Solutions for Climate Australia Media Release
Solutions for Climate Australia today called out figures provided by Peter Dutton on the future cost of power from nuclear reactors as expensive and a failure to tackle climate pollution.
“While we are waiting decades for Mr Dutton’s nuclear reactors, the Coalition proposes to pour money into propping up expensive, ageing coal power stations that are already failing, and massively increasing climate pollution.
“CSIRO’s optimistic estimates of the costs of nuclear reactors last week show them as twice as expensive as the renewable energy pathway. Somehow Mr Dutton claims using the most expensive source of electricity will bring down consumer costs.
“Even more bizarrely, the federal Coalition’s plan relies on Australians using 45% less electricity than the independent electricity operator forecasts.
“What matters to consumers in the cost of living crisis we have here and now is the cost of electricity, and yet Mr Dutton is proposing a fantasy to build hugely expensive nuclear reactors on the taxpayer’s dime, decades from now.”
“Yesterday the Liberal Tasmanian Government made a joint announcement with the Labor Federal Government for an offshore wind zone that will produce 20 GW of electricity.”
“It’s time the federal Coalition gets serious about deploying the sun and wind power we have right here and now to bring down power prices and keep the lights on.”
[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]
He noted it assumed that introducing nuclear energy would cost $30 a megawatt hour when the CSIRO and the government regulator, Aemo, have said it would be more like $145 to $238. (From The Grauniad)
So they’re underestimating the actual production cost by around 7 times. Then there’s the assumption that the rise in energy demand will be fairly consistent, despite the increased use of AI and its much heavier usage.
And then there’s the claim that they can have a reactor up and running by 2036. Lets just look at someone like … oh how about the UK … that has extensive knowledge and experience in this field, and how far behind schedule and over budget their still-under-construction newest station is, and consider the likelihood of complete novices in the field (ie Australia) being able to do a significantly better job.
More convincing fantasies have been penned by the average five-yr old horse.