Skip to main content

Will Australia’s Carbon Price Lead It to Rethink Nuclear?

By

Australia has decided to put a price on carbon in the hope that it can kick-start its renewable energy iJulia explains. ndustry and reduce emissions. 

The Australian government has unveiled plans to impose a tax on carbon emissions for the worst polluters. 

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said carbon dioxide emissions would be taxed at A$23 ($25) per ton from 2012.

The country's biggest economic reform in a generation will cover some 500 companies. In 2015, a market-based trading scheme will be introduced.

Households are expected to see consumer prices rise by nearly 1%, and the move has been criticised by the opposition.

The announcement by Gillard has led to a healthy debate about the plan, to put it mildly, as you can see on the comment section of this article. The greater question is: Will this lead to Australia to reconsider nuclear power?

"No one will build coal-fired power plants," he [Paul Breslin]said. "It is already sending a signal to prospective investors 'don't do it'. You couldn't possibly build a new coal-fired power station at $20 per ton, and the price is definitely going to rise.

"If the carbon price keeps going up in the 2030s, we will need to be moving to gas-fired electricity generation. Safe nuclear, although politically difficult, should be looked at."

Nuclear energy would seem a natural fit for Australia. It has high per capita emissions, abundant uranium resources and seems especially sensitive to the nastier consequences of climate change in Australia itself. But then again, the country has never really shown any great enthusiasm for embracing nuclear. Even the prime minister has distanced herself from the technology. And there’s the question of whether and how the whole carbon pricing plan will come to fruition. 

But with the need to keep the lights on (and the air conditioners humming) and with a potentially rising price on carbon, nuclear energy will surely become more attractive over time. Stay tuned.

For more on the carbon price plan, see this website from the Australian government.

Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
The political risk - exemplified by precedents in other countries - is that nuclear power, seen to benefit "unfairly" from a carbon tax, will have a special tax applied to it.

This kind of legislative bias even if it it doesn't actually happen in Australia is unfortunately enough of a risk to significantly reduce the future assessment of earnings for a proposed nuclear project. Nuclear power really needs a long-term assurance that it will not be targeted by the government. Guaranteed power purchase schemes, like those being floated in the UK, are one way to provide some of this assurance.
July 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said…
The problem with Nuclear in Australia is not technical, rather political. It was a shame that our first planned reactor in the 60s was for weapons material. Since then this has been the precedent in the Australin Labor Party (currently in government) of nuclear is bad, becuase nuclear weapons. Any nuclear support in Australia has to first come from the Labor Party, as the conservative opposition will support it if the political climate is right. Since 2010 there have been rumblings from ministers in the ALP hinting support for Nuclear. Only time will tell...
July 14, 2011 at 11:48 PM
Steve said…
Globalized regulation for Nuclear Power would help reduce the issue of using Nuclear Plants as a front for weapon development. This would at least reduce one political issue with these plants. As technology and safety improve nuclear power will become a more viable long term option.
July 19, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more