Labor announces surprise parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, raising hopes of an ‘adult conversation’
ABC, By chief digital political correspondent Jacob Greber, 10 Oct 24
In short:
Labor has launched a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, which it hopes will expose shortcomings in the opposition’s plans.
But the Coalition says it is ready to “come to the party” and profile arguments in favour of nuclear.
What’s next?
Labor, the Coalition and crossbench will nominate members of the committee, due to report back no later than April 30.
An energy expert has welcomed Labor’s decision to establish a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, saying open consideration of the technology is better than the federal government’s current position of seeking to “pooh-pooh the whole thing”.
Labor surprised the Coalition by announcing on Thursday that it will report no later than April 30 on the deployment of nuclear power, including small modular reactors.
Tony Wood, an energy specialist at the Grattan Institute, said “anything that begins to open up an adult conversation about nuclear power is a good thing”.
“In some ways, it’s better than what the government was doing, which is pooh-pooh the whole thing.”
The government-dominated House of Representatives committee will look at deployment time frames, uranium transport, supply, storage and enrichment capability, water impacts, and costs and consequences for electricity affordability.
Labor hopes the inquiry — which the ABC understands was initiated by backbenchers led by Hunter Valley MP Dan Repacholi — will fill the information void left by the Coalition’s repeated delays in releasing its planned nuclear policy or economic modelling.
Voters have ‘many questions’, Labor MP says
Mr Repacholi said voters in his electorate and around the nation have “many questions” about the opposition’s plan to build several nuclear power stations.
“Whether they support or oppose the scheme, the questions raised by Australians show they want more details,” he said.
“Right now, the information Australians need to fully understand the proposal is simply not there…………………………. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-10/labor-announces-nuclear-power-inquiry/104456124
Coalition claims of a nuclear power renaissance in UK further expose its shameless policy con
Tim Buckley & John Hewson, Oct 10, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-claims-of-a-nuclear-power-renaissance-in-uk-further-expose-its-shameless-policy-con/
In the one-page nuclear policy pamphlet the LNP released in June, federal opposition leader Peter Dutton states that “of the world’s 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy, or moving towards using it.”
Even this claim lacks credibility and relies on half-truths – so no wonder Dutton and his nuclear-spuiking sidekick Ted O’Brien are failing to get buy-in on their delusion from those in their own party, let alone most experts.
The UK – the 6th largest economy in the world by GDP in 2023, and one which has an established nuclear power industry – is a case in point for both the problems with technology and its decline in some major economies.
Since 2000, nuclear power generation in the UK has more than halved from 85 terawatt hours (TWh) to a multidecade low of 41 TWh in 2023.
In the same period nuclear’s share of total UK electricity generation has dropped from 23% to a record low of 14%. Energy analyst company Aurora Energy forecasts UK nuclear generation could fall to a three-decade low of just 8 TWh by 2029.
This ongoing, inexorable decline has occurred even as coal’s share of electricity supply has plummeted from 32% in 2000 to just 1% in 2023.
Meanwhile, wind power doubled to 82 TWh from 2016 to 2023, and is exactly twice the amount of energy produced by nuclear. UK solar has grown sixfold in the last decade to 14 TWh, and is likely to double nuclear’s contribution by 2029.
While O’Brien has claimed there is nuclear renaissance in the UK, the reality is the UK’s end-of-life nuclear fleet is rapidly approaching its use-by date.
France’s EDF owns the only five remaining nuclear power plants (with a total of 9 units) still operating in the UK, all due to be shuttered by 2028: Sizewell B (to retire in 2025); Hartlepool 1&2 (retirement in March 2026); Heysham I 1&2 (March 2026); Heysham 2 1&2 (2028); and Torness 1&2 (2028).
EDF has flagged it would consider extending the life of some of these plants, but no decision has been made.
EDF has now reported a €12.9 billion writedown on its under-construction Hinkley Point C nuclear plant – an eye-watering mega-project debacle comparable to the LNP’s Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri gas plants in Australia – and pivoted into developing wind, solar and hydro-electricity plants.
With a 2029-2031 commissioning date, Hinkley is running around 15 years late from its original targeted completion date of 2017.
It has a rapidly rising estimated construction cost of £41.6-47.9 billion, or A$80-93 billion, making the CSIRO GenCost estimates of nuclear in Australia look conservative. EDF’s Hinkley Point C equity partner, China’s CGN, stopped supporting the cost overruns in 2023.
The UK consumer can now look forward to being gouged when this white-elephant is actually commissioned next decade. The UK government-underwritten power purchase agreement (PPA) was set at £92.5/MWh (in 2012 prices), escalating with inflation through to commissioning and thereafter over the 35 year plant life.
In 2022 the price of power from Hinkley ballooned to £116/MWh, twice the cost of energy supplied by new wind farms at £54-59/MWh.
The proposal for a Sizewell C nuclear plant is long delayed and is still to gain financial backing, despite €5.5bn of proposed new UK government subsidies on top of the existing €2.5bn taxpayer support.
On top of these issues are massive nuclear decommissioning costs worn by taxpayers. The UK government estimated in 2022 it will cost UK taxpayers £132bn to decommission civil nuclear sites, with the work taking 120 years.
These cost estimates have doubled in the past decade, and could easily double again by the time they are imposed on the people. Add to this the fact the UK has no facility for permanently and safely storing the waste from past, present or future nuclear power stations.
Far from depending on nuclear, UK electricity consumers rely on its world leading wind industry and international grid connectivity to keep power prices down and to keep their lights on.
Dutton and O’Brien tout Rolls Royce as a preferred supplier of still mythical small modular reactors (SMR). What the LNP doesn’t mention is that Rolls Royce doesn’t actually build SMRs for electricity markets, nor does it even have a single approval or final investment decision, despite milking significant government funding over many years.
A flurry of press releases and yet more UK government subsidies doesn’t alter the fact that there isn’t even an SMR factory under construction or approved.
The LNP’s claim that Rolls Royce will have an SMR operational by 2030 anywhere is also far-fetched, and arguably a physical impossibility. Since it is now reported that Rolls Royce’s SMR subsidiary is running out of cash, and Rolls Royce considering divesting, SMRs are looking more and more like vapourware.
Despite the overwhelming evidence against nuclear on cost, timeframe and technical grounds, the LNP, Australia’s party of small government and free markets proposes to nationalise onto taxpayers the cost of building 7 nuclear reactors – which we estimate at over $100bn – as well as decades of massive construction risks and delays, and higher power bills in the short, medium and longer term.
A cursory look at the international experience is enough to expose the LNP’s shameless con, designed only to disrupt and delay our accelerating transition to abundant, reliable, low-cost firmed renewables.
Tim Buckley is director of independent think tank Climate Energy Finance. John Hewson, is former leader of the LNP and Honorary Professorial Fellow at ANU.
Labor springs surprise nuclear power committee to call Coalition bluff on energy policy.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/labor-springs-surprise-nuclear-power-committee-to-call-coalition-bluff-on-energy-policy/ 10 Oct 24
The Labor government has sprung a surprise on the last sitting of the winter parliament by establishing a parliamentary select committee to inquire into the viability of nuclear power.
The committee is not designed to support any shift in Labor government policy, but more to call out the Coalition bluff, and fill in the the lack of details, and costings, of its own nuclear power plans.
The committee has been proposed and will be chaired by Labor’s Dan Repacholi, the MP for the Hunter region which is host to one of seven sites identified by Opposition leader Peter Dutton and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien for their nuclear power plants.
The committee is expected to report by April 30, but given that the next federal election is now almost certain to be held in May next year, it can also issue an interim report.
Its term of reference are focused on the unknown and contested parts of the Coalition’s nuclear policy, including the costs and timeframes of both large scale and small modular reactors, its potential share of the country’s energy mix, water and waste issues, enrichment capabilities, and state and federal regulations.
The committee will have a majority four members appointed by the government, two from the opposition and one cross-bencher. O’Brien sought to make it three government and 3 opposition, but the motion failed.
The decision to create the committee comes just weeks after Dutton failed to outline details of his nuclear power plans at a CEDA event where he was expected to do just that. His claims that nuclear will deliver cheaper prices to consumers, and that the first reactor can deliver power by 2035, have been rejected by virtually everyone in the energy industry.
Federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen told parliament on Thursday that nuclear is clearly the most expensive form of energy.
Bowen said O’Brien had refused an invitation to debate the issue on ABC’s Q&A program. I said yes, he said no,” Bowen said.
“Report after report shows that the Oppositions plan will push prices up. Professor Rod Sims said maybe $200 a year. Dr Dylan McConnell said $400 or $500 a year. Dr Roger Dargerville said $1,000 a year. And of course, we’ve also seen the report from IEEFA which said $665 a year on average.”
Repacholi told the house earlier on Thursday that he had been “out and about in the Hunter electorate” listening to people about the opposition’s proposed nuclear scheme.
“One thing that has been absolutely clear is that people have many questions. Whether they support or oppose the scheme, the questions raised by Australians show that they want more detail. Right now, the information Australians need to fully understand the proposal is simply not there.”
In a shock move early this morning, leader of the House Tony Burke moved a motion to establish the inquiry which would report back by April 30, 2025, but it can issue an interim report.
‘Pursuit of truth will live on’: Assange speaks to the world
Independent Australia, By Binoy Kampmark | 7 October 2024,
Having been freed from incarceration at Belmarsh Prison, Julian Assange delivered his first public speech at a recent parliamentary hearing, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
WIKILEAKS FOUNDER Julian Assange’s last public address was made in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. There, he was a guest vulnerable to the capricious wishes of changing governments. At Belmarsh Prison in London, he was rendered silent, and his views were conveyed by visitors, legal emissaries and his family.
The hearing in Strasbourg on 1 October, organised by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (P.A.C.E.), arose from concerns raised in a report by Iceland’s Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, in which she expressed the view that Assange’s case was ‘a classic example of “shooting the messenger”’.
Ævarsdóttir said:
‘I find it appalling that Mr Assange’s prosecution was portrayed as if it was supposed to bring justice to some unnamed victims the existence of whom has never been proven, whereas perpetrators of torture or arbitrary detention enjoy absolute impunity.’
His prosecution, Ævarsdóttir went on to explain, had been designed to obscure and deflect the revelations found in WikiLeaks’ disclosures, among them abundant evidence of war crimes committed by U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, instances of torture and arbitrary detention in the infamous Guantánamo Bay camp facility, illegal rendition programs implicating member states of the Council of Europe and unlawful mass surveillance, among others.
A draft resolution was accordingly formulated, expressing, among other things, alarm at Assange’s treatment and disproportionate punishment ‘for engaging in activities that journalists perform on a daily basis’ which made him, effectively, a political prisoner; the importance of holding state security and intelligence services accountable; the need to ‘urgently reform the 1917 Espionage Act’ to include conditional maliciousness to cause harm to the security of the U.S. or aid a foreign power and exclude its application to publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.
Assange’s full testimony began with reflection and foreboding: the stripping away of his self in incarceration, the search, as yet, for words to convey that experience, and the fate of various prisoners who died through hanging, murder and medical neglect. It was good to hear that voice again. A voice of provoking interest that pitter patters, feline across a parquet, followed by the usual devastating conclusion.
While filled with gratitude for the efforts made by P.A.C.E. and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, not to mention innumerable parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers and even the Pope, none of their interventions “should have been necessary”. But they proved invaluable, as “the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time frame”.
