Climate changes nuclear debate

Herald Sun
25/08/2006 Page: 22

What has been clear to the scientific community for a long time has, at last, been accepted by the Federal Government.

Climate change is here, it's real and it's serious. So far, so good. We've identified the problem. It's when we start to look at potential solutions things get confusing.

The science writer and commentator Tim Flannery, one of the nation's strongest voices for urgent action on climate change, has called for Australia to exploit uranium "in a morally responsible manner" and adopt the "noble option" of nuclear power to address climate change.

Dr Flannery says the need to act on global warming, the failure of federal leadership on this issue and the distorted economics of the energy market mean Australia should go nuclear: more uranium mining, uranium enrichment, domestic nuclear power and international radioactive waste storage.

The only problem is the doctor's prescribed remedy fails to cure the disease. You cannot solve one monumental environmental problem by embracing another. Nuclear is high cost and high risk and will not deliver the cuts we need in greenhouse pollution to avoid dangerous climate change.

Science is telling us we must cut greenhouse pollution by at least 60 per cent within a generation. Even if we doubled the number of nuclear reactors operating around the world, we would achieve only a 5 per cent drop in emissions.

Big risk for tiny reward. Nuclear power is no answer to climate change. It's too slow and ineffective to make a difference, too costly and is directly linked to the production of the world's worst weapons and most dangerous industrial waste.

The idea that Australians should become "forceful nuclear pacifists", who export uranium to the world then aggressively back international efforts to stop weapons proliferation, is naive in the extreme. It's also a contradiction in terms.

Safeguards cannot guarantee Australian uranium won't end up in nuclear weapons. The only thing that can be guaranteed is that every gram of exported uranium will end up as a 250,000year radioactive waste legacy for our children and their children.

Safeguards rely on trust. Take for example the safeguards the Federal Government is developing to facilitate uranium sales to China. They will depend on Australia trusting not only the current Chinese Government, but also every future government in Beijing.

Even if we were prepared to extend our trust that far, uranium exports raise other significant security concerns. Terrorists do not respect safeguard agreements. Once uranium is out of our hands it is impossible to guarantee its safe use and storage.

We do need to change the way we create and consume energy, but we do not need to fuel regional insecurities or create an eternal radioactive waste burden. Why would we choose nuclear power when there are safer, cleaner, more credible energy options available?

While it would take 10 to 25 years and at least $3 billion before a nuclear power station could deliver a single watt of electricity in Australia, renewables are ready to provide climatefriendly energy today.

Wind power has the potential to supply at least 10 per cent of Australia's electricity in the short term. Wind and solar energy are growing by about 30 per cent every year. Each time the amount installed doubles, the costs fall by about 20 per cent.

Converting 80 per cent of Australian homes from electric water heating to solar, or heatpump systems would save the same amount of energy as that produced by a nuclear power station. And while most Australians would be understandably nervous about a reactor in their backyard, nobody minds a solar panel on the roof.

geothermal energy, generated from hot rocks beneath the ground, is in its infancy but holds potential. A single project under development near Mt Gambier in South Australia is believed to contain enough resources to generate 1000 megawatts of geothermal power for 25 years.

This would be equivalent to a nuclear power station, but without the radioactive waste and risk. Renewable energy presents far greater employment and export opportunities than expanding mining of uranium and playing host to the world's nuclear waste.

Australia can become a world leader with renewables, or a world loser with nukes.

Denise Boyd is campaigns director of the Australian Conservation Foundation