Back in the January 2006 issue, we advocated that Australia should build nuclear power stations and now surprise, surprise, Prime Minister John Howard has launched a national debate on the subject. Good. But already a number of prominent people have started making hysterical statements and you wonder whether the ensuing debate is likely to be logical and carefully considered.

It is not enough to consider nuclear power in isolation. We should also be reviewing all existing methods of power generation: coal, gas-fired, bargasse, wind, hydro, solar and so on. For example, if we want more wind power, the existing base load power stations must be able to cope with the vagaries of this form of generation. In addition, coal-fired stations and carbon dioxide sequestration should be considered. The cost and complexity of this system, if it even works, must be carefully considered in making future power decisions.

As well, Australia’s needs for desalination and water resources in general should also be part of the picture. Australians are woefully ignorant of how much energy is required to bring water to them and then to take it away in the form of sewage. The New South Wales government’s recent decision to cancel the Kurnell desalination plant and to concentrate in future on water recycling just shows the extent of the problem; water recycling for sewage is almost as energy intensive as desalination! In fact, some years ago we editorialised that when Australians drink water, they are effectively eating coal!

Another prime example of general ignorance about water and electricity resources was the decision by the States and Federal government to sell the Snowy Hydro scheme, now fortunately cancelled. I would not have minded so much if the Snowy had been sold, if the price had not been so incredibly cheap, compared with its cost of replacement!

We need to consider the total costs of every form of power generation, from the initial method of extraction and transport (for coal, gas, uranium or whatever), the cost of power generation itself and the eventual cost of plant decommissioning, restoration of open-cut mines, carbon trading and so on. Ultimately, the decision should come down to cold hard economics.

In the final result, I suspect that the best and cheapest course will be for Australia to use its vast natural gas resources for all future base load power stations. Gas is clean burning, does not spew radioactive particles into the atmosphere as happens with burning coal and is potentially more efficient than coal-fired stations. It also costs less to transport and there is no gaping open-cut mine to restore at the end of it all. Rather than exporting all our natural gas overseas, we should be using some of it here to meet our energy needs, for both electricity and transport.

Leo Simpson