Stuck on repeat: why Peter Dutton’s ‘greatest hits’ on nuclear power are worse than a broken record.
Guardian, Graham Readfearn, 26 Sept 24
So far there are no costings and no details on what type of reactors there would be, their size or who would build them.
Usually you need a few genuine releases under your belt before you start putting out “greatest hits” albums, but when it comes to spruiking nuclear this hasn’t stopped Peter Dutton.
This week, the opposition leader gave a speech that some hoped – perhaps naively – would add some more detail to the Coalition’s scant policy proposal to build nuclear reactors at seven sites around Australia.
But instead, Dutton delivered a familiar run-down of “greatest hits”; nuclear will mean cheap power, everyone else is going nuclear (so why shouldn’t we?), and renewables are unreliable (did you know, for example, and I bet you didn’t, that “solar panels don’t work at night” or that “turbines don’t turn on their own”?).
Perhaps Dutton is banking on the illusory truth effect where, regardless of the truthfulness of a statement, the more people hear it the more they’re inclined to accept it.
So far there are no costings, no details on what type of reactors or how large they will be, or who will build them. We do know Dutton wants to fund them through the taxpayer.
But let’s run through the track listing.
Renewables-only redux
Take, for example, Dutton’s claim in his speech, at the Centre for Economic Development Australia in Sydney, that Labor is pursuing a “renewables-only” policy for the electricity grid – a phrase he repeated seven times.
Just as it has been for many months, the “renewables-only” claim is false.
While it’s true Labor does want the electricity grid dominated by solar and wind, backed up by storage such as batteries and pumped hydro, the current plan also includes gas-fired power that would act as back-up if solar or wind levels dropped too low…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
28,000km – again
Also getting another go on the turntable was Dutton’s claim the government’s plan would require “28,000km of new transmission lines”.
The actual figure, according to AEMO, is 10,000km – or about a third of Dutton’s claim.
Only under a scenario where Australia gets very aggressive on green energy exports, such as hydrogen, does AEMO think you might need another 10,000km or more of transmission lines.
This has been pointed out before, but, like a broken record, Dutton continues to repeat it.
The nuclear train?
In a statement that will surprise nobody, Dutton said even if the various state and federal bans on nuclear power generation were lifted “we can’t switch nuclear power on tomorrow”.
“But what we can do is ensure that Australia doesn’t miss the nuclear train,” he said.
An independent report on the status of that global “nuclear train” was published last week.
The 500-page World Nuclear Industry Status report said in 2023 a record US$623bn was invested into non-hydro renewable energy, which was “27 times the reported global investment decisions for the construction of nuclear power plants”.
As of July, the report said there were 59 reactors under construction, 10 fewer than a decade ago, with almost half being built in China. Some 23 of those reactors were behind schedule………………………… more https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2024/sep/26/stuck-on-repeat-why-peter-dutton-greatest-hits-on-nuclear-power-are-worse-than-a-broken-record
Dutton’s nuclear plan would mean propping up coal for at least 12 more years – and we don’t know what it would cost
Alison Reeve, Deputy Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute, 25 Sept 24, https://theconversation.com/duttons-nuclear-plan-would-mean-propping-up-coal-for-at-least-12-more-years-and-we-dont-know-what-it-would-cost-239720
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has revealed the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan relies on many of Australia’s coal-fired power stations running for at least another 12 years – far beyond the time frame officials expect the ageing facilities to last.
The claim has set off a new round of speculation over the Coalition’s plans – the viability of which has already been widely questioned by energy analysts.
Dutton offered up limited detail in a speech on Monday. He also revealed the plan relies on ramping up Australia’s gas production.
It seems increasingly clear the Coalition’s nuclear policy would prolong Australia’s reliance on coal, at a time when the world is rapidly moving to cleaner sources of power.
Coal: old and tired
The Coalition wants to build nuclear reactors on the sites of closed coal plants. It says the first reactors could come online by the mid-2030s. However, independent analysis shows the earliest they could be built is the 2040s.
Now it appears the Coalition’s plan involves relying on coal to provide electricity while nuclear reactors are being built. On Monday, Dutton suggested coal-fired electricity would be available into the 2030s and ‘40s.
But this is an overly optimistic reading of coal’s trajectory. The Australian Energy Market Operator says 90% of coal-fired power in the National Electricity Market will close by 2035.
All this suggests the Coalition plans to extend the life of existing coal plants. But this is likely to cost money. Australia’s coal-fired power stations are old and unreliable – that’s why their owners want to shut them down. To keep plants open means potentially operating them at a loss, while having to invest in repairs and upgrades.
This is why coal plant owners sought, and received, payments from state governments to delay exits when the renewables rollout began falling behind schedule.
So who would wear the cost of delaying coal’s retirement? It might be energy consumers if state governments decide to recoup the costs via electricity bills. Or it could be taxpayers, through higher taxes, reduced services or increased government borrowing. In other words, we will all have to pay, just from different parts of our personal budgets.
Labor’s energy plan also relies on continued use of coal. Dutton pointed to moves by the New South Wales and Victorian governments to extend the life of coal assets in those states. For example, the NSW Labor government struck a deal with Origin to keep the Eraring coal station open for an extra two years, to 2027.
However, this is a temporary measure to keep the electricity system reliable because the renewables build is behind schedule. It is not a defining feature of the plan.
New transmission is essential under either plan
Dutton claims Labor’s renewable energy transition will require a massive upgrade to transmission infrastructure. The transmission network largely involves high-voltage lines and towers, and transformers.
He claims the Coalition can circumvent this cost by building nuclear power plants on seven sites of old coal-fired power stations, and thus use existing transmission infrastructure.
Labor’s shift to renewable energy does require new transmission infrastructure, to get electricity from far-flung wind and solar farms to towns and cities. It’s also true that building nuclear power stations at the site of former coal plants would, in theory, make use of existing transmission lines, although the owners of some of these sites have firmly declined the opportunity.
But even if the Coalition’s nuclear plan became a reality, new transmission infrastructure would be needed.
Australia’s electricity demand is set to surge in coming decades as we move to electrify our homes, transport and heavy industry. This will require upgrades to transmission infrastructure, because it will have to carry more electricity. Many areas of the network are already at capacity.
So in reality, both Labor’s and the Coalition’s policies are likely to require substantial spending on transmission.
Climate Change Authority head Matt Kean contradicts Peter Dutton’s claim on nuclear and renewables working together
ABC News, By 7.30 chief political correspondent Laura Tingle
The head of the Climate Change Authority has contradicted the claim of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that renewables and nuclear power can be ‘companions not competitors’, a claim that suggests a commitment to nuclear power will not derail the current transition to renewable energy.
Matt Kean is a former NSW Liberal energy minister and Treasurer, appointed by the Albanese government to chair the Climate Change Authority (CCA) earlier this year.
The Authority is due to make a recommendation to the government next month on what Australia’s 2035 emissions reduction target would be.
Mr Kean committed to making that target public.
On Monday, Mr Dutton spelt out some of his arguments in favour of nuclear energy, though he continues to decline to outline its cost.
The Opposition leader conceded on Monday that the upfront costs would be substantial but would ultimately prove cheaper than the cost of a transition to renewables, which he said was up to $1.5 trillion, partly because of the need to rewire the electricity system.
However, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has repeatedly quoted “the best guide to the cost” of the transition scheme being overseen by Labor was the Australian Energy Market Operator’s “integrated systems plan”, which he said “looked at the total cost out to 2050 of the entire generation, storage and transmission and came up at $121 billion”.
Asked on 7.30 whether nuclear had a role to play in Australia’s best energy mix, Mr Kean said that in the CCA’s recent review of pathways to net zero, “the CSIRO clearly set out the pathway to transition our electricity system and meet our commitments, international and domestic commitments, was renewables that are firmed up with technologies like batteries and storage.”
“That’s the pathway that’s been set out by the CSIRO that’s backed up by the Australian Energy Market Operator,” Mr Kean said…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-23/matt-kean-expert-advice-differs-peter-dutton-nuclear-plan/104386552?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other&fbclid=IwY2xjawFgNZBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHd_YcXBdgR0x85pH_9LerLMxZMbM4Pcqj1mtf4s4-_JFiJSf218SwO5KUg_aem_Zu8m5MVQhLz_j1FEJkC4PQ
Pro-nuke spin has a $377 billion price tag of government funding
The Fifth Estate, Murray Hogarth, 26 September 2024
THE NUCLEAR FILES: Regional Australia being targeted for nuclear reactors may be in for way more reactors than they might have bargained for. Murray Hogarth finds the nuclear sales pitch to these communities is more revealing than the political spin, and sometimes they reveal more than our politicians do.
Pro-nuke advocates influencing the Liberal-National Coalition want Australia headed for a major nuclear energy power that’s much bigger than first revealed.
A lot more. In total, more than 30 large scale nuclear power stations!
At projected costs of around $377 billion, taking more than 29 years to build through to 2060 at the rate of $13 billion a year.
This would mean producing up to six times more nuclear generation capacity, as most people think the Coalition is currently proposing with its highly controversial energy and climate approach, with more than four times the number of reactors.
Except, what is the Coalition actually proposing? Do we really have any idea? Could there be a big surprise in store?
The total number of individual reactors proposed to be built with government funding and details of what its sketchy nuclear energy plans will cost remains a mystery, even though opposition leader Peter Dutton spoke on the issues a Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) business lunch in Sydney on Monday.
There are gaping holes in its nuclear ambition story that many critics denounce as an economic fantasy, a deliberate dead cat on the table distraction, a political hoax, an anti-renewables ruse, and a trojan horse aimed at propping up fossil fuels.
A “big nuclear” future?
Just last week, a major regional community was being wooed to support nuclear energy, based on transcripts from a public event shared with The Fifth Estate, with local people invited to join a very “big nuclear” future.
The invitation came from Robert Parker, founder of Nuclear for Climate Australia, who became a cause celebre for the nuclear lobby earlier this year when Engineers Australia cancelled a nuclear-themed lecture that he was scheduled to give, allegedly because of politicised content.
In the resulting furore, fanned by conservative media, the actively pro-nuclear, coalition-aligned right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) rallied to Parker’s defence and provided him with an alternative platform.
