Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says more details of the Coalition’s nuclear plan will be revealed “in bite-sized bits”.

Dutton was defending his decision not to provide costing alongside the Coalition’s nuclear plan to build seven nuclear power plants at the sites of coal-fired power stations if it wins next year’s federal election.

Amid mounting criticism of a lack of detail in the plan unveiled on Wednesday, Dutton hit back on Thursday, telling ABC News Breakfast the Coalition had “taken a deliberate step not to be held hostage by the Labor Party”.

“We want the information out there in bite-sized bits, if you like, so that people can consume exactly what it is that we’re proposing and understand what it’s not proposing,” he said.

The sites nominated for nuclear plants are Loy Yang Power Station in Victoria, Callide and Tarong in Queensland, Mount Piper at Lithgow in central west NSW and Liddell in NSW’s Hunter region.

Small, modular reactors would also be built at Northern Power Station in Port Augusta and at Muja Power Station, southeast of Perth.

But the plan has had a mixed reception. Rowan Ramsey, who is the Liberal member for Gray, which takes in Port Augusta, backed the proposal on Thursday.

“I don’t think people should get themselves tied up in knots about the cost. That will be delivered in due course, but at this stage we’re discussing about where those reactors will go,” he told ABC TV.

“There are enormous benefits for the local communities, in this case Port Augusta, where we’ll see high-tech, high-paid jobs for at least 80 years or more, the life of the reactor and probably be more to come after that. We’ll see an economic zone created where, as part of that economic zone, it will be cheaper electricity delivered.”

But former Nationals MP Andrew Gee, now an independent in the NSW seat of Calare, said he was concerned about the lack of consultation.

“I think the overwhelming emotion yesterday was one of shock because this was basically dropped on the community,” he said.

“The Coalition and Peter Dutton and [Nationals leader] David Littleproud must have been working on this for a while, but nobody’s seen them out in the Lithgow area.”

The Coalition’s announcement means Australians will go to the federal election with a choice on energy: Renewables or nuclear.

The Albanese government has committed $22.7 billion over a decade for its Future Made in Australia plan – which aims to increase investment from the private sector to key renewables in Australian industry.

“This election is a choice between two different energy policies,” Energy Minister Chris Bowen said.

“Our energy policy, which we’ve been very clear about and implementing, and their fantasy which they can’t answer key questions on.”

Labor politicians have already drawn attack lines.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Andrew Leigh MP (@andrewleighmp)

MP Andrew Leigh posted a meme of a three-eyed Blinky Bill with Simpsons-style nuclear reactors, while Prime Minister Anthony Albanese warned Dutton’s plan would cost families.

“It makes sense for households to reduce their energy bills by having renewable energy, and just as it makes sense for an individual household, it makes sense for our national economy,” he told ABC Radio on Thursday.

“Peter Dutton is taking a radioactive sledgehammer to the Australian economy and Australian families will pay.”

Later, Albanese told Sky News Australia the Coalition’s plan was “half-baked”.

“The reason why there are no costs out there is because it is so expensive, it doesn’t add up,” he said.

“There’s a reason why people hide costings – and that’s because those costings would completely rule out any rational person going down this nuclear road.”

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said the costs of reactors would be announced before the election.

But even without specifics, the opposition’s plan is already being picked apart.

Curtin University Sustainable Engineering Group’s Liam Wagner rubbished Dutton’s proposal to rely on the Westinghouse-manufactured AP1000 reactor, saying it had consistently been late in its build time and was over budget.

“It would be irresponsible to seek that as the preferred option, given the significant delays that it’s faced in installation in the US,” Associate Professor Wagner said.

“It’s essentially like ripping up $100 bills.”

Wagner savaged the Coalition plan as an “absolute joke” and asked if it had checked the locations announced were appropriate for nuclear plants.

“We would need to have significant geological investigation into those areas, whether they would be suitable to have that type of plant built there,” he said.

“Are they the right places to install them based on the geological properties of that area? I sincerely doubt that the opposition has sought an opinion on that.”

On the Coalition’s pledge that the first two nuclear plants would be built between 2035 and 2037, Wagner said it was “extremely unlikely”, citing a lack of human capital.

“It is undoubtedly extremely difficult to build them and highly technical,” he said.

“Even if we were able to procure the right people to build it, I sincerely doubt that it would be built by 2035 … it’s just not feasible.”

In May, the CSIRO reported the first nuclear plants would not be achieved until 2040 at the earliest.

-with AAP