NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

Sustainable Energy Renewable Energy Say NO to Expanding Nuclear Industry in Australia Fuel and Transport Climate Change Peace Party CARTOON Check out Bruce Petty's nuclear cartoon   PETITION Nuclear Industry is dangerous, dirty, costly & no solution to climate change   Download a printable petition [pdf] POSTCARD With clean and safe solutions to climate change, why go down the dirty, dangerous path? Download our postcard [pdf] Order copies of our postcard

Say No to Expanding Nuclear Industry in Australia The Howard Government has already agreed to massively expand uranium mining and sell it to China and is pushing for uranium enrichment and perhaps nuclear power and a global nuclear waste dump in Australia. They say it makes economic sense and solves climate change. THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG! > No one needs uranium. Renewable energy - wind, solar, biomass, geothermal – and gas and a far greater focus on energy efficiency can deliver sustainable and viable energy that is safe and clean. Renewable energy already supplies 19% of the world’s electricity and this is growing. Nuclear's share of power generated is 16% and decreasing. > Nuclear power is unviable without huge public subsidy. Reactors take 10-15 years to build and are not accident free – remember Chernobyl! > Uranium mining has already left a legacy of environmental contamination. Safeguards against our uranium ending up in weapons are very weak. > Enrichment of uranium is energy intensive and generates 870 kg of toxic waste per tonne of yellowcake. > The nuclear industry leaves vast amounts of intractable waste which will be dangerous for thousands of generations and for which no country has a long term storage solution. Issues Democrats action agenda Democrat PRs Democrat Speeches And Reports Further Reading Links “Nuclear power and the uranium industry are neither financially or environmentally sustainable. ... The positive greenhouse impacts could be equally, and arguably better, obtained from investment in, or support of, the renewable energy sector. It is critical that the nuclear industry does not manipulate the climate change threat to divert government policy and finance away from the intrinsically safe renewable sources of electricity.” AMP Capital Investors Nuclear Fuel Cycle Position Paper ISSUES The Democrats position on nuclear industries has been virtually unchanged for 29 years: we are opposed to uranium mining, nuclear reactors, the storage of radioactive waste in national facilities, the export of radioactive materials and the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons. We do so to protect the environment from the hazards of the uranium fuel cycle and to avoid unintentionally contributing to the increased risk of nuclear war. The arguments put by the Prime Minister, John Howard and the Coalition Government to expand uranium mining, explore uranium enrichment and nuclear power for economic reasons and to address climate change are misleading. The Prime Minister appears more interested in wedging the ALP on the nuclear industry issue, with the ALP wavering over their 3 mines policy and enrichment. The Democrats believe that nuclear industry is not necessary, it posses unacceptable proliferation, security and health risks, many parts of the process is energy intensive and greenhouse gas emitting, its not cheap and there is no solution to the intractable waste problem. For more detail on each of the issues, please follow the links below: Uranium Mining Uranium Enrichment Nuclear Power  Nuclear Medicine Nuclear Waste and Storage  Depleted Uranium Nuclear Veterans  DEMOCRATS ACTION AGENDA > Oppose expansion of uranium mining and continue to call for the closure and proper rehabilitation of all of Australia’s uranium mines. > If uranium mining continues, call for ban on in situ leach mining, and push for tight regulation to minimise risks to workers, neighbouring communities and the environment. Ensure substantial penalties are enforced should safety standards be breached. > Oppose establishment of a uranium enrichment plant in Australia. > Continue to oppose the operation of nuclear reactors in Australia. > If the Lucas Heights reactor continues to operate, ensure it is tightly regulated to minimise risks to workers, neighbouring communities and the environment. > If any uranium mines or the Lucas Heights reactor are closed prematurely, ensure that workers and Indigenous communities that are adversely affected by the closures are provided with assistance to find alternative sources of employment and income. > Continue to oppose the construction of national radioactive waste dumps, and instead support the safe storage of existing radioactive waste on, or near, the site at which the waste was generated. > If a National radioactive site is established it must be only after consultation and approval of the effected communities. > Ensure the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is amended so that it applies to all nuclear actions, including those that were