Showing posts with label federal election 2025. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal election 2025. Show all posts

Friday, 9 May 2025

It can't be sugar coated, the Australian Greens had a disastrous House of Representatives result in the 2025 federal election

 

Five days after close of polls in the 3 May 2025 federal general election, the parliamentary leader of the Australian Greens, Adam Bandt, conceded that he had lost the seat of Melbourne, which he had held for the last 14.5 years and which was the first House of Representatives electorate held by the Greens since the party's inception in 1995.


Bandt lost to a first time federal Labor candidate, Sarah Witty - 33,616 votes to 29,785 on a two-party preferred basis as at 2:28:38 PM AEST on Thursday 8 May 2025.


Melbourne was the third federal electorate lost by a sitting Australian Greens MP to Labor at this election. The others being Brisbane & Griffith, both Queensland electorates held since 2022 by Stephen Bates and Max Chandler-Mather respectively. At the time of writing, a fourth Greens MP may or may not hold the Ryan electorate (Qld) also won at the 2022 federal election.


If Ms. Elizabeth Watson-Brown does not retain Ryan then the Australian Greens will have to rely on their presence in the Senate for representation in the Australian Parliament.


It is expected that the Australian Greens will hold their 2022 representation numbers in the Senate, although this will not be confirmed until 16 May 2025 when Senate preference results are published.


The Australian Greens Party issued an online statement on 8 May 2025 which included the following statement from Adam Bandt, which although commencing with a gracious first paragraph true to form then reverted to casting blame for his defeat on others, accepting no personal responsibility, mischaracterisation and over-the-top bragging.


Comment attributable to Adam Bandt:


A short time ago I called the Labor candidate for Melbourne, Sarah Witty, to concede, congratulate her and wish her all the best as the next Member for Melbourne.


The Greens got the highest vote in Melbourne, but One Nation and Liberal preferences will get Labor over the line.


To win in Melbourne we needed to overcome Liberal, Labor and One Nation combined, and it’s an Everest we’ve climbed a few times now, but this time we fell just short.


I want to thank the Melbourne community for regularly giving me the highest vote, including this election, and to thank you for the last 15 years and the chance to do some amazing things together.


Together we’ve made marriage equality law after getting the highest vote in the country in the plebiscite no-one should have had to have.


We worked hard together to get the highest vote in the Voice referendum, sending a message of hope that big parts of Australia still want to see First Nations justice.


Together we got dental into Medicare for kids and world leading climate legislation.


The price on pollution worked. It really worked. It was the only thing that has actually cut climate pollution in this country. In the middle of a climate crisis, we actually turned the corner.


Fighting the climate crisis is the reason I got into politics, and I want to thank you for helping us make a difference.


Together we’ve been powerful. As a community, we’ve been a progressive beacon for the nation. We’ve stood for justice, for compassion and we’ve led the way on the national stage.


It has been a joy to represent you and I hope I’ve made you proud.


I’m really proud of what I’ve achieved as Leader.


We’ve achieved the highest vote in Greens history and our biggest ever representation in Parliament.


We got billions for public and community housing, we won people the right to disconnect, and strengthened our climate laws, even though nowhere nearly enough.


This election, we may end up also with a record high vote in the Senate too of around 13%, with some Senators effectively getting a quota in their own right.


I leave with the Greens now having the sole balance of power in the Senate.


The government now can’t blame any independent Senator for not making reforms: the only thing stopping getting dental into Medicare, stopping new coal and gas mines or rebalancing housing tax breaks is the government itself.


There are also now a big number of seats across the country where the Greens are second.


We know about the Greens, the Teals, and now there’s the Purples. Mix red and blue together and you get purple. There are now a swathe of seats where Labor MPs owe their political life to the Liberals’ preferences, and the Greens are the real opposition to the two party system.


If the government doesn’t use its big majority to start actually cutting climate pollution and tackling Australia’s massive inequality crisis, watch for a big swing at the next election and see those purple seats go Green.


In Melbourne, the boundaries changed and made the seat much more marginal, and I feel that a number of people shifted their votes to Labor to keep Dutton out, but by far the biggest factor was Liberal and One Nation preferences going to Labor to push them over the line despite our high primary vote.


