Is nuclear energy a viable alternative?
It’s been a while since I’ve posted at Stoush - largely due to an excess of work at the Student Union.
A topic of conversation that has recently come up in my social circle is nuclear energy, a debate largely inspired by the attempts by Howard and co to kow tow to the nuclear energy industry.
Surprisingly, many of my friends hesistantly support nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, particularly coal and gas.
I do not support nuclear energy as a sustainable alternative. It is as bad, if not worse, than fossil fuel. I also strongly support the “No New Mines” policy of the ALP on uranium mining.
I have many reasons for opposing nuclear energy. Most of them boil down to pointing out that both coal/gas and nuclear energy are bad for the environment. Using an environmental argument for nuclear energy does not, in my opinion, stand up to scrutiny. The answer to our energy crisis (in terms of the environment) is not nuclear energy, but sustainable energy, such as solar, wind, hydro, etc.
- Mining of uranium is enormously environmentally damaging, not only in terms of digging it up, but in processing it into a usable form.
- Construction of, and maintenance of nuclear energy stations is grossly expensive, and would require enormous government subsidies to run at all. After 50 years of subsidies in Europe, America and Britain, the nuclear energy industry is still not profitable. The costs of constructions and then decomission of nuclear energy stations is also massive (many times higher than for coal, gas, solar or hydro power stations).
- Mining of uranium is extremely dangerous. The number of dangerous contamination leaks has dramatically increased since the 1980s when Australia’s mines were first opened, and have become increasingly dangerous, particularly to local indigenous communities, and to the workers at the mines.
- Nuclear energy stations need to be located near populated areas and large water sources, as it needs a large number of specialist technicians (who probably wouldn’t want to live in the desert), support services, etc. It needs a lot of water (obviously), which then needs to be safely disposed of. It also produces dangerous greenhouse gasses (albeit fewer gasses than coal or other non-renewable energy sources).
- Australia currently cannot safely dispose of its low-level radioactive waste (mainly from medical and research sources). Although we are a very geologically stable continent, we currently have no facilities to safely dispose of high level nuclear or radioactive waste. After 50 years of the nuclear energy industry, there is no global solution to radioactive waste - nuclear waste has a half-life of tens of thousands of years - tens of times longer than the longest continuous human society has survived (the oldest human institution in the world - the Papacy - is only 2000 years old). This raises the question of what will happen to the waste in 200 or 500 years time.
- The nuclear energy industry is an integral part of the military industrial complex - its by-products are required for the production of nuclear weapons. The decomissioning of large numbers of nuclear power stations in America and Europe means that the nuclear weapons industry is experiencing a resurgence, particularly to find fuel for their missiles.
- Nuclear waste, if not safely disposed of, could fall into the hands of extremists or “rogue nations” or groups. Even if the material itself (in Australia) did not fall into the wrong hands, nuclear waste storage facilities could become targets for extremist groups.
All of this said, Australia (and the world) needs to find genuinly sustainable energy sources, as well as reduce our overall consumption.
Rather than pump money into an industry that is poisonous, dangerous and unsustainable, the Federal Government should invest in sustainable energy such as solar, wind, hydro, or any number of other sustainable energy technologies. Furthermore, there should be greater investment in energy efficient technologies - most of our industries and power consumption is hugely inefficient - both cost savings and energy/environmental saving could be made.
If nuclear energy is here to stay, then there are alternatives to uranium, most notably thorium, which is safer, more environmentally friendly (although still radioactive) and could not be used for the weapons industry.
liam wrote:
Good to see you posting again Alex. Stuff the student union—you are not a corporate slave!
…
Of all of the seven reasons you’ve cited against nuclear power I think only the fifth and sixth, wate and non-proliferation, have a logical backing to them, as the rest can be relatively simply dealt with.
Let’s have a go.
It’s not just uranium which has huge mining costs, lots of other minerals, gems and fuels do too. If there’s a private market for something the capitalists ought to pay for it.
The whole reason nuke is being discussed is because it might be less environmentally damaging than the coal and fossil fuel cycle.
Agreed, but so is the Army, so is public education, so is Medicare. That something is expensive isn’t on its own an argument against it.