operating prior to the commencement of the Act. > Promote nuclear disarmament and prohibit the development or use of nuclear weapons by all nations and prohibit the stationing of nuclear weapons and nuclear powered vessels in or above Australia. > Support Australia’s withdrawal from agreements that contribute in any way to the use of nuclear weapons, including the use of Australian bases for any aspect of a nuclear missile defence system, including communication, logistics, or personnel. > Pressure the United States to support and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. > Actively support the implementation of Article 6 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which requires all parties to pursue good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament. DEMOCRAT PRs NUCLEAR: TOO LATE, TOO DANGEROUS FOR WATER CRISIS - Senator Lyn Allison 16 October 2006 PM WILL DISCREDIT OUR REPUTATION IF HE SELLS URANIUM TO INDIA - Senator Lyn Allison 26 September 2006 Australian entry to nuclear club bad news - Senator Lyn Allison 17 August 2006 Beazley wrong direction on uranium mining - Senator Lyn Allison 24 July 2006 Enrichment bad for global security and environment - Senator Lyn Allison 19 July 2006 Nuclear Industry is Safe...Sometimes...Never - Senator Lyn Allison 16 June 2006 More Democrats PR on energy and resources. DEMOCRATS SPEECHES AND REPORTS Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of the first nuclear test in French Polynesia - Senator Lyn Allison 29 Jun 2006 Nuclear Waste Dump - Senator Lyn Allison 7 Dec 2005 More Democrats speeches on energy and resources. FURTHER READING Nuclear Power no Solution to Climate Change www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_nukesreportfull.pdf Australian uranium exports and security: Preventing proliferation By Dr Andrew Davies, The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, August 2006 Visit the ASPI website to order a copy of the Strategic Insight Support For Expansion Of Uranium Mining Up 13% Following Beazley's "Three-Mines" Policy Backflip Roy Morgan Research Finding No. 4057, August 01, 2006 www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4057/ Is nuclear power part of Australia's global warming solutions? Professor Ian Lowe, Address to the National Press Club, 19 October 2005 www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=582. Yellow Cake Country - Australia's Uranium Industry www.foe.org.au/download/Yellowcake.pdf LINKS FOR MORE INFORMATION AND OTHER WAYS TO GET INVOLVED Beyond Nuclear Initiative www.foe.org.au/bni.htm Friends of the Earth antinuclear campaign www.melbourne.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nukes/ Australian Conservation Foundation www.acfonline.org.au/default.asp?section_id=25 Greenpeace www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/nuclear-power Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) www.mapw.org.au/ The Sustainable Energy and Anti-uranium Service www.sea-us.org.au/ ReactNow www.reactnow.org/ Jim Green Nuclear and Environmental researcher www.geocities.com/JIMGREEN3/ Sign up for Sustainability eBulletin | subscribe Sustainability e-bulletin provides an update on key environment, energy, water, transport and other sustainability related issues. It includes information on the Democrats activities both in Parliament and the community, as well as advocacy ideas. We aim for 4 issues a year. ISSUES The Democrats position on nuclear industries has been virtually unchanged for 27 years: we are opposed to uranium mining, the operation of nuclear reactors, the storage of radioactive waste in national facilities, the export of radioactive materials and the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons. We do so to protect the environment from the hazards of the uranium fuel cycle and to avoid unintentionally contributing to the increased risk of nuclear war. The current push by the Prime Minister John Howard and the Coalition Government to expand uranium mining, explore uranium enrichment and nuclear power for economic reasons and to address climate change is misleading. The Prime Minister is also successfully wedging the ALP on the nuclear industry issue, with the ALP wavering over their 3 mines policy and debating enrichment. The Democrats believe that nuclear industry is not necessary, it posses unacceptable proliferation, security and health risks, many parts of the process is energy intensive and greenhouse gas emitting, its not cheap and there is no solution to the intractable waste problem. Uranium Mining  Uranium Enrichment  Nuclear Power  Nuclear Medicine Nuclear Waste and Storage   Depleted Uranium Nuclear Veterans  << return to the campaign page Uranium Mining Australia holds 40% of the world's known uranium deposits. There are currently three mines supplying 30% of the world's uranium. There are plans to expand fourfold production at Olympic Dam at Roxby Downs. There are around 50 known uranium deposits in Australia. A doubling of uranium prices has driven a wave of uranium exploration in the past two years and the Coalition Government is doing everything it can to encourage new uranium mines, giving the go-ahead most recently to the Honeymoon in situ mining that extracts uranium from an aquifer, pumping contaminated waste back underground. It has taken control of uranium mining powers in the Northern Territory. A 'steering committee' has been formed to remove impediments to an expansion of the industry. > Weapons proliferation – expansion of uranium mining for the purposes of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons states and material available for ‘dirty bombs’ by terrorist groups.   