2011/06: Should Australia develop nuclear energy as a major power source?

What they said...
'We are a country with abundant solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, you name it, we have got renewable sources of energy; so we don't think nuclear energy is right for this country'
Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia

'I remain convinced that in our future we will see nuclear power'
Ziggy Switkowski, the immediate past chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation

The issue at a glance
A number of events occurred in early 2011 to give added impetus to the debate in Australia around whether nuclear power is a viable answer to this country's power production problems.
The need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions and thus our reliance on coal and gas power generation is increasingly acknowledged in this country. ;The sense of urgency has intensified with the possibility of a carbon tax being levied on Australian businesses and passed on to Australian consumers.
However, the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in eastern Japan reminded the world of the vulnerability of nuclear power stations to such seismic disasters. ;At the time of writing the Fukushima nuclear power plants have still to be rendered safe.

Background
Nuclear power generation in Australia has been much debated. Australia currently has no nuclear facilities generating electricity; however, Australia has about a quarter of the world's uranium deposits and is the world's second largest producer of uranium after Canada. At the same time, Australia's extensive, low-cost coal and natural gas reserves have historically been used as strong arguments for avoiding nuclear power.
In 2005, the Australian government threatened to use its constitutional powers to take control of the approval process for new uranium mines from the anti-nuclear Northern Territory government. The federal government is also negotiating with China to weaken safeguard terms to allow uranium exports there. States controlled by the Australian Labor Party are blocking the development of new mines in their jurisdictions under the ALP's 'No New Mines policy'.
As uranium prices began rising from about 2003, proponents of nuclear power advocated it as a solution to global warming and the Australian government began taking an interest.
In late 2006 and early 2007, then Prime Minister John Howard made widely reported statements in favour of nuclear power, on environmental grounds. Faced with these proposals to examine nuclear power as a possible response to climate change, anti-nuclear campaigners and scientists in Australia emphasised claims that nuclear power could not significantly substitute for other power sources, and that uranium mining itself could become a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2006, the Howard Government commissioned the Switkowski report, an investigation into the merits of Nuclear power in Australia. The report concluded that nuclear power would be competitive with coal power plants if Carbon credit sanctions were implemented upon Australia. The Industry would have been able to produce its first plant in 10 years and could have delivered 25 plants by 2050 supplying Australia with a third of its base load power.
An independent panel of Australian scientists and nuclear experts have been critical of the findings of the Switkowski nuclear inquiry. They found that the Switkowski report relies on some flawed assumptions which reveal a bias towards nuclear power on economic, technological, health and environmental grounds.
Queensland introduced legislation to ban nuclear power development on 20 February 2007. Tasmania has also banned nuclear power development. Both laws were enacted in response to the pro-nuclear position of John Howard, and the release of the Switkowski report.
The John Howard-led Coalition government went to the November 2007 federal election with a pro-nuclear power platform. This government was defeated by the Labor Party, however, which opposes nuclear power for Australia.
Anti-nuclear campaigns were given added impetus by public concern about the sites for possible reactors: fears exploited by anti-nuclear power political parties in the lead-up to a national election in 2007.
The Rudd Labor government was elected in November 2007 and it was opposed to nuclear power for Australia as is the more recently elected Gillard Labor government.
The anti-nuclear movement continues to be active in Australia, opposing expansion of existing uranium mines, lobbying against the development of nuclear power in Australia, and criticising proposals for nuclear waste disposal sites.
At the same time, a number of Australian politicians feel that the development of nuclear power is in the country's best interests. On June 13, 2008, the annual New South Wales state conference of the National Party passed the resolution, proposed by the delegates from Dubbo, supporting research into the development of a nuclear power industry and the establishment of an international nuclear waste storage facility in Australia. The resolution was opposed by the delegates from NSW's north coast and by the party's state leader, Andrew Stoner.
The prospect of a carbon tax in Australia has given additional impetus to the nuclear power debate as its supporters argue it offers a viable means of reducing the carbon cost of power generation in this country. ;However, the Japanese nuclear disaster following the March 11, 2011, Great Eastern Japan Earthquake and tsunami has reinvigorated concerns in Australia and around the world about the safety of nuclear power production.

