Nuclear powered tree snakes | Wednesday, November 22, 2006 |
Yes, they're coming to a state near you!
Well, probably not yet but the chances have improved somewhat following the draft release of the Switkowski Report yesterday.
The former boss of Telestra, nuclear brainbox and notable non-plumber was comissioned by the government to determine if there is a place in Australia for nuclear power. The short answer it seems is yes.
The long answer is a bit more complex.
Australia has coal. Lots and lots of it. It's a huge export earner and is used as a plank in providing economic competitiveness. The problem with coal is that it's dirty. Not just soot, but the new worstest sort of pollution - greenhouse gasses.
Dr S has quite clearly pointed out that nuclear power cannot compete in economic terms given the price of coal as it is. Things get more interesting if you consider the cost of the carbon element however and bring nuclear power (and they quite clear to point out) and some renewable energy sources much closer if you factor in the longterm carbon cost implications associated with removal or underground storage.
In no uncertain terms he's said "If you don't intend on cutting CO2 emissions, then forget nuclear. It's not viable." The thing is, even the sceptic-on-the-rebound Mr Howard now says that a reduction in carbon emissions is a must-have.
Labour are pleased as they now have a clear differentiator to the government - important in an election year (nearly). They're trumpetting the "no nuclear power, ever ever ever" mantra believing that renewables and some currently in the prototype phase "clean coal" technology will do the trick. The common figure quoted is that it'll be 15 years before the clean coal process is viable.
There are also some issues with providing energy for baseline requirements and peaking load which it is difficult to meet with many of the renewwable type. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more use of renewable energy sources, I just don't think that enough Australians are prepared to turn of their air-conditioners to remove the need for solid, reliable output.
The papers today are full of potential sites for the possible 25 reactors mentioned in the report. I think it's a little soon for that but let the speculation begin!
Well, probably not yet but the chances have improved somewhat following the draft release of the Switkowski Report yesterday.
The former boss of Telestra, nuclear brainbox and notable non-plumber was comissioned by the government to determine if there is a place in Australia for nuclear power. The short answer it seems is yes.
The long answer is a bit more complex.
Australia has coal. Lots and lots of it. It's a huge export earner and is used as a plank in providing economic competitiveness. The problem with coal is that it's dirty. Not just soot, but the new worstest sort of pollution - greenhouse gasses.
Dr S has quite clearly pointed out that nuclear power cannot compete in economic terms given the price of coal as it is. Things get more interesting if you consider the cost of the carbon element however and bring nuclear power (and they quite clear to point out) and some renewable energy sources much closer if you factor in the longterm carbon cost implications associated with removal or underground storage.
In no uncertain terms he's said "If you don't intend on cutting CO2 emissions, then forget nuclear. It's not viable." The thing is, even the sceptic-on-the-rebound Mr Howard now says that a reduction in carbon emissions is a must-have.
Labour are pleased as they now have a clear differentiator to the government - important in an election year (nearly). They're trumpetting the "no nuclear power, ever ever ever" mantra believing that renewables and some currently in the prototype phase "clean coal" technology will do the trick. The common figure quoted is that it'll be 15 years before the clean coal process is viable.
There are also some issues with providing energy for baseline requirements and peaking load which it is difficult to meet with many of the renewwable type. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more use of renewable energy sources, I just don't think that enough Australians are prepared to turn of their air-conditioners to remove the need for solid, reliable output.
The papers today are full of potential sites for the possible 25 reactors mentioned in the report. I think it's a little soon for that but let the speculation begin!
