2 October 2024

ALAN HAYES

 

DESPITE Dutton’s unfounded arguments, those attending ‘the much awaited’ luncheon – a future prophecy of a utopian society, bathed in cheap and abundant nuclear power, only achievable by a Liberal Coalition government - were quickly disappointed.

 

The consultants, accountants, mining lobbyists and energy entrepreneurs who listened to the ‘Dutton-pie-in-the-sky’ dream unfold, quickly realised that the Liberal ‘spin master’ did not address any of the most pressing questions, including the price tag to be foisted upon Australian taxpayers.

 

Yet, not surprisingly, in a modern Liberal Party, Peter Dutton’s nuclear push actually makes sense – not withstanding that ‘Big Government Dutton’ still cannot explain how he intends to finance and build seven nuclear reactors … “we will release our costings in due course — at a time of our choosing.”

 

Even though Dutton released his plans to build nuclear reactors on the sites of coal-fired power stations across the country by 2040 at his soiree last week - two in Queensland, at Tarong and Callide, two in NSW, at Liddell and Lithgow, one at Port Augusta in SA, one at the current Loy Yang A site in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, and one at Muja in south-western WA - it was a launch of an idea – not a policy. It was an idea that has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. An idea that still gives no clear understanding of exactly how the Liberal leader will achieve such an improbable feat; despite Dutton boldly saying nuclear is “the only plan for cheaper, cleaner, and consistent energy”, even though the vast majority of energy experts have questioned whether broad economics and timing assumptions of this plan will stack up.

 

The ill-conceived plan did reveal that Dutton all-but conceded that delays in commissioning nuclear reactors will keep more coal-fired plants in service for longer when their reliability is already a problem.

 

Dutton also argued that nuclear power could be used to back up renewables, even though under his assumptions they would function more like coal-powered stations to produce large amounts of energy at a steady rate. Although the more flexible small modular reactors could be modified to provide surge power to back renewables, their more natural role he said "is providing baseload power".

 

Yet according to the New South Wales Department for Climate Change, Energy and Environment, the estimated cost of large scale nuclear reactors would be $70 billion to replace the 8300 megawatts of coal fired power stations.

 

If you were to build small scale modular nuclear reactors, the number would increase to $211 billion.

 

The CSIRO says small scale nuclear is $230 to $380 a megawatt hour.

 

The one obvious crack in ‘Doctor Spin Dutton’s’ argument was that his nuclear folly is an economy wrecker. Under the Liberal Coalition, Australian manufacturing would face a decade of uncertainty and taxpayers would finance the renationalisation of electricity generation.

 

Dutton's nuclear madness!

 

Dutton’s ‘On the Beach’ moment is a 'chilling' reminder of the dangers of nuclear power, considering that one of the reactors he is keen on building will be located at the decommissioned Liddell power plant site, just outside of  Muswellbrook - the earthquake capital of Australia.

 

Muswellbrook has had around 30 registered seismic events in the area since January this year, according to Geoscience Australia records, and more than 150 in the past 20 years, many of which happen near or under coal mining operations because the mines are close to natural fault lines.

 

Muswellbrook is already on the way to becoming a renewables powerhouse, with AGL, having decommissioned the Liddell coal power station, now preparing the site for future use as part of the Hunter Energy Hub.

 

Projects already include pumped hydro, including the use of an existing mine void and a 500 MW/2GWh grid scale battery, one of Australia’s biggest, on the Liddell site, with construction already under way.

 

The question is, why would the Opposition Leader want to site a nuclear power station where a renewables makeover has already commenced?

 

The CSIRO has already proven that nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity for Australia.

 

After two decades of climate change denial, the Coalition continues to blithely ignore science.

 

If this proposal was actually financially viable, nuclear would attract energy industry investment.

 

Instead, Dutton’s plan relies on taxpayers coughing up billions of dollars to fund the fanciful roll out of technologies that don’t yet exist.

 

Dutton's nuclear plants would produce electricity 50% more expensive than renewables, while endangering workers, consuming billions of litres from our precious water supply, and producing toxic nuclear waste with no viable plan for storage.

 

Who else has jumped on the nuclear bandwagon?

 

Member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, who has had a love-hate relationship with renewables, and up until 2017, when he was quite positive about renewable projects in his electorate, was a supporter of wind farms and solar PV.

 

Joyce of course did a black-flip and jumped in with a ‘herd mentality’ to support nuclear energy and has been there ever since. He has become the self-appointed poster boy for groups opposing renewables, particularly in the New England, Illawarra and Hunter regions – delivering all the animation and rhetoric of a Greek philosopher but utterly and completely devoid of facts. He has previously claimed that France and Finland’s energy is cheaper than Australia’s because they use nuclear energy.

 

This claim was fact-checked by Australian Associated Press (AAP), Australia’s only independent newswire service, as wrong.

 

Also joining the nuclear energy throng is mining magnate Gina Rinehart, who has called for a nuclear-powered Australia to replace “bird-killing wind generators and massive solar panel stretches,” she said, at a rare speech she gave at the Australian Bush summit in Perth last year.

 

“Bring on clean, safe nuclear energy please, Australia.”

 

Rinehart said “anyone who wishes to solely use renewables should be free to do so, but others opting for more traditional energy supply methods should be allowed to continue.”

 

But is there another reason for Rinehart’s push to go nuclear? In 2022, Coalition donor Rinehart invested $60 million in Arafura Rare Earths. Arafura’s Nolans Project outputs involve exploration and processing of rare earths, including uranium ‘as a minor product’. A minor product that could be very lucrative for her if Australia had nuclear energy.

 

And what’s going on between Peter Dutton and Gina Rinehart? Peter Dutton doesn't just like to attend Gina Rinehart's parties — he seems to like taking policy advice from her too and flying around the country in her private jet.

 

A dose of the truth

 

Currently, more than one third of Australia’s electricity is already powered by renewables – we do not need distractions like nuclear to derail the progress. But renewables alone, and battery and capacitor storage, is not the magic solution – solar panels and battery storage are great as a home energy system but we still require reliable base-load power.

 

Just like coal, oil and gas, uranium is a finite resource. It needs to be mined and, just like mining coal, oil and gas, this carries serious safety concerns, including contaminating the environment with radioactive dust, radon gas, water-borne toxins, and increased levels of background radiation.

 

The problem is that Peter Dutton isn’t interested in climate change, he isn’t interested in good policy and he isn’t interested, it would seem, in legislation that outlaws the building of nuclear power plants in Australia - the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 both prohibit the approval, licensing, construction, or operation of a nuclear plant.

 

Why was legislation introduced to ban nuclear power plants? Because of the creation of radioactive wastes, such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years – when there is a malfunction it can be catastrophic.

 

So, after 9 years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-billion dollar nuclear flavoured energy policy.

 

Dutton’s nuclear folly is the ‘classic dead cat’! It’s designed to do nothing more than to distract voters away from the Coalition's hatred for wind and solar power, and from the fact that real action is needed – he isn’t keen on large-scale renewables, or any other solution that moves away from ‘mined’ fossil fuel.

 

Adopting Dutton’s nuclear energy madness would also mean calling on taxpayers to pay the owners of ageing coal-fired power stations to keep them open long after the end of their economic lives, so as to bridge the base-load power gap.

 

A way forward

 

As previously reported by the Grapevine, on more than one occasion, the fact is we need base-load power for a reliable grid system that will cater for industry and domestic electricity. We need base-load technologies that are carbon-free and do not create green-house gases, such as hydro, pumped-hydro and molten salt. Yet Chris Bowen and the Albanese Government seem to have their heads completely buried in mounds of salt when it comes to molten salt technology – concentrated solar thermal energy (CSP).

 

So, how does CSP technology work? CSP technologies use mirrors to reflect and concentrate heat from the sun onto a receiver. The concentrated energy heats a high temperature fluid in the receiver – in most cases critically super-heated salt, which becomes fluid, if used. This steams water circulating through the receiver, which drives a steam turbine connected to an electrical power generator. As the steam driving the turbine cools and condenses it is captured in a cooling tower and returned to the system, to be once again super-heated.

 

The advantage of CSP is that it provides endless amounts of energy, 24/7; no CO2 emissions during operation and reduces our dependency on fossil fuel.

 

There are currently one hundred CSP plants providing power to nations around the world. They are less expensive to build than coal-fired, gas and nuclear power plants and far less expensive to build than pumped-hydro.. But without real leadership and real change to eliminate fossil fuel, and quash the nuclear debate once-and-for-all, Australia will continue to face and uncertain and ever-increasing-expensive energy future.

 

We don’t need Dutton’s nuclear madness nor do we need the current government's ‘Galah-style-indecision’ – we need decisive action before it’s too late.

Name (First & Last):

Email:

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Subscription received.

SUBSCRIBE