Solving two problems with nuclear power.

AS THE SAGA of Australia's federal election moved towards its climax, the strident discourse of political prejudice and petty point scoring threatened to drown out the discussion of matters of real national importance. High on the list of concerns for the Australian community are the issues of energy and water security at a time of climate change.

The painfully inconvenient truth for many Australian politicians is that international scientific opinion and technical experience clearly indicate that the pivotal solution to both energy security and climate change is found in the increasing use of nuclear power technology. This view has been strongly endorsed at recent scientific conferences both by Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock ,and the Chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Dr Ziggy Switkowski. Their informed views are supported by overseas experience.

Recently, members of the European Parliament have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a report stating that nuclear energy is indispensable if the European Union is to meet its basic energy needs in the medium term. It is the parliament's first explicit endorsement of nuclear power as Europe's largest carbon-free energy source, providing one third of the electricity. There were 509 votes for and only 153 against the resolution. The report further stated that "any renunciation of nuclear power will make it impossible to achieve the objectives set regarding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the combating of climate change".

A further sign of the global acceptance of nuclear power technology and its vital role in energy security and the fight against global warming is contained in a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 23. It states that by 2030 it is anticipated that 691GWe of nuclear power will be on line, producing around 5141YWh of electricity. This is almost twice the present output.

The global community of energy experts is bemused by the paradox of a nation like Australia, endowed with some 40 per cent of the planet's economically recoverable uranium resources yet strenuously resisting the establishment of a domestic nuclear industry. Many recall that nearly fifty years ago Australian Prime Minister Menzies started up Australia's first research reactor, HIFAR. They also remember the inauguration of an internationally respected School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of New South Wales in 1964 and the preparations made for the first nuclear power station south of the Equator to be sited at Jervis Bay, on the New South Wales southern coast, from 1967 onwards.

According to the European Commission's Transport and Energy Directorate, renewable energy use alone would struggle to help reduce carbon emissions, whilst carbon capture and storage would not be viable in time to help meet emissions by 20 per cent to 2020 reduction targets and would be very expensive. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme for carbon dioxide is now trading December 2008 allowances at around 22 euros per tonne. This translates into a cost burden on coal fired plant in excess of two cents per kWh.

In Australia the Labor Party's proposal to have a mandatory renewable energy target of 20 per cent of electrical energy to be provided from wind, solar and geothermal sources by the year 2020 is far more ambitious than the targets of the European model. It could become a huge financial ...