The federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen has reacted with anger and horror as the federal Coalition, led by Peter Dutton, renewed its attack on the integrity of the country’s premier scientific organisation in the wake of the CSIRO’s latest nuclear costings.
The latest draft version of the CSIRO GenCost report found – as it has done on each and every occasion since 2018 – that integrated wind and solar is by far the cheapest and lowest emissions option for Australia to replace its fleet of ageing, polluting and increasingly unreliable coal generators.
At the insistence of the Coalition, the CSIRO also investigated its claims that nuclear’s longer life, higher capacity factors and build times made it a credible alternative. But it found, to no surprise, that nuclear is between two and four times more expensive.
Dutton immediately responded by accusing the CSIRO of “bagging” its own nuclear plan, and suggesting that Bowen had a hand in it, even though the conclusions have been consistent with the first four iterations that were delivered under a Coalition government.
“It just looks to me like there’s a heavy hand of Chris Bowen in all this, and I don’t think people want to see that,” Dutton told reporters, according to News.com.au.
Bowen, in a later press conference, said he was appalled by the suggestion.
“I don’t care what he says me; I couldn’t give two hoots,” Bowen said.
“But it makes my blood boil when he attacks the integrity and independence of the CSIRO, who deserve better from the alternative Prime Minister of Australia to suggest that the government would seek to interfere with the CSIRO.
“To suggest that the CSIRO would let a government of any persuasion interfere with their work is deeply, deeply offensive. I’ve seen 6-year-olds on the soccer field pay more respect to referees than Peter Dutton has shown today. He should apologise to the CSIRO as a matter of urgency.”
Later on Monday, there was a bizarre exchange between Bowen and Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien on the same subject.
O’Brien seemed to suggest that the CSIRO report should be discounted because the CSIRO had admitted they had less expertise on nuclear than the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAES).
But the CSIRO said it accepts the IAEA findings, particularly around project build times. It merely pointed out that within the 12-17 year build times identified by the agency, the longer time frames occurred in western democracies such as Australia.
It’s why it settled on its prediction that nuclear power plants would likely take at least 15 years to build in Australia, which has no prior experience, and so the first generation would not happen before 2040.
O’Brien accepted that the CSIRO had “got it about right” on its nuclear capital cost estimates, although the CSIRO rejected the Coalition’s claim that all nuclear reactors should be calculated at a 93 per cent capacity factor. It noted that “baseload” power simply doesn’t operate on those numbers in Australia.
“The CSIRO and AEMO to their credit, have listened to Ted run the numbers on his suggestions and found that his criticisms have no basis in evidence and it doesn’t change the costs,” Bowen said on the 7.30 program.
“So, with respect, Ted has no grounds for complaint. He’s raised concerns. The CSIRO and I was very disappointed today to see Peter Dutton suggest some form of political interference that’s deeply offensive.
“He can say what he likes about me, but to the CSIRO? I’m deeply offended that the opposition would accuse them of being subject to political interference when they have for the best part of 100 years been completely independent of any politician of any political interference.
“They’ve brought this report out at complete arm’s length from government and its findings are just inarguable.”
O’Brien said the Coalition will release its costings “over the next week”, along with its forecasts for the energy mix out to 2050. But he insisted, despite findings to the country from international academies, major utilities and Australia’s own market operator, that new power had to be “baseload.”
“As coal retires from the system, we believe it should be replaced with a 24/7, always on form of baseload power,” O’Brien said.
“(If) it’s not coal, it’s got to be nuclear. That’s been the lesson from around the world. (Ed: Actually, it’s not: See Baseload power generators not needed to guarantee supply, say science and engineering academies).
“Now when it comes to energy mix … come, let’s say 2050, will be released together with our economics. Those two things go together.”
To hear CSIRO’ chief energy economist Paul Graham discuss the latest report, and the need for a thick skin, please listen to the latest episode of our Energy Insiders podcast: Energy Insiders Podcast: CSIRO slaps down Coalition nuclear power play
