Peter Dutton vows to bring small nuclear reactors online in Australia by mid 2030 if elected.
April 5, 2024, The Australian, Simon Benson
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/peter-dutton-vows-to-bring-small-nuclear-reactors-online-in-australia-by-mid2030-if-elected/news-story/eaf9eaf2084916fa118fbeebf2ed72c9
Cheaper power prices would be offered for residents and businesses in coal communities to switch from retiring coal-fired generators to nuclear power if the Coalition wins government.
Peter Dutton has pledged that if elected, the Coalition could deliver the first small modular reactors into the grid by the mid-2030s, with British manufacturer Rolls-Royce understood to be able to deliver them at an estimated $3.5bn to $5bn each.
Economic impact statements will also be conducted on at least seven communities identified by a shadow cabinet subcommittee established by the Opposition Leader to develop the Coalition’s energy security policy.
Mr Dutton confirmed to The Weekend Australian that under the Coalition’s net-zero energy plan, to be released before the May budget, cheaper electricity bills would be offered to those communities that took up nuclear when coal-fired power stations were retired.
The plan will involve the creation of new precincts for advanced manufacturing centred on cheap energy from small nuclear reactors.
Mr Dutton met privately last week with executives from nuclear power plant manufacturer Rolls-Royce and its Australian partner Penske over the pursuit of low-cost small modular reactor technology for Australia.
It is understood Rolls-Royce is confident that its small modular reactor technology could be ready for the Australian market by the early to mid-2030s with a price tag of $5bn for a 470 megawatt plant.
Each plant would take four years to build and have a life span of 60 years.
Rolls-Royce will also build the nuclear reactors for the second tranche of the future AUKUS nuclear-powered naval submarines under contracts signed in February with the Albanese government.
“There is every reason to be optimistic about bringing small modular net-zero emission nuclear into the power mix in the 2030s,” the Opposition Leader said in an interview with The Weekend Australian, adding: “I think the mid-2030s.
Grattan Institute Deputy Energy Director Alison Reeve says the nuclear energy debate is a “bit of a distraction” when there are “immediate problems” to worry about. Ms Reeve joined Sky News Australia to discuss the future of energy in the country. “The federal opposition has said they want to take the ban off nuclear power – they could do that,” she said. “The thing is that there’s a hell of a lot of things that would need to happen before you end up with being able to actually build a nuclear power station. “In the meantime, we’ve got an awful lot of other stuff that we need to concentrate on building.”
“If we win the election, it is clear to me that (South Australian Labor Premier) Peter Malinauskas would be the first to sign up, and we could deal with regulatory burdens quickly.
“There is no question about that. And there is every reason to believe other jurisdictions would follow suit.
“I think when you look at where technology has advanced and what Rolls-Royce is doing with the nuclear submarines the government has signed up to buy, the future is much closer than we think.
“The ability to produce zero-emissions baseload with 24/7 electricity to firm up renewables is within our grasp.
“My honest view is we have to embrace a new energy system and we have to have an orderly transition but the government doesn’t have a credible pathway to net zero by 2050.”
Mr Dutton said a community engagement process would soon be rolled out once the potential coal sites had been finalised. He confirmed that those communities supportive of future transitions from coal to nuclear would be offered cheaper power prices and higher-paid jobs…………………
The first phase of the Coalition’s net-zero energy plan was taken to shadow cabinet two weeks ago and will be released before the May budget.
The debate facing the Coalition now is over the cost and timely delivery of nuclear into the energy mix, as well as the future of some coal communities facing bleak socio-economic outcomes one coal-fired generators exit the system……………….
Anthony Albanese told The Weekend Australian his government had a clear focus on the future of coal communities and insisted that no one would be “left behind”, claiming Labor’s renewable energy plans would drive new manufacturing jobs in those regions.
“Eleven coal-fired power plants have already closed and the former Coalition government didn’t lift a finger to help workers in these communities,” the Prime Minister said
“Rather than playing politics with the transition, the government is putting in place practical measures to ensure workers are looked after. The Net Zero Economy Authority will support workers to access new employment and to help create jobs in new businesses and industries.
“The Energy Industry Jobs Plan introduced into parliament last week outlines a redeployment scheme to align workers with jobs in new industries.
“The authority will work with business unions and communities.
“We will not leave them behind.
“A practical example is the Liddell site in the Upper Hunter which is being transformed into an energy and manufacturing hub, employing more people than the old power station did.
“Recently, Rio Tinto signed Australia’s biggest renewable energy deal to power its Boyne aluminium smelter in Gladstone.”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/peter-dutton-vows-to-bring-small-nuclear-reactors-online-in-australia-by-mid2030-if-elected/news-story/eaf9eaf2084916fa118fbeebf2ed72c9
“No feasible pathway:” Liberal MP Matt Kean quits Coalition-based charity because of its obsession with nuclear
Giles Parkinson, Apr 4, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/no-feasible-pathway-kean-quits-coalition-based-charity-because-of-its-obsession-with-nuclear/
Former NSW Liberal government energy minister Matt Kean has quit his role as ambassador of an environmental charity dominated by state and federal Liberal and National Party MPs, saying it had become obsessed with promoting nuclear power and is seeking to delay the rollout of renewables.