The Report Nuclear Power No Solution to Climate Change notes that of the 60 countries that have built research reactors or nuclear power plants, over 20 are known to have used their ‘peaceful’ facilities for covert weapons research and/or production. In some cases nation states have succeeded in producing nuclear weapons under cover of a peaceful nuclear program – India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and possibly North Korea.   The report also notes that The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safeguards system still suffers from flaws and limitations despite improvements over the past decade. At least eight Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) member states have carried out weapons-related projects in violation of their NPT agreements, or have carried out permissible (weapons-related) activities but failed to meet their reporting requirements to the IAEA – Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, and Yugoslavia.   The Democrats are concerned about the decision to sell uranium to China because there are no guarantees, despite the agreed safeguards, that China will not use our uranium for weapons. We are also concerned over ongoing talks about the 'possibility' of selling Australian uranium to India which is not a signatory to the NPT (See Democrat press releases for more information). > Environmental damage – Uranium mining in Australia has a poor environmental track record on. Uranium mining creates waste in the form of mine tailings. Tailings contain 80% of the radioactivity of the original ore and must therefore remain isolated from the environment for many thousands of years.   In Australia tailings are stockpiled and the run-off stored on the mine site in large dams. Ranger mine has so far produced over 30 million tonnes of radioactive tailing waste. The spills and leaks from Ranger make it a major threat to the Kakadu World Heritage Area. Olympic Dam has produced over 60 million tonnes, growing at 10 million tonnes annually. There have been many recorded leaks from tailings dams at Australia's existing mines. In 2002 a Democrats initiated and chaired Senate inquiry examined the regulation, monitoring a reporting of environmental impacts at Ranger and Beverly mines in response to numerous leaks and spills. It concluded that changes were necessary in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage (get the report). Despite the report questions about the long-term management of toxic tailing waste remain unanswered.   The Democrats initiated and chaired inquiries into the Jabiluka uranium mine, also in the heart of Kakadu and opposed by Traditional Owners. The reports of these inquiries contributed to the decision to halt work on the mine after the ‘decline’ shaft to the ore body had been constructed. The site remains to be rehabilitated. > Water consuming – Uranium mining uses a large quantity of water. Olympic Dam uranium mine in one of the driest parts of Australia extracts over 30 million litres of water from the Great Artesian Basin which has an adverse impact on the fragile mound springs. > Energy intensive – Uranium mining is a large consumer of electricity and is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. << return to the campaign page Uranium Enrichment > Energy Intensive - Enrichment generates significant greenhouse emissions. Uranium enrichment in the US alone releases 14 million tonnes of CO2 pa. > Large amount of Chemical waste - Uranium enrichment also produces a massive amount of chemical waste. Every tonne of natural uranium mined and enriched for use in a nuclear reactor produces about 130 kg of enriched fuel, leaving 870 kg of waste. The bulk (96%) of this waste is depleted uranium (DU), for which there are few applications; the United States Department of Energy alone has 470,000 tonnes in store. There is about 1.2 million tonnes of DU now stored around the world. > Security – Because enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons a great deal of security is needed at enrichment plants and when enriched uranium is being transported (see also section below on nuclear terrorism and smuggling). << return to the campaign page Nuclear Power > Little impact on climate change – Nuclear power companies see climate change as an opportunity to reverse the long term decline of their industry and are desperate to see nuclear power on the list of approved technologies.   Few predict a doubling of nuclear power, but even if it did it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 5% - less than 1/10th of the reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses.   Further more, the process of uranium mining and enrichment are highly energy intensive and contribute to greenhouse emissions. > Costly – Nuclear power costs 2 to 3 times more than renewable energy. Nuclear power is not economically viable without significant government subsidies. The USA has had to provide direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalling $115 billion, with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies. A US study found that, per dollar invested, energy efficiency measures yield greenhouse emission reductions seven times greater than nuclear power.   Zero and Low Emission Technology Cost per MWH Source Nuclear $100-150 CSIRO, UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Clean Coal (Geosequestration) $104 International Energy Agency Natural Gas $35-45 2004 Energy White Paper Geothermal $40-$70 CSIRO, geodynamics Wind $55-$80 2004 Energy White Paper Energy Efficiency No net cost Council of Australian Governments Traditional Energy     Coal $35 2004 Energy White Paper > Not renewable – Uranium is not a renewable energy source. High grade, low cost uranium ore is limited and will be exhausted in about 50 years at the current rate of consumption. There are substantial reserves of low-grade uranium but mining them is costly, energy intensive, and environmental damaging. > Nuclear smuggling and Terrorism – Nuclear smuggling can potentially provide material for nuclear weapons or a wide range of radioactive materials for use in dirty bombs. The International Atomic and Energy Agency recorded over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive material since 1993. In 2004, there were almost 100 such incidents. Much of the nuclear smuggling is from civil nuclear programs.   Civil nuclear plants are potentially “attractive” terrorist targets because of the importance of electricity supply, and because of the potential long-term harm. > Health and Safety, accidents do happen – while new nuclear power stations are safer than old plants like the one in Chernobyl, they are by no means fool proof. Chernobyl resulted in an estimated 270,000 cancer and 93,000 fatal cancer cases or the 200,000 deaths in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus or the billion dollar costs of relocating people and abandoning farmland. In fact nuclear accidents are common and radioactive emissions routine. In the past 6 years nuclear reactor accidents have led to life threatening radioactive exposure in the Tokai-mura facility and Onagawa facility in Japan, and Dounreay and Sellafield in the UK.   In addition, reprocessing spent fuel from nuclear plants poses a major public health hazard as reprocessing plants release significant quantities of gaseous radioactive discharges into the air. The reality is that most of the world is rejecting nuclear in favour of renewable energy. The rate of increase is nearly 30% for wind, 20% for solar, and only 0.6% for nuclear1. << return to the campaign page Nuclear Medicine Medical experts argue that the future direction of nuclear medicines lies with cyclotron produced products, already produced in Australia, and that Australia could have a secure supply of medical isotopes for cancer treatment, medical research and other applications without a nuclear reactor at Lucas heights. Australia imports this material on a regular basis when the Lucas heights reactor is shut down for maintenance. << return to the campaign page Nuclear Waste and Storage 1,000s of tonnes a year of radioactive waste arises across the nuclear fuel cycle, whether it is mine tailings (see above), chemical waste from enrichment (see above), or spent nuclear fuel and the waste from reprocessing plants. A typical power plant produces 25-30 tonnes of spent fuel annually. About 12,000 to 14,000 tonnes of spent fuel are produced by power reactors worldwide  Yet not a single repository exists anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level waste from nuclear power. This waste is radioactive for hundreds and thousands of years. Waste dump in Australia – There is growing evidence that the Prime Minister and Coalition Government want to make Australia the nuclear waste dump of the world. The Government's proposal to dump nuclear waste on Aboriginal land in SA was defeated by public pressure, particularly by the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta Traditional Owners and environmental groups. But the Government  legislated in 2005 to impose a nuclear dump on the Northern Territory - despite having made unequivocal promises not to do so before the 2004 Federal election. The Democrats opposed this legislation. Three sites are being considered - Hart's Range and Mt Everard in Central Australia, and Fisher's Ridge near Katherine. None of these sites was short-listed when environmental and scientific criteria were used to locate potential dump sites in the 1990s. The Democrats argue that it is imperative to manage Australia's current radioactive waste in a responsible, scientifically