Coalition nuclear costs based on electricity system producing 45% less electricity than Labor’s
Graham Readfearn
The Coalition has just wrapped a press conference spruiking its nuclear plan, and has told reporters that the plan delivers an electricity system that costs 44% less than the government’s – or $263bn less.
But the detail in the Frontier Economics report, released this morning and being used by the government, shows that 44% cost reduction comes by comparing two different scenarios.
The Australian Energy Market Operator has three potential future scenarios for the electricity grid and Frontier looked at two of them – the “progressive change” and “step change” scenarios.
Frontier says that the “progressive” scenario is preferred by the Coalition, and adding nuclear to this “is 44% cheaper than the Step Change future as envisaged by the federal Labor government.”
Crucially, Tristan Edis, director of Green Energy markets, tells me the “progressive change” scenario “involves total electricity consumption in 2052 of 311TWh, whereas Step Change is 450TWh or almost 45% greater electricity demand.”
So the Coalition’s plan to deliver nuclear is based on a scenario where the system is producing 45% less electricity than Labor’s preferred plan.
How much of the supposed $263bn saving the Coalition is pointing to is down to simply adopting a scenario that produces much less electricity, is something we will try and get to the bottom of.
Key events
The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, will step up for a press conference in response to the Coalition’s nuclear energy costings announcement at 1pm AEDT.
Here is our full story from Karen Middleton and Graham Readfearn on the Coalition’s nuclear policy costings:
Coalition nuclear costs based on electricity system producing 45% less electricity than Labor’s
Graham Readfearn
The Coalition has just wrapped a press conference spruiking its nuclear plan, and has told reporters that the plan delivers an electricity system that costs 44% less than the government’s – or $263bn less.
But the detail in the Frontier Economics report, released this morning and being used by the government, shows that 44% cost reduction comes by comparing two different scenarios.
The Australian Energy Market Operator has three potential future scenarios for the electricity grid and Frontier looked at two of them – the “progressive change” and “step change” scenarios.
Frontier says that the “progressive” scenario is preferred by the Coalition, and adding nuclear to this “is 44% cheaper than the Step Change future as envisaged by the federal Labor government.”
Crucially, Tristan Edis, director of Green Energy markets, tells me the “progressive change” scenario “involves total electricity consumption in 2052 of 311TWh, whereas Step Change is 450TWh or almost 45% greater electricity demand.”
So the Coalition’s plan to deliver nuclear is based on a scenario where the system is producing 45% less electricity than Labor’s preferred plan.
How much of the supposed $263bn saving the Coalition is pointing to is down to simply adopting a scenario that produces much less electricity, is something we will try and get to the bottom of.
Main takeaways from Coalition’s nuclear costings announcement
The press conference has just wrapped up. Here are the key points the Coalition announced in regard to the costings of its $330bn nuclear energy policy:
-
Wind and solar would account for 49% of the energy grid, and nuclear 38%, by 2050. Coal and gas-fired power plants would also stay open for longer.
-
The Coalition claimed its plan would be 44%, or $263bn, cheaper in comparison to modelling of future power prices under a different plan, rather than a reduction on current costs.
-
On near-term power price reductions, Peter Dutton answered “we’ll have more to say about our energy policy in relation to the near term”.
-
Dutton said he believes bipartisan nuclear support is possible post-Albanese leadership.
Ted O’Brien: Labor wants to ‘force the hand of’ Australians on renewables
Ted O’Brien has been taking aim at Labor’s energy policy, seemingly tapping into the concerns of Australians in the bush, and said:
[Labor is] going to be rolling out tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines. We have already heard from the minister that he wants 22,000 solar panels installed a day, 30 wind turbines a month, all the way through to 2030, basically carpeting Australia.
Why? Because Labor believes they can force the hand of every Australian to behave the way Labor wants them to behave, to electrify exactly how Labor wants to electrify.
Dutton ‘confident’ states will work with commonwealth on nuclear
Peter Dutton was asked about progress on working with the states to override the current ban on nuclear power? He responded:
Well, we are in opposition so we’re not in a position to negotiate contracts with governments that have been elected.
He later added he was “confident”, and he thinks SA premier Peter Malinauskas would be the first to sign up.
Are subsidies on the table during the construction phase? Ted O’Brien suggests not:
When it comes to the construction of the power plants, that’s fully built into our modelling without any consideration for subsidisation.
Ted O’Brien is asked about modelling
Ted O’Brien argued there was a cost difference of $263bn through to 2050 between the Coalition and Labor’s plans. Is there modelling on this? He responded:
The modelling goes to the cost of the total system between Labor’s approach of renewables only and the Coalition’s approach. So it is a cost modelling all the way through to 2050.
But no projections on power prices?
It is not a pricing analysis, but as Frontier Economics makes it very clear in the report that prices, ultimately, reflect costs over time …
Dutton: ‘we’ll have more to say’ in relation to near-term prices
Asked about power prices in the near term, Peter Dutton says “we’ll have more to say about our energy policy in relation to the near term”.
He didn’t outline a near-term plan, but instead criticised the government, arguing:
The government has ramped up electricity prices after promising to reduce by $275 and people are now playing $1,000 more than what Labor had promised.
Dutton repeats 44% cheaper claim and says nuclear essential to reaching net zero by 2050
A reporter notes that the politics of nuclear are divisive – what can Australians expect in the next term?
Peter Dutton argues that Australia is at a “crossroad” because “if you look at every other comparable economy around the world, they have adopted or signed up to the use of nuclear energy”.
He argues there is “no hope of reaching net zero by 2050 without nuclear in the system firming up renewables”.
I think Australians are smarter than what the prime minister credits and Australians are well read, they understand what is happening internationally …
He touts the 44% figure again, claiming the Coalition’s nuclear policy would “bring prices down by 44% compared to Labor’s cost”.
Dutton makes election pitch on energy prices
Taking questions, Peter Dutton is making an election pitch on energy – arguing a Labor government would lead to higher energy prices. He told the press:
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.
Earlier this morning, Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce was unable to promise that power prices would go down over the next term under a Coalition government, under this policy.
Coalition claims its nuclear policy would lead to 44% reduction in power prices
The shadow treasurer Angus Taylor claimed the Coalition’s nuclear plan would lead to a “44% reduction in the cost of energy for Australian consumers” – he did not qualify this but we assume he means in comparison to modelling of future power prices under a different plan, rather than a reduction on current costs.
The shadow climate change and energy minister, Ted O’Brien, is also touting the 44% figure, and said:
Frontier Economics has now crunched the numbers and shown that it is 44% cheaper to get to net zero through a balanced energy mix when you have nuclear in that mix. This is a direct impact on families and businesses right across the country.
O’Brien claimed that the renewables and nuclear pathway is 37% cheaper than a renewables-only pathway.
Littleproud pitches nuclear policy to regional Australia
The Nationals leader David Littleproud is next to speak, and he claims that “there is no country the size of Australia’s industrial scale that has gone down the path of renewables only”.
He pitches the Coalition’s nuclear policy to those in regional Australia, saying that teals in the city “want us to go down an accelerated path of renewables”.
Understand the burden you are asking us to bear. There is another way to achieve it.
Peter Dutton has just raised the Ontario example – which our team has already fact checked in the past:
Peter Dutton says bipartisan nuclear support possible post-Albanese leadership
Peter Dutton has begun outlining the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy costings at his press conference in Brisbane.
He said the Coalition had earmarked seven end-of-life coal-fired power stations across the country for its proposed sites, and now “it comes down to the cost and it comes down to timelines”.
Dutton told the press he believes there can be bipartisan support for nuclear, and said:
We have the situation here where I think it will be post-Anthony Albanese’s leadership – which I don’t think is too far away – in that scenario I think there can be bipartisan position in relation to the vision we put to the Australian people today.
Christopher Knaus
$380,000 in overpayments made via Centrepay to Ergon Energy, estimates hears
Late on Thursday, officials from Services Australia were quizzed about the reforms to Centrepay, the government-run system allowing approved businesses to automatically deduct money from a person’s welfare payment.
Guardian Australia revealed a range of failings with the system earlier this year, including that major energy retailers were using Centrepay to continue receiving money from the welfare payments of departed customers.
One of those companies is Queensland-based Ergon Energy. At a spillover session of estimates yesterday, Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne asked officials how much Ergon is alleged to have taken in overpayments.
Cathy Toze, a general manager at Services Australia, said about $380,000 in overpayments had been made via Centrepay to Ergon. About $280,000 of that had been returned to welfare recipients as of October.
Services Australia announced reforms, including stronger compliance activity, earlier this year.
Labor senator Louise Pratt, who has persistently raised concerns about the system for years, asked how many businesses had been removed from the system.
Toze said four businesses were formally removed as a result of a compliance review. Another 3,000 businesses were removed because they were inactive. Toze said:
Other businesses have started to self-select out of the program because of the more stringent reporting requirements we have put in place.
Peter Dutton about to hold press conference in Brisbane on nuclear costings
The opposition leader Peter Dutton is about to address the media in Brisbane, where he is expected to outline the Coalition’s long-awaited nuclear energy costings.
We’ll bring you all the key points and claims here on the blog – and stay tuned as Adam Morton and Peter Hannam will be providing fact checks for us throughout the day.
The Frontier Economics report unpacking the costings is also due to be released around now. Our Canberra team will be looking at this and bringing us the latest.
Labor’s Patrick Gorman says Coalition forgot WA in nuclear modelling
The Labor MP for Perth, Patrick Gorman, has taken aim at the Coalition for apparently not including Western Australia in its nuclear modelling.
As reported by the Australian, the modelling does not include Western Australia, which is earmarked for a nuclear option under the Coalition plan.
Gorman wrote in a post to X:
How loose has Peter Dutton been with his nuclear reactor costings? So loose he forgot an *entire* state. ‘The modelling did not include Western Australia.’ The arrogance is astounding.
Climate Council accuses Coalition of ‘cooking the books’ on nuclear costings
The Climate Council has labelled the Coalition’s nuclear modelling as “misleading” and leaving out “big ticket items like the costs of dealing with radioactive waste”. It has accused the Coalition of “cooking the books” with their nuclear costings in four ways:
1) Ignoring the costs of keeping our ageing coal-fired generators operating for longer, which would cost a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs, and produce far more climate pollution.
2) Failing to account for Australia’s growing electricity needs, producing up to 45% less power than our current plan by 2050. The Australian Electricity Market Operator expects power generation to double by 2050, and assuming any less is inaccurate.
3) Underestimating the cost and timeline of building nuclear reactors, which international experience has shown cost on average 2.2 times more to build than their initial estimate, and take at least 15 years for construction alone.
4) Excluding significant and certain costs from their estimates, including the costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste.
