Antinuclear

Australia’s democracy trashed, as Labor government + Liberal opposition join forces to push AUKUS bills through

15 Oct 24, On Thurs 10^th the ALP Gov & Coalition jointly forced a Senate vote on two AUKUS Bills without allowing any debate and jointly voted down all proposed amendments (see below) – see the vote at Senate Hansard extract at p.28-29 of this doc https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/28068/toc_pdf/Senate_2024_10_10.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

16 x Senators voted No:

Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J.

36 x Labor & Liberal & National Senators voted Yes to AUKUS Bills.

see Australian Greens Senator David Shoebridge Media Release on 11^th Oct 2024 on nuclear waste aspects:

Albanese and Dutton team up on toxic AUKUS nuclear waste deal | Australian Greens

All proposed Amendments to the AUKUS Bills were voted down by the ALP & the Coalition.

a set of Amendments by Greens Senator Shoebridge, a set by Ind Senator Thorpe, a set by Ind Senator Pocock, and a set by Senator Lambie, were voted down as four groups of amendments – see a Senate Hansard extract from p.40 to p.58 of doc:  https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/28068/toc_pdf/Senate_2024_10_10.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

October 15, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Two Peter Dutton policies may swing Teals to Labor in a minority government

Michael West Media by Michael Pascoe | Oct 14, 2024

The scenario: a minority government after the next election, as various polls forecast.

The question: in a close-run thing, to whom would the “Teals” give the keys to the Lodge?

The hypothesis: there are two Dutton policies that should force the genuine independents to select Albanese as Prime Minister.

The perversity: neither of those policies could be expected to appeal much to voters who weren’t already in the LNP camp.

May election likely

Slipping by without much attention last week was the government changing Budget Night to March 25, effectively confirming the early May election that has always been most likely. So seven months to win any hearts and minds that are not already committed.

The makeup of the crossbench will be different. Not all the community independents – to give Teals their official name – from the Class of ’22 may be returned (for starters, vale the scratched seat of North Sydney and, therefore, Kylea Tink) and there could be newbies. From here, though, it still looks likely that Teals will have the final say on who forms government. More on that later.

Enter stage right the two key LNP policies that should make it impossible for Teals to give Dutton the nod: nuclear power and housing.

The key common issues of the Teal wave in 2022 were climate, integrity, gender, and not being Scott Morrison, all based on a pledge of listening to and reflecting their communities’ concerns.

The nuclear “concept” of a plan

Dutton’s “concept of a plan” to build multiple nuclear reactors somewhere between a distant tomorrow and eternity – an excuse for extending fossil fuel burning and reducing investment in renewables – won’t and can’t wash with any Teal genuinely concerned about climate policy.

Enter stage right the two key LNP policies that should make it impossible for Teals to give Dutton the nod: nuclear power and housing.

The key common issues of the Teal wave in 2022 were climate, integrity, gender, and not being Scott Morrison, all based on a pledge of listening to and reflecting their communities’ concerns.

As Phil Coorey reported in the AFR ($):
“If they’re not going to release the detail, we’ll do it for them,” a government member said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“The terms of reference include an examination of how soon a nuclear power plant could be operational; the cost of building and maintaining them, the storage and transportation of fuel and waste; the feasibility of using existing coal-fired power station sites and their power lines; federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks; and the impact of power prices.”

Generally forgotten is that we had a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power only five years ago, chaired by the LNP’s Ted O’Brien, now the shadow energy spokesman tasked with selling Dutton’s nuclear gambit. 

With the Coalition dominating that inquiry, the most O’Brien could come up with was that “nuclear energy should be on the table for consideration as part of our future energy mix”, not that we should go for it.

Then, like now, O’Brien was hoping small modular reactors might become a thing and other new large reactor technologies could be the economical go.

Generally forgotten is that we had a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power only five years ago, chaired by the LNP’s Ted O’Brien, now the shadow energy spokesman tasked with selling Dutton’s nuclear gambit. 

With the Coalition dominating that inquiry, the most O’Brien could come up with was that “nuclear energy should be on the table for consideration as part of our future energy mix”, not that we should go for it.

Then, like now, O’Brien was hoping small modular reactors might become a thing and other new large reactor technologies could be the economical go.

The only certainty about the LNP’s energy/climate policy is that it would delay efforts to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. With climate denial strong in the party, the procrastinator’s golden rule rules: Put off to tomorrow what you don’t have to do today because you might get away with not doing it tomorrow.

