THE intermittent nature of renewable energy is costing far more than the infrastructure that generates the power, according to former Liberal Senator and ex-state party president Greg Mirabella.
Mr Mirabella, who is both a qualified accountant and engineer, drilled down on the costs of renewable energy, and said full system costs need to include peaking power, new transmission, storage, as well as environmental factors and expense to amenity, the community, and tourism, as well as the impacts on soil for horticulture and agriculture.
It comes after federal Liberal leader Peter Dutton announced the seven sites for proposed Nuclear Power Stations to become operational from 2035 under a Coalition government. 
Mr Mirabella’s comments contrast with a CSIRO 2023-24 GenCost report that determined nuclear power was more expensive than renewables and would take at least 15 years of develop.
“Other costs connected to renewable energy facilities need to be factored in with the argument, and after they are, renewable energy is more expensive than nuclear,” he said.
“There is a lot of hype about the cost of nuclear and that’s part of the political debate, and while nuclear energy is more expensive than most other things, it’s not more expensive than the way we’re going.
“Global statistics show that wind powers 40 per cent of the time and solar or PV produces only 30-40 per cent of the time.
“If it’s only producing a third of the time then you have to build three times as much to provide for the demand.”
Mr Mirabella said there are peaks and troughs with output and the way they deal with that is called firming.
“This is the only way the system works and there are people shifting energy from other sources when wind and solar feed into the system is low,” he said.
“This is a daily, hourly battle of firming or load management and to make it feasible you need stand-by gas plants, big batteries and transmission lines to balance the power.
“When you start to cost all that, the hourly cost of solar is anywhere from 3-5 times more expensive than coal.
“The proof is in your power bills.”
Mr Mirabella said from a political perspective, “Labor party state premiers’ objections about lifting the ban on uranium mining are  just toeing the party line,” he said.
“For politicians, climate change is a political construct, and unfortunately everything that’s done in this space is political.
“From an engineering perspective, spinning baseload is essential, and nuclear is the only current technology that can supply it if we are to eliminate combustion. There are 32 countries around the world that use it, and most of them have cheaper electricity than Australia, and most of them are looking at building more.”
 He reaffirmed that the Coalition is suggesting a mix of nuclear and renewable energy to power the nation - it’s not one or the other.  
“We need nuclear baseload to replace coal baseload”, he said.
Mr Mirabella was addressing a meeting of local Victorian Farmers Federation members on Wednesday night.  
He pointed out that from an agriculture perspective, a critical piece is missing from the energy politics debate.  
“Primary producers must be concerned about land degradation, and this includes restoring soils and using better fertilisers, and this should be part of the dialogue, given that we actually need more carbon back in the soil.  
“Decarbonisation as a term doesn’t make sense to us. We need carbon solids, and the best way to get them is from biomass conversion. Waste-to-energy systems and biogas should be at the top of the agenda.  Biomass is renewable – batteries aren’t.”