Recycling the nuclear debate

As a father, I love old jokes. I love to be able to recycle them over and over. The worse the dad joke, the better. For example, did I tell you the one about the politician who had an affair with nuclear power? The fallout was terrible. I could go on, but you'll be pleased to hear I won't.

So when the latest proposals by the coalition on nuclear came across my desk, I was asked to find out more. My first reaction (sorry - I'll stop) was, terrible idea that's already been rejected. I am lucky to live in Tasmania, which has some of the cleanest air on the planet and the greenest power generation in the region. Nuclear goes against this, so surely no need?

But my job is to put aside my prejudices and try and see the issues from all sides. And my research has lead me to a conclusion which is, there is no one definitive answer. The trouble is most households want cheap and clean electricity. The emphasis is on cheap here. Clean is a bonus.

It's one of these areas where government have to step up and take care of the big stuff that, as individuals, consumers can't change. There's no alternative to electricity in our lives.

Australia needs to act faster and harder if it is to meet its commitment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

There needs to be an uptake in renewables and alternatives to replace the coal-fired systems, which are running out of operating life.

The coalition hasn't committed to net zero. Its approach is to look at energy security first, then talk about targets. A party containing quite a few climate sceptics, its taken on recycling old ideas with gusto.

It's answer is to switch coal fired power to nuclear power by 2040. Australia has banned all talk of nuclear power since 1998. The opposition will fight to overturn this and get back on track for nuclear, should they win the next federal election.

Is this recycling an old idea?

The policy has shifted the conversation away from emission targets to jobs, security and, most importantly, giving the opposition tangible positive, alternate energy policy rather than knocking back ideas from the government.

It creates a distinction. Yes it creates a division, but it's one saying what to expect from them.

So back to the facts. There a many what ifs regarding budget and safety. It questions whether we should be totally reliant on renewables. It makes us seek answers about just exactly how are we going to secure our energy future and meet 2050 targets.

News from our office is we wouldn't stand in the way of removing the ban on nuclear power. Its not an endorsement of nuclear power, its just we need to ask more questions than the answers already out there.

Like why do people prefer wind farms to a nuclear power stations? Its because they have a bigger fan base.

I'll get my coat.