Internet information
On March 18, 2011, ABC News published an overview titled 'A nuclear Australia?' which looks at the likelihood of nuclear power production in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. ;The full text of this article can be accessed at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167990.htm

On March 23, 2011, Adelaide Now published a set of arguments presenting the case for and against the use of nuclear power in South Australia. ;Many of the arguments have relevance for all of Australia. ;The material can be accessed at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/the-drum-on-nuclear-energy/story-e6frea83-1226026388962

ABC Science Ask an Expert section has a page devoted to nuclear power which seeks to answer many of the questions commonly asked about nuclear power.
This information can be accessed at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/10/27/2242889.htm

An information source, brought out by the European Greens, and regularly updated, presents arguments as to why nuclear power is not the solution for reducing climate change. ;The site presents the disadvantages of nuclear power and looks at the progress being made toward the viable use of renewables.
The site can be accessed at http://www.stopclimatechange.net/index.php?id=22

Nuclearinfo.net 'Everything you want to know about nuclear power' is a website developed by a group of physicists from the University of Melbourne. ;Its aim is to provide 'authoritative information about nuclear power'. Though it claims impartiality, it does appear to have a pro nuclear power bias. ;That said, it is a very useful site, as it presents clear, well-organised, sourced and regularly updated information.
It can be accessed at http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower

Beyond Nuclear is an American Internet site which aims 'to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic.'
Again, despite its clear bias, it is a detailed and valuable site presenting an enormous amount of information about the dangers of nuclear energy gathered from all over the world and regularly updated.
The site can be accessed at http://www.beyondnuclear.org/

World Nuclear Association is the international organisation that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry.
Its information site is wide-ranging and very user friendly, including many diagrams and cartoons. ;The reader needs to remain aware, however, that the purpose of the site is to promote the acceptance and wider use of nuclear power.
The site can be found at http://www.world-nuclear.org/about.html

Friends of the Earth Australia describes itself as 'a federation of independent local groups working for a socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future.' ;
The group is actively anti nuclear power development. ;Its information and arguments in opposition to nuclear power can be found at http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear

On March 9, 2010, The Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece by Senator Scott Ludlam, a Western Australian Greens senator. ;The piece is titled, 'Nuclear does not have the answers we need' and it outlines the persistent problems associated with nuclear power which, according to its author, make it unsuitable as a source of non-carbon dioxide providing energy.
The full text of this argument can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-does-not-have-the-answers-we-need-20100309-puao.html

On July 27, 2010, the ABC published an opinion piece by Barry Brook titled 'Nuclear Power - Yes Please!' which outlines its author's reasons for believing that nuclear power is an appropriate way for Australia to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. ;The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/07/27/2965336.htm

In March 2007 ABC Radio broadcast an address from Ziggy Switkowski, the then chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation outlining his views in support of the development of a nuclear power industry in Australia.
Both the transcript and a podcast of Dr Switkowski's address can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/science/programs/nuclearpower/

On November 24, 2006, a group of prominent Australian scientists issued their collective concerns regarding some of the claims and conclusions made within the Switkowski Report. ;A news report outlining their concerns was published in The Age on December 12, 2006. ;It can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/experts-explode-ziggys-nuclear-power-theory/2006/12/11/1165685616752.html

Arguments in favour of Australia developing a nuclear power industry
1. Australia has plentiful supplies of uranium
Supporters of Australia using nuclear reactors to supply all or much of the country's energy needs often point to Australia's abundant supplies of uranium which could be used to fuel these power plants.
Josh Frydenberg, the federal member for Kooyong, Victoria, has stated, 'As a leading source of uranium, Australia has a competitive advantage...Australia is home to 38 per cent of the world's known recoverable reserves of uranium, and we export uranium to more than 10 countries.'
Australia's total uranium production in the calendar year 2004 was 10,591 te U3O8 made up of 5,137 te from Ranger, 4,370 te from Olympic Dam and 1,084 te from Beverley, the in-situ uranium mine in SA. This total represented about 20% of the world's production from uranium mines in that year.
The largest single uranium deposit in the world is at Olympic Dam, now owned by BHP-Billiton after the recent $9.2B takeover of Western Mining Resources. Before the takeover, the previous owner had indicated that the mine would be expanded to double the production of copper, uranium and gold, and it is likely that this project will proceed under the new owners.

2. Australian nuclear reactors can be built in geologically stable areas
Though Australia is not uniformly geologically stable, by international standards there are areas in the Australian continent that would provide relatively safe locations for the placement of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste storage facilities.
Radioactive waste is stored in underground repositories in geologically stable locations that are remote from the population. Much of the Australian continent satisfies these criteria. Repositories occupy the space of less than half a swimming pool. By contrast, there are millions of tonnes of heavy metal waste produced by fossil fuels, which last forever.
To the extent that past earthquake activity provides a guide to future tectonic activity, Australia appears to provide a relatively stable environment for long-term waste facilities, though there are certainly areas of the world that are apparently more stable.
However, earthquake risk is just one of the 'geologic' factors relevant to evaluating long-term integrity of waste storage facilities, and other factors such as the groundwater conditions, need to be evaluated in any comprehensive assessment of risk.
Supporters of the use of nuclear reactors to meet Australia's power needs argue that all relevant safety considerations would be taken into account before the decision were taken to place a plant or a storage facility in a particular area.
With regard to nuclear disasters that have occurred in some other parts of the world, especially the recent disaster in Japan, Australia's relative geological stability has been seen as an advantage. ;Dr Ziggy Switkowski, a nuclear physicist, has said, 'We are not geologically active, we aren't in the path of typhoons and hurricanes and tsunamis.'

3. Nuclear energy is largely non-carbon-producing
Nuclear power would enable Australia to supply much of its energy needs via a power source that does not produce significant carbon dioxide and so does not contribute to global warming.
Professor Ross Garnaut's final report - released at the end of September 2008 - concedes that nuclear power could supply more than one-quarter of Australia's electricity needs by 2020 if a proposed policy based on 'clean coal' and 'renewables' fails.
Recent data from the US Department of Energy highlights the huge advantages of uranium. The carbon production from coal-fired plants in the US was cited as 0.86 tonnes for one megawatt-hour of electricity production. The figure for gas-fired plants was 0.36 tonnes while that for nuclear plants was 0.005 tonnes.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations framework convention on climate change has said, 'I have never seen a credible scenario for reducing [carbon dioxide] emissions that did not include nuclear energy.'
In 31 countries, 441 nuclear reactors supply energy without causing air pollution and with minimal carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions.
Professor Barry Brook, director of climate science at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, has stated, 'Nuclear energy produces no carbon dioxide emissions when operating. Indeed, if all the world's nuclear power stations were replaced by brown-coal power, an additional 3.5 billion tonnes of CO2 would enter the atmosphere each year.'
New carbon emission targets require the federal government to spend six billion dollars on new technology that uses alternative power sources by 2020. Dr John Burgess, author of the 2009 Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering's report on alternative energy in Australia, believes that the key to cutting the carbon emissions in time is nuclear energy.

4. Nuclear technology is a readily accessible means of supplying energy
The technology needed to supply energy via nuclear reactors is well-developed and readily available. ;This means that in a relatively short time Australia could be in a position where nuclear energy supplied a substantial component of our power needs.
Josh Frydenberg, the federal member for Kooyong, Victoria, has stated, 'Developments in reactor technology are...occurring so fast that the construction phase is likely to shrink from 60 to 30 months in coming years...
[Further]Australian companies like Worley Parsons are involved in the construction of new reactors as in Egypt, where they are gaining an international reputation for their project management expertise.'
Ziggy Switkowski, the immediate past president of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, believes Australia can have its first reactor operating by 2020 and 50 in place by 2050, providing 90 per cent of the nation's energy needs.
It has further been argued that nuclear power represents a far cheaper and more reliable source of non-carbon-producing power than either solar or wind power.
Professor Barry Brook, director of climate science at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, has stated, 'Nuclear energy also has the great advantages of cheap, abundant fuel and incredibly reliable operation. It is not dependent on the fickleness of natural energy flows (such as wind and solar) and so does not require expensive energy storage.'

5. ;Nuclear reactors are a relatively safe means of power production
Today's reactors are also significantly safer than their predecessors. The explosions at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were decades ago and since then there have been thousands of reactor hours without incident.
Prior to Fukushima, the situation to date is that in over 14,000 reactor-years of civil operation there have been only two accidents to commercial nuclear power plants which were not substantially contained within the design and structure of the reactor. ;To this experience one could add another 13,000 reactor-years of naval operation, which in the West has had an excellent safety record. ;
Only the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from exposure to natural sources. ;Other incidents (and two "accidents") have been largely or completely confined to the plant. ;The Chernobyl tragedy made it clear why such Soviet-era reactors have never been licensed in other parts of the world. ;Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. ;
Ziggy Switkowski, the immediate past president of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has claimed that criticisms of the safety of nuclear power in response to the Fukushima nuclear incident are an over-reaction which ignores the atypical nature of this disaster and how much safer nuclear power is in comparison to other forms of power generation. ;Mr Switkowski has stated, 'In Australia, opponents of nuclear power already point to the situation in Japan as evidence of the dangers of nuclear reactors. They conveniently sidestep the loss of life and damage caused by exploding oil tanks, burst gas mains, electrical fires: hazards that come with living in a tectonically active region.'

