Ontario’s huge nuclear debt and other things Dutton doesn’t understand about cost of electricity
Unfortunately for us, Dutton and O’Brien are also in a hurry. They think they can deliver nuclear power plants far faster than what many experts believe is sensible and what many countries with far more nuclear experience than ourselves have been able to achieve.
Dutton and O’Brien also want to do this via a government-owned utility, instead of via a competitive market.
ReNewEconomy, Tristan Edis, Oct 30, 2024
All of this has left taxpayers with a massive budget and timeframe blow-out. This is what happens when we leave it to politicians in a hurry to hand pick power projects.
It seems our alternative Prime Minister Peter Dutton’s favourite topic is your electricity bill. Given how much he talks about electricity prices, you’d think he might know a fair bit about what makes up your electricity bill, wouldn’t you?
According to Dutton and his Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien, the problem is all about too much renewable energy in the mix. And their answer to the problem is nuclear power, as well as more gas.
According to Peter Dutton, “We can’t continue a situation that Labor has us on of a renewables only policy because, as we know, your power prices are just going to keep going up under this Prime Minister.”
Instead, according to Dutton, “we could be like Ontario, where they’ve got 60 or 70 per cent nuclear in the mix, and they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.”
O’Brien, elaborated on this point by saying:
“We will have plenty of time in due course to talk about the costings [for their nuclear plan] once we release them here in the Australian context. But I point to Ontario in Canada, there you have up to 60 per cent of their energy mix in the grid, coming from zero emissions, nuclear energy. Their households pay around about 14 cents kilowatt hour. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 cents a kilowatt hour from July 1 this year.”
Once you actually delve into these numbers it becomes apparent that O’Brien and Dutton don’t seem know much about electricity costs and pricing.
But even worse, they don’t know how badly Ontario’s taxpayers and electricity consumers were burnt by their utility racking up huge debt building nuclear power plants equal to $70 billion in current day Australian dollars.
Do Dutton and O’Brien understand your electricity bill?
You can actually look up what Ontario households pay for electricity via the Ontario Energy Board’s bill calculator website.
This provides you with a break down on the charges a typical household faces depending on the utility you choose…………………………………………………
But notice there’s also other very significant items in this bill separate to the kilowatt-hour charge? There’s a “delivery” charge which is the cost of paying for the distribution and transmission poles and wires. There’s also regulatory charges and also their sales tax is known as “HST” rather than GST for us.
So the Ontario 14 cents per kilowatt-hour charge that O’Brien and Dutton are referring to covers only the wholesale energy portion of their bill.
In Australia, we pay a majority of the costs of distribution and transmission in our cents per kilowatt-hour charge, in addition to wholesale energy costs, and then we get GST added on top. O’Brien and Dutton don’t seem to have appreciated this important aspect of electricity pricing in this country, which is different to Ontario.
But it actually gets worse.
I went digging on the official government energy retailer comparison sites- www.energymadeeasy.gov.au and www.energycompare.vic.gov.au and I initially couldn’t find a single Australian retailer selling electricity at 56 cents per kilowatt-hour.
This was based on looking at offers based on a single rate tariff. Then I had a brainwave and looked at time-of-use rates. In Queensland and Victoria I still couldn’t find anyone wanting to charge me 56 cents for the peak period.
But eventually I succeeded. Right at the bottom of the EnergyMadeEasy list of retailer offers – which were ordered from best to worst – sat EnergyAustralia as the worst offer, charging 57 cents for the peak period in South Australia (although with a compensating high solar feed-in tariff of 8.5 cents)…………………………………
To help out O’Brien and Dutton, I’ve prepared the table below which provides a proper apples versus apples comparison (as opposed to apples vs peak rate bananas) –[on original ]
…………………………………………….. Ontario’s nuclear debt debacle
Yet this comparison between Ontario and Australia misses a far more important part of the story that O’Brien and Dutton seem to be blissfully ignorant of.
That is the history of the Ontario’s state owned utility – Ontario Hydro – and the unsustainable level of debt that it racked up over the 1980’s and 1990’s as a result of an ambitious nuclear plant construction program that went wrong.
While this cost is no longer apparent in current electricity prices, Ontario businesses and households were stuck with paying back CAD$38.1 billion in debt (over $70 billion in Australian current day dollars) for more than 35 years after their public utility committed its last nuclear reactor to construction in 1981.
So what went wrong?
In anticipation of large growth in electricity demand, over the 1970’s and 1980’s Ontario Hydro committed to construction 12 nuclear reactors with 9,000 MW of generating capacity. To fund the projects the public utility accessed commercial debt markets anticipating that it could comfortably repay this debt from the increased electricity demand it forecast. However, several things went wrong.
The nuclear power stations took far longer to build and were around twice as expensive to build than had been planned
– Interest rates on debt rose to very high levels by historical standards over the 1980’s in order to contain the high levels of inflation that unfolded over the 1970’s and early 1980’s. With the nuclear power stations taking longer than expected to build, interest was accumulating on this debt with far less output from the plants to offset it.
– Lastly, Ontario Hydro’s estimate of large growth in electricity demand didn’t eventuate. A 1977 forecast projected a system peak of 57,000 MW by 1997. Actual peak demand in 1997 was 22,000 MW. This meant that the very large cost and associated debt of the large nuclear expansion had to be recovered from a much smaller volume of electricity sales than it had anticipated, making it much harder to pay off the debt without substantial increases in electricity prices.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… “On April 1, 1999, the Ministry of Finance determined that Ontario Hydro’s total debt and other liabilities stood at $38.1 billion, which greatly exceeded the estimated $17.2-billion market value of the assets being transferred to the new entities. The resulting shortfall of $20.9 billion was determined to be “stranded debt,” representing the total debt and other liabilities of Ontario Hydro that could not be serviced in a competitive environment.”
