ABC Drive: Kate Chaney Criticises Coalition's Nuclear Energy Policy as Economically Irrational (19 June 2024)

Jo Trilling: Cheaper, cleaner, and consistent electricity: that's the promise from the Coalition if it wins government. Opposition leader Peter Dutton announced his long-awaited nuclear energy policy this morning alongside Nationals leader David Littleproud.

Peter Dutton: We want to utilise the existing assets and the poles and wires currently used at coal-fired power station sites to distribute energy from the latest generation nuclear reactors. We have the ability to do that in a way that renewables can't. Our vision is to deliver cleaner, cheaper, and consistent electricity, underpinning a century of economic growth and jobs for these communities. The assets will be owned by the Commonwealth, and we'll work with experts to deliver these programmes.

Jo Trilling: If this is meant to convince you we need nuclear power, does it do the job? What do you make of the Coalition's nuclear policy? One 302 720. Kate Chaney is the independent federal member for Curtin. Welcome back to Drive, Kate.

Kate Chaney: Thanks very much, Jo.

Jo Trilling: Your reaction to today's announcement?

Kate Chaney: Well, it is absolutely ludicrous. I'm astounded because the opposition once had a reputation for being economically rational. This is completely economically irrational. It's the most expensive form of power. We're now expected to believe it's good for cost of living to renationalise the electricity industry and pay top dollar for the most expensive energy source. I'm incredulous.

Jo Trilling: Do you have any data to support this claim that it's really expensive?

Kate Chaney: Yes. The CSIRO GenCost report specifically compared nuclear with other sources and found it to be between 1.5 and 3.9 times more expensive than solar or wind, even when adding storage and transmission costs. No private sector money is invested in this because it makes no sense. Private investors are looking to invest in renewable projects as they are the lowest cost. Taxpayers will have to pay every dollar for this project if it gets off the ground.

Jo Trilling: So what message does this send to business?

Kate Chaney: It's unfortunate because we need policy certainty. Investors in our energy transition want to know there won't be drastic policy changes ahead. This announcement undermines that certainty, which is unfortunate. We don't have time to waste and will get left behind if we talk about starting nuclear from scratch when we have advantages in the cheapest form of energy.

Jo Trilling: The Minerals Council of Australia supports it. Chief executive Tania Constable argues it's time to move beyond outdated anti-nuclear sentiments. What do you say?

Kate Chaney: I'm impressed you've found someone supportive because most voices disagree. It's not ideological; it just economically doesn't make sense. If we'd started nuclear in the 1950s like the USA, Canada, and Japan, it might be part of our energy mix now. Maybe the technology will become cost-competitive in the next 20 years, but it's currently not. Purely on economics, it makes no sense.

Listener: How will renewables provide sufficient baseload power, and what percentage is currently provided by renewables?

Kate Chaney: Nearly 40% currently, and it's increasing. The 20th-century paradigm was coal or nuclear baseload topped up with peaking supply. The 21st-century paradigm is predominantly renewables-based electricity topped up with hydro, pumped hydro, battery storage, and gas if needed. Costs have changed, and we see the environmental impact. We need storage and backup fuels. Nuclear doesn't fit our grid's needs as it can't be turned on and off easily. It's not a good firming fuel.

Jo Trilling: Even the head of Synergy, David Fyfe, says our grid is too small for nuclear. What do you say to Peter Dutton's argument that we shouldn't put all our eggs in the renewable basket?

Kate Chaney: Renewables aren't a single basket. There's sun, wind, pumped hydro, and batteries, balancing energy supply. Nuclear is a massive bet for 2040. Meanwhile, we keep emitting and become a global pariah for doing nothing about reducing emissions. It's much lower risk to go with a distributed renewable mix, building on what we've already started. Our system currently isn't always keeping women safe, and it needs to change. At the Federal level, there's no better time for necessary reforms, given the increased number of women in Federal Parliament. Nuclear is the massive single basket we’re putting all our eggs in if we follow Peter Dutton’s plan.

Jo Trilling: We have callers. Peter, what did you want to say?

Peter: Good afternoon. I have a PhD in environmental studies. Why are we so slow? France has had 56 reactors since 2018 with no problems.

Jo Trilling: Peter, Kate has addressed that. We missed the boat by not starting in the 1950s.

Peter: We don't have experts in the field unless we hire them from overseas. Any fallout should not be in populated areas.

Kate Chaney: There are many challenges to make nuclear make sense. Safety issues need addressing, and there's a need for social licence. Many people don't want nuclear reactors nearby. Economically, it's the biggest challenge. The opposition's approach lacks clarity on cost and timeline, putting all our eggs in one basket.

Jo Trilling: Thank you, Kate Chaney, for joining us today.

Related article: Dutton escalates climate war with ‘out of touch’ teals (11 Jun 2024)