Coalition Members' Dissenting Report

Deputy Chair's Introduction

1.1This inquiry has been a politically motivated attempt on the part of the Albanese Labor Government and a misuse of resources of the Australian parliament to try and discredit the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan.

1.2The government’s refusal to accept a broader scope of inquiry as proposed by the Coalition resulted in the formal Terms of Reference not accounting for important issues which should be inquired into such as:

1. the impact on energy affordability;
2. the impact on energy reliability;
3. the impact on emissions reduction;
4. the impact on energy security;
5. the impact on the environment including geographic footprint;
6. the impact on regional communities, especially coal communities;
7. the potential for employment and broader economic impact;
8. the potential to leverage and expand the uranium sector;
9. ability to leverage existing nuclear institutions and capabilities including ANSTO, ASNO, ARPANSA and ARWA;
10. synergy with AUKUS;
11. potential to replace coal as a source of 24/7 baseload power;
12. global trends and lessons to be applied in the Australian context;
13. market design options to facilitate lowest cost electricity supply; and
14. a cost comparison between alternate pathways to achieving a net-zero electricity grid including nuclear energy and the 2024 Integrated System Plan of the Australian Energy Market Operator.
    3. Despite an already narrowed scope of inquiry in the Terms of Reference, the interim report covers an even narrower scope by focusing on only two issues of inquiry – cost and timing – both of which are the Labor Party’s main areas of political attack against the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan, and their summation of these issues do not reflect the balance of evidence received.
    4. With respect to cost, Labor’s interim report wrongly promotes the figure of $600 billion as the capital cost of the Coalition’s nuclear plan to 2050 despite that being five times more expensive than the real cost which is up to $120 billion. It is notable that, elsewhere, Labor promotes a figure of $122 billion as the capital cost of its renewables-only plan which is five times cheaper than its real cost of over $640 billion.
    5. Australians currently pay among the highest electricity prices in the world and it will only get worse under Labor’s renewables-only plan, and yet the Australian Energy Market Operator was incapable of advising the committee on the real total system cost of Labor’s plan to reach a net-zero grid by 2050.
    6. The committee heard that nations with nuclear as part of a balanced energy mix pay far cheaper electricity prices than Australia, and independent modelling by Frontier Economics demonstrates that adding nuclear to the energy mix in Australia’s National Electricity Market would deliver a net-zero electricity grid 44% cheaper than Labor’s renewables-only plan.
    7. In summary on the topic of costs, the deliberate omission of the above points is a sad reflection of the government’s lack of any intellectual argument against nuclear energy; instead it has resorted to untruths to promote its renewables-only plan and disparage the Coalition’s plan for a balanced energy mix including nuclear. This should alarm every household and business which is currently struggling to pay their energy bills.
    8. With respect to timing, Labor members of the committee drafted and passed an interim report which confirms the government’s plan to force all 24/7 baseload power stations – that is, coal plants – out of the electricity grid by 2038, as per the Integrated System Plan which has 90% of coal generation out of the grid by 2035 and 100% gone by 2038. It is notable that Labor members of the committee denied several times in public hearings that this was their plan. The Committee Chair argued at hearings held in regional communities which host coal plants that Labor was not planning coal plant closures according to this timeline, and yet his own interim report confirms this very timeline.
    9. The committee heard that four of the five fastest decarbonisations of electricity grids in history were due to nuclear energy, and yet Labor members of the committee decided to ignore this fact along with evidence from Australian and global energy experts that Australia is well placed to introduce nuclear energy consistent with the timeline outlined in the Coalition’s nuclear plan.
    10. The committee heard about the slow rollout of renewable energy projects in Australia and this has also been independently modelled by Frontier Economics, showing the slow pace and associated cost blow outs of Labor’s renewables rollout, and yet this was ignored by Labor members in its interim report.
    11. In summary on the topic of timing, the deliberate omission of the above points is a sad reflection of the government’s lack of any intellectual argument against nuclear energy; instead it has resorted to untruths to promote its renewables-only plan and disparage the Coalition’s plan for a balanced energy mix including nuclear. This should alarm every Australian who is concerned about the pace and plan for decarbonising our economy.
    12. The government’s refusal to balance the numbers of members on the committee to allow fairer representation, as proposed by the Coalition, resulted in an unbalanced interim report being passed. The Coalition’s amendments to the interim report were voted down, various and contested views heard by the committee were not reported on, and evidence provided by some of the world’s most qualified experts in the field of nuclear energy were ignored.
    13. The political bias of the interim report, as drafted and passed by Labor members of the committee, brings shame on the parliament and on the committee process.
    14. Lastly, not only does the interim report fail to provide a balanced perspective on the two topics of cost and timing, but it also ignores evidence which demonstrated that:

1. Australia already is a nuclear nation and is well placed to adopt nuclear energy;

2. Australians know nuclear technology saves lives due to the work of our existing nuclear reactor in Sydney which provided medical isotopes;
3. Australians know nuclear technology protects lives due to the bipartisan decision to adopt nuclear propelled nuclear submarines;
4. Australians know nuclear technology underpins livelihoods because we have the world’s largest reserves of uranium which not only produces income here in Australia, but guarantees economic prosperity for other nations which use our uranium to power their nuclear plants;
5. Australia already has a world class nuclear reactor, regulator and is party to international treaties required for a civil nuclear energy industry;
6. Modern nuclear power plants are being built on time and on budget, and there is no plausible reason why Australia is not capable of doing the same;
7. Modern nuclear power plants not only have the capability to provide 24/7 always-on baseload power, but they can also ramp up and ramp down to load-follow renewables, making nuclear and renewables complementary zero-emissions clean energy champions;
8. Management of nuclear waste — including spent fuel — has proven to be safe and subject to a well regulated international regime, and the Coalition’s plan is consistent with international best practice in this regard;
9. Locating modern nuclear power plants at the site of retiring coal plants is a sensible strategy given access to existing infrastructure such as water and transmission lines, and the various cooling technologies mitigate risks of water shortages at times of drought;
10. Residents in communities which host nuclear power plants are typically most in favour of nuclear technology because they understand the benefits of a multi-billion dollar facility underpinningthe local economy for 60 to 80 years, maybe 100 years; and the fact that around 77% of workers from a coal plant can transition to work in a nuclear plant; and
11. All advanced economies around are either using nuclear energy today or seeking to do so, and Australia has the opportunity to join with them by adopting nuclear as part of a balanced energy mix to keep prices down and the the lights on as we decarbonise.

Executive Summary

1.15Based on the weight of evidence provided to the Committee, the signatories to this dissenting report firmly believe Labor’s plan to reach net zero is unrealistic, and a different approach is required. In short, their plan will lead to higher energy prices, rolling blackouts and environmental damage.

1.16Higher household energy bills will arise from Labor’s plan. The actual independently modeled cost of Labor’s plan is estimated at $642 billion, compared to the previously claimed $122B, which the government now does not dispute. However, even this $642 billion cost is understated given it excludes costs of many major projects (e.g., Snowy Hydro 2.0), operating costs and consumer energy resources such as batteries and solar. These higher costs are why Australians are seeing their energy bills rise by up to $1,000 since Labor has come into government.

1.17Labor’s plan is not realistic, nor fit for purpose; it is a plan for intermittent energy and higher prices. The plan's projections for onshore wind energy are particularly concerning. Taking onshore wind as an example, AEMO’s projections are wildly optimistic. To meet the 2030 target for onshore wind, construction will need to increase to ~5GW per year on average. This is despite the average annual increase since 2010 being <1GW. This almost 500% projected increase is simply not realistic. Further, Labor assumes hydrogen power will become available to contribute significant capacity, despite serious question about whether this technology will ever be commercially viable. Labor’s plan also predates the recent explosion in artificial intelligence and data centres, which require consistent baseload power. Consequently, it is unsurprising the Minerals Council of Australia told the Committee Labor’s plan was “supply driven” and “negligent”.

1.18Labor’s plan relies on 96% of total capacity provided by intermittent energy projects. The committee heard evidence from many experts that this could put Australia’s energy reliability and security at risk.The committee also heard evidence this could have extremely detrimental impacts on the environment. The Committee heard evidence from environmental groups showing that the impact on biodiversity from not including nuclear or other similar baseload power would devastate bushland, flora and fauna. The scale of land clearance required to erect 12,000 wind turbines was quoted as 114,000 hectares and alarmed local Queensland environment groups who testified strongly against it.

1.19Australia's continued prohibition on nuclear energy stands in stark contrast to growing global momentum for nuclear power. At COP28, twenty-five countries, including the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050, with six additional countries joining at COP29.

1.20Australia possesses unique advantages for developing nuclear power efficiently and safely, making our current prohibition particularly counterproductive. Our nation maintains world-class nuclear capabilities, possesses established regulatory frameworks through ARPANSA and ASNO, and is developing advanced nuclear expertise through the AUKUS submarine program. These existing capabilities, combined with the Coalition's strategy to utilize transmission infrastructure at former coal sites, provide a practical pathway to reliable, clean energy while minimizing costs and environmental impact.

