There is a longterm technological solution to the water crisis which I feel compelled to raise. We are as you know the driest continent on Earth. Our population is steadily increasing and fresh water is a major priority for sustainable development. Where it cannot be obtained from natural sources, desalination of seawater or mineralised groundwater is now a viable alternative. Even on the scale of supplying an entire continent's needs.

Brisbane is on level 3 water restrictions and may soon be on level 4. We should have embraced nuclear energy decades ago. Now its not just the farmers who are going to be living in dust bowls. Whole towns are drying up and having to truck in water from elsewhere.

Most desalination plants today are powered by fossil fuels which increase greenhouse emissions. Clearly that is not a desirable option. We already produce far too much carbon dioxide. Desalination is an energy intensive process which can use a variety of low temperature heat sources depending on relative economic values. By far the most practical if controversial source of energy to solve Australia's water shortage is nuclear power. Nuclear energy has already been widely used for this purpose and has the potential for much greater use. Japan has ten desalination facilities linked to pressurised water reactors. Much relevant experience comes from nuclear plants in Russia, Eastern Europe and Canada.

Australia is practically the only developed country not using electricity derived from nuclear energy. A proposal to build a 500MWe reactor at Jervis Bay, NSW was shelved in 1972. Our abundance of cheap coal has previosly ruled nuclear energy out of contention. However, concerns about Global Warming have recently put it back on the table. Uranium is plentiful in Australia. In 2000 our Uranium exports fuelled the electricity production for 45 million people and saved the emission of over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide. We own 25-30% of the Worlds low cost Uranium resources, yet produce only 19% of World mining output. Canada by comparison has expanded its production to more than 30% of World output, on a lower resource base.

Wayne

You mention our steadily increasing population. If we put as much effort into stabilising and then slowly reducing overall population, in conjunction with all sorts of improved efficiencies in resource usage and the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, then we will on the right track. If we just sit back and accept that our population will continue to increase with no end in sight, then no matter how successful we are in with all the other stuff, we are just not going to achieve sustainability.

How on earth can our illustrious leaders still be allowing, if not outrightly promoting, rapid population growth directly into areas that have major water-stress problems?

The economics of nuclear energy don’t add up. A great deal of fossil fuels (and hence CO2 emissions) are still consumed with nuclear power, especially when we are starting from scratch and have to build the plants. Then emissions will fall, for as long as we use high-grade ore. Once that is gone, which won’t be long, efficiencies will fall considerably and CO2 emissions will steadily rise again, mostly in the processes of mining and refining the fissionable material.

OK so if we ignore the economics of a nuclear energy industry, as well as the intractable problems with the waste products, the chance of accident or sabotage and the worry about radioactive clouds sweeping across populated areas, and we use nuclear energy for desalination and we greatly increase water-provision as a result, and we considerably reduce coal consumption… what will we really achieve?

Without a major paradigm shift towards genuine sustainability, we will facilitate population growth, which will mean that the consumption of water and power will just keep on increasing.

Then we will run out of high-grade uranium and the whole deal will start to become much less economically viable and we will be back in the same place we are now – a state of stressed resources, but with a much larger population and hence a much larger problem

However there is perhaps one good reason why we should embrace nuclear energy. (please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4786#52914 and my subsequent posts under ‘Enriching Australia’)

Governments should be allowed to Govern many aspects of our lives which require action on behalf of everyone. But procreation isn't one of them.

Renewable energy research and development deserves more funding than it currently gets but only coal and nuclear are proven on this kind of scale. I have many doubts about the practicality of renewables for supplying the bulk of Australia's needs.

1) First of all there is the security aspect. It would be next to impossible to protect the many solar panels and wind turbines along the Great Australian Bight from aerial attack. They would cover too large an area. Even a fraction of them being destroyed would cause the energy grid to collapse. In the event of a major war the atmospheric dust content could increase to levels where solar energy collection was impossible.

2) Maintenance and establishment costs would be exhorbitant. Perhaps a government levy on solar panels for homes might help. But current panels only have a lifetime of 20 years and are still very expensive.

The economic and waste issues you describe are easily solvable if we recycle the spent fuel. This was always supposed to be a part of the nuclear cycle but unfortunately environmental pressure groups in the US achieved a ban on it over there. As a consequence the waste had to be transported at great cost to storage sites or recycling plants overseas. This made it uncompetitive with coal and now we have global warming as a direct result. In short the environmentalists and in particular 'GreenPeace' are responsible for Global Warming.

Chernobyl was over 20 years ago. The result of sloppy Russian safety protocols and an almost total disregard for the environment. There has never been a single fatality in the West despite all the hype from ecowacky groups to the contrary and hundreds of plants running 24/7 for up to half a century. Australia is ideal for the construction of newer and even safer designs. With recycling we would have enough fuel to last thousands of years and then there is Thorium.

“Governments should be allowed to Govern many aspects of our lives which require action on behalf of everyone. But procreation isn't one of them.”

Why Wayne do you see the area of procreation to be outside of the realm of governance?

Anyway, even if it is, we could still direct ourselves onto the right track towards a stable population and true sustainabiity in Australia if we reduced immigration to net zero or less and did away with pro-natalist policies like the baby bonus. If we did that, our current fertility rate would see us reach a stable population in about forty years.

OK so you mount some reasonable arguments for nuclear energy.

But you have completely bypassed the fact that if we are successful with this stuff, we will actually be taking ourselves further away from sustainability, because we will be facilitating continuous growth.

You say; “In short the environmentalists and in particular 'GreenPeace' are responsible for Global Warming.”

There is an element of truth in that.

But I’d say – in short those who strive only for technological improvements without understanding their consequences in relation to the dynamics of human expansion have taken us continuously further away from sustainability and will continue to do so, even though many of them have had the direct goal of taking us towards sustainability.

Thank you for your informed reply. The 350 word limit caused me to make some brutal curtailing of my text last time I'm afraid.

I simply believe that Governments should stay out of our lives except where absolutely necessary. The disastrous one child policy in China is a good example of how well intentioned political legislation in this area can lead to trouble. I don't think our situation warrants such interference just yet.

"...we could still direct ourselves onto the right track towards a stable population and true sustainabiity in Australia if we reduced immigration to net zero or less and did away with pro-natalist policies like the baby bonus."

Agreed.

"we will actually be taking ourselves further away from sustainability, because we will be facilitating continuous growth."

I don't see nuclear energy and sustainability as incompatible. Hydrogen cars for example. The major obstacle there is the cost of producing Hydrogen. If we embrace nuclear energy and include recycling of spent fuel then we can realistically bring down the cost of electricity. Then electrolysis of seawater becomes a viable option for making Hydrogen. Cheaper electricity would also help to popularise electric cars for city dwellers.

"...those who strive only for technological improvements without understanding their consequences in relation to the dynamics of human expansion have taken us continuously further away from sustainability..."

You make an interesting and poignant observation there. However, I would argue that nuclear energy is a sustainable power source. All technology is a two edged sword. Even the production of solar panels involves some rather toxic chemicals. Nuclear power has been driving the sun for 5 billion years. It clearly has huge potential as a sustainable energy source. Remember also that the technology is still in its infancy. Most great technology advances have come from hands on engineering. Australia is a world leader in nuclear science and we should be reaping the benefits of this research for ourselves.