Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Over the weekend, in the lead-up to COP28 in Dubai, we've seen people coming together about the ways to net zero. We saw a pledge signed by 22 countries—18 nuclear and four non-nuclear—to triple the amount of nuclear output because it is required to get to net zero by 2050. We on this side are not standing here saying, 'Let's run out there and put government money into nuclear reactors tomorrow,' or something like that. What we're saying is that, while the Rewiring the Nation plan, the renewable energy plan, of this government focuses on renewables, we are in the 'all of the above' boat. We are saying, 'If it works, let's do it. Let's not rule it out. Let's rule things in and see what the market wants. Let's take away subsidies that pick winners. Let's do all of those sorts of things and have a look at what happens.'

We heard numbers in an earlier debate here about the massive cost that nuclear would have. That's under the GenCost model from 2017 that can't be looked at. It can't be looked at. It cannot be examined. If you look at the IEA, the International Energy Agency—which is quoted as the bible by many in here for the things we must do and the things we must cut and the time we must cut them by—the IEA lists nuclear as one of the lowest levelised costs of electricity amongst all in their 2020 studies. It has a lower low cost, a much lower high cost and a lower average cost than most things we are talking about—certainly, than rooftop solar and commercial solar, and somewhere around utility-scale solar. So what we're saying is, 'Bring off the handbrake.'

The stupidity is that there is a nuclear reactor in Sydney. It is less than a kilometre away from the houses in Sierra Road that sell for $1½ million and above. It has a generator as part of the entire network, but it cannot be connected because it is illegal. Australia's nuclear reactor runs off coal power at the moment because it is illegal to put that generator on in Australia. That is the stupidity of our policy.

The other part of it is this: what are Rewiring the Nation and this race to renewables really costing us? We hear it's about $100 billion just for the power lines, without generating a single megawatt of power. That's just to carry the power from where we do build them, for other hundreds of billions of dollars, to where we need the power—in the cities.

When we are talking about these numbers, the other thing that comes through is this. We were up at New South Wales's biggest electricity user that long ago. It was this month. They require 950 megawatts of power, 12 per cent of the state's power usage. But when they are going to market with the net zero plans they can't buy 950. Because of the intermittency of solar and renewables, they have to go to the market for three gigawatts, three times the size of the power usage, just to be able run their plant.

The people of Australia deserve to have a debate away from the dishonesty, hype and self-interest on what we can do to get to net zero by 2050. The world has spoken: nuclear has to be part of that mix. The disciples of John Kerry say, 'Follow the science, follow the science, follow the science.' The science says, 'Get those atoms moving.' It says, 'Get them buzzing and get some power.' Three times the amount of nuclear energy to get to net zero is required. What's more, they are calling on the World Bank, which Australia funds, to contribute loans to build nuclear energy. So, under this policy, we could be in the perverse position of funding nuclear energy in other countries but not being able to do it ourselves.

If nuclear is as expensive and unfeasible as we hear, the market will not pick it up. The market will stay away from it. But we see the amount of subsidy, effort and taxpayer money going into Rewiring the Nation. It's $20 billion of $100 billion. We see the subsidies going into every plant you see. We see the destruction of farming land, habitats and environmental lands by all of these wind factories and solar factories. We see it with all of these offshore wind farms in whale areas. That is the real cost. What is the productive value of that land forever that we are losing? That is not factored in. They call them wind farms. Well, let's start calling mines coal farms or carbon farms. Honesty is required, and we need it now. (Time expired)