Hot issue sparks a chain reaction [28may06]

NUCLEAR-POWERED cars on Adelaide streets, a nuclear power station near Port Augusta, a radioactive dump in SA – Prime Minister John Howard's call for a debate on domestic nuclear power raises all sorts of possibilities.

Around the world 441 nuclear power plants in 31 nations produce about 16 per cent of the world's electricity.

The prospect of Australia joining the nuclear club has aroused outrage and interest. Key figures say such a plant is simply uneconomical because of Australia's large supplies of relatively cheap coal and gas.

Rising oil and gas prices, concern about greenhouse gas pollution, soaring demand for electricity – all are driving the search for alternative power supplies.

While solar, wind power, hydro and even hot rocks are in the mix as new energy sources, nuclear is being used around the world for large-scale electricity generation.









It produces no greenhouse gases but produces high-level radioactive waste.

Australia has abundant coal and gas, making nuclear power uneconomical at present – some estimates say nuclear costs twice as much as coal power. However, growing concern over greenhouse gases is driving a push towards a carbon tax on fossil fuels such as coal.

This, along with rising gas prices, eventually could make nuclear power economical.

The State Government is in favour of mining and exporting uranium, with safeguards, but opposes a domestic nuclear power plant.

"There is no driving force in the community to have a nuclear power station that I can see," Deputy Premier Kevin Foley said. "Our focus is on building sustainable energy resources and we are not going down the road of nuclear power.

"SA has 51 per cent of the nation's wind power generating capacity and 45 per cent of the nation's solar energy capacity.

"In addition, millions of dollars have been spent investigating hot rocks technology, which could deliver South Australia an unlimited supply of clean energy."

Port Augusta Mayor Joy Baluch says if it proves economical, she would welcome a nuclear power station in her region – it is close to uranium supplies and has the cooling water needed for such a plant.

"Some time in the future a nuclear power plant will have to occur, it makes good common sense," she said.

"It also makes sense for a plant to be in our region, close to the supply of uranium.

"I can't speak for the community, this is a personal view, but nuclear power is clean and needs to be investigated."

Despite their key role, uranium miners are keeping a low profile.

Spokesmen for BHP Billiton, which operates Roxby Downs, and Heathgate Resources, which operates the Beverley mine, said their focus was solely on mining. However, Heathgate's website notes: "With consumer demand for electricity expected to double by the middle of the 21st century, and with nuclear power plants producing no greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy represents the only way to produce significant amounts of base-load power without contributing to global warming."

Uranium Information Centre manager Ian Hore-Lacy said nuclear power was not an option for Australia now because of its coal and gas reserves.

"That could change because of the prospect of costs being imposed on carbon emissions," he said.

"With growing electricity demand coupled with the need to limit greenhouse gas emissions, most countries have nowhere else to go for clean base-load electricity generation than nuclear power.

"Renewables cannot deliver continuous reliable supply, let alone on any scale."

While the Chernobyl nuclear disaster continues to conjure images of what can go wrong, Mr Hore-Lacy said modern reactors were quite different. "Not just modern ones, but all older ones outside the Soviet Union and more than half of those built within it are very different," he said.

"That type of reactor could not have come anywhere near getting a licence outside USSR, since 1986 we all know why."

He also said radioactive wastes have been managed safely and uneventfully for 50 years and present little technical challenge, though a greater political one.

Mr Hore-Lacy raised the prospect of bypassing oil in favor of cars run on nuclear electricity.

"We already have full hybrid cars in strong demand, the next development of these is to have them plug in for charging on the grid.

"Further out, nuclear power is very likely to be used to make hydrogen for fuel cells, initially by high-temperature electrolysis, then by thermochemical process using high-temperature reactors." However, critics of nuclear power note that as well as being around twice the price of coal, it carries hidden costs.

These include security, decommissioning of ageing power stations and creating a new bureaucracy to deal with an entire new industry.

Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman David Noonan said the entire debate was a smokescreen to make exporting uranium more acceptable.

He said even if a plant was commissioned this week it would be 20 years before it would "turn on a lightbulb" without adding to greenhouse gas emissions.

"If the real question is how we address climate change, then we need early action for cuts in greenhouse gases," he said.

"Nuclear fails that test – it would take at least 12 years to build a power station then another eight years to repay its energy debt from its construction. We should be concentrating on renewable energy options such as wind and solar power we can be proud of exporting.

"We could have a home-grown renewables industry rather than being a uranium quarry."

China and India are the two main countries expanding their nuclear power industry, but Mr Noonan said they were also looking at other energy sources.

"China is increasing its share of nuclear power from 2 per cent to 5 per cent of production, but is planning to increase its share of renewable energy to 15 per cent," he said. "That is a far bigger market to aim for.

"You need to isolate nuclear waste for longer than 10,000 years, which is longer than recorded civilisation.

"Nuclear has immense capital costs so would need huge subisides to start.

"Then at the other end the cost to decommission and clean up is huge."

If the Federal Government does embrace nuclear power it faces a political and legal maze. As well as the hostility of opponents of nuclear power – such as many in the Labor Party and the Greens – it is illegal under existing federal law.

The government would need to override the 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act.

Then it would have to find a site for the reactor as well as a waste dump, under its policy where uranium waste is stored by those who use it (which, incidentally, blocks the argument that Australia should store waste created from the uranium it exports.)

Nuclear power is illegal under state law in NSW and Victoria, while nuclear dumps have been outlawed under state law in SA, WA and Victoria.

A pro-nuclear federal government could find itself in a states' rights row if it tried to override such laws.