Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Actually, it applies to just about every policy! We know that the coalition's nuclear ideology is founded on fantasies from the past and fuelled by the suspicion of sunlight and wind, the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant forms of energy that our continent has. They want to fill their black hole with nuclear power stations. In 2007, during the dying days of the Howard government, the coalition were falling apart on the issue of nuclear power. The Liberals were flirting with the idea of building nuclear power stations, while members of the National Party—remember those guys that used to be connected with farmers before they were taken over by economists, bankers and journalists?—were calling on the Liberals not to build nuclear power stations in Australia. At the time, the Howard government couldn't tell Australians where these plants would be located or where the nuclear waste would be stored. Without that detail, Australians felt insecure and worried about whether a nuclear plant or waste storage would be plonked in their suburb. It's now 2023 and the coalition's current claim is that nuclear energy is the lowest form of low carbon. Where is this fantasy coming from? I was just up in the Federation Chamber, where I heard two speakers talk about energy. There was no mention of nuclear until right at the end.

We know that nuclear is around three times more expensive than firm renewables. New analysis by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water shows that Australians will be lumped with a $387 billion cost burden if nuclear power is used to replace our current fleet of coal-fired power stations. The member for Dickson and his climate-denying coalition colleagues like to talk up their record on the economy, but this figure, $387 billion, is proof that their nuclear energy plan flies in the face of economics and reason. The coalition's $387 billion plan is 20 times the cost of the government's Rewiring the Nation Fund. Through already agreed state deals, it will support unlocking over 26 gigawatts of new renewable generation capacity and over 30 gigawatts of transmission capacity. The World nuclear industry status report tells us that nuclear costs rose 36 per cent between 2009 and 2021, whilst solar costs fell 90 per cent and wind fell by 72 per cent. So I'd like to hear the explanation by those opposite of why they want to hit Australians with a $387 billion cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason. The fact is that power generated from solar and wind is cheaper, cleaner and puts downward pressure on electricity bills. And, of course, nuclear is slow to build. If we went down the track proposed by those opposite, it would take decades before they could even flick on a single light bulb. And what would we do in the meantime? Nothing, probably—as, when it comes to dealing with climate and energy, the opposition have proved themselves to be masters of nothingness.

Nuclear energy is not flexible to use. You can't turn a nuclear plant on and off easily. They're even worse than the boilers in a coal-fired power station. So they're very ineffective when it comes to peaking on that superhot day in Queensland, on that cold day in Melbourne or at half-time at the State of Origin game, when there's a great demand for electricity. We need storage batteries, pumped solar et cetera to ramp up and down as needs vary. The opposition have shared no plan or detail on where these nuclear plants would be built. I remember that—

See this speech in context