Responding to the Friday release of modelling by Frontier Economics of the Coalition’s scheme to build seven nuclear power plants from the mid-2030s, the Australian Energy Council warned the estimates assumed a slower build out of renewable energy.
The council’s chief executive, Louisa Kinnear, said they were “particularly concerned about the assumed lack of investment in new and replacement generation over the next 10 years”.
“Slowing investment while we assess technologies only available in the future creates a significant risk for the stability of the energy system,” she said.
Frontier Economics, a consultancy, claimed the Coalition’s plan to decarbonise Australia’s main power grid would – at $331bn by 2050 – stand at 44% less than the estimates produced by the Australian Energy Market Operator, thereby saving consumers money. The Albanese government has accepted Aemo’s projections.
“A key issue is the modelling assumes coal remains in the system for longer than asset owners have advised, which could result in reliability issues,” Kinnear said.
“The Coalition’s energy mix and approach would mark a significant departure from the current energy transition trajectory.”
What does Aemo think?
Frontier’s report prompted collective head-scratching in Aemo’s corner.
For one, Aemo’s 2023 June estimates seem to have been converted to 2024 levels using an inflation rate of 8.9%, more than double the 3.8% pace assessed by the Reserve Bank and others.
According to Aemo, there are 45 gigawatts of renewable projects in the pipeline to connect to the national energy market (NEM). By contrast, Frontier only has wind and solar generation capacity rising from 24GW to 46GW by 2051, according to its “nuclear inclusive progressive scenario”.
(Renewables already provide about 40% of the NEM’s power, but according to Frontier’s estimates that share is only projected to increase to 50% by 2051.)
Using Frontier’s progressive scenario, rooftop solar would almost double from about 23GW now to 44.5GW by mid-century. Aemo’s step change scenario, by contrast, had estimated our homes will be accommodating a hefty 110GW of solar by then.
How reliable is economic modelling?
As mortgage-holders can attest, modelling of how soon the Reserve Bank may cut interest rates fluctuates almost on a daily basis. What store to put in numbers for complex energy systems 25 years hence?
Very little. Bruce Mountain, the head of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, said Frontier’s claims should not “be paid much mind”. Nor, for that matter, should Aemo’s, which provide the present alternative plan supported by the Albanese government.
“No one really has the foggiest idea of what it will cost to develop nuclear in Australia,” Mountain said. “So many things in the production, distribution and consumption of electricity are changing quickly and many of the factors that affect costs and implementation are simply not known.”
‘Nuclear will drive up the cost of electricity’: Matt Kean clashes with former colleagues – video
The run-up to the 2019 elections, which delivered a surprise win for the Morrison government, were also marked by big budgeting claims.
Former agriculture economist Brian Fisher claimed that the climate policies of Labor – then in opposition – would cost $542bn between 2021 and 2030. Many in the media accepted the costing even though the modelling made what some viewed as “ridiculous” claims .
Should we blanch at big numbers?
Not necessarily. Most of our power generation is within a decade of closing and would need either costly patch-up work or big-ticket replacement costs – no matter the party in power.
Most of our power generation is within a decade of closing and would need either costly patch-up work or big-ticket replacement costs – no matter the party in power.
Even before inflation, a sum of $20bn a year adds up to $500bn by 2050. In an annual economy of about $2tn, the sums aren’t astronomical. Tallying spending to 2050 on housing or roads, for example, produces similarly big but manageable numbers.
Still, we know how much it costs to generate 1 gigawatt-hours of solar or wind generation with firming (shoring up supply during periods of high market demand, or when renewable energy doesn’t meet demand) because we’re doing it now (and solar costs have lately been falling by 8% a year, according to the CSIRO ).
solar costs have lately been falling by 8% a year, according to the CSIRO
But Australia’s track record of staying within budget for relatively simple things like building poles and wires isn’t encouraging.
How well can we expect to go about building complex nuclear reactors when more experienced nations are coping with billion-dollar cost blowouts and delays?
What if companies – or states – say ‘no’?
One challenge for estimating the cost of going nuclear is landing on a price to compensate the companies that own the seven sites chosen by the Coalition to host a reactor.
Six of the seven are private, and none has shown interest in going nuclear, because of the relatively steep cost.
“That implies compulsory acquisition and government coming in over the top of the owners of those sites,” the climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, told journalists on Friday , with some relish.
“Robert Menzies should be rolling in his grave at this stuff,” Bowen said. “If the Labor party tried this, the Liberal party would say it’s Venezuelan-style socialism.”
“If the Labor party tried this, the Liberal party would say it’s Venezuelan-style socialism.”
The Australian Energy Council, which represents energy retailers and generators, said the Coalition’s costings “raised questions on the role of the market in an energy system”.
And states that have legislated emissions targets are unlikely to take kindly to a federal government demanding they ignore their own laws.
What will happen to electricity prices?
Electricity prices get a lot of media and political attention but actually make up a relatively modest 2.36% of the basket of goods and services used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to assess consumer prices . (Automotive fuel, by contrast, accounts for 58% more, with a weighting of 3.73%.)
The Coalition – and Frontier Economics – had little to say about what would happen to electricity bills, implying that the (disputed) 44% reduction in overall investment needed for the grid would translate into lower prices for consumers.
(Given the estimated electricity demand was down by about 40% by 2050, the per-unit cost might be similar, according to the modelling.)
Assuming the Coalition does override state and federal bans on nuclear energy and reactors start spinning from 2036, there remains the issue of the next 11 years.
Frontier assumes most existing coal plants can be extended, regardless of potentially mounting bills for maintenance, insurance or other costs – imposts that don’t look like putting downward pressure on power prices.
What next?
Bowen reissued his invitation for the Coalition – which did not pay for Frontier’s work – to submit their costings to the Parliamentary Budget Office. The government’s plans will be tested by Treasury before the election, he says.
Meanwhile, it’s not as though the national electricity grid is doing great.
Just weeks ago, the NSW premier, Chris Minns, appealed for the state’s residents to stop using pool pumps or dishwashers to ensure supplies could meet demand during a hot spell.
Another heatwave early next week across big population centres in Melbourne and Sydney one day, then Sydney and south-east Queensland the next, is due to again strain power supplies.
One wildcard is how the ageing coal-fired power stations will cope, including the biggest of them all, Origin Energy’s Eraring plant. The sudden unavailability of just one of its four 720-megawatt units may be the difference between smooth sailing or a stormy ride for power authorities.
Adding another decade or more to such plants – even if physically possible – seems like a risky approach to take for an essential service.
One wildcard is how the ageing coal-fired power stations will cope, … sudden unavailability of just one of its four 720-megawatt units may be the difference between smooth sailing or a stormy ride for power authorities.
Adding another decade or more to such plants – even if physically possible – seems like a risky approach to take for an essential service.
Never mind that the Coalition’s nuclear proposal is a fantasy – it doesn’t even claim to reduce power bills
Experts and agencies have overwhelmingly deemed the plan not to be credible. And burning more coal and gas in the medium term only leads one way
L et’s not waste time with niceties: the Coalition’s nuclear plan is a fantasy. The vision laid out on Friday by a quartet of opposition frontbenchers is not going to eventuate, regardless of the result of the next election.
That’s not because nuclear energy is necessarily a terrible idea, in a global sense. While waste is an issue, nuclear plants offer zero-emissions power and will be needed in places with fewer energy options. But the claims put forward by the opposition – that Australia needs nuclear, or could have it in the way the Coalition describes – do not stand up to scrutiny.
Peter Dutton and his climate change and energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, claim a grid with nuclear energy would cost 44% less by 2050 than the mostly renewable energy system being built under Labor. Remarkably, they argue that Australia will go from no nuclear energy industry today – no expertise, no workers, no regulatory system, no infrastructure – to a national network of generators that can provide 38% of the country’s electricity in just 25 years.
To say everything would have to go right to get there is a gold medal-winning understatement. No similar country has had a nuclear expansion on that scale in recent memory. The Coalition is arguing Australia can somehow buck this trend from a standing start.
The opposition’s claims bring to mind the modelling adage that if you torture numbers long enough they’ll tell you anything. In this case, that includes that Australia could develop a regulatory system and build a large-scale nuclear plant by 2036. The CSIRO’s conservative estimate is that it would be at least 15 years before Australia could develop a nuclear plant. Others say about 20 years is more realistic.
The most obvious criticism of the Coalition’s proposal is that the overwhelming majority of agencies and experts in the field do not believe it is credible. They have found, repeatedly, that nuclear energy would be more expensive than what Australia is building now – a system that will run overwhelmingly on renewable energy, with “firming” support from energy storage and transmission links and further back-up from “peaking” gas plants.
the overwhelming majority of agencies and experts in the field do not believe it is credible
They have found, repeatedly, that a nuclear industry could not be developed by the time it would be needed, and choosing to slow the rollout of large-scale renewable energy and batteries while waiting for nuclear to develop would be a significant risk to supply, risking blackouts as old coal plants become increasingly unreliable.
And they have found, obviously enough, that burning more coal and gas in the medium term would increase Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, push national climate commitments out of reach and accelerate global heating. The modelling confirms the Coalition is planning for a power grid that is significantly more polluting over the next two decades and a transport system in which a lot more people are still driving fossil fuel cars in 2050 than expert advice has suggested is possible.
This isn’t a surprise, but we should call it what it is.
The Coalition has said it would ditch the country’s legislated 2030 emissions reduction target, dismissing scientific and economic evidence the country should and could be cutting pollution faster, not slower. It has opposed all Labor’s climate policies and has none of its own that could make a difference in the next 15 years. It claims it accepts climate science and would aim to get the country to net zero emissions by 2050, but its actions clearly say something else.
