Guy Webber: Rational assessment needed News The Australian

THE debate on nuclear power and national energy policy is essential to the prosperity of the nation. So it's disappointing to hear Kim Beazley say he'll fight the next election on an anti-nuclear platform. It is not that such a stance is necessarily good or bad; it's just that there is no comprehensive rationale for the decision.
Of course, Beazley's stance might be explained as a way of differentiating the Opposition from the Government. But it also highlights the inadequacy of public policy development in Australia. It is a system hijacked by short-term political expediencies, dominated by apparatchiks masquerading as "ministerial advisers" who salivate at the thought of preselection nomination, and emasculated by a politicised civil service unable to provide advice without fear or favour.
Beazley is not alone. In their apparently ideologically driven stance on nuclear matters, Labor's Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett appear indifferent to the notion of rational debate. Meanwhile, Nick Minchin and Peter Costello have blithely commented on nuclear power and energy economics, subjects on which neither is an acknowledged expert. Ditto, Morris Iemma and other premiers. Indeed, it's no stretch to say that political posturing and gamesmanship have triumphed in recent weeks.
What matters is that we engage in policy debate that is less subject to throwaway lines and more a result of considered thought, mindful that advocacy of better longer-term outcomes for the nation must be the driver, rather than outcomes for the party.
Australia may eventually choose not to develop a civil nuclear power program. It may do this because the economics are shown not to stack up, or the assessed hazards may be deemed too problematic, or for other reasons that may militate against such a move.
Equally, the decision may go the other way. Considerations of global climate change, energy security and manufacturing competitiveness, combined with advanced reactor designs and new approaches to reducing the burden of nuclear waste may be persuasive. But the arguments are likely to be more complex.
The case against adopting nuclear power: we have large reserves of good quality coal and gas, and access to wind, geothermal, hydro, solar and tidal alternatives. The establishment and decommissioning costs of reactors are high. And there is the ever-present issue of security, waste handling and storage. The development of nuclear power may act to defer or discourage expansion of alternative and renewable technologies or, at least, skew the economics against their establishment.
The case in favour of nuclear power: when mining and carbon emission impacts are assessed, the costs are potentially less expensive and less environmentally harmful than other energy sources. A nuclear program would require an increase in the technical and scientific capacity of the nation. This would be critical, particularly given that we have problems fielding enough skilled workers with our present industrial and technical mix. There is strong argument to suggest the real benefit of a nuclear power program would be the concomitant boost to education, research and technical expertise, especially in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and manufacturing) fields.
Ultimately, though, we may have little real choice. We are a geographically large nation with a small population and relatively small net wealth base. We continue to rely heavily on the export of raw materials with little or no value-adding undertaken. Our lifestyle demands may end up driving an expanded (and value-added) uranium sector. Our tertiary competitiveness is dropping in many areas. And, on many criteria, we are being outperformed in academic and research excellence by, for instance, the citizens of south and east Asia.
Morally, we may have little choice. While we produce only a small part of global greenhouse gas emissions, on a per capita basis we are profligate. We hardly endear ourselves to others when we engage in such behaviour. The ability to provide China and India with a source of energy that could drastically cut atmospheric pollution levels would reduce the terrible health impact of poor-quality coal now used in their power stations.
There also appears little doubt that the world cannot support another two mega-consumers, the equivalent of the US, without radical changes in a number of areas, including energy provision. It is unlikely that the aspirations and needs of India and China will be stifled by a call for less consumption by the likes of us.
Moreover, the harsh reality is that in a world hungry for energy, we may not be allowed to sit on 40 per cent of global uranium (and large reserves of thorium). Economic and other pressures may force our hand regardless, especially if we continue to be net importers of high-end technical products. The potential to lease fuel and return it to Australia for processing, in conjunction with a global waste repository, may have many benefits including greater control over global management of nuclear fuels and significant financial advantages to rural Australia.
The debate on the merits or otherwise of nuclear power needs to be a rational, objective assessment based on hard science, economics and fact. It must be open and public so that the issues, supported by reference material that is peer-reviewed and unbiased, can be appraised. As with any other public policy development, it cannot and should not be subjected to the harm of political expediency or the agenda of interest groups.
It remains to be seen whether the national attention deficit will allow the depth or breadth of discussion that is needed. Nonetheless, the next time a public figure pronounces with shallow thinking, blind ideology or media-driven imperative on any issue of policy, think about how such an approach to the development of this nation is harming us all.
Guy Webber is a consultant analyst. The Australian National Forum on Nuclear Power Options will be held in Sydney in October.
www.npoforums.org