I’ve written another piece on the uneconomics of nuclear power in Australia
The big unanswered question about nuclear power in Australia is how much it would cost. The handful of plants completed recently in the US and Europe have run way over time and over budget, but perhaps such failures can be avoided. On the other hand, the relatively successful Barakah project in the United Arab Emirates was undertaken in conditions that aren’t comparable to a democratic high-wage country like Australia. Moreover, the cost of the project, wrapped up in a long-term contract for both construction and maintenance, remains opaque. Most other projects are being constructed by Chinese or Russian firms, not an option for Australia
In these circumstances, CSIRO’s Gencost project relied mainly on evidence from Korea, one of the few developed countries to maintain a nuclear construction program. Adjusting for the costs of starting from scratch, CSIRO has come up with an estimated construction cost for a 1000 MW nuclear plant of at least $A8.6 billion, leading to an estimated Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) of between $163/MWh-$264/MWh, for large-scale nuclear. But, given the limited evidence base, critics like Dick Smith have been able to argue that CSIRO has overestimated the capital costs.
Thanks to a recent announcement from Czechia, we now have the basis for a more informed estimate. Ever since the commissioning its last nuclear plan in 2003, Czech governments have sought commercial agreements for the construction of more nuclear power plants, with little success until recently.
Finally, after a process beginning in 2020, the Czech government sought tenders from three firms to build at least two, and possibly four 1000 MW reactors. After Westinghouse was excluded for unspecified failures to meet tender conditions, two contenders remained: EDF and KNHP. On 17 July it was announced that KNHP had submitted the winning bid, which, coincidentally, set the cost per GW at $8.6 billion.
Sadly for nuclear advocates, that figure is in $US. Converted to $A, it’s 12.8 billion, around 50 per cent more than the CSIRO Gencost estimate. At that price, the LCOE, even on the most favorable assumptions, will exceed $225/MWh.
And unlike the case in Australia, Czechia is offering a brownfield site, at no additional cost. The new plants will replace existing Soviet-era reactors at Dukovany. By contrast, in Australia under Dutton’s proposals, the costs of a nuclear plant would need to include the compulsory acquisition of existing sites, from mostly unwilling vendors.
The bad news doesn’t stop there. The (inevitably optimistic) target date for electricity generation is 2038, about the time Australia’s last coal plants will be closing. But the Czechs have at least a five year head start on Australia, even assuming that a Dutton government could begin a tender process soon after taking office. In reality, it would be necessary to establish and staff both a publicly owned nuclear generation enterprise and a nuclear regulatory agency with an appropriate legislative framework.
And there’s one more wrinkle. Westinghouse, excluded from the Czech bid is engaged on long-running litigation with KNHP, claiming a breach of intellectual property. It’s been unsuccessful so far, but a final ruling is not expected until 2025. If Westinghouse succeeds, the Czech project will almost certainly be delayed.
Summing up, taking the Czech announcement as a baseline, building two to four 1000 MW nuclear plants in Australia would probably cost $50-$100 billion, and not be complete until well into the 2040s.
If nuclear power is so costly, why have the Czechs chosen to pursue this technology. The explanation is partly historical. The former Czechoslovakia was an early adopter of nuclear power and, despite the usual delays and cost overruns, enthusiasm for the technology seems to have persisted.
More significant, however, is the influence of one man, Vaclav Klaus, a dominant figure in Czech politics from the dissolution of the Soviet bloc to the 2010s. Apart from sharing the same first name, Klaus has little in common with the architect of Czech freedom, Vaclav Havel. Klaus was, and remains an extreme climate science denialist, whose views are reflected by the rightwing party he founded, the Civic Democratic Party (ODS). Although Klaus himself left office under a cloud in 2013, ODS remained a dominant force.
The current Czech Prime Minister, Petr Fiala (also ODS) has followed the same evolution as other ‘sceptics’, shifting from outright denial to what Chris Bowen has described as “all-too-hard-ism”. And with high carbon prices in Europe, persisting with coal is even less tenable than in Australia. In political terms, nuclear power is the ideal solution to the problem of replacing coal without embracing renewables. It’s just a pity about the economics.
