The Nuclear debate
June 18, 2006
(Interventions by or passages related to EFN
are highlighted in blue)
This week, in the nuclear debate, the Prime Minister and Green groups
called for nuclear energy. Opponents and proponents air their views about
our need for more sources of clean green energy to drive the country's
economic growth. Will wind and solar sources be sufficient? How clean
is the new clean green coal? If we sell uranium, who should we sell it
to and what about the waste?
Our panel includes prominent physicists, economists, diplomats and leading
environmentalists, all of whom have strong opinions on the development
of a new, nuclear industry in Australia. And their views will surprise
many. They include Greg Bourne, the former head of BP Australia, turned
environmentalist with the World Wildlife Fund who believes the dangerous
mineral is no solution to our energy needs, and Harley
Wright, an environmentalist who says we have no choice but to go nuclear
to save the planet. The politicians too, air their views, from
both sides, as Australians question whether the risks of a nuclear world
are greater than the risks without it.
TRANSCRIPT
INTRO: With so much concern today about global warming on the one hand
and the risks of radioactive waste on the other, our forum guests today
are certain to provide a lively discussion. But before we hear their considered
opinions, let's first look at what we already know about Australia's energy
options.
Australia is truly the lucky country when it comes to energy choices. We have abundant reserves of fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas, a well-developed hydro-electricity industry and vast, open sunny spaces just ripe for clean alternative energy industries like solar and wind power. And we are literally rolling in uranium. We possess 40 percent of the world's known uranium reserves and probably a whole lot more. In fact, one-fifth of the world's uranium supplies come from Australia. Uranium is an extremely efficient way of generating power. It contains 20,000 times more energy per kilo than coal. And nuclear power stations generally produce cheaper electricity than the alternatives without toxic or carbon dioxide emissions. While globally only 16 percent of the world's electricity is generated from nuclear power, that figure is rapidly rising. There are some 440 nuclear reactors in 31 countries and, in those like France and Japan, with few natural energy resources, there's an increasing reliance on nuclear power.
As the world finally accepts the fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite
and that carbon dioxide emissions produced from them are contributing
to global warming, cheap, clean, nuclear power is becoming a very attractive
prospect. Australia is perfectly placed to capitalise on future global
demand and develop a home-grown nuclear power industry. Australia currently
has three mines that produce and export over 10,000 tonnes of raw uranium
oxide, or yellowcake, annually. A fourth uranium mine, Honeymoon, in South
Australia, is currently under construction. Yellowcake exports are earning
Australia almost half a billion a year. But the even more lucrative uranium
enrichment and fuel manufacturing processes occur in nuclear reactors
overseas. If Australia were to develop its own nuclear industry, we'd
not only be able to generate power and lower greenhouse gas emissions,
we'd also be able to sell enriched uranium for considerably more than
we're earning from selling yellowcake now. But this is easier said than
done. Australia lacks the expertise to build and operate a nuclear power
station and it is estimated it will take at least a decade and two and
a half billion dollars to approve and construct one. But hand in hand
with a fully fledged Australian nuclear industry come increased obligations
for environmental safeguards and local and global security. There is the
emotive issue of the safe disposal of our own nuclear waste products and
the economic attractions of storing other countries' waste. The spectre
of accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as well as the horror
of nuclear warfare also looms over the debate. Australia is a signatory
to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which stipulates
our uranium may only be used to generate electricity. But a recent arrangement
to sell uranium to China and possibly even to India, both known nuclear
weapons states, raises questions of whether we can truly guarantee that
Australian uranium will never end up in a warhead. Our global hunger for
energy comes at a cost. How high must that cost be?
THE PANEL
Ian Macfarlane (Minister for Industry and Resources)
Julie Bishop (Science Minister)
Ass. Prof. Martin Sevior (Physicist Melbourne Univesity)
Tony Grey (Chairman of Precious Metals Australia /ex Pancontinental)
Dr John White (Chair of the Uranium Industry Framework)
Harley Wright (Australian local correspondent of
Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy)
Martin Ferguson (Federal ALP)
Richard Butler (Former diplomat, weapons inspector and Governor of Tasmania)
Prof. John White (President of Australian Institute of Nuclear Science
and Engineering)
Dr. Mark Diesendorf (UNSW Senior Lecturer Institute of Environmental Studies)
Danny Kennedy (Greenpeace)
Dr. Sue Wareham (MAPW and Nuclear Free Alliance)
Greg Bourne (WWF)
Prof. Richard Broinowski (Former diplomat)
Leslie Kemeny
Iand Hore-Lacy (Uranium Information Center and World Nuclear Association, interview recorded before the debate)
Bruno Comby (President of Environmentalists For
Nuclear Energy, interview recorded before the debate)
Jana Wendt (moderator)
________________
JANA WENDT: Thank you very much to all of you for joining us for this
forum today. We've just heard Australia has 40 percent of the world's
uranium reserves. How much more do we think is out there, Tony Grey?
