Claims of bad faith unhelpful in energy debate

The renewable energy industry has a vested interest in maintaining its favoured position in the transition to a lower-emissions energy future, but the Clean Energy Council has gone too far in claiming “bad faith actors” were behind a renewed push for nuclear power to be considered.

Certainly, the Coalition still has a big job to do to explain exactly how nuclear can play a role in Australia’s future energy supply given the obvious hurdles. These difficulties include legislative roadblocks, long lead times and high costs. But to pretend the renewables-only alternative is risk free, cheap or easily achieved fails the test of experience. The experience is that a renewables-only transition has struggled to become reality anywhere. And the build-out of renewable energy resources in Australia is taking longer and costing more than was anticipated.

This matters because the wind-down of coal-fired generation that currently underpins the nation’s electricity grid is on an accelerating path to closure. The issue is made more complicated by the fact gas is being ruled out as a transition fuel despite it being ideally suited to play a role in smoothing the low-emissions transition.

Unless this situation is corrected, future investment in what is one of the nation’s biggest export earners and greatest comparative advantages will be diminished. There already are concerns for the future of industries that rely on gas for heat and energy that simply cannot be replaced by electrification.

Comments on Tuesday by CEC chief executive Kane Thornton that “bad faith actors are using a weakened media, preying on communities increasingly anxious about the uncertainty and tensions in the world around us to tear things down” must be seen for what they are, the frustrations of an industry that is used to getting its own way.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says he is not ideological about nuclear but insists we can’t have them both. He says nuclear and renewables are incompatible because at times of high supply renewable generation would need to be curtailed to make way for nuclear to keep running or nuclear would be forced to run at a loss. Mr Bowen says Australia would be trading investment certainty in renewables for the hope of more costly reactors in two decades. But as opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien writes on Wednesday, replacing coal would require an extra 7 gigawatts of renewables to be installed each year. Given only 1.3GW reached financial close in 2023, he says it is clear that Labor is closing down one system before another is ready to go.

Given the global trend, a nuclear debate is one that must be had. But it will take time. In the meantime, there is too much at stake for our politicians to lose sight of what it is really all about. That is delivering secure supplies of energy at the cheapest price to power our economy. Mr O’Brien is correct to say we risk losing our competitive edge to poor public policy. The first step is to find bipartisan support for gas. As Mr O’Brien notes, since coming to office Labor has stripped gas from the capacity mechanism, taken money from gas infrastructure, traded away improvements to gas approval processes, introduced a price cap and mandatory code, and defunded abating technologies such as carbon capture and storage. Labor plans to exclude gas from its guidelines for approved green investments despite its benefits over coal.

As things stand, Australia is moving away from the international consensus that favours gas, nuclear and carbon capture and storage as part of the transition pathway to net zero by 2050. The stakes will be raised dramatically if Donald Trump is successful in his bid to return as US president, something that can leave Australia only further behind in the race to maintain our position as a genuine energy superpower.