Last week, Parker argued that Australia should have 36.8 gigawatts of nuclear generation by 2060, which implies 30 or more largescale reactors or many more small modular reactors (SMRs).
This will sound like an incredibly optimistic ambition to many, given nuclear energy currently remains banned in Australia and the recent international history of massive delays and cost blowouts on nuclear power station projects. But it’s a future which Parker claims is realistic because:
Canadians, they built 18 reactors in 20 years. The French built 58 reactors in 22 years and put 63 gigawatts on to the grid. Here we’re talking around about 36.8 gigawatts. So it’s a lot less than the French did.
Parker claimed it would cost $13 billion a year for 29 years of construction through to 2060, which implies work starting circa 2031 and a total cost of $377 billion.
Exactly like the Coalition, he forecasted the first 600 megawatts (MW) to be built by 2035, which would be two SMRs at 300MW apiece.
But there was a catch. When pressed by audience members about when this nuclear plan would deliver carbon emission reduction benefits, he admitted that it would be 2060 because we’d be “starting far too late”, which also is too late for net zero by 2050
Is this a dress rehearsal for the coalition’s real agenda?
Parker’s plan begs the question of whether this is the Coalition plan, or at least close to it, being live-tested with a real audience…………………………………………………………………. https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/columns-columns/the-nuclear-files/pro-nuke-spin-has-a-377-billion-price-tag-of-government-funding/
Nuclear Costs ‘In Due Course’
southburnett.com.au, September 26, 2024
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s long-awaited “nuclear” speech to an economic think tank has admitted the Coalition’s energy plan – which would see seven nuclear plants built if it wins power at next year’s Federal Election – would have a “significant upfront cost”.
But he did not say what this expected cost would be.
“We will release our costings in due course – at a time of our choosing,” Mr Dutton told the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) audience gathered on Monday in Sydney (see the full text of Mr Dutton’s speech, below).
Mr Dutton was joined at the event by journalist Chris Uhlmann, from Sky News.
The Opposition Leader said that by positioning the nuclear plants at the site of existing coal-fired power stations, “a whole new and vast transmission network and infrastructure won’t be needed”.
He said the upfront cost would be spread over the reactors’ expected 80-year lifespans and promised “thousands of jobs” would be created by “zero emission” nuclear energy.
And objections to a civil nuclear industry on the grounds of safety and waste disposal were “inconsistent and illogical” due to the AUKUS plan for nuclear-powered submarines.
In June this year, the Coalition proposed seven sites to house nuclear power generators: Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Mt Piper (Lithgow) and Liddell in NSW, Loy Yang in Victoria, Muja (Collie) in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia.
Critics of the Coalition’s energy plan stated this week that electricity prices would have to rise for nuclear power plants to be commercially viable without government subsidies.
A report released by the Institute For Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) said Australian household power bills would be likely to rise by $665 per year based on an analysis of the construction cost of nuclear reactor projects committed to construction over the past 20 years in the European Union and North America.
The report also considered tender contract prices submitted for small modular reactor and Korean reactor designs.
“Our research found that all projects commencing construction in the past 20 years in in the US and Europe experienced major budget blowouts up to three-and-a-half times original capital costs, as well as construction delays of many years,” IEEFA spokesperson Johanna Bowyer said.
“Small modular reactors (SMRs), which are often cited as a solution to resolve the nuclear industry’s cost and construction time problem, remain costly and unproven, with no reactors in operation in the OECD. The reactor closest to becoming a reality, NuScale, was cancelled due to cost blowouts.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………Nationals Leader David Littleproud described the nuclear plants as “plug and play” … “you don’t need as much transmission lines, it’s plug and play, exactly where they are”. https://southburnett.com.au/news2/2024/09/26/nuclear-costs-in-due-course/
Australians are installing batteries at a record rate, as rooftop solar heads for major new milestone.
ReNewEconomy, Sophie Vorrath, Sep 25, 2024
Australia is hurtling towards a major new milestone of 25 gigawatts (GW) total installed rooftop solar capacity, and adding behind-the-meter batteries to the mix at a record rate, as households and businesses continue their march to cheaper bills and energy independence.
The Clean Energy Council’s bi-annual Rooftop Solar and Storage Report for the first half of 2024, published on Wednesday, puts the cumulative total of panels installed on rooftops around the country at 24.4 GW, well on track to passing the 25 GW mark by the end of the year.
This is now clearly more than the remaining total combined power generating capacity of black and brown coal-fired power stations in the country, which stood at 21.3 GW in the financial year to 2023-24.
According to the CEC report, put together using data provided by solar consultancy SunWiz, nearly 30,000 battery sales were recorded in the first half of 2024, taking the cumulative total past 140,000 and pushing the rolling 12-month quarterly average of battery sales to a record of 14,555.
The data shows 20.7 per cent of rooftop solar installations had an accompanying small-scale battery in the first half of 2024, while the attachment rate of batteries connected to solar households reached a high of 19% – a 5% increase on the same time a year ago…………………………………………………..
CEC modelling showed households could achieve annual bill savings of between $900 and $1000 a year with non-orchestrated batteries and between $1150 and 1500 per year with orchestrated batteries trading energy with the grid.
