Australia doesn't have any nuclear power plants (except one small one in Sydney which isn't intended for energy-generating purposes). Now that we have more or less accepted the reality of climate change due to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol (which our government still won't sign) it looks as if the nuclear debate is starting up again. It makes me really fucking depressed, it feels like we're going backwards.
I was reading this article in the paper on my break at work this morning and I just kept thinking, you obstinate bastards, what about wind and solar power.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 37,00.html
Nuclear climate change
Political editor Dennis Shanahan
June 04, 2005

THIS nation is about to launch into a new era of environmental politics. It's a reversed world where John Howard concedes global warming is not a myth and environmentalists and Labor politicians want a debate on nuclear energy.

It is going to be a debate during which nations that are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse emissions talk about nuclear power stations and GeorgeW. Bush campaigns against global warming.

Energy and environmental concerns are meshing for conservative governments in such a way that by giving ground on some totemic green issues they can make progress in industrialisation and resources development they could not have contemplated 15 years ago.

In return for no longer appearing like King Canute in the face of rising evidence about global warming, the Howard Government is moving towards a vista of popular support for even greater exports of uranium and even consideration of domestic nuclear power stations.

As Australia and the US move into a post-Kyoto policy phase, the prospects of changing technology, especially the export of that technology and a boom in demand for and production of uranium, there is a need for a rethink on future energy and environmental needs.

Even the Labor Party has sensed the climate change and there are signs that Labor's policy on limiting uranium mining is elastic and there is room for debating nuclear energy.

All these changes are contingent on the creeping conviction within the Coalition that global warming is real -- regardless of the cause or culprit -- and more needs to be done about it.

The Prime Minister was moved to declare recently that he didn't believe global warming was all a myth. "No, I don't," he said.

After reflecting on his spectacular political success in melding job protection and forest preservation in Tasmania, a perfect example of the progress conservative Coalition and Labor governments can achieve, Howard signalled his own change of opinion.

"I have seen enough scientific evidence; I think some of the descriptions of it, some of the extreme manifestations of it, are mythical, but I do think there is a very strong case for controlling greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

Greenhouse emissions and their popular acceptance as posing a threat to humanity are the key to the dawning of the new Australian and global policy on environmental protection. Even staunch conservationists and signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are muttering about the advantages of nuclear energy, or at least the need to have a proper debate on uranium sales and nuclear power stations.

Howard is considering addressing a world leaders summit at the UN in September and raising the fresh look at global warming, although he's still a long way from advocating Australian nuclear power as part of the answer.

As Alexander Downer told Inquirer yesterday, "In the margins of the Kyoto conferences, people often raise the prospect of nuclear energy as an alternative. The public appears to be more persuadable that nuclear power is a safe alternative and there should be a debate, but that debate should be a sophisticated debate and not a rant from the Greens."

However, Downer and Howard are not budging in their opposition to Australia signing the protocol and are already looking beyond it.

"The reason we don't sign the Kyoto Protocol in its present form is that it would make some of our industries uncompetitive against countries like China and Indonesia," Howard says.

Downer is more aggressive. "My perspective is that Kyoto is a political smokescreen; climate change is a real issue but Kyoto is a stunt. Many of the countries signed up to Kyoto are not meeting their targets," he says.

"Even if they all meet their targets it will only have 1 per cent impact on global warming. Kyoto is not really addressing the issue and in the post-Kyoto phase the real way [of] addressing the issue is through technological change."

Technological change refers to nuclear energy as well as to co-operation with the huge and developing economies that are either not signatories or not bound to limits, such as the US, China, India and Brazil.

Howard and Downer are working hard on forging closer relationships with the US, China and India on global warming and energy. Recently Downer met White House environmental adviser Jim Connaughton, and he says the views of the two governments on climate change are "very similar".

Apart from the emphasis on technology, there is a desire to forge closer and meaningful relations with China and India, particularly in the fight against global warming. Downer leaves for India on Monday and one of his priorities, as Australia upgrades relations with the biggest democracy in the world, is talks on the subject.

"I don't have a dewy-eyed attitude to this and it will be hard getting these countries involved because many don't want to be seen to be cutting across Kyoto," Downer says.

"We're obviously completely unpersuaded on Kyoto. As a government we have never made a decision because it was fashionable.

"Technology is the answer [to] global warming after the Kyoto agreement and nuclear energy is part of that answer in the context of global warming," he says.

Apart from starting discussions about a safeguards agreement with China on uranium for nuclear power generation, Downer is taking the argument further and wants Australia to look at future deals with Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia.