So the CAD$38.1 billion in debt was transferred out of the electricity companies and into a special purpose government entity called the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC). This debt management corporation was given the following revenues to service the debt:
– Both residential and business consumers were required to pay a special “Debt Retirement Charge”. This charge was introduced in 2002 and lasted until 2016 for residential consumers and 2018 for business customers.
– The Ontario government would forgo any corporate income and other taxes owed by the offshoot electricity companies from Ontario Hydro so they could be diverted to the OEFC to pay down debt.
– If the cumulative profits of two of the new state power companies exceeded the $520m annual interest cost on their debts, then this would go towards paying stranded debt rather than dividends to the Ontario government.
None of this is apparent on current bills, but the burden of repaying the nuclear debt left the Ontario government and its taxpayers far poorer than Dutton and O’Brien seem to appreciate.
More things O’Brien doesn’t want to understand about Ontario’s nuclear power program
Dutton and O’Brien like to claim that nuclear power plants last a very long time and so therefore the large upfront cost of these plants isn’t something we should be too worried about………………………..
It’s not as simple as this. Nuclear power plants involve a range of components which are exposed to severe heat and mechanical stress. These all need to be replaced well before you get to 60 years, and such refurbishment comes at a cost.
Ontario’s experience is that refurbishment comes at a very significant cost. Less than 25 years after the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant construction was completed, it needed to commence refurbishment. The total cost? $12.8 billion in Canadian dollars or $14 billion Australian dollars.
This is partly why, even though the original nuclear construction cost debt had been largely paid down and nuclear operating costs are lower than coal or gas plant, Ontario still pays more for its electricity than we do.
This is because the current owner of the nuclear power plants – Ontario Power Generation – operates under regulated return model where the regulator grants them the right to recover these refurbishment costs from electricity consumers.
Are O’Brien and Dutton about to commit to another Snowy 2.0 budget blow-out, but on steroids?
………………………………The problem here is that when you don’t know very much and you’re spending other people’s money, ego can easily cloud your judgement. Don’t get me wrong, ego will often cloud business leaders’ judgement too. But their ability to spend money to feed their ego can only so far before either competitors or shareholders intervene.
Ontario taxpayers on the other hand realised far too late that their public utility, in cahoots with their politicians, were pursuing a nuclear vanity project built upon a poor understanding of the future, and without any competitor to discipline their ego.
Australian taxpayers have seen a similar mistake unfold with the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant whose cost now stands at five times greater than the original expectation, and double what was meant to be a fixed price construction contract.
Snowy 2.0 is a parable of what goes wrong when:
– Politicians rush things leading to inadequate planning and preparation;
– Politicians fail to objectively and thoroughly evaluate alternatives; and
– Politicians fail to employ open and competitive markets to deliver end consumer outcomes.
All of this has left taxpayers with a massive budget and timeframe blow-out. This is what happens when we leave it to politicians in a hurry to hand pick power projects.
Unfortunately for us, Dutton and O’Brien are also in a hurry. They think they can deliver nuclear power plants far faster than what many experts believe is sensible and what many countries with far more nuclear experience than ourselves have been able to achieve. Dutton and O’Brien also want to do this via a government-owned utility, instead of via a competitive market.
While the budget blowout of Snowy 2.0 is bad enough, it pales into comparison with the kind of cost blow-outs that can unfold with nuclear power projects. As an example, the budget for completion of UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project now stands at $89.7 billion which is three times higher than what was originally budgeted.
We’ve all seen this movie before, including in Ontario, and it doesn’t end well……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/ontarios-huge-nuclear-debt-and-other-things-dutton-doesnt-understand-about-cost-of-electricity/
Let’s be clear, Peter Dutton’s energy plan is more focused on coal and gas than it is on nuclear power
It seems reasonable to call the Coalition’s policy what it primarily is: a proposal to expand fossil fuels
Adam Morton, 29 Oct 24, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2024/oct/29/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-plan-coal
Some news you may not have clocked last week while the focus was on important things like a royal tour: 44 of the world’s top climate scientists, including four decorated Australian professors, released an open letter warning that ocean circulation in the Atlantic is at serious risk of collapse sooner than was previously understood.
They said a string of studies suggested the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body backed by nearly 200 countries, had greatly underestimated the possibility that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation – or Amoc, a system of ocean currents that brings heat into the northern Atlantic west of Britain and Ireland – could in the next few decades reach a point at which its breakdown was inevitable. The cause? Rising greenhouse gas emissions.
This is consistent with what climate computer models have forecast but there are signs the circulation is weakening more rapidly than expected. Stefan Rahmstorf, from Germany’s Potsdam Institute, told my colleague Jonathan Watts that by his estimation the risk of crossing a tipping point this century so that collapse was unavoidable had increased from less than 10% to about a 50-50 chance.
If it happens, it will reshape the global climate, including cooling parts of north-western Europe so much that places such as Norway and Scotland could become unliveable while most of the planet gets hotter.
It is estimated that the northern Atlantic could rise an extra half a metre in addition to sea rise caused by global heating. Tropical rainfall would shift south, likely leading to rainforests suffering destructive droughts and regions that are now relatively dry being hit with flooding rains. Humanity would survive but the impact on ecosystems, lives and livelihoods would be, in the words of the 44 scientists, “devastating and irreversible”.
The trajectory of the Amoc echoes a similar story off Antarctica, where scientists have estimated the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, which also affects global weather patterns and ocean temperatures, has slowed by about 30% since the 1990s due to the melting of Antarctic glacial ice. This is also caused by – you guessed it – increasing temperatures linked to CO2 emissions.
I don’t raise this to suggest addressing the climate crisis is hopeless, though climate grief is real and understandable. The global effort to limit the climate emergency is not going well but amid the gloom there are some positive trends. And there is plenty of evidence that much more can be done quickly. As the mantra goes, every action – every fraction of a degree of heating avoided – counts.
I raise the warnings about the Amoc because the reality of what climate scientists are telling us is worth holding up against the energy debate in Australia, and particularly the Coalition’s nuclear power push. Too often it is completely missing from the discussion.
The central point is a familiar one: there are reams of evidence that emissions need to be cut as much and as rapidly as possible. There are other considerations that need to be met – primarily, making the project politically sustainable by ensuring energy reliability, affordability and dealing with social licence concerns. But, at the risk of stating the obvious, the overriding goal, the reason for doing any of this, is to cut pollution.
On this, the Coalition’s position fails spectacularly.
Despite all the oxygen dedicated to talking about it, the nuclear element of the opposition’s plan won’t – can’t – be more than a speculative side issue to the main game of how the country will get electricity over the next couple of decades.
The chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, Clare Savage, said in a parliamentary hearing last week it would take up to a decade to just get a nuclear regulatory framework in place. That takes us to 2035 before building even begins. The evidence from overseas is that construction of a large generator could then take twice as long again (the four nuclear plants completed in western Europe or north America this century took a minimum 18 years from announcement).
Small modular reactors? They still don’t exist, commercially.
But there are parts of the Coalition’s plan where Dutton and his climate change and energy shadow, Ted O’Brien, could move quickly – namely, limiting construction of large-scale renewable energy and instead burning more coal and gas.
Given that this is likely to be the early focus on the ground it seems reasonable to call the Coalition’s plan what it primarily is: a proposal to expand fossil fuels.
It is, of course, not the only pro-fossil fuel plan going around. The Albanese government has approved large expansions of export-focused thermal coal mines. Western Australia’s Labor government is taking the remarkable step of helping out the gas industry by no longer allowing its state Environment Protection Authority to consider climate pollution when it assesses fossil fuel developments.
But federal Labor and the Coalition are not the same on these issues. Labor has introduced some domestic climate policies, most significantly to push the country towards 82% renewable energy by 2030. In nearly every case, the Coalition supports Labor’s pro-fossil fuel plans but opposes its efforts to curtail emissions.
On coal, O’Brien accuses Labor of planning to force plants to shut early. As evidence, he points to an Australian Energy Market Operator “step change” scenario under which about 90% of coal plants will close by 2035. O’Brien says this differs markedly from the closure dates previously announced by coal plant owners.
In reality, the coal closure dates announced by companies generally don’t mean a great deal. Australia’s coal generators are becoming less reliable as they age – 26% of capacity was offline late last week – and experts including Savage have made clear their view is that the coal fleet just cannot last until a nuclear industry would be possible.
On the other, if it is possible to shut 90% of the coal fleet in a decade by accelerating renewable energy and firming support technology – as Aemo and others have suggested it is – then this is clearly good news. And a strange thing to oppose.
And, for all their rhetoric, the Coalition and its backers are yet to produce compelling evidence that explains why they think Aemo is wrong.
- Adam Morton is Guardian Australia’s climate and environment editor
Matt Kean lambasts ‘wild fantasy’ of former Coalition colleagues to extend coal power and build nuclear plants
Climate Change Authority chair says Peter Dutton’s energy policy would drive up electricity bills and deter investment in renewables
Peter Hannam Economics correspondent, Guardian, 22 Oct 24
Extending the life of ageing coal-fired power stations before nuclear plants can be built is a “wild fantasy” that would deter near-term investment in renewables and push up power bills, according to Matt Kean, the Climate Change Authority chair.
The federal Coalition’s nuclear strategy was “an illiberal drive to intervene in the market-led energy transition [that had] been elevated from internet chatrooms and lobby groups to the national stage”, said Kean, a former energy minister in a Coalition government in New South Wales.
“The ‘delay-mongers’ have latched on to nuclear power despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive, and can only take too long to build,” he told an AFR energy conference in Sydney on Tuesday.
“I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia … and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system.”
The Albanese government appointed Kean, who has long advocated for more urgent climate action including by his then federal Liberal colleagues, to head the independent authority in June……………………………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/22/matt-kean-fantasy-coalition-energy-policy-coal-nuclear-power?fbclid=IwY2xjawGFBTtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZOLw35JiI_0LOuO7ud0lCdaODH8ws-XTXtm6BjH-aQRT5FT8Ac8UKeUTQ_aem_yTUmsY_z33BOm66Ol9MkEA
Coalition’s nuclear plan is ‘today’s version of a lump of coal in parliament’, inquiry told.
Renewables advocate tells parliamentary hearing that opposition’s nuclear proposal is a ‘smokescreen’ for burning coal and gas.
Graham Readfearn, 28 Oct 24, Guardian,
The Coalition did not approach Geoscience Australia to ask about the suitability of any of the seven sites where it wants to put nuclear reactors, including asking about risks from earthquakes, a parliamentary hearing was told.
The government called the parliamentary inquiry to scrutinise the Coalition’s proposals to lift the country’s ban on nuclear energy and build taxpayer-funded reactors at seven sites.
One renewables industry figure attacked the Coalition’s plans during the hearing, saying it was a “smokescreen” to continue to burn coal and gas.
During the hearing on Monday, officials from Geoscience Australia said it would probably take two years to carry out comprehensive “geohazard” assessments for each site that would look at risks including earthquakes and tsunamis, and geological formations beneath each site such as groundwater sources and caves…………………………………………..
John Grimes, the chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, an advocacy group representing clean energy businesses, told the inquiry the Coalition’s plan was “all about attacking renewables and boosting fossil fuels”.
Grimes, recalling former prime minister Scott Morrison’s 2017 parliamentary taunt, labelled the proposal “today’s version of a lump of coal in parliament”.
“The motivation [of the Coalition’s plan] is to attack renewables and hold them back,” he said. “Nothing has changed. This is a smokescreen.”
