Nuclear energy questioned again as new CSIRO report finds it will push up power prices
By Daniel Jeffrey Dec 9, 2024, https://www.9news.com.au/national/csiro-gen-cost-report-nuclear-twice-expensive-renewables/53b37f54-ad6e-4542-9ab0-35fdf48dec96
Experts have once again cast serious doubt on the viability of nuclear energy in Australia, with a new CSIRO report finding it would likely be more than twice as expensive than using renewables.
The latest version of the GenCost report, published this morning, concluded a mix of solar and wind power with firming is the cheapest form of energy production, and will remain so well into the future.
It found nuclear presents “no unique cost advantage over other technologies”.
[Excellent table here – on original]
“Similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies, including renewables, even when accounting for the need to build them twice,” CSIRO chief energy economist and report lead author Paul Graham said.
“The lack of an economic advantage is due to the substantial nuclear re-investment costs required to achieve long operational life.”
The report found renewables with firming produced power at a cost of $98-$150 per megawatt-hour (MWh) this year, and is set to drop to between $67-$137 in 2030.
Large-scale nuclear generation has a cost, on the other hand, of between $155-$252, which is set to only drop to $150-$245, while the respective figures for nuclear small modular reactors are more expensive again at $400-$663 and $285-$487.
The findings come as the federal opposition prepares to release the long-awaited costings for its proposal to build seven nuclear power plants.
Asked about the report, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton didn’t answer whether his party’s plan would push up power prices, instead questioning the methodology used by the CSIRO.
“The assumptions and the methodology have been disputed before… they were disputed before, and do you know what? They haven’t even seen our plan yet, and yet they’re out bagging it,” he said.
The national science agency has changed its methodology used to assess nuclear power costs, to the point it gives the technology “extremely generous” assumptions, emeritus professor Ian Lowe said.
“The study confirms the view of the electricity industry that solar and wind with storage are much cheaper than any nuclear power station would generate, even with extremely generous assumptions about the costs and operating life of nuclear reactors,” he said.
Western Sydney University’s Dr Thomas Longden said there are a number of issues facing nuclear power.
“For nuclear to achieve the lowest levelized cost of electricity, it needs to be built big and operate all the time and for a long time,” he said.
“Yet, the bigger it gets; the more upfront cost needs to be paid. And if it isn’t used as often or as long as expected, then it gets more costly.
“The true cost of nuclear will be revealed over a long time and is subject to construction costs, plus there’s also the issue of operational, fuel, and waste costs, which will be higher for nuclear.”
Energy expert Ken Baldwin noted the report showed the cost of solar and battery storage has significantly decreased, while wind, coal and particularly gas have increased.
“Solar and wind remain the cheapest form of electricity generation, even when taking into account the additional cost of firming with storage, and the additional transmission costs,” he said.
“This cost advantage over nuclear is projected to widen over the coming decades – especially by the earliest date that nuclear could foreseeably be expected to operate in Australia in the late 2030s, given the projected lead time of around 15 years.”
Dutton promised to unveil the Coalition’s nuclear costings later this week.
Policy bum Dutton has two big ideas. They’re both in bad trouble
Peter Dutton has two big ideas: cut migration and build nuclear power plants. He’s now abandoned one, and we know the other will be a disaster.
Bernard Keane, Crikey.com Dec 09, 2024
This opposition caper is pretty easy, Peter Dutton must have been thinking throughout the year. Just bag the government, disappear from the media cycle if things ever get hectic, and let the Reserve Bank’s smashing of the economy do the job of undermining government support.
At some point, however, he was going to have to produce at least some policy. Not too soon, and not too much — just enough to look like he has some sort of plan. It should have been doable. After all, he has the entirety of News Corp on his side to praise his policy offerings, and the fencesitters and bothsiders of the press gallery in other outlets won’t criticise Dutton without making sure they offer equal criticism of the government.
But that overlooks the fact that Dutton is, to use a term made famous by Paul Keating, a policy bum. There is nothing in his political history that indicates either ministerial competence or policy nous. He was an indifferent health minister who failed to push through a Medicare copayment. As immigration and then home affairs minister, he lost control of borders to organised crime and failed to fix the many basic problems of the Immigration Department. His shorter time at Defence was of a Marlesian quality — a blithe indifference to the department’s many failings, while shrilly yelling at China.
Dutton’s limited forays into policy as leader have been characterised by confusion. It’s still not clear exactly what the Coalition’s tax policy is, with the initial opposition confusion in the aftermath of Labor’s changes to the stage three tax cuts — remember those — lasting to this very day: when even your mates at News Corp say you’re “kicking the can down the road“, it’s not a good sign.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. But the confusion has now gotten worse…………………………………………………………………………
Dutton’s other signature policy, an unprecedented, fiscally devastating entry of the government into power generation, will receive some time in the spotlight this week with Dutton having promised for the umpteenth time he’ll release details of it. That the Coalition is busy trying to invent numbers for Labor’s policy to argue that the hundred-billion-plus cost of nuclear reactors is the cheap option suggests no amount of fake “independent modelling” or Panglossian assumptions have been able to get the costing down to anything reasonable.
In that context, it’s worth reading the CSIRO’s latest GenCost report, which sets out to address the complaints of nuclear power fans and the Coalition that the assumptions behind its 2023 demolition of the economic case for nuclear power (and, it shouldn’t be forgotten, Labor’s carbon capture and storage scam) were unfair.
The opposition complained that the lives of nuclear reactors are much longer than modelled. GenCost notes that nuclear power plants can indeed run for many decades, but they need refurbishment to do so, and renewables plants can run for similar lives at a much lower refurbishment cost.
The opposition complained the CSIRO should have used a US power capacity figure of 93%, not the global nuclear industry average of 80% or the Australian coal-fired power plant average of 59%. GenCost pointed out it uses the same capacity range for all power sources, and it’s not prudent financially to assume the best-case scenario.
The opposition complained that nuclear power plants could be up and running in 10-15 years and not 15 years as GenCost assumed. Gencost points out that nuclear construction times have now blown out by 2.2 years recently, and that the only countries building reactors quickly are non-democracies that don’t have to worry about public consultation.
But what about changing costs for different power sources? Well:
The capital costs of onshore wind generation technology increased by a further 8% in 2023-24 and another 2% in 2024-25 while large-scale solar PV has fallen by 8% in consecutive years. Large-scale battery costs improved the most in 2024-25 falling by 20% in 2024-25.
Even with some of the tweaks demanded by the Coalition, the latest GenCost report shows large-scale nuclear is significantly more expensive than coal, gas and solar or wind with firming capacity. The only things large-scale nuclear is cheaper than is carbon capture and storage, and small modular reactors — which are at least twice the cost of any other energy source and three times the cost of the cheaper ones.
Dutton might be better off abandoning any policy and simply going to the election with nothing more than incessant criticism of Labor. He’s a policy bum, and any time he opens his mouth on his own policies, he confirms it. https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/12/09/peter-dutton-immigration-nuclear-energy/
Renewable energy trounces nuclear on generation costs
By Marion Rae, December 9 2024 – https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/8841115/renewable-energy-trounces-nuclear-on-generation-costs/
Power planners have found nuclear energy does not stack up for Australia even after considering new parameters, with large-scale solar and big batteries still the lowest-cost option.
In an official update released on Monday, as the federal opposition prepares to release its costings, scientists warn taxpayers will need deep pockets and a lead time of at least 15 years to develop nuclear energy generation.
For the seventh straight year, renewables were the lowest-cost of any new-build electricity-generating technology.
After a global energy crisis and equipment supply crunch several years ago, large-scale solar and lithium battery storage have weathered the inflationary period the best of all technologies.
The cost of batteries recorded the largest annual reduction, with capital costs down by one-fifth. Rooftop solar costs are also coming down.
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney said four million households with rooftop solar, energy producers and retailers have already voted with their feet and wallets.
“Nuclear is not right for Australia, which has some of the best renewable energy resources on the planet,” he said.
The GenCost 2024-25 Report released for consultation comes as the coalition pushes for an end to Australia’s nuclear ban and promises to have reactors online in as soon as 10 years if elected in 2025.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, eyeing sites in seven regional centres, has pledged to release the coalition’s nuclear costings “this week”.
But nuclear energy generation would be 1.5 to two times more expensive than large-scale solar, according to the analysis by the national science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.
A one-gigawatt nuclear plant has a price tag of roughly $9 billion, but the bill would double to $18 billion as the first of its kind.
