Nuclear thuggery: Coalition will not take no for an answer from local communities or site owners
Jim Green, Jun 20, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-thuggery-coalition-will-not-take-no-for-an-answer-from-local-communities-or-site-own
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull famously described Coalition leader Peter Dutton as a “thug”. That description appears particularly apt in Dutton’s nuclear power plans.
The Coalition’s nuclear project is opposed by state Labor governments in each of the five states being targeted. Victoria, NSW and Queensland have laws banning nuclear power. The Labor governments in SA and WA may follow suit if they think state legislation will give them some legal protection, or any political advantage.
Could a Dutton government override state laws banning nuclear power? Anne Twomey, a Sydney University Professor Emerita with lengthy experience teaching and practising in constitutional law, argues that states probably could not prevent the Commonwealth establishing a nuclear power plant, nor could they prevent necessary associated operations such as transmission lines and nuclear waste transport.
Would a Dutton Coalition government attempt to override state opposition to nuclear power plants? Almost certainly it would. Nationals leader David Littleproud said in March that “if the Australian people vote for us that’s a fair indication to premiers that they should get out of the way”.
Coalition and Labor federal governments have pursued attempts to impose a national nuclear waste dump in SA and the NT despite state/territory laws banning such facilities. Those attempts have all failed, largely due to community opposition led by affected Aboriginal Traditional Owners.
Legal challenges helped stop three of the four proposed nuclear dump sites — Woomera (SA) under the Howard government, Muckaty (NT) under the Abbott government, and Kimba (SA) under the Morrison and Albanese governments. But the legal difficulties could have been overcome if the government of the day was ruthless enough and wasn’t suffering too much political pain because of its racist, undemocratic thuggery.
What about the companies who own the sites being targeted by the Coalition for nuclear power plants, and who have their own multi-billion dollar plans to develop their own clean energy industrial hubs based around renewables. Well, they can get stuffed too.
Dutton hasn’t bothered to consult these companies, but he has sought legal advice. This is what he said yesterday:
“We will work with the companies, the owners of the sites. If we find a situation where we apply a national interest test and we require that site to be part of the national grid, then the legal advice that we have is that the Commonwealth has ample power to compulsorily acquire that with ample compensation.”
According to energy minister Chris Bowen, six of the owners of the seven targeted sites have ruled out agreeing to nuclear power reactors on their land.
The Coalition also hasn’t bothered to consult communities around the sites targeted for nuclear reactors. And, like state governments and the owners of the targeted sites, the wishes of those communities will also be ignored.
Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey made the mistake of saying that the Coalition would not impose nuclear power plants on communities that were adamantly opposed.
She was corrected by Littleproud, who said: “She is not correct and we made this very clear. Peter Dutton and David Littleproud as part of a Coalition government are prepared to make the tough decisions in the national interest.”
Likewise, Dutton said: “Perin I think made a mistake yesterday as everybody does from time to time … We’ve identified the seven locations and we believe it’s in the community’s interests and the national interest to proceed.”
Democracy is for wimps, apparently, and for traitors who oppose the ‘national interest’ as Comrades Dutton and Littleproud see it.
All this stands in stark contrast to a 2019 parliamentary inquiry led by current shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien. The Committee’s report was titled ‘Not without your approval: a way forward for nuclear technology in Australia’.
O’Brien said in 2019 that a future government should only proceed with nuclear power on the condition that it make “a commitment to community consent as a condition of approval for any nuclear power or nuclear waste disposal facility”.
He also waffled on about “maintaining a social license based on trust and transparency” and putting the Australian people “at the centre of any approval process”.
That was then, this is now. The ‘national interest’ is at stake.
Prof. Anne Twomey notes that the Dutton government would need to get legislation through Parliament, including the Senate, both to repeal federal laws banning nuclear power and also “to provide any necessary legal support and protection for a nuclear power industry in Australia”.
An uncooperative Senate could block Dutton’s nuclear power plans, but could not stop him expanding the use of fossil fuels and derailing the renewable energy transition.
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and co-author of a new ACF report, ‘Power Games: Assessing coal to nuclear proposals in Australia’.
‘Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is an economic disaster that would leave Australians paying more for electricity
If we use Vogtle as an example, which is the one completed project that employed Dutton’s favoured Westinghouse AP1000 technology, the extra cost to consumers would be very high.
Almost all nuclear power plants in Europe and North America were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s
The Peter Dutton-led Coalition has announced that, if elected, the government will build seven nuclear power stations located across every mainland state.
One can understand the appeal of nuclear power to those who are unfamiliar with the history of the technology. Nuclear power has been with us for many decades, supplying large amounts of emission-free power across a wide number of democratic, developed countries in Europe and North America. Why wouldn’t we make use of a power source that can be turned up and down independent of the weather and which other developed nations have used for decades?
What many Australians probably don’t realise is that almost all of these nuclear power plants were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. The technology was then largely abandoned as an option for new power supply. Over the 2000s there was talk of a renaissance of the technology as concerns around global warming grew, and the industry unveiled new “generation 3” designs to address nuclear meltdown risks. Yet this expected renaissance never eventuated, with just five generation 3 nuclear power plants under construction over the past decade across Europe and North America.
There is a very good reason for why the appetite to build new nuclear power stations in western nations that already have nuclear power is minimal. Fans of nuclear like to think this is just because of irrational fears of reactor meltdowns and radiation. But in reality it’s got more to do with the fact that nuclear power plants cost too much to build.
What several countries, particularly France and the United States, encountered during their nuclear build programs over the 1970s and 1980s was that the promised costs for nuclear reactors turned out to be badly underestimated. They also found that things didn’t improve as they built more of these reactors – instead they got worse.
Oxford University professor Bent Flyvbjerg, an expert in construction management, has built up a large database of the time and budget records for 16,000 major construction projects across the globe covering a wide array of fields. He finds that nuclear reactors encounter the greatest budget and time blowouts in his database of construction projects, with the exception of just two other project types. One, worryingly, is nuclear waste repositories, which Australia would also need to build. The other is host city Olympic Games infrastructure. Interestingly, Flyvbjerg’s database also reveals the projects which are most likely to achieve construction timeframes and budgets are wind and solar power.
The poor experience over the 1970s and 80s meant there was almost no new nuclear plant construction commitments in Europe and North America until the second half of the 2000s. The table below [on original] summarises the horrific budget blowouts with the five generation 3 reactors committed to construction since then. Of note is that the two projects in the US used the same reactor model Dutton has indicated he’d like to use – Westinghouse’s AP1000. Also worth noting is actual real world experience indicates costs for nuclear per megawatt of capacity, which are significantly higher than the $8.6m estimated recently by the CSIRO.
What we can see is that, contrary to the promises of nuclear technology companies, generation 3 designs did not improve on past experience of budget blow-outs. It should also be noted that one of these projects – Virgil C Summer – was abandoned prior to completion, as the cost blowouts became too great to bear. Unfortunately for South Carolina energy consumers, this was only after the expenditure of $13.5bn on the failed project.
So what does this all mean for you personally?
Contrary to Dutton’s claims, it means you’ll be paying more on your electricity bill. As the table above [on original] shows, exactly how much more will be subject to wide variation depending on how badly the construction process unfolds, as well as a range of other assumptions.
If we use Vogtle as an example, which is the one completed project that employed Dutton’s favoured Westinghouse AP1000 technology, the extra cost to consumers would be very high. Power retailers would need to pay prices for wholesale energy at least three times higher than what they currently pay to recover the cost of this plant. For the average household that would result in an increase in their power bill in the realm of $1,000 per year from Dutton’s plan to go nuclear.
Tristan Edis is a director at Green Energy Markets – a provider of analysis and advice on energy and carbon abatement policy and markets
Australian news media swamped with Peter Dutton’s pro nuclear gamble.
It’s pretty lacklustre journalism. Everyone crapping on about financial costs – apparently Australians are supposed to think that is the only thing that matters. Even then, the cost of nuclear wastes is ignored.
Never mind about about worker safety, ionising radiation, terrorism risks, weapons proliferation.
And here’s Australia, right now poised to become the global leader in genuinely clean energy!
From Ziggy Switkowski – a new load of nuclear codswallop
Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the full text of this. Somewhere in this article, Switkowski says that small nuclear power is 
more economic than large. Interesting that he doesn’t compare it to the cost of other energy forms – solar and wind.
He’s promoting the idea that Australia’s no-nuclear laws should be changed, – perhaps to a compromise – meaning that large nuclear reactors would still be prohibited, but small ones permitted. Good luck with that and all the perambulations involved! Only recently, Switkowski warned on risk of catastrophic failure, if Australia adopts nuclear energy. He sorta covers his back well!
Switkowski preaches for nuclear energy invoking Bill Gates, Elon Musk, AFR, Aaron Patrick, Senior Correspondent
Prominent businessman Ziggy Switkowksi urged Australians to take inspiration from two of the leading entrepreneurs of the twenty-first century, Bill Gates and Elon Musk, and support the development of a nuclear power industry.
Dr Switkowksi, a nuclear physicist, NBN board member and former Telstra chief executive, said nuclear power could become a major contributor to the electricity grid by 2040 if legalisation of the power source began now…..
With three separate inquiries into nuclear power under way, Dr Switkowksi has emerged as a leading advocate for the next generation of nuclear power plants known as small modular reactors, which supporters hope can avoid the huge costs and perceived safety risks of large-scale nuclear plants.
