Too dear, too slow: report

The Australian Financial Review, Page: 8
Tuesday, 23 May 2006

Nuclear power is twice the price of coal, more costly than renewable technologies and not the answer to climate change, say environmental groups and a leading energy modeller. As the government debates the uranium industry's economic viability a report to be released next week, with modelling from McLennan Magasanik Associates, has found nuclear power is not competitive without significant subsidies. The report commissioned by Renewable Energy Generators Australia (REGA) said nuclear power would cost $70 per megawatt hour, double the price of coal. This price falls to $60 by 2050, which is still 10 per cent more expensive than clean coal technology, known as carbon capture and storage.

REG A chief executive Susan Jeanes said these costs included the storage of nuclear waste at world best practice standards. "We want Australia to debate nuclear power because we know it doesn't stack up," she said. Erwin Jackson, from the strongly anti-nuclear Australian Conservation Foundation, said studies that supported nuclear power failed to recognise the hidden costs of the uranium industry. "Who's going to pay for the increased security, the decommissioning of reactors, building up government departments and training people in an industry that has no history here?" he asked.

Mr Jackson said nuclear power could not be commissioned soon enough to tackle climate change and would divert money away from renewables that had the potential to power every home in the country. "Renewables are cheaper and don't produce harmful waste, " he said. This is supported by the REGA report, which forecasts wind power to cost $40 per megawatt hour by 2050, while geothermal would be as cheap as coal in 40 years.