A
ustralians can only hope that the recommendations made from the climate change segment of the Prime Minister's 2020 Summit are driven by sound science, and informed global realism. Both the short- and long-term consequences for the nation of new policies in this area are profound. They should not be promoted on the bases of populist beliefs or entrenched political prejudices. And Australia's "best and brightest" should not become even partly responsible for denying this nation the technically, environmentally and economically optimal energy source for the 21st century nuclear power.
Globally, more and more developed and developing economies are turning to greenhouse-friendly nuclear power as the sensible solution to their energy and water security and climate change problems. Australia's sister Commonwealth countries, Canada and South Africa, have highly successful domestic nuclear power industries and are leading uranium fuel exporters. Their energy experts are bemused by Australia's strenuous rejection of domestic nuclear electricity production.
The recent visit to Brussels by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his subsequent meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown might help to inject some informed realism into Australia's climate change and carbon trading debate. The Belgian capital is in the very heartland of nuclear Europe. With climate change high on the Prime Minister's agenda, the pivotal role of nuclear power in providing energy security for the European Union as well as a massive carbon offset for its member countries might well have been drawn to his attention.
Exported Australian uranium has an established track record of more than 30 years for fuelling the energy needs and, coincidentally providing the "carbon offsets" for many economies, including Great Britain, the European Union, Japan and the United States. During the last week of February 2008, both the major parties in Australian federal politics decided against using nuclear power as an option for the nation's future energy security and as an instrument for combating climate change. These decisions were made despite Professor Ross Garnaut's warning that Australia's carbon emissions will have to be cut more sharply than originally envisaged. He also indicated that the pricing of emission permits could dramatically increase energy prices for both industrial and domestic consumers. An energy policy based on the bipartisan acceptance of nuclear power in Australia is imperative for the nation's sustainable development and economic survival. It would also legitimise the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol as signed by Rudd in Bali last December. Despite Climate Minister Penny Wong's optimistic perspective on dilute and discontinuous "renewable energy sources" and "clean coal", sound science and informed realism indicate that they can only play a minor role in decarbonising the Australian economy.
The Australian Government should learn from the experience in energy policy and emission trading of the European Union and Great Britain. It can also learn from the Japanese.
The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry published its Cool Earth 50 program in March. It is a detailed road map of energy-related technologies that will halve the level of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The ministry has prioritised advanced nuclear power for this project. It proposes the deployment of an extra 1500GWe of nuclear power worldwide to avert the production of some 10billion tonnes of CO2 a year.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states that as global emissions will be mandated to more than halve by 2050, nuclear technology is a global imperative. For the risk-conscious Australian psyche, it delivers a special message, "The safety record of nuclear energy is better than any other major industrial technology in OECD countries."
At least four out of the past seven Australian prime ministers personally endorsed nuclear power. Yet such is the nature of our political process that only one had the political courage to show his enthusiasm while in office. It is perhaps time in the national interest, for the Rudd Government and the Council of Australian Governments to formulate a national energy policy embracing domestic nuclear power.
One of the great challenges facing the Rudd Government and the Council of Australian Governments after the summit will be the formulation of a national energy policy which not only provides a platform for battling climate change, but also maintains energy and water security at a reasonable cost. In this regard, perhaps the most under-reported statement made at the December 2007 Bali climate change conference was by its executive secretary, Yvo de Boer. He observed that, "I have never seen a credible scenario for reducing greenhouse emissions that did not include nuclear energy."
Nuclear energy has, indeed, been either "under-reported" or "falsely reported" in Australia.
When Rudd and Wong returned recently from Beijing, their climate-related activities in China were described by the media as having been visits to a "power station being engineered for carbon capture" and "a solar city". The really exciting fact that China aspires to a 10 per cent reliance on nuclear power by 2020 was not mentioned.
Australia's present generating capacity of 45GWe will increase to about 100GWe by 2050. Environmental responsibility and energy and water security mandates that at least 25GWe of this capacity should be nuclear. This would stabilise Australia's carbon dioxide emissions to 710million tonnes per annum. Failure to do so would see emissions climb to 890million tonnes by 2050. For these reasons, "going nuclear" should be a pivotal platform for the energy, water and climate change policies of the Rudd Government and Council of Australian Governments. Australia should seek to become a focal point of the world nuclear industry.
Leslie Kemeny is the Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy.