Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction
No rational person without a financial interest in the industry would consider nuclear power for Australia.
The only logical basis for contemplating its possible use arises from a recognition that climate change is a serious threat to our future.
At the turn of the century, nuclear power was seen as a failed technology. Originally touted as cheap, clean and safe, it was widely recognised as expensive, dirty and dangerous. The peak of installed nuclear power happened more than 20 years ago. Since then, cancellations and deferments have outnumbered new constructions.
The proponents of nuclear power argue that it is the only way to produce large-scale electricity without the carbon dioxide emissions that are changing the global climate. If nuclear power were the only effective way of slowing climate change, I might support it.
However, we would have to address the two fundamental problems that the Ranger Inquiry identified in 1976: radioactive waste and weapons proliferation. If we were to embrace nuclear energy, we would need to put a huge effort into managing its waste. This is essentially a technical problem that could eventually be solved, given enough resources and political commitment. I would remain desperately worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a social and political problem with no apparent prospect of solution.
Fortunately, we don't face that terrible dilemma. There are other, much better ways of cleaning up our energy supply system. The nuclear argument is a dangerous distraction that could direct resources and technical capacity away from more sensible responses.
