The seven ways the Federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings
December 5, 2024, The AIM Network, Climate Council, https://theaimn.com/the-seven-ways-the-federal-coalition-could-cook-the-books-on-nuclear-costings/
Australians are being kept in the dark about the true costs of the Federal Coalition’s risky and expensive nuclear scheme.
The Federal Coalition’s heavy reliance on the first of two Frontier Economics reports paints a damning picture of the methods they may use to fudge the nuclear numbers and mislead Australians. We’ve already seen them cherry-pick numbers and use them to make misleading claims in Parliament.
Climate Councillor and economist Nicki Hutley said: “The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost Australians a bomb. It’s a risky, expensive fantasy that would see Australians paying more than $100 billion for a fraction of the electricity we need. The real danger is delaying real solutions–like building more renewables, which is the most affordable way to keep the lights on.”
The Climate Council has identified five furphies Australians are likely to see in the Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings:
1) Comparing apples with oranges: We’ve already seen the Federal Coalition use inaccurate comparisons in the first Frontier Economics report on the cost of the shift to renewables. They inflated the cost by including ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses—which we’re already paying and which will actually drop in a renewables-led grid. On top of that, they didn’t use present value terms, a standard economic practice that accounts for the true cost over time.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “It’s alarming to see the Federal Coalition knowingly compare costs that are for totally different things. If we’re going to have a debate on the economics of building renewable power and storage, it needs to be based on best practice economics, not a false and misleading comparison.”
2) Excluding the cost of attempting to keep our ageing coal stations open: AEMO expects all our outdated, unreliable and polluting coal-fired power stations to close by 2038 at the latest, with over 90% shutting down in the next 10 years. But the Federal Coalition wants to keep these creaking old coal power stations open while waiting at least 15 years or more for nuclear reactors. This would cost taxpayers a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs. Keeping just one coal power station open, Eraring in NSW, could cost taxpayers more than $225 million per year. Renewable power back by storage is the only solution ready now to fill that gap left by coal and secure reliable, affordable power for Australian homes and businesses.
3) Excluding the cost of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste:Toxic nuclear waste needs to be safely stored for 100,000 years – an enormous and costly responsibility. In Canada, storing the long-term waste from their nuclear program in an underground facility is expected to cost at least $33 billion AUD, excluding the costs already incurred to manage waste on nuclear reactor sites.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Any plans to build nuclear reactors must include the staggering long-term costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste. Ignoring these costs now will unfairly burden our kids, grandkids and future generations.”
-Advertisement-
4) Failing to consider the cost of climate change: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution. In fact, building nuclear reactors would mean burning more polluting coal and gas in the meantime, which could see a further 1.5 billion tonnes more harmful climate pollution produced by 2050 – the equivalent of running the Eraring coal power station in NSW for another 126 years. Australians would pay the price in worsening unnatural disasters and skyrocketing insurance costs.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear would cost us dearly, by delaying urgent cuts to climate pollution that would expose Australians to more unnatural disasters like bushfires, floods and heatwaves and driving up economic losses through higher insurance costs and disaster recovery bills. We should be focusing on cutting costs and climate pollution by rolling out more clean, reliable and affordable renewable power.
5) Ignoring Australia’s growing electricity needs: As Australia’s population and economy grows, keeping up with the community’s electricity needs is essential. The Australian Electricity Market Operator’s plan for our grid, the Integrated System Plan, expects power demand to double by 2050. We need more power to meet this need, and any assessment of cost needs to account for this. Assuming less might make costs look cheaper, but is inaccurate.
6) Ignoring the risk of cost blowouts: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings are likely to rely on rose-tinted assumptions, ignoring the very real possibility of massive cost overruns and delays that have plagued international nuclear projects.
For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C energy facility is running 14 years late, at a cost three times its original estimate—now sitting at a staggering $90 billion AUD. Assuming nothing will go wrong with nuclear reactors in Australia flies in the face of international experience and puts taxpayers at enormous financial risk.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear is simply a non-starter for Australia. The risks are immense—blowouts in cost and time, unresolved waste storage issues, and outdated technology. Projects like the UK’s Hinkley Point C show that nuclear is a financial black hole, while renewables are delivering results today.”
7) Ignoring the cost of transmission upgrades: The Federal Coalition assumes nuclear reactors can avoid the costs of necessary transmission upgrades, despite these investments being approved and supported by the previous Liberal-National Government.
Australia’s electricity grid needs substantial upgrades to meet growing energy demands and replace ageing coal-fired power stations. Building reactors near old coal stations won’t avoid the need for new transmission: the transmission previously used for coal is already being used by new batteries, wind and solar, and more investment is being planned. New transmission is needed no matter which energy source we build, and will make our grid stronger and more efficient.
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, said: “Peter Dutton could cook the books with some creative accounting to sell this fantasy. Our old coal plants are retiring in the next decade, and we need to keep investing in low cost renewables to keep the lights on, create thousands of jobs in regional Australia, and ensure we cut climate pollution further and faster.
“Let’s focus on what’s already working. Renewables are cutting pollution, creating jobs, and lowering power bills right now.”
A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costings
Tristan Edis, Dec 2, 2024, , https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-sneak-preview-of-peter-duttons-nuclear-costings/
Any day now, we should be provided with an estimate from the Liberal-National Coalition and/or Frontier Economics on what Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power will cost us.
Keep in mind we already have plenty of sources of information for what nuclear power costs based on real-world experience.
The chart below,[ on original] based on analysis by myself and Johanna Bowyer, shows the power price required for nuclear power plants to be commercially viable compared to current wholesale energy costs passed on to residential power consumers.
These power prices are based on the cost of actual power plants which have either been committed to construction or which provided tender construction contract offers over the past 20 years across Europe and North America.
Our research indicates that conventional nuclear power stations cost anywhere between $14.9 to $27.5 million per megawatt to construct. They also accumulate significant finance interest costs over a lengthy construction period ranging between 9 to 18 years.
While yet to be commercialised small modular reactors are promised to achieve shorter build times, they don’t exist, except on the drawing board.
The only one that has progressed to a construction contract in the developed world would have cost $28.9 million per megawatt. These are the range of costs and build times that the Coalition and/or Frontier Economics should be using if they want to be realistic.
This would lead to the uncomfortable conclusion that household power bills would need to rise by around $665 per year for nuclear power plants to recover their costs from the electricity market.
Oddly, Ted O’Brien and Angus Taylor didn’t think real world experience with nuclear projects was a valid basis for assessing the cost of their plan. That, of course, makes one wonder what they might have in mind.
Here are four ways they might instead approach their costing:
1) Apply the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to costing nuclear power plants also known as a “nth of a kind” costing;
2) Assume all transmission upgrade costs can be avoided with nuclear even though the prior Liberal-National Government approved and supported these transmission projects when in government;
3) Assume coal power plants never grow old;
4) Assume the damage from emissions released prior to 2050 don’t matter
We look at those claims in detail.
1) Look out for ‘NOAK’ or the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to costing
Advocates for nuclear power aren’t terribly fond of using costs based on real-world experience. Instead they like to apply the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to power plant costing.
This is where they assume away all the things that almost always go wrong with nuclear power plant construction, and imagine what should, could, or would happen if the real world would just stop being so damn unco-operative.
This typically requires that:
1. Construction companies and component suppliers stop making mistakes and stop seeking to claim contract variations;
2. Members of the community and politicians welcome nuclear projects with open arms and stop seeking to obstruct and delay them;
3. Nuclear plant designers get their designs perfect right from the start, avoiding the need to make adjustments on the fly as construction unfolds;
4. Financiers stop worrying about risk;
5. The community and politicians loosen-up about the small risk of radioactive meltdowns and apply less onerous safety requirements;
6. Construction staff aren’t tempted away to non-nuclear projects with offers of better pay or a more reliable stream of work;
7. Safety regulators work co-operatively and flexibly (compliantly?) with industry; and
8. Power companies en masse commit to ordering lots of reactors from a single supplier well in advance of when needed to enable the supply chain of nuclear equipment suppliers to achieve mass economies of scale and learning.