The legal system facing Assange was described as encouraging an “unrealisable justice”. Choosing freedom instead of purgatorial process, he could not seek it, the plea deal with the U.S. Government effectively barring his filing of a case at the European Court of Human Rights or a freedom of information request. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A spectator, reader or listener might leave such an address deflated. But it is fitting that a man subjected to the labyrinthine, life-draining nature of several legal systems should be the one to exhort to a commitment: that all do their part to keep the light bright, “that the pursuit of truth will live on, and the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few”. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/pursuit-of-truth-will-live-on-assange-speaks-to-the-world,19049
Dutton’s nuclear remarks spark calls for clarity on Queensland LNP’s energy plan
Dave Copeman, 4 October 2024, https://www.queenslandconservation.org.au/duttons_nuclear_remarks_lnps_energy_plan?fbclid=IwY2xjawFvCu5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWQFoEI2cqiTljqKHWH3tgX_Vn0_sbMmzV_mCAb1RfmcOcv0tqp3xtDDFw_aem_A3vBJVajSTGpG64uEbkoLg
As Queenslanders await clarity on the LNP’s energy plan, Peter Dutton has today raised the prospect of convincing a future LNP government to change its mind on nuclear power.
While David Crisafulli has rejected nuclear energy, it’s becoming apparent that the clear alternative currently being proposed to the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan is from Peter Dutton.
Crisafulli has yet to present a detailed and transparent energy plan for Queensland, and his reluctance to outline a clear roadmap raises questions about the future of the state’s energy strategy, including the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan.
The Queensland Conservation Council is calling for transparency from David Crisafulli regarding the LNP’s energy plans. Queenslanders deserve clarity on how the party intends to meet the state’s energy needs and emission reduction targets.
Queensland Conservation Council Director Dave Copeman said:
Peter Dutton’s comments today make it clear that he is prepared to convince any future LNP Queensland government to reconsider its stance on nuclear power.
While David Crisafulli has rejected nuclear, it’s clear that right now, Peter Dutton’s nuclear agenda is the main alternative being put forward to the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan.
The Queensland Conservation Council is calling for transparency from David Crisafulli regarding the LNP’s energy plans. Queenslanders deserve clarity on how the party intends to meet the state’s energy needs and emission reduction targets.
Queensland Conservation Council Director Dave Copeman said:
Peter Dutton’s comments today make it clear that he is prepared to convince any future LNP Queensland government to reconsider its stance on nuclear power.
While David Crisafulli has rejected nuclear, it’s clear that right now, Peter Dutton’s nuclear agenda is the main alternative being put forward to the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan.
Every day that David Crisafulli doesn’t outline his energy plan, the questions around Queensland’s energy future will only grow louder. Queenslanders need to know what the LNP’s strategy is, especially with the growing focus on nuclear from the federal Coalition. We know David Crisafulli doesn’t support Pioneer Burdekin Pumped Hydro, but we don’t have clarity on what he would suggest in its place.
The best way for David Crisafulli to confirm his opposition to nuclear power is to build on the strong pipeline of renewable energy projects Queensland already has and outline a clear plan for closing coal-fired power stations with renewable energy backed by storage.
Renewable energy is already helping to drive down power bills and create jobs, and it’s vital we have energy policy certainty to support this growing sector. The longer we wait for clarity, the more uncertain the future becomes to meet our emission reduction targets and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
At last, Dutton spells out his nuclear power play – 12 more years of coal (if it lasts)
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.
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.
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.
Both Labor and the Coalition acknowledge a big role for gas in their respective plans.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says gas, along with storage, is needed to help back up to the grid, when solar and wind farms are not producing electricity.
Dutton spoke of plans “to ramp up domestic gas production” in the short term, “to get power prices down and restore stability to our grid” – presumably until nuclear comes online.
But the issue isn’t a lack of gas. It’s that the gas is in the wrong places. There’s a gas shortage because southern reserves are declining and all the gas production is in the north of the continent.
An increased role for gas means getting someone to pay for new infrastructure, such as pipelines or LNG terminals. That will make for expensive gas, and expensive gas means expensive electricity.
It’s now three months since the Coalition released its nuclear strategy. Detail was thin then – and Monday’s speech shed little light.
Many unanswered questions remain – chief among them, costings of the nuclear plan, and how much of that will be born by government. CSIRO says a nuclear reactor would cost at least A$8.6 billion.
We also don’t know how the Coalition would acquire the sites, or get around nuclear bans in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.
We still don’t know how the Coalition plans to keep the lights on in the coming decade, as coal exits.
And crucially, we don’t know what it will cost households and businesses. It is unlikely to be cheap.
On the contrary, Mr Dutton, nuclear generated electricity is not “emissions free”.
Helen Caldicott, 7 Oct 24
On the contrary, Mr Dutton, nuclear generated electricity is not “emissions free”.
Large quantities of CO2 are emitted during the mining, milling and enrichment of the uranium ore, and during the construction of the concrete reactor, nuclear fuel rods, and the transport and storage of radioactive waste for 240,000 years
Mutagenic radioactive gases are also routinely released during reactor operations including tritium – radioactive hydrogen which enters the body through the skin and lung, carbon 14 and noble gases – xenon, krypton and argon. These carcinogenic elements are inhaled and also bioconcentrate in the food chain near the reactors thereby exposing the surrounding population to the development of cancer and leukemia.
It is important to note that children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to radiation induced cancer than adults.
Reference – Nuclear Power is Not the – Helen Caldicott – The New Press – 2011.
What nuclear power in the United States tells us about the Coalition’s controversial energy policy
“If nuclear power were a person, it would be weeping with its head in its hands over the Vogtle story. Vogtle is clear proof that large nuclear construction is not an economic way to go.”
ABC News, By Eric Campbell, 7 Oct 24
“…………………………………It’s been touted as the start of a new era for the US’s flagging nuclear power industry. Vogtle’s newest reactors are among the first built in the US in decades.
“Thank you for your service to our nation in providing this arsenal of clean power,” Energy Department Secretary Jennifer Granholm said at the May opening ceremony for Vogtle’s latest reactor.
“Now let’s draw up some battle plans for new reactors. I don’t know about you but I for one am reporting for duty!” she said, saluting.
Peter Dutton is ready to enlist Australia. If he wins next year’s election, he plans to build seven nuclear power stations at retiring coal-fired plants.
Mr Dutton has flagged the AP1000 reactor used at Vogtle could be one of the models used to power homes and businesses in Australia.
