David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.

I'd particularly like to start by pointing out that, when people keep quoting these supposedly independent reports, the Australian public must always ask: what were the constraints placed on the report that people can make? We've seen a recent example with the Australian Law Reform Commission report which the government is citing as an 'independent report which guides its action', yet the head commissioner who wrote that report, after publishing the report, said in a conference, 'This is not the result we would have liked to have delivered, but we were constrained by the government's terms of reference, which align with their policy.' So we need to look at the constraints that these other agencies have and then compare them with reports that come from overseas agencies.

When we hear the rhetoric from those opposite—including from Minister Wong today, who says that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy, and she quotes the figure $600 billion—we have to then look at their own reports that they commissioned, such as the CSIRO's GenCost report, which says it's about $8.65 billion for a run of nuclear reactors. When you round that up, that's about $60 billion. Compare that to the work that was done by the University of Melbourne, University of Queensland and Princeton University called the Net Zero Australia project, which is a detailed scientifically based analysis of the cost of the renewables-only plan that the Albanese government has endorsed. What they say is that it's an estimated commitment of between $7 trillion and $9 trillion. Let that figure sink in. Worst case, even the exaggerated boast of Senator Wong was $600 billion. More likely, according to the CSIRO, it's in the order of $60 billion. But, according to the Net Zero project, the Albanese government wants to spend $7 trillion to $9 trillion. If you break that down on cost, you'll see that businesses and residents would be paying so much more.

The key takeaway from the Net Zero project was that the clean energy infrastructure investment represents 65 to 77 per cent of the total capital required. Let's look at independent bodies, like the OECD. The International Energy Agency worked with the OECD to produce a report that was published in April 2022. On page 37, it says:

… the costs of reaching net zero with high shares of variable renewables are likely prohibitive.

And why? It's because of the overbuild required in terms of the distributed nature of variable renewables, as well as the infrastructure costs of all the additional transmission lines and the batteries to firm.

These are independent bodies, internationally recognised, who are saying that the assertions from those opposite are clearly not right. They also say that it's going to take far too long. And, yet again, in that same report, on page 40, it says:

… historical and recent experience show that under the right policy frameworks and a robust programmatic approach, nuclear power can be a low-carbon technology with rapid delivery times and with the highest rate of annual increase of electricity generation per capita …

If you look at the UAE and what it has achieved in terms of the amount of clean energy in a decade, it dwarfs the amount of energy over a decade that the EU has achieved with its massive investment in renewables. Rather than dealing with the facts of the matter, we see lots of assertions and, more concerningly, we even have the Hon. Patrick Gorman, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, using his office resources to send out letters to members of the coalition, with little cartoons of what a reactor might look like, inviting us to come to his office and stick it on a map to show where we'd like the reactor to be so that they can mount a scare campaign with communities.

That shows that the government is afraid to engage in a fact based discussion, to take into account all of the evidence from around the world, not only of that which is done by scientists and researchers but of the lived experience of countries such as Canada that show that, as the OECD in the IEA report, long-run nuclear power is the cheapest form of grid-scale electricity for a nation. And because new nuclear, which is on a par with grid-scale solar for new build, will run for nearly five times the length of solar, it is the cheapest, it is reliable and it is quick to install.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been interesting to listen to the debate today and over the last little while on nuclear. When we talk about experts, it's important to look at what they are actually saying rather than cherry-picking some of the evidence.

The Smart Energy Council, which is renowned for its work in terms of clean energy and other forms of energy in Australia, conducted an analysis and found that the cost reach was as much as $600 billion—which was the figure that Senator Wong mentioned earlier in question time—to build seven nuclear reactors. That's $600 billion of taxpayers' money to deliver some energy in maybe 15 or 20 years time.

A recent report from the CSIRO, another well-respected agency on both sides of politics—calculated that the costs for large-scale nuclear reactors revealed that the electricity generated from nuclear power in Australia would be at least 50 per cent more expensive than solar and wind. Yesterday, in the Australian Financial Review, a paper renowned for its analysis and impact on the business sector in Australia, wrote an outstanding article looking at the viability of nuclear in Australia, with the headline, 'Nuclear is unviable because of economics, not engineering'. The article goes to the point that the economic numbers simply don't stack up for nuclear. It reads::

The CSIRO—

report that I mentioned—

estimates the cost of 90 per cent renewables, with firming, transmission, and integration costs included, at $109 per megawatt hour. Based on South Korean costs (roughly one-third of the US and Europe), a 60-year lifespan, a 60 per cent economic utilisation rate (as per coal today), and an eight-year build time (as per the global average), nuclear would cost $200 per megawatt hour—nearly double.

Further, the article also mentions:

Its worth noting that, even at 93 per cent utilisation (the highest ever achieved in the US where nuclear is a small share of supply), nuclear is still 25 per cent more expensive than renewables. This is also where the opposition's claim that nuclear will ensure system reliability falls apart. For nuclear, the goals of reliability and viability are fundamentally opposed. To bring nuclear closer to economic viability, it must play a minor role in the system to consistently run at full capacity, with nothing more to give when called upon.

So, as we can see, the costs of nuclear are very high, and this has been the government's argument since the opposition made their announcement, not too long ago, that nuclear power is simply a political distraction, that it is simply too expensive and will ultimately push up costs for everyday Australians.

Reports from other independent experts tell us nuclear can't be built in Australia before 2040. I think even the coalition admits that that is the case. What are we going to do between now and then? Experts also confirm that solar and wind, backed up with storage in gas, is by far the cheapest way to generate power for Australian homes and businesses. And as Senator Farrell also mentioned, our fine Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, has done an outstanding job of securing gas here in Australia, ensuring that we have a gas strategy so that Australian households around the country can tap into the gas supplies that are so desperately needed.

The Albanese's government reliable and renewable plan is delivering cheap, clean power, and this shows that we're on the right track. It's delivering good, lasting jobs in many parts of Australia, particularly in the regions, which have powered Australia's prosperity. The so-called plan that's been put forward by the opposition is a plan that has no costings. The opposition can't tell us what form of nuclear reactor will be built. They can't even tell us how many reactors will be built at the seven sites that have been selected, as we saw from the shadow minister over the weekend on Insiders.

It's worth noting that this government, in the recent budget, is investing heavily. We're investing $22.5 million over the next decade to help Australia become a renewable energy superpower, $3.2 billion for ARENA to promote clean energy innovation, $1.7 billion for the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund and $6.7 billion for hydrogen production tax credits.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess the rest of the world should just be looking to this Labor government, because clearly over 30 countries across the world who already have nuclear energy as part of their mix, and the other 50 who are looking to introduce it, need to have a chat to—Senator Farrell? Senator Watt? I mean, God help them if they went and had a chat to Minister Bowen—how that'd go. But clearly these ministers know something the rest of the world does not, because the rest of the world—19 of the largest 20 economies of the world—have nuclear energy as part of their mix. Guess who the one outlier is: that would be us. It is embarrassing to hear these regurgitated arguments that clearly were in Labor's talking points and that no-one's updated. No-one's been listening to the way the debate's gone over the last two years. No-one has bothered to update the talking points that are distributed. It's still the scare campaign: nuclear's too expensive; it's not safe. That is an absolute abomination—to have ministers of the Crown come in here and refuse to acknowledge the safety of nuclear power, when we have a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights and when we are about to put our submariners to sleep and to work right next to nuclear reactors. To have ministers of the Crown refusing to acknowledge the safety aspects is beyond deplorable.

But the thing that I think got me—apart from the fact that I don't even know what Senator Farrell was talking about; he certainly didn't refer to the question, let alone provide any sort of answer or information to the chamber—was, interestingly, Senator Watt's response with regard to rural and regional communities and apparently the great focus that the ALP and this government has on rural and regional communities. I guess that's reflected in the fact that pretty much none of them ever votes for a Labor member, because the electorates there are far too smart and actually understand that Labor, and particularly this government, have no interest in rural and regional Australia. Yesterday we had 'transmission Monday' for the 10th time, where we've been asking for an inquiry to have a look at the transmission lines that are being bulldozed through rural and regional communities with very little to no consultation, that are being bulldozed through Indigenous heritage sites and that are being bulldozed through koala habitats. But those opposite paired up with their mates in the Greens, who used to care about the inquiry. They used to actually worry about the environment. They used to worry about koala habitats, but not anymore. If they can get a brand new transmission line for renewable power, that's their priority.

The other thing is those opposite—because most of them wouldn't know what a farm is compared to a zoo—don't understand that the nuclear footprint in terms of land required is a significantly smaller amount than for renewable projects. We are talking considerable differences in land size. To get a bit of an understanding, let's look at nuclear reactors that take up about the size of half a football field. Let's be specific, if we want to talk about specifics in reports. The Rolls-Royce SMR takes about five acres of land. The Westinghouse AP1000 takes up about 22 acres of land, so it's a bit larger than Parliament House. For every megawatt-hour of energy produced, though, to produce the same amount of energy from a wind farm, you would require 360 times that amount of land. Think of Parliament House—I'm sure everyone wants to think about 360 more parliament houses anywhere! An area 360 times the size of this Parliament House would be required to generate the same amount of power as one Parliament House would generate from nuclear. From the solar perspective—and we don't talk about the fact that Uighur and Chinese slavery is used to build solar panels—we would need 75 times the land mass.

When Minister Watt and any of those opposite want to go and talk to rural and regional communities, they might want to start to get their heads around the size and scope of the arable farming land, the fact that you are going through communities and the disruption that is happening in those areas. That's why rural and regional communities are fighting back against these reckless renewable programs that are not reliable energy and are so far behind schedule that it is absolutely jeopardising the future of our country.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is such a fascinating debate. We know full well what those opposite did for 10 long years when they were in government. They watched 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announce their closures. Obviously, that was going to mean that there would need to be some form of alternative energy coming into the system to make up for that. We all know that coal has to decline. We all know that that is the future. That's what's happening. But those opposite knew for years and years and did absolutely nothing about it. They didn't propose a nuclear plan, there was no legislation on nuclear and there was no money for nuclear—nothing. But now, in the all-care-and-no-responsibility of opposition, in an attempt to reignite the climate wars and look for a leverage point as we lead up to an election in the next 12 months, they bring on this risky, risky plan.

Why is it risky? Because, quite simply, there is no understanding of how this is going to roll out. There is no understanding of the reality of the sites. I can speak to you about Port Augusta, one of the sites that's in that plan, and tell you that where they have determined to place their nuclear plant is a power station that closed down in 2016. Has that land sat vacant since 2016? No, it really hasn't. It is overseen by Port Augusta Operations, and they have a plan in place. There is an organisation, Hallett Group, who are working on a green cement plant there. They had no idea. No-one rang them up. Nobody said: 'We're thinking about putting a nuclear reactor on this site. Is that okay? Is this an appropriate place?' No—nothing. That land is not vacant. It is not free. It is not available. What does that do for the investment of those companies that committed to that site and have ploughed into the projects that they are planning? Such is the economic vandalism of this proposal and the shortsighted nature of this proposal.

