Posts

Disinformation From Labor on Nuclear Energy Costs

,

The Labor Albanese Government is destroying proven, low-cost coal power plants under the guise of “retiring them” and replacing this stable, secure, safe and affordable power with land-grabbing solar and wind installations which are proven now to be unreliable, environmentally-damaging and expensive.

If Labor’s ideology means that it won’t consider new generation coal, which China and other countries are busy putting in place, then why doesn’t it consider the nuclear option? Is it so blinkered that it refuses to see the data from around the world which demonstrates nuclear as a proven reliable, stable, secure, safe, environmentally-responsible and affordable source of power?

Why is Labor being dishonest about this? Are the solar schemes and subsidies so important to their mates that they would sell out the regular working Australian families for their mates at the WEF? What happened to the party of the workers?

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. The government has ruled out adding nuclear electricity to our energy mix based on the government’s calculations showing a higher cost of nuclear energy as against wind and solar. Minister, can you please inform the Senate of the levelised cost of generation of wind, solar and nuclear that informed the government’s position? 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will just remind you that questions need to go to ministers, not assistant ministers, so I’m directing the question to Minister Gallagher. 

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council): Thank you for the question. The advice the government has—and I think this is understood by everyone who’s been following the energy discussion—is that nuclear energy is very slow to build. It’s the most expensive form of new electricity generation. It cannot beat renewables, which are the cheapest, fastest and cleanest form of new electricity generation. The analysis that was done showed that there was a significant cost burden. Our position is about cost. We are looking for the cheapest form of energy generation, which is renewables, which includes wind and solar. Australia obviously has a very significant comparative advantage when it comes to that form of energy, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. We also don’t have a workforce to support that nuclear energy generation. So the time involved means it would be decades before anything became operational and it would do nothing to reduce the energy costs for Australian households and businesses in the meantime. 

So our position—and I think there is a lot of support for that position—is that this transition to renewable energy is the quickest and cheapest path as we shift away from fossil fuel generation. That is the path that the government was clear about before the election. That is the path that we are implementing under Minister Bowen’s and Minister McAllister’s leadership, leading for the government, and we will continue on that path. We will leave the nuclear energy debate for those opposite to convince people of. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the figure for nuclear based on real-world data from the 440 nuclear power stations around the world or even from the last 10 stations completed in the last few years? If not, on what is it based? 

Senator GALLAGHER: As I understand it—and I will see if there’s anything I can provide—the government analysis that looked at the cost of nuclear energy was looking at how to replace the retiring coal-fired power station fleet. That figure resulted in about a $25,000 cost impost on each Australia taxpayer, based off 15.1 million taxpayers. So, according to many of the experts in the energy field, it’s more expensive, going to take decades to build and, in the meantime, will do nothing to reduce the power costs of households, which are clearly going to benefit from the shift to renewable energy generation and technology. That is the path the government will continue on because we are focused on cost of living and a sensible and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to new forms of energy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The government is using a figure for the cost of modular nuclear power that’s not based on any real-world data. Rather, it is mere speculation about a type of generation that doesn’t exist. 

Government senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! 

Senator McKim interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKim! Senator Roberts has the right to ask his question in silence, and I will ask senators to respect that right. 

Senator ROBERTS: The government’s data is based on speculation about a type of generation that does not exist and completely misrepresents the cost of nuclear power. The government is spreading misinformation again. Minister, why didn’t the government use the real-world data from 57 conventional nuclear power stations currently under construction around the world, and why is the government not being honest about nuclear? (Time expired) 

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept the question that Senator Roberts has put to me. We are providing information to the community, and that information is that renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build generation technology. That is clearly a fact. 

We have also done some analysis, and I think you will find it hard to find any expert that says nuclear isn’t expensive or isn’t going to take too long to build, including how you generate a workforce around this and the time it will take to do that based on the work that we need to happen now. We can’t delay this for decades. The transition was already delayed for a decade under those opposite, with 22 failed energy policies. In 18 months we have been getting on with it. We are in that transition. We will focus on renewables as the lowest-cost form of energy generation that will help households with those cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired) 

/15 Comments/by

What Do Globalists Hate About Nuclear Power?

I know that nuclear is an answer to humanity’s energy needs. There are other solutions too, including hydro, which is under utilised in Australia, and clean coal.

Modern coal can be used in a way that produces zero carbon dioxide. A trial site in Tasmania is currently awaiting the equipment to convert coal to hydrogen, then hydrogen to cheap base load reliable electricity. Other nations, some of our major trading partners, are managing their energy needs with nuclear, clean coal, and hydro.

Why aren’t we doing more about safeguarding our energy needs? It’s a short answer – the United Nations.

The United Nations Net Zero narrative depends on the concept that there is no plentiful cheap source of power. It’s about restricting electricity output. Why? An artificial energy deficit is a tool used to control. If we haven’t learned our lesson by now, the UN’s Net Zero is not about saving us, or the environment from a harmless trace gas essential to all life on Earth, it’s about control and wealth.

The Greens, Labor, Teals and the globalists among the Liberal and National parties oppose nuclear energy. Their motivation should be obvious. Opposing it serves the goals of predatory billionaires who need an energy shortage delivered with endless virtue signaling by expensive, unreliable, erratic, and short-lived wind and solar. How can the destruction of forests and migratory birds for metal monsters and solar arrays ever be considered environmentally friendly? No, this is only about control and the biggest transfer of wealth this world has ever seen.

Nuclear power is used safely around the world and produces almost no waste. There is no valid reason to oppose nuclear or clean coal unless you’re opposed to cheap and reliable energy.

One Nation supports nuclear power. We support providing Australians with cheap and reliable energy. The establishment parties have made it clear there will be no low cost electricity under their leadership. One Nation will keep on exposing the elitist parasites who seek to send us back into the dark ages and steal our wealth.

Transcript

As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I know that nuclear is an answer to humanity’s energy needs. There are others, including hydro, which is being underutilised, and clean coal. Modern coal can be used in a way that produces zero carbon dioxide. A trial site in Tasmania is currently waiting to install equipment that will convert coal to hydrogen and then hydrogen to electricity—baseload cheap, reliable electricity. This system is only 10 per cent dearer than doing the obvious thing: burning the coal itself for even cheaper electricity. And remember, no-one has provided logical scientific points with empirical scientific data saying that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut—no-one. Increasingly, leading scientists are plucking up the courage to call out the United Nations and the World Economic Forum for their climate scam.

The ruling zeitgeist among politicians, autocrats, predatory businesses and the mouthpiece media hates the concept of plentiful and cheap power. That’s the core issue. UN net zero is not about cheap power and it’s not about saving the environment from a harmless trace gas essential to all life on earth. UN net zero is about restricting electricity output to provide an artificial energy deficit that can be used to control, that can be used to keep those behind this scam in power—scarcity that will rob Australia of a prosperous future that generations of Australians have worked to secure for themselves and for generations to come.

The Greens, Labor, the teals and the globalists among the Liberal and National parties oppose nuclear, and when they do their motivation should be obvious. Critics of nuclear power are serving the interests of the predatory billionaires who need an energy shortage to control people to prevent protests against what is currently the largest wealth transfer in history—a transfer from everyday Australians to the world’s wealthiest individuals. As for the Greens and the teals, it makes no sense to pretend to the environmentalists and then stand back as swathes of Australia—national parks, bushland and farmland—are vandalised for wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines, in a manner that stops soaring birds from migrating and nesting, coming around the world to do so. It’s telling that the teals and Greens opposed Senator Cadell’s proposed inquiry into this environmental vandalism. That reveals their real agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with the natural environment. It’s about control and wealth transfer. So these days we listen to the Greens, the teals, Labor and the dominant globalist wing of the Liberals and Nationals putting nuclear to the sword. This is not based on any valid objection to nuclear power, which is used around the world, is safe and produces almost no waste. No, these establishment parties are putting nuclear to the sword for the same reason that modern coal is being put to the sword. There will be no low-cost electricity again in this country under a government that any of these establishment parties leads. There will be control. There will be wealth transfer from the people to elitist parasites. One Nation will continue to expose them and to support nuclear.

