Does nuclear power have a future in Australia? These numbers will help cut through the debate
By energy reporter Daniel Mercer and climate lead Tim Leslie, 11 Jun 2024, [excellent charts and graphics]
As the shift away from fossil fuels gathers pace, the Coalition has turned to an emissions-free technology that has a long and contentious history — nuclear fission.
To help make sense of what role, if any, nuclear power could play we turned to Alan Finkel, Australia’s former chief scientist, and economist John Quiggin.
These are the numbers that you should keep in mind when thinking about its place in Australia’s energy transition.
Let’s look at nuclear power today
0 grams — The amount of carbon dioxide nuclear power plants emit generating electricity.
COMMENT. Unlike wind and solar, the continuing supply of fuel for nuclear power involves a long series of carbon emitting steps – starting with uranium mining
There are, according to Australia’s former chief scientist Alan Finkel, four kinds of large-scale power generation that directly emit no greenhouse gas emissions.
Three of them are obvious and fit firmly in the renewable category – hydro-electricity, wind and solar power.
The fourth is nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gases during operation, but requires fuel in the form of radioactive elements to power it. …………………
Mix of electricity from low carbon sources
Solar and wind now generate more electricity globally than nuclear power.
………………………….. in an interview with the Australian Financial Review, the head of the IEA, Fatih Birol, said nuclear power was not a good option for Australia as it would take too long.
“I have been a proponent of nuclear for many years,” he said.
“But if there is a country that has a lot of resources from other sources, such as solar and wind, I wouldn’t see nuclear as a priority option. I’m talking about Australia now.”
…………………Australia would need to partner with another country to build a nuclear power plant, but turning to the current leaders in the space, Russia and China, wouldn’t be an option.
John Quiggin is a senior fellow in economics at the University of Queensland.
He said Australia — for obvious geopolitical reasons — would be unlikely to hitch its wagon to either country.
“I don’t think that requires a lot of imagination,” Professor Quiggin said. “If Chinese firms have any special sauce, that’s no use to us. I would say the Chinese model is essentially not relevant.”
…………………new nuclear energy is barely keeping pace with closures, and outside of China there is no evidence of a jump in the amount of nuclear energy coming online.
In another sign of where the world is going, 2023 was the year when global large-scale battery investment overtook nuclear investment for the first time.
How about how much it costs to build?
1.5 times — At least how much more expensive building nuclear power in Australia would be than renewables supported by batteries.
One of the reasons the Coalition is proposing nuclear is because of the cost of the clean energy transition, but when the CSIRO looked at the figures it found that nuclear was a significantly more expensive option.
Building renewable energy on its own is a fraction of the cost of new nuclear, and in some cases lower than the cost of actually running nuclear power stations.
However, a better comparison is between nuclear and solar or wind supported by storage and transmission.
The CSIRO looked at this in its latest GenCost report, which compares the cost of different ways of producing electricity, and found it was at least 50 per cent more expensive than large-scale wind and solar power backed by “firming” technologies such as batteries.
“We did a lot of work to determine what nuclear power would cost in Australia,” Paul Graham, the chief economist of the CSIRO’s energy business unit, said.
“We’ve previously reported on small modular reactors.
“But this time, we did an update and looked at the cost of large-scale nuclear reactors, and they’re cheaper — on the order of $150 to $250 a megawatt hour. That’s still one and a half to two times the cost of renewables.
……. digging into the modelling only makes the case worse for nuclear.
When looking at the cost of renewables, the CSIRO factored in the maximum possible figures for grid upgrades, higher than the expected cost.
It also warned that the nuclear cost could only be achieved by building nuclear power at scale, so multiple reactors one after the other. The first power plant would be subject to what’s called a “first of its kind” multiplier, which could double the price from $8.5 billion to $17 billion.
Nuclear isn’t alone in facing this cost, it’s applied to any technology a country hasn’t built before, and we only have to look at the NBN or Snowy 2.0 to see the likely outcome.
But even in the world of big projects, nuclear power stations have among the worst track records for running over time and over cost.
Mega project expert Bent Flyvbjerg has gathered a database of the costs and timeframes for major projects around the world.
It shows nuclear power plants are among the worst for cost and timeframe overruns — on average they come in at more than double the original quoted price.
Taking this conservative approach means the CSIRO’s figures are far more generous to nuclear than international comparisons.
Global investment bank Lazard has been publishing an analysis of what’s called the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) since 2008. LCOE is essentially how much money a power source would have to sell its electricity for to make any money.
In 2023, the lowest LCOE for nuclear power was $220 a megawatt hour, compared with onshore wind and batteries, which was $65MW/h, more than three times the cost. Even the top estimate of its range for solar and wind was still below nuclear’s cheapest range. ………………………………..
$88 billion — The latest projected cost of building the 3.2 gigawatt Hinkley C nuclear plant in the UK.
Unlike renewable energy produced at volume, getting an accurate price on nuclear power is tricky. But looking at projects underway indicates it can be a very expensive proposition.
A big part of the relative decline in nuclear power has been its high cost compared with many of the other technologies vying for political, investor, and social support.
Exhibit A in this tale is the Hinkley C plant on the Somerset coast of the UK.
In 2007, the then chief executive of French power provider EDF, which wanted to build the plant, boasted that by 2017 Britons would be able to cook their Christmas turkeys using electricity from Hinkley.
When EDF finally committed to the giant 3.2 gigawatt plant in 2015, the initial budget was £18 billion ($34 billion), with a scheduled completion date of 2025.
Earlier this year, following a spate of cost and time blowouts, EDF said the estimated costs of building the plant would soar to as much as £46 billion ($88 billion).
Completion of the first reactor was not expected until 2029 at the earliest.
The French utility, meanwhile, did not even bother to give a time-frame for the second reactor.
What we do know is how much the British public will be paying for power from Hinkley. In order to build the plant the UK government committed to paying $171/MWh for the first 35 years, adjusted to inflation. This means the prices rise in line with inflation, by the end of 2023 it was $245/MWh.
For context, Australia’s wholesale energy cost in the last quarter of 2023 was $48/MWh.
Dr Finkel described Hinkley’s costs as “stunningly expensive”. …………………………
Let’s talk about timeframes
………………………….20 years — How long Alan Finkel says going to nuclear will delay the shift from fossil fuels.
Dr Finkel is not opposed to nuclear power as an energy source, but said it cannot be thought of as a solution to decarbonising our power system for the next few decades.
He said a call to go direct from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years. ……………………………..
96 per cent— How much of our grid is projected to run on renewables and storage by 2040.……………………………
10,000 years— How long the US EPA requires the isolation of nuclear waste.…………………..
What about smaller reactors?
0 — The number of commercial small modular reactors under construction or in operation outside of China and Russia. (COMMENT – and China and Russia have no more than one or two, and not operating well)
3.9 times — How much more a small modular reactor would cost compared to wind and solar supported by batteries.……………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-11/nuclear-power-for-australia-cost-and-timelines-explained/103641602?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR390g5b6693i-HFkuGA0gyw1xFQP_10ZYzZ_zsk9fk0qwyp-S7AHZ9wwm0_aem_AUDX1LozQsj9FqEcFeQYTrTgIC8dBhGF8t3bhnH-snEwrlJGR8UxeU5JoNwc0rGGaSx-fHZ9Q5WDutOjBT25sbNz
The network of conservative think-tanks out to kill the switch to renewables
Michael Mazengarb, Feb 28, 2024 https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-network-of-conservative-think-tanks-out-to-kill-the-switch-to-renewables/
Australia’s renewable energy and emissions reduction plans are being targeted by coordinated campaigns from conservative “think tanks”, as the Coalition embraces nuclear and its MPs rail against all forms of large scale renewables and transmission lines being built as part of the clean energy transition.
