Taxpayers would be forced to foot the bill for a portion of the Coalition’s mooted nuclear energy push, the opposition has confirmed, as it bats away questions over the cost, timeframe and commercial viability of local nuclear generation.
Speaking on Sunday, opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said Commonwealth funds would be needed to subsidise the proposal, citing government ownership of the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro power scheme and federal financial guarantees for green energy investments.
“It doesn’t matter what form of energy infrastructure you’re looking at — the government does play a role,” Mr O’Brien told Sky News when asked about who would foot the bill.
“For example [with Snowy 2.0] the government plays an ownership role.
“When you look at the rollout of industrial scale renewables, Labor has introduced the capacity investment scheme.”
In the lead up to the May budget, the Coalition is expected to unveil a costed policy to build large-scale nuclear reactors on the sites of former coal-fired power stations to bolster baseload electricity supply to firm intermittent renewable sources.
Pressed on the time it would take to commence local nuclear energy generation, Mr O’Brien said the Coalition would aim for development within a decade.
“Australia could have nuclear up and running within a 10-year period,” Mr O’Brien said, a claim in contravention with estimates shared by almost all energy experts.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen also disputed the claims made by his opposition counterpart, arguing that the energy source was expensive, and developments were regularly delayed.
“Tell him he’s dreamin’; I don’t know what experts he is talking to,” Mr Bowen told the ABC’s Insiders program.
“Ted O’Brien thinks he can do it in Australia in 10 with a standing start, no regulations, banned not only internationally, but throw in the Opera House and Harbour Bridge, and you might sell him something.”
Recent troubles facing overseas nuclear generation projects have piled pressure on hopes of a global revival of a low-emissions nuclear energy industry.
The United Kingdom’s Hinkley Point C project, which will develop a two-unit 3.2-gigawatt nuclear power station, has been plagued by multiple setbacks, repeated delays and eye watering cost blowouts.
A separate US-based venture to develop a small modular nuclear reactor (SMNR) collapsed late last year, squibbing $US600 million ($AU930 million) of taxpayers’ funds after cost overruns extinguished the project’s commercial viability.
The failure of the project, which was frequently cited by the Coalition, has dashed its plan to hinge its nuclear energy policy on the still-rudimentary technology.
Asked if Australia should lift its moratorium on nuclear banking and development, Mr Bowen said he would not consider lifting the ban and would instead let the “market sort it out”.
“The market hasn’t sorted it out in any other country in the world. Every country in the world with nuclear has required massive transfers of taxpayer wealth to the nuclear constructors,” Mr Bowen said.
“If we were to go down that road in Australia, we’d really be sending the signal that we’re prepared to do that, that we are prepared to use taxpayers’ money to subsidise the development of the nuclear industry.”
