THE CASE TO NUKE LABOR WHERE IT HURTSClimate Change and...

THE CASE TO NUKE LABOR WHERE IT HURTS

Climate Change and EnergyMinister Chris Bowen might not realise it but he has done Peter Dutton andAustralians a favour by drawing attention to the cost of the opposition’splan to convert coal-fired power stations to nuclear small modular reactors. On Sunday, Mr Bowen released figures from his department showing it would cost $387bn to replace retiring coal-fired plants with 21.3GW of nuclear generation. The data said at least 71 300MW small modular reactors would be needed to offset the end of coal generation. Costly as it would be, it represents excellent value alongside other options.

Research by teams from theUniversity of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, Princeton University’sAndlinger Centre for Energy and Environment and the Nous Group reported in Julythat Australia would need to find $1.5 trillion by the end of the decade to meet itsnet-zero emissions target by 2050. A drastic acceleration of onshore and offshore wind developments would be needed to provide future power, the Net Zero Australia group found. Nous Group principal Richard Bolt said the capital requirement for the transition would be $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion by 2030, and $7 trillion to $9 trillion by 2060. On that basis, SMRs would cost a fraction of that of continuing with the current approach. The government’s analysis of SMRs was based on taxpayers footing the entire bill. In reality, they should attract private investment.

1			M.AU01:34 Labor’ nuclear melling caims 7 billion price-tag

Byquantifying the cost of 71 SMRs, Mr Bowen has triggered, perhaps inadvertently,what should be a rational economic discussion comparing SMRs to renewables forgenerating reliable baseload power and containing costs, or the advisability ofusing both. When the Net Zero report was released, Robin Batterham – emeritusprofessor of engineering at Melbourne University and Australia’s former chiefscientist – who chaired the group’s steering committee, compared Australia’senergy transition to the US-led Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World WarII. Professor Batterham urged decision-makers not to take anything, includingcoal, off the table now. “You don’t close coal down if you haven’t got thereliable supply there ready to take over when you turn it off,” he told TheAustralian. He also cautioned against waiting for “silver-bullet” technology,such as SMRs. “Nuclear might get there, but it ain’t there yet.”

Mr Bowen’s pre-emptive strike onthe Coalition’s policy comes as Mr Dutton prepares to attack Labor over higherenergy bills and the threat of summer blackouts. As reported in The Australian on Monday, the government is also being challenged over the capacity of the system to back up the grid during unfavourable weather, when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. The capacity investment scheme, agreed to last year by national and federal energy ministers, sees the government underwrite revenue for a mix of zero-emissions dispatchable generation and storage projects. Power retailers welcome the plan’s objective but warn that its effectiveness will be blunted by excluding gas.

Insufficient attention is alsobeing paid to value, for taxpayers and consumers, as the cost and timetable forthe transition to net zero gets bigger and longer. Ted O’Brien, theopposition’s climate change and energy spokesman, argues that an electricitygrid built almost entirely on wind and solar defies economics and engineering,To meet the 2030 target would require 22,000 solar panels installed every day,40 wind turbines every month and tens of thousands of kilometre
s oftransmission lines. For every day that progress falls short, the challengebecomes costlier and more difficult, he said.

In July, Mr Dutton said Mr Bowensaw nuclear and renewables as competitors but “we see them as companions’’. Thenew technologies were factory-built, portable, scalable and could be relocated.“We could convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmissionconnections which already exist on those sites,’’ he said. “It’s no wonder morethan 50 countries are exploring or investing in new SMRs and nuclearbatteries.” In June, Sweden, which is highly advanced in using renewables togenerate electricity, changed the wording of its target from “100 per centrenewable” to “100 per cent fossil-free” to invest more in nuclear energy.France, Finland, Britain, Canada, South Korea and the US are also ramping up investment in nuclear energy, Judith Sloan wrote recently. “We really run the risk of being left at the starting gate unless we make this shift.’’ In a uranium-rich nation, SMRs, like all energy technologies, need to be assessed.