Global Climate Change Action

The Review has been convincingly contradicted by previous commentators – on grounds such as weapons proliferation, financial costs, health and security aspects.

When it comes to the environment the Switkowski report reads as if no environmental issues were really examined at all.

On WATER,Switkowski lamely concludes that “Water use can be significant”, and proposes desalination plants as a solution for cooling of nuclear reactors.

What is ignored in this report in regard to water?
1. nuclear reactors require nearly twice as much cooling water as coal, and many times more than renewable sources.
2. nuclear reactors release huge amounts of hot water into waterways and coastal areas (for this reason European nuclear plants had to be closed down during 2006’s hot summer)
3. radioactive wastes seep into groundwater (America’s Yucca Mountain , planned as a radioactive waste repository is now not likely to go ahead because of this).

In summary – isn’t it ludicrous that Australia should even consider nuclear technology – whether it be for reactors, or for LEASING uranium – when we know this is going to damage our precious waterways, coastal areas, and permanently pollute groundwater?

* The Switkowski report fails to properly account for the increasing environmental cost of uranium mining. This includes the magnitude of mine wastes, the long-term impacts on surface water and groundwater resources, the energy costs of extraction which will invariably increase in the future for proposed, and the true life-cycle greenhouse emissions.

* Uranium market / nuclear power scenarios in the past have always proven to be overoptimistic, often by a large margin.

* The current "boom" in uranium exploration from 2004-2006 has not seen any new economic deposit discovered at all - only further drilling at known deposits or prospects.

* There are no "well established plans" for rehabilitation at Ranger as the mining-milling plan changes every year. Additionally, the current bond held by the Australian Government is only one-fifth of the estimated cost of full rehabilitation. For Olympic Dam, the bond held by the South Australian Government is only one-tenth of the estimated cost.

* The Beverley and Honeymoon projects are not required to rehabilitate contaminated groundwater following mining.

* Not one former Australian uranium mine site has demonstrated successful and stable long-term closure of mine wastes (tailings, waste rock and/or low grade ores).

via www.energyscience.org.au

Where is my comment titled "Australia and the Worlds Energy" made in response to the article"The dawning of 2007... Who's the fool???" ???

Please post this comment as it is probably the most truthful and useful of all comments so far!

Regards,

Anon

The use of renewable and greatly decentralised power would benefit a much greater number of people than nuclear power. The development of cheap renewable energy could also greatly reduce world poverty by allowing small communities access to cheaper power. It could also provide much greater employment on a local level, further improving living conditions in third world countries.

ABC NEWS ONLINE

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1819522.htm

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says communities across the country face the threat of becoming home to nuclear reactors, after the Prime Minister yesterday said Australians must accept that nuclear energy will be part of the future.

Prime Minister John Howard released the final report into nuclear energy yesterday morning, saying it would be crazy to say no to its future use.

Mr Beattie says the Queensland Government will continue to oppose the development of a nuclear industry.

He says he is concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste.

"What do you do with the waste? It's here for a few hundred thousand years," he said.

"We've got to store it in Australia, there's not going to be people around the world who are going to want the waste."

Mr Beattie says he is concerned that Queensland communities may be forced to accommodate nuclear plants and waste.

"A number of Queensland communities now face the real threat of becoming home to nuclear reactors and a dumping ground for dangerous nuclear waste," he said.

"I'd say to the Prime Minister, where are we going to dump the nuclear waste? What part of Australia?"

Acting West Australian Premier Eric Ripper has also rejected the Prime Minister's claims that the nation needs to embrace nuclear power in its energy future.

Mr Ripper says the Federal Government needs to consider other options.

"There are alternatives, clear coal technology, renewables, geothermal electricity, investments in energy efficiency, these are the measures that should be looked at, not nuclear power which will be very expensive, very, very expensive for electricity consumers," he said.

Mr Ripper says he is very concerned a recent High Court decision may enable the Commonwealth to force nuclear power on the states.

"The extent of the Commonwealth's potential power following the High Court's decision on the industrial relations legislation is very alarming," he said.

"I would not want the Commonwealth to abuse its rights [but] that's a potential given the sort of decision the High Court made."

December 28, 2006

The Australian
From the leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lyn Allison

via:
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20979035-7583,00.html

"Our Government is treading on dangerous, radioactive turf. It's time for the kind of grassroots anti-nuclear activism we saw in this country three decades ago."

