JOHN HOWARD should be positioning Australia to be a world leader in the manufacture and application of renewable energy technologies. He should underpin this by committing Australia to generating 50 per cent of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2015. Nuclear should not be part of the mix. Risk-free and proven technologies like solar, wind, wave and hydroelectric technologies can provide the solutions that Australia needs.
The renewable energy generation path in combination with energy efficiency measures offers the most environmentally sustainable, socially responsible and immediately available solution to greenhouse gas reduction. Nuclear power generation, on the other hand, is extremely costly, inherently risky, controversial and extremely slow to bring on line - ten years minimum. While the latest generation of reactors might be low risk, the possibility of catastrophic failure remains. This compels us to apply the precautionary principle - the risk is too high and the consequences too dire to adopt the technology.
Equally, the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the hazards associated with the movement and disposal of spent uranium presents future generations with unacceptably high risks. Some proponents of nuclear power suggest that these risks are outweighed by the threats that global warming presents. They argue that we have no alternative but to include nuclear power in the energy generation mix. But does the end justify the means in this situation? I don't think so. History is replete with morally bankrupt justifications of this kind. The use of atomic weapons by the US on Japan during the second world war is a case in point.
Advocates of a nuclear future downplay the potential of the safe and viable renewable energy alternatives that are available to us. The reality is that countries around the world are jumping on the renewable energy bandwagon for just this reason. Recently the Portuguese government announced investments in excess of US$10 billion in renewable energy projects over the next five years. Sweden and Austria are leading the way while the unlikely Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of one of the world's largest economies, has committed California to an ambitious renewable energy plan. Meanwhile John Howard fiddles while the globe warms. He prefers to play wedge politics with the nuclear issue, hoping to promote division within the Labor Party on the mining and export of uranium. The strategy is not working.
Howard and his government want Australians to believe that nuclear power stations are the solution to climate change - a problem that he and his ministers played down till very recently. It was only a few months ago, in the wake of Al Gore's hit documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, that Mr Howard described himself as a climate change sceptic. Now he reckons he is a realist. The fact is that climate change has aroused such deep community concern that he had to reposition himself as a believer or risk even greater political marginalisation.
Community concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants, disposal of radioactive waste and nuclear proliferation abound. The government will find it difficult if not impossible to allay these fears. It will also find it very hard to convince Australians that nuclear power makes economic sense. At around twice the price of power generated from dirty coal fired power stations, nuclear power is very expensive. The reality is that it cannot compete with coal in the absence of a carbon tax or subsidies. This would force the cost of coal generated electricity up, making nuclear and other options like solar, wind and geothermal more competitive. To preserve their dominant position the coal industry is frantically trying to put new "clean coal" technologies in place. Clean coal could be part of the fuel mix if it proves to be clean and green. Nuclear on the other hand remains an inherently risky technology.
The advocates of nuclear too easily dismiss the capabilities of alternative technologies arguing that none are capable of delivering the continuous baseload power that we need. This ignores the great advances that have been made in solar thermal energy generation and storage. This technology uses large solar dishes that generate very high temperatures to drive steam driven turbines. Equally, geo-thermal or hot rock technology offers the prospect of a reliable source of baseload power. Over a relatively short time these technologies can displace the use of fossil fuel powered generators, positioning Australia as a world leader in the manufacturing and application of safe and carbon free renewable energy sources. Australia needs to act fast.
The race is on internationally, with China emerging as a potential solar generation technology giant. The problem for Australia is that we are exporting too much of our solar expertise and not enough finished solar product. Take the example of Shi Zhengrong, who was recently featured on the SBS's Insight. He left his position in Australia as a solar technology researcher at the University of New South Wales in the early 1990s to realise his goal of successfully commercialising solar technologies. He now leads the $40 billion dollar a year Suntech solar manufacturing company employing over 2500 people in China. The company is 30 per cent Australian owned. Shi Zhengrong is set to export his goods back to Australia.
Australia is a renewable energy laggard. The Swedish government has committed itself to being oil free by 2020 and has put in place a raft of policy carrots and sticks that put Sweden firmly on the path to a renewable energy future. This does not involve the expansion of its nuclear energy program. Portugal has set ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets that include generating 40 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2010. John Howard appears to be fiddling while the globe warms.
Howard's plummeting credibility is not helped by his championing of nuclear energy as the solution to global warming. The orchestrated tide of community fear that helped carry him to office at the past two elections has turned against him. He and his government have misled Australians too many times. The GST that Howard said would "never ever" be introduced was imposed after he was first elected. There were no children thrown overboard and no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. With no end to the War in Iraq in sight and scandals unfolding on a weekly basis within the Howard government, the Coalition's days look numbered. The fallout from the nuclear debate will only increase the momentum for change. *
John Spoehr is executive director of the Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide. This article first appeared in the Adelaide Review.
