[ad_1]
Switching to nuclear power and abandoning Labor’s renewables plan would save Australians almost $300 billion by 2050, the Coalition and independent models say.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will reveal the cost of his long-awaited nuclear power plan on Friday.
But a preview of the plan, which Mr Dutton will present at the federal election early next year and is based on independent modelling, shows a gap of $264 billion between Labour’s renewables-only effort and the Coalition’s plan to shift the retired coal-fired plants.
“Australians will be better off with our plan,” Mr Dutton said.
“We will avoid hidden costs, reduce unnecessary infrastructure costs and lead to lower energy prices.” Labor’s chaotic plan saddles Australians with a system that costs five times more than they were promised.
“The Coalition’s plan ensures Australians are not burdened by unnecessary spending or reckless policies. Nuclear power is at the heart of our plan, providing the ‘steady-state’ power needed to sustain renewables and stabilize the grid.”
Modelling, carried out by independent economics organization Frontier Economics and commissioned by the Coalition, found that wind and solar would meet more than half of Australia’s energy needs by 2050, but at a much lower cost to households and taxpayers.
In June, the Coalition announced plans to relocate seven retiring coal plants across Australia, including six on the east coast and one in Western Australia. The nuclear plants will be state-owned and built between 2035 and 2050.
Frontier found that baseline production costs using renewables between now and 2050 will be $528 billion after inflation is taken into account, slightly below AEMO’s forecast of $580 billion.
Frontier also noted that AEMO costs do not include transmission costs of about $62 billion. That would push Frontier’s cost estimate to $590 billion – the basis for the $263 billion savings claim – and AEMO’s version to $642 billion.
“Frontier Economics’ analysis leaves no doubt: Australians will be better off under our plan.” We will avoid hidden costs, reduce unnecessary infrastructure costs and drive lower energy prices,” said Dutton.
“Nuclear is at the heart of our plan, providing the ‘always on’ power needed to back up renewables, stabilize the grid and keep energy affordable.”
Shadow Energy Secretary Ted O’Brien said the Coalition’s plan would bring 14GW of nuclear power to the grid by 2050.
Coal-fired power plants currently have about 21 GW of capacity, but this is projected to drop to 6.7 GW by 2037 as aging generators are shut down. There are now more than 29 GW of renewable energy in the system.
“Our plan responsibly integrates renewable energy sources, doubling large-scale solar and wind capacity while protecting regional communities from overdevelopment. At the same time, nuclear power and zero-emission gas provide the reliability that Labour’s plan fails to deliver,” Mr O’Brien said.
But Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the nuclear plan was “economic madness”.
“We have everything we need from cleaner, cheaper energy, and Peter Dutton instead wants to go with the most expensive option, which takes the most time and would at best only provide about 4 percent of our energy.” he said Thursday.
“We’re at the end of the last full year before an election and these heroes still don’t have any credible, evaluated or coherent economic policies.”
CSIRO’s latest GenCost report, published this week, found that large-scale nuclear would cost $150/MWh compared to $100/MWh for new solar or wind generation.
— With Katina Curtis
[ad_2]