Operators would also need to establish new connection points to safely supply the national electricity grid, experts warn.
Advocates have demanded greater recognition of the potential cost advantages of nuclear’s long operating life compared to solar panels and wind turbines, but CSIRO chief energy economist and GenCost lead author Paul Graham said he found none.
“Similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies including renewables, even when accounting for the need to build them twice,” Mr Graham said.
Nuclear’s capacity factor – referring to how much of a year a reactor could operate at full tilt – remains unaltered at 53-89 per cent based on verifiable data and consideration of Australia’s unique electricity generation needs.
Nor would the often-touted United Arab Emirates example of a relatively quick 12-year nuclear construction time-frame be achievable here, the report found, because Australians require consultation.
“The facts are laid out very clearly in the GenCost report, and our government respects the work of CSIRO scientists and researchers and listens to that advice,” Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic said.
“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy not only threatens to blow out the budget, it also threatens jobs and household power bills,” he said.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said renewables remain the cheapest new-build electricity generation in Australia to 2050, as standalone assets and when also accounting for the required storage, transmission and firming.
The report is open for industry, community and political feedback until February 11.
The question of nuclear in Australia’s electricity sector
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2024/December/Nuclear-explainer 9 Dec 24
In Australia’s transition to net zero emissions, the electricity sector has a major role to play. But does nuclear power have a place in our future grid?
Key points
While nuclear technologies have a long operational life, this factor provides no unique cost advantage over shorter-lived technologies.
Nuclear power does not currently provide the most cost competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia.
Long development lead times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
This explainer was updated on 09 December 2024 to reflect costings included in the draft GenCost 2024-25 Report.
As Australia works towards emissions reduction targets in the transition to net zero, we know the electricity sector has a major role to play. We also know it makes sense to assess a full range of technologies: some new and emerging, some established and proven.
In this context some proponents want nuclear to be considered as an option for decarbonising the electricity sector.
Despite nuclear power being a component of electricity generation for 16 per cent of the world’s countries, it does not currently represent a timely or efficient solution for meeting Australia’s net zero target.
Here’s why:
- Nuclear is not economically competitive with solar PV and wind and the total development time in Australia for large or small-scale nuclear is at least 15 years.
- Small modular reactors (SMRs) are potentially faster to build but are commercially immature at present.
- The total development lead time needed for nuclear means it cannot play a major role in electricity sector emission abatement, which is more urgent than abatement in other sectors.
Understanding GenCost calculations
GenCost is a leading economic report by CSIRO in collaboration with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to estimate the cost of building future electricity generation and storage, as well as hydrogen production in Australia.
It is a policy and technology neutral report and the annual process involves close collaboration with electricity industry experts. There are opportunities for stakeholders to provide pre-publication feedback, ensuring the accuracy of available evidence.
Paul Graham, our Chief Energy Economist and lead author of the report, said GenCost is an open and public process.
“The report’s data is not just for AEMO planning and forecasting; it’s also used by government policymakers and electricity strategists who require a clear, simple metric to inform their decisions,” Paul said.
“To facilitate a straightforward comparison across different technologies, the GenCost report conducts a levelised cost of electricity analysis. This method calculates a dollar cost per megawatt hour (MWh) over the economic life of the asset, incorporating initial capital expenses and any ongoing fuel, operation, and maintenance costs.”
The draft GenCost 2024-25 Report released on 09 December 2024 found renewables continue to have the lowest cost range of any new build electricity generation technologies.
[Excellent table here -on original]
One of the factors that impacts the high and low cost range is the capacity factor. The capacity factor is the percentage of time on average that the technology generates to its full capacity throughout the year. Costs are lowest if technologies. such as nuclear, can operate at full capacity for as long as possible so they have more generation revenue over which to recover their capital costs.
Nuclear technology is capable of high capacity factor operation but globally its capacity factor ranges from below 60% to above 90% with an average of 80%. Australia operates a similar steam turbine based technology in coal generation for which the average capacity factor over the last decade was 59% with a maximum of 89%.
The shape of the electricity load and competition from other sources is very different between countries and so our preference is to always use Australian data where it is available. Consequently, we apply the historical coal capacity factors when considering the potential future capacity factors of Australian nuclear generation.
Capital cost assumptions
While nuclear generation is well established globally, it has never been deployed in Australia.
Applying overseas costs to large-scale nuclear projects in Australia is not straightforward due to significant variations in labour costs, workforce expertise, governance and standards. As a result, the source country for large-scale nuclear data must be carefully selected.
GenCost estimates of the cost large-scale nuclear are based on South Korea’s successful continuous nuclear building program and adjusted for differences in Australian and South Korean deployment costs by investigating the ratio of new coal generation costs in each country.
The large-scale nuclear costs it reported could only be achieved if Australia commits to a continuous building program, following the construction of an initial higher-cost unit or units. Initial units of all first-of-a-kind technologies in Australia are expected to be impacted by higher costs. A first-of-a-kind cost premium of up to 100 per cent cannot be ruled out. These assumptions remain for the draft GenCost 2024-25 Report.
Life of the investment
GenCost recognises the difference between the period over which the capital cost is recovered (the economic life) and operational life of an asset.
GenCost assumes a 30-year economic life for large-scale nuclear plants, even though they can operate for a longer period. It is standard practice in private financing that the capital recovery period for an asset is less than its full operational life, similar to a car or house loan. For power stations, warranties expire and refurbishment costs may begin to fall around the 30-year mark. As a result, we use a 30-year lifespan in our cost calculations.
After the final GenCost 23-24 Report was released in May 2024, nuclear proponents clarified they will seek to achieve longer capital recovery periods, closer to the operational life, by using public financing to realise potential cost advantages.
The draft GenCost 2024-25 Report has calculated those cost advantages for the first time (using a 60-year period), finding that there are no unique cost advantages arising from nuclear technology’s long operational life. Similar cost savings are achievable from shorter-lived technologies, even accounting for the fact that shorter lived technologies need to be built twice. This is because shorter-lived technologies such as solar PV and wind are typically available at a lower cost over time, making the second build less costly.
The lack of an economic advantage for long-lived nuclear is due to substantial nuclear refurbishment costs to achieve long operational life safely. Without new investment it cannot achieve long operational life. Also, because of the long lead time in nuclear deployment, cost reductions in the second half of their operational life are not available until around 45 years into the future, significantly reducing their value to consumers compared to other options.
Current figures for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
The Carbon Free Power Project was a nuclear SMR project in the United States established in 2015 and planned for full operation by 2030. It was the first project to receive design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an essential step before construction can commence. In November 2023, the project was cancelled following a 56 per cent increase in reported costs.
Despite being cancelled, this project was the first and currently remains the only project to have provided cost estimates for a real commercial venture with detailed data. Until now, most sources were for theoretical projects only.
“The main area of uncertainty with nuclear SMR has been around capital costs,” Paul said.
“The Carbon Free Power Project provided more confidence about the capital costs of nuclear SMR and the data confirms it is currently a very high-cost technology.”
“We don’t disagree with the principle of SMRs. They attempt to speed up the building process of nuclear plants using standardised components in a modular system and may achieve cost reductions over time. However, the lack of commercial deployment has meant that these potential savings are not yet verified or realised,” Paul said.
Time is running out for the energy transition
Nuclear power has an empty development pipeline in Australia. Given the state and federal legal restrictions, this is not surprising.
But even if nuclear power was more economically feasible, its slow construction and its additional pre-construction steps, particularly around safety and security, limit its potential to play a serious role in reducing emissions within the required timeframe.
In the last five years, the global median construction time for nuclear has been 8.2 years. Furthermore, in the last ten years, no country with a similar level of democracy to Australia have been able to complete construction in less than 10 years. Overall, it will take at least 15 years before first nuclear generation could be achieved in Australia.
“The electricity sector is one of our largest sources of emissions and delaying the transition will make the cost of addressing climate change higher for all Australians,” Paul said
The electricity sector must rapidly lead the transition to net zero, so other sectors like transport, building and manufacturing can adopt electrification and cut their emissions.”
CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables
By energy reporter Daniel Mercer and National Regional Affairs Reporter Jane Norman, ABC News, 9 Dec 24
In short:
The CSIRO’s new GenCost report again says a nuclear power plant for Australia would likely cost twice as much as renewable energy.
Australia’s leading science agency also said nuclear power plants enjoyed relatively little financial advantage from their long lives and would run at a capacity similar to coal.