Kean says he is quitting the Coalition for Conservation (c4C) because of concerns about the direction of the charity, which has undergone a major shift in focus in the past year, coinciding – according to the AFR – with the growing involvement of patrol Trevor St Baker, the former coal baron and now nuclear investor and proponent.
“When the network was formed, I was an enthusiastic supporter, because I believe that it is the Coalition that should be the best custodians for our environment,” Kean wrote in a letter to the organisation’s chair, former federal Coalition minister Larry Anthony.
“It has become clear in recent times that the Coalition for conservation has increasingly focussed on nuclear power in the electricity system.
“In particular I was concerned to read an article in the Canberra times advocating nuclear power stations as an alternative to building new large scale transmission lines.
“While I recognise that one cannot rule out nuclear playing a constructive role in the Australian electricity system in the distant future, the reality is that there is no feasible pathway to play any material role in helping Australia replace our coal fired power stations in line with the climate science.”
The C4C appears to have undergone a rapid rethink on emissions reductions, dumping its previous support for renewable as the cheapest path to net zero in favour of nuclear.
It is a major major shift which has coincided – according to the AFR’s Rear Window column – with the growing involvement of one of the C4C two patrons, the billionaire Trevor St Baker, the former coal baron and now nuclear investor and proponent.
Kean is the architect of the plan to replace Australia’s biggest fleet of coal generators with wind, solar and storage, and whose work now forms the basis of the Federal Labor government’s Capacity Investment Scheme that will lead its own ambitious renewable energy targets.
His decision to quit the group highlights the growing divide between moderates in the Coalition, and the hard right, which has become obsessed with nuclear and is supported by a growing number of so-called “think tanks”, Murdoch media, and charities such as C4C.
The group’s recent activity on X and its own website have been focused entirely on nuclear, and it has joined the chorus of conservatives, including Coalition leader Peter Dutton and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, in attacking institutions such as the CSIRO and AEMO for their GenCost reports and renewable energy roadmaps.
Kean wrote in his letter that large scale nuclear reactors have proven costly and slow to deliver, particularly in the UK with the massive delays and cost overruns at the Hinkley point C nuclear power project.
He also noted that small modular nuclear reactors promoted by the charity as a solution to Australia’s energy challenges are not currently commercial anywhere in the world, and early stage demonstration projects have been cancelled or delayed into the 2030’s.
“Even if (nuclear energy in Australia) were possible, it would be extremely expensive and far more expensive than the alternative as set out in AEMO’s integrated system plan,” he wrote.
“I not only regard advocacy for nuclear power as against the public interest on environmental, engineering and economic grounds, I also see it as an attempt to delay and defer responsible and decisive action or climate change in a way that seems to drive up power prices in NSW by delaying renewables.”
Matt Kean admonished by federal Opposition for criticising nuclear direction
NSW Shadow Health Minister Matt Kean has been admonished by Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor after he expressed concern over the Coalition’s direction away from renewables and towards nuclear power, reports NSW Political Reporter Julia Bradley.
The comments follow former NSW treasurer and energy minister Matt Kean’s public resignation from an organisation called Coalition for Conservation, which works with the Liberal Party on issues to do with climate change.
The Shadow Health Minister for NSW says he became “increasingly concerned with the direction of the Coalition for Conservation” after he claimed the institution became “increasingly focused” on nuclear power rather than renewable energy, Ms Bradley explained.
Mr Kean posted the resignation letter to his X social media page on Friday morning, claiming there is “no feasible pathway” for nuclear energy “to play any material role in helping Australia replace our coal-fired power stations in line with climate science.”
Shadow Treasurer and former energy minister Angus Taylor responded to the story with a statement expressing his disappointment a Coalition MP could not understand “Labor’s renewable only madness will fail”.
Dutton’s perks for nuclear plan
April 2, 2024, The Australian, Simon Benson; Political Editor
Peter Dutton is poised to release a major incentive package for coal communities to move from coal-fired power stations to nuclear energy, promising higher paying jobs and industry energy subsidies, following a US report that found the coal-to-nuclear transition pumped millions of dollars into regions that adopted them.
The Australian understands the Coalition will release the first major plank of its nuclear energy plan within weeks after identifying six or more potential sites, primarily in Queensland and NSW.
The Liberal leader will address a small business conference on Wednesday to promote the Coalition’s nuclear plan as the only proven technology that emits zero emissions while providing cheap, consistent and clean power as a source of baseload power to firm up renewables.
A report by the US Department of Energy released on Monday confirmed it would look to replace its fleet of coal-fired power plants with nuclear reactors, citing significant economic benefits to the local communities who agreed to the transition………………………………………..
Coalition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien confirmed that a Coalition package that would incentivise local coal communities would be announced before the May budget.
He said that “social licence” would be key to a future rollout of coal-to-nuclear with gas as a transition baseload energy provider.
Mr Dutton has flagged that the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan would provide incentive packages, including potential subsidised electricity prices for local industries as well as new infrastructure.
A key element of the packages would be transition arrangements for coal plant workers to upgrade to higher-paid jobs in nuclear plants………………..
Former Victoria Liberal Party President Michael Kroger says Peter Dutton has to show why “life will improve” under his government, in order to win the next election………………….
Mr Dutton will tell the Council of Small Business Australia conference that under its current approach, the government couldn’t credibly meet its 2050 net zero emissions target.
“That is why a Coalition government will ramp up domestic gas production to make energy more affordable and reliable and to help transition our economy to new energy systems,” he will say.
