 |
| COP28 Nuclear Pledge |
On 2 December 22 countries call for tripling of nuclear energy by 2050.
The list of nuclear advocates include : Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.
18 of these nations already have a nuclear energy industry. Only four: Moldova, Morocco, Poland and Mongolia, signed the pledge as countries without nuclear power. A number of countries with nuclear energy industries did not sign the pledge.
On the same day 117 other countries signed a pledge to triple global renewable energy capacity, and double energy efficiency, including Australia.
Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said Australia had joined other major energy exporters, including the US, Canada and Norway, in supporting the renewables and energy efficiency push.
“We know that renewables are the cleanest and cheapest form of energy, and that energy efficiency can also help drive down bills and emissions,” he said in a statement. “For emissions to go down around the world, we need a big international push. Australia has the resources and the smarts to help supply the world with clean energy technologies to drive down those emissions while spurring new Australian industry.”
On 23 November Climate Minister Chris Bowen announced 32GW boost to Renewables to meet Australia's 82 percent renewables by 2030 target reports Climate Action Merribek.
Meanwhile Skynews and the Australian are strongly pushing the Coalition Party line on development of nuclear power to address the climate crisis, ignoring the overwhelming economic costs, opportunity costs, and the escalation of costs of living this would bring to Australian electricity consumers.
Dave Sweeney, Nuclear policy analyst, Australian Conservation Foundation said about the Nuclear Push at COP28:
“Pro-nuclear voices have put a lot of money and effort into this CoP to promote nuclear power as a climate response. We don’t agree. Existing nuclear technology is high cost and high risk and new or ‘next generation’ nuclear, including the heavily promoted small modular reactors (SMR’s), is unproven and not in commercial deployment anywhere in the world. We need effective climate action, not nuclear distractions. The Australian experience of communities and First Nations people with the impacts of uranium mining, nuclear testing and waste dumping has shown the gap between nuclear industry rhetoric and lived reality. Our shared energy future cannot be built or based on industry assurances or politicians promises. Renewable energy is proven, popular, safer, cheaper and far more deployable. Our low carbon energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
France Foreign Minister suggests nuclear for Australia?
French Foreign Affairs Minister Catherine Colonna is currently visiting Australia and at the National Press Club on Monday called for Australia to lift its ban on the civil nuclear industry, arguing that It was a source of energy that would be necessary to reduce emissions to net-zero by 2050, she said.
"By all accounts, all studies from all bodies, we know that we need both to develop renewable energy and to have some nuclear civil capacities," Ms Colonna told the National Press Club on Monday. "It is sustainable economically," she added, pointing to her nation's move to nuclear capabilities decades ago. "It's an example ... that we encourage other nations to draw (upon) should they want to follow these things."
But the French nuclear Industry has many problems, including increasing heatweaves and droughts forcing reactors to shut down or reduce capacity at a time when there is increased electricity demand.During Summer France often needs to import electricity from Italy and Germany. The new Flamanville Nuclear plant in Normandy, intended to be a flagship plant for a new generation of nuclear generation, ist now 10 years late and with costs €15 billion over the original budget—about four times the original estimate. 16 years to build in a country with a civil nuclear construction industry.
If Australia, starting from scratch with minimal experience with a foundation in nuclear medicine and a single research reactor, imitating France we might have a reactor by 2040 at a huge cost measured in the tens of billions.
Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong outlined on Monday in a question from Senator Birmingham the reasons why Australia would not pursue nuclear power:
"There are countries around the world which, many decades ago, made a decision to go down the nuclear path. Some of the countries that you have referenced are amongst those. Australia made a choice not to do that. Australia has made a choice to look to the comparative advantage that we have when it comes to the cheapest forms of energy, which is firmed renewables. More sunlight hits our land mass than any other country. We know that we have so many untapped resources when it comes to renewables.
"I appreciate that the opposition are very committed to the nuclear path. I understand Mr O'Brien has said that he'd be happy to have one in his electorate. That's a matter for him. But we will focus on the form of energy which is the cheapest form of new energy, which is renewable energy, rather than what is, frankly, an ideological agenda from those opposite when it comes to nuclear power generation. There are countries in the world—France and others—which many years ago chose to go down the nuclear energy path. That is not the approach Australia has been taking. We have some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. That's why we joined so many countries to support a key push for renewables and energy efficiency at the Conference of the Parties."
The Don't Nuke the Climate Group argue the nuclear pledge to triple the nuclear capacity worldwide by 2050 is simply not realistic.
World leaders have not learned from the failures of the nuclear industry in recent years. For example, Toshiba, a leading Japanese company, was brought to the brink of bankruptcy by the failure of its nuclear power business in the United States. Just recently, NuScale Power, a U.S.-based company, announced the cancellation of its plan to build small nuclear reactors (SMR). It was obvious that NuSscale’s SMR was not price competitive even after a large subsidy injection. Spending public money on nuclear power, which has no future, will only unjustifiably enrich the nuclear industry.
Nuclear is no solution
Masayoshi Iyoda, a Japan campaigner at 350.org, said:
“There is no space for dangerous nuclear power to accelerate the decarbonization needed to achieve the Paris climate goal … it is nothing more than a dangerous distraction. The attempt of a ‘nuclear renaissance’ led by nuclear industries’ lobbyists since the 2000s has never been successful - it is simply too costly, too risky, too undemocratic, and too time-consuming. We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency."
Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner, Climate Envoy for the Republic of the Marshall Islands highlighted the horrific consequences of the US nuclear weapons testing program on her nation:
“Despite being one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change I still don’t support nuclear energy as a climate solution because I know as a Marshallese person the destructive, volatile nature of nuclear energy. To this day we’re still feeling the horrific consequences of the US nuclear weapons testing program on our country so to see if touted as a climate solution is horrifying.The solutions are already here. Cheap, reliable and safe renewable energy like wind and solar are proven and expanding. We can’t afford to be distracted, renewables should be our focus.”
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?
On 9 November - Small Modular Nuclear power - "The only company to have a small modular nuclear power plant approved in the US – cited by the Australian opposition as evidence of a “burgeoning” global nuclear industry – has cancelled its first project due to rising costs. (Guardian)
A report in the Guardian in September 2023 uses an Energy department assessment that Replacing Australia’s retiring coal power stations with small nuclear reactors could cost $387 billion, analysis suggests.
The analysis showed a minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of Australia’s retiring coal fleet.
CSIRO GenCost report compares electricity costs
“According to the 2022-23 GenCost report modelling under the current policies scenario, this could cost $387bn,” the government summary said. “This is due to the estimated capital cost of $18,167/kW for [small modular reactors] in 2030, compared to large scale solar at just $1,058/kW, and onshore wind at $1,989/kW.”
Going down the civil nuclear path would massively escalate electricity bills adding to cost of living pressures.
CSIRO's Gencost report for 2022/2023 compares the cost of electricity projected for 2030. Solar and wind are the cheapest, even when adding in firming (storage) technologies.
"Achieving the lower end of the nuclear SMR range requires that SMR is deployed globally in large enough capacity to bring down costs available to Australia." the report says. At the moment there is no SMR industry scaling up to deliver technology improvements to scale down costs.
Residential Solar installation at record levels
On 4 December Renew Economy reported that just over 330MW of new rooftop solar systems (0-100kW) was installed in November 2023, “smashing the previous record” of 314MW set in December 2020. That is the equivalent of installing one SMR 300MW reactor per month.
Nuclear path uneconomic, not using our comparative advantages in renewables say Energy Minister
Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen articulated the strong economic reasons why Australia would not pursue a nuclear power path in an interview in Canberra on 18 September 2023:
CHRIS BOWEN: So some people say our plans aren't ambitious enough, 82% renewables. We point out that you need that firming capacity, that 18%, certainly on the 2030 timeframe. The Liberals are saying we have too many renewables and are too focused on renewables. They say they would have a slower and less forward-leaning renewables plan. They say their answer is nuclear. They think the answer is to put the most expensive form of power available into our grid when we have no nuclear industry, we have no regulations in place, it would cost even more than replacing other countries and around the world it's facing cost blowouts and time blowouts right around the world. Well, you know, it's time for the Liberals to put up or shut up, answer these concerns, or reveal what the alternative is.
JOURNALIST: The Nationals in particular have spoken about those modular nuclear facilities and whether they could be put near a big user of power, like an aluminium smelter or something like that. Is there a role at all for nuclear play as part of our mix, not replace coal, but as part of the mix?
CHRIS BOWEN: Let's look at small modular reactors so-called and alleged. There's two in the world operating at the moment. One on a barge in Russia and one in China. Neither of them commercial. Mr O'Brien likes to go overseas and look at nuclear things. I'll tell you one thing he hasn't been to look at - a commercially operating small modular reactor because there isn't one. It doesn't exist. I'm sure he'd go if he could. It doesn't exist. So nuclear is the wrong fit for Australia. It's not a flexible source like gas, you can turn up and down. Nuclear has not been that. Certainly not cheap. And it's not on the timeframe.
I mean, 2029 and 2030 are the most optimistic forecast for small modular reactors in the United States and Canada. Nobody serious, apart from Mr O'Brien, suggests that we constantly meet that timeframe in Australia starting from a standing start. So we're talking, you know, late 2030s, early 2040s, at best. Are they really suggesting we do nothing until then? Seems like maybe they are.
JOURNALIST: If there are only two small modular reactors, how can we make any legitimate assessment of how much it would cost?
CHRIS BOWEN: We know the cost of nuclear, though. The work's been done, and it's conservative work. It's conservative work, it's been done on the cost of small modular reactors in 2030.
JOURNALIST: The Opposition's pointing to three times cheaper energy prices in Canada for consumers. Do you accept that?
CHRIS BOWEN: The Opposition's pointing to three times cheaper power in Canada? They also said nuclear power was 60% of Canada. It's 15. I mean, if Mr O'Brien and the Liberals want to use the Canadian example, they can. It's 15%. Energy Canada points out the reason why Canada has cheap power prices by international comparisons is because they have so much renewable hydro. That's the fact.
References:
Chris Bowen, Press conference - Canberra, 18 September 2023, DCCEEW, https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/transcripts/press-conference-canberra-1
Don't Nuke the Climate, Joint press release: Nuclear power cannot be a climate solution - COP28, 2 December 2023, https://dont-nuke-the-climate.org/blog/renewable-not-radioactive-global-call-for-effective-climate-action
The Guardian, 3 December 2023, Australia backs Cop28 promise to triple renewables but not nuclear capacity pledge https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/03/australia-backs-cop28-renewables-pledge-as-chris-bowen-calls-for-international-emissions-reduction-push
Yahoo News, 4 December, 2023, France backs Australia lifting civil nuclear energy ban https://au.news.yahoo.com/france-backs-australia-lifting-civil-041838076.html
National Press Club livestream, Catherine Colonna, Youtube, 4 December 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly3IGgu2ZAU
Senate Hansard, 4 December 2023, https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/27150/toc_pdf/Senate_2023_12_04.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
The Energy Mix, 7 August 2022, Failing French Nuclear Plants Drive Up Electricity Costs as Heat Waves Cut Production https://www.theenergymix.com/failing-french-nuclear-plants-drive-up-electricity-costs-as-heat-wave-cuts-production/
CSIRO GenCost report 2022/2023, July 2023, Graham, P., Hayward, J., Foster J. and Havas, L. 2023, GenCost 2022-23: Final report, CSIRO, https://www.csiro.au/-/media/EF/Files/GenCost/GenCost2022-23Final_27-06-2023.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment