Let's not bury our head in the sand on nuclear energy

Prime Minister John Howard, addressing the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, in Sydney yesterday
THERE is a growing body of evidence to suggest that nuclear power has an important role to play in stabilising atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. This, along with energy security concerns, has led to a revival of interest in nuclear power . . .
A growing number of environmentalists now recognise that nuclear energy has significant environmental advantages. Greenpeace founders James Lovelock and Patrick Moore are among those urging a re-examination of the case for nuclear power.
Nuclear power emits virtually no greenhouse gases. The International Atomic Energy Agency states that the complete nuclear power chain, from uranium mining to waste disposal, and including reactor and facility construction, emits only 2-6 grams of carbon per kilowatt-hour. This is about the same as wind and solar power, and two orders of magnitude below coal, oil and even gas.
Of course, commercial factors remain critical to the future prospects of nuclear power. High oil prices mean that in some cases nuclear energy has automatically become more competitive for base load power generation.
Under certain scenarios, the costs of generating electricity from new nuclear plants are not far above that of new coal plants and, in some circumstances, are even cheaper. Australia cannot absent itself from global developments surrounding nuclear energy. We are part of the nuclear fuel cycle, whether we like it or not.
With close to 40 per cent of the world's known low-cost uranium deposits, for Australia to bury its head in the sand on nuclear energy is akin to Saudi Arabia turning its back on global oil developments . . .
I note the fact that Labor figures, such as former NSW premier Bob Carr, have called in the past for a considered look at nuclear energy. By contrast, the Federal Labor Party's position in this debate is hypocritical, irrational and weak.
It is hypocritical because it says that while Australia will not use uranium, we are very happy to sell it to other countries and let them deal with the consequences.
It is irrational because it falls back on nothing more than simple slogans and gesture politics when confronted with a serious issue. As Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has said, those who would shut down debate on nuclear energy have "abandoned science in favour of sensationalism".
And it is weak because it shows Mr Beazley is driven by factions and the next opinion poll, rather than facts and the challenges facing the next generation . . .
If Australia does not engage, if we sacrifice rational discussion on the altar of anti-nuclear theology and political opportunism, we will pay a price. Maybe not today or tomorrow. But in 10, 15, 20 years' time, Australia will assuredly pay a price.