Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Queensland Liberal National Party opposes nuclear power

Queensland LNP breaks with federal branch to oppose nuclear power, Amy Remeikis, 3 Oct 2019  Queensland LNP says it supports a greater focus on energy efficiency measures

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/03/queensland-lnp-breaks-with-federal-branch-to-oppose-nuclear-power

One of the biggest detractors of the federal Queensland Liberal National party’s push to investigate nuclear energy as a potential power source for Australia has come from within its own house.

The state LNP opposition has publicly declared its opposition to making any changes to the current bipartisan ban on nuclear energy generation, declaring the government would be better served in its goals by focusing on renewable energy sources, in a marked split from their federal state colleagues.

Australia is once again looking at nuclear energy as a potential solution to its power woes, after a group of Coalition MPs, led by a cohort from Queensland, pushed the federal party room into investigating the prospect, through a parliamentary inquiry.

But in a move which has surprised their federal counterparts, the Queensland state LNP spokesman for energy, Michael Hart, made a written submission to the inquiry, announcing his arm of the party’s opposition to any attempt to allow nuclear energy generation, citing the risks to the communities and the environment.

Instead, Hart said the Queensland LNP supports “greater focus” on “energy efficiency measures, along with encouraging investment in renewable energy options like wind and solar, in combination with battery storage when it is technologically and economically feasible to do so”.

“It is considered that Australia’s rich renewable energy resources are more affordable and bring less risk than the elevated cost and risk associated with nuclear energy,” Hart submitted.

“The LNP encourages additional jobs and investment in Queensland’s renewable energy industry, while also supporting resource jobs and exploration which provides baseload power and employment for thousands of Queenslanders.

“In addition to the possibility of accidents and operational failure, nuclear facilities can be a potential target for terrorists. Securing insurance around such possibilities would be virtually impossible.

“In conclusion, the commercial, as well as the political risks, associated with nuclear energy are substantial. To this end, the LNP is strongly committed to an energy policy that delivers safe, affordable and reliable energy to consumers, while fulfilling Australia’s international emissions reduction obligations.

“We believe this can be achieved without lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy generation. Accordingly, we would encourage the committee to ensure an increased emphasis is placed on measures to encourage investment in renewable energy that creates green jobs and lowers electricity bills, for both consumers and industry, which does not (underlined) include nuclear energy”.

The state Labor government established a 50% renewable energy target by 2030 upon winning power in 2015.

The federal inquiry was established after a group of Coalition MPs, led by Hinkler LNP member Keith Pitt and Queensland LNP senator James McGrath, pushed for an investigation into whether nuclear power should be considered as part of the mix, as the government hunts for a long term solution to Australia’s surging energy prices.

Not wanting to reignite the war that led to the downfall of the national energy guarantee, and ultimately, Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership, the government acquiesced to calls for an investigation, which was established after a recommendation from Angus Taylor.

The state LNP position stands in stark contrast to their federal colleagues, including conservative senator Amanda Stoker, who said that “Australia must develop a nuclear energy industry”, as well as her Queensland colleague Gerard Rennick.

McGrath has publicly pushed for the nuclear discussion in numerous interviews and his own social media, as well as within the party room. Pitt, who describes himself as “technologically agnostic”, said the discussion had to be had.

“The first priority for the nations future energy needs will always be reliability and affordability,” he said. “As technology changes I expect our energy mix will also change over a period of time. I am completely technology agnostic in terms of the fuel types that might be utilised. Currently Queensland has the country’s youngest fleet of coal fired generators and I expect they will continue to be a critical part of Queensland’s energy mix into the future.”

He demurred from any questions on the split between state and federal lines, saying the state arm could “speak for themselves”, but attacked the state Labor government for its price management of the state owned power assets.

But the submission did give Queensland Labor senator, Murray Watt, a late week boost.

“This submission shows the LNP’s state MPs have had enough of their federal counterparts’ pointless culture war against renewable power,” he said. “Even the LNP’s state MPs acknowledge that renewables are a cheaper and safer way of meeting our future energy needs.

“They have also slammed their federal counterparts’ pursuit of nuclear power as a massive waste of time and resources.

“The Queensland LNP’s federal representatives should stop wasting everyone’s time by pursuing their obsession with nuclear power and get behind cheaper and safer means of meeting our energy needs.”

October 3, 2019 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, Queensland | Leave a comment

50+ groups sign joint civil society statement on domestic nuclear power

Friends of the Earth Australia is proud to be among the 50+ groups to sign the following statement calling for a clean, green, nuclear-free future.

