For investors that have poured tens of billions of dollars into the wind, solar and battery assets supposed to provide the framework for decarbonisation, the left-field nuclear announcement creates confusion and uncertainty around the billions more that they have already earmarked to invest.
Golding’s view.Credit: Matt Golding
The trouble is that introducing nuclear power into the mix now also undermines the business case and the returns on investments in wind, solar and batteries that have already been made.
The pressure on the Coalition to walk back its nuclear policy if it wins government will be nothing short of overwhelming.
It is easy and simplistic for Dutton to suggest that Australia’s transition to date has been funded by overseas money. This greatly underestimates the vast store of capital that has come from Australia’s superannuation funds, wealthy individuals, family offices and our own sovereign Future Fund.
Even if one were to successfully argue that nuclear power is a good option, trying to introduce it now, rather than 10 years ago, is financially reckless.
It is like being halfway through designing and building a house and then deciding you want to build a block of apartments. This was the analogy made by one large international energy investor I spoke with on Thursday.
Curiously, most investors in renewable assets, all of whom are gobsmacked by the Coalition’s position on nuclear, don’t want to talk about it publicly.
At this stage, they believe the nuclear notion is fanciful and don’t want to give it any credibility or oxygen, and they strongly believe changing the renewable goalposts would mean serious sovereign risk damage for Australia.
However, the Clean Energy Investor Group, the peak body representing large renewable investors including Macquarie, Blackrock and Tilt Renewables – with a portfolio of $38 billion in 76 clean energy assets – has come out punching.
Loading
“This shift [in approach to energy policy] raises unprecedented sovereign risks for both domestic and international investors, signalling instability in Australia’s commitment to a renewable energy future essential for funding long-term projects,” it said in a statement.
“The potential withdrawal from renewable energy targets exacerbates this uncertainty, deterring future investments and prompting current investors to reassess their positions, Such decisions risk Australia’s progress toward meeting its commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.”
Lastly, the Coalition’s policy will require Australia to continue to use coal in the production of energy for far longer than currently anticipated. How these ageing coal-fired power plants will fare operating for 10 or 20 years longer won’t be an easy issue to solve.