Neither entirely true nor entirely relevant. Mined uranium isn’t very radioactive and as we’ve found from hearing recently about buried mine workers, each particular mine’s danger is inversely related to the influence of independent trade unions. See also People’s Republic of China, Mining.
Undeniable. However far worse, environmentally, for the large water sources are the large populated areas themselves. The second part of this argument about not being able to attract technicians and engineers to remote areas is entirely spurious: I know more than a few engineers who aspire to remoteness (and the high pay that goes with it).
Agreed.
Agreed.
So could the ammonium nitrate every Australian farmer fills his/her shed with before planting. So could the contents of any decent university’s Chemistry, Physics or Medicine Faculties. So could the two Stanley knives I’ve got in my drawer.
I refer you to Rob Merkel’s guide to funny stuff with used fuel and challenge you to say it’s not a whole lot cheaper and easier for terrorists to go nuts with lots of things more easily available.
As it stands, the killer argument you make against nuke is hidden away down near the bottom of your piece:
Amen.
alex white wrote:
Hi Liam
Good to be back - albeit a brief visit, as I’m tackling Stalin and Cicero’s superstition at the moment.
Firstly, I don’t dispute what you say about other industries being energy inefficient or dangerous - yes, coal mining in China is dangerous, diamond mining in Liberia is dangerous. Uranium mining is dangerous. Just because other industries are dangerous, but are subsidised by the State, or in existance at all, is not an argument for an Australian nuclear energy industry.
Unlike gem or coal mining (which are at least moderately profitable), uranium mining, and the nuclear energy industry, is not profitable without massive government subsidies. Even under the criteria of the market, this industry is one that is ineficient and unprofitable.
If we are looking at nuclear energy at a source of energy that has environmental benefits (over and above coal and gas), then we should more seriously look at truly renewable sources of energy (solar, hydro, wind, etc).
On the matter of the cost of nuclear energy being compared to the Army, Medicare or other public institutions - presumably Howard and co are framing the nuclear debate in terms of it being (like most energy in Australia) a private enterprise.
Thus, Medicare, the Army, public schools, etc, serve (in theory) public interests. The nuclear energy industry would presumably serve private interests - thus the public cost of establishing the required infrastructure cannot be justified (unless the public owned the nuclear power stations, or the private sector completely paid for the infrastructure).
On uranium mining being dangers - I wasn’t referring to phsyically extracting it from the ground, but to levels of radioactive material that are spilled into the environment, and could (and have) harm workers and local communities. The danger of mine collapses, and other safety issues, are, I agree, linked to their level of unionisation.
On locating nuclear power plants near populated areas - true, the specific technicians required for a plant’s functioning could be moved to the desert. However, there are numerous support industries (and specialists) required by nuclear power plants. The fact remains that unless you built a city in the desert, you need to locate nuclear power plants near populated areas.
On terrorism - I concede that a dedicated or resourceful terrorist could find alternative sources for bombs or WMDs, etc. However, readily available radioactive material is a safety matter that, presumably, the security conscious conservative governments would not want to risk.
Yobbo (not verified) wrote:
“Australia currently cannot safely dispose of its low-level radioactive waste…”
For purely political reasons. The reason we have no wastge-disposal facilities is because anti-nuke campaigners have continually opposed them on ideological grounds. This is kind of a circular argument…
“The nuclear energy industry is an integral part of the military industrial complex…”
So are ball bearings. Should we ban those too? That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
So there’s the two objections that Liam couldn’t come up with a retort to. Anything else?
FWIW, I think Nuclear Power is too expensive to be successful in Australia with our abundant coal and gas supplies.
But seriously, to claim things like “Mining of uranium is enormously environmentally damaging…” is just stupid.
Define enormous? To an ant, you stepping on his anthole is “enormously damaging”. “Enormously Damaging” could mean anything, but in comparison to coal-fired power stations, Nuclear Power is an environmental miracle.
So let’s just try not to overdo the hyperbole huh?