“We don’t want to be the purchaser of the first in class or have an Australian-made technology, we want to rely on the Westinghouse AP1000,” he said in June. Beyond this, he’s given little detail about how exactly the plan would work.
Four Corners travelled around the US to examine the Coalition claims that developing nuclear power plants was the best way to replace coal power.
It has cited the US, which remains the world’s largest producer of nuclear energy, as one of the places to see the benefits it could bring Australia. Before launching the policy, Coalition MPs accompanied two groups of engineers and environmentalists around the US and to Ontario in Canada to see the potential first-hand.
In our experience, the reality was more complex.
Cost blowout
The Coalition’s pitch for nuclear is that it’s reliable, clean and cheap. And Vogtle certainly ticks two of those boxes. The plant almost never stops running and it produces no [greenhouse] emissions. But here’s the problem. It was expensive to build.
The giant AP1000 reactors designed by Westinghouse opened seven years late at more than twice the budgeted cost. The final bill of around $US35 billion ($50 billion) makes them among the most expensive nuclear generators ever built.
Now, Georgia residents are paying the price for Vogtle’s overruns in their electricity bills.
Community organiser Kimberley Scott said people have been struggling to keep up.
“Power bills have gone up hundreds of dollars for consumers including myself,” she said.
Georgia ratepayer Anna Hamer said she now has had to ration air conditioning in the Atlanta summer as her bills rise. In July she was hit with her highest power bill ever: $US618 for one month.
“They were telling us everything was going to be OK with this plant, that it would be on time and it would be on budget. It’s over budget and we are paying for that. That seems wrong to me.”
It’s very different to what the Coalition has been suggesting in media interviews and energy speeches since it launched its nuclear policy over three months ago.
At the nuclear policy launch in June, Mr Dutton said: “Electricity is cheaper where there is a presence of nuclear energy. That is a fact. So we can rely on that international experience.”
The Coalition often cites the Canadian province of Ontario as a model, saying its three nuclear plants contribute to much lower power bills than Australia. The plants are owned and subsidised by the provincial government…………….
Peter Bradford, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licences commercial reactors, told Four Corners building nuclear plants was always the most expensive option.
“It’s an unbroken string of economic disappointment,” he said.
“If nuclear power were a person, it would be weeping with its head in its hands over the Vogtle story. Vogtle is clear proof that large nuclear construction is not an economic way to go.”
………………………….Ted O’Brien said the Coalition’s policy has been shaped by the lessons learned by other countries.
“If you look at the Vogtle example, one of the lessons we need to learn in Australia is we should not be adopting first of a kind technology. We should only be adopting what’s referred to as next-of a kind proven technology.”
He said a Coalition government would spend two-and-a-half years studying the sites and consulting communities before an independent authority chooses the most appropriate reactor design.
The SMR conundrum
The other type of reactor the Coalition wants in its nuclear power arsenal has been promoted as a game changer for the industry…………………………
The Coalition wants SMRs operating in Australia from 2035. There’s just one problem.
They don’t exist yet, at least not commercially.
Billions of dollars are being spent to make them a reality. But so far, all attempts are years from completion or have already failed.
The only project that won approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission was abandoned last November because of rising costs, even after the US Department of Energy pledged more than $US500 million in grants.
Four Corners went to the latest place where there’s a concerted attempt to break this conundrum. It’s a sleepy coal town in south-west Wyoming called Kemmerer, with a population of nearly 3,000.
……Enter Bill Gates. In June the billionaire climate change activist came to town and turned a sod on his project to construct a working SMR, declaring: “This is a big step towards safe, abundant, zero carbon energy.”
He’s putting $US1 billion of his own money into trying to make it a success, with the federal government pledging another $US2 billion.
…………………………………………….. Fortunately for the project, the town administration welcomes the prospect of anything that might bring work.
“Essentially, the town was going to lose a couple of hundred jobs or more,” Mayor Bill Thek said.
“We’re hoping that the people that work for the power plant, the current coal burning power plant will be able to transition, or at least some of them, into the nuclear plant.”
For now, all that’s being constructed are the bits around the reactor, while the project waits for approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Project spokesman Jeff Navin said they still hoped to finish construction by 2030………..
SMRs face a challenge. They’re small, producing far less power. Any power they produce would therefore be more expensive, unless the modules can be mass produced to make them cheaper to construct to offset the generation cost.
But nobody is going to mass produce anything until there is a working model that promises to produce power economically that attracts lots of eager customers. Which takes you back to square one.
Peter Bradford has seen promised breakthroughs like SMRs come and go.
“In this industry, vendor claims about cheaper nuclear costs have a long, well-documented and very sad history — they just don’t come true.
“There is no basis for believing that this utterly unproven technology is going to sweep in and make a success of a field that up to now has been an unmitigated economic failure.”
Even in the Gates-backed project’s most optimistic scenario, it’s unlikely SMRs would be mass produced to bring down costs before Australia plans to install them.
When asked about this, Ted O’Brien did not appear fazed…………..
Getting it done
The uncertainty around SMRs, and the cost blowout in Georgia, point to the practical difficulties Australia would face in trying to build reactors cheaper than countries with decades of experience, when we’ve never built a nuclear energy plant before.
The US is not the only nuclear country struggling to build new plants.
- France’s latest reactor opened 12 years behind schedule and around 10 billion euros over budget.
- Britain’s Hinkley Point plant is running six years late and facing a 20 billion British pound overrun.
- A South Korean consortium was able to build four reactors in the United Arab Emirates over 12 years. Even under an authoritarian regime, each reactor was connected to the grid around three years later than expected.
US journalist and nuclear historian Stephanie Cooke has been covering the industry since 1980.
“I have never seen a project come in on time or budget. They’ve come in way, way over budget and way over time. It amazes me that there’s so much hype about something that’s been such an abject failure in my opinion.
“I mean, yeah, it’s produced electricity, but at what cost? I don’t think that we should be wasting our money on it plain and simple.”
……………………………………………. The finer points of how the Coalition plans to overcome the challenges it will confront are still unclear.
