Comment on an ABC report

I posted the below comment to this ABC News report about the UK's consideration of a new coal station.

Australia could work to further educate itself and embrace the nuclear fuel cycle. Exaggerated hype and outright hysteria have prevented the objective consideration of a technology that is deployable today. Western designed nuclear power plants have demonstrated themselves capable of producing massive amounts of reliable, 24-7, high quality and safe electricity at per-kilowatt lifecycle emissions capable of achieve significant reduction targets. The complete elimination of all nuclear power plants on earth would have little impact on nuclear non-proliferation. And there is no data to suggest that new nuclear power programmes in Australia would detract from ongoing global non-proliferation activities in any way. It is impossible to make a nuclear weapon from the enrichments used in commercial nuclear power.

Australia may only emit less than 2% of total global emissions, but we are still one of the top emitters. However, per person, (as Garnaut rightly portrays) Australia is at the top. This fact, combined with our generally comfortable lifestyle, make it difficult to convince other top emitters (India and China who already have per person emissions well below Australia) to forgo opportunities to improve life for their citizens for the sake of global emissions reductions others seem unwilling to make. Therefore we have a moral imperative to lead this effort beyond being significantly vulnerable to the physical phenomena predicted to result from climate change itself.

With the intelligent deployment of renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, tidal and hydro if more hydro is feasible), aggressive energy efficiency and conservation programmes, forward looking policies to optimise land use and public transport; nuclear power can work in Australia to achieve the goals that are being discussed in, for example, Garnaut's preliminary report. Without it (in fact without applying all available solutions) we don't seem to stand much of a chance. The IPCC and other scientists and organisations are consistently under predicting climate change, ice melts, impacts on food prices and general resource availability. It may be time for Australia to start thinking (and acting) outside the box.

Union leader and a nuclear Australia

The new leader of the AWU wants security for Australian manufacturing businesses and jobs. That means high quality, reliable power - and lots of it, which probably means nuclear in the coming, low carbon world.

See the full report from The Age.

Paul Howes is the new national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, the nation's biggest and most powerful blue-collar union. He was recently invited to the University of California, San Diego, and Stanford University to take part in the Australia-America Leadership Dialogue.

These days he insists Australia has to have cheap energy to ensure it maintains a manufacturing industry and advocates a bipartisan debate on whether Australia should embrace nuclear power. "No one with any credibility disputes climate change," he says.

"If we are going to be a country that makes things — and we have to be — then we need power, we need power that doesn't produce excessive greenhouse gases, and so we have to look at nuclear power.

Paul is not alone in his left-leaning support for nuclear power. Gweneth Cravens, Stewart Brand and Patrick Moore as well as bloggers NNadir at DailyKos, Left Atomics, Robert Merkel and Nuclear Green [added after receipt of the comment below - thanks Charles] are some other examples.

More and more left-leaning political, social and environmental leaders are coming to appreciate the true potential of safe, reliable nuclear generated electricity.

The wind, the sun—and the atom

A boost for renewables, but nuclear power takes centre stage.

Full article from The Economist

This is another excellent report on, not just nuclear power, but nuclear power's role - with renewables - in the UK's energy future. From a broad perspective, the report efficiently address different attributes to a reasonable degree of detail.

This magazine is quickly becoming my favourite, independent media source for the world-wide consideration of nuclear power.

A few quotes:

Local opinion of nuclear?

"When [Colonel George Smythe, chairman of a nuclear-power discussion group at Dungeness in Kent] asked residents what should replace the closed [nuclear] power station, the most popular answer was a new one."

Impact on renewables?

"Not all the news was nuclear. The bill also sets rules for building more natural-gas storage (as imports replace dwindling domestic supplies) and for developing technology to capture and sequester carbon emissions from fossil-fuel plants. Britain has much potential: natural salt caverns and depleted gas fields could store decades of emissions from Europe.

There was some good news for renewable fans, too,... [see the article].

Gordon Edge, an economist at the British Wind Energy Association, dismisses talk of crowding out. “Building nuclear power plants doesn't have to mean less money for renewables,” he says. “After all, we have a common enemy.”"

UK - Consultation on the Future of Nuclear Power

The consultation is described below along with a link to review the full process.

Nuclear Consultation website

The consultation began on 23 May and ended on 10 October 2007. There were a number of different strands: written and online responses; stakeholder events and deliberative events with the public.

[They] received about 2,700 responses from people or organisations. Some responded to the consultation questions via the website; some completed a paper response form; and others emailed, faxed or sent their views in the post. All these responses can be read on this website.

The only responses not available here are those where the participants specifically requested that their responses be kept confidential.

Thanks to R. Leavitt for the link.

Election 2007 - Rudd, good for nuclear in Australia?

Was it a mandate on the environment? On nuclear power in Australia?

Before you answer that, consider the following:

Now that the election is over and done. Labor has a formidable task – to demonstrate their energy related rhetoric prior to and during the campaign can be put into practice. Since nuclear is – ‘they’ say – too expensive, too risky and takes too long, can we expect that within a very few years, Australian emissions linked to climate change will noticeably plummet through some other technologies? I certainly ‘hope’ so – and furthermore I would like to ‘hope’ it can be done without nuclear, but I’m not so sure – when one examines the maths involved – we should pin our collective future on ‘hope’. Because in reality, as a nation, we can’t manage to stop building new CO2 belching plants, let alone shut down any existing ones.

Efficiency improvements, wind farms, solar, tidal, geothermal are great. I’ve always been in favour of them [with nuclear, not in lieu of] and believe they will have a significantly increasing role in the future of energy generation in Australia and elsewhere. This opinion is supported by expert organisations around the world.

But, because NO single country - not ONE mind you - on this diverse world of ours has demonstrated the ability of any technology other than hydro or nuclear to reliably displace significant fossil power generation, I believe we must keep nuclear on the table until we can demonstrate our ability to meet emission reduction targets in some other way. [By demonstrate, I mean something more than a theoretical analysis from the deep, dark depths of academia.]

Labor’s victory is, in a way, good for the development of Australian energy policy. There’s not much of the nation, states, etc. that Labor does not now control. The political alignment should be nearly ideal. There should be no barriers to fully implement the most green of green energy policies. I really do expect a full on effort to cut emissions, including efficiency improvements, renewables, etc. This will either be successful, or [and I expect the more likely] provide an opportunity for the nation to learn the realities associated with the costs and capabilities of available non-nuclear, solutions to Australia’s emissions related challenges.

Otherwise we will remain an embarrassment to the world.

UPDATE: A similar view from World Nuclear News

My Q&A with Blake

With his permission, here are the questions and my crack at the answers. Any feedback, corrections, omissions etc. from others out there would be most welcome.

Hi Blake,

I take it from your hypothesis that you may arrive at a different conclusion from my own. However, it appears you are attempting to complete a fact-based assessment, which is fundamental [on a broader scale] to addressing the many energy related issues facing different countries today.

And to that end, my answers are below. I hope you find the information helpful. If you have any further questions please let me know. I've changed the order a bit, but they should all be there.

On 9/14/07, blake [surname & Email address removed] wrote:

Hey, sorry for the wait, have been swamped with work in other subjects falling this week. Okay, back into the swing of things.

I am going for a subjective definition of 'environmentally safe', as it will allow more room for discussion in my opinion. I am using alternate power sources as a focus question in my assignment (as you suggested) as i believe it is important to consider why Nuclear power is a more attractive option and will shape a better understanding to why nuclear power is being used and its benefits also.

Okay here it goes, feel free to elaborate or disregard any questions. Ill just be quoting you on various lines. If there’s anything you think I should know or that I’ve missed, let me know (I have found it surprisingly difficult to get a clear understanding of the current power situation in Australia as information is scattered and not readily available).

The hypothesis of my essay is:

"The implementation of Nuclear Power stations in Australia will have a negative impact on the environment due to an increase in environmental pollution"

Qs

What is wrong with the current power systems in place?

Power systems [to me] includes all systems involved in the generation and distribution of energy [including transport, electricity, home heating, etc.]. It's important to keep the definitions clear or a lot of confusion can enter into energy related discussions. Some people seem to muddy these waters intentionally [not very helpful to achieving a genuine solution in my mind]. For the remainder of this discussion - let's focus on electricity generation.

The answer to this question differs from one country to another. Some countries, Korea and Japan are two examples, have limited domestic energy resources and are therefore very dependent on imports [i.e. energy security concerns]. Others are struggling to control emissions linked to climate change. Some are wrangling with both [China, the USA and most of Europe are good examples]. Nearly all are facing these challenges within the context of significant projected demand increases over the coming decades.

Also, additional energy generation capacity is a critical prerequisite to addressing much of the world's severe poverty. If this deployment is not done in a sustainable way - the above challenges could become more difficult. Conversely, as the developed world wrangles with its own energy problems, countries in the developing world may just get ignored, leading to worsening poverty and greater conflict in the affected regions [some of which are not too far away from Australia or Australian interests]. I recommend a read of this blog. It may be a bit long - but I think the author makes some very good points that you don't hear too often from either side of the nuclear debate. To read more from the same author, follow this link.

Finally, some countries lack modern electric infrastructure [transmission lines, etc.] to adequately and reliably distribute energy as required. Even in the USA, several high profile brown-outs and black-outs over the past decade or so [2003, 1996, etc.] are indications of this challenge.

What are the current environmental dangers / benefits of current coal power plants?

The benefits are fairly easy to list [but none are environmental]; for countries with rich coal reserves it's cheap, reliable power. There is little economic justification for Australia to use anything but coal to power the country into the foreseeable future. Some type of carbon surcharge, tax or other abatement programme could change this in years to come.

Also, large coal generation stations have high and predictable reliability, giving more weight to the economic benefit [maximum, reliable output for minimum financial input]. It’s not rocket science. Hence, power hungry China’s current deployment of about two large coal stations a week. [This was a shock to me as my understanding before I did the search was that it was only one plant per week. So the rate is increasing – not good!]

The dangers of coal are numerous. There are many links, references and resources in this blog and many others highlighting the reality of climate change – and most experts and environmentalists alike are pointing at coal/fossil plant emissions as one of the principal contributors. Furthermore, the emissions from coal/fossil stations today, will be impacting the environment for millennia as the Earth works to restore balance – according to the IPCC.

Mining coal is dangerous and responsible for the death of roughly 7,000 miners a year in China alone. Coal emissions contain fine particulates and other pollutants resulting in the premature death of 15,000 people a year, just in the United States.

What are the environmental Dangers/Benefits of the introduction of Nuclear power ? which of these are specific +/-'s to Australia?

Water consumption is pretty much a break even with any other type of power plant that employs a thermal steam cycle [and most do, except, for example combustion turbines, wind turbines and photovoltaic cells]. Some hype has been made about French reactors having to reduce power in hot weather due to thermal discharge limits on their effluents. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are nuclear, but rather where they are located. Had similarly sized coal plants been in their place, the same result would have occurred. Had these nuclear plants been sited on the coast, the high temperature would not have been an issue. So if Australia decides to construct a nuclear plant near the coast – no issue.

Nuclear waste is a challenge, but more a political issue than technical. The deep repositories being developed, for example in Sweden and the USA, are – in my opinion – technically sound, but also a waste of a valuable resource, the potential energy remaining in the fuel. The recently rekindled interest in spent fuel reprocessing using the UREX process looks to recover significant energy from this ‘pre-irradiated’ or ‘used’ fuel, significantly reduce the volume of residual waste and dramatically reduce the time that waste must be stored to decay to the activity level of the uranium originally mined from the ground.

Interim storage of irradiated fuel as well as all aspects of fuel handling through the second half of the fuel cycle must be respected due to the activity of the material involved. Again, in my professional opinion, the robust engineering that has gone into developing multiple protective barriers to address public safety has worked well to minimise this risk. Have a look at the testing of a fuel shipping cask as an example.

Physical security [theft, sabotage and acts of terrorism] must also be addressed when considering nuclear power‘s environmental impact. In modern plant designs robust measures have been engineered into the design to minimise these risks. Beyond the design, plants maintain hardened perimeters and employ highly trained security teams – all further reducing the risk.

Some environmental groups point to the entire fuel cycle including mining, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, decommissioning, final fuel processing and disposal etc. as nuclear power’s Achilles heal with respect to lifecycle emissions. But this does not make sense from even – I think – a everyday bloke perspective. Consider that one 10-gram nuclear fuel pellet produces as much energy as 20 tonnes of coal or 20,000 litres of oil [even more if the nuclear fuel is reprocessed]. Yes, [assuming the power comes from coal plants] the processes to make that pellet consume energy and result in emissions. However, if say 20% of the electricity involved in those processes is nuclear generated, even those emissions begin to fall. What about the mining, processing and transport of all that coal [have you ever seen a coal train?], or similarly drilling, refining and transport of all that oil, the decommissioning and waste processing of those facilities, etc.? What are the emissions associated with those processes? Formal comparisons have been completed – repeatedly it seems – consistently arriving at the same results. [University of Sydney, Oko Inst., University of Wisconsin/NEI to quickly site just a few]. From an emissions perspective, nuclear looks very attractive and is the principal environmental benefit for the technology – at a competitive cost to other options.

The demonstrated high [and consistently improving] capacity factor of nuclear plants and high reliability also play a key role in this positive impact.

I would say that all of the above apply to any country considering or currently using nuclear power – perhaps to different degrees depending on how much of the nuclear fuel cycle is employed in their countries. Australia, for example may decide not to enrich fuel, but deploy nuclear plants and purchase fuel from other countries. I have tried to sum up Australia’s options here and again here.

Why is nuclear power needed?

Nuclear power can address – again depending on the country – energy security and environmental challenges faced by many nations around the world. Significantly lower fuel costs can reduce a country’s dependence on fuel imports in an increasingly [energy] competitive world. Also full lifecycle analyses consistently show nuclear’s advantages to address present day environmental challenges through very low emissions [none in fact through energy generation], high capacity and high reliability.

Examples of countries looking to nuclear to minimise their exposure to energy security risks associated with imports may be found in Europe – specifically Eastern Europe where over the past several winters, Russia has used their energy supply lines as a tool of economic foreign policy. I believe in each case the ‘customer’ countries had no choice but to pay what was being asked. Many of these countries are looking to nuclear to increase their options, subsequently reducing their exposure to this risk in the future.

Nuclear power is capable of significant bulk power generation with demonstrated reliability. This energy is generated with minimal emissions over the entire nuclear lifecycle as demonstrated in study after study [see above].

From Australia’s perspective, I believe nuclear power is needed to address our embarrassingly high emissions. Yes, China and the USA contribute significantly to the problem and therefore must be part of the solution, but I like to look at this from three perspectives, the country whose emission are increasing the fastest in absolute terms [China], the most emissions under the control of one government [USA – soon to be passed by China if not already] and the highest per-capita emissions [Australia]. I think that any policy that does not try to address the problem from these three perspectives is going to produce some very unbalanced outcomes. The argument that ‘Australia only produces 1.5% of global emissions and is therefore only a minor player’ is not sustainable as I say here.

There are those that claim we can get there with renewables, but the ‘full throttle’ deployment of renewables – massive subsidies or not – will not be enough to achieve what is necessary in Australia. Hydro is by far the only renewable energy source with demonstrated capacity around the globe in sufficient quantities to displace big-coal and Australia is just too flat and dry to expect that much more hydro to be added any time soon. That leaves us with solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear and a few fringe technologies like tidal. Furthermore if you look around the world, you will find individual solar thermal plants coming up, new wind farms here and there, etc. However, read for example this post about a wind project in Poland. Note in the section titled ‘The Good Energies coming’ the total price will be Euro 350 million [AU $575 million] and the combined ‘capacity’ will be 240 Megawatts. Consider though that typical wind projects achieve only about 30% of that capacity or about 80 Megawatts on average annually. Spend about four times as much money and you could end up with about 320 Megawatts from wind, or one 1000 Megawatt nuclear reactor. Using this example, it may be easier to understand the lifecycle analyses linked above. The bottom line is that nowhere – not a single country on the planet – are renewables [other than hydro] being used to displace fossil fuel electricity generation capacity to the extent required to meet emissions targets. Denmark is one example of a country that is trying, and failing despite huge subsidies to renewable technologies.

So that leaves nuclear. If Australia is serious about reducing emissions we must keep nuclear on the table. If you’re OK with a calculator, pen and pad, check this post.

How will nuclear power stations affect Australians?

Nuclear operations and stations typically bring with them highly skilled jobs [including a significant number of trade jobs during construction as well as periodic maintenance outages], boosts to the local economies through tax revenues, boosts to local business [several hundred staff have to eat lunch, buy their groceries, get their cars serviced somewhere, correct?] and help sustain local industries such as machine shops that typically support plant maintenance activities, etc.

In addition to the local effects, operating nuclear power stations will of course help Australia meet our energy needs without adversely impacting the environment.

Nuclear plants make good neighbors. I have lived near them in the past and would gladly do so again in the future.

What are your personal views on Nuclear Power / why?

In addition to what I have said above, I don’t really think it’s a matter of ‘will’ Australia go nuclear, but when. It is noble to promote significant and broad lifestyle changes to reduce emissions and to deploy renewables where it makes sense to do so. While these efforts certainly do help – the impact falls well short of what is required to make a real difference.

My own approach is similar to what is recommended in the wedge analysis completed by Princeton University. It’s not so much a nuclear vs. renewables discussion [although such debates work well to distract the attention of environmentally minded people away form the coal industry to – I would imagine – their extreme delight], but rather what will it take to reduce global emissions in absolute terms. In other words, it’s no good to displace one 1000 MWe coal plant in the USA if China commences operations at three of them the next month.

I support the deployment of all no/low emissions technologies that have a demonstrated capacity to displace emissions linked to climate change, in a sustainable way, while improving global energy security. I do not believe we will achieve the relevant goals without considerable nuclear technology deployment in many countries around the world. Certainly the relevant risks will have to be carefully managed – but that challenge pales in comparison to the very real projected impacts from climate change – for which Australia’s portion appears to be severe.

On wealth and waste...

As reported by Wendy Frew in the Sydney Morning Herald the largest ecological footprints may be found in the most affluent neighborhoods. This should come as no great surprise to most green-minded folk.

What I like in particular are the comparisons between efforts to save energy at home using rainwater storage tanks, solar hot water, compact florescent lighting, public transport, etc. and the impact of industrial consumption manifested through the goods Australians purchase to maintain our standard of living.

New data shows the electricity and water used to produce everything people buy - from food and clothing to CDs and electrical appliances - far outweighs any efforts to save water and power in the home, according to an extensive analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the [Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis] University of Sydney.

The analysis from the Australian Conservation Foundation may be found here. Among other information, it includes a Consumption Atlas tool and reports:

The Consumption Atlas shows households in areas straddling the harbour in inner Sydney and the banks of the Brisbane River in Queensland are the country’s biggest greenhouse polluters. These areas are closely followed by: inner-suburban Canberra; Woollahra and Mosman in Sydney; Southbank and Docklands in Melbourne; and Fortitude Valley and Newstead in Brisbane. The lowest greenhouse polluting Australian households are in Tasmania – in the Derwent Valley, Kentish and Brighton areas.

This perspective seems to highlight two potential futures for Australia [and most likely beyond]. One in which people cling to their standard of living, fail to make the daily sacrifices and suffer the predicted effects of climate change. Or another in which people adopt broad lifestyle changes (including substantial sacrifices) for the environment and live simpler albeit cooler lives. Furthermore the authors appear to be admitting that the foreseeable deployment of renewables without nuclear will fail to adequately sustain the current Australian standard of living AND achieve aggressive environmental targets.

I have to wonder; if people fail to make those broad sacrifices, would Australians accept Nuclear Power (as some are proposing we do) or steadfastly refuse it in lieu of the projected environmental challenges. Sooner or later - this very well could be the ultimate decision we will all be faced with.

Support for Nuclear

Ziggy Switkowski is providing some detail about government's ongoing role with respect to developing a domestic nuclear power programme. Basically, the government will have to develop some prerequisite infrastructure as I've mentioned in this post before. This includes a suitable regulatory regime, technically capable electrical grids and legal frameworks including indemnity [see the US's Price Andersen Act as an example]] as well as how to deal with differences in opinion between federal, state and local officials, etc.

"Government will need to be involved in some form, at a minimum in terms of setting up a credible, enduring regulatory regime, but it might go beyond that, in terms of some form of assurance around the cost of capital because this is the most capital-intensive form of energy generation."

However, over in la-la-land; the Australian Institute conducted a survey which seems a bit ridiculous to this blogger. Apparently - to whose surprise I do not know - most people in Australia would prefer to get their energy from the sun [50%] as opposed to nuclear [8%] or clean coal[1%]. This 'poll', as reported in the link above [the full report is in the second link], completely avoided including the demonstrated technical capabilities of the various options, real world costs, lifecycle analysis, etc. and by doing so results in complete farce. In addition, of the two [yes, two] whole questions in the survey, nuclear was lumped in with clean coal as a selection. Why not ask people if they would prefer to get their energy from that little 'Mr. Fusion' machine from the film 'Back to the Future'? If 90% of Australians favour such an approach - shouldn't government then pursue it?

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth:

Dr Switkowski was confident community support would start to emerge once a reactor was built.

"The experience overseas is that once you get the first reactor in place working well, community support follows quite quickly," he said.

Still, community attitudes towards nuclear energy had already shifted, he said.

"The attitudes we heard a year ago were shaped by the experiences of the '60s and '70s — Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Cold War, upper atmospheric testing — deeply held but largely emotional."

"Today the objections are almost the elements of a business case."

Said Dr Switkowski: "Frankly, if a business case for any sort of energy, including nuclear, can't overcome those reservations, then we shouldn't make the investment."

In other news, Haydon Manning of Flinders University has posted a very interesting opinion about the 'Dogma and delusion over renewables'. In this opinion Manning provides a detailed critique of Mark Diesendorf’s new book on renewable energy, Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy as well as some discussions from last week's conference on nuclear matters hosted by Flinders University. I'll only post a few paragraphs, but highly recommend the whole article.

My problem with Diesendorf’s book, and for that matter with an organisation I’ve long been a member - the Australian Conservation Foundation - is that a very hackneyed 1970s style anti-nuclear rhetoric is employed in the vain hope that this will help bolster the case for renewable energies such as, solar, wind, bio-mass and geo-thermal.

On the 'nuclear lobby':

The nuclear lobby, last time I looked, was hard to find. It certainly pales alongside the power environmental NGOs (Friends of the Earth, Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, Wilderness Society, World Wildlife Fund, and so on). There is no nuclear lobby of consequence because there is no nuclear industry. All there is, is a rational case for considering nuclear power here and in countries where lower carbon options for energy security are difficult to come by.

And finally in Politics this day, LABOR'S candidate for Corangamite Darren Cheeseman is stumping up fears and playing the 'N' card to get ahead. Bringing in none other than Helen Caldicott herself to project mass local extinction within days of a nuclear power plants commissioning.

I wonder if Darren Cheeseman supports Labor's emissions reduction target - and more importantly the elusive and unspecific means to achieve this... Just as I asked another left leaning politico in this post - where are your detailed plans Mr. Cheeseman?

One big happy nuclear family

As reported in The Australian:

I give this report 4 (of 5) Fuel Assemblies...



Some excerpts of interest:

... It's like a perfect storm building in disparate Atlantic nations. Nations with inimpeachable social progressive agendas, such as Sweden and Finland, are choosing to expand nuclear power; the British Labour Party, under greenhouse zealot Tony Blair, is considering renewing its nuclear power stations; neutral organisations such as the European Union are promoting safety in the former Soviet states; long-term nuclear nations such as France are providing waste treatment; and nuclear holocaust threats such as Russia and the US are moving towards recycling nuclear waste. ...

... In France, where 80 per cent of the domestic electricity comes from nuclear plants, there is now a PIMBY effect - Put It In My Back Yard. One of the key reasons to build a new, third nuclear plant at Flamanville in Normandy was positive lobbying from local councils, business and people wanting to add to the more than 10,000 direct jobs in the area dependent on the nuclear industry. ...

... If you accept the need for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gases a lot by 2050, you have to consider the options of expanding renewable energy sources, taking advantage of "low-hanging fruit" by lifting energy efficiency, developing clean-coal technologies, using more natural gas and using more nuclear energy. ...

... but there's so much more. Worth the read.

French minister plants nuclear hope

As reported in The Australian:

French Trade Minister Christine Lagarde

"In France, the people were originally somewhat resistant (to nuclear power), but they became convinced it was the right path," she told The Australian yesterday on the sidelines of the Global Foundation's Australia Unlimited Roundtable.

"The reason was that the debate in France and the process to nuclear power was open, it was transparent, and the people came along."

Asked how quickly the Australian public might be persuaded away from its negative views about nuclear power, she said itcould happen rapidly if the casefor nuclear power proved compelling.

"I think Australians are quick to adapt to changing circumstances. They have proven that in the past, they are proving it at present with their attitudes to climate change," she said.

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski

Dr Switkowski told a sustainable energy conference in Canberra that while the initial serious concerns - such as how to deal with nuclear waste, the possibility of a catastrophic Chernobyl-style accident, and terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material - were still held by the public, other considerations were becoming more prevalent.

He said the biggest concern he now heard was about nuclear power being too expensive.

"Second is the challenge that 15 years out is too long.

"The third is: if you are going to go to nuclear energy, where are you going to put the reactors? To me that's an interesting shift."

Dr Switkowski said commercial concerns moved the issue in the realm of business, which either would or would not proceed on the basis of profitability. "They're frankly the sort of issues that most business cases confront, and therefore are amenable to rational resolution."