Pro-nuclear environmentalists’ in denial about power/weapons connections, Energy Post byJim Green
Claims by self-styled ‘pro-nuclear environmentalists’ that “nuclear energy prevents the spread of nuclear weapons” and “peace is furthered when a nation embraces nuclear power” do not withstand scrutiny, writes Jim Green, editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter. Green looks at the conclusions of some studies which, he says, downplay the troubling connections between nuclear power and weapons. Courtesy Nuclear Monitor.
As discussed previously in Energy Post, nuclear industry bodies (such as the US Nuclear Energy Institute) and supporters (such as former US energy secretary Ernest Moniz) are openly acknowledging the connections between nuclear power and weapons ‒ connections they have denied for decades. Those connections are evident in most of the weapons states, in numerous countries that have pursued but not built weapons, and in potential future weapons states such as Saudi Arabia.
Ideally, acknowledgement of power/weapons connections would lead to redoubled efforts to build a firewall between civilian and military nuclear programs ‒ strengthened safeguards, curbs on enrichment and reprocessing, and so on.
But that’s not how this debate in playing out. Industry insiders and supporters drawing attention to the connections are quite comfortable about them ‒ they just want increased subsidies and support for their ailing civilian nuclear industries and argue that ‘national security’ and ‘national defense’ will be undermined if that support is not forthcoming.
Some continue to deny the power/weapons connections even though the connections are plain for all to see and are now being acknowledged by a growing number of nuclear insiders and supporters. The most prominent of these are self-styled ‘pro-nuclear environmentalists’.
One such person is Ben Heard from the Australian pro-nuclear lobby group ‘Bright New World‘. Heard claims that nuclear power promotes peace and uses the two Koreas to illustrate his argument: “The South is a user and exporter of nuclear power, signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, and possesses zero nuclear warheads. The North has zero nuclear power reactors, is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, and is developing and testing nuclear weapons.”
Likewise, Michael Shellenberger, founder of the U.S. pro-nuclear lobby group ‘Environmental Progress’, claims that: “One of [Friends of the Earth]-Greenpeace’s biggest lies about nuclear energy is that it leads to weapons. Korea demonstrates that the opposite is true: North Korea has a nuclear bomb and no nuclear energy, while South Korea has nuclear energy and no bomb.”
Heard and Shellenberger ignore the fact that North Korea uses what is calls an ‘experimental power reactor’ (based on the UK Magnox power reactor design) to produce plutonium for weapons. They ignore the fact that North Korea acquired enrichment technology from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan network, who stole the blueprints from URENCO, the consortium that provides enrichment services for the nuclear power industry. They ignore the fact that North Korea’s reprocessing plant is based on the design of the Eurochemic plant in Belgium, which provided reprocessing services for the nuclear power industry.
Heard and Shellenberger also ignore South Korea’s history of covertly pursuing nuclear weapons, a history entwined with the country’s development of nuclear power. For example, the nuclear power program provided (and still provides) a rationale for South Korea’s pursuit of reprocessing technology.
Nicholas Miller’s article in International Security
Echoing Shellenberger’s claim that “nuclear energy prevents the spread of nuclear weapons”, Heard writes: “Peace is furthered when a nation embraces nuclear power, because it makes that nation empirically less likely to embark on a nuclear weapons program. That is the finding of a 2017 study published in the peer-reviewed journal International Security.” However, the claim isn’t true, and it isn’t supported by the International Security journal article, written by Nicholas Miller from Dartmouth College.
“The annual probability of starting a weapons program is more than twice as high in countries with nuclear energy programs, if one defines an energy program as having an operating power reactor or one under construction” ………..
All the logistic regression models in the world don’t alter the fact that nuclear power/weapons connections are multifaceted, repeatedly demonstrated, disturbing and dangerous:
Nuclear power programs were involved in the successful pursuit of weapons in four countries (France, India, Pakistan, South Africa) according to Miller (and India and North Korea could be added to that list) and have provided many other countries with a latent weapons capability.
Power programs have provided ongoing support for weapons programs to a greater or lesser degree in seven of the nine current weapons states (the exceptions being Israel and North Korea).
The direct use of power reactors to produce plutonium for weapons in all or all-but-one of the declared weapons states (and possibly other countries, e.g. India and Pakistan).
The use of power reactors to produce tritium for weapons in the US (and possibly other countries, e.g. India).
Power programs (or real or feigned interest in nuclear power) legitimising enrichment and reprocessing programs that have fed proliferation.
Power programs (or real or feigned interest in nuclear power) legitimising research (reactor) programs which can lead (and have led) to weapons proliferation.
Is there some reason why the greedy nuclear lobby, the secretive agency ANSTO, and the weak Australian government all seem to think that it’s OK to transport nuclear reactor trash for thousands of km across the land, and dump it on agricultural land in South Australia?
Is it because they’ve decided that South Australia is already radioactively trashed, because the Australian government allowed the British to test 12 major nuclear weapons and hundreds of “minor” ones on Maralinga, S.A.?
It is some sort of weird payback because this State never had convicts dumped on them – so the dominant Eastern States want to put the South Australians in their place?
South Australia is a beautiful place. It has never generated nuclear trash. Let the nuclear trash be kept, (as international conventions and best practice dictate) near to the point of production – AT LUCAS HEIGHTS in Sydney. And then let Australia come to its senses and stop making the foul stuff.
This is NOT a “Kimba” issue, not just a regional issue, – it’s certainly a STATE issue, and a NATIONAL issue.
Aware citizens in Australia are waiting to see if the South Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party, SA Best Party have the guts to join the Greens in saying NO to the Federal nuclear waste dump plan.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA: OUR FUTURE: SCORECARD , 5 March 2018
All of the four party responses are signed by the leader and are dated 28 Feb 2018.
Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives
Note: The “Australian Conservatives” were invited to respond and did not provide any response.
“SA Best is pleased to provide the following response to … :
11a Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate
level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility Yes
11b Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA.
Refer to SA-BEST environment policy.
We do not oppose a low-level waste facility in principle, recognising the benefits of nuclear medicine and research and the need to dispose of this waste.
However, until such time as the federal government demonstrates full transparency around the consultation and selection process, SA-BEST would not be supportive.
We would use legislation in SA to block it if the process is not acceptable.
11c. Actively support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
Question 11c on the High level nuclear waste..
We support and commit the current legislation as it now stands.
My understanding is the modifications have already been put in place.
Yours sincerely
Nick Xenophon
“The Liberal Party of SA makes the following commitments in response to…
11a Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate
level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility Yes
11c. Actively support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
Other: The Liuberal Party supports the current Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Yours Sincerely
Steven Marshall MP
State liberal Leader
Note: The Liberal response (as published) does not provide an answer to Q 11b:
Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA.
“The Greens have made the following commitments in response to … :
11a Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate
level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility Yes
11b Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA.
Yes
11c. Actively support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
Yes. Done, Thanks to a Greens bill.
Yours sincerely
Mark Parnell MLC
Parliamentary Leader Greens SA
Labor: “Thanks for opportunity to outline our position. A detailed response to your questions is attached:
see p.36 of doc, extract:
“We have written to Turnbull government outlining our strong expectation around community support for any proposed facility, including a veto for the local Aboriginal community. …”
Hon. Jay Weatherill MP
Premier of SA
Note: The Labor response (as published) does not provide an answer to Q 11a:
Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate
level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility more https://www.ourfuturesa.org.au/scorecard
Mara Bonacci, 5 March 2018 On Saturday 3rd March, members of Adelaide-based group Don’t Dump on SA joined Adnyamathanha and Barngarla people and members of the Flinders Local Action Group (FLAG) on the Princes Highway in Port Augusta to highlight concerns over the Federal government’s plan to site a radioactive waste facility in South Australia.
The lively and colourful event involved a giant inflatable radioactive waste barrel, music, free cuppas and a lime green three-headed kangaroo. It received a positive response and lots of encouragement from locals and passing traffic.
