The seven ways the Federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings
Climate Council Media Release
Australians are being kept in the dark about the true costs of the Federal Coalition’s risky and expensive nuclear scheme.
The Federal Coalition’s heavy reliance on the first of two Frontier Economics reports paints a damning picture of the methods they may use to fudge the nuclear numbers and mislead Australians. We’ve already seen them cherry-pick numbers and use them to make misleading claims in Parliament.
Climate Councillor and economist Nicki Hutley said: “The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost Australians a bomb. It’s a risky, expensive fantasy that would see Australians paying more than $100 billion for a fraction of the electricity we need. The real danger is delaying real solutions–like building more renewables, which is the most affordable way to keep the lights on.”
The Climate Council has identified five furphies Australians are likely to see in the Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings:
1) Comparing apples with oranges: We’ve already seen the Federal Coalition use inaccurate comparisons in the first Frontier Economics report on the cost of the shift to renewables. They inflated the cost by including ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses—which we’re already paying and which will actually drop in a renewables-led grid. On top of that, they didn’t use present value terms, a standard economic practice that accounts for the true cost over time.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “It’s alarming to see the Federal Coalition knowingly compare costs that are for totally different things. If we’re going to have a debate on the economics of building renewable power and storage, it needs to be based on best practice economics, not a false and misleading comparison.”
2) Excluding the cost of attempting to keep our ageing coal stations open: AEMO expects all our outdated, unreliable and polluting coal-fired power stations to close by 2038 at the latest, with over 90% shutting down in the next 10 years. But the Federal Coalition wants to keep these creaking old coal power stations open while waiting at least 15 years or more for nuclear reactors. This would cost taxpayers a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs. Keeping just one coal power station open, Eraring in NSW, could cost taxpayers more than $225 million per year. Renewable power back by storage is the only solution ready now to fill that gap left by coal and secure reliable, affordable power for Australian homes and businesses.
3) Excluding the cost of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste:Toxic nuclear waste needs to be safely stored for 100,000 years – an enormous and costly responsibility. In Canada, storing the long-term waste from their nuclear program in an underground facility is expected to cost at least $33 billion AUD, excluding the costs already incurred to manage waste on nuclear reactor sites.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Any plans to build nuclear reactors must include the staggering long-term costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste. Ignoring these costs now will unfairly burden our kids, grandkids and future generations.”
4) Failing to consider the cost of climate change: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution. In fact, building nuclear reactors would mean burning more polluting coal and gas in the meantime, which could see a further 1.5 billion tonnes more harmful climate pollution produced by 2050 – the equivalent of running the Eraring coal power station in NSW for another 126 years. Australians would pay the price in worsening unnatural disasters and skyrocketing insurance costs.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear would cost us dearly, by delaying urgent cuts to climate pollution that would expose Australians to more unnatural disasters like bushfires, floods and heatwaves and driving up economic losses through higher insurance costs and disaster recovery bills. We should be focusing on cutting costs and climate pollution by rolling out more clean, reliable and affordable renewable power.
5) Ignoring Australia’s growing electricity needs: As Australia’s population and economy grows, keeping up with the community’s electricity needs is essential. The Australian Electricity Market Operator’s plan for our grid, the Integrated System Plan, expects power demand to double by 2050. We need more power to meet this need, and any assessment of cost needs to account for this. Assuming less might make costs look cheaper, but is inaccurate.
6) Ignoring the risk of cost blowouts: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings are likely to rely on rose-tinted assumptions, ignoring the very real possibility of massive cost overruns and delays that have plagued international nuclear projects.
For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C energy facility is running 14 years late, at a cost three times its original estimate—now sitting at a staggering $90 billion AUD. Assuming nothing will go wrong with nuclear reactors in Australia flies in the face of international experience and puts taxpayers at enormous financial risk.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear is simply a non-starter for Australia. The risks are immense—blowouts in cost and time, unresolved waste storage issues, and outdated technology. Projects like the UK’s Hinkley Point C show that nuclear is a financial black hole, while renewables are delivering results today.”
7) Ignoring the cost of transmission upgrades: The Federal Coalition assumes nuclear reactors can avoid the costs of necessary transmission upgrades, despite these investments being approved and supported by the previous Liberal-National Government.
Australia’s electricity grid needs substantial upgrades to meet growing energy demands and replace ageing coal-fired power stations. Building reactors near old coal stations won’t avoid the need for new transmission: the transmission previously used for coal is already being used by new batteries, wind and solar, and more investment is being planned. New transmission is needed no matter which energy source we build, and will make our grid stronger and more efficient.
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, said: “Peter Dutton could cook the books with some creative accounting to sell this fantasy. Our old coal plants are retiring in the next decade, and we need to keep investing in low cost renewables to keep the lights on, create thousands of jobs in regional Australia, and ensure we cut climate pollution further and faster.
“Let’s focus on what’s already working. Renewables are cutting pollution, creating jobs, and lowering power bills right now.”
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
29 comments
Login here Register here-
uncletimrob -
GL -
Terence Mills -
Canguro -
Steve Davis -
Max Gross -
Ken Fabian -
Andyfiftysix -
leefe -
Canguro -
Steve Davis -
Canguro -
Steve Davis -
GL -
Canguro -
leefe -
Steve Davis -
Terence Mills -
Bert -
Bert -
leefe -
Steve Davis -
Steve Davis -
-
leefe -
Terence Mills -
Steve Davis -
Fred -
Andyfiftysix
Return to home pageThey also claim that there will be no ill-effects from living near a reactor.
A number of studies have shown that the rates of childhood cancers increase within 5km of a reactor.
In Germany, a study found that the rate of increase for all cancers was 1.6, while for childhood leukemia it was 2.2, both of which are statistically significant.
Other meta-analyses have found that for children up to nine years of age, childhood leukemia risk rises from 5% to 24%, while incidence rates rose by between 14% to 21%.
The fantasy figure of $500 billion that Der Spud is throwing around for the Ted O’Brien nookaleeagh plants seems to be short by up to a couple of hundred billion for the inevitable LNP massive cost overruns and other assorted issues.
uncletimrob,
“They also claim that there will be no ill-effects from living near a reactor.” That’s very true because none of the LNP pollies will be living anywhere near one of the stations.
Yesterday Peter Dutton announced that :
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government will cancel the controversial Port Stephens offshore wind zone if he is elected.
The Albanese government’s planned wind farm has been expected to generate up to five gigawatts of power for about four million homes.
This undertaking was given after community concern about the aesthetics of the planned offshore windfarm, nothing to do with the science or the potential, just the vibe.
This morning Patricia Karvelis on ABC Radio National asked Bridget McKenzie, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, if the coalition would be as quick to back away from any one of the seven coalition proposed nuclear power stations based on local objections and the vibe ? The shadow minister failed to answer the question but stated that ‘ the coalition was always open to public input’.
Hmmmm ! I wonder if Port Stephens will get a nuclear power station ?
In lieu of finding a better parking spot for this comment; apols, totally OT, but the recent murder of the American CEO of United Healthcare, Brian Thompson, unintentionally – or perhaps not – highlights the wretched status of the avaricious insurance industry, whether healthcare or in other areas. Thompson’s reported salary was an eye-watering USD15 million p.a., doing the maths, $41095.89 per day!
As macabre as it may be, I would guess that many millions of Americans are quietly cheering the demise of this insurance fat cat, symbolising, as he did, everything that’s wrong about American corporate life.
These gouging predatory vulture corporations making billions from the insurance premiums of folk who are naturally inclined to believe that if and when they make a claim on their policy for whatever the cost… healthcare, housing, vehicle, fire or flood etc. etc., are a prime example of the capitalistic ethos of maximising income at whatever the cost is core to their business.
Bullet shells found at the scene of the killing were emblazoned with the words “deny”, “defend”, and “depose”, leading investigators to connect those words to the 2010 book critical of the insurance industry titled Delay Deny Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.
This is a country where nearly ten percent of the citizens cannot afford health insurance, people who face crippling costs if they should need medical attention, in many cases bills in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars for procedures that here in Australia would cost nothing, thanks to Medicare.
Self-evidently, the USA is the worst example of the ruthless and cruel nature of corporate capitalism, but this country is fast catching up; witness the insurance hikes after the disastrous floods and fires of several years ago, putting premiums out of reach for hundreds if not thousands of affected citizens.
It’s – at least to me – one of life’s enduring mysteries as to how governments, collectively, have permitted this creeping corporate pathology to come to dominate the commercial landscape of the land at the very self-evident cost to the citizens of this country.
Canga, surely that was a rhetorical question.
I hope it was a rhetorical question.
Please tell me it was a rhetorical question, because we all know the answer.
This is a consequence of living in a liberal democracy.
Look at the difference in China.
White collar criminals there face the death penalty, and if they are lucky, life in prison.
In liberal democracies white collar criminals are unlucky if they get a fine or a few months in gaol.
“We’ve already seen them cherry-pick numbers and use them to make misleading claims in Parliament”? Where I’m from, we call it LYING.
The LNP don’t care if nuclear gets built or not – if yes they can divert funding away from RE for the next decade (or better, two) and any delays and cost blowouts can be blamed (blameshifting being the Right’s one superpower) on… climate activism. Oh too bad, we have to step on the gas.
If no – most likely given the Senate and States and they know it – not having ANY plans for zero emissions can be blamed on… climate activists. Oh, too bad, we have to step on the gas. Win-win for fossil fuels. And making it about opposing green extremists makes it not about people in highest Offices and them being negligent of their duties of care. If nothing else the uncertainty is energy policy wrecking in ways that undercut confidence in RE investments.
Global warming? If ever any journalists were brazen (and rude) enough to confront them and not let them dodge, if any of Dutton’s team let their guard down and were inadvertently upfront and honest about what they really think of global warming and fossil fuels – I think they would say they don’t think the science based advice is correct or that the problem is serious enough to warrant national or global action and even if it is true – they don’t really care.
And that ongoing unwillingness to be frank with the Australian public? That is because Political Correctness (?!!) keeps forcing them (yes, FORCING them) to tell fibs and say they agree with zero emissions when they really don’t. But each statement of “we accept the science” and “we support international climate agreements” is a mocking kowtow to political correctness, so clearly insincere that the deniers they have encouraged and cultivated know they don’t really mean it.
Across Australia Liberal and Nationals MP’s are out in their electorates encouraging and cultivating opposition to RE, especially to the transmission lines, batteries and wind farms that will make renewables work reliably at rates high enough to displace fossil fuels (cant have that).
the mistake we make is assuming the facts will out run the lies. Trump has proven beyond a joke, facts are irrelevant in an election. 1/3 of people are born stupid and 1/3 have been trained to be stupid. Thats where you need to spend the political dollar.
Steve, if only the politicians were not so scared to jail their fellow bastards. Morrison got away, just like trump. Perversly, trying not to be partisan let corruption off the hook.Communism does have things we can learn from.
Steve:
Look at the difference in China.
White collar criminals there face the death penalty, and if they are lucky, life in prison.
Does this mean you’re in favour of state-sanctioned murder? You don’t see a problem with that – a potential for misuse against political or personal enemies, for instance?
re. “Look at the difference in China. White collar criminals there face the death penalty, and if they are lucky, life in prison.”, it’s not a question of being in favour of state-sanctioned murder. If that was the case, we’d all be cheering from the sidelines at the current genocidal campaigns being waged in the Middle East or Ukraine, Darfur, Myanmar, West Africa et al.
The Chinese Communist Party has close to 100 million members, cf. a total population of greater than 1.4 billion. As a single party government that has had serious issues with corruption both within its ranks and otherwise, and cognisant of the detrimental effect that the issue of corruption has on the broader public, the decision to get tough on these crimes is completely rational from a Chinese perspective.
Despite their social and economic successes over the last seventy years, the CCP are not universally admired by the population at large, and they are exquisitely aware of the knife-edge on which they balance, in the context of maintaining a relatively stable community.
When a Chinese fat cat, whether he’s a government official gorging at the trough or a businessman up to his neck in enriching himself through graft, bribes etc., is exposed for his crimes, it has to be remembered that for the vast majority of the population, the amounts of money involved in these crimes is stratospheric in comparison to what they’re likely to see in their lifetimes, many many million-fold greater, and this corruption just enrages, wildly, the ordinary folk. The death penalty would be seen as a totally appropriate punishment.
A population base of the order of that country, in a country that is unhampered by a moralistic framework such as those imposed on Judeo-Christian societies, leads to an entirely different evaluation of the net worth of a human being.
Having lived there for a number of years, and having engaged with the Chinese to a far greater extent than most westerners in that country, I know that the government is constantly looking over its shoulder, as it were, in terms of not wanting to upset the citizenry – keeping in mind the long history of volatility and internecine conflict that has characterised both modern and earlier Chinese history, and the fact that the Chinese are much more likely to express their passionate views than, say, the docile Australians… it would not take much for there to be mass uprisings against the government if the right catalysts were triggered.
Hence Xi Jinping’s policy of get tough on crime, a position entirely supported by his fellow citizens.
