<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >

<channel><title><![CDATA[Steve Bishop and The Most Dangerous Detective - Dutton nuclear policy can\'t be delivered]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.stevebishop.net/dutton-nuclear-policy-cant-be-delivered]]></link><description><![CDATA[Dutton nuclear policy can\'t be delivered]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:52:38 +1000</pubDate><generator>Weebly</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Dutton nuclear policy can't be delivered]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.stevebishop.net/dutton-nuclear-policy-cant-be-delivered/dutton-nuclear-policy-cant-be-delivered]]></link><comments><![CDATA[http://www.stevebishop.net/dutton-nuclear-policy-cant-be-delivered/dutton-nuclear-policy-cant-be-delivered#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:23:25 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevebishop.net/dutton-nuclear-policy-cant-be-delivered/dutton-nuclear-policy-cant-be-delivered</guid><description><![CDATA[Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is scamming Australians with a nuclear power promise he knows he cannot deliver..LNP research would have revealed the impossibility of providing nuclear power by the Coalition's target of the mid 2030s.It means a Dutton government would continue the years of Coalition ineptitude in tackling climate change and failing to provide a workable energy policy.Coalition senator Matt Canavan has revealed it's nothing more than a "fix"."Nuclear's not going to cut it. But we' [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph"><span><font size="3">Opposition Leader Peter <a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/team/peter-dutton"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">Dutton </span></a>is scamming Australians with a nuclear power promise he knows he cannot deliver..</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">LNP research would have revealed the impossibility of providing nuclear power by the Coalition's target of the <a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/2024/06/19/australias-energy-future"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">mid 2030s</span></a>.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">It means a Dutton government would continue the years of Coalition ineptitude in tackling climate change and failing to provide a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/simon-holmes---court"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">workable energy policy</span></a>.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">Coalition senator Matt Canavan has revealed it's nothing more than a "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYNQEK_-WLM"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">fix</span></a>".</font></span><br /><br /><span><em><font size="3">"Nuclear's not going to cut it. But we're latching on to it...because it fixes a political issue for us...But it ain't the cheapest form of power,"&nbsp;</font></em></span><span><font size="3">he said.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">In other words, it's a con. Or to use a good Aussie word: a rort.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">It's why an internet search has found no trace of an authoritative nuclear body or expert endorsing the Coalition's nuclear timeframe.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">It's simply a version of the old-time medicine show that peddled worthless cures to the gullible. The evidence demonstrates that the flim-flammery of Mr Dutton's Miracle Nuclear Elixir cannot work.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">Mr Dutton promised: "</font></span><span><font size="3"><em>A Federal Coalition Government will initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400. They will start producing electricity</em><a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/2024/06/19/australias-energy-future"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)"><em> by 2035</em></span></a><em> (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option)</em>."</font></span><br /><br /><font size="3"><span>The CSIRO found in its GenCost 2023</span><span>&#8208;</span><span>24 report that the earliest deployment for large scale nuclear rectors would not occur until after 2040.</span></font><br /><br /><span><font size="3">In the US, which has a nuclear power industry, AP1000 units at Vogtle, Georgie, USA, took <a href="https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-tragedy-for-the-people-of-georgia/"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">15 years to build</span></a>, more than twice the projected timeline.&nbsp;</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">In Finland the 1600mw Olkiluoto 3 was completed in 2023 - <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">18 years</span></a> after construction started.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">Even in China, with <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/energy-transition/051122-fewer-hurdles-for-nuclear-power-growth-in-china-compared-to-asian-peers-ratings"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">fewer hurdles</span></a> to jump and a massive nuclear industry, it took <a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">14 years</span></a> for the Sanmen1 nuclear power station to be completed with plans for two units approved in 2004 and the first 1200mw reactor starting commercial operation on September 2018.