The CSIRO has investigated this carefully and has produced a detailed report saying that nuclear energy is not feasible. So, too, has Australia’s former chief scientist, Alan Finkel.
The L-NP has rejected both these reports and attacked the credibility of the scientists who prepared them, without offering any details themselves that counter the two reports.
OPPOSITION LEADER Peter Dutton still refuses to release any details about how he will introduce nuclear energy into Australia. Therefore let’s look at some details of why it won’t work.
The first clue should be that there are no private investors who have expressed an interest in building a nuclear power plant.
All the energy companies in Australia have rejected nuclear energy as not being feasible and have invested billions of dollars in transitioning to renewables.
Secondly, all nuclear reactors take a long time to build. We wouldn’t be able to have one online until 2040 at the earliest.
You can’t just build them anywhere. Dutton’s plan to build them on the sites of existing coal-fired power plants is ill-informed and reckless.
Existing plants are built near coal mines with underground tunnels prone to subsidence. The soil is also contaminated which has caused changes in the silt layer, increasing the chance of subsidence. The last thing we want is nuclear power plants sinking into the ground.
Nuclear power plants also need to be built near large freshwater supplies. The water supplies that exist near coal-fired plants are not large enough and are also contaminated.
The ideal place to build nuclear plants would be near large existing dams that supply water for our major cities. I don’t think anybody would be agreeable to the possibility of a nuclear power plant contaminating the water supply.
Also, take into account that nuclear power plants were first built in the USA in 1955. Since then, 255 plants have been built and today, only 60 continue to operate commercially, with the last one going online in 2018. There are no new plants under construction in the USA.
Of the 60 that are operating commercially, only 30 are operating at a profit. After 70 years of nuclear power plant construction, nuclear energy only provides 18.6 per cent of America’s electricity supply.
Compare this to renewable energy which first came online in the USA in 2008. Today, renewable energy is responsible for 21.4 per cent of electricity production in the United States.
Nuclear is on the way out in America and renewables are replacing it. Even the Americans have realised that nuclear energy production is far more expensive than renewables.
The CSIRO has investigated this carefully and has produced a detailed report saying that nuclear energy is not feasible. So, too, has Australia’s former chief scientist, Alan Finkel.
The L-NP has rejected both these reports and attacked the credibility of the scientists who prepared them, without offering any details themselves that counter the two reports.
An uncooperative Senate could block Dutton’s nuclear power plans, but could not stop him expanding and prolonging the use of fossil fuels and derailing the renewable energy transition.
Bullying your way to nuclear power might play out well in the Liberal-National Party room, but it’s unlikely to win favour with the states, or the punters, writes Dr Jim Green.
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull famously described Coalition leader Peter Dutton as a “thug”. That description appears particularly apt in Dutton’s nuclear power plans.
The Coalition’s nuclear project is opposed by state Labor governments in each of the five states being targeted. Victoria, NSW and Queensland have laws banning nuclear power. The Labor governments in SA and WA may follow suit if they think state legislation will give them some legal protection, or political advantage. Or both.
Could a Dutton Coalition government override state laws banning nuclear power? Anne Twomey, a Sydney University Professor Emerita with lengthy experience teaching and practising in constitutional law, argues that states probably could not prevent the Commonwealth establishing a nuclear power plant, nor could they prevent necessary associated operations such as transmission lines and nuclear waste transport.
Would a Dutton Coalition government attempt to override state opposition to nuclear power plants? Almost certainly it would. Nationals leader David Littleproud said in March that “if the Australian people vote for us that’s a fair indication to premiers that they should get out of the way”.
Coalition and Labor federal governments have pursued attempts to impose a national nuclear waste dump in SA and the NT despite state/territory laws banning such facilities. Those attempts have all failed, largely due to community opposition led by affected Traditional Owners.
Legal challenges helped stop three of the four proposed nuclear dump sites — Woomera (SA) under the Howard government; Muckaty (NT) under the Abbott government; and Kimba (SA) under the Morrison and Albanese governments. But the legal difficulties could have been overcome if the government of the day was ruthless enough and wasn’t suffering too much political pain because of its racist, undemocratic thuggery.
No doubt a Dutton Coalition government would ignore the wishes of Traditional Owners and Native Title holders opposed to the construction of a nuclear reactor on their country. They would be stripped of their land rights and heritage protections, as has been the case with nuclear waste dump proposals.
Compulsory acquisition
What about the companies who own the sites being targeted by the Coalition for nuclear power plants, and who have their own multi-billion dollar plans to develop their own clean energy industrial hubs based around renewables. According to energy minister Chris Bowen, six of the owners of the seven targeted sites have ruled out agreeing to nuclear power reactors on their land.
Dutton hasn’t bothered to consult these companies, but he has sought legal advice. This is what he said: “We will work with the companies, the owners of the sites. If we find a situation where we apply a national interest test and we require that site to be part of the national grid, then the legal advice that we have is that the Commonwealth has ample power to compulsorily acquire that with ample compensation.”
The Coalition also hasn’t bothered to consult communities around the sites targeted for nuclear reactors. And, like state governments and the owners of the targeted sites, opposition from local communities will be overridden.
Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey made the mistake of saying that the Coalition would not impose nuclear power plants on communities that were adamantly opposed. Davey was corrected by Littleproud, who said: “She is not correct and we made this very clear. Peter Dutton and David Littleproud as part of a Coalition government are prepared to make the tough decisions in the national interest.”
Likewise, Dutton said: “Perin I think made a mistake yesterday as everybody does from time to time…. We’ve identified the seven locations and we believe it’s in the community’s interests and the national interest to proceed.”
Democracy is for wimps, apparently, and for traitors who oppose the ‘national interest’ as Comrades Dutton and Littleproud see it.
All this stands in stark contrast to a 2019 parliamentary inquiry led by current shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien. The Committee’s report was titled ‘Not without your approval: a way forward for nuclear technology in Australia’.
Announcing the release of the parliamentary report, O’Brien said in 2019 that a future government should only proceed with nuclear power on the condition that it make “a commitment to community consent as a condition of approval for any nuclear power or nuclear waste disposal facility”. He also waffled on about “maintaining a social license based on trust and transparency” and putting the Australian people “at the centre of any approval process”.
That was then, this is now. The ‘national interest’ is at stake.
Prof. Anne Twomey notes that the Dutton government would need to get legislation through Parliament, including the Senate, both to repeal federal laws banning nuclear power and also “to provide any necessary legal support and protection for a nuclear power industry in Australia”.
An uncooperative Senate could block Dutton’s nuclear power plans, but could not stop him expanding and prolonging the use of fossil fuels and derailing the renewable energy transition. Only voters can do that.
South Australia
Here in SA, we’ll get one or more nuclear power reactors in SA whether we like it or not and whether or not we need the additional power supply. SA has gone from 1 percent renewable electricity supply to 74 percent over the past 16 years and the government aims to reach 100 percent net renewables by 2027.
While there’s doubt about the 2027 timeline, it’s a safe bet we’ll reach 100 percent net renewables by the time a nuclear reactor could possibly begin generating electricity 20-plus years from now.
The Northern Power Station near Port Augusta, one of the seven sites targeted by the Coalition, was shut down in 2016 and the region has since become a renewableshub. Are Dutton and O’Brien unaware of these developments? Are they planning a renewables-to-nuclear transition for SA? It’s difficult to see their non-negotiable plan for a nuclear power plant in SA as anything other than an ill-conceived, uncosted thought bubble.
The Coalition insists that nuclear power would reduce power bills. But there’s no evidence to support that claim, and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. The claim isn’t supported by CSIRO’s ‘GenCost’ report; or in a recent report prepared for the Clean Energy Council by Egis, a leading global consulting, construction and engineering firm; or in a recent report on small modular reactors by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis; or in the latest economic analysis released by investment firm Lazard.
SA Premier Peter Malinauskas isn’t convinced about the Coalition’s economic claims either, saying: “Every single objective, independent analysis that has looked at this has said nuclear power would make power more expensive in Australia rather than cheaper. Why we would impose that burden on power consumers in our country is completely beyond me.”
The recent proposed nuclear power plan announcement by the federal Opposition prompted a Charles Sturt University climate change analyst and a colleague to model the necessary energy sources implied by the plan. They found that it doesn’t add up.
A Charles Sturt University analysis of the Opposition’s nuclear power proposal finds that relying on nuclear power to attain net zero by 2050 would require four times as many nuclear power plants to be built in the 2040s as the Coalition currently plans
The analysis indicates that the increasing reliance on gas generation implied under the Coalition’s plan would result in Australia having much higher carbon emissions through to 2050 than under the current renewables roll-out trajectory
The analysis indicates that slowing the pace of the renewables roll-out implied or stated by the Coalition would have a severe negative impact on the renewables industries but would be a major boost to the gas industry
The recent proposed nuclear power plan announcement by the federal Opposition prompted a Charles Sturt University climate change analyst and a colleague to model the necessary energy sources implied by the plan. They found that it doesn’t add up.
Charles Sturt University Vice-Chancellor’s Chair of Public Ethics Professor Clive Hamilton and colleague the highly respected energy expert Dr George Wilkenfeld have analysed the implications for Australia’s emissions path of the Coalition’s nuclear plan and how it might help to meet the commitment to net zero by 2050.
The Coalition announced that it plans to commission seven nuclear power stations by 2050 and said it would abandon the government’s 2030 target of reducing the nation’s emissions by 43 per cent (compared with 2005 levels).
Professor Hamilton said their analysis shows that the Coalition’s nuclear strategy, if it met its stated aims, would see nuclear plants account for approximately 12 per cent of total electricity generation by 2050.
“The slowed pace of the renewables roll-out implied or stated by the Coalition would result in renewables supplying 49 per cent of total supply, compared with 98 per cent under Labor’s plan, and gas generation supplying approximately 39 per cent, compared with two per cent under Labor’s plan,” he said.
“It would likely have a severe negative impact on the renewables industries but would be a boon to the gas industry.
“With high continued supply of electricity from gas under the Coalition’s plan, attaining net zero emissions by 2050 would be out of the question.”
Professor Hamilton said the modelling indicates that attaining net zero by 2050 would require four times as many nuclear power plants to be built in the 2040s as the Coalition currently plans.
“Under Labor’s renewables plan, Australia’s electricity emissions are expected to decline year on year until they reach almost zero on 2050,” he said.
“Under the Coalition’s plan for nuclear power, a declining emphasis on renewables and an unavoidably greater role for fossil fuels means emissions from the electricity sector in 2050 would be nearly 19 times higher than under Labor’s plan.”
The full analysis was published in Renew Economy on Thursday 27 June.
Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
A national Newspoll, conducted June 24–28 from a sample of 1,260 people, gave Labor a 51–49% lead over the Coalition, a one-point gain for Labor since the previous Newspoll, three weeks ago. Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down three), 32% Labor (down one), 13% Greens (up two), 7% One Nation (steady) and 12% for all others (up two).
…………………………………..Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s net approval slumped six points to -16, his lowest since October 2023. Albanese led Dutton by an unchanged 46–38% as better PM.
By 45–42%, voters disapproved of the Coalition’s “plans to build nuclear reactors in Australia on seven sites of current and former coal-fired power stations before 2050”.
Controversy over the nuclear plans has probably boosted Labor in two-party terms, despite the continued cost of living pressures hurting Albanese’s ratings.
Resolve poll on nuclear power
A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted after Dutton’s nuclear plan announcement (June 20–23) from a sample of 1,003 people, had voters supporting nuclear power by 41–37%. In a more open question, 32% (down four since February) said they supported nuclear power, 28% were opposed (up five) and 30% (up three) did not have a strong view, but were open to investigating it.
Renewables, in general, had a net likeability of +66, nuclear-powered electricity +8 and coal-powered electricity +2.
Asked to choose between “Labor’s plan to use 100% renewables (supported by gas for the next decade or two)” and “the Coalition’s plan to use nuclear power and some gas to support the renewables”, voters backed Labor’s plan by 43–33%.
Essential poll: Labor’s first lead since April
A national Essential poll, conducted June 12–16 from a sample of 1,181 people, gave Labor a 48–46% lead including undecided after a 48–48% tie in early June.
This is Labor’s first lead in an Essential poll since April, with weak respondent-allocated preference flows for Labor partly responsible.
ALP Government must be consistent on nuclear energy Grassroots anti-AUKUS campaign, Labor Against War, joins with the ALP Government in condemning Liberal leader Peter Dutton’s desperate attempt to reignite the climate wars by announcing plans for seven nuclear reactors on land sites in Australia.
Nuclear energy should play no part in Australia’s energy mix. Dutton’s distraction is about extending Australia’s reliance on, and production of, fossil fuels and delaying the urgently needed transition to renewals. It is not a serious attempt to reduce carbon emissions.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said the policy is a “nuclear fantasy”. We agree. Energy Minister Chris Bowen has said the plans are “too slow, too expensive and too risky for Australia. It’s not a plan, it’s a scam.”
LAW National Convenor Marcus Strom said: “Chris Bowen is spot on, but this assessment equally applies to AUKUS: a dangerous and expensive scam introduced by Scott Morrison. “By continuing with the Morrison nuclear submarine plan, the Albanese Government has unfortunately opened the door to Dutton’s nuclear energy fantasy.
“If nuclear energy is too risky on terra firma, it can’t be safe for our oceans. And AUKUS brings with it the added risk of weapons-grade nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation and a US war with China that is against the interests of the Australian people. “The Government must be consistent: we need to reject nuclear energy on land and at sea.”
Dutton’s reactors will produce nuclear waste for which there is no safe plan for storage. This is the same for the weapons-grade waste that the AUKUS submarines will produce. “And like Dutton’s reactor fantasy, it is still very much up in the air if the AUKUS nuclear submarines will ever arrive,” Mr Strom said.
“The US is way behind its own nuclear submarine manufacturing timetable and by January Donald Trump, a convicted felon, could be back in the White House calling the shots. “In criticising Dutton’s fantasy, the Prime Minister needs to cast out the nuclear beam in his own eye.” Marcus Strom
Paul Keating has launched a broadside at Peter Dutton’s nuclear policy, accusing him of “seeking to camouflage” the Coalition’s “long held denialism in an industrial fantasy”.
The former Labor prime minister said in a statement the plan for seven nuclear power plants amounted to “resort to the most dangerous and expensive energy source on the face of the earth”.
The Coalition argues that nuclear power will help it achieve net zero by 2050, but abandoning the interim 2030 target has prompted warnings the policy will reduce investment in renewables that bring prices down.
“Dutton, like [Tony] Abbott, will do everything he can to de-legitimise renewables and stand in the way of their use as the remedy nature has given us to underwrite our life on earth,” Keating said.
“Dutton, in his low rent opportunism, mocks the decency and earnestness which recognises that carbon must be abated and with all urgency.”
On Tuesday, Dutton said the federal Coalition wants “to have renewables in the system but we want to do it in a responsible way”, with nuclear energy providing baseload power.
Australia “can’t be reliant on the weather for the ability to turn on the lights. A modern economy just doesn’t work like that”, the opposition leader told reporters.
“I want to make sure we’ve got renewables in the system. We’re happy for batteries, but we can’t pretend that batteries can provide the storage,” he said.
Keating argued the Coalition policy attacks Labor’s efforts to create a “reliable and dependable framework for investment in renewables – the one thing, however late in the piece, the country needs to rely upon to lift the carbon menace off its back”.
Earlier, the shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien, revealed an independent authority would determine how much nuclear power is produced at each of its seven proposed sites, despite the Coalition claiming it would set the proportion of nuclear in the national energy mix.
On Sunday, O’Brien urged Labor to respect that if the Coalition wins the next election, it arguably has a mandate for nuclear power, but then refused to commit to the opposition dropping the policy if it loses the poll, due by 2025.
