The analysis was released on Monday night, hours after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited Queensland’s Gympie and Rockhampton as part of a pre-election tour.

Based on calculations from Australian Energy Market Operator figures, it claimed the Liberal-National coalition’s proposal to build and operate two nuclear reactors in the state would affect its economy by $872B, in addition to affecting Queensland’s output by $61.1B in 2050-51 alone.

Commenting on the latter factor, Mr Albanese said opposition leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear plans would take Australia backwards in terms of economic activity.

“Under the Coalition [Dutton’s] vision is for a smaller Australia, is for making less things, is for less economic activity, is for less jobs,” he said.

“A Soviet-style command economy of the energy system with his nuclear plan, because no one in the private sector would touch this with a barge pole because it doesn’t add up economically.”

According to Dutton’s nuclear strategy, seven reactors would be built across Australia, with two in Queensland, these being Tarong, north-west of Brisbane, and Callide, west of Gladstone.

The additional five would be Liddell and Mount Piper in New South Wales (in the Hunter Valley and near Lithgow respectively), Port Augusta in South Australia, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, and Muja in Western Australia (near the town of Collie). Per the plan, these would be operational between 2035 and 2037.

The proposal offers a series of challenges to Australia: A country that contains the world’s largest deposits of uranium, but only one nuclear reactor (Lucas Heights in Sydney, used solely for scientific and medicinal purposes).

Like many other Australian states, Queensland has a ban on uranium mining – this has been in place since 1989 – although exploration and development is ongoing at three main deposits.

These are Laramide Resources’ (ASX:LAM) Westmoreland – located in the far north, Paladin Energy’s (ASX:PDN) Valhalla – close to Mt Isa, and Ben Lomond – west of Townsville, which is being developed by Canadian company IsoEnergy. Mining previously occurred within the state, with production from the Mary Kathleen mine (also near Mt Isa) running from 1958 to 1982, when its resources depleted.

And Queensland’s political outlook on the issue is conflicted: On one hand, the state gov’t just recently elected in October under David Crisafulli has indicated it would push back against Peter Dutton’s nuclear plans.

At the same time, figures such as Robbie Katter – the Katter Australia Party member for Traeger (near Mary Kathleen township) – have said he would like to start a conversation about domestic supply.

After a lot of chatter about the coalition’s proposal to place uranium at the heart of its energy strategy, it called on consultancy firm Frontier Economics to produce a financial modelling report, which was duly released in December.

According to this, the capital and operating costs of the coalition plan (of 7 nuclear reactors across Australia and net zero emissions by 2050) would be $331B – or $263B less than Labor’s plan.

According to the coalition’s plan, Australia’s energy market (by 2050) would be comprised of 54% renewable energy and 38% nuclear energy, with the rest made up of storage solutions – gas and batteries. By contrast, Labor’s vision for energy by that time would be built around 94% renewables.

Another difference lies in the approach to coal from each political side: Labor anticipates the phasing out of coal-fired energy by 2034, while the coalition has acknowledged its plan would see coal being a feature of the market past that point, with nuclear reactors not going online until 2036.

But is the argument about lower costs correct? Labor has said no, pointing to statements from national science agency the CSIRO that nuclear energy would be significantly more expensive for Australia.

In December, the CSIRO said building a nuclear power plant would cost twice as much as renewable energy, and that power plants would provide few financial benefits despite having a relatively long shelf life.

Crucially, it argued, “Long development lead times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.”

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

Contact has entered into a court-approved Scheme Implementation Agreement (SIA) to acquire 100% of Manawa, which is one of the country’s largest renewable energy generators.

The latter company will be an important addition to Contact as it seeks to diversify its portfolio. Manawa owns and operates 25 hydro schemes around New Zealand, hasaround 500 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity – which is winter-weighted – as well as over 1,200MW of geographically diversified, secured development options in wind and solar.

The agreement is backed by major Manawa shareholders Infratil and TECT Holdings, who hold or control between them 77.9% of Manawa shares, and have said they will vote n favour of the Scheme subject to certain conditions.

As part of the agreement, eligible Manawa shareholders will receive 0.5719 shares in Contact for each Manawa share (this being equivalent to $4.79 per Manawa share), plus cash consideration of $1.16 per Manawa share.

They will then take on around 18.5% of Contact shares once the scheme is completed.

Final approval will come from the New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC), with this to be implemented in the first half of 2025.

Contact chief executive Mike Fuge said the acquisition was an important step.

“This acquisition will make Contact Energy a stronger, more resilient electricity company forNew Zealand with a more diversified generation portfolio across the North and SouthIslands,” he said.

“Our hydro assets are complementary, with different seasonal generation profiles, which willhelp Contact to better manage dry year risk and to sell larger volumes of fixed priceelectricity into the market than we could independently.”

Investors appeared pleased with the news, and by 12:47 AEST, Contact shares were trading at $7.57 cents – a rise of 0.13% since the market opened.

Moreover, while politicians in Australia stress the importance of unlocking renewable energy projects for their constituents, the growing popularity of solar panels and electric vehicles (EVs) among the general public indicates that we too are beginning to lean into these changes as well. (While in the background, climate scientists stress that the embrace of such initiatives is critical.)

But how does this push play out on the landscape of the Australian Stock Exchange? Who are some of the Australian companies pursuing renewable energy projects, and how successful might they be?

Creating new solutions for battery technology is the focus for two ASX-listing companies in the renewable energy space, Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd and Altech Batteries Ltd, who despite their listing in Australia, have an operational base in Germany.

Vulcan’s unique attraction is how its flagship Zero Carbon Lithium Project combines the extraction of lithium – for use in batteries – from hot natural brines with the extraction of geothermal energy for heating.

Executive chair Francis Wedin said that while the production of geothermal energy and the use of heat to extract lithium were – in individual terms – fairly common activities for energy companies around the world, Vulcan’s combination of the two was both unique and able to set the company up for lower production costs and a smaller carbon footprint.

Vulcan holds 16 licenses across 1,790 square kilometres of territory comprising the Upper Rhine Valley Brine Field (URVBF): this is Europe’s largest lithium resource, with 27.7 million tonnes of contained LCE (lithium carbonate equivalent) held within 10 of the 16 licenses.

The hot brines provide a source of geothermal energy which the company is already producing commercially to local businesses and families, meaning that – according to Dr Wedin – Vulcan is currently ‘one of the few pure play renewable energy producers’ on the ASX.

“We run an ORC (organic ranking cycle) plant to produce power from the hot brine that comes up from the surface,” he said.

But lithium extraction was also achieved through the heat of the brines, albeit whatever was left over after the geothermal energy had been removed. Vulcan could sidestep the use of gas to heat brines for lithium extraction, which was the usual process for other lithium producing companies.

“Our brine comes up at about 165 degrees centigrade, and we take just under 100 kelvin off that in geothermal energy for heating and power,” Dr Wedin said.

“Then you have this lower grade heat of about 60 or 70 degrees which typically you can’t do much with and would otherwise be reinjected back into the reservoir, but it’s the perfect temperature to run lithium extraction.

“It’s just using the embodied waste heat within the brine, and that gives us a really low cost of production: so, it means that we are cost competitive, but at the same time our carbon footprint basically goes to zero.”

Last month, Vulcan kicked off production from its Lithium Extraction Optimisation Plant (LEOP) in Landau, becoming the first company to produce lithium from a local source in Europe, with early results suggesting that grades of over 95 percent could be extracted, with a consistent grade rate of 90 percent.

Meanwhile, another ASX-listed company with intended operations in Germany – Altech Batteries Ltd – has moved into the financing stage for its CERENERGY battery project, having completed a successful definitive feasibility study (DFS) in March.

Altech plans to build a 120-megawatt hour (MWh) facility in Saxony to produce sodium chloride solid state (SCSS) batteries – carrying the brand name CERENERGY – which are set to have a life span of 15 years.

Chief financial officer Martin Stein said the DFS has indicated a financial framework for the project, which will involve production and commercialisation of the CERENERGY project through Altech’s joint venture with German battery institute Fraunhofer IKTS.

“With a conservative investment estimate of €156 million, our DFS not only demonstrates an excellent net present value of €169 million but also generates a significant net cash flow of €48 million annually from operations,” he said.