IF you think there's no relationship between nuclear power and the bomb, you're either ignorant or Ziggy Switkowski. The former head honcho of Telstra last month launched the initial findings of the Prime Minister's nuclear review, and weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism barely rated a mention.

We know that nuclear power plants in Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have been used to produce fissile materials for nuclear bombs. And there's intense international speculation about Iran's desire to be next.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and co-laureate of last year's Nobel Peace Prize, claims there are 35 to 40 countries with nuclear reactors and the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon within a matter of months.

For more than a decade the Asian Development Bank has refused to finance the nuclear industry because of risks associated with nuclear technology transfer, fuel availability and weapons development.

We must acknowledge that nuclear reactors and enrichment facilities present prime targets for terrorist intrusion, a fact the Government has hypocritically ignored. Even a relatively unsophisticated proliferator could make a mini nuclear bomb, or "suitcase nuke", with just a few kilograms of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium, according to the US Department of Energy.

Media reports suggest that terrorists have, on several occasions, attempted to steal fissile materials from - or induce a meltdown at - our Lucas Heights research reactor in Sydney's south.

The shoulder-fired rocket launchers missing from army stores, and the Auditor-General's discovery this week of a whopping $3.9 billion worth of repairable defence force equipment that cannot be accounted for, do not suggest the Government is taking security all that seriously.

And the Switkowski review isn't just about the development of a domestic nuclear power industry, it's also about uranium exports. The Government seems happy to give the big U to just about any nation that wants it, including China, which has roughly 130 nuclear warheads, is actively modernising its nuclear force and still refuses to ratify the weapons testing ban treaty.

The new "safeguards" for exports to China are wholly inadequate to ensure that our uranium won't be used in weapons production.

International safeguards lack the capacity to verify that diversion isn't happening, and there is a history of diluting safeguards in favour of commercial considerations.

Nuclear activity verification science has become more sophisticated with satellite inspections, air, soil and water detection, but the major weapons states have rejected their adoption over the past six years. This has further weakened the capacity of the cash-strapped international agency to monitor the nuclear activities of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But even if our uranium isn't used in China's weapons program, we're freeing up its domestic uranium reserves for that very purpose.

A uranium trade deal between Australia and India, perhaps via the US, is also on the cards. This would severely undermine the NPT, possibly encouraging the many countries that signed it as a condition of securing uranium supplies to pull out. India is not a state party to the treaty, meaning that its power plants are not subject to international inspections for diversion of uranium into weapons production.

The review panel's lack of concern about weapons proliferation and terrorism is perhaps unsurprising given that none of its six expert members has any professional competence in international relations, nuclear proliferation or national security. It would be prudent of them to commission a study on these issues before delivering their final report to the Prime Minister in two weeks.

Nuclear non-proliferation might not be on the Australian Government's mind, but it is certainly high on the international agenda. And calls by non-nuclear-armed states for a nuclear weapons convention are growing louder.

Last year a high-level panel of experts convened by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan remarked: "We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the nuclear regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation."

More recently the foreign ministers of Germany and Norway called on Russia and the US to fulfil their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty by ceasing modernisation of their nuclear arsenals and beginning to dismantle.

Our Government is treading on dangerous, radioactive turf. It's time for the kind of grassroots anti-nuclear activism we saw in this country three decades ago.

THE POISON - LEAVE IT

http://www.iratiwanti.org/

"US: A survey carried out in 1997 by Lake, Sosin and Snell said in the US found that 87% of those polled felt, "the US should negotiate an agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons."

UK: A poll carried out by MORI in 2005, on behalf of Greenpeace, showed a majority (54%) of the British public oppose the development of a new nuclear weapons system. Only one in three (33%) support their development.

Russia: In 1998 61% of Russians polled by Vox Populi commissioned by TASS said, "All nuclear weapons states should eliminate such weapons."

India: 62% of Indians polled by The Hindu in 1998 said, "India should not produce nuclear bombs."

Japan: In a Japanese poll by Asahi Shimbun in 1998 78% agreed that, "all nuclear weapons states should eliminate such weapons."

Australia: A resounding 92% of Australians polled by Roy Morgan Research Co. in 1998 agreed, "Australia should help negotiate a global treaty to ban and destroy all nuclear weapons."

Norway: Similarly 92% of Norwegians polled in 1998 by 4 fakta A/S agreed "Norway should work actively for a ban on nuclear weapons.

