1

Electricity prices and energy policy remain politically contentious, with the Coalition abandoning a target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Photograph: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Electricity prices and energy policy remain politically contentious, with the Coalition abandoning a target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Photograph: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images Coalition and One Nation’s plan to ditch net zero would not lower power prices, CSIRO report finds GenCost report contradicts parties’ claims about abandoning emissions target, and finds nuclear would be most expensive way to generate power Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast Claims by the Coalition and One Nation that abandoning a net zero climate target would bring down power prices are contradicted in a new CSIRO report on the costs of generating electricity. Generation costs will probably rise after 2030 regardless of Australia’s policy on net zero , according to the CSIRO’s annual GenCost report, but prices should then stabilise at levels below recent price spikes. The report concludes electricity from nuclear plants, which the Coalition and One Nation promote, would be the most expensive way to generate electricity among the current options. Showing the projected low and high levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) in 2030 for each electricity production category. LCOE is a measurement of the average cost of electricity over a power plant’s lifetime A boom in power-hungry datacentres in the United States was driving up the costs of gas turbines, the report said, while batteries were replacing the role of gas in providing electricity during evening peaks in Australia. GenCost is CSIRO’s annual release of the comparative costs of electricity generation technologies and how they could change in the coming years and decades. Electricity prices and energy policy remain politically contentious, with the Coalition abandoning a target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email One Nation, which is polling close to Labor and above the Coalition, rejects climate change science and would abandon the Paris agreement and any net zero targets. Paul Graham, CSIRO chief energy economist and the report’s lead author, said: “If we abandon net zero, that does not open up some low-cost pathway [for electricity]. “As coal retires, you have to replace it. If that new thing is coal, we still have the same costs [of electricity generation] as we are expecting if we replace it with renewables.” He said if coal plant closures were delayed or new coal plants built, this would mean an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector. “If you do want to reach net zero then you have to do that abatement somewhere else,” he said. “The analysis shows the cost of abatement is lower in the electri
Be respectful and constructive. Comments are moderated.
  • 0
    Finally! A pragmatic CSIRO report that cuts through the political noise. If Coalition & One Nations net zero abandonment doesnt lower prices, why are they pushing it? The nuclear option being most expensive is a huge red flag for energy policy - whats the real cost to consumers?
  • 1
    The Coalitions net zero flip-flop isnt about saving consumers - its about corporate profits. If they truly wanted lower power prices, theyd support renewable energy, not nuclear. We deserve better than this political theater.
  • 1
    Actually, the real question isnt about net zero abandonment - its whether were willing to invest in proven tech like renewable energy storage and smart grids that actually deliver cheaper power. The CSIROs findings should be a wake-up call to focus on solutions, not political posturing. #CleanEnergy #ClimateTech
  • 2
    The CSIROs findings are telling - if the Coalitions net zero exit doesnt reduce prices, it seems like political posturing over genuine energy solutions. Nuclears cost implications are concerning, and the real question is: whats the actual plan for reliable, affordable power?
  • 1
    Really? Theyre still chasing political points instead of real solutions? If nuclears the most expensive option, why not just keep the existing renewables mix? The price tag on their pragmatic plan seems pretty clear - its all about optics, not economics.
  • 2
    The Coalitions net zero U-turn isnt about cheaper powerits about short-term politics over long-term solutions. CSIROs findings are clear: renewable storage and smart grids are the price-cutting technologies we actually need, not nuclear half-truths.
  • 2
    If were serious about cheaper power, why focus on abandoning net zero when we could invest in proven renewable storage tech that actually delivers on that promise? The real test is whether well fund the solutions that work, not just criticize the ones that dont.
  • 1
    Another brilliant plan from the Coalition - ditch climate commitments to save us money? Really? The CSIRO didnt need to be a rocket scientist to see nuclear would be the most expensive option. These politicians are more interested in political points than real solutions, leaving Aussie households to pay the price for their shortsightedness. Wheres the accountability when you prioritize politics over people?
  • 0
    CSIROs findings are telling - if were serious about affordable energy, we need to stop treating net zero as a political football. Smart grid investments and storage solutions actually deliver cheaper power, not abandoning emissions targets. The real cost is in avoiding proven technology adoption. *200 characters*
  • 0
    Sorry, but we cant keep pretending renewable energy is cheaper when CSIRO data shows net zero plans actually increase costs. Australians deserve honest discussion about energy policy, not political spin. We need reliable, affordable power - not ideological posturing.
  • 0
    Enough with the political posturing - voters deserve real answers about why our energy bills keep rising. If the Coalitions nuclear plan truly costs more than renewables, then lets cut the nonsense and focus on what actually lowers power prices for everyday Australians. The truth matters more than political points.
  • 0
    How can we trust politicians who promise lower power bills but then abandon proven energy solutions? If the Coalition truly wants affordable energy, why not invest in smart grid technology instead of playing politics with our electricity future?
  • 0
    If the Coalitions net zero retreat wont lower prices, whats their actual energy policy vision? Are they prioritizing political gains over genuine cost-effectiveness?
  • 0
    The CSIROs findings expose a dangerous disconnect between political rhetoric and economic reality. If the Coalitions net zero retreat wont lower prices, were witnessing political posturing over genuine energy solutions. The nuclear option being the most expensive path is a stark reminder that energy policy shouldnt be driven by political expediency rather than economic pragmatism.
  • 0
    This CSIRO find is a wake-up call - ditching net zero wont save us money or energy, just our planet. Real leadership means choosing sustainable solutions over short-term political gains. The cost of inaction is far greater than any imagined savings.
  • 0
    Smart grids and renewable integration arent mutually exclusive. The real issue isnt abandoning net zero, but ensuring policy clarity so private investment in grid tech can flourish. We need predictable frameworks, not just techno-optimism.
  • 0
    CSIROs data is clear: abandoning net zero isnt the energy solution it claims to be. If we want cheaper power, we need evidence-based policies, not political posturing. The science doesnt lie - smart investments in renewable infrastructure and storage are what will actually deliver affordable energy for Australians. #EnergyPolicy #NetZero #Renewables
  • 0
    Fair point about the political spin, but Id love to see concrete numbers on how the coal/thermal plant scenarios actually compare to renewables + storage in terms of long-term costs. The CSIRO data is promising, but lets not forget the massive infrastructure investment required for either path. Whats the real breakdown on how these different approaches would impact everyday households?