As I said before, to win in Melbourne, we have had to regularly overcome the two major parties working together on preferences. It’s not like the traditional contests, where Labor just has to beat Liberal. The Greens have had to beat Labor and Liberal combined. It’s climbing Everest, and we’ve managed to do it a few times, but this time we fell just short. More people in Melbourne voted Greens than anyone else - we got the highest vote - but Liberal and One Nation preferences will get Labor over the line.


I don’t know if many other minor party or independent MPs have done what we’ve done and won without either major party sending them preferences, but we’ve done something pretty incredible over the years. This time, everyone was gunning for us, and we came very very close, but couldn’t quite get there.


I hope that the media start to hold this new Labor majority government to account on climate especially, because the government is saying they care but are approving more coal and gas projects and putting a safer climate out of reach.


I want to thank my colleagues for their strong support and absolute brilliance. I want to thank the former Leaders of our party who have offered me wisdom and guidance. As well as everyone in Melbourne, I especially want to thank the African and Muslim communities, who have welcomed me so warmly and who I’ve been so proud to represent.


I'm proud to have raised my voice for the people of Palestine who are being decimated, and to have continued to call for a just and lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis based on an end to the invasion and an end to the occupation.


Millions of people have voted Greens – renters and first home buyers, people who want real action on the climate and environment emergency, all those horrified about the genocide of the Palestinian people – you’ve sent a clear message that you want action. The Greens will keep fighting for you.


When you’re taking on the combined might of both major parties, big corporations, the coal and gas lobby, and challenging a system that puts their profit before people, there will be obstacles. But I know we are on the right path and we won’t stop now.


To the tens of thousands of people who have poured their hearts into our movement – you have run a bold, joyful, visionary campaign, and I cannot thank you enough.


I want to thank my incredible staff and all the Greens team, who have worked so hard over all these years, for their trust and support. Your commitment and intellect amazes me daily.


Thanks to my kids for your love, support and patience. Thanks to my Mum and Dad for doing so much to make this possible. And finally, thank you to my incredible wife Claudia, who is one of the sharpest political minds I know, for being my partner on this journey, and for all you have given.”


Hopefully the Australian Greens Party will regain the respect and confidence of the national electorate which was sadly diminished under Adam Bandt's style of national leadership.


Monday, 5 May 2025

How will Trump react to the international media asserting it was the Australian voter's dislike of himself & his policies which were a primary reason the conservative coalition opposition lost the May 2025 Australian federal general election?

 

The reason for an electoral win or loss is never singular in nature or without nuance and, highlighting one particular aspect may at a stretch be flirting at the edge of legitimate analysis.


However in a world where the 47th US president insists on inserting himself into the domestic politics of any country that catches his often momentary attention, it is possible that Trump will decide to take offence at the considered decisions taken by millions of Australian citizens on 3 May 2025.


Nationwide News, 4 May 2025, article excerpt:


Saturday’s landslide election win for Anthony Albanese is being viewed the same way around the world as two words are repeated over and over.


The result that saw Peter Dutton come face-to-face with the worst possible outcome — a resounding defeat and being ousted from his seat of Dickson — can be attributed at least in part to the “Anti-Trump” factor, according to media watching from afar.


Dutton was seen by many as Australia’s Trump,” the BBC’s Tiffany Turnbull wrote.....


(It) appeared to go down badly with voters, despite his attempts to shake off comparisons made between his policies on immigration, public sector cuts and China, and the Trump administration.”


CNN described the result in similar terms.


Observers will be examining the results for signs of blowback against Australia’s conservative candidates from US President Trump’s whirlwind 100 days in office – after comparisons were drawn between Dutton’s policy offerings and those of the US leader,” the US broadcaster wrote.


CNN noted that Australia had appeared to follow Commonwealth compatriat Canada in pushing back against far-right politics.


Another center-left prime minister, Mark Carney of Canada — which like Australia is a G20 nation, as well as US ally — recently scored an election win widely chalked up to anti-Trump sentiment.”


The Washington Post described the win for Labor as “buoyed by anti-Trump bump”.


The New York Post took a similar view of the Trump link to Australia’s election result.


Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s centre-left Labor Party was projected to win elections, broadcasters said on Saturday, in a comeback against once-resurgent conservatives powered by concerns about the influence of US President Donald Trump.”


The New York Times cited Trump’s tariff war as a key factor in the way Aussies had voted Saturday.


A superpower loomed large as Australians headed to the polls. It wielded trade barriers as a means of political coercion, imperiling Australia’s export-dependent economy,” the Times wrote.


Three years ago that country was China, which had imposed punishing restrictions on many Australian exports, sent spy ships lurking near Australia’s west coast and struck an alarming military pact with a regional neighbor, the Solomon Islands.


This time, as Australians cast ballots on Saturday, that external factor is the United States and President Trump.”.....


The Guardian, 4 May 2025, article excerpt:


Australian PM shrugs off questions about Donald Trump as other world leaders congratulate him


Anthony Albanese says his job is to “represent Australia’s national interest” after his thumping election win, shrugging off questions about when he might visit the United States to speak to Donald Trump about tariffs and trade.


The re-elected prime minister said he had spoken to the leaders of Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, France and the UK, and looked forward to calls with the presidents of Indonesia and Ukraine.


My job here is to represent Australia’s national interest and that’s what I’ll be doing, and the first thing I’ll be doing is going to Canberra,” he said......


Could I have your attention
Mark Knight

Saturday, 3 May 2025

Federal Election 3 May 2025 State of Play as at 8:50pm

 



9.33 pm 03.05.25: Liberal MP for Dickson & Opposition Leader Peter Dutton conceded that the Coalition has lost the 2025 federal election and that he has lost his seat of Dickson to Labor's Ali France.


Australian Federal General Election 3 May 2025: Antony Green's predictions ahead of tonight's vote count, links to the AEC Virtual Tally Room & ABC News election night coverage

 

ABC's chief election analyst Antony Green explains some of the uncertainties surrounding a federal election and what that might mean tonight.


 

AEC polling places opened at 8am this morning and close at 6pm sharp.


The Australian Electoral Commission's Virtual Tally Room will come online at approx. 6:15pm at https://www.aec.gov.au/ and a link should appear on the AEC home page as

https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-31496.htm.


Archived Tally Room results from past elections & referendums in 2007-2022 can be found at 

https://results.aec.gov.au/.


ABC News election night coverage can be live viewed without log-in from shortly before 6pm at 

https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NS1413V001S00.


ABC Radio election coverage can be accessed from 6pm at

https://www.abc.net.au/listen.


Cartoon of the Week

 

The polls open #DemocracySausage
Matt Golding


Thursday, 9 January 2025

Zuckerberg abandons fact checking on Facebook's US platform, with cessation of fact-checking on its Australian platform expected to follow in the near future

 


ECHO, 8 January 2024:


Coinciding with the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp has announced it’s abandoning the independent fact-checking processes set up in 2016 in favour of a ‘community notes’ program, as used on Elon Musk’s X platform, where the community decides which posts are misleading or need more context.


Meta’s press release quotes a 2019 speech by its CEO Mark Zuckerberg in which he argued that free expression has been the driving force behind progress in American society and around the world, and that inhibiting speech, however well-intentioned the reasons for doing so, reinforces existing institutions and power structures instead of empowering people.


Some people believe giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing us together, said Mr Zuckerberg.


More people across the spectrum believe that achieving the political outcomes they think matter is more important than every person having a voice. I think that’s dangerous.’


How did that work out?


In practice, Meta’s policies and role in fuelling misinformation led to the earlier election of Donald Trump in the USA, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and the success of Brexit in the UK.


As Meta sought to rebuild its credentials as a good corporate citizen following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which Facebook data was manipulated and exploited for political purposes in the UK and elsewhere (without the permission of users), independent fact checking was one of Meta’s responses.....


The statement goes on to say, ‘We want to undo the mission creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement. We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate....


Anything to avoid another Donald meltdown? Cloudcatcher Media.


Trumped


Meta’s latest press release doesn’t mention Donald Trump anywhere, but his influence is clearly apparent on the new direction of the company.


After clashing with Mr Trump earlier, Mark Zuckerberg has grown increasingly close to the incoming president in recent years, along with his fellow billionaires, notably Jeff Bezos, with significant implications for global media and information and eco-systems.


Donald Trump praised Meta’s latest announcement. ‘I think they’ve come a long way,’ he told a press conference yesterday. When a journalist asked the President-elect if he thought Zuckerberg was responding to threats he had made in the past, Trump responded with one word: ‘Probably’.


While the changes at Meta will only affect the United States initially, they are expected to be rolled out globally in the near future, including Australia.


Read the full article at

https://www.echo.net.au/2025/01/meta-abandons-independent-fact-checking/.



The question that immediately springs to mind - 'Will Zuckerberg remove the fact-checking function from the Australian version of Facebook ahead of the 2025 federal general election?'.


Due to the 2024 electoral redistribution, more than half of the 150 federal electorates will be going to the polls with altered electorate boundaries and, it is not hard to imagine that all political parties as well as third party lobbyists will begin campaigning vigorously in those seats in particular when the timing of this year's election is announced.


CNN Business, 8 January 2025:


New York CNN

Meta’s surprise decision to scrap its fact-checking partnerships – blindsiding journalists involved in the program and putting some out of work – is part of a much bigger shift in media and politics.


The very notion of fact-checking is under assault by a wide array of fact-challenged politicians and interest groups. Particularly on the right, “fact-check” has been turned into a dirty word, one that presupposes the fact-checker is actually suppressing some inconvenient truth.


Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg played right into that assumption on Tuesday when he insulted fact-checkers as “too politically biased” and said they “have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.”


Destroyed trust among whom, exactly? Zuckerberg didn’t say. But President-elect Donald Trump, who keeps fact-checkers busy and hates being corrected by them, welcomed Meta’s changes. So did the wide world of pro-Trump media. “Trump gets results,” Fox’s Laura Ingraham said Tuesday night, touting Meta’s “major shakeup.”


As CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan found through his interviews with Trump rallygoers, MAGA loyalists bristled at the existence of fact-checks on Facebook and objected to content moderation that they described as censorship. They trusted Trump over any attempt to fact-check him.


But for a wider audience, Meta’s support for outside fact-checking outlets helped make the internet a little bit less polluted by lies and propaganda.....


Without fact checking on Meta, disinfo spreaders will be partying like it’s 2016,” said Duke [former CNN journalist Alan Duke, Lead Stories] .....


Tuesday, 17 December 2024

Comparing the Liberal-Nationals approach to nuclear energy policy with two opposing positions


Because in fourteen days time the country enters a national federal election year and, one likely to be dominated by misinformation and downright lies on the Internet, television, radio and in political flyers stuffed in letterboxes - especially on the subject of nuclear powered electricity - here are the basic positions of the three main parties distributing either political opinion or science-based information.

Perhaps consider bookmarking it for future reference as the election campaign heats up.


The latest Coalition Dutton-Littleproud position on its proposal to insert nuclear power as a preeminent component in Australia's energy mix began with this media release on 13 December....



Frontier Economics, INSIGHT, 13 December 2024:


Economic analysis of including nuclear power in the NEM


At Frontier Economics, we’ve been providing the economic analysis and frameworks to key energytransition decisions in Australia for more than 25 years. As independent economic consultants, we regularly inform ourselves on, and dig deep into, the most important decisions impacting society.


This is the second independent report in this series on modelling the economics of including nuclear in Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM).

The objective of the first report, Report1 – Developing the base case to assess the relative costs ofnuclear power in the NEM, was to establish a proper basis for comparing the cost impacts of nuclear power – based on AEMO’s Integrated Systems Plan (ISP) results.


Once again, we expect and welcome robust debate on the work we present. Our report has been funded and directed solely by Frontier Economics, and consultation with various government and private sector parties has been sought to ensure we modelled the inclusion of nuclear power in the NEM most accurately.


Report 2: Economic analysis of including nuclear power in the NEM


In this second report, we again using AEMO modelling as our basis for comparison, using their ‘Step Change’ and ‘Progressive’ scenarios to compare the costs of nuclear power in our energy ecosystem.


"You can’t compare renewable energy and nuclear power generation and costs like apples to apples. We’ve done the modelling in these AEMO scenarios with a wider, and more detailed, lens on how the two options compare in real life, and the data speaks for itself. In both scenarios, including nuclear power in our energy mix is cheaper – by up to 44% - for Australians in the medium-term future. - Danny Price, Managing Director, Frontier Economics"


Key considerations from the report:


  • Many commentators simply and erroneously compare the cost of a renewable generator (wind or solar) plus the costs of back-up generation to the capacity and operating costs of a nuclear power station.

  • Such crude assessments do not account for the fact that much more renewable capacity is required to produce the same amount of electricity compared to a nuclear power station.