robust and transparent manner. To date the Federal Government has failed to do so. Specifically we object to: > lack of consultation with and impact on the democratic rights of Territorians and the will of the NT Parliament; > overriding the rights and interests of local communities and local government authorities along proposed transport routes across Australia; > the disregard for the rights and interests of Traditional Owners of the proposed dump site areas; > lack of comparative and quantified community risk analysis of continued onsite storage verses risks in transport of wastes to a centralised facility; > lack of quantified analysis of the claimed reduction in number of Commonwealth waste storage sites if the proposed NT dump facility were to go ahead. > lack of comparative costings for enhancing onsite storage facilities for Commonwealth organisations generating radioactive wastes verses the NT nuclear dump plan with the continuation of onsite storage facilities for existing users in any case; > lack of studies of citing suitability and design for above ground storage and a comparative analysis of above ground and burial options (in fact one of the sites identified was recently submerged under water during the recent floods in Katherine); and > the lack of a long-term strategy to reduce minimise waste generation. More information on the NT nuclear dump plan: Environment Centre Northern Territory www.ecnt.org Alice Action groups.yahoo.com/group/aliceaction Friends of the Earth www.foe.org.au The Democrats do not support Australia becoming the world’s nuclear waste dump. The Australian Democrats support the strategy advocated by the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth, viz: Firstly, the Government must minimise waste generation Secondly, the Government should aim to minimise transportation. Waste management is preferably done on-site, in a retrievable and secure fashion. Thirdly, the Government should focus on establishing a secure, monitored, above ground storage which responsibly addresses the need to maximise long-term safety and does not preclude any improved storage options which become available in the future. Fourthly, the Government should gain community acceptance of the management system – based on the principles promoted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This does not simply mean “consultation”: the community must give informed consent to the facility. << return to the campaign page Depleted Uranium Although Australia banned depleted uranium (DU) in its own warheads for health and safety reasons, our Government did not object to its use by the US administration in Iraq, exposing our troops and Iraqi civilians to this deadly nuclear waste product. At least 500 tonnes of DU was dispersed in Iraq, and DU can kill if the smallest particle is lodged in the body.  DU remains radioactive for 4.5-million years. The Democrats urged the Government to say ‘no’ to the use of DU by the US and other nations and the threatened use of nuclear bunker busters and we call on the US to clean up the radioactive mess left behind in Iraq. According to reports, US troop exercises in Australia recently used armaments containing depleted uranium in pristine environments of north Queensland. << return to the campaign page Nuclear Veterans Maralinga, the site used for 1950’s British atomic bomb testing in South Australia, remains contaminated, despite $10-million spent on a botched cleanup. Debris, heavily contaminated with plutonium is only buried in shallow earth trenches. The Democrats call for sorting and re-burial of the debris in proper concrete lined, deep trenches. After extensive pressure on the Government – through the parliament and the test veterans - a Nuclear Veterans’ Cancer and Mortality study was set up in 1999 and the report was finally released on the 29 June 2006 - 7 years later.  The study was expected back in 2001 to cost $1.2 million. The study found large excesses in cancer rates of up to 300 percent over a wide range of cancers, suggesting a common causative effect, yet miraculously finds no link. The study took seven years, and in that many of the nuclear test participants died. Death certificates have showed that most of the 6000 servicemen who died, died from cancer, leukaemia, heart failures or brain tumours and almost half were in their 40s and 50s. Years were spent wrangling over the design of the study, and in the end the Government decided to exclude those who died before 1982 (30 years after the first test) on the absurd basis that cancer takes many years to develop after exposure! The Government has offered free cancer treatment, but no compensation. Free cancer treatment will not cover loss in income and loss of loved ones.  The victims and families of the grossly mismanaged nuclear tests should be fully compensated. These servicemen and contractors should be recognised for the life-threatening work they were involved in and all they have endured. << return to the campaign page 1. Professor Ian Lowe AO, ACF President, Is nuclear power part of Australia’s global warming solutions?