The first detailed costing of Peter Dutton’s bold plan to add nuclear energy to the power grid forecasts a saving of more than a quarter of a trillion dollars compared to Anthony Albanese’s renewables-heavy strategy.

The Coalition’s proposal favouring reactors across the nation finds that between now and 2050, the price would be $331 billion versus $594bn for Labor’s preferred approach, according to analysis by Frontier Economics to be made public on Friday.

The Opposition’s plan is cheaper due to a lesser need for new transmission infrastructure – relative to what the government is pursuing – and because the cost of the plants could be spread over a 50-year life, as well as an assumption that Australia’s electricity needs will not increase as fast as the ALP is betting, meaning the size of the overall task is reduced.

Ahead of the release of the new costing last night, Mr Dutton vowed the Coalition would deliver “massive savings”.

“This means reduced power bills for households, lower operating costs for small businesses, and a stronger, more resilient economy,” the Opposition leader said.

Energy policy is set to be the most fiercely contested policy area at the next election, which must be held by May.

While the Coalition uses Frontier’s analysis to argue that the nuclear option can combat power price increases, the government is expected to attack the credibility of the new research by seizing on a decision to revise down the cost of Labor’s renewables strategy by nearly $50bn since initial figures were published a month ago.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is also likely to criticise the absence of detail about where the first of seven proposed reactors will be built and what type of technology would be used.

The Coalition has flagged opening nuclear plants on the sites of five currently operating coal-fired power stations. They are Queensland’s Tarong, northwest of Brisbane, and Callide, west of Gladstone, as well as NSW’s Mount Piper near Lithgow, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, plus Muja in WA. The two other sites are former coal plants – Liddell in NSW’s Hunter Valley and Port Augusta in South Australia.

Mr Dutton has said that if the Coalition wins the election, two “establishment projects” will be chosen in that term, with electricity to flow from the mid-2030s.

A Liberal-National government would also need to overcome state and federal bans on nuclear energy.

The new Frontier costings assume 13.2 gigawatts of power would come from fission by 2050, slightly less than the Opposition’s stated objective of 14GW.

The calculations are based on nuclear entering as currently operating coal-fired power exits.

The major parties are at odds on timing of coal-plant closures.

Under the path being followed by Labor, nearly all of the existing 21GW of coal-fired power is anticipated to leave the system within a decade.

Frontier’s modelling of the Coalition plan is premised on only a third of the present coal capacity retiring by then.

Coal-plant owners’ stated closure timetables are slightly faster than what Frontier assumes but considerably slower than what the ALP and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) envision.

Frontier doesn’t identify which coal plants would stay open for longer; the Coalition has not divulged that either, saying only that it isn’t in favour of “premature” shutdowns.

In reality, the Coalition expects replacement nuclear capacity to be turned on for a year or more before a coal plant is decommissioned.

Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien last night said: “Labor’s plan will see 90 per cent of Australia’s 24/7 baseload power forced out of the system by 2034, leaving the grid vulnerable to blackouts and instability.

“In contrast, the Coalition’s approach ensures retiring coal plants are replaced with reliable, zero-emissions nuclear energy, supported by renewables, gas, and storage.”

Still, there would be no power from coal by the late 2040s and less reliance on gas than under the Labor strategy because there would not be the same volume of renewables to “firm”.

By introducing baseload capacity at sites with existing network infrastructure, the new transmission costs of the Opposition plan are kept to $14bn versus $67bn for the government’s pathway, according to Frontier.

By 2050, nuclear would account for eight per cent of capacity but 38 per cent of electricity output because it is always on, the consultancy says in its report.

The Opposition is expected to refute accusations that it is anti-renewables by pointing out that its plan would still see 54 per cent of power derived from wind and solar in 25 years from now, which would require a doubling from current levels.

The government plan relies on renewables providing about three-quarters of Australia’s electricity in the middle of the century.

Cont'd...

Wow, who would've thunk it? All those claims by Labor that nuclear would be too expensive were nothing more than lies from a pathetic scare campaign not based on facts or science and the Coalition plan is actually almost half the price of Labor's while delivering a reliable source of baseload power compared to the unreliability of Labor's horrifyingly expensive fantasy renewables plan.

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:34am:


It's cheaper because it won't need as much investment in terms of new transmission lines, as Labor's expensive and unreliable renewables plan will. It's cheaper because the cost can be spread over at least a 50 year lifespan of a nuclear reactor, unlike Labor's expensive and unreliable renewables plan, because solar panels need replacing every 25 years, batteries need replacing every 5 to 15 years, wind turbines need replacing every 20 years.

Poll added.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 11:50am:


they need to spread the cost of securing nuclear waste for the next thousand years into their figures if they want to be taken seriously

and nuclear is bad, irrespective of what labor says about it. Only a dumbarse would push for nuclear. Congrats, you qualify.

The choice is not between more subsidised power from renewables vs more subsidised power from nuclear. People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax.

Dutton's nuclear plan a 'heroic', cherrypicked 'recipe for higher energy bills', experts say

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 5:27pm:


How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions?