Have They Come to Praise Nuclear Power in Australia or to Bury It? (November 21, 2006)

    Prime Minister John Howard's taskforce to evaluate Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy — Opportunities for Australia? promulgated its 152 page draft report this morning.

Before proceeding, it must be noted that if you want to put in a submission with regard to the draft report, you'd better get weaving, you have until Tuesday December 12, 2006,

 and "the Taskforce will not be able to consider late feedback."

There can be little doubt that the taskforce would have realised that one of the principal items the mass media would fasten on was the concept of twenty-five nuclear reactors, mainly on the east coast, producing a third of Australia's electricity needs by the year 2050.

Little would be more certain than a reaction of "not in my backyard, mate."

On the other hand the proposition that properly husbanded the mining and value-added processing of uranium for export contributing additional billions of dollars per annum is a very attractive proposition to the mining industry.

And looking at the current distribution of sources of electrical energy generation gives a good indication of what's not in the wind.

Credit: Draft Report Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy - Opportunity for Australia?

Currently just under 91% of electricity generation in Australia is fuelled from coal and gas and the federal government has earmarked billions for developing "clean" coal technology including terrestrial CO₂ sequestration. These are hardly short term undertakings nor is the Australian fossil fuel sector and its allies going to allow a diminution of increasing profits occur uncontested.

Remember the Greenhouse Mafia.

On the other hand what the taskforce's report does do is put a large spoke in the wheels of the serious furthering of alternative and renewable sources of energy -- wind, solar and geothermal to name three.

As the draft report points out, "Australia’s only School of Nuclear Engineering was operated by the University of New South Wales between 1961 and 1986. A 2006 survey found a lack of tertiary education in nuclear science and technology in engineering departments in Australian universities, although a number of courses deal with nuclear physics and radiation safety."

It follows this statement with what a colleague of mine calls a "gonna" clause. "The Council of the Australian Institute of Nuclear  Science and Engineering (AINSE), a body that has a mandate to train scientific research workers and award scientific research studentships in nuclear science and engineering fields, has decided to facilitate the formation of an Australia-wide nuclear science and technology school. The intention is to provide education in a wide range of nuclear related matters from technical aspects of the fuel cycle and reactor operation through to nuclear safety, public awareness, and other matters of interest to policy makers."

Face it, so far as having an intellectual infrastructure with which to even begin an Australian nuclear power industry, we're just a bit behind scratch, and the cost in all respects to set it up is prohibitive.

Conclusion: its a non starter, always was, and it's a decomposed Prime Ministerial red herring, but as a decoy to keep the alternative energy proponents at bay it's damn useful while propounding the concept of clean coal technology.

An obvious ploy, perhaps, but an effective one nonetheless.