Carbon time bomb: Dutton’s nuclear plan will blow up Paris and emissions targets, CCA says
ReNew Economy Rachel Williamson, Feb 24, 2025
Choosing a nuclear power future over renewables will blow up Australia’s carbon emissions budget and create a carbon time bomb of up to 2 billion tonnes in extra greenhouse gases by 2050, a new analysis from the federal government’s Climate Change Authority says.
The analysis, released on Monday, poses a grim picture of what the nuclear future, as painted by Opposition leader Peter Dutton and analysed in a controversial and contested Frontier Economics’ report in December, would look like from an emissions perspective.
Extra emissions from the electricity sector alone would spike by a cumulative 1 billion tonnes come 2050, and this number would double when adding emissions from a broader economy unable to use zero-carbon electricity.
Australia would miss its 82 per cent emissions-free electricity target by more than a decade, reaching that target by 2042, and those emissions would also be consistent with global warming of 2.6ºC, rather than the 1.8ºC currently forecast for a renewables-led transition.
It will also ruin short term targets, causing Australia to miss its legislated 43% national emissions reduction target for 2030 by more than five percentage points, and still not achieving this level of reduction by 2035.
The Coalition plans to build nuclear plants at seven sites across Australia for an estimated $331 billion over 25 years. The locations are all old or current coal power plant sites of Mount Piper and Liddell in New South Wales, Loy Yang in Victoria, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia, and Collie in Western Australia.
Retaining coal fired power stations to hold space for the first nuclear generators, which would come fully online in the late 2040s, means the worst years for emissions will be 2034-2040……………………………
“What comes next is the fork in the road we are in the middle of. The market knows we are on a renewables road, supported by storage and where needed, gas. The Opposition has proposed a nuclear diversion, which provides a dramatic shift in momentum and direction.”
The former NSW Liberal treasurer says the choice as to which road Australia takes – nuclear or renewables – is now “imminent” but the consequences of that choice can be estimated.
“We will find out soon what Australians think of this proposed change in direction for the country’s energy source. The RBA considers the pressures nudging prices up or down and it is the Climate Change Authority’s role to do the same for emissions,” Kean says.
Breaching commitments
The emissions bill from switching to nuclear means Australia will need to re-negotiate national and international commitments, including the legislated national target of reducing emissions by 43 per cent by 2030.
Australia can’t meet this target, due in just five years, if it chooses nuclear as economy-wide emissions would be about 34 million tonnes higher in 2030 than under the current trajectory.
Instead, Australia would hit an emissions reduction below 2005 levels of just 37.1 per cent.
New Paris Agreement targets for 2035 are due this year, although Australia has already formally missed the deadline to issue these and Opposition leader Peter Dutton says while he wants to keep Australia in the global agreement, he won’t participate in the target-led pathway that it mandates. ……………………………………………………………………………………The current renewables-first energy transition has its own challenges and the nuclear debate is a distraction from focusing on ways to deal with these and other energy-related problems, The Australia Institute research director Rod Campbell said in a statement.
……………….“Nuclear is a distraction that avoids scrutiny of Australia’s real climate problems.” https://reneweconomy.com.au/carbon-time-bomb-duttons-nuclear-plan-will-blow-up-paris-and-emissions-targets-cca-says/
New report confirms nuclear fears: Higher bills, higher emissions
Australians for Affordable Energy February 24, 2025, https://theaimn.net/new-report-confirms-nuclear-fears-higher-bills-higher-emissions/
The Climate Change Authority’s latest report confirms the risks of delaying a clean energy future in favour of nuclear power will lead to higher emissions and increased costs for households.
The report warns that the Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal could add a staggering 2 billion tonnes of emissions while increasing costs for households, resulting in Australia missing its 2030 emissions targets and delaying the transition to clean energy until 2042.
“This report confirms our worst fears – betting on nuclear power isn’t just expensive, it’s a lose-lose for Australian families. Every year we waste waiting on nuclear means higher power bills and more emissions,” Jo Dodds, spokesperson for Australians for Affordable Energy, said.
“The Climate Change Authority has done the hard numbers. They’re telling us that going down the nuclear path means we’ll miss our 2030 targets and won’t get clean energy until 2042. That’s an extra 2 billion tonnes of emissions while we sit around waiting for nuclear plants that might never show up.
“Guess who pays for the delay? Everyday Australians – through their power bills and taxes.”
Crucial questions about the impact nuclear power will have on household budgets remain unanswered.
“Australians still need answers to fundamental questions: What is it going to cost? When will it actually deliver? What happens to our bills while we wait? What happens to our emissions?” Ms Dodds said.
“Families are already struggling with the cost of living and they can’t afford to bankroll expensive nuclear experiments that won’t deliver for decades all while their bills continue to rise. Every year we spend chasing nuclear dreams instead of getting on with real solutions is another year of higher costs for Australian households.
“We need to have a serious talk about our energy choices. This report makes it crystal clear – nuclear means paying more to get less and waiting longer to get it.
“Australian families deserve better.”
Australians for Affordable Energy is urging policymakers to focus on practical, cost-effective energy solutions that can deliver cleaner, more affordable power right now – not in decades.
Burying The CIA’s Assange Secrets
The Dissenter, Kevin Gosztola, Feb 19, 2025
The CIA won the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by four Americans who claimed they had their privacy rights violated when they visited Julian Assange in Ecuador’s London embassy.
A United States judge dismissed a lawsuit pursued by four American attorneys and journalists, who alleged that the CIA and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo spied on them while they were visiting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in Ecuador’s London embassy.
“The subject matter of this litigation,” Judge John Koeltl determined [PDF], “is subject to the state secrets privilege in its entirety.” Any answer to the allegations against the CIA would “reveal privileged information.”
Few publications followed this case as closely as The Dissenter. It unfolded at the same time that the U.S. government pursued the extradition of Assange, making any outcome potentially significant.