More batteries are also expected to deliver benefits to those who cannot access home solar and storage, as they drive down energy costs and deliver other benefits to the grid.
“It is a win-win outcome,” says Hristadoulidis. “In the midst of a slower economy, solar PV and home batteries can play a key role is lifting economic activity by support for thousands of Australian installers and businesses working in the sector, as well as lowering energy bills for all Australians.”
Other highlights from the CEC report come from the state-by-state rooftop PV tally, which sees New South Wales maintain its long-time domination of the rankings, with another 454 MW of new rooftop PV installed in the first half of 2024.
This makes NSW the second state to pass one million total rooftop PV installations – Queensland did this last year – and takes its cumulative installed capacity to an impressive 6.6GW; the highest of any state and more than a quarter of the national capacity.
In second and third place are Queensland, with 360MW added in the first half of 2024, and Victoria, where 246MW was added.
Rooftop solar system sizes, meanwhile, keep getting bigger, as households start to electrify everything – including their trannsport.
The data shows the growth in the average system size in the first half of 2024 grew slightly to 9.7 kW, a new bi-annual record and a far cry from 10 years ago, when the average system size was 4.3 kW. https://reneweconomy.com.au/australians-are-installing-batteries-at-a-record-rate-as-rooftop-solar-heads-for-major-new-milestone/
Households surge ahead in rooftop solar as renewable projects break bottleneck
By Caitlin Fitzsimmons, September 25, 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/households-surge-ahead-in-rooftop-solar-as-renewable-projects-break-bottleneck-20240924-p5kd2t.html
Consumers are leading the national transition to renewable energy, installing four times more electricity generation through rooftop solar in the first half of this year than all the commercial projects combined.
Households added 1.3 gigawatts (1300 megawatts) of power capacity to the national electricity grid through 141,364 new rooftop solar installations in the first six months of 2024, a Clean Energy Council report says, while only 310 megawatts of commissioned large-scale generation projects came online during the same period.
SunWiz managing director Warwick Johnston said large-scale solar and wind projects were large investment decisions facing “headwinds” in the planning system, and these same barriers were not there for rooftop solar.
“You’re looking at lots of people making very comparatively small investment decisions on the basis of really just their personal situation,” Johnston said.
“It’s a lot easier to get a permit to connect your solar to the grid, and you don’t need environmental studies or any of those sorts of things when you’re just putting solar on your own roof.”
However, a significant amount of large-scale renewable energy is in the pipeline, and new figures from the Clean Energy Regulator suggest projects are finally passing the bottleneck of approvals.
The Clean Energy Council report, using SunWiz figures for rooftop solar, says NSW became the second state behind Queensland to surpass one million rooftop solar installations, adding 454 megawatts of extra capacity.
Clean Energy Council co-chief policy and impact officer, Con Hristodoulidis, said Australia was a global leader in rooftop solar, in part because of good policy with consumer incentives from both the Commonwealth and state governments for about 12 years.
“The beauty of Australia is we’ve got a high proportion of [freestanding] housing … so the ability for people to put solar on their roof has been a lot easier than some of the other countries that are more apartment-based,” Hristodoulidis said. “And finally, we’ve got some sun.”
The average system size is now 9.7 kilowatts, compared with 7.4 kilowatts five years ago and 4.3 kilowatts a decade ago. Johnston said 20 per cent of solar panel installations in 2023 were upgrades to existing systems.
Australia now has 24.4 gigawatts of installed rooftop solar capacity, compared with 21.3 gigawatts of coal-powered electricity in the 2023-24 financial year.
The report also says about one in five solar installations nationally included a household battery in the first half of the year, adding nearly 30,000 units for a cumulative total of more than 140,000.
Johnston said the uptake of batteries was driven by falling feed-in tariffs, making it more economical to store energy to use later and to ensure an uninterrupted power supply.
“People are sick of sending their solar power out to the grid and only getting a pittance for it, whereas those batteries mean that they can take charge of their own power needs,” Johnston said.
“The other aspect is people seeing increasingly strong weather-related blackouts … and batteries are providing that insurance for their own electricity supply.”
The Victorian government has low-interest loans for household batteries, and NSW has a rebate scheme starting in November. The Clean Energy Council is calling for federal incentives.
The Clean Energy Council figure of 310 megawatts for large-scale renewables counts only generators that started distributing electricity into the grid in the first half of 2024, rather than projects in the approval or construction phase.
The Clean Energy Regulator, in a separate report, said it approved 1.4 gigawatts of large-scale renewable generation in the first half of 2024 and 2.5 gigawatts of applications were awaiting assessment at the mid-point of the year.
The regulator also reported that 1.8 gigawatts of large-scale renewable capacity reached the “financial investment decision” stage in the first half, which means the proponent has committed financial resources and is ready to build.
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said the figures showed the government’s renewables plan was “on track and building momentum”.
Dutton’s baseload nuclear plan shows he does not understand energy systems, Bowen says.
Giles Parkinson, 24 Sept 24 https://reneweconomy.com.au/duttons-baseload-nuclear-plan-shows-he-does-not-understand-energy-systems-bowen-says/
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen has accused Coalition leader Peter Dutton and his fellow nuclear spruikers of failing to understand the changing dynamics of the Australian energy system.
