By Clyde Russel
LAUNCESTON, Australia (Reuters) – Australia’s main opposition party wants a sensible debate on nuclear power as it commits to building seven plants to replace coal generation if it wins the next federal election.
The conservative Liberal Party and its junior regional partner National Party on Wednesday announced plans for five large-scale nuclear power stations in the eastern Australian states of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, as well as small modular reactors for South Australia and Western Australia.
If there is to be a real debate about which form of generation is best to replace Australia’s aging and increasingly unreliable fleet of coal-fired power stations, there are two key questions that need to be answered.
The first is the cost of the replacement generation and the second is whether it can be delivered quickly enough to not only replace coal-fired power stations, but also meet Australia’s commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Liberal and National parties, known together as the Coalition, declined to provide any costs for their plans, but Liberal Leader Petter Dutton acknowledged it would be expensive, while still claiming it would bring cheaper power to Australians.
No credible analyst backs Dutton’s claim, with estimates varying on the cost of building nuclear power, but all coming in well above the cost of solar and wind power, supported by battery storage and hydropower.
The government’s scientific agency, the CSIRO, estimated that new nuclear power would be twice as expensive as renewables backed by storage, and this was a best-case scenario based on achieving economies of scale through a long-term and continuous construction program.
The coalition said it could have nuclear power plants operational between 2035 and 2037, assuming it would start implementing its policies if it defeated the ruling Labor Party in federal elections in the first half of 2025.
In theory, it would be possible to build the seven gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power plants on that time scale, but that would be an incredible achievement that is at odds with the recent experiences of other Western countries.
Nuclear power plants are notorious for breaking down both budget and time. Britain’s under-construction Hinkley Point C is one such example, where costs have more than doubled and the start date has been pushed back at least seven years.
OBSTACLES EVERYWHERE
The coalition also did not elaborate on how it would overcome various political and social obstacles to nuclear energy.
Currently, nuclear power generation is prohibited by federal law, meaning the coalition would have to pass enabling legislation through both the House and Senate.
While it can win the elections and control the lower house, it will take a landslide victory to take control of the Senate.
This means that as Prime Minister Dutton would have to negotiate with several senators, and with the majority of them coming from the Australian Greens or progressive independents, it is likely that his nuclear plan will fail at the first hurdle.
There are also bans on nuclear power in several states, and so far the leaders of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have rejected nuclear power plants.
Building a nuclear industry from scratch would also require importing a skilled workforce of nuclear engineers and other experts, something that seems at odds with the Coalition’s plans to reduce migration and its increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Obtaining social license from the communities where the nuclear power plants will be located could also pose challenges, even if the facilities create jobs to replace those lost if the coal plants close.
There is also the issue of scale, as the coalition plans for 7 GW of nuclear power stations, which is only a third of Australia’s current coal-fired capacity of around 22 GW.
This means that nuclear power will not come anywhere close to replacing coal, which in turn means that renewables and storage will also be needed, or there will be a greater reliance on expensive energy sources.
The issue of nuclear energy financing is also unresolved, mainly because no Australian utility has shown any interest in going nuclear.
The coalition has suggested that a government-owned entity will be created and presumably funded by taxpayers, a position that appears to contradict the underlying philosophy of at least the liberal part of the coalition that governments should play a limited role in the economy.
The initial reaction to the Coalition’s nuclear plans was overwhelmingly negative, with one of the few supportive voices coming from the Minerals Council of Australia, a lobby group that includes miners.
Although the council doesn’t say this in their press release, part of their support for nuclear power comes from the fact that they recognize that going down this path will most likely mean that coal will remain in the generation mix for a much longer period than currently expected.
Overall, it is tempting to dismiss the coalition’s nuclear plans as an expensive fantasy, especially in a country so ideally suited to developing solar and wind energy.
However, the real harm of the nuclear proposal is likely to be that Australia’s energy debate will devolve into a partisan political battle, with nuclear and fossil fuels defended by the right, and renewables and storage by their left-wing opponents.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
