A BIG NO to nuclear power and to uranium ore exports

Helen Caldicott has made an outstanding contribution to this debate and continues to do so. The global warming justification to now defend opening up new uranium mines is indeed farcical and dishonest. It is motivated by greed and commercial interests. An additional new justification is that "everybody is doing it so let's make sure we don't miss out with our huge reserves of uranium ore". To export uranium ore to China, or anywhere else, is very bad news for the entire world. Given our large reserves it is especially incumbent on us to set an ethical example. Nuclear power plants are (a) extremely costly to build and dismantle (b) provide energy that is not “cleaner and greener” (c) still has the major problem of producing and storing radio active waste (d) if in Australia it is not even geologically stable as often claimed (e) is NOT a renewable energy (f) can easily lead to the spread of nuclear weapons. Exporting the ore to other countries, on the pretense of having a moral responsibility to do that, means losing control over its final destination and use. We could end up with nuclear weapons everywhere. Does Australia want to contribute to this in any way? Keen to show leadership internationally this is Australia's great opportunity by saying "we will not be part of this".

Klaas Woldring

The one really irritating thing in common about the anti nuclear posts is that they look at practices and technologies from decades ago and hold them up as warnings for the future.

Yet often with the same breath they will look at renewable technologies and ascribe to them capabilities that as of yet are purely speculative.

For example, the dangers of radiation weren't clearly understood until the late 60s, and the lack of safety precautions (especially 1945 to 1970) lead to a lot of unnecessary illnesses. The plants then and now are chalk and cheese.

This can be compared for example to the handling of asbestos.

Similarly the high level fuel waste that Atom1 mentioned, (if the political hurdle of reprocessing is passed) is a significant source of fuel. The reprocessing would reduce the volume of waste material significantly, and the radioactivity so much that the hazard level of the waste can be down graded.

It is not as if the correct information is not readily available, but the old stories keep circulating the anti nuclear websites like urban myths, even when they ceased to be true decades ago.

People like Helen Caldicott don't help either by posting this outdated rubbish. Assuming the moral high ground seems to give her license to ignore the truth.

With global warming, nuclear is coming, the actions of the government over the next decade will determine whether Australia is involved with the design and setting of standards, or is simply has to adapt to standards set by others.

Why are so many posters in support of Nuclear Power? I do not need Helen Caldicott to tell me that Nuclear Power is a non-solution to the problem of climate change. The reasons?
First most pundits seem content to ignore the reality of exponential growth - the rate at which our demand for energy is increasing is such that it cannot be met by finite resources like coal, natural gas, oil or uranium. Even a modest growth of 2%pa in our energy demand means a doubling of the energy output every 30 years - we are looking at a global growth of closer to 10%. That demand cannot be met by relying on finite resources. We can buy some time by increasing efficiencies but ultimately we need to find a way of creating an economy that is based on renewable energy.
Secondly I am supicious of any energy solution that is touted to be so wonderful and such a brilliant solution yet cannot attract private investors. Standard and Poors have advised funds against investing in nuclear technology - the industry is dependent on tax payers to make their technology viable. (WE will be in the priveledged position of paying for nuclear power twice, once as a tax payer and then as a consumer - how lucky are we!)
Thirdly everytime the nuclear energy debate generates a new head of steam we are told that there are some break through technologies just around the corner. Generation 4 reactors? They are as illusive as the alchemist dream of turning base metals into gold.
Fourthly there are the well documented health risks.
But of course there are those who would rather believe that there is a simple solution, who mock and villify those who have the courage to stand up and say that we are being sold a dangerous solution.
Instead of being proud of Caldicot they prefer to treat her with contempt.
John Töns

Baygon:

"Why are so many posters in support of Nuclear Power?"

Because it is the only viable non CO2 emitting base load alternative to coal.

"First most pundits seem content to ignore the reality of exponential growth - the rate at which our demand for energy is increasing"

So blocking the single most viable future source is a solution?

"Secondly I am supicious of any energy solution that is touted to be so wonderful and such a brilliant solution yet cannot attract private investors"

Like Hot rocks geothermal (huge guarantees and subsidies from gov)

"the industry is dependent on tax payers to make their technology viable"

Nearly much like all the renewable souces.

"Fourthly there are the well documented health risks"

per unit of nuclear energy generated, the deaths are as low or lower as any other source of energy.

"who have the courage to stand up and say that we are being sold a dangerous solution."

It takes a lot of courage to regurgitate outdated facts to a receptive fearful public, and accept the royalties and public speaking fees that come with the publicity.

Reality and practicality just get in the way.

Atom, Klaas, Baygon et al

It’s a waste of time having to endure the nuclear spin from Shadow Minister who is concealing the evidence on the nuclear industry. He's simply appearing sillier by the day. One need only look at the headlines of each of the following links to see the reality. And there's reams more:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25943922-2682,00.html

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.792,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/18/nuclearpower.energy

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/flood+threat+to+nuclear+arms+site/2513357

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Yucca_Mountain_cost_estimate_rises_to_96_billion_dollars-0608085.html

http://uranium-news.com/2009/08/13/482/

To add insult to injury, last year, Canadian miner, Mega Uranium, plundering Australia’s resources, threatened to sue the Western Australia government if they didn’t lift the ban on uranium mining.

WA’s resource minister in 2008, John Bowler had his portfolio stripped for leaking confidential cabinet information to industry lobbyists ( or should that be “activists?”) Burke and Grill, who have been under criminal investigation by the Crime and Corruption Committee.

John Bowler spouted the “no uranium” policy while he was a member of the Labor Party, however, the Kalgoorlie electorate, returned him to parliament last year as an independent. These constituents will reap what they sow when they believe it’s OK to have a perjurer as their parliamentary representative.

Now the Kalgoorlie Miner paper has John Bowler in the headlines vigorously promoting and celebrating the lifting of the uranium mining ban by the Liberal government.

Would any of you buy a used car from these duplicitous toads?

We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth,
and there is a vast ignorance of science.
James Lovelock

Shadow Minister, you have the patience of Jove. I gave up on these emotionally charged Luddites long ago. So impossibly frustrating are they to deal with that Professor David Mackay of Cambridge University had dedicated his book to them, See www.withouthotair.com. His book should disturb them by shining the little laser of reality upon their illusions, but it won’t, I think they are immune