Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say.
Coalition proposal would cost a minimum of $116bn – the same as Labor’s plan for almost 100% renewables by 2050, the Smart Energy Council says
Jordyn BeazleySun 23 Jun 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/23/peter-duttons-nuclear-plan-could-cost-as-much-as-600bn-and-supply-just-37-of-australias-energy-by-2050-experts-say
The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors as part of its controversial energy plan could cost taxpayers as much as $600bn while supplying just 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix by 2050, according to the Smart Energy Council.
The analysis found the plan would cost a minimum of $116bn – the same cost as delivering the Albanese government’s plan for 82% renewables by 2030, and an almost 100% renewable energy mix by 2050.
The Coalition has drawn widespread criticism for not releasing the costings of the nuclear power proposal it unveiled on Wednesday as part of its plan for Australia’s energy future if elected. On Friday, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said the costings would come “very soon”, but did not confirm whether it would be days, weeks or months.
The Smart Energy Council came to the $116bn figure using data from the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s latest GenCost report. It factored in the Coalition’s proposed timeframe and the capital costs of replacing the 11 gigawatts of coal capacity produced on the seven sites with nuclear reactors.
But factoring in the experience of cost and timeframe blowouts in the UK, the refurbishment of coal-fired power stations, and Dutton’s plan to compensate the states, the Smart Energy Council found the cost could reach as much as $600bn.
The council found the large nuclear reactors – of which there will be five alongside two smaller reactors – would probably cost $60bn each and were unlikely to be built by 2040. Dutton has said that they plan for the reactors to be built and operational by the second half of the 2030s.
“At best, Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver 3.7% of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s comprehensive strategy,” John Grimes, the chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, said.
“In reality, current cost overruns happening right now in the UK could mean a $600bn bill to Australian taxpayers, whilst delivering a small proportion of the energy that is actually required.
“The most optimistic assessment of Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal indicates it is a pale shadow of the reliable renewables plan outlined and costed by the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo).”
The Smart Energy Council called on the opposition to immediately release its costings and the generation capacity of the proposed seven nuclear reactors.
“They need to explain how their forecasts contradict the experts at the CSIRO and Aemo. It is extraordinary that the details are being hidden from the Australian public,” said Grimes.
The CSIRO and Aemo have assessed the cost of different electricity sources and found nuclear generation would be the most expensive technology available for consumers.
It found that solar and wind backed by storage energy, new transmission lines and other “firming” – in other words, what the country is building now – were the cheapest option.
The Coalition’s promise has met widespread scepticism from Australia’s energy sector and industry groups, which have warned about the risks of cost blowouts and destroying private sector investment.
During an address to party officials in Sydney on Saturday, Dutton said his nuclear energy plan would cost a fraction of Labor’s renewable energy rollout, and would assist in achieving the party’s goal for “cheaper, cleaner and consistent power.
Ten Holocaust survivors condemn Israel’s Gaza genocide
Holocaust survivors say using the Holocaust to justify genocide in Gaza and repress student protest on college campuses is a complete insult to the Holocaust’s memory.
BY OPEN LETTER https://mondoweiss.net/2024/06/ten-holocaust-survivors-condemn-israels-gaza-genocide/
Below is a letter signed by ten Holocaust survivors condemning the genocide in Gaza and the misuse of antisemitism accusations by politicians.
The co-founder of Human Rights Watch, Aryeh Neier, has recently said that Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza. He’s also said that using accusations of antisemitism to attack Israel’s critics “debases the whole concept of antisemitism.” As Holocaust survivors, we are writing to agree wholeheartedly with Professor Neier — who himself only survived the Holocaust by escaping Nazi Germany as a child in 1939.
At a recent Holocaust memorial, Netanyahu declared: “We’ll defeat our genocidal enemies. Never again is now!”
Meanwhile, at another memorial, Biden warned of a “ferocious surge of antisemitism” on college campuses.
In our opinion, to use the memory of the Holocaust like this to justify either genocide in Gaza or repression on college campuses is a complete insult to the memory of the Holocaust.
The dehumanization of Palestinians, describing them as “human animals,” the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, indiscriminate bombing, the destruction of universities and hospitals, and the use of mass starvation — these are clearly stages of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They cannot be defended any more than sending weapons to commit this genocide or refusing funding to UNRWA. With no better arguments, our politicians have resorted to misusing the memory of the Holocaust while claiming that protesting against Israeli genocide is somehow antisemitic.
As Holocaust survivors, we have no special authority on the Middle East but we do know about antisemitism. It’s simply wrong to claim that it’s antisemitic to oppose Israeli genocide. It’s also wrong to claim that calling for equal rights for Jews and Arabs “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic.
As Holocaust survivors, we are just a few individuals but we want to add our voices to the growing global movement to demand a permanent ceasefire, an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and for the West to stop arming and supporting genocide.
Signatories
Jacques Bude (Brussels Belgium), survived in hiding in Belgium, parents killed in Auschwitz.
Marione Ingram (Washington DC), survived in hiding in Nazi Germany.
