The situation at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors seems to be improving, but the long-term fallout remains unclear. The Punch spoke to Associate Professor Haydon Manning - head of politics and public policy at Flinders University and a man with a particular interest in nuclear power - and asked him what it means for the political future of nuclear.
What’s the history of nuclear fear in Australia?
In the Australian community we’ve never had to confront the stark reality - like the French, the Japanese and South Korea have - of real energy shortage. Given our abundance of coal and gas we’ve never had to focus on any of the positive arguments for nuclear power as the answer to a problem or energy security.
Rather, we associated nuclear power with weapons. This is certainly true of someone like me, who as a student marched on the streets in opposition to Olympic Dam in the late 70s. Then in 1979 we had the ‘icing on the anti nuclear cake’ when Three Mile Island had its minor meltdown.
In general, Australians - compared for example to the French or Japanese - have a sense of risk with everything associated with matters nuclear – from weapons through to reactors. Even today people associate the peaceful generation of nuclear power as being not too far removed from being able to build a bomb. That is not the case - but the perceived reality is that nuclear power plants are somehow en route to building a bomb.
As for Chernobyl, we all know now objectively that it was a nuclear power plant with no analogy to contemporary reactors operating in Japan, France, and South Korea but the events last week muddy the waters, making all nuclear power seem not worth the risk.
How does the threat of terrorism further compound the fear?
After September 11, while teaching students about the nuclear power debate and the politics of energy options towards a carbon-free world, it’s often raised that terrorists might penetrate reactor security or somehow fly a plane into one causing a meltdown with its subsequent belching of highly radioactive material.
Both of those scenarios can be dismissed as highly implausible, but still need to be considered in a risk/benefit analysis.
You can’t dispute the fact that there’s risk associated with any large infrastructure. Nuclear power in Fukushima is a large piece of infrastructure supplying a needed resource - a clean and carbon-free form of energy. But nevertheless there is risk.
In relation to nuclear power the decision to accept risk depends foremost on a nation’s basic energy requirements and the options it might have. But also the risk assessment depends on the government, and at an individual level, on assessment of how risky our human contribution to climate change might be.
Does the world need nuclear?
In Australia it’s hardly surprising, with plenty of coal and plenty of gas, we’re most risk averse when it comes to nuclear power. We might be different if we were in the position of the French.
Once the dust settles here nuclear power, and particularly the more advanced designs of Gen III and Gen IV nuclear reactors, will still be entertained by governments because the choices they confront are often very constrained.at. Renewables don’t have the 24/7 ability to deliver base load electricity. They can contribute, but they’re not able to give energy security.
One of the most fundamental questions that comes up is whether we could change society’s ways. You could make a case that the wealthy industrialised world arguably shouldn’t be such a high consuming society.
But Heaven help the party that tries to move us away from ever more consumption and strong year in, year out, economic growth.
Then, when you turn to countries like China and India… it’s inconceivable that the Chinese Government would wake up and say: “We’ve got it all wrong, let’s go back to a peasant lifestyle”.
So where is clean electricity going to come from? You can’t power the future of cities like Beijing or Mumbai on a grid of solar, wind, or geothermal power – it’s inconceivable.
That’s a stark reality that in my instance made me reconsider my earlier opposition to Australian uranium exports.
Does Australia need nuclear?
I’m not a renewable energy expert. But what is evident to me is they’re a long way from being able to deliver that chunky base load our society demands. At best what we can see is a number of renewables supplying power to mines like Olympic Dam or say in the Pilbara in Western Australia.
I really only think the nuclear power debate will be raised again (and it certainly won’t in the short or medium term in light of Fukushima) because of the price of carbon.
Over the next decade or so the price of electricity will increasing a topic of political debate as both a hip pocket nerve issue and as a wider question of limiting carbon emissions. The population will have expanded, the economy will have grown, so we’ll need more power. I expect the hopes for renewable will soon flounder – yes, they will have a role to play – but they will not fill the void of rising costs and the question ‘where is reliable supply to come from?’.
In that context you’d think there could well come a time – I would like it to be sooner rather than later – when Government looks at nuclear power alongside other options.
Will politicians be too afraid to touch on the topic?
It’s certainly off the Labor agenda and the pragmatic Tony Abbott won’t, I suspect, be offering much in support for nuclear power in the future. John Howard was moving towards opening up the debate but during the 2007 campaign Labor’s Anthony Albanese tried to beat up a scare campaign that Howard was going to build a power plant in the suburbs of Sydney. Abbott is sure to remember that so it is clear that the raw electoral politics has killed off any prospect of a balanced consideration of how nuclear power might stack up against other options.
I suspect that debate will now shift in favour of the latest less carbon-emitting gas turbines, the so-called ‘Gas Combined Cycle’ systems and, of course renewable energy, especially geo-thermal ‘hot rocks’ in South Australia. While I believe in renewable energy - and hold a small swag of shares in a couple of hopefuls - I don’t think, in the end, that over the next couple of decades that they will deliver the Nirvana often predicted.
They will struggle - for a host of reasons - to supply 24/7 energy security. Looking ahead to the middle part of this decade the predictions from energy experts suggest that we are looking at some serious blackouts during the height of summer. Nothing angers voters more than not being able to have a cool house or a cool office.
So electricity supply, at a ‘reasonable price’ will become a much sharper political issue than it already is, and sooner rather than later. Gas and renewable energy options will play a role; it is a pity that nuclear is now off the agenda, just when it was about to make a breakthrough.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project
I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…
Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics
When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…
Please enter your password
Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented