Introduction & Summary
This article outlines the top ten reasons to oppose uranium mining in Australia because this industry does not have significant benefits to environment and economic. The author notes that nuclear power is not a solution for global warming and majority of Australian people are not supported the uranium mining because of there are no substantial economic benefits from uranium industry. Nuclear Free QLD focus on three big issues to oppose the mining of uranium
Firstly, Nuclear Free QLD notes that the uranium mining and nuclear power produce a large amount of radioactive waste. Now, it is about 250.000 tonnes nuclear waste all over world. The growing of uranium industry will increase pressure on Australia to have responsibility about nuclear waste because some people argue that Australia has appropriate location to storage the waste.
Secondly, Nuclear Free QLD reports that nuclear power as electricity generation does not have significant impact on reducing greenhouse emission because it is only reduced 5 per cent compared to 30 per cent should be. The article ...
The need to act on global warming, the failure of federal leadership on this issue and the distorted economics of the energy market mean Australia should go nuclear: more uranium mining, uranium enrichment, domestic nuclear power and international radioactive waste storage.
This is done to make sure the risk of meltdown is minimized. The nuclear waste is so toxic that every precaution is taken to make sure of is disposed of safely to keep it from poisoning the environment. In an article titled 11 Facts about Nuclear Energy we find out that, “Every 18 to 24 months a power plant must shut down to remove its spent uranium fuel.” Nuclear Power plants can have a meltdown that releases extremely toxic waste into the environment. The reason some people are opposed to nuclear power plants, some estimates say that there is a 50% chance of a meltdown in a U.S. reactor in the next 20 years (“55 Interesting Facts about. Nuclear Energy”). These meltdowns can be small or large, both of them take a lot of money and time. The Three Mile Island disaster alone took 975 million dollars and 14 years to clean up (“55 Interesting Facts about. Nuclear
Although nuclear energy may emit less carbon dioxide as compared to oil or gas, it is nowhere near the alternative energy source we need. A Huffington Post article showed that water shortages, exacerbated by global climate change, minimizes the ability for expansion of nuclear power plants. As the generators require large amounts of water to keep them cool, they must be built on large water sources, mostly rivers and lakes. This reliance on water severely limits the places the nuclear power plants could be built, which makes nuclear an unreliable resource to replace oil and gas in the future as it could not meet all our energy needs. Furthermore, in 2009, France was forced to shut down many of their power plants due to the unseasonably warm summer it had, most likely caused by climate change. As our Earth continues to heat up and more places experience drought, nuclear energy is less and less reliable due to the reliance on cold water. Additionally, runoff from the water flows into nearby water sources, causing thermal pollution to the animals and ecological consequences. Coupled with the fact that we still have no idea how to properly dispose of the waste material left behind from nuclear reactions, nuclear power is not the alternative energy that solves major world problems. This hurts future generations, as we will not only create yet another reliance on an energy source that harms the planet, but divert attention away from truly solving the issue on hand. A Bloomberg New Energy Finance report from early June projects that as early as 2028, solar energy can replace the oil and gas sector demands. The cost of projection would also decrease for both solar and wind energy by 66-71% within the next ten years as well. Solar and wind have considerably less risks to the environment and, regarding these as more possible
...nce World War II to the present day, the technology of nuclear power has increased significantly in terms of energy output and safety. The energy efficiency of nuclear power is far superior to its counterpart fossil fuel and renewable energy. Compared to fossil fuels, tiny amounts of fuel used by nuclear reactors is equivalent to a large sum of coal. This is a no brainer. Why mine a ton of coal when a little uranium can be used to gain the same amount of energy? Not only is it efficient, it’s safe to use. Used fuel is packed away in storage safely, so there isn’t any chance of radiation leaking out. In the present day, nuclear power incidents haven’t been occurring lately. Advancements in technology and equipment used have made nuclear energy a very reliable and safe source of energy. With today’s energy needs, nuclear power has the ability to keep up in the race.
Outhred, H, 2006, What Role For Nuclear Power In The Australian Electricity Industry? AIE National Conference – Energy at the crossroads – November 2006 , Nuclear power in the Australian Electricity Industry, University of New South Wales.
...for nuclear power has declined as support for renewable energy has increased. Though nuclear power produces zero energy and is seen by many as a cheap way to reduce the world’s carbon emissions (Kessides 2012), several major factors have affected its support amongst the general population. Incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima have forever shifted support away from nuclear power (Burton 2006, Cyranoski & Brumfiel 2011) as governments shift support to renewable energy sources that do not pose the same risk.
Green America, an anti-nuclear website points out the nuclear powered energy makes a lot of waste. