Nuclear Showdown: Wind & Solar Rent-Seekers Terrified of Nuclear-Powered Future

Generating occasional power at the whims of mother nature means wind and solar have no hope in hell of ever competing with ever-reliable nuclear power. In power generation ‘competing’ means being always on, always available and affordable for all.

Because wind generates power less than 30% of the time (on average) and solar generates power less than 25% of the time (on average), the suggestion that they are competitive with nuclear, coal or gas is risible. Worse still is the fact that wind power outfits can never tell their customers (with any meaningful advance warning) when they might be generating power, and there are dozens of occasions when they will be producing absolutely nothing at all, for days on end. Solar power outfits can at least point to the sun dipping over the horizon and forecast their expected output over the next 12 or 14 hours or so; namely ZERO.

In short, there really is no comparison.

In Australia (as elsewhere) policies were put into effect around 20 years ago that were deliberately designed to wreck the profitability of coal-fired power generators. Those policies have been a roaring success. Which brings us to nuclear power.

STT backs nuclear simply because it works. But it has the added advantage of not generating carbon dioxide gas emissions while generating power 24 x 365, irrespective of the weather.

Old-timers can argue until they’re blue in the face about the benefits of coal-fired power (obviously cheap and reliable). However, the fixation with carbon dioxide gas is likely to outlast the old-timers, which means the chances of Australia having another coal-fired power plant built in their lifetimes is almost nil.

What has changed in recent times, is that a younger generation are all in favour of nuclear power: recent polling shows something like 65% of 18 to 34-year-olds ready to back nuclear power generation in this country.

With an eye on the next election, the Liberal/National Coalition (currently in opposition) is keen to exploit the energy chaos consequent upon the Green/Labor Alliance’s obsession with subsidised wind and solar.

By backing nuclear power, the Coalition has the perfect opportunity to punish Labor and their running mates, the Greens. As Peta Credlin explains in the pieces below; the first from Sky News and the second from The Australian.

Peter Dutton can expect a ‘fight’ over nuclear energy: Peta Credlin
Sky News
Peta Credlin
9 March 2024

Sky News host Peta Credlin says if Opposition Leader Peter Dutton wanted a fight over nuclear energy, it “looks like he’s going to get it”.

“And that’s no bad thing for an Opposition,” she said.

“You certainly can’t beat an incumbent by just agreeing with them – as the Victorian Liberal Party needs to learn, and fast.

“Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that nuclear energy was fine for others but not for Australia.”

She said today, Treasurer Jim Chalmers “really unleashed on the Opposition”.

“I can’t speak for the Opposition Leader, but I reckon you can drive a truck through the government’s position.

Transcript

Peta Credlin:
Well, well, well, if Peter Dutton wanted a fight over nuclear energy, it looks like he’s going to get it. And that’s no bad thing for an opposition. You certainly can’t beat an incumbent by just agreeing with them, as the Victorian Liberal Party needs to learn and fast. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that nuclear energy was fine for others, but not for Australia. And today, the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, really unleashed on the coalition.

Jim Chalmers:
Peter Dutton is more interested in cheap and divisive politics than he is interested in cheap and reliable electricity, and we see that in this nuclear fantasy that he is engaged in. His proposal will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, take decades to build. I think most Australians recognise that our future is renewable, and that’s where our efforts and our attention must lie.

Peta Credlin:
Look, I can’t speak for the opposition leader, but I reckon you can drive a truck through the government’s position. First, there’s the lack of logic in saying that nuclear power tied up at a dock in a nuclear-powered submarine is okay, but it’s almost evil if it ever comes on land. Second, if renewables are so cheap, how come the more renewables we get into our system, the more expensive our power has become? Now, the obvious answer is that renewables are only cheap when the wind blows and the sun shines. Yet, we need power 24/7 if we’re to remain a first world economy. And batteries and pumped hydro and gas, well, they all cost a bomb, and that’s if they work as promised. And on batteries and pumped hydro, well, the jury is still out.

Third, as the world’s third-largest uranium exporter, how could we be squandering our natural advantages Chalmers wants to claim if we also use our own uranium here in Australia? Fourth, if nuclear really is a fantasy, how come nuclear provides 70% of the power in France, 20% of the power in Britain and America, and is already in use in 33 other countries? A further 15, too, are also looking at nuclear as the only proven way of delivering 24/7 power that’s almost 100% emissions-free.

