The Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review also said building 25 nuclear generators between 2020 and 2050 would be the cheapest way to introduce cost-effective nuclear power into Australia.
But the review predicted that in 2030, high greenhouse-emission black coal will still account for 51.4% of Australia’s electricity generation, with brown coal adding a further 17.4%.
Meanwhile, natural gas would have risen to 21.8%, while renewables such as hydro, wind, biomass and biogas would comprise less than 8.5% of the total.
In addition to nuclear power’s production costs – about $40-65 a megawatt higher than gas or coal – the review said there were “other features of nuclear power [that] may make it relatively unattractive for Australian investors”.
But the review also cast doubts on the viability of so-called ‘clean coal’, saying that geosequestration, also known as carbon capture storage (CCS), “remains to be proven except in highly specific applications” as a method of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from future coal-fired power stations.
“Uncertainties remain about the cost of CCS and its reliability and security over the long term,” the review said.
“CCS is best applied to new plants, as it is less effective when retrofitted to existing plants.”
Industry comment
The Australian Wind Energy Association welcomed the report’s findings, arguing that if nuclear power was 15 years away, renewables could account for the clean energy shortfall in the meantime.
“Australia must embrace existing renewable energy technologies such as wind power to immediately start reducing carbon emissions from our energy sector,” chief executive Dominique La Fontaine said.
“The report makes it clear that Australia’s electricity demand will keep rising and that large amounts of new, near-zero greenhouse gas emitting generating capacity are required to meet that demand.”
La Fontaine also argued that the introduction of a carbon emission trading regime was needed to encourage investment in cleaner alternatives.
Also in agreement was Professor Andrew Blakers of the Australian National University Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems.
“The report properly recognises that carbon pricing will be required in order to offset the free licence to pollute currently enjoyed by fossil fuels. Parallel reports should now be prepared on energy efficiency and renewable energy,” he said.
The Energy Supply Association, which represents most electricity producers, said figures in the Switkowski report roughly matched its own forecasts.
“Nothing in this report suggests that deep cuts to carbon emissions in this country will be achieved without substantial government subsidies,” association CEO Brad Page said.
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering went further, calling for an immediate drastic reduction of carbon emissions, not a gradual incremental approach.
ATSE president-elect Professor Robin Batterham said the need for carbon emissions reduction was so important that the solution could not be left to governments alone.
“Nuclear, renewable carbon trading and carbon capture and storage are all part of the formula. All are needed but none alone are adequate.
“Indeed, pushing one line is a diversion from building the adaptive resilience we will need for the future.”
