With the scientific community, federal and state governments staunchly opposed to the coalition's nuclear energy policy, the political purpose behind its announcement is being called into question.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is furiously defending the $330 billion nuclear energy blueprint he announced last month to build seven reactors across five states, costing each of Australia's 13.6 million taxpayers more than $24,200.
"This will make electricity reliable ... it will make it cheaper for Australians," Mr Dutton has declared.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has condemned the policy's modelling as "farcical", arguing public investment in "the most expensive form of energy" would drive up electricity costs, not lower them.
Analysis by the national science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) agreed nuclear energy generation would be up to twice as expensive as large-scale solar.
The coalition's nuclear energy plan will likely be beset with hurdles and delays, especially as the premiers of NSW, Victoria and Queensland would not repeal their states' prohibitions on nuclear power plants, while WA Premier Roger Cook slammed the Liberal's policy costings as a "con".
Even former coalition cabinet-minister-turned-lobbyist Christopher Pine seemed to describe the plan as a political manouevre that might never come to pass, arguing the opposition's tactic had simply achieved its aim of showing the electorate a united front in moving away from coal.
In an opinion piece in the Nine papers last week, he said the "seismic shift" in policy had done its job and "united" the party, regardless of the outcome.
The plan is unlikely to "ever see the light of day in Australia", said international studies expert Dr Adam Simpson from the University of South Australia.
The coalition's nuclear claims have "little scientific or policy basis", will make it harder for Australia to meet its Paris Agreement commitments and push up electricity prices, he argued.
The coalition simply wanted to differentiate itself from the government on energy, climate and cost of living in the lead-up to the election, delay the roll-out of renewable energy infrastructure and thereby extend the life of the domestic fossil fuel power industry in Australia, he said.
"There is little doubt that the opposition wants to extend the life of existing coal-fired power stations ... and build plenty of new gas-fired power stations," Dr Simpson told AAP.
If the coalition won the next election, they would likely establish a committee to investigate nuclear energy that would find it "too expensive" and thereby draw out the process of shutting down fossil fuel energy production, he said.
The coalition's claims were unlikely to convince voters who listened to scientific and policy experts, Dr Simpson said, although "sometimes elections deliver surprising results".
Conversely, pro-nuclear political scientist Dr Michael de Percy, from the University of Canberra, said the coalition's nuclear stance could have a big impact on election day.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen's "ideological crusade for renewables" was unrealistic, Dr de Percy said, adding that nuclear power was a "no brainer".
"Nuclear is more like a metaphor for undoing ... the woke agenda... the pendulum is starting to swing back," Dr de Percy, a member of the Australian Nuclear Association, told AAP.
Regional and rural Australia were not happy with the plans for further renewable installations, he said, saying renewables were a "metropolitan focus".
People were more accepting of nuclear energy as a concept than they used to be, Dr de Percy said.
Labor's energy policy hadn't worked and Nr Dutton had provided an alternative, he added.
Australian Associated Press
