Genocide in ‘Red Line’ White House Rally. UK Labour and Conservatives commit to nuclear power in manifesto, Scottish Greens brand Labour’s commitment to nuclear weapons ‘obscene and immoral’. Keir Starmer’s policy on nuclear weapons. MP’s claim of support for nuclear power in Highlands challenged. California legislators break with Gov. Newsom over loan to keep state’s last nuclear plant running. | POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.Ukraine is a ‘gold mine’ – US senator. UN Security Council. Biden makes 10-year security pact with Zelensky that includes sending F-16s to Ukraine. World leaders to gather in Swiss resort in attempt to forge Ukraine peace plan. Adopts Gaza Ceasefire Resolution. Biden’s Saudi Arabia Deal. The West has a 15-month opportunity for a new nuclear deal with Iran that precludes an Iranian Bomb. |
| PUBLIC OPINION. 94% of Americans want to end Ukraine war, but US rejects China peace deal, opposes talks with Russia. | SAFETY. Alarm over 174 security breaches at Clyde nuclear bases. | SECRETS and LIES. Top civil servant joins EDF after running department that struck nuclear deal. Ukrainian officials stole $490 million meant for military – MP. Uncle Sam cool with arming, training Neo-Nazi Azov Brigade in Ukraine |
| SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Radiation could pose challenge to putting people on Mars. SPACEX’S STARLINK MAY BE KEEPING THE OZONE FROM HEALING, RESEARCH FINDS. Unveiling Cosmic Secrets: Black Budget Tech and UFOs with Aerospace Expert Michael Schratt – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOT0tPeQwzI | TECHNOLOGY. Nuclear Power Is Hard. Billionaire Bill Gates Wants to Make It Easier. Great British Nuclear Small Reactors competition timeline delayed for General Election, amid doubts on their viability- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/06/14/2-b1-great-british-nuclear-small-reactors-competition-timeline-delayed-for-general-election-amid-doubts-on-their-viability/ |
| URANIUM. Proliferation warnings over enriched nuclear fuel for advanced reactors. Gates-backed nuclear plant breaks ground without guarantee it’ll have fuel. From the Hiroshima bomb to Israel’s nuclear weapons, the path leads back to Congo’s uranium. | WASTES. Two small communities are competing to receive Canada’s inventory of nuclear waste: they can’t be sure what they’ll get |
WAR and CONFLICT.
- US Drone Flights Over Gaza Supported Israeli Operation That Killed Over 200 Palestinians in Nuseirat. Active-Duty US Service Members Issue Appeal to Congress to Stop Funding Genocide.
- Dennis Kucinich America Prepares for Global War and Restarts the Draft for 18-26 year olds.
- Propaganda vs. Pra Ukraine confirms deep strikes into Russia with Western weapons. NATO threats ignore ‘red lines’ in Ukraine. Macron Says France Working To ‘Finalize’ Plan To Send Troops to Ukraine. Russia broadens tactical nuclear weapons drills. Biden hits ‘new low’ in arming ‘pro-Nazi’ Azov.
- Will NATO member states individually or collectively go to war against Russia? Russia broadens tactical nuclear weapons drills. Biden hits ‘new low’ in arming ‘pro-Nazi’ Azov: US Congressman. Putin details Ukraine peace proposal. Why the West should take Russia’s nuclear threats more seriously..
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
Global spending on nuclear weapons up 13% in record rise. G7 Leaders Agree To Provide Ukraine With $50 Billion Using Frozen Russian Assets.
A majority of Iranians now favor possessing nuclear weapons. Their leaders take note.
Superficial coverage of Dutton’s nuclear policy does Australia a disservice
By Ernst Willheim, Jun 17, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/superficial-coverage-of-duttons-nuclear-policy-does-australia-a-disservice/
Noel Turnbull correctly writes that media coverage of the federal opposition’s nuclear power proposal is superficial. There is a very wide range of as yet unanswered issues.
First, who will build and operate the proposed nuclear power stations.
Many years ago, when the Commonwealth proposed establishment of a nuclear power station, it settled on Jervis Bay because the ‘territories’ power in the Commonwealth Constitution gave the Commonwealth plenary power. The proposal was well advanced, and a large concrete platform was built, before the proposal was eventually abandoned because it proved to be uneconomic.
The opposition apparently contemplates location of nuclear power stations on the sites of disused coal fired power stations. Does the opposition believe the Commonwealth has constitutional power to establish and operate nuclear power stations in the States?
The States would of course have the constitutional power to establish nuclear power stations. Remember State electricity authorities used to be publicly owned before they were privatised. But has any of the States indicated any enthusiasm for establishing and operating nuclear power stations?
If the opposition doesn’t envisage either Commonwealth or State government involvement, do they envisage private enterprise.
There are many capable private operators around the world but I haven’t seen any evidence of private corporations clamouring for the right to build nuclear power stations in Australia. Could it be that the private sector understands that privately owned nuclear power stations in Australia would not be competitive, that is, they would not return a profit.
