Labor argues ‘economic madness’ of Coalition’s nuclear plan would cost NSW $1.4tn.
Jim Chalmers says ‘Peter Dutton is the biggest risk to household budgets’ as Coalition defends cheaper costings modelled on a smaller power grid.
Dan Jervis-Bardy, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/28/labor-argues-economic-madness-of-coalitions-nuclear-plan-would-cost-nsw-14tn
The Coalition’s nuclear policy will cause a $1.4tn hit to New South Wales over the next 25 years, according to analysis Labor will use to attack the “economic madness” of Peter Dutton’s signature energy scheme.
The federal treasurer, Jim Chalmers, will on Saturday put a dollar figure on the impact on the NSW economy of the Coalition’s plan to build nuclear reactors at seven sites across Australia.
The Albanese government’s analysis is based on the assumption underpinning the Coalition’s costings that less electricity will be needed under its nuclear vision.
Chalmers has argued the Coalition’s plan for a smaller energy grid would result in an economy that is $294bn smaller, with $4tn in lost output, by 2051.
The analysis, to be released on Saturday, suggests that NSW alone would suffer a $1.4tn blow to the state’s economic output over that period, including $114bn in the year 2051.
“Peter Dutton’s nuclear scheme is economic madness,” Chalmers said. “He will push energy prices up and growth down and the people of NSW will be worse off.
“We now know for sure that Peter Dutton is the biggest risk to household budgets and Australia’s economy.”
The new analysis is likely to be quickly dismissed by the Coalition, which brushed off Chalmers’ claims of a $4tn hit to the national economy as “absolute and utter nonsense”.
Asked earlier this month if the Coalition’s plan would shrink the nation’s economy, the opposition’s treasury spokesperson, Angus Taylor, said Labor was already doing that.
The economics of nuclear energy has been thrust to the centre of the political debate after the Coalition released the long-awaited costings for its plan earlier this month.
Frontier Economics modelling suggested the nuclear plan would cost $331bn over 25 years, roughly $263bn cheaper than the estimated bill for Labor’s renewables-focused push to net zero by 2050.
However, the Coalition’s costs are modelled on a scenario – which the Australian Energy Market Operator calls “progressive change” – in which the electricity grid is far smaller than what is envisaged under the “step change” route preferred by Labor.
The rollout of electric vehicles, rooftop solar and the electrification of households and businesses is all expected to be slower under the “progressive change” pathway.
The scenario assumes GDP growth of 1.89% a year through to 2050, compared with 2.21% a year under the “step change” alternative.
The new federal analysis assumes heavy industry, such as aluminium smelters, would have to shut their doors after 2030 because there will not be enough energy to keep operating. That would spell danger for the aluminium smelters in the Hunter Valley in NSW and Portland in Victoria.
The NSW premier, Chris Minns, has repeatedly ruled out lifting the state’s nuclear power ban.
“The bottom line here is that nuclear power costs a lot of money and it takes a lot of time,” Minns said earlier this year.
“And we don’t really have a moment to spare when it comes to renewing our energy grid and thinking about new sources of electricity generation.”
As the Gaza genocide continues, it cannot be a happy 2025
The AIM Network – Australian Independent Media – 28 Dec 24 https://theaimn.net/as-the-gaza-genocide-continues-it-cannot-be-a-happy-2025/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHdUWtleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTva4R0kPZ3A_xe9rspp_2i21L7hET2DzTbcj6EQ39kRM3DX-kgx2a6sJg_aem_mG5U-veJEm7a1tJVDHPOoQ
I’m sorry. I can’t rejoice over the New Year and all that stuff. How can we keep pretending – with bells and whistles and fireworks, and worthy preachings from pulpits and parliaments- that it’s all going to be better?
It’s not. It’s going to be worse. Many atrocities have occurred inthe past – and we’ve been shocked to hear about them – afterwards.
Now the atrocity is going on – in Gaza – and we know all about it, while it is happening.
I just remember, when I was a little kid – seeing pictures of Auschwitz. How could people be so cruel to other people? I couldn’t believe it.
I read The Diary of a Young Girl, by Anne Frank , who died at 15 in Auschwitz. Anne Frank had written in her diary “I still believe that people are really good at heart”. That quotation has sustained me for decades.
I wonder what Anne Frank would think about what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. Would she join the many Jews who are trying to make it stop – and are being called “anti-semitic”, some being arrested as “terrorists”?
Jonathon Cook, writing in Middle East Eye, describes how “the wilfully blind, which includes western politicians and their media, are still in denial” . “The West Yawns” as each new research report spells out the genocide that is continuing:
“Nearly 15 months on, the Gaza genocide has become entirely normal, it has become just another minor, routine news item to be buried on the inside pages.”
” those accounts made no impact on the western political and media consensus. Nothing has stuck, even when it is the soldiers themselves documenting their atrocities, and even when it is Israeli Holocaust experts concluding that these crimes amount to genocide.’
The UN Special Committee found Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza to be consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as weapon of war.
Amnesty published a 296-page report concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Human Rights Watch issued an 185-page report . Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) issued its report, titled Life in the Death Trap That is Gaza.
Of course the USA government immediately rejected the conclusion that Israel is committing genocide. UK and other allies, and the global corporate media dutifully followed suit, and continue to do so.
In 2025, the genocide in Gaza draws to its final stages. It looks as if the global corporate media is going to sigh about it all, spout politicians’ pious statements about the suffering, remind us of the Hamas’ conducted atrocity in October 2023, and of Israel’s “right to defend itself”.
