Twitter: Joshua Gans- @jodiecongirl Actually, it says more about you that you've heard of them!
- @jodiecongirl I think it says that economists don't just assume rational agents but are attracted by them too. Talk about a value conflict.
- @jodiecongirl Why uninteresting? Think of Alex P. Keaton, Quark , Sheldon and Dogbert.
- RT @freakonomics: Freakonomics Movie is released via iTunes tomorrow: http://bit.ly/9YveA3 [I'm gathering the kids for a Friday night movie]
- Am I to understand that we are now in the path of a Hurricane? http://bit.ly/daitO9 This aint the tropics.
Readership
Jul
20
Greens for uranium mining
July 20, 2009 | 6 Comments | Sam Wylie
Peter Garrett, the Federal Environment Minister, was heavily criticised after he approved the Four Mile uranium mine in north of South Australia on July 14. Critics of Garrett have charged him with being a hypocrite; citing his two terms as President of the Australian Conservation Council and his Senate candidacy with the Nuclear Disarmament Party in 1984. I don’t find his position on uranium mining especially hypocritical
The global circumstances are vastly changed in the 25 years since 1984. That was a particularly tense year in the Cold War. In December 1983 the US began deploying pershing and cruise missiles in the UK, Germany and Italy in response to the Soviet deployment of their new SS-20 missiles. Nuclear war between the super-powers seemed a real danger. The Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists went down to three minutes to midnight in 1984, the second worst setting of all (only 1953 was worse). But in 2009 nuclear war is no longer the greatest threat to the global community. Global warming has taken over in those 25 years as the greatest threat.
Even on the US agenda, global warming has moved to the top billing as evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s current visit to India. Clinton has made it clear that she wants progress (as the US defines it) on three issues with India: A global warming agreement in Copenhagen; improved co-operation between India and Pakistan in counter-terrorism; and India’s help with non-proliferation. But she was equally clear that global warming is the most important of those issues — more important than the nuclear issue.
Much is changed since 1984. Uranium mining was part of the problem with nuclear disarmament, but it is part of the solution in the global warming crisis.
In 1984 the Green movement was naturally opposed to nuclear power. Greens feared the growing number of nuclear reactors around the world made an environmentally catastrophic meltdown of a reactor far too likely. And, of course, a meltdown actually occurred in 1986 in the Chernobyl reactor in the then Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Moreover, Greens feared that a replacement of the fossil fuel economy with a massive global cycle of mining, enrichment, power generation, waste generation and storage would ultimately lead to a slow but sure poisoning of the global ecology with radioactive material.
In 1984 opposition to nuclear power was at or new the top of issues that defined the goals of the green movement. Global warming was a well known idea in 1984, but was way down the list of major concerns of most green groups. In 2009 global warming is at the top of everyone’s list. Most green issues are made even more urgent and obvious by an increased understanding of the effects of the growing concentration of greenhouse gases. Global warming causes species extinction, deforestation causes global warming.
Nuclear power is more problematic for green thinking. Nuclear power allows the generation of large quantities of energy without creating greenhouse gases. It is the only proven form of large scale, on-demand power generation. There is no other proven alternative to fossil fuels.
When I hear people say that they will never consider nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming I wonder how much they really care about global warming. There are no easy choices here. The problems with nuclear are real and large, but the problems with burning fossils fuels are even greater. Its naive to think that either the global consumption of energy will fall dramaticall in the next 50 years, or to think that renewable energy sources will replace most of the fossil fuel energy generation. It seems to me that ignoring nuclear is like closing your eyes and wishing the problem away.
It may be that we can replace fossil fuels with renewable sources such as solar power and wind power. I certainly hope so, but how long will it take? Those sources of energy are not proven at large scale and they do not produce energy on demand. We cannot just pretend they will solve the problem of rising CO2 levels over the next 50 years.
It is a bit like “clean coal”. Sure, we will one day be able to extract the energy from burning coal and leave the CO2 under the ground. But how long will it take to develop that technology? Several decades probably, and the same is true of large scale solar power on demand (with night time storage). Moreover, renewable energy sources are going to damage the environment in their own way and consequently meet with resistance. It would take millions of square kilometers of surface area to replace the fossil fuel generation of energy with solar energy. How much of Europe is going to be covered with solar panels?
Nuclear power has big problems, but can it realistically be ommitted from the global warming solution? I think not. I am not a big fan of Garrett the politician. In particular, I was upset by his approval of the pulp mill on the north coast of Tasmania in January 2009. He first expressed support for the mill in June 2004, well before he had ministerial responsibilities. It is reasonable to describe the approval of a massive Tasmanian pulp mill by a person who served two terms as the President of the Australian Conservation Council as gross hypocrisy.
But much of the criticism of Garrett’s approval of the uranium mine is vacuous. In the 80s he was a leader of the nuclear disarmament movement and vociferously opposed uranium mining. Now he approves of uranium mining, but still considers himself a greenie. I am on a similar journey regarding uranium. When I was a student at UWA in the 1980s I joined the Peace Fleet in trying to stop US warships entering Fremantle harbour and I opposed uranium mining. Now I favour uranium mining, but I remain a part of the green movement.
Comments
6 Responses to “Greens for uranium mining”
Sam, I usually take what you write very seriously. But there are just far too many hidden and false premises in this argument for me to do so this time.
Principally, you assume throughout that it is possible for nuclear power to replace, even in large part, coal generation. Sure, a functioning nuclear power plant creates huge amounts of electricity with comparatively small carbon emissions (mining and transport of fuel, creation of plant etc.). But you completely ignore the twin issues of: a) how long it takes and how much it costs to commission a plant (see the plant in Finland for example); b) the very limited global stocks of nuclear fuel. These together make it very likely that it would be impossible for fission to replace fossil fuel power generation. Balanced against the national security risks it would pose, and the environmental risks of radioactive contamination (and the real problem of spent fuel storage), your premise comes across as glossing over these real difficulties.
In respect of renewables, you ask: “How much of Europe is going to be covered with solar panels?” I direct you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Mediterranean_Renewable_Energy_Cooperation
My response to your assertion that: ”Its naive to think that either the global consumption of energy will fall dramatically in the next 50 years…” is that it is a utter necessity, and the only option open to us. It is a humans trait to achieve the seemingly impossible. We can do it again.
The nuclear waste issue is based on misinformation. The reason nuclear waste is deadly is that there’s still enormous amounts of energy leaking out of it. Which raises the obvious point that if it is still leaking out huge amounts of energy then we should be making use of that energy rather than throwing it away.
The idea that there is a lack of nuclear fuel is also a misnomer. Current reactors are only capable of using a small fraction of the uranium available. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plants#Breeding) According to the article using breeder reactor technologies we have enough uranium on earth to supply power for 5billion years.
Not saying nuclear power is perfect, however Scott-e’s comment demonstrates the serious misunderstandings that exist in the public mind related to nuclear power.
For a good discussion of how to run the numbers on sustainable energy tradeoffs, e.g nuclear versus solar versus wind, etc. there is a free e-book “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air” by Professor David JC Mackay.
The author uses the UK in his analysis so conclusions for Australian conditions based on different landmass and offshore conditions, climate, and such would be likely. The methodology for deriving the figure on energy consumption and production is presumably transferable to lcoal conditions.
His analysis of the most economical way forward (Plan E to use his lexicon) for carbon minimization in the UK is to use nuclear power as the main source of electrical generation based in total future energy requirements including the assumption that most transportation would be via electric vehicles. (Interestingly he states that the capital cost of a coal plant in the UK is approximately the same as that of a nuclear plant.)
Alternate plans are documented for anti-nuclear and anti-coal activists, NIMBYs and other segments of the reading public.
It is all shadows and mirrors, until we know what to do with the leaking energy it will be a danger to our future environmental health. Has anyone factored the instability in asia caused by increasing earthquakes? Which polititian is going to ensure every countries political stability? Should we not be developing and building renewable energy structures as fast as possible (wave, solar, bio etc). We have the knowledge at our fingertips so what is stalling the political will and the investments? There may be nothing wrong with nuclear energy, anymore than steam driven trains, they both work… but we have the ability to do better.
Christine if you have noticed it is human nature to first act indiscreetly and then think about some of the repercussions of our actions. It is hard for logical side of the mind to accept that we had to substantially deplete the non renewable sources of energy and pollute the environment to such an extent that it caused problems like climate change (who would have thought we could act God and change the climatic conditions permanently) before starting to even think about developing technology to use renewable sources of energy. Haven’t we known for decades that the fossil fuels are limited in amount, very very slowly renewed and can cause permanent damage to our environment?
I sincerely hope that the same story is not repeated with the use of nuclear fuel and all the repercussions are well thought of before using it substantially as an alternate source of energy. With all due respect to our race’s intellectual abilities the evidence says that we tend to think in a meaningful way only after acting.
[...] is on the agenda, potentially as a necessary part of our future. No surprise really with the accusation of hypocrisy levelled at the Federal Environment Minister, Peter [...]