Atomic power probe shows experts divided on nuclear energy

A probe into atomic power is revealing a deep divide among experts, let alone members of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s own party.

Jessica Wang and Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer, news.com.au, 28 Oct 24

The Coaliton’s nuclear plan is both “peak anti-science” and Australia’s only chance of reaching net-zero by 2050, experts have told a committee probing the viability of atomic power in Australia.

Critics and advocates of the Coalition’s nuclear plan made their way to Parliament House on Monday for the house select committee on nuclear energy’s second public hearing.

The Smart Energy Council, which has estimated the plan’s cost as high as $600bn, said the Coalition’s push for atomic power was driven by “anti-renewable” ideology rather than science.

The peak body’s chief executive John Grimes accused Opposition Leader Peter Dutton of trying to frame the energy debate in masculinity.

“It’s all about attacking renewables and boosting fossil fuels,” Mr Grimes told the committee.

“That’s why Mr Dutton tells us that there are two types of electrons: the strong manly man electrons from coal and gas and nuclear and the tepid, insipid, weak electrons from renewable energy.

“The only problem is an electron is an electron in physics. There is no difference at all.

“This is peak anti-science, tin foil hat brigade, poppycock.”

He said nuclear power was “a pinnacle of human engineering” but it was not “the answer for Australia”.

……………………………..Winfield said household bills were kept artificially low under the Ontario model, despite the high cost of refurbishing ageing nuclear facilities.

“There’s a legacy of that still in the system that we are effectively subsidising electricity bills to the tune of about $C7.3 billion a year out of general revenues. That constitutes most of the provincial deficit; that’s money that otherwise could be going on schools and hospitals.”

He said that it was key to decarbonisation of countries “in the extreme north or south of the globe”, but with renewables powering up to 40 per cent of Australia’s grid, changing course did not stack up.

“We’re saying that for Australia, in the Australian context … where we have the best solar and wind resources in the world, where we have so much land you can almost not give it away … renewable energy transition is the lowest cost path to getting to low power bills, a highly reliable engineering system and the right environmental outcomes in environmental outcomes that the Australian government has signed up to internationally.

“So, it is vital that renewables plus the energy storage road map not only continue but be accelerated because that is the future. That is the answer for Australia.”

………………………………………………………………. Last week, the committee heard from Australian Energy Regulator (AER) chair Clare Savage, who said “nuclear may well have a role to play” in meeting Australia’s energy needs, but it would take a long time.

Ms Savage said the red tape associated with getting nuclear off the ground could take “eight to 10 years for a regulatory framework”.

Works to build the nuclear reactors would not be able to start until that framework was in place, she said.

Build times can vary, but recent projects overseas put it at a little north of 10 years.

Ms Savage’s comments cast serious doubt on the Coalition’s claim that it could have small modular reactors up and running by 2035 or larger reactors by 2037.

One thing most experts agree on, whether they be independent or part of government agencies, is that Australia’s fleet of coal-fired power plants only have about a decade of operational life left.

DUTTON ‘RESPECTS’ ANTI-NUCLEAR LNP PREMIER

Mr Dutton said he would continue to convince “sensible premiers” on the Coalition nuclear plan, with newly installed Queensland Liberal National Party premier David Crisafulli committing to his anti-nuclear push.

Speaking on Monday, Mr Dutton appeared unfazed by the divide between the state and federal Coalition, with the election pledge to build seven reactors by 2050, including the first two to come online between 2035-37…………………………………….  https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/politics/peter-dutton-says-he-respects-new-qld-lnp-premiers-antinuclear-stance/news-story/2e6d5000a0e988ecb504f1600ff20825—

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

Select Committee on Nuclear Energy – Submissions close 15 November.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy

The House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy was established by a resolution of appointment that passed the House of Representatives on 10 October 2024.

The Committee will inquire into matters referred to in the resolution of appointment and is required to present its final report by no later than 30 April 2025.  The Committee will cease to exist upon presenting its final report.

Select Committee on Nuclear Energy

We will inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia, including:

 deployment timeframes;

 fuel supply, and transport of fuel;

 uranium enrichment capability;

 waste management, transport and storage;

 water use and impacts on other water uses;

 relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines;

 Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks;

 risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns;

 potential share of total energy system mix;

 necessary land acquisition;

 costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations;

 the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability; and

 any other relevant matter.

October 24, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear

Australia should be at the front of the queue, positioning our nation as a renewable energy superpower and an economic powerhouse for decades to come.

The delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear power, despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive, and can only take too long to build in a cost-of-living crisis.

I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe that we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia, and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system.

Matt Kean, Former NSW treasurer, 22 Oct 24,  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/22/matt-kean-fantasy-coalition-energy-policy-coal-nuclear-power?fbclid=IwY2xjawGFBTtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZOLw35JiI_0LOuO7ud0lCdaODH8ws-XTXtm6BjH-aQRT5FT8Ac8UKeUTQ_aem_yTUmsY_z33BOm66Ol9MkEA

Capital markets and the private sector have often been ahead of the curve in the debate over climate change.

They were prepared to discard the nonsense that action on climate change represented a choice between our environment and our economy.

(True economics – the economy is based on a healthy environment)

(False economics – profit is the first priority – consider the environment only later)

That’s because the forces reshaping the global economy are clear, the cost of low emissions technology is coming down, and the appetite of investors to direct capital towards it is surging.

These trends are now embedded and have forever shifted the dynamics of climate policy. Consider the sheer weight of capital now pouring into the low-carbon energy transition right across the world.

It means an economic arms race to capture the next generation of investment, resource projects, exports, jobs and innovation will continue to explode right across the world.

Australia should be at the front of the queue, positioning our nation as a renewable energy superpower and an economic powerhouse for decades to come.

We should have the confidence to be bold, knowing there is a clear capacity to attract the finance for the technology and innovation needed to reduce emissions.

Our track record tells us so we have continued to build the policy architecture needed to give comfort to investors, and we can tell a story of meaningful progress against our emissions reduction goals towards a contemporary clean-energy system, and in pursuit of the next wave of ideas to sustain our success.

The integrated system plan gives us a clear national blueprint for the generation, storage and transmission infrastructure needed to sustain a reliable, secure and affordable national electricity market.

It will also depend on enabling initiatives such as the capacity investment scheme, which is revolutionising our ability to encourage new investment in dispatchable renewable energy, generation and storage.

The scale of the scheme is simply mammoth, with a target of 32 gigawatts of new capacity, comprising 23 gigawatts of renewable capacity and 9 gigawatts of clean, dispatchable capacity.

In total, it’s expected to drive $67 billion worth of investment continuing to inject renewables into the system, backed by storage and firming technology.

It is the best, most affordable way to replace capacity lost as coal-fired power stations exit the system.

That’s the advice of the CSIRO. That’s the advice of the Australian Energy Market Operator, and it’s one of the major assumptions that underpins the recently released sector pathways review produced by the Climate Change Authority, which I’m now pleased to chair.

Perhaps the biggest cost of nuclear is time.

That’s because mature and available technology allows us to step up the pace of change, by building on the rise in clean energy that has seen the transformation of our grid.

More than 40 per cent of the nation’s electricity is now generated by renewables.

We need to consider this simple fact: as renewables have poured into the system, the emissions intensity of the national electricity market, the nation’s largest grid, has dropped by more than a third, and sectoral emissions can be dramatically slashed further if we continue to invest in new solar, wind, storage and firming solutions.

We know that as much as 90 per cent of the coal-fired power that has underpinned our economy is coming to the end of its technical life by 2035. It’s an ageing technology that is already adding to price spikes and reducing reliability for households and businesses.

And if we continue to depend on it, we accelerate the rundown of the limited carbon budget available to us, we would fall behind the curve on our near-term emissions reduction targets, and we would face the prospect of irreversible damage to our environment, our economy and our way of life.

We simply can’t afford to wait and hope that bigger breakthroughs are over the horizon, and perhaps more importantly, we can’t pander to those vested interests and self-serving groups who want to delay clean and cheap energy, seemingly to benefit their own careers or their profits at the expense of the environment, the economy and our people.

Recently, for example, an illiberal drive to intervene in the market-led energy transition has been elevated from internet chat rooms and lobby groups to the national stage.

The delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear power, despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive, and can only take too long to build in a cost-of-living crisis.

I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia, and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system.

But they get their grabs up in the news, while the public get the growing energy bills that they can’t afford to pay.

Perhaps the biggest cost of nuclear is time. It is precious time that neither our economy nor our environment can afford, and it will once again plunge Australia back into indecision and delay.

A regime in flux lacks the stability and durability that investors need. Sensitivities will be further heightened when you add concepts that crowd out investment, forcing government-owned entities to fund, own and develop technology where Australia currently lacks capacity and that is arguably more expensive.

We don’t have the luxury of placing that bet, and that’s why, as chair of the Climate Change Authority, I will always place a premium on science, evidence, engineering and economics; that’s how we build a modern energy system.

We need to continue to give households and businesses the affordable and reliable energy they want. And it’s how we continue to harness the wall of capital washing across the world to create a clean, strong future that lifts our prosperity and protects our way of life for decades ahead.

There is a lot to do, but we can do that. We can get there and deliver cheaper, reliable energy for everyone across the country, and set our country up for a stronger and more prosperous future than any generation of Australians has ever seen. That’s the chance. Let’s grab it.

Matt Kean is the former treasurer and energy minister of NSW. He now chairs the Climate Change Authority. This is an edited extract of his speech at The Australian Financial Review’s Energy & Climate Summit.

October 22, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear too slow to replace coal by 2035

Financial Review, John Kehoe and Jenny Wiggins, 21 Oct 24

Energy executives say the development of nuclear power in Australia will be too slow to replace ageing coal-fired power plants in the next decade, as Climate Change Authority chairman Matt Kean accuses “delay-mongers” of latching onto the idea for a publicity stunt.

But beyond the urgent phase of the energy transition to renewables and gas-fired power, some executives and the energy market operator said nuclear should be left on the table as a potential energy source for Australia in the long term to keep up with rising power demand from consumers and businesses.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has pledged to build seven government-owned nuclear power stations by 2050 to meet Australia’s net zero emissions commitment. Under the high-level proposal, the first small modular reactor would arrive in 2035, although energy experts say this is overly ambitious and it would likely take years longer.

Australian Energy Market Operator chief executive Daniel Westerman said, “urgent and sustained investment” in renewables generation was needed to replace retiring coal-fired power stations, as well as investment in storage and transmission lines over the next 10 years.

“That is not a time frame in which nuclear will be available,” Mr Westerman told The Australian Financial Review Climate and Energy Summit on Monday……………………………………………………….

Mr Kean, a former NSW Liberal treasurer who now leads the federal government’s independent climate change advisory body, will tell the Summit on Tuesday that there was overwhelming evidence that nuclear would increase energy bills and take too long to build.

“I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia … and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system – but they get their grabs in the news, while the public will get growing energy bills they can’t afford to pay,” Mr Kean will say, according to his speaking notes.

Origin Energy chief executive Frank Calabria said that to achieve the Albanese government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target by 2030, a massive 32 gigawatts of generation needed to be brought online. “You’ll need to double that again in 2040,” Mr Calabria said.

Origin has examined small modular nuclear reactors but believes it is still early days for the technology, Mr Calabria said.

“Commercialisation and cost and scale are at least a decade away … it’s certainly into the 2030s.”

While Origin considered small reactors could be a potential future source of energy, it wouldn’t make a “single bet”, he said.

“We’re certainly not discounting it. I just wouldn’t overstate its role right today.”

The large-scale nuclear reactors promoted by the Coalition have “varying costs” and are also at least a decade away, he added.

“That for us feels much more difficult because we have got an influx of renewable energy that is going to be into the system and therefore is it going to intersect alongside that well?”

Origin is sticking with its revised target of August 2027 for shutting its Eraring coal power station in Lake Macquarie and is “agnostic” over what kind of energy replaces coal, Mr Calabria said.

The Origin boss acknowledged it would be difficult to create a reliable power system to replace coal, but expects solar panels to be installed on rooftops faster than expected.

Gas-fired power would also be needed as back-up power to solar, wind and battery-stored energy, he said.

The Albanese government is scrambling to meet an international commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, en route to a net zero goal by 2050.

Renewable energy including solar, wind, battery storage and pumped hydro forms the backbone of the government’s plan, with gas-peaking plants backing up the intermittent renewables.

NSW Climate and Energy Minister Penny Sharpe said the key challenge for nuclear was that coal will be phased out before nuclear is ready. “Nuclear just doesn’t fit that time frame,” she told the Summit. “Our challenge is to manage the [coal] exit as quickly as we can, while replacing it with renewables.”

……………………………………. Squadron Energy chief executive Rob Wheals said the whole nuclear debate was a distraction.

“It seems like a tactic of kicking the can down the road and actually not focusing on the technologies that we know are available and are available in the time frame that we’ve got,” he said.

Political fight

Federal Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen panned the Coalition’s idea of starting a nuclear energy industry from scratch.

