Extract from ABC News
Australia's chief scientist has backed a renewables-led path to net-zero emissions over the "expensive technology" of nuclear energy.
As the federal opposition puts nuclear-fired power generation back on the national agenda, Cathy Foley told Q+A that any assessment of energy sources should be guided by evidence.
"If you look at the reports that have been done, it's [nuclear power] an expensive technology and it's one where it would take some time to build up the capability to do that in Australia," Dr Foley said.
"As chief scientist, it's not for me to actually say what the government should do.
"What we should be doing is looking at the evidence and the information that is available and making sure that we make good decisions based on all the different things we have to take into account."
Last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton attacked research from the CSIRO on the higher cost of nuclear power over renewables like solar and wind, prompting a public defence from the nation's leading science institution.
"It's not relied on. It's not a genuine piece of work," Mr Dutton said on Friday, calling the research "discredited".
In response, CSIRO chief executive Douglas Hilton said in a statement: "I will staunchly defend our scientists and our organisation against unfounded criticism."
Dr Foley spent 15 years at the CSIRO before becoming the nation's chief scientist.
Asked by Q+A host Patricia Karvelas if nuclear power should be on the table, she said: "I don't think we should be making that decision without getting the information that's needed."
"So at the moment the plan is to be able to get to zero emissions using renewables and batteries …
"Australia has got a fantastic situation where we have so much energy from wind and solar that we should be making the most of that.
"We have the potential to have renewables based on solar panels and wind and batteries and that is the pathway that the government has been putting forward and is on a plan to get there by getting to zero emissions."
The power of 'little suns'
Leading American physicist Bryan Greene said nuclear is a "wonderful energy source" — but it's the next generation of the technology that offers the most promise.
"Once that is on the table, everything changes," the Columbia University professor told Q+A.
"That will be the approach that will take over, say, from 2050 or 2060 onwards."
Current nuclear fission technology — splitting large atoms to generate energy — leaves radioactive waste and the danger of reactor meltdowns.
Dr Green says fusion technology — melding light atoms like helium to generate energy — promises nuclear power without waste.
"Fusion is what powers the sun," Dr Greene said.
"It's much more difficult to undertake fusion, but there's now tremendous progress …
"I think many people in the field really do think it's realistic to imagine that by 2050 or 2060 this may be a technology that we harness.
"Imagine having little suns all over the planet that are used to create clean sources of energy from the most ubiquitous atoms around."
'Social licence' for subs
Former Army major general Gus McLachlan said leaders need a "social licence" to adopt the technology — beginning with nuclear-powered submarines on order for Australia's Navy under the AUKUS agreement.
"Up until now nuclear technology has been something that has been excluded, including specific direction to the military not to make recommendations to government about nuclear-capable submarines," he told Q+A.
"This nuclear reactor is smaller, it's enclosed, and it stays enclosed for the life of its service.
"That appears to have made politicians more comfortable that we'll be able to operate these things."
But as Mr McLachlan notes, the submarine program will still generate waste.
"We're going to have to create that social licence with a community somewhere in Australia to put that waste," he said.
"We have to explain to people the value proposition.
"It's now up to our leaders to make the convincing case to the people of Australia that … we need them, we are going to be good stewards of them and we will take our share of the full cycle.
"I don't think all of that has been done yet."
Mr McLachlan — who has advised the government on military technology like artificial intelligence — admits there are "clearly some roadblocks" in the US manufacturing and delivering the submarines on schedule.
"I think we're putting $6 billion into that production system imminently in this next budget cycle, so we're paying into that system to boost the production capability," he said.
"So we're on this enterprise, it has started.
"I'm not yet fully convinced we've had the national debate or the discussion to get everybody pulling in the same direction."
No comments:
Post a Comment