• Finally, last week, the supposed costings for a move to develop nuclear energy in Australia were released.
  • The costings derive from a report by Danny Price, Managing Director of 'Frontier Economics'.
  • Apart from the fact that there are no 'small-scale nuclear reactors operational anywhere in the world, there are a number of other very serious issues that need to be considered about the modelling on which the Report is based., These include the assumptions behind the modelling and the interpretations of the results by both Price and spokespersons from the Coalition political parties.
  • Every energy scientist and economist who has commented on the Report and its conclusions has been critical of both the findings and the interpretations.

  • Below is just a sample of the critical issues identified:

    IN SUMMARY: 'There are really only two possibilities. Either Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor do not understand the basics of the Coalition's nuclear policy - or they are repeatedly broadcasting a falsehood.' [Mike Secombe, The Saturday Paper, December 21, 2024 pp1 & 3].

    1) TOTAL LACK OF TRANSPARENCY of the assumptions and data on which the Price Report is based.

    * Any senior primary or secondary school student in a Maths or Science class knows that any modelling is only as reliable, valid and useful as the accuracy of the assumptions on which the modelling is based: false assumptions means unreliable and invalid conclusions!

    They also know that you need to show how you arrived at your results and conclusions.

    'Every request to get information from both Price and Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Ted O'Brien, about the assumptions behind the modelling and its calculations was answered with a 'NO'! - or no response at all.'

    * 'Normal protocol in the modelling world is to provide detail of the data on which the model is built. You should be transparent.' (Professor Warwick McKibbin, Crawford Centre, ANU.)

    2) REDUCTION IN HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY BILLS:

    CLAIM: 'The work of Frontier Economics says that over time electricity prices will be 44% cheaper under our policy.' (Peter Dutton, Tuesday 17th December, Adelaide Press Conference). WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

    WHAT THE PRICE REPORT ACTUALLY SAYS: 'We do not at this stage present any results for prices (of electricity) as this will depend on how the cost of new (generation) capacity will be treated' (p.18 Price Report).

    THE REPORT CONCLUDES:  '... The TOTAL cost [NOT INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY BILLS!] of upgrading and running the national electricity market out to 2050 (i.e., date of Australia's commitment to Net Zero emissions) would be 44% less under ONE scenario including nuclear power than under another ONE scenario not including nuclear'.

    AND SOME COMMENTATORS QUESTION EVEN THAT CONCLUSION! - because it compares 'apples with oranges' - two very different scenarios based on two dissimilar and different sets of assumptions! - a practice that any Maths, Science or Economics student knows is wrong and produces unreliable and invalid comparisons.

    These two very different scenarios are 'step' change  and 'progressive change'.

    'Step change' assumes that Australia electrifies (i.e., gets out of fossil fuels)  in a big rapid way between now and 2050 using renewable energy (rooftop solar, storage batteries and wind) to power homes, vehicles and industry, data centres and AI in an economy that remains strong.

    'Progressive change' assumes a much slower move away from fossil fuels and an economy that grows more slowly.

    TWO COMPLETELY NON-COMPARABLE SCENARIOS - based on sets of entirely different assumptions!

    3) COSTS: 

    CLAIMS: The 'step change' scenario (NO nuclear) = Total cost A$594.00 billion.

                       The 'progressive change' scenario (with nuclear) = Total cost A$331.00 billion.

                        A difference of 44%!! - in TOTAL calculated cost- no implications for household energy bills.

    HOWEVER, seeing that no operational small-scale modular nuclear generating units exist - the costings are problematic!

    EXAMPLE: Price assumes a cost of nuclear/kilowatt = A$10,000.00.  Other western countries - cost = $20,000.00/Kw.

    CONCLUSION FROM CHANGE WITH NUCLEAR:  'We're going to pay A$263.00 billion less for electricity - but it's a lot less electricity! - and meanwhile we have to pay an extra A$500.00 billion for fossil fuels' (because of the lead time to build any nuclear capacity) [Simon Holme a Court, energy analyst, director, The Superpower Institute).

    4) TIME TO BUILD:

    CLAIM: First modular nuclear unit on-line by 2036 (Price Report)

    C.S.I.R.O = 'more likely 2040' - other predictions = 2045 +    No way to meet Australia's 2050 commitment.

    5) CONTINUING USE OF FOSSIL FUELS:

    'Australia would need to extend its use of fossil fuel plants (for electricity generation) until at least 2049' (Price Report)

    'Those extra emissions would blow our carbon budget. No wonder the Coalition wants to abandon the 43% Emissions Reduction Target ... and breach Australia's Paris Climate Agreement .... and make Australia an international pariah.' (N. Hutley, economist, banker, Climate Council councillor).

