Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Quarterly Essay 27 Reaction Time: Climate Change and the Nuclear Option
    Quarterly Essay 27 Reaction Time: Climate Change and the Nuclear Option
    Quarterly Essay 27 Reaction Time: Climate Change and the Nuclear Option
    Ebook189 pages6 hours

    Quarterly Essay 27 Reaction Time: Climate Change and the Nuclear Option

    By Ian Lowe

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Australia is at a crossroads: if we are to halt global warming, do we need to stride resolutely into a nuclear future?

    In this engrossing and persuasive essay, Ian Lowe discusses his one-time belief in the benefits of nuclear power and explains why that belief has faltered. He engages with the leading environmentalists, like James Lovelock, who advocate going nuclear, as well as with the less savoury aspects of the Australian politicking. He discusses whether other countries might need to use nuclear power, even if Australia doesn't, and offers an authoritative survey of Australia's energy alternatives - from solar and wind power to clean coal. Above all, he explains why taking up the nuclear option would be a decisive step in the wrong direction - economically, environmentally, politically and socially.

    "Promoting nuclear power as the solution to climate change is like advocating smoking as a cure for obesity. That is, taking up the nuclear option will make it much more difficult to move to the sort of sustainable, ecologically healthy future that should be our goal." —Ian Lowe, Reaction Time
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherBlack Inc. Books
    Release dateSep 1, 2007
    ISBN9781921825262
    Quarterly Essay 27 Reaction Time: Climate Change and the Nuclear Option
    Author

    Ian Lowe

    Ian Lowe is an emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University and was a reviewer for the United Nations-sponsored 2005 Millennium Assessment Report and the 2004 report of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. He is the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation and is the author or co-author of sixteen other books, including Living in the Hothouse (2005) and A Big Fix (2008). He lives on the Sunshine Coast.

    Read more from Ian Lowe

    Related to Quarterly Essay 27 Reaction Time

    Titles in the series (96)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Power Resources For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      Everyday Healthy

      Oct 6, 2022

      Everyday Healthy
      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Our True European Home

      Jul 27, 2023

      Our True European Home
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Problem of White Efficacy

      Jun 4, 2020

      The Problem of White Efficacy
      15 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      In the Prison of Your Skin

      Feb 1, 2019

      In the Prison of Your Skin
      11 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Wilko Johnson 1947-2022

      Jan 6, 2023

      Wilko Johnson 1947-2022
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Letter From The Founder

      Jun 13, 2024

      Letter From The Founder
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Top 10 Graphic Novels

      Jul 29, 2024

      Top 10 Graphic Novels
      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Everyday Lies With Theodore Dalrymple

      May 27, 2021

      World Class. Whenever any British politician uses the word “world-class”, which is with lamentable and increasing frequency, the humble citizen would be well advised to replace it in his mind with “fraudulent”. At best, “world-class” is a phrase used

      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Tripping The Light Fantastic

      Oct 10, 2024

      Tripping The Light Fantastic
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Bald Supremacy

      Aug 11, 2022

      The Bald Supremacy
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Journey Of Faith

      Oct 17, 2021

      Good for Charlotte Grimshaw and good for the vicar who had begun to question the existence of, I guess, just one of the disparate images conjured by the proper noun “God” (Diary, October 16). I’m a retired, stumblingly contemplative Anglican priest w

      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Book Of The Week

      Nov 22, 2024

      Book Of The Week
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      One Night In Gourock

      Oct 24, 2021

      In 1968, the Bay Hotel in Gourock, Scotland, was a popular watering hole for a diverse group. US submariners from Holy Loch, across the Firth of Clyde; Australian sailors building submarines further up the river in Greenock; and local lassies, attrac

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      A Matter Of Choice

      May 20, 2022

      A Matter Of Choice
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Britain’s Nuclear Past

      Apr 23, 2020

      Britain’s Nuclear Past
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      References

      Sep 30, 2016

      1 For further discussion of the charge of ‘Playing God’ see C. A. J. Coady (2009) ‘Playing God’, in J. Savulescu and N. Bostrom (eds.) Human Enhancement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 155-180. 2 Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our Posthuman Future. New Y

