Guest Post: Australia’s ‘carbon budget’ may blow out by 40% under the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan – and that’s the best case

 

Sven Teske, University of Technology Sydney

The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors, if elected, would represent a huge shift in energy policy for Australia. It also poses serious questions about whether this nation can meet its international climate obligations.

If Australia is to honour the Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5˚C by mid-century, it can emit about 3 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon dioxide (CO₂) over the next 25 years. This remaining allowance is what’s known as our “carbon budget”.

My colleagues and I recently outlined the technological options for Australia to remain within its carbon budget. We did this using a tool we developed over many years, the “One Earth Climate Model”. It’s a detailed study of pathways for various countries to meet the 1.5˚C goal.

So what happens if we feed the Coalition’s nuclear strategy into the model? As I outline below, even if the reactors are built, the negative impact on Australia’s carbon emissions would be huge. Over the next decade, the renewables transition would stall and coal and gas emissions would rise – possibly leading to a 40% blowout in Australia’s carbon budget.

Dr Andrew Forrest says Climate Trigger and Carbon Solutions Levy needed as well as ending fossil fuel subsidies

At the National Press Club of Australia Iron Ore magnate  Dr Andrew Forrest AO proposed three simple policies for Australia to become become a green energy superpower:

1. Implement a Climate Trigger for new projects; a “Best for Australia” test which explicitly considers climate impacts when approving new major projects.
2. Replacing fossil fuel subsidies with an equally powerful green energy subsidy well before 2030.
3. A Carbon Solutions Levy that would apply to 100 odd major fossil fuel projects in Australia and fossil fuel importing.

“Not changing is not an option, because green energy is lowest cost energy in any Australian home,” Dr Forrest said.

He called for the politicians that represent the Bush to stop taking an ideological line over climate solutions and "to stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels forever". He also labelled the Coalition’s push for nuclear energy “bulldust” and a “new lie” that would delay the clean energy transition and harm regional Australia.

Rejecting nuclear path at COP28, Australia focusses on tripling renewables for decarbonisation

COP28 Nuclear Pledge

Australia has continued to reject taking a nuclear path, but supported the Pledge to triple renewables and double energy efficiency, at the UN Climate Conference COP28.

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.”

Critical minerals processing, battery technologies, Green hydrogen, and green metals key priorities for Australia says Australian Treasurer

Treasurer Jim Chalmers on ABC Insiders 5 November 2023

On 2 November Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers outlined in a speech major direction and priorities for the Labor Government with regard to Climate Policy, Energy policy and Industry Policy. 

Australia's abundance of cheap renewable energy sources gives a definite global advantage in refining and processing critical minerals, manufacturing of batteries and other storage technologies, producing green hydrogen for adding value in energy intensive metals production like green steel and green aluminium.

Here is what the Treasurer said:

To make it very clear, in making decisions about net zero industry policy we will now be guided by these tests:

• Whether Australia can be competitive in the industry, by leveraging and building up our comparative advantages.
• Whether it contributes to an efficient and orderly pathway to net zero.
• Whether it builds the capabilities and resilience of people and regions.
• Whether it improves Australia’s national security and economic resilience and supports the strategic objectives of our global partners.
• And whether it recognises the key role of the private sector and delivers genuine value for money for government.

Applying these five principles has led us to four initial priority areas. All underpinned by and dependant on abundant, cheap, reliable, renewable energy.

• Refining and processing critical minerals.
• Supporting manufacturing of generation and storage technologies, including batteries.
• Producing renewable hydrogen and its derivatives like ammonia.
• And forging green metals.

Divestment: Local Government Super add negative filter for coal

Local Government Super, an industry superannuation fund covering local government workers in NSW, has announced increased negative screening for high carbon assets such as coal mining and coal power generators, specifically citing the impact of climate change for this decision.

The additional negative screening will exclude companies from its portfolio with a material exposure to ‘high carbon sensitive’ activities such as coal and tar sands mining, as well as coal-fired electricity generators. The threshold for this screening has been set at a minimum of one third of company revenue.

The Super fund has used negative screening since 2000 regularly reviewing this policy and it's application. The policy has limited investment with companies involved with tobacco, gambling, armaments and old growth forests, as well as excluding companies with poor management of environment, social and governance (ESG) risks.

Local Government Super has about $8 billion in investments. The policy will mean about $25 million will be divested from various mining and energy companies, including $15 million in shares of AGL Energy and Whitehaven Coal.

Solartopia - Pete Seeger sings a vision of a wind and solar powered world

A friend sent me the link to this youtube video song - Solartopia - produced in 2010. It was good to see Pete Seeger still singing such topical and empowering songs. Songs easy to sing along with and be motivated by. An positive climate change anthem with a vision for a better future for ourselves and our children.

Missouri River floods endanger nuclear power plants

Large parts of the US midwest are experiencing heavy rainfall and flooding, not unlike what Queenslanders saw in December and January this year when Brisbane was inundated. A major problem with urban infrastructure on flood plains is the risk of innundation during flood events, flood events likely to become more frequent with climate change. In Nebraska two nuclear power Stations are threatened by floodwaters.

Italians reject nuclear power, water privatisation

In a referendum over the weekend Italians have rejected plans by conservative Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for nuclear power and water privatisation. More than 50% of the electorate needed to vote, including the estimated 3 million Italians living overseas, for the referendums to be binding. About 57% are estimated to have participated with official projections showing that 95% rejected water privatisation and 90% rejected Berlusconi's plans to build 4 nuclear power plants.

A small nuclear war would cause global cooling

NASA research physical scientist Luke Oman gave a presentation of research into the impact of a regional nuclear war on global temperatures and precipitation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science on February 18, 2011. Such a nuclear conflict, while less severe than a major nuclear conflict resulting in nuclear winter, would cause unprecedented climate change cooling the planet for up to ten years, and cause major famines and starvation from agricultural disruption.

Research from Japan has found that Atmospheric nuclear testing stagnated mid 20th century global warming.

Atmospheric nuclear testing stagnated mid 20th century global warming

New scientific research from Japan puts forward that the stagnation in global warming in the mid twentieth century was caused by the atmospheric nuclear testing carried out between 1945 and 1980. It seems that nuclear winter actually occurred, although on just a small scale.

Australia: Nuclear Plans and Anti-nuclear protests

On Friday morning 25 protestors disrupted the start of the Australian Nuclear Association conference and the speech by Ziggy Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in Sydney. With anti-nuclear placards and chanting slogans the protest caused heated arguments with conference attendees before the building manager was called and ordered the protestors to leave. The protest and Switkowski's speech outlines that this Federal election campaign is effectively a referendum on Nuclear Power in Australia.

Outside the conference Senator Kerry Nettle gave the Greens policy on Nuclear Power to the media. "Ziggy Switkowski who is speaking as a keynote speaker today has drawn up the plan for 25 (nuclear) reactors around Australia," Senator Nettle said. "This is a plan which sparks a disaster for us in tackling climate change." she was reported in the Age as saying.

The Greens say Sydney’s nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights should be shutdown. The new OPAL reactor had to be shutdown three months after it opened this year because of problems in the fuel assembly and leaking water coolant and ANSTO say they don’t know when it will become operational, although the Greens have inside information that repairs may take up to 12 months.

ANSTO and the Federal Government justify the $140 million annual cost of running the new reactor by its production of nuclear isotopes for use in nuclear medicine. However a 2004 report by the Medical Association for Prevention of War Australia found that a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney is not required for medical purposes, with supply of essential isotopes able to be satisfied by importing reactor-produced isotopes from overseas and producing many other isotopes here in cyclotrons.

Inside the conference ANSTO Chairman Ziggy Switkowski said that the protesters' views were not representative of the general population. "If we allow the debate to unfold, and make it fact based, I think we will see that the broader community will accept nuclear power," he said according in an ABC report.

Yet according to a Newspoll conducted late in December 2006 for the Australia Institute, detailed in their report 'Who Wants a Nuclear Power Plant? Support for nuclear power in Australia', there is widespread majority opposition to the construction of Nuclear Power plants both generally and even more so when it is local to people questioned.

Dr Switkowski is pushing for 25 nuclear power plants that he claims would would produce about a third of Australia's energy needs reducing greenhouse emissions by a fifth. However at all other stages of the nuclear cycle: the construction, mining, milling, fabrication and transport nuclear power is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and generates an enormous amount of greenhouse gases.