6. ;Nuclear waste problems are being overcome
The nuclear industry takes responsibility for the management of its radioactive waste products. ;Three general principles are employed in the management of radioactive wastes: concentrate-and-contain; dilute-and-disperse; and delay-and-decay.
The first two are also used in the management of non-radioactive wastes. The waste is concentrated and then isolated, or it is diluted to acceptable levels and then discharged to the environment. Delay-and-decay however is unique to radioactive waste management; it means that the waste is stored and its radioactivity is allowed to decrease naturally through decay of the radioisotopes in it. ;High level radio-active waste management involves delay-and-decay techniques.
High-level waste may be the used fuel itself, or the principal waste separated from reprocessing this. While only 3% of the volume of all radwaste, it holds 95% of the radioactivity. It contains the highly-radioactive fission products and some heavy elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling, as well as special shielding during handling and transport. If the used fuel is reprocessed, the separated waste is vitrified by incorporating it into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass which is sealed inside stainless steel canisters for eventual disposal deep underground.
In addition to safe storage, huge strides are being made to reduce dramatically the amount of nuclear waste. Professor Barry Brook, director of climate science at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, has stated, 'A type of nuclear technology now being commercialised in India, Russia and China, called "fast reactors", can be used to repeatedly recycle its fuel and consume old nuclear waste. Because of the incredible efficiency of this next-generation technology, we have already mined enough uranium to power the global economy for more than 500 years.'
Fourth generation reactors will burn most of the fuel, with the surviving waste having a half-life a fraction of that produced by today's reactors.
Ziggy Switkowski, the immediate past president of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has also indicated his belief that Japanese and other nuclear technicians will see the Fukushima incident as a challenge to prompt the creation of even more stable and robust reactors. ;Mr Switkowski has stated, 'We will learn from the tragic Japanese experience how to build more robust reactors, how to ensure multiple layers of protection work properly, how to better contain radioactive gases.'

Arguments against Australia developing a nuclear power industry
1. ;The consequences of nuclear reactor accidents can be catastrophic
It is generally acknowledged that the accident rate at nuclear power plants is relatively low; however, critics note that when a serious accident occurs it can have catastrophic consequences.
Friends of the Earth Australia have claimed, 'There have been more than a dozen serious accidents at nuclear power plants since 1952. There have been at least eight accidents involving damage to or malfunction of a reactor core. There have been many other serious accidents elsewhere in nuclear plants (fires, explosions, and leaks of radioactive material).'
The best-known of these are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now the earthquake and tsunami damage that has occurred to reactors at Fukushima, Japan. ;
Professor Ian Lowe, former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation has stated that 'nuclear power is too dangerous. There is the risk of accidents like Chernobyl. Twenty years after the accident, 350,000 people remain displaced, three-quarters of a million hectares of productive land remain off limits, and experts argue about whether the final death toll will be 4000 or 24,000. One accident like Chernobyl is too many, but building more reactors increases the risk of another.'
There are sources which claim that the consequences of Chernobyl were even worse than those suggested by Professor Lowe. ;Friends of the Earth Australia have claimed, 'According to a Soviet estimate half of Chernobyl's fallout fell within 35 km of the reactor. One hundred and thirty five thousand people were evacuated from a 30 km diameter zone centred on the reactor. The other half of the fallout fell on more than twenty countries world wide stretching as far as North America - resulting in limitations on food. The US DOE - a pro nuclear body who would be expected to give estimates at the lower end of the range - calculated that world wide there would be around 40,000 deaths from Chernobyl-induced cancers.'
Further, it has been argued that despite the claims of those who build and manage nuclear reactors that they have guarded against all possible sources of accident, this can never be the case. ;Critics claim that the disaster currently occurring at Fukushima, in Japan, a country internationally renowned for its nuclear safety record, indicates that disasters can always occur even though significant efforts have been made to guard against them.