On August 15, 2022, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, a civil rights activist and human rights attorney, and Deborah Hrbek, a media lawyer, filed their complaint. Journalist Charles Glass and former Der Spiegel reporter John Goetz also joined them as plaintiffs.
The lawsuit claimed that the plaintiffs, like all visitors, were required to “surrender” their electronic devices to employees of Undercover Global, a Spanish security company managed by David Morales that was hired by Ecuador to handle embassy security. They were unaware that UC Global had allegedly “copied the information stored on the devices” and shared the information with the CIA.
Pompeo allegedly approved the copying of visitors’ passports, “including pages with stamps and visas.” He ensured that all “computers, laptops, mobile phones, recording devices, and other electronics brought into the embassy,” were “seized, dismantled, imaged, photographed, and digitized.” This included the collection of IMEI and SIM codes from visitors’ phones.
Morales and UC Global were named as defendants in the lawsuit, however, due to the fact that they were not in the U.S., the claims against them were never really litigated.
In December 2023, Koeltl dismissed multiple claims that were filed against the CIA. But remarkably, he found that the four Americans who had visited Assange had grounds to sue the CIA for violating their “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“If the government’s search (of their conversations and electronic devices) and seizure (of the contents of their electronic devices) were unlawful, the plaintiffs have suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged program and redressable by a favorable ruling,” Koeltl declared.
Soon after, the court was notified that the CIA would assert the state secrets privilege to block the lawsuit.
Bill Burns, who was the CIA director, submitted a declaration in April 2024 that asserted “serious” and “exceptionally grave” damage to the “national security” of the U.S. would occur if the case proceeded.
……………………………………………… Burying secrets so deep and for so long that the public does not find them is typically the CIA’s objective when they invoke the state secrets privilege. They have buried a 6,300-page Senate intelligence report on CIA rendition, detention, and torture during the global war on terrorism. They are now burying their Assange secrets.
The decision all but ensures that the CIA will be able to conceal what they allegedly did to Assange, WikiLeaks, and his supporters for several decades. The agency, with support from the U.S. Justice Department, has already frustrated a Spanish court trying to prosecute Morales and other UC Global employees for alleged criminal acts.
It was always unlikely that Assange’s defense would uncover details about the CIA’s alleged actions and share those revelations during an Espionage Act trial. The restrictions the government and courts impose on defendants come with procedures to shield the CIA from scrutiny.
When the prosecution against Assange ended in a plea deal in June 2024, that benefited the CIA even if it was not the outcome that current and former high-ranking officials had desired. The CIA would never have to worry about the agency’s actions being discussed by the press and on social media during a high-profile trial.
Of course, there is also the matter of the CIA allegedly violating the privacy rights of Assange visitors while the U.S government targeted a journalist living under political asylum in a foreign embassy. The U.S. news media never showed much interest in the CIA’s actions, however, let’s not forget there was widespread global opposition to the Assange prosecution that helped end the case. The agency is right to be concerned that if more was known it might erupt into an international scandal. https://thedissenter.org/burying-the-cias-assange-secrets/
Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #3: Hide the costs of keeping coal
RENEW ECONOMY. Tristan Edis, Feb 21, 2025
This is part 4 of a five part series of articles examining the four accounting tricks that the Liberal-National Party employed in the costing of their energy plan to slow the roll-out of renewables and rely instead on nuclear power. The first article, which provides the overarching context is published here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here.
These four accounting tricks act to mislead voters that the Liberal-National Party could lower energy bills through a shift to nuclear when in reality it is likely to increase power bills.
This article focuses on accounting trick three of four: Hide most of the cost of replacing coal with nuclear to outside the time period considered in the costing.
It’s very important to note that the Coalition’s costing of its electricity system cuts out in the year 2051. It only accounts for costs incurred between 2025 to 2051 and anything after that date is ignored.
The LNP’s claim of a 44% saving does not represent the cost of two alternative systems for achieving near zero emissions once they are both completed to see how nuclear might reduce the cost of the system.
Instead, a heavy influence on the cost estimates in the model is the degree to which the scenarios can delay incurring costs in replacing the old, highly polluting and likely to be increasingly unreliable coal power plants.
How is this a problem?
Coal power stations are much like a car – they are exposed to extreme heat, pressure and general mechanical stress that means they wear out and become unreliable as they get old. That’s physics.
Many of us will have experience with an old car that has got to the point where it increasingly encounters mechanical problems and the mechanic is warning us that it really needs some major repairs but these would cost more than the car is worth.
At this point many of us can be tempted to take a gamble by putting off such repairs, and go for temporary, less costly patch-ups and hope the car keeps going. That will be a lot cheaper than buying a new car, at least for as long as we can keep the old car going. But it comes with the risk that it could leave us stranded with a broken-down car at an extremely inconvenient point in time and even pose a danger to our safety and that of others.
The Coalition’s modeled plan chooses to take that gamble with our electricity system. But it doesn’t account for the risks and potentially extreme costs this involves if the gamble goes wrong.
Clare Savage, the head of the Australian Energy Regulator has repeatedly warned that failing to replace aging coal plants risks both power system reliability and also affordability observing, “Coal can’t last until you have nuclear power available.”……………………………………………………………………
Unless Peter Dutton has a secret plan to prioritise curtailment of rooftop solar in favour of coal generators, this is likely to get worse over time.
Now, the way that the consultant, Frontier, constructed Dutton’s costing is that they space out the cost of constructing new power stations as an annualised payment – a bit like how you’d purchase a new car not by paying for it upfront but rather by taking out a loan and then paying it back incrementally over time.
Except in this case the annualised payment for a new power station is spaced out over several decades and for nuclear it is 50 years. Meanwhile for the existing, very old power plants the original cost of constructing those plants is omitted from the annualised costs.
By pushing out the point at which they replace the old power stations with new ones until the 2040’s, the Coalition gets to hide much of the cost of the nuclear plants until towards the very back end of the projection period. We’ll still have to pay for these nuclear power stations well after 2051, but that’s conveniently left out of the costing period.
Meanwhile, in the scenario said to represent Labor Policy, the coal-fired power stations are replaced quite quickly, so the cost of the new, replacement power stations is taken into account across almost the entire time period considered in the model. …………………………
The nuclear plants aren’t really delivering any meaningful saving in the unit cost of energy relative to relying on renewables and storage. Instead, the savings are coming from the Liberal Party delaying the point at which the coal power plants are replaced. ………………………………………. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-accounting-trick-3-hide-the-costs-of-keeping-coal/
Dutton hints at privatising nuclear – one day
Phillip Coorey, 21 Feb 25
Peter Dutton has suggested his proposed nuclear power plants would one day be privatised, as he rejected the idea of the Albanese government taking an equity stake in the Whyalla steelworks.
With the $2.4 billion rescue plan for the steelworks in mid-north South Australia sparking a broader discussion about the re-nationalisation of business, the opposition leader said while he supported the plan, he derided the prospect of an equity stake in the Whyalla plant as “Whitlamesque”………………………….
Dutton said he was “completely opposed” to an equity stake.
“The prime minister can’t run a government – how can he run a steelworks? He’s now proposing to own an airline. I mean, this is Whitlamesque,” Dutton said.
Asked to explain why he opposed governments buying into troubled businesses but planned to spend $331 billion to build own and operate seven nuclear power plants, Dutton said there was a key difference in the nuclear energy would be a start-up industry.
“Nuclear power carries with it, from our country’s perspective, a zero-based knowledge, or a very low level of understanding, unlike in the United Kingdom or in Canada or in France or other parts of the world, including the United States,” he said.
“It’s obvious to me that there is greater reassurance in the public’s mind about the safety and the safe delivery of nuclear technology if it’s in government ownership.
“Now, it doesn’t need to be in government ownership forever.” https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-hints-at-privatising-nuclear-one-day-20250221-p5ldzj
Community consultation kicks off for submarine yard, but don’t mention nuclear
“South Australians should understand that AUKUS involves not only plans for the construction and sustainment of nuclear submarines at Osborne, but also for eventual decommissioning, storage and dismantling of those submarines on the banks of the Port Adelaide River, and indefinite storage of high-level nuclear waste, most likely in SA.”
The Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) will today start information sessions for community members about its planned nuclear submarine construction yard project, but any concerns about nuclear issues are out of scope.
The first of four information sessions for community members interested in the Australia Submarine Agency’s (ASA) planned nuclear submarine construction yard at Osborne begin today.
The first – at the State Library on North Terrace – comes during a period of public consultation through which the ASA is receiving feedback from community members on its draft ‘Strategic Impact Assessment Report’ for the yard.
Until 17 March members of the public can submit comments about the 203-page draft, which considers the plan’s potential impact on the environment but notably rules nuclear issues as “outside the scope” of the plan for a shipyard to build nuclear submarines.
It follows an agreement struck in November 2023 between the ASA and the Environment and Water Minister – Tanya Plibersek – which specifically precluded all nuclear issues from the scope of the environmental assessment process.
“The operation, sustainment and decommissioning of the submarines built at the Osborne SCY is considered out of scope of the Strategic Assessment and will be managed via separate environmental assessment processes and approvals as necessary,” the agreement reads.
“The manufacture, delivery and subsequent operation of the reactor power module is considered outside of the scope of the Strategic Assessment, however the assembly into the submarine is included.”
What is included is the processing of steel, outfitting of submarine sections, manufacture of pipe and electrical components, the use of supporting facilities (guard houses, car parks, warehousing, office accommodation, etc.) and more.
The resulting draft environmental impact report, plus 754 pages of appendices, asserts that the impacts of the construction yard are “likely to be acceptable”.
It also confirms on page 156 that “no nuclear actions” are included in the scope of the draft and that “other activities are considered outside the scope of the strategic assessment and will be managed via separate assessment processes and approvals as necessary”.
Former Senator and submariner Rex Patrick – who plans on running for a South Australian seat at the next Federal Election as a member of Jacqui Lambie’s political party – said the consultation process was designed to “minimise public engagement”.
“This is a ‘strategic assessment’ of a nuclear facility in which everything nuclear is excluded. More attention is paid to the environmental impacts of car parks than nuclear reactors,” he told InDaily.
“South Australians should understand that AUKUS involves not only plans for the construction and sustainment of nuclear submarines at Osborne, but also for eventual decommissioning, storage and dismantling of those submarines on the banks of the Port Adelaide River, and indefinite storage of high-level nuclear waste, most likely in SA.”
He added that the fact that Port Adelaide is yet to be visited by a nuclear-powered vessel because it has never been approved as a suitable location for such visits made the situation “an extraordinary state of affairs”.
“Whatever one thinks about AUKUS, it’s clear the environmental assessment has been rigged from the beginning.
“It’s been rigged by ASA with the connivance of Minister Plibersek to produce a predetermined outcome, opening the way for further stages of the project to be ticked off by Defence bureaucrats as they wish.
Those decisions will have consequences for South Australia that will last decades, hundreds and indeed thousands of years.”
Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #1: Assume you can halve the cost of nuclear power
they claim they will be ordering nuclear plants several years in the future after the nuclear industry has had the chance to improve on what have been some shocking project cost blow outs.
the nuclear industry in the western world has tended to experience escalating, not declining costs over time.
would have to commence the nuclear procurement process immediately.
Tristan Edis, Feb 19, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-accounting-trick-1-assume-you-can-halve-the-cost-of-nuclear-power/
This is part 2 of a five part series of articles examining the four accounting tricks that the Liberal-National Party employed in the costing of its energy plan to slow the roll-out of renewables and rely instead on nuclear power. The first article, which provides the overarching context is published here.
These four accounting tricks act to mislead voters that the Liberal-National Party could lower energy bills through a shift to nuclear when in reality it is likely to increase power bills.
This article focuses on accounting trick one of four: Assume a cost for nuclear reactors which is around half what nuclear reactors have actually cost to build across Europe and North America.
The most important point you need to understand is that the unit cost of energy the Liberal-National Party claims its future nuclear-underpinned power system will deliver – about $80 per megawatt-hour – is unrealistically low.
More realistic cost assumptions for nuclear would inflate the modelled cost of their system per MWh to $141.50 per MWh which is two-thirds higher than what they’ve estimated for the Labor Party scenario.
The Liberal-National Party’s costing has assumed that a nuclear reactor built today in Australia would cost $10,000 per kilowatt of capacity and that cost would decline by 1% per annum. The costing also assumes the first reactors would commence operation in 2036 followed by a rapid scale-up from 2039.
This is far below the real-world construction cost experience of nuclear reactors across Europe and North America in the past 20 years. This experience is detailed in a report I co-authored with energy analyst Johanna Bowyer from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis – Nuclear in Australia would increase household power bills.
The table below [on original] lists the costs per kilowatt of plants which have proceeded to construction or managed to get to the point of a contracted price. Importantly you need to consider both the actual price paid to construction contractors (known as the ‘overnight cost’ – the cost if the project could literally be built within a night), but also a range of costs incurred by the owner in building the plant such as financing, known as the ‘all-in costs’.
These owner-incurred costs are very large, mainly because construction takes a long time and leads to significant bank debt interest bill accumulating over this period. The Liberal-National’s costing report does not explain what construction period it assumes for nuclear plants, which is a major black hole in their costing.
For a nuclear reactor with an all in cost of almost $29,000 per kilowatt to recover a commercial financing cost of 6% it would need to capture an electricity price close to $260 per MWh, and that’s if it could operate close to its full capacity without ramping down around solar generation.
If we multiply that out by the amount of electricity nuclear is expected to generate under the Liberal-National Party scenario, that gives us an annualised cost just for the nuclear component of their power system of $27 billion in 2051. We then need to add on top of that the costs to provide the remaining 60% or so of electricity not provided by nuclear.
Unfortunately, the inadequate transparency of the consultant’s report makes it difficult to disentangle these costs. Using the limited data the consultant has provided these non-nuclear costs appear to roughly lie somewhere around $8 to $10 billion.
So, if we use more realistic nuclear costs and then take the mid point for the non-nuclear costs of $9 billion, we end up with a total annualised cost of $36 billion for the complete system in 2051.
This is $7.5 billion higher than what the consultant estimates for the Labor scenario in 2051. It gives us an averaged cost per MWh of around $141.50, which is around two-thirds higher cost per MWh than the Labor scenario.
The Coalition likes to claim that the costs from these real-world nuclear power plant projects are somehow not relevant. This is because they claim they will be ordering nuclear plants several years in the future after the nuclear industry has had the chance to improve on what have been some shocking project cost blow outs.
There are just two fundamental problems with this.
The first is that the nuclear industry in the western world has tended to experience escalating, not declining costs over time. UK’s next planned nuclear project Sizewell C will represent the fifth and sixth European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design built by French corporate entities.
The latest cost reported by the UK’s Financial Times suggests it will cost around two and half times what the Coalition costing assumes at $24,540 per kW. That’s substantially more expensive than the first EPR they built in Finland – Olkiluoto 3.
The second problem is that for the Coalition to have any chance of meeting its time frame for the roll-out of nuclear it would have to commence the nuclear procurement process immediately. It won’t be able to wait for the nuclear industry to achieve what would amount to some incredible cost breakthroughs.
To explain why it is helpful to look at the Czech Republic experience, where they just very recently completed a nuclear tender process. The tender commenced in 2022 (preparation leading into the tender such as permitting and environmental impact assessments for the reactor site began several years before that but let’s leave that to one side).
Two years later they had selected the winner, being Korean Hydro and Nuclear Power. Yet Korean Hydro and Nuclear Power won’t be able to actually commence the real construction work until 2029. That’s because nuclear power plants are very complex, from both a physical and commercial perspective, and require considerable preparatory work. From there, they don’t expect the nuclear power plant to be fully operational until 2038. Note that this is for a site where preexisting nuclear power plants are already in place with all the associated supporting infrastructure that entails.
So, realistically, if the Coalition wanted to achieve the timelines outlined in its modelling, it really needed to commence the nuclear procurement tender process back several years ago when it was previously in government. It has no time available to wait around for the nuclear industry to come up with the cost breakthroughs its costing relies upon.
Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets provides analysis and advice to assist clients make better informed investment, trading and policy decisions in energy and carbon abatement markets.
Peter Dutton sidesteps questions on state-funded nuclear disaster insurance plan
Albanese government also asked if it has considered nuclear insurance pool in context of Aukus nuclear-powered submarines.
Dan Jervis-Bardy Guardian 18 Feb 25
Peter Dutton has sidestepped questions about the potential need for a government-backed insurance pool for nuclear disasters after the industry’s peak body exposed a possible missing piece in his flagship energy plan.
The Insurance Council of Australia on Monday suggested the commonwealth may need to underwrite a scheme to cover communities against nuclear accidents.
“Around the world, nuclear has a special [insurance] cover that is usually done by governments,” the council’s chief executive, Andrew Hall, told ABC RN Breakfast.
“So it’s a conversation: if Australia turns to a net zero nuclear future, then we’re going to need to have a conversation with the government about a pool that would cover communities in the extremely unlikely event something would happen.”
Hall indicated such a scheme would be needed even if the Coalition’s nuclear plans never eventuated, to cover residents living near naval bases for the Aukus nuclear-powered submarines.
Neither the US nor UK has ever experienced a nuclear reactor accident on their submarines.
The insurance question has been largely overlooked in the debate about Dutton’s proposal to build nuclear reactors at seven sites. Attention has focused instead on the cost and timeline for starting an Australian nuclear power industry from scratch.
Countries with established nuclear industries have longstanding insurance schemes to cover personal injury and damage caused by nuclear disaster.
In the US, operators of nuclear power plants pay an annual premium for US$500m (about A$786m) in private insurance for liability coverage for each reactor.
Asked on Monday if the Coalition had modelled the cost of a nuclear insurance scheme, Dutton did not respond to the question, instead reiterating the threat of market intervention if insurers did not lower premiums.
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, struggled to answer similar questions when pressed repeatedly on ABC radio earlier in the day.
Insurance is not mentioned in either the Coalition’s six-page nuclear blueprint or in the Frontier Economics costings underpinning the proposal.
The Australia Institute thinktank in 2019 described nuclear power as “uninsurable”, warning that if operators were forced to cover the cost of accidents then the reactors would be “completely uncompetitive”.
In a statement to Guardian Australia, an Insurance Council of Australia spokesperson said it was common for insurance policies to exclude loss or damage caused by nuclear power.
“However, insurers in Europe, the US, and other countries where nuclear power generation is common have insurance mechanisms in place to cover liability concerns,” the spokesperson said.
“These include liability insurance pools, international agreements and conventions, and government programs to establish coverage and frameworks for nuclear liability insurance.”
Guardian Australia asked the defence minister, Richard Marles, if the government had considered a nuclear insurance pool in the context of Aukus.
In a statement, an Australian Submarine Agency spokesperson did not comment on the idea of an insurance pool……………………………………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/17/nuclear-disaster-insurance-pool-funding-peter-dutton-questioned-coalition-costing?fbclid=IwY2xjawIh-1VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVTDHY1ZfGqoH8vCwqMsqPd2DFwsmd0_nUu-wn14Gnes6DAWgXMuUXO-ow_aem_JRtSrA2wjsbbfPQiwb-vqg
Where’s the policy?’: Coalition criticised over ‘pipedream’ nuclear plan
Sky News Australia, 19 Feb 25, https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/where-s-the-policy-coalition-criticised-over-pipedream-nuclear-plan/ar-AA1zjMZd
Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell believes the rate cut by the Reserve Bank “puts the focus” on Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
The Reserve Bank has cut the official cash rate for the first time in more than four years, lowering it by 25 basis points, from 4.35 per cent to 4.10 per cent.
“I think this very much puts the focus on Peter Dutton now, I have to say,” Mr Clennell said.
“We’re at five minutes to midnight on an election now. Where’s the policy?
“They announced a nuclear policy – seven federal government-owned nuclear power plants, and then they kind of ran away from it.
“They’d have to convince a hostile Senate to end the moratorium.
“That looks like a pipedream.”
Dutton’s HALF-BAKED plans for dealing with global heating and Australia’s energy future.
Dr Tony Webb, 20 February 25
Coalition’s plans for our energy future including Nuclear power plants are based on:
Delivering half the electricity anticipated as needed to power homes and industry
and transition to zero carbon emissions.
Assuming cost of building nukes in Australia which has no experience of doing this
will be about half what the most nuke-favourable evidence world-wide from
countries that do have the experience suggests is needed.
Assuming these can be built in less than half the time evidence suggests they take to
build.
Ignoring the evidence that current official radiation-induced cancer-risk-estimates,
on which standards for worker OH&S are based, are less than half what the evidence
from nuclear power plant workers in Europe and North America suggests is the
inevitable and unavoidable reality. Also, ignoring that the cardio-vascular and heart
disease risk from such exposures is double that expected and the childhood
leukaemia risk in the community near these plants has been similarly under-
estimated.
Not to mention that the coalition’s costings ignore the long-term costs of
decommissioning these plants, the management, and (perhaps . . . . Dutton dream
on!) eventually finding a solution for long-term storage (never ‘disposal’) of the
highly radioactive wastes –
Nor to mention the fact that state and federal legislation currently prohibits such
nuclear power plants and is unlikely to be overturned any time in the near future.
And – despite this overwhelming evidence that the whole silly idea is half-baked – in
fact a smokescreen for continuing climate denial and extending use of polluting and
planet life-threatening fossil fuels, inface of this the Coalition doubles down on it
with backing from sections of the media and the fossil fuel lobby.
And finally, we are so far only half-baked. Global warming is passing the climate
catastrophe 1.5 degree centigrade target and now heading to at least 3 degrees and
possibly more.
Before we decide where to dump nuclear waste, let’s answer the bigger questions
February 19, 2025 AIMN Editorial, Australians for Affordable Energy, https://theaimn.net/before-we-decide-where-to-dump-nuclear-waste-lets-answer-the-bigger-questions/
Australians for Affordable Energy is urging caution following calls for South Australia to become a nuclear power hub and waste storage site, warning fundamental questions about nuclear remain unanswered.
Alexander Downer’s comments advocating for nuclear power plants in South Australia and positioning the state as a nuclear waste storage site are deeply concerning given there has been no comprehensive discussion around nuclear power.
The nuclear debate must go beyond location discussion and first address economic and logistic concerns, Australians for Affordable Energy spokesperson Jo Dodds said.
“Before we even talk about where to dump nuclear waste, we need to ask some hard questions. How much will nuclear really cost Australian taxpayers? What will it do to energy prices and the cost of living? How long will it take to build? Who funds insurance?” Ms Dodd said.
“There are global examples of nuclear projects that have blown out in cost and time frames and just fallen over, leaving consumers to foot the bill. Australians deserve transparency on these issues before any commitments are made.”
The practical implications of nuclear power for everyday Australians remain unclear. Australians deserve a full and open discussion of nuclear power’s real impacts rather than ideological endorsements from political figures.
“We know nuclear energy requires massive upfront investment, long construction times, intensive oversight, expensive insurance, and creates long-term waste management challenges. These factors could seriously impact affordability – for the country and individuals who will have to pay the bills since private investment won’t go near nuclear,” Ms Dodds said.
“We need an evidence-based national conversation about our energy future before committing to specific locations for waste storage. We can’t afford to let political enthusiasm override economic and practical considerations.
“If politicians are serious about nuclear, let’s see the full breakdown of costs, risks and alternatives before making any decisions.”
AFAE warns against locking into costly or uncertain energy options and calls for a transparent review of nuclear power in Australia before any site is considered for waste storage.
Nuclear Gamble is an Economic Wrecking Ball
February 17, 2025 AIMN , Kate Hook
Nuclear gamble is an economic wrecking ball – Lithgow and the Central West deserve better
Independent candidate for Calare, Kate Hook, has slammed the Coalition’s nuclear proposal, calling it an economic wrecking ball that will waste billions, push up power prices, and stall job creation in regional Australia.
“Energy experts, market operators and Australia’s leading economists have been clear – Australia can achieve a secure, reliable, and affordable power system without nuclear power,” Ms. Hook said. “The Coalition’s plan is a costly distraction, and I will not support it.”
“The communities that will suffer most from this reckless policy are the very ones that need investment in real, job-creating industries right now – not in 15 or 20 years.”
Ms. Hook called out the nuclear plan for what it is – a stalling tactic to prop up fossil fuel operators, keep government subsidies flowing to outdated industries, and leave Australian taxpayers to foot the bill.
Nuclear reactors take decades to build and cost tens of billions of dollars – public money that could instead be spent on renewables, storage, and grid upgrades today. By the time nuclear power could even begin operating, Australia’s energy system will already be overwhelmingly powered by cheaper, cleaner alternatives.
“We are at 40% renewable energy now and in the last 6 years alone, we’ve already added over 46 TWh (Terra Watt hours) of annual renewable energy generation to the grid. This number might not mean much to most people but it’s huge! It’s the equivalent of six nuclear power stations. And we did it in six years – not 15 or 20 years,” Ms Hook said.
Renewables and Storage: Reliable, Affordable, and Ready Now
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has mapped out the most efficient path forward—and nuclear isn’t part of it. The smart, cost-effective way to secure Australia’s energy future is through renewables, backed by battery storage, pumped hydro, and modern grid technology.
Big battery projects like South Australia’s Hornsdale Power Reserve are already proving their worth. Originally built with a capacity of 129 MWh – enough to power 30,000 homes for a day – it has since expanded to 194 MWh, providing power to 50,000 homes and stabilising the grid within milliseconds during sudden demand spikes.
“This fast response prevents blackouts and keeps energy prices stable—something nuclear power just can’t do,” Ms. Hook said.
Pumped hydro projects like Snowy 2.0 will ensure around-the-clock reliability. When completed, its 2.2 GW capacity will generate enough electricity to power three million homes during peak demand – like when air conditioning use surges on a hot summer evening.
With 350,000 MWh of storage, Snowy 2.0 could power 500,000 homes for an entire week or every home in Sydney for three days.
“We don’t need to waste time and money on nuclear power when we have already invested in proven, ready-to-go solutions that lower energy bills and create jobs right now,” Ms. Hook said.
Lithgow Needs Smart Investments, Not Costly Distractions
Kate Hook recognises that Lithgow has been at the heart of Australia’s energy production for generations. With coal mines closing and Mt Piper Power Station scheduled to shut in 2042, Lithgow needs a real plan for its future – not a decades-long delay.
“Lithgow deserves practical, affordable, and proven energy solutions – not a risky, drawn-out experiment that will leave taxpayers footing the bill for decades,” Ms. Hook said.
Beyond spiralling costs and construction delays, nuclear power comes with long-term risks that regional communities like Lithgow will be forced to bear. The Coalition has no plan for nuclear waste storage, no consultation with impacted communities, and no clear strategy for financing these massive projects.
……………………………………….“Nuclear is a dead-end policy – an economic wrecking ball that will drive up power prices and leave communities paying the price,” Ms. Hook said. “Instead of pouring billions into an outdated, high-risk technology, we should be investing in industries that will deliver affordable energy and secure jobs for Lithgow and all of Calare.”
A Clear Choice on Election Day
With voters in Calare facing a critical decision at the next election, Kate Hook urged the community to reject the Coalition’s nuclear “plan” and back a renewables-led future.
“This election is about who we trust to deliver cheaper energy, good jobs, and a secure future for our region,” Ms. Hook said. “Nuclear power in Australia is an expensive fantasy which is not backed by economic or energy experts – renewables are the real opportunity for Calare.”…………………………. https://theaimn.net/nuclear-gamble-is-an-economic-wrecking-ball/
The four accounting tricks behind Peter Dutton’s nuclear cost claims
So according to the data within the Liberal-National Party’s costing document, Dutton’s power system underpinned by nuclear will generate electricity at 6% lower cost than one that doesn’t rely on nuclear. It leads you to wonder – how on earth did Dutton come up with it being 44% cheaper?
There are four accounting tricks behind the 44% cheaper claim which mean that, in reality, Peter Dutton’s plan is not cheaper and is far more risky.
Tristan Edis, Feb 18, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-four-accounting-tricks-behind-peter-duttons-nuclear-cost-claims/
The Liberal-National Coalition claims it has found the solution to bring down energy bills – slow the growth of renewable energy and roll-out nuclear power.
According to Liberal Leader Peter Dutton, their plan for a power system including a significant role for nuclear will be 44% cheaper than a system relying predominantly on renewables. This claim is based on energy market economic modelling it released just before Christmas, prepared by an economic consultant – Frontier Economics.
A range of energy analysts and economists have criticised the Coalition’s claims, finding an array of problems with how this number was derived (see the list at the bottom of this article for examples). Nonetheless this hasn’t made any difference to Peter Dutton’s claims, and earlier this month he was on ABC television telling viewers that he had a plan to deliver voters 44% cheaper power bills.
However, you don’t need to be any kind of expert analyst or economist to work out that the claim nuclear will deliver you 44% lower bills is a bit like a wrinkle cream claiming it will make you look 44% younger.
And in the end, though it might not be obvious, this is really about whether Liberal-National Party have discovered a miraculous cure for aging, and quite potentially the laws of physics. It isn’t really about nuclear.
To explain this you need to do a very simple calculation:
1) Get out a basic calculator.
2) Into this calculator type in the $20.5 billion dollars that the Liberal-National Party costing says will be the annual price of their power system once all the nuclear power plants are complete in 2051 (see Figure 12 on page 38 of the consultant’s report).
3) Then divide this cost by the total amount of electricity that system will deliver in 2051 after deducting generation from energy storage, which is roughly 255 million megawatt-hours (see table 8 on page 34).
That gives you the cost of energy under their system of around $80.30 per megawatt-hour.
Now do the same thing for the power system which Dutton claims to represent Labor’s policy (by the way it’s not really Labor’s policy, it’s the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Step Change modelling scenario). So divide $28.5 billion (Figure 12 on page 38 of consultant’s report) by 333 million megawatt-hours (table 5 on page 28).
That gives a cost of energy of close to $85.50 per megawatt-hour for the so called Labor system.
So according to the data within the Liberal-National Party’s costing document, Dutton’s power system underpinned by nuclear will generate electricity at 6% lower cost than one that doesn’t rely on nuclear. It leads you to wonder – how on earth did Dutton come up with it being 44% cheaper?
There are four accounting tricks behind the 44% cheaper claim which mean that, in reality, Peter Dutton’s plan is not cheaper and is far more risky. The four tricks involve the following:
1) It doesn’t reflect the real cost of building nuclear – the Liberal Party costing assumes a cost for nuclear power plants which is around half what nuclear reactors have actually cost to build. Once you use the average construction cost and construction time of real world nuclear plants, the cost per unit of energy for the Liberal-National Party’s power system is two thirds more expensive than what is estimated for Labor’s scenario, once the system is fully built.
2) Only considers electricity costs while ignoring the cost of petrol and gas – The costing omits much of the costs of energy to heat buildings, fuel vehicles and power industry in the Liberal-National party scenario because they seem to prefer that we continue to heavily rely on petrol to fuel our cars and gas instead of electricity to heat homes and run factories.
Meanwhile, a lot of these costs are included in the scenario for Labor, where electricity has largely replaced the use of petrol and gas for fuelling our vehicles and heating buildings and industrial processes. By just accounting for the 203 billion litres of extra petrol consumption in the Liberal-National scenario the claimed 44% saving evaporates and instead you find their energy system is $80 billion more expensive that what they claim is the cost for the Labor scenario.
3) Tries to hide the cost of replacing old coal power stations with nuclear to outside the time period covered by the costing. The costing only includes costs incurred between 2025 and 2051, anything beyond that point is ignored. Under the costing of the Liberal-National Party’s scenario they’ve pushed most of the costs of replacing old coal power stations to outside the 2025-2051 time period. Meanwhile, the costing ignores the risks and potential large costs associated with extended reliance on increasingly unreliable old power stations.
4) Assumes climate change isn’t an important and urgent problem – The modelling consultant has openly acknowledged the availability of economic data that would allow them to cost the damage from carbon emissions. But instead of using this data from the Australian Energy Regulator, they instead completely ignore the damage costs from the higher emissions under the Coalition’s preferred scenario of extended reliance on coal, petrol and gas.
If the consultant had adhered to the basics of first year economics based on work published back in 1920, and placed a cost on carbon in line with AER guidance, it would add $392 billion to the Liberal-National scenario compared to just $75 billion to the Labor scenario. If you add that to the extra cost of petrol then the Liberal-National scenario is almost $400 billion more expensive than the scenario claimed to be Labor’s across 2025 to 2051. That’s even if we ignore the extra costs associated with accounting tricks 1 and 3.
Over the next few days I’ll go into each one of these four accounting tricks in more detail with an article explaining how that trick acts to mislead voters and means that energy consumers would most likely face higher, not lower energy bills.
This isn’t intended to suggest that the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Step Change scenario (said to represent Labor policy) should go unquestioned. The future is full of uncertainties and we need to examine a range of options for how we can sensibly lower emissions while maintaining reliable and affordable energy suppliers.
Unfortunately, the suggestion that Nuclear Power is the easy fix simply ignores the incredible difficulties and costs Europe, North America and Japan have experienced with Nuclear Power.
Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets provides analysis and advice to assist clients make better informed investment, trading and policy decisions in energy and carbon abatement markets.
Dutton’s nuclear disaster: Cheap lies and a $20 billion deficit
By Steve Bishop | 17 February 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/duttons-nuclear-disaster-cheap-lies-and-a-20-billion-deficit,19447
The Coalition’s nuclear policy announcement comes with a massive price tag but is also built on disinformation, writes Steve Bishop.
A $20 BILLION deficit and cheap lies mean that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton‘s attempt to “extend the life” of coal-fired power plants with a nuclear “fix” has come spectacularly unstuck.
Dutton and the Coalition stand condemned for presenting the public with a shoddy, ill-prepared policy on a multi-billion dollar project that the Climate Council warns could risk power shortages in the 2030s.
On 13 December last year, Mr Dutton promised:
SEARCH
Daily Telegraph tries and fails to stage antisemitic incident
Share the love — Gift an IA Subscription!
Dutton isn’t just exploiting antisemitism — he’s driving it
Dutton’s vow to slash public servant numbers another Coalition disaster
The Apprentice tells Trump’s supervillain origin story
Daily Telegraph tries and fails to stage antisemitic incident
Share the love — Gift an IA Subscription!
Dutton isn’t just exploiting antisemitism — he’s driving it
Dutton’s vow to slash public servant numbers another Coalition disaster
The Apprentice tells Trump’s supervillain origin story
Politics Opinion
Dutton’s nuclear disaster: Cheap lies and a $20 billion deficit
By Steve Bishop | 17 February 2025, 3:00pm | 0 comments |
The Coalition’s nuclear policy announcement comes with a massive price tag but is also built on disinformation, writes Steve Bishop.
A $20 BILLION deficit and cheap lies mean that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton‘s attempt to “extend the life” of coal-fired power plants with a nuclear “fix” has come spectacularly unstuck.
Dutton and the Coalition stand condemned for presenting the public with a shoddy, ill-prepared policy on a multi-billion dollar project that the Climate Council warns could risk power shortages in the 2030s.
On 13 December last year, Mr Dutton promised:
‘By 2050, our plan will deliver up to 14 GW of nuclear energy, guaranteeing consistent and stable electricity for all Australians.’
Yet the Coalition’s costings report, released on the same day, repeatedly deals with only 13 GW.
That’s 1,000 MW short of the target.
Three small modular reactors (SMRs) producing 345 MW each would be needed to make up the shortfall at a cost of almost $20 billion based on the US$4 billion (AU$6.2 billion) price of Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien‘s favoured Natrium reactor.
Just to put this critical mess in focus — that’s twenty thousand million dollars. It makes a mockery of Dutton’s claim that “the Liberal Party has always been a better economic manager…”
And then come the cheap lies.
Mr Dutton claims:
“…electricity is cheaper where there is a presence of nuclear energy. That is a fact.”
No, it’s not a fact. It is a lie.
Ted O’Brien has repeatedly talked about Ontario as having cheap power because it has nuclear reactors.
But Quebec’s electricity prices are far cheaper than Ontario’s. Quebec closed its only nuclear power plant in 2012.
Not only that, but Quebec’s power company paid the provincial government a dividend of $2.5 billion in 2023/24.
On the other hand, the Ontario Government pays subsidies of up to $720 a year to families of four earning less than $65,000 a year.
Coalition frontbencher Dan Tehan says nuclear power contributes to low power prices in Tennessee but Electric Choice shows that this month Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Utah all have lower power prices — and none of them has nuclear power,
Dutton claims “Australian families at the moment are paying some of the highest energy costs in the world” and they would enjoy ‘massive savings’ if we had nuclear power.
The Opposition Leader also says it’s a fact that countries such as the UK and France, with their nuclear power, have cheaper power prices than Australia.
Here’s the lie exposed again. It’s a complete meltdown. According to Statista, power prices in the UK and France are more expensive than in Australia.
Here’s another lie.
Mr Dutton asserts:
‘…nuclear energy… has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world…’
Slovenia has a nuclear power plant but is one of the most expensive providers in Europe with Switzerland‘s nuclear power prices not far behind.
Slovakia generates half its power from nuclear plants but power prices are more than twice what Norwegians, with no nuclear power, pay.
Then Dutton has the chutzpah to accuse the Government of lying when it points out that nuclear power is the most expensive type of energy.
In the 2021 edition of its annual cost report, Wall Street firm Lazard estimated that the levelised cost of electricity from new nuclear plants will be $131–204 per megawatt-hour (MWh), whereas newly constructed utility-scale solar and wind plants produce electricity at somewhere between $26–50MWh.
An independent report commissioned by the Clean Energy Council and conducted by Egis, a leading global consulting, construction and engineering firm, has confirmed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found nuclear power in Australia could result in electricity bills rising by $665 a year on average
And the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has found:
‘…building nuclear reactors in Australia would cost at least twice as much as renewable power…’
No wonder that Coalition whistleblower Senator Matt Canavan revealed the nuclear policy is no more than a fix. It doesn’t even deserve a half-life.
Taxpayers should not foot the bill for nuclear risk
Australians for Affordable Energy, 17 Feb 25, https://theaimn.net/taxpayers-should-not-foot-the-bill-for-nuclear-risk/
If private insurers refuse to cover nuclear reactors the financial risks will be shifted onto Australian taxpayers, meaning we are still unclear how much taxpayers will have to cover of the nuclear bill.
Australians for Affordable Energy has expressed deep concern over the revelation the private sector may not be able to insure nuclear reactors, following comments on Monday from the CEO of the Insurance Council of Australia.
Many of Australia’s leading insurance companies won’t cover damage from a nuclear disaster, leaving the government as the insurer. By shifting the financial burden of insuring nuclear facilities onto taxpayers, Australians could be exposed to potentially tens of billions of dollars in liabilities if a nuclear accident were to occur.
“We know that private investors won’t put money into building the industry, that we will need to create a massive new government agency to oversee it, and now we are hearing that we will need to pay for the insurance too? What’s next?”
“Advocates for nuclear energy need to say whether it can stand on its own, including paying their insurance. And they need to tell us what other costs we might be asked to carry. The fact is by the time the reactors are done it won’t be us paying the bills for the insurance, it’ll be our grandkids. I’d like to know what we’re signing them up for. ”
Australians for Affordable Energy spokesperson Jo Dodds, a bushfire survivor and advocate for evidence-based policy, said: “Australians are already struggling with rising energy costs, the last thing we need is a power source that could further inflate our electricity bills and our taxes.
“The high costs associated with uninsured nuclear power could be passed onto consumers, who are already looking at paying higher bills if we were to shift to nuclear power. This is money hardworking Australians simply can’t afford to pay.”
AFAE is warning against locking into costly or uncertain energy options and is calling for greater transparency on the long-term costs of competing energy plans.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 