As in every election over the last 20 years, at stake will be the question of whether Australia chooses a clean energy future, or prolongs the life of coal and gas – an outcome the nuclear plan relies on.
In that sense, nuclear energy is shaping up as an election fig leaf like no other.
John is on Mastodon @johnquiggin@aus.social. I’m not sure if me tagging him here on Lemny federates to Mastodon ?
If the plant isn’t going to start construction until 2030, that’s still plenty of time to build renewables, nuclear isn’t supposed to be your only source of power.
A key part of the coalition nuclear plan is to block the further construction of solar and wind.
There is currently twice as much approved (but yet to be constructed) capacity as the coalition intends to allow in the next 15 years.Why is it that only the fossil fuel-backed coalition support constructing the nuclear plant?
Shouldn’t the other guys want cheap, clean energy?
The coalition has multiple aims here.
- This is a political differentiator - they become the “Nuclear” party.
- Nuclear technologies create a wonderful wedge to split any green support along the “reduce carbon” and “anti radioactive” line.
- In a best case, if they started tomorrow, there would be AT LEAST a decade (more like 15 years) before the first Nuclear electricity got onto the grid, and in the meantime their fossil fuel backers get to BURN-BABY-BURN.
And that’s before we get into all the other little thing, that are really just colouring around the edges, ie spending taxpayer money to build a new monopoly which the government can later privatise to their sponsors.
One of the things that I haven’t seen any of the recent articles highlighting is how no investment body is willing to back the construction of nuclear power in Australia, so the government will have to 100% bankroll it with our taxes.
Meanwhile, private equity are lining up to invest in wind, solar, batteries etc - just angling for subsidies because “why not?”.
This ALONE should be indicative of most likely outcomes.Because according to the coalition’s own report that came out a few days ago at best nuclear will cost about five times as much as wind and ten times as much as solar.
This means using the same limited funding they would only displace one fifth to one tenth as much coal and gas, and doing so would take fifteen years instead of five.
Nuclear was the answer when we discovered we needed to end fossil fuel use seventy years ago, it was the option when all the nations of the world agreed that fossil fuel use must end thirty years ago, and it may have been viable fifteen years ago, but there is a reason that the same fossil fuel companies that spent the last seventy years throwing billions at anyone who would say nuclear bad suddenly changed their mind, not coincidentally at about the same time battery backed solar and wind replaced coal and gas as the lowest cost of reliable electricity production.
The other major advantage Nuclear has for coal and gas companies is that once funding is locked in and construction started, it is very easy for them to sue, delay, and give millions to any resident who wants more nuclear, but just not this specific plant, and to ultimately turn a ten year construction timeline into a thirty year one.
That’s means they get at least ten, probably twenty to thirty years of selling coal and gas that they don’t get if the finding goes to solar and the same generation capacity is built in three to five years.
This also is all before noting that the coalition’s report also expects that as cars, cooking, and heating go to all electric demand for electricity will shrink for some reason, so we better not build enough nuclear to even supply the Australia of today, much less the Australian of 2040 when these plants start to actually produce power, and as such it’s possible Australia could be burning just as much coal and gas in thirty years as we do today.
By contrast, if Australia takes advantage of being the best country in the world for solar between its vast sunny desert and being the world’s largest lithium producer than the last fossil fuel plant is dead inside of ten years.
The other major advantage Nuclear has for coal and gas companies is that once funding is locked in and construction started, it is very easy for them to sue, delay, and give millions to any resident who wants more nuclear, but just not this specific plant, and to ultimately turn a ten year construction timeline into a thirty year one.
See this is one I don’t get, why should an extended nuclear construction time be displaced by building more coal and gas plants instead of renewables, other than the fact that the only party who says they want to build a nuclear plant is using it to justify continuing to build more coal and gas?
Because fossil fuel plants are a lot cheaper to build than renewables, though far more expensive to run, so if a plant is temporary and only expected to be needed for a few years than you have found the one place where financially fossil fuel power production is cheaper.
Moreover, in this scenario the government is already spending basically all of its infrastructure money on the nuclear plants, while our friendly oil companies will give you the fossil pants for free.
That being said, I would expect it to be less building new fossil fuel plants, though given the aging coal plant problem it might be some, and more keeping existing fossil fuel plants running because after all, ‘we just need it for a few more years’ and ‘natural gas is a great brige fuel to net zero’.
I am pro-nuclear power but also a realist. We have a small population, limited capital and a skills shortage in this area. We can’t move as fast or as cheap as countries with existing nuclear capabilities. We are facing a global problem and it makes more sense for us to export nuclear fuel to countries that can increase nuclear capacity much more cost effectively than try and build our own. Same reason we sell iron ore and import cars. The coalition didn’t want to continue to subsidize foreign companies manufacturing vehicles in Australia. To be competitive in the global economy you have to play to your strengths.
We had to bring in Argentinian expertise to build our research reactor. If there was multi party support for increased nuclear R&D towards a small scale power generation plant and it wasn’t to be at the expense of renewable investment or throw a lifeline to coal and gas then I would be in.
The coalition is serious about nuclear as a political strategy, not as a solution for climate change. They want to cut renewable investment and extend and even increase coal and gas consumption for the benefit of their mates. They hope to win back voters concerned the coalition isn’t concerned about climate change (eg Teals) with a decisive strategy and want to paint the other parties as not serious about climate change because they won’t consider nuclear.
Everyone concerned about the current situation has been forced to consider nuclear. The killer is the economics. Everyone who has looked into it knows the problems and the massive opportunity costs that would result. Massive state intervention forcing nuclear power on consumers, investors and taxpayers who don’t want to pay for it goes against the principles of the Liberal Party and shows how much of a sellout Dutton and co have become.
We do, and that aint nuclear.
Looking elsewhere, building more renewables does not appear to be part of the plan.
Similarly:
Dutton has already vowed to scrap the offshore windfarm zone planned for the Illawarra region of New South Wales, despite the fact his party passed laws paving the way for offshore wind in 2021.
