I don’t often agree with Matt Canavan on matters to do with global heating. But when the senator labelled the Coalition’s nuclear plan a “political fix” last year, I think he was speaking the truth.
For 15 gruelling years the Coalition has been trying to distract a voting public, ever more aware of the climate crisis, from its inability to get a credible climate and energy policy past the climate sceptics and do-nothing-much-to-reduce-emissions exponents in its own ranks (including the Queensland senator).
Peter Dutton’s nuclear policy is the latest iteration, framing the “debate” as one between two different technological means to get to the same goal of net zero emissions by 2050, and those critical of nuclear power as “renewables only” ideologues who blindly refuse to consider a credible solution.
But even under the Coalition’s very optimistic calculations nuclear power cannot come onstream for a decade, so this is also a framing that handily leapfrogs the next 10 years; the decade when a Dutton government might actually hold office, and also a decade when today’s voters will still need to pay power bills and require a reliable energy supply, and when the world must reduce emissions to avoid the most disastrous impacts of heating.
Having so carefully set up the nuclear-in-the-never-never policy for some time now, the Coalition can be quite aggressive when anyone points out its many near-term deficiencies.
This week’s target was the Climate Change Authority, which found the Coalition’s plan – to slow the roll-out of renewable energy and somehow keep crumbling coal-fired power plants running until after 2040 when taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors might become available – would massively increase Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions, by more than 2bn tonnes.
It’s pretty obvious, really, that continuing to burn coal will produce more emissions, and it certainly wasn’t an outlandish estimate, being based on the Coalition’s own modelling, and broadly in line with estimates from energy experts at the University of New South Wales.
But the Coalition chose not to address it, but rather to shoot the messenger; in this case the independent authority and its chair, the former NSW Liberal minister Matt Kean. The authority, it said, had become “a puppet of Anthony Albanese and [energy minister] Chris Bowen”. There were strong hints that under a Dutton government Kean himself might be sacked.
Dutton’s claim that power prices will be 44% cheaper in the near term under his plan are also unsubstantiated and somehow also less scrutinised than all the competing assessments of what nuclear may or may not cost in the long term, if it is ever eventually built.
Experts say Dutton’s pronouncements on near-term costs show he clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about.
The opposition leader routinely cites modelling from Frontier Economics, itself contested, which did find that nuclear power would reduce the energy system costs in the longer term by 44%. Frontier’s managing director, Danny Price, confirms his work did not forecast household power bills or electricity prices, and that nearer term reductions in system costs were not quantified.
after newsletter promotion
And then there are the deep fears, from the Australian Energy Market Operator, among others, about how the ageing coal-fired power system would hold together in the 10 years or more during which nuclear power was being developed.
Canavan’s criticism of his own party’s policy was made in the context of his argument that neither major party was being upfront about the challenges of keeping the energy system running while reaching net zero by 2050.
I disagree with him there. Australia is just starting to shake off the decades of stultifying climate wars to achieve a necessary and long-delayed energy transition. The east coast grid now runs on about 43% renewable energy. The lights are staying on. Investment is increasing.
As the AGL chief executive, Damien Nicks, said last week: “Both time and cost won’t allow nuclear to be done on time … the question right now is about getting on and getting this done as soon as we can.”
If Dutton wants to discuss nuclear as a long-term option, that’s fine, but it’s no substitute for knowing what his plan means for the here and now, for power bills, and emissions, and the promises we have made on the international stage. That is, if it is actually a serious policy rather than another tactic for delay.
