Nuclear more costly and could ‘sound the death knell’ for Australia’s decarbonisation efforts, report says
Peter Hannam Economics correspondent, Guardian, Fri 28 Jun 2024
A nuclear-powered Australian economy would result in higher-cost electricity and would “sound the death knell” for decarbonisation efforts if it distracts from renewables investment, a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) argues.
The report comes as ANZ forecast September quarter power prices will dive as much as 30% once government rebates kick in. A separate review by the market watchdog has found household energy bills were 14% lower because of last year’s rebates.
BNEF said the federal opposition’s plan to build nuclear power stations on seven sites required “a slow and challenging” effort to overturn existing bans in at least three states, for starters.
Even if they succeeded, the levelised cost of electricity – a standard industry measure – would be far higher for nuclear power than renewables. Taking existing nuclear industries in western nations into account, their cost would still be “at least four times greater than the average” for Australian wind and solar plants firmed up with storage today, Bloomberg said.
“Nuclear could play a valuable, if expensive, role in Australia’s future power mix,” the report said. “However, if the debate serves as a distraction from scaling-up policy support for renewable energy investment, it will sound the death knell for its decarbonisation ambitions – the only reason for Australia to consider going nuclear in the first place.”
Bloomberg’s analysis complements CSIRO’s GenCost report that also found nuclear energy to be far more costly than zero-carbon alternatives. Australia’s lack of experience with the industry would result in a learning “premium” that would double the price of the first nuclear plant, according to the CSIRO.
Bloomberg also found that assuming the opposition’s seven plants had a generation capacity of 14 gigawatts, they would supply only a fraction of the total market.
If governments tried to rely on inflexible generators – whether coal-fired or nuclear – as renewables increased, they would have to resort to subsidies and other market interventions at a cost to taxpayers, Bloomberg said.
“This report speaks for itself,” the energy minister, Chris Bowen, said. “It’s another example of experts confirming that nuclear energy is too slow, too expensive and too risky for Australia.
“The Albanese government’s plan is the only plan backed by experts to deliver clean, cheap, renewable power available 24/7, and get us to net zero by 2050.”
Guardian Australia sought comment from the opposition energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien.
ANZ, meanwhile, expects residential electricity prices to begin to see big falls starting from next month as federal and state rebates take effect.
@ANZ_Research predicts electricity prices in the September quarter could fall by 30% as fresh rebates kick in. That would lop a large 0.7 percentage points off the inflation rate (to be recovered later unless the rebates continue). pic.twitter.com/fjHWP8duEn— @phannam@mastodon.green (@p_hannam) June 27, 2024
From 1 July, all households in Queensland get a $1,000 rebate, those in Western Australia the first of two $200 rebates and nationally the first of four $75 rebates from the federal government will arrive.
In the September quarter, ANZ estimates consumer prices will fall 0.7 percentage points, temporarily dampening overall inflation – assuming those rebates aren’t extended again.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will also release its annual market inquiry report on Friday. It showed that without the federal government’s energy rebates in the May 2023 budget the median residential energy bill would have been 14%, or $46.64, higher across all regions…………………………………….more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/28/nuclear-energy-report-australia-expensive-decarbonisation-renewables
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors cost concerns challenge industry optimism
Reuters, Paul Day, Jun 27, 2024
Concerns over the potential cost of small modular reactors (SMRs) and the electricity they produce continue to cast a shadow over growing optimism for new nuclear.
Proponents say that the recent faltering history of large nuclear projects missing schedules and running over budget are just teething problems for a new industry in the midst of a difficult economic climate.
However, critics claim it as proof that nuclear is not economically viable at all, and it will take too long faced with pressing climate issues.
There is little doubt that new nuclear will, at least initially, be more expensive to develop, build, and run than many are hoping.
New Generation IV reactors, such as SMRs, are likely to produce hidden costs inherent in the development of first-of-a-kind technology, while high commodity and building material prices, stubbornly high inflation, and interest rates at levels not seen for decades are adding to mounting expenses for the new developers.
NuScale’s cancelled deal to supply its SMRs to a consortium of electricity cooperatives due to rising power price estimates prompted The Breakthrough Institute’s Director for Nuclear Energy Innovation Adam Stein to write that advanced nuclear energy was in trouble.
Speaking during an event at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) 2024 Annual Conference in June, Stein said nothing had changed to fix the fundamental challenges nuclear faces since he wrote that in November, but there was a greater sense of urgency.
“Commodity prices have come down slightly, though interest rates are largely still the same and those are risks, or uncertainties, that are outside of the developer’s control,” Stein said during an event at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) 2024 Annual Conference.
“Until those can be considered a project risk, instead of unknown uncertainties, they are not going to be controlled at all and can drastically swing the price of any single project.”
Enthusiastic hype
These criticisms clash with growing enthusiasm (critics say ‘hype’) surrounding the new technology.
Twenty two countries and 120 companies at the COP28 conference in November vowed to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050, and developers are making sweeping promises about the capabilities and affordability of their latest creations, many of which will not be commercially available in North America or Europe until the early 2030s.
SMRs, defined as reactors that generate 300 MW or less, cost too much, and deployment is too far out for them to be a useful tool to transition from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years, according to a recent study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
“SMRs are not going to be helpful in the transition. They’re not going to be here quick enough. They’re not going to be economic enough. And we really don’t have time to wait,” says co-author of the study Dennis Wamsted.
Existing SMRs in China (Shidao Bay), Russia (floating SMR such as the Akademik Lomonosov), and in Argentina (the still under-construction CAREM) have all cost significantly more than originally planned, the IEEFA says in the study ‘Small Modular Reactors: Still too expensive, too slow, and too risky.’
Construction work on the cutting-edge CAREM project has been stalled since May due to cost-cutting measures by Argentina’s President Javier Milei, the head of National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) told Reuters.
The billions of dollars the U.S. and Canadian governments are pouring into nuclear power through subsidies, tax credits, and federally funded research, would be better spent on extra renewables, Wamsted says.
Some 260,000 MW of renewable energy generation, mostly solar, is expected to be added to the U.S. grid just through to 2028, the study says citing the American Clean Power Association, way before any new nuclear is expected to be plugged in.
“Federal funds to nuclear is, in our opinion, a waste of time and money,” says Wamsted.
High uncertainty…………………………………………….
https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/smr-cost-concerns-challenge-industry-optimism
Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plans are an ironic backflip to nationalisation for the Liberal Party
With a mantra of small government and minimal interference in the economy, the Liberal Party has long stood for the rights of the individual and free enterprise.
Until last week.
If Dutton’s nuclear ambitions come to fruition, control of Australia’s energy market, will end up in the hands of the federal government.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-25/dutton-nuclear-power-renewable-energy-liberal-party/104016288
By chief business correspondent Ian Verrender 25 June 24
Ben Chifley is considered one of the giants of Labor politics.
As treasurer, he guided the nation through the arduous task of financing World War II and later, after John Curtin’s death, went on to lead the country in the immediate post-war era.
But, in August 1947, concerned that rival banks would undermine the roles of the Commonwealth Bank and the federal government in operating monetary policy, he announced a plan to nationalise Australia’s banking system.
Politically, it was a disaster after the High Court ruled against it. From wartime hero, Labor was swept from power in the 1949 elections by the Robert Menzies-led Liberal Party and spent the next 23 years in the political wilderness.
With a mantra of small government and minimal interference in the economy, the Liberal Party has long stood for the rights of the individual and free enterprise.
Until last week. Rather than allowing market forces to dictate how Australia should respond to the global challenge of reducing greenhouse emissions, the Coalition under Peter Dutton has turned that ethos on its head with a plan to embark upon one of the biggest government-funded investment programs in history.
It is a radical plan that not only throws future private investment in the energy sector into a state of uncertainty, it threatens to undermine the value of privately owned renewable energy investment made during the past 15 years.
On some estimates, depending upon how big the nuclear rollout will be, a capital expenditure program of more than half a trillion dollars will be required to fund this sudden shift in energy policy.
To operate efficiently and to minimise cost, nuclear power plants need to be permanently going full pelt, leaving little room for any other source of power generation.
If Dutton’s nuclear ambitions come to fruition, control of Australia’s energy market, having been privatised largely under Coalition-run state governments since Jeff Kennett made the first move in Victoria, will end up in the hands of the federal government.
Who cares about cost?
It is not the first time the Coalition has up-ended its free-market ethos when it comes to energy policy.
Under Tony Abbott, Australia abandoned the carbon tax established under the Gillard government which put a price on carbon emissions. Instead, it was replaced by a direct subsidy program, the Emissions Reduction Fund, which allocated billions of taxpayer dollars to private enterprise.
Australia’s energy and climate policies have been a mess, the battleground of a bitter raging war between both sides of politics for most of the past 20 years. It has resulted in an underinvestment in new electricity generation as the industry has watched policy lurch between the two extremes.
While many senior Coalition members have openly questioned whether climate change exists with Abbott labelling climate science as “crap”, both sides of politics finally appeared to be on a unity ticket in November 2021 when then-prime minister Scott Morrison signed up to the Paris agreement on emissions reductions.
Since then, gas shortages, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the shutdown of our aging coal-fired generators have sent retail electricity prices soaring.
While Dutton claims the first nuclear station could be operational by midway through the next decade, realistically, they are likely to take far longer.
By that stage, however, almost all our coal-fired plants would have been retired, creating massive energy shortfalls in the meantime. Those supporting the opposition and its nuclear policy argue the coal generators’ life should be extended.
That means either building new ones or refurbishing the existing ones at enormous expense which would then detract from the economics of replacing them with nuclear. And our emissions reduction targets would be blown.
The French experience
Whenever any kind of debate on nuclear power plants erupts, France enters the conversation.
More than 70 per cent of France’s electricity is generated from nuclear power plants. And as the proponents will highlight, the French enjoy much lower power prices than most of their European neighbours who now rely on imported fossil fuels.
That’s because the vast bulk of them were built decades ago, they are all government-owned and their costs largely have been sunk.
France has more than 55 nuclear plants dotted around the country that are run by a government entity EDF.
They were built in reaction to the 1973 energy crisis under a plan put forth by then prime minister Pierre Messmer given the country had little if any fossil fuel resources.
Economists Steven Hamilton and Luke Heeney argue that France has made its nuclear system work largely because the technology dominates the power generation system and because it has neighbours that can absorb the excess.
“Countries like France can only make nuclear work by exporting large amounts of energy when it’s surplus to demand,” they wrote recently.
Almost half the plants are more than 40 years old and many are in need of upgrades, a process that has been delayed by debate about whether they should be decommissioned or their life extended.
In September 2022, more than 30 plants were shut because of technical or maintenance problems while the extended European drought created havoc with plant cooling facilities.
Water is essential for nuclear plants, a challenge the opposition appears to have overlooked in its plan to roll them out on the world’s driest continent.
Instead, it has opted to place them on the sites of retired coal-fired generators. But those sites were selected because they were close to coal fields.
Nuclear not compatible with renewables
For all the talk about the cost of building nuclear stations, the cost involved in running them has taken a back seat.
They are horrendously expensive to build. But, even if you don’t take the build cost into account, they are hugely expensive to run.
Even when they are running flat out, the cost of electricity generation is much higher than for renewables, according to the CSIRO and most reputable economists and analysts.
To maximise their efficiency, they need to be running full-time at maximum capacity. But the opposition has hinted nuclear power would somehow complement renewables, that they could switch on to fill the breach when renewables fall short.
As investment banker David Leitch argues, renewables flood the system during daylight hours, sending wholesale power prices to zero and even lower on many days, which would cripple the economics of nuclear power.
“Generation technology choices do not live in isolation from the system in which they operate,” he says.
“For those not already tired of the debate around small, modular reactors, the fact is they are not a technology designed to deal with the reality of a system that has lots of renewables and specifically lots of solar.”
That means much higher generation prices on top of an extraordinarily expensive and long build time that will come into effect long after our coal-fired generators have bitten the dust.
Chifley’s experience still looms large over Labor. So, for the next few years, prepare to be entertained by a Labor Party preaching market forces butting heads with a Coalition hell-bent on nationalising a key segment of the economy.
The irony.
Matt Kean to helm Climate Change Authority, says no to nuclear
Rachel Williamson, Jun 24, 2024, ReNewEconomy
The architect of New South Wales’ (NSW) renewable energy transition is set to be the next Climate Change Authority (CCA) chair, with Matt Kean stepping up to take on the job of advising on the options and pace of the national shift to decarbonisation.
The former NSW Liberal MP and state energy minister – who only stepped down from politics late last week – will combine decarbonisation with economic policy in his new role, a job whose importance is taking on an outsized importance in advance of an election set to be fought on how to get to net zero.
The CCA advises the government on climate change policy.
He then handled the NSW emissions reductions target of 70 per cent by 2035.
Today, Kean rejected nuclear as a solution the CCA will support, saying that his department looked into the energy source for NSW and advice was that it would take too long and be too expensive.
