Things to Help Me Act

A nuclear Australia?

Australia is the owner of the world's largest uranium reserves. So why aren't we running on nuclear power?

Submitted 5/06/2006 By rachelhiggi Views 172264 Comments 43 Updated 7/04/2009

Photographer : Paolo

What is nuclear energy?

The nuclear cycle is a complicated process. So let’s keep it simple.

Most energy is created by some sort of steam power. When water boils, the steam pushes turbines that make your car start, your lights flick on and your stove light. Currently, most (78 per cent) of Australia’s water is boiled by coal. Coal, as a fossil fuel, creates greenhouse emissions.

So…nuclear energy is a way to boil water without producing greenhouse emissions.

How is nuclear energy made?

Nuclear energy is derived from uranium. Currently, 30 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves are in Australia, followed at a distant second by Kazakhstan on 17 per cent. There are eight uranium mines in place throughout Australia.

Once uranium is mined, it undergoes a refining process, where the uranium is ground, sifted and enriched. Once all of the energy from the uranium is used, it becomes nuclear waste and is stored in various ways (check out the nuclear waste fact sheet by kellyendo for more on this process).

So are we on nuclear energy?

No. Most of the energy in Australia is supplied by burning coal or petrol. All of the uranium mined in Australia is exported. But if you’re worried about Australia supplying the tools to make nuclear weapons, don’t be. Each country that buys uranium from Australia must sign an agreement that the uranium will be used only for peaceful purposes (like generating energy).

Why aren’t we using our own uranium?

Australia is in the midst of a debate about our nuclear policy. In June 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ruled out nuclear energy as a possible alternative energy source to help lower carbon dioxide emissions. Conversely, in July 2008 Liberal Party leader Julie Bishop called for the nuclear energy debate to be reopened, believing nuclear energy to be a possible solution to global climate change.

Disagreements over the blanket bans on uranium mining in Western Australia and Queensland also continue.

New carbon emission targets require the federal government to spend six billion dollars on new technology that uses alternative power sources by 2020. Dr John Burgess, author of the 2009 Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering’s report on alternative energy in Australia, believes that the key to cutting the carbon emissions in time is nuclear energy. However, federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson maintained that the Labor government will not support the recommendation for exploring the nuclear energy option.

Those who are opposed commonly say that nuclear power would not cut greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Scientists says that only five per cent of emissions would be cut by 2050, which is well below the target number that has been set to reduce climate change. The opposition also cites nuclear disasters, such as the Chernobyl power plant meltdown in the late 1980s, and argues that such a disaster could happen again. Others worry that if Australia goes nuclear, our uranium supply could run out in less than 60 years.

This page was updated by Laura

How do I know this?

ABC News Online, ‘Nuclear list earmarked for research, says Govt’, ABC News Online, 4 June 2006 http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654829.htm

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet 2006, Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy—opportunities for Australia, http://www.dpmc.gov.au/umpner/docs/nuclear_report.pdf

Hassett, Michael, “Nuclear energy the ‘elephant in the lounge,’ The Age, 5 June 2006 http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/nuclear-energy-the-elephant-in-the-lounge/2006/06/04/1149359609622.html

Howard, John. “Energy debate must include nuclear option,” The Age, 5 June 2006. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/energy-debat...

Overview of Nuclear Energy, World Nuclear Association http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/intro.htm

Porteous, C & Green, G 2006, ‘Howard pushed nuclear power’, The Courier Mail, 29 December, http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20987454-952,00.html

Uranium Information Centre, Australia’s Uranium, http://www.uic.com.au/ozuran.htm

Uranium Information Centre 2005, ‘Nuclear Energy Prospects in Australia’, Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 44, April, http://www.uic.com.au/nip44.htm

World Nuclear Association, The Nuclear Fuel Cycle, http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

Discuss Now

Post Comment 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |

laury 18-Jun-2009

Hi there

A very interesting piece, which raises some important issues.

In my opinion, a Nuclear Australia should happen. It should not be a permenant feature, but a Nuclear Australia could bridge the gap in energy production while sustainable energy technologies become more cost-effective, and are able to be built en mass.

