Digging up trouble: Greenies speak out

Gold and Minerals Gazette
August, 2006 Page: 19

Don Henry, executive director Australian Conservation Foundation

So, environmentalists are being "outrageously selfish and morally deficient" by failing to support uranium mining and nuclear power, and our arguments "lazily rely on mantras about safety and the possibility of nuclear accidents" (Greens get on the coal train to derail crucial nuclear debate, Gold & Minerals Gazette, June 2006)?

Allow me to explain, in the most clear and unemotional way I can, why conservationists do not - and cannot -support nuclear power.

First, nuclear power is not 'greenhouse free'. Finding, extracting, transporting and processing uranium uses considerable energy, as does the construction of reactors. And as a way to reduce greenhouse pollution, nuclear energy can't make enough difference.

Second, nuclear power is too expensive, even with the huge public subsidies it has received for 50 years. The public always picks up the tab for constructing and insuring nuclear power plants and for cleaning up the radioactive mess when accidents happen.

Third, accidents do happen. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are testament to that. More recently, Britain's nuclear industry has suffered a series of cracks, leaks, spills and ruptures.

Fourth, nuclearpower is simply too slow. The best available science tells us we have a limited time to dramatically cut greenhouse emissions in order to avoid dangerous climate change. While commissioning and constructing a nuclear reactor would take more than a decade, renewables like wind and solar could be delivering clean power next year and better energy efficiency measures could be reducing emissions next week.

Renewable energy is here, it's real and it works. It's where the dollars and jobs are. Renewables supply 19% of electricity worldwide. In 2004, around 4billion tonnes of greenhouse gases - half the world's annual emissions - did not pollute the global atmosphere because renewables were being used instead of fossil fuels. South Australia is already getting around 10% of its electricity from wind power - and those wind farms have been set up in the last five years.

Fifth, there's no getting around the fact uranium is the only electricity source with a demonstrated link to weapons of mass destruction. We can hope China and India will adhere to the 'safeguards' we apply to our exported uranium, but we can never guarantee it. Even if we trust this Chinese Government and all future Chinese governments, no one can be sure nuclear material will be secure from terrorists.

Sixth, there's the inevitable, intractable problem of radioactive waste. There's nothing philosophical about green concerns about nuclear waste. It's carcinogenic. The industry around the world has failed to manage it properly. There are more than 250,000 tonnes of the stuff stockpiled around the world awaiting disposal. Fifty years into the nuclear experiment, there's still no way to safely dispose of it and the assurances are wearing thin.

Be in no doubt, every attempt to expand uranium mining in Australia will be beset by protests and opposition because the nuclear way is too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive and too slow to make a difference to global warming.

The good news is Australia doesn't face a choice between coal and uranium. We can secure our energy future and avoid dangerous climate change by weaning ourselves off coal (gas will be an important transition fuel) and backing renewable energy, energy efficiency and national laws that cut our emissions.