1.21The evidence presented to the Committee demonstrates conclusively that nuclear power, as part of a balanced energy mix, represents the most pragmatic solution for Australia's energy future, and:

• Will bring energy prices down as part of a balanced energy mix;
• Is amongst the world’s safest technologies to generate electricity;
• Can be delivered in Australia on time and on budget;
• Can usher in a new era of economic prosperity for regional communities; and
• Is essential if Australia is to replace coal and reach net zero by 2050.
  22. Frontier Economics' modeling found that AEMO's Progressive scenario including nuclear power is 44% cheaper than the Step Change model without nuclear. Based on this evidence, Coalition members of the committee support the lifting of Australia's prohibition on nuclear energy, mandating transparent cost modeling of alternate energy pathways, and leveraging our existing nuclear capabilities to deliver reliable, affordable, and clean energy for all Australians

Australians are paying among the world’s most expensive power bills for increasingly unreliable energy.

1.23Keeping electricity prices low and the grid reliable should be the core focus of any energy system plan. While decarbonising the electricity system is also key as part of global efforts to reach net zero by 2050, cost and reliability cannot be overlooked. Yet, Australia’s energy grid is becoming more expensive and less reliable while overall national emissions have flatlined.

1.24Electricity bills paid by Australians are made up of a range of costs, of which wholesale electricity is just one. Additional costs include environmental policy costs, retail costs and the network costs, the latter of which is often the most significant.

1.25Coalition members believe that Australians deserve transparency in energy planning. As such it’s critical that any methodology used for energy system planning works backwards from the outcome of low electricity prices and selects the optimum energy mix accordingly. Decisions about Australia’s electricity mix should be underpinned by a ‘total system cost’ approach, and while 'net-present value' is an appropriate tool for comparing options, it was clear throughout this inquiry that its misuse has seriously misled the public.

1.26Total system costs analysis is not occurring in Australia today, as was revealed throughout the inquiry by a range of expert witnesses. While both CSIRO's GenCost and AEMO's ISP were repeatedly referred to throughout the inquiry, it was clear that neither presented a real total system cost clearly and in an up-front way.

Keeping electricity bills low requires a ‘total system cost’ approach

1.27The Committee received extensive evidence from written submissions and expert witnesses[1] advocating for a total system cost approach to transparently reflect the delivered price of electricity to consumers. The Blueprint Institute, emphasised the need for a total-system approach to energy planning, stating:

The modelling for a decarbonised energy grid should take a total-system approach to costs (including iterated costs for generator assets, transmission, distribution, ancillary grid services, and storage), treat energy reliability as a constraint, and reflect a clear set of expectations and standards around biodiversity and waste management—at every life stage from development, production to end-of-life recycling. This approach would support a fair economic assessment of clean generating technologies and the optimal investment sequencing pathway for transmission, free of political or ideological bias.[2]

1.28However, this comprehensive view of system costs is absent from key planning documents, including CSIRO’s GenCost report and AEMO’s Integrated System Plan (ISP), resulting in an incomplete and misleading picture of the true burden of the government’s planned transition on energy consumers.

GenCost and the misuse of LCOE

1.29The GenCost report is often cited as definitive evidence that a renewables-dominant energy system is the cheapest option. This claim is based on levelised cost of energy (LCOE) estimates, which suggest that nuclear — and even coal — are more expensive than renewables. However, experts have consistently pointed out that LCOE is a flawed and incomplete metric that fails to capture the real costs of building and operating a functional energy system.

1.30During Committee hearings, Dr Peter Mayfield, Executive Director of CSIRO, clarified that GenCost does not model total system costs but instead provides a “fairly simple levelised cost of electricity analysis”, which only represents capital recovery costs from an investor’s standpoint. Dr Mayfield admitted:

We haven't done total systems analysis on the system, which would look at the whole cost all the way through.[3]

1.31This was further confirmed by Dr Sarah Lawley, who explained that LCOE is not an appropriate tool for evaluating the costs of an entire electricity system:

Levelised cost of energy for a form of generation is useful for particular tasks but doesn't tell you anything about the costs of different systems. In effect, how much something costs depends on the overall system, not just adding up the individual sources.[4]

AEMO endorsed total system cost but fails to capture it in the ISP

1.32While GenCost relies on LCOE estimates that fail to capture system-wide costs, the Integrated System Plan (ISP) is often touted as providing a true total system cost. In a 7 August 2023 media release AEMO claimed that the ISP “reflects whole-of-system costs”,[5] and the Labor government has used it as the basis for asserting that a renewables-dominant system is the lowest-cost pathway.

1.33AEMO itself previously recognised total system cost as the correct metric for long-term energy planning. In testimony before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy for the inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia (2019), Dr. Alex Wonhas, then Chief System Design and Engineering Officer at AEMO, stated:

…the best metric to look at in the long run is what we call 'total system cost' that takes into account the capital investment and the operating cost of a plant, and that is actually the metric that we are looking at when we do the analysis for the integrated system plan.[6]

1.34So, Australians are led to believe that the ISP is a total system cost assessment. However, evidence presented to the Committee contradicts this claim. The Committee heard from AEMO representatives that the ISP excludes several key cost components essential to understanding the full financial impact of the transition.[7][8] These omissions include the costs of consumer energy resources (CER) and distribution network upgrades to accommodate these resources, as well as the costs of committed or anticipated projects, including Snowy 2.0, CopperString, Central West Orana, and the Waratah Super Battery.

1.35AEMO chief executive Daniel Westerman conceded that the ISP does not account for all key expenses associated with the transition, despite being framed as the “least-cost pathway” for the transition. When asked whether the ISP’s cost estimates represent a true total system cost, Mr Westerman admitted:

What the integrated system plan is the least cost pathway to meet reliability standards and system security standards through a series of government emissions targets to net zero by 2050. It is the least cost pathway. It's not a modelling of all the costs.[9]

1.36The ISP’s failure to reflect total system cost raises serious doubts about the credibility of Labor’s renewables-only plan as the least-cost transition. By excluding key expenditures and failing to capture the full financial impact on end users, the ISP does not provide Australians any confidence that Labor’s renewables-only plan will bring down power bills.

Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ plan is a road to ruin

1.37The weight of evidence from credible experts with relevant experience highlighted factual inaccuracies of claims that Labor’s renewables-only plan is the lowest-cost pathway to emissions-free electricity, which is an assumption based on CSIRO and AEMO modelling that, as already established, excludes key cost components and significantly understates the true financial burden of Labor’s energy plan. It is also clear that the evidence pointing to these documents, used to attack the prospect of nuclear, are misguided in assuming that the ISP itself assesses nuclear power. It does not.

Net present value is not the real cost paid by consumers

1.38Energy Minister Chris Bowen and the Labor government have repeatedly cited $122 billion as the total cost of the Integrated System Plan (ISP) without clearly stating that this figure represents a net present value (NPV) estimate rather than the actual, undiscounted cost that consumers will pay over time. This misrepresentation distorts public understanding of the true financial burden of Labor’s renewables-only transition.

1.39When questioned in the Committee, AEMO chief executive Daniel Westerman confirmed that the ISP’s cost figure is an NPV estimate:

The total system cost of the step-change scenario as modelled in the integrated system plan is $122 billion in annualised cost terms.[10]

1.40Ms York Executive General Manager, System Design, AEMO stated:

It is the annualised capital cost between 2025 and 2050 of all the elements that you've just mentioned, discounted back to today's dollars.[11]

1.41However, when asked about the undiscounted, real total system cost, including committed projects, AEMO was unable to provide an answer from a total system cost perspective. Coalition Members were surprised that the market operator could not disclose the real cost of its preferred model for the energy transition and requested a formal response via Questions on Notice.

1.42Coalition Members are disappointed that AEMO once again failed to provide a clear response in their formal reply. When asked to disclose the aggregate cost from 2025 to 2051, AEMO claimed that the “2024 ISP does not provide a forecast of the needed investment to 2051”.[12] This assertion is demonstrably false, as AEMO’s own 2024 ISP Generation and Storage Outlook workbook contains cost projections spanning from 2024-25 to 2051-52.

1.43In any case, AEMO continued to withhold the real total system cost out to 2050, despite being in a position to provide this figure. The Coalition Members are concerned the market operator’s lack of transparency prevents policymakers and the public from understanding the full cost of Labor’s renewables-only plan.

1.44This is why independent work, such as that conducted by Frontier Economics, is critical in informing public debate. Frontier Economics calculated the actual undiscounted cost of the ISP at $642 billion, using the same assumptions as AEMO.[13] This real cost is more than five times the $122 billion figure that Labor and renewables-only advocates frequently cite.

1.45Yet, misleading cost comparisons continue to be made—particularly with nuclear. Mr. Grimes of the Smart Energy Council claimed that the Coalition’s nuclear policy “would be, at a minimum, $116 billion.”[14] However, the Smart Energy Council’s estimate reflects total capital build cost,[15]whereas the ISP’s $122 billion figure is an NPV estimate. As another expert witness pointed out, this “is not even close to an apples-to-oranges comparison.”[16]

1.46Coalition Members are deeply concerned that accounting tricks are being used to understate the cost of Labor’s renewables-only plan while making unfair and invalid comparisons with nuclear grid estimates. By relying on NPV figures — which themselves omit key expenditures — to give the impression of lower costs, the government fails to provide an honest assessment of the true price of their energy transition—a cost that will ultimately be paid by Australian households and businesses.

