Debating nuclear, but what about our rich renewable resource?

Rashida Nuridin
20 June 2006

We produce the highest amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) per capita in the world. One third of this pollution comes solely from the production of electricity. It is imperative that we take urgent action now to reduce our CO2 emissions.

The Federal Government is calling for a “full blooded” debate on nuclear power in Australia, with the pretense that it will be a solution to our GHG emissions. This doesn't make sense when we are not seriously harvesting the free, safe and rich renewable resources that are available.

Wind farms and other renewables can be up and running in a matter of months. Nuclear power stations take many years. In the US, the most recent nuclear power station to come on line took 24 years from start of construction to commercial production!

Don't be fooled by the “clean” tag the government is giving nuclear. The production of nuclear power is a multi stage process. The nuclear “cycle” includes mining, milling, enrichment, power production and waste management, with transportation needed between each of these processes. Although the emissions of GHG's attributed to the power generation phase may be low, this is not the case for the remainder of the cycle. Transport is also required between each one of these processes adding further to the emissions attributable to the full cycle of nuclear power. They also require an enormous quantity of water for cooling.

Renewables such as solar, wind, wave and hydro are simple; they directly convert the raw energy source into electricity with no harmful side effects and minimal full energy cycle GHG emissions, particularly in the case of wind.

Further, high-grade uranium deposits are only expected to last a few decades and when demand increases this will be depleted much sooner. If we then turn to using lower-grade uranium “the CO2 emissions become similar to those of a combined cycle gas fired power station” (Dr. Diesendorf, UNSW).

After 50 years there is still no safe long term solution to waste disposal. It will be 240,000 years before the radioactivity of the “high level waste” is no longer a concern. Are you prepared to leave this legacy for your children and future generations to deal with?

Nuclear power is high risk. With an increased terrorist threat, weapons proliferation and sabotage are a reality. No other energy source requires the substantial level of security as nuclear power.

Twenty years on, have we forgotten the lessons of Chernobyl? Even today's nuclear experts concede that nuclear accidents are inevitable. As more nuclear plants are built, so too does the risk of the next major accident.

Nuclear energy is uneconomical. It requires massive subsidies (the most highly subsidised power of all) and isn't self supporting anywhere in the world . The estimated cost of subsidies to the nuclear power industry in the US, for example, is “US$115 billion in direct subsidies, compared to less than $10 billion for wind and solar combined” (ACF). Just one nuclear waste repository in Nevada is expected to cost US$50 billion. As soon as it is opened in 2010, it will be filled to capacity by the nuclear waste accumulated in the US.

The average lifespan of a nuclear power station is only 21 years (similar to that of a wind turbine) and the cost of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power stations for example is estimated at around 70 billion pounds sterling.

Perhaps those who argue against the economics of wind don’t realise that nuclear power is more expensive. On a global scale, renewable energy already supplies more power than nuclear.

Renewable energy made up an average of 20% of Australia’s electricity from the 1960’s through to the mid 1970’s. It has gradually declined to 8% and projected to make up only 8.8% of our electricity by 2010 (ABARE). Compare this to an EU wide target of 21% by the same year.

Worldwide, wind power is the fastest growing energy sector with energy capacity doubling every 3 years - in 2005 it increased by 43% more than the previous year. Australia has one of the best and most consistent wind resources in the world, but without community and government we are being left behind.

Countries such as Germany have one third of our renewable resource, yet are one of the world leaders in both solar and wind installations. Germany's commitment to renewables is reflected in their decision to phase out all of its nuclear power stations by 2020. Countries with a high ratio of nuclear power such as France and even Sweden, the nuclear power capital of the world, are increasing their renewables.

There is a small vocal minority in the community who oppose wind farm developments. Hype created by these individuals is a smokescreen to a “nimbyism” based primarily on aesthetics. The recurring fictional rhetoric they preach regarding bird kills, noise and unreliability have long been proven false by independent scientists and engineers the world over.

WWF, Greenpeace, ACF, David Attenborough, David Suzuki, The Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds In Britain and most other world leading environmentalists all publicly promote wind energy along with other renewables as being the way forward for electricity production. They would not take this stance if they believed wind farms posed a threat to bird or animal populations.

As far as noise is concerned, you can hold a conversation at the base of the biggest modern wind tower, while the turbine is working at full speed, without raising your voice (35-45 dB (A) at 350m ) and at 97-99% reliability, wind turbines far exceed the performance of coal plants.

I am a visual artist and aesthetics is very important to me, but I don't let it cloud my judgment. Let's put things in perspective. What is more important, your view being “spoilt” or addressing global warming?

The vocal minority should not be allowed to jeopardise the benefit to the silent majority on such a critical issue. We all share the same atmosphere. It is not a localised issue, it crosses all borders and affects us all.

I have focused on wind power because it is currently one of the most economical ways to increase the mix of renewable energy in the overall production of electricity. We all want electricity. I’m sure given a choice most of us would prefer to have clean power.

Next time you flick the switch on, think about where your power is coming from, and your contribution to GHG emissions.