Chernobyl, Three Mile Island are the reality

Newcastle Herald
Thursday 23/11/2006, Page: 9

Would you want a reactor in the Hunter, asks Graham White.

COLIN Keay's article ("Sorry, but wind and solar not sustainable", Herald 16/11) on the merits of renewable energy versus nuclear was disappointing due to a number of fallacies about both renewable and nuclear energy.

Firstly, wind energy is not confined to small applications. There is more than 60,000 megawatts of wind turbine capacity in operation in the world now. Denmark gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind, Spain 8 per cent, Germany 6.8 per cent and the percentages are rapidly rising in countries including the US, Canada, China, India and the UK.

Wind energy is not on-again-offagain. It is variable, as are the loads in any electrical power system. Our electricity grid is designed to cater for variability.

No one is suggesting that wind energy should be the only source of energy- it is one of a number of zero emission solutions we can adopt as part of our future energy nix. The difference is that compared to other pollution-free energy sources, wind uses mature technology that is proven and available now.

Renewable energy can supply a significant proportion of Australia's electricity requirements without causing instability-despite the furphy that anti-wind groups keep on saying without foundation.

Power outages in Europe and other countries have had nothing to do with wind farms. Transmission grids are themselves subject to failure for a variety of reasons, but none of these are associated with wind energy.

Mr Keay's suggestion that nuclear is "clean" and "green" is quite fanciful and I would respectfully suggest that he read about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the many reports of radioactive leaks from Japanese reactors, and the issue of nuclear time bombs in rusting Russian submarines.

Nuclear energy, which produces by-products that must be safely stored for approximately 240,000 years and has the potential to cause catastrophic environmental damage, cannot be called green.

And can anyone guarantee that any society can store large quantities of waste safely for this length of time? The nuclear industry has been propped up by a few governments with massive subsidies. The promise of nuclear energy too cheap to measure has never happened and never will. Not only is nuclear energy a giant black hole for societies to squander their money on, it introduces significant environmental, military, security and commercial risks.

I think that at the outset of any debate on nuclear power for Australia, the locations of future reactors should be identified and local communities asked if they want such a facility.

In addition, who is going to insure nuclear reactors for accidents? Certainly there are almost no insurance companies willing to do so. The risks are so great that countries in may have to self-insure, which means you and I and every other Australian will be left to foot the bill if anything goes wrong.

Sustainability of future energy supplies while safeguarding the environment is critical to Australia. Many renewable energy technologies are viable, safe, reliable and are available today. Throwing good money after bad on the dreams of nuclear energy proponents is not the way to go.

Graham White is a professional engineer with more than 30 years' experience in the energy field.