  • Nor does it account for the requirement to store surplus electricity from renewable sources as well as the back-up generation. An enormous amount of investment required to connect renewable generators located in areas where there is presently no or inadequate transmission network capacity.

  • Many other calculations are ignoring transmission costs entirely, which we have considered in this modelling.


Our modelling in this report has concluded:


  • The AEMO’s Progressive scenario including nuclear power is 44% cheaper than the Step Change model without nuclear.

  • Using a Step Change model with nuclear will garner a 25% cheaper solution than using renewable and storage alone.

  • Highlighting that nuclear power in Australia’s energy system is cheaper in both scenarios.


DOWNLOAD REPORT 2



The Australian Government response begins thus....




Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen



Under the Opposition's nuclear scheme Australians will pay more to sit in the dark


13 December 2024


Peter Dutton has today confirmed his nuclear scheme will not bring down household bills and will instead leave Australians paying billions to sit in the dark.


Despite their bold claims that the most expensive form of energy will bring down bills, the Coalition’s dodgy costings released today are silent on tackling household bills. The report simply says on page 18: “they do not, at this stage, present any results for price.”


But experts have previously found that adding nuclear to Australia’s energy mix would push up power bills by up to $1,200 a year, while it risks blackouts as households wait 20 years for reactors to come online.


Aside from failing to offer anything to households on power bills, there are three immediate fatal flaws in the Coalition’s nuclear energy costings.


One, the Coalition are irresponsibly asserting that costs will be lower because Australians will use less power. They ignore the independent advice from the Australian Energy Market Operator.


Peter Dutton’s nuclear scheme isn’t a plan to meet our growing energy needs –it’s nothing more than a recipe for bringing our economic growth to a halt.


Two, the costs don’t reflect any real world experience. The Coalition’s modelling spuriously assumes nuclear will be supplied at $30Mwh. The CSIRO, which bases their work on the international experience, says that in order to pay off its costs, it needs a price of between $145-$238Mwh.


The Coalition is ignoring the massive cost blowouts and delays seen routinely around the world during the construction of nuclear reactors, including in countries where the industry is well established.


These costings are also silent on how much taxpayers will pay for it, and exactly what services Peter Dutton would cut to fund his nuclear scheme. Given his mega costs today are equivalent to more than 10 years of the Medicare budget Australians should be worried.


Three, the Coalition just takes a guess that there is no need to build transmission to get power into homes and businesses. They invent a $52 billion difference in transmission spend, but have no plan to transport nuclear energy to wherever it’s needed.


Nothing in today’s so-called “costings” addresses the need for energy bills coming down now or the near-universal evidence that nuclear would take too long, cost too much, and slow renewable investment and generation. This is not a plan to keep the lights on.


Australia needs new, cheap power now, not expensive power in 20 years. Ageing, expensive and unreliable coal plants are closing and we have to fill the gap. Dutton’s nuclear scheme would have us short on power for two decades – a sure-fire recipe for rolling and expensive blackouts.


Labor’s plan is delivering cheaper energy right now. Since coming to Government we have brought online new electricity that is the equivalent of more than 3 entire Snowy Hydro schemes.


Australia is on track to bring more renewable energy online this year than any other year, and bills are forecast to come down as more renewables come online over the next decade.


We are rolling out batteries that can store renewable energy around the country – providing enough power storage to cater for 90% of peak household demand to make sure night or day Australians have the power when and where they need it.


The considered scientific position.....


CSIRO, News, December 2024:


The question of nuclear in Australia’s electricity sector:

In Australia's transition to net zero emissions, the electricity sector has a major role to play. But does nuclear power have a place in our future grid?


9 December 2024


Key points


  • Nuclear power does not currently provide the most cost competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia.

  • Long development lead times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

  • While nuclear technologies have a long operational life, this factor provides no unique cost advantage over shorter-lived technologies.


This explainer was updated on 09 December 2024 to reflect costings included in the draft GenCost 2024-25 Report.


AEMO's Integrated Systems Plan


As Australia works towards emissions reduction targets in the transition to net zero, we know the electricity sector has a major role to play. We also know it makes sense to assess a full range of technologies: some new and emerging, some established and proven.


In this context some proponents want nuclear to be considered as an option for decarbonising the electricity sector.