Belgium: 72% of Belgian polled in 1998 by Market Response said they were for "an initiative on behalf of Belgium with an aim of initiating talks concerning a treaty for the abolition of nuclear weapons''.

Canada: 93% of Canadians polled in 1998 by the Angus Reid Group agreed that, "Canada should take a leadership role in global negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons."

Turkey: In 2004, an Infakto poll, commissioned by Greenpeace, found that 72% of Turkish people supported the idea of making Turkey a nuclear-free zone and 75% would support Turkey leading an international campaign for international nuclear disarmament."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/peace

"Per megawatt existing nuclear power stations use and consume more water than power stations using other fuel sources. Depending on the cooling technology
utilised, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations".
(Department of Parliamentary Services Research Note, 4 December 2006, no. 12,
2006–07, ISSN 1449-8456 )

I have just quickly read, for the first time, the Federal Government's "Final Report on Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy - Opportunities for Australia?" which has just been released and is available for download at: http://pmc.gov.au/umpner/reports.cfm#full

Here are a few of my initial impressions and comments:

1. I note that the Submission made by Jo Wynter and myself on the Draft Report has not been included in the long list of other submissions examined. I have written to ask why and will let listmembers know if and when I get a reply.

2. As expected, the Final Report (like the Draft Report) is clearly biased toward the development and expansion of uranium mining and exports, and the development of uranium processing and nuclear power generation in Australia. However, it does contain occasional surprising titbits of information. For example, it says:

"Some 4000 people in the areas with highest radiation levels could eventually die from cancer caused by radiation exposure, and of 6.8 million others living further from the [Chernobyl] explosion who received a much lower dose, another 5000 may die as a result of that dose." From page 196.

"One study suggests that of 570 million people in Europe at the time of the Chernobyl accident and exposed to low levels of radiation from the accident, 16 000 will ultimately die from induced cancers as a result of the radiation caused by the accident. This is 0.01 per cent of all predicted cancer deaths. As cancer causes about a quarter of all deaths in Europe, identifying those cases triggered by the Chernobyl-sourced radioactivity cannot be done with statistical confidence." From page 197.

So, these studies suggest that about 20,000 people in Europe can be expected to die as a result of the Chernobyl disaster.

Even worse, though, on page 205, we find:
"Other higher estimates of the long term impacts have been made, assuming that the official figures underestimate the true release of radioactive materials by about 30 per cent and that there was a wider spread of contamination and exposure. One predicts 30 000 to 60 000 excess cancer deaths in the longer term, 7 to 15 times greater than Chernobyl Forum estimates.[288]" [The latter figures were taken from: Fairlie I, Sumner D. The other report on Chernobyl (TORCH). 6 April 2006, University of South Carolina. http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/papers/TORCH.pdf ]

3. There is no mention that I can find of an assessment of the risks from low-level radiation in other parts of the world although there was radioactive contamination of large areas of North America and Asia.

4. There is no mention that I can find anywhere in the Final Report of possible risks to nuclear facilities posed by natural disasters such as earthquakes, cyclones, tsunamis, flooding, etc. This, in spite of the fact that many present and planned nuclear facilities are located in highly geologically unstable areas, or are situated in exposed areas, such as seacoasts.

5. There is no discussion that I could find as to why the Federal Government has commissioned a Report into the need to expand the Uranium and Nuclear Industries but has failed to do the same for renewables.

6. The Final Report notes that there will be a very long time lag before nuclear power could come on line in Australia, and states that: "The greenhouse gas emission reductions from nuclear power could reach 8 to 17 per cent of national emissions in 2050."

However, it neglects to mention that we could probably decrease our emissions by a similar amount (and quite possibly more) within a much shorter span of time by immediately installing more renewable sources and economising on our present very wasteful power habits.

The Report does predict the greatest savings of carbon emissions are likely to come from energy efficiency measures (see, for example, Figure O15 on page 225), many of which could (and should) be implemented almost immediately.

7. Appendix O on "Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions," on pages 209-226, which, though favouring the development of nuclear power and expanded uranium mining, certainly contains some useful and sobering information.

Sincerely,

John Hill

Nuclear power is not the only option to solving our energy need and tackling climate change. Unfortunately for all of us, John Howard is not interested in solutions, he just wants to exploit the crisis to make a buck for his mining mates. He also has a scret agenda to supply uranium to India at the request of George W Bush.

Say no to nuclear for ever!