Coalition’s nuclear modelling based on Australia’s smelters closing

The Federal Coalition's much-touted nuclear cost modelling relies on Australia’s electricity demand plummeting due to heavy industry and smelter closures.

The data from the Frontier Economics report being used by the Coalition is based on the Australian Energy Market Operators 'Progressive Change' scenario: a model where Australian heavy industry struggles to remain globally competitive and closes.

The Queensland Conservation Council says this shows once again that nuclear does not make sense for Australia.

Queensland Conservation Council Campaigner Stephanie Gray says

Gladstone’s heavy industry and smelter are switching to renewable energy backed by storage to affordably power their operations and stay globally competitive.

New and existing industries can’t afford to wait 15-20 years for nuclear energy to come online. Rio Tinto has made it clear that current coal-fired electricity is too expensive and they need new energy supply to maintain their Gladstone operations.

The Coalition’s much-touted savings from nuclear are largely because their preferred modelling assumes Australia needs less energy because our smelters close down.

Gladstone is perfectly placed to become a hub for clean industry and manufacturing. There are major hydrogen projects proposed locally and Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners are investigating the feasibility of producing green iron near Gladstone, utilising a local source of magnetite iron and processing it using renewable energy.

All of these projects are being planned on the basis that they will be able to source a local supply of clean and affordable renewable energy.

There’s still work to do to improve the roll out of renewable energy so that projects are better sited and deliver real, long-lasting benefits to communities.

But we’re never going to get the planning right while energy policy continues to get politicised and we’re wasting time with nuclear distractions.

Share Tweet Email