Australia should consider nuclear power as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions according to a government appointed taskforce.
Credit: iStockphoto
SYDNEY: Australia should consider nuclear power as a way of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, according to a Federal Government appointed taskforce.
However it is unlikely that any nuclear plants would be producing electricity before 2020, and they would come at a considerable cost to the Government.
In a report released yesterday, the taskforce - headed by Ziggy Switkowski, a nuclear physicist and former head of the telecommunications giant Telstra - found that nuclear power would be up to 50 per cent more expensive than coal or gas-fired power.
"In many countries, nuclear power is already competitive with other baseload technologies, although it is not cost competitive with Australia's very low cost and abundant coal-based generation," said the report.
Nuclear power "will only become competitive in Australia in a system where the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly recognised."
This would require a carbon tax somewhere in the range of A$15 to A$40 per tonne, said the report.
Despite the costs involved, the taskforce predicted that nuclear energy will be important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.
"Nuclear power is the least-cost low-emission technology that can provide baseload power, [and] is available today," said the report.
Energy consumption in Australia will double before 2050, according to the report, which cautioned that energy technologies other than nuclear should also be explored.
"No single technology, nuclear or any other, is likely to be able to meet projected demand and achieve the necessary cuts [in emissions]," it said.
The earliest that nuclear electricity would be available is in 10 years, although the taskforce predicted 15 years as more likely. It said that if the first reactor came online before 2020, then Australia could have a fleet of 25 reactors by 2050.
Energy production is Australia's largest source of carbon dioxide - the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming - accounting for more than 68 per cent of emissions.
A fleet of 25 nuclear plants would reduce Australia's total carbon dioxide emissions to 18 per cent relative to 'business as usual' in 2050, said the report.
An 18 per cent reduction would result in emission levels increasing to around the equivalent of 700 megatonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050, compared with the 565 megatonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emitted in 2004.
"It shows that nuclear is an expensive, slow and dirty way of making very little impact on the problem of global climate change," said Ian Lowe, Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University in Queensland. "We need to cut [emissions] by at least 60 per cent … Nuclear just doesn't make enough difference to be worth using."
Lowe suggests that renewables would be a better - and cheaper - option than nuclear power, with its projected 50 per cent increase in cost over coal or gas-fired power.
According to Lowe, the Federal Goverment's own Department of Resources and Energy has estimated that we could get 100 per cent of our electricity from renewables for the same extra cost.
"So there is no economic case for nuclear power, even on the data used by this pro-nuclear inquiry," he said.
The taskforce said that Australia would need new laws to regulate any nuclear industry and a substantial investment in research and education to train personnel to work in the industry.
But it came up with no detailed plans for the treatment and storage of nuclear waste. Nor did it propose locations for power plants.
inverse ??
"A fleet of 25 nuclear plants would reduce Australia's total carbon dioxide emissions to 18 per cent relative to 'business as usual' in 2050, said the report."
Note this says "TO" 18%, yet the following paragraph says "An 18 per cent reduction ..."
And then this illiterate know-it-all supposed scientific expert says "It shows that nuclear is an expensive, slow and dirty way ..." claiming (probably correctly) that at least a 60% reduction is required.
HELLO ??? Isn't a reduction "to 18%" actually a reduction BY 82% ??
Funny how Greenies promoted wind-power until it got close to them. Funny how they promote massive solar-power farms, but please keep them out of sight, and don't build power transmission lines to them. Funny how they're promoting wave-power, but just wait till someone builds it big-scale by their favourite beach, or dams their favourite estuary for tidal power. They already oppose more Hydro because it's not their idea of conserving energy, and then force us to use Compact Fluorescents (with vapourised mercury inside, of course, but just don't tell anyone)
Wouldn't it be nice to have a little honesty here? Like telling us who gets the money from Carbon Credits for a start. Or who invented them - well this at least can be found, just do a search and a funny 5-letter word comes up, "ENRON", so do a search on that for history, and combine the two to see who financed Al Gore and Greenpeace to promote the trade.
Oldgeek - I grew up.
CO-who?
Carbon emissions tax - only a particularly greedy and twisted politician could have thought that one up. I wonder who it was?
Its OK to pollute as long as you pay tax! Australia should bring out a new tax system; its OK to burn things as long as you pay tax!
CO2 emissions are only a tiny fraction of human pollutants, and relative to some of the others, CO2 is harmless (it does not cause cancer for example).
Reduce CO2 by increasing Plutonium pollution. Sounds like another Politicians answer - evade the question, pass the buck and do something stupid.
If I remember correctly, Australia is a big baron desert that gets lots of sun. Oh, and there's all that new solar power technology.
Sun+technology=cheap renewable energy
Sun+technology+Politicians=20 Nuclear Power stations + holiday for a politician
Environment pollution tax
Nuclear Power with its most insidious of pollutants will surely be paying a very high tax on the potential damage it could cause.
The Carbon credit scheme is a brilliant way to bring the environment into the economic equation. The forests of the world - what is left of them are a massive carbon sink, plus they pump water back into the atmosphere creating a self perpetuating favorable environment for rapid forest growth. They are the septic tanks of the atmosphere - turning the waste product CO2 back into breathable oxygen - and at present no one is paying for their extremely important role in the perpetuation of life on mother earth. It is essential for the survival of humanity (and other species) that the forests and the environment become part of the economic equation - so please stop knocking the carbon credit scheme and accept what needs to be done.
Please - Solar NOT Nuclear.
Solar NOT Nuclear
The Earth can heal from changing sealevels, it can heal from changing temperatures - it has done so many times in the past after meteor impacts and massive vulcanism, but the earth can never heal from Nuclear pollution. We are foolish to think the present civilization will be able to police the safe decommissioning of nuclear power stations after it has collapsed. Imagine a thousand Chernobels contaminating the country side forever and ever.
Nuclear energy is the fuel of greedy fools.
To go nuclear after fossil fuels runs out is a classic case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Our best answer is SOLAR THERMAL. This is a proven simple straight forward technology that can utilize existing steam turbine generators and in Australia where there are vast expanses of cloudless desert regions, it is by far the best solution to our energy dilemma. But leaving the changeover to the last minute is a game for the foolish, greedy, evil oil empires - who care naught for humanity. When are the governments of the world going to stand up against these evil profiteers!