It’s yet to reveal how much its plan will cost or how it will overturn federal state bans on nuclear energy.
It says SMR plants could be operating by 2035, or 2037 if it starts with larger reactors. But the timing beyond that is unclear…………………. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-07/nuclear-power-us-coalition-energy-policy-australia-four-corners/104432870
Finally Free, Assange Receives a Measure of Justice From the Council of Europe
In the U.S., “the concept of state secrets is used to shield executive officials from criminal prosecution for crimes such as kidnapping and torture, or to prevent victims from claiming damages,” the resolution notes. But “the responsibility of State agents for war crimes or serious human rights violations, such as assassinations, enforced disappearances, torture or abductions, does not constitute a secret that must be protected.”
In his first public statement since his release, Assange said, “I’m free today … because I pled guilty to journalism.”
By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout, October 4, 2024
he Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Europe’s foremost human rights body, overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on October 2 formally declaring WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a political prisoner. The Council of Europe, which represents 64 nations, expressed deep concern at the harsh treatment suffered by Assange, which has had a “chilling effect” on journalists and whistleblowers around the world.
In the resolution, PACE notes that many of the leaked files WikiLeaks published “provide credible evidence of war crimes, human rights abuses, and government misconduct.” The revelations also “confirmed the existence of secret prisons, kidnappings and illegal transfers of prisoners by the United States on European soil.”
According to the terms of a plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, Assange pled guilty on June 25 to one count of conspiracy to obtain documents, writings and notes connected with the national defense under the U.S. Espionage Act. Without the deal, he was facing 175 years in prison for 18 charges in an indictment filed by the Trump administration and pursued by the Biden administration, stemming from WikiLeaks’ publication of evidence of war crimes committed by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. After his plea, Assange was released from custody with credit for the five years he had spent in London’s maximum-security Belmarsh Prison.
The day before PACE passed its resolution, Assange delivered a powerful testimony to the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. This was his first public statement since his release from custody four months ago, after 14 years in confinement – nine in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and five in Belmarsh. “Freedom of expression and all that flows from it is at a dark crossroads,” Assange told the parliamentarians.
A “Chilling Effect and a Climate of Self-Censorship”
The resolution says that “the disproportionately harsh charges” the U.S. filed against Assange under the Espionage Act, “which expose him to a risk of de facto life imprisonment,” together with his conviction “for — what was essentially — the gathering and publication of information,” justify classifying him as a political prisoner, under the definition set forth in a PACE resolution from 2012 defining the term. Assange’s five-year incarceration in Belmarsh Prison was “disproportionate to the alleged offence.”
Noting that Assange is “the first publisher to be prosecuted under [the Espionage Act] for leaking classified information obtained from a whistleblower,” the resolution expresses concern about the “chilling effect and a climate of self-censorship for all journalists, editors and others who raise the alarm on issues that are essential to the functioning of democratic societies.” The resolution also notes that “information gathering is an essential preparatory step in journalism” which is protected by the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights.
The resolution cites the conclusion of Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, that Assange had been exposed to “increasingly severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.”
Condemning “transnational repression,” PACE was “alarmed by reports that the CIA was discreetly monitoring Mr. Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and that it was allegedly planning to poison or even assassinate him on British soil.” The CIA has raised the “state secrets” privilege in a civil lawsuit filed by two attorneys and two journalists over that illegal surveillance.
In the U.S., “the concept of state secrets is used to shield executive officials from criminal prosecution for crimes such as kidnapping and torture, or to prevent victims from claiming damages,” the resolution notes. But “the responsibility of State agents for war crimes or serious human rights violations, such as assassinations, enforced disappearances, torture or abductions, does not constitute a secret that must be protected.”
Moreover, the resolution expresses deep concern that, according to publicly available evidence, no one has been held to account for the war crimes and human rights violations committed by U.S. state agents and decries the “culture of impunity.”
The resolution says there is no evidence anyone has been harmed by WikiLeaks’ publications and “regrets that despite Mr Assange’s disclosure of thousands of confirmed — previously unreported — deaths by U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been the one accused of endangering lives.”
Assange’s Testimony
The testimony Assange provided to the committee was poignant. “I eventually chose freedom over realizable justice … Justice for me is now precluded,” Assange testified. “I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today after years of incarceration because I pled guilty to journalism.” He added, “I pled guilty to seeking information from a source. I pled guilty to obtaining information from a source. And I pled guilty to informing the public what that information was.” His source was whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who provided the documents and reports to WikiLeaks. “Journalism is not a crime,” Assange said. “It is a pillar of a free and informed society.”………………………………………………………………………………
PACE Urges US to Investigate War Crimes
The resolution calls on the U.S., the U.K., the member and observer States of the Council of Europe, and media outlets to take actions to address its concerns.
It calls on the U.S., an observer State, to reform the Espionage Act of 1917 to exclude from its operation journalists, editors and whistleblowers who disclose classified information with the aim of informing the public of serious crimes, such as torture or murder. In order to obtain a conviction for violation of the Act, the government should be required to prove a malicious intent to harm national security. It also calls on the U.S. to investigate the allegations of war crimes and other human rights violations exposed by Assange and Wikileaks.
PACE called on the U.K. to review its extradition laws to exclude extradition for political offenses, as well as conduct an independent review of the conditions of Assange’s treatment while at Belmarsh, to see if it constituted torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment.
In addition, the resolution urges the States of the Council of Europe to further improve their protections for whistleblowers, and to adopt strict guidelines to prevent governments from classifying documents as defense secrets when not warranted.
Finally, the resolution urges media outlets to establish rigorous protocols for handling and verifying classified information, to ensure responsible reporting and avoid any risk to national security and the safety of informants and sources.
Although PACE doesn’t have the authority to make laws, it can urge the States of the Council of Europe to take action. Since Assange never had the opportunity to litigate the denial of his right to freedom of expression, the resolution of the Council of Europe is particularly significant as he seeks a pardon from U.S. President Joe Biden. https://truthout.org/articles/finally-free-assange-receives-a-measure-of-justice-from-the-council-of-europe/
Dutton at odds with Queensland LNP over nuclear plans
Federal Liberal leader joined the state’s election campaign on Friday as David Crisafulli reiterated his objection to nuclear sites at Tarong and Callide
Andrew Messenger, Fri 4 Oct 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/04/queensland-election-liberal-national-party-nuclear-plan-peter-dutton?fbclid=IwY2xjawFsifVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHatRzSolvCpDyme9yMGAFlBbI6wl6H_xHENLi2ILNvm4yPKbJbAux77dWQ_aem_EASDYfMnhAhutdbQArg8oA
The federal opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has dismissed the Queensland LNP’s rejection of his nuclear power plan as just a “difference of opinion” between friends as he joined the state’s election campaign on Friday.
At their first joint press conference since the controversial plan was announced, Queensland LNP leader David Crisafulli reiterated his defiance of Dutton’s plan for two nuclear plants in Queensland. Crisafulli said he would oppose them if elected at the 26 October poll.
It was their first joint appearance since June, when the federal leader announced plans for seven nuclear sites across Australia.
“Friends can have differences of opinion, that’s healthy,” Crisafulli said. Dutton agreed.
Dutton said he would have a “respectful” conversation with Crisafulli if he was elected.
“We can have that conversation,” Dutton said.
“The first step is to get David elected as premier. When the prime minister stops running scared, he’ll hold an election, and I intend to be prime minister after the next election, and we can have that conversation.
“In the end, we want the same thing, and that is cheaper electricity for Queenslanders.”
Crisafulli said he would not change his mind.
He has repeatedly ruled out repealing the state’s nuclear ban under any circumstances.
Dutton has previously suggested overriding state legislation.
“Commonwealth laws override state laws even to the level of the inconsistency. So support or opposition at a state level won’t stop us rolling out our new energy system,” he said in June.
Labor has repeatedly accused Crisafulli of secretly supporting the nuclear plan.
“He’ll have to roll over when it comes to nuclear power, because his entire state party, all of those state LNP MPs in the federal party, all of those state LNP senators in the federal Senate and all of his grassroots members, they want nuclear power, and he’ll have to roll over,” the deputy premier, Cameron Dick, said.
The LNP is widely tipped to win the election.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is yet to appear alongside the premier, Steven Miles, on the campaign trail.
The associate director of research at the ANU’s initiative on zero carbon energy for the Asia Pacific Institute, Emma Aisbett, said having major policy differences between federal and state governments raised investment risk.
“It means that investors in energy will face higher policy uncertainty, which is also known as political risk,” she said. “It has a particularly strong depressing effect on investment for long-lived assets, which have high upfront costs, and both nuclear and renewables, either PV or wind, really fit into that category.”
She said having a dispute between governments could bring back the “energy wars”.
“What that does is slow and delay the net zero transition, and we do not have decades more to waste, slowing and delaying the transition away from fossil based energy.”
after newsletter promotion
“He’ll have to roll over when it comes to nuclear power, because his entire state party, all of those state LNP MPs in the federal party, all of those state LNP senators in the federal Senate and all of his grassroots members, they want nuclear power, and he’ll have to roll over,” the deputy premier, Cameron Dick, said.
The LNP is widely tipped to win the election.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is yet to appear alongside the premier, Steven Miles, on the campaign trail.
The associate director of research at the ANU’s initiative on zero carbon energy for the Asia Pacific Institute, Emma Aisbett, said having major policy differences between federal and state governments raised investment risk.
“It means that investors in energy will face higher policy uncertainty, which is also known as political risk,” she said.
“It has a particularly strong depressing effect on investment for long-lived assets, which have high upfront costs, and both nuclear and renewables, either PV or wind, really fit into that category.”
She said having a dispute between governments could bring back the “energy wars”.
“What that does is slow and delay the net zero transition, and we do not have decades more to waste, slowing and delaying the transition away from fossil based energy.”
If Peter Dutton has a better understanding of the cost of building nuclear, then let’s see it
Johanna Bowyer & Tristan Edis, l Oct 4, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/if-peter-dutton-has-a-better-understanding-of-the-cost-of-building-nuclear-then-lets-see-it/
Two weeks ago, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis released a report analysing how much electricity prices and Australian household energy bills would need to rise to make nuclear power plants financially viable.
The report found that household energy bills across the four states analysed would rise by an average of $665 a year relative to existing prices.
Federal opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien claimed the report’s analysis was based on a “cherry-picked” sample of nuclear power projects. Opposition treasury spokesperson Angus Taylor described the analysis as “nonsense.”
The leader of the opposition Peter Dutton had the opportunity to provide a detailed response to our research in a speech he gave on nuclear power several days later. Yet his speech contained no alternative economic analysis or costing to support the opposition’s claims our research is incorrect.
Our analysis was informed by the actual construction costs of all nuclear power projects that have been committed to construction in the past 20 years across the European Union and North America.
In addition, we also considered two projects that had reached the tender contract pricing stage. A sample of six projects may appear small but the lack of a significant number of projects committed to construction is a warning bell in itself.
The limit of 20 years was chosen because projects from any earlier would have employed reactor technologies that lacked critical safety features now deemed essential by EU and US regulators.
The EU and North America were chosen for the following reasons:
– Those regions have relatively similar labour market conditions to Australia, particularly wages and rights to collectively bargain and strike;
– Similar systems of government – liberal democracies with a free press;
– The reactor technologies they certify as safe are likely to be the only technologies Australia will be willing to adopt, and;
– Regulatory structures that ensure transparent and reliable cost data such as investor disclosure or competition law requirements.
It is important to note that within our sample, we included the agreed price Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company has bid to build two reactors in Dukovany in Czechia.
History suggests that a tender bid price is highly likely to be an underestimate of the actual construction cost of a nuclear reactor. Nonetheless, we included this project in the study as the Korean APR reactor technology is mentioned as an option in the Coalition’s nuclear policy statements.