What’s next?
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton prepares to release the much-anticipated costings of the Coalition’s nuclear power policy this week.
Building a nuclear power plant in Australia would likely cost twice as much as renewable energy even accounting for the much longer life-span of reactors, according to a new report from Australia’s leading science agency.
In its latest economic analysis of the cost of building various energy projects, the CSIRO found nuclear plants enjoyed relatively little financial advantage from their long lives, which could be double a solar or wind farm.
It comes as the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton prepares to release the much-anticipated costings of the Coalition’s nuclear power policy this week. Mr Dutton has repeatedly said the policy would help bring down power bills, a claim challenged in this latest report.
The CSIRO regularly releases the GenCost report, which looks at the cost of Australia’s energy sources. It has consistently found renewable to be the cheapest option, despite a run of inclusions at the request of critics to make changes to the modelling — the latest being the life span of a nuclear plant.
And the agency said there was little evidence to suggest nuclear reactors in Australia would be able to benefit from running flat-out around the clock, noting they would face the same forces that are hollowing out the business case for coal.
The conclusions come after the CSIRO copped heavy criticism over a report in May that found Australia’s first nuclear power plant would cost up to $17 billion in today’s dollars and not be operational until 2040.
At the time, critics including opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, who is spearheading the Coalition’s case for nuclear power, said the CSIRO analysis was flawed.
………………….an update of its GenCost report — which it carries out annually alongside the Australian Energy Market Operator — the CSIRO has largely stood by its earlier findings.
Nuclear’s long life ‘no advantage’
………………….CSIRO chief economist Paul Graham said even if a nuclear project could get a loan with a 60-year term, higher interest payments would wipe out many of the supposed gains.
……………………… low costs would be short-lived because nuclear reactors faced substantial refurbishment costs running into billions of dollars after about 40 years of operation.
For these reasons, Mr Graham said there was no “unique” cost advantage offered by nuclear compared with renewable energy projects backed by transmission lines and so-called firming technologies such as batteries and gas plants.
…………………………………………………………………………… No plant likely until 2040
On the subject of lead times to build nuclear, Mr Graham was steadfast.
He said suggestions Australia would be able to build its first nuclear reactor in sooner than 15 years seemed to stretch plausibility.
Nuclear proponents have pointed as an example to the United Arab Emirates, which went from having no reactors to commissioning its first project in 12 years.
Mr Graham said the UAE was, in many ways, a best-case scenario for the nuclear industry but the country was hardly comparable to Australia.
The UAE was an absolute monarchy with an autocratic style of government but Mr Graham said Australia was a democracy where policies were subject to many checks and balances.
Accordingly, he said overturning Australia’s ban on nuclear power, “planning, permitting and financing” a reactor would be a daunting task that took a lot of time.
……………………… “After we evaluated these three topics, potential for longer life, how often nuclear generates throughout the year, when we applied those numbers, we are still finding that large-scale nuclear would be 1.5 to 2.5 times the cost of generating from firmed solar and wind,” Mr Graham said.
……………………………….In line with its earlier findings, the CSIRO concluded renewable energy and the technologies required to back it up would be the cheapest way of meeting Australia’s future energy needs.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the CSIRO had accommodated the Coalition’s concerns and still found that Labor’s renewables-led approach was the cheapest way of overhauling the electricity grid.
He described the nuclear policy as “wildly optimistic”, in light of the report’s findings.
“[It] thought about those criticisms, analysed those criticisms and found that those criticisms don’t stack up,” Mr Bowen said.
………………………………..In what Mr Graham described as an “amazing achievement” in an inflationary environment, the CSIRO found battery costs had tumbled 20 per cent in the 12 months to June 30, while there had been back-to-back decreases of 8 per cent for large-scale solar.
Wind projects, by contrast, increased by 2 per cent last year following a whopping jump of 35 per cent in 2022-23 and an 8 per cent hike in 2023-24.
Cost estimates for miniature nuclear plants called small modular reactors (SMRs), meanwhile, were still by far and away considered the most expensive type of new energy project……https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-09/nuclear-power-plant-twice-as-costly-as-renewables/104691114
If you don’t know, vote no on nuclear
Paul SEKFY,
Yarranbella. News Of The Area – Modern Media – , https://www.newsofthearea.com.au/letter-to-the-editor-if-you-dont-know-vote-no-on-nuclear?fbclid=IwY2xjawHCJhpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfZmi7k4NSrBSYSgCBdH1DMvb4qmQAyFkXq6z6NPT1O3fwFestYaRYCKdg_aem_Ce9U6F-WQb71jMpXOintCw
THE fatuous debate about potential nuclear power options for Australia cannot be taken seriously.
There is no credible evidence supporting any such proposal either economically or environmentally in the Australian context.
The most recent Royal Commission, in 2016 in South Australia, into the nuclear fuel cycle concluded as much.
The history of nuclear power plant accidents and disasters should sound enough warning.
There is an increasing level of radioactive pollution due to the nuclear fuel cycle more generally and the ongoing release of radioactive material continues.
We now have a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia due to our AUKUS agenda, but we have not been able to locate a necessary more permanent nuclear waste storage facility anywhere.
Sensible people do not want one to be anywhere.
This should signal game over but sadly not.
The economics do not add up and the time taken to build reactors will not assist in meeting our essential carbon reduction targets.
Further concentration of power generation capital in the hands of a wealthy few, regardless of suggested initial taxpayer investment is clearly not desirable or justifiable.
Just look at the coal and oil industries in terms of their dominant power and influence.
Owned by an elite few, they continue to pollute and expect subsidies to do so.
We now recently have seen how this folly grows.
Locally we have proponents of nuclear power promoting that it is somehow in our interests to pay them our money to hear these paid proponents spruik their theories.
Creative and clever solutions to energy and climate are needed, not this dangerous misdirection.
If you don’t know, vote no is the most appropriate advice with regard to the nuclear issue.
Surely a more sensible nuclear agenda for humanity and us Australians is a ban on nuclear weapons.
‘Nothing to see here’ says Australia as third Thales corruption case starts globally
the NACC did not appear to have placed sufficient weight on the seriousness of the matter, particularly as Thales is linked to several international corruption matters, operates in one of the most corrupt industries in the world, and currently manages Australian Government contracts worth billions of dollars.
the Defence Department hired an external negotiator with a conflict of interest to lead its billion-dollar negotiations with Thales……………………………………Defence’s two lead negotiators together owned 55% of Scotwork, and would benefit financially.
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy turns a blind eye to “unethical conduct” between Thales and the Defence Department despite national audit office warning of “capture” by weapons giants
Michelle Fahy, Dec 08, 2024, https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/nothing-to-see-here-says-australia?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=152750589&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Part 3 of 3 (read part 1 and part 2)
The number of corruption investigations into the Thales Group continues to mount internationally with another announced two weeks ago.
The UK’s Serious Fraud Office and its French equivalent, Parquet National Financier, are jointly investigating suspected bribery and corruption by Thales on a contract in Asia. Thales has denied the allegations.
This followed news in June that police in France, the Netherlands and Spain had raided Thales’ offices in those countries as part of two separate additional corruption investigations into arms deals involving the Thales Group, as we reported in part 2.
In Australia, however, the Albanese government has swept aside a key integrity agency’s reports of “unethical conduct” between Thales and the Defence Department, appointing Thales as the fourth “strategic partner” in the new domestic missile-making enterprise.
Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy dismissed as an “unsubstantiated allegation” that was “flying around” the documented concerns of the Australian National Audit Office about a former defence official sharing confidential information with Thales and later soliciting a bottle of champagne from the company.
In a televised address at the National Press Club on October 30, where Conroy announced the government’s appointment of Thales as a Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) “Strategic Partner”, the minister was asked whether he remained confident in Thales and its integrity.
Said Conroy: “Let’s be very frank about this thing that’s flying around. There’s an allegation of an incident that occurred in 2017. 2017 – seven years ago – under the last government.
“Defence has thoroughly investigated it and I’m advised that’s there’s been no evidence to substantiate the allegation. It’s important to note that there is one allegation, unsubstantiated.”
But Conroy was wrong to claim the Thales deal has been “thoroughly investigated”, said Chris Douglas, a Perth-based international financial crime consultant.
“It has not been. The Defence Department does not have the capability to investigate allegations that could involve corruption.”
Douglas said that a thorough investigation could only be undertaken by a law enforcement agency, particularly the National Anti-Corruption Commission, “using a full suite of investigation powers including electronic evidence gathering”.
