The head of the Smart Energy Council has eviscerated the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy while accusing Nationals leader David Littleproud of spreading “blatant misinformation” to exaggerate the cost of renewables.
Speaking to Sky News Australia on Sunday, Smart Energy Council Chief Executive John Grimes said the Coalition’s proposal to build nuclear power plants at seven sites across the country would cost anywhere between $116 to $600 billion – with the gap being a result of the “staggering lack of detail” and “huge risk” of cost blowouts.
“They said that they would build seven sites, five big ones, three little ones. So we went to the experts at CSIRO and looked at their figures for how much that would cost, and the figure comes in at about $116 billion,” Mr Grimes said.
“But Ted O’Brien today said on Insiders that the amount that they’ll build could be four times the amount that they originally proposed in their press release. That would see a cost coming in at almost half a trillion – $485 billion.”
Smart Energy Council Chief Executive John Grimes accused Nationals leader David Littleproud of using “blatant misinformation” to exaggerate the cost of renewables. Picture: Kym Smith / News Corp Australia.
Mr Grimes also cited the international experience of nuclear plants running “way over time and way over budget”, pointing out the nuclear plant that the UK started to build in 2018 would not be finished until at least 2031 and was over budget by “an eye-watering cost of $88 billion”.
But it was when he was asked about recent comments by Nationals leader David Littleproud that the renewable energy advocate unleashed on the Coalition’s plan.
Mr Littleproud had told Sky News Sunday Agenda that the Coalition’s nuclear plan would be “a fraction” of Labor’s plan to have 82 per cent renewables by 2030, citing from Net Zero Australia’s figures of $1.5 trillion.
“That is cherry-picking, and that is blatant misinformation,” Mr Grimes responded.
“The report that he’s referring to – the leader of the National Party – is a report to transition the entire Australian economy; all costs to transition our entire transportation fleet, all costs for agriculture, for mining, for manufacturing, for stationary energy, and the entire transition.
“That’s the top (figure) to 2050. So him saying $1.5 trillion – that is just poppycock.
“To try and conflate that and say that that is what the transition to renewables in the energy sector alone would be, either he is not across the details, or he is lying to the people of Australia.
Nationals leader David Littleproud says nuclear is a “100-year” piece of infrastructure unlike the Albanese government’s “15-to-20-year” renewables.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton announced the Coalition’s nuclear plan last week.
“There is an upfront cost, but we’ll be upfront and clear about what that cost is,” Mr Littleproud told Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell.
“This is a 100-year piece of infrastructure, not a 15-to-20-year piece of infrastructure.”
The Smart Energy CEO said the cost to transition to “essential a net zero position by 2050” in the energy alone would be less than ten per cent of the figure Mr Littleproud quoted.
“The current costs of the transition… In the energy sector – that’s going solar, wind, batteries, the whole transition – is about $120 billion,” he said.
“This is not our figures, this comes from the Australian Energy Market Operator… They are the most expert, most informed professionals that we have, and they take into account everything in the transition.
“So to say that that is a cost of $1.5 trillion is outrageous and wrong.”
Mr Grimes also said that unlike the Coalition’s plan, this cost to transition would be paid by the private sector.
“Here’s the point, that’s $120 billion that will be paid for by private investors. Under the coalition’s plan, they’re talking about half a trillion dollars paid for directly by the taxpayer,” he said.
“That means the people of Australia will pay three times. They’ll pay for the upgrading of the coal and gas to stay in the system much longer – they are more expensive than renewables.
“They’ll pay half a trillion dollars of cost to actually build the nuclear in the first place, and then they’ll be locked in to higher power bills out to 2100.
“So the people of Australia get it in the neck with this absolutely crazy nuclear-thought bubble of the opposition.”
The Smart Energy Council head said the transition to renewables would cost $120 billion by 2050, but unlike the cost of the Coalition’s nuclear plan, this would be funded by the private sector. Picture: Jake Nowakowski
The Smart Energy Council head said that far from being an opponent of nuclear, he actually thought it was one of the “pinnacles of human engineering”, it would be an important part of the energy transition for some countries.
“If you’ve got no land, if you’ve got no wind, if you’ve got no sun – in the UK, and in some (other) parts of world – it’s going to be an important part of the mix,” Mr Grimes said.
“That’s not the case in Australia. In Australia, we can produce the world’s cheapest electricity through solar and wind, and that’s because we’re one of the sunniest and windiest places on earth.
“You put a solar panel here, and it will produce up to four times more electricity than exactly the same solar panel in Germany. So Australia really has an abundance of riches.
“It means renewables plus firming – that means battery storage, so that you can use that renewables 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to power the entire economy – are eye-wateringly cheap.”
Loading embed…
Mr Grimes said that nuclear power is “very inflexible” and “doesn’t play nicely with renewables”, so attempting to retro-fit nuclear into our predominantly renewables-focused system in the mid-2030s and 2040s would “mess up what we’ve put in place”.
Asked to explain why this was, the renewable advocate said that renewables are “variable by nature” with solar generating power in the daytime and wind being stronger at night, and that this left “little gaps” that are best filled by energy storage.
“Nuclear, once you turn it on, is not flexible. It is not economic to be turning a nuclear power plant up and down, up and down during the day and night,” he said.
“So it’s a really dumb idea to try and jerry-rig a nuclear power plant into a renewable system, which is the system that we have in Australia.”
Crawford School of Public Policy Professor Warwick McKibbin says it is “technically feasible” for Australia to move towards nuclear power.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton announced the Coalition’s nuclear plan last week.
“It is technically feasible to move towards nuclear power,” Mr McKibbin told Sky News Australia.
“But the key problem we have is how quickly can you do it and at what cost.”
Asked about the role of gas in Australia’s energy mix, Mr Grimes said gas would continue to play a role into the future but that its role would change.
“Gas will be like an emergency generator that you’ll turn on for short periods of time. And that’s a good thing, because gas is the most expensive energy in our system today,” he said
“Nuclear, if it came in, would blow that away by a factor of five, but today, gas is the most expensive.
“If we are interested in power bills, in cost of living, and actually helping people slash their household costs, we should be looking for the cheapest form of energy.
“So having gas to be able to turn on during an emergency situation, like a generator backup, fantastic. But that role will diminish over time, as it should, and that will bring down prices for every electricity customer.”