Death Blow for the Nuclear Industry

Solar Energy Cheaper than Nuclear for the First Time

In a “historic crossover,” the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants...

This crossover occurred at 16 cents per kilowatt hour, they said.

The Green movement, environmentalists, antiwar and anti-nuclear campaigners have been right all along, for the past 30 or 40 years.

Nuclear power is costly, toxic, weaponable, non-renewable and not the answer. Solar not nuclear.

Actually its a stroke of luck that the sheer cost of nuclear power is going to kill it. Otherwise we would have to rely on environmental arguments about pollution or moral arguments about war and militarism. Unfortunately those arguments don't carry as much weight.

The luck is the other way around with coal however. It's cheap to burn to produce electricity, and there is lots of it. We are having to rely on environmental, pollution, and intergenerational moral arguments to defeat it: a tough sell. This is why it is of fundamental importance that a carbon tax (combined with a carbon dividend) on CO2 be introduced as soon as possible. The price incentive is the one thing that can get the system moving.

Solar Energy Cheaper than Nuclear for the First Time

In a “historic crossover,” the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants...

This crossover occurred at 16 cents per kilowatt hour, they said.

The Green movement, environmentalists, antiwar and anti-nuclear campaigners have been right all along, for the past 30 or 40 years.

Nuclear power is costly, toxic, weaponable, non-renewable and not the answer. Solar not nuclear.

Actually its a stroke of luck that the sheer cost of nuclear power is going to kill it. Otherwise we would have to rely on environmental arguments about pollution or moral arguments about war and militarism. Unfortunately those arguments don't carry as much weight.

The luck is the other way around with coal however. It's cheap to burn to produce electricity, and there is lots of it. We are having to rely on environmental, pollution, and intergenerational moral arguments to defeat it: a tough sell. This is why it is of fundamental importance that a carbon tax (combined with a carbon dividend) on CO2 be introduced as soon as possible. The price incentive is the one thing that can get the system moving.

Death Blow for the Nuclear Industry

'Clean Coal' and 'Safe Nuclear' both non-existent and no use even if they did exist

The countdown to climate change: "Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, in his report to the British Government last year, which warned that the world has only 10 to 15 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. As Greens senator Christine Milne points out, the fact of the matter is that neither the nuclear nor geosequestration options will deliver any cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years.

"According to Stern, it is likely that within 15 years, with "business as usual", global warming will reach a "tipping point" where global warming will be positively reinforced by a series of related events such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, so that global warming will spiral out of control irrespective of what measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases."

"Geosequestration is further away and arguably more unsafe than the nuclear option. Its problems include: there is no evidence to show it can be done on a commercial scale; nobody knows what it will cost; and it can't be retrofitted, so all existing coal-fired power stations would be redundant."

"While the chances of accidents are low, and nuclear power plants have a better safety record than coalmines, there is the possibility of a catastrophic accident. Which means plants are uninsurable.

"Last week the Greens published a research paper on nuclear risk, which showed that Australian insurers have nuclear exclusion clauses. Nuclear power reactors are so risky that companies won't build them without government indemnities. In other countries, where indemnities are granted, the government accepts financial responsibility by removing the requirement to prove negligence in common law cases involving nuclear damages. In Australia the Government has failed to do this (Lucas Heights), in effect pushing the risk onto home owners.

"The paper reached the tart conclusion that "the coal industry has prospered by not paying for its pollution; now it seems the nuclear industry will not pay for its risk"."

"Taking real steps to deal with climate warming before 2020 doesn't require multibillion-dollar investments in nuclear power or geosequestration. It requires relatively conservative tax and subsidy changes to modify household and business behaviour to flatten the demand for electricity... savings could be expedited by a carbon tax or "cap and trade" to boost the price of electricity, backed up, if necessary, by regulation."

This is a real crisis and the policy response of both Government and Opposition is pathetically inadequate. They are playing 'politics as usual' in the face of disaster. They are serving their corporate masters in the coal, uranium and mining industries, and not the public. Neither party is prepared to confront the coal industry and tell the public the truth: coal is killing the planet and has to be phased out in a specific timeframe. Neither party is willing to immediately introduce a carbon tax to start sending price signals; neither is prepared to commit to the steps necessary to achieve major reductions in energy consumption, and rapid uptake in renewable energy production.

The countdown to climate change: "Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, in his report to the British Government last year, which warned that the world has only 10 to 15 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. As Greens senator Christine Milne points out, the fact of the matter is that neither the nuclear nor geosequestration options will deliver any cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years.

