Peter Dutton, Liberal's leader

Introduction

This graph was extracted from How would a switch to nuclear affect electricity prices for households and industry?, written by Roger Dargaville, Director Monash Energy Institute, Monash University, and published for The Conversation on 2024/06/21. It shows that even if Mr Dutton's nuclear power stations were built, they would play a very small part in generating Australia's electricity.

Mr Dutton has for many years been a supporter of fossil fuels and a detractor of renewable energy. He also pretends that there is a big future for nuclear power in Australia.

Why has Mr Dutton espoused nuclear power? Most likely because he sees it as a way of keeping fossil fuel power generation going a few more years and putting off the transition to renewable energy. It is hard to believe that he sees nuclear as a viable option for Australia.

Nuclear power will never compete economically with wind and solar power in Australia, it will never achieve a social license in Australia, and it will take far too long develop and build if we are to limit climate change. And, of course, there is the unsolved problem of long-term safe disposal of nuclear waste.

There is no long-term future in fossil fuels in Australia or anywhere else: end of coal, end of oil, end of gas.

Finally, Mr Dutton is being proved wrong again and again in his opposition to renewable energy. Just one example of the success of renewable energy is South Australia, which has gone from near zero renewables to over 70% in less than twenty years.

Wattle Point Wind Farm in South Australia
SA's Yorke Peninsula has a huge potential for wind power, but the existing power transmission line is incapable of handling more renewable electricity than from than this moderately sized wind farm. SA's Eyre Peninsula has an even greater wind (and solar) power potential, but again there is currently no way of getting the power to the more populated areas. Of course Australia's inland has such a huge solar power potential as to boggle the mind! Any reasonable well informed person would have to wonder whether a person, like Mr Dutton, who opposes the full and urgent development of renewable energy in Australia has been corrupted by the fossil fuel lobby.

Home Top Index Mr Dutton and offshore wind power   This section written 2024/10/19 Dutton promises to block an offshore wind farm zone if elected to government In an email dated 2024/10/18 federal Liberal member of parliament for Canning in WA, Andrew Hastie stated that:   Abating greenhouse gasses - calculation 100,000 tonnes per day of abatement is a huge amount. I could well understand people reacting skeptically to that claim. I was sufficiently concerned to double check. My calculations follow. 11GW = 11,000 MW (megawatts). The capacity factor for offshore wind farms is just over 40%. So 11,000 × 0.4 × 24 = 105,600 MWh (megawatt hours) per day. One MWh of power from a coal-fired power station results in at least one tonne of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. For gas fired power stations the emissions are a little less. So for round figures 100,000 tonnes for coal, 65,000 tonnes for gas. "The Coalition announced today that we will cancel Labor’s Mandurah to Dunsborough offshore wind farm, if we win the next federal election." This is a promise to reverse a proposal of the Albanese Labor Government that could reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions by up to 100,000 tonnes per day if the Liberals win the next election. As written elsewhere on these pages, and on my page concerning Andrew Hastie's dishonest scare campaign against the proposed wind farm, it will not in any way disadvantage the local people, especially as the closest turbines to the coast will be 30km out, hardly visible. Mr Dutton's opposition can only be a move to serve the demands of the fossil fuel industries, and shows yet again that the federal Liberals will do all they can to slow the transition to renewable energy and any positive action on climate change mitigation. They seem to be at the beck and call of the coal and gas industries; they might as well be employed as lackeys of the fossil fuel industries. Mr Dutton makes a fool of himself over offshore wind power   This section written November 2023 As remarked on the ABC's Media Watch on 2023/11/13, NewsDay quoted Peter Dutton as saying: "When you look at the whales and the mother and the calf that we saw out there, the dolphins, all of that is at risk because there’s no environmental consideration of what these huge wind turbines — 260, 280 metres out of the water — will mean for that wildlife and for the environment." I have written at some length on another page on offshore wind farms in general and about the myth that offshore wind farms kill or harm whales. There also seems to be no evidence that they harm dolphins, turtles or other sea creatures. Home Top Index On his own website Mr Dutton is quoted as saying: "What Chris Bowen [The Labor government's minister for Climate Change and Energy] is proposing to do here is to destroy the environment, to save the planet. It just doesn’t make any sense." Any well informed person would know that this is a ridiculous thing to say, and quite false. The offshore wind farms will do very little harm to the environment. Either Peter Dutton is ignorant or unethical, or both. He is either ignorant enough to not know that offshore turbines killing whales is a myth, or he is unethical enough to repeat lies when he believes it will serve his purpose to do so.   This section written in November 2023 and edited in June 2024 Peter Dutton says he would like to see nuclear power in Australia. Is this the truth or a ploy to keep coal-fired power stations going longer and look after his life after politics?   Update June 2024 Mr Dutton has stated as official Coalition policy that seven nuclear power stations will be built on the sites of existing or closed coal-fired power stations if he becomes Australia's next Prime Minister. Home Top Index He gave, as part justification for this, the claim that the existing transmission lines could be used. In the case of the proposed Port Augusta power station that this was not viable was immediately pointed out by SA's Premier Peter Malinauskas who stated that the existing transmission lines were fully committed for the wind and solar farms already in the region. The previous Coalition government under PM John Howard made nuclear power illegal in Australia and it would also be against the law in several states. Mr Dutton has refused to give details, including costings and time-lines until after the next election. If he was an honest politician he would request an examination of nuclear in comparison to renewables from a reliable source, such as the CSIRO, AEMO or one of the universities with expertise in the energy field. It is hard to see that Mr Dutton's nuclear proposal is anything other than a ploy to keep fossil fuel generation going a few years longer.   The Conversation The Conversation offers "Academic rigour, journalistic flair". I have found it to be a very informative and, above all, reliable source of information. See their charter.   Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Mr Dutton is keen on these. They are still in the developmental stage. No reliable figures for the cost of electricity from them are available yet; they won't be for years. Proposing them for Australia is the hight of foolishness. I've written at some lenght on small modular reactors on another page.   Mr Dutton’s nuclear wet dream Apart from any of the many other faults in Peter Dutton's nuclear dream even if the nuclear power stations are built on time (which is unlikely, very few nuclear power stations are built on time) they will generate a maximum of 7GW while Australia will be needing around 35-75GW by 2035. (Required generation according to Treasury about 35GW and this will need something like 75GW of generating capacity.) The nuclear power stations, if they are ever built, will not all be completed before 2040 or even 2050. By that time Australia's electricity consumption will be even a lot higher. So, at best, Dutton's nuclear power plants will generate about a fifth of Australia's electricity. The other four fifths will have to be renewable is we are to get to net zero. The figure for required generation is from Projections of Electricity Generation in Australia to 2050, Australian Treasury. A very important point in this regard is the fact that nuclear power was banned by the Howard Coalition government in the late 1990s. If a future Dutton government wanted to repeal this they would have to get legislation through the Senate. No government has had a majority in the Senate for years; there have only been two years since 1981 when a government had a majority in the Senate. The Coalition has next to no chance of getting a Senate majority in the next election, especially with the rise of the community independents movement. A Senate dominated by Labor, Greens and community independents will not support nuclear power in Australia. The Australian Federal Liberal Party and Mr Dutton in particular have been pushing nuclear power as the answer to both Australia's future energy needs and cutting emissions. What are the facts? I've written at some length about the many shortcomings of nuclear power on another page on this site, but just one article published in The Conversation gives a very good summary of why nuclear power is quite unsuitable for Australia's needs. The article is titled Is nuclear the answer to Australia’s climate crisis? Published in The Conversation on 2023/11/03, it was written by Reuben Finighan, PhD candidate at the London School of Economics and Research Fellow at the Superpower Institute, The University of Melbourne. A quote from the Conversation article: There are four arguments against investment in nuclear power: Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, and Vogtle. These are the four major latest-generation plants completed or near completion in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom and France respectively. Cost overruns at these recent plants average over 300%, with more increases to come. The cost of Vogtle, for example, soared from US$14 billion to $34 billion (A$22-53 billion), Flamanville from €3.3 billion to €19 billion (A$5-31 billion), and Hinkley Point C from £16 billion to as much as £70 billion (A$30-132 billion), including subsidies. Completion of Vogtle has been delayed by seven years, Olkiluoto by 14 years, and Flamanville by at least 12 years. Home Top Index Mr Finighan went on to give the current cost of nuclear power to be between Aus$220 and $350 per Megawatt hour (MWh) with the cost of wind and solar power between $35 and $45/MWh. Firming (that is, using energy storage to make the power available at any time) would add another $25 to $34/MWh. "In short, a reliable megawatt hour from renewables costs around a fifth of one from a nuclear plant."   