AustralianSuper ESG option invested in nuclear weapons: report.
Hannah Wootton, 1 Oct 24 https://www.afr.com/wealth/superannuation/australiansuper-esg-option-invested-in-nuclear-weapons-report-20240926-p5kdpp .
Australia’s 14 biggest superannuation funds are investing about $3.4 billion of workers’ retirement savings in nuclear weapons despite many promising to avoid controversial arms, new research shows.
Industry fund gorilla AustralianSuper alone had $1.5 billion in nuclear weapons companies, while UniSuper, Aware Super and HESTA invested more than $200 million each.
Hostplus was the only major fund on the Australian market to exclude nuclear weapons, according to the study by Quit Nukes and the Australia Institute.
It comes as members ramp up engagement with super funds over concerns about unethical or environmental investments and regulators crack down on companies making false promises to consumers about their social good.
It also follows Treasurer Jim Chalmers saying there was an opportunity for super funds to “think more strategically” about how institutional capital flows into the defence industry as part of his push last year to tap $3.9 trillion for nation building investments, which funds and experts pushed back on.
Looking at funds’ default MySuper options, which account for the bulk of their members and funds under management, the report found Aware Super was the most exposed to nuclear weapons.
About 0.91 per cent of its total funds in the option were in nuclear weapons, outstripping AustralianSuper with 0.7 per cent and UniSuper and HESTA with just under 0.5 per cent.
Nuclear weapons ‘excluded’
Quit Nukes director and report co-author Rosemary Kelly said if funds wanted to keep pace with international law, global investment norms and members’ expectations and make the best risk-adjusted financial decisions, they would exclude atomic weapons.
“Super funds are being sneaky by boasting of policies to exclude ‘controversial weapons’ but not counting nuclear weapons as ‘controversial’,” she said.
“That’s pretty hard to swallow when you consider that the United Nations now considers nuclear weapons as controversial weapons.”
The report was based on portfolio holdings at December 31, 2023, and termed nuclear weapons companies as those which have a meaningful stake in the manufacture, maintenance, detonation or development of nuclear warheads and missiles or components exclusively used in them.
AustralianSuper and Spirit Super’s ESG options invested in them to the tune of $20.1 million and $400,000 respectively, despite targeting ethical investors and promising to exclude controversial (but not nuclear) weapons.
“That was a big surprise and it’s unacceptable. People read the headlines of funds’ websites and don’t have the tools to drill down into what’s actually happening – so if a fund says it excludes controversial weapons, a normal punter would think that includes nuclear,” Dr Kelly said.
Only Hostplus excluded nuclear weapons from its MySuper offering, while nine more funds ruled out controversial weapons but not atomic ones. AustralianSuper, Brighter Super, UniSuper and Care Super did not exclude any arms.
Financial sting
Dr Kelly, who is a former Aware Super director and headed its investment committee, said super funds needed to take the long-term economic implications of nuclear war seriously given their legal obligation to always act in the best financial interests of members.
“Any nuclear war, started intentionally or by accident, will be disastrous for global financial markets. This is clearly not in anyone’s best financial interest,” she said.
Even a “limited nuclear war”, which some conflict strategists view as a tactical alternative to full nuclear war should deterrence ever be deemed necessary, involving just 250 of the 12,000-plus atomic weapons in the world would kill 120 million people outright.
It would then risk a further 2 billion lives through a nuclear famine and have significant consequences for global supply chains and manufacturing.
Modelling included in the report showed there was no meaningful change in super fund returns when nuclear weapon companies were excluded from portfolios compared to when they were included.
An Aware Super spokeswoman said the fund’s investments in nuclear were only in companies where the weapons component was “a very small part of their overall business”, and its controversial weapons policy more broadly was under review.
A HESTA spokesman said only a small portion, 0.15 per cent, of the fund’s total assets were in nuclear weapons and that Quit Nukes’ data was outdated.
But the report acknowledged the fund had reduced its holdings since the data collection and sold out of four of the five companies it had previously held in breach of its own commitment to exclude companies earning more than 5 per cent of revenue from nuclear weapons.
An AustralianSuper spokesman said the fund’s members had “diverse values, preferences and attitudes when it comes to investing”, with any exclusions and screens communicated to them on its website.
Spirit Super planned to review its ESG and nuclear weapons positions after its current merger with Care Super completed.
