Nuclear Solution to Climate Change a Conservative Dream?

You can't beat conservative commentators regarding greenhouse gas climate change. They're either debunking the whole thing as a myth, or pushing nuclear power as a solution to the non-existent problem.

There's no denying that the left has vigorously opposed nuclear power, at the same time drawing attention to climate change. It must be satisfying for conservatives to promote the left's nemesis as a solution to the left's climatic concerns.

So is nuclear power the solution to climate change? Not according to some.

AUSTRALIA could not develop a domestic nuclear power industry in time to stave off the effects of climate change and such a program would be prohibitively expensive, energy experts say.

The cost of building the large number of nuclear power stations needed to even partly replace coal as a source of electricity would be so heavy no private investor would take on the risk without huge government subsidies, they said.

Scientists have warned the world needs to make large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions now to avoid further big changes to weather patterns.

But coal-fired power plants could not be replaced fast enough with nuclear plants to make any real difference, said the research principal at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, Chris Riedy.

A 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant would generate between 2 and 3 per cent of Australia's current electricity consumption, said Dr Iain McGill, research co-ordinator for the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets at the University of NSW.

"Coal generation is about 85 to 90 per cent of national electricity market generation, so it might require around 30 to 40 such plants to replace coal-fired generation," he said. "Such a program would almost certainly take numerous decades."

Dr Mark Diesendorf, a senior lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW, said a 1000-megawatt nuclear plant would cost at least $3 billion to build - 2½ times that of a coal-fired power plant - and much more to operate than fossil fuel plants. To build a lot of nuclear plants, say, over 20 years, would emit so much greenhouse gas it would take 40 years to break even in terms of CO 2, he said.

Nuclear power is appealing to conservative elements because they see it as a way of constantly expanding the power supply without the climate change downside, while conveniently ignoring the cost and the problems of waste disposal and nuclear weapons proliferation. No need for wishy washy lefty sentiments like promoting alternative energy sources and increasing efficiency to make do with less.

Unfortunately for our conservative friends, there isn't a convenient 'drop in' solution to replace coal fired power stations. The transition to non polluting power will require a multi-stranded approach that utilises new technologies. Weaning ourselves off coal derived electricity will be expensive, but the money would be better spent on research, development and implementation of alternatives that can be on-sold in the future, rather than paying someone else to (perhaps) solve the problem for us.

Australia has an appalling record of backing wrong technologies and allowing promising research to be exploited by others. Climate change is an economic opportunity. Hopefully, we'll have the courage to exploit it.