Expert Panel, Chaired by Australia's Chief Scientist Jim Peacock, Questions Findings by PM's Nuclear Power Task Force but the Charade Continues. (December 29, 2006)

Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger making a point to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Chief Scientist Jim Peacock

    The Prime Minister's nuclear taskforce has underestimated "the challenge that will confront Australia if it should choose to expand the scope of its nuclear activities. In

 our view it is unrealistic to believe that a reactor could be operating in as little as 10 years," said a group of nuclear experts from Australia, the UK and the US chaired by Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock  earlier this month.

When Sabra Lane interviewed Dr Peacock for the ABC World Today, on December 12 he appeared ill at easy in responding to her questions.

JIM PEACOCK: We calculated [the time frame], and did it as carefully as we were able to, I mean it's all educated guesswork, if you like, we felt that the 10 years was probably an underestimate, and we felt 15 years was more likely to be the case, even if, you know, we started on some of the things that needed to be done in the near future.

 

SABRA LANE: Your review panel also found that the taskforce underestimated the challenges confronting Australia, should it choose to expand the industry. What has it underestimated?

JIM PEACOCK: Well, I think we were, we probably used that wordage, if that's what we did, in relation to those various issues I just mentioned. But in particular, we were mindful of the lack of trained people in Australia at the moment and the numbers needed for people to run, to develop, build and run such power stations.

And we really don't have the right sort of training courses in our universities or other institutions now, and even if we choose the option, which we probably should, while we're developing such courses, of sending people away to other places in the world where that training could be taken right away, we still think it's quite a challenge and it will involve much larger numbers than was mentioned in the draft report.

 

Now, it's still educated guesswork as to exactly how long the various phases would take.

 

If we are to introduce nuclear power into the portfolio of power generation options that we will have in future Australia, there's the possible legacy of any accidents that might occur. But we indicated that that has to be considered very carefully and as far as possible non-emotionally, and those two punitive or potential legacies weighed up one against the other.

 

We spoke directly to Dr Switkowski and his taskforce, and I think they were most appreciative of the comments. They seemed to take them very well. And, as I said, I don't know, you know, what of our suggestions they've been able to put into the final version.

Initially the "expert review" of the Switkowski report was to be held confidential but the task force shrewdly decided to make it public, undoubtedly realising that were it to be leaked they and the government would be seen to be misleading the public by stealth.

Interestingly, and in stark contrast to repeated pronouncements by Prime Minister John Howard, the review group's report says, "Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change".

In releasing the report today Mr Howard told reporters at Kirribilli House, "If we are interested in the future, if we are looking into the future and not looking back over our shoulders to the past, we have to factor in nuclear power as part of the solution... A nation like Australia with all our uranium reserves, and given our power needs and the fact that they will double between now and 2050, we would be crazy in the extreme if we didn't allow for the development of nuclear power''.

On the other hand he commented that a move toward nuclear power would be a gradual one, due to price disparity between nuclear and fossil fuel power.

All things considered while the matter of increased mining and export of uranium are and will continue to be real issues, the matter of building nuclear fuelled power plants is a red herring being used to minimise support for alternative sources of clean energy while fostering the use of coal, and subsidising technologies for trapping the greenhouse gases produced.

Ultimately it is the voting public that will decide if that's the way they want Australia's approach to global warming to be played out.