Nuclear energy could take another 25 years: experts
The life of coal fired power plants would need to be extended by up to 25 years if they are to be replaced by nuclear reactors, as proposed by the Coalition, energy experts say.
The life of coal-fired power plants would need to be extended by up to 25 years if they are to be replaced by nuclear reactors, as proposed by the Coalition, energy experts say.
Coalition MPs are pushing the government to consider building nuclear power plants on the sites of coal-fired power stations to minimise environmental impacts of massive renewable projects and transmission lines, The Australian revealed on Friday.
Peter Dutton urged Labor on Friday to consider nuclear energy or risk energy bills continuing to soar and jobs going offshore, branding the government’s energy policies as “a train wreck”.
“If you think your power bill is expensive now, in another three, five, 10 years’ time, it’s going to go up many times,” he said.
The Opposition Leader said any policy that would stop nearly 30,000km of new poles and wires “going through farmland and national parks” should be discussed.
Anthony Albanese said the proposal to include nuclear energy into Australia’s energy mix had “never stacked up”.
“It never goes anywhere,” the Prime Minister said. “What will make a difference on climate change is investing in the best and cheapest form of new energy. That energy is renewables. The way forward for nuclear energy needs … investment here, and there’s no one coming forward.”
Australian Industry Group climate change and energy director Tennant Reed said while nuclear energy wasn’t some sort of “pipe dream”, it would be challenging to extend the life of coal-fired power plants by enough to reach a time when nuclear power was economically viable. “Our best guess is that nuclear won’t be economically attractive for some time, but you never know and it doesn’t make sense to ban it,” he said. “In terms of if you could just plug it in at the sites … you probably physically could, you would have questions though … like how much it would cost.
“The coal plants are getting older and older. If we want to extend them … then that’s going to involve some mix of putting more money into them that investors won’t expect to get back.”
Mr Reed said Australia could be waiting more than 20 years for nuclear power to be economically viable before plugging in the technology at the site of decommissioned coal-fired power plants.
“If we were to defer until the nuclear is available, assuming we are willing to pay for it, based on the overseas experience we could be waiting 25 years in total,” he said. “That would be worst case.”
Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood said it would be “another 10 and 20 years” until nuclear could be set up at old coal-fired power plants.
“I can see why this is a tantalising idea … but no one’s done this yet,” he said.
He said the Coalition had to be clear about how it would turn “a thought bubble into a proper policy” before the next election.
More Coverage
Hypocrisy, bad taste and other follies of 2024
On New Year’s Day 2024, morale was relatively high since the Year of the Dragon was expected to usher in a time of rational thinking. Not quite how it worked out.
Dutton nuclear plan ‘economic madness’
Jim Chalmers has fired the first salvo in what is likely to be a sustained campaign of economic attacks by Labor on Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan, to be driven by the Treasurer himself.