Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Nuclear instability

By Helen Caldicott - posted Friday, 14 August 2009

Australia seems determined to lead the way to an unstable world which could result in two very different outcomes - global warming or nuclear winter. We burn and export coal in massive amounts producing more CO2 per capita than any other country and we are about to become one of the world’s major uranium exporters. Kevin Rudd remains wedded to the coal industry and the ALP now totally supports uranium mining.

Global warming is a condition that has recently brought great benefits to the nuclear industry.

The Nuclear Energy Institute in the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in a massive propaganda campaign to convince Americans, and indeed the world, that nuclear power is the answer to global warming, because it makes no greenhouse gases, it is clean, cheap and sustainable. These four claims are patently absurd.


Attractive ads touting such nonsense appear on regular occasions in the New Yorker, Scientific American, the Washington Post, and Capitol Hill publications such as Roll Call, Congress Daily AM and The Hill and on national public radio.

The truth is that very few people or organisations have calculated the true energetic cost of nuclear electricity which involves a massive industrial infrastructure including uranium mining and land reclamation, milling, uranium enrichment, reactor construction and decommissioning, cooling, transportation and ecologically safe storage of intensely radioactive waste, and ecologically safe storage of thousands of tons of waste over geological time frames.

As an illustration we will examine the energy output of the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - mining, milling and enrichment. The back end from reactor construction to radioactive waste storage is also a high CO2 emitter.

Various studies show that CO2 emissions from the fossil fuel depend on the grade of the uranium ore - high grade ore requires less energy input than low grade ore.

The vast majority of the world’s uranium reserves are low-grade. Nuclear energy currently supplies 16 per cent of the world’s electricity production, and the high grade reserves will last only one or two decades if nuclear energy production were to be expanded, as the industry hopes.

At least 10 tonnes of low-grade ore containing less than 0.01 per cent uranium must be mined to obtain 1kg of yellowcake, entailing a huge increase in the fossil energy required for mining and milling. Consumption of fossil fuels to mine, mill and enrich low grade ore become so large that nuclear energy will emit comparable quantities of CO2 from an equivalent combined cycle gas-fired plant.


However, this is only the first industrial infrastructure involved in atomic electricity. After mining the uranium ore is crushed at a milling plant, and then exported as uranium oxide to Paducah Kentucky, where it is converted to uranium hexafluoride gas and forced through thousands of micro pore filters during which uranium 235, the fissionable isotope is enriched from 0.7 per cent to 3 per cent - an extremely energetic process. Two aged 1500 megawatt coal fired plants generate the electricity adding significantly to global warming. CFC gas (banned under the Montreal protocol) is used to cool hundreds of miles of pipes containing the uranium hexafluoride, and 93 per cent of the CFC 114 gas released in the US leaks from this facility. CFC is 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent as a global warmer than CO2.

The construction of a nuclear reactor is now estimated to be US$12 to 15 billion and is largely subsidised by US tax payers. All nuclear damage insurance is also covered by the US federal government to the tune of almost US$600 billion, as is the enrichment of uranium. The costs of long term radioactive waste storage or the multitude of medical diseases affecting future generations - cancer, leukemia and genetic disease induced by leaking waste have not yet been estimated.

It is obvious that nuclear power is neither cheap, green nor sustainable.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

56 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Helen Caldicott, has devoted the last 38 years to an international campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the nuclear age and the necessary changes in human behavior to stop environmental destruction. She is also the Founding President of the Physicians for Social Responsibility which, with other national groups won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. She is President of people for a Nuclear Free Australia and a member of the Spanish Scientific Committee advising the Spanish Prime Minister.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Helen Caldicott

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Helen Caldicott
Article Tools
Comment 56 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy