At-a-glance: Nuclear power - Cure or curse?

1 Dec 2010, 12:00 am   -   Source: SBS - Chiara Pazzano
19 Comments
Share This
+ Comment
19
Should Australia embrace nuclear energy? (Getty Images)

Should Australia embrace nuclear energy? (Getty Images)

Is nuclear power more practical and sustainable than other alternatives? What are the costs of going nuclear, for your health, budget and safety in an increasingly unsafe world?

RELATED

Is nuclear power more practical and sustainable than other alternatives? What are the costs of going nuclear, for your health, budget and safety in an increasingly unsafe world?

PRO-NUCLEAR
·    Oil crunch 'looming'
·    Other options 'not enough'
·    Nuclear power 'is clean'
·    Technology to store nuclear waste 'safe'
AGAINST NUCLEAR
·    Nuclear waste problem 'still unresolved'
·    Nuclear plants 'a possible target for terrorist'
·    Nuclear power 'won't be available in time'
·    Leaks and spills 'already happening'

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the five years between 1999 and 2004 the total consumption of electricity in Australia increased by 19 per cent.

That is an increase of 11per cent per person. During the same period the Australian population grew by 6 per cent and our gross domestic product rose by nearly 18 per cent.

A recent government white paper addressed the need for a national framework for energy efficiency. It concluded that Australians should seriously consider using nuclear power to generate energy.

The question is: Should Australia embrace nuclear energy?

PRO-NUCLEAR POWER

Associate Professor Martin Sevior, from the School of Physics at the University of Melbourne, is in favour of nuclear power.

Oil crunch 'looming'

In an interview from Melbourne University's Upclose podcast, Mr Sevior said the first and more immediate problem is that Australia, like the rest of the world, is coming up against an oil crunch.

"The rate at which oil can be produced and extracted from the ground is likely to reach some maximum to peak, some time within the next ten years," Mr Sevior said.

"When that happens and as that happens the price of petrol will substantially increase and we've seen that this year. In the process we'll need to find some other form of energy to drive our personal transport”.

Other options 'not enough'

Associate Professor Sevior says the problem with other options, especially within an Australian context is that they can't scale to the demand for energy that we’ve placed upon ourselves and upon our resources.

"Wind power can perhaps provide up to 10 or 15 per cent of our total electricity consumption. Solar power maybe in 20 years time could do something similar".

"But for the sort of large scale electricity production that we are likely to need over the next 5, 10, 20 years, nuclear seems to be the best option, the most mature option," he said.

Nuclear power 'is clean'

The whole problem of greenhouse gases is enormous. The challenge is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent, by 2050.

"To do that we'll have to introduce a whole range of new technologies and a new way of doing business, and using nuclear power is one way to address that. It won't be the only means".

"But for the amount of electricity that is produced greenhouse gas emissions resulting from nuclear power will be one per cent that of, say, coal. So that's a huge contribution to greenhouse gas reduction," Mr Sevior said.

Technology to store nuclear waste 'safe'

Mr Sevior also played down the risks associated to nuclear waste.

"Our society produces large amounts of waste of all different types.

Actually, the handling of nuclear waste has been generally far better than many other kinds of wastes that we’ve produced in our industrial society.

"It can be and has been isolated from the environment and to date, except for Chernobyl, there have been no large scale contaminations of the general public. I don't think Chernobyl will ever happen again.

"It was a terrible design with terrible safety procedures, and the world has learnt the lessons from Chernobyl.

Australia 'needs to have nuclear power option'

Professor Peter Johnston, Nuclear Physicist, Head of Physics, RMIT says Australia does not necessarily need a nuclear power programme right now but it should have the capability to choose this option in future if necessary.

“Unless we have the capacity to use nuclear power then we may be at a disadvantage. Other countries may be in a position to produce energy by nuclear power much more quickly and cheaply than us. We need the skills and expertise in nuclear science to ensure that we can also do it.

AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER

David Noonan, Nuclear free campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation is against nuclear power.

Nuclear waste problem 'still unresolved'

"All the concerns with nuclear power plants and nuclear waste are all unresolved as they have been in the past", he told SBS.

"No country has a disposal site for high level nuclear waste. Countries that claim to be making some progress -- whether that's Sweden or others in northern Europe -- are totally unrepresentative of the nuclear industry.

"They may hold 3-4 per cent of nuclear material, nuclear reactors and nuclear output, but with this public relations claim that nuclear has a role in the future, they are looking to expand nuclear into the developing world, and they will expose those communities to the high level nuclear risks that the west has been unable to resolve," Mr Noonan said.

"It's over 50 years into the nuclear experiment and none has demonstrated the long term isolation of this nuclear waste, no one has been able to deliver a community consensus on whetter that may be done.

Nuclear plants 'a possible target for terrorist'

Mr Noonan says the inherent risks of weapons, proliferation and terrorism are all increasing in the world now.

"Many more countries have now the potential to produce nuclear weapons. The west is not keeping these materials under control.

"Nuclear power plants are all pre-positioned terror targets. They are all in the firing line for groups that want to damage society and that would be unfortunately one of the most successful means by a potential terrorist attack on these locations".

Nuclear power 'won't be available in time'

Mr Noonan also says the capital costs of nuclear energy are rapidly increasing.

"Nuclear is one of the least effective ways to try to abate greenhouse gas emissions and the very long lead times and high capital costs mean that is one of the less available means in term of any short turn-around.

"The scientists tell us that we need to make deep cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and nuclear power plants typically have a ten year or longer lead time, particularly for countries that are not already involved in the nuclear industry, so there is no way that nuclear power can make a contribution within the next ten years".

Leaks and spills

"There is typically leakage in the nuclear industry. Extensive leakage back at the uranium sites for example: radioactive mine-tailing also needs to be isolated for a period greater than 10,000 years.

"The nuclear industry is characterised by secrecy, leaks and spills, and there is no way to make it a more accountable or transparent industry," Mr Noonan said.

Risks of Australia becoming an international dumping site

Mr Noonan says there is link between Australia's long involvement in uranium sales and the treat of Australia being used as an international storage and dumping site.

"An international nuclear consortium called Pangea proposed to have an international nuclear waste, storage and disposal facility in Western Australia back in the late 1990.

"The response of the WA community was that their parliament addressed that proposal and made it illegal. International nuclear dumping is simply against the law in WA.

"Dump proposals are part of an expansion plan, rather that part of a responsible waste management plan long term.

Australia's ethical challenge

Mr Noonan says Australia does have an increasing responsibility for nuclear risks around the planet. 

"We are essentially being used as a uranium quarry to fuel those risks and we should be getting out of this industry.

"The moral obligation is to pull back and not increase nuclear risks that other communities have to face and not burden future Australian generations with radioactive mine-tailing waste," he said.

"Australia has failed in terms of safeguards. We have failed in the standards; we have failed in any accountability over that practice.

"The Australian government is for example allowing that export of uranium to China, and China is clearly not transparent, or an accountable and democratic state," the ACF's Mr Noonan said. 

Renewables 'is the way to go'

Dr Joel Fleming is an environmental scientist and Managing Director of the company Climate Friendly.

He says asking whether Australia should go nuclear is the wrong question.

According to him, the question we need to ask is - What is the best strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions by 80% and avoid dangerous climate change?

"Renewable and efficiency technologies are available now. With these, there are companies in Australia right now who have reduced their emissions by 60-100%. So why take the safety risk with nuclear when there are clean energy options available?

"In the long term, with nuclear we would end up using low grade uranium with roughly the same greenhouse emissions as gas fired-power stations," he said.

'Using thorium the solution'

Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad, School of Physics, University of Sydney is a nuclear physicist and Australia's only expert in the field of Accelerator Driven Nuclear Reactors which uses thorium as fuel.

He has been working in this field for 10 years in international collaborations, with some of his research funding from Germany.

He says many of the concerns that people have expressed about nuclear energy would be solved by using thorium instead of uranium to generate energy.

"This would involve a new type of reactor called an Accelerator Driven System. Apart from the fact that Australia has the world's biggest reserves of thorium, the ADS using thorium does not produce plutonium and can incinerate its own nuclear waste as well as plutonium and other very long lived radioactive waste (such as that produced by the experimental reactor at Lucas Heights).

"The nuclear waste produced requires only 500 years of storage time as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years for conventional nuclear reactor waste. In these reactors a meltdown like the Chernobyl disaster is virtually impossible," Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad said.

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube

Your Comments

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | Next 10

Mr

James Hunter - from Metford NSW, 11 months ago

Why not embrace Thorium reactors ? Safe Clean and Australia has pleanty of it.??

Thorium Nuclear

Chris - from Sydney, 11 months ago

Nuclear energy is safe provided it is from thorium salt bred reactors and not Uranium, compared to Uranium, Thorium: -is widely found all over Earth (very little uranium is useful) -is far safer and can even be used to dispose of uranium nuclear waste -33% of world thorium is right here in our backyard -it cannot be used in the development of nuclear weapons Meanwhile sub-rational greens (founded by a marxist) run around screaming think of the children, without exploring real alternatives

temporary 'fix' but not a cure

roy - from geelong, 12 months ago

Dont turn a blind eye to nuclear power just because it was bomb based technology. Look at new design reactors keeping in mind that it too has a downside. The question is - By not moving fast enough, will the downside be worse than going nuclear. In the near future, power will be generated from many different technologies. Need to ensure carbon based and/or nuclear ones are only for minimum base load supply and clean energy keeps improving to phase out non-clean forms in 20-25 yrs.

Nuc Power

Silvertongue - from oz, 1 year

Over the years everybody has complained and got in the way of nuc power generation. Due to Enviromental lobbying, the coal industry and the pollution that comes from it, has increased massively. Nobody has invested in modern design Nuc pwr stations. Result, we are now climate critical. Nobody wants a wind farm or nuc pwr station in their backyard either, but we all want guaranteed cheap electrical power. Would we be using 'green' elec cars now if we had Nuc Pwr? Cant see the wood for the trees?

Nuclear Power

Silvertongue - from oz, 1 year

Before anybody complains about the Japan disaster, I understand that 3 years ago the European Atomic Commission made safety suggestions that TEPCO rejected. The Nuc Plant did exactly what it was supposed to do , it shut down, a 40yo design!. The failure was the cooling diesel gen that were not sufficiently protected from tsunami as, the Europeans suggested. Nuc pwr plants should be audited by international authorities and should be acted upon. Companies/Gov cannot be trusted to spend on safety

Nuc Vs Alternative energy

Redherring - from mackay, 1 year

Yes I believe we should. It has a 50 year of generally safe history. Coal and other common energy sources have led to & assisted the climate problems, as well as health concerns. Lets face it, wind farms look ugly and have been rejected because of that and other enviromental reasons. Solar is only able to produce power for a max of 12 hrs/day reducing as you move away from the equator. Geothermal is an option but storage of the power and the losses in transportation of the energy a negative

nuclear weapon's dangerous

Geraldine - from Lae, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea, 1 year

Nuclear weapon is dangerous and should never have been invented!! It can bring alot of disrtuction if it falls into the hands of the wrong people... I pray my country never uses it to destroy any life at all..

Ha!

Brendon - from Sunshine Coast, 1 year

I can't remember who said it but, "If Nuclear Power is the answer then it must have been a really stupid question." Google "thorium reactors" and then make your own mind up. Also, spend the same amount of time and research dollars on renewables as has been spent on nuclear and THEN let's have the nuclear vs renewables debate. Turn off your tv and talk. Turn off your computer right now and go plant some trees/vegetables/something. Electricity should be viewed as a privilege, not a right.

Nuc Power - CURE

Silvertongue - from Oz, 1 year

There has been too much emotion involved with this debate and while we have been dithering about, the CO2 levels have been rising as have the ailments associated with coal related toxins. World manufacturing needs vast amounts of electrical power, much less per capita in non manufacturing countries, ie OZ. Renewables are part of the mix but baseload power for manufacturing will have to be nuclear. Blame the greenies for the delay in development of clean Fast Reactors and climate pollution

Nuclear

Silvertongue - from Oz, 1 year

We drive vehicles every day and petrol is a highly destructive, explosive, polluting product that poisons the atmosphere and kills people inhaling it every day. Do we squeal, no so why the complaint agaist Nuc Pwr? Had there not been the anti-nuc debate over the years, more money would have been invested in this technology and Fast Reactors would be in operation where the spent uranium would be about 3 and not 95 pct reducing the toxicity down to about 100 years with NO damage to atmosphere

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | Next 10

Join the Discussion

Name
City / Suburb E.g. Artarmon, Sydney
Title
Comment
You have characters remaining.
Validation
What's this?
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.
All submitted comments become the property of SBS. They are moderated, so we reserve the right to edit comments and remove HTML tags. Not all submitted comments will be published. Publication does not mean we endorse the opinions expressed. Please read our terms and conditions for more information.