News about Australia

[Alexender NoahParticipant]

A ‘referendum’ on energy is looming after the opposition’s nuclear announcement. This is what it’s all about

The federal government and opposition are bracing themselves for a referendum on energy at next year’s election after the Coalition unveiled some details of its long-awaited nuclear power plan.
While the proposal looms as the defining issue of the next election, it could also have a massive impact on Australia’s energy supply, certain local communities, and on your power bills.
This is what you need to know about the opposition’s nuclear plan.

How much will the nuclear power plants cost?
We don’t know. While Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the power stations will be publicly owned, he refused to say exactly how much taxpayers will pay for them, although he admitted it will be a “big bill”.
He did not say when the costings will be announced, or whether they will be revealed before the next election.
What will it mean for energy bills?
The CSIRO and other energy experts have consistently said nuclear-generated energy would be far more expensive than power created by renewables like solar and wind.
“Nuclear has been clearly shown to be more expensive than renewables plus storage,” Associate Professor Roger Dargaville, the director of Monash University’s Energy Institute, said.
“So to choose this pathway will result in higher energy prices for consumers.”

Nuclear also couldn’t do anything to lower energy prices anytime soon, likely at least for 15 years, because it takes so long to set up.
“The timelines for nuclear are long,” Dargaville said.
“The delay in providing new capacity to replace ageing coal-fired plants would likely mean a shortfall in power production in the meantime.”
The opposition, though, claims nuclear energy will bring down power prices.
Where will the reactors go?
The Coalition has outlined identified seven coal-fired power plants that will be replaced by nuclear reactors once they shut down:
Liddell Power Station in Muswellbrook, NSW
Mount Piper Power Station in Lithgow, NSW
Loy Yang Power Stations in the La Trobe Valley, Victoria
Tarong Power Station in Tarong, Queensland
Callide Power Station in Mount Murchison, Queensland
Northern Power Station in Port Augusta, South Australia (small modular reactor only)
Muja Power Station in Collie, Western Australia (small modular reactor only)
The proposal is essentially to replace coal power with nuclear.
By placing the plants at existing energy sites, the opposition says it will save money by using existing poles and wires infrastructure to connect nuclear power to the grid.

What about the nuclear waste?
Dutton said the nuclear waste from the power plants will be stored on-site until the stations shut down.
After that, the Coalition is proposing to store the waste at the same place as the waste from Australia’s future nuclear-powered AUKUS submarines, although that location is yet to be determined.
It’s an issue that experts say needs to be addressed if nuclear is to go ahead.
“We currently have no long-term storage policy and method to do so, and this has to be talked about first before any nuclear site is proposed,” Dr Nathan Garland from Griffith University said.
“It is putting the cart before the horse in the grandest sense.”

When will the plants come online?
This is one of the more contentious parts of the opposition’s policy.
The Coalition claims it can have its first two reactors up and running by 2035 if small modular reactors are proven to be feasible (more on that shortly), or by 2037 if conventional nuclear stations are required.
Both timelines are considerably quicker than what energy experts believe is possible.
“We’re talking about timeframes of 15 years or so… to actually seeing something operating on the ground, and that’s maybe a little conservative,” Emeritus Professor Ken Baldwin from ANU told 9news.com.au earlier this year.
The CSIRO has also said at least 15 years would be needed to develop nuclear power in Australia.
Dutton said all seven reactors would be online sometime in the 2040s.

What roadblocks are in the way?
Part of the issue around the timeframe is Australia’s nuclear workforce, which Garland says is “miniscule” and needs “considerable time and cost to be built properly”.
But arguably a bigger issue is laws prohibiting the technology.
Australia has a federal ban on nuclear energy that was introduced by the Howard government.
While the Coalition would have the numbers to get any reversal through the lower house if it wins the next election, passing it through the Senate looks extremely difficult.
It’s unlikely to have a majority in the upper house, so would require the support of the Greens and independents like David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie to overturn the ban.
The Greens have fiercely opposed the opposition’s policy and Pocock has said nuclear energy “makes no sense in this country”, although Lambie seems more open to the idea, previously saying it’s “a real shame” Australia isn’t a nuclear world leader.

Pauline Hanson is a supporter of nuclear energy, so could help the Coalition in the Senate.
But even if it overturns the federal prohibition, the Coalition would then need NSW, Queensland and Victoria to overturn their own state bans.
Every premier in those states currently opposes nuclear energy, and even Queensland’s LNP David Crisafulli, who is heavily favoured to win this year’s state election, is against it.
Dutton has said he would negotiate with the states, and suggested premiers could be swayed with a “bucket of money”. 
The Commonwealth also doesn’t own any of the sites the Coalition has identified as locations for the nuclear plants, which would need to be purchased if the stations are to be publicly owned.
The owners of six of the seven sites oppose nuclear power.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/coalition-nuclear-energy-policy-explained/e3b0cabb-9b46-49f1-87f2-acecdb6d1aea

0

0

[Author]

Posts