Australia, insurance, car, home, live, holidays

Peter Dutton has a fight on his hands to convince voters of his nuclear power plans.Credit:Marija Ercegovac

Rather than dismissing the concept,62 per cent of voters are in favour of nuclear,or at least open to further investigation to see if it makes sense.

This means the opposition leader is not being laughed out of the debate,no matter how hard Labor tries with its meme war tactics on social media and its derision in the mainstream media. Put simply,many Australians are willing to consider the case for change.

Given a “yes or no” question on nuclear,slightly more are in favour than against. Given a more nuanced question,30 per cent say they are open to the idea and 32 per cent are in favour. Asked in greater depth about all the options,the clear majority want renewable power more than anything else.

These findings,in a special Resolve Political Monitor over the past few days,show that neither side can be confident of victory.

The only facts from the Coalition,so far,arethe seven locations of the nuclear plantsand the use of taxpayer funds to build the reactors. Many of the sites would house multiple reactors,an approach that is common overseas.

The basic plan is surrounded by mountains of false claims and cavernous policy gaps. The gaps include theunknown cost of the seven nuclear plants,the design of the reactors,the disposal of the waste,the impact on household bills and the proportion of the electricity grid to be supplied by nuclear – a key factor in any decisions about renewables.

The false claims are more significant. Dutton has clearly misled voters by claiming the waste from one of the reactors wouldfill only one Coca-Cola can each year when it would certainly fill thousands. He says the government plans 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines when the regulator says the figure is 10,000 kilometres by 2050.

One falsehood on cost makes it easy for the Coalition to win support from voters who think nuclear is cheaper. Dutton says the government policy costs $1.2 trillion when all the federal measures,combined,add up to about $120 billion. The trillion-dollar guesstimate comes from outside the government and includes every aspect of the economy,far beyond the electricity grid,over 25 years.

Dutton also says Labor has a “renewables-only” policy when the government is assuming that gas-fired power will complement wind and solar for decades. He says the shift to renewables is pushing up prices,but Grattan Institute expert Tony Wood says this is wrong.

The most challenging facts for the Coalition are the cost blowouts and lengthy delays for recent nuclear projects overseas,like the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in the United Kingdom (about $87 billion in today’s dollars) and the Vogtle power plant expansion in the United States (about $52.5 billion for two reactors).

Even the Barakah power plant near Abu Dhabi,built by South Korea’s KEPCO and delivered only four years late,cost about $30 billion,as well as an operating contract over 60 years that was reported to be worth another $75 billion.

The truth,of course,is that Australians are paying a price today for the policy disputes of the past. Political leaders have been repeatedly unable to agree on the combination of wind,solar,hydro,battery,gas or other energy to prepare the grid for the closure of coal. It is a chronic national failure.

The nuclear proposal is not likely to end the argument. The key point,however,is that many Australians are open to the debate. The real test of community support will come when voters are given all the facts.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news,views and expert analysis.Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.

License this article