Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan still has no costings, and no grid connection: It’s a political hoax
ReNewEconomy, Giles Parkinson, Sep 23, 2024
Outside, in Martin Place, the voices were clear – unions and environmental groups holding placards and denouncing Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear “fantasy:” A combination of denial and delay they said: “Dutton wants gas, Dutton wants coal, nuclear is just a troll,” they chorused.
Inside the Fullerton Hotel, in the basement where Ballroom B is located, it was expected to be the moment for the nuclear true believers, but the numbers just weren’t there.
Unusually for a CEDA event, there was only a scattering of corporate table sponsors – ANZ, KPMG, and Clayton Utz – and most of the ballroom was partitioned off. Among the 160 attending, quite small for a CEDA event, there was the usual Dutton entourage, including energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, Warren Mundine, and a lot of media.
Bizarrely, many of the rest were from the clean energy industry, curious to know what they might be dealing with should the Coalition return to power next year. Did they like what they heard? Not really. Did they learn anything? No.
This was supposed to be Dutton’s occasion to spell out his nuclear power plan: “A nuclear powered Australia – could it work” was the title of the event. But we left little the wiser. The question about how many nuclear power plants, how much would they cost, when they would be built, and which technology, were not answered.
Instead, the event got a re-run of the Coalition’s renewable scare campaign. Dutton’s thesis is that wind and solar won’t work, even with storage and dispatchable back-up. Renewables, says Dutton, are dangerous and will lead to blackouts and the destruction of industry.
We’ve heard this before. It’s the common refrain of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. They’ve gone from attacking the climate science to ignoring it, and have focused their attacks on the technology solutions. The ones that threaten their legacy and vested interests.
The Coalition uses “baseload” as if it’s another word for “reliability”. It’s not, as AEMO boss Daniel Westerman explains in this week’s Energy Insiders podcast.
Dutton did at least concede that building nuclear power stations at the seven sites identified by the Coalition will cost a lot, even if he wouldn’t say how much, or how consumers are impacted. Somehow, he imagines, the cost will be amortised by their assumed 80 year timeline. Perhaps he hasn’t seen their maintenance and refurbishment bills.………………………….
We did learn a couple of new things. One was that Dutton admitted that Aukus – the controversial deal to sign up for half a dozen nuclear submarines at horrific cost and questionable use – was as much a Trojan horse for the nuclear debate as it is an allegory for his power plans…………………
There was indeed, an awful lot of fudging. Dutton pretends that his nuclear power plan can be rolled out without new transmission lines. But he’s kidding himself, and trying to fool the public.
Firstly, the seven sites he has targeted are already filling up with their owner’s own projects – mostly battery storage and renewables. There simply isn’t room on the grid…………….
There was indeed, an awful lot of fudging. Dutton pretends that his nuclear power plan can be rolled out without new transmission lines. But he’s kidding himself, and trying to fool the public.
Firstly, the seven sites he has targeted are already filling up with their owner’s own projects – mostly battery storage and renewables. There simply isn’t room on the grid.
Secondly, the sort of nuclear reactors Dutton is planning are nearly twice the size of most coal generators – which means – as a matter of course – that there has to be more infrastructure built to support them, in transmission lines, and back-up capacity in case of a trip or unexplained outage. That is grid management 101.
Thirdly, Dutton hasn’t explained what fills the gap as coal fired power plants exit the grid. Either he has to double, table, or even quadruple his nuclear power plans – at great cost and huge new transmission requirements, or he has to rely on renewables after all, and they will also require new transmission.
Fourthly, his complaints against new transmission is largely a furphy. AEMO’s Integrated System Plan – which is little changed for when it was produced for the Coalition government – doesn’t contemplate the 28,000 kms of new transmission as Dutton claims…………
Dutton did confirm that the Coalition’s plan was to extend the life of coal fired power stations as much as it could, and build a lot of new gas generators. Quite how he believes these investment will lower the price of power to consumers was not and has never been explained.
Like nuclear, they are the most expensive sources of power. He suggested they will all be government owned, which is inevitable as private finance won’t touch it, and Snowy Hydro is quite accustomed to projects that run well over time and budget. And that way, the true cost will already be hidden from homes and businesses……………………………….
He also confirmed he doesn’t understand batteries. They can’t store energy for more than four hours he said, which is news to the project developers of more than 3,000 megawatt hours of eight-hour batteries. Has he heard of demand management? Dutton refuses to see or admit the solutions that are right in front of him.
Meanwhile, the general public is being led a merry dance by folksy promises, a solution that sounds vaguely plausible, but in reality has no chance of delivering.
The protestors with the placards outside the hotel were closest to the truth: This is about denial and delay, the whole policy is an elaborate troll, a political hoax, and a refuge for the climate deniers and do-littles. Nothing more, nothing less. https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-plan-still-has-no-costings-and-no-grid-connection-its-a-political-hoax/—
Australian film-maker refused entry into India
Pearls and Irritations, By Sam Varghese, Sep 21, 2024
Australian film-maker David Bradbury has been refused entry into India, after flying into Chennai from Bangkok on 10 September with his two children, aiming to take a holiday.
Bradbury, an Oscar-nominated film-maker who is an anti-nuclear campaigner, said all three members of his family had valid visas issued by the Indian consulate in Canberra before they left Australia on 7 September.
He said he was denied entry because of a film he had made in India in 2012, about the protests against a nuclear power plant in Kudankulam, about two km away from the fishing hamlet of Idinthakarai in the southern district of Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu.
When Bradbury submitted his passport to immigration at Chennai, he was told that he would not be granted entry into the country.
His children were, however, allowed to enter the country.
“During the course of the rest of the day and into the night various immigration plainclothes police would come and interrogate me,” Bradbury said in a statement.
They asked him what he was doing in India, what he had done during his previous visit in 2012, who he knew in India and whom he had communicated with before coming to the country.
He was also asked to unlock his phone and give it to the authorities, something he refused to do……………………………….
Bradbury is now in Bangkok after being deported from India. He said he would be spending one more week in the Thai capital while his children visited places in India which he had intended them to visit.
While en route to India, he screened his latest documentary, Death is a lady, a tribute to Vietnam war cameraman and journalist, the legendary Neil Davis who was tragically killed in a 24-hour coup in Bangkok 39 years ago. The screening raised $407 for the children of Gaza.
“What had caused the cancellation of my Indian visa? Over the course of the afternoon and being interrogated by Indian Immigration plainclothes officers, I quickly concluded the Indian government had not forgiven me for making a film about the anti-nuclear protest by poor fisherfolk,” Bradbury said.
The nuclear plant in question was proposed in 1986 and an agreement to build it was signed between the then Soviet Union and India in 1988.
Due to continuing protests, the plant was delayed. The idea was revived in 2000, and construction began under the then Indian government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 2001.
The plant became operational in 2013 and a second 1000MW unit was commissioned in August 2016, through an agreement between Russian President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then Tamil Nadu chief minister late Jayalalitha Jayaram.