The statement has been submitted to the federal inquiry into nuclear power (you can read the FoE submission about ‘small modular reactors’ here and our statement about nuclear power and climate change here).

The strong level of trade union support for a nuclear-free future is very welcome, with key national unions and peak union bodies including the ACTU endorsing the statement below.

*************************************************

Our nation faces urgent energy challenges. Against a backdrop of increasing climate impacts and scientific evidence the need for a clean and renewable energy transition is clear and irrefutable. All levels of government need to actively facilitate and manage Australia’s accelerated transition from reliance on fossil fuels to low carbon electricity generation.

The transition to clean, safe, renewable energy should also re-power the national economy. The development and commercialisation of manufacturing, infrastructure and new energy thinking is already generating employment and opportunity. This should be grown to provide skilled and sustainable jobs and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia.

There should be no debate about the need for this energy transition, or that it is already occurring. However, choices and decisions are needed to make sure that the transition best meets the interests of workers, affected communities and the broader Australian society.

Against this context the federal government has initiated an Inquiry into whether domestic nuclear power has a role in this necessary energy transition.

Our organisations, representing a diverse cross section of the Australian community, strongly maintain that nuclear power has no role to play in Australia’s energy future.

Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need. We maintain this for a range of factors, including:

  • Waste: Nuclear reactors produce long-lived radioactive wastes that pose a direct human and environmental threat for many thousands of years and impose a profound inter-generational burden. Radioactive waste management is costly, complex, contested and unresolved, globally and in the current Australian context. Nuclear power cannot be considered a clean source of energy given its intractable legacy of nuclear waste.
  • Water: Nuclear power is a thirsty industry that consumes large volumes of water, from uranium mining and processing through to reactor cooling. Australia is a dry nation where water is an important resource and supply is often uncertain.
  • Time: Nuclear power is a slow response to a pressing problem. Nuclear reactors are slow to build and license. Globally, reactors routinely take ten years or more to construct and time over-runs are common. Construction and commercialisation of nuclear reactors in Australia would be further delayed by the lack of nuclear engineers, a specialised workforce, and a licensing, regulatory and insurance framework.
  • Cost: Nuclear power is highly capital intensive and a very expensive way to produce electricity. The 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission concluded nuclear power was not economically viable. The controversial Hinkley reactors being constructed in the UK will cost more than $35 billion and lock in high cost power for consumers for decades. Cost estimates of other reactors under construction in Europe and the US range from $17 billion upwards and all are many billions of dollars over-budget and many years behind schedule. Renewable energy is simply the cheapest form of new generation electricity as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded in their December 2018 report.
  • Security: Nuclear power plants have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets and pose a major security threat. This in turn would likely see an increase in policing and security operations and costs and a commensurate impact on civil liberties and public access to information. Other nations in our region may view Australian nuclear aspirations with suspicion and concern given that many aspects of the technology and knowledge base are the same as those required for nuclear weapons. On many levels nuclear is a power source that undermines confidence.
  • Inflexible or unproven: Existing nuclear reactors are highly centralised and inflexible generators of electricity. They lack capacity to respond to changes in demand and usage, are slow to deploy and not well suited to modern energy grids or markets. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not in commercial production or use and remain unproven and uncertain. This is no basis for a national energy policy.
  • Safety: All human made systems fail. When nuclear power fails it does so on a massive scale. The human, environmental and economic costs of nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have been massive and continue. Decommissioning and cleaning up old reactors and nuclear sites, even in the absence of any accidents, is technically challenging and very costly.
  • Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support. A 2015 IPSOS poll found that support among Australians for solar power (78‒87%) and wind power (72%) is far higher than support for coal (23%) and nuclear (26%).
  • Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters. This began in the 1950s with British atomic testing and continues today with uranium mining and proposed nuclear waste dumps. These problems would be magnified if Australia ever advanced domestic nuclear power.
  • Better alternatives: If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not. Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.

The path ahead:

Australia can do better than fuel higher carbon emissions and unnecessary radioactive risk.

We need to embrace the fastest growing global energy sector and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology and a world leader in renewable energy technology.

We can grow the jobs of the future here today. This will provide a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and the certainty to ensure vibrant regional economies and secure sustainable and skilled jobs into the future.

Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean and popular. Nuclear is simply not.

Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.

September 30, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro wants to “normalise”nuclear power

NSW Deputy Premier calls for nuclear vote within three years, AFR,  Aaron Patrickn 30 Sept 19, NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro suggested holding a non-binding vote at the next federal election to approve the introduction of nuclear power, a step that could help overcome entrenched opposition from the left to the low-emissions technology.

