Liar, liar, planet on fire: Howard's nuke lies
by kimk Thursday October 19, 2006 at 06:44 PM

In recent months something more scary than usual has been happening in the media and the halls of parliament. John Howard, finally admitting the reality of climate change is 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 last week 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 whose received some flack from Captain Paul Watson, the other co-founder for his cynical money grabbing as an industry consultant).

Nuclear power is by no means 'clean and green' as Howard would have us believe. 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. 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:
   NPPs do leak radiation: contaminating groundwater in many places. The mining and processing of uranium and nuclear infrastructure are dependent on polluting fossils. Substantial health risks are associated with the use, transport and storage of nuclear materials.

3. 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.

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.

   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 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.

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 approx 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).

They have finacial interests in promoting their lies about the nuclear industry, the Howard govt sees dollar signs in their eyes when they talk about uranium and waste dumps. Nuclear power is just a subterfuge to make other aspects of the nuclear cycle more acceptable to us buy being the lesser of evils.

As distinguished Canadian environmentalist and scientist David Suzuki put it at his National Press Club address last week, Howard's view on nukes & climate indicates he is an arsehole.

And we won't be fooled. Or at least some of us won't.

More info: www.nuclearfreequeensland.org

brisbaneanarchy.org/node/82

add your comments