Nuclear power can cut emissions and still maintain supply

Age
Monday 21/7/2008 Page: 11

THE unseemly haste associated with the implementation of Australia's emission trading scheme seems to be driven more by political aspirations and the pseudo-science of special interest groups than sound environmental concern.

On a recent visit to Australia, Jeffrey Sachs, distinguished professor of sustainability from Columbia University, pointed out the futility of a highly politicised debate on emissions trading. He said that the science, technology and economics of any optimal new "clean" energy policy should be properly simulated, studied and understood by all national stakeholders. Sachs endorses nuclear energy as the pivotal clean technology.

The Australian Government could well learn from Australia's uranium trading partners as it shapes its energy and climate change policies. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong should endorse the energy technologies that provide real energy security and offer the largest emission reductions at the lowest cost. Her aspiration for "renewables" and "clean coal" clearly does not fit this template. nuclear energy does.

The call for the Government to formulate a sensible energy policy, which will provide Australia with energy, water and hydrogen security and an emission trading scheme at minimal cost is growing. nuclear energy endorsement has come from former NSW premier Bob Carr, and chairman of the Commonwealth Bank and the Great Barrier Reef Trust John Schubert, as well as from Paul Howes, national secretary of the Australian Workers Union. Following the G8 summit in Japan, climate scientists and energy experts were quick to comment on the fact that Australia was the odd nation out."

Fifteen of the 16 participating nations were already committed to or were planning to adopt civilian nuclear energy to battle global warming. From the G8 "host group", Italy, which had for decades imported cheap and reliable nuclear energy from France, has recently announced its own program for domestic nuclear energy production. The other seven nations all had made a major investment in nuclear energy over the past 40 years.

From the "invited observer" group, China, India, South Korea and South Africa already have major and rapidly expanding nuclear industries. And Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia have firm plans for a program of nuclear development. Australia alone, through political prejudice, lack of education and the pressure of special interest groups, is denying the nation the domestic adoption of this best of all technologies for the provision of energy security and low-cost emission trading.

Just before the summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that his nation would build a second 1650 MW(e) "Generation 4" nuclear energy plant to supplement the one at Flamanville due to enter service in 2012. These units will provide electrical energy 30% to 50% below the cost of gas or coal.

For France, each of these units saves 2 billion cubic metres of natural gas every year when it replaces a gas-fired plant and 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide when it replaces a coal power plant. For more than 35 years nuclear energy has been providing cheap, clean energy security for France. In 2008 it supplies 78% of the country's electricity as well as providing reliable base-load power for surrounding European countries.

nuclear energy technology has received strong endorsement at recent conferences held by industrial groups in Australia and overseas. At the Emissions Trading Conference sponsored by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, the managing director of EnergyAustralia, George Maltobarow, wanted nuclear energy to be recognised as a less costly alternative to "renewables" and "clean coal" in any Australian carbon trading scheme.

At the same time in Barcelona, the European Union's electricity industry executives held a major conference on the "Decarbonising Europe Trading Scheme." Of the delegates, 49% chose nuclear energy as the key technology to lower carbon emissions. 24% chose carbon capture and sequestration and 6% chose "renewables." And the carbon capture advocates recognised that this technology still does not exist. For energy security and lowest cost emission trading, the Rudd Government should follow Europe.

With regulatory protocols in place Australia's first five nuclear energy stations could be built and commissioned in eight to 10 years. They are only "too expensive" and "too slow" if seen through the prism of political prejudice. Already the world's 442 nuclear energy stations are averting the emission of about 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

Australia - the planet's worst per capita emitter and also its premier "dirty coal" exporter - can only adopt a Kyoto-based ethical "high ground" in the climate change battle by embracing nuclear energy. As a significant bonus, the nation will receive clean, green energy security at a generating cost of about three cents per kilowatt hour. Without nuclear energy the purchase of 8000 kWh of electrical energy a year in Australia will still leave a "carbon footprint" of about 300 kilograms of fly ash and nine tonnes of carbon dioxide. A similar transaction in France would result in 25 millilitres of valuable radioactive waste. Without nuclear energy, Australia's emission reduction targets of 20% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 may prove unattainable and the nation may be destined to decades of global disadvantage.

Leslie Kemeny is the Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy. He is a consulting nuclear scientist and engineer.