Managing editor Michelle Pini particulars why Peter Dutton’s newest nuclear vitality push is definitely “unhinged”.
APPARENTLY, nobody suffered from the Fukushima meltdown.
Or the Chernobyl calamity.
So, we must always all transfer on.
Certainly, with fossil fuels quick operating out, the Coalition – led by Dutton and with Littleproud obediently trailing alongside – has renewed its nuclear push.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton lately declared:
Of course, as Giles Parkinson patiently explains in RenewEconomy:
Details.
These Coalition speaking factors – in addition to different fantastical claims by Dutton – had been regurgitated this week on ABC’s Q&A, by nuclear groupies, Liberal MP and former advertising govt Ted O’Brien and 17-year-old self-proclaimed skilled, Will Shackel. We will return to this under.
Australia must learn lessons from Fukushima disaster
It is now a dozen years since the world held its breath and learned to pronounce the word Fukushima.
YOUNGER THAN IT LOOKS
It’s a whole 12 years on from Fukushima, after all. And there were only 2,313 odd deaths related to that catastrophe, of which only 1,368 are believed ‘to have died in connection with the nuclear accident’.
And only about $120 billion spent stabilising the stricken site, so far.
Oh, plus around 23,000 workers involved in emergency operations and exposed to excessive levels of radiation, among whom:
It’s 37 years after the Chernobyl disaster.
Forty-four years since the Three Mile Island meltdown.
Then there are the nuclear submarine emergencies – only about nine since 1961.
To summarise, since the world’s first nuclear reactor meltdown – the NRX reactor at Chalk River Laboratories, Ontario, Canada in 1952 – a host of other calamities from the use of nuclear power have created an ongoing radioactive stream of leaks around the globe. Over 100 of these radioactive meltdowns are defined as “serious” by the IAEA and the majority are post-Chernobyl.
These time frames are completely irrelevant in radioactive decomposition terms, of course, since nuclear waste, depending on its elemental composition, takes between 290 to a few hundred billion years to decompose, give or take a few million.
HELEN CALDICOTT: The truth about nuclear power – neither clean nor green
While nuclear power is considered clean by many, there are several harmful and long-lasting consequences resulting from its use.
WASTE NOT WANT NOT
A couple of years ago, Dr Helen Caldicott summarised the key figures outlined in ‘The World Nuclear Waste Report 2019’ in IA:
High-level nuclear waste consisting of spent fuel from nuclear reactors accounts for the majority of radioactivity and needs to be safely stored for up to a million years.
As Dr Caldicott points out:
Why nuclear power won’t work in Australia – yet another explainer
While the Liberal Party continues its push for nuclear power in Australia, there are many reasons why renewables are a far better option.
SIZE ISN’T EVERYTHING
As well, the costs associated with all aspects of nuclear technology, even without its repatriation, are eye-stinging.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has estimated that the Coalition’s nuclear plan, as yet uncosted by Dutton, will cost $387 billion – 20 times more than Labor’s current renewables investment fund – and would not be delivered before 2040.
Dutton’s favoured “small modular reactor” typically costs as much as $16,000 per kilowatt-hour to run.
According to Stanford and the University of British Columbia:
And Dutton has described Bowen’s response to the Coalition’s nuclear push as “unhinged”.
WHY THE A IN ‘Q&A’ DOESN’T STAND FOR ANSWERS
Nonetheless, today, as Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) begins pouring contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe directly into the Pacific Ocean with a nonchalance akin to emptying the bath water, we are still debating the “benefits” of nuclear power, courtesy of the Coalition.
So trendy are all things radioactive, Q&A, this week served up a 17-year-old panellist to educate us all on the need for nuclear power.
Never mind that the world’s foremost scientific minds have so far been unable to solve the issue of nuclear waste. The venerable Will Shackel, who appears to have spent much of his 17 years on the planet cheerleading for nuclear technology, went about advising us all on how to deal with the spent fuel from nuclear reactors.
Said Will:
Problem solved!
There is still no answer to nuclear waste disposal. There is no safe way of “recycling” it. There is still no answer to the “management” of radioactive leaks.
Nuclear power isn’t safe by any stretch of the imagination. It’s not cost-effective. And it certainly ain’t green, unless you count glowing in the dark.
Of course, there will be no need for climate change mitigation if we all die of radioactive poisoning first.
Will also believes that nuclear energy is the “cleanest” form of energy and:
Really, Will? IA would like to see the stats for how many young people agree with your nuclear stance and if true, then we despair for our youth and their future.
This is just a bit of the story. Read the full story by subscribing to IA. Do it right now!
You can follow managing editor Michelle Pini on Twitter @vmp9. Follow Independent Australia on Twitter @independentaus and on Facebook HERE.