</font></span><br /><br /><font size="3"><span>So it would be impossible to switch on a large plant in Australia before 2040. Is it feasible </span><span>for the Coalition to build small modular reactors (SMRs) by 2035 as projected?</span></font><br /><br /><span><font size="3">The ANU Institute for Climate, Energy &amp; Disaster Solutions suggests it would be more like 15 years before the first reactor could start producing.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">It says: "</font></span><span><font size="3"><em>In&nbsp; Western countries...recent construction times have far exceeded </em><a href="https://policybrief.anu.edu.au/the-coalitions-nuclear-plan-does-it-add-up/"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)"><em>a decade</em></span></a><em>...Before any nuclear power plant can be built here, we would first need to establish a regulatory system. That could take up to five years</em>."</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has found:</font><font size="4"> "</font></span><font size="4"><em>SMRs would not be operating before the 2040s in Australia,</em><a href="https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/fact-sheet-SMR-AU_1.pdf"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)"><em> too late</em></span></a><em> to replace coal</em><span>."</span></font><br /><br /><span><font size="3">It also revealed construction delays of 12 to 13 years had occurred in four of the few completed SMRs - in Argentina, China and Russia.</font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">Similarly, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) has found: "</font></span><span>.</span><em>..a mature market for the technology may emerge in the </em><a href="https://www.atse.org.au/news/new-report-reveals-technical-and-market-implications-for-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-in-australia/"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)"><em>late 2040s".</em></span></a><br /><br /><span><font size="3">Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte, a nuclear engineer, told a NSW inquiry in 2020 that it would be "<em>naive</em>" to think a power plant could be built in less than <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/report-raises-doubts-over-opposition-s-nuclear-power-plan/ar-BB1jCj3T"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">two decades</span></a>.&nbsp;</font></span><br /><br /><font size="3"><span>The UK, which already has nuclear power stations, claims it is running the world's <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/six-companies-through-to-next-stage-of-nuclear-technology-competition"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">fastest</span></a> process to </span><span style="color:rgb(25, 28, 31)">deliver an operational SMR by the <a href="https://www.powermag.com/uk-smr-competition-narrows-contenders-to-four-nuclear-designs/"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">mid-2030s</span></a>. But i</span><span>t started this process in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-nuclear-technologies/advanced-nuclear-technologies"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">2021</span></a> with a target date of the "early 2030s" and that has already blown out to the "<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/six-companies-through-to-next-stage-of-nuclear-technology-competition"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">mid-2030s</span></a>" - some 16 years on from 2021.</span></font><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">This process aims to invest in demonstration SMRs in 2029 but a research paper filed on SSRN (Social Science Research Network) has found that if it then takes only </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font size="3">two years to deploy resources ready for construction and only three years to build the plant, and a further two years to demonstrate successful operation </font><font size="4">"</font></span><font size="4"><em style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">any follow-on capacity would only come online </em><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4971427"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)"><em>well after 2040</em></span></a><em style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">."</em></font><br /><br /><span><font size="3">Even if a Coalition government was able to emulate this "<em>fastest</em>" process it would be after 2040 before an SMR is built - but a graph on <a href="https://www.frontier-economics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Report-2-Nuclear-power-analysis-Final-STC.pdf"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)">page 7</span></a> of the plan released by Mr Dutton shows about 1,750mw of nuclear power being produced by 2036. </font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">That would require six reactors having gone through the planning process, built, tested and commissioned - an impossibility based on the expert evidence. </font></span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">In June Mr Dutton said: "</font></span><em>I&rsquo;m very happy for the election to be </em><a href="https://www.peterdutton.com.au/leader-of-the-opposition-transcript-joint-press-conference-with-the-hon-david-littleproud-mp-the-hon-sussan-ley-mp-the-hon-angus-taylor-mp-and-mr-ted-obrien-mp-sydney/"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255)"><em>a referendum</em></span></a><em> on energy, on nuclear, on power prices</em><span>..."</span><br /><br /><span><font size="3">The overwhelming evidence means the Coalition scam should be rejected at the ballot box.</font></span></div>]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>