I don't propose to speak for the people of Port Augusta on the idea of putting nuclear there because I haven't asked them that question. I wouldn't be that arrogant. But, obviously, those opposite are. We need to engage communities about where things are going. And guess what? Two years ago, when the Albanese Labor government came to power, we put in place a plan that we had been talking to the community about for years. It's a plan that has seen businesses invest significantly in renewable energy because they see it as the way forward. We have seen energy companies make those choices about where the pathway is going for them. They're not clamouring at the door, saying, 'Bring us on a nuclear option for the future.' No. That's because they have invested significantly in a renewable energy future. We have an abundance of wind. We have an abundance of solar. We have plans for pumped hydro, offshore wind and onshore wind. These are things that Australia has on offer. These are things that are natural to our country and that we have in abundance. We can harness that to meet the energy needs of the future.

When we came to government there was a huge gap caused by the abject neglect of those opposite when it came to the future of the energy needs of this country. We can rage about memes and feign anxiety about different campaigns that people might run, but how about we think about the people? How about we think about the people who are out there who have invested heavily? It's not just businesses; it's governments and communities. Over 330,000 people put solar on their roofs last year. That is a significant investment. This plan from those opposite for nuclear reactors is risky and shortsighted, and it has undertaken no meaningful consultation with the people who it will actually impact.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to questions to the government, and I am thinking about the different answers across the uranium industry, energy prices and nuclear energy. There really weren't a lot of clear answers. There was a lot of rhetoric and a lot of reference to the coalition's nuclear policy, part of which was announced last week. That is really interesting because there is this ongoing deflection around key elements of the government's own work and the government's own policy, which we don't seem to hear a lot about. We hear a lot about what the former government did and what the opposition is doing now but very little on what the government is doing.

It really saddened me to hear about this fantastic $300 energy rebate. A lot of the social media from members and senators on the other side talks about how people are going to have access to that from 1 July. Well, they are not. It's $75 a quarter. The problem is that everybody gets it. People who don't need it at all will get it and people who really, really need it are going to have to wait to get $75 a quarter. I don't really think that that's the right message to be sending when we are actually meant to be caring about people, as Senator Grogan indicated.

The thing I want to talk about most is the technology of nuclear submarines and nuclear safety. These were some questions to Senator Wong. It made me pause to think, because she commented on the Lucas Heights reactor. I will be quite open: I don't know as much about that as I should. So it led me to do a little bit of research. I discovered that that site is called ANSTO. That's the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. That is the site. It is Australia's centre of excellence for nuclear and it has a mandated role to advise the Australian government on all nuclear and science technology matters. I thought that was really interesting. What is nuclear stewardship? It says on their website that nuclear stewardship is 'the responsible planning, operation, application, management, and leadership of nuclear facilities and technologies to ensure the highest levels of safety, security, safeguards and sustainability.' I think it's pretty important and pretty impressive that we have a facility that is already achieving those things. Further on, I discovered:

ANSTO is responsible for the planning, operation, application, management and leadership of nuclear facilities and technologies to ensure that the highest level of safety, security safeguards and sustainability are met to maximise utilisation, benefit and assurance for the people of Australia.

Apparently, this Open Pool Australian Light-water (OPAL) multipurpose reactor is one of the most advanced reactors in the world. So the answer to the question that was put to Senator Wong would have been, yes, this is very, very safe; it's as safe as the AUKUS submarines.

I came across another interesting thing, and this thought came to my mind when Senator McDonald asked Senator Gallagher a question and she responded: 'What a joke! This is all a joke, what you guys are doing.' It's actually not a joke. It's really important, because this is an Australian asset, effectively. It's a capability and a skill that we have, particularly in the science and technology realm. When I was having a look on the website, I found a really interesting letter from the Hon. Ed Husic, right after his appointment as Minister for Industry and Science. I'm going to read a few excerpts from that letter if I have time, but the key one is:

ANSTO is well-positioned to support Government and industry in catalysing Australia's energy transition towards net zero emissions … I expect ANSTO to be impartial with respect to the role of nuclear energy in Australia's pathway to net zero, and to use its expertise in climate science, materials science and environmental science to contribute to this objective.

I think that leads us to understand that, when we want to solve the energy problem, we need to look at a balanced approach.

Question agreed to.