AUST: Liar, liar, planet on fire: Howard's nuke lies
Categories:
Speech written for the 2006 Walk Against Warming
Kim Stewart, BA, BSc honsA
Friends of the Earth Brisbane
In recent months something more scary than usual has been happening in the media and the halls of parliament. John Howard and his ministers, finally admitting the reality of climate change are now telling us nuclear power is the answer (just as uranium prices reach an all time high).
Many of us understand Howard's nuclear posturing to be the kind of political grain he is fond of throwing to the media chooks whenever anyone is getting better media than him. He often makes off the wall statements when Beazley is looking good and in the last fortnight Labor launched a quite credible climate action plan that included more renewables, ratifying Kyoto and individuals taking action. No one's saying that will save us, but it's a start.
I have to admit, when I first thought about nuclear power as a possible zero emission power source, I too was taken in by the rhetoric. The spectre of rapid climate change causing the natural disasters like Katrina or the increased flooding on pacific and torres strait islands is indeed frightening enough to muddle ones judgment. And John Howard and the pro-nuclear lobby are relying on that. It seems even some so-called greenies have come to the pro-nuclear party, with The Australian newspaper's editor telling us 'many' agree with Howard on nuclear power. Those of us that don't - over 50% of the Australian people - are, according to Howard, 'green extremists' (I'm surprised 'unaustralian' didn't come up).
But beware taking things at face value. We know from experience the Howard govt are adept at fabricating facts to suit their agendas. We are still reeling from the size of the porkies he told about children overboard, the GST, WMDs just to name a few famous ones. The greenies supporting him are not 'many' – they are really just a handful and some of them have dubious financial interests in doing so (like Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace who has received some flack from Captain Paul Watson, the other co-founder, for his cynical money grabbing as a nuclear industry consultant).
Nuclear power is by no means 'clean and green' as Howard would have us believe. In fact in 2001 the US Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission (the equivalents of the Aussie ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) found that claims by energy utilities that nuclear power is clean and green are 'unsubstantiated'.
How is Howard wrong?? – let me count the ways:
1. Nuclear power can make a difference to climate change:
The overall decrease in greenhouse gases will be insignificant, About 8% globally, and that only if we replaced all coal-fired power plants with nuke ones. 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. We still have emitting industries and vehicles spewing out GHG.
And 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!
2. Nuclear power is clean:
Even though the energy production cycle doesn't emit GHG, nuclear power relies on energy greedy uranium processing. The Olympic Dam uranium mine uses 25% of South Australia's electricity production to process uranium, and you can't have nuclear power without it.
And NPPs do leak radiation, sometimes intentionally: contaminating air and groundwater in many places. Substantial health risks are associated with the use, transport and storage of nuclear materials.
Which bring us to the question is
3. Nuclear power is appropriate for Australia:
Nuclear power plants use massive amounts of water and are prone to failure at high temperatures. 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.
We just don't need it: we have many renewable energy sources. 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.
4. Nuclear power is safe:
Pro-nuke pundits often say Chernobyl is the only notable nuclear accident and that won't happen again. In reality, there is an accident, spill or leak at a nuclear power plant on almost a daily basis.
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. And it's not just old plants: In Sweden this year a brand new nuclear plant went critical soon after it was comissioned and had to be turned off.
We still don't know how to store the waste safely, 60 years later. 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.
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. Jeremy Rifikin says “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 (the US)... failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities.” (Mercury News, Oct 2006).
5. Nuclear power makes economic sense:
Perhaps the most bizarre contradiction in Howards nuclear push is the fact that nuclear power cannot exist without massive state subsidies. Nuclear power will cost us dearly, both in building plants and in storing the waste, diverting funds from legitimate and effective options.
A new nuclear power plant is expected to cost about AUS$4 billion to construct. 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. On economic grounds even the most stubborn of nuclear power supporters must reject it.
6. Nuclear power is a long-term strategy for tackling climate change:
Besides the reasons enumerated above, uranium is a depletable resource. According to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency 'Analysis of Uranium Suppy to 2050' 2001, economically extractable uranium resources could run out as early as 2026.
Even high grade ore requires a great deal of energy to separate the uranium out (in Australia ore contains onaverage 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.
Arm yourselves with these facts people, because we've got a long haul opposing ludicrous and wasteful solutions to climate change coming from this government who until recently denied climate change was happening (indeed some of them still do).
So why is the Howard government so keen on this White Elephant? They have both empire and business dollars in mind when they promote their lies about the nuclear industry. The Howard govt sees dollar signs in their eyes when they talk about uranium and waste dumps.
As the details of Howards nuclear task force get leaked out, we can paint a of a possible future with uranium mines in every state, lining the pockets of mining companies, An international waste dump, built on indigenous land (seems many Liberals still believe in Terra Nullius) and urnaium enrichment plants supplying all the products the US war machine needs (who are, incidentally, our biggest customers for uranium). All this nuclear technology will have to be protected, so we can expect to see a further militarised state, perhaps even with nuclear weapons, and with the increased suppression of civil liberties that go with that.
Nuclear power doesn't even need to be part of that vision, because Howard knows it's unprofitable and unpopular, but it makes a good subterfuge to distract us from the other unpalatable aspects of the nuclear industry that are profitable.
Back to the climate issue: As distinguished Canadian environmentalist and scientist David Suzuki said at his National Press Club address last week, Howard's is an 'international criminal' when it comes to his moral responsibility to the world on climate change.
Though Howard's now giving money to some token renewable projects because Labor made him look bad, it's nowhere near enough. Because emissions from vehicles and agriculture are a larger part of the problem than baseload electricity provision. Solving climate change needs systemic changes to our ways of life and no big scale technology can deliver that.
So what can we do to alleviate climate change? What can governments do?
Howard is currently throwing money at 'clean coal' technologies like geosequestration, which is basically burying carbon under the ground. The carbon will be captured at great expense from newly built coal-fired power stations as a quick fix to clean up coal. But it's no silver bullet: geosequestration technology is expensive, untested and potentially dangerous. It commits us to further fossil fuel use. The facts are that coal and oil are both wrecking the environment and are depleting rapidly. There is no renewable replacement for oil, no way to power cars and trucks, which are the backbone of our economy.
Everything needs to be rethought along local lines: from individual homes to entire towns need to get off the electricity grid. The Qld state government have some great projects like what they're doing in on Badu Island in North Queensland whose community buildings will soon be entirely solar and the solar schools project for a further 14 island schools. And the QLD Sustainable Energy Innovation Fund which is helping businesses be more energy efficient. And the many small energy generation projects like Windy Hill Wind Farm near Ravenshoe, the geothermal project that runs the town of Birdsville and the macadamia shell powered plant at Gympie. Although great pilot schemes, they need to go much further, and they don't attract the capital that coal technologies are getting from the state. Rather than investing in new power stations to capture carbon, (which the QLD government is also doing) the money could be used to encourage households to get off the grid. Wind, solar, geothermal, biogas - these technologies are available today, we need just to invest in them.
Elsewhere governments are committing to a fossil-fuel reduced future:
- California has at least one stand-alone base load solar power station. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced targets of 80 per cent emissions reductions by 2050.
- Notwithstanding our sales of uranium to them, China is actually investing heavily in wind power. By the end of 2005, China had built 61 wind farms, and will invest another US$200b in renewable energy the next decade.
- The number of wind energy projects in Canada has doubled since 2005, as their nuclear power plants begin to wear out and fail.
- Denmark has become an exporter of energy as a result of their renewable energy scheme that focuses on wind generators and efficiency which has meant they have experienced no increase in consumption despite increase in GDP
- It is thought the UK may introduce a new carbon rationing system, that record the emissions of every purchase, or cop an increased tax on the item. Such a scheme could be a powerful motivator for behaviour change.
However, many of the changes that are needed are fundamentally opposed to the economic rational dictating how things currently work. According to a recent report by the WWF, Australians are second only to the US for our profligate use of resources: we, on average, create an ecological footprint of 6.6 hectares! The sheer quantity of consumer goods we purchase needs to be rationalised: we need to use less and use more efficiently. Our food is often shipped from all around the world, when we could buy much of it locally. The Worldwatch institute say “eating local food is one of the most significant choices you can make for the health of the planet”. So grow some veggies, car pool, bus it or ride your bike, learn how to make things, share your skills with others. Buy secondhand consumer items, reuse and recycle. We need to skill ourselves up to be less reliant on the globalised economic system. We also need to rethink how our cities are built and the nature of work, these are fuelled by a dying ideology of endless oil with no consequences.
Howard would have us believe he can save us from economic and environmental collapse and maintain business-as usual, but he's lying. On the one hand he admits global warming is happening, on the other he offers us the nuclear industry as an out. Well we don't want his solutions. His ever growing, economically globalised, environmentally destructive version of reality is doomed. We need to finacially support Australia's innovative renewable energy sector with the same vigor the government devotes to coal. And each of us need to embrace a new localised, community based economy where people help each other, not just themselves. Climate change is a matter of survival for many of our poorer neighbours. As the biggest per capita GHG emitters, it's our duty to take actions at both government and individual level.
Post new comment