Dutton’s nuclear meltdown

Big nuclear Dutton last week revealed his party’s plan to solve Australia’s energy crisis, but is it no more than a personal nuclear explosion, a nefarious plot to keep fossil fuel in the energy mix, or a complete loss of the political plot? His announcement breaks all the rules of policy making and is a clear path to political self-destruction.

26 June 2024

ALAN HAYES

 

IT WOULD be hard not to argue that there’s an overwhelming madness in many of the political decisions that are often made, but it would seem that Peter Dutton has pulled the pin on a political hand grenade.

 

The glossy brochure handed out by the coalition at last week’s press conference claims “the timeline for establishing a civil nuclear program in Australia”, including “building two establishment projects is 10 to 12 years from the government making a decision until zero emissions nuclear electricity first enters the grid.”

 

Separately, it also states “a federal Coalition government will initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400. They will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).”

 

That timeline is at odds with the CSIRO’s estimate that nuclear could not be deployed until 2040 at the earliest. There are no small modular reactors currently in operation in any developed country, and the US project touted by the Coalition, NuScale in Idaho, was shut down in November due to soaring costs.

 

According to the CSIRO’s costings, seven reactors at $8.6 billion each for a 1000MW reactor, would cost $60.2 billion, however the first build would suffer a first of a kind premium of up to 100% in addition to that – so, the real cost would likely be approximately $70 Billion. That does not include a cost blow-out of 20-30% of a kind that has characterised nearly all major infrastructure projects in Australia over the past two decades.

 

Dutton’s fantasy dream has already become a money vacuum before the Coalition has even released any costings.

 

According to the CSIRO, small modular reactors will cost two to three-and-a-half times more than large-scale nuclear plants per unit of output.

 

As the Darryl Kerrigan character kept saying in the 1997 Australian movie The Castle: “he must be dreaming!”

 

Dutton’s behaviour is radical at best, and there’s now little doubt that he has torn up the script of sanity – plunging his party into the political wilderness of ‘never-never-land’ as their chances of election are flushed down the toilet.

 

Not surprisingly, the Dutton ‘salvation announcement’ for cheaper electricity for everyone was grossly lacking in detail or how he intends to pull such a miracle off. But like many of the policies that Peter Dutton proposes, voters are no closer to understanding the crux of the illusion – how he intends to pull the rabbit out of the hat. Not withstanding the fact that his ‘China syndrome’ solution has more ‘snags’ than a centipede has legs.

 

Convincing Australians that nuclear power is feasible and preferable is a gigantic ask beyond the realms of imagination – it’s the stuff of ‘cloud cuckoo land’.

 

It would be difficult for most Australians not to feel that Dutton’s announcement was not propelling them down the ‘rabbit hole’ into a tea party with the ‘Mad Hatter’ from Alice in Wonderland. Yet the Coalition says it will reveal the cost down the track.

 

But to leave unanswered such a crucial detail when the entire debate is centred around the cost of energy leaves the policy vulnerable and impossible to critically assess. It is a blueprint for a personal nuclear apocalypse – a hi-vis orange vest with a massive target front and back – with a shockwave that could skittle Dutton and his adamant supporter, National Party Leader, David Littleproud.

 

Member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid said, “Nuclear energy is too slow to keep the lights on, too expensive to build and too risky for Australia’s energy needs.

 

“Peter Dutton must explain why he will not be upfront and honest with Australians about how much this is going to cost. All we know is that energy bills and taxes will rise to pay for the Coalition’s risky nuclear plan.

 

“The same people who told us we did not need to worry about climate change for the last decade are now telling us the answer to climate change is nuclear.

 

"They did not do anything when they had the chance, and this is just another desperate attempt to distract from renewables.

 

“The latest GenCost report by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator found that bringing nuclear online would be too slow to keep the lights on, confirming ‘the first full operation would be no sooner than 2040’.

 

“The CSIRO has also found the cost of power from nuclear reactors is up to eight times more expensive than firmed renewables, with the cost of single plant as high as $16 billion.

 

“Last year, the world installed 440GW of renewable capacity. This is more than the world’s entire existing nuclear capacity built up over decades.

 

“Nuclear energy is wrong for Australia. We have the best renewable resources in the world, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country in the world, with above-average wind.”

 

Dutton has committed the Coalition to building seven reactors on the sites of coal-fired power stations: two in Queensland, at Tarong and Callide, two in NSW, at Liddell and Lithgow (Mt. Piper), 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.

 

Well-known Central Coast environmentalist Mike Campbell, who over the years was part of the successful campaigns to prevent more coal-fired power stations being built on the Central Coast, and in stopping gas and coal mining in the Central Coast’s major drinking water catchment, said “One of the outright absurdities of the Dutton plan is the site of Mt. Piper Power Station nestled on the edge of the mountains at Lithgow.

 

“Dutton says, without any thought of technical research, that the waste from the nuclear reactor will be dealt with on site.

 

“Anyone with half a brain can see that the Blue Mountains region carries vast canyons of water down to the river systems. How in hell can you try to bury nuclear waste without poisoning all living things to the east and to the west.”

 

What many Australians probably don’t realise is that almost all of the nuclear power plants in western nations were constructed in 1970s and 1980s. The technology has since been abandoned by many countries for far better options that are less expensive to build and maintain – in particular non-polluting ‘green power’ produced by ‘concentrated solar thermal power’ plants (CSP).

 

Minister for the Central Coast, David Harris said, "Creating uncertainty in investment flow could potentially put at risk $32 billion in NSW.

 

"The LNP announcement lacks detailed costings and small modular reactors are still under development with no clear analysis actual electricity prices.

 

"In fact the most advanced US example in Idaho has just been cancelled due to cost blow-outs and lack of subscribers.

 

"It's a risky policy which could well lead to energy chaos. Last week the National Party MPs for Bathurst and Upper Hunter opposed nuclear plants being built in Lithgow and Liddell - Daily Telegraph story Not in their backyard."

 

As one would reasonably expect, however, many of the younger generation of Australians are celebrating, seduced by Dutton’s claim of cheaper electricity, because they believe nuclear is good – mainly, due to their ignorance. But their jubilance will be short-lived once the real cost of Dutton’s ‘nuclear folly’ is revealed. The cost of cheap electricity won’t stack up!

 

There will be no cheaper electricity bills

 

Dutton confirmed in in his announcement last week “The Australian government will own these assets, but form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies to build and operate them” – reducing the incentive for companies to invest in constructions and, instead, foisting the cost onto Aussie taxpayers.

 

Commonwealth legislation passed by the Howard government in 1998 prohibits nuclear power. Australia is the only country in the G20 to have a legislated ban on nuclear power. This would need to be lifted before anything else could happen.

 

Without state government cooperation, which is tantamount to flogging a dead horse that died when Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup in 1930, nuclear power plants can’t become a reality. Convincing state governments to also repeal their prohibition on nuclear power is Dutton’s biggest hurdle, despite joking at last week’s nuclear announcement that he had “buckets of money”. It would see an unprecedented political backlash just to appease his unrealistic aspirations to build nuclear power plants - a ludicrous fantasy that Labor State Premiers would avoid ‘like the plague’.

 

The fact remains, nuclear power plants cost too much to build and that the cost to taxpayers would quickly outweigh any savings in electricity bills - only 3.7 per cent of the nation's power would be supplied by the nuclear proposal.

 

One might surmise, however, that a saving might be achieved in electricity bills by going nuclear – the cost of paying the taxes to fund Dutton’s fantasy could see power points and light switches being turned off around the country and the burning of homemade candles for light and heating being used instead.

 

But despite Peter Dutton’s trip down ‘make-believe-lane’, wind and solar both undercut nuclear power supply rates. In the US, the authoritative Lazard energy analysis for 2023 costed storage-backed onshore wind and solar at US $42 to $114 per megawatt-hour, compared to nuclear power at US $141 to $221.

 

The truth about nuclear

 

Since the first nuclear plant started operations in the 1950s, the world has been highly divided on nuclear as a source of energy. While it is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, this type of power is also associated with some of the world's most dangerous and deadliest weapons, not to mention nuclear disasters.

 

Radiation from major nuclear disasters, such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, have impacted hundreds of thousands of people and contaminated vast areas that take decades to clean up.

 

Spent fuel has to be carefully and expensively sealed and stored. And, however small, there is the risk of radiation releases and meltdowns. This hazardous waste contains highly poisonous chemicals like plutonium and uranium pellets. These extremely toxic materials remain highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years, posing a threat to agricultural land, fishing waters, freshwater sources, and humans.

 

Even beyond the horrific implications of meltdown and the intractable problem of waste disposal, nuclear is not practicable on such a large scale as proposed by the Coalition. Any appraisal of future energy technology depends on two important parameters: cost and time. Nuclear fails on both counts.

 

Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, and sustainable future. It is both expensive and dangerous, and just because nuclear pollution is invisible, it doesn't mean that it's clean 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.

 

To be clear, uranium mining is destructive and toxic. Renewable energy is better for the environment, the economy, and unlike the Coalition’s wild and unsubstantiated claims, wind, solar and CSP plants require much less capital to be up and running.

 

So, why is there now an apparent Coalition race to nuclear power?

 

Dutton refuses to offer any costing of his nuclear plan, touting all will be revealed if the Coalition is elected to Government - promising little more than a pipedream, delays, cost blowouts and massive government debt.

 

Interestingly, in the nine years that Peter Dutton and his now nuclear mates were in government, there wasn’t a whisper of a nuclear reactor coming to a ‘town near you’ – or even the slightest attempt to remove the Howard Government’s ban on it.

 

The simple fact is that the Coalition are climate change deniers and will seize on any opportunity to denounce that burning fossil fuel is having a dramatic and adverse impact upon our planet, even to the extent of pretending to pursue an unachievable nuclear option. Trying to convince voters that they are the only hope for power salvation – cheap energy to keep the lights burning – is mind-boggling.

 

But the Coalition truth is even more sinister – a feeble and ill thought-through distraction, so that they’re not caught out abandoning climate change and maintaining fossil fuel-based power.