A senior Liberal senator has suggested the head of the country's leading climate body could be sacked if the Coalition wins the election, after the organisation released independent modelling into the party's nuclear plan.

The Climate Change Authority has modelled the potential impacts of the Coalition's promise to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050, and concluded it would result in an additional 2 billion tonnes of emissions.

In response, Senator Jane Hume suggested that the head of the Climate Change Authority, former state Liberal party minister Matt Kean, could be removed from the role.

"We could not possibly maintain a Climate Change Authority that has been so badly politicised," she told the ABC's Afternoon Briefing.

Shadow Finance Minister Jane Hume suggested it would be difficult to keep Mr Kean as chair if the Coalition won the federal election. (Australian Senate)

When asked specifically if the opposition would keep Kean on as chair, she said "that is not a decision for me but I could not imagine maintaining a commission that is so badly politicised that it is not serving its purpose to provide independent advice to government on its climate change policy. Where is that policy? Where is the target of 2035?"

Her comments refer to the authority's role to provide a report to the government on what the country's 2035 climate targets should be. That report was delayed to reassess how Donald Trump's election would impact the global climate world.

The Climate Change Authority is an independent body established under legislation. It has a mandate to advise governments on policies around climate change and the country's emissions and said this modelling was firmly within its remit.

"The Climate Change Authority is a scientific-backed organisation. We put the science and the facts on the table for the Australian public to make up their minds," Mr Kean told the ABC's Afternoon Briefing.

"What is political in fact is people that deny science and deny basic economics in their policies, that's what political looks like. And that is what Ted O'Brien is doing," Mr Kean told the ABC's Afternoon Briefing.

"The Climate Change Authority Act 2011 empowers the authority to undertake self-initiated research on matters relating to climate change. This work was not requested or directed by the Australian government."

Nuclear plan a 'carbon bomb'

The agency found adopting the Coalition’s nuclear plan would result in an additional 2 billion tonnes of emission, the equivalent of 200 years' worth of emissions from Australia's domestic flights.

It compared the current trajectory modelled by the country's energy market operator, AEMO, with the Coalition's nuclear modelling that was released in December.

The increase in emissions would come from delaying the rollout of renewable technology and instead continuing with coal-fired power, which is otherwise expected to shut down over the next decade, and slowing the transitions in other industries.

Emissions in the National Electricity Market would be higher every year until the late 2040s under the nuclear pathway. (Supplied: Climate Change Authority)

Mr Kean said the Coalition's plan would deliver a "carbon emissions bomb" and pursuing the current trajectory was "the only viable option".

"Continuing on Australia's current pathway and accelerating our progress can deliver rapid cuts to emissions," he said.

"Prioritising nuclear at this time would be inconsistent with Australia's national emissions reduction priorities and commitments.

Matt Kean says pursuing nuclear power does not align with Australia's climate goals. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)

With climate change, the journey is more important than the final destination. CO2 stays in the atmosphere and it's the build-up of these emissions over time that causes hotter temperatures and more extreme weather, so how quickly you reduce emissions is more important than reaching zero by a certain date.

By the time nuclear will be fully deployed, there will be one billion MtCo2 in added emissions from the electricity sector alone. (Supplied: Climate Change Authority)

Under the Coalition's nuclear plan, Australia would also blow out its 2030 emissions targets by more than 5 per cent, according to the authority's modelling, and is in line with 2.6 degrees of warming.

It's not just the electricity system that would have higher emissions under a nuclear pathway. The Coalition's own modelling assumes that there's a slower uptake of other clean technologies and a smaller economy overall, adding another billion tonnes to the tally.

The transport sector will cut emissions faster if clean technology options like electric cars can be charged with a low-emissions grid.

Manufacturers would also produce more emissions with a dirtier grid until nuclear came online.

The authority combined these assumptions with the impact of using coal-fired power for longer, until nuclear reactors are built, to arrive at the additional 2 billion tonnes of emissions.

Other industries are also relying on a clean grid to reduce emissions.

Under the current pathway, Australia's electricity emissions are forecast to drop significantly between now and 2035. By waiting to build a nuclear fleet, electricity emissions would stay higher for much longer.

Would a nuclear power plant fit Australia's needs?

These are the numbers you should keep in mind when thinking about its place in Australia's energy transition.

Australia currently has a target to reach 82 per cent renewables in the electricity mix by the end of this decade. The current pathway is outlined by AEMO and is broadly supported by state governments, industry, as well as the current federal Labor government.

Under the Coalition's nuclear plan, nuclear and renewables wouldn't reach 82 per cent of the grid until 2042, or another 12 years later than the current path.

Coalition's own nuclear modelling, which was conducted by Frontier Economics, also found that cumulative emissions would be higher under its plan.

Expert bodies under attack

In an earlier response to the modelling, shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O'Brien had also questioned the credibility of the Climate Change Authority.

"The Climate Change Authority has sadly become a puppet of Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen, as its latest report parrots Labor's untruthful anti-nuclear scare campaign," Mr O'Brien said in a statement.

Ted O'Brien slammed the Climate Change Authority's modelling, questioning its credibility as an independent government body. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)

Mr O'Brien did not respond directly to the finding of 2 billion tonnes of additional emissions but instead highlighted the fact that their plan would fall below the current pathway in 2049.

It’s not the first time the opposition has taken aim at Australia’s independent expert bodies over nuclear power. 

In March they questioned the credibility of the CSIRO after releasing a report about the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia.  

Despite regularly updating its research to incorporate requests from nuclear proponents, the CSIRO has consistently found nuclear power to be more expensive than renewables supported by batteries.