Antinuclear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Vastly lower wages for construction workers;  

– Outlawing of collective bargaining and strikes; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Age, Mike Foley, September 27, 2024 

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

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

What Dutton said

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

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

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

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

These claims are overstated.

Power prices

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

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

Construction costs

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

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

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

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

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

David Crowe, Chief political correspondent, September 26, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dutton’s nuclear plan would mean propping up coal for at least 12 more years – and we don’t know what it would cost

Alison Reeve, Deputy Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute, 25 Sept 24, https://theconversation.com/duttons-nuclear-plan-would-mean-propping-up-coal-for-at-least-12-more-years-and-we-dont-know-what-it-would-cost-239720

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.

Coal: old and tired

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.

New transmission is essential under either 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.

September 27, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Pro-nuke spin has a $377 billion price tag of government funding

The Fifth Estate, Murray Hogarth, 26 September 2024

THE NUCLEAR FILES: Regional Australia being targeted for nuclear reactors may be in for way more reactors than they might have bargained for. Murray Hogarth finds the nuclear sales pitch to these communities is more revealing than the political spin, and sometimes they reveal more than our politicians do.

Pro-nuke advocates influencing the Liberal-National Coalition want Australia headed for a major nuclear energy power that’s much bigger than first revealed.

A lot more. In total, more than 30 large scale nuclear power stations!

At projected costs of around $377 billion, taking more than 29 years to build through to 2060 at the rate of $13 billion a year.

This would mean producing up to six times more nuclear generation capacity, as most people think the Coalition is currently proposing with its highly controversial energy and climate approach, with more than four times the number of reactors.

Except, what is the Coalition actually proposing? Do we really have any idea? Could there be a big surprise in store?

The total number of individual reactors proposed to be built with government funding and details of what its sketchy nuclear energy plans will cost remains a mystery, even though opposition leader Peter Dutton spoke on the issues a Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) business lunch in Sydney on Monday.

There are gaping holes in its nuclear ambition story that many critics denounce as an economic fantasy, a deliberate dead cat on the table distraction, a political hoax, an anti-renewables ruse, and a trojan horse aimed at propping up fossil fuels.

A “big nuclear” future?

Just last week, a major regional community was being wooed to support nuclear energy, based on transcripts from a public event shared with The Fifth Estate, with local people invited to join a very “big nuclear” future.

The invitation came from Robert Parker, founder of Nuclear for Climate Australia, who became a cause celebre for the nuclear lobby earlier this year when Engineers Australia cancelled a nuclear-themed lecture that he was scheduled to give, allegedly because of politicised content.

In the resulting furore, fanned by conservative media, the actively pro-nuclear, coalition-aligned right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) rallied to Parker’s defence and provided him with an alternative platform.

Last week, Parker argued that Australia should have 36.8 gigawatts of nuclear generation by 2060, which implies 30 or more largescale reactors or many more small modular reactors (SMRs).

This will sound like an incredibly optimistic ambition to many, given nuclear energy currently remains banned in Australia and the recent international history of massive delays and cost blowouts on nuclear power station projects. But it’s a future which Parker claims is realistic because:

Canadians, they built 18 reactors in 20 years. The French built 58 reactors in 22 years and put 63 gigawatts on to the grid. Here we’re talking around about 36.8 gigawatts. So it’s a lot less than the French did.

Parker claimed it would cost $13 billion a year for 29 years of construction through to 2060, which implies work starting circa 2031 and a total cost of $377 billion.

Exactly like the Coalition, he forecasted the first 600 megawatts (MW) to be built by 2035, which would be two SMRs at 300MW apiece.

But there was a catch. When pressed by audience members about when this nuclear plan would deliver carbon emission reduction benefits, he admitted that it would be 2060 because we’d be “starting far too late”, which also is too late for net zero by 2050

Is this a dress rehearsal for the coalition’s real agenda?