The leader of the state National Party is one of the leading political advocates for nuclear power, which is currently being investigated by parliamentary inquiries at the federal level and in NSW and Victoria.

“We could quite simply have a plebiscite at the 2022 election,” he told a conference run by the Australian Nuclear Association in Sydney. “We need to normalise [?] the conversation.

“Bit by bit it has become the norm. The negativity isn’t happening anymore. Australia is welcoming the conversation.”[?]

Supporters of nuclear power have been buoyed by the new political interest in nuclear, which received a boost when federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor initiated the federal inquiry last month.

At the University of Technology Sydney on Friday, several hundred engineers, regulators and policy experts gathered at the conference to discuss international developments and the Australian outlook.

“The conference is genuinely standing room only,” South Australian nuclear advocate Ben Heard said. “I have never seen it like this. Something is changing down under.”

The federal Coalition’s current policy is not to legalise nuclear power, but some federal and state Coalition MPs hope that developing community attitudes, and the pressure for action on global warming, could change the political environment.

The Labor Party and the Greens remain adamantly opposed. Labor climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler has challenged the government to identify which cities, suburbs or towns would be the location for future nuclear reactors……..

Under a plan advocated by members of the Australia Nuclear Association, the federal government would build at least 20 nuclear power plants from 2030 to 2050.

At a cost of around $6 billion each, each plant would have a generating capacity of 1000 megawatts, which is about half AGL’s NSW Liddell power station, which is due to close in 2023…….

Nuclear critics, including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, have said that the cheapest way to reduce emissions is to combine wind and solar power with some form of storage.

Although batteries have very limited capacity at the moment, experts expect them to improve in coming years. https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nsw-deputy-premier-calls-for-nuclear-vote-within-three-years-20190929-p52vz2

September 30, 2019 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear submarines for Australia? Dangerous, would require costly taxpayer insurance

September 30, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Scott Morrison on climate change: he just doesn’t “get it

Morrison’s condescending response to kids and climate  https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/morrison,13153  By Graeme McLeay | 29 September 2019 The best you can say about Prime Minister Scott Morrison is that he doesn’t get it.He and his conservative colleagues in the Coalition do not understand the science of climate change despite what our own scientists are telling them. The only way to explain his behaviour otherwise is to believe that he is deliberately setting out to deceive us.

First, there was the visit with U.S. President Donald Trump. No one would argue that good relations with the United States are not positive for Australia but his closeness to Trump tells us something about his mindset.

Trump is the President who vowed to revive coal, opened up federal parklands to oil and gas, attempted to reverse Obama’s plan to limit coal pollution and California’s vehicle pollution laws, decimated the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, and withdrew from the Paris Agreement.

At least, French President Emmanuel Macron when visiting Trump raised climate change with him as Morrison surely would have if he understood the science.

Then it gets worse. Morrison continues his sojourn in the U.S. visiting an Australian owned cardboard factory while leaving Foreign Minister Marise Payne to attend the UN Climate Conference.

Had he himself gone he might have learned what the IPCC had to say: that in the last five years climate change has accelerated, a matter of some importance to Australia you might think, given the evidence from our own scientists. They tell us heat waves will increase, sea levels will rise, perennial droughts and a more severe bushfire seas. Continue reading →

September 29, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

Lyn Allen and Richard Ledger’s nuclear submission – for the public good

Allen, Lyn and  Ledgar, Richard Submission No 30

to the FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia…  Extracts “…..there are overwhelming economic, environmental and social reasons why nuclear energy is not an appropriate contributor to Australia’s energy mix.

If Australia is going to move to a sustainable future then we need to concentrate on producing energy from renewable resources. Uranium is not a renewable resource and even more so than coal, uranium mining produces waste that remains toxic for thousands of years.

Additionally, while nuclear power generation does not produce greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases are produced at every step in the process from mining to refinement and building nuclear power generation facilities. Like uranium mines, nuclear power stations expose the community and the environment in which they are built to significant risks ……

The future of Australia’s energy generation should to take advantage of our abundant natural resources such as sun, wind, tidal potential. Nuclear power station are massively expensive to build and take years to complete, whereas wind and solar generators and new storage technology (such as the batteries installed in South Australia) can be developed quickly and relatively inexpensively …

water. Generating nuclear power needs large quantities of water. Given Australia’s climatic conditions, the shortage of water in many of our major river systems,

Many countries around the world that currently use nuclear power are already starting to phase it out in favour of wind and solar generation. Australia can get in front of the energy production business by putting our skills, and efforts into an alternative energy grid that suits our climate, is safe for future generation and takes advantage of ‘free’ sources of energy. 

