Australia's clean energy experiment

At the time, 2010, it looked inevitable that Australia would be introducing a price on carbon emissions. As it turned out, it didn't, but it would have hit hard the competitiveness of fossil fuels in power generation and improve prospects for the low emissions technologies. Also we took into account a set of "fit-for-service" criteria. Candidates for future low emission power generation had to produce reliable, continuous, controllable power (often called baseload power), just as electricity consumers have always expected.

The result was unsurprising. Wind and solar energy were scratched before the race started. Without additional technologies they couldn't meet that condition.

Was our fit-for-service exclusion list contentious at the time? Not that I'm aware. Nor do I recall we ever considered including costings for standalone solar and wind power. They were simply unacceptable given their uncontrolled variation with weather and time of day.

Now there are questions about whether the "renewables are cheapest" claim of today might be omitting proper costs of storage. It's expensive and usually site-specific, which makes generalised cost estimates impractical at the least.

If debate on lifting the nuclear ban is coming, cost will undoubtedly come up as a central issue. This raises an awkward question. Can a future nuclear contribution to Australia's electricity supply be properly costed while nuclear power remains illegal?

I doubt it. Arguably, while nuclear energy is illegal the proper process for obtaining reliable cost estimates from the global nuclear construction industry can't be used. Quotations are expensive to prepare. Why would a business bother when they know the job can never proceed?

It's worth recalling how Australia's nuclear ban came about. Former Prime Minister John Howard recently reminded us. He says he was 'blackmailed' into the ban as the price for getting minority (Greens Party) support for a modernised nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights (in Sydney). That facility run by Australia's Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) is a small nuclear reactor dedicated to manufacturing radioisotopes for medical and industrial applications and to research in materials science. It does not generate nuclear energy. The ban was a piece of political deal-making totally unconnected with clean electricity generation for reducing carbon emissions. Now 26 years later it is a legal barrier to Australia using a clean energy technology common in some 30 industrialised nations (the USA has 93 nuclear reactors generating electricity, France 56, Australia zero).

AEMO says regular updates of its Integrated System Plan cannot include consideration of nuclear energy because it's illegal. But AEMO commissions from CSIRO an annual electricity technology cost survey GenCost that does include nuclear costings. How a technology deemed illegal by government can be costed impartially and reliably by one government authority for another government authority is surely puzzling.

And why doesn't AEMO choose ANSTO, Australia's Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, as its preferred provider of information on nuclear energy, including cost? Another puzzle.

Nuclear may well be expensive. Its cost has definitely been rising in recent years. There are no obvious reasons other than reduced growth and reduced competition in the construction industry. The global nuclear industry has been shrinking or stagnant since the boom period of the 1970s. Rising interest in clean energy might reverse the trend. It's hard to say. Competition is always a significant economic factor.

For the time being there's no doubt that recent high nuclear construction costs abroad will be milked in any political conflict on lifting the ban in Australia. My view is to take the cost of nuclear energy in Australia as indeterminate while it's not legal and wait until proper cost estimates can be provided by the nuclear construction industry. Costings from other avenues should be treated with caution.

Indeed all Australia's energy policy decisions should be based on sound evidence. Growth rates should always be based on electrical energy outputs. With the correct data it is easily concluded that Australia's clean energy growth from solar and wind alone will not meet needs. Growth planning and financing strategies need improvement. Nuclear energy may well be needed to supplement and even replace renewables. Nuclear costs will be debated but are still largely speculative. Furthermore while nuclear power is illegal Australia cannot seriously engage in establishing its true cost. For that reason alone any government contemplating nuclear energy must first remove the ban. Also the electorate must be given the full costs of a renewable energy supply fully equipped (firmed) with the added technologies needed to make it "fit-for-service" as reliable, continuous, controllable power. Until then an informed choice cannot be made.