|
March 26, 2011
Reports are emerging that parts of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant were so damaged and contaminated that it would be even harder to bring the plant under control soon; that the reactor vessel of the No. 3 unit may have been damaged; and that Japanese officials have begun encouraging people to evacuate a larger band of territory around the complex.
Some Right factional ministers in the Rann Government in South Australia have emerged as cheerleaders for the nuclear industry in Australia. Thus Tom Koutsantonis, South Australia's Minister for Minerals Resources and Development, recently argued to the Paydirt Uranium conference, that it is now necessary to step up to the plate and argue for nuclear power in Australia.
Koutsantonis, who sees himself as a progressive figure, attacked the hysteria around the effects of radiation, given the safety of nuclear reactors in Japan. There were no deaths from radiation, he said, unlike the thousands of deaths from the earthquake and the tsunami. South Australia, in his view, should be enriching uranium within 10-30 years and its storage in South Australia.
This is the nuclear industry's spin: it is good newsstory. Despite the events in Japan, nuclear is a safe, affordable and “clean” energy source that does not spew harmful carbons into the environment or rely on foreign producers.
Often the enframing of the issue of whether Australia should have nuclear power is in terms of nuclear power, or it’s climate change. Many of those who defend nuclear power accept this frame, and do so without arguing for why the debate should be enframed this way, given the emergence of renewable energy industry (solar, wind geothermal)into the energy mix.
A classic example is Kevin Foley, the ex -Treasurer of SA, who quickly came out and backed Koutsantonis' call for uranium enrichment and advocated domestic nuclear power: mine it, enrich it, store the by-product, produce energy, and store the waste. South Australian governments have a long history of spruiking for a nuclear power plant in SA (Port Augusta, SA has been mentioned in the past).
Now the Labor' Right's justification for Australia going nuclear is that it is the only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They reckon it is inevitable, and presumably, they want the commonwealth to subsidize it's construction and the costs of waste management and storage. BP Billiton sure ain't going to build an uranium-enrichment-industry-in-SA on its own. The Labor Right say it will even create new jobs! Oh, and they add when pressed, that the liability of nuclear power plants would need to be limited should a catastrophe like the one in Japan happen here in Australia.
The best that can be said of this event is that the SA Labor Party is now officially divided, and that many Labor politicians on the Right have supported, and continue to support, the nuclear industry.
It's a strange time to let the cat out of the bag that the SA Government is behind the push to spruik nuclear power in South Australia, since reports from Japan indicate that there are now abnormal levels of radiation in milk, some vegetables, tap water, sea water and sea food. You would think that they'd be less hairy chested and show more concern for the plight of the Japanese people especially the workers inside the plant who are sacrificing themselves.
My own view is that the nuclear industry is a snake-oil culture of habitual misrepresentation, pervasive wishful thinking, deep denial, and occasional outright deception. For more than 50 years, it has habitually lied about risks and costs while covering up every violation and failure it could. We have seen this once again around the Fukushima disaster.
|
Re the subsidy bit.
It's a scenario we all know well: private corporations take away profits when things go well, and taxpayers assume responsibility when shit happens.