September 28, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Submission for the public good: to Federal Nuclear Inquiry – Noel Wauchope

Recommendation. There is no need to change Australia’s laws prohibiting nuclear activities. They were devised to protect Australians from the health, and safety risks of nuclear facilities, – far-sighted in that they have saved Australia from the unnecessary expense of a now collapsing industry. Meanwhile Australia is very well placed to put energy and funds into truly modern developments, and could become a world leader in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

To start with, the title of this Inquiry , featuring the word  “prerequisite” really makes clear the major issue.

What is the major prerequisite?

Obviously the one important  prerequisite is to repeal Australia’s laws banning nuclear activities. 

First the Federal Law would have to be repealed. (a1)

Then – State Laws –  Victoria’s  NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES (PROHIBITIONS) ACT (a2) -and South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (a3)

(a1)    https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected/nuclear-actions

(a2)   http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/vic/consol_act/naa1983337/

(a3) https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000.aspx

Once these laws are repealed, then nuclear industry proponents will be free to spend much money on publicising the benefits of the industry. With helpful politicians and press, particularly from the predominant Murdoch media, this will give the industry huge boost. As Australia moves further into drought and water shortages, they will claim that nuclear power is essential to solve climate change.  (Even if nuclear power could combat climate change, it would take decades to establish, and by then it would be too late.)

So – that is what the global nuclear industry needs, especially for South Australia, which has specific legislation against spending public money on promoting the nuclear industry .

While Australians have concerns about cost, safety, environment , health, wastes, Aboriginal rights, weapons proliferation etc, I am sure that the nuclear lobby will be able to overcome those hesitations, with an effective programme.

So, I have my doubts that the Terms of Reference matter all that much, but – here goes.  I understand that the emphasis in this Inquiry is on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)

a . waste management, transport and storage.    Continue reading →

September 24, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Controversial MP Barnaby Joyce on the pro nuclear campaign trail

If there’s anyone really intelligent in Australia’s nuclear lobby, might they be wishing that Barnaby would just shut up?  With friends like Barnaby, who needs enemies?

Barnaby Joyce finds a new cause in nuclear power, Australia’s best-known backbencher is hitching a ride to the nuclear debate and creating awkward moments. AFR, Aaron PatrickSenior Correspondent.  Who knew? Barnaby Joyce loves nuclear energy as much as he detests abortions.

As a budding debate over splitting the atom fires up in three parliaments, the former deputy prime minister has decided that his new parliamentary vehicle, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, deserves a piece of the nuclear action.

On Friday morning, before a tour of Sydney’s own nuclear reactor, Joyce’s committee held a “nuclear industry roundtable” discussion that was broadcast live with about 30 energy industry experts, bureaucrats and lobbyists.

The purpose was, Joyce said, “to dispel some strongly held beliefs which may or may not be true”.

He couldn’t refer to the hearing as an inquiry, because one of those already exists – and helpfully covered much of the same information last month.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, which is reviewing nuclear energy at the government’s direction, held its hearing in Sydney three weeks ago.

Several of the same organisations turned up to Joyce’s event, which was held in a hotel within walking distance of Sydney Airport, making transport easier for the Member for New England.

To add to the double-dating awkwardness, Joyce’s star witness, businessman Ziggy Switkowski, read out the same opening statement he prepared for the other committee – by phone.

The real inquiry also visited the reactor, where it’s a wonder the distracted engineers haven’t inadvertently triggered a core meltdown.

Which raises an interesting question: would a nuclear accident that took out a parliamentary committee increase or lower public support for the power source?…… https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/barnaby-joyce-finds-a-new-cause-in-nuclear-power-20190919-p52t2y

September 21, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Australian Labor Party standing firm on its climate policies

Labor’s climate policies are ‘unshakeable’ despite election loss, Mark Butler says

Shadow climate minister says he believes Scott Morrison may shift on issue during the coming term, Guardian,   Katharine Murphy Political editor @murpharoo, 21 Sep 2019 Mark Butler wants to make one thing clear: the shadow minister for climate change and energy is not for turning. It wasn’t a mistake to pursue an ambitious climate policy in the 2019 election and “we are not going to change our position to get to a level of profound irresponsibility [on policy], like the government”, he tells Guardian Australia’s politics podcast.

