atomic energy, the way not to go

Green Point 30th December, 2006

A couple of days ago, a Prime Minister inspired and appointed group of scientists has tabled a report into the topic of the usage of atomic energy.

I have not read the report but rely on press reports on the very basics and essence of the report.

The report supports the use of atomic energy and Mr Howard seems very happy about that. An outcome which is not too surprising given the genesis of the group which made the finding.

He even 'craves' living next to a nuclear power plant. And that is what seems to prove my point. He does not consider the actual problem.

The thing is, we have been fairly good in constructing atomic energy power plants which are safe to run and operate, however, as so often in the past, we have not yet mastered the technical problems arising from the waste and ultimately from the left overs of decommissioned plants, once their useful lifespan has been reached.

I am no scientist and don't know a lot about uranium, atomic energy etc. What I know comes from the various media and my observation of the discussion of the subject over the last 30 years here in Australia and in Germany. (A country which a few years ago has OPTED OUT of nuclear energy. And those Germans aren't known to be dumb-arses when it comes to technology)

One of my observations seems to be that most if not all proponents of the use of atomic energy are eerily silent on the matter of waste storage.

During a recent visit to Germany I was listening to a radio broadcast where the subject was discussed and it was reported that one of the arguments of the atomic energy industry, namely that spent fuel rods can be re-conditioned and used again – hence implying reduction if not elimination of waste – is a furphy and, as far as the nuclear power plant is concerned, which was subject of the discussion, has never been done because the re-conditioned fuel rods are not of the quality which is required to produce nuclear energy.

The history of industrialisation over the last 100 years is full of examples where the use of new technologies has led to serious problems of waste disposal and/or serious environmental problems in the long term and widespread use of those technological advances.

And it seems that only in the last 25 years or so the idea has taken hold in the wider community that we need to consider 'the day after' meaning what happens with the waste and by-products of technological innovations after they have served their primary purpose.

As I understand it, with nuclear waste, the problem is not one of days, weeks, months or years but hundreds if not thousands of years which we have to be mindful about, since the waste of that industry is highly active and dangerous for such a long period.

Given the lack of exploration and serious investment – as far as Australia is concerned – into naturally occurring and self-renewing energy sources such as wind, sun, ocean tides, bio gas etc. I feel that we would have our priorities seriously wrong if we were to start embarking on investment into nuclear energy.

And more importantly, waste management of nuclear waste material has to be solved FIRST, comprehensively and beyond scientific doubt.

In other words if you can't convince me that

 We know where and how to store the stuff
 Manage the risks involved, eg leaking, misuse,
 And have the organisational and administrative framework in place which guarantees the orderly waste management for as long as the waste needs that management – that is a few thousand years –

you won't convince me that usage of atomic energy is a good idea. It may be a crash hot idea (pun intended) but not a good one.