Au Nuclear power: 5 reasons to say NO

[Sparty]

The AFR's article is about the five reasons why the Australian Labor Party's Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, believes that nuclear power is the wrong solution for Australia's energy transition.

The five reasons are:

It is too expensive. The cost of building and operating nuclear power plants has increased significantly in recent years, and it is not clear that nuclear power can be made competitive with renewables in the long term.

It is not a flexible source of energy. Nuclear power plants cannot be easily turned on and off, which makes them difficult to integrate with a grid that is increasingly reliant on variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

It has a long construction time. It can take many years to build a nuclear power plant, which means that it would not be a quick fix for Australia's energy problems.
It is a risky technology. Nuclear power plants pose a risk of accidents, such as the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011.

It creates radioactive waste. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that must be disposed of safely, which is a costly and difficult process.
Bowen argues that these five reasons make nuclear power a poor choice for Australia's energy transition. He believes that Australia should focus on investing in renewables and energy efficiency, which are more affordable, flexible, and sustainable options.

It is important to note that there are also arguments in favor of nuclear power. Some people believe that it is a necessary part of the solution to climate change, as it is a low-carbon source of energy that can generate large amounts of electricity. Others argue that the risks of nuclear power are overstated, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to pursue nuclear power is a complex one that must be made on a case-by-case basis. There is no easy answer, and the best solution for Australia will depend on a variety of factors, including the cost of nuclear power, the availability of renewable energy, and the country's risk tolerance. Read the full article it contains several links and much more information.

[Sparty]

Big question-mark over new nuclear’: German utility CEO https://www.afr.com/companies/energy...0230901-p5e1f3

[Sparty]

Dutton’s nuclear plan would mean propping up coal for at least 12 more years – and we don’t know what it would cost.

Published: September 25, 2024 6.27am AEST

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has revealed the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan relies on many of Australia’s coal-fired power stations running for at least another 12 years – far beyond the time frame officials expect the ageing facilities to last.

The claim has set off a new round of speculation over the Coalition’s plans – the viability of which has already been widely questioned by energy analysts.

Dutton offered up limited detail in a speech on Monday. He also revealed the plan relies on ramping up Australia’s gas production.

It seems increasingly clear the Coalition’s nuclear policy would prolong Australia’s reliance on coal, at a time when the world is rapidly moving to cleaner sources of power.

Coal: old and tired
The Coalition wants to build nuclear reactors on the sites of closed coal plants. It says the first reactors could come online by the mid-2030s. However, independent analysis shows the earliest they could be built is the 2040s.

Now it appears the Coalition’s plan involves relying on coal to provide electricity while nuclear reactors are being built. On Monday, Dutton suggested coal-fired electricity would be available into the 2030s and ‘40s.

But this is an overly optimistic reading of coal’s trajectory. The Australian Energy Market Operator says 90% of coal-fired power in the National Electricity Market will close by 2035.

All this suggests the Coalition plans to extend the life of existing coal plants. But this is likely to cost money. Australia’s coal-fired power stations are old and unreliable – that’s why their owners want to shut them down. To keep plants open means potentially operating them at a loss, while having to invest in repairs and upgrades.

This is why coal plant owners sought, and received, payments from state governments to delay exits when the renewables rollout began falling behind schedule.

So who would wear the cost of delaying coal’s retirement? It might be energy consumers if state governments decide to recoup the costs via electricity bills. Or it could be taxpayers, through higher taxes, reduced services or increased government borrowing. In other words, we will all have to pay, just from different parts of our personal budgets.

Labor’s energy plan also relies on continued use of coal. Dutton pointed to moves by the New South Wales and Victorian governments to extend the life of coal assets in those states. For example, the NSW Labor government struck a deal with Origin to keep the Eraring coal station open for an extra two years, to 2027.

However, this is a temporary measure to keep the electricity system reliable because the renewables build is behind schedule. It is not a defining feature of the plan.

New transmission is essential under either plan
Dutton claims Labor’s renewable energy transition will require a massive upgrade to transmission infrastructure. The transmission network largely involves high-voltage lines and towers, and transformers.

He claims the Coalition can circumvent this cost by building nuclear power plants on seven sites of old coal-fired power stations, and thus use existing transmission infrastructure.

Labor’s shift to renewable energy does require new transmission infrastructure, to get electricity from far-flung wind and solar farms to towns and cities. It’s also true that building nuclear power stations at the site of former coal plants would, in theory, make use of existing transmission lines, although the owners of some of these sites have firmly declined the opportunity.

But even if the Coalition’s nuclear plan became a reality, new transmission infrastructure would be needed.

Australia’s electricity demand is set to surge in coming decades as we move to electrify our homes, transport and heavy industry. This will require upgrades to transmission infrastructure, because it will have to carry more electricity. Many areas of the network are already at capacity.

So in reality, both Labor’s and the Coalition’s policies are likely to require substantial spending on transmission.

Many unanswered questions
It’s now three months since the Coalition released its nuclear strategy. Detail was thin then – and Monday’s speech shed little light.

Many unanswered questions remain – chief among them, costings of the nuclear plan, and how much of that will be born by government. CSIRO says a nuclear reactor would cost at least A$8.6 billion.

We also don’t know how the Coalition would acquire the sites, or get around nuclear bans in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

We still don’t know how the Coalition plans to keep the lights on in the coming decade, as coal exits.

And crucially, we don’t know what it will cost households and businesses. It is unlikely to be cheap. Ends

I'll add:

Has anyone asked the people who live next/near the existing coal plants
if they'd like to live next to a nuclear reactor?