Infrastructure overbuild will lead to higher costs

1.47The Committee received evidence warning that a renewables-only system will require excessive infrastructure expansion, driving up costs for consumers. Experts point out that variable renewable energy (VRE) relies on widely dispersed, intermittent resources, necessitating significant generation, storage, and transmission to maintain reliability.

1.48The Centre for Independent Studies has noted that AEMO’s own ISP modelling demonstrates the inefficiencies inherent in a renewables-dominant system, requiring vast amounts of underutilised infrastructure:

…building an energy system almost entirely dependent on sources of energy that are dispersed, intermittent and uncontrollable is an expensive and difficult exercise. The ISP demonstrates that such a system will require vast amounts of machinery used inconsistently; with most being used at less than half their full capacity, and some barely used at all. This is a recipe for an expensive system.[17]

1.49The United States Department of Energy's Pathway's Report[18], referenced by Michael Asten, has found, using a total system cost analysis, that a renewables and storage based grid is 37% cheaper with nuclear power:

The study concludes there would be a 37% lower cost of power from renewables and storage combined with nuclear power, when compared with power from renewables and storage only.[19]

1.50This finding was consistent with work referenced by submissions to the inquiry from the Nuclear Energy Institute:

Including nuclear energy results in the lowest cost system and translates to the lowest bills for electricity users. An energy system with 43% of its power drawn from nuclear energy would be significantly more cost effective than an energy system with just 13% from nuclear energy, with savings in excess of U.S.$400 billion[20].

1.51Professor Stephen Wilson further explained that low-energy-density, part-time energy sources require extensive infrastructure buildout, often located far from demand centres, compounding costs:

The root cause of the very high cost of systems that are trying to rely just on wind, solar power and storage are the intermittencies, the part-time nature of the primary resource at the input side and also the very low-energy density of that energy and its location. It's not near the load, it's further and further away from the load, it's very low density and it's part time. What that means is you end up building assets that have a very low utilisation factor.[21]

1.52He cautioned that while moderate renewables penetration can be integrated economically, forcing a renewables-only system leads to escalating costs and infrastructure bloat:

You can accommodate, economically, a small proportion of these resources but once you get to about the level we're at now, if you keep forcing them in, you see a dramatic escalation and bloating of physical assets and costs, and you end up doubling and doubling again and probably going up to five and six times the cost of where we used to be.[22]

1.53The Committee also heard evidence that incorporating nuclear power would significantly reduce overbuild requirements. Nuclear’s high-capacity factor and dispatchability reduce the need for excessive backup storage, transmission expansion, and redundant generation capacity.

1.54Professor Jacopo Buongiorno emphasised that nuclear serves to stabilise the grid, preventing excessive spending on renewables-supporting infrastructure:

...a 100 per cent renewables—or frankly, 100 per cent nuclear—grid would not be the least cost option… the role of nuclear is not that it has the lowest cost megawatt hour, kilowatt hour produced; it's that by keeping nuclear in the mix, it allows you not to have to build or overbuild the capacity of solar or wind storage and transmission lines that go with a 100 per cent fully renewable grid. So, in the end, it helps bring down the average cost.[23]

1.55The evidence presented to the Committee demonstrates that a renewables-only system is not the least-cost energy pathway. The ISP’s modelling confirms that an ultra-high renewables grid requires substantial overbuild, yet this systemic inefficiency is downplayed by the Labor government. The massive investment required for generation, transmission, and storage expansion will inevitably drive up electricity prices, while alternative pathways, such as a mix including nuclear, would reduce unnecessary infrastructure spending.

Consumer energy resource costs are excluded.

1.56The Committee received evidence warning that several key assumptions in the ISP understate the true cost of Labor’s renewables-only transition. The ISP excludes costs associated with consumer energy resources (CER), which are borne by households.

1.57Dr. Dave Collins estimated that the capital cost of distributed energy resources—rooftop solar, behind-the-meter batteries, and the necessary low-voltage network upgrades—adds at least another $240 billion to the total system cost.[24] Similarly, the Centre for Independent Studies estimated that the total capital cost for rooftop solar and home batteries alone would amount to approximately $347.5 billion by 2050.[25]

1.58The Committee heard concerns that the ISP relies on CER uptake to artificially reduce the planned utility-scale investments in renewables, transmission, and storage—thereby decreasing the reported system cost.

1.59Coalition Members have already noted that if CER uptake does not materialise as forecasted, additional utility-scale investments will be required—raising system costs. The same concern applies to projected hydrogen production; should it fail to develop as expected, the system will need greater reliance on gas and storage to firm renewables or will suffer increased energy spillage.

1.60Former Victorian Energy and Industry Minister Theo Theophanous described green hydrogen as potentially difficult solution, noting that:

…it's become clear that [green hydrogen] is an extremely costly process. Hydrogen is difficult to use, it's hard to ship and it's very expensive, and so getting that last 20 per cent is a real challenge… you cannot ignore the fact that you've got to build double the capacity. That's a huge expense to the system. You can't ignore the fact that you've got to build massive transmission lines. All of these are subsidies to the renewable energy sector.[26]

1.61These assumptions, while favourable to renewables on paper, mask the true cost of the transition. If they were removed from ISP modelling, the financial burden on consumers could be significantly higher than currently acknowledged.

The 82% renewable target by 2030 unnecessarily increases cost

1.62The Committee received evidence demonstrating that Labor’s renewables-only energy transition is optimised to hit Labor's targets first, and not the best cost outcomes for electricity consumers. Perversely, this means that arbitrary political targets are the primary focus of Labor’s current "least-cost" modelling, whilst Australian households and businesses and the electricity prices they pay are put last. This includes the Federal target of 82% renewable energy by 2030 amongst various State targets. These constraints increase total system costs by limiting technology choices, imposing arbitrary renewable energy and emissions targets, and preventing transparent cost comparisons.

1.63Coalition Members recognise that a constrained system is necessarily more expensive than an unconstrained one — a principle well supported by expert testimony and submissions.[27][28][29] The evidence presented suggests that by mandating a particular energy mix rather than allowing the market to determine the lowest-cost decarbonisation pathway, Labor’s plan is artificially inflating costs.

Automatically excluding technology increases total system cost

1.64The Committee has consistently heard the need for energy planning that is technology-neutral in identifying the least-cost, low-emission electricity generation options.[30][31][32][33]

1.65Despite AEMO describing itself as “technology agnostic”, the Integrated System Plan (ISP) does not model a scenario that includes nuclear energy. This omission is not due to technical or economic constraints, as AEMO chief executive Daniel Westerman confirmed:

…the Integrated System Plan does not consider nuclear as a component of that plan, and that is because nuclear is not currently permitted under Australia’s current laws and policies.

1.66This policy-driven exclusion inherently biases the ISP in favour of a renewables-only transition, rather than allowing an objective evaluation of all viable pathways. Will Shackel, Founder of Nuclear for Australia, stated:

In terms of the ISP and AEMO, as this committee has heard, they're framed by government policy, and the government policy, at the moment, is a renewables target without any nuclear, so they're not able to actually consider what impacts nuclear energy could have. Therefore, I think it's very difficult to make the comparison between an approach which has a balanced energy mix with nuclear as compared to a renewable one.[34]

1.67By outright excluding nuclear energy—a proven, reliable source of zero-emissions electricity—Australians are denied the opportunity to consider its role as a cost-effective solution for decarbonising the grid.

1.68Gamma Energy Technology warned that constraining viable low-emissions firm technologies like nuclear and CCS will necessarily increase total system cost:

Constraining technologies increases the total system cost at deep decarbonisation levels… If no low emissions, firm generation such as CCS and nuclear, are available, very deep decarbonisation will become a significant system cost issue. Without BECCS or fossil CCS, nuclear power is required for deep decarbonisation, will be more than necessary. Constraints to the deployment of technologies, when applied, limit the possible 2050 decarbonisation transformation options, will result in a less than optimum total system cost.[35]

1.69The economic consequences of these constraints were also highlighted by Dr. Bongers, who emphasised that limiting technology choices will reduce Australia’s competitiveness and increase cost-of-living pressures:

If we are disproportionately increasing our cost compared to others who are using a mix to get a lowest total system cost, if we choose to eliminate a technology or two and that results in a higher overall cost…[36]

Emissions and renewables targets are driving up costs

1.70The ISP does not determine the most cost-effective energy transition; instead, it is designed to comply with pre-set government emissions and renewable energy targets. This policy constraint locks in a renewables-only pathway, regardless of feasibility or cost.

