The price of nuclear in a cost of living crisis – media briefing
The Climate Council
Australians are being told to look to the Canadian province of Ontario as a case study for why we should embrace nuclear energy. But is Ontario’s nuclear experience really the success story it’s made out to be? Join us on Monday, October 28 at 10:00 AM AEST (join HERE) for a critical briefing where an expert from Ontario will fact-check these claims and provide an analysis of the comparative costs of nuclear, gas, and renewables.
With a federal committee on Nuclear Energy now underway, and a cost-of-living federal election approaching, this briefing – hosted by the Climate Council and the Smart Energy Council – will focus on the costs and timelines of alternative energy options for Australia.
Our panel of respected experts will cover topics such as:
- Is nuclear energy in Ontario really providing cheap and clean power as Peter Dutton claims?
- The long-term costs of maintaining nuclear reactors
- Comparing the cost of new nuclear infrastructure with renewable alternatives
- How energy choices will impact household bills and cost of living
Speakers:
- Prof. Mark Winfield, York University (Canada) – academic and author specialising in energy and environment
- Dylan McConnell, Energy Analyst
- Nicki Hutley, Economist and Climate Councillor
The briefing will be held on Monday, October 28th at 10:00 AM AEST. You can join by clicking this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82731815067?pwd=sDJwgpUT8GfwMohXPbGdHTu9i9TK5w.1
We look forward to seeing you there.
* * * *
The Climate Council is Australia’s leading community-funded climate change communications organisation. We provide authoritative, expert and evidence-based advice on climate change to journalists, policymakers, and the wider Australian community.
For further information, go to: climatecouncil.org.au
Or follow us on social media: facebook.com/climatecouncil and twitter.com/climatecouncil
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
7 comments
Login here Register here-
Steve Davis -
JulianP -
Terence Mills -
paul walter -
Clakka -
Hans -
uncletimrob
Return to home pageMany years ago, before Fukushima and probably before Chernobyl, it was known that one downside of nuclear power was that insurance companies refused to provide insurance cover.
This means that private companies will only be involved in construction, maintenance and operating if governments cover the entire risk.
In short, under Dutton’s scheme, taxpayers will foot all the bills, and a private company will drop in, take over operations, and charge taxpayers for the power they produce.
That’s what I call a great business plan.
Liberal economics — yer gotta luv it!
Socialism for the business sector, the discipline of the market for the masses.
Agreed Steve, its a wonderful system – for as long as it lasts, and who is to say it won’t?
If Nuclear does get up, (which I very much doubt), a subsequent Labor Government won’t interfere, if its present approach to the Gas Ripoff is any guide.
See: https://michaelwest.com.au/government-hides-gas-cartels-dirty-secrets-in-clayton-utz-fee-fest/
As far as Dutton is concerned its a winner whichever way you look at it: renewables put off and gas remains front and centre, much to the satisfaction of “industry”.
Steve/Julian
What worries me about Dutton’s plan is not so much the cost or timeline for construction and installation of his power stations – but what percentage of our power needs will the proposed nuclear power proposal actually contribute.
This bit of information is critical to how we, as a nation, move forward and yet he refuses to reveal what his expert advice is telling him.
Perhaps this briefing will throw some more light on to the viability of Dutton’s scheme.
PS: I have been watching the power debacle unfolding after storms in the Broken Hill region where existing sources and generation has completely failed the population. I wonder to what extent the situation would have been different had that region been serviced by solar and wind generation with backup batteries ?
Some intelligent comments here. Thx, fellas.
I’ve yet to see any clear (lifecycle costing) or indicators or discussion on the costs / effectiveness of end-of-life deconstruction of the infrastructure – renewables, gas, nuclear.
I strongly suspect it will be, best – renewables, then gas, worst nuclear (by a country mile).
After 2028, nuclear engineers can hire the Snowy Hydro 2.0 drilling machine, ‘Florence the Bogged’, for vertical shaft excavation, if it’s not bogged. For nuclear to be viable there needs to be 40 million consumers otherwise install costs won’t stack up. I hope a future 15 million new Australians like the idea of living in tents. Why? Because pollies via legislation and councils via red tape make certain that building enough houses is an onerous ordeal, yet are happy to have talk-feasts about complex engineering feats such as nuke plants and useless offshore wind turbines in fishing grounds. Lib-Lab, dumb-n-dumber.
@ Clakka,
There is this recent article in The Guardian about de-commissioning costs for Sellarfield in the UK. Worth a read. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/23/sellafield-cleanup-cost-136bn-national-audit-office