WHEN I visited Finland for Australian EU consultations in 2006, I visited a nuclear power plant at Olikiluoto on the Gulf of Bothnia.
There were two 860 megawatt power stations (and a third under construction). To be frank, I didn’t make the visit with any preconceptions about what a nuclear power station would be like.
Two things impressed me. First, it was so quiet and clean. It seemed extraordinary that a plant that was as clinically clean as a hospital could produce so much energy. And secondly, I was surprised how little space was requires for the storage of the waste. It was placed in vaults underground. I had imagined nuclear waste would be spread over several hectares but the storage capacity needed wasn’t much larger than a school hall.
In Finland, generating base load power from nuclear power plants is regarded as perfectly acceptable despite their proximity to Chernobyl. In Australia there has been strong opposition to nuclear power for decades.
The campaign against nuclear power in Australia is completely irrational. It defies logic.
Over the next 40 years, demand for electricity in Australia is expected at the very least to double. If we are going to meet that demand we need a plan. Economic commonsense would tell us to leave the problem to the market. Suppliers will supply base load power from the most economically efficient technology available. In our case that is almost certainly going to be a combination of coal and gas fired power stations.
But economic commonsense isn’t everything, as we know. We have other objectives beyond maximising efficiency. One of them is to clean up our environment. Another is to maximise our energy security over a period that will be uncertain.
Let us take the question of the environment. It makes sense to reduce CO2 emissions and to clean up the quality of our air regardless of whether the climate change theory is true or false. To improve the environment, we will have to sacrifice some economic efficiency. But we can do that through mandatory regulation, incentives to produce clean energy or by imposing a cost on carbon emissions. Since almost all politicians are committed to reducing carbon emissions, their actions will make alternative forms of power generation relatively more competitive.
Other than using hydrocarbons to produce electricity, we have four main choices: hydro-electricity, wind, solar power and nuclear power. There are not enough rivers in strategic locations in Australia for hydro-electric power generation to be a viable option. Wind and solar sound good, but because of the very nature of the technologies, they will never be able to provide sufficient base-load power.
Their role will always be to supplement base-load capacity — at least as far into the future as we can envisage. That leaves nuclear power. It can provide base-load power with negligible emissions at a cost that is estimated to be between 25 per cent and 50 per cent above the use of coal. That is competitive with wind power and way cheaper than solar. But the point is, we can provide the base-load power without damaging the environment. The 25 per cent to 50 per cent extra cost may be the price we are prepared to pay for clean air.
Because of the uncertainty of the next four or five decades, energy security should also be a significant factor for Australia. Energy security means reducing dependence on imports, particularly from unstable parts of the world. Of course, we can provide locally mined coal for power stations, but if we are concerned about achieving environmental objectives as well as energy security, then nuclear power is perfect for Australia.
And let us not forget that Australia has about 38 per cent of the world’s economically obtainable uranium reserves and produces 23 per cent of the world’s uranium. It is not quite true to say that in a nuclear world Australia could become the Saudi Arabia of nuclear energy, but at least it demonstrates that with nuclear power Australia could maintain a very high level of energy security.
The real argument against nuclear power is not economic as some conveniently claim, it is safety. Yet the new technologies introduced since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have improved the safety factor by many times. Remember, many more people have died in coal mining accidents than have ever been killed by a nuclear power station or uranium mining.
And when it comes to managing waste, Australia has the best geological circumstances for waste burial of almost any country on earth. After all, if we were really serious and thought nuclear waste disposal was a critical argument against nuclear power, we wouldn’t export uranium.
It is an indictment of so many in our political class that they simply rule out nuclear power instead of allowing power utility companies to make decisions on the best technology based on the regulatory and taxation regime within which they will have to operate.
Alexander Downer was foreign minister in the Howard government. He is now a principal at consultants Bespoke Approach.
December 9, 2010
Discussion
No comments for “Nuclear Power (Alexander Downer)”