1.71AEMO CEO Daniel Westerman confirmed that all three ISP scenarios assume the 82% renewables-by-2030 target, alongside other government-imposed policy constraints:

Yes, it is. And, while we’re clarifying, I might just add that it also has the constraint of several other government policies that are included. Offshore wind targets is an example, and there are a number of other targets in there, including the 82 per cent by 2030.[37]

1.72The Centre for Independent Studies warned that binding the ISP to these political targets results in higher costs:

AEMO has constrained the ISP model so it must reach state and federal renewables targets, carbon budgets, and other policy targets regardless of their feasibility or cost. The 82% renewable energy target is currently the most significant constraint… The ISP’s flaws mean it not only fails to find a least-cost system but also seriously understates the cost of the system it proposes.[38]

1.73Dr Sarah Lawley reinforced this concern, stating that the ISP’s scenarios were unrealistic from the outset due to the political targets imposed on them:

…the ISP scenarios themselves were not realistic in the first place, due to the unrealistic government targets that were imposed on them… A consequence of the coal closure schedule not being realistic is that the ongoing need for the coal units has not been adequately considered or planned for. Hence, we are now observing ad hoc state government-initiated interventions, in the form of bespoke piecemeal coal extensions.[39]

1.74Labor’s renewables-only plan is not the result of an open, technology-neutral cost-benefit analysis, but rather a constrained model designed to comply with pre-determined political objectives. These constraints inflate total system costs, leading to higher electricity prices, increased infrastructure requirements, and reduced flexibility in responding to future energy needs.

There are a number of reasons to believe electricity bills will rise under the current plan

1.75Experts warned power bills go up. When asked whether consumer prices were likely to decrease to meet the government’s $275 reduction target, Dr. Sarah Lawley responded:

No, I don't think that's likely… There are different components to it [electricity bill]—the wholesale cost, the poles and wires and the green costs.… even if the prices are negative during the middle of the day, if they are very, very high in the evening, you need to scale that up accordingly, as a retailer, because you're going to be charged that by the operator… in lots of different ways, retailers have to ensure that they're charging enough to recover those different increasing costs in the wholesale part. In the poles and wires part, if you're building vast amounts of transmission, it's pretty obvious that those costs are going to go up as well.[40]

1.76Aidan Morrison of the Centre for Independent Studies:

I think there is no chance that power prices will fall in the medium to long term under this plan. The degree of effort that's required in expending on capital expenditure, particularly in the transmission and distribution network in the next few years, is utterly incompatible with any fall in retail or commercial electricity prices in the next few years.

1.77Macquarie University’s Transforming Energy Markets Research Centre:

When all electricity costs are considered, modelling by Electric Power Consulting shows that development of the NEM in accordance with the Step Change scenario of the Integrated System plan leads to ongoing large electricity costs for customers... If the ISP is implemented in its present form, high electricity costs will likely lead to accelerated de-industrialisation of the Australian economy and increasing energy poverty.[41]

1.78In the absence of genuine counterfactual modelling that considers alternative technologies such as nuclear, there is no valid basis to claim that a renewables-dominant system represents the cheapest clean energy option. On the contrary, multiple factors indicate that if Labor’s renewables-only plan proceeds, the overall cost of Australia’s energy system will rise significantly.

1.79The Committee heard evidence that when all system costs are properly accounted for, Labor’s renewables-only energy transition would prove more expensive than widely perceived, with costs escalating as further renewables penetration is integrated into the grid.

1.80In its submission to the Inquiry, Gamma Energy Technology found that emissions reduction in the NEM leads to increased total system costs:

When examining the impact of the constrained access to a technology, or suite of technologies on the lowest total system cost it has again and again been demonstrated that reducing the carbon emissions from the NEM comes at an increased cost.[42]

Australia’s nuclear ban is out of step with the rest of the world

1.81The Committee heard extensive evidence suggesting Australia’s moratorium on nuclear is out of line with the rest of the world, with many countries recognising nuclear as a critical solution to decarbonisation in the energy sector.

Other countries are turning to nuclear as they seek to ensure reliability and cost affordability. Australia is one of the few developed countries that is opposed to nuclear energy – the only large scale zero emission power source capable of operating 24/7, 365 days a year. Australia is it at odds with most other developed countries who are again focusing on nuclear energy as a way of providing affordable, reliable and, importantly, zero emission power.[43]

1.82The global momentum for nuclear energy has permeated both policy and financial domains.

At COP28, 25 countries, including the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear energy generating capacity by 2050. On 13 November 2024 at COP29, six additional countries joined the pledge, taking the total to 31 countries… In September 2024, 14 major financial institutions (including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Rothschild & Co) declared support for the pledge to triple global nuclear energy generating capacity by 2050.[44]

1.83During testimony, Ms Cook declared nuclear as the backbone of the global decarbonised energy system, and expressed concern over Australia’s inexplicable departure from global trends.

I firmly believe that the backbone of the world's future decarbonised energy system will need to be nuclear energy. In addition to the 32 countries utilising nuclear energy today, more than 50 countries are at various stages of actively considering nuclear or implementing new programs… All other countries in the G20 utilise nuclear energy, are able to access it from neighbours or are actively developing nuclear power programs… Since coming home to Australia, and in the context of my day-to-day work overseas, I'm concerned that our country is increasingly out of step with other industrialised countries and countries in our region. However, in my professional opinion, Australia is one of the best placed countries, if not the best placed, in the world to move ahead expeditiously and responsibly to implement a nuclear energy program.[45]

1.84This was reiterated by Dr Edward Obbard:

In a context of very high risks, uncertainties and probable loss of life and livelihoods, it is unconscionable that a developed country like Australia should rule out a whole class of the most powerful zero-emissions energy technology. We must take all possible steps to use nuclear energy and continue to develop renewables. Nuclear energy is expensive. Building nuclear power plants takes years—this is not contested. We should have started 20 years ago. It does not mean we can't start now.[46]

1.85Coalition Members identify Australia’s position on nuclear as wholly inconsistent with other industrialised and developed countries who are depending on nuclear energy as a critical technology for decarbonisation.

1.86The Committee heard evidence global momentum for nuclear is also underscored by significant investment from Big Tech, recognising that nuclear is critical to delivering the energy density and scale required for the next generation of data centres and AI technologies. Crucially the ISP was developed before the advent of commercial AI and data centres, meaning the energy load intensity is not currently factored into AEMO’s demand profile forecasts.

In addition to Government based initiatives, the “Big Tech” sector has recently significantly increased its support of nuclear energy; recognising that nuclear is critical to delivering the energy density and scale required for the next generation of data centres and AI technologies. This has included support from and commercial deals from many of the world’s largest technology companies such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Oracle and OpenAI amongst others.[47]

Microsoft are the ones that just fired up the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. They've just done a deal with the owners of that. It was shut down about four or five years ago, and it's now getting refired. All your big companies—Amazon, Google and all of those—are setting up deals with nuclear power to have green power to power their data centres. In Australia, we need to be doing the same. We've got data centres right across this country. They're not going to be green powered.[48]

A balanced grid with nuclear will cost 44% less than a renewables-only grid

1.87Frontier’s modelling found that AEMO’s Progressive scenario including nuclear power is 44% cheaper than the Step Change model without nuclear, and that using a Step Change model with nuclear will garner a 25% cheaper solution than using renewable and storage alone.[49] Frontier and other independent modelling shows including nuclear will lead to lower total system cost than renewables-only grid.

The lowest total system cost solutions always have a mix of nuclear, CCS, storage, biomass, renewables, and peaking plant.[50]

1.88Nuclear Energy Institute cite studies:

Vibrant Clean Energy analyzed the role of nuclear energy in decarbonizing the U.S. energy system and found that when taking into account the need to match demand with generation in the same geographic area at the same time, including more nuclear energy results in the lowest cost system and translates to the lowest bills for electricity users. The study also found that an energy system with 43 percent of its power drawn from nuclear energy would be significantly more cost effective than an energy system with just 13 percent from nuclear energy – with savings in excess of U.S.$400 billion. An analysis by E3 found similar effects when it modeled the Pacific Northwest 10 and other studies have reinforced these findings.[51]

1.89Prof. Buongiorno in his opening statement:

…when integrated in a balanced mix with renewables and storage, nuclear actually reduces the average cost of electricity for consumers. This is primarily because nuclear reactors generate carbon-free electricity 24/7 365 days per year with no intermittency. If only intermittent energy sources such as wind, solar and the energy storage that goes with them are used to deeply decarbonise the power grid, then an enormous overcapacity of solar panels, wind turbines, electric batteries and transmission lines must be built to meet the electricity demand throughout every hour of the day and every day of the year.[52]

1.90Ronald James AFSM refers to Finland's reactor reducing prices:

When a new reactor came online, reports state the price of electricity in Finland fell by 75%.[53]

1.91The Coalition members note that the Chair's report relies on IEEFA assessments of cost, which has been found by other industry analysts to be a deeply flawed analysis on a number of grounds. Firstly, it is not a comparison of Labor's plan against the Coalition's plan. Secondly, it makes a major technical error as outlined by Mr Danny Price of Frontier Economics in his first report:[54]

When comparing the costs of alternative states of the world it is important to establish the base against which an alternate world is being compared. Unless the base case is appropriately established the comparison could result in an incorrect conclusion about the relative costs of the alternative world.

An excellent example of the error that can occur from this mistake can be seen in the recent analysis conducted by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). The authors compared the wholesale electricity costs of current electricity bills, which reflects a combination of coal, gas, oil, wind, solar, hydro and storages and substituted this plant mix with their estimate of nuclear power, implicitly assuming that consumers are suddenly only supplied by one form of electricity. Clearly this approach is wrong as it is not reflective of how any power system works and would not be what would happen in the NEM if nuclear formed part of the plant mix used to economically and reliably meet demand.

1.92Coalition members recognise the critical importance of including nuclear energy to reduce the total system cost of the energy system itself. The lowest total system cost grid will always include nuclear in some capacity.

Nuclear can be delivered cost effectively

1.93The Coalition members believe that nuclear power is worth investing in because it provides low-cost, clean, and reliable energy for 60 to 100 years. While the up-front capital costs of nuclear power stations are significant, these can be minimised through a well-planned rollout.

1.94The Coalition members were disappointed to read that the Chair’s report cites the claim from the Smart Energy Council, a peak body for the renewable energy industry, that Nuclear power could cost up to $600 billion. The committee also received 8 submissions citing this claim.[55]However, the Coalition Members note that Oscar Archer, engineer, provided evidence which revealed that the methodology behind this assumption were not credible. In fact, the Smart Energy Council assumed an overnight capital cost for building nuclear power that was 442% larger than CSIRO and AEMO's testimony regarding their GenCost report.

1.95Dr Oscar Archer explained in his submission that:[56]

$600 billion AUD corresponds to a rudimentary calculation assuming 11 GW worth of capacity at the same cost as the Hinkley Point C twin EPR 3.2 GW plant in Somerset, UK, at AUD$87 billion (11 ÷ 3.2 = 4.4375, 87 x 4.4375 = 299), and doubled.

1.96Coalition members argue the Smart Energy Council’s assumptions and lack of a credible methodology for its work has resulted in a grossly different cost outcome from the GenCost report and other credible estimates and concludes this figure is completely unintelligible and should be dismissed.

1.97The committee also received submissions which found that building a number of reactors sequentially has achieved significant cost savings and provides significant insurance against the risk of cost blowouts for reactors:[57]

[building] more reactors at fewer sites [allows] for ‘learning by doing’ and economies of scale at each site. It allows for economies of scale because a substantial portion of the costs for nuclear energy are on a ‘per-site’ basis, and include civil works, establishing water access, transmission corridors, attaining social license, and various safety and regulatory overheads. Australia should focus on building larger nuclear plants at a limited number of sites.

1.98This is in line with the Coalition’s energy policy, which confirms that Australia would only build first-of-a-kind reactors in line with international best practice and would significantly reduce the cost of a nuclear buildout.

1.99The Nuclear Energy Institute submitted that:

A strategy that embraces nuclear deployment alongside wind and solar provides more options to ensure that the transition to carbon-free energy sources can be accomplished in a manner that maintains reliability and affordability … Recent civil nuclear power projects have created learning lessons for the U.S. nuclear industry that are being incorporated into new and ongoing nuclear power projects to drive down the cost curve and improve project delivery. Earlier this year, the U.S. brought online Vogtle Unit 4, which was reportedly 30 percent more efficient and 20 percent cheaper than Unit 3, which began commercial operations in 2023.[58]

No nuclear means no net zero

1.100The Committee heard extensive evidence from a wide range of witnesses and submissions that Australia is not on track to meet its emissions reduction and renewable energy targets under Labor's plan, and yet a wide array of witnesses supported the deployment of nuclear energy as a climate solution to drive emissions reductions in the energy sector.[59][60][61]

The renewable rollout has slowed in Australia. Committed investment into grid-scale renewable generation capacity fell from $6.5 billion in 2022 to just $1.5 billion in 2023…[62]

The reality is Australia will not meet its 82 per cent by 2030 renewable energy target. As the Australian Energy Market Operator has admitted, it is getting harder each year to ensure lights stay on. There is no reason to expect this will get better anytime soon. Snowy 2.0, the centre-piece of the energy transition, is already five years behind schedule, and more than A$10 billion over budget. But this is symptomatic of a broader problem for the government’s energy agenda – the need for additional government assistance to support the roll-out of renewable energy, despite it being promised to bring down energy prices. The government is already assuming even greater market risk for new large-scale renewables and storage projects by guaranteeing minimum payments under the Capacity Investment Scheme.[63]

1.101Evidence was also heard that nuclear was the most preferable generation technology for environmental outcomes beyond emissions reduction. Rainforest Reserves Australia found that nuclear’s minimal comparable land use compared to utility-scale renewables meant nuclear was clearly preferable to minimise adverse biodiversity impacts.

In stark contrast, nuclear power does not require extensive land use. When considering biodiversity, the inclusion of nuclear energy in our nation’s energy portfolio appears to be a responsible choice and any hesitance toward this option raises questions about underlying motives.[64]

1.102Further, Dr David Collins testified that when considering overall health effects, nuclear was superior to renewables, including that nuclear produces less greenhouse gas emissions than wind and solar.

The United Nations looked at health effects, and they looked at a number of other parameters, like environmental effects, water consumption et cetera. In every case, with the exception of water, nuclear was much better than wind and solar—in every case. And, on average, nuclear facilities used less water than coal facilities. That's the only parameter where nuclear doesn't do as well as wind and solar—but everything else. By the way, on greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear is much less than wind and solar. The embodied energies in nuclear energy are much less than wind and solar.[65]

1.103The committee also heard from Dr Keefer and Ms Hoff about the successful ‘coal to nuclear’ transition in Canada which saw the deployment of around 20 nuclear reactors in less than three decades. This resulted in one of the world’s fastest efforts to decarbonise an electricity grid. Ms Hoff noted that history shows that countries which decarbonise do so “primarily with a combination of nuclear and naturally occurring hydro”[66]

And the health consequences—I'm also a medical doctor—have been truly tremendous. It's estimated that a thousand premature deaths have been avoided every year. The majority of the power required to phase out coal came from nuclear. So I think this is a really remarkable success story and one that should be celebrated, particularly by environmentalists.[67]

Australia is Already a Nuclear Nation and Can Develop a Nuclear Energy Industry at Pace

1.104The overwhelming bulk of evidence from experts with relevant nuclear experience confirmed that Australia is well-positioned to deploy a nuclear energy industry, in large part due to the fact that Australia already is a nuclear nation.

1.105Renowned nuclear Law professional, Helen Cook stated that Australia was one of the best positioned countries in the world.

Australia is one of the best-positioned countries in the world to move ahead with a nuclear energy programme and to do so expeditiously and responsibly"

1.106The Coalition Members believe that Australia's existing capability, and the trust we have built internationally as a result of our work in non-proliferation and other treaty development places us in an excellent position to undertake the development of a Nuclear Power program. Such a program would also clearly lift Australia's capability in science and engineering.

1.107The committee also heard evidence that developing a Nuclear Power program would significantly improve Australia's technical and engineering capability and work hand-in-hand with our University sector.

1.108The Committee heard from DFAT that Australia has established a comprehensive framework for nuclear non-proliferation, safety, security, and liability through nine international agreements, having ratified:[68]

1. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1973)

2. the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (1974)
3. the Additional Protocol to CSA (1997)
4. The Convention on Nuclear Safety (1997)
5. the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (2003)
6. the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (1987)
7. the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (1987).
8. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (1987) and the CPPNM Amendment (2016).
9. The Vienna Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (1997).
   109. The Committee heard evidence that Australia is already a nuclear nation, with world class capabilities in research and regulation. Helen Cook, an expert in nuclear law and regulation, submitted that:

Australia’s nuclear credentials are well-established through decades of experience – Australia has been a nuclear nation since the 1950s, when our first research reactor was commissioned. Australia is one of the original member states of the IAEA. Australia has de facto permanent membership of the IAEA’s Board of Governors as the sole designated representative from the South-East Asia and Pacific Region, reflecting our nuclear leadership position in the region to date.[69]

1.110Similarly, several witnesses (including the former head of legal for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency) provided evidence supporting Australia’s existing regulatory capacity as a starting point to develop a comprehensive regulatory landscape for nuclear energy in Australia.

[ARPANSA] is working to upskill the Department of Defence to establish the new naval regulator for AUKUS. They're actually providing all that expertise and support to the Department of Defence, and that is a new regulator that is regulating nuclear activities. As you know, with the small modular reactors that will be inside the submarines. So it's not leaps and bounds for ARPANSA to start regulating a nuclear power industry. They would just need to be resourced to do so.[70]

1.111Other witnesses lauded Australia’s nuclear scientists and lawyers among the best in the world.

We have an established nuclear industry in Australia. We have the OPAL reactor in Sydney that is providing nuclear science. We have a regulatory regime that is already being stood up that supports nuclear energy. We have the best scientists and lawyers working on systems. In South Australia, we have the very best lawyer that has helped seven countries across the world, Dr Helen Cook. We have the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. I would say that this is a furphy. It is a convenient untruth that we don't have a regulatory regime that could support nuclear immediately.[71]

1.112Ms Constable gave evidence that we possess both a "world-class skilled workforce" and that ARPANSA and ASNO "can be added to in terms of their skill set and stood up immediately. So I don't accept that it will take 15 or 20 years…"[72]

1.113Further, Ms Cook recognised Australia’s well-established existing regulatory capacity for nuclear.

Australia has existing, world-class nuclear regulatory agencies in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (“ARPANSA”) and the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (“ASNO”) which implement Australia’s current international obligations in nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear security and nuclear safety.[73]

1.114Based on the evidence from multiple witnesses, Coalition Members reject the notion that the development of an appropriate regulatory capacity for nuclear would take 15-20 years.

Nuclear Energy Is Australia’s Next Jobs Opportunity

A 'Coal to Nuclear' transition can underwrite a new era of prosperity for regional communities’

1.115Communities which currently host a coal fired power station have helped keep the lights on, prices down and businesses powering for generations. The operation of a coal fired power station in these communities is not only critical for Australia’s economy, but also the livelihoods of local people. The coal fired power station is not only one of the largest direct employers in these regions, but also indirectly contributes to local businesses. This includes industries which service the coal plant specifically as well as those that service and maintain the local community such as local restaurants and cafes.

1.116As outlined on page three of the Chair’s report, the Albanese Labor Government’s energy plan will result in the premature closure of Australia’s entire fleet of coal fired power stations by 2038 with no like for like alternative in place. The premature closure of these power stations will devastate local economies through the loss of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. The premature closure of these plants has created immense uncertainty for residents in these regional communities, some of which have experienced the fallout before.

1.117When the former Hazlewood power station was shuttered prematurely in 2017, the impacts were severe for local people and the economy. The memory of this incident and the employment prospects on offer through the development of a nuclear industry were discussed by the Latrobe City Council Mayor Dale Harriman in public community hearing where he stated:

I know I talk regularly to a number of coal power station workers. They're excited by this idea that they're actually going to have a future. When Hazelwood closed, the thought of 'no future and nowhere to work' was palpable in the area and had a depressive effect on the community. The discussion now that nuclear is there and it gives an option to our coal-fired power station workers—that there is a future that pays like- for-like jobs—they're very, very supportive of it. I think, as a community, that's something we've been asking for: those jobs that are like for like.[74]

1.118A number of international experts outlined the lived experience around the world of how a ‘coal to nuclear’ transition can not only provide a lifeline to impacted communities but underwrite a new era of economic prosperity.

1.119For the seven communities the Coalition has announced as locations to host a nuclear power plant this will be a once in a generation opportunity to not only maintain the standard of living they enjoyed today, but improve their position.

1.120When asked about how nuclear jobs have been found to pay 14% more than an equivalent job in a coal fired power station and 50% more than a job in wind and solar, and that 77% of coal plant workers could transition seamlessly to work in a nuclear power plant, Mr Peter Ceeney, President, Latrobe City Business Chamber representing local businesses and employees suggested that the jobs opportunity provided by nuclear power would be welcomed by locals.[75]

First of all, I wasn't aware of that study. Yes, of course it would be. If a local worker can stay locally at another form of employment that they want to do, of course it'd be welcome.

1.121Dr Buongiorno explained that Nuclear power plants have demonstrated the ability to support and expand upon the existing workforce for coal power station in the United States:

Essentially all the workers could be rehired and retrained, depending on their skillsets, but there would be a need for additional hires. Not all of them need to be nuclear engineers. In fact, nuclear-specific expertise is razor thin, and primarily the folks that work in the control room are licensed operators. first reactor in Wyoming at a coal-fired plant site, where the coal plant is going out of business. They basically rehired the whole workforce. They're hiring more people; they're retraining them. As I said earlier, the synergies are around transmission lines, cooling, infrastructure, access roads, administrative buildings—there is a lot that you can reuse. The other positive aspect is that the peak of support for nuclear in the US is typically in counties and towns where there are nuclear plants." [76]

1.122Dr Chris Keefer told the committee that Australia could expect considerable job creation in coal communities that would facilitate a transition to nuclear. Keefer noted not only the opportunity for job creation, but also the quality of employment opportunities – nuclear would replace intergenerational coal jobs like-for-like, unlike the temporal nature of employment opportunities in wind and solar generation:

I think there would be a lot of jobs available, particularly in craft labour, in the construction phase… the jobs available in the kinds of communities that, I think, coal has probably sustained in terms of local investment—intergenerational jobs passed down from father to son or mother to daughter over many generations—are available again in nuclear. One thing that is fairly evident from our experience of renewables industry jobs, certainly in North America, is that they're largely construction jobs. There are no parking lots outside of a wind or solar farm. There are very sparse labour requirements after that point. They're transient jobs, moving from construction site to construction site, rather than jobs that are anchored in communities with healthy tax revenues and the kinds of community centres and things that can be supported by that.[77]

1.123Ms Hoff also testified that her experience of the nuclear industry supported the possibility of transitioning coal workers:[78]

… when I graduated from college with my degree in engineering, I didn't know anything about nuclear generation either. I got a job as an operator and went through a lot of training to become a field operator initially and then more training again, back to licencing class for a couple of years, before I got my licence to operate the reactor. We hire all kinds of people into those positions. You don't have to have a degree. They're very good jobs and people come from all areas to do them.

1.124Steve Reynolds, a local business owner from Muswellbrook, NSW, submitted that a significant portion of the community would be supportive of a new power station project, including nuclear:[79]

In any community you will find those to speak in opposition to a topic. I have had the opportunity to speak face to face with a significant number of community members, and when it comes to the construction of a nuclear fired power station, overwhelmingly the majority have been supportive of the need for a new modernised coal power station, or for a small nuclear power station. Beyond the conversation of electricity, our community knows we need the jobs and whilst we diversify to other manufacturing, agricultural etc jobs in the future, a replacement of a power station here would see jobs being transferred into a familiar role whilst retaining the permanent well-paying jobs.[80]

The Chair provided several explanations for the ultimate closure of Australia’s coal fired power stations which contradict the Chair’s own report.

1.125Throughout the inquiry, the Chair repeatedly told public hearings that the premature closure of Australia’s coal fired power stations was not a part of the Government’s plan.

1.126The Chair referred to one of his positions on the topic at the Lithgow Public hearing on 11 Dec 2024. On this occasion the Chair suggested that it wasn’t the Government’s plan to close coal fired power stations early, saying “It is not the Albanese Labor government's plan to close coal-fired power stations early.”

1.127On another occasion on 3 Dec 2024, the Chair stated that the Government wasn’t seeking to close down the Loy Yang B Coal fired power station in an attempt to assure local people deeply concerned about their future that their jobs were safe.

The federal government isn't looking at closing down Loy Yang B. It's going to close in 2047. That will be up to the owner of that plant as to whether they close before then or in 2047

1.128Yet, the Chair’s report makes it abundantly clear that the premature closure of Australia’s coal fired power stations is central to the Australian Government’s plan to reduce emissions by 43%.

1.13 The Australian Government has committed to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to zero by 2050…

1.14 Supporting this commitment is the transformation of Australia’s energy market under the ISP, including the decommissioning of coal plants by 2038…

1.129Regardless of the Government’s excuse that the closure of coal fired power stations is a private decision made by the operators, it is abundantly clear that the Government’s energy plan assumes their premature closure. Labor members are telling regional communities one thing while they tell a national audience another.

Nuclear energy can unlock and sustain a higher level of education and employment opportunity for Australians

1.130Dr Green also provided evidence on the benefits of enriching Australia’s tertiary education and research sectors in nuclear technology.

There is an appetite in Australia for developing educational opportunities in nuclear related areas in the educational space. This will not only benefit domestic students but could contribute to our world-class international student education system. Government-supported Australian scientists have been contributing to nuclear fusion research for several decades. At some point in the future, nuclear fusion will become both a viable and a cost-competitive power source. If Australia is to take agile advantage of this revolution by rapidly developing a nuclear fusion power industry, it will require nuclear engineers and scientists. Developing a nuclear fission power industry now is the only way of ensuring we will have an appropriately skilled workforce in place when commercial fusion power becomes a reality.[81]

1.131The Committee heard evidence of significant employment opportunities for the nuclear sector, particularly given the advent of nuclear submarines established by AUKUS. Dr Barry Green stated:

With the introduction of nuclear submarines for the Australian Navy, there exist far greater job opportunities for nuclear engineers than before. While these jobs will primarily be submarine-reactor oriented, many engineers will be required for remote maintenance and for the handling of radioactive waste. All of these skills will be transferable to land based reactors, of course…the training and advice for building a nuclear industry has a non-negligible basis. Of course, increased training will be necessary, and this will be a positive in making Australia a clever country.[82]

Nuclear will support baseload while renewables risk de-industrialisation

1.132The Committee heard evidence of the significant risk that a high VRE grid poses to system reliability. This will have pronounced impacts on the industrial sector and threaten Australia’s economic industrial capacity. Witnesses were sceptical that a high penetration of renewables could support and heavy industry, and some noted that a system of this magnitude does not exist anywhere else in the world.

1.133Dr Chris Keefer testified:

…to run a grid, and particularly to run electricity required for heavy industry, there's a lot of additional systems cost. Those include things like transmission, distribution and the firming costs you mentioned in terms of gas turbines and batteries. There are no examples around the world of heavy industry operating off of mostly wind and solar.[83]

That's actually one of my major concerns for Australia, as I mentioned—the declining economic complexity and the closure of coal plants and that stable baseload power, which up until this very moment have proven to be essential for running electricity-intensive heavy industry. This is a major gamble. We have a well established history of nuclear plants providing reliable power to heavy industry. That's the reason why I think it would be a very astute thing to diversify the decarbonisation portfolio…

1.134And as base-load energy is removed from the system and is replaced with variable renewables, what happens to reliability? Further to that, what then happens to costs and therefore prices?”

