Why Going Nuclear Looks Good

A recent poll of Australians indicates that 60 percent of Labor voters and nearly 40 percent of Coalition voters are against building a nuclear power station in Australia.

But the Prime Minister, John Howard, has just commissioned a report on the issue and asked for a national "debate".

Nuclear energy is not on the political agenda because Australia is short of energy.  We have huge reserves of coal.  But nuclear energy is greenhouse neutral, while coal and other fossil fuels produce huge volumes of carbon dioxide that are thought to be contributing to global warming.

Certainly, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased dramatically over the last 100 years.

There are possible advantages for rural and regional Australia in supporting nuclear power.

It could mean fewer wind farms.

While green groups claim the government should look to wind and solar -- not nuclear -- as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, even one time NSW Premier Bob Carr recognises the limitations of wind power.

In June last year, he said:  "You could have a wind farm across all of outback NSW.  It'd kill every kookaburra but it wouldn't provide the base-load power we need".

Federal Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, recently blocked a $220 million wind farm at Gippsland's Bald Hill on the basis that the 52 turbines posed a risk to orange-bellied parrots.

I reckon one nuclear reactor just north or south of Sydney would be much better than lots of dead kookaburras or orange-bellied parrots for that matter.

Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has suggested Adelaide could make its own water from the sea with a nuclear-powered water desalination plant.

Adelaide currently pipes water over 100 kilometres from the Murray so this could mean more water for the river, without taking water from irrigators.

Former National MP and now independent, Bob Katter, has said publicly he would like a nuclear reactor to be build in his rural Queensland electorate of Kennedy should nuclear power ever become economically viable in Australia.

Nuclear energy, given current technologies, would cost about the same as wind power at $60-80 per megawatt hour.  This makes it almost twice as expensive as coal at $35.

A problem for solar energy is that it is about twice as expensive as wind and nuclear.

By raising nuclear energy as an issue the PM has given The Australian Greens a big emotive issue from which to campaign in the led up to the next federal election.

This could take the focus off our forests, fisheries and farms.

Indeed, both Labor and the Coalition traditionally promise to lock up more old growth forest, close down a fishery or take some water from irrigators around election time.

Perhaps with the environmental focus on nuclear energy there will be some reprieve for rural Australia, as well as orange-bellied parrots, and if Adelaide gets a nuclear powered desalination plant, it could even be good news for the Murray River.