Parker’s plan begs the question of whether this is the Coalition plan, or at least close to it, being live-tested with a real audience…………………………………………………………………. https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/columns-columns/the-nuclear-files/pro-nuke-spin-has-a-377-billion-price-tag-of-government-funding/

September 27, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear Costs ‘In Due Course’

southburnett.com.au, September 26, 2024

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s long-awaited “nuclear” speech to an economic think tank has admitted the Coalition’s energy plan – which would see seven nuclear plants built if it wins power at next year’s Federal Election – would have a “significant upfront cost”.

But he did not say what this expected cost would be.

“We will release our costings in due course – at a time of our choosing,” Mr Dutton told the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) audience gathered on Monday in Sydney (see the full text of Mr Dutton’s speech, below).

Mr Dutton was joined at the event by journalist Chris Uhlmann, from Sky News.

The Opposition Leader said that by positioning the nuclear plants at the site of existing coal-fired power stations, “a whole new and vast transmission network and infrastructure won’t be needed”.

He said the upfront cost would be spread over the reactors’ expected 80-year lifespans and promised “thousands of jobs” would be created by “zero emission” nuclear energy.

And objections to a civil nuclear industry on the grounds of safety and waste disposal were “inconsistent and illogical” due to the AUKUS plan for nuclear-powered submarines.

In June this year, the Coalition proposed seven sites to house nuclear power generators: Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Mt Piper (Lithgow) and Liddell in NSW, Loy Yang in Victoria, Muja (Collie) in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia.

Critics of the Coalition’s energy plan stated this week that electricity prices would have to rise for nuclear power plants to be commercially viable without government subsidies.

A report released by the Institute For Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) said Australian household power bills would be likely to rise by $665 per year based on an analysis of the construction cost of nuclear reactor projects committed to construction over the past 20 years in the European Union and North America.

The report also considered tender contract prices submitted for small modular reactor and Korean reactor designs.

“Our research found that all projects commencing construction in the past 20 years in in the US and Europe experienced major budget blowouts up to three-and-a-half times original capital costs, as well as construction delays of many years,” IEEFA spokesperson Johanna Bowyer said.

“Small modular reactors (SMRs), which are often cited as a solution to resolve the nuclear industry’s cost and construction time problem, remain costly and unproven, with no reactors in operation in the OECD. The reactor closest to becoming a reality, NuScale, was cancelled due to cost blowouts.”

………………………………………………………………………………………………………Nationals Leader David Littleproud  described the nuclear plants as “plug and play” … “you don’t need as much transmission lines, it’s plug and play, exactly where they are”.  https://southburnett.com.au/news2/2024/09/26/nuclear-costs-in-due-course/

September 26, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Dutton’s baseload nuclear plan shows he does not understand energy systems, Bowen says.

Giles Parkinson, 24 Sept 24 https://reneweconomy.com.au/duttons-baseload-nuclear-plan-shows-he-does-not-understand-energy-systems-bowen-says/

Federal energy minister Chris Bowen has accused Coalition leader Peter Dutton and his fellow nuclear spruikers of failing to understand the changing dynamics of the Australian energy system.

Bowen’s remarks follow reports warning of potential blackouts and price spikes should the Coalition pursue its plan for extending the life of Australia’s ageing coal fleet while waiting for nuclear to be built, and comes a day after Dutton refused to reveal his nuclear costings in what was supposed to be a keynote speech in Sydney.

Instead, Dutton continued his attack on Labor’s reliance on wind and solar, saying it would result in the lights going out, soaring prices, and a stalled economy.

The focus of the debate seems to revolve around the construct of baseload power, which the Australian Energy Market Operator said this week, and big utilities agree, is being made redundant by the emerging dominance of wind and solar, and rooftop PV in particular, backed up by storage and other flexible generation.

Most in the energy industry argue that nuclear, which relies on being “always on” and has limited ability to ramp up and down, simply doesn’t fit into a grid with a majority wind and solar. The nuclear industry itself admits as much.

Dutton on Monday said renewables and nuclear could co-exist, but the four grids he cited – Arizona, France, Finland and Ontario – have no more than 18 per cent renewable share. Australia is at 40 per cent, going on 50 per cent with already committed projects, and is aiming for 82 per cent by 2030.

“The thing about Peter Dutton’s plan is again he doesn’t understand that what we need for a system which is net zero and predominantly renewable with peaking and firming,” Bowen said in an interview on Radio National breakfast.

“Coal is not suitable for peaking and firming, because once you turn a coal‑fired power station on, you’re not turning it off, and guess what, same as nuclear.

“Whereas gas can be turned on and off to support the energy system when we do need more energy, it can be turned on or off at two minutes’ notice, so when a gas‑fired power station is not turned on, it is zero emissions.

“Coal and nuclear can’t be turned on and off, and when coal is on it is emitting even if we don’t need the energy. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the energy system.”

Dutton and conservative voices have said that Bowen’s 82 per cent renewables target is impossible to meet, and will destroy industry. They argue that no grid can survive on such a high level of renewables, despite South Australia already doing so, and the market operator also convinced it can and will be done.

“Getting to 82 per cent renewables is no small thing, it’s a big change for the country,” Bowen said.

“But it’s also got to be supported by a well‑detailed plan to back it by new storage, batteries primarily, but also pumped hydro. That’s happening, and we have policies in place to do that, and that is rolling out; we’re seeing a big increase in storage.”

The Clean Energy Regulator on Tuesday released a report which showed that 7 GW of new wind and solar, including 4 GW of large scale renewables, should be committed this year, an improvement on previous years although still short of the level required.

Former NSW Coalition energy minister and now chair of the Climate Change Authority Matt Kean was also critical of Dutton’s assertions that nuclear makes a good bedfellow for renewables.

“I think the advice from the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator is very different,” he told ABC TV’s 7.30 program.

“We know that nuclear technology is not flexible to work with renewables, so therefore it isn’t the best technology to support renewables.

“We also know that it will take a long time to build nuclear capacity. Australia doesn’t have a nuclear industry. We don’t have the workforce that’s ever done this before, and the best example to look to is what’s happening in the UK, another democracy that’s currently building a nuclear power plant.”

He pointed to the Hinckley C reactor that has been delayed more than a decade, and where costs have blown out to more than $A86 billion as an example.

“AEMO and the CSIRO have said clearly that the cheapest way to replace our existing capacity is renewables that are backed up by firming technologies,” Kean said.

“We’ll take the advice of the experts. We’re not going to get into ideology. This should be about evidence, science, engineering and economics.”

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

Dutton’s truth-sounding nuclear power arguments are for generating impressions, not information.

He didn’t mention having to keep coal in the mix for a lot longer. But that’s certainly what his Coalition partners, the Nationals, have been saying with a nudge and a wink, whenever they are in receptive company.

Karen Middleton, 24 Sept 24,  https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/sep/24/peter-dutton-ceda-speech-coalition-nuclear-power-plan-costs

The opposition leader keeps bypassing questions over the cost of his energy plan – while leaning on little more than fuzzy assurances.

It was nothing if not audacious.

In a speech that avoided answering one of the biggest questions hanging over his policy to build nuclear reactors at seven sites around Australia, Peter Dutton posed a very similar one about his opponents and their plans to phase out fossil fuels.

“Who will bear the costs of this transition?” Dutton asked in an address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia on Monday, before answering it himself. “Australian households will – in their power bills.”

Dutton’s speech to a lunchtime event titled “A nuclear-powered Australia – could it work?” contained no new information about his nuclear plan and was instead an exercise in relativism via admission. To paraphrase: my energy policy might cost a lot, but theirs will cost more and mine is more reliable.

“Yes, our nuclear plan does have significant upfront cost,” Dutton said. “… But a whole new and vast transmission network and infrastructure won’t be needed.”

He has still provided no evidence to support this statement, nor any further detail beyond naming seven sites and indicating he favours small modular reactors.

This speech was not about providing that detail. It was about making truthy-sounding arguments designed to generate an impression, not information.

He had a few messages that clearly came straight from the focus groups, starting and ending on a plea for “pragmatism, not politics”, rebuking the Albanese government for being “juvenile” and “childish” and accusing it of avoiding “a sensible discussion” about nuclear power.

What is evident from Dutton’s speech is that he knows, as the government does, that it won’t be arguments about three-eyed fish or even earthquake fault lines that will swing voters for or against nuclear power as they think about which way to vote. It’s what it will cost and whether nuclear can actually address Australia’s energy challenges.

Dutton was cosying up to renewable energy, suggesting he’s all for it, but that it needs more grunt to get Australia through. He’s trying to suggest his policy is about climate responsibility, not denial, and balances environmental and economic imperatives.

“We can have cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy if we adopt nuclear power,” he said. “And zero-emission nuclear power is our only chance to reach net zero by 2050.”

He didn’t mention having to keep coal in the mix for a lot longer. But that’s certainly what his Coalition partners, the Nationals, have been saying with a nudge and a wink, whenever they are in receptive company.

Referring to the government’s policy, Dutton used the false label “renewables-only” seven times and “renewables alone” once. He suggested that the government’s pledge to an ongoing role for gas was support in name only. Tell that to the Labor party members and constituents who are outraged that its future gas strategy embeds that particular fossil fuel in the energy mix to 2050 and beyond.

The opposition leader said Labor was lying about the “true costs” Australians would bear in its planned transition away from coal-fired power to cleaner forms of energy, calling this an “absolute scandal” while saying precisely nothing specific about the cost of his own.

“We will release our costings in due course, at a time of our choosing,” Dutton said.

Calling his own policy idea “truly visionary” was the closest he came to acknowledging that nuclear power could not be up and running in Australia for at least two decades.

“We can’t switch nuclear power on tomorrow,” he said, adding one more little caveat about legislative obstacles. “Even if the ban is lifted.”

Not when, if.

Instead of cold, hard facts, Dutton’s Ceda speech relied on warm, fuzzy assurances. With the emphasis on fuzzy.

“Clean nuclear energy is reliable,” he insisted. “It will underpin renewables. It will get the cost of electricity down. It will keep the lights on.”

In which decade, he didn’t quite say.

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

Why is Peter Dutton so frightened of nuclear detail?

September 23, 2024, by: The AIM Network,  https://theaimn.com/why-is-peter-dutton-so-frightened-of-nuclear-detail/

Still missing from the Coalition’s nuclear fantasy – any plans on costs, reducing climate pollution or nuclear accidents

The public will have to keep waiting after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton failed to announce anticipated costings and other detail of the Liberal National Coalition’s nuclear proposal today.

Following Mr Dutton’s speech, Solutions for Climate Australia called on the Federal Liberal and National parties to step up and tell the public just how long, how expensive and how risky their pro-nuclear reactor policy is.

Solutions for Climate Australia senior campaigner Elly Baxter said:

“Today, Peter Dutton has again failed to give any detail on how he plans to establish nuclear reactors in Australia. Mr Dutton seems to be bug-out frightened to put forward any detail – what’s he got to hide?

“Australia’s coal plants are old and falling apart. Nuclear would never be delivered in time, whereas solar and wind already provide 40% of Australia’s electricity.

Solutions for Climate Australia director Dr Barry Traill said:

“Multiple credible estimates from industry experts show that even if, somehow, the nuclear reactors were built by 2040, they could only produce 4% of Australia’s total electricity needs.

“Why would we spend many billions on the most expensive and risky way of making electricity in Australia, to produce just 4% of the power we need?

“We call on the Coalition to have the guts to put out the details of what they are proposing.”

September 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Peter Dutton’s weird obsession with uncosted nuclear risks energy security, the economy and our kids’ future.

Climate Council 23 SEP, 2024

PETER DUTTON’S WEIRD NUCLEAR OBSESSION is a reckless distraction that will delay real cuts to climate pollution and expose Australians to even more dangerous climate change. While Dutton clings to outdated ideas, our kids’ futures hang in the balance.

Despite Peter Dutton’s grand claims, the Coalition has failed to produce any new numbers to back their nuclear obsession. Meanwhile, a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reveals the true cost of nuclear: an average increase of $665 per year on household electricity bills. Nuclear power is slow, costly, and dangerous, while clean energy solutions, like wind and solar backed by storage, are already powering Australia today.

Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “Peter Dutton’s weird nuclear obsession is a distraction from the fact that he wants to delay building new power for a generation.  A child riding their bike to primary school today will be driving to work by the time even one nuclear reactor is producing electricity.

“Delaying building new energy means more dangerous climate pollution from coal and gas. This will hit our kids hard, fuelling worse floods, fires, and heatwaves.

“Delaying means our ageing energy system failing without investment and support.”

Greg Bourne, Climate Councillor said: “Peter Dutton’s nuclear obsession doesn’t pass the pub test and would meet just a fraction of Australia’s energy needs by 2050. The cost blowouts, delays, and energy shortages nuclear power would cause are staggering. Renewables are faster, cheaper, and cleaner.

“While nuclear sits at the starting blocks for another decade or more, renewable energy is surging ahead, already providing 40% of the electricity in our main national grid and set to reach over 96% by the time Dutton’s first reactors might be operational. Dutton and his colleagues will be long retired before a single nuclear plant is built in Australia, whereas the renewable solutions we need are ready today.

Dutton’s refusal to provide any analysis, costs or modelling proves what we already know – nuclear is a high-risk, low-reward scheme. Nuclear power will not bring down energy bills or solve Australia’s energy challenges. This obsession will only stall the progress we desperately need to safeguard our planet and our kids’ futures.”

September 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear debate stalls as detail goes missing in action

Angela Macdonald-Smith, https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nuclear-debate-stalls-as-detail-goes-missing-in-action-20240920-p5kc56 21 Sept 24

Australia’s debate over nuclear power is going nowhere. Politicians are happy to roll out any argument that suits them, but the credible and comprehensive analysis and modelling needed is completely missing.

The upshot is that the energy industry – the people who need to make the transition happen – are disengaged, and consumers who will have to vote on these “policies” are confused.

The vacuum of information includes both the costings and details behind the Coalition’s seven-site nuclear power vision, but also a realistic assessment from the Albanese government about the difficulties in reaching its 2030 climate targets.

Federal Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen on Friday released energy department findings on the huge reliability gaps that the Coalition’s nuclear plan would cause.

Two scenarios were studied: one that assumed coal plant owners close their plants as projected by the Australian Energy Market Operator between now and 2035, and the Coalition caps investment in large-scale renewables and does not support new transmission builds; a second assumed all coal power stations set to close before 2035 are extended beyond 2040 to try to tide the power system over until nuclear reactors could come online.

According to the results released by Bowen’s office, the first would lead to a huge 49 per cent gap between the demand for energy of about 316 terawatt-hours and available supply – of about 160 TWh – by 2035. The second, an 18 per cent gap of “unmet energy”.

The minister’s office compared those numbers with AEMO’s current tolerance gap for an effectively operating electricity system of just 0.002 per cent of “unmet energy”.

Bowen says the analysis shows how the Coalition’s plan “will result in massive supply shortages over the next decade”. However, the full work carried out by the department was not made available.

Analysis released on Friday by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which advocates a faster shift to clean energy, also played into Labor’s hands. The analysis sought to estimate the potential impact on household electricity bills using six scenarios that were based on international examples of nuclear power construction projects.

The results suggested that the median household bill would rise, on average, by about $665 a year. The work was based on six recent real-world examples of new nuclear plant builds, ranging from the cheapest location in the Czech Republic through to the most expensive, the Hinkley Point C reactor under construction in the UK at a cost that may top £46 billion ($90 billion).

“The cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia,” IEEFA found.

The analysis was dismissed as “complete nonsense” by shadow treasurer Angus Taylor, while Opposition Leader Peter Dutton also questioned its credibility. He cited Labor’s failed pre-election promise to deliver $275 bill reductions by 2025 as evidence it can’t be trusted.

