The Coalition’s nuclear folly

Australian matters

“The Coalition’s promotion of nuclear generation seems to have gained traction, but it’s outrageously incompetent – or deceptive,” writes operations researcher Andrew Gunner.

The Coalition has picked a 56-cent peak rate from a single energy plan to claim that Australians pay four times more for electricity than residents of nuclear-powered Ontario. This is “cherry-picking”, selecting extreme data that supports an argument while ignoring equally valid data that supports the opposite. The Coalition has ignored Australian plans that, at night, charge only 7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour before GST.

“Their cherry-picking is outrageous, a recipe for disaster when used to guide the nation on critical decisions,” Andrew Gunner writes:

“The Coalition claim that nuclear power in Ontario provides electricity at a cost four times cheaper than in Australia. This comparison is fundamentally flawed; for example, it overlooks Ontario Hydro, the entity that built the nuclear generators, going bankrupt and leaving Ontario residents to pay a “debt retirement charge” on their electricity bills from 2002 to 2016.

Worse, their argument relies on an unrealistically high figure of 56 cents per kilowatt-hour for Australian electricity costs (*). If the Coalition cannot accurately represent Australian electricity prices, how can they be trusted to make sound decisions on the complex and costly issue of nuclear power? It is stunning how they have got away with this.

The Coalition needs to explain why Ontario is a good reason for Australia going nuclear. The 56 cents is only one part of the deception. The sin is they are misleading the Australian public, and, if they win, tying themselves into pushing down this path.

The Coalition’s scheme would:

  • need a massive nuclear building project,
  • be more than twice the size of the Hinkley Point C project in the UK with its enormous delays and cost blowouts,
  • only supply 13% of the demand in 2050, making it a minor part of any energy policy,
  • start nuclear generation too late to cover necessary coal plant retirements, and
  • require a massive expansion of gas generation.

The nuclear scheme could only be a minor part of the needed electricity generation, 13 per cent in 2050, and does not address how we would meet 87 per cent of the 2050 demand. Unfortunately, this partial scheme could frighten energy investors and undermine AEMO’s comprehensive plans to supply demand.

This nuclear scheme will increase the cost of living and make Australian industry less competitive because it:

  • relies on the two most expensive forms of generation, nuclear and gas,
  • needs massive subsidies to keep unreliable coal plants running, and
  • cuts back on the cheapest electricity, renewables.

→ Read more

"As we looked more into it, we found #nuclear was a Trojan horse for the coal industry, wanting to keep coal going, and it denied transition to an industry that allowed lower bills," said Hon Matt Kean #auspol #insiders www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05…

[image or embed]

— Scott Hamilton (@sdhamiltonvic.bsky.social) November 30, 2024 at 11:13 AM

*What is the electricity price in Australia?
This Renew Economy article gives the following prices for eastern capitals:

  • Sydney 12.1 cents: 56 is an overestimation by a factor of 56/12.1 = 4.6
  • Brisbane 13.8 cents: overestimation factor = 56/13.8 = 4.1
  • Adelaide 14.2 cents: overestimation factor = 3.9
  • Melbourne 11.6 cents: overestimation factor = 4.8

They did not give country area prices.

An average of these prices = 12.9 cents/kWh

This suggests a more realistic value would be 12.6 cents/kWh and the overestimation would in that case be = 56/12.9 = 4.3

The possible origin of the Coalition’s 56 cents price
The article says it may have found one SA electricity plan that offers (1) 56 cents at peak hours, (2) far lower costs at other times, and (3) pays well for electricity exported to the grid. This could suit a person with batteries and solar panels. It seems that the Coalition has cherry-picked an extremely high value and that this plan, despite the 56-cent price, could give low electricity costs to some households.

Looking at my bill
I looked at my bill with Powershop. It is 26.48  cents/kWh. This becomes 24.1 cents before GST. This suggests an overestimation factor of 2.3.

(I have not searched for the lowest price for my electricity.)

Tango offered a good plan for me: 12.24 cents (11.1 before GST) for the first 15 kWh/day then 24.76 cents (22.5 before GST). The 11.1 is close to the article price for Melbourne.

In summary
The Coalition’s 56 cents is two or even four times higher than a reasonable estimate.

I am amazed that Dutton has got away with this. I do not understand why Albanese has not asked Dutton to either publicly withdraw this 56-cent claim or resign from Parliament. Dutton should be able to understand Australian electricity bills.
~ Andrew Gunner

Andrew Gunner is an Australian professional with a diverse background in applied mathematics. He runs the website Feedback Reigns

Kelly O’Shanassy, CEO, ACF, wrote: 

Just 26% of women think nuclear would be good for Australia, far less than men.*

This is about more than energy policy; it’s about the legacy we want to leave for our kids: one built on sun and wind or a future burdened by radioactive risk and nuclear waste for thousands of years to come. For Australian women the choice is clear.  

Help protect Australia from the wrong choice. Send a prewritten message to Jane Hume, LNP Senator for Victoria, about the gender divide on nuclear. Right now, women inside the Coalition need to shift the conversation to what Australians truly want – effective climate action and continued growth of renewables.

This new DemosAU national polling highlights women’s lack of support for nuclear.* Having failed to convince women and with half the voting base off-side, the Coalition must take notice and change its approach.

Regardless of gender, there’s strong and broad agreement among Australians on three key points: 

  1. Nuclear is too risky. 65% of women say the safety of nuclear plants are a concern – and more than half of men – 55% – agree. Only 18% of women and 38% of men report they would be comfortable living near a nuclear reactor. 
  2. We know nuclear would cost more than solar and wind. 47% of Australians, regardless of gender, agree that renewable energy would deliver cheaper energy than nuclear – this is a much higher percentage than those who disagree (31% for men and 20% for women). 
  3. Nuclear is unrealistic. Just 18% of women and 24% of men think it’s likely a nuclear plant will be built in Australia in the next few decades – this is a clear indication that many Australian voters think nuclear is a fantasy that is unlikely to ever happen, but that risks delaying our adoption of proven renewable energy.

Don’t risk our future being flushed down a dangerous pipe dream. Write to our decision-makers today.

Your message will be copied to the office of Monique Ryan, an independent voice for women in the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy. With one click, your support of a safe, clean energy future will echo from the Senate to the House and into future generations. 

Send prewritten email

Renewable energy is already working for Australia. Right now, renewables provide nearly 40% of our electricity, and that number has doubled in just six years! Under the current federal government approach, it’s set to double again by 2030.

Paired with big battery storage, wind and solar are powering homes, businesses, and industries – in a clean, affordable, reliable fashion.

Meanwhile, nuclear is decades away and comes with enormous risks: disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl, toxic waste, and staggering cost and timeline blowouts. Nuclear isn’t just dangerous – it’s a distraction from real climate action and makes no sense for Australia. 

We must tackle climate pollution head-on, and women in politics have an opportunity to lead a clean energy future. Write to them today and give the women in leadership the backing they need – Australians want a renewable not radioactive tomorrow.

This is the long-view that’s needed to mend climate damage, deliver affordable and secure energy and protect our communities – now and into the future. Thanks for your support and remember – together we are (renewable) powerful.   

Kelly   

Kelly O’Shanassy 
Chief Executive Officer 

* We collaborated with DemosAU and 1 Million Women to collect this research, published on 5 December 2024. You can read the full report on our website.

John Grimes, CEO, Smart Energy Council: “Nuclear is the biggest threat to the renewables industry in a decade. Cunning and dangerous.
A clear and present threat to renewable jobs, projects innovation and your business.”

Podcast episode about nuclear

For 15 years working in energy and climate investment, I’ve fielded my fair share of BBQ questions. The top three have been:
• Can you recommend a good solar panel installer?
• When should I buy an electric vehicle?
• What’s your take on nuclear?

I have never answered the last one with much conviction.
With nuclear energy sparking global and Australian debates this year, it felt like the right time to dig deeper. Enter Simon Holmes à Court: self proclaimed energy geek, long-time industry observer, and someone who’s toured nuclear sites around the world.
The goal? To provide a nuanced perspective about nuclear technology in a space dominated by five-minute or less talking head news clips.
This is a complicated topic so it was great to sit down with Simon over a few hours to try and do it justice. We needed several hours more!

Here’s what we covered:
What people get wrong about nuclear;
The global nuclear landscape;
Safety, waste and water concerns;
Cost and generation profiles;
Timelines: if Australia started now, when we might have a nuclear energy plant?;
The potential role of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs);
Political and regulatory challenges; and
Whether “Pulp Fission” or “Fission Chips” is a better title for a nuclear power podcast.

“Nuclear energy is not a religion…it’s just a way of boiling water”
~ Simon Holmes à Court on the latest episode of A Positive Climate

→ Listen to the podcast out now on Spotify or Apple Podcasts or your favourite platform here.

This 40-minute ABC Four Corners documentary on the topic is worth watching, if you’d like to understand the complexities of the topic: what is the future of nuclear power in Australia?

“Is nuclear a viable answer to Australia’s energy woes or is it a quixotic quest never to be realised? Peter Dutton says without nuclear we’ll never reach net zero, yet his own party’s former leader, Malcolm Turnbull, says it’s a “dangerously stupid” idea.
 
Many say the answer lies overseas – in countries that have already embraced nuclear as a part of their energy puzzle. In Nuclear Gamble, reporter Eric Campbell travels to the largest producer of nuclear energy in the world and the place where atomic energy all began – the United States of America – to find out if we should go all in on this controversial energy solution.”

In Australia as in the United States, some politicians see no shame in lying.

Here is what Jason Wood, a 56-year-old Australian politician representing the Liberal Party, wrote on Facebook:
“Renewables is a plan for higher prices that risks rolling blackouts”.

After 10 days, his Facebook post had recived 1,700 likes.