Facebook pages all still full of articles and videos making outrageous claims about renewables and nuclear. But that, it seems, is OK for the social media giant.
Facebook removed the item, saying it was an attempt to generate clicks by providing misleading information. We’d like to know on what basis this decision was made, but Facebook has yet to provide an answer.
It’s a concerning development, and not the first time one of our posts has been removed by Facebook.
Social media platforms including Facebook, X, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram – are full of unchecked and misleading information about climate change and energy technologies. Much of it is complete nonsense creating FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt – about new technologies.
It appears to be part of a well-funded and orchestrated plan by vested interests, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, to demonise renewables, electric vehicles, battery storage and other emerging competitors.
Much of this is amplified in mainstream media, where outrageous claims against renewables – and claims of blackouts, economic collapse and environmental failure – are repeatedly given voice.
Social media platforms including Facebook, X, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram – are full of unchecked and misleading information about climate change and energy technologies. Much of it is complete nonsense creating FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt – about new technologies.
It appears to be part of a well-funded and orchestrated plan by vested interests, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, to demonise renewables, electric vehicles, battery storage and other emerging competitors.
Much of this is amplified in mainstream media, where outrageous claims against renewables – and claims of blackouts, economic collapse and environmental failure – are repeatedly given voice.
Quiggin notes that the Czechia deal suggests the opposite is true, and confirms the widely held view in the energy industry itself that GenCost underestimates rather than overestimates the costs of nuclear. Nuclear, he says, is really really expensive.
But Facebook has now ruled that such analysis is misleading, and it won’t allow its users to view such information. Over the last few months, this has happened on several occasions to Renew Economy and its sister site The Driven.
Yet Facebook allows media groups such as Sky News Australia to post misleading information about renewables and climate without a check.
It’s a shocking development, and one that points to the manipulation of information by naysayers and vested interests. Some attribute it to the work of the Atlas Network, a shadowy group with strong Australian fossil fuel links that has campaigned against renewables, the Voice referendum, climate action, and climate protests.
Researchers say that the whole point of the Atlas network of organisations and so called “institutes” and think tanks – which this article in New Republic says includes Australia’s Centre for Independent Studies, which has launched loud attacks against institutions such as the CSIRO, AEMO, and renewables in general – is to drown out actual academic expertise.
The Atlas Network does this, researchers say, to reduce the capacity for public and government influence with its own corporate propaganda that is dressed up as “research.”
George Monbiot, a columnist for the Guardian, calls many of the 500 institutions linked with the Atlas Network “junk tanks.” Jeremy Walker, from the University of Technology in Sydney, wrote in a paper that the network in Australia includes the CIS and the Institute for Public Affairs, both strongly anti renewable, and pro nuclear.
Their Facebook pages all still full of articles and videos making outrageous claims about renewables and nuclear. But that, it seems, is OK for the social media giant.
Aspects of the proposed program also go distinctly against the supposedly free market individualism so treasured by those on Dutton’s side of politics. If nuclear power was to become the fundamental means to decarbonise the Australian economy by 2050, it would entail crushing levels of debt and heavy government stewardship.
By its very nature, the Commonwealth would have to take the reins of this venture, given that private investors will have no bar of it
Peter Dutton’s sketchy plan for Australia to go nuclear is nothing more than a political distraction with no actual benefits for the country, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
POLITICS AND FACTS are not necessarily good dinner companions. Both often stray from the same table, taking up with other, more suitable company. The Australian Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, has never been discomforted by facts, preferring the chimera-like qualities demagoguery offers. His vision for Australia is admirably simple and simplistic.
In foreign policy, he supports U.S. interventions in any theatre of the globe without question. Ditto such allies as Israel. To the distant north, the evil Yellow Horde is abominated. Domestically, matters are similarly one-dimensional. Irregular boat arrivals are to be repelled with necessary cruelty. And then there is a near pathological hatred of renewable energy.
Needing to find some electoral distraction to improve the Liberal-National Coalition’s chances of returning to office, Dutton has literally identified a nuclear option. Certainly, it is mischievous, throwing those wishing to invest in the problematic Australian energy market into a state of confusion. As with any investment, the business of renewables is bound to also be shaken.
Last month, Dutton finally released some details of his nuclear vision. Seven nuclear projects are envisaged, using sites with currently working or shuttered coal-fired power stations. These will be plants up to 1.4 gigawatts (GW) to be located at Loy Yang in Victoria, Liddell in NSW’s Hunter Valley and Mt Piper near Lithgow, Tarong and Callide in Queensland. Small modular (SMR) reactors are planned for Port Augusta in South Australia and Muja near Collie in Western Australia.
The SMR gambit is particularly quixotic, given that they have yet to come to viable fruition. Besides, the entire reactor venture already faces glaring legal impediments, as nuclear power is prohibited by Commonwealth and state laws. (The ban on nuclear energy was, with sweet irony, legislated by the Howard Coalition Government a quarter of a century ago.)
Already, the handicaps on the proposal are thick and onerous. Ian Lowe of Griffith University witheringly describes the proposal as ‘legally impossible, technically improbable, economically irrational and environmentally irresponsible’.
The greatest of all handicaps is the fact that Australian governments, despite tentatively flirting with the prospect of a civilian nuclear sector at points, have never convinced the citizenry about the merits of such power. The continuous failure of the Commonwealth to even identify a long-standing site for low-level radioactive waste for the country’s modest nuclear industry is a point in fact.
Aspects of the proposed program also go distinctly against the supposedly free market individualism so treasured by those on Dutton’s side of politics. If nuclear power was to become the fundamental means to decarbonise the Australian economy by 2050, it would entail crushing levels of debt and heavy government stewardship.
By its very nature, the Commonwealth would have to take the reins of this venture, given that private investors will have no bar of it.
‘There is no other way because private capital won’t go anywhere near this risky energy play, with huge upfront costs, very long lead times and the madness that has pervaded our energy transition to meet international obligations.’
The extent of government involvement and ownership of the proposed nuclear infrastructure made The Age and Sydney Morning Herald search for a precedent. It seemed to have an element of “Soviet economics” to it, directly at odds with the Liberal Party’s own professed philosophy of “lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative”.
It would also add to the already monstrous AUKUS obligations Australia has signed up to with the United States and the United Kingdom, a sovereignty-shredding exercise involving the transfer and construction of nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra costing upwards and above $368 billion.
The Smart Energy Council has been good enough to offer its own estimate: the seven nuclear plants and reactors would cost somewhere in the order of $600 billion, securing a mere 3.7 per cent of Australia’s energy share by 2050.
While draining the treasury of funds, this nuclear-in-Duttonland experiment would do little to alleviate energy costs. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s national science agency, along with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), have concluded that nuclear power in Australia would not be prudent in terms of cost relative to other sources of power. The obstacles noted in their 2023-24 report are impressively forbidding.
