Australian nuclear news 21- 28 April.
Headlines as they come in:
- Fireys pour water on Peter Dutton’s “potentially catastrophic” nuclear power plan.
- Labor, Liberal and National Parties all caught up in American militarism, and enriching American weapons companies.
- Dutton’s Nuclear Meltdown: A Debate Debacle That Proves He’s Unfit for the Lodge.
- Chernobyl’s shadow highlights Australia’s potential nuclear risks
- Most Australians would be concerned about nuclear power station built nearby, survey shows
- Peter Dutton’s claim about SA premier’s nuclear support misleads
- Dutton’s’ Big Nuclear Fudge Exposed | The West Report – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaLiyKTMJgc
- Coalition’s nuclear gambit will cost Australia trillions – and permanently gut its industry
- Toxic threat: New Greenpeace report outlines unacceptable risk of nuclear waste in Australia.
- New report: Coalition’s nuclear folly would cost Australian economy at least $4.3 trillion by 2050
- April 24, 2025Dark Money: Labor and Liberal join forces in attacks on Teals and Greens
- Earthquake with epicentre near proposed nuclear site rattles eastern Australia.
- Australian civil society groups unite against nuclear as pre-polling begins.
- Federal election 2025: Economists send open letter opposing Coalition nuclear plan .
- Renewable energy investors demand answers on Coalition nuclear plan
Federal election 2025: Economists send open letter opposing Coalition nuclear plan
The economists said all the outlined [clean renewable energy] benefits would be delivered much faster and at a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy.
economists said the $330 billion price tag for the nuclear plan was likely to go much higher and was based on questionable modelling for the coalition.
“Major Australian firms are increasingly signing agreements to purchase electricity from solar and wind farms – recent examples include Rio Tinto, BHP Mitsubishi, Telstra, Woolworths, Coles.”
Lloyd Jones, 20 Apr 2025, https://thenightly.com.au/politics/federal-election-2025/federal-election-2025-economists-send-open-letter-opposing-coalition-nuclear-plan-c-18427749
An open letter from 60 Australian economists has rejected the coalition’s nuclear energy plan, promoting instead the subsidising of household clean energy policies, including incentives for home battery storage.
The organiser of the letter, Gareth Bryant, an associate professor in political economy at the University of Sydney, says the letter is intended as an intervention in the election campaign.
“As economists, energy analysts and policy specialists we strongly support government investment in household clean energy and industrial electrification and not in nuclear energy,” the letter says.
It says simple household clean energy upgrades can deliver immediate cost-of-living benefits and reductions in carbon emissions, and electrification can safeguard the future of industrial jobs and the communities that rely on them.
The economists, from a range of Australian universities and other tertiary institutions, said the construction of nuclear power plants would take at least 15 years at a cost of at least $330 billion.
“It would result in higher household energy costs, drain investment away from renewable energy and energy-intensive manufacturing, and leave the Australian economy precariously over-dependent on increasingly automated mineral extraction,” the letter says.
The economists said they support a nationwide program to upgrade homes and industry with clean renewable energy.
They said the technologies to fund should include large-scale home electrification with smart appliances to deliver bill savings, energy-efficiency upgrades and battery storage, which can save surplus solar for night-time use, and hot water retrofits for more efficient water heating.
“An extensive number of studies have found household electrification and energy upgrades would generate immediate household savings, helping to address cost-of-living pressures,” the letter says.
It says modelling for ACOSS found that with energy efficiency upgrades the average household would save almost $3500 a year.
The economists said their pathway would be anti-inflationary, due to less reliance on volatile international gas markets and it would benefit Australian manufacturing which requires low-cost, secure electricity.
“Major Australian firms are increasingly signing agreements to purchase electricity from solar and wind farms – recent examples include Rio Tinto, BHP Mitsubishi, Telstra, Woolworths, Coles.”
The economists said all the outlined benefits would be delivered much faster and at a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy.
The coalition’s nuclear plan proposes to build seven nuclear reactors with the first of these not operational until 2035.
The coalition plan had a number of flaws, the economists said, including higher household energy costs.
“Independent modelling by the Institute of Energy Economics and Finance found it would increase the electricity bill of an average household by $665 per year.”
The coalition nuclear plan would have detrimental impacts on the Australian economy, the economists said.
It would decrease bank and investor certainty, which will in turn increase the cost of renewable energy.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has defended his nuclear plan, saying it would help reduce carbon emissions and deliver lower cost electricity and gas, and reliable energy.
But the open letter economists said the $330 billion price tag for the plan was likely to go much higher and was based on questionable modelling for the coalition.
Investing in nuclear power would take away money that could be invested in more cost-effective household clean energy, they said.
“Today, with rising geopolitical tensions, trade wars, and accelerating climate breakdown, sovereign capability is even more critical,” the economists said.
“Renewables enable Australia to maintain this capability – nuclear does not.”
Renewable energy investors demand answers on Coalition nuclear plan
the Coalition’s policy costings make clear there has been no analysis of electricity price impacts.
Te Age, By Nick Toscano, April 22, 2025
Renewable energy developers are pressing Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to reveal how much more wind and solar would be allowed to join the electricity grid under his plan to embrace nuclear reactors, amid intensifying doubts about what technology mix the Coalition is targeting.
