Coalition Fake Nuclear Facts

.

The Coalition’s “Australian electricity cost” of 56 cents per kilowatt-hour is outrageously high, so their conveyed messages that Australian electricity is more expensive than elsewhere is misinformation.

In more detail:

The Coalition leader, Mr Dutton, often promotes his nuclear scheme by claiming Australian electricity costs three times more than in nuclear Ontario and Tennessee, and is the highest in the world!

Not so. Dutton’s website shows he’s picked an inflated Australian cost of 56 c/kWh. It is the peak-hours cost in a niche South Australian electricity plan – suitable for people with solar panels and batteries. These people can: (1) charge their batteries from the sun, (2) top up from the grid for 18 c/kWh at two pm each day, and (3) rarely pay the peak cost. The peak cost is a ridiculously high cost estimate for them – and for all Australians, making Dutton’s comparison and argument for nuclear power bogus.

We cannot trust his estimates of today’s costs. It’s a clear warning to not trust his future nuclear statistics.

We need ways of deterring politicians from promoting schemes using malign statistics, like cherry-picked costs. Politicians should not sell nation-shaping investments using rigged statistics. This misinformation is an attack on well-informed democracy.

Here are some brief conclusions about Coalition cost claims, each supported by discussion.

Evidence: Four Coalition Talking Points

Here are four deceptive talking points the Coalition has often used since mid-June 2024 and continues to use, e.g. on the ABC Insiders program last week on 2/2/2025. The Coalition airs these talking points with authority and confidence, as no one has yet exposed and silenced this deception. They have been misleading the nation and perhaps the parliament.

These quotes about “current electricity prices” are on the website of the Coalition leader, Mr Peter Dutton, and are the basis for many of the claims on this web page.

(The cost of electricity is in cents per kilowatt hour, c/kWh.)

“Ontario … households pay around about 14 c/kWh. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 c/kWh.”

(Dutton’s website interview: 19/6/2024: Quote from Shadow Minister O’Brien: Search for “Ontario”)

“We could be like Ontario, where … they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.”

(Dutton’s Website: 24 July 2024)

These two quotes show that the Coalition:

  • compared the cost of electricity in Australia and Ontario,
  • used a peak hours cost of 56 c/kWh as their Australian cost, 
  • used an average cost of 14 c/kWh for their Ontario cost, and
  • concluded that Ontarians pay a quarter of what we pay in Australia: 14 is exactly a quarter of 56.

“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. 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. We are paying the highest cost in the world”

(Dutton’s website interview, 19/12/2024: Search for “south” in this document)

This quote shows that the Coalition:

  • uses a cost of 18 Australian cents/kWh for their Ontario cost. (This looks like a peak hours Ontario cost of 18.2 Canadian cents/kWh),
  • concludes that Australians pay three times more for electricity than households in Ontario and Tennessee, as 56 is close to 3 times 18, and
  • also concludes that “We are paying the highest in the world.”

“As for prices, consider South Australia. It has the largest penetration of renewables of any Australian state. South Australians are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.”

(Dutton’s Website: Talk to CEDA: 23/9/2024)

These talking points, plus a little investigation, reveal deception in many forms.

They cherry-picked their Australian 56 c/kWh cost.

Conclusion:

The Coalition found an exceedingly high peak-hours usage cost of 56 c/kWh in a South Australian Time-of-Use electricity plan and picked this as their fair estimate of Australian electricity costs. This is cherry-picking, an old statistical trick.

Their inflated cost is unsuitable for comparing Australian costs with costs elsewhere, so their comparisons are misinformation.

Discussion:

The South Australian electricity plan charges 56 c/kWh only during peak cost hours of the day. It’s the Energy Australia, South Australian (SA) Power Networks Zone: Solar Max Residential Time of Use Plan (December 2024) with:

  • Usage costs
    • Peak hours: 56.98 c/kWh: 14 hours a day
    • Off-peak usage: 30.80 c/kWh: 1 am to 6 am: 5 hours a day
    • Shoulder hours: 18.04 c/kWh: 10 am to 3 pm: 5 hours a day
  • Supply charge: 123.86 cents/day
  • Solar export rebate: 4.5 or 10 c/kWh

This plan is for households with solar panels and a battery. It offers them cheap electricity as they can generally avoid using the 56 c/kWh electricity by:

  • charging their battery for free from their solar panels,
  • fully charging the battery for 18 c/kWh from the grid between 1 pm and 3 pm so they have the battery fully charged by 3 pm each day,
  • partly charging the battery for 30.8 c/kWh from the grid between 1 am and 6 am, enough to meet their normal morning electricity use,
  • using the battery electricity during the expensive hours,
  • changing to a different electricity plan if the bill gets high.

Assuming these households use their shoulder hours (18 c/kWh), off-peak hours (30.8 c/kWh) and solar panels (0.0 c/kWh) electricity equally, a reasonable estimate of their usage costs would be an average of the three costs, 16.3 c/kWh. This is much lower than the Coalition’s 56 c/kWh. So, the Coalition’s 56 c/kWh cost is not even a fair estimate of the electricity cost for South Australian households on this plan, let alone for other Australian households.

Other Australian households have the choice of many costs lower than the 56 c/kWh, including the Victorian overnight 8 c/kWh cost discussed below.

The Coalition’s high Australian cost of 56 c/kWh is so high that it’s unsuitable for comparing Australian costs with costs elsewhere, so all their comparisons are misinformation. This applies to the Coalition’s conveyed messages that Australian households pay:

  • four times more than in Ontario,
  • three times more than in Ontario and Tennessee, and
  • “the highest cost in the world”

This is the central assertion of this page.

Inflated Australian cost used again

Again, consider this quote:

“In Ontario, … people are paying 18 c/kWh; in South Australia at the moment, people are paying 56 c/kWh. … We are paying the highest cost in the world”

The Coalition has again used their wildly inflated and unrepresentative Australian cost of 56 c/kWh. This renders their comparison misleading, regardless of the source of their Ontario cost.

Their logic could equally pick 8 c/kWh.

Conclusion: The Coalition picked their Australian electricity cost of 56 c/kWh from a single usage cost in a Time of Use Electricity Plan. By this strange logic, they could have picked 8 c/kWh, which is an overnight cost from another electricity plan, rather than 56 c/kWh. Overlooking data like this 8 c/kWh cost is an example of cherry-picking. Ignoring evidence that doesn’t suit you is like leaving a green cherry on the tree. One could argue that Australia had cheap electricity based on this 8 c/kWh, but it would be a misleading argument.

Evidence:

This 8 c/kWh (December 2024) is the overnight cost in the AGL Victorian Residential Night Saver electricity plan offers:

  • Usage costs
    • Peak hour: 25.949 c/kWh
    • Off-peak hours: midnight till 6 am: 8 c/kWh
  • Supply charge: 102.883 cents/day
  • Solar export rebate: 3.3 c/kWh

They ignored a higher NSW cost: 65 c/kWh.

Conclusion: The Coalition ignored an NSW electricity plan with a 65 c/kWh peak hour cost, which is higher than the SA 56 c/kWh. This NSW cost would undermine their false narrative that SA has the highest prices because of SA’s high penetration of renewables. This is more cherry-picking: ignoring the NSW cost that did not suit their narrative.

Evidence:

The NSW plan the Coalition ignored is from the same retailer and has the same plan name as the Coalition’s South Australian 56 c/kWh plan. They are both “Energy Australia Residential Solar Max Time-of-use” plans. The NSW plan offered (December 2024):

  • Usage costs
    • Peak hour: 65.44 c/kWh
    • Shoulder hours: 34.43 c/kWh
  • Supply charge: 112.09 cents/day
  • Solar export rebate: 5.0 or 10 c/kWh

The Coalition incorrectly conveys that SA’s high penetration of renewables causes high SA electricity costs. They say,

“In South Australia, people are paying 56 c/kWh” (19/12/2024), and

“As for prices, consider South Australia. It has the largest penetration of renewables of any Australian state. South Australians are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.” (23/9/2024).

Surprisingly, this NSW cost could convey that coal is expensive. Using their invalid logic, we would have:

As for prices, consider NSW. It has the largest penetration of coal of any Australian state. NSW households are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.

The Coalition ignored the high NSW cost so they could keep on falsely arguing against renewable energy.

They misuse their own data: False generalisation.

The Coalition claims that Australians pay four times more for electricity than Ontarians.

“We could be like Ontario, where … they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.” (24 July 2024)

This comparison assumes that all Australians always pay 56 c/kWh, whereas their 56 c/kWh electricity plan only has some Australians paying this sometimes. The Coalition has taken its narrow data as applying generally; it’s a false generalisation and has led to false conclusions. It’s a clear example of deliberate manipulation and deception.

Renewables increase prices: False causation.

Conclusion: The Coalition falsely claims that renewables drive up electricity prices, using the example of South Australia (SA). This is false causation. SA does have both a high penetration of renewables and high retail prices, but this does not mean that one caused the other.

Discussion:

The Coalition said,

“As for prices, consider South Australia. It has the largest penetration of renewables of any Australian state. South Australians are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.” (Dutton’s Website: Talk to CEDA: 23/9/2024)

A 2022 South Australian Productivity Commission report found: (1) While South Australia once had some of the highest wholesale electricity prices on the East Coast grid, the expansion of wind and solar generation has resulted in the state often having some of the lowest wholesale prices. (2) Despite this shift, customers have yet to see corresponding reductions in retail prices.

(SA renewables surge bringing down energy prices, but consumers miss out: Renew Economy: 11 May 2022)

Renewable energy does not drive prices up; it drives prices down.

The Coalition has found statistics to argue that black is white based on cherry-picking: ignoring wholesale prices, focusing on retail costs, and picking their 56 c/kWh from South Australia.

Renewables increase prices: No causative mechanism.

Conclusion: The Coalition must offer a causative mechanism for its claim that renewables cause high electricity prices in South Australia.

There is a mechanism for the opposite, i.e., renewables reducing electricity prices. The Gillard government introduced a cost on carbon dioxide emissions to reduce emissions. However, the Coalition then repealed this measure. Currently, a subsidy supports renewables with renewable generation earning Large Scale Renewable Generation Certificates worth about 5 c/kWh. This enables renewable generators to sell electricity at negative prices and make a profit. Renewables often compete by bidding low to sell their electricity, and the 5-minute wholesale electricity price becomes negative. This forces coal baseload generators to bid even lower to avoid the costs of shutting down and restarting. This mechanism has a considerable impact. In South Australia, negative prices occurred for 34% of the December 2023 quarter. So, renewables foster market competition and drive down wholesale electricity prices. This tends to lower retail prices.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) National Energy Market dashboard shows low SA prices. It displays each state’s real-time, 5-minute wholesale electricity prices in $/MWh. During periods of abundant renewable generation, prices drop as generators compete by bidding low to supply the market.

  • (AEMO: NEM Dashboard)
  • The dashboard shows prices like 44.0 $/MWh = 4.4 c/kWh
  • 44.0 $/MWh = 44.0 x (100 cents) / (1,000 kWh) = 44.0 / 10 c/kWh = 4.4 c/kWh

True statements designed to deceive

** Conclusion:

In some of their nuclear talking points, the Coalition walks a disciplined tightrope, making true statements while strongly conveying a false message.

*** Example One:

“As for prices, consider South Australia. It has the largest penetration of renewables of any Australian state. South Australians are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.” (23/9/2024)

Here, still discussing the same quote as in the previous section, the Coalition makes two true statements: (1) SA does have the highest penetration of renewables, and (2) SA does have the highest retail costs. Even so, the two truths convey a deception because the Coalition places the two truths next to one another, implying that renewables cause high costs.

The Coalition typically presents strong, concise arguments. So, their failure to explicitly state, “The SA renewables have caused the high costs,” is suspicious. It suggests they know the claim is false and avoid making it directly to avoid being caught. Instead, they place the two facts next to one another, subtly leading the public to that mistaken conclusion.

** Example Two:

“In South Australia at the moment, people are paying 56 cents a kilowatt hour … [25 words omitted here] … We [some of us] are paying the highest cost in the world [some of the time].” (19/12/2024)

The statement is arguably true because you can hear the “some” as in the above square brackets. However, it becomes fraudulent when you hear “all”, which is the strongly conveyed meaning:

“we [all Australians] are paying the highest cost in the world [all the time]”.

 This statement is like Escher’s woodcut of ducks, where the viewer flips between seeing black ducks flying to the left and white ducks flying to the right. The statement predominantly has you focussed on hearing “all” which is misinformation, and you can flip to hearing “some” which may be true. (I have not made a global study of electricity prices.)

** Round up

This is the most damning evidence against the Coalition. It shows knowing deception. The precise language in these statements requires precision, discipline, and effort to maintain the truth while conveying the misleading message. (I think it would be hard to make this point against the Coalition in a radio interview.)

This section, in particular, makes me think of this as a masterclass in deception.

They compared apples and oranges.

Conclusion: The Coalition claims that Australians pay four times more than Ontarians for electricity by comparing (1) an Australian peak-hours usage cost of 56 c/kWh with (2) an average Ontario usage cost of 14 c/kWh. Comparing a “peak usage cost” to an “average usage cost” is not a valid or fair comparison. For a valid comparison, you must compare like with like.

Discussion:

The Ontario 14 c/kWh seems to come from (1) averaging the off-peak, mid-peak and peak usage charges of 8.7, 12.2 and 18.2 Canadian c/kWh, (2) adding 10% to get 14.3 Australian c/kWh, and (3) rounding this to get the Coalition’s cost of 14 c/kWh. (Edis, 2024)

It’s not valid to compare an extreme value with an average.

The Coalition said:

“Ontario … households pay around about 14 c/kWh. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 c/kWh.”

This comparison is not valid. You can use this logic to argue that women are taller than men, comparing the average male height with the height of a tall netball player.

“Men are around about 177 cm tall. There are women up to 197 cm tall.”

The Coalition compared an extreme Australian cost with an average Ontario cost. Their cost comparison is misinformation.

They have not sourced their data.

Conclusion: The Coalition said, “In parts of Australia, they pay up to 56 c/kWh”. Nowhere have they said which electricity plan includes this 56 c/kWh cost. Disclosing data sources helps others to investigate, encourages rational debate, and likely leads to more successful investments.

Discussion:

In this statement, the Coalition does (1) not reveal the electricity plan that gives them this cost, (2) not say this 56 c/kWh is a peak-hours cost, (2) not say the cost is less in other hours, and (3) not say this applies in South Australia.

Edis (2024) searched for a plan with a 56 c/kWh cost but only found the Energy Australia 57 c/kWh plan.

No aspect of these statistics is valid.

Conclusion: The Coalition’s presentation of current Australian electricity costs and their cost comparisons are flawed to a remarkable extent. Not one aspect of their analysis is valid.

Examining these Coalition’s arguments is an education in constructing biased statistics and delivering false messages.

A sound way of estimating an Australian electricity price

You could estimate the cost of electricity in Australia by getting data from retailers. They know (1) the retail electricity plans that they offer households and small businesses, (2) how much electricity they sell from these plans in kWh/year, and (3) their income from these plans in dollars/year. Getting annual figures would remove any possible seasonal variations. You would not have to ask every retailer, just enough retailers, so the total electricity sold by the data providers was a significant portion of the total sold, say over one-third. This data would give you an estimate of the cost of electricity in Australia: the total income divided by the total kWh.

We cannot trust the Coalition in simple matters.

The Coalition has misled Australians over the simplest of their statistics: statistics on today’s electricity costs.

How do they expect the public to believe their nuclear future, especially when the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Management Operator (AEMO) dispute their claims that:

  • Australia can start nuclear generation in 11 years, and
  • Building nuclear will generate cheaper electricity than renewables.

For the more complex difficulties with the nuclear scheme, see another page on this site: The Coalition’s nuclear folly.

Dutton’s website provides most of this evidence.

Conclusion: The central evidence of the Coalition’s deception is from transcripts of Coalition interviews on Peter Dutton’s website.

Like hoons who drop wheelies in a stolen car and proudly post this online, the Coalition has caught itself red-handed.

We need an inquiry into the misuse of statistics.

Conclusion: The Coalition’s deception about current electricity prices has been so blatant that the government must inquire into the misuse of statistics by politicians in public debate – and consider ways to inhibit this.

Discussion:

The inquiry could:

  • closely examine the current Coalition campaign for nuclear power and other campaigns,
  • develop guidelines for using statistics and financial analysis in public policy debates, and
  • suggest guidelines or laws with suitable penalties to deter politicians from selling schemes based on invalid statistics.

Guidelines for using statistics in public debate

These guidelines for using statistics in public debates came from considering the nuclear campaign’s electricity cost claims.

  • Avoid Cherry-Picking Data: Select data that provides a comprehensive and balanced view. Do not pick statistics that only support your argument while ignoring conflicting data. (Example: The Coalition picked a 56 c/kWh Australian electricity cost, ignoring contrary figures of 8 c/kWh and 65 c/kWh.)
  • Choose Appropriate Comparison Metrics: Ensure the statistics you use for comparisons are relevant and adequate. Using a single metric that ignores other relevant factors often produces misleading conclusions. (Example: The Coalition focused solely on peak-hour electricity usage costs, neglecting other factors such as off-peak and daily costs.)
  • Use Reliable and Reputable Sources: Rely on trusted and credible sources for your data. (Example: The Coalition’s reliance on the 56 c/kWh Australian cost led to invalid comparisons and misleading talking points.)
  • Make Apples-to-Apples Comparisons: Make comparisons between equivalent data or scenarios. Comparing unrelated figures leads to invalid conclusions. (Example: The Coalition compared an Australian peak-hour usage cost with an Ontario average usage cost, leading to an invalid comparison and a misleading talking point.)
  • Correlation does not establish causation: When two variables occur together, and you argue that one variable causes the other, present a causal mechanism supported by evidence. (Example: The Coalition misleadingly conveyed that the high penetration of renewables in South Australia caused high retail electricity costs without providing any causal link explaining how this occurred.)
  • Disclose Data Sources: Clearly state the sources of your data. This transparency builds credibility and allows others to verify your information and conclusions. (Example: The Coalition did not disclose the source of their 56 c/kWh electricity cost.)

