The lofty taskforce appointed by the PM to explore the idea of Australia going nuclear has concluded that, yes, going nuclear would indeed reduce our emissions, but that it will cost a bucket more dosh to produce an equivalent amount of this "clean" energy.
The thing I really don’t understand is why is no one talking about the waste issue? How can we call nuclear energy clean when it produces massive amounts of highly dangerous chemical waste that has to be securely stored for thousands of years?
At least Mr Gore gave it a passing mention when he was in Victoria last week:
Even if you set aside the problem of long-term waste storage and the danger of operator accident and the vulnerability to terrorist attack, you still have two others that are more difficult [...] Nuclear power plants are the costliest to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in only one size — extra large [...] For eight years when I was in the White House, every problem of weapons proliferation was connected to a reactor program.While the economic issue is certainly of concern (particularly among highly geared "middle Australia") it pails in comparison to the other issues Gore mentions. People seem happy to talk about issues of terrorism and weapons proliferation (particularly if those producing the weapons are North Korea and Iran - but apparently not the US and Israel), but the issue of waste seems to be off the agenda.
When will we learn?
No comments:
Post a Comment