Of secondary interest, it’s noted that of all the countries that still have the death penalty on their statutes, only America is underpinned, theocratically, by its Judeo-Christian framework, a social feature that plays into the ongoing opposition to the death penalty in that country, as opposed to the lack of any significant opposition in the other countries still carrying out that practice.
Canga, thanks for the clarification.
leefe, I do not favour state-sanctioned murder.
Nothing I said suggested that.
Why do you keep reacting at an emotional level to comments?
I was highlighting the difference in treatment of white-collar crime in liberal democracies compared to other forms of govt.
And as far as I’m aware, Canga might correct me on this, China has the death penalty as a deterrent and a measure of last resort. I’m aware of at least one case where the death penalty was imposed, and later reduced to life imprisonment.
Even that would give Western crims pause for thought.
Andy, thanks for that, agree entirely.
Steve, my partner just explained the following: re. the death penalty, two outcomes are possible.
The court can impose the death penalty, and decree that it be carried out immediately. There is no workaround to this decision.
Or…
The court can impose the death penalty, and decree that the person be sent to prison for some period, with the penalty to be carried out at some future date, two, three, five years later. If the person is ‘well-behaved’ or ‘penitent’ within that time frame, the penalty may then be commuted to a term of life imprisonment.
Thanks old mate, and please thank the boss. 🙂
The case I have in mind involved a railway chief exec who was given the death penalty when a signal box failed due to lack of maintenance, causing quite a few deaths.
The sentence was later reduced to life.
Sounds as if he must have displayed “due penitence”.
Cheers
steve
I see baldy boy and the mutant beetroot are having Trumpy tantrums about the CSIRO throwing facts and reality at him and Super Sciency Guy Ted.
What a pair of childish wankers!
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-joyce-accuse-csiro-of-bias-in-nuclear-cost-findings-20241209-p5kwu3.html
GL, Dutton is an undereducated grifter who scraped through high school and then got lucky, to the immense cost to the rest of this country, and Joyce, albeit a tertiary graduate with a B.F.A. from the UNE, is hardly in the class of fine intellectuals, yet, in classical fashion, these two nongs feel qualified to take on the considered opinions of the finest minds in Australia’s scientific community.
Weeping and wringing of hands that we have these dunces foisted upon us, with some marginal probability that they may once again hold the reins of power.
Steve
It was not an emotional response and it would be best if you stopped saying that I’m reacting emotionally when all I am doing is asking questions. It is a type of ad hominem.
It was a valid request for clarification (my most common reaction when I don’t know someone’s reasoning) given that you raised the Chinese response to those convicted of white-collar crimes in contrast to how USAnia deals with the same problem, especially given that the discussion was about the killing of the United Healthcare CEO. Quite logical.
I was highlighting the difference
Why? In order to show … what?
China has the death penalty as a deterrent and a measure of last resort. I’m aware of at least one case where the death penalty was imposed, and later reduced to life imprisonment.
Even that would give Western crims pause for thought.
Studies show conclusively that death sentences are not a deterrent. The fact that there are so many still being imposed despite the length of time they have been in operation in both China and (especially) USAnia is a stark illustration of that.
leefe, it was emotional, or aggressive if you prefer, because you used the term “state-sanctioned murder” where I had used “death penalty”.
“I was highlighting the difference…”
Why? In order to show … what?
You cut short the full sentence.
The full sentence provided the answer to your question.
So what’s going on here?
Why are you making mountains out of molehills?
This week, Peter Dutton will announce full details and costings of his nuclear power venture – he’s just waiting for the last reputable journalist to depart Canberra on his/her Christmas holidays.
All of the TV current affairs shows have now wrapped up for the Year ; Insiders have scattered to beaches and wineries throughout the land. Patricia Karvelas has packed her bags and departed the ABC Breakfast studios and AM and PM are re-cycling feel good stories about the Assad family settling in to their new life in Moscow. While Sarah Ferguson takes a well earned break from the 7.30 Report.
So, let her rip Dutts while there’s nobody looking or listening and remember to thank Newscorp and SKY for their light as a feather questioning and lack of in depth enquiry during 2024.
Steve, some white collar criminals and drug dealers seek political office, and achieve it.
GL, didn’t you know that the people at the CSIRO are all labor supporters and let politics get in the way of proper, peer reviewed research.
Need to sack the lot when the Libs win their next election, hand the research over to some private investment group with links to appropriate industries.
