He promised sites – seven of them – scattered across Australia. He said they would save their small rural communities and keep the lights on 24/7 in the face of Labor’s renewables-only policy. And there would be jobs,thousands of them,to rescue Australia’s apparently faltering economy.
However,like a salesman who spruiks a product but won’t reveal the cost to buyers,Dutton refused to tell Australians how much they would pay for his nuclear vision.
D’oh! Peter Dutton as Homer Simpson.John Shakespeare
He said the first two sites would be operational between 2035 and 2037,and the remaining five would be online by mid-century but conceded his policy had not yet been costed. “We will have more to say in relation to the cost in due course and,as you know,we’ve done this in a step-by-step process. The focus today is on the sites,” he said.
Safety concerns once bedevilled the acceptance of nuclear power stations,but with an estimated 440 such stations around the world,fears have largely abated to be replaced by alarm over costs. Experience suggests nuclear power stations are money pits:For instance,the cost of the Point Hinkley flagship nuclear project in south-west England has skyrocketed from $17.2 billion in 2007 to $92.6 billion this year.
In the face of Dutton’s obfuscation on costs,the CSIRO has come to the aid of the Australian public purse and provided a glimpse of the potential financial impact of his new policy. Its 2023-24 last month helpfully included nuclear technology for the first time and estimated the first nuclear reactors could not be built until 2040 and would cost up to $16 billion each to build in Australia. CSIRO said construction costs could fall to $8.6 billion but noted the first reactor would likely cost double because of the expense of kick-starting an industry from scratch.
Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton also questioned Dutton’s timeframe. “Australia has no nuclear power industry,so building new reactors would take at least 20 years and cost six times more,” she said.
The Coalition government was in office for nine years and showed little inclination towards nuclear power until Dutton’s apparent conversion coincided both with articles last February finding majority support in Australia for energy security and preparations for nuclear war in Europe.
Of course,conflating nuclear power and nuclear weapons is fraught,but previous generations grew up under the shadows of both. Some will remember Hiroshima/Nagasaki and reactor accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. But Australia was never just a passive bystander;we mined uranium for British weapons and industry at Rum Jungle and Mary Kathleen,allowed nuclear tests at Montebello Islands and Maralinga and built our own reactor at Lucas Heights. Now we are preparing to put nuclear submarines to sea in the 2030s as part of the AUKUS deal.
So we have proven remarkably flexible on the issue over the years. But this time under the Dutton plan,the government would own the nuclear power stations and form partnerships with nuclear companies,which means the Commonwealth entry into the power generation industry will dwarf the previous roles of state governments.
Ironically,with their prohibitions on nuclear power,state governments may prove Dutton’s biggest stumbling blocks. NSW Premier Chris Minns and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan have already rejected his proposals. Dutton promised to throw money at the premiers,but such bribery requires billions of dollars – money that has not even been factored into the CSIRO estimations.
Dutton’s much-hyped announcement is fantasy-land stuff. The Coalition is treating voters like idiots and Wednesday’s “announcement” should be rejected out of hand by voters who deserve credible solutions to the nation’s energy and climate challenges.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own..