Let's debate burning nuclear questions

NUCLEAR power. For so long, public sensitivity about those two words prevented John Howard and others within the Federal Government from talking favourably about it.

Think Chernobyl, or Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor, that emerged as a potential terrorist target.

But suddenly, galvanized by the arrival of representatives from the US and China, senior Australian Government ministers are discussing the merits of nuclear energy.

It is always easier to talk about a controversial issue when the US Energy Secretary is standing next to you, declaring nuclear energy is "an obvious requirement".

But it's not the only reason the once taboo topic is creeping back into public consciousness.




Records show 2005 was Australia's hottest year on record, and scientists are worried.

Climate change and global warming has also got ordinary Australians worried, too.

According to one study, we're more worried about global warming than global terrorism.

As such, the inaugural ministerial meeting of the newly formed Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate couldn't have come at a better time.

As we sweat out another scorching Australian summer, the climate change conference, including representatives from the US, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea, is looking at ways to develop technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Of the six nations, Australia is the only one without a domestic nuclear energy program.

US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said he expected "the world at large" to make nuclear power part of its energy mix that would result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time not stunting global economic growth.

With global demand for electricity expected to rise 50per cent over the next two decades, the need to reduce emissions is urgent and, according to Mr Bodman, nuclear power is the way to go.

"Nuclear power, it seems to me, is an obvious requirement on a going-forward basis," Mr Bodman said.

"We're even getting, in our country, support from the environmental community. Different members are now being much more supportive of efforts to rejuvenate the nuclear energy industry in our country."

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer said there had to be a debate on nuclear energy here.

"I do think there needs to be continual discussion about the benefits and costs of nuclear power," he said. "Obviously nuclear power is greenhouse-friendly and that needs to be taken into consideration when the aspirations of countries, in terms of increasing their energy consumption, are taken into account."

Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane also welcomed debate on development of an Australian nuclear industry, but said it had to be conducted "on the basis of science and fact, not emotion".

Mr Macfarlane said he hasn't decided yet whether or not nuclear energy has a place in Australia but he welcomed a debate on the matter.

"I'd like to see the debate," he said.

"I'd like to see the real story in terms of the cost of nuclear energy.

"But I think the realisation that other countries have made that nuclear energy is a low or zero emission technology is increasing the likelihood (the debate will occur) sooner rather than later."

Yesterday's decision by Prime Minister John Howard to sell uranium to China for nuclear power is recognition by Australia that nuclear energy is the way forward - even if that way forward is in another country.

Perhaps a sign of things to come on the home front?

Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry hopes not. But he does welcome a debate on the issue.

"There are a small number of people cheering on the nuclear debate," he said.

"But most Australians remain deeply anxious about nuclear waste and the risks of terrorism associated with it, and are far more supportive of tackling climate change using renewable power, energy efficiency and cleaning up our existing fuels.

"We've got cleaner solutions to tackle climate change right now, and we should grab them."

Despite claims by Mr Downer and Mr Macfarlane that nuclear power is clean, Mr Henry said that is not necessarily the case.

"It's too dirty, too dangerous and too slow," he said. "It would take anywhere between 10 and 20 years to get nuclear power up in Australia and we would have lost the plot on climate change by then."

ACF president Professor Ian Lowe, who trained as a nuclear physicist, rejects the notion that nuclear energy is a way of the future.

"As people said back in the 1970s, if nuclear is the answer, it must have been a pretty silly question."

There is not one single solution to the climate change problem.

But surely, a frank and open debate on a technology used so widely around the world is not a bad idea.