Having successfully defeated the Voice to Parliament referendum by feeding the distribution of disinformation, conservative groups like the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), the Liberal-party aligned Menzies Research Group and the ‘campaign group’ Advance Australia are all ramping up their pro-nuclear, anti-renewables campaigns.
Anyone familiar with Australian climate and clean energy policy over the last couple of decades will be familiar with the Institute of Public Affairs. The well-funded think tank – thanks to generous donors that include mining billionaire Gina Rinehart – has long railed against any efforts to tackle climate change, calling for the abolition of the carbon price and virtually any policy that supports renewable energy.
The IPA has published a flurry of reports that have sought to stoke fears renewables causing the loss agricultural land in Victoria, and high costs of renewables in Western Australia – two claims that rely on gross exaggeration.
Like the IPA, the Centre for Independent Studies has strong links with the Coalition parties – promoting the works of Coalition MPs, and several of the group’s ‘alumni’ going on to serve as Liberal Party MPs or candidates.
The group recently launched a new campaign to promote nuclear energy and to actively attack the efforts of energy market regulators and institutions, including the Australian Energy Market Operator and the CSIRO, to plan the transition to renewables.
The Menzies Research Centre has the clearest, explicit, ties to conservative politics – having been named for former prime minister Robert Menzies – and pumps out opinion pieces critical of renewables and advocating for fossil fuels that are often published by News Corp outlets.
For example, a recently authored piece by Menzies Research Centre’s senior fellow, Nick Cater, blamed renewables for the Victorian blackout (which was caused by storms and an outage at the Loy Yang A coal power station).
All of these campaigns are having an impact, being embraced and fuelled by the Federal Coalition, with opposition leader Peter Dutton set to reignite the ‘climate wars’ by pushing for an Australian nuclear power industry – despite the astronomical costs, and the huge wait times for the industry.
Coalition MPs dominated the speakers list of a recent anti-renewable energy rally, that descended on Canberra earlier this month.
The group that is likely to be running the pro-nuclear ground campaign ahead of the next election, Advance Australia, previously led substantial efforts to oppose the recent First Nations Voice to Parliament referendum. The group is already running campaigns that denigrate renewable energy technologies, campaign against net zero targets, question climate change and promote nuclear energy.
While attempting to portray itself as a ‘grassroots’ roots movement, a conservative counter to GetUp! that claims to be taking on ‘woke elites’ – Advance Australia has amassed significant funds from some of Australia’s wealthiest individuals.
Donors to Advance Australia include former Vales Point power station owner Trevor St Baker, Bakers Delight founder Roger Gillespie, owner of Kennards Self Storage Sam Kennard, the former Blackmores CEO Marcus Blackmore, former fund manager Simon Fenwick, and former Shark Tank investor Steve Baxter.
Recent political donation disclosures show Advance Australia receiving a massive, $1.025 million donation from Perth-based car salesman Brian Anderson, and $1.1 million over the last three years from Fenwick.
Sam Kennard – who is worth an estimated $2.6 billion and who also sits on the board of the Centre for Independent Studies – regularly attacks renewables and promotes climate change denial on social media, and donated $165,000 to Advance over the last three years.
The depth of the interconnections between these think tanks is difficult to assess, but there is growing evidence that points to a coordinated international campaign to undermine renewables and promote the interests of fossil fuels and the pro-nuclear lobby.
The efforts of researchers like University of Technology Sydney professor Jeremy Walker have drawn links between the campaigns of Australia’s conservative lobby groups and other members of a global ‘Atlas Network’ of conservative think tanks. The US-based Atlas Network disperses grant funding and runs training on campaigning and fundraising for its international network, including to Australian think tanks.
Australian members of the Altas Network include the IPA, the CIP, and the Australian Institute for Progress – which has also adopted anti-renewable energy and anti-electric vehicle positions.
A recently published submission by Walker draws the parallels between these ‘think tanks’ and the anti-wind farm campaigns that have targeted the Illawarra Renewable Energy Zone, and culminated in a bizarre anti-renewables rally outside Parliament House in Canberra – and similar campaigns that opposed wind farm developments in the United States.
Anti-off-shore wind farm campaigns in the states of New Jersey and Rhode Island have used similar, disproven, claims about impacts on whale populations. These campaigns, as reported by the New York Times, were being funded and coordinated on the other side of the United States, by fossil-fuel industry linked the Texas Public Policy Foundation – itself a member of the Atlas Network.
International members of the Atlas Network include high-profile propagators of climate denial and pro-fossil fuel propaganda, including the US-based Heartland Institute, and the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation – which now features former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott on its board of trustees.
The complexity and opaqueness of the network is noteworthy, and has made the drawing of distinct relationships between groups and individuals difficult to track and analyse. But the shear number of linkages is clear, as are the relationships between the groups and Australia’s conservative political parties.
Several current and former members of the Australian-based think tanks have done stints with the Atlas Network and its members, with some members openly acknowledging the coordination between groups on training and funding.
This includes ex-IPA executive Alan Moran – who formally spearheaded the IPA’s climate denial efforts, former Abbott-government adviser and climate sceptic Maurice Newman – who have both held roles across several members of the Atlas Network
What is clear is that efforts to undermine the phase-out of fossil fuels remain strong, remain well funded and efforts are being coordinated globally.
The Voice to Parliament referendum was a stark example of how misinformation and disinformation can be deployed to influence the public and public policy, and Australia’s renewables sector will need to be ready to counteract these efforts when facing a similar campaign in the lead up to the next federal election.
Countering the nuclear lobby’s spin – and more, this week
Some bits of good news – Incredible global progress on water, sanitation, and hygiene. The incredible comeback of Britain’s Barn Owls.
TOP STORIES The Military-Industrial Complex Is Killing Us All.
The omnicidal and unnecessary Nuclear Triad.
Energy buffs give small modular reactors a gigantic reality check.
Stockpiling nuclear weapons? That will do nothing for national security, Keir Starmer.
From the archives. Jeremy Corbyn was smeared for rejecting the use of nuclear weapons – but he was right.
Climate. Global warming happening at fastest speed in history. Climate crisis made May heatwaves 1.5C hotter in India, study says.
Noel’s notes. Time to get real about anti-semitism – the renewed danger. A voice of sanity in the UK– Jeremy Corbyn is back! Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War -Episode 5 – War Games – and then Glasnost, a welcome thaw.
AUSTRALIA. Opposition’s nuclear-energy policy would increase defence risk .Dutton to ditch Paris Agreement: analysis reveals nuclear impact on emissions.
Dutton’s nuclear policy a disaster for Australia. Dutton spruiks gas and nuclear to win back Victoria. Experts unite to condemn Coalition nuclear policy meltdown. Peter Dutton proposes decades of delay on climate: Federal Liberals still with no climate plan.
If regional communities don’t want a windfarm, why would they accept a nuclear power station? Resources Minister Madeleine King challenges Peter Dutton to name Western Australia nuclear power station sites.