“There might be evidence at the person’s home, Defence isn’t going to find that, or in premises occupied by Thales, Defence won’t find that either. That is why we have a NACC.”
Following the audit office’s scathing June report on the 2020 Thales munitions deal, the Defence Department referred the matter to the NACC.
According to the ABC, after receiving the referral the NACC instructed the Defence Department to conduct the preliminary investigation. The department later said it was unable to substantiate the allegation. (See part 1.)
Douglas said the NACC did not appear to have placed sufficient weight on the seriousness of the matter, particularly as Thales is linked to several international corruption matters, operates in one of the most corrupt industries in the world, and currently manages Australian Government contracts worth billions of dollars.
He added that if Thales was an individual, “based on its past behaviour it would not be given a security clearance, and therefore no employment”.
Following the ABC’s report, Minister Conroy was asked whether he was concerned that the investigation into the unethical conduct appeared “to have hit a dead‑end, with the Anti‑Corruption Commission referring it back to the department, which then found no evidence”.
Conroy responded: “I think the important thing there is all due process was followed… All the organisations involved have investigated this matter.”
GWEO Chief, Air Marshal Leon Phillips, added: “The department has investigated that matter and cannot substantiate what was alleged. So we’ve concluded those matters.”
It is a long way from Defence Minister Richard Marles’ promise on 30 June that the matter would be “fully investigated” in a way which is “completely robust, which people have total confidence in”.
Champagne bottle “least of the concerns” about Defence probity
At a hearing of the parliament’s powerful Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit in November, Senator Linda Reynolds, deputy chair of the committee and a former defence minister, raised strong concerns about the 2020 Thales munitions deal.
Reynolds alluded to discrepancies between what she had been told as minister in briefings by the Defence Department and the facts contained in the report.
“When I read this audit report and remembered what had actually come up to me in the [ministerial] brief, it almost made me feel ill … and that is very consistent with the advice that is in this report that went to a different minister in 2017.”
Reynolds’ remarks corroborated the auditor-general’s report: “Defence’s advice to ministers on the tender and contract negotiations did not inform them of the extent of tender non-compliance [by Thales], [the] basis of the decision to proceed to negotiations, or [the] ‘very high risk’ nature of the negotiation schedule.” (p9)
The report also said the department’s advice in mid-2017 to then minister for defence industry Christopher Pyne was incomplete regarding the Department’s decision to proceed with Thales as sole tenderer: “The advice did not address the legal basis for the procurement method, the risks associated with a sole source procurement approach, or value for money issues — including how Defence expected to achieve value for money and maintain commercial leverage in the context of a sole source procurement.” (p10)
We’ve had a history of ANAO reports and [Defence Department] mea culpas… It’s like groundhog day
Reynolds told defence officials at the hearing: “These are not the first appalling findings by the ANAO… We’ve had a history of ANAO reports and [Defence Department] mea culpas… It’s like groundhog day… I think the bottle of champagne was the least of the concerns in relation to probity.”
She said the fact that the government was continuing to award new contracts to Thales was a concern: “You’ve inherited a smell, a big smell.”
Defence appointed a lead negotiator that was providing training to Thales at the same time
In a repeat of the future frigate contract negotiation with BAE Systems (see our Sinking Billions series), the audit report revealed (p87) that the Defence Department hired an external negotiator with a conflict of interest to lead its billion-dollar negotiations with Thales.
The joint negotiation training was provided by Scotwork to both the Thales and the Commonwealth negotiation teams at the same time and location, with no segregation. It was fully paid for by Defence.
Furthermore, in November 2019, Defence was advised by one of its lead negotiators that Thales had engaged Scotwork to deliver a negotiation course (separate to the above training). Defence’s two lead negotiators together owned 55% of Scotwork, and would benefit financially. They said they were not involved with that Thales training, that Scotwork had strict ethical walls in place, and that the revenue was “not material”. Defence accepted this and did not enquire into the dollar value of the revenue.
Defence conducted its contract negotiations with Thales from 5 December 2019 to 19 February 2020.
These are just a few of the many serious issues documented in the audit report.
“Strategic partners” or state capture?
Thales Australia’s CEO, Jeff Connolly, said the announcement of its appointment as Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance “Strategic Partner” was “proof of the enduring trust between Thales Australia and the Commonwealth”.
In her evidence to the audit committee, deputy auditor-general Rona Mellor was forthright about the use of such language by government and industry: “One of the big issues is this…nomenclature of ‘strategic partnership’. You’re actually not in partnership. You have a contract… you need to hold them to account.”
On the Thales deal, Mellor told the committee that while big international weapons contractors did “important heavy lifting in defence specialist military equipment and munitions”, keeping an “appropriate distance in our relationships” was important.
She said the audit office had “ongoing concern” about the implementation of the recommendations it issued to Defence, particularly for long-term contracts involving “strategic partners”.
The current report focused on the munitions group, “but next week we’ll go into the shipbuilding group and we’ll see the same thing, or the week after we’ll go into the Air Force and see the same thing”, Mellor said.
“There’s a really big challenge ahead for Defence. The biggest challenge, [as] this one shows, is that there is a culture in these very long-term contracts… There’s a real risk that you get captured by the provider, whether it’s in incumbency in turning contracts over, or in the nature of relationships that you form.”
Thales Australia has managed the Mulwala and Benalla munitions factories for the Commonwealth since the late 1990s. The company has consistently ranked in the Defence Department’s top three contractors, earning more than $1 billion a year from taxpayers. It has $7 billion in current contracts with the department, Austender shows.
Senator Reynolds was defence minister for the final year of the more than decade-long procurement process for the management of the munitions factories. She was the last of seven ministers to oversee the process, which began in 2009. Reynolds became defence minister in May 2019. She approved the deal, along with then finance minister Mathias Cormann, in May 2020. The now $1.4 billion contract expires in 2030.
Dutton axes third wind farm ahead of nuclear pitch
AFR Phillip Coorey, Dec 5, 2024
Peter Dutton has upped the ante on energy ahead of the release of his nuclear power policy, vowing to scrap plans for a massive wind farm off the NSW central coast if elected.
The opposition leader’s pledge to not proceed with a wind farm off the coast of the Hunter, north of Sydney, takes to three of the six wind farms proposed by the Albanese government the Coalition would abolish.
The others are off the NSW Illawarra coast and the West Australian coast. The remaining three off the Victorian and South Australian coasts are likely to be spared.
Mr Dutton made the announcement in the Labor seat of Paterson, in the Hunter Valley, where the wind farm proposal has polarised the community and which the Coalition is targeting at the next election……………………………………………………………………. more https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-axes-third-wind-farm-ahead-of-nuclear-pitch-20241205-p5kvzv
Dutton to claim nuclear rollout will end up cheaper than renewables
The Age , By Paul Sakkal, December 5, 2024
Key points
- Peter Dutton will reveal his costings for seven nuclear plants as soon as next week.
- They are expected to claim the opposition’s energy grid plan – including renewables, gas and nuclear – will cost ‘significantly less’ than Labor’s.
- The opposition claims Labor’s renewables-led approach will cost $642 billion, while the government relies on a $122 billion figure.
Peter Dutton will claim the Coalition’s nuclear-backed grid will cost less to deliver than Labor’s renewables-led approach, escalating a war over the key cost-of-living issue ahead of next year’s federal election.
The opposition leader will reveal his costings for seven government-backed nuclear plants as soon as next week. This masthead has confirmed the Coalition will claim its energy grid plan – including renewables, gas and nuclear – would cost less than Labor’s.
“It will be significantly less than Labor,” one top Liberal said of the tightly held nuclear costings. Another opposition source suggested the total cost of the Coalition’s energy system rollout would be about $500 billion. The opposition claims Labor’s plan would cost $642 billion………………………………………… https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-to-claim-nuclear-rollout-will-end-up-cheaper-than-renewables-20241205-p5kw09.html
Senior Netanyahu Adviser Served in Victorian Court facing Genocide Charges
Camp Sovereignty, December 6, 2024, https://theaimn.com/senior-netanyahu-adviser-served-in-victorian-court-facing-genocide-charges/
Mark Regev, former senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Australian citizen, has been served with charges of advocating genocide. The next hearing will take place at the Victorian Magistrates’ Court on 10 December 2024.
