Op Ed: Opposition's plan for nuclear – published in the AFR

Beware the hidden cost of Dutton's nuclear plan

The Coalition laments the need for more baseload power to keep our grids working properly. But it flies in the face of expert advice, shows an extraordinary level of hubris in ignoring the facts, and an inability to think beyond old paradigms.

Ever since June, when Peter Dutton said nuclear was their solution for Australia's energy system, it has been true to form – long on story-telling and short on substance.

The most important expert body in the debate, the Australian Energy Market Operator, has decades of experience and undertakes extensive analysis to plan an energy system that will be the lowest cost option and, crucially, reliable.

AEMO’s advice – including under the former government – is to shift from baseload coal in favour of injecting more variable renewables. Multiple options such as batteries, pumped hydro, and flexible peaking gas ensure electricity is always available. This energy mix creates the lowest cost, reliable system.

But this advice doesn’t suit the Coalition’s climate 'inactivism'.

We saw it this week when Dutton's contortions to justify nuclear at a major speech in Sydney failed to demonstrate any real understanding of how our electricity system works, or any comprehension about the scale of what’s needed to keep the lights on in the next decade.

He did say an incoming Coalition government would need to “ramp up” domestic gas production to fill the gaps created by nuclear that won’t have been built and renewable projects that will have been halted.

Like everything else in Dutton’s nuclear plans, this throwaway line won’t survive contact with economic or engineering reality. He’s talking about gas from projects that haven’t broken ground, in pipelines that don’t exist, to gas-fired generators that haven’t been built.

Australia’s demand and supply of gas is finely balanced. For now.

Tomorrow the ACCC will release its gas outlook for the first quarter of next year. Figures from the most recent AEMO gas market analysis in March show there is sufficient supply to cover Australia’s needs out to 2027, reflecting our government’s continued efforts to shore up supply and provide investment certainty.

That clearly wasn’t the case under previous Coalition governments. Our opponents were warned repeatedly about looming shortfalls but failed to implement any policy changes to avert them.

We’ve changed that. We’ve brought on an extra 600 petajoules of domestic supply through enforceable commitments under our Gas Code of Conduct from producers.

But we know we’ll need to bring more gas to market beyond 2027, with a projected cumulative shortfall in total national production of 3300 petajoules to 2035.

Until the opposition can prove otherwise, we must assume that between now and 2035, a Coalition government will use gas to fill the 860 terawatt-hours of electricity supply gap resulting from its halt on new utility-scale renewable projects and increasing electricity demand.

That means it will need to find a whopping 6081 petajoules just for electricity generation alone, on top of the 3300 petajoules. For context, that total is nearly five times what Australia produces in a year.

Where will this gas come from to power generators for electricity? What policies will deliver the new gas plants needed? How much will new gas infrastructure cost? How much will the gas itself cost?

We’re safe to assume the Coalition won’t have the courage to provide their own calculations. So here’s what the government estimates: $14.4 billion in capital costs to build the plants, $2.3 billion in operations and maintenance costs, and $53 billion on gas fuel costs.

This doesn’t include potential new pipelines needed to shift the extra gas from source to market, new transmission to connect new gas plants to the electricity grid, or the flow-on effect on gas prices for manufacturers and households.

That’s about $70 billion in starting costs out to 2035 so that the Coalition can perpetuate their anti-renewables climate denialism, overrule AEMO and turn back the clock on getting the cheapest power into households and businesses.

For what reward? The Coalition’s end game is not nuclear. The end game is maximising disruption and delay in the energy transition.

Australia needs gas to underpin an orderly transition to a net zero energy system. The Albanese government understands this. Gas is flexible and, unlike coal or nuclear, can be turned on or off in about two minutes, making it a useful backup for variable renewable generation.

The government wants to use gas as AEMO advises us to – as backup, not as baseload, which is the right solution to keep costs down for energy consumers and limit both new infrastructure costs and emissions.

If the Coalition believes it knows better than the experts, it needs to set out a credible plan to meet Australia’s energy needs now – not off in the never-never.

Without any evidence from the Coalition to the contrary, Australian households and industry are right to assume the worst from this energy scheme that’s 20 years out of date.

Published in The Australian Financial Review