There is no way Teals, in conscience, could choose such a policy. Climate 2000’s Simon Holmes à Court doesn’t call the Teals’ shots, but they couldn’t expect his support if they went with the deniers and sceptics………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The minority government scenario?

The post-election negotiations will test the integrity of cross-bench members. The Teals of Liberal heritage – most obviously Allegra Spender in Wentworth and Kate Chaney in Curtin – might have to hold their noses to appoint a Labor government, but they would forfeit all personal credibility if they empowered fraudulent nuclear and housing policies. 

The others – Monique Ryan, Zali Steggall, Helen Haines, Zoe Daniel, Sophie Scamps and, possibly post-May, Nicolette Boele in Bradfield – have their own professed standards to live up to. If they do, they won’t be empowering a minority LNP government. 

We may also assume that Bob Katter, Rebekha Sharkie ($) and Andrew Gee (if he is returned in Calare after quitting the Nationals over the Voice referendum) go LNP, while the Greens and Andrew Wilkie prefer Labor.

The self-declared opposite of a Teal, the former Liberal Dai Le ($) in the former Labor seat of Fowler, has never pledged herself on climate or anything else for that matter, winning by being an involved local and not the parachuted-in Labor candidate, Kristina Keneally.

Her gaffe in ignorantly suggesting the Lucas Heights research facility could generate electricity indicates she would not have a problem with the Dutton nuclear fantasy – unless the parliamentary inquiry convinces her otherwise.  https://michaelwest.com.au/peter-duttons-policies-may-swing-teals-to-labor-in-election/

October 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

John Hewson – The opposition leader’s nuclear bullshit

But the basic question that never seems to be asked is whether the electricity sector is being run in the interests of electricity consumers or the nuclear industry. This needs to be asked in the Australian context, in relation to Dutton’s persistence with his nuclear option against the massive and still-mounting global evidence of its cost and time delay disadvantages, and the hollowness of his commitments to cheaper electricity.

 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/10/12/the-opposition-leaders-nuclear-bullsh, 12 Oct 24, John Hewson is a professor at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy and former Liberal opposition leader.

In a full mimicry of Donald Trump, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s reality is how he claims it to be, in complete disregard for the facts. So it is with his stance on nuclear energy. He simply asserts his nuclear power will deliver cheaper electricity to Australian households, and that nuclear is the only pathway to net zero by 2050. In a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia last month he delivered his rationale: line after line of bullshit.

Dutton builds much of his case for nuclear on what he claims are the very cheap electricity prices in the Canadian province of Ontario, where nuclear accounts for about half of the energy mix. However, he ignores the fact the domestic supplier, Ontario Power Generation, is effectively a basket case, with a very sorry financial history that has been catalogued by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

In 1998, seven of public utility Ontario Hydro’s nuclear reactors were unexpectedly forced to shut down due to safety concerns. All of these reactors were inoperable for more than five years – two were still inactive as late as 2017, according to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

By the following year, Ontario Hydro was effectively bankrupt, and split into five companies. The nuclear stations went to OPG, while some $20 billion of the stranded nuclear debt was transferred to the Ontario Financial Corporation, with the paydown lasting for more than a decade.

The province had to boost its dirty coal plants’ output by 120 per cent to keep the lights on – an outcome that would be most pleasing to Dutton’s important donors.

OPG’s electricity prices rose about 60 per cent between 2002 and 2016, in order to pay for nuclear power – including restarting the five reactors that had been shut down. In September 2016, OPG told the Ontario Energy Board it needed to increase its nuclear power prices by more than 10 per cent a year for the next decade. The premier of Ontario later directed OPG to take on billions of dollars of additional debt to ensure electricity price increases over subsequent years would not exceed the rate of inflation.

It is worth noting that in the start-up phase, the relatively new Darlington Nuclear Generating Station on the north shore of Lake Ontario has suffered from technical problems, even with proven technology, which have delayed it becoming fully operational. It should be clear there are very few givens in adopting these technologies, as evidenced with most projects across the globe, whereas Dutton is inclined to assume otherwise.

Dutton and O’Brien have attempted to create the impression that Australia is being left behind in a world rushing to adopt and expand nuclear power. This is in doubt, but it is certainly true that there is a major push to decommission existing nuclear power plants.

