2 Unclean industry is no white knight
By Don Henry
Executive Director, Australian Conservation Foundation
Australian Financial Review
February 22, 2005, p,63.
The Kyoto Protocol has finally become reality. Now it's time to move beyond first steps and start making the dramatic cuts in greenhouse pollution that are needed to address climate change. Scientists tell us we need to cut our greenhouse pollution by more than 60% by the middle of this century to stabilise the earth's climate. We must begin charting a course for achieving these cuts.
Sadly, the nuclear industry has got the jump on this debate and has already begun to market nuclear power as the solution to climate change.
Let's be clear - nuclear power is not an answer to climate change. There is no economic or environmental case for Australia to build nuclear power plants, indeed current federal law makes such an act illegal. There are also strong environmental and public safety reasons for opposing any expansion of uranium mining in Australia.
The nuclear industry is on the nose throughout the developed world.
No new nuclear power reactors have been ordered or brought through to successful operation in the US since 1973, in EU15 countries since 1980 or in Russia since 1986, the year the Chernobyl nuclear disaster destroyed the lives of countless thousands. The number of nuclear reactors in the US and EU15 countries peaked 15 years ago. There are 25 less reactors in operation today.
Legislative nuclear power phase outs in Germany and Belgium will see 25 nuclear reactors close by 2025. Government policies favouring nuclear phase out in Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden will see a further 21 reactors closed by 2030.
Nuclear power is the only type of electricity generation where the cost curves rise over time and continue long after the plant closes. A new nuclear power plant faces high capital costs, a decade lead time from order through to start up and increasing liabilities on utility companies for nuclear accidents. It is also a target for nuclear sabotage and terrorism.
Decommissioning costs rival construction costs and there is no answer in sight on how or where to safeguard nuclear wastes that remain hazardous for longer than recorded civilisation. Some 50 years into the nuclear industry experiment no country has yet achieved post-closure decommissioning of a large nuclear power plant or been able to establish a final repository for nuclear wastes.
We've already had a debate over siting for Commonwealth nuclear wastes. Every State and Territory leader in Australia rejects federal nuclear waste dumping and legislation has been passed in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory to prohibit the transport, storage and disposal of reactor wastes. Unresolved nuclear waste management concerns are also driving the NSW government's opposition to the new Sydney reactor.
Just as nuclear energy is no answer at home, the wider nuclear trade is never safe and compromises our responsibilities to security for our international neighbours.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) increasingly recognises that the international safeguards regime has failed to control proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technology. The IAEA says that the international security landscape has also been radically altered by the clear intention of terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons or materials.
The use of Australia's uranium in nuclear power contributes to increasing stocks of fissile materials, including plutonium, that are capable of diversion into nuclear weapons programs. All of our exported uranium becomes nuclear waste that could be used in 'dirty bombs'. We certainly should not be looking to negotiate uranium sales to new countries, including to China.
It makes good business sense for Australia to realise the ready gains in energy efficiency and to provide incentives to reduce greenhouse pollution through a mandatory 20% renewable energy target by 2020 and a domestic emissions trading scheme.
In addition, investment in renewable energy has begun to pay dividends, with the per kWh cost of electricity from wind turbines falling by 50% and costs from solar cells falling by 30% over the last 10 years.
Since Australia is projected to increase its greenhouse emissions by more than 20% by 2020, investments are needed right now in clean energy technologies and improved efficiency.
By Don Henry
Executive Director, Australian Conservation Foundation
Australian Financial Review
February 22, 2005, p,63.
The Kyoto Protocol has finally become reality. Now it's time to move beyond first steps and start making the dramatic cuts in greenhouse pollution that are needed to address climate change. Scientists tell us we need to cut our greenhouse pollution by more than 60% by the middle of this century to stabilise the earth's climate. We must begin charting a course for achieving these cuts.
Sadly, the nuclear industry has got the jump on this debate and has already begun to market nuclear power as the solution to climate change.
Let's be clear - nuclear power is not an answer to climate change. There is no economic or environmental case for Australia to build nuclear power plants, indeed current federal law makes such an act illegal. There are also strong environmental and public safety reasons for opposing any expansion of uranium mining in Australia.
The nuclear industry is on the nose throughout the developed world.
No new nuclear power reactors have been ordered or brought through to successful operation in the US since 1973, in EU15 countries since 1980 or in Russia since 1986, the year the Chernobyl nuclear disaster destroyed the lives of countless thousands. The number of nuclear reactors in the US and EU15 countries peaked 15 years ago. There are 25 less reactors in operation today.
Legislative nuclear power phase outs in Germany and Belgium will see 25 nuclear reactors close by 2025. Government policies favouring nuclear phase out in Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden will see a further 21 reactors closed by 2030.
Nuclear power is the only type of electricity generation where the cost curves rise over time and continue long after the plant closes. A new nuclear power plant faces high capital costs, a decade lead time from order through to start up and increasing liabilities on utility companies for nuclear accidents. It is also a target for nuclear sabotage and terrorism.
Decommissioning costs rival construction costs and there is no answer in sight on how or where to safeguard nuclear wastes that remain hazardous for longer than recorded civilisation. Some 50 years into the nuclear industry experiment no country has yet achieved post-closure decommissioning of a large nuclear power plant or been able to establish a final repository for nuclear wastes.
We've already had a debate over siting for Commonwealth nuclear wastes. Every State and Territory leader in Australia rejects federal nuclear waste dumping and legislation has been passed in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory to prohibit the transport, storage and disposal of reactor wastes. Unresolved nuclear waste management concerns are also driving the NSW government's opposition to the new Sydney reactor.
Just as nuclear energy is no answer at home, the wider nuclear trade is never safe and compromises our responsibilities to security for our international neighbours.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) increasingly recognises that the international safeguards regime has failed to control proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technology. The IAEA says that the international security landscape has also been radically altered by the clear intention of terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons or materials.
The use of Australia's uranium in nuclear power contributes to increasing stocks of fissile materials, including plutonium, that are capable of diversion into nuclear weapons programs. All of our exported uranium becomes nuclear waste that could be used in 'dirty bombs'. We certainly should not be looking to negotiate uranium sales to new countries, including to China.
It makes good business sense for Australia to realise the ready gains in energy efficiency and to provide incentives to reduce greenhouse pollution through a mandatory 20% renewable energy target by 2020 and a domestic emissions trading scheme.
In addition, investment in renewable energy has begun to pay dividends, with the per kWh cost of electricity from wind turbines falling by 50% and costs from solar cells falling by 30% over the last 10 years.
Since Australia is projected to increase its greenhouse emissions by more than 20% by 2020, investments are needed right now in clean energy technologies and improved efficiency.