Nuclear energy as dead as dinosaurs
Dave Horsfall, North Gosford, August 6, 2024, https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2024/08/nuclear-energy-as-dead-as-dinosaurs/
Those in the anti-renewables lobby don’t give up, do they?
One could be excused for thinking that they have shares in the fossil-energy industry (and for the record, I do not have shares in the renewables industry, nor indeed any shares at all, as I do not believe in gambling upon the fortunes of a nation).
The latest offering is presented in CCN 449 (Time to rethink nuclear power), where not only is the since-discredited myth that wind turbines affect whales promulgated – which they do not, but I guess that alleged dangers to whales always make for a good story.
Apparently we are expected to believe that said turbines can suddenly uproot themselves and go cruising around of their own accord; either that, or ships’ captains are stupid or something.
Of course, no mention is made of how to safely dispose of the highly dangerous waste, nor indeed the reactor vessel itself once it’s reached its commercial end of life; then again, I guess these are just inconvenient truths.
Do these individuals really believe that they are more qualified than Australia’s peak scientific body – viz the CSIRO – which found that nuclear energy is the most expensive of all sources, and renewables the cheapest?
Nuclear energy is as dead as the dinosaurs; get used to it.
Australian Conservation Foundation’s X account suspended after apparent ‘report bombing’
‘I do believe we are being targeted and they are trying to silence us out of this space,’ ACF spokesperson says
Graham Readfearn, Mon 5 Aug 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/aug/05/australian-conservation-foundation-acf-x-account-suspended-report-bombing
The X account of the Australian Conservation Foundation was suspended for more than 24 hours with the charity saying it believes it is being “report bombed by pro-nuclear groups” seeking to remove negative commentary.
The environment charity’s X account @AusConservation was suspended on Sunday morning, sparking outrage among supporters. The account was reinstated late on Monday, but without the charity’s 32,000 followers.
An explanatory note on its account had said that “after careful review” the account had been suspended for breaking “X Rules”.
The founder of one Australian pro-nuclear group, Nuclear for Australia, celebrated the suspension on X – the social media company owned by free speech advocate and US billionaire Elon Musk.
Major companies last year suspended their advertising on the platform, formerly known as Twitter, after Musk said he agreed with an antisemitic tweet on the platform.
Musk later apologised and called the post his “dumbest”
The ACF’s director of engagement, Jane Gardner, said the organisation had been posting more nuclear content since the Coalition revealed it wanted to lift the country’s ban on nuclear reactors and build seven nuclear plants.
She said: “We have noticed on our posts [about nuclear] there’s plenty of people disagreeing with us, with people threatening to report our content. I do believe we are being targeted and they are trying to silence us out of this space.”
ACF has received another suspension on X for no reason. I believe we’re being report bombed by pro-nuclear groups.
This is not isolated: factual nuclear info from @renew_economy & @climatecouncil has also been removed from Facebook and TikTok recently.On X, Gardner wrote: “As Australia’s largest and oldest environment advocacy group, our content is always evidence based and never in breach of any platform’s rules.
“It’s no coincidence that pro-nuclear proponents are today publicly boasting about these repeated attempts to silence us.”
Conservation charity Friends of the Earth said on X the suspension was “ridiculous” and that “no environmental group is safe from censorship here”.
An economist at The Australia Institute, Greg Jericho, said the suspension was “an absolute disgrace”.
Gardner said after the account was reinstated: “I hope our followers will be re-instated, but we are still to hear from X about why our account was withdrawn, We’ve had no explanation.
“We are worried this could happen again and, if it does, we will have to make some decisions about whether we want to be on the platform.”
ACF’s X account was also suspended briefly last month, again after posting nuclear content. The account was reinstated, without explanation, within a day of that suspension.
Guardian Australia asked X in an email why ACF’s account was suspended and if the suspension related to complaints about particular content. An automated reply said: “Busy now, please check back later.”
Last month the not-for-profit Climate Council had a video critical of nuclear energy temporarily removed from the social media platform TikTok.
The renewable energy media outlet RenewEconomy last month had an opinion article written by the University of Queensland economics professor John Quiggin on the costs of nuclear removed from Facebook.
“Disgraceful:” Bowen demands answers as social media giants remove EV and nuclear articles
Giles Parkinson, Aug 5, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/disgraceful-bowen-demands-answers-as-social-media-giants-remove-ev-and-nuclear-articles/
Federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen has demanded answers from social media giants, and Facebook owner Meta in particular, after a series of articles supportive of electric vehicles and critical of the federal Coalition’s nuclear policy were removed from their platforms.
Last month, Renew Economy published an analysis on the soaring cost of nuclear power by leading economist John Quiggin. We attempted to post it in our feed on social media but Facebook removed it without explanation.
Other posts critical of the Coalition’s nuclear claims have also been removed, and readers report that their attempts to post the articles on their Facebook feeds had also failed.
On Friday, the Australian Conservation Foundation – which has also been critical of the Coalition’s nuclear policies, also had its page on X, formerly twitter, frozen, much to the delight of the pro-nuclear zealots, including the schoolboy funded by the deep-pocketed renewable critic Dick Smith.
“ACF has received another suspension on X for no reason,” the ACF’s head of engagement Jane Gardiner wrote on her account, which has not been suspended.
“I believe we’re being report bombed by pro-nuclear groups. This is not isolated: factual nuclear info from @renew_economy & @climatecouncil has also been removed from Facebook and TikTok recently. We are under attack.”
Last week, Renew Economy’s EV-focused sister site The Driven also had a post removed from Facebook by Meta. This time it was about the start of a new price war on electric cars, this time driven by MG. Facebook said it was because the article breached community standards.
Bowen said he was not impressed.
“This is disgraceful,” he wrote on X. “A news outlet publishes a straight and factual article about EV prices coming down and @Meta bans it.
“Social media has the responsibility to police disinformation and facilitate factual updates. Social media is of course full of climate disinformation. There is no excuse for Meta blocking this factual article. I look forward to Meta justifying this decision.”
Researchers have pointed to a network of so-called think tanks and fossil fuel ginger groups who have been ramping up their presence on social media, attacking renewable and EV technologies, and promoting coal and nuclear. Yet it appears these posts, often laughably wrong, are not taken down.
The fossil fuel industry is largely behind these actions because nuclear serves two purposes for coal and gas – it delays action on climate and emissions reduction by several decades, and causes coal fired power generators to stay open for longer and for new gas generation to be built. The social media giants appear to have taken sides.
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for more than 40 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review. You can find him on LinkedIn and on Twitter.
About Peter Dutton’s claim that nuclear is cheaper than renewables.
Philip White – (letter to The Advertiser) 5 Aug 24
Nuclear proponents go to great lengths in an attempt to show that nuclear energy is cheaper than renewables. For example, in Monday’s Advertiser former Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation boss Ali Paterson is quoted comparing France’s electricity rates with Australia’s.
That is like comparing apples with pears. There is a huge difference in the impact on electricity prices of existing reactors that have already been paid for, and new reactors that won’t generate electricity for another 15 plus years.
I would put much greater faith in an estimate by Monash University’s Roger Dargaville that power bills could rise by $1,000 a year under the Coalition’s nuclear plan.
And by the way, the only French nuclear reactor to be built this century is 12 years behind scheduled and more than 4 times over budget and it still hasn’t started operating.
America’s war machine: Unless Australia acquires nuclear weapons, why acquire AUKUS subs?
By Percy Allan, 3 Aug 24, https://johnmenadue.com/americas-war-machine-unless-australia-acquires-nuclear-weapons-why-acquire-aukus-subs/
Nuclear-powered Virginia Class and AUKUS submarines are a useful deterrent only if they carry cruise missiles with nuclear warheads that can be launched from their unique vertical firing shaft.
Then if a distant enemy nuked Australia, we could launch an instant nuclear retaliation from such submarines lurking off their coast for months without needing refuelling.
That’s called MAD – mutually assured destruction – both sides know that neither side could nuke the other without risking oblivion.
Australia does not have nuclear weapons, nor does it plan to acquire them.
Australia’s quest to become part of America’s armed forces
Australia is fusing its navy, air force and army with America’s military forces. It’s called shifting from “interoperability” to “interchangeability”. One senior Australian defence officer has explained it as follows:
“…interoperability is two organisations able to work together, share information through technology and systems, and operate effectively as a joint or combined team. The higher standard of interchangeability includes all that plus the ability to seamlessly exchange individual people, equipment, doctrine, and/or systems between trusted nation groups.”
