Nuclear power and nuclear wastes

I am opposed to nuclear power. There are many problems with the nuclear fuel cycle and the problem of how to deal with the wastes has still not been dealt with. I think there are many alternatives that could be put together as a system that could deliver a sustainable energy supply. The emerging smart grid with energy storage will completely transform the nature of energy systems. By the time any proposed new nuclear power stations are built and commissioned they will already be redundant, if the projects are completed.

In the United States there have been problems with their proposed national repository in Yucca Mountain. Over the last decade or so the nuclear industry has been lobbying and marketing itself as a solution to greenhouse gas emitting forms of energy generation. I think this is extremely cynical and dishonest. As stated before, the emerging smart grid with energy storage will completely transform energy systems so that a major proportion of energy can be generated from intermittent renewable sources while the energy being delivered would be of a higher quality and consistency than it has been with our current energy systems. Whenever there is a major storm or extreme weather condition, we can expect the electrical network to go down. With a smart grid and energy storage, it would be possible to maintain a supply of electricity to consumers even while the lines from major generation sources are down.

The nuclear fuel has many problems that are clear to just about everyone. The best way of avoiding the problems that nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle create is to limit the use of nuclear energy and prevent the building of new nuclear power stations.

There have in the past been some proposed solutions for the problem of storing nuclear wastes. One proposal was to store most of the world’s nuclear wastes in the Australian outback. I think this is utterly unethical. This is not a NIMBY response to the issue. The reason why I think a repository in Australia is utterly unethical is because by being able to ship wastes to Australia, it would free up the nuclear industry to go hell for leather and expand the nuclear fuel cycle and build a large number of new nuclear power plants. This would be a disaster, no matter what regulatory conditions are set in place. It would guarantee the proliferation of nuclear weapons and increase the dangers of nuclear terrorism, rather than reducing the risks. There will be unintended worldwide consequences if there were to be a nuclear waste repository built in Australia.

That is without considering the problems that such a nuclear waste repository will leave as a toxic legacy for future Australian generations. We don’t want to see Australia being used as the toxic trash can or toilet for the rest of the world.

There is a simple slogan that I remember seeing in an old Australian movie of the 1970s or 80s, that I can’t recall the name of. Apparently the term is well known: “If you don’t eat you don’t shit, and if you don’t shit you die.” The nuclear industry see it as imperative that they can set up a nuclear waste repository somewhere in the world so that their industry can prosper. Australia has been touted as a possible location for such a waste repository. The purpose of such a repository would not be to reduce the stockpile of nuclear wastes and to make the world a safer place, it would be rather to set up a windfall for the nuclear industry when they build many more nuclear power stations and see a boom in all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. Building a repository will have an effect opposite and contrary to what  would have been proffered as the main rhetorical reasons for setting up such a nuclear waste repository in the first place. It would be utterly unethical to support such a nuclear waste repository.

In Australia, the mass media has almost completely ignored to mention development of the smart grid, the reality of large-scale grid-connected energy storage and the impact these new energy systems will have on the feasibility of large-scale renewable energy. The thinking with regards to energy systems seems to have been stuck in a 1970′s mentality. There has been no real debate in the Australian media about alternative energy systems and the nuclear industry here has a strong voice through the media (and I suspect they have been digging deep into their pockets as well). Both Fairfax and News Ltd support nuclear power.

If we want to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism and make the world a safer place we need to slow down and eventually stop the production of fissile material and high level radioactive wastes. The imperative is to prevent the construction of new nuclear power stations anywhere in the world. It is imperative to close uranium mines and wind down the nuclear fuel cycle. A repository for the world’s nuclear wastes – at this moment in history – will not work towards these aims. Perhaps in time there will be safer ways to render radioactive and fissile materials into harmless components. Until then we can audit, monitor and safely and securely manage the existing stockpile of radiological materials.