When Altech formed the joint venture with Fraunhofer two years ago, it sought to build on the latter’s research and development into batteries which – over an eight-year period – yielded the CERENERGY® technology, producing cells that were three times larger and specifically tailored for grid storage applications.

“Fraunhofer saw a viable pathway forward for the CERENERGY® project as the world turns towards renewable energy and the requirement to store this energy in Battery Energy Storage Systems,” Mr Stein said.

“Altech and the joint venture have designed the full-scale specifications for the sellable product, the 1MWH GridPack, have designed the plant layout, selected all of the robotic, engineering and manufacturing suppliers in Germany, have progressed permitting of the plant, furthered negotiations on offtake with German utility providers as well as progressed with financing of the plant construction.”

With the latter developments all being achieved within eighteen months of the joint venture signing, Altech is evidently moving the CERENERGY® project along quickly. But the attributes of the batteries themselves were what made it stand out among competitors.

 “Unlike lithium-ion batteries, the CERENERGY® battery uses sodium-chloride (common table salt) technology and is fire and explosion proof, has a large operating temperature range and a longer operating life of 15 years,” Mr Stein said.

“The battery also does not use any of the critical minerals found in lithium-ion batteries such as lithium, copper, cobalt, manganese and graphite.”

With the market for grid batteries growing at a 28 percent compound annual growth rate, Mr Stein added that Altech was seeking to get its battery to market as soon as possible. For that reason, the company had decided to boost funding by extending a share purchase plan – worth $5 million – which it launched last month, with May 22 the closing date.

In another corner of the market – specifically solar energy – Frontier Energy Ltd’s Waroona Renewable Energy Project in Western Australia is also providing key indications of innovation.

“The Waroona Project is a solar energy project with an integrated battery energy storage system,” said Frontier CEO Adam Kiley.

“By integrating a battery storage solution with our solar energy production, we ensure our battery is always fully charged to deliver into the market when it is most required  (ie: when demand and prices are at the highest levels).  We also ensure that all of the energy that comes from our battery is 100% renewable energy solution, which cannot be guaranteed from other big battery solutions that draw energy from the grid.”

Another upside to the Waroona project – according to Mr Kiley – were cost reductions as it moved closer to production.

“We are seeing a reduction in costs of key components such as solar panels and battery equipment through our tender process, compared to our DFS – even though the DFS and the tender processes occurred only a few months apart,” he said.

Frontier announced recently that it had shortlisted preferred banks as funding partners for the Project and is on track to receive binding credit approved terms in July that will allow for as Final Investment Decision shortly thereafter.  The Project is on track to deliver first energy onto the Western Australian grid by 2026.

In another corner of the clean energy market, BPH Energy Managing Director and Executive Chairman David Breeze said his company’s decision to dive into the hydrogen space through its 15.6 percent investment in US company Clean Hydrogen Technologies was driven by the rising global demand for this fuel in particular, as a clean replacement for diesel fuel used by trucks and ships.

“Hydrogen demand in the United States is projected to reach up to 73 million metric tons by 2050 largely driven by its use as transportation fuel,” he said.

As a strategic investment for BPH, Mr Breeze said he was excited by Clean Hydrogen’s ability to produce hydrogen with no CO2 emissions and a ‘cracking efficiency’ above 90 percent, with the latter referring to the percentage of hydrocarbons broken into solida carbon and hydrogen per hour.

 “This high level of cracking efficiency has been consistently achieved by Clean Hydrogen,” he said.

“What is new, is Clean Hydrogen’s success in the efficiency of cracking the methane into Turquoise Hydrogen with non-CO2 emissions and the quality of the carbon black produced, being majority Carbon Nano-Tubes (CNTs), which are highly conductive and can be used in battery manufacturing and other high value products.”

Mr Breeze added that another vital aspect of Clean Hydrogen’s technology was the minimal change required to existing infrastructure and supply chains.

“The Clean Hydrogen solution is being built with flexibility to work downstream at heavy transport fuelling hubs currently in use in the USA, mid-stream at steel plants replacing coking coal and upstream where the natural gas is processed into hydrogen, a much higher energy source which can be piped for all uses, including the production of electricity,” he said.