You generally know that these types of assumptions have been made in a nuclear costing because that costing will be described as a “nth of a kind” or NOAK cost.
The idea here is that incredibly high costs that were incurred in building all the prior nuclear power plants were an anomaly because they involved a whole bunch of mistakes and inefficiencies that the industry will learn from.
So, after they build several more and get progressively better, they’ll eventually reach the “Nth” number of plants, and all the problems that made prior plants so expensive will be ironed out.
At exactly what number plant do we reach N?
Well that’s usually a bit rubbery.
Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, you’ll find this NOAK costing approach is commonly adopted by the International Energy Agency, the US Department of Energy and even Australia’s CSIRO adopted a nuclear NOAK costing for its GenCost publication.
Unfortunately, while these agencies are generally good sources of information, the Nth power plant seems to always be a few more nuclear power plants away from being realised.
In reality the cost of building nuclear reactors has historically got worse rather than better over time in the western world.
The chart below [on original] illustrates the construction cost experience for pressurised water reactors in the US (in blue) and France (in red). Note this was based on a 2011 paper and omits the more recent and even worse cost experience detailed in the report by Bowyer and myself.
Bent Flyvberg – a professor in construction management at Oxford University and author of the bestselling book, How Big Things Get Done, has helpfully compiled a huge database of how major construction projects across the globe have performed against their original budgets.
This database reveals just how unreliable are the costings provided by the nuclear industry and its proponents. As the chart below published by Flyvberg reveals, the mean cost overrun of nuclear power projects stands at 120%, with only Olympic Games and Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities managing worse cost over-runs.
Meanwhile look at what types of projects perform well [graph at top of page]– notice anything?
For the journalists reading this article your task is simple – when the Coalition or Frontier Economics release their nuclear plan costing you need to ask them the following:
(1) Can you please provide us with a written assurance from the CEO of an experienced nuclear technology provider, like Westinghouse, EDF or Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, confirming they are willing to enter into a fixed price contract to build a nuclear power plant in Australia for the cost and timeframe used in your costing?
If instead they cite to you the experience of the Barakah Plant in the United Arab Emirates let’s say, then you can always ask them:
So, like the United Arab Emirates, will you be:
– allowing the mass importation of construction labour from developing countries;
– removing the right of workers to collectively organise and bargain;
– exempting nuclear construction projects from paying Australian award wages; and
– banning the right to peacefully protest?
2) All transmission expansion costs are the fault of Labor and can be avoided with nuclear power
It should be acknowledged that transmission network expansion projects in this country are also being hit by large budget blow outs which involve multi-billion dollar costs. We need to do a far better and more judicious job in the roll out of transmission projects in this country.
It’s also true that several of these projects are critical to supporting ongoing expansion of wind and solar power. Ted O’Brien and David Littleproud have been highly critical of these new transmission projects and claimed extra transmission costs can be avoided by rolling out nuclear.
Given this, their forthcoming costing will probably suggest all of these new transmission costs can be sheeted home to Labor’s Renewable Energy Policies.
But this would also indicate that O’Brien and Littleproud suffer from amnesia. That’s because the major transmission expansions which are incurring the largest costs were actively pushed by the former Coalition Government which both of them served in.
Read more: A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costingsThe prior government “welcomed” and helped underwrite the new 900 kilometre transmission interconnector between SA and NSW.
In the lead up to the 2019 election, they vowed to build a second electricity interconnector between Tasmanian and the mainland.
In January 2020 the Federal Coalition entered into a funding deal with the NSW Government to upgrade transmission lines across north, central and southern NSW.
As part of the 2020 budget, Angus Taylor and a range of National Party MPs announced funding support for an 840km transmission line across inland Queensland which they declared was a “commitment to regional jobs, industry development and affordable reliable power.”
Then, leading into the 2022 election, they announced they would underwrite construction works on a major new transmission line between NSW and Victoria.
Then Energy Minister Angus Taylor’s press release at the time spoke glowingly about the benefits of new transmission, stating:
“Our investment in this project will support reliable electricity supply, deliver substantial cost savings and help keep the lights on for Australian families, businesses and industries.
This builds on the Morrison government’s record of judicious investment of over $800 million in priority transmission projects recommended by AEMO’s Integrated System Plan – projects that stack up for consumers.”
3) Relying on coal power plants that never grow old
It is almost guaranteed that the Coalition’s costing model will assume we can rely on the existing coal power stations to keep powering on for another decade or two with no deterioration in their reliability, before they then switch to nuclear power.
This is a very handy assumption to make because it allows you to avoid or delay significant costs involved in building the new, replacement power stations before the nuclear plants miraculously come to the rescue.
Yet while it might be a handy modelling assumption, it probably isn’t a realistic one.
To keep coal power plants reliable, especially when they are several decades old, requires ongoing significant expenditure on maintenance and replacement parts. Plus, even with this expenditure there can reach a point where a plant is so old it will continue to suffer serious reliability problems.
A good example of the risks and limitations of refurbishment is the case of the attempt to refurbish Western Australia’s Muja A and B coal generating units of 240 megawatts.
In 2007 these units, which were approaching 50 years of age, were mothballed. But by 2009 the WA Government announced they would be recommissioned due to a gas shortage that had afflicted the state. At the time the cost was estimated to be $100m.
The cost of refurbishment subsequently blew out to $290 million and in 2012 one of the units suffered an explosion due to corroded piping, injuring a worker.
A subsequent investigation highlighted a range of technical problems with the plant that made refurbishment challenging, but in 2013 the government chose to press on and sink a further $45 million into the project, claiming it would have a lifetime of 15 years and ultimately recover its costs.
However, even after refurbishment was completed it was reported by the West Australian newspaper the generating units were “plagued by operational and reliability problems, generating electricity just 20 per cent of the time. By 2018 the WA Government decided to cut their losses and shut Muja A and B permanently.
AGL’s Liddell Power Station is another case in point. AGL argued that a ten year life extension would cost $900m, and decided it wasn’t worth it. A government taskforce which sought to second guess AGL on the closure noted,
“a Liddell extension meets the maximum power output requirement.
This means it could provide sufficient capacity to maintain current levels of reliability in NSW as long as it is actually available during peak demand conditions. However, the increasing risk of outages as the plant ages gives rise to an increasing possibility those outages would lead to supply shortfalls.
Liddell already has a high outage rate compared with other NSW coal generators…. There is a risk that upgrades to make the plant compliant with safety and other regulation would not alter its upward trajectory of faults and unplanned outages.”
The other issue is that owners of power plants are likely to face considerable difficulty raising finance to undertake such refurbishment.
Delta Electricity, the owner of the Vales Point B coal power station, revealed in a rule change request to the AEMC that it was facing significant difficulty accessing bank finance stating, “A significant number of financial institutions…are no longer providing financing facilities to fossil fuel generators”.
The rule change request asked that Delta be able to provide cash, rather than a bank guarantee to AEMO to meet prudential requirements for trading purposes.
It explained that the bank providing its current guarantee was unwilling to continue with this arrangement because lending to a coal generator was in breach of environmental policies governing its financing practices.
In a search to find another lender Delta found, “during the refinancing process that 13 of the 15 lenders declined due to ESG [Environment, Social and Governance] constraints, which included the Big-4 Australian banks.
“Both of the remaining financial institutions were prepared to offer a bank guarantee facility to provide credit support related only to requirements for mining rehabilitation obligations and renewable Power Purchase Agreements.”
Some conservative politicians might like to pass this off as some short-term, woke fashion that will pass once they reach power. But it won’t pass, because bankers don’t like to lend money to risky commercial ventures.
Some conservative politicians might think global warming is an idea promoted by a mass conspiracy of meteorological science agencies across the globe to impose a socialist, world-wide government. However, most people think that’s a bit far-fetched.
Conservative politicians that think climate change is a hoax aren’t always in power, so bankers recognise there is a significant risk coal generators will be subject to emission control policies that will undermine their commercial viability.
This isn’t a distant risk, because such policies (which often are targeted towards supporting growth of renewable energy) have already been implemented.
4) The damage caused by power plant emissions in the years prior to 2050 don’t matter
Carbon dioxide and a range of other greenhouse gas emissions released by fossil fuel extraction and combustion last many decades once released into the atmosphere. Consequently, the extent of global warming is a function of the accumulated stock of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere built up over time.
It isn’t a function solely of emissions in the single year of 2050. If we manage to achieve net zero emissions in 2050, but have polluted the hell out of the atmosphere in the preceding years then global warming will be very bad indeed.
A tonne of CO2 emitted this year and each of the years preceding 2050 will cause damage to society that is worth something to avoid. Any economist worthy of calling themselves an economist knows that the value of this avoided damage needs to be taken into account in any attempt to properly cost alternative options for our electricity system.
The Australian Energy Regulator provides one such option for valuing this in its paper – Valuing emissions reductions.
It should be noted the AER’s attaches significantly lower value to avoiding emissions than the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommends in the years prior to 2050, and very far below values used by the UK Government.
If the Liberal-National Party’s policy leads to slower emission reductions (even if they ultimately deliver net zero by 2050) this carries a serious penalty for our children and future children.
If it is ignored from their economic analysis, can we come to any other conclusion than the Liberal-National Party think climate change is so unimportant its impacts can be ignored?
Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets provides data and analysis on energy and carbon abatement certificate markets to assist clients make informed investment, trading and policy decisions.
Australia’s top environment groups – Submission to Government Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia.
Friends of the Earth Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
The Wilderness Society
Climate Action Network Australia
Nature Conservation Council (NSW)
Environment Victoria
Conservation SA
Queensland Conservation Council
Conservation Council of WA
Environment Centre NT
Solutions for Climate Australia
Arid Lands Environment Centre
Environment Tasmania
Environs Kimberley
Cairns and Far North Environment Centre
Submission to the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia. November 2024 – (23 pages)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our groups maintain that federal and state legal prohibitions against the construction of
nuclear power reactors have served Australia well. We strongly support the retention of
these prudent, long-standing protections.
Claims that nuclear reactors could be generating electricity in Australia by 2035‒37 do not
withstand scrutiny. Introducing nuclear power to Australia would necessitate at least 10
years for licensing approvals and project planning, and around 10 years for reactor
construction. Nuclear power reactors could only begin operating around the mid-2040s at
the earliest. Most or all of Australia’s remaining coal power plants will be closed long before
nuclear reactors could begin supplying electricity.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) do not exist. The so-called operating SMRs in Russia and
China were not built using serial factory production methods. They could not even be called
prototype SMRs since there are no plans to mass-produce these reactor types using serial
factory production methods. SMRs are best thought of as Smoke & Mirror Reactors: they do
not exist. A few small reactors are under construction (in China, Russia and Argentina) but
once again serial factory production methods are not being deployed.
Construction timelines for the so-called SMRs in Russia and China were protracted: 9 years
in China and 12 years in Russia. In both countries, planning plus construction took 20 years
or more.
After costs rose to a staggering A$31 billion per gigawatt, US company NuScale abandoned
its flagship SMR project in Idaho last year. This led the Australian Coalition parties to
abandon their SMR-only nuclear policy. Worse was to follow. In mid-2024, French utility EDF
announced that it had suspended development of its Nuward SMR and reoriented the
project “to a design based on proven technological building blocks.” In May 2023, Ultra Safe
Nuclear claimed at an Australian Senate hearing that the company is building SMRs in North
America. In fact, the company has not begun building SMRs anywhere and in October 2024
the company announced that is pursuing a sale process under Chapter 11 of the US
Bankruptcy Code.
Many other SMR projects have failed. The French government abandoned the planned
ASTRID demonstration fast reactor in 2019; Babcock & Wilcox abandoned its Generation
mPower SMR project in the US in 2017; Transatomic Power gave up on its molten salt
reactor R&D in 2018; MidAmerican Energy gave up on its plans for SMRs in Iowa in 2013;
TerraPower abandoned its plan for a prototype fast neutron reactor in China in 2018; and
the US and UK governments abandoned consideration of ‘integral fast reactors’ for
plutonium disposition in 2015 and 2019, respectively.
The SMR sector is littered with failed and abandoned projects, false claims and false dawns
Large reactor construction projects have also suffered catastrophic cost overruns and
delays. In both of Australia’s AUKUS partner countries, early cost estimates were proven to
be wrong by an order of magnitude:
- One project in the US was abandoned in 2017 after A$13.9 billion was wasted on the
failed project, in South Carolina. Another project ‒ the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the
state of Georgia ‒ reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates, and 6‒
7 years behind schedule. Not a single reactor is currently under construction in the US. Not
one. - In the UK, the Hinkley Point twin-reactor project was meant to be complete in 2017 but
construction didn’t even begin until 2018 and the latest cost estimate is 11.5 times higher
than early estimates. No other reactors are under construction in the UK. The UK National
Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to
£30 billion (A$58.4 billion). The Hinkley Point reactors are being built by French utility EDF.
France’s only recent domestic reactor construction project has also been a disaster: the
reactor is still not operating 17 years after construction began and costs increased six-fold to - A$31 billion.
If we were to make the heroic assumption ‒ the absurd assumption ‒ that reactor
construction projects in Australia would fare as well (or as badly) as those in the US and the
UK despite Australia’s lack of experience and expertise, they would be 20+ year projects and
costs would range from A$23.8 ‒ 27.9 billion per gigawatt. Or A$31 billion per gigawatt for
unproven NuScale SMR technology.
The two most significant economic modelling studies of Australia’s energy options are the
Net Zero Australia 2023 analysis and CSIRO’s annual GenCost analyses. Both make extremely
generous assumptions about nuclear costs ‒ indeed both assume costs several times lower
than real-world experience in the UK and the US ‒ yet nuclear power is still found to be
uneconomic in both studies.
Pursuing the nuclear path would be a recipe for increased power bills, increased taxes and
increased greenhouse emissions. And it would pose unnecessary risks of catastrophic
accidents and produce high-level nuclear waste for future generations of Australians to
manage for millennia.
There are currently no operating deep underground repositories for high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world. The one operating deep underground repository for long- lived intermediate-level nuclear waste − the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the US state of New Mexico ‒ suffered a chemical explosion in a waste barrel in 2014 due to inept management and inadequate regulation.
Efforts to establish national radioactive waste facilities (repositories and stores) in Australia
for low- and intermediate-level waste have repeatedly failed since the 1990s. Decades of
failure do not inspire confidence that far more complex high-level nuclear waste challenges
from a nuclear power program would be responsibly managed in Australia.
Claims that converting coal power plants to nuclear plants will be straightforward and advantageous rest on untested assumptions rather than real-world success stories. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could potentially reduce nuclear costs by using some existing
infrastructure but nuclear power would still be far more expensive than firmed renewables
(i.e. renewable systems with storage capacity). No coal power plants have been repurposed
as nuclear plants in the US or the UK, so purported synergies and cost savings are
speculative.
There is no social license to introduce nuclear power to Australia. The Coalition’s nuclear
power policy is not supported by state governments in the five states being considered.
There is little or no support from Coalition parties in those states. The nuclear policy is not
supported by the energy industry, including the owners of the sites being targeted for
nuclear reactors. The policy is not supported by scientists. It is not supported by the public ‒
nuclear power recently regained its status as Australian’s least popular energy source ‒ or
by First Nations communities. The Coalition’s nuclear policy does not even enjoy widespread
support within the Coalition: deep rifts are evident.
While nuclear power has been stagnant for more than 20 years, renewable energy is
growing strongly around the world. Last year, nuclear power capacity fell by 1.7 gigawatts
while renewable additions amounted to 507 gigawatts ‒ record growth for the 22nd
consecutive year. This year, the same pattern is repeating: nuclear stagnation and record
renewables growth. Nuclear power accounts for a declining share of global electricity
generation ‒ currently 9.1%, barely half its historic peak ‒ whereas the renewables share
has grown to 30.2%. The International Energy Agency expects turbocharged growth in the
coming years with renewables reaching 46% by 2030. Renewable energy sources currently
generate over three times more electricity than nuclear reactors, and will likely generate
five times more by the end of the decade.
The energy transition is well underway in Australia, with renewables supplying nearly 40%
of the National Electricity Market. Nuclear power has no place in this transition. As
Australia’s leading scientific organisation CSIRO says, nuclear power “does not provide an
economically competitive solution in Australia” and “won’t be able to make a meaningful
contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions
Frisson vs fission in nuke fantasy vs facts
What’s hot and what’s not in the contest of ideas? The Grattan Institute reckons SMRs are too hot to handle and renewables play it cool.
by MURRAY HOGARTH, 26 November 2024, https://thepolitics.com.au/frisson-vs-fission-in-nuke-fantasy-vs-facts/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGzOJ9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdspzuMHENz02Lj8EZ5cQ2dLAjLtF07_Y9DOMfUzUO4galMDnSzr7KEP3w_aem_VAbXVviTwHaKR6W26dn-Rg
This week the quickfire Senate inquiry into a social media age ban has been hit with 15,000 submissions in a bit over 24 hours. Meanwhile, the months-long House select committee inquiry into nuclear energy is yet to hit 300.
Sure most of the social media age ban submissions will follow a template propagated by vested-interest outrage from Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, X/Twitter owner and now self-styled “First Bro” in the Trump US presidency team. But the raw numbers are a sobering reminder of what’s hot and what’s not when it comes to voter attention and the political sausage-making machine and, to borrow the new word of the year, the “enshittification” of our public policy decision-making.
Of course it’s not apples and apples to compare the social media age ban and the fate of the energy transition. The former is an impossibly subjective behavioural challenge for society, here and internationally, which could be rushed into law this week for pre-election political expediency. The latter is a far-reaching, fundamental matter of economic and environmental strategy for the nation, which will be decided one way or the other at a federal election by May at the latest.
Will it continue to be renewables-led with a gas top-up under the current Labor government? Or a switch to nuclear-led under a resurrected Coalition government, keeping dirty coal for longer and burning a lot more carbon-polluting gas for 15 to 20 years while reactors get legalised, planned and built?
Reality bites
The last time Australia had a national nuclear energy inquiry, in 2019, about 300 submissions were received, and a number of the same interested parties are back in similar numbers for the 2024 version of the debate which has been running for more than 60 years. The too-niche nuclear contest is like that. Ideologically enduring. Factually selective. Passionately partisan. Conducted largely removed from mainstream political sentiment or awareness of detail, and also remote from economic reality.
Yet it’s of monumental national importance, given that the energy transition will decide both the shape and success of the economy in the 21st century, and how we respond to the great global imperative of climate action and net zero decarbonisation by 2050. Which is where a relatively brief submission to the nuclear energy inquiry from the Grattan Institute, the widely respected independent public policy think-tank, becomes worthy of particular attention.
Titled “Nuclear energy for Australia? Not Plan A and probably not Plan B”, the Grattan submission has been written by energy experts Tony Wood and Alison Reeve, and it reflects a facts-over-fantasy approach to the question it poses. For starters, it considered the same question more than a decade ago, in 2012, and finds not much has changed. Except, that is, that the Liberal-National Coalition has put nuclear energy at the heart of its climate and energy election pitch, and is leading in the national polls.
Fraught with danger
Grattan says:
“Nuclear power generation is banned in Australia. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 both prohibit nuclear power. Similar prohibitions exist under the laws of every state and territory. Recent interest in nuclear power and the initiation of this inquiry have been largely triggered by a proposal from the federal Coalition for nuclear power to be part of its policy platform for the next federal election.”
Cost and technology uncertainty was (and remains) the key barrier:
“Grattan’s headline conclusion in 2012 was that uncertainty about the probable cost of nuclear power in Australia would continue until there was a weight of practical experience in deploying current reactor designs in countries with similar economic and regulatory conditions. But unlike some other countries such as the UK, Australia could afford to wait for this to happen, because Australia has multiple options to ensure its overall energy security. Given this, Australia should wait to see the economics of new nuclear deployment in other countries before considering any commitment to build nuclear power plants here.”
Fast-forward to 2024 and the picture for nuclear, the Coalition’s Plan A, remains the same:
“Since the publication of that report in 2012, little has happened to change our views. The cost of nuclear has not improved over that time, and large-scale nuclear construction timelines continue to blow out.”
But what has changed dramatically is the cost and technology picture for renewables, although that’s not without its challenges:
“Since 2012, the cost of solar and wind generation has fallen dramatically and renewables’ share of power generation has increased from about 10% to about 40%. The pace of deployment has recently slowed, mostly due to challenges in building the transmission network capacity in areas where there is insufficient capacity to connect more distributed generation. These challenges have been caused by escalating costs, slow regulatory approvals, and failure to secure local social licence for this new infrastructure.”
B stands for bad news
Nor does Grattan see the case for nuclear being enhanced or saved by the new, as yet commercially unproven technology, focus on small modular reactors (SMRs), which it dubs Plan B:
“Although more than 80 designs are in development, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice. Recent work by the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering suggests a mature market for SMRs is unlikely before the mid to late 2040s. This means they are no quicker an option for Australia than is large-scale nuclear.”
What is needed, according to Grattan, is a major, very objective overhaul of the national electricity market (NEM) to make it fit for purpose in a new energy era:
“The review must be approached as a co-design exercise between consumers, industry and politicians, drawing on the deep expertise of the market bodies. It has to acknowledge and accommodate political and physical realities as well as technocratic theory. It cannot be held hostage by ministers insisting that various technologies must be in or out.”
Apparently reading Grattan’s collective mind — although really just responding to a blindingly obvious and long overdue need — Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen announced today exactly such a review of Australia’s main electricity grid and market, led by an expert independent panel, to run for 12 months.
Grattan also takes an even-handed view of long-term political failure by Australian governments to come to grips with the real issue for climate and energy: decarbonisation:
“The single biggest challenge facing energy markets is decarbonisation. And yet, with a couple of honourable exceptions, governments are consistently shy about stating explicitly what this means and by when it should happen.”
The 2019 nuclear energy inquiry, dominated by the then-Coalition government, found in favour of a shift towards nuclear. The 2024 version, dominated by the Labor government, and just months out from an election, will inevitably find itself opposing such a shift. All of which will make Australians not much the wiser. In this debate, even more than most, the role of independent experts and fact-based analysis is more important than ever.
A footnote
Former NSW Liberal treasurer and energy minister Matt Kean participated in a debate last night organised by Macquarie University in Sydney around the topic “Australia’s Future Energy Mix — Is Nuclear Part of the Solution?” As though in some parallel political universe, where Liberals can be renewables champions and climate action true-believers, Kean is now the Labor-appointed chair of the Climate Change Authority, which advises the government on emissions targets. He warned that waiting 20 years for nuclear power would destine Australia to a less reliable, more expensive, dirtier energy future, saying:
“And let me tell you what that looks like. It looks like a breakdown of our precious ecosystems and biodiversity. Just look at the Great Barrier Reef and the coral bleaching that is going on there that is going to be baked into the system. Look at the Arctic ice sheets. Look at sea level rise, and look at the fact that large tracts of Australia will be uninhabitable because they are unlivable. That’s what the science tells us. And the science is not something that’s happening in the future. It’s happening now.
“I was the treasurer of NSW. It’s those that say the cost of taking action on climate change is too high. Let me tell you, I had to foot the bill because we hadn’t taken action on climate change to fund the worst natural disaster event that we’ve ever seen in the Lismore floods that followed the worst bushfires the country had ever seen, the Black Summer bushfires that followed the worst drought our nation had ever seen. So anyone sitting there saying, oh, you know, the cost of taking action on climate change is too much. Let me tell you, the cost of not acting on climate change will be far, far greater. How we get to net zero matters just as much as the goal itself.”
He may be an ex-politician now, if not forever, but Kean remains the nation’s best political communicator on the climate crisis and energy challenge by far.
Coalition-linked nuclear expert questioned by parliament over coal industry ties
by political reporter Tom Lowrey, 22 Nov 24, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-22/coalition-nuclear-expert-questioned-coal-funding/104629770
In short:
A Labor-led committee has questioned a nuclear expert with close links to the Coalition over whether he made a potentially misleading statement to parliament over his funding for research.
Adjunct professor Stephen Wilson told a committee hearing he had not received funding from the “fossil fuel” sector, but government MPs are pointing to comments that contradict that.
What’s next?
Professor Wilson has denied that he “personally received payment from ‘fossil fuel’ companies” to fund his work looking into nuclear power.
A nuclear expert from the University of Queensland and a conservative think-tank have been questioned over possibly misleading parliament over funding for his work.
Parliamentary officials, writing on behalf of the Labor-led committee looking into nuclear power, have written to adjunct professor Stephen Wilson to clarify his ties to the coal industry.
In response to questions from the ABC, Professor Wilson said he had not “personally” received funding from the “fossil fuel” sector for his work on nuclear power.
Professor Wilson gave evidence to the inquiry last month in his capacity as a nuclear expert with the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think-tank.
He has been regularly cited by the Coalition as an advocate for the technology, which forms the centrepiece of the Coalition’s energy policy heading into the next election.
Professor Wilson travelled to North America with shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien on a nuclear study tour in 2023, including meetings with executives from nuclear giant Westinghouse.
He has also spoken at events with Mr O’Brien, criticising the current government’s renewables-led energy approach and talking up the potential of nuclear power.
During the evidence Professor Wilson gave to the nuclear inquiry in October, he was asked if he had “accepted donations from the fossil fuel industry to fund your research on energy”.
“No, I have not,” he replied.
n a letter sent this week, officials have pointed to comments made by Professor Wilson in a speech delivered to an IPA event in mid-2023.
In a transcript of the speech, Professor Wilson describes his work with the IPA’s energy security research program, and thanks donors for their support.
“I have taken on the challenge of working with Scott [Hargreaves] and the IPA staff, supported and encouraged by the far-sighted group of donors that Nick Jorss is bringing together,” he said.
Mr Jorss is the executive chairman of coal miner Bowen Coking Coal, and chair of lobby group Coal Australia.
The letter seeks “clarification on what appears to be contradictory information on the issue of donorship”.
The committee now questioning Professor Wilson was set up by the government in the House of Representatives to scrutinise nuclear power, which the Coalition has committed to ahead of the next election.
Professor Wilson has been cited by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton in speeches making the case for the Coalition’s proposed pivot to nuclear power.
In a speech in July last year, Mr Dutton quoted Professor Wilson calling on Australia to “prepare real options to deploy nuclear energy … in case we need them.”
The ABC contacted Professor Wilson with questions over the sources of his funding, and whether he had misled the committee.
In response, he denied having directly receiving funding from ‘fossil fuel’ sources for his work.
“I have not personally received payment from ‘fossil fuel’ companies for my research into the need for Australia to embrace carbon-free, nuclear energy,” he said.
“I have advocated strongly for years, in my own capacity, for energy policy to be developed and implemented on a rational basis.
“As an energy engineer and economist with 30 years’ experience in the economics and dynamics of energy systems around the world, and electricity and resources markets, I understand how vital it is for Australia to have energy security. Encouragingly, more and more Australians are starting to share this view.”
Submissions to Parliamentary Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia – (Part one).
The Committee will inquire into matters referred to in the resolution of appointment and is required to present its final report by no later than 30 April 2025. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower
Submissions to this Inquiry have now closed, and are being published at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower
So far, 202 submissions have been published. My plan is to go through them all. So far, I have read through just the first 20 submissions 19 by male writers, one female. 12 were opposed to nuclear power, 7 were in favour of nuclear power, and one was unable to be read.
Arguments were around topics of energy needs, indigenous concerns, environmental impacts, and radioactive waste. I plan to outline these as I read through more submissions.
David Crisafulli stares down LNP division on abortion and nuclear power
Consternation remains in the ranks about way Queensland party handled two divisive issues, sources say
Guardian, Ben Smee 17 Nov 24,
The Queensland premier, David Crisafulli, has told Liberal National party members the party “does not exist for culture wars” in an address seeking to stare down potential division about his positions on abortion rights and nuclear power.
Crisafulli’s speech to the LNP state council meeting in Rockhampton on Sunday was his first opportunity to speak directly to the organisational wing, and party members, since last month’s state election victory.
Despite the election success, LNP sources say there remains consternation in the ranks about the way the party handled divisive issues including abortion and nuclear power, where the views of the grassroots membership – and the private views of many MPs – are at odds with Crisafulli’s promises not to change existing laws.
The premier did not directly mention either issue. But his speech to members hinted at “scare campaigns” by Labor during the election and said these would not work in four years if the party kept its word.
“One thing I can guarantee you about me … that is my word counts for something and I value a culture when you say you’re going to do something you do it, and when you say you won’t do something, you won’t do it,” Crisafulli said……………………………………. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/17/david-crisafulli-stares-down-lnp-division-on-abortion-and-nuclear-power
Plan to dispose of nuclear waste from Aukus submarines unanimously rejected by Adelaide council
City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s mayor says she hadn’t received correspondence about storage or disposal before or after bill passed federal parliament
Guardian Petra Stock, 18 Nov 24
Plans to dispose of low-level nuclear waste from Aukus submarines at an Adelaide naval facility have been unanimously opposed by the local council for the area, who say they weren’t consulted.
The Osborne naval shipyard, 25km north of Adelaide CBD, and HMAS Stirling at Garden Island 50km south of Perth in Western Australia, have both been designated as “radioactive waste management facilities” for nuclear waste from Aukus submarines under the Australian naval nuclear power safety bill, which passed parliament in October.
Last week, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield – responsible for the area surrounding the Osborne shipyard – voted to unanimously oppose the storage and disposal of radioactive waste at the site.
Its mayor, Claire Boan, said council had been briefed on aspects of the Aukus project but it had not received any correspondence or communication about management and disposal of nuclear waste at the site.
“While the decision-making regarding this is out of the control of the council, we will continue to advocate for our community and lobby for community consultation throughout the process,” she said.
Rex Patrick, a former independent senator for South Australia, said the situation highlighted the lack of consultation and transparency regarding Aukus nuclear waste.
“Albanese called for Dutton to disclose where he was going to put his nuclear power reactors, and yet there’s been complete secrecy around the entire process associated with where they’ll put the high-level waste from naval reactors,” he said.
No public announcements have been made about the site selection or consultation process for dealing with the high-level nuclear waste associated with the Aukus submarines, which the government agreed Australia would dispose of in March last year……………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/plan-to-dispose-of-nuclear-waste-from-aukus-submarines-unanimously-rejected-by-adelaide-council
World teeters on brink as Trump and cronies prepare to flood the zone with shit
By Giles ParkinsonNov 10, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/world-teeters-on-brink-as-trump-and-cronies-prepare-to-flood-the-zone-with-shit/
Are you OK? It seems an important question as the unhinged and unrestrained president Donald Trump is swept back into power and the world contemplates the implications for the climate, for civil discourse, for women, for minorities, for society as a whole, and for our children and their children.
We have, of course, been here before. This time round, however, the guard rails have been removed: Trump will be back in the White House and in control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the judiciary and, thanks to fellow and like minded billionaires who own it or fund it, mainstream and social media. Only the filibuster stands in his way.
It’s a kick in the guts to those who care about the future. The implications weigh heavy on anyone minded to consider them: Trump is a climate denier who describes the science as a hoax and his vow to wind back policies and frack, frack, frack, will – according to the best estimates – add around four billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030, when the opposite needs to happen.
That, of course, means that the small window to cap average global warming within the Paris climate target of 1.5°C is all but lost. But by how big a margin it will be missed will depend on the actions elsewhere in the world. That includes Australia but mostly it is China, whose role could get complicated with the threat of a tariff war.
Trump has been especially enabled by the likes of Tesla and Twitter/X boss Elon Musk, who used to say that his prime mission was to end the use of fossil fuels in the grid and transport with electric cars, storage and renewables.
Musk’s technology, the cars and the batteries in particular, have helped tip the balance towards a green energy transition. But he now appears more concerned by other ideological pursuits.
Bizarrely, Musk now dismisses the science – maybe if greenhouse emissions get close to 1,000 parts per million it might be hard to breathe, he has said. He is obsessed about getting to Mars, and is happy to enable and promote misogynists and conspiracy theorists on his social media platform. On earth, or at least in cyberspace and the Metaverse, Musk is, to borrow a phrase, flooding the zone with shit.
What does that mean for Australia?
The good news – and these things are comparative – is that at least in the short term, the green energy transition will continue apace.
While wind and solar stocks plunged in the US in anticipation of Trump’s fossil fuel fracking frenzy, and his planned dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act, the program in Australia accelerates, as we report here, with added urgency.
Australia is getting close to the half way mark of kicking fossil fuels out of the grid, and replacing them with wind, solar and storage – essential for any significant emissions cuts in the broader economy.
Some argue that the tipping point – aided by new technology, falling prices, better engineering, and deep pocketed investors – has already arrived.
But that won’t stop others from trying to throw a spanner in the nacelle, as it were, and Australia’s conservative Coalition – emboldened by the chutzpah of the Trump campaign and the backing of the Murdoch and Musk media machines – will continue with its campaign of mischief and misinformation.
What the Coalition and Peter Dutton have learned is that if you do flood the zone with shit – it’s the Steve Bannon mantra – then a lot will stick, particularly when you find ways of making people fearful.
So expect to hear a lot about immigration, transgender, women, elites and any other group that can easily be demonised in a tweet or an Instagram post.
The federal Coalition’s pursuit and promotion of nuclear power as a solution for Australia is about as nonsensical and incoherent as anything that Trump has ever proposed, but as the New York Times’ Seth Abramson notes in a depressing analysis, many of the public are too frivolous, selfish, self-interested, ignorant, or petty to care.
And, I would add, they are also too fearful, too impressionable, and too vulnerable to the machinations of billionaires who want to be trillionaires, and their supporting cast of psychopaths, to care.
Which brings it back to those who do care. The world has seen the likes of Trump, Abbott, Morrison before. The work has fallen to others to get on with the job – be it sub-national governments, investors, and campaigners. There is a lot at stake.
In Australia, that means individuals, too. Which is a good thing. The grid has changed so much, thanks largely to the massive popularity of rooftop solar, that consumers and communities here are in a position not enjoyed by others in the world: They are poised, quite literally, to take the power into their own hands, if only they were allowed.
Their ability to do so will grow with the rollout of EVs, vehicle to grid technology, heat pumps, and software that allows and promotes demand management.
The biggest impediment appears to be the system itself, and entrenched interests. Voters in the US and Australia are being hurt by changing economic circumstances and inflation. Trump managed to con the US public by pretending that he wasn’t part of the system, or the problem.
His attack on established and respected institutions is echoed in Australia by Dutton and co, who appear more concerned about protecting the vested and often venal interests of legacy industry – many now crouching behind the veil of net zero by 2050 that they know they can use as an excuse rather than a target.
It seems to be working. Polls put the Coalition at a 52-48 per cent advantage, just six months out from the federal poll. At least in Australia there is strength in minor parties, and their role has never been as crucial as it is now. The world is is in desperate need of grown-ups. Australia cannot afford to follow the American path.
So, when the rest of us are able to pick ourselves up from the floor, and check with others that they are OK, then it might be time to set about convincing doubters that the push to zero emissions offers a safe and more prosperous future, and the chance to be part of a community rather than oppressed by a system.
Sadly, it’s not yet apparent that enough in the green energy industry have learned how to do that, or even that they know that they should.
Good luck, take care, and don’t give up. We won’t.
Nuclear a ‘rent-seeking parasite’ that will push up power prices: Kean
Hannah Wootton https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/nuclear-a-rent-seeking-parasite-that-will-push-up-power-prices-kean-20241104-p5knu5—
Climate Change Authority head Matt Kean has slammed the nuclear power industry as a rent-seeking parasite, warning that developing plants in Australia would just drive up electricity bills and accusing those wanting to do so of vested interests.
The former NSW treasurer said the alternative energy source was “old outdated technology” and only “a very brave person” would bet on it, building on months of criticism of nuclear since taking the CCA job.
Mr Kean believes nuclear power will be too expensive and take too long to develop to meaningfully contribute to Australia’s energy transition. Last month, he said the opposition’s controversial plan to extend coal-fired power stations until nuclear plants could be built was a “wild fantasy”.
He said this plan and any development of a nuclear industry would stymie investment in renewables, accusing those promoting either of being “delay mongers”.
On Monday, Mr Kean told Senate estimates that those who wanted to fund nuclear plants or prolong coal-fired power stations just wanted “to pay a lot of rent to these vested interests”.
“There’s no bigger rent-seeking parasite than the nuclear industry,” he said.
“If you want to see who is trying to pull one over the eyes of the Australian public it’s the nuclear industry, who are there propping up the coal industry who want to extend their business models, squeeze out the last bits of profits at the expense of Australian consumers.
“They’re coming to the people of Australia for a handout … but here’s no business case or economic case for it.”
Dramatic reductions in the cost of batteries and energy storage also meant the business case – “not that there was one” – for Australia to invest in nuclear power was even less than it previously had been.
“Battery technology is falling so rapidly that it’s eating other technologies’ lunch – or it will certainly do so,” he said.
Mr Kean said nuclear reactors would not be built quickly enough to replace coal-fired generators anyway, and that shifting to renewables was a faster and cheaper way to decarbonise the economy.
Nationals senator Ross Cadell rejected this, despite the CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator both finding that renewables are much cheaper than nuclear energy.
He accused Mr Kean of failing to properly scrutinise these findings, calling for a balanced energy mix in the transition.
But Mr Kean called on the opposition to back renewables, saying nuclear power would “drive up the cost of electricity for millions of Australians across the country”.
Pushing nuclear power in Queensland would be ‘hugely messy’ for a future Dutton government, constitutional law experts say
By Matt Eaton, 30 Oct 24, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-30/nuclear-power-plebiscite-peter-dutton-david-crisafulli/104532888
A clear line in the sand divides Queensland’s new Liberal National government from the federal Coalition on the topic of nuclear power.
On Sunday, just hours after the LNP’s state election victory, federal Nationals leader David Littleproud said he expected Queensland to fall into line on nuclear power if the Coalition wins the next federal election.
The Coalition has a plan to roll out nuclear power nationwide should it win office, including two nuclear power plants in Queensland.
Asked again about nuclear power yesterday, Queensland Premier David Crisafulli held firm to the LNP’s position that it will not repeal the state’s nuclear ban.
What does the law say?
Building nuclear reactors is prohibited by the Queensland Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007.
Constitutional law experts say Queensland ultimately has no legal power to stand in the way of a federal government determined to build nuclear reactors in this state.
Section 109 of the Australian Constitution is unequivocal on such a dispute: “When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”
But University of Queensland electoral law expert Graeme Orr thinks having a federal government override the state in this case would be nowhere near that simple.
On the contrary, he believes it would be “hugely messy”.
“There isn’t a simple precedent for this kind of thing, let alone for it being Liberal-on-Liberal conflict,” Professor Orr said.
“First of all, if the state doesn’t want to give up Crown land, the Commonwealth have to forcibly acquire that Crown land, pay for it and transfer it.”
Professor Orr said he was not opposed to nuclear power.
“My brother is a nuclear physicist in France, there’s benefits to it. But the economics of it are going to be problematic enough.”
‘A political minefield’
Australian National University legal expert Dr Ron Levy said there would be another problem.
Queensland’s nuclear prohibition bill includes a clause that if the relevant Queensland minister believes the Commonwealth is moving to construct a “prohibited nuclear facility”, the minister must seek Queenslanders’ views on the matter.
“If the federal government builds nuclear plants in the state, the people will vote on it,” Dr Levy said.
“That would not be binding — it would, however, be a political minefield for any future Dutton government.”
Professor Orr agrees the plebiscite clause makes the issue “fascinating”.
He said this clause of the Queensland law could not be overridden by the Commonwealth.
“It would have to be undone by the Queensland government, who now have a majority,” he said.
“If the Queensland government did roll over behind the scenes … that becomes like a loss of faith, particularly for the areas that are earmarked for possible nuclear power stations.”
‘No bigger rent-seeking parasite’ than nuclear industry, Matt Kean tells former Coalition colleagues in heated debate
Kean, a former Liberal energy minister turned Climate Change Authority chair, clashes with senators Gerard Rennick and Ross Cadell
Lisa Cox Environment and climate correspondent, Guardian, 4 Nov 24
Matt Kean, the chair of the Climate Change Authority and a former New South Wales Liberal energy minister, has told a parliamentary estimates hearing there is “no bigger rent-seeking parasite than the nuclear industry” during a heated exchange with pro-nuclear senators.
Appearing at estimates for the first time since his appointment in June, Kean argued with the independent senator Gerard Rennick about the cost of nuclear, telling the hearing: “If you want to see who are needing rent-seeking [and] trying to pull one over the eyes of the Australian public, it’s the nuclear industry.”
Kean said the nuclear industry was “there propping up the coal industry, who want to extend their business models, squeeze out the last bits of profit at the expense of Australian consumers”.
He also clashed with the Nationals senator Ross Cadell over analysis by Australia’s science agency CSIRO, which found nuclear was the most expensive form of large-scale energy available, estimating an initial plant could cost more than $16bn.
Kean told Cadell “most rational people do trust the CSIRO, this is the body that developed wifi” and that their advice “is good enough for me and it should be good enough for our political leaders”……………….
He later told Rennick that advice from CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator was that the cheapest way to replace Australia’s ageing electricity infrastructure was with renewables.
The Coalition has proposed seven sites where it says it would eventually replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants but not how much this would cost.
Multiple energy analysts have argued nuclear energy would be more expensive than other options and a nuclear industry would not be possible in Australia until after 2040………………………………………..
The chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, Clare Savage, told a parliamentary inquiry she did not believe nuclear plants could be built in time to cover the closure of coal-fired power plants. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/04/no-bigger-rent-seeking-parasite-than-nuclear-industry-matt-kean-tells-former-coalition-colleagues-in-heated-debate
Support for nuclear power will evaporate at next election, Chris Bowen predicts
Polling shows that Australians prefer renewables, climate change and energy minister says
Adam Morton Climate and environment editor, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/04/nuclear-power-support-australia-election-chris-bowen
Support for nuclear power is likely to evaporate once Australians face a clear choice at the next election and realise the Coalition’s policy would mean relying more on old coal plants and increased risk of blackouts, Chris Bowen says.
The climate change and energy minister said that while some polling had suggested some voters were open to nuclear plants being allowed in Australia surveys had also consistently found they preferred renewable energy.
“Every bit of research I’ve seen, public and private, says that when shown details and given a choice between nuclear and other forms of energy, nuclear fares very, very badly,” he said. “If you look at the popularity of different forms of energy, it’s solar, wind, gas, daylight, coal, nuclear, in that order, every single time.”
Support for nuclear power is likely to evaporate once Australians face a clear choice at the next election and realise the Coalition’s policy would mean relying more on old coal plants and increased risk of blackouts, Chris Bowen says.
The climate change and energy minister said that while some polling had suggested some voters were open to nuclear plants being allowed in Australia surveys had also consistently found they preferred renewable energy.
“Every bit of research I’ve seen, public and private, says that when shown details and given a choice between nuclear and other forms of energy, nuclear fares very, very badly,” he said. “If you look at the popularity of different forms of energy, it’s solar, wind, gas, daylight, coal, nuclear, in that order, every single time.”
The Coalition has named seven sites where it says it would eventually replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants but not how much this would cost. Multiple energy analysts argue nuclear energy would be more expensive than other options and a nuclear industry would not be possible in Australia until after 2040. The bulk of the country’s coal plants are scheduled to close in the 2030s.
The opposition has suggested it would limit the rollout of large-scale renewable energy – it has criticised Labor’s goal of 82% renewable energy by 2030 – and bridge the gap by keeping ageing coal plants running longer and using more gas-fired power.
It has not yet said what type of gas plants this means. With nuclear banned, gas is the most expensive form of electricity in the national electricity market and it use is largely restricted to “peaking” power turned on only when needed. It provided less than 3% of electricity in the national grid over the past month.
The chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, Claire Savage, told a parliamentary inquiry she did not believe that nuclear plants could be built in enough time to cover the closure of coal-fired power plants. More than a quarter of the coal power capacity in the national grid was offline on the day she gave evidence due to planned and unplanned outages.
Ontario’s huge nuclear debt and other things Dutton doesn’t understand about cost of electricity
Unfortunately for us, Dutton and O’Brien are also in a hurry. They think they can deliver nuclear power plants far faster than what many experts believe is sensible and what many countries with far more nuclear experience than ourselves have been able to achieve.
Dutton and O’Brien also want to do this via a government-owned utility, instead of via a competitive market.
ReNewEconomy, Tristan Edis, Oct 30, 2024
All of this has left taxpayers with a massive budget and timeframe blow-out. This is what happens when we leave it to politicians in a hurry to hand pick power projects.
It seems our alternative Prime Minister Peter Dutton’s favourite topic is your electricity bill. Given how much he talks about electricity prices, you’d think he might know a fair bit about what makes up your electricity bill, wouldn’t you?
According to Dutton and his Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien, the problem is all about too much renewable energy in the mix. And their answer to the problem is nuclear power, as well as more gas.
According to Peter Dutton, “We can’t continue a situation that Labor has us on of a renewables only policy because, as we know, your power prices are just going to keep going up under this Prime Minister.”
Instead, according to Dutton, “we could be like Ontario, where they’ve got 60 or 70 per cent nuclear in the mix, and they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.”
O’Brien, elaborated on this point by saying:
“We will have plenty of time in due course to talk about the costings [for their nuclear plan] once we release them here in the Australian context. But I point to Ontario in Canada, there you have up to 60 per cent of their energy mix in the grid, coming from zero emissions, nuclear energy. Their households pay around about 14 cents kilowatt hour. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 cents a kilowatt hour from July 1 this year.”
Once you actually delve into these numbers it becomes apparent that O’Brien and Dutton don’t seem know much about electricity costs and pricing.
But even worse, they don’t know how badly Ontario’s taxpayers and electricity consumers were burnt by their utility racking up huge debt building nuclear power plants equal to $70 billion in current day Australian dollars.
Do Dutton and O’Brien understand your electricity bill?
You can actually look up what Ontario households pay for electricity via the Ontario Energy Board’s bill calculator website.
This provides you with a break down on the charges a typical household faces depending on the utility you choose…………………………………………………
But notice there’s also other very significant items in this bill separate to the kilowatt-hour charge? There’s a “delivery” charge which is the cost of paying for the distribution and transmission poles and wires. There’s also regulatory charges and also their sales tax is known as “HST” rather than GST for us.
So the Ontario 14 cents per kilowatt-hour charge that O’Brien and Dutton are referring to covers only the wholesale energy portion of their bill.
In Australia, we pay a majority of the costs of distribution and transmission in our cents per kilowatt-hour charge, in addition to wholesale energy costs, and then we get GST added on top. O’Brien and Dutton don’t seem to have appreciated this important aspect of electricity pricing in this country, which is different to Ontario.
But it actually gets worse.
I went digging on the official government energy retailer comparison sites- www.energymadeeasy.gov.au and www.energycompare.vic.gov.au and I initially couldn’t find a single Australian retailer selling electricity at 56 cents per kilowatt-hour.
This was based on looking at offers based on a single rate tariff. Then I had a brainwave and looked at time-of-use rates. In Queensland and Victoria I still couldn’t find anyone wanting to charge me 56 cents for the peak period.
But eventually I succeeded. Right at the bottom of the EnergyMadeEasy list of retailer offers – which were ordered from best to worst – sat EnergyAustralia as the worst offer, charging 57 cents for the peak period in South Australia (although with a compensating high solar feed-in tariff of 8.5 cents)…………………………………
To help out O’Brien and Dutton, I’ve prepared the table below which provides a proper apples versus apples comparison (as opposed to apples vs peak rate bananas) –[on original ]
…………………………………………….. Ontario’s nuclear debt debacle
Yet this comparison between Ontario and Australia misses a far more important part of the story that O’Brien and Dutton seem to be blissfully ignorant of.
That is the history of the Ontario’s state owned utility – Ontario Hydro – and the unsustainable level of debt that it racked up over the 1980’s and 1990’s as a result of an ambitious nuclear plant construction program that went wrong.
While this cost is no longer apparent in current electricity prices, Ontario businesses and households were stuck with paying back CAD$38.1 billion in debt (over $70 billion in Australian current day dollars) for more than 35 years after their public utility committed its last nuclear reactor to construction in 1981.
So what went wrong?
In anticipation of large growth in electricity demand, over the 1970’s and 1980’s Ontario Hydro committed to construction 12 nuclear reactors with 9,000 MW of generating capacity. To fund the projects the public utility accessed commercial debt markets anticipating that it could comfortably repay this debt from the increased electricity demand it forecast. However, several things went wrong.
The nuclear power stations took far longer to build and were around twice as expensive to build than had been planned
– Interest rates on debt rose to very high levels by historical standards over the 1980’s in order to contain the high levels of inflation that unfolded over the 1970’s and early 1980’s. With the nuclear power stations taking longer than expected to build, interest was accumulating on this debt with far less output from the plants to offset it.
– Lastly, Ontario Hydro’s estimate of large growth in electricity demand didn’t eventuate. A 1977 forecast projected a system peak of 57,000 MW by 1997. Actual peak demand in 1997 was 22,000 MW. This meant that the very large cost and associated debt of the large nuclear expansion had to be recovered from a much smaller volume of electricity sales than it had anticipated, making it much harder to pay off the debt without substantial increases in electricity prices.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… “On April 1, 1999, the Ministry of Finance determined that Ontario Hydro’s total debt and other liabilities stood at $38.1 billion, which greatly exceeded the estimated $17.2-billion market value of the assets being transferred to the new entities. The resulting shortfall of $20.9 billion was determined to be “stranded debt,” representing the total debt and other liabilities of Ontario Hydro that could not be serviced in a competitive environment.”
So the CAD$38.1 billion in debt was transferred out of the electricity companies and into a special purpose government entity called the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC). This debt management corporation was given the following revenues to service the debt:
– Both residential and business consumers were required to pay a special “Debt Retirement Charge”. This charge was introduced in 2002 and lasted until 2016 for residential consumers and 2018 for business customers.
– The Ontario government would forgo any corporate income and other taxes owed by the offshoot electricity companies from Ontario Hydro so they could be diverted to the OEFC to pay down debt.
– If the cumulative profits of two of the new state power companies exceeded the $520m annual interest cost on their debts, then this would go towards paying stranded debt rather than dividends to the Ontario government.
None of this is apparent on current bills, but the burden of repaying the nuclear debt left the Ontario government and its taxpayers far poorer than Dutton and O’Brien seem to appreciate.
More things O’Brien doesn’t want to understand about Ontario’s nuclear power program
Dutton and O’Brien like to claim that nuclear power plants last a very long time and so therefore the large upfront cost of these plants isn’t something we should be too worried about………………………..
It’s not as simple as this. Nuclear power plants involve a range of components which are exposed to severe heat and mechanical stress. These all need to be replaced well before you get to 60 years, and such refurbishment comes at a cost.
Ontario’s experience is that refurbishment comes at a very significant cost. Less than 25 years after the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant construction was completed, it needed to commence refurbishment. The total cost? $12.8 billion in Canadian dollars or $14 billion Australian dollars.
This is partly why, even though the original nuclear construction cost debt had been largely paid down and nuclear operating costs are lower than coal or gas plant, Ontario still pays more for its electricity than we do.
This is because the current owner of the nuclear power plants – Ontario Power Generation – operates under regulated return model where the regulator grants them the right to recover these refurbishment costs from electricity consumers.
Are O’Brien and Dutton about to commit to another Snowy 2.0 budget blow-out, but on steroids?
………………………………The problem here is that when you don’t know very much and you’re spending other people’s money, ego can easily cloud your judgement. Don’t get me wrong, ego will often cloud business leaders’ judgement too. But their ability to spend money to feed their ego can only so far before either competitors or shareholders intervene.
Ontario taxpayers on the other hand realised far too late that their public utility, in cahoots with their politicians, were pursuing a nuclear vanity project built upon a poor understanding of the future, and without any competitor to discipline their ego.
Australian taxpayers have seen a similar mistake unfold with the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant whose cost now stands at five times greater than the original expectation, and double what was meant to be a fixed price construction contract.
Snowy 2.0 is a parable of what goes wrong when:
– Politicians rush things leading to inadequate planning and preparation;
– Politicians fail to objectively and thoroughly evaluate alternatives; and
– Politicians fail to employ open and competitive markets to deliver end consumer outcomes.
All of this has left taxpayers with a massive budget and timeframe blow-out. This is what happens when we leave it to politicians in a hurry to hand pick power projects.
Unfortunately for us, Dutton and O’Brien are also in a hurry. They think they can deliver nuclear power plants far faster than what many experts believe is sensible and what many countries with far more nuclear experience than ourselves have been able to achieve. Dutton and O’Brien also want to do this via a government-owned utility, instead of via a competitive market.
While the budget blowout of Snowy 2.0 is bad enough, it pales into comparison with the kind of cost blow-outs that can unfold with nuclear power projects. As an example, the budget for completion of UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project now stands at $89.7 billion which is three times higher than what was originally budgeted.
We’ve all seen this movie before, including in Ontario, and it doesn’t end well……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/ontarios-huge-nuclear-debt-and-other-things-dutton-doesnt-understand-about-cost-of-electricity/
1 This month.
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 