Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal disrupts investment in cheaper renewables. Is that the point?
Last year, when Peter Dutton campaigned against the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament, he said repeatedly that it shouldn’t be supported because it lacked detail. Now, as he seeks to upend the transition to renewable energy in Australia and spend billions of dollars to build nuclear reactors instead, there is almost none.
Dutton and the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, have selected seven locations around Australia for future nuclear reactors. On Wednesday, they finally named them.
On the sites of seven existing coal-fired power stations, they were chosen not because they are the safest or best-situated to manage nuclear technology but because they have infrastructure – poles and wires – already in place.
The Coalition says that avoids the need to build more of the transmission lines which are so unpopular, especially in regional areas.
This point is in dispute. And that’s just the beginning.
Some of the sites, particularly Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley, are very close to earthquake fault lines. Several have no obvious water source, which is essential. They appear to have been chosen for political saleability, not science.
Most are privately owned. Under the Coalition plan, the federal government would acquire them. This, from the parties most ideologically opposed to asset nationalisation.
Putting that aside, what if the owners won’t sell? The Coalition would force them. How? It’s not clear.
If that problem could be overcome, the Coalition would then persuade state and territory governments to change the laws currently banning nuclear power. What if they didn’t agree? Dutton would throw money at them because premiers can never resist federal cash. What if they still resisted? He insisted they wouldn’t.
Within hours of the sites being named, the premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland – all the states that would be housing the reactors – ruled it out. Queensland’s Liberal National Party opposition leader, David Crisafulli, said he wasn’t keen either and the Victorian Liberal opposition leader, John Pesutto, had “no plans for it”.
But if the states were somehow persuaded, the ban would also need to be overturned at the federal level. That would require negotiation in the Senate, where the Greens in particular would refuse.
A few other issues arise from the few policy details which challenge credibility.
Just last month, the shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, said nuclear power would not need to be subsidised.
Related: Here’s what we know about the Coalition’s seven planned nuclear power sites
“The key for me as someone who really believes that we should make sure that we have affordable, reliable power – and I don’t want to commit subsidies that aren’t necessary – is to make sure that it’s commercially viable,” Taylor told the National Press Club. “And we think it can be.”
But announcing the policy on Wednesday, Dutton confirmed the taxpayer would fund the lot. Perhaps reality dawned between 23 May and 19 June that finding private investors – and insurers – was going to be tricky.
So if the land acquisition and state and federal legislative hurdles were cleared, a Dutton government would then build, own and run the reactors and compensate affected residents in the form of subsidised power and other industry-transition assistance.
So how much would all this cost? Dutton had no answer. That would require modelling, he said, which is much easier when you’re in government.
“But it will be a big bill, there’s no question about that,” he said, promising more on cost at the “next stage” of the policy rollout.
The opposition leader insisted it would be a fraction of what the energy transition is currently costing. He provided no evidence to support this. In its recent analysis of the cost of a nuclear industry, CSIRO said it would be at least double the cost of renewables. It put the pricetag of building reactors at between $8bn and $17bn each. Its analysis was also at odds with the Coalition’s promise that the first reactor could be online by 2037.
Dutton could not say definitively what kind of reactors would be built – only that as-yet-undeveloped small modular reactors would be among them – or how much of Australia’s power they would generate.
He was also asked – twice – if all seven sites would definitely proceed. He declined to confirm it.
Later, the deputy Nationals leader, Perin Davey, suggested that unhappy locals could veto the plans.
“If the community is absolutely adamant, we will not proceed,” Davey told Sky News.
Within hours, her leader, Littleproud, said she was wrong, telling ABC TV that he and Dutton were demonstrating “strong leadership” and that they were “prepared to make the tough calls in the national interest”. There would be more than two years of consultations to “design local solutions” to ease concerns but no reversal.
There was some more definitive guidance on the transitional implications of the nuclear plan. The Coalition’s policy would lean more heavily on gas.
“The gas that will be required will be significantly more than what it is now,” Littleproud told Sky News, although he didn’t clarify where it would come from.
And the shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien, suggested coal would not phase out fully before nuclear power came online.
“As coal retires from the system, it will be replaced with zero emissions nuclear energy,” he said.
But “zero emissions nuclear” alone cannot achieve net zero emissions by 2050. What about the emissions from the transport sector? What about agriculture? This has not been explained.
A few things about the policy have, however, become clearer.
It is designed primarily for political purposes, not to address climate change. The number of ifs cast serious doubt over whether it can actually be delivered.
But just announcing it has the effect of undermining certainty and disrupting investment in cheaper renewables. And some in the clean energy sector are wondering if that is actually the point.
Karen Middleton is Guardian Australia’s political editor.