This section added 2024/02/26 CSIRO energy generation cost report Mike Foley wrote a piece for WA Today about a report that CSIRO did into energy generation costs, now and into the future.   Mr Dutton whips the nuclear dead horse again The WA Today article came around the same time as Mr Dutton was suggesting small modular nuclear power stations in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria and similar areas already devastated by coal mining. CSIRO's figures were very relevant to Peter Dutton's continued push for nuclear anergy in Australia (his latest idea is to put a nuclear power station in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria). Quoting Mike Foley: "Nuclear advocates have criticised previous CSIRO reports for not incorporating the costs of tens of billions of dollars of transmission lines needed to link the growing fleet of wind and solar farms across the country into population centres. However, CSIRO has now included more than $30 billion of new transmission lines and projects to provide back up power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining – such as the $12 billion Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro dam. Its findings still showed that renewables were cheaper than nuclear, coal and other fossil fuels."   2023 costs Technology Cost range Wind and solar mix $90-$134 Coal $110-$220 Nuclear $380-$640   2030 costs Technology Cost range Wind and solar mix $70-$100 Coal $85-$135 Nuclear $210-$350 I've placed the CSIRO's figures in the two tables on the right. Plainly, from the figures in the table on the right, renewables are cheaper than coal and much cheaper than nuclear now, and still will be in 2030. Mike Foley also wrote: "US company NuScale was developing the world’s most advanced commercial SMR [Small Modular Reactor] project in Utah, but the project was abandoned in November due to a 70 per cent blowout in project costs." With his implacable opposition to renewable energy you'd have to wonder: Does Mr Dutton believe that if he is to keep his job as PM he has to oppose renewables, because that's what the Federal Liberal Parliamentary Party has always done? Does he push nuclear in an attempt to show that he is not simply a servant of the fossil fuel industries (in the full knowledge that nuclear power will never be viable in Australia)? Has he just 'lost the plot'? Is he simply out of touch with reality? I suspect the answer is some combination of most or all of the above. The CSIRO GenCost 2023-24 report can be read here.   This section added 2024/06/06 Peter Dutton has painted himself into a corner with his pursuit of nuclear power By June 2024 the evidence against the economical and practical viability of nuclear power generation in Australia was overwhelming.   News, 2024/12/27 I see France’s newest nuclear power station has started generating, more than 12 years behind schedule and 300% over budget. France is a nation with long experience in building nuclear power stations; Australia has no experience. Who but a total idiot would see nuclear as a good option for Australia?   Only half joking This morning when my wife and I were out for a walk at one point Denece said "These flies are driving me crazy!" and put a fly net over her head to keep them off her face. Could it be that Mr Dutton needs to wear a fly net? Renewable energy projects were being built at an ever increasing rate (just today I came across an article in Energy Source and Distribution about "Octopus Australia to build 1GW wind project in NSW" and another: "Squadron reveals plans for massive Koorakee Energy Park", involving a "1GW wind farm, 1GW solar farm and 1GW/12GWh energy storage system—one of the biggest in the world". To put this in proportion, there are only a handful of power stations in Australia bigger than 2GW.) Wind and solar farms can be built in a very few years and more and more bigger and bigger installations are being built - and, of course, wind and solar power is far, far cheaper than nuclear. The more recent wind and solar power developments come with storage so that they can continue putting power into the grid when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining. Mr Dutton has tried to hitch his cart to the nuclear horse but the nuclear horse seems to have died. Can Mr Dutton get some life out of it if he flogs it enough? Or can he admit his mistake and change course? Political parties do not have a record of continuing to support leaders who have to admit making a big mistake. Will Mr Dutton go the same way as his nuclear dreams? How long will the federal Liberals be willing to follow him down this dead-end path? Home Top Index Fossil fuel kills millions of people each year through air pollution University College London (UCL) published an Internet page titled Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide in 2021/02/09. The research, led by Harvard University in collaboration with UCL, the University of Birmingham and the University of Leicester has been published in the journal Environmental Research. Quoting from the UCL page: "The study shows that more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel, which aggravate respiratory conditions like asthma and can lead to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, strokes and early death. An estimated 1 in 5 deaths (18 to 21.5%) every year can be attributed to fossil fuel pollution, a figure much higher than previously thought, according to research co-authored by UCL." Home Top Index Also see my page on killer coal that goes into greater depth on the harm that the burning of fossil fuels do to human health.   This section added 2024/06/12 Dutton disappoints all who want strong action on climate change In June 2024 leader of the federal opposition, Peter Dutton, claimed that the Albanese government cannot reach its emissions target of a reduction of 43% by 2030, hinting that if the coalition wins the next election they will scrap this important target. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has counter claimed that his government can reach their target. He says that they are currently heading toward a 42% reduction by 2030 and can increase the rate of change in time.   Labor's poor record It must be said that since coming into power the federal labor government has been approving fossil fuel projects at a high rate and that it is hard to see that this is compatible with meeting any ambitious emissions targets. At the time of writing Mr Dutton and the Liberals were saying that they would not announce a 2030 emissions target before the next election. This seems to be a decision to keep the Australian people in ignorance of their intentions. The next federal election must be on or before 2025/09/27. For more information see The Conversation article by Professor Matt McDonald of the University of Queensland. Also relevant is Dutton confirms nuclear push and climate denial go hand in hand: The pretence has gone, by Giles Parkinson, for RenewEconomy, 2024/06/12.   This section added 2024/05/24 Is there a hidden agenda behind Mr Dutton's pushing for nuclear power?

This graph was extracted from the CSIRO GenCost report
The graph is on page 75 of the report It shows that large-scale nuclear is substantially more expensive, and small modular nuclear power is much more expensive, than integrated solar and onshore wind power.

It has been well publicised that nuclear power stations are enormously expensive, their electricity is likewise enormously expensive, as shown in the recent CSIRO GenCost report. And nuclear power stations are very rarely built on time (except in places like China where their safety is questionable). Even if Mr Dutton's nuclear power stations were to be built, and on time, they would generate only 3% of our electricity in 2050 (as shown elsewhere on this page. The great bulk would be coming from solar, wind and storage. Mr Dutton and his inner circle must know all this. So what is their real aim? Surely it can only be to use the nuclear smokescreen to: Slow the introduction of renewable energy; Keep coal- and gas-fired power stations running a few more years; And consequently please the fossil fuel lobby (that is a big donor to the coalition and that will probably give Dutton and friends lucrative jobs when they leaves parliament). Mr Dutton is not being honest with the Australian people. Home Top Index Peter Dutton and the ABC Mr Dutton periodically criticises the ABC with false and unsubstantiated claims that the national broadcaster is biased. Of course the ABC, when is looks into the policies that Mr Dutton pushes, such as nuclear power, is going to show that they are foolish, uneconomical and impractical. The ABC, unlike some of the commercial media, is realistic in accepting the need for serious action on climate change. Mr Dutton favours fossil fuels to the point of corruption. I suggest that if Mr Dutton wants better coverage from the ABC he should look to his own moral principles, or lack thereof.   This section added 2024/11/21 The only thing that Labor and Liberal can agree on: self-interest Labor, under Anthony Albanese, and Liberal, under Peter Dutton, at the time of writing, seem to have agreed on a way to advantage themselves at the cost of the honest, progressive community independents and minor parties (including the Greens). I intend to write more on this corruption of Australian politics once a reliable analysis becomes available. Australia Institute: "research shows that poorly-considered changes to electoral laws can weaken, not strengthen, elections, including by concentrating financial power in major parties and excluding others, and giving incumbents an unfair advantage in the democratic process."   Home Top Index Hope for a better future: the rise of the honest, forward thinking, environmentally aware, community independent political representatives Quoting Wikipedia "Ten candidates for the House of Representatives and one candidate for the Senate considered teal independents were elected in 2022, of which seven were elected for the first time." The Australian federal election of May 2022 showed that the Australian voters are getting fed up with the current corrupt situation in parliament, where parliamentarians (of both major parties) support the corporations that donate the most in campaign funding. The fact that it was the Liberals who the community independents took seats from shows that the voters are particularly fed up with Dutton-style 'who needs action on climate change?', 'fossil fuels at any cost' and 'we'll all be rooned if we adopt renewable energy' style of government. The Australian people want and deserve far better than what Peter Dutton has to offer. See also the community independents on another page on this site.

Home Top Index