Climate Council Media Release
“PETER DUTTON’S NUCLEAR numbers have more holes than Swiss cheese, leaving out big ticket items like the costs of dealing with radioactive waste,” says the Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie, slamming the Federal Coalition’s misleading modelling.
“Dutton must be honest with the Australian people. CSIRO tells us nuclear is double the cost of renewables, no amount of dodgy accounting can change the facts.”
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councillor and economist, said: “It’s shocking to see the Federal Coalition knowingly mislead Australians on the true costs of nuclear. If we’re going to debate the economics of energy it must be based on real-world evidence – not dodgy modelling that obscures the real price tag.”
The Climate Council has identified four ways that the Federal Coalition appear to be cooking the books with their dodgy nuclear numbers:
1) Ignoring the costs of keeping our ageing coal-fired generators operating for longer, which would cost a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs, and produce far more climate pollution.
2) Failing to account for Australia’s growing electricity needs, producing up to 45% less power than our current plan by 2050. The Australian Electricity Market Operator expects power generation to double by 2050, and assuming any less is inaccurate.1
3) Underestimating the cost and timeline of building nuclear reactors, which international experience has shown cost on average 2.2 times more to build than their initial estimate, and take at least 15 years for construction alone.
4) Excluding significant and certain costs from their estimates, including the costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councillor and economist, said: “Nuclear doesn’t add up for Australia. The CSIRO tells us that nuclear energy will cost twice as much as renewables, and the risks of further budget and bill blowouts are simply not worth it. International experience has proven that nuclear is a financial black hole, with the average project costing more than double its original estimate, and projects like the UK’s Hinkley Point C costing triple. We’re already seeing renewables deliver power faster and at lower cost today.”
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, said: “The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would send our kids’ future up in smoke. Waiting up to 20 years for nuclear reactors means burning coal and fossil gas longer—adding 1.5 billion tonnes of climate pollution by 2050. That means more deadly bushfires, floods, and heatwaves.”
Greg Bourne, energy expert and Climate Councillor, said: “Australians can’t afford to wait 20 years for nuclear. All our coal-fired generators are due to close before even the first nuclear reactor could be built, and keeping our old coal clunkers running past their use-by-date presents a critical risk to our energy security. We need more renewables backed by storage now so it’s online before more coal is retired.”
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, said: “Investing in renewable power backed by storage is the only way we can tackle climate change and replace our ageing coal fleet this decade. More than four million Australian households have already put solar panels on their roofs, saving $3 billion a year on electricity bills. Expanding access to rooftop solar will cut bills further, reduce climate pollution, and drive a cleaner, safer energy future. Let’s focus on what’s already working.”
1 Based on total generation implied by 14 GW of nuclear capacity, providing 38% of total generation at an 89% capacity factor.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
This is what I’ve been banging on about to anyone who will listen. Nuclear waste remains radioactive for hundreds of years. Many nuclear waste management programs overseas have failed, leaking waste daily. Just look at the area the Chernobyl disaster wiped out? Or the exclusion zone around Fukushima?
And the cost of “The Dome” that now contains Chernobyl? Or the billions of black plastic bags all along the coastal area abutting Fukushima. Or Finlands Onkalo underground depository due to open 2024.
None of these options are cheap.
The risks are way too large.
There is a very good reason Dutton is often compared to a potato.
There is the same amount of electrical energy within his head as in a potato.
No! actually you can run a small radio using a potato. So the potato is definitely a better option.
Why is no one talking about the regulatory hurdles that have to be addressed. The Australian commonwealth has a ban on nuclear energy, some states also have their own ban on nuclear energy. The time and cost for the federal coalition to change these bans is considerable, there would no doubt be a number of legal challenges to the overturning of the nuclear energy bans federally and the state bans would have to be dealt with separately. Even if the commonwealth used its powers to over ride the states on their nuclear bans there would be legal challenges from a number of players.
Then there is the planning stage. The nuclear industry worldwide has a manning problem, it cannot find enough trained nuclear workers as it is, how will the coalition address this issue. Australia does not have an existing nuclear energy industry and would be starting from absolute scratch, we would have to import all of the necessary technology and personnel for planning and implementation, with the nuclear energy industry already having issues with qualified nuclear workers what are the chances of Australia being in the forefront of the line for workers, including planners.
There is also the problem of siting, the locations that the coalition has chosen are privately owned, many of these owners have already started transitioning their sites to renewable energy, Dutton might think that he can bully his way into these private corporations selling their sites to the commonwealth, but at what cost? A couple of these sites, we are told, are on fault lines and at some stage in the future may well be impacted by earthquakes, what is the LNP’s answer to making sure that these sites, if they could even obtain them, would be safe enough to build a nuclear power plant on?
There are more questions than answers in regard to the LNP’s so called nuclear energy policy over and above the matter of cost to taxpayers both in the initial purchase of sites, planning, regulatory changes, construction and ongoing management and the additional cost to users in the cost of power. None of these issues have been addressed, and I would suggest that they never will be.
Fusion is a great end point but the LNP and the loonies are free to chase votes, as they know Albo, regardless of the advantage, will not play the man
Anybody who believes that the Coalition are able to do anything worthwhile should contact me – I have a bridge to sell you. This asinine fantasy ( it can hardly be distinguished with being called a “plan” ), reminds me of Abbott’s “cheaper, quicker, faster” NBN slogan. It’s wishful thinking, based on a demented and deranged fantasy that has no foundation whatsoever. If Dutton knew what he was talking about (which of course he doesn’t), he would have provided complete costings upfront. Instead he’s been drip-feeding his fantasy to the public, and expecting us to follow along like the sheep we can be. May we be saved from Coalition governments.