Antinuclear

PM sharpens attack on nuclear in election-style tour

Maitland Mercury, By Kat Wong and Tess Ikonomou,  January 7 2025 –

 Anthony Albanese is testing new lines of attack as he hurtles through key battlegrounds ahead of an official election campaign.

The prime minister has embarked a whirlwind tour of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia just months before voters are expected to go to the polls.

A federal election must be held by late May and, while Mr Albanese is yet to pull the trigger, the trip might be seen as a soft campaign launch………………………………………………….

Labor has renewed its offensive against the opposition’s $330 billion bid to set up seven nuclear reactors.

It initially aimed its criticism at safety and environment concerns, leaning on the nuclear fears of older generations.

But its latest attack highlights cost, viability and time, with a particular focus on economic consequences for the Sunshine State.

Fresh analysis released by Labor shows the coalition’s plan assumes it will cost Queensland more than $872 billion in lost output by 2050 and treasurer Jim Chalmers said Mr Dutton’s “economic madness” would leave Queensland households worse off.

“As a Queenslander, I won’t sit back and watch Peter Dutton push energy prices up and growth down right across the state,” he said…………………………………………………………… more https://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/8860529/pm-sharpens-attack-on-nuclear-in-election-style-tour/

January 7, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

The Coalition’s coal-keeper plan

The widespread concern among energy experts is that the introduction of nuclear into the power system would result in renewables, including rooftop solar, being switched off for extended periods, lest the grid be overwhelmed with power, and to assure the financial viability of nuclear generators.

According to analysis by the peak body for the renewables industry, the Smart Energy Council, “up to five million rooftop solar systems will be switched off, and the average power price bill will more than double” as a result.

The Coalition’s nuclear proposal offers no outlook for lower household bills, and the political debate obscures the fact that the plan is undeliverable.

By Mike Seccombe, 21 Dec 24,  https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2024/12/21/the-coalitions-coal-keeper-plan

There are really only two possibilities. Either Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor do not understand the basics of the Coalition’s signature nuclear power policy or they are deliberately, repeatedly broadcasting a falsehood.

At December 13’s Brisbane press conference where the opposition leader and shadow treasurer released the long-awaited costings of the Coalition’s nuclear plan, contained in modelling by Frontier Economics, both men said it showed their policy would cut electricity bills by 44 per cent.

In fairness it should be noted the council has a big vested interest, but the fact remains that Price’s published modelling appears to ignore the impact of nuclear on renewables. As Hamilton noted, in Price’s modelling “these capacity factors [that is, the amount of time renewables are generating power] do not change with the introduction of nuclear producing 38 per cent of generation nearly 24/7.”

In response to the Hamilton critique, Price argued it was already the case that renewables were sometimes turned down or off because there is too much generation. He said this problem would increase as the share of renewables increased.

“This is because you have to build vast amounts of renewables to produce enough electricity to meet demand, and since you never know whether they will produce at the same time or at different times, inevitably you end up at times with too much electricity.”

He did not, however, address the cost issue. And he conceded that under his model, less renewables infrastructure would be built.

The broader point, however, is that this was not apparent in his published work.

Normal protocol in the modelling world is to provide detail of the data on which a model is built, says Professor Warwick McKibbin of the ANU Crawford Centre.

“You should be transparent. That’s just standard good practice. If you can’t see that data that underpins the work, then how do you know what’s been assumed? How do you assess the value of it?” he says.

It doesn’t take an internationally renowned economic modeller to tell us that – every primary-school maths teacher instructs their students to show their work. But when the Smart Energy Council contacted Price, seeking the data underpinning his assumptions, the reply was a single word: “No.”

Dutton did it again on Tuesday at a press conference in Adelaide, called to promote the candidacy of Nicolle Flint, a member of his hard-right faction, for the seat of Boothby at the coming election.

“The work of Frontier says that over time electricity prices will be 44 per cent cheaper under our policy than Labor’s,” he said.

On Wednesday, Taylor repeated the claim. The opposition plan, he said, “will bring down electricity bills by 44 per cent. There’s no doubt about that.”

It’s not true. In fact, the Frontier report specifically says, on page 18: “We do not, at this stage, present any results for the prices, as this will depend on how the cost of new capacity will be treated in the future.”

What the Frontier modelling actually concludes is something quite different: that the total cost of upgrading and running the national electricity market out to 2050 – when we are committed to reaching net zero greenhouse emissions – would be 44 per cent less under one scenario including nuclear power than under another not including nuclear.

That claim, too, is misleading, according to many economists and energy experts, because it compares “apples and oranges” – that is, two dissimilar scenarios labelled “step change” and “progressive”.

The first scenario, step change, is premised on Australia electrifying its economy in a big way between now and 2050, largely using renewable energy to power vehicles, homes, existing industries and energy-hungry new ones, such as data centres and AI services, in a robustly growing economy. The other is premised on a future in which that transition away from coal, gas and oil is slower and growth is significantly smaller.

“This is unequivocally about politics, not policy. The Coalition’s $331 billion nuclear fantasy is a coal- and gas-keeper energy transition plan for Australia, funded by taxpayers.”

According to the modelling produced pro bono for the Coalition by Danny Price, managing director of Frontier, the step change scenario without nuclear would cost $594 billion. The progressive scenario with nuclear would cost $331 billion, a difference of $263 billion, or 44 per cent.

But that does not equate to a similar reduction in prices for consumers. Not if the economy ends up being smaller, with less demand for electric power.

Simon Holmes à Court, businessman, energy analyst and director of pro-renewables body The Superpower Institute, summarises the opposition’s case as “we’re going to pay $263 billion less for electricity, but it’s for a lot less electricity”.

“And meantime, we have to pay an extra $500 billion for fossil fuels.”

His calculation factors in the long lead times involved in building nuclear capacity. The Price model would see 13 gigawatts of nuclear commissioned across Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria by 2050. The first unit would not come online until 2036 – and even this is a highly optimistic forecast. According to the CSIRO, a more realistic timeline is 15 years, not 11, to get the first one up and running. Other experts suggest even longer.

The Price model would see only a small amount of nuclear power before 2039 and the whole 23 gigawatts not operational until 2049.

In the meantime, his report says, Australia would have to extend the life of its fleet of coal-fired power plants.

“Already,” says Nicki Hutley, economist, former banker and now a councillor to the Climate Council, “at any one time, about 25 per cent of coal is down because it is ageing and is either under planned or unplanned repairs. What does that do to power prices when you don’t have enough supply to meet demand?”

In his report, Price suggested the problems with coal-fired plants could be ameliorated by introducing much more gas into the grid, but the cost of that, he wrote, “has not been modelled”.

Nor would the extra costs incurred by a delayed transition to renewables only be financial. More fossil fuels would be burnt, so more planet-warming gases would be emitted.

According to Price’s own modelling, the emissions intensity – the amount of greenhouse gas produced per unit of power generated – remains vastly higher under his plan than the government’s, all the way out to 2046.

The fact that emissions under the Price–Dutton nuclear plan eventually come down to the same level as the government’s renewables-heavy plan is beside the point, says Dylan McConnell, an energy systems analyst at UNSW Sydney.

“The pathway there is more important than the destination, in some respects, because it’s the cumulative emissions that matter,” he says.

By his calculations, as well as those of Hutley and the Climate Council, Steven Hamilton of the George Washington University, and the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Australian National University, the extra cumulative emissions under the Coalition policy would be enormous.

The Price–Coalition plan would produce about 2.5 times the emissions of the government’s preferred step change model – 1.65 billion tonnes, compared with 0.6 billion, according to Hamilton’s analysis, which was published in The Australian Financial Review this week.

And that is in the electricity sector alone, Hamilton wrote.

Add in the costs outside the generation sector, arising from things such as greater consumption of petrol and diesel resulting from the slower take-up of electric vehicles under the Coalition plan, and the cumulative emissions rise even more. To a total of more than 1.7 billion tonnes, according to Holmes à Court.

Those extra emissions “would blow our carbon budget”, says Hutley. “No wonder the opposition wants to abandon the 43 per cent emissions reduction target,” she says, “because you can’t possibly get anywhere near it under this policy.”

Scrapping that 2030 reduction target set by the current government would breach the Paris climate agreement and make Australia an international “pariah”, she says.

Hutley stresses that she has no objection to nuclear power, per se.

“It’s not ideology. It is purely and simply about the numbers. And I just can’t make them add up. You can’t just say we’re going to produce a grid with a whole lot less energy and that’ll cost us less.”

A large part of the problem in trying to make sense of the Price modelling, Hutley and others say, lies in the assumptions that underpin it. Some, like the capital cost per kilowatt of installed capacity, are generally seen as implausibly low.

