The nuclear option

Australia needs an open debate on nuclear power

IN the two decades since Chernobyl and the nearly three since Three Mile Island, any politician who dared to suggest that Australia take up nuclear power would quickly be sidelined as an extremist by environmentalists and the press. But this attitude is changing, thanks to a confluence of seemingly unrelated events. Concern about global warming has renewed interest in alternative fuels of all types. War in Iraq and tensions with Iran have increased concerns about relying on fuel from such an unstable part of the world. And the runaway economies of India and China are tipped to increase demand on resources for decades to come, putting even more upward pressure on oil prices. With Australia holding around 40 per cent of the world's easily extractable uranium, it was only a matter of time before domestic nuclear power stopped being politically radioactive, so to speak.

It's not just in Australia that this change in attitude is occurring. In the US last week, George W. Bush said his country "must start building nuclear power plants" to maintain economic progress and energy security. Tony Blair announced that his country would begin building its first nuclear power stations in 20 years. And John Howard, speaking in Canada on Friday, also put the idea of nuclear power for Australia on the agenda and indicated his desire for an "intense debate" on the subject.

Which is exactly what Australia needs. Economically, nuclear power has a lot going for it. Though reactors are pricey to build, once up and running, the fuel costs in OECD nuclear power plants run to about one-third of those in coal-fired plants and a quarter of those in natural gas plants. Furthermore, taking the Chernobyl disaster -- the result of Soviet-era construction and mismanagement -- out of the equation, nuclear power is comparatively safe. France, which 30 years ago took 80 per cent of its electricity from fossil fuels, now generates approximately that same percentage from uranium, and has not suffered a significant accident. Coal, meanwhile, costs thousands of lives a year (mostly in China) just to get out of the ground. Burning coal and petroleum causes pollution that is associated with a range of illnesses. And concerns about climate change have seen green groups such as WWF and Labor politicians such as Martin Ferguson calling for Australia to put atomic energy back on the table -- despite the objections of Kim Beazley. None of this is to say that Australia should break ground on a new nuclear power station tomorrow. There are still vital questions that need to be answered -- not the least of which is what to do with the spent fuel. However, given Australia's uranium reserves and the need to cut greenhouse emissions (ours are among the worst in the world per capita), it is time for atomic energy to get the fair hearing it deserves.