Australia’s media on nuclear power – wading through the quagmire
First of all, I’d like to commend a top article, which analyses the political significance for Peter Dutton, of his extraordinary policy :
Patricia Karvelas: Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction?
More recent articles at https://antinuclear.net/2024/06/24/from-25th-june-the-most-recent-australian-nuclear-news/
Below is a list of news articles. Now I have not here included the pro nuclear propaganda ones, nor the ravings of the very right-wing shock jocks of commercial radio – such as Melbourne’s 3AW. But you can find all that stuff on mainstream, mainly Murdoch media. The ABC is doing its best to stay afloat and actually give the facts. I am sure that those brave female TV and radio voices are now under quite vicious attack – Patricia Karvelas, Sarah Ferguson and Laura Tingle
I will try to keep this list up-to date – but that is going to be a daunting task –
National politics Dutton’s plan to nuke Australia’s renewable energy transition explained in full . No costing, no clear timelines, no easy legal path: deep scepticism over Dutton’s nuclear plan is warranted Nuclear plan is fiscal irresponsibility on an epic scale and rank political opportunism. Dutton’s nuclear lights are out and no one’s home. Peter Dutton launches highly personal attack on Anthony Albanese, calling him ‘a child in a man’s body’ while spruiking his new nuclear direction. Peter Dutton vows to override state nuclear bans as he steps up attack on PM. Peter Dutton is seated aloft the nuclear tiger, hoping not to get eaten.
Local politics. Nuclear thuggery: Coalition will not take no for an answer from local communities or site owners.
Climate change policy. Peter Dutton’s flimsy charade is first and foremost a gas plan not a nuclear power plan. Coalition’s climate and energy policy in disarray as opposition splits over nuclear and renewables.
Economics Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say . The insane amount it could cost to turn Australia nuclear – as new detail in Peter Dutton’s bold plan is revealed. Nuclear engineer dismisses Peter Dutton’s claim that small modular reactors could be commercially viable soon. Wrong reaction: Coalition’s nuclear dream offers no clarity on technology, cost, timing, or wastes. ‘Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is an economic disaster that would leave Australians paying more for electrici.ty’. Dutton’s nuclear thought bubble floats in a fantasy world of cheap infrastructure. UK’s nuclear plant will cost nearly three times what was estimated.
Energy, Coalition won’t say how much nuclear power its plan will generate until after an election
Health Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and unavoidable radiation health risks
Indigenous issues, How a British nuclear testing program ‘forced poison’ onto Maralinga Traditional Owners.
Technology. Dutton’s plan to build nuclear plants on former coal sites not as easy as it seems Over budget and plagued with delays: UK nuclear lessons for Australia.
Sabotaging renewables. There’s one real Coalition energy policy now: sabotaging renewables.
Secrecy. Port Augusta mayor and local MP kept in the dark about Liberal Coalition’s plant to site nuclear reactors there.
Site locations for reactors. Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants. Coalition set to announce long-awaited nuclear details.
Safety. Some of the Coalition’s proposed nuclear locations are near fault lines — is that a problem?
Spinbuster. It’s time to go nuclear on the Coalition’s stupidity. Ziggy Switkowski and another big nuclear back-flip . Does the Coalition’s case for nuclear power stack up? We factcheck seven key claims. A Coalition pie-in-the-sky nuclear nightmare.
Gina Rinehart and co are not the slightest interested in nuclear power plants. Goal is just – dig baby dig – coal, gas, uranium – forever. They can just keep mining forever, and funding the Liberal Coalition’s pointless nuclear mirage. Nobody’s really interested in super-expensive nuclear power plants, big or small. But while Australia is conned into believing that this nuclear power plan is actually real, well – it’ll keep on being dig baby dig. As Helen Caldicott once suggested – if these grasping oligarchs could put a blanket around the sun and sell holes – then they’d be interested in solar power,
Australian news media swamped with Peter Dutton’s pro nuclear gamble.
It’s pretty lacklustre journalism. Everyone crapping on about financial costs – apparently Australians are supposed to think that is the only thing that matters. Even then, the cost of nuclear wastes is ignored.
Never mind about about worker safety, ionising radiation, terrorism risks, weapons proliferation.
And here’s Australia, right now poised to become the global leader in genuinely clean energy!
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.”
More unanswered questions
Part of the motivation for this massive climate pivot is the opposition to the rollout of renewables. Given the controversy on poles and wires and their rollout on the basis that some communities don’t want them, it seems a stretch that other communities would be pushed to accept nuclear.
The Coalition is right to observe some questioning of the pace and cost of the renewables rollout. But it’s a big leap to go from detecting softening support for renewables to assuming there will be full-blown support for nuclear in the community.
If we accept that community opposition to the idea of nuclear is softening — although we can’t be sure of how much — then the fight shifts to cost.
Will the Coalition be able to convince the public that nuclear will really give them cheaper bills? On this pivotal question, the evidence has not been provided.
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
Nuclear misinformation in Australia is Hail Mary policy by the Opposition
The Fifth Estate, DARRIN DURANT, Dr Darrin Durant is Senior Lecturer in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Melbourne.17 JUNE 2024
Having promised a nuclear power policy for several years, the Australian Liberal-National Party finally announced one: no reactors before 2040 and approving new gas and coal projects instead. At the same time, it is abandoning the emissions reduction target for 2030 (a 43 per cent cut compared with 2005 levels) and refusing to commit to details about nuclear projects until after the May 2025 election.
This is a Nuclear Hail Mary Policy: reduce emissions aspirations and hope a final play two decades from now will work out.
Most commentary has focused on what this nuclear Hail Mary implies for Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. Some suggest the LNP plans to “rip up” the agreement. Others that the LNP plans to “breach the text and spirit” of the agreement.
Closest to the mark, I suggest, is that LNP is internally fractured and confused about both what its nuclear and emissions policy should be and how it should conduct itself regarding international agreements.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s climate backtracking on Saturday, 8 May 2024, pushed from the news cycle a clear marker of the LNP’s policy vacuum on nuclear power, climate emissions and international. On 7 June, the LNP engaged in disinformation about regional cooperation on decarbonization.
The occasion for the LNP’s disinformation campaign was the signing by the Albanese Labor government of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) Clean Economy Agreement. The IPEF was signed by Australia and 13 other nations on 6 June 2024.
Ted O’Brien MP (Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy in the LNP) claimed the ALP signing of the IPEF “exposes rank hypocrisy”, demonstrates a “lack of integrity”, and amounts to “treating Australians like mugs”.
None of the claims by O’Brien and the LNP are true. It is the LNP nuclear disinformation campaign that displays hypocrisy and duplicity and treats Australians like mugs.
The IPEF Clean Economy Agreement
The IPEF agreement aims to build regional economic cooperation across four pillars: trade, supply chains, clean energy, and tax. Australia joined IPEF on 23 May 2022, after the 21 May 2022 election in which Labor swept the LNP from power. Since then, eight rounds of negotiations between the member nations have taken place…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Australian nuclear misinformation goes walkabout
Thus far, Coalition claims about nuclear prospects have been domestic doomsday claims about Australia’s fate if it does not “go nuclear”.
Yet the Coalition’s claims routinely hinge on misinformation: inflating estimations of transmission projects, over-playing the risk of load shedding, over-estimating G20 reliance on nuclear, exaggerating renewables-related land use, and inventing risks from windfarms (on and offshore).
While the international nuclear renaissance has been a farcical (short) history of massive cost and construction blowouts, the Coalition has sidelined those facts at home, leading to claims that Coalition nuclear plans are a delay tactic to perpetuate coal and gas………..
The IPEF stipulates that the Parties should:
“promote transparent licensing, siting, and permitting for clean energy and related generation, transmission, distribution, and storage projects in the electricity sector” (Sect 4, Point 2b)
Furthermore, for those parties supportive of nuclear, they should:
“ensure that sound policy and regulatory frameworks in nuclear safety and waste management are in place when considering the adoption of nuclear energy technologies” (Sect. 4, Point 7a).
