Readers wondering about Leslie Kemeny's advocacy of nuclear power (''Go nuclear, and laugh all the way to the carbon bank'', March 3, p15) might take note of the acronym DUDELI, which stands for Dirty, Unnecessary, Dangerous, Expensive, Late and Insufficient. This can provide some balance to the very narrow view offered by Professor Kemeny, whose undoubted expertise on the technicalities of nuclear power is offset by an apparent near-total ignorance of other options.
Lets start with Unnecessary, the most widely overlooked factor. The quickest and cheapest way to start reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is to use energy much more efficiently then we do at present. A study by McKinsey Australia last year (''An Australian Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction'') concluded that those savings would pay for next-level actions at modest cost, so that Australia could achieve a 20 per cent emissions reduction by 2020 at no net cost to the economy.
McKinsey consultants give the lie not only to Professor Kemeny's unstated assumption that we must generate lots of new power but also to the Rudd Government's feeble target of an emissions reduction of 5 per cent to 15 per cent. Of course the energy efficiency path implies that we actually burn less fossil fuel, something the Rudd Government is evidently unwilling to contemplate. Curiously, it has left the running on this to Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull.
The potential energy efficiencies do not require rocket science. They can be as simple as using larger pipes, air ducts and electrical wiring. Also, we have known for decades how to build houses that require very little heating and cooling: we just need to do it. The constraint is not cost, which is small: it is design, which is hampered by old, wasteful practices and regulations.
Professor Kemeny is happy to recite coal-burning's Dirty drawbacks but neglects to mention the problems that accompany his 4.8 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel. That material is both highly radioactive and, chemically, highly toxic. No one knows how to safely sequester it for 100,000 years until its radioactivity declines.
We simply pass the problem to our descendants, and who can know if the required knowledge will be preserved for such a vast span of time?
Dangerous is commonly taken to refer to meltdowns like Chernobyl, but more immediate dangers would be involved with the transport of large amounts of nuclear material around the world. Terrorists would be perennially tempted by nuclear shipments. The proliferation of nuclear weapons would become a far greater concern, as Western agitation over Iran's nuclear developments illustrates.
Most energy experts agree nuclear power will be Expensive. Professor Kemeny's claim that the cost of nuclear power would be only half that of coal power certainly needs to be substantiated. It is unlikely to include the full costs of safe decommissioning and cannot include the unknowable cost of waste storage.
An efficiency-plus-renewables strategy is the only approach that can limit household energy bills. If renewable energy costs twice as much but you only need half as much energy, then your bills are no larger. You'd think politicians would be all over that one.
Nuclear power will be much too Late. This is in spite of Professor Kemeny's provocative implication that the Commonwealth override Canberrans' objections and place a nuclear power station on Commonwealth land in the ACT. That would be the airport planning fiasco a hundredfold.
The latest global warming science indicates the alarming possibility of a series of climate dominoes tipping us into uncontrollable and irreversible warming which could reach 6degrees C, with catastrophic consequences. Thus the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, which is happening now, could trigger the melting of Arctic tundra and release of vast amounts of greenhouse gases trapped there, which in turn could trigger other warming mechanisms. We may have only a few years in which to get our emissions down.
Nuclear power would be Insufficient because it generates electricity only, which accounts for around a third of energy use. Why build a nuclear plant to heat your house when the sun will do it for you?
Nuclear advocates are fond of urging us to debate the option calmly and rationally.
They would serve Australia better if they took their own advice.
Dr Davies is a geophysicist at the ANU and the author of Economia: New Economic Systems To Empower People and Support the Living World (ABC Books, 2004); www.geoffdavies.com
Email a friend