Of course its a charade, just like every other pretence at democracy to come out of Howard government. Between balancing the interests/payolla of Rio Tinto, Lord Ashcroft, Emperor Bush II and Alan Jones, who's got time to even listen to the views Australians in this nonelection year.

Howard has already been told to ramp up uranium mining and go for enrichment, the 'national debate' is just to get our complicity in genocide in Iraq, oil prices, the rolling of Alkatiri, and the terrorism kangaroo courts off the front pages. Watch the birdy, children..

Richard's Bronowski's article is a very thorough dissection of the propaganda now being pushed to us all by the Bush and Howard governments and the uranium mining interests. It's hard to believe that Howard would start all this, just as a ploy to split the Labor party. (Especially as they do such a good job of that by themselves, usually). I really thought that it was just a greedy push by Howard's mining backers to make heaps of money not out of nuclear reactors here, but out of selling uranium, and then even more heaps by Australia taking in international nuclear wastes. Bronowski's article is a sobering and convincing argument. But will Australians just ignore this, seeing only the dollar signs for their investments?
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Thank you Richard for that excellent contribution. We had a public call here on the Central Coast from the Liberal federal MP Ken Ticehurst (Dobell) (14/3) who wanted to hear from the Central Coast residents what they thought about the "new debate" and nuclear power etc. That was 14 days ago but my letter to the Express Advocate, a major local paper, has not appeared as yet. The gist of my argument is that the best way to deal with uranium ore is to leave it in the ground, given that it is not an good alternative to power needs, cannot be checked properly once it leaves our shores, is definitely a security risk and, given Australia's geological instability, cannot be safely buried here. Those with the dollar signs in their eyes, the PM' constituents and his US friends, as well as the stacked Committee of Inquiry, have commercial aims and will endeavour to confuse the truth. Mr. Ticehurst specifically referred to "the government's experts", when making his call, who would provide objective background material if required. What I am getting at is that, given the complex nature of the argument, an attempt is being made here deceive the public. I know that your sister Helen Caldicott lives here. Could you or Helen or both answer Mr. Ticehurst as well please? I can provide the text of his (and my letter) if required. The email of the Express Advocate is coastnews@cumberlandnewspapers.com.au.

Klaas Woldring

I was wondrously deceived. Professor Brionowski in his opening paragraphs appeared to be advocating an expansion of nuclear energy. Alas no way, as we read on he reiterates the anti-nuclear propaganda of the extreme left. Arguments that could well come out of the pages of say “Greenleft Weekly.” Of course one must acknowledge Professor Brionowski’s deep knowledge and scholarship in the field of international relationships. Clearly, there are other and more plausible interpretations of international affairs and of the role played by Australia.

I hazard a guess that only very small percentages of Australians are motivated by a hatred and distrust of America and American foreign policy. Over a long period there are few sharp brakes in either American or Australian foreign policy even if the government is succeeded by a rival party.

Many of would say that one of the great achievements of Prime Minister Howard is his strengthening of the Australian-American Alliance, and his reported empathy with President Bush. I know the left does not like it, but it is none the less a fact.

As for Australian uranium being used to make weapons or fall into terrorist hands yes this may be possible. So what, there is enough nuclear material about, so as to make any Australian contribution negligible. By the way it is not easy to manufacture bombs. It is expensive in money, energy and time to enrich uranium to the level required. Fissile Pu-239 is probable best prepared in a purpose built research reactor. Plutonium from power reactors (because of long refuelling intervals) will be a contaminated with Pu-240 and other unwanted radio-nuclides. It would seem from the history of the Manhattan project to manufacture a plutonium weapon requires considerable expertise and resources.
Some counties such as Libya and S.Africa have already given it away. Iran always appears to be some years in to the future. North Korea is alleged to have a bomb or two, the question is, is it doing her any good? Do the N. Korean bombs actually work?

Much of what the article says is possibly valid though some points have been rebutted elsewhere. However as far as global warming and the nuclear fuel cycle is concerned we are already in it up to our ears. Australia both contributes disproportionately to GW through coal exports and to overseas nuclear industry through yellowcake. SA and NT have thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars of State revenue through uranium mining. Given the reality of the situation Australia's role as a major supplier should be to help set standards. For example the spent nuclear fuel could be buried next to the mine. If the corresponding amount of material isn't checked back in that customer gets blacklisted.

Within a few years it will become clear that squeaky clean energy sources won't be enough; compared to coal nuclear is the lesser of two evils.

Professor Brionowski is another of the worried group who do not want an informed debate about Uranium and its mining, enrichment and uses because they could never accept any result other than the "leave it in the ground" outcome. So, their arguments are never really about the subject itself but always about potential risks and conspiracy theories which they exaggerate out of all proportion.

Whenever a left group tries to paint an issue as being too dangerous to contemplete examining in a calm and scientific way, you (ie normal people) know you are on a winner. That is, the group knows they are on thin ice and want to shut down any sane discussion before it starts.

Fortunately the majority of people are not on the extreme left and are quite comfortable with supporting a rational, scientific dabate and examining the result.

Professor Brionowski says "leave it in the ground". No just dig it up, build a nuclear reactor in Prime Minister John Howard's electorate of Bennelong and then he will have a real mandate for his next term. Come on Liberal Party representatives. Why aren't you pleading to John Howard for a chance to have a nuclear reactor and storage depot in your electorate -in your backyard.

Rancitas' faults are many
The Liberals have only two
Everything they say
And everything they do

I suspect another slimey Howard plot, he is an expert in mean and tricky.

I bet the washup of the Uranium enquiry is that "Coal is wonderful".

Just what Johnny wants.

I think Bush told him to do it and then sell uranium to India in spite of the fact they haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty.

Just business for the big boys.

And to take our minds of the new anti-refugee policy which he utterly failed to sell even to many of his own party.

Richard's Bronowski is clearly neither an Engineer nor a Physicist. A properly designed nuclear reactor (Chernobyl was not) is covered by a massive concrete shield strong enough to contain a nuclear explosion within. This would be quite sufficient to deter any terrorists.

I wish the "Social Engineers" would leave it to real Engineers for information about nuclear plant. Then and only then can we have a sensible and informed discussion, I have no idea what direction the final outcome would take.

The arguement that greenhouse house effect cannot be amelierated unless we do something tomorrow is a furphy. Climate change may already be in progress, the issue is what can we do not to make things worse when the 3rd world brings itself up to our levels of comfort and energy use.

Unfortunately the anti nuclear lobby feeds on misunderstandings and sophistry which obscures any rational debate. It is much easier to study propoganda than do the hard yards of mathematics and physics and chemistry necessary to make a proper comment on this issue.

The idea that Australia has plenty of uranium to provide the world with energy needs a closer look. The Ranger mine is due to close in 2008, with processing continuing to 2011. Beverley is a minor player providing >1000 tonnes/annum. BHP Billiton reported in its last quarterly report that copper and uranium production from the Olympic Dam underground mine is falling due to low ore grades. So everything depends on its expansion as an open pit. If it passes its pre-feasibility and feasibility studies, digging will start in 2009, reaching the ore deposits in 2013. Four years of diesel-powered excavation will mean expensive imports of crude oil, more energy will be required for the water desalination and associated pipeline, for a rail link and for an extension to Roxby Downs. The uranium is a co-product with copper, silver and gold as the grade is too low for its extraction as a single product. So the go-ahead depends on the maintenance of the copper price during the next seven years. Australia supplies the US, Europe, South Korea and Japan with yellow cake (U3O8), so if it supplies China, it will have to disappoint its current customers. The same applies if it decides to generate its own nuclear power. If the fossil energy input needed to provide others with electrical energy exceeds what they gain, the whole exercise is a nonsense. The politics have no chance in beating the laws of thermodynamics

I am sure that Bronowski's article is based on the tried and true maxim of the extreme left that "We must make demands that cannot be satisfied. "

There are several points about global warming gases and nuclear energy that need to be made again:

1. Australia is so small and insignificant that it just doesn't matter what we do. The countries that matter are China and India.

2. Although we possess a sizeable percentage of the world's uranium, whether we export it or not will not alter the prospect of nuclear proliferation by any appreciable amount. One fact that not many people know is that Iran has the only uranium mine in the middle east, and so is not subject to any restrictions imposed by the exporting countries. That is why they are such a threat.

3. The provision of electricity is now vital to the continuing existence of the world's population. Any interruption to the supply would result in mass starvation, as well as economic collapse.

4. The population of the world will increase by 50% over the next thirty years, making all of these problems much more acute.

5. Current comparisons between coal and nuclear power stations do not take into account the pollutants currently being released by coal stations, which include 6 grams of uranium released into the atmosphere for every ton of coal burnt, as well as oxides of sulphur, nitrogen etc. The possible risk from nuclear power pales into insignificance compared to the many thousands of people (mainly in China) dying each year in coal mines.

6. The only way we know how to run an economy is to have it grow constantly. The last protracted period without growth was called the Great Depression, and I don't think many people want that repeated.

It looks like being an interesting century.

And just where is all the Nuclear waste going to be stored? Better to spend $$$ immediately to conserve energy (use less)- save money - save the environment. Conservation measures can be implemented immediately (shut of the lights you don't need, etc). This is not high tech. It's just common sense. From Marblehead, MA USA

I hope hsk01945 does not think that uranium left in the ground is harmless. In fact uranium ore - an honest to goodness all natural material – is radioactive and if close to the surface leaks radioactive material into water courses and gamma rays into the air. In fact some tribes living traditionally in the vicinity of these natural ores experience health problems and reduced life expectancy as a result.

Waste from nuclear reactors wrapped in lead and stored in containers in stable geological sites well below the surface do not give these problems and of course removing the uranium from the ground makes the area safer. Another solution is to dilute the waste so much that the resultant material has a radioactivity much lower than the original natural product.

Energy conservation is a laudable proposition but very few people are prepared to do it – what size car do you drive? Also once China, India, Indonesia etc start to hanker after our living standards, even with conservation I think it is unlikely to achieve a sufficient result. Of course we all must try and I drive a small car and walk a lot.

Alternative energy would be the shot but despite all efforts no-one has yet produced a total solution.

I have never worked in the nuclear industry but I am an engineer and have studied physics to a high University level and worked in the coal fired power industry.

John Howard parades openly to the world as George Bushes lapdog... It seems absolutely absurd that Howard can continue to allow OUR country to be eaten alive by the the Bush Government, who obviously, cares nothing for his own people, and would not give a second thought to the welfare of Australia. Is nobody going to do anything? I hate to sit here casting feeble opinions about these serious events that continue to unfold before us while Howard sells us out to the US! The shame of it. The Australian people sit by and watch Howard embarass us in front of the whole world. It makes me so mad! Why has Howard not been assassinated yet? I understand the whole way of thinking that we don't want to make a martyr out of him, but come on... All you crazy gun wielding wierdo's...somebody take him out and put the Australian people out of their misery.

Mike&natty, I share your concerns, but I don’t see it in such black and white terms. I can understand why Howard has gone out of his way to remain in the good books with the American shrubbery. I hate the fact that we still have troops in Iraq or that we ever did, but I can understand it. The only thing I can’t accept is that Howard hasn’t protested in the strongest possible manner over the treatment of David Hicks and the absolute antidemocratic antihumanitarian hole that is Guantanamo. Surely his really strong relationship with Bush has put him in a position where he can full-forcedly express this outrage. Even if Hicks is a guilty as sin, his treatment by the apparently leading democratic society in the world is unforgivable.

America espouses democratic values with a great fervour….and then simply steps right outside of it when it suits them. Hell, that sucks.

Similarly, I cannot see the issue of uranium exports or the development of nuclear power in Australia in black and white terms. In fact I really struggle with the whole deal. It is a doozy of an issue to come to terms with.

I think there is merit in us developing nuclear power, despite the dangers and poor economics… if it was to progressively replace coal. But let’s face it, it ain’t gonna do that. Coal will continue to be used, and exported and manic rate, for as long as the short-term economics are anywhere near viable. So nuclear power would simply be more power on top of coal, which would serve to facilitate a greater population, a greater demand for energy, greater pressure on all sorts of other resources and on the environment in general, and NOT solve any of our looming massive resource and sustainability issues.

There might be a place for nuclear power, but ONLY if it is part of an overall genuine and urgent sustainability strategy.

Why has Howard not been assassinated yet?

This is outrageous, I detest the slimy piece of frog turd we have as PM but the only way to remove him is via the ballot box, if not our society means nothing.