According to the report, Australia, for instance, lacks existing nuclear power projects:
‘Therefore, although it is true that all technologies have extensive pre-construction development times, nuclear is unique in that it has an empty development pipeline in Australia.’
Throw in the layers of legal, safety and security steps, any pioneering nuclear plant in Australia would be ‘significantly delayed’, rendering nuclear power’s role in achieving net zero emissions by 2050 a nonsense.
The Dutton plan is scratched of all empirical shape. Estimates are absent. Numbers, absent. Capacity, absent. Figures, if supplied, will be done immediately prior to the next Federal Election, or while in government. Such moves teeter on the edge of herculean stupidity and foolhardiness, at least in Australian conditions. The exercise is also, quite rightly, being seen as an attempt to stealthily retain coal-fired stations while starving continued investment to the renewable sector.
Dutton’s junior partner, the Nationals, has also been very candid about its position on renewable energy projects.
Party Leader David Littleproud nailed his colours to the mast on that subject early last year. By August 2023, he was explicitly calling for a “pause” to the rollout of wind and solar and transmission links, calling the Albanese Government’s pursuit of its 82 per cent renewables target a “reckless” one. His implicit suggestion: wait for the release of the nuclear genie.
The Coalition Opposition’s nuclear tease continues the tendency in Australia to soil climate policy with the sods of cultural conflict. On any matter, Dutton would be happy to become a flat-Earther were there any votes in it. The problem here is that his proposal might, on some level, be disruptively attractive — in so far as the voters are concerned. With Labor dithering in office with the smallest of majorities, any disruption may be one too many.
It is often claimed that many countries are going nuclear and if Australia wants to be a ‘Developed Country’ we should have nuclear power.
If that is the case, how would we go about it?
The first step is to build a regulatory framework. Regulations differ from country to country partly for historical reasons and partly different circumstances.
Then like all codes, the regulations are modified bit by bit in response to new hazards or changes in practice, but they become cluttered with deadwood with slightly conflicting requirements which make compliance difficult and expensive.
Typically, it takes two to three years and US$1-2bn to get a licence to build a new nuclear plant in the US, even if the plant itself is an approved design on an existing site.
We could work with the international agencies to develop a modern set of regulations, but that could easily take 4-5 years.
So, let’s say we agree to just doing a quick copy and paste job after legislation is passed in late 2025 and we start to recruit the necessary staff in 2026.
The UK has 700 regulation staff, France 1,500 and the US 2,700 so by 2030 the regulations would be published, and site selection could proceed.
The French regulator has a budget of €150m/y and French salaries are about 25 percent lower than ours.
We can then estimate that the first thirty years of the Regulator’s life would cost the taxpayer $3-5bn.
The nuclear workforce
At the same time, we need to establish and train the construction workforce.
EDF Energy claims that 22,000 people in Britain are working on the Hinckley Point C power station (pictured). This is nine times the size of the Snowy II workforce and almost three times the size of the entire Australian oil and gas extraction industry.
Most of these people would need security clearance and many would need additional training and certification.
If we say that on average it is 3 months training for two thirds of the staff, that is an initial training load of about 900,000 person days, say 1,000,000 days including training the trainers.
ver seven years, that is a cost of about $200m not including students wages.
However, Britain is building two plants in about 17 years. If we want six plants on line by 2065 we would be building a peak of five at one time so the workforce would reach 45-50,000.
With retirements and departures, the training and security bill will be over $700m over thirty years
Fabricating nuclear power stations
Now apart from the lack of skills, we don’t have fabrication workshops with twin 500 tonne cranes and appropriate welding and heat treatment equipment.
These cost about $200m to build and equip.
Further, transport constraints and the distance between projects means that new workshops will probably need to be built near each site as would concrete batching plants etc. Some equipment would be shared but $500m in plant costs is not unreasonable.
Then there is the question of build cost. CSIRO used Korean figures, but they are highly questionable as there have been no public updates since 2018 and the company building and operating the nuclear plants is carrying US$150bn in debt, about two years annual sales.
We do have public data on other reactors, although that data usually doesn’t include all the losses made by contractors such as Westinghouse and Siemens who withdrew from projects after billions in losses.
All these plants are built on existing sites with plentiful cold cooling water and robust transmission access and an established nuclear workforce.
Access to cooling water can’t be dismissed. A single reactor cooling tower evaporates enough water for a city of 350,000 people.
Even without the traditional ‘Australian Premium’ for construction projects, believing we could build plants at less than a 10 percent premium over experienced northern hemisphere countries is stretching credibility, so A$42-45bn each in 2024 dollars is likely with another $2-4bn on water and transmission infrastructure per reactor.
Adding up the bill for nuclear power
ll up the bill is approaching $270bn over thirty years to build enough nuclear capacity to supply about 50-55,000 GWh/y.
If we build the cheapest plant above and somehow manage to give the Americans twenty-three years start and build them for the same cost, it is still close to A$175bn for less than 50,000 GWh/y.
According to the US Department of Energy, fuel, operations, security, maintenance and other overheads are around A$50-65/MWh.
At current cost of capital, amortising the establishment cost over 60 years, finance and depreciation works out at about $400-500/MWh.
Best case total cost of $450/MWh.
Further, as it is not uncommon to have three or four of six plants offline at once for six weeks or more, we would need to maintain even more gas/coal/hydro than we have now to supply 500-600,000 GWh/y of demand in 2060-70.
Or what of wind, solar?
On the other hand, we are currently building enough wind/solar/storage every year to add 7-10,000 GWh/y, roughly the equivalent of one nuclear power plant.
With enough storage to make wind/solar as reliable as nuclear, if the government offered a guaranteed price of A$120/MWh they would be knocked over in the rush.
Peter Farley holds an engineering degree and is a manufacturing leader who built pioneering CNC machine tools for export winning many export and engineering awards. Peter has been studying the electricity sector since his 2012 Election to the Victorian Committee of Engineers Australia. A realistic time frame for building nuclear- by Peter Farley
DECLASSIFIED AUSTRALIA by Peter Cronau | 3 Nov, 2023
The Pine Gap US surveillance base located outside of Alice Springs in Australia is collecting an enormous range of communications and electronic intelligence from the brutal Gaza-Israel battlefield – and this data is being provided to the Israel Defence Forces.
Two large Orion geosynchronous signals intelligence satellites, belonging to the US and operated from Pine Gap, are located 36,000 kms above the equator over the Indian Ocean. From there, they look down on the Middle East, Europe and Africa, and gather huge amounts of intelligence data to beam back to the Pine Gap base.
After collecting and analysing the communications and intelligence data for the USA’s National Security Agency (NSA), Pine Gap’s data is provided to the Israel Defence Forces, as it steps up its brutal assault on Palestinians in the Gaza enclave.
“Pine Gap facility is monitoring the Gaza Strip and surrounding areas with all its resources, and gathering intelligence assessed to be useful to Israel,” a former Pine Gap employee has told Declassified Australia.
David Rosenberg worked inside Pine Gap as ‘team leader of weapon signals analysis’ for 18 years until 2008. He is a 23-year veteran of the National Security Agency (NSA).
“Pine Gap has satellites overhead. Every one of those assets would be on those locations, looking for anything that could help them.”
“Pine Gap facility is monitoring the Gaza Strip and surrounding areas with all its resources, and gathering intelligence assessed to be useful to Israel.”
Rosenberg says the personnel at Pine Gap are tasked to collect signals such as ‘command and control’ centres in Gaza, with Hamas headquarters often located near hospitals, schools, and other civilian structures. “The aim would be to minimise casualties to non-combatants in achieving their objective of destroying Hamas.”……………………………………
Pine Gap base’s global role in fighting wars for US and allies
The sprawling satellite ground station outside Alice Springs, officially titled Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap (JDFPG), has been described as the United States’ second most important surveillance base globally.
About half the 800 personnel working at the Central Australian base are American, with Australian government employees making up fewer than 100 of the increasingly privatised staff.
The base is no mere passive communication collector. Personnel at the Pine Gap base provide vital detailed analysis and reporting on SIGINT (signals intelligence) and ELINT (electronic intelligence) it collects.
As well as surveillance of civilian, commercial, and military communications, it provides detailed geolocation intelligence to the US military that can be used to locate with precision targets in the battlefield.
This was first conclusively documented with concrete evidence in a secret NSA document, titled “Site Profile”, leaked from the Edward Snowden archive to this writer and first published by Australia’s ABC Radio ‘Background Briefing’ program in 2017:
“RAINFALL [Pine Gap’s NSA codename] detects, collects, records, processes, analyses and reports on PROFORMA signals collected from tasked target entities.”
These PROFORMA signals are the communications data of radar and weapon systems collected in near real-time – they likely would include remote launch signals for Hamas rockets, as well as any threatened missile launches from Lebanon or Iran.
This present war in Gaza is not the first time the dishes of Pine Gap have assisted Israel’s military with intelligence, including the detecting of incoming missiles, according to this previous report.
“During the [1991] Gulf War, Israeli reports praised Australia for relaying Scud missile launch warnings from the Nurrungar joint US-Australian facility in South Australia, a task now assigned to Pine Gap.”
During the early stages of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the NSA installed a data link to send early warning of any Iraqi missile launches detected directly to Israel’s Air Force headquarters at Tel Nof airbase, south of Tel Aviv.
Israel’s access to the jewels of the Five Eye global surveillance network
The NSA “maintains a far-reaching technical and analytic relationship with the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU),” according to documents published by The Intercept in 2014. The documents show the NSA and ISNU are “sharing information on access, intercept, targeting, language, analysis and reporting”.
“This SIGINT relationship has increasingly been the catalyst for a broader intelligence relationship between the United States and Israel.
It’s thanks to the Pine Gap base, with its satellites so strategically positioned to monitor the Middle East region, along with its targeting and analysis capability, that Israel is able to make use of these benefits.
………………….This wide intelligence sharing arrangement potentially opens up to the Israelis the ‘jewels’ of the Five Eye global surveillance system collected by the NSA global surveillance network, including by Australia’s Pine Gap base.
Declassified Australia asked a series of questions of the Australian Defence Department about the role of the Pine Gap base in the Israel-Gaza war, and about the legal protections that may be in place to defend personnel of the base should legal charges of war crimes be laid. No response was received by deadline. https://declassifiedaus.org/2023/11/03/targeting-palestine/
In some places, Friday’s mass tech outage resembled the beginning of an apocalyptic zombie movie. Supermarket checkouts were felled across the country and shoppers were turned away, airports became shelters for stranded passengers, and live TV and radio presenters were left scrambling to fill airtime. The iconic Windows “blue screen of death” hit millions of devices globally and rendered them effectively useless.
The ABC’s national youth station Triple J issued a call-out for anyone who could come to their Sydney studio to DJ in person. One woman was reportedly unable to open her smart fridge to access her food.
All because of a failure at CrowdStrike, a company that most of us – least of all those who were worst hit – had never heard of before.
It’s thought to be the worst tech outage in history and Australia was at its epicentre: the crisis began here, and spread to Europe and the US as the day progressed. Surgeries were cancelled in Austria, Japanese airlines cancelled flights and Indian banks were knocked offline. It was a horrifying demonstration of how interconnected global technology is, and how quickly things can fall apart.
At its peak, it reminded us of some of the most stressful periods of the pandemic, when shoppers fought each other for rolls of toilet paper and argued about whether they needed to wear masks.
Many of us lived through the Y2K panic. We avoided the worst outcomes but it was an early harbinger of how vulnerable our technology is to bugs and faults, and showed the work required to keep everything up and running. The CrowdStrike meltdown felt closer to what’s really at risk when things go wrong.
As a technology reporter, for years I’ve had warnings from industry executives of the danger of cyberattacks or mass outages. These warnings have become real.
The cause of this outage was not anything malicious. It was relatively innocuous: CrowdStrike has blamed a faulty update from its security software, which then caused millions of Windows machines to crash and enter a recovery boot loop.
Of course Australians are no strangers to mass outages, even as they become more common and more severe.
The Optus network outage that froze train networks and disrupted hospital services just over six months ago was eerily similar to the events on Friday, not least because it was also caused by what was supposed to be a routine software upgrade.
The resignation of chief executive Kelly Bayer Rosmarin did little to prevent another Optus outage a month later. If anything, Friday’s CrowdStrike outage highlights how many opportunities there are for one failure to cripple millions of devices and grind the global economy to a halt. So many of the devices that underpin our economy have hundreds of different ways that they can be knocked offline, whether through a cyberattack or human error, as was likely the case with CrowdStrike.
The incident would likely have been even worse were it a cyberattack. Experts have long warned about the vulnerability of critical infrastructure – including water supplies and electricity – to malicious hackers. Everything is now connected to the internet and is therefore at risk.
And yet the potential damage of such attacks is only growing. We are now more reliant than ever on a concentrated number of software firms, and we have repeatedly seen their products come up short when we need them to just work.
In the US, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, put it succinctly.
“All too often these days, a single glitch results in a system-wide outage, affecting industries from healthcare and airlines to banks and auto-dealers,” Khan said on Saturday.
“Millions of people and businesses pay the price.”
Khan is right. The technology we rely on is increasingly fragile, and is increasingly in the hands of just a few companies. The world’s tech giants like Microsoft and Apple now effectively run our daily lives and businesses, and an update containing a small human error can knock it all over, from Australia to India.
The heat is now on CrowdStrike, as well as the broader technology sector on which we rely so heavily, and some initial lessons are clear. Airlines have backup systems to help keep some flights operational in the case of a technological malfunction. As everyday citizens, it’s an unfortunate reality that we need to think similarly.
Keeping cash as a backup is a smart idea in the event of a payment systems outage, as is having spare battery packs for your devices. Many smart modems these days, like those from Telstra and Optus, offer 4G or 5G internet if their main connection goes down. We need more redundancies built in to the technology we use, and more alternatives in case the technology stops working altogether.
For IT executives at supermarkets, banks and hospitals, the outage makes it clear that “business as usual” will no longer cut it, and customers rightly should expect adequate backups to be in place. Before the Optus outage, a sense of complacency had permeated our IT operations rooms and our company boardrooms, and it still remains. No longer.
The “blue screen of death”, accompanied by a frowny face, was an apt metaphor for the current state of play when it comes to our overreliance on technology. Our technology companies – and us consumers, too – need to do things differently if we’re to avoid another catastrophic global IT outage. There’s too much at stake not to.
In this, the first in an occasional series about nuclear power in Australia, Peter Farley says the claim of nuclear reliability is vastly overstated.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong,” – Albert Einstein.
As a student in the late 60’s I watched a training film which assured us that nuclear power was available every hour of every day and it would soon be ‘too cheap to meter’ (Chairman of US Atomic Energy Commission 1954).
In the seventies the nuclear story began to unravel – nuclear plants were nowhere near as reliable as claimed.
Nuclear plants must be shut down for maintenance and refuelling which takes 4-6 weeks every 1-3 years.
An additional complication is that due to the huge thermal mass and the risk of fuel containment failing with rapid operating changes, a nominal two-hour repair of a simple wiring fault requires a 48–72-hour power down/power up process.
Consequently, in the seventies and eighties nuclear availability was in the 70-80% range, not the claimed 95%.
Later it was realised that an emergency shutdown due to an external issue such as a turbine fault, loss of transmission etc., xenon gas was generated within the reactor and stopped the nuclear reaction.
Xenon, which itself is radioactive, must be carefully and thoroughly extracted from the reactor before restart.
After the Great Northeast blackout in the US in 1965 some reactors took two weeks to return to service.
Then it became clear that the benefits of a common design had their downsides.
In Canada in 1998 it was discovered that their design led to premature failure of cooling tubes, so 8 of 22 reactors were shut down. It took until 2006 for production to fully recover.
Then by 2014 a series of upgrades began with one to three reactors offline for 24-30 months each. 2023 output was still 16% down on 2014. France had a similar experience in 2020 and 2022.
The British Magnox reactors had problems with graphite blocks. There wasn’t a single year where nuclear output in the UK was above 86% of capacity.
In Switzerland in 2015 for a brief period all five reactors were off-line.
In Belgium in 2015, output was down 46% on the 2000-2012 average. Worse, for six weeks late in 2018, four of five reactors were offline and for the whole second half of 2018 nuclear output was 61% down on historical levels.
Fortunately for Belgium, they burned a lot of cheap gas. More significantly, they imported an average of 24% and up to 44% of their electricity for the half.
Before turning to the big producers, France and the US, let’s check the latest nuclear champion, Finland.
In winter 23/24 nuclear power ran faultlessly but load varies, so its contribution varied between 23% and 48% of the load.
But by March for long periods, imports were larger than nuclear power output. In May, nuclear output was 40% down on January.
While France is a nuclear success story, it is not without significant problems. Nuclear output peaked in France in 2005 at 450 TWh, 79% share of generation and 81% capacity factor.
By 2016-17 problems began to appear and nuclear output dropped below 400 TWh, then by 2020 around 350 TWh and 67.5% market share.
Then in 2022 disaster struck. A new form of stress corrosion was discovered in Civaux-1 which was only 20 years old.
Further, a record drought meant cooling water was restricted at another six reactors halving power output there, even after a temporary suspension of environmental regulations.
Soon half of France’s reactors were offline. The result was that in the midst of the global gas crisis, France’s 2022 nuclear output was 182 TWh below 2005.
That is the equivalent to 520 Snowy 2.0s. Relative to the NEM, the reduction is equivalent to quadrupling our 2022 gas output and completely draining seventy Snowy 2.0.
The NEM was in near crisis when coal output fell by 4.8% between winter 2021 and winter 2022. In July to September 2022 French nuclear output was down 43% from historical levels so instead of exporting 14% of its electricity for those months it imported 10%. Who will we import from?
While the US nuclear system is more productive with 93% Capacity Factor, it also has 870 GW of fossil fuels and hydro/pumped hydro and import capacity to back up the 97 GW of nuclear.
That is equivalent to increasing our existing coal, gas and hydro capacity by 50% to back up 7 GW of nuclear.
Alternatively, US nuclear power works because it only supplies 18% of US grid electricity from 91 reactors.
If we only want 20% of grid supply from nuclear, that means just four or five conventional reactors.
With 43 coal generators we still have problems when there are clusters of outages. If a large number of reactors is required so that the loss of three to five at once, as has happened in Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, and Canada is not a problem, we need a number about where the US is now, meaning roughly a hundred 80-120 MW reactors.
But even then, it is no guarantee – in April 2023 nuclear output in the US was down 20% on January
In conclusion, a feasible number of nuclear reactors in Australia would not guarantee reliability, regardless of cost.
Peter Farley holds an engineering degree and is a manufacturing leader who built pioneering CNC machine tools for export winning many export and engineering awards. Peter has been studying the electricity sector since his 2012 Election to the Victorian Committee of Engineers Australia.
Clare Silcock, 21 July 2024, https://www.queenslandconservation.org.au/nuclear_option_shutting_off_cheap_solar Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) has today released a new analysis showing that the equivalent of 45,000 Queensland household solar systems would need to be shut off every day to allow just one nuclear power station to operate in 2040. With the renewable energy rollout well underway, by the time we have built a nuclear power station in Queensland, we won’t have the need for it.
Clare Silcock, Energy Strategist at QCC, said:
Nuclear power stations can’t easily turn off, which means by 2040, we’d have to turn off a staggering 3,700 GWh of cheap renewable energy every year just to run one nuclear power station. We would be shutting off cheap energy to allow expensive nuclear power to run.
This report shows that nuclear power simply doesn’t fit into a modern grid and isn’t what we need to meet our future energy demands at the least cost.
Our energy system is changing rapidly. We’ve nearly doubled renewable energy in Queensland in five years. A large part of this has been from rooftop solar systems which have fundamentally changed when we need energy to support the grid.
Baseload generation is what our power system was built on, but it’s not what we need in the future. Saying that we need baseload generation is like saying that we need floppy disks to transfer files between computers.