Inhibiting cherry-picking

I unearthed this abuse of cost statistics in December 2024. Here are some tentative thoughts about how to inhibit this deception.

I doubt politicians would fence themselves in with laws, like the consumer protection laws against “misleading claims about a product”. Perhaps some parliamentary or party guidelines would help.

Nation-shaping investments should not depend on flawed statistics.

A single effective guideline against politicians cherry-picking data in debates about major projects could have prevented nearly all of the deception described on this page.

Without their cherry-picked 56 c/kWh, the Coalition would not have had this statistic to support their claim that we are paying four times as much as Ontarians, and “the highest in the world”. Inhibiting cherry-picking alone would move us towards proper evidence-based politics with more rational decision-making.

Determining the truth can be contentious, but assessing whether a political campaign has deviated from statistical and financial analysis guidelines should be relatively straightforward. Politicians could still make extreme claims, but the guidelines would reduce the authority of their claims by removing the supporting statistics.

For example, the government could create a tribunal of statistical and financial analysts with the power to examine politicians’ statistics after a complaint; if the tribunal found the politician had cherry-picked data, the politician might have to retract their invalid conclusions publicly.

We pay politicians to advance the nation’s interests, not to cause chaos by fabricating “alternative truths” supporting wild schemes. Politicians must strengthen our democracy against alternative truths. This is a national security matter.

The Coalition has gained traction through its misleading promotion of nuclear power. They could squander billions of dollars and Australia’s opportunity to become a renewable energy superpower. Any success of these tactics would encourage other campaigns to adopt similar strategies.

Truth in Political Advertising Laws

South Australia enacted a Truth in Political Advertising Law (TPAL) in 1985. During state election campaigns, it is an offence to advertise using inaccurate statements that are misleading to a material extent. So, there are laws limiting politicians.

I don’t know whether TPALs would limit the misuse of statistics described on this page. If you know about this, please let me know.

(Truth in political advertising: The Australia Institute)

Coalition leaders should resign.

The Coalition leaders should publicly acknowledge their flawed presentation of current Australian electricity costs or resign from parliament.

This blatant deception over their simplest statistics has shocked me. It trashes trust and undermines effective democracy.

Falsehood should not displace rational debate.

A Golding cartoon in the Age newspaper nailed it. “Academy awards … and the award for delivering nuclear energy policy announcements at a press conference … with a straight face … goes to … “. The cartoon got a grim smile from me because, behind the humour, there’s the frightening reality that “alternative facts” now often displace rational political debate.

We must hold the Coalition to account.

The Coalition repeatedly vilifies the ALP for saying electricity prices would fall, for example:

“[The ALP] promised a $275 cut in electricity, it’s never materialised, and Australian families are suffering today because Jim Chalmers, along with Anthony Albanese, are probably the worst duo in our country’s history since Gough Whitlam – let’s be very clear about it.

(Dutton’s website interview: 17/12/2024 )

The ALP prediction was wrong and silly, but this is a minor failing compared to the Coalition’s deception.

The Coalition has carefully constructed misleading “current electricity costs” and comparisons. Then, for over 7 months, they’ve consistently presented these to the nation. This is an attack on well-informed democracy.

We can hold the Coalition to account by repeatedly pointing out their fraudulent current electricity costs.

If the nuclear scheme is so good, why are they selling it with these rigged statistics.

If you torture numbers enough, they’ll tell you anything you want. The Coalition has demonstrated this just by handling current electric costs. Investigating the Coalition’s treatment of these current costs has been like a masterclass in deception.

Still using this “fact” in March 2025

So here we are, five weeks before the 2025 election, and the Coalition is still using this misleading talking point in a radio interview with Sabra Lane.

“We’ve had a threefold increase in manufacturing closures over the last couple of years. Now, those people … have just moved to Tennessee or to Wyoming or to Ontario, … the world has embraced nuclear because it delivers an electricity cost about one third of what Australians are paying here.”

(Dutton interview with Sabra Lane: ABC AM: 26 March 2025)

I doubt that any manufacturing companies have moved to Ontario, and certainly not because of cheap nuclear electricity.

Consider copying the Coalition quotes.

The quotes I use as evidence could disappear from the Coalition’s website, so please consider making a certified copy of them.

References

Edis, Tristan: 2024: Ontario’s huge debt: Renew Economy: 30 Oct 2024)

Related pages on this site:

The Coalition’s nuclear power folly

Updated 28 March 2025

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.