Antinuclear

Nuclear energy uneconomic, declining, and a dangerous distraction from action on climate change

The nuclear argument is a dangerous distraction that could direct resources and technical capacity away from more sensible responses. Nuclear power is certainly not a fast enough response to climate change. Even the pro-nuclear Switkoswki committee concluded that it would take 10 to 15 years to build one nuclear reactor. 

Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction, The Drum, Professor Ian Lowe, 26 June 12,  No rational person without a financial interest in the industry would consider nuclear power for Australia. The only logical basis for contemplating its possible use arises from a recognition that climate change is a serious threat to our future.

At the turn of the century, nuclear power was seen as a failed technology. Originally touted as cheap, clean and safe, it was widely recognised as expensive, dirty and dangerous. The peak of installed nuclear power happened more than 20 years ago. Since then, cancellations and deferments have outnumbered new constructions.

The proponents of nuclear power argue that it is the only way to
produce large-scale electricity without the carbon dioxide emissions
that are changing the global climate. If nuclear power were the only
effective way of slowing climate change, I might support it. However,
we would have to address the two fundamental problems that the Ranger
Inquiry identified in 1976: radioactive waste and weapons
proliferation. If we were to embrace nuclear energy, we would need to
put a huge effort into managing its waste. This is essentially a
technical problem that could eventually be solved, given enough
resources and political commitment. I would remain desperately worried
about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a social and political
problem with no apparent prospect of solution.

Fortunately, we don’t face that terrible dilemma. There are other,
much better ways of cleaning up our energy supply system. The nuclear argument is a dangerous distraction that could direct resources and technical capacity away from more sensible responses. Nuclear power is certainly not a fast enough response to climate change. Even the pro-nuclear Switkoswki committee concluded that it would take 10 to 15 years to build one nuclear reactor. That
committee’s proposed crash program of 25 reactors by 2050 would only
slow the growth in our greenhouse gas production, not achieve the
reduction that is needed.

Secondly, nuclear is too expensive. Again, Switkoski’s group conceded
there would need to be both a carbon price and other government
subsidies to make nuclear look competitive. Optimists tell us to wait
for a promised new generation of reactors they believe could be
cheaper, but we can’t afford to delay tackling climate change.

While the pro-nuclear lobby says new nuclear power stations would not
have the technical limitations of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, or
be sited as dangerously as Fukushima, there will always be a risk of
accidents. An accident in a nuclear power station is a much more
serious risk than an accident in any form of renewable energy supply.

Of course, accidents are not the only risk of nuclear power. Nobody
has yet demonstrated safe permanent management of radioactive waste
from nuclear power stations, more than 50 years after the nuclear
experiment began. Even in communities that strongly support the mining
and export of uranium, like South Australia, there is determined
opposition to proposals for storing low-level waste. There is no
evidence that any Australian communities want nuclear power stations
or waste repositories…….
There are better alternatives. A Commonwealth report 20 years ago
showed that we could get all our electricity from a mix of renewables
by 2030. …
Last year solar and wind accounted for nearly 60 per cent of new
generating capacity in Australia. About 900 Megawatts of solar power
was installed, comparable to a major nuclear power station. We will
probably install a similar amount again this year. Only a rabid
pro-nuclear zealot would claim that we could build one nuclear power
station of that capacity by 2020. We certainly could not build enough
to make a difference.

The clean energy response is quicker, less expensive and less
dangerous. There is no risk from terrorists stealing solar panels or
wind turbine blades! A mix of renewable supply systems would also
decentralise energy production, so it would be good for regional
Australia. It would not require new regulatory systems, local
development of a whole new set of technical skills or an unwise level
of dependence on foreign expertise. We know how to de-commission wind
turbines and solar panels at the end of their life, at little cost and
with no risk to the community.

The pro-nuclear advocates should explain why they believe taxpayers
should fund the most expensive and slowest energy option when there
are so many cheaper, cleaner, safer
alternatives.http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4093160.html

June 27, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | General News