The committee is due to deliver a final report no later than 30 April 2025, which is likely to be before the next general election. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/28/peter-dutton-liberal-coalition-nuclear-plan-parliament-inquiry
Atomic power probe shows experts divided on nuclear energy
A probe into atomic power is revealing a deep divide among experts, let alone members of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s own party.
Jessica Wang and Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer, news.com.au, 28 Oct 24
The Coaliton’s nuclear plan is both “peak anti-science” and Australia’s only chance of reaching net-zero by 2050, experts have told a committee probing the viability of atomic power in Australia.
Critics and advocates of the Coalition’s nuclear plan made their way to Parliament House on Monday for the house select committee on nuclear energy’s second public hearing.
The Smart Energy Council, which has estimated the plan’s cost as high as $600bn, said the Coalition’s push for atomic power was driven by “anti-renewable” ideology rather than science.
The peak body’s chief executive John Grimes accused Opposition Leader Peter Dutton of trying to frame the energy debate in masculinity.
“It’s all about attacking renewables and boosting fossil fuels,” Mr Grimes told the committee.
“That’s why Mr Dutton tells us that there are two types of electrons: the strong manly man electrons from coal and gas and nuclear and the tepid, insipid, weak electrons from renewable energy.
“The only problem is an electron is an electron in physics. There is no difference at all.
“This is peak anti-science, tin foil hat brigade, poppycock.”
He said nuclear power was “a pinnacle of human engineering” but it was not “the answer for Australia”.
……………………………..Winfield said household bills were kept artificially low under the Ontario model, despite the high cost of refurbishing ageing nuclear facilities.
“There’s a legacy of that still in the system that we are effectively subsidising electricity bills to the tune of about $C7.3 billion a year out of general revenues. That constitutes most of the provincial deficit; that’s money that otherwise could be going on schools and hospitals.”
He said that it was key to decarbonisation of countries “in the extreme north or south of the globe”, but with renewables powering up to 40 per cent of Australia’s grid, changing course did not stack up.
“We’re saying that for Australia, in the Australian context … where we have the best solar and wind resources in the world, where we have so much land you can almost not give it away … renewable energy transition is the lowest cost path to getting to low power bills, a highly reliable engineering system and the right environmental outcomes in environmental outcomes that the Australian government has signed up to internationally.
“So, it is vital that renewables plus the energy storage road map not only continue but be accelerated because that is the future. That is the answer for Australia.”
………………………………………………………………. Last week, the committee heard from Australian Energy Regulator (AER) chair Clare Savage, who said “nuclear may well have a role to play” in meeting Australia’s energy needs, but it would take a long time.
Ms Savage said the red tape associated with getting nuclear off the ground could take “eight to 10 years for a regulatory framework”.
Works to build the nuclear reactors would not be able to start until that framework was in place, she said.
Build times can vary, but recent projects overseas put it at a little north of 10 years.
Ms Savage’s comments cast serious doubt on the Coalition’s claim that it could have small modular reactors up and running by 2035 or larger reactors by 2037.
One thing most experts agree on, whether they be independent or part of government agencies, is that Australia’s fleet of coal-fired power plants only have about a decade of operational life left.
DUTTON ‘RESPECTS’ ANTI-NUCLEAR LNP PREMIER
Mr Dutton said he would continue to convince “sensible premiers” on the Coalition nuclear plan, with newly installed Queensland Liberal National Party premier David Crisafulli committing to his anti-nuclear push.
Speaking on Monday, Mr Dutton appeared unfazed by the divide between the state and federal Coalition, with the election pledge to build seven reactors by 2050, including the first two to come online between 2035-37……………………………………. https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/politics/peter-dutton-says-he-respects-new-qld-lnp-premiers-antinuclear-stance/news-story/2e6d5000a0e988ecb504f1600ff20825—
‘You couldn’t make this up’: Expert pans Ontario nuclear option
SMH, By Bianca Hall and Nick O’Malley, October 28, 2024
Ontario subsidises its citizens’ electricity power bills by $7.3 billion a year from general revenue, an international energy expert has said, contradicting the Coalition’s claim that nuclear reactors would drive power prices down in Australia.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has repeatedly cited the Canadian province as a model for cheaper power prices from nuclear.
“In Ontario, that family is paying half of what the family is paying here in Perth for their electricity because of nuclear power,” Dutton said in March. “Why wouldn’t we consider it as a country?”
In July, Dutton said Canadian consumers paid about one-quarter of Australian prices for electricity.
Professor Mark Winfield, an academic from York University in Canada who specialises in energy and environment, on Monday said the reaction among people in Ontario to the comparison had ranged from disbelief to “you couldn’t make this up”.
Ontario embarked on a massive building spree between the 1960s and the 1990s, Winfield told a briefing hosted by the Climate Council and the Smart Energy Council.
In the process, he said, the provincial-owned utility building the generators “effectively bankrupted itself”. About $21 billion in debt had to be stranded to render the successor organisation Ontario Power Generation economically viable.
In 2015, the Canadian government approved a plan to refurbish 10 ageing reactors, but Winfield said the refurbishment program had also been beset by cost blowouts.
“The last one, [in] Darlington, east of Toronto, was supposed to cost $C4 billion and ended up costing $C14 [billion],” Winfield said.
“And that was fairly typical of what we saw, of a cost overrun in the range of about 2.5 times over estimate.”
In Melbourne, Dutton said while he respected new Queensland Premier David Crisafulli’s opposition to nuclear, he would work with “sensible” premiers in Queensland, South Australia and NSW on his plan, if he was elected………………………………………………..
Winfield said household bills were kept artificially low under the Ontario model, despite the high cost of refurbishing ageing nuclear facilities.
“There’s a legacy of that still in the system that we are effectively subsidising electricity bills to the tune of about $C7.3 billion a year out of general revenues. That constitutes most of the provincial deficit; that’s money that otherwise could be going on schools and hospitals.”
