Comments about Ted O’Brien’s (Opposition energy spokesperson) disrespectful and dishonest questioning of witnesses during the hearings of the Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia. Maybe these comments could even be useful to future witnesses, if they were forewarned.
At today’s hearing in Lithgow one of the witnesses started to call him out. This is the first time that I can remember anyone really challenging him. It would be helpful if he was called out more clearly, ideally in a way that strikes at the heart of his dishonesty. Make it hard for him to use these tactics.
He regularly asks questions along the following lines:
“Have you read such and such a report?” (99% of the time the witnesses have not.) He then quotes or paraphrases (or misrepresents) something out of the report and asks the witness to answer “Yes” or “No” to some loaded proposition. When the witness doesn’t give him the Yes/No answer he wants, he interrupts them and insists that they answer Yes or No. Loaded questions might be along the following lines:
Based on this report, would you agree that nuclear is a viable option?
Or
Do you think you know better than the [unquestionably authoritative] author of this report?
(These are not direct quotes, just the general gist. See below for a specific example.)
This approach is disrespectful, because it is unreasonable to expect witnesses to have read every official report that O’Brien chooses to use (or misuse) to back up his position. Of course, O’Brien knows they haven’t read the report.
It is also disrespectful, because it is generally used for the purpose of making a fool of the witness in order to destroy their credibility.
It is dishonest, because he quotes or paraphrases the reports selectively, out of context, and probably misrepresents the reports.
An example from today’s hearing in Lithgow (11/12/2024) illustrates the point. It can be heard from 1.24.55 on the following link:
These two witnesses stood up for themselves, but on many other occasions throughout these hearings, the witnesses have been left looking silly, even though the fault is with O’Brien’s dishonest approach. (Note that a similar approach is used by Coalition “Supplementary Member” of the Inquiry, Simon Kennedy.)
Ted O’Brien: “My question was going to go to your comments on the timing for the construction of those plants — Generation 3, Generation 3+. And my question is, Do you recognise the experience of the International Atomic Energy Agency with respect to advice on the timing of introducing nuclear energy to new nations? And also the experience and authority of ANSTO, the government’s nuclear technology advisers, when it comes to the construction of nuclear power plants?”
Geoffrey Miell (retired mechanical engineer): “I look at the actual construction times around the world….”
O’Brien then interrupted Miell’s very reasonable answer and demanded that he give a Yes/No answer to the question “Do you recognise…?”
When Miell offered a variation of his original response, O’Brien asked, “Does that mean you do not recognise their experience and expertise sir?”
After this, at 1.28.25, Sarah Elliot (nursing academic and member of NSW Nurses and Midwives Association) called O’Brien out:
“I will say that I have read transcripts Mr O’Brien where you have misled …[interrupted by bickering between Chair Repacholi and Deputy Chair O’Brien]… Mr O’Brien can I ask you to afford this panel the respect you gave to the last ones. We may not be in agreeance with your views, but can you please respect this panel that is before you right now … I’m disgusted with your behaviour as a representative of…”
The dishonesty of O’Brien’s line of questioning is exposed when you read the latest CSIRO GenCost draft report. That report makes the following comment about the IAEA’s timing estimates:
“Nuclear development lead time
“The development lead time includes the construction period plus all of the preconstruction activities such as planning, permitting and financing. Many stakeholders have agreed with the GenCost estimate of at least 15 years lead time for nuclear generation. Those stakeholders that are more optimistic cite two alternative sources, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who have an estimate of 10 to 15 years and the recent completion of a nuclear project in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had a 12 year lead time. Both estimates are in relation to building nuclear for the first time. This consultation draft provides additional analysis of nuclear lead times to examine this issue more closely. We examine recent construction times and their relationship with the level of democracy in that country.
So the IAEA’s estimate is a 2015 estimate. In the 9 years since then we’ve seen massive blowouts in construction times in the US, UK, France and Finland. Those projects were already in trouble in 2015, but since then they’ve blown out much more, while the VC Summer plant in South Carolina was abandoned part way through construction. But O’Brien still uses the 2015 IAEA estimate to put witnesses on the spot. As for ANSTO, their credibility was demolished by John Quiggen in the following article. https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/20/coalition-nuclear-power-ansto-csiro-small-modular-reactors/
Another example was when O’Brien used the first Frontier Economics report (the second can be expected any day) to say the total system cost of the electricity grid in 2050 will be five times what the ALP Government has claimed (AEMO’s ISP report). He also completely misrepresented Minister Bown’s response to that report. However, on this occasion, Tennant Reed (Australian Industry Group), who had actually read the Frontier Economics report, interrupted him (5.55.50). This caused a problem for O’Brien, because his brazen dishonesty was exposed by a real expert. Unfortunately, Reed was too polite. He didn’t call out O’Brien’s dishonesty. He just explained the source of the difference between AMEO’s ISP figure and the figure in Frontier Economics report. “The two numbers are different sorts of number, rather than greatly in disagreement with each other.”
See the following YouTube link from 5.53.50:
See the following YouTube link from 5.53.50:
Inquiry Into Nuclear Power Generation In Australia, Melbourne, 04/12/2024
The above two examples are examples of where O’Brien was actually challenged, but, unfortunately, not exposed for the charlatan that he is. I am hopeful that if witnesses are forewarned of his tactics, they might be in a better position to stand up to him, ideally to expose him, but definitely not to be intimidated by his dirty tactics.
It’s hard to take the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy seriously, so we didn’t. And frankly, why would they put taxpayers on the hook for the biggest public funded project in history when renewables are crowding private investment en masse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSeaybp9oAA
It might seem weirdly appropriate that the federal Coalition should release its nuclear power policy costings on Friday the 13th, considered an unlucky day in western superstition. But that would be to downplay the sheer lunacy, rank dishonesty, and clear danger in Peter Dutton’s energy plans.
Shows like Edward Scissorhands are horror fantasies played out on a screen. But the Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien nuclear plan is a horror show we may have to live and breathe. After so many years, the Coalition is still playing culture wars on the most fundamental issues of our time – and all at the behest of the fossil fuel industry.
It doesn’t matter at which level you look at it, this energy policy makes no sense at all. You could look at it backwards, from behind, sideways, leave it out in the sun for a few days, or even bury it in the garden (please do), the only thing that would change is that it might smell more than it does now.
It would likely take until Christmas to go through all the lies, deceptions and misunderstandings that comprise this policy and these costings, but let’s just focus on a couple of the important ones for now.
The reference to the sheer lunacy and the danger of the Coalition policy comes in Dutton’s desire to simply ignore climate science, along with basic engineering and economics.
Emissions reductions are put off to the never never. And, as Dutton revealed in his press conference through his comments on rooftop solar, he simply does not have a clue about the basic concepts of the energy system.
Dutton and Co simply want to bring a crashing halt to Australia’s only successful emission reductions efforts – the transition to green energy – and walk away from the country’s natural advantages in wind, solar and storage and the industries that are emerging from that.
They even have the chutzpah to claim that it will result in lower emissions. Which, inevitably, is pure bunkum. But, as Donald Trump has demonstrated, if you “flood the zone with shit”, something will stick – mostly to the front pages of mainstream media.
And that’s what we saw on Friday. A planned leak of the findings resulted in claimed headline “savings” – emblazoned across the front pages of the cheer-leading Murdoch media and the AFR this morning – that the nuclear power plan will save $264 billion.
It is of course, a complete nonsense, and obviously so to anyone who is paying attention, or even bothered to read the Coalition document. We are talking about completely different scenarios, and taking traditional accounting methods away from the international norm.
Dutton and his media followers have made a big deal of Frontier Economics costings of the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System which is the basis of Labor policy.
Frontier concedes, however, that the cost of AEMO’s “step change” plan is about what it says it is – $122 billion, based on the standard accounting practice of “net present value.”
But, at the urging of the Coalition, Frontier has published an additional number, around $600 billion, based on the “real cost” and throwing in some more transmission spending.
Dutton has used that number to insist that AEMO and Labor had lied to the Australian people. But it was the former Coalition government who instructed AEMO to cost it this way. And for good reason – it is standard international accounting practice. It is Dutton and O’Brien who are now spreading the lies.
Indeed, the Frontier Economics report actually reveals that the claimed $264 billion in savings parroted by the mainstream media are from two entirely different scenarios. One is from AEMO’s “Step Change”, the other from the Coalition’s version of “progressive change.”
The actual savings on a like for like basis are much smaller, if you can believe Frontier’s costings of nuclear.
Progressive change assumes that demand will not be as great as forecast by AEMO. It assumes much smaller electrification (thanks to the gas industry) and slower uptake of EVs (thanks to the oil industry). It then ignores the $75 billion a year of extra fuel costs that would result from that.
Now let’s go to the Coalition’s plan to shut down just one third of the main grid’s ageing coal fired generators by 2034 – with the rest trying to stay on line until nuclear power plants can be built.
The Coalition says it still thinks the first nuclear power plant can be built by the mid-2030s. The rest of the industry says this will be pretty much impossible until the mid 2040s.
Keeping the coal fired power stations open will not just increase pollution – both within the grid and the industries that depend on it – it will also puts grid reliability at risk.
This week, AEMO had to issue several lack of reserve alerts as another heatwave approached the eastern states. The main reason was that Origin, despite being promised up to $450 million to keep Australia’s biggest coal generator on line for another two years, reported another breakdown at Eraring.
At Bayswater, a unit is offline because of a tube leak. One third of the coal units in Victoria are also offline due to unplanned outages, and so is the country’s newest and “most efficient” coal generator at Kogan Creek, which is also the country’s largest single generation unit.
Dutton and O’Brien insist that these ageing and increasingly decrepit coal fired power plants will only have to operate “a few years longer”. But they are kidding themselves. Their own modelling confirms that.
They are still setting a timeline of 2035 for the first reactors. Will these be large scale of small commercial small modular reactor. No one has built one, or even got a licence to build one.
The Coalition insists that new nuclear can be built, from scratch, in a country with no nuclear infrastructure or know-how to speak of, no work force and no regulatory base ,in about a dozen years. There’s also a golden replica of the Sydney Harbour Bridge at the bottom of your packet of Cornflakes.
A dozen years is the average “delay” in the big nuclear power plants being built in western democracies – the UK, France, and Finland – all of whom have been operating nuclear power plants for decades.
Dutton and O’Brien are now telling us their nuclear plan will result in 14 gigawatt of nuclear capacity – double what they previously said. And Frontier’s modelling shows that coal is going to have to last a lot longer, beyond the official lifetime limits of the coal generators.
Even the Australian Energy Council, one of the most conservative of lobby groups that represents the coal generator owners, believes this is a bad idea and “could result in reliability issues.”
But let’s go back to the conventional way of measuring costs – net present value. The Frontier report includes it, at the very last page of its report. It shows that the difference in costs, on their calculations, is actually $62 billion over 25 years for the step change scenario.
But even that is on the basis of some heroic assumptions on the costs of nuclear. Frontier puts the total cost, including 14 GW of new nuclear power plants, at $142 billion (see table above).
Let’s look at the cost of Hinkley C, the first nuclear power station to be built in the UK for decades. At just 3.2 GW, its cost has already blown out to $A92 billion and is running at least 14 years late from its promised timeline. What does the Coalition know that the rest of the nuclear world does not know?
The Coalition’s vision for renewables also beggars belief. Under its modelling, it estimates the share of wind, solar and hydro will be less than 50 per cent in 2050. That’s in the “progressive” plan that appears to be their chosen one.
If you take the current level of renewables, the already committed large scale projects, and the continued roll out of rooftop and behind the metre solar, the Coalition is essentially telling everyone that the construction of new large scale wind and solar more or less comes to an end with their election next year.
The stupidity of the idea is frightening. Quite how the Coalition figures it could keep the lights on in the 2030s and 2040s is beyond belief.
The Coalition are also trying to convince people that somehow their plan does not need new transmission, or much back-up.
All generation needs back-up, and all generation needs transmission. A 1.4 GW nuclear power plant will be nearly twice the size of the current biggest unit in Australia’s main grid, the currently broken Kogan Creek coal fired generator.
That means it needs twice as much back-up, because if it trips suddenly – which it inevitably will, just look at the patchy performance of the new nuclear power plant in Finland – then the market operator needs to be able to fill in the gaps at a moment’s notice. That’s expensive.
And then, of course, is what to do with your rooftop solar. If the Coalition wants its fleet of nuclear power plants to run “always on” then there may be no room on the grid for your rooftop solar.
Your best bet might be to buy a battery, or better still an electric vehicle. You don’t have to leave the grid, but you will want to make sure that you can have power without it. And you sure don’t have to believe Dutton’s nonsense about solar not being able to charge EVs and batteries at the same time.
But the safest and cheaper option might be to ensure these idiots don’t get elected.
If you really want to understand where the federal Coalition’s nuclear energy policy is taking us, and it’s real purpose, you need to turn to Figure 6 on the costings analysis provided by its consultant Frontier Economics.
This is the estimation of capacity installed on Australia’s main grid over the next 25 years. It is based on Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s preferred scenario – the one he used to emblazon the claims of $260 billion in savings across the front pages of the mainstream media on Friday.
Since this is the comparison that Dutton is seeking to sell to the Australian public, let’s look at in detail.
In contrast to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Step Change scenario, the one that the federal Labor government has used for its policy and planning blueprint, the Coalition’s Progressive Scenario imagines a world still revolving around the concept of baseload power, of petrol and diesel powered cars, of gas-powered homes and a lot less renewables.
The scenario also assumes a lot less rooftop solar, which means that the Coalition is banking on consumers buying more from the grid, and paying money to big utilities such as the Hong Kong owned ElectricityAustralia.
But the Frontier model focuses only on large scale capacity and generation. For large scale solar it is a bad look: Just a doubling of capacity from 2025 to 2050. Given that 5 GW of capacity is likely already locked in, that reduces the rollout of large scale solar to a trickle over the next two decades.
For wind, the story is actually worse. The modelling assume no offshore wind at all, given the Coalition’s promise to scrap the newly declared offshore wind zones, and despite the legislated target in Victoria of 9 GW by 2040.
For onshore wind, Frontier puts the installed capacity in 2025 at 12.8 GW (according to OpenNEM it would be closer to 14 GW by the end of that year, and predicts the total rising to 28 GW by 2050.
Given that more than 5 GW of wind power is already locked in and under construction or contract, then that is a painfully slow build rate over the coming two decades.
It’s the Coalition telling local and international investors: “F*** off we don’t want you here:” And forcing consumers to buy more power from the big utilities at the same time.
Apart from scrapping the offshore wind zones, the federal Coalition has also promised to “rip up contracts” for large scale underwriting agreements written with the federal government.
According to the Frontier report , Large scale renewables total 49 per cent (wind 32 per cent and solar 17 per cent) by 2050, with nuclear likely to be 38 per cent, assuming that everything gets built in time. The graph above shows limited growth in each of wind, solar and utility storage after 2030.
“This … would represent a dramatic slowdown in the installation and investment of renewable energy across Australia and will be a massive shock and concern to investors who have invested $40 billion into large-sale renewable energy in Australia since 2020,” Clean Energy Council CEO Kane Thornton said.
“Australia has been a world leader in rooftop solar with over four million systems installed on homes and small businesses and an additional 300,000 plus systems being installed every year. The Coalition’s plan means millions of Australians would miss out on the chance to install solar.”
And Thornton also pointed out that it would not be good for the owners of rooftop solar. Currently, households are up in arms at the prospect of having their panels switched off – in an emergency – once or twice a summer.
In the Coalition’s nuclear plan, it would likely be a daily occurrence to ensure that the nuclear generators are “always on.”
“A nuclear-powered energy grid would also be a disaster for the four million Australian homes that have already installed a rooftop solar system as a way to lower their power bills,” Thornton said. “These systems would have to be switched off regularly if Australia was to move to inflexible nuclear power.”
Regional Australia is having its “phoenix moment” as more people move to the bush, according to a local councillor, but some residents fear the Coalition’s nuclear plan could hinder growth and prosperity.
The Coalition has earmarked seven sites for nuclear reactors at former and closing coal power plants across Australia, including at Lithgow’s Mount Piper power station in central west NSW.
Tom Evangelidis, who sits on Lithgow City Council, told a parliamentary inquiry his family moved to the town at the foot of the NSW Blue Mountains four years ago for its affordability and proximity to Sydney.
The presence of a nuclear reactor could dissuade others from settling in the region at a time when it is planning a bright future, Mr Evangelidis told the parliamentary committee sitting in Lithgow on Wednesday.
“This is our phoenix moment,” he said, referring to the mythical creature that rises from the ashes as a symbol of renewal and progress. “Nuclear in our region will stop that.”
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has pledged to release the costings of his nuclear plan soon, having slammed an experts’ report that showed solar and wind remained the cheapest forms of energy.
Mount Piper operator EnergyAustralia has plans for a 500-megawatt battery energy storage system adjacent to the site, while also looking into pumped hydro at nearby Lake Lyell.
Further west near Dubbo, there is a proposed Renewable Energy Zone, with 4.5 gigawatts of potential capacity through solar, wind and new transmission infrastructure.
Peter Hennessy, who lives on a property at Bathurst, said communities have been left “high and dry” by planning laws and consultation on renewable projects.
“[Energy Minister Chris Bowen] would have solar everywhere, couldn’t care less about the countryside at all,” Mr Hennessy said.
“[It’s] just an absolute disgrace and total disregard to the welfare of the land or the people surrounding or indeed anywhere else.”
Jim Blackwood, a retired GP and vice president of the Bathurst Community Climate Action Network, said it was redundant to debate the pros and cons of nuclear because it would take too long to establish.
“The issue is we need to do something now, and we need to do it in a time frame that is going to make a difference,” Dr Blackwood told the hearing.
Lithgow is at the front line of climate change tensions, facing the end of its economic base in the fossil fuel industry while also recovering from the Black Summer bushfires.
“Four years ago, this whole town was surrounded by an inferno, a raging inferno,” Dr Blackwood said.
“All the hills were a fire, and so those two things are basically what’s confronting all of us.”
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will ask Australians to support hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on nuclear energy, including a controversial move to use taxpayer subsidies to build the industry while promising to bring down household electricity bills.
The Coalition pledge comes as an exclusive survey reveals deep concerns about use of taxpayer funds to start the sector, with only 21 per cent of voters in favour of taxpayer investments or subsidies for nuclear power.
The Resolve Political Monitor, conducted for this masthead, showed renewable energy was more popular, with 45 per cent of voters backing subsidies for rooftop solar and 34 per cent supporting subsidies for home batteries – an option Labor is exploring as an election policy next year.
Dutton is expected to reveal more details of his plan on Friday with a pledge to build seven full-scale nuclear power stations, rather than smaller “modular” reactors, to deliver baseload electricity and lower the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Coalition MPs will be briefed on the plan in a party room meeting on Friday morning at 10am.
A key part of the plan will be an assumption that coal-fired power stations will continue to operate while a Coalition government awards contracts to build the nuclear plants, even though energy companies are planning to stop using coal over the next two decades.
Recent modelling by consultancy Frontier Economics for the Coalition put a cost of $642 billion on Labor’s renewables rollout to 2050. As first reported by this masthead last week, the opposition will claim its nuclear plan will cost about $400 billion over the same period.
Subsidising power sources
Q: Which, if any, of the following do you think deserve subsidy or investment by taxpayers?
Rooftop solar
45%
Home batteries
34%
Renewables in general, such as wind and solar
33%
Large-scale batteries
28%
Large-scale solar farms
26%
Nuclear-powered electricity
21%
Hydro-electric energy from dams
21%
Natural gas-powered electricity
20%
Large-scale wind turbines on land
19%
Large-scale wind turbines off the coast
19%
Undecided
15%
Coal-fired electricity
13%
None of these
9%
n=1604
Source: Resolve Political Monitor
Energy Minister Chris Bowen rejects the $642 billion figure and stands by the energy grid operator’s forecast of $122 billion. The dispute is based on different ways of accounting for costs in the future.
Opposition veterans affairs spokesman Barnaby Joyce, one of the most outspoken proponents of nuclear power within the Coalition, said Australians had to decide whether “you want a grid that works or you don’t”.
Asked about earlier reports of a $500 billion projected cost, Joyce told this masthead: “It always was going to be this much. But we are spending $24 billion for pumped hydro, which gives maybe a day of power, and then you have to pay for transmission lines. The per-reactor price is lower.”
A key part of the Coalition argument is the cost blowout in the Snowy 2.0 project to generate more hydropower in the Snowy Mountains, while a nuclear project in the United Arab Emirates, backed by South Korean company KEPCO, has delivered results on time.
Joyce contrasted the Coalition plan with the controversial plan for the Hinkley Point C reactor in the United Kingdom, which is behind schedule, or the use of small modular reactors (SMR) in other countries.
“We are not devising a new reactor like in England, and we aren’t using an SMR,” he said.
“We are doing this with proven technology like in the UAE, it’s more economical that way. And that means the time frame can be realistic.”
Another member of the shadow cabinet, who asked not to be named, said most Australians were not concerned about nuclear power being rolled out as it would not be built anywhere near their homes.
“The biggest positive is that Peter has floated a big idea, a difficult idea, and he’s had the courage to do it. The debate over this will end up being modelling at 50 paces,” they said.
The Resolve Political Monitor found 34 per cent of voters supported the use of nuclear power, while 28 per cent were against it. Another 24 per cent said they did not have a strong view but were open to the government investigating its use.
The survey, conducted by research company Resolve Strategic, found 54 per cent of Coalition voters supported nuclear power while only 21 per cent of Labor voters and 15 per cent of Greens supporters said the same.
The question was: “There has been some debate about the use of nuclear power in Australia recently. What is your own view on the use of nuclear power in Australia?” The question did not outline the Coalition policy, given it had not been released.
The Resolve Political Monitor surveyed 1604 eligible voters from Wednesday to Sunday, generating results with a margin of error of 2.4 per cent.
While many Australians remain open to nuclear energy, views have tended to shift against the energy source since the survey asked about the issue more than one year ago.
The survey in October last year found that 33 per cent supported nuclear power and 29 per cent were open to the government investigating its use, leading to a total of 62 per cent who were prepared to back or consider it. This total slipped to 58 per cent in the latest survey.
The number of voters against nuclear increased from 24 per cent in October last year to 28 per cent in the latest survey.
In a separate question about taxpayer subsidies, the Resolve Political Monitor found 45 per cent of voters supported federal investments or subsidies for rooftop solar – the most favoured option. In contrast, only 13 per cent supported taxpayer subsidies for coal-fired electricity.
Power bills would rise by about $665 a year to repay the cost of building seven nuclear plants, according to analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, based on the repayments needed to fund the average of construction costs from reactors recently built around the world.
The Coalition policy assumes a smaller addition of renewable energy to the electricity grid compared to government policy, which forecasts an increase in the share of renewable energy to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030.
The opposition has claimed the influx of renewables, which currently supply 40 per cent of electricity, will increase power bills and the risk of blackouts and disrupt regional communities where wind and solar farms are built.
Another key point of difference is the opposition’s assumption that the nation’s coal plants will run for decades longer than the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has forecast.
AEMO predicts that 90 per cent of coal-fired generation will be shut down before 2035, with closures complete by 2040.
The opposition has said its first nuclear reactor will be completed by 2035, while experts including the CSIRO say 2040 is the earliest possible date. A fully operational fleet of nuclear reactors cannot be expected before 2050.
A former CSIRO energy director has said Peter Dutton’s attempt to politicise the national science agency’s work on the likely costs of nuclear reactors is “incredibly disappointing” and “absurd”.
The opposition leader attacked the CSIRO after its latest GenCost report reaffirmed that electricity from nuclear energy in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than power from solar and wind, backed up with storage.
Dutton claimed: “It just looks to me like there’s a heavy hand of Chris Bowen in all of this.”
Prof Glenn Platt, of the University of Sydney and an energy industry entrepreneur, was research director on energy at CSIRO before leaving the national science agency in 2021.
“It’s incredibly disappointing. It’s lazy just to say that you must have been politicised because the answer isn’t what you like,” said Platt, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering.
The Coalition is expected to reveal details this week on the costs of building taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors at seven sites of coal-fired power stations around the country.
CSIRO’s annual GenCost report details the likely costs of different electricity generation technologies in Australia.
Bowen, the energy minister, said GenCost was “an independent report with no role by any member of parliament or minister”, and said Dutton should apologise to the agency.
Nuclear power is still about 50 per cent more expensive than renewables, the CSIRO has found, even after the science organisation changed its modelling to accommodate criticism from the Peter Dutton-led Coalition that it had unfairly favoured wind and solar energy sources.
The report found the lowest cost projections for nuclear power would only match the highest projections for renewable energy, a major challenge to Dutton’s claim that nuclear is needed to cut electricity bills.
Dutton has fiercely criticised the government’s plan to boost the share of renewables to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030, claiming it is making electricity supply less reliable and more expensive.
He has instead pledged to create a “coal-to-nuclear transition” if elected, overturning state and federal bans on nuclear energy and building seven plants across the country.
“When you look at 19 of the top 20 economies in the world, they all have nuclear, or they’ve signed up to the latest generation nuclear technology. Australia is the only outlier,” Dutton told reporters in Tasmania on Sunday.
Highlighting the significance of the CSIRO’s findings, opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien met with the science agency after its previous GenCost report in May found renewables were the cheapest form of energy and asked it to redo the modelling with key assumptions changed.
O’Brien declared that CSIRO should acknowledge a nuclear plant would be in near-constant use – generating power 93 per cent of the time – while also extending the assumed lifespan from 30 years to 80 years.
Proponents consider these factors crucial to reflect the real-world benefits of nuclear power plants and have argued that renewables get an unfair advantage when they are not adequately reflected in modelling.
CSIRO accommodated these requests and still found the cost of nuclear energy was significantly higher than “variable renewables”, namely wind and solar power backed up with batteries and a major transmission-line rollout.
“The cost range for variable renewables with integration costs is the lowest of all new-build technology capable of supplying reliable electricity in 2024 and 2030,” GenCost said.
The ratio of how long an energy generator is operational compared with sitting idle, known as the capacity factor, is key to the cost of its energy.
O’Brien claimed in May that CSIRO modelling should use the United States’ average capacity factor for a nuclear plant of 93 per cent.
In responding to O’Brien, CSIRO said it was appropriate to use a range of capacity factors, given the 15 coal plants in eastern Australia ran on average 60 per cent of the time and a nuclear plant would slot into the grid as a replacement for coal.
CSIRO’s modelling showed that, adjusted for Australian conditions, a traditional large-scale nuclear plant that was operational 90 per cent of the time would generate electricity at $155 a megawatt hour. With a utilisation rate of 53 per cent, it would cost $252 a megawatt hour.
In contrast, wind farms would generate power at $56 to $96 a megawatt hour, using a conservative range of capacity factors based on how often they were expected to run. Under a similar calculation, solar farms would generate power for between $35 and $62 a megawatt hour.
O’Brien’s second contention, that CSIRO should factor in an 80-year life span for a nuclear plant, rather than the 30-year life it assumed, made the economics more favourable because there was more time to repay loans.
CSIRO ran the numbers for a plant over 60 years. It found this would deliver a discount of 11 per cent on the original cost. However, most of this saving would be gobbled up by refurbishment costs, typically about $3 billion, needed when a plant was 40 years old.
The figures would be similar for a 100-year-old plant because it would need several refurbishments.
“Long-term operation of nuclear is not costless,” GenCost said. “Extension costs are incurred and are significant.”
CSIRO found a grid with 90 per cent renewables would produce electricity for between $106 and $150 a megawatt hour, including $40 billion in expenditure on the rollout, with new transmission lines as well as batteries and gas plants to back up wind and solar farms.
While GenCost provided a range of projections, the above costs were calculated in today’s dollars and assumed the current price of construction.
GenCost uses a levelised cost of energy calculation to price energy from various technologies. This represents the price needed for an electricity generation plant to earn back the cost of its construction and running costs over its lifespan.
CSIRO will update its GenCost report based on further feedback from stakeholders.
This opposition caper is pretty easy, Peter Dutton must have been thinking throughout the year. Just bag the government, disappear from the media cycle if things ever get hectic, and let the Reserve Bank’s smashing of the economy do the job of undermining government support.
At some point, however, he was going to have to produce at least some policy. Not too soon, and not too much — just enough to look like he has some sort of plan. It should have been doable. After all, he has the entirety of News Corp on his side to praise his policy offerings, and the fencesitters and bothsiders of the press gallery in other outlets won’t criticise Dutton without making sure they offer equal criticism of the government.
But that overlooks the fact that Dutton is, to use a term made famous by Paul Keating, a policy bum. There is nothing in his political history that indicates either ministerial competence or policy nous. He was an indifferent health minister who failed to push through a Medicare copayment. As immigration and then home affairs minister, he lost control of borders to organised crime and failed to fix the many basic problems of the Immigration Department. His shorter time at Defence was of a Marlesian quality — a blithe indifference to the department’s many failings, while shrilly yelling at China.
Dutton’s limited forays into policy as leader have been characterised by confusion. It’s still not clear exactly what the Coalition’s tax policy is, with the initial opposition confusion in the aftermath of Labor’s changes to the stage three tax cuts — remember those — lasting to this very day: when even your mates at News Corp say you’re “kicking the can down the road“, it’s not a good sign.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. But the confusion has now gotten worse…………………………………………………………………………
Dutton’s other signature policy, an unprecedented, fiscally devastating entry of the government into power generation, will receive some time in the spotlight this week with Dutton having promised for the umpteenth time he’ll release details of it. That the Coalition is busy trying to invent numbers for Labor’s policy to argue that the hundred-billion-plus cost of nuclear reactors is the cheap option suggests no amount of fake “independent modelling” or Panglossian assumptions have been able to get the costing down to anything reasonable.
