Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

No easy solutions to greenhouse

By Andrew Davies - posted Tuesday, 17 April 2007

Nuclear power will not solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. There are a number of reasons why that is true.

But before we start looking at uranium supplies and the scope for nuclear power generation, we need to understand precisely what we are dealing with. The scale of energy use by human beings is staggering. Total world energy consumption is about 500 million trillion kilojoules per year. That is a tremendous amount of energy, and the only way it can be produced in a cost-effective way at the moment is through the exploitation of “once only” fossil fuels.

In the well-publicised report of the Stern review on the economics of climate change, it is concluded that we need to make significant cuts to our greenhouse gas emissions. To stabilise atmospheric greenhouse concentrations at levels consistent with “manageable” climate change, we need to be producing somewhere between 30 per cent and 75 per cent of the current levels by 2050. And if economic growth is not to be sacrificed, we need to do that in a world economy three to four times larger than today.


If we are to succeed, we need to reduce the output of greenhouse gases per unit of GDP dramatically. We could do that by finding efficient new ways of generating energy - but that is very unlikely barring a dramatic (and unexpected) breakthrough in something like fusion technology, for example.

Nuclear fission power plants cannot do that job for us. First, they are capital intensive to set up and require long lead times. Stern suggests that action in the next decade will be the most effective, with even more dramatic steps being required if we wait longer. That suggests that an energy source that is a decade in the making is not likely to help much.

Second, the current cost of nuclear energy is relatively high. The Switkowski task force found that the median cost for coal-powered electricity generation in Australia is about $35 per megawatt hour, while the corresponding figure for nuclear power is about $52, about 50 per cent higher.

Of course, that gap could be closed by the imposition of a carbon tax. Making the emission of carbon more expensive is one way to capture the true cost of fossil fuels, which hitherto has been based only on the cost of mining, refining and transporting them. But even if that was to happen - and given the reluctance of major greenhouse gas emitters to even agree a timetable to discuss the issue, we shouldn’t hold our breath - there is limited scope for uranium supplies to be ramped up to meet the demand.

The most optimistic projections from the World Nuclear Association show the world uranium supply doubling by 2030. Even in that scenario, the contribution to world power generation (taking into account increased demand) is about 18 per cent, compared to today’s 16 per cent. When the Stern figures are considered, we clearly have a considerable shortfall here. If the demand of energy for transport is included, the potential contribution of uranium falls even lower.

There are no easy ways to bridge the gap between the projected demands for energy in our economy and the levels we need to achieve. Greater exploitation of uranium is, at best, going to buy us a very small extra amount of time. It seems likely that we will have to accept that economic loss is an inevitable consequence of the necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gases. That would most likely look like a dramatic reduction in energy use in the developed world, accompanied by a modest increase in the developing world.


Recently I was taking part in a forum to discuss the future of nuclear power in Australia. One of my fellow panellists drew a round of applause by suggesting that we could avoid any need for nuclear power by the simple expedient of switching off the light when we leave the room. If only it were that easy. I wonder how big a round of applause would be drawn by telling the audience that they would have to stop driving their cars, flying overseas or heating and cooling their houses?

Alas, a much more likely scenario is that we will simply default to a position where we continue to burn fossil fuels with our fingers metaphorically crossed that nothing too bad will result. That is not a sensible approach, but it is the default one.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

First published in Australian R&D Review on April 7, 2007. It is republished in collaboration with ScienceAlert, the only news website dedicated to Australasian science.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

21 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Andrew Davies is the Program Director for Operations and Capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. The views here are his own.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 21 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy