Dick Smith warns Australia needs nuclear power NOW – as he exposes huge problem with government’s renewable plan and CSIRO report

Dick Smith has slammed the CSIRO for suggesting nuclear energy would be twice as expensive as unproven renewable energy – accusing it of promoting Labor Party policies going into an election.

The federal government’s science and research body on Monday released a GenCost report suggesting establishing a nuclear energy industry in Australia would take at least 15 years – despite evidence overseas it can be done much sooner.

‘Nuclear power does not currently provide the most cost competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia,’ it said.

But Mr Smith, an entrepreneur campaigning for nuclear power, said the CSIRO report was simply reflecting the political views of Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen and Science Minister Ed Husic.

‘I think their figures are wrong,’ he told Daily Mail Australia.

‘They’re all employed by a government, by a minister that’s opposed to nuclear so you’re not going to have much of a career path at the CSIRO if you say that your minister in the government is wrong and the government is totally opposed to nuclear.’ 

A CSIRO spokeswoman said its analysis was ‘highly collaborative’ and based on ‘the best information available globally, applied to the Australian context, in consultation with a range of industry and broader stakeholders’.

While both sides of politics favour a net zero by 2050 climate change target, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is going to the next election with a plan to build seven nuclear reactors, as Labor vows to have renewable energy provide 100 per cent of Australia’s electricity in little more than two decades.

Mr Dutton agreed with Mr Smith, and said that the report had the ‘heavy hand’ of Chris Bowen.

‘They were disputed before, and do you know what? They haven’t even seen our plan yet, and yet they’re out bagging it. 

‘I think this is important to point out – in Ontario where nuclear constitutes 60 per cent of the energy mix, people are paying 18 cents a kilowatt hour, in South Australia at the moment, people are paying 56 cents a kilowatt hour,’ he explained.

‘In Tennessee, with over 44 per cent of nuclear in the mix, still with renewables in the mix, they’re paying 18 cents per kilowatt hour.’

However, the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s GenCost report argued renewable energy had the lowest cost range for the seventh year in a row and said annual battery storage costs had fallen by 20 per cent.

The report also argued nuclear energy would take 15 years to establish in Australia, despite the United Arab Emirates doing it in eight years with a new plant at Barakah in 2020, built with South Korean technology. 

‘There is some statistical evidence for the impact of the degree of democracy on nuclear lead times,’ it said.

The report by the CSIRO’s chief economist in energy policy, Paul Graham, also argued that while nuclear reactors typically lasted longer than photovoltaic solar and wind farms, renewable energy generation was cheaper to replace.

It predicted that by 2030, larger-scale nuclear power could be generated at a cost of $150 to $245 a megawatt hour, compared with $121 to $164 for solar, and $67 to $137 for solar and wind.

Nuclear power from small modular reactors, or SMRs, would cost $285 to $487 an hour, the report claimed.

‘There are no unique cost advantages arising from nuclear technology’s long operational life,’ it said.

‘Similar cost savings are achievable from shorter-lived technologies, even accounting for the fact that shorter lived technologies need to be built twice. 

‘This is because shorter-lived technologies such as solar PV and wind are typically available at a lower cost over time, making the second build less costly.’

But Mr Smith countered by saying battery storage technology was still inefficient, which meant renewable energy would only work if there was back-up energy storage from pumped hydro to achieve zero carbon emissions.

He paid $6,000 for an advertisement in Monday’s edition of The Sydney Morning Herald arguing renewable energy would be prohibitively expensive because it would require the construction of 50 pumped hydro schemes to have zero carbon emissions.

The entrepreneur argued solar and wind energy relied on volatile weather and would therefore be unable to provide 98 per cent of Australia’s energy needs by 2040, under a government target. 

In his display ad, he quoted Griffith University emeritus professor on environmental science Ian Lowe and asked the climate change minister where the pumped hydro would go.

‘Mr Bowen, where will the 50 pumped hydro plants and 100 dams be located to allow the intermittent wind and solar farms to give reliable electricity?’ 

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull – an opponent of nuclear energy at odds with Mr Dutton – in 2017 announced his government would kickstart work on Snowy Hydo 2.0 in southern New South Wales.

But costs on the pumped hydro-power project last year blew out to $12billion, with the ad asking about the price of damming 100 rivers and valleys to create 50 pumped hydro projects. 

Mr Smith argued it would not be possible for renewable energy provide almost all of Australia’s energy within 15 years, without environmentally destructive dams being built to accommodate the pumped hydro projects.

‘With renewable energy you will need to have those dams because the battery storage is just far too expensive,’ he told Daily Mail Australia. 

‘If we’re not going to have nuclear energy, I think we’ll have to have the 50 pumped storage systems with a hundred dams.

‘That means nothing can grow – then you get the most incredible erosion because there’s no vegetation anymore because it all dies being under water half the time.’

Mr Smith argued droughts would also compromise the reliability of pumped hydro, arguing existing battery storage technology would be insufficient to cope with lack of sunshine or wind droughts that hampered the reliability of solar and wind power.

‘Someone is going to dawn on them that we have droughts,’ he said.

‘You could have a terrible drought on the east coast and end up with the water being evaporated.’

Mr Smith predicted the ALP federally and at state level would come around to backing nuclear power – arguing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese now supported nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS deal. 

‘We woke up one day and Labor … they thought it was in the national interest,’ Mr Smith said.

‘I think Labor will come on side. I’m absolutely sure they will, just as they came on side with the nuclear submarines.

‘It will be identical in the end with nuclear power – it is the only way you can go forward.’

Labor state governments in New South Wales and Victoria have laws blocking nuclear power, but Mr Smith predicts they will end up legislating to overturn these bans as they realise renewable energy is unreliable.

‘They will be convinced because there is simply no alternative,’ Mr Smith said.

‘We will have blackouts – you can’t run a country on intermittent solar and wind; it is impossible.

‘I understand every state has a ban on nuclear power, as well we have a federal ban on nuclear power, so those bans will have to be lifted.

‘We’re one of the largest sellers of uranium in the world but we have legislation stating you can’t even consider it and that is completely ridiculous.

‘We’ll have to change legislation in each state and federal.’