Australia needs a soundly based, enduring national energy policy which cannot be developed without evaluation of nuclear energy sources, according to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE).

Development of such a policy should recognise that Australia has a range of energy options to choose from in the decades ahead and that the core challenge in developing and implementing a sustainable national energy policy is to make the best choices, over time, from the range of renewable and non-renewable sources available.

The Academy contends that these choices must recognise the realities of our economy and our responsibility to minimise the nation’s contribution – within reason – to environmental deterioration and contribute vigorously to the achievement of a sustainable environment.

It recognises that, while there are a variety of renewable energy sources that Australia could and should be developing, our economic reliance on coal and the rapid development of clean coal technologies – in which Australia should be a world leader – indicate that it will be an energy cornerstone in Australia for decades ahead and will continue to be a major export earner.

ATSE made these comments in a submission to the UMPNER Review Taskforce, commenting on its Draft Report.

“The Academy is certainly not, at this stage, endorsing nuclear energy as a solution to Australia’s future energy needs but, equally certainly, we endorse the need for a fully informed and immediate public debate as part of the development of our national energy policy for the first half of the 21st Century,” ATSE President Dr John W Zillman said today.

“The Academy also urges the Government and the energy industry to embrace, throughout this debate, the need to address community concerns about the key issues – such as waste management, safety and proliferation.

“The key to nuclear energy playing any part in Australia’s energy mix is as much about community comfort and acceptance as it is about scientific capability, economic potential and environmental need.

“The Draft Report provides the necessary foundation for an informed debate on the nuclear industry,“ he said.

“The Academy sees climate change as a global, more than it is a local, problem and a portfolio approach to energy generation is necessary, with no technology providing all the answers and the balance being determined by commercial considerations which include direct and indirect costs.”

Dr Zillman said any future development of the nuclear industry in Australia must depend on commercial reality and must be judged on its merits against robust and transparent performance criteria at the time.

A more detailed analysis of the consequences of Australia not expanding its position in the industry would be helpful in informing the public debate.

It would be helpful to calculate how much more greenhouse gas would be produced if the world uranium demand was satisfied by mining and processing lower-grade ore from other countries.

Equally, a calculation of the required number of wind farms or biomass-fuelled power stations that could be needed as alternatives– with their attendant land use requirements, including for transmission lines and fuel transport – would put in a better perspective the discussion on where any nuclear power plant should be sited.