Kudankulam has the highest capacity of any nuclear plant in India, with 2000 MW currently installed and 2000 MW under construction. Once completed, it will have a capacity of 6000 MW. It is also the only nuclear plant in India that uses pressurised water reactors based on Russian technology. https://johnmenadue.com/australian-film-maker-refused-entry-into-india/
We don’t need nuclear power – the path to cheaper electricity is renewables
The Australia Institute, by Matt Saunders
The last thing Australia energy market needs is nuclear power. The data is clear – more renewables will lead to cheaper electricity.
Tomorrow the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, is discussing his plans to introduce nuclear power with anti-renewable energy commentator, Chris Uhlmann. No doubt we will hear the same claims about renewable energy causing electricity prices to be high and the need for nuclear power to keep prices down that both men have said in the past.
And just as was the case in the past, such claims will again be wrong.
The increased use of renewables in supplying electricity is not the cause of higher retail electricity prices – and it is clear that more renewables will lead to lower prices.
Research and data from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) and the CSIRO all make it abundantly clear that renewables are the cheapest form of electricity, and that the high cost of energy is driven by the cost of gas and coal produced electricity.
It is not surprising that people can be misled about the cause of electricity prices. Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM) is a complex market stretching to 1,925 pages of rules and regulations such that any explanation of price determination will be greatly simplified.
So let us set out the two key issues to understanding retail electricity prices:
1. The cost of generating electricity (the wholesale price) is a surprisingly small component of the many costs that contribute to household electricity prices.
2. The wholesale price is rarely determined by the costs of generating electricity from wind and solar. Wholesale prices are most often determined by other forms of power generation, mainly fossil fuel sources, that are more expensive than most renewable generation.
According to the ACCC the wholesale price makes up only 33% of retail electricity prices. The other components that make up the retail price of electricity include network costs (transmission and distribution), retail costs and margins, and environmental costs
If wholesale electricity prices were to double then retail prices would increase a maximum of only 33% per cent. According to earlier ACCC research about two thirds of the increase in electricity prices over the last ten years caused the increase in transmission costs.
Renewables Do NOT SET Wholesale prices
Perhaps the most confusing aspect of the NEM is how prices are set (so much so that websites like Wattclarity can devote themselves to disentangling what is going on!)………………………………………………………………………
the best way to reduce electricity prices is to:
- reduce demand for electricity through energy savings measures that reduces the periods when the wholesale price is set by expensive fossil-fuel generation such as gas.
- increase production of renewables – so that it can more regularly be the price setter in the system.
Despite what you might hear tomorrow, or from others, the key to lower energy prices is not nuclear, let alone more gas, but much, much more renewable energy. While the energy market continues to rely on gas and coal, Australians will continue to pay higher prices for their electricity, and if nuclear were ever to come into the system, the price would jump even higher. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/we-dont-need-nuclear-power-the-path-to-cheaper-electricity-is-renewables/
Why is Peter Dutton so frightened of nuclear detail?
September 23, 2024, by: The AIM Network, https://theaimn.com/why-is-peter-dutton-so-frightened-of-nuclear-detail/
Still missing from the Coalition’s nuclear fantasy – any plans on costs, reducing climate pollution or nuclear accidents
The public will have to keep waiting after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton failed to announce anticipated costings and other detail of the Liberal National Coalition’s nuclear proposal today.
Following Mr Dutton’s speech, Solutions for Climate Australia called on the Federal Liberal and National parties to step up and tell the public just how long, how expensive and how risky their pro-nuclear reactor policy is.
Solutions for Climate Australia senior campaigner Elly Baxter said:
“Today, Peter Dutton has again failed to give any detail on how he plans to establish nuclear reactors in Australia. Mr Dutton seems to be bug-out frightened to put forward any detail – what’s he got to hide?
“Australia’s coal plants are old and falling apart. Nuclear would never be delivered in time, whereas solar and wind already provide 40% of Australia’s electricity.
Solutions for Climate Australia director Dr Barry Traill said:
“Multiple credible estimates from industry experts show that even if, somehow, the nuclear reactors were built by 2040, they could only produce 4% of Australia’s total electricity needs.
“Why would we spend many billions on the most expensive and risky way of making electricity in Australia, to produce just 4% of the power we need?
“We call on the Coalition to have the guts to put out the details of what they are proposing.”
Peter Dutton’s weird obsession with uncosted nuclear risks energy security, the economy and our kids’ future.
Climate Council 23 SEP, 2024
PETER DUTTON’S WEIRD NUCLEAR OBSESSION is a reckless distraction that will delay real cuts to climate pollution and expose Australians to even more dangerous climate change. While Dutton clings to outdated ideas, our kids’ futures hang in the balance.
Despite Peter Dutton’s grand claims, the Coalition has failed to produce any new numbers to back their nuclear obsession. Meanwhile, a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reveals the true cost of nuclear: an average increase of $665 per year on household electricity bills. Nuclear power is slow, costly, and dangerous, while clean energy solutions, like wind and solar backed by storage, are already powering Australia today.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “Peter Dutton’s weird nuclear obsession is a distraction from the fact that he wants to delay building new power for a generation. A child riding their bike to primary school today will be driving to work by the time even one nuclear reactor is producing electricity.
“Delaying building new energy means more dangerous climate pollution from coal and gas. This will hit our kids hard, fuelling worse floods, fires, and heatwaves.
“Delaying means our ageing energy system failing without investment and support.”
Greg Bourne, Climate Councillor said: “Peter Dutton’s nuclear obsession doesn’t pass the pub test and would meet just a fraction of Australia’s energy needs by 2050. The cost blowouts, delays, and energy shortages nuclear power would cause are staggering. Renewables are faster, cheaper, and cleaner.
“While nuclear sits at the starting blocks for another decade or more, renewable energy is surging ahead, already providing 40% of the electricity in our main national grid and set to reach over 96% by the time Dutton’s first reactors might be operational. Dutton and his colleagues will be long retired before a single nuclear plant is built in Australia, whereas the renewable solutions we need are ready today.
Dutton’s refusal to provide any analysis, costs or modelling proves what we already know – nuclear is a high-risk, low-reward scheme. Nuclear power will not bring down energy bills or solve Australia’s energy challenges. This obsession will only stall the progress we desperately need to safeguard our planet and our kids’ futures.”
AUKUS boss insists project remains on track despite frustrations and staff upheaval within submarine agency
In an interview coinciding with the third anniversary of the AUKUS agreement, Admiral Mead rejected criticism within defence that the multi-billion-dollar push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines was cannibalising the budget for other military projects
ABC News, by defence correspondent Andrew Greene, 20 Sept 4
In short:
The head of Australia’s submarine agency has acknowledged staff turnover but insists the $368 billion AUKUS project is on track.
Privately, Australian Submarine Agency insiders and other officials have expressed frustrations with the progress of Australia’s nuclear submarine endeavour.
Staff upheaval and frustrations with leadership are emerging inside the new government agency that is overseeing Australia’s $368 billion AUKUS project, as concerns mount about the ambitious push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) boss Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead has rejected claims his organisation is “top heavy” but acknowledged some recent departures of senior figures, while also insisting “AUKUS is real and it’s happening”.
