Your article sounds very plausible - the non-proliferation agreement merely being a"figleaf" etc.
On the question of terrorism, you acknowledge the risk of terrorists getting hold of nuclear material, but you gloss over it.
You completely ignore the long term problem of where the nuclear wastes will be stored.
It's probably inevitable that international nuclear wastes will come back to Australia, as we increase our involvement in this dirty expensive industry. Even if there existed a solution to waste storage, what about the transport question?
By Australia going into increased sale of uranium, and then into nuclear power, how do we deal with the ?ships, ?planes, ?trucks carrying the wastes around to this wonderful storage?
Nobody else wants the wastes. Nobody seems to be able to estimate the true costs of all the security required to handle this problem.
NOT IMPRESSED! Christina www.antinuclearaustralia.com

The nuclear debate needs to be had particularly so that broader spectrum of people can engage in it and make up there own minds about the propaganda peddled by both the proponents and the opponents.

But it is stupid to have the debate in isolation from the other available sources of power - solar, wind and wave - if people are really concerned about the issue it would be silly to replace the orthodoxy of a commitemnt to fossil fuels for the folly of thinking nuclear power is the answer. At best it might be part of the answer.

THe lead time in this country to see a functioning nuclear energy industry is decades - and I havent seen the numbers on how much carbon pollution would result from developing the infrastructure. THe move may be totally counter productive even before we consider what we do with the waste.

But the lead time to boost a commitment to solar or wind power for it to have real impact on our dependance on fossil fuels is bugger all in comparison. And the fact that oil is running out should provide more impetus to promoting alternative energy than does the fact that it is a pollutant. The same can be said for coal but I guess the reserves of that are higher.

And if people are really truly scared of terrorists and subsribe to the theories that arab oil underwrites a lot of their shennanigans a rapid reduction in our dependance on thier oil is a splendid solution to that sideshow issue. Buy less of their oil and weakne their bargaining position on any number of fronts

We may find nuclear energy is a redundant techology if we focus on a broader range of options -

The idea that nuclear power is greenhouse-friendly is one of those lies that Goebells suggested be repeated until taken as true. The excavation, crushing, extraction, transport, purification and processing of uranium is anything but greenhouse friendly, and the co-ingredients required by reactors also have significant energy (& therefore greenhouse) costs. Nuke proliferation and the 50-years-unsolved (unsolvable?) waste issue are problems we might conceivably evade for our lifetimes at least, but greenhouse is already kicking the door down.

I'm sure that the corporate media blitz in Aus. (as usual trailing the US & UK by 1-2 years) will gloss over these and every other inconvenient fact, and plenty of salaried whores will continue to mumble along in tune.. all the more reason our children will hunt us in packs. Caring for aged baby boomers will consist of a mercifully swift execution.

http://energybulletin.net/15345.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-no-cure-for-climate-change-scientists-warn/2006/05/01/1146335671432.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1753952,00.html

In the decade or so between decision to build a nuclear plant and turning on the switch a number of things will become clearer. Climate miseries will most likely worsen with coal as the major culprit. World oil production will go into decline from its current plateau. Electrification of transport (rail, plugin cars, hydrogen) will need several times more energy than solar panels, wind farms and biofuels can provide. During that decade I expect nuclear critics to remain curiously silent about yellowcake exports, perhaps because it creates jobs. There could be even more jobs (and big bucks) burying returned radioactive waste in remote, stable rock formations. Bring it on I say.

For far too long the media has been dominated by the propaganda and misinformation propagated by the anti-nuclear lobby.

It has been clear that nuclear power is economical and low cost. A view supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering, World Nuclear Association. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology too considers nuclear to have a future. While in to-days Australian there is a note that an ANSTO report is also favourable. Further, the next (fourth) generation nuclear plant will be smaller, cheaper, built on a modular basis, even safer, and will be able to work in tandem with either desalination or hydrogen plant.

