He might have a problem with yellowcake, but with his apocalyptic oratory at the National Press Club this week, Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown showed he’s more than happy to resort to nuclear-powered fraudulence to make his case.

The Senator’s performance in the debate with Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation chairman Ziggy Switkowski at the National Press Club this week was one of the more disingenuous recent contributions to Australian public life.

Since September 11 and throughout the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Senator Brown has been our very own antipodean Noam Chomsky, arguing long and loud that Australia has been suckered into a battle with an illusory enemy at the behest of Uncle Sam.

Judging on his past pronouncements, the Greens Leader has never met a terror suspect he didn’t like. When George W Bush visited in 2003, Brown and fellow Greens Senator Kerry Nettle badgered the American President on the floor of the parliamentary chamber on behalf of former Guantanamo detainees Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks.

Despite Hicks being photographed with a Taliban rocket launcher on his shoulder and having met Osama bin Laden four times (once being an accident, obviously, four times suggesting a pattern of behaviour) this deeply confused individual was successful in acquiring martyr status. This achievement was due in large part to the efforts of Senator Brown who mobilised Green supporters on behalf of a guy who knowingly signed on for the war against civilisation, and rightly paid the price for doing so.

The Greens have shown a consistently blasé attitude towards terrorism, treating it as some hegemonic construct which has been imagined by those in the employ of the military-industrial complex to further their sinister agenda.

Until this week, that is, where their leader declared that it’s far too risky for Australia to develop a nuclear power industry because all those darned terrorists out there will try to blow up our reactors or steal nuclear material to make their own warheads.

Brown argued this week that there had been 650 cases of lost or stolen radioactive material in the past 20 years – failing to mention that they had happened largely in countries which had neither the security or stability of a nation such as ours – and that even transporting the stuff across long distances was too great a risk to countenance in this age of terror.

It’s a pretty spectacular inconsistency from a guy who is on the record as saying the terrorist threat has been overblown, manipulated, used to vilify minorities and further corporate and government agendas. We’ve gone from imagining terrorists, to imagining that the terrorists will bomb us all back to the stone age.

Brown’s sleight of hand will obviously go unnoticed and unchallenged by his supporters. Its truly depressing feature is that it’s the kind of alarmist nonsense which will also be picked up by people who are politically disengaged, and can be easily swayed by all sorts of misinformation and scare-mongering about the expansion of an alternative energy source which could not only make Australia less reliant on coal, but in its most ambitious form, could also make us a whole stack of money if we’re bold enough to embrace a nuclear waste storage industry.

There are a number of public figures of the Green persuasion who have had the wit and humility to revisit their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, and go public as supporters of the industry.

Former NSW Premier Bob Carr, a man who in government set some kind of record for the creation of national parks, is the most high-profile convert to the nuclear cause. For Carr and others this reversal happened gradually at the start of this century as scientific evidence mounted of the existence and implications of climate change.

Despite being a senior member of the Left Faction, Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson is pushing behind the scenes for Labor to take a much more open-minded approach to the nuclear question. Interestingly, Ferguson is also Tourism Minister – and one of the criticisms often made by the likes of Bob Brown is that Australia’s status as a safe and natural environmental haven will be destroyed once we go down the path of nuclear power generation and, specifically, waste storage. As Ziggy Switkowski argued this week, none of this seems to have become an issue in France, where one of the most advanced nuclear power industries in western Europe is in large part located within the wine country.

There are Greens such as Carr who have examined and abandoned their opposition to nuclear power, others who have done so and remained opposed, but you get the sense that Bob Brown occupies his own special category. And that is, the people who are so unthinking and pig-headed on the nuclear question, despite our over-reliance on coal, despite the evidence of climate change, that they will never, ever revisit their own position.

Switkowski is proving to be a very valuable advocate in the case of expanding the nuclear industry in Australia. He’s successfully demolishing some of the mythology which has grown up around events such as Chernobyl, which said more about the marvels of Soviet manufacturing (and rostering) than any dangers innate to the nuclear power industry.

Hopefully he can find a way of expanding his role to targeting those who are loosely speaking on the Left of politics in Australia to encourage them towards a Bob Carr-style rethink on the issue.

If there is one person who has the power to steer Australia towards a mature debate about this issue it’s the South Australian Premier Mike Rann. Despite having received the shock of his political life a few Saturdays ago, Rann still enjoys a comfortable majority, having lost just two seats due to the haphazard nature of the swing to the Liberals. In what will undoubtedly be his final term, Rann could follow the lead of his mentor Bob Carr in revisiting his populist stance against a nuclear industry. Compared to where it was a decade ago the South Australian economy is running like a German band, largely off the back of mining exploration. If Rann were to position himself as a cautious nuclear advocate – and to go so far as to include nuclear waste storage as part of the deal, given SA’s isolation and geographical stability – he would turn the former rustbucket state into the nation’s economic powerhouse.

At present though the debate still remains vulnerable to the kind of nimbyism and hysteria which Bob Brown displayed on Wednesday.

94 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • T.Chong says:

      06:06am | 10/04/10

      David P : channeling a bit of Gerard Henderson and Miranda Devine this morning?

    • Union Thug says:

      04:08pm | 10/04/10

      Look, Mr T, Bob Brown ain’t all bad.

      Indeed, a different perspective is usually a valuable contribution to public debate.

      However, I agree with the gist of Penbo’s argument - namely, that Brown can be just as hypocritical, disingenuous and opportunistic as other pollies in pursuing his party’s aims.

      Most of the other Greens in federal politics are just as bad, in my view.  Witness some of Senator Siewart’s disingenuous lies about the NT intervention (eg, deliberately misrepresenting that the Racial Discrimination Act requires “informed consent”). 

      I don’t doubt the Greens’ good intentions.  I don’t think they’re in Parliament just to play political dress ups (unlike Senator Fielding).  Clearly, however, they are just as fickle as others in using whatever means are available to get results.

    • Scot says:

      06:53pm | 10/04/10

      David great article and so correct. Ziggy came from the Nuclear industry before going to Telstra, Ziggy knows his stuff, thank goodness someone in the country does. If we talk about Nuclear power plants, China has already and some of the best in the world right next door to Hong Kong with Hing Kong money invested, thanks to the French. Chian will be builidng more than 32 powe planst to help them create more stable supply and better base load demands for the future. And what do we have in NSW, crap, crap, crap. No vision, No money. China has vision it has a plan. Oh and by the way Indonesia is also going to Nuclear power generation as as is the UK to secure their own future. We are so stupid in Australia. We could build a manufacturing industry around Nuclear power generation for our future generations. But OH I forgot, we cannot even deliver a rail, hospital, school, roads project on time to budget. What a great shame. Even the Unions are ripping of their kids on the BER program. Third world stuff.

    • TimT says:

      07:20am | 10/04/10

      Great rant. Though Bob Carr is only a lower case green, that should probably be pointed out!

    • Paul says:

      12:37pm | 10/04/10

      @Oveflow If the evidence was that overwhelming then why didn’t Bush/Howard run the trial - instead of all the political blowback and twisting and turning dude? Are you trying some tricky counter intuitive argument?