The network of conservative think-tanks out to kill the switch to renewables.
Eraring deal signals death of baseload power in Australia, and Dutton’s nuclear fantasy.
Submarine boss refuses to answer questions over multi-billion-dollar AUKUS payments, A Detectable Subservience – Australia’s ill-fated nuclear submarine deal? Will Port Adelaide, Fremantle or Port Kembla be the Australian Chernobyl? Lockheed Martin deletes Australian F-35 ties.
Was ABC’s firing of Antoinette Lattouf influenced by a pro-Israel group? | Real Talk – Online.
NUCLEAR ISSUES
| ATROCITIES. Report: Vast Majority of Children Under 5 in Gaza Going Full Days Without Food. | CIVIL LIBERTIES. Journalist, critic of U.S. Ukraine policy, pulled off plane, U.S. seizes his passport. | CULTURE. How Nato seduced the European Left. The anti-war movement has fallen for a progressive circus. |
| ECONOMICS. Should USS Investment Builder invest in nuclear power? | EDUCATION. University of Ghent to cease all collaboration with Israeli institutions. | EMPLOYMENT. Allegations managing director of Scotland nuclear complex was ‘shipped out‘ over long-running pay dispute. |
| ENERGY. The ugly truth behind ChatGPT: AI is guzzling resources at planet-eating rates. | HEALTH. Radiation Exposure Compensation for impacted downwind communities is expiring Friday. Speaker Johnson, bring it to a vote.Samsung workers treated for exposure to radiation in South Korea |
| HISTORY. “In Ukraine, a war for memory.”. | LEGAL. ‘We Want Peace’: Spain Applies to Join ICJ Genocide Case Against Israel. | MEDIA. CNN’s Israel bias has been laid bare. But CNN is the norm, not the exception. |
| POLITICS Keir Starmer’s Trident triple lock: how Britain’s obsession with nuclear weapons has become part of election campaigns. Labour pledges to launch Great British Energy ‘within months’ of general election victory: it includes nuclear power. UK Labour talks up nuclear weapons to banish Corbyn’s shadow. UK’s nuclear deterrent key to Starmer’s plans to keep Britain safe.Scots urged to vote in anti-nuclear MPs to ‘take target off our backs’ We should aim for nuclear disarmament – Plaid leader, UK.Corporate lobbying heats up around governments’ nuclear power plans despite concerns from anti-nuclear advocates….ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/06/06/1-b1-corporate-lobbying-heats-up-around-governments-nuclear-power-plans-despite-concerns-from-anti-nuclear-advocates/. 42 House Democrats Help GOP Pass Bill Targeting ICC Officials Over Israel. Dutch government is socialist when it comes to funding nuclear power. | POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Senior U.S. Diplomats, Journalists, Academics and Secretaries of Defense Say: the U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine. Peace talks without Russia ‘laughable’ – John Mearsheimer.Putin warns West over Ukraine armaments, nuclear arsenal in news conference. UN offers nuclear inspection deal to Iran’s new leadership. Nuclear watchdog votes to censure Iran for non-cooperation with inspectors. Why a substantive and verifiable no-first-use treaty for nuclear weapons is possible. |
| SAFETY. Restarting Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant ‘difficult to envisage’ during war, says IAEA chief. | SECRETS and LIES. President Biden’s subliminal D Day speech in France |
TECHNOLOGY. U.S. Micro Nuclear Reactors happy to join with NATO military.
URANIUM. The weapons potential of high-assay low-enriched uranium.
| WASTES. No nuke waste down under: Nuclear Free Local Authorities spokesperson receives assurance MOD still committed to decommissioning British nuclear subs at home. China urges long-term supervision over Japan’s radioactive water discharge. | WAR and CONFLICT. NATO plans Europe-wide escalation of war against Russia. Russia doesn’t need nuclear weapons to succeed: Putin. Ralph Nader -on Joe Biden: Pushing America Deeper into the Russian/Ukrainian War. Guterres warns humanity on ‘knife’s edge’ as AI raises nuclear war threat. Israel kills over 200 Palestinians to rescue 4 captives; U.S. allegedly involved in operation- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJnF2CLbibw |
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
- US Bombs Used in Israeli Massacre of 40 in Gaza Refugee Camp. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2hjy3e1i2o
- U.S. Considers Expanded Nuclear Arsenal, a Reversal of Decades of Cuts – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/06/09/2-a-u-s-considers-expanded-nuclear-arsenal-a-reversal-of-decades-of-cuts/ US issues major nuclear weapons alert amid fears of all-out war: ‘If that day comes…’
- A Nuclear-Armed European Union? A Proposal Under Fire. European Nuclear Deterrent a Harebrained Illegal Proposal.
- Blinken Confirms Biden Change On Policy Toward Ukraine Using U.S. Weapons Inside Russia. France to give fighter jets to Ukraine – Macron.
- What’s Next for Battlefield America? Israel’s High-Tech Military Tactics Point the Way.
- China: US nuclear weapons in South Korea would undermine its security.
- Russia nuclear-powered submarine to visit Cuba amid rising tensions with US.
Dutton to ditch Paris Agreement: analysis reveals nuclear impact on emissions
SMH By Mike Foley. June 9, 2024
The opposition’s nuclear energy plans would force Australia to fall massively short of the nation’s emissions target and generate more than 2 billion tonnes of extra greenhouse gas by 2050, breaking Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. New analysis revealed the emissions blowout following Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s declaration he would ditch Australia’s legally binding climate target to cut emissions 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.Dutton told The Australian on Saturday that the government’s renewable goal was unattainable and “there’s no sense in signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”, and pledged only to meet a goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
Solutions for Climate Australia calculated the extra emissions that would be generated by coal and gas plants while waiting for the first nuclear plants to be built, which CSIRO reported last month could not be achieved until 2040 at the earliest.
Dutton has said the Coalition would boost the role of gas power to fill gaps in the energy grid until his reactors are built, and would ensure coal plants are not shut before their energy supply is replaced.
This increased reliance on fossil fuels would generate 2.3 billion tonnes more greenhouse emissions compared to the Albanese government’s climate policy. That’s more than five years’ worth of Australia’s annual emissions, which were 433 million tonnes in 2023.
Dutton’s declaration will reignite the climate wars and ensure the next federal election, due by May, is a referendum on climate policy after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last week vowed his government will campaign on this issue every day.
The opposition’s plan would break from the terms of the Paris Agreement, which demands its members increase their emissions goal every five years, with the Albanese government committed to set a 2035 target by February.
It is also at odds with findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the United Nations’ expert science body – that fossil fuels must be rapidly phased out to meet the Paris Agreement, which the Abbott government signed Australia up to in 2015.
The Paris Agreement commits nations to contributing to action that limits global warming to under 2 degrees – and as close to 1.5 degrees as possible – to avoid the worst damage.
Climate scientists say reaching net zero emissions by 2050 is not enough to achieve this goal, and countries must start reducing emissions rapidly now to have any hope of limiting warming to below 2 degrees, rather than waiting until later decades to deliver deep reductions in greenhouse gases.
Currently, 194 nations are signatories to this deal, including all developed nations and Australia’s major trade and security partners – the US, UK, Japan, Korea, China and India.
Dutton’s rejection of Australia’s 2030 goal will place Australia outside the bounds of the Paris Agreement.
