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

#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… pic.twitter.com/AFbZRAquzO

— The Noisy Elephant (@TheNoisyTrunk) September 2, 2024

Cartoons of the Week

Matt Golding

A brief background on the Morrison Coalition Government's response to its own inquiry into the establishment of a nuclear power industry in Australia

"Australia currently has a moratorium in place that prohibits it from the ‘construction or operation’ of a number of nuclear installations, including nuclear power plants. This moratorium was introduced by Parliament in 1998 during consideration of the legislation to create ARPANSA, and at a time of strong anti-nuclear sentiment in Australia, particularly following French nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific and the ‘Rainbow Warrior’ incident." [Australian Parliament, HoR Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, December 2019, Not without your approval: a way forward for nuclear technology in Australia, p.4]

During the term of the 46th Australian Parliament with then Prime Minister Scott Morrison leading the federal government, following a referral from the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor MP, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy resolved on 6 August 2019 to conduct an inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia.

The Committee conducting the Inquiry comprised:

Ted O'Brien Liberal MP for Fairfax - Chair

Josh Wilson Labor MP for Freemantle - Deputy Chair

Members:

Bridget Archer Liberal MP for Bass

Zali Steggall Independent MP

Josh Burns Labor MP for Macnamara

Rick Wilson Liberal MP for O'Connor

David Gillespie Nationals MP for Lyne

Trent Zimmerman Liberal MP for North Sydney

Supplementary Members:

Keith Pitt Nationals MP for Hinkler

(from 20 August 2019)

Fiona Phillips Labor MP for Gilmore

(from 17 September 2019)

In October 2019 the Committee held three consecutive hearings days in Canberra and accepted 309 submissions.

On Friday, 13 December 2019, the Committee presented its report on the Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia titled "Not without your approval: a way forward for nuclear technology in Australia" .

There were two dissenting reports included with the Committees final report - one from Labor and one Independent report.

It is interesting to note that although the final report mentioned difficulties caused in the creation of a nuclear power generation industry in Australia where none existed - including the time required to establish the prerequisite legal framework, the acquiring & training of a nuclear power workforce, the numbers of years between planning, construction & a power station coming on line and the expense of nuclear power supply at 2018 & 2019 prices - overall it was as a government initiative in favour of the establishment of a nuclear power industry.

However, the Morrison Government wrote no response to the report and markedly failed one of the most preliminary steps recommended:

1.145 The Australian Government should commission a readiness assessment.

This requires an expert body such as the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) to identify the major requirements that would need to be in place before Australia was ready to adopt nuclear energy.

For the next two years and one hundred & sixty days the Morrison Government sat on its hands.

Now four years and around 49 days after the report was left to moulder, in Opposition the rump of that government has decided it will make establishing a nuclear power industry one of its high profile policies.

Rather strangely, these days Opposition MPs rarely mention their own 230 page report as they make the new case for nuclear power.

Liberal MP for Dickson & Leader of the Coalition Opposition Peter Dutton called the CSIRO an unreliable scientific body producing "discredited" work and is now reaping what he has sown

"In the growing heat of debate over Coalition nuclear energy policy, Mr Dutton described the CSIRO’s GenCost report on the cost of electricity generation as “discredited” and “not a genuine piece of work” and suggested it was “well documented” that the CSIRO cannot be relied on." [InnovationAUS, 15 March 2024]

 

Open letter from Dr Doug Hilton, Chief Executive, CSIRO

15 MARCH 2024

NEWS RELEASE

Science is crucial to providing the data and models that allow society to tackle profound challenges; challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, transition to net zero, keeping Australian industry productive and sustainable, and protecting our unique biodiversity.

For science to be useful and for challenges to be overcome it requires the trust of the community. Maintaining trust requires scientists to act with integrity. Maintaining trust also requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science.

As Chief Executive of CSIRO, I will staunchly defend our scientists and our organisation against unfounded criticism.

The GenCost report is updated each year and provides the very best estimates for the cost of future new-build electricity generation in Australia. The report is carefully produced, its methodology is clearly articulated, our scientists are open and responsive to feedback, and as is the case for all creditable science, the report is updated regularly as new data comes to hand.

The GenCost report can be trusted by all our elected representatives, irrespective of whether they are advocating for electricity generation by renewables, coal, gas or nuclear energy.

No matter the challenge we are tackling, CSIRO’s scientists and engineers can be relied on by the community to work creatively, assiduously and with integrity.

Dr Douglas Hilton

Chief Executive, CSIRO

Some of the mainstream media headlines generated by Dutton's attempt to deny the considerable downside of introducing nuclear power stations into Australia's energy grid........

The Guardian

CSIRO chief warns against ‘disparaging science’ after Peter Dutton criticises nuclear energy costings

Douglas Hilton says he will 'staunchly defend' scientists as opposition leader repeats incorrect claim that CSIRO report does not accurately...

15.03.24

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Nation's science agency CSIRO hits back at Dutton claim that nuclear power costings were 'discredited'

The CSIRO has rebuked politicians seeking to undermine its research showing nuclear energy would be much more expensive than solar or wind...

15.03.24

The Sydney Morning Herald

‘Don’t disparage the science’: CSIRO hits back at Dutton on nuclear energy

Australia's top science agency has made a rare political intervention as CSIRO chief executive Doug Hilton defended his agency's findings on...

15.03.24

News.com.au

Nuclear question Dutton won’t answer

Peter Dutton has failed to answer a key question in a fiery clash with Bill Shorten over nuclear energy.

15.03.24

The New Daily

CSIRO hits back at Dutton's 'unfounded' criticism

Australia's national science agency has taken aim at Liberal leader Peter Dutton in a highly unusual public intervention.

15.03.24

The Canberra Times

CSIRO Chief defends GenCost report from political attack

Dr. Doug Hilton stands by CSIRO's GenCost report findings amidst political criticism from Coalition leader Peter Dutton.

15.03.24

The Age

CSIRO hits back at Dutton attack on its nuclear energy reports

Australia's top science agency has made a rare political intervention, with CSIRO chief executive Douglas Hilton defending his agency's...

15.03.24

Hunter Valley News

CSIRO boss defends scientists after Dutton attack

CSIRO chief executive officer Douglas Hilton has issued a rare public statement to urge politicians to "resist the...

15.03.24

The Wimmera Mail-Times

CSIRO boss defends scientists after Dutton attack

CSIRO chief executive officer Douglas Hilton has issued a rare public statement to urge politicians to "resist the...

15.03.24

Then on the same day the Centre for Independent Studies, a conservative seemingly pro-nuclear 'think tank' which also supported the No position in the 2023 national referendum and whose executive director just happened in 2008 to have been a senior adviser to former federal Liberal Party Leader Brendan Nelson and in 2009 was himself he a candidate to replace Nelson in his northern Sydney electoral seat of Bradfield, attempted to ride to Peter Dutton's rescue on social media with a whitewash of the Opposition Leader's comments and an interesting interpretation of the contents of CSIRO news release.

Centre for Independent Studies @CISOZ

CIS responds to @CSIRO's open letter.

"Not all criticisms are unfounded. If the CEO wants to defend the methods and conclusions of a particular report from criticism, he should do just that, rather than simply asserting that the report can be trusted when serious flaws still exist."

15.03.24

About Peter and David's little plan to put a fast transitioning to renewable energy on the backburner in favour of creating a nuclear power industry in Australia

 

It would appear as though the two Coalition opposition parties are determined to take the creation of a nuclear power industry to the 2025 federal general election.

It is being presented as cost-effective and relatively risk free way to provide for Australia's future energy needs.

So here are some basic facts to consider when evaluating the propaganda beginning to spread across national newspapers and social media.

CAPITOL COSTS

Annual change in capital costs: Across the board, new build costs have generally stabilised as the impacts of inflation ease. However, cost pressure remains on gas, onshore wind and nuclear SMR. [Draft GenCost Report, December 2023]

The CSIRO Draft GenCost Report 2023-24 stated that Nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) emerged as the highest-cost technology explored in the report. This corresponds with new data from the most advanced SMR project in the US. 

SMRs are the type of nuclear power facility favoured by Liberal MP for Dickson & Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, Peter Dutton and Nationals MP for Maranoa and Leader of the Parliamentary National Party, David Littleproud.

SMRs at this stage exist only as either prototype drawings or development projects - appearing at this point in time to be unrealised technology.

