Patricia Karvelas: Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction?

By Q+A and RN Breakfast host Patricia Karvelas, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/nuclear-dutton-coalition-unanswered-questions-beak-rules/104000664

Peter Dutton has broken every single rule when it comes to unveiling radical policy as opposition leader, tearing up the script and gambling with his party’s chances at the next election with his nuclear policy.

If he can pull it off and convince enough voters that his blueprint for an Australian nuclear future is feasible and preferable, it will be the most unorthodox approach we’ve seen from an opposition leader in recent memory. It will rewrite our understanding of how modern politics works and reshape Australia.

Dutton has just placed a target on his back — and many of his state and even federal colleagues are scratching their heads trying to work out what the larger strategy here is. Is it cunning genius or the longest political self-destruction?

But what will it cost?

For months, journalists have been inquiring about when and why the nuclear policy announcement was being delayed. Senior Coalition figures informed me that the opposition — knowing full well that Labor and others would throw everything at pulling it apart — were doing their most comprehensive piece of work to deliver a “bulletproof” policy that could withstand dissection and sustained attack.

Yet when Dutton and his colleagues stood up before the media yesterday, they outlined a policy with many questions unanswered — including, most crucially, the actual cost of their nuclear rollout. The Coalition says it will reveal the cost down the track. But to leave unanswered such a crucial detail when the entire debate is centred around the cost of energy leaves the policy vulnerable and impossible to critically assess.

It is stunning and unheard-of for a mainstream political party to put forward such a significant and consequential policy blueprint without the numbers attached.

One senior Liberal suggested the delay in releasing the figures was to rob Labor of the ability to question the economic basis of the policy — you can’t pull and pick apart numbers that haven’t been provided. Conventional politics would involve the unveiling of modelling and robust independent accounting to explain the cost for taxpayers.

Tony Barry, the director of political research organisation RedBridge Research and a former Liberal Party strategist, says the way the policy had been announced makes the Coalition vulnerable to criticism.

“It isn’t so much ‘bulletproof’ but rather wearing a high-vis vest with a bullseye on it,” Barry told me. “The Coalition has to try and sell its product while Labor only has to convince people not to buy it, and in that scenario, Labor has the easier job.”

There are hurdles to jump

Among the many hurdles for the Coalition to jump before it can even develop a nuclear site will be the state premiers, who have lined up against this blueprint to establish nuclear power plants at seven locations across the country. Peter Dutton says the states’ concerns were easy to deal with.

“Somebody famously said, ‘I would not stand between the premier and a bucket of money’, and we’ve seen the premiers in different debates before where they’ve been able to negotiate with the Commonwealth and will be able to address those issues,” he says.

A Coalition government would also have to convince federal parliament — the Senate too — to lift restrictions on nuclear power and find a solution for nuclear waste. It would also have to build a nuclear workforce from scratch.

Is it achievable? It would be a big departure from the usual way Australia does business.

And then there’s the question of social license. Communities would need to get on board and provide support to build nuclear facilities in their neighbourhood. The Coalition says polling in some of these seats shows that there is support — even if it’s tight.

A poll released by the Lowy Institute earlier this month of 2,000 voters showed 61 per cent said they supported Australia including nuclear generation in its energy mix. Public opinion towards nuclear power in Australia has shifted over time. A significant minority (37 per cent) “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose it. Those who “strongly support” nuclear power generation (27 per cent) outnumber those who “strongly oppose” it (17 per cent).

But on the question of the rights of communities to raise objections, the Nationals were at odds yesterday.

Nationals leader David Littleproud contradicted his deputy, Perin Davey, who said that, “if a community is absolutely adamant, then we will not proceed”. But the Nationals leader later said Davey’s claim was “not correct”.

“Peter Dutton and David Littleproud, as part of a Coalition government, are prepared to make the tough decisions in the national interest. We will consult, and we will give plenty of notice.”

The real reason Peter Dutton wants nuclear power

SMH, JUNE 20, 2024

There is no Coalition nuclear plan, except to get re-elected (“Dutton hits the nuclear button”, June 20). No nuclear power plants will ever be built here. Avoiding questions about the exorbitant costs, electorate opposition, absence of technology and radioactive waste, Dutton is exploiting those worried about climate change and energy costs who haven’t the time or ability to question his remedy.

Unfortunately, this will then be followed by countless committees to look into the best way to implement such a “ground-breaking” and “important” policy for another election cycle or two until, finally, some election strategist decides that changes in policy may be needed. Ten years later Australia is left penniless, without enough energy, and polluting the world with the scraps of fossil fuels it is desperately burning to keep the lights on. Andrew Scott, Pymble

Canada, a country similar to Australia, has five nuclear plants containing 22 reactors, built 40 to 60 years ago. They produce only 15 per cent of that nation’s electricity requirements. This raises two issues: Firstly, if we could manage to build two reactors by 2037, as Dutton claims, Australia would still need to source more than 90 per cent of our electricity from fossil fuels or renewables. Secondly, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission states on its website that each 600MW reactor produces 90 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste per year which has to be stored on-site in water-filled bays for six to 10 years until cooled enough to be moved to reinforced concrete canisters also on site. John Keene, Glebe

David Crowe (“Seven sites and two black holes: voters deserve better”, June 20) highlights the lack of detail in Dutton’s plan for nuclear power. However, we should allow for the possibility that Dutton thinks that nuclear power will probably never happen in Australia. His only plan is likely to be that of winning the next election by whatever means he can. As in the lead-up to the Voice vote, the aim will be to dominate the framing of the debate and spread division and strengthen tribal partisanship. We may expect a drip feed of bits of the nuclear plan over the coming months, each morsel lacking details. But that won’t matter to Dutton as long as disinformation and division dominate the news cycle. Peter Thompson, Grenfell

Dutton doesn’t care about nuclear. It’s all theatre. What he does care about is causing division with the aim of winning power because the Coalition can’t bear its current irrelevance. He does this via fear, obfuscation and a claim to care about “battlers”. If we voters can’t see through this then all Dutton’s theatrics will pay off. Judy Hungerford, Kew (Vic)

One of the issues in centralising baseload power is national defence planning. Jump forward to 2050, any country threatening us needs just seven intercontinental ballistic missiles to cripple industry and transport over the entire country, never mind the spread of nuclear waste over land and water. Smaller countries could disable the plants effectively with a few drones. Mad Max is real! Keith Smith, Lane Cove

So let me get this right. The political party that claims to be the superior economic manager is offering us an uncosted, unplanned, unsafe, unsure energy efficiency power source on land that they have yet to acquire in communities that it has yet to consult to be constructed decades into the future to address today’s cost of living crisis. Got it! Barry Ffrench, Cronulla

Several years ago I bought a solar array and a battery for my house. The battery was very expensive at $1000 per kW of storage although the costs for gel-ion batteries (developed in Australia) are even less. Our storage carries our household of five through the afternoon/evening peak and most often overnight. We also have a battery-run circuit dedicated to running some lights, the fridge, oven and microwave should there be a blackout in which case we are automatically disconnected from the grid. If the federal Coalition were to spend a portion of the cost of nuclear power stations, say a mere $20 billion, on solar batteries they could currently buy one million 20kW lithium-ion batteries. If the state governments chipped in the same amount, there’d be two million batteries. If the combined governments provided the money as a 50 per cent subsidy, with home and business owners contributing the remaining 50 per cent, there’d be 4 million batteries; eight million if each battery had only 10kW capacity. Even more batteries if gel-ion production was ramped up. Personal storage is one of the best ways to reduce electricity costs. Our worst quarterly bill in three years, for a cloudy, wet autumn was $127 and that included $90 for being connected to the grid. Over a year, we are in credit, so I don’t understand the Coalition’s antipathy to renewables and either state-run or private battery storage. In the face of buying or subsidising battery use, going nuclear would be a mind-boggling silly use … of our taxpayer money. Peter Butler, Wyongah

While visiting a friend in Switzerland recently, she received a package of iodine tablets in the mail. These were issued free by the government, replacing the ones they sent previously which were deemed past their use-by date. Why? Because she lives within 50km of a nuclear power plant … just in case. Julie Wilson, Dubbo

Peter Dutton’s faith in future Coalition leaders is bemusing. I wonder how keen they will be after his maybe six years, to continue with his extraordinarily expensive dream. Where will the costing cuts be made to pay for this? You can bet your life it won’t be negative gearing, franking credits or tax cuts to big business. Watch out you “battlers” facing the cost of living crisis and the need for essential services. Mary Billing, Allambie Heights

Peter Dutton talks of many countries having nuclear power plants, but nearly all of these were built in the past when there were limited other options. Some of the countries are decommissioning functioning plants because of the danger they pose. Very few are building new nuclear plants because there are many better, cheaper, cleaner options. Nuclear is old technology. Peggy Fisher, Manly

Is it too late to nominate the upper north shore for a nuclear plant? With all of our overachieving private schools, there’s no shortage of young people involved in STEM. We’ve also got lots of lawyers and consultants, so the contracts are sorted. As for builders, have you seen the place? Every tradie in Sydney is working on a new six-bedroom, 10-bathroom mansion. We’ve already got lots of trees, so the climate’s covered. As for space, take your pick of the hundreds of parks and ovals ready for development. The upper north shore is ready for a bit of radioactive action. What could go wrong? Chris Andrew, Turramurra

Kudos to John Shakespeare on the brilliant cartoon depicting Peter DOH!tton as Homer Simpson. I expect John Howard will be rolled out soon in desperation as usual by the Libs to play the part of Montgomery Burns. Paul McShane, Burradoo……………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-real-reason-peter-dutton-wants-nuclear-power-20240620-p5jna2.html

June 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

Very late and over budget: Why newest large nuclear plant in US is likely to be the last

Fereidoon Sioshansi Jun 20, 2024

With a lot of exaggerated fanfare, in early May 2024 the Georgia Power Company announced that the 1,114 MW Unit 4 nuclear power reactor at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Georgia, entered commercial operation after 11 years of construction.

The former CEO of the company reportedly had installed a TV screen in his office remotely monitoring the progress of the work at the construction site. It must have been the most boring show to watch since on most days very little was actually happening at the site. He was mostly watching delays.

Vogtle unit 3 began commercial operation in July 2023. The plant’s first two older reactors, with a combined capacity of 2,430 MW, began operations in 1987 and 1989, respectively. The Plant Vogtle’s total generating capacity is nearly 5 GW surpassing, the 4,210-MW Palo Verde nuclear plant near Phoenix in Arizona.

Construction of the last 2 reactors began in 2009 and was originally expected to cost $US14 billion with a start date in 2016 and 2017. But as often happens the project suffered construction delays and cost overruns – exceeding $US30 billion ($A45 billion).

It is the latest – and possibly the last – addition to the US nuclear installed capacity, which is currently around 97 GW and accounted for nearly 19% of domestic electricity production in 2023, making it the second-largest source of electricity generation after gas, which was around 43% last year.

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 use the Westinghouse AP1000 design (cited enthusiastically by Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton this week) which includes new passive safety features that allow the reactors to shut down without any operator action or external power source.

Two similar reactors were planned for South Carolina, but the utilities halted construction in 2017 amidst escalating costs and delays.

The Executive Director of American Nuclear Society (ANS) Craig Piercy congratulated Southern Company, the parent of Georgia Power Company, and Westinghouse:

“This milestone … secures a generational investment in clean energy. Now complete, Vogtle 3 and 4 will deliver 17 million MWhrs of carbon-free power to Georgia annually – equivalent to the energy from all California’s wind turbines – and will be available 24/7.”

Fair enough but Mr. Piercy failed to mention that it took 11 years and $US30 billion of ratepayer money to build it – few private investors can afford the time or the capital.

Nor did he mention that currently there are no other nuclear reactors under construction anywhere in the US and none are presently contemplated. It may be the end of an era despite ANS’ obviously biased praise of the technology.

The story is much the same in France where the state-owned nuclear power giant Électricité de France (EDF), which operates a fleet of 56 reactors in one of the most nuclear dependent countries in the world, has been struggling to complete its last reactor.

The 1.6 GW Flamanville plant in northwest France is 12 years behind schedule and more than four times over budget – for the usual reasons. A faulty vessel cover needs to be fixed, pushing operation date to 2026.

In the meantime, the estimated cost to construct 6 new nuclear reactors, ordered by President Emanuel Macron, has risen to €67.4 billion ($A110 billion), from the original €51.7 billion, and is likely to go higher before they are completed. Nuclear plants are not cheap…………………………………………………

One of the few places where new reactors are being built without long delays is China, but even there the scale of nuclear build is dwarfed by solar and wind by orders of magnitude.

In the past 10 years, more than 34 GW of nuclear power capacity were added in China, bringing the country’s number of operating reactors to 55 – barely shy of the 56 in France – with net capacity of 53.2 GW as of April 2024 (visual on right on original ). Some 23 reactors are reported under construction in China

Globally, nuclear, while a low-carbon and baseload form of generation, is struggling to make much of a dent despite a few isolated places where it is maintained on the agenda – generally by government fiat and through generous subsidies.

It is hard to come up with a conceivable scenario where its fortunes will significantly improve. A hefty global carbon tax, for example, may help but even in this case, it will simply make renewables, not nukes, even more attractive than they already are.

Fereidoon Sioshansi is editor and publisher of EEnergy Informer, and president of Menlo Energy Economics, based in California. https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-the-newest-large-nuclear-plant-in-the-us-is-likely-to-be-the-last/

June 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

Nuclear power’s financial problems exposed in new report

Greenpeace European Unit, 19/06/2024, https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/47124/nuclear-powers-financial-problems-exposed-in-new-report/

Brussels, 19 June 2024 – Nuclear power is a risky gamble with taxpayers’ cash, according to a comprehensive review of financing models published as the European Investment Bank prepares to discuss new support for nuclear energy at a meeting on 21 June.

The report, Fission for Funds: The Financing of Nuclear Power Plants, gives an overview of financing models and reveals how the profitability of nuclear power plants heavily relies on government involvement in de-risking investments. The report was commissioned by Greenpeace Germany and carried out by Jens Weibezahn from the Copenhagen School of Energy Infrastructure, and Björn Steigerwald from the Technische Universität Berlin.

Greenpeace EU political campaigner Lorelei Limousin said: “Nuclear power is a black hole for taxpayers and consumers. High upfront costs, long construction times, and government bailouts make nuclear projects a burden on public coffers and a threat to credible climate action. Wind and solar energy are already much cheaper, and their cost is declining. Not a single euro of EU public money should go to nuclear power – it’s time to put people’s needs ahead of nuclear greed, and invest in a safer, cheaper future.”

The report shows that nuclear power plant projects are unreliable due to budget overruns, construction delays, and reliability problems in the operational phase, and therefore often lose investor interest. Hidden costs are also often not included in initial calculations, such as liability insurance, decommissioning and waste management. These become a burden for taxpayers in the future. The report highlights that the cost of solar and wind energy are already much lower than new nuclear projects.

Jens Weibezahn, Assistant professor Ph.D., Copenhagen Business School, co-author of the report, said: “In our review of current nuclear power plant projects, we found that almost all financing models rely – either directly or indirectly – on government support to make them viable. This places an unreasonable burden on either taxpayers or electricity ratepayers, as they, ultimately, bear a large part of the associated financial risks.”

Although most global economies are focusing on renewables to reach net-zero targets, some EU countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, are betting on nuclear power, despite major issues in securing funding for new projects and maintaining their existing ageing fleets. This report highlights that government support for these costly, long-term, and high-risk nuclear projects is becoming harder to justify, particularly at a time of high inflation and rising cost of living.

In the past two decades, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has invested €845 million in nuclear power activities. For the first time, the EIB intends to support research and development in so-called small modular reactors (SMRs), according to a draft strategic roadmap, which will be adopted on 21 June. Many uncertainties persist regarding the overall economic viability of SMRs, not to mention safety risks and the radioactive waste problem. Greenpeace calls on EU finance ministers, who govern the EIB, to oppose any funding for nuclear energy, including small modular reactors.

Please find more information about the various financing models used in European countries in this briefing and read more in the full report.

June 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | climate change, energy, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

Dutton’s nuclear lights are out and no one’s home

But none of this matters to Dutton. The reason he is pushing for nuclear is plain: since any nuclear energy plan is unattainable for at least 20 years, it ensures his coal and gas mining mates can continue destroying our natural environment for a long, long time to come.

By Michelle Pini Independent Australia, 20 June 2024

Dutton’s alternative facts on nuclear energy demonstrate that the Coalition is no longer fit for purpose as a credible opposition, let alone a serious government contender. Michelle Pini reports.

APART from frequently changing leaders, nothing has changed about the Liberal-National Party Opposition for a very long time, certainly not since the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison retrograde regime.

Put simply, since the whole point of an opposition party in a two-party system is to provide credible alternative policies – not to recycle the ideas and innovations of a bygone era – today’s Coalition is simply no longer fit for purpose.

This is perhaps best illustrated by Dutton’s most recent set of alternative facts masquerading as policies, the recycled 1950s nuclear power plan.

Sure, the Liberals/Nationals are the parties of the status quo but the fact is, they have taken this concept well past its natural use-by date. Basically, if this was the age of the telephone invention, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and his band of unmerry naysayers would be advocating to keep tin cans and string because phones would put can and string manufacturers out of business — not to mention the plight of carrier pigeon trainers.

Wait, that is actually the same reasoning that led to over a decade of third-world-standard NBN, but we digress.

Carrier pigeons and tin cans notwithstanding, today, the Coalition want us to get behind a leader who, if elected, would catapult us back to an age before science, before technology and before we worked out the Earth wasn’t flat — in every facet of our lives.

A word is needed about the role of the entire mainstream media, here, including the national broadcaster – yet again – in providing a framework where Dutton’s idiotic ramblings are given prominence — nay, are exalted as if they came from the Heavens.

There are so many subtle ways in which his party’s every brain fart is reported in the media as a credible idea and Alan Austin’s latest analysis provides a more detailed explanation of how the ABC’s news coverage, in particular, subtly facilitates this Liberal Party agenda. (You can read more here.)

So, to summarise the Dutton Coalition “policy platform”, it goes something like this:

Finding it hard to keep up with the changing world? Need a scapegoat for your woes?
Then, has Dutton got an idiotic plan, a minority group and a few gaslights, courtesy of the establishment media, for you?!

It is the exploitation of these core fears – the primal fears of change and of “others” – that form the basis of Dutton’s Coalition “policy structure”. It is the reason he does not provide any substantial “detail” in support of his claims. And it provides ongoing ammunition for the climate and culture wars he favours. It’s really no more complicated than that.

Let’s take a close look at Dutton’s banal nuclear “power plan”, which has been presented as a legitimate argument in the legacy media.

A NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE

Dutton – or at least the Coalition’s expert advisers, assuming they still have any – is abundantly aware of the following:

nuclear energy is not safe by any stretch of the imagination;
it is not clean;
it is prohibitively expensive; and
a nuclear energy industry is unachievable, certainly in the foreseeable future.

With the main game already established, it is only necessary to deflect and obfuscate, providing no “details”, such as properly calculated costs or a realistic timeline. Even his claim that the first seven reactors would be built in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland was debunked by the state premiers, who have unanimously rejected the idea. According to one ABC report, even some state Liberal and National MPs have ‘distanced themselves from nuclear’.

It’s fine, though, according to Dutton, who may eventually give us the details after his party is elected.

NO RENEWABLES FOR US!

Because the efficiency of renewable energies poses a real and imminent threat to fossil fuels, Dutton also plans to ensure any further great strides in this sector will die a quick and unceremonious death by imposing a cap on renewable energy investment.

And because Dutton’s plan is only about fear, he harnesses the fear of running out of power, or of exorbitant energy prices with idiotic statements like, “We can’t allow the lights to go out.”………………………………………………….. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/duttons-nuclear-lights-are-out-and-no-ones-home,18701

June 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Dutton’s nuclear thought bubble floats in a fantasy world of cheap infrastructure

What is the Coalition’s track record when it comes to building big infrastructure projects? Truly shocking.

