Adopting the Coalition’s nuclear plan would result in an additional 2 billion tonnes of emissions, according to new independent modelling from Australia’s peak climate body.
To put it in context, that’s equivalent to 200 years’ worth of emissions from Australia’s domestic flights.
The new modelling was done by the Climate Change Authority, the independent body tasked with advising the government on climate change issues.
It compared the current trajectory modelled by the country’s energy market operator, AEMO, with the Coalition’s nuclear modelling that was released in December.
The increase in emissions would come from delaying the rollout of renewable technology and instead continuing with coal-fired power, which is otherwise expected to shut down over the next decade, and slowing the transitions in other industries.
Emissions in the National Electricity Market would be higher every year until the late 2040s under the nuclear pathway. (Supplied: Climate Change Authority)
Chair of the Climate Change Authority and former state Liberal minister, Matt Kean, said that the current trajectory is “the only viable option”.
“Continuing on Australia’s current pathway and accelerating our progress can deliver rapid cuts to emissions.
“Prioritising nuclear at this time would be inconsistent with Australia’s national emissions reduction priorities and commitments,”
Mr Kean said.
Matt Kean says pursuing nuclear power does not align with Australia’s climate goals. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)
With climate change, the journey is more important than the final destination. CO2 stays in the atmosphere and it’s the build-up of these emissions over time that causes hotter temperatures and more extreme weather, so how quickly you reduce emissions is more important than reaching zero by a certain date.
By the time nuclear will be fully deployed, there will be one billion MtCo2 in added emissions from the electricity sector alone. (Supplied: Climate Change Authority)
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced last year their plans to build seven government-funded nuclear reactors across the country, despite considerable hurdles, including that nuclear energy is currently illegal in a number of places across Australia.
Under the Coalition’s nuclear plan, Australia would also blow out its 2030 emissions targets by more than 5 per cent, according to the authority’s modelling, and is in line with 2.6 degrees of warming.
The plan would cost $331 billion by 2050.
Under the current pathway, Australia’s electricity emissions drop significantly between now and 2035. By waiting to build a nuclear fleet, electricity emissions would stay higher for much longer.
Australia currently has a target to reach 82 per cent renewables in the electricity mix by the end of this decade. The current pathway is outlined by AEMO and is broadly supported by state governments, industry, as well as the current federal Labor government.
Under the Coalition’s nuclear plan, nuclear and renewables wouldn’t reach 82 per cent of the grid until 2042, or another 12 years later than the current path.
Coalition’s own nuclear modelling, which was conducted by Frontier Economics, also found that cumulative emissions would be higher under its plan.
In response to the new modelling, Mr O’Brien hit out at the credibility of the Climate Change Authority in a similar attack to the one he mounted against the CSIRO over its nuclear costings.
“The Climate Change Authority has sadly become a puppet of Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen, as its latest report parrots Labor’s untruthful anti-nuclear scare campaign,” Mr O’Brien said in a statement.
Ted O’Brien slammed the Climate Change Authority’s modelling, questioning its credibility as an independent government body. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)
The Climate Change Authority is an independent body established under legislation. It has a mandate to advise governments on policies around climate change and the country’s emissions, and said this modelling is firmly within its remit.
“The Climate Change Authority Act 2011 empowers the Authority to undertake self-initiated research on matters relating to climate change. This work was not requested or directed by the Australian Government,”
it said.
Mr O’Brien did not respond directly to the finding of 2 billion tonnes of additional emissions but instead highlighted the fact that their plan would fall below the current pathway in 2049.
It’s not just the electricity system that would have higher emissions under a nuclear pathway. The Coalition’s own modelling assumes that there’s a slower uptake of other clean technologies and a smaller economy overall, adding another billion tonnes to the tally.
The authority combined these assumptions with the impact of using coal-fired power for longer, until nuclear reactors are built, to arrive at the additional 2 billion tonnes of emissions.
Other industries are also relying on a clean grid to reduce emissions.
The transport sector will cut emissions faster if clean technology options like electric cars can be charged with a low-emissions grid.
Manufacturers would also produce more emissions with a dirtier grid until nuclear came online.
