|
June 7, 2006
Well we know that nuclear power is not commercially viable in Australia without substantial government subsidy. (the Government's own Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation showed that the taxpayer would need to subsidise 21 per cent of the cost of a nuclear power station for the first 12 years to make it viable).
And we know this much about the location of nuclear power in Australia from previous government reports:
And we also know that the ALP states have refused to host a nuclear reactor in their territory--for good reason. So why the big nuclear push by the Howard Government?
And we know that it was only a month or so ago that the Howard Government Howard was resolutely defending Australia's vast fossil fuels industry in the Kyoto debate. And it's energy white paper was centred around advocating technologies that will improve the cleanliness and viability of fossil fuels. Hasn't the Howard Government also consistently ruled out a carbon tax on coal because it would impact negatively on the economy?
Why bother with an inquiry just into nuclear power? What is the point of such an inquiry? It likes an economic inquiry about wealth creation, not one addressing the problem of climate change.
Update
I see that the nuclear crowd are saying that the debate on nuclear power and national energy policy is essential to the prosperity of the nation and that it's disappointing to hear Kim Beazley say the ALP will fight the next election on an anti-nuclear platform. Really? But we never had a good debate on national energy policy.That policy has been run by the fossil fuel industry.
Guy Webber, in an op. ed. in The Australian argues for a rational assessment of energy options. He usefully weighs up the case for and against nuclear power. The case against adopting nuclear power is that:
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.
Webber says 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.
Note the way energy has been reduced to nuclear. He's not really interested in energy policy --only the nuclear industry. The arguments in favour also apply to renewable energy--wind and solar.
Webber goes onto say that:
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.
Webber's op ed is not a contribution to such a debate. He main arguemt is that we have no choice. We have to go nuclear. But why nuclear and not renewable? Renewables are not even mentioned.
We can only infer that Webber is pushing the agenda of an interest group---the uranium industry.
|
At the same time, why shouldn't we have an inquiry?