But the Coalition’s own arguments are just as flimsy, weakened by the continuing absence of the full costings and details of its energy plan.

Dutton is scheduled to speak on nuclear power at the Committee for Economic Development of Australia on Monday. It will not, however, include the much anticipated business case for nuclear. Coalition sources say that will have to wait until some time before the election, due by May next year.

A Coalition source said Monday’s speech would instead be “values”-based. That means a reaffirmation of the seven potential nuclear sites, and more words about why nuclear is better than Labor’s “renewables-only” approach.

The energy industry, meanwhile, is disengaged as the politics play out. While not writing the nuclear option off as impossible, the starting point for real action is much too far off for it to register.

Continuing delays in the build-out of the energy grid – caused by slow project approvals and rising costs, among many other issues – mean these companies have much more immediate challenges to worry about.

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

Coalition should show us its sums on nuclear

September 20, 2024,  https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/coalition-should-show-us-its-sums-on-nuclear-20240920-p5kc2k.html

How many more studies are needed to show what is glaringly obvious to everyone? That nuclear power is not cheap and that it is potentially very expensive (“Extra cost of nuclear power revealed”, September 20)?
Despite this, the Coalition keeps sticking to its guns. They can’t be wrong and any study that says otherwise is “shallow and flawed”. They claim the latest study cherry-picks the worst cases, ignoring that any selection is needed to make the study more realistic. Australia won’t have access to cheap labour, so those cases should rightly be ignored. Also, nuclear energy is not where you want to cut corners to keep costs down. And yet, the Coalition has decided to go down the nuclear path. 

 How can you make a decision without the supporting numbers? If they have the numbers they should release them. David Rush, Lawson

Nuclear is not a viable option for Australia. It will be too expensive and it will take far too long to be of any use and by the Coalition’s own numbers, it will produce almost no electricity even if they are built. Every report from the CSIRO down that exposes Peter Dutton’s nuclear brain explosion has been belittled by the Coalition. The Coalition says it will release its costings eventually. Presumably, they don’t know what the cost will be yet, but given their wildly inaccurate estimates on Snowy 2.0 and inland rail, we have little cause for hope of an accurate figure. Ross Hudson, Mount Martha (Vic)

Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien calls the first analysis of the Coalition’s nuclear plan shallow and flawed – in other words fake news. Having cherry-picked the lowest numbers in their discussions of this policy, and choosing their examples, the Coalition will now have to present their documentation as to how low electricity prices will be under their leadership. As a taxpayer, I’m concerned about the level of accountability if there are cost blowouts or hugely extended construction times. So even if the proposed nuclear plants can deliver cheaper electricity, what happens in the meantime? The Coalition’s switch to government ownership of this infrastructure and the cash splash to those communities who accept a nuclear plant is using taxpayer money to subsidise lower electricity prices to win this argument. We are not just building a few buildings – we are creating a whole new industry from scratch. Meanwhile, another decade or so will pass and more opportunities will be wasted for a better environment. Robert Mulas, Corlette

Ted O’Brien says the US non-profit think tank the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has cherry-picked the costs for the opposition’s nuclear “plan”. Why it would do this is unclear but far from choosing selected examples, it has based its analysis on average bills for construction of large-scale nuclear plants by countries with comparable economies to Australia. As for who will put up the money, O’Brien says they will be built by a government entity while Angus Taylor says they will not be publicly subsidised. Peter Nash, Fairlight

More than a third of Australian households have solar power and they won’t like analysis from the Smart Energy Council that shows Dutton’s seven nuclear reactors will shut down solar panels for between 1.8 and 2.9 million homes. The council says that as nuclear power can’t be switched off, it will continue pushing power into the grid, “regardless of whether it’s the most expensive form of energy, or even needed”. Is this really the best energy policy Dutton can come up with, or is it simply an expensive smokescreen to extend the life of fossil fuels? Alison Stewart, Riverview

We are now told our power bills may rise by $665 a year to pay for nuclear energy infrastructure costs. Is this why Dutton is so reluctant to release his costings? Peng Ee, Castle Cove

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