Defence figures, foreign officials and industry representatives have privately spoken to the ABC about their disquiet with the ASA’s progress on preparing for AUKUS, contradicting recent optimistic statements about the trilateral venture.
AUKUS was first unveiled in 2021 by former prime minister Scott Morrison and aims to deliver a nuclear submarine capability for Australia through a security partnership struck with the United States and United Kingdom.
In July last year, the ASA was established to “safely and securely acquire, construct, deliver, technically govern, sustain and dispose of Australia’s conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability” under the AUKUS partnership.
Several weeks ago, ASA staff say they were stunned to learn one of the organisation’s most senior technical directors was leaving after playing a significant role that he had taken on following years of distinguished service in defence and the private sector.
“There’s a lot of disquiet here and we are really struggling to keep staff,” one ASA insider told the ABC, speaking under the condition of anonymity through fear of retribution by defence.
Another source connected to the agency claimed “several” relatively senior and experienced people left the organisation in recent months because of “concerns with the ASA’s top leadership”…………………………………………………………………………………….
Mead defends AUKUS project
Since its establishment under Admiral Mead, the ASA has grown to almost 700 full-time staff, including a dozen military officers holding a 1-star rank or higher, and an annual budget of $330 million, which is mainly comprised of salary costs.
In an interview coinciding with the third anniversary of the AUKUS agreement, Admiral Mead rejected criticism within defence that the multi-billion-dollar push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines was cannibalising the budget for other military projects…………………..
Under stage one of AUKUS, British and American nuclear submarines will rotate out of Perth from 2027. Then in the 2030s, Australia will receive second-hand Virginia boats from the United States, before constructing a new SSN-AUKUS fleet in Adelaide.
Privately, US officials have also expressed alarm at the slow progress in preparing for the stationing of nuclear-powered submarines out of Western Australia, under Submarine Rotational Force-West, and the transfer of second-hand boats in the 2030s.
We keep hearing announcements of new workforce recruitment initiatives, but they need to be far greater and much faster — the sense of urgency just isn’t there,” an American official who is not authorised to speak publicly told the ABC.
Admiral Mead insists “the US is very happy” with Australia’s progress but also declined to say what would happen if American shipyards do not deliver 2.33 Virginia submarines a year by 2028, the target required before boats can be transferred here…………………….
Frustration over slow progress
Frustration with the ASA’s direction is also privately shared by local defence industry representatives who have expressed disquiet with the slow progress in striking a joint venture to build the future SSN-AUKUS fleet in Adelaide.
In March, the government announced the Commonwealth-owned ASC would partner with British-owned company BAE Systems Australia to construct the nuclear-powered boats in Adelaide, but the joint venture is yet to be finalised.
One figure involved in the process claims targets are already being missed, highlighting the competing tensions and agendas between defence and ASC, which is run by the finance department……………………… more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-20/aukus-boss-defends-project-amid-frustrations-staff-turnover/104372920?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=mail
South Australia joins Denmark in elite club of two, “pushing the boundaries” of renewable energy integration
Sophie Vorrath, Sep 20, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-joins-denmark-in-elite-club-of-two-pushing-the-boundaries-of-renewable-energy-integration/
[excellent tables and graphs]
South Australia has joined an elite global club, after being listed alongside Denmark as the only other energy system in the world to be successfully managing significant volumes of surplus variable renewable energy across the year – albeit with a lot of hard work ahead.
In its latest global stocktake of variable renewable energy (VRE) integration across 50 power systems, the International Energy Agency says South Australia has joined the ranks of grids with the highest share of solar and wind in the world.
On the IEA’s scale, this puts South Australia in Phase 5 of the integration of renewables (Phase 6 is the top ranking), managing a share of solar and wind that averages out to be higher than fossil fuels over most of the year and at times surpasses 100% of local demand.
And while this is an achievement to be extremely proud of – of the 50 systems analysed by the IEA, 25 are in Phases 1 or 2, representing around 60% of global electricity generation – it also puts South Australia at the pointy end of renewable energy integration, where big changes need to happen fast, to keep the transition on track.
“A growing number of power systems are pushing the boundaries of VRE integration, successfully managing very high shares of variable renewables,” the report says.
But these “frontrunner systems” face complex challenges related to stability and flexibility, which the IEA says call for a transformation of how power systems are operated, planned and financed.
Certainly, South Australia is facing numerous challenges to get its grid from where it is now, to net 100 per cent renewables. And, as the report notes, some of these challenges are uniquely complex.
“In contrast to the case of Denmark, South Australia has limited interconnections with its neighbours, and the impact of solar PV on the net load is more visible,” it says.
“High VRE periods resulting in surplus generation are managed by a combination of measures including energy exports via interconnection to the
neighbouring state, storage with battery energy storage systems (BESS), demand response and curtailment.
“High ramps at sunrise and sunset hours resulting from solar PV generation are managed predominantly by fast-acting gas turbines and the BESS, as well as accessible resources in the rest of the NEM through the interconnector.”
To this end, Project EnergyConnect – a “nation critical” new transmission project that will join up key renewable energy zones in South Australia,
New South Wales and Victoria – is expected to help.
Meanwhile, other parts of Australia are not far behind – the IEA says Australia, as a nation, should be well into Phase 4 by 2030, where it will face “key operational challenges” to the way the power system responds to maintain stability immediately following disruptions in supply or demand.
Just this week in New South Wales, the state’s “potential output” of renewables – that is, the amount available for use or storage in ideal circumstances – was clocked at 99.8 per cent of native demand just before 11am on Sunday, with a combination of sunny weather and strong winds across most of the state.
But, as Renew Economy editor Giles Parkinson notes here, that level of variable renewables currently can’t be accommodated on the NSW system, for a combination of technical and economic reasons. And it is precisely this problem that the IEA report is hoping to address.
“By 2028 the main case of our renewables forecast shows that a range of countries …reach unprecedented annual shares of generation originating from wind and solar power plants – some above 65%,” the report says.
“This development calls for a better understanding of how this could affect electricity systems even further, and what measures can be taken on several fronts to ensure that those higher levels of VRE are integrated in an affordable and secure manner.”
And it warns that a failure to solve these challenges could derail the global climate effort.
“Should integration measures fail to be implemented in line with a scenario aligned with national climate targets, up to 2,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) of global VRE generation would be at risk by 2030, endangering achieving national energy and climate pledges,” the report says.
“This potential loss – equivalent to the combined VRE output of China and the United States in 2023 – stems from possible increases in technical and economic curtailment, as well as potential project connection delays.
“Consequently, the share of solar PV and wind in the global electricity mix in 2030 would reach 30%, lower than the 35% in the case where integration measures are implemented on time. If this decrease is compensated by increased reliance on fossil fuels, it could lead to up to a 20% smaller reduction of carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions in the power sector.”
It is comforting to note, however, that Australia is not alone in the challenges it faces – even if it is at the leading edge of some of them.
The IEA says successfully integrating higher levels of solar and wind energy into the grid will increasingly rely on measures taken to meet two “critical
requirements:” electricity grids, and procuring flexibility from a broad range of assets.
Grid congestion is a worldwide issue, the IEA notes, considering that global investment in renewables almost doubled between 2010 and 2023, while from 2015 grid investment has stagnated at $US300 billion a year until 2024, when it rose to $US400 billion.
“As a result of insufficient grid investment, at least 1,500 GW of solar and wind projects at an advanced stage were waiting for grid connection as
of mid-2023,” the report says.
“Further, many countries are facing grid congestion issues, which are expensive to address due to the high cost of dispatching power plants to overcome
immediate issues and because of the large amount of investment necessary to overcome congestion in the future.
“It is crucial for countries to accelerate grid expansion and upgrades, as it enables benefits beyond solely integrating VRE, such as improved electricity access and supporting overall demand growth.”
But, as Australia is experiencing, grid development takes a long time to materialise, the report adds, which means any and all complementary solutions with shorter lead times must be tapped to improve the integration of solar and wind.
On power system flexibility, the IEA says most of these needs will be met by solutions that are already in use, such as batteries, demand response and, to a smaller extent, curtailment.
Flexibility also extends beyond conventional generators, the report adds, encompassing storage, new electricity-based end uses, and grid infrastructure, all of which vary regionally.
“This report calls for strategic government action, enhanced infrastructure, and regulatory reforms to ensure the successful large-scale integration of solar PV and wind in order to meet global energy transition targets,” the IEA says.
“Robust data, stakeholder collaboration and government prioritisation of integration measures are essential for overcoming these challenges and achieving a sustainable energy future.”
Sophie Vorrath Sophie is editor of One Step Off The Grid and deputy editor of its sister site, Renew Economy. She is the co-host of the Solar Insiders Podcast. Sophie has been writing about clean energy for more than a decade.
Nuclear debate stalls as detail goes missing in action
Angela Macdonald-Smith, https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nuclear-debate-stalls-as-detail-goes-missing-in-action-20240920-p5kc56 21 Sept 24
Australia’s debate over nuclear power is going nowhere. Politicians are happy to roll out any argument that suits them, but the credible and comprehensive analysis and modelling needed is completely missing.
The upshot is that the energy industry – the people who need to make the transition happen – are disengaged, and consumers who will have to vote on these “policies” are confused.
The vacuum of information includes both the costings and details behind the Coalition’s seven-site nuclear power vision, but also a realistic assessment from the Albanese government about the difficulties in reaching its 2030 climate targets.
Federal Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen on Friday released energy department findings on the huge reliability gaps that the Coalition’s nuclear plan would cause.
Two scenarios were studied: one that assumed coal plant owners close their plants as projected by the Australian Energy Market Operator between now and 2035, and the Coalition caps investment in large-scale renewables and does not support new transmission builds; a second assumed all coal power stations set to close before 2035 are extended beyond 2040 to try to tide the power system over until nuclear reactors could come online.
According to the results released by Bowen’s office, the first would lead to a huge 49 per cent gap between the demand for energy of about 316 terawatt-hours and available supply – of about 160 TWh – by 2035. The second, an 18 per cent gap of “unmet energy”.
The minister’s office compared those numbers with AEMO’s current tolerance gap for an effectively operating electricity system of just 0.002 per cent of “unmet energy”.
Bowen says the analysis shows how the Coalition’s plan “will result in massive supply shortages over the next decade”. However, the full work carried out by the department was not made available.
Analysis released on Friday by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which advocates a faster shift to clean energy, also played into Labor’s hands. The analysis sought to estimate the potential impact on household electricity bills using six scenarios that were based on international examples of nuclear power construction projects.
The results suggested that the median household bill would rise, on average, by about $665 a year. The work was based on six recent real-world examples of new nuclear plant builds, ranging from the cheapest location in the Czech Republic through to the most expensive, the Hinkley Point C reactor under construction in the UK at a cost that may top £46 billion ($90 billion).
“The cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia,” IEEFA found.
The analysis was dismissed as “complete nonsense” by shadow treasurer Angus Taylor, while Opposition Leader Peter Dutton also questioned its credibility. He cited Labor’s failed pre-election promise to deliver $275 bill reductions by 2025 as evidence it can’t be trusted.
But the Coalition’s own arguments are just as flimsy, weakened by the continuing absence of the full costings and details of its energy plan.
Dutton is scheduled to speak on nuclear power at the Committee for Economic Development of Australia on Monday. It will not, however, include the much anticipated business case for nuclear. Coalition sources say that will have to wait until some time before the election, due by May next year.
A Coalition source said Monday’s speech would instead be “values”-based. That means a reaffirmation of the seven potential nuclear sites, and more words about why nuclear is better than Labor’s “renewables-only” approach.
The energy industry, meanwhile, is disengaged as the politics play out. While not writing the nuclear option off as impossible, the starting point for real action is much too far off for it to register.
Continuing delays in the build-out of the energy grid – caused by slow project approvals and rising costs, among many other issues – mean these companies have much more immediate challenges to worry about.
Coalition should show us its sums on nuclear
September 20, 2024, https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/coalition-should-show-us-its-sums-on-nuclear-20240920-p5kc2k.html
How many more studies are needed to show what is glaringly obvious to everyone? That nuclear power is not cheap and that it is potentially very expensive (“Extra cost of nuclear power revealed”, September 20)?
Despite this, the Coalition keeps sticking to its guns. They can’t be wrong and any study that says otherwise is “shallow and flawed”. They claim the latest study cherry-picks the worst cases, ignoring that any selection is needed to make the study more realistic. Australia won’t have access to cheap labour, so those cases should rightly be ignored. Also, nuclear energy is not where you want to cut corners to keep costs down. And yet, the Coalition has decided to go down the nuclear path.
How can you make a decision without the supporting numbers? If they have the numbers they should release them. David Rush, Lawson
Nuclear is not a viable option for Australia. It will be too expensive and it will take far too long to be of any use and by the Coalition’s own numbers, it will produce almost no electricity even if they are built. Every report from the CSIRO down that exposes Peter Dutton’s nuclear brain explosion has been belittled by the Coalition. The Coalition says it will release its costings eventually. Presumably, they don’t know what the cost will be yet, but given their wildly inaccurate estimates on Snowy 2.0 and inland rail, we have little cause for hope of an accurate figure. Ross Hudson, Mount Martha (Vic)
Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien calls the first analysis of the Coalition’s nuclear plan shallow and flawed – in other words fake news. Having cherry-picked the lowest numbers in their discussions of this policy, and choosing their examples, the Coalition will now have to present their documentation as to how low electricity prices will be under their leadership. As a taxpayer, I’m concerned about the level of accountability if there are cost blowouts or hugely extended construction times. So even if the proposed nuclear plants can deliver cheaper electricity, what happens in the meantime? The Coalition’s switch to government ownership of this infrastructure and the cash splash to those communities who accept a nuclear plant is using taxpayer money to subsidise lower electricity prices to win this argument. We are not just building a few buildings – we are creating a whole new industry from scratch. Meanwhile, another decade or so will pass and more opportunities will be wasted for a better environment. Robert Mulas, Corlette
Ted O’Brien says the US non-profit think tank the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has cherry-picked the costs for the opposition’s nuclear “plan”. Why it would do this is unclear but far from choosing selected examples, it has based its analysis on average bills for construction of large-scale nuclear plants by countries with comparable economies to Australia. As for who will put up the money, O’Brien says they will be built by a government entity while Angus Taylor says they will not be publicly subsidised. Peter Nash, Fairlight
More than a third of Australian households have solar power and they won’t like analysis from the Smart Energy Council that shows Dutton’s seven nuclear reactors will shut down solar panels for between 1.8 and 2.9 million homes. The council says that as nuclear power can’t be switched off, it will continue pushing power into the grid, “regardless of whether it’s the most expensive form of energy, or even needed”. Is this really the best energy policy Dutton can come up with, or is it simply an expensive smokescreen to extend the life of fossil fuels? Alison Stewart, Riverview
We are now told our power bills may rise by $665 a year to pay for nuclear energy infrastructure costs. Is this why Dutton is so reluctant to release his costings? Peng Ee, Castle Cove
“Catastrophic:” Coalition plan to stop renewables and push nuclear will result in massive supply gaps
Giles Parkinson, Sep 20, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/catastrophic-coalition-plan-to-stop-renewables-and-push-nuclear-will-result-in-massive-supply-gaps/
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen has launched a new attack against the federal Coalition’s nuclear power policy, saying its plan to stop renewables and potentially “sweat” the remaining coal assets could lead to “catastrophic” supply gaps in the electricity market.
