The problem is, carbon capture and storage may only make sense if you take a short-term view of emission reductions. While it can deliver the probable reduction targets until 2030, the current technology will not deliver the tougher emission targets recommended for 2050. Coal plants often have a 40-year life, so new coal plants with CCS built over the next few decades may still be operating by 2050, holding us back from meeting those targets, unless they can be modified later.
The only renewable technology that met our fit-for-service criteria was solar thermal with heat storage and gas backup for cloudy days. As you can see from the illustration, using solar thermal power to replace coal would require a carbon price greater than $150. The solar industry is ever hopeful that costs will fall, but current costs are about twice other low-carbon alternatives so they have a long way to go. Future cost reductions for any technology are inherently uncertain and should not be relied on.
The standout technology, from a cost perspective, is nuclear power. From the eight nuclear cost studies we reviewed (all published in the past decade, and adjusted to 2009 dollars), the median cost of electricity from current technology nuclear plants was just above new coal plants with no carbon price. Having the lowest carbon emissions of all the fit-for-service technologies, nuclear remains the cheapest solution at any carbon price. Importantly, it is the only fit-for-service baseload technology that can deliver the 2050 emission reduction targets.
Advertisement
The low cost for nuclear electricity may surprise some. Nuclear plants are renowned for being very expensive to build. But electricity costs are a function of construction costs, running costs (operations, maintenance and fuel) and the total energy generated over the plant's lifetime.
Nuclear fuel costs are relatively low compared to coal or gas (very little fuel is used in a nuclear plant) and these plants typically have a long life and high availability. These factors lead to a low electricity cost over the nuclear plant's lifetime.
The results of this survey represent the scientific/engineering/economic consensus of the world-wide, authoritative, peer-reviewed energy literature. Given the importance of reducing electricity generator emission, and the economic imperative to keep electricity costs at a minimum, it seems essential that the Australian government rethink its nuclear power strategy, as much of the rest of the world has already done. All the arithmetic adds up to nuclear.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/64299/642998112288671b8e3a7445023e900a7b77d2fd" alt=""
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
26 posts so far.
About the Authors
Martin Nicholson lives in the Byron Bay hinterland. He studied mathematics, engineering and electrical sciences at Cambridge University in the UK and graduated with a Masters degree in 1974. He has spent most of his working life as business owner and chief executive of a number of information technology companies in Australia. He is the author of the book Energy in a Changing Climate and has had several opinion pieces published in The Australian and The Financial Review. Martin Nicholson's website is here.
Dr Tom Biegler was a research electrochemist before becoming Chief of
CSIRO Division of Mineral Chemistry. He is a Fellow of the Australian
Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide. His website is BraveNewClimate.com.