      Also, I’m curious as to why Hicks got the book thrown at him but the AWB got caught redhanded giving million$ to known terrorist organisations but got off scot free?Justice? Whats that?  We don’t need this Fawlty Towers type justice in OZ. Take it back to which ever hillbilly town in the States it originated from. The Liberals are hick V8 powered frauds on that issue mate!

    • Paul says:

      07:24am | 10/04/10

      Wow Penbo great newspeak

      So the Hicks case wasn’t a Kangaroo Court?

      Now Ziggy Switwhoever is now a credible voice in the nuclear industry? The man that couldn’t even manage 21st century technology to give us rural folk a half decent phone service or was so talented a manager to roadcrash our shareprices on Telstra? Give him the Monty Python award. And retire the dufus.

      Bob Carr the expert on NSW non existant infrastructure and future unplanning? Gold Medal Bonehead.

      Mike Rann is now a sensible voice? Classic! John Farnham is is the voice mate.

      Bob Brown is the usual, lazy scapegoat but I think most Aussies had a giggle when he bailed up George Bush the village idiot. Face it, Bob Brown has bigger balls than you Penbo. Fact.

      And if we disagree with you Penbo - we are NIMBY, Brown-loveing, greenie, hairshirt wearers on welfare?

      Where is the business logic in multinationals making profits dumping nuclear waste in Australia while we are left with 100,000 years of high end risk. Not to mention the risk tens of thousands of truck and ship movements to transport the stuff around.

      And why will no insurance company insure Nuclear Plants Penbo? Do they know something about nuclear business and risk that poor old Ziggy doesn’t?

      You may be the new High Priest of Nuclear Fundamentalism Penbo. Dump it in Adelaide if you are such a true believer. Not us.

    • Oveflow says:

      09:09am | 10/04/10

      Yes it was all a figment of the imagination that saw Hicks in Afghanistan after he had fought in Yugoslavia.  he was but a mere freedom fighter.

    • Ben81 says:

      11:16am | 10/04/10

      Emotion and twisting the facts, the hallmarks of the anti-nuclear fearmonger.

      First of all Ziggy is a credible voice and as a lobbyist or whatever you want to call him he’s sure done his research, and your arguments about Telstra share prices and such mean nothing.  Anyway, it’s beside the point because this isn’t about him and he’s by far not the only one trying to break through the barrier of irrational fear.

      “Bob Brown is the usual, lazy scapegoat”
      I don’t see how you think Bob Brown is a “scapegoat” here, this article is exposing his absolutely inane arguments and performance at the press club.

      “Mike Rann is now a sensible voice? Classic! John Farnham is is the voice mate.”
      Uh yeah mate, nice one.  Also the article doesn’t say that and Rann is still ideologically opposed to nuclear power and waste storage and won’t listen to reason, which is the problem Penbo’s article is talking about.  (Rann’s a hypocrite who’s perfectly ok with our uranium mines by the way)

      “Where is the business logic in multinationals making profits dumping nuclear waste in Australia”
      Business logic?  It’s a necessary part of the nuclear power cycle to dispose of the waste responsibly, you know, unlike coal power for example where it’s spewed into the atmosphere and releases far more radiation and toxic gases then a nuclear plant or its waste solutions ever will that emit pretty darn close to 0!  The only risk is psychological, transportation and storage of nuclear waste is a hell of a lot safer than transportation of many chemicals or just about any other substance that you don’t care about because they’re not “nuclear”, and cleaner than regular household waste transportation and dumping.  Absolutely the waste can be dangerous for a long time, but “high end risk” is a silly way to describe it when it’s handled responsibly.  Also only a tiny amount of that waste is highly radioactive compared to the rest, and not at that level for anywhere near “100000 years”.

      “And why will no insurance company insure Nuclear Plants Penbo? Do they know something about nuclear business and risk that poor old Ziggy doesn’t?”
      You either made that up or are misinformed, just spend 10 seconds googling it if you want.

      It boils down to the fact that even though nuclear power is so much cleaner and safer than the alternatives, people in Australia are stubborn and just don’t care.  They accept industries that actually harm people and make people seriously sick every day, but if someone caught a cold from a nuclear power plant there’d be protests in the streets.  It doesn’t make sense.

    • CynicalGoatWA says:

      11:41am | 10/04/10

      Yes, Hicks was nothing more than a delicate misunderstood flower who was celebrating in the full bloom of life when he was so wrongly grabbed and detained by those vicious westerners. What exactly did Osama fry up on the grill at those rip roaring barbie buffets that he put on for you and your ilk Dave?

    • Ziggy says:

      01:45pm | 10/04/10

      @Paul Quite right in your comments re Ziggy Switkowski. The man has been the bane of my existence for years due to his earnest propagation of his own inadequacy. His performance at the helm of Telstra must surely rank as one of the greatest accomplisments in the history of business failures.
      Alas, every now and then someone confuses me with him!  Even my own family have suggested I change my name to ensure no slur attaches to our family.

    • EddieVH says:

      02:12pm | 10/04/10

      Look if the Chinese could offer Stern Hu an open and transparent trial I’m sure the Yanks could have done the same for David Hicks.

    • Paul says:

      08:02pm | 10/04/10

      @ben81 I’m not anti-nuclear, I’m all for dumping waste in Adelaide, the people are a bit strange there anyway.

      1. Twitkowski can’t run Australia’s largest telco competently or handle that basic technology ably - why trust the goose with Australia’s largest nuclear organisation?

      2. Yes I agree Rann is a hypocrite. But if he is *ideologically opposed to waste dumping why was it reported in The Australian last year that he had flown to the states to meet with the worlds largest waste dumping company? Was he double checking his ideology or seeing how much bling was on the table?

      3. Which companies will insure nuclear plants Ben? You are dodging the issue mate. Or is it just pretend capitalism with a back up socialist business model where big business reaps the profits and if anything goes wrong the state or us taxpayers have to foot the bill? Why should the nuclear industry rely on welfare of the state?

      4. Spin it anyway you want Ben, the people that know transportation and storage risks so well it’s their business ie insurance companies, regard nuclear waste transportation and storage as precisely “high end” risk. Which is precisely why they are rushing to insure these processes. Not! What chemicals precisely trump nuclear waste for high end risk?

      5. Penbo defeats his own Greens-are-soft-on-terrorism argument by not pointing out the Liberals confused invasion of Iraq, then the schizophrenic tough then soft treatment of terrorism ie the AWB funding terrorism. It’s the complete opposite: In fact, Penbo supports the Libs being soft on terror by being convenient with his arguments. Penbo’s inane logic is therefore weaker than the hypothetical Greens weakness, if indeed they were ever weak!

      6. It boils down to the fact that you are blind believer Ben and possibly in this new Nuclear fundamentalism club. Perhaps you have a vested intere$t Ben?

    • Ben81 says:

      12:23pm | 11/04/10

      Paul,
      I’m not sure exactly what Rann’s motives are, but I live in Adelaide and just before the recent election here he was running ads on TV about his “victory” in blocking a nuclear waste dump and warning that the Liberals might accept one.

      On insurance, http://www.nuclearinsurance.com/ there you go, just one example.  That was hard wasn’t it.  Insurers servicing the industry are laughing all the way to the bank, when the industry has so much irrational fear around it yet such a good safety record.

      And what spin are you talking about, there’s risk in transporting a lot of things but transportation of nuclear material has been proven to be a hell of a lot safer than other materials.  There’s been truck crashes and train derailments where industrial chemicals (for example ammonia and caustic acid) that has leaked has actually seriously harmed and killed people.  Look at this http://www.rkmc.com/Minot_North_Dakota_Train_Derailment.htm  Had the train been carrying nuclear waste, nothing would have happened, simple.  In fact that’s been proven in practice, in real crashes and in tests.
      This is a good resource about transportation of nuclear material http://www.wnti.co.uk/

      “Perhaps you have a vested intere$t Ben”
      No, and now you’re getting desperate.  Just try to get your head around the fact that some people are frustrated by others fearing anything just because it’s “nuclear” and not rationally comparing the risks to anything else, especially when there are a lot of things we do every day and other industries that are accepted yet are far more dangerous.

    • Robert Smissen of God's Own Country, Rural SA says:

      12:08am | 12/04/10

      Paul are you suggesting that David Hicks is a victim of bad press? ? Do you thing that the rocket launcher in his hands was a toy? ? Did you know he left school at 14 because he was too dangerous around other kids? ?

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:08am | 10/04/10

      The irony of the greens opposing the most evironmentally (and economically) viable energy source should not be lost. I guess its those words in brackets because the greens dont have to worry about money the environment can pay for itself after all.

    • Macca says:

      04:58pm | 11/04/10

      A D, I was thinking the exact same thing

    • Paris says:

      09:55am | 10/04/10

      Nuclear - according to Switkowski’s own report - would reduce Australia’s emissions by no more than 15% which is less than what could be achieved by some strong efficiency standards and reducing deforestation.

      And it would take at least 15 years.

      And it would require massive government subsidy, because even the largest nuclear company in the world can’t afford to build one themselves.

      And it would require government insurance guarantees, because no private insurer will cover it.

      All irrefutable facts presented in the presss club debate that you declined to mention.

      For a piddling 15% (at best) it’s not worth the economic risk, let alone any of the other risks.

    • chumpai says:

      12:55pm | 10/04/10

      If we replaced all of Australia’s fossil fuel power plants with nuclear ones CO2 emissions would be reduced by about 50% give or take. If there is 100% transition to electric cars that would be around 65% cut in emissions from present levels.

      While it is true that large nuclear power plants are massively expensive, in the US they produce the cheapest electricity. But by the end of the decade there will be several modular nuclear stations that will be smaller, cheaper and more attractive to investors.

    • Scot says:

      07:02pm | 10/04/10

      Chumpai. Yes so correct, and by the way we are less than 0.1% of such global gases. And by the way CO2 is not the issue. We have had this false debate from Rudd and Wong already, and the lies and deceit from the former US Vice President Gore, he cannot tell the truth, and is now back tracing on his false facts. Nuclear is the only way to go. Powr bills are already out of control in NSW because the NSW Labor party have sucked out all the money and run down the system and are bankrupt monetarily and morally.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:32am | 12/04/10

      @ Paris, we could reduce by 15% and then also reduce deforestation and increase efficiency standards. Now we have reduced 30% of emmisions. See how this works several strategies to reach one goal. To use a phrase from Rudd “there is no silver bullet” and there needs to be several approaches to solving our electrical and environmental needs.

    • Paul says:

      10:40am | 10/04/10

      So David you actually believe the crap the Americans come out with regarding the so-called “War on Terror”?  Next you’ll be warning us all about the dangers of man-made climate ch….oh you did that too.

    • Gavin says:

      11:30am | 10/04/10

      Thats right paul, there are no such thing as terrorists. 911 happened in a studio in hollywood, just next to the moon landing set.

    • Paul says:

      07:21pm | 10/04/10

      @gavin and weren’t the imaginary WMDs in the studio next to the moon landing set too?

    • Tom says:

      02:37pm | 11/04/10

      Gavin, although 9/11 was undoubtedly tragic, the fact remains your chances of being involved in a terrorist attack, let alone dying in one, are infinitesimally small. 

      And before you say that the harsher laws on terrorism in the US are responsible for the lack of attacks since 9/11, remember they weren’t exactly common prior to that date either, despite the lower public and political consciousness of the threat.

    • Mark says:

      07:17am | 12/04/10

      And it’s kind of interesting that I can think of two serious terrorist attacks in the US, one being 9/11 and the other Oklahoma. Homeland Security, Patriot Act and everything else wouldn’t have stopped that one.

    • Mendelson says:

      10:52am | 10/04/10

      I am a Green voter and I have been disapointed to see that they agree with many of Abbotts hairbrained schemes including taxing big business. I do agree however that Nuclear Power is not the answer, who would want it near them? I have decided to vote Labor at the next election, because at least they have a plan for Global warming,  anything is better than nothing and Abbotts scheme will not work

    • Roie says:

      11:28am | 10/04/10

      Mendelson,

      A plan for global warming you say ?
      A plan to make the ordinary Australian pay through the nose for EVERYTHING while banksters and traders (cue Malcolm ‘goldman sachs’ Turnbull) earn TRILLIONS.  F O R E V E R. This policy is NON REVERSIBLE.

      Dig a bit deeper for pete’s sake ( and for the rest of us too). The ETS is a TAX solution to a non existing problem. Follow the money and all will be revealed. This is one deep rabbit hole.

    • Chris says:

      03:55pm | 10/04/10

      “Who would want it near them?”

      I wouldn’t mind. Especially if it was a nuclear fusion or thorium powered reactor.

      Let’s not forget, Lucas Heights has had a nuclear reactor for over 20 years now. How many nuclear accidents have occurred there again?

    • Scot says:

      07:40pm | 10/04/10

      Mendelson. Chisa is party to a development of a new generation of Nuclear reactor for the power industry, less uranium, smaller plant and more output and will easier to manage. They have agreed to put in an inital US$1B as a partner with the Europeans and mainly France. And where are we on all this down the long paddock full of booze and stupidity. My goodness the Australian education system has done a brilliant job of dumming you all down and now you are all sheep and with no mental capacity to see where we needed to be yesterday. We are slipping backwards fast, because we listen to these muppets in Canberra and NSW Labor.

    • Tom says:

      02:39pm | 11/04/10

      Then again, who would want a coal fired plant next to them? Who would want wind turbines near them? Save for a couple of solar panels, I can’t think of any form of power generation I would want to live near.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:38am | 12/04/10

      @ tom, I would live next to a nuclear reactor any day of the week before I was next to a coal fired plant spewing out gases.

    • agblaster says:

      10:53am | 13/04/10

      For Roie
      Check your facts, thanks. The ETS is a cap & trade permit market scheme. It is not a tax. The permit trade will fund rebates to households and give a price signal to suppliers to reduce their pollution. It is not a Tax - that is Liberal spin, straight form the “striaght talker” Abbott. Repeat: permits can be traded - they are not a tax. Hint: The Liberal scheme was for a carbon tax. Tough.

      For Chris: Check your facts, thanks.  The current Lucas Heights OPAL reactor is a research reactor, of just 20 Megawatts on some 7kg of low-enriched Uranium.  At least 4 incidents recorded there in recent times, since operations began in 2006, including water leaks into the Heavy Water shield, plus fuel core problems for which it was shutdown.

      The previous HIFAR reactor operated unitl 2006. The list of recorded incidents there is long indeed, and included both gas leaks and more than one irradiation of staff. All minor, by good fortune.  It will take until 2016 to complete decommissioning of HIFAR.

      Of course, a small open pool research reactor like OPAL has little chance of a real “bang” but it can still do serious damage and requires careful management, both in operation and from the loony attack point of view.

      More?
      http://www.ansto.gov.au/discovering_ansto/anstos_research_reactor
      http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2217/opal-reactor-leaking-water-safe-says-ansto
      http://www.ssec.org.au/our_environment/issues_campaigns/nuclear/info_sheets/2002_sep_1.htm

      So these reactors do have a significant place in Australian medical and other uses that need short-lived radio isotopes - which we do need to keep making. But yes, even these small installations contain very bloody dangerous material and yes they do indeed still have accidents. Just as well they’re so titchy, then, as we don’t seem to be looking after ‘em all that well. Something to work on, there.

      Also gives a cooler perspective on the likely safety of several dozen gigawatt range stations with hundreds of kg of fissile material in commercial operation. Ironically, like coal-fired power stations and their coal mines - all spewing crap and all commercially operated within “the rules”. Food for thought.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:29am | 10/04/10

      If you believe in climate change as the Greens do, the only logical energy source that reduces carbon emissions AND maintains baseline energy consumptions rates is nuclear energy. Yes, the government may have to subsidise it, but electricity is an essential service anyway and private companies don’t spend enough to maintain or upgrade the electricity grid anyway.

      For a great read on this type of stuff (essential reading I would say):
      http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

    • Matt K says:

      11:40am | 10/04/10

      Everyone can complain all they want but Australia will eventually get nuclear power. Whether it be in 10 years or 60.

    • stephen says:

      12:34pm | 10/04/10

      If the introduction of Nuclear Energy will lessen our dependence on coal, and give us new industries, then I say do it. But do it so it maximizes our commercial gain, quite apart from the environmental one.
      As far as storing the waste, why even Bob Hawke suggested that 2 years ago, and it’s still a good idea, only if we can profit from it. (And I mean real profit, even though Bob’s motive here was a heartfelt moral duty.)
      Nuclear Power isn’t always about money, I know, but we may be able to instigate whole new industries safely, and inland. (We need inland Cities and this may be the way to do it.)

    • Joe says:

      12:49pm | 10/04/10

      Great article. About time some light got shed on the Green’s extremism. They have been getting away with the media treating them as a real alternative when realy they are a way out there, extreme bunch with rediculous Gaian beliefs, that logic won’t change. And joe public thinks - I’ll vote Green because I compost… Little do they know.

    • Ziggy(not Switkowski ! thank you!) says:

      01:49pm | 10/04/10

      The one inescapable fact is that the consequences of any nuclear accident are just too severe to take unnnecessary risk - no matter how small. If it can happen, it will - sometime, somewhere.

    • Ben81 says:

      04:07pm | 10/04/10

      Rubbish, the risk of something happening that even makes someone sick is absolutely miniscule.
      Look at the worst civil nuclear power “accident” in the US - Three Mile Island.  Not one person died, not one person got sick.  People who were frightened by the fearmongering into leaving were exposed to more radiation than they would have been by staying just by getting on a plane.  Does that sound ‘severe’ to you?
      Meanwhile other industries, let alone just in the power generation field, are responsible for so much pollution and so many accidents directly linked to sickness death and cancer in the communities around them… yet you are worried about some risk from nuclear power that doesn’t even come close to comparing?

      Look at the worst nuclear accident in the world, Chernobyl.  About 50 direct deaths and possibly a few thousand cases of cancer, caused by an experiment while shutting off all the safety systems and with the crew repeatedly ignoring warnings because they were too scared of telling their boss what to do, that set off a steam explosion in a reactor type that’s no longer built.
      Not good, but the fact that this is the worst that can and has happened, and how much sheer negligence it takes for it to happen only proves just how safe an industry it is.

      Even if an accident that kills some people happens somewhere someday, why the hell would that prove it’s an unnecessary risk when other industries do it every single day and this industry has proven to be infinitely safer?  What’s so special and scary about the nuclear power industry that you ignore others that are actually harming people?

    • Ziggy says:

      11:22am | 11/04/10

      @Ben81
      Your knowledge of to total consequences of both accidents is indeed miniscule

    • Ben81 says:

      12:37pm | 11/04/10

      Oh ok ziggy, go ahead and use the numbers and lies that ideological protest groups pull out of the air when talking about the incidents and see if it changes my argument the slightest bit…

    • Tom says:

      02:54pm | 11/04/10

      But thousands of people are already suffering the ill effects of living near coal fired plants and mines. Given the choice between something that is undoubtedly causing ill effects amongst those nearby, and something with the potential to do so, I’ll take the latter option.

    • agblaster says:

      03:56pm | 11/04/10

      Three Mile Island probably didn’t kill anyone. And if we follow Ben81s thinking, we can just ignore the clean-up and de-commission cost, as far as it went. About $US 1billion. Snip, really.

      Chernobyl killed about 50 pretty quickly and will likely kill about 4,000 or so more from cancers in coming years. If we follow Ben81s thinking, we can just ignore the non-fatal effects on the 600,000 most exposed people, the cost of resettling 336,000 people from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, whatever the cost of cocooning the reactor ruins was, and the losses from the various exclusion zones which can’t be used for a sausage for about 200 years.

      Quite safe then, eh. Piece of cake, really. And golly, we only need 50 or so of the things to serve our power needs to 2050.  Peachy!

    • Ben81 says:

      04:24pm | 11/04/10

      agblaster, first of all most of the people who lived in the area and would have had worse health effects if there were coal power plants in operation instead of nuclear.  There is no “600,000 people” who suffered ill health effects from being exposed to a higher than normal level of background radiation.  There just isn’t.

      Anyway, you’re talking about an accident caused by gross negligence and one that can’t and won’t happen again because people learned from it.  It’s just not possible to have a situation where a steam explosion blasts radioactive material into the air where it can be dispersed any more.  The reactor at Chernobyl didn’t even have a containment vessel just for a start!

      It’s really not an argument against modern nuclear power because it doesn’t even compare.  It makes no sense.  Using the same logic you could say we should ban planes and cars because the ones from 1940 aren’t as safe.  So yeah, building 50 of them would be peachy.

    • Scot says:

      05:31pm | 11/04/10

      Ziggy, You are very ignorant, who did the dummimng down at school for you., Comrade Rudd or the Greens (Commnists). If you go outside or fly a lot you will get more radiation that you will ever get ina life tome forma Nuclera power plant. And by the way Ziggy all that whit stuff you see coming out of the stacks is a closed loop heat transfer system. The same is yru of Coal powered stations excpet they do expel gasses from the tall thin stack not the steam from the big stacks that the environmentalists and TV stations always love to show us. China will be building more than 32 Nuclear stations and 8 new stations are already being built. They are not scared, as they know they are very safe from the Nuclear stations they built with the French and a Hong Kong power company more than 10 years ago. Just goes to show how ignorant and stupid we are in Australia.  We power the world and live in the dark ages ourselves?

    • Ben81 says:

      03:23am | 12/04/10

      “first of all most of the people who lived in the area and would have had worse health effects”

      oh damn, ignore the “and”.  I need to proof read.

    • agblaster says:

      08:00am | 12/04/10

      “who did the dummimng down at school for you., Comrade Rudd or the Greens (Commnists).”

      Ahh, priceless. Nearly spilt me tea!

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      02:40pm | 10/04/10

      Now that was a good piece of writing, well done Penbo.

    • Jack says:

      02:57pm | 10/04/10

      David, who payed you for this article?
      I see you have side affects from the radiation.

    • Eno says:

      05:02pm | 10/04/10

      I have a theory on Nuclear Waste Penbo,  we’ve dug some bloody big holes to get stuff to send overseas - let them send their Nuclear waste and we’ll bury it in those damn big holes making squillions along the way. By the time we’ve buried it all some bright spark will have thought of a way to re-use the waste to make more power so we can make further squillions digging it up and selling it again! Think of us a halfway house for the unwanted..

    • Chris says:

      12:20am | 11/04/10

      “The Greens have shown a consistently blasé attitude towards terrorism, treating it as some hegemonic construct which has been imagined by those in the employ of the military-industrial complex to further their sinister agenda”
      —well said. The exact same reasoning applies to all the lesbian-dominated, publicly-funded university arts courses, the militant teacher unions (who use members’ fees to push non-work-related political agendas without any consultation) and the various tree-hugging, authority-hating, poofter-based arts movements around the country—all of whom survive on the public purse.
      Wankers and fools, all of them.
      Nuclear weapons are not normally a good thing, but they sure were in 1945. Noone was complaining about NP then (oh, except for the Japs, of course—the enemy always complains).
      NP has been employed with complete safety in many countries. Are we so stupid that we can’t manage it here?

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:39am | 12/04/10

      Judging by some of these responses I think the answer may be perhaps smile

      I would just like to add that we all agree we need to clean up our power supply. And I think its safe to assume that no-one wants to drop thier standard of living. Using these 2 factors I would like to hear one solution other than nuclear power. If I don’t than stop your whinging and we can make some money whilst helping the environment ( a rare occurance in deed)

    • chris says:

      12:35am | 11/04/10

      What about wave power? It’s absolutely, slam-dunkin’ free (after installation costs) and the waves are there 24/7—unlike wind power, which relies on…you know…the wind and all.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:56am | 12/04/10

      Dont know if the technology is there to upscale it to mass production just yet. But wave, tidal, geothermal will be the power sources of the future IMO.

      I bet the greens will oppose it though because it will ruin beaches and local ecosystems etc. I dont think there is a perfect solution here.

    • Bleary says:

      02:10am | 11/04/10

      Nice one Penbo,it is almost like religion,the way that nuclear waste vs fossil fuel waste is talked/not talked about….
      The energy source that dare not say it’s name…..
      Wake up chumps.

    • Martin says:

      09:25am | 11/04/10

      David at least Bob Brown can get his facts correct. The picture of Hicks that you claims shows with a “Taliban rocket launcher” was taken in Kosovo when he was fighting against Slobodan Milosevic, who was also being opposed by the West.

      Isn’t fact checking a basic part of being a journalist?

    • DWest says:

      02:24pm | 11/04/10

      No we don’t want your Communist Nuclear Power or waste schemes David. If the industry can’t stand on its own feet then it doesn’t belong in Australia.

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:00am | 12/04/10

      Including manufacturing (automobiles), arts, aports, and lets broaden it to unemployed, pensioners, refugees, families etc etc.

      Cant believe I forgot the power industry, and the water industry which don’t stand on thier own two feet. Oh and public transport should be scrapped and education and hospitals so many bloated industries taking up the public purse for the public good.

    • Rich says:

      05:24pm | 11/04/10

      Nuclear is the best and most modern option. All arguments against it are highly emotive and based on the idea that current day reactors are like that of Chernobyl.
      Greens sometimes remind me of religious fundamentalists who are vehemently against any progress in a particular field based on outdated information.
      A possible solution to this problem is to rename nuclear reactors to something else, as the world nuclear immediately induces hysteria amongst our fragile and easily upset latte drinkers.

    • Daniel says:

      07:30pm | 11/04/10

      I thought that Bob Brown won the debate hands down. The Greens are not blase about Terorism they atre actually living in the real world Pembo.They are not blowing the risks out of proportion like your mate Howard did to suit has lap sitting policy to suit Bush. Keep it real News Ltd.I knew and others knew hat when the Greens got a bit of power the right wingers would come out with all kinds of wacko attack lines to destroy Greens.

    • Kevin11 says:

      07:52pm | 11/04/10

      @Ben So why isn’t Luca Heights nuclear facility insured? Was the Liberal party just being complacent, or relying on tightarse-socialism type insurance? The russian approach recycled! She’ll be right attitudes and nuclear are a bit dangerous.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:42pm | 12/04/10

      So what, ignoring your strange and childish description, we don’t have mainstream insurers in Australia servicing an industry that doesn’t exist here yet apart from a single research reactor producing radioisotopes for cancer treatment.  When it does, they will.  I don’t see any problem with the way its liabilities are handled in the situation.  Other countries that do have a nuclear industry haven’t had any problem working with insurers, so what’s your point?

    • Paul says:

      10:47pm | 11/04/10

      Ben81 - Bravo - you have convinced me to drop my antinuclear ways and take off my hair shirt. If you agree that John Farnham is the voice and NOT Radioactive Rann, and with insurance for the rest of us, and only in the safe hands of Ziggy Successki aka Mr I-promise-not-to-build-the-next-reactor-on-a-known geological-fault -  I approve you to dump nuclear waste in Adelaide! The people there are a bit strange anyway.

    • Ben81 says:

      02:55pm | 12/04/10

      ...are you ok?

    • Mark Pursey says:

      02:45am | 12/04/10

      All anyone wanted in the Hicks case was due process, you disingenuous hack. You’re in fine company trotting out that “palling around with terrorists” schtick aren’t you?

    • Henry says:

      10:50am | 13/04/10

      Hicks did not deserve due process.  He is lucky to be alive after his vile treachery.

      He received what he would never have afforded the innocent victims of his rocket launchers.

    • Marcus says:

      06:43pm | 13/04/10

      Henry you are the reason it is not worth reading the comments on websites.

    • Paul says:

      06:54am | 12/04/10

      @robert No I’m suggesting Hicks didn’t get his day in court. As the terror supporters the AWB didn’t - ohh thats right they were Howards mates!  Take your inconsistent secretive Chinese sense of justice and go back to China Robert.

    • Kevin11 says:

      07:25am | 12/04/10

      The Liberals let the Australian Wheat Board fund terrorists to buy hundreds of rocket launchers amongst other weapons. The Liberals are arrogant terrorist supporters. Thanks for playing.

    • agblaster says:

      07:53am | 12/04/10

      Ben81really needs to check his facts. Be nice if he did didn’t distort what I said, too. He said “There is no “600,000 people” who suffered ill health effects from being exposed to a higher than normal level of background radiation.  There just isn’t.” 

      Uh huh. Sure.  600,000 people were radiation exposed (what I actually said). From low to high doses. it was among those 600,000 that 4,000 had got thyroid cancer by 2002 (!) and “it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake”. 

