The herring in question is not the uranium mining industry. In Australia, that seems to have a very bright future. Rather, it’s talk that expansion of uranium mining will inevitably lead to a nuclear power industry in Australia.
Some people see one following the other like night and day. That might be true, but not in The Slug’s lifetime – or his children’s.
The reason for taking such a strong position on nuclear power generation has nothing to do the merits (or otherwise) of electricity produced from uranium. That seems to be a particularly good idea on environmental grounds.
It has everything to do with cost, a small factor which the politicians seem to be overlooking – for political purposes, naturally.
Gas and coal are the big problems for nuclear in Australia. Both are abundant and both produce very competitively-priced electricity.
Nuclear, on the other hand, faces the same problem as wind, solar, tidal and the raft of alternative energy sources – it is too expensive or, to be more specific in the case of nuclear, too capital-intensive.
The last time The Slug looked closely at the electricity industry it struck him that gas and coal run a fairly close race. Gas requires a much lower capital outlay but is expensive on the fuel account. Coal requires a bigger upfront capital commitment but is cheaper on fuel.
Nuclear requires a massive upfront capital commitment, not to mention a construction timetable stretching out over a decade, and more – while the fuel price is rising sharply.
So far, no one really seems to be focusing on the cost side of the equation. Everything seems to be about the politics of the nuclear fuel cycle and the question of waste storage.
It was while listening to the debate that The Slug came to realise that he really was being sucked into a red herring discussion. He reckons that the Australian Government and its very canny Prime Minister John Howard, have absolutely no intention of taking Australia down the nuclear electricity route.
All that Howard wants is an issue which (a) drives a wedge into the opposition, (b) creates a climate which permits the widespread expansion of uranium mining, and (c) allows him to be seen as a reasonable man who wants to do the right thing by the environment – shame about the cost.
The opposition, on the other hand, is being drawn into the same old debate that the world has been having for the past 30 years, whether uranium is good or bad.
The world, as Howard has clearly seen, has moved on. It has had the uranium debate, and it is now realising that a high price is being paid for over-reliance on fossil fuels.
Some opposition leaders, such as Martin Ferguson, know that times have changed. Some of his colleagues do not, a situation that has Howard laughing all the way to the next election.
For the uranium industry, if not the pro-nuclear power industry, Howard’s game is extremely timely. He has created a climate for debate, while already knowing the outcome, and he is setting the scene for a major expansion of uranium mining – now that’s good politics, even if played by dragging a herring around by the tail.