Despite nuclear power being a component of electricity generation for 16 per cent of the world’s countries, it does not currently represent a timely or efficient solution for meeting Australia’s net zero target.


Here’s why:


  • Nuclear is not economically competitive with solar PV and wind and the total development time in Australia for large or small-scale nuclear is at least 15 years.

  • Small modular reactors (SMRs) are potentially faster to build but are commercially immature at present.

  • The total development lead time needed for nuclear means it cannot play a major role in electricity sector emission abatement, which is more urgent than abatement in other sectors.


Understanding GenCost calculations


GenCost is a leading economic report by CSIRO in collaboration with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to estimate the cost of building future electricity generation and storage, as well as hydrogen production in Australia.


It is a policy and technology neutral report and the annual process involves close collaboration with electricity industry experts. There are opportunities for stakeholders to provide pre-publication feedback, ensuring the accuracy of available evidence.


Paul Graham, our Chief Energy Economist and lead author of the report, said GenCost is an open and public process.


"The report's data is not just for AEMO planning and forecasting; it’s also used by government policymakers and electricity strategists who require a clear, simple metric to inform their decisions," Paul said.


"To facilitate a straightforward comparison across different technologies, the GenCost report conducts a levelised cost of electricity analysis. This method calculates a dollar cost per megawatt hour (MWh) over the economic life of the asset, incorporating initial capital expenses and any ongoing fuel, operation, and maintenance costs."


The draft GenCost 2024-25 Report released on 09 December 2024 found renewables continue to have the lowest cost range of any new build electricity generation technologies.




Infographic showing annual change in capital costs and levelised cost of electricity (LCOE).


One of the factors that impacts the high and low cost range is the capacity factor. The capacity factor is the percentage of time on average that the technology generates to its full capacity throughout the year. Costs are lowest if technologies. such as nuclear, can operate at full capacity for as long as possible so they have more generation revenue over which to recover their capital costs.


Nuclear technology is capable of high capacity factor operation but globally its capacity factor ranges from below 60% to above 90% with an average of 80%. Australia operates a similar steam turbine based technology in coal generation for which the average capacity factor over the last decade was 59% with a maximum of 89%.


The shape of the electricity load and competition from other sources is very different between countries and so our preference is to always use Australian data where it is available. Consequently, we apply the historical coal capacity factors when considering the potential future capacity factors of Australian nuclear generation.


Capital cost assumptions


While nuclear generation is well established globally, it has never been deployed in Australia.


Applying overseas costs to large-scale nuclear projects in Australia is not straightforward due to significant variations in labour costs, workforce expertise, governance and standards. As a result, the source country for large-scale nuclear data must be carefully selected.


GenCost estimates of the cost large-scale nuclear are based on South Korea’s successful continuous nuclear building program and adjusted for differences in Australian and South Korean deployment costs by investigating the ratio of new coal generation costs in each country.


The large-scale nuclear costs it reported could only be achieved if Australia commits to a continuous building program, following the construction of an initial higher-cost unit or units. Initial units of all first-of-a-kind technologies in Australia are expected to be impacted by higher costs. A first-of-a-kind cost premium of up to 100 per cent cannot be ruled out. These assumptions remain for the draft GenCost 2024-25 Report.


Life of the investment


GenCost recognises the difference between the period over which the capital cost is recovered (the economic life) and operational life of an asset.


GenCost assumes a 30-year economic life for large-scale nuclear plants, even though they can operate for a longer period. It is standard practice in private financing that the capital recovery period for an asset is less than its full operational life, similar to a car or house loan. For power stations, warranties expire and refurbishment costs may begin to fall around the 30-year mark. As a result, we use a 30-year lifespan in our cost calculations.


After the final GenCost 23-24 Report was released in May 2024, nuclear proponents clarified they will seek to achieve longer capital recovery periods, closer to the operational life, by using public financing to realise potential cost advantages.


The draft GenCost 2024-25 Report has calculated those cost advantages for the first time (using a 60-year period), finding that there are no unique cost advantages arising from nuclear technology’s long operational life. Similar cost savings are achievable from shorter-lived technologies, even accounting for the fact that shorter lived technologies need to be built twice. This is because shorter-lived technologies such as solar PV and wind are typically available at a lower cost over time, making the second build less costly.


