Thank you, Alison Broinowski, for showing up the government’s secrecy over this whole nuclear deal – planned for Australia if the coalition is returned.

There are so many matters of concern about the nuclear fuel cycle – that sometimes it is hard to know where to start in explaining the hazards:
We hear about the effects of radiation on health – of the uranium miners, of aboriginal communities, and of the general community.

There is the virtually permanent environmental damage caused by just about every phase on the cycle, with nuclear wastes as the most well-known.

There is the essential connection between “peaceful” nuclear power, and nuclear weapons and war.

There is the subtle but effective downgrading of truly clean energy technologies, and of progressive concepts of decentralised energy sources – in favour of the highly centralised nuclear power plant and grid. At the same time, the centralised system provides perfect targets for terrorists.

Yet with all these, none worries me as much as the secrecy and removal of civil liberties that are intrinsic to the nuclear cycle.

Obviously these factors do not worry the Howard government. As Fortescue Mining, Lang O'Rourke and Austrack spend $millions for isolated area rail lines in Western Australia,(surely for nuclear plans) - as some members of the Northern Land Council quietly opt for handing over traditional land for the nuclear industry, as John Carlson in Vienna sews up secret deals with the GNEP – it is pretty obvious that it is all being set up in secret.

With its history of lies about children overboard, about WMDs, about the Wheat Board scandal – the Howard government is well experienced in the secret deals needed for nuclear. Now we learn that the very secretive Exclusive Brethren are quietly funding the Howard election campaign.

Will the mainstream media have the guts to expose the nuclear secret deals?
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Such ignorance!

As petrol approaches the magical $10 per litre, green renewable energy options will fail. They all depend on material, energy and transport feedstocks based on cheap OIL. No green energy schema is viable except Geothermal power. Geothermal is just nuclear power where the Earth's core is the reactor, but technical difficulties mean NUCLEAR power will be required befor PEAKOIL to cover all bases.

The rants about the dangers of nuclear wastes is likesaying that the greatest threat to our survival is the Howard's secretive, dangerous Tse-Tse flies in Africa. In fact the greatest threat is women having children. Nuclear dangers are totally insignificant compared to the human sex drive which is the seed for violence, murder, incalculable disease, betrayal and endless wars throughout human history. It is ignorantly and wantonly pushing us unsustainably towards 8 billion people by 2025 when OIL and renewable energy inventories will be back at per capita STONE-AGE levels.

All I can say to women-against-NUCLEAR is that you should wake up and better research the facts if you want to keep having CHILDREN.

The Thermodynamics of green energy options approaching PEAKOIL indicates extreme chaos. The world's population will revert to a Back-to-the-Future endpoint around 1900 before oil was in common use.
That scenario as we know from history can only support 2 billion people. The green energy technologies that non=scientific people assume will save us just won't be there because they depend on OIL.

If we use NUCLEAR now as a temporary bridge over PEAKOIL we might just make it to around 2050 by which time the technical and political problems against HOT-ROCKS-GEOTHERMAL power will by necessity be solved and we will have survived.

In the meantime, keep having kids, keep immigrating Australia's fool's economic-growth paradise, keep ignorant of a true NUCLEAR perspective. Like the Titanic, the faster it all gets, the harder Australia will crash into the not-so-far-away PEAKOIL iceberg.

I think these proposals should be welcomed. I'd go further and suggest that Australia also gets into fuel reprocessing and enrichment. The Australian developed Silex process for laser enrichment has been licensed to US and Japanese interests; it would be a shame not to use it on home soil. For the sake of brevity I'd summarise the other arguments as follows;
1) there is a lot of money to be made and jobs created
2) nuclear energy can displace baseload power generation by coal
3) Australia is morally obliged to influence the full nuclear fuel cycle
4) our nuclear virginity went with the British A bomb tests in the 60s.

I also would like to thank Dr Broinowski for revealing what has been concealed.
I guess we should be used to this for as the Downing Street Memorandum demonstrated we were also deprived of true information on Iraq.
Nuclear is a contentious issue one that Prof. Ian Lowe has just tackled in Quarterly essay 27. A he says doubtless the article does not canvass all possible conclusions but like Dr Broinowsky he does attempt a balanced reading of the situation, one we have not and do not receive from our trusted politicians.
Here of course market economics operate and winning justifies the past in to-days usage.
Maybe trust is a past and lazy attitude?

LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND UNTIL ITS MORE USEFUL FOR AUSTRALIA

Allison's essay reveals some useful information about the infamous Dick Cheney's exploitation of business and Government influence. Naturally Allison also indulges in environmentally pure positions that are the luxury of parties that will never run the country.

I see some consensus in the opposing positions of this debate in terms of Australia conserving its uranium for later, efficient use by Australians. This means we don't sell it fast and cheap to China, Russia and India. This runs a bit contrary to what I've said before on OLO but I but I reckon the developing an opinion is better than defending stale views.

The sudden rush of uranium sales suggests that Alexander Downer may be arranging a post Parliamentary sinecure for himself in the energy trade including uranium. He knows he won't have his (ex Party Leader consolation prize) Ministerial post much longer.

We shouldn't allow uranium buyers long term contracts that may result in sales significantly below the world price. Instead Uranium should be sold at daily market prices like oil and gold.

As has been argued above we should control the fuel cycle.

- Australia should be the country that enriches its uranium and then sells it for a higher price instead of Russia enriching our uranium and then onselling it at a marked up price.

- development of a fast breeder reactor to make use of plutonium product should be considered in future. This ultimately better uses the uranium resource.

Australians should realise that our gas and coal reserves will (or can) be useful bridging energy sources for several decades. I think we should leave uranium in the ground until it is an economical energy source and not sell it cheaply beforehand.

Pete

PS. On second reading I reckon I was a little harsh on the author, Alison Broinowski, in the sense that she's an independent academic who made some telling points about the economic realities of trade, transport and uranium.

She should not for a minute be confused (like moi for a second) with that Democrat politician, whose written on the same subject, Senator Allison.

Poida.

KAEP's bald repetition that green power is dependent on petroleum for its viability is false.

Nuclear energy requires not only energy and material inputs for capital equipment but also an ongoing fuel supply of fissionable materials, which must be mined, refined and enriched at great energy cost. There is no particular reason why the required energy input, for either nuclear or renewables, has to be from petroleum. Chemical inputs such as plastics and solvents also do not require mineral oil feedstocks.

At present oil prices, or even much lower ones, numerous viable techniques exist for manufacturing non-petroleum liquid fuels suitable for petroleum-burning equipment; cheaper options are also available to convert or replace equipment to use electricity or gaseous fuel.

Biofuels already provide a small but rapidly growing portion of the world liquid and gas fuel market (around 1.5%, up from 0.5% in 2003). Synthetic oil (from biomass or coal) is a viable competitor to petroleum even with prices as low as $US50/barrel. Synthetic and vegetable oils will soften the blow of soaring petroleum prices, while removing altogether any technical barrier that petroleum depletion might pose.

The argument that there are 'technical and political problems' with the harnessing of hot-rock geothermal energy that require, somehow, a 'nuclear bridge' before they can be solved is a non-sequiteur. The only political problem I'm aware of with hot-rock geothermal projects is the vacillating now-you-see-it-now-you-don't of regulatory incentives for renewable electric generation. Any technical problems are minor -- there is no doubt that it's a viable technology today, all it needs is investment.

It would be equally valid to argue that geothermal power is required in order to 'bridge' the 'technical and political problems' with nuclear power. One of these generation options requires huge energy inputs to produce and enrich its fuel; the other also requires some energy input (for equipment and drilling) but significantly less of it, for it is fuel-free.

There is no doubt that renewable energy, for electricity and fuel alike, is viable. The idea that 'peak oil' somehow limits green power while presenting no such barrier to nuclear power is nonsense.

There is no doubt that renewable energy, for electricity and fuel alike, is NOT viable. The costings in this link http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/ElecGenProsCons.html
are quite clear. Solar is expensive relative to most other options. This is also why there is such a small uptake of the technology. The idea that 'peak oil' somehow will not limit green power as its peakoil transition cost relative to nuclear INCREASES, is nonsense.

PEAKOIL will not hamper NUCLEAR power the same as solar because it is the one EXPORT commodity during PEAKOIL that will be worth using precious oil supples to procure by o/s nations. Solar panels will require expensive imports that will degrade our purchasing power in aan emerging peakoil world.

The political problems with GEOTHERMAL are due to oil companies reluctance to allow use of its drilling infrastructure and technologies. Oil cmpaniers run this planet and it is uncertain at what point they will allow progress in geothermal, a major competitor to their profit margins. We can't wait and guess when that will be or when technical problems might be solved. So NUCLEAR is an interim BRIDGE is essential for national security and sustainability. And please remember that nuclear is far safer and environmentally more sustainable than coal or oil for that matter.

I can’t agree with KAEP’s “The Thermodynamics of green energy options approaching PEAKOIL indicates extreme chaos” nor can I agree with XODDAM’s “Chemical inputs such as plastics and solvents also do not require mineral oil feedstocks” . Perhaps I spent too long at Altona where a string of liquids and gasses got turned into whatever including high density plastics. These days we should be able to substitute a range of feeds into fresh resources.

If oil does run out here there is natural gas, coal and wood in abundance for the crafty to convert into something worth while. Web processing, coating and forming after cellulose using steam was where I started fifty years ago. Particle boards to near transparent tissue can replace a lot of plastic packaging that is so structural in our throwaway society today. The demand for paper is another issue. I for one wont miss junk mail at election time.

Transport started with leg power, wind power came much later. Cobb & Co solved a few inland routes. Pity we had to have horse flu. Pity nuclear waste won’t have the same natural checks and balances.

The idea of nuclear powered transport for the masses after peak oil really worries me. Lets guess neither KAEP or XODDAM have the background to estimate the hazards either way.

Taz,

I think I said exactly what you said: chemical processes that traditionally use petroleum products as feedstocks do not *require* petroleum products.

Please don't lump my opinion and analysis in with the nuclear snake-oil KAEP is selling.