The Climate Council says Australians are being kept in the dark about the true costs of the federal Coalition’s risky and expensive nuclear scheme, saying heavy reliance on the first of two Frontier Economics reports paints a damning picture of the methods they may use to fudge the nuclear numbers and mislead Australians.
Climate Councillor and economist Nicki Hutley said, ‘The federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost Australians a bomb. It’s a risky, expensive fantasy that would see Australians paying more than $100 billion for a fraction of the electricity we need.
‘The real danger is delaying real solutions–like building more renewables, which is the most affordable way to keep the lights on.’
Seven things to watch out for
The Climate Council says it has identified seven furphies Australians are likely to see in the LNP’s nuclear costings:
1. Comparing apples with oranges: Nicki Hutley said, ‘We’ve already seen the federal Coalition use inaccurate comparisons in the first Frontier Economics report on the cost of the shift to renewables. They inflated the cost by including ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses — which we’re already paying and which will actually drop in a renewables-led grid. On top of that, they didn’t use present value terms, a standard economic practice that accounts for the true cost over time.
She says it’s alarming to see the federal Coalition knowingly comparing costs that are for totally different things. ‘If we’re going to have a debate on the economics of building renewable power and storage, it needs to be based on best practice economics, not a false and misleading comparison.’
2. Excluding the cost of attempting to keep our ageing coal stations open: According to the Climate Council, AEMO expects all our outdated, unreliable and polluting coal-fired power stations to close by 2038 at the latest, with over 90 per cent shutting down in the next 10 years.
‘But the federal Coalition wants to keep these creaking old coal power stations open while waiting at least 15 years or more for nuclear reactors,’ says Nicki Hutley. ‘This would cost taxpayers a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs. Keeping just one coal power station open, Eraring in NSW, could cost taxpayers more than $225 million per year.
‘Renewable power back by storage is the only solution ready now to fill that gap left by coal and secure reliable, affordable power for Australian homes and businesses.’
3. Excluding the cost of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste: Climate Council notes that toxic nuclear waste needs to be safely stored for 100,000 years – an enormous and costly responsibility.
‘In Canada, storing the long-term waste from their nuclear program in an underground facility is expected to cost at least $33 billion AUD, excluding the costs already incurred to manage waste on nuclear reactor sites.
Nicki Hutley says, ‘Any plans to build nuclear reactors must include the staggering long-term costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste. Ignoring these costs now will unfairly burden our kids, grandkids and future generations.’
4. Failing to consider the cost of climate change: The federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution according to the Climate Council. ‘In fact, building nuclear reactors would mean burning more polluting coal and gas in the meantime, which could see a further 1.5 billion tonnes more harmful climate pollution produced by 2050 – the equivalent of running the Eraring coal power station in NSW for another 126 years.
‘Australians would pay the price in worsening unnatural disasters and skyrocketing insurance costs.’
According to Nicki Hutley, ‘Nuclear would cost us dearly, by delaying urgent cuts to climate pollution that would expose Australians to more unnatural disasters like bushfires, floods and heatwaves and driving up economic losses through higher insurance costs and disaster recovery bills.
‘We should be focusing on cutting costs and climate pollution by rolling out more clean, reliable and affordable renewable power,’ she said.
5. Ignoring Australia’s growing electricity needs: As Australia’s population and economy grows, the Climate Council says keeping up with the community’s electricity needs is essential.
‘The Australian Electricity Market Operator’s plan for our grid, the Integrated System Plan, expects power demand to double by 2050. We need more power to meet this need, and any assessment of cost needs to account for this. Assuming less might make costs look cheaper, but is inaccurate.’
6. Ignoring the risk of cost blowouts: The Cimate Council says the federal Coalition’s nuclear costings are likely to rely on rose-tinted assumptions, ignoring the very real possibility of massive cost overruns and delays that have plagued international nuclear projects.
‘For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C energy facility is running 14 years late, at a cost three times its original estimate – now sitting at a staggering $90 billion AUD. Assuming nothing will go wrong with nuclear reactors in Australia flies in the face of international experience and puts taxpayers at enormous financial risk.’
Nicki Hutley says, ‘Nuclear is simply a non-starter for Australia. The risks are immense –blowouts in cost and time, unresolved waste storage issues, and outdated technology. Projects like the UK’s Hinkley Point C show that nuclear is a financial black hole, while renewables are delivering results today.’
7. Ignoring the cost of transmission upgrades: The Climate Council says the federal Coalition’s assumption is that nuclear reactors can avoid the costs of necessary transmission upgrades, despite these investments being approved and supported by the previous Liberal-National Government.
‘Australia’s electricity grid needs substantial upgrades to meet growing energy demands and replace ageing coal-fired power stations. Building reactors near old coal stations won’t avoid the need for new transmission: the transmission previously used for coal is already being used by new batteries, wind and solar, and more investment is being planned.
‘New transmission is needed no matter which energy source we build, and will make our grid stronger and more efficient,’ saiid Nicki Hutley.
CEO of the Climate Council Amanda McKenzie said, ‘Peter Dutton could cook the books with some creative accounting to sell this fantasy. Our old coal plants are retiring in the next decade, and we need to keep investing in low cost renewables to keep the lights on, create thousands of jobs in regional Australia, and ensure we cut climate pollution further and faster.
‘Let’s focus on what’s already working. Renewables are cutting pollution, creating jobs, and lowering power bills right now.’
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