JWH, GWB, 'Dubblyas' by any other name. Spend some time at ADF bases around the nation (or O/S for that matter) and take a ticket in the lineup of people just waiting to pull the trigger on these clowns.

The great disarming of Australia was the "piece de resistance" of Dr Rebecca Peters. On just how the great conspiracy of Port Arthur was perpetrated, and its authors, will remain forever hidden - unless a member of the inner circle breaks ranks and 'fesses up.

Why was it in March 2005, on his early morning walk along the Esplanade in Darwin, that PM Howard's VIP Protection boys were easily 20 - 30 metres ahead and behind him, and yet I was able to intercept him and go straight up and ask him questions on what his government is doing about the compensation of Kylie Russell (widow of Sgt Andrew Russell). His response was to furrow his brows and walk off in a huff.

No bullet proof vest, no effective VIP goons in proximity- doesn't this exude a cool smugness?

Had I truly been the 'ratbag' or 'Noisy Interloper' I am often portrayed as, then Johnny may well be pushing up the daisies as we blog.

No, these di**heads only understand ratings, opinion polls and the ballot boxes. They care nought about you & I, or the troops doing their job wherever.

See the article "Nuclear energy & greenhouse Is going nuclear the answer?" By Mark Diesendorf at http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/167.html.

Of course, since it is on the Evatt Foundation site, it can be dismissed as Left propaganda. Unfortunately for those who would hold that view, it is a careful analysis. If you read this and still advocate nuclear energy as a major solution to reduction of greenhouse emissions then I suggest exploring issues such as Bishop Usher's view of the time of origin of the planet.

De

Des

Do acredited studies in engineering or at least in physics with attention to nuclear physics. Then get some practical experience in electricity production and then come and tell us your opinions on Mark Diesendorf's article. I have yet to meet another engineer (I am one) who is quite so one sided on this issue.

Logic, Public policy and the decision process should not require people to be experts, only that they are reasonably intelligent and are committed to challenging the assertions of others in order to arrive at the best possible approach to the truth having regard to the knowledge to hand; indeed the assertion that they do and the resulting tendency to leave it to the experts has bedevilled us for decades if not centuries. Consider much of the argument about global warming, especially the hockey stick graph.

The variables in Diesenedorf’s article would seem to come down to 1, concentration and 2, amount of uranium oxide which can be mined which determine how long the resource will last, 3, energy input required to convert the ore to fuel, 4, the yield of fast breeder reactors (and some other variables which I probably have missed). And the issues or options concern 5, the source of energy to undertake the processing and reprocessing and 6. the emissions volume of those processes and 7, the resulting time that it takes for the emissions involved to be compensated for by the operation of the nuclear power plant.

Diesendorf uses data from other studies which he quotes and whom he emphasises were independent of the nuclear industry.

What of these variables and issues, specifically, do you disagree with in Diesendorf’s article? Do you consider that there is enough ore to last for twice as long? Or that the input will generate less CO2? Or that disposal will be less costly and/or less dangerous? Or what?

Des

Firstly sorry that I was unfairly hard on you and I do apologise for unacceptable behaviour.

The view that nuclear power does not result in a reduction of CO2 makes no sense at all but the question is not which items I disagree with. The point is what do knowledgable people think of it? If you consider that his main atribute is that he is not working for the nuclear industry that is not a good reason for accepting his views.

Regarding experts intelligent people without training do not generally know who is an expert and who is not, and therein lies the problem. Often anyone who has worked with the nuclear industry is imediately suspect and that is a problem - they are the ones with the best knowledge. Professor Price from Monash University Engineering Department has worked in the nuclear industry but also with alternatve energy and with brown coal. A former colleage of mine he was once concerned about nuclear power but on ABC radio came out in support.

He is a real expert with real life practical experience but is likely to be drowned out in a chorus of self styled experts and academics.

Once again humblest apologies for the tenor of my first reply. I see that you are a reasonable man of intelligence and logic.

The UK's "Sustainable Development Commission" has produced http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Nuclear-paper2-reducingCO2emissions.pdf , and in section 4 it discusses, and in section 7.2 links, some good references on nuclear energy's indirect carbon emissions.

Now-a-days natural gas's pretax cost per joule is about 30 times that of uranium. Its tax yield exceeds that of uranium by a much larger factor, and this has some tendency to bias the judgment of tax-supported scholars, a group that includes some members of the SDC and some of the authors they link.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion without exhaust gas:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

This thread needs to return to the basics.

Instead of coal or natural gas, nukes run on uranium. Like coal, uranium has to be mined. It also has to be converted, enriched and transported. Add that up and you get more greenhouse gas emissions than a natural gas-fired power plant, according to one of the few studies done on the complicated issue by the scientists at the German Oko-Institut. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry would have you believe that solar and wind power create more greenhouse gases than nuclear.

Not only does nuclear power contribute to the greenhouse effect, and so, indirectly affecting the planet's health and our well-being, it very well could affect our health and the planet's health directly -- by killing everything in sight in an accident.

When atom of a special type of element, uranium 235, is bombarded by neutrons, the uranium releases more neutrons that split more uranium atoms in a chain reaction. This is fission. Nuclear power plants use the heat given off from that process to boil water. The steam from that water turns the same basic turbines that you find in other power plants fueled by natural gas or coal to make the heat. It's a huge, scary engineering problem just meant to boil water. As antinuclear guru Amory Lovins quipped, it's like using a chainsaw to cut butter.

The difference is the radioactivity is contained -- at least we hope it remains contained -- within the reactor where the fission is constantly exploding at a molecular level. If that radioactivity escapes the reactor (that happens on occasion) or is released through contaminated water spills (that happens with great regularity), then it's a health and safety problem.

Continued...

Finally....

Like humans, the older the plants get, the more things go wrong. A steam generator replacement, like grandma's hip replacement, only buys so much time. The reactor's steel, like human bones, gets more brittle with age. For a price, plant owners can give their nuclear facilities the equivalent of bone replacements, organ transplants, face lifts and tummy tucks, but what they will still have in the end is an old nuclear plant.

There's health problems. There's safety problems. Then, there's money.

These days, most of us have a personal choice in our economic behaviour. We can spend a few more cents on recycled toilet paper or organic food, knowing that, in the long run, we are doing something to help prolong our environment. That’s all we can do, whereas getting rid of nuclear power cannot be accomplished on a personal, everyday consumption level. It costs. A lot. In terms of money, disposal and storage of waste. At least with wind power it doesn’t take much to remove the towers and at least they can be recycled unlike nuke plants.

Howard's 'debate' is just a big charade while the focus remains solely on nukes - we need to consider and support sustainable energy until this happens we are just going in circles.

I was heartened to hear that the Fox recommendations has resurfaced in this so called "Full Blooded Debate". What Australians demand is a "Full Bloody Debate" not the half backed yellowcake inquiry palmed off to Australians by the Government.

I cross examined most of the hundreds of witnesses to the gruelling almost 2 year long Fox Inquiry from 1975 to 1977.

However, last minute significant evidence leaked rom the files of Mary Kathleen Uranium Mining P/L was not accepted by the Inquiry Counsel Assisting. It revealed an extensive global price fixing cartel "The Uranium Club" that inflated the price of uranium from $7/pound to $45/pound from 1972 to 1974. We see similar inflation of the uranium price now from 1996 to 2006. See article http://www.321energy.com/editorials/roffey/roffey080806.html

This evidence while not accepted by the Australian inquiry was accepted by the US Justice Department and it resulted in out of court settlements close to $1billion from many Australian uranium producers.

Most significantly, the evidence revealed advice given by senior Australian Government officials , Scully and Larkin, that Rio Tinto Zinc and other Oz Uranium producers could avoid the safeguard problems of exporting Australian uranium to Taiwan (not a signatory to the NPT) by sending it to the US where it would be "toll processed" and then forwarded to Taiwan. So despite Australia's safeguards , Australia's officials were already plotting to thwart these in advance.

The missing and unaccounted for Australian uranium needs to be a major focus of any inquiry into nuclear. Another major focus is the real long term contribution to abating climate change with renewable energy systems such as solar, wind and many other clean energy systems. So lets have a full bloody debate and not the half baked yellowcake debate.

Then perhaps Australia can rival the Californian Governor's million solar rooftops policy and program in the Asian Pacific region.

Good on you Richard for detailing and highlighting some very important aspects to this issue.