Code Red: Wind & Solar Rent-Seekers Suffer Full Nuclear Meltdown

The so-called wind and solar ‘industries’ turn apoplectic at the very mention of safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power.

The wind and sun cult claim wind and solar are the only way of producing power without emitting carbon dioxide gas. Leaving aside the benefits of naturally occurring plant food, let’s take them at their word for a moment.

While there’s not a shred of evidence that wind and solar introduced to a conventional power grid reduce CO2 emissions overall, there’s plenty that CO2 emissions actually increase, thanks to the use of diesel generators, fast-start open cycle gas turbines (sometimes running on kerosene or bunker fuel) and ramping up and down output from coal-fired generators – all of which is aimed at compensating for sunset and calm weather. That is, those occasions when the sum total of output from wind turbines and solar panels amounts to all of zero and grid managers have to scramble to keep the lights on. Because the owners of those conventional plants – particularly diesel generators and OCGTs – make out like bandits because they can charge a premium for power when wind and solar output collapse, as they naturally do.

Which brings us back to nuclear power and the existential threat it poses to subsidised wind and solar.

First, nuclear power delivers: around-the-clock, whatever the weather, no need for batteries, no need for back up.

Second, nuclear delivers always-on power without generating carbon dioxide gas in the process.

Those 2 facts combined make plain just how pointless (chaotically and occasionally delivered) wind and solar really are.

Hence the present state of fear, terror and outrage exhibited by wind and solar outfits and their propagandists in the legacy press.

In the first article from The Australian, Ted O’Brien – the Liberal opposition energy spokesman – pokes the bear, pointing out the remarkable fact that Australia is the only place in the world where nuclear power can’t possibly work – at least according to Labor’s Chris Bowen, his opposite number.

Then Alex Bainton and Zoe Hilton lay down some more troublesome facts for the embittered and embattled climate industrial complex.

Labor fudges ‘facts’ as it powers up nuclear scare campaign
The Australian
Ted O’Brien
7 June 2024

George Orwell could have been speaking about Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen when he explained the meaning of doublespeak as “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them”.

At the COP28 climate change conference last year, Bowen was insisting that fossil fuels such as gas “have no ongoing role to play in our energy systems”, but back in Australia he has been spruiking that “gas will play an important role”.

As a member of the National Security Committee, Bowen is backing Australian submariners sleeping with nuclear reactors under water, but at the same time he is claiming the same technology on land is “risky”.

Bowen is demanding the costings and economic modelling behind the Coalition’s yet-to-be-released energy policy, while he keeps the economics of his own policies secret including the Capacity Investment Scheme.

Bowen is calling for the Coalition to announce locations for potential zero-emissions nuclear power plants, but he refuses to declare where Labor plans to build up to 28,000km of new transmission lines, along with 22,000 new solar panels a day and 40 wind turbines every month through to 2030.

Bowen dismisses small modular reactors due to one project in the United States running into financial difficulty, but fails to apply the same logic to hydro after Snowy 2.0 doubled in price, or to offshore wind, which industry estimates will cost up to five times the present wholesale price of electricity.

Writing on the use of doublespeak, American scholar Edward Herman defined it as “the ability to choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program”.

Bowen again comes to mind. Take the claims the minister was peddling just this week on nuclear energy.

Firstly, Bowen is arguing the world doesn’t want zero-emissions nuclear energy by claiming Germany and Italy don’t use the clean energy source.

However, reports indicate these European powers have imported 16.52TWh of electricity from nuclear-dominated France so far this year, which is close to the amount of electricity generated by all of NSW’s coal plants combined. Secondly, Bowen is claiming nuclear energy is effectively dead in the United States, despite US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm opening two new nuclear power plants this week and calling for a tripling of nuclear capacity.

Thirdly, Bowen is arguing nuclear doesn’t stack up, asserting nuclear power plants operate only half the time and for only 30 years, despite nuclear plants being always on 24/7, and with an asset life up to 80 years.

As for suggestions of a 100 per cent cost premium for first-of-a-kind reactors. This is not true, as only next-of-a-kind reactors would ever be considered for Australia.

If there were a time for honesty in debate about energy policy, it is now.

Australia once paid among the lowest electricity prices of all advanced nations – now we pay among the highest.

Every week since Labor came to office, more than 500 families have plunged into hardship arrangements with their energy retailer.

The market regulator recently confirmed next year’s electricity prices, leaving families paying up to $1000 more than Labor had promised.

The market operator is warning of blackouts as early as this summer.

Australia is running out of energy as Labor’s renewables plan stalls, it continues to suffocate gas and it is forcing 90 per cent of Australia’s always-on 24/7 baseload power out of the system over the next 10 years, without replacement.

All this, and Australia’s emissions are also rising for the first time in years.

No other nation is attempting to run an electricity system almost entirely on weather-dependent wind and solar technology.

While there is an important role for renewables, it’s only as part of a balanced energy mix alongside gas and zero-emissions nuclear energy as coal exits the system.

This is the international experience.

Take Ontario, where nuclear constitutes up to 60 per cent of its energy mix. Ontario’s residents pay about 14c/kWh compared to up to 56c/kWh in Australia, and their electricity grid is 10 times cleaner.

Ontario is also investing in four GE-Hitachi SMRs because it knows zero-emissions nuclear energy is providing cheap, clean and consistent 24/7 power.

But, instead of learning these international lessons, Bowen has been practising the dark arts of politics in preparation for an old-fashioned Labor scare campaign.

The Prime Minister is getting in on the act too, releasing a tweet on Tuesday about cities and towns “under threat” due to nuclear energy forming part of Coalition policy – an extraordinary attack given he is yet to reveal which local community will host a permanent nuclear waste repository for AUKUS.

As everyday Australians become poorer and energy prices skyrocket, as household budgets squeeze and businesses close, the government of the day is focused on a scare campaign based on doublespeak and deception.
The Australian

Energy Minister’s arguments against nuclear riddled with errors
The Australian
Alex Bainton and Zoe Hilton
7 June 2024

Mark Twain famously quipped that facts “are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable”. Energy Minister Chris Bowen is certainly entitled to his facts, but he should be more careful with his statistics.

His opinion on this page on Tuesday argued that nuclear will mean more expensive electricity for consumers and that’s why a number of other G20 countries has already rejected it. He’s wrong.

Bowen claims CSIRO’s GenCost has found nuclear to be the most expensive form of energy every year since 2018.

In fact, it was only in 2024 – and just a few weeks ago – that GenCost finally included large-scale nuclear in its estimates. This cut costs by a factor of three over previous estimates for small modular reactors. Once realistic plant lifetime and capacity factors are included, the CSIRO’s numbers clearly show nuclear is competitive with renewables.

Bowen touts the CSIRO’s claim that nuclear plants will operate at as little as 53 per cent capacity. In reality, this will be closer to 90 per cent as the capacity factor of nuclear is driven by low marginal operating costs. For comparison, the average capacity factor for the US fleet is 93 per cent.

The 53 per cent figure assumes we will privilege wind and solar’s access to the grid over nuclear. The question remains as to why we would prioritise intermittent renewables that destabilise the grid over cheap, clean, reliable nuclear.

In California, a state with similar levels of renewables to Australia, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant achieved a capacity factor of almost 90 per cent over the past five years.

Bowen claims expensive power plants can’t produce cheap power. However, the truth is that nuclear plants last 60 to 100 years, a much longer time frame than the CSIRO’s assumption of just 30 years. Their shorter time frame only considers how long investors are willing to wait to fully recoup upfront capital costs and does not consider the future benefits for consumers of having cheap, clean, reliable power for decades afterwards.

Transitioning to a grid dominated by “cheap” renewables is expensive.

Not only do taxpayers and consumers have to pay for expensive transmission and storage projects, but we also end up paying massive subsidies to the renewables industry too.

A Centre for Independent Studies report, released this week, found that these subsidies totalled $29bn over the past decade from federal government programs alone.

Bowen claims four G20 countries “are not considering nuclear”: Germany, Italy, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.

In reality, aside from Germany, these countries are all eager to build a nuclear industry.

Italy’s Energy Minister recently said: “We must consider the use of nuclear in the short and medium term.” Saudi Arabia has established a company to develop nuclear power, and is building a 30kW research reactor.

Indonesia is planning to deliver 8GW of nuclear by 2035 and 35GW by 2060.

Why has Germany shut down its nuclear plants? Scandalous documents released by German courts revealed that anti-nuclear Greens apparatchiks rewrote expert reports that had said continued operation for several years was safe.

Germany is now on track to miss its 2030 emissions targets. Its electricity prices are so high the government is providing relief packages to the manufacturing industry worth $46bn over the next four years.

Three parties representing 41 per cent of Germany’s parliament are now calling for a return to nuclear, so it’s not even clear today’s policy will stand.

Yet Germany still relies on French electricity, which is 70 per cent nuclear.

It is more important than ever to ensure every dollar we spend on emissions reduction goes as far as it can.

The Australian government needs to take the nuclear option seriously, as the rest of the world is, and lift the ban so Australians will be able to enjoy cheap, clean, reliable electricity for decades to come.
The Australian