Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the last 50 years there have been three significant accidents in nuclear reactors and many more less significant ones. Fifty years ago there was the Three Mile Island accident, in the US. Then there was Chernobyl, in Russia in 1986. More recently there was Fukushima, in Japan in 2011. People in these communities are still dealing with the fallout of these accidents, and there is still no scientific solution to the waste created by the nuclear by-products, which last for more than 245,000 years. But, despite all the evidence, there are some in this place who wish to endlessly relitigate the idea of nuclear power as a viable addition to Australia's power generation capability. There are no details about which communities will be home to the reactors, when they will be built or who will foot the bill. After 22 failed energy policies from those opposite, it is not really surprising we don't have any detail.

The case for nuclear power in Australia is weak. The coalition recently proposed building large-scale nuclear reactors alongside small modular reactors—another distraction from the very real energy transition that is happening right now. The Australian Energy Market Operator—AEMO—Integrated System Plan noted it is highly likely that all of Australia's coal power will exit the system by 2038. A large-scale nuclear industry in Australia will not be operating until at least the 2040s—and that's only if we start today. And it's important to note that nuclear power projects are notoriously over budget and delayed. Hinkley Point C, in the UK, is currently under construction. The project has been delayed by seven years, and costs have almost doubled to 34 billion pounds. This is in the UK, a country with an established nuclear industry.

The Australian people have come to recognise the coalition for these types of vague and unrealistic policy proposals. One only needs to look at the 2023-24 GenCost draft report released by the CSIRO to realise how fanciful these proposals are. Variable renewables such as solar PV and wind were found to have the lowest cost range of any new-build technology, whilst the most expensive form of electricity was, unsurprisingly, nuclear small modular reactors. This is the same conclusion as that of the 2022-23 GenCost report—however, with two differences that are important to note. The shadow minister for change climate and energy had argued the previous GenCost report did not factor in pre-2030 integration costs when determining the cost of renewables. He argued it obfuscated the true cost of renewables. The 2023-24 GenCost draft report did factor in these pre-2030 integration costs, and it still found that variable renewables were cheaper than any new-build options. The same can't be said for the coalition's small modular reactors.

The second difference of note in the GenCost report was the significant increase in the cost of these reactors. Despite being identified as the most expensive form of power in the 2022-23 report, these figures were based on the theoretical estimates because, despite what those opposite have been claiming, SMRs are not commercially available. The coalition's example of a SMR in the US, which was recently cancelled due to rising costs, was the only SMR that had been approved in the US to date. The project offered valuable real-world data for the most recent GenCost report to consider. The new data showed the capital cost for SMR projects in the US has soared by 70 per cent, and, as a consequence, capital costs have significantly increased in the draft report—reiterating the fact that SMRs remain the most expensive new energy power source.

No matter what angle you choose to view nuclear from, it doesn't stack up. It doesn't stack up economically, it doesn't stack up environmentally and it definitely doesn't stack up socially. It's nothing more than a thought bubble that is being kept afloat by climate change deniers that are intent on reigniting the climate wars. It won't work; the Australian people will see right through it. At the 2022 election they voted for climate change and real policies that will address that. The Albanese government is delivering.

House adjourned at 20:00

See this speech in context