Steve:
Emotion is what you think you detect. That does not mean it exists. I’ve told you (and others) this before and it should not be necessary to repeat myself so many times: you don’t know me, you aren’t privy to the workings of my mind, you don’t know what I was thinking or feeling, so stop insisting that you do. You are not going to succeed in gaslighting me in to thinking you know me better than I know myself.
Believing something doesn’t make it so. Also, asking a question is not aggression.
I used that term because that is what it is. It is the deliberate taking of a human life, by the state, to try to enforce conformity. Terms like “capital punishment” and even “death penalty” are weasel words which I won’t tolerate.
So I didn’t quote the entire sentence? OK.
I was highlighting the difference in treatment of white-collar crime in liberal democracies compared to other forms of govt.
That doesn’t answer the why. It’s what you said, it’s not what you were implying or suggesting or what the point of that particular comment was. Just saying it is irrelevant in this context without a reason for saying it.
Can you just answer the questions instead of dodging them?
And I notice you ignored my pointing out that the conclusion of most major studies is that executions are not a deterrent. Apologies for introducing facts that don’t support something you said.
Bert, too true.
“you aren’t privy to the workings of my mind,…”
When you react emotionally you put the workings of your mind on display. The consequences are not gaslighting.
“it should not be necessary to repeat myself so many times…”
I agree.
Do some work on your presentation and you might not have to repeat yourself.
“Asking a question is not aggression.” It is when you deliberately change a neutral term such as “death penalty” into an aggressive term such as “state sanctioned murder.”
“That doesn’t answer the why.”
Of course it does. You’re really desperate for an argument.
The “why” that is really standing out is why are you making an issue out of almost nothing?
“you ignored my pointing out that …”
Because it has nothing to do with what I said.
I happen to agree with your point.
I did not suggest otherwise.
China seems to disagree. Take it up with them.
Pingback: Counteracting the nuclear-military-corporate-media – week to 9 December – Equilibrion
Steve:
You don’t know if it’s an emotional reaction when you aren’t even in the same room with me, much less inside my head. You’re sounding less and less logical the deeper you dig this hole.
YOU thinking a term is “emotional” is your thinking; it is not necessarily the thinking of the person who used the term.
Do some work on your presentation and you might not have to repeat yourself.
You do not define the language, nor do you decide standards for expression here. I am not responsible for you reading things into what I say that are not there, particularly when I repeatedly remind you that you are prone to misinterpreting me and reading those nonexistent points and/or factors into my words.
I happen to agree with your point.
I did not suggest otherwise
Progress, at last. Although “Even that would give Western crims pause for thought” does, in fact, suggest otherwise, but who am I to question your claims?
Sarah Ferguson on 7.30 last night (Monday) tried to have an analytical comparative discussion on respective power polices with Ted O’Brien the coalition spokesperson and Chris Bowen the minister responsible. But, as anticipated the coalition spokesperson would not reveal anything on their policy even though they will be announcing it this week : critically it was essential for a balanced discussion to have coalition data on the projected commissioning dates for their seven nuclear power stations and when fully installed what contribution they will make the national grid.
So the discussion fizzled out with O’Brien constantly saying that he would not reveal the coalition plan on national television [implies that the public have no right to know what they are planning] and we would all have to wait for the official announcement which, inevitably would be closer to the Christmas break when the media were all on holidays.
What a joke !
leefe — “when you aren’t even in the same room with me,”
And there’s the problem right there.
You have in the past, at Who Are The Narcissists, claimed the right to write as you speak, deliberately ignoring the fact that oral presentation is softened by tone, inflection, body language etc.
So just keep doing what you’re doing, but don’t complain when challenged.
SD and Leefe: Can you get a room somewhere and sort your differences out rather than here.
TM: Prices of Chinese solar panels fell 42% in 2023 and China’s 2023 production capacity (861 GW) was double global installations of solar (390 GW). That means there is massive stockpile and we should be able buy the equivalent generating capacity of the 7 nuclear power stations, plus some extra, for a reasonable price.
Leefe, i think steve was trying to outline the fact that in china, serious consequences are realised when your convicted, where as in our democracy , you can get away with it. “The death penalty” line just exagerated the differences. Look , i will berate Steve too when he is out there, but in this case, i think i understand where he is coming from. And i think you may have read bit much into what he said.
Terence, why are you so preoccupied with the facts? Facts dont count in politics, havent you learned yet, lol. Facts will never win against wilful stupidity or malfeasance. I may be a bit late to that party, but its pretty obvious if you look carefully.