2. ;Nuclear power generation creates major waste problems
Nuclear power creates radioactive by-products that can take hundreds of thousands of years to degenerate to the point where they are regarded as safe. ;It has been argued that this is a dangerous and irresponsible legacy to leave generations to come. ;
This point has been made by Professor Ian Lowe, former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation. ;Professor Lowe has stated, 'Nuclear power ... inevitably produces radioactive waste that will have to be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years. After nearly fifty years of the nuclear power experiment, nobody has yet demonstrated a solution to this problem...
In the absence of a proven viable solution, expanding the rate of waste production is just irresponsible. This is not just a huge technical challenge to develop systems that will isolate high-level waste for over 200,000 years. It is also a huge challenge to our social institutions. We are talking about a time scale around a hundred times longer than any human societies have endured, of the same order of magnitude as our entire existence as a species.'
It has repeatedly been claimed that none of the technologies currently being promoted as a means of safely storing nuclear waste can be relied upon, particularly over the timeframes under consideration. Opened in 1999, the United States Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico is the first "deep geologic repository" in the world for radioactive wastes, specifically for disposing of plutonium-contaminated nuclear weapons complex wastes. Despite assurances by WIPP's chief scientist that it could never happen, carbon tetrachloride leaks to the air outside the facility located 2,150 feet below ground have now reached a 'level of concern'.

3. Other forms of low-carbon-producing power generation are safer than nuclear power
It has been claimed that wind power is a safer alternative energy source than nuclear power generation.
In 2004, a World Health Organisation report categorically stated that wind power was one of the most benign forms of electrical generation in terms of direct and indirect health effects. Claims have been disputed that wind farm noise has harmful effects on human beings. Some of the scientists whose work has been used to support this conclusion have denied it. ;
Dr Neil Todd, of Manchester University, has stated of his study of wind farms, 'Our work does not provide the direct evidence suggested .... I do not believe that there is any direct evidence to show that any of the above acoustico-physiological mechanisms are activated by the radiations from wind turbines.'
Similarly in 2010 the Wisconsin Division of Public Health has reviewed more than 150 scientific and medical reports related to wind turbines and public health. ;It concluded that current scientific evidence does not support claims that at distances in accord with relevant regulations there is any adverse health outcomes caused by living near wind turbines.
Solar power is a clean and safe form of energy with no discernible negative health effects; however, the safe manufacture and subsequent disposal of solar panels has been raised as an area of concern. Silicon tetrachloride, for example, is a by-product that makes land unsuitable for growing crops. For each ton of polysilicon produced by the solar industry for its solar panels, four tons of silicon tetrachloride is generated.
Even given these waste management problems, however, the risks associated with nuclear power are generally judged to be far greater and longer lasting than those associated with the manufacture of solar panels.

4. ;Nuclear power is a very expensive means of power generation
It has been noted that nuclear reactors are a highly expensive means of generating power. Nuclear power plants are expensive both to build and maintain. It has been claimed that the new third and fourth generation power plants will reduce costs; however, it has been estimated that the first wave of new plants to operate in the United States will generate electricity at a cost of over $3,500(US) per kilowatt.
Those nations that use nuclear power plants to produce power usually support the plants via significant government subsidies or loans. By June 2009 the United States Congress had awarded the nuclear industry $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for new reactor construction. Within the United States, nuclear power has been subsidised hundreds of billions of dollars over the past 50 years.
It has further been claimed that even with subsidies and loans nuclear power facilities are often not economically viable because they remain too expensive to establish and maintain. Of the 253 reactor units ordered by United States electric utilities by 1978, 71 units were cancelled before construction began. Between the United States Atomic Energy Commission and its successor, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal regulator received 182 construction permits of which 50 units were abandoned in construction, losing billions of dollars in investment.
Only 132 units were licensed, built and operated. Of that number, 28 units have permanently closed in the United States before their 40-year license expired including two partial core meltdown accidents at Fermi 1 and Three Mile Island Unit 2. Only 104 units were operational nationwide by July 2009.
Critics claim that return on investment rates such as those indicated above do not make nuclear power an economically viable form of power generation.
It also needs to be noted that it can cost billions of dollars to decommission a nuclear power plant. ;
Other costs to be factored in include the underwriting of the massive risks associated with nuclear power plant construction and operation. World-wide private insurance companies are not willing to assume these risks and public funds (taxes) are used to underwrite them. ;In addition to government subsidies and loans, this taxpayer-funded insurance is an additional public cost associated with nuclear power.

5. ;Nuclear power production results in by-products that can be used by terrorists and/or to feed the nuclear arms industry
Nuclear power production is linked to the technologies that produce nuclear weapons and supplies the raw materials that fuel these weapons. ;Countries such as India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea clandestinely developed nuclear weapons using the infrastructure, technology and know-how of their 'civilian' nuclear programs.
It has been claimed that the continued expansion of nuclear power across the globe would only increase the chances of nuclear weapons development and is counterproductive to disarmament.
Dr Mark Diesendorf has stated, 'On top of the perennial challenges of global poverty and injustice, the two biggest threats facing human civilisation in the 21st century are climate change and nuclear war. It would be absurd to respond to one by increasing the risks of the other. Yet that is what nuclear power does.'
Further, in addition to the enormous loss of human life and the destruction that results from atomic weapons, their use is also a major threat to the environment. ;
Western Australian Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam, has claimed, 'Recent scientific research details the climatic impacts of nuclear warfare. The use of 100 weapons in nuclear warfare - just 0.03 per cent of the explosive power of the world's nuclear arsenal - would result directly in catastrophic climate change with many millions of tonnes of black, sooty smoke lofted high into the stratosphere. Needless to say the social and environmental impacts would be horrendous.'
The increased incidence of international terrorism only increases the risks associated with nuclear power generation. ;Firstly there is the risk that terrorists might attack a nuclear power plant in an enemy state. Secondly there is the risk that terrorists might steal nuclear waste material either to create weapons or merely to contaminate the air, water supply or agricultural land of an enemy.

6. ;Focusing on nuclear power is likely to divert investment and research away from safer renewable alternatives
It has been claimed that if an Australian government were to sanction nuclear power as an energy source for Australia this would seriously undermine the development of solar, wind and other forms of renewable power.
Nuclear power production is very expensive and if it were to go ahead in Australia would be likely to swallow up investment capital that could otherwise be used for renewables.
Nuclear power generation also relies heavily on government subsidies and so the Australian government would probably not be in the position to either fund research into renewables or subsidise companies involved in their production.
In May 2006, Greenpeace commented, in relation to the impact of nuclear investment trends around the world, 'In diverting resources from sustainable and renewable energy, investment in nuclear energy and associated subsidies would erect obstacles to sustainable energy.'

Further implications
The immediate prospect of nuclear power generation capacity being developed within Australia is remote.
Despite some dispute within its ranks, the Labor Party remains opposed to its use. ;The issue is scheduled for debate at the next Labor federal conference; however, the Fukushima nuclear disaster will probably have reduced the enthusiasm of those who support the development of nuclear power in Australia. Further, the Greens, upon whose support the Gillard Labor government depends, are adamantly opposed to nuclear power generation. ;
The Coalition's position on the question has vacillated. ;As late as 2010 prominent Liberals were espousing nuclear power generation for Australia and the leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, was gleefully anticipating the next Labor federal conference at which he anticipated that divisions within the Labor Party on the nuclear question would see it tear itself apart. The need for unity within the minority government lead by Labor is now so great, however, that such public disputes seem unlikely, whatever the private beliefs of individual party members.
Similarly, the deputy leader of the Opposition, Julia Bishop, has now become far more circumspect in her publicly expressed attitude to nuclear power generation for Australia. Previously a quite outspoken proponent of nuclear power generation for Australia, Ms Bishop is now stating that it is not her Party's policy to develop a nuclear power capacity within this country.
Were the Labor Party to lose the next federal election, the nature of the debate would shift dramatically. ;There are still key elements within the Coalition that support nuclear power and the growing imperative, political and economic, to reduce Australia's green house gas emissions may make nuclear power seem more electorally attractive. ;In addition, a Coalition government is highly unlikely to be dependent on a power sharing arrangement with the Greens.
However, nuclear power plants have a long lead-in period. ;It is estimated that it would take ten years before a major nuclear power plant would be operational within Australia, while the country would need some 50 of these reactors to supply the bulk of its electricity needs. ;This would require a massive level of investment and have an even longer lead-in time. ;Ziggy Switkowski has estimated that nuclear reactors could not be expected in Australia in such numbers until 2050. ;In the meantime much will depend on the progress which is made in the viable development and exploitation of renewable power sources.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
AGE, March 17, 2011, page 17, comment by Katharine Murphy, `Nuclear rethink over before it's begun'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/nuclear-rethink-over-before-its-begun-20110316-1bx94.html

H/SUN, March 16, 2011, page 29, comment by Jill Singer, `Pro-nuclear line makes us quake'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/pro-nuclear-line-makes-us-quake/story-fn56az2q-1226022056680

H/SUN, March 16, 2011, page 28, comment by Andrew Bolt, `Time to stop nuke hysteria'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/time-to-stop/story-e6frfifx-1226022037307

AUST, March 16, 2011, page 11, analysis by Graham Lloyd and Stephen Matchett , `China still in thrall to King Coal'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/china-still-in-thrall-to-king-coal/story-e6frg6z6-1226022058763

AUST, March 15, 2011, page 12, comment by Brendan O'Neill, `Blind to real disaster, fearmongers go into their own meltdown'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fearmongers-go-into-their-own-meltdown/story-fn84naht-1226021345281

AUST, March 15, 2011, page 13, editorial, `Sense of perspective vital in ongoing Japanese disaster'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sense-of-perspective-vital-in-japan/story-e6frg71x-1226021359612

AUST, March 15, 2011, page 11, analysis (photo) by Brendan Nicholson and Stephen Matchett, `Facing down the fear of fallout'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/facing-down-the-fear-of-fallout/story-e6frg6z6-1226021355097

H/SUN, March 15, 2011, page 28, comment by Susie O'Brien, `Strike nukes from agenda'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/strike-nukes-from-agenda/story-e6frfhqf-1226021359113

H/SUN, March 24, 2011, page 30, comment by Miranda Devine, `Nukes are no armageddon'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/nukes-are-no-armageddon/story-e6frfhqf-1226026991588

AUST, March 24, 2011, page 10, comment by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, `EU's nuclear power revival put at risk'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/eus-nuclear-power-revival-put-at-risk/story-e6frg6ux-1226026966490

AGE, March 24, 2011, page 17, comment by Eric Knight, `Nuclear is a safe option in risky energy business'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-is-a-safe-option-in-risky-energy-business-20110323-1c6p8.html

AUST, March 23, 2011, page 7, news item (ref to George Monbiot) by Graham Lloyd, `Leading green now backs nuclear power'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/leading-green-now-backs-nuclear-power/story-fn84naht-1226026365653

AUST, March 22, 2011, page 8, comment by Alen Mattich, `Don't discount nuclear power'. (Online version from The Source)
http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2011/03/18/don%E2%80%99t-write-off-nuclear-energy-just-yet/

H/SUN, March 21, 2011, page 27, comment by Alan Howe, `Nuclear future looks safe'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/nuclear-future-looks-safe-as-demand-for-clean-fuel-remains/story-fn56avn8-1226025023449

AGE, March 21, 2011, page 13, comment by Geoff Strong, `Don't fall victim to nuclear phobia'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-fall-victim-to-nuclear-phobia-20110320-1c24t.html

AGE, March 21, 2011, page 13, comment by Warwick McFadyen, `Past becomes present as Fukushima fallout stirs deep memories'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/past-becomes-present-as-fukushima-fallout-stirs-deep-memories-20110320-1c24q.html

AGE, March 20, 2011, page 19, comment by Ian Lowe, `No nukes now, or ever'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/no-nukes-now-or-ever-20110319-1c1ed.html

AGE, March 20, 2011, page 4, news item (photos) by Michael Bachelard and Melissa Fyfe, `Australian nuclear energy supporters hold firm'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-nuclear-energy-supporters-hold-firm-20110319-1c1fv.html

AUST, March 19, 2011, page 17, comment by Michael Stutchbury, `After Japan, the sum of all fears'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/after-japan-the-sum-of-all-fears/story-e6frg9p6-1226024281660

AGE, March 19, 2011, page 15, analysis (on the General Electric reactors at the Fukushima plant) by Tom Zeller, `Flawed from the outset'.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/flawed-from-the-outset-20110318-1c0cz.html

AUST, March 18, 2011, page 12, comment by Henry Ergas, `Japan's nuclear crisis removes easy path to a low-carbon world'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/crisis-removes-easy-path-to-low-carbon-world/story-e6frg6zo-1226023501327