Busting the government spin about “radioactive waste management” at Garden Island, Western Australia.
The claim that planning has begun for a “low-level radioactive waste management”
facility at HMAS Stirling as part of the AUKUS arrangements must surely be the worst of
political spin as Garden Island by its geological and topographical settings is both
completely unsuitable and highly dangerous for that purpose.
What is more it will be be difficult to separate the nuclear waste generated through the
use of Stirling into the levels of low and intermediate classifications – and there will be
some of intermediate level generated – for storage or other means of management of
the resulting nuclear waste.
Besides its relatively small size Garden Island is comprised of porous limestone
covered by a thin layer of sand making it unsafe even by extensive engineering from
harmful contamination through leakages of nuclear waste which occur regularly at
above the ground nuclear waste installations
Why does the federal government in its various guises fail to avail itself of the Azark
Project underground nuclear waste facility at Leonora in Western Australia which is
regarded internationally as the best and safest possible for the permanent disposal of
nuclear waste
The Garden Island proposal reeks of the same incompetence as with the choice of
Kimba in South Australia for the national waste facility where the government was
spared by the recent judicial decision against that choice the embarrassment of having
it rejected under international prescriptions for its unsuitable and unsafe nature.
It should be clearly understood that none of the operations of AUKUS can be
implemented until Australia has a proper means for the safe disposal of the resulting
nuclear waste.
Price Waterhouse Cooper’s (PWC’s) $8m nuclear submarine payday revealed
18 DECEMBER 2023, By: Liam Garman, https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval/13341-pwc-s-8-million-nuclear-submarine-payday-revealed
Talking points prepared for Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, director general of the Australian Submarine Agency, on the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce’s engagement with the embattled professional services firm have come to light following a freedom of information request from former independent senator Rex Patrick.
Information seen by Defence Connect have detailed two separate contracts between the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce and the consulting firm via the Defence Support Services Panel.
In total, Defence spent $8,055,928.56 with PwC between 2021 and 2023, with one contract phase costing Defence $560,142.57 for just 12 weeks of consulting work.
The revelation comes as PwC grapples with the fallout of the widely reported tax scandal in early 2023, which saw senior partners at the firm share confidential Commonwealth information with clients to avoid paying tax.
Leaked internal emails from PwC showed that confidential tax information was shared with over 50 of the company’s partners, some of whom then used the information to approach 14 global companies.
The talking points sourced by former South Australian independent senator Rex Patrick were developed for the head of the ASA, Vice Admiral Mead, for budget estimates, who justified the engagements, outlining that “value for money was a core consideration in the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce’s engagement of PwC”.
The ASA has not engaged with PwC since its creation on 1 July 2023.
Speaking to Defence Connect, an ASA spokesperson explained the taskforce’s engagement with PwC: “The Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce entered into two contracts with PwC, during the 18-month consultation period.
At no time was PwC briefed into any security compartment, nor were they part of any development of the Optimal Pathway during the 18-month consultation period.”
The contracts were awarded to support the development of a domestic nuclear-powered submarine industry and included $5,275,135.90 for the development of Program Management Office (PMO) artefacts, scheduling support, program development and management, and “governance mechanisms”.
The second contract, valued at a total $2,780,792.66, was for the delivery of an enterprise-wide solution on the reporting of workforce demographics, and supported the development and implementation of a workforce support concept development plan.
At its time of writing, the talking points detailed that the Australian Submarine Agency had five ongoing consulting contracts valued at $2.756 million with KPMG and Deloitte.
More to follow.
Flirting With Nuclear Energy Down Under
December 15, 2023, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/flirting-with-nuclear-energy-down-under/
It was a policy that was bound to send a shiver through the policymaking community. The issue of nuclear energy in Australia has always been a contentious one. Currently, the country hosts a modest nuclear industry, centred on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), nuclear medicine and laboratory products. But even this has created headaches in terms of long-term storage of waste, plagued by successful legal challenges from communities and First Nation groups. The advent of AUKUS, with its inane yet provocative promise of nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy, adds yet another, complicating dimension to this fact. Without a clear idea of a site, a vital part of the nuclear dilemma remains unresolved.
Broadly speaking, the nuclear issue, in manifold manifestations, has never entirely disappeared from the periphery of Australian policy. The fact that Australia became a primary testing ground for Britain’s nuclear weapons program was hardly something that would have left Canberra uninterested in acquiring some nuclear option. Options were considered, be they in the realm of a future weapons capability, or energy generation.
In a June 29, 1961 letter from Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies to his counterpart in the UK, Harold Macmillan, concerns over the impediments imposed by a potential treaty that would impose limitations on countries the subject of nuclear testing were candidly expressed. Were that treaty to go ahead, it “could prove a serious limitation on the range of decisions open to a future Australian Government in that it could effectively preclude or at least impose a very substantial handicap on Australia’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”
Menzies put forth a suggestion that was ultimately never pursued – at least officially. An arrangement deemed “more practical,” suggested the Australian PM, might involve “the supply of ready-made weapons” at the conclusion of such a treaty.
A sore point here were efforts by the Soviets to insist that countries such as Australia be banned from pursuing their own nuclear program. Menzies therefore wished Macmillan “to accord full recognition of the potentially serious security situation in which Australia could find herself placed as a result of having accommodated United Kingdom testing.”
Australia eventually abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions with the ratification of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in February 1970, preferring, instead, the nuclear umbrella of extended deterrence offered by the United States. (The nature of that deterrence has always seemed spectacularly hollow.) Domestically, nuclear technology would be sparingly embraced. Nuclear power stations, however, were banned in every state and territory, a policy left unchallenged by a number of parliamentary inquiries.
The quest of meeting emissions reduction targets during the transition to the goal of net zero was bound to refocus interest on the nuclear power issue. The Liberal-National opposition is keen to put the issue of nuclear power back on the books. It is a dream that may never see the light of day, given, according to the chief government scientific body, the CSIRO, its uncompetitive nature and the absence of “the relevant frameworks in place for its consideration and operation within the timeframe required.”
Australian politicians have often faced, even when flirting with the proposition of adopting nuclear power, firm rebuke. South Australian Premier Malinauskas gave us one example in initially expressing the view late last year that “the ideological opposition that exists in some quarters to nuclear power is ill-founded.” It did not take him long to tell the ABC’s 7.30 program that he did not wish “to suggest that nuclear should be part of the mix in our nation.” Australia had to “acknowledge that nuclear power would make energy more expensive in our nation & [we should] put it to one side, rather than having a culture war about nuclear power.”
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been by far the boldest, pitching for a gentler exit from the fossil-fuel powered nirvana Australia has occupied for decades. Australia, he is adamant, should join “the international nuclear energy renaissance.” Of particular interest to him is the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which might be purposefully built on coal generator cites as part of the general energy package alongside renewables. SMRs, as Joanne Liou of the International Atomic Energy Agency explains, “are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 Mw(e) per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors.”
The heralded advantages of such devices, at least as advertised by its misguided proponents, lie in their size – being small and modular, ease of manufacture, shipping and installation. They also offer, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, “savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.”
For all these benefits, the cold reality of SMR designs is how far they have yet to go before becoming viable. Four SMRs are currently in operation, though these, according to Friends of the Earth Australia’s lead national nuclear campaigner, Jim Green, hardly meet the “modular definition” in terms of serial factory production of components relevant to such devices.
Russia and China, despite hosting such microreactors, have faced considerable problems with cost blowouts and delays, the very things that SMRs are meant to avoid. Oregon-based NuScale has tried to convince and gull potential patrons that its small reactor projects will take off, though the audience for its chief executive John Hopkins is primarily limited to the Coalition and NewsCorp stable. The company’s own cost estimates for energy generation, despite heavy government subsidies, have not made SMR adoption in the United States, let alone Australia, viable.
In his second budget reply speech in May, Dutton showed little sign of being briefed on these problems, stating that “any sensible government [in the 21st century] must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix.” Labor’s policies on climate change had resulted in placing Australia “on the wrong energy path.”
Such views have not impressed the Albanese Government. Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists that counterfeit claims are being peddled on the issue of the role played by nuclear energy in Canada along with false distinctions between the costs of nuclear power and renewable energy.
“If they are serious about proposing a nuclear solution for Australia, the simplistic bumper stickers and populist echo chamber has to come to an end. Show the Australian people your verified nuclear costings and your detailed plans about where the nuclear power plants will go.”
Such verification will be a tall order indeed. As the CSIRO concedes, “Without more real-world data for SMRs demonstrating that nuclear can be economically viable, the debate will likely continue to be dominated by opinion and conflicting social values rather than a discussion on the underlying assumptions.”
Nuclear energy is not viable for Australia, for a number of reasons
By John Grimes, Saul Griffith, Tim Buckley, Blair Palese, Janaline Oh, John Hewson, Mara Bun, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8456455/debating-viability-of-nuclear-power-in-australia/ December 13 2023
The prospect of nuclear power generation in Australia is now a live debate. There are a number of barriers that make nuclear unviable as a solution for Australia’s energy transition in a timeframe necessary to respond to the climate, energy and cost-of-living crisis. We outline these below.
We need energy, decarbonisation and cost of living solutions this decade. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends a 50 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. As former Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel has noted, It is hard to imagine first operation of small modular reactor (SMR) technology before 2040.
SMR technology, advocated by proponents of nuclear energy in Australia, is not commercial. There are no SMRs in operation outside of Russia and China, and none under construction in Europe or North America, meaning there is no evidence of their safe and consistent operation, or viability. In November, the only SMR development in the US was terminated.
Nuclear power is prohibited in Australia under federal legislation, with similar legislation in the states and territories.
To overturn these bans and establish the new regulatory and compliance regime would take years and would only be the start of the process of developing a nuclear industry. Sites for reactors would need to be identified, and social licence secured. Rigorous approvals processes would need to run their course. A skilled specialist local workforce would need to be trained and deployed. Robust arrangements would need to be made to manage waste and to mitigate risk. Legal challenges and civic protest would arise.
All of the above means nuclear would not be ready to deploy in a climate-necessary timeframe in Australia.
Therefore, we must continue to deploy the commercially viable and proven zero-emissions technologies of firmed solar and wind power as rapidly as possible.
Further, the cost of nuclear power generation is much higher than its low-cost alternatives.
The 2022 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) notes that between 2009 and 2021, unsubsidised costs for solar PV declined from US$359 to US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh), a fall of 90 per cent, and for wind from US$135 to US$38 per MWh, a 72 per cent fall, while nuclear power costs rose from US$123 to US$167 per MWh, up 36 per cent. This gap is widening.
The CSIRO/Australian Energy Market Operator May 2023 GenCost report found that: “A review of the available evidence makes it clear that nuclear power does not currently provide an economically competitive solution in Australia – or that we have the relevant frameworks in place for its consideration and operation within the timeframe required.”
The Investor Group on Climate Change, which represents investors with $30 trillion in assets under management, says there is no interest among investors in nuclear, when nuclear has “project time blowouts of anything from seven to 15-plus years and cost blowouts in the tens of billions, and lowest-cost technologies, renewables, batteries and so on, are available to deploy now”.
The 2023 WNISR notes that in 2022, “total investment in renewable electricity capacity reached a new record all-time high of US$495 billion (up 35 per cent), 14 times the reported global investment decisions for the construction of nuclear power plants”.
The climate and energy price crises require Australia to accelerate the decarbonisation of its electricity system and economy toward zero-emissions this decade.
Australia enjoys the global advantage of superabundant solar and wind resources.
Unlike some economies where nuclear energy is established, Australia also has available landmass for renewables infrastructure and the opportunity to share the benefits with communities.
We urge the federal government to maintain its policy and investment focus on the proven technology of low-cost, deflationary firmed renewables and “electrification of everything”, and to accelerate deployments, as it has done with its recent landmark boost to the Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS) bolstered by its pledge at COP28 to triple renewables by 2030.
When announced last year, the federal government said the first iteration of its CIS would drive around $10 billion of investment in clean dispatchable power.
Climate Energy Finance estimates the recently announced turbocharging of the CIS will see a four-fold lift in firmed clean energy investment across Australia.
The fastest-to-deploy and most popular renewable energy option for Australia is rooftop solar, the world’s cheapest energy source, because it eliminates transmission and distribution costs.
Mass solar electrification of households should be central to our clean energy transition plans.
Electrification of communities and commercial operations in Renewable Energy Zones will improve equity and build social licence for large-scale energy infrastructure, as it enables decarbonisation of industry.
These complementary actions will permanently reduce greenhouse emissions and energy prices, enable Australia to deliver on its climate commitments, and catalyse our generational opportunity to position Australia as a zero-emissions trade and investment leader.
Australia has no time to lose. The rise of renewables offers us a chance to reinvent Australia’s economy.
We can ill afford the opportunity cost of delay to our renewables transformation.
John Grimes is CEO of the Smart Energy Council. Dr Saul Griffith is co-founder and chief scientist of Rewiring Australia. Tim Buckley is a director of Climate Energy Finance. Blair Palese is founder of the Climate Capital Forum. Janaline Oh is executive director of Diplomats for Climate and a former senior diplomat. Dr John Hewson AM is a professor at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy. Mara Bun is a company director and former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Coalition delivers the same old tired nuclear talking points at COP28
With a heavy sigh, Crikey once again delves into the most pointless ritual in Australian public policy — the nuclear energy ‘debate’.
CHARLIE LEWIS, DEC 11, 2023, https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/12/11/coalition-nuclear-energy-australia/
“Today I am happy to announce that a reelected Coalition government will, at its first COP after being returned to office, sign the nuclear pledge and return Australia to where it belongs, standing alongside its friends and allies,” opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien told world climate summit/increasingly dark joke at humanity’s expense COP28 on Saturday.
He pledged that a reelected Coalition government would triple nuclear energy output and overturn Australia’s nuclear energy moratorium, insisting “no nuclear, no net zero”.
And so, with a heavy sigh, Crikey once again delves into what our politics editor Bernard Keane has described as “the single most boring and ossified ritual in Australian public policy”.
A ‘sensible’ debate
It always starts with a demand for a “sensible” debate around the topic. Going back to John Howard’s years as prime minister (he called for this not once but twice) and to pick a handful of examples since: Then-foreign minister Julie Bishop in 2014, the then-assistant science minister Karen Andrews in 2015 and then-candidate Warren Mundine in 2019. Just last week, troublemaking former Labor minister Joel Fitzgibbon called on the Albanese government to end the ban on nuclear energy. This is not to mention a swathe of conservative media figures adding their voices to the choir over the years.
With dreary inevitability, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton reached for the old hymn book in his budget reply this year, arguing (all together now): “Any sensible government must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix.”
Time is money and also money is money
As we’ve long reported — long, long reported — there are several barriers to nuclear power in Australia, primarily that the whole thing is incredibly expensive because Australia doesn’t have any nuclear infrastructure. As clean energy investor and man with a zeal for the teal Simon Holmes à Court, who was at O’Brien’s address, puts it, “it is a pretty easy pledge to sign because three times zero is zero”.
Nuclear power plants take a very long time to build — as Australia’s former chief scientist Alan Finkel told the Nine papers in August, it’s highly unlikely Australia could open a nuclear power plant before the early 2040s, a delay the country can ill afford if it is to dramatically reduce emissions as quickly as it needs to.
On top of this is the eye-watering price. According to research from the Department of Climate Change and Energy released in September this year, the cost of replacing coalmine sites with small nuclear reactors would be $387 billion.
Even former chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Dr Ziggy Switkowski, who undertook a review on the viability of nuclear power for the Howard government in 2007 and is a very big fan of nuclear energy, conceded in 2018 “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed”:
With requirements for baseload capacity reducing, adding nuclear capacity one gigawatt at a time is hard to justify, especially as costs are now very high (in the range of $5 billion to $10 billion), development timelines are 15+ years, and solar with battery storage are winning the race.
The tax that is not to be named
There is and always has been only one way, in the eyes of Australia’s most credible nuclear spruikers, for nuclear energy to compete with existing energy sources: impose a carbon price.
Switkowski’s 2007 review probably didn’t greatly please Howard, given it found that nuclear became viable compared with coal and gas only if there was a carbon price. Economist and Crikey contributor John Quiggin has also previously argued in favour of nuclear energy in Australia only if it is backed by a carbon price.
Labor’s new AUKUS bill declares Osborne in SA, Stirling in WA as nuclear zones.
AUKUS’ claims of “nuclear stewardship” with US nuclear submarines and retaining the US origin high-level nuclear wastes are a farce.
The US has been unable to dispose of its own high-level wastes.
David Noonan, Kaurna Yerta/Adelaide, December 12, 2023, Issue 1396 https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/labors-new-aukus-bill-declares-osborne-sa-stirling-wa-nuclear-zones
Labor introduced a bill on November 16, which cites Osborne as the first designated zone for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines.
The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 allows for naval nuclear reactors at Port Adelaide under a new “Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator”. That entity is to report directly to Minister for Defence Richard Marles.
Nuclear submarines have never used this port.
Alarmingly, Section 132 of the bill over-rides the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the military regulator is given powers over the civilian Nuclear Safety Agency ARPANSA.
The Medical Association for Prevention of War has sounded the alarm. “Naval nuclear reactors — like all nuclear reactors — pose potentially serious risks for people and the environment. But unlike other reactors, most information about naval reactors is kept classified, and it can be difficult to say how safe they are.
Marles told parliament he will hold the power to direct the military nuclear regulator during a “national security” emergency.
Stirling Naval Base, near Fremantle in Western Australia, is the second nuclear zone to be declared in this bill.
The South Australian and Port Adelaide communities have the right to have a say on nuclear safety and the risks in bringing naval nuclear reactors into the port.
Key public interest questions are yet to be answered.
They include: Will communities be consulted on accident response plans? What is the existing radiation emergency capability in current and proposed nuclear sub port sites? Will local health and medical services be consulted? How will communities be properly informed about the risks of naval nuclear reactors? How will safety issues be monitored and communicated? How will the public interest in safety issues be protected? When will accident scenarios for nuclear subs at base be modelled and made public? How can the public verify the quality of emergency management plans and systems? How can authorities demonstrate their capacity to respond to radiation emergencies, and other accident scenarios?
The bill has now gone to a Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee inquiry, which is open for public submissions and is due to report next April.
The bill proposes to override state laws.
Section 135, “Operation of State and Territory laws”, states: “If a law of a State or Territory, or one or more provisions of such a law, is prescribed by the regulations, that law or provision does not apply in relation to a regulated activity.”
The bill provides for regulated activities in “nuclear waste management, storage and disposal” at AUKUS facilities in future nuclear zones, to be authorised under Section 135.
According to media reports in August, the Woomera rocket range is understood to be the “favoured location” for the storage and disposal of submarine nuclear waste.
If the federal government wants to locate an AUKUS nuclear waste dump in South Australia, it will have to over-ride existing law to impose this.
This AUKUS bill is a threat to the people of SA. AUKUS locks Australia into buying existing US military nuclear reactors in second-hand 10-12 year old submarines, loaded with intractable US-origin weapons grade high-level nuclear wastes.
US Vice Admiral Bill Houston has said in-service Virginia class submarines would be sold in 2032 and 2035 and a newly-produced submarine in 2038.
AUKUS’ claims of “nuclear stewardship” with US nuclear submarines and retaining the US origin high-level nuclear wastes are a farce. The US has been unable to dispose of its own high-level wastes.
Marles said in March there would be an AUKUS announcement by early 2024 on a process to manage high-level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility.
The storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the safety and welfare of the people of SA. That is why it is prohibited by the state’s Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
This law covers public interest issues, including health, safety and welfare as well as “to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State”.
