Leadership needed to assess nuclear feasibility

LAST week Liberal party identity Alexander Downer outlined an argument for nuclear energy in Australia.
He made a compelling case that took account of costs, the need for clean air, and reliable base load power.
Yet nuclear energy has unfortunately long been the subject of fierce scare campaigns in this country, which has put the debate beyond the reach of most politicians.
Recently, small sections of the Labor Party have tested the waters to reignite the discussion on nuclear energy options for Australia.
Some commentators dismissed the move as a fleeting skirmish of ideology between the right and left factions of the ALP.
If that is the case, it is a shame to see this issue not rising to a higher level, especially at a time when the Prime Minister and Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, are determined on transiting Australia to a low carbon economy.
Julia Gillard herself dismissed nuclear energy in an interview last month: “nuclear power doesn’t stack up as an economically efficient source of power for our nation.”
While it is true that nuclear is significantly more expensive than our current power sources, if “economic efficiency” was to be the sole determining factor in its use, then the same argument would see the prospect of a carbon price disappear forever.
A carbon price is hardly economically efficient; just as, eventually, coal may not be deemed environmentally efficient.
It appears that someday soon our nation will need new forms of electricity that can generate large volumes of supply 24 hours per day.
So it is a shame that Australia cannot have a mature debate on nuclear energy without fear of one side or another of politics using it as a trigger-point to score political points by capitalising on antiquated Cold War fears about defunct nuclear technology from the 1960s and 1970s.
New generation nuclear technology is now vastly improved from the accidents of decades past and I’m told that small volumes of high level waste can in fact be stored safely and easily at existing facilities for many years.
It seems that all forms of energy have their downsides. Renewable energy is also expensive, and there are serious doubts about its ability to provide the adequate base-load of energy that we need for a growing population increasingly keen on power-hungry technology in their homes.
Coal-fired power has been the pillar of our affordable energy supply for many years, but it is perhaps one of the biggest carbon polluters of them all.
It is for these reasons that it would be nice to see our politicians engage in this discussion with an open mind, and find out for certain if nuclear is a genuine option in Australia.
I admit though it will be difficult given the views of some sectors of the community.
The Greens have been vehement in opposition against nuclear energy, and also to uranium mining, so it would be unlikely they would even let the debate occur, let alone allow legislation to enter Parliament.
The Greens want to have their cake and be able to eat it too. They want a carbon-free world but they also want a nuclear-free world.
Such a path is a flight of fancy given the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) says there are 340 power plants in OECD countries, generating 22 percent of the electricity supply.
The NEA estimates that assuming this energy would otherwise come from coal – which is by far the largest power source in the world – nuclear energy equates to a reduction of 2.9 gigatonnes of CO2-equivelent per year.
That’s a lot of clean air.
If there is really a serious need to lead the world in carbon reduction in Australia, as a nation so heavily dependent on carbon-based export markets, then surely our country needs to engage in a serious and adult debate about nuclear energy.