‘Fatal errors’ in Coalition’s $331bn nuclear plan, Chris Bowen says

There are “fatal errors” in the Coalition’s costings for its nuclear energy plan, Chris Bowen warns.

The opposition on Friday formally unveiled costings for its plan for a net-zero nuclear-powered grid by 2050, attaching a $331bn price tag to the energy overhaul.

The costings were based largely on the assumption that Australia’s energy demand was far less than the Albanese government had forecast.

Reacting to the Coalition’s long-awaited update, the Climate Change and Energy Minister said the assumption was one of “three fatal errors in these costs”.

“This is a fatal error in their costings and it is a dangerous error because it is risky,” Mr Bowen told reporters in Sydney.

“It runs the risk of leaving Australians short of the energy they need.

“We need to be planning an energy system for economic growth. We need to be planning an energy system for the future, one that has data centres and artificial intelligence.

“We need to be planning an energy system to give Australians choices that they may choose to take up like electric vehicles and electrifying their homes.”

Mr Bowen went on to challenge the modelling’s assumption of an ongoing cost of $30 a megawatt hour.

Analysis by the national science agency released earlier this week put that cost up as high as $200 or more.

He also said the Coalition “assumed their plan would need less transmission”.

“It doesn’t matter how you produce electricity, you’ve got to get it to homes and businesses and that takes transmission and the transmission lines are full and need to be duplicated regardless of whether the power comes from renewables or nuclear,” Mr Bowen said.

Key detail missing from nuclear reveal

Announcing the nuclear plan in Brisbane, Peter Dutton said the nuclear energy plan would cut power bills but failed to say how it would immediately help households struggling amid rising electricity costs.

He said the Coalition was putting forward “a sensible mix of energies” as opposed to the Albanese government’s renewable pathway, which he has criticised as unreliable and expensive.

“What I would say to every Australian is at the next election people can vote for higher electricity prices under Anthony Albanese or they can vote for the system where we won’t have blackouts, will have consistency of power, but importantly, for families right now, will have cheaper cost electricity so that means the mix we’ve adopted has a target in mind,” Mr Dutton told reporters.

But pressed on how the plan would help Australians with their power bills now, he struggled to say.

“There is a near-term picture of support that we need to address and we’ll talk more about that,” he said.

“In relation to the work that has been done, the independent costings that we have got today shows that 44 per cent cost differential, so 44 per cent cheaper under the Coalition’s energy plan than Labor’s energy plan over the period of implementation and lower emissions from 2050 under our plan as well.”

Meanwhile, nuclear modelling carried out by the national science agency and energy operator suggested the plan could more than double the cost of power.

‘Dodgy figures’: Nuclear price tag slammed

Earlier, Mr Bowen said the Coalition had made “some very heroic assumptions” to arrive at $331bn.

The figure was drawn from commissioned modelling by Frontier Economics.

The firm put the cost of the Albanese government’s renewables plan at $594bn last month.

According to its analysis, the Coalition’s plan saves on transmission infrastructure.

It also banks on consumption not increasing as rapidly as Labor has accounted for with its renewables plan.

But the modelling is at odds with every other major assessment of renewable and nuclear options, including by the national science agency, which put the cost of atomic power at double that of renewables.

Reacting to reporting on the costings, which were dropped to just a handful of reporters, Mr Bowen said the Coalition had “just plucked a figure out of the air” in trying to double the cost of transmission infrastructure associated with the Albanese government’s renewables plan.

“They’re making it up as they go along,” Mr Bowen told the ABC, adding that “they have implied … that nuclear needs less transmission”.

“Spoiler alert, it doesn’t. You’ve still got to get the electricity around the country. I’m not sure how they’ll get the nuclear power into the grid, maybe by carrier pigeon if they’re going to assert if somehow you’ll need less transmission.

“They have had to make some very heroic assumptions here, and they have had to really stretch the truth to try to get some very dodgy figures.”

The Coalition has long claimed that its plan to take Australia nuclear would alleviate power bills for households.

Bridget McKenzie repeated the claim while defending the costings.

The senior Coalition senator said the opposition’s plan “is actually going to be a cleaner, cheaper and more consistent plan for our nation to actually make sure we can keep those jobs here at home and get those bills down.”

NED-12332-The Coalitions-proposed-nuclear-power-stations

“We’ve seen record numbers of small businesses going bust and hardship cases for households struggling to pay their energy bills,” she told Nine.

“So by adding net-zero nuclear to firm up the renewables that we’ve got in the grid as well is the way to actually get prices down over the long term because it isn’t just about that. It’s actually also about having reliable energy.”

But the operational life of Australia’s existing fleet of coal-fired power plants will end in the mid-2030s, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator.

With AEMO warning the regulatory ground work for nuclear could alone take up to a decade, and build times overseas also a little north of 10 years, Australia would need to rely on ageing coal plants well past their used-by date.

In its latest modelling, the CSIRO put the cost of a regular large-scale nuclear plant operating 90 per cent of the time at $155 a megawatt hour.

That could blow out to $252 a megawatt hour if only used 53 per cent of the time, according to the findings, which were produced in partnership with AEMO.

In contrast, the modelling estimated wind farms would produce electricity at $56 to $96 a megawatt hour, while solar farms offered an even better result at $35 and $62 a megawatt hour.

“What they have also done is very clearly in their costings of their own policy rejected the CSIRO and AEMO’s work,” Mr Bowen said.

“Now, CSIRO and AEMO have been talking about the cost of nuclear since way before we were in office, as being the most expensive form of energy available.

“I mean … what the Coalition is asking the Australian people to believe is this: that they can introduce the most expensive form of energy and it will be end up being cheaper.

“It won’t pass the pub test. It won’t pass the sniff test because it is just a fantasy.”

The Smart Energy Council has estimated the Coalition’s nuclear plan would cost between $116n-$600bn and only provide 3.7 per cent of Australia’s energy mix in 2050, based on experiences overseas and data from the CSIRO.

It worked out at about the same cost as delivering a near 100 per cent renewables mix by 2050.