Dan#13 :) XD 16-Sep-2008

its not gunna happen so get over it

fredafred 02-Mar-2008

I worked at Lucas Heights for 16 years and during that time there were no people who were injured or killed by radiation. A report prepared by a University Professor establsihed this as fact but found cases of industrial deafness in the workshops. This problem was overcome. There were staff who worked inside the reacotr all their working life and they were unaffected. There was once a case of a water leakage that received wide media coverage. Actually the leak was within a pipe that was contained within a secondary pipe. There was therefore no danger as a result of the leakage. The main political reason for opposition to nuclear power is the high capital cost of building the reactor to the highest engineering standards and the fact that the industry is not manpower intensive as the coal industry is. Stacks of burnt coal at power stations in Australia emit radon gas that is radioactive. The waste is not a problem in countries like Japan and France that predominently use nuclear power and it shouldn't be a problem in Australia either. There is too much opposition from people who have not bothered to research the subject thoroughly.

TheSpazticator 19-Oct-2007

It pains me to see so many people who are closed off to new ideas. While I agree that nuclear power isn't entirely safe, the risks are often grossly overstated.

BobArctor, The fatalities due to nuclear power thus far are around 150, including the deaths from Chernobyl and other accidents. The Tokaimura accident in 1999 did not kill 40 people, it killed two, and the Mihama accident did not release any radioactivity, 5 people were killed and 12 more injured when a secondary cooling loop (non-radioactive) steam pipe ruptured.
So what if 150 people have died as a result of nuclear accidents, what about the countless thousands of people who are condemned to premature deaths, black lung disease or cancer due to coal mining and burning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident

The way I see it is that nuclear energy is a fundamental part of the solution to climate change. Current renewable energy sources are much too expensive to be economically viable and need to be further developed before they can be deployed. Nuclear power would buy us the 50 years or so that we need to do that. Then we could cut our nuclear power production to around 5 or 6 percent, with the rest of the energy coming from renewables. In this manner, we could extend the life of our uranium reserves.

The prospect of building massive solar power plants could be counter productive. While it may offset some emissions, the clearing of the land to lay down the panels contributes significantly to carbon output. The silicon from which the PV panels are made produces roughly 1.7 tons of CO2 per ton of silicon recovered.

Going back to the nuclear debate, claims that the world only has 50 years of nuclear fuel left fails to take into account the modern technology that allows us to use other metals as fuel. Proponents of these claims only talk about the U-235 isotope of Uranium, present as only 0.7% or the uranium extracted from the ore. The other 99.3% is U-238, a longer-lived, more stable isotope. This can be easily turned into Plutonium-239, which can fuel many modern reactors.

Not many people realize the potential of Thorium as a nuclear fuel. There is three times as much thorium in the earth's crust than uranium, and it has the potential to last 200,000 years of total energy production. The best part is, Australia has oodles of it.

On the question of waste disposal, it presents a large problem, but again also an overstated one: Nuclear reactors produce a very small quantity of waste per annum - in the order of 10 cubic metres for a standard sized power plant. The main problem is not the radioactivity of the waste itself, but the fact that it has to stay immobile for 200,000 years or so until it cools down. Therefore it needs to be in a stable geological area but also it has to be in an insoluble state to stop it from reaching the water supplies.
Proposed solutions to the waste problem include Remix and Return - where waste is mixed into mill tailings and concrete and is diluted down to the original radioactivity level of the ore body, and inserted into the mine from which the fuel came.

Personally I think the best solution would be to bury all the waste in a subduction zone somewhere. The moving tectonic plates would take the waste down into the earth's mantle where it would be mixed in with billions of tonnes of molten rock.

Even if this turns out sounding like a rant, the main points I'm trying to make are:
The risks of nuclear power are often overstated.
Cite your sources properly. (Most of my info is from wikipedia).
Open your minds to new ideas, don't just skip over texts that you disagree with.

Peace out :P.

ErinSA 17-Sep-2007

clearly nuclear power not the way to go...
however seems that the powers that be think it is the way to go.
as such it is massively important that society lets the pollies know that we are opposed to nuclear power.
they are - at least theoretically - working for us afterall.

so, for some blatant self promotion - if you live in SA and want to get involved in doing such things as pressuring for better energy alternatives, get in touch with me, Erin, and join the Adopt A Politician campaign.
If you are super keen, we are having a catch up at the TWELVE25 Youth Centre (17-19 Wiltshire St Salisbury) at 4.30pm this wed the 19th of sept.

basically going to strategise about how we can do this!
a few events i have in mind are political speed dating, politician crawls and movie nights.

if you are a non-SA person - check out our national website www.adoptapolitician.org

My Recently Visited Pages