3 ore fa
1
Australia’s industry group for electricity retailers and generators told a nuclear inquiry the country should focus on policies that will drive a faster rollout of renewable energy and storage, saying nuclear is unlikely to be a viable coal-fired power replacement.
As the Coalition prepares to reveal costings this week for its plan to put reactors at seven sites around Australia, high profile energy commentator Simon Holmes à Court told the parliamentary inquiry on Thursday there was “not a hope in hell” of nuclear reactors producing power before 2040.
The chief executive of the Australian Energy Council, Louisa Kinnear, who represents electricity generators, retailers and gas sellers, said the electricity grid’s transition “needs to continue at a significant pace to ensure a cost-effective and low-emissions transition, as thermal (coal) generation is phased out”.
She said the lowest cost path for Australia’s electricity grid to lower its emissions was through solar and wind, backed by storage and gas, but added “whether that says energy is cheaper into the future than prices people are paying now” was “up for debate”.
Kinnear said it was “highly unlikely” that nuclear would be a viable replacement for coal-fired power over the next 10 to 15 years.
“We would hate progress on the transition to be stalled because we are focused on technologies that are not available at this moment in time,” she said.
Baseload electricity generators, such as coal and nuclear, faced problems in Australia because the electricity network was increasingly being designed to accommodate a mix of generators, including renewables, she said.
Kinnear said rooftop solar was also displacing significant amounts of coal-fired power, and if nuclear could play a role in the future, it would need to be able to generate flexibly, similar to gas plants.
“The likelihood of us needing generation sources that run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, into the future is very limited,” she said.
A future Coalition government would need to see federal and state bans lifted and has insisted it could have a large-scale nuclear reactor working by 2037.
The Climate 200 founder and energy expert, Holmes à Court, told the inquiry: “There’s not a hope in hell that we would have nuclear in Australia before 2040.”
“I have shown with a set of fantastical assumptions such as bipartisanship across federal and state level of government that 2044 is an optimistic schedule.”
Holmes à Court, who was appearing in a personal capacity but is a high profile figure due to his group’s support of independent federal candidates, said he was a big fan of nuclear technology and wished Australia had gone nuclear in the 1970s.
But he said his 2044 estimate relied on several generous assumptions, including smooth approvals, projects sticking to schedule and budget, and the public ignoring the “terrible economics” of nuclear.
after newsletter promotion
“2044 would be an optimistic target for commercial operation of a first nuclear power unit,” he said.
“It is practically impossible to go faster, and even 2044 relies on the Coalition controlling the House and Senate six months from now, the states dropping bans and keeping that support in place for 20 years.”
He gave an example of Czechia, which he said in 2022 had agreed on a new nuclear plant to be built by a South Korean company. Holmes à Court said the current schedule had the company pouring first nuclear-grade concrete in 2029 and the plant delivering power in 2038 – a 16-year timeline.
Helen Cook, a nuclear law expert and former chair of a group within the World Nuclear Association, said it was feasible Australia could have its first nuclear reactor working within 10 to 12 years.
Australia was well placed to launch a nuclear power programme, she said, and the most efficient approach was to roll out multiple deployments of the same type of reactor.
Daniel Sherrell, a senior adviser on climate and energy at the Australian Council of Trade Unions, told the inquiry the Coalition’s proposal for nuclear power would not “create a single job” for Australia.
“It cannot attract investors and cannot compete economically, and is forecast to remain the most expensive power source in Australia for decades,” he said.
“We don’t have to count on the [nuclear] mirage appearing – we have jobs now in the renewable economy.”
English (US) ·