“Chernobyl” miniseries is scary, but the dis-economics of nuclear power for Australia is scary, too

What’s more chilling: watching Chernobyl or cogitating on the cost of going nuclear? Michael West Investigative Journalism Jun 20, 2019,  The sudden push by the Murdoch media and Coalition right-wingers to overturn Australia’s nuclear power ban ignores the chilling economic cost —  huge public subsidies, storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, the heavy costs of decommissioning and, potentially, radiation-related health costs. Veteran nuclear writer Noel Wauchope reports on the popular TV series, Chernobyl, and the economics of nuclear power.

THE frightening TV miniseries “Chernobyl” could put a few Australians off the idea of nuclear power but nuclear economics might turn out to be the bigger scare.

It is bad news for the Minerals Council of Australia and nuclear lobbyists, that Chernobyl has now arrived on some Australian TV screens, but pro-nuclear advocates are continuing to push their campaign anyway.

The miniseries “Chernobyl” has just finished in Europe and USA, outdoing “Game of Thrones” in popularity. HBO’s Chernobyl topped film and TV database IMDB’s list of the greatest 250 TV shows of all time.  The first episode was screened on 12 June, 2019 in Australia, on Foxtel.

The series has had a big impact. It was highly praised by numerous reviewers but criticised by pro-nuclear lobbyists, and infuriated some Russian politicians. ………

The Coalition’s renewed push for nuclear power

In March this year, 11 Coalition MPs (Andrew Broad, James Paterson, Tony Pasin, Tim Wilson, Chris Back, Craig Kelly, Eric Abetz, Andrew Hastie, Warren Entsch, Bridget McKenzie and Rowan Ramsey) urged then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to put nuclear power on the table as an electricity source for Australia. That call is now repeated by  Queensland and Coalition MPs calling for an inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he is open to considering nuclear power if it can stand on its own two feet. Energy Minister Angus Taylor told The Guardianon 12 June 2019 he wouldn’t rule out revising Australia’s nuclear ban “when there is a very clear business case which shows the economics of this can work”. Two days later, Environment Minister Sussan Ley also told TheGuardian she was open to the review considering a removal of the ban.

But — are the economics of nuclear power viable for Australia?

When even Australia’s former top nuclear promoter has doubts, it doesn’t look promising……….

How viable is nuclear power elsewhere?

Nuclear economics in America is really a tale of woe. You hardly know where to start, in trying to assess how much this industry is costing communities and tax-payers. There are the attempts to save the nuclear industry via subsidies. There are the continuing and ever-increasing costs of radioactive wastes.  There are the compensation payments to workers with radiation-caused illnesses, $15.5 billion and counting, and the legal battles over where to put the wastes. Needless to say, really, America is not initiating any new nuclear “big build”. The much touted “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” are turning out to have no market and little prospect of being economically viable……

The UK nuclear industry is in the doldrums with repeated postponement of new projects – Hinkley Point C, Wylfa Newydd, Moorside, Sizewell C, Oldbury B and Bradwell B……The 2018 forecast for future clean-up of Britain’s aging 17 nuclear power stations has blown out to £121 billion which has had to be spread across the next 120 years……

France’s Flamanville nuclear project is taking years, remains bogged down with costly problems. Electricite de France (EDF)  has financial woes but hopes to save itself by switching from nuclear to renewables. France’s former nuclear giant AREVA went bankrupt and has changed its name to Orano and Framatome — and French tax-payers are still caught up in Areva/Orano costly legal corruption scandals.

Canada is up for increasing costs for managing its nuclear wastes. Interestingly, Canada abandoned its nuclear project for producing medical radioisotopes and now leads in non nuclear production of these isotopes.

India had grand plans for nuclear power, but has cut these back, and recently cancelled 57 reactors. It continues to have problems and many outages, at its huge Kudankulam nuclear station. ….

Russia keeps offering “generous” funding to the buyer countries. But will those countries end up with big debts? Reuters reports that in China, “No new approvals have been granted for the past three years, amid spiralling costs” ………….. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/whats-more-chilling-watching-chernobyl-or-cogitating-the-cost-of-going-nuclear/

June 20, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Liberal and National party MPs mistaken. Nuclear power WAS investigated in 2015, and found to be uneconomic

Robyn Wood, 20 June 19, The Liberal and National party MPs are mistaken when they say that nuclear power hasn’t been investigated since nuclear physicist Ziggy Switowski. They need to be aware that the South Australian government had a Nuclear Royal Commission in 2015/6. The majority pro nuclear power members found that nuclear power was not economic compared to renewables. Renewable technology is rapidly improving and the price dropping, while nuclear power plant costs are rapidly escalating and plants being shut down across the world. The report is available online. Even Mr Switkowski said in 2018 “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed”. Now is not the time to waste precious taxpayer’s money but to get on building renewables that are cheaper than even coal.

June 20, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

GOLD Coast-based Federal MP Karen Andrews OK with nuclear power, but exactly where on the Gold Coast?

Gold Coast nuclear plant in the mix: but where would you put it on the tourist strip? , Gold Coast Bulletin, 19 June 19

Ms Andrews, the Member for McPherson, was on Sky News today when asked about nuclear energy following the release of CSIRO’s Australian National Outlook report.

The report compares two versions of the Australia in 2060, and predicts the nation will enter a “slow decline” if challenges are not met head on.

The Industry, Science and Technology Minister was asked about the findings including that Australia could reach zero emissions by 2050.

But she admitted coal would be “part of the energy mix for some time in the future”.

Asked about nuclear energy, Ms Andrews replied: “I don’t have an issue with it being considered.”

Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler seized on the comments saying it was another senior Liberal backing nuclear.

“We know nuclear power plants need to be built near water so would Minister Andrews, the Member for McPherson, like the nuclear power stations in her electorate, lining the Gold Coast,” he said.

“Would the Minister prefer the nuclear plant in Coolangatta, Robina, Burleigh Heads or Palm Beach? Scott Morrison needs to make his position clear.”

Mr Butler said the Prime Minister last year had indicated “where something can stack up and can actually bring the prices down, well I’m all for it.”

“Just last week, Energy Minister Angus Taylor told would not rule out nuclear power either saying, ‘If there is a clear business case there is a clear business case’,” Mr Butler said.

“The pressure is now on Scott Morrison to take real action to end the energy crisis that emerged under the Liberal Government. “So far, all the Liberals are promising in energy is expensive new coal-fired power stations and a growing pressure from Morrison’s backbench for Australia to pursue even more expensive nuclear power.”

June 20, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment