Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like all Australians, I'm interested to hear from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy about how the budget continues to deliver what's required to support Australia's energy transition. That's because people in my community are in no doubt about the importance of bringing our energy system into the 21st century, which has to occur if we want to avoid missing out on the massive opportunities of a global energy and industrial transformation.

It seems to me that's why this budget follows previous work on legislating net zero by 2050 by funding the essential transmission upgrades necessary to reach 82 per cent renewables by 2030, through the Rewiring the Nation program, with new investment in renewable hydrogen. I understand the budget includes $6.7 billion over the decade for a new production tax incentive of $2 per kilogram starting in 2027-28 and then $2 billion for a new round of the successful Hydrogen Headstart Program.

Renewable hydrogen on a commercial scale at the right price can deliver a triple benefit: firstly, as an option for renewable energy storage; secondly, as a means of exporting renewable energy; and, thirdly, as a renewable transport fuel, particularly for areas like shipping. So I would certainly be interested in hearing from the minister about how Australia can be a leader in renewable hydrogen, allowing us to convert our world-leading sun and wind resources into a new zero-emission energy export trade. That's what we mean by 'the potential for Australia to become a renewable energy superpower'.

Meanwhile, the only energy plan we've heard from those opposite in response to the budget is in the form of a deep and delusional desire to go nuclear, and I would be interested in hearing the minister's views on that. I'm not sure you can call the coalition's approach a plan, because we still don't know how many nuclear reactors there will be, where they'll go, when they'll be delivered, who will build them or how much they'll cost, but presumably we're going to hear that pretty soon. Nuclear energy is not part of our plan, because all the evidence, expertise and inquiries over several decades have made it clear that nuclear just doesn't make sense for Australia. It's the most expensive form of new energy generation, it takes ages and ages to build, it's fundamentally uncommercial and uninsurable, and it presents grave risks to environmental and human health.

Having noted the false and misleading claims the opposition have made in relation to the health of the nuclear industry worldwide, I think it's worth considering the facts courtesy of the most recent World nuclear industry status report. Nuclear power peaked as a proportion of global energy back in 1996. It's now half of its peak level. The number of nuclear reactors peaked in 2002. In the last 20 years, there were 99 reactor startups and 105 reactor closures. Forty-nine of those start-ups were in China, so, if you remove China, you have a net decline of 55 reactors over the last two decades. It is worth noting, too, that solar alone outstripped nuclear energy in China for the first time in 2022 and that non-hydro renewables in China already produce three times the energy of nuclear in that country. In France, which is often cited as the leading example of nuclear energy reliance, total generation last year dropped below the level achieved in 1990. In the US, the largest producer of nuclear energy, generation declined last year to its lowest level in 25 years.

In terms of the commercial viability of nuclear projects, it's worth noting that only three countries build nuclear reactors for other countries: Russia, France and South Korea. The French constructor EDF was renationalised last year after record losses and massive debt put it on the brink of bankruptcy. The South Korean constructor is already a state owned utility, and in 2022 it booked a record US$25 billion loss. Of course, in Japan, which last year began a 30-year process of discharging contaminated water from the Fukushima disaster into the ocean, there are still 27,000 people displaced and the government has estimated the clean-up cost is estimated at US$223 billion.

In terms of the international comparison between nuclear and renewables, 2022 saw a record US$495 billion invested in renewables, a 35 per cent increase from the previous year and representing 74 per cent of all new energy investment. New nuclear in that year only amounted to $US35 billion. Renewables added 348 gigawatts of new capacity; nuclear added 4.3 gigawatts in net operating capacity. After 70 years, nuclear now accounts for 9.2 per cent of global energy, yet non-hydro renewables are already at 14.4 per cent. Does that make nuclear sound like a technology that's on the rise? Absolutely not. It's the opposite. Nuclear is 70-year-old technology in decline, and I'd ask the minister: how ridiculous and harmful is this secret, delusional plan?

See this speech in context