Media

Tim told Alicia Barry on ABC TV’s Close of Business that Peter Dutton’s detail free nuclear power plan is costly, a waste of taxpayer’s money, and will delay Australia’s energy transition by 20 years. Read more

Tim Buckley accurately predicts no new details in costings or any other aspect of the LNP’s nuclear ‘policy’ were revealed in Peter Dutton’s speech to CEDA the day after this interview. The LNP nuclear thought bubble remains unviable – too costly, impractical and decades too late for Australian decabonisation. Read more

As Tim Buckley and AM Jonson write the record high of low-cost wind and solar in the grid comes as we are still waiting for the Coalition’s budget projections on its plan to nationalise the eye-watering cost of seven nuclear plants. Read more

Liddell Power Station in Australia’s Hunter Valley burned through coal for five decades before closing last year. Opposition leader Peter Dutton now wants Liddell to be reborn as something banned in the country for a quarter of a century: a nuclear power plant. Tim Buckley, director of the Climate Energy Finance think-tank, said the opposition’s proposals would displace private capital with a “communist-style policy” requiring more than A$100bn of public funds. “It is not impossible, but it is financially illogical,” said Buckley, who questioned the move’s political motivations ahead of an election. “This is not nuclear versus renewables. This is about extending the climate wars.” Read more

Tim Buckley discusses the LNP’s nuclear furphy with French newspaper Les Echos: The Australian Conservatives’ proposal is nothing more than a political bluff that “conflates higher electricity prices with renewable energy”, said Tim Buckley. Among the weaknesses of the plan in question, he cites the envisaged use of SMRs “which are not even commercially available”. He also notes that, when it comes to nuclear power, “Australia is relying on foreign know-how, because we have no skills, expertise or technology, zero”, which suggests that budgets and delivery times are likely to be exceeded. Read more

[On THE EXPRESS TRIBUNE]: A report by Sydney-based think tank Climate Energy Finance (CEF) said China was installing renewables so rapidly it would meet its end-of-2030 target by the end of this month — or 6.5 years early. China accounts for about a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. A recent drop in emissions (the first since relaxing COVID-19 restrictions), combined with the decarbonisation of the power grid, may mean the country’s emissions have peaked. “With the power sector going green, emissions are set to plateau and then progressively fall towards 2030 and beyond,” CEF China energy policy analyst Xuyang Dong said. Read more

China is installing record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear. “We’ve seen America under President Biden throw a trillion dollars on the table [for clean energy],” CEF director Tim Buckley said. “China’s response to that has been to double down and go twice as fast.” “With the power sector going green, emissions are set to plateau and then progressively fall towards 2030 and beyond,” CEF China energy policy analyst Xuyang Dong said. Read more

EdF, which is now fully government owned after facing potential bankruptcy due to delays and massive cost over-runs at its latest generation large scale nuclear plants, had reportedly been working on a new design for SMRs for the last four years. Tim Buckley, from Climate and Energy Finance, seized on the news and called on Opposition leader Peter Dutton and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien to provide more details of their nuclear plans beyond the one page press release they released last month. “Come’on guys, how naive do you take the average Australian voter for?” Buckley wrote. “In your alternate fact world, who do you think will pay for the permanent around 50% increase in Australian energy prices for consumers? Are you really intent on destroying the international competitiveness of Australian industry purely in the service of your fossil fuel funders?” Read more

Tim Buckley, director of think tank Climate Energy Finance, questioned how a form of energy that would produce “zero” electricity for the next 15 to 20 years, could bring down power prices. In the meantime, the Coalition’s plan would undermine investor confidence so Australia didn’t get as much electricity supply from other sources, Buckley said. “Less supply means higher prices — that’s economics 101.” He believes the Coalition’s nuclear strategy could increase electricity prices by 20-50 per cent over the next decade because of the need for more government intervention and funding to extend the life of coal plants. Buckley said the GenCost report — produced by Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO — found power from nuclear could also be double the price of firmed renewables. “Therefore power prices go up, not down,” he said. Read more

As Tim Buckley an Annemarie Jonson argue in this op ed, the LNP’s egregious $100bn+ taxpayer funded nuclear hoax is fiscal irresponsibility of the highest order, designed to disrupt and delay the accelerating renewables transition, as it does catastrophic damage to surging investor confidence in Australia’s firmed renewables rollout and trashes our Paris commitments. Read more

In the West Australian, Climate Energy Finance director Tim Buckley said the CSIRO’s modelling of costs to build nuclear reactors was conservative, estimating the capital cost of the entire project at between $80 billion and $100 billion. “On top of that, you’re looking at $30 billion to $50 billion for the rehabilitation in 60 years time when they have to be decommissioned, another $10 billion for upgrades and refurbishments in 30 years’ time,” he said. Read more

In The Nightly: Peter Dutton’s plan to turn Australia nuclear by 2050 could carry a price tag of $100 billion, according to experts opposed to his proposal while others argue the energy source will provide “low-cost solutions” for customers. Climate Energy Finance director Tim Buckley said he was of the view the CSIRO had been conservative, suggesting Australian taxpayers were likely to be hit with a minimum $80b to $100b in capital costs for the entire project. Read more