Editorial

Australasian Science, Page: 1
Wednesday, 28 June 2006

In the political satire Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby likens an independent inquiry to "a train, and the terms of the inquiry are the tracks. Once the tracks are in place, the train will follow the way they go." The same could be said about the "full-blooded debate" that Prime Minister John Howard wants Australia to have on developing a home-grown nuclear industry (see pp. 30-32).

In recent weeks his government has fast-tracked the debate, having received costings from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and appointed a pro-nuclear Taskforce that will produce a draft report by November. The final report is due by the end of the year, leaving little time -or desire -for public consultation. The debate has been driven by a sudden desire by the government to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. It's a desire that lacks sincerity, the government having opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and abolished several renewable energy research programs.

Global warming is also a disingenuous trigger. While nuclear reactors don't emit greenhouse gases, the energy inputs over the reactor's lifetime -from mining, milling and enriching uranium to building the power station, decommissioning it and reprocessing and storing its waste -can emit more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired power station (AS, July 2005, pp. 39-40). The best-case scenario is a payback of 7-10 years if limited high-grade ore reserves are used.

But why is the Taskforce only considering nuclear energy as a solution to Australia's impending power shortage? What roles do oil, coal, gas, hydro, wind, solar, tidal, hot rocks and biofuels have in Australia's energy portfolio, and how much will their efficiencies improve in coming decades? Even ANSTO's report limited itself to modern uranium reactors and ignored a new breed of reactors that can use Australia's vast thorium reserves as fuel. These reactors have much better safety and environmental credentials as they can incinerate their own waste and do not produce plutonium that contributes to weapons proliferation. ANSTO's report also found that nuclear energy would require large government subsidies if Australia commissioned a modern reactor. To avoid "flrst-of-a-kind" costs we would have to wait for a later "copy" before the price of nuclear energy would be competitive with coal or gas.

An alternative would be to introduce a carbon tax to drive up the cost of electricity by 50%. However, this could cut demand as consumers adopt more energy-efficient measures, such as better insulation and solar panels that would pay for themselves much more quickly than presently. Under this scenario, the demand for electricity would drop, as would the need for nuclear power.