“And that is why we want Australia to move towards adopting the latest nuclear power technologies.
“Nuclear is the only proven technology which emits zero emissions, which can firm up renewables, and which provides cheap, consistent and clean power………………………………………….
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/peter-dutton-to-reveal-key-details-of-going-nuclear/news-story/87fc2f81063750adfd93a0c802d7c0e4
Coalition to release nuclear incentive package
Sky News 3 Apr 24
Peter Dutton has flagged higher paying jobs and energy subsidies for coal-fired power stations that move to nuclear energy.
Sky News Australia understands the Opposition Leader could release part of his party’s nuclear energy plan within weeks.
This comes after flagging more potential sites along the East Coast.
He is attending a small business conference in Sydney today to promote the Coalition’s nuclear plan……https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/coalition-to-release-nuclear-incentive-package/video/fad99f67779685ace4f51b1e1ffbf58d
Senior Western Australia Liberal calls for Australia to become nuclear weapons power
Brisbane Times, Hamish Hastie, March 11, 2024
A two-time WA Liberal candidate and party office bearer says Australia should have nuclear weapons.
Jim Seth made the argument at a Liberal Party state council meeting this month, saying nuclear weapons had made North Korea untouchable and suggested Australia should follow suit.
At the party’s March 2 meeting, details of which were leaked to WAtoday, Seth asked the question-and-answer panel:
“North Korea, a small country, has got nuclear fire, right? Nobody can do a mimicry [sic] on them, no neighbour can touch them, why we as first world country not nuclear react?”
Seth, who was a WA Liberals candidate for Bassendean in 2017 and for Morley in 2021 and is now the marketing committee chair and state executive member, furthered his point in a follow-up question about the Australian Navy’s capabilities to counter drone attacks…………………..
Seth claimed $90 million was being paid every day to Canberra public servants to create federal policies and suggested this money could be better spent on making Australia a nuclear power.
“We could have spent that money into making Australia a nuclear power, so nobody can come and do mimicry [sic] on us,” he said………………………….
WAtoday contacted Seth to clarify whether he was talking about nuclear energy or weapons, and he said “as a patriotic Australian” he believed Australia should have nuclear weapons.
He did not respond to follow-up requests for comment.
Australia has since 1970 been a signatory to the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which binds the country to an agreement not to acquire nuclear weapons.
According to the Department of Foreign Trade and Affairs Australia has been one of the treaty’s strongest supporters and was a key player in ensuring the treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995.
Seth’s comments alarmed Nuclear Free WA co-convener Mia Pepper who said nuclear weapons would make Australia a target, not safer.
“Nuclear weapons have no strategic utility and would not enhance Australia’s defence or security,” she said.
“In a time of growing conflict and uncertainty, Australia should be proliferating peace and diplomacy, not fuelling nuclear tensions and threat.”………………… https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/western-australia/senior-wa-liberal-calls-for-australia-to-become-nuclear-weapons-power-20240308-p5fazr.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed
Liberal Coalition twisting itself into knots over nuclear policy
Liberal MP warns Dutton on nuclear energy as Labor steps up attacks
By Paul Sakkal, March 28, 2024 , https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-mp-warns-dutton-on-nuclear-energy-as-labor-steps-up-attacks-20240326-p5ff92.html
Liberal MP Bridget Archer has issued her colleagues a caution on the political risk of the party’s nuclear energy plans, which the backbencher claims have been catapulted into political debate partly to keep climate change doubters on board with the Coalition’s net zero emissions policy.
While there is widespread support within Peter Dutton’s opposition for a conversation on nuclear energy, several Coalition MPs speaking confidentially to detail private concerns said they were worried the opposition was moving too quickly and creating an easy target for Labor attacks.
As the first Liberal to ask questions about the Coalition’s approach, Archer argued fiscally conservative opposition MPs, including herself, would be uneasy with the massive government investment required to build multibillion-dollar plants.
Nuclear energy, which Archer — a leading moderate voice within the party — says she is open to, should be pursued only if coupled with a rapid surge in renewables, she said, a contrast with Dutton and other Coalition MPs, who suggest extending the life of coal until nuclear availability in 10 or 20 years.
Dutton and the shadow cabinet MP leading the nuclear push, Ted O’Brien, are expected to detail their energy plans, including about six plant sites, by the budget in May, but Archer said the initial policy should be limited to lifting Australia’s nuclear moratorium.
“I’m very agnostic about it and I don’t think we should be afraid to just have conversations. But there are a lot of things that need to line up,” she said, noting technological and economic factors that might inhibit private investment even if the decades-old moratorium was overturned.
The opposition has spoken in favour of nuclear energy since losing government in 2022, and escalated its commitment this year as it declared support for large-scale nuclear on top of new-age small modular reactors.
Its backing of the new energy source has guaranteed that climate change and energy will be a key election issue. Voters will be presented with a choice between Labor’s renewables-heavy path to a zero emissions future and one complemented by nuclear energy, amid doubts over Labor’s emissions-reduction targets and expensive energy bills.
Signalling Labor’s future election attacks, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese compared Dutton to the contentious energy source in parliament on Wednesday, saying: “One is risky, expensive, divisive and toxic; the other is a nuclear reactor. The bad news for the Liberal Party is that you can put both on a corflute, and we certainly intend to do so.”
Dutton has been open about the potential need for government investment in nuclear plants, which Labor says have cost tens of billions overseas.
Archer, a member of an influential parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy last term, said she would be uncomfortable with a “big government” approach to energy investment, which she said might irk Liberals with a fiscally conservative bent.
O’Brien has emphasised nuclear as a zero-emissions option to smooth Australia’s bumpy transition to net zero. However, some of the strongest voices for nuclear energy are MPs such as Barnaby Joyce, who oppose renewables and have questioned scientific orthodoxy on climate change.
Earlier this month O’Brien said, “we should not be closing our coal-fired power stations prematurely” because under Labor’s plans 90 per cent of baseload energy would exit the grid by 2034.
Archer, who Dutton this week congratulated for winning the McKinnon Prize for political leadership, said nuclear energy should not be used as an excuse to prolong fossil fuel reliance.
“There is no point even having a nuclear discussion if you don’t accept a need to decarbonise, to transition away from coal and gas,” she said. “There only is a case for nuclear if there is a fairly rapid transition to large-scale renewables, otherwise why are you doing it?”
“I think part of the reason for having the discussion is to keep people in the tent on net zero.”
Allegra Spender, a teal MP who some Liberals believe should be recruited to the party in future, said nuclear “may have a role in the distant future”.
But it is too slow, too expensive and the UK Hinkley [nuclear power station] experience shows the costs are too uncertain for it to be relevant to our current energy plans,” she said.
“AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy have all dismissed nuclear.
“The community does not trust the Coalition’s commitment to climate action, and their current stance reinforces it.”
‘They don’t have a plan’: Chris Bowen slams Opposition push for nuclear
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has slammed the Opposition over its push for nuclear because they “don’t have a plan”.
“Rolling out renewables and storage over this decade is critical not just for reducing emissions … but because it’s the cheapest form of energy available,” Mr Bowen said during Question Time on Wednesday.
“It is important for jobs and job creation, and also it’s very important for reliability.
“The alternative approach that’s been proposed by those opposite is nuclear.
“Any sort of nuclear plan is irresponsible and incorrect.
“Maybe they got it right because they’ve got a thought bubble, but they certainly don’t have a plan.”
On nuclear, Coalition prefers the optimism of misleading, decade-old, unverified claims
The Coalition is a fan of quoting the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s optimism on nuclear timelines compared to the CSIRO. But do the numbers add up?
JOHN QUIGGIN, MAR 22, 2024, https://johnquigginblog.substack.com/p/on-nuclear-coalition-prefers-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=806934&post_id=142847313&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
To the extent that most Australians have heard of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), we know it as a supplier of radio-isotopes for use in medicine and as the operator of a small research reactor at Lucas Heights in the suburbs of Sydney.
So, it may have come as a surprise to hear shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien cite ANSTO as the source for an estimate that a small modular reactor (SMR) could be constructed in three to five years, and a large reactor in eight to 12 years.
Appearing on the ABC’s 7:30 report in mid-March, O’Brien stated “that is the advice from ANSTO. That is the advice of the Albanese government’s nuclear agency”. In view of the fact that widely publicised advice from an extensive study undertaken by CSIRO yields much less optimistic conclusions, that seems like a surprising claim.
But O’Brien is correct. ANSTO is indeed the government agency officially advising on nuclear technology, including nuclear power.
Section 5 of the ANSTO Act mandates the organisation provide advice on aspects of and the application and use of nuclear science and nuclear technology. ANSTO provides such advice to government, parliaments, ministers, departments and agencies, inquiries and investigations, members of the public, and international, multilateral and bilateral partners — in pursuit of the national interest.
In a submission to the Senate standing committee on environment and the communications inquiry into the environment and other legislation amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022, ANSTO stated that SMRs “have the potential to reduce build costs using a variety of strategies, including reducing plant build times from six to eight years for large reactors to two and a half to four years for SMRs via the use of series-production methods“.
These numbers are even more optimistic than those cited by Ted O’Brien. But terms like “potential” can do a lot of work in claims of this kind. Nuclear fusion, for example, has the potential to meet all the energy needs of the planet, but it won’t do so any time soon.
A natural response from an interested member of the public would be to visit the ANSTO website to get more detailed information on the assessment of nuclear technology. This leads us to a webpage titled “What are small modular reactors and what makes them different?”, which leads with the claim “the USA is expected to have its first SMR operating by 2026” and includes the timeframe of three to five years for construction.
A note hastily added in the last week states: “Please note that this content was current at the time of publishing (July 2020), and the projected construction time of SMRs (three to five years) is referenced from a University of Leeds research paper. In November 2023, NuScale [the subject of the 2026 claim] announced it was discontinuing its SMR project in Idaho.”
Even in 2020, this research was out of date. The NuScale project, originally projected to be delivering power in 2023, had already pushed its target past 2026 by then. But given that the project has been abandoned, there’s no need to look too closely at this.
The University of Leeds paper is more interesting. It turns out to be a literature survey covering the period 2004-19. The three- to five-year estimate for the construction time for SMRs is taken from a non-peer-reviewed 2016 report by consulting firm Ernst and Young (which worked with one of the authors on the University of Leeds study). The information used to compile the report is even older, going back to 2014 or earlier. To put it bluntly, this is worthless.
Rather than complying with its legal obligation to keep abreast of nuclear power technology and inform the public of its findings, ANSTO has relied on decade-old, unverified claims, made by a consulting company. This sloppy treatment of an issue that should be a central focus of ANSTO analysis contrasts sharply with the careful assessment undertaken by CSIRO.
I went to ANSTO for a response but didn’t hear back.
Ted O’Brien can scarcely be blamed for taking ANSTO’s word on these matters, particularly when its claims are so convenient to his case. But ANSTO needs to retract its misleading claims as soon as possible. That would give the LNP an opportunity, if it wants it, to drop its nuclear policy and put the blame on an Albanese government agency for misleading it.
One final irony. The ban on nuclear power, which is now the subject of so much controversy, was introduced by the Howard government to secure the passage of legislation that allowed ANSTO to build a new research reactor at Lucas Heights. In light of this history, maybe ANSTO’s remit should be revised to steer the organisation clear of nuclear power once and for all.
Peter Dutton in standoff with state Liberal leaders over federal Coalition’s nuclear plan
The federal opposition leader’s calls to include nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix has so far failed to win support from his state colleagues
Guardian, Tamsin Rose, Catie McLeod and Tory Shepherd, Sun 24 Mar 2024
The federal Coalition faces a battle with the states on its proposal for nuclear power stations at the sites of decommissioned coal power plants, with state premiers and opposition leaders alike largely against Peter Dutton’s proposal.
Labor governments and Coalition oppositions in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are either outright opposed to the plan or have failed to endorse it.
Most of those states have their own bans on nuclear that would need to be lifted in addition to the federal ban if Dutton’s plan were to progress.
Despite this, the federal opposition leader has repeatedly called for nuclear to be considered as part of the future energy mix for Australia.
Here’s how the debate is playing out around Australia.
Queensland
It is illegal to run any forms of nuclear facilities in Queensland, including power stations and radioactive waste dumps. Any change to this would need to be passed by parliament.
David Crisafulli, the Liberal National party leader, is the bluntest in his opposition to Dutton’s plan.
When asked if he supported the federal Liberal leader and fellow Queenslander’s energy campaign earlier in the week, the opposition leader said: “No, we don’t.”
“Until both sides of Canberra agree, that will never happen because there won’t be investment,” Crisafulli said.
The state’s deputy opposition leader, Jarrod Bleijie, said debate was “many years” away and the party was focused on the cost of living in the immediate future.
“People are hurting, they need to see their electricity bills reduced now and that has to be our priority,” he told Sky News.
New South Wales
Similarly, in NSW there is a ban on uranium mining and nuclear power for electricity generation.
The state’s shadow energy minister, James Griffin, said he supported a “rational discussion about nuclear energy” but stopped short of endorsing the federal Coalition’s proposal……………………………….
The premier, Chris Minns, has dismissed any nuclear energy strategy that uses modular reactors for NSW………………………………………
Victoria
A number of nuclear-related activities, including exploration for uranium and construction or operation of a nuclear reactor, are banned in Victoria.
Like its northern counterparts, the Victorian opposition has failed to endorse the federal Coalition’s nuclear plans.
The shadow energy minister, David Davis, said “the Victorian Liberals and Nationals support a commonsense transition to renewables that ensures affordability and security of supply”.
South Australia
There are no state-level bans on nuclear power in place in South Australia and the premier, Peter Malinauskas, has repeatedly said he is open to or neutral towards the idea of nuclear power, but that the economics do not stack up.
SA is something of a nuclear state thanks to uranium mining and the prospect of building nuclear submarines, but Malinauskas does not think nuclear should be part of the power mix, not least because he has pledged that SA’s power will be fully sourced from renewables by 2027.
The energy minister, Tom Koutsantonis, said: “While we have nothing in principle against nuclear power, this current debate is nothing but a distraction because it is not economically feasible or viable for Australia.”
The opposition leader, David Speirs, said “all options should be on the table in the pursuit of an affordable, reliable and clean energy future”.
“That includes looking at new generation nuclear energy as a possible addition to our energy mix,” he said.
Coalition yet to produce costed nuclear energy policy
Last week, Dutton claimed the annual report from science agency CSIRO that had included estimates of costs for small modular reactors – which are not yet available commercially – was “discredited” because it “doesn’t take into account some of the transmission costs, the costs around subsidies for the renewables”.
CSIRO rejected Dutton’s claim that its estimates were unreliable, with its chief executive, Douglas Hilton, warning that maintaining trust “requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science”.
The most recent GenCost report estimates a theoretical small modular reactor built in 2030 would cost $382 to $636 per MWh. It says this is much more expensive than solar and wind, which it puts at between $91 and $130 per MWh even once integration costs are included.
The federal Coalition is yet to produce a costed energy policy, despite arguing for a lift to Australia’s ban on nuclear energy and suggesting it will nominate six potential sites for nuclear reactors around Australia – likely to be close to current or retiring coal-fired power stations.
With additional reporting by Benita Kolovos, Paul Karp, Graham Readfearn and Andrew Messenger https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/24/peter-dutton-liberal-leaders-nuclear-power-ban
Here’s why there is no nuclear option for Australia to reach net zero
Dr Alan Finkel, Guardian, 22 Mar 24
Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years.
The battle lines have been drawn over Australia’s energy future.
With the nation signed up to net zero emissions by 2050, the Albanese Labor government is committed to renewables. The Coalition wants nuclear.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has a vision for meeting Australia’s energy needs that would include large-scale nuclear power plants and small modular reactors, a technology that is not yet proven, but which the shadow minister for energy, Ted O’Brien, says could be “up and running within a 10-year period.”
While nuclear power might experience a resurgence globally and eventually have a role in Australia, right now, no matter how much intent there might be to activate a nuclear power industry, it is difficult to envision before 2040.
The reality is there is no substitute for solar and wind power this decade and next, supported by batteries, transmission lines and peaking gas generation.
Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years……………………………………………………………………….
The cons
There are challenges for nuclear power in Australia, most notably timetable and cost.
Legislation. Commonwealth legislation passed by the Howard government in 1998 prohibits nuclear power. Australia is the only country in the G20 to have a legislated ban on nuclear power. This would need to be lifted before anything else could happen.
Public support. An August 2023 poll by the Resolve Political Monitor found 40% of people backed nuclear power, 33% were undecided and 27% were opposed. It is likely that no matter how small the opposition, it will be vocal.
Ramp rate. Large nuclear power generators cannot ramp up and down rapidly like batteries or peaking gas generators. This reduces their compatibility with a predominantly solar and wind powered electricity grid. It is expected, though, that small modular reactors (SMRs) will be better in this respect than large, conventional reactors.
Falling investment. The various operational, political and cost challenges faced by the nuclear industry have led to nuclear’s share of global electricity generation falling from more than 17% in 1996 to 9% in 2022.
Starting from scratch. It is unlikely that Australia would switch from being a laggard to a leader. That is, we would not proceed before we saw a licensed SMR (not a prototype) operating in the US, Canada, UK or another OECD country.
After that, we would need to beef up the regulatory system, find the first site, find and license the first operator, approve and issue construction contracts, establish a waste-management system, establish the decommissioning rules and decommissioning fund, run the environmental and safety regulatory gamut, train a workforce, respond to the inevitable protests and respond to the inevitable legal opposition all the way to the high court.
Only then could construction begin. It is difficult to imagine all this could be accomplished and provide an operational nuclear reactor in Australia before the mid 2040s.
The cost of wind versus nuclear
Coal-fired generators and nuclear power generators can dispatch electricity at full power more than 90% of the year. In practice, because demand fluctuates, the typical dispatch level from the Australian coal-fired fleet is about 60%.
For comparison, what would be the capital cost of a wind farm to dispatch 60% of the year? A simplified approach would be to ignore market economics and the variability of solar electricity in the system, and assume a 30% capacity factor for the wind energy. With these assumptions, for a windfarm to dispatch 60% of the year, we would need to install 2GW of wind turbines. The first 1GW of turbines would dispatch when the wind is blowing. The second 1GW of turbines would be used to charge a 7GW-hour (GWh) battery, to be discharged into the grid on demand.
Using figures from the CSIRO’s GenCost draft 2023-2024 report, the cost in this simplified model would be around $7bn per GW. Other, less costly, integration configurations are available. In comparison, based on the latest cost estimates for the Hinkley Point C plant under construction in the UK, the cost for nuclear power would be $27bn per GW.
The big opportunity in thinking small
In Australia, we would be looking to use SMRs because of the enormous cost and construction delays of large-scale nuclear plants. But we will want the reassurance of first seeing SMRs work safely and well in the UK, Europe, Canada, the US or another OECD country.
The trouble is, there are no SMRs operating in the UK, Europe, Canada, the US or any other OECD country. Nor are any SMRs under construction or approved in an OECD country.
There is no data to support any claims about how much SMRs will cost when deployed as operating power stations………………………………………https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/22/heres-why-there-is-no-nuclear-option-for-australia-to-reach-net-zero
Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien’s nuclear energy misstep
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8560035/shadow-minister-ted-obriens-nuclear-energy-misstep/ By John Hanscombe, March 20 2024
A couple of weeks ago, during a run of sunny, breezy weather, the price of electricity actually went into negative territory in NSW as wind and solar kicked in.
I discovered this on a fascinating website, OpenNEM, which tracks national energy market data, including where the power comes from – solar, wind, hydro, coal and gas – the emissions it produces, and its value at any given point. It’s become a bit addictive, regularly checking to see where most of the power has come from.
It was heartening seeing renewables – especially rooftop solar – generating so much power during the day when conditions were favourable.
Solar’s peak was especially high last Tuesday, the same day shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien appeared on the ABC’s 7.30 to spruik the Coalition’s push for nuclear energy. O’Brien made the mistake of trying to mansplain to Sarah Ferguson (is there a more patronising expression than “Let me unpack this”?) why his party thought nuclear was the way to go. It was painful to watch.
He fumbled through awkward questions about cost. Questions about the fact it takes the US, with its established nuclear energy industry, 19 years to build a reactor. Questions about the Coalition’s intentions to keep coal in the energy mix. Every attempt by Ted to “unpack it” ended up in a ditch.
This question from Ferguson on Bill Gates’s enthusiasm for nuclear, cited repeatedly by the Coalition, was when things really went bad for poor old Ted: “I asked Bill Gates, on this program, whether Australia should be involved in nuclear energy, and this was his answer: ‘Australia doesn’t need to get engaged on this. Australia should aggressively take advantage of Australia’s natural endowment to do solar and wind. That’s clear-cut and beneficial to Australia.'”
By the end of the interview, the shadow minister was a shadow of his former self.
“He ended up looking like he’d been through a woodchipper,” said a mate watching from Hobart.
News from the Australian Energy Market that electricity prices were not going to be hiked next year, and would even start to come down, will make the Coalition’s nuclear pitch even harder to sell.
Most energy experts agree the cost of setting up nuclear power in Australia will be borne by consumers, that it would likely be the mid-2040s when a reactor would finally come on line.
Peter Dutton keeps calling for a mature discussion on nuclear energy.
There’s nothing mature about dismissing the work of the CSIRO, our peak scientific body, just because its research shows renewables are cheaper than coal and nuclear.
There’s nothing mature about Ted O’Brien ignoring the advice of one of the world’s most successful business operators and nuclear energy champions, Bill Gates, who says Australia doesn’t need to go down that expensive path.
And skipping from hailing theoretical small modular reactors one week to large-scale reactors the next is all over the shop.
The whole push seems to be a Quixotic attempt at relevance, a guileless opposition tilting at windmills.
Dutton’s bid for nuclear power: hoax or reckless endangerment?
“In the last few months, we’ve seen a bill introduced into the Parliament by the Labor Government that legalises the acceptance of nuclear waste from the UK and US and provides the Government with the power to nominate any place in Australia as a nuclear waste site, with no requirement to consult with local communities or other interested groups.”
In the bigger picture, AUKUS depends upon a gamble that nuclear power will be the naval fuel of the future. And the even bigger gamble that submarines are not yet obsolete.
But beyond the tactics of Labor-baiting and the politics of diversion ……. lurks the original – and only – economic rationale of nuclear power – as an adjunct to a nuclear arms industry.
March 18, 2024, by: David Tyler https://theaimn.com/duttons-nuclear-dream-is-a-dead-cat-on-the-table-to-distract-us-from-his-dunkley-debacle/
It’s incredible. Such is our love-in with Peter “Junkyard” Dutton, our former Border Overlord, who used to play the bad cop dispensing rough justice–doing whatever it took to keep us safe-that today, he’s being cheered by most of the press gallery for reckless endangerment in his punt on nuclear energy.
Is it just to please his sponsor, Gina Rinehart and other richly attractive mining oligarchs who will make a few extra billion out of delaying the end of coal-fired power generation? Even if they do hasten the end of the world, they do get to star in their own perverted, planet-destroying mother of all snuff movies?
Or… brace yourself- does “Dutts” blunt truth and other fiction’s pin up boy-harbour
And what a boon for democracy. Voters choose between the pro-mining, colliery-opening, Labor Party and the pro-mining right-wing rump of a moribund Liberal Party, only in the race because of its secret agreement with the National Party, a mob of pro-mining, faux populists who pose as saviours of The Bush and its battlers, such as Riverview Old Boy, Barnaby Thomas Gerald Joyce’s Weatherboard Nine.
Or Bob Katter’s family which includes the incredibly successful arms manufacturer, son-in-law Rob Nioa.
ulterior motives?
Of course. A whiff of Emu Field, Montebello and Maralinga on the campaign trail helps with Coalition branding and product differentiation. “I’m with nuclear, stupid” would be a killer of an election slogan. Albo and Dutts could get together to whip up a referendum for the next federal democracy sausage BBQ. Besides, no-one in the nuclear power side hustle isn’t also itching to develop his or her own nuclear weapon cycle. Nuclear energy only makes sense if you are a nuclear arms manufacturer.
Nuclear is also a feint in the climate wars. Let’s talk tactics. Team Dutton can say that Labor is on the right track but has “no credible pathway” unless you have nuclear energy in the brew, firming up your mix. The Liberal Party plays the front end of the Coalition panto horse; the Nationals bring up the rear.
And just as he did after defeat in Aston, Dutton dashes into nuclear after his Dunkley debacle. Note he’s now a big reactor man, having got the email that small modular reactors are scarce as rocking-horse manure. It’s a revolutionary turn. A year or so ago, Dutts opposed, “the establishment of big nuclear facilities”. But being a conservative in Australian politics means, you don’t have to explain or apologise.
-ADVERTISEMENT-
Nor do you have to heed our scientists. “… the CSIRO has made clear, large reactors are too large for our small grids, and small reactors are still unproven commercially.”
Smear them. Say it’s a discredited study.
Sean Kelly sees Dutton’s pro-nuclear vision as a way of buying unity. Nobody on Dutton’s team thinks it’s a real policy, he claims, and it’s a long-term fantasy, so they won’t buck Dutton’s wilful stupidity. He’s sniping at CSIRO, too, which always wins friends amongst a growing anti-science brigade, a resource tapped into shamelessly by such figures as, “planter saint”, Barnaby Joyce; off his nut about the “green peril”. The former deputy PM also calls windmills, “filth” whilst renewable energy is a “swindle”.
The Coalition attack on CSIRO parallels its harassment of a now cowed ABC, on which it inflicted a barrage of criticism, funding cuts and Morrison’s captain’s pick of Ita Buttrose as chair. Cutbacks in the CSIRO have also taken their toll but their CEO, Professor Doug Hilton publicly rebukes Dutton.
“For science to be useful and for challenges to be overcome it requires the trust of the community. Maintaining trust requires scientists to act with integrity. Maintaining trust also requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science.”
