The debate about nuclear energy is a welcome recognition of the urgent need to respond to climate change, but the nuclear option is not a wise response. It is too costly, too dangerous, too slow and makes too little impact on greenhouse pollution. That is why most of the developed world is rejecting the nuclear option in favour of renewable energy and improved efficiency.

Our government is contemplating 25 nuclear reactors by 2050: No Way!
The Prime Minister’s hand-picked nuclear ‘taskforce’ recommended in November that Australia build 25 reactors along our fragile coast line to supply a third of our electricity by 2050. Too slow, too expensive, too dangerous and too much water would be wasted on this – wind is cheaper and quicker and doesn’t cause drought or wars.

Nuclear energy is not emissions free or ‘greenhouse friendly’
According to the German Environment Ministry, the building and decommissioning of reactors, and the mining, processing and extensive transportation of uranium releases carbon dioxide in quantities comparable to burning natural gas. Nuclear power provides about 15% of global electricity generation and electricity contributes about 30% of human made greenhouse gases.

If we doubled the existing 442 nuclear reactors to 884 by mid-century, we would only reduce greenhouse emissions by 5%. It is economically, practically and politically inconceivable that enough new nuclear power plants could be brought on line quickly enough to make a significant contribution to mitigating climate change in the next decade or two, the critical period during which we must take the steps which will set us on the road to avoiding dangerous climate change.

Nuclear energy has never been able to compete on the open market, and has never been commercially viable anywhere without massive public taxpayer subsidies. Numerous studies have shown that a dollar invested in energy efficiency is up to seven times more effective in reducing greenhouse emissions than a dollar invested in nukes.

As far as nuclear power being used to mitigate Climate Change:
To double nuclear power output by the middle of the century would require the construction of about 1,000 reactors with a capital cost of several thousand billion dollars. The reactors would produce 1.5 million tonnes of high-level nuclear waste over a 50-year lifespan, and they would produce enough plutonium to build 1.5 million nuclear weapons.

The climate dividend? 5% reduction in greenhouse emissions - is approximately one-tenth of the reduction required. That meagre 5% climate dividend assumes that the comparison is with fossil fuels. If the comparison is with renewables and energy efficiency measures, nuclear power results in increased greenhouse emissions in addition to the legacy of nuclear waste and plutonium. A US study found that, per dollar invested, energy efficiency measures yield greenhouse emission reductions seven times greater than nuclear power.

There are many, viable clean-energy alternatives in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. Renewable energy, mostly hydroelectricity, already supplies 19% of world electricity, compared to nuclear's 16%. Alternatives such as Geo-thermal and tidal power generation is clean, and sustainable, and these two areas are where new investment should be heading. Wind and solar power are growing by 20-30% every year.

The biggest gains are to be made in the field of energy efficiency. Government reports have shown that reductions in energy consumption of up to 70% are cost effective in some sectors of the economy. Energy experts have projected that adopting a national energy efficiency target could reduce the need for investment in new power stations by between 2,500 - 5,000 MW by 2017 (equal to about 2-5 large nuclear power stations). The energy efficiency investments would pay for themselves in reduced bills before a nuclear power station could generate a single unit of electricity.

U Enrichment ‘a dangerous path to pursue’
December 15, 2006

Territory and national environment groups today condemned the notion of the Northern Territory developing a uranium enrichment industry, despite apparent interest from the CLP to pursue this path.

Hot on the tails of the Federal Government’s Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER), the CLP central council is accepting public submissions on the viability of an enrichment industry in the Territory, but environmentalists point to numerous economic and political obstacles that make the idea both unviable and undesirable.

The groups query why the CLP is investigating enrichment when the UMPNER draft report, released last week, stated “there may be little real opportunity for Australian companies to extend profitably” into enrichment, with the market “very concentrated (and) structured around a small number of suppliers in the United States, Europe and Russia”. The report also noted that the enrichment market “is characterised by high barriers to entry, including limited and costly access to technology, trade restrictions, uncertainty around the future of secondary supply and proliferation concerns”.

Dr Jim Green, nuclear campaigner for Friends of the Earth Australia, welcomed this conclusion, adding concerns that enrichment technology produces high volumes of depleted uranium waste that can be used in munitions, such as those used by the US and NATO in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Dr Green emphasised the issue of proliferation, noting; "While Prime Minister Howard likes to compare uranium enrichment to value-adding in the wool industry, enrichment plants can be used to produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons. Establishing a nuclear weapons production capacity by pursuing enrichment would be foolish and could encourage other countries in south-east Asia to develop a weapons production capacity."

Natalie Wasley from the Arid Lands Environment Centre, Alice Springs, stated that “the CLP appear keen to pander to Howard’s vision of a Nuclear Territory. Dave Tollner and Nigel Scullion supported the legislation forcing the Commonwealth waste dump here and now they are canvassing for uranium enrichment. This would produce long- lived waste the Territory will inevitably be responsible for storing”.

“The CLP could spend the resources being used on this inquiry investigating how to deal with the legacy of radioactive waste from uranium mining in the NT before discussing how to produce more. It is a joke that they claim to be standing up for the Territory when they are actively working to sacrifice it”. Ms Wasley added.

Contact:
Dr Jim Green 0417 318 368
Natalie Wasley 0429 900 774
------
Beyond Nuclear Initiative
Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC)
Cummins Plaza, 67 Todd Mall / PO Box 2796,
Alice Springs, NT
Australia 0871

ph: 08 8952 2011
mobile : 0429 900 774
email: natwasley@alec.org.au

Australia is selling uranium to China, a nuclear weapon state:
Our government boasts that it opposes nuclear weapons and has the highest “safeguards” standards for export of uranium. Rubbish! Australia actually normalises and legitimises nuclear weapons by participating in the US nuclear umbrella. If Australia is serious about nuclear disarmament, the government should never sell uranium, particularly to countries with nuclear weapons. Safeguards provide only an ‘illusion of protection.’ Australian and international safeguards cannot guarantee that Australian uranium does not end up in nuclear weapons.

National protest at uranium sales to China
Across Australia community, environment and peace groups are holding yellowcake stalls to protest the signing of a deal to sell uranium to China. “Selling uranium is a bad idea at the best of times,” said Louise Morris, spokesperson for Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Melbourne. “but we could really get our fingers burnt with this most recent deal.” China is a nuclear weapons state with around 400 nuclear warheads. For them to have access to a reliable source of cheap and plentiful uranium is just the icing on the cake.

“The half baked assurances that Australian uranium won’t go into nuclear weapons programs are laughable,” said Nat Wasley, spokesperson for Arid Lands Environment Centre- Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Alice Springs. “China loses hundreds of workers to industrial and mining accidents each year, and sees untold environmental damage as a result of these too,” stated Scott Ludlam, spokesperson for Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia. “Adding yellowcake into the mix is just a recipe for disaster.”

Ms Morris concluded by saying, “The major political parties are playing packet mix politics to the mining lobby – just add water to get the instant policy you want. “But the Australian community have shown time and again that they are willing to turn up the heat to stop nuclear projects, and we will do so again.”

No Nuke Dump NT
Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC)
39 Hartley St / po box 2796,
Alice Springs, NT
Australia 0871

ph: 08 8952 2011
mobile : 0429 900 774
email: natwasley@alec.org.au

78% per cent of ALP voters don’t want any new uranium mines in Australia or want uranium mining stopped altogether, compared to 16% favouring new mines, a ratio of nearly 5:1. And 66% of the general public polled don’t want any new uranium mines in Australia or want uranium mining stopped altogether, only 22% support increased uranium mining - a ratio of 3:1 (Newspoll 30 May 2006). ALP should learn from the bitter uranium debates of the 1980s in which they lost members and votes. Now is not the time to review the ALP “no new mines” policy.

Uranium Part of our Future?
By NIGEL ADLAM
01mar06 NT NEWS

UP TO five new uranium mines could open in the Territory over the next decade, a nuclear seminar was told yesterday. Several speakers said the NT was on the verge of an unprecedented uranium boom.

Minerals Council chief executive Kezia Purick said the NT had abundant uranium reserves and was well placed to meet global nuclear energy needs. She said it was important Australia sold uranium only to signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

About 10 demonstrators gathered outside the seminar at the SkyCity Casino in Darwin.

NT Senator Trish Crossin said from Canberra yesterday Australia's nuclear regulator had hampered the right of Territorians to have a say on the nuclear waste facility planned for the NT. She said the guidelines for the depository were "virtually buried'' by being released for public comment six days before Christmas. Senator Crossin said the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency had not tried to get any publicity to encourage public comment.

She said a Senate estimates hearing had been told by officers of the department responsible for the waste facility that an evaporation pond for run-off from radioactive containers would be needed in the compound. "This would be especially concerning in an arid area where a pond would attract wildlife ranging from insects and lizards to birds, which form part of the bush tucker food chain.'' She said the pond, a significant part of the dumps infrastructure is not shown on any diagrams, videos displayed at public meetings or on the dump or on the federal governments radioactive waste website.

top of page

Uranium Production Set to Rise
01mar06 The Courier Mail

AUSTRALIA'S uranium production is tipped to record an 8 per cent increase in 2005-06 to almost 12,000 tonnes on the back of higher output from BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine and Energy Resources of Australia's (ERA) Ranger mine. Export earnings for uranium are forecast to increase 50 per cent this year to $712 million through higher export prices. Uranium prices increased strongly in 2005, as the dwindling supply of uranium stocks and increased concerns over the future supply of secondary sources of uranium were the major factors behind the substantial increase in uranium prices.

All of Australia's production of U3O8 is exported. Australia has only three uranium mines currently operating - BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in South Australia; ERA's Ranger mine in the Northern Territory; and Heathgates Beverley mine, also in South Australia. In late October 2005, ERA extended the operational life of the Ranger mine by three years. While mining activities at Ranger are still expected to finish in 2008, processing will now continue until 2014.

The spot uranium price in 2006 is forecast to increase by 34 per cent to average over $US38 a pound. Despite this, world uranium mine production is forecast to increase by only 1 per cent in 2006. This reflects the substantial lead time required to bring new developments on stream. From 2007 world uranium prices in real terms are forecast to decline as strong growth in world mine production and relatively steady supplies of secondary uranium ease concerns about supply availability over the remainder of the outlook period to 2011. In 2011, uranium prices (in 2005 dollars) are projected to be about $US29 a pound.

top of page