Bowen’s remarks follow reports warning of potential blackouts and price spikes should the Coalition pursue its plan for extending the life of Australia’s ageing coal fleet while waiting for nuclear to be built, and comes a day after Dutton refused to reveal his nuclear costings in what was supposed to be a keynote speech in Sydney.
Instead, Dutton continued his attack on Labor’s reliance on wind and solar, saying it would result in the lights going out, soaring prices, and a stalled economy.
The focus of the debate seems to revolve around the construct of baseload power, which the Australian Energy Market Operator said this week, and big utilities agree, is being made redundant by the emerging dominance of wind and solar, and rooftop PV in particular, backed up by storage and other flexible generation.
Most in the energy industry argue that nuclear, which relies on being “always on” and has limited ability to ramp up and down, simply doesn’t fit into a grid with a majority wind and solar. The nuclear industry itself admits as much.
Dutton on Monday said renewables and nuclear could co-exist, but the four grids he cited – Arizona, France, Finland and Ontario – have no more than 18 per cent renewable share. Australia is at 40 per cent, going on 50 per cent with already committed projects, and is aiming for 82 per cent by 2030.
“The thing about Peter Dutton’s plan is again he doesn’t understand that what we need for a system which is net zero and predominantly renewable with peaking and firming,” Bowen said in an interview on Radio National breakfast.
“Coal is not suitable for peaking and firming, because once you turn a coal‑fired power station on, you’re not turning it off, and guess what, same as nuclear.
“Whereas gas can be turned on and off to support the energy system when we do need more energy, it can be turned on or off at two minutes’ notice, so when a gas‑fired power station is not turned on, it is zero emissions.
“Coal and nuclear can’t be turned on and off, and when coal is on it is emitting even if we don’t need the energy. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the energy system.”
Dutton and conservative voices have said that Bowen’s 82 per cent renewables target is impossible to meet, and will destroy industry. They argue that no grid can survive on such a high level of renewables, despite South Australia already doing so, and the market operator also convinced it can and will be done.
“Getting to 82 per cent renewables is no small thing, it’s a big change for the country,” Bowen said.
“But it’s also got to be supported by a well‑detailed plan to back it by new storage, batteries primarily, but also pumped hydro. That’s happening, and we have policies in place to do that, and that is rolling out; we’re seeing a big increase in storage.”
The Clean Energy Regulator on Tuesday released a report which showed that 7 GW of new wind and solar, including 4 GW of large scale renewables, should be committed this year, an improvement on previous years although still short of the level required.
Former NSW Coalition energy minister and now chair of the Climate Change Authority Matt Kean was also critical of Dutton’s assertions that nuclear makes a good bedfellow for renewables.
“I think the advice from the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator is very different,” he told ABC TV’s 7.30 program.
“We know that nuclear technology is not flexible to work with renewables, so therefore it isn’t the best technology to support renewables.
“We also know that it will take a long time to build nuclear capacity. Australia doesn’t have a nuclear industry. We don’t have the workforce that’s ever done this before, and the best example to look to is what’s happening in the UK, another democracy that’s currently building a nuclear power plant.”
He pointed to the Hinckley C reactor that has been delayed more than a decade, and where costs have blown out to more than $A86 billion as an example.
“AEMO and the CSIRO have said clearly that the cheapest way to replace our existing capacity is renewables that are backed up by firming technologies,” Kean said.
“We’ll take the advice of the experts. We’re not going to get into ideology. This should be about evidence, science, engineering and economics.”
Dutton’s truth-sounding nuclear power arguments are for generating impressions, not information.
He didn’t mention having to keep coal in the mix for a lot longer. But that’s certainly what his Coalition partners, the Nationals, have been saying with a nudge and a wink, whenever they are in receptive company.
Karen Middleton, 24 Sept 24, https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/sep/24/peter-dutton-ceda-speech-coalition-nuclear-power-plan-costs
The opposition leader keeps bypassing questions over the cost of his energy plan – while leaning on little more than fuzzy assurances.
It was nothing if not audacious.
In a speech that avoided answering one of the biggest questions hanging over his policy to build nuclear reactors at seven sites around Australia, Peter Dutton posed a very similar one about his opponents and their plans to phase out fossil fuels.
“Who will bear the costs of this transition?” Dutton asked in an address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia on Monday, before answering it himself. “Australian households will – in their power bills.”
Dutton’s speech to a lunchtime event titled “A nuclear-powered Australia – could it work?” contained no new information about his nuclear plan and was instead an exercise in relativism via admission. To paraphrase: my energy policy might cost a lot, but theirs will cost more and mine is more reliable.
“Yes, our nuclear plan does have significant upfront cost,” Dutton said. “… But a whole new and vast transmission network and infrastructure won’t be needed.”
He has still provided no evidence to support this statement, nor any further detail beyond naming seven sites and indicating he favours small modular reactors.
This speech was not about providing that detail. It was about making truthy-sounding arguments designed to generate an impression, not information.