Dutton’s comments came as a parliamentary inquiry into the suitability of nuclear power for Australia continued in Canberra. Experts provided evidence on how long it would take to build a nuclear fleet, and the potential cost and impact on energy prices compared with the government’s plan to replace the ageing coal fleet with a system of renewables backed by storage and gas peakers.
……………………………………………………….. In its annual GenCost, CSIRO estimated earlier this year that a single large-scale nuclear reactor in Australia would cost $16 billion and take nearly two decades to build, too late for it to help meet Australia’s international climate change commitments, which requires it to cut emissions 43 per cent by 2030. It found renewables to be the cheapest option for Australia.
Dutton has so far refused to be drawn on the costs of his nuclear policy. Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said the Coalition would release costings before the next federal election, which must be held by May.
O’Brien told this masthead “expert after expert” had provided evidence that nuclear energy placed downward pressure on power prices around the world. ……………. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/you-couldn-t-make-this-up-expert-pans-ontario-nuclear-option-20241028-p5klx1.html
Ambassador John Bolton tells 7NEWS Donald Trump re-election could mean AUKUS nuclear submarines plan torn up
7 News, By David Woiwod – US Bureau Chief, 27 Oct 24
Australia’s plans to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines would be torn-up if Donald Trump is re-elected next week, according to a former top Republican party security advisor.
The AUKUS defence pact would be one of the first US alliances to undergo a major review under an incoming Trump administration – with the official warning Australia not to take the agreement “for granted”.
“I think it could be in jeopardy,” former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton told 7NEWS.
“All Trump looks at is the balance sheet, and if he sees more US expenditure than those of other parties to the agreement, then I think there will be trouble.”
The defence bill that passed on Capitol Hill late last year requires the president of the day to give the final tick of approval before any US submarines are delivered to Australia.
And Ambassador Bolton is now encouraging America’s ally to immediately mount arguments in favour of the alliance if Trump wins the November poll……..
The Australian government forked out $4.5 billion dollars to help soothe US fears after lawmakers questioned America’s ability to deliver the specialised boats while meeting its own submarine production targets.
Under the first steps of the deal aimed at deterring Chinese aggression, Australia is set to receive at least three Virginia Class nuclear-powered submarines before Australian-built vessels enter service in the 2040s. https://7news.com.au/news/ambassador-john-bolton-tells-7news-donald-trump-re-election-could-mean-aukus-subs-plan-torn-up-c-16518429
Union slams “false hope” in nuclear push, warns energy jobs at risk
Marion Rae, Oct 23, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/union-slams-false-hope-in-nuclear-push-warns-energy-jobs-at-risk/
Queensland’s sparkies have been warned of the “huge risk” to thousands of jobs in renewable energy posed by nuclear plans.
The Electrical Trades Union told electricians and apprentices in a mass mailout on Wednesday that nuclear energy was a “radioactive pipe dream” that could not replace coal-fired power stations.
National policy director Katie Hepworth says the “false hope” offered by the LNP on the premise that coal-powered stations can keep running is “letting down coal communities”.
“The ETU members, our maintenance workers, who work in these power stations know that they’re being held together by all the will in the world, but they know they can’t hold on forever,” Dr Hepworth told AAP.
“There is a huge risk that if what they’re being given is a fantasy of a nuclear power station without an entire industrial plan and a renewable plan, that they’re just going to be thrown on the scrap heap again.”
Apprentices are among those voting for the first time on Saturday when Queensland goes to the polls.
Dr Hepworth said the ETU was trying to give them a vision of the economy they were stepping into as the next generation of workers.
She said there was “huge excitement” among apprentices in the type of work they would be able to do, such as working on EVs, installing appliances and building clean energy generation.
“By calling into question that renewable transition, we’re really putting all of that at risk,” Dr Hepworth said.
The union’s Nuclear Energy Report for 2024 found nuclear reactors would be more expensive, could not be built before coal exits the electricity grid, and were “simply unnecessary” given abundant renewable energy sources.
The report authored by Dr Hepworth found nuclear power would be the most expensive form of energy for Australia, at 1.5 to three times the cost per kilowatt hour of coal-fired electricity and four to eight times of solar.
Small modular reactors, still unproven on a commercial scale, would be even more costly, the CSIRO has estimated.
The Smart Energy Council has calculated the federal opposition’s proposed fleet of seven nuclear reactors at up to $600 billion, for a mere four per cent of energy supply in the grid.
Nor can nuclear power be considered a clean source of energy because radioactive waste management was “costly, complex, contested and unresolved” in Australia and globally, Dr Hepworth said.
Even countries with existing nuclear capability are choosing renewables over nuclear, including China, because of the speed of deployment, and because the cost curve is low and continues to fall.
The federal opposition’s nationwide nuclear plan, includes two Queensland sites for nuclear generation – the Callide and Tarong coal-fired power stations.
“The Queensland LNP is committed to affordable, reliable and sustainable power,” an LNP spokeswoman told AAP.
“Keeping the lights on at Callide with our Electricity Maintenance Guarantee will ensure power bills are affordable, reliable and sustainable until alternatives are ready to power Queensland,” she said.
Union boss Peter Ong said massive changes to the energy system were already affecting workers and the union had been working hard to move them into well-paid, secure jobs.
“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy will throw ETU members’ jobs in the gutter,” he said.
Australia the guinea pig for the safety risks of USA deploying their nuclear submarines on the land of their “friends”?
Why nuclear inspections in Australia have suddenly spiked
The Age, By Matt Wade, October 26, 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/national/why-nuclear-inspections-in-australia-have-suddenly-spiked-20241023-p5kkrl.html
International inspections of Australia’s nuclear facilities and materials have increased by a third in the past year as the nation’s nuclear risk profile changes due to AUKUS.
Since Australia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, it is required to submit to regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify compliance with nuclear safeguards.
Dr Geoffrey Shaw, director general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), which ensures compliance with nuclear treaties, said there has been “a 30 per cent increase in inspections in Australia in the last couple of years”.
