BISHOP BLESSES OZ NUKE INDUSTRY

Julie Bishop: Sensible energy alternative within grasp Opinion The Australian

International experience demonstrates that properly constructed and operated nuclear power stations are clean, safe and efficient
June 05, 2006
CONSIDER the following: a 500MW coal-fired power station produces almost 320,000 tonnes of toxic waste while a comparable nuclear power station produces about 20 tonnes per annum. The coal-fired facility will release into the atmosphere 4.38 million tonnes of carbon dioxide while the nuclear power station will release 87,600 tonnes. The coal waste will include 2.6 tonnes of uranium and 6.4 tonnes of thorium.
These are just a few of the facts that must be injected into the debate on nuclear power being urged by Prime Minister John Howard. International experience demonstrates that properly constructed and operated nuclear power stations are clean, safe and efficient. Nuclear generated electricity presents the most practical prospect for satisfying the 50 per cent increase in world energy demand between now and 2030 predicted by the International Energy Agency.
A range of considerations including energy security, economics, environmental issues and safety support the widespread adoption of nuclear fission as an energy source. Several large industrialised nations use nuclear power to generate a substantial proportion of their electricity requirements. They include France, 78 per cent; Sweden, 50 per cent; South Korea, 40 per cent; Germany, 28 per cent and Japan, 25 per cent. Currently there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation throughout the world, 30 under construction, 30 undergoing licensing and about 60 in the planning stage.
Nuclear power's clean and green credentials are beyond dispute. Compared with practical alternatives, nuclear power makes only a small contribution to greenhouse gases. During construction it produces some greenhouse gases -- like other technologies -- but little during operation. The nuclear power plants operating throughout the world each year save greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 600 million tonnes of carbon. They make a contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions comparable with that of hydro-electricity.
In addition to its minimal carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power does not produce the methane, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions of coal-fired electricity production. Nor does it require the extensive areas of land that are needed to produce large amounts of energy through renewable technologies such as wind or solar power.
Nuclear power produces a relatively small volume of waste, which can be effectively isolated from people and the environment. In France, which produces almost 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, the annual production of high-level radioactive waste is less than 10g a person each year. Compare this with 100kg a person each year of toxic chemical waste that coal-fired power generation would produce.
The technologies for management of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes have been demonstrated at many facilities throughout the world. The technologies already exist for disposal of the high-level radioactive wastes from nuclear power stations in deep geological formations. Projects to develop such deep repositories have already begun. Contrary to the views of nuclear opponents, safe management of radioactive wastes does not depend on some long-awaited technical breakthrough.
Nuclear power has proven to be the safest of the large energy production systems. The results of expert comparative safety studies show that nuclear power is 10 times safer than hydro-electricity, the next safest large-scale energy production technology. Nuclear is 100 times safer than oil, natural gas and coal-fired electricity production, and 1000 times safer than systems based on liquid petroleum gas.
There have been more than 12,000 operational years of nuclear power reactor operation during which there has been one nuclear accident -- Chernobyl in the Ukraine -- which has resulted in loss of life. It is widely recognised that the Chernobyl accident was the result of a flawed reactor design, operated by inadequately trained staff with little regard for safety. The Three Mile Island accident in the US resulted in no adverse health or environmental consequences, despite severe damage to a reactor.
While the causes of the Chernobyl accident are mostly confined to circumstances unique to the operation of nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union, this accident has prompted an even greater international focus on nuclear safety. New advanced reactor designs include inherent safety features which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents.
The latest nuclear reactor designs are also more economic to construct and operate. There is strong evidence they are competitive with coal and gas-fired electricity generation, without adjustments for the cost of carbon emissions. For example, the cost of power from the advanced reactor to be constructed at Flamanville in France is projected by Electricite de France to be competitive with an advanced gas-fired plant based on current gas prices, without consideration of carbon taxes.
The cost competitiveness of new nuclear power technologies has also been demonstrated in studies conducted in Finland, the US, Japan and Britain. Recent studies conducted on behalf of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation have shown that in Australia nuclear power could be cost competitive with coal generation, even without considering the cost of carbon emissions.
As a responsible supplier of uranium to the world, Australia must consider seriously the growing body of evidence that demonstrates nuclear power is the most convincing response to the stability of the global environment and human health presented by greenhouse gas emissions.
Julie Bishop is Minister for Education, Science and Training, with portfolio responsibility for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The ANSTO report "Introducing Nuclear Power to Australia: An Economic Comparison" can be read at www.ansto.gov.au