The federal opposition’s controversial renewable energy plan might spark a new climate policy battle in Australia. This move sets the stage for a heated discussion on Australia’s energy destiny ahead of an election.
A Coalition of Liberal and National Parties policy challenged the government’s renewable energy agenda last month. The opposition wants seven state-owned nuclear facilities to boost fossil fuel use instead of solar, wind, and battery infrastructure. This plan is controversial and much criticised.
Energy scientists warn that this nuclear policy might increase emissions for at least two decades before nuclear power becomes a major energy source, which the opposition rejects. The ruling Labour Party claims this approach undermines renewable energy investment and harms the environment in a solar- and wind-rich nation.
Australia’s energy minister, Chris Bowen, called the opposition’s plan “It’s a gimmick to prolong coal’s use at great expense to reliability and pollution. It betrays Australians who have endured bushfires, floods, and storms in the crucial decade for climate action.”
The opposition expects widespread unrest with wind and solar installations near homes and shorelines. The Coalition might draw voters from the half of Australians who support nuclear power, according to polls. While the proposal may connect in some communities, political analysts say it may not be enough to win marginal seats.
Kos Samaras of RedBridge political consultants said, “Nuclear policy looks to want to weaken Australia’s renewables momentum. If Labour fails, the Coalition takes over.”
The discussion recalls the 2010 “climate wars,” when Coalition climate change scepticism was a key election issue. Since taking office in 2022, Labour has sought to become Australia’s climate leader by achieving 82% renewable electricity by 2030 and a 43% reduction in emissions from 2005 levels.
The Coalition still seeks net zero emissions by 2050 but offers a smaller share of renewables without identifying it.
India, South Korea, and Britain are increasing their nuclear capability. However, hefty building costs and Australia’s nuclear inexperience make this difficult. The Grattan Institute’s energy researcher, Tony Wood, noted that seven nuclear units will only produce 15-20% of Australia’s energy by 2050.
Renewables are the cheapest kind of generation, promoting investment. Rystad Energy’s David Dixon said that states and private enterprises will likely meet their carbon objectives, challenging the opposition’s nuclear agenda.
The opposition’s policy makes renewable energy unclear. While no immediate investment withdrawals have occurred, fears exist about federal involvement that could disrupt offshore wind projects or change renewable energy income schemes.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien criticised Labour’s strategy, arguing that grid stability requires non-renewable electricity. “There is no credible pathway to net zero without some nuclear energy in the mix,” he said.
Former Coalition leader Tony Abbott successfully opposed a carbon price in 2013, and Peter Dutton’s opposition strategy is similar. Climate was Abbott’s weapon. It was quite effective. “Dutton will try again,” stated Tony Wood.
Nuclear vs. renewable energy policies will shape Australia’s climate strategy for decades as it moves towards a crucial election.
