The Australian opposition have at last unveiled the costings for their policy to replace coal generation with nuclear, rather than relying solely on unreliable ‘renewables’. With polls showing that more voters favour nuclear energy in Australia than not, and a great many more open to persuasion, the policy is sound politics as well as sound economics.
As usual, though, both the government and the media are touting wildly inaccurate numbers, to try and attack the policy.
Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan will cost $264bn less to reach net zero by 2050 than Labor’s renewables-only policy, according to independent modelling showing wind and solar will still dominate the grid under the Coalition’s model but at a significant reduction in cost to consumers and taxpayers.
The Liberal leader on Friday will release the costings of the Coalition’s energy plan that he intends to take to the next election, which show a total cost over the next 25 years of $331bn, compared to the $600bn model that Labor is pursuing.
And the rest.
In fact, no less than pro-renewables group Net Zero Australia have openly admitted that Labor’s numbers are out by a factor of 20. Net Zero’s own modelling puts the cost at $1.5 trillion by 2030, and that’s just the down payment. The final cost, on Net Zero Australia’s own numbers, will be seven to nine trillion dollars by 2060.
To put that into perspective, Australia’s total annual GDP is $1.5 trillion.
So, Australia would have to spend one-sixth of its total annual GDP, every year, for the next 37 years. Put another way: Australia would have to spend as much on ‘Net Zero’ as it currently does on health and social security (the two biggest slices of government spending) combined – every year, for nearly 40 years. Comparatively, it would have to spend as much as it did on defence at the peak of WWI... for 40 years.
Aside from the staggering economic cost is the shocking environmental cost. Net Zero’s report concedes that the wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and assorted paraphernalia will cover 20,179 sq km, or about half the size of Victoria.
Which all makes nonsense of stuff like this:
Modelling shows the plan to roll out nuclear as a firming source of baseload power to secure renewables generation would be 44 per cent cheaper than Labor’s renewables-only transition.
What’s obvious, too, is that the Climate Cult have so effectively captured the debate that even the coalition can’t bring themselves to admit the simple truth: ‘renewables’ are almost totally useless (or worse) when it comes to grid-level power.
The modelling report, the second in a series of energy modelling conducted by independent economic outfit Frontier Economics and commissioned by the Coalition, assumes nuclear would contribute 38 per cent of energy generation by 2050.
But 53 per cent would still be provided by renewables, which assumes a doubling of current capacity.
If this is the best we can hope for, Australia’s luck really has run out.
The modelling assumptions have not been disputed by the government as they are based on the Energy Market Operator’s own assumptions for the renewable energy transition.
However, since the release of the first report, it has revised down its estimates of the Labor plan from $624bn to $595bn.
Yeah, right. Remember when Labor’s ‘modelling’ put the cost of the NBN at $46 billion? At latest estimate, the cost is closer to $70 billion – and rising rapidly, with no let up in sight.
‘Net Zero’ will make the insatiable monster that’s the NBN look like a model of government efficiency.
