Australia should consider nuclear power as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions according to a government appointed taskforce.

Credit: iStockphoto

Related articles

• Nuclear energy becoming less sustainable
• Green nuclear power coming to Norway
• Australia's energy future more costly
• Danger passes for Sweden's nuclear reactors
• World's biggest solar plant for Australia

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.