The argument for increased uranium exports has widespread backing because of the dual benefit of enriching Australia's coffers and reducing greenhouse emissions.

Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane wants more exports and Labor's resources spokesman Martin Ferguson, a left-winger and former head of the ACTU, agrees and can understand calls for a debate on expanding global nuclear power.

But Downer and some of his colleagues are taking the view further and think there should be a debate on nuclear power generation in Australia. Right now, nuclear power stations are banned in Australia, the Labor Party wants uranium mining capped to just three mines and two Labor premiers - Western Australia's Geoff Gallop and Queensland's Peter Beattie - yesterday ruled out uranium mining in their states.

Downer, however, noted NSW Premier Bob Carr's call for a debate on nuclear energy, saying: "I do think there should be a debate and there should be a sophisticated debate in the context of climate change." It is a view first raised two months ago by Education and Science Minister Brendan Nelson in relation to global warming.

"Is it not time to consider in the longer term the most obvious power source, nuclear power?" Nelson asked. "It is not only in electricity production that nuclear energy offers potential for Australia. It could also be used to fuel water desalination on a large scale," he said.

The minister stressed "the Government has no plans whatsoever in this regard", but added: "Do we not at least owe it to our future to maturely canvass all our options?"

Nelson, the minister responsible for trying to find a site for a low-grade uranium waste repository for material used in medicine and at Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, knows it is not easy because of the question of waste.

But he pointed out that "we're already in the nuclear cycle with a third of the world's uranium deposits" and that nuclear power could drive huge desalination plants to answer Australia's water shortages.

"Of course nuclear energy is not without its problems, but given the looming environmental deadlines bearing down on us, shouldn't we at least have a serious look at it?

"Our world is warming and human behaviour is contributing to it. The 22-year period covered by the Kyoto Protocol will see global greenhouse gas emissions jump 40 per cent," Nelson says.

"That Kyoto would reduce that by only 1 per cent underlies Australia's refusal to sign it."

While MacFarlane argues against nuclear power plants in Australia because of the abundance of our high-quality, "clean" coal, some of his cabinet colleagues and backbenchers are keen to have a debate so that the future policies are not hampered by ageing political concerns.

Although only an MP since October last year, Liberal backbencher Andrew Robb is a former Liberal Party director; indeed, he ran Howard's first successful election campaign in 1996 and was a long-time National Farmers Federation advocate. Robb's view is that there should at least be a debate about nuclear energy in Australia to check its environmental advantages on global warming.

Another member of the Liberal class of '04, West Australian backbencher David Jensen, a former CSIRO scientist, advocates a debate in parliament.

"I am not saying saying build nuclear power stations tomorrow, but we need to have a reasoned debate and not the emotive debate that flies in the face of evidence that nuclear power is safe," Jensen says.

"The world's oil reserves are reaching a point where demand will outstrip supply and nuclear energy should be revisited by policy-makers as a solution to the problem."

Curiously, another new MP, elected last October, also wants a debate on global warming to include nuclear energy: Labor's Peter Garrett, the former head of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Yesterday, in reaction to Carr's call for a nuclear industry, Garrett said that it was time to reopen the debate.

Garrett is not in favour of nuclear energy but for him the pressing need to address global warming encourages him towards a discourse.

Recently he also said: "I do not think nuclear power, still beset with insurmountable problems of risk, particularly in waste storage, is the solution to global warming problems.

"But we do need a vigorous debate about how to respond to climate change, with all options subject to the same scrutiny and charged with the same requirements of producing energy that is clean, safer and sustainable.

"Producing electricity from nuclear power requires enormous infrastructure, a phalanx of laws, regulations and oversight; it contributes to the growth of nuclear weapons-grade material; it is more expensive than conventional or alternative power sources; and decommissioning of nuclear facilities is a hazardous exercise, with the cost and risks borne by subsequent generations.

"Quite understandably there is no community in Australia that has wanted to be the home for even relatively small amounts of nuclear waste," he says. (Which is a fair point to make to Carr, who has opposed even a low-grade repository in NSW, although he keeps the waste at Lucas Heights and in suburban Lidcombe.)

When Howard, Downer, Nelson, Ferguson and Garrett all agree global warming needs to be addressed and that there has to be some debate about uranium, the political climate has changed.

Just be thankful you don't live in the UK.

things go from bad to worse.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 1729.html#

Nuclear power: the switch is on
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
October 17, 2006

Prime Minister John Howard has stepped up the push for Australia to embrace nuclear power, talking up its advantages as the Government prepares to release a report saying it could be feasible here within 20 years.

In his strongest public statement yet in support of nuclear power, Mr Howard yesterday declared it was "unreal" not to include the nuclear option among strategies to tackle climate change.

"Nuclear power is part of the solution to the problem of global warming," he said. "Those who say they're in favour of doing something about global warming but then turn their faces against considering nuclear power are unreal."

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane also moved yesterday to endorse nuclear energy — ensuring it will be a significant issue at next year's federal election, which Labor says it will go to with a policy firmly opposing nuclear reactors in Australia.

The debate comes before the release of a report that is expected to conclude that nuclear power will be a feasible option for Australia within two decades.

The Age believes that the report, by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, will not make formal recommendations, but will effectively pave the way for the nuclear industry.

The report, scheduled to be released next month, is expected to note that business expects the Government to impose new rules to treat pollution caused by carbon emissions as a cost.

Future options could include a new carbon tax or emissions trading schemes, which would add to the cost of producing coal fired power and help the economic case for nuclear energy and renewable power sources, such as wind power.

Coal is currently cheaper than both nuclear and renewable energy sources, partly because its price to consumers does not include any costs for negative effects like pollution.

The Switkowski report, now in the final drafting stage, is also expected to acknowledge the substantial problem of greenhouse emissions from petrol-powered vehicles — analysis that could encourage consumers to consider the environmental benefits of "hybrid" vehicles.

Senior Government figures yesterday moved in advance of findings to embrace the greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy and play down the implications of the North Korean nuclear test crisis.

Mr Macfarlane told a nuclear conference in Sydney that "only nuclear power has the potential to deliver base-load quantities of cleaner energy in Australia" and "greenhouse benefits now."

He signalled the first power plant could be operational in Australia within 10 years.

In Canberra, Mr Downer said: "Nuclear power is a very real option, it works well in a lot of parts of the world and it's entirely clean."

And Mr Howard said: "I believe very strongly that nuclear power is part of the response to global warming, it is clean green, it is something in relation to which many rabid environmentalists have changed their views over recent years," he said.

Mr Howard also left open the prospect of Australia endorsing a new international emissions trading scheme — but he emphasised that Australia would not act alone.

He claimed a move by Australia that did not include big polluters like China would cost jobs.

As the Coalition moved to embrace a nuclear future ahead of next year's election, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley yesterday vowed Labor would not build nuclear reactors in Australia. "Our future is about renewables, not reactors," he said. "The line's very clear. John Howard is now very firmly committed to a nuclear future for this nation," Mr Beazley said.

"Nuclear reactors — that will be the source of power generation here. We say, 'No, that's not the modern way'."

Environmentalists, the Greens and the Democrats also reacted strongly against the Government's statements yesterday.

Wilderness Society campaign director Alec Marr said: "There is still no safe, long-term solution to nuclear waste.

"We need long-lasting and economically viable solutions to climate change — solutions that are not going to leave a toxic legacy for 250,000 years."

Meanwhile, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resources and Energy (ABARE) is reviewing its uranium export forecasts after a recent decision by Japan to expand its nuclear energy capability.

ABARE has estimated Australian uranium exports could double following a new export agreement between Australia and China, but the forecasting agency now believes this prediction could be eclipsed because of Japan's move.

■The mining industry backed the idea of international emissions trading in an appearance before a parliamentary committee yesterday. Minerals Council of Australia spokesman Peter Morris said: "If it were possible to negotiate an international solution that included an emissions trading scheme then we would be very interested to look at that."

Without nuclear power, my pops would be unemployed.

Actually he'd probably have a different job, but still...

I've never been a big anti-nuclear power guy. Obviously there needs to be safeguards in place, but it seems to me that you really wanted to make a quick move against global warming, nuclear power should be a serious option to consider.

with nuclear power, my chances of being employed in my current job would probably plummet.

<sarcasm> Ah, so everyone's hidden agendas come out! </sarcasm>

haha, i was actually going to note that for the sake of transparancy.

of course, i wasn't employed in the renewable energy industry when i originally made this thread so it's clear this is no sudden change in opinion for me.

as for what you said about a quick move, it would take 10-20 years to get a nuclear energy industry off the ground here, whereas we have wind and solar ready to go today. nuclear will need to be heavily subsidied to be economically feasible, and the environmental consequences (not to mention the potential for accellerating the regional arms race) are, in my opinion, not worth the risk when there are safe alternatives available.

One clarification--by 'quick move' I was thinking about in the 10-20 year range. Should have made that clearer.

Can cleaner energy compete on a cost-efficient basis yet? That'd be good news to hear.

(Oh, by the way, I hate the term "renewable energy". There is no such thing. )

can you clarify further why you don't like the term? i'd be interested to hear that.

it's not yet cost efficient with coal in Australia, mainly because the price of coal is so cheap that the fact that we don't have to pay for fuel is less of an advantage than it perhaps should be. plus they don't have to pay for their emissions (yet). eventually as the price of renewables comes down (primarily as a result of better technology) and the price of coal-fired power goes up (through the introduction of a cap & trade scheme or a carbon tax) they'll get to the point where renewables are more competitively priced with carbon based fuels. what's important is how long this takes to happen.

as for nuclear, since we don't have that kind of infrastructure here yet, it kinda depends on who you're getting your information from on costs as to whether it's competitive. they're certainly closer in price than they are to coal. even if you believe what people say about nuclear currently being cheaper than renewables, that will change with the right regulation and business leaders in the future.

The thing that gives nuclear the "advantage" in the what-is-the-next-big-energy-souce debate is that they are centralized and pretty much conform to the existing energy systems out there. For there to be a shift to the wind+solar+hydrogen economy, it takes a HUGE toll on so many more aspects of the environment (natural and societal, i.e. infrastructure, construction, transportation, etc.) Nuclear just sort of "fits" (this is, of course neglecting the storage aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle). Nuclear is "invisible" from the public, whereas right now the other renewable energy systems rely on the "honour policy", i.e. "please, pretty pleas put solar on your roof! Look, here's a thousand bucks, a legal headache and tons of forms to fill out for you to do it!" Even centralized wind power has gotten about as much negative publicity as nuclear (even from environmental groups) because they think windmills ruin the scenery and other bullshit like that.
Anyways, I think that the solar+wind+hydrogen economy takes a lot more public effort and momentum than does nuclear...

Anyways, that's just my opinion about what makes the nuclear option seem advantageous to the general public. And this is all coming from a big solar guy....

It's just a vague term.

Solar power, for example, is not renewable--there's a finite amount of energy that the Sun will radiate. It may be unlimited for all purposes of mankind, but it will run out someday.

You could call hydropower "renewable" in a sense, but sometimes that tag is avoided because it has other environmental problems as externalities.

Hell, you could make a contrived argument that fossil fuels are renewable, because they come from organisms that can reproduce themselves.

Wind power's probably the one source that comes the closest to being accurate.

I just prefer "clean". Gets to the point, and it's only one syllable instead of four.

I also have a similar argument of another word I hate using, "rainforest".



Obviously hardly anything's cost efficient to coal, I was wondering on the comparison of nuclear to clean energy.



So it depends on several factors, it sounds like?

Ironical that this is posted on the same day new generations of solar panels are starting to be made:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061016/sfm089.html?.v=66


If nuclear power is good enough for France to comply with Kyoto, it's good enough for us. And you can't spell USA without us.

i think you're being a bit pedantic here nick, but i see your point. though it's not like we're saying they are "endlessly renewable". anyway, no word is perfect.
i remember being lectured about why we use the term rainforest at uni, but i guess i fell asleep during that one

[/quote]
yeah, it's kinda hard to say for sure what the pricing will be like. i've seen (to put it bluntly, right wing) sources claiming third gen nuclear will be 5 cents a kw compared to 8 cents for wind and 3.5 for coal, which is just crap to be honest. i'd say they'll be very similar in price, but the price of renewables will decrease, whereas with all the inherent risks involved in nuclear, there's likely to be less of a decrease for that.
of course there's always the possibility that i'm dancing around the issue here because i don't like the answer . trying not to do that, though.

Solar is renewable
Wind is renewable
end of story.
no need for semantics.

Solar and wind are also far more expensive right now than nuclear. Although that's a different topic, and it might change with better technology.

Yes, that is a completely different topic from what I was getting at in that post.

I presume that when you say "solar is more expensive" you are thinking solely of PV (photovoltaics, i.e. solar panels) and its manufacturing. Using solar is MUCH MUCH more than just PV. It is building "bioclimatic" buildings which are suited for the climate and site. Just from a pure architectural design standpoint, one can minimize energy use in a typical office building by about 50% just from selecting a suitable orientation and using passive solar and wind features. Using solar in that sense is really no more expensive than designing a new non-"green" building - it just takes a little more strategic thinking...

another good article:

Google to convert HQ to solar power
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061017/ap_ ... ogle_solar

I'm wondering if the shift towards "home generation", something I think is a good idea, will cause municiple power companies to raise rates. If suddenly everyone has solar panels of their roofs, that's a lot of cash the power companies are going to have to find from other sources to stay in business.

Who would care if they stayed in business under such a scenario?