According to the current Draft GenCost Report:

Significant increase in nuclear small modular reactor costs

The cost of nuclear small modular reactors (SMR) has been a contentious issue in GenCost for many years with conflicting data published by other groups proposing lower costs than those assumed in GenCost (ES Figure 0-3). UAMPS (Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems) is a US regional coalition that develops local government owned electricity generation projects. Up until the project’s cancellation in November 2023, UAMP was the developer of a nuclear SMR project called the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) with a gross capacity of 462MW. It was planned to be fully operational by 2030. After conversion to 2023 Australian dollars, project costs were estimated in 2020 to be $18,200/kW which is only slightly below the level that GenCost had been applying ($19,000kW).

While the EFSC Investment Group states that estimates suggest that the construction cost of a coal-fired thermal power plant can range from less than $1,000 to $4,500 per each kilowatt of installed capacity.

That's a whopping $14,000 difference at the high end of the costing range. Making these boutique smaller nuclear power units very expensive if they can be realised.

Then there is the limited service area of nuclear small module reactors (SMRs). Based on the U.S. Carbon Free Power Project SMR with a proposed gross capacity of 462MW, such an SMR would be able to supply a mere est. 31,862 residential households according to Ausgrid 2022-23 electricity consumption figures. Hardly value for money given the high cost to Treasury and Australian taxpayers of building and bringing online these small power plants, by CSIRO estimates around $8.7 billion per SMR.

Lake Macquarie City Library reveals that: The total cost of the Eraring Power Station, built by the NSW Electricity Commission was $1.653 billion. Work commenced with the earthworks on the site in 1976, followed by construction of the station beginning in 1977. Several of the larger components of the station were shipped through the Swansea channel, up Lake Macquarie to the Eraring site. The first generating unit was brought into service in March, 1982, the second and third units in 1983 and the fourth unit in 1984.

The Coalition Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy is fond of tossing out timescales for nuclear power stations builds - from around 5 years to complete construction of an small modular reactor (SMR) to 10-12 years for a large-scale nuclear power plant.

In the first instance it's hard to assign a build timeline to an SMR because one hasn't actually been built yet.

In the second instance, the build time lines for existing large-scale nuclear reactors ranging from 1,000MW-e to 1,350MW-e capacity is fairly well known and historically construction completion took between 19.66 to 25.08 years. These days the optimistic theoretical time given for completed construction of a 1,000MW-e nuclear power station is seven and a half years.

In the case of a nuclear power plant with the same capacity as the Eraring coal-fired power station, without factoring in the long lead-in years of legislative framing, planning and approval processes, actual construction could be expected to be completed in 18 years at the earliest. While the World Nuclear Organisation figures would put the overnight cost of this nuclear power plant in Australian dollars at $9,115 per KW-e as a starting point which comes in at over $17.6 million overnight or $6.4 billion over 365 nights.

So if Dutton & Co were to form government in 2025 and hit the ground running - by my reckoning they might, just might, have one solitary nuclear power station built and online by 2058 at a cost on current pricing in the vicinity of $21 billion. Having achieved nothing nuclear towards the net zero by 2050 policy. 

It is interesting to note that the Coalition parties see coal-fired generation as remaining critical to Australia's electricity supply and the Liberal Party makes a point of saying so in its 2025 re-election plan for the resources sector. A plan that doesn't even include the words "nuclear power stations" Indeed one might suspect Dutton and Littleproud of raising the possibility of future nuclear energy as an excuse to maintain all existing coal-fired power stations should they win government again and, that it what makes this particular energy option so attractive a proposition.

Dutton & his nuclear cheer squad are also saying that if elected to federal government that they will not be ruling out including in Coalition policy a crossover to large-scale nuclear power generation on retired or soon to be retired coal-fired power station sites.

A fact that should give communities in places like the Lake Macquarie region reason to pause and consider, given Eraring Power Station is due for retirement soon.

The risks involved with a 2,922MW capacity coal-fired power station already drawing 11 billion litres of salt water a day from Lake Macquarie and returning it after cooling, is a different proposition to a full-scale nuclear power plant of similar capacity drawing at least 7.9 million litres of water a day from an as yet unidentified source, contaminating an unknown percentage of that water with radionuclides – unstable atoms with excess energy – and then seeking to return supposedly 'cleaned' water to the lake.

Given uncontrolled water and liquid effluent releases from nuclear power stations have occurred in the past, some contaminating groundwater, this is one more worry our regional communities do not need.