It is also important to learn from the cost blowouts of the Darlington project. The project was initiated in 1973 but not started until roughly a decade later. Ontario Hydro estimated a cost of C$7.4 billion when construction began (though earlier projections were lower). Costs more than doubled from here, an important element of which was the interest cost on the project debt over and above the expanding costs from delays in construction scheduling and in the build itself, which is often ignored in discussions. Other reasons for the cost blowout included the need to meet regulatory changes and updates to Ontario Hydro’s financial policies, as well as necessary design tweaks during construction. All of which seem to be characteristic of nuclear projects.

The overruns prompted more questions about whether OPG would go bankrupt again if the Darlington rebuild continued to go over budget and demand for electricity continued to fall. Why weren’t costs cut, or the Darlington rebuild cancelled, and, importantly, why didn’t they start buying more cheap water power from neighbouring Quebec, using existing transmission lines?

But the basic question that never seems to be asked is whether the electricity sector is being run in the interests of electricity consumers or the nuclear industry. This needs to be asked in the Australian context, in relation to Dutton’s persistence with his nuclear option against the massive and still-mounting global evidence of its cost and time delay disadvantages, and the hollowness of his commitments to cheaper electricity.

It is also worth noting that Canada established Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a Crown corporation, not as a generator but as the primary research and development agency in the field of nuclear energy. As such, it is responsible for design, engineering, marketing and servicing of the country’s CANDU reactors, and aims to make CANDU “the long-term competitive electricity supply system”. This is a for-profit operation. Does the Coalition aim to replicate this sort of entity?

Peter Dutton and his shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien, have sought to challenge the authority of CSIRO’s GenCost report on these cost disadvantages. A United States study has suggested the CSIRO estimates were conservative, putting the cost at $12,351 a kilowatt, compared with GenCost’s $8446/kW. Similarly, a recent report on the ABC’s Four Corners reviewing the US experience with the Plant Vogtle project in Georgia – which is also often cited by the Dutton team, in support of their policy proposal, as delivering cheaper electricity – revealed consumer dissatisfaction as electricity prices have risen sharply. And Bill Gates’s new Kemmerer project in Wyoming has encountered troubles.

While there are many gaps still in Dutton’s advocacy for us to adopt nuclear energy, one of the most important is his vagueness about the technology to be adopted – he has vacillated from the demonstrated, expensive large reactors to the commercially as yet unproven small modular reactors (SMRs). He would have us believe that by the time we need to build these, the proven technologies will be available. This delay may prevent him from supplying adequate cost estimates before the next election. It’s notable that the only SMR project to receive approval by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission was abandoned recently because of rising costs, even after the Department of Energy had pledged some US$500 million in grants.

Although we probably have the world’s largest deposits of uranium, we don’t have an enrichment industry. This also raises another serious question for the opposition to answer: where will the fuel for the reactors come from? Are they advocating that we also launch a nuclear enrichment industry? Is this also part of their AUKUS dream?

There are also important issues to be addressed in relation to the disposal of the waste from the reactors. The United Kingdom is currently demonstrating just how significant a challenge this can become.

October 13, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Labor announces surprise parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, raising hopes of an ‘adult conversation’

ABC, By chief digital political correspondent Jacob Greber, 10 Oct 24

In short: 

Labor has launched a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, which it hopes will expose shortcomings in the opposition’s plans.

But the Coalition says it is ready to “come to the party” and profile arguments in favour of nuclear.

What’s next?

Labor, the Coalition and crossbench will nominate members of the committee, due to report back no later than April 30.

An energy expert has welcomed Labor’s decision to establish a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, saying open consideration of the technology is better than the federal government’s current position of seeking to “pooh-pooh the whole thing”.

Labor surprised the Coalition by announcing on Thursday that it will report no later than April 30 on the deployment of nuclear power, including small modular reactors.

Tony Wood, an energy specialist at the Grattan Institute, said “anything that begins to open up an adult conversation about nuclear power is a good thing”.

“In some ways, it’s better than what the government was doing, which is pooh-pooh the whole thing.”

The government-dominated House of Representatives committee will look at deployment time frames, uranium transport, supply, storage and enrichment capability, water impacts, and costs and consequences for electricity affordability.

Labor hopes the inquiry — which the ABC understands was initiated by backbenchers led by Hunter Valley MP Dan Repacholi — will fill the information void left by the Coalition’s repeated delays in releasing its planned nuclear policy or economic modelling.

Voters have ‘many questions’, Labor MP says

Mr Repacholi said voters in his electorate and around the nation have “many questions” about the opposition’s plan to build several nuclear power stations.

“Whether they support or oppose the scheme, the questions raised by Australians show they want more details,” he said.

“Right now, the information Australians need to fully understand the proposal is simply not there…………………………. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-10/labor-announces-nuclear-power-inquiry/104456124

October 11, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Labor springs surprise nuclear power committee to call Coalition bluff on energy policy.

 https://reneweconomy.com.au/labor-springs-surprise-nuclear-power-committee-to-call-coalition-bluff-on-energy-policy/ 10 Oct 24
The Labor government has sprung a surprise on the last sitting of the winter parliament by establishing a parliamentary select committee to inquire into the viability of nuclear power.

The committee is not designed to support any shift in Labor government policy, but more to call out the Coalition bluff, and fill in the the lack of details, and costings, of its own nuclear power plans.

The committee has been proposed and will be chaired by Labor’s Dan Repacholi, the MP for the Hunter region which is host to one of seven sites identified by Opposition leader Peter Dutton and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien for their nuclear power plants.

The committee is expected to report by April 30, but given that the next federal election is now almost certain to be held in May next year, it can also issue an interim report.

Its term of reference are focused on the unknown and contested parts of the Coalition’s nuclear policy, including the costs and timeframes of both large scale and small modular reactors, its potential share of the country’s energy mix, water and waste issues, enrichment capabilities, and state and federal regulations.

The committee will have a majority four members appointed by the government, two from the opposition and one cross-bencher. O’Brien sought to make it three government and 3 opposition, but the motion failed.

The decision to create the committee comes just weeks after Dutton failed to outline details of his nuclear power plans at a CEDA event where he was expected to do just that. His claims that nuclear will deliver cheaper prices to consumers, and that the first reactor can deliver power by 2035, have been rejected by virtually everyone in the energy industry.

Federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen told parliament on Thursday that nuclear is clearly the most expensive form of energy.

Bowen said O’Brien had refused an invitation to debate the issue on ABC’s Q&A program. I said yes, he said no,” Bowen said.

“Report after report shows that the Oppositions plan will push prices up. Professor Rod Sims said maybe $200 a year. Dr Dylan McConnell said $400 or $500 a year. Dr Roger Dargerville said $1,000 a year. And of course, we’ve also seen the report from IEEFA which said $665 a year on average.”

Repacholi told the house earlier on Thursday that he had been “out and about in the Hunter electorate” listening to people about the opposition’s proposed nuclear scheme.

“One thing that has been absolutely clear is that people have many questions. Whether they support or oppose the scheme, the questions raised by Australians show that they want more detail. Right now, the information Australians need to fully understand the proposal is simply not there.”

In a shock move early this morning, leader of the House Tony Burke moved a motion to establish the inquiry which would report back by April 30, 2025, but it can issue an interim report.

October 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

At last, Dutton spells out his nuclear power play – 12 more years of coal (if it lasts)

 https://www.queenslandconservation.org.au/duttons_nuclear_remarks_lnps_energy_plan?fbclid=IwY2xjawFvCu5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWQFoEI2cqiTljqKHWH3tgX_Vn0_sbMmzV_mCAb1RfmcOcv0tqp3xtDDFw_aem_A3vBJVajSTGpG64uEbkoLg 6 Oct 24

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has revealed the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan relies on many of Australia’s coal-fired power stations running for at least another 12 years – far beyond the time frame officials expect the ageing facilities to last.

The claim has set off a new round of speculation over the Coalition’s plans – the viability of which has already been widely questioned by energy analysts.

Dutton offered up limited detail in a speech on Monday. He also revealed the plan relies on ramping up Australia’s gas production.

It seems increasingly clear the Coalition’s nuclear policy would prolong Australia’s reliance on coal, at a time when the world is rapidly moving to cleaner sources of power.

The Coalition wants to build nuclear reactors on the sites of closed coal plants. It says the first reactors could come online by the mid-2030s. However, independent analysis shows the earliest they could be built is the 2040s.

Now it appears the Coalition’s plan involves relying on coal to provide electricity while nuclear reactors are being built. On Monday, Dutton suggested coal-fired electricity would be available into the 2030s and ‘40s.

But this is an overly optimistic reading of coal’s trajectory. The Australian Energy Market Operator says 90% of coal-fired power in the National Electricity Market will close by 2035.

