Here's a long article in The Age looking at why Australia is very, very slow to consider nuclear seriously. I didn't know this:
A poll conducted this year by the Uranium Information Centre found the 40 to 55 years age group most trenchantly opposed to nuclear power.So, it's my own demographic which is the stupidest. How encouraging.
5 comments:
Difficult isn't it.
I know wind farms aren't more than a bit of the answer (and you aren't a fan - I think they look wonderful myself) but even they meet huge resistance. The comment in the article that in Victoria a nuclear power station would have to be on Port Phillip Bay or Westernport Bay does suggest it could not be done until politically feasible which won't happen until it is too late from a global warming perpsective. That is far too close the vineyards of the Mornington Peninsula in any case!
Assuming that storage of nuclear waste remains a problem "stupid" people like me will still have grave fears about going nuclear. It must be growing up in the shadow of nuclear destruction that does it.
I grudgingly accept that the storage of carbon dioxide is no more sorted out than nuclear waste and nuclear may have to be considered. (grumble)
The thought then comes back to how to make something politically palatable when the government can't mention nuclear and half the opposition are climate skeptics. I wonder if it would take international insistence and sanctions for Australia to go nuclear?
What would it take to make us go nuclear?
I reckon it'll take about six years of bungling and mismanaged energy policy by the Rudd Government. It could include rising taxes, lack of new energy infrastructure, rising energy bills, and power shortages aplenty. Oh, and a sensible opposition.
Some points: I appreciate that the need for large nuclear reactors to be near water is a big mark against them in a country like Australia where we love our coastline.
However, my hunch is that the better way to aggressively tackle CO2 production would actually be to go with smaller, local nuclear. As I have said here before, the pebble bed reactor which the South Africans were developing has a three big advantages: passive safety, a modular design, and using helium to spin the turbine. I am pretty sure it does not need to be located next to any substantial body of water, allowing you to site them where we currently have coal power. You could, presumably, gradually replace existing coal powered generators over time. Unfortunately, money to develop this has seemingly run out in South Africa. If it was up to me, I would be imposing a carbon tax and using some of it to buy into the African project and get it working.
There is also the possibility of using tiny nuclear reactors which you bury, which are being commercialised in the States right now. In Australia, these would be particularly suited to inland Australia. This subject got a sympathic hearing on Late Night Live recently, of all places, which suggests that Lefties may be capable of being convinced.
To me, this implementation of small nuclear gradually makes a lot more sense than saying (as Ziggy's report to John Howard did) that you really have to build a large number of large and expensive nuclear plants on the coastline to make it all worthwhile.
On the subject of political support for nuclear, I think Coalition climate skeptics are naturally inclined to like nuclear anyway. However, on the assumption that if the ALP is against it, the Coalition will never win an election by being pro-nuclear, the real issue is for those on the Left who see the need for nuclear to get out there and convince the ALP that it just has to change its policy.
In fact, reading around the blogs, I am confident that there is a growing pro-nuclear movement on the Left of politics. Eg, Barry Brooks has turned his blog into a purely pro-nuclear site, Fran Barlow who posts regularly about CO2 seems a convert and (as far as I can tell) seems to have ALP or union connections. I am sure there must be others (not to mention the likes of Phillip Adams now apparently seeing its positive side.)
But they really need to getting out there and doing the leg work on their own side of politics to make it happen. If they convince the ALP to go nuclear, they are going to have problems with the Coalition taking the opposite position. How can the Green prevent it happening if both Labor and Libs will join to pass legislation needed?
Sorry: that last paragraph should have said that Labor is not going to have problems with the Libs if they go nuclear. But you probably guessed that.
The Late Night Live story on the tiny local nuclear reactors is here:
www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2666693.htm
I have been posting about the "small is beautiful" line since at least 2006:
opiniondominion.blogspot.com/2006/08/go-nuclear.html
Does anyone listen? No. Just start the coup now that will set me up as benevolent dictator and let's get on with it.
No matter where you build them the concern is that with populism reigning on all sides of politics, barring the coup you propose, by the time it is obvious enough that there is no alternative it will be too late to build anything. I also thought it would be cute to have UN impose sanctions on a country for not going nuclear.
You are probably correct that it will take a change on the Labor side. Just as gun control had to be brought in by the Libs and economic rationalism by Labor, any really major change in Australia has to be introduced by the side of politics least likely to support it to obtain consensus.
What this means is that you will have to jump ship and join the Labor party to influence policy or face global destruction. You know its logical Steven: do it for the planet- It's Time.
Post a Comment