Bob Brown: Go for clean and green, not nuclear greed Opinion The Australian

The Australian Greens leader makes the case against nuclear energy
May 29, 2006
LAST year, Finance Minister Nick Minchin told a Liberal council meeting: "We must avoid, in my view, being lumbered as the party that favours nuclear energy in this country." He sidestepped NSW premier Bob Carr's implication that the alternative to burning more coal was nuclear power, saying "we would be political mugs if we got sucked into this".
Last week Prime Minister John Howard sucked Australia right into the nuclear debate, flagging uranium enrichment and, potentially, Australian nuclear power reactors. His fatuous description of nuclear power as "clean and green" was made on a trip to visit George Bush.
Since Hurricane Katrina smashed into New Orleans, the White House has shifted ground on global warming. The President has even cajoled Americans to guzzle less gas. While we know that where Bush goes Howard likes to follow, the Prime Minister had been secretly reviewing the nuclear option for some time and he remains oblivious to the enormity of climate change.
The Government ignored climate change in its $15 billion budget surplus. Meanwhile, uranium prices have risen from $US7 a pound at the beginning of 2001 to $US42 ($55) a pound now. Uranium prices, not global warming - greed, not green - got Howard going nuclear. With zilch reference to key colleagues back home, Howard recklessly jump-started the debate on Australia's nuclear future. Besides the economic and environmental risks, there are very dangerous regional ramifications of his nuclear trajectory.
Indonesia can now foster its own nuclear future, free of worries about chastisement from Canberra. The Suharto plan for 12 nuclear reactors, concentrated on earthquake-prone Java, is likely to resurface, and Megawati Sukarnoputri's interest in floating nuclear power stations from Russia almost certainly remains on Jakarta's drawing board.
When either or both options resurface, Australians will worry about some future reactor accident sending a pall of radiation across the populous islands to our north, as well as northern Australia. And the prospect of a future Indonesian leader opting for nuclear weapons will grow stronger.
Before Howard set out to wedge the divided Labor Opposition on nuclear power, he should have stopped to seriously consider his move, in light of the threat posed by religious extremists in Indonesia. The dangerous mix of jihadists and nuclear energy will stalk Australia's future long after he has left office.
The Australian Greens oppose uranium mining. We will campaign vigorously against nuclear enrichment, reactors and the growing prospect of our lucky country being pressured to become the world's waste dump.
A much faster, safer and cheaper alternative to nuclear power is the combination of energy efficiency, which could free up 30 to 50 per cent of current power production for new use, and renewable energy.
A recent report from five CSIRO scientists indicates that solar thermal energy could provide for all of Australia's energy needs and will be cost-competitive with coal within seven years.
Renewables offer job-rich industries for Australia with huge export potential, not least to Indonesia and China. Wind farms, solar, biomass and geothermal power do not require a non-proliferation treaty.
The assumption that nuclear energy can match the environmental credentials of these alternatives is simply wrong. Once the world's high-grade uranium deposits are mined (in another three or four decades), nuclear energy will become vastly more inefficient and polluting.
While nuclear may deliver low-emission energy for a few decades, the waste has to be stored securely for another 150,000 years. Can Howard really make that guarantee on behalf of millions of future Australians, especially when the budget papers reveal the Government can't even put a price on the cost of decommissioning the small Lucas Heights reactor?
Every time the Prime Minister mentions nuclear power and climate change in the same breath, the question arises: why has his Government refused to extend the hugely successful Mandatory Renewable Energy Target? That failure is costing Australia at least half a billion dollars in investment in wind farms.
Why defund solar research? That decision has taken Australia from the forefront in solar technology and manufacturing to the status of also-ran. Australia is at a tipping point. We can choose a true "clean and green" future and a nuclear-free region for our children. Or go nuclear with Howard.