Energy has become a key battleground issue ahead of the May 3 election, with voters set to decide between the Albanese government’s plan for renewables to make up 82 per cent of the grid by 2030 and the Coalition’s push to abandon that target in favour of building seven nuclear generators across the mainland by 2050.
Dutton says his plan for taxpayers to fund and own nuclear facilities would be cheaper than Labor’s strategy. To support this claim, he cites modelling from Frontier Economics comparing the total cost of the government’s renewables-dominated proposal against the Coalition’s competing vision for a grid powered 37 per cent by nuclear generation and 54 per cent by renewables.
But when quizzed about the impact of slowing the renewable rollout to ensure it did not exceed 54 per cent of the 2050 power mix, opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien insisted there was “no policy we have which is capping any technology”………………………………..
…..representatives for some of Australia’s largest renewable energy companies said O’Brien’s indication that the Coalition did not intend to stick to the technology mix outlined in its own modelling raised serious questions about its case for nuclear.
The Clean Energy Council, an industry group, has demanded urgent clarification on how much additional wind, solar and batteries the Coalition intended to allow beyond 54 per cent.
“There are enormous questions as far as their plans and targets for renewable energy are concerned,” Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton said.
The Coalition had stated its nuclear plan would significantly reduce the need for “industrial-scale” renewable energy and transmission lines in regional areas, Thornton said.
“Is that no longer the case? Have they changed their policy? And if so, what level of renewable energy deployment will they be targeting?” he asked.
Whether the 54 per cent ceiling on renewables in the Frontier modelling would constitute a “hard and fast cap” is a question that has come up in recent meetings between clean energy developers and the Coalition, according to industry sources, who requested anonymity to discuss private briefings.
The share of electricity generated from sun, wind and water is expanding each year in Australia, already comprising about 40 per cent of the power grid.
“If Peter Dutton is elected, he will find out that the [renewables] market is more mature than he might have anticipated,” one source said. “Even if it wanted to, the industry’s momentum will be difficult to slow.”
As Australia’s ageing coal-fired power plants near the end of their lives, Labor has followed the Australian Energy Market Operator’s advice about the best and lowest-cost path to transition away from coal. Those measures include accelerating the build-out of renewables, backed up by transmission lines, and fast-starting gas-fired turbines and storage assets such as batteries and pumped hydroelectric dams to stash clean energy for when it’s not sunny or windy……………..
Against the urging of the energy industry, the Coalition is promoting a “coal-to-nuclear” transition, which relies on keeping polluting coal-fired power plants in the grid for potentially another 25 years until nuclear facilities are up and running.
The nation’s biggest coal plant operators, including AGL, say their ageing generators cannot continue operating that long without raising the risk of higher prices for consumers and more sudden outages.
Dutton often says his nuclear plan would lead to a 44 per cent reduction in people’s energy bills compared with what they would be under Labor. However, the Coalition’s policy costings make clear there has been no analysis of electricity price impacts.
The Frontier Economics report calculated that the Coalition’s plan for the electricity grid would be 44 per cent cheaper to build and operate than Labor’s – not that power prices would be 44 per cent cheaper.
The CSIRO and the energy market operator have cautioned that nuclear is an expensive power source, and have determined that Australia’s first nuclear plant would cost at least $16 billion and take years longer to build than the Coalition suggests. https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/renewable-energy-investors-demand-answers-on-coalition-nuclear-plan-20250418-p5lsr4.html
Security fears over mini nuclear plant network with ‘1,000s more police needed’
Keir Starmer’s plans for a ‘proliferation’ of small reactors – potentially nearer UK towns – would require an urgent rethink of how armed officers protect them, experts warn.
Government plans to build a network of
“mini” nuclear power stations across the country have failed to
adequately assess major security threats to the public, top policing
experts have warned.
Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to “rip up the rules”
governing the nuclear industry to fast-track so-called Small Modular
Reactors (SMRs) to generate affordable low-carbon electricity, boosting the
economy and powering energy-intensive technology such as AI data centres.
However, security analysts caution that arrangements for guarding SMRs from
terrorists, enemy states and criminal groups need radical rethinking to
protect the public. They told The i Paper that thousands more armed
officers could be required to defend these facilities – which may be
located nearer towns and cities – plus the vehicles carrying their
radioactive fuel.
They believe these policing operations would be so much
larger, more complex and more costly than existing arrangements that a new
force may be required – yet fear ministers are overlooking or
underestimating the challenges ahead.
The Government hopes the first SMRs
will open in less than 10 years, probably at some of the country’s eight
existing nuclear sites, but the network may later expand to other locations
in England and Wales. Professor Fraser Sampson, a national security expert
at Sheffield Hallam University, said these will necessitate “a very
different policing and security model,” especially if they are located
“much nearer or even within areas of significant population, and you have
many more of them.”
Sampson, a former solicitor and police officer who
recently served as the UK’s biometrics and surveillance camera
commissioner, worries the Government is not focusing enough on security.
Anticipating a “proliferation of smaller sites,” he said: “The thing
that I think is missing, and Two researchers at King’s College London, Dr
Zenobia Homan and Dr Ross Peel, have warned that SMRs increase the
possibility of “insider threat.”
iNews 20th April 2025
https://inews.co.uk/news/crime/security-fears-mini-nuclear-plant-network-police-3648464
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 