      Just as worrying, “among the most exposed populations (liquidators, evacuees and residents of the so-called ‘strict control zones’), total cancer mortality might increase by up to a few per cent owing to Chernobyl related radiation exposure…such an increase could mean eventually up to several thousand fatal cancers in addition”. 
      And , as worrying if not more - 
      “It is impossible to assess reliably, with any precision, numbers of fatal cancers caused by radiation exposure due to the Chernobyl accident — or indeed the impact of the stress and anxiety induced by the accident and the response to it.”

      Ben81 also said “reactor at Chernobyl didn’t even have a containment vessel just for a start!”
      Well, only if you ignore the reinforced concrete reactor container, and the biological shields. So no containment vessel in the strict sense, but the RBMK reactor does include several kinds of containment needed for normal operation.

      “you could say we should ban planes and cars because the ones from 1940 aren’t as safe.”
      The RBMK design is of from the 50s, not 40s. At Chernobyl, the complex was built from the late 70s, & Plant 4 commissioned 3 years before the 1986 disaster.  There are still 11 RBMK plants operating in Russia. Yes, the design is now considered “obsolete” though a range of improvements to the containment design have been made over time.


      And what did it all cost? 
      Belarus: Total spending on Chernobyl between 1991 and 2003 is estimated at more than US $13 billion.  Losses over 30 years US $235 billion.
      Ukraine: Total cost not to hand. 5–7 percent of government spending each year is still devoted to Chernobyl-related.


      By the time any new nuclear plant is actually “on the grid” in Australia, it’s design will be at least 20 years old and probably more like 30 years old. Pretty much has to be. Spare us the “old design” stuff then. And it’ll be built by private enterprise to a contract price, and its output will be subsidised by us, either in operation or in end of life clean-up or both.

      So there you go. In Ben81s tricked up nooclear dreamwold,  there’s just these few pesky dead people, the other 600,000 Russkies don’t matter at all, at all,  and it cain’t never happen again. Uh huh. Yeah, sure.

      Before he starts gilding lillies quite so industriously, Ben81 really must check his facts.  He could do worse than take a squizz here. Chernobyl’s Legacy http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:03am | 12/04/10

      Playing along what is your solution?

    • Ben81 says:

      01:22pm | 12/04/10

      Oh bloody hell, what’s the point, it’s like talking to a brick wall.  I never said Chernobyl was built in the 1940s.  You claimed there were around 4000 deaths attributed (true) and then went on to mention “non-fatal effects on the 600,000 most exposed people”, there aren’t.  It doesn’t matter anyway because you are using as an example something that doesn’t even begin to compare to modern day nuclear power plants, (or indeed any western nuclear plants from the era, with their much higher standards of build and especially operation), an incident that was responsible for vast safety improvements, and one that shouldn’t even be in the same argument.  It makes you look silly and emotional. 

      My “nooclear dreamworld” is somewhere like France, where the people don’t seem so backwards and almost comparable to being afraid of witchcraft.

    • agblaster says:

      03:25pm | 12/04/10

      Well, brickwall indeed.

      First, “arent’ any” is not the same as “impossible to estimate reliably” and its misleading to repeat a claim they’re equivaelnt, they’re plainly not. 

      Second, by 2002, there were 4,000 thyroid cancer cases - fatal or non fatal - from among the 600,000 irradiated. Got that clear now?

      Last,  50s design, built in 70s, online 80s shows, as much as anything, a reasonable timescale to think about safety vs currency of design.

      That is, a 2010 design will no more be “current”  in 2040 designs by the time it comes on line than Chernobyl was. Whether its as safe or not, who knows. Point is, Ben81 made an empty flourish about “old” design. They are *all* old designs by the time they come on stream. Clear now?

      Ben81s the one touting wrong, empty, or misleading points. Seems he expected them to pass unchallenged. No way. Easy done, and without using a wobbly “ideoogical protest group, either.

      Spare us the spin, ben81. We deserver better. We need better. And we can do better than your biassed bull-dust, ta very much.

      Solutions. Yeah yeah, smart aleck.  The issue in this part of the thread was rebutting Ben81s spin.

    • Ben81 says:

      05:55pm | 12/04/10

      Firstly I’m using exactly the same numbers as you mate, but you clearly tried to imply that 600,000 people are suffering ill health effects from it and that’s just wrong, no matter how much you try to back away.

      Anyway, still no explanation as to why what happened at Chernobyl is in any way at all relevant to the power plants that will be built today, and the way they’re run I see.
      What a ridiculous argument, it’s not the fact that the design is “old” that makes it irrelevant, it’s the fact that the design faults that allowed the accident to happen, even though it was caused by extreme negligence and would not happen in the normal operation of the plant, were directly addressed and the lessons from it implememted into modern reactor design so something anywhere near that scale can’t and won’t happen again.  If today’s reactor designs are still used in 50 years then that’s just fine because they’ve reached a point where their safety record is much better than almost any other large industry you can think of.

      The part that needs advancing now is dealing with waste issues more efficiently.

      Now please, have you got any problems with nuclear power today that aren’t based on irrational fear, or any examples of how it’s harming anywhere near as many people as other means of power generation? (or nearly anyone at all).

    • agblaster says:

      09:40pm | 12/04/10

      Scuse me? Back Away? By cripes, Ben81s a slippery little customer. Lets just get a few things straight, then.

      1. It was Ben81 who raised Chernobyl. His job to get his stuff right, therefore.

      2. He’s consistently misrepresented information about Chernobyl, to downplay its effects, and ignore its costs.

      3. He’s consistently either tried to put words in my mouth or to distort what t I did say.

      4.  It was Ben81 who claimed “There is no “600,000 people” who suffered ill health effects from being exposed to a higher than normal level of background radiation.  There just isn’t.” 
      He’s wrong. There were 4,000 thyroid cancer cases by 2002.

      5.  It was Ben81 who said “you clearly tried to imply that 600,000 people are suffering ill health effects”
      He’s wrong. I never claimed that. I simply quoted the authoritative Report,  that it was impossible to estimate the full number of non-fatal effects.  He wants to pretend that means “none”. It doesn’t.

      I’ve not backed away from *anything* I’ve said, anywhere. Its a mischievously dishonest distortion to pretend I did.  I’ve simply restated where he either got information wrong, misrepresented quoted facts, or distorted what I said. 

      As for France, he needs to do some more checking there. They may have been happy with 60 reactors worth of power, this past 30 years. Right now they’re building just one, with plans for one more. They’re also encountering quite lengthy decommissioning problems. And when it comes to plans for high level waste storage, public disquiet would be an understatement.  Ben81 can look into that for himself, but no doubt he’ll try find a way to dress all that up too.

      The fact is,  Ben81 trotted out Chenobyl as an issue when he knew very little about it. Caught out by a genuine source, he’s tried to brazen his way through by repeated and quite deliberate misrepresentation. 

      Tough. Try your spin on some bunch who can’t think and read for themselves, *Mate*.

    • apsonline says:

      10:08am | 13/04/10

      Sorry agblaster but I have read all of your and Ben81 posts and he makes a lot more sense than you. But address your list directly.

      1. Yes Ben81 did raise Chernobyl, well done one correct. Though it has no real bearing on any argument at all. Who cares who raised it? It only matterswho said what about it and who was wrong.

      2.  I don’t think he has. He said right from the start that there a few thousand cases of cancer and 50 direct deaths, but never mind that. His main point has been that it was an old design, and that the operators were not operating it correctly, and that could no longer happen with todays designs.

