Before you swallow Dutton’s nukes, look at the evidence
When it comes to a politician versus Australia’s peak scientific body about the cost of nuclear energy, I know who I’d rather believe.
So, Peter Dutton tells us that his nuclear policy will be cheaper than Labor’s renewables policy (“Dutton to claim nuclear rollout will end up cheaper than renewables”, December 6). I would recommend to readers the Climate Council’s myth-busting article “The seven ways the federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings”.
Some points it includes are: excluding the cost of keeping our ageing power stations open until 2038, estimated at $225 million per year for the Eraring station alone; excluding the prohibitory costs for storing nuclear waste for no less than 100,000 years and giving no consideration to the cost of continuing to burn possibly 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon by 2050, which will increase the number of climate disasters and a rise in insurance premium costs for all of us.
It also ignores the reality of cost blowouts for building a nuclear system, and the cost of transmission upgrades that are needed at the ageing power stations that they are pretending to be cost-neutral sites for their nuclear plants and are already being used for new battery, wind and solar power. Charmain Brinks, Newcastle
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that solar- and wind-produced energy is 10 times more effective at reducing carbon dioxide emissions than nuclear energy, which delivers far less power per dollar and is now adding as much energy in a year as renewables do in just a few days. Stanford University studies show new nuclear plants cost up to seven times as much as onshore wind or solar per kilowatt hour, and take five to 17 years to deploy. It will be interesting to compare Dutton’s estimated cost to store nuclear waste safely with the current estimated cost in Britain of £53 billion ($105 billion). Peter Nash, Fairlight
The claim that nuclear, in Australia, is cheaper than renewables is simply false. It ignores price changes over the past 20 years, whereby the cost of renewables, as predicted, has fallen by 90 per cent. Also, 2050 is 25 years away; anyone who thinks solar power will be the same 25 years from now is deluding themselves. Batteries will be much cheaper, in real terms, in 25 years’ time. Critical materials such as lithium will be in the recycling phase by then. On the other hand, since nuclear energy depends so much on the fuel cycle, it could become more expensive. Meanwhile, renewables will continue to get cheaper as transmission lines with aluminium cables improve, and get cheaper, and hydrogen-generation costs fall by a factor of 10 or more with natural gas feed. Noel Thompson, Riverview
It appears that the Coalition is pushing its nuclear power idea solely based on dubious capital cost estimates produced by a friendly associate. Nobody is considering such important issues as waste disposal, plant location with cooling water supply security or the availability of specialist labour and construction timelines. Giorgio Genocchio, Lane Cove
Rather than pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into nuclear submarines, our money would be better spent on building a national fast train network to the advantage of all Australians. The estimated cost of the submarines is $368 billion, while the estimated cost of a national fast train network is $150 billion. The days of manned submarines are limited, and nuclear subs bring with them all the attendant problems of basing, manning and maintenance – for a questionable defence benefit. The rail job should be put out to international tender. In a fair competition, China might well be the winner, as China has the world’s largest fast train network. Clive Williams, Forrest (ACT)
At $500 billion, Peter Dutton’s 2045 nuclear plan is not only late, it’s expensive. At that price, we could put $33,000 worth of batteries on each of Australia’s 15.2 million buildings and abandon the grid altogether. Sarah Hart, Gordon
When it comes to a politician versus Australia’s peak scientific body about the cost of nuclear energy, I know who I’d rather believe. Dave Horsfall, North Gosford
No comments yet.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Leave a comment