Nuclear energy debate sparks waste dump fear

nuclear plant high level radioactive waste

Environmentalists fear the Northern Territory could end up hosting a high level radioactive waste repository if a nuclear energy industry is established in Australia.

A Government-commissioned review has found that with the appropriate tax and investment structures nuclear energy could be economically viable in 15 years.

Last year, the Federal Government announced that one of three sites in the Territory would host a low to intermediate level nuclear waste repository.

Tim Collins from the Arid Lands Environment Centre says that would likely be upgraded if nuclear energy became a reality.

"Any talk of putting it in central Australia isn't based on scientific evidence, it's based on a principle of let's just put it out there because it's in the middle of nowhere and no-one lives out there, which is just basically untrue," he said.

Commonwealth could overrule states on nuclear power

A constitutional expert says the Federal Government could override state legislation banning nuclear power plants.

The Federal Government will consider constructing 25 nuclear power plants after a report found it was a viable alternative energy source.

Dr Ziggy Switkowski's nuclear review has found that Australia could start producing nuclear power within 15 years.

Premiers and Opposition leaders have said they will not allow nuclear power plants to be built in their states.

But Curtin University Professor Greg Craven says the recent High Court decision on the WorkChoices legislation paves the way for the Federal Government to overrule the states.

"The reality is that the only organisation that is ever going to build a nuclear power plant of any sort is going to be a corporation and the effect of the WorkChoices decision is pretty much that the Commonwealth can stop or allow a corporation to do almost anything it wants, simply by making a law addressed to a corporation," he said.

'Nuclear free' councils

 

Meanwhile, Australian councils who have declared themselves "nuclear free" are demanding the Federal Government commission a public inquiry into nuclear power.

Paul Tully from the Australian Local Government Nuclear Free Zones Secretariat says the public must now have their say on the issue.

"This report was prepared behind closed doors - there was no real public input," he said.

"There should be an opportunity for an open public inquiry, probably headed by a retired judge, so that the public has the opportunity and the confidence of having some input into a report rather than having one behind closed doors."

Mr Tully says more than 100 councils have declared that they are against nuclear power.

He says the Commonwealth will have a tough time convincing communities that nuclear power is safe.

"We'll be urging councils right around Australia to take up the cause to oppose any nuclear power stations in their own areas and we're warning the Federal Government that it won't be a lay-down affair," he said.

"There's a likelihood of strong opposition right across Australia to this proposal."

Opposition to nuclear power

 

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie and New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma both say they will not support any Federal Government moves to build nuclear power stations.

Mr Iemma says solar and wind energy and a national carbon emissions trading scheme are better ways for Australia to deal with climate change.

"One of the top three actions that governments can take are trading emissions schemes," he said.

"We've got one operating in New South Wales - it's taken the equivalent of 2 million cars off the road.

"There's a model that can apply nationally - [Prime Minister] John Howard won't even look at it."

Queensland Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney says he has no philosophical objection to nuclear power, but he does not think it would work in his state.

Mr Seeney says he does not think nuclear power would be economical in Queensland.

"We have got such a wonderful opportunity with the mouth of the mine coal-fired power stations that have been the base of Queensland's economy now for many years," he said.

"It would have to be some sort of a huge subsidy for nuclear power for it to compete with that."

South Australia Nuclear Industry

 

Meanwhile, South Australian Opposition Leader Iain Evans has criticised comments by Premier Mike Rann on nuclear energy.

The release of the review yesterday prompted Mr Rann to say he will consider legislating against a nuclear power plant in South Australia if necessary.

But Mr Evans says a plant would not be viable for decades so the pledge is simply a stunt.

"He didn't say that he wouldn't use electricity generated by nuclear power in other states through the interconnectors," he said.

"So if you examine the policy underneath it, you know, where does it lead? So it was just a news grab, it was a stunt in my view."

Mr Evans declined to offer support for a nuclear power plant in South Australia, saying it was a question for future generations.

"So what he's [Mike Rann] really saying is in 20 years' time, if it's necessary, he'd consider it ," he said.

"[This] really is, I guess, a classic stunt by the Premier.

"The reality is based on the report nuclear energy is not going to be viable in Australia for 20 to 30 years.

"It'd really be for the parliaments then to decide whether nuclear energy is in the best interest of Australia long-term to

 

Nuclear option no solution to climate change

Dr Ziggy Switkowski's report on uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy will not provide much ammunition for those promoting nuclear power as the silver bullet solution for climate change.

Given the composition of the review team and the limited terms of reference it is no surprise the report has come down in broad support of an expanded nuclear industry in Australia.

However even in this context Dr Switkowski, who is on leave from the board of the Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation for the duration of the review, has concluded nuclear power would only be economically viable in a system where the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly recognised but even then nuclear reactors may require some form of government support?

He finds the first nuclear plants would have an even higher cost and may need additional measures to kick-start the industry? So the message is clear: nuclear power in Australia would require the public purse to be left open for a very long time to come.

This assessment fits neatly with international experience which shows nuclear power is only possible with massive, ongoing subsidies.

In the US alone more than $115 billion in subsidies has been used to prop up this underperforming sector :hardly clean, green and cheap power.

A carbon tax or emissions trading system would increase the price of fossil fuel electricity, but it will not address the full costs of nuclear power. These include huge construction and insurance costs, de-commissioning and perpetual nuclear waste management liabilities and the reality that all nuclear facilities are potential terrorist targets.

Even if the report's most ambitious reactor construction targets were realised with 25 Australian communities living in the shadow of a new nuclear reactor "our greenhouse emissions would be reduced by less than 20 per cent" not even a third of the reduction needed by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change.

The review also comprehensively fails to address the twin and unique problems of nuclear power: radioactive waste and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. No other power source has the potential to either illuminate or contaminate an entire city. On the other hand no despot has ever held the world to ransom with a solar panel.

And after 50 years of commercial nuclear power not one nation on Earth has a final disposal site for high level radioactive waste. These are real and unresolved issues that the report falls well short on.

Australia is well past the crossroads and is now at the energy future T junction.

We have the potential to be a world leader in renewable energy generation and manufacture ?a clean energy future that powers not only our appliances but also employment growth ?especially in regional Australia.

The Australian Ministerial Council on Energy says energy efficiency measures have the potential to reduce energy consumption in Australia's manufacturing, commercial and residential sectors ?where we live and work by around 30 per cent within five years. And by 2020 around 25 per cent of Australian energy could be provided by safe and renewable sources a far better 2020 vision than what is on offer in this Review.

Dr Switkowski's proposed path would lead our country down an increasingly costly and insecure route that is directly linked to the production of high level radioactive waste and the threat of nuclear weapons and terrorism. The nuclear road is high cost and high risk and is not in the interest of Australia  people or environment.

Nuclear power costs

THE full cost of adopting nuclear power in Australia would probably be several hundred billion dollars and would be likely to go even higher because of a history of cost blow-outs in plant construction, decommissioning and waste storage, energy experts say.

Not only was there no guarantee costs and construction timetables for the latest-model nuclear plants could be controlled, other costs associated with the industry would probably be passed from industry to taxpayers, and from current to future generations, they said.

The $75 billion figure estimated by a Federal Government-commissioned report released on Tuesday covered only the construction of 25 nuclear power plants.

The nuclear industry was shocked last month by news the first reactor being built in Western Europe for two decades, at Olkiluoto in Finland, was running well over budget and causing financial losses for the French builder, Areva.

"It is hard to conceive that the Australian industry as a total newcomer to nuclear power would do better than the largest and most experienced builders in the world, and these builders struggle getting one large project off the ground," said Mycle Schneider, a French consultant on energy and nuclear policy.

Estimated costs for the eventual decommissioning of nuclear reactors have also blown out and there was little experience of how much it costs to dispose of the highly radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor, said Professor Steve Thomas, of the University of Greenwich in Britain.

"Even before there is actual experience of these operations, estimates are going up rapidly and, for example, the estimated cost of decommissioning Britain's oldest reactors has gone up by a factor of about six in only 15 years," Professor Thomas said.

"This could create huge problems for a plant owner that has taken money from consumers to pay for these operations, only to find halfway through the life of the plant that the cost is dramatically higher than predicted," he said.

In June, the British Government said the cost of cleaning up 20 nuclear facilities had risen to £90 billion ($220 billion), up from an estimated £70 billion in 2005.

An Australia Institute analyst, Andrew Macintosh, said other costs for the Government included establishing an agency to regulate the nuclear sector. Based on annual operating costs for the federal environment department, that could cost between $30 million and $50 million a year, he said.

It is also likely the Government would have to spend heavily on an advertising campaign to assure voters nuclear energy was safe, he said. Last year, the Howard Government allocated $55 million to advertise its industrial relations changes.

The storage of radioactive waste would be another costly exercise. The US Government's plan to build a nuclear waste storage facility in the Nevada desert is expected to cost more than $US40 billion ($52 billion).

Mr Macintosh said there could also be intangible costs such as damage to diplomatic relations with Asian neighbours worried about Australia's nuclear build-up.

The Environment and Nuclear power - Is it green ?

 

THIS is John Howard's revenge on the greenies. It will drive the Left mad. It compels Labor to another anti-Howard scare campaign to save Australia. And it guarantees a passionate anti-nuclear power crusade in Australia.

Ziggy Switkowski's draft report puts nuclear power firmly on Australia's agenda. It is a confronting document. It will test Howard's nerve, his political judgment and his ability to successfully set our energy policy agenda.

Howard wanted the nuclear option on the table and Switkowski's committee has obliged him. At one stroke its impact is to unite the Labor premiers, the city mayors, the Kim Beazley-led federal ALP, the trade unions, the Democrats and the Greens in a crusade against nuclear power. It will become a grassroots movement.

The message from Switkowski's report is that nuclear power is coming. It is a "practical option for Australian electricity production". This is the conclusion Howard wanted. It mirrors his mantra for the past several months. Howard has frequently said public opinion on nuclear power was changing.

The catch, for all sides, is that nuclear power becomes practical only when "the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly recognised".

Switkowski spelt it out at the National Press Club yesterday: You think nuclear only if the community has "a conviction about climate change". It is the vital nexus in his report: greenhouse gas solutions lead to nuclear power in Australia and in the world. The trend is global.

The report pivots on carbon pricing. Without it, you can forget nuclear. But, Switkowski says, with carbon pricing "nuclear becomes not only competitive but quite attractive".

He specifies the price range of $15 to $40 a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent as the level needed to "make nuclear electricity competitive" in Australia.

The political and economic key to the report lies in this conundrum. Its logic cuts both ways. It means Howard's nuclear option has no economic credibility without his acceptance of carbon price signals.

But it means Labor's greenhouse policy has no credibility if it refuses to allow nuclear power as a market-based solution. How will Howard and Beazley respond? Like politicians. Both will be reluctant in the 2007 election year to resolve the contradictions in their stances.

There is a superficial and a substantial view of this report.

The superficial is that Switkowski's committee has written a 152-page death sentence for the Government. It highlights the scenario of 25 nuclear reactors from 2020 rolling out across the landscape to produce one-third of the nation's electricity by 2050.

Where will these reactors be located? Switkowski's criteria are: near population centres, waterways and perhaps existing power stations. Welcome to Newcastle, Wollongong, Adelaide, Geelong and most other cities. Think of Labor's television ads: stop Howard bringing Chernobyl to your neighbourhood.

What about waste disposal?

"Take your pick," Switkowski said when asked what parts of Australia were suitable.

The point is that "just about every part of the continent" meets the criteria. So, if you're unlucky enough to miss one of the 25 power stations, don't worry, you may still get a waste repository near you (though they won't be needed until 2050).

Beazley could hardly contain himself. Howard, he said, had an obligation to tell Australians where the 25 reactors would go and where the waste dumps would go.

As for Labor, it opposed nuclear power and opposed carbon taxes. The timing is exquisite. As industrial relations fades as a scare, Labor has got a high-geared substitute.

The Switkowski report documents the huge gulf between Australia today and a nuclear future. Although it says nuclear power is practical, the conditions that make it practical are daunting.

Nuclear doesn't make financial sense at present prices. It is between 20 and 50 per cent more costly than our cheap coal and gas-fired power.

It needs an entirely new regulatory regime and nuclear industry skills that Australia doesn't possess.

It demands a national repository for the burial of waste. It requires sufficient political consensus and trust that commonwealth, state and local governments can agree. Remember, the building of power plants is an intense local issue.

Switkowski conceded that political bipartisanship was vital, given the long-term investments required.

His report further concedes that getting the first reactor built in Australia "may require some form of government support or directive".

How much financial support? What sort of directive? Remember, history shows government funding has been critical to getting nuclear power established in many nations.

Switkowski's report is realistic in identifying the scale of the transition to nuclear as well as the consequences of ruling out the nuclear option.

Australia's electricity demand will more than double by 2050. At that time 75 per cent of power will come from plants not built today.

So Australia faces huge new investment decisions about energy sources. In much of the world there is a shift to nuclear, not as the solution but as part of the solution.

This is the philosophy of Switkowski's report. He speculated on a scenario for Australia at 2050 of a 30-20-50 per cent divide relying on nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels respectively.

The critical choice for Australia is whether it really wants to shift to low-emission electricity generation. The politicians still hedge on this.

It is little wonder given that Australia's comparative advantage in fossil fuels means it has the fourth cheapest electricity in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

Reading between the lines, the real message is apparent: if Australia doesn't plan to take serious action on greenhouse gas emissions, then it can forget nuclear.

But if it does introduce carbon pricing, then it must allow nuclear power to compete with other low-emission technologies and, in this situation, Switkowski says, nuclear power will be competitive.

This kills the old politics of climate change. That long debate between believers and non-believers is over. The new debate is about energy solutions. This was Howard's plan.

What will Howard do when he gets the final report at year's end?

My guess is he will accept its framework. He will expand the mining and export of Australia's uranium. He will be careful about uranium conversion and enrichment, since the report warns there are few opportunities here.

And he will advance a framework that allows Australia to have nuclear power down the track if and when the market permits this. Howard will keep the door open and Beazley will keep it shut. That is the choice

 

Web Site Design by NuMedia