As for nuclear waste, there are many sound engineering means of managing waste. Two questions for the Greens:

1. In the last 60 years please indicate who has suffered a radiological injury from the handling or transport of high level waste from the civil industry?
2. How do you think we should manage highly toxic waste that is non bio-degradable, and not subject to radioactive decay i.e. has an infinite half life.

Finally, it is extremely unlikely that an Australian nuclear power industry will be a boost to international terrorism. Likewise an Australian industry will not facilitate the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a rogue state. The sooner we have a fully fledged home-grown nuclear industry the better.

Ya' see Laim thats my point - we need a debate -

what we dont need is proslytising from die hard anti nucleids - or glow in the dark uranium junkies.

Your post is an example of the former and it serves to alienate a large number of people from the discussion. The result of which is usually a decision informed by corruption, bias, ignorance or misplaced zealotry or all of the above.We are at risk of a very one dimensional debate on this issue - it is not an either or proposition

We do need a rational discussion of nuclear energy. The USA has well over 100 reactors. They also have research reactors on most major university campuses. Has there been any issue regarding safety excepting 5 mile island?

The point that intrigues me is the proposal that providers of nuclear fuel are responsible for its safe storage (IE If Australia sells uranium it should take it back). This is why John Howard was in the US and Canada, he wants to move responsibilty for storage of waste to the uranium enrichment industry not the uranium mining industry.

It is also a fact that Australia's vast coal reserves will be used whether we have nuclear power or not. The economics unfortunately over ride any global warming fears.

ANSTO commissioned a report which it handed to federal Science Minister Julie Bishop. The report found that atomic energy was economically viable. Well, as they say in the classics, D'OH! That's not news, it's PR spin.

A report, that's not going to be released to the public, commissioned by the nation's leading pro-nuclear lobby, was always going to find nuclear power was AOK. If Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth released a pro-nuclear report THEN it would be news.

Sounds great, lets have nuclear power in Australia. Considering theres a construction time of more than 10 years, plus the associated studies and we have 15-20 years. Then the full discussion we have to have,will take a few more years. I'm surprised the slaves to anything but change, still fail to see how they're again being conned by the emperor and his new clothes.

Haven't you worked it out yet, didn't you listen to Howard say it. Alternate technologies and fuels aren't viable, because the worlds cartels can't control the economics of alternative energy, it becomes to wide spread and de-centralised.

Whilst we gain our energy from facilities that are single point controlled, oil, coal and nuclear, there will be little support for any alternative approach. Just as the elite have done in the past, they're lying again and we'll see the results in the next few years.

Supporters of nuclear, and those against alternative energies, what do you suggest we do for the next 20 years whilst they are building a nuclear power station And petro fuels continue to increase in price and scarcity.

Just like the national grid, another ploy to centralise and control energy into multinational corporate hands. Take Tasmania, the fools down their listened to the political and economic drones, now Tas has payed thousands of times more for power to be brought to the state, than it costs to produce there. Excellent logic

But I'm sure you'll only worry when the grid collapses, your lights go out and your latte goes cold. After all, they didn't lie about privatisation reducing costs to us did they, look how much charges go down after an asset is privatised.

Hey Alchy

Don't worry we have at least 100 years worth of coal, the Govt. is spending most research on coal sequestration. Nuclear is a political stunt, don't quite know why yet but Howard's a sneeky bugger.

I'm back after treatment. You ready for a debate (Grin).

And Australian taxpayers spend more money on Pen pushers and the gravy train that follows this whole debate.

Although it would provide, "Jobs for the boys".

Nuclear spent fuel in the USA languishes in over 70 stirred ponds awaiting a decision as to what to do with it finally. Recent arrivals have to be carefully placed so as not to be adjacent to the previous arrivals to avoid neutron exchange. Some of the longer term resident fuel elements are put in dry containers, adequately spaced internally so as to avoid interaction. The ponds have to be constantly stirred and cooled, so if they lose their electricity supply for a protracted period, the spent fuel elements might melt down and catch fire, contaminating the internal space inside the containment shield or the surrounding area if they are outside. It would be possible to send the dry containers to Australia in return for the earned revenue from past uranium exports.

The procrastination experienced in finding a final solution is to be deprecated. In the UK's Sellafield the external ponds are full of sludge and guano from seagulls and poor records mean that the exact contents are unknown. Tenders are out to private contractors invited to quote to clear up the mess. The first tranche of taxpayers' money to clean up the closed Magnox and research stations and the processing plant at Sellafield totals £70 billion. The sums needed to clean up the working reactors at the end of their lives is yet to be calculated, but the total bill exceeds the revenue from the generated electricity by a factor of 3 or 4.

Are the Australians really wanting to join the nuclear generation club?

Limited as my scientific knowledge is on this subject, I can still see what appears to be 'a good thing' when I see it.

THORIUM REACTORS cannot experience a Chernobyl type meltdown.

It appears they are an option, but they don't have the by product of producing weapons grade material as a byproduct, hence are less attractive to 'ambitious' governments.

That pretty well summarizes the program I heard on ABC the other day.

If this is the case, then why not have Nuclear power plants based on Thorium fuel ?

Do Manning and O'Neil (M&O) come from a postmodernist school whereby all facts and opinions are equally valid? Have they spent too long at the Flinders Uni bar? Whatever their excuse, their article is illogical and riddled with factual errors.

M&O are happy to export uranium to China because China "ceased producing fissile material in the late 1990s and possesses sufficient weapons grade material to double its existing weapons stockpile". It is believed in some quarters that the Chinese regime stopped producing fissile material (other than that produced via its civil nuclear industry) in the early 1990s, not the late 1990s. There is no independent verification of the claim. And of course if production of fissile material has been suspended, there is no way to be sure that it will not be resumed, and every reason to believe that it WILL be resumed e.g. ongoing expansion of China's conventional military strength, US nuclear/military/political developments in general vis a vis China with missile defence being one important aspect of that.

Nor is there any solid evidence as to how much fissile material the Chinese regime has, despite M&O's assertion that enough exists for the regime to double its existing weapons stockpile. Even if the regime does have that much fissile material, it could very easily seek more fissile material. If the regime wanted even one tenth of the number of weapons as the USA or Russia, it would need far more than it has stockpiled according to M&O's estimate.

As for the M&O argument that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not worth saving, and that we might just as well sell uranium to India (a non-NPT state), their argument is to give up on the NPT (and other nuclear control agreements such as export controls?) and to explore ways that proliferation can be managed through alternative arms control agreements.

Why no detail on how that path is any better than fighting to strengthen existing non-proliferation measures? Why would alternative agreements be any better than those that exist now? Shouldn't we establish firm non-proliferation regimes BEFORE proceeding with nuclear/uranium expansion?

Which environment groups said Australian uranium would be a "likely" source for a terrorist device? Obviously it is one POTENTIAL source, notwithstanding weaker links in the nuclear chain such as smuggling from former Soviet states.

M&O assert that "logic suggests the benefits of nuclear power outweigh its risks, given the projections for carbon use in India and China over the next 50 years. Our uranium has a key role to play in reducing these countries' dependence on oil and coal."

Whose logic? Why pick on China and India - they are still below equitable, sustainable per capita greenhouse gas emissions in stark contrast to Australia and the US. Why is "our" uranium so central to reducing emissions in China and India?

M&O assert that "So-called "Generation 3" nuclear power reactors such as those operating in Japan since 1996 produce relatively cheap electricity, less waste and meltdown is almost impossible."

Relatively cheap in Japan, maybe, and then only by ignoring huge waste management costs. Meltdown almost impossible ... can we have the PRA figures, risk of core reactor accident per year of operation? Can we then adjust the PRA estimate for the usual flaws in PRA assessments and other such factors as commercial pressures (remember Tokai 1999) and slack regulation?

