Australian Financial Review 24/6/04.

The federal Government's Energy White Paper is a bold repudiation of populist sentiment regarding the scope for renewable energy technologies in Australia's future. It resists special pleading to provide a blank cheque for intermittent renewables, despite their admirable clean energy virtues.

In that regard it is a welcome contrast to other national policies such as UK's, which have expansively projected up to 20% of their electricity supply coming from wind etc within a couple of decades, without a hope of that being realised.

But, with over 40% of our energy exports (in thermal terms) being uranium, where is the "N" word in future scenarios for Australia? Or are we to simply mouth off about greenhouse concerns while doing little more than political window-dressing about moving to effective clean energy?

As cryptically acknowledged in the White Paper (p 135), nuclear energy "can deliver electricity with virtually zero emissions." But, while "industrialised countries on average generate 24 percent of their electricity from nuclear power, Australia is not contemplating the domestic use of nuclear power."

Historically this has been because with our magnificent, high-quality coal reserves, distributed more or less where we need them. Some 85% of our electricity comes from burning that coal. The cost of this electricity is almost the lowest in the world. Our electricity prices are around 40% of Japan's and 60-70% of most in Europe.

But if - and it seems to be a big "if" - we factor in carbon values to price the emission of carbon dioxide from coal burning, the figures look different. Nuclear power is very much in the ballpark economically, and it actually eliminates the carbon emissions rather than subjecting them to complex economic wheeling and dealing.

The White Paper sensibly supports measures to capture and bury the carbon dioxide from making electricity, and this is a most exciting prospect. But even the coal industry's own projections admit that the cost will be high - way above the cost of nuclear power. The problem is not so much burying the stuff, but capturing it in the first place.

Nuclear power is another option for Australia in providing continuous reliable supply of electricity on a large scale.

A large new-generation reactor is now being built in Finland, after very careful cost-benefit analysis and public consultation, and this week a similar unit will apparently be announced for France. In the USA, both government and industry are gearing up for a new phase of nuclear plant construction.

Today, more than 440 reactors provide 16 percent of the world's electricity. Importantly, this is virtually without greenhouse gas emissions. About 30 more power reactors are under construction.

In our corner of the world, China and India plan at least a fourfold increase in nuclear capacity by 2020, while those countries which already meet a substantial proportion of their electricity demand from nuclear power plan steady expansion - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan.

France is thoroughly committed to nuclear power - 80% of supply, making it the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to the very low costs. Europe depends on nuclear power for one third of its electricity.

In Canada, Ontario has resolved to close down its coal-fired plants in 2007. Its task force report rejects reliance on gas and points to more nuclear for replacement capacity.

Energy security is another consideration for some countries: gas is difficult and expensive to store in large quantities, uranium (either ex-mine or as fabricated fuel) can readily and relatively cheaply be stockpiled in any quantity.

Public opinion has been influenced by the 1986 Chernobyl accident and the strenuous incitement to fear by those ideologically opposed to such technologies (currently GM foods are the focus of this), but scaremongering eventually wears thin. In the USA public opinion is increasingly positive on the grounds of forward price stability for electricity, clean air values, and reliability of supply.

There is increasing awareness everywhere that future electricity supplies will need to be from all available options, albeit with a bias to those with least environmental impact and best resource base.

The low greenhouse gas intensity of nuclear power means it is prudent for Australia to assess the role of nuclear power in the energy mix. In a carbon-constrained future, other options for base-load zero emission technologies may be expensive or unavailable.

Uranium Information Centre Ltd
A.C.N. 005 503 828

GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
fax (03) 9629 7207