In that context, it’s worth reading the CSIRO’s latest GenCost report, which sets out to address the complaints of nuclear power fans and the Coalition that the assumptions behind its 2023 demolition of the economic case for nuclear power (and, it shouldn’t be forgotten, Labor’s carbon capture and storage scam) were unfair.
The opposition complained that the lives of nuclear reactors are much longer than modelled. GenCost notes that nuclear power plants can indeed run for many decades, but they need refurbishment to do so, and renewables plants can run for similar lives at a much lower refurbishment cost.
The opposition complained the CSIRO should have used a US power capacity figure of 93%, not the global nuclear industry average of 80% or the Australian coal-fired power plant average of 59%. GenCost pointed out it uses the same capacity range for all power sources, and it’s not prudent financially to assume the best-case scenario.
The opposition complained that nuclear power plants could be up and running in 10-15 years and not 15 years as GenCost assumed. Gencost points out that nuclear construction times have now blown out by 2.2 years recently, and that the only countries building reactors quickly are non-democracies that don’t have to worry about public consultation.
But what about changing costs for different power sources? Well:
The capital costs of onshore wind generation technology increased by a further 8% in 2023-24 and another 2% in 2024-25 while large-scale solar PV has fallen by 8% in consecutive years. Large-scale battery costs improved the most in 2024-25 falling by 20% in 2024-25.
Even with some of the tweaks demanded by the Coalition, the latest GenCost report shows large-scale nuclear is significantly more expensive than coal, gas and solar or wind with firming capacity. The only things large-scale nuclear is cheaper than is carbon capture and storage, and small modular reactors — which are at least twice the cost of any other energy source and three times the cost of the cheaper ones.
THE fatuous debate about potential nuclear power options for Australia cannot be taken seriously.
There is no credible evidence supporting any such proposal either economically or environmentally in the Australian context.
The most recent Royal Commission, in 2016 in South Australia, into the nuclear fuel cycle concluded as much.
The history of nuclear power plant accidents and disasters should sound enough warning.
There is an increasing level of radioactive pollution due to the nuclear fuel cycle more generally and the ongoing release of radioactive material continues.
We now have a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia due to our AUKUS agenda, but we have not been able to locate a necessary more permanent nuclear waste storage facility anywhere.
Sensible people do not want one to be anywhere.
This should signal game over but sadly not.
The economics do not add up and the time taken to build reactors will not assist in meeting our essential carbon reduction targets.
Further concentration of power generation capital in the hands of a wealthy few, regardless of suggested initial taxpayer investment is clearly not desirable or justifiable.
Just look at the coal and oil industries in terms of their dominant power and influence.
Owned by an elite few, they continue to pollute and expect subsidies to do so.
We now recently have seen how this folly grows.
Locally we have proponents of nuclear power promoting that it is somehow in our interests to pay them our money to hear these paid proponents spruik their theories.
Creative and clever solutions to energy and climate are needed, not this dangerous misdirection.
If you don’t know, vote no is the most appropriate advice with regard to the nuclear issue.
Surely a more sensible nuclear agenda for humanity and us Australians is a ban on nuclear weapons.
Peter Dutton has upped the ante on energy ahead of the release of his nuclear power policy, vowing to scrap plans for a massive wind farm off the NSW central coast if elected.
The opposition leader’s pledge to not proceed with a wind farm off the coast of the Hunter, north of Sydney, takes to three of the six wind farms proposed by the Albanese government the Coalition would abolish.
The others are off the NSW Illawarra coast and the West Australian coast. The remaining three off the Victorian and South Australian coasts are likely to be spared.
Peter Dutton will reveal his costings for seven nuclear plants as soon as next week.
They are expected to claim the opposition’s energy grid plan – including renewables, gas and nuclear – will cost ‘significantly less’ than Labor’s.
The opposition claims Labor’s renewables-led approach will cost $642 billion, while the government relies on a $122 billion figure.
Peter Dutton will claim the Coalition’s nuclear-backed grid will cost less to deliver than Labor’s renewables-led approach, escalating a war over the key cost-of-living issue ahead of next year’s federal election.
The opposition leader will reveal his costings for seven government-backed nuclear plants as soon as next week. This masthead has confirmed the Coalition will claim its energy grid plan – including renewables, gas and nuclear – would cost less than Labor’s.
The select committee conducting an inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia has triggered strong opinions from both sides of the fence.
Aboriginal leaders, resident representatives, and leaders from the mining and energy sector have spoken during a hearing at Port Augusta.
What’s next?
Should the opposition win the next election, it has promised to hold a two-and-a-half year consultation period over its nuclear plans.
The federal government’s select committee inquiry into nuclear power generation at Port Augusta has stirred strong emotions among those making a submission.
For anti-nuclear activist and Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman Karina Lester, it is a debate she is tired of having.
“Governments change, committee members change … organisations, company members, CEOs of companies change,” Ms Lester said.
“Those of us that are in the frontline are constantly needing to remind governments of the impacts of nuclear in our communities.
“Aboriginal people of South Australia have always said no to nuclear.”
Ms Lester, who gave evidence at a select committee hearing in Adelaide, describes herself as a survivor of the Emu Field nuclear tests.
She said Indigenous people had seen the impacts of nuclear technology first-hand.
The Nukunu Wapma Thura Aboriginal Corporation, which holds native title over the proposed site, has voiced strong opposition to any nuclear proposal.
“Aboriginal people throughout the region and state of South Australia have historically and overwhelmingly opposed nuclear energy, and the storage of its waste,” a spokesperson said.
Greg Bannon from the Flinders Local Action Group gave evidence at the public hearing in Port Augusta about the potential risk of a nuclear accident.
He has opposed nuclear technology for decades and said the time to switch to nuclear energy had passed. “I think it’s old technology, and I don’t think we need it,” he said.
Aussies have hit back at plans to build nuclear power stations in the country as the Coalition ramps up its push to establish seven sites as part of its election promise.
Parliament’s House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy is investigating the proposal and is travelling around the country hearing views from local communities.
At a meeting in Traralgon in Victoria’s Gippsland region on Tuesday angry locals fired up at the plan, which would see one of the new nuclear plants built at the currently winding down Loy Yang coal plant just 10 minutes out of town.
The other six locations Peter Dutton has outlined for nuclear plants are at the coal plant sites of Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW, Port Augusta in SA and Muja in WA.
‘We do not need nuclear in Australia. We need to be pushing more renewable energy and the technology will develop more and more as we go to keep the lights on,’ president of community group Voices of the Valley, Wendy Farmer, told the meeting.
Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien, also the committee’s deputy chair, asked if it was ‘just a no’ from Ms Farmer or if she was interested in studying whether nuclear could be a safe and effective form of electricity.
‘The Coalition have told us that they would consult with us for two and a half years but then they would go ahead with nuclear, whether we wanted it or not and our community would have no rights of veto,’ Ms Farmer fired back.
‘How can we trust the Coalition to have an independent study when you say proposal but where’s the proposal?’
Darren McCubbin, the CEO of Gippsland Climate Change Network, got a standing ovation when he told the meeting renewables were ‘ready to go’ while nuclear power stations would require years of consultations and reports.
‘I’d like to congratulate Mr O’Brien for recognising that we don’t have the science, that we need a work plan, that we need two and a half years of consultation,’ Mr McCubbin said.
‘Good on him for coming here and saying we don’t know the answers and we need to find them because they don’t have the answers.’
Mr McCubbin pointed to the 2GW of Victorian offshore wind power projects slated to be online by 2032, which would increase to 5GW by 2035.
Look right now we’ve got a stream towards renewables, we’ve got targets in place. We’ve got an industry waiting to go, we’ve got people coming from all over the world looking in Gippsland and saying we have a way of transitioning out [of coal-fired electricity].
‘We’ve got the science, we’ve got the community [support]. We’ve had Star of the South [wind farm project] here for five years doing community consultation and I appreciate that you recognise you haven’t done that.
‘So we’re ready to go and putting things off for two and a half years to have work plan after work plan and work plan is not a solution for jobs and growth within our region.’
A recent Demos AU poll of 6709 adults between July 2 and November 24 found that 26 per cent of women said nuclear would be good for Australia, compared with 51 per cent of men.
But only one in three of the men surveyed were willing to live near a nuclear plant.
Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of women said they don’t want to live near a nuclear plant and more than half (57 per cent) said transporting radioactive waste isn’t worth the risk.
The report card follows polling by Farmers For Climate Action that found 70 per cent of rural Australians support clean energy projects on farmland in their local areas and 17 per cent were opposed.
That support came with conditions, including proper consultation and better access to reliable energy.
Sanne de Swart, co-ordinator of the Nuclear Free Campaign with Friends of the Earth Melbourne, claimed nuclear electricity would ‘increase power bills, increase taxes and increase climate pollution’.
The independent Climate Council said it was concerned the coalition was relying on one private sector ‘base case‘ for nuclear costings rather than expert advice such as from the Australian Energy Market Operator.
‘What’s crucial is that any new investment is made at the least cost to Australian consumers,’ a council spokesperson said. ‘Only renewables – solar, wind, hydro – together with energy storage is capable of delivering on this, and it’s being built right now,’ the council said.
Minister for Climate Change Chris Bowen recently took a swipe at Peter Dutton and the Coalition’s nuclear proposal saying that it would take too long to get the plants up and running.
‘Net zero by 2050 is not optional. Which means the critical decade is now.’
With six years to go to reach the legislated target of a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, he said the nation was on track to meet it and to make 82 per cent renewable electricity in the national grid by 2030.
On Wednesday the House Select Committee was told legal requirements to make the former coal sites safe to build nuclear reactors will take decades of rehabilitation before they can be used.
Antinuclear 