TONY GREY: Probably considerably more, but the industry has not done
any new exploration now for well over a decade. But in the '70s, we ran
into a political controversy and the result was that we failed to develop
our resources in time to catch that price boom fully.
JANA WENDT: Do we know, Ian Macfarlane, what is in the ground, how much
more is in the ground?
IAN MACFARLANE: Well there's obviously quite a deal more, and if you
look at the Northern Territory at the moment we are seeing exploration
there increase 20-fold in the last 12 months. Now that's partly been driven
by the price of uranium which has trebled. It's also been driven by the
fact that there is now certainty that if they discover uranium, they'll
be able to mine it.
JANA WENDT: Is it possible to put a dollar sum on what Australia might
be able to make out of this were it to get all this stuff out of the ground?
IAN MACFARLANE: Well if we just look at the mines that are in operation
now, and if you look at Olympic Dam, which will probably double in size
and look at the prospective markets, including China as well as the customers
we already have, you will see the uranium industry double if not treble
in the next decade. And for Australia, that means probably another billion
and a half dollars exports from uranium. We have, as you said, 40 percent
of the world's deposits. We are a country that is very proficient and
efficient and safe when it comes to mining, and that includes uranium
mining. So really we need to step up to the plate.
JANA WENDT: Martin Ferguson, if we were to do all of this exploration,
would it make us to uranium what Saudi Arabia is to oil?
MARTIN FERGUSON: Look, it would be a giant step forward in terms of our
export earnings, it�s a fact of life. I actually believe what the previous
two speakers has said is correct. It is all about economics. For the last
decade uranium has not been as valuable. It has trebled in price in the
last 18 months to two years. It's back on the agenda. There is a debate
about uranium mining in Australia. And I think we as a nation will seize
the opportunity to actually export more uranium.
JANA WENDT: But is it of that dimension or am I overstating it?
MARTIN FERGUSON: Look, it is not going to be the Middle East for us in
comparison with oil, but it is going to be a step forward in terms of
export earnings and us diversifying our resource exports.
JANA WENDT: OK, so is there an opportunity there for Australia to be
value-adding, if you like, to this?
DR JOHN WHITE: Jana, as a manufacturer and a value-adder in this country,
I think it is a real missed opportunity that we do not move into the fuel
cycle. And really as a country which is going to be producing more uranium
into the world market, we should take the opportunity of leveraging that
position and actually moving into something which I call nuclear fuel
leasing, which means we take responsibility at the back end and really
provide a big service to the world in terms of taking that material away
from harm's way and therefore leverage on our great opportunities of the
best geology in the world, highly skilled workforce and our position in
the world as part of the alliance.
JANA WENDT: We are, of course, selling yellowcake around the world. In
fact, Australia has signed an agreement to sell uranium to China. Still
a communist state, a state with a shocking human rights record, just this
week it was accused by Amnesty International of secretly supplying conventional
arms to places like Sudan and Nepal and Burma, fuelling the bloody conflicts
there. Why should we trust China Ian Macfarlane to do the right thing?
IAN MACFARLANE: China has been through a rigorous negotiation with Australia
in terms of the safeguard agreement which we require from every country.
And that safeguard agreement not only encompasses the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty and the safeguards associated with that but also the safeguard
agreements we put in place as a government in 1998. The Chinese have agreed
to abide by those safeguard agreements. The reality is that they already
have ample nuclear material for their warheads. We can track this material
when it goes to China. We can use the International Atomic Energy Agency.
We can audit the supplies of it and it will be very quickly picked up
if some supplies of uranium are being siphoned off for other uses.
JANA WENDT: Richard Broinowski, do you think we can trust China with
our uranium?
RICHARD BROINOWSKI: Jana, I think not. Can I just make one point? The
IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has only three Chinese nuclear
plants that it inspects at present, according to the latest IAEA. One
is a power reactor and another is a research reactor and another is a
uranium enrichment plant. One of the fundamental principles of Australian
export of uranium since 1977 has been that not only do we have to have
a bilateral safeguards agreement but that we export to countries that
has full coverage under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Can you
answer that?
JANA WENDT: Ian Macfarlane would you like to �
IAN MACFARLANE: In terms of where the uranium is used, those facilities
will be inspected. That is the reality of the agreement.
JANA WENDT: That is a guarantee that those facilities will be inspected?
IAN MACFARLANE: That's right. And whilst we concede that there will be
nuclear facilities in China that the IEAA won't be inspecting, under the
agreement China has to agree that the facilities where our uranium is
being used will be inspected and that they'll be audited.
SUE WAREHAM: Can I comment on that. There is no way that Australian uranium
could be kept out of Chinese weapons, and the Australian government more
or less knows this. The first port of call for Australian uranium when
it reaches China, if this agreement goes ahead will be a conversion facility
which is unsafeguarded because it is not safeguarded by the IAEA which
has just been stated by Richard. There is no way that our uranium will
be safeguarded during that time. That conversion facility is controlled
by the Chinese military. Now there are close links between the Chinese
civilian and military programs as there are in every nuclear weapons state.
And for that reason, we can have no assurance when we send uranium to
any nuclear weapons state, that it is going to remain out of weapons.
IAN MACFARLANE: That is contrary to my advice. I have to say that. And
I have to say that in terms of some of our best people, ANSTO and the
like, and their representation on to the IEAA, that they in fact say that
we can track our uranium right through the enrichment facility right into
the power station and then be assured of where the waste is reprocessed
after that.
RICHARD BUTLER: This discussion started with people I think putting very
persuasively — I go along with a good deal of it — that the
fact that we have 40 percent of the world's uranium, at least 40 percent
in our soil, provides for us a marvellous economic opportunity. This is
a valuable resource from which we can make a lot of national money. And
I don't think there's any need for us to spend any time arguing about
that. That is true. Absolutely. But Jana, there is also another opportunity
that our possession of this remarkable material provides. It's an opportunity
that we took for 40 years but have now ceased to pursue in the last seven
or eight years, which is to use our possession of this resource, which
in my view has its unique ability that it can make nuclear weapons. You
cannot make nuclear weapons without uranium. So whatever we do about uranium,
that has to be at the core, forgive the nuclear pun. But this is the sole
material from which you can make nuclear weapons. I would argue from that
basis that we have another opportunity. Just as we sell the stuff to make
the money that we want, we have an opportunity to insist to the world
on nuclear arms control. We used to do that. But we're not doing it now.
And Minister, we're not doing it adequately with China. The very idea
that we would sell our uranium to India, a non-NPT, a non-proliferation
treaty country, would involve departing from 50 years of Australian policy.
That is the point I want to make, Jana. We have an ability to influence
the crucial business of nuclear arms control by using our uranium under
very specific circumstances. I don't hear us doing this.
JANA WENDT: I want to go to Martin Ferguson here. Is Labor entirely comfortable
with this? We're talking sales to China, sales to India, BHP talking about
selling to Russia. Comfortable?
MARTIN FERGUSON: Firstly we've been able to sell uranium to Russia for
years. Richard Butler is correct. It is no longer a debate about whether
we export uranium. By 2013 with the expansion of Olympic Dam, we will
be biggest exporting nation in the world with the biggest mine in the
world. The key to this debate is stewardship. It is about our international
responsibilities, using our economic weight — we own the uranium
— to actually reshape the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
That means selling uranium to China at the moment, but not Pakistan,
Israel or India. It's about us using our capacity internationally to actually
have a huge impact on the nuclear weapons debate. That is the real debate.
That is where Australia ought to be heading. Not a debate about whether
or not nuclear power stacks up in Australia at the moment. It doesn't,
and I'll tell you why. Energy out of Queensland at the moment is 2.8 cents
per kilowatt hour. Nuclear power cannot compete in Australia. Use our
capacity to internationally influence the processes.
JANA WENDT: Let's talk about the logic of your party's position in relation
to mining. It currently has a no-new-mines policy. So that would put an
end to your grand plans, I presume.
MARTIN FERGUSON: Our policy at the moment says no new mines. But our
policy also means by 2013 we're the biggest exporting nation in the world.
In the next couple of weeks, Honeymoon in South Australia will get the
final approvals. That means that by 2008 we will potentially have four
mines in Australia. My position is clear. There is a national conference
in April next year. I believe our policy is nonsensical. How can we have
the biggest mine in the world to then say some mine, a pimple on the horizon,
can't start up in Australia? It is a ridiculous position, and there is
going to be a debate within the Labor Party.
JANA WENDT: It is a ridiculous position, you say.
MARTIN FERGUSON: Absolutely. Because, we, under the Labor Party's current
policy will be a nation that by 2013 will the biggest exporting nation
in the world with the biggest mine in the world. Richard Butler is correct.
Use our economic capacity to play above our weight to actually influence
and determine the future of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and can
I say, to be fair to the Government, they have actually sought the review.
It is about time America understood, go the multilateral process, use
the available agencies. Don't try to sidestep them by doing one-off deals
with India. Work it out internationally and lock us all in.
SUE WAREHAM: Jana, there is a very point I would like to make in relation
to who we export uranium to. Now if Australia is to continue exporting
uranium and there are several good reasons why we should not, but if we
are to continue exporting uranium, there should a blanket rule, no exceptions.
We do not export any uranium to any nation that has nuclear weapons. We
cannot justify the export of uranium to nations that create the most destructive,
the most inhumane weapons that have ever been created. That should be
a blanket rule. No uranium to any nuclear weapons states. That would in
fact wipe out a number of our current customers but so be it. In addition
we should make another rule — no uranium goes to any nation that
will reprocess or allow reprocessing. Reprocessing is the technique whereby
the plutonium is extracted and can be used for further purposes.
TONY GREY: Selling to France, the US
SUE WAREHAM: Yes, it would.
TONY GREY: And potentially China.
STEVE SHALLHORN: Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, they have
an obligation to disarm but they are not doing it. Most of this discussion
has just been about the economic benefits. But as Sue has pointed out,
there are real problems with nuclear weapons. They are the most horrific
weapons that we have ever developed. And we fret when North Korea or Iran
are said to be developing a nuclear weapons program. But somehow we don't
take any responsibility for the fact that we are one of the major exporters
of the uranium. We have to mix our security policy with our export policy
and we should not be exporting nuclear — uranium to any nuclear weapons
state.
IAN MACFARLANE: The reality is that nuclear warheads are currently being
reprocessed to use in nuclear power stations because of the shortage of
processed uranium. People aren't accumulating nuclear warheads, they're
actually breaking them down.
RICHARD BROINOWSKI: In the US they are creating more fissionable material.
They are just e opening a new plutonium pit factory at a cost of billions
of dollars to make a new generation in nuclear weapons. This is just not
true. Can I also comment that Minister Macfarlane reckons we have a very
good bilateral safeguards agreement. We do not. They have been eroded
for commercial considerations ever since they were first brought down
by Malcolm Fraser in 1977 and they still are being. The doctrine of equivalence
means it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Australian atoms can
be traced through a very complex international system and not be —
and that we have a reassurance that they will not be used in weapons.
JANA WENDT: I want to return to Labor policy for a moment, Martin Ferguson,
your leader says no nuclear power industry for Australia. Does that make
sense?
MARTIN FERGUSON: It is an economic issue.
JANA WENDT: Is it?
MARTIN FERGUSON: The issue of exporting uranium from Australia is about
economic capacity. The price of uranium at the moment makes it stack up.
In terms of nuclear power, there will be a debate. The Labor Party has
a view it doesn't stack up economically. I refer to the fact we are producing
coal-based energy out of Queensland at the moment at 2.82 cents per kilowatt
hour. Nuclear energy cannot compete. I have approached this from an economic
point of view.
JANA WENDT: So if it did make sense economically, Labor would be...
MARTIN FERGUSON: Then there would be a debate in Australia at some point
in the future about whether or not we could go nuclear, whether or not
issues such as waste disposal and the storage are resolved. As far as
I am concerned we have to be part of that debate because that is part
of the debate about the renewal of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
And we have to rebuild ANSTO.
JANA WENDT: John Smith, economically, it doesn't stack up you think at
the moment?
DR JOHN SMITH: It depends on what price you put on the environment, what
price you put on CO2 emissions and what price you put on the waste management
of the nuclear spent fuel. My view is that we have an obligation as a
nation to go down the low-emissions energy path. We are committing to
CO2 sequestration for coal power generation.
LESLIE KEMENY: May I make an optimum template for Australia's position
in the nuclear world.
JANA WENDT: Please.
LESLIE KEMENY: Australia should export nuclear fuel. It should enrich
in this country. It should manufacture nuclear fuel in this country. It
should lease it and we should be ready to take irradiated fuel, reprocess
it and dispose of it in ways which are economically sensible.