“Our position on climate is unshakeable.”……..

he also thinks it is possible Scott Morrison will shift on climate during the coming term, particularly if the Australian community remains vocal on the issue, and business also continues to demand policy certainty to allow it to deal with carbon risk. He says for people who want practical climate action, as opposed to rhetoric, bipartisanship remains “the holy grail”.

Butler says Morrison is not Malcolm Turnbull on climate, and not Tony Abbott, but somewhere in the middle. He suspects the prime minister has no “deep beliefs” on the issue, but that could enable him to pivot to a more plausible policy position in the event he makes a judgment that climate change is harming the electoral prospects of the Coalition. Perhaps Morrison, he says, can take “some baby steps to break down the culture war”.

…….. Butler says all the survey evidence he has seen indicates Australian voters are alarmed by the lack of policy action on climate change, and the issue rates second behind concerns about cost of living pressure. He says he is “utterly convinced” that public opinion in favour of action is “broad, deep and growing”.

Politicians, he says, need to be particularly aware that young people are hugely motivated on climate change. Butler has teenaged children and meets regularly with young activists.

“I can see it in their eyes,” he says. “They think our generation is from a different planet.” He says there is a risk of climate change widening the generation gap, which is more substantial now, he thinks, than at any time since the 1960s

“If we get to 2030 with the level of inertia we’ve had over the last decade, then we have profoundly let down our children and grandchildren”.  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/21/labors-climate-policies-are-unshakeable-despite-election-loss-mark-butler-says?fbclid=IwAR0EPtILqei1clnBN_uRzHHflc-m2HBdcrvmQ3E9SUt0A3JkunlqKVc08Sk

 

September 21, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

Australian Workers Union join National Party’s push for nuclear power

Nuclear energy: Nationals MPs welcome AWU support for domestic industry Union to tell parliamentary committee it’s ‘ludicrous’ to export uranium but not benefit from the energy source at home. Guardian,   Sarah Martin  20 Sept 19, Nationals MPs have welcomed support from the Australian Workers’ Union for a domestic nuclear industry, as the union calls on progressives not to reject a “zero carbon compromise”.

A House of Representatives committee chaired by Barnaby Joyce will hear from the union during a roundtable discussion in Sydney on Friday, before MPs visit the Lucas Heights nuclear facility for a site visit…….

The AWU national secretary, Dan Walton, said that while he accepted that the Labor party had already expressed opposition to nuclear, there were people on both sides of politics who were stuck in old ideological debates over the issue.  …….

The potential for Australia’s nuclear ban to be lifted has been revived since the May election after a group of Nationals lobbied for the issue to be revisited by a parliamentary inquiry.

Following a referral from the energy minister, Angus Taylor, in August, the environment and energy committee is conducting an inquiry into the “prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia”.

At the same time, Joyce has tasked his lower house committee to also look at the issue through a series of roundtable events. Taylor has said that while there are no plans to drop the existing moratorium on nuclear energy, the government’s role was to plan for the decades ahead.

The resources minister, Matt Canavan, a senior Nationals senator from Queensland, said the AWU’s view was welcome as the debate over nuclear continued.

“I welcome the AWU’s contribution,” he told Guardian Australia. “It will, of course, need support from a broad range of organisations, including the Labor party, to progress nuclear power…..

The Nationals MP for Hinkler, Keith Pitt, said that there could be no change to Australia’s current position on nuclear without bipartisan support……

Support for a domestic nuclear industry also appears to be gathering pace within the Coalition, with two new government senators, South Australian Alex Antic and NT National Sam McMahon, both using their first speeches to parliament this week to back the technology……

The union’s support will likely buoy conservative supporters of nuclear who are hoping the twin inquiries into the issue will be sufficient to win a change to government policy.

Ziggy Switkowski, who headed a 2006 review of nuclear power for the Howard government, told the environment committee that the technology had no chance of being introduced unless Australia had a coherent energy policy.

He also said that it would take about a decade before it was clear whether small nuclear reactors were suitable for Australia, and about 15 years to bring a plant online if a decision was made to build one.

The Australian Nuclear Association, which advocates for nuclear science and technology, has said nuclear power could provide cheap, reliable, carbon-free energy in Australia, but would only be financially competitive with a carbon price.

In a group submission released this week environmental and civil society groups warned the government that nuclear power has “no role” in Australia, saying the issue was a distraction from “real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need”. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/nuclear-energy-nationals-mps-welcome-awu-support-for-domestic-industry

September 21, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Exposing misleading evidence to the federal nuclear inquiry

Big claims and corporate spin about small nuclear reactor costs, Jim Green, 19 September 2019, RenewEconomy https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-claims-and-corporate-spin-about-small-nuclear-reactor-costs-65726/

The ‘inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ being run by Federal Parliament’s Environment and Energy Committee has finished receiving submissions and is gradually making them publicly available.

