Australian news, and some related international items

Nuclear power proponents fighting a losing battle to get any role in Australia’s energy future

Safety risks stall nuclear role in Australia’s energy mix, SMH, 25 January 2018, Cole Latimer Australia is to hit its Paris climate change targets and lower carbon emissions it needs to think seriously about nuclear energy, lobbyists say, but the safety risks coupled with its economic viability have former supporters doubting its future in Australia.

Australia’s commitment to the 2015 Paris climate agreement – which aims to reduce emissions by 5 per cent below 2000 levels – has increased the pressure to reduce the electricity industry’s emissions levels, and nuclear energy has been put forward as a way to reach decarbonisation of the network.

Robert Parker, who is a current committee member and former president of the Australian Nuclear Association, said nuclear energy could play a major role in Australia’s decarbonisation if it is used along with renewable generation such as wind, solar and pumped hydro storage.  Mr Parker said there was the potential to replace Victoria’s brown coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors once they had reached the end of their operating life. He said the infrastructure was already in place to rapidly build and operate a nuclear power plant…..

Friends of the Earth national nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green said the cost of nuclear power had made it unviable.

“With the possible exception of carbon capture and storage, nuclear power would be the most expensive and least effective way of reducing emissions in Australia,” Dr Green told Fairfax Media.

“The estimated cost of reactors under construction in the UK is $20 billion each. The estimated cost of reactors under construction in France and Finland has risen to $16 billion each. Energy efficiency and conservation programs, coupled with renewable energy expansion, can sharply reduce emissions in Australia – far more quickly and cheaply than nuclear power.

“Ten years ago, there might have been a debate to be had over the economic merits of nuclear power, when the Switkowski inquiry estimated that a reactor could be built for $4 billion to $6 billion. The Switkowski panel was out by a factor of three and even Ziggy Switkowski himself now acknowledges that renewables are a more economically viable choice.”

Nuclear physicist and NBN chairman Ziggy Switkowski, who once said Australia needs 50 nuclear reactors across the nation, believes “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed”.

Mr Switkowski said nuclear energy as a power option was now less economically viable than renewables and batteries alone.

“Government won’t move until a real business case is presented and none has been, to my knowledge, and there aren’t votes in trying to lead the debate,” he told Fairfax Media.

He said nuclear was no longer lower cost than renewables and the levelised cost of electricity of the two was rapidly diverging.

While nuclear could provide zero emissions energy, Mr Switkowski said this was more than offset by community concerns about waste and safety.

“Support for nuclear is everywhere except from the generators and financiers who would have real skin in the game.” ………….


January 26, 2018 - Posted by | General News

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: