Purnendra Jain
With energy security appearing as a major concern on policy agendas of many Asian nations, both large and small, the option to go nuclear is gaining increasing support in many capitals.
Power generation through nuclear facilities was a big no-no in the past and those such as Japan that went for it in a big way in the 1970s were criticized both from within and externally. However, context has changed and continues to change rapidly, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.
Added to the concerns about the stable supply of fossil fuel, especially from the Middle East, and the rising oil prices in recent years is the management of environment and how to tackle the issues of global warming and greenhouse emissions.
India, China, South Korea and Japan have recently announced decisions to increase their numbers of nuclear power plants. Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia are likely to consider commissioning such plants. Australia has also announced its willingness to consider joining the nuclear-energy race.
Australia currently does not have any nuclear industry and a proposal in 1969-71 to commission a nuclear power plant at Jervis Bay in New South Wales was abandoned in 1971. Having dropped that idea, Australia ratified the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1973. The only nuclear facility Australia currently has is a research reactor in Lucas Heights in southern Sydney.
The possibility that Australia will go nuclear has grabbed local media headlines for some weeks with the release early this month of a federal government report on the nuclear industry, chaired by former high-profile Telstra chief executive officer Ziggy Switkowski, a physicist by training. It recommends up to 25 nuclear power plants for Australia by mid-century. The aim of providing one-third of its energy needs by 2050 with nuclear energy, from zero nuclear power in 2006, is a rather fanciful idea.
The government of Prime Minister John Howard has given its full support to going down the path of nuclear energy. Howard believes that public sentiment in Australia has changed and the majority would now support nuclear power. Some have commented that people in Australia, as in many other countries, are realizing that the only alternative to reducing greenhouse emissions and arresting climate change is to go nuclear.
It is true that opposition to both uranium-enrichment plants and uranium mining in Australia has softened dramatically. Australia holds some 40% of world uranium deposits and is the second-largest supplier of this commodity after Canada. It won’t be surprising if it increases its supply as demand rises, especially in Australia’s neighborhood. Australia has recently approved a deal to supply uranium to China, although it has rejected India’s request on the grounds that New Delhi is not a signatory to the NPT.
While Australians don’t mind their country supplying the material to overseas consumers, domestically Canberra faces several challenges, and the likelihood of Australia going nuclear seems rather implausible. While Howard may be right in terms of greater public support for nuclear facilities, it could take years before the first nuclear power plant is commissioned. Some estimate at least 10 years; others think it could be 15 years or even longer.
There are several impediments that the Australian government will find hard to overcome. First, nuclear powers plants are expensive and the gestation period is long before plants can be commissioned and electricity generated and distributed. It will be difficult for any government in Australia to find the massive amount of money required to kick-start this industry, especially as Canberra struggles even to provide sufficient levels of funding for education and health. Commercially, it will be an unviable proposition without heavy government subsidies, a policy that will be opposed vehemently in Australia. Non-agricultural government subsidies have never been popular here.
Second, the knowledge base of Australia is extremely low. Students and researchers in Australia have never linked the study of physics and nuclear technology to good career prospects. University departments and research centers seem to be ill-equipped for cutting-edge research in this area and there are few top-class scientists in Australia specializing in the discipline.
Third, current Australian laws do not allow the establishment of nuclear-fuel-cycle facilities, and these laws will be hard to change without the Labor Party’s support, which is unlikely. This raises the all-important question of the politics of it all. The Labor Party is opposed to this option and it would be hard to establish 25 nuclear power plants, as the “not in my back yard” sentiment is too strong in Australia, despite the increasing support for cleaner and greener power-generation options.
Impact on Asia
Whether or not Australia will go nuclear is academic at this stage. But it is true that many of Australia’s northern neighbors are competing for nuclear status in a way not seen since the 1970s. Reports suggest that 17 of the 28 nuclear power plants under construction around the world are in Asia.
The nuclear debate sparked through the Switkowski Report will have some immediate implications for Australia’s neighbors. First, Australia cannot stand on its earlier moral high ground of opposing nuclear facilities in its neighborhood. Second, Australia’s acceptance of nuclear energy as a cleaner and greener option will put further pressure on Canberra to approve the supply of uranium to a range of countries, including India, that Australia has embargoed hitherto.
