In response to the letter to the Editor ‘Please explain your approach Mr. Tehan’ – inconsistency in power generation messaging on 29 June, the Coalition’s nuclear policy is a hot topic, particularly as we are nearing an election year.
Here’s a breakdown of the key points to help understand the Coalition’s policy better.
What is the problem we’re trying to solve?
Anthony Albanese’s Labor government promised all Australians a $275 reduction on their energy bills … 119 times. Not only has Labor failed to deliver on this promise, energy prices have soared. Every single week since Labor took office, 600 households on average have been plunged into hardship arrangements with their electricity retailer because they cant pay their bills.
According to the new energy prices revealed last week by the Australian Energy Regulator for the 2024-25 financial year, most Victorians will be up to $657 a year worse off in the coming year than Labor promised.
Labor’s $275 promise is officially broken.
In addition, because Labor has put all its eggs in one basket with an expensive renewables- only approach to our electricity system—industrial wind and solar projects—there is a risk that the lights will go out as we run out of energy.
Why might we run out of energy? Because 90 per cent of baseload electricity, predominantly coal fired power stations, is coming to the end of life over the next decade.
What is the Coalition’s approach?
The Coalition believes Australia must have a balanced energy mix to deliver cheaper, cleaner, consistent 24/7 power.
Our plan is to introduce zero-emissions nuclear energy which has proven to bring electricity prices and emissions down all over the world. This means Australia’s energy mix today of renewables + gas + coal will shift to a balanced future energy mix of renewables + gas + nuclear.
We don’t believe in the premature closure of 24/7 baseload power stations but that when they exit the system, they should be replaced with nuclear. Zero-emissions nuclear energy will complement renewables and gas to bring prices down and keep the lights on as we decarbonise.
Is this a renewables versus nuclear debate?
No. Labor is positioning Australia’s energy policy as a binary choice between renewables and nuclear. This is not the case. The Coalition’s approach is to have a mix of renewables + gas + nuclear.
Where will the nuclear plants be located and how were the locations chosen?
The Coalition has announced seven nuclear power sites, each located at a power station that is either scheduled to close or has closed. Each of these locations offers important technical attributes needed for a zero-emissions nuclear plant, including cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure. This means we can use the existing poles and wires, along with a local community which has a skilled workforce.
A key advantage of modern zero-emissions nuclear plants is they can be plugged into existing grids. This means they can effectively replace retired or retiring coal plants and avoid much of the new spending needed for Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ system, including new transmission poles and wires, all of which will be passed on in the form of higher bills. The locations are as follows:
International comparisons
It is compelling to compare Labor’s energy policy to that of the most advanced economies in the world, the G20 nations. Of the world’s 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy, or moving towards it.
The path Labor is going down leaves Australia isolated. No other country in the world relies solely on wind and solar as Labor is proposing. It is radical to adopt a pathway that no one else has adopted.
By contrast, there are 32 countries operating zero-emissions nuclear plants. Another 50 countries are looking to do so. Why? Because nuclear energy has already brought prices down around the world while reducing emissions.
Australians are currently paying some of the highest electricity prices in the world - up to 56 cents a kWh (South Australia, DMO). In Ontario, Canada, where nuclear constitutes around 60% of its energy mix, households are paying just 14c kWh - around four times less than Australian households.
In the U.S State of Tennessee which has over 44% nuclear in its mix, households are paying just 18c kWh - around three times less than Australian households. 3
Is nuclear technology safe?
Modern nuclear plants with the latest technology are incredibly safe. Many Australians would be surprised to learn that there are more than 400 reactors operating worldwide today. Just as the cars people drive off the showroom floor today are superior and safer to those they drove in the 1980s, it’s the same for the latest nuclear technologies today which are superior and safer compared to those produced decades ago.
Zero-emissions nuclear has proven to be one of the world’s safest forms of energy, due in large part to its successful management of waste. In fact, it’s ranked the world’s second safest form of energy generation, safer even than wind and hydro power. The technology is safe enough for the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and France.
The technology is safe enough for Australian Defence Force personnel who will shortly be operating nuclear propelled submarines under the AUKUS agreement. The technology is safe enough for residents near Lucas Heights in Sydney, who have lived and worked around an operating reactor since 1958. Nuclear energy for Australia is an idea whose time has come.
