Nuclear power for Australia

Photographer : Michal Brcak

Nuclear power is a frightening concept for many people. It conjures images of men in plastic jumpsuits, cement towers heaving clouds of who-knows-what into the sky, and workers scrambling to prevent a nuclear meltdown from killing thousands.

Now is the time to lay those fears to rest, because nuclear power is the answer for Australia’s energy and climate problems.

Safety first

One of the biggest concerns about nuclear power is safety. Many people recall the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, and worry about the same thing happening in a town near them. The meltdown was portrayed as catastrophic, and caused many nations to stop building nuclear plants, or even close down plants that were already operational.

The disaster was tragic, but the truth is, much as airplanes are to travel, nuclear power is one of the safest yet most-feared forms of energy production. In 1991, the National Cancer Institute surveyed families living near 62 nuclear facilities in the United States. The study found that there was no increased risk of getting cancer simply from living near a nuclear power plant.

A grand total of 54 deaths have been attributed to nuclear power worldwide, and all are from the Chernobyl disaster. No other meltdown, including the infamous Three Mile Island incident in the United States, has caused any deaths.

Compared to other forms of energy production, this is an outstanding record. Literally thousands of coal miners die worldwide every year due to accidents or mining-related disease. Mining for uranium, the radioactive fuel of nuclear power, has historically been linked to higher rates of lung cancer, though with proper ventilation systems and breathing masks, this risk can be alleviated.

Sustainable energy sources, such as hydroelectric power, are not entirely safe, either. For example, in 1975, the Banqiao Reservoir Dam in China was destroyed during a devastating storm, flooding nearby lowlands. More than 85,000 people died as a result—that’s more people than it would take to fill the Sydney Olympic Stadium. Is 54 beginning to sound like a small number?

More bang for your buck

Opponents of nuclear power commonly refer to sustainable or renewable energy sources, like wind power, as a viable energy alternative. While these are excellent supplementary power sources, they’re not yet developed enough to handle a country’s full energy load. Denmark uses wind power more than any other country right now, with 23% of its energy supplied by wind turbines; yet wind power still supplies less than 1% of the world’s energy.

This is partly due to the natural inefficiency of wind power, and similarly, other sustainable energy sources. Wind turbines, solar cells and hydroelectric power are all capable of capturing only a small fraction of the energy fed into them. They also require vast areas of land, dozens of square kilometres larger than a typical coal or nuclear plant would require—land that could otherwise be used for farming or housing.

Perhaps someday, renewable energy technology will come to the point where it can meet the requirements of high populations, but until then, it is merely a complement to a more complete solution.

Green and long-lasting

So exactly what does that giant “smokestack” belch into the atmosphere? Turns out it’s nothing more than harmless, non-radioactive water vapour. And it’s the only major emission from nuclear plants, offering a much cleaner alternative to coal power.

Radioactive waste is an important issue regarding nuclear power. The current solution involves burying the waste deep underground and leaving it there for thousands of years. Of course, this is far from the best solution, but it’s still cleaner than emitting radioactive coal ash directly into the air. In the meantime, scientists are researching ways to use waste by-products as fuel again, significantly cutting down on the harmful waste deposited into the earth.

While the supply of uranium isn’t “renewable” like solar or wind power, it’s an extremely common element. In fact, there are probably small amounts of it in your backyard! Scientists estimate that, depending on exactly how the uranium is used, there are potentially billions of years worth of it readily available to us.

With excellent safety records, very little harm to the environment, and effectiveness matched only by unclean coal plants, the question is no longer, “Should Australia go nuclear,” but instead, “Why aren’t we already?”

How do I know this?

McCarthy, J, ‘How long will nuclear energy last?’, Facts from Cohen and others, http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

Uranium Information Centre 2006, ‘Chernobyl accident’, Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper, March, http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

National Cancer Institute, No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/...

Watkins, T, _The catastrophic dam failures
in China in August 1975_, http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/aug1975.htm

Wikipedia Online Encyclopaedia, Nuclear Power, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Wikipedia Online Encyclopaedia, Wind Power, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

The Virtual Nuclear Tourist, Environmental effects of nuclear power, http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/environ1.htm

Calvert, Dr. James B, Uranium, http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/uranium.htm