The case, initiated by Krautungalung Elder and human rights advocate Uncle Robbie Thorpe, accuses Regev of publicly endorsing actions constituting genocide during the Gaza siege. In statements broadcast on Australian media, Regev allegedly supported policies aimed at destroying the Palestinian population in Gaza, including advocating for starvation. These actions, in breach of Section 80.2D of the Criminal Code Act 1995, carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
This case is a significant step forward compared to ongoing International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions involving Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as the ICC case cannot proceed until their arrests. In contrast, the prosecution of Regev is already underway.
The legal proceedings unfold against the backdrop of Australia’s shifting stance on Palestine, marked by its recent vote at the United Nations in support of a resolution demanding an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. This marks a departure from Australia’s traditional alignment with the United States.
Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, this case tests Australia’s commitment to upholding justice, both locally and in the context of international accountability. With Israel invoking diplomatic immunity on Regev’s behalf, the decision to proceed with prosecution now lies with the Commonwealth and the Department of Public Prosecutions. This highlights the far-reaching implications of the case.
“This case will show whether Australia is serious about prosecuting crimes of genocide, or whether we allow our citizens to shield themselves behind bureaucracy. We have a law in place with a lower burden of proof than international law. It must be applied now to ensure accountability for actions that promote destruction and suffering” Uncle Robbie Thorpe stated.
Thorpe urges the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to take decisive action in filing an indictment against Regev. He believes this case presents an opportunity for Australia to lead in enforcing laws against genocide. “Australia has the tools, the evidence, and the obligation. Now we must act. Failure to prosecute Mark Regev for advocating genocide would be a stain on our nation’s conscience,” Uncle Robbie said.
“The charges against Mark Regev mark an important moment in the fight for accountability and justice. For far too long, leaders and officials responsible for the suffering and destruction of marginalised communities have acted with impunity. This case isn’t just about Gaza, it’s about the broader principle that no individual, no matter their position or connections, is above the law.” said Keiran Stewart-Assheton, president of the Black Peoples Union and a Traditional Owner of Wani-Wandian Country in the Yuin Nation.
If the Australian courts fail to pursue the case to its full conclusion or diplomatic immunity prevents a fair prosecution, the matter could escalate to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC holds jurisdiction over genocide and other international crimes when domestic systems are unable or unwilling to act. With Regev already served and the case progressing, this prosecution presents an opportunity to set a precedent for domestic accountability while reinforcing global justice mechanisms.
Nuclear energy inquiry draws emotional response in Port Augusta
By Annabel Francis and Arj Ganesan, ABC North and West SA, 7 Dec 24
In short:
The select committee conducting an inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia has triggered strong opinions from both sides of the fence.
Aboriginal leaders, resident representatives, and leaders from the mining and energy sector have spoken during a hearing at Port Augusta.
What’s next?
Should the opposition win the next election, it has promised to hold a two-and-a-half year consultation period over its nuclear plans.
The federal government’s select committee inquiry into nuclear power generation at Port Augusta has stirred strong emotions among those making a submission.
For anti-nuclear activist and Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman Karina Lester, it is a debate she is tired of having.
“Governments change, committee members change … organisations, company members, CEOs of companies change,” Ms Lester said.
“Those of us that are in the frontline are constantly needing to remind governments of the impacts of nuclear in our communities.
“Aboriginal people of South Australia have always said no to nuclear.”
Ms Lester, who gave evidence at a select committee hearing in Adelaide, describes herself as a survivor of the Emu Field nuclear tests.
She said Indigenous people had seen the impacts of nuclear technology first-hand.
Her father, Yami Lester, went blind at the age of 16 following British weapons testing in Maralinga in South Australia in the 1950s.
Ms Lester said she feared Indigenous groups would suffer if the federal opposition’s nuclear plans went ahead.
“Aboriginal communities are always the solution or pressured to be the solution for the waste issues,” she said.
“The history shows us that locations identified are locations that are First Nations or Aboriginal people’s traditional lands.”
Port Augusta’s former coal power station was one of seven sites that was earmarked as a possible location for the opposition’s nuclear energy plan.
The Nukunu Wapma Thura Aboriginal Corporation, which holds native title over the proposed site, has voiced strong opposition to any nuclear proposal.
“Aboriginal people throughout the region and state of South Australia have historically and overwhelmingly opposed nuclear energy, and the storage of its waste,” a spokesperson said.
Greg Bannon from the Flinders Local Action Group gave evidence at the public hearing in Port Augusta about the potential risk of a nuclear accident.
He has opposed nuclear technology for decades and said the time to switch to nuclear energy had passed. “I think it’s old technology, and I don’t think we need it,” he said.
Mr Bannon said any accident or error would not only have a devastating impact on the local community but also on vulnerable marine ecologies, such as the giant Australian cuttlefish that aggregates about 50 kilometres away from Port Augusta……………………………https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-06/nuclear-energy-hearing-emotional-port-augusta/104694596
Peter Dutton cops backlash over push to build seven nuclear power stations in Australia
Opposition wants nuclear power plants over Anthony Albanese’s renewables
Daily Mail 4th Dec 2024, By BRETT LACKEY FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
Aussies have hit back at plans to build nuclear power stations in the country as the Coalition ramps up its push to establish seven sites as part of its election promise.
Parliament’s House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy is investigating the proposal and is travelling around the country hearing views from local communities.
At a meeting in Traralgon in Victoria’s Gippsland region on Tuesday angry locals fired up at the plan, which would see one of the new nuclear plants built at the currently winding down Loy Yang coal plant just 10 minutes out of town.
The other six locations Peter Dutton has outlined for nuclear plants are at the coal plant sites of Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW, Port Augusta in SA and Muja in WA.
‘We do not need nuclear in Australia. We need to be pushing more renewable energy and the technology will develop more and more as we go to keep the lights on,’ president of community group Voices of the Valley, Wendy Farmer, told the meeting.
Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien, also the committee’s deputy chair, asked if it was ‘just a no’ from Ms Farmer or if she was interested in studying whether nuclear could be a safe and effective form of electricity.
‘The Coalition have told us that they would consult with us for two and a half years but then they would go ahead with nuclear, whether we wanted it or not and our community would have no rights of veto,’ Ms Farmer fired back.
‘How can we trust the Coalition to have an independent study when you say proposal but where’s the proposal?’
Darren McCubbin, the CEO of Gippsland Climate Change Network, got a standing ovation when he told the meeting renewables were ‘ready to go’ while nuclear power stations would require years of consultations and reports.
‘I’d like to congratulate Mr O’Brien for recognising that we don’t have the science, that we need a work plan, that we need two and a half years of consultation,’ Mr McCubbin said.
‘Good on him for coming here and saying we don’t know the answers and we need to find them because they don’t have the answers.’
Mr McCubbin pointed to the 2GW of Victorian offshore wind power projects slated to be online by 2032, which would increase to 5GW by 2035.
Look right now we’ve got a stream towards renewables, we’ve got targets in place. We’ve got an industry waiting to go, we’ve got people coming from all over the world looking in Gippsland and saying we have a way of transitioning out [of coal-fired electricity].
‘We’ve got the science, we’ve got the community [support]. We’ve had Star of the South [wind farm project] here for five years doing community consultation and I appreciate that you recognise you haven’t done that.
‘So we’re ready to go and putting things off for two and a half years to have work plan after work plan and work plan is not a solution for jobs and growth within our region.’
A recent Demos AU poll of 6709 adults between July 2 and November 24 found that 26 per cent of women said nuclear would be good for Australia, compared with 51 per cent of men.
But only one in three of the men surveyed were willing to live near a nuclear plant.
Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of women said they don’t want to live near a nuclear plant and more than half (57 per cent) said transporting radioactive waste isn’t worth the risk.
The report card follows polling by Farmers For Climate Action that found 70 per cent of rural Australians support clean energy projects on farmland in their local areas and 17 per cent were opposed.
That support came with conditions, including proper consultation and better access to reliable energy.
Sanne de Swart, co-ordinator of the Nuclear Free Campaign with Friends of the Earth Melbourne, claimed nuclear electricity would ‘increase power bills, increase taxes and increase climate pollution’.
The independent Climate Council said it was concerned the coalition was relying on one private sector ‘base case‘ for nuclear costings rather than expert advice such as from the Australian Energy Market Operator.
‘What’s crucial is that any new investment is made at the least cost to Australian consumers,’ a council spokesperson said. ‘Only renewables – solar, wind, hydro – together with energy storage is capable of delivering on this, and it’s being built right now,’ the council said.
