Nuclear

Currently under construction

reference material is being added during construction - will be finished by 15/04/08 (with luck)

"If nuclear power is the answer…it must have been a very stupid question." Professor Ian Lowe, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation

"Nuclear plants are mutual hostages: the world's least well-run plant can imperil the future of all the others." Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala in the Scientific American, September 2006, p 33.

"What exactly is nuclear power? It is a very expensive, sophisticated, and dangerous way to boil water." Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power is not the Answer, p. 4.

"Nuclear power is not as revolutionary as the experts would have you believe. We have captured the power of the sun and the best we can do is boil water. Boiling water is not the revolutionary and idea." Peter Florance, President CLEAN.

This site is anti-nuclear. We have tried to cover the arguments for and against to give balance but our goal is to present the unnecessary dangers the industry presents.

Picture: http://www.uic.com.au/uran.htm

(an industry spin site, interesting and informative read but not technically correct throughout, the cartoon is right though)

Foreword:

Any argument that the most dangerously polluting energy system known to man (nuclear) is the best solution for global warming is null-and-void when the real solution is known to be energy efficient devices and reduced usage. Our current power issues and those in the future can be solved just by energy saving devices, as proof the Earth Hour project is believed to have saved enough power to close two coal power plants just by turning lights off. More power production is only a solution if we plan to continue to produce more carbon dioxide as all energy sources produce some CO2. A reduction in usage also negates the argument that wind, solar and other alternate power sources would not be able to meet demand.

The second factor which has to be considered is the cost of this technology. The nuclear industry continually claim to provide cheap power. This fact is undermined by several facts. The fact that the nuclear industry is the highest tax payer subsidised industry in the world today and the extremely high cost of building a nuclear power plant are but two. The price of nuclear power remaining low then relies on the continuation of high grade uranium being mined, something which can not be guaranteed and is expected to end in as little as 10 years time.

Long term waste storage, an as yet unsolved problem, is going to be costly for generations to come. The low cost of power from unclear power plants does not pay for up to 500,000 years (US Environmental Protection Agency requirement) of storage. The cost of storing nuclear waste for generations to come will fall on tax payers, more likely is that in 2 or 3 generations the waste will be allowed to breakdown and contaminate ground water rather than continue paying for storage. The idea of tax payers footing the bill does not need proving as the US government have already passed a bill taking responsibility for waste storage. Nuclear Waste storage it is now a tax payer problem in the US and will stay so.

Time is the enemy of everyone with this issue. Time has seen many people forget the past and buy into the industry propaganda. Time has seen environmental groups fade and grow and funding run out along with volunteer strength. Time will see uranium run out as it is a limited resource (more limited than oil). Time will see contamination somewhere on earth from the waste products of our blind scrabbling for profit. Time will show how serious the cancers and birth defects can get. Time will tell if the nuclear industry suffers the same fate as the asbestos industry. My money is on them (the executives) taking the money and running.

For information on nuclear incidents and mines visit our Anti-nuclear Campaign or the industry fictions being presented to the community at Political Fiction.

Peter Florance

President CLEAN

CONTENTS

1.    For and against
2.    Finding your way through the crap
3.    The spin doctors for nuclear
4.    Insight from other sources
5.    The anti-nuke spin
6.    Loads of Links

For and against - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    Top ▲

The pro-nuclear argument rests on 7 points **

Nuclear Power is clean and green

It is economical

Nuclear is a renewable resource

Nuclear solves the problem of climate change

The industries opponents are simply emotional

The industries opponents are irrational **

Only nuclear experts can have an opinion about the industry **

The anti-nuclear case rests on 10 points:

Electricity Produced by Nuclear Power is not CO2 free

Conventional Nuclear Power offers an insignificant contribution to world energy needs

Fast Breeder technology means uncontrollable nuclear weapons proliferation

Nuclear Power possession now implies Nuclear War later

Nuclear Power is not economic - and is not insured

Routine discharges cause cancer

Nuclear Power Stations are vulnerable to terrorist attack

The waste problem is not solved

Nuclear power stations are vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise

Nuclear Power sucks funding away from the real long-term solutions

** Of interest is the fact that the pro-nuclear case consists of two purely emotional arguments aimed at discrediting anyone involved in the anti-nuclear cause. Irrationality and Emotional are arguments which do not in anyway prove the value of nuclear energy and should be disregarded in any case for Nuclear Energy. In reality the pro-nuclear case is actually based on only 5 rational arguments.

The anti-nuclear case is in turn based on 10 rational arguments, not relying on arguments which discrediting the people involved in the pro-nuclear argument.

Finding your way through the crap - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    Top ▲

Pseudo Green Groups

Spin is not new. For instance when you take prisoners in a war they are called war criminals or prisoners of war, but call them illegal combatants and out the window with the Geneva Conventions. This is how spin can be used to change public opinion, keep governments on side and break rules "legally".

Spin can also destroy an image. If I said to you the word gay you would all think one thing and I will lay money that was not, abundantly happy. By using this word to describe homosexuality and it becoming common usage, the words original meaning has been lost. Another example is Fanny, for years used in a different context (and different again in the US), it is never going to be a pretty girls name ever again. This is one method the nuclear industry is using to throw of argument or public debate.

An example of spin is the term Depleted Uranium. This term is used by most people (we call it PW, Processing Waste) indicates that the material is inert and no-longer dangerous or radioactive. This untrue and it is equally untrue that the material called DU is 100% uranium and contains many other isotopes including quantities of plutonium. It is therefore wrong to call it depleted or uranium.

In the battle over nuclear industry, the industry has come up with a new strategy designed to move public debate from the facts, they have gone "green". Nuclear is according to the people in the industry, a clean and green power solution.

The trick with spin is that if you say it loud enough, long enough, people will come to believe it to be true.

The best way to know if you are reading spin is to source information from a number of areas within the industry and outside of it. This sight is built from information from the Nuclear industry, Environmental groups and available scientific information and the information is all cross referenced to ensure its accuracy. Unfortunately you shouldn't take our word for that and you should cross reference our information also.

http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/cspnn.htm
An anti-spin resource (we hope)

The spin doctors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    Top ▲

Some groups working in pro-nuclear propaganda

We present this information because as the saying goes, "it's better the devil you know".

These groups are all pro-nuclear and much of the information is miss-represented or not complete in its analyses. Don't take our word however OR THEIRS. We present this information so you may undertake your own research and and understand the problems environmentalists face. As you can see by the number of sites this is a serious problem.

These people provide a mix of environmentalism and anti-environmentalism. Well presented almost looks like real environmentalism but is radically pro-industry spruikers.

http://www.aefweb.info/

At least these people admit to being industry based spuikers. Clean, reliable and important are the claims they make.

Australian Uranium Centre

nuclearinfo.net

marathonresources.com.au

http://www.world-nuclear.org/

http://www.heritage.org/

http://www.ecolo.org/

http://www.energyinst.org.uk/

http://www.nei.org/

http://www.cato.org/

http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/

http://cei.org/

http://www.aei.org/

http://www.cna.ca/

Some of the methods they use

Professionally built fake pro-nuclear blog sites

Pro-nuclear misinformation added to Wikipedia pages

Advertising nuclear as "clean" and "green" in mass media

Flooding the internet with pro-nuclear miss information and websites

Pushing their agenda through political systems

Using security fears to justify the industries position

Attempts at discrediting the environmental movement

Using terms such as Depleted Uranium to shape public opinion

The things you can expect to find the industry promoting

Making claims that Nuclear Power is clean and green while never mentioning the waste or mining processes as major aspect of the industry. This lie can be upheld if the focus is on power production only with relation to carbon dioxide production. It may not include even the repair or deconstruction of the power plants them selves or the incidents when which occur when things go wrong. To be clean and green a nuclear reactor can not even be fuelled one time or it becomes dirty.