With luck, Australia can learn from the Czech lesson. Even under the favorable conditions of a brownfield site and an established nuclear industry, new nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic.
John Quiggin 
The point of Dutton’s plan is not to build nuclear power. The point is to regain power by false promises. The intention is to further delay the deployment of renewables and ensure that key LNP donors can keep making money from coal and gas. It ticks all the boxes for Dutton: obfuscation, confusion and delay for political power and party funding. Who cares what it does to the environment and people? Dutton certainly doesn’t.
Hi John. I like the post. One query. You suggest a high LCOE, but it has since been reported that it will produce power at less than the current 90 euro/MWh price.
How do those two numbers reconcile. What does the LCOE count that that wholesale price might not.
“Sadly for nuclear advocates, that figure is in $US. Converted to $A, it’s 12.8 billion, around 50 per cent more than the CSIRO Gencost estimate. At that price, the LCOE, even on the most favorable assumptions, will exceed $225/MWh.”
What’s the estimated final built pricing when the currency conversion is also adjusted for PPP? Is the Australian built cost and LCOE higher by at least some further additional 10% to… 75% above! the straight currency conversion?
Living Cost.org $USD
International Cost of Living Calculator, Updated: March 01, 2024
“To maintain the standard of living with a salary of $1000 in Prague, you will need $1753 a month in Sydney – the cost of living in Sydney is 1.75 times higher than in Prague.”
Prague 1000 Sydney-Canberra 1753 = +175%
https://livingcost.org/cost
Wikipedia..GDP (PPP) per capita $International dollar
IMF 2024 Projection
#38-Czechia 50475 #22-Australia 66627 = +130%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Econmomist
Big Mac Index cross border patty power parity $USD
The Czech koruna is 19% undervalued against the US dollar January 2024
The Australian dollar is 10.8% undervalued against the US dollar January 2024
89.2/81 = +110%
https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index
statista $USD
Global price of a Big Mac as of January 2024, by country
Czechia 4.61 Australia 5.07 = +110%
https://www.statista.com/statistics/274326/big-mac-index-global-prices-for-a-big-mac/
EXPENSIVITY $USD
McDonald’s official international Big Mac index (2020-24)
Czechia 4.12 Australia 5.48 = +133%
https://www.expensivity.com/the-price-of-mcdonalds-in-every-country/
Anonymous @2 LCOE seems to be consistently higher than prevailing market prices, apparently because of different ways of discounting over the lifetime of projects. In a comparative exercise like Gencost that shouldn’t be a big problem, since it affects all sources of energy (unless you buy claims that nuclear can last much longer than has historically been the case).
On 23 Jun 2024, Shadow Climate Change and Energy Minister Ted O’Brien appeared on ABC TV’s Insiders program. The discussion on nuclear included (bold text my emphasis):
15:32 David Speers: Let me show you this. This is, this is another report. This is the international Lazard report. You’d be aware of this; comes out every year. It too finds solar, wind pretty cheap. Nuclear is the most expensive, and they have a utilization rate of 97 per cent, and an 80-year lifespan for nuclear. Why are they wrong?
15:49 Ted O’Brien: Again, with the Lazard report, what it looks at, not too dissimilar to CSIRO by the way, is the wholesale part of electricity. So, if you have one unit extra of electricity, what does it cost compared to different technologies? Here’s how we’re looking at it. We’re looking at it from the consumers’ point of view. So, you have to, so you have to look at… Wholesale price is important, ah, so are network charges.
16:17 David Speers: So the wholesale price might be really expensive, but you would, what, subsidize?
16:20 Ted O’Brien: Well, I don’t think they are. I don’t think they are.
16:22 David Speers: How did they get it wrong?
16:23 Ted O’Brien: If you even look at what you showed there, ah, it is comparable to, um, gas for example. It is comparable to coal, for example.
16:31 David Speers: You’re running at 24/7. Gas, you can turn on and off…
16:33 Ted O’Brien: And, and it’s comparable to coal, for example, and we know that…
16:37 David Speers: Coal will be gone by then.
16:38 Ted O’Brien: No, but, but you’re talking about the report you just showed, right? It is comparable to coal, and we know that in Australia, um, you know, at the turn of the century, Australia had among the cheapest electricity in the OECD. Now, that was due to coal. Now, as we move forward, as coal retires, exits from the system, it will be replaced with zero emissions nuclear.
