Chief Scientist and a panel of other eminent scientists contradict Switkowski nuclear report
Experts explode Ziggy's nuclear power theory
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
December 12, 2006
A PANEL of eminent scientists has contradicted one of the central findings of the recent nuclear review commissioned by John Howard, declaring it unrealistic that Australia could have nuclear power plants within 10 years.
A "peer review" panel of experts from Australia and overseas, led by the chief scientist Jim Peacock, has challenged several assertions made by the inquiry headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski.
The experts urge the Switkowski taskforce to do more to sell the positive greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy by pointing out that Australia does not need nuclear power to tackle climate change. "The report needs to make clear the reasons why Australia should be considering the nuclear option," the peer review says.
The review team also concludes that the Switkowski report "under-estimates the challenge that will confront Australia if it should choose to expand the scope of its nuclear activities".
The wide-ranging critique is the result of a process where scientific experts, led by Dr Peacock, were asked to examine the Switkowski report and provide feedback to the panel.
Dr Switkowski's draft review, unveiled a month ago, argued that Australia could add nuclear energy to the mix to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions if the Government was prepared to impose a price on pollution. Dr Switkowski said Australia could build a nuclear power plant within 10 to 15 years.
The peer review was initially expected to remain confidential. But Dr Switkowski's panel has taken the decision to release the report before handing their final document to John Howard later this month.
The review team included Dr Peacock, the chairman of the Future Fund and former Commonwealth Bank boss David Murray, and a group of experts from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Their five-page report raises a number of important issues for the taskforce to consider. These include the unrealistic time frames proposed for building nuclear plants and an "under-estimate" of the amount of workers needed to be trained to work in the industry.
The peer review also says the public must better understand the risks of global warming to understand the connection between the two areas. "Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change," they say.
Environment group Greenpeace said the review had "torpedoed" the Switkowski report. "The review vindicates Greenpeace's position that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to be any solution to climate change," Greenpeace spokesman Steve Campbell said.
To read the original article from The Age, click on:
The Age
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
December 12, 2006
A PANEL of eminent scientists has contradicted one of the central findings of the recent nuclear review commissioned by John Howard, declaring it unrealistic that Australia could have nuclear power plants within 10 years.
A "peer review" panel of experts from Australia and overseas, led by the chief scientist Jim Peacock, has challenged several assertions made by the inquiry headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski.
The experts urge the Switkowski taskforce to do more to sell the positive greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy by pointing out that Australia does not need nuclear power to tackle climate change. "The report needs to make clear the reasons why Australia should be considering the nuclear option," the peer review says.
The review team also concludes that the Switkowski report "under-estimates the challenge that will confront Australia if it should choose to expand the scope of its nuclear activities".
The wide-ranging critique is the result of a process where scientific experts, led by Dr Peacock, were asked to examine the Switkowski report and provide feedback to the panel.
Dr Switkowski's draft review, unveiled a month ago, argued that Australia could add nuclear energy to the mix to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions if the Government was prepared to impose a price on pollution. Dr Switkowski said Australia could build a nuclear power plant within 10 to 15 years.
The peer review was initially expected to remain confidential. But Dr Switkowski's panel has taken the decision to release the report before handing their final document to John Howard later this month.
The review team included Dr Peacock, the chairman of the Future Fund and former Commonwealth Bank boss David Murray, and a group of experts from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Their five-page report raises a number of important issues for the taskforce to consider. These include the unrealistic time frames proposed for building nuclear plants and an "under-estimate" of the amount of workers needed to be trained to work in the industry.
The peer review also says the public must better understand the risks of global warming to understand the connection between the two areas. "Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change," they say.
Environment group Greenpeace said the review had "torpedoed" the Switkowski report. "The review vindicates Greenpeace's position that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to be any solution to climate change," Greenpeace spokesman Steve Campbell said.
To read the original article from The Age, click on:
The Age
posted by Pax Christi @ Tuesday, December 12, 2006
<< Home