Why the Coalition should stop trying to silence nuclear power critics
SMH, Nick O’Malley February 27, 2025 ,
News emerged on Monday that the Climate Change Authority had concluded the Coalition’s nuclear power plan would create an extra two billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by extending the life of the nation’s geriatric coal power plants.
The Coalition’s response was swift and emphatic. It attacked the Climate Change Authority as partisan – the CCA that is headed by former NSW Liberal treasurer and energy minister Matt Kean.
“The Climate Change Authority has become a puppet of Anthony Albanese and [Climate Change and Energy Minister] Chris Bowen, as its latest report parrots Labor’s untruthful anti-nuclear scare campaign,” said Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, as reported by the Australian Financial Review.
The opposition’s finance spokeswoman Jane Hume suggested that should the Coalition win government in coming months, Kean, or the agency he heads, might have to go. “I cannot imagine that we possibly maintain a Climate Change Authority that has been so badly politicised,” she told ABC TV.
“It simply isn’t serving its purpose to provide independent advice to the government on its climate change policy.”
The problem the opposition faces is that if it was to abolish all the bodies casting doubt on its nuclear power plan, it would have to do a lot of abolishing.
Both the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have published findings that the opposition’s nuclear plan would be a slower and more expensive way to replace the coal stations than the government’s policy of speeding up deployment of wind and solar, backed by gas and energy storage infrastructure including batteries and pumped hydro.
Both those bodies have copped criticism from the Coalition for stating their case, too.
On Wednesday, a (Labor-dominated) parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power published its interim report, which also found that nuclear would be more costly – in cash and emissions – than the renewables path charted by Labor
O’Brien dismissed the inquiry as a “sham”.
Messenger-shooting is an old sport in politics and has a particularly rich history in climate and energy policy.
Just over a decade ago, the incoming Abbott government wasted no time in knocking off the Climate Commission, an advisory body established by Kevin Rudd. Its chief commissioner, Tim Flannery, was sacked over the phone within hours of the government being sworn in. A few months later, the CSIRO’s “Climate Adaptation Flagship” was also knocked on the head.
Now, in the US, the Trump administration is at work not just unpicking the considerable achievements of Joe Biden in climate, as we have reported, but even scrubbing references to climate change from official websites, including that of the White House.
This week the president ramped up his attack on the very fabric of the science the world is relying on in its response to climate change by preventing a group of scientists from attending a planning meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s key climate science body……………………………………..
as heating accelerates, the world can little afford to have its elected representatives solving political problems by shooting the messengers that serve us all. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/why-the-coalition-should-stop-trying-to-silence-nuclear-power-critics-20250227-p5lfnw.html
Nuclear reactors could become targets of war, defence experts warn
The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group has warned the Coalition’s nuclear plans could leave Australia vulnerable to devastating attacks.
Key Points
- The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group has warned nuclear reactors could become targets of war in Australia.
- Nuclear reactors could be targeted by missile attack and sabotage, the group said.
- The Coalition is planning to build seven small nuclear reactors across five states.
Australian nuclear reactors could become a target of war if the Coalition was to go ahead with plans to build them, a group of former defence leaders warn.
The plan to build seven small nuclear reactors across five states on the sites of coal-fired stations could leave Australia vulnerable to missile warfare and sabotage, the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group says.
The group, including former Australian Defence Force chief Chris Barrie and former director of preparedness and mobilisation at the Department of Defence Cheryl Durrant, is urging the nation not to go down the path of building nuclear power stations.
Modern warfare is increasingly being fought using missiles and unmanned aerial systems, Barrie said.
“Every nuclear power facility is a potential dirty bomb because rupture of containment facilities can cause devastating damage,” he said.
“With the proposed power stations all located within a 100 kilometres of the coast, they are a clear and accessible target.”
Durrant cited the Russia-Ukraine war where both sides have prioritised targeting their opponents’ energy systems
Australia would be no different,” Durrant said.
Nuclear power plants could become a dual target due to their role in energy supply, but also the catastrophic devastation which would occur if facilities were breached.
This means Australia would need to consider introducing expensive and complex missile defence systems and cyber and intelligence resources to defend the plants if war were to break out — which the nation currently lacks.
“Do we prioritise the protection of cities and population centres and military bases, or do we divert vital resources to defending seven nuclear power stations scattered across Australia?” Barrie said.
The group said building nuclear capabilities would derail Australia’s climate targets and exacerbate risks in the region.
‘Not everyone knows acronyms’: Australian politicians shrug off Trump blunder on AUKUS
By Richard Wood • Senior Journalist Feb 28, 2025, https://www.9news.com.au/world/donald-trump-stumbles-when-asked-about-aukus-defence-deal/6a602864-b990-4d37-95a4-530e31bd96e8
Politicians from both sides in Australia have weighed in today on US President Donald Trump’s apparent stumble when he said he did not know what AUKUS was.
Trump was hosting visiting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the White House when the pair were asked by a reporter whether they’d be discussing AUKUS, under which Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
“What does that mean?” Trump replied.
Too slow, too risky, too impractical: Interim senate report pans nuclear
February 26, 2025 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/too-slow-too-risky-too-impractical-interim-senate-report-pans-nuclear/
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has welcomed findings by an interim senate report that “there is limited utility in pursuing nuclear power at this point,” and called for parties to focus on delivering achievable and affordable, renewable energy solutions instead.
“The Senate Inquiry heard evidence from thousands of people and reached the logical conclusion that nuclear is unlikely to be developed in Australia until the mid-2040s at the earliest, is deeply unpopular among Australians, and will be more expensive to build than renewable energy,” Susie Byers, Head of Advocacy, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said.
“Taking into account the additional significant risks associated with nuclear waste management and accidents, there are dozens of reasons why nuclear just doesn’t make sense for Australia; and not a single proven reason to support it.
“This evidence-based report underscores that the Coalition’s nuclear fantasy is nothing more than a dangerous, nonsensical distraction, and a blatant ploy to keep coal and gas in our system until the 2040s, worsening climate change to deadly extremes.
“Remarks by Coalition MP Andrew Constance revealing the party’s plans to take the Paris Agreement’s 2035 target “off the table” earlier this week further underscore the Coalition’s absolute disinterest in doing anything to stop the worsening bushfires, floods, and storms that have devastated millions of Australians in recent years.
“Nuclear is a waste of Australians’ time, money, and a bet against a safe climate future for all of us. It will also impose potentially catastrophic risks on communities where the reactors and nuclear waste sites will be located.
“Choosing nuclear for Australia’s energy future will threaten our economy, air, land and water, and our kids’ futures, while backing in 100% affordable, safe, proven renewable energy, will strengthen our place in a global clean economy and help avoid unsurvivable consequences of climate change. The choice is clear.
If China can’t scale nuclear, Australia’s got Buckley’s
Dutton’s proposal has seven nuclear power plants, including five large-scale reactors and two SMRs. This isn’t critical mass for a nuclear program. As of February 2025, the United States operates 94 nuclear reactors, France has 57, and South Korea maintains 26 reactors. Those are sufficient numbers of GW-scale reactors to achieve program economies of scale. Australia’s peak electricity demand of 38.6 GW isn’t sufficient to provide an opportunity for sufficient numbers of reactors of a single design to be built.
Michael Barnard, Feb 25, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/if-china-cant-scale-nuclear-australias-got-buckleys/
The platypus of energy in Australia has reared its duckbill and stamped its webbed feet again in recent years.
A fractious group of bedfellows is advocating for nuclear generation, primarily driven by the Liberal-National Coalition under Peter Dutton, who has proposed repurposing decommissioned coal-fired stations for nuclear power, with the remarkable claim that reactors could be operational between 2035 and 2037.
Other political supporters include the Libertarian Party and One Nation. Unsurprising advocacy organisations such as the Australian Nuclear Association, Nuclear for Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, and the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy are calling for legislative changes to allow nuclear development, citing its reliability and low emissions.
Notable figures like opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien, who has chaired parliamentary inquiries into nuclear energy, and Indigenous leader Warren Mundine, who sees nuclear as an economic and climate solution, have also voiced strong support.
But nuclear energy, like the platypus, is an oddly shaped beast, and needs a very specific hole to fit into the energy jigsaw puzzle.
Successful nuclear programs share several key conditions, drawn from historical examples in the United States, France, South Korea, and the UK. These countries achieved large-scale nuclear deployment first by making it a top-priority national goal, tied to military strategy or energy security.
Bipartisan support ensured long-term stability, while military involvement helped enforce cost discipline and continuity over decades. Australia clearly doesn’t have bipartisan support for nuclear energy.
Previous countries found political consensus in the face of serious geopolitical threats from nuclear armed enemies such as the Soviet Union and North Korea. Australia isn’t threatened by invasion or nuclear war by any country, and the major political parties are clearly on opposite sides of the fence on the subject.
Teal MPs, supported by Climate 200 and a major new force, are in general not supportive of nuclear energy either.
Australia’s federal laws prohibit nuclear power development through the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which explicitly bans the approval of nuclear power plants.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) restricts certain nuclear activities, reinforcing the ban. Both laws would have to be repealed or substantially altered, requiring draft legislation to start with. No draft legislation has been in evidence from the Liberal-National Coalition, which appears par for the course for a campaign plank which is very light on details.
If the Liberal-National Coalition were to regain power, they would first have to draft a bill, and then shepherd it through the extensive legislative process, something that with contentious bills can take up to two years. That’s just the beginning.
Australia’s status as a signatory to international nuclear non-proliferation treaties adds a layer of complexity to any move toward nuclear power. Compliance with agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and safeguards enforced by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would require strict oversight of uranium handling, enrichment, and waste disposal.
Any shift to nuclear energy could trigger lengthy negotiations with global regulatory bodies to ensure Australia remains within its non-proliferation commitments, delaying and complicating the development of a civilian nuclear program.
The duration for individual countries to negotiate and implement these protocols has ranged from a few months to several years, influenced by national legislative processes and political considerations.
Strong central control is another common factor in successful nuclear programs. National governments directly managed nuclear projects, maintaining tight oversight of construction schedules and decision-making. This approach prevented fragmentation and ensured that experienced leadership remained in place throughout the deployment.
In Australia, power systems are largely under state control, meaning any attempt to build nuclear power plants would require approval from individual state governments. While the federal government sets national energy policies and regulates nuclear safety, states have the authority over planning and construction approvals.