The Australia Institute published a paper in January 2007, Siting Nuclear Power Plants in Australia Where would they go? (PDF), outlining the likely location for nuclear power stations. They include:

• in Queensland – Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg,
  Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island;
  
• in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory – Port Stephens,
  Central Coast, Botany Bay, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet;
  
• in Victoria – South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip and Portland; and
  
• in South Australia – Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port
  Augusta/Port Pirie.
  

Switkowski is also pushing heavily the development of the 'clean coal' technologies of carbon capture and sequestration, which are still at an early research and development stage. "The most important thing is to find ways to burn coal more cleanly, to capture the combustion product and store them and then to make that technology available to the large coal burning countries around the world," he said to the conference.

However Professor Kurt Lambeck, a geophysicist at Australian National University has criticised both the Government and Labor opposition support for the development of clean coal technologies. "There's a lot of talk about clean coal - it could be construed as an oxymoron. The technological solutions that are being looked at are probably 20 years away before they can be really employed on the large scale. The sequestration has its limitations, the capture of the CO2 has limitations, and it's never totally clean anyway." said Professor Lambeck according to a report in the Age in September. He pointed out that renewable energy systems such as wind and solar are truly clean and should be supported by Government funding and regulation rather than the substantial public handouts and protection to the established coal industry through 'clean coal' research and development.

Australian Governments over the last 30 years have ignored and continue to ignore the necessity for an ongoing national Australian energy policy and a framework for developing alternative energy systems. Justice Fox in his wide-ranging First Report of the Ranger Uranium Enquiry in 1976 made a number of recommendations that have never been carried out by the Fraser, Hawke, Keating or Howard Governments. He recommended that the Australian Government should: develop a national energy policy and review it regularly; take immediate steps for instituting programs of research and development into liquid fuels to replace petroleum, and energy sources other than fossil fuels and nuclear energy; institute a national program of energy conservation; and take into account the energy needs and resources of developing countries.

According to the Greenpeace report, 'Hung Out to Dry:
Federal Neglect of renewable energy research and development in Australia' (PDF) released September 6, 2007:

"In Australia, renewable energy research and development (R&D) now receives very little federal funding; in fact, nearly all current federal energy R&D supports fossil fuel industries. A recent report examining energy and transport subsidies estimated that for 2005-06 R&D funding to Cooperative Research Centres and the CSIRO for fossil fuels was $226 million compared with just $27 million for renewable energy."

Succeeding Governments have continued to fund the Australia Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and the coal industry while a pittance in comparison has been devoted to the development of liquid fuel alternatives and alternative energy sources other than fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Cycle Against the Nuclear Cycle Reaches Melbourne

While Mr Switkowski was outlining his ambitions for nuclear power in Australia, an intrepid group of cyclists has been cycling through the State of Victoria meeting local people and talking about uranium mining and nuclear power. They are the Cycle Against the Nuclear Cycle III who started their journey in Rockhampton in June and will finish in Adelaide in November after more than 4500 kilometres on the road.

I caught up with the cyclists 4 weeks ago when they rode into the East Gippsland rural service town of Orbost on the banks of the Snowy River. Even in deeply rural Victoria they had generated a degree of local support with a welcome barbecue. More astounding, two participants of the 1977 Ride Against Uranium (Video) happened to be in Orbost and attended the barbecue and talked about their experiences in the 1970s campaign against uranium mining. At the public meeting that night about 30 people attended and watched the 'Climate of Hope' 30 minute documentary on climate change and nuclear power.

Three weeks were spent riding through Gippsland, talking to people with Meetings in Lakes Entrance, Bairnsdale and Wonthaggi. According to the Irregular Gippsland Peace Newsletter:

"....the PM's 'facilitator' Dr. Switzkowski claimed that Victoria could have 8 nuclear power generators by 2050. When asked about a Western Port location Switzkowski replied: "If you are going to build a reactor you need to have it near the electricity grid, near a really big user base - whether it's industry or a large population - and you need it close to water - and the coast is acceptable. Does Western Port satisfy those criteria? Yes, it does." It is an interesting statistic that two out of every three Australians remain opposed to nuclear reactors in their local area. The recent earthquake in Japan underneath its largest nuclear reactor highlights the vulnerability of these power stations to natural disasters...Whilst the Member for Flinders apparently states no nuclear power plant will be built in Flinders because four fault lines run through the district whilst every nuclear power plant in Japan and a number in California are built on, or near, fault lines and in countrysides prone to earthquakes. The fact remains that if the Howard government is reelected then Westernport remains the most likely location for the first of up to 8 nuclear reactors planned for the state.

A Nuclear white elephant met the cyclists in Hastings on the 11 October. "We are here because the Hastings community is concerned about the dangers of nuclear power. Nuclear waste is the biggest problem" said spokesperson, Rebecca Pearse. "After 60 years of the nuclear industry, there is still no safe way to deal with radioactive waste. From uranium mines to nuclear reactors, all stages of the nuclear fuel chain leave a radioactive legacy for hundreds of thousands of years" said Pearse. "If we doubled the world's current nuclear power output, we would only reduce CO2 emissions by 5%. Instead of reducing emissions, nuclear power will leave us with radioactive waste dumps, uranium mines and reactors imposed communities. These are things we don't want or need" said Pearse.

Mary Madigan of the Westernport Action Group (WAG) supported the cyclists "We are part of the 74% of Australians who know renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures are the solutions to climate change. Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and unnecessary" she said.

On the 14th October the Mayor of Frankston briefly joined the ride guiding them on the start of their last leg into Melbourne along Beach Road to St Kilda. More cyclists joined the group at St Kilda for the final leg through the city and a relaxed Garden Party event with picnicing with lots of "yellowcake", dancing and a few speakers. Mike McKeon and John Englart, both veterans of the Friends of the Earth Rides Against Uranium in the 1970s gave impassioned accounts of their experiences, followed by ACF anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney. A mutant 3 headed kangaroo scooped the prize for the best costume of the day.

Ride to Work Day

Tens of thousands of people embraced Ride to Work Day on Wednesday, October 17, with CANC cyclists participating by riding into Federation Square before leaving for Geelong. According to an ABC report Deputy Lord Mayor of Melbourne Gary Singer said 8 per cent of city's traffic is now made up of cyclists. "What we're seeing is people often cycling for fitness and wellbeing and also a concern about the environment," he said.

"Every cyclist here is saving 0.3kg of CO2 for every kilometre they ride today." said CANC spokesperson Rebecca Pearse. "People are willing to reduce their energy use and change their lifestyles. What we need to complement this is a government that will committ to sustainable energy technologies, energy efficiency measures" said Ms Pearse.

Thirty thousand people had pre-registered in Ride to Work Day in Sydney and Bicycle Victoria organisers said over 90,000 had participated nationally. Bicycle counts from around Australia show a 30% increase on major commuter routes in the past year. Bicycles outsold cars for the fifth year in a row, reaching a record of 1.3 million in 2006, while motor vehicles declined. 34% of those who took up riding in the Victorian event in 2006 were still riding to work five months later, according to Bicycle Victoria.

Cycle Against the Nuclear cycle are holding further events and meetings in towns in Western Victoria and South Australia. They are due to arrive in Adelaide on November 11, 2007 in time for the Walk Against Warming event.

Sources

• ABC Fri Oct 19, 2007 - Protesters storm nuclear conference
  
• The Age Oct 19, 2007 - Major parties encourage nukes: Greens
  
• MAPW August 2004 report - 'A New Clear Direction: Securing Nuclear Medicine for the Next Generation'
  
• GreensBlog Oct 19, 2007 - Nuclear Shutdown
  
• The Australia Institute, January 2007 report - Siting Nuclear Power Plants in Australia Where would they go?
  
• The Australia Institute, January 2007 report - Who Wants a Nuclear Power Plant? Support for nuclear power in Australia
  
• The Age, September 26, 2007 - Scientist casts doubt over 'clean' coal
  
• Greenpeace, September 6, 2007 - Hung out to Dry: Federal Government guts renewable energy research
  
• Justice Fox, 1976, 1977 - Recommendations of the Ranger Uranium Enquiries
  
• Cycling Against the Nuclear Cycle website www.canc.org.au
  
• Bicycle Victoria National Ride to Work Day
  
• ABC October 17, 2007 - Tens of thousands mark Ride to Work Day
  
• Irregular Gippsland Peace Newsletter - No. 39 October 2007
  
• John Englart - Remembering the FoE Rides against Uranium and other anti-nuclear bike rides
  

Nuclear Power PR campaign debunked by report

Anti-nuclear activists replied to advocates of nuclear power with a comprehensive damning report 'Nuclear Power - No Solution to Climate Change'. Fifty people attended the launch held at Northcote Town Hall organised by Friends of the Earth. Speakers included report author, Dr Jim Green, physicist Dr Alan Roberts, and President of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Dr Tilmin Ruff.



Jim Green gave a comprehensive summary of the report, and bedunked the current pro-nuclear marketing that nuclear power is a necessary method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report says that a doubling of nuclear power output by 2050 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by just five per cent,while increasing the hazards of potential nuclear accidents, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, and the still unsolved problem of waste storage. The report outlines that the solutions to greenhouse gas emissions from power generation lie in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation such as in wind, bioenergy, solar, and tidal power.

Green made the point that only a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from power generation, with the majority caused by the burning of oil as petrol in automobiles.

Dr Alan Roberts is a retired physicist from Monash University who stated up front that he can't see the nuclear energy campaign succedding. "This bubble is going to burst" he said. He then proceeded to outline the background to the nuclear industry public relations campaign, which started with background briefings to the media in the United Kingdom in May 2004. This was a marketing campaign with several prominent Public Relations firms involved, including the involvement of a former British Minister for Energy. The campaign has stressed that nuclear energy is needed for diversification of energy supply, and that nuclear power generation does not contribute any green house gasses. Dr Roberts said that the marketing ignored the fact that substantial green house gas emissions are caused in the total nuclear cycle from mining and extration of uranium, transportation, building reactors, transport of waste, and decommissioning nuclear reactors.

Dr Roberts does not subscribe to neoliberalism, but he said competition and a true free market would kill nuclear power: "nuclear power is not able to compete without subsidies".

The nuclear industry does not want a full and open debate on nuclear power, according to Dr Roberts. He told an anecdote of a chance meeting with an official of the Uranium Information Bureau several years ago. When Alan Roberts asked why they had not debated the subject recently the official said "we decided we would not engage in any debates. We found it counterproductive."

The third speaker was Dr Tilman Ruff, President of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War. Dr Ruff outlined the dangers in radiation, in the threat of nuclear terrorism and nuclear war, and said "this is not a solution to global warming" and that it "delays us getting on with real solutions".

After the speakers several questions were asked. It was revealed that up to half the existing nuclear power reactors need decommissioning in the next 10 years. The British parliament has recently allocated 56 billion pounds just for decommissioning nuclear plants in the near future. The storage of waste was raised, with still no foolproof solution found. Even the Synroc solution trumpeted for the last fifteen years, is still not in use. Most high level waste is currently stored on site with the nuclear reactors. Dr Jim Green referred any detailed enquiries on nuclear waste to the website http://radwaste.org

With BHP taking over Western Mining Corporation and the Olympic Dam Mine at Roxby Downs, several ethical investment schemes have been reassessing opposition and investment in companies involved with uranium mining, a member of the audience said. The size of BHP means it is seven per cent of the Australian stock market, and many fund managers belief it is an important stock to have. The questioner posed that most people were members of superannuation funds and should pressure their funds not to invest in companies involved in uranium mining, or to choose ethical funds which explicitly opposed uranium mining.

The meeting was held in Northcote because the Federal member for the seat of Batman is Labor member Martin Ferguson, who has been pushing very strongly for the expansion of uranium mining and export of uranium to China. There were calls for Martin Ferguson, a shadow minister, should be speaking ALP policy, rather than pushing his own agenda. Members of the audience called for Martin Ferguson to publically debate uranium mining and nuclear power with his electors.

It was announced that Nuclear Free Australia is having an anti-nuclear tour of the city on Tuesday October 11, meeting at 12.30pm GPO Bourke Street Mall.

The meeting wound up with a spokesperson from the Friends of the Earth Anti-uranium Collective, Michaela Stubbs, outlining some grassroots activities that people coud do. The Anti-uranium Collective holds weekly meetings at FOE, 312 Smith Street, each Wednesday night at 6.30pm.

The chair of the meeting, Dimity Hawkins from MAPW, gave details of an intriguing invitation from the US Consulate to the MAPW to attend a briefing on how Iran is breaching non-proliferation conditions in their nuclear program. Something to ponder about in regard to preparing public relations for a possible US attack on Iran?

The report is available for download at:
http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm