Liberal leader says nuclear is needed to support renewables and tells Minerals Council it will ‘add value’ to uranium resources
Peter Dutton has doubled down on Liberal support for nuclear power, pre-empting a review of its energy policy by arguing nuclear will be needed to support renewables.
Dutton told the Minerals Council on Wednesday that Australia needs a “frank debate” about nuclear energy, suggesting that it has a “wonderful opportunity to add value” to its uranium resources.
The comments sparked a demand from the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, in question time for the Liberals to nominate “where the plants are going to be”.
On Wednesday Dutton confirmed that he appointed Ted O’Brien as shadow energy minister in part because a committee inquiry he chaired in 2019 recommended the partial lifting of the moratorium on nuclear energy to allow for “new and emerging nuclear technologies”.
The Coalition is still reviewing its energy policy to develop an emissions reduction target before the next election and study nuclear energy to develop a “proper base of information”, according to comments Dutton made in the party room in August.
On Wednesday the Liberal leader said “the imperative on all of us to create affordable and reliable and, where possible, emissions-reduced energy necessitates that we at least have a conversation about nuclear”.
“[About] how that technology can play into the energy mix in the future? I think especially since Australia is home to one third of the world’s deposits of uranium. We have a wonderful opportunity to add value to that resource.”
Dutton noted that former Labor prime minister, Bob Hawke “was strongly in favour of nuclear energy and couldn’t get it through the left of his party”.
“John Howard to this day is very strongly in favour of nuclear energy as an option … that crazy rightwinger in Canada, Justin Trudeau, is embracing small modular reactors.”
Dutton posed the question: “If you don’t like coal and you don’t like gas, unless you believe clean hydrogen is about to be a reality, then what else firms up renewables? And I don’t know the answer to that question beyond nuclear.”
On Wednesday Dutton confirmed that he appointed Ted O’Brien as shadow energy minister in part because a committee inquiry he chaired in 2019 recommended the partial lifting of the moratorium on nuclear energy to allow for “new and emerging nuclear technologies”.
The Coalition is still reviewing its energy policy to develop an emissions reduction target before the next election and study nuclear energy to develop a “proper base of information”, according to comments Dutton made in the party room in August.
On Wednesday the Liberal leader said “the imperative on all of us to create affordable and reliable and, where possible, emissions-reduced energy necessitates that we at least have a conversation about nuclear”.
“[About] how that technology can play into the energy mix in the future? I think especially since Australia is home to one third of the world’s deposits of uranium. We have a wonderful opportunity to add value to that resource.”
Dutton noted that former Labor prime minister, Bob Hawke “was strongly in favour of nuclear energy and couldn’t get it through the left of his party”.
“John Howard to this day is very strongly in favour of nuclear energy as an option … that crazy rightwinger in Canada, Justin Trudeau, is embracing small modular reactors.”
Dutton posed the question: “If you don’t like coal and you don’t like gas, unless you believe clean hydrogen is about to be a reality, then what else firms up renewables? And I don’t know the answer to that question beyond nuclear.”
Dutton suggested nuclear energy could also help Australia “power up irrigation and open up thousands of square kilometres of export opportunities” before concluding the government should “at least allow” the community to have a debate about it.
In August the shadow climate change minister, Chris Bowen, ruled out consideration of nuclear power because he said “it is by far the most expensive form of energy”.
“I mean, this is economic illiteracy from an opposition searching for relevance,” he told ABC News Breakfast.
“[Nuclear] is slow to deploy. It couldn’t be deployed in Australia until 2030.
“The CSIRO has made it very, very clear renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Nuclear is the most expensive. Why with rising energy prices you would put in the most expensive form of energy available is beyond me.”
Later on Wednesday, the Liberals pursued Albanese in question time over his pre-election claims that Labor’s energy policy, including more renewables and upgrading the grid, could help save households $275 on their power bill.
Albanese replied that the government stands by the modelling supporting the claim, and that Labor’s policy was based on the systems plan of the Australian Energy Market Operator, which identified it would “promote investment in renewables which is the cheapest form of energy”.
Albanese said after “22 failed plans” the Coalition now wants “to go towards nuclear energy”.
“And they can say, if you like, where the plants are going to be. I’ll look forward to their review, letting us know … [because] we know they have to be near urban areas and water.”
While Labor raised the spectre of campaigning on the location of putative nuclear power plants, Dutton accused the government of asking Australians to sign up to an Indigenous voice to parliament “sight unseen”.
“We have no idea what it means for the mining sector,” Dutton told the Minerals Council earlier.
“We don’t know whether a voice that doesn’t represent the elders that you negotiate with or that your agreement is with in a particular location, now, they might be usurped and [the voice will] exercise a veto, right? That would damage your employees, that would damage your business.”
Earlier, Dutton said it was an “inconvenient truth” for climate activists that “decarbonisation will require more mining”, due to critical minerals’ importance in renewable energy, batteries and electric vehicles.
“I take some delight knowing it must keep them up at night.”
Dutton said the Liberals don’t support “locking in” the 43% emissions reduction target in legislation because the “inflexible position” might disadvantage Australia if competitors did not meet their targets and it would make it “harder if not impossible” for government agencies to fund resources projects.
Source: The Guardian