The LNP has spent years spruiking nuclear power, yet the Australian public remains in the dark about those two important clauses in the IPEF agreement.
The LNP cannot be ‘transparent’ if it has provided no detail to the Australian public about licensing, siting and permitting. The LNP claims to be considering nuclear, yet where are any serious policy proposals regarding the regulatory frameworks for nuclear safety and nuclear waste?
Instead, the LNP treats citizens as incapable of spotting fabrications and omissions.
For instance, the O’Brien’s/LNP press release tells citizens they will find the IPEF “supporting small modular reactors (SMRs) in the Indo Pacific”. This is a fabrication: the negotiated text of the agreement never mentions SMRs. Similarly, the Coalition omits that the IPEF agreement strongly supports windfarms and energy efficiency, two key elements of the ALP’s Rewiring the Nation plan………….
Treating citizens like mugs
……………………………To be a mug is to be easily deceived. The LNP must assume citizens are mugs if it thinks Australian voters cannot spot the LNP’s misrepresentation of the IPEF agreement. No, Labor is not in contradiction for opposing domestic nuclear and signing the IPEF, because the IPEF favours clean energy in general and advocates for member nations to pursue their own pathway (which may or may not include nuclear power)
Yet even if tempted by the Coalition logic, just remember, the Coalition opposes most of what is supported in the IPEF agreement. The Coalition is not talking straight about either energy policy or international agreements, and voters should keep this in mind as the Coalition obfuscates important international agreements like the Paris Agreement. https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/spinifex/nuclear-misinformation-in-australia-is-hail-mary-policy-by-the-opposition
Superficial coverage of Dutton’s nuclear policy does Australia a disservice
By Ernst Willheim, Jun 17, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/superficial-coverage-of-duttons-nuclear-policy-does-australia-a-disservice/
Noel Turnbull correctly writes that media coverage of the federal opposition’s nuclear power proposal is superficial. There is a very wide range of as yet unanswered issues.
First, who will build and operate the proposed nuclear power stations.
Many years ago, when the Commonwealth proposed establishment of a nuclear power station, it settled on Jervis Bay because the ‘territories’ power in the Commonwealth Constitution gave the Commonwealth plenary power. The proposal was well advanced, and a large concrete platform was built, before the proposal was eventually abandoned because it proved to be uneconomic.
The opposition apparently contemplates location of nuclear power stations on the sites of disused coal fired power stations. Does the opposition believe the Commonwealth has constitutional power to establish and operate nuclear power stations in the States?
The States would of course have the constitutional power to establish nuclear power stations. Remember State electricity authorities used to be publicly owned before they were privatised. But has any of the States indicated any enthusiasm for establishing and operating nuclear power stations?
If the opposition doesn’t envisage either Commonwealth or State government involvement, do they envisage private enterprise.
There are many capable private operators around the world but I haven’t seen any evidence of private corporations clamouring for the right to build nuclear power stations in Australia. Could it be that the private sector understands that privately owned nuclear power stations in Australia would not be competitive, that is, they would not return a profit.
There remain a range of wider regulatory issues, who would be responsible for planning, oversight and safety. How would liability and insurance be handled. Would the opposition envisage that Australia should become a party to the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. What about safeguards. Would the opposition accept oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency?
It is not clear that the opposition has addressed any of these issues.
Dutton’s energy plan to cost $97 billion as we wait for nukes to lumber into action
Australia facing a $97 billion bill for Peter Dutton’s energy policy — on generous assumptions, that is.
BERNARD KEANE, Crikey.com JUN 17, 2024
Peter Dutton’s nuclear-plus-coal energy plan will require nearly $100 billion in investment across new nuclear power plants, propping up existing coal-fired power plants and building ultra-efficient new ones, a conservative costing shows, with taxpayers set to bear a substantial amount, if not all, of the cost.
Crikey’s costing of the Coalition policy — which Dutton has steadfastly refused to release the details of — relies on the construction from scratch of six new nuclear power plants by 2040, to which Dutton has committed, the maintenance of a number of existing coal-fired power plants beyond their closure dates to 2040, and the construction of three new 1,000 MW coal-fired power plants to meet additional power demand and security of supply in the absence of further investment in renewables.
Based on either CSIRO costings from its most recent GenCost report or the cost of the NSW Labor government’s recent handout to Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power plant operating beyond next year, the total cost to deliver Dutton’s vision would be $97 billion by 2040.
Nuclear power
The CSIRO concluded in its GenCost report that the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia would cost around $8.25 billion for a 1,000 MW plant built as a series of at least five new plants. However, it noted that construction of the first one — dubbed “First of a Kind (FOAK)” — would attract a large premium, noting “FOAK premiums of up to 100% cannot be ruled out.” Crikey has conservatively estimated only a 50% premium for the first nuclear power plant, bringing the total for six plants to $56.3 billion in current dollars.
However, we have also inflated the cost by an additional 26% to take account of persistent cost overruns that plague all of Australia’s major infrastructure projects. According to the Grattan Institute 2020 report on large project cost overruns, the average cost overrun for projects costing between $350 million and $1 billion between 2001 and 2020 was 26%. The average cost overrun of projects above $1 billion was even higher, at 30%, reflecting that “bigger projects tend to be more complex, so it’s not surprising that they are more prone to cost overruns. They also tend to overrun by more, in dollar terms, and often in percentage terms as well.” Crikey has conservatively chosen the lower overrun figure, for a total cost of $70.8 billion.
Moreover, we have not assumed that nuclear power stations suffer from the same delays as all other new nuclear power stations have suffered from, but assume they will all be operating by 2040 — an assumption bordering on the implausible but made to allay any doubt about the veracity of the costing.
Where will this money come from? There may be companies willing to undertake such a large-scale project stretching across one-and-a-half decades, despite the immense risk of a reversal of political fortunes for a Coalition government at any point in that 15-year construction process. Such private investment will require loan guarantees from the Commonwealth at best, and as the experience from the last nuclear reactor to be built in the United States shows, it will be very costly for consumers. At worst, taxpayers will have to foot the entire $70.8 billion.
Dutton’s energy plan to cost $97 billion as we wait for nukes to lumber into action
Australia facing a $97 billion bill for Peter Dutton’s energy policy — on generous assumptions, that is.
JUN 17, 2024
Share
Peter Dutton’s nuclear-plus-coal energy plan will require nearly $100 billion in investment across new nuclear power plants, propping up existing coal-fired power plants and building ultra-efficient new ones, a conservative costing shows, with taxpayers set to bear a substantial amount, if not all, of the cost.
Crikey’s costing of the Coalition policy — which Dutton has steadfastly refused to release the details of — relies on the construction from scratch of six new nuclear power plants by 2040, to which Dutton has committed, the maintenance of a number of existing coal-fired power plants beyond their closure dates to 2040, and the construction of three new 1,000 MW coal-fired power plants to meet additional power demand and security of supply in the absence of further investment in renewables.
Based on either CSIRO costings from its most recent GenCost report or the cost of the NSW Labor government’s recent handout to Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power plant operating beyond next year, the total cost to deliver Dutton’s vision would be $97 billion by 2040.
Nuclear power
The CSIRO concluded in its GenCost report that the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia would cost around $8.25 billion for a 1,000 MW plant built as a series of at least five new plants. However, it noted that construction of the first one — dubbed “First of a Kind (FOAK)” — would attract a large premium, noting “FOAK premiums of up to 100% cannot be ruled out.” Crikey has conservatively estimated only a 50% premium for the first nuclear power plant, bringing the total for six plants to $56.3 billion in current dollars.Dutton’s nuclear nonsense catches up with him — while Labor keeps runningRead More
However, we have also inflated the cost by an additional 26% to take account of persistent cost overruns that plague all of Australia’s major infrastructure projects. According to the Grattan Institute 2020 report on large project cost overruns, the average cost overrun for projects costing between $350 million and $1 billion between 2001 and 2020 was 26%. The average cost overrun of projects above $1 billion was even higher, at 30%, reflecting that “bigger projects tend to be more complex, so it’s not surprising that they are more prone to cost overruns. They also tend to overrun by more, in dollar terms, and often in percentage terms as well.” Crikey has conservatively chosen the lower overrun figure, for a total cost of $70.8 billion.
Moreover, we have not assumed that nuclear power stations suffer from the same delays as all other new nuclear power stations have suffered from, but assume they will all be operating by 2040 — an assumption bordering on the implausible but made to allay any doubt about the veracity of the costing.
Where will this money come from? There may be companies willing to undertake such a large-scale project stretching across one-and-a-half decades, despite the immense risk of a reversal of political fortunes for a Coalition government at any point in that 15-year construction process. Such private investment will require loan guarantees from the Commonwealth at best, and as the experience from the last nuclear reactor to be built in the United States shows, it will be very costly for consumers. At worst, taxpayers will have to foot the entire $70.8 billion.
Keeping coal going
The Coalition has now admitted — as its abandonment even of Scott Morrison’s 26-28% emissions cut by 2030 shows (actually 26-28% was Tony Abbott’s target, so Dutton is proposing to be even worse than Abbott on emissions) — nuclear power plants won’t be ready until the 2040s, necessitating extending the lives of existing coal-fired power stations.
Crikey has used the Minns government’s handout to Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power station operating for two extra years at $225 million a year as a template and estimated the cost, per megawatt, of keeping those coal-fired plants scheduled to close before 2040 going until that year. However, we have capped that spending at 10 years, assuming that coal-fired plants already at the end of their lives could not be extended beyond that date without massive extra investment. This “Coalkeeper” process would cost a comparatively modest $5.98 billion over 2025-40 in current dollars. Where will this money come from? It will be a direct subsidy from governments — presumably the Commonwealth — to fossil fuel companies.
Dutton’s energy plan to cost $97 billion as we wait for nukes to lumber into action
Australia facing a $97 billion bill for Peter Dutton’s energy policy — on generous assumptions, that is.
JUN 17, 2024
Share
Peter Dutton’s nuclear-plus-coal energy plan will require nearly $100 billion in investment across new nuclear power plants, propping up existing coal-fired power plants and building ultra-efficient new ones, a conservative costing shows, with taxpayers set to bear a substantial amount, if not all, of the cost.
Crikey’s costing of the Coalition policy — which Dutton has steadfastly refused to release the details of — relies on the construction from scratch of six new nuclear power plants by 2040, to which Dutton has committed, the maintenance of a number of existing coal-fired power plants beyond their closure dates to 2040, and the construction of three new 1,000 MW coal-fired power plants to meet additional power demand and security of supply in the absence of further investment in renewables.
Based on either CSIRO costings from its most recent GenCost report or the cost of the NSW Labor government’s recent handout to Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power plant operating beyond next year, the total cost to deliver Dutton’s vision would be $97 billion by 2040.
Nuclear power
The CSIRO concluded in its GenCost report that the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia would cost around $8.25 billion for a 1,000 MW plant built as a series of at least five new plants. However, it noted that construction of the first one — dubbed “First of a Kind (FOAK)” — would attract a large premium, noting “FOAK premiums of up to 100% cannot be ruled out.” Crikey has conservatively estimated only a 50% premium for the first nuclear power plant, bringing the total for six plants to $56.3 billion in current dollars.Dutton’s nuclear nonsense catches up with him — while Labor keeps runningRead More
However, we have also inflated the cost by an additional 26% to take account of persistent cost overruns that plague all of Australia’s major infrastructure projects. According to the Grattan Institute 2020 report on large project cost overruns, the average cost overrun for projects costing between $350 million and $1 billion between 2001 and 2020 was 26%. The average cost overrun of projects above $1 billion was even higher, at 30%, reflecting that “bigger projects tend to be more complex, so it’s not surprising that they are more prone to cost overruns. They also tend to overrun by more, in dollar terms, and often in percentage terms as well.” Crikey has conservatively chosen the lower overrun figure, for a total cost of $70.8 billion.
Moreover, we have not assumed that nuclear power stations suffer from the same delays as all other new nuclear power stations have suffered from, but assume they will all be operating by 2040 — an assumption bordering on the implausible but made to allay any doubt about the veracity of the costing.
Where will this money come from? There may be companies willing to undertake such a large-scale project stretching across one-and-a-half decades, despite the immense risk of a reversal of political fortunes for a Coalition government at any point in that 15-year construction process. Such private investment will require loan guarantees from the Commonwealth at best, and as the experience from the last nuclear reactor to be built in the United States shows, it will be very costly for consumers. At worst, taxpayers will have to foot the entire $70.8 billion.
Keeping coal going…………….. https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/17/peter-dutton-energy-policy-nuclear-coal-renewables/
Key question Peter Dutton refuses to answer about his nuclear power plan
- Peter Dutton refused to answer question
- He was probed about nuclear power policy
By NCA NEWSWIRE and ELEANOR CAMPBELL FOR NCA NEWSWIRE, 16 June 2024 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13534571/Key-question-Peter-Dutton-refuses-answer-nuclear-power-plan.html
Peter Dutton has again refused to reveal key details on the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, declaring he would consider announcing his alternative 2035 emissions reduction goal if the government released modelling on interim climate targets.
In a fiery interview on Sunday with Sky’s Sunday Agenda host Andrew Clennell, the federal Opposition Leader became defensive after being pressed to reveal the locations and costings of his six proposed nuclear power plants.
Mr Dutton said he would reveal the opposition’s energy plan within ‘weeks’ in March but again declined to spell out the full details of his vision for Australia’s energy transition.
‘What we’ve said, the sites that we’re looking at are only those sites where there’s an end-of-life coal-fired power stations,’ he told Sky on Sunday.
‘One of the main reasons is that people in those communities know that they’re going when coal goes and we have the ability to sustain heavy industry, we have the ability to keep the lights on.’
A recent report from peak scientific body CSIRO suggested that building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least $8.5bn and take at least 15 years to deliver.
The Coalition has refused to confirm reports of the locations of up to seven proposed power sites, which according to speculation, include sites in two Liberal-held seats and four or five Nationals-held seats.
Potential sites include the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in NSW, Collie in WA, Port Augusta in South Australia, and potentially a plant in the southwest Queensland electorate of Maranoa, held by Nationals leader David Littleproud.
When pressed on the locations of the sites, Mr Dutton responded: ‘We’ve said that we’re looking at between six and seven sites, and we’ll make an announcement at the time of our choosing, not of Labor’s choosing.’
When asked if a power plant would be placed on each of the unspecified sites, Mr Dutton did not answer directly, saying only that he would consider output and environmental impact.
The Opposition Leader was then asked if the plants would be government subsidised, and responded by saying all power sources, other than coal, receives funding.
‘We’ll make an announcement in due course, but I just make the point that wind and solar don’t work without government subsidy,’ he said.
Mr Dutton also came under scrutiny this week after revealing he would oppose a legislated 2030 carbon emissions target at the next election.
Asked directly if he would consider a 2035 interim reduction target, which would be legally required under the 2015 Paris agreement, the Liberal leader said he would ‘take advice’ from the treasury before changing climate legislation, citing concerns about the nation’s economic situation
‘I think we have a look at all of that information and if there were settings we need to change … it doesn’t mean exiting Paris or walking away from our clear commitment to be net zero by 2050,’ he said.
Mr Dutton was asked for a second time if he would set a 2035 target, but again spoke at length about cost of living pressures facing the country.
Trade Minister Don Farrell said Mr Dutton’s comments were ‘outrageous’ and argued watered down climate commitments would damage Australia’s standing with its international allies.
‘It’s beyond the pale to be perfectly honest,’ Mr Farrell said on Sunday.
‘We went to the last election committing to a 2030 target and despite what Mr Dutton might say, we’re on track to meet that target.’
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 