All this suggests the Coalition plans to extend the life of existing coal plants. But this is likely to cost money. Australia’s coal-fired power stations are old and unreliable – that’s why their owners want to shut them down. To keep plants open means potentially operating them at a loss, while having to invest in repairs and upgrades.

This is why coal plant owners sought, and received, payments from state governments to delay exits when the renewables rollout began falling behind schedule.

So who would wear the cost of delaying coal’s retirement? It might be energy consumers if state governments decide to recoup the costs via electricity bills. Or it could be taxpayers, through higher taxes, reduced services or increased government borrowing. In other words, we will all have to pay, just from different parts of our personal budgets.

Labor’s energy plan also relies on continued use of coal. Dutton pointed to moves by the New South Wales and Victorian governments to extend the life of coal assets in those states. For example, the NSW Labor government struck a deal with Origin to keep the Eraring coal station open for an extra two years, to 2027.

However, this is a temporary measure to keep the electricity system reliable because the renewables build is behind schedule. It is not a defining feature of the plan.

Dutton claims Labor’s renewable energy transition will require a massive upgrade to transmission infrastructure. The transmission network largely involves high-voltage lines and towers, and transformers.

He claims the Coalition can circumvent this cost by building nuclear power plants on seven sites of old coal-fired power stations, and thus use existing transmission infrastructure.

Labor’s shift to renewable energy does require new transmission infrastructure, to get electricity from far-flung wind and solar farms to towns and cities. It’s also true that building nuclear power stations at the site of former coal plants would, in theory, make use of existing transmission lines, although the owners of some of these sites have firmly declined the opportunity.

But even if the Coalition’s nuclear plan became a reality, new transmission infrastructure would be needed.

Australia’s electricity demand is set to surge in coming decades as we move to electrify our homes, transport and heavy industry. This will require upgrades to transmission infrastructure, because it will have to carry more electricity. Many areas of the network are already at capacity.

So in reality, both Labor’s and the Coalition’s policies are likely to require substantial spending on transmission.

Both Labor and the Coalition acknowledge a big role for gas in their respective plans.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says gas, along with storage, is needed to help back up to the grid, when solar and wind farms are not producing electricity.

Dutton spoke of plans “to ramp up domestic gas production” in the short term, “to get power prices down and restore stability to our grid” – presumably until nuclear comes online.

But the issue isn’t a lack of gas. It’s that the gas is in the wrong places. There’s a gas shortage because southern reserves are declining and all the gas production is in the north of the continent.

An increased role for gas means getting someone to pay for new infrastructure, such as pipelines or LNG terminals. That will make for expensive gas, and expensive gas means expensive electricity.

It’s now three months since the Coalition released its nuclear strategy. Detail was thin then – and Monday’s speech shed little light.

Many unanswered questions remain – chief among them, costings of the nuclear plan, and how much of that will be born by government. CSIRO says a nuclear reactor would cost at least A$8.6 billion.

We also don’t know how the Coalition would acquire the sites, or get around nuclear bans in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

We still don’t know how the Coalition plans to keep the lights on in the coming decade, as coal exits.

And crucially, we don’t know what it will cost households and businesses. It is unlikely to be cheap.

October 7, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

If Peter Dutton has a better understanding of the cost of building nuclear, then let’s see it

Johanna Bowyer & Tristan Edis, l Oct 4, 2024,  https://reneweconomy.com.au/if-peter-dutton-has-a-better-understanding-of-the-cost-of-building-nuclear-then-lets-see-it/

Two weeks ago, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis released a report analysing how much electricity prices and Australian household energy bills would need to rise to make nuclear power plants financially viable. 

The report found that household energy bills across the four states analysed would rise by an average of $665 a year relative to existing prices. 

Federal opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien claimed the report’s analysis was based on a “cherry-picked” sample of nuclear power projects. Opposition treasury spokesperson Angus Taylor described the analysis as “nonsense.”

The leader of the opposition Peter Dutton had the opportunity to provide a detailed response to our research in a speech he gave on nuclear power several days later. Yet his speech contained no alternative economic analysis or costing to support the opposition’s claims our research is incorrect. 

Our analysis was informed by the actual construction costs of all nuclear power projects that have been committed to construction in the past 20 years across the European Union and North America.

In addition, we also considered two projects that had reached the tender contract pricing stage. A sample of six projects may appear small but the lack of a significant number of projects committed to construction is a warning bell in itself.

The limit of 20 years was chosen because projects from any earlier would have employed reactor technologies that lacked critical safety features now deemed essential by EU and US regulators.  

The EU and North America were chosen for the following reasons:  

– Those regions have relatively similar labour market conditions to Australia, particularly wages and rights to collectively bargain and strike; 

– Similar systems of government – liberal democracies with a free press;  

– The reactor technologies they certify as safe are likely to be the only technologies Australia will be willing to adopt, and; 

– Regulatory structures that ensure transparent and reliable cost data such as investor disclosure or competition law requirements.  

It is important to note that within our sample, we included the agreed price Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company has bid to build two reactors in Dukovany in Czechia.

History suggests that a tender bid price is highly likely to be an underestimate of the actual construction cost of a nuclear reactor. Nonetheless, we included this project in the study as the Korean APR reactor technology is mentioned as an option in the Coalition’s nuclear policy statements.

Our report explains in further detail that Korea’s experience in building reactors in its own country is highly unlikely to be replicable in Australia. This is because the scale of their nuclear reactor build program is vastly larger than the Coalition’s plans.

Instead, the Dukovany project is a better representation of the costs the Koreans might be able to achieve outside their home base, in a developed, democratic nation. 

O’Brien also cited the exclusion Japanese projects from our sample. The only two projects to have been committed to construction in Japan in the past 20 years were halted by regulatory authorities due to safety concerns.  We would also note that investigations following the Fukushima Reactor explosion in 2011 uncovered serious problems with the rigour and independence of Japan’s nuclear regulatory safety regime.

The fact that the Japanese regulator had a tendency to overlook or ignore safety issues puts into serious question the applicability of Japanese nuclear construction experience as one Australia would wish to replicate.

It is more than decade since the Fukushima accident prompted the suspension of Japan’s reactor operations pending safety reviews. Since that safety review, only 12 reactors have restarted operations, with 21 units remaining mothballed and a further 21 reactors decommissioned.  

China, Russia and the Middle East are often cited by nuclear power lobbyists as better representing reactor construction costs than the EU or North America. However, conditions in these markets vary significantly from Australia, such as: 

– Vastly lower wages for construction workers;  

– Outlawing of collective bargaining and strikes; 

– Severe penalties including jail terms for people peacefully protesting or publicly criticising government authorities; 

– The use of nuclear reactor technologies not certified as safe by EU or North American nuclear regulatory authorities, and; 

– Reliance on Russian suppliers that are subject to trade sanctions in Australia. 

Our research is detailed and extensively referenced, with the methods laid out transparently for others to review. If the federal Coalition has a better understanding of the cost of a nuclear build in Australia than the real-world experience of the EU and North America, we look forward to seeing their analysis. 

In the absence of that, expect household power bills to rise by about $665 a year if and when nuclear power plants are built in Australia. 

Johanna Bowyer is the Lead Analyst in the Australian Electricity Program at the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Tristan Edis is Director of Analysis and Advisory at Green Energy Markets. They are co-authors of the report, Nuclear in Australia would increase household power bills. 

October 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

‘Cheaper with nuclear’: What will Dutton’s nuclear plan really cost?

The Age, Mike Foley, September 27, 2024 

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is refusing to release the costings of his nuclear energy policy, despite claiming a national fleet of reactors would slash power bills.

But enough work has been done by independent agencies to give us some idea of the potential price tag.

What Dutton said

“We can have cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy if we adopt nuclear power,” Dutton said last week, adding that nuclear plants did not require the thousands of kilometres of transmission lines that link renewables to the grid, and took up less space than wind and solar farms.

A Coalition government would build seven nuclear plants on the sites of existing coal plants, including two small modular reactors and five large-scale plants, and plans to have the first operating by 2037.

Dutton says residents of Ontario, Canada enjoy cheaper power prices – 18¢ a kilowatt-hour (kWh) – courtesy of the province’s eight nuclear reactors generating about 60 per cent of the electricity supply.

He told Nine’s Today program on September 20 that Ontarians were “paying one-third the cost of electricity that we are here”. In July, he said they were “paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia”.

These claims are overstated.

Power prices

Victoria pays about 28¢ a kWh, NSW 33¢ and Queensland 30¢. So rather than prices being three to four times higher, they are a bit less than twice the 18¢ figure. South Australians pay more than the other states at 45¢, but still less than Dutton’s claim.