The federal government released new modelling on Friday, the same day as another independent report pointed to a $1,000 a year bill hike to consumers from a nuclear power policy, and just days before Coalition leader Peter Dutton is expected to outline more details at a Sydney event.
The Coalition has been vague about its nuclear power plans to date, identifying only seven potential sites for large scale nuclear or small modular reactors, but has said it intends to stop new wind, solar and battery projects, cease the rollout of new transmission lines, and boost coal and gas output.
In response, the federal department of energy has modelled several different scenarios, and both point to massive supply gaps in the future if the Coalition holds firm on its promise to stop renewable, and even “tear up” as some contracts, as National leader David Littleproud has threatened.
The department estimates that the Coalition’s energy plan will leave a “gaping black hole” of between 18 per cent to 49 per cent of unserved energy, ie the gap between supply and demand.
The biggest gap is created on the assumption that private coal operators do close their ageing coal fired generators between now and 2035, and that the Coalition does not build any new utility scale renewables beyond what’s currently committed, and does not support new transmission builds.
On that scenario, the department modelling estimates a shortfall of around 156 terawatt hours (TWh) between demand for energy (around 316 TWh) and available supply (arround 160 TWh).
The second scenario assumes that all coal plants are extended beyond 2040, to allow time for the Coalition to begin construction of its promised nuclear power plant, but that still results in a shortfall of 18 per cent if the Coalition delivers on its promise to stop the rollout of large scale renewables.
“These scenarios are so catastrophic for the economy, for ordinary Australians, and for Australia’s place as an advanced country they seem implausible,” the department report says.
“But that will be the result of the Coalition’s nuclear scheme.”
It’s ironic because the Coalition is pitching its nuclear scheme on three assumptions: That it is lower cost, that it is more reliable, and that it is compatible on a net zero strategy.
But analysis shows that it would fail on all three counts. Multiple reports have highlighted the higher cost of nuclear, and although the Coalition insists there higher costs affect only investors and not consumers (without ever explaining why), the new analysis from IEEFA points to a blow out in retail bills.
The Coalition insists that a reliance on wind and solar will lead to the destruction of industry, but that is proved a nonsense by South Australia, already at more than 70 per cent wind and solar and aiming for net 100 per cent by 2027, and its inability to explain what will be meeting growing demand needs.
“The fact of the matter is that Mr Dutton and Mr Littleproud and Mr O’Brien wander around the country saying that they will pause renewable energy investments,” Bowen told journalists on Friday.
“Even under their own scheme, they admit that we would not have any nuclear power in Australia until 2035 at the earliest, and that is wildly optimistic.
“Now the question that Mr Dutton has to answer is, where will the electricity come from? If we stop building renewables now and nuclear takes so long, as Australia’s electricity needs are increasing every day, where will he get the power from?
“He wanders around making outrageous accusations about black‑outs under this government, when in fact it’s his own scheme which is the biggest risk to reliability in Australia.”
The department report is just one of three released this week that undermines the Coalition’s case for nuclear in Australia. One is the IEEFA report on the impact on bills, and the World Nuclear Industry Status Report on nuclear that shows an industry that is barely advancing, despite the Dutton rhetoric.
And the problem around reliability is further highlighted by issues at Vogtle, the first nuclear power plant to be built in the US for more than three decades. (And despite Coalition claims of a nuclear renaissance, no other nuclear power projects are being built or committed).
One of the two units at Plant Vogtle, a plant that ran way over budget and time in the country with the biggest nuclear fleet of any, was shut down in July, and again in September, due to various valve issues in what critics note is the most expensive power plant on the planet.
The Coalition has been selling nuclear as reliable and “always on”, but like any generation source it can face hiccups, and the bigger the generation unit – the Westinghouse AP1000s at Vogtle (cited as a potential technology choice by the Coalition) have a capacity of 1,117 MW – the more back-up that is required.
And it is these unexpected interruptions, as opposed to the entirely predictable setting of the sun each day, that creates the biggest problems for the market operator.
“I’ve never said the shift to a clean, cheap, renewable energy system would be easy. But it is achievable, and our plan is working,” Bowen wrote in an op-ed in The Australian.
“Supporting new investment in generation and batteries, bringing on offshore wind projects, and underwriting crucial transmission lines through Rewiring the Nation are real policy solutions underway now.
“Last month AEMO confirmed on time delivery of federal, state and territory programs as planned and legislated, will be sufficient to meet demand out to 2035, within the stringent reliability standard.
“Contrast that with the Coalition’s ideological pursuit of its anti-renewable nuclear scheme that leave almost half Australia’s energy needs unserved in the same period.”
The challenge for Labor, however, is not to convince the Australian or even international energy industry of this. The industry understands just how unsuitable the nuclear option is.
But the Coalition, with the often uncritical and sometime active support of mainstream media and most conservative “think tanks”, is seeking only to win a public debate on this, and the public care little about the details.
“They are treating the Australian people like mugs, arrogantly holding the details of their costings, of the modelling, of the impact of their policies on Australians from the Australian people,” Bowen said.
Peter Dutton and the pursuit of fame.
21 September 24 https://theaimn.com/peter-dutton-and-the-pursuit-of-fame/
Peter Dutton is the leader of Australia’s opposition party – the Liberal-National Coalition.
Which is pretty noteworthy and important, anyway. But of course, he would be more important if he is elected as Prime Minister in 2025. But is that enough fame for him?
Dutton aspires to a greater, global, significance. He would be the first world leader to introduce the commercial, peaceful, advanced nuclear industry to not just a country, but to an entire continent. And not to some “third-world” “undeveloped” country “in need of charity” – but to a prosperous, privileged, purportedly well-educated, and still mainly white population.
For the global nuclear industry – that would be a first! And not just any old first, but an extremely timely one. Just released this week, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024 describes an industry on life support. Even back in 2016 Former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd spoke to this problem, noting that “the industry is essentially running to stand still.”
For Australia to adopt a government-run nuclear industry involving both large and small nuclear reactors across a continent – what a wonderful shot in the arm for the global nuclear lobby. And Dutton – what a hero!
Dutton would be famous not just in Australia, but world-wide
Is this why Peter Dutton is promoting his nuclear policy?
I can’t think of any other reason.
Australia, especially in the State of South Australia, is becoming a world leader in renewable energy use – particularly in decentralised household rooftop solar, but also in large solar and wind programmes. Of course, Australia’s mining magnates are pretty happy with Dutton’s plan, as it will mean more mining, not just of uranium, but of coal and gas in the decades before nuclear power actually comes into use.
So – look – it’s a winner for Dutton’s fame.
And if that doesn’t work, there’s fame in another way
The last Liberal Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is a great contender for the worst Prime Minister in Australian history. Just a few of his achievements to merit this award were:
- By 2022, Australia’s gross national debt was 42.5 per cent of GDP (Peak Whitlam government was 24.5. Peak Hawke-Keating was 24. Peak Rudd-Gillard Government debt was 20.)
- Notorious for taking a holiday during Australia’s 2019–20 bushfire season.
- Signed Australia up to the costly AUKUS nuclear submarine deal
- Secretly appointed himself to five ministerial positions without the knowledge of the public or his own government.
Economically, the nuclear power programme, added to the continuing AUKUS nuclear deal, could pretty well bankrupt Australia. Although Dutton claims that nuclear power will be cheap, he’s given no costings, and the over-riding opinion of energy and economics experts is that nuclear power would be the most expensive form of energy for Australia.
Environmentally, Dutton’s plan includes advanced nuclear reactors, which will require plutonium or enriched uranium – so this brings virtually eternal radioactive pollution into Australia (something that has been nearly avoided up until now). It also brings the hazards of nuclear weapons proliferation, and terrorism targets.
So – it’s a bold venture for Peter Dutton, to centre his election campaign on promoting the nuclear industry. He is to be commended for bravery in taking such a big risk.
If Dutton carries this through, as Prime Minister, he will rapidly gain world fame.
But also, as far as Australia is concerned, he could beat Scott Morrison into history as the nation’s worst Prime Minister.
Dutton’s big risk is that he might not get elected in 2025, and vanish very quickly from history.
Coalition’s nuclear plan will lead to ‘massive’ electricity shortages and risk blackouts, new analysis warns
Energy minister Chris Bowen says Peter Dutton must explain what happens to national grid over next decade if opposition stops building renewables
Guardian, Adam Morton Climate and environment editor, 20 Sept,24
The Coalition’s proposal to cap large-scale renewable energy and eventually build nuclear power plants would lead to “massive” electricity supply shortages risking blackouts, according to analysis released by the federal government.
The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, released the findings of an energy department analysis that suggested electricity supply could be at least 18% less than what will be needed in 2035 under a scenario that reflects the few details of the Coalition plan that have been released.
Those details include the country building fewer solar and wind farms, the cancellation of the “rewiring the nation” policy to build transmission lines, extending the life of ageing coal plants and building nuclear plants at seven sites.
The Coalition’s proposal to cap large-scale renewable energy and eventually build nuclear power plants would lead to “massive” electricity supply shortages risking blackouts, according to analysis released by the federal government.
Under a scenario in which about 90% of remaining coal generation closes by 2035 – consistent with what the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) projects – the gap between demand and supply could be 49%, according to the analysis.
Bowen said it showed Peter Dutton would “take to our finely tuned electricity system planning with a sledgehammer” and cause “massive supply shortages over the next decade”.
“The question that Mr Dutton has to answer is: where would the electricity come from if we stop building renewables now and nuclear takes so long?” Bowen said at a media conference. “He wanders around making outrageous accusations about blackouts under this government when in fact it’s his own scheme [that] is the biggest risk to reliability in Australia.”
The analysis, released via an opinion piece in The Australian, is timed to precede a speech by Dutton on Monday on whether nuclear power could work in Australia.
Dutton and the opposition treasury spokesman, Angus Taylor, rejected Bowen’s analysis in TV interviews on Friday, but declined to release details of their proposal. Speaking on Sky News Australia, Taylor said Bowen was “full of nonsense” and Labor’s policies would “always cost Australians more than our alternative policies”.
The Coalition has said if elected it would use public money to build nuclear plants at seven sites. It has suggested it would also cap investment in large-scale renewable energy and back more gas, a fossil fuel responsible for 21% of Australia’s climate pollution.
It has not released the expected cost of the plants, explained how the Coalition would lift legislated bans on nuclear power, or said why he believed the first two plants could be operating by 2035 or 2037 – a much faster timeframe than experts say would be possible.
Government agencies and independent analysts have found nuclear and more gas would be more expensive for households and businesses than Labor’s plan of running on variable renewable energy backed by “firming” from batteries, pumped hydro, more transmission lines and some gas.
Aemo last month suggested the country’s main power grid, covering the five eastern states, would remain reliable as it shifted from running on mostly coal to mostly renewables if planned investments in new generation were delivered “on time and in full”. Bowen said this would not be possible under the Coalition’s plan……………………………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/20/coalitions-nuclear-plan-will-lead-to-massive-electricity-shortages-and-risk-blackouts-new-analysis-warns?fbclid=IwY2xjawFZ80RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRjcdt-9ZgyIv3BFzTaDCzbuWnZHwb4j4tAAT811vpZzm5UGVBP0h9xHpA_aem_LiV8Y3dC8T95lCzPdJNBHQ
Affordable nuclear? Dutton’s plan would add nearly $1,000 a year to the power bill of a family of four
Sophie Vorrath, Sep 20, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/affordable-nuclear-duttons-plan-would-add-nearly-1000-a-year-to-the-power-bill-of-a-family-of-four/—
A family of four in living on the east coast of Australia would pay nearly $1000 more a year for electricity under the federal Coalition’s nuclear power plan, a new report has found, while the average Australian household would see bills rise by $665 a year.
In a major new report, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, IEEFA, has undertaken to calculate the cost to consumers of Peter Dutton’s plan to build seven nuclear power plants across Australia, including both large-scale reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs).
This has already been done, to a fashion, by Australia’s main scientific body, the CSIRO, whose GenCost report in May of this year found large-scale nuclear to be at least double the cost of integrated renewables, and impossible to deliver before 2040.
IEEFA has taken a different tack, seeking to measure the cost of nuclear to “mums and dads,” by calculating the electricity bill impact of a range of scenarios, based on the actual costs of six recent projects in countries comparable to Australia.
For large-scale reactors the first four scenarios are based on actual, recent nuclear power plant construction costs and timeframes for countries in liberal democracies where costs are transparent, IEEFA says.
This includes the real-life projects – Finland’s Olkiluoto Unit 3, France’s Flamanville Unit 3, the US’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 and the UK’s Hinkley Point C.
For SMRs – where, as IEEFA notes, “no plants have been successfully completed in a democratic country” – costs are based on the one example of a binding contract offer to build such a plant in the US, the now-cancelled NuScale project.
It also used this approach to assess the costs to build South Korean APR technology (a design that the Coalition has cited for potential implementation in Australia) in a democratic country with laws protecting labour rights: the Czech Republic’s Dukovany proposed plant.
“In the international examples examined, the capital cost of nuclear power plants was very high – up to $90 billion,” says Johanna Bowyer, report coauthor and lead analyst for Australian electricity at IEEFA.
“Recent international large-scale nuclear projects have experienced construction challenges, delays and cost-blowouts. Capital costs, excluding financing costs, of recent nuclear power station builds we analysed had blown out by a factor of 1.7 to 3.4 times.”
When extrapolated to the Australian market, results vary – the more than 50-page report provides precise details on the differences in bill increases depending upon which nuclear power project cost experience you consider, which state (South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales or south-east Queensland) and the size of the household.
But the bottom line is that, in every scenario, bills increase by hundreds of dollars and in some cases by more than $1000.
At the bottom end, the bill increase for households consuming a median amount of electricity was as low as $260 a year based on the anticipated cost of a new nuclear plant in the Czech Republic – although given that is a pre-construction project IEEFA says it is highly likely to have underestimate final costs.
The lowest impact from a nuclear plant successfully completed (Vogtle) is $383-$461 per year for an average household. Meanwhile, the UK experience with the still under construction Hinkley Point C indicates electricity bill rises of up to $1,259 are possible.
Across all nuclear scenarios and regions, the report finds that for a four-person household the bill impact would average out at $972/year, and for a five-person household – like Peter Dutton’s – that figure would rise to an eye-watering $1,182/year.
Ultimately, it’s a finding that rather answers the question posed by next week’s CEDA luncheon discussion: “A nuclear powered Australia – could it work?”
“For nuclear power plants to be commercially viable without government subsidies and generating 24/7 – as the Coalition proposes – electricity prices would need to rise to these higher levels to allow the nuclear power plants to recover their costs,” says Bowyer.
“This would result in a large increase in wholesale market prices which would then flow through to household bills,” Bowyer says. “In a cost-of-living crisis, bill increases like this are a big deal.”
But what about those countries that use nuclear and have lower retail electricity prices than Australia? Aren’t they proof positive that nuclear power is affordable?
Nice try, but no, says IEEFA. “In almost all cases around the world, the cost of nuclear power plant construction and financing is not fully reflected in market prices for power,” the report says.
“This is because either nuclear power plants are very old and their costs are largely depreciated, or governments have acted to recover the costs either through taxpayers, or via levies which are independent of electricity markets – for example in France, the UK and Ontario, Canada.
“The Coalition has outlined something different, ruling out taxpayer subsidies and stating that any government investments in nuclear plants would receive a commercial return.”
Tristan Edis – a director at energy advisory firm Green Energy Markets and a contributor to the IEEFA report – says the mistaken perception that nuclear is a cost-effective technology is often based on the fact that it is in use across the globe.
But he says most of the plants built in the western world were committed based on projected costs and timeframes that turned out to be “horrible underestimates” that have cost governments dearly.
“They almost make Snowy 2.0 look good by comparison,” Edis says, referring to the federal government-owned 2.2GW pumped hydro project whose original price tag of $2 billion has ballooned to a massive $12 billion and is running seven years behind schedule.
“The end result has often been bankruptcy and taxpayer-funded bail-outs for many of the firms involved,” Edis adds, citing the examples of Ontario’s publicly owned utility, for Westinghouse with its AP1000 design, and for France’s AREVA and EDF.
“These cost blow-outs are sometimes not apparent in the electricity prices seen in other countries, but that’s just because it is the taxpayer picking up the tab instead,” he says.
In the case of Australia, the Coalition has repeatedly ruled out taxpayer subsidies for its nuclear plans, and repeatedly claimed that any government investments in nuclear plants would receive a commercial return.
Take shadow treasurer Angus Taylor’s comments to the National Press Club in May:
“The key for me as someone who really believes that we should make sure that we have affordable, reliable power, and I don’t want to commit subsidies that aren’t necessary, is to make sure that it’s [nuclear power] commercially viable, and we think it can be. … If it’s commercially viable, it’s not going to be
subsidies. It’s as simple as that.”
As the report notes, this line of logic implies that the Coalition expects wholesale electricity market prices will be sufficient for nuclear power plants in each state to recover their construction costs plus a commercial level of return.
Further, these nuclear power plants would be “always on,” which means power prices would need to average out at the level a nuclear plant needs to be commercially viable – to recover their costs – almost all of the time.
And the only way this can be achieved without substantial, taxpayer-funded government subsidies is for household power bills to rise significantly, says Bowyer.
“Our analysis indicates that the Coalition’s plan is unlikely to represent a realistic cost-effective energy solution for Australia,” she says.
“Any plan to introduce nuclear energy in Australia … should be examined thoroughly, with particular focus on the potential impact on electricity system costs and household bills, and with detailed analysis of alternative technologies such as renewables and firming.”
Jewish Council disappointed at Australia’s UN abstention, calls for strong international action to prevent Israeli war crimes
By Jewish Council of Australia, September, 19, 2024
The Jewish Council of Australia says it is deeply disappointed at Australia’s abstention from a critical United Nations General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months. The resolution passed with 124 votes in favour, highlighting global frustration with Israel’s actions.
In a statement, the JCA said Australia’s abstention did not align with its commitments to international law and peace-building. While the Australian Government had indicated support for many aspects of the resolution, its failure to vote in favour was s a missed opportunity to show stronger, principled leadership, the Jewish group said.
“This vote comes at the same time as further apparent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, a day after the pager attacks,” a statement from the JCA said.
“The Jewish Council of Australia condemns these attacks. Their indiscriminate nature, killing dozens and injuring thousands of civilians, is an apparent war crime which underscores the urgent need for a collective international response to prevent Israel further breaching international law.
“We call on the government to join with other countries in condemning the killing of innocent civilians, and reiterate our calls for Australia to take material action by imposing sanctions and throwing its weight behind a global arms embargo.
JCA executive officer Sarah Schwartz said:
“We condemn the loss of any innocent life. Australia and the international community must take material steps to prevent, and ensure accountability for, the commission of war crimes. These indiscriminate attacks, which have killed innocent bystanders, are the behaviour of a rogue state and should be treated as such.”
JCA executive officer Dr Max Kaiser added:
“We urge the Australian government to join the vast majority of countries in the international community that are taking a firm stance. Australia can and should be doing more to hold Israel accountable for its unlawful presence in Palestinian territories. The time for decisive action is now.”
Nuclear in Australia would increase household power bills
Report Nuclear Electric Grid Energy Policy Australia
September 20, 2024, Johanna Bowyer and Tristan Edis, https://ieefa.org/resources/nuclear-australia-would-increase-household-power-bills
Key Findings
Typical Australian households could see electricity bills rise by AUD665/year on average under the opposition Coalition’s plans to introduce nuclear to the country’s energy mix.
IEEFA analysed six scenarios based on relevant international examples of nuclear power construction projects; in every scenario, bills increased by hundreds of dollars.
For households that use more electricity, bills could rise more – for a four-person household, the bill rise was found to be AUD972/year on average across nuclear scenarios and regions.
The cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia.
Australia’s main federal opposition, the Liberal-National Coalition, has proposed building seven nuclear power plants across the country, including both large-scale reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). This report seeks to detail the likely impact on household consumers’ electricity bills from such a plan, based on recent real-world experience from construction costs for nuclear power plants around the world.
Rather than use theoretical projected costs, we have calculated the potential electricity bill impact for a range of nuclear cost recovery scenarios, based on the following real-world examples:
Finland: Olkiluoto Unit 3. France: Flamanville Unit 3. UK: Hinkley Point C. US: Vogtle Units 3 and 4.US SMR: NuScale SMR. Czech Republic: Dukovany proposed plant expansion.
The first four scenarios are based on actual, recent nuclear power plant construction costs and timeframes for countries in liberal democracies where costs are transparent. Commenting on nuclear construction cost estimates, electricity market economist Professor Paul Joskow states: “The best estimates are drawn from actual experience rather than engineering cost models.”
In the case of SMRs, no plants have been successfully completed in a democratic country, so we instead used the one example of a binding contract offer to build such a plant in the US, the now-cancelled NuScale project. We also used this approach for assessing the costs for a proposal to build South Korean APR technology (a design that the Coalition has cited for potential implementation in Australia) in a separate democratic country with laws protecting labour rights, outside of its country of origin – the Czech Republic.
Household electricity bills impact
We found that electricity bills would need to rise in order for nuclear costs to be recovered. The chart below illustrates the resulting increase in typical household power bills if nuclear power plants with similar costs and characteristics to the international examples were built in Australia. The average bill increase was AUD665/year across states and nuclear scenarios for households with a median level of electricity consumption. The lowest impact is equivalent to bill increases of AUD260-AUD353 per year, linked to estimated costs for the pre-construction project Dukovany, which is highly likely to underestimate final costs. The lowest impact from a nuclear plant successfully completed (Vogtle) is AUD383-AUD461 per year for an average household. Meanwhile, the UK experience with Hinkley Point C indicates electricity bill rises of more than AUD1,000 per year are possible.
Figure 1 [on original]: Increase in typical household electricity bill to recover cost of nuclear plants based on different countries’ experience (AUD/year)
The range of costs is wide due to the significant cost differentials for large-scale nuclear in different countries, and the significant cost uncertainty for SMR technology, which is still under development. The impact in each state can vary due to differing typical electricity consumption levels in each state, and different electricity bill cost structures.
For households using more electricity than the median level, the bill increases from nuclear would be higher. For example, for a four-person household the bill impact would be AUD972/year on average across nuclear scenarios and states, and for a five-person household AUD1,182/year.
How nuclear costs are reflected on electricity bills
These results might come as surprising to some, because large-scale nuclear is a mature technology currently in use across a wide range of countries. In addition, misinterpreted data on retail electricity prices (which also include the costs of powerlines and taxes, not just generators and so is misleading) can show some cases of nations that use nuclear who have lower retail prices than Australia.
However, in almost all cases around the world, the cost of nuclear power plant construction and financing is not fully reflected in market prices for power. This is because either nuclear power plants are very old and their costs are largely depreciated, or governments have acted to recover the costs either through taxpayers, or via levies which are independent of electricity markets – for example in France, the UK and Ontario, Canada. In other jurisdictions, such as a number of US states including Georgia where the Vogtle power plant is located, there isn’t actually an electricity market in operation, with consumers instead served by a regulated monopoly without any competitive choice.
The Coalition has outlined something different, ruling out taxpayer subsidies and stating that any government investments in nuclear plants would receive a commercial return. This implies that the Coalition expect that wholesale electricity market prices will be sufficient for nuclear power plants in each state to recover their construction costs plus a commercial level of return. The Coalition has also outlined that these nuclear power plants would operate at full capacity almost all of the time. Therefore, power prices would need to average out at the level a nuclear plant needs to be commercially viable – to recover their costs – almost all of the time.
High costs of recent nuclear projects
The reason bills increased in this study is because recent large-scale nuclear projects across Europe and North America involved very high costs. The European Pressured Reactor (EPR) program had promised to deliver more efficient, safer nuclear power. However, the three recent projects (Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C), which have either just been completed or are under construction, have all faced construction challenges, delays and cost-blowouts. If plants with similar costs and characteristics were built in Australia, they would require a levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) between AUD250 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and AUD346/MWh to recover their costs.
A few other types of reactors are being built or considered internationally of a similar design to what the Coalition indicates might be built in Australia: the South Korean APR1000 design proposed at Dukovany in the Czech Republic; and a Westinghouse AP1000 design recently completed at Vogtle in the US. The Vogtle plant experienced seven years of delays and actual capital costs (excluding financing costs) 1.7 times the original estimates. Those plants present LCOEs of between AUD197 and AUD220 per MWh in an Australian context – noting the Dukovany costs are only initial pre-construction estimates and could rise.
Based on NuScale, we estimate that the LCOE of nuclear SMR in an Australian context would be AUD289/MWh – but could be far higher if construction extends beyond the 3.25 years used in this study – as financing costs increase as construction timelines extend.
Capital costs (excluding financing costs) of recent nuclear power builds have tended to blow out by a factor of between 1.7 and 3.4, leading to financial difficulties for companies involved. All conventional nuclear projects built in recent years in the US and Europe – Vogtle, Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C and Flamanville 3 – have contributed to financial difficulties for companies involved. Westinghouse, which was the technology provider for Vogtle, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2017. France’s AREVA, who was the original technology provider for Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C, came close to bankruptcy over 2015, which required a French Government-sponsored bail-out.
The chart below [on original] details the wholesale market prices required for each of the recently constructed or quoted nuclear plants to be commercially viable, relative to the current wholesale electricity costs being passed through in household electricity bills in the regions of Victoria, NSW, South East Queensland (SEQ) and South Australia (SA).
[Figure 2: Current wholesale energy cost (WEC) component of current household bills compared to commercial price to recover nuclear plant costs in Australian context (AUD/MWh)]
Australia would likely face even higher large-scale nuclear costs than these recent international examples, due to the country’s limited nuclear capability and the small size of any potential Australian nuclear build-out program. With seven nuclear power stations proposed (two of them SMR-only), all at separate sites, there will be limited scope to achieve learning-based cost reductions like those seen in a large continuous build program, for example the build program in South Korea on which CSIRO’s GenCost costings are based. South Korea has built 26 reactors since the 1970s. Further, the assumptions in this report have provided an optimistic levelised cost of electricity for nuclear, for example using a 60-year economic lifetime, 93% capacity factor, and a low discount rate.
Our analysis suggests household power bills would need to rise significantly for nuclear power plants to become a commercially viable investment in the absence of substantial, taxpayer-funded government subsidies. In IEEFA’s opinion, any plan to introduce nuclear energy in Australia – such as that proposed by the Coalition – should be examined thoroughly, with particular focus on the potential impact on electricity system costs and household bills, and with detailed analysis of alternative technologies such as renewables and firming.
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 