Now, the hysteria coming from Labor suggests that they know Dutton’s onto something, and they’re trying to bluff him out of prosecuting the case. Just like they knew he was onto something when he took the position he did on the Voice, and Labor then mounted hysterical attacks, calling him a wrecker and worse until the votes came in. And he was right. On the side of the majority of Australians, and the Prime Minister was not. Now, on nuclear, if there’s no commercial case for it, then why have a ban? There’s no need for any prohibition. And if there is a commercial case for nuclear, well, let’s get the bans removed ASAP and then see what market options might emerge.

Now, certainly across the board, the public now think nuclear power should be on the table. Back in 2015, the public were evenly split on nuclear power, 40 for it, 40 against it, the rest undecided. By 2022, an IPA poll found that 53% of us supported the proposition that Australia should build nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce carbon emissions. Back then, just 23% of us were against it. And in the latest news poll out last month, we had 55% of Australians supporting the building of small modular reactors, and just 31% against.

As Peter Dutton pointed out today, it was the late Bob Hawke who first championed nuclear power in this country, saying in 2016 that, “Nuclear power,” he said, “would be a win for the environment and an essential part of attacking global warming.” Now, he’s not alone. There are plenty of other union leaders, especially those unions that depend on heavy industry. Well, they’re supporting nuclear power as well.

Daniel Walton:
If you look at it right now, I’ve been pragmatic about talking about nuclear energy before. I remain open and pragmatic to it and hopefully it can create some good AW jobs as well.

Paul Farrow:
When we’re looking for a long-term energy fix in this country, all options should be on the table.

Peta Credlin:
An Australian living legend, the electronics guru Dick Smith, well, he chimed in today saying that we could get nuclear power within six years and that Labor’s opposition to it was, and I quote, “Emotional and irrational.” Said Dick Smith, “There was simply no way you could run a country 100% on renewables.” Now, support for at least having the option of nuclear power on the table is not going to be enough on its own to win the election for the coalition. But it would be a strong start to the coalition’s positive policy agenda, and as a demonstration, that it knows being a small target won’t win against a first term government.

Also today, there was a minor reshuffle of the opposition front bench, and here’s a move I want you to note tonight. The replacement of the now retired Senator Marise Payne as shadow cabinet secretary with the super smart and driven James Paterson. Now, as you know, I reckon he’s one to watch. Now, I was previously the former shadow cabinet secretary under three opposition leaders, so I know how much the role is, in critical terms, important for the opposition. It’s about creating policy, holding ministers and the staffing machine to account to get the work done and costed and out to a deadline.

So I see this move from Dutton as demonstration that the coalition are well and truly up for the policy fight, that there will be at the next election, a real difference, I think, between Labor and the Liberals. No longer Labor-light under Dutton, finally something we hope that Conservatives will have to vote for, and perhaps, too, a new home for traditional working class Labor types. The ones that modern Labor has abandoned as they’ve moved further to the left and more woke.
Sky News

Peter Dutton must power ahead on nuclear policy
The Australian
Peta Credlin
7 March 2024

At last, there’s going to be an election fight over serious policy.

After a dismal decade when both sides were fighting over personalities and trying to scare voters about their opponents, finally, on a topic that matters, the Coalition is going to put an important positive proposition to the public: namely that the only way to get to net zero and keep the lights on is to have nuclear power as at least a serious option. And the Labor Party’s hysterical reaction shows Peter Dutton is on to something.

If the Opposition Leader wanted a fight over the nuclear energy policy that he’ll shortly announce, it seems he’s going to get it. And that’s no bad thing for an opposition. You certainly can’t beat an incumbent by just agreeing with it – as the Victorian Liberal Party needs to learn, and fast.

In response to the Coalition flagging the nuclear option, Anthony Albanese said nuclear energy was fine for others but not for us. And then Jim Chalmers really unleashed, claiming: “Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy is all about cheap and divisive politics, not cheap and reliable electricity.” Our future, he claimed, “will be increasingly powered by cheaper and cleaner renewable energy”. Nuclear, he said, “costs more, takes longer and squanders our natural advantages”.

Really?

Let’s look at the Treasurer’s claims. First, there’s the lack of logic in saying nuclear power is great tied up beside a dock in a nuclear-powered submarine (which Labor says it supports), but it’s almost evil if it ever comes on land.

Second, if renewables are so cheap, how come the more renewables we get into our system the more expensive our power becomes? The obvious answer is that renewables are cheap only when the wind blows and the sun shines, yet we need electricity 24/7 if we are to remain a First World economy.

Third, as the world’s third largest uranium exporter, how could we be squandering our natural advantage if we also use our own uranium here?

And fourth, if nuclear really is a fantasy, how come nuclear provides 70 per cent of France’s power, 20 per cent of America’s and 15 per cent of Britain’s and is already in use in 33 countries, with a further 15 nations also looking at nuclear as the only proven way of delivering 24/7 power that is almost 100 per cent emissions free, in a country with our geography?

Australia is the only G20 country with no plans for nuclear power. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and South Africa all have operating nuclear power plants. Indonesia has two small trial reactors and even Saudi Arabia is planning a nuclear industry to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.

It’s true that many new nuclear power plants, such as Britain’s Hinkley C, are way behind schedule and way over budget. But what about the Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro scheme, originally supposed to cost $2bn and be operational by 2022, that’s now expected to cost $12bn-plus and not become operational until 2029?

The scare campaign Labor will try to re-run, about a nuclear plant in your suburb, won’t work given that the Coalition’s plan is to put the nuclear plants on the sites of closed-down coal-fired power stations – which, incidentally, already have all the transmission infrastructure in place.

Besides, the Lucas Heights medical nuclear reactor in Sydney has been operating for a half-century within a kilometre of housing to no ill-effect. As well, there’s no fundamental reason why small modular reactors, such as those produced in factories and safely operational for decades in nuclear ships, can’t be reproduced on land.

The hyperbole now coming from Labor suggests they’re trying to bluff Dutton out of making a firm nuclear commitment. Just like they knew he was on to something when he took the position he did on the voice and Labor then mounted hysterical attacks on him as a wrecker. Until the votes came in and, unlike the Prime Minister, it turned out Dutton was actually on the side of most Australians.

On nuclear, if there’s no commercial case for it, then why persist with the ban because there’s no need for the prohibition? And if there is a commercial case for nuclear, let’s get the bans removed as soon as possible and see what market options may emerge.

Certainly, the public now thinks nuclear power should be an option. Back in 2015, the public was evenly split on nuclear power, with 40 per cent for and 40 per cent against. By 2022, an Institute of Public Affairs poll found 53 per cent support for the proposition that Australian should build nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce carbon emissions, with just 23 per cent against. And the latest Newspoll last month had 55 per cent support for building SMRs and just 31 per cent against.

As Dutton has noted, it was former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke who first championed nuclear power in this country, saying in 2016: “Nuclear power would be a win for the environment and an essential part of attacking global warming.” And he wasn’t alone.

There are plenty of union leaders, especially from those unions that depend on heavy industry that needs reliable 24/7 power, who’ve been supporters of nuclear energy too. And now another reputable business leader, Dick Smith, has chimed in, saying we could get nuclear power within six years and that Labor’s opposition to it is, quote, “emotional and irrational”. “There was simply no way you can run a country 100 per on renewables,” Smith said.

Support for at least having the option of nuclear energy is not going to be enough on its own to win the election for the Coalition but it would be a strong start to the Coalition’s positive policy. And a demonstration that it knows being a small target won’t win against a first-term government.

Of course, there will be a vast whispering campaign against nuclear power, driven by the subsidy-harvesting vested interests now behind the renewables push. It will be a much larger version of the long campaign against a western Sydney airport, largely driven by the established airport operator. That’s why it’s good that Dutton and his colleagues are already out in the open, arguing the case for nuclear now, giving voters plenty of time to assimilate the arguments for and against, as in the voice campaign. This is not something that can be sprung on the public at the last minute, like the Coalition’s super-for-housing policy that was announced only a week before the 2022 election.

There’s a lot more that the Coalition should start arguing in coming months, such as a bigger, better version of super for housing to give first-home buyers access to what’s their own money when they need it most; much lower immigration to take the upward pressure off housing costs and the downward pressure off wages, and to ensure that we really are getting the best migrants we can; a renewed emphasis on policies such as work for the dole to break the something-for-nothing entitlement mindset; an education system with more parental input and a more academically rigorous curriculum; a deregulation push to cut business costs; and a commitment to no new spending (other than on national security and economic infrastructure) that’s not funded by savings elsewhere, that should eventually make room for responsible tax cuts.

This will sharpen the difference between a Liberal-National Coalition that wants to grow the economy to ease the pressure on household budgets and a Labor Party addicted to woke gimmicks and handouts that can be paid for only by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

As I’ve said before, Labor-lite Liberals lose. By getting back squarely to centre-right polices and values, Dutton just may have a chance.
The Australian