BERNARD KEANE, JUN 20, 2024

The response to Peter Dutton’s back-of-the-envelope announcement yesterday on seven proposed nuclear power sites — they hadn’t even googled to find out that the owner of the Port Augusta site has other plans for it — is occurring in a weird haze of amnesia about what’s going on with major infrastructure projects in Australia.

Analysis / Infrastructure

Dutton’s nuclear thought bubble floats in a fantasy world of cheap infrastructure

What is the Coalition’s track record when it comes to building big infrastructure projects? Truly shocking.

BERNARD KEANE, JUN 20, 2024

On the one hand, the corporate media gleefully reports news of major cost blowouts for big projects. On the other hand, being taken for granted is the Coalition’s ability to achieve an unprecedented project of a fleet of nuclear power stations, including two by 2035-37, without a truly shocking cost.Journalists who fail to interrogate Dutton’s nuclear dream should resignRead More

What’s the federal Coalition’s form on building major projects? Let’s take three from its last period in government……………………….. (Subscribers only) https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/20/peter-dutton-nuclear-proposal-cheap-infrastructure-fantasy/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1718846754-1

June 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans

In Queensland, where the Coalition has proposed establishing two nuclear power stations, the state Liberal-National Party has voiced its opposition to nuclear, leaving the opposition without allies at a state level.

ABC News, By political reporter Jake Evans and staff, 19 June 24

In short: State premiers have unanimously rejected the federal Coalition’s nuclear proposal, which would require lifting several state bans
Some state Liberal and National members have also distanced themselves from nuclear, though the NSW opposition is open to the idea
What’s next? The Coalition has been pushed to detail costings of its proposal for seven nuclear sites, and to provide more detail

Among the many hurdles for the Coalition to leap before it can break ground on a single nuclear site will be the state’s premiers, who have lined up against a proposal to establish nuclear power plants at seven locations across the country.

The Coalition has announced its proposal for Australia to go nuclear, eschewing the ramp up of more solar and wind power, to instead build either traditional nuclear plants or small modular reactors on retiring coal sites in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and in Western Australia.

To do so, a future Coalition government would first have to convince federal parliament to lift a prohibition on nuclear power, establish viable sites, find a solution for nuclear waste, convince local communities and train workers before a first plant could be built by late next decade.

And state premiers have emerged as another barrier to entry, with Labor premiers in the states proposed to go nuclear unequivocal in their opposition to the plan — but also some Liberal and National MPs in those states saying they won’t be buying in.

NSW Premier Chris Minns and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said even if Liberal leader Peter Dutton managed to lift the federal nuclear ban, he would also have to overcome bans at a state level.

“We’ve got our ban in place … if there’s a constitutional way for a hypothetical Dutton government to move through the state planning powers, I’m not aware of it, but that’s probably a question for him to answer,” Mr Minns said.

Ms Allan said building a plant in Gippsland would also require repealing state legislation in Victoria.

“They want to bring more expensive, more risky, more toxic energy solutions to the people of this country. We won’t stand for that,” Ms Allan said.

The Victorian premier has since written to Mr Dutton to confirm her government “won’t be negotiating” and would do all in its power to stop a nuclear plant in the Latrobe Valley.

Queensland Opposition Leader David Crisafulli said his party had been “clear” nuclear was not part of their plan.

“That’s a matter for Canberra. We’ve been consistent the whole way through,” Mr Crisafulli said…………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/premiers-reject-nuclear-proposal-nuclear-bans/103997020

June 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

Wrong reaction: Coalition’s nuclear dream offers no clarity on technology, cost, timing, or wastes

https://www.acf.org.au/coalition-nuclear-dream-offers-no-clarity-on-technology-cost-timing-or-waste 19 June 24
In response to Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s announcement of his proposed nuclear reactor sites, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear analyst Dave Sweeney said:

“The Opposition leader has named seven places where he wants nuclear reactors to be built, but he hasn’t been clear about the technology he wants to use, the cost to taxpayers, the timing, or what would happen to the radioactive waste that stays toxic for thousands of years.

“Mr Dutton wants Australians to believe there will be nuclear reactors operating in a decade should he win the next election. Tell him he’s dreaming.

“There is no bipartisan support and there are deep community, legal and political obstacles facing the Coalition in every Australian jurisdiction.

“It’s clear the Opposition leader hasn’t given up on his dream of small modular reactors. Mr Dutton was vague about whether he is promoting big reactors or small reactors, which are not in commercial deployment anywhere in the world.

“Going nuclear would delay the transition away from coal and gas, increase household electricity bills, introduce the possibility of catastrophic accidents and create multi-generational risks associated with the management of high-level radioactive waste – almost certainly with a disproportionate burden on First Nations communities.

“Extensive modelling, including from CSIRO, shows nuclear is far-and-away the most expensive energy option. Taxpayers and households would bear the cost.

“Nuclear is a dangerous distraction to effective climate action. Australia is blessed with plentiful clean energy resources. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”

A detailed new critique of nuclear energy, released today by ACF, shows:

Australian taxpayers would foot a massive bill for what is the slowest, most expensive form of power generation.
Australia’s leading insurance companies will not cover damage from a nuclear disaster.

Power games: Assessing coal to nuclear proposals in Australia (30-page report)

Why nuclear power will never be right for Australia (10-page summary)

June 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Coalition’s climate and energy policy in disarray as opposition splits over nuclear and renewables

Simon Birmingham contradicts Nationals’ leader, saying renewables are ‘an important part of the mix’ while Queensland LNP leader rules out nuclear.

Paul Karp and Andrew Messenger, Tue 18 Jun 2024

The federal Coalition’s climate and energy policy is in disarray, with a senior Liberal contradicting the Nationals’ anti-renewables push and the Queensland LNP leader ruling out allowing nuclear energy in that state.

After the Nationals further undermined the push for net zero by 2050 by claiming the Coalition would “cap” investment in large-scale renewable energy, the Liberal leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, declared on Tuesday it is an “important part of the mix”.

On Monday the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, said Australia did not need “large-scale industrial windfarms” such as those proposed for an offshore zone south of Sydney. That position was backed by Nationals senator, Matt Canavan, a longstanding opponent of net zero who nevertheless revealed the position had not been to their party room

On Tuesday Birmingham contradicted the junior Coalition partner’s stance. The leading member of the Liberals’ moderate faction told Sky News that there is “absolutely a place for large-scale renewables, as part of a technology-neutral approach” and they are an “important part of the mix”.

Birmingham said that renewables and other sources of power should be judged on reliability – “which is why nuclear is important” – price, including the cost of transmission, and the “social licence” aspects about whether local communities support them.

“There will be difficult discussions on that journey [to net zero by 2050]. We’ve been having them in relation to nuclear energy. The Albanese government has stuck its head in the sand.”…….

As the federal Coalition attempts to ramp up pressure on Labor for refusing to lift the ban on nuclear energy, it also faces opposition at the state level from its own side of politics, as Guardian Australia revealed in March.

In Queensland the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007 bans “the construction and operation of particular nuclear reactors and other facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle”.

On Tuesday, the Queensland Liberal National party leader, David Crisafulli, was asked whether he would consider repealing the legislation if his federal colleagues proposed a nuclear plan that stacked up.

“The answer is no, and I’ve made my view very clear on that … contrary to some of the most childish memes that I’ve seen getting around social media from the Labor party,” he said.

Crisafulli said nuclear is a “matter for Canberra” and it is “not on our plan, not on our agenda”. “The things that we are offering are real and they are tangible, I understand there is that debate in Canberra, fair enough, but I can’t be distracted by it”…………..

CSIRO’s Gencost report found that electricity from large-scale nuclear reactors would cost between $141 a megawatt hour and $233 a MW/h compared with combining solar and wind at a cost of between $73 and $128 a MW/h – figures that include building transmission lines and energy storage.

The Albanese government on Saturday gave the green light to a 1,022 sq km area, 20km off the Illawarra coast, in the first stage of a process for it to become the country’s fourth dedicated windfarm zone.

Littleproud declared the Coalition was opposed to it and promised to “send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them”.

The energy and climate change minister, Chris Bowen, seized on the remarks which he said showed “while the world races to cleaner cheaper reliable renewables, the Nationals wants to stop new investment”.

“Peter Dutton would be worse on climate than Abbott or Morrison and David Littleproud would be worse than Barnaby Joyce,” he posted on X…………………………………………………………..

Scrutiny of the Coalition’s climate policy is increasing after Dutton announced a plan to oppose the 43% emissions reduction target by 2030, in contradiction of the Paris agreement.

On Tuesday Forrest warned that the proposal would hit Australian exports with penalty carbon taxes, and also cautioned against new limits on large-scale renewables.

“If we flip-flop between policies, if we go back to the past of uncertainty then it of course makes employing people and investing very difficult to impossible,” he told Radio National. “So that would be Australia kicking an own goal.”

With Graham Readfern https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/18/coalition-climate-energy-policy-opposition-split-nuclear-renewables

June 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | climate change, energy, nuclear, nuclear-energy, renewable-energy | Leave a comment

Nuclear plan is fiscal irresponsibility on an epic scale and rank political opportunism

The LNP wants to burn untold tens of billions of public money in a nuclear debt bin fire because nuclear is 100% uncommercial – no private investor will touch it with a ten foot pole short of massive multi-decade subsidies.

Tim Buckley & AM Jonson, ReNeweconomy, Jun 19, 2024

While the Coalition has failed to release any detail or costings, today we have confirmation that if it gets into office, Australians will be paying a mult-billion dollar “nukebuilder” tax for generations to come for a national build out of government-owned nuclear reactors across seven locations, including on the sites of former coal-fired power stations.

It beggars belief that opposition leader Peter Dutton proposes nationalising a nuclear public debt bomb and detonating it at the heart of energy policy in this country.

This exacerbates the problem that electricity generated from nuclear is two to four times as expensive as power from firmed renewables – as the CSIRO has confirmed – and would permanently lock in higher energy prices for consumers already crushed by cost of living pressures.

The medium term energy price implications are horrendous. Electricity prices would skyrocket as private investment in new replacement capacity is crowded out, resulting in undersupply for the next 15-25 years while we wait for the LNP’s nuclear white elephants to arrive.

We know that firmed renewables – utility scale solar and wind, backed by big batteries, and orchestrated with accelerated deployments of distributed consumer energy resources such as rooftop solar, storage and EVs in a modernised grid – can and will keep the lights on, delivering consistent, secure, reliable and affordable supply at a fraction of the cost. This transition is already underway and accelerating.

Critically, the Coalition’s announcement puts at serious and imminent risk planned private capital investments in clean energy as policy uncertainty and chaos make proposals uninvestable – especially in light of public statements by Nationals Leader David Littleproud that the LNP would, bizarrely, “cap” renewables investment here.

The thought bubble released this week threatens to undermine our energy and economic security and our future prosperity as it creates sovereign risk.

By destroying investor confidence, it deters the private clean energy capital we need to attract at speed and scale – capital for which we are competing with the rest of the world.

As the Investor Group on Climate Change, representing energy investors with $35tn in assets, said, there is “no interest” among investors in nuclear, when nuclear has time blowouts up 15+ years and cost blowouts in the tens of billions, and lowest-cost technologies – renewables, batteries and so on – are available to deploy now.

Further, to model our energy transition on the great government-owned public infrastructure debacles of the last quarter century – Snowy 2.0 and the NBN – is an egregious blunder with dire consequences now and for future generations.

The LNP’s Snowy 2.0 was due to be operational in 2021 at a cost of $2bn. After a rolling series of crises, it’s now expected to come online around 2028 and is likely to cost Australians $15bn, a budget blowout of 700%. And we have been lumped with one of the world’s worst, slowest (64th fastest in the world) and most expensive NBNs after a litany of LNP mismanagement.

The idea that nuclear could be up and running in 2035-37 is fanciful. Community opposition, inevitable protracted state and federal legal challenges, technological hurdles and the requirement that nationwide legislative bans on nuclear be overturned make a 2035 timeline impossible.

There is zero mention of how Australia plans to deal with nuclear waste for many centuries to come, or provide for the $10bn per nuclear plant end of life closure costs, another two LNP debt burdens dumped on future generations. The people of Japan are funding the US$200bn cleanup of the Fukushima disaster for the next century.

The international experience shows that the western nuclear industry is plagued with massive delays and cost blowouts. There is zero reason to expect Australia would be any different when the risks for us are higher, as we have no history of deployment of nuclear energy generation here.

The Vogtle nuclear power plant expansion debacle in Georgia, US, is a case point, massively delayed and the most expensive public works project in US history at $35bn, with consumers left to carry the can for the runaway costs.

And the £33bn Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in England – with completion now delayed to 2031 – is a millstone around UK citizens’ necks for the next 60 years or so, even as owner EDF of France took a €12bn writedown on this white elephant after China General Nuclear (CGN) walked away.

Dutton now centres Australian energy and climate policy on nuclear against the explicit and unequivocal advice of our flagship national scientific agency, the CSIRO, which warned that nuclear would take until at least 2040 to stand up in Australia, if legislative bans and other barriers could be overcome, and the energy generated would cost at least twice that of firmed renewables. …………………………………………………………………………… more https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-plan-is-fiscal-irresponsibility-on-an-epic-scale-and-rank-political-opportunism/

June 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, politics | climate change, energy, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power, renewable-energy | Leave a comment

Lockheed Martin, Australian Government: joined at the hip

There is a remarkable “revolving door” of top people between Australian government and Defence Department roles and the world’s no 1 weapons-maker

MICHELLE FAHY, JUN 19, 2024

Global weapons giant Lockheed Martin – which has deleted from its website details about Australia’s key role in building F-35 fighter jets – has long had deep ties to the Australian government, investigations show.

Analysis shows a remarkable “revolving door” of people between top government and Defence Department roles and the world’s largest weapons-maker, whose F-35 fighter jets Israel is using to bomb Gaza.

The revolving door between government and corporations is well documented as a factor helping to undermine democracy.

In 2022, Lockheed Martin’s total global revenue was US$66 billion, with 90 per cent of it (US$59.4 billion) from the sale of arms.

Some of Australia’s most senior government officials, military officers, and Defence Department staff have been appointed to Lockheed Martin Australia’s board or have served as its chief executive or in other positions in recent years.

Constantly revolving door

Lockheed’s current CEO for Australia and New Zealand, retired Air Marshal Warren McDonald, officially joined the weapons maker’s ANZ leadership team as chief executive elect on July 1, 2021 having exited his 41-year career in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) just seven months earlier. McDonald formally commenced as Lockheed’s local CEO in November 2021.

McDonald was deputy chief of the RAAF until mid-2017 when he was promoted into a new role as the Defence Force’s inaugural Chief of Joint Capabilities, a group comprising space, cyber and the defence networks tasked with preparing space and cyber power, and logistics capabilities, to serve the modern integrated defence force.

When later asked what had interested him about joining Lockheed Martin, McDonald said: “From all domains – space to the sea floor – Lockheed Martin has in its hands the combat capability of the Defence Force”…………………………………………………………………………more https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/lockheed-martin-australian-government?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=145632377&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

June 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets and lies, weapons and war | israel, lockheed-martin, news, palestine, war | Leave a comment

Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants

By political reporter Tom Crowley and national regional affairs reporter Jane Norman, 19 June 24 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/dutton-reveals-seven-sites-for-proposed-nuclear-power-plants/103995310—

Peter Dutton has told his Coalition colleagues he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations.

Mr Dutton will promise the first two sites can be operational between 2035 and 2037, several years earlier than the timeframe the CSIRO and other experts believe is feasible.

As had been previously flagged, the stations are all on retiring or retired coal sites.

The seven sites are:

Tarong in Queensland, north-west of Brisbane
Callide in Queensland, near Gladstone
Liddel in NSW, in the Hunter Valley
Mount Piper in NSW, near Lithgow
Port Augusta in SA
Loy Yang in Victoria, in the Latrobe Valley
Muja in WA, near Collie

Five of the seven are in Coalition seats: Muja in Rick Wilson’s seat of O’Connor, Loy Yang in Darren Chester’s seat of Gippsland, Port Augusta in Rowan Ramsey’s seat of Grey, Callide in Colin Boyce’s seat of Flynn and Tarong in Nationals leader David Littleproud’s seat of Maranoa.

Mount Piper is in the seat of Calare, held by independent Andrew Gee who was elected as a Nationals MP in 2022 but quit the party.

Liddel is in only site in a Labor seat, the seat of Hunter, held by Labor’s Dan Repacholi.

Further details are expected later this morning, including about how much government funding would be required and whether the proposal is for large-scale nuclear reactors, small modular nuclear reactors, or a combination.

The Coalition had been promising a nuclear policy, including specific sites, for several months amid expert concerns over the cost and timeframe.

Last week, Mr Dutton also revealed the Coalition would campaign against the Labor government’s legislated target to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, and would not outline a 2030 emissions reduction target of its own before the election.

Coalition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien and Nationals leader Mr Littleproud will address an energy conference held by The Australian today.

This morning, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will tell that conference the Coalition’s nuclear plan is “the dumbest policy ever put forward by a major party” and will seek to contrast the Coalition’s plan, likely to require significant public funding, with Labor’s plan to encourage private investment in renewables and gas.

June 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Australia, elections, energy, news, politics | Leave a comment

Peter Dutton today reveals long-awaited Coalition’s nuclear policy

June 18, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Coalition set to announce long-awaited nuclear details

Jacob Shteyman June 19, 2024, https://www.aap.com.au/news/coalition-set-to-announce-long-awaited-nuclear-details/

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is poised to announce his nuclear energy policy, including multiple proposed sites for power plants.

The Liberal leader plans to reveal the location of up to three sites for nuclear energy plants should the coalition win the next federal election, according to media reports.

Mr Dutton is set to hold a press conference on Wednesday alongside Nationals leader David Littleproud and deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley.

His party’s MPs are expected to be briefed on the plans that morning.

Mr Dutton has said he will oppose Australia’s legally binding 2030 climate target, a 43 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels, if he is elected.

The coalition remains committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, senior party members have said.

A report by the CSIRO found nuclear power plants wouldn’t be built at the earliest until 2040.

The latest report on the technology’s feasibility has found nuclear power is a “dangerous distraction” to Australia’s renewable energy transition because it would take too long and cost too much to build.

Even if nuclear restrictions were lifted tomorrow, it would still be at least 20 years before a reactor could be operational, the paper released by the Australian Conservation Foundation says.

By that time, all or nearly all Australia’s remaining coal-fired power plants will be closed, meaning carbon emissions-intensive fossil fuels will likely have to be prolonged.

Even ignoring the lead time required to establish a nuclear industry, it would be unable to compete financially with renewables and require taxpayer subsidies worth tens or hundreds of billions of dollars.

Another hurdle is convincing Australians nuclear poses no safety risk.

Major insurers, including AAMI, Allianz and NRMA, specifically exclude coverage to homes, cars or possessions from nuclear accidents.

“Proposals to introduce nuclear power to Australia make no sense,” concludes the report, which was led by anti-nuclear campaigner Jim Green and released on Wednesday.

The paper was written in response to a federal coalition plan to replace coal-fired power stations with nuclear, rather than relying on increased investment in renewable energy and storage to reach net zero.

Mr Dutton argues baseload nuclear is necessary to achieve the energy transition without sacrificing affordability or reliability.

“I want to make sure that we’ve got renewables in the system,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

“I’m happy for batteries, but we can’t pretend that batteries can provide the storage.

“We need to make sure that as we decarbonise and as the economy transitions, that we do it in a sensible way.”

The latest edition of the benchmark GenCost report, released by the CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator in May, found the cost of building a large-scale nuclear power plant would be at least $8.5 billion.

June 18, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | climate change, energy, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power, renewable-energy | Leave a comment