Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plan could lead to major electricity shortages, analysis says | Coalition

Peter Dateon’s plan to build a less renewable energy and maintain the operation of coal factories in Australia for a longer period that may exaggerate the estimation of the reliability of aging generators and can lead to a significant shortage of electricity, according to a new analysis.

the Coalition She pledged to put the nuclear reactors funded by taxpayers in seven locations all over Australia, and pointed to modeling by the border economy, which shows that the country’s advanced coal fleet in the country will need to obtain a recession in generating electricity during its construction.

But the institute for energy The economy and financial analysis (IEFA) said that the modeling has assumed that the bridle coal factories will be able to generate between 72 % and 81 % of their capabilities, which are much higher than the previous plants that were close to the end of their life.

IEFA report was considered in 13 coal factors that have been closed since 2000 and found in the ten years that were closed, which were only available on average 66 % of time due to power outages and the need to increase maintenance.

When IEFA modified the alliance numbers between 2034 and 2043 to calculate what he said was a more realistic estimate of the capabilities of the fleet of coal, he found a shortage of 9,300 gigawatts per year-the equivalent of the strength consumed by 2 million families.

Johanna Bouer, the IEFA’s leading electricity analyst, said that failure to calculate the weak performance of the advanced charcoal fleet would risk the unexpected coal interruption “and a system that has not been built for their account.”

The average age of the charcoal factory when he retired was 42 years.

“During the thirties of the twentieth century, the current coal power plants will be close to, or bypassing, the age at which previous coal factories usually retired.

“We must plan that they can suffer from a similar deterioration in their availability.”

A A report commissioned by the Climate Council last year I looked at the data from 2014 to 2024 and found that the coal factories under 40 years were available by 81 % of the time, as it decreased to 65 % in its last years.

Edis said that if a future government is forced to rely on more gas generation to fill the gaps, this will be burned between 49 and 93 of the gas annually from 2034 to 2043.

Edis said: “This is a large amount of additional gas, given the average amount of gas used to generate electricity over the past five years has been 122pj per year,” said Edis.

“These additional gas requirements will have severe consequences for the price and availability of gas to other consumers.”

Nuclear delay risk

The coalition -backed modeling assumed that the first nuclear reactor would produce energy by 2036, with more online plants from 2039 on the rising.

Many energy experts, including CSIRO, were less optimistic, saying that it might take up to the early twenties of the last century before the factory worked, Perhaps longer.

The IEFA report said that four nuclear factories were recently brought online in Europe, and the United States has witnessed a delay between six and 14 years – with an average delay of 11 years.

“If we have a 11 -year delay with nuclear construction, we will see a huge gap in power supply. Fill that gap with the new generation becomes very difficult and expands the scope of this coal factories,” said Bouer. [of them becoming less reliable]”

Guardian Australia is close to the border economy for comment.

A statement issued by the coalition said that the approach based on renewable energy sources in the Labor Party is “forcing the early closure to generate coal-before the reported closure dates.”

“Sound maintenance can guarantee that coal factories are not closed prematurely. The coalition approach, based on the comprehensive and supported modeling, guarantees coal continuing to play a decisive role in the power mix in Australia, both and now and in the future.”

The statement said that border modeling was a “realistic and comprehensive point of view”, with the costs of maintenance of coal factories “while realizing the continuous importance of coal in maintaining the stability of the network during the transmission of energy.”

“The Labor Party talks about the gradual disposal of coal, but behind closed doors, they cut deals with the states to keep them online.”