He says the advice was from professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte, who was responsible for the British government’s nuclear defence program and is one of the few people in Australia to have actually run a nuclear program.
Retiring chair Grant King restored the agency to “its proper role” supporting the government’s climate goals, says energy and climate change minister Chris Bowen.
“Good climate and energy policy is good economic policy – the Albanese government gets that and so does Matt Kean,” he said in a statement.
“Our ambitious but achievable policies are ensuring our approach is credible and delivers benefits for all Australians. The Climate Change Authority is critical to this agenda.
“Matt Kean’s time in public office was marked by reform and the ability to bring people from across the political spectrum with him for the good of the community.”…………………………………………………………………. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/matt-kean-to-helm-climate-change-authority-says-no-to-nuclear/
Peter Dutton says nuclear power plants “burn energy.” No they don’t
Giles Parkinson, Jun 25, 2024 https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-dutton-says-nuclear-power-plants-burn-fuel-no-they-dont/
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has betrayed his complete ignorance about the nuclear technology he threatens to impose on the Australian population by a making a fundamental error: He thinks they burn fuel, or energy.
The comments were made in a heated Question Time in parliament house on the first day of the winter session which promises to be focused on energy and climate.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien was ejected from the house by speaker Milton Dick, and Dutton ran close, earning the ire of the speaker on several occasions when he interjected as Labor ministers spoke.
At one point Dutton – trying to tie Labor up in knots over waste from a nuclear submarine, said this, according to Hansard:
Mr Dutton: It’s on relevance. And, perhaps, to be of assistance to the minister, the propulsion system burns energy—that’s how the system is working—and it’s stored in the—
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat.
Actually, they don’t burn fuel. That’s the point of them. If they did, they would likely create emissions, as defence minister Richard Marles explained.
Mr MARLES: Actually, it doesn’t burn any fuel, because burning is oxidisation, which is what happens in an internal combustion engine, which is exactly what happens when you use hydrocarbons. What this is is a nuclear reaction which gives rise to power. That is what happens inside the sealed nuclear reactor. The point is that the waste that will need to be disposed of …
And if he doesn’t accept Labor’s word on it, the Opposition leader could also read up on the website of the Nuclear Energy Institute:
“Nuclear plants are different because they do not burn anything to create steam. Instead, they split uranium atoms in a process called fission. As a result, unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants do not release carbon or pollutants like nitrogen and sulfur oxides into the air.”
It reminds me of an encounter I had when I first started driving an EV. It was rubbished by a passer-by who suggested the car would be better off powered by nuclear. He seemed to think you could just shovel uranium into a boiler and off you go. Just top it up at the local refuelling station.
It could be that the aspiring prime minister thinks along the same lines. After all, we are constantly told we should mine Australia’s vast uranium reserves – heck, why not burn them like we do with coal.
It’s not the only major misunderstanding of nuclear by Dutton. He has suggested that what he defines as a small nuclear reactor, around 400 MW, would produce just a single can of coke as waste. It will need to be a very big can.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, of Griffith University’s school of environment and science, told the SMH it was safe to say an SMR would generate many tonnes of waste per year, and it was likely that waste would be more radioactive than the waste from a large-scale reactor.
“For a 400-megawatt SMR, you’d expect that to produce about six tonnes of waste a year. It could be more or less, depending on the actual technology but certainly multiple tonnes a year,” he said. “They run on highly enriched uranium and produce a much nastier and a much more intractable set of radioactive waste elements that have to be treated.”
The Coalition’s entire nuclear push is based on lies and misconceptions, from their claim that wind, solar and storage can’t power a modern economy, that their plan needs no additional transmission, that its cheaper than renewables, and that it’s consistent with climate targets.
As virtually all experts have pointed out, with the exception of an heroic rear guard action on Sky News, the policy makes no sense economically, environmentally, or from an engineering point of view.
Perhaps Dutton needs to watch a few more episodes of The Simpsons. Or perhaps not.
This week’s countering the nuclear spin
Some bits of good news. Solar Power’s Giants Are Providing More Energy Than Big Oil. Clean-Energy Investment This Year To Be Twice That of Fossil Fuels, IEA Says. A River’s Rights: Indigenous Kukama Women Lead the Way with Landmark Legal Victory.
TOP STORIES. Blinken made secret weapons promise to Israel – Netanyahu. The US, Russia, and Ukraine: 75 Years of Hate Propaganda. Nuclear-armed countries spent $2,898 per second last year on nuclear weapons. We’ve barely scratched the surface of how energy efficiency can help the energy transition.
Climate. Extreme heat and flash floods: Scientists warn of hazardous summer weather in Europe. Climate Emergency strikes Islam’s Holy Ritual, with nearly 600 dead of Heat stroke at 124.24° F. in Mecca. Saudi Arabia shuts pilgrims out of air-conditioned areas as more than 1,000 die in extreme heat.
Nuclear. Overwhelmed with Australian stuff this week!
Noel’s notes. Nuclear culture wars – especially in Australia. What a disaster, if the anti-war movement brings Donald Trump back to the White House!
*****************************************************************
AUSTRALIA Keep up to date at this site:
Australia’s media quagmire on nuclear power.
Lockheed Martin, Australian Government: joined at the hip. Australian Futures:
Bringing AUKUS Out of Stealth Mode, and the true financial costs.
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR ISSUES
ECONOMICS. Big Tech Wants Nuclear Power But
Doesn’t See Role as Investor. Australian Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say. Nuclear power’s financial problems exposed in new report. Very late and over budget: Why newest large nuclear plant in US is likely to be the last. UK’s nuclear plant will cost nearly three times what was estimated.
| ENERGY. Why we are heading for a globally connected electricity system based on renewable energy. | EVENTS. Veterans for Peace Golden Rule Project 2024: the Pacific Northwest. | ETHICS and RELIGION. Ten Holocaust survivors condemn Israel’s Gaza genocide. |
| HEALTH. Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and unavoidable radiation health risks. | LEGAL. Sellafield operators plead guilty to criminal charges over security breaches. Veterans for Peace Golden Rule Project 2024: the Pacific Northwest. | MEDIA. Comments to The Times: Nuclear won’t fix our energy crisis |
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR .
Kenya’s first nuclear plant: why plans face fierce opposition in country’s coastal paradise.
POLITICS.
- Senate Nuclear Fetishists Take Lid Off of Pandora’s Box.
- No more ‘endless’ payments to Zelensky – Trump.
- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reinforced his party’s commitment to nuclear energy UK nuclear power plants rollout may be hit by planning hurdles. ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/06/22/1-b1-uk-nuclear-power-plants-rollout-may-be-hit-by-planning-hurdles/ Nuclear black hole could deal a knock-out blow to UK Labour’s renewable targets.
- Over budget and plagued with delays: UK nuclear lessons for Australia.
- Scotland’s First Minister Swinney hits back at ‘hopelessly ideological’ attack from nuclear industry.
- U.S. Congress passes bill to jumpstart new nuclear power tech, but it may be too little, too late.
- Gavin Newsom’s $12 Billion Radioactive Diablo Scam Could Soon Be Twisting In The Wind.
- Norway To Consider Developing Nuclear Energy.
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.Why ‘no’ to NATO? U.S. and China hold first informal nuclear talks in five years, France’s Orano loses operating licence at major uranium mine in Niger. | SAFETY. ‘Lax’ nuclear security leaving UK at risk of cyber attacks from hostile nations. | SECRETS and LIES. Leaked doc reveals Israeli military KNEW of Hamas plan to raid and take hostages 2 weeks before Oct 7, Israeli news reports. |
SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS The United Nations Security Council takes up Space Security – it might have been best if it had not.
| SPINBUSTER. Australia’s Nuclear debate is getting heated, but whose energy plan stacks up? | WASTES. Specialised device tried to recover highly radioactive melted fuel at Fukushima plant. |
TECHNOLOGY. Researchers have doubts, but Bill Gates is hyping his new liquid-sodium nuclear reactor.URANIUM.
Iran’s Nuclear Point Man : We Won’t Bow to Pressure.
WAR and CONFLICT. Can Israel defeat Hamas? Its own military doesn’t seem to think so, clashing with Netanyahu. Delusional Netanyahu joins delusional Zelensky in seeking total victory when none possible. Israeli ‘extremist’ tells Australian audience Gaza should have been reduced to ashes.
Ukraine, Continued Aid, and the Prevailing Logic of Slaughter.
What nuclear annihilation could look like.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
- Corporations are influencing government policy on nuclear weapons, a damning report shows.
- Congress will hold a hearing about the Sentinel missile’s exploding budget, but is it too little, too late?.
- NATO chief says members considering deployment of more nuclear weapons, Kremlin warns it’s an ‘escalation of tension’
- Top lawmakers sign off on massive US arms sale to Israel. Chutzpah: Netanyahu demands Biden give him more genocide weapons “to finish the job a lot faster.” Former Official: Biden State Department Bending US Law to Send Israel Weapons.
- Sweden opens doors to possible US nukes deployment.
- US greenlights new arms sale to Taiwan.
- Vandenberg Conducts Test Launch for Development of New Weapon System.
Keep up to date on Australia’s media quagmire on nuclear power
This is still the most interesting article of all
Patricia Karvelas: Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction?
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 – it is 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. Here’s how bad the climate crisis will get before Dutton builds his first nuclear reactor. Labor’s new climate chief Matt Kean says nuclear not viable. 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. Is rooftop solar a fatal flaw in the Coalition’s grand nuclear plans? Nuclear lobby concedes rooftop solar will have to make way for reactors.
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. Nuclear debate is getting heated, but whose energy plan stacks up? 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.
Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and unavoidable radiation health risks
By Tony Webb, 24 June 24, https://johnmenadue.com/nuclear-industry-workers-face-significant-inevitable-and-unavoidable-radiation-health-risks/
Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and largely unavoidable radiation health risks which have so far not been addressed in the debate about Australia possibly buying into this industry.
In addition to the important arguments against the coalition policy that currently proposes building seven nuclear power plants to replace closing coal fired generators, notably that such:
will be likely cost about twice that of firmed renewable generation and take at least 15 years to build – and this in the context where most nuclear plant construction worldwide appears to routinely involve a doubling of both cost and time to build
– and so are dangerously irrelevant to meeting the existential challenge to reduce carbon and methane emissions that are driving climate change;
will require legislative changes at state and federal levels that are to say the least unlikely to be achieved;ignores the challenge of developing workforce skills to manage this technology;
ignores the as yet intractable if not insoluble problem of managing long lived nuclear wastes;
and poses significant risks to the public in the event of nuclear accidents as witnessed in the USA, Ukraine/former USSR, and Japan;
There is also an inevitable and unavoidable risk to workers in the industry and public ‘downwind’ from such reactors from routine exposure to ionising radiation.
This last has to date received little attention and whenever raised results in dismissive but misleading arguments from the nuclear industry advocates, notably that any such exposures to individuals are small and pose little, indeed ‘acceptable’ health risks compared to other risks faced in day to day living and working. Tackling this misinformation as part of the campaign has much to offer in convincing the nuclear target communities and the workers in these that might be seduced by prospects of employment in these facilities that the risks they face are far from insignificant – that, as a community they will face an increase in the incidence of fatal and ‘treatable / curable’ cancers, an increase in other, notably cardio vascular diseases and increased risk of genetic damage affecting children and future generations.
Allow me to introduce myself. I have been an active campaigner on the health effects of ionising radiation since the late 1970s. With two colleagues in 1978 I founded the UK based Radiation and Health Information Service that highlighted the evidence showing the risk estimates from radiation exposure, on which the national and international occupational and public exposure limits were based, grossly under-represented the actual risk.
This radiation-health argument was developed as part of a national campaign that resulted in a significant change of the, until then, pro-nuclear policies of UK unions with members in the industry and a review of Trade Union Congress policy in 1979. It was also an integral part of the union-led national Anti-Nuclear Campaign opposing the Thatcher government’s nuclear expansion – revealed in leaked cabinet minutes as part of the government strategy for undermining the power of the unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), the Transport and General Workers Union, (T&GWU) and the General and Municipal, Boilermakers’ and Allied Trades union (GMBATU). In late 1980 I took this work on Occupational Radiation risks to the USA establishing the US Radiation and Health Labor Project, auspiced by the Foundation for National Progress / Mother Jones Magazine, that built union support across the country for AFL-CIO policy calling for a reduction in the occupational exposure limit.
Subsequently I worked as a consultant to the Canadian union (CPSU – local 2000) representing workers in the nuclear power industry and built a Canadian coalition of five Unions representing workers exposed to radiation on the job. Linking these North American union demands with those of UK and European unions (also similar concerns from unions in Australia following a 1988 organising tour) reinforced pressures from within the scientific community – notably the US Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) committee.
These sustained pressures led eventually to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) reducing the recommended limits for permissible occupational (and public) exposures in 1991. Despite evidence that would have justified a ten-fold reduction (from the 50 mSv annual occupational limit to a limit of 5 mSv) the ICRP limit was only reduced by 40% (to 20 mSv a year but with individual exposures still permitted to 50 mSv in any year so long as the average over 5 years was no higher than 20 mSv).
Since then, a large-scale study of UK, EU, and US nuclear industry workers has shown radiation-induced cancer risks to be on average 2.6 times higher than the estimates used to set the ICRP limits. To put it in simple if statistical terms, the lifetime cancer risk for a worker exposed to the permissible annual dose of radiation over say a 25-year career would be of the order of 6.5% higher than normal. To this should be added the significant health effects of non-fatal cancers, an approximate doubling of the normal rate of cardio-vascular disease and a not insignificant increase in genetic damage to workers children and future generations. Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and largely unavoidable radiation health risks which have so far not been addressed in the debate about Australia possibly buying into this industry.
What needs to be more clearly understood however is that the concern is not just in relation to risks faced by individuals exposed on the job, or from relatively small amounts of radiation released from routine operations of nuclear plants. What is of far greater public concern is the impact of the collective exposure. What is not fully appreciated is that there is simply no safe level of exposure – any dose however small may be the one that causes damage at cellular level in the human body that may show up years later as cancer, genetic damage or some other health effect. it is the total/collective dose that will determine the number of such health effects. Spreading the dose over a larger population will reduce the risk to any individual but not the total health effects. Indeed, it may increase it. An individual affected by cancer can only die once.
These arguments carry weight. They formed a significant part if the discussions within the 2016 South Australian government’s ‘Citizens Jury’ convened to consider proposals to import and store around a third of the world’s nuclear wastes. The concern about radiation and health received special note in the report of this jury to the SA Premier that a two-thirds majority said ‘no – under any circumstances’ to the radioactive waste proposal. The issues can also form the basis for increased collaboration between the trade union, environment, medical reform and public health movements as was the case in the mid 1990s when UK, Labour MP Frank Cook convened a Radiation Roundtable that brought together representatives of these constituencies.
So, within the current debate about a possible Australian Nuclear Power program – alongside the arguments already made about its excessive cost, extended construction time frame, ill-fit within an essential decentralised renewable energy program, risks of major accidents, and the intractable problems of multi-generation waste management, can we please add this concern over health effects that will inevitably result from occupational and public exposures to radiation. Can we particularly focus the attention of trade unions and their members in the seven former coal-fired generation-dependent communities on the effect of these exposures on health of workers who might seek to be employed in operating these facilities and on the health of their families, neighbours, and future generations.
A key demand from unions should be that the occupational limit for annual radiation exposures cbe reduced from the current ICRP level of 20 mSv to a maximum of 5 mSv a year with a lifetime limit of 50 mSV. This revision of standards would put real pressure on the nuclear industry – the current uranium mining and any future enrichment, fuel fabrication, nuclear generation, fuel reprocessing, and waste management – to keep such exposures as low as possible. In the unlikely event of any of the reactor proposals getting the go-ahead there should be baseline monitoring of the health of the community and any workers employed so that any detrimental increase in health effects can be detected early and possibly remediated in the future.
Peter Dutton’s flimsy charade is first and foremost a gas plan not a nuclear power plan
Dutton’s nuclear castle is made of cardboard. Close questioning over the many months until election day will show that behind the costly facade, it’s not so much a nuclear plan, as a plan to give up on our climate targets, turn our back on a clean energy future and burn a lot more gas (and money).
Simon Holmes à Court, 21 June 24, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-plan-gas-energy
Straight from the Donald Trump playbook the opposition leader left Australia with more questions than answers.
Finally, on Wednesday morning Peter Dutton announced his nuclear plan … well, it’s more a vibe than a plan – a flimsy announcement leaving us with more questions than answers.
If there’s any doubt that Dutton has internalised the Trump playbook, here’s an example of how he’s deployed the infamous Steve Bannon technique: “flood the zone with shit”.
The media conference was a stream of falsehoods, empty rhetoric and veiled swipes, deftly delivered with unwavering confidence.
As an energy nerd, there’s a lot I like about nuclear technology, and my long-held interest has led me to visit reactors in three countries. Last year I took a nuclear course at MIT and met nuclear developers, potential customers, innovators and investors, tracing many footsteps of the shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien.
I strongly believe nuclear power is an important technology – but it has to make sense where it’s used and that requires close questioning. Here are some important questions, and what we know so far.
How to remove the current bans?
Nuclear is banned in Australia by two acts of parliament. Naturally, to repeal the ban the Coalition would need to win back control of the house – a daunting task when they are 21 seats shy of a majority – and control of the Senate, power it hasn’t held since the end of the Howard era.
Once the federal ban is lifted, Dutton needs a plan for lifting state bans in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
The leaders of the Labor governments and their Coalition oppositions in each of these key states have expressed their clear opposition. Dutton rehashed the old quip that you wouldn’t want to stand between a state premier and a bucket of money, indicating that he thinks dangling commonwealth carrots will solve the issue.
They will not be cheap carrots!
Where will the reactors go?
The Coalition has named seven specific locations, two in Queensland, two in New South Wales and one each in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, all on sites of retired or soon-to-be-retired coal power stations.
One big problem – the commonwealth doesn’t own any of these sites, and in many cases the owners of the sites have plans to redevelop the sites, such as a $750m battery on the site of the old Liddell power station being built by AGL.
On Wednesday Dutton hinted that if the owners wouldn’t sell the sites, he had legal advice that the commonwealth could compulsorily acquire them. That’ll go down well.
How do we keep the lights on?
Australia’s 19 coal power stations generated 125 TWh of electricity last year. The Australian Energy Market Operator expects all will be retired by 2037. On top of that, our energy demand is expected to increase by more than 230 TWh by 2050. Over the next 25 years we need to build facilities that generate at least 355 TWh every year.
Dutton announced that the Coalition would build five large reactors and two small modular reactors by 2050. This would be about 6.5 GW of new capacity, which at best could be expected to generate 50 TWh a year – less than 15% of the new generation needed.
The Coalition has been quite clear that it wants to see renewable energy development slowed to a crawl. This would leave a massive hole in our energy supply, which could only be filled by extending the life of coal and a massive increase in gas power generation.
This is first and foremost a gas plan, not a nuclear plan.
What will it cost?
Gas is the most expensive form of bulk energy supply in the electricity market … at least until nuclear is available.
Replacing the cheapest form of energy – wind and solar, even including integration costs – with the two most expensive forms can only send energy prices higher.
The Coalition’s announcement is too vague to cost precisely and nobody really knows what SMRs will cost, but a reasonable estimate using assumptions from CSIRO’s GenCost would be in the order of $120bn, or to coin a new unit of money, one-third of an Aukus.
What does this mean for emissions?
An analysis by Solutions for Climate Australia, released before Wednesday’s announcement and which assumes a much more aggressive nuclear build, shows an aggregate increase in emissions by 3.2bn tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050 – the emissions equivalent of extending the life of our entire coal fleet by 25 years.
While the Coalition has turned its back on Australia’s legislated 2030 target, their talking points say they’re still committed to net zero emissions by 2050. This does not compute. Dutton’s proposal would see high emissions in the electricity sector all the way to 2050 and beyond, blowing our carbon budget and every emissions target along the way.
What if locals object?
For years Coalition members have been running around the country fomenting then amplifying community concern around wind and solar farms. Genuine community consultation, which has sometimes been lacking, is the best antidote to opposition.
Yet the Coalition has made a massive blunder in telling communities exactly where they’ll go before any consultation. Worse, it has adopted a strong-man posture that communities will have to accept that the reactors are in the national interest. It will be fascinating to watch how the Coalition handles local opposition over the coming months.
How will they be built?
With a combination of astronomical costs and zero interest by energy companies, there only ever was one possible owner of a nuclear power station in Australia: the commonwealth government.
One of the biggest challenges will be locking in major contractors. With the high likelihood that a future Labor government would cancel any contracts, no contractor would proceed without very expensive cancellation protection.
When will the reactors come online?
We often hear that a nuclear reactor can be built in eight years. In reality it takes three to four years from signing the contract to completing the civil works to begin ‘construction’, and it would very optimistically take four years to complete site selection, planning, licensing, vendor selection and contracting. Add in the inevitable legal challenges and it’s highly unlikely a reactor could be delivered by 2035 – as Dutton claimed – let alone before the early 2040s.
The newest reactors in the United States took 18 years from announcement to commercial operation, while in the UAE, it took 13 years under an authoritarian regime … and I’m being kind by not mentioning contemporary projects in France, the UK, Finland and Argentina.
Dutton has said he favours the Rolls-Royce SMR, tweeting an artist’s rendering on Wednesday.
These SMRs exist only on paper, yet Dutton wants us to believe he can provide one by 2035. Remember, this is the mob that brought us the NBN and the Snowy 2.0 disaster. This is the team that couldn’t even build commuter car parks.
What about the water and the waste?
I think we can relax a little about water and waste. Yes, nuclear power stations generally require large volumes of water for cooling, but so do coal power stations. By choosing sites with existing access to cooling water, the Coalition has sidestepped this concern.
Public concern around nuclear waste is high, but ultimately the problem is manageable. The waste will be kept on site, likely in dry casks and eventually moved to wherever Australia decides to store its waste from the Aukus program. Nobody has ever been harmed by spent nuclear fuel.
Who will provide disaster insurance?
While serious nuclear accidents are very rare, their costs can be astronomical. The Japan Centre for Economic Research has estimated that total costs related to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident may reach $350 to 750bn. The only viable solution is for the commonwealth to accept liability.
For a long time the Coalition’s nuclear plan sat beyond the horizon, to be unveiled before the election. But now Dutton’s built a castle and he has to defend it.
Dutton is still learning about nuclear. On Wednesday he said that an SMR would emit only a “coke can” of nuclear waste a year. In reality it would probably produce more than 2,000 times that.
Nuclear energy is complex. He and his team will keep making mistakes. Keith Pitt, a Nationals backbencher told RN Breakfast on the same day that the grid couldn’t handle more than 10% wind and solar power combined. Over the past year the grid has averaged 31% wind and solar.
Some people want to believe there are simple solutions to the complex solutions behind the cost of living crisis, and like his political forebear Tony Abbott, Dutton has a knack for delivering simple messages with cold competence.
But Dutton’s nuclear castle is made of cardboard. Close questioning over the many months until election day will show that behind the costly facade, it’s not so much a nuclear plan, as a plan to give up on our climate targets, turn our back on a clean energy future and burn a lot more gas (and money).
- Simon Holmes à Court is a Director of The Superpower Institute, the Smart Energy Council and convener of Climate 200. Contrary to Coalition belief, he is not a large investor in renewable energy.
No costing, no clear timelines, no easy legal path: deep scepticism over Dutton’s nuclear plan is warranted
Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University June 20, 2024 https://theconversation.com/no-costing-no-clear-timelines-no-easy-legal-path-deep-scepticism-over-duttons-nuclear-plan-is-warranted-232822
It is very difficult to take Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear announcement seriously. His proposal for seven nuclear power stations is, at present, legally impossible, technically improbable, economically irrational and environmentally irresponsible.
Given the repeated community objections to much more modest nuclear proposals, such as storage of low-level radioactive waste, there is almost certainly no social licence for nuclear power stations.
Dutton promises that, if elected, he would make nuclear power a reality within a little over ten years. Given the enormous obstacles even to turn the first sod, this seems like a pipe dream.
Here’s why.
Legal status: seemingly impossible
Some 25 years ago, the Howard Coalition government legislated a ban on nuclear energy in its environment laws. Coalition governments have been in power federally for most of the time since, but have made no attempt to repeal the ban.
Even a sweeping victory in the forthcoming federal election would not give the Coalition the Senate majority necessary to change the ban in the next term of parliament. As is usually the case, only half the Senate will be elected, so simple arithmetic shows no prospect of a Coalition majority. The only possibility would be negotiating with the crossbench.
Of the seven nuclear power stations Dutton is proposing to build on the site of old coal stations, five would be in the eastern states: two in Queensland at Tarong and Callide, two in New South Wales at Mount Piper and Liddell, and one in Victoria at Loy Yang.
Each of these states have their own laws banning nuclear power. The eastern premiers have made clear they will not change their laws. Even Dutton’s Queensland Liberal National Party colleagues, who face a state election in October, do not support the plan.
So the proposal does not satisfy current laws and there is no realistic possibility of these changing in the timeframe Dutton would need to get the first reactors built (he says the first would be operating by the mid-2030s).
Dutton could try to bypass the states by building on Commonwealth land. But this would mean missing the supposed benefit of locating reactors next to existing transmission lines at old coal plant sites.
Cost: astronomical
Cost is a huge problem. Dutton has promised nuclear will deliver cheap power. But CSIRO’s latest GenCost study on the cost of different power generation technologies shows there is no economic case for nuclear power in Australia. Nuclear power would cost at least 50% more than power produced by renewables and firmed with storage.
This estimate is conservative – in reality nuclear would likely cost even more, as GenCost relies on the nuclear industry’s cost estimates. All recent projects have gone way over budget.
The three nuclear power stations being built in western Europe are all costing two to four times the original budget estimate.
It is true a renewables-dominated grid will require more storage, which means building more grid batteries and pumped hydro schemes. It is also true we’ll need to expand our existing 40,000 kilometres of transmission lines by 25% to get renewable electricity to consumers.
But even when we add these extra costs, and even when we accept industry figures, nuclear still cannot compete with solar farms or wind turbines. CSIRO costs nuclear at between A$8 and $17 billion for a large-scale reactor.
There are no private investors lining up to build nuclear. Overseas, nuclear has always been heavily bankrolled by the taxpayer. Dutton’s plan would either require a huge spend of public money or a major increase to power bills. In the United Kingdom, for example, the government has assured the developer of its Hinckley Point C reactor they will be able to recoup the cost by charging higher rates for the power.
While Dutton is promoting nuclear as a way to avoid building expensive and often unpopular new transmission lines, this is not true. Several proposed reactors would need their own lines built, as coal transmission capacity is rapidly being taken up by renewables, as South Australia’s energy minister Tom Koutsantonis has pointed out.
Time: we’re out of it
Building a nuclear reactor takes years or even decades. Dutton has promised Australia would have its first nuclear power station operational in a decade, assuming his party is elected and their scheme implemented without delay in 2025.
This claim is wholly without merit. In 2006, the Coalition government commissioned a study on whether nuclear power was viable in Australia, which found it would likely take 15 years to build a reactor here. The timeframe today would be similar, because we don’t have a workforce with experience of building large nuclear reactors. We also don’t have the regulatory framework needed to give the community confidence nuclear power stations could be built and operated safely.
Even in the United States, the UK and France – three countries with long experience with nuclear – no recent project has been completed within ten years.
It defies logic to suggest we could start with a blank sheet of paper and build complex systems faster than countries with long-established industries and regulatory regimes.
Nuclear backers often point to examples in China and the United Arab Emirates, which have both built reactors within about a decade. But these countries do not tolerate the community objections which would be inevitable. In Australia, consultation, legal challenges and protests often delay far less controversial projects.
Why does this matter? Dutton’s push for nuclear isn’t happening in a vacuum. This is the crucial decade for action on climate change. As Australian climate scientist Joëlle Gergis has written, we are now paying the cost of long inaction on climate change in damage from more severe bushfires, floods and drought.
Let’s say the Coalition is elected and sets about making this plan a reality. In practice, this would commit us to decades more of coal and gas, while we wait for nuclear to arrive. We would break our Paris Agreement undertaking to make deep cuts to emissions, and keep making climate change worse.
A Coalition pie-in-the-sky nuclear nightmare
(Cartoon by Mark David / @MDavidCartoons)
By Belinda Jones | 22 June 2024, Independent Australia
Having reignited the “climate wars” with pie-in-the-sky nuclear energy plans, if the plans fail, Dutton and Littleproud will face the wrath of a climate-war-weary Australian people at the ballot box, writes Belinda Jones.
AUSTRALIANS finally caught a glimpse of the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan this week. And, we mean “glimpse” — a one-page media release identifying seven proposed locations for nuclear power plants and not much more detail than that.
Nationals’ Leader David Littleproud called for Australia to have “a conversation about nuclear”, which culminated in this week’s long-awaited announcement from Littleproud and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
It has taken two years to create a one-page media release. By any standard, that is poor form.
As Betoota Advocate editor Clancy Overell so eloquently summed it up this week,
“Man who was paralysed with fear over lack of details about Indigenous Voice provides a one-page media release for his half a trillion dollar nuclear plan.”
In fact, the Coalition press conference on nuclear energy inspired far more questions than answers, despite Dutton claiming the Coalition has done “an enormous amount of work”.
Obviously, for Australians, the most pressing concerns for nuclear energy are cost and the time it’ll take to build seven nuclear reactors, as well as safety concerns.
As a policy, it’s not off to a good start. State premiers have rejected the idea and their support is crucial to the success of nuclear energy, due to the fact state legislation would have to be amended to allow any nuclear energy plan even to exist…………………………………………………………………..
However, the states’ consensus on nuclear energy may not be a major hurdle for the Coalition’s nuclear plans. Constitutional law expert, Professor Emerita Anne Twomey, suggested “state bans on nuclear could be overridden by a federal law, as outlined in section 109 of the Constitution”.
Section 109 of the Australian Constitution states:
‘When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.’
Perhaps, similar to the Coalition’s plan to announce first where they plan to build nuclear reactors, then consult with the local communities affected after the fact, their plan is to bulldoze their way past state laws irrespective of the wishes of constituents, state governments or any other objectors to their nuclear plans — which is hardly a democratic process.
One supporter of the current Coalition’s nuclear energy policy is nuclear physicist Dr Ziggy Switkowski, the former Howard Government advisor on nuclear. This is despite Switkowski telling a Federal Parliamentary Inquiry in 2019 of the risk of “catastrophic failure” and that the “window for ‘large nuclear generation’ had closed for Australia”. At the time, Switkowski cited the “emerging technology of small nuclear reactors [as] the viable option on the table”.
That prediction has been proven to be premature with no small nuclear reactors at a viable or commercial stage in 2024. The USA’s first small modular reactor was cancelled by developer NuScale last year due to cost blowouts.
Switkowski also told the 2019 Inquiry:
“It was unlikely the industry could establish enough support to gain a social licence to operate.”
This week, Switkowski weighed in on the scepticism his work in previous years had helped to foment within Australia saying, “The strong positions some critics have taken in the last 24 hours are ridiculous”.
Australia’s wealthiest woman and enthusiastic Coalition supporter Gina Rinehart has long been demanding nuclear energy be part of Australia’s energy mix — a view that may emanate from her business interests around uranium exploration and mining.
Rinehart is no fan of renewables, claiming they’ll force food prices up and send farmers broke. This is despite the fact that they produce alternative sources of income for farmers and provide reliable energy solutions where “there’s no mains just to switch on” in isolated, rural communities.
The Coalition’s proposed seven nuclear reactors would not provide any benefit to those rural communities to which Rinehart refers that are not connected to mains power, whereas a combination of solar or wind and battery power would.
So, the electorally embattled Dutton and Littleproud face an uphill battle to get their nuclear policy off the ground in the face of overwhelming opposition to their plans. And though their scant plans offer nothing substantial on the issue of Coalition nuclear policy, they have managed to “reignite the climate wars”, which may in fact be the method in their madness.
Rather than bring the nation together, divide and conquer on any issue seems to be their modus operandi.
For a nation exhausted by over a decade of “climate wars” that it hoped were well and truly over, the Coalition has taken a huge risk to bring expensive, pie-in-the-sky nuclear to the table and reignite those wars. If it fails and it likely will, based purely on economics, then both Dutton and Littleproud will face the wrath of a climate-war-weary Australian people at the ballot box and, ultimately, their own political parties.
Dutton and Littleproud have both nailed their colours to the mast, demanding a conversation on nuclear energy with no intention of taking no for an answer. Like their failure to consult with communities before announcing their plans, they may have put the cart before the horse. Time will tell. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/a-coalition-pie-in-the-sky-nuclearnightmare,18704
Ziggy Switkowski and another big nuclear back-flip
Ziggy 1.0 said in 2009 that the construction cost of a one gigawatt (GW) power reactor in Australia would be A$4-6 billion.
Ziggy 1.0 wasn’t wrong by 4-5 percent, or 40-50 percent. He was out by 400-500 percent. And yet he still gets trotted out in the mainstream media as a credible commentator on nuclear issues. Go figure.
Jim Green, Jun 21, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/ziggy-switkowski-and-another-big-nuclear-back-flip/
Dr Ziggy Switkowski, best known as a former Telstra CEO, less well known as a former oil and gas company director, is a nuclear physicist by training. Wearing his nuclear hat, he was appointed by then prime minister John Howard to lead the 2006 Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Power Review (UMPNER) inquiry.
The UMPNER inquiry didn’t inquire. The panel was comprised entirely of “people who want nuclear power by Tuesday” according to the late comedian John Clarke. Its report was predictably biased and misleading.
Howard evidently decided that he was pushing too hard and too fast. The UMPNER panel was required to finish its report in great haste in late 2006 and the Coalition tried to run dead on the nuclear issue in the lead up to the November 2007 federal election.
However, the Coalition’s political opponents – including Anthony Albanese – were more than happy to draw voters’ attention to the Coalition’s unpopular nuclear power plans. During the election campaign at least 22 Coalition candidates publicly distanced themselves from the government’s policy. Howard lost his seat and the Coalition was defeated. The nuclear power policy was ditched immediately after the election. Past as prologue, perhaps.
Ziggy 2.0
In recent years we’ve had Ziggy 2.0. To his credit, he reassessed his views in light of the cost blowouts with reactor projects and the large reductions in the cost of renewable energy sources.
He said in 2018 that “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed” and he noted that nuclear power is no longer cheaper than renewables, with costs rapidly shifting in favour of renewables.
Ziggy 2.0 noted in his evidence to the 2019 federal nuclear inquiry that “nuclear power has got more expensive, rather than less expensive,” and that there is “no coherent business case to finance an Australian nuclear industry.”
He added that no-one knows how a network of small modular reactors (SMRs) might work in Australia because no such network exists “anywhere in the world at the moment.”
Ziggy 2.0 noted the “non-negligible” risk of a “catastrophic failing within a nuclear system”. He acknowledged the difficulty of managing high-level nuclear waste from nuclear power plants, particularly in light of the failure of successive Australian governments to resolve the long-term management of low- and intermediate-level waste.
Ziggy 3.0
Now we have Ziggy 3.0, who sounds a lot like Ziggy 1.0. Peter Dutton and shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien “are as well informed on things nuclear as any group I’ve talked to in the last 20 years in Australia,” Ziggy 3.0 says.
Just about everything Dutton and O’Brien say about nuclear power is demonstrably false. Only the ill-informed could possibly claim they are well informed.
Ziggy 3.0 is spruiking the next generation of nuclear plants. Perhaps he’s talking about non-existent SMRs, or failed fast breeder technology, or a variety of other failed technologies now being dressed up as ‘advanced’ or ‘Generation IV’ concepts.
Who knows what he has in mind, and there’s no reason anyone should care expect that he has, once again, assumed the role of a prominent nuclear cheerleader.
“I think it’s unreasonable for anybody to expect the opposition leader to come out with a fully documented and costed plan at this stage,” Switkowski says.
But why is that so hard? O’Brien chaired a 2019 parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power. Coalition MPs initiated and participated in a 2022/23 parliamentary inquiry. And they have a mountain of other research to draw from.
Baseload
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Switkowski now says “the cost curve for solar and wind has moved aggressively down” and he praises CSIRO for its work on the higher relative cost of nuclear power compared to renewables.
But Ziggy 3.0 goes on to say that “you need to have nuclear as well for baseload power”. Seriously? Nuclear power as a complement to renewables as we head to, or towards, 82 per cent renewable supply to the National Electricity Market by 2030? That’s nuts.
Perhaps he thinks non-existent SMRs can integrate well with renewables? Does he support the Coalition’s plan to expand and prolong reliance on fossil fuels until such time as SMRs i) exist anywhere in the world and ii) are operating in Australia?
Apart from the practical constraints (not least the fact that they don’t exist), the economics of SMRs would go from bad to worse if using them to complement renewables. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, power from an SMR with a utilisation factor of 25% would cost around A$600 per megawatt-hour (MWh).
Likewise, a recent article co-authored by Steven Hamilton – assistant professor of economics at George Washington University and visiting fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the ANU – states:
“Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said: “Labor sees nuclear power as a competitor to renewables. The Coalition sees nuclear power as a companion to renewables”.
“The trouble is that nuclear is a terrible companion to renewables. The defining characteristic of being “compatible” with renewables is the ability to scale up and down as needed to “firm” renewables.
“Even if we don’t build a single new wind farm, in order to replace coal in firming renewables, nuclear would need to operate at around 60 per cent average utilisation (like coal today) to keep capacity in reserve for peak demand. This alone would push the cost of nuclear beyond $225/MWh. To replace gas as well, the cost skyrockets beyond $340/MWh.”
Making sense of Ziggy 3.0
Ziggy 1.0 said in 2009 that the construction cost of a one gigawatt (GW) power reactor in Australia would be A$4-6 billion. Compare that to the real-world experience in the US (A$23.4 billion / GW), the UK (A$27.2 billion / GW) or France (A$19.4 billion / GW).
Ziggy 1.0 wasn’t wrong by 4-5 percent, or 40-50 percent. He was out by 400-500 percent. And yet he still gets trotted out in the mainstream media as a credible commentator on nuclear issues. Go figure.
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and co-author of the ACF’s new report, ‘Power Games: Assessing coal to nuclear proposals in Australia’.
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.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 