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Road Less Traveled to Fusion Energy

      Jun 3, 2020

      The modern quest for Promethean fire is underway in an anonymous office park in Foothill Ranch, California, an hour southeast of Los Angeles. In the park, along a meandering drive, you will find a huge, modern warehouse building with “TAE Technologie

      16 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Dodging Blame

      Aug 26, 2024

      How interesting to hear the evidence about the ways government agencies tried to dodge blame for abuse of children. (“Careful not to know”, August 17). The testimonies of former children in care (the tip of the iceberg of abused children) at the Roya

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Is Nuclear Power A Green Solution? Why World Tilts Toward ‘Yes.’

      Sep 9, 2022

      German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, a leading Green Party member who also serves as minister for climate and economic affairs, this week made the sort of announcement that would have been all but unthinkable even a year ago. Germany, he said, in a

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Change For The Better

      Apr 23, 2023

      Change For The Better
      7 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Quarterly Essay 27 Reaction Time

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Quarterly Essay 27 Reaction Time - Ian Lowe

      Essay

      Quarterly Essay is published four times a year by Black Inc., an imprint of Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd. Publisher: Morry Schwartz.

      ISBN 9781863954129 ISSN 1832-0953

      ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

      No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior consent of the publishers.

      Essay & correspondence © retained by the authors.

      Subscriptions – 1 year (4 issues): $49 within

      Australia incl. GST. Outside Australia $79.

      2 years (8 issues): $95 within Australia incl.

      GST. Outside Australia $155.

      Payment may be made by Mastercard, Visa or

      Bankcard, or by cheque made out to Schwartz

      Publishing. Payment includes postage and handling.

      To subscribe, fill out and post the subscription card, or subscribe online at:

      www.quarterlyessay.com

      Correspondence and subscriptions should be addressed to the Editor at:

      Black Inc.

      Level 5, 289 Flinders Lane

      Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia

      Phone: 61 3 9654 2000

      Fax: 61 3 9654 2290

      Email:

      [email protected] (editorial)

      [email protected] (subscriptions)

      Editor: Chris Feik

      Management: Sophy Williams

      Production Coordinator: Caitlin Yates

      Publicity: Anna Lensky

      Design: Guy Mirabella

      Printer: Griffin Press

      CONTENTS

      REACTION TIME

      Climate Change and the Nuclear Option

      Ian Lowe

      CORRESPONDENCE

      Philip Ruddock, Julian Burnside, Peter Shergold, Joan Staples, John Hartigan,

      Tom Switzer, Waleed Aly, Gerard Henderson, Andrew Bolt, David Marr

      Contributors

      REACTION TIME

      Climate Change

      and the Nuclear Option

      Ian Lowe

      Two years ago, I addressed the National Press Club to explain why nuclear power was not a sensible response to climate change. At the time, some people asked why I was bothering. The Howard government was still in deep denial about global warming, and the nuclear option seemed as dead as a dodo. I gave the speech because I believed it would eventually become impossible for the national government to ignore the reality of climate change. I also feared that it would be consistent with John Howard’s approach to other problems for him to devise a noisy distraction – like canvassing the option of nuclear power. My fears proved alarmingly accurate.

      As a young scientist, I was enthusiastic about nuclear power. Growing up in New South Wales, I heard regularly of accidents in coalmines. In the 1960s, nuclear power seemed to be a technically advanced means of generating electricity. At the height of pro-nuclear enthusiasm, we were promised that it would deliver electricity so cheaply that power authorities would not bother to meter it! The industry made cheerful promotional documentaries to get us all used to the idea that nuclear power was the way of the future. In 1968, I went to the UK to do research for a doctorate; my project was funded by the UK Atomic Energy Authority through the nuclear scientists designing the prototype fast-breeder reactor at Dounreay. Recognising that uranium is a limited resource, they set out to develop reactors that would produce more nuclear fuel than they consumed. The technical problems proved severe. The US and the UK have since abandoned the whole idea. Only the French effort limps on, more in hope than realism.

      When I started lecturing in the faculty of technology at the UK Open University in 1971, I was still a believer in nuclear power, but my views were shaken by some colleagues who asked awkward questions about the economics and about waste management. Back in Australia at the beginning of 1977, I read the Fox Report. Justice Russell Fox, Sir Charles Kerr and Dr Graham Kelleher had been appointed to inquire into the proposed Ranger uranium mine. Their study broadened into a review of Australia’s role in the nuclear industry. They wrote:

      In considering the evidence, we have found that many wild and exaggerated statements are made about the risks and dangers of nuclear energy production by those opposed to it. What has surprised us more is a lack of objectivity in not a few of those in favour of it, including distinguished scientists. It seems that the subject is one very apt to arouse strong emotions, both in opponents and proponents. There is abundant evidence before us to show that scientists, engineers and administrators involved in the business of producing nuclear energy have at times painted excessively optimistic pictures of the safety and performance, projected or past, of various aspects of nuclear production. There are not a few scientists, including distinguished nuclear scientists, who are flatly opposed to the further development of nuclear energy, and who present facts and views opposed to those of others of equal eminence.

      This is an important point to bear in mind as you read this essay. There is no objective truth about the future performance, cost and safety of nuclear reactors. There is a range of defensible opinions, as well as some that appear indefensible. Even when dealing with the history, some people are selective in choosing evidence that seems to support their position. We are all influenced by our experience, our culture and our values in trying to make sense of complex and uncertain issues. So you should read all statements about the nuclear issue – including this essay – with a critical eye.

      The Fox Report made the telling point that nuclear power, while it had been relatively safe and clean until that time as a means of generating electricity, had two fundamental problems: it produced radioactive waste that would need to be stored for immensely long periods, and it provided fissile material that could be diverted to produce weapons. The report argued that it would be irresponsible to contribute to a worsening of these problems without convincing evidence that they had been solved, or were at least likely to be. After considering these arguments, I accepted that I had been wrong to support nuclear power and became more critical.

      I now found that the claims about the economic case for nuclear power were very dubious, usually based on careful selection of the past evidence or heroic assumptions about future costs. Back in the UK, I was involved in the late ’70s debate about a bizarre proposal by the electricity authority for a crash program to build thirty-six nuclear reactors in fifteen years to avert the coming energy crisis. There was at the time no evidence that an energy crisis was imminent, but when we analysed the demand for concrete, steel and other materials that would be produced by the proposal, we found that it would itself have created a crisis, which the authority would then claim to be solving! So by the time I returned to a permanent appointment at Griffith University in 1980, I had become very jaundiced about the claims of the nuclear power industry.

      By then it was clear that nuclear power was expensive, but the industry still had a reasonable safety record and could justifi ably claim that it killed and injured fewer workers than did the production of coal-fired electricity. Even this argument was subsequently weakened in 1979 by the Three Mile Island accident; the reactor almost melted down and was effectively destroyed. While good management of the crisis averted a major radiation leak, it is sobering to reflect that the same basic design is used in most of the world’s reactors. We were not so lucky with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which spread a swathe of radioactive pollution across Europe from the Ukraine to the western parts of the British Isles. That marked the end of public support for the European nuclear power program. The level of nuclear power then steadily declined, as old reactors were retired and not replaced. The Thatcher government tried to prop up the nuclear industry by enacting an obligation for a minimum percentage of power to come from sources other than fossil fuels, but instead this kick-started the UK wind energy industry. By the end of the twentieth century, nuclear power looked like a dying industry.

      Then something very strange happened. A small group in the UK nuclear industry concocted the idea of re-badging it as the answer to global climate change. This struck me as a very improbable line. The nuclear power industry had previously used every trick in the book to disparage environmental activists, who had been critical of the industry’s record. But desperate times call for desperate measures. The nuclear lobby embraced the science of global climate change, aligning themselves with their old foes such as WWF and Greenpeace. The industry embarked on a very clever campaign of briefing journalists and opinion-makers with the new line: global climate change is a serious problem, clean energy is needed, renewables are unreliable so the world needs nuclear power, which they redefined as being clean. Though the claim to cleanliness was dubious, it was seized on by some politicians and journalists. Their enthusiasm was perhaps a sign of desperation, born of a desire either to cling to the old idea of centralised electricity or to find a silver bullet for climate change now that the urgency of the issue was plain. This campaign had not yet reached Australia when I spoke to the Press Club, but I was concerned that it might be transferred here from Western Europe. Not long afterwards, the tide turned on public perceptions of global warming and the studied inaction of the Howard government was finally shown by its own polling to be indefensible. Then the Prime Minister returned from Washington in mid-2006 to announce that Australia needed to consider nuclear energy as an option. Interviewed on AM, Howard said:

      What I am saying to the Australian people is: let us calmly and sensibly examine what our options are. Let’s not set our faces against examining all of those options and when all the facts are in, we can then make judgments. But I don’t think all the facts are in in relation to nuclear, because we’ve had very little debate on this issue over the last twenty-five or thirty years, because everybody’s said, oh well, you can’t possibly even think about it. That’s changed a lot.

      It wasn’t clear at that point that things had changed a lot, but the Prime Minister set about ensuring that they did. A taskforce described by John Clarke as people who want nuclear power by Tuesday was hastily put together. The process was so rushed that Howard was only able to give the waiting press the names of some members of the taskforce on the day he announced its formation. In a reminder of the truism expressed by an anonymous American as Facts ain’t given, they’re gotten!, the taskforce seems to have set about finding facts that would show the nuclear industry in the best possible light. The subsequent report by Dr Ziggy Switkowski and his colleagues is analysed in more detail below. It was hailed by the Prime Minister and his media cheer-squad as giving the green light for the nuclear industry: a glowing future was the Freudian slip in a headline used by the Australian. That section of the press even rang me to ask if I had been persuaded by the rational argument of the report to move beyond my emotional opposition to nuclear power. I told them that my opposition to nuclear power was rational and based on both the experience of the last fifty years and a sober assessment of global futures. In this essay I will develop that argument.

      Energy is essential for civilised living, but the current approach of basing our energy-intensive lifestyle on fossil fuels is unsustainable. We need to make fundamental changes if our society is to survive. The nuclear option does not make sense on any level: economically, environmentally, politically or socially. It is too costly, too dangerous, too slow and has too small an impact on global warming. That is why most of the developed world is rejecting nuclear power in favour of renewable energy and improved efficiency. We should be a responsible global citizen and set serious targets to reduce our greenhouse pollution, but we should not go down the nuclear path. The rational response to our situation is to combine vastly improved efficiency with an investment in renewable energy technologies.

      PEAK OIL AND BEYOND

      Energy is the basis of modern civilisation. We have easier lives than our grandparents did because we use much more energy: electricity, gas and transport fuels. The average rate of energy use in OECD countries varies from about 3 to 10 kilowatts for every person. One way of visualising this is to imagine that our average energy use in Australia is equivalent to about forty human slaves working for us in shifts, doing what slaves used to do: produce our food, carry us about, wash our clothes, entertain us, fan us when we are hot, provide hot water for washing and so on. Energy is also used to ease other shortages. Cities with limited drinking water are now using desalination plants to process sea water – using more energy. We have increased food supply for our growing population by farming more intensively – using still more energy. As we exhausted rich metal ores, we moved on to poorer deposits – but that takes much more energy. Without usable energy, modern societies would literally grind to a halt. We see occasional short-term demonstrations of this, as when a bushfire interrupted the electricity supply to the city of Melbourne early this year, causing chaos. It is not easy to imagine how our cities would cope if some natural disaster or extreme political event were to halt the flow of oil to Australia, given the total reliance of our transport system on petroleum fuels.

      We now face two serious problems. Experts disagree about whether we are approaching the peak of world oil production, or have actually passed it. Either way, we are near the end of the age of cheap petroleum fuels. The second problem is that the present use

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1