"According to Stern, it is likely that within 15 years, with "business as usual", global warming will reach a "tipping point" where global warming will be positively reinforced by a series of related events such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, so that global warming will spiral out of control irrespective of what measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases."

"Geosequestration is further away and arguably more unsafe than the nuclear option. Its problems include: there is no evidence to show it can be done on a commercial scale; nobody knows what it will cost; and it can't be retrofitted, so all existing coal-fired power stations would be redundant."

"While the chances of accidents are low, and nuclear power plants have a better safety record than coalmines, there is the possibility of a catastrophic accident. Which means plants are uninsurable.

"Last week the Greens published a research paper on nuclear risk, which showed that Australian insurers have nuclear exclusion clauses. Nuclear power reactors are so risky that companies won't build them without government indemnities. In other countries, where indemnities are granted, the government accepts financial responsibility by removing the requirement to prove negligence in common law cases involving nuclear damages. In Australia the Government has failed to do this (Lucas Heights), in effect pushing the risk onto home owners.

"The paper reached the tart conclusion that "the coal industry has prospered by not paying for its pollution; now it seems the nuclear industry will not pay for its risk"."

"Taking real steps to deal with climate warming before 2020 doesn't require multibillion-dollar investments in nuclear power or geosequestration. It requires relatively conservative tax and subsidy changes to modify household and business behaviour to flatten the demand for electricity... savings could be expedited by a carbon tax or "cap and trade" to boost the price of electricity, backed up, if necessary, by regulation."

This is a real crisis and the policy response of both Government and Opposition is pathetically inadequate. They are playing 'politics as usual' in the face of disaster. They are serving their corporate masters in the coal, uranium and mining industries, and not the public. Neither party is prepared to confront the coal industry and tell the public the truth: coal is killing the planet and has to be phased out in a specific timeframe. Neither party is willing to immediately introduce a carbon tax to start sending price signals; neither is prepared to commit to the steps necessary to achieve major reductions in energy consumption, and rapid uptake in renewable energy production.

'Clean Coal' and 'Safe Nuclear' both non-existent and no use even if they did exist

What is Labor's policy on nuclear power?

Beazley and Rudd must declare nuclear stance before leadership ballot

"Labor's position on expanding uranium mining, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel leasing and taking back the nuclear waste is two-faced, the Australian Greens said today."

"Labor's duplicity on this issue was demonstrated when ALP senators failed to support the Greens when we called for the rejection of uranium enrichment, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear reactors in the Senate this week."

"Australians deserve an answer from both leadership candidates to these questions:
- Do they support expanded uranium mining?
- Do they support uranium enrichment in Australia?
- Do they support nuclear fuel leasing and taking back the waste?
- Do they support high-level nuclear waste dumps in Australia?
- Do they support nuclear reactors for power generation?"

Instead of 'horserace' reporting on the Beazley/Rudd issue (or indeed, the Beazley/Howard or Howard/Costello question), what is the policy position held by each of these?

A strong argument can be made against nuclear energy, namely that it is costly, toxic, weaponistic, non-renewable and not the answer.

The policy of the Australian Greens and the NSW Greens at least is clear: opposition to the entire nuclear cycle in Australia, and a focus instead on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Beazley and Rudd must declare nuclear stance before leadership ballot

"Labor's position on expanding uranium mining, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel leasing and taking back the nuclear waste is two-faced, the Australian Greens said today."

"Labor's duplicity on this issue was demonstrated when ALP senators failed to support the Greens when we called for the rejection of uranium enrichment, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear reactors in the Senate this week."

"Australians deserve an answer from both leadership candidates to these questions:
- Do they support expanded uranium mining?
- Do they support uranium enrichment in Australia?
- Do they support nuclear fuel leasing and taking back the waste?
- Do they support high-level nuclear waste dumps in Australia?
- Do they support nuclear reactors for power generation?"

Instead of 'horserace' reporting on the Beazley/Rudd issue (or indeed, the Beazley/Howard or Howard/Costello question), what is the policy position held by each of these?

A strong argument can be made against nuclear energy, namely that it is costly, toxic, weaponistic, non-renewable and not the answer.

The policy of the Australian Greens and the NSW Greens at least is clear: opposition to the entire nuclear cycle in Australia, and a focus instead on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

What is Labor's policy on nuclear power?