It is economical ignores the billions of dollars of public money supporting the industry from mine to waste storage. Nuclear power is the most heavily tax payer funded industry in the world today. Uranium ore is cheap to purchase because the mining process is subsidised by tax payers. As ore quality reduces the cost of reprocessing will increase as will the tax payer funds. In the US the government have taken responsibility for all nuclear waste which removes the cost from the private owners but means tax payer will pay for the 500,00 years of storage recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Nuclear is a renewable resource is a claim based on the idea that the industry reprocesses it's fuel. Uranium as a resource is running out so there is little chance of it continuing to exist more than 20 years without extremely high costs in processing low grade ore being paid for by tax payers. This would be nice if it worked but it doesn't. Reprocessing is costly, produces more toxic waste products and only separates a quantity of the plutonium from the reactor waste for reuse. This process has been shown to be cost ineffective in France and many other countries do not reprocess as mining ore is cheaper. The idea of breeder reactors is also not workable and after problems in all attempts world wide there is not one breeder reactor working today.

The biggest claim in Australia today is that Nuclear solves the problem of climate change. This is not true and if the 10,000+ tons of plutonium stockpiled in the world isn't enough of a problem, this claim is based only on the power production stage. When measuring the CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) output of an industry you have to include all of the processes required to make that process work. In the nuclear industry we have mining, transportation, processing, reactor construction, backup power supply, power production, waste cooling, reprocessing, reactor decommissioning, decommissioning power and waste storage. The only process which is CO2 neutral is the power production, the other stages all produce CO2. Notable is the fact that the ore processing stage will start to produce more CO2 as ore quality reduces over the next 10 years. This increase in CO2 will make the industry more polluting than Gas Power production, the level it is estimated to be at today. It is expected that this will still be a large CO2 saving on Coal Power but this figure still does not include long term waste storage.

The industries opponents are simply emotional is one of our favourites. With the evidence we can produce to put our arguments together we are more than "simply emotional". Though we can produce very accurate and detailed counter arguments we are emotional. For most activates this is an emotional fight to save our world from corporate profiteers who would pollute at will to make money and I don't think any environmentalist has any trouble with this.

The industries opponents are irrational is an outright lie. The people leading this fight are far from irrational. There are highly qualified people from all fields of science and medicine and any number of extremely rational people with other backgrounds fighting this fight. Talking to anti-nuclear activists will not end with irrational conversation unless the person talking to them brings it to the table. Irrational pro-nuclear statements will cause heated debate in some cases but the irrationality is normally from the pro-nuclear people who argue a point no matter the evidence against it without listening. Trust us in knowing that environmentalists want nothing more to proven wrong so we can say go ahead and be green and clean.

The idea that only nuclear experts can have an opinion about the industry is just plain bullshit. If the world had waited for industry paid experts to speak out against the corporate line, we would never have gotten to where we are today. Our social justice systems, worker rights, child labour, corporate pollution laws or any number of progressive moves we have made in our world were prompted by people from all walks of life. It is the place of everyone with a viewpoint to make it known and allow for it to be debated.

Some People Pushing the Industry Line

Ian Hore Lacy (Aust)

Spruiker for World Nuclear Association, and formerly for uranium miner CRA

Bjorn Lomborg (Denmark)

Denies global warming, claims that the world's environment is in a good state.

Fred Singer (USA)

Funded( through Heartland & Cato Institutes), by Exxon, denies human -caused global warming.

Bruno Comby (France)

Nuclear physicist, poses as environmentalist.

James Lovelock (UK)

Close associate of Bruno Comby, claims that nuclear power plants cannot be used for weapons production.

Patrick Moore (Canada)

Poses as environmentalist, spruiks for Canadian Nuclear Association

Warwick Grigor (Canada)

Chairman of uranium explorer Monaro Resources.

Insight from other sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    Top ▲

Some groups working in anti-nuclear camp
These groups are anti-nuclear and aim at uncovering pro-nuclear spin and it's backers. Don't take our word however OR THEIRS. We present this information so you may undertake your own research and and understand the problems environmentalists face.

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Franco-British_Nuclear_Forum

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Main_Page

Media Information
Nuclear Industry Ads Challenged as Misleading - Centre for Media and Democracy 19/12/06 Source: CNEWS (Canada ) - "The Canadian Nuclear Association's $1.7 million ad campaign touting nuclear power as 'clean, reliable and affordable' is the target of a false-advertising complaint filed by a coalition of environmental, health and church groups

.'Our concern is that the nuclear industry's advertising budget and approach distorts objective decisions ... about the future of [Canada's] electricity system,' explained Julia Langer of WWF-Canada. The formal complaint, filed with Canada's Competition Bureau, says that presenting nuclear power as "clean" is misleading, given hazardous byproducts 'from the mining of uranium fuel' and the radioactive waste generated by nuclear reactors, which 'remains dangerous for thousands of years.' "

Don't buy the nuclear sales pitch - Aspen Daily News Roger Herried - 22 June 07 "...............Moore is not a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace. ...................... Moore and his behavior in the late 1970s wreaked havoc on Greenpeace. Moore has had nothing to do with environmental issues for over 15 years. He's been using the last 15 years to promote the logging industry and other polluters.

The idea that the nuclear industry would hold up such a flagrant example is astounding. One of the real founders of Greenpeace called him a Judas! For anyone with their eyes open, short sales pieces by paid industry spokespeople that have millions of federal pork to spend promoting a plan to get billions more from us, please, if there was ever a time not to trust someone, it is the nuclear industry, during George 'let's make a deal on Iraq's oil' Bush's administration.

In Feb 1984, Forbes magazine called the nuclear industry the largest financial disaster in U.S. history. The big picture on nuclear power includes the ugly truth that nuclear power and weapons are linked at the hip, and enjoys second to none subsidies that go back over 50 years. You wouldn't know it unless you live in Nevada, that the plan to dump high level waste at Yucca Mountain is facing opposition from both parties there. You wouldn't know it that when Bush promised not to let Yucca Mountain go ahead unless there was good science that proved its safety. With that promise George Bush won the 2000 election and Nevada's electoral votes were enough to make the difference in who would be president...................

The nuclear industry wants you to allow the federal government to subsidize private companies to build a new generation of experimental reactors. What will the real cost be? Once they get a hook on your wallet, we all know what a blank check is! The first time around they said it was gonna be too cheap to meter. In 1966, California's Diablo Canyon was estimated to cost just over $350 million to build two reactors. Twenty years later the construction costs totaled $5.8 billion, with an additional $7 billion in financing costs. The utility got every penny of those costs from the government and ratepayers, plus a profit. The result? California's rates nearly doubled over a six-year period................................"

Finnish nuclear plant worries Danes Norden 27-03-2008 - "Construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland is causing concern in Danmark. Kristen Touborg MP has noted a Greenpeace report, which consists of a summary of the official inquiry by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, into problems that have arisen in conjunction with the project.

Building work on the third nuclear reactor at Olkiluoto in south-west Finland is badly behind schedule,.....

...........The Greenpeace summary also highlights problems with the plans for the storage of nuclear waste ........

.......The MP emphasises that there are safety risks associated with the future operations of the plant as well as with the waste management. She also believes that investing in nuclear power puts

BHP to use half of state's electricity THE AUSTRALIAN Jeremy Roberts | March 27, 2008 - "BHP Billiton will need nearly half of South Australia's current electricity supply to power its vastly expanded Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine......

............An industry insider yesterday described as 'staggering' BHP's new power needs, which exceed previous forecasts by 170mW.

