The coalition cannot say how much nuclear energy it intends to generate, its energy spokesman explained.
The amount of energy is one of many details that the opposition did not mention on Wednesday when it announced plans to build seven nuclear power plants in five states between 2035 and 2050. Other details concern costs and the exact timetable.
But companies and experts say the power generation figures are crucial for energy investors to understand the balance of nuclear, renewables and gas the Coalition is proposing for Australia and to plan their investments accordingly.
Energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, who designed the plan, told ABC’s Insiders the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site, both of which would not be known until a coalition government sets up a nuclear expert agency to conduct studies.
“We would leave that to the Coordinating Authority for Nuclear Energy,” he said.
“This independent committee will determine the feasibility of certain technologies at each location and only then determine a specific gigawatt number.”
This is unlikely to allay the concerns of industry associations, which point to the Labor Party’s annually updated Integrated System Plan, which sets out the planned energy mix in gigawatts.
Australian Industry Group chief Innes Willox said this was important for “safety” and investor confidence.
But Mr O’Brien said gigawatts were “very specific” and the coalition would instead set out its “assumptions” and give a rough figure for “how much we think there will be in 2050”.
“I am a Liberal and I appreciate and respect that investors want to make money, but to be clear, our focus is on Australians who want to save money,” he said.
Mr O’Brien also announced that the coalition plans to build multiple reactors at some sites to increase the amount of energy produced.
According to expert estimates, the amount of electricity that can be generated by seven nuclear power plants is about 10 gigawatts, or less than four percent of Australia’s energy needs.
Mixed signals on renewable energies
The proposed energy contribution of nuclear energy is also relevant to the status of the expansion of renewable energies and to the extent to which the coalition aims to continue this expansion in government.
National Party leader David Littleproud has consistently presented nuclear power as an alternative to renewable energy and has even proposed a “cap” on renewable energy.
But Mr O’Brien said on Sunday that this was not the Coalition’s policy and that the Coalition was “united in the idea of having a net zero electricity grid by 2050”.
Mr O’Brien added that he did not believe renewable energy could be used as Australia’s “baseload” power source and described the government’s 85 per cent renewable energy target as unrealistic.
Asked what the Coalition would do about the looming short-term energy deficit, with 90 percent of coal power set to leave the national electricity market within the next decade and before the first planned nuclear power station is built, O’Brien said the answer was to “pump more gas into the market,” but added that he would “welcome all renewables.”
“The government believes the aim of the game is to maximize the share of renewable energy. We want the optimum.”
The Government supports renewable energy through its Capacity Investment Scheme, which funds approved renewable energy projects to provide a “revenue safety net” for investors. The Coalition’s plans for this scheme are not clear, but Mr O’Brien promised there would soon be renewable energy and gas projects.
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said the coalition’s plan would jeopardise progress in renewable energy in the short term.
“You won’t see (a nuclear power plant) for at least the next 10 years. Australians want relief on their energy bills now,” she told Sky News on Sunday.
“We are seeing renewables penetrating our energy market and driving down energy costs. That is already happening and instead Peter Dutton has a plan, the cost of which he will not tell you, but which could help in a decade.
“We can be a superpower in renewable energy and instead Peter Dutton wants to put the brakes on. Instead of putting us at the forefront of renewable energy in the world, he wants to put us in the slow lane. This is just crazy.”
John Grimes, chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, said the coalition’s policies were “a stumbling block to progress” and actively undermined the use of renewable energy.
Mr Littleproud reiterated on Sunday morning that the express intention of nuclear policy was to reduce the use of renewable energy.
“It’s pure mathematics,” he told Sky News, adding that under the coalition there would be fewer power lines and less “destruction of prime agricultural land”.
While the coalition has not yet announced costs, Littleproud said construction costs would be “roughly” $8 billion per unit.
When asked about the higher costs of nuclear energy, which most expert analyses estimate, he replied that the state would “control” the power plants and could operate them in a way that would “reduce costs.”
Mr O’Brien also announced a “market reform” plan to lower prices, but did not elaborate.
Two years of community consultation to “make sure they understand”
Both Mr Littleproud and Mr O’Brien pointed out that two and a half years of consultation with local communities would be necessary before the site details could be finalised, but communities would not be given the opportunity to veto the proposal.
“This is not the best international approach,” Mr O’Brien said.
“We are taking this to the Australian people and seeking a mandate.”
He added that he did not expect there to be any resistance to the facilities among the population.
Mr Littleproud said he planned to “take the Australian people on a journey… (we would) embark on a two-and-a-half-year consultation process with those communities to make sure they understand”.
Posted , Updated
