Opposition Minister Questions Accuracy of CSIRO’s Nuclear Costings

MP Ted O'Brien speaks on stage during the Australian 2020 Tokyo Olympic & Paralympic Celebration at University of Sunshine Coast in Sunshine Coast, Australia, on Oct. 7, 2021. Peter Wallis/Getty Images for the AOC

A day after the release of the GenCost report, which concludes the cost of nuclear to be far higher than renewables, Coalition Shadow Energy Minister Ted O'Brien questioned the credibility of the findings.

Debating on ABC’s 7:30 program, O’Brien argued that the national science agency which authored the report, CSIRO, lacked the expertise of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), particularly in aspects such as cost timing.

The 2024-25 draft report found nuclear plants could cost twice as much as solar or wind energy, despite their potential to operate for 60 years, compared to 30 years for renewables.

CSIRO Chief Energy Economist and GenCost lead author Paul Graham noted that “similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies, including renewables, even when accounting for the need to build them twice.”

O’Brien said that during a recent parliamentary hearing, CSIRO had admitted they were not as well-versed in nuclear matters compared to the IAEA, which offers similar a calculation on capital costs but a different perspective on the timing and potential costs.

He criticised the agency’s methodology, stating it doesn’t account for “total system costs” that impact household electricity bills.

Coalition’s Seven-Plant Proposal

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is expected to unveil more details on the Coalition’s nuclear plans later this week. The proposal includes building seven nuclear plants across Australia, with costings promised “within days.”

Dutton said the plan aims to lower energy prices, contrasting it with Labor’s promise to cut household bills by $275—a pledge O’Brien claims has resulted in costs rising by up to $1,000 instead.

O’Brien maintained that focusing solely on upfront capital costs, as CSIRO’s report does, misses the bigger picture.

He added that the Coalition’s upcoming nuclear details has similar capital costs to the CSIRO, but departs significantly when it comes to calculating the total system costs, which translates directly on to household bills.

“What hits your bill at home,” he said, “is a reflection of the total system cost. That’s what the Coalition prioritises—getting prices down for Australians.”

Labor Defends CSIRO’s Independence

In response, Energy Minister Chris Bowen had concerns that the Coalition was questioning the credibility of CSIRO, a respected scientific institution with global recognition.

“Ted thinks he knows better than CSIRO and AEMO [Australian Energy Market Operator]. I don’t,” Bowen said, defending the GenCost report and its methodology.

Bowen was also disappointed at the opposition’s suggestion of political interference in the report, calling the accusation “deeply offensive” to CSIRO’s longstanding reputation for independence.

“The findings are inarguable,” he said, adding that CSIRO had even re-analysed aspects of its modelling based on O’Brien’s feedback, only to confirm that the criticisms lacked evidence.

GenCost’s last report, released in May, found that a nuclear plant would produce energy at twice the cost of renewables, take over 20 years to construct, and require at least $8.6 billion in investment.

O’Brien had called on the CSIRO to re-evaluate its nuclear power cost projections after it was published.

Renewables vs Nuclear: A Pricey Debate

CSIRO’s draft report estimates nuclear energy would cost between $133 and $222 per megawatt-hour, significantly higher than solar and wind alternatives.

While nuclear reactors boast longer lifespans—up to 60 years compared to renewables’ 30 years— CSIRO says the upfront and ongoing costs, including waste management and decommissioning, make it less competitive.

Bowen highlighted delays and cost blowouts in global nuclear projects.

In the UK, Hinkley C is 12 years behind schedule and projected to cost AU$92 billion, while the United States recently abandoned its NuScale small modular reactor (SMR) project due to a 70 percent cost blowout.

However, O’Brien argued that Australia risks falling behind if it doesn’t lift its nuclear moratorium, stating that emerging SMR technology could provide a viable alternative.

Bowen responded by saying that the global trend towards renewables is undeniable, with investments outpacing nuclear by a factor of 27.

He said Australia’s focus should remain on solar, wind, and storage solutions to deliver affordable, sustainable energy.

Nuclear Timelines Spark Further Debate

The timeline for implementing nuclear energy has emerged as another sticking point in the exchange between Bowen and O’Brien.

Bowen highlighted international data showing that the average build time for large-scale nuclear reactors has stretched to 12-17 years, raising questions about how the Coalition’s nuclear strategy could align with Australia’s emissions targets and energy needs.

O’Brien said the Coalition’s timeline is grounded in international benchmarks from the IAEA, which he called more reliable than CSIRO’s estimates on construction schedules.

“Our plan aligns with the IAEA’s own schedule on construction,” O’Brien said, indicating that the Coalition’s projections consider global expertise while still factoring in Australian-specific needs.