1.135Professor Stephen Wilson:

The risk is you see a collapse in reliability. We have to look at the detail of what's actually happening, but I think the Broken Hill islanding and the inability to keep that system alive while the transmission line is not able to support it is a microcosm of what I expect we'll see on a larger scale. If you're trying to deliver 99.98 per cent reliability to the consumer and you're trying to do it only with assets that are available 20, 25, 30, 35 per cent of the time, bridging that probability gap just becomes harder and harder as you increase the share of those resources on the system. As you try to fight it by throwing more and more batteries and more and more pumped hydro, and this, that and the other at it—and, by the way, the ISP seems to still have a lot of gas in the system, even in the outyears in 2050. Is it natural gas? Is it hydrogen? But that's the get-out-of-jail-free card. You see the costs escalate and all of your assets on this system end up having lower and lower and lower utilisation, but those fixed capital costs have to be recovered somehow.[84]

1.136Mr Craig Cresp, General Manager Operations, Upper Spencer Gulf, Hallett Group:

I think the true risk ends up being whether, as we add more renewable assets like wind and solar to the grid, that will increase our power prices going forward, which then impacts the viability of our business. If we had cheaper fuel or a cheaper energy supply, like a nuclear source, for example, and that ended up being a viable commercial solution, then that would benefit everyone.[85]

1.137Minerals Council of Australia submitted that:

No large, industrialised economy without large hydroelectric resources is planning to decarbonise its electricity systems using just intermittent solar and wind resources.[86]

1.138Brendan Fitzgerald, Chartered Chemical Engineer:

Without reliable, constant baseload power generation, power systems become inherently unreliable. As has been demonstrated around the world, wherever renewable power sources provide a significant proportion of the generation capacity, power prices to the consumer vary massively on a daily basis. In addition, there is increased potential for outages due to the instability introduced to the grid by variable power sources which do not maintain a steady synchronised supply. This is on top of the inherent intermittency of renewable power sources. Asynchronous supply, i.e. that provided by wind and solar, requires significant additional infrastructure such as capacitors and transformers. Provision of batteries for firming and supply back-up on a grid scale has never been achieved and is currently beyond available battery technology. At a grid level, during an outage of wind or solar power generation, a battery system would only provide power for tens of minutes, whereas such a wind and solar outage could last for days. The experience in Europe in the last couple of years is that such outages persisted for weeks.[87]

Nuclear complements renewables and storage

1.139While the committee heard evidence from some renewable energy lobby organisations that nuclear is not a flexible energy source and would be incompatible on a grid with renewables,[88][89] significant and more detailed evidence was submitted finding modern nuclear plants to be capable of load-following, and possible to run in a grid alongside both storage, utility-scale renewable generation, and consumer energy resources.

1.140The Committee also heard extensive concerns around how nuclear reactors would affect existing rooftop solar which seemed to be underpinned by a misunderstanding of how the Australian grid operates, and ignores the important role of storage in any future grid, including one with baseload Nuclear power in it. The committee notes that this claim was heard multiple times.

1.141The submission from the Queensland Conservation Council, referred to by the ACTU[90] was that “equivalent 45,000 rooftop solar systems to be turned off on an average day to accommodate the nuclear power station.”[91]

1.142But most of the concerns submitted to the committee around rooftop solar curtailment were either directly from, or referred to, analysis from the Smart Energy Council. They submitted that “nuclear reactors at the seven proposed sites put forward by the coalition will shut down solar at millions of Australian homes. This is because nuclear power is inflexible, and must always push power into the grid, with solar to be the first casualty due to its ability to be switched off.”[92]

1.143These analyses rested on the premises that at times of excess supply, rooftop solar would be curtailed, and that nuclear power would be inflexible, leading to excess supply. The committee evidence strongly suggested that both of these premises were incorrect.

1.144The committee heard from Dr Sarah Lawley that "If you look at what's happening on the weekends now—and this is largely an implication of rooftop solar—we're actually curtailing utility-scale wind and solar to the order of eight gigawatts across the NEM during solar hours."[93] which showed utility scale energy was curtailed, not rooftop solar, at times of excess supply occurring on the grid today.

1.145This was reinforced by Dan Caffrey of the Latrobe Valley Sustainability Group, whose testimony recognised that it is in fact rooftop solar which causes utility-scale generation to be switched off, including partially inflexible coal power stations:

Already, it is common to see wind farms on a windy and sunny day between the hours of 10 am to 4 pm where not a blade is turning. This is because as the morning progresses an increasing amount of rooftop solar is being put into the National electricity grid. As the coal fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley and elsewhere cannot be switched off and can only wind back production to about 40% of capacity at present, then wind and solar farms are forced to switch off. This is known as curtailment.[94]

1.146This was reiterated by Nicole Davies:

It was said earlier in the previous panel that nuclear didn't follow load, had to be maintained at levels and didn't work well with renewables. I know for a fact that's not correct. I would again have to take it on notice to give you the evidence if you want it. Yes, I'm absolutely happy to do that. Nuclear actually is load-following and it does complement renewables.[95]

1.147Mr Mark Schneider, speaking of his experience operating the Surry Nuclear Power Station in the US:

The turbines at Surry Power Station can ramp from 100 per cent power down to five per cent power in 90 minutes and ramp back up in 90 minutes. That's 1,600 megawatts of power that can be ramped within 90 minutes that can support the load following of renewables.[96]

…

With wind and solar that's already existing and is producing, for all intents and purposes, zero-cost power, as that's peaking out and you have to have your nuclear to ramp up and down, you're actually extending your fuel, and your fuel is going to remain longer. Are you paying a little bit more for it upfront? Yes. But, overall, the lifespan of the nuclear reactor is being extended. Right now in the United States, they're talking about licensing to 120 years now. You're going to build a power plant that could last you for well over a century.[97]

1.148Coalition Members reject the notion that nuclear is inflexible and cannot play a complementary role with renewables, but instead recognise the benefits of nuclear flexibility to ramp up and down to smooth the generation of variable sources. Coalition Members also found there were no credible grounds for the claim that introducing nuclear energy would force rooftop solar to be shutdown.

Nuclear Energy Among the World’s Safest Forms of Electricity Generation

1.149Zero-emissions nuclear energy is amongst the world’s safest forms of electricity generation. According to an ongoing report from Our World In Data which utilises MIT data, Nuclear is as safe as solar and safer than wind energy. This safety record is not only in regard to accidents but also air pollution for which nuclear energy is the least harmful source of electricity generation.

1.150Mothers for Nuclear’s submission to the inquiry spoke to the health benefits of nuclear, in particular the role it plays in improving air quality:

The World Health Organisation estimates that at least 7 million people die annually from air pollution, and that 9 out of 10 people breathe air containing high levels of pollutants. Nuclear energy does play a major role in reducing these statistics. Nuclear power currently reduces 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere (equivalent of 100 million cars). A study by NASA in 2013 (post Fukushima) calculated that nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution related deaths.[98]

1.151She goes on to cite that "Nuclear power causes the lowest number of fatalities of any major electricity source" and that the "global nuclear power industry has a strong safety and reliability culture promoted through the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) where best practice is exchanged globally."[99]

1.152The committee also heard Mr Schneider, that in his 25 years experience in the US Nuclear industry, far more of his own personal total exposure to radiation was from background sources and medical exposure than from his work in nuclear power plants, and that:[100]

I will talk about the US's worst accident, Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island had a meltdown that destroyed the unit and then exposed the public to radiation. The amount that the public was exposed to was less than that of a flight from Perth to basically anywhere.

1.153On the matter of earthquake risk, the Coalition Members were satisfied that Australia's relative geological stability meant that Australia is extremely well placed, and reactors here would face a much lower risk of earthquakes than reactors that have operated safely for decades elsewhere in the world. The committee heard from Geoscience Australia that:[101]

Based on a global compilation of national-scale seismic hazard assessments by the Global Earthquake Model, the estimated seismic hazard for Taiwan, Japan and California is higher than that of Australia at higher probabilities of exceedance

1.154The committee also heard from Prof Whittaker, a licensed civil and structural engineer that:[102]

Nuclear power plants are the most robust of all civilian infrastructure, designed to resist the effects of extreme natural hazards … Firstly, nuclear power plants are built and operated in regions of high seismic hazard, such as coastal California and Japan. Secondly, the seismic hazard in Australia is low because the mainland is far from the boundaries of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate. Thirdly, processes and procedures to characterise the effects of earthquake shaking on mission-critical infrastructure are both mature and mandated in the United States and elsewhere.

1.155The committee also heard that credible estimates put the water consumption of nuclear reactors on par with coal plants:[103]

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe examined the Life Cycle water use of all generators…shows that nuclear energy uses similar or slightly less water than coal generators such as pulverised and supercritical coal plants.

1.156The committee also heard about alternate solutions for water cooling using coal pits. With respect to nuclear generating capacity being introduced in the Latrobe valley, Robert Parker from Nuclear for Climate Australia submitted that:[104]

Water stored in the brown coal pits can enable cooling via surface convection and slower evaporation. Alternatively, if traditional evaporative cooling towers used, the massive stored volumes would drought proof the nuclear power plants and avoid competition with existing domestic and commercial uses.

1.157The Coalition Members of the committee heard a significant volume of evidence beyond what has been provided in this section on the matter of safety, the overwhelming majority of which showed that nuclear power was clean, safe, and relied upon around the world, and could be relied upon in Australia's environment as well.

Mr Ted O’Brien MPDeputy Chair Member for Fairfax

Mr Darren Chester MPMember for Gippsland

Mr Simon Kennedy MPMember for Cook

Footnotes

[1]Liana Downey, Chief Executive Officer, Blueprint Institute, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 21.

[2]Blueprint Institute, Submission 369, p. 5.

[3]Dr Peter Mayfield, Executive Director, CSIRO, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2024, p.48.

[4]Dr Sarah Lawley, Private capacity,Committee Hansard, 28 October 2024, p.33.

[5]Australian Energy Market Operator, Media Release, “Integrated System Plan reflects whole of system costs”, 7 August 2023.

[6]Dr Alex Wonhas, Proof Committee Hansard, 29 August 2019, p. 25.

[7]Merryn York, Executive General Manager, Australian Energy Market Operator, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2024, pages. 35-36.

[8]Australian Energy Market Operator, Submission 626.1, p. 1.

[9]Mr Daniel Westerman, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Energy Market Operator. Committee Hansard, 24 October 2024, p.36.

[10]Daniel Westerman, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Energy Market Operator, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2024, p. 35.

[11]Merryn York, Executive General Manager, System Design, Australian Energy Market Operator, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2024, p. 35.

[12]Australian Energy Market Operator, Submission 626.1, p. 1.

[13]Frontier Economics, Report 1 – Developing a base case to assess the relative costs of nuclear power in the NEM, 14 November 2024.

[14]John Grimes. Chief Executive Officer, Smart Energy Council, Committee Hansard, 28 October 2024, p. 13.

[15]Smart Energy Council, Press Release, Nuclear Fallout: $116-$600 billion to build 7 nuclear reactors, June 22 2024.

[16]Aidan Morrison, Director, Energy Research, Committee Hansard, 28 October 2024, p. 72.

[17]Centre for Independent Studies, Submission 371.1, p. 1.

[18]US Department of Energy, "Pathways to Commercial Liftoff", September 2024, p. 10.

[19]Michael Asten, Submission 363, p. 4.

[20]Nuclear Energy Institute, Submission 360, p. 3.

[21]Stephen Wilson, Visiting Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Committee Hansard, 28 October 2024, p. 36.

[22]Stephen Wilson, Visiting Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Committee Hansard, 28 October 2024, p. 36.

[23]Jacopo Buongiorno, Director at Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Committee Hansard, 18 November 2024, p. 4

[24]David Collins, Submission 393.1, p. 8.

[25]Centre for Independent Studies, Submission 371.1, p. 5.

[26]Theo Theophanous, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 4 December 2024, p. 56.

[27]Centre for Independent Studies, Submission 371.1, p. 1.

[28]Gamma Energy Technology, Submission 5, p. 2.

[29]Geoff Bongers, Director, Gamma Energy Technology, Committee Hansard, 15 November 2024, p. 22.

[30]Minerals Council of Australia, Submission 430, p. 3.

[31]Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Submission 298, p. 2.

[32]Gamma Energy Technology, Submission 5, p. 3.

[33]Silex Systems Limited, Submission 232, p. 3.

[34]Will Shackel, Founder, Nuclear for Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 November 2024, p. 44.

[35]Gamma Energy Technology, Submission 5, p. 3.

[36]Geoff Bongers, Director, Gamma Energy Technology, Committee Hansard, 15 November 2024, p. 22.

[37]Daniel Westerman, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Energy Market Operator, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2024, p. 41.

[38]Centre for Independent Studies, Submission 371, p. 3.

[39]Sarah Lawley, Submission 848, p. 3.

[40]Sarah Lawley, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Monday, 28 October 2024, p. 33.

[41]Macquarie University, Submission 782, p. 7.

[42]Gamma Energy Technology, Submission 5, p. 3.

[43]Coalition for Conservation, Submission 179, p. 3.

[44]Helen Cook, GNE Advisory, Submission 206, p. 2.

[45]Helen Cook, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 45.

[46]Dr Edward Obbard, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 12 December 2024, p. 45.

[47]Jonathan Fisher, Submission 37, p. 3.

[48]Robert McCosker, Director, McCosker Contracting, Committee Hansard, 13 November 2024, p. 30.

[49]Danny Price, Economic Analysis of Including Nuclear Power in the NEM, Frontier Economics Insight, 13 December 2024.

[50]Gamma Energy Technology, Submission 5, p. 1.

[51]Nuclear Energy Institute, Submission 360, p. 3.

[52]Jacopo Buongiorno, Director at Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Committee Hansard, 18 November 2024, p. 1.

[53]Ronald James AFSM, Submission 412, p. 10.

[54]Frontier Economics, "Report 1 – Developing a base case to assess the relative costs of nuclear power in the NEM", 14 November 2024.

[55]Submissions 216, 431, 335, 388, 88, 328, 819, and 474.

[56]Dr Oscar Archer, Submission 10, p. 6.

[57]Centre for Independent Studies, Submission 371, p. 4.

[58]Nuclear Energy Institute, Submission 360, p. 4.

[59]Australian Nuclear Association, Submission 180, p. 1.

[60]Rainforest Reserves Alliance, Submission 123, p. 5.

[61]Dr Geoff Bongers, Gamma Energy Technology, Committee Hansard, 15 November 2024, p. 27.

[62]Blueprint Institute, Submission 369, p. 8.

[63]Coalition for Conservation, Submission 179, p. 2.

[64]Rainforest Reserves Alliance, Submission 123, p. 21.

[65]Dr David Collins, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 28 October 2024, p. 59.

[66]Heather Hoff, Mothers of Nuclear, Committee Hansard, 21 November 2024, p. 1.

[67]Chris Keefer, Canadians for Nuclear Energy, Committee Hansard, 21 November 2024, p. 4.

[68]Vanessa Wood, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Committee Hansard, Thursday 24 October 2024, p. 13.

[69]Helen Cook, GNE Advisory, Submission 206, p. 5.

[70]Kirsty Braybon, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 December 2024, p. 9.

[71]Tania Constable, Minerals Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 17 December 2024, p. 5.

[72]Tania Constable, Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 17 December 2024, p. 5.

[73]Helen Cook, GNE Advisory, Submission 206, p. 1.

[74]Councillor Dale Harriman, Mayor, Latrobe City Council, Committee Hansard, 3 December 2024, p. 6.

[75]Peter Ceeney, Latrobe City Business Chamber, Committee Hansard, Tuesday, 3 December 2024, p. 25.

[76]Dr Buongiorno, Committee Hansard, Monday 18 November 2024, p. 8.

[77]Dr Chris Keefer, President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy; and Director, Doctors for Nuclear Energy, Committee, Committee Hansard, 21 November 2024, p. 11.

[78]Ms Hoff, Committee Hansard, 21 November 2024, p. 3.

[79]Steve Reynolds, Submission 374, p. 1.

[80]Steve Reynolds, Private Capacity, Submission 374, p. 1.

[81]Dr Barry Green, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 17 December 2024, p. 22.

[82]Dr Barry Green, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 17 December 2024, p. 22.

[83]Dr Chris Keefer, President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy; and Director, Doctors for Nuclear Energy, Committee, Committee Hansard, Thursday 21 November 2024, p. 5.

[84]Professor Stephen Wilson, Private Capacity, Committee Hansard, Monday, 28 October 2024, p. 40.

[85]Craig Cresp, Hallett Group, Committee Hansard, Friday, 6 December 2024, p. 2.

[86]Minerals Council of Australia, Submission 430, p. 3.

[87]Brendan Fitzgerald, Submission 336, p.1.

[88]Smart Energy Council, Submission 388, p. 5.

[89]Johanna Bower, Lead Analyst, Australian Electricity, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Committee Hansard, December 4 2024, p. 41.

[90]Australian Council of Trade Unions, Submission 338.

[91]Queensland Conservation Council, Submission 190, p. 4.

[92]Smart Energy Council, Submission 388, p. 5.

[93]Monday, 28 November 2024, p. 31.

[94]Latrobe Valley Sustainability Group, Submission 078, p. 5.

[95]Nicole Davies, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 16 December 2024, p. 28.

[96]Tuesday, 17 December 2024, p. 32.

[97]Tuesday, 17 December 2024, p. 36.

[98]Women in Nuclear, Submission 347, p. 16.

[99]Women in Nuclear, Submission 347, p. 16.

[100]Tuesday, 17 December 2024, p. 34.

[101]Geoscience Australia, Submission 841, p. 3.

[102]Monday, 18 November 2024, p. 3.

[103]Nuclear for Climate Australia, Submission 380, p. 20.

[104]Nuclear for Climate Australia, Submission 380.1. pages 1-4.