Nuclear Power in Australia?

As the debate on the greenhouse affect continues, John Howard has begun to seriously consider nuclear power as a means to reduce greenhouses gases. Australia is greatly divided on this issue, and as it nears the election, decisions will be made about this issue. Countries all over the globe have been and are using nuclear power, and they have shown that; storing nuclear waste is a great problem, the cost of nuclear power is high, thousands of people have died from exposure to nuclear power, and nuclear power isn't as environmentally friendly as John Howard would like us to believe.

Whilst John Howard maintains, "we're not taking other people's waste", Australia still faces the problem of having to find an effective way of storing the radioactive waste created by the 'environmentally friendly' power plants. GNEP, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, comprising of countries currently using nuclear power, such as the US, Russia, China and Japan, says that [i]“uranium suppliers have to take back spent fuel”[/b]. So if Australia joins the GNEP, which it has to if it doesn’t want to start a war, Australia will have to find storage space for not only the spent uranium created by its own reactors, but also the spent uranium of any country it trades with, such as India.

Nuclear energy doesn’t come cheap either. John Howard has called nuclear power ‘a cheap and clean alternative’ to coal, but in reality the cost of nuclear energy is often far greater. BHP Billiton, Australia’s largest uranium producer, has argued with the government’s statement, saying “the economic case for local enrichment did not look positive”, and that they have no intention of entering the market. So if the nation’s largest producers of uranium say that there’s not a suitable market for them to play a considerable part in, how can this be economically viable? Add to that the cost of removing and storing nuclear waste. And it’s also no secret that meltdowns and other “accidents” occur in nuclear power plants. In America, the Three Mile Island incident, where the core meltdown left over 100 tons of radioactive matter needing to be removed, cost at least $975 million dollars US.

The health risks of radiation are almost reasons in themselves not to have nuclear power. There is no definite proof as to how much radiation a human can be exposed to safely, as any amount of radiation can, in theory, kill. Studies of sites around nuclear plants show cases of increased cancer and disease rates, most likely caused by radiation poisoning. In the Tsuruga Nuclear Plant in Japan, workers were exposed to up to 155 millirem a day. 115 millirem has a fatality rate of 10% after 30 days.

A reprocessing plant in Sellafield, England, had “a major leak of radioactive liquid” that “went undetected for eight months”. Think of all the damage to lives that could have been caused in those eight months. Damage that most likely wouldn’t have been reported as radiation poisoning, because there are no significant signs that link radiation as the reason for medical cases. Over 4000 deaths were attributed to the Chernobyl accident, but it is assumed that the total estimate was over twice that amount; because the deaths from thyroid cancer went unreported.

Nuclear power has been heralded as a “clean and renewable” energy source. This is wrong. Whilst nuclear power doesn’t add to the greenhouse effect as it does not produce the carbon emissions of other energy sources, such as coal, radiation can poison the environment surrounding the plants. In 1959, there was a little place by the name of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Los Angeles. One worker said that each of the water wells surrounding the plant was polluted. “We used to fish down in the ponds. They were so polluted the water would bubble”. He also said that the fumes he breathed out burned his wife’s lips as he kissed her hello after spending a day at the plant. The radioactivity released by Chernobyl was estimated by the WHO (World Health Organization) as 200 times more radiation than the combined releases of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Despite all the bad points, nuclear power is more effective than coal power, as it takes 2000 ton of coal an hour to generate 1600 megawatts of power. Ton for ton, uranium generates far more power than coal. However, there are far safer, healthier, and more environmentally friendly alternative power sources to consider. Wind power doesn’t add to greenhouse gases, it doesn’t have high death rates, and has very small environmental impact.

So, in conclusion, nuclear power is not the best option for Australia’s power. Nuclear power is not cost effective, is not safe, is not environmentally friendly, and the problems associated with storing nuclear waste are unnecessary. There are many other alternative power sources which should be considered before nuclear power plants are even planned.