Locals who stopped for a chat were given showbag-style information packs and encouraged to send a submission to the federal Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. An online submission template can be found athttps://nowastedump.good.do/wastedumpsenateinquiry/submission/.
Barngarla woman Linda Dare said “We’re here today to tell people that we don’t want a radioactive waste facility in South Australia. We want people to support us in the fight to stop it”.
FLAG member and Hawker GP, Dr Susi Andersson, said “The federal government is treating this as an issue for the local people only, but many people visit and care about the Flinders Ranges and don’t want a dump there. I feel the broader community need to know about and discuss this issue”.
In response to earlier federal moves to dump radioactive waste in SA our Parliament passed the Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. The objects of this Act are “to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this state.”
In the lead up to the state election on 17 March, people concerned about the imposition of a nuclear waste facility in SA are being encouraged to vote for parties who will defend this legislation. Information can be found at https://www.ourfuturesa.org.au/scorecard.
Jim Green shared a link. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South , 4 Feb 18 AustraliaBen Heard – the paid nuclear lobbyist whose so-called environment group ‘Bright New World’ accepts secret corporate donations – claims that “Peace is furthered when a nation embraces nuclear power, because it makes that nation empirically less likely to embark on a nuclear weapons program. That is the finding of a 2017 study published in the peer-reviewed journal International Security.”
That’s false twice over. Firstly, it isn’t true. Secondly, Heard’s assertion isn’t supported by the International Security journal article, written by Nicholas Miller from Dartmouth College.
Miller’s article downplays the power/weapons connections but much of the information in his article undermines his own argument. In Miller’s own words, “more countries pursued nuclear weapons in the presence of a nuclear energy program than without one”, “the annual probability of starting a weapons program is more than twice as high in countries with nuclear energy programs, if one defines an energy program as having an operating power reactor or one under construction”, and countries that pursued nuclear weapons while they had a nuclear energy program were “marginally more likely” to acquire nuclear weapons (almost twice as likely if North Korea is considered to have had a nuclear energy program while it pursued weapons).
Nuclear power/weapons connections are multifaceted, repeatedly demonstrated, disturbing and dangerous:
• Nuclear power programs were involved in the successful pursuit of weapons in four countries (France, India, Pakistan, South Africa) according to Miller (and India and North Korea could be added to that list) and have provided many other countries with a latent weapons capability.
• Power programs have provided ongoing support for weapons programs to a greater or lesser degree in seven of the nine current weapons states (the exceptions being Israel and North Korea).
• The direct use of power reactors to produce plutonium for weapons in all or all-but-one of the declared weapons states (and possibly other countries, e.g. India and Pakistan).
• The use of power reactors to produce tritium for weapons in the US (and possibly other countries, e.g. India).
• Power programs (or real or feigned interest in nuclear power) legitimising enrichment and reprocessing programs that have fed proliferation.
• Power programs (or real or feigned interest in nuclear power) legitimising research (reactor) programs which can lead (and have led) to weapons proliferation.
• And last but not least, the training of experts for nuclear power programs whose expertise can be (and has been) used in weapons programs.
So why does Heard claim that “when a nation embraces nuclear power, because it makes that nation empirically less likely to embark on a nuclear weapons program”? He ignores most of Miller’s article (and Miller himself ignores much that is known about power/weapons connections) and focuses on these findings:
1. The annual probability of starting a weapons program is more than twice as high in countries with an operating power reactor or one under construction (a statistically-significant finding).
2. The annual probability of starting a weapons program is somewhat lower in countries with operating power reactors compared to countries without them (a statistically non-significant finding).
So why does Heard privilege the second of those findings when only the first is statistically significant? Why does Heard privilege the finding that excludes countries with power reactors under construction (but not in operation) when the inclusion of such countries provides a fuller, more accurate assessment of the power/weapons connections? Perhaps Heard’s selectivity is connected to his work as a paid nuclear lobbyist whose so-called environment group accepts secret corporate donations. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/
Connections between civil and military nuclear programs Detailed 2015 paper: The myth of the peaceful atom – debunking the misinformation peddled by the nuclear industry and its supporters Nuclear power and weapons – explaining the connections 2017 – nuclear industry body and lobbyists acknowl…
Cameron Scott, Submission to ARPANSA on draft Code for Radioactive Waste, 4 Mar 18 It needs to be stated in the Code for Disposal of radioactive Waste that the Federal Government can not override state legislation for building a national facility. The code needs to include a clause protecting farming land from becoming home to hazardous waste. Licensing should require communities to nominate land not individuals.
