Rio Tinto fires up the Nuclear debate in Oz
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25821928-5006301,00.html
PRIVATELY, the Federal Government is not happy that uranium miner Rio Tinto has launched an attack on its recently stated opposition to nuclear power.
But publicly, Government ministers were polite yesterday in responding to a pro-nuclear submission made by Rio Tinto over a white paper on government energy policy.
Treasurer Wayne Swan moved quickly to ground debate, declaring yesterday: “We don’t agree with Rio Tinto on that point.”
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was equally dismissive, but civil: “Rio Tinto is entitled to their view.”
After lobbing the hand grenade which has reignited the nuclear debate, the uranium mining giant ran for cover yesterday.
But attention has now been drawn to dozens of submissions made to the Federal Government white paper on energy policy which have again blown the nuclear debate wide open.
Lining up to advocate for at least a debate on the topic as Australia faces potentially crippling electricity costs associated with carbon reduction, are organisations such as Business SA.
“While it is expected that South Australia will remain substantially reliant on fossil fuel supplies (for electricity) for the foreseeable future, the state is well endowed with sources of nuclear and renewable energy,” its submission, prepared by research officer Burcu Subasi, states “It is important that the opportunity for the development of reliable and competitively priced supplies of energy from other sources, including renewables and nuclear, is available.”
Rio Tinto’s submission advocates the nuclear option in parts of Australia that do not have easy access to alternatives such as wind or solar energy.
“In these circumstances nuclear energy may provide the optimum clean, reliable and affordable energy option,” it states.
When responding to the inquiry, the Minerals Council of Australia was an obvious supporter of the nuclear option.
“The development of nuclear energy will also contribute to Australia’s long-tern energy security as Australia has substantial resources of uranium – approximately 40 per cent of the global supply,” its submission states.
One of those embracing the renewed debate yesterday was the head of the Government’s own nuclear arm, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s Dr Ziggy Switkowski.
As the operator of the Government’s nuclear reactor in Sydney, he took to the airwaves to directly contradict government policy.
He said for countries such as Australia, which sought to make large reductions to carbon emissions, nuclear power was “inevitable”.
‘While backing investment in other alternative energy generation such as wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave-based technology, he also was scathing about their ability to provide cost-effective power for large-scale industry.
“I am concerned that what we are trying to do is replace industrial-strength energy infrastructure in Australia, which has been the source of competitive business advantage, with something that looks like a cottage industry of windmills and solar hot-water services,” he said
Interest in the nuclear option peaked under the Howard Government when Dr Switkowski found Australia could develop 25 plants within 50 years after he chaired an inquiry into the prospect of a nuclear industry in Australia and was appointed to head ANSTO.
“The trend to nuclear power is not being driven by the mining companies, it is being driven by populations around the world looking for clean alternatives to fossil fuel and happily embracing nuclear power,” Dr Switkowski said.
However, lifelong opponents such as Greens Senator Bob Brown remain unmoved by Rio Tinto’s submission, highlighting perhaps the single biggest barrier to the option faced in Australia – public opinion.
“Australians hate the idea of nuclear power stations,” he told reporters in Hobart. “Coal and nuclear are both last century. This is a century of renewables.”
Uranium-mining champion Premier Mike Rann is almost as adamant.
“Neither National ALP policy, nor the State Government would embrace Rio’s reported position,” he says.
“I’ve spent a great deal of time with resources and energy industries, including uranium mining companies. No one has ever proposed nuclear power for SA. We do not have the population to sustain that level of baseload power.
“In any case, it would massively force up the price of electricity in South Australia.”
The nuclear lobby has been encouraged by the expansion of Australia’s uranium industry – particularly the breakdown of the Labor Party’s former three-mine limit, which has now been extended to five mines, including this month’s approval of the Four Mile uranium mine, near the existing Beverley mine in South Australia.
The G8 economic group, advocating this month that a global temperature rise should not exceed two degrees, also embraced a nuclear solution to the problem of carbon-producing electricity generation.
———-
“I am concerned that what we are trying to do is replace industrial-strength energy infrastructure in Australia, which has been the source of competitive business advantage, with something that looks like a cottage industry of windmills and solar hot-water services,”
aint that the truth?..nuclear energy is the only viable way to go forward..thats my opinion and i may get heat for it but i firmly believe in it..of course al gore doesnt like it..his hedge fund isnt into uranium so why push that? LOL
china and india have to embrace this..they havent got the time to use anything else for their burgeoning economies..G8 agrees with me..thats a first! 
401