    PROBLEM: Rapidly aging, broken and inefficient fossil-fuel generator plants- some only on-line 50% capacity- 25% of generating capacity permanently off-line! - CONCLUSION - household electricity prices likely to increase - NOT fall!

    SOLUTION SUGGESTED BY PRICE?? - 'INTRODUCE MUCH MORE GAS GENERATION  INTO THE ELECTRICITY GRID'.

    SURPRISE! SURPRISE!  HERE IS THE REAL REASON TO PUSH NUCLEAR ENERGY! -  to disrupt the progress to renewably generated energy - take investment capital away from renewable infrastructure 

    ['.. there will be less renewable energy systems built' under the Price model. [the Price Report].

    CONCLUSION: Allow the big Australian emitters and emission exporters like the internationally owned gas companies (Exxon- Mobil;  Woodside; Santos) to continue polluting with massive emissions by  fracking, extracting and producing in Australia and by exporting further emissions overseas. -           UNLESS WE 'TAX CARBON' (Ross Garnaut, 2024).        

    5) EMISSIONS:

    Emissions will be greater under Price's Plan out to 2046' - or beyond by a minimum of 2.5 times greater than the government's 'step' change non-nuclear approach' ( Price Report) - AND that calculation 'only includes the fossil-fuel electricity generation sector! IT DOESN'T include emissions from greater consumption of petrol, oil and gas [use of fossil fuels in homes, vehicles and industry!]. 

    These additional fossil-fuel emissions will amount to ..'1.7 billion tonnes!'   (Simon Holmes a Court)

    6) IMPACT ON ROOFTOP SOLAR:

    If you happen to have a rooftop solar system, without a storage battery, and you are sending electricity you generate into the grid YOUR SYSTEM IS LIKELY TO BE TURNED OFF SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OFTEN! - and you are likely to be paying more to export your energy!

    WHY? Because a nuclear plant produces electricity continually - day or night, rain or shine. Nuclear will increasingly mean less  need for rooftop solar and wind generation into the electricity grid - even though it costs less to produce solar generated electricity!  IF YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT INSTALLING A HOME STORAGE BATTERY IT COULD BE A GOOD TIME TO CONSIDER THAT - especially iif there is any serious development towards nuclear energy.

    7) WHO WILL PAY FOR THIS VERY EXPENSIVE UNNECESSARY DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR;

    Simple answer - US! The Australian taxpayers and residents!  The Price nuclear energy system will be paid by the Australian government! - in other words - YOU and ME!     

     WHY? Because the private sector financiers are not interested because nuclear is far too TOO RISKY!

    SO WHY IS DUTTON PURSUING A NUCLEAR ENERGY POLICY when:

    a) Opinion polls demonstrate clearly that nuclear is not a popular energy policy when compared with solar and wind.

    b) It is a policy that has a long lead development time - can't be implemented quickly!  The Coalition would need to have strong majority control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives to reverse the ban on nuclear energy legislated in 1998 by the Howard government.  (Buying nuclear submarines has no legislative implications for nuclear energy).

    c) Queensland, NSW and Victoria all have legislated state bans on nuclear energy - and none show any inclination to change.

     SO WHY IS DUTTON PURSUING A NUCLEAR ENERGY POLICY?

    a) To promote the fallacy [now even shown in the Price Report] that a move to nuclear will reduce cost-of-living expenses by reducing household energy bills.    In FACT A MOVE TO NUCLEAR MAY WELL INCREASE HOUSEHOLD energy bills!

    b) TO keep fossil fuel energy generators and companies - particularly gas - to continue long into the future. To continue to support the Australian-based international gas companies to produce gas for international export - and to continue to produce massive amounts of Greenhouse gases.

    c) THE MAJOR REASON: To disrupt and reduce the momentum of investment in the development of renewable infrastructure and energy generation and storage of renewable energies.

    FINAL WORDS:

    'Indeed it is a mistake to consider (Dutton's proposal to build nuclear energy in Australia) as serious policy at all. It is unequivocally about politics, not policy.' ... 'The Coalition's $331.00 billion nuclear fantasy is a coal/gas-keeper energy transition plan for Australia funded by Australian Taxpayers' (Stephanie Bashir, Nexa Advisory).

    [by David Smith (B.A, B.A (Hons), PhD) for 'Electrifying Bradfield Inc.'  Based on Secombe. M., 'The Coalition's coal-keeper plan' , The Saturday Paper, December 21, 2024, pp 1 & 3.]