Price factors in a cost of $10,000 a kilowatt, although the actual delivered costs of nuclear plants in comparable Western countries are about double that.

Others are simply mystifying, such as his assumed “capacity factors” for nuclear generation compared with wind and solar. Skipping the technical details, the essence of the issue is that nuclear runs more or less continuously, producing a constant amount of relatively expensive electricity. Renewables, by contrast, are intermittent, depending on the sun and wind, but produce cheap electricity.

The widespread concern among energy experts is that the introduction of nuclear into the power system would result in renewables, including rooftop solar, being switched off for extended periods, lest the grid be overwhelmed with power, and to assure the financial viability of nuclear generators.

According to analysis by the peak body for the renewables industry, the Smart Energy Council, “up to five million rooftop solar systems will be switched off, and the average power price bill will more than double” as a result.

An approach to the shadow minister for climate change and energy, Ted O’Brien, seeking the data got no response at all.

Experts interviewed by The Saturday Paper noted other worrying or peculiar aspects of the opposition’s policy, including the party of business’s vision of a nuclear industry wholly funded by government.

They say the reason is that the private sector would not risk investing.

But perhaps the biggest mystery, says Holmes à Court, is why Dutton and co chose to bring on this fight.

Opinion polling shows nuclear is not a popular option with the public, in contrast with wind and particularly solar. More pertinently, it is a policy that almost certainly can’t be implemented any time soon.

The Dutton Coalition would have to win both houses of federal parliament in order to overturn a ban on nuclear legislated under the Howard government in 1998 as part of a deal with the Greens. The odds of that happening are very long.

On top of that, Queensland, Victoria and NSW also have bans on nuclear power and show no inclination to reverse them, even though the Liberal National Party of Queensland now holds government.

“A little-known fact,” says Holmes à Court, “is that Queensland made it a requirement that there be a plebiscite to un-ban nuclear. That’s a lovely little poison pill that they left in the legislation.”

That being the case, why pursue it?

Because it is a means of exploiting voter concerns about the cost of living, even if it relies on the untrue promise of a 44 per cent reduction in electricity prices.

And because it avoids another round of the climate wars that have riven the conservative parties for decades. Those wars played a major part in the demise of several Coalition leaders, including Malcolm Turnbull, twice – the second time as a consequence of the plotting of Peter Dutton.

What the nuclear policy actually does is kick the energy-policy can down the road. It promises to get to net zero by 2050, but in the meantime to keep the electricity system running on fossil fuels for another decade or more.

Indeed, says Stephanie Bashir, of the energy consultancy Nexa Advisory, it is a mistake to consider it a serious policy at all.

“This is unequivocally about politics, not policy,” she says.

“The Coalition’s $331 billion nuclear fantasy is a coal- and gas-keeper energy transition plan for Australia, funded by taxpayers,” she says.

And that about sums it up.

December 31, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Dutton must face coal, hard facts. Nuclear will not work

December 27, 2024,  https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/dutton-must-face-coal-hard-facts-nuclear-will-not-work-20241227-p5l0tj.html

The owners of our coal-fired power plants have pointed to the biggest single flaw in Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan: those plants will all be gone before the first reactor can make an appearance, and long before the last is up and running (“Coal chiefs query Dutton’s nuclear bet”, December 27). Even if the owners wanted to keep them operating, it’s doubtful they could – not without spending inordinate amounts of money. That money, inevitably, would be courtesy of the taxpayer. All so we can enjoy energy at double the cost of renewables. Why can’t the opposition see what all the rest of us can? Or is it just a ploy to delay action on climate change for 20 more years? Ken Enderby, Concord

In March this year, it was reported that AGL, Australia’s largest power supplier, had ruled out taking part in Dutton’s nuclear push. It is instead pressing ahead with long-term plans to transform its legacy coal sites into low-carbon industrial energy hubs, including renewable energy, grid-scale batteries and manufacturing operations for green technologies. The Hunter Energy Hub is to occupy the old coal station Liddell and AGL’s Bayswater coal-fired generator, which is due to retire no later than 2033. Coal stations are ageing and in constant need of repair. Dutton will not include the consequent necessary budget support for coal in his costings, but taxpayers should. Fiona Colin, Malvern East (Vic)

Dutton’s plans depend upon his assumption that the existing coal-fired power plants will keep going until 2050 when nuclear plants replace them. In the Herald article, the Australian Energy Council said Dutton’s assumption was “brave”. “Brave” was a word reserved for impending disaster, that uber-bureaucrat Sir Humphrey Appleby would use to his prime minister Jim Hacker when the latter was contemplating doing something ridiculous. Life imitates art. Joe Weller, Mittagong

We don’t need to replace the soon-to-be redundant 19th century baseload power from ageing coal plants with poisonously expensive and slow-to-build nuclear plants that won’t be ready in time.

We are now well through the transition to a modern, computer-controlled grid that can handle the variable power coming from thousands of sources during the night and millions of sources during the day when rooftop solar is also available. I type this letter on a battery-powered device that was charged yesterday from the grid. An off-the-grid house with solar, wind, batteries and a small generator has no baseload power; one which is on all the time whether needed or not, just clever computer controls managing the balance between the available power and the load. Larger examples are every aeroplane in flight, and every ship away from port. The long-term safety of nuclear and its waste management is another issue. Peter Kamenyitzky, Castle Hill

When is the leader of the opposition going to wake up to the fact that his nuclear option is simply a bad idea? The facts are in. Nuclear will be considerably more expensive and not operational in time. It has no plan for waste disposal and our coal-fired power stations will have closed. This is a classic example of stubborn ideology overwhelming common sense. Bill Young, Killcare Heights

Is Dutton’s persistently promoted nuclear power proposal really a smoke screen over a plan to continue the use of coal, then gas, indefinitely? And to hell with the global heating consequences. Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin (ACT)

We’ve heard from experts, state and local governments, community leaders and now from the fossil fuel operators themselves: not only is it not a technically feasible plan, Dutton’s idea for nuclear power plants is unworkable, from a purely practical perspective. After all the studies and debate demonstrating how Dutton’s plan is economically, technically and practically dead in the water, why do we devote more money and energy giving this oxygen-thieving waste of space the time of day? Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay 

The Coalition has conveniently excluded many of the costs associated with its nuclear plan. The owners of the existing coal-fired plants are well aware of the incredible expense of maintaining them beyond their use-by dates. Eraring is a good example and that extension was only for a couple of years. Additionally, the expenditure involved in the disposal of nuclear waste and the inevitable extraordinary liabilities associated with the future decommissioning of nuclear plants was ignored in Dutton’s costings. If in doubt, check Britain out. Roger Epps, Armidale

December 28, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

The Australian election as a game of cricket: cost of living is the issue, but does Nature bat last?

December 26, 2024 , By Noel Wauchope,  https://theaimn.net/the-australian-election-as-a-game-of-cricket-cost-of-living-is-the-issue-but-does-nature-bat-last/

It is not nice to talk about politics at this happy festive time. But you can talk about cricket. Indeed, in Melbourne, it is your patriotic duty. So, I will – sort of.

A prestigious political analyst, Paul Bongiorno, writes in The Saturday Paper about the focus of campaigning for the 2025 Australian federal election. He sees both political parties emphasising the economy, and the “cost of living”. But Bongiorno warns that climate change could suddenly become once more the big factor in the political game, if summer does bring bushfires and floods.

Bongiorno argues that Dutton and the Liberal Coalition are out to stop renewable energy development:

“If the Dutton-led Coalition manages to take the treasury benches, the brakes will be dramatically applied to climate action. The energy transition would be stalled and billions of dollars of new-energy investment put in jeopardy.

A key Labor strategist says… it would take only another summer of catastrophic bushfires or floods to significantly jolt public opinion.”

Bongiorno goes on to argue that “The portents here are not favourable for Dutton.” And he cites powerful arguments about “deep flaws” in Dutton’s energy plan’s economic modelling. Bongiorno draws the conclusion that if climate change extremes hit Australia, voters will recognise the value of renewable energy, and vote for the present Labor government’s policies on climate action.

If only that would be the effect of weather disasters – Australian voters embracing action on climate change – the development of renewable energy and energy conservation!

Paul Bongiorno is a much-admired and well-informed analyst. And I am presumptuous to doubt his opinion. But I do doubt it. Look what happened in 2023, with the Australian public first supporting the concept of an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, but finally voting a resounding “No” to that plan.

How did it happen?

We are in a different era of media and opinion. We are in extraordinary times. When it comes to national elections, people still do vote according to what they see as “their best interest”. It’s just that now, due largely to the power and influence of “social” media, information about “one’s best interest” has become very confusing.