What we need is flexible generation and storage which can move energy from when we have lots of it, in the middle of the day, to when we need it overnight. That is not how nuclear power stations work.
The earliest we could possibly build a nuclear power plant in Australia is 2040 – by then we will have abundant renewable energy and technology like batteries and pumped hydro will be providing the flexible storage we need to support that renewable energy.
Nuclear is also much more expensive than renewable energy backed by storage. CSIRO estimates nuclear could be up to four times more expensive to build. It’s as clear as day that the Federal Coalition’s nuclear plan is a fantasy to delay the closure of Australia’s polluting coal-fired power stations.
We would like to see the Federal Opposition focus on a real plan for bringing down emissions and power prices and that would mean backing renewable energy and storage.
The Nuclear Files: The pro-nuke lobby that surrounds the Liberal-National coalition wants Australia to become a fully-fledged nuclear nation – and a permanent dumping ground for the world’s high-level radioactive reactor waste.
“They want it all,” warns long-time anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), which is leading the environment movement’s counterattack on the coalition’s nuclear insurgency: “They want Australia to adopt the full nuclear cycle, from cradle to grave.”
The far-reaching ambitions of the pro-nuclear campaign were revealed at their Navigating Nuclear event in Sydney earlier this year, formally opened by the Opposition’s nuclear torchbearer Ted O’Brien MP, and attended by The Fifth Estate.
O’Brien’s enthusiasm for the “big brains” and “calibre of people” in the room at the event, the “big idea” of nuclear energy for Australia, and his job to “listen and learn” is all on show in the video of his opening address.
These nuclear influencers, who have helped to shape the Peter Dutton led coalition’s still-emerging nuclear policy over the past two years, are looking well beyond overturning Australia’s ban on nuclear energy, which would clear the path to build reactors.
Navigating Nuclear, which was promoted as being all about “the facts”, but rapidly descended into a propaganda exercise, heard from one an MIT professor, name about extraordinary ambitions for an all in nuclear Australia:
Most controversially, becoming the world’s repository for high-level nuclear reactor waste, with America’s output alone worth $US1 billion a year
Leveraging the AUKUS nuclear submarine military pact with the US and the UK to drive a civilian nuclear industry
Challenging for the title of global number one uranium producer, which has long been an ambition for the powerful Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) and
Even building reactors in our arid lands to make the deserts bloom with agriculture fed by nuclear-powered water desalination plants.
However unlikely, crazy or dangerous these plans to go beyond nuclear energy may sound, they are being openly proposed within the pro-nuke lobby.
As the ACF’s Sweeney makes clear, this is because pro-nuclear advocates, both here and internationally, want Australia to take a seat at the table with Big Nuke’. This means participating in multiple aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining more and more uranium through to high level radioactive waste disposal as a global service.
The only thing off the table, at least for now, seems to be Australia joining ranks of nations that are nuclear weapons capable. But even that deep redline has been flirted with in recent months, with Jim Seth, a WA Liberal state executive extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons
His sentiments were echoed in a recent discussion paper from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute suggesting that uncertainty with the AUKUS deal necessitates that “discrete thinking must start now to address these potentially program-killing issues. A Plan B that raises alternatives must be developed. These must include, if China is indeed perceived as a possibly existential threat, the option of Australian nuclear weapons”.
While Sweeney and other critics of Dutton’s domestic nuclear plan do not see nuclear weapons as the inevitable next step they do loudly warn of the voracious appetite of the ideological drivers of the nuclear push and the dangers of nuclear normalisation and mission creep.
“Australians would be wise to be very cautious”, says Sweeney. “Some of the current crop of nuclear promoters absolutely want an Atomic Australia. Their vision is one of unfettered uranium mining and enrichment, fuel processing, domestic nuclear power, national and international radioactive waste storage and Australia to have or host nuclear weapons and war fighting capacity. If they are successful, we will all be far poorer – forever”.
The sheer scale of nuclear ambition was made clear at the all-day Navigating Nuclear workshop, which as well as being opened by O’Brien, the shadow minister for climate change and energy, was attended by his senior adviser, James Fleay, and another outspokenly pro-nuclear coalition MP, the National Party’s David Gillespie.
This is in spite of the event originally promoted as “politicsfree”.
One of the keynote international speakers, Professor Jacopo Buongiorno, based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston a top US outlined the economic opportunity for Australia to take the world’s radioactive waste.
Buongiorno estimated that American reactors alone produce $US1 billion worth of high level waste each year.
Currently this waste in the US has been stored for decade above ground at reactor sites, even after decommissioning, Buongiorno said.
This is the same methodology O’Brien is proposing for the seven preferred sites for reactors that it has identified in Australia, which he has said could have operating lives of 60, 80 or even 100 years.
High-level radioactive waste is a hot button issue for the public. Australia has decades of deeply contested history to find a site to accommodate permanent disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive waste from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s Lucas Heights facility and other sources such as medical.
Commercial reactor waste is hot dangerous and extremely long lived
Sweeney warns that: “Commercial reactor waste is a whole different ball game – hot, dangerous and extremely long lived, the current international best practice for its long term disposal requires very expensive confinement in purpose built facilities, located deep underground in highly geologically stable areas.”
Ultimately, the waste held indefinitely in so-called “dry casks” spread around America is meant to end up in such facilities, but so far, the Americans have never gotten around to actually doing it, in part at least because it costs a bomb!
It’s difficult to imagine a more controversial proposal for Australia’s future than becoming a nuclear dumping ground for the world’s reactor waste, at least part of which will remain dangerously radioactive for many tens of thousands of years.
Sweeney says: “Previous attempts to advance high level global radioactive waste disposal in WA in the 1990s and more recently in South Australia last decade foundered on the jagged rocks of hostile politics, community concern and deep First Nation opposition. But neither the nuclear industry’s waste, nor its need to be seen to have a pathway for disposing of this, has gone away.”
Overseas observers see Australia offers “a convenient postcode to store a permanent poison,” Sweeney says.
They have followers closer to home, including former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. In a June 2024 column in Adelaide’s The Advertiser, Downer argued that hospitals, schools and roads could all be paid for by a nuclear waste storage facility servicing Australia and other parts of the world, which could reap tens of billions of dollars in revenue, which he based on a state Labor-commissioned 2016 royal commission report.”
The radioactivity of nuclear waste naturally decays and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. Within a period of 1000 to10,000 years, the radioactivity of HLW (high-level waste) decays to that of the originally mined ore. Its hazard then depends on how concentrated it is … Most nuclear waste produced is hazardous, due to its radioactivity, for only a few tens of years and is routinely disposed of in near-surface disposal facilities. Only a small volume of nuclear waste (~3 per cent of the total) is long-lived and highly radioactive and requires isolation from the environment for many thousands of years.
