‘Nuclear carbon emission bomb’: 2b tonne greenhouse gas surge forecast under Coalition

Australian greenhouse gas emissions would surge by more than 2 billion tonnes under the Coalition’s plan for nuclear energy, according to new modelling that highlights the cost of running coal-fired power stations for years longer than expected.

The new conclusions from the Climate Change Authority, a federal statutory agency, find that the switch to nuclear would lead Australia to miss its stated climate target for 2030 and struggle to reach the bipartisan pledge for net zero emissions by 2050.

The Climate Change Authority assessed the Coalition’s modelling to consider the impact of relying more heavily on coal-fired power during the years required to build nuclear plants.Credit: Getty Images

The findings, to be released on Monday, heighten the dispute over the nuclear policy under which Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says a Coalition government would build seven nuclear power stations at a cost of about $331 billion by 2050.

Climate Change Authority chairman Matt Kean, a former Liberal state treasurer and energy minister in NSW, said the results showed there would be a “nuclear carbon emission bomb” from extending the use of fossil fuels while waiting for nuclear power.

“The nuclear pathway could blow out national emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes in the next 25 years,” he said.

“It will mean we miss all our legislated targets and make it virtually impossible to hit the bipartisan net zero by 2050 target.”

The Climate Change Authority assessed the Coalition’s modelling, including work by independent firm Frontier Economics, to consider the impact of relying more heavily on coal-fired power during the years required to build the nuclear plants.

It found today’s policies would add 657 million tonnes of emissions from this year to 2050 in the electricity grid alone, when applying the “step change” scenario used by the Australian Energy Market Operator to forecast the nation’s needs.

It applied the same AEMO forecasts in a “step change plus nuclear” scenario using the Frontier Economics work, concluding that this would increase emissions by 1.8 billion tonnes instead.

This would mean an additional 1.1 billion tonnes of emissions under the Coalition policy in the electricity grid alone when making a like-for-like comparison over the next 25 years.

In addition to this, the authority found that emissions would be 1 billion tonnes greater in parts of the economy outside the electricity grid, such as industry and transport, under the Coalition nuclear policy over the same timeframe.

This forecast was based on assumptions that manufacturers would rely more heavily on fossil fuels – including gas for heating as well as coal for electricity – and Australians would slow the shift to electric vehicles during the transition to nuclear power.

In the report the authority says the combined impact of the nuclear pathway “could therefore exceed 2 billion tonnes of additional cumulative emissions” by 2050 when compared with the government pathway.

The comparison is complicated by the way AEMO offers different scenarios to forecast energy use. The “step change” outlook assumes a faster shift to renewable energy and a greater use of electricity by 2050, while the “progressive change” scenario forecasts less demand for electricity but higher emissions because industry and households keep using fossil fuels.

The new findings conclude that emissions are greater under the Coalition nuclear policy when using the “progressive change” scenario, as well as under the faster shift to renewables.

The authority found the “progressive change” would add 893 million tonnes of emissions from this year to 2050 in the electricity grid alone, but that the “progressive change plus nuclear” policy from the Coalition would increase this to 1.7 billion tonnes.

This means the Coalition nuclear plan would produce an additional 769 million tonnes over 25 years, using a like-for-like comparison.

Dutton has rejected claims about higher costs for the nuclear plan by pointing to a key finding from Frontier Economics about the 44 per cent lower spending needed, over several decades, to build nuclear power stations.

“They are the most pre-eminent economic models in the country when it comes to energy policy, and they’ve done the work for the federal government as well,” Dutton said. “The good news is that our model comes back 44 per cent cheaper than the model of renewables-only that the prime minister advocates.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Labor does not have a “renewables only” policy. It expects gas-fired power stations to provide back-up electricity to support wind, solar and batteries. The federal government is funding a gas power plant at Kurri Kurri in the Hunter region of NSW.

In a key assumption, the Frontier document expects energy demand to be 40 per cent lower in 2050 than the Australian Energy Market Operator expects.

The new assessment suggests the emissions are greater under the nuclear plan over the next 25 years under both AEMO scenarios, but the surge is roughly 1 billion tonnes when comparing the government’s “step change” scenario with the Coalition alternative pathway for a “progressive change plus nuclear” scenario.

Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has pledged lower electricity prices despite the criticism of assumptions in the nuclear plan.

“I can certainly make a commitment that power prices under the Coalition will always be cheaper than they are under Labor,” he said this month.

“Indeed, our economic modelling shows that the cost of the energy system is going to be far cheaper under a Coalition than it is under Labor.”

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.