Federal Opposition Pledges Nuclear Plan Will Cut Energy Bills by 44 Percent

Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton speaks to media, Brisbane, Australia on Dec. 13, 2024. AAP Image/Russell Freeman

The Liberal-National Coalition has unveiled its much-awaited economic modelling behind its plan to introduce civilian nuclear power to Australia.

The plan is estimated to save up to $263 billion (US$167.4 billion) compared to Labor’s renewable energy strategy, with the opposition saying this will result in cheaper electricity for consumers over the long term.

The Coalition estimates that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 under its nuclear policy will cost $331 billion, and lead to a 44 percent reduction in energy bills.

“This is a plan which will underpin the economic success of our country for the next century,” said Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

The modelling, conducted by Frontier Economics, was released by Dutton, National Party leader David Littleproud, Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien, and Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor.

“We are absolutely committed to doing what we have to do to make sure Australians don’t pay more than they should for their energy,” Taylor said.

Frontier’s managing director, Danny Price, projects that Labor’s renewable-focused plan, based on the Integrated Systems Plan from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), would cost $594 billion.

“Frontier Economics’ analysis leaves no doubt,” Dutton added. “Australians will be better off under our plan. We will avoid hidden costs, reduce unnecessary infrastructure expenses, and lead to lower energy prices.”

The Coalition’s plan includes building seven nuclear power stations across identified sites in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia.

Opposition Says Nuclear States Pay Less Per Kilowatt

Dutton defended the Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal, comparing it to international models.

“In Ontario and Tennessee, where renewables are firmed by nuclear, residents pay 18 cents per kilowatt hour. In South Australia, people pay 56 cents—three times as much. This has contributed to a threefold increase in manufacturing closures over the past two and a half years,” Dutton said.

Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien emphasised nuclear’s global significance, stating, “Over 30 countries use nuclear energy, with 50 more exploring it. A renewables-plus-nuclear pathway is proven to be 37 percent cheaper than renewables alone, as per the US Department of Energy. Frontier Economics estimates our balanced mix would save $263 billion, or $10 billion annually, compared to Labor’s plan.”

Shadow Agriculture Minister David Littleproud echoed the sentiment, calling for an energy mix that protects regional Australia.

“No industrial-scale nation like Australia has relied solely on renewables. We need a balanced approach to ensure regions aren’t disproportionately impacted.”

Labor Says Coalition’s Costing ‘Magical’

Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen dismissed the Coalition’s projections, calling them unrealistic and accusing the opposition of using “magical assumptions” to understate the costs of nuclear energy.

“CSIRO and AEMO have consistently identified nuclear as the most expensive form of energy. The Coalition’s claim that nuclear is cheaper simply doesn’t pass the pub test,” Bowen said.

The 2024-25 GenCost 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.

Bowen also criticised the Coalition’s argument that nuclear would require fewer transmission lines than renewables.

“I’m not sure how they’ll get the power into the grid–maybe by carrier pigeon,” he said.

Bowen added that the government’s renewable transition plan, costing $122 billion, was more feasible and reliable, avoiding the pitfalls of ageing coal-fired power stations that often experience breakdowns, he told ABC News.

Billionaire ‘Twiggy’ Rejects Nuclear Push

Fortescue Chair Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest rejected the Coalition’s claims, stating that renewable energy remains the cheapest option for Australia.

“As our national science agency has shown, ‘firmed’ solar and wind are the cheapest new electricity options for all Australians,” Forrest said.

Forrest emphasised that Australia’s abundant renewable resources provide a unique opportunity, warning that reliance on nuclear energy would leave Australians with higher power costs and outdated coal infrastructure.

“We must never forget–Australia has the best renewable resources in the world. Seizing these opportunities must be our shared national goal,” Forrest said.

The billionaire owner of Fortescue Metals has been an ardent investor in renewable energy projects.

Economist Says Australia Should Investigate Nuclear 

Independent economist Saul Eslake acknowledged nuclear’s role in many countries’ energy systems.

“Nuclear is now an integral part of the electricity supply system in a fairly large number and wide range of countries, in many of those cases for decades,” Eslake said.

“Yes, there are environmental risks associated with nuclear energy—but there are also risks with fossil fuels and renewables, too. For example, interactions between wind farms and migratory birds or the visual impact of extensive transmission infrastructure,” he added.

Eslake noted that the high costs of transmission infrastructure for renewable energy should be factored into any cost analysis.

“So I have absolutely no problem with considering whether nuclear could be part of the solution to getting Australia to net zero.”

However, Eslake expressed concerns about the Coalition’s plan to run the nuclear program through a government-owned enterprise.

“I’m not keen on creating a big new public enterprise,” he said.