Nuclear energy the 'elephant in the lounge' - Business - Business

JON Stanford's article "Sharing the vision for a nuclear future" (Business, 29/5) is instructive but like so much written on energy and greenhouse gas emissions, fails to address the "elephant in the lounge room" issue.
That is, that humankind's ever-increasing consumption of energy is unsustainable.
Nuclear energy has become topical because of concerns about global warming.
However, it offers us no more than a brief respite.
Known world reserves of economically recoverable uranium are about 3.5 million tonnes.
Using current fission processes, this would yield a net energy of 500 exajoules (one exajoule = 10 to the power of 18 joules).
Current world nuclear generation (15 per cent of total electricity production) is about eight exajoules a year.
Therefore existing reserves will last for about 60 years.
If nuclear generation increases, then obviously the reserves will run out sooner unless more discoveries are made.
If Australia embarks on a nuclear power program to help reduce emissions, how effective will this be?
Let us assume we aim at the world 15 per cent nuclear level.
This will require about 4500 megawatts of generation or two power stations the size of Loy Yang A and B combined.
Electricity generation represents 33 per cent of Australia's emissions, so reducing this by 15 per cent cuts our total emissions by about 5 per cent.
Certainly this is a step in the right direction, but current energy growth forecasts of 2.1 per cent a year mean this will be wiped out in less than three years.
Energy pricing policies that discourage growth in consumption must be implemented globally, if the reduction of 50 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 (which the climate scientists state is necessary to arrest climate change) is to be achieved. Unfortunately, privatisation of Victoria's power industry was exactly the wrong policy if we are to do our part in addressing climate change.
There is now a vested interest in continuing and even expanding polluting power generation, nuclear energy notwithstanding.
Perhaps a wiser policy is to divert investment in nuclear power, to instead subsidise industry restructure to reduce demand and to hasten the development of renewable energy sources, the only truly sustainable option.
Michael Hassett, Blackburn
Transport black holes show Government is on wrong line
AS ELLIOT Fishman (Business, 30/5) points out, it is essential that the Government start preparing now for the inevitable peak in oil production, which is likely to occur in the next few years if it hasn't already.
The rapidly rising petrol prices that will result will most hurt low-income, outer-suburban communities with poor public transport.
When it comes to meeting the challenge of peak oil, the Government's recently released transport plan "Meeting Our Transport Challenges" has failed miserably.
The $1.3 billion that the Government is planning to spend on expanding the Monash and Westgate freeways is illogical when looked at in the context of rapidly rising fuel prices.
Who'll be able to afford to drive along these freeways when petrol is $10 a litre?
Instead the Government should be future-proofing Melbourne, by investing in much-needed rail extensions to public transport black holes such as Rowville.
Louise Sales, sustainable transport campaigner, Environment Victoria