“They’re walking away from the Paris Agreement … saying that Australia will join Libya, Yemen and Iran outside the Paris Accord,” said Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen.
The Investor Group on Climate Change, representing institutional investors with total funds under management of more than $30 trillion, said Dutton’s policy threatened to derail the clean energy transition.
“Back-flipping on these commitments and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement would corrode investor confidence at a time when Australia is competing for funding for new technologies and clean industries, local jobs and training opportunities,” said the group’s policy director Erwin Jackson………………………………..
“Our analysis shows the federal Coalition’s plan for nuclear reactors would see Australia throw its commitment to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees out the window,” said Solutions for Climate Australia campaigner Elly Baxter……………………………..
The modelling assumes, based on comments from senior figures including Nationals Leader David Littleproud, that a Coalition government would halt construction of large-scale wind and solar farms and continue to roll out rooftop solar panels for homes.
When asked if the opposition still wanted to pause the rollout of renewables, O’Brien said details of the policy would be released in due course. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-to-ditch-paris-agreement-analysis-reveals-nuclear-impact-on-emissions-20240604-p5jj8s.html
TODAY. Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War -Episode 5 – War Games – and then Glasnost, a welcome thaw
Introduction. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Russian forces have taken it over. Zelensky is quoted “Six Chernobyls – The biggest danger in Europe. ” Russia also taken over Chernobyl. Garret Graff comments – a warning that Russia could militarise these places., creating a “dirty bomb” (But no mention that fire from Ukrainian forces could do the same)
*************************************
In 1980. U.S. National Security Advisor Brzezinski was alerted that there were 2000 Soviet missiles headed to America. This turned out to be a false alarm – a computer error. USA could have launched a full-scale nuclear war. We have got close to nuclear catastrophe numerous times – we’ve been lucky.
In the 1980s, renewed fear of Russia, with Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. President Ronald Reagan built his campaign on harsh criticism of “detente” – the politics of fear of Russia. Nuclear arsenals were enormous, but no real communication between USA and Soviet leaders. Reagan pushed for more and greater nuclear weapons. Meanwhile The Soviets believed that the USA was plotting a nuclear first strike and world domination.
KGP conducted a new intelligence operation. USA deploys nuclear weapons to Germany. USSR has nuclear missiles near its Western border. (all this very well illustrated). 1983 a most dangerous period. Ronald Reagan gave his famous speech about “the evil empire”- the “struggle between right and wrong, and good and evil”. Then he announces The Strategic Defense Initiative aimed at rendering the Soviet missile force useless- to destroy nuclear missiles in flight. Edward Teller suggests space lasers on satellites. (again, very well visually displayed) – a plan that came to be known as “Star Wars”
Tensions along the Soviet coast -1in 1983, the Russian shooting down of a civilian aircraft that mistakenly flew over Soviet nuclear submarine base. Then in September, the crisis in which the Soviet Missile Defence Centre gets intelligence of an incoming attack of 5 nuclear missiles headed to Russia. The officer on duty – Stanislov Petrov felt it was wrong, refused to set off the nuclear retaliation – and it turned out to have been a computer error – there was no U.S. attack. Soviet and U.S nuclear weapons procedures were ramped up – U.S “War Games” exercises alerted the Soviets, their military very nervous.
The series attributed the highly-watched movie “The Day After” to alerting Ronald Reagan to the awful danger of nuclear war. The film producers avoided using this as propaganda. 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev took over as Soviet leader. Excellent coverage of the Gorbachev-Reagan talks.
1986 – the Chernobyl nuclear accident – good visuals – uncontrolled release of radiation – first picked up in Sweden – Soviet’s tradition reluctance to reveal the facts, but did announce them 2 weeks later. Children the most medically affected; Gorbachev saw the need to end the Russian secrecy on its nuclear industry, and increased his wish to reduce nuclear weapons. Glasnost – a move to make government more open and accountable – begun by Gorbachev – leading to the end of the Cold War
Peter Dutton proposes decades of delay on climate: Federal Liberals still with no climate plan
June 8, 2024: The AIM Network, https://theaimn.com/peter-dutton-proposes-decades-of-delay-on-climate-federal-liberals-still-with-no-climate-plan/
National climate group Solutions for Climate Australia expressed extreme disappointment and concern at the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton proposing further decades of delay in tackling climate change, despite increasing climate disasters.
This follows a statement by Peter Dutton today, in an interview with The Australian, that the Federal Liberal Party wants to reject current targets and plans to reduce Australia’s climate pollution this decade.
“It is a tragedy that the Federal Liberal Party has no plan to stop the increasing climate disasters which are directly killing Australians, and damaging communities, agriculture and businesses across the country, and globally,” said Dr Barry Traill, Director of Solutions for Climate Australia.
“We need decisive action on climate pollution this decade to protect farmers, our food supply, businesses and trade. From uninsurable houses, to declining crop yields, to direct threats to life and property, we are all now being hurt by climate disasters.
“Australians voted decisively for action on climate in the 2022 election. Mr Dutton’s weak, do-nothing approach on climate is out of step with the electorate. The community showed it expects all political parties to adopt strong, science-based targets to reduce pollution.”
“The federal Coalition has not heeded the message of the nation on climate. They must do better.”
Dutton’s nuclear policy a disaster for Australia
Climate Council Media Release, 8 June 24 https://theaimn.com/duttons-nuclear-policy-a-disaster-for-australia/
Responding to reports today that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would rip up Australia’s 2030 climate targets if elected, Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said:
“Dutton’s climate policy is a disaster, and the consequence for Australians would be more extreme heat, fires and floods. Instead of ripping up Australia’s 2030 climate targets, Peter Dutton must listen to the communities already ravaged by worsening climate disasters.
“There are 195 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement. Opting out would make Australia a global laughing stock.
“The Liberals haven’t learned the lesson Australians gave them at the last election: this is more of the same from the party who already gave us a decade of denial and delay on climate.”
Head of Policy and Advocacy Dr Jennifer Rayner said: “Peter Dutton is now promising Australians more climate pollution and a more dangerous future for our kids.
“This is the make-or-break decade to slash climate pollution by accelerating Australia’s move to clean energy. This is what it takes to keep our kids safe from escalating climate change and set Australia up for our next era of prosperity.
“Australia is already making great progress, with 40 percent of the power in our main national grid coming from clean energy, and one in three households having solar on their roof. Doing a massive u-turn on this momentum makes no sense when we can accelerate it instead.”
Opposition’s nuclear-energy policy would increase defence risk.
7 Jun 2024, Chris Douglas https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australian-oppositions-nuclear-energy-policy-would-increase-defence-risk/
The Australian Liberal-National opposition’s proposal to build nuclear power stations on the sites of old coal-fired plants is misguided. The policy would perpetuate Australia’s concentration of electricity generation and worsen our vulnerability to air and missile attack.
Renewable-energy installations, by contrast, are numerous, dispersed and therefore much less profitable for an enemy to destroy. They’re also far easier and quicker to fix. And energy storage capacity, another source of resilience, necessarily grows as they’re built.
The current concentration of large slabs of generation capacity in coal-fired stations is already a vulnerability. They’re attractive targets. A single attack by a few strike missiles might knock out a plant and its large chunk of power supply.
Chinese bombers, submarines and carrier-launched aircraft could attack them using guided bunker-busting bombs, regular air-to-ground missiles or hypersonic ones with tungsten penetrators. Russia is indeed targeting power stations in its war against Ukraine, typically hitting them with missiles and drones.