However, this comparison is questionable because Australian prices include a range of costs that Ontarians must pay on top of their kWh charge. Network charges – the cost of building, running and maintaining power poles and wires across the grid – are listed separately on Ontario’s bills and can run into hundreds of dollars a year.

Construction costs

The CSIRO’s latest energy cost report card estimated a large-scale nuclear reactor in Australia would cost $16 billion, based on the low-cost construction of plants in South Korea, and take nearly two decades to build. It calculated that cost could fall to about $8 billion per reactor as efficiencies of scale were achieved after at least five and possibly 10 reactors were built.

Britain’s Hinkley Point C plant, which was announced in 2007 with an estimated $18 billion price tag, is set to be completed 13 years late at a cost of $90 billion.

If a Dutton government built reactors in Australia, that cost would have to be repaid, which could come via consumers’ electricity bills……………………………………………………………. more https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/cheaper-with-nuclear-what-will-dutton-s-nuclear-plan-really-cost-20240920-p5kc8z.html

October 1, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Memo to Dutton: It’s the final quarter, you’d better start kicking

David Crowe, Chief political correspondent, September 26, 2024

The game plan that turned Anthony Albanese from an opposition leader to a prime minister is known by a simple phrase he used for three years before he gained the top job. “I said that we had a plan: kick with the wind in the fourth quarter, outline our policies close to the election,” he said in the weeks after Labor took power.

Albanese tends not to use the phrase these days. No prime minister can tell voters they will only bother with big policies when the election comes. That is true even if it is a plain fact that Labor is working on new measures for the campaign ahead – and that changes to negative gearing may end up in the surprise package.

Peter Dutton, by contrast, lives the Albanese motto every single day. The opposition leader is holding back on every policy that would normally shape an Australian election: on the economy, the cost of living, housing and defence.

Even the glaring exception to that statement – his proposal for seven nuclear power stations – confirms the flimsiness of the Liberal policy platform. Dutton and his energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, are incredibly coy about how this policy might work. What would it cost? How long would it take? What replaces our ageing coal-fired power stations while we wait for nuclear?

“We will release our costings in due course – at a time of our choosing,” Dutton said in a speech to a business audience on Monday. Sure, it is common for opposition leaders to reveal their full costings shortly before the election. But they tend to put their big-picture policies on the agenda well before that final stage.

Dutton is running out of time. He is acting as if the last phase of this term of parliament is still months away. In fact, the final quarter is already upon us. It started last month, assuming the election is as late as May. And Dutton is yet to prove he can kick when it counts.

Liberals make a fair point about how to judge their policies: they may not have that many, but the ones they have are big and bold. This is absolutely true of the nuclear policy. No matter how many voters were alarmed at the Labor plans for negative gearing in 2019, the prospect of a nuclear accident may frighten a few more. It is a big idea and a huge political risk.

Dutton has leapt ahead of Albanese on a few fronts. He called in May last year for a ban on advertising sports betting during game broadcasts – an idea on which federal cabinet is yet to decide. He backed an age ban on social media earlier this year, months before Labor, thanks to early work by Coalition communications spokesman David Coleman…………………………………………………………………………..

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Dutton has the wind behind him in the opinion polls but looks reluctant to risk this good fortune by telling Australians what he would do with power. ……………………………………….

There is very little pressure on Dutton to move any faster because he has a disciplined frontbench and party room that waits for him to make the big calls on policy timing, as well as a supportive conservative media that tells him he is outsmarting Albanese at every turn. He avoids press conferences in Parliament House, so the press gallery gets relatively few opportunities to question him. He has a narrow list of preferred TV and radio spots. The media strategy spares him any exposure to long interviews that might test him on what he would do if he was running the country.

………………….. This is not proof that voters are buying what Dutton is selling, they say. After all, nobody is sure what he is selling just yet.

The Labor tacticians could be totally wrong, but the Liberals are certainly taking their time. If Dutton wants to kick with the wind in the final quarter, he will need to run a little faster.  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/memo-to-dutton-it-s-the-final-quarter-you-d-better-start-kicking-20240926-p5kdn5.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawFi2ChleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeggdYlx-0-WJO5vDD_9NYYsmgvm4WRwBII811EpOipDFB_gAdNsefsDnA_aem_h6jj8XixlRUr13A9QS0T-Q

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