The choice is not nuclear energy v coal

Age
Friday 24/11/2006, Page: 17

Generations to come will not thank us for shortsighted decisions.

THE findings of the Government's nuclear taskforce should come as little surprise, as the focus was narrowly on nuclear power and excluded consideration of clean energy sources, such as renewable energy, gasfired generation and energy efficiency. In essence, the review posits a false choice - between nuclear energy and coal - as if no other large-capacity power options were available. This is a false choice.

What conclusions might have been drawn if it had been a wide-ranging inquiry that compared solar power, wind power, bioenergy, geothermal "hot rocks", energy efficiency, solar water heating and natural gas, as well as nuclear power? We can only wonder, because it wasn't that sort of inquiry.

So, what has the review contributed? First, it was encouraging to see it conclude that a carbon price signal is essential for greenhouse gas reduction and for investment in the development and deployment of zero and low-emission technologies.

This is a critical step towards a clean economy. Per capita, Australians are the most polluting people in the world. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal-dominated electricity generation in Australia are soaring and forecast to rise rapidly. ABARE predicts our energy emissions will be more than 60 per cent higher over the next 25 years if we continue with "business as usual".

The most effective way to begin reining in these galloping emissions is to put a price on pollution. Putting a price on carbon pollution would, as former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern says, simply "correct the greatest market failure the world has ever seen". A carbon trading scheme can be designed in a way that protects tradeexposed industries. But a carbon trading scheme needs to start soon, not in five or 10 years.

And this matter - of time - is of critical importance. We don't need to wait 15 to 20 years to build nuclear power stations. More importantly, we don't have 15 to 20 years to wait to build them.

As Stern observed in his recent report: "There is a high price to delay. Weak action in the next 10 to 20 years would put stabilisation even at 550 ppm (parts per million) carbon dioxide beyond reach - and this level is already associated with significant risks." Time is a precious commodity we don't have much of in relation to global warming.

Every tonne of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere is up there for the next 100 years. Every year we wait is a 100-year legacy that makes our job that much harder and requires much steeper cuts later.

If Stern is right, making nuclear power the vanguard of an energy revolution pitches Australia head first into risky territory - economically and otherwise - simply because of the delay it demands.

Australia already has an abundance of zero-emission renewable and low-emission energy technologies. They could be deployed en masse tomorrow and begin to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. This would be instead of our waiting 15 or 20 years for a nuclear power station to be built.

Australia does have lots of coal and uranium. But it also has almost unlimited quantities of clean renewable energy from the sun, wind, biomass, geothermal "hot rocks" and other sources, which can be used far more. We also have vast reserves of natural gas, which produce about one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal.

Some of these clean energies are being put to good use. Their contribution needs to be expanded and others can - and should - be added to the energy mix now. This can take place while we consider and debate the merits of nuclear power.

Biomass, geothermal energy and gas are all storable forms of energy that can be turned up or down as needed, exploding the myth that coal or nuclear energy are our only base-load (24-hour) power options.

Renewable energies are proven and affordable. They work well now and they produce zero emissions. By next year, South Australia will have 15 per cent of its power needs met from wind when only a few years ago it was zero. The same could be done for the whole of Australia.

Another 20 per cent saving could be met by conserving the coal-fired electricity we already waste; another 20 per cent from converting from coal to natural gas; and another 20 per cent from bioenergy. The list goes on.

The decisions we will soon make about energy sources will go down in history as among the most defining ever - economically, socially and environmentally.

Generations to come will judge us on the paths we now take. Did we look at all the options and make use of all the clean energy sources at our disposal? Did we map out a responsible, strategic path to lower greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining a healthy economy and forging dynamic new markets in clean renewable energies?

Ric Brazzale is executive director of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.