Under AUKUS, the navy will acquire nuclear-propelled submarines, and Shaw said that has raised Australia’s “risk setting” with the IAEA.
“This country is now going to be acquiring naval nuclear propulsion – it will have high enriched uranium in a country where we don’t currently have high enriched uranium,” he said. “That changes the equation.”
Australia’s nuclear proliferation risk profile is low; it has one research nuclear reactor in Sydney, which uses low-enriched uranium, three uranium mines and some institutions and companies permitted to handle nuclear materials.
But Shaw said the IAEA wants more assurances that there are no undeclared nuclear activities. It is now conducting inspections across the country with “as short as two-hour notification”.
In the year to June 2024, the IAEA made 22 inspections at locations including the Australia Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), universities, defence facilities and private companies. That compares with 16 the previous year.
The first AUKUS submarines are due to be delivered to the Australian navy in the late 2030s.
When Australia, a non-nuclear-armed nation, acquires nuclear-propelled submarines, a “first-of-a-kind” regulatory approach will be needed to ensure the nation complies with its non-proliferation treaty obligations.
Corey Hinderstein, acting principal deputy administrator of America’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said the nuclear safeguards developed in Australia for AUKUS will set a global benchmark for other nations that seek naval nuclear propulsion.
“We know that there are other countries that are interested in developing or partnering on naval nuclear propulsion programs, and those countries are by and large non-nuclear weapon states under the NPT, so they will have the safeguards obligation,” she said………………… https://www.theage.com.au/national/why-nuclear-inspections-in-australia-have-suddenly-spiked-20241023-p5kkrl.html
BHP’s untenable extraction of Great Artesian Basin waters for the Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine.
Jim Green, 26 Oct 24. BHP has had to move on Mound Springs protection issues regarding untenable extraction of GAB waters for the Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine, and an important Springs Study had now been released by SA Gov modelling reduced water extraction scenarios and affects on Springs & GAB waters.
A significant – if belated and partial – formal public commitment from BHP:
Milestone : FY2030 – cease abstraction from Wellfield A through switching to coastal desalination supply in partnership with the South Australian Government on the Northern Water Supply Project.
This partial win is a key if limited step toward proper protection for the unique and fragile Mound Springs of the GAB in SA, requiring:
is a key if limited step toward proper protection for the unique and fragile Mound Springs of the GAB in SA, requiring:
- closure of untenable BHP Wellfield A operations as soon as possible, that is warranted far sooner than by end of FY2030;
- BHP could prioritise and pay for whatever extent of water recovery at Olympic Dam to replace continued extraction from Wellfield A, which is projected to be run at 3.9 million litres a day ( Ml/d ) over next few years – about 10% of the volume BHP water take from the GAB;
- a campaign path to realise a phase out of the far larger adversely impacting Wellfield B operations that runs at 32 Ml/day, at least from when Northern Water supply becomes available at/after 2028 (this is difficult as BHP & SA Gov now think closing Wellfield A is all they have to do);
- a continued public interest campaign building on a lot of people’s roles and contributions over time…
an important Springs Study:
“Potential Impacts of Reducing Groundwater Abstraction from the Southwestern Great Artesian Basin: Modelled Aquifer Pressure and Spring Flow Response”
By Daniel Partington, Andrew Love, Daniel Wohling, Mark Keppel.
Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. 2024/01https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/84866/widgets/401081/documents/297652
see an extract from Goyder Institute Springs Study (at p.21 of doc & at p.31 of the pdf file, my bold below) citing the BHP commitment:
3.5 Output From the Modelled Scenarios Six experimental abstraction scenarios were proposed by Infrastructure SA to provide a spectrum of stimuli to assess the responsiveness of the aquifer to a change in abstraction volumes. The future abstraction rates from Wellfield A and B have not been confirmed, however there has been public commitment to cease abstraction from Wellfield A if water from the Northern Water project is available (see Olympic Dam Context- Based Water Targets).
Potential issues’ with Coalition’s planned nuclear reactor sites, safety expert warns
Government agencies and departmental officials spend full day scrutinising Peter Dutton’s controversial plan to build seven nuclear power plants.
Graham Readfearn, The Guardian, 24 Oct 24
A senior government nuclear safety official says the sites of coal-fired power plants “might not be adequate” to house the opposition’s proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors.
Government agencies and departmental officials were grilled in parliament on Wednesday at a government-backed inquiry into nuclear energy. The inquiry was tasked with scrutinising the Coalition’s controversial plan to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear power and build taxpayer-funded reactors at seven sites.
Several officials told the inquiry it would take at least 10 to 15 years to start generating nuclear power once a future government confirmed an intention to build reactors.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has said the Coalition expects to be able to build a small reactor by 2035 or a larger reactor as early as 2037.
The Coalition has said putting reactors at the sites of coal-fired power stations would reduce the need to build expensive transmission lines and towers to connect renewables to the grid.
At Wednesday’s inquiry, the Nationals MP Darren Chester asked the chief regulatory officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Jim Scott, if that approach could save time.
Scott said it likely would, but added that this “presupposes that the sites of current coal-fired plants would be adequate for nuclear sites, because that might not be the case”.
He said: “You have to look at external events – flooding, natural events – that could occur. That’s part of the siting process. Given that, the potential issue [is] that the sites of current coal-fired plants might not be adequate for nuclear plants.”
Simon Duggan, a deputy secretary in the energy department, listed some of the steps that would be needed for nuclear to go ahead, including setting up management frameworks for health, safety, security, environmental impacts, as well as transport of nuclear fuels and waste, storage of waste and the workforce capability to build, maintain and regulate plants.
“Based on the work and the assessments that you have seen from bodies such as CSIRO and the [International Energy Agency] you are looking at around a 10- to 15-year timeframe to put all those prerequisites in place in order to have nuclear power capability in Australia,” Duggan said.
