Pro-Nuclear Power Stance Spells Doom For Subsidised Wind & Solar

Ever-reliable nuclear power poses the biggest threat to the wind and solar industries, and they know it.

Renewable energy rent-seekers hate nuclear because it works and provides the perfect answer to those fretting about carbon dioxide gas. The wind and solar cult claim that there is no other way to save the planet from the dreaded CO2 than carpeting it in solar panels and wind turbines.

As STT has pointed out once or twice, there is no other way of providing 24 x 365 power without generating CO2 emissions, than stand-alone nuclear (stored hydro and geothermal can, but the former relies on regular rainfall and suffers output restrictions during droughts; the latter is location specific).

Little wonder then that those profiting from the wind and solar scam in Australia are terrified of any mention of government support for nuclear power. They know full well that the unreliables can never compete on price or reliability. And that’s because there is a heavy cost attached to having power that can’t be delivered on demand (the exorbitant cost of running inefficient gas turbines and diesel generators is born by power consumers). With nuclear there is no need for batteries; no need for back up, which means the total cost of providing nuclear power 24 x 365 is always fraction of the cost of wind solar (which always and everywhere requires an equal capacity of dispatchable power).

The Liberal National Federal Coalition have finally announced a policy that backs nuclear power and will take it to the next Federal election.

Having done so, in one fell swoop, the Coalition have undermined the entire case for subsidised wind and solar. All of a sudden, investors are screaming ‘sovereign risk’.

There are thousands of wind and solar projects in the pipeline at the moment and, even now, none of them can attract the finance necessary; based on events overseas, investors are already nervous. However, with the Coalition backing nuclear outright STT predicts that there will not be an investor in his or her right mind that will put a nickel anywhere near a wind and solar project in Australia, ever again.

Here are a couple of pieces from The Australian that spell doom for the already beleaguered wind and solar industries.

‘Coal plants perfect for reactors’, says Coalition
The Australian
Geoff Chambers
15 February 2024

Coalition MPs want nuclear power plants built on the sites of coal-fired power stations to minimise environmental impacts of massive renewable projects and transmission lines, as new ­research reveals nuclear reactor footprints could match existing coal plant infrastructure.

Queensland Liberal National Party MPs Ted O’Brien, Keith Pitt, Colin Boyce, Llew O’Brien and Phillip Thompson backed a ­Coalition nuclear approach alongside renewables, with coal and gas maintained as baseload fuels until reactors are built.

Mr Pitt, a former resources minister who commissioned Parliamentary Library research into coal-fired power stations and ­nuclear reactor costs and waste management, said AUKUS ­ensured “nuclear reactors will be used in Australia”.

“Nuclear power stations mean tiny amounts of land used, less transmission lines and reliable ­affordable electricity for Australian consumers and industry when compared with intermittent wind and solar,” Mr Pitt said.

On nuclear waste, Mr Pitt claimed US Energy Department data shows “old-tech nuclear powers 70 million homes … producing half an Olympic pool of waste every year. Compare that to the millions of tonnes of solar and wind turbine blades waste that are coming. And nuclear last decades. Wind and solar, 20 years if you’re lucky.”

The research included a list of recently built nuclear power plants, constructed for between $US2.7bn and $US12.6bn depending on unit numbers.

The 1340MW South Korean Shin Hanul 2 reactor, which connected in December and has an overall footprint of 174ha and a plant footprint of 9ha, cost $6bn for two reactors. The 1600MW Olkiluoto nuclear plant in Finland costing $12.4bn was constructed on an area of approximately 19ha.

Across nine nuclear reactor models, the volume of low and ­intermediate level radioactive waste generated annually by 1GWe power plants range from 200 to 5000 cubic metres.

Mr O’Brien, the opposition climate change and energy spokesman working with Peter Dutton on the Coalition’s election policy, said they were adopting an “all-of-the-above” approach to “practically deliver net zero by 2050”.

“Other nations think we’re nuts as we destroy our world-famous natural environment in an unprecedented radical experiment of a ‘renewables-only’ grid while ­ignoring zero-emissions nuclear energy, especially given no one has more uranium reserves than us,” the Fairfax MP said.

Mr Boyce, who has three coal-fired power stations in his seat of Flynn, said “let’s have a conservation about (nuclear) … let’s be sensible and reasonable”.

“Many countries around the world are reinvesting in nuclear power because the reality is it’s the only technology that we have currently, other than fossil fuel technology, to supply reliable power,” the central Queensland MP said.

Mr Thompson said the Nat­ional Electricity Market would be hit with blackouts if Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen scaled back or shutdown coal. “He wants to highlight what every other country is doing around renewables but they’re the same countries that also do ­nuclear power,” he said. The North Queensland MP for Herbert said Australia should look at existing coal plant infrastructure and consider making the “shift to nuclear”. “We look at it with open eyes and we do support renewables projects. But I don’t think any responsible government should be ruling out nuclear.”

Mr O’Brien, who criticised the Queensland government’s $14.2bn Borumba Dam Pumped Hydro project in his Wide Bay electorate, said “there’s a potential to use the same boilers that we’re using at the moment”.

“Experts would make the decisions on what’s the most viable. We’ve got to get our skates on and start initiating the conversation,” he said.
The Australian

Nuclear option made easy by the renewables miscue
The Australian
Editorial
7 February 2024

Immediately after the 2022 federal election pundits were quick to declare the climate wars were over and all that was needed was legislative certainty for business to get on with the job. Urged along by the Greens and teal independents, Labor lifted Australia’s emissions reduction target to 43 per cent, requiring renewable energy to supply 82 per cent of total electricity by 2030. The safeguard mechanism was strengthened to force big companies to cut their emissions by 5 per cent a year or pay a financial penalty. On paper the pathway was for business to take up the challenge laid out by government to enable Australia to rejoin the global collective on climate action.

Halfway through the Albanese government’s first term, progress has been slower and more expensive than predicted. Despite the increased certainty for business, investment has slowed, not increased. Obstacles have arisen in key projects including Snowy Hydro 2.0, the thousands of kilometres of transmission lines needed to enable a renewables-only future and the big generation assets, including offshore wind. Investment fell to below the level it was during the Morrison government as projects had difficulty securing access to an already stretched electricity grid network. For consumers, power prices have risen.

Two events during the past week emphasise the size of the problem. A summer storm in Victoria left hundreds of thousands of energy users without power. And BHP confirmed it was considering closing down its West Australian nickel investments, which would virtually guarantee an end to hopes of Australia making the transition from major fossil fuel producer to battery maker. The federal government has stepped in with new subsidies that put taxpayers on the hook for billions. Lithium, the other major feedstock for electrification, is under similar price pressure. It has been wrong to assume that Australia will automatically maintain its dominant position in supplying raw materials to the world for a green transition. Other countries have the same idea and the evidence is we cannot compete with low-cost producers such as Indonesia. The same is true for development of new technologies including hydrogen as a liquid fuel to replace gas. Myriad nations are trying to crack the code to reduce the cost of producing green hydrogen and the US has stolen a march with the Inflation Reduction Act, which is attracting the biggest companies and brightest minds.

With more restrictive industrial relations laws, green tape, lawfare and punitive new taxes on fossil fuels, there is little to suggest the Albanese government is aware of the potential difficulties that lie on the horizon. Peter Dutton is suggesting Australia follow the lead of other major developed economies and look to nuclear power as a replacement of the baseload electricity that is currently supplied by coal. There is a lot to like about nuclear, given it is a safe, dense energy source that will not involve despoiling vast tracts of land with infrastructure that will be vulnerable to extreme storms. The business case being put is that nuclear plants be built at the site of existing coal-fired power stations so they can use existing grid infrastructure. Going nuclear is a logical option for emissions-free power that was investigated by the Howard government as a precaution to the mess we find ourselves in today. Nuclear is a sensible option but incendiary politics. It rekindles the climate wars and undermines the certainty that is craved by business. Nonetheless, it is an issue that must be dealt with properly and now. The first step is to withdraw the legislative ban that exists in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Failure to act on that will show that opponents such as the Greens, the teals and Labor are not serious about meeting the climate challenge in the most effective and expedient way.
The Australian