/2 Comments/by

Wind and solar cannot solve high power prices and inflation

,

Alan Finkel is right when he says we are at a turning point in history. There are two paths for Australia to choose between. One leads to a country where manufacturing thrives and everyone, including the poor, enjoys better living standards on the back of affordable and reliable power. On the other, power prices continue to rise, and the stability of our grid is at risk.

With the highest amount of wind, solar and battery power feeding into the grid in history, Australia’s wholesale power prices have never been higher. All Australians are going to feel the brunt of these price increases. This is a primary cause of our current inflation and it will only get worse, as I have been warning for two years.

Despite net-zero rhetoric, there is an unavoidable truth. Wind and solar cannot solve high power prices and inflation.

Committing to net-zero means that  Government has signed a blank cheque to the wind, solar and battery industry whose only solution is more of the same power shortages and high prices.

For example, the closure of the Liddell coal fired power station will be a loss of 2000MW of dispatchable power.

With unreliable renewables operating on average at 23% of their rated capacity because wind and solar take days off, Australia will need hundreds of square kilometres of solar panels to replace Liddell.[1]

Those hundreds of square kilometres of panels, even running at full capacity, won’t guarantee power is being made when needed. Solar power peaks at midday, far away from the peak demand in the early morning and evening. Wind droughts lasting months have wreaked havoc in Europe.[2] Batteries cannot and won’t fix the gap.

The largest battery in Australia can supply 300MW for an hour and a half, a pittance compared to the 2000MW Liddell could produce.[3] That’s even before we consider that because of transmission and power conversion, battery storage might waste around 20% of the power we use to charge them.[4]

What does all this mean? Wind and solar subsidies force other, more reliable sources of power out of the market. Coal generators are forced into early retirement. Nuclear can’t even be investigated.

Wind and solar are inefficient and intermittent. There is less supply of electricity and it is more unreliable. That makes power more expensive and risky for businesses, employers and wage-earners.

Wind, solar and battery advocates claim that a ‘plan to transition the grid’ can solve all this. What is rarely said is that the plan to ditch coal could cost $320 billion, a cost that one way or another Australians will have to pay from their hip pocket.[5]

Australia is facing down the barrel of a cost of living and inflation crisis. We must abandon the ill-advised forced uptake of wind and solar that is going to keep making power bills more expensive.

Instead, we must stop demonizing coal and build coal fired power stations to cover our transition. Power companies must know that the government won’t force coal to go broke so they can freely invest to maintain their existing assets and build more.

Wherever possible we must build dams with hydro power and retro fit hydro. Snowy Hydro 2.0 has laid bare the false promises of pumped hydro.[6]

And finally, we must investigate nuclear power. Australia has had a nuclear reactor running in Lucas Heights, Sydney since 1958.[7] Australia’s ban on nuclear power is no longer fit for purpose. Everything must be on the table to be investigated if it means bringing Australia’s power bills down.

Although electricity from nuclear is typically more expensive than coal and hydro, in places such as South Australia with its massive uranium reserves and low thermal value coal, nuclear needs to be considered.

It may be years before some of these solutions take effect, but it will be even longer if we do not start them now. Decades of politicians making decisions for the next election instead of the next generation has left Australia with this cost of living and inflation crisis. We must act today with a vision for the future, rooted in reality and with the sole focus of making Australian living cheaper and easier while being environmentally responsible.

[1] For example, 1800Mw Liddell output at 90%, 10-30% capacity factor of solar, estimated 2-3ha (0.02-.03sqkm) per MW of solar power

[2] https://theconversation.com/what-europes-exceptionally-low-winds-mean-for-the-future-energy-grid-170135

[3] https://www.energy-storage.news/victorian-big-battery-australias-biggest-battery-storage-system-at-450mwh-is-online/#:~:text=The%20Victorian%20Big%20Battery%2C%20a,for%20the%20state%20of%20Victoria.

[4] https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1w Battery (Charging) vs. Battery (Discharging)

[5] https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/why-it-will-cost-320b-to-ditch-coal-in-three-maps-and-a-chart-20220608-p5as3t

[6] https://www.smh.com.au/national/five-years-on-snowy-2-0-emerges-as-a-10-billion-white-elephant-20220310-p5a3ge.html

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Flux_Australian_Reactor

/3 Comments/by