Queensland Nuclear Free Alliance
Media Release – October 18, 2006
Nuclear power Howard's costly red herring
Friends of the Earth Brisbane rejects John Howard’s assertion that nuclear energy is clean & green. Likewise we oppose any plans to site a nuclear power plant (NPP) on the Qld coast, or anywhere. Howard’s stance is not a legitimate policy option, but merely as an attempt to discredit Beazley’s commitment to the Kyoto.
Spokesperson for Friends of the Earth Brisbane, Kim Stewart says, "Howard is disingenuous when he says nuclear power is a good option for Australia.”
“The fact is that Australia is unsuited to the technology. We can't afford it, we don't need it, and it simply won't make a difference. Howard's statements may foretell the expected outcomes of his biased nuclear power taskforce, but they don't represent reality."
The facts are:
Nuclear power will cost us dearly, both in building plants and in storing the waste, diverting funds from legitimate and effective options(1)
The overall decrease in greenhouse gases will be insignificant, About 8% globally (2)
It takes at least ten years to build a nuclear power plant and longer to develop the infrastructure for one. We need action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions NOW! (3)
Nuclear power plants use massive amounts of water and are prone to failure at high temperatures (4)
NPPs do leak radiation: contaminating groundwater in many places (5)
Nuclear power production is intimately linked to Weapons of Mass Destruction and as potential terrorist targets, plants and waste storage sites will require increased expenditure on military to protect nuclear targets (6)
We just don't need it: we have many renewable energy sources (7)
It is fallacious to claim nuclear power is clean and green. The mining and processing of uranium and nuclear infrastructure are dependent on polluting fossils. Substantial health risks are associated with the use, transport and storage of nuclear materials (8)
We still don't know how to store the waste safely, 60 years later (9)
Uranium reserves are not expected to meet demand if the world converts to nuclear power (10)
Mining uranium is so energy intensive that it would negate some of the GHG savings of nuclear power (11)
"Australians aren't going to have the wool pulled over their eyes again by this government. Howard has failed to take legitimate action on climate change, in fact some of his government are still denying it is happening.
“Howard is now resorting to undermining the opposition’s climate strategy document which contains many good options for climate mitigation. The real way forward is not by throwing taxpayers money into nuclear power, but through increased use and investment in real clean, green technologies: increased efficiency and the cheap and abundant resources of solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy."
Media: Kim Stewart, FoE Brisbane Spokesperson 0413 397 839
More information for Editors:
(1) A new nuclear power plant is expected to cost about AUS$4 billion to construct and could not go ahead with subsidies of public money. According to the US Congressional Research Service, the US nuclear industry has received more than US$66 billion in taxpayer research and development subsidies to 2001. In 2003 a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report found that the cost of nuclear energy does not compare favourably with coal or gas, being about 50% more expensive. In addition, NPPs have trouble getting insurance, and are usually underwritten by governments, in some cases NPPs have been shut down because they were unable to obtain insurance.
On October 10, 2006 the UK ruled out subsidising new nuclear power plants either for building or storing the waste generated. According to a 1990 study by the US Rocky Mountain Institute, every dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces seven times more global warming pollution than a dollar invested in nuclear power.
(2) Because power generation is not the only source of GHG emissions, nuclear power can only at best effect between 30 and 45% of our emissions – if we replaced ALL coal-fired plants with nuclear ones.
(3) Even pro-nuclear experts say nuclear power plants are at least 10 years away.
(4) In 2005, several of France's 58 NPPs were shut down in summer when high temperatures made their water cooling systems fail. The super-heated water dispelled from the overheating plants was linked to fish deaths in local rivers. The incidence of NPP failure by overheating has been increasing in recent years as plants age and the climate heats up.
(5) Every nuclear power plant in the world has experienced some kind of radioactive leak, sometimes intentionally. In 2005, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a statement insisting the US government act on the many radioactive leakages into groundwater. In August 2006, two NPPs in the UK were fined UK$2m for radioactive leakages. In Japan leakages and spillages are almost monthly occurrences at their 55 NPPs.
(6) Jeremy Rifkin: “Nuclear power plants are the ultimate soft target for terrorist attacks. On Nov. 8, 2005, the Australian government arrested 18 suspected Islamist terrorists who were allegedly plotting to blow up Australia's only nuclear power plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that more than half of the nuclear power plants in this country failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities.” www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/15666274.htm
(7) A recent United Nations Environment Programme report claims that an 800-square-kilometre area of the Sahara desert could alone generate enough electricity for the whole world. Australia has ample desert.
(8) The US Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission found in 2001 that claims that nuclear power is clean and green are unsubstantiated. Nuclear reactors may not emit CO2, (if the externalities of transporting nuclear material and waste are discounted) but they do carry the potential for significant public health risks when it comes to storage of radioactive waste and potential for leakage.
(9) Yucca Mountain in the USA, supposedly the most advanced waste facility on the planet, is still not considered safe enough to use by the USEPA after many years of construction and research.
(10) According to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency “Analysis of Uranium Supply to 2050” 2001, economically extractable uranium resources could run out as early as 2026.
(11) Even high grade ore requires a great deal of energy to separate the uranium out (in Australia ore contains approx 0.1% uranium). As uranium becomes scarcer and more low grade sources are used, energy use will have to increase, increasing GHG emissions until it no longer becomes economical to extract.