Let's hope that Japan's "Generation 3" reactors - minor modifications of conventional reactors - are much safer because the management and regulation of the Japanese nuclear industry is disgraceful. The Japanese industry has been in turmoil since the August 2002 revelations of 29 cases of false reporting of cracks in reactor components at numerous reactors owned by Tepco dating back to the 1980s. The scandal widened to include utilities Chubu Electric, Tohoku Electric and Japan Atomic Power Co., which also failed to report faults in their reactors.

Patrick Moore and James Lovelock are "renowned" environmentalists according to M&O. Moore is funded by the nuclear industry, as M&O would know, and has previously been funded by other toxic industries. Lovelock is a self-confessed eccentric who has ALWAYS supported nuclear power.

If Australians are to have a debate on Nuclear Energy then it is vital that they are provided with reliable facts. Many of the 'facts' presented so far in this debate are really opinion.
Liam says that the idea that nuclear power is greenhouse friendly is one of those lies that Goebells suggested be repeated until taken as true. However, the UK Sustainable Development Commission (UKSDC) published a paper in March 2006 that stated "Our evidence shows that taking into account the emissions associated with plant construction and the fuel cycle, the emissions associated with nuclear power production are relatively low, with an average value of 4.4tC/GWh, compared to 243tC/GWh for coal and 97tC/GWh for gas." This is despite the UKSDC saying that Nuclear Power is not the best option for preventing climate change. John Busby states that "the sums needed to clean up the working reactors [in the UK] at the end of their lives is yet to be calculated, but the total bill exceeds the revenue from generated electricity by a factor of 3 or 4." However the UK National Audit Office published a review of the Restructuring of British Energy (the only private company operating Nuclear Power Stations in the UK) in March 2006. In it they state that the current estimated cost of the decommissioning of these operating power stations is £2,364 million. During the last full financial year British Energy accounts reported revenues of £1,704 million. Given that these plants are designed to operate for 35 years (or more) then the total revenue (at today’s prices) would be about £59,640 million, or about 25 times the cost of decommissioning.
John Busby also goes on to make unsubstantiated claims about the Sellafield reprocessing plant. As the UK is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty Sellafield is subject to inspection and auditing by the International Atomic Energy Agency. As such it is required to demonstrate that it knows the location of, and can account for, all fissile material that it holds. The records are extensive and detailed and are scrutinised regularly by the IAEA.

northern man asks for facts.

The main source of CO2 emissions is the decommissioning and waste management, the quantity of which only be estimated. For the total cycle see Storm van Leeuwen and Smith on http://www.stormsmith.nl. For the so-called "front-end" emissions see the WISE nuclear calculator on http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfce.html

At the average world ore grade utilised of 0.11% this is 135 g/kWh with an input energy of 0.55 kWh/kWh generated. With low ore grades this rises to equal that from an equivalent gas-fired station and the energy gain over the cycle goes negative.

The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's strategy is on:-

http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/nda_final_strategy,_published_7_april_2006.pdf

The first tranche of £70 billion is for the closed Magnox and research reactors and waste sites. The rest of the Magnox, AGR's and Sizewell B could well cost another £70 billion. This expenditure will be associated with equally massive carbon emissions from fossil fuels, as when the actions take place, the fission is over. This is why the SDC figures northern man quoted are incorrect.

To see where the guano came from and lack of records of the contents of the legacy ponds see:-

http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/UserFiles/ File/Stakeholder-Consultation-Note-V8.pdf

The UK NAO report is on:-

http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/ nao_reports/05-06/0506943.pdf

The estimate for the nuclear liabilities of British Energy at the time of its rescue from bankruptcy was over £5 billion, but that referred only to the reactors in its bailiwick. The task of defining a clean-up strategy and estimating its cost has been given to the NDA, so their figures are now the ones to be taken.