Several states, including Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia, have explicit bans on nuclear power, adding another layer of legislative hurdles. Even if the federal ban were lifted, nuclear development would still depend on state cooperation, making a nationwide rollout politically and legally complex.
Building a skilled workforce was essential to scaling nuclear generation. Successful programs invested in national education and certification systems, training engineers, construction workers, and technicians specifically for nuclear projects. Strict security measures were also necessary to vet personnel and prevent risks.
That’s challenging for Australia. The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) was abolished on July 1, 2005, with all its functions transferred to the Department of Education, Science and Training. This move aimed to centralize vocational education and training (VET) oversight at the federal level, streamlining operations and reducing administrative complexities associated with the previous federal-state arrangements.
Despite this degree of centralisation, the administration and delivery of VET programs remain primarily under state and territory control, with public technical and further education institutes and private providers delivering courses under regional oversight.
While the coordination and policy aspects of ANTA’s functions persist at the national level, the execution and management of training programs continue to be managed by individual states and territories.
That’s not a good basis for a nationally run and managed nuclear workforce education, certification and security clearance program that would need to persist for thirty to forty years. A nuclear ANTA would have to be established, taking time in and of itself, and then it would take time to attract and create a critical mass of skilled nuclear engineering, construction, operation and security human resources.
Speaking of security, Australia’s nuclear ambitions come with an often overlooked cost: an immense, multilayered security burden that taxpayers will likely shoulder.
In the US, nuclear power requires an extensive web of international, national, state, and local security measures, yet much of this expense is not covered by reactor operators.
The US government funds $1.1 billion annually in international nuclear security, including protecting supply chains and waste management through agencies like the IAEA, the Department of Defense, and the CIA. These costs translate to $8 million per reactor per year, with a full lifecycle cost of $1.2 billion per reactor—expenses that remain largely hidden from public scrutiny.
Domestically, the security footprint is even larger. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and law enforcement agencies provide a $26 million per reactor per year security umbrella, ensuring compliance, protecting fuel transport, and defending against threats.
On-site security measures – including armed patrols, cyber protection, and emergency response teams – add another $18 million annually per reactor. In total, US taxpayers effectively subsidise $34 million per reactor per year, or $4 billion over a nuclear site’s lifespan, a cost that is rarely included in nuclear energy debates.
For Australia, these figures should serve as a stark warning. If nuclear reactors are built, the country will need to establish entirely new layers of security infrastructure, from federal oversight and emergency response teams to military-style site defenses.
The financial burden won’t fall on private operators alone – it will land squarely on the Australian taxpayer. As policymakers debate nuclear’s role in the country’s energy future, they must ask: are Australians ready to take on a security commitment of this scale?
A single, GW-scale, standardised reactor design was crucial to keeping costs under control. Countries that succeeded in nuclear deployment avoided excessive customization and focused on repeating a proven design, allowing for efficiency gains and predictable outcomes.
At present, there are various proposed reactor designs under consideration. Dutton’s proposal includes evaluating various reactor technologies, with a focus on South Korea’s APR1000 and APR1400 pressurized water reactors.
O’Brien has led a delegation to South Korea to study its nuclear power industry and assess the suitability of these reactor models for Australia.
It’s worth noting that while South Korea was successful in scaling nuclear generation, it did so with corruption that included substandard parts in reactors that led to a political scandal that resulted in the jailing of politicians and energy company executives.
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) have been proposed as part of the mix. They aren’t GW-scale and they don’t actually exist. As the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) accurately pointed out in mid-2024, SMR technology remains in developmental stages globally, with no operational units in OECD countries.
The ATSE suggests that a mature market for SMRs may not emerge until the late 2040s, while I think it’s unlikely to emerge at all. Small reactors were tried in the 1960s and 1970s and were too expensive, leading to reactors being scaled up to around the GW scale in successful programs. There is nothing to indicate that anything has changed since then that will make SMRs successful and inexpensive the second time around.
Scale and speed mattered. Effective programs built between 24 and 100 reactors of very similar designs within a 20-to-40-year timeframe, ensuring that expertise remained within the workforce. Spreading projects over longer periods led to skill erosion and inefficiencies.
Dutton’s proposal has seven nuclear power plants, including five large-scale reactors and two SMRs. This isn’t critical mass for a nuclear program. As of February 2025, the United States operates 94 nuclear reactors, France has 57, and South Korea maintains 26 reactors. Those are sufficient numbers of GW-scale reactors to achieve program economies of scale. Australia’s peak electricity demand of 38.6 GW isn’t sufficient to provide an opportunity for sufficient numbers of reactors of a single design to be built.
Finally, strict adherence to design was non-negotiable. Countries that allowed constant innovation or design changes saw costs balloon and timelines slip. The lesson from history is clear: nuclear success depends on disciplined execution, a committed national strategy, and a workforce dedicated to repeating a single proven approach.
Australia’s strong engineering culture, known for innovation and adaptation, could pose challenges to a strictly controlled nuclear deployment program. Unlike industries where iterative improvements drive progress, nuclear power requires rigid standardization to control costs, ensure safety, and meet regulatory demands.
Australia’s history of engineering-led modifications – seen in mining, renewables, and infrastructure – could lead to pressures for design changes mid-project, a factor that has contributed to cost overruns and delays in nuclear projects overseas.
