This was published 5 months ago
‘Don’t disparage the science’: CSIRO hits back at Dutton on nuclear energy
By Mike Foley
Australia’s top science agency has made a rare political intervention as CSIRO chief executive Doug Hilton defended his agency’s findings on the costs of nuclear power against an attack from Peter Dutton, who claimed the work was discredited and questioned its integrity.
At question is CSIRO’s GenCost report, which advises investors on the cost of electricity production from energy systems, including renewable energy, coal generation and nuclear plants. Released in December, it showed that renewables were cheaper than coal and nuclear electricity.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claimed CSIRO’s work on electricity costs had been discredited.Credit: Oscar Colman.
When asked by media on Tuesday why nuclear power was suitable for Australia given it was the most expensive form of electricity generation, Dutton claimed GenCost was a “discredited report”.
“It’s not relied on. It’s not a genuine piece of work. It doesn’t take into account some of the transmission costs, the costs around subsidies for the renewable,” Dutton said. “I would look at the independent, verifiable evidence.”
Hilton issued an open letter on Friday morning defending the agency’s work as “creditable science” which is regularly updated with fresh data. He did not name Dutton.
“The GenCost report can be trusted by all our elected representatives, irrespective of whether they are advocating for electricity generation by renewables, coal, gas or nuclear energy,” Hilton said.
Dutton was asked about Hilton’s letter on Nine’s Today show on Friday. He said while he did not criticise CSIRO, its GenCost report was “skewed” in its assessment of the relative costs of renewables and nuclear power.
“We need to compare apples with apples … that report that was released, it doesn’t take into consideration all of the costs around renewables. I’m strongly in favour of renewables, but we need to keep the lights on and we need to keep our prices down,” Dutton said.
“All I’m saying is let’s have a fair comparison, instead of a skewed one, and that’s why I was critical of that particular report, not of the CSIRO in general, and I think it was a fair point to make.”
Hilton told this masthead on Friday morning that he wrote the open letter to defend the scientists who produced the GenCost report and, by extension, CSIRO’s mission to serve society.
“When you cop criticism, when your integrity is questioned, that can have a big impact on individuals and, if left unchecked, it can have a big impact on the community.”
Hilton said CSIRO was “absolutely technology neutral” and asked politicians to respect science and work with his agency on its mission to resolve challenges confronting Australia.
“As an organisation we should never be shy of leaning into contentious areas.
“The role of CSIRO is to present the community and all of our elected representatives and government with the best possible data and models on which to found their policies.
“I’d ask of all of our elected representatives to treat the scientists and the science that comes out respectfully and don’t disparage the science when you’re having a policy debate.”
Nuclear advocates have criticised CSIRO reports for not incorporating the costs of tens of billions of dollars of transmission lines needed to link the growing fleet of wind and solar farms across the country into population centres.
The opposition is calling for a moratorium on the renewable rollout, claiming local opposition to transmission lines has crippled its social licence while arguing the infrastructure costs are too high.
CSIRO chief executive Doug Hilton has defended the organisation from criticism by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.Credit: Martin Ollman
However, CSIRO’s latest GenCost report included more than $30 billion of new transmission lines and projects to provide back-up power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, such as the $12 billion Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro dam.
GenCost found that by 2030, a grid with 90 per cent wind and solar power would generate electricity at $70 to $100 a megawatt hour.
Coal generation is more expensive at $85 to $135 a megawatt hour in 2030.
Small modular reactors, a nascent technology not yet in commercial use but favoured by the opposition, would generate electricity at a cost of $210 to $350 a megawatt hour in 2030, CSIRO said.
The opposition also wants to see large scale nuclear reactors plugged in to Australia’s energy grid.
The GenCost report did not calculate a cost for large-scale nuclear, but addressed the argument that Australia should follow the lead of countries that use it such as France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Spain and South Korea.
CSIRO said claims of cheap nuclear power in these countries were ignoring the fact that their plants were either funded by taxpayers as opposed to private investors or had been in operation for a considerable time – over which the capital costs had already been recovered.
“Such prices will not be available to countries that do not have existing nuclear generation such as Australia,” the report said.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.