If a big power station’s energy comes from nuclear reactors instead of boilers burning fossil fuel, a strike could cause an environmentally devastating release of radioactive material. If we had nuclear power stations, they would in fact be things that an enemy could use against us.
The Chernobyl nuclear disaster resulted in radioactive contamination of about 150,000 square kilometres reaching as far as 500km from the plant. It released more radiation than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. In 2007 the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies reported: ‘a nuclear power plant contains more than 1000 times the radiation that is released in an atomic bomb blast’. The Chernobyl experience suggests that destruction of a large nuclear station on the site of the Eraring coal-fired plant in New South Wales might render the port of Newcastle inoperative and perhaps force the evacuation of 800,000 people in the city and Central Coast.
Most of Australia’s coal-fired power stations are in NSW, Victoria and Queensland. Replacing at least some with nuclear plants, as the opposition suggests, would therefore expose much of the population to frightening wartime risk. Attacks could result in long-term crippling of the economy by rendering cities uninhabitable. They would raise the cost to Australia for continuing any war.
Fixing a coal-fired power station that had suffered war damage would be hard enough and would take many months, at least. Fixing a nuclear one would be a lot harder and take much longer. For all that time, the economy would be deprived of the plant’s generating capacity.
Wide distribution of electricity generation to hundreds of wind and solar farms avoids such risks. Collateral damage from strikes on them would be small, not least because they are usually in remote places.
Because renewable generation capacity is economically divided among many installations each with modest capacity, they raise an enemy’s cost of knocking down supply. Eraring’s capacity is 2880 megawatts, concentrated in a 400-metre-long line of four generating units, each of which might be disabled by a single hit.
The Macintyre wind farm in Queensland, to be completed this year, will have 180 wind turbines, a site area of 36,000 hectares and a rated capacity of 1026 megawatts. Average output of a typical Australian windfarm, allowing for variation in wind strength, is only about 35 percent of rated capacity. But destroying such an installation would require a great many munitions.
Similarly, the solar farm at Coleambally, NSW, has more than 565,000 solar panels spread over 513 hectares and a rated capacity of 150 megawatts. At the time of completion, its output was expected to average 45 megawatts.
Moreover, generating farms are complemented by homes and businesses that are partly or entirely independent of grid supply thanks to their own solar generation and battery storage.
In World War II, Japan had a dispersed electricity-generating system, which was one reason why the United States did not try to knock out supply. The system consisted of too many targets and would have been too hard to debilitate.
Repairability enhances the inherent robustness of renewable generation. Critical parts that are not made domestically would need to be stockpiled, something that Japan did in preparation for World War II. The federal government’s Future Made in Australia strategy will help. If Australia builds wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and distribution gear, it will have plenty of skills and fabrication machinery for fixing them. Recovery times would be far shorter than for a damaged or destroyed nuclear plant.
The opposition’s nuclear power proposal would lead us into far greater vulnerability in a war with a major adversary. It’s much better to stay on our current course. Every time a new piece of the renewable energy system is switched on, we become a little less vulnerable.
AUTHOR. Chris Douglas served with the Australian Army in infantry and intelligence and later with the Australian Federal Police.
Resources Minister Madeleine King challenges Peter Dutton to name Western Australia nuclear power station sites
Joe Spagnolo, The West Australian, Sat, 8 June 2024
WA Federal Labor Minister Madeleine King has challenged Peter Dutton to come clean on where nuclear power stations would be located in WA — as the Federal Liberal leader spruiks nuclear energy for Australia.
Addressing the media in Kwinana on Saturday morning, the Resources Minister said WA communities like Collie, Kwinana and Fremantle could all be targets for a nuclear power station under a Dutton-led Federal Government…………………. (Subscribers only) https://thewest.com.au/politics/state-politics/resources-minister-madeleine-king-challenges-peter-dutton-to-name-wa-nuclear-power-station-sites-c-14953838
Will Port Adelaide, Fremantle or Port Kembla be the Australian Chernobyl?
By Douglas McCartyJul 21, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-will-adelaide-fremantle-or-port-kembla-be-the-australian-chernobyl/
While most discussion of the AUKUS Agreement has focussed on the geopolitical implications for Australia’s standing in the world, the escalation of the risk of war and the crippling cost of the nuclear submarine purchases when less expensive and more sensible non-nuclear options are available, little has been said of the risk to the civilian population posed by these nuclear-powered submarines (or other nuclear-powered naval vessels) in Australia’s home ports.
Perhaps we citizens only enter the calculations as ‘collateral damage’. Any such necessarily technical discussion is hampered by military secrecy. Some information has been released officially, but most is from generalised inference, or conjecture, and so subject to uncertainty. However, in this important matter, it is worth attempting to join the dots….
News from the war in Ukraine includes, almost every other night, a report on the situation around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe. Though no longer continuing to generate power for Ukraine, it is always at risk of being shelled or bombed by one side or the other, and regularly just avoiding reactor cooling water pump failure from damaged power transmission lines or lack of diesel fuel for their backup generators for the pumps. How long this situation will continue remains to be seen. And now, after the breaching of the Kakhovka Dam, it is estimated just three months of water for cooling remains.
The consequences of the catastrophic failure of a nuclear reactor are well known to both the Ukrainians and the Russians. To the Northwest of Zaporizhzhia, and just 100 kilometres North of Kyiv, lies the Chernobyl Reactor No. 4, which, on 26 April 1986, underwent meltdown after a coolant and moderator failure, exploded, and caught fire. Radioactive material and fission products were ejected into the air, spreading across the immediate countryside and into Northern Europe. Radioactive rain was reported on the mountains of Wales and Scotland, in the Alps, and contamination in reindeer herds in Northern Sweden. The principal radiological contaminant of concern across this vast area was Caesium-137, one of many fission products and representing some 6% of fission reactor spent fuel. Just 27 kg of Caesium-137, it is calculated, caused this contamination. Some 150,000 square kilometres of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were initially contaminated. Of course, at the time of the accident, all this was part of the Soviet Union. To this day, 2600 square kilometres around the plant are considered unsafe for human habitation, or agriculture, and will remain so for between 300 and 3000 years! The Reactor used 2% enriched Uranium fuel.
Although the loss of life at Chernobyl was a small fraction of the 100,000 deaths from one of the only two uses of nuclear weapons in war, on Hiroshima in 1945, Chernobyl created 400 times more radioactive pollution. The Hiroshima bomb, “Little Boy”, contained 64 kg of enriched Uranium, though less than 2% actually underwent nuclear fission. The bomb was detonated 500 metres above ground (‘airburst’), and the fatalities were the result of blast, heat, and irradiation, in a city centre. Chernobyl occurred at ground level and so ejected debris upwards initially, followed by smoke columns from subsequent fires. . The 31 deaths at Chernobyl were plant operators and, of course, firemen. The G7, the AUKUS Partners and the Quad just met at ‘ground zero’ in a rebuilt Hiroshima City, 78 years after the bombing.