Sweeney has been close to multiple community fights around plans to site global and national radioactive waste facilities throughout remote and regional Australia.
His experience over decades has seen many promises and scant progress. “Radioactive waste is a serious and unresolved management issue here and overseas. It needs to be isolated and secured from people and the wider environment for staggering periods of time – up to 100,000 years. It lasts longer than any politician’s promise and needs serious attention and management. It should always be approached through the lens of responsibility and human and environmental health, not shouted and touted as a revenue stream.”
O’Brien and his senior adviser Fleay were in the Navigating Nuclear audience when Buongiorno, outlined a series of major nuclear related options for Australia, including the world’s waste dump “opportunity”………………………………………………………………………………………..
What about the security risk and the synergy between military alliance and a civilian nuclear industry?…………………………………………………………..
Such security and proliferation concerns were not high on Buongiorno’s radar as he also cited leveraging AUKUS as another key opportunity for Australia, seeing clear synergies between the military alliance and a civilian nuclear industry.
This is despite then Prime Minister Scott Morrison being very clear of a distinction between AUKUS and any domestic nuclear industry when he stated, “Australia is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability.
Earmarking Port Augusta for the opposition’s nuclear plan has proved wildly unpopular with Indigenous leaders, who say mining and dumping nuclear material is akin to “killing your mother”.
Others say they believe Australia is lagging behind and needs to embrace nuclear energy.
What’s next?
Questions remain, with voters saying they are still in the dark about how much the plan will cost and how the privately owned land would be acquired.
Earmarking Port Augusta for Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan has proved wildly unpopular with an Indigenous leader, who says he feels so strongly about the issue that he is willing to go to court to fight the proposal.
Nukunu elder Lindsay Thomas said his community was against mining fissionable elements, such as uranium as a whole.
“Our people don’t believe in this, we don’t believe it should have even been dug out of the ground anywhere in Australia,” he said.
The following is a statement to be delivered on July 23 at the 2024 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee event in Geneva by Jemila Rushton, Acting Director, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Australia. It was endorsed by a number of groups, including Beyond Nuclear. It has been adapted slightly for style as a written piece rather than oral delivery.
We gather in uncertain and dangerous times. All nine nuclear armed states are investing in modernizing their arsenals, none are winding back policies for their use. The number of available deployed nuclear weapons is increasing. We do not have the luxuries of time or inaction.
Against this background where the proliferation of nuclear weapons is an ongoing concern, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America continue to further develop AUKUS, an expanded trilateral security partnership between these three governments.
AUKUS has two pillars. Pillar One was first announced in September 2021 and relates to information, training and technologies being shared by the US and UK to Australia to deliver eight nuclear powered submarines to Australia. Vessels which, if they eventuate, will utilize significant quantities of highly enriched uranium (HEU). It also allows Australia to purchase existing US nuclear submarines. Currently, Australia is committing billions of dollars to both US and UK submarine industry facilities as part of the AUKUS agreement, potentially enabling the further development of nuclear armed capability in these programs.
Two years ago, during the 2022 NPT Review Conference, many governments expressed concern that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal would undermine the NPT, increase regional tensions, lead to proliferation, and threaten nuclear accidents in the ocean. There remains an urgent need to critique the nuclear proliferation risks posed by AUKUS.
The Australian decision to enter into agreements around nuclear powered submarines was made on the assumption that it would be permitted to divert nuclear material for a non-prescribed military purpose, by utilizing Paragraph 14 of the International Atomic Agency’s (IAEA) Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA). The ‘loophole’ of Paragraph 14 potentially allows non-nuclear armed states to acquire nuclear material, which would be removed from IAEA safeguards.
Australia’s proposed acquisition of large quantities of HEU outside of usual IAEA safeguards and scrutiny jeopardizes nonproliferation efforts and fissile material security. This conference has the mandate to prepare recommendations for the upcoming Review Conference to strengthen rather than weaken the global nonproliferation regime by moving to close the Paragraph 14 loophole. States represented here should negotiate the closure of the Paragraph 14 loophole in the NPT, as it permits Australia and other non-nuclear armed states to obtain nuclear-powered submarines and potentially weapons-grade HEU.
To eliminate the risk of non nuclear weapons states acquiring nuclear weapons grade HEU, all states, including AUKUS members, should refrain from sharing the technology and materials that will be transferred if Australia and others acquire nuclear-powered submarines. The paragraph 14 loophole undermines the NPT and needs to be closed.
Pillar Two of AUKUS plans to enhance the joint capabilities and interoperability between the partners, and may draw in other countries to AUKUS. This move is vastly out of step with a strong sense of Pacific regionalism and the long-standing commitment to a Nuclear Free Pacific. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga) is being put under strain in this agreement. It is of grave concern that currently Japan, Canada and Aotearoa/New Zealand are actively considering their engagement with AUKUS Pillar 2.
We are concerned that the AUKUS trilateral partnership, and any further expansions will exacerbate regional tensions, fuel an arms race and increase risks of war in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly involving China and the United States, and will increase the danger of nuclear escalation in any such conflict.
Within Australia, First Nations communities have expressed deep concern about the imposition of new military and radioactive waste facilities on their lands. First Nations and broader communities across Australia and throughout the Pacific have noted that AUKUS is part of a rapid militarization of the region, and raises the ever-present threat of nuclear conflict. Recognizing the disproportionate impacts of previous nuclear activities on First Nations or Indigenous Peoples, and the on-going legacies of nuclear weapons testing and activities in the region, there is deep concern for what AUKUS will mean for sovereignty of Small Island States and its impacts on Indigenous lands and Peoples.
The fuel for HEU naval propulsion reactors is weapons-grade, and the spent fuel is weapons-usable. HEU is the most suitable material for ready and rapid conversion into a nuclear bomb. While removing HEU from a submarine would not be an easy process, the possibility of diverting such material for weapons purposes cannot be ruled out. Meaningful safeguards are extremely limited when the material is on a stealth platform that can disappear for six months at a time.
With the entry into force of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), there is a mandate to strengthen existing non-proliferation mechanisms. By joining the TPNW, governments can legally confirm that they will not acquire or host nuclear weapons, nor assist with their use or threat of use. We affirm that AUKUS members should make firm their commitments to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament by joining the TPNW as a matter of urgency.
Barely mentioned is the potential of a nuclear power industry to provide a pathway for the development of nuclear weapons: first, by providing a large pool of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians and, second, by creating the means to manufacture the fissionable material needed for a bomb. The latter would require further heavy investment in either a uranium enrichment plant or a plutonium reprocessing plant, or both.
Such a discussion has been underway largely behind closed doors in strategic and military circles for decades.
Federal opposition leader Peter Dutton’s announcement last month that the Liberal-National Coalition would build seven nuclear power plants seeks to overturn longstanding official opposition to nuclear energy, entrenched in state and federal law. Currently, Australia has just one nuclear reactor, operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) for research and the production of medical isotopes.
Dutton slammed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government for its reliance on renewables, claiming that nuclear power would provide cheap, reliable, environmentally-friendly energy for households and businesses. He dismissed problematic issues of nuclear waste and safety by pointing out that the Albanese government had already ditched Labor’s nuclear-free policy by embracing the acquisition of nuclear-powered attack submarines under the AUKUS pact with the UK and US.
In the ensuing wave of commentary on the nuclear power proposal, critics derided Dutton’s lack of detail, including costings, and pointed out that nuclear reactors would not be operational for at least a decade. Advocates of the profitable renewable industries touted solar and wind power as the cheap, clean, safe alternatives to nuclear power.
Barely mentioned is the potential of a nuclear power industry to provide a pathway for the development of nuclear weapons: first, by providing a large pool of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians and, second, by creating the means to manufacture the fissionable material needed for a bomb. The latter would require further heavy investment in either a uranium enrichment plant or a plutonium reprocessing plant, or both.
Such a discussion has been underway largely behind closed doors in strategic and military circles for decades. Plans for an Australian atomic bomb were seriously considered in the 1950s and 1960s, with the 1968‒71 Coalition government of Prime Minister John Gorton taking the first steps in building a nuclear power reactor that provided a route to manufacturing a nuclear weapon.
In the midst of the Cold War, however, Washington was determined to maintain the effective monopoly of its massive nuclear arsenal and thus its use as a menacing threat or in war itself against the Soviet Union or any other potential rival. Under the guise of disarmament, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) banned the manufacture of nuclear weapons except for the five countries with a known nuclear arsenal—the US, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China—and effectively stymied the Australian project as well as most similar plans by other countries. Australia signed the NPT in 1971 and ratified it in 1973.
The global geopolitical landscape, however, has dramatically changed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the Cold War. Far from bringing global peace and prosperity, US imperialism has been waging war for the past three decades in a desperate attempt to maintain its global hegemony. Conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia are now rapidly metastasizing into great power conflicts and world war involving nuclear-armed powers. The US and its NATO allies are already waging war against Russia in Ukraine and, in league with its Asian allies, including Australia, preparing for war against China.
In this context, as the danger of nuclear war looms larger, debate has reemerged in military circles over the building of an Australian atomic bomb. In his book How to Defend Australia, published in 2019, prominent strategic analyst Hugh White devoted an entire chapter to the question: “Does Australia need its own nuclear weapons to preserve its strategic independence in the decades ahead?”
The way White posed the question points to the central argument of the book as a whole—the necessity of Australian imperialism forging a foreign and military policy that does not rely on America’s waning power.
………………………………. In the Indo-Pacific, the US has been preparing for war with China, which Washington regards as the chief threat to its global domination. Far from leaving Australia isolated, the US is integrating the Australian military directly into its war plans against China—the AUKUS pact being the most obvious expression. This places the Australian population on the front lines of such a war.
White speaks for a minority in the ruling class that doubts the wisdom of being drawn into a catastrophic military conflict with Australia’s biggest trade partner. He and others argue for Australian imperialism to adopt a stance of heavily-armed neutrality. While not explicitly calling for an Australian nuclear weapon, White’s book certainly implied its necessity. Grossly inflating the threat posed by China, he argued that without the protection of the US, the only realistic means of countering such a threat is for Australia to have its own nuclear armaments.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………US imperialism is already, in reality, engaged in a war with nuclear-armed Russia in Ukraine and making advanced preparations for conflict with nuclear-armed China. The Australian military, including its bases, forms a vital component of the Pentagon’s strategy for fighting a nuclear war and, thus, a potential nuclear target. American nuclear submarines and nuclear-capable strategic bombers are being stationed in western and northern Australia. US spy and communications bases in Australia are indispensable to the US military’s global war plans. In other words, if US imperialism launches nuclear war, Australian imperialism is automatically involved……………………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/07/20/qxon-j20.html—
Nuclear energy threatens Australia’s food production with more than 11,000 farms near the opposition’s proposed reactor sites, the government says.
The farms are located within an 80km radius of the seven earmarked sites, according to a data analysis released by the federal government on Thursday morning.
Under international standards that radius is classified as an “ingestion exposure pathway” in which people may be exposed to radiation through contaminated food, milk and water after a nuclear leak.
US farmers in those zones must take on preventative measures in an emergency, such as providing livestock with separate feed and water, holding shipments and decontaminating produce.
“Based on international practice, farmers would need to take expensive steps during a nuclear leak and would need to inform their customers that they operate within the fallout zone,” Agriculture Minister Murray Watt said in a statement.
“It’s bizarre that the Nationals and Liberals are putting at risk our prime agricultural land like this, especially without the decency to explain it to farmers and consumers how they’d mitigate all the potential impacts.”
Senator Watt also told the Australian Global Food Forum on Wednesday that nuclear power needs more water than coal-fired energy and renewables.
“One issue not yet considered in the nuclear debate is the fact that nuclear energy production is a thirsty endeavour,” he told the industry crowd in Brisbane.
………………………………………..There would be more than 1000 affected farms close to each of the sites at Callide, Collie, Liddell and Mount Piper, 2400 near Tarong and 260 near Port Augusta, according to the government’s analysis.
Victoria’s La Trobe region would be the hardest hit with more than 4100 farms within the 80km radius.
Australia’s nuclear safety watchdog has approved a plan to prepare for a radioactive waste facility at HMAS Stirling naval base in Perth’s south, for waste from nuclear submarines.
But local residents are worried about the potential for nuclear accidents and the impact on the environment.
What’s next?
Approval to begin construction will now be sought, followed by licences for control and operation of the facility, which is expected to open in 2027.
Rockingham residents have expressed alarm at the prospect of a radioactive waste facility at HMAS Stirling naval base on Garden Island, following a decision by the nuclear safety watchdog to approve one.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has given the green light to prepare a site for the facility, which will be a workshop for servicing and repairing the vessels, and will store waste from nuclear powered submarines.
The facility will also need separate approvals for construction and operation.
The facility, about five kilometres off the coast of Rockingham, which is 50 kilometres south of Perth’s CBD, would provide low-level waste management and maintenance support.
Coal communities across the country – facing the loss of industry, jobs and the social fabric that binds them together – are poised to transition from the fossil fuel that built their histories.
But what the future will look like in towns like Lithgow in NSW and Traralgon in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley is far less certain. Will they pivot to privately owned renewables, or have government-owned and funded nuclear reactor sites imposed on them by a future Coalition government?
Community groups in every site nominated by Peter Dutton as a potential future nuclear site have joined forces to offer their answer to his proposal: no.
Wendy Farmer is president of Voices of the Valley, a community group that formed in the Latrobe Valley after the Hazelwood coal mine fire in 2014, which burned for 45 days and caused health concerns for those living there amid the smoke.
Farmer united community groups from each area nominated for a nuclear plant to campaign together against the plans. Together, they’ve formed an alliance representing seven communities to fight against the proposal, reminiscent of the independent Voices movement that sent Cathy McGowan to federal parliament in 2013 and has since been replicated across the country.
Already, two people are preparing to nominate as independent candidates to take the fight to the next election.
“I’m really hoping that it will show communities that united, we can really make a change,” she says. “We can actually demand what we want as community. To me, it’s really important that we just aren’t dumped on and told ‘this is what’s good for you, and this is what’s going to happen’.”
Kate Hook, who ran as an independent candidate in Calare in central western NSW in 2022, says she’s considering putting her hand up again at the next election against Nationals MP-turned-independent Andrew Gee.
Key to her candidacy, which she would run as a Voices-style campaign, is renewable energy and nuclear. “Is it a bunch of politicians who have just got together and said, ‘Here’s a talking point that will distract from renewable energy’?” she says.
“Because there is already something under way [the switch to renewables], which is an amazing opportunity for this region that we haven’t had in decades, and there’s a risk that that is squandered.”
AGL has announced its ambition to transform the sites of its coal-fired power stations in Victoria and NSW – the last of which is due to close in 2035 – into low-carbon energy “hubs” spanning renewable energy generation, big batteries and green tech manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Dutton in June nominated seven regional communities that he said would be home to nuclear reactors under a future Coalition government, at the sites of current or closing coal power plants.
They would be hosted at Lithgow and the Hunter Valley in NSW, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Collie in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia.
The announcement was made without consultation with the owners of the privately owned coal stations they would replace, according to several well-placed sources.
Unease about Dutton’s nuclear ambition isn’t limited to communities: local MPs are also wary of Dutton’s bid to build reactors on the sites of former coal-fired power plants.
Bathurst MP Paul Toole, who represents Lithgow in the NSW parliament for the Nationals, has criticised the lack of consultation by the federal opposition over the proposed takeover of the Mount Piper plant, about 20 kilometres north-west of Lithgow.
Rather than commit to the party line, he said he would back the community’s position. “I think the community feels as though they’ve been left in the dark,” Toole said last month. “The announcement lacks detail and raises more questions than answers. I’ll be backing the views of my community 100 per cent.”
Those pushing the nuclear option are making some questionable claims about the capacity of renewable energy.
Advocacy for the Coalition’s hopes to build nuclear power plants is increasingly coming with large side-orders of misinformation, not just on the speed or costs of nuclear but on renewables.
Dr Adi Paterson, the chair of the Nuclear for Australia advocacy group, has taken to attacking the credentials of CSIRO experts while going hyperbolic with his rhetoric.
When Paterson told Sky News he thought the agency’s report on the costs of different electricity generation technologies was “a form of fascism” there was not a whisper of disapproval from the surrounding studio panel. Mussolini would be turning in his grave.
Paterson claimed on the Sky news show Outsiders that the GenCost report “looks at one reactor in Finland”. In fact, the report had based the cost of large-scale reactors in Australia on South Korea’s long-running nuclear program – one of the most successful in the world.
Entrepreneur Dick Smith, a patron of Nuclear for Australia, has also tried to claim CSIRO used a “worst-case scenario” for nuclear costs. One leading energy analyst has previously told Temperature Check the opposite was more likely the case.
Paterson, a former boss of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said in any case, he wanted to see Australia consider 5MW micro-reactors (less than the size of a large wind turbine, suggesting Paterson would like to see Australia scattered with tiny nuclear reactors).
He then pointed to Bill Gates’ Terrapower company and its project in Wyoming (which has a much higher proposed generation capacity of 345 MW), saying it was currently licensed and “being built now”.
In fact, as Terrapower’s chief executive told CNBC a couple of months ago, the company has only just submitted its construction permit application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and hopes to get approval in 2026. They are doing some construction at the site, but none of it relates to the nuclear aspects of the plant.
Two days out of five?
Paterson has claimed wind turbines only generate electricity “two days out of five” or “37% of the time”.
Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems analyst at UNSW, said this was a “misleading” characterisation of windfarm performance.
McConnell said the 37% figure referred to something called the capacity factor – that is, how much electricity is generated over a given period relative to a windfarm’s maximum capacity.
“It is equivalent to implying that windfarms run at 100% of capacity two days out of five, and zero capacity three days out of five. This is of course not at all how windfarms or renewable energy generation works,” he said.
“They infrequently run at 100% of capacity. The converse of this is that they are often running just at levels below their full rated output – which is even more true across the whole fleet.”
McConnell points to data showing over the past year windfarms contributed about 12% of the total generation across the national electricity market (everywhere except WA and the NT) and while he said there was “a lot of variability”, there were no days when windfarms failed to generate.
He said: “Saying they work ‘two days out of every five’ is misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the contribution of wind to the power system.”
Free pass for renewables?
Conservative economist and contributor to the Australian and the Spectator, Judith Sloan, has penned several pieces in recent weeks favouring nuclear power while making questionable claims about renewables.
In the Spectator, Sloan wrote that state governments “have allowed renewable energy companies to avoid the normal approval processes, including environmental assessments”.
Firstly, renewables projects are subject to both state and federal environmental assessments.
The federal environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has assessed and approved more than 50 renewables projects – often with conditions attached – under current environmental laws, and rejected one windfarm in north Queensland in May because of potential impacts on nature. (The previous environment minister, Sussan Ley, also rejected a windfarm in 2020.)
Marilyne Crestias, interim chief executive at the Clean Energy Investor Group, said it was “inaccurate” to say that projects avoided environmental assessments at state level.
“Each state and territory has its own set of laws governing environmental assessments for renewable energy projects.
For example, in New South Wales, large-scale renewable energy projects must undergo an environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Similarly in Victoria, projects are assessed under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for their environmental, social and economic impacts. And in Queensland, the Environmental Protection Act 1994 requires environmental impact statements (EIS) for significant projects, including renewable energy developments. These assessments ensure that renewable energy projects are developed responsibly and sustainably.”
Talking to Sky, Sloan has said: “One of the worst aspects of [the renewables rollout] is that these renewable investors have never entered into an undertaking that they will remediate the land.”
Crestias said this was a “misconception”, saying developers typically did have agreements that included remediating the land.
“These agreements often cover the entire lifecycle of the project, from development through decommissioning,” she said.
“For instance, planning permits for windfarms in Victoria require developers to submit a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan before construction begins.”
Antinuclear 