The import, transport, storage and disposal of high-level nuclear reactor waste is prohibited in SA.
This AUKUS bill must be challenged. The SA Premier is yet to say if he will support an Indigenous right to say “No” to an AUKUS dump. South Australians have a right to decide their own future and to say “No”.
[Dave Noonan is a long-term anti-nuclear campaigner. For more information see the Medical Association for Prevention of War’s Safety Brief. Contact the Committee Secretariat on 02 6277 3535 or email fadt.sen@aph.gov.au. Upload your submission here.]
Liberal Coalition’s strategy – support fossil fuels by delaying renewables and pushing for nuclear energy
they’ve come up with the perfect strategy to ensure no climate action is taken – advocate the bypassing of renewables in favour of small nuclear modular reactors.
It’s the old strategy of “why put off until tomorrow what you can put off forever”?
Or, as Malcolm Turnbull put it at the COP28 meeting: “Nuclear’s only utility is as … a means of supporting fossil fuels by delaying and distracting the rollout of renewables”.
Energy transition needs gas not nuclear, https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/energy-transition-needs-gas-not-nuclear-20231203-p5eola 11 Dec 23, Craig Emerson, Former Labor minister and economist
A rational decarbonising energy policy offers a middle path between the absolutists and the denialists.
A civilisation is in decline when logical thinking and evidence-based policy are angrily dismissed in favour of tribal dogma. Western civilisation is lurching in this dangerous direction. Bravery is needed from those who remain capable of rational thought.
A prime contemporary example is the energy transition. Arguing about the energy transition are the absolutists and the denialists.
The absolutists demand that Australia open no new coal mines or gas fields. They require the governments of poor countries to shut their coal-fired power stations forthwith, despite no affordable alternative source of electricity being available.
In these countries, solar and wind power can play a role in electricity generation, but not totally and immediately. Renewable generation requires firming capacity in the nights and evenings, which can be provided by gas generators.
In fact, gas peaking and standby can hasten the closure of coal-fired power stations, which is desirable for the planet. But the neocolonial absolutists demand gas be excluded from the energy mix in poor countries.
The absolutists also oppose carbon capture and storage as a matter of dogma. The same goes for carbon offsets, regardless of their integrity.
Gas is also used to produce synthetic fibres; the kind Absolutists like to wear in preference to thirsty cotton and the wool of methane-emitting sheep.
Coking coal is used to produce steel. Absolutists oppose new coking coal mines. People in poor countries are not to have access to steel products, the type that rich-country absolutists use every day.
Denialists, on the other hand, such as former prime minister Tony Abbott, speak of the global warming hoax and describe believers in climate change as members of a cult. Denialists believe that not just absolutists are involved in this conspiracy against the western way of life, but so too are the United Nations, the NASA space agency and the world’s bureaus of meteorology.
Denialists have learned not to speak so loudly of these alleged hoaxes, cults and conspiracies, operating on the assumption that most voters under the age of 40 have been brainwashed into believing climate change is real and will cast their votes accordingly.
To address this electoral quandary, they’ve come up with the perfect strategy to ensure no climate action is taken – advocate the bypassing of renewables in favour of small nuclear modular reactors.
With cost blowouts precipitating the recent collapse of a flagship US project working on a small modular reactor, the prospects of this technology supplying electricity at competitive prices are highly questionable.
In any event, former NSW treasurer Matt Kean, though favourably disposed to small nuclear modular reactors, has pointed out that none would be ready for commercial deployment before 2040.
By that time, Australia’s fleet of ageing coal-fired power stations will be clapped out.
The Peter Dutton-led opposition voted against the Albanese government’s safeguard mechanism, the latest attempt to put a price on carbon for major emitters, despite the Business Council of Australia calling it “a very good policy”.
In an effort to continue the debilitating climate wars that have been raging for more than a decade, Dutton labelled the safeguard mechanism a “carbon tax 2.0”.
With no emissions-reduction strategy, plenty of hostility towards renewables and a promise of small modular reactors from 2040 at the earliest, the denialists have only one remaining option – to use taxpayers’ money to fund the construction of new coal-fired power stations. The private sector certainly won’t risk it.
It’s the old strategy of “why put off until tomorrow what you can put off forever”?
Or, as Malcolm Turnbull put it at the COP28 meeting: “Nuclear’s only utility is as … a means of supporting fossil fuels by delaying and distracting the rollout of renewables”.
There is a middle path between the absolutists and the denialists.
A rational decarbonising energy policy would include the legislated safeguard mechanism, solar and wind energy, and – for firming capacity – the use of gas, big batteries and, where economically viable, pumped hydro.
Where gas producers can make carbon capture and storage feasible, they should be encouraged to do so. Trading in high-integrity carbon offsets should be part of the solution, especially for countries that lack viable renewable energy resources.
In various combinations, these features of a rational climate policy have been adopted by the Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull and Albanese governments. They were opposed by the Abbott government and, largely, by the Dutton-led Coalition.
Between them, absolutists and denialists would oppose most – if not all – of these sensible features.
Finding a demilitarised zone between these warring tribes is as elusive as it was when the Senate voted down a carbon price 14 years ago. Yet, it seems that most of the voting public feels the policy approach now being taken by federal and state governments lies along that narrow path.
The lesson from this story is to let warring tribes slug it out and get on with sound policy in the national interest.
Ted O’Brien’s nuclear love-in at COP28 gets a brutal reality check.
Ed note. I was pretty surprised that Rafael Grossi who usually downplays all the risks of nuclear (safety, terrorism, weapons proliferation, wastes) went so far as to claim that nuclear is not even a financial risk !
Jim Green 11 December 2023, https://reneweconomy.com.au/ted-obriens-nuclear-love-in-at-cop28-gets-a-brutal-reality-check/—
The nuclear lobby has been out in force at the COP28 climate conference in Dubai. Their main initiative was a ‘declaration’ promoting a “global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050”, signed by 22 countries and supported by 120 companies.
The 22 countries are Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, South Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, the UAE, the UK and the USA.
David Appleyard, editor of Nuclear Engineering International, did the math: “Now 2050 still sounds like a long way off, but to triple nuclear capacity in this time frame would require nuclear deployment to average 40 GW [gigawatts] a year over the next two and half decades. The cruel reality is that’s more than six times the rate that has been seen over the last decade.”
A dominant feature in the declaration — and all the nuclear lobbying surrounding COP28 — is the perceived need to find new methods of financing nuclear plants. In the words of the declaration, participants “commit to mobilize investments in nuclear power, including through innovative financing mechanisms”.
Nuclear power as a commercial venture is very nearly dead, and thus the participants “invite shareholders of the World Bank, international financial institutions, and regional development banks to encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in their organizations’ energy lending policies”.
In a parallel initiative announced during COP28, the US plans to “jump start” the development of small modular reactor (SMR) exports despite the recent collapse of NuScale Power’s flagship project in Idaho. The US Export-Import Bank has approved a resolution to fund applications for the export of US SMR systems and components.
International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Rafael Grossi recently said — apparently without irony — that international financial institutions, development banks and private banks and investors should take a fresh look at the “winning” investment of financing new nuclear power plants.
In fact, US giant Westinghouse declared bankruptcy in 2017 following its disastrous reactor construction projects in South Carolina and Georgia; the British nuclear power industry went bankrupt years ago and was sold to the French, then the French nuclear industry went bankrupt and has been fully nationalised; South Korean utility KEPCO’s debt has climbed to A$224 billion; the Japanese nuclear industry is essentially a pile of ashes in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster; and so on.
Ted O’Brien says a bunch of silly things
The federal Coalition’s shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien was the lead speaker at a forum on the sidelines of COP28 titled ‘Australia’s Nuclear Energy Potential: Joining the Global Journey’.
The forum also heard from representatives of the (so-called) Coalition for Conservation (which flew seven Liberal and National MPs to the summit), the World Nuclear Association, Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, the US Nuclear Industry Council; and an Italian SMR start-up called Newcleo.
O’Brien said that a Coalition government would sign the 22-nation declaration with its aspirational goal of tripling nuclear power capacity by 2050.
The Labor government last week joined more than 120 countries in backing a pledge to triple renewable energy and double the rate of energy efficiency by 2030 — a pledge opposed by the Coalition. O’Brien reiterated the Coalition’s opposition to the Labor government’s target of 82 per cent renewable power supply by 2030.
Speaking to The Guardian, former NSW treasurer Matt Kean said “obviously nuclear is a long way away” and Australia should back renewable energy now: “Who knows what might be available in another 20 years — we may have flying cars in 20 years — but that doesn’t mean you base your whole transport around it.”
O’Brien told the COP sideline forum that Australia’s legislation banning nuclear power is “bizarre”. That would be the legislation introduced by John Howard’s Coalition government and left untouched by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Coalition governments over nearly a decade.
O’Brien said Australia’s track record on renewables is something to be “enormously proud of” without noting the Coalition’s decades-long efforts to slow the growth of renewables and to promote fossil fuel power generators.
He failed to mention that fellow Queenslander and Nationals leader David Littleproud recently said he wants a “pause” to the roll out of wind and solar and transmission links and a stop to the “reckless pursuit” of the government’s 82 percent renewables target by 2030.
O’Brien showed a photo of his children, whose existence apparently demonstrates his commitment to a low-carbon, environmentally sustainable future. In case anyone thought he was serious, he said that Australia needs more gas-fired power generation.
O’Brien said nuclear power is one of the fastest ways to decarbonise; that nuclear waste is “so miniscule”; that Australia should develop “capabilities in other areas of the nuclear fuel cycle”; that the Coalition was not interested in old nuclear but rather Generation 3+ (i.e. mostly non-existent) nuclear power; and that COP28 will be remembered as the “nuclear COP”.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report
The December 6 release of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) provided a welcome relief to all the nuclear nonsense at COP28, including O’Brien’s. For over 30 years, these annual reports have provided factual information that irritates the nuclear industry no end.
Continue readingAustralia’s nuclear brawl spills over into Dubai climate summit
AFR, Hans van Leeuwen 10 Dec 23
Mr Holmes à Court, convener of Climate 200, told Nine journalists that tripling nuclear energy was “a pretty easy pledge to sign onto, because three times zero is zero”.
Dubai | Australia’s domestic debate over nuclear energy has spilled over into the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, as the opposition set out its stall and drew flak both from the government and Liberal Party dissenters.
Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien is leading a delegation of Liberal and National parliamentarians to COP28 for a five-day visit focused heavily on promoting nuclear energy as a future part of Australia’s energy mix.
He vowed that in government the Coalition would join a 22-country partnership pledging to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which was inked during COP28. And he expanded his party’s nuclear vision to include potential grid-scale reactors in NSW’s Hunter region and other ex-coalmining areas.
But Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen launched a blistering broadside against his opponents, describing the nuclear policy as “a pipe dream”. And senior Liberal figures at COP28, including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and former NSW treasurer Matt Kean, questioned the policy………………
The debate broke out into the open after Mr O’Brien appeared on a COP28 panel entitled “Australia’s nuclear energy potential: Joining the global journey”.
“COP28 will be known as the nuclear COP,” he said. He described the Coalition’s policy as an “all of the above” plan, involving renewables, coal, gas and nuclear………………..
On nuclear, Mr O’Brien envisioned a role not just for small modular reactors that can be used for mines, city-level power or industrial processes, but for big reactors to firm up renewable electricity’s intermittent, variable feed into the grid.
“When it comes to nuclear technologies, we are looking at all-of-the-above for generation three-plus and beyond. So that is micro reactors, that is small reactors, that is large reactors,” he said.
Mr Bowen responded that at COP28, “nuclear energy is not involved in the multilateral conversations”.
“When I meet with counterparts, even those who are nuclear countries, they say ‘if I had your renewables, your renewable potential, I wouldn’t go down the nuclear road’,” he said. “It’s a pipe dream wrapped in a fantasy accompanied by an illusion … and I don’t have time for distractions.”……………
Mr O’Brien’s former boss, Mr Turnbull, told the Financial Review he was sceptical.
“I don’t have a problem with lifting the legislative ban on nuclear generation. But unless somebody genuinely shows a strong commitment to building it, why would you set up the whole nuclear regulation infrastructure you would need?” he said.
“The test on nukes is this: who is going to finance it or build it? Where are the energy companies demanding the right to do it? They don’t exist.”
Mr Kean said he was open to small modular reactors, but the technology would not be available until almost the 2040s.
“Just as you wouldn’t base your entire transport strategy around flying cars, nor should you base your entire energy policy around technology that won’t be available for at least 15 years,” he told the Financial Review.
“We need to get on with the job of modernising our electricity system now. And that means deploying technology that we know works, and can help lower household bills – that’s renewables backed up by household storage.”……………………………………
Mr Holmes à Court, convener of Climate 200, told Nine journalists that tripling nuclear energy was “a pretty easy pledge to sign onto, because three times zero is zero”………………….. https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/australia-s-nuclear-brawl-spills-over-into-dubai-climate-summit-20231210-p5eqbq
Inside the Coalition’s nuclear crusade at COP28
Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien brought half a dozen other Liberal and National parliamentarians to COP28 in Dubai. What were they doing there?
AFR , 10 Dec 23
……………………………………Ted O’Brien has been talking about nuclear non-stop in Dubai for two days, and has several more days to go – including a whistle-stop tour of one of the United Arab Emirates’ four nuclear reactors.
Many of his meetings are with nuclear engineers, entrepreneurs and assorted experts, who are gathered in and around COP28 in force despite nuclear not having much prominence on the formal agenda………………………….
The delegation includes opposition trade spokesman Kevin Hogan, senators Perin Davey, Bridget McKenzie, Andrew Bragg and Dean Smith, and MP David Gillespie. They have met conservative politicians from the US, Britain and Scandinavia, and are engaging in a daily marathon of panel debates and networking events.
………….. the outfit behind his trip, Coalition for Conservation, held a public session on whether Australia should go nuclear, alongside a group of nuclear executives and lobbyists. O’Brien’s impassioned speech included PowerPoint pictures of his kids, and of a literal fork in the road.
O’Brien has been walking into nuclear’s embrace for most of his seven years as a federal parliamentarian. But it is now nothing short of a bear hug…………………………………….
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says nuclear is too expensive, and it is unnecessary. Even if it was a good baseload option for the grid, he says, it won’t arrive in time to make a difference.
Other sceptics at COP28 – teal financier Simon Holmes a Court, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, and former NSW Liberal treasurer Matt Kean – all make the same point.
“You won’t be able to get those [reactors] built, let alone the workforce to run then, for 20 years. But we don’t have 20 years because coal is running out in 10,” Kean says.
By 2035, the only coal-fired power plant left in NSW will be Mt Piper, he says, which runs out in 2040. “If you’re waiting for a solution that won’t be ready for 20 years, that’s just a recipe for blackouts.”
Holmes a Court makes a similar point about small modular reactors, which could be used to power factories, industrial parks, towns or remote communities.
“We could throw a trillion dollars at SMRs today, and they still wouldn’t be operating in the time that we need the energy to replace the coal power stations that have reached end of life,” he tells reporters after watching O’Brien speak.
“It’s lovely to talk about being technology-agnostic, but the nuclear technology that would be applicable to Australia simply does not exist yet.”
………………………………………. Turnbull and Bowen both can’t see any clamour from the industry, saying there is no evidence of energy companies wanting to launch the sector in Australia. Again, though, O’Brien got a gee-up from COP28.
………………………..Turnbull, meanwhile, makes a broader point that nuclear can’t be used to “firm” renewables – that is, switch on and provide back-up power when it isn’t sunny or windy – because reactors have to run constantly rather than flex to support solar or wind.
……………………………………………https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/inside-the-coalition-s-nuclear-crusade-at-cop28-20231210-p5eqbt
Australia’s AUKUS nuclear submarines could fuel regional arms race despite assurance
“AUKUS is designed to shore up American power in East Asia, not de-escalate tensions,”
By Su-Lin TanDec 4, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/australias-aukus-nuclear-submarines-could-fuel-regional-arms-race-despite-assurance/
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy says Australia is not worsening the arms race and gives assurance about the submarines’ nuclear reactors. The deal could still spark a defence build-up in Asia-Pacific while Australia lacks the facilities to deal with nuclear waste, analysts say.
Australia may have asserted that its acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS is not aggravating the “arms race”, but the deal and the three-nation alliance could still fuel a defence build-up in the Asia-Pacific and heighten regional tensions, security analysts say.
At the national press club in Canberra on Tuesday, Australian Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy reiterated the importance of the submarines to the country’s defence while debunking “myths” about the trilateral deal struck with Britain and the United States, which is largely seen as a countermeasure targeting China.
“The arms race is the greatest it’s been since 1945, and that is why I reject assertions … that Australia is somehow fuelling that arms race,” he said, adding that rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific had posed the most challenging strategic environment for Australia since World War II. “We are responding to it in a responsible and mature manner, like Australian governments should.”
Australia will own at least eight submarines over the next three decades through the A$368 billion (US$243 billion) deal. First announced in 2021 and finalised earlier this year, the controversial pact has raised concerns in the region.
Collin Koh, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said Conroy’s comment was not a surprise as countries including China and others in Asia-Pacific often couched their arms acquisitions in “defensive terms”.
Most countries would do so in the name of national security interests but it did not mean such actions ensured peace or safety, he said.
Even before AUKUS was announced in 2021, China and other regional countries had already embarked on significant military build-up since the 1990s, Koh said.
“Conroy may not be necessarily wrong to say AUKUS responds to this already ongoing condition, yet at the same time, it’s also not wrong to say that AUKUS … may not only be used by Beijing to legitimise its naval build-up, it also could be exploited as a justification for other regional countries’ military build-up programmes,” Koh said.
Australia’s acquisition of the submarines might trigger new problems as other countries could argue that they should also acquire similar capabilities, said Maria Rost Rublee, a nuclear politics expert at Monash University.
These countries are not limited to “dangerous actors”, for instance, in South Korea where the majority of its people have expressed a desire for their country to own nuclear weapons, Rublee added.
“Just having this type of technology in the hands of a country where you have strong popular support for nuclear weapons could be an issue,” she said.
In an analysis earlier this month, Ankit Panda, the Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warned the accumulation of weapons such as missiles could potentially lead to unintended attacks.
“The Indo-Pacific region has entered a new missile age … each nation individually seeking deterrence while as a whole steering the region into ever more dangerous waters,” he said. “A particular risk concerns the prospects of attacks on the nuclear forces of countries like North Korea and China, by US or allied forces in ways that may not be intended.”
By the 2030s, the Indo-Pacific region would be “full of thousands of new missiles that can be expected to be used widely in the context of a major regional war”, Panda said.
Responding to Conroy’s comments, the national convenor of Labor Against War in Australia, Marcus Strom, said: “If your answer to growing regional tension is to add offensive weaponry, you create a logic towards war.
“AUKUS is designed to shore up American power in East Asia, not de-escalate tensions,” he added.
While Conroy has given assurances about the safety of sealed nuclear reactors within the submarines, analysts argued that the lack of facilities in Australia for the eventual disposal of these reactors is worrying.
“The strength of this agreement is that the reactor module comes to us sealed. It comes sealed, designed to be never opened over the life of a submarine. You don’t have to refuel it, you don’t have to insert new fuel rods … [over] the life of the submarine,” Conroy said.
But nuclear waste expert Ian Lowe said in an analysis on The Conversation website earlier this year that Australia has failed for decades to find long-term storage solutions for small quantities of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste.
Even Australia’s allies and AUKUS partners, the US and the UK, do not have long-term solutions for nuclear waste storage, according to Lowe.