We thought that the Internet would give everyone a voice. And it did. But very soon the new information platforms found money and power could be bought by corporate interests, and indeed, that they themselves could become ultra-lucrative corporations. The media has become a smorgasbord of conflicting information, with so much of it not fact- checked. The “old” media still checks its facts (though I’m not sure about Sky News), but the old media has always been beholden to corporate influence. Even the ABC is circumspect in what it covers, and what it omits – and still makes sure to provide “balance”, even when one side is plainly unreasonable.

Anyway, for the old media to compete – the news has to be preferably exciting, dramatic, even violent. Except for sport and feel-good stuff.

In the new zeitgeist of 24 hour information barrage from so many different outlets, political news can be, and indeed is, swamped by cleverly designed brief messages, from forces like the Atlas Network, from the dominant global fossil fuel corporations. That swamping propelled many Australians to vote against the Aboriginal Voice.

In political news, media emphasis has shifted dramatically away from facts to personalities. In the USA, Donald Trump was seen as a strong, confident, interesting man, as against weak, indecisive, (and female) Kamala Harris. In Australia, there’s an obvious contrast between careful, measured, Anthony Albanese, and strong, outspoken Peter Dutton. In the USA, it didn’t matter that Trump offered few positive policies, so in Australia, the Liberal Coalition does the same.

In the USA, with a population of 334.9 million, approximately 161.42 million people were registered to vote. But only about 64% of these actually did vote in the 2024 general election. So, the majority of Americans don’t vote anyway. Trump was elected by a minority. The rest either didn’t care, or weren’t able to vote.

The Australian election system is so different. With compulsory voting, preferential voting, and the nationwide and highly reliable Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), most Australians do vote. You’d think that with factual news being provided by mainstream media, climate change information would become so important to voters, in the event of summer weather disasters. Paul Bongiorno thinks so.

I think so, too, But the advantage for Peter Dutton in the current national mood might be twofold.

First, Dutton is still that “tough, decisive person” with a tough plan, too – nuclear power instead of renewables. Secondly, the Dutton plan can so easily be marketed as the only real solution to global heating – nuclear power portrayed as “emissions free”, and “cheaper” than solar and wind power.

Never mind that there are substantial greenhouse gas emissions from the total nuclear fuel cycle. Never mind the astronomic cost. Never mind problems of radioactive wastes, safety, and weapons proliferation. The very telling point is that nuclear reactors cannot be up and running in time to have the needed effect on cutting greenhouse emissions. The time for effective action is now, not decades later.

Action on climate change is critical for Australia – and now!

But for the global nuclear lobby, getting Australia as the new poster boy for nuclear power – is critical – now!

Nuclear power should be a dying industry. There is ample evidence of this: reactors shutting down much faster than new ones are built, and of the mind-boggling cost of decommissioning and waste disposal. However, “peaceful” nuclear power is essential to the nuclear weapons industry – with the arms industry burgeoning in tandem with the increasing risk of nuclear war. It seems that the world cannot afford to weaken this war economy.

And the cost and trouble of shutting down the nuclear industry with its tentacles in so many inter-connected industries, and in the media, and in politics, is unimaginable.

The old poster boy, France, has blotted its nuclear copybook recently with its state energy company EDF deep in debt, and things rather crook with its latest nuclear station. But hey! What about Australia, a whole continent, with a national government perhaps ready to institute nuclear power as its prime energy source, and all funded by the tax-payer!

The long-promised nuclear renaissance might really come about – led by Australia, the energetic new nation, with its AUKUS nuclear submarines, with brand-new nuclear waste facilities, and kicking off this exciting new enterprise – nuclear power. This is the opportunity for a global nuclear spin machine to gear up for an onslaught on Australia. They really need the Liberal-National Coalition to win this election.

Dutton will be fed with the right phrases to regurgitate. It’ll be all about a “balanced” economy – nuclear in partnership with renewables and so on, if people have any worries about that. All the same, there are those problems of pesky independent politicians like Monique Ryan and David Pocock, and there’s still the ABC, Channel 9 TV and its print publications.

First, I’m hoping that Australia does avoid bushfires and floods this summer. And second, I’m hoping that in the event of climate disasters, Australians will choose the Labor Party with its real plan for action against climate change, and reject the Coalition with its nuclear power dream. There is a good chance of this result.

I’m hoping that Paul Bongiorno is right, if climate change does bat last in the election game, and that I am wrong about the power of personality politics + slick lies.

December 26, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment