Click me and I'll connect you with your issue outline (NOTE that this outline is in the earlier single-document form)
2005/19: Should Australia use nuclear power plants to generate electricity?<BR>
Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
2005/19: Should Australia use nuclear power plants to generate electricity?
Photo: Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, USA, the site of a serious nuclear emergency in 1979
Related issue outlines: 1998: Uranium mining in Kakadu National Park: should the proposed Jabiluka mine go ahead?
1996: Should Australia increase its number of uranium mines?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
australia
nuclear
electricity
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
What they said ...
'The winding back of nuclear power looks premature given the fact that coal-based electricity is melting the polar icecaps and causing enormous environmental grief across the planet'
New South Wales premier, Bob Carr
'The smartest contribution we can make to reducing greenhouse gases, which also happens to be in our self interest ... is to sell coal [and] to devise clean coal technology which also can be sold to the world'
Queensland premier, Peter Beattie
The issue at a glance
On June 26 2005 the Liberal Federal Council, meeting in Canberra, passed a motion presented by the Young Liberals calling for a feasibility study into Australia developing its own nuclear power generation capacity.
In recent months the Prime Minister, John Howard; the Treasurer, Peter Costello; the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer; the Education and Science Minister, Brendan Nelson, and the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, have lent their support to calls for a renewed debate about the use of nuclear power as a viable, long-term option in Australia. Similar calls have come from the New South Wales premier, Bob Carr.
The Young Liberals' motion called on the Government to 'conduct an economic and environmental feasibility review into the building of nuclear reactors for the purposes of generating electricity'.
Though the carried motion is not binding on the Parliamentary Liberal Party such a feasibility study seems likely to be ordered. The study is likely to provoke a heated debate on the issue. Already the Federal Finance Minister, Nick Minchin; the Queensland premier, Peter Beattie; the Labor spokesperson for the environment and heritage, Anthony Albanese and the Labor MHR, Peter Garrett, have all expressed their opposition to the development of an Australian nuclear industry.
Background
(Much of the information in this Background piece comes from the Uranium Information Centre -UIC. Though the material is apparently balanced, the Centre is funded by the Australian uranium industry and exists in part to promote its interests.)
Australia's interest in nuclear power generation
In 1953 the Australian Parliament passed the Atomic Energy Act, which established the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC). AAEC's functions included advising the Government on nuclear energy matters
In 1955 the AAEC established a research establishment at Lucas Heights, near Sydney and assembled a team of scientists and engineers. It also began construction of a materials testing reactor, HIFAR, which started up on Australia Day, 1958.
The AAEC's research program was initially very ambitious and included studies of two different power reactor systems, on the base of substantial multi-disciplinary research in the fields of physics, chemistry, materials science and engineering. Later, recognising Australia's potential as a source of uranium, AAEC also undertook an experimental research program in the enrichment of uranium.
AAEC also initially convinced the Government that there would be benefits from the construction of a 'lead' nuclear power station on Commonwealth territory at Jervis Bay, south of Sydney. After competitive bids were obtained for it, a reshuffle of leadership in the Government led to a loss of interest in the proposal and the project was eventually abandoned in 1972.
In the late 1960s Victoria's State Electricity Commission undertook preliminary studies on building a large nuclear plant on French Island in Westernport.
In 1969 the South Australian government proposed a nuclear power plant in SA to supply the Victorian grid. Earlier proposals were for a nuclear plant at Port Augusta, SA. Then in 1976 the SA government in submission to the Ranger Inquiry said nuclear power appeared inevitable for SA, perhaps by 2000.
In 1981, the National Energy Advisory Committee of the Fraser Government presented a report on the administrative and legal issues associated with any domestic nuclear power program. It recommended that 'the commonwealth, state and Northern Territory governments should develop with minimum delay a legal framework using complementary legislation as appropriate for licensing and regulating health, safety and environmental and third party liability aspects.'
In common with many other nations, Australia's interest in nuclear power plants was significantly dampened by the Chernobyl accident. This involved the meltdown of a reactor core in the Ukraine and the escape of large amounts of radioactive material.
How Australia's electricity is currently generated
Coal currently provides 78% of Australia's electricity (black coal 54%, brown coal 24%). This also accounts for most of Australia's 172 Mt/yr carbon dioxide emissions from electricity and heat production.
Australia is fortunate in having large easily-mined deposits of coal close to the major urban centres in the eastern mainland states. It has been possible to site the major power stations close to those coal deposits and thus eliminate much of the cost and inconvenience of moving large tonnages of a bulky material. Energy losses in electricity transmission are relatively low.
Western and South Australia have relatively less coal but plenty of gas and also lower demand for electricity. More than half of their electricity is derived from burning gas. Development of Tasmania's large hydro-electric resources has put off the day when it needs any large thermal power stations, but hydro potential is now almost fully utilised.
How Australia might meet future needs
In the next 15 years or so Australia is likely to need to replace the oldest quarter of its thermal generating capacity, simply due to old age. This is at least 8000 MWe, practically all coal-fired. If it were replaced by gas-fired plant, there would be a reduction of about 25-30 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. If it were replaced by six nuclear reactors (which is not currently contemplated), there would be a reduction of about 50 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. Every 22 tonnes of uranium (26 t U3O8) used saves the emission of one million tonnes of CO2 relative to coal.
Generating plant to utilise gas is relatively cheap and quickly built, and at the point of use, gas-fired electricity causes only half the greenhouse emission of coal. It is clearly an option to utilise more gas for electricity in Australia.
Moving to gas would be seen by some as a great step forward for the environment. Others would see it as a tragic waste of a valuable and versatile energy resource. Gas can be reticulated to homes and factories and burned there at much greater efficiency overall.
Internet information
The Uranium Information Centre(UIC) is an organisation funded by the Australian uranium industry.
The companies supporting this site are involved in uranium exploration, mining and export in Australia. Its focus is therefore on the uranium industry in this country. It gives extensive background information on many aspects of the uranium industry.
It can be found at http://www.uic.com.au/
The UIC site has a detailed section dealing with the nuclear powered generation of electricity. This information can be found at http://www.uic.com.au/ne2.htm
In April 2004 UIC published a Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper for Australia. The paper concludes 'There is a strong case for reviewing how we generate electricity for Australia and properly assessing whether nuclear energy should contribute in the near-term future, along with other technologies.'
The document can be found at http://www.uic.com.au/nip44.htm
The World Nuclear Association is a global organisation that seeks to promote the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource for the coming centuries. It presents argument and information supporting the use of nuclear energy. Its Internet site can be found at http://www.world-nuclear.org/
The University of Western Australia's Centre for Water Research has a section of its Internet site given over to a detailed summary of the proposal that an underground nuclear waste repository be established in Australia.
The document gives a great deal of technical detail and seems to support the establishment of such a facility. It can be found at http://www.cwr.uwa.edu.au/cwr/outreach/envirowa/env.Issues/nuclear.html
The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) is an international collaborative research program. IEA GHG focuses its efforts on studying technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
IEA GHG has a section of its Internet site given over to explaining the capture and storage of carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide sequestration).
This can be found at http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/ccs.html
The United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) has a fact sheet detailing Australia's energy resources, their extent and the nature of their exploitation. It can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/australi.html
Greenpeace is a conservation and lobby group opposed to the development of nuclear energy.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has a section of its Internet site has a briefing paper produced in September 2002 outlining what its sees as Australia's nuclear waste problems.
The briefing paper can be found at http://www.greenpeace.org.au/nuclear/pdfs/waste_briefing.pdf
Another Australian-based public education and lobby group opposing nuclear power and the mining of uranium is SEA-US Inc. This is the Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service.
Their site can be found at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~seaus/
This site supplies extensive background information on uranium and the nuclear industry, including the problems of waste disposal. The material is intended for school and community use.
Another useful conservationist site is WISE.
WISE is the World Information Service on Energy. It is an anti-nuclear pressure group which publishes a regular newsletter.
Its web site is searchable and contains much information and opinion on aspects of the uranium industry around the world.
Its home page can be found at http://antenna.nl/wise/index.html
The Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS) is an American-based non-profit lobby and research group made up of scientists and concerned citizens. The group has reservations about the continued development of nuclear energy.
In 2004 it published a report titled US Nuclear Plants in the 21st Century: The Risk of a Lifetime by David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer.
The report details the risks associated with nuclear power plants.
It can be found at http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/nuclear04fnl.pdf
Arguments in favour of Australia using nuclear power plants to generate electricity
1. Nuclear generated electricity will lead to a reduction in the production of greenhouse gases
The threat of climate change posed by an accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has promoted some authorities to propose that Australia should consider nuclear generated electricity.
Coal burning power stations are a source of greenhouses gases. It has been claimed that replacing these with nuclear power plants would be more environmentally responsible.
Environmental economist Clive Hamilton, head of the independent think tank the Australia Institute, has stated, 'More people are starting to realise that climate change represents an enormous threat to Australia and the world, so many who previously wouldn't have considered nuclear power are starting to ask whether we have to consider it.'
A similar point has been made recently by New South Wales premier, Bob Carr, who has stated, 'The winding back of nuclear power looks premature given the fact that coal-based electricity is melting the polar icecaps and causing enormous environmental grief across the planet, and if India and China draw on power stations based on coal, then it is going to accelerate.'
Electricity generation is one of the major sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Coal-fired generation gives rise to twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas per unit of power at the point of use, but nuclear power does not directly contribute any. If all the world's nuclear power were replaced by coal-fired power, electricity's carbon dioxide emissions would rise by a third. (These figures are disputed. This is a much larger figure than is claimed by those opposed to nuclear power.)
James Lovelock, a British environmentalist, scientist and originator of the Gaia concept of the planet as a self-regulating and maintaining entity recently spoke in favour of nuclear energy as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Lovelock stated, 'Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation.
Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.'
2. Other energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases are inefficient
It has been argued that alternative energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases such as solar power, wind power and hydropower are simply not efficient enough to address the problem.
Australian National University economist and Reserve Bank of Australia board member Warwick McKibbin has stated, 'Scientists estimate that to avoid severely damaging the climate the world has to cut greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
Alternatives such as wind and solar power and biomass fuels aren't sufficient to cut emissions without dramatically reducing consumption and stalling the economy as a consequence.'
It has been claimed that for electricity generation solar power has limited potential, as it is too diffuse and too intermittent. Solar input is interrupted by night and by cloud cover, which means that solar electric generation inevitably has a low capacity factor, typically less than 15%. Also, there is a low intensity of incoming radiation and converting this to high-grade electricity is still relatively inefficient (12 - 16 percent), though it has been the subject of much research over several decades.
Small-scale wind turbines have been used for household electricity generation in conjunction with battery storage over many decades in remote areas. Generator units of up to 2 MWe are now functioning in several countries. The power output is a function of the cube of the wind speed, so such turbines require a wind in the range 3 to 25 metres/second (11 - 90 km/hr). In practice relatively few areas have significant prevailing winds. Like solar, wind power requires alternative power sources to cope with calmer periods.
There are now many thousands of wind turbines operating in various parts of the world, with a total capacity of over 25,000 MWe. The most economical and practical size of commercial wind turbines is now up to 2 MWe, grouped into wind farms up to 200 MWe. Most turbines operate at about 25% load factor over the course of a year, but some reach 30%. Concerns remain about the number of wind turbines that would be required to produce sufficient electricity to have any significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. New South Wales premier Bob Carr has stated, 'You can't cover the entire surface of the globe with windmills.'
3. Australia has large quantities of uranium
Australia has the largest known uranium reserves in the world. Estimates of Australia's percentage of the world's uranium reserves vary between 28 and 41%. (Differences appear to depend on the type of uranium being referred to and this is not always specified.)
In addition Australia has 70% of the 'uncommitted' reserves (that is reserves not due to be used within a country, or already sold under contract). It is thus the largest potential supplier on the world market.
Critics of Australia's current failure to use any of these vast reserves to produce electricity within our own country claim that it is a waste of a valuable resource.
4. Australia is already exporting uranium
Australian exports in 2003 and 2004 have averaged 9500 tonnes per year of uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8) - 8055 tU, providing about 25% of world uranium supply from mines.
Australia's uranium is sold strictly for electrical power generation; safeguards are in place to ensure this. Australia is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state. Its safeguards agreement under the NPT came into force in 1974.
In the five years to mid 2004 Australia exported 43,803 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (37,143 tU) with a value of over A$2.0 billion. The nations which currently purchase Australia's uranium are:
USA: c 4500 tonnes per year - 103 reactors (supplying 20% of electricity).
Japan: c 2500 tonnes per year - 54 reactors (supplying 25% of electricity)
South Korea: c 1000 tonnes per year - 19 reactors (40% of electricity)
EU: about 2600 tonnes per year, including:
France: 59 reactors (77% of electricity)
UK: 23 reactors (24% of electricity)
Germany: 18 nuclear reactors (28% of electricity)
Sweden: 11 reactors (50% of electricity)
Spain: 9 reactors (24% of electricity)
Belgium: 7 reactors (55% of electricity)
Finland: 4 reactors (27% of electricity)
Production and exports have recently averaged over 9300 tonnes of uranium oxide, which at current prices of around 18 US dollars a pound is worth about 360 million US dollars a year.
It has been argued that it is illogical and inconsistent for Australia to supply uranium to other nations for electricity production and not to use uranium for that purpose itself.
5. Australia has the capacity to manage nuclear waste
Nuclear power produces wastes which are contained and managed, with the cost of this being met by the electricity customer at the time. It does not produce any significant wastes which are dispersed to the environment. It therefore avoids contributing to increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
The main wastes produced in a nuclear reactor are very hot and radioactive. However, these 'high-level' nuclear wastes are modest in quantity. Only about 30 kg of spent fuel arises each year in generating enough electricity for about 1000 people in the western world.
Handling and storing nuclear wastes safely is quite straightforward, they simply need to be shielded from human exposure, and cooled. Shielding can be by water, concrete, steel or other dense material, cooling is by air or water. For instance, when spent fuel is removed from a typical reactor, it is done under water and the spent fuel is transferred to a large storage pool where it may remain for up to 50 years.
Long-term storage and management procedures for high-level nuclear waste include
immobilising the waste in an insoluble matrix such as borosilicate glass or synthetic rock. It can also be sealed inside a corrosion-resistant container, such as stainless steel. It can then be buried deep underground in a stable rock structure.
It has been claimed that Australia is particularly well placed to handle the problem of nuclear waste disposal. Commentator Terry Lane stated on June 2005, 'We live on a vast continent, most of which is uninhabited, geologically stable desert. If ever there were an ideal place for safe disposal of toxic radioactive waste, this is it. Even those who hold a romantic view of the desert must admit that there are thousands of square kilometres of wasteland of no scenic or economic value.'
It is also noted that nuclear wastes become less hazardous over time. Radioactivity progressively decays and diminishes. For instance, after 40 years, the spent fuel removed from a reactor has only one thousandth of its initial radioactivity remaining, making it very much easier to handle and dispose of. (The period of time over which nuclear waste remains hazardous is disputed.)
6. Nuclear power plants can be managed safely
The safety of nuclear reactors is a very high priority in their design and engineering. About one third of the cost of a typical reactor is due to safety systems and structures.
The Chernobyl accident which occurred in the Ukraine in 1986 and resulted in 31 direct fatalities involved a type of reactor without the basic engineering provisions necessary for licensing in most parts of the world. (Those reactors of that kind still operating today have been significantly modified since the Chernobyl disaster). At Chernobyl serious mistakes were made by the plant operators; it has been claimed that these occurred because of inadequate training and the lack of a safety culture. These problems were probably the result of the USSR's Cold War isolation.
Supporters of nuclear power therefore argue that the Chernobyl accident occurred in a situation which would not occur today. The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event. It is the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred.