      3. No he hasn’t. You have consistently changed what you said or denied what you have said even though it is there in black and slightly off-white.

      4.  4000 thyroid cancer cases is not 600 000 people. A four year old can see that. In fact, in his first post about it he said “About 50 direct deaths and possibly a few thousand cases of cancer “. I would suggest that pretty neatly fits into 4000 thyroid cancer cases. A lot closer than 600,000 anyway.

      5. You did claim that. I quote “If we follow Ben81s thinking, we can just ignore the non-fatal effects on the 600,000 most exposed people”. That to me implies some sort of ill health effects on 600,000 people. It does not mean that you did not imply it and simply quoted a report. Even if it was a quote, it still implies 600,000 people have ill health effects, which is what Ben81 (and I) dispute. He doesn’t claim it means none, he claims it’s not 600,000 people with ill efffects. In fact he said right at the beginning (see above) that there were 50 direct deaths and a few thousand cases of cancer. Doesn’t sound like none to me.

      I notice that now you’re logic about “old” designs has been shown to be completely irrelevant and wrong, that you conviently left it out of argument. That to me seems like “backing away” to me.

      It’s all there in black and white. Your argument falls to pieces becuase of the lies and twisting of truths you use, not Ben81.

    • agblaster says:

      11:02am | 13/04/10

      I stand by the entirety of what I’ve posted and I’m not going to repeat it yet again or re-summarise again.

      ben81 and apsonline are mistaken, in error, and distorting the Chernobyl case and my summaries.

      Nothing more to say.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:00pm | 13/04/10

      Thankyou apsonline for saving me some effort, i’m tired of going around in circles smile

    • Ben81 says:

      01:35pm | 13/04/10

      Oh and I should add, I brought up Chernobyl in the first place because someone said the risk of any nuclear accident is too severe to take an unnecessary risk, and I was putting that risk in perspective with examples.

      au revoir

    • watty says:

      09:39am | 12/04/10

      David,
      Reading your Saturday piece on Bob Brown was like being present at the awakening of Rip van Winkle.
      For more than 30 years Brown has been spewing the same garbage about nuclear power without a hint of criticism from mainstream media but you might just have opened a few eyes (and minds) amongst your colleagues with today’s article.
      One thing I can’t understand is the figure of “50 nuclear power stations” being proposed for Australia.
      France has either 20 nuclear power stations which provides energy for 70% of it’s 60 million population and most of it’s industry.
      http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/france.php
      I would suggest Australia might, at maximum, use 6 nuclear power plants with a varying number of reactors.

      London,Liverpool,Glasgow even the tourist mecca of Scotland ,Edinburgh, all have nuke power plants close by and no Chernobyl incidents occurring

    • Sebastian says:

      10:17am | 12/04/10

      Ah my dear boy Pembo, what logic?  You can’t credibly argue with such flaws in syllogistic logic.  All crows are black, all crows are birds, therefore all birds are black is the logical basis for most of your article.  The objective of your false logic is to highlight apparently the inconsistencies of the “Greens”.  Yet all this article has done is to highlight an appalling prejudice against logic held by you.  Whether this is to create a cheap boost to circulation or through bad undisciplined argument, it is never the less contributing only to a school yard style “whose side are you on” bipolar approach to such complex issues and does nothing to forward or increase depth of understanding. 
      That Brown has argued for the defence of a couple of individuals held for long periods of time under suspicion of such horrendous acts and yet uncharged, does not make him a defender of terrorism.  This is ironic given your implicit argument of what kind of State the terrorist represents.  We all should be forever vigilant of powers that bypass the rule of law not matter how justified they seem at the time and how noble and trustworthy those who hold that concentration of power are.  Unless we want to become as tyrannical and oppressive a State as those we claim we are defending ourselves from, evidence needs to be transparently tested in court.  We have a rule of law for a reason, which you demonstrate so clearly over and over again, to avoid rash and convenient prosecutions, frame ups, slanders and other abuses of the system.  In fact that is our system, checks and balances to provide us all with reasonable security that we will be protected under the law and not by the whims of who is in power; whether media, bureaucratic or political.  Even your label “…’Taliban’ rocket launcher…” goes to the emotive prejudice that one would hope members of the media were trained and disciplined in distinguishing and avoiding.  You contribute to the evidentiary process with “… photographed with a Taliban rocket launcher on his shoulder…”.  ‘Taliban’ rocket launcher, your evidence is?  Again; Taliban are terrorists, Taliban have rocket launchers, therefore this is a Taliban rocket launcher. 
      The anti-terrorism laws in place allow guilt by association, to not even know the evidence held against you and to be held without legal representation.  Even given an assumption of absolute benevolence and integrity to use these laws for the apprehension of terrorists and nothing else and to use them only when all reasonable steps to avoid their use has been exhausted, anyone who has found themselves at the receiving end of bureaucratic bungling, whether a miscalculated family payment by Centrelink or trying to talk to the right person to sort out a banking bugle, while fees and penalties continue to be charged or loans foreclosed, would shudder at how horrific is it to defend yourself against assumptions of guilt.  Given your impatience with argument and logic it is not too hard to imagine the temptation under enormous pressure to secure our safety, to take short cuts with liberty.  If anything it is not fair on these people to have such a burden to make decisions tantamount to judge jury and prosecution while also the detecting and enforcement agency.  This also assumes the highest character of those who might take these positions in the future.
      Equally other’s comments counter your assumptions of benevolence to the nuclear debate that Switkowski represents.  They cite the share price and other issues as reasons to doubt him and dismiss any argument he might have in the case for the affirmative.  Although these have greater logic than the arguments you have made, these are often similarly flawed and highlight further the flavour of your rant which is just that.  No incite, no new information, no logic.  It is clear that flawed logic is not confined to left or right and that heresyphobia is present within every ideological faction whether left, right or confused.

    • Jai says:

      12:14pm | 12/04/10

      For the realistic greenie, Nuclear Power is today’s only option and we should be running hard to be world leaders in it.

      Anything else is airy-fairy-lovey-dovey alphabet soup. The evidence is the woeful progress thusfar.

      Labor needs to come onboard for this one. Coal needs to be relegated to a distant second in our energy mix, and we need to do this as soon as possible.

    • bill says:

      02:46pm | 12/04/10

      Well why not Hydroelectic
      A question for the Greens and Bob Brown in particular
      I saw the celebration of 25 years since stoping building the Franklin Hydroelectric plant, which was to provide 180MW of power.
      In the past 25 years 180Mw would have been, 25 yearsx180Mw x 24hr/day 365day/yr=39,420,000 Mwhr of clean power. @ 430kg of C02 per MW/hr this equates to 16,950,600 Tonnes of C02 emitted to make up for this (Tasmania imports electricity from Victorian Brown coal plants..
      Should the Franklin have been dammed to save the rest of the planet? Are those tress nicer than all the rest that will reportedly die due to AGW? Should we expect people to accept those trees are more important that heating for little old ladies on a winter night?

    • 6c legs says:

      04:25pm | 12/04/10

      If Senator Brown is just a ‘commie in drag’, then how are his ‘commie beliefs’ any worse than that of the Chinese governments mantra?
      or have you all Punch posters forgotten that TPRC government is Communist? ( so many posters on this site seem to think the TPRC’s government are just wonderful, so who then, are the “hypocrites”????)

      The Punch is really losing its edge when its *editor*  drags up the photo of Hicks-and-the-rocket-launcher—- the *Yugoslavian Rocket Launcher*—- in a bid to denigrate the Greens! (or was DP away the day that email went out?)

      Senator Brown has more political integrity in his little finger than the rest of the House of Assembly combined.

      Fix the ‘human error factor’ of nuclear power , then I might listen to the nuclear argument, until then

    • ShowsOn says:

      06:27pm | 12/04/10

      [If Senator Brown is just a ‘commie in drag’, then how are his ‘commie beliefs’ any worse than that of the Chinese governments mantra?]

      Because unlike Brown, the Chinese government supports nuclear power!

      BOOM, TISH!

    • 6c legs says:

      11:31pm | 12/04/10

      So, as long as one agrees with the PRC policy on NP (and one is making a motza from TPRC), Communism is good?

      Riiiiiight

    • Willy K says:

      10:35am | 13/04/10

      Totally agree David.  If Rann could come to his senses he has the ability to turn SA into the Dubai of the Southern Hemisphere.  SA has most of the worlds uranium and we could also dispose of it at huge profit.

      Never voted for Rann - and he has been very average but if he could get his head out of the hippy style 60’s scare bear goobledy gook about nuclear energy he just still might get a statue of himself erected on North Terrace.

      As for Brown - leave him in the 70’s.  The man is a dunce.

    • Gordan Taylor says:

      11:23am | 13/04/10

      There is only a limited amount of high grade uranium ore in the world. So if Australia doesn’t use it, other countries will get around to using it up for us. Once the high grade ore is used up the cost of nuclear power will skyrocket. So in the long term it doesn’t matter that Australia has no nuclear power plants.
      Just be patient, other ways of generating power will become commercially available. I know many people have said this before but it will happen.

    • Agblaster says:

      01:16pm | 13/04/10

      GT has a point, though we need to think about the market carefully as there’s also the breeder/reprocessor cycle. One of the weaknesses of nuclear: getting anyone in the game to actually properly cost the operation, from end to end - supply, building, running, waste and decommission, plus security. 
      GT has raised another good point, alluded to sarcastically by AD earlier: Other ways of generating power.

      The range is wider and more practical than you might think at first glance.  To have a useful effect, power sources need to be robust, reliable, able to be scaled up, have a smaller footprint than whatever they replace, and produce affordable power. 

      Be best if they weren’t able to be hostage to supply (oil or gas in place of coal come to mind). Best too, if there’s a many-pronged approach - horses for courses, city vs country, peak vs base-load vs offpeak, fast back-up, etc.

      Wind: we know this is now mature tech, but there are likely advances to come in use of lower winds, higher capacity turbines. If we had a lower-loss transmission system, many more wind-farms (Denmark comes to mind) could offer something more like base-load power than it does in Oz right now…

      Wave power: already advanced in kit and fit. Operating or about to operate on commercial scales in the 100+ MW range in Engalnd & Scotland, and in America.  Hints of global generation in the 10s of Tera Watts range within a decade. A base load possibility in large enough array or in conjucntion with others.

      Tidal power: fairly site-specific I gather but commercial operations in the 200+MW rnage are in being or planned, along with smaller local applications. 

      Solar - electric plainly available tech now, at the domestic level, though the install costs are high, should be economies of scale available. Future develoment potential, clearly, as there are plants in the 50 MW range. 
      Solar -  heat transfer: already available, largest operational is 300+MW
      Neither are yet base-load options, case by case, though wider distribution could fix that.

      Geothermal: rather site-specific, see eg NZ. Certainly baseload though and 10s of gigawatts already in operation.
      Geothermal/hot rocks. Needs more development. Proposed remote Aus site. May be very explandable.  Certainly base-load capable.

      Hydroelectric: we’ve plenty experience of that, and substantial installed mature capacity. Are there more sites suited to water use? What about more current generation designs?

      Beyond that, there’s fusion. We’ve been working on that for decades now, and still no joy. May come in time.

      Meanwhile, we have large coal reserves, and large gas reserves. We’re selling the gas OS mainly, as we are with coal. So we’re adding to the CO2 problem by way of trade. Wonder what the supply, development and emission cost of a CNG plant would be vs a coal plant. 

      The 50 odd nuclear plants cotuld take 20+ years to build and bring on line. For that sort of time scale, and that sort of money, all of the above could make big advances in technique and in installed capacity. And when they’re out-of-life, just take ‘em down and build another better model.

      Anyway, there’s a quick over view of most of the possibles. Don’t waste your time or mine nitpicking on detail. It’s just a lunch-time summary with very light checking.  If you want to know more, go looking. It’s not hard.

    • Tim says:

      02:31pm | 13/04/10

      Agblaster,
      you did a great deal of nitpicking over nuclear power and safety in the comments above.

      You’re obviously a big renewables fan but to ignore the severe limitations that all of the technologies you mention currently have does you no favours.
      As you say:
      “To have a useful effect, power sources need to be robust, reliable, able to be scaled up, have a smaller footprint than whatever they replace, and produce affordable power.”

      Currently only Geothermal and Hydro would meet your own criteria and even then they have their own problems and limits to use.

    • David Rees says:

      01:59pm | 13/04/10

      If Carbon emissions are so bad why isn’t K. Rudd if favor of Nuclear Power? Or is the truth Rudd really has a socialist agenda.

    • James says:

      02:29pm | 13/04/10

      Once again we have the rent-a-comment types on this blog.  Let’s see what the scientists have to say, maybe nuclear power is feasible but you would have to address the following:

      *  When will Nuclear Power be up and running and will this be too late to mitigate climate change?

      * What is the life cycle cost of Nuclear power (including decommissioning of the plants).

      *  What will the Nuclear economy infrastructure cost.  Including nuclear safety and security.

      *  What will it cost to dispose of the waste?

      *  Where will the waste go and what long term monitoring will be put in place?

      *  Will nuclear fusion make fission systems redundant?

      *  How many years of nuclear fuel do we have in the context of a large scale world wide move to nuclear power.

      * What are the externalised costs of nuclear power.

      *  Does the total cost of nuclear power (including the hidden costs) mean that it is cheaper than other forms of renewable energy.


      Nuclear is never as simple as some people would have you believe.

    • Willy K says:

      03:28pm | 13/04/10

      And while we dither the Chinese (who are way way way) ahead of us buy all of our uranium and have a clean green energy system to power them light years ahead of us.

      Blah blah blah.  The ‘Green’ energy is not green and it doesn’t work!  Lets get our heads out of our asses and the 1970’s and embrace the best energy system available - nuclear.  Its green and we have the worlds biggest supply.

      It is a no brainer but sadly the ALP and the so called Greens have not a brain amongst them.

      No wonder the Brits Chinese and French think we are mad!

    • Marcus says:

      06:47pm | 13/04/10

      Why the hell are you dredging up the Hicks case in an article about Nuclear power? Ridiculously long bow. And who comes up with the sensationalist headlines???? I don’t know why I’m even here…

      The article doesn’t even address any of the arguments for or against nuclear power!

    • hqcwOC says:

      08:44am | 27/07/11

      WCSXt

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter