$327 billion pricetag on Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plan

The Coalition claims its nuclear energy plan will be more than $260 billion cheaper than Labor’s renewables-focused blueprint over the next three decades.

Its plan to build six nuclear power stations on the east coast will cost at least $331 billion— and that’s not counting an extra one at Collie.

Peter Dutton will reveal the figure on Friday as he finally adds detail to his signature energy policy.

The Opposition Leader will reveal more details about why his plan is cheaper when he unveils a second analysis by consultancy Frontier Economics.

The Coalition promised in June it would build government-owned nuclear power stations on the sites of seven retiring coal-fired generators between 2035 and 2050.

These will be a mix of modern large reactors and the small modular reactors still under commercial development.

The plan includes the site of Muja power station east of Collie – slated to close in 2029.

Labor has derided the nuclear plan as too slow, too expensive and not providing enough power. There are also Federal and State legislative hurdles to overcome along with acquiring the sites.

But Mr Dutton said it will be up to $263 billion cheaper than current renewable plans on the east coast, based on Frontier’s analysis.

Last month, the Coalition released the first part of Frontier’s costings – which the consultancy says was done independently – comparing its assumptions against the modelling done by energy regulator AEMO for a switch to a system dominated by wind and solar power. Both policies incorporate gas.

Frontier found base generation costs using renewables between now and 2050 would be $528 billion once inflation was taken into account, slightly lower than AEMO’s projection of $580 billion.

Frontier also noted the AEMO costings did not include transmission costs of an estimated $62 billion. This would take Frontier’s estimate of the costs up to $590 billion — the basis for the $263 billion savings claim — and AEMO’s version to $642 billion.

“Frontier Economics’ analysis leaves no doubt: Australians will be better off under our plan. We will avoid hidden costs, reduce unnecessary infrastructure expenses, and lead to lower energy prices,” Mr Dutton said.

“Nuclear energy is at the heart of our plan, providing the ‘always-on’ power needed to back up renewables, stabilise the grid, and keep energy affordable.”

Frontier said locating nuclear generators on existing or “recently decommissioned” coal station sites “could save considerable costs” associated with building and upgrading transmission lines.

It also said there would be “additional economic saving … (from) lower loss of visual amenity to the rural and regional communities that are bearing the burden of visual pollution from new transmission systems”.

The rest of the $201 billion in savings – assuming all transmission costs are cut – is expected to be outlined in the report to be unveiled on Friday.

The modelling does not include costs for WA, instead only examining the National Electricity Market that covers east coast jurisdictions. This is the same as AEMO’s planning.

Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien said the Coalition’s plan would deliver 14GW of nuclear energy into the grid by 2050.

Coal power stations currently have about 21GW of capacity, but this is forecast to drop to 6.7GW by 2037 as the ageing generators close.

There is already more than 29GW of renewables in the system.

“Our plan responsibly integrates renewables, doubling large-scale solar and wind capacity while protecting regional communities from overdevelopment. At the same time, zero-emissions nuclear energy and gas provide the reliability that Labor’s plan fails to deliver,” Mr O’Brien said.

But Treasurer Jim Chalmers said a nuclear energy plan was “economic insanity”.

“We have everything we need from cleaner and cheaper energy and Peter Dutton instead wants to go for the most expensive option which takes the longest and which would only, at best, provide about 4 per cent of our power,” he said on Thursday.

“We are at the end of the last full year before an election and these characters still don’t have any credible, costed, or coherent economic policies.”

The latest CSIRO’s GenCost report, released this week, found large-scale nuclear power would cost $150/MWh compared with $100/MWh for new solar or wind generation.