Demand for even larger energy resources is being generated through rapid industrial activity in China and India. But it is not just these two rising giants that are creating greater pressure on energy markets. Even industrialized Japan, South Korea and others are expected to need more environmentally-friendly energy.
Hong Kong has long relied on fossil fuel for electricity generation and for its transportation, but is under immense pressure to improve its rapidly deteriorating air quality, caused by coal and diesel emissions. Industrial pollution from across the border in mainland China has also caused Hong Kong’s air quality to deteriorate significantly. Reports from global firms such as Merrill Lynch suggest that if improvement does not take place quickly, Hong Kong may lose its business to such places as Singapore. China is of course considering more nuclear power plants, and Hong Kong may press for them to be established across the border to alleviate some of the problems that it faces.
Japan is already the world’s third-largest home to nuclear power plants after the United States and France and is considering a few more. Notwithstanding a small nuclear accident at its Tokaimura plant in 1999, Japan is ready to increase its nuclear power generation from its current 30% dependency on nuclear sources to about 40% in the next 10 years. Australia has been the largest supplier of uranium to Japan, and Canberra will have no hesitation in increasing its supply if required.
Developing Asian nations such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and others have also expressed aspirations to establish nuclear power plants. Vietnam plans to install two nuclear reactors in the coming decade and Malaysia has hinted that it might consider the nuclear-energy option.
When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) gave its nod to Indonesia for its civilian nuclear programs in October, Australia was quick to announce its assistance for Indonesia under the Lombok Agreement on bilateral security cooperation, signed only two weeks ago. It is reported that the presidents of Indonesia and South Korea have signed a bilateral agreement to consider jointly building nuclear power plants and exchanging fissile material and technology.
What are the driving factors for this new nuclear race in Asia? High oil prices, and outcry about global warming produced through the conventional use of fossil fuels are among them.
Alternative sources such as wind, biogas and solar energy are being touted by environmentalists, as they are particularly concerned with the costs and risks associated with nuclear power. They often cite the disastrous consequences of the accidents in 1979 at Three Mile Island in the United States and in 1986 at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union.
Proponents of nuclear civilian programs argue that technology has come a long way since Chernobyl and risks of major nuclear accidents are minimal if safety procedures are followed strictly. No doubt Chernobyl scared away many of the nations that were then considering nuclear programs, but they are now seriously in favor of this option because of enhanced safeguards, economic necessities, and political support. Egypt and Poland, for example, both shelved their programs after Chernobyl, but are seriously re-examining this possibility.
Furthermore, there is enough uranium available and, unlike fossil fuel, it is cheap. A 2005 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on uranium indicated that 19 countries were mining uranium and countries such as Australia, Kazakhstan and Namibia recorded significant production increases between 2003 and 2005. Production overall has increased as demand keeps rising.
It appears that there is clear political support for nuclear power plants in many of the Asian nations - some of which already have well-developed programs, and others have the wherewithal to commence programs. The real difficulty, though, is how to control uses of civilian technology so countries do not become nuclear-armed states and then proliferate nuclear technology for purposes other than civilian.
At a conference in October to mark the 50th year of the IAEA, director general Mohamed ElBaradei commented that as many as 30 nations might have technology that would enable them to produce nuclear weapons. There is high possibility that any development of civilian nuclear technology would be converted into arms program in some countries.
One solution is offered through the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a US-based charitable organization dedicated to reducing the threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The NTI has committed US$50 billion to create a uranium stockpile for those countries that decide not to produce their own nuclear fuel. This, in the NTI’s assessment, will reduce the risk of nuclear fuel falling into the hands of criminals, terrorists and rogue states.
The establishment of more and more nuclear power plants in Asia is becoming a real possibility. Such countries as India and China are committed to enhance their nuclear-power generation capacities both to meet the rising demand for greater industrialization and a better lifestyle for their middle classes, and to respond to the world’s expectations about their responsibility of reducing emissions and thus contributing to better managing climate change.
Whether or not Australia develops its own nuclear industry as recommended by the Switkowski Report, it is clear that Australia will have no hesitation in supplying the raw material to fuel nuclear plants in Japan, China and elsewhere in Asia. It has hitherto resisted committing the yellowcake to India since New Delhi refuses to sign the NPT. But how long could Canberra resist if the White House and US Congress have already given their nod to cooperate with India in its civilian nuclear technology?