In essence under “interoperability” there are two separate national chains of command working jointly, whereas under “interchangeability” there is single chain of command. Under the latter it is doubtful the junior partner could break the chain of command and insist it call its own shots if the senior partner got into a skirmish not of Australia’s doing.
Without nuclear arms Australia should not be a party to confronting China
As such the Australian mainland could be the first casualty in an American war with China because we would be the weak link in America’s war machine without our own nuclear weapons.
Australian owned Virginia Class and AUKUS submarines carrying cruise missiles with conventional war heads would not provide a meaningful MAD deterrence.
And we have no guarantee from America that if a foreign power nuked Australia, America would nuke it in turn since that could cause a nuclear attack on America itself.
Worse still, unlike America we do not have an air defence system to intercept missile and drone attacks on our capital cities nor will we have such a protective shield in the foreseeable future.
Australia’s choice – get nuclear armed or stay conventionally armed?
In February 1970, Australia signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which commits us not to acquire nuclear weapons and to champion non-proliferation gobally. Since then, we have been one of the treaty’s strongest supporters.
Given that very long-range submarines like Virginia Class and AUKUS are best suited for nuclear armed powers (US, UK France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea), Australia needs to make a choice:
- Break the NPT and the join the club of nine nuclear armed nations and risk provoking our biggest neighbour Indonesia to do likewise, or
- Scrap nuclear-powered submarines for conventional ones better suited for defending our coastline than patrolling China’s foreshores
Canada recently decided to buy 12 modern electric-diesel powered submarines for an estimated US$44 billion (versus US$ 268-$368 billion for Australia’s 8 Virginia Class and AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines) since its focus is on patrolling its own vast coastline not that of distant nations.
Marles’ rationale for nuclear-powered subs does not stack up
Australia’s official rationale for obtaining submarines that can stay under water almost indefinitely is that they will defend our world shipping lanes and undersea communication cables. But that’s not credible.
Each year there are 26,000 ship port calls involving over 3,000 different ships at 70 Australian ports according to Shipping Australia.
China is Australia’s largest two-way trading partner in goods and services, accounting for one third of our trade with the world. It is not in China’s interests to disrupt it.
Marles should explain how three nuclear submarines by 2039 or eight by 2055 can defend each of these ships doing 26,000 round trips from being sunk by enemy submarines, destroyers, or bombers. Note that only one sub in three will be at sea at any time with the other two in port for maintenance or training purposes.
Marles probably thinks that our subs would be assisted by America’s 67 nuclear submarines (China has only 12 but is planning to have 21 by the early 2030s). But what assurance does he have that America would prioritise Australia’s trade routes and shipping movements over its own?
As for the nearly one million miles of telecommunication cables lying on the ocean floor, submarines can’t protect them. To safeguard these optical fibres, they are covered in silicone gel and wrapped in multiple layers of plastic, steel wires, copper sheathing, polyethylene insulator, and nylon yarn. In the deep sea, ocean inaccessibility largely protects cables, requiring only a thin polyethylene sheath. Hence the navy won’t have a role in patrolling their security.
Israel lobby ramps up scare campaigns in fear of truth
By Bilal Cleland | 1 August 2024, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/israel-lobby-ramps-up-scare-campaigns-in-fear-of-truth,18826
Israel lobby groups have increased efforts to silence those accusing the nation of genocide in Gaza, writes Bilal Cleland.
SHAIMA FARWANEH, 16, in the coastal displacement camp in al-Mawasi, west of Khan Younis, was preparing to make breakfast for her family on 13 July when the Israeli bombs fell.
Ninety people, mainly women and children, were killed and over 300 injured.
Shaima told Mondoweiss:
There is no country in all the world that does this to children, women, and civilians. This isn’t how wars are.
A leg hit me and I saw dismembered bodies a few metres away. I saw a young child screaming. He lost his lower limbs and was crawling on his hands and screaming. The bombs didn’t stop and suddenly the boy disappeared. I saw how he vanished before me while we ran and lowered our eyes to the ground, unable to do anything but run.
Israel in trouble
Following 7 October, by the end of 2023, from over 4,000 immigrants a month only about 1,000 a month were arriving in Israel. A 70 per cent decline.
In that same couple of months, about 470,000 Israelis fled.
As reported in Anadolu Ajansi:
‘Therefore, there is a negative migration of about half a million people, and this does not include thousands of foreign workers, refugees and diplomats who left the country.’
Despite the support given to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by the ruling parties across North America, much of Europe and Australia, one in four Israeli Jews and four in ten Arab Israelis would like to leave Israel according to a new survey. This reflects ‘a steady distrust with Israel’s political and military leadership’.
International institutions closing in
Haaretz published the stunning International Court of Justice (ICJ) findings on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory:
- Israel must end its presence in the occupied territories as soon as possible.
- Israel should immediately cease settlement expansion and evacuate all settlers from the occupied areas.
- Israel is required to make reparations for the damage caused to the local and lawful population in the Palestinian territories.
- The international community and organisations have a duty not to recognise the Israeli presence in the territories as legal and to avoid supporting its maintenance.
- The UN should consider what actions are necessary to end the Israeli presence in the territories as soon as possible.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is expected to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant within a fortnight.
Conflating opposition to genocide with anti-Semitism
The United States makes much of the role of the Iranian Council of Guardians selecting acceptable candidates for political office but ignores the role of its own Council of Guardians, AIPAC, which decides on suitable candidates for office.
U.S. Congressman Jamaal Bowman, once a recipient of lobby largesse, after seeing reality in Palestine on a J Street-funded excursion, called Gaza a genocide and said boycotts were legitimate.
Israeli lobby groups spent $9.9 million in a Democrat primary to get rid of him in favour of a supporter of Israel.
The scare campaign around rising anti-Semitism, which conflates criticism of Israel’s mass atrocities with prejudice against Jews, is a feature of most of the old colonial countries.
Mary Kostakidis, one of Australia’s most respected journalists, who speaks truth to power, has written regarding the Israeli genocide in Gaza:
‘In an effort to silence me, the Zionist Federation have filed a complaint with the [Australian Human Rights Commission] for racial vilification, aided by a reporter who can’t do his own research.’
The lobby levelled another case of harassment and suspicious accusations against a Palestinian Australian engaged in anti-genocide activity.
Hash Tayeh, who had to present himself to the police over alleged anti-Semitic comments, was not charged and his matter has been referred to the Office of Public Prosecutions.
His Caulfield Burgertory outlet was set on fire, allegedly by two men, on 10 November, an attack he claimed was linked to his involvement in a pro-Palestine rally and thus a hate crime.
Then we witnessed the arrest of a Palestinian activist in the Prime Minister’s electoral office.
Sarah Shaweesh, who was asking about the delay in visas for her family in Gaza, was arrested.
The office refused to help her.
She is a key organiser of the 24/7 Gaza sit-in protest in front of the PM’s office.
Complicity in genocide
In early March, Sydney law firm Birchgrove Legal lodged a communiqué to the ICC prosecutor claiming that the Australian PM and a number of other high-level local politicians are complicit in the Gaza genocide.
On Tuesday this week, it announced that the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC had added the document:
‘“…to the evidence gathered as part of the ICC’s investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine,” as well as having been transmitted “to relevant staff members for further review”.’
Meanwhile, Muslim Votes Matter is mobilising the anti-genocide vote in preparation for the next federal election.
Ted O’Brien sets out long-term plan for uranium-enrichment industry
Joe Kelly, THE AUSTRALIAN, 31 July 24
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien will call for Australia to develop a sovereign capability at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle – including the enrichment, conversion and fabrication of uranium – as new survey results show a dip in support for nuclear power.
In an address in Adelaide on Thursday night, Mr O’Brien will sketch out a long-term national endeavour to strengthen Australia’s energy security, building on the Coalition’s plans to replace retiring coal-fired power stations with up to seven nuclear power plants.
Mr O’Brien’s long-term nuclear plan for Australia now includes three key planks: the unlocking of the nation’s uranium reserves; the building of nuclear power plants; and a longer-term plan to develop expertise across the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle that would involve the development of a uranium-enrichment industry.
The three-pronged plan is aimed at ensuring Australia can eventually be self-sufficient, and not have to rely on global supply chains for the nuclear fuel rods that will be needed to power a future fleet of nuclear power plants…………………….
“Advancing Australia in this direction would set Australia up for the future, not just economically, but also strategically.”
Mr O’Brien will speak about his longer-term vision at an energy event on Thursday night being hosted by the Institute of Public Affairs, where he will also make a case for Australia to develop the capability to export nuclear fuel…………………….
The speech follows SEC Newgate’s release of its latest Mood of the Nation report on Thursday, which reveals only moderate support for nuclear power and a clear preference for renewables and new transmission infrastructure.
The latest tracking survey of 2021 Australians over the age of 18, taken between July 17 and 23, shows support for nuclear is slightly lower than in April at 37 per cent, while 39 per cent of respondents say they are against nuclear, and 23 per cent are neutral.
The results show a clear preference for building large-scale wind and solar farms with new transmission lines (50 per cent of respondents prefer this option), rather than nuclear power plants that use existing transmission infrastructure (26 per cent of people prefer this option).
Support for the Coalition’s policy to build seven new nuclear power plants is 39 per cent, while 35 per cent of respondents say it makes them less likely to vote with the Coalition, and 26 per cent say it makes them more likely to vote for the Opposition at the next election.
Of those who oppose the Coalition plan, most objections relate to safety concerns (41 per cent say it is too dangerous). However, 19 per cent of opponents to the Coalition plan believe renewables are superior.
AUKUS servility just one facet of poor governance
By Paul KeatingJul 31, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-servility-just-one-facet-of-poor-governance/
Richard Marles has the Navy out in force firing torpedoes at AUKUS critics.
On Friday last, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead claimed the critics need to produce evidence of any challenges to AUKUS being realised, then on Saturday, Vice Admiral Hammond, Chief of Navy, raised his periscope claiming the AUKUS debate was being ‘hijacked’ by people with ‘specific agendas’ without indicating what these agendas might be or who was likely making them.
The fact is, what clearly is being ‘hijacked’ is national accountability – accountability for the most wayward strategic and financial decision any government has taken since Federation.
Despite AUKUS’s half trillion of budgetary cost and its dangerous strategic implications there has not been one Ministerial Statement explaining its rationale, its strategic policy objective or defending its hugely distorting impact on government expenditures.
Not a coherent or persuasive word has come from the Minister for Defence or for that matter, the Prime Minister, let alone from a parliamentary debate on what is significantly a seminal turn in the country’s strategic and defence policy settings.
Vice Admiral Hammond, ignoring Australia’s geography – its residence among populous and prosperous Asian states, fell back on the old Anglo glee-club adage ‘three developed nations who have over 100 years of shared history, heritage, values and sense of purpose.’
The likelihood is that Australia will not come into possession of nuclear submarines of its own making, but what it will certainly become is landlord and host to American nuclear submarines as the United States appropriates Australian real estate in its attempts, against all odds, to maintain strategic primacy in Asia. Odds that carry the likelihood of Australia being dragged into military skirmishes with China, or indeed, worse.
So irresponsible, secretive and smug has the government been in making its decision, that no amount of ‘hijacking’ by anyone else is likely to disrupt Australia from its current path of effectively falling into American hands, or at least, being abjectly at America’s beck and call.
Republished from Australian Financial Review, July 30, 2024
Prime Minister Albanese’s hypocrisy on matters nuclear
Reverse nuclear secrecy. Albo or Dutton? What’s the scam?
Michael West Media, by Rex Patrick | Jul 28, 2024
“……………………………………………………………………..At the same time, the Prime Minister has launched a full-scale attack on Dutton’s half-baked scheme to build seven nuclear power reactors. Albanese’s problem is that much of Labor’s critique of Dutton’s contentious plans applies to AUKUS too.
It’s hard to criticise power reactors when you’re the man who stamped approval on the $368B AUKUS program as you swung by the political Kabuki show in San Diego last year.
Which leaves the Prime Minister exposed as a hypocrite on an issue he would like to put at the centre of his election campaign. https://michaelwest.com.au/reverse-nuclear-secrecy-albo-or-dutton-whats-the-scam/
Jabiluka uranium mine lease not renewed in decision heralded as ‘huge win’
NT government opts not to grant 10-year lease after considering wishes of Indigenous people and federal government advice
Australian Associated Press, Fri 26 Jul 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/26/jabiluka-uranium-mine-lease-not-renewed-in-decision-heralded-as-huge-win?CMP
The lease on the Northern Territory’s Jabiluka uranium mine will not be renewed, months after its remote surrounding area was granted new protections.
Energy Resources Australia (ERA) had applied for a 10-year lease renewal on the Jabiluka uranium mine, but was knocked back on Friday.
The NT mining minister, Mark Monaghan, said the decision to not renew was based partially on advice from the federal government.
“We have gone through a thorough process to ensure that all stakeholder views have been considered in this decision,” he said.
“The federal government advice, along with the wishes of the Mirarr people, were critical to this process and outcome.”
The Northern Territory government declared special reserve status over the Jabiluka area, which is in the surrounds of Kakadu national park, in May.
This prevents any future applications for the grant of a mineral title over the Jabiluka area once the current lease ceases on 11 August.
The Australian Conservation Foundation welcomed the decision, calling it a “huge win” for traditional owners.
“This decision allows a line to be drawn under the divisive era of uranium mining in Kakadu,” a statement read.
“This is a responsible decision that ends the threat that has hovered over this very special place for four decades.”
Mirarr people have long opposed any mining in the area, holding protests in the late 1990s and early 2000s when more than 5,000 people travelled to Kakadu to prevent uranium mining at Jabiluka.
Energy Resources of Australia, a subsidiary of the Rio Tinto Group, has been contacted for comment
Solar doesn’t need a toxic “friendship” with nuclear power
Heidi Lee Douglas, Jul 26, 2024. https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-doesnt-need-a-toxic-friendship-with-nuclear-power/
Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been in regional Queensland this week promoting hi nuclear plan, which claims nuclear and solar both have a future in Australia’s energy mix.
Yeah, nah.
A new report released this week by the Queensland Conservation Council has revealed building a 1,000 MW nuclear power station in Queensland in 2040 would knock out 3,700 GWh of cheap renewable energy from the grid.
It is the equivalent of shutting an average of 45,000 Queensland household solar systems every day, according to the new analysis.
The report reinforces what other experts are saying – that rooftop solar and nuclear cannot co-exist – and reveals just how detrimental any proposal for nuclear would be for Queensland solar homeowners’ hip pockets.
To make nuclear power plants economically viable, nuclear must run at full capacity. That means a direct clash with rooftop solar whenever the sun is up, and to enable nuclear power production during the day they’ll have to stop rooftop solar panels from exporting to the grid.
The simple truth is adding nuclear power to the Australian energy mix will undermine the interest of rooftop solar owners.
Australia has an abundance of sunshine and renewable resources. Queensland already leads the world with uptake of household-scale solar, with the Sunshine State reaching a record 1 million rooftop solar installations earlier this year.
The second, third, fourth and fifth highest rates of rooftop solar output in Australia are in Bundaberg, Mackay, Toowoomba and Hervey Bay. These communities have the most to lose if their solar output is shut off during the day by nuclear.
With more Australian households nationwide having rooftop solar than swimming pools, it’s time for the Liberals and Nationals to start listening and stop ignoring people power, literally and politically.
Australians have already voted with their rooftops for cheaper, cleaner solar energy, with more than three million rooftop solar installations. Australians have a strong and abiding love of the cost saving, independence and security that comes from making their own solar power.
In fact we’ve invested $25 billion of our own money into rooftop solar, and are the envy of the eye worldwide for our home-grown renewable energy.
Everyday Australians are world leading energy producers – not just energy consumers. Every home solar rooftop should be treated with the respect of being a sustainable home solar energy “farmer”, bringing the cost of power down for all Australians, and simultaebously reducing our carbon emissions.
At Solar Citizens we work with community members from across the political spectrum who, time and again, have been vocal in support of solar because they are empowered by rooftop solar. We know how strong this movement of solar homeowners is. And it would be unwise for political leaders to forget it.
A smarter government investment would be to grow access to rooftop solar for households currently locked out of the benefits of clean energy including renters, people living in apartments or social housing and low-income households. And provide Australian households with assistance for a battery rebate, like the highly succcessful solar rebate.
Enabling more people to install home batteries will mean we can store cleaner, cheaper energy during the day and use it at night or when needed most. This would provide long term energy relief for households, improve our power network reliability and help cut network costs for all by avoiding transmission costs.
Rooftop solar coupled with home batteries delivers the win-win of cost-of-living relief with cheaper power and less climate pollution.
Put simply, solar and renewables would not happily co-exist in a toxic ‘frenemy” relationship’ with nuclear. Instead, we urgently need a great Aussie marriage of home solar with home batteries.
Heidi Lee Douglas is CEO of Solar Citizens, an independent, community-based organisation working to protect and grow solar and renewable energy and clean transport in Australia.
Forget nuclear: 5B says plunging price of PV means giga-scale solar farms the future for old coal plants
Sophie Vorrath, Jul 26, 2024, RenewEconomy,
Australian solar innovator 5B says the plunging price of photovoltaic technology has made the company’s prefabricated Maverick arrays cost-competitive with single axis tracking solar plants – and in some cases cheaper, depending on the quality of the solar resource.
In a presentation to the Large-scale Renewable Generation & Storage Summit in Sydney on Thursday, 5B deputy CEO Nicole Kuepper-Russell said the company’s value proposition was “really singing” since module prices fell to just over 10 cents per watt in China in March.
The low cost of solar was a hot topic at the conference, as was the falling cost of storage.
In a presentation by former Clean Energy Finance Corporation chief Oliver Yates, the renewables investment guru argued cheaper batteries mean most existing government and industry plans should be “shredded and start again” to account for the “new solar/battery economic frontier.”
Representing Valent Energy – the energy storage focused joint venture between Gaw Capital and BW ESS – Yates said the cost of dispatchable renewables was now around $200/MWh – $65/MWh for solar production and $135/MWh for battery storage – and “anything producing power higher than that is ridiculous.”
For 5B – as Kuepper-Russell’s presentation illustrated, below [on original]– the levelised cost of energy for a solar project using its Maverick arrays hit price parity with the LCOE of single axis tracker solar towards the end of last year, and has steadily become cheaper as panel prices continue to fall……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://reneweconomy.com.au/forget-nuclear-5b-says-plunging-price-of-pv-means-giga-scale-solar-farms-the-future-for-old-coal-plants/
Coalition to fast-track nuclear power.
Pearls and Irritations, By Ian McAuley, Jul 27, 2024
The Coalition’s nuclear power idea is based on an obsolete model of electricity supply
Circulating in the media are three arguments against nuclear power in Australia. One is based on safety, an emotive issue, involving unresolved questions about future costs, and the dangers are probably overstated. The danger issue doesn’t need to be argued, however, because the main problems with the Coalition’s nuclear power plans have to do with cost and the long time before the first kWh would be generated.
Those impediments were confirmed in a speech earlier this month by AEMO CEO Daniel Westerman: Australia’s energy transition: What’s needed to keep the momentum going. He said:
Our ISP [Integrated System Plan] does not model nuclear power because it is not permitted by Australian law, and development of nuclear power generation is not a policy of any government. But we know from our work with the CSIRO on the GenCost report that nuclear is comparatively expensive, and has a long lead time. Even on the most optimistic outlook, nuclear power won’t be ready in time for the exit of Australia’s coal-fired power stations.
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering has just released an assessment of the viability of small modular nuclear reactors, which feature strongly in the Coalition’s proposals. These reactors are still at an early development stage: it will be many years before they become established. Although the study does not explicitly address costs, it does point out that early adopters are likely to face much higher costs than those who wait for SMRs s to become a mature product. As ATSE President Katherine Woodthorpe explains on ABC Breakfast, small modular reactors are unlikely to become a realistic energy source in Australia for decades, and our large coal-fired generators are closing in the next few years.
Writing in The Conversation Asma Aziz of Edith Cowan University reminds us of another cost component not covered in the Coalition’s plans: Without a massive grid upgrade, the Coalition’s nuclear plan faces a high-voltage hurdle. The Coalition’s idea is about replacing retiring coal-fired generators with nuclear plants, plugged into the existing transmission infrastructure. But as she points out, demand for electricity is growing rapidly, which means the cost of upgrading the transmission network should be included in the Coalition’s plans. (It is already included in the costings for renewable energy.) The other point she stresses is that all power plants, whatever their technologies, are subject to outages, planned and unplanned. A distributed set of comparatively small solar and wind plants therefore need less transmission redundancy than large centralized nuclear plants.
There is a fourth, and more basic problem with the Coalition’s nuclear proposal. It’s based on an old and inflexible “base load” model, which was determined by the technology of coal-fired generation. There has to be enough capacity in the system to cope with demand peaks, and that was achieved by keeping the boilers hot, keeping the generators spinning, and shovelling in heaps of coal as demand rose. Nuclear is a little different, in that shovels aren’t involved, but the principle is the same.
There are now more flexible and lower-cost ways to meet peaks……………………………………………………………
All the above is in the context of a debate about the comparative cost of nuclear energy and renewables. The Australian community is being distracted from that debate, because the Murdoch media and Coalition-aligned think tanks are spreading absurd misinformation and disinformation about the cost of renewable energy. ……
Even if nuclear power plants were cheaper than renewables (they’re certainly not), there is no way they could replace coal-fired stations as they come to the end of their lives. The lead time for nuclear power is just too long. As Michael West explains, there is a constellation of forces, including the Institute of Public Affairs, Putin’s mate Tucker Carlson, and the Murdoch media, pushing to keep oil and gas burning. That would have to involve new “base-load” coal-fired stations: there is no way to extend the life of our old stations for twenty or more years while nuclear power gets developed.
The other driver of the Coalition’s policy is an intention to cripple the renewable industry through creating uncertainty. That way they can confirm their claim that the government’s renewable plans are failing. It’s doubtful that any seriously cashed-up investor is convinced by the Coalition’s nuclear argument, but the belief that next year’s election could see the election of a government of Trumpian crazies is enough to make investors cautious. ………………more https://johnmenadue.com/coalition-to-fast-track-nuclear-power-north-korean-style-weekly-roundup/
Anthony Albanese slams Opposition’s nuclear ‘obsession’ as he doubles down on renewables push at NSW Labor conference
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has hit out at Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan, as he doubled down on the government’s push for renewables as the path forward for Australia’s energy future during his address at the NSW Labor conference.
Sky News, Adriana Mageros, Digital Reporter, July 27, 2024
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has slammed the Opposition’s “obsession with nuclear power”, as he doubled down on the government’s renewables push at the New South Wales Labor conference.
Mr Albanese delivered his speech to hundreds of delegates on Saturday at the annual Labor event, which will run for two days at Sydney’s Town Hall.
Security was earlier heightened in the Sydney CBD as Pro-Palestine protesters gathered outside the venue ahead of the Prime Minister’s arrival.
Speaking to delegates, Mr Albanese declared Labor’s bid for cleaner and renewable energy will produce a “new generation” of manufacturing jobs, particularly across regional Australia.
However, he claimed the Liberal Party’s nuclear agenda was putting this job growth at risk.
“They brag about driving the car industry out of Australia when they were last in government, and now they want to sacrifice a new generation of manufacturing jobs,” Mr Albanese said.
“All in the name of their obsession with nuclear power.”
Mr Dutton unveiled his long-awaited nuclear energy policy in June, proposing to build seven nuclear reactors across regional Australia should the Coalition win the next election.
The proposed power plants would be built on existing sites of aging coal-fired power stations, which are heading into retirement.
“It’s been over a month since the Liberals finally announced their plan for nuclear reactors in every state on the mainland, but they can’t find a single investor to back it,” Mr Albanese said.
“They won’t tell people what the cost of building these reactors will be, and they won’t tell you how long it will take.
“They don’t have an answer about how or where they will safely store the nuclear waste.
……………………………………………………………………………………. In his speech to delegates on Saturday, the Prime Minister also announced the government will be working with traditional owners to make the uranium mine at Jabiluka in the Northern Territory part of the Kakadu National Park.
“This means there will never be mining at Jabiluka,” Mr Albanese declared.
“The Mira people have loved and cared for their land for more than 60,000 years.
“Our government will work with them to keep it safe for all time.”…………………. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/anthony-albanese-slams-oppositions-nuclear-obsession-as-he-doubles-down-on-renewables-push-at-nsw-labor-conference/news-story/2ac731547651c7f26f08aec10676b0a1
Shoalhaven’s nuke-free vote
Shoalhaven City Councillors voted unanimously to remain a nuclear-free zone at Monday night’s ordinary meeting. A motion was tabled seeking council reaffirm its 2006 position that it would oppose any plan or attempt to establish a nuclear reactor or power plant in the region or in the Jervis Bay Territory. It comes after federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton flagged seven nuclear sites across Australia in June.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 