Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Nuclear powered universities – the latest bright idea from Barnaby’s people

Murray Hogarth, 2 December 2024,  https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/columns-columns/the-nuclear-files/nuclear-powered-universities-the-latest-bright-idea-from-barnabys-people/

It’s common knowledge that Australia’s university sector is facing challenging times, but who knew installing nuclear reactors on campuses might be part of the future fix?

At least, that’s what the local anti-renewables, pro-nuclear campaign group in National Party maverick Barnaby Joyce’s home electorate of New England in north-eastern NSW is proposing.

Joyce, a former Deputy Prime Minister and current opposition frontbencher, is a leading voice in the self-styled “bush rebellion” against so-called “reckless renewables”, and a prominent political champion for Australia embracing nuclear energy.

He campaigns very actively on his own territory, but also roves further afield, even venturing into metropolitan Sydney, most recently at an anti-renewables, pro-nuclear forum in Labor Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s own electorate of McMahon.

His local ginger group, Responsible Energy Development for New England (RED4NE), has pitched this novel idea for regional universities in its submission to the current House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy.

It focuses on the University of New England, which is headquartered in the region’s largest urban centre, Armidale, and cites rising power demand for AI at all universities as a key driver for its nuclear notion based on next-generation Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs.

Just wait for the fallout from the university’s students and academics, and the local Armidale community’s not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) brigade, if this gains any credence.

Although that said, given that no SMRs have been developed commercially anywhere in the OECD – as a number of the now over 340 submissions to the inquiry make clear, with only a couple of completed examples of SMRs in the world, in Russia and China – it may be a very long time before the good burghers of Armidale will need to get too worked up.

In its inquiry submission, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) confirms SMRs may power discreet use cases such as data centres and mining sites in the future, but describes the technology as still being in its “infancy”.

It says: “ATSE’s report on SMRs concluded that commercial releases in other OECD countries could be possible by the late 2030s to mid-2040s, with a mature market emerging by the late 2040s.”

Power-hungry universities growing their AI will need a lot of electricity well before then.

Such a proposition totally ignores the Liberal-National coalition pledge, should it win the national elections due within six months, to restrict its planned nuclear reactor developments to just seven already-named locations on old coal-fired power station sites across five states.

None of these seven sites are in the New England region, with the nearest being Muswellbrook in the adjoining Hunter Valley region, and currently the Coalition’s still poorly-defined and uncosted nuclear policy only specifies SMRs being built at sites in South Australia and Western Australia.

Under the heading “Deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) for New England Tablelands”, the RED4NE submission to the parliamentary inquiry says: “Even though renewable energy sources have a role to play in Australia’s energy mix, nuclear power, particularly through the deployment of SMRs, offers a compelling alternative for the New England Tablelands region.”

It then gets more specific, with a subheading “High energy needs of AI for Universities”, proposing that: “One of the most compelling uses would be the installation of SMRs for high energy users such as the University of New England (UNE) in Armidale.

“As Universities in general move to using more Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, their need for power increases exponentially. New version SMRs do not require the vast quantities of water inherent in older models. As such, SMRs would be of vital importance for the continuing competitiveness for regional universities such as UNE.”

The New England Region is one of the NSW government’s five designated Renewable Energy Zones (REZ’s), which are earmarked for large-scale solar, wind and storage developments connected to high-demand areas of the electricity grid by transmission lines.

RED4NE’s submission mirrors most of the nuclear lobby’s standard arguments, concluding that: “When considering the alternatives, nuclear is more reliable, less destructive to communities and ecosystems, cheaper, and has longer lifespan. We urge you to consider seriously the positive benefits of nuclear power generation for Australia to avoid unnecessary violation of such beautiful rural communities such as the New England Tablelands.”

The submission also makes clear that RED4NE is collaborating with one of the pro-nuke brigade’s favourite “environmentalists”, wildlife photographer turned anti large-scale renewables campaigner Steven Nowakowski. He has helped them to produce a cumulative impact “panascope” of the wind, solar and battery developments, including transmission line and road infrastructures, proposed for the New England REZ.

Nowakowski was a guest speaker at a RED4NE-hosted community forum in Armidale on 3October, addressing landholders and other local residents on the topic: “Is the New England REZ broken?”

Other pro-nuclear speakers promoted for the forum included Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) Energy Director Aiden Morrison and Nuclear for Climate Australia founder Robert Parker, who, like Nowakowski, are regulars at similar events being held across regional Australia.

Of course, Barnaby Joyce is a regular too, frequently honing his arguments against the renewables-led energy transition – which he decries as the Labor government’s “cult-like attachment to intermittent power” – with his own constituents.

On the morning of the RED4NE forum, Joyce told his Facebook followers: “Tonight I am in Armidale with yet another gathering of standing room only of every political persuasion with one thing in common. We have been misled, ripped off and lied to. This is a social, environmental and energy train wreck of monumental proportions.”

It’s going to be a wild and wacky ride as the renewables versus nuclear, Labor versus coalition contest rages right up to election day. 

December 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

TODAY. Fantasies for 2025 – perhaps the nuclear one tops the list?

I mean – there’s a lot of competition for this title – top fantasy. There’s the fantastic possibility that all will go well with Donald Trump in power in the USA. That’s a big one seeing that we have a narcissisitic sociopath at the top, appointing a bunch of other narcissistic sociopaths, all of whom are singularly unsuited to their jobs, and who probably don’t trust each other, and certainly don’t trust Trump.

There’s the fantasy that the ruling Great Powers are actually going to do anything real about reducing fossil fuel emissions, or really helping the indigenous peoples who are most affeced by global heating.

Then there’s the plastic one. The same Great Powers are happy to allow those same fossil fuel companies to churn out plastic, while they make pious motherhood statements about the fantasy of “recycling” and somehow or other “disposing” of plastic wastes. They’d love to have all that toxic crap dumped on poor indigenous people too. But – at least, there’s a certain democracy about plastic wastes – as teensy weensy bits of plastic are in every organ of our bodies now, including the brain.

Still, I’m backing the nuclear industry fantasy to trump Trump and climate and plastic pollution for the fantasy of the year.

As to public realisation of these fantasies – there is a general uneasiness about the coming Trump administration.

And across the world 87% of people know that climate change is real, and are concerned about it. Public awareness of plastic pollution is growing too, especially in the USA. But the public are still using the fossil fuel products – and in order to cope with global heating, are turning on air-conditioners fuelled by fossil fuels. People are aware, but they don’t know how to stop it. So the corporate polluters are happy.

But nuclear power had a bad name, over previous decades. It really has been a huge challenge for this industry to turn all that around, to keep their profits thriving , and to have nuclear portrayed as a public good.

The well-paid minions of the nuclear industry have done an excellent job in conning the public, world-wide. They had to work hard to overcome nuclear’s history of accidents, bungles, and failed projects, not to mention how it has proliferated weapons of mass destruction.

Then, from strenuously not believing in Climate Change, the nuke lobby did a flip – with the inspired realisation that they could pretend that Nuclear Power is the Cure for Climate Change.

Well, it’s not the cure for climate change -nor for energy shortage, and it’s not “cheap” nor “clean”.

But the industry faces other huge problems, too. Nuclear publicists studiously avoid the topic of the cost of shutting down, and pulling down, nuclear reactors and then dealing with the toxic wastes. It’s supposed to be cheaper and better to “extend the lives” of crappy old nuclear reactors with their embrittled and cracked pipes. I think that the well-paid engineers, executives, politicians, trade union leaders, and media nuclear “experts” are all figuring that it’d be better if the “decommissioning” were to take place conveniently, long after their own retirement or death.

So the expensive horror of dealing with the tail end of the nuclear industry is a topic not to be discussed. Nor is the horror of nuclear war – with its weapons provided by the nuclear industry -and promoted by the ever-more profitable arms manufacturers. The “peaceful commercial nuclear industry is an essential part of this.

So – what is acceptable to discuss?

Well, it’s the “energy miracle” of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” (SMRs). “Start-ups” for SMRs popping up all over the place (though some of them are quietly closing). The whole idea is that these, so far mythical, beasts will be commercially viable. However, Governments have always propped nuclear ventures up well, with various subsidies and tax exemptions. China and Russia solved the problem, with government ownership of the industry. France did too, though that’s not working too well. Now the British Labour government has “Great British Nuclear” set up as a government run venture- (by a conservative party that’s supposed to hate socialism.)

So – in a clearly non-commercially-viable venture, the tax-payer is to save the day.

Paul Brown sets out the whole sorry story, in particular for the UK. He explains the work of two pesky academics Prof. Stephen Thomas and Prof. Andy Blowers and their report  – “It is time to expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy once and for all.” The costs and delays of the Hinkley Point C big nuclear project, the planned Sizewell one, the £20 billion plan for unbuilt, untested SMRs – these are exposed, and make the pro-nuclear propaganda look absurd.

Yet the propaganda goes on. The big names in nuclear – Rafael Grossi, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos keep right on, maintaining the fallacy that all is well with the global nuclear industry, – and their sycophants in politics and media rebleat their message.

Thank you, Paul Brown, for explaining this so succinctly – if only the facts could be clearly set out in the mainstream media – and the public would not swallow the Kool-Aid. But of course, it won’t be, – the fantasy will prevail – until the shit finally hits the fan.

December 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australian nuclear news 2 – 9th December

Headlines as they come in:

December 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘Living next door to radioactive waste’: Latrobe Valley residents to rally against Coalition’s nuclear plan

In the lead-up to public hearings, a community organiser says ‘risky scheme’ is being pushed for region with no details or consultation.

Petra Stock, 2 Dec 24,  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/03/latrobe-valley-liberal-coalition-nuclear-power-plan-peter-dutton

Community, environment and health groups will rally together against the Coalition’s nuclear proposal for the Latrobe Valley in Traralgon as public hearings for a nuclear inquiry take place in town on Tuesday.

Adrian Cosgriff, a member of community advocacy group Voices of the Valley, who worked in Gippsland’s oil and gas industry before retiring, said the region needed a decent plan for jobs as its coal-fired power stations shut down.

Peter Dutton’s nuclear idea made that “harder, not easier”, he said. “We’ve got people wasting time and making empty promises to a community that needs real jobs and real leadership.”

A self-described “industrial nerd”, Cosgriff followed Australia’s net zero commitment and local coal station closures closely.

So when Dutton proposed seven nuclear power stations nationally, including one in the valley, he went looking for details – and became frustrated with a lack of substantial detail on key aspects of the proposal, including the economics, timeframe and lack of available water resources for cooling.

Hayley Sestokas, a community organiser at Environment Victoria who grew up in the valley, said the “risky scheme” was being foisted on locals with no detail and consultation.

“The Coalition has not been upfront with the community,” she said. “If this was to go ahead, for the next 60 to 100 years we would be living next door to high-level radioactive waste and the threats and implications that actually entails.”

Sestokas hoped the rally and committee hearing would provide further information to people unsure what it meant to live next to a nuclear reactor.

Public hearings for the federal inquiry into nuclear power generation were scheduled for Traralgon, Melbourne and Adelaide this week. The local member for Gippsland and National party MP, Darren Chester, a member of the committee conducting the inquiry, has previously said: “Communities which have retiring coal-fired power station assets deserve to be at the centre of this inquiry.”

Dr Margaret Beavis, the vice-president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War, was due to speak about the health risks from radiation exposure, nuclear accidents and waste for local communities hosting nuclear reactors.

According to studies, increased radiation exposure raised the risk of cancers, heart attacks and strokes, she said, as well as increased incidence of leukaemia in children.

Beavis said studies – including from the US, the UK and Germany – showed the risk of childhood leukaemia roughly doubled for people within 5km of an operating nuclear power station, and was elevated within 50km.

While rare, accidents at nuclear power sites can occur, Beavis said, causing major exposures to large numbers of the population. “Complex systems do fail, as we’ve seen with [Chornobyl], Fukushima and Three Mile Island.”

Nuclear waste management was an unsolved problem, she added, which meant spent fuel rods could end up being stored at the site for decades. Globally, she noted, Finland is closest to a long-term storage solution, after a process that involved 40 years of planning and community consultation.

Dave Sweeney, a nuclear policy analyst with the Australian Conservation Foundation, said environment groups shared the community’s concerns relating to radioactive waste, energy costs, water resources and the consequences of delaying the energy transition for jobs and the climate. These concerns were detailed in a joint submission to the inquiry by the ACF and 15 other groups.

“We’re switching off coal, and we need to have secure energy supplies to make that transition,” Sweeney said. “Nuclear power is simply too uncertain, too expensive and too slow, and brings with it a range of related risks.

“When it comes to our energy future, we need effective climate action now, and we want to see an energy future that’s renewable, not radioactive.”

December 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear news and more – week to 2 December.

Some bits of good news.  Scientists develop a plastic that dissolves at sea.        Cop29 offered some silver linings.  More Than 30 Stranded Whales Rescued in New Zealand by People Lifting Them on Sheets.

TOP STORIES

Project 2025 calls for massive changes to Hanford nuclear cleanup. France is weighing zero-interest loan for 6 nuclear reactors, sources say.


Civil and military nuclear programmes: will they be derailed by skills shortages? 

Decommissioning old nuclear sites to cost £130bn in blow to Miliband.

Climate. Huge COP29 climate deal too little too late, poorer nations say. ‘Unprecedented’ climate extremes are everywhere – Our baselines for what’s normal will need to change.

Environment. What Project 2025 Would Do to the Environment – and How We Will Respond.

Noel’s notes. SMRs underground – long drop nuclear toilets? – a chance to use that beaut new word – enshittification. Ecology be damned -we won’t know what’s hit us after January 20th

AUSTRALIA. ABC chair Kim Williams says investment in national broadcaster the best counter to ‘flood’ of misinformation. Australia’s top environment groups – Submission to Government Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia.

NUCLEAR ITEMS.

ATROCITIES. Israel Attacks Kill 155 Palestinians in Gaza Over 72 Hours. Israel Has Killed Over 1,000 Doctors and Nurses in Gaza. Israeli snipers ‘shoot Palestinians for sport’.

CIVIL LIBERTIES. The Antisemitism Awareness Act Is the Death Knell for Free Speech.

ECONOMICS. Is Europe Ready for a Nuclear Renaissance? France postpones financing decision of 6 new reactors – report.

EDUCATION. Christian Nationalism Marches on With ‘Bible-Infused’ Texas Curriculum.
EMPLOYMENT. Hinkley Point C: Hundreds down tools over concerns. Only 20% of Great British Nuclear staff employed permanently-ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/12/02/1-b-only-20-of-great-british-nuclear-staff-employed-permanently/
ENERGY. Hunterston ‘industrial revolution’ on our doorstep – liquid air energy storage.
ENVIRONMENT. Just Don’t Mention (or Measure) the Pu (Plutonium). Plans to turn land in Somerset into a saltmarsh should be scrapped..
EVENTS. 5 December -Adelaide, Australia – STOP PETER DUTTON’S NUCLEAR REACTOR THREATS -Peaceful protest outside Federal Government’s Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia
HEALTH. ‘No plans’ for specific nuclear test veteran compensation. Plutonium. Suspected case of plutonium contamination in Rome plant.
INDIGENOUS ISSUES.Listening to Indigenous views. Indigenous views on nuclear energy and radioactive waste .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i7XtIGFqyY
LEGAL. Today in Imperial Recklessness & Insanity. The United States Raises a Middle Finger to the International Criminal Court.
MEDIA. War Crimes in Lebanon: Human Rights Watch Says Israel Used U.S. Arms to Kill 3 Journalists.

POLITICS. As America barrels toward war with Russia….Where’s Biden? From Genocide Joe to Omnicide Joe. Donald Trump’s quick trip to absolute dictatorship.

Inside Project Esther, the right wing action plan to take down the Palestine movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPar-qf5FwY

EDF’s controversial River Severn saltmarshes plan should cease, says County Council leader.

POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. “Israel Wants Wars”: Gideon Levy on Lebanon Ceasefire, Gaza & Gov’t Sanctions Against Haaretz– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i12aMIxc8As

Iran and Europe seek to break nuclear impasse before return of Trump. Iran to hold nuclear talks with France, Germany, UK. Iran says it could end ban on possessing nuclear weapons if sanctions reimposed.

PUBLIC OPINION Game changer: world turns against Israel – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJSWAun9Xnc

SAFETY.

SECRETS and LIES. UK Government urged to end secrecy over ‘worrying’ drone sightings near nuclear-linked air bases.  The secret audit that crucifies most French nuclear start-ups ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/11/26/3-b1-the-secret-audit-that-crucifies-most-french-nuclear-start-ups/
TECHNOLOGY. The entanglement of fusion energy research and bombs.Iran deploys advanced centrifuges in defiance of IAEA resolution.
URANIUM. Ironic Dependency: Russian Uranium and the US Energy Market
WASTES. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) Siting Process Fails to Achieve its Goal. South Bruce spared, but Ignace selected for Canadian nuclear waste dump.

WAR and CONFLICT. Israeli army pushes deeper into south Lebanon as ceasefire violations intensify. Ceasefire Falters as Israel Launches Airstrikes, Artillery Shelling on Southern Lebanon.

Mass Desertions Over Radiation Could End the War in Ukraine. Ukraine has lost almost 500,000 troops – Economist. Mass desertions crippling Ukrainian army – AP. White House Pressing Ukraine To Draft 18-Year-Olds for War . Ukrainians And Americans Are Done With This War, But It Keeps Escalating Anyway.

WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Biden seeking extra $24bn for Kiev – Politico. G7 finalizing $50 billion loan to Ukraine – Washington. White House finally confirms greenlight for deep Russia strikes. Russia Prepares to Respond to the Armageddon Wanted by the Biden Administration. Transfer of nukes to Kiev would be viewed as attack on Russia – Medvedev.

Biden administration advancing $680m arms sale to Israel, source says.

The Technology for Autonomous Weapons Exists. What Now?.

December 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costings

Tristan Edis, Dec 2, 2024, , https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-sneak-preview-of-peter-duttons-nuclear-costings/

Any day now, we should be provided with an estimate from the Liberal-National Coalition and/or Frontier Economics on what Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power will cost us.

Keep in mind we already have plenty of sources of information for what nuclear power costs based on real-world experience.

The chart below,[ on original] based on analysis by myself and Johanna Bowyer, shows the power price required for nuclear power plants to be commercially viable compared to current wholesale energy costs passed on to residential power consumers.

These power prices are based on the cost of actual power plants which have either been committed to construction or which provided tender construction contract offers over the past 20 years across Europe and North America.

Our research indicates that conventional nuclear power stations cost anywhere between $14.9 to $27.5 million per megawatt to construct. They also accumulate significant finance interest costs over a lengthy construction period ranging between 9 to 18 years.

While yet to be commercialised small modular reactors are promised to achieve shorter build times, they don’t exist, except on the drawing board.

 The only one that has progressed to a construction contract in the developed world would have cost $28.9 million per megawatt. These are the range of costs and build times that the Coalition and/or Frontier Economics should be using if they want to be realistic.

This would lead to the uncomfortable conclusion that household power bills would need to rise by around $665 per year for nuclear power plants to recover their costs from the electricity market.

Oddly, Ted O’Brien and Angus Taylor didn’t think real world experience with nuclear projects was a valid basis for assessing the cost of their plan. That, of course, makes one wonder what they might have in mind.

Here are four ways they might instead approach their costing:

1) Apply the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to costing nuclear power plants also known as a “nth of a kind” costing;

2) Assume all transmission upgrade costs can be avoided with nuclear even though the prior Liberal-National Government approved and supported these transmission projects when in government;

3) Assume coal power plants never grow old;

4) Assume the damage from emissions released prior to 2050 don’t matter

We look at those claims in detail.

1) Look out for ‘NOAK’ or the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to costing

Advocates for nuclear power aren’t terribly fond of using costs based on real-world experience.  Instead they like to apply the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to power plant costing.

This is where they assume away all the things that almost always go wrong with nuclear power plant construction, and imagine what should, could, or would happen if the real world would just stop being so damn unco-operative.

 This typically requires that:

 1.  Construction companies and component suppliers stop making mistakes and stop seeking to claim contract variations;

2.  Members of the community and politicians welcome nuclear projects with open arms and stop seeking to obstruct and delay them;

3.  Nuclear plant designers get their designs perfect right from the start, avoiding the need to make adjustments on the fly as construction unfolds;

4.  Financiers stop worrying about risk;

5.  The community and politicians loosen-up about the small risk of radioactive meltdowns and apply less onerous safety requirements;

6.  Construction staff aren’t tempted away to non-nuclear projects with offers of better pay or a more reliable stream of work;

7.  Safety regulators work co-operatively and flexibly (compliantly?) with industry; and

8.  Power companies en masse commit to ordering lots of reactors from a single supplier well in advance of when needed to enable the supply chain of nuclear equipment suppliers to achieve mass economies of scale and learning.

You generally know that these types of assumptions have been made in a nuclear costing because that costing will be described as a “nth of a kind” or NOAK cost.

The idea here is that incredibly high costs that were incurred in building all the prior nuclear power plants were an anomaly because they involved a whole bunch of mistakes and inefficiencies that the industry will learn from.

So, after they build several more and get progressively better, they’ll eventually reach the “Nth” number of plants, and all the problems that made prior plants so expensive will be ironed out.

At exactly what number plant do we reach N?

Well that’s usually a bit rubbery.

Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, you’ll find this NOAK costing approach is commonly adopted by the International Energy Agency, the US Department of Energy and even Australia’s CSIRO adopted a nuclear NOAK costing for its GenCost publication.

Unfortunately, while these agencies are generally good sources of information, the Nth power plant seems to always be a few more nuclear power plants away from being realised.

In reality the cost of building nuclear reactors has historically got worse rather than better over time in the western world.

The chart below [on original] illustrates the construction cost experience for pressurised water reactors in the US (in blue) and France (in red). Note this was based on a 2011 paper and omits the more recent and even worse cost experience detailed in the report by Bowyer and myself.

Bent Flyvberg – a professor in construction management at Oxford University and author of the bestselling book, How Big Things Get Done, has helpfully compiled a huge database of how major construction projects across the globe have performed against their original budgets.  

This database reveals just how unreliable are the costings provided by the nuclear industry and its proponents. As the chart below published by Flyvberg reveals, the mean cost overrun of nuclear power projects stands at 120%, with only Olympic Games and Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities managing worse cost over-runs.

Meanwhile look at what types of projects perform well [graph at top of page]– notice anything?

For the journalists reading this article your task is simple – when the Coalition or Frontier Economics release their nuclear plan costing you need to ask them the following:

(1) Can you please provide us with a written assurance from the CEO of an experienced nuclear technology provider, like Westinghouse, EDF or Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, confirming they are willing to enter into a fixed price contract to build a nuclear power plant in Australia for the cost and timeframe used in your costing?

If instead they cite to you the experience of the Barakah Plant in the United Arab Emirates let’s say, then you can always ask them:

So, like the United Arab Emirates, will you be:
– allowing the mass importation of construction labour from developing countries;
– removing the right of workers to collectively organise and bargain;
– exempting nuclear construction projects from paying Australian award wages; and
– banning the right to peacefully protest?

2) All transmission expansion costs are the fault of Labor and can be avoided with nuclear power

It should be acknowledged that transmission network expansion projects in this country are also being hit by large budget blow outs which involve multi-billion dollar costs.  We need to do a far better and more judicious job in the roll out of transmission projects in this country.

It’s also true that several of these projects are critical to supporting ongoing expansion of wind and solar power.  Ted O’Brien and David Littleproud have been highly critical of these new transmission projects and claimed extra transmission costs can be avoided by rolling out nuclear.

Given this, their forthcoming costing will probably suggest all of these new transmission costs can be sheeted home to Labor’s Renewable Energy Policies.

But this would also indicate that O’Brien and Littleproud suffer from amnesia.  That’s because the major transmission expansions which are incurring the largest costs were actively pushed by the former Coalition Government which both of them served in.

Read more: A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costings

The prior government “welcomed” and helped underwrite the new 900 kilometre transmission interconnector between SA and NSW.

In the lead up to the 2019 election, they vowed to build a second electricity interconnector between Tasmanian and the mainland.

In January 2020 the Federal Coalition entered into a funding deal with the NSW Government to upgrade transmission lines across north, central and southern NSW.

As part of the 2020 budget, Angus Taylor and a range of National Party MPs announced funding support for an 840km transmission line across inland Queensland which they declared was a “commitment to regional jobs, industry development and affordable reliable power.”

Then, leading into the 2022 election, they announced they would underwrite construction works on a major new transmission line between NSW and Victoria.

Then Energy Minister Angus Taylor’s press release at the time spoke glowingly about the benefits of new transmission, stating:

“Our investment in this project will support reliable electricity supply, deliver substantial cost savings and help keep the lights on for Australian families, businesses and industries.

This builds on the Morrison government’s record of judicious investment of over $800 million in priority transmission projects recommended by AEMO’s Integrated System Plan – projects that stack up for consumers.”

3) Relying on coal power plants that never grow old

It is almost guaranteed that the Coalition’s costing model will assume we can rely on the existing coal power stations to keep powering on for another decade or two with no deterioration in their reliability, before they then switch to nuclear power.

This is a very handy assumption to make because it allows you to avoid or delay significant costs involved in building the new, replacement power stations before the nuclear plants miraculously come to the rescue.

Yet while it might be a handy modelling assumption, it probably isn’t a realistic one.

To keep coal power plants reliable, especially when they are several decades old, requires ongoing significant expenditure on maintenance and replacement parts.  Plus, even with this expenditure there can reach a point where a plant is so old it will continue to suffer serious reliability problems.

A good example of the risks and limitations of refurbishment is the case of the attempt to refurbish Western Australia’s Muja A and B coal generating units of 240 megawatts.

In 2007 these units, which were approaching 50 years of age, were mothballed. But by 2009 the WA Government announced they would be recommissioned due to a gas shortage that had afflicted the state. At the time the cost was estimated to be $100m.

The cost of refurbishment subsequently blew out to $290 million and in 2012 one of the units suffered an explosion due to corroded piping, injuring a worker.

A subsequent investigation highlighted a range of technical problems with the plant that made refurbishment challenging, but in 2013 the government chose to press on and sink a further $45 million into the project, claiming it would have a lifetime of 15 years and ultimately recover its costs.  

However, even after refurbishment was completed it was reported by the West Australian newspaper the generating units were “plagued by operational and reliability problems, generating electricity just 20 per cent of the time. By 2018 the WA Government decided to cut their losses and shut Muja A and B permanently.

AGL’s Liddell Power Station is another case in point. AGL argued that a ten year life extension would cost $900m, and decided it wasn’t worth it. A government taskforce which sought to second guess AGL on the closure noted,
“a Liddell extension meets the maximum power output requirement.

This means it could provide sufficient capacity to maintain current levels of reliability in NSW as long as it is actually available during peak demand conditions. However, the increasing risk of outages as the plant ages gives rise to an increasing possibility those outages would lead to supply shortfalls.

Liddell already has a high outage rate compared with other NSW coal generators…. There is a risk that upgrades to make the plant compliant with safety and other regulation would not alter its upward trajectory of faults and unplanned outages.”

The other issue is that owners of power plants are likely to face considerable difficulty raising finance to undertake such refurbishment.

Delta Electricity, the owner of the Vales Point B coal power station, revealed in a rule change request to the AEMC that it was facing significant difficulty accessing bank finance stating, “A significant number of financial institutions…are no longer providing financing facilities to fossil fuel generators”.

The rule change request asked that Delta be able to provide cash, rather than a bank guarantee to AEMO to meet prudential requirements for trading purposes.

It explained that the bank providing its current guarantee was unwilling to continue with this arrangement because lending to a coal generator was in breach of environmental policies governing its financing practices.

In a search to find another lender Delta found, “during the refinancing process that 13 of the 15 lenders declined due to ESG [Environment, Social and Governance] constraints, which included the Big-4 Australian banks.

“Both of the remaining financial institutions were prepared to offer a bank guarantee facility to provide credit support related only to requirements for mining rehabilitation obligations and renewable Power Purchase Agreements.”

Some conservative politicians might like to pass this off as some short-term, woke fashion that will pass once they reach power. But it won’t pass, because bankers don’t like to lend money to risky commercial ventures.

Some conservative politicians might think global warming is an idea promoted by a mass conspiracy of meteorological science agencies across the globe to impose a socialist, world-wide government. However, most people think that’s a bit far-fetched.

Conservative politicians that think climate change is a hoax aren’t always in power, so bankers recognise there is a significant risk coal generators will be subject to emission control policies that will undermine their commercial viability.

This isn’t a distant risk, because such policies (which often are targeted towards supporting growth of renewable energy) have already been implemented.

4) The damage caused by power plant emissions in the years prior to 2050 don’t matter

Carbon dioxide and a range of other greenhouse gas emissions released by fossil fuel extraction and combustion last many decades once released into the atmosphere. Consequently, the extent of global warming is a function of the accumulated stock of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere built up over time.

It isn’t a function solely of emissions in the single year of 2050.  If we manage to achieve net zero emissions in 2050, but have polluted the hell out of the atmosphere in the preceding years then global warming will be very bad indeed.

A tonne of CO2 emitted this year and each of the years preceding 2050 will cause damage to society that is worth something to avoid. Any economist worthy of calling themselves an economist knows that the value of this avoided damage needs to be taken into account in any attempt to properly cost alternative options for our electricity system.

The Australian Energy Regulator provides one such option for valuing this in its paper – Valuing emissions reductions.

It should be noted the AER’s attaches significantly lower value to avoiding emissions than the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommends in the years prior to 2050, and very far below values used by the UK Government.

If the Liberal-National Party’s policy leads to slower emission reductions (even if they ultimately deliver net zero by 2050) this carries a serious penalty for our children and future children.

If it is ignored from their economic analysis, can we come to any other conclusion than the Liberal-National Party think climate change is so unimportant its impacts can be ignored?

Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets provides data and analysis on energy and carbon abatement certificate markets to assist clients make informed investment, trading and policy decisions.

December 3, 2024 Posted by | business, politics | Leave a comment