Jim Green
National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth
<jim.green@foe.org.au>
March 2007
 
Undoubtedly divisions within the government over aspects of the nuclear debate, e.g. wisdom of nuclear power. There is not a single, clear agenda.

What's driving the government's nuclear push?
* attempts to wedge ALP esp. re uranium
* distract attention from government's disgraceful record on climate change and  renewable energy / coal.
* general attempt to paint nuclear green in support of uranium mining industry
* concern that US  Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will limit future options esp. in relation to uranium enrichment
* attempts to wedge environment movement
* (possibly) concern re military implications of possible growth of civil nuclear industries in South East Asia and the military implications of that.

What's not driving the nuclear push ...
* energy security concerns ... Australia arguably has the widest array of energy options of any country.
* the government's commitment to pursue any and every option to reduce greenhouse emissions (there is no such commitment).

Uranium mining
* Wave of exploration driven by rising uranium prices which is a result of little or no ex-weapons uranium coming on the civil market from Russia. Rising price is NOT a function of expansion of nuclear power because there is no expansion - stagnant since late 1990s. However, hopes/expectation of growth of nuclear power also likely to be driving uranium stocks higher.
* Government wedging ALP on its no-new-uranium-mines policy. Dispute within ALP to be resolved at April 2007 national conference.
* Government also attempting to wedge environment movement though very few if any environmentalists support nuclear power (and an equally small number of nuclear proponents have turned into opponents e.g. Prof. Richard Broinowski, Prof. Ian Lowe).

Uranium enrichment
* Enrichment currently being debated within Howard government.
* Value-adding to uranium exports. But may not be space in the enrichment market for another supplier of enrichment services - which was conclusion of Switkowski report and also the view of BHP and possibly also ERA, i.e. two major uranium producers in Australia. Couldn't force Australian uranium miners to enrich in Australia. Australian uranium mines mostly foreign-owned.
* Would generate large volumes of depleted uranium waste.
* Totally undermines efforts by UN/IAEA and US government to limit spread of enrichment (and reprocessing) technology with a moratorium on new enrichment/reprocessing plants and/or international/multinational control of these 'sensitive' nuclear fuel cycle facilities.
* Australian capacity to produce fissile material (highly-enriched uranium) would not go unnoticed in the region, e.g. Indonesia.
* Would make it more difficult to complain about enrichment programs e.g. in Iran and North Korea.
* History of enrichment research in Australia, inc. secret research at Lucas Heights with clear military agenda in 1960s. More recently - Silex laser enrichment.
* Possibility that US and Australian governments interested in a grand plan whereby Australia has an enrichment plant and also an international high-level nuclear waste dump (a connection raised by Howard). But Howard government could also pursue enrichment without accepting global nuclear dump.

Nuclear power and climate change
* Government and nuclear industry talking up nuclear power as a solution to climate change, painting nuclear green in support of uranium mining industry. Distracting attention from government's disgraceful climate change policies.
* Renewed interest in nuclear power may be little more than a diversion and distraction from real solutions to climate change. Irony that coal industry is a bit nervous about the nuclear power push, yet the primary purpose of the nuclear push may be to stall action on climate change including stalling action on coal industry's greenhouse emissions.
* Government claim re nuclear power as a way to provide energy security makes no sense given abundance of other energy sources.
* Historically, interest in nuclear power + reprocessing to provide a source of fissile material for nuclear weapons (e.g. Jervis Bay). But if the government wants fissile material, enrichment may be the more logical option.
* General belief that government is really interested in enrichment and not nuclear power. Could well be right, but pro-nuclear-power opinion pieces by Howard, Downer, Bishop. If government is interested in enrichment, why not simply establish an inquiry specifically into enrichment?
* Nuclear power is expensive, but easy enough to indulge in creative accounting e.g. 2006 ANSTO report on nuclear power economics, and the Switkowski report.
* Clearly divisions within the government over nuclear power, e.g. Minchin quite negative on economic grounds and Macfarlane used to share Minchin's view.
* Nuclear solution to climate change propaganda has put climate change firmly on the agenda much to the annoyance of Prof Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun and Prof Christopher Pearson in SMH.
* Federal government very keen to keep discussion on nuclear power at an abstract level rather than discussing potential locations. (Australia Institute - early 2007 paper on siting options.) Potential for expansion plans to go nowhere and for the bad publicity to increase opposition to uranium mining.

Global high-level nuclear dump
* Always seen to be a complete non-starter because of inevitable political/public opposition (e.g. successful SA campaign against a lower-level national dump compared to current push for a high-level international dump in Australia). Very strong public opposition to an international nuclear dump in Australia. For example, a 1999 survey by Insight Research Australia found that 85% of respondents wanted the federal parliament to pass legislation to ban the import of foreign nuclear waste into Australia.
* Push from some overseas countries to dump in Australia but not clear how strong this push is or who is involved.
* History of Pangea pushing to dump tens of thousands of tonnes of high-level  nuclear waste in Australia. Pangea's successor, ARIUS - Association for Regional and International Underground Storage - still promoting the idea. <www.arius-world.org> and <www.uic.com.au/McCombie&Kurzeme.pdf>
* WA Premier Carpenter insisting WA will not mine uranium because it could lead to pressure to host an international dump.
* Northern Territorians concerned that a national dump would, over time, be upgraded to an international dump.
* May be interest in 'leasing' nuclear fuel to India to circumvent policy of no uranium sales to India (which is one of 3-4 non-NPT signatories). But this seems like an awful lot of trouble for a small market. Indians extremely persistent and vocal about uranium sales from Australia. US-India deal may see Howard follow in Bush's footsteps.
* The global context: There is still no repository for high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world. The global stockpile of high-level nuclear waste is about 200,000 tonnes. The volume of high-level nuclear waste is increasing by 12,000 to 14,000 tonnes annually.
* The US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisages a limited number of countries supplying nuclear fuel cycle services including spent nuclear fuel disposal. The issue was undoubtedly discussed by Prime Minister Howard and US government representatives in Washington in mid-2006 but the Australian government has refused an FoI request to provide information on the substance of the Washington talks.
* Australian groups lobbying for Australia to host an international high-level nuclear waste group. The Nuclear Fuel Leasing Group has been promoting the group's vision of establishing a uranium enrichment plant, a fuel fabrication plant, and an international nuclear waste repository in Australia. The federal government's Uranium Industry Framework is also promoting the idea - specifically, a draft report of the UIF's stewardship working group recommends that Australia accepts international high-level nuclear waste arising from uranium exports. But the UIF report released in November was more down-beat; clearly White's view has not prevailed within UIF, for the time being at least.
* Liberal/National Coalition Senators refused to support a Senate motion opposing an international nuclear dump in May 2006.
* There are serious environmental and public health risks associated with high-level nuclear waste. As Professor John Veevers from Macquarie University wrote in the Australian Geologist in August 1999 – at the time of the Pangea ambitions - such a dump would pose serious public health and environmental risks: "[T]onnes of enormously dangerous radioactive waste in the northern hemisphere, 20,000 kms from its destined dump in Australia where it must remain intact for at least 10,000 years. These magnitudes - of tonnage, lethality, distance of transport, and time - entail great inherent risk."

Proposed national nuclear dump in NT
* Finding a dump site has only been pursued to facilitate new Lucas Heights reactor. So will government continue to push ahead with dump once ANSTO has operating licence for new reactor? Government may also want dump to establish its nuclear 'credentials', i.e. its capacity to impose nuclear facilities on unwilling communities. Striking contrast to government's approach to wind farms esp. environment minister Ian Campbell.

Military subtext to the nuclear debate?
* Since the early 1970s, successive governments have shown very little interest in domestic production of nuclear weapons, because of the US nuclear umbrella, and this probably remains the case.
* Some proponents of nuclear expansion may (or may not) partly support expansion to bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability.
* Indonesia planning nuclear power reactors (which will inevitably produce plutonium).
* Real concern that global non-proliferation regime could collapse and perhaps a desire to be closer to a weapons capability than we currently are. At the moment Australia has almost no weapons production capacity. With an enrichment plant or power-reactor-plus-reprocessing, Australia would have solved the most difficult aspect of nuclear weapons production - access to fissile material, either highly-enriched uranium or plutonium.
* Regardless of INTENT, the nuclear expansion push must generate some concern as to possible military subtext, no-one would be daft enough to take at face value claims about nuclear power and climate change (given the federal government's record on climate change) or energy security.
* see Max Walsh in the Bulletin 6/6/6 re the elephant in the room, military subtext to current nuclear debate.
<http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/DAF467FB725E18A9CA2571840006BAF4?open&ui=dom&template=domBulletin>
* see Hugh White, Don't mention the bomb, March 1, 2007,
<www.theage.com.au/news/hugh-white/dont-mention-the-bomb/2007/02/28/1172338702694.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1>
* historical push for weapons in Australiam: see Australia's secret nuclear weapons push- 1940s to 1970s at
<www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/links-info-sources>

US alliance
* How much is US alliance driving federal governments nuclear agenda?
* New Lucas Heights reactor to provide base-level expertise to facilitate 'interoperability' with US, e.g. in relation to US bases, US nuclear power/armed warship visits to Australian ports.
* Existing and planned new US bases, war games inc 2007 Talisman Sabre in Qld.
* Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Australia as 'deputy sheriff' in Asia-Pacific. Australia as a regional hub in global nuclear divvy-up, e.g. Australia supplies uranium / enriched uranium / nuclear fuel rods, Japan as the regional reprocessor.
* Previous US government support for Pangea's plan to dump in Australia.