“This should be concerning. To manage the waste from our proposed nuclear submarines properly, we’ll have to develop systems and sites which do not currently exist in Australia,” Lowe said.
Australian states such as Victoria, Queensland and South Australia have said they would not accept a nuclear waste facility within their borders.
While it will be another 30 years before Australia has to worry about dumping the submarine’s nuclear reactors, it is not a long time, Rublee said.
“If they take their nuclear stewardship obligations seriously, they must immediately begin working on the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste,” she added.
US reactor project fail heats up Australia’s nuclear power debate
ByMike Foley, November 10, 2023 — https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/us-reactor-project-fail-heats-up-australia-s-nuclear-power-debate-20231109-p5eisu.html
A nuclear energy developer championed by the Coalition has canned its most advanced project in the United States, raising questions over the viability of the technology in Australia.
NuScale Power, which was developing small modular reactors at a US government-owned site in Idaho with plans to sell electricity to suppliers across the regional network by 2029, on Thursday said it had abandoned the project due to a lack of customer sign-ups.
The federal opposition, which wants Australia to overturn its longstanding ban on nuclear energy, claims small modular reactors – the next generation of nuclear power plants – are the only viable backup for renewable energy as the country transitions away from fossil fuels.
But Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said NuScale’s announcement was further proof that small modular reactors were not viable for Australia.
“The opposition’s only energy policy is small modular reactors,” Bowen said. “Today, the most advanced prototype in the US has been cancelled. The [opposition’s] plan for energy security is just more hot air from Peter Dutton.”
NuScale’s small modular reactor design was the first to be approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in January. It was awarded more than $US1 billion ($1.56 billion) in government funding to support its development.
The company said in 2021 it would supply power from its small modular reactor plant for $US58 a megawatt hour. Since then, that figure has more than doubled to $US89 a megawatt hour.
Mason Baker, the chief executive of NuScale’s government-owned partner, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, said it was working with the company and the US Department of Energy to wind down the project.
“This decision is very disappointing given the years of pioneering hard work put into the [project],” Baker said.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has said small modular reactors could easily replace Australia’s coal-fired power plants.
“Australians must consider new nuclear technologies as part of the energy mix,” he said in July. “New nuclear technologies can be plugged into existing grids and work immediately.”
Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said in May that NuScale’s designs offered “exceptional flexibility” and would allow a “simple expansion” for Australia’s energy grid.
“North America has done the maths. It has mapped its course to a net-zero future, and it’s one that sensibly includes next-generation, zero-emissions nuclear energy.”
But recent Energy Department modelling found more than 70 small modular reactors, which are forecast to generate 300 megawatts each, would be needed to replace all of Australia’s coal plants at an estimated cost of $387 billion.
O’Brien said on Thursday that Bowen had applied “faulty logic” to NuScale’s announcement and if he applied the same test to renewables, they too would be considered a failure.
“Is Bowen arguing that wind power is dead because the world’s leading supplier, Siemens, is seeking a €15 billion government bailout, or the days of solar are over because plans for the world’s largest solar plant, Sun Cable, have run into trouble,” O’Brien said.
“If Australia is serious about reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 while keeping the lights on and getting prices down, we cannot afford to take any option off the table.”
Coalition are ‘climate charlatans’ making false claims about Australia’s nuclear power potential, energy minister says
Chris Bowen describes the opposition’s promotion of the banned energy source as an attempt to ‘continue the culture climate wars’
Adam Morton Climate and environment editor. Guardian, Tue 10 Oct 2023
The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, has accused the Coalition of using “the rightwing playbook of 2023 – populism, polarisation and post-truth politics” in making false claims about the potential for nuclear power in Australia.
Speaking on Tuesday, Bowen said the opposition’s suggestion the country could embrace the banned energy source to meet climate targets was the “latest attempt at deflection and distraction now that outright denial is less fashionable” and an attempt to “continue the culture climate wars in Australia”…………(registered readers only) ………..more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/10/coalition-making-false-claims-about-australia-nuclear-power-says-energy-minister-chris-bowen?fbclid=IwAR1CU7royDx89hZP5FAfRgkj3ioG6SrbFIQmvDyDNaovfVAGKf3HWqxH0W4
Is nuclear energy feasible in Australia (and how much would it cost)?
What problem is nuclear trying to provide a solution for, asks Ernst & Young climate change and sustainability partner Emma Herd. “If it’s cost of living, it’s expensive. If there are challenges with social licence for renewables then nuclear has got 10 times more social licence problems. If it is the need to rapidly deploy low-emissions energy technology to replace coal then nuclear takes a long time to get approval for, let alone to build, let alone to get up and operating. If it’s the need for rapid decarbonisation, again, it’s too slow.”
Debate has erupted over nuclear energy’s role in Australia’s shift from fossil fuels. Could it work? And why is it so controversial?
SMH, By Mike Foley, OCTOBER 7, 2023
Australia is in the middle of an unprecedented energy revolution, switching from the fossil fuel-powered electricity grid that’s been the bedrock of the nation’s economy for decades to clean energy, through a rush of renewables as wind and solar farms spring up across the country.
The shift is being driven by Australia’s commitment to help tackle climate change by cutting damaging greenhouse emissions.
But a fiery political debate has erupted over the future of Australia’s energy supply in recent months, with federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demanding the Albanese government remove the nation’s longstanding ban and deploy what he claims is clean, cheap and reliable nuclear power…………..
What would be the costs? And how does nuclear power work?
………………………………………………………………………… This atomic fission also creates zero greenhouse gases, [ed. note: in the reactor operation, but not in the entire fuel cycle] which is a key benefit cited by nuclear energy advocates, but its opponents point to the dangers associated with storing the radioactive waste and the potential for spent fuel from nuclear reactors to be used to make nuclear weapons.
Past accidents have undermined public confidence……………………………..
…………………………………. In Australia, a national ban on nuclear energy was put in place by the Howard government in 1999, after horse-trading with the Australian Democrats over the government’s signature green reform, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which stated that the relevant minister could not approve a nuclear power plant.
Seven years later, the Howard government asked Telstra chief executive and trained nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski to investigate the merits of nuclear power in Australia. That report delivered a hammer blow to the industry. Switkowski found that nuclear power could compete economically with coal power only if a politically contentious carbon tax was imposed.
In 2019, Switkowski also told a parliamentary inquiry there was little prospect for Australia to develop a nuclear energy industry because the “window for large gigawatts to go in nuclear generators has now closed for Australia”. He said a nuclear industry would take too long to establish and be too costly to build compared to alternative infrastructure. He also said it was unlikely the industry could establish enough support to gain a social licence to operate.
“Given that the investment in a power station, particularly a big one, would begin at $US10 billion and go up from there, and it would take around 15 years to make it work, you can’t progress without strong community support and bipartisanship at the federal level, and there is not too much evidence of that,” he said.
But now the federal Coalition is calling for the nuclear energy ban to be abolished.
……………………………. Nuclear energy proponents argue nuclear should replace coal. Those advocates include the Minerals Council, prominent Nationals including leader David Littleproud and former leader Barnaby Joyce, and some Liberal MPs including Dutton and his climate change and energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien.
……………………………….Renewable energy advocates point out that investors are flocking to large-scale wind and solar projects, which are pumping cheaper energy into the grid and outcompeting coal. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), which manages the electricity grid, says a grid based on renewables will be just as reliable as a system centred on baseload power.
Could we get a nuclear industry happening in time?
Speed is of the essence, say climate scientists. Global emissions are on track to exceed the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees, a level that would avoid the worst damages from climate change. While renewables are available now, and cheaply, it would likely take decades to establish a nuclear energy industry in Australia.
Australia’s former chief scientist, Alan Finkel, told this masthead in August it was highly unlikely Australia could open a nuclear power plant before the early 2040s, pointing out the autocratic United Arab Emirates took more than 15 years to complete its first nuclear plan using established technology.
What problem is nuclear trying to provide a solution for, asks Ernst & Young climate change and sustainability partner Emma Herd. “If it’s cost of living, it’s expensive. If there are challenges with social licence for renewables then nuclear has got 10 times more social licence problems. If it is the need to rapidly deploy low-emissions energy technology to replace coal then nuclear takes a long time to get approval for, let alone to build, let alone to get up and operating. If it’s the need for rapid decarbonisation, again, it’s too slow.”
Herd says it would take decades of investment in enabling services for the nuclear energy value chain before a new plant could be built, on top of the likely 20 years needed to plan, gain approval for and build a plant.
“Nuclear has got not just a 20-year timeframe to build something, it’s actually probably more a 30- to 50-year timeframe to build an industry,” she says. This includes either educating or importing a generation of nuclear experts to design and operate facilities, capability to construct the complex facilities, creating a bureaucracy to administer the industry and writing the laws to govern it.
Could nuclear energy solve the power line ‘problem’?
A key sticking point in the Opposition’s criticism of renewable energy is the Albanese government’s push to build some 10,000 kilometres of power lines to link the plethora of renewable energy projects springing up across the country with major cities. AEMO has forecast that could cost around $13 billion by 2030. Nuclear energy advocates say those costs could be avoided by building nuclear plants on the sites of existing coal plants, where existing transmission lines converge.
In fact, even if there were no renewable energy expansion, expensive new transmission lines are still needed to upgrade the grid and increase its capacity in line with population growth, but they have been delayed. Energy experts are increasingly worried that time is running out, risking Australia’s ability to compensate for the looming closures of coal-fired power plants.
A major factor in the delays is community backlash against transmission lines, with farmers denying land access to private companies. Littleproud is leading the charge against the renewable energy rollout and backing farm groups in their protest. Backed by Dutton, he has accused the government of running a “reckless race” to renewables and is calling for a halt to privately run transmission projects, for a Senate inquiry or summit into renewable energy and for a national discussion on removing Australia’s moratorium on nuclear power.
Isn’t there a new type of nuclear technology now?
With Dutton heading the push for a plan to replace Australia’s existing fleet of coal plants with nuclear, Littleproud has declared he is open to having a plant in his Queensland electorate. The Coalition says Australia could deploy the next-generation of nuclear technology called small modular reactors, which are based on the energy units in nuclear submarines.
Finkel has said that, from a “purely engineering” perspective, nuclear technology is appealing, with zero emissions, a continuous supply of baseload power and a small mining footprint for fuel. But he has said that small modular reactors are not currently viable technology. “There’s no operating small modular reactor in Canada, America or the UK, or any country in Europe.”
Finkel noted that private company Nuscale is aiming to commission 12 small modular reactors starting from 2029, but he said it would take at least a decade to follow suit in Australia.
Is nuclear cheaper?
A joint study by the CSIRO and AEMO, the GenCost report, calculated the future cost of energy generation for a range of technologies. It found that solar and wind energy generation would cost between $60 and $100 per megawatt hour by 2030, including back-up power from either batteries, pumped hydro or gas plants. (This figure also includes CSIRO and AEMO-termed “sunk costs” of new transmission lines.)
GenCost forecast that one megawatt hour of power from a small modular reactor in 2030 would cost between $200 and $350 per megawatt hour.
Another energy advisory, Lazard from the US, calculated the levelised cost of nuclear and renewables – which means the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generator over its lifetime. It found that one megawatt hour from solar power, including back-up storage, costs between $72 to $160 per megawatt hour, while a traditional nuclear plant costs from $220 to $347.
Why is the politics of nuclear toxic?
Even if the Albanese government wanted to open a debate over the future of nuclear power in Australia, the party’s official policy platform that is formed by rank and file members states Labor will “prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia”.
While it’s not impossible for politicians to ignore the policy platform, it is extremely challenging.
In any case, the government has come out swinging against the opposition’s call for nuclear power in Australia. Bowen……………………. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/is-nuclear-energy-feasible-in-australia-and-how-much-would-it-cost-20231004-p5e9qc.html
Aukus: UK defence giant BAE Systems wins Australian £3.95bn #nuclear submarine contract
BBC News By Peter Hoskins, Business reporter 2 October 23 #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
Britain’s biggest defence firm, BAE Systems, has won a £3.95bn ($4.82bn) contract to build a new generation of submarines as the security pact between the US, UK and Australia moves ahead.
In March, the three countries announced details of the so-called Aukus pact to provide Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines by the late 2030s.
The pact aims to counter China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region.
Beijing has strongly criticised the three countries over the deal.
……………………..”This multi-billion-pound investment in the Aukus submarine programme will help deliver the long-term hunter-killer submarine capabilities the UK needs to maintain our strategic advantage and secure our leading place in a contested global order,” UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said as the Conservative party conference got under way in Manchester.
………………….Other major UK defence contractors are also getting a boost from the Aukus deal.
In March, it was confirmed that Rolls-Royce Submarines would provide all the nuclear reactor plants that will power the SSN-Aukus vessels.
In June, Rolls-Royce said it would almost double the size of its Raynesway facility in Derby as a result of the deal. On Sunday, Babcock International, which maintains and supports the UK’s submarines, said it had signed a five-year deal with the Ministry of Defence to work on the SSN-Aukus design.
The Aukus security alliance – which was first announced in September 2021 – has repeatedly drawn criticism from China.
However, the three Western countries say the deal is aimed at shoring up stability in the Indo-Pacific more https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66979798
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 