There has been a barrage of negative press in Australia on nuclear energy, particularly following the release of Coalition costings in December 2024. In Table 2 we look at this through the Lens of articles in The Guardian newspaper.
Table 2: Media Commentary by The Guardian
| The Guardian Article | Position / claim made against the proposal for incorporating nuclear energy in the article | Clarification of misconceptions about the Coalition nuclear plan and assessment by Frontier Economics1 |
|---|---|---|
| CSIRO Refutes Coalition case that nuclear is cheaper than renewable energy due to operating life2 3 (9 Dec 2024) | CSIRO found that renewables and large-scale batteries, were a lower cost than nuclear, based on small modular reactors (SMRs) or First-of-a-kind (FOAK) large scale reactors. | CSIRO failed to assess the most practical and least cost nuclear option to build Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) nuclear reactors that have a proven track record and manufacturing supply lines. Existing reactor designs can be delivered far more quickly and with greater certainty. Kepco demonstrated this in United Arab Emirates. |
| The CSIRO pours cold water on the Coalitions’ nuclear claims in a new report. Here’s how4 (9 Dec 2024) | The CSIRO explain how they worked out the cost of nuclear power, the time frame for nuclear, power shortages from coal power station closures and capacity factors, the amount of power generated compared to an idealised, maximum possible. | More reliable costings are provided by the International Energy Agency (www.iea.org), who don’t have a vested interest in the energy mix in Australia that is highly politicised. The capacity factors for coal, have been undermined by intermittent renewables that are not backed up with storage. Instead, of building batteries, coal is stepped down. Failing to acknowledge this makes CSIRO data unreliable. Nuclear energy should not be assessed as a balancing device for renewables. To avoid this a Contract-for-Difference model is needed, instead of trading on the NEM and being undercut by intermittent solar and wind. |
| Peter Dutton says nuclear will be cheaper, but critics say Coalition costings a ‘Fantasy.’ Never mind that the Coalition’s nuclear proposal is a fantasy – it doesn’t even claim to reduce power bills.5 (14 Dec 2024) (13 Dec 2024) | Two energy models were provided by AEMO, Labor are proposing the Step Change model, and the Coalition have suggested the Progressive Change model with reduced demand is more appropriate. | Danny Price (Frontier Economics) was not an advocate for either model but carried out costings for comparative purposes. He points out that AEMO is a very poor predictor of demand and the assumption that EV’s will make 97% of vehicles isn’t supported by consumer data. Also, the national electricity distribution system won’t support this projected number of EV’s. Hence the Progressive Change model is a more likely predictor of demand but would need refining. |
| Never mind that the Coalition’s nuclear proposal is a fantasy – it doesn’t even claim to reduce power bills.5 (14 Dec 2024) | The Coalition plan to have a first reactor by 2036 is unrealistic, the CSIRO claim it would take at least 15 years to develop a nuclear plant. | The Guardian and CSIRO seem to think Australia would develop a nuclear plant. We would be using a proven existing reactor design that can be built in 8 to 10 years. We also have regulatory agencies, the ANSTO team and Nuclear Engineering programs in Australia, largely for overseas students working in the nuclear energy industry in China, India etc. Frontier Economics show that including nuclear energy will lower energy costs and electricity bill, but they are not directly relatable since there are distribution and retailer costs that need to be included in assessing total savings. |
| The Coalition’s nuclear energy plan takes a sharp turn away from a cheaper, cleaner future Simon Holmes a Court7 (16 Dec 2024) | Issue 1: The Coalition plans for lower household income and the collapse of heavy industry in adopting AEMO Progressive Change model rather than Labor’s preferred Step Change model. Issue 2: Frontier appear to have confused the industry term Nth of a Kind (Noak) with next of a kind. Because we are building them. Issue 3: The Coalition’s unrealistic schedule leaves us short on power Issue 4: Our grid doesn’t have room for these reactors | Issue 1: Both Step Change and Progressive models are 25% cheaper than comparable models by having 38% nuclear, and the gap extends to 44% cheaper if the Progressive Change model is adopted. A grid that includes nuclear will also have far greater opportunities to expand beyond 2050, as it is not constrained by sites that are progressively built out by wind turbines. Issue 2: The NOAK argument is clearly not understood by Holmes a Court, as it refers to the reactor that has already been designed and operated by a world leading supplier, we will not be designing reactors in Australia. The biggest delays are likely to come from obstructionist activities. Issue 3: By transitioning from C2N there isn’t a risk of a power shortage as has been suggested. Power shortages come from intermittent renewables, solar and wind with inadequate storage and gas firming. Issue 4: C2N replacement allows the coal to be switched off and nuclear to be switched on at the same location on the grid. It avoids the need to build the additional 10,000km of transmission lines, that are required under the Labor proposal. |
| Coalition’s nuclear plan will hit earth with 1.7bn extra tonnes of CO2 before 2050, experts say8 (17 Dec 2024) | Experts calculate that Coalition delay to renewables and batteries and implementation of nuclear from 2040, would add 1.7bn tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. | The experts fail to address three critical issues: Firstly, the 100% renewables reliance on gas and coal as there isn’t a pathway to address storage at present. Secondly, the relative embodies carbon used for renewables, batteries and nuclear including replacement life. Thirdly, the cross over point from 2045 onward when 38% nuclear and 54% renewables emissions are less than 100%renewables, storage and gas firming. Beyond 2050 the advantage of nuclear will extend further, as the 100% renewables plan is very reliant on gas firming. |
References
- Frontier Economics: Report 2 – Economic analysis of including nuclear
power in the NEM https://www.frontier-economics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Report-2-Nuclear-power-analysis-Final-STC.pdf ↩︎ - “CSIRO GenCost 2024-25 draft report released for consultation (9 Dec 2024) https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2024/december/gencost-2024-25-draft-report-released-for-consultation ↩︎
- “CSIRO refutes Coalition case nuclear is cheaper than renewable energy due to operating life” – Adam Morton, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/09/csiro-refutes-coalition-case-nuclear-is-cheaper-than-renewable-energy-due-to-operating-life ↩︎
- “The CSIRO pours cold water on the Coalition’s nuclear claims in a new report. Here’s how” – Graham Readfearn, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/09/csiro-gencost-liberal-coalition-nuclear-power-plan ↩︎
- “Never mind that the Coalition’s nuclear proposal is a fantasy – it doesn’t even claim to reduce power bills” – Adam Morton, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/14/never-mind-the-fact-the-coalitions-nuclear-proposal-is-a-fantasy-it-doesnt-even-claim-to-reduce-power-bills ↩︎
- “Never mind that the Coalition’s nuclear proposal is a fantasy – it doesn’t even claim to reduce power bills” – Adam Morton, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/14/never-mind-the-fact-the-coalitions-nuclear-proposal-is-a-fantasy-it-doesnt-even-claim-to-reduce-power-bills ↩︎
- “The Coalition’s nuclear energy plan takes a sharp turn away from a cheaper, cleaner future” – Simon Holmes à Court, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2024/dec/16/coalition-nuclear-energy-plan-peter-dutton-government-ntwnfb ↩︎
- “Coalition’s nuclear plan will hit Earth with 1.7bn extra tonnes of CO2 before 2050, experts warn” – Adam Morton, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/16/coalition-nuclear-plan-will-hit-earth-with-1bn-extra-tonnes-of-co2-before-2050-experts-warn ↩︎