Quotes of the Day

For many Australians, nuclear power brings to mind glowing earth and mutant babies. State and federal laws ban nuclear development, more than 100 municipalities are self-declared "nuclear free zones," and not a kilowatt of the nation's electricity comes from uranium. But in Europe, Asia and North America, millions of people live near nuclear reactors with no more fuss than if they were grain silos. And fueling many of those reactors is Australian uranium.

As familiarity displaces fear overseas, rising demand for electricity and concerns about the environmental costs of getting it from coal and gas are prompting many Australians to rethink their prejudice against nuclear power. Physicist Martin Sevior, who led a recent study of the issue at the University of Melbourne, believes "there is a credible case for nuclear power plants," provided Australia adopts lessons learned elsewhere. According to zoologist Tim Flannery, whose book The Weather Makers calls for urgent action on climate change, if Australia replaced all of its coal-fired plants with nuclear ones, "we would have done something great for the world."

Saying "we need to be open minded and forward looking enough to at least examine" the nuclear question, Prime Minister John Howard last week asked a panel of experts to do just that. But the Labor Party and most environmental groups insist the only right answer on nuclear is no. "No nuclear power in Australia. That's our position," said Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, who wants more effort put into solar, wind and clean-coal technologies. With the debate set to generate a lot more heat before it's over, here's a brief look at the issues that fuel it.

Environment. Nuclear power's image makeover began when James Lovelock—the British scientist whose "Gaia" theory likens the Earth to a living organism—declared nuclear power "the only green solution" to the world's energy needs. The coal-fired power plants that generate 80% of Australia's electricity produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide, which bears much of the blame for global warming. Nuclear plants produce almost no CO2. According to the csiro, replacing three of Australia's 24 coal plants with nuclear ones would cut carbon emissions from power generation by almost 20%.

New technologies will soon make it possible to burn coal—of which Australia has a 300-year supply—with a minimal release of carbon dioxide. Victoria, Queensland and the federal government have pledged almost $A1 billion to develop these technologies, which could make coal-fired plants as greenhouse-friendly as nuclear ones.

Opponents of nuclear power say no power source is as clean as wind, sun and tides, and that these should be the focus of energy planning. Nuclear advocates point out that reactors are compact and don't require damming rivers or defacing rural landscapes. For the same output, they say, a solar panel array or wind farm would need 200-500 times as much land as an average coal or nuclear plant. Also, because wind-farm and solar outputs fluctuate, they must be backed up by coal, hydro or nuclear power.

Safety. The world has 440 nuclear power stations, some of which have been in operation for 50 years. In that time there have been two dozen accidents. The only one that resulted in public deaths or illness was the catastrophe at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986, which caused some 100 deaths and 4,000 cancer cases. Nuclear advocates say that plant would never have met international standards, and that the lessons of past mishaps make today's reactors safer than ever. Visiting Australia last week, Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore told ABC Radio: "Within 10 miles of U.S. nuclear reactors, 80% of the people support the reactor, because they have seen it operating for 10, 20, 30 years without any incident." A recent study by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ansto) found that harm to public health from a nuclear plant would be "negligible."

Waste disposal. Nuclear plants produce radioactive waste, which must be carefully shielded and stored. According to Melbourne University's Sevior, "the amount of waste that comes out of a typical [nuclear] plant is around 30 tonnes a year. The amount of waste that comes out of a coal-fired power plant is around 1,000 tonnes a day." Used fuel rods can be reprocessed into new fuel, reducing the volume of waste that needs to be stored by over 90%; turning the waste into synthetic rock reduces this even further. If it's not reprocessed, this high-level waste stays toxic for 1,000 years or more. Nuclear opponents say storage is a serious problem and that existing facilities are almost full. France, Sweden, Finland and the U.S. have built or are planning long-term storage vaults deep underground; former Prime Minister Bob Hawke has said that Australia, with "the safest geological formations in the world," should consider building similar facilities. Nuclear opponents say no form of storage will ever be truly safe.

Mining and enrichment. Australia has abundant uranium—one-third of the world's known reserves—but Labor policy limits the number of mines to three. Some Labor M.P.s. are urging change. Said Shadow Revenue Minister Joel Fitzgibbon: "It makes no sense to sit on those reserves and deny ourselves valuable income." Rising prices for uranium exploration stocks suggest that the market believes restrictions will end. But uranium can't be used for power generation until it's enriched. Australia has no enrichment facility. Even some opponents of nuclear power say it should build one, since enrichment could add millions of dollars a tonne to the value of uranium exports.

Cost. The two sides differ on how to compare the costs of nuclear and other power. Nuclear plants are hugely expensive to build: an average-sized plant costs about $A2.5 billion. But they need very little fuel—uranium yields up to 1 million times as much energy as the same quantity of coal. The ansto study found that, taking waste management costs into account, nuclear power from an advanced plant "is cheaper than generating it from coal or a [clean coal] station."

Unlike its uranium, Australia's fossil fuel reserves underpin huge domestic industries. Opponents say nuclear power would put thousands of jobs at risk. It's largely for economic reasons that the premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have vowed not to lift their states' nuclear bans. Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce agreed: "I can't see the logic of promoting competition to my state's major export."

Public opinion. Australians remain wary of nuclear power. A Newspoll early this month found that 51% opposed building nuclear power stations and 38% supported it. In the end, it's likely to be popular feeling, rather than hard-nosed argument, that decides whether Australia says nuclear or no.

• Elizabeth Keenan
• As some greens learn to love atomic power, Australia weighs whether to use its abundant uranium at home