The lack of an economic advantage for long-lived nuclear is due to substantial nuclear refurbishment costs to achieve long operational life safely. Without new investment it cannot achieve long operational life. Also, because of the long lead time in nuclear deployment, cost reductions in the second half of their operational life are not available until around 45 years into the future, significantly reducing their value to consumers compared to other options.


Current figures for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)


The Carbon Free Power Project was a nuclear SMR project in the United States established in 2015 and planned for full operation by 2030. It was the first project to receive design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an essential step before construction can commence. In November 2023, the project was cancelled following a 56 per cent increase in reported costs.


Despite being cancelled, this project was the first and currently remains the only project to have provided cost estimates for a real commercial venture with detailed data. Until now, most sources were for theoretical projects only.


"The main area of uncertainty with nuclear SMR has been around capital costs," Paul said.


"The Carbon Free Power Project provided more confidence about the capital costs of nuclear SMR and the data confirms it is currently a very high-cost technology."


"We don’t disagree with the principle of SMRs. They attempt to speed up the building process of nuclear plants using standardised components in a modular system and may achieve cost reductions over time. However, the lack of commercial deployment has meant that these potential savings are not yet verified or realised," Paul said.


Time is running out for the energy transition


Nuclear power has an empty development pipeline in Australia. Given the state and federal legal restrictions, this is not surprising.


But even if nuclear power was more economically feasible, its slow construction and its additional pre-construction steps, particularly around safety and security, limit its potential to play a serious role in reducing emissions within the required timeframe.


In the last five years, the global median construction time for nuclear has been 8.2 years. Furthermore, in the last ten years, no country with a similar level of democracy to Australia have been able to complete construction in less than 10 years. Overall, it will take at least 15 years before first nuclear generation could be achieved in Australia.


"The electricity sector is one of our largest sources of emissions and delaying the transition will make the cost of addressing climate change higher for all Australians," Paul said.


"The electricity sector must rapidly lead the transition to net zero, so other sectors like transport, building and manufacturing can adopt electrification and cut their emissions."


The final GenCost 2024-25 report will be released in the second quarter of 2025, after the close of final consultations on 11 February 2025. The Draft GenCost 2024-25 can be found at

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost


Thursday, 5 September 2024

Did you know that the majority of residents in and around Tarong & Callide (Qld), Liddell & Mount Piper (NSW), Port Augusta (SA) and Low Yang (Vic) are supportive of having nuclear power plants built in their midst? No, neither did I.

 

In June 2024 Leader of the Opposition & Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton - the politician with 30 nicknames implying he is either a fascist dictator or a root vegetable (or both) - flanked by both the Leader of the Nationals & the Morrison lookalike spokesperson on Climate Change and Energy, announced that if he won federal government in 2025 he would establish a nuclear power industry in Australia.


The initial seven nuclear power plants would be sited at retiring coal-fired power stations in:

Tarong in Queensland, north-west of Brisbane

Callide in Queensland, west of Gladstone

Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley

Mount Piper in NSW, near Lithgow

Port Augusta in SA

Loy Yang in Victoria, in the Latrobe Valley (rarer than a dodo bird, SMR reactor only)

Muja in WA, near Collie (ditto another dodo).


Then, in the months that followed, when hard questions began to be repeatedly asked Dutton went quiet on the subject. Leaving most of heifer's dust shovelling to be done by fellow Queenslander, the Nationals Leader & MP for Maranoa David Littleproud.


A task he is obviously not performing well......



The Noisy Elephant

@TheNoisyTrunk


#DavidLittleproud said, on #ABC 2/09/2024 Afternoon Briefing*, these exact words:


"Well, on all seven locations, the majority of people living in these locations that we're proposing for 'nuclear' power plants to take over from transition from coal-fired power stations support this"


We have a question, @D_LittleproudMP YES, THIS IS A QUESTION TO YOU David and it WILL be followed up.


WHERE is it documented that a MAJORITY of people in the 7 locations SUPPORT "this" (The transition to nuclear power).


1/. WHO polled this

2/. WHEN was it polled

and

3/. WHERE can we view the polling methodology.


We ask because #GregJennett didn't ask, and he SHOULD have, and secondly it needs to be verified given it is such a big claim and goes against the official polls.


Please reply to this post so that all can see rather than us having to go down a more formal approach and then republish stating such.


#NuclearPower

*https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NU2422C156S00