Australia would emit far more climate pollution – more than 1.7bn extra tonnes of carbon dioxide – between now and 2050 under the Coalition’s nuclear-focused plan than under Labor’s renewable energy dominated policy, analysts say.
The opposition last week released modelling of its “coal-to-nuclear” plan that would slow the rollout of renewable energy and batteries and instead rely on more fossil fuel generation until a nuclear industry could be developed, mostly after 2040.
Experts have questioned whether that would be possible while maintaining a reliable grid, given the country’s ageing coal plants have suffered regular planned and unplanned outages.
Using the modelling report relied on by the Coalition – which was formulated by the consultancy Frontier Economics – experts have also calculated the emissions that would result from extending the life of coal plants beyond what is expected under Labor.
Under a “step change” scenario in transforming the source of electricity, which is roughly in line with Labor’s plan to have 82% of electricity from renewable energy by 2030, it is forecast about 90% of the country’s remaining coal-fired capacity would shut by 2035. The Coalition assumes about a third of existing coal capacity would shut by that date.
Dylan McConnell, an energy systems expert at the University of New South Wales, said this would lead to more than 1bn tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by 2051 under the Coalition’s preferred path. A separate analysis by economist Steven Hamilton, published in the Australian Financial Review, produced a similar result.
They found the nuclear plan would result in cumulative emissions from the electricity grid of more than 1.6bn tonnes between 2025 and 2051. Labor’s policy – moving more rapidly to running on renewable energy supported by batteries, pumped hydro, transmission lines and “fast start” gas plants – would be expected to result in a little more than 600m tonnes over that time.
“It shows [the nuclear policy] would be an absolute failure in decarbonising the electricity sector and meeting our emissions reduction goals,” McConnell said.
He said total additional emissions under the Coalition’s preferred path would be significantly higher again as it also assumed less “electrification” – a lower uptake of electric vehicles, a longer life for petrol cars, and that industry and households would burn more fossil fuels, particularly gas, rather than switch to renewable energy.
The convener of Climate 200, Simon Holmes à Court, also a director of The Superpower Institute, estimated this “progressive change” path backed by the Coalition would lead to an extra 723m extra tonnes of CO2 by 2050 from transport and industry in addition to the extra 1bn tonnes from the power grid.
Australia’s total annual emissions are about 440m tonnes of CO2. If correct, the extra 1.7bn tonnes of pollution that could be released under the Coalition’s preferred path compared with Labor’s plan could add about four years worth of pollution to the atmosphere over the next 25 years.
Within the electricity grid, Hamilton said the Coalition’s plan would lead to 2 ½ times more emissions than Labor’s plan.
He said that would mean Australia could “say goodbye” to its international climate commitments, including a 43% cut in emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, told 4BC radio on Monday that he was “very happy” with the Frontier Economics’ modelling that he launched at a Coalition media conference on Friday, but that it was “not a Liberal party piece of work” and the party had not paid for it. “You couldn’t find somebody more independent than Frontier Economics and more respected in the energy-economic space,” he said.
The Coalition claims its proposal would lead to 38% of electricity coming from nuclear power and 54% from renewable energy by 2050, and that this would lead to the “total system cost” for the electricity grid being $263bn cheaper than under Labor. Holmes à Court said that figure did not included the cost of the additional petrol, diesel and gas that would be needed, and estimated this would add $501bn to the Coalition’s plan.
Critics have also described the Coalition’s plan as comparing apples and oranges, in part because its preferred scenario assumed Australia would have far less major industry and would use roughly one-third less electricity in 2050 than under Labor.
