Barry Brook: Australia needs nuclear power

The way ahead for Australia

The way ahead for Australia

Professor Barry Brook has been a favourite of these pages for his relentless alarmism about the “climate crisis”. However, today he talks sense  – about the need for nuclear power in Australia. The UK announced recently the construction of 10 new nuclear power plants by 2025, yet Australia, despite having enormous uranium deposits, and despite being desperate to reduce emissions, steadfastly refuses to embrace nuclear power generation:

The British Government said the nuclear expansion would address climate change and ensure there was always enough power in the country.

Professor Barry Brook, the Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute, says Australia should follow suit.

In an opinion piece for AdelaideNow, Professor Brook says “nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating.”

“Worldwide, in 2008 nuclear power avoided 2.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, compared to what would have been emitted if coal-fired stations had instead been used,” he says.

Read Professor Barry Brook’s full article for AdelaideNow here

Energy companies, including Adelaide-based Santos, have maintained that natural gas is the best replacement for coal-fired power but Professor Brook says this notion is misguided.

“We must not go down the natural gas-for-coal substitution route. It would be long-term economic suicide,” he says.

“Unlike the situation for uranium power, the electricity price is strongly tied to the fuel price for gas. A spike in the gas price means big jumps in power prices.

“Cheap uranium energy is a much more secure proposition. Gas is best reserved to meet occasional peak power demands, not baseload needs.”

Professor Brook says skeptics of nuclear power have failed to grasp the full concept.

“Lazy, recycled objections to the UK nuclear plan come from the usual suspects – Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth,” he says.

“I’ve been forced to conclude that these so-called environmental organisations are not actually interested in climate change mitigation or clean energy supply.

“They can’t seem to accept the fact that there is enough uranium to provide the whole world with zero-carbon power for millions of years. All they care about is being anti-nuclear.

“Fortunately, the world is passing them by. Australia should too. It’s time to go nuclear green.”

Dead right. Despite our objections to his climate alarmism, his position on nuclear power is spot on.

Comments

  1. Agendas, agendas, agendas. What did the Greens think? Suckers. They held up nuclear power for decades and then, being hijacked by the climate caper, they have become the instruments of the nuclear industry. So stupid. Nuclear was always the only possible alternative to fossil fuels but the Greens lived in a dream world of wind and sun. Onward we go into the brave new world created by their refusal to think.

  2. In the Copenhagen treaty, the EU is expected to agree to pay $150 Billion per year for ‘carbon debt’ to poor nations. In the Americas some equivelent payments are expected, Australia too is expected to pay the carbon debt, also known as climate justice in the Greeny world. Some of this money will go to pay for solar cells, at least for the cameras, but the rest will be used to build nuclear power stations all of the world. Now that AK47s are made in China, they can be purchased for less than $5 each so much of the climate debt money will go to the purchace of arms and military build up. The Greens are not only an instrument of the nuclear industry but of the arms industry as well. What planet have the greens been living on anyway?

%d bloggers like this: