Building nuclear power generation could take more than a decade and cost hundreds of billions of dollars, says an inquiry report already being criticised as partisan.
A parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy on Tuesday released its interim report into the viability of introducing nuclear power generation in Australia, focusing on how long it would take to deploy and the cost to build it.
The committee heard from multiple stakeholders who provided estimates that building nuclear power could range from a decade up to 50 years from Australia’s starting point.
The time frames were based on the deployment of nuclear reactors internationally, given the nation has no nuclear power construction or generation experience.
A majority of submitted time frames align with the 15 years estimated by the CSIRO’s GenCost report into the costs of energy generation, the inquiry report stated.
“There would be significant challenges associated with establishing a nuclear power generation sector in Australia before the mid-2040s, at the earliest,” committee chair and Labor MP Dan Repacholi said.
It could take up to a decade to lift a ban on nuclear generation and start up a new nuclear power industry, with many stakeholders referring to a “frequent history of delays” internationally.
Small modular reactions touted as a potential option for Australia are currently not commercially viable, he said.
“(Nuclear) cannot be deployed in time to support Australia’s critical energy transition targets and climate commitments, or to assist the coal workforce and communities in their transition away from the coal industry,” the Labor MP said.
Repacholi currently represents all of the coal triangle in the Hunter Valley, but the Muswellbrook Shire will transfer to be part of New England at this election.
Costs in building the nuclear power generation varied greatly across submissions to the committee, ranging up to $600 billion.
The report referred to a submission by consulting firm SMR Nuclear Technology that listed the capital costs of recent nuclear builds internationally since 2000, including $4323/kW in South Korea to $20,883 in the UK, with an average cost of $9574/kW.
“While the cost of deploying renewables is continuing to reduce, (experts) have not seen an equivalent decrease in the cost of nuclear power,” Mr Repacholi said.
He also said the committee was told nuclear power could cost more for consumers to use, citing international experiences of frequent significant cost overruns for nuclear power projects.
The report also highlighted the private sector’s lack of interest in investing in nuclear power.
“While the committee is aware it does not yet have a full picture of the costs beyond deployment – such as ongoing costs, waste management, decommissioning and emergency management, it is clear … that the deployment of nuclear power generation in the Australian context is currently not a viable investment of taxpayer money.”
But the Labor-dominated committee’s report has been rejected and criticised by its three Liberal-National members who claimed the inquiry had been a “politically motivated attempt” to discredit the coalition’s nuclear energy plan.
Deputy chair and LNP MP Ted O’Brien said the report incorrectly assumed capital costs to build a nuclear industry would be five times more expensive than the opposition’s $120 billion estimate, and that it ignored nuclear’s role in being several instances of the fastest decarbonisations of energy grids.
“(The government) has resorted to untruths to promote its renewables-only plan and disparage the coalition’s plan for a balanced energy mix including nuclear,” Mr O’Brien said.
In more bad news for the Coalition, CSIRO and a Climate Change Authority report have also branded nuclear power a non-starter.
Australia could miss its zero-emission energy target by more than a decade if it pursues nuclear power, according to a Climate Change Authority report, and could add two billion tonnes of carbon emissions to the environment by 2050.
Moving from renewable to nuclear energy could also put Australia on the global pathway to a 2.6C temperature rise, it found, potentially causing economic and environmental harm.
The authority issued the findings of its analysis on Monday, which compared forecasts from Australia’s Energy Market Operator and modelling on Australia’s potential nuclear reactor rollout by Frontier Economics.
The report, which was welcomed by environmental groups, comes amid heated debate over Australia’s energy future before the next federal election that is due to be held before May 17.
While the Labor government has pledged to pursue renewable energy projects to meet a 43 per cent emissions cut by 2030, the Coalition announced plans to build seven nuclear power plants across Australia if it won government.
But the report into the impact of a switch to nuclear power found the move would add two billion more tonnes of carbon emissions to the environment by 2050, including one billion tonnes produced by the electricity sector alone.
Moving to nuclear energy would also mean Australia would miss its legislated 2030 target of cutting emissions by 43 per cent and producing 82 per cent zero-emissions energy as it would not meet the goal until 2042.
Nuclear power would deliver an emissions reduction of 37 per cent by 2030 and 39 per cent by 2035, the analysis said, compared to 42 per cent and 50 per cent for the current renewable energy plans outlined by the market operator.
The findings proved only one pathway would deliver rapid emission cuts, Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean said.
“Having examined the emissions impacts of these two pathways, the Climate Change Authority’s view is that staying Australia’s current course is the only viable option,” Mr Kean said.
“Prioritising nuclear at this time would be inconsistent with Australia’s national emissions reduction priorities and commitments.”
Environment and energy groups welcomed the report’s warnings, with Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie saying the figures showed pursuing nuclear energy could delay Australia’s progress by years.
“We need proven solutions like renewable power backed by big batteries that cut pollution now, not a reckless delay that locks us into climate catastrophe,” she said.
Australians for Affordable Energy spokesperson Jo Dodds said the report answered questions about nuclear energy but more remained about its cost to build and its cost to household budgets.
“We need to have a serious talk about our energy choices,” she said.
The Coalition plans to build nuclear plants at Mount Piper and Liddell in NSW, Loy Yang in Victoria, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia, and Collie in Western Australia at an estimated cost of $331 billion over 25 years.
Follow all the New England Times coverage of the federal election here or have your say on Engage