« I'm just saying... |
Main
| The Daylight Savings Campaign continues... »
November 21, 2006
Nuclear energy report
So it's time I entered a serious post, and I can think of no better subject than that of the prospective nuclear energy report tabled by former Telstra boss, Ziggy Switkowski, today. The federal Opposition are already declaring their intention to oppose the establishment of nuclear energy plant development, but have also flagged their intention to support extended uranium mining.
I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in Australia is probably wasteful, let alone dangerous. This isn't a region that needs nuclear power when we have so many other opportunities for generating power in this country that we do not exploit. We may be one of the few developed countries that does not draw some of its electricity from nuclear power, but we also have more opportunities for supporting development of alternative energy sources - solar and wind - than many other developed nations. And nuclear power just isn't as cheap as everyone thinks it is. As the Opposition notes, from a purely economic perspective (including the insurance risk associated with augmenting our nuclear energy practices), nuclear power just isn't worth it.
However, I'm unsure of whether increased uranium mining is a good idea, either. Sure, it will increase jobs and income to the GDP, but will it be in the interests of Australia to increase dramatically the possibility of increased exposure to ionising radiation as a result of mining and transporting uranium, as well as the possibility of increased nuclear waste production? I suspect the economic arguments against nuclear power are probably emulated in terms of risks and payoffs of uranium mining (unless we massively increase the price of uranium for overseas buyers). I hate to take such an emotional issue down to the level of mere economics, but there's no point arguing against nuclear power and for uranium mining. The risks are there for mining as well as converting radioactive elements into electricity. And the costs of increased production of uranium mining are worth considering as well.
Take away the emotion, the danger and the jobs from the argument, and the result is still the same: the safest and most under-used energy sources in Australia are still solar and wind. I know they produce less power and require more effort over time, but we can use these sources, and in a period where carbon emissions on a global scale are so high, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to maximise the natural energy sources we have available to us?
Posted by jj at November 21, 2006 11:13 AM
Comments. Please PREVIEW your comment before submitting. This helps the server to save your entry.
Here is where you can get the draft report (and some supporting studies).
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/umpner/reports.cfm
Posted by: PL at November 22, 2006 10:59 AM
Hi Joanne,
An analogy for you - there's more fresh water than we'd ever need in Antarctica, but there's no way to get it where we want it at a remotely affordable cost.
It's the same with solar and wind, particularly as they're available when they're available, not when they're wanted.
As for "ionising radiation" - you're surrounded by it every day. You get a bigger dose if you go in for an X-ray or take a plane flight. Both of those will expose you to far, far more radiation than a uranium mine or nuclear power plant, even if you were living right next to one.
Nuclear is not a panacea, but it appears to be the cheapest form of very low greenhouse, reliable, baseload electricity available, as well as quite safe (safer than wind power, statistically) and with very low other associated environmental impacts.
Posted by: Robert Merkel at November 23, 2006 12:24 AM
Post a comment
Please PREVIEW posts before submitting. This helps my host server to save your comments.