Our report explains in further detail that Korea’s experience in building reactors in its own country is highly unlikely to be replicable in Australia. This is because the scale of their nuclear reactor build program is vastly larger than the Coalition’s plans.
Instead, the Dukovany project is a better representation of the costs the Koreans might be able to achieve outside their home base, in a developed, democratic nation.
O’Brien also cited the exclusion Japanese projects from our sample. The only two projects to have been committed to construction in Japan in the past 20 years were halted by regulatory authorities due to safety concerns. We would also note that investigations following the Fukushima Reactor explosion in 2011 uncovered serious problems with the rigour and independence of Japan’s nuclear regulatory safety regime.
The fact that the Japanese regulator had a tendency to overlook or ignore safety issues puts into serious question the applicability of Japanese nuclear construction experience as one Australia would wish to replicate.
It is more than decade since the Fukushima accident prompted the suspension of Japan’s reactor operations pending safety reviews. Since that safety review, only 12 reactors have restarted operations, with 21 units remaining mothballed and a further 21 reactors decommissioned.
China, Russia and the Middle East are often cited by nuclear power lobbyists as better representing reactor construction costs than the EU or North America. However, conditions in these markets vary significantly from Australia, such as:
– Vastly lower wages for construction workers;
– Outlawing of collective bargaining and strikes;
– Severe penalties including jail terms for people peacefully protesting or publicly criticising government authorities;
– The use of nuclear reactor technologies not certified as safe by EU or North American nuclear regulatory authorities, and;
– Reliance on Russian suppliers that are subject to trade sanctions in Australia.
Our research is detailed and extensively referenced, with the methods laid out transparently for others to review. If the federal Coalition has a better understanding of the cost of a nuclear build in Australia than the real-world experience of the EU and North America, we look forward to seeing their analysis.
In the absence of that, expect household power bills to rise by about $665 a year if and when nuclear power plants are built in Australia.
Johanna Bowyer is the Lead Analyst in the Australian Electricity Program at the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Tristan Edis is Director of Analysis and Advisory at Green Energy Markets. They are co-authors of the report, Nuclear in Australia would increase household power bills.
Australia’s mining lobby is running a pro-nuclear campaign using Liberal Party-linked ad firm
Topham Guerin, best known for its role in helping global conservative political campaigns and a number of other controversial clients, has been enlisted to promote nuclear energy in Australia.
Crikey, Cam Wilson, Oct 03, 2024
Australia’s mining industry has launched a pro-nuclear influence campaign powered by the digital advertising firm credited for its role in Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson’s surprise election victories.
At the end of August, the Get Clear on Nuclear campaign kicked off with the creation of social media posts and advertisements run on platforms on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube; as well as its own website.
The campaign, which urges “Australia to rethink nuclear as part of our sustainable future”, is only identified on its website as being backed by the Mineral Councils of Australia at the bottom of its terms and conditions page.
Get Clear on Nuclear’s social media accounts feature a political authorisation mentioning the council, too. (Although its social media advertisements on Meta’s platforms have not been tagged as content about social, political or election issues, limiting the amount of information that be seen about them).
A review of the website’s registration reveals the involvement of Topham Guerin, a New Zealand-founded advertising agency best known for its involvement with Australia’s Liberal Party and the UK’s Conservative Party’s election victories in 2019.
The website itself is registered to Topham Guerin Pty Ltd and its registrant is the firm’s global tech director Andrew Macfarlane…………………….
The firm has attracted controversy for its reported involvement in running a “large-scale professional disinformation network on behalf of paying clients including major polluters, the Saudi Arabian government, anti-cycling groups and various foreign political campaigns”, as well as its efforts to pay influencers to attack a critic of one of its clients, Palantir.
While playing down its links to conservative politics, the firm has promoted its ability to shift elections through social media strategy. In 2019, Guerin spoke about how its harnessing of “boomer memes” helped Morrison’s come-from-behind victory over Bill Shorten.
This meme-savviness can be seen in its content for the Mineral Council of Australia campaign. Its TikTok account posts videos of parodies of the popular video game Fortnite and faked text messages purportedly sent to the account’s “girlfriend”, all promoting nuclear energy.
Minerals Council of Australia CEO Tania Constable did not answer Crikey’s questions, instead giving a general statement about the campaign.
“This campaign, entirely apolitical, is about educating and informing Australians about the unique benefits and advantages of nuclear energy, dispelling myths and misconceptions that are being used to denigrate an energy source that the developed world has long embraced,” she said.
Topham Guerin did not respond to a request for comment. https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/10/03/minerals-council-nuclear-campaign-scott-morrison/
Big Super is still investing in nuclear weapons: report
| Quit Nukes / The Australia Institute, 1 October 24 https://theaimn.com/big-super-is-still-investing-in-nuclear-weapons-report/ |
A new report has found that despite claiming not to invest in ‘controversial weapons’ 13 of the top 14 Australian super funds are still investing in nuclear weapons companies, in some cases even in an option described as ‘responsible’.
One of the 14, Hostplus, has excluded nuclear weapons companies across its portfolio since December 2021.
At least $3.4 billion of Australian retirement savings are invested by these funds in companies involved in making nuclear weapons, according to the new research conducted by Quit Nukes in collaboration with The Australia Institute.
The report analyses financial returns and finds that the exclusion of nuclear weapon companies from portfolios has an immaterial impact on returns.
Rosemary Kelly, Director, Quit Nukes:
“It’s frankly unconscionable to sell super fund members a responsible investment option and then use their money to invest in nuclear proliferation.
“The thing that makes this baffling is that investing in nuclear weapon companies is just completely unnecessary in the broader scheme of things..
“Superannuation funds should divest immediately from weapons manufacturers who produce nuclear weapons. If you’re a member of 13 of these 14 leading funds you can request that your fund divest or threaten to take your savings elsewhere.
“Super funds are being sneaky by boasting of policies to exclude “controversial weapons” but not counting nuclear weapons as “controversial.” That’s pretty hard to swallow when you consider that most ESG advisers now consider nuclear weapons as controversial weapons, given the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that came into force in 2021.