Nuclear plants in the western world operate using a 'defence-in-depth' approach, which involves multiple safety systems. Key aspects of the approach are high-quality design and construction together with equipment which prevents operational disturbances developing into problems. All have provision to confine the effects of severe fuel damage to the plant itself.
The safety systems include a series of physical barriers between the radioactive reactor core and the environment and the provision of multiple safety systems, each with backup, designed to accommodate human error.
There have been only two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986). Three Mile Island was contained, while Chernobyl had no provision for containment. These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 11,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.
7. Other nations are turning to nuclear generated electricity
Currently 16% of world electricity is generated from nuclear power, using uranium as the fuel. Today 33 countries use nuclear energy. Some, such as France, use nuclear power to generate more than three quarters of their electricity. A substantial number of those using nuclear energy depend on it for one quarter to one half of their electricity supply.
China, with one of the fastest growing economies in the world, announced in June of 2005 that it intended to install 40 reactors over the next few years, aiming to produce 6 per cent of its power using nuclear energy. China's reliance on nuclear power is expected to increase over time.
Other nations using nuclear power to generate electricity are
Belgium: 7 reactors (55% of electricity)
Sweden: 11 reactors (50% of electricity)
South Korea: 19 reactors (40% of electricity)
Germany: 18 nuclear reactors (28% of electricity)
Finland: 4 reactors (27% of electricity)
Japan: 54 reactors (supplying 25% of electricity)
UK: 23 reactors (24% of electricity)
Spain: 9 reactors (24% of electricity)
USA: 103 reactors (supplying 20% of electricity).
More nuclear power stations are under construction. Electricity authorities in many countries appear to be satisfied with the reliability, safety and economic performance of nuclear power relative to coal or oil.
Arguments against Australia using nuclear power plants to generate electricity
1. Nuclear generated electricity will not result in a significant reduction in greenhouse gases
Electricity generation is responsible for only a modest percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions - as low as 9% by some accounts. (These figures are disputed. This is a much lower figure than is claimed by those in favour of nuclear power.) In broad terms, it is claimed, the replacement of all fossil fuel fired electricity plants with nuclear power would be unlikely to reduce global greenhouse emissions by more than 5-10% - not even close to the 60% reduction required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Further, nuclear power production is not greenhouse gas neutral. Substantial greenhouse gas generation occurs across the nuclear fuel cycle. The mining, transport and enrichment of uranium are generally powered by fossil fuel energy. As well, enrichment plants produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases.
Emissions per unit energy from nuclear power are about one third of those from large gas-fired electricity plants. However, this comparative benefit of nuclear power is substantially eroded, and eventually negated altogether, as higher-grade uranium ores are depleted and lower-grade ores are mined.
2. Nuclear generated electricity is very expensive
It has been claimed that Australia's plentiful supplies of both coal and gas make nuclear power generation not a cost efficient option for this country.
John Boshier, executive director of the National Generators Forum, has stated, 'None of the power generators who are my members are thinking about nuclear power. We have a long way to go yet before nuclear power is contemplated [because] it is expensive.
While existing nuclear power plants are among the cheapest sources of energy in the US, high capital costs coupled with Australia's plentiful supplies of cheap coal and not so cheap gas puts nuclear power and its waste liabilities behind the economic eight ball.'
The average cost to build a nuclear power plant is about $US1500 per kilowatt capacity compared with $US1000/kW for coal. That would put the cost of a standard 500 megawatt coal power-generating unit at a minimum of $US500 million, compared with $US750 million for the same capacity nuclear plant.
It has been claimed that using nuclear power to generate electricity is particularly uneconomic in Australia where Queensland and Victoria have large reserves of cheap and readily available coal.
3. Alternate energy sources are available
In 2004 the Clean Energy Future Group (which comprises renewable energy companies and the Worldwide Fund for Nature) produced a comprehensive paper called 'A Clean Energy Future for Australia' that details how major greenhouse gas emissions reductions can be achieved.
The Clean Energy study found that Australia can meet its energy needs from various commercially proven fuels and technologies while cutting greenhouse emissions by 50% by 2040. Focussing on stationary energy sources, because of their large contribution to greenhouse emissions in Australia, the Clean Energy study envisages the following energy mix by 2040.
Natural gas could provide 30% (including cogeneration of electricity and heat) of Australia's electricity demand. Biomass from agriculture and plantation forestry residues could provide 26%. Wind energy could provide 20%. Photovoltaic and solar thermal systems could provide 5%. Hydroelectricity provides 7% and
coal (9%) and petroleum (1%) would continue to play a minor role in electricity generation.
The extent to which renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, can replace fossil fuels and nuclear power depends to a significant extent on investment in research and development programs. The Howard government provides fossil fuel industries with $9 billion in subsidies annually. Critics argue this money should be directed toward developing wind and solar energy. It is also argued that if Australia goes down the nuclear energy route, this mode of energy production is so capital intensive it is likely to preclude Government and private investment in renewable energy sources.
4. Australia has substantial coal deposits to exploit
Australia 's energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country's power generation. Supporters of our current energy production regime argue that with the abundant coal we have at our disposal it would be foolish to turn to a new technology which would be very expensive to establish.
Australia is the world's fourth largest coal producer. It has been the world's largest coal exporter since 1986. The country is estimated to have 90.5 billion short tons (Bst) of coal reserves, the majority of which are concentrated along the country's eastern seaboard.
Queensland and NSW account for 95% of Australia 's annual coal production. While both states produce both coking and thermal coal, production of coking coal is significantly higher in Queensland , while NSW leads in thermal coal production. Small but locally important coal resources occur in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. Brown coal occurs mainly in Victoria with other known resources in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.
In 1999, Australia accounted for 6% of the world's recoverable black coal and ranked sixth after USA (28%), Russia (19%), China (12%), India (9%) and South Africa (7%). Australia has about 20% of the world's recoverable brown coal, and ranks second behind Germany (22%)
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has said there is no need to consider nuclear power generation while his state had a 300-year supply of coal.
Over the last decade, coal production in Australia has grown by 4% annually, reaching 378 million short tons (Mmst) in 2002. In June 2004, the Australian government issued the white paper "Securing Australia's Energy Future," which forecast that energy demands within Australia would grow 50% by 2020. The paper endorsed an increased use of coal to help meet this demand.
Australia is investigating ways of reducing the carbon dioxide produced by coal burning. The chief measure being considered is carbon sequestration, which means pumping large volumes of carbon dioxide into reservoirs deep underground. Australia is being actively considered as a suitable location for such underground carbon dioxide dumps.
Queensland premier Peter Beattie has stated, 'The smartest contribution we can make to reducing greenhouse gases, which also happens to be in our self interest, which is to sell coal, is to devise clean coal technology which also can be sold to the world.'
5. Nuclear waste is hazardous and difficult to dispose of
Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods. A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. High-level radioactive waste is currently produced at an annual rate of about 10,000 tonnes in nuclear power reactors worldwide.
The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.
Technologies exist to encapsulate or immobilise radionuclides to a greater or lesser degree, but encapsulated radioactive waste still represents a potential public health and environmental threat that will last for millennia. (The period of time over which nuclear waste remains hazardous is disputed.)
After 40 years of nuclear power there is still confusion and uncertainty about what will happen to its wastes. Not a single kilogram of high-level waste has yet been disposed of in a permanent repository.
At the moment, large quantities of the wastes produced by Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) are stored at the Lucas Heights reactor. There are over 1000 spent fuel rods and quantities of extremely radioactive 'molybdenum' waste stored there. This poisonous waste will stay at Lucas Heights until the Australian government comes up with a better waste management plan.
The solution generally favoured by the nuclear industry to get rid of its high-level waste is to bury it in geological formations of granite or basalt. Kilometre deep holes would be bored into rock, metal canisters lowered into them and then they would be sealed off with concrete. Or else caverns or tunnels will be dug deep into rock or salt formations. However critics maintain that supposedly stable rock formations cannot be relied upon to remain so. Nils-Axel Morner, a leading Swedish geologist on rock movement has stated, 'Never trust a rock. That a rock has survived a million years says nothing about its future stability...When one piece is pushed the whole thing moves.'
