THE CASE FOR
The Age
Monday February 22, 2010
Should Australia turn to nuclear power? In the lead-up to a major forum in Melbourne next week, The Age fires up the fission debate. ENERGY strategies vary around the world. For instance, most countries place a priority on energy security and independence. Diversification of energy technologies and sources is desirable. And shifting and expanding the production of energy to clean platforms is now a global priority as countries embrace deep reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions.When it comes to generating baseload electricity €” that is the 80 per cent of electricity we require be always available at the power outlet €” only hydroelectricity, the burning of fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil, and nuclear energy are currently available options. But with hydroelectricity dependent upon water flows threatened by global warming, and fossil fuels seen as the problem not the solution, the remaining option remains nuclear power.That's why the contribution from nuclear electricity is expected to grow from its level of 14 per cent of global production as the current 440 reactors slowly grow towards 1000 at mid-century.So when Australians travel to Europe, North America and Asia, it's not surprising that we usually land in countries and cities partly powered by nuclear energy. A country such as France gets most of its electricity, nearly 80 per cent, from its fleet of 59 reactors. For other countries such as the US, Britain and Japan, the figure is about 20 per cent.The civilian nuclear industry, now 55 years old, sees China, India, Brazil and Russia as its key growth drivers of the early 21st century.Demand for energy in all its forms €” electricity, transport, heating, food €” increases with economic growth and as standards of living improve. There is an observed universal correlation which makes forecasts of 2 per cent annual growth in global demand almost inevitable as the developing economies surge from their low energy bases. That's a doubling in demand by 2050, including by Australians.Even beyond the expected demand from population and GDP growth, the decades ahead in Australia will see the emergence of energy-intensive applications hungry for baseload electricity such as desalination plants, carbon capture and storage (CCS) infrastructures, and recharging grids for electric vehicles.Australia's energy and climate change strategy is based upon expected contributions from energy conservation and productivity, accelerated deployment of renewable energy, a substitution of coal by gas, and the presumed success of clean-coal technologies and associated carbon capture and storage. (The emissions trading scheme is not a strategy so much as a market mechanism to encourage progress in each of these areas.)There can be no question as to the merit of each element in this approach. Many countries are pursuing a similar mix but with the added element of nuclear power, which has near zero emissions, is safe and offers the promise of lowest cost in a future world of carbon taxes.With Australian household demand for energy increasing rather than reducing, renewables such as wind and solar contributing less than 2 per cent to current energy generation, and CCS yet to be demonstrated as a scalable, cost-effective and safe process, we may be the only country whose total energy strategy is based upon such fragile foundations.Yet connecting the dots between now and 2050 for electricity should be clear. The widespread use of coal makes way for gas as the primary fuel in Australia, after which nuclear power becomes the load-bearing girder for baseload electricity generation (including that required to power an electric vehicle and hydrogen economy) by mid-century. Yes, use of fossil fuels will persist but carbon capture and storage technology must become ubiquitous. And renewable energy mainly in the form of wind and solar will make important, if subordinate, contributions.However, government policy does not support nuclear power for Australia. In my opinion and that of other countries around the world, this eliminates a critical element of a successful clean-energy strategy.GIVEN that we are the only country of the top 28 economies globally not to embrace nuclear power, it's hard to believe that we have a unique set of energy options or an original list of reservations which the citizens of other countries have failed to grasp. Availability of lots of wind, sunshine, coastline and sand is not the basis of an enduring competitive advantage in contrast to our reserves of mineral resources, including coal, gas and uranium.Yet the concerns of Australians must be respected and considered. These include the storage challenge for long-lived radioactive waste, capital costs of reactors, long lead times, choice of locations, risks from accidents, terrorism and proliferation, access to water, and the need for bipartisan support.Despite having similar concerns, two-thirds of the world's population lives with nuclear power, and this proportion is growing. That is, many countries have on balance supported increasing deployment of nuclear energy, but not yet Australia.As US President Barack Obama's announcement this week confirmed, whether you are worried by climate change, pragmatic in accepting the need to move beyond fossil fuels, recognise the appeal of a balanced energy strategy, or supportive of a new growth industry, nuclear power ticks many of the boxes.From a very negative position only three years ago, public opinion is now moving in favour of nuclear energy for Australia. Our political leaders can't be far behind.
© 2010 The Age