The US Navy nuclear powered warships, including the ‘Virginia’ Class submarines that Australia would buy under the AUKUS Agreement, principally use Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) reactors. The Uranium is enriched to above 93% fissionable Uranium-235. It is weapons grade material and has in part been sourced from decommissioned nuclear weapons. The submarine reactors are intended to last for the ‘Life of Ship’ (LOS), up to 33 years, without needing refuelling. Low Enriched Uranium reactors need fuel replacement every 5 to 10 years, when, importantly, the containment pressure vessel around the reactor is physically inspected for flaws and deterioration. This is not done for the HEU, LOS reactors.
The US Navy nuclear powered warships, including the ‘Virginia’ Class submarines that Australia would buy under the AUKUS Agreement, principally use Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) reactors. The Uranium is enriched to above 93% fissionable Uranium-235. It is weapons grade material and has in part been sourced from decommissioned nuclear weapons. The submarine reactors are intended to last for the ‘Life of Ship’ (LOS), up to 33 years, without needing refuelling. Low Enriched Uranium reactors need fuel replacement every 5 to 10 years, when, importantly, the containment pressure vessel around the reactor is physically inspected for flaws and deterioration. This is not done for the HEU, LOS reactors. In one year, at full power, (210 x 365 ÷ 940 =) 81.5 kg of U-235 would be required. Along with other decay products from the U-235 (Strontium-90, Iodine-131, Xenon-133 etc.), as noted earlier some 6% (or 4.9 kg) would be Caesium-137. The ‘neutron poisons’ also created are balanced out by ‘burnable’ neutron poisons incorporated into the core when new, to maintain reactor function over the years. So far, simple nuclear physics and thermodynamics.
Operationally, one surmises, the submarine reactor will infrequently run at full power. Actual annual production of Caesium-137 may lie between, say, 0.8 kg for 1/6th capacity operation on average for the whole year, and 2.45 kg at half capacity for the year. As the reactor is designed to not need refuelling for the ‘Life of the Ship’, the Cs-137 would continuously accumulate inside the reactor fuel elements. At the lower bound of 1/6th operation, there would be approaching 27 kg of Cs-137 in the core after 33 years, allowing for the decay of some of the Caesiun-137, given its half-life of 30.05 years. At the upper bound, it would take about 13 years for 27 kg of Caesium-137 to accumulate.
Visiting nuclear-powered submarines, from the US or UK, would be similar. Visiting US nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, each with two A1B reactors each of 700MWt, may have 27 kg of Cs-137 in their reactor cores after just two years of operation.
Visiting ships may stay in Australian ports for days or even weeks. Australian submarines will be in port not only between deployments, but also for maintenance, for months and years. The US Navy appears to have about 40 Virginia Class Subs, with some 18 undergoing long-stay maintenance, or about half. We might expect the same. So, at any one time, the AUKUS plan would see naval nuclear reactors, US, or UK, or Australian, or all, in Adelaide, and/or Fremantle, and/or Port Kembla. While peacetime only presents the risk of a nuclear accident, wartime would see these important military assets easily detectable – and targetable – while in port. In the event of a nuclear war, this may be just one of our worries.
In a conventional, non-nuclear conflict, the story may be very different. The situation of the Zaporizhzhia civilian reactors in Ukraine is most instructive. However, as legitimate military targets, would such restraint be shown towards the reactors in the submarines? What would be the impact of a conventional cruise or hypersonic or ballistic missile warhead on the pressure hull and reactor containment vessel (and plumbing) of a nuclear-powered submarine?
Should just 27 kg of the Caesium-137 in the naval reactor cores be released into the air through an explosion (as at Chernobyl) in an accident or deliberate attack, what would be the outcome? In Fremantle, especially if the ‘Fremantle Doctor’ was blowing, would sections of Fremantle and Perth become unsafe for human habitation? In Port Kembla, especially if a ‘Southery Buster’ came through, the Illawarra and, depending on the particular weather conditions, would parts of the South of Sydney become unsuitable for human habitation? For Port Adelaide, especially if a NW change came through, would the Adelaide coastal strip from Gawler to Aldinga become unsuitable for human habitation?
Imagine the number of “single mums doing it tough” who would have to be relocated to emergency accommodation – somewhere! Imagine all that social housing rendered uninhabitable! Even if we ‘won’ the war.
This is a real possibility if we have nuclear reactors in surface ships or submarines in our ports, or in our ship building and maintenance facilities.
Submarine boss refuses to answer questions over multi-billion-dollar AUKUS payments
By defence correspondent Andrew Greene, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-07/submarine-bossmulti-billion-aukus-payments/103952528
The head of the AUKUS submarine program has refused to say whether an almost $5 billion government payment to the United States will be refunded if no nuclear-powered boats are delivered to Australia.
Under the tri-nation agreement, Australia is providing multi-billion-dollar contributions to the United States and United Kingdom to help expand their submarine industrial bases, but for months officials have declined to discuss details of the transfers.
During a Senate estimates hearing, Greens senator David Shoebridge attempted to extract details of the impending $4.7 billion payment to the US from the head of the Australian Submarine Agency, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead.
Under questioning late on Thursday, the ASA boss repeatedly refused to say if a refund clause was included with Australia’s payment in case the United States fails to transfer Virginia class submarines in the 2030s.
“I just go back to the original statement — the US has committed to providing two US submarines from its submarine industrial base in the early 2030s and a third one on procurement,” the vice admiral told the committee.
What if the United States determines not to give us a nuclear submarine? Is there a clawback provision in the agreement?” Senator Shoebridge then demanded to know.
“That’s a hypothetical and I’m not going to entertain … The US has committed to transferring two nuclear-powered submarines to Australia,” the ASA boss asserted.
“It may be embarrassing that you have entered into an agreement that sees Australian taxpayers shelling out $4.7 billion — which we don’t get back if we don’t get our nuclear submarines,” Senator Shoebridge responded.
Under the final stage of AUKUS the United Kingdom will help develop a new class of nuclear-powered submarine to be known as SSN-AUKUS, with Australia’s boats to be built locally in Adelaide.
Ahead of the ambitious venture, Australia will hand almost $5 billion to British industry over the next decade for design work and to expand production of nuclear reactors that will eventually be installed on AUKUS submarines
Navy apologises to traditional land owners over nuclear expansion
Defence has apologised to traditional land owners in Western Australia who live around the Garden Island naval base for not consulting them about upgrades being made to accommodate visiting nuclear-powered submarines.
During Senate estimates, Greens senator Dorinda Cox, who is a Yamatji-Noongar woman, expressed concerns on behalf of her community about the AUKUS work that will soon occur at HMAS Stirling.
Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Mark Hammond told the Senator he wanted to discuss the matter on his next visit, an offer she accepted.
“I’m just surprised that this has been such an oversight for an extended period of time, I do apologise, I’m in Western Australia in a couple of weeks’ time and again in July. I’d like to formally engage with your concurrence.”
Experts unite to condemn Coalition nuclear policy meltdown.
Climate Media Centre
Energy and health experts as well as affected regional and global communities have condemned reports today of the Coalition’s energy policy which includes large nuclear reactors to be sited on mothballed coal-fired power stations across regional Australia, as well as a plan to rip up Australia’s commitments to the Paris Agreement.
The CSIRO’s recent GenCost report showed that renewable energy remains the fastest, safest and lowest-cost energy option is what we’re already building. Clean energy like solar and wind already makes up 40% of our national electricity grid, and one in three households have installed solar panels. Staying this course is the most responsible path toward slashing emissions this decade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Andrew Bray, National Director, RE-Alliance – “The Federal Coalition’s energy policy is a false solution to Australia’s emission reduction commitments – the shift to a clean energy supply is already under way, with the latest data showing almost 40% of Australia’s electricity generation came from renewable energy sources in 2023.
“Policies relying on non-existent small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technologies and large-scale nuclear plants that take decades to build would commit Australia to a polluting and unreliable fossil fuel powered system for the next 20 years. Our current trajectory will see these ageing plants close progressively over the next ten years.
“Renewable energy is here right now. Australians are increasingly using a cleaner and cheaper electricity supply, which we need to minimise the increasing impacts of climate change. Regional communities can greatly benefit from the rollout of renewable energy infrastructure – provided governments and industry are committed to sustained and significant investment in community engagement.
“We need to stick to the plan but shift our focus to ensure regional communities get the benefits they deserve from the roll-out.”
IEEFA Australia CEO, Amandine Denis Ryan, said: “The research by IEEFA’s nuclear experts calls into question whether nuclear makes financial sense for Australia, for a multitude of reasons – timing, cost, compatibility with renewables and liability issues to cite just a few.”
“Our research shows that nuclear reactors – both small modular reactors (SMRs) and gigawatt-scale reactors – in comparable countries have consistently taken longer and have been more expensive to build than expected. With over 50 years experience in this space, our analysts have researched nuclear projects around the world. For a country like Australia, starting from scratch, we expect that nuclear power reactors would not reach commercial operation before the 2040s, would come at a high cost, and require substantial government support.
“Nuclear plants in Australia cannot be built in time to replace Australia’s fleet of coal power stations, more than 90% of which are expected to retire in the next 10 years. Our research aligns with CSIRO and the regulators’ assessment that it would take at least 15 years to first production. The few existing SMRs in operation took over 12 years to build, despite original construction schedules of three to four years. Large reactors have a history of long delays, with most recent projects taking nine years or more from the first concrete pour, which in turn can only take place after years of planning, contracting and pre-construction works. This is in addition to the time required to develop the regulatory regime.
 Experts unite to condemn Coalition nuclear policy meltdownClimate Media CentreEnergy and health experts as well as affected regional and global communities have condemned reports today of the Coalition’s energy policy which includes large nuclear reactors to be sited on mothballed coal-fired power stations across regional Australia, as well as a plan to rip up Australia’s commitments to the Paris Agreement.The CSIRO’s recent GenCost report showed that renewable energy remains the fastest, safest and lowest-cost energy option is what we’re already building. Clean energy like solar and wind already makes up 40% of our national electricity grid, and one in three households have installed solar panels. Staying this course is the most responsible path toward slashing emissions this decade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. To arrange interviews, please contact:Danielle Veldre +61 408972997 dan.veldre@climatemediacentre.org.auEmily Watkins +61 420622408 emily.watkins@climatemediacentre.org.au Andrew Bray, National Director, RE-AllianceAndrew has been working with regional communities hosting large scale renewable and transmission infrastructure for more than a decade. He can discuss the policy solutions that are needed to support regional communities to harness the benefits available in the shift to renewable energy.Location: Bungendore, NSW (near Canberra) “The Federal Coalition’s energy policy is a false solution to Australia’s emission reduction commitments – the shift to a clean energy supply is already under way, with the latest data showing almost 40% of Australia’s electricity generation came from renewable energy sources in 2023. “Policies relying on non-existent small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technologies and large-scale nuclear plants that take decades to build would commit Australia to a polluting and unreliable fossil fuel powered system for the next 20 years. Our current trajectory will see these ageing plants close progressively over the next ten years. “Renewable energy is here right now. Australians are increasingly using a cleaner and cheaper electricity supply, which we need to minimise the increasing impacts of climate change. Regional communities can greatly benefit from the rollout of renewable energy infrastructure – provided governments and industry are committed to sustained and significant investment in community engagement. “We need to stick to the plan but shift our focus to ensure regional communities get the benefits they deserve from the roll-out.” IEEFA Australia CEO, Amandine Denis Ryan, said: “The research by IEEFA’s nuclear experts calls into question whether nuclear makes financial sense for Australia, for a multitude of reasons – timing, cost, compatibility with renewables and liability issues to cite just a few.” “Our research shows that nuclear reactors – both small modular reactors (SMRs) and gigawatt-scale reactors – in comparable countries have consistently taken longer and have been more expensive to build than expected. With over 50 years experience in this space, our analysts have researched nuclear projects around the world. For a country like Australia, starting from scratch, we expect that nuclear power reactors would not reach commercial operation before the 2040s, would come at a high cost, and require substantial government support. “Nuclear plants in Australia cannot be built in time to replace Australia’s fleet of coal power stations, more than 90% of which are expected to retire in the next 10 years. Our research aligns with CSIRO and the regulators’ assessment that it would take at least 15 years to first production. The few existing SMRs in operation took over 12 years to build, despite original construction schedules of three to four years. Large reactors have a history of long delays, with most recent projects taking nine years or more from the first concrete pour, which in turn can only take place after years of planning, contracting and pre-construction works. This is in addition to the time required to develop the regulatory regime. “Nuclear plants are notorious for cost overruns. Our analysts found that SMRs in operation or under construction cost three to seven times more than originally planned. Proposed SMRs in the US have also already seen cost estimates blow out by between two and four times in recent years. Large-scale reactors often face cost overruns as well. The Flamanville EPR in France is an extreme example of this, with costs having more than quadrupled despite France’s deep expertise on nuclear. |
“Nuclear plants are not a good complement for renewable generation. They can be flexible within a range, however the economics rely upon being operated in ‘baseload’ mode. In the 2040s, when the first nuclear plants could begin operating, the Australian Energy Market Operator expects that over 90% of generation will be supplied by variable renewables (wind and solar), and that the average annual utilisation factor of gas generation assets will be between 3% and 15% to complement them. Our analysts estimate that at a utilisation factor below 25%, the cost for electricity supplied by an American SMR would increase to more than AUD 600/MWh, if it was even possible to achieve such a low utilisation operationally.