The progamme of nuclear power in the UK has been an economic disaster, but the worse is yet to come with the centuries long clean-up, which will have to be performed with what fossil fuels we can find in a coming energy famine. There are a lot of facts, but few available to the public. Most reside in the annals of government agencies, if they have not been lost in a miasma of incompetence.

Just in case readers have problems with the URL's quoted above, here they are again

http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/nda_final_strategy,_published_7_april_2006.pdf

http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/UserFiles/File/Stakeholder-Consultation-Note-V8.pdf

http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506943.pdf

I’m grateful for John Busby clarifying his original comments.

On the issue of CO2 emissions from Nuclear Energy, I for one am content to stick with the figures produced by the UK Sustainability Development Commission. An independent group, who have no links to either pro or anti-nuclear groups, who have confirmed that Nuclear Power has low carbon emissions despite recommending that the UK doesn’t build any more. See:

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf

I agree with John that it’s difficult to get accurate unbiased opinion, and so try and select sources that have ‘no axe to grind’.

If John had read carefully the National Audit Office report he cited, he would have seen that the £5 billion was the total liabilities of the company. Only £2,364 Billion (as I mentioned previously) is for decommissioning. The remaining £2,923 is not for decommissioning but is the ongoing operational cost of processing the used fuel. See footnote 5 to the table on Page 11. Should all the British Energy (BE) stations close tomorrow this figure would reduce considerably because lots of fuel would not be used and require reprocessing. BE has passed these values to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for validation. Hopefully we will soon see whether the estimate of £2,364 billion is valid.

John’s original statement implied that most of Sellafield’s fuel storage ponds are full of sludge and guano from seagulls. The report he cites makes it clear that this only applies to the Pile Fuel Storage Pond built between 1948 and 1952. The use of these ponds changed in 1962 to the ad hoc storage of waste, with operations ceasing in the early 1970s. The report states that “the Pile Fuel Storage Pond sludge differs from other LP & LS sludge in that it is not principally derived from the corrosion of fuel, and contains a significant proportion of biologically derived material such as guano, algae and wind blown debris.” So, although the problem does exist it is limited to the very first ponds built, which ceased operation 30 years ago, doesn’t affect subsequent facilities and doesn’t reflect situation in the current ponds.

I am sure that the Hanford site must contain some of Bruce Busbys “70 stirred ponds” that are located in the USA. Ponds where nuclear fuel “languishes.” I wonder if he would be interested in a paper in Health Physics. The health records of four counties with population exposed to the highest exposure to I-131 concentration were compared to five comparison regions. Release of I-131 at Hanford occurred between 1944 and 1957. The cancers surveyed included thyroid and childhood leukaemia. Like the 1990 Jablon study results did not show an excess of any cancers in the exposed regions. Bruce, given that this has the limitations of any ecological study, do you not find the results reassuring? One other point in their discussion Boice et al provide an excellent summary of the <reassuring> literature about I-131 exposure, (including medical exposure).

Boice JD et al . Health Physics 2006; 90: 431-445
Jablon S et al. JAMA 1991; 265:1403-1408.

Its curious to see northern man speaking easily of spending trillions on decommissioning nuclear plants and associated facilities, and we might as well speak loosely as the cost goes up a dozen notches fairly regularly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4140636.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm
"Only £2,364 Billion" sounds curiously cheap for the whole lot though, when Sizewell alone is £870 million.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=znews&itemid=IPED27%20May%202006%2000%3A04%3A19%3A310

Northern man's single positive report on GHGs omits to consder the emissions from unearthing, transporting crushing, purifying, shipping, processing, and enriching fuel and associated inputs.

But its just 'good economics' to externalise your costs, eh NM?

I thought Northern Man's reference to the fuel cycle dealt with the process of getting the fuel, processing it and using it. And it still gave it the go-ahead. Thanks, Northern Man, for providing another side to the debate.

There seem to be a lot of conspiracy theorists here who see all the problems with nuclear energy but produce no evidence of the efficiency or reliability of their 'alternative sources'.