There remain a range of wider regulatory issues, who would be responsible for planning, oversight and safety. How would liability and insurance be handled. Would the opposition envisage that Australia should become a party to the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. What about safeguards. Would the opposition accept oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency?
It is not clear that the opposition has addressed any of these issues.
Dutton’s energy plan to cost $97 billion as we wait for nukes to lumber into action
Australia facing a $97 billion bill for Peter Dutton’s energy policy — on generous assumptions, that is.
BERNARD KEANE, Crikey.com JUN 17, 2024
Peter Dutton’s nuclear-plus-coal energy plan will require nearly $100 billion in investment across new nuclear power plants, propping up existing coal-fired power plants and building ultra-efficient new ones, a conservative costing shows, with taxpayers set to bear a substantial amount, if not all, of the cost.
Crikey’s costing of the Coalition policy — which Dutton has steadfastly refused to release the details of — relies on the construction from scratch of six new nuclear power plants by 2040, to which Dutton has committed, the maintenance of a number of existing coal-fired power plants beyond their closure dates to 2040, and the construction of three new 1,000 MW coal-fired power plants to meet additional power demand and security of supply in the absence of further investment in renewables.
Based on either CSIRO costings from its most recent GenCost report or the cost of the NSW Labor government’s recent handout to Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power plant operating beyond next year, the total cost to deliver Dutton’s vision would be $97 billion by 2040.
Nuclear power
The CSIRO concluded in its GenCost report that the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia would cost around $8.25 billion for a 1,000 MW plant built as a series of at least five new plants. However, it noted that construction of the first one — dubbed “First of a Kind (FOAK)” — would attract a large premium, noting “FOAK premiums of up to 100% cannot be ruled out.” Crikey has conservatively estimated only a 50% premium for the first nuclear power plant, bringing the total for six plants to $56.3 billion in current dollars.
However, we have also inflated the cost by an additional 26% to take account of persistent cost overruns that plague all of Australia’s major infrastructure projects. According to the Grattan Institute 2020 report on large project cost overruns, the average cost overrun for projects costing between $350 million and $1 billion between 2001 and 2020 was 26%. The average cost overrun of projects above $1 billion was even higher, at 30%, reflecting that “bigger projects tend to be more complex, so it’s not surprising that they are more prone to cost overruns. They also tend to overrun by more, in dollar terms, and often in percentage terms as well.” Crikey has conservatively chosen the lower overrun figure, for a total cost of $70.8 billion.
Moreover, we have not assumed that nuclear power stations suffer from the same delays as all other new nuclear power stations have suffered from, but assume they will all be operating by 2040 — an assumption bordering on the implausible but made to allay any doubt about the veracity of the costing.
Where will this money come from? There may be companies willing to undertake such a large-scale project stretching across one-and-a-half decades, despite the immense risk of a reversal of political fortunes for a Coalition government at any point in that 15-year construction process. Such private investment will require loan guarantees from the Commonwealth at best, and as the experience from the last nuclear reactor to be built in the United States shows, it will be very costly for consumers. At worst, taxpayers will have to foot the entire $70.8 billion.
Dutton’s energy plan to cost $97 billion as we wait for nukes to lumber into action
Australia facing a $97 billion bill for Peter Dutton’s energy policy — on generous assumptions, that is.
JUN 17, 2024
Share
Peter Dutton’s nuclear-plus-coal energy plan will require nearly $100 billion in investment across new nuclear power plants, propping up existing coal-fired power plants and building ultra-efficient new ones, a conservative costing shows, with taxpayers set to bear a substantial amount, if not all, of the cost.
Crikey’s costing of the Coalition policy — which Dutton has steadfastly refused to release the details of — relies on the construction from scratch of six new nuclear power plants by 2040, to which Dutton has committed, the maintenance of a number of existing coal-fired power plants beyond their closure dates to 2040, and the construction of three new 1,000 MW coal-fired power plants to meet additional power demand and security of supply in the absence of further investment in renewables.
Based on either CSIRO costings from its most recent GenCost report or the cost of the NSW Labor government’s recent handout to Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power plant operating beyond next year, the total cost to deliver Dutton’s vision would be $97 billion by 2040.
Nuclear power
The CSIRO concluded in its GenCost report that the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia would cost around $8.25 billion for a 1,000 MW plant built as a series of at least five new plants. However, it noted that construction of the first one — dubbed “First of a Kind (FOAK)” — would attract a large premium, noting “FOAK premiums of up to 100% cannot be ruled out.” Crikey has conservatively estimated only a 50% premium for the first nuclear power plant, bringing the total for six plants to $56.3 billion in current dollars.Dutton’s nuclear nonsense catches up with him — while Labor keeps runningRead More
However, we have also inflated the cost by an additional 26% to take account of persistent cost overruns that plague all of Australia’s major infrastructure projects. According to the Grattan Institute 2020 report on large project cost overruns, the average cost overrun for projects costing between $350 million and $1 billion between 2001 and 2020 was 26%. The average cost overrun of projects above $1 billion was even higher, at 30%, reflecting that “bigger projects tend to be more complex, so it’s not surprising that they are more prone to cost overruns. They also tend to overrun by more, in dollar terms, and often in percentage terms as well.” Crikey has conservatively chosen the lower overrun figure, for a total cost of $70.8 billion.
Moreover, we have not assumed that nuclear power stations suffer from the same delays as all other new nuclear power stations have suffered from, but assume they will all be operating by 2040 — an assumption bordering on the implausible but made to allay any doubt about the veracity of the costing.
Where will this money come from? There may be companies willing to undertake such a large-scale project stretching across one-and-a-half decades, despite the immense risk of a reversal of political fortunes for a Coalition government at any point in that 15-year construction process. Such private investment will require loan guarantees from the Commonwealth at best, and as the experience from the last nuclear reactor to be built in the United States shows, it will be very costly for consumers. At worst, taxpayers will have to foot the entire $70.8 billion.
Keeping coal going
The Coalition has now admitted — as its abandonment even of Scott Morrison’s 26-28% emissions cut by 2030 shows (actually 26-28% was Tony Abbott’s target, so Dutton is proposing to be even worse than Abbott on emissions) — nuclear power plants won’t be ready until the 2040s, necessitating extending the lives of existing coal-fired power stations.
Crikey has used the Minns government’s handout to Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power station operating for two extra years at $225 million a year as a template and estimated the cost, per megawatt, of keeping those coal-fired plants scheduled to close before 2040 going until that year. However, we have capped that spending at 10 years, assuming that coal-fired plants already at the end of their lives could not be extended beyond that date without massive extra investment. This “Coalkeeper” process would cost a comparatively modest $5.98 billion over 2025-40 in current dollars. Where will this money come from? It will be a direct subsidy from governments — presumably the Commonwealth — to fossil fuel companies.
Dutton’s energy plan to cost $97 billion as we wait for nukes to lumber into action
Australia facing a $97 billion bill for Peter Dutton’s energy policy — on generous assumptions, that is.
JUN 17, 2024
Share
Peter Dutton’s nuclear-plus-coal energy plan will require nearly $100 billion in investment across new nuclear power plants, propping up existing coal-fired power plants and building ultra-efficient new ones, a conservative costing shows, with taxpayers set to bear a substantial amount, if not all, of the cost.
Crikey’s costing of the Coalition policy — which Dutton has steadfastly refused to release the details of — relies on the construction from scratch of six new nuclear power plants by 2040, to which Dutton has committed, the maintenance of a number of existing coal-fired power plants beyond their closure dates to 2040, and the construction of three new 1,000 MW coal-fired power plants to meet additional power demand and security of supply in the absence of further investment in renewables.
Based on either CSIRO costings from its most recent GenCost report or the cost of the NSW Labor government’s recent handout to Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power plant operating beyond next year, the total cost to deliver Dutton’s vision would be $97 billion by 2040.
Nuclear power
The CSIRO concluded in its GenCost report that the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia would cost around $8.25 billion for a 1,000 MW plant built as a series of at least five new plants. However, it noted that construction of the first one — dubbed “First of a Kind (FOAK)” — would attract a large premium, noting “FOAK premiums of up to 100% cannot be ruled out.” Crikey has conservatively estimated only a 50% premium for the first nuclear power plant, bringing the total for six plants to $56.3 billion in current dollars.Dutton’s nuclear nonsense catches up with him — while Labor keeps runningRead More
However, we have also inflated the cost by an additional 26% to take account of persistent cost overruns that plague all of Australia’s major infrastructure projects. According to the Grattan Institute 2020 report on large project cost overruns, the average cost overrun for projects costing between $350 million and $1 billion between 2001 and 2020 was 26%. The average cost overrun of projects above $1 billion was even higher, at 30%, reflecting that “bigger projects tend to be more complex, so it’s not surprising that they are more prone to cost overruns. They also tend to overrun by more, in dollar terms, and often in percentage terms as well.” Crikey has conservatively chosen the lower overrun figure, for a total cost of $70.8 billion.
Moreover, we have not assumed that nuclear power stations suffer from the same delays as all other new nuclear power stations have suffered from, but assume they will all be operating by 2040 — an assumption bordering on the implausible but made to allay any doubt about the veracity of the costing.
Where will this money come from? There may be companies willing to undertake such a large-scale project stretching across one-and-a-half decades, despite the immense risk of a reversal of political fortunes for a Coalition government at any point in that 15-year construction process. Such private investment will require loan guarantees from the Commonwealth at best, and as the experience from the last nuclear reactor to be built in the United States shows, it will be very costly for consumers. At worst, taxpayers will have to foot the entire $70.8 billion.
Antinuclear 