17:00 David Speers: Would you, would you heavily subsidize that wholesale nuclear price?
17:04 Ted O’Brien: We’re not talking about subsidization. We are talking about government ownership.
17:07 David Speers: So, no, no subsidies for people’s bills?
17:10 Ted O’Brien: Again, we’ll be very clear about market reform ahead of the, ahead of the next election.
17:14 David Speers: Let me ask you about local consultation here. We saw the confusion earlier on. What does happen if locals don’t want a nuclear plant?
17:21 Ted O’Brien: So, one of the big lessons that I’ve learnt, sort of talking to a lot of people internationally about this, is the importance of trust and transparency. And that is why from the get-go in opposition, Peter Dutton was very clear, very open, we are looking at zero emissions nuclear energy.
17:38 David Speers: What if locals say no?
17:39 Ted O’Brien: And so, when it comes to our community engagement process… I was up in Muswellbrook, which is one of the communities which might be hosting a plant, on Friday, and I was talking to a lot of people there, and the conversation we had was around their needs as a community. So, one of the benefits we have of nuclear is that up to 77 per cent of workers in a coal plant can seamlessly transition to a nuclear plant and the same occupation.
18:07 David Speers: Okay. Back to the question; what if locals say no?
18:09 Ted O’Brien: Well, I don’t think that will happen, David, because we’ve got…
18:13 David Speers: I’m sure you don’t, but what if they do?
18:15 Ted O’Brien: But, but, let’s lay out what we’re planning to do, okay?
18:17 David Speers: I’m just asking what your, what your approach is if locals say no?
18:21 Ted O’Brien: So, can I lay out our approach, which includes engaging with locals? So upon coming to government, we will have a 2½ year community engagement process. Ultimately, the decision, we are a part of a Westminster system of government; the decision will be a matter for the Minister. Now, if I am the Minister at that time, my decision of course, will be based on the independent coordinating authority’s feasibility report. What’s in our national interest, and what is in the community interest? On the community interest, we need to account for economic, social, and environmental issues. They are the very issues for the last two years, as I’ve heard, ah, complaints about how the Albanese government has been steamrolling over communities. They are the three areas they’ve come come up with: social and community…
19:13 David Speers: If the community says… So, if a community says no, you…
19:18 Ted O’Brien: But when you say, community says no, it sounds like you’re asking, are we going to have a referendum? No, we’re not, um, that is, that is not best practice internationally…
19:26 David Speers: You were Chair of a parliamentary inquiry only a few years back titled Nuclear energy: not without your approval. That was the title. You said the will of the people should be honoured. Is that still your view?
19:37 Ted O’Brien: Well, that report was under the Morrison government, and if you remember the 2019 election, David, um, I was part of that, you covered it, um, as well as you always do. We, we, we were never publicly talking about introducing nuclear energy.
So it seems to me there will be no consultation with the communities hosting the proposed nuclear sites before the next election, and if the Coalition get back in to power then the hosting communities’ views will not be respected.
“So it seems to me there will be no consultation with the communities hosting the proposed nuclear sites before the next election, and if the Coalition get back in to power then the hosting communities’ views will not be respected.”
Dictation not consultation. It’s exactly the same as for world record breaking ponzi immigration/population that a growing ~70% of voters are against.
Looking for a lift in polling Dutton put a small waffling immigration cut dead cat on the table last month. Dutton got the lift, but Dutton quickly got a tap on the shoulder by big, vested interests in the immigration/population ponzi telling him not to go there. He had to rapidly change the subject or risk being sanctioned in the back severely. In short time that dead cat was taken off the table, not to be seen again, and Dutton substituted it with another dead cat as distraction. Some of the big immigration/population vested interests also have big, vested interests in supporting the nuclear never-never so that dead cat was Dutton’s emergency substitute.
The very much alive elephant in the room is gas. Notwithstanding Australia being the Saudi Arabia of gas, the high cost of electricity is due to the high cost of Australian gas setting the NEM price of electricity. The high cost of gas is in turn due to the traitorous LNP and Alternative Labour Party selling out Australians to the rapacious gas cartel comprised of four foreign owned corporations and Santos.
Svante: – “The very much alive elephant in the room is gas.“
Yep. Global fossil methane gas supplies are only going to get more expensive & scarcer.
Australia’s eastern and central gas reserves are inadequate to last decades at current consumption rates. A quick look at the AEMO’s Gas Statement of Opportunities – March 2024: For Australia’s East Coast Gas Market document shows in Figure 26 (on page 47):
Key data:
The 2P reserves estimate reflects statistically that there should be at least a 50% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the sum of estimated proved plus probable reserves.
Gas resources are defined as less certain, & potentially less commercially viable, sources of gas. When estimating these uncertain resources, the best estimate of contingent resources (2C) is used.
Figure 27 shows a large majority of the 2P reserves and 2C resources are concentrated in the north. Northern LNG producers control around 70% of the 2P developed and undeveloped reserves in the ECGM.
Australia needs to rapidly reduce its gas-dependency; not try to develop more gas reserves!
US petroleum geologist Art Berman was in conversation with Johan Landgren in the YouTube video titled Arthur Berman: The Perfect Energy Storm – Peak Cheap Oil and Natural Gas is here, published 16 Feb 2024, duration 0:55:07. On when the US shale gas decline is likely, Art Berman said (from time interval 0:34:11):
“Right, it’s, it’s, it’s almost impossible to make those predictions, and, and, and I, let me just, um, explain for a moment that even if the quality, the performance of individual wells is declining, ah, money makes everything work better. If we just drill more wells, even though those wells are poorer, ah, that’s going to keep the production up, OK? So, so the, so as an earth scientist, um, I’m very interested in the geology, of, of the production, but, but we can’t divorce ourselves from, from markets and capital, and so if we have a lot of capital available we can temporarily, ah, you know, make these supply problems and performance problems seem like they’re not a problem. We basically move them into the future. Um, now unfortunately, one of the effects or the results of the so-called energy transition is that there is increasingly less capital available for the oil and gas business, that a few years ago, back when you wrote your book in 2015, Johan, everybody wanted to invest in oil and gas. Um, and you know, and, and, and, and we were in the US, we were drilling, you know, so many thousands of wells every, every month, and there was, you know, a company would, you know, would, would make some new shares available in a, you know, in a secondary offering, and they would raise billions of dollars in a few hours in the morning, because everybody wanted to buy the stock, um, because they, they saw that there was this need and it was going to grow. That’s not the case anymore, OK, and, and I don’t want to um, you know, take any time discussing why. It’s just empirically true that, that there’s just so much, there’s very little outside money available for oil and gas drilling and development that almost all of it has to come from internally generated funds. So, that’s a, that’s a, a major sea change from a decade ago, and so whereas in the past we might have been able to sort of smooth over, ah, this decline in, in well productivity with more, more drilling, that’s not the way things are today. We just don’t have the capital, and even if companies do, ah, they need to satisfy their shareholders, and their shareholders don’t want them to grow. They want dividends. They want stock buybacks. They want, they want to see the stock price go up, and so there’s a lot of factors that are conspiring to, to not fix this problem, OK. And, and therefore, in answer to your question, I’m quite confident that before this decade is over we’re going to see some serious supply concerns by markets for both oil and natural gas, and it would not surprise me if that happened in a year or two, ah, as opposed to, you know, the five or six years that we have remaining in this decade. Um, so I, I can’t make a hard prediction, but with the data I’m seeing it’s just very difficult for me to imagine, um, a particularly hopeful scenario. I mean, anything is possible, and um, predictions are always wrong, but based on what I’m seeing, I mean I’m, I’m quite confident that we’re going to be looking at much higher energy prices in two, three, certainly four or five years. I, I, I wish it weren’t true. The only way to avoid that is if we have a serious, ah, economic contraction, which is equally possible! Um, that’s not a positive thing, but, but that, you know, that, that, that is the other most likely way energy prices would stay, or, or even go lower. It would be a deflationary kind of trend.”
It seems we won’t need to wait long to see whether Art Berman’s expectations are correct.
Berman is talking about somewhere else, not here.
“Australia’s eastern and central gas reserves are inadequate to last decades at current consumption rates.”