In a cagey interview with the ABC’s Insiders, O’Brien repeatedly refused to reveal or even say if he knew how much of Australia’s power could be supplied by nuclear, nor to say if the Coalition would push ahead if local communities rejected the plan.
Asked if electricity prices would go up as coal power plants shut down and nuclear is unavailable for at least 10 years, O’Brien said: “You’re right in that if you have limited supply then prices go up.”
O’Brien said the Coalition’s proposal was to bring in more gas supply and that it supports “the continuation of rolling out renewables”.
Last Monday the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, had suggested the Coalition wanted to cap or limit the rollout of large-scale renewables, but was immediately contradicted by Simon Birmingham, a leading moderate who said they are an “important part of the mix”.
O’Brien confirmed there is “no discussion about capping investment” and Littleproud had since acknowledged this is not Coalition policy.
The Smart Energy Council has estimated the Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors could cost taxpayers as much as $600bn while supplying just 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix by 2050.
But O’Brien noted although the Coalition had nominated seven sites there was potential for “multi-unit sites” such as multiple 300 megawatt small modular reactors on the same site.
“In terms of exactly how many on any plant, we’ll be leaving that to the independent nuclear energy coordinating authority,” he said. “It is right we want multi-unit sites. That’s how to get costs down.”
O’Brien said the Coalition would release details of the energy mix “in due course”, after further announcements on gas, renewable energy and market reforms.
“The real question is not – on nuclear, for example – how much it costs. But: is it value for money?”
O’Brien said it would be “crystal clear” how much nuclear the Coalition is planning to implement but up to the independent authority “to work out at each site what’s the feasibility of certain technologies and only from there, can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts”.
This week the deputy Nationals leader, Perin Davey, suggested if communities are “absolutely adamant” they didn’t want nuclear power plants then the Coalition “will not proceed”, but was contradicted by Littleproud.
O’Brien said the Coalition would undertake a two-and-a-half-year consultation with communities, claiming he didn’t think they would reject nuclear power.
“Ultimately the decision … will be a matter for the minister.”
O’Brien said he would base any decision on the “independent coordinating authority’s feasibility report, what is in our national interest, and what’s in the community interest” including “economic, social, and environmental issues”.
O’Brien said that the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, must answer “if we actually get a mandate, will they respect and will he facilitate the uplifting of the moratorium?”
O’Brien then refused to say if the Coalition would ditch the nuclear plan if it lost the election, arguing that it is also advocating for renewables and gas but would not be expected to jettison those.
“We’re doing this because it’s in our national interest,” he said.
On Sunday the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, told Sky News that the Coalition plan could cost $387bn, and that the CSIRO had estimated that each reactor would cost $8 to 9bn.
Plibersek has approved 54 renewables projects since Labor was elected in May 2022, with a total of 8.6 gigawatts of capacity, comparable to 8.6 large-scale nuclear reactors.
Littleproud said the Coalition would be “upfront and honest” and acknowledged when asked about the $387bn figure that “there is an upfront capital cost”.
“There is an upfront cost but you get to amortise that over 80 or 100 years,” he said.
The next chair of the Climate Change Authority, former NSW Liberal treasurer Matt Kean, has already voiced his scepticism at a push towards nuclear energy.
news.com.au Jessica Wang and Jack Quail, 24 June 24
Incoming Climate Change Authority chair and former NSW Liberal treasurer Matt Kean has poured cold water on the Coalition’s nuclear plans, arguing that a turn to atomic energy would take “far too long” and be “far too expensive”.
Appointed to the position by the Albanese government on Monday, Mr Kean, who announced he was quitting politics just last week, also served as energy and climate change minister under former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian.
Speaking alongside Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, Mr Kean said he would take a “pragmatic approach” to energy policy, and would not be driven by ideology in his role.
“If we get the transition right, we cannot only put downward pressure on electricity bills for families and businesses right across the country but protect our environment and make our economy even stronger and more prosperous for everyone,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“I will be making decisions and providing advice of the government based on facts.”
While not directly commenting on the Coalition’s proposal to build seven Commonwealth-owned nuclear power plants by 2050, Mr Kean said advice he had received as NSW energy minister showed the cost and time frame of nuclear energy ruled it out as a viable option.
…………………………………… Asked if there were other Liberals that were sceptical with the Coalition’s proposed rollout of nuclear power, Mr Kean pointed to analysis conducted by the Australian Energy Market Operator and the CSIRO.
…………………….Announcing Mr Kean’s appointment, Mr Albanese also took a swipe at the Coalition’s plans and the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
“This is about delaying the investment that is required,” he said.
“Mr Dutton is on the fringe of Australian politics. He is nowhere near the centre, he is out there on the hard right of Australian politics, being driven by ideology, not common sense.”……………….
Lambie blast Dutton over nuclear switch
Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie has unleashed on Peter Dutton’s nuclear ambitions, blasting it as a poorly thought-out plan he pulled “out of his clacker”.
The firebrand politician took aim over a lack of detail over nuclear waste, with Senator Lambie also questioning whether Australia has the experts to execute the project, saying that Australian specialists were “miles behind”.
While Senator Lambie flagged she was open to considering a removal of a federal prohibition on nuclear power, she didn’t hold “much hope” Mr Dutton’s plan would eventuate, she told Today……………………………..
Issues around storing nuclear waste are another tension point.
Senator Lambie pointed to the Coalition’s fumbled plans to build a low-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia’s regional Kimba area that were abandoned by the Albanese government following a Federal Court ruling.
“They had nine years just to find somewhere to put low-level waste and they blew that out of their backside,” she said.
“You want to actually wait for them to do nuclear in the next 10, 15 years … good luck with that, honestly, and this is without even having the high-level waste.”……………………………..
Mr Dutton has previously claimed a 450 megawatt reactor would only produce waste “equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year” that would be stored on site and then moved to a “permanent home” once the reactor retires.
This, however, has been criticised by experts, who claim a large-scale reactor would produce tonnes of waste.
………………………………….. Government will ‘override’ states on nuclear: Joyce
Nationals MP and former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce says a future Coalition government would steamroll the states to secure Australia’s atomic future, in a move he said was “certainly in our national interest”.
Aussie voters are divided on Opposition Leader Peter Dutton‘s nuclear power plans, according to a new poll.
According to the latest Resolve Political Monitor survey, 41 per cent support the use of atomic energy, with 37 per cent opposed and 22 per cent undecided.
The latest findings raise the stakes for both Labor and the Coalition when federal parliament resumes on Monday.
The findings revealed that 30 per cent of voters do not have a strong view on nuclear power, which suggests that 62 per cent favour or are open to atomic energy.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said developing nuclear projects when wind and solar delivered cheaper energy was ‘economic madness’ following claims it would cost $600 billion to build the seven nuclear plants.
The Coalition is preparing to unveil policies for gas-fired power stations and household renewable programs
The research also found that 43 per cent of voters support using renewables as well as gas-fired power, while 33 per cent prefer the Coalition’s proposal for nuclear energy.
The remainder were undecided.
‘This tells us that while many voters do not reject nuclear out of hand, they can favour an energy pathway that does not include it,’ Resolve director Jim Reed told the Sydney Morning Herald.
Voters prefer renewables over all other forms of energy, with to 84 per cent in favour of rooftop solar.
There was comparatively little support for large-scale wind farms, with only 37 per cent holding a favourable view of those on land, and 34% of turbines off-coast.
Meanwhile, 37 per cent favoured nuclear power when the option was listed alongside renewables and fossil fuels, and only 33 per cent supported coal power.
53 per cent of voters backed gas-fired electricity.
The Resolve Political Monitor surveyed 1003 eligible voters from Thursday to Sunday.
The questions were put to respondents soon after the Coalition announced plans to fund seven nuclear power plants.
“Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, but never ever jam today!” So says the White Queen in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.” It’s entered the vernacular to describe a never-fulfilled promise. It turns out it’s also the federal Coalition’s energy policy.
Last Wednesday, on a single sheet of parchment, the Australian electorate was presented with a faint outline of the Coalition’s nuclear plans. There was precious little detail. A couple of reactors in this state, a couple in this one, and so on, all at sites hosting current or former coal fired power stations.
There were no costings. Just a lot of promises to stop renewables, and bulldoze any opposition from the states, the site owners and local communities, and to have the first nuclear operating by 2035, a timeline no one believes.
Over the weekend, there was nothing but confusion. Consider this exchange from Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien and the ABC’s David Speers.
O’Brien: “Peter Dutton has made it clear. He’s more than happy for this election to be a referendum on cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity.”
Speers: “And he said nuclear energy.”
O’Brien: “Nuclear is part of a balanced energy mix.”
Speers: “If you don’t win, that’s it?”
O’Brien: “Very happy to be public about that.”
Speers: “So if you don’t win, that’s it?”
O’Brien: “When it comes to, if we don’t win, firstly, we plan to win. And we are doing nuclear energy as part of that.”
Speers: “If you don’t win, you drop it?”
O’Brien: “It’s the right thing by this nation. There’s people like you who will run commentary on it.”
Speers: ‘I am asking if you accept the referendum.”
O’Brien: “I didn’t say it’s a referendum.”
Speers: “Peter Dutton said he’s very happy for this to be a referendum on energy and nuclear power.”
O’Brien: “You’re right. Because we want cheaper, cleaner and consisent”
Over the weekend the Smart Energy Council released a quick analysis that put the cost of the Coalition energy plan between $118 billion and $600 billion, pointing to the series of massive over-runs of every single large scale nuclear power station that has begun construction in western economies in the last three decades.
But just park those numbers for a moment. The killer observation was that the Coalition nuclear plan would account for less than four per cent of the country’s electricity needs by around 2045. Less than four per cent.
This was highlighted by energy transition expert Simon Mason on LinkedIn. He put the nuclear rollout in the context of Australia’s energy needs over the next few decades – assuming that coal closes as planned.
The Coalition wants to stop renewables, so transmission lines don’t need to be built. Do you spot the gap? The Coalition, apparently, wants to fill it with the most expensive fuel currently available, fossil gas.
O’Brien was asked about this on the ABC. How much nuclear will be part of the energy grid under the Coalition plan? He channelled the White Queen, again.
“Firstly, I’m a Liberal. I appreciate and respect that investors want to make money. But to be really clear, our focus is on the Australian people who want to save money. And so we have designed this policy with a crystal clear vision of Australians paying for cheaper, cleaner …”
No real answer there. He did go on to say that it was the Coalition’s hope that to build “multi” nuclear units at the seven sites it has chosen across five states.
That, if it’s true, will require a significant expansion of transmission infrastructure to support that. None of the sites chosen are fitted out to deal with any units of the size contemplated by the Coalition – up to 1.4 GW – let alone “multiple” units.
And the fact is that those sites are owned by private companies, which are already in the process of filling up available transmission capacity with billions of dollars of investments in their own battery, hydro and hydrogen projects.
So, if the Coalition were – as National leader David Littleproud repeatedly demands – to stop the rollout of wind, solar, storage and transmission, and to rip up contracts for wind and solar written by the Commonwealth – then Australia is simply not going to have enough power.
But are they really going to stop renewables? O’Brien didn’t seem to know. He refused to answer any questions about the planned “mix” of technologies.
If it doesn’t stop renewables in their tracks, then they are still going to need all the transmission lines – 5,000kms not the 28,000 kms that the Coalition claims – that the nuclear plan is supposedly designed to avoid. But of course, that claim is bunkum anyway.
The Coalition is forging ahead despite the fact that big energy users, such as the aluminium smelters, say they don’t want nuclear. The utility industry says it is not interested. Bankers and insurers won’t touch it with a barge pole, because of the risks.
Former chief scientist Allan Finkel, an admirer of nuclear technology, says it would not be possible to get nuclear in Australia before the mid 2040s, even if we wanted to. He says a focus on nuclear rather than renewables makes climate targets impossible to meet.
This was a point taken up, with typical vigour, by former prime minister Paul Keating over the weekend.
“Dutton, like Abbott, will do everything he can to de-legitimise renewables and stand in the way of their use as the remedy nature has given us to underwrite our life on earth,” Keating wrote.
“By his blatant opposition to renewables, Dutton calls into question and deprecates all the government has done to provide Australian business with a reliable and dependable framework for investment in renewables.”
But what do we hear? Ziggy Switkowski, who just a few years ago said large scale nuclear had had its day, is now singing its praises.
But another ardent support of the flick to nuclear is Dr Adi Patterson, the former boss at ANSTO, who describes the CSIRO GenCost report as a “form of fascism” and compares the Australian Energy Market Operator to “Animal Farm”. He says large scale nuclear is not a good idea, and says he has been saying as much for more than two years.
“People are not listening,” he told Sky News. “I think we should be building reactors at the scale of a large wind turbine.”
Patterson suggested that 5 MW so called “micro” reactors being promoted by the likes of Bill Gates, Westinghouse and Rolls Royce could be spread right across the grid. “They could literally be built in our backyard,” Patterson told Sky News. “These are being built now,” he added. Which is actually not true – they are an idea, not yet a thing.
Consider this, though. Just to match the capacity of retiring coal fired power stations, for a start, would require around 4,000 of these nuclear micro reactors to be scattered across the country – in our backyards, as Patterson suggests – a bit like Labor’s community batteries rollout , but with nuclear in place of lithium ion.
What could possibly go wrong?
“I’m sure I’ll take you with pleasure!” the White Queen said. “Two pence a week, and jam every other day.” Alice couldn’t help laughing, as she said, “I don’t want you to hire me – and I don’t care for jam.” “It’s very good jam,” said the Queen. “Well, I don’t want any to-day, at any rate.” “You couldn’t have it if you did want it,” the Queen said. “The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day.” “It must come sometimes to ‘jam to-day’,” Alice objected. “No, it can’t,” said the Queen. “It’s jam every other day: to-day isn’t any other day, you know.” “I don’t understand you,” said Alice. “It’s dreadfully confusing!”From: Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.
No matter where you are in the Latrobe Valley, you can see the smoke haze. The transmission lines that punctuate the region’s dairy farms and clusters of blue gums all lead to some of the country’s biggest coal-fired power plants, where the plumes of smoke soar from smokestacks and steam from cooling towers.
This valley provides most of Victoria’s electricity, but it’s been on the edge of a precipice. Over the next 11 years, Loy Yang A and Yallourn are expected to be decommissioned. Residents know the writing is on the wall for coal, but confusion over what comes next is creating a deep chasm.
The announcement spread quickly down the valley. Some welcome it, seeing it as a lifeline for their dying community. And then there are pockets of outrage.
But Farmer is helping lead a group of advocates for a healthier and more sustainable valley – and she’s outraged by the nuclear proposal when “we have the technology we need to move forward without it”.
“It’s a slap in the face,” she says. “It’s them going, ‘You’re desperate, so you’ll take it’.”
There are many questions about the Coalition policy, including the cost, what to do about the waste, how the plants could be built and when, how many jobs would it actually create – and how geographically safe would it be to have a nuclear plant near a faultline.
“Why would you even consider putting nuclear on earthquake faultlines?” Farmer says.
“It doesn’t feel like it’s community-driven – no one in the community has been asked about it. They’ve just been told this is what our plan is.”
On Wednesday, Farmer led a snap protest outside the Gippsland National MP Darren Chester’s office. Chester has cautiously welcomed the nuclear policy, saying in a statement it could create “enduring social and economic benefits to our community”, before adding that “more detailed investigations will be required in the years ahead”.
‘Always looking for more jobs’
Traralgon is the biggest town in the valley and is wedged between the power plants and the big hole left by Hazelwood – between a brown coal past and Australia’s commitment to get to net zero emissions by 2050.
Of the 125,000 people who live in the valley, 26,000 call Traralgon home.