JANA WENDT: Martin Ferguson is very enthusiastic about opening up mines
and yet there are Labor Premiers who are saying "This will not happen
in my State." Ian Macfarlane, would the Commonwealth be prepared to override
the States in this situation?
IAN MACFARLANE: We are not in a position to and I would suspect what
the Labor Party will do — which is completely torn to bits on this
issue — they don't know whether to go forward, stay where they are
or do something of common sense.
MARTIN FERGUSON: A bit like your government on refugee policy.
IAN MACFARLANE: Can I just say that after the next national conference
of the ALP I wouldn't be surprised to see some States move to mining and
after their respective elections the remaining States move to allow uranium
mining because the reality is that uranium exports in Australia will grow.
At the moment, only two States will benefit from that. And that's because
of some ideological position held by some sections of the Labor Party
which fortunately Martin Ferguson doesn't support.
JANA WENDT: Two of the most hotly disputed issues in the nuclear debate
are safety and the environment. The nuclear lobby says very few problems
have occurred with nuclear power stations over the years. But when they
do happen, of course, the results can be disastrous. And with spent nuclear
fuel remaining radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years those opposed
to going nuclear argue the risks are too great. So before we continue
with our debate we'll take a moment to consider our environmental options.
Let's suppose for a moment that Australia has decided to turn to nuclear
power for its energy needs. What would our nuclear landscape look like?
IAN HORE-LACY: Most nuclear reactors of an economic size that are being
ordered around the world now are between 1 gigawatt and 1.5 gigawatts
so you would need 20 or 30 of those if you replaced all your coal-fired
plant.
HUGH OUTHRED: At the moment, our demand for electricity continues to
grow around about two percent to three percent per year. And that really
means by about the middle of next century we will have to build roughly
1,000 megawatts per year of what is called base load capacity. That's
roughly one nuclear generating unit per year.
JANA WENDT: So what about the costs of setting Australia up to become
a nuclear energy state?
DR IAN SMITH: We're talking about a capital cost of somewhere around,
I guess: $2.5 billion per 1,000-megawatt station. Now that, of course,
is a lot of money, but you should realise that in nuclear: 60 percent
of the cost of the power is servicing the financing. So it's an interesting
thing, that the money has to come in upfront to build the station and
then you get your returns for the next 50 or so years.
JANA WENDT: Before we go down the nuclear path, what about the waste?
Do we know how to safely store both spent fuel and the waste associated
with the decommissioning of reactors?
BRUNO COMBY: Well, in the case of nuclear energy,
we consume almost nothing, a very little amount of uranium only. To give
you an idea of this, just take a look at this small pellet here. This
is the amount of vitrified nuclear waste which is produced by a typical
French family over an entire year.
PETER GARETT: Disposal of waste for the longer term is clearly probably
the most important and the most difficult issue for nukes. It's never
been solved really as a problem. No credible commentator coming onto your
program or anywhere else can provide cast iron guarantees about what will
happen to the geophysical structures of the earth for the next 10,000
years.
JANA WENDT: With Chernobyl behind us, we are assured that today's power
plants, at least in the Western world, are safe. But how safe?
BRUNO COMBY: What happened at Chernobyl is something
like driving a very old car with no brakes, very old tyres at 200km/h
on a bumpy mountain road with a sick and drunk driver. If you do that,
of course, you will have an accident in the end. But if the reactors are
well-designed, well-managed, then it is a very safe source of energy.
JANA WENDT: But could we be having entirely the wrong debate?
PETER GARETT: We can meet our energy needs and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by harnessing existing energy sources that we have abundance
of, including solar, clean coal — and certainly we do need to clean
coal up—and an expanded renewables sector.
BRUNO COMBY: But these are very dilute and they
are also intermittent. Wind does not blow all the time, and the sun does
not show during the night and when the weather is cloudy.
IAN HORE-LACY: Nuclear gives you a continuous, reliable supply of electricity
on a large scale. And renewables like wind simply cannot do that.
JANA WENDT: So could the environmental benefits of nuclear energy outweigh
the environmental costs?
IAN HORE-LACY: The dollar cost of petroleum and oil- and gas-based power
has gone up enormously in the last few years. And the environmental cost
of such power is being realised. You combine those two together and many
people see nuclear as the best option for us to generate the power that
this world needs.
PETER GARETT: This is an industry that talks big, but when you get down
to the details that's where the devil lives.