He had a few messages that clearly came straight from the focus groups, starting and ending on a plea for “pragmatism, not politics”, rebuking the Albanese government for being “juvenile” and “childish” and accusing it of avoiding “a sensible discussion” about nuclear power.
What is evident from Dutton’s speech is that he knows, as the government does, that it won’t be arguments about three-eyed fish or even earthquake fault lines that will swing voters for or against nuclear power as they think about which way to vote. It’s what it will cost and whether nuclear can actually address Australia’s energy challenges.
Dutton was cosying up to renewable energy, suggesting he’s all for it, but that it needs more grunt to get Australia through. He’s trying to suggest his policy is about climate responsibility, not denial, and balances environmental and economic imperatives.
“We can have cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy if we adopt nuclear power,” he said. “And zero-emission nuclear power is our only chance to reach net zero by 2050.”
He didn’t mention having to keep coal in the mix for a lot longer. But that’s certainly what his Coalition partners, the Nationals, have been saying with a nudge and a wink, whenever they are in receptive company.
Referring to the government’s policy, Dutton used the false label “renewables-only” seven times and “renewables alone” once. He suggested that the government’s pledge to an ongoing role for gas was support in name only. Tell that to the Labor party members and constituents who are outraged that its future gas strategy embeds that particular fossil fuel in the energy mix to 2050 and beyond.
The opposition leader said Labor was lying about the “true costs” Australians would bear in its planned transition away from coal-fired power to cleaner forms of energy, calling this an “absolute scandal” while saying precisely nothing specific about the cost of his own.
“We will release our costings in due course, at a time of our choosing,” Dutton said.
Calling his own policy idea “truly visionary” was the closest he came to acknowledging that nuclear power could not be up and running in Australia for at least two decades.
“We can’t switch nuclear power on tomorrow,” he said, adding one more little caveat about legislative obstacles. “Even if the ban is lifted.”
Not when, if.
Instead of cold, hard facts, Dutton’s Ceda speech relied on warm, fuzzy assurances. With the emphasis on fuzzy.
“Clean nuclear energy is reliable,” he insisted. “It will underpin renewables. It will get the cost of electricity down. It will keep the lights on.”
In which decade, he didn’t quite say.
Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan still has no costings, and no grid connection: It’s a political hoax
ReNewEconomy, Giles Parkinson, Sep 23, 2024
Outside, in Martin Place, the voices were clear – unions and environmental groups holding placards and denouncing Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear “fantasy:” A combination of denial and delay they said: “Dutton wants gas, Dutton wants coal, nuclear is just a troll,” they chorused.
Inside the Fullerton Hotel, in the basement where Ballroom B is located, it was expected to be the moment for the nuclear true believers, but the numbers just weren’t there.
Unusually for a CEDA event, there was only a scattering of corporate table sponsors – ANZ, KPMG, and Clayton Utz – and most of the ballroom was partitioned off. Among the 160 attending, quite small for a CEDA event, there was the usual Dutton entourage, including energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, Warren Mundine, and a lot of media.
Bizarrely, many of the rest were from the clean energy industry, curious to know what they might be dealing with should the Coalition return to power next year. Did they like what they heard? Not really. Did they learn anything? No.
This was supposed to be Dutton’s occasion to spell out his nuclear power plan: “A nuclear powered Australia – could it work” was the title of the event. But we left little the wiser. The question about how many nuclear power plants, how much would they cost, when they would be built, and which technology, were not answered.
Instead, the event got a re-run of the Coalition’s renewable scare campaign. Dutton’s thesis is that wind and solar won’t work, even with storage and dispatchable back-up. Renewables, says Dutton, are dangerous and will lead to blackouts and the destruction of industry.
We’ve heard this before. It’s the common refrain of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. They’ve gone from attacking the climate science to ignoring it, and have focused their attacks on the technology solutions. The ones that threaten their legacy and vested interests.
The Coalition uses “baseload” as if it’s another word for “reliability”. It’s not, as AEMO boss Daniel Westerman explains in this week’s Energy Insiders podcast.
Dutton did at least concede that building nuclear power stations at the seven sites identified by the Coalition will cost a lot, even if he wouldn’t say how much, or how consumers are impacted. Somehow, he imagines, the cost will be amortised by their assumed 80 year timeline. Perhaps he hasn’t seen their maintenance and refurbishment bills.………………………….
We did learn a couple of new things. One was that Dutton admitted that Aukus – the controversial deal to sign up for half a dozen nuclear submarines at horrific cost and questionable use – was as much a Trojan horse for the nuclear debate as it is an allegory for his power plans…………………
There was indeed, an awful lot of fudging. Dutton pretends that his nuclear power plan can be rolled out without new transmission lines. But he’s kidding himself, and trying to fool the public.
Firstly, the seven sites he has targeted are already filling up with their owner’s own projects – mostly battery storage and renewables. There simply isn’t room on the grid…………….
There was indeed, an awful lot of fudging. Dutton pretends that his nuclear power plan can be rolled out without new transmission lines. But he’s kidding himself, and trying to fool the public.
Firstly, the seven sites he has targeted are already filling up with their owner’s own projects – mostly battery storage and renewables. There simply isn’t room on the grid.
