by SEAN BURKE – LIBERAL Leader Peter Dutton has blasted PM Anthony Albanese’s “emotional and costly” energy plan and has demanded nuclear be put into the mix.
In his Budget Reply speech this week the Opposition Leader said any sensible government “must at least consider small modular nuclear”.
- Labor is being deceptive in its energy policy.
- Nuclear technology is “safe, reliable, cost effective, can be plugged into existing grids and emits zero emissions”.
- We deserve a much more honest and, frankly, less emotional discussion on energy.
“Labor is being deceptive in its energy policy,” he said. “The scientific reality is that we must firm-up our energy grid when renewable energy is unreliable.
“The latest battery technology installed in Adelaide at a cost of $180m lasts for one hour.
FIRMING
“So whether you have 50, 75 or 100 per cent renewable energy in the system you still have the fixed cost of firming.
“To distribute renewable energy more than $100b will need to be spent on 28,000km of transmission lines.
Mr Dutton said Labor had a dismal history of building infrastructure.
“Remember how successful the Labor Party was at pink batts, at school halls and at the other programs that they just never completed?” he said.
“Aside from the huge environmental impact of this roll out, every dollar of that $100b that is spent will be passed onto you in the form of higher electricity bills.”
He said next-generation small modular nuclear technology was “safe, reliable, cost effective, can be plugged into existing grids and emits zero emissions”.
“Thirty-two countries including China, Canada, France, the US and UK use zero-emission nuclear power today including to firm-up renewables.”
DECEPTIVE
He said the government was being deceptive in its approach to energy.
“Oddly, Labor is happy for similar technologies to power our future submarines.
“Submarines that you can tie-up at docks in our capital cities, but that you can’t under Labor’s policy have any consideration of powering that city using the same technology.”
Mr Dutton said Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen was not up to the job.
“As we know, Minister Bowen was the worst performer in multiple portfolios during the Rudd and Gillard governments,” he said.
“As Energy Minister today his policies are driving your electricity and gas prices higher and higher.
“On July 1 power prices are set to rise by up to 33 per cent for 250,000 small businesses and 1.6m households.
“If you think you are paying a lot now, you are only going to pay more under Labor – and they clearly have us on the wrong energy path.
“Australians deserve a much more honest, more sensible and, frankly, less emotional discussion on energy.
“Energy is crucial to our national success and security.”PC
I was at a seminar that Bowen addressed. Audience members could ask one question each, but no follow up questions. I asked ‘if nuclear energy is so much more expensive, then why in Ontario, which is 40% powered by nuclear energy, are electricity costs half of what they are here’? He said ‘I can assure you that renewable energy is cheaper every time’!
Next question by another audience member. ‘You said Mr Bowen that the proposed wind farm off the coast of Victoria would provide 20% of Victoria’s energy needs’! ‘Correct’ said Bowen. ‘What happens then when that area has a wind drought for about 35 consecutive days, which provably happens there several times a year’. Bowen said ‘a connected east coast grid will at least have the sun shining and the wind blowing somewhere’!
The great unwashed really need to take a deep breath and consider before electing obvious lunatics of any party, liberals included, to public office, bearing in mind what happened to Argentina and Venezuela over time. Don’t think that it can’t happen here. Do these people care about what happens to their kids and grandkids, or even their own standards of living in their own lifetimes?
Things are already starting to toughen up for struggle street already, though that means little to a public servant or rich greenie.
“Bowen said ‘a connected east coast grid will at least have the sun shining and the wind blowing somewhere’!”
Well, if there is at least one “farm” producing electricity the batteries would be fully charged and ready to supply needs for an hour or two.
[sarcasm]
Lucas Heights in Sydney, has a nuclear reactor powering them for as long as I can remember. They are in a residential area.
I do not understand why we don’t have modular nuclear reactors providing power at a cleaner and cheaper rate when Australia has a third of the world’s uranium in our ground. Plenty of dead desert for used rods to be safely buried. Our emissions would drop to be well ahead of our world commitment.
Ignorance is fear! Learn and we can see our proper potential to catch up with the rest of the nuclear powered world.
“I do not understand why we don’t have modular nuclear reactors providing power at a cleaner […] rate […]”.
Because when they break, they are not clean at all, and the mess they leave behind persists for a long time – a large area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant will be uninhabitable for at least 100 years.
Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Morrie, we are not talking the size of Fukushima. I think you’d better update your nuclear information. What you are thinking is huge and panic mode because of what happened in Japan.
This is NOT what we, and those who understand the further development of nuclear science. We ARE referring to MNR…..please NOTE. Modular Nuclear Reactors. Way smaller, and not where your mind is. Please research!
About time. I still believe we should still use coal and gas, but as we are on the precipice of Australia’s downfall, I am happy to support Nuclear as opposed to the very expensive Soal and Wind. which will not provide the dispatchable energy that is required to run this Country.
Reading some of the readers’ replies is almost as irritating as hearing morons like Chris Bowen bleating – like they are – about how nuclear energy is SO dangerous and SO expensive!
Yes, of course we need to retain coal, gas and other current forms of energy but adding nuclear to the mix is also a sound idea. Longer term it’s cheaper than solar/wind/batteries and it’s also, statistically, the safest form of energy generation …… and it’s by far the least damaging to the environment.
Good on you Peter Dutton for stating the bleeding obvious …… now we just need to convince the Neanderthals!
“Reading some of the readers’ replies is almost as irritating as hearing morons like Chris Bowen bleating – like they are – about how nuclear energy is SO dangerous […]”
Nuclear energy is not dangerous at all; it’s the fuel that is used to produce it. If you don’t understand that, all you have to do is ask anyone who lived near Chernobyl when it experienced a meltdown.
I’m interested to see myself being compared to a “moron like Chris Bowen” – do you honestly believe that you’re much cleverer than me?
No. Forget nuclear. It is time to go back to what we had: vast quantities of coal and gas,
What is an SMR?
https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-and-what-makes-them-different
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima. It’s not possible to build a bottle from which the genie cannot escape, but apparently Dutton remains blissfully ignorant of this fact (perhaps he doesn’t read much).
Coal-fired power stations have served Australia well for over a century, and all the politicians had to do was LEAVE THEM ALONE. Spruiking nonsense about a supposed need for nuclear only serves to muddy the waters, and Dutton, clueless and hapless as he is, has played straight into Labor’s hands. Clearly, no one has given him the heads-up: “never wrestle with a pig, because you both get dirty and the pig likes it”.
Your knowledge of nuclear energy appears to be limited and lacking in details.
And way out of date.
I agree that the replacement of the existing post 1970 coal fired power stations with the latest ultra super critical thermal power plant technology for Australia would be cost effective and with due regard for the abundance of high quality coal in demand from growing export markets to use our own resources makes good sense.
However, the now 75 years of development Small Modular Nuclear based electricity generator units are around US$1 Billion for 300 MW and built in factory for installation in sections on client’s site, perfect for existing coal power station sites on the grid. Much cheaper than a wind turbine installation of the same real capacity, meaning ignore the marketing hyperbole of how many homes can be supplied based on Installed/Nameplate Capacity, based on AEMO data the average they call Capacity Factor is 30 to 35 per cent of that theoretical unit design capacity because of intermittent wind supply.
And add to the wind cost the “firming” back up equipment including for example gas or diesel fuelled generators, battery storage, pumped hydro storage, what green sites call “spinning machines” or stabilisers that duplicate what a power station generator does, transmission line from installation to main grid. And then cost in replacement on average every 20 years, possibly 25 years, compared to a coal or nuclear based generator 50-70 years operational life range. And of course huge land areas needed for “wind farms”.
Replace coal fuelled power stations would be a good plan but with due consideration for the madness of net zero emissions climate hoax based politics then nuclear energy emissions free is the alternative, cost effective reliable 24/7 electricity baseload generators.
For your information, SMR was developed and first used to run electricity generators near the end of WW2 for US Military, later developed further installed in US Navy submarines and surface ships 75 years ago.
Today SMR is several generations of developed technology and being used for up to 1,000 MW generator units factory built for assembly on site, about the area of a football or cricket field. And aesthetically pleasing architectural designs that do not have an industrial appearance.
Of course nuclear energy is banned from use in Australia and despite continued research and discussion by the Coalition the Labor and Greens remain opposed to repealing the ban. Although after the AUKUS signing in September 2021 by the Morrison Govermemt with UK and USA partners, and the announcement that the RAN will be equipped with nuclear submarines Labor did support that decision.
The Sydney, Lucas Heights nuclear reactor produces radio isotopes, now the second nuclear reactor on site, the original was built early 1950s. And it is exempted from the nuclear ban.
Originally operated by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights reactor is now operated by the Australian Nuclear Science & technology Organisation (ANSTO) and they developed the recycling of uranium fuel for nuclear reactors that is now being incorporated in SMRs.
“Your knowledge of nuclear energy appears to be limited and lacking in details.”
What absolute twaddle: what matters is my knowledge of *history*, and that knowledge tells me that, since man is not perfect, he cannot build or engineer any device or system that is perfect. Ergo, nuclear power plants can fail, as shown by past experience.
You can put in a smaller package and call it by a different name, but it is still radioactive, it is still highly dangerous, and it can still escape. It’s not rocket science to grasp these simple truths; it’s simply a matter of reading, thinking, and understanding.
Did you read above about ANSTO recycling of uranium fuel?
Did you know that spent uranium or depleted uranium is used by military for armour piercing ammunition?
Nuclear energy has been developed since before WW2, US Navy has used SMR early technology for over 75 years in surface ships and submarines.
Consider WW2 aircraft and aircraft and space craft of today.
And Lucas Heights nuclear reactor that commenced production of radio isotopes, nuclear medicine and commercial applications, during the 1950s and safely operated until recent times when the replacement was built.
It’s way past time.