Antinuclear

Nuclear curious? Here’s what you need to know about the Coalition’s energy claims

Peter Dutton says building nuclear reactors will bring down power prices but experts doubt it and say it will cost the climate too

Graham Readfearn,  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/04/nuclear-power-liberal-coalition-energy-power-plan-details

Peter Dutton says the Coalition would slow down the rollout of renewable energy and and instead eventually spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to build nuclear power plants at seven sites across the country.

He claimed “power prices will be cheaper under us in the near term” and that his policy would be expected to lead to “a 44% reduction, or of that order, being passed through in energy bill relief” – that is, a dramatic and unprecedented cut in household power bills.

Does this stack up? Here’s what you need to know about the Coalition’s plans, the risks it poses to the country’s electricity supply and its climate targets.

What does the Coalition say it will do?

The Coalition wants to build large nuclear reactors at the sites of five coal-fired power stations – Liddell and Mount Piper in New South Wales, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, and Loy Yang in Victoria. 

Small modular nuclear reactors, which are not yet commercially available anywhere, are proposed at the sites of Northern power station in South Australia and Muja power station in Western Australia.

All the reactors would be taxpayer-funded. The Coalition claims it could have smaller units working by 2035 and the first large reactor working by 2037.

How long would it take?

Most energy experts, including those from the CSIRO, say the Coalition’s timeline is unrealistic.

They argue it is highly unlikely Australia could do everything necessary – including creating a regulatory system, developing a skilled workforce, completing geological and environmental work and commissioning and building a nuclear reactor, with community approval – before the early 2040s, if not later.

The Coalition would also have to overturn a legislated federal ban on nuclear energy and convince the states to overturn their bans. Most state premiers and opposition leaders are opposed to introducing a nuclear energy system. 

With Labor, the Greens and some independents opposed to nuclear energy, repealing federal laws would be a major obstacle.

The Nationals senator Matt Canavan has claimed the Coalition was “not serious” about building nuclear and it was being backed because it “fixes a political issue”.

Would building nuclear reactors keep the lights on?

Many of Australia’s coal plants are old.

On average, coal plants are forced offline through unplanned outages for about 10% of the year. Australia’s electricity market operator expects 90% of coal-fired power stations to be closed by 2035 – two years before the Coalition claims its first nuclear plant would be producing power.

The Coalition’s plan would mean requiring ageing coal plants to run for longer, increasing the risk of unplanned outages unless there was significant new spending on maintenance.

Experts say promising to build taxpayer-funded nuclear plants could also lead to investors deciding not to build the solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro currently planned, and needed now, to replace much of the electricity from coal.

Would nuclear power really bring down the cost of living?

The Coalition has provided no evidence to back up its claim that its proposal could bring electricity prices down.

Dutton has claimed that modelling by Frontier Economics judged the Coalition’s plan to be 44% cheaper than Labor’s policy of running the grid overwhelmingly on renewable energy, and that this meant power bills would be cut by 44%.

This claim has no basis in fact. Frontier’s own modelling report said it had not modelled the impact of a nuclear plan on prices.

The modelling used by the Coalition is based on an electricity system producing 31% less electricity than Labor’s preferred renewables-based approach.

More than half of a household’s electricity bill is related to factors outside the Coalition’s plans, such as the cost of local poles and wires, or the costs passed on by retailers.

Overseas, particularly in western democracies, nuclear plants have become notorious for large cost blowouts and delays.

The Coalition says its plan would cost less because it would avoid having to build some of the new towers and power lines needed to connect the new solar, wind and battery farms planned across the country.

But CSIRO analysis found even if Australia had an established nuclear program with a suite of reactors, the electricity would cost at least 50% more than power from solar and wind backed by battery and other energy infrastructure needed to ensure the power grid remained reliable even when the wind wasn’t blowing and the sun wasn’t shining.

What will the Coalition’s nuclear plan mean for the climate crisis?

About a third of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions come from burning coal and gas to produce electricity. Cleaning up the grid is essential to cutting Australia’s climate pollution and meeting its international commitments.

The Coalition’s plan assumes that for the next 20 years or so there would be significantly less renewable energy and significantly more electricity from coal and gas-fired power stations than proposed by regulators and backed by the Labor government.

Not surprisingly, this would mean higher emissions. This point was reinforced in modelling supported by the Coalition released in late 2024. It found that Dutton’s proposal would lead to substantially higher pollution between now and 2048 than on the current path.

Independent analysis has backed this up, suggesting the Coalition’s plan would lead to an extra 1.7bn tonnes of CO2 being emitted by 2050. This is equivalent to about four years’ worth of emissions released across the entire Australian economy.

The Coalition’s plan also assumes slower decarbonisation in other parts of the economy. It suggests fewer people would buy electric vehicles than under Labor, and fewer rooftop solar panels would be installed.

The Coalition has aligned its plan to a scenario laid out by the Australian energy market operator that is in line with global heating of about 2.6C by 2100.

February 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

The paradox of recent politics

Crispin Hull, 2 February 25

A paradoxical realignment is under way in Australian and US politics. 

Until recently, the Republican Party in the US and the Liberal Party in Australia were the parties of business, entrepreneurs, the professions, and the relatively wealthy. And the Democrats and Labor were the parties of the worker. The Democrats and Labor were always wary of new technology because it invariably costs jobs.

It was a fairly straight-forward labour-capital divide.

Then came some big changes: the rise of China; the threat of global heating; the social revolutions relating to identity (race, gender, nationality, and religion); and the collapse of organised labour.

Global heating was seen by Republicans and Liberals as some trendy, leftie anti-capital nonsense. They saw, with some justification, the rise of China as menacing. They attracted working-class votes based on nationalism and opposition to social causes on racial and sexual equality.

Those changes have thrown up some irreconcilable contradictions.

Private-Sector Economic Rationalist Peter Dutton has a plan under one arm to axe 36,000 “Canberra” public servants. Under the other arm Commissar Dutton he has a plan for massive public ownership of the means of energy production and management with seven nuclear power stations – just so his mates can keep up the profitable burning of fossil fuels for a few more years.

No sensible private-sector organisation will go near the nuclear plan, for obvious reasons. Moreover, only a third of federal public servants work in Canberra. But it sounds good to cut “Canberra” public servants. As if they do nothing – aside from, say, running air-traffic control; policing the borders; running Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and the defence forces; doing weather forecasts; and generally making society tick.

It leaves Labor, the party that has usually been unenthusiastic about entrepreneur-driven new technology, embracing and financing private-sector investment in new energy………………………………………………………….

Labor, the party of the environment, has now shelved legislative protection for endangered species and approved dozens of extensions to coal and gas projects while putting its hand on its heart saying it has approved no “new” coal or gas projects.

Despite election promises, Albanese, who “goes after Tories”, has delivered a corruption watchdog that bares its gums in private. And his whistle-blower-protection promises have evaporated. His political finance “reforms” tinker about the edges while continuing to allow big corporations and unions to be puppet-masters.

It is a government that clears the in-tray by moving things into the too-scared basket.

Dutton, meanwhile, the friend of the Australian Jewish Community, cynically weaponises and politicises antisemitic attacks in Australia so he can argue that Albanese is “weak” while stirring up divisions for his own ends. With any luck it will back-fire because the Jewish community is a bit more sophisticated and understanding of the nuances of public policy than the former Queensland policeman.

The attacks, of course, are not coming from racialised Muslims, but far-right, nationalist, self-labelled “Christian” neo-Nazis.

Surely these things mean that Dutton and Albanese have disqualified themselves from leading a majority government. Surely, events of the past three years tell us that a cross-bench holding the balance of power in the House of Representatives will improve government.

If Albanese is Prime Minister, they will demand action on obvious things on pain of being thrown out of office. If Dutton is Prime Minister, they will demand detail, justification, and costings for his nuclear policy or to drop it – again on pain of being removed from office.

How else can the major parties be weaned off the insidious corporate, union, and lobby-group influencers that conspire against the public interest?

The glimmer of hope here is Labor’s massive support of renewable energy. The Australian Energy Market Operator reported this month that coal’s share of electricity generation had fallen below half for the first time. Coal-fired power stations are becoming less reliable and less economic. 

The economics are so obvious that households are taking up solar at an unforeseen rate. And they are telling everyone about their zero power bills. So, it is on an unstoppable roll.  https://www.crispinhull.com.au/2025/02/03/the-paradox-of-recent-politics/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column

February 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Dutton defends nuclear costings as opponents warn of power bill hit

“Peter Dutton wants to force millions of Australians to switch off the solar they bought, make them pay for more expensive nuclear power, and use their taxes to build nuclear reactors,”

The Age, By Shane Wright, February 2, 2025 

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has claimed his nuclear energy policy would cut power bills by 44 per cent, but analysis by the renewables sector warns it could actually drive up electricity costs by more than $1000 a year for millions of Australians with rooftop solar panels.

Ahead of an election that will be dominated by cost-of-living issues, Dutton said while it would take time for energy prices to fall under his $331 billion plan to build seven government nuclear plants, they would ultimately drive down costs for consumers and business owners.

Modelling commissioned by the Coalition for its plan to build the reactors by the mid-2040s asserts total costs will be 44 per cent lower compared to the mass rollout of renewables. The same modelling did not estimate a reduction in retail power prices.

But Dutton told the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday it was “economics” that lower construction and production costs would lead to a large drop in prices paid by consumers…………………

The modelling, however, has come under fire for its underlying assumptions, including an effective lid on the amount of renewable energy. Renewable energy under the Coalition’s modelling reaches 54 per cent of the total power market by 2050. By the end of last year, it had already hit 46 per cent.

Research to be released on Monday by the Smart Energy Council warns that millions of rooftop solar systems would have to shut off every day to allow the baseload power generated by nuclear reactors to fit into the grid.

It found that non-solar households could pay an extra $665 a year in power prices, while for those with rooftop solar, the bill shock could be more than $1000. Rooftop solar households were forecast to pay an extra $1262 a year in NSW, $1108 in Victoria and $1419 in south-east Queensland.

The higher costs to the more than 4 million rooftop solar households were in part because they would be blocked from feeding power into the energy market, the council said. As nuclear needed to be run constantly, if there was too much energy in the market, the first to be turned off would be rooftop solar, which was the easiest to prevent competing against nuclear.

Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said every person who had invested in rooftop solar would pay far more for their energy if expensive nuclear power was forced into the grid.

“Peter Dutton wants to force millions of Australians to switch off the solar they bought, make them pay for more expensive nuclear power, and use their taxes to build nuclear reactors,” he said.

“We know that power bills are going to soar for all Australians because Peter Dutton wants to cap cheap, clean renewable energy and substitute it with expensive, unreliable, polluting coal and gas, while we wait a couple of decades to build their nuclear fantasies.”

The battle over electricity prices is part of a broader debate over the size of government, with Dutton accusing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of overseeing a $347 billion increase in spending and a 36,000 lift in public servants…………………….

Pressed on where he would cut spending, Dutton ruled out an audit but signalled that voters would have to wait until after the election to get final details………

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said part of the increase in spending and public servants included the indexation of the aged pension and extra resources to the Veterans’ Affairs Department, Medicare and to lift housing construction.

He accused Dutton of trying to hide his planned cuts because he knew people would not support them.

“It is extraordinary that he’s saying to the Australian people he wants to cut $350 billion, but they will have to wait until after the election before he would tell them what that is,” he said.https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-defends-nuclear-costings-as-opponents-warn-of-power-bill-hit-20250202-p5l8wu.html

February 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment