The nuclear industry is using increasingly subtle methods to promote the development of a nuclear power and radioactive waste disposal industry in Australia. Noel Wauchope reports.

In the ABC radio program Ockham’s Razor, first broadcast on Sunday 4th August, Terry Krieg enthusiastically promotes the nuclear industry.

This program was remarkable for two reasons.

First, Mr Krieg appeared to be not your usual expert connected with the nuclear industry. Mr Krieg, we were told, is “a retired geography and geology teacher”. Good, I thought, as it seemed that the ABC was giving an ordinary mortal a go on national radio. But was that all he was? No, alas. There was, as there always seems to be, some “astroturfing” going on. A bit of research on the Net and we soon discover that Mr Krieg is a spokesperson for the Australian Nuclear Forum. This is an organisation dedicated, it says, to “advancing peaceful aspects of nuclear science and technology”. With that aim, the ANF provides “policy papers and information papers for schools”. Its members are “professionals with wide collective experience in nuclear science and technology”. In other words, it is a false grassroots nuclear industry lobby group.

Now, I really do think that the presenter, Robin Williams, should have told us that.  But perhaps he didn’t know. It is in the interests of nuclear astroturfers to not have people know that the information they present, far from being unvarnished, comes straight from the nuclear industry itself.

Secondly, Mr Krieg came out with what the nuclear lobby has been secretly planning for Australia — that is, to establish the full nuclear cycle in this country, including storing radioactive wastes.

For these two reasons, Krieg’s promotional spruik is important.

I hope that it kicks off a clearer, more “democratic’ discussion on the nuclear industry.  Australia so far has had only one real speaker who puts clearly the case against nuclear power: Dr Helen Caldicott. Yes, I know that she is an “expert”. But she has an unusual ability to speak plainly. Perhaps that is why she is ignored by Australia’s media and political big boys.

Anyway, Australia surely needs some plain speaking on this issue, so critical for our children and grandchildren’s future.

Terry Krieg should not be ignored. His vision for a totally nuclear South Australia is scary stuff.

On Climate Change and Renewable Energy

Krieg, rather surprisingly, loses some scientific credibility right at the start, as he reveals himself as a climate-change denier. He moves on to state that pursuing renewable energy is unwise, saying that USA energy experts in the ’80s have been proved right in writing off solar energy.

Krieg emphasises the small proportion of energy consumption from solar and wind, and doesn’t mention the statistics from other sources, such as hydro-power. And, there is more to the solar and wind story, as they are new and fast developing industries, both in centralised and in small distributed forms.

From Wikipedia:

“About 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewables. Wind power is growing at the rate of 30% annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 198 gigawatts (GW) in 2010,[3][4] and is widely used in Europe, Asia, and the United States. As of 2011, small solar PV systems provide electricity to a few million households, and micro-hydro configured into mini-grids serves many more.”

From the Melbourne University ‘Renewable Energy Technology Cost Review’ (May 2011):

“The installed capacity of photovoltaic has grown at rate of 40% over the last decade.  As the industry has grown PV module prices declined along a well-established learning curve, which has seen cost reductions of 22% for each doubling of cumulative capacity, over the last few decades…The International Energy Agency (IEA) and the EPIA expect further cost reduction with increased production capacities, improved supply chains and economies of scale”

continue

Krieg does try and dazzle us with a bit of science about “load” and “capacity” of wind power. But this boils down to something that we all knew anyway — that wind does not blow all the time in one area, so there is not “base load” power all the time. Ways have been devised to deal with this — from smart grids, co-operating wind farms, over wide areas, networks of grids, connections with other sources of energy, and from changes in energy use, to reduce peak demands

Krieg points out the cutbacks to renewable energy projects in European countries: the USA and Canada. This is a complex problem — and not at all simple as Krieg makes it sound. As for producing solar and wind technologies, China is now doing this so cheaply that the USA, for one, is importing Chinese technology for renewable projects, rather than making it. With the global financial problem, governments are cutting back in many areas. Renewable energy does indeed have considerable upfront costs. But it is hardly fair to compare this with other energy sources, since the fuel for renewable energy is free, so therefore the ongoing costs are negligible. Pricing mechanisms would obviously be coordinated to address this.

Greenhouse gas emissions

He claims that nuclear power is “emission free”.  Yes, emission-free if only you don’t count the nuclear fuel cycle’s “front end” uranium mining, milling, transport and its “back end”— wastes storage and disposal, including the finished reactor itself. And, to reiterate, there is no known way to safely store deadly nuclear waste, an unavoidable by-product of the nuclear process that is poisonous for an eternity.

Australia’s nuclear future

Krieg then enthuses about how nuclear power alone can meet Australia’s energy needs “at the scale required”. Presumably, he means at a huge scale.

I am not surprised that he ignores the movement for energy efficiency and energy conservation. The nuclear industry is dedicated to the principle of endless growth in energy consumption. He paints a glowing picture of the worldwide growth in nuclear power plant building.

“Clearly, the world is going increasingly nuclear. Australia should be part of that rapid worldwide nuclear increase.” 

But it is not clear at all, as even the nuclear industry admits. Rob Atkinson, Australian Uranium Industry Chairman stated recently:

“…events at Fukushima at the very least look certain to complicate planning for nuclear expansion for the coming years in all countries that have been looking either to expand existing nuclear programs or commence new ones”

continue

Perhaps the ABC has FINALLY realise that given the 'choice' between Co2 production and Nuclear power....Nuclear wins hands down???

No.

Howard installed his own men in the ABC before he was booted.

They are now under the control of the right wing.

Sad..very sad.

But of course when Australians finally WAKE UP to the horrible LIES of the Liberal Party and their racist anti Islam hate speech advocate Cory Bernardi I'm sure we will be back on track for a clean green future.

Go Julia!!

Yes..it common knowledge.

Let your fingers do the walking.

I know you are dumbed down and misinformed by the 70% Murdoch press domination of my country but if you look a little further than Andrew(Gina's boy on chanell 10) Bolt and Alan(big mining is paying me a fortune to LIE) Jones, you might be able to find some truth.

It's not too hard..I'm sure you are big enough to find it if you really want to.

They'll probably stop saying 'no' when the government ctarts making some good decisions. 

Looks like we'll be waiting a while....

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 1:59pm:


Could you name any labor policies that were out in 2005, two years before the 07 election?
Thought not.

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 3:21pm:


Hmmm...Well the ABC has been pretty consistant over the years....Basically Pro-Environment and pro-whatevertheleftlikesthisweek...Which IS a pity, since programs like This Day Tonight and 4Corners used to be THE pattern for 'hard-hitting impartial' current affairs programing....