Now get the real answers

November 21, 2006

Print
Send

John Howard's nuclear vision for Australia: "Somehow it sounded more
convincing when George said it."

John Howard's nuclear vision: "Somehow it sounded more convincing when George said it."

Australia — John Howard's just-released Taskforce report on nuclear energy is fundamentally flawed. So Greenpeace asked independent energy experts to give Australians some real answers on nuclear power.

Released today, the government's draft nuclear report was supposed to "undertake an objective, scientific and comprehensive review" into nuclear energy in Australia's future.

However, the report fails to compare the amount of greenhouse pollution that could be saved by renewable energy and energy efficiency right now. Interestingly, the report concludes that if Australia built 25 nuclear reactors by 2050, it would only cut Australia's emissions by eight to 18 per cent. Meanwhile, energy efficiency and renewable energy could help us cut our emissions by 30 per cent by 2020, before a nuclear industry is even off the ground.

Take action: sign the petition to keep Australia nuclear free

Experts answer the big questions

Greenpeace commissioned an independent, international panel of experts to answer questions from Australian journalists and politicians on the nuclear issue.

"Those who tell you... 'Nuclear energy just may be the energy source that can save our planet from catastrophic climate change' are inviting you into a dangerous la-la land in which nuclear power will be oversubsidised and under-scrutinised while other more promising and more rapid responses to climate change are neglected and... greenhouse gases... continue to pollute the skies at dangerous rates."

Peter Bradford, former US Nuclear Regulatory Commission member

Says Greenpeace CEO, Steve Shallhorn, "The answers from the panel make it abundantly clear that nuclear power is too dangerous and way too slow to be any answer to climate change."

The expert panel includes:

Antony Froggatt, international energy and nuclear policy consultant, UK
Stephen Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy, Public Services International Research Unit, Business School, University of Greenwich, UK
David Milborrow, energy and renewable energy studies consultant, UK
Mycle Schneider, International consultant on energy and nuclear policy, France
Peter Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, US

Here is a sample of their questions and answers:

What are the costs to the consumer of nuclear energy?

Professor Steve Thomas: Governments typically claim to follow the 'polluter pays' principle, which would imply that consumers of nuclear electricity should pay all the costs listed above. In practice, when things go wrong with nuclear power, costs are passed on to taxpayers (the government has to pay costs that the companies can't meet) or, worse still, costs are passed on to future taxpayers. For example, the cost of decommissioning existing nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom will fall on the taxpayers of the day, when the costs are incurred. On current plans, this could mean taxpayers 100 years or more in the future will be paying to decommission today's nuclear facilities: clearly a morally indefensible position.

Is it possible to control the nuclear fuel supply process so that countries can't divert nuclear fuel to make nuclear weapons?

Professor Steve Thomas: The non-proliferation regime is necessary and important but there can be no guarantees it will be infallible. Countries such as Israel, South Africa, North Korea, Pakistan and India have all acquired nuclear weapons under the cover of civil nuclear programmes.

What is the potential of wind power?

David Milborrow: Enormous. In the short term, a study by the Australian Greenhouse Office has suggested that the electricity network could easily accommodate 8000 MW of wind and there is almost certainly potential for more. It does not need 1000 windmills to produce a megawatt of power. A single 2.3 MW machine will produce, on average, nearly 1 MW. They operate for about 75 to 85 per cent of the time and their average output, depending on location, is between 30 per cent and 45 per cent of their 'nameplate' output. Reliability is now extremely high and downtime for maintenance is typically two per cent, or less.

Read the full report for other expert answers to questions including: