Doug Anthony: Refuelling uranium | Opinion | The Australian

The US and Australia are discussing the possibilities of renewed nuclear-power development internationally. The country is ready for another debate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 22, 2006
THE Prime Minister is right: we have to come to grips with the uranium issue. Governments, political parties and industry are all pussyfooting around this question. The nation desperately needs leadership if Australia is to benefit from our highly advantageous resources, benefits that could create a huge and vital industry for our country and the world.
We have a product that is eagerly sought around the world and which is guaranteed to be in far greater demand in the immediate future. We have the world's largest and richest deposits. Our production will go entirely in exports to other countries to help them in their struggle to produce more electricity while containing their greenhouse emissions.

Yet we approach this important national opportunity mired in policies and attitudes framed largely in the 1980s. These policies were designed mainly to paper over the internal factional disputes of the Labor Party by restricting the number of uranium mines - but not preventing the world's largest uranium mine, in South Australia, from expanding its production at will. For logic and vision this surely can only be matched by some of the schemes hatched by Romania's unlamented Nicolae Ceausescu; but it is still the basic policy under which uranium mining can, or cannot, be developed in the states of Australia today.

True, glimmers of light are appearing. A former NSW premier suggested it could be timely to debate the issue. Newspapers report that the ALP leadership is preparing the ground to discuss the issue in April of next year. From Washington, the Prime Minister is reported as calling for a wide-ranging debate on uranium mining and waste storage. None of this reflects the urgency required if we are to capture the opportunity that has been presented to us.

To call what is going on at the moment progress, or to expect sound policies to emerge from a repetitive free-for-all, is wishful thinking.

The federal Government should take the initiative now. Begin by holding a parliamentary debate on the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. There has not been such a debate to my knowledge since the Coalition took office more than a decade ago.

From this the Government could promote a framework paper that canvasses the national benefits from the mining and export of uranium. It would consider the future demand for, and likely pricing of, those exports; the practicality, costs and benefits of establishing a uranium enrichment industry in this country; the feasibility of a waste-storage facility in the geologically stable areas of Australia; and the national and global environmental impact of all of the foregoing.

In short, what would need to be done and what would be the costs and benefits, both financial and environmental? The task should be approached urgently.

There should be only one matter exempt from scrutiny: strict adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty must be paramount and above review. With that as fixed as the north star, the only other guidance would be not to dwell too long on the worldwide role of nuclear energy. It is with us, it's here to stay.

About 20 per cent of the world's electricity is provided from more than 400 nuclear power plants. In France it is more than 70 per cent, Japan 30 per cent and planning to go up to 40 per cent. The world's largest nuclear reactor is being completed in Finland; China and India are planning more than 50 new stations and Russia is committed to 12 new reactors.

In the face of this worldwide trend it would be futile to debate whether the world should move to nuclear as a leading permanent power source: it has already done so. What we should focus on and debate is Australia's role in that international industry.

Begin with mining. With strict safeguards firmly in place, I suggest the starting point for debate should be: why treat uranium mining differently from any other mineral? The quality of debate should be interesting. Over the past couple of decades uranium exploration has tripled. Finding uranium is not the problem. The next stage would be enrichment, where the ore is upgraded from about 1-1.5 per cent of U308 in its natural state to 3-3.5 per cent as fuel for a nuclear reactor.

This upgrading was regarded by justice Russell Fox in his exhaustive report in the mid-1970s as a normal industrial-processing operation and as such was not judged worthy of any special consideration.

An enrichment plant is, however, highly intensive of capital and energy. The logical place to build such a plant would be where the ore is mined in quantity and a place that has considerable energy resources. No prizes for guessing where Australia would stand on any list of such countries. The opportunity is wide open for us.

We need thorough assessment of the scope and problems inherent in the establishment of such an industry because potentially it could add billions of dollars to our gross domestic product. Next we should address the question of leasing nuclear fuel rods as an additional non-proliferation safeguard. Given the existence of, and adherence to, the NPT, I have doubts as to the need for leasing, but let the arguments be aired.

The final stage, the storage of nuclear waste, should also be approached on the basis of the costs and benefits involved. Australia's geology seems right for this and the most suitable (stable) sites appear to be in relatively remote and arid areas.

These facilities would be underground and involve massive expenditure in the preparation and operation of the site. Please remember that, in a remarkable display of objectivity, this hi-tech operation is usually referred to in the media as a "dump".

To provide this essential service for uranium users completes the nuclear cycle for Australia.

So this is the outline of a plan to determine and air the facts and policy options. We will need a broad debate, and particularly need government and industry leaders to weigh in and argue their perspectives. The objections of the Western Australian and Queensland premiers should be carefully examined, although I doubt if one argument by the Queensland Premier - that uranium mining should be banned in that state to protect coal mining - would survive even cursory examination.

China is building thermal power stations at such a rate that every year they will install capacity equal to more than twice the entire existing capacity of eastern Australia. Our coal industry does not need protection from other forms of power but it may need protection from someone who antagonises important customers for our coal - Japan and China - by seeking to deny them a choice of energy sources from within Australia for purely protectionist reasons.

New facts and new problems have emerged in recent decades. By all means put in to the review whether there is a case for nuclear-power generation within Australia, although it is obvious that with our low-cost and varied sources of electricity, we would be one of the last of the countries forced to make a change on purely economic grounds.

The opening of the Iron Curtain countries to democracy must be recognised as important in the nuclear power debate. The Chernobyl reactors had no internal containment shells. There were no requirements for automatic and immediate public-warning systems. Public scrutiny could have avoided all this: democracy pays dividends in many areas.

I was directly involved in these arguments many years ago. This is now a plea to remove the prejudices of the past and re-examine our attitudes.

I watched in awe from a boat in the Yangtze as a mighty hydro-power dam was approaching completion, and realised it would clearly make a dent in the Chinese demand for electricity. But electricity is vital if they are going to drive for higher living standards while avoiding the problem of further air pollution. Only large-scale nuclear power can achieve this aspiration. The world has moved on with the nuclear energy debate. Let our policies move with it.

Doug Anthony was deputy prime minister and national resources minister from 1975 to 1983 and won support for uranium mining at Ranger and Jabiluka.