BRUNO COMBY: The environmental groups which oppose
nuclear energy in fact are mistaken. They are merchants of fear and they
are trying to drive us in a direction which is not correct. In fact, in
doing so, they are making a great mistake and they are not serving the
environmental cause because the result is that we would be turning as
a major energy source to the other source of energy which is massively
available, but unfortunately very polluting for the atmosphere, which
is coal. And this would be very, very bad, and harmful for the planet
and for global warming.
JANA WENDT: Bruno Comby, a leading French environmentalist
finished that piece there, pleading with Australia to cut back on its
use of coal and to go nuclear. Steve Shallhorn, do you accept that
being an environmentalist and being pro-nuclear is no longer a contradiction
in terms?
STEVE SHALHORN: I think it is a contradiction in terms because I think
what we've been having so far is a false debate as to whether the answer
is between coal and nuclear. Really what we should be doing is looking
at new technologies to first of all reduce the amount of electricity that
we use, energy efficiency, that's the low-hanging fruit we can address
right away, that's relatively cheap. Then we can deliver a certain amount
of electricity through renewables such as wind and solar.
JANA WENDT: But to get back to my original point — a contradiction
in terms to be pro-nuclear and be environmentalist these days?
STEVE SHALHORN: Certainly at Greenpeace we've looked at the economics
of nuclear power and we are convinced more than ever that it is a contradiction,
that the environmental answer is not to go with nuclear power.
JANA WENDT: Harley Wright, you belong to the same
organisation as Bruno Comby, the French environmentalist we just heard
from. You would regard yourself as an environmentalist?
HARLEY WRIGHT: Absolutely, yes.
JANA WENDT: And you would regard yourself as pro-nuclear?
HARLEY WRIGHT: Yes. Not as a situation that we
must go nuclear in Australia but it should be sensibly considered as one
of the options to use. And it's not for us or even this government inquiry
on nuclear energy to work out whether nuclear is the preferred option
because it will be one of many. There will be many options that we could
and should consider. We should have a full suite of these options available
because you'll never know what the technology or the price will be. And
so to rule one out on sort of political grounds is a ludicrous approach.
It is a matter of keeping all options available and determining the appropriate
one for the price at the time.
JANA WENDT: Greg Bourne, the Government opens up
a debate on the issue, it sets up this inquiry, this valuable inquiry,
according to Harley Wright. You're asked to participate and you
decline. Why would you not want your voice heard?
GREG BOURNE: Jana, the problem with this debate is it's what I would
describe as a "look over there debate". It is a seeking a magic bullet
debate. And it's a business as usual debate. It is a pure economic debate.
Whereas the real debate is we are in a climate-changing world where we
have to reduce our emissions — in developed countries, 60 percent
by 2050, this is reductions. Now reductions will happen through energy
efficiency and through cleaning up our coal. By doing that we're actually
going to put off having to put in new plant, whatever it comes out to
be. By admissions of folks around the table a lot of this is 15 to 20
years off and yet the reductions we have to have are now. So as far as
I can see the Government is happily having a "look over there" debate
to avoid the real debate about global warming and climate change.
JANA WENDT: But why would you, as a conservationist, as an environmentalist,
why would you not want to be heard in an inquiry such as this one?
GREG BOURNE: Because the terms of reference are so narrow, they are about
the economics of nuclear power.
JULIE BISHOP: We've not had a review on nuclear power for some 20 years
and it is time that we had a scientific, comprehensive objective look
at the advances in technology that have been made over the last 20 years
and most certainly the impact of the accelerating rate of greenhouse gas
emissions and climate change. The terms of reference that the Prime Minister
has announced cover the whole spectrum, including environmental and health
issues. Now there is a growing body of evidence out there that demonstrates
that nuclear power is a convincing response to the concerns about environmental
and health aspects of burning fossil fuels. And if you are concerned about
greenhouse gas emissions, if you are concerned about the environmental
and health costs associated with it, you would welcome a debate that is
looking at diversifying the energy sources within Australia.
JANA WENDT: Greg Borne?
GREG BOURNE: Jana, the terms of reference read to me 1.5 hours before
the Prime Minister wanted to announce me as part of the program, talked
a little bit about health and safety, and environment was a codicil. It
really was an economic debate and therefore it was very, very easy to
refuse to be part of this terms of reference. However...
JULIE BISHOP: But clearly he has not seen the published terms of reference.
Clearly he has not read the published terms of reference.
GREG BOURNE: Clearly when asked one should see the terms of reference.
JANA WENDT: Greg Bourne, this is obviously a terribly sensitive issue
because you yourself got into considerable trouble with some of your environmental
colleagues when you acknowledged the inevitability of Australia's involvement
in the mining and export of uranium, didn't you?