In the newsagent it’s buzzing. People are queueing for their Lotto ticket or a copy of the paper. The workers behind the counter won’t say much about nuclear – one thinks it’ll just get her in trouble and the other says she’s supportive but will grab the boss.
The boss is Gary Garth. He’s upfront with his opinion and cares about his community and the number of jobs. He loves the nuclear idea.
“I think there are a lot of hurdles, obviously, they’ve got to get through to do it. But I think the vision is good. And it would be great for the area,” Garth says.
“We are always looking for more jobs for locals and that’s probably the most important thing a society can have: people in employment.”
Decades ago, this area was booming – high-paying jobs created a cashed-up community. But coal is no longer king. The most recent census had unemployment sitting at 6.6%, higher than the Victorian average of 5%.
“If the governments can come up with a way of turning energy into nuclear where it’s safe, safe for the environment, safe for everyone, it’s very clean, so if it can be done, that would be a real benefit to the area,” Garth says.
In parts of the community, renewables are also seen as a threat. Garth describes windfarms as “a disaster for the environment” – he’s worried about the birds and what we do with the materials when they come to the end of their lifespan.
But it’s not a concern he holds for nuclear waste.
“Australia is a big place. They need to be able to come up with something – they seem to do in other countries around the world,” he says.
He thinks the community will vote for it and says the Coalition will have a mandate to proceed with it if it wins power – and that the state government would be foolish not to listen to the electorate.
But on the streets of the valley, not everyone is convinced by the Coalition’s promise.
Ian, a former geologist, says the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, “hasn’t done his homework”.
But another resident, Jesse, thinks it will be a good creator of jobs.
“I think it’s a good thing, especially with all the coal shutting down,” Jesse says.
“I think the nuclear side of things will offer more ongoing jobs [than windfarms]. And we’ll have a stable power supply. Everyone needs the power to keep warm and cook and all that sort of stuff … We need to have a stable power supply.”
‘Softened up for nuclear’
Penelope Swales is sitting in a rare slither of winter sun on her organic farm at the bottom of the Strzelecki Ranges. It’s cut from a different cloth to Traralgon – there’s a rail trail, a brewery and a beloved community band. It lures former city slickers with its shaggy green hills and bush walks, and turns them into locals. Swales was a lawyer before she took up the plough.
“I feed 20 local families with this farm,” she says.
“That cloud between the two trees” – she points to the distance where the smoke is slowly filling the air, making a large cloud that drifts east towards Melbourne – “that’s Loy Yang. So pretty close.”
Swales is joined by her friends Marge Mackay and Lisa Mariah, who have also moved to the valley for its natural beauty and relaxed lifestyle. They don’t want nuclear.
“The demographic here is a little bit odd,” Swales says.
“While most people work in Morwell and Traralgon, progressive and pro-renewable voices don’t get a lot of a look in because most of us live up here in the Strzelecki corridor, which is bisected by the electoral boundary.
“So a bunch of us are on one side and a bunch of us are on the other side.”
“People came in from outside, held public meetings, ran a very slick campaign telling people, ‘this is going to be bad for your community, this is going to destroy your community, this is going to ruin your property values, infrasound will keep you awake at night’,” Swales says.
The fight spread misinformation and put the sleepy community at loggerheads, she says.
“The more progressive people tend to keep their heads down,” she says. “There’s been some very vicious stuff going on. We’ve had vandalism. One of their friends had ‘sell-out’ sprayed on the footpath outside at home. You know, she’s a pensioner.”
The long campaign against renewables has created “fertile ground”, Swales says. If someone says “jobs”, they get the votes.
But the group of friends is determined to fight – they say they’ve done it before. Mackay jumps in and says her community was dumped with coal, was not supported after the Hazelwood fire and is now getting shunted with nuclear. She wants a different future.
“The valley has been the dumping ground for Victoria for a very long time,” she says.
“There is a lack of forward vision for future generations – this is your children and your grandchildren.
We estimate that the fiscal damage would be in the order of a minimum $100 billion “nuke builder” tax, but likely considerably more given the international experience.
We now know that if the federal opposition wins the next election, it proposes to gouge Australians to bankroll a national build-out of government-owned nuclear reactors across seven locations – because private capital won’t touch nuclear.
Coalition Leader Peter Dutton’s fact-free, 900-word press release on the topic – the totality of the Coalition’s policy announcement – failed to produce costings for what would be a long-term, multibillion-dollar “nuke builder” tax. We estimate that the fiscal damage would be in the order of a minimum $100 billion, but likely considerably more given the international experience…………………………………………… (Subscribers only)
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has betrayed his complete ignorance about the nuclear technology he threatens to impose on the Australian population by a making a fundamental error: He thinks they burn fuel, or energy.
The comments were made in a heated Question Time in parliament house on the first day of the winter session which promises to be focused on energy and climate.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien was ejected from the house by speaker Milton Dick, and Dutton ran close, earning the ire of the speaker on several occasions when he interjected as Labor ministers spoke.
At one point Dutton – trying to tie Labor up in knots over waste from a nuclear submarine, said this, according to Hansard:
Mr Dutton: It’s on relevance. And, perhaps, to be of assistance to the minister, the propulsion system burns energy—that’s how the system is working—and it’s stored in the—
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat.
Actually, they don’t burn fuel. That’s the point of them. If they did, they would likely create emissions, as defence minister Richard Marles explained.
Mr MARLES: Actually, it doesn’t burn any fuel, because burning is oxidisation, which is what happens in an internal combustion engine, which is exactly what happens when you use hydrocarbons. What this is is a nuclear reaction which gives rise to power. That is what happens inside the sealed nuclear reactor. The point is that the waste that will need to be disposed of …
And if he doesn’t accept Labor’s word on it, the Opposition leader could also read up on the website of the Nuclear Energy Institute:
“Nuclear plants are different because they do not burn anything to create steam. Instead, they split uranium atoms in a process called fission. As a result, unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants do not release carbon or pollutants like nitrogen and sulfur oxides into the air.”
It reminds me of an encounter I had when I first started driving an EV. It was rubbished by a passer-by who suggested the car would be better off powered by nuclear. He seemed to think you could just shovel uranium into a boiler and off you go. Just top it up at the local refuelling station.
It could be that the aspiring prime minister thinks along the same lines. After all, we are constantly told we should mine Australia’s vast uranium reserves – heck, why not burn them like we do with coal.
It’s not the only major misunderstanding of nuclear by Dutton. He has suggested that what he defines as a small nuclear reactor, around 400 MW, would produce just a single can of coke as waste. It will need to be a very big can.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, of Griffith University’s school of environment and science, told the SMH it was safe to say an SMR would generate many tonnes of waste per year, and it was likely that waste would be more radioactive than the waste from a large-scale reactor.
“For a 400-megawatt SMR, you’d expect that to produce about six tonnes of waste a year. It could be more or less, depending on the actual technology but certainly multiple tonnes a year,” he said. “They run on highly enriched uranium and produce a much nastier and a much more intractable set of radioactive waste elements that have to be treated.”
The Coalition’s entire nuclear push is based on lies and misconceptions, from their claim that wind, solar and storage can’t power a modern economy, that their plan needs no additional transmission, that its cheaper than renewables, and that it’s consistent with climate targets.
As virtually all experts have pointed out, with the exception of an heroic rear guard action on Sky News, the policy makes no sense economically, environmentally, or from an engineering point of view.
Perhaps Dutton needs to watch a few more episodes of The Simpsons. Or perhaps not.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
Speaking on Sunday, the environment and water minister criticised the Coalition for its refusal to detail the estimated cost to add nuclear generation to the national electricity market in the biggest overhaul of energy policy in decades.
‘He’s saying to Australians: ‘I don’t trust you. I don’t trust you with the costing we’ve done,’ if he’s got costings,’ Ms Plibersek told Sky News.
According to analysis released by the Smart Energy Council using data from the latest GenCost report, Labor’s non-nuclear energy plan is estimated to cost $117bn through to 2050, while the Coalition’s pledge would cost upwards of $600bn.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has flagged an evolution in the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, revealing that each of the seven sites could host multiple reactors.
But in a major concession, Mr O’Brien said on Sunday the Coalition would not go to the election announcing the estimated generation capacity of its nuclear power plan, leaving this decision to an independent body until after the election.
‘One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,’ Mr O’Brien told the ABC’s Insiders program.
‘Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300.
‘You’re talking about multi-unit plants.’
An independent nuclear energy coordinating authority would make recommendations on the number and type of reactors per site, Mr O’Brien said, which would then determine the final generation capacity.
‘The independent body would look at each plant, and come up with a recommendation as to what sort of technology should be used,’ he said.
‘From there, it would be exactly what capacity based on that technology.
‘Only from there can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts’.
Last week Coalition unveiled plans to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050 with the first reactor slated to be operational in just over a decade in a move designed to deliver cheaper, zero-emissions and reliable power supply.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
The Coalition has proposed to locate the reactors in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia on the sites of former coal fired power stations, adding no more than 10GW to the power grid, meaning renewables will remain the vast majority of the energy mix.
Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said Mr Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver ‘at best’ 3.7 per cent of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s current strategy.
‘In reality, current cost overruns happening right now in the UK could mean a $600 billion bill to Australian taxpayers, whilst delivering a small proportion of the energy that is actually required,’ he said.
Nuclear had no place in a country with cheap, reliable energy powered by the sun and wind and backed up by renewable energy storage, Mr Grimes said.
‘The most optimistic assessment of Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal indicates it is a pale shadow of the reliable renewables plan outlined and costed by the Australian Energy Market Operator,’ he said.
The council has called on the opposition to release its analysis of the costings and generation capacity from the seven proposed nuclear reactor sites.
‘They need to explain how their forecasts contradict the experts at the CSIRO and AEMO,’ Mr Grimes said.
‘It is extraordinary that the details are being hidden from the Australian public.’
Separate analysis released by CSIRO put the cost of building a large-scale nuclear reactor at $8.6bn, bringing the total cost to approximately $60bn, however nuclear projects are often subject to hefty delays and soaring cost overruns.
Asked why Australia had eschewed nuclear power when many other advanced economies had adopted the technology, Ms Plibersek pointed to Australia’s comparative advantage in renewable power generation.
‘We’ve got the room, we’ve got the resources, we’ve got the critical minerals we need, battery manufacturing, we’re investing in green hydrogen,’ Ms Plibersek said.
‘We can be a renewable energy superpower and instead Peter Dutton wants to slam the brakes on, instead of leading the world with renewable energy investment.
‘He wants to fast track nuclear, and put us on the slow lane when it comes to renewables. It’s just mad.’