Secondly, the sort of nuclear reactors Dutton is planning are nearly twice the size of most coal generators – which means – as a matter of course – that there has to be more infrastructure built to support them, in transmission lines, and back-up capacity in case of a trip or unexplained outage. That is grid management 101.
Thirdly, Dutton hasn’t explained what fills the gap as coal fired power plants exit the grid. Either he has to double, table, or even quadruple his nuclear power plans – at great cost and huge new transmission requirements, or he has to rely on renewables after all, and they will also require new transmission.
Fourthly, his complaints against new transmission is largely a furphy. AEMO’s Integrated System Plan – which is little changed for when it was produced for the Coalition government – doesn’t contemplate the 28,000 kms of new transmission as Dutton claims…………
Dutton did confirm that the Coalition’s plan was to extend the life of coal fired power stations as much as it could, and build a lot of new gas generators. Quite how he believes these investment will lower the price of power to consumers was not and has never been explained.
Like nuclear, they are the most expensive sources of power. He suggested they will all be government owned, which is inevitable as private finance won’t touch it, and Snowy Hydro is quite accustomed to projects that run well over time and budget. And that way, the true cost will already be hidden from homes and businesses……………………………….
He also confirmed he doesn’t understand batteries. They can’t store energy for more than four hours he said, which is news to the project developers of more than 3,000 megawatt hours of eight-hour batteries. Has he heard of demand management? Dutton refuses to see or admit the solutions that are right in front of him.
Meanwhile, the general public is being led a merry dance by folksy promises, a solution that sounds vaguely plausible, but in reality has no chance of delivering.
The protestors with the placards outside the hotel were closest to the truth: This is about denial and delay, the whole policy is an elaborate troll, a political hoax, and a refuge for the climate deniers and do-littles. Nothing more, nothing less. https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-plan-still-has-no-costings-and-no-grid-connection-its-a-political-hoax/—
Australian film-maker refused entry into India
Pearls and Irritations, By Sam Varghese, Sep 21, 2024
Australian film-maker David Bradbury has been refused entry into India, after flying into Chennai from Bangkok on 10 September with his two children, aiming to take a holiday.
Bradbury, an Oscar-nominated film-maker who is an anti-nuclear campaigner, said all three members of his family had valid visas issued by the Indian consulate in Canberra before they left Australia on 7 September.
He said he was denied entry because of a film he had made in India in 2012, about the protests against a nuclear power plant in Kudankulam, about two km away from the fishing hamlet of Idinthakarai in the southern district of Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu.
When Bradbury submitted his passport to immigration at Chennai, he was told that he would not be granted entry into the country.
His children were, however, allowed to enter the country.
“During the course of the rest of the day and into the night various immigration plainclothes police would come and interrogate me,” Bradbury said in a statement.
They asked him what he was doing in India, what he had done during his previous visit in 2012, who he knew in India and whom he had communicated with before coming to the country.
He was also asked to unlock his phone and give it to the authorities, something he refused to do……………………………….
Bradbury is now in Bangkok after being deported from India. He said he would be spending one more week in the Thai capital while his children visited places in India which he had intended them to visit.
While en route to India, he screened his latest documentary, Death is a lady, a tribute to Vietnam war cameraman and journalist, the legendary Neil Davis who was tragically killed in a 24-hour coup in Bangkok 39 years ago. The screening raised $407 for the children of Gaza.
“What had caused the cancellation of my Indian visa? Over the course of the afternoon and being interrogated by Indian Immigration plainclothes officers, I quickly concluded the Indian government had not forgiven me for making a film about the anti-nuclear protest by poor fisherfolk,” Bradbury said.
The nuclear plant in question was proposed in 1986 and an agreement to build it was signed between the then Soviet Union and India in 1988.
Due to continuing protests, the plant was delayed. The idea was revived in 2000, and construction began under the then Indian government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 2001.
The plant became operational in 2013 and a second 1000MW unit was commissioned in August 2016, through an agreement between Russian President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then Tamil Nadu chief minister late Jayalalitha Jayaram.
Kudankulam has the highest capacity of any nuclear plant in India, with 2000 MW currently installed and 2000 MW under construction. Once completed, it will have a capacity of 6000 MW. It is also the only nuclear plant in India that uses pressurised water reactors based on Russian technology. https://johnmenadue.com/australian-film-maker-refused-entry-into-india/
We don’t need nuclear power – the path to cheaper electricity is renewables
The Australia Institute, by Matt Saunders
The last thing Australia energy market needs is nuclear power. The data is clear – more renewables will lead to cheaper electricity.
Tomorrow the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, is discussing his plans to introduce nuclear power with anti-renewable energy commentator, Chris Uhlmann. No doubt we will hear the same claims about renewable energy causing electricity prices to be high and the need for nuclear power to keep prices down that both men have said in the past.
And just as was the case in the past, such claims will again be wrong.
The increased use of renewables in supplying electricity is not the cause of higher retail electricity prices – and it is clear that more renewables will lead to lower prices.
Research and data from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) and the CSIRO all make it abundantly clear that renewables are the cheapest form of electricity, and that the high cost of energy is driven by the cost of gas and coal produced electricity.