| Experts unite to condemn Coalition nuclear policy meltdownClimate Media CentreEnergy and health experts as well as affected regional and global communities have condemned reports today of the Coalition’s energy policy which includes large nuclear reactors to be sited on mothballed coal-fired power stations across regional Australia, as well as a plan to rip up Australia’s commitments to the Paris Agreement. The CSIRO’s recent GenCost report showed that renewable energy remains the fastest, safest and lowest-cost energy option is what we’re already building. Clean energy like solar and wind already makes up 40% of our national electricity grid, and one in three households have installed solar panels. Staying this course is the most responsible path toward slashing emissions this decade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. To arrange interviews, please contact:Danielle Veldre +61 408972997 dan.veldre@climatemediacentre.org.auEmily Watkins +61 420622408 emily.watkins@climatemediacentre.org.au Andrew Bray, National Director, RE-AllianceAndrew has been working with regional communities hosting large scale renewable and transmission infrastructure for more than a decade. He can discuss the policy solutions that are needed to support regional communities to harness the benefits available in the shift to renewable energy.Location: Bungendore, NSW (near Canberra) “The Federal Coalition’s energy policy is a false solution to Australia’s emission reduction commitments – the shift to a clean energy supply is already under way, with the latest data showing almost 40% of Australia’s electricity generation came from renewable energy sources in 2023. “Policies relying on non-existent small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technologies and large-scale nuclear plants that take decades to build would commit Australia to a polluting and unreliable fossil fuel powered system for the next 20 years. Our current trajectory will see these ageing plants close progressively over the next ten years. “Renewable energy is here right now. Australians are increasingly using a cleaner and cheaper electricity supply, which we need to minimise the increasing impacts of climate change. Regional communities can greatly benefit from the rollout of renewable energy infrastructure – provided governments and industry are committed to sustained and significant investment in community engagement. “We need to stick to the plan but shift our focus to ensure regional communities get the benefits they deserve from the roll-out.” IEEFA Australia CEO, Amandine Denis Ryan, said: “The research by IEEFA’s nuclear experts calls into question whether nuclear makes financial sense for Australia, for a multitude of reasons – timing, cost, compatibility with renewables and liability issues to cite just a few.” “Our research shows that nuclear reactors – both small modular reactors (SMRs) and gigawatt-scale reactors – in comparable countries have consistently taken longer and have been more expensive to build than expected. With over 50 years experience in this space, our analysts have researched nuclear projects around the world. For a country like Australia, starting from scratch, we expect that nuclear power reactors would not reach commercial operation before the 2040s, would come at a high cost, and require substantial government support. “Nuclear plants in Australia cannot be built in time to replace Australia’s fleet of coal power stations, more than 90% of which are expected to retire in the next 10 years. Our research aligns with CSIRO and the regulators’ assessment that it would take at least 15 years to first production. The few existing SMRs in operation took over 12 years to build, despite original construction schedules of three to four years. Large reactors have a history of long delays, with most recent projects taking nine years or more from the first concrete pour, which in turn can only take place after years of planning, contracting and pre-construction works. This is in addition to the time required to develop the regulatory regime. “Nuclear plants are notorious for cost overruns. Our analysts found that SMRs in operation or under construction cost three to seven times more than originally planned. Proposed SMRs in the US have also already seen cost estimates blow out by between two and four times in recent years. Large-scale reactors often face cost overruns as well. The Flamanville EPR in France is an extreme example of this, with costs having more than quadrupled despite France’s deep expertise on nuclear. “Nuclear plants are not a good complement for renewable generation. They can be flexible within a range, however the economics rely upon being operated in ‘baseload’ mode. In the 2040s, when the first nuclear plants could begin operating, the Australian Energy Market Operator expects that over 90% of generation will be supplied by variable renewables (wind and solar), and that the average annual utilisation factor of gas generation assets will be between 3% and 15% to complement them. Our analysts estimate that at a utilisation factor below 25%, the cost for electricity supplied by an American SMR would increase to more than AUD 600/MWh, if it was even possible to achieve such a low utilisation operationally. “One of the major risks for investors in nuclear assets is the size and allocation of liability in case of an accident, with international conventions stating that operators of nuclear installations are liable should an incident occur. Such liabilities are very challenging for a company to carry by itself. In the United States, this issue was addressed with the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) by creating a shared insurance pool, now totalling AUD 22.5 billion across the almost 100 reactors covered. The US Government is exposed to costs beyond the insurance pool. Full costs associated with the 2011 Fukushima disaster could be as high as AUD 770 billion. It is unclear how Australia would be able to manage these liabilities without very material government underwriting of risk.” |
Mia Pepper, Campaign Director at the Conservation Council of WA said: “The Coalition’s nuclear power plans reported today are a clear plan to distract and delay from real action on climate change.
“Nuclear power is expensive, slow and dangerous and simply cannot deliver the energy needed in the time frame we have to decarbonise.
“WA is currently exiting coal and well advanced on the transition to cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives like renewables. It makes no economic, environmental or energy sense to change direction now.
“The WA Liberals have already ruled out nuclear power for WA, saying it is too expensive and doesn’t make sense for WAs grid. Peter Dutton’s irresponsible reactor plan has failed to convince his own party – and it certainly hasn’t and won’t convince the wider WA community. The Liberal party energy policy is nothing more than a dangerous distraction and delay from the much needed transition out of fossil fuels.”
“Nuclear is thirsty, requiring huge volumes of water for cooling, in an uncertain climate future nuclear also becomes one of the most dangerous and unreliable forms of energy we have seen these issues emerge in nuclear powered countries like France.
There remain significant and unresolved issues with the management of High-Level nuclear waste, insurmountable issues with security, and deep connections to the production of weapons grade materials. The risks of things going wrong are catastrophic.”
Masayoshi Iyoda – 350.org Japan Campaigner, said: “You cannot call nuclear clean energy, and completely ignore the voices of the victims of nuclear disasters and the burden on future generations. Nuclear is simply too costly, too risky, too undemocratic, and too time-consuming. We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency.”
Joseph Sikulu – 350.org Pacific Managing Director said: “The legacy of nuclear power in the Asia Pacific region is a harmful one, as is the legacy of climate-destroying fossil fuels. The possibility of Australia venturing into nuclear is dangerous and concerning, and a distraction from what we should really be focused on – the just transition to renewable energy.”
Dutton spruiks gas and nuclear to win back Victoria
Gus McCubbing, AFR, Jun 7, 2024
“……………………… During a wide-ranging speech in which he spruiked the safety credentials of nuclear small modular reactors, attacked former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews and the Suburban Rail Loop, and claimed that teal MPs are Greens in disguise, Mr Dutton on Friday told a Melbourne business lunch the Liberals were “back in town”.
……………………………………. Mr Dutton said Australia must embrace next-generation nuclear technologies as part of its energy mix to achieve cheaper, consistent and cleaner power, despite the CSIRO last month warning the first large-scale nuclear power plant could cost as much as $17 billion in today’s dollars, and would not be operational until at least 2040.
He claimed that a 470-megawatt small modular reactor produces waste the size of a Coca-Cola can each year, with zero emissions…………….
COMMENT. While the toxic radioactive residue from small nuclear reactors IS small in volume – it is so highly toxic that it requires larger space between used fuel rods in disposal – so ending up with an equally dangerous waste problem.
When asked why his former government never moved to roll out nuclear energy during its nine years in office, Mr Dutton said there was no political appetite before AUKUS.
“I don’t think it would have been possible for us to adopt the position that we have if the Labor Party hadn’t signed up to nuclear [powered] submarines,” Mr Dutton said… https://www.afr.com/politics/dutton-spruiks-gas-and-nuclear-to-win-back-victoria-20240605-p5jjcl
Was ABC’s firing of Antoinette Lattouf influenced by a pro-Israel group? | Real Talk – Online.
23 Jan 2024 Real Talk
Australian-Lebanese presenter Antoinette Lattouf was fired by Australia’s ABC just three days after she started. It has now surfaced that her firing may have been orchestrated by a pro-Israeli WhatsApp group. Now she’s fighting back, and she joins us to speak about it on Real Talk online. (Note: After this interview was recorded, ABC issued a statement saying that Lattouf was not fired. Lattouf responded on Twitter, saying: “If I wasn’t sacked, what was it?”) #RealTalk is a Middle East Eye interview show hosted by Mohamed Hashem that delves into the stories and experiences of a diverse range of guests.
1 This month
7 April – WEBINAR – Australia and the Doomsday Clock – Preventing nuclear war through NoFirstUse and other policies
Online | Tuesday April 7, 4:00-5:30pm, Australian Eastern Time / 8:00-9:30am Central Europe Time
– Access the registration link
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
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 