Minister for Climate Change Chris Bowen recently took a swipe at Peter Dutton and the Coalition’s nuclear proposal saying that it would take too long to get the plants up and running.
‘Net zero by 2050 is not optional. Which means the critical decade is now.’
With six years to go to reach the legislated target of a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, he said the nation was on track to meet it and to make 82 per cent renewable electricity in the national grid by 2030.
On Wednesday the House Select Committee was told legal requirements to make the former coal sites safe to build nuclear reactors will take decades of rehabilitation before they can be used.
‘We’re talking significant periods of time of two or three decades,’ Victoria’s Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority chief executive Jen Brereton said. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14154479/Australia-nuclear-power-plant-locations-backlash.html
The seven ways the Federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings
December 5, 2024, The AIM Network, Climate Council, https://theaimn.com/the-seven-ways-the-federal-coalition-could-cook-the-books-on-nuclear-costings/
Australians are being kept in the dark about the true costs of the Federal Coalition’s risky and expensive nuclear scheme.
The Federal Coalition’s heavy reliance on the first of two Frontier Economics reports paints a damning picture of the methods they may use to fudge the nuclear numbers and mislead Australians. We’ve already seen them cherry-pick numbers and use them to make misleading claims in Parliament.
Climate Councillor and economist Nicki Hutley said: “The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost Australians a bomb. It’s a risky, expensive fantasy that would see Australians paying more than $100 billion for a fraction of the electricity we need. The real danger is delaying real solutions–like building more renewables, which is the most affordable way to keep the lights on.”
The Climate Council has identified five furphies Australians are likely to see in the Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings:
1) Comparing apples with oranges: We’ve already seen the Federal Coalition use inaccurate comparisons in the first Frontier Economics report on the cost of the shift to renewables. They inflated the cost by including ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses—which we’re already paying and which will actually drop in a renewables-led grid. On top of that, they didn’t use present value terms, a standard economic practice that accounts for the true cost over time.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “It’s alarming to see the Federal Coalition knowingly compare costs that are for totally different things. If we’re going to have a debate on the economics of building renewable power and storage, it needs to be based on best practice economics, not a false and misleading comparison.”
2) Excluding the cost of attempting to keep our ageing coal stations open: AEMO expects all our outdated, unreliable and polluting coal-fired power stations to close by 2038 at the latest, with over 90% shutting down in the next 10 years. But the Federal Coalition wants to keep these creaking old coal power stations open while waiting at least 15 years or more for nuclear reactors. This would cost taxpayers a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs. Keeping just one coal power station open, Eraring in NSW, could cost taxpayers more than $225 million per year. Renewable power back by storage is the only solution ready now to fill that gap left by coal and secure reliable, affordable power for Australian homes and businesses.
3) Excluding the cost of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste:Toxic nuclear waste needs to be safely stored for 100,000 years – an enormous and costly responsibility. In Canada, storing the long-term waste from their nuclear program in an underground facility is expected to cost at least $33 billion AUD, excluding the costs already incurred to manage waste on nuclear reactor sites.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Any plans to build nuclear reactors must include the staggering long-term costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste. Ignoring these costs now will unfairly burden our kids, grandkids and future generations.”
-Advertisement-
4) Failing to consider the cost of climate change: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution. In fact, building nuclear reactors would mean burning more polluting coal and gas in the meantime, which could see a further 1.5 billion tonnes more harmful climate pollution produced by 2050 – the equivalent of running the Eraring coal power station in NSW for another 126 years. Australians would pay the price in worsening unnatural disasters and skyrocketing insurance costs.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear would cost us dearly, by delaying urgent cuts to climate pollution that would expose Australians to more unnatural disasters like bushfires, floods and heatwaves and driving up economic losses through higher insurance costs and disaster recovery bills. We should be focusing on cutting costs and climate pollution by rolling out more clean, reliable and affordable renewable power.
5) Ignoring Australia’s growing electricity needs: As Australia’s population and economy grows, keeping up with the community’s electricity needs is essential. The Australian Electricity Market Operator’s plan for our grid, the Integrated System Plan, expects power demand to double by 2050. We need more power to meet this need, and any assessment of cost needs to account for this. Assuming less might make costs look cheaper, but is inaccurate.
6) Ignoring the risk of cost blowouts: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings are likely to rely on rose-tinted assumptions, ignoring the very real possibility of massive cost overruns and delays that have plagued international nuclear projects.
For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C energy facility is running 14 years late, at a cost three times its original estimate—now sitting at a staggering $90 billion AUD. Assuming nothing will go wrong with nuclear reactors in Australia flies in the face of international experience and puts taxpayers at enormous financial risk.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear is simply a non-starter for Australia. The risks are immense—blowouts in cost and time, unresolved waste storage issues, and outdated technology. Projects like the UK’s Hinkley Point C show that nuclear is a financial black hole, while renewables are delivering results today.”
7) Ignoring the cost of transmission upgrades: The Federal Coalition assumes nuclear reactors can avoid the costs of necessary transmission upgrades, despite these investments being approved and supported by the previous Liberal-National Government.
Australia’s electricity grid needs substantial upgrades to meet growing energy demands and replace ageing coal-fired power stations. Building reactors near old coal stations won’t avoid the need for new transmission: the transmission previously used for coal is already being used by new batteries, wind and solar, and more investment is being planned. New transmission is needed no matter which energy source we build, and will make our grid stronger and more efficient.
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, said: “Peter Dutton could cook the books with some creative accounting to sell this fantasy. Our old coal plants are retiring in the next decade, and we need to keep investing in low cost renewables to keep the lights on, create thousands of jobs in regional Australia, and ensure we cut climate pollution further and faster.
“Let’s focus on what’s already working. Renewables are cutting pollution, creating jobs, and lowering power bills right now.”
A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costings
Tristan Edis, Dec 2, 2024, , https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-sneak-preview-of-peter-duttons-nuclear-costings/
Any day now, we should be provided with an estimate from the Liberal-National Coalition and/or Frontier Economics on what Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power will cost us.
Keep in mind we already have plenty of sources of information for what nuclear power costs based on real-world experience.
The chart below,[ on original] based on analysis by myself and Johanna Bowyer, shows the power price required for nuclear power plants to be commercially viable compared to current wholesale energy costs passed on to residential power consumers.
These power prices are based on the cost of actual power plants which have either been committed to construction or which provided tender construction contract offers over the past 20 years across Europe and North America.
Our research indicates that conventional nuclear power stations cost anywhere between $14.9 to $27.5 million per megawatt to construct. They also accumulate significant finance interest costs over a lengthy construction period ranging between 9 to 18 years.
While yet to be commercialised small modular reactors are promised to achieve shorter build times, they don’t exist, except on the drawing board.
The only one that has progressed to a construction contract in the developed world would have cost $28.9 million per megawatt. These are the range of costs and build times that the Coalition and/or Frontier Economics should be using if they want to be realistic.
This would lead to the uncomfortable conclusion that household power bills would need to rise by around $665 per year for nuclear power plants to recover their costs from the electricity market.
Oddly, Ted O’Brien and Angus Taylor didn’t think real world experience with nuclear projects was a valid basis for assessing the cost of their plan. That, of course, makes one wonder what they might have in mind.
Here are four ways they might instead approach their costing:
1) Apply the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to costing nuclear power plants also known as a “nth of a kind” costing;
2) Assume all transmission upgrade costs can be avoided with nuclear even though the prior Liberal-National Government approved and supported these transmission projects when in government;
3) Assume coal power plants never grow old;
4) Assume the damage from emissions released prior to 2050 don’t matter
We look at those claims in detail.
1) Look out for ‘NOAK’ or the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to costing
Advocates for nuclear power aren’t terribly fond of using costs based on real-world experience. Instead they like to apply the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to power plant costing.
This is where they assume away all the things that almost always go wrong with nuclear power plant construction, and imagine what should, could, or would happen if the real world would just stop being so damn unco-operative.
This typically requires that:
1. Construction companies and component suppliers stop making mistakes and stop seeking to claim contract variations;
2. Members of the community and politicians welcome nuclear projects with open arms and stop seeking to obstruct and delay them;
3. Nuclear plant designers get their designs perfect right from the start, avoiding the need to make adjustments on the fly as construction unfolds;
4. Financiers stop worrying about risk;
5. The community and politicians loosen-up about the small risk of radioactive meltdowns and apply less onerous safety requirements;
6. Construction staff aren’t tempted away to non-nuclear projects with offers of better pay or a more reliable stream of work;
7. Safety regulators work co-operatively and flexibly (compliantly?) with industry; and
8. Power companies en masse commit to ordering lots of reactors from a single supplier well in advance of when needed to enable the supply chain of nuclear equipment suppliers to achieve mass economies of scale and learning.
You generally know that these types of assumptions have been made in a nuclear costing because that costing will be described as a “nth of a kind” or NOAK cost.
The idea here is that incredibly high costs that were incurred in building all the prior nuclear power plants were an anomaly because they involved a whole bunch of mistakes and inefficiencies that the industry will learn from.
So, after they build several more and get progressively better, they’ll eventually reach the “Nth” number of plants, and all the problems that made prior plants so expensive will be ironed out.
At exactly what number plant do we reach N?
Well that’s usually a bit rubbery.
Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, you’ll find this NOAK costing approach is commonly adopted by the International Energy Agency, the US Department of Energy and even Australia’s CSIRO adopted a nuclear NOAK costing for its GenCost publication.
Unfortunately, while these agencies are generally good sources of information, the Nth power plant seems to always be a few more nuclear power plants away from being realised.
In reality the cost of building nuclear reactors has historically got worse rather than better over time in the western world.
The chart below [on original] illustrates the construction cost experience for pressurised water reactors in the US (in blue) and France (in red). Note this was based on a 2011 paper and omits the more recent and even worse cost experience detailed in the report by Bowyer and myself.
Bent Flyvberg – a professor in construction management at Oxford University and author of the bestselling book, How Big Things Get Done, has helpfully compiled a huge database of how major construction projects across the globe have performed against their original budgets.
This database reveals just how unreliable are the costings provided by the nuclear industry and its proponents. As the chart below published by Flyvberg reveals, the mean cost overrun of nuclear power projects stands at 120%, with only Olympic Games and Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities managing worse cost over-runs.
Meanwhile look at what types of projects perform well [graph at top of page]– notice anything?
For the journalists reading this article your task is simple – when the Coalition or Frontier Economics release their nuclear plan costing you need to ask them the following:
(1) Can you please provide us with a written assurance from the CEO of an experienced nuclear technology provider, like Westinghouse, EDF or Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, confirming they are willing to enter into a fixed price contract to build a nuclear power plant in Australia for the cost and timeframe used in your costing?
If instead they cite to you the experience of the Barakah Plant in the United Arab Emirates let’s say, then you can always ask them:
So, like the United Arab Emirates, will you be:
– allowing the mass importation of construction labour from developing countries;
– removing the right of workers to collectively organise and bargain;
– exempting nuclear construction projects from paying Australian award wages; and
– banning the right to peacefully protest?
2) All transmission expansion costs are the fault of Labor and can be avoided with nuclear power
It should be acknowledged that transmission network expansion projects in this country are also being hit by large budget blow outs which involve multi-billion dollar costs. We need to do a far better and more judicious job in the roll out of transmission projects in this country.
It’s also true that several of these projects are critical to supporting ongoing expansion of wind and solar power. Ted O’Brien and David Littleproud have been highly critical of these new transmission projects and claimed extra transmission costs can be avoided by rolling out nuclear.
Given this, their forthcoming costing will probably suggest all of these new transmission costs can be sheeted home to Labor’s Renewable Energy Policies.
But this would also indicate that O’Brien and Littleproud suffer from amnesia. That’s because the major transmission expansions which are incurring the largest costs were actively pushed by the former Coalition Government which both of them served in.
Read more: A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costingsThe prior government “welcomed” and helped underwrite the new 900 kilometre transmission interconnector between SA and NSW.
In the lead up to the 2019 election, they vowed to build a second electricity interconnector between Tasmanian and the mainland.
In January 2020 the Federal Coalition entered into a funding deal with the NSW Government to upgrade transmission lines across north, central and southern NSW.
As part of the 2020 budget, Angus Taylor and a range of National Party MPs announced funding support for an 840km transmission line across inland Queensland which they declared was a “commitment to regional jobs, industry development and affordable reliable power.”
Then, leading into the 2022 election, they announced they would underwrite construction works on a major new transmission line between NSW and Victoria.
Then Energy Minister Angus Taylor’s press release at the time spoke glowingly about the benefits of new transmission, stating:
“Our investment in this project will support reliable electricity supply, deliver substantial cost savings and help keep the lights on for Australian families, businesses and industries.
This builds on the Morrison government’s record of judicious investment of over $800 million in priority transmission projects recommended by AEMO’s Integrated System Plan – projects that stack up for consumers.”
3) Relying on coal power plants that never grow old
It is almost guaranteed that the Coalition’s costing model will assume we can rely on the existing coal power stations to keep powering on for another decade or two with no deterioration in their reliability, before they then switch to nuclear power.
This is a very handy assumption to make because it allows you to avoid or delay significant costs involved in building the new, replacement power stations before the nuclear plants miraculously come to the rescue.
Yet while it might be a handy modelling assumption, it probably isn’t a realistic one.
To keep coal power plants reliable, especially when they are several decades old, requires ongoing significant expenditure on maintenance and replacement parts. Plus, even with this expenditure there can reach a point where a plant is so old it will continue to suffer serious reliability problems.
A good example of the risks and limitations of refurbishment is the case of the attempt to refurbish Western Australia’s Muja A and B coal generating units of 240 megawatts.
In 2007 these units, which were approaching 50 years of age, were mothballed. But by 2009 the WA Government announced they would be recommissioned due to a gas shortage that had afflicted the state. At the time the cost was estimated to be $100m.
The cost of refurbishment subsequently blew out to $290 million and in 2012 one of the units suffered an explosion due to corroded piping, injuring a worker.
A subsequent investigation highlighted a range of technical problems with the plant that made refurbishment challenging, but in 2013 the government chose to press on and sink a further $45 million into the project, claiming it would have a lifetime of 15 years and ultimately recover its costs.
However, even after refurbishment was completed it was reported by the West Australian newspaper the generating units were “plagued by operational and reliability problems, generating electricity just 20 per cent of the time. By 2018 the WA Government decided to cut their losses and shut Muja A and B permanently.
AGL’s Liddell Power Station is another case in point. AGL argued that a ten year life extension would cost $900m, and decided it wasn’t worth it. A government taskforce which sought to second guess AGL on the closure noted,
“a Liddell extension meets the maximum power output requirement.
This means it could provide sufficient capacity to maintain current levels of reliability in NSW as long as it is actually available during peak demand conditions. However, the increasing risk of outages as the plant ages gives rise to an increasing possibility those outages would lead to supply shortfalls.
Liddell already has a high outage rate compared with other NSW coal generators…. There is a risk that upgrades to make the plant compliant with safety and other regulation would not alter its upward trajectory of faults and unplanned outages.”
The other issue is that owners of power plants are likely to face considerable difficulty raising finance to undertake such refurbishment.
Delta Electricity, the owner of the Vales Point B coal power station, revealed in a rule change request to the AEMC that it was facing significant difficulty accessing bank finance stating, “A significant number of financial institutions…are no longer providing financing facilities to fossil fuel generators”.
The rule change request asked that Delta be able to provide cash, rather than a bank guarantee to AEMO to meet prudential requirements for trading purposes.
It explained that the bank providing its current guarantee was unwilling to continue with this arrangement because lending to a coal generator was in breach of environmental policies governing its financing practices.
In a search to find another lender Delta found, “during the refinancing process that 13 of the 15 lenders declined due to ESG [Environment, Social and Governance] constraints, which included the Big-4 Australian banks.
“Both of the remaining financial institutions were prepared to offer a bank guarantee facility to provide credit support related only to requirements for mining rehabilitation obligations and renewable Power Purchase Agreements.”
Some conservative politicians might like to pass this off as some short-term, woke fashion that will pass once they reach power. But it won’t pass, because bankers don’t like to lend money to risky commercial ventures.
Some conservative politicians might think global warming is an idea promoted by a mass conspiracy of meteorological science agencies across the globe to impose a socialist, world-wide government. However, most people think that’s a bit far-fetched.
Conservative politicians that think climate change is a hoax aren’t always in power, so bankers recognise there is a significant risk coal generators will be subject to emission control policies that will undermine their commercial viability.
This isn’t a distant risk, because such policies (which often are targeted towards supporting growth of renewable energy) have already been implemented.