It is not surprising that people can be misled about the cause of electricity prices. Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM) is a complex market stretching to 1,925 pages of rules and regulations such that any explanation of price determination will be greatly simplified.
So let us set out the two key issues to understanding retail electricity prices:
1. The cost of generating electricity (the wholesale price) is a surprisingly small component of the many costs that contribute to household electricity prices.
2. The wholesale price is rarely determined by the costs of generating electricity from wind and solar. Wholesale prices are most often determined by other forms of power generation, mainly fossil fuel sources, that are more expensive than most renewable generation.
According to the ACCC the wholesale price makes up only 33% of retail electricity prices. The other components that make up the retail price of electricity include network costs (transmission and distribution), retail costs and margins, and environmental costs
If wholesale electricity prices were to double then retail prices would increase a maximum of only 33% per cent. According to earlier ACCC research about two thirds of the increase in electricity prices over the last ten years caused the increase in transmission costs.
Renewables Do NOT SET Wholesale prices
Perhaps the most confusing aspect of the NEM is how prices are set (so much so that websites like Wattclarity can devote themselves to disentangling what is going on!)………………………………………………………………………
the best way to reduce electricity prices is to:
- reduce demand for electricity through energy savings measures that reduces the periods when the wholesale price is set by expensive fossil-fuel generation such as gas.
- increase production of renewables – so that it can more regularly be the price setter in the system.
Despite what you might hear tomorrow, or from others, the key to lower energy prices is not nuclear, let alone more gas, but much, much more renewable energy. While the energy market continues to rely on gas and coal, Australians will continue to pay higher prices for their electricity, and if nuclear were ever to come into the system, the price would jump even higher. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/we-dont-need-nuclear-power-the-path-to-cheaper-electricity-is-renewables/
Why is Peter Dutton so frightened of nuclear detail?
September 23, 2024, by: The AIM Network, https://theaimn.com/why-is-peter-dutton-so-frightened-of-nuclear-detail/
Still missing from the Coalition’s nuclear fantasy – any plans on costs, reducing climate pollution or nuclear accidents
The public will have to keep waiting after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton failed to announce anticipated costings and other detail of the Liberal National Coalition’s nuclear proposal today.
Following Mr Dutton’s speech, Solutions for Climate Australia called on the Federal Liberal and National parties to step up and tell the public just how long, how expensive and how risky their pro-nuclear reactor policy is.
Solutions for Climate Australia senior campaigner Elly Baxter said:
“Today, Peter Dutton has again failed to give any detail on how he plans to establish nuclear reactors in Australia. Mr Dutton seems to be bug-out frightened to put forward any detail – what’s he got to hide?
“Australia’s coal plants are old and falling apart. Nuclear would never be delivered in time, whereas solar and wind already provide 40% of Australia’s electricity.
Solutions for Climate Australia director Dr Barry Traill said:
“Multiple credible estimates from industry experts show that even if, somehow, the nuclear reactors were built by 2040, they could only produce 4% of Australia’s total electricity needs.
“Why would we spend many billions on the most expensive and risky way of making electricity in Australia, to produce just 4% of the power we need?
“We call on the Coalition to have the guts to put out the details of what they are proposing.”
Peter Dutton’s weird obsession with uncosted nuclear risks energy security, the economy and our kids’ future.
Climate Council 23 SEP, 2024
PETER DUTTON’S WEIRD NUCLEAR OBSESSION is a reckless distraction that will delay real cuts to climate pollution and expose Australians to even more dangerous climate change. While Dutton clings to outdated ideas, our kids’ futures hang in the balance.
Despite Peter Dutton’s grand claims, the Coalition has failed to produce any new numbers to back their nuclear obsession. Meanwhile, a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reveals the true cost of nuclear: an average increase of $665 per year on household electricity bills. Nuclear power is slow, costly, and dangerous, while clean energy solutions, like wind and solar backed by storage, are already powering Australia today.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “Peter Dutton’s weird nuclear obsession is a distraction from the fact that he wants to delay building new power for a generation. A child riding their bike to primary school today will be driving to work by the time even one nuclear reactor is producing electricity.
“Delaying building new energy means more dangerous climate pollution from coal and gas. This will hit our kids hard, fuelling worse floods, fires, and heatwaves.
“Delaying means our ageing energy system failing without investment and support.”
Greg Bourne, Climate Councillor said: “Peter Dutton’s nuclear obsession doesn’t pass the pub test and would meet just a fraction of Australia’s energy needs by 2050. The cost blowouts, delays, and energy shortages nuclear power would cause are staggering. Renewables are faster, cheaper, and cleaner.
“While nuclear sits at the starting blocks for another decade or more, renewable energy is surging ahead, already providing 40% of the electricity in our main national grid and set to reach over 96% by the time Dutton’s first reactors might be operational. Dutton and his colleagues will be long retired before a single nuclear plant is built in Australia, whereas the renewable solutions we need are ready today.
Dutton’s refusal to provide any analysis, costs or modelling proves what we already know – nuclear is a high-risk, low-reward scheme. Nuclear power will not bring down energy bills or solve Australia’s energy challenges. This obsession will only stall the progress we desperately need to safeguard our planet and our kids’ futures.”
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 