Many officers raised the issue of social licence and community consultation, saying this would be a critical step if any nuclear reactors were to be built in the future.
The opposition energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, who is also deputy chair of the inquiry, attacked analysis from the energy department which the energy minister, Chris Bowen, said showed the Coalition’s plan would mean a gap of at least 18% between electricity supply and demand.
Duggan said the analysis was based on assumptions supplied by the minister, where there would be no new investment in renewable energy, and that coal-fired power stations would stick to the closure schedule assumed by the Australian Energy Market Operator…………………………………………….
Clare Savage, chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, told the inquiry she did not believe nuclear could be deployed in enough time to cover the closure of coal-fired power plants, which she said were becoming increasingly less reliable as they aged.
She told the inquiry that on the same day of the hearing, 26% of the total capacity of Australia’s coal-fired power fleet was offline. Eleven per cent of the coal fleet was down due to unplanned outages, she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/24/peter-dutton-nuclear-plant-sites-issues
Top Australian honour (whaa-at !!!!) for American politician who helped push Australia into the shonky AUKUS agreement
Rex Patrick, 24 Oct 24
Albanese pours $5B of Australian taxpayers’ cash into US shipyards (with no guarantee #AUKUS subs will ever be delivered). He then arranges for the local US Congressman to get a top Australian honour. Icing on the cake for that guy.
Rep. Courtney to receive Australia’s top civilian award
WSHU | By Brian Scott-Smith, October 23, 2024
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT-2) has been chosen for one of Australia’s top civilian awards. Courtney is one of a few Americans to be given the Order of Australia, which recognizes extraordinary service by a non-citizen…………………… He has also been instrumental in the AUKUS trilateral defense agreement between Australia, the UK and the U.S. to help provide nuclear submarines to Australia. It’s the first time the U.S. has entered into such an agreement with another country…….. https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2024-10-23/ct-joe-courtney-australia-civilian-award
Select Committee on Nuclear Energy – Submissions close 15 November.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy
The House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy was established by a resolution of appointment that passed the House of Representatives on 10 October 2024.
The Committee will inquire into matters referred to in the resolution of appointment and is required to present its final report by no later than 30 April 2025. The Committee will cease to exist upon presenting its final report.
Select Committee on Nuclear Energy
We will inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia, including:
deployment timeframes;
fuel supply, and transport of fuel;
uranium enrichment capability;
waste management, transport and storage;
water use and impacts on other water uses;
relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines;
Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks;
risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns;
potential share of total energy system mix;
necessary land acquisition;
costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations;
the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability; and
any other relevant matter.
Delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear
Australia should be at the front of the queue, positioning our nation as a renewable energy superpower and an economic powerhouse for decades to come.
The delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear power, despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive, and can only take too long to build in a cost-of-living crisis.
I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe that we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia, and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system.
Matt Kean, Former NSW treasurer, 22 Oct 24, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/22/matt-kean-fantasy-coalition-energy-policy-coal-nuclear-power?fbclid=IwY2xjawGFBTtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZOLw35JiI_0LOuO7ud0lCdaODH8ws-XTXtm6BjH-aQRT5FT8Ac8UKeUTQ_aem_yTUmsY_z33BOm66Ol9MkEA
Capital markets and the private sector have often been ahead of the curve in the debate over climate change.
They were prepared to discard the nonsense that action on climate change represented a choice between our environment and our economy.
(True economics – the economy is based on a healthy environment)
(False economics – profit is the first priority – consider the environment only later)
That’s because the forces reshaping the global economy are clear, the cost of low emissions technology is coming down, and the appetite of investors to direct capital towards it is surging.
These trends are now embedded and have forever shifted the dynamics of climate policy. Consider the sheer weight of capital now pouring into the low-carbon energy transition right across the world.
It means an economic arms race to capture the next generation of investment, resource projects, exports, jobs and innovation will continue to explode right across the world.
Australia should be at the front of the queue, positioning our nation as a renewable energy superpower and an economic powerhouse for decades to come.
We should have the confidence to be bold, knowing there is a clear capacity to attract the finance for the technology and innovation needed to reduce emissions.
Our track record tells us so we have continued to build the policy architecture needed to give comfort to investors, and we can tell a story of meaningful progress against our emissions reduction goals towards a contemporary clean-energy system, and in pursuit of the next wave of ideas to sustain our success.
The integrated system plan gives us a clear national blueprint for the generation, storage and transmission infrastructure needed to sustain a reliable, secure and affordable national electricity market.
It will also depend on enabling initiatives such as the capacity investment scheme, which is revolutionising our ability to encourage new investment in dispatchable renewable energy, generation and storage.
The scale of the scheme is simply mammoth, with a target of 32 gigawatts of new capacity, comprising 23 gigawatts of renewable capacity and 9 gigawatts of clean, dispatchable capacity.
In total, it’s expected to drive $67 billion worth of investment continuing to inject renewables into the system, backed by storage and firming technology.
It is the best, most affordable way to replace capacity lost as coal-fired power stations exit the system.
That’s the advice of the CSIRO. That’s the advice of the Australian Energy Market Operator, and it’s one of the major assumptions that underpins the recently released sector pathways review produced by the Climate Change Authority, which I’m now pleased to chair.
Perhaps the biggest cost of nuclear is time.
That’s because mature and available technology allows us to step up the pace of change, by building on the rise in clean energy that has seen the transformation of our grid.
More than 40 per cent of the nation’s electricity is now generated by renewables.
We need to consider this simple fact: as renewables have poured into the system, the emissions intensity of the national electricity market, the nation’s largest grid, has dropped by more than a third, and sectoral emissions can be dramatically slashed further if we continue to invest in new solar, wind, storage and firming solutions.
We know that as much as 90 per cent of the coal-fired power that has underpinned our economy is coming to the end of its technical life by 2035. It’s an ageing technology that is already adding to price spikes and reducing reliability for households and businesses.
