Nuclear, and Labor's lying lips

The old cliche about how you can tell a politician is lying - their lips are moving - has never been more clearly illustrated than the tsunami of misinformation, disinformation and outright fibs surrounding the current nuclear energy controversy.

There should be a rational debate between the Coalition and Labor Government but with Opposition leader Peter Dutton pushing the need for modern reliable nuclear energy in our power mix, key Labor figures have replied with puerile memes of three-eyed fish, Blinkey Bill the three-eyed koala, and more seriously, furphies about exorbitant costs and time frames which bear no relation to reality. And all it takes is a few mouse clicks to expose the lies.

The Coalition wants to establish seven new nuclear plants at existing coal fired power stations marked for retirement, which would feed neatly into the existing power grid, while maintaining a mix of gas, solar and wind in the energy system.

Labor wants to rely solely on its rushed transition to unreliable renewables to achieve "net zero" by 2050. This will involve covering an area about the size of Tasmania with solar farms and wind turbines, including arable farmland, native forests and mountain ranges, as well as large areas offshore in whale migration routes. Connecting all of these will require an additional 28,000 km of new high voltage transmission lines - what could possibly go wrong?

Climate and Energy Minister Chris "Blackout" Bowen says Australia should "stick to the plan" regarding renewables and "not isolate itself from the rest of the world by embracing nuclear, the dearest form of energy, which would take too long to establish."

That is so far from the truth it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. According to the World Nuclear Association, (WNA) Nuclear is the world's second largest source of low-carbon power (26% of the total in 2020). There are 440 operable reactors, with 61 under construction.

More than 50 countries also utilise nuclear energy in 22 research reactors, which are also used for the production of medical and industrial isotopes, as well as for training.

Newsflash! Mr Bowen and PM Anthony Albanese, that would include the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor which has operated successfully since 1958, with an update by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to an Opal Multipurpose reactor in 2007.

This is in the heart of Sydney. However, I'm unaware of any three-eyed fish or mutant koalas there, or citizens who glow in the dark unless they are setting off flares illegally on the steps of the Opera House in some pro-Hamas/Jew slaughter celebration while police watch on.

But I digress. Back to big lie number two: Nuclear power plants take too long to build.

According to Statista.com, nuclear reactors connected to the grid in 2022 had a median construction time of 89 months or almost 7.5 years.The longest median construction time for nuclear reactors was for those connected between 1996 and 2000, at 120 months.

The United Arab Emirates must be among countries much smarter than our leaders think we are because they have managed to establish three large reactors within this reasonable time frame. The UAE embarked upon a nuclear power program in close consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, with huge public support.

It accepted a $20 billion bid from a South Korean consortium to build four commercial nuclear power reactors, totaling 5.6 GWe, by 2020 at Barakah. Unit 1 of the country's first nuclear power plant was connected to the grid in August 2020, followed by unit 2 in September 2021, unit 3 in October 2022, and unit 4 in March 2024.

But as Bowen, Albo and other Labor luminaries claim, "nuclear costs a bomb" right? (oops, pretty obvious pun there guys, let's keep Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of the equation).

Well no, according to the WNA, on a levelized (i.e.lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future. The main economic risks to existing plants lie in the impacts of subsidized intermittent renewable and low-cost gas-fired generation.

Labor is quick to criticize the Coalition's scheme as "uncosted" but has never stated the overall cost of its own heavily subsidised green energy transition, including truckloads of financial backing to private companies. Albo obfuscated and dodged the question from Peter Dutton in the House this week, but an independent expert group Net Zero Australia, claims it will be between $1.3 to $1.5 trillion.

ABC finance guru Alan Kohler recently had this to say: "As for Australia's capital requirement, the outgoing head of the Net Zero Economy Agency, Greg Combet, told the National Press Club that 'hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed to achieve Net Zero in Australia by 2050'.

And the rest.

In July last year, a research organisation called Net Zero Australia (a collaboration between the Uni of Melbourne, Uni of Queensland, Princeton and Nous Group) put the cost for Australia at $9 trillion by 2060, or hundreds of billions every year for 36 years…"

That makes nuclear seem a bargain.. But here's a constructive tip for the PM whose promenading on the world stage earned him one of his nicknames - Airbus Albo:

Pack all the nuclear nay-sayer Labor Premiers, Queensland's out of touch LNP Leader David Crisafulli and Victorian Liberal fence sitter John Pesutto along with your Energy Minister Bowen and take an overseas jaunt that actually may bear fruit.

First stop France, whose President Macron called on Australia to lift its nuclear ban after our government rejected a nuclear pledge at the Cop 28 summit last year.

The declaration to triple nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050 was endorsed by more than 20 countries at the UN climate change conference. When asked by 17-year-old Nuclear for Australia founder Will Shackel about nuclear energy's role in global plans to decarbonise, Macron said he hoped Australia would manage to lift the ban. "Nuclear energy is a source that is necessary to succeed for carbon neutrality in 2050," he said.

Well, despite his faults, Macron knows that France produces 70 percent of its energy from nuclear and exports power to other EU green dream believer nations such as Germany and Italy:

France's total net exports amounted to 31.1TWh in the second half of the year, with most of the power flowing to Germany (8TWh) and Italy (8TWh). In the first six months of 2023, France's net exports totalled 17.6TWh.

Sacre bleu Albo, take your Aussie tour group up to the rich agricultural areas, the vineyards, dairies and cheese factories and enjoy a bottle or three of some of the world's top wines, with a side serving of Gruyere, Camembert or Roquefort. You'll all see it's far from a nuclear wasteland and there's no three-eyed fish to be caught.

Back on the Airbus, next stop Germany, which is a great example of how a transition to renewables didn't work and manufacturing is seriously at risk, just like it's now on its last legs in Australia. Even Greens hero Greta Thunberg says you should re-open your mothballed nuclear plants.

Then off to Finland for a more pleasant experience. A big new nuclear plant beside a picturesque lake with more healthy fish: And as a result, Finns went from suffering among Europe's highest power prices to enjoying its lowest. They now pay just a fraction of what the wind and solar obsessed Germans are forced to pay for their obsession with intermittent unreliable renewables.

When Finland fired up its 1,600MW Olkiluoto 3 nuclear plant in April 2023, power users were bound to notice that average spot electricity prices dropped from €245.98 per MWh in December 2022 to €60.55 per MWh hour in April 2023.

And if that doesn't impress you, just jet across the Atlantic to Canada's Ontario, the home of cheap nuclear energy which is about to expand and power many more homes:

"For decades, Canada and Ontario's nuclear technology has been world-leading, providing safe, reliable, and affordable non-emitting energy, as well as good jobs for workers, with over 75,000 hard-working Canadians employed across the nuclear supply chain. Today, the governments of Canada and Ontario are working together to advance new nuclear power generation in Ontario to cement our globally recognized competitive advantage, meet growing demand for clean energy and create even more good-paying jobs for Canadians…This funding, from the federal Electricity Predevelopment Program, involves a project that could produce power for up to 4,800,000 homes and businesses in Ontario.

Ontario has offered to sell its technology to Australia as a safe, cost-effective power source.

They are also constructing a small modular reactor which you claim don't exist commercially anywhere, even though one has been built in China, with more to follow.

Studies over many years including by The Lancet have confirmed that nuclear is the safest form of energy, despite the fear mongering. In fact, it's probably a lot safer than wind turbines and associated survey work which have been blamed for multiple whale strandings off the New Jersey Coast, deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds and bats as well as less obvious "infrasound" harm to humans and wildlife from low decibel penetrating sound waves.

"With ever larger wind turbines, the frequencies are getting lower and lower. This makes infrasound more problematic and dangerous," Dr. Bellut-Staeck told The Epoch Times.

All this should all be enough to convince any reasonable, open minded person that there should be a serious discussion on lifting the unreasonable ban on nuclear power and considering it as part of our energy mix if we want to keep the lights on and reduce emissions.

Defence Minister Richard Marles very reluctantly admitted in Parliament this week that our submariners would be safe alongside the nuclear reactors they will live with for long periods underwater when we finally obtain them under the Aukus deal. And those subs will visit and be serviced in major Australian ports. So cut the fear and smear campaign, Albo and Bowen, it's got more holes than the Titanic.

(I last wrote about the advantages of nuclear energy back in June 2019 after Labor lost that unlosable election. About the only thing that's changed from my perspective is the government.)