4) The damage caused by power plant emissions in the years prior to 2050 don’t matter
Carbon dioxide and a range of other greenhouse gas emissions released by fossil fuel extraction and combustion last many decades once released into the atmosphere. Consequently, the extent of global warming is a function of the accumulated stock of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere built up over time.
It isn’t a function solely of emissions in the single year of 2050. If we manage to achieve net zero emissions in 2050, but have polluted the hell out of the atmosphere in the preceding years then global warming will be very bad indeed.
A tonne of CO2 emitted this year and each of the years preceding 2050 will cause damage to society that is worth something to avoid. Any economist worthy of calling themselves an economist knows that the value of this avoided damage needs to be taken into account in any attempt to properly cost alternative options for our electricity system.
The Australian Energy Regulator provides one such option for valuing this in its paper – Valuing emissions reductions.
It should be noted the AER’s attaches significantly lower value to avoiding emissions than the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommends in the years prior to 2050, and very far below values used by the UK Government.
If the Liberal-National Party’s policy leads to slower emission reductions (even if they ultimately deliver net zero by 2050) this carries a serious penalty for our children and future children.
If it is ignored from their economic analysis, can we come to any other conclusion than the Liberal-National Party think climate change is so unimportant its impacts can be ignored?
Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets provides data and analysis on energy and carbon abatement certificate markets to assist clients make informed investment, trading and policy decisions.
Australia’s top environment groups – Submission to Government Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia.
Friends of the Earth Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
The Wilderness Society
Climate Action Network Australia
Nature Conservation Council (NSW)
Environment Victoria
Conservation SA
Queensland Conservation Council
Conservation Council of WA
Environment Centre NT
Solutions for Climate Australia
Arid Lands Environment Centre
Environment Tasmania
Environs Kimberley
Cairns and Far North Environment Centre
Submission to the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia. November 2024 – (23 pages)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our groups maintain that federal and state legal prohibitions against the construction of
nuclear power reactors have served Australia well. We strongly support the retention of
these prudent, long-standing protections.
Claims that nuclear reactors could be generating electricity in Australia by 2035‒37 do not
withstand scrutiny. Introducing nuclear power to Australia would necessitate at least 10
years for licensing approvals and project planning, and around 10 years for reactor
construction. Nuclear power reactors could only begin operating around the mid-2040s at
the earliest. Most or all of Australia’s remaining coal power plants will be closed long before
nuclear reactors could begin supplying electricity.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) do not exist. The so-called operating SMRs in Russia and
China were not built using serial factory production methods. They could not even be called
prototype SMRs since there are no plans to mass-produce these reactor types using serial
factory production methods. SMRs are best thought of as Smoke & Mirror Reactors: they do
not exist. A few small reactors are under construction (in China, Russia and Argentina) but
once again serial factory production methods are not being deployed.
Construction timelines for the so-called SMRs in Russia and China were protracted: 9 years
in China and 12 years in Russia. In both countries, planning plus construction took 20 years
or more.
After costs rose to a staggering A$31 billion per gigawatt, US company NuScale abandoned
its flagship SMR project in Idaho last year. This led the Australian Coalition parties to
abandon their SMR-only nuclear policy. Worse was to follow. In mid-2024, French utility EDF
announced that it had suspended development of its Nuward SMR and reoriented the
project “to a design based on proven technological building blocks.” In May 2023, Ultra Safe
Nuclear claimed at an Australian Senate hearing that the company is building SMRs in North
America. In fact, the company has not begun building SMRs anywhere and in October 2024
the company announced that is pursuing a sale process under Chapter 11 of the US
Bankruptcy Code.
Many other SMR projects have failed. The French government abandoned the planned
ASTRID demonstration fast reactor in 2019; Babcock & Wilcox abandoned its Generation
mPower SMR project in the US in 2017; Transatomic Power gave up on its molten salt
reactor R&D in 2018; MidAmerican Energy gave up on its plans for SMRs in Iowa in 2013;
TerraPower abandoned its plan for a prototype fast neutron reactor in China in 2018; and
the US and UK governments abandoned consideration of ‘integral fast reactors’ for
plutonium disposition in 2015 and 2019, respectively.
The SMR sector is littered with failed and abandoned projects, false claims and false dawns
Large reactor construction projects have also suffered catastrophic cost overruns and
delays. In both of Australia’s AUKUS partner countries, early cost estimates were proven to
be wrong by an order of magnitude:
- One project in the US was abandoned in 2017 after A$13.9 billion was wasted on the
failed project, in South Carolina. Another project ‒ the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the
state of Georgia ‒ reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates, and 6‒
7 years behind schedule. Not a single reactor is currently under construction in the US. Not
one. - In the UK, the Hinkley Point twin-reactor project was meant to be complete in 2017 but
construction didn’t even begin until 2018 and the latest cost estimate is 11.5 times higher
than early estimates. No other reactors are under construction in the UK. The UK National
Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to
£30 billion (A$58.4 billion). The Hinkley Point reactors are being built by French utility EDF.
France’s only recent domestic reactor construction project has also been a disaster: the
reactor is still not operating 17 years after construction began and costs increased six-fold to - A$31 billion.
If we were to make the heroic assumption ‒ the absurd assumption ‒ that reactor
construction projects in Australia would fare as well (or as badly) as those in the US and the
UK despite Australia’s lack of experience and expertise, they would be 20+ year projects and
costs would range from A$23.8 ‒ 27.9 billion per gigawatt. Or A$31 billion per gigawatt for
unproven NuScale SMR technology.
The two most significant economic modelling studies of Australia’s energy options are the
Net Zero Australia 2023 analysis and CSIRO’s annual GenCost analyses. Both make extremely
generous assumptions about nuclear costs ‒ indeed both assume costs several times lower
than real-world experience in the UK and the US ‒ yet nuclear power is still found to be
uneconomic in both studies.
Pursuing the nuclear path would be a recipe for increased power bills, increased taxes and
increased greenhouse emissions. And it would pose unnecessary risks of catastrophic
accidents and produce high-level nuclear waste for future generations of Australians to
manage for millennia.
There are currently no operating deep underground repositories for high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world. The one operating deep underground repository for long- lived intermediate-level nuclear waste − the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the US state of New Mexico ‒ suffered a chemical explosion in a waste barrel in 2014 due to inept management and inadequate regulation.
Efforts to establish national radioactive waste facilities (repositories and stores) in Australia
for low- and intermediate-level waste have repeatedly failed since the 1990s. Decades of
failure do not inspire confidence that far more complex high-level nuclear waste challenges
from a nuclear power program would be responsibly managed in Australia.
Claims that converting coal power plants to nuclear plants will be straightforward and advantageous rest on untested assumptions rather than real-world success stories. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could potentially reduce nuclear costs by using some existing
infrastructure but nuclear power would still be far more expensive than firmed renewables
(i.e. renewable systems with storage capacity). No coal power plants have been repurposed
as nuclear plants in the US or the UK, so purported synergies and cost savings are
speculative.
There is no social license to introduce nuclear power to Australia. The Coalition’s nuclear
power policy is not supported by state governments in the five states being considered.
There is little or no support from Coalition parties in those states. The nuclear policy is not
supported by the energy industry, including the owners of the sites being targeted for
nuclear reactors. The policy is not supported by scientists. It is not supported by the public ‒
nuclear power recently regained its status as Australian’s least popular energy source ‒ or
by First Nations communities. The Coalition’s nuclear policy does not even enjoy widespread
support within the Coalition: deep rifts are evident.
While nuclear power has been stagnant for more than 20 years, renewable energy is
growing strongly around the world. Last year, nuclear power capacity fell by 1.7 gigawatts
while renewable additions amounted to 507 gigawatts ‒ record growth for the 22nd
consecutive year. This year, the same pattern is repeating: nuclear stagnation and record
renewables growth. Nuclear power accounts for a declining share of global electricity
generation ‒ currently 9.1%, barely half its historic peak ‒ whereas the renewables share
has grown to 30.2%. The International Energy Agency expects turbocharged growth in the
coming years with renewables reaching 46% by 2030. Renewable energy sources currently
generate over three times more electricity than nuclear reactors, and will likely generate
five times more by the end of the decade.
The energy transition is well underway in Australia, with renewables supplying nearly 40%
of the National Electricity Market. Nuclear power has no place in this transition. As
Australia’s leading scientific organisation CSIRO says, nuclear power “does not provide an
economically competitive solution in Australia” and “won’t be able to make a meaningful
contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
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
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 