Colin Mitchell, Submission to ARPANSA on Radioactive Waste Code, 4 Mar 18 .I am against changing the Code to include other types of disposal facilities such as the above-ground storage for Intermediate Level nuclear waste from Lucas Heights that the Federal Govt wants to locate at their proposed National dump. This higher-level waste which remains dangerous for thousands of years should stay at Lucas Heights where it can be securely monitored. No deep-disposal facility should be permitted either. No National dump should be built – all waste should stay where it is.
Conservation Council SA Mara Bonacci, Nuclear Waste Campaigner, 1 Mar 18,
On 6 February 2018, the federal Senate referred an inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia to the Senate Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018.
This is welcome.
It is an important opportunity for you to have your say in Australia’s approach to radioactive waste management. The terms of reference can be found here and information about writing a submission is here. Submissions are due by 3rd April 2018. Please consider writing your own submission or alternatively, submit an online submission here.
Some points to consider including are:
A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump.
The federal government have not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA.
The consultation process has been deficient and has caused division in our communities.
The federal government plan lacks social licence or community consent. Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues.
The project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. Australia’s worst waste should be dealt with better.
It would be great to get as many submissions to the Senate Standing Committees on Economics as possible so collectively we can end this terrible process and get the federal government to finally take a responsible approach to radioactive waste management.
my personal prediction is that this will result in around 90 per cent renewables [in South Australia] by 2030. This is a prediction, not a target.
SA can lead the nation not just on energy generation, but all the manufacturing, construction and jobs that could go with this in areas such as PV panels, components, smart energy, CST mirrors, etc.
At a recent energy event in Adelaide where I presented for Nick Xenophon’s SA-BEST, it was encouraging that the Greens, SA-BEST, Labor and Liberal all stated that renewables was the future.
However, the Liberal Party is going to be hamstrung by Turnbull/Abbott and the National Energy Guarantee (a thought bubble to appease the Abbott ilk, masquerading as policy); inaction on climate; and offering a $1 billion loan to Adani. Continue reading →
Steve Dale Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 3 Mar 18Oh dear… Ben Heard is off to the “Japan Atomic Industrial Forum” conference in April (according to twitter). It’s a wonder he is even welcome in Japan – the Japanese government is working hard and spending $billions trying to clean up some of the radioactive contamination.
Queensland’s premier has talked up gas and renewable energy when asked about the Adani coal mine, on her first day back from a trade mission to the United States.
Federal Labor Leader Bill Shorten this week cast further doubt on Adani’s ability to raise funding for the project and whether a future Labor government would support the project.
Annastacia Palaszczuk on Friday said she hadn’t spoken to Mr Shorten since returning from the US, but reiterated the $16.5 billion mine had to stand up by itself without taxpayer money.
“There are other resource industries investing in Queensland, the gas industry is investing in Queensland, we have $20 billion worth of renewable energy on our books,” Ms Palaszczuk told reporters in Brisbane
“I hope a lot of resource company’s projects go ahead, but money talks, and the money is talking by investing in renewables.”
Ms Palaszczuk deflected questions about the proposed coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin, instead pointing to interest from US investors in her government’s 50 per cent renewable energy target.
The premier said she had also met with the CEOs of a number of gas companies in the US as part of her government’s push to use gas as a transition fuel between coal and renewables.
The two leaders have held bilateral talks in Sydney.
Political editor Barry Soper told Larry Williams it was a charm offensive, and nothing substantial has come out of it.
He says the issues that were outstanding going into the talks remain outstanding, after them.
“It’s important, I guess, to keep a very good relationship with them but I don’t think we should allow ourselves to be bullied and to some degree, I think that’s what the Australians do to them.”
A Marshall Liberal Government will not support the building of a nuclear waste repository in South Australia.
South Australia and the Nuclear Industry
The Liberal Party has always been willing to fully and openly investigate the pros and cons of the nuclear fuel cycle to grow our economy and build our State. https://www.stevenmarshall.com.au/nuclear_industry
From ABC news
SA power cuts: Nuclear energy should be considered as solution, state Liberals say, By Daniel Keane,
today he said that did not mean he or his party were against the production of high-level nuclear waste in South Australia, via nuclear energy generation.
“We’ve never ruled out the nuclear opportunity for energy. We made it very clear that we were not in the slightest bit interested in continuing to pour money into the hopeless case which was a nuclear repository in South Australia,” he said.
“The royal commissioner ruled out nuclear energy in South Australia but there will be a time when it may become viable, and desperate times call for desperate solutions, and we are in a desperate situation.”
Nuclear waste returning to Australia this weekend by ship from France has been classified as high-level waste by French authorities, contradicting Australia’s claims over its radioactivity, a Greenpeace report has found.
Greenpeace’s investigation also found the waste still contains quantities of plutonium – highly toxic even in small quantities – despite reprocessing by French state-owned nuclear company, Areva.
“The Australian government is downplaying the danger of this shipment, saying it is intermediate-level waste that isn’t harmful unless mismanaged. But we know it contains plutonium and is classified as high-level waste by the French authorities,” said Emma Gibson, Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s Head of Programs.
“It’s clear on evidence the government is not being as straight as it can be about the nature of this shipment by insisting Australia only has intermediate-level waste. Australians have a right to know what is being stored in their backyard. The lack of transparency over this waste is highly problematic,” she said.
The nuclear waste was generated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and sent to France in 2001 to be reprocessed.
The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) has revealed to Greenpeace that the waste has been classified as high-level (long-life) waste according to standards set by ANDRA, the French national radioactive waste management agency. High-level waste is ANDRA’s most severe nuclear waste classification.
Areva documents have also confirmed that the waste still contains low quantities of plutonium.
However ANSTO has classified the shipment as intermediate-level waste using an alternate classification system.
“The discrepancy is a significant concern as the French have much more experience of nuclear waste management than the Australians. We have written to Christopher Pyne, the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, asking him to clarify the exact nature of the waste,” said Ms Gibson.
She said the vessel carrying the waste – the BBC Shanghai – also has a worrying safety record and has been banned by a number of nations.
Official documents seen by Greenpeace show the BBC Shanghai has been detained by Australia, the United States and Spain in the past five years after failing safety inspections. The US has banned the ship from carrying government cargo, while 14 other nations have found deficiencies in the ship since 2002.
“The government is spending about $30 million to bring its nuclear waste back to Australia, but the management of this shipment has been a catalogue of mistakes and misinformation.
“American and Australian authorities have both detained this junkyard ship in the past two years after it failed inspections. While the US has banned it from carrying government cargo, the Australian government loaded it with tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste to transport around the world.
“The more you move radioactive waste around, the more you increase the likelihood of an accident which could spread radioactive contamination into the environment.
“The government is now saying Australia could be a nuclear waste dump for the rest of the world. Imagine the corners that could be cut when these dangerous shipments arrive regularly,” said Ms Gibson.
Endorsing Greenpeace’s report, Dr Helen Caldicott, veteran anti-nuclear advocate said:
“The fact France has classified this as high-level waste should send alarm bells ringing about what is actually coming back to Australia. The French have significantly more experience in handling nuclear waste than Australia does. That the two countries could have such different views on how dangerous this nuclear waste is should be a huge concern.
“There are enormously different safety regulations required for high-level nuclear waste compared with intermediate-level waste.
“Australia is conducting a dangerous radioactive exercise by transporting 10 tonnes of this high-level radioactive waste in a notoriously dangerous ship.”
The nuclear waste is due to be unloaded off the BBC Shanghai at Port Kembla in southern Sydney in the early hours of Sunday, 6 December. It will then be transported to Lucas Heights by road for interim storage.
Antinuclear 