Nuclear energy 'the only answer'

16 Nov 2009, 7:35 pm   -   Source: AAP
9 Comments
Share This
+ Comment
9
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation chief Dr Ziggy Switkowski says Australia should build 50 nuclear power stations by 2050. (AAP)

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation chief Dr Ziggy Switkowski says Australia should build 50 nuclear power stations by 2050. (AAP)

Scientists gathered in Brisbane have said Australia has no chance of seriously reducing its carbon emissions without using nuclear energy.

RELATED

Australia will eventually have to factor in nuclear power from up to 50 reactors if it wants to seriously reduce carbon emissions, energy experts say.

Engineers and scientists from around the world are in Brisbane for a two-day national climate change symposium hosted by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation chief Dr Ziggy Switkowski told the symposium, which kicked off on Monday, that Australia should build 50 nuclear power stations by 2050.

The former Telstra chief said his 2006 recommendations to the Howard government for 25 nuclear reactors by 2050 was too conservative.

"We should plan to have our first reactor up and running by 2020 and then go for a fleet as large as 50 reactors by 2050 producing 75 gigawatts of electricity," Dr Switkowski said.

"France already has 59 reactors, Japan 55, the US 104, so 50 for us over the next four decades is within our capabilities."

UK Energy Research Centre executive director John Loughhead said nuclear provided reliable baseload energy with no carbon emissions during operation.

"It would be technically difficult to meet very aggressive targets without some nuclear in the mix, even in Australia," Dr Loughhead, who recently worked with the Victorian government on sustainable energy projects, told AAP.

"But it depends on what the targets are and what other options there are in Australia as it has a much more extensive geothermal resource than Europe, which could play a big role."

John Burgess from the ATSE said renewable technologies have high investment costs and nuclear was the cheapest next-best option.

Dr Burgess said to replace 10 per cent of Australia's carbon emissions, it would cost $174 billion in just the investment costs of solar power.

Investment costs for wind would be $46 billion and $30 billion for gas fired power, he said.

"Coal seam gas emits half as much CO2 as coal and would play an important role in the transition," Dr Burgess said.

"But for really deep cuts by 2050 we're struggling to see how you can achieve this without nuclear."

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube

Your Comments

new energy plants needed now, not in the future

robb - from geelong, 12 months ago

Geothermal & solar will be the 2 main power sources of the future with windmills scattered about and no non-clean power plants in sight, but that will be 25 yrs down the track. We are being told something has to be done today and maybe its already too late to avoid future bad weather. Nuclear is viable now but pollutes in a different way. Which devil do we want. Long term waste storage of a 25-30 yr lifespan nuclear plant is the price for acting now. Not doing so will incur a worse non$ price

Nuc energy

Redherring - from mackay, 1 year

Wind Gens have been rejected on enviro grounds and some now tell of medical problems, they sound awful & look terrible over a vast area. Solar only good 12/day, at best. Geothermal very good I am sure but where are the shafts to be dug? Transportation cost & losses of energy. If there had not been the emotional blackmail over nuc pwr over the decades, perhaps there would have been investment in them and we would not have the climate problems we have now!

Stupid Science,,!!

Jed Stuart - from Mullumbimby, 1 year

The brand new reactors may be, at last, safe in a perfect world where there are no wars, no terrorists, no disgruntled ,drunk or otherwise drugged plant operators, no tornadoes and no computer hackers; But that perfect world will never be.

Read the full report- this is not exactly what it says!

Jill O'Callaghan - from Yarraville, 2 years ago

A 10 second grabs does not adequately reflect the complexity of the ATSE report. Follow the link and read for yourself. www.atse.org.au/component/remository/ATSE-Reports/Energy/Low-Carbon-Energy-2010/ No-one can predict which technologies will advance or recede. We need a to further develop all of them efore a decision as to the most economical can be made.

No to Nuclear

Ian - from Sydney, 3 years ago

I find it rather odd in this age of "Save the plant", "Be green" etc that nuclear reactors even get a look in. For all the words of assurance about how safe they are, will never convince me when I see what happened at 3 Mile Island's partial melt down and the Chernobyl explosion. IF a wind turbine explodes in a cow paddock. There's a good chance some cows might get injured and maybe even killed. I'm pretty sure the "fallout" will confine itself to the cow paddock. A much safer option, surely.

Nuclear Desperation?

Christina Macpherson - from Sydney, 3 years ago

The more that reports come in of the escalating costs, of the inability to find a waste storage solution, of the legal wrangles, and the security hazards - of nuclear power - the more desperately do the nuclear priesthood preach. After all, the nuclear "window of opportunity" is short, as more nuclear plants reach their use-by date - faster than new ones are being built.

Mr

Ronald Martens - from Morley Perth, 3 years ago

They got it all wrong the whole system is wrong and needs to be changed. We need to start at every household. Every building built should be energy efficient. Providing its own electricity through solar, wind magnetic and battery. If every new building built can be energy efficient, there will be no need for huge nuclear power stations. Instead solar and wind and tidal. It can be done quite easy and provide money and work to all. Not just greedy people and being dependant on power stations.

Mr

Paul - from Wyong, 3 years ago

Oh man, I can hear the hysterics over this already. Still, perhaps some of the numbers being bandied about here will get people talking about relative costs of the various options.

Power and profit

Tim - from South Australia, 3 years ago

Nuclear energy costs more in the long term, in all senses of the word. The generating stations last for a few decades but the waste is dangerous for MILLIONS of years. We have sensible technological solutions to the energy/CO2 problem already - solar, solar thermal, wind and tidal. Of course these decentralised solutions require political will of the calibre we're no longer accustomed to. And if some people want to be rich and powerful and control our energy there is always geothermal...

Join the Discussion

Name
City / Suburb E.g. Artarmon, Sydney
Title
Comment
You have characters remaining.
Validation
What's this?
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.
All submitted comments become the property of SBS. They are moderated, so we reserve the right to edit comments and remove HTML tags. Not all submitted comments will be published. Publication does not mean we endorse the opinions expressed. Please read our terms and conditions for more information.