The government has lined up to dismiss Peter Dutton's nuclear plan. But the Coalition says its plan will be cheaper.
Catch up on how the day unfolded across our blog.
Key Events
-
That's all folks!
-
Bowen again dodges questions on Labor's $275 power promise
-
Bowen says there are 'three fatal errors' in Coalition's modelling
That's all folks!
Can you believe it friends? We made it to the end of the week.
I'm sad to report that it's time for me to close up our daily politics blog for the year.
But have no fear, I'll still be around. I mean, we still have a mid-year budget update to tackle before we get to trade our corporate wear and offices for crocs, shorts and backyard cricket.
Side note: if end of financial year is nerd New Year, and budget is nerd Christmas, does that make MYEFO nerd Easter? Let me know in the comments and I'll report back next week.
So what did we learn today?
- The main story of the day was the long-awaited release of the Coalition's nuclear policy costings.
- Here were friend of the blog Tom Crowley's key takeaways from the modelling.
- Coalition ministers were unable to say if its proposed nuclear power mix would lower people's energy bills.
- We were later told that's because the modelling did not look a the impact to energy bills.
- Labor had a bunch of pre-designed quips ready to mock the costings. Education Minister Jason Clare described it as having the "shelf life of a seafood milkshake".
- Meanwhile, Energy Minister Chris Bowen repeatedly dodged questions about Labor's promise to reduce power bills by $275 by 2025.
But not everyone is convinced
(Continued from last post)
Meanwhile in Nanango in the South Burnett egg, pork and cattle producer Nick Holliday doesn't believe nuclear is the right option for Australia.
"It's expensive. It's thirsty for water in a very dry country and we are really concerned about the long term effects," he said.
Like Jensen he farms close to the existing coal fired Tarong power station proposed to become a nuclear power station.
He said there's division in the community over the options.
"People have got a lot of legitimate concerns about what happens to jobs when the coal fired power station is phased out."
Holliday said after hearing the costings he's concerned if nuclear power goes ahead it'll force power bills up even higher.
He said he'd rather have more conversations about how renewable energy can help rural communities.
"How do we do it so that it benefits our community, so that it benefits our environment, so that it coexists with farming and rural communities," he said.
"There's a real opportunity for us in the South Burnett to actually have our say and get heard as a community and try and shape a future for ourselves in this."
Local farmer wants coal to continue
Darren Jensen is a grain grower at Biloela in central Queensland, he farms near one of the sites proposed for a nuclear power station.
He's so close he can see the existing Callide coal-fired power station from his back deck.
Jensen has been open to the idea of nuclear power since it was announced, he's currently living in a renewable energy zone and would be dealing with increased powerlines built on working farms to accommodate the wind farm being constructed nearby.
"We've been fighting this for seven or eight years," he said.
"We're tired, we're worn out we've just given up fighting."
Jensen said it would cause safety issues with the machinery they run on their operation.
He said most locals would prefer coal power to continue in the area, with nuclear a close second.
"Once these renewables have built there are no jobs or very few jobs," he said.
"There's a net loss of over 200 jobs from the figures that they've been showing us."
Mr Jensen said it doesn't seem to matter the option being chosen to generate energy as power bills continue to rise.
"There's that many cost blow outs no matter which direction they go," he said.
"The power bill is going up and it's gonna continue to do so."
But what about the cost of Labor's plan?!
Has ALP released the TOTAL costings of their renewables? I cannot find it anywhere.
– Mark
So the government is following the advice on costings around the renewables transition prepared by AEMO, which is the body in charge of running the electricity grid.
This cost is put at $122 billion in today's figures, spread out to 2050, but it's important to remember that this isn't the cost of government policies to drive this transition, which are much smaller, but the cost of overhauling our electricity system.
It's confusing, but because most of our electricity system is now privately owned, power stations and solar farms aren't 'ALP renewables', the government is instead encouraging private companies to invest through a mix of incentives and rules.
The cost of that transition will appear in our power bills, a big chunk of which already goes to the cost of running and maintaining the grid.
What the Coalition has announced today is also modelling about this total cost, which they are claiming will be cheaper with nuclear in the mix.
The big difference though is that they want the government to build and run the nuclear power plants, so Australians will bear the costs and risks of those plants directly.
Graph shows emissions will stay higher for longer under Coalition plan
One thing that is clear from the modelling is that Australia's emissions will be much higher under the Coalition's plan.
Peter Dutton has talked about remaining committed to Paris and net zero by 2050, but the Paris Agreement is actually about keeping global temperature rises below two degrees, and as close to 1.5 degrees as possible.
Net zero by 2050 only will achieve that if we start reducing emissions now.
That's because CO2 stays in our atmosphere, and each year's emissions build up on top of the last. So what's most important is how quickly we reduce those emissions, not a particular date that we completely stop emitting.
You can see this in the chart of the report, while it eventually winds up with lower annual emissions than AEMO's scenario, to get there we will have emitted far more CO2, driving temperatures higher.
The solid line is if things stay as is, dotted line is Coalition's nuclear mix model(Supplied)
Bowen again dodges questions on Labor's $275 power promise
Earlier this morning Chris Bowen appeared on ABC's News Breakfast where he repeatedly dodged questions about Labor's power price promise.
Labor gave itself a deadline of 2025 to bring energy bills down by $275.
The energy minister is asked at his press conference if he will update that promise today, or if Labor will take the Coalition's path and avoid putting a number on it.
Bowen says that is an issue for another day.
"We'll be outlining not only what we've managed to do over the time when we go to the people, but what our forward plans are as well."
As the press conference winds up, he's asked if power prices will be cheaper under the Labor or the Coalition.
"Well, not even Mr Dutton will be claiming the power bills will be lower. He hasn't bothered to make that claim today which tells you a lot," he says before departing.
Australia should have more options to use energy, not less: Bowen
Peter Dutton's nuclear power proposal relies on a smaller economy and higher carbon emissions, and would cost more than $300 billion, according to his long-awaited costing.
Chris Bowen is asked if it is fair to day Labor's plan is to "build a larger economy with a larger electricity grid compared to the opposition".
"That is a fair assumption, yes. We believe in economic growth. We believe in giving Australians the options of using more electricity and not less," he says.
Bowen is taking questions now
Chris Bowen says a question on how the nation's ageing coal-fired power plants can be expected to last beyond 2034 is better lobbed to Peter Dutton.
"The biggest risk to our energy system now is coal-fired power. Including outages and breakdowns in our coal-fired power stations all the time and Dutton says he'll keep those old coal-fired power stations for longer as they get older and he wants to believe they'll get more reliable as they get older. It doesn't stack up," he says.
He's also asked if the modelling signals the Coalition is leaning towards net zero. Bowen responds by claiming the opposition doesn't believe in net zero.
The energy minister refers to an interview Barnaby Joyce did with RN Breakfast this morning. The nationals frontbencher was asked if he believed in the Coalitions net zero emissions by 2050 pledge. He responded "absolutely".
But Bowen claims that was "the least convincing performance for some time".
Bowen says there are 'three fatal errors' in Coalition's modelling
- 1.Assumption that Australia will need less energy in 2050.
- 2.The rejection of the work of the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.
- 3.Assuming there will be savings due to fewer transmission lines.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen also questioned why the modelling was released revealing how much it would bring down power prices.
"After months of talking about what nuclear would mean for energy bills, they couldn't even put a price on the impact of their plan on the average bills of Australians," he says.
We've got eyes on Chris Bowen
The energy minister begins his press conference by calling the nuclear costings a "Christmas con job".
"Peter Dutton wants you to believe he can introduce the most expensive form of energy and somehow that will reduce power prices. AEMO and the CSIRO say nuclear is expensive," he says.
"Peter Dutton and [shadow energy minister] Ted O'Brien say it's cheap. I know who I believe."
Nuclear a 'radioactive con job': Greens
It probably comes as no surprise that Greens leader Adam Bandt is not too keen on the Coalition's nuclear plan.
He says it is not a legitimate or realistic proposal to tackle Australia's energy future and is just a "cover up for more coal".
"Peter Dutton’s nuclear delusion is a dangerous con job," he says.
"Nuclear is not safe. Coal and gas are not safe, but wind and solar are. A clean energy future is the only safe future.
"Peter Dutton will keep kicking the nuclear can down the road, while continuing Labor's approvals of new coal and gas projects and keeping climate pollution rising."
Watch live: Chris Bowen responds to nuclear costings
Man behind Coalition's nuclear costings says he did the work for free
The man behind today's nuclear numbers says he self-funded the report and received no payment from the Coalition.
Speaking to ABC Radio Adelaide, Danny Price from Frontier Economics said he consulted the opposition throughout, but they didn't direct the research.
"I've never worked for the nuclear industry and I'm not getting paid. I'm doing this because I think it's important to inform what the alternatives are," he said.
"All I've done is taken that integrated system plan and change one thing. I put nuclear in the middle and I stretch coal out a little bit to stretch that energy gap."
Labor to respond to nuclear costings shortly
Energy Minister Chris Bowen will hold his own press conference in around 15 minutes time.
He'll be responding to the Coalition's nuclear energy costings. I'll still be here blogging away, so stay tuned.
Climate Council rubbishes nuclear plan
Climate Council chief Amanda McKenzie has come out swinging against the Coalition's nuclear energy modelling.
Peter Dutton has today unveiled that his plan to build seven nuclear power stations would cost about $330 billion dollars over the next 25 years.
While the modelling didn't analyse the effect on consumer household bills, Dutton says his plan will cost $260 billion less than Labor's energy proposal, saving taxpayers money.
But the Climate Council says the modelling "cooked the books".
"Peter Dutton's nuclear numbers have more holes than Swiss cheese, leaving out big ticket items like the costs of dealing with radioactive waste," McKenzie said.
"Dutton must be honest with the Australian people. CSIRO tells us nuclear is double the cost of renewables, no amount of dodgy accounting can change the facts."
Aging Collins-class submarine fleet added to Defence watchlist
Australia's aging Collins-class submarines have been added to a Defence watchlist just over a month after the ABC reported the navy was left with just one fully operational submarine.
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy confirmed the fleet has been declared a "project of concern".
It means the project will now receive "enhanced ministerial oversight" while Defence develops a plan to get the project back on track.
"By listing Collins class sustainment as a product of concern, the government is demonstrating its commitment to remediating these challenges and ensuring the Submarine Enterprise, which includes Defence and ASC Pty Ltd, delivers and sustains improved performance," he said in a statement.
Australia operates a fleet of six Collins submarines which progressively entered service from 1996 but have been recently beset by problems such as "unprecedented" hull corrosion.
Defence sources told my colleague Andrew Greene last month that two of the Collins submarines are currently stationed at Adelaide's Osborne shipyard, where industrial action is causing delays to extensive maintenance known as "full-cycle docking".
Another three of the country's submarines are at Western Australia's Garden Island naval base, but Defence insists at least one of those boats could be put to sea if urgently required.
The problems nuclear is facing
With renewables already extending to over 70% at times during the day in 2024. How can nuclear possibly remain relevant as “baseload” when we know in 5 or even 20 years there will be more and more renewables and storage to make the case for nuclear even more irrelevant
– Ryan
One of the big problems nuclear faces is because of its high build cost, and the fact it can't easily turn on and off, it needs to run almost all the time to be economically viable.
Looking at coal power plants in the grid today is a useful way of seeing how nuclear would fare. Currently our coal power plants run at about 60 per cent of their capacity, so too low for nuclear to make sense economically, but increasingly as more renewables come online they're struggling to compete and that's why power providers are moving away from coal.
In Australia, we currently turn off solar to help coal fired power plants to sell power throughout the day. This drives power prices up, and if we were to have nuclear in the grid the same thing would likely occur.
ABC's climate lead Tim Leslie is here to answer some of your questions
Question if 54% is the figure for Renewables does that mean we still need the transmission lines to be built?
– Michael
We still don’t have a lot of detail about the policy, but a big part of the cost of transition is things like transmission lines.
The Coalition has said it will build nuclear power plants on the sites of existing coal plants and reduce the need for new transmission lines, but there are questions over whether these existing transmissions lines would be fit for purpose to provide transmission.
Dr Asma Aziz, an energy expert from Edith Cowan University has warned in the Conversation that grid congestion would be an issue for nuclear power plants and upgrades to the power grid will still be needed to support nuclear power in Australia.
Importantly the CSIRO factored in the cost of things like transmission lines and still found that renewables were significantly cheaper than nuclear power.
Crowley's key takeaways from the Coalition's modelling
While I was live blogging that press conference, we finally got our hands on the modelling behind the Coalition's nuclear policy costings.
My pal Tom Crowley has been furiously crunching the numbers. Here are some of his key takeaways.
- Peter Dutton's nuclear power proposal relies on a smaller economy and higher carbon emissions, and would cost taxpayers more than $300 billion.
- The proposal would still see more than half of Australia's power come from renewables.
- Coal would be kept for longer to fill the gap before nuclear plants arrive in 12 years' time at the earliest.
- The costing, prepared by Frontier Economics, found a system with nuclear would be cheaper over a 25-year period than a system without it.
- That contradicts the finding of the CSIRO and energy market operator AEMO that nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables.
- The lower result is partly because the Coalition's costing "spreads out" the cost of the nuclear plants over their 50-year life span, an accounting measure which means the bulk of the costs are recorded outside the 25-year costing window.
'Were not getting any sense out of politicans,' Local mayor says
Callide, near Biloela in central Queensland is one of the sites proposed for a small nuclear reactor.
Mayor of the Banana Shire Council Nev Ferrier said it was difficult to judge how many people supported the plan, but it could be upwards of half of the community.
"As long as there is some benefit for the shire and the people around it as well, like cheap power," Ferrier said.
He said the region needed base load power to firm up the industrial city of Gladstone's power supply.
"Whether it's hydrogen, coal, nuclear, gas or whatever, we've still got to have base power," he said.
"People are getting on with this nuclear and renewable stuff like a religion… we've got to be sensible about it and we're not getting any sense out of politicians."
Ferrier said he was apprehensive about the costings and personally believed both options would cost a similar amount.