Power to the people - Education News - theage.com.au


Australia is divided on the question of nuclear energy.
What happened?
Last week Prime Minister John Howard announced a Federal Government inquiry into nuclear energy.
Former Telstra managing director Ziggy Switkowski, a nuclear physicist, will head the prime ministerial taskforce charged with reviewing uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy in Australia.
The announcement came weeks after Mr Howard called for a national nuclear debate as the Government looks for ways to reduce Australia's dependence on greenhouse-gas-producing fossil fuels.
Critics accused Dr Switkowski of a conflict of interest over his board membership of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) - a body that less than two weeks ago released a report saying nuclear energy was a realistic option for Australia. He subsequently resigned from ANSTO last week.
In an interview after the announcement, the PM admitted that he had a sense that "one day, it could be generations into the future, it could be shorter than that, there will be nuclear power in Australia".
Why go nuclear?
Nuclear power is said to generate large amounts of energy without producing the greenhouse gases - such as carbon dioxide - that contribute to global warming. But anti-nuclear campaigners such as Dr Helen Caldicott counter that argument by saying that carbon dioxide is produced in every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle - "from uranium mining and milling, to uranium enrichment, from construction of huge concrete reactors, and from the transport and long-term storage of intensely radioactive waste".
Electricity production is the biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution in Australia, and switching from fossil fuel power stations to nuclear would reduce these carbon emissions.
A 1000-megawatt coal-fired power station, for example, produces about 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. In a nuclear power station of a similar size, virtually all of the waste is contained in about 27 tonnes of spent fuel that is not released into the environment.
The Federal Government is also keen to exploit Australia's rich uranium supplies - the largest in the world. According to the PM, Australia holds "up to 40 per cent of the world's known, low-cost recoverable uranium reserves".
Australia is the second-largest exporter of uranium, after Canada.
Nuclear is increasingly being chosen to meet energy demands around the world, with countries including China, India and the US looking to increase nuclear power production. China has plans for 18 new nuclear reactors.

What are the concerns?
While those already in favour of Australia adopting nuclear energy have welcomed the inquiry, others have questioned its terms of reference.
The Prime Minister says the taskforce will have extensive terms of reference, but critics say it should be examining all forms of alternative energy, not just nuclear, and with an emphasis on cheaper, more environmentally friendly renewable energy technologies.
Others are concerned about the considerable risks associated with nuclear power. Dr Caldicott states that a 1000-megawatt reactor makes 200 kilograms of plutonium a year. Less than one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. Waste from nuclear power stations is radioactive. It must be stored safely for many tens of thousands of years - and there is no guarantee that something won't go wrong. Any release of this waste into the environment would be catastrophic.
It raises the questions - how and where will the waste be stored?
According to ANSTO, Australia would need four or five nuclear plants to make the atomic energy industry viable, and they would need to be built on the east coast, near to major cities to be hooked into the major power grid.
This has left many Australians apprehensive about the sites of potential plants and waste storage areas.
The Victorian Government and opposition have said they would reject any plan to build a nuclear plant in Victoria. But the Federal Government could work around Victorian laws banning such a development by building on Commonwealth land.
Others have questioned the economic viability of nuclear power, saying it would be too expensive when compared to other energy options.
Recent headlines
"Victoria rejects nuclear power"- The Age, June 6
"Nuclear reactor sites no big deal, Howard insists"- Sydney Morning Herald, June 6
"Three N-plants 'would reduce emissions' "- The Australian, June 5
What The Age says
"Prime Minister John Howard is right to put up the nuclear issue for public debate. It is obvious, with the instability of oil prices, which are beyond the control of governments' domestic policy, that alternative power sources must be examined. After the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979 in the United States, and the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union in 1986, the public had every right to be wary of nuclear power."- EDITORIAL OPINION, The Age, June 6

What people say
"If you are going to get a nuclear industry going you have got to put the reactors near cities. Therefore you must say, if you are going to do the economics of it properly, where the reactors will go."- Opposition Leader KIM BEAZLEY, Herald Sun, June 7
"If you accept that nuclear energy is going to have a huge expansion over the next 20 years, and it is, then its growth would go from 18 per cent where it currently is, to providing energy for 40 per cent of the world's demand. If Australia is at the centre of mining, enrichment, leasing and storing that much of the world's energy, we could become the Switzerland of the world's energy."- JOHN WHITE, chairman of the Federal Government's Uranium Industry Framework, Australian Financial Review, June 7
"A lot of recent development in global energy markets have renewed international interest in nuclear energy as a technology that might over time meet growing demand for electricity without the fuel and environmental costs associated with oil and gas."- Prime Minister JOHN HOWARD, theage.com.au, June 6
"We welcome a debate on the merits of nuclear power, but we do not see, at this stage, that Victoria will be in any way advantaged by adopting it. If you're going to pay double the price, why not put in wind farms? Why not use renewable energy, which is even cheaper than nuclear energy?"Victorian Energy Minister, THEO THEOPHANOUS, The Age, June 6
Previous issue: Everest
I believe that leaving a person to die is shameful. How did the people even know that he was going to die? More should have been done to save Sharp. Although people argue that the people went to Everest to climb, and spent thousands of dollars on the trip, is that all really worth a person's life?- ROSIE, grade 6, Auburn South Primary School
The main thing that the other climbers did wrong was that they put their personal goals to reach the summit before another man's life.- LUKE, year 8, Sale College
There are climbers who would sacrifice the time they spent in preparing for the risky climb of Mount Everest in order to save another's life, and there are also those climbers whose ambition since they were a child has been to climb Everest. They won't let anything or anyone get in their way of achieving their lifetime goal. Those 40 climbers who left Mr Sharp to die alone may have cold hearts, but they are determined people.- CASSANDRA and JAMILA, grade 6, Auburn South Primary School
I am aware of the price to get to the top of Everest as well, but I still believe that a human life is priceless. I understand some people did stop and do something to try and help but I believe they should have done all in their power to keep Mr Sharp alive.- JOEL year 8, Sale College
Links
· Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisationhttp://www.ansto.gov.au
Your view
Should Australia adopt nuclear power? Should the taskforce also look at renewable energy?