The CSIRO has called for an examination of the “social, technological and economic drivers” in the electricity market to end confusion over future power needs.
Amid a highly charged debate over a carbon tax, the commonwealth organization has called for more work to be done mapping energy options — whether coal, nuclear, solar or renewables — given “no single technology can address all of Australia’s needs”.
Documents prepared for the federal government, and released last night under Freedom of Information laws, show the CSIRO believes there is still “some level of confusion about how various technologies compare” and social acceptability remains an issue.
The CSIRO said coal remained one of the most cost-effective, base-load power sources, but the so-called clean-coal technologies under development would inflate costs if chosen over traditional generation options.
Nuclear power remained highly cost-effective — the CSIRO used a carbon price of $28 a tonne in its calculations — And despite the obvious waste management issues, it remained “A source of large-scale, base-load, very low (greenhouse gas) emission electricity”. “It is an off-the-shelf technology with prospects of evolutionary and revolutionary future improvements, including in safety, non-proliferation and lower waste production,” the documents say.
The CSIRO suggested that, “from a theoretical perspective”, Australia would need to develop frameworks if nuclear power was to be part of the future supply mix, and make education and research priorities. Even then, there would be a “10-15 year interval for start up of a first reactor”.
The documents were prepared after the Japan nuclear disaster.