GREG BOURNE: I put those points on record back in November in a public
speech which was broadcast on the radio. It was basically saying there
is an inevitability, as we have heard, under both governments, that uranium
will be exported. We need to that we use and wastes being managed safety...
JANA WENDT: No no, I just want to get to the point of the sensitivity
in your own ranks because arrows rained down on you when you stated what
seems to be the obvious, as you acknowledge. For instance, the Wilderness
Society called on to you go back to industry where you came from, and
toe the line or leave. Why is this such an emotive issue, stating the
obvious?
GREG BOURNE: I think it is an emotive issue. But the fact is that governments
in the past and governments in the future are going to export. That was
just a straightforward acknowledgement. And therefore, what do we need
to do? What do we Australians need to do? We need to demand that it is
being used safely, that the waste is being stored, it can't be used for
proliferation purposes. Those are the sorts of things Australians need
to demand both of the government, whoever is in power at any time...
STEVE SHALLHORN: I think Greg made the right decision by not going on
the inquiry because the inquiry terms of reference are too narrow. We
should be looking at technologies that are available in the next 10 to
15 years right now, such as energy efficiency, such as renewables.
HARLEY WRIGHT: But this inquiry — I have read
the terms of reference and the media release — is a very good approach
to try and unravel this. And I think the process is particularly important.
I don't think the timeframe is sufficient but I think the terms of reference
are sufficient. If it follows due process, takes in inputs from all sides,
has interrogation, testing of that evidence, and comes out with a reasonable
report, I think that's a very good way to put information into the public
domain. We have a panel of experts, experts in this country, who will
be able to pull together the scientific evidence, the facts, take the
emotion out of this and get some objectivity into the debate.
JANA WENDT: Is it possible to take the emotion out of this particular
topic?
JULIE BISHOP: That's what we have tasked them with. Once a draft report
has been prepared it will be international peer reviewed. The chief scientist,
Dr Jim Peacock, has a role to play. Then the draft report will be made
public and we can seek responses and views from across the spectrum. So
it is an open, objective process. And it's high time we had it. And I
believe it's time that instead of the scaremongering and the emotion that's
going on let's look at what has happened in the last 20 years. Nuclear
has a solid safety record.
JANA WENDT: It is the word 'nuclear' that provokes a certain response
in the community, doesn't it?
JULIE BISHOP: Precisely. And you see scaremongering in relation to one
of the most valuable medical research facilities in this country that
is saving lives. And yet people can still start scaremongering in relation
to Lucas Heights when all it is is in relation to the handling and management
of radioisotopes.
JANA WENDT: Let's suppose that Australia is going to set up a nuclear
industry, a nuclear power industry, Martin Sevior, how practical is it?
In what timeframe might it happen?
MARTIN SEVIOR: It couldn't possibly happen within the next five years.
JANA WENDT: Within the next 10 years?
MARTIN SEVIOR: It would be very difficult and extremely challenging to
do it within 10 years.
JANA WENDT: What would be required?
MARTIN SEVIOR: For a start, we would, in my personal view, is we should
wait to see what the next generation of nuclear power plants, how they
develop, things like the Westinghouse AP1000 is on the drawing board now.
They promise, Westinghouse promises, this will be substantially cheaper
than the $2,500 million that was on the video. It would be great to see
if that was true. We won't find out if that's true for five years. So
I would say wait at least five years to see that.
JANA WENDT: And then?
MARTIN SEVIOR: And then, if it is cheap and it's safe, which I have read
the NRC review of this and it appears to be as safe as Westinghouse promises,
then it would be a likely candidate for us to deploy.
JANA WENDT: But there is a lot of waiting time built in there. Mark Diesendorf,
what do you think about the practicalities of this?
MARK DIESENDORF: Well, I think first we have to address the myth that
nuclear power will always be free of carbon dioxide emissions. Every stage
of the nuclear fuel cycle except the operation of the reactor, emits greenhouse
gases. Now currently, with high-grade uranium ore, the energy inputs,
the fossil fuel inputs, are relatively small, but high-grade uranium will
only last a few decades. And once it is gone, once we have to mine and
mill low-grade uranium, the carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuels
used in those processes become quite large. So it is a complete myth to
claim that nuclear power is free of carbon dioxide emissions. It has been
very hard to actually get this debate into the public because the nuclear
industry has made such enormous efforts to suppress it. But the truth
is that...
LESLIE KEMENY: Mark is so wrong that if you give me a chance I will answer
that question.
MARK DIESENDORF: I want to finish this. You've had lots of time, Leslie.
The nuclear industry has certainly contradicted this. But they've not
been able to produce a detailed study to refute this case at this stage.
MARTIN SEVIOR: I have done so, Mark.
MARK DIESENDORF: You have not produced it yet.
MARTIN SEVIOR: I have!
MARK DIESENDORF: I haven't seen it yet.
MARTIN SEVIOR: Mark, I will give it to you after this show. I was talking
to you about it.
MARK DIESENDORF: So people can have an idea, we are talking about, to
get one kilogram of yellowcake, we're talking about mining and milling
10 tonnes of rock. That's what's involved. And that's why the stuff about
comparing it with coal is so misleading. All the coal that is dug out
of the ground goes straight into the power station. But you have this
huge concentration factor that has to be taken into account with uranium
mining.
JANA WENDT: John White, do we have any reason to believe that the nuclear
industry would be any better at managing risk than, say, the coalmining
industry?
DR JOHN WHITE: My observation is that the nuclear industry in the West
sets world-class standards which could actually inform the other power-generating
sectors. The other thing I would say is that on the issue of spent fuel,
and proliferation, really, as simple as it is, the idea of nuclear fuel
leasing is a technology breakthrough that actually gives us a new way
of managing the issues of proliferation and the environmental consequences
of the waste. So as a major producer of uranium going forward, regardless
of whether we one day find it economic to have nuclear power, should look
at providing that service to the world.
STEVE SHALLHORN: The world, John? What happens if you lease to a country
and there is a government change or the security situation changes and
says we're not going to send the stuff back? Are you going to invade them
to get the fuel rods back?
DR JOHN WHITE: When you are exporting uranium yellowcake almost anything
can happen to it. When you are exporting fabricated fuel pellets or rods,
which can be embedded so that they can be tracked every second of every
day, you know what is happening with them. You know where they are. And
you do not provide more if they do not just in time arrive back. And you
can then inspect them in a hard-wire transparent fashion.
STEVE SHALLHORN: I think it lowers the chances of diversion but it does
not eliminate it. You have to accept it does not eliminate the possibility
of the material being diverted into a weapons program. Yeah, we'll know
about it, but the question is — what are we going to do about it?
Are we going to invade because we think they are about to build nuclear
weapons? It is like the situation with North Korea.
DR JOHN WHITE: You would put into place the protocols and the actions
that can be put into place and it would dramatically reduce the risk,
environmental, and from a terrorism point of view.
JANA WENDT: Tony Grey, economically, do you think it would make sense
to store the world's nuclear waste?
TONY GREY: Huge sense, yes I do. I think we do have the right geology.
I think there's no question of that. The technology has been proven. It
has been proven for decades that it can be dealt with in a safe, long-term
fashion. The only reason that there isn't yet any place where long-term
storage is working is because of the political situation. People are just
too frightened of it. Yes, it will be alright in your backyard but not
in mine, that sort of thing. If we could get over that fear and look strictly
at the science and technology we could do the world a service and make
some money along with it.
JANA WENDT: Can I ask you — what about the morality of it? Is there
perhaps even a moral obligation if we are an exporter to store the stuff?
TONY GREY: Yes, you could almost reach that far, yes, you could.
LESLIE KEMENY: Jana, may I say categorically....
DR JOHN WHITE: May I just make a point that there are people in France,
the United States and in Japan, to my certain knowledge, who are looking
at ways to destroy waste. That is a long way off. Last March I looked
at a timeline which went up to 2050 in this project. Enormous investment.
The first stage of the investment is US$1.3 billion. They are talking
about is reducing the 100-year lifetime by a factor of 100. Now if people
could actually understand that something would disappear in 100 years
it would be much less of a problem than it disappearing in 10,000 years.
That is way off, but it is something which I believe Australia should
be firmly involved in.
LESLIE KEMENY: Jana, generation four gas-cooled reactors will have no
waste problems at all. But may I say this, that the hydrocarbon industry
has a far greater waste problem, including greenhouse gases, than the
nuclear industry has ever had, by a hundred-fold greater. And we've accepted
it because we've been with it and living with it for 200 years. That's
all.
JANA WENDT: I think that's going to have to be the last word. Thank you very much. I'm sorry to have to call an end to that but this is obviously a debate that will play out across the country so thank you for giving Sunday the benefit of your insights and experience and expertise. Thank you very much.
Source : http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2007.asp