Ian Lowe, emeritus professor of science at Griffith University and president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, spoke to Green Left Weekly's Dave Riley about the nuclear debate.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANTSO) has recently released a report advocating nuclear energy production for Australia. But it is costed with complete disdain for any alternative option to nuclear power.
I don't know of any objective study in Australia that has ever concluded that nuclear power comes within a bull's roar of being economic. ANTSO is arguing that a new generation of nuclear reactors will be cheaper and safer and more efficient than any that have yet been built. The nuclear industry has been saying that for 40 years. But so far nuclear power hasn't proved to be cost effective, even in crude economic terms, and even if you aren't concerned about the environmental and security issues.
Interestingly, ANTSO revealed that nuclear energy wasn't possible without government investment and subsidies.
That's right. The nuclear power program is predicated on the assumption that there will be massive government subsidies. The only part of the nuclear industry that has ever been profitable in this part of the world has been the mining and selling of uranium. Alan Roberts, now retired from the Monash University physics department, pointed out 20 years ago that uranium enrichment is subsidised by the public everywhere and, as he put it, "wherever uranium is enriched the taxpayers are impoverished".
The irony about this is that it is a backhanded way of recognising that global warming does exist.
At the National Press Club last year I said I welcomed the debate about nuclear power because it was at least a recognition that climate change was a serious problem. It remains true, as we used to say in the 1970s, "if nuclear is the answer it must have been a pretty silly question". There is no doubt that efficiency improvements are by far the most cost effective way of reducing climate change. And if you are looking at supply technology, there is a range of renewable options that are more attractive economically than nuclear power [and don't have] its security and environmental problems.
You also point out that this is a false argument because it's pitched as nuclear versus coal when it should be nuclear versus sustainable forms of energy creation.
That's right, because what we are talking about is what form of energy will supply the new generating equipment that will be built in the next 25 years. That's really an issue of whether you supplement what we have now and phase out power stations as they go with nuclear or alternative energy resources. It's not just that wind and a good site is now more economically attractive than nuclear is ever likely to be. A new CSIRO report says new solar thermal technology is economically competitive with coal. There's really no reason at all to be exploring the nuclear option.
What do you think of John Howard's special investigation team headed by Ziggy Switkowski — ex-Telstra boss — with a few others?
It is about as independent as an Alabama sheriff. At the time of his appointment, Switkowski was on the board of ANTSO and part of the group that commissioned that shonky report claiming that nuclear was cost-effective for Australia. Even though he has now stepped aside from his ANSTO position, he hasn't stood aside from his pro-nuclear position. The group looks like it has been set up to provide a positive report to justify further involvement of the government in the nuclear industry.
There are three aspects to this debate: one is the question of uranium mining, another is the question of uranium used in energy production and the third is the storage of uranium in "fantastically safe" sites across the country.
There are three reasons for bringing the issue up now. One is that it distracts attention from the government's other problems and palpable deficiencies. The second is that it very effectively wedges the Labor Party, which is divided on the issues of uranium mining and export. The third is that it poses the spectre of an Australian nuclear power industry. When the inquiry concludes that this would only happen if there were massive government subsidies, people will be so relieved that we aren't having nuclear power stations that they will be more accepting of an expansion of uranium exports, and possibly more accepting of the argument that we should put public money into enriching uranium on the grounds that this produces a value-added product. Then, of course, the government will run the argument, as they have sotto voce for a few years, that as a massive uranium exporter we have a moral responsibility to accept the waste back.
This is a win-win situation for John Howard.
I'm sure he sees it that way. But it could come back to bite him because it is so obviously a shonky inquiry. It looks like he is playing grubby politics with something that should be a serious issue: namely, how the world's worst greenhouse polluter per person moves to a more responsible energy policy that provides clean, safe and affordable energy.
The movement against uranium mining was the campaign linking the anti-war activism of the 1960s and '70s and the nuclear disarmament movement of the '80s. Do you think that sentiment against uranium mining can lead to a strong campaign against nuclear energy production?
The fear of nuclear power stations might well lead to concerted opposition to uranium mining and its export. If we are opposed to nuclear power because of the weapons and waste problems, then we should be just as opposed to it in China or India or Taiwan or the United States of America or the United Kingdom as we are here.
At the moment we are being a bit dishonest; we're maintaining the position that we don't have nuclear power, therefore we aren't contributing to weapons and waste. But we are flogging uranium for all it's worth — 13,000 tonnes per year — every gram of which ends up as radioactive waste. We cannot guarantee that it won't be used for weapons' production. So whether we like it or not, we are involved in making the world a dirtier and more dangerous place. The nuclear power debate may focus people's attention on this moral double standard.
That also puts the Labor Party under a lot of pressure.
There are certainly some within the Labor Party, like Martin Ferguson, who have been saying we should expand mining and should look favourably at enriching uranium. The Murdoch press has, with characteristic dishonesty, been portraying this as a test of the economic credentials of the Labor Party. In other words the Labor Party will only, in the view of Rupert Murdoch, be worthy of being elected if it advocates policies indistinguishable from the Liberals by being in favour of an open-slather approach to uranium mining, uranium export and possibly enrichment.
The attempted sale of the Snowy scheme suggests that business wants the capitalisation carried by the government and the profiteering open to be grabbed by corporations. The nuclear proposal is based on the same pitch, isn't it?
This is the standard approach of so-called public-private partnerships; the private sector want to go to the casino with public money and keep the winnings if they get lucky and have the government pick up the tab if they are not. It is fundamentally dishonest and should be seen for what it is — putting the private sector's hand into the public wallet and allowing it to rifle around and take what it wants.
How do you assess the practicality of alternative power options? What would it take for wind or solar to become a viable proportion of energy generation in this country?
It would only take some of the commitment in resources and political support that we've given nuclear power and coal over the years. We've been funding nuclear science and technology at Lucas Height at the rate of between $50 million and $100 million a year for 50 years. The Howard government, and now the Queensland and Victorian governments, are putting in about $1 billion into research and development of so called "clean coal" technology.
We're probably spending $10 million of public money [on] all forms of renewable energy put together. We can improve our efficiencies and produce extra energy from a range of alternative sources — hot dry rock, geothermal, solar, wind and biomass. That would produce a lot more jobs in regional Australia and more economic benefits than the path we are going down now.
From Green Left Weekly, June 21 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.