An Exercise in Obfuscation -- Nuclear Power Good ? -- Nuclear Power Bad? Part II. (December 6, 2006)

    Back in May TFW listened in on a conversation between Vladimir and Estragon "The Past Master, John Howard, Initiates an Exercise in Obfuscation -- Nuclear Power Good ? -- Nuclear Power Bad?"

AUSTRALIA risks higher electricity bills and blackouts the longer it delays stronger action on climate change, according to a study by the CSIRO and energy companies.

Now CSIRO has released a 120 page report following a two-year analysis, The heat is on: the future of energy in Australia which describes the results of deliberations of the "Energy Futures Forum" to determine the means of engaging in developing and assessing pathways for the future of energy in Australia.

For starters the report concludes that there are not enough experts available in Australia to run any future Australian nuclear power stations.

The spokesman for the report told the ABC, "A lot of our experts in the country have quite white hair ... and not a lot of them [are] left at the moment; So even to start to think about the introduction of nuclear power ... we would start out from the point of view of an unskilled purchaser."

The report claims investors are delaying spending billions of dollars on energy projects because of the lack of a clear, long-term, national climate change policy, and uncertainty about whether they will eventually have to pay a carbon tax or equivalent. "[T]here is the possibility of inefficient or under-investment in this sector in the near term, leading to either higher cost electricity or shortfalls in supply".

Importantly the modelling calculates increasing costs judged against expected income and according to The Age concludes, "While retail electricity prices could increase by between 7 and 20 per cent by 2050, real income per capita in Australia is expected to more than double in the same period, the report says. This means that the share of average full-time wages spent on electricity would fall from about 1.1 per cent this year to between 0.5 and 0.7 per cent in 2050... [but] some big energy users, such as the aluminium and iron and steel industries, could be hit hard by higher power prices [which] could be offset by government support and planning."

The report also maintains, "a much greater level of government intervention is likely to be initially required to … address climate change in a meaningful way", and the study found that nuclear energy would be too expensive except with the most optimistic cost estimates.

Finally, the study considers that improving energy efficiency is essential, and although renewable energy should enjoy strong growth, developing better storage technologies will be required. In  addition CO₂ sequestration by coal and gas-powered plants could also be important in cutting emissions.

So returning to Vladimir and Estragon for a moment:

E. [I]mmediately it was announced that Jim Peacock was appointed Australia's Chief Scientist, he stated publicly, "In my view, I think it's really time to reassess and discuss the possibility of using nuclear-based power." and then on May 5 in his valedictory he told the Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science,

As the President [of the Australian Academy of Science] you have many national responsibilities, particularly in the area of communicating science based positions relevant to policy at the federal and even at the state level, and in presenting issues for public discussion. One such issue put forward by ourselves and the technical science academy recently was the discussion of the place of nuclear power in the global effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The government is currently considering the approach that John Zillman [President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering] and I made to the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister, at the time, responded positively to the suggestion that this is something that we need to look at, put the facts right and perhaps then engage in extensive discussion in the country. So the matter is still under consideration at the moment.

V: And you think they... may have been prompted [by the Prime Minister].

 

E: Who knows? Perhaps not. But on May 26 the current Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop comes out saying there's a strong case for nuclear power generation in Australia.

and later

V: Estragon, after this extended preamble of yours, let's get back to this matter of the PM's obfuscation.

 

E: Just coming to that, lad. From the Australian Government's viewpoint and considering the strong bond between it and the coal industry together with the government's strong interest in furthering uranium mining, I'd suggest that the building of nuclear power plants per se is of little interest, but fostering uranium mining and export is. On the other hand the fostering of coal-based electrical power generation while shrouding from consideration renewables and geothermal power generation but trying to give the impression of addressing the reduction of atmospheric contamination are desirable.

 

V: You're telling me that Mr Howard is in the process of manipulating the population so that by its rejection of nuclear power it will support coal-fired electrification and will give scant thought to alternative sources of energy?

Now will the new leader of the Labor opposition have anything of consequence to say?