Nuclear waste depositories are also extremely unpopular with people living in the areas where they are proposed. To this point no Australian government has been able to settle on an area for the long-term storage of nuclear waste that was judged acceptable by those living near it. Finding a place to dump Australia's nuclear waste has caused problems for Canberra, with South Australia recently mounting a successful legal challenge to the Commonwealth's push to build a waste dump at Woomera.
6. Nuclear power plants are dangerous
Twenty-seven nuclear reactors were shut down in the United States between 1983 and 2003 for safety problems that took a year or longer to fix.
It has been claimed that the risk of major accidents changes as a nuclear reactor ages. According to a study produced by David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Energy Program, any new reactors start out at the high-risk break-in phase. Several nuclear plant disasters have demonstrated the perils of navigating this period. Thousands of unexpected safety problems have surfaced at nuclear plants during the early stages of their operation.
The following is a summary of problems encountered by a number of reactors which were recently built at the time they encountered major operating difficulties.
The Sodium Research Experiment (SRE) reactor in California first attained full power in May 1958. On July 26, 1959, 12 fuel elements melted when the organic compound used to cool the reactor core decomposed and blocked the cooling flow channels. Age: one year, two months.
The SL-1 reactor in Idaho attained full power for the first time on October 24, 1958. An explosion within the reactor vessel on January 3, 1961, destroyed the reactor core and killed everyone at the site-the first fatal nuclear reactor accident in the United States. Age: two years, three months.
The Fermi Unit 1 reactor in Michigan began commercial operation in August 1966. A partial meltdown on October 5, 1966, caused extensive damage to the reactor core. Age at time of failure: two months.
The St. Laurent des Eaux A1 reactor in France started up in June 1969. Nearly 400 pounds of fuel melted on October 17, 1969, when the online refueling machine malfunctioned. Age: four months.
The Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor in Alabama began commercial operation in August 1974. A fire on March 22, 1975, caused severe damage to plant control equipment that required nearly a year's repairs to fix. Age: six months.
The Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor began commercial operation in December 1978. On March 28, 1979, a partial meltdown prompted the evacuation of nearly 150,000 people living near the plant. Age: three months.
The Chernobyl Unit 4 reactor started up in August 1984. It suffered the worst nuclear plant disaster in history on April 26, 1986, when two explosions destroyed the facility and ignited a reactor fire that burned for more than a week. Thirty-one plant workers were killed and thousands of people permanently relocated due to radioactive contamination of the surrounding countryside. Age: one year, seven months.
David Lochbaum further claims that aging reactors, and any reactors granted 20-year extensions to their current 40-year operating licenses also pose a significant hazard including the risk of potentially massive releases of radioactivity into the atmosphere resulting in devastating harm to people.
7. Nuclear waste can be used in nuclear weapons production
It has been claimed that of the 60 countries which have built nuclear power or research reactors, about 25 have used their "peaceful" nuclear facilities for covert weapons research and/or production. Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa and possibly North Korea are said to have produced nuclear weapons under cover of a "peaceful" nuclear program.
Having a nuclear power industry facilitates nuclear weapons production in a number of ways. These include: plutonium production (requiring a reactor and also some capacity to separate plutonium from irradiated materials); production of radionuclides (other than plutonium) for use in weapons (e.g. tritium) and the development of expertise for parallel or later use in a weapons program.
A typical 1000 megawatt electric (MWe) reactor produces about 300 kilograms of plutonium each year, enough to produce about 30 nuclear weapons.
It has also been claimed that having a nuclear power industry justifies the acquisition of other facilities capable of being used in support of a weapons program such as fuel fabrication plants which can facilitate weapons production by minimising reliance on foreign suppliers.
There is also concern that nuclear waste products, capable of being used in the production of nuclear weapons could be acquired by terrorists. The Howard Government has recently abandoned plans to send nuclear waste to an off-shore Australian territory because of fears it could fall into the hands of terrorists and prove too difficult to transport.
According to a new database compiled by researchers at the Institute for International Studies (IIS), about 40 kilograms of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium have been stolen from poorly protected nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union during the last decade. While most of that material has been retrieved, 2 kilos of highly enriched uranium filched from a research reactor in Georgia is still missing.
This problem is not simply confined to the former Soviet Union. The UK Atomic Energy Authority has published a list of the quantities of plutonium and uranium which were 'unaccounted for' in 2000-2001 at its various sites, including Dounreay. At Dounreay there was an unexplained surplus of plutonium of 0.5kg, while 0.3kg of highly-enriched was 'missing' when the auditing was carried. Also 'missing' were smaller quantities of low-enriched and depleted uranium.
Further implications
The development of nuclear energy has been a source of concern to conservationists for at least thirty years. There has been enormous concern about the safety of nuclear power plants, the accumulation of toxic nuclear waste, the hazards of transporting and storing such waste and the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation. Even before the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, new orders for nuclear plants in the United States had ceased for economic reasons primarily related to greatly extended construction times. As of 2004, no new nuclear plants have been ordered in the USA since 1978. After the Chernobyl accident there was a further shift in attitude against nuclear reactors. Italy, for example, held a referendum the next year (1987), and decided to shut down the country's four nuclear power plants.
However, reservations about nuclear power generation appear to have been diluted by the growing fear of the global impact of greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fueled power stations. Though the immediate future of the industry in many countries still appears uncertain, Japan, China, India, South Korea, the United States and South Africa are at least considering expanding their nuclear capacity. Finland and France have actively pursued nuclear programs over many years and both have new reactors planned for the near future.
In the United States, the Nuclear Power 2010 Program was introduced in 2002 as one means of addressing the expected need for new power plants. The program is a joint government/industry effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop advanced nuclear plant technologies and evaluate the economic and safety considerations of additional nuclear power plants.
Australia is the second largest producer of uranium in the world (behind Canada) and the world's largest exporter of coal. Whatever happens in this debate will have repercussions for Australia's trade in both these energy sources. However, within Australia, there is no economic imperative to develop our own nuclear power plants. Given that we have refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty limiting our greenhouse gas emissions, we appear to have largely ignored international pressure to reduce our contribution to global atmospheric pollution.
We may have a nuclear power debate in Australia, but it is likely that we will use it to remove current restrictions on our capacity to mine and export uranium. If, as appears the case, there is likely to be a growing international market for uranium, it would be politically far easier to service that than to establish nuclear reactors in this country. The fallback position, to placate those with greenhouse gas concerns, is likely to be to gradually increase the use of our cleaner-burning natural gas to fuel new power plants and to further investigate carbon dioxide sequestration (burying our carbon dioxide emissions underground).
Sources
The Age
11/6/05 Insight section, page 9, comment by Anthony Albanese, `Nuclear power is not the way'
12/6/05 page 14, comment by Terry Lane, `Why going nuclear is a powerful solution'
19/6/05 page 15, analysis by Birnbauer and Moncrief, `Is this cleaner / safer than this?'
19/6/05 page 18, editorial, `Back to the future with the nuclear energy debate'
20/6/05 page 17, comment by Allan Patience, `Why are we so afraid of the N-word?'.
The Australian
4/6/05 page 19, analysis by D Shanahan, `Nuclear climate change'
4//6/05 page 18 editorial, `Carr right to kick-start a power debate'
4/6/05 page 28, comment by Andrew Trounson, `Heat turns uranium green'.
4/6/05 page 28, analysis by G Elliott, `Environment lobby warms to a nuclear age'.
6/6/05 page 11, comment by Leslie Kemeny, `Fix the nuclear paradox'.
6/6/05 page 1, news item by Lewis and Brown, `PM to axe offshore waste plan'.
11/6/05 page 20, comment by Christopher Pearson, `Howard dishes up greens'
Herald Sun
8/6/05 page 18, editorial, `Letting out the genie'.