Extract from Speech by Prime Minister John Howard
Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre
17 July, 2006
The global nuclear power debate
There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that nuclear power has an important role to play in stabilising atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. This, along with energy security concerns, has led to a revival of interest in nuclear power.
Nuclear energy currently accounts for 16 per cent of global electricity generation. Some 440 commercial reactors operate in more than 30 countries. Upwards of 60 further reactors are either planned or under construction.
Most operating nuclear power plants are in Western Europe and North America, but most new plants under construction are in Asia .
China and India are both undertaking major nuclear energy expansions, while Japan and Korea have also committed to increasing reliance on nuclear energy.
The United States continues to be the world's largest producer and consumer of nuclear energy. In Europe, countries such as the United Kingdom , Sweden and Switzerland are now re-evaluating plans to phase out nuclear power.
At the same time, engineers from a ten-nation consortium are developing the so-called fourth-generation plants designed to be safer, more affordable, more efficient and more proliferation-resistant nuclear energy systems.
A growing number of environmentalists now recognise that nuclear energy has significant environmental advantages. Greenpeace founders James Lovelock and Patrick Moore are among those urging a re-examination of the case for nuclear power.
Nuclear power emits virtually no greenhouse gases. The International Atomic Energy Agency states that the complete nuclear power chain, from uranium mining to waste disposal, and including reactor and facility construction, emits only 2-6 grams of carbon per kilowatt-hour. This is about the same as wind and solar power, and two orders of magnitude below coal, oil and even gas.
Of course, commercial factors remain critical to the future prospects of nuclear power. High oil prices mean that in some cases nuclear energy automatically has become more competitive for base load power generation.
Under certain scenarios, the costs of generating electricity from new nuclear plants are not far above that of new coal plants and, in some circumstances, are even cheaper.
Australia cannot absent itself from global developments surrounding nuclear energy. We are part of the nuclear fuel cycle, whether we like it or not.
With close to 40 per cent of the world's known low-cost uranium deposits, for Australia to bury its head in the sand on nuclear energy is akin to Saudi Arabia turning its back on global oil developments.
Uranium is already Australia 's second largest energy export in terms of energy content and it plays a major role in decreasing the greenhouse intensity of other nations. Japan 's 54 nuclear power stations alone save the equivalent of Australia 's total greenhouse emissions, facilitated by our exports of uranium.
Australian uranium is exported under stringent safeguard arrangements to ensure it is used for exclusively peaceful purposes and is fully accounted for through the nuclear fuel cycle.
The Taskforce I announced last month will conduct a comprehensive, science-based review into uranium mining, processing and the long-term contribution of nuclear energy in Australia . This review will contribute to the public debate on Australia 's future energy needs and the broad range of emerging low emission technologies.
It will test the capacity of this country to maturely examine issues related to our long-term energy future and how this intersects with the need to control greenhouse gas emissions.
I note the fact that Labor figures as former NSW Premier Bob Carr have called in the past for a considered look at nuclear energy. By contrast, the Federal Labor Party's position in this debate is hypocritical, irrational and weak.
It is hypocritical because it says that while Australia will not use uranium, we are very happy to sell it to other countries and let them deal with the consequences.
It is irrational because it falls back on nothing more than simple slogans and gesture politics when confronted with a serious issue. As Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has said, those who would shut down debate on nuclear energy have ?abandoned science in favour of sensationalism'.
And it is weak because it shows Mr Beazley is driven by factions and the next opinion poll, rather than facts and the challenges facing the next generation.
All sources of energy have their advantages and disadvantages. Each has to be considered on its merits. The real question is whether Australia should fully consider our interests and responsibilities in the global nuclear energy debate or whether we succumb to a dogma of denial.
If Australia does not engage, if we sacrifice rational discussion on the altar of anti-nuclear theology and political opportunism, we will pay a price. Maybe not today or tomorrow. But in 10, 15, 20 years time, Australia will assuredly pay a price.