“The real danger in the Coalition’s nuclear scheme is the uncertainty it deliberately creates in relation to our grid. Investment is vital,” he said……………………………………..  https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/nuclear-too-slow-to-replace-coal-by-2035-20241021-p5kjzg

October 21, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Inside the room that loves Nuclear Ted

The Opposition’s fission frontman Ted O’Brien was in his element at Australia’s premier pro-nuclear conference last week, feeling the love from a hot-to-trot audience swallowing every word from a smooth-talking messiah . Freelance Journalist Murray Hogarth was there and imbibed the vibe — but not the glow-in-the-dark Kool-Aid.

by MURRAY HOGARTH., https://thepolitics.com.au/inside-the-rooms-that-love-nuclear-ted/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF8E1hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeNqjz022ugJko-9VboOWN2DC-94pA7Y5ifdvNwZFTZ_YaikPJPpvYhkNw_aem_dxORDyGfCPnc4VD223hWhA 16 Oct 24

Ted O’Brien MP was confecting political outrage, playing to Australia’s ultimate pro-nuclear audience in Sydney last Friday. The day before, the Albanese Labor government had sprung a pre-election surprise on the Liberal-National coalition, and O’Brien as its nuclear torchbearer, when it forced through a tactical parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy.

“It was hard not to be a little bit suspicious, not just because there’d been zero engagement on this,” he confided, eager to share his take on the backstory to how the Coalition had been politically blindsided and outmuscled.

O’Brien was in high dudgeon about the inquiry’s terms of reference, but mainly about its committee having four Labor government members versus two from the Coalition, a two-to-one ratio, plus one from the crossbench, a teal. That’s a clear government majority, so official committee reports will say what it wants, which is realpolitik at work. But to O’Brien it was a desperate government “very clearly trying to weaponise the parliamentary system to kill the idea that Australia should include nuclear energy as part of its mix”. 

Of course, hypocrisy is quite the thing in politics. It turns out the last parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy in 2019, which was chaired by O’Brien, and which supported partial lifting of Australia’s long-standing nuclear energy ban, was even more dominated by the then Coalition government — 5-2 also plus a single teal.

The Coalition under PM Scott Morrison then squibbed it on running a go-nuclear policy at the 2022 elections, which it lost to Labor. Yet, as the opposition, it now expects a Labor government to overturn the nuclear ban that the Coalition introduced in 1998, under the conservative leadership of PM John Howard.

Nothing for O’Brien to melt down over here. But don’t let facts get in the way of a convenient story.

Smug, glib, righteous and on the Right

O’Brien approaches a speaking platform with a radioactive level of smugness and glibness that makes me feel queasy to the core. Perhaps that’s because I’ve been overexposed to him in the past six months as I’ve tracked the emerging nuclear story: three live speeches and seemingly endless videos and television interviews. His own productions. 7.30. Insiders. Four Corners. Sky News on loop. 

A committed spruiker, in an Americanised preachy showman kind of way, the ambitious O’Brien is both righteous and on the Right. To paraphrase him: nuclear is vital to our future energy mix and to achieving net zero. Labor’s 100% renewables can’t do it. Blah blah blah. Oh, and we’ll make public the costs and other key details “in due course”.

Last Friday, in contrast to my gut feeling, there was love vibing in the room when O’Brien returned to his people at Australia’s premier pro-nuclear event, the annual conference of the Australian Nuclear Association (ANA). Among this fraternity, he’s Nuclear Ted, the reactor-evangelising federal Liberal from Queensland who’s putting the fission back into the politics of energy in Australia, with a touch of frisson too for this audience.

It’s a pro-nuke constituency that has been in the Australian political wilderness seems like forever, but at least since the 1960s. Now a smooth-talking messiah has emerged, vowing to lead it to its promised land: a nuclear Australia. 

If you’ve been thinking it’s mainly renewables-hating, climate-denying National Party political malcontents who are behind the Coalition’s plans — which include prolonging coal and expanding gas generation — think again.

Friends in high places 

ANA conferences are where corporate big nuke and its international and local lobbyists meet Australia’s nuclear true believers. Weirdly, however, this gathering of 200 or so delegates has the Australian government as its long-standing principal sponsor. That’s right. The Albanese Labor government is sponsoring a platform for O’Brien, its would-be nuclear energy policy nemesis, to attack the government. And unsurprisingly he keeps coming back to do just that. It’s almost like the government wants O’Brien out there, talking his talk.

The government’s sponsorship comes via its main nuclear advisory agency, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which operates the nation’s only reactor, a research and medical isotopes facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The other event sponsors include the Canadian nuclear engineering powerhouse AtkinsRéalis, and the Australian lobbying outfit SMR Nuclear Technologies.

ANSTO definitely isn’t meant to play politics, challenge policies of the government of the day, or otherwise advocate for nuclear energy. So it’s worth pointing out that the ANA’s president, and the conference’s main host, Dr Mark Ho, is a senior ANSTO scientist in his day job, and the event’s key organiser, Dr John Harries, is former ANSTO, as are many in the ANA orbit.

Beyond the conference, the ANA is increasingly involved in promoting nuclear energy. It and Ho helped organise the Navigating Nuclear forum in May, where O’Brien was a surprise guest speaker after it had been promoted as being “free of politics”. 

The Nuclear for Australia campaign thanked Ho for joining its first public event in Lithgow — one of the Coalition’s targeted communities for nuclear reactors — several weeks ago, and Ho was billed as a speaker at an ultra-conservative, anti-renewables, pro-nuclear forum in western Sydney in September where Barnaby Joyce was a pop-up speaker, as previously reported in The Politics, before Harries stepped in to replace him.

I missed Lithgow, but I was at the Navigating Nuclear and western Sydney events. Hence my delicate stomach.

The Coalition is all over this

O’Brien gave a keynote at the ANA’s conference last year too, lambasting the Albanese Labor government then as well. His National Party colleague Dr David Gillespie MP, who spoke at the end of last Friday’s event, has been a regular at these conferences since 2018. Gillespie used the 2022 conference as a springboard for pro-nuclear lobbying through his chairmanship of the Coalition-dominated Parliamentary Friends of Nuclear Industries. 

With O’Brien, they played a key role in shaping Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s headland nuclear energy policy announcements in mid-2023. Indeed, O’Brien passed on Dutton’s greetings to last Friday’s conference, and indicated Dutton’s wish to attend a future event “in due course”. 

The irony of this phrase choice may have escaped O’Brien in the moment. But he and Dutton are constantly promising the media and the Australian public that they will announce the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy costs and other details “in due course”. Thus far there is no sign of them.

As the day-long conference played out last Friday, it became more and more clear this wasn’t just a political speaker and an audience with a common interest. It’s more like they are collaborators, private sector interests included, working not just for a nuclear Australia but for a global nuclear renaissance. 

One of the main industry sponsor presenters, for example, mentioned a recent economic assessment it had undertaken looking at nuclear generation for the NSW Hunter region that “isn’t public”, saying that “hopefully David and Ted can use that going forward”. Very cosy. It’s all very reciprocal and transactional. The kind of thing which Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed master of the deal turned political leader, might applaud.

It’s a fair bet that if Trump returns to the US presidency after next month’s election the Americans will be all over Australia to buy its nuclear energy technologies and services — a number of which were showcased at the 2023 ANA conference, especially Brookfield-owned Westinghouse, already on Dutton’s reactor design shopping list, and Bill Gates’s TerraPower.

The dream merchant

O’Brien, meanwhile, hung around the conference for an extra Q&A session, and actively canvassed for political support via the ANA community, inviting delegates to mobilise their networks ahead of the federal election, and make wide-ranging submissions to the Labor-dominated parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy now underway, without feeling constrained by “Labor’s terms of reference”.

In return, O’Brien is promising the realisation of their nuclear dream. If only the Coalition can return to political power, they’ll get nuclear power, or at least that’s the bait, whatever happens down the years ahead. At one stage in the Q&A he even indicated that a future Coalition government could help promote nuclear energy development ambitions with other nations across the Asia-Pacific. 

Standing in the way, however, as O’Brien the reactor evangelist tells it, is a Labor government at odds with the nation’s patriotic spirit, and “Team Australia” to revive a favoured Tony Abbott line:

“This is about Australia  … But it is people in this room and beyond, who’ve been doing the heavy lifting for years. It is the intellectual capacity of people in this room and the willingness to be patriots, to put Australia first … It is very much a Team Australia effort of patriots who are prepared to engage and assist along the way.”

Oh dear, I’m feeling queasy all over again.

FOOTNOTE: A key conclusion from delving into O’Brien’s nuclear journey, and that of the Dutton Opposition over the past couple of years, is that they haven’t gone to energy experts to work out if and how nuclear fits into Australia’s energy future. Rather, they’ve gone to nuclear vested interests and true believers, and surprise! surprise! they are all for it! As are fossil-fuel diehards, who know a strategic distraction when they see one.

October 17, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

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