You Are Here:
Download the panel's latest comments (pdf 78kb). Read about their original comments.
The report is part of a House of Representatives committee Inquiry into
developing Australia's non-fossil fuel energy industry established in March
2005. The first 'case-study' of the inquiry was to look at uranium.
The report paints uranium as a climate change saviour and also
recommends that Australia further consider becoming part of the 'back-end' of the nuclear fuel cycle -- code for Australia becoming an international
nuclear waste dump.
Steve Shallhorn, CEO Greenpeace Australia CEO says the Uranium report is completely misguided. "The assertion that nuclear is the only solution to climate change is so off the mark as to put into question the integrity of the whole report."
The report waxes lyrical about nuclear power as the main solution to climate change and the only 'clean', proven way of delivering reliable ongoing electricity. Yet the report itself acknowledges that it did not consider other energy options stating "the committee does not wish to enter into a nuclear versus renewables debate". Why not?"
Particularly when renewables and energy efficiency offer the way for substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 10 - 20 years. Even the best forecast in the pro nuclear Switkowski report showed that even with 25 nuclear power stations Australia would get no greenhouse benefits before 2030 and then as little as an eight per cent reduction in gases by 2050.
Mr Shallhorn also said: "it's just ludicrous to suggest that nuclear power is 'green' when after 60 years there is still no acceptable solution for disposing of dangerous radioactive nuclear waste."
The Uranium report also paints a glowing future of 'modern reactors' but this is all conjecture. These so called new generation nuclear technologies don't exist yet. It’s still just paper physics. So once again the nuclear industry wants us to go down some long and risky path, big on promises, short on outcomes. When our resources and environment would be better off by creating the framework for renewables and promoting energy efficiency.
Just this week, the only new reactor being built in the European Union, the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 reactor, is once again surrounded in controversy with another announcement that the project was further delayed. Greenpeace International said: “the main reason is the attempt to push down costs at the expense of safety and reliability." This is the reactor project that was supposed to demonstrate 'new' reactors could be built on time and to budget.
The whole world is made unsafe by any expansion of the uranium and nuclear fuel cycle, meanwhile the clean, efficient and safe energy options are ready to go right now.
Another flawed nuclear report
Hot on the heels of the release of this draft report comes the House of Representatives Uranium report. Released on 4 December, the 800 page report -- Australia's uranium -- greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world -- also paints a rosy future for going all things nuclear.The report is part of a House of Representatives committee Inquiry into
developing Australia's non-fossil fuel energy industry established in March
2005. The first 'case-study' of the inquiry was to look at uranium.
The report paints uranium as a climate change saviour and also
recommends that Australia further consider becoming part of the 'back-end' of the nuclear fuel cycle -- code for Australia becoming an international
nuclear waste dump.
Steve Shallhorn, CEO Greenpeace Australia CEO says the Uranium report is completely misguided. "The assertion that nuclear is the only solution to climate change is so off the mark as to put into question the integrity of the whole report."
The report waxes lyrical about nuclear power as the main solution to climate change and the only 'clean', proven way of delivering reliable ongoing electricity. Yet the report itself acknowledges that it did not consider other energy options stating "the committee does not wish to enter into a nuclear versus renewables debate". Why not?"
Particularly when renewables and energy efficiency offer the way for substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 10 - 20 years. Even the best forecast in the pro nuclear Switkowski report showed that even with 25 nuclear power stations Australia would get no greenhouse benefits before 2030 and then as little as an eight per cent reduction in gases by 2050.
Mr Shallhorn also said: "it's just ludicrous to suggest that nuclear power is 'green' when after 60 years there is still no acceptable solution for disposing of dangerous radioactive nuclear waste."
The Uranium report also paints a glowing future of 'modern reactors' but this is all conjecture. These so called new generation nuclear technologies don't exist yet. It’s still just paper physics. So once again the nuclear industry wants us to go down some long and risky path, big on promises, short on outcomes. When our resources and environment would be better off by creating the framework for renewables and promoting energy efficiency.
Just this week, the only new reactor being built in the European Union, the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 reactor, is once again surrounded in controversy with another announcement that the project was further delayed. Greenpeace International said: “the main reason is the attempt to push down costs at the expense of safety and reliability." This is the reactor project that was supposed to demonstrate 'new' reactors could be built on time and to budget.
The whole world is made unsafe by any expansion of the uranium and nuclear fuel cycle, meanwhile the clean, efficient and safe energy options are ready to go right now.
Take action: sign the petition to keep Australia nuclear free