Dr Switkowksi, who has also briefed two separate federal parliamentary committees, told the NSW inquiry that half of NSW’s power supply could eventually be provided by nuclear power, which would compliment renewable sources after the state’s coal stations shut down. ……
Nuclear power is illegal under NSW and federal law. The NSW parliament is considering a proposed law by One Nation MP Mark Latham that would permit a nuclear industry to be developed in the state.
Many environmentalists strongly oppose the plan, including the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and the Australian Conservation Foundation, which also gave evidence to the committee on Monday.
Nuclear advocates, including Dr Switkowksi, have acknowledged that the big impediments to a nuclear industry are the cost of building reactors and the challenge of getting a wary public to support them.
Exploring for uranium is allowed in NSW, but mining is not. One first step towards developing a nuclear industry in the state could be to allow the uranium-mining industry to expand from South Australia across the border to NSW.
Officials from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment told the inquiry that mining uranium wasn’t very different to any other mineral and that two mineral sands mines near Broken Hill bury uranium that is an inadvertent byproduct of their operations……
Inquiry chairman Taylor Martin, a Liberal MP, suggested that the federal and state laws be changed to prohibit existing forms of nuclear power technology but allow small modular reactors.
The compromise idea is designed to allow Labor MPs to support the development of a nuclear industry without appearing to give in to the demands of the mining industry, which has launched a below-the-radar campaign to legalise nuclear power.
Inquiry chairman Taylor Martin, a Liberal MP, suggested that the federal and state laws be changed to prohibit existing forms of nuclear power technology but allow small modular reactors.
The compromise idea is designed to allow Labor MPs to support the development of a nuclear industry without appearing to give in to the demands of the mining industry, which has launched a below-the-radar campaign to legalise nuclear power. …..https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/switkowski-preaches-for-nuclear-energy-invoking-bill-gates-elon-musk-20191111-p539j1
Patricia Karvelas: Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction?
By Q+A and RN Breakfast host Patricia Karvelas, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/nuclear-dutton-coalition-unanswered-questions-beak-rules/104000664
Peter Dutton has broken every single rule when it comes to unveiling radical policy as opposition leader, tearing up the script and gambling with his party’s chances at the next election with his nuclear policy.
If he can pull it off and convince enough voters that his blueprint for an Australian nuclear future is feasible and preferable, it will be the most unorthodox approach we’ve seen from an opposition leader in recent memory. It will rewrite our understanding of how modern politics works and reshape Australia.
Dutton has just placed a target on his back — and many of his state and even federal colleagues are scratching their heads trying to work out what the larger strategy here is. Is it cunning genius or the longest political self-destruction?
But what will it cost?
For months, journalists have been inquiring about when and why the nuclear policy announcement was being delayed. Senior Coalition figures informed me that the opposition — knowing full well that Labor and others would throw everything at pulling it apart — were doing their most comprehensive piece of work to deliver a “bulletproof” policy that could withstand dissection and sustained attack.
Yet when Dutton and his colleagues stood up before the media yesterday, they outlined a policy with many questions unanswered — including, most crucially, the actual cost of their nuclear rollout. The Coalition says it will reveal the cost down the track. But to leave unanswered such a crucial detail when the entire debate is centred around the cost of energy leaves the policy vulnerable and impossible to critically assess.
It is stunning and unheard-of for a mainstream political party to put forward such a significant and consequential policy blueprint without the numbers attached.
One senior Liberal suggested the delay in releasing the figures was to rob Labor of the ability to question the economic basis of the policy — you can’t pull and pick apart numbers that haven’t been provided. Conventional politics would involve the unveiling of modelling and robust independent accounting to explain the cost for taxpayers.
Tony Barry, the director of political research organisation RedBridge Research and a former Liberal Party strategist, says the way the policy had been announced makes the Coalition vulnerable to criticism.
“It isn’t so much ‘bulletproof’ but rather wearing a high-vis vest with a bullseye on it,” Barry told me. “The Coalition has to try and sell its product while Labor only has to convince people not to buy it, and in that scenario, Labor has the easier job.”
There are hurdles to jump
Among the many hurdles for the Coalition to jump before it can even develop a nuclear site will be the state premiers, who have lined up against this blueprint to establish nuclear power plants at seven locations across the country. Peter Dutton says the states’ concerns were easy to deal with.
“Somebody famously said, ‘I would not stand between the premier and a bucket of money’, and we’ve seen the premiers in different debates before where they’ve been able to negotiate with the Commonwealth and will be able to address those issues,” he says.
A Coalition government would also have to convince federal parliament — the Senate too — to lift restrictions on nuclear power and find a solution for nuclear waste. It would also have to build a nuclear workforce from scratch.
Is it achievable? It would be a big departure from the usual way Australia does business.
And then there’s the question of social license. Communities would need to get on board and provide support to build nuclear facilities in their neighbourhood. The Coalition says polling in some of these seats shows that there is support — even if it’s tight.
A poll released by the Lowy Institute earlier this month of 2,000 voters showed 61 per cent said they supported Australia including nuclear generation in its energy mix. Public opinion towards nuclear power in Australia has shifted over time. A significant minority (37 per cent) “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose it. Those who “strongly support” nuclear power generation (27 per cent) outnumber those who “strongly oppose” it (17 per cent).
But on the question of the rights of communities to raise objections, the Nationals were at odds yesterday.
Nationals leader David Littleproud contradicted his deputy, Perin Davey, who said that, “if a community is absolutely adamant, then we will not proceed”. But the Nationals leader later said Davey’s claim was “not correct”.
“Peter Dutton and David Littleproud, as part of a Coalition government, are prepared to make the tough decisions in the national interest. We will consult, and we will give plenty of notice.”
More unanswered questions
Part of the motivation for this massive climate pivot is the opposition to the rollout of renewables. Given the controversy on poles and wires and their rollout on the basis that some communities don’t want them, it seems a stretch that other communities would be pushed to accept nuclear.
The Coalition is right to observe some questioning of the pace and cost of the renewables rollout. But it’s a big leap to go from detecting softening support for renewables to assuming there will be full-blown support for nuclear in the community.
If we accept that community opposition to the idea of nuclear is softening — although we can’t be sure of how much — then the fight shifts to cost.
Will the Coalition be able to convince the public that nuclear will really give them cheaper bills? On this pivotal question, the evidence has not been provided.
The real reason Peter Dutton wants nuclear power
SMH, JUNE 20, 2024
There is no Coalition nuclear plan, except to get re-elected (“Dutton hits the nuclear button”, June 20). No nuclear power plants will ever be built here. Avoiding questions about the exorbitant costs, electorate opposition, absence of technology and radioactive waste, Dutton is exploiting those worried about climate change and energy costs who haven’t the time or ability to question his remedy.
Unfortunately, this will then be followed by countless committees to look into the best way to implement such a “ground-breaking” and “important” policy for another election cycle or two until, finally, some election strategist decides that changes in policy may be needed. Ten years later Australia is left penniless, without enough energy, and polluting the world with the scraps of fossil fuels it is desperately burning to keep the lights on. Andrew Scott, Pymble
Canada, a country similar to Australia, has five nuclear plants containing 22 reactors, built 40 to 60 years ago. They produce only 15 per cent of that nation’s electricity requirements. This raises two issues: Firstly, if we could manage to build two reactors by 2037, as Dutton claims, Australia would still need to source more than 90 per cent of our electricity from fossil fuels or renewables. Secondly, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission states on its website that each 600MW reactor produces 90 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste per year which has to be stored on-site in water-filled bays for six to 10 years until cooled enough to be moved to reinforced concrete canisters also on site. John Keene, Glebe
David Crowe (“Seven sites and two black holes: voters deserve better”, June 20) highlights the lack of detail in Dutton’s plan for nuclear power. However, we should allow for the possibility that Dutton thinks that nuclear power will probably never happen in Australia. His only plan is likely to be that of winning the next election by whatever means he can. As in the lead-up to the Voice vote, the aim will be to dominate the framing of the debate and spread division and strengthen tribal partisanship. We may expect a drip feed of bits of the nuclear plan over the coming months, each morsel lacking details. But that won’t matter to Dutton as long as disinformation and division dominate the news cycle. Peter Thompson, Grenfell
Dutton doesn’t care about nuclear. It’s all theatre. What he does care about is causing division with the aim of winning power because the Coalition can’t bear its current irrelevance. He does this via fear, obfuscation and a claim to care about “battlers”. If we voters can’t see through this then all Dutton’s theatrics will pay off. Judy Hungerford, Kew (Vic)
One of the issues in centralising baseload power is national defence planning. Jump forward to 2050, any country threatening us needs just seven intercontinental ballistic missiles to cripple industry and transport over the entire country, never mind the spread of nuclear waste over land and water. Smaller countries could disable the plants effectively with a few drones. Mad Max is real! Keith Smith, Lane Cove
So let me get this right. The political party that claims to be the superior economic manager is offering us an uncosted, unplanned, unsafe, unsure energy efficiency power source on land that they have yet to acquire in communities that it has yet to consult to be constructed decades into the future to address today’s cost of living crisis. Got it! Barry Ffrench, Cronulla
Several years ago I bought a solar array and a battery for my house. The battery was very expensive at $1000 per kW of storage although the costs for gel-ion batteries (developed in Australia) are even less. Our storage carries our household of five through the afternoon/evening peak and most often overnight. We also have a battery-run circuit dedicated to running some lights, the fridge, oven and microwave should there be a blackout in which case we are automatically disconnected from the grid. If the federal Coalition were to spend a portion of the cost of nuclear power stations, say a mere $20 billion, on solar batteries they could currently buy one million 20kW lithium-ion batteries. If the state governments chipped in the same amount, there’d be two million batteries. If the combined governments provided the money as a 50 per cent subsidy, with home and business owners contributing the remaining 50 per cent, there’d be 4 million batteries; eight million if each battery had only 10kW capacity. Even more batteries if gel-ion production was ramped up. Personal storage is one of the best ways to reduce electricity costs. Our worst quarterly bill in three years, for a cloudy, wet autumn was $127 and that included $90 for being connected to the grid. Over a year, we are in credit, so I don’t understand the Coalition’s antipathy to renewables and either state-run or private battery storage. In the face of buying or subsidising battery use, going nuclear would be a mind-boggling silly use … of our taxpayer money. Peter Butler, Wyongah
While visiting a friend in Switzerland recently, she received a package of iodine tablets in the mail. These were issued free by the government, replacing the ones they sent previously which were deemed past their use-by date. Why? Because she lives within 50km of a nuclear power plant … just in case. Julie Wilson, Dubbo
Peter Dutton’s faith in future Coalition leaders is bemusing. I wonder how keen they will be after his maybe six years, to continue with his extraordinarily expensive dream. Where will the costing cuts be made to pay for this? You can bet your life it won’t be negative gearing, franking credits or tax cuts to big business. Watch out you “battlers” facing the cost of living crisis and the need for essential services. Mary Billing, Allambie Heights
Peter Dutton talks of many countries having nuclear power plants, but nearly all of these were built in the past when there were limited other options. Some of the countries are decommissioning functioning plants because of the danger they pose. Very few are building new nuclear plants because there are many better, cheaper, cleaner options. Nuclear is old technology. Peggy Fisher, Manly
Is it too late to nominate the upper north shore for a nuclear plant? With all of our overachieving private schools, there’s no shortage of young people involved in STEM. We’ve also got lots of lawyers and consultants, so the contracts are sorted. As for builders, have you seen the place? Every tradie in Sydney is working on a new six-bedroom, 10-bathroom mansion. We’ve already got lots of trees, so the climate’s covered. As for space, take your pick of the hundreds of parks and ovals ready for development. The upper north shore is ready for a bit of radioactive action. What could go wrong? Chris Andrew, Turramurra
Kudos to John Shakespeare on the brilliant cartoon depicting Peter DOH!tton as Homer Simpson. I expect John Howard will be rolled out soon in desperation as usual by the Libs to play the part of Montgomery Burns. Paul McShane, Burradoo……………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-real-reason-peter-dutton-wants-nuclear-power-20240620-p5jna2.html
Very late and over budget: Why newest large nuclear plant in US is likely to be the last
Fereidoon Sioshansi Jun 20, 2024
With a lot of exaggerated fanfare, in early May 2024 the Georgia Power Company announced that the 1,114 MW Unit 4 nuclear power reactor at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Georgia, entered commercial operation after 11 years of construction.
The former CEO of the company reportedly had installed a TV screen in his office remotely monitoring the progress of the work at the construction site. It must have been the most boring show to watch since on most days very little was actually happening at the site. He was mostly watching delays.
Vogtle unit 3 began commercial operation in July 2023. The plant’s first two older reactors, with a combined capacity of 2,430 MW, began operations in 1987 and 1989, respectively. The Plant Vogtle’s total generating capacity is nearly 5 GW surpassing, the 4,210-MW Palo Verde nuclear plant near Phoenix in Arizona.
Construction of the last 2 reactors began in 2009 and was originally expected to cost $US14 billion with a start date in 2016 and 2017. But as often happens the project suffered construction delays and cost overruns – exceeding $US30 billion ($A45 billion).
It is the latest – and possibly the last – addition to the US nuclear installed capacity, which is currently around 97 GW and accounted for nearly 19% of domestic electricity production in 2023, making it the second-largest source of electricity generation after gas, which was around 43% last year.
Vogtle Units 3 and 4 use the Westinghouse AP1000 design (cited enthusiastically by Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton this week) which includes new passive safety features that allow the reactors to shut down without any operator action or external power source.
Two similar reactors were planned for South Carolina, but the utilities halted construction in 2017 amidst escalating costs and delays.
The Executive Director of American Nuclear Society (ANS) Craig Piercy congratulated Southern Company, the parent of Georgia Power Company, and Westinghouse:
“This milestone … secures a generational investment in clean energy. Now complete, Vogtle 3 and 4 will deliver 17 million MWhrs of carbon-free power to Georgia annually – equivalent to the energy from all California’s wind turbines – and will be available 24/7.”
Fair enough but Mr. Piercy failed to mention that it took 11 years and $US30 billion of ratepayer money to build it – few private investors can afford the time or the capital.
Nor did he mention that currently there are no other nuclear reactors under construction anywhere in the US and none are presently contemplated. It may be the end of an era despite ANS’ obviously biased praise of the technology.
The story is much the same in France where the state-owned nuclear power giant Électricité de France (EDF), which operates a fleet of 56 reactors in one of the most nuclear dependent countries in the world, has been struggling to complete its last reactor.
The 1.6 GW Flamanville plant in northwest France is 12 years behind schedule and more than four times over budget – for the usual reasons. A faulty vessel cover needs to be fixed, pushing operation date to 2026.
In the meantime, the estimated cost to construct 6 new nuclear reactors, ordered by President Emanuel Macron, has risen to €67.4 billion ($A110 billion), from the original €51.7 billion, and is likely to go higher before they are completed. Nuclear plants are not cheap…………………………………………………
One of the few places where new reactors are being built without long delays is China, but even there the scale of nuclear build is dwarfed by solar and wind by orders of magnitude.
In the past 10 years, more than 34 GW of nuclear power capacity were added in China, bringing the country’s number of operating reactors to 55 – barely shy of the 56 in France – with net capacity of 53.2 GW as of April 2024 (visual on right on original ). Some 23 reactors are reported under construction in China
Globally, nuclear, while a low-carbon and baseload form of generation, is struggling to make much of a dent despite a few isolated places where it is maintained on the agenda – generally by government fiat and through generous subsidies.
It is hard to come up with a conceivable scenario where its fortunes will significantly improve. A hefty global carbon tax, for example, may help but even in this case, it will simply make renewables, not nukes, even more attractive than they already are.
Fereidoon Sioshansi is editor and publisher of EEnergy Informer, and president of Menlo Energy Economics, based in California. https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-the-newest-large-nuclear-plant-in-the-us-is-likely-to-be-the-last/
Nuclear power’s financial problems exposed in new report
Greenpeace European Unit, 19/06/2024, https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/47124/nuclear-powers-financial-problems-exposed-in-new-report/
Brussels, 19 June 2024 – Nuclear power is a risky gamble with taxpayers’ cash, according to a comprehensive review of financing models published as the European Investment Bank prepares to discuss new support for nuclear energy at a meeting on 21 June.
The report, Fission for Funds: The Financing of Nuclear Power Plants, gives an overview of financing models and reveals how the profitability of nuclear power plants heavily relies on government involvement in de-risking investments. The report was commissioned by Greenpeace Germany and carried out by Jens Weibezahn from the Copenhagen School of Energy Infrastructure, and Björn Steigerwald from the Technische Universität Berlin.
Greenpeace EU political campaigner Lorelei Limousin said: “Nuclear power is a black hole for taxpayers and consumers. High upfront costs, long construction times, and government bailouts make nuclear projects a burden on public coffers and a threat to credible climate action. Wind and solar energy are already much cheaper, and their cost is declining. Not a single euro of EU public money should go to nuclear power – it’s time to put people’s needs ahead of nuclear greed, and invest in a safer, cheaper future.”
The report shows that nuclear power plant projects are unreliable due to budget overruns, construction delays, and reliability problems in the operational phase, and therefore often lose investor interest. Hidden costs are also often not included in initial calculations, such as liability insurance, decommissioning and waste management. These become a burden for taxpayers in the future. The report highlights that the cost of solar and wind energy are already much lower than new nuclear projects.
Jens Weibezahn, Assistant professor Ph.D., Copenhagen Business School, co-author of the report, said: “In our review of current nuclear power plant projects, we found that almost all financing models rely – either directly or indirectly – on government support to make them viable. This places an unreasonable burden on either taxpayers or electricity ratepayers, as they, ultimately, bear a large part of the associated financial risks.”
Although most global economies are focusing on renewables to reach net-zero targets, some EU countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, are betting on nuclear power, despite major issues in securing funding for new projects and maintaining their existing ageing fleets. This report highlights that government support for these costly, long-term, and high-risk nuclear projects is becoming harder to justify, particularly at a time of high inflation and rising cost of living.
In the past two decades, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has invested €845 million in nuclear power activities. For the first time, the EIB intends to support research and development in so-called small modular reactors (SMRs), according to a draft strategic roadmap, which will be adopted on 21 June. Many uncertainties persist regarding the overall economic viability of SMRs, not to mention safety risks and the radioactive waste problem. Greenpeace calls on EU finance ministers, who govern the EIB, to oppose any funding for nuclear energy, including small modular reactors.
Please find more information about the various financing models used in European countries in this briefing and read more in the full report.
Dutton’s nuclear lights are out and no one’s home
But none of this matters to Dutton. The reason he is pushing for nuclear is plain: since any nuclear energy plan is unattainable for at least 20 years, it ensures his coal and gas mining mates can continue destroying our natural environment for a long, long time to come.
By Michelle Pini Independent Australia, 20 June 2024
Dutton’s alternative facts on nuclear energy demonstrate that the Coalition is no longer fit for purpose as a credible opposition, let alone a serious government contender. Michelle Pini reports.
APART from frequently changing leaders, nothing has changed about the Liberal-National Party Opposition for a very long time, certainly not since the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison retrograde regime.
Put simply, since the whole point of an opposition party in a two-party system is to provide credible alternative policies – not to recycle the ideas and innovations of a bygone era – today’s Coalition is simply no longer fit for purpose.
This is perhaps best illustrated by Dutton’s most recent set of alternative facts masquerading as policies, the recycled 1950s nuclear power plan.
Sure, the Liberals/Nationals are the parties of the status quo but the fact is, they have taken this concept well past its natural use-by date. Basically, if this was the age of the telephone invention, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and his band of unmerry naysayers would be advocating to keep tin cans and string because phones would put can and string manufacturers out of business — not to mention the plight of carrier pigeon trainers.
Wait, that is actually the same reasoning that led to over a decade of third-world-standard NBN, but we digress.
Carrier pigeons and tin cans notwithstanding, today, the Coalition want us to get behind a leader who, if elected, would catapult us back to an age before science, before technology and before we worked out the Earth wasn’t flat — in every facet of our lives.
A word is needed about the role of the entire mainstream media, here, including the national broadcaster – yet again – in providing a framework where Dutton’s idiotic ramblings are given prominence — nay, are exalted as if they came from the Heavens.
There are so many subtle ways in which his party’s every brain fart is reported in the media as a credible idea and Alan Austin’s latest analysis provides a more detailed explanation of how the ABC’s news coverage, in particular, subtly facilitates this Liberal Party agenda. (You can read more here.)
So, to summarise the Dutton Coalition “policy platform”, it goes something like this:
Finding it hard to keep up with the changing world? Need a scapegoat for your woes?
Then, has Dutton got an idiotic plan, a minority group and a few gaslights, courtesy of the establishment media, for you?!
It is the exploitation of these core fears – the primal fears of change and of “others” – that form the basis of Dutton’s Coalition “policy structure”. It is the reason he does not provide any substantial “detail” in support of his claims. And it provides ongoing ammunition for the climate and culture wars he favours. It’s really no more complicated than that.
Let’s take a close look at Dutton’s banal nuclear “power plan”, which has been presented as a legitimate argument in the legacy media.
A NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE
Dutton – or at least the Coalition’s expert advisers, assuming they still have any – is abundantly aware of the following:
- nuclear energy is not safe by any stretch of the imagination;
- it is not clean;
- it is prohibitively expensive; and
- a nuclear energy industry is unachievable, certainly in the foreseeable future.
But none of this matters to Dutton. The reason he is pushing for nuclear is plain: since any nuclear energy plan is unattainable for at least 20 years, it ensures his coal and gas mining mates can continue destroying our natural environment for a long, long time to come.
With the main game already established, it is only necessary to deflect and obfuscate, providing no “details”, such as properly calculated costs or a realistic timeline. Even his claim that the first seven reactors would be built in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland was debunked by the state premiers, who have unanimously rejected the idea. According to one ABC report, even some state Liberal and National MPs have ‘distanced themselves from nuclear’.
It’s fine, though, according to Dutton, who may eventually give us the details after his party is elected.
NO RENEWABLES FOR US!
Because the efficiency of renewable energies poses a real and imminent threat to fossil fuels, Dutton also plans to ensure any further great strides in this sector will die a quick and unceremonious death by imposing a cap on renewable energy investment.
And because Dutton’s plan is only about fear, he harnesses the fear of running out of power, or of exorbitant energy prices with idiotic statements like, “We can’t allow the lights to go out.”………………………………………………….. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/duttons-nuclear-lights-are-out-and-no-ones-home,18701
Dutton’s nuclear thought bubble floats in a fantasy world of cheap infrastructure
What is the Coalition’s track record when it comes to building big infrastructure projects? Truly shocking.
BERNARD KEANE, JUN 20, 2024
The response to Peter Dutton’s back-of-the-envelope announcement yesterday on seven proposed nuclear power sites — they hadn’t even googled to find out that the owner of the Port Augusta site has other plans for it — is occurring in a weird haze of amnesia about what’s going on with major infrastructure projects in Australia.
Dutton’s nuclear thought bubble floats in a fantasy world of cheap infrastructure
What is the Coalition’s track record when it comes to building big infrastructure projects? Truly shocking.
BERNARD KEANE, JUN 20, 2024
The response to Peter Dutton’s back-of-the-envelope announcement yesterday on seven proposed nuclear power sites — they hadn’t even googled to find out that the owner of the Port Augusta site has other plans for it — is occurring in a weird haze of amnesia about what’s going on with major infrastructure projects in Australia.
On the one hand, the corporate media gleefully reports news of major cost blowouts for big projects. On the other hand, being taken for granted is the Coalition’s ability to achieve an unprecedented project of a fleet of nuclear power stations, including two by 2035-37, without a truly shocking cost.Journalists who fail to interrogate Dutton’s nuclear dream should resignRead More
What’s the federal Coalition’s form on building major projects? Let’s take three from its last period in government……………………….. (Subscribers only) https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/20/peter-dutton-nuclear-proposal-cheap-infrastructure-fantasy/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1718846754-1
Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans
In Queensland, where the Coalition has proposed establishing two nuclear power stations, the state Liberal-National Party has voiced its opposition to nuclear, leaving the opposition without allies at a state level.
ABC News, By political reporter Jake Evans and staff, 19 June 24
- In short: State premiers have unanimously rejected the federal Coalition’s nuclear proposal, which would require lifting several state bans
- Some state Liberal and National members have also distanced themselves from nuclear, though the NSW opposition is open to the idea
- What’s next? The Coalition has been pushed to detail costings of its proposal for seven nuclear sites, and to provide more detail
Among the many hurdles for the Coalition to leap before it can break ground on a single nuclear site will be the state’s premiers, who have lined up against a proposal to establish nuclear power plants at seven locations across the country.
The Coalition has announced its proposal for Australia to go nuclear, eschewing the ramp up of more solar and wind power, to instead build either traditional nuclear plants or small modular reactors on retiring coal sites in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and in Western Australia.
To do so, a future Coalition government would first have to convince federal parliament to lift a prohibition on nuclear power, establish viable sites, find a solution for nuclear waste, convince local communities and train workers before a first plant could be built by late next decade.
And state premiers have emerged as another barrier to entry, with Labor premiers in the states proposed to go nuclear unequivocal in their opposition to the plan — but also some Liberal and National MPs in those states saying they won’t be buying in.
NSW Premier Chris Minns and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said even if Liberal leader Peter Dutton managed to lift the federal nuclear ban, he would also have to overcome bans at a state level.
“We’ve got our ban in place … if there’s a constitutional way for a hypothetical Dutton government to move through the state planning powers, I’m not aware of it, but that’s probably a question for him to answer,” Mr Minns said.
Ms Allan said building a plant in Gippsland would also require repealing state legislation in Victoria.
“They want to bring more expensive, more risky, more toxic energy solutions to the people of this country. We won’t stand for that,” Ms Allan said.
The Victorian premier has since written to Mr Dutton to confirm her government “won’t be negotiating” and would do all in its power to stop a nuclear plant in the Latrobe Valley.
In Queensland, where the Coalition has proposed establishing two nuclear power stations, the state Liberal-National Party has voiced its opposition to nuclear, leaving the opposition without allies at a state level.
Queensland Opposition Leader David Crisafulli said his party had been “clear” nuclear was not part of their plan.
“That’s a matter for Canberra. We’ve been consistent the whole way through,” Mr Crisafulli said…………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/premiers-reject-nuclear-proposal-nuclear-bans/103997020
Wrong reaction: Coalition’s nuclear dream offers no clarity on technology, cost, timing, or wastes
https://www.acf.org.au/coalition-nuclear-dream-offers-no-clarity-on-technology-cost-timing-or-waste 19 June 24
In response to Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s announcement of his proposed nuclear reactor sites, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear analyst Dave Sweeney said:
“The Opposition leader has named seven places where he wants nuclear reactors to be built, but he hasn’t been clear about the technology he wants to use, the cost to taxpayers, the timing, or what would happen to the radioactive waste that stays toxic for thousands of years.
“Mr Dutton wants Australians to believe there will be nuclear reactors operating in a decade should he win the next election. Tell him he’s dreaming.
“There is no bipartisan support and there are deep community, legal and political obstacles facing the Coalition in every Australian jurisdiction.
“It’s clear the Opposition leader hasn’t given up on his dream of small modular reactors. Mr Dutton was vague about whether he is promoting big reactors or small reactors, which are not in commercial deployment anywhere in the world.
“Going nuclear would delay the transition away from coal and gas, increase household electricity bills, introduce the possibility of catastrophic accidents and create multi-generational risks associated with the management of high-level radioactive waste – almost certainly with a disproportionate burden on First Nations communities.
“Extensive modelling, including from CSIRO, shows nuclear is far-and-away the most expensive energy option. Taxpayers and households would bear the cost.
“Nuclear is a dangerous distraction to effective climate action. Australia is blessed with plentiful clean energy resources. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
A detailed new critique of nuclear energy, released today by ACF, shows:
- Australian taxpayers would foot a massive bill for what is the slowest, most expensive form of power generation.
- Australia’s leading insurance companies will not cover damage from a nuclear disaster.
Read more:
Power games: Assessing coal to nuclear proposals in Australia (30-page report)
Why nuclear power will never be right for Australia (10-page summary)
Antinuclear 