From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Wednesday, December 18th. You've seen all the headlines and squinted at the figures, but for God's sake, what do they actually mean? We are, of course, talking about Peter Dutton's nuclear energy plan. Is it really as radical as some analysts say, relying on fairly heroic assumptions about what it will cost and what will it actually do to the environment? Today, climate and energy correspondent Mike Foley on how the opposition's plan compares with the government's energy strategy and the straight facts that will help you sound like you know what you're talking about at your next dinner party. So, Mike, last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton finally revealed his long anticipated costings for nuclear power plants. So can you break it down for me? What is the coalition planning to do and why does it actually support nuclear power?

From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Wednesday, December 18th. You've seen all the headlines and squinted at the figures, but for God's sake, what do they actually mean? We are, of course, talking about Peter Dutton's nuclear energy plan. Is it really as radical as some analysts say, relying on fairly heroic assumptions about what it will cost and what will it actually do to the environment? Today, climate and energy correspondent Mike Foley on how the opposition's plan compares with the government's energy strategy and the straight facts that will help you sound like you know what you're talking about at your next dinner party. So, Mike, last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton finally revealed his long anticipated costings for nuclear power plants. So can you break it down for me? What is the coalition planning to do and why does it actually support nuclear power?

That's the big question for politics at the moment, isn't it, Sam? Because it's like the only detailed, fully formed policy that the coalition has put on the table to date. And what they're planning to do is some pretty bold stuff. They're saying that they're going to go to federal Parliament in Canberra and overturn the legal ban that the Howard government placed on nuclear energy, and then convinced the states to also overturn their bans on nuclear energy. And they're saying that because they make the argument that you need energy plants in the electricity grid whirring away 24 over seven.

That's the big question for politics at the moment, isn't it, Sam? Because it's like the only detailed, fully formed policy that the coalition has put on the table to date. And what they're planning to do is some pretty bold stuff. They're saying that they're going to go to federal Parliament in Canberra and overturn the legal ban that the Howard government placed on nuclear energy, and then convinced the states to also overturn their bans on nuclear energy. And they're saying that because they make the argument that you need energy plants in the electricity grid whirring away 24 over seven.

This is a plan which will underpin the economic success of our country for the next century.

This is a plan which will underpin the economic success of our country for the next century.

And they also say that nuclear energy can make electricity supply cheaper than doing what the Albanese government is planning on doing, which is doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on renewable energy and turning the whole electricity system into clean energy.

And they also say that nuclear energy can make electricity supply cheaper than doing what the Albanese government is planning on doing, which is doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on renewable energy and turning the whole electricity system into clean energy.

This will make electricity reliable. It will make it more consistent. It will make it cheaper for Australians.

This will make electricity reliable. It will make it more consistent. It will make it cheaper for Australians.

And according to Peter Dutton, there's a 44% cost saving by 2050 under his nuclear plan, to put it mildly. That's hotly contested by the government. They say that's rubbish.

And according to Peter Dutton, there's a 44% cost saving by 2050 under his nuclear plan, to put it mildly. That's hotly contested by the government. They say that's rubbish.

It wasn't modelling. It was a meltdown. It was a proper nuclear meltdown. What we saw from Dutton and Taylor and.

It wasn't modelling. It was a meltdown. It was a proper nuclear meltdown. What we saw from Dutton and Taylor and.

Now we're locked in the he said, she said stalemate of politics. So back to business as usual there.

Now we're locked in the he said, she said stalemate of politics. So back to business as usual there.

So can you explain to us the difference, I guess, with the Albanese government in terms of what it's pitching, because they've got very different ideas in terms of how much of our energy grid should be renewables. Obviously, in the case of coalition, how much is nuclear? So can you just break it down for us a little bit?

So can you explain to us the difference, I guess, with the Albanese government in terms of what it's pitching, because they've got very different ideas in terms of how much of our energy grid should be renewables. Obviously, in the case of coalition, how much is nuclear? So can you just break it down for us a little bit?