Billionaire- run corporations already dominate the Western media. In the presidency of Joe Biden, it has been bad enough, as Biden continued to support the export of U.S. weaponry to Israel, while his hypocritical Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, said “all the right things” about seeking peace in Gaza.
I wish that I could predict an optimistic development for Gaza, given that there is so much international awareness of the genocide, so many respected researchers who expose it. But there’s the incoming Trump administration in the USA. Trump’s appointees regarding foreign policy and the Middle East form a string of longterm supporters of Israel. Mike Huckabee will be his ambassador to Israel, Marco Rubio his Secretary of State, Steven Witkoff Special Envoy to the Middle East. A further complication, however, might be Trump’s relationship and strong business connections with Saudi Arabia which is not Israel’s best friend and still does not recognize Israeli sovereignty.
The power and influence of a Trump administration over the media is sure to create confusion in the public mind, about many things, but especially about Israel and Gaza. Trump is supposed to have some sort of complex plan for ending Israel’s war on Gaza, but it seems to boil down to open slather on the people of Gaza.
Amidst the confusion the media has a splendid ability to distract attention away from this Gaza horror, making us all, in away, complicit.
Still there are millions, world-wide, who know that this evil should be named and stopped
There will be continued international efforts, including legal ones, to demand a fair cessation of this war. Michael Lynk writes in AA about support for the Palestinians – “a global movement of solidarity – particularly among the young – that will continue to inspire courageous thinking and bold acts. Its lasting impact should never be underestimated.”
Dutton must face coal, hard facts. Nuclear will not work
December 27, 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/dutton-must-face-coal-hard-facts-nuclear-will-not-work-20241227-p5l0tj.html
The owners of our coal-fired power plants have pointed to the biggest single flaw in Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan: those plants will all be gone before the first reactor can make an appearance, and long before the last is up and running (“Coal chiefs query Dutton’s nuclear bet”, December 27). Even if the owners wanted to keep them operating, it’s doubtful they could – not without spending inordinate amounts of money. That money, inevitably, would be courtesy of the taxpayer. All so we can enjoy energy at double the cost of renewables. Why can’t the opposition see what all the rest of us can? Or is it just a ploy to delay action on climate change for 20 more years? Ken Enderby, Concord
In March this year, it was reported that AGL, Australia’s largest power supplier, had ruled out taking part in Dutton’s nuclear push. It is instead pressing ahead with long-term plans to transform its legacy coal sites into low-carbon industrial energy hubs, including renewable energy, grid-scale batteries and manufacturing operations for green technologies. The Hunter Energy Hub is to occupy the old coal station Liddell and AGL’s Bayswater coal-fired generator, which is due to retire no later than 2033. Coal stations are ageing and in constant need of repair. Dutton will not include the consequent necessary budget support for coal in his costings, but taxpayers should. Fiona Colin, Malvern East (Vic)
Dutton’s plans depend upon his assumption that the existing coal-fired power plants will keep going until 2050 when nuclear plants replace them. In the Herald article, the Australian Energy Council said Dutton’s assumption was “brave”. “Brave” was a word reserved for impending disaster, that uber-bureaucrat Sir Humphrey Appleby would use to his prime minister Jim Hacker when the latter was contemplating doing something ridiculous. Life imitates art. Joe Weller, Mittagong
We don’t need to replace the soon-to-be redundant 19th century baseload power from ageing coal plants with poisonously expensive and slow-to-build nuclear plants that won’t be ready in time.
We are now well through the transition to a modern, computer-controlled grid that can handle the variable power coming from thousands of sources during the night and millions of sources during the day when rooftop solar is also available. I type this letter on a battery-powered device that was charged yesterday from the grid. An off-the-grid house with solar, wind, batteries and a small generator has no baseload power; one which is on all the time whether needed or not, just clever computer controls managing the balance between the available power and the load. Larger examples are every aeroplane in flight, and every ship away from port. The long-term safety of nuclear and its waste management is another issue. Peter Kamenyitzky, Castle Hill
When is the leader of the opposition going to wake up to the fact that his nuclear option is simply a bad idea? The facts are in. Nuclear will be considerably more expensive and not operational in time. It has no plan for waste disposal and our coal-fired power stations will have closed. This is a classic example of stubborn ideology overwhelming common sense. Bill Young, Killcare Heights
Is Dutton’s persistently promoted nuclear power proposal really a smoke screen over a plan to continue the use of coal, then gas, indefinitely? And to hell with the global heating consequences. Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin (ACT)
We’ve heard from experts, state and local governments, community leaders and now from the fossil fuel operators themselves: not only is it not a technically feasible plan, Dutton’s idea for nuclear power plants is unworkable, from a purely practical perspective. After all the studies and debate demonstrating how Dutton’s plan is economically, technically and practically dead in the water, why do we devote more money and energy giving this oxygen-thieving waste of space the time of day? Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay
The Coalition has conveniently excluded many of the costs associated with its nuclear plan. The owners of the existing coal-fired plants are well aware of the incredible expense of maintaining them beyond their use-by dates. Eraring is a good example and that extension was only for a couple of years. Additionally, the expenditure involved in the disposal of nuclear waste and the inevitable extraordinary liabilities associated with the future decommissioning of nuclear plants was ignored in Dutton’s costings. If in doubt, check Britain out. Roger Epps, Armidale
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 