It would require the building of new power stations in the state at a time when incentives for business to invest in traditional power generation are clouded by efforts to combat global warming.

The new BHP forecast comes a week after the Rudd Government's Garnaut report on greenhouse emissions recommended power generators not be compensated in a carbon trading scheme........................................

The South Australian Government has not imposed any mandatory requirements on BHP to source renewable energy.

South Australian Greens MP Mark Parnell said the lack of renewable energy sources for Olympic Dam would make the state a 'greenhouse pariah'.

'Our state risks being left with a huge carbon black hole as we become the greenhouse dump for one of the world's richest companies,' Mr Parnell said...".

The operation of a nuclear power station itself does not directly produce greenhouse gas emissions. But this is only one stage of a complex nuclear fuel cycle that also involves mining, milling and enrichment of uranium; fabrication of the fuel rods; construction of the power station; management of nuclear wastes and dismantling of the station at the end of its operating life. All these stages use energy from fossil fuels and so emit CO2.

In the case where high-grade uranium ore is used, CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle are much less than those of an equivalent gas-fired power station (see reference http://www.stormsmith.nl) But the world's reserves of high-grade uranium are very limited and may only last a few decades. The vast majority of the world's uranium is low-grade. CO2 emissions from mining, milling and enrichment of low-grade uranium are substantial, and so total CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle become greater than or equal to those of a gas-fired power station.

In the past it was thought that this problem could be solved by using fast breeder reactors, which in theory "breed" more nuclear fuel, in the form of plutonium, than the uranium they use. But, in practice fast breeders have been very difficult and dangerous technologies to implement and very expensive, with the result that all commercial-scale fast breeders have been closed down. Furthermore, the plutonium that is created in the fast breeder reactor has to be extracted by means of chemical reprocessing using remote handling of the highly radioactive materials. As the result of leaks of radioactive materials or liquid sodium and poor economics, all except one of the world's non-military reprocessing plants have been closed down.

- Dr Mark Diesendorf, Institute of Environmental studies, UNSW

Nuclear Industry CO2 Figures for electricity generation "only".

All forms of energy generation emit some carbon dioxide. Coal and gas power stations emit considerable amounts, but nuclear power plants emit virtually zero. However, a true comparison should look at the whole life cycle from mining of the material through manufacture of the fuel and burning in a power station. The table below shows a comparison of the various fuel types for the whole cycle using grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt hour. Nuclear, for the whole lifecycle, is about 1% of the emissions from coal, 2% of emissions from gas and 10% of those from solar (due to the process for making solar cells).



Grams of CO2/kWh

Coal

970-1245 grams

Gas

450-660 grams

Solar

100-280 grams

Wind

6-29 grams

Nuclear

9-21 grams

Hydro

3-11 grams

- Ron Cameron, Chief of Operations, ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation - Pro-Nuclear Government organisation)

Over 500 Organizations Sign Statement Rejecting Nuclear Power as a Solution to Climate Crisis ALL AMERICAN PATRIOTS By newsdesk -December 18th, 2007

More than 500 organizations from every corner of the U.S. and across the world have signed a statement explicitly rejecting the use of nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis The signers include many of the world's largest and most influential environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth International, Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Rainforest Action Network and many others, along with major peace groups like Code Pink, Peace Action, and Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and hundreds of grassroots environmental, sustainable energy, religious, peace and other groups and businesses large and small from 46 states and 38 countries on six continents. 5900 individuals also have signed the statement, and more sign every day..

The statement is being released as the U.S. Congress prepares to consider billions of dollars of taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactor construction based in large part on the incorrect assumption that nuclear power is a useful means of reducing our carbon emissions......................."

The Anti Nuke Spin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    Top ▲

This is the method of argument used by environmental groups. This spiel is from Friends of the Earth, Melbourne. We have left in intact for you to read.

Introduction

Nuclear power has recently been promoted as a possible solution to the greenhouse problem. Such a view however is based on the premise that nuclear power represents a safe, clean, sustainable and economic alternative. Ignoring the history of nuclear issues and fundamental realities of the nuclear fuel cycle, the nuclear option remains an ineffective solution to an incompletely phrased problem.

Nuclear Power - The Ineffective Solution

1. Nuclear Power is not Greenhouse Friendly
While nuclear electricity generation entails no direct emissions of CO₂ or any other greenhouse gases, the nuclear fuel cycle does in fact release CO₂. Although these emissions are, at present, quite small in comparison with coal fired power stations (4% of equivalent size generation); they are considerably larger than alternatives:

Nuclear Power -

releases 4-5 times more CO₂ than equivalent power production from renewable sources

releases up to 20 times more CO₂ than saving the same amount of power with energy efficiency measures

By Dr Nigel Mortimer, FoE 9, 1989

This is because of the considerable fossil fuels use during mining, fuel enrichment, manufacture, and plant construction. It might be argued that future nuclear systems could achieve lower emissions, though as demand for uranium grew, CO₂ emissions would again rise as ore grades declined.

2. Unsustainable - Fast Breeder Reactors and Uranium Reserves
Most publicity promoting nuclear power acknowledges that global uranium reserves are indeed quite limited when used in conventional thermal reactors.

'..used in the type of reactors now in operation, the world's uranium supplies that are recoverable at a reasonable cost would be unlikely to last more than 50 years'

U.S. Dept of Energy, 1989.

"However, without drawing attention to the fundamental technical problems and substantially higher economic costs, fast breeder reactors are usually cited, quite glibly, as a means of transforming severely limited uranium resources into a much larger potential source of energy. In theory, the use of fast breeder reactors could increase the energy available by a factor of 60. In practice, it is now not clear how this would be achieved on an expanded global scale without encountering basic plutonium shortages, not to mention serious problems with waste disposal, power plant decommissioning and nuclear weapons proliferation. In fact, the fast breeder reactor is an essential component of the case for nuclear power. Yet, this case is built around a technology, which is not expected, by the nuclear industry itself, to be available for commercial introduction for another 20 years."

UK Atomic Energy Authority.

2. Ineffective - Wasting Time, Money, Life
Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats, research scholars at the distinguished Rocky Mountain Institute analyzed in detail the effect of nuclear power compared with energy efficiency measures in reducing CO₂ emissions.

Principle Findings:
1. Even a massive worldwide nuclear power program sustained over a period of several decades could not 'solve' the greenhouse problem. Even if it could, the Third World cannot support a major expansion of nuclear power on the scale that would be required in an attempted nuclear solution to greenhouse warming.
2. The key to ameliorating future climatic warming caused by the combustion of fossil fuels is to improve the efficiency of energy usage.
3. Improving electrical efficiency is nearly seven times more cost effective than nuclear power for abating CO₂ emissions, in the USA.

Energy Policy Dec 1988

They also highlight the problem of "opportunity cost". Spending money on an expensive, relatively ineffective option uses up money that could be spent on more effective, cheaper measures. By doing so removes the opportunity of carrying out those cheaper measures, this point is critical for developing nations. In the context of global warming, this could prove disastrous.

The Problem Revisited

Every culture develops a story or myth – a worldview – about the environment in which it finds itself and about its place in that environment. The myth of modern economics lacks any substantive specification of the energy and material inputs and outputs of production. The systemic linkages between resource commodities and ecological processes are largely ignored. Like all other organisms, we survive and grow by extracting energy and materials from ecosystems of which we are a part. Like all other organisms we 'consume' those resources before returning them in altered form to the ecosphere. We share in common with all other species a certain biophysical reality, an environment and interaction with that environment, which are constrained by and partly determined by the laws of nature.

Prevailing environmental threats are manifestations of the failure of humans to adequately incorporate into our mechanics and economics certain basic physical and biological principles. The promotion of nuclear power as a viable source of energy is a continued attempt to defy the laws of nature.

The greenhouse effect is a very serious symptom, it is not the problem in itself. While the sources or types of energy predominantly used in the world are indeed effecting climatic change it is the pattern and rate of their consumption, which makes them critical.

An Alternative Solution

The response to greenhouse reductions requires immediate action yet we can ill-afford to get the approach wrong. Inappropriate action at this stage could have minimal benefit, wasting time, effort and money we can't waste. We must provide a solid framework incorporating policy, education, legislation, and development of appropriate technologies. It means giving consideration to the full cycle, or 'cradle-to-grave', consequences of our decisions and actions.

Energy Efficiency
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report has estimated that energy efficiency measures alone could cost-effectively reduce energy consumption in most industrialised countries by 20-30%.

End-use efficiency is the single most important technological factor determining future energy consumption levels, and therefore also future CO₂ emissions.

i.e. basically use less, and then implement technologies, which provide the same service while requiring less power.

Renewables
Solar radiation striking the earth each year is equal to about 178,000 terrawatts or about 15,000 times current global energy consumption. There is little doubt that renewable systems, in particular solar energy, offer the best hope of providing the world with a safe, clean and sustainable energy supply.

Most renewable technologies are now well proven. Renewable energy - solar, wind, micro-hydro, tidal and biomass (if sustainably harvested) - already meets about 5-7% of the world's commercial energy needs.

The Expert Group on Renewable Energy Technologies (EGRET) recently identified a number of barriers to the uptake of renewable energy in Australia and elsewhere. None of these barriers are technical. They are financial, institutional and information barriers. EGRET concludes that wide-scale application of solar technologies will be capable of producing electricity for around 5 cents/kWh within a few years. This would put solar power close to the costs of coal-fired electricity in Australia and 40-60% below the cost of nuclear power in industrialised countries.

Australian researchers are world leaders in renewable energy systems. The application of these systems will continue to be held back, though, while successive Australian governments continue to encourage the uptake at home of fossil-fuel-based energy and the growth abroad of nuclear and coal-fired power.

Education
Understanding is required across all sectors of society, from individuals, local authorities, industries, and commerce to the public sector. This demands the understanding of the effects our patterns of consumption, both of energy and resources, have on the environment.

Highlighting the Linkages Between Cause and Effect

In regard to the greenhouse effect, a total understanding of the problem that includes the following factors and our relation to them:

Total energy use, direct and indirect

Deforestation and land clearing

Transport effects

Agriculture and land fill

Legislation
Current obstacles to investment in energy efficiency and renewable technologies, combined with continued protection of fossil fuel industries make government policy changes imperative. Binding CO₂ targets-

The IPCC has stated that CO₂ emissions require immediate reductions of over 60% to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at 1990 levels; methane would require a 15-20% reduction. Environmental Taxation-

Such taxation should be used as one of a number of mechanisms to encourage a switch to less polluting energy supplies and greater efficiency in energy use. Transportation, mining and agricultural practices need to be addressed. Initiatives need to be created to allow mutual benefit between producer, end user and the environment.

Cradle to grave analysis / regulations-

Specification of requirements so that energy use is assessed in every action made, direct and indirect. For example 5% of the energy involved in a car's life is taken in its manufacture.

Future Directions.....

Ultimately decentralisation of energy and resource distribution combined with an economy that accounts for the real costs of production.

Nuclear Power and Global Warming
Written and compiled by Bruce Thompson, November 1997
For comments or further information contact:
Friends of the Earth, Fitzroy, Ph 03 9419 8700

Loads of Links - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    Top ▲

Here are some links you can use to research both for and against. Remember to check who is the financial backer for all your information. Funding can buy opinions. The loudest Anti-global warming voice (paid by Bush Foundation) was also one of the last scientists who demanded smoking was safe (paid by tobacco Lobby). Check the backers.

http://www.foe.org.au/media-releases/2006-media-releases/mr_08_05_06.htm

http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/cspnn.htm

http://www.sea-us.org.au/weapons.html

http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=779&c=3379

http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/004604.html

http://www.slf.org.au/festival/program/talks/1489

http://www.ecnt.org/html/media_uranium.html

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/policy/united_against_uranium2_MR/

http://www.pnfa.org.au/

http://www.fabian.org.au/1072.asp

http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/no_nukes.htm

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/fuel_uranium.html

http://www.antinuclear.net/world%20-%20secrets%20and%20lies.htm

http://www.green.net.au/humpsnotdumps/beverley.htm

http://www.science.org.au/reports/18august06.pdf

http://www.nukefreeaus.org/

http://cpd.org.au/article/enriching-uranium-could-impoverish-regional-security

http://www.prisonnation.com.au/environment/environment.html

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/policy/rule_out/

http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakuranium.htm

http://www.nuclearfreequeensland.org/

http://www.anawa.org.au/introduction/index.html

http://www.spinneypress.com.au/246_book_desc.html

http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/issues/nuclear.htm

http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nukes/uranium.htm

http://www.ccsa.asn.au/nuclearsa/b1.html

http://www.ansto.gov.au/research/research_home/library/useful_links/nuclear.html

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeNuclearWeaponsProliferation

http://www.ena.asn.au/udocs/ena_082506_093013.pdf

http://www.adelaide.foe.org.au/index.php?tag=uranium_mining

http://www.mapw.org.au/nuclear-chain

http://www.nukefreeaus.org/campaigns/Nuclear_Cycle/index.html

http://www.antinuclear.net/Aust%20-%20Secrets%20&%20Lies%20.htm

http://www.scimitarresources.com.au/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=50

http://www.stopuraniumexport.com/

http://www.ccsa.asn.au/nuclearsa/b2.html

http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/nuclear_industry/

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/663/6970

http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2007/12/03/nuclear-power-myths/

http://www.science.org.au/nova/002/002sit.htm

http://www.actnow.com.au/Issues/A_nuclear_Australia.aspx

http://wopared.parl.net/library/pubs/rn/2004-05/05rn32.htm

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070906-You-cant-have-your-yellow-cake-and-eat-it-too.html

http://www.australianuranium.com.au/links.html

http://www.wilpf.org.au/PDFs/Nuclear_Awareness_WILPF_2007.pdf

http://www.bluekingbrown.com/activizm_nuclear.html

http://www.paladinenergy.com.au/ABOUTURANIUM/tabid/85/Default.aspx

http://www.ret.gov.au/Industry/Uranium/Pages/UraniumIndustrySection.aspx

http://www.eco-shout.org/active_groups.php?cat=151

http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=727

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20071209-16328.html

http://www.uraniumsa.org/about/faq.htm

http://greens.org.au/about/policy/policy.php?policy_id=21

http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=4689

http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/ZiggyCritiqueCourierMail.pdf

http://nukefree.org.au/newcastle/

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=272467

http://www.hale-energy.com.au/index.php?pagename=%5BSustainable+Development%5D+Uranium+Facts

http://www.stopuraniumexport.com/docs/AG_submission_to_nuclear_review.pdf

http://www.amcs.org.au/default2.asp?active_page_id=416

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/fuel_mining.html

http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/decommissioning.html

http://www.uic.com.au/nip100.htm

http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm

http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/Nuclear.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/nuclearpower/03.htm

http://www.sea-us.org.au/powertrip.html

http://www.antinuclear.net/

http://www.sea-us.org.au/index.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html

or uow nuke v coal.pdf

http://www.uic.com.au/uran.htm

or what is uranium html.pdf

http://members.iinet.net.au/~hydros/nuclear/nuclear_energy.htm

Lots of links we don't have time to search yet - give us time.