Amanda Vanstone | Nuclear power is the clear option. We need emotion out of the debate

Australians, indeed people all over the world love to travel to France, the United States, Japan, Korea, Canada, the UK and Spain.

These countries all use nuclear power. So do Russia, China and Ukraine, although for obvious reasons they are not currently tourist spots. Collectively they are the top-ten producers of nuclear power.

Emotion is a very powerful thing. We instinctively make decisions guided by emotion all too often.

An example would be the horror people express at the notion of a nuclear waste dump being in their state when, without such a dump, the waste sits in warehouses and universities in cities where we pass by daily.

Twelve years ago, the Fukushima disaster had nearly 2000 related deaths.

Last year nearly 1200 people died on our roads.

So every four years we have a road toll equivalent to two Fukushima disasters.

The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments lasted about six years.

At today's rate, we'd lose the road toll would be almost three times greater than Fukushima in that time.

And we don't bat an eye lid.

Globally the road toll is about 1.35 million. Per annum.

That's the equivalent deaths of 650 Fukushimas. Every year.

Nuclear accidents, in stark contrast, are quite rare. You might remember: Fukushima 2011, Chernobyl 1986, Three Mile Island 1979. Deaths directly attributable are small.

Over the 32 years between Three Mile Island and Fukushima perhaps 20 to 30 million people have died on roads.

Yet we still have a paranoia about nuclear.

Yes, there are debates about long-term indirect health effects of these accidents, but next to the road toll it is hardly an issue.

And don't forget that the road toll is just that ... the deaths.

The cost of long-term injury on individuals, their families and workplaces must not be forgotten.

And now we have AUKUS. Nuclear subs.

It's a great move. Smart. But it's nonsensical to recognise the benefits of nuclear in a giant defence plan and yet reject those benefits anywhere else.

Fear of hydrogen power after the Hindenburg disaster in 1937 brought the airship era to an abrupt end.

How things change. With advances in technology, hydrogen is being touted as the green energy of the future.

I'm not so sure about that, but the point is things change, science develops and what may have been risky 60 years ago is no longer as risky today. Now a company called Universal Hydrogen in California has developed a 40-seat hydrogen-fuelled aircraft.

Developments in nuclear technology are moving fast. Small modular reactors are the focus for GE Hitachi, NASA have several projects underway including nuclear-powered space vehicles.

Nuclear power may be able to fire up old coal-fired power stations. And remember, just as with hydrogen, technology has moved on. Nuclear power stations are much more advanced and safe than those built 20, 30 even 50 years ago.

Australians moved from campfires to wood-fired stoves and now to microwaves. We are moving to nuclear subs. It is time we wised up and opened our minds to the opportunities that await from nuclear power more broadly.

Hopefully we will not be behind the eight ball in research to both build and maximise the benefits of nuclear technology.

READ MORE:

That there is a degree of apprehension in the community is entirely understandable.

The vast majority of information that comes to mind when you mention nuclear is ugly. Those few accidents get blown out of proportion and take over our emotions.

Our political leaders would do well to invest time and money in painting a clearer picture of the opportunities that are there.

Universities in the United States are looking at tiny micro reactors to supply a lot of their power.

Don't think acres of land and huge cooling towers. Rather think of a big box that could be delivered on a truck.

Greenies would hate this idea. Their existence depends largely on the fear campaigns they run on fossil fuels.

The alternatives they offer have their own problems. We don't hear enough about them. The mining for precious metals for batteries and solar panels is often filthy, exploitative of workers in less developed countries and itself environmentally hazardous.

Then there's the problem of tsunami proportions that rears its head at the end life of the batteries and panels. They have to be recycled and disposed of safely. Just where are we going to put all the spent junk? Ditto the giant wind farms when they have finished chopping their way through parrots and raptors.

Nuclear-powered transport for buses, trains and cars isn't far away. Neat, clean and super efficient. From a self-interest perspective Australia is rich in U-235 uranium. That means jobs and wealth. Shock horror.

We have come to where we are globally, lifting millions probably billions out of poverty by using more energy.

The horse and cart gave way to the car and the tractor. Has anybody explained how on a global scale we could manage to turn back? It's a pipe dream.

Sir John Carrick a minister in the Fraser government said in passing to me one day that maybe someone should do bumper stickers which read: "Let the bastards freeze in the dark".

It wasn't his sentiment but it did indicate what he saw as the inevitable consequence of not going nuclear. It's even clearer today than it was then.