And if we continue to depend on it, we accelerate the rundown of the limited carbon budget available to us, we would fall behind the curve on our near-term emissions reduction targets, and we would face the prospect of irreversible damage to our environment, our economy and our way of life.
We simply can’t afford to wait and hope that bigger breakthroughs are over the horizon, and perhaps more importantly, we can’t pander to those vested interests and self-serving groups who want to delay clean and cheap energy, seemingly to benefit their own careers or their profits at the expense of the environment, the economy and our people.
Recently, for example, an illiberal drive to intervene in the market-led energy transition has been elevated from internet chat rooms and lobby groups to the national stage.
The delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear power, despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive, and can only take too long to build in a cost-of-living crisis.
I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia, and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system.
But they get their grabs up in the news, while the public get the growing energy bills that they can’t afford to pay.
Perhaps the biggest cost of nuclear is time. It is precious time that neither our economy nor our environment can afford, and it will once again plunge Australia back into indecision and delay.
A regime in flux lacks the stability and durability that investors need. Sensitivities will be further heightened when you add concepts that crowd out investment, forcing government-owned entities to fund, own and develop technology where Australia currently lacks capacity and that is arguably more expensive.
We don’t have the luxury of placing that bet, and that’s why, as chair of the Climate Change Authority, I will always place a premium on science, evidence, engineering and economics; that’s how we build a modern energy system.
We need to continue to give households and businesses the affordable and reliable energy they want. And it’s how we continue to harness the wall of capital washing across the world to create a clean, strong future that lifts our prosperity and protects our way of life for decades ahead.
There is a lot to do, but we can do that. We can get there and deliver cheaper, reliable energy for everyone across the country, and set our country up for a stronger and more prosperous future than any generation of Australians has ever seen. That’s the chance. Let’s grab it.
Matt Kean is the former treasurer and energy minister of NSW. He now chairs the Climate Change Authority. This is an edited extract of his speech at The Australian Financial Review’s Energy & Climate Summit.
Nuclear too slow to replace coal by 2035
Financial Review, John Kehoe and Jenny Wiggins, 21 Oct 24
Energy executives say the development of nuclear power in Australia will be too slow to replace ageing coal-fired power plants in the next decade, as Climate Change Authority chairman Matt Kean accuses “delay-mongers” of latching onto the idea for a publicity stunt.
But beyond the urgent phase of the energy transition to renewables and gas-fired power, some executives and the energy market operator said nuclear should be left on the table as a potential energy source for Australia in the long term to keep up with rising power demand from consumers and businesses.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has pledged to build seven government-owned nuclear power stations by 2050 to meet Australia’s net zero emissions commitment. Under the high-level proposal, the first small modular reactor would arrive in 2035, although energy experts say this is overly ambitious and it would likely take years longer.
Australian Energy Market Operator chief executive Daniel Westerman said, “urgent and sustained investment” in renewables generation was needed to replace retiring coal-fired power stations, as well as investment in storage and transmission lines over the next 10 years.
“That is not a time frame in which nuclear will be available,” Mr Westerman told The Australian Financial Review Climate and Energy Summit on Monday……………………………………………………….
Mr Kean, a former NSW Liberal treasurer who now leads the federal government’s independent climate change advisory body, will tell the Summit on Tuesday that there was overwhelming evidence that nuclear would increase energy bills and take too long to build.
“I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia … and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system – but they get their grabs in the news, while the public will get growing energy bills they can’t afford to pay,” Mr Kean will say, according to his speaking notes.
Origin Energy chief executive Frank Calabria said that to achieve the Albanese government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target by 2030, a massive 32 gigawatts of generation needed to be brought online. “You’ll need to double that again in 2040,” Mr Calabria said.
Origin has examined small modular nuclear reactors but believes it is still early days for the technology, Mr Calabria said.
“Commercialisation and cost and scale are at least a decade away … it’s certainly into the 2030s.”
While Origin considered small reactors could be a potential future source of energy, it wouldn’t make a “single bet”, he said.
“We’re certainly not discounting it. I just wouldn’t overstate its role right today.”
The large-scale nuclear reactors promoted by the Coalition have “varying costs” and are also at least a decade away, he added.
“That for us feels much more difficult because we have got an influx of renewable energy that is going to be into the system and therefore is it going to intersect alongside that well?”
Origin is sticking with its revised target of August 2027 for shutting its Eraring coal power station in Lake Macquarie and is “agnostic” over what kind of energy replaces coal, Mr Calabria said.
The Origin boss acknowledged it would be difficult to create a reliable power system to replace coal, but expects solar panels to be installed on rooftops faster than expected.
Gas-fired power would also be needed as back-up power to solar, wind and battery-stored energy, he said.
The Albanese government is scrambling to meet an international commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, en route to a net zero goal by 2050.
Renewable energy including solar, wind, battery storage and pumped hydro forms the backbone of the government’s plan, with gas-peaking plants backing up the intermittent renewables.
NSW Climate and Energy Minister Penny Sharpe said the key challenge for nuclear was that coal will be phased out before nuclear is ready. “Nuclear just doesn’t fit that time frame,” she told the Summit. “Our challenge is to manage the [coal] exit as quickly as we can, while replacing it with renewables.”
……………………………………. Squadron Energy chief executive Rob Wheals said the whole nuclear debate was a distraction.
“It seems like a tactic of kicking the can down the road and actually not focusing on the technologies that we know are available and are available in the time frame that we’ve got,” he said.
Political fight
Federal Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen panned the Coalition’s idea of starting a nuclear energy industry from scratch.
“The real danger in the Coalition’s nuclear scheme is the uncertainty it deliberately creates in relation to our grid. Investment is vital,” he said…………………………………….. https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/nuclear-too-slow-to-replace-coal-by-2035-20241021-p5kjzg
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 