Yeah. So the Albanese government, they want to just go massive on renewable energy by 2050. In two and a half decades time, they say that just about 95% of the grid will be powered by wind farms, solar farms, big grid scale batteries and those pumped hydroelectric dams as well. That will make up 95% of the grid, roughly, and in a little sprinkling of emergency supply gas on the other side of it as well, to make up that last 5%. The Dutton opposition say, no, we don't like that plan. We don't have faith to the same level in renewables because they cost too much and they're too unreliable. They say you need big old energy generation plants, not these far flung wind and solar farms. You need the old technology in coal to run for as long as possible, they say. And by the time Cole is really on its last legs, they're going to replace it with nuclear plants, which obviously we don't have anywhere in Australia at the moment.

Yeah. So the Albanese government, they want to just go massive on renewable energy by 2050. In two and a half decades time, they say that just about 95% of the grid will be powered by wind farms, solar farms, big grid scale batteries and those pumped hydroelectric dams as well. That will make up 95% of the grid, roughly, and in a little sprinkling of emergency supply gas on the other side of it as well, to make up that last 5%. The Dutton opposition say, no, we don't like that plan. We don't have faith to the same level in renewables because they cost too much and they're too unreliable. They say you need big old energy generation plants, not these far flung wind and solar farms. You need the old technology in coal to run for as long as possible, they say. And by the time Cole is really on its last legs, they're going to replace it with nuclear plants, which obviously we don't have anywhere in Australia at the moment.

Okay.

Okay.

So can you take us through what the cost difference would be between these two plans and what it would actually mean for Australians when we're all paying our electricity bills?

So can you take us through what the cost difference would be between these two plans and what it would actually mean for Australians when we're all paying our electricity bills?

That's. Yeah, just a simple question to get into it there. No worries. Um, it's it's super complicated. The Albanese government doesn't have an actual cost for their plan that they will stick to. They haven't promoted one. But, uh, if there's been some calculations done by an independent firm for Peter Dutton, our frontier economics, there's a ballpark $632 billion by 2050 for building out the grid to the all renewables Albanese government vision. That's the cost of Building, you know, tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to to link up wind and solar farms to the cities. That's the cost of private investment needed to build all the wind and solar farms, all that infrastructure work that's needed to replace the coal based system that we've got at the moment. Our coal supplies, about two thirds of the energy around a full year in Australia. The coalition's costings claim that it's about $331 billion. If you scrap a decent chunk of that renewable build out and replace it with nuclear plants. Um, now, to put that mildly, that's disputed by many people as being hugely questionable, if not an outright lie. And the criticism centres largely on, uh, claims that the the costings of nuclear plants has been wildly generous, and they're saying that the coalition assumes that it can build nuclear plants from the get go as cheap as the South Koreans do it, who have this decades long nuclear program. It's pretty bold to assume, I think, when we've never built a plant and we don't even have any of the regulations in place, let alone the systems to supply all the materials and so on. But that's that's the claim CSIRO says now 15 years at best, and it could take a bit longer for your first plant to get built.

That's. Yeah, just a simple question to get into it there. No worries. Um, it's it's super complicated. The Albanese government doesn't have an actual cost for their plan that they will stick to. They haven't promoted one. But, uh, if there's been some calculations done by an independent firm for Peter Dutton, our frontier economics, there's a ballpark $632 billion by 2050 for building out the grid to the all renewables Albanese government vision. That's the cost of Building, you know, tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to to link up wind and solar farms to the cities. That's the cost of private investment needed to build all the wind and solar farms, all that infrastructure work that's needed to replace the coal based system that we've got at the moment. Our coal supplies, about two thirds of the energy around a full year in Australia. The coalition's costings claim that it's about $331 billion. If you scrap a decent chunk of that renewable build out and replace it with nuclear plants. Um, now, to put that mildly, that's disputed by many people as being hugely questionable, if not an outright lie. And the criticism centres largely on, uh, claims that the the costings of nuclear plants has been wildly generous, and they're saying that the coalition assumes that it can build nuclear plants from the get go as cheap as the South Koreans do it, who have this decades long nuclear program. It's pretty bold to assume, I think, when we've never built a plant and we don't even have any of the regulations in place, let alone the systems to supply all the materials and so on. But that's that's the claim CSIRO says now 15 years at best, and it could take a bit longer for your first plant to get built.

Mike, would you say that Peter Dutton's forecast is somehow misleading or even inaccurate? Because we know that Energy Minister Chris Bowen has gone so far as to say that the coalition has cooked the books. Is he right?

Mike, would you say that Peter Dutton's forecast is somehow misleading or even inaccurate? Because we know that Energy Minister Chris Bowen has gone so far as to say that the coalition has cooked the books. Is he right?

Um, yeah. Just a light, no pressure question there. Um, uh, has he cooked the books? It's it's competing visions and outlooks for the future, isn't it? Like they're starkly contrasted, let's say there's one thing in the Dutton opposition's costings that I am sceptical about. Um, they say that there's this $330 billion build out for the grid figure, including like maybe up to seven nuclear sites across the country. The last one will be finished in 2050. Fingers crossed. You can see that going pretty well given our history of building other infrastructure. But the repayment period for whoever builds those nuclear plants, the private company is 50 years. So, um, the key cooking the books thing that comes into it is the the coalition's $331 billion figure only includes ten years of repayments. Then there's a hard stop at 2050. And, you know, four decades of the cost repayments are not included. That's not great. You know, if you're looking for full transparency and.

Um, yeah. Just a light, no pressure question there. Um, uh, has he cooked the books? It's it's competing visions and outlooks for the future, isn't it? Like they're starkly contrasted, let's say there's one thing in the Dutton opposition's costings that I am sceptical about. Um, they say that there's this $330 billion build out for the grid figure, including like maybe up to seven nuclear sites across the country. The last one will be finished in 2050. Fingers crossed. You can see that going pretty well given our history of building other infrastructure. But the repayment period for whoever builds those nuclear plants, the private company is 50 years. So, um, the key cooking the books thing that comes into it is the the coalition's $331 billion figure only includes ten years of repayments. Then there's a hard stop at 2050. And, you know, four decades of the cost repayments are not included. That's not great. You know, if you're looking for full transparency and.

Tell us about, you know, opposition energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien's claim. Yep. Energy is going to give us cheaper bills.

Tell us about, you know, opposition energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien's claim. Yep. Energy is going to give us cheaper bills.

Well, Ted O'Brien says that energy bills will be cheaper under the nuclear plan, but he can't say how much or by when. And that's that's a statement of fact. That's not me being unfair or interpreting it. He's been asked repeatedly and specifically what will happen in the coming years, and he's not able to say, and that's for that. That reason that we've been harping on about the cheap, so-called cheap nuclear power won't be in place until 2037. What happens in the next ten, 12 years? Who knows? So that's what Ted O'Brien has to say. Who knows what happens to electricity prices, but by 2050, it's looking good, according to Ted.

Well, Ted O'Brien says that energy bills will be cheaper under the nuclear plan, but he can't say how much or by when. And that's that's a statement of fact. That's not me being unfair or interpreting it. He's been asked repeatedly and specifically what will happen in the coming years, and he's not able to say, and that's for that. That reason that we've been harping on about the cheap, so-called cheap nuclear power won't be in place until 2037. What happens in the next ten, 12 years? Who knows? So that's what Ted O'Brien has to say. Who knows what happens to electricity prices, but by 2050, it's looking good, according to Ted.

We'll be right back. Okay, so the coalition builds nuclear energy as a cheaper alternative to the current government's plan. But what are experts and analysts saying about the strength of the modelling that the coalition is actually relying on to make its case?

We'll be right back. Okay, so the coalition builds nuclear energy as a cheaper alternative to the current government's plan. But what are experts and analysts saying about the strength of the modelling that the coalition is actually relying on to make its case?

That's. Yeah, it just let's try to explain it as the amount of energy that the two competing camps say will be needed in 2050. So that's the size of the electricity grid, the amount of electricity being used around the country under the two competing plans. So what the Albanese government says is their forecast for future electricity demand, size of the grid will be 40% bigger, 40% more electricity under the Albanese government plan compared to the Dutton plan. So when you've got the Dutton opposition claims of 44% cost saving under their vision, but they're saying the amount of stuff they're going to build that like the volume of electricity that's going to be in the grid will be 40% less. So that's why they can claim a big cost. Saving is in large part due to the fact that they're just building less of it.

That's. Yeah, it just let's try to explain it as the amount of energy that the two competing camps say will be needed in 2050. So that's the size of the electricity grid, the amount of electricity being used around the country under the two competing plans. So what the Albanese government says is their forecast for future electricity demand, size of the grid will be 40% bigger, 40% more electricity under the Albanese government plan compared to the Dutton plan. So when you've got the Dutton opposition claims of 44% cost saving under their vision, but they're saying the amount of stuff they're going to build that like the volume of electricity that's going to be in the grid will be 40% less. So that's why they can claim a big cost. Saving is in large part due to the fact that they're just building less of it.

Right.

Right.

And and so the important point to note about that, outside of the cost stuff, is that the Albanese government is, you know, I think fair to describe they've got a big electrify everything. There'll be heaps of electrical clean energy businesses by 2050. That includes, importantly, almost every motorist on the road, like 97% of us will be driving electric cars and charging them up via the grid, you know, plugging it into the household socket under the Albanese government vision. Whereas the Dutton vision doesn't include as much of that new electrical industry growth. And it's only baking in, I think around 60, 65% of motorists are driving electric cars. No, not much green hydrogen. Lower economic growth scenario.

And and so the important point to note about that, outside of the cost stuff, is that the Albanese government is, you know, I think fair to describe they've got a big electrify everything. There'll be heaps of electrical clean energy businesses by 2050. That includes, importantly, almost every motorist on the road, like 97% of us will be driving electric cars and charging them up via the grid, you know, plugging it into the household socket under the Albanese government vision. Whereas the Dutton vision doesn't include as much of that new electrical industry growth. And it's only baking in, I think around 60, 65% of motorists are driving electric cars. No, not much green hydrogen. Lower economic growth scenario.

Okay. And we know that, you know, Peter Dutton, Anthony Albanese and their respective ministers or shadow ministers, they've they've traded a lot of barbs in the last few days since this plan has come out. They've both painted very different pictures about, you know, what our future electricity demand is going to be. So are both parties just a bit wrong?

Okay. And we know that, you know, Peter Dutton, Anthony Albanese and their respective ministers or shadow ministers, they've they've traded a lot of barbs in the last few days since this plan has come out. They've both painted very different pictures about, you know, what our future electricity demand is going to be. So are both parties just a bit wrong?

It's good that I'm the final arbiter of that.

It's good that I'm the final arbiter of that.

Uh, absolutely.

Uh, absolutely.

Yeah. I've modelled it all out on my spreadsheet at home, and I do have the final equation. Um, I also was able to prove that God technically doesn't exist as well with my mathematics there.

Yeah. I've modelled it all out on my spreadsheet at home, and I do have the final equation. Um, I also was able to prove that God technically doesn't exist as well with my mathematics there.

I love your.

I love your.

After hours work, Mike Foley. Yeah.

After hours work, Mike Foley. Yeah.

I don't know who's wrong and who's right. Um, it's it's modelling at 50 paces. It's all projections based into the. Never, never. Um, we don't know what's going to happen. What the most crucial decision that any entity that's, like, got an influence over the energy grid can make is what happens in the next 12 months, 24 months, five years, because there's a lot of things changing based purely on the economics, that there's a cheaper technology in town. Renewables are supply cheaper power, but they don't operate around the clock 24 over seven. So that's that's the wild card. That's why like I can't give you an answer. No one can give you an answer. And if they do, they're lying. We don't know how the future is going to shake out, but there is that cheaper technology in town. And we need to plan for its impact now. And we need to start getting more batteries into grid to soak up that excess of renewable power that's generated throughout the day, from all the lovely rooftop solar panels on everyone's roofs, and store it in a battery so we can chuck it back out at night and plan for when these coal plants shut down. The thing that worries me that I think is fair to raise, is that under the Dutton vision, they're saying that there will be less renewables in the grid, and they're signalling that to the market. They're saying that nuclear plants will start to come up and running by the early 2040s and be completed by 2050. We don't know a lot about what will happen in the intervening 15 years from 2025 to 2040. It's a bit of a concern. Um, there are concerns, of course, with the cost of the renewable rollout. Can it be done in a stable and reliable way? Can we manage all the coal plant exits so there aren't price spikes drop off in supply? Blackout risk, of course. But also can we get to actually 82% of the grid being clean energy by within five years by 2030. The experts that I speak to shrug their shoulders, we don't know. But they're saying we're on track to get to 60%, at least just with the projects that are underway now, roughly. And there are projects that can be built in the next few years that could really boost that up, you know. So they're saying we can get a massive whack of renewable energy into the grid soon. Will we get to 82%? Who knows?

I don't know who's wrong and who's right. Um, it's it's modelling at 50 paces. It's all projections based into the. Never, never. Um, we don't know what's going to happen. What the most crucial decision that any entity that's, like, got an influence over the energy grid can make is what happens in the next 12 months, 24 months, five years, because there's a lot of things changing based purely on the economics, that there's a cheaper technology in town. Renewables are supply cheaper power, but they don't operate around the clock 24 over seven. So that's that's the wild card. That's why like I can't give you an answer. No one can give you an answer. And if they do, they're lying. We don't know how the future is going to shake out, but there is that cheaper technology in town. And we need to plan for its impact now. And we need to start getting more batteries into grid to soak up that excess of renewable power that's generated throughout the day, from all the lovely rooftop solar panels on everyone's roofs, and store it in a battery so we can chuck it back out at night and plan for when these coal plants shut down. The thing that worries me that I think is fair to raise, is that under the Dutton vision, they're saying that there will be less renewables in the grid, and they're signalling that to the market. They're saying that nuclear plants will start to come up and running by the early 2040s and be completed by 2050. We don't know a lot about what will happen in the intervening 15 years from 2025 to 2040. It's a bit of a concern. Um, there are concerns, of course, with the cost of the renewable rollout. Can it be done in a stable and reliable way? Can we manage all the coal plant exits so there aren't price spikes drop off in supply? Blackout risk, of course. But also can we get to actually 82% of the grid being clean energy by within five years by 2030. The experts that I speak to shrug their shoulders, we don't know. But they're saying we're on track to get to 60%, at least just with the projects that are underway now, roughly. And there are projects that can be built in the next few years that could really boost that up, you know. So they're saying we can get a massive whack of renewable energy into the grid soon. Will we get to 82%? Who knows?

And can you.

And can you.

Tell us about how Duttons plan would affect the current trajectory of renewables in Australia? We know it's a growth industry and obviously under Duttons plan, he would he would cap the amount of renewables that make up the energy grid to something like 53%, whereas obviously the government's plan is much, much higher. And some people are saying that that could possibly even be recessionary to sort of really cap that, that it would actually contract the economy. So is that the case? Is that what the trajectory would be? It would it would lead to economic contraction or.

Tell us about how Duttons plan would affect the current trajectory of renewables in Australia? We know it's a growth industry and obviously under Duttons plan, he would he would cap the amount of renewables that make up the energy grid to something like 53%, whereas obviously the government's plan is much, much higher. And some people are saying that that could possibly even be recessionary to sort of really cap that, that it would actually contract the economy. So is that the case? Is that what the trajectory would be? It would it would lead to economic contraction or.

Economic contraction is a big term. But it would it would put a massive plug in the pipeline of renewables investment that is flowing into the country. That's just factual to say, because there's way, way less renewables in the grid under the Dutton vision. And it's as simple as that. Like over the past four years or so, as the renewables roll out under the Albanese government has cranked up, there's been an average of $10 billion a year in private investment going into wind and solar farms, and there's much less room for that under the Dutton nuclear vision, where there's less, less renewables. So yeah, there would be an effective cap placed on investment.

Economic contraction is a big term. But it would it would put a massive plug in the pipeline of renewables investment that is flowing into the country. That's just factual to say, because there's way, way less renewables in the grid under the Dutton vision. And it's as simple as that. Like over the past four years or so, as the renewables roll out under the Albanese government has cranked up, there's been an average of $10 billion a year in private investment going into wind and solar farms, and there's much less room for that under the Dutton nuclear vision, where there's less, less renewables. So yeah, there would be an effective cap placed on investment.

And so finally, I mean, given what we've spoken about, the coalition's nuclear proposals, meaning that that would also limit the renewables rollout and it would mean continuing burning coal for longer. What are the consequences for Australia's commitments to reducing emissions and tackling global warming?

And so finally, I mean, given what we've spoken about, the coalition's nuclear proposals, meaning that that would also limit the renewables rollout and it would mean continuing burning coal for longer. What are the consequences for Australia's commitments to reducing emissions and tackling global warming?

So yeah, that's that's a big question. It's a lot more emissions under the Dutton plan. So they say that we've got this emissions free nuclear technology. We should use it. It's great. It's it's zero emissions. The problem is that it's going to take until 2040 at least until it's up and running in the meantime, burning more coal and more gas to take the load off. Renewables is going to create a lot more emissions, so it could generate 1 billion tonnes more of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from Australia. What that shakes out at, I think it's like five years worth of Australia's annual emissions just from the electricity sector in that time until the 2040s or so. So it blows our climate targets basically. And it would add more emissions to the global atmosphere at a crucial time, because all extra emissions now are adding to global heating that's currently cranking up. Waiting until 2050 that the horse will have bolted by then and will have 22.5 degrees of warming or more by then, and it will have come too late to halt the worst of climate change.

So yeah, that's that's a big question. It's a lot more emissions under the Dutton plan. So they say that we've got this emissions free nuclear technology. We should use it. It's great. It's it's zero emissions. The problem is that it's going to take until 2040 at least until it's up and running in the meantime, burning more coal and more gas to take the load off. Renewables is going to create a lot more emissions, so it could generate 1 billion tonnes more of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from Australia. What that shakes out at, I think it's like five years worth of Australia's annual emissions just from the electricity sector in that time until the 2040s or so. So it blows our climate targets basically. And it would add more emissions to the global atmosphere at a crucial time, because all extra emissions now are adding to global heating that's currently cranking up. Waiting until 2050 that the horse will have bolted by then and will have 22.5 degrees of warming or more by then, and it will have come too late to halt the worst of climate change.

Well, I know Mike Foley. This is going to give us a lot to think about before the federal election. But I know that and I think I'm going to speak for many listeners here. I definitely would feel more confident sounding smart at the next dinner party I go to when this subject comes up. So thank you, Mike, for your time. Thanks, Sam. Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Carcasole, with technical assistance by Debbie Harrington and Taylor Dent. Our executive producer is Tami Mills. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search the age or Smh.com.au forward slash. Subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.

Well, I know Mike Foley. This is going to give us a lot to think about before the federal election. But I know that and I think I'm going to speak for many listeners here. I definitely would feel more confident sounding smart at the next dinner party I go to when this subject comes up. So thank you, Mike, for your time. Thanks, Sam. Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Carcasole, with technical assistance by Debbie Harrington and Taylor Dent. Our executive producer is Tami Mills. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search the age or Smh.com.au forward slash. Subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.