Indonesia, Solomon Islands join countries banning nuclear weapons, putting Australia at odds with neighbours
ABC, By Lachlan Bennett and Erwin Renaldi, 29 Sept 24.
Indonesia, a country of 275 million and one of Australia’s closest neighbours, is stepping up efforts to enforce a global ban on nuclear weapons.
This week, it officially joined the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons — confirming its ratification of the pact along with Solomon Islands and Sierra Leone.
Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement it would put “moral and political pressure on nuclear weapon states to stop their development”.
The treaty, which came into force in 2021, now boasts almost 100 signatories.
But it has thus far failed to secure Australia or the big nuclear powers: China, the US, Russia, India, the UK and France.
Amid rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific, many smaller nations want the bomb banned before it’s too late.
Why hasn’t Australia signed the new prohibition treaty?
Australia has a long history of supporting anti-nuclear weapons initiatives.
This includes helping to establish the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the 2010 Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative.
Most importantly, Australia’s efforts are underpinned by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons — which it signed in 1970.
That treaty has 191 signatories, more than any other arms disarmament agreement in history, and has overseen a decline in global stockpiles and countries including South Africa and Ukraine agreeing to relinquish their arsenals.
But international relations lecturer Muhadi Sugiono, from Gadjah Mada University in Indonesia, said non-proliferation alone had failed to force nuclear powers to abandon their weapons programs.
“It is impossible, in fact, to expect the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty will achieve this goal,” he said.
“There is no legal framework which demands them to do so.”………………………………………………………………………
Is Australia really serious about banning nukes?
Despite Australia’s strong anti-nuclear activities, its alliance and reliance on nuclear superpower the US has raised eyebrows among advocates.
Dr Sugiono said Indonesian authorities recognised Australia’s “very, very strong” opposition to nuclear proliferation.
“But at the same time, the position is very ambiguous because Australia is very close to the US,” he said.
These concerns were brought into focus during a Senate hearing in 2023, when the Defence Department was grilled about Australia’s commitment to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.
That treaty prohibits the stationing of nuclear explosives on Australian territory.
However, the United States’ policy of “neither confirming or denying” the presence of its weapons raised suspicions about what might be onboard visiting US aircraft…………………………………………………..
University of Sydney international relations professor Justin Hastings said that explains why most signatories of the new prohibition treaty were “non-aligned states” — in other words, countries that are neither allied with Western powers or their strategic rivals like China and Russia.
“Australia and many other countries want to have their cake and eat it too,” he said.
“They don’t have nuclear weapons, but they do want to benefit from the extended deterrence that comes from other countries having nuclear weapons.”
What does AUKUS have to do with it?
The optics were further clouded by the signing of the AUKUS defence pact with the US and UK, even though it will bring nuclear-powered submarines and not nuclear weapons to Australian shores.
The Indonesian government said it was blindsided by the announcement, forcing Australian diplomats to rush to calm the anxieties in South-East Asia and emphasise that Australia has no desire to obtain nuclear weapons.
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons coordinator Tim Wright said signing the prohibition treaty would help Australia allay the concerns of its Pacific neighbours and “create additional guardrails against nuclear weapons”.
And Australia wouldn’t have to end its alliance with the US, given other allies like the Philippines have already signed.
“There would clearly be issues that arise in relation to the alliance that would need to be dealt with,” Mr Wright said.
“But there are precedents that we can point to that suggests that this wouldn’t spell an end to the alliance, as some people have feared.”
Why is there a new treaty, when we’ve already got one?
The prohibition treaty is designed to work in conjunction with existing non-proliferation agreements and fill a “legal gap” to ensure nuclear nations eliminate their weapons……………………………………………………
The new treaty also contains provisions to people and places impacted by nuclear testing, such as the Pacific, which saw hundreds of bombs denoted over several decades.
“It’s not just a treaty about disarmament, it’s also a treaty for nuclear justice,” Mr Wright said.
“There’s a real strong sense of regional solidarity in advancing disarmament, this understanding that people in the region have suffered.”
So what does this mean for Australia’s relations in the region?…………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-29/indonesia-ratifying-nuclear-pact-what-it-means-for-australia/104401610—
In the Woomera Manual, International Law Meets Military Space Activities
by David A. Koplow, September 12, 2024, https://www.justsecurity.org/100043/woomera-manual-international-law-military-space/
The law of outer space, like so much else about the exoatmospheric realm, is under stress. The prodigious growth in private-sector space activities (exemplified by SpaceX’s proliferating Starlink constellation, and other corporations following only shortly behind) is matched by an ominous surge in military space activities – most vividly, the creation of the U.S. Space Force and counterpart combat entities in rival States, the threat of Russia placing a nuclear weapon in orbit, and China and others continuing to experiment with anti-satellite weapons and potential techniques. The world is on the precipice of several new types of space races, as countries and companies bid for first-mover advantages in the highest of high ground.
The law of outer space, in contrast, is old, incomplete, and untested. A family of foundational treaties dating to the 1960s and 1970s retains vitality, but provides only partial guidance. Space is decidedly not a “law-free zone,” but many of the necessary guard rails are obscure, and few analysts or operators have ventured into this sector.
A new treatise, the Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and Operations, has just been published by Oxford University Press to provide the first comprehensive, detailed analysis of the existing legal regime of space. As one of the editors of the Manual, I can testify to the long, winding, and arduous – but fascinating – journey to produce it, and the hope that it will provide much-needed clarity and precision about this fast-moving legal domain.
Military Manuals
This Manual follows a grand tradition of prior efforts to articulate the applicable international military law in contested realms, including the 1994 San Remo Manual on Naval Warfare, Harvard’s 2013 Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research Manual on Air and Missile Warfare, and the 2013 and 2017 Tallinn Manuals on Cyber Operations. The Woomera Manual was produced by a diverse team of legal and technical experts drawn from academia, practice, government, and other sectors in several countries (all acting in their personal capacities, not as representatives of their home governments or organizations). The process consumed six years (slowed considerably by the Covid-19 pandemic, which arrested the sequence of face-to-face drafting sessions).
The Manual is co-sponsored by four universities, among other participants: the University of Nebraska College of Law (home of Professor Jack Beard, the editor-in-chief), the University of Adelaide (with Professor Dale Stephens on the editorial board), the University of New South Wales—Canberra, and the University of Exeter (U.K.) The name “Woomera” was chosen in recognition of the small town of Woomera, South Australia, which was the site of the country’s first space missions, and in acknowledgement of the Aboriginal word for a remarkable spear-throwing device that enables greater accuracy and distance.
Comprehensive Coverage of a Broad Field
Three features of the Woomera Manual stand out. The first is the comprehensive nature of the undertaking. The Manual presents 48 rules, spanning the three critical time frames: ordinary peace time, periods of tension and crisis, and during an armed conflict. There may be a natural tendency to focus on that last frame, given the high stakes and the inherent drama of warfare, but the editors were keen to address the full spectrum, devoting due attention and analysis to the background rules that apply both to quotidian military space activities and to everyone else in space.
Complicating the legal analysis is the fragmentation of the international legal regime. In addition to “general” international law – which article III of the Outer Space Treaty declares is fully applicable in space – two “special” areas of law are implicated here. One, the law of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) provides particularized jus in bello rules applicable between States engaged in war, including wars that begin in, or extend to, space. But the law of outer space is also recognized as another lex specialis, and it accordingly provides unique rules that supersede at least some aspects of the general international law regime. What should be done when two “special” areas of international law overlap and provide incompatible rules? The Woomera Manual is the first comprehensive effort to unravel that riddle.
The Law as It Is
A second defining characteristic of this Manual is the persistent, rigid focus on lex lata, the law as it currently is, rather than lex ferenda, the law as it may (or should) become. The authors, of course, each have their own policy preferences, and in their other works they freely opine about how the international space law regime should evolve (or be abruptly changed) to accommodate modern dangers and opportunities. But in this Manual, they have focused exclusively on describing the current legal structure, concentrating on treaties, customary international law, and other indicia of State practice. This is not the sort of manual in which the assembled experts “vote” on their competing concepts of the legal regime; instead, Woomera addresses what States (the sources and subjects of international law) say, do, and write. The authors have assembled a monumental library of State behaviors (including words as well as deeds, and silences as well as public pronouncements), while recognizing that diplomacy (and national security classification restrictions) often impede States explaining exactly why they did, or did not, act in a particular way in response to some other State’s provocations.
One feature that enormously facilitated the work on the Manual was a phase of “State engagement.” In early 2022, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense of the government of the Netherlands circulated a preliminary draft of the Woomera Manual to interested national governments and invited them to a June 2022 conference in The Hague to discuss it. Remarkably, two dozen of the States most active in space attended, providing two days of sustained, thoughtful, constructive commentary. The States were not asked to “approve” the document, but their input was enormously valuable (and resulted in an additional several months of painstaking work in finalizing the manuscript, as the editors scrambled to take into account the States’ voluminous comments and the new information they provided).
Space as a Dynamic Domain
Third, a manual on space law must acknowledge the rapidly-changing nature and scope of human activities in this environment, and the great likelihood that even more dramatic alterations are likely in the future. Existing patterns of behavior may alter abruptly, as new technologies and new economic opportunities emerge. The Manual attempts to peer into the future, addressing plausible scenarios that might foreseeably arise, but it resists the temptation to play with far-distant “Star Wars” fantasies.
The unfortunate reality here is that although the early years of the Space Age were remarkably productive for space law, the process stultified shortly thereafter. Within only a decade after Sputnik’s first orbit, the world had negotiated and put into place the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which still provides the cardinal principles guiding space operations today. And within only another decade, three additional widely-accepted treaties were crafted: the 1968 astronaut Rescue Agreement, the 1971 Liability Convention, and the 1975 Registration Convention, as well as the 1979 Moon Convention (which has not attracted nearly the same level of global support and participation). But the articulation of additional necessary increments of international space law has been constipated since then – no new multilateral space-specific treaties have been implemented in the past four decades, and none is on the horizon today.
Sources and Shortcomings of International Space Law
The corpus of international space law is not obsolete, but it is under-developed. We have the essential principles and some of the specific corollaries, but we are lacking the detailed infrastructure that would completely flesh out all those general principles. Some important guidance may, however, be found in State practice, including the understudied negotiating history of the framework treaties for space law, particularly the Outer Space Treaty. The Manual provides important insights in this area, notably with respect to several ambiguous terms embedded in the treaties.
The authors of the Woomera Manual, therefore, were able to start their legal analysis with the framework treaties – unlike, for example, the authors of the Tallinn Manuals, covering international law applicable to cyber warfare, who had to begin without such a structured starting point. Still, the Woomera analysis confronted numerous lacunae, where the existing law and practice leave puzzling gaps. The persistent failure of the usual law-making institutions to craft additional increments of space arms control is all the more alarming as the United States, NATO, and others have declared space to be an operational or war-fighting domain.
Conclusion
It is hoped that the process of articulating the existing rules – and identifying the interstices between them – can provide useful day-to-day guidance for space law practitioners in government, academia, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and elsewhere. The prospect of arms races and armed conflict in space unfortunately appears to be growing, and clarity about the prevailing rules has never been more important. It is a fascinating, dynamic, and fraught field.
Marles, with all pretension, flogging a dead seahorse
By Paul Keating, Sep 28, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/marles-with-all-pretention-flogging-a-dead-seahorse/
Richard Marles and his mate, the US defence secretary, are beginning to wilt under the weight of sustained comment in Australia critical of the AUKUS arrangement.
Marles, unable to sustain a cogent argument himself, has his US friend propping him up in London to throw a 10,000-mile punch at me – and as usual, failing to materially respond to legitimate and particular criticisms made of the AUKUS arrangement.
The US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, claims AUKUS would not compromise Australia’s ability to decide its own sovereign defence issues, a claim made earlier by Richard Marles and the prime minister.
But this would only be true until the prime minister and Marles got their phone call from the president, seeking to mobilise Australian military assets – wherein, both would click their heels in alacrity and agreement. The rest of us would read about it in some self-serving media statement afterwards. As my colleague, Gareth Evans, recently put it, “it defies credibility that Washington will ever go ahead with the sale of Virginias to us in the absence of an understanding that they will join the US in any fight in which it chooses to engage anywhere in our region, particularly over Taiwan”.
In London, Marles claimed that the logic behind AUKUS matched my policy as prime minister, in committing to the Collins class submarine program. This is completely untrue.
The Collins class submarine, at 3,400 tonnes, was designed specifically for the defence of Australia – in the shallow waters off the Australian continental shelf.
The US Virginia class boats at 10,000 tonnes, are attack submarines designed to stay and stand on far away station, in this case, principally to wait and sink Chinese nuclear weapon submarines as they exit the Chinese coast.
At 10,000 tonnes, the Virginias are too large for the shallow waters of the Australian coast – their facility is not in the defence of Australia, rather, it is to use their distance and stand-off capability to sink Chinese submarines. They are attack-class boats.
When Marles wilfully says “AUKUS matches the Collins class logic” during the Keating government years, he knows that statement to be utterly untrue. Factually untrue. The Collins is and was a “defensive” submarine – designed to keep an enemy off the Australian coast. It was never designed to operate as far away as China or to sit and lie in wait for submarine conquests.
And as Evans also recently made clear, eight Virginia class boats delivered in the 2040s-50s would only ever see two submarines at sea at any one time. Yet Marles argues that just two boats of this kind in the vast oceans surrounding us, materially alters our defensive capability and the military judgment of an enemy. This is argument unbecoming of any defence minister.
As I said at the National Press Club two years ago, two submarines aimed at China would be akin to throwing toothpicks at a mountain. That remains the position.
The fact is, the Albanese Government, through this program and the ambitious basing of American military forces on Australian soil, is doing nothing other than abrogating Australia’s sovereign right to command its own continent and its military forces.
Marles says “there has been demonstrable support for AUKUS within the Labor Party”. This may be true at some factionally, highly-managed national conference — like the last one — but it is utterly untrue of the Labor Party’s membership at large – which he knows.
The membership abhors AUKUS and everything that smacks of national sublimation. It does not expect these policies from a Labor Government.
Memo to Dutton: It’s the final quarter, you’d better start kicking
David Crowe, Chief political correspondent, September 26, 2024
The game plan that turned Anthony Albanese from an opposition leader to a prime minister is known by a simple phrase he used for three years before he gained the top job. “I said that we had a plan: kick with the wind in the fourth quarter, outline our policies close to the election,” he said in the weeks after Labor took power.
Albanese tends not to use the phrase these days. No prime minister can tell voters they will only bother with big policies when the election comes. That is true even if it is a plain fact that Labor is working on new measures for the campaign ahead – and that changes to negative gearing may end up in the surprise package.
Peter Dutton, by contrast, lives the Albanese motto every single day. The opposition leader is holding back on every policy that would normally shape an Australian election: on the economy, the cost of living, housing and defence.
Even the glaring exception to that statement – his proposal for seven nuclear power stations – confirms the flimsiness of the Liberal policy platform. Dutton and his energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, are incredibly coy about how this policy might work. What would it cost? How long would it take? What replaces our ageing coal-fired power stations while we wait for nuclear?
“We will release our costings in due course – at a time of our choosing,” Dutton said in a speech to a business audience on Monday. Sure, it is common for opposition leaders to reveal their full costings shortly before the election. But they tend to put their big-picture policies on the agenda well before that final stage.
Dutton is running out of time. He is acting as if the last phase of this term of parliament is still months away. In fact, the final quarter is already upon us. It started last month, assuming the election is as late as May. And Dutton is yet to prove he can kick when it counts.
Liberals make a fair point about how to judge their policies: they may not have that many, but the ones they have are big and bold. This is absolutely true of the nuclear policy. No matter how many voters were alarmed at the Labor plans for negative gearing in 2019, the prospect of a nuclear accident may frighten a few more. It is a big idea and a huge political risk.
Dutton has leapt ahead of Albanese on a few fronts. He called in May last year for a ban on advertising sports betting during game broadcasts – an idea on which federal cabinet is yet to decide. He backed an age ban on social media earlier this year, months before Labor, thanks to early work by Coalition communications spokesman David Coleman…………………………………………………………………………..
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Dutton has the wind behind him in the opinion polls but looks reluctant to risk this good fortune by telling Australians what he would do with power. ……………………………………….
There is very little pressure on Dutton to move any faster because he has a disciplined frontbench and party room that waits for him to make the big calls on policy timing, as well as a supportive conservative media that tells him he is outsmarting Albanese at every turn. He avoids press conferences in Parliament House, so the press gallery gets relatively few opportunities to question him. He has a narrow list of preferred TV and radio spots. The media strategy spares him any exposure to long interviews that might test him on what he would do if he was running the country.
………………….. This is not proof that voters are buying what Dutton is selling, they say. After all, nobody is sure what he is selling just yet.
The Labor tacticians could be totally wrong, but the Liberals are certainly taking their time. If Dutton wants to kick with the wind in the final quarter, he will need to run a little faster. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/memo-to-dutton-it-s-the-final-quarter-you-d-better-start-kicking-20240926-p5kdn5.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawFi2ChleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeggdYlx-0-WJO5vDD_9NYYsmgvm4WRwBII811EpOipDFB_gAdNsefsDnA_aem_h6jj8XixlRUr13A9QS0T-Q
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.
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 