Nuclear power needed if green options fail

Adelaide Advertiser
Thursday 17/9/2009 Page: 4

SOUTH Australia would need to rely on nuclear energy to meet its ambitious green energy target if predicted problems with solar, wind and geothermal alternatives come to pass, a report handed to the Government has found. The Government released its 33% green power target in the State Budget.

However, an independent report by consultants McLennan Magasanik Associates, commissioned to set the target, shows nuclear energy would be "likely" if geothermal could not deliver its promises, wind reached its limits, and solar stations proved too remote to be cost effective. "The adoption of nuclear energy as a solution seems a low-probability scenario that is only likely if geothermal power does not live up to its promise, wind energy reaches its limits and solar thermal power is constrained," the report states.

Geothermal Energy Association chief executive Susan Jeanes said the public should be aware that nuclear energy was an option for future electricity if the development of geothermal continued to be disadvantaged in Federal Government development funding. The State Government has rejected nuclear energy as not economically viable. However, the Liberal Party's annual convention last month voted in support of a debate on the topic.

And without increased interstate electricity connectors driven by geothermal or nuclear energy, a renewable target of only 30% would be reachable, the McLennan Magasanik Associates report has found. University of Adelaide climate change expert Professor Barry Brook said the report, given to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, made it clear nuclear energy would be necessary because wind, solar and geothermal energy would not live up to expectations in future decades.

"The opinion is significant because it reveals a high degree of uncertainty about energy planning and unless we look critically at that we don't know what are the best options," he said. He said his research suggested that the predicted problems with wind, solar and geothermal were "more likely than not to occur". "It is a dangerous and short-sighted strategy to plan ahead without having in mind nuclear energy as an alternative," he said.