Nuclear questions will only fuel the gas rus

EVEN some of the most vocal supporters of nuclear energy have acknowledged that recent events in Japan will decelerate the agenda for nuclear power plants in Australia, and potentially globally.
This tragic earthquake and tsunami is a reminder that at times even the most well-laid disaster plans can’t always fortify against massive and unpredictable levels of natural disaster.
As bad as the situation in Japan appears, it is worth remembering that the nuclear reactors at Fukushima stood up considerably well to the magnitude nine earthquake (which has been estimated at the world’s fourth largest earthquake on record) and it was mostly the massive 10-plus metre wave that caused the most damage.
Nonetheless, people everywhere have a right to be asking questions about nuclear energy, including its risks and benefits.
Perhaps with time it may emerge that nuclear energy remains one of the most capable means of providing base-load power in many parts of the world, especially so given that this disaster occurred in one of the most tectonically unstable parts of the planet.
Equally, it might stall the nuclear agenda for decades, in turn throwing spanners in the plan of curtailing global greenhouse gas emissions. Time will tell.
Australian farmers might be wondering what, if anything, this means for them.
The answer is that the world’s insatiable demand for energy is continuing to grow, and if it can’t get that energy from nuclear power stations, then it will be looking for it from other sources.
As Queensland farmers ruefully know, a large number of us in central and southern Queensland are working properties atop one of the most expansive and sought-after gas fields under development.
The Federal Government continues to describe gas as clean energy, which I suppose is true if you are using coal-fired power generation as the yardstick of measurement.
The Government is therefore drawing a conclusion that a global shift away from nuclear could leave a gap that would be filled by gas.
Trade Minister Craig Emerson said as much to the ABC this week when talking about the Japan situation: “It will probably substantially, if anything, increase the value of those (gas) reserves – the reserves that are sitting in the grounds and being developed right now.”
Farmers on the Darling Downs and anywhere on top of the Surat Basin will not share Minister Emerson’s enthusiasm, especially given that they still await more details on the Strategic Cropping Land (SCL) policy from the State Government.
Thirteen months after the SCL discussion paper was released, we are still waiting for the full policy framework, assessment criteria, and legislation, even though the legislation is promised to be in effect this year.
The State Government has not called any meetings to discuss the policy this year and from our perspective we are worried they are losing momentum.
Meanwhile, the Federal Environment Minister is continuing to green-light CSG-to-LNG facilities at Gladstone and investors in the sharemarket are flocking to big gas companies.
So on the one hand the gas industry is being touted as the next big thing, and on the other hand the planning around the agricultural sector is trailing behind.
Meanwhile, with the likely defeat of the Keneally Government at the weekend, it appears likely that NSW will have SCL policy in place before Queensland does, which will be especially frustrating given that Queensland committed to this so long ago and the rapid pace of development in the Surat Basin.
Therefore, it should not be a great surprise to the government then that landowner frustrations are boiling over in public demonstrations or in the media.
The circuit breaker for the government can only come with action. Therefore, Queensland farmers are anxiously awaiting further development of the SCL agenda and for action from the State Government.