You Are Here:
The panel has found that Mr Switkowski's team has seriously misled the Australian public about the benefits of nuclear power and misrepresented the benefits of energy efficiency and renewables saying: “It is surprising to find that there is no proper consideration of the potential of wind and the other renewable energy sources and disappointing to find that myths about the impacts of variability are included. A more thorough comparison of nuclear generating costs with those of wind seems very desirable”.
The panel also says the Switkowski report is wildly optimistic about the economics of nuclear power: “Nuclear power hasn't been ‘viable’ in any country with competitive power supply procurement, ever. No nuclear plant has ever won an open competitive power supply auction. There is no reason to think that this would be different in Australia, a country with abundant coal and no nuclear experience.”
The panel also questions assumptions within the Switkowski report, for instance saying: “The use of such heavily biased and misleading nuclear lobby data unfortunately drains the Switkowski report of much of its credibility”.
Steve Shallhorn, CEO Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “The Ziggy report is fundamentally flawed and offers no plan to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions over the next 25 years. Mr Switkowski himself estimates that even if Australia had 25 nuclear power plants, greenhouse emissions would only be reduced by 8-18 per cent, and not until 2050, which is just too late to stop climate change.
"Renewables and energy efficiency could drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia by far more than that and in the time frame required by the Stern Review ie, in the next 10-15 years.
“The Australian public will need better information than the heavily biased and one-sided Switkowski report if the country is to have a genuine debate about nuclear power and climate change,” concluded Mr Shallhorn.
The panel also says the Switkowski report is wildly optimistic about the economics of nuclear power: “Nuclear power hasn't been ‘viable’ in any country with competitive power supply procurement, ever. No nuclear plant has ever won an open competitive power supply auction. There is no reason to think that this would be different in Australia, a country with abundant coal and no nuclear experience.”
The panel also questions assumptions within the Switkowski report, for instance saying: “The use of such heavily biased and misleading nuclear lobby data unfortunately drains the Switkowski report of much of its credibility”.
Steve Shallhorn, CEO Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “The Ziggy report is fundamentally flawed and offers no plan to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions over the next 25 years. Mr Switkowski himself estimates that even if Australia had 25 nuclear power plants, greenhouse emissions would only be reduced by 8-18 per cent, and not until 2050, which is just too late to stop climate change.
"Renewables and energy efficiency could drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia by far more than that and in the time frame required by the Stern Review ie, in the next 10-15 years.
“The Australian public will need better information than the heavily biased and one-sided Switkowski report if the country is to have a genuine debate about nuclear power and climate change,” concluded Mr Shallhorn.
For further information or comment
Ben Oquist 0419 704095 or Clare Henderson 0419 266110