Kelly might add that the Coalition is riven by at least ten factions, post-Morrison, and has rivals hatching plots of helping their leader by taking his job away from him. One of these, with some experience of edged weapons, is former SAS Patrol Commander, Captain Andrew Hastie who must have been cheered when in 2017 the AFP cleared of war crimes, an SAS soldier who cut the hands off two suspected Taliban fighters. Handy Andy was in command of some other soldiers at the scene. Hastie’s mentor is none other than party kingmaker, Big Mining Shill and fellow happy clapper, the Nationals’ John Anderson.
A spill now could avoid some bloodletting in the next federal election, a surgical strike, perhaps.
Rex Patrick sees Peter Dutton’s move as a “nasty” political wedge given that the federal Labor government has already signed us on to Morrison’s AUKUS which guarantees a small modular nuclear reactor inside a submarine moored near you if you happen to live close to HMAS Stirling Naval Base in Perth, the Osborne Naval Shipyards in Adelaide, SA or the yet to be opened mystery envelope containing only three options, Sydney Harbour, Wollongong/ Port Kembla or Newcastle.
Hint. The Royal Australian Navy berths in Sydney Harbour.
Moreover, the disposing of nuclear waste is also well in hand, notes Patrick.
“In the last few months, we’ve seen a bill introduced into the Parliament by the Labor Government that legalises the acceptance of nuclear waste from the UK and US and provides the Government with the power to nominate any place in Australia as a nuclear waste site, with no requirement to consult with local communities or other interested groups.”
In the bigger picture, AUKUS depends upon a gamble that nuclear power will be the naval fuel of the future. And the even bigger gamble that submarines are not yet obsolete.
Yet even today it’s uneconomic and fraught with a perplex of disposal and safety issues. Dutts the Kiwi Bikie Gangster Deporter, Dual Citizenship-Stripper, Dole-bludger-buster, or the African Gang vigilante; dog-whistling racism, fear and division, demonising the other, is as complex as the next bloke. But he is not a big ideas man. Fizza Turnbull has never heard Peter propose a single constructive idea.
Dutton’s mentor, John Howard was rarely troubled by big ideas either. But now, Dutton is calling for “a mature debate™” on a nuclear energy, we don’t need, can’t afford, could never rely on and can’t fuel. We’d be importing expensive fuel rods we can’t make at home for reactors which would never be built in time (without a slave labour workforce like the UAE) to replace our rapidly clapped-out coal-fired plant
Continue readingNuclear energy debate ‘many years’ away: Qld Deputy Opposition leader
Queensland Deputy Opposition leader Jarrod Bleijie claims the nuclear energy debate is “many years” away as he focuses on lowering power prices in the immediate future.
Mr Bleijie said he is focusing on making sure energy is affordable and reliable as the Opposition pushes to bring its coal power stations back online.
“There is a lot of water to go under that bridge before that is the case and I suspect we will be at an election before our federal counterparts,” Mr Bleijie told Sky News Australia.
“I stood at the booths in Ipswich West and Inala and every second person was talking about the cost of living crisis in Queensland now.
“People are hurting, they need to see their electricity bills reduced now and that has to be our priority.”
Peter Dutton refuses to say where his nuclear reactors will go
Peter Dutton, Bill Shorten clash on nuclear on Today show
After Australia’s peak science body called out the Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton has failed to answer one question on nuclear.
Ellen Ransley news.com.au 17 Mar 24
Peter Dutton has failed to answer a key question in a fiery clash with Bill Shorten over nuclear energy.
The Opposition Leader has this week been spruiking his plans for moving nuclear, but when asked by the NDIS Minister where the reactors would go, Mr Dutton didn’t answer.
“Are you willing to host one of your nuclear power plants in your electorate or anywhere in Queensland? Where are you going to put your reactors?” Mr Shorten posited to Mr Dutton on Nine’s Today Show on Friday morning.
Bill Shorten and Peter Dutton clashed on nuclear during a TV segment on Friday morning.
Mr Dutton did not answer the question, instead pointing Mr Shorten towards a “huge argument in the United Kingdom at the moment, where adults are able to have a conversation”.
“The Labour Party there is arguing for the Tories to have more baseload nuclear power because they know it’s zero emissions,” Mr Dutton replied.
“This government, your government, has no chance whatsoever of meeting the net zero by 2050 target. That’s the reality of it. What we’ve said is that where you’ve got a retiring asset … you can replace that coal with a zero emissions technology, the latest technology, the same technology you’ve signed up to for then nuclear submarines.”
During the segment, Mr Dutton was questioned on his stance on Australia’s national science agency CSIRO over comments he made earlier this week.
On Tuesday, Mr Dutton said it had been “well documented” that CSIRO “can’t be relied up” during a press conference where he discussed nuclear energy and a report by the agency that found nuclear energy was more expensive.
Mr Dutton said the report was “discredited”.
It prompted the agency to make a rare statement, with a letter from chief executive Doug Hilton published online on Friday morning, saying that for science to be useful, it requires the “trust” of the community.
“Maintaining trust also requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science,” he said.
“The GenCost report is updated each year … (It) is carefully produced … and updated regularly as new data comes to hand.
“The GenCost report can be trusted by all our elected representatives, irrespective of whether they are advocating for electricity generation by renewables, coal, gas, or nuclear energy.”………… https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-bill-shorten-clash-on-nuclear-on-today-show/news-story/2a872c38238b358c5b3043158498775a
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 