science is telling us bluntly the Earth is warming with consequences in almost every domain of the way our lives are lived Global emissions including superheating methane are still going up at the same time huge quantities of Renewables are being added to the globe's energy systems led by China it is a race in Australia both sides of politics are headed to the election with policies committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 but the details of how the plan to achieve that outcome are very different the government has a large suite of policies aimed at building
Renewables to 82% of Australia's power generation by 2030 supported by gas with 10,000 kmers of new transmission lines and policies to promote electrification and curtail industrial emissions meanwhile the Coalition has its Suite of policies an energy mix of less Renewables more gas and a major new proposal to introduce nuclear power generation to Australia the context for both sides is the limited lifespan of Australia's calf fired power stations today the csiro and the Australian energy Market operator released the latest Energy report on the costs of different Technologies to achieve net zero this year with a more
detailed focus on the cost and timelines of introducing nuclear energy to Australia the Coalition is promising to release its own costings on nuclear energy imminently but we already know they're proposing the taxpayer fund the construction of seven nuclear sites using two different Technologies one well established in the world one notot now as you can see I've moved around the desk a bit because we've bought the two ministers together tonight for a debate about Australia's future Chris Bowen is the minister for climate change and energy Ted O'Brien is the shadow Minister both of you you're very
welcome to the program I'm glad to have you both here evening Ted cheers now that's a great way to start now let's go to gen cost so the CSO and the Australian energy Market operator as I just mentioned have crunched the numbers in their latest gen cost report released today it finds that nuclear energy would still be the most expensive way to deliver low emissions energy to Australia do you accept that CSO and aimo have the expertise to make these findings Sarah I think if you going to ask that question I think um I think
of what the CSO says themselves I asked them a couple of weeks ago this very question at a hearing of the parliament and when it comes to issues relating to nuclear energy uh they conceded that they actually don't have the expertise like uh the likes of the international atomic energy agency which draws different conclusions um from the CSI in aspects such in aspects such as timing you just to be clear you're saying the CSO told you they do not have the expertise to make the findings in this report compared to the international atomic energy agency
uh they conceded that they do not have the same degree of expertise in certain areas including the timing which features in their report I think the key thing for the um for the market operator who does the report with the CSO is the capital costs because that feeds into their major plan now I've only had a quick look because this was published today and I think the capital cost of the modern larger nuclear uh reactors is is probably around about um similar to what I've seen elsewhere um that's the key number really that feeds into
the operators plan and just to be clear what we're talking about here is solar at 40 to 68 per megawatt hour to produce wind 65 to 108 and nuclear between $133 and $222 let me just let me just hand this over to Chris so I I asked there whether or not CSO has the expertise I know that you think CS IR do but what CS CSO does what is your response to gen C today and that finding on nuclear well my response s is that I don't believe I know better than the CSO Australia's Premier
scientific agency and aimo who runs our grid Ted thinks he does know better that's the key difference between us and I don't agree that the Cs is not qualified they are one of the world's most respected scientific organizations and you know when they brought the report out last year Ted as is perfect right I went to them and said I think you've got it wrong about how long nuclear reactors last and how often they're used the capacity factor and the CSO and AO 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 so with respect Ted has no grounds for complaint he's raised concerns the csiro and I was very disappointed today to say to see Peter Dutton suggest some form of political interference that's deeply offensive not to me can say what he likes about me but to the CSI I'm deeply offended that the opposition would accuse them of being subject to political interference when they have for the best part of a 100 years been completely independent of any politician of any political
interference that brought this report out uh at complete arms length from government and its findings are just inarguable well let's come to that because I'm sure Ted o BR thinks they are arguable obviously we're waiting for your long awaited costings Within days how much will they differ from the Cs CSO and Amo estimates that is at nuclear between 133 and 222 so there's two parts to this Sarah uh firstly it's the capital cost I've already addressed that um secondly then um what you've just mentioned there is the levelized cost of energy is the methodology they
use um again if you listen to what the CSO says I mean Chris can have his View and he can talk about other people's views listen listen to the CSO themselves one they've conceded they're not the experts in this field but secondly the report today um actually says that it is no substitute for an electricity System model so what hits your bill at home what hits your bill um at your business is actually a reflection of the total system cost now I'm I'm going to I'm going to pause you there to this reason that is
not that is actually not what they do but that's our Focus we have an audience and we we need to bear in mind that it's a complex topic not the three of us in the Green Room although we can do that later my question to you was we're expecting your costings how much will they differ from CSO and AO costings so what will be your so so let me answer so you'll see the modeling over the next week from the Coalition and the capital cost of the CSO I'm saying is reasonable okay but to build
nuclear rectors what are next of a kind um the modern larger plants what is different from the CSO is as they themselves say they do not model the total system cost our Focus as a coalition is on getting prices down you must calculate the total system cost because that's what hits your bill at home and for everyone who is at home um Chris can say all he likes I can say all I like but they can't deny their own lived experience power bills now in Australia among the highest in the world labor promised a $275
reduction of power bills but households are now paying up to $1,000 more than what labor had promised so we can talk about um alternate plans but the one thing that I'd like to talk about tonight more than anything is the current electricity system that Chris Bowen is see we'll we'll get to that in a moment but let me just come back to you Chris on a on a different point because Ted O'Brien is right that there are multiple uh countries in the world that have uh nuclear in their system that rely on nuclear energy there
is a vast amount of uh research and development going into small modular reactors not not proven but but happening given that why not lift the moratorium now so that if that technology becomes competitive in Australia we're ready to take advantage of it well let's look at the international experience S at the moment renewable investment dwarfs nuclear investment by 27 times so the world is investing 27 times more in solar and wind and Renewables than in nuclear we're adding more solar and wind capacity every couple of weeks than is added in nuclear capacity all years so
the direction of travel around the world is very very clear and also when you look at International experience there's no nuclear reactors under construction in the United States the one that was closest which Ted's talked about a lot new scale was cancelled last year because of a 70% cost blowout there is one in the United Kingdom hinley SE which is running about 12 years late and is costing 92 Australian $92 billion Australian 92 billion now I don't believe that Australia should go down that road I believe in an Australian Energy System for Australian circumstances designed
by Australian experts let me just come back to the question I asked you because most experts you'll you'll uh we consult will say that the optal for Australia optimal is a mix of all Technologies so why not put Australia in a position where they can exploit advantage in nuclear when they come we'll have solar will have wind we'll have hydro back by gas picking and Firming under our model but this idea that smrs will come forward look and these are small modular mod reactors they're the next big thing they always have been and they always
will be now um what Ted's proposal is not just lifting the moratorium he's proposing sure to lift the moratorium and then to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers money on this because knows the private sector investment won't be there that's the liberal party's policy would you like to respond to that I would I was interested to hear Chris um talk about figures out of the UK Dollar figures can you just stay with the big figure that Chris 60 or 90 in 92 billion 92 billion so Chris just started tonight's debate saying he doesn't
know better than the CSO but his next response is he's now using different figures from the CSI completely different AUST is not so so I I I respectfully think the minister needs to make up his mind either he backs the capital costs of the CSO or he doesn't and here he is Cherry let's go to that and I also note he didn't actually answer your question which is if you're so confident Minister that nuclear energy will not work in Australia why don't you agree to lift the moratorium stop making it illegal well that's not your
proposal and that would as we've discussed before but it's a it's a question Sarah has put and Sarah asked the questions not you and I'm answering Sarah's question because we are going down the road of the best mix for Australia as designed by the experts and it would be a massive distraction we need to send the message to the world that we are open for renewable investment and storage and Firming and trans don't think that the investors of the world can make a determination themselves where to put their doesn't either because he is not proposing
any private sector investment in renewal in nuclear I'll speak for myself so why don't you speak hundreds of billions of dollar that's tell meesen the liberal hundreds of billions of dollars I think it's the number money the number that has been put at over 600 billion is that going to be different from the number that you produced when your costings come out this week so um over $600 billion is the real cost of Chris's plan Labor's plan to get to 2050 is that the one you're talking about I'm talking about the cost of introducing nuclear
energy into the Australian Energy Mix which has been costed at about somewhere north of $600 billion when your Co costings come out will they show something different so Sarah to be clear if you're talking about um the the cost of our nuclear program being over $600 billion again we've just talked about the CSO no let no I have to make this this point because you mentioned the figure 600 billion right so the CSO talks about on a kilowatt basis around about $9,000 a kilowatt once you start talking about 600 billion you talking about 55,000 Kow
so again we which figures uh is the ABC focused on are you agreeing with sorro or are you are you tripling I'm asking you whether the the cost of your energy plan will be north of $600 billion or not and you must know the number now because you've done the work so um what I can tell you because we're not releasing our economics tonight but we will be over the next week is that the plan under labor will cost will cost 640 billion $640 billion for just the n on the East Coast for storage transmission
and generation and I can assure you that our balanced Energy Mix which includes zero emissions nuclear energy will come in cheaper well let me ask you this are you still planning to place a reactor or multiple reactors at the seven sites you identified earlier this year we made very clear that there are only seven locations we're looking at we've also made clear that um the the way you get costs down is to have multi are those seven sites none of that has changed none of that has changed now I want also to talk about timelines
because it's one of the other um important elements of today's report so they've analyzed the data on time frames internationally of how long it takes to build large scale reactors so again we're not talking about the small ones according to them build times have got longer they've grown out they've not blown out they've extended to within 12 to 17 years is their assessment how are you as a coalition going to meet your emissions targets and bring down costs with Tim taes like that so again um as I said before Sarah the csiro themselves have told
me and it's all on record um that they don't believe they know more than the international atomic energy Agency on things like the timing and our plan actually aligns with the iaea's own schedule um on construction it also aligns with the albanesi government's advisor on nuclear technology I think Chris you're going to want to come in on that figure because timeline's obviously crucial when it comes to again look two quick points here I'm disappointed to hear Ted diminish the expertise of the CSI this evening but my point is this I'm I'm sorry but I didn't
I I quoted the CSI if you disagree with cs I agree with the Cs don't that's a difference I want to stay on this topic timelines I think Ted's plan is too ambitious TimeWise I don't think he'll has any chance of achieving it but my broader point is this Ted and I would probably agree the Energy System needs reform today uh that we had over the period of the opposition of the of the liberal government uh four gwatt leave the grid and only one gwatt come on of dispatchable energy and that needed urgent reform my
point is we need more energy now even if Ted could achieve his timeline which I don't believe he can it's too slow Ted looks at the energy system now and says it needs reform and I'll be back to you in 2037 I don't think that's good enough our plan has added more renewable energy this year than any other year in Australian history uh we are seeing more investment in the last quarter than the last year the year before so this plan is actually bringing on the energy that Australians desperately need now to bring prices down
because I think we would agree more energy more Supply it means lower prices and to bring emissions down because it's renewable low emissions we've got to keep going now we don't have the opportunity or the the luxury of saying well let's pause until 2037 when under Ted's own timeline one power station would come on not all of them not all seven one which would be a tiny proportion of our energy needs off into the late 23r how does your energy mix bring down prices make up for closing old Power stations with that timetable so to
be clear uh Chris's summary of the coalition's plan is completely wrong because which because because um Chris likes to frame this as if the Coalition is saying it's nuclear or Renewables this is not a question of a for us it's a question of and we will be continuing to roll out Renewables so give us a sense of how much because obviously an energy mix only works if we know what kind of quantity of renewable energy and nuclear energy will be in the mix so how much will be in your renewable energy let me let me
just finish right so one we'll be continuing to roll out Renewables two we'll be pouring more gas into the market because it plays such an important role with prices we must get those prices down and three as coal retires from the system we believe it should be replaced with a 247 always on form of basad power it's not coal it's got to be nuclear that's been the lesson from around the world still not prepared yes okay thank when it comes to Energy Mix the energy mix um come let's say 2050 will be released together with
our economics those two things go together which has been what you must have some idea now what what kind of proportions yes I do and as as much as this is a wonderful show here I won't be making the announcement tonight uh but you will get the energy mix and you will get the economics within the next week remembering Chris's plan he told you previously on this show that is going to cost $121 billion we now know only two weeks ago the real cost of his plan is well over 640 billion five times more let's
let's not go down that path CU I want what is it Chris well let's let's not get let's not get into that because that's we're going to lose we're going to lose the a running the debate thanks Ted so let's go to this so at the same time you face problems with your renewable roll out notwithstanding 7 and a half uh 7 and a half gwatt this year um and an average of six over the preceding couple of years but Amo says you need to put in an extra 12 by 2037 I think that's correct
so if you're going to replace Coal Fired power generators what's your plan to make up the shortfall well our plan is to keep going with a few things um obviously the strong roll out of solar and wind which is happening as I said more Renewables connected this year than any other year in Australian history and that's there's others coming forward like snowy 2.0 started by the previous government kept going by us which is not which is a couple years away yet but will be an important addition uh also to add to the storage I mean
people say some people say the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow well the rain doesn't always fall either we drink water every day because we store water we need to store the renewable energy uh and our Focus there is batteries Peter Dutton says they don't can't do the job they don't exist he says well they do and they're play an increasingly important role so we'll continue to roll those out and importantly Ted and I would agree and some of our viewers wouldn't but we would agree there's a an important role for
gas in the system for years to come the difference is I see that role of supporting Renewables as being flexible to come on when necessary you can turn a gas fire power station on and off at no notice that's not the case with coal and nuclear um whereas Ted thinks gas replaces uh Renewables at the same time your side of politic hasn't resolved the issue on the East Coast of Australia now unfortunately such as the nature of the world and some of the events in Australia over the weekend that leaves a short of time which
guarantees that you two have to come back because we've got a long way to go on gas we also have debates in Regional thank you very much and then we can see where we're up to with small modular reactors and whether they have a future anywhere in the world but in the meantime I thank you both very much indeed Sarah pleas thank you and that's the program for this evening thank you very much indeed for your company good night
