The federal opposition has finally released the costings for its nuclear power proposal, claiming it will cost $263 billion less than the government's plan to roll out renewables.However, the claim has already been heavily disputed, as it comes just days after the CSIRO found nuclear would cost around twice as much as solar and wind power.Critics have also pointed out that the opposition's plan, while 44 per cent cheaper than the government's, is based on a scenario that produces about 45 per cent less energy by 2050 than renewables.
Peter Dutton has released the opposition's costings for its nuclear power plan. (Glenn Hunt/SMH)Six months after the Coalition unveiled the seven sites it plans to build nuclear plants on, today its costings, put together by Frontier Economics, put the cost of the plan at $331 billion."This will make electricity reliable, it will make it more consistent, cheaper, for Australians and it will help us decarbonise as a trading economy as we must," Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said."The fact is we can deliver a plan which is going to keep the lights on and we have a plan and a vision for our country which will help grow businesses, not close them down."The Coalition said its proposal is 44 per cent cheaper than the government's own energy plan and would likely reduce power bills, but didn't say exactly what impact it would have on the cost for households."It is not a pricing analysis, but as Frontier Economics makes it very clear in the report, that prices, ultimately, reflect costs over time," opposition energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien said."The 44 per cent difference in the cost between Labor's approach and the Coalition's approach, it is very safe to assume it would be comparable when it comes to price differential of that period of time."Dutton said that, by embracing nuclear, Australia would reach net zero emissions one year quicker than what is currently expected.He also said the opposition would release further details about shorter-term energy plans in the future.
The Coalition says its proposal will be hundreds of billions of dollars cheaper than the government's renewables-focused plan. (Glenn Hunt/SMH)
Doubts cast over cost figures
While some bodies, like Nuclear for Australia and the Minerals Council, have welcomed the modelling, others have cast doubt over the validity of the figures."If we're going to debate the economics of energy it must be based on real-world evidence – not dodgy modelling that obscures the real price tag," economist Nicki Hutley from the Climate Council said.The modelling comes just days after the CSIRO found nuclear energy was the most expensive way to power Australia, and that a mix of renewables with firming was up to half the cost.The Climate Council said the Coalition modelling doesn't take into account the cost of a number of factors, including keeping coal-fired plants operating for longer than what is currently expected, and storing nuclear waste.
Experts have questioned the cost figures used by the opposition. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)It also said that, while the plan claims to be 44 per cent cheaper than renewables, it would also produce 45 per cent less power by 2050.The government has also hit out at the costings."They just don't add up," Energy Minister Chris Bowen said."They want us to believe that the most expensive form of energy will somehow lead to cheaper energy."Outgoing cabinet minister Bill Shorten also said the numbers "won't stack up"."Mike Tyson once said that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth," he told Today."All I can say about Peter Dutton's plans is wait till they get punched by the facts."