Hanging on to the energy dreams

Carbon capture and storage may also be wishful thinking. The technology is yet to be used at commercial scale anywhere in the world. It may well go through the same 'dream' routine that renewable energy has enjoyed over the last 20 years. More government incentives, more government funded research and development. More make-believe, more frustration and more nightmares with no certainty of success.

Winston Churchill once said that Americans always try to do the right thing after they've tried everything else. It seems like we Australians are as bad as the Americans.

Once we have lived out the dreams of renewable energy and carbon capture and storage, what then? We can keep dreaming, go into denial about climate change or seriously consider the one solution left that is not a dream. Fission energy. The solution accepted and used by almost all other OECD countries, plus many in the developing world because it's the only commercially available technology on a scale to replace all fossil fuels for electricity generation.

Right now, Australia is a 'nuclear-free' zone. That means no nuclear power plants. So we have no commercially viable solution to substantially reduce emissions from electricity generation. So we keep dreaming or go into denial.

Obviously, Fukushima has raised the nuclear danger genie. As a society we are faced with risks in much of what we do - and we often make irrational decisions by not understanding those risks. After 9/11 many Americans chose to drive rather than fly even though the risks of dying in a car crash per passenger mile were over 20 times higher than in a plane.

We face the risk of climate change by continuing to burn fossil fuels. We can take the risk that renewable energy will deliver us from burning fossil fuels in time or we can take the risk of more nuclear accidents.

Some might think this would be an easy safety choice. Like driving rather than flying. However no energy source is risk free. In terms of deaths per unit of energy generated, nuclear is by far the safest option. Safer than wind, roof-top solar, hydro or bio-electricity. So we need to consider the relative risks carefully.

Modern nuclear reactors using either uranium or thorium are much safer than the units built 40 years ago (like the reactors used at Fukushima). But nothing is perfectly safe. Statistically, using nuclear power is less risky than using wind turbines, bio-electricity or roof-top solar panels to deliver the equivalent energy. It may not be intuitive but nor was flying in planes in late September 2001.

Those around the world calling for a ban on nuclear power, post Fukushima, should review their energy dreams, lest they turn into nightmares.