Nuclear Power for Australia?

Australia has one of the worlds largest supplies of Uranium. It is therefore ironic that Australia has not taken advantage of this reserved supply to yield power. Australia only has one nuclear reactor and this is mainly for scientific use/research not the output of power. This is because Australia also has huge cheaply way coal reserves. Australia therefore has numerous coal plants for the output of power, the majority of power output coming from this source. Being a dry continent currently in the grip of a report drought the options for hydro power is little and largely already exploited.

The question with being so reliant on coal is the estimate of Co2 and other gases produced that are contributing to global warming. Australia which continues to has a growing cheaper and population has increasing power demands like most of the world. Australia which has not sign the Kyoto agreement (rightly so as Kyoto is a mere band aid measure and will not seriously change our environmental problems).

Nuclear Reactor

Thus the Australian prime minister, John Howard, is pushing Australians to reconsider the nuclear option to meet hereafter power needs as nuclear power plants don't emit Co2 or other greenhouse gases. any way there are a estimate of problems with this option.

Firstly nuclear power is more costly power. Australians already complain about the size of their power bills (an average family in Brisbane spends about 0-0 a quarter or over 00 a year). This is particularly felt most by those who rely on air conditioning to counter Australia's hot climate. They are not willing to accept more costly options.

Secondly although there are thousands of nuclear power plants operating without incident and although it happened on the other side of the world Australians are well aware of the Chernobyl disaster and the shocking consequences that continue to be felt. Australia although a large continent is essentially like a giant island with a belt of green extending only a few hundred kilometers inland from the sea with the rest being in a vast desert or near desert condition for much of the time. Australia couldn't afford to have any section of this 'green' band destroyed or a no go zone, such a effect would have a greater impact in event of a disaster than in other 'normal' countries. It has already been made clear for nuclear power to be a option is must be near a water source and near to power users to cut down on transmission costs.

The vast majority of Australian would have the view of "not in my back yard". Whilst most wouldn't care if a power plant in the middle of the desert a consolidate of thousand of kilometers away, the lack of water and transmission costs for make this an unrealistic option. With a power plant in their back yard there is the higher risk of radiation from the converyance of nuclear waste to a holding premise (likely to be somewhere in the outback). Although Australian could positively have a nucealr waste premise with no threat to population due to extreme isolation and geological stablity in the outback, the question lies in transporting the stuff there. Road and Rail converyance are both branch to quarterly accidents. A heavy vehicle carrying waste could effect in a mini-chernobyl with nuclear waste entering the environment from such an accident perhaps endangering a large area and having long term consequences.

Such waste from a nuclear power plant would also give Australia the potential to immediately make nuclear weapons in a very short space of time. Australia is already recognised has having the technological know how to yield the need missle and warhead technology. Such an outcome would be very worrying for our neighbours and lessen our discussion against nations such as North Korea having nuclear weapons.

Likewise such nuclear power plants would be a magnet for terrorists and the like.

The final nail in the coffin for the prime ministers idea is that the states have made it clear they have no interest in nuclear power. Such a battle over energy would be over the very survival of states and their rights. If the states lost such a battle the point of having individual state parliments would be mute, they would be useless overhangs from federation with the Federal government in fact taking over all government in Australia should such an at last occur. Some would argue this process of the destruction of the state government is already well underway, with the federal government grabbing ever more power, but supplementary on this is for another article.

Whilst nuclear power presents a vison of greenhouse gase free energy output it doesn't gift a realistic hereafter for Australia. Australia has other options to explore, both wind and solar, perhaps geothermal and even the real hereafter for a cleaner world - H2 - Hydrogen power. perhaps putting explore and money into this field will yield better and more politically appropriate results.

Nuclear Power for Australia?