Global Climate Change Action

Radioactive waste (Dr. Jim Green)

* The Switkowski report notes that 25 power reactors would produce up to 45,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel but is silent on the proliferation and security implications of the 450 tonnes of plutonium contained in that amount of spent fuel.

* The Switkowski report floats the possibility of exporting spent nuclear fuel to the USA although that is at best a remote prospect. The report then ignores the term of reference regarding importation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste for disposal in Australia.

* The Switkowski report stresses the need for public acceptance of waste management proposals but is silent on the draconian imposition of a nuclear dump in the NT. An expanded nuclear industry in Australia would very likely result in further impositions of nuclear facilities on unwilling communities.

* A member of Switkowski's panel, Prof. Peter Johnston, has previously attacked the federal government over its incompetent handling of radioactive waste but there is no mention of these problems in the Switkowski report.

via: www.energyscience.org.au (review)

by Dr. Mark Diesendorf

Economics

* The Switkowski report makes questionable assumptions that are highly favorable to nuclear power. In reality, nuclear power is likely to cost more than double dirty coal power and hence even more than wind power. The report's very low estimates of the costs of nuclear electricity are achieved by means of a magician's trick.

* The report cites studies on the external costs of electricity generating technologies. The low environmental and health costs obtained are misleading, because these studies do not include the main hazards of nuclear power - the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism - and most do not treat adequately the hazards of rare but devastating accidents.

CO2 emissions

* The Switkowski report evades the issue of the large increases in CO2 emissions from mining and milling uranium ore as the ore grade decreases from the current high-grade to low-grade over the next few decades.

Renewable energy

* The report has no basis for its claim that "Nuclear power is the least-cost low-emission technology ..." How can the Switkowski panel assert that nuclear is least cost, when it has neither performed any analysis nor commissioned any on this topic?

To the contrary, wind power is a lower cost, lower emission technology in both the UK and USA and would also be lower cost in Australia. Hot dry rock geothermal power should be commercially available within a decade and is likely to be less expensive than nuclear power. So are some power stations burning biomass from existing crops and existing plantation forests.

via Dr Jim Green and
"Energy Science"

Analysis of the Draft Report of the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (the Switkowski Report)

Hi Anne
Just got a chance to check my emails - its always great to hear from you.
Here is a copy of a submission put together by myself and other women in Nimbin for the UMPNER taskforce- you may be interested...
All the best for 2007
Cheers
Omega
--------------------------
To The Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Secretariat
C/- Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
3-5 National Circuit Barton, ACT 2600
Email: ump...@pmc.gov.au

To the Secretariat,

We are a group of concerned women who represent our community of Nimbin, Northern NSW. We would like to present to you the prevailing consensus of community opinion in response to your Review.

We talked to a large number of people in our community. There was an overwhelming rejection of the use of nuclear power and the expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia.

We agree that there is a need to ‘deliver a prosperous economy while protecting the environment and playing an active role in global efforts to reduce Greenhouse emissions’. UMPNER Taskforce 2006.

We agree that there needs to be ‘encouragement of development of cleaner, more efficient technologies to underpin Australia’s energy future’ and that the ‘current trends in energy consumption are neither secure nor sustainable’.

UMPNER Taskforce 2006

We do not agree that nuclear power is the answer to these issues.

In the Review you claim that ‘consultations revealed support for the expansion of Australian mining and export of uranium’ UMPNER Taskforce 2006. This is out of touch with the average Australian citizens views. A recent poll indicates that only 17% of Australians are pro-nuclear. The majority of Australians are opposed to nuclear power and mining.

We are concerned that there will be an increase in cancer rates in areas in proximity to nuclear plants, mines and storage areas as evidenced in other parts of the world and Australia. Research figures released in late November, 2006 show that the rate of cancer in Kakadu is over 50% for indigenous adults living in the area. Tradition food gathering practices have become affected by contamination.

In the Review you state that ‘the volume of waste remaining after reprocessing spent fuel is approximately 20% of the volume of the original fuel’. Proposed nuclear power stations will generate unacceptably high levels of radioactive waste. We are concerned about the management of dangerous wastes. We do not feel that it can be safely transported, concentrated and contained, diluted and dispersed, and delayed and decayed despite claims to the contrary. Intermediate and high level waste will be generated as in intermediate level waste from fuel cladding or reactor components and high level waste from spent fuel rods and liquid products from reprocessing. There are still no long term solutions to its safe disposal.

The Review says that if all Australian uranium was processed domestically a further $1.8 billion of value could be added to the industry. The Review then recommends that ‘current legal and regulatory impediments should be removed’. If the industry is further deregulated it will diminish safety and accountability. Other countries are decommissioning their power stations because of safety concerns. We are also concerned about nuclear material in the uranium conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication and its byproducts in power generation being used for nuclear weapons including ending up in DU weapons.

We believe that nuclear power is not economically viable compared to other alternatives. In the Review you state that ‘nuclear power would be 20 to 50% more costly to produce than coal or gas-fired power.’ This does not include hidden costs such as:
- cleanup of contamination from accidents and leakage
- long term safe disposal of nuclear waste
- negative effect on real estate values for landowners in the vicinity of waste dumps and power stations which are planned for populated areas such as near capital cities
- cost of litigation from people adversely affected
- cost to health system for treatment of cancer and other related health and birth defect problems
- long term effect of contamination and alienation of land used to store or dispose of waste

In the 15 years that it would take to deliver nuclear power to the grid, far more sustainable alternatives could be in operation. Such alternatives could be solar, wind and geothermal generated power and bio diesel. Wind and solar power delivers affordable, low emission to the grid connected consumers at rates of only 20-40% more than fossil fuel electricity. (Origin Energy 2006)

In the Review you project a 2% increase per year in power consumption in Australia. Committed campaigns by State and Federal governments to encourage Australians to use less power could reverse this trend. Low energy lifestyles would not only conserve energy but also help reduce Greenhouse gas emissions.

The Review does not adequately address the effects of the nuclear industry on other industries such as repercussions on the tourist and hospitality industry’s eco-friendly image and eco-tourism. There will be effects on the integrity of our agricultural industry and its ability to keep and expand its domestic and overseas markets.

On the driest continent on the earth, this Review does not adequately address the very real concern of degradation of our water quality and resources, both surface and underground water. Catchments, underground aquifers and artesian water can be affected and even destroyed by any stage of the nuclear industry. In the Review you state that ‘Olympic Dam is the largest deposit in the world and contains approx. 70% of Australia’s known reserves’. What effect will it have on South Australia’s already critically low water resources?

We are concerned about what legacy we will be leaving our children and future generations in the forms of radioactive contamination, birth and genetic defects and the poisoning of land and water for thousands of years to come.

An expanded nuclear industry is totally unacceptable to us and most Australians.

Adrienne Watt
Omega Breakspear
Lynne Oldfield
Katy Cawcutt
Charlotta La Mer
Lisa Costello

I am sickened by the conclusions of the Ziggy Switkowski report. I read it as an opportunistic calculated endeavour to extract as much wealth as possible from our energy rich continent without addressing the potential problems. Building stockpiles of plutonium in a political climate feeding on fear of terrorism.
Exploiting our uranium resources when there are many other energy options: leaving nothing for future generations who may have an acute need which could have been met with our squandered supplies.
Ignoring the unique opportunities to truly support neighbours and build a credible, moral Australia. Where citizens can be proud to be Australian.

See: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Depleted+Uranium+Part+*+of+6...

and examine from one to six.

Horrific.

Vietnam Veteran of the first oil war for chemicicals, and with a daughter's boyfriend in the oil war for uranium war in Iraq.

Clearly the man is an idiot. Who in their right mind would let this happen?
NO NUKES

......
Vega...@yahoogroups.com
......
http://www.veganforlife.org

Nuclear energy was born of the weapons race - the two are intrinsically linked via expertise, infrastructure, research and the fuel itself. Any energy system, remotely or otherwise, linked to research and development of WMDs should not even enter into consideration.

The UK's Calder Hall in north west England, billed as the world's first civil nuclear power station in 1956, produced not just electricity but also plutonium for nuclear weapons.

India's first nuclear bomb was produced using fuel from a research reactor.

All nuclear reactors produce the raw fuel capable of being diverted for nuclear weapons. The very same technology used to enrich uranium for civil reactors (both research and power) can be used for high level weapons grade enrichment. ie, the enrichment process is "dual use" technology (civil/military), also highly energy intensive in the case of centrifuges and, in the case of the Silex laser project, classified "Restricted Data" by the US and Australian governments for the very reason of being "dual use" (the gas diffusion method also remains a major contributor of CFCs).

Thorium technology, although creating 'lesser' wastes by volume, still creates those suitable for weapons grade fuel.

The IAEA’s Illicit Trafficking Database recorded over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive materials since '93 (nearly 100 in '04 alone). These activities have the potential to provide fissile materials for nuclear weapons or a wider range of radioactive materials for use in ‘dirty bombs’.

We must also seriously question the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel - an even greater proliferation risk recognised by the IAEA for the separation of plutonium.

But, if anything, Mr Howard, how about coming clean on the water requirements: "up to 83% more than for other power stations" (Department of Parliamentary Services research note, 4/12/06). And it looks as if this excludes uranium mining, milling and the cooling of reactor fuel rods.

"Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power." - Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado.

"For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale." - Former US vice-president Al Gore.

"Almost every action, every piece of research, technological development or industrial activity carried out in the peaceful uses of atomic energy could also be looked upon as a step in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. There is such an overlap in the military and peaceful technologies in these areas that they are virtually one.” - Former head of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Sir Phillip Baxter.

N-power is a 20thC white elephant, it being a "solution" for climate change is a red herring (for new uranium export deals - what Howard's really after), the Ziggy & the Libs' inquiry is a trojan horse and we could face a pandora's box of consequences. Whole truths, please.

It is time for our government to wake up.
Take a stand for our future!