Stephen Kapos (London UK), survived the Budapest ghetto.
H. Richard Leuchtag (Houston TX), escaped Germany in 1938.
Rene Lichtman (Southfield MI), survived in hiding in France.
Adam Policzer (Vancouver BC), survived in hiding in Hungary.
Lillian Rosengarten (Cold Spring NY), escaped Germany in 1936.
Suzanne Ross (New York), escaped Nazi-occupied Belgium
Suzanne Berliner Weiss (Toronto Ont.), survived in hiding in France, mother killed in Auschwitz.
Ervin Somogyi (Oakland, CA), survivor from Hungary.
Peter Dutton’s flimsy charade is first and foremost a gas plan not a nuclear power plan
Dutton’s nuclear castle is made of cardboard. Close questioning over the many months until election day will show that behind the costly facade, it’s not so much a nuclear plan, as a plan to give up on our climate targets, turn our back on a clean energy future and burn a lot more gas (and money).
Simon Holmes à Court, 21 June 24, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-plan-gas-energy
Straight from the Donald Trump playbook the opposition leader left Australia with more questions than answers.
Finally, on Wednesday morning Peter Dutton announced his nuclear plan … well, it’s more a vibe than a plan – a flimsy announcement leaving us with more questions than answers.
If there’s any doubt that Dutton has internalised the Trump playbook, here’s an example of how he’s deployed the infamous Steve Bannon technique: “flood the zone with shit”.
The media conference was a stream of falsehoods, empty rhetoric and veiled swipes, deftly delivered with unwavering confidence.
As an energy nerd, there’s a lot I like about nuclear technology, and my long-held interest has led me to visit reactors in three countries. Last year I took a nuclear course at MIT and met nuclear developers, potential customers, innovators and investors, tracing many footsteps of the shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien.
I strongly believe nuclear power is an important technology – but it has to make sense where it’s used and that requires close questioning. Here are some important questions, and what we know so far.
How to remove the current bans?
Nuclear is banned in Australia by two acts of parliament. Naturally, to repeal the ban the Coalition would need to win back control of the house – a daunting task when they are 21 seats shy of a majority – and control of the Senate, power it hasn’t held since the end of the Howard era.
Once the federal ban is lifted, Dutton needs a plan for lifting state bans in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
The leaders of the Labor governments and their Coalition oppositions in each of these key states have expressed their clear opposition. Dutton rehashed the old quip that you wouldn’t want to stand between a state premier and a bucket of money, indicating that he thinks dangling commonwealth carrots will solve the issue.
They will not be cheap carrots!
Where will the reactors go?
The Coalition has named seven specific locations, two in Queensland, two in New South Wales and one each in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, all on sites of retired or soon-to-be-retired coal power stations.
One big problem – the commonwealth doesn’t own any of these sites, and in many cases the owners of the sites have plans to redevelop the sites, such as a $750m battery on the site of the old Liddell power station being built by AGL.
On Wednesday Dutton hinted that if the owners wouldn’t sell the sites, he had legal advice that the commonwealth could compulsorily acquire them. That’ll go down well.
How do we keep the lights on?
Australia’s 19 coal power stations generated 125 TWh of electricity last year. The Australian Energy Market Operator expects all will be retired by 2037. On top of that, our energy demand is expected to increase by more than 230 TWh by 2050. Over the next 25 years we need to build facilities that generate at least 355 TWh every year.
Dutton announced that the Coalition would build five large reactors and two small modular reactors by 2050. This would be about 6.5 GW of new capacity, which at best could be expected to generate 50 TWh a year – less than 15% of the new generation needed.
The Coalition has been quite clear that it wants to see renewable energy development slowed to a crawl. This would leave a massive hole in our energy supply, which could only be filled by extending the life of coal and a massive increase in gas power generation.
This is first and foremost a gas plan, not a nuclear plan.
What will it cost?
Gas is the most expensive form of bulk energy supply in the electricity market … at least until nuclear is available.
Replacing the cheapest form of energy – wind and solar, even including integration costs – with the two most expensive forms can only send energy prices higher.
The Coalition’s announcement is too vague to cost precisely and nobody really knows what SMRs will cost, but a reasonable estimate using assumptions from CSIRO’s GenCost would be in the order of $120bn, or to coin a new unit of money, one-third of an Aukus.
What does this mean for emissions?
An analysis by Solutions for Climate Australia, released before Wednesday’s announcement and which assumes a much more aggressive nuclear build, shows an aggregate increase in emissions by 3.2bn tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050 – the emissions equivalent of extending the life of our entire coal fleet by 25 years.
While the Coalition has turned its back on Australia’s legislated 2030 target, their talking points say they’re still committed to net zero emissions by 2050. This does not compute. Dutton’s proposal would see high emissions in the electricity sector all the way to 2050 and beyond, blowing our carbon budget and every emissions target along the way.
What if locals object?
For years Coalition members have been running around the country fomenting then amplifying community concern around wind and solar farms. Genuine community consultation, which has sometimes been lacking, is the best antidote to opposition.
Yet the Coalition has made a massive blunder in telling communities exactly where they’ll go before any consultation. Worse, it has adopted a strong-man posture that communities will have to accept that the reactors are in the national interest. It will be fascinating to watch how the Coalition handles local opposition over the coming months.
How will they be built?
With a combination of astronomical costs and zero interest by energy companies, there only ever was one possible owner of a nuclear power station in Australia: the commonwealth government.
One of the biggest challenges will be locking in major contractors. With the high likelihood that a future Labor government would cancel any contracts, no contractor would proceed without very expensive cancellation protection.
When will the reactors come online?
We often hear that a nuclear reactor can be built in eight years. In reality it takes three to four years from signing the contract to completing the civil works to begin ‘construction’, and it would very optimistically take four years to complete site selection, planning, licensing, vendor selection and contracting. Add in the inevitable legal challenges and it’s highly unlikely a reactor could be delivered by 2035 – as Dutton claimed – let alone before the early 2040s.
The newest reactors in the United States took 18 years from announcement to commercial operation, while in the UAE, it took 13 years under an authoritarian regime … and I’m being kind by not mentioning contemporary projects in France, the UK, Finland and Argentina.
Dutton has said he favours the Rolls-Royce SMR, tweeting an artist’s rendering on Wednesday.
These SMRs exist only on paper, yet Dutton wants us to believe he can provide one by 2035. Remember, this is the mob that brought us the NBN and the Snowy 2.0 disaster. This is the team that couldn’t even build commuter car parks.
What about the water and the waste?
I think we can relax a little about water and waste. Yes, nuclear power stations generally require large volumes of water for cooling, but so do coal power stations. By choosing sites with existing access to cooling water, the Coalition has sidestepped this concern.
Public concern around nuclear waste is high, but ultimately the problem is manageable. The waste will be kept on site, likely in dry casks and eventually moved to wherever Australia decides to store its waste from the Aukus program. Nobody has ever been harmed by spent nuclear fuel.
Who will provide disaster insurance?
While serious nuclear accidents are very rare, their costs can be astronomical. The Japan Centre for Economic Research has estimated that total costs related to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident may reach $350 to 750bn. The only viable solution is for the commonwealth to accept liability.
For a long time the Coalition’s nuclear plan sat beyond the horizon, to be unveiled before the election. But now Dutton’s built a castle and he has to defend it.
Dutton is still learning about nuclear. On Wednesday he said that an SMR would emit only a “coke can” of nuclear waste a year. In reality it would probably produce more than 2,000 times that.
Nuclear energy is complex. He and his team will keep making mistakes. Keith Pitt, a Nationals backbencher told RN Breakfast on the same day that the grid couldn’t handle more than 10% wind and solar power combined. Over the past year the grid has averaged 31% wind and solar.
Some people want to believe there are simple solutions to the complex solutions behind the cost of living crisis, and like his political forebear Tony Abbott, Dutton has a knack for delivering simple messages with cold competence.
But Dutton’s nuclear castle is made of cardboard. Close questioning over the many months until election day will show that behind the costly facade, it’s not so much a nuclear plan, as a plan to give up on our climate targets, turn our back on a clean energy future and burn a lot more gas (and money).
- Simon Holmes à Court is a Director of The Superpower Institute, the Smart Energy Council and convener of Climate 200. Contrary to Coalition belief, he is not a large investor in renewable energy.
Nuclear culture wars – especially in Australia
Australia IS special – the only continent that is one single political state. Although Australia is really very multicultural, its government and business are determinedly white English-speaking.
But the white anglophones who identify with the USA, Britain, and Canada – live far away from those “kindred spirits”. Nearest neighbours are yellow and brown people, who don’t even speak English!
So – Australia has the “cultural cringe” – aw gee we’re not as good as those other anglophones. Only at sport -and even there, we’re losing touch. We MUST become as good as them – TECHNOLOGICALLY. Oh I know – we’d better get Nuclear Power, instead of that girly stuff – renewable energy.
And I do mean “girly stuff”. Worldwide, it is a gender thing. Big strong men like nuclear power, weak uninformed women prefer energy conservation and renewable energy.
It really doesn’t matter which energy form is cheaper, more efficient, faster to implement, safer, cleaner …….. what is important is making Australia look important and technologically a leader, and also a strong opponent to China. We’re already a leader – in renewable energy – but that is sissy stuff, so it doesn’t count.
Now, there will need to be a grand propaganda campaign to get nuclear power into Australia. You see, we have compulsory voting here, which means that all those uniformed women will be voting. So it is going to be a big job to get nuclear into Australia. It will require all the skills of the Atlas Foundation, and its associated Think Tanks, to get the message across to the Australian public – including to wimpy-type men, as well as to women. But with the help of the Murdoch media, and social media – a good pro nuclear lobby should be up to it. Remember Australia’s referendum on an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament got defeated, with all that help last year.
Antinuclear 