Grilled on nuclear push
Opposition admits taxpayers on hook for energy plan
Taxpayers would be forced to foot the bill for a portion of the Coalition’s nuclear energy push, the Opposition has confirmed, as it bats away questions over the cost, timeframes and commercial viability of local nuclear generation.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said on Sunday 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 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.
Pressed on the time it would take to start local nuclear energy generation, Mr O’Brien said, “Australia could have nuclear up and running within a 10-year period”, a claim at odds with estimates shared by almost all energy experts.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen also disputed the claims, 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 (years) 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 UK’s Hinkley Point C project, which will develop a 3.2GW 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 collapsed late last year, squibbing $US600m ($A930m) of taxpayers’ funds after cost overruns extinguished the project’s commercial viability.