While flexibility has been a strength in other sectors, in nuclear energy, deviation from a single, proven reactor design undermines efficiency and drives up costs, making strict oversight and discipline crucial to success.
Parliamentary inquiry finds nuclear is high risk, zero reward
The Climate Council 26 FEBRUARY 25 https://theaimn.net/parliamentary-inquiry-finds-nuclear-is-high-risk-zero-reward/#google_vignette
THE COALITION’S NUCLEAR SCHEME is high risk, zero reward—that’s the clear takeaway from the interim findings of the federal inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia. The committee’s interim report confirms that nuclear energy is not a viable option to meet Australia’s energy needs or climate commitments.
The Climate Council, which appeared at the inquiry, said the inquiry’s interim findings confirm what experts have long warned: nuclear reactors are too risky for Australia. Australians need action now to cut climate pollution and secure our energy future, not a nuclear fantasy that locks us into higher costs, worsening unnatural disasters, and decades of delay.
Amanda McKenzie, Climate Council CEO, said: “The climate crisis is here, now. Australians are already facing more unnatural disasters – record-breaking floods, deadly heatwaves and bushfires, and declining rainfall. In the 15 years that we would be waiting for a single watt of nuclear energy to enter the grid, our climate pollution would soar.
Every coal-fired power station in Australia will be closed before a single nuclear reactor could be built. Already, 40% of our national grid is powered by renewables, and experts have shown that we can power our economy 24/7 with renewables backed by storage and peaking generation, and we can do it well before a single nuclear reactor is online.
“Delaying action to slash climate pollution has real consequences. The catastrophic conditions that led to the Black Summer bushfires will become the average without sustained, urgent action.
“Nuclear reactors in the 2040s is a delay tactic. The consequence is 2 billion tonnes more climate pollution endangering our kids’ future.”
Greg Bourne, Climate Councillor and energy expert, said: “The numbers don’t lie. Nuclear reactors are wildly expensive and painfully slow. The UK’s flagship nuclear project is 14 years late and facing a $60 billion cost blowout. Australians can’t afford to waste tens of billions of dollars on a major energy project that delivers too little, too late.
“There’s an explosion of misinformation and political spin, but here’s the simple truth: not a single investor is lining up to build nuclear reactors in Australia. Meanwhile, investment in renewable power is surging ahead. In 2024, investment in batteries soared, with new energy storage commitments nearly matching new generation. A total of 4 gigawatts of storage was committed, equivalent to the output of around 2,000 wind turbines. Globally, ten times as much money is flowing into renewable power as into nuclear reactors.”
“Renewable power is already delivering—cutting climate pollution, creating jobs, and keeping the lights on. Australia is at 40% renewables and on track for 82% renewable power in only five years. That will slash pollution and provide the energy security we need.”
he Climate Council is Australia’s leading community-funded climate change communications organisation. We provide authoritative, expert and evidence-based advice on climate change to journalists, policymakers, and the wider Australian community.
New report skewers Coalition’s contentious nuclear plan – and reignites Australia’s energy debate
John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland: February 26, 2025, The Conversation
Debate over the future of Australia’s energy system has erupted again after a federal parliamentary inquiry delivered a report into the deployment of nuclear power in Australia.
The report casts doubt on the Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear reactors on former coal sites across Australia should it win government. The reactors would be Commonwealth-owned and built.
The report’s central conclusions – rejected by the Coalition – are relatively unsurprising. It found nuclear power would be far more expensive than the projected path of shifting to mostly renewable energy. And delivering nuclear generation before the mid-2040s will be extremely challenging.
The report also reveals important weaknesses in the Coalition’s defence of its plan to deploy nuclear energy across Australia, if elected. In particular, the idea of cheap, factory-built nuclear reactors is very likely a mirage.
A divisive inquiry
In October last year, a House of Representatives select committee was formed to investigate the deployment of nuclear energy in Australia.
Chaired by Labor MP Dan Repacholi, it has so far involved 19 public hearings and 858 written submissions from nuclear energy companies and experts, government agencies, scientists, Indigenous groups and others. Evidence I gave to a hearing was quoted in the interim report.
The committee’s final report is due by April 30 this year. It tabled an interim report late on Tuesday, focused on the timeframes and costs involved. These issues dominated evidence presented to the inquiry.
The findings of the interim report were endorsed by the committee’s Labor and independent members, but rejected by Coalition members.
What did the report find on cost?
The report said evidence presented so far showed the deployment of nuclear power generation in Australia “is currently not a viable investment of taxpayer money”.
Nuclear energy was shown to be more expensive than the alternatives. These include a power grid consistent with current projections: one dominated by renewable energy and backed up by a combination of battery storage and a limited number of gas peaking plants…………………………..
What about the timing of nuclear?
On the matter of when nuclear energy in Australia would be up and running, the committee found “significant challenges” in achieving this before the mid-2040s.
This is consistent with findings from the CSIRO that nuclear power would take at least 15 years to deploy in Australia. But is it at odds with Coalition claims that the first two plants would be operating by 2035 and 2037 respectively.
The mid-2040s is well beyond the lifetime of Australia’s existing coal-fired power stations. This raises questions about how the Coalition would ensure reliable electricity supplies after coal plants close. It also raises questions over how Australia would meet its global emissions-reduction obligations.
Recent experience in other developed countries suggests the committee’s timeframe estimates are highly conservative.
Take, for example, a 1.6GW reactor at Flamanville, France. The project, originally scheduled to be completed in 2012, was not connected to the grid until 2024. Costs blew out from an original estimate of A$5.5 billion to $22 billion.
The builder, Électricité de France (EDF), was pushed to the edge of bankruptcy. The French government was forced to nationalise the company, reversing an earlier decision to privatise it…………………………………………………………………..
Looking ahead
Undoubtedly, existing nuclear power plants will play a continued role in the global energy transition.
But starting a nuclear power industry from scratch in Australia is a nonsensical idea for many reasons – not least because it is too expensive and will take too long.
In the context of the coming federal election, the nuclear policy is arguably a red herring – one designed to distract voters from a Coalition policy program that slows the transition to renewables and drags out the life of dirty and unreliable coal-fired power.
Parliamentary inquiry finds nuclear is high risk, zero reward.
RenewEconomy, Jim Green, Feb 26, 2025
An Interim Report was released on Tuesday by the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy, and splits on party lines, with the independent MP Monique Ryan listing a myriad reasons why nuclear is unsuitable for Australia.
Labor MPs have the numbers on the committee and their majority report states that nuclear power “cannot be deployed in time to support Australia’s critical energy transition targets and climate commitments, or to assist the coal workforce and communities in their transition away from the coal industry.”
The interim report says the committee “received compelling evidence nuclear power would cost consumers more to use”. The report continues:
“Evidence received about the private sector’s lack of interest in investing in nuclear power in Australia and the history of issues with private investment in nuclear power internationally highlights the financial challenges for this source of power, making taxpayer funding of an uncertain nuclear venture during a cost-of-living crisis a significant risk.”
The report notes that the evidence the committee received “strongly indicated SMR [small modular reactor] technology is not yet commercially available and so is not a viable option for Australia’s energy needs.”
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen commented on the report’s findings:
“Peter Dutton is determined to ignore the experts, reverse policies that bring the cost of energy down, and stick his head in the sand until the 2040s wishing his $600bn nuclear scheme will fix everything. It’s a disaster for our energy system now, and a guaranteed recipe for big bills, blackouts, and bad investments. “
“We already have a solution that works for today, and for this critical decade, that delivers jobs for people transitioning away from coal now, that reduces emissions, and that gets more of the cheapest form of energy into the grid. That solution is reliable renewable energy and the Albanese Government is delivering it.”
Independent MP Monique Ryan
If the Coalition hoped to sway independent MP and committee member Dr. Monique Ryan, they were sorely disappointed. Dr. Ryan said in her ‘Additional Comments’ to the main report that an “ongoing pursuit of nuclear energy options will only perpetuate and increase Australia’s reliance on coal and gas”.
Dr. Ryan reached the following conclusions:
* There are considerable roadblocks to nuclear energy in this country
* Necessary regulatory framework for health, safety, security, environmental impacts, and transport of fuels and waste would likely take some years to develop
* Australia currently lacks the workforce and technical capability required for building multiple large-scale nuclear reactors
* Independent experts (including from the CSIRO and Australian Energy Regulator) repeatedly told the Inquiry that it would take at least 15 years to build a single nuclear reactor — possibly as long as 25 years
* The Coalition’s proposal would provide only 15% of the country’s electricity requirements by 2050
* Under current projections, by 2030 more than 84% of the main national electricity grid will be powered by renewables; 96% by 2035
* Nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy
* Nuclear power does not compete economically
* Australians would pay more for electricity generated from nuclear plants
* Nuclear energy lacks social licence in many parts of Australia
* The impact of nuclear power generation on Australia’s water supplies has been inadequately considered by the Coalition in its proposal.
Coalition dissenting report
The Coalition committee member’s dissenting report goes to some lengths to defend that Coalition’s indefensible claim that nuclear power would reduce energy costs and power bills. Those claims have been thoroughly debunked…………………………………………..
Australian nuclear news week to 4th March.
Headlines as they come in:
- Dutton’s nuclear gamble short on detail, but voters don’t seem to care
- Nuclear power struggling to maintain current level of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth
- New report details nuclear power’s demise.
- Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is off in the never-never, but our power bills and emissions pledge are not
- Nuclear powers down as global reactor numbers shrink.
- AUKUS ‘impact assessment’ report ignores nuclear submarine risks in South Australia.
- Why the Coalition should stop trying to silence nuclear power critics
- Nuclear reactors could become targets of war, defence experts warn.
- Chinese warships sailing the Tasman Sea expose AUKUS folly.
- Not everyone knows acronyms’: Australian politicians shrug off Trump blunder on AUKUS.
- If China can’t scale nuclear, Australia’s got Buckley’s
- New report skewers Coalition’s contentious nuclear plan – and reignites Australia’s energy debate.
- Too slow, too risky, too impractical: Interim senate report pans nuclear.
- Parliamentary inquiry finds nuclear is high risk, zero reward.
- Fake fight over nuclear a distraction from real climate issues.
- Nuclear power would push Australia’s net zero back 12 years.
- Trump-lite: Coalition promises purge of experts who call out nuclear bunkum.
- Peter Dutton abandons global ‘Paris Agreement’ to phase out climate pollution by 2050
Nuclear Thuggery and Threats: Response to Interim Report of the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy
February 26, 2025 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/nuclear-thuggery-and-threats-response-to-interim-report-of-the-house-select-committee-on-nuclear-energy/
Friends of the Earth (FoE) welcomes the Interim Report released by the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy.
The Interim Report states that nuclear power “cannot be deployed in time to support Australia’s critical energy transition targets and climate commitments, or to assist the coal workforce and communities in their transition away from the coal industry.” It warns that “taxpayer funding of an uncertain nuclear venture during a cost-of-living crisis is a significant risk.”
In ‘Additional Comments’ to the Committee’s report, Kooyong MP Dr. Monique Ryan concludes that an “ongoing pursuit of nuclear energy options will only perpetuate and increase Australia’s reliance on coal and gas”.
FoE Australia’s national nuclear campaigner Dr. Jim Green said:
“The House Select Committee has found that nuclear power is too expensive and too slow. The Coalition hid its bogus economic costings until the Committee’s work was nearly complete, but the absurdity of those costings has now been thoroughly exposed.
“The simple fact is that recent reactor projects in the US, the UK and France have cost A$27-45 billion per reactor ‒ several times higher than the Coalition’s absurd assumption. No amount of sophistry and creative accounting changes the plain facts.
“This week the Climate Change Authority released a detailed analysis concluding that the Coalition’s energy plan would result in an additional two billion tonnes of greenhouse emissions. The Coalition’s response was to threaten to sack the Authority’s chair Matt Kean (a former NSW Liberal energy minister and treasurer) and to scrap the Authority just as a previous Coalition government defunded the independent Climate Commission and tried to kill off the Climate Change Authority and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
“The threat to the independent, expert Climate Change Authority is pure thuggery, as is Peter Dutton’s threat to use compulsory acquisition laws to acquire sites to build nuclear reactors from energy companies that are openly critical of the Coalition’s nuclear plan. Those companies are planning their exit from coal and its replacement with renewables and storage projects.
“The Dutton Coalition’s threat to override state governments and state laws is nuclear thuggery. And the threat to override community opposition is nuclear thuggery. Peter Dutton says it is in “the national interest to proceed” with nuclear reactors even in the face of adamant public opposition.
“The Dutton Coalition’s all-embracing nuclear thuggery stands in stark contrast to shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien’s comments in 2019 that a future government should only proceed with nuclear power on the condition that it make ‘a commitment to community consent as a condition of approval for any nuclear power or nuclear waste disposal facility’.”
Peter Dutton abandons global ‘Paris Agreement’ to phase out climate pollution by 2050
February 24, 2025, https://theaimn.net/peter-dutton-abandons-global-paris-agreement-to-phase-out-climate-pollution-by-2050/#comment-1882 Solutions for Climate Australia
New analysis from the national Climate Change Authority shows the Liberal and National Parties’ nuclear scheme would breach Australia’s commitment to international climate pollution targets and break their promise to phase out climate pollution by 2050.
“This independent analysis confirms earlier assessments that under opposition leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear scheme Australia will not reduce climate pollution by 43% by 2030, which would breach our international commitments,” said Senior Campaigner at Solutions for Climate, Elly Baxter.
“The Frontier Economics modelling the Liberal and National Parties are relying on shows the electricity grid would not reach net zero climate pollution until 2049 and would be 44% smaller than the government’s proposed grid. This would make it impossible to decarbonise the rest of our economy – all our transport, all our manufacturing and all our homes.
“Australians voted overwhelmingly for action on climate change and renewable energy at the last election. Mr Dutton insists that he will maintain our international commitment to the Paris Agreement and reach no net climate pollution by 2050, but the proof is in numbers. As we head to the polls in the coming months, voters need to be aware that Mr Dutton’s words do match his scheme.
“This matters enormously for all Australians. Yet again we are facing increasing climate disasters this summer – fires in the south and floods in the north. More Australians would be killed and homes and livelihoods lost if we push billions more tonnes of climate pollution into the air,” Baxter concluded.
The Coalition’s nuclear scheme includes nuclear reactors at seven sites across Australia. Modelling by Frontier Economics, released by the Coalition, shows an electricity grid that is 44% smaller than the government’s plan to use renewable energy like wind and solar with storage. The scheme would cap renewable energy at 54% when our grid was already powered by 46% renewable energy in the December quarter.
On the first sitting day of the year, over 80 community groups representing tens of thousands of Australians endorsed a statement objecting to Dutton’s nuclear push:
“We object to the Liberal and National parties’ nuclear proposal as it is incapable of cutting climate pollution this decade and upgrading our electricity grid in a timely manner,” the statement reads.
“We call for Peter Dutton and the Opposition to abandon the pursuit of nuclear reactors. It’s never too late to do the right thing.”
Nuclear power would push Australia’s net zero back 12 years
Energy Source Distribution, 25 Feb 25,
New analysis from the Climate Change Authority shows pursuing the deployment of nuclear in Australia’s grid could add at least 2 billion tonnes to national emissions.
This approach would involve a pace of climate action consistent with a global pathway to around 2.6°C of warming, a level at which scientists, economists and governments anticipate major social, economic and environmental harm.
The Climate Change Authority has compared published modelling by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and Frontier Economics to understand how the adoption of a nuclear pathway could impact national efforts to reduce emissions.
The analysis finds that a nuclear pathway could see Australia miss the legislated 43% emissions reduction target for 2030 by over five percentage points, and still not achieve this level of reduction by 2035.
Australia would not reach 82% zero emissions electricity until 2042—more than a decade later than current national plans.
“Australia faces a fork in the road and we need to be clear about the choices in front of us,” Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean says.
“Continuing on Australia’s current pathway and accelerating our progress can deliver rapid cuts to emissions by overhauling our grid with renewables, firming and storage in the next 15 years.
“On the other hand, the nuclear pathway would delay Australia’s necessary transition— keeping coal in the grid for longer and leading to billions of tonnes more emissions in the process………………………… https://esdnews.com.au/nuclear-power-would-push-australias-net-zero-back-12-years/
Fake fight over nuclear a distraction from real climate issues
A new report which reveals the coalition’s nuclear plan would send an additional two billion tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere and send power bills even higher is yet another distraction from the real issues in Australia’s energy debate.
The Climate Change Authority report concludes that additional emissions under the coalition plan would see Australia miss its 2030 emissions target and delay the overall transition to clean energy.
“The Climate Change Authority’s slap-down of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal is welcome, but it is yet another distraction from the big climate issues,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.
We’re talking about nuclear yet again, not about Australia’s uninsurable regions, massive fossil fuel subsidies and dodgy offset schemes.
“It suits both major parties to have a fake fight about nuclear and avoid these real problems in Australia’s climate policy, on which Labor and Liberals largely agree.
“It would be more useful if the CCA focused on Australia’s subsidised fossil fuel expansion and rising domestic emissions.
“Nuclear is a distraction that avoids scrutiny of Australia’s real climate problems.
Trump-lite: Coalition promises purge of experts who call out nuclear bunkum.
Giles Parkinson, Feb 25, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/trump-lite-coalition-promises-purge-of-experts-who-call-out-nuclear-bunkum/
The federal Coalition has given another insight into what life might be like under a Peter Dutton-led government, with the promise of a purge of experts who disagree with its policies, in a potentially horrifying redux of the mass sackings occurring right now in the United States.
The Dutton-led Coalition did not respond well on Monday to the Climate Change Authority’s conclusion that the Coalition’s nuclear power policy would result in a blow out of emissions, both in the short and long term, and make Australia’s Paris climate commitments impossible to meet.
There should have been nothing controversial about this analysis because the CCA was simply crunching the numbers on the impact of the Coalition’s own stated intentions – to keep burning coal, and more gas, for as long as it takes to build new nuclear. It even used the Coalition’s improbable and fanciful timelines.
Almost immediately, Coalition finance spokesperson Jane Hume indicated that a Coalition government would sack CCA chair Matt Kean – a former Liberal energy minister and treasurer in the NSW state government – and would seek to scrap the CCA itself, having eviscerated and ignored it when last in government.
“I cannot imagine that we possibly maintain a Climate Change Authority that has been so poorly, so badly politicised. It simply isn’t serving its purpose to provide independent advice to government on its climate change policy,” Hume told the ABC on Monday afternoon.,
Opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien, the architect of the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, then described Kean and the CCA as “puppets” of the Labor government.
“The Climate Change Authority has become a puppet of Anthony Albanese and [Climate Change and Energy Minister] Chris Bowen, as its latest report parrots Labor’s untruthful anti-nuclear scare campaign,” O’Brien said in a statement reported by the AFR.
“I feel sorry for many decent public servants who work in the Climate Change Authority who have been thrust on the front line on the eve of an election taking a hyper-partisan position in favour of a government whose own record is to drive emissions higher.”The Coalition’s attack on the CCA is not surprising, given it ignored its advice while in government for nearly a decade, and because it has attacked other key institutions, including the economists at CSIRO, and the engineers at the Australian Energy Market Operator, because they don’t like that they disagree on nuclear power.
The CSIRO points out that nuclear is very expensive and small modular reactors do not yet exist, and AEMO has pointed out that the future grid needs to be based on flexible and dispatchable generation, and is moving away from “alway on” baseload that requires its own massive back-up in case of trips and other failures.
The Coalition, now given a reasonable chance of returning to power according to the latest polls, is learning from Trump, which is to say that if a position is indefensible, then you attack the messenger, insult experts, tear down their institutions and flood the zone with misinformation and disinformation.
The new Trump administration has sought to castrate agencies, purge individuals and remove regulators that are seen as disloyal to the new government’s ideology or who represent a threat to its business interests, and those of its backers, including Elon Musk.
It has already announced it is quitting the Paris agreement – again – banned representations at key UN climate science talks, banned the use of word “climate” in government websites and programs, and it seems that the Australian LNP is keen to follow suit.
It has refused to commit to providing a climate target ahead of the next UN climate conference in Brazil. “This is more proof that the Peter Dutton’s only climate plan is to take any action off the table and give a green light to big polluters,” federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen said on Tuesday.
The main thrust of the CCA report was to point out the elephant in the room, the emissions impacts ignored by the Coalition and not even mentioned in the Frontier Economics report that it has used to justify its policies.
“I can assure the committee is that you’ve got no chance of meeting (the Paris emissions targets) if you go down the nuclear scenario as proposed on the Frontier Economics model,” Kean told a Senate committee on Monday.
It should be noted that this should not even be a controversial point, as the Coalition has made clear that it intends to burn more coal for as long as it can.
“The implications that are very clear,” Kean said.
“The scientists, the economists, governments around the world, have told us that that will have catastrophic impacts on our environment, and modeling that we’ve also seen suggests that there would be a 10% reduction in GDP if you were to go down that path.
“There are huge implications for us not meeting those targets. I’m not saying it’s going to be easy to hit to keep things below 1.5 degrees. In fact, it’s going to be difficult.
“However, what we do know is that plans to slow down at the rate of decarbonisation of the global economy put us on a trajectory which could have devastating impacts for the environment and also the global economy.”
Government minister Tim Ayres, interviewed by the ABC at the same time as Hume before his appearance with Kean and CCA chief executive at the Senate Estimates, said that the Coalition’s clear intention was to bully people.
“That’s the alternative, bully people and sack people they don’t like. That is un-Australian, and it shows a complete lack of respect for independent organisations.”
Nuclear news – week to 25 February
Some bits of good news. Nine Asian countries have halved child mortality since 2000. The Global South is deploying renewables twice as fast as the Global North. Arctic Cleanup removes 130 tons of trash and aims to improve trash cleanups worldwide
—very difficult now to stay off the subjects of Ukraine and Israel, but I have tried… (both are so on the nuclear brink)
TOP STORIES. Democrats want nothing to do with making peace in Ukraine and possibly preventing nuclear war.
President Trump Wants to Cut the Pentagon Budget in Half. How?Trump Looks to Correct a Disastrous 1990’s Mistake.
Conveniently forgotten and ignored – the 8 years war in Ukraine up to 2022 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYKetrodpoY
From the archives. Restless radioactive remains are still stirring in Chernobyl’s nuclear tomb.
Climate, World’s glaciers melting faster than ever recorded.
Noel’s notes. A dramatic development in the Ukraine situation.
NUCLEAR ITEMS
ECONOMICS
- UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear plant yet to attract new investors, says EDF boss. UK government in “poor negotiating position” as Centrica vague about investing in the new Sizewell C nuclear power station.
- Uncertain nuclear partnership: Negotiations between ČEZ and Rolls-Royce.groups raise $1.5bn amid race to power AI boom. At Great Cost: The companies building nuclear weapons and their financiers show 260 profiteers from the nuclear weapons industry.
- X-Energy threatens to pull out of building nuclear plants in Britain. Amazon-backed nuclear power developer X-Energy threatens to move investment away from UK.
- Rolls-Royce ‘resists pressure’ to put Czech parts in mini-nuclear reactors. .
| MEDIA. Film Review- Special Operation: The Invasion of Chornobyl. |
| PERSONAL STORIES. Heartbreaking tale of American deformed by nuclear radiation who was abandoned and viewed as a ‘monster’. |
| POLITICS. French State Spars With EDF Over Multibillion-Euro Reactor Plan . UK Government Revisiting the nuclear roadmap Inquiry, UK’s first new nuclear site since the 1970s begins licensing. Starmer’s shortsighted push for more nuclear power. Louth MP welcomes council’s decision to pull out of nuclear waste dump group. Greens opposed to nuclear power plant plans. UK to Partner with Big Tech on Nuclear Powered Data Centers . Technogarchy Goes to Washington.. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Amid ‘clear’ threat of nuclear war, Guterres tells Security Council multilateral off-ramp is essential. Trump can’t denuclearize North Korea. South Korea’s next leader should pursue risk reduction instead. Hating Trump no reason to oppose Trump Ukraine peace initiative. |
| SAFETY. Incidents. IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine. Efforts continue to eliminate fires in Chernobyl shelter’s roof. Nuclear expert issues Chernobyl update after it emerges fires are still burning. Damage to Chernobyl shelter being assessed after drone strike – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC3Wz5oX68I “Radioactive Russian Roulette” at San Onofre: Exposing Critical Safety Failures. NFLA Policy Briefing 313: Correspondence with the Nuclear Regulator over AGR Extensions .5.0-magnitude quake strikes off Japan’s Fukushima: JMA. |
| SECRETS and LIES. Burying The CIA’s Assange Secrets. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Dr. Gordon Edwards Testifies on the BWRX-300 Reactor Design Feb 9 2025. Pioneering micro nuclear reactors to be built in Britain, |
| WASTES. Debris extracted from Fukushima nuclear plant revealed to media. So Called Small Modular Reactors Would Be Nuclear Nightmares. Nuclear waste dump agency pumps money into community projects in Mablethorpe. Ancient historic sites under threat from South Copeland nuke waste dump- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/02/19/1-b-ancient-historic-sites-under-threat-from-south-copeland-nuke-waste-dump/NWMO closing Teeswater office, to dispose of DGR site lands. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. US Strategic Bombers Fly Near Gaza as Israel Threatens To Open ‘Gates of Hell’ |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. New Zealand’s Rocket Lab ‘ready to serve’ Pentagon. Why it would be a bad idea for the Trump administration to conduct a “rapid” nuclear test. Donald Trump wants to end nuclear weapons funding. |
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
