The Labor Albanese Government is destroying proven, low-cost coal power plants under the guise of “retiring them” and replacing this stable, secure, safe and affordable power with land-grabbing solar and wind installations which are proven now to be unreliable, environmentally-damaging and expensive.
If Labor’s ideology means that it won’t consider new generation coal, which China and other countries are busy putting in place, then why doesn’t it consider the nuclear option? Is it so blinkered that it refuses to see the data from around the world which demonstrates nuclear as a proven reliable, stable, secure, safe, environmentally-responsible and affordable source of power?
Why is Labor being dishonest about this? Are the solar schemes and subsidies so important to their mates that they would sell out the regular working Australian families for their mates at the WEF? What happened to the party of the workers?
Transcript
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. The government has ruled out adding nuclear electricity to our energy mix based on the government’s calculations showing a higher cost of nuclear energy as against wind and solar. Minister, can you please inform the Senate of the levelised cost of generation of wind, solar and nuclear that informed the government’s position?
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will just remind you that questions need to go to ministers, not assistant ministers, so I’m directing the question to Minister Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council): Thank you for the question. The advice the government has—and I think this is understood by everyone who’s been following the energy discussion—is that nuclear energy is very slow to build. It’s the most expensive form of new electricity generation. It cannot beat renewables, which are the cheapest, fastest and cleanest form of new electricity generation. The analysis that was done showed that there was a significant cost burden. Our position is about cost. We are looking for the cheapest form of energy generation, which is renewables, which includes wind and solar. Australia obviously has a very significant comparative advantage when it comes to that form of energy, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. We also don’t have a workforce to support that nuclear energy generation. So the time involved means it would be decades before anything became operational and it would do nothing to reduce the energy costs for Australian households and businesses in the meantime.
So our position—and I think there is a lot of support for that position—is that this transition to renewable energy is the quickest and cheapest path as we shift away from fossil fuel generation. That is the path that the government was clear about before the election. That is the path that we are implementing under Minister Bowen’s and Minister McAllister’s leadership, leading for the government, and we will continue on that path. We will leave the nuclear energy debate for those opposite to convince people of.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the figure for nuclear based on real-world data from the 440 nuclear power stations around the world or even from the last 10 stations completed in the last few years? If not, on what is it based?
Senator GALLAGHER: As I understand it—and I will see if there’s anything I can provide—the government analysis that looked at the cost of nuclear energy was looking at how to replace the retiring coal-fired power station fleet. That figure resulted in about a $25,000 cost impost on each Australia taxpayer, based off 15.1 million taxpayers. So, according to many of the experts in the energy field, it’s more expensive, going to take decades to build and, in the meantime, will do nothing to reduce the power costs of households, which are clearly going to benefit from the shift to renewable energy generation and technology. That is the path the government will continue on because we are focused on cost of living and a sensible and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to new forms of energy.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The government is using a figure for the cost of modular nuclear power that’s not based on any real-world data. Rather, it is mere speculation about a type of generation that doesn’t exist.
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right!
Senator McKim interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKim! Senator Roberts has the right to ask his question in silence, and I will ask senators to respect that right.
Senator ROBERTS: The government’s data is based on speculation about a type of generation that does not exist and completely misrepresents the cost of nuclear power. The government is spreading misinformation again. Minister, why didn’t the government use the real-world data from 57 conventional nuclear power stations currently under construction around the world, and why is the government not being honest about nuclear? (Time expired)
Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept the question that Senator Roberts has put to me. We are providing information to the community, and that information is that renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build generation technology. That is clearly a fact.
We have also done some analysis, and I think you will find it hard to find any expert that says nuclear isn’t expensive or isn’t going to take too long to build, including how you generate a workforce around this and the time it will take to do that based on the work that we need to happen now. We can’t delay this for decades. The transition was already delayed for a decade under those opposite, with 22 failed energy policies. In 18 months we have been getting on with it. We are in that transition. We will focus on renewables as the lowest-cost form of energy generation that will help households with those cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired)
Labor’s argument that renewable energy is cheap is disingenuous because it is propped up massively by taxpayers subsidies. Take away those subsidies and payments to the billionaire grifters and nuclear energy would become much cheaper in comparison. In fact, I believe it would stand on its own for value as well as supplying abundant 24/7 clean energy. It is time all Australians realised that the current Marxist government should be removed from office before we are all eating bugs and living in a third world country.
Even if we accept the claim that nuclear power stations take a long time to get operational, what on Earth were our governments thinking when they decided to retire so many coal-fired power stations before getting nuclear replacements built? Neither wind nor solar are as clean as claimed, nor can they supply base-load power. Our governments’ poor handling of our energy needs is costing our country and our citizens dearly.
Hello Malcolm, is there any information on thorium as a power source instead of uranium.
Squash renewables , forget nuclear
,,, just go back to ,,,,,,,, COAL 
. It’s reliable , cheaper , we know it works as does China Russia and India who’s countries have them in the thousands . All the propaganda about polluting the planet to save future generations is a SCAM , there won’t be any future at all if this current generation are unable to live through it .
Albanese’s transparency weighs in as a pimple on the arse of a baboon ,, A blatant lying C#%T .
So pleased to know you are addressing these issues on behalf of the Australian people
Good Morning Senator, you touched on the problem re Labor and nuclear power, however I think it is more than personal bias or looking after mates (actually as you say they are not looking after their work force mates at all) there is in my opinion vast wide-spread endemic corruption. Could anyone be quite as stupid as Bowen appears to be? I doubt it, I allege there is fiduciary interest at play somewhere somehow! Can’t prove it but it’s the only thing that makes sense in their twisted non-technical approach to energy production.
Also as you intimated, why don’t they look at HELE Coal upgrades? 30% reduction in emissions right there and no additional infrastructure needed. Blind Freddy could see that!
It is interesting, bclow bowen said large nuclea power would cost 86billion each and opposition wants 6 of them, 516 billion, solar and wind will cost 1.5 trillion, so this clown bowen is selling a load of BS.
There are a few bits and pieces abut ‘renewables’ as an optional offshoot from this ‘summation’: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/ClimateGoodNewsSummation.pdf
Senator Roberts, have you done or found any information on the comparison of the total capital cost of solar, wind and batteries from finding materials, mining them, manufacturing, installing, maintenance, replacement and disposal or re-cycling and comparing the total need for power, including for peak periods like night use, cyclones, bush fires and the cost of land needed for all the green generation systems that is no longer available for other purposes like farming, housing, shopping, medical, transport, native habitat and the effect on the global warming. Given batteries will not provide more than a couple of hours supply and pumped hydro not much longer, how can the power be provided economically to ensure Australia has adequate power available all the time at an acceptable cost. How can we be confident that adequate power at economical cost will be available when existing coal fired generation systems are being shut down and not replaced, and 170,000 power users had their power to air conditioning systems reduced to 50% of the available, during the hot weather last summer in southeast Queensland.
It seems to me that we need to plan for sufficient power to be available at all times and that means we need a mix of generating systems that will minimize the overall cost of power, including the need for built in flexibility of generating systems. Some time ago, France went nuclear and Germany went solar and wind, then had to build generating systems to provide power for those times when there was insufficient solar and wind power. The nett result was France had more economical power for its customers. We must avoid that sort of cost in Australia. Alan Koeler has raised this, but I have not heard anyone supporting his argument.
The ministers replies to compare to the old statement you use smok and mirrors to totally confuse people. Hailstones destroy the solar which need replacing every 15 years in any case. The best professional advice I have heard is the windmills life is generally 15 years and both avenues are extremely expensive to recycle and replace. Plants manage water and the solar productivity to maintain the best results of climate and environment for longer than the current measured history there are now measurable solar powered plant managed systems that support all agricultural processes in all climatic reagens of Australia. As these have been assed in 1990 by international spotlights so the science and practical application have been proven with the result carbon and water management and a reduction of input costs by 85%. Many complex processes require a small independent board to bring together the people so the current conclusive scientific evidence can be delivered to the government so that they can execute their responsibility to the public who elected them. The result could be a rapid return to Australia as a premier agriculture producer while producing it’s own and most of the world atmospheric carbon
Senator Roberts, you suggest that Labor is “blinkered” regarding nuclear energy, I refer to a slightly modified very old saying: “There are none so blind as those that are paid not to see”
If one adds to that indictment the blatantly dishonest statements from Labor on costs of coal and gas stations one has a sitiuation of total dereliction of duty to the Australian public by this incompetent government – ALL of them!
Great job malcolm love your work
Great job malcolm love your work i will say it again freedom of speech
Please confirm what “emissions” stands for?
As I understand it this means CO2!
If that is correct then all this talk of “reduced emissions” leading to Net Zero is a bunch of BS. It means the end of life?
Thank you,
Stephen
Senator Malcolm Roberts, At your last visit to Ravenshoe FNQ I publicly stated that in late 2023 the CEO of Westinghouse Nuclear (publicly stated) they could build a Nuclear SMR 300mw(e) 900(th) at our “retired” coal fired power stations for $1.5 Billion that plug in to our original grid with all requirements like water and grid and other services readily available. I also explained that independent research has shown that the cost of renewables STARTS at $2.63 Trillion through $7-9 Trillion and those costs would be ongoing forevermore due to very short lifespans. Previously renewables companies stated the lifespan is 20-25 years. Now they are stating its is closer to 15-18 years maximum EOL. In our area they have stated they wont replace them after their first EOL cycle. Why? Labor is not telling anyone the true cost of renewables and that does not include the environment and agricultural decimation. Again I have heard Labor FLAT OUT LIE about Nuclear and the costs. If we had 100 Nuclear SMRs the cost according to Westinghouse would amount to $150 Billion. Labor are deliberately ignoring the facts to keep their lunatic ideologies afloat. A deliberate move to prevent a “retired” coal fired station site to be used for Nuclear SMR replacement they have paid a $1 Billion to a Solar production company to be there instead. China can’t be beaten on slave labour pricing and the taxpayer is now subsidizing more businesses to make renewables. It is a complete con by Labor. Had Labor spent anther $500 Million then they could have installed a Nuclear SMR instead and put us on track to a far superior energy system. Labor is doing everything it can to break us economically with renewables. They are trying to make us like Russia or China where the State controls everything including people. I spent 12 years in coal fired power station operations and worked at ANSTO in Radioactive Waste processing, containment and storage. I can assure you that we have the highest standards regarding this worldwide. We have highly qualified and experienced people handling Nuclear already. Labor are spewing out disinformation, misinformation and are blatantly misleading Australians. They are not allowing the people to vote on lifting the bans and allow true competition into the energy market. Labor needs to be kicked out of office both State and Federally to allow the sensible people run the country because they clearly don’t have a clue what they are talking about and doing. I would have no objection with a Nuclear SMR next door to me. Already France is underway in building 6 SMRs and then as they remove old large scale reactors they are going to build another 8 SMRs and online by 2050. When you are next in Parliament could you please question Labor on the actual costs of renewables and how they can claim renewables are cheaper and nuclear is more expensive given the financial facts I have mentioned earlier? I am sure they are quoting large scale reactor costs and they are inflated. We absolutely DO NOT want or need large scale reactors due to technical and safety reasons. Thank you for your efforts in bringing the truth about what is happening to Australians. Regards, Ken.