TODAY, Nuclear power stopping climate change? IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
Climate change makes the nuclear industry EVEN MORE DANGEROUS!
Bad enough that nuclear facilities run the risk of catastrophic nuclear meltdown. Admittedly, that is a risk for some, but not all nuclear facilities, and it is a very rare event.
But while the probability of such an event is rare, the consequences of such an event are severe. That is why nuclear facilities can’t get insurance
Bad enough that nuclear facilities, even when running well, release low level ionising radiation, which increases the risk of cancer for millions of people. Bad enough that nuclear workers have a higher risk and rate of cancer and other radiation-associated diseases.
Bad enough that the nuclear industry’s only real raison d’etre is to produce nuclear weapons, thus endangering the whole world.
But now we’ve got climate change.
This week’s news carries not only the wildfire danger to nuclear facilities, but also some of the drastic risks of sea level rise- Buried Nuclear Waste From the Cold War Could Resurface as Ice Sheets Melt. And that’s only one of the “water effects” of global heating.
On the one hand – there’s the danger of sea surges, rising sea levels, floods. On the other hand – the shortage of water when nuclear reactors require continuous huge amounts of water for cooling. ( Do they think of this as they bound into the Artificial Intelligence Age, with its plans for huge data farms powered by nuclear?)
It sure is time, as a global human community, that we really took global heating seriously.
It’s also time to put a stop to this nefarious nuclear industry – before climate change puts a stop to it, in a very nasty way.
Dutton wants a ‘mature debate’ about nuclear power. By the time we’ve had one, new plants will be too late to replace coal
If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.
John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland, 29 Feb 24, https://theconversation.com/dutton-wants-a-mature-debate-about-nuclear-power-by-the-time-weve-had-one-new-plants-will-be-too-late-to-replace-coal-224513
If you believe Newspoll and the Australian Financial Review, Australia wants to go nuclear – as long it’s small.
Newspoll this week suggests a majority of us are in favour of building small modular nuclear reactors. A poll of Australian Financial Review readers last year told a similar story.
These polls (and a more general question about nuclear power in a Resolve poll for Nine newspapers this week) come after a concerted effort by the Coalition to normalise talking about nuclear power – specifically, the small, modular kind that’s meant to be cheaper and safer. Unfortunately, while small reactors have been around for decades, they are generally costlier than larger reactors with a similar design. This reflects the economies of size associated with larger boilers.
The hope (and it’s still only a hope) is “modular” design will permit reactors to be built in factories in large numbers (and therefore at low cost), then shipped to the sites where they are installed.
Coalition enthusiasm for talking about small modular reactors has not been dented by the failure of the only serious proposal to build them: that of NuScale, a company that designs and markets these reactors in the United States. Faced with long delays and increases in the projected costs of the Voygr reactor, the intended buyers, a group of municipal power utilities, pulled the plug. The project had a decade of development behind it but had not even reached prototype stage.
Other proposals to build small modular reactors abound but none are likely to be constructed anywhere before the mid-2030s, if at all. Even if they work as planned (a big if), they will arrive too late to replace coal power in Australia. So Opposition Leader Peter Dutton needs to put up a detailed plan for how he would deliver nuclear power in time.
So why would Australians support nuclear?
It is worth looking at the claim that Australians support nuclear power. This was the question the Newspoll asked:
There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
This question assumes two things. First, that small modular reactors exist. Second, that someone is proposing to build and operate them, presumably expecting they can do so at a cost low enough to compete with alternative energy sources.
Unfortunately, neither is true. Nuclear-generated power costs up to ten times as much as solar and wind energy. A more accurate phrasing of the question would be:
There is a proposal to keep coal-fired power stations operating until the development of small modular reactors which might, in the future, supply zero-emissions energy. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
It seems unlikely such a proposal would gain majority support.
Building nuclear takes a long time
When we consider the timeline for existing reactor projects, the difficulties with nuclear power come into sharp focus.
As National Party Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie has pointed out, the most successful recent implementation of nuclear power has been in the United Arab Emirates. In 2008, the UAE president (and emir of Abi Dhabi), Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, announced a plan to build four nuclear reactors. Construction started in 2012. The last reactor is about to be connected to the grid, 16 years after the project was announced.
The UAE’s performance is better than that achieved recently in Western countries including the US, UK, France and Finland.
In 16 years’ time, by 2040, most of Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations will have shut down. Suppose the Coalition gained office in 2025 on a program of advocating nuclear power and managed to pass the necessary legislation in 2026. If we could match the pace of the UAE, nuclear power stations would start coming online just in time to replace them.
If we spent three to five years discussing the issue, then matched the UAE schedule, the plants would arrive too late.
It would take longer in Australia
Would it be possible to match the UAE schedule? The UAE had no need to pass legislation: it doesn’t have a parliament like ours, let alone a Senate that can obstruct government legislation. The necessary institutions, including a regulatory commission and a publicly owned nuclear power firm, were established by decree.
There were no problems with site selection, not to mention environmental impact statements and court actions. The site at Barakah was conveniently located on an almost uninhabited stretch of desert coastline, but still close enough to the main population centres to permit a connection to transmission lines, access for workers, and so on. There’s nowhere in Australia’s eastern states (where the power is needed) that matches that description.
Finally, there are no problems with strikes or union demands: both are illegal in the UAE. Foreign workers with even less rights than Emirati citizens did almost all the construction work.
Despite all these advantages, the UAE has not gone any further with nuclear power. Instead of building more reactors after the first four, it’s investing massively in solar power and battery storage.
Time to start work is running out
The Coalition began calling for a “mature debate” on nuclear immediately after losing office.
But it’s now too late for discussion. If Australia is to replace any of our retiring coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors, Dutton must commit to this goal before the 2025 election.
Talk about hypothetical future technologies is, at this point, nothing more than a distraction. If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.
In summary, it’s time to put up or shut up.
‘I was a guinea pig during secret Christmas Island nuclear tests’
By Nicola Haseler & Lewis Adams. BBC News, Bedfordshire. 28 Feb 24
A former Royal Engineer who witnessed several atomic and hydrogen bomb explosions as part of the UK’s nuclear tests said he was a “guinea pig”.
Brian Cantle, from Bedfordshire, was 21 when he was sent to Christmas Island as part of his national service in 1957.
He and the other soldiers were not told what they were going to do there – due to the covert nature of the programme.
Mr Cantle, now 87, has been awarded a Nuclear Test Medal for his work on the Pacific Ocean island.
The veteran, from Whipsnade, witnessed several atomic and hydrogen bomb explosions during his 12 months on the island.
He was one of 22,000 British servicemen who participated in the British and United States’ nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965……………………………………………
On the days when bombs were tested, Mr Cantle said troops would have to put on brown overalls and face the other way to the bomb going off.
He added: “It was just a big flash and then we were told we could turn round and see it. It was an enormous explosion.”
‘We were guinea pigs’
In the decades that have followed the tests, calls have been made for the men who witnessed a nuclear test to receive an apology for the health risks they were exposed to.
“We were guinea pigs, we were just told what to do and did it,” Mr Cantle said………
The Grapple H-bomb nuclear test series was intended to show that the British had the technology to influence the Cold War, following the development of the atomic bomb by U.S. scientist Robert Oppenheimer.
The hydrogen bombs, which were much more powerful than atomic bombs, were detonated every three months……. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68415338
Texas: Disaster declaration issued and nuclear weapons plant shut down as wildfires spread
Sky News, Reemul Balla, 28 Feb 24
A disaster declaration has been issued for dozens of counties in northern Texas as raging wildfires forced evacuations in several towns and a nuclear weapons plant to shut down.
Republican governor Greg Abbott proclaimed 60 counties were in a state of disaster and called for extra emergency services to support local firefighters in tackling the blazes………………………………………………………………………….
Pantex nuclear facility paused operations until further notice due to an out-of-control fire approaching its Panhandle site near Amarillo.
Its 16,000-acre site is home to the plant that builds and disassembles America’s nuclear weapons.
“The fire near Pantex is not contained,” the company said. “Response efforts have shifted to evacuations.”
Pantex confirmed there was no fire on the site as emergency services continued to monitor the situation.
It added “all employees” had been accounted for and “non-essential personnel” were no longer on site………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://news.sky.com/story/texas-disaster-declaration-issued-and-nuclear-weapons-plant-shut-down-as-wildfires-spread-13082651
Release of fourth batch of Fukushima treated radioactive water begins
Japan Times, 28 Feb 24
The operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on Wednesday started releasing a fourth batch of treated radioactive water into the sea, in what will be the last discharge for the fiscal year ending March.
As in previous rounds, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (Tepco) will discharge 7,800 metric tons of treated water over about 17 days, having confirmed that the radioactivity level of the latest batch of water meets the standards set by the government and the utility.
China, which opposes the water release, has banned Japanese seafood imports since the first discharge in late August. The two countries have engaged in informal discussions to resolve the matter, but no substantial progress has been made……………………….. more https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/02/28/japan/society/fukushima-radioactive-water-fourth-release/
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 