Alice Grundy, Research Manager, The Australia Institute
“The most frustrating thing about the lack of process in this area is that excluding nuclear weapon companies from super portfolios is so easy. Divesting has an immaterial impact on investment returns.
“Your super fund could divest your money from nuclear weapon companies without materially impacting your returns.
“So long as nuclear weapons exist, nuclear war is an ever-present risk. Its impacts would be catastrophic. Even a limited nuclear war, involving say 250 of the over 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world, would kill 120 million people outright and cause nuclear famine, putting 2 billion lives at risk. There would be massive impacts on global supply chains and manufacturing.
“The long-term financial implications should be factored into decisions about where to invest Australian super.”
The full report Media contacts: Anil Lambert 0416 426 722
South Australia sets spectacular new records for wind, solar and negative demand
Giles Parkinson, Sep 30, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-sets-spectacular-new-records-for-wind-solar-and-negative-demand/
Records continue to tumble across Australia’s main grids as the spring weather boosts the output of wind and solar and mild weather moderates demand, but none are as spectacular as those being set in South Australia.
The state’s unique end-of-the-line grid already leads the country, and arguably the globe, in the integration of variable wind and solar, with an average of more than 70 per cent of its demand over the last year and a world-first target of 100 per cent net renewables by 2027.
On Sunday, at 9.35 am, the state set a new milestone, setting a new record share of wind and solar (as a percentage of state electricity demand) of 150.7 per cent, beating a record set on Christmas Day last year, when – for obvious reasons – there was little electricity demand.
As Geoff Eldridge, from GPE NEMLog, notes, this means that the rooftop PV, along with large scale wind and solar farms, were generating 50.7 per cent more power than the state’s total electricity demand at the time.
The scale of excess output was further crystallised later in the day with a new minimum record for instantaneous residual demand, which hit minus 927 megawatts at 12.35pm.
Eldridge says residual demand is what’s left for other generators to supply after wind and solar have met a share of the demand. A negative residual demand means wind and solar were producing more electricity than SA needed, resulting in excess renewable generation which can be managed by exporting and battery charging. The remainder is curtailed.
Of the surplus 927 MW, the state was exporting 685 MW to Victoria, while another 163 MW was being soaked up by the state’s growing fleet of battery storage projects, and 730 MW of output was curtailed. Prices at the time were minus $47/MWh, a good opportunity for batteries to charge.
A further 84 MW was being produced by a couple of gas generators – not because their power output was needed, but because the state, at least for the moment, relies on them for essential grid services such as system strength and fault current.
That will be reduced considerably when the new link to NSW is completed in a few years, and it will allow the state to both export more, and import more when needs be.
“Balancing the system with such high renewable penetration is challenging but necessary as the energy transition progresses,” Eldridge says. “Managing excess generation through exports, storage, and curtailment is critical to keeping the grid stable and efficient.”
It wasn’t the only record to fall over the weekend. In Queensland, the country’s most coal dependent state in terms of annual share of demand and generation, large scale solar hit a record share of 34 per cent, and coal output – in megawatt terms – hit a record low of 2,882 MW.
The Queensland coal fleet capacity is more than 8,000 MW, so that is about as low as it can run until more units are closed down.
In Victoria on Saturday, just before the AFL grand final, rooftop solar also hit a new record output of 3,164 MW – although it did not push operational demand down low enough for the market operator to enact Minimum System Load protocols and possibly switch off some rooftop solar panels to maintain grid stability.
It had flagged a potential MSL event on Friday but cancelled it in the morning. Those events will likely occur at other times in spring and over the summer holidays, although the market operator is now working on new rules for big batteries to avoid a potentially unpopular and unwieldy solar switch off.
‘Cheaper with nuclear’: What will Dutton’s nuclear plan really cost?
The Age, Mike Foley, September 27, 2024
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is refusing to release the costings of his nuclear energy policy, despite claiming a national fleet of reactors would slash power bills.
But enough work has been done by independent agencies to give us some idea of the potential price tag.
What Dutton said
“We can have cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy if we adopt nuclear power,” Dutton said last week, adding that nuclear plants did not require the thousands of kilometres of transmission lines that link renewables to the grid, and took up less space than wind and solar farms.
A Coalition government would build seven nuclear plants on the sites of existing coal plants, including two small modular reactors and five large-scale plants, and plans to have the first operating by 2037.
Dutton says residents of Ontario, Canada enjoy cheaper power prices – 18¢ a kilowatt-hour (kWh) – courtesy of the province’s eight nuclear reactors generating about 60 per cent of the electricity supply.
He told Nine’s Today program on September 20 that Ontarians were “paying one-third the cost of electricity that we are here”. In July, he said they were “paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia”.
These claims are overstated.
Power prices
Victoria pays about 28¢ a kWh, NSW 33¢ and Queensland 30¢. So rather than prices being three to four times higher, they are a bit less than twice the 18¢ figure. South Australians pay more than the other states at 45¢, but still less than Dutton’s claim.
However, this comparison is questionable because Australian prices include a range of costs that Ontarians must pay on top of their kWh charge. Network charges – the cost of building, running and maintaining power poles and wires across the grid – are listed separately on Ontario’s bills and can run into hundreds of dollars a year.
Construction costs
The CSIRO’s latest energy cost report card estimated a large-scale nuclear reactor in Australia would cost $16 billion, based on the low-cost construction of plants in South Korea, and take nearly two decades to build. It calculated that cost could fall to about $8 billion per reactor as efficiencies of scale were achieved after at least five and possibly 10 reactors were built.
Britain’s Hinkley Point C plant, which was announced in 2007 with an estimated $18 billion price tag, is set to be completed 13 years late at a cost of $90 billion.
If a Dutton government built reactors in Australia, that cost would have to be repaid, which could come via consumers’ electricity bills……………………………………………………………. more https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/cheaper-with-nuclear-what-will-dutton-s-nuclear-plan-really-cost-20240920-p5kc8z.html
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 