Kirk Sorensen (not verified) wrote:
Hi Alex,
Let’s not try to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many of the statements you make about “nuclear energy” would be more aptly labeled “our current approach to nuclear energy” rather than a blanket indictment of the technology. There are better ways to do, some much much better, such as thorium, as you have pointed out. If you would like to know more about a particularly attractive way to release the energy from thorium, I’d like to invite you to my blog at:
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
liam wrote:
Once again, only the best from Yobbo. No hyperbole there.
arleeshar wrote:
What caught my eye was the figure contained in the Victorian Government’s report as publicised widely on Friday, and which I’ve come across before anecdotally, which suggests that we have a roughly equivalent reserve of uranium as we do oil. The fact that we know these things, can measure them approximately in years, should be a useful tool in determining our energy strategy over the next century.
I don’t know, it would seem illogical to exhaust every source of our energy capital until we’re poverty stricken instead of looking ahead and creating new ventures to supply income for the future. Ants and grasshoppers, that sort of thing. Any nuclear power thing would seem just to be a stopgap, and one that will generate a byproduct which is harmful in different and more concentrated ways to the harm created by current byproducts of energy generation. That could be a risk worth taking for future gain, but I want to know why that would be so, given the horrible byproducts and risks of nuclear power. This is the debate that was never had about oil/coal and the byproducts of those forms of energy are giving us terrible trouble.
It seems that we should be talking about what happens after this sort of stopgap solution is exhausted, and how quickly we can phase ourselves out of dependence on our energy capital. If there is a role for nuclear power, I would like to know in what ways this role will be useful for the long term? If incorporating nuclear power into our strategy for overcoming our current dependence on non-renewables is considered, I would like to know in what ways the risk is worth the reward, and what the reward will be. Is it a step in a 50 year plan to make us almost entirely supplied by renewable energies? If so, how can this be guaranteed in a democratic society where most centralised planning is abortive beyond five years?
Does anyone have a copy/more information about the vic report, btw? A cursory search reveals notmuch.
Myth wrote:
Who cares? I just hope it is not going in Jervis Bay. I think a location in the middle of nowhere would be better. How about Anthony Albanese’s electorate?
larrylaffer wrote:
Excessive work with the student union? Are you preparing for the administrators?
alex white wrote:
No, but strangely, running a $2 million organisation is a full-time job.
liam wrote:
What are they calling themselves these days? “Socialist Alternative”, isn’t it?
Steve Edney wrote:
The 50 years figure is based on known, high grade ore bodies. Unlike say oil, the world has not been extensively explored for Uranium and it is likely that the supplies would be a least 3 times longer. All these figures are based on current usage rates of course, if more countries were to adopt it would drive that back down. However it also doesn’t take into account alternative nuclear fuel cycles which have not yet been run commercially such as fast breeder reactors, which get about 60 times as much energy out of the same amount of uranium, or the thorium fuel cycle - thorium being many more times abundant than uranium.
Even if reliable supplies were only to last 50 years, that is a long enough time to give signifigant scope for development of new generations of technology, such as more efficient renewables and even things like nuclear fusion. So this is not really a good argument against it.
Renewables just aren’t up to taking over base load power at the moment so as far as I can tell the if we were weighing it up it would come down to: Is global warming worse than nuclear waste dumps? I reckon yes.
Still as I was saying at LP, if we are serious about reducing CO2, you don’t do it by going nuclear, you do it by making CO2 emissions more expensive, and letting the market pursue various strategies (including energy use reduction) to achieve that goal. Nuclear may be part of the solution but just imposing it as the solution is wrong.
high_school_gurl (not verified) wrote:
you make a reali good point and i recon if they want 2 destroy australia they can build nuke power plants here if they want… but why reck a great country?
neculear power FTW (not verified) wrote:
guys, neculear power is by far the best option, all the renewable sources are all way too underveloped and alredy have so much probelems neculear power have a tiny amount of waste that is treated with with extreme care
tania (not verified) wrote:
the homman been isn´t ready to have that cuantuity of energy en this hands, nuclear is the most important dicovery in this century. We can use it to make the good, or to destroy the planet and their habitad, including all ehthe humans, plants, animal, etc. If we are going to use it we have to take care of it, and handle with all the responsability
Post new comment