Science Minister Brendan Nelson has advocated the use of Nuclear Technology in Australia based on the fact that it is “green” energy.
It is certainly an interesting debate. In fact, the wonderful James Lovelock has lost a few friends of late by advocating the use of Nuclear power as a “green” alternative to fossel fuel.
Clearly there are a few problems here. Firstly there is the obvious issue of nuclear waste. I keep saying that Climate Change is the single most important issue that we face today. Using this as some sort of utilitarian measure then you would have to argue that the environmental problems caused by nuclear power are less than that of climate change but I can’t help but feel that a utilitarian logic is not appropriate here. Nuclear waste is simply an unacceptable by-product.
Moreover, it completely overlooks alternatives in terms of renewable energy. Renewable energy also has the added benefit of creating more jobs in more places – particularly rural areas which often have high levels of unemployment.
I know that in the US, the nuclear industry lobby has decided it’s time to push the nuclear power issue again and Bush seems to be quite receptive. No doubt they are therefore lobbying the Howard government as well. Howard is no stranger to helping out “favoured” industries. Witness the Coal industry. What is baffeling is that Australia is one of the world leaders in renewable energy technologies so why aren’t we favouring these companies that are now being saught out by foreign compaines?
In addition, why is funding being cut to research into renewable energies? Clearly another symptom of the Howard Government’s short sightedness.
Finally, there is this little number from our good friends at PR Watch:
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, “Nuclear energy is green,” producing “no greenhouse gases,” although “radioactive wastes are a challenge.” But environmentalist Dr. Helen Caldicott stated, “According to data from the U.S. Energy Department, the production of nuclear power significantly contributes both to global warming and ozone depletion.” While “uranium enrichment is a particularly energy intensive process,” uranium mining and milling, nuclear reactor construction and decommissioning, and nuclear waste transport and storage all require ozone-depleting chemicals or fossil fuel use.