The inquiry is particularly interested in ‘small modular reactors’ (SMRs) and thus one point of interest is how enthusiasts spin the economic debate given that previous history with small reactors has shown them to be expensive; the cost of the handful of SMRs under construction is exorbitant; and both the private sector and governments around the world have been unwilling to invest the billions of dollars required to get high-risk SMR demonstration reactors built.

To provide a reality-check before we get to the corporate spin, a submission to the inquiry by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis notes that SMRs have been as successful as cold fusion – i.e., not at all. The submission states:

“The construction of nuclear power plants globally has proven to be an ongoing financial disaster for private industry and governments alike, with extraordinary cost and construction time blow-outs, while being a massive waste of public monies due to the ongoing reliance on government financial subsidies. … Governments have repeatedly failed to comprehend that nuclear construction timelines and cost estimates put forward by many corporates (with vested interests) have proven disastrously flawed and wrong.”

The Institute is equally scathing about SMRs:

“For all the hype in certain quarters, commercial deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) have to-date been as successful as hypothesized cold fusion – that is, not at all. Even assuming massive ongoing taxpayer subsidies, SMR proponents do not expect to make a commercial deployment at scale any time soon, if at all, and more likely in a decade from now if historic delays to proposed timetables are acknowledged.”

Thus the Institute adds its voice to the chorus of informed scepticism about SMRs, such as the 2017 Lloyd’s Register survey of 600 industry professionals and experts who predicted that SMRs have a “low likelihood of eventual take-up, and will have a minimal impact when they do arrive“.

Corporate spin #1: Minerals Council of Australia

The Minerals Council of Australia claims in its submission to the federal inquiry that SMRs could generate electricity for as little as $60 per megawatt-hour (MWh). That claim is based on a report by the Economic and Finance Working Group (EFWG) of the Canadian government-industry ‘SMR Roadmap’ initiative.

The Canadian EFWG gives lots of possible SMR costs and the Minerals Council’s use of its lowest figure is nothing if not selective. The figure cited by the Minerals Council assumes near-term deployment from a standing start (with no-one offering to risk billions of dollars to build demonstration reactors), plus extraordinary learning rates in an industry notorious for its negative learning rates.

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski noted in his evidence to the federal inquiry that “nuclear power has got more expensive, rather than less expensive”. Yet the EFWG paper takes a made-up, ridiculously-high learning rate and subjects SMR cost estimates to eight ‘cumulative doublings’ based on the learning rate. That’s creative accounting and one can only wonder why the Minerals Council would present it as a credible estimate.

Here are the first-of-a-kind SMR cost estimates from the EFWG paper, all of them far higher than the figure cited by the Minerals Council:

  • 300-megawatt (MW) on-grid SMR:    C$162.67 (A$179) / MWh
  • 125-MW off-grid heavy industry:       C$178.01 (A$196) / MWh
  • 20-MW off-grid remote mining:         C$344.62 (A$380) / MWh
  • 3-MW off-grid remote community:    C$894.05 (A$986) / MWh

The government and industry members on the Canadian EFWG are in no doubt that SMRs won’t be built without public subsidies:

“The federal and provincial governments should, in partnership with industry, investigate ways to best risk-share through policy mechanisms to reduce the cost of capital. This is especially true for the first units deployed, which would likely have a substantially higher cost of capital than a commercially mature SMR.”

The EFWG paper used a range of estimates from the literature and vendors. It notes problems with its inputs, such as the fact that many of the vendor estimates have not been independently vetted, and “the wide variation in costs provided by expert analysts”. Thus, the EFWG qualifies its findings by noting that “actual costs could be higher or lower depending on a number of eventualities”.

Corporate spin #2: NuScale Power

US company NuScale Power has put in a submission to the federal nuclear inquiry, estimating a first-of-a-kind cost for its SMR design of US$4.35 billion / gigawatt (GW) and an nth-of-a-kind cost of US$3.6 billion / GW.

NuScale doesn’t provide a $/MWh estimate in its submission, but the company has previously said it is targeting a cost of US$65/MWh for its first SMR plant. That is 2.4 lower than the US$155/MWh (A$225/MWh) estimate based on the NuScale design in a report by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared for the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

NuScale’s cost estimates should be regarded as promotional and will continue to drop – unless and until the company actually builds an SMR. The estimated cost of power from NuScale’s non-existent SMRs fell from US$98-$108/MWh in 2015 to US$65/MWh by mid-2018. The company announced with some fanfare in 2018 that it had worked out how to make its SMRs almost 20% cheaper – by making them almost 20% bigger!

Lazard estimates costs of US$112-189/MWh for electricity from large nuclear plants. NuScale’s claim that its electricity will be 2-3 times cheaper than that from large nuclear plants is implausible. And even if NuScale achieved costs of US$65/MWh, that would still be higher than Lazard’s figures for wind power (US$29-56) and utility-scale solar (US$36-46).

Likewise, NuScale’s construction construction cost estimate of US$4.35 billion / GW is implausible. The latest cost estimate for the two AP1000 reactors under construction in the US state of Georgia (the only reactors under construction in the US) is US$12.3-13.6 billion / GW. NuScale’s target is just one-third of that cost – despite the unavoidable diseconomies of scale and despite the fact that every independent assessment concludes that SMRs will be more expensive to build (per GW) than large reactors.

Further, the modular factory-line production techniques now being championed by NuScale were trialled with the AP1000 reactor project in South Carolina – a project that was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of at least US$9 billion.

Corporate spin #3: Australian company SMR Nuclear Technology

In support of its claim that “it is likely that SMRs will be Australia’s lowest-cost generation source”, Australian company SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd cites in its submission to the federal nuclear inquiry a 2017 report by the US Energy Innovation Reform Project (EIRP).

According to SMR Nuclear Technology, the EIRP study “found that the average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from advanced reactors was US$60/MWh.”

However the cost figures used in the EIRP report are nothing more than the optimistic estimates of companies hoping to get ‘advanced’ reactor designs off the ground. Therefore the EIRP authors heavily qualified the report’s findings:

“There is inherent and significant uncertainty in projecting NOAK [nth-of-a-kind] costs from a group of companies that have not yet built a single commercial-scale demonstration reactor, let alone a first commercial plant. Without a commercial-scale plant as a reference, it is difficult to reliably estimate the costs of building out the manufacturing capacity needed to achieve the NOAK costs being reported; many questions still remain unanswered – what scale of investments will be needed to launch the supply chain; what type of capacity building will be needed for the supply chain, and so forth.”

SMR Nuclear Technology’s conclusions – that “it is likely that SMRs will be Australia’s lowest-cost generation source” and that low costs are “likely to make them a game-changer in Australia” – have no more credibility than the company estimates used in the EIRP paper.

SMR Nuclear Technology’s submission does not note that the EIRP inputs were merely company estimates and that the EIRP authors heavily qualified the report’s findings.

The US$60/MWh figure cited by SMR Nuclear Technology is far lower than all independent estimates for SMRs:

  • The 2015/16 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission estimated costs of A$180-184/MWh for large light-water reactors, compared to A$225 for an SMR based on the NuScale design (and a slightly lower figure for the ‘mPower’ SMR design that was abandoned in 2017 by Bechtel and Babcock & Wilcox).
  • A December 2018 report by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator found that electricity from SMRs would be more than twice as expensive as that from wind or solar power with storage costs included (two hours of battery storage or six hours of pumped hydro storage).
  • A report by the consultancy firm Atkins for the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy found that electricity from the first SMR in the UK would be 30% more expensive than that from large reactors, because of diseconomies of scale and the costs of deploying first-of-a-kind technology. Its optimistic SMR cost estimate is US$107-155 (A$157-226) / MWh.
  • A 2015 report by the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency predicted that electricity from SMRs will be 50−100% more expensive than that from large reactors, although it holds out some hope that large-volume factory production could reduce costs.
  • An article by four pro-nuclear researchers from Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering and Public Policy, published in 2018 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, concluded than an SMR industry would only be viable in the US if it received “several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies” over the next several decades.

SMR Nuclear Technology’s assertion that “nuclear costs are coming down due to simpler and standardised design; factory-based manufacturing; modularisation; shorter construction time and enhanced financing techniques” is at odds with all available evidence and it is at odds with Dr. Ziggy Switkowski’s observation in a public hearing of the federal inquiry that nuclear “costs per kilowatt hour appear to grow with each new generation of technology”.

SMR Nuclear Technology claims that failing to repeal federal legislative bans against nuclear power would come at “great cost to the economy”. However the introduction of nuclear power to Australia would most likely have resulted in the extraordinary cost overruns and delays that have crippled every reactor construction project in the US and western Europe over the past decade – blowouts amounting to A$10 billion or more per reactor.

Nor would the outcome have been positive if Australia had instead pursued non-existent SMR ‘vaporware‘.

Dr Jim Green is lead author of a Nuclear Monitor report on SMRs and national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia.

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, politics, reference, secrets and lies, spinbuster, technology | Leave a comment

Nationals MP lashes renewable energy as ‘hoax’ and ‘fraud’ but says nuclear will help solve energy crisis,

Nationals MP lashes renewable energy as ‘hoax’ and ‘fraud’ but says nuclear will help solve energy crisis, 7 News,Matt Coughlan AAP 18 September 2019 Nationals senator Sam McMahon has lashed renewable energy as a “fraud” and a “hoax” as she made the case for oil, gas and nuclear energy.

She became the second government senator in as many days to use their first speech to parliament to talk up nuclear power after South Australian Liberal Alex Antic did the same on Tuesday.

The NT senator said Australia was looking down the barrel of an energy crisis which “quiet Australians” wanted government to solve.

“Research must continue in the development of renewable technologies, but for commercial use they currently remain immature and in many cases fundamentally flawed,” McMahon told parliament on Wednesday.

“A hoax of immature technology replacing safe, clean, reliable and inexpensive power stations has unfolded. “……..

She also said 30 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves were located in the NT.

“The time is right for us to visit and re-examine options for us to utilise this [nuclear] technology.”…….https://7news.com.au/politics/federal-politics/nationals-mp-lashes-renewable-energy-as-hoax-and-fraud-but-says-nuclear-will-help-solve-energy-crisis-c-460357

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

The well-named Liberal Senator Antic goes all out for nuclear power and waste importation

New Lib senator joins nuclear power push, Matt Coughlan   7 News, AAP, 17 September 2019

New Liberal senator Alex Antic has joined the push for nuclear power through capitalising on South Australia’s uranium industry.

Senator Antic’s first speech to parliament on Tuesday signalled he would add another nuclear advocate to the Liberal Party’s parliamentary ranks.

“The reckless rush into the unproven, un-costed world of renewable energy represents both the deceased canary down the coalmine, as well as a masterclass of failed policy from a failed former Labor government,” he said.

The Morrison government has announced an inquiry into nuclear power after the issue was raised by a rump of coalition backbenchers.

Senator Antic said “everything old could be new again” in his state, noting its history of uranium mining dating back to the early 1900s…….

The former Adelaide councillor said small modular reactors would increase efficiency and safety, while reducing the cost of nuclear power generation. …..

South Australia has the capacity to develop a safe nuclear waste facility which could bring billions into the state, he said.

Senator Antic also took aim at the “tyranny” of political correctness…….https://7news.com.au/politics/new-lib-senator-joins-nuclear-power-push-c-458275

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

What the pro nuclear people are saying, in Submissions to the Australian Parliament

I have now analysed the available, published, submissions to the FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. Just looking at the 30 pro-nuclear submissions , for a start, I’m here listing the topics, in order of the arguments most often presented:

  • The subject most often discussed was new nuclear reactors – Generation IV, Small Modular Reactors, and especially Thorium reactors .
  • Then nuclear wastes. These were seen as not really a problem, either already solved, or soon to be solved. Indeed, a number of writers saw radioactive wastes as an advantage for Australia. They suggested a waste repository, set up in South Australia could import nuclear wastes, and that business could then fund the development of nuclear power stations for Australia.
  • Economics. Nuclear power was seen as cost-effective, (with only one exception – one writer was dubious on this)
  • Renewable energy was downgraded, (though one writer argued for a renewables+nuclear project)
  • Safety issues were downgraded, including the severity of Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents New nuclear described as safer now – one saw Fukushima as a learning exercise.
  • Education. Several stressed the necessity of public education, including in schools,  on the benefits of nuclear power.
  • Necessity to end Australia’s ban on nuclear activities.
  • Climate change – nuclear needed to combat this.
  • Opposition to nuclear power was described as irrational.
  • Radiation – low dose ionising radiation discussed as harmless, (one suggested beneficial)
  • Carbon price advised by 2 writers.
  • There  were several other suggestions made, notably that the Government should lead and fund nuclear development, and should be advised by highly paid top technical staff.  The full nuclear fuel cycles is needed “cradle – to grave”. Reprocessing was advocated. Korea should supply the reactors. Nuclear power would give Australia international status. Would help prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

More than 40 groups representing millions of Australians say NO to nuclear power

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »