On 18 September, IPA Executive Director Scott Hargreaves joined Russell Collett on 6PR’s Perth Live programme to discuss the cost of nuclear energy compared to net zero and renewables.
All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research.
Below is a transcript of the interview.
Russell Collett:
Welcome back to Perth Live. A beautiful day in Perth. It’s a little bit overcast, but been a great afternoon so far. And look, big news on the energy front. This just doesn’t go away, following on from the government’s pledge at the last election that all of our energy bills will drop by $275, which over the weekend they started to say was actually based on modeling done by another third party. The latest in the energy claims is coming from the Energy Minister himself, Chris Bowen. And his thoughts over the weekend based about nuclear costings were staggering to say the least. The government has said that the federal government’s reported estimate to convert Australia’s base load power stations from coal to nuclear would cost $387 billion. That is the figure, $387 billion as quoted by the Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Well, we thought, “Well, let’s find out how accurate that figure is given earlier modeling that the government have done on energy.” And we’ve got in touch with Scott Hargreaves, the Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs. Good afternoon, Scott.
Scott Hargreaves:
Good afternoon, Russell. Thanks for having me.
Russell Collett:
Lovely to have you on board. These claims over the weekend, $387 billion for Australia to convert across to nuclear for our base load power, how does that sit with the Institute of Public Affairs?
Scott Hargreaves:
Well, isn’t it interesting that these numbers have been put together seemingly in a bit of a hurry, just in time for the minister’s appearance on Q+A tonight? Unfortunately, they don’t have much credibility because none of the figures that have been given by the government for its own energy plan really have much credibility. There’s been a consistent underestimation of the cost. They keep talking about the cost of wind and solar, but forgetting about all the 10,000 kilometers of transmission lines that Australia would need to connect all these extra wind farms and extra industrial scale solar farms in rural and regional Australia to the transmission grid. So they’ve underestimated that cost. And now they’ve probably overestimated the cost of a nuclear alternative. And I can talk a little about how they managed to do that.
Russell Collett:
Yeah, we’d love to hear it. I do believe that the minister is starting that the cost will be around about $387 billion based on 71 small modular reactors. But at the same time, wouldn’t that also then take down the cost of transmission if they are in the areas where they’re required for the Australian economy?
Scott Hargreaves:
Oh, that’s exactly right, Russell. Because once you take the transmission into account… And you shouldn’t let the nuclear option be taken where it is the most cost-effective. I mean, I know there’s mining companies in WA and remote locations who are looking for alternatives to energy being supplied from diesel who would be very interested in micro reactors or small nuclear reactors. And it could be viable there or it could be viable on the site of an existing coal-fired power plant. So that’s what really starts to make it stack up. I don’t think we should get in this game of just saying, “Look, there’s a big plan for renewables and there’s a big plan for nuclear, and we’ll just compare the two costs” because you should actually let people have the opportunity to deliver it where they can.
Russell Collett:
It doesn’t seem to be getting debated too widely. It seems to be just one way traffic coming from the government, that this is the only way forward, renewables is our only way forward. But there certainly is a proven record of nuclear energy across the globe. And of course, we are very energy resource-rich with uranium here in Australia.
Scott Hargreaves:
Well, that’s right. So what starts to look very silly indeed is that we’re starting with a prohibition on nuclear energy. On the one hand, I can’t quite work out the logic of, “Oh, not just Chris Bowen, but anyone who’s violently opposed to nuclear energy,” because on the one hand they say it’ll always be too expensive, but on the other they’ve got laws on the statute books which prevent you investigating and building it. Now what are they worried about? I think they must be worried. And in fact, it could be very, very competitive. And more to the point, it delivers secure, reliable energy, not intermittent energy which needs enormous backup supposedly from batteries more likely from their precious gas resources. Why not give nuclear that opportunity? We need to put all options on the table if we’re going to find our way out of the energy mess that we’ve got ourselves into.
Russell Collett:
And look, as I said, it’s a proven energy source right throughout Europe, and you are guaranteed your base load power, which is what our manufacturing industries require here in Australia.
Scott Hargreaves:
Well put, Russell. And yes, there’s been a real turn back towards nuclear in some of the Scandinavian countries, the Germans have thought twice about their push to get rid of it. The French have realized what a wonderful asset they have. We’ve just had recently a gentleman from the ‘Canadians For Nuclear Energy’, just a doctor in an emergency room who was just horrified at the thought of closing down this wonderful fleet of nuclear reactors in Canada. And now that’s come to the point where even Trudeau, Justin Trudeau, who’s hardly some kind of frothing at the mouth, right-wing maniac, is actually saying Canada’s nuclear energy industry is a force for good and delivers secure, reliable energy that can support a manufacturing base and provide good jobs to workers, which is not really something you can say about about the wind and solar panels, which all come from overseas basically.
Russell Collett:
And one of the quotes out of this morning’s press conference was that the minister said, “When you put the most expensive form of energy into the system, there is a massive cost to pay.” Well, that seems to be taken both ways at the moment. It could be that renewables are in fact the most expensive formula of energy going into our system.
Scott Hargreaves:
Well, that was my first reaction when I saw this supposedly very scary number of $387 billion because as I’ve been researching the renewable energy costings, I see an organization called Net Zero Australia, which very proudly says that we need to spend $1.5 trillion between now and just 2030. So the whole energy game is made up with some very big, very scary numbers. And if Chris Bowen was actually trying to scare people with $387 billion, I think he might’ve failed. Even the transmission lines, it could reliably cost out 10,000 kilometers of transmission lines at up to $300 billion. The number he’s come up with doesn’t actually look like that scary.
Russell Collett:
And this is a massive gamble for the Australian economy. If we go down the wrong pathway, you will get a point where there is a point of no return. Are we anywhere near that at the moment? And if we’re not looking at other alternatives other than renewables, are we doing that as a roll of the dice?
Scott Hargreaves:
Well, we are at the moment. And so the very first thing that we have to do while we figure this out, and I don’t claim that I’ve got all the answers right here today, and probably no one does, and we need as a community to figure this out, but the first thing we have to do is stop closing down our existing base load power stations. I’ve told the Premier of New South Wales to not close Liddell. I believe that in Western Australia, the Collie coal-fired power station should continue to operate for a long way behind the government’s promised timeframe, which has some closed well before even the end of the decade.
We can’t afford to close down existing base load power when we do not have a reliable base load replacement. What’s going to happen in Perth on a 40 degree plus day when you watch the sunset over the Indian Ocean? The wind turbines cease to turn because there’s no breeze. Where’s the energy going to come from? That’s the scenario. So we are not quite at a point of no return, but we could be there within the next three to five years unless governments stop this mad rush to intermittent resources of energy.
Russell Collett:
Yeah. Look, there’s more questions always being raised in this topic. We appreciate your time this afternoon on Perth Live. Scott Hargreaves, you’ve given a very good case for opening up the discussion, opening up the opportunity to look at all alternatives to our energy resources moving forward. And we thank you as the director of the-
Scott Hargreaves:
My pleasure.
Russell Collett:
… Institute of Public Affairs for joining us this afternoon. Folks, what are you thinking about this? If you are out there in Perth, what are you thinking? Let us know on the text line 0487-999-892. Are we putting too many eggs in one basket here? Are we just going down one pathway that we won’t be able to get back out of? Are we heading down a rabbit hole with our energy needs for the future? Let us know. 0487-999-892.
This transcript with Scott Hargreaves talking on 6PR from 18 September 2023 has been edited for clarity.
Related Research
Liddell The Line In The Sand