Really? Consumed by who? Don’t mention the foreign cartel?
No, the elephant hidden is Australian LibLab governments serving the foreign gas cartel!
Australia has sufficient gas for centuries of domestic use. Without dealing with the rapacious foreign cartel appropriately in the national interest the transistion fuel to renewables in Australia will be… coal – as recently seen in NSW!
About the same amount of gas consumed currently on the east coast, and there is a large shortfall due to unmet demand, is used just to liquify the LNG exported from Gladstone. The gas burned just to liquify the LNG there is about a fifth of that exported from Australia. The ghg pollution released from the powering of the Gladstone export liquification process is a large part of that for all eastern Australia! Additional fugitive emmisions data are themselves fugitive/fudged.
See:
MACROBUSINESS Category: Australian LNG
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/category/australian-lng
Many, many articles there tracking LibLab governments failing the national interest, crushing Australian industry, driving Australian households’ generally higher living costs – including high electricity costs directly and those passed on by business – all while grovelling before and pandering to the foreign owned gas cartel delivering cheap gas to foreign consumers.
European consumers now consume Australian gas cheaply shipped and onsold by Japanese and Chinese cartel buyers making huge profits out of that sideline from the excess bought cheap that they cannot use while Australians pay through the nose.
Just the latest update available when writing this morning:
Lady of the gas outraged for cartel – Tuesday, 23 July 2024
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/07/mad-king-prostitutes-for-gas-cartel/
“Alas, this was so predictable:
Resources Minister Madeleine King warned that Greens leader Adam Bandt’s plan to demand legislation in a minority parliament restricting LNG export contracts would destabilise international relations and trash Australia’s global reputation.
…Does The Greens’ gambit bring a domestic reservation regime closer or push it away?
In a rhetorical sense it is the latter.
But if we get a Greens minority government then it can prosecute the case.
There is no more important policy outcome for Australia than smashing the east coast gas cartel.”
AEMO: Australia to have world’s highest energy costs – Wednesday, 26 June 2024https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/06/aemo-australia-to-worlds-highest-energy-costs/
Energy superidiot meets its doom – Friday, 5 July 2024
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/07/energy-superidiot-meets-its-doom/
AEMO: Australia to have world’s highest energy costs – Wednesday, 26 June 2024
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/06/aemo-australia-to-worlds-highest-energy-costs/
Svante: – “Berman is talking about somewhere else, not here.“
Art Berman is talking about the near-term decline of US tight oil and shale gas production. That will inevitably drive increasing scarcities in petroleum oil and fossil methane gas supplies on a global scale, thus likely increasing petroleum fuel & fossil methane gas prices worldwide.
Per the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy-2024 (73rd edition), in year-2023:
The USA is the world’s largest crude oil + condensate and fossil natural gas producer (and consumer).
US tight oil production was 7.7 Mb/d in June 2024 or 58% of US crude oil + condensate output, and Permian production accounted for 5.4 Mb/d or 41% of US output and 70% of tight oil production, per Art Berman tweet on 20 Jul 2024.
Any decrease in the growth of shale gas could become an acute problem because it accounts for 82% of US dry gas production. See Figure 2.
Svante: – “Really? Consumed by who? Don’t mention the foreign cartel?“
Per The Australia Institute, around 80% of Australia’s gas is exported as liquefied natural gas (LNG). That’s the reality!
Svante: – “Australia has sufficient gas for centuries of domestic use.“
Evidence/data? How does that help with reducing GHG emissions? Kevin Anderson said in May 2022 in the YouTube video titled Kevin Anderson methane is a transition fuel to 4ºC, from time interval 0:09:32:
“So, there was lots of money around the world being spent on gas, um, and the rhetorical language around it is it’s a transition fuel. It’s, it’s probably accurate. It’s a transition fuel to four degrees Centigrade of warming. It’s not a transition to 1.5 to 2 degrees Centigrade of warming.”
Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf tweeted on 25 May 2023 a gif animation showing the enlarging purple regions (where the mean annual temperature is projected to be at or above 29 °C, considered outside the ‘human climate niche’) as the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) anomaly increases from +1.5 °C through to +4.4 °C, relative to the pre-industrial baseline.
On our current GHG emissions trajectory, the Earth System GMST anomaly will likely breach the +1.5 °C longer-term (i.e. 30-year mean) threshold around 2030, and the +2.0 °C threshold likely sometime in the 2040s.
Geoff – “Svante: – “Berman is talking about somewhere else, not here.“
Yes, I suppose that does bear repeating.
Geoff – “Art Berman is talking about the near-term decline of US tight oil and shale gas production. That will inevitably drive increasing scarcities in petroleum oil and fossil methane gas supplies on a global scale, thus likely increasing petroleum fuel & fossil methane gas prices worldwide.”
Not applicable to the Lucky Country once the untaxed foreign gas cartel paying pennies for the gas and complicit LibLab grifters are smashed. Not once the cartel pays tax. Not with energy policies in place set in the national interest – the least of which being domestic reservation. Not with gas exporters taxed suitably high enough on super profits from anything above a sale price reasonably set above the cost of extraction and production, say $4/GJ.
The Lucky Country has more gas than America. Why do Americans pay less for gas than Australians? Why do Europeans pay less for American gas than Australians pay for Australian gas? Why do Chinese pay less for Australian gas than Australians pay for Australian gas? Why do Japanese pay less for Australian gas than Australians pay for Australian gas? Why do Europeans pay less for Australian gas than Australians pay for Australian gas? Why does foreign business do well and Australian business struggle to stay afloat and shift production offshore? Why do foreign economies benefit and the Australian economy gets trashed? etc etc.
Geoff – “Svante: – “Really? Consumed by who? Don’t mention the foreign cartel?“
Per The Australia Institute, around 80% of Australia’s gas is exported as liquefied natural gas (LNG). That’s the reality!”
EXACTLY.
The Lucky Country ripoffed off. Again.
And the Australia Institute runs silent on the gas cartel. Grattan worse still – Tony Wood when at Santos in 2013 spruiking for the massive export hub at Gladstone said often there was no need for domestic reservation while knowing it would be sucked dry.
Super profits made. No tax paid (Santos does pay a tiny amount). Gas shortages in Australia. High consumer prices in Australia. Low consumer prices elsewhere. Australia ripped off by LibLab, again.
Geoff – “Svante: – “Australia has sufficient gas for centuries of domestic use.“ Evidence/data?”
I did steer you above to the extensive Macrobusiness documentation, but, no matter, you said as much yourself above even when limited to only that gas already flowing and excluding the as usual ignored free gas burnt by the cartel to power LNG liquification (the same amount as consumed by the entire east coast) in stating “Australia’s eastern and central gas reserves are inadequate to last decades at current consumption rates.” And “Per The Australia Institute, around 80% of Australia’s gas is exported as liquefied natural gas (LNG). That’s the reality!” That is, on that reckoning provided, if consuming 20% lasts decades then consuming 100% lasts at least a century. And that is under current conditions. In fact, it would last Australia much longer as with increasing transition to renewable energy the requirement for energy from gas would decrease and a great store of gas chemical feedstock would remain for booming Australian manufacturing industry. Not another gas well needed in Australia for Australia – ever.
Geoff – “How does that help with reducing GHG emissions?” A huge cut in downstream Scope 3 exported emissions, so a massive cut in aggregate emissions Australia is responsible for.
It’s the way to go.
A Climate Council circular emailed today stated: “…We need new policy thinking, not new gas. And that’s exactly what we’re telling the government with our recent Powering Past Gas report. Our analysis highlights that more gas means more climate pollution harming our kids, and more unnatural disasters driving up our costs of living. What’s more, we already have enough gas to meet Australia’s shrinking needs for more than 60 years.”
Further:
POWERING PAST GAS: AN ENERGY STRATEGY THAT WORKS
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/powering-past-gas-an-energy-strategy-that-works/
Australia’s shift to clean energy is already well under way. Already, one in three Australian households have put solar panels on their rooftops, and 40 percent of our main national energy grid is powered by clean sources.
More than 80 percent of the gas produced here is either shipped to Asian markets as liquefied gas, or used to liquefy gas for export. We only use a fraction of what we produce here at home.
Gas has a small, shrinking and short-term role to play in Australia’s energy mix. By expanding our clean energy capacity this decade, we
can limit gas to a small residual ‘firming’ role in Australia’s electricity grid, halve gas use in our homes and businesses and cut gas use by one-third across our industries.
We have more than enough gas to meet the needs of Aussie families, businesses and industries during this transition. Gas from Australia’s existing projects through to 2035 would be enough to power our domestic energy needs for 64 years.
To avoid adding to our pollution problems and the upcoming global oversupply of gas, Australia should stop building new gas projects and start delivering new policy approaches to ensure we meet our own residual
energy needs first.
The Australian Government has taken some steps to reserve Australian gas to meet domestic energy needs, but can go further. A new Energy Security Guarantee can require multinational gas companies to meet Australian energy needs first without ripping up their contracts with international customers.
Starting a managed decline of gas exports would see Australia take control of our energy and export future. We can build up clean industries with a bright future over the years ahead, as we sensibly scale down this highly polluting, declining one. That is what a real strategy for gas in Australia looks like.”
Geoff, I draw your attention in particular to “4”. It is what I have been going on about, and so too elsewhere have many Australians far more sensible than I am.
There is little time. Will Australia become a lucky country or continue to be the Lucky Country? On past performance the answer is clear: misgoverned and sold out cheap.
Re the gas debate. Private corporations and oligarchs (all super rich) rule the world through the means of (money and finance) capital as power. He who has the capital has the power, or a slice of it, in our system. Our governments and politicians are bought and suborned. They do the bidding of the rich corporations and oligarchs and they get their payoffs in various forms. The masses are largely powerless in this system.
Svante is substantially correct in his contention that gas corporations rip us off, with Aust. government connivance, and sell our gas cheap to China (mainly). The gas corporations pay little or no tax or excise. Australians pay over the odds for the little gas they get from Australian reserves.
Geoff Meill is also substantially correct in that we, and the world, are producing too much gas and other fossil fuels to meet genuinely safe climate targets or to even get anywhere near them. Indeed, we have probably already overshot all safe limits. We need to cease gas exports entirely (by a draconian but possibly staged wind-down) and to use a little bit of our gas (not too much) for a transition fuel.
But that won’t happen in the real world. The possessors of capital (as power) would never permit it and they would pull the strings of their governments. The US or China would attack and/or occupy us to keep the resources flowing. The attacks could be any of the grey war types or a hot war or a controlling occupation by the US disguised as a defence of Australia.
There is no way this system will ever permit the throttling off of fossil fuels, at least not without a sea change in capitalism itself. That is possible I suppose but I give it minimal probability of happening.
Ikonoclast: – “There is no way this system will ever permit the throttling off of fossil fuels…“
Technology can mitigate the depletion problem, but cannot solve it.
Sooner or later, geology will win against technology.
Geoff,
Just to clarify, I meant the current political economy system will not permit the throttling off of fossil fuels. It will try to use everything and try to endlessly increase production and consumption. Of course, this attempted endless growth system cannot succeed indefinitely. Real limits, which are very near, will slow the system and force it into de-growth and most likely collapse.
Still, we have to hope there is some way out. Realism would tell us the only possible way out is deliberate, controlled de-growth reducing luxuries first and necessities last, for all people, equally.
Geoff,
I meant the political economy system won’t permit it. Of course, the real system (the physical earth system) will enforce it.
Anon – “Still, we have to hope there is some way out. Realism would tell us the only possible way out is deliberate, controlled de-growth reducing luxuries first and necessities last, for all people, equally.”
So true. The only way out without becoming an evolutionary dead end. Liberty, equality, fraternity, lightly, globally. And quickly.
My browser, or rather some bot text interpretation function slipped in after whatever update, at times now presents suggested links in a side bar menu based on text I’ve highlighted with the cursor or randomly hovered over… it’s a minor nuisance sometimes vaguely near topic and mildly humorous. Topping the list and almost appropriate for the above snip came:
Living with the Tension Between Hope and Realism | Psychology Today
How about the torsion between hope and realism?
By the way, relevant to controlled de-growth and the bot appearing above, apparently an old school google search uses less than 5ml of water, but the silly bot uses 500ml plus!