As recently as Monday, the CSIRO released an updated analysis directly addressing claims by nuclear advocates and found energy from these plants would be at least 50% more expensive than the alternative. A number of analysts thought the CSIRO had actually been conservative in its estimates. They said international experience suggested construction costs of nuclear plants would probably be at least double what the national science agency estimated.
Let’s look at that international experience in comparable countries in North America and western Europe. Only five large-scale nuclear plants have reached construction stage across these regions in the past 25 years. Four have suffered substantial setbacks, but will all take at least 18 and up to 24 years to complete, with construction costs between two and six times what was originally estimated. The fifth was abandoned as too expensive after A$13bn had already been spent.
Only five large-scale nuclear plants have reached construction stage across [the West] in the past 25 years. Four … will take at least 18 and up to 24 years to complete, with construction costs between two and six times what was originally estimated. The fifth was abandoned as too expensive
The list of issues raised about the Coalition’s position over the past 24 hours is lengthy. On it: that its policy is consistent with 2.6C of global heating by 2100, a disastrous level we should clearly be trying to avoid, and that it could deter private investment in new energy generation even in areas and technologies where the Coalition would like it to continue.
Perhaps most pertinently on the list, from a short-term electoral point of view, is that the Coalition’s policy explicitly does not claim that it would do anything to reduce household power bills.
Renewable energy is blamed for all sorts of ills, and its expansion is not without challenges. But the evidence is that recent big power bill rises were mostly due to fossil fuel prices going up after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and to fossil fuel outages, not solar and wind. Experts say the Coalition’s plan to limit new solar and wind generation coming into the grid and in the short-term boost fossil fuel power – particularly gas, the most expensive form of electricity in the system – could lead to bills going up.
recent big power bill rises were mostly due to fossil fuel prices going up
The big question for political and media debate over the next six months: whether it will grapple with this reality, or if the nuclear fantasy will be too much to resist.
“We MUST respect this earth - it is all we have
Claudio Dametto - South Australia
“I will always Vote to Preserve Our World.
Liam McGregor - Western Australia
“A simple message that even a politician can understand
Felicity Crombach - Victoria
“Please show you care about our future generations!!
Phil Harmer - New South Wales
“Save our world , Life & health before profits.
Kerry Lillian - New South Wales
“Close down all coal mines and Do not mine gas . Make these Companies
Daniel Johnson - New South Wales
“We want carbon free energy!
Edan Clarke - New South Wales
“Feels good to be taking a voter action step
Beaver Hudson - New South Wales
“Great Initiative. Let’s Hold elected officials Accountable to their bosses, us!
John Paul Posada - New South Wales
“We need actions not words we need honest democratic govt We need a pm
Bob Pearce - South Australia
“Thank you for this great resource. I was feeling helpless. Even this small step
Silvia Anderson - Victoria
“If political parties continue receiving political donations, we will rarely have politicians working for
Dan Chicos - New South Wales
“I only vote for people who will take urgent action to restore a safe
Susie Burke - Victoria
“Current government is not representing the opinion of the majority of Australian to meet
Neil Price - Tasmania
“We are fighting to rescue our kids' future from those who seek to steal
Vanessa Norimi - Queensland
“No time to waste Now or Never My vote is for NOW
Rosalie White - Victoria
“I am only 9 but I already care
Ava Bell - New South Wales
“From New Lambton Uniting Church - Caring for our world is a moral imperative.
Niall McKay - New South Wales
“Our federal govt is an International climate Embarrassment - its about time they stepped
Oriana Tolo - Victoria
“Vote earth this time!
Sue Cooke - Queensland
“We are in one on the wealthiest countries in the world. we have the
rowan huxtable - New South Wales
“The climate Emergency is the public health opportunity and urgent priority of the 21st
Mike Forrester - Victoria
“If they want my vote they better act now
Barbara McNiff - New South Wales
“We need to act locally now for the earth. Our only home. Vote Earth
Anne Miller - New South Wales
“I often look at the places I've known all my life and see how
Jim Baird - New South Wales
“Strike one For people power!!! Democracy might prevail outside the current cronyism that faces
Lorraine Bridger - New South Wales
“Our federal politicians Are Afraid to make action on climate change a major election
Jennifer Martin - New South Wales
“climate election, let's go!
Fahimah Badrulhisham - New South Wales
“Great to see this website that is a focus on action for climate change
Lynette Sinclair - New South Wales
“Let’s show politicians and the Murdoch media that climate change is by far the
Jane Aitken - Australian Capital Territory
“If you want to stay in power You need to take action to stop
Jane Bulter - New South Wales
“We are all that stands between terminal climate change and the vulnerable. We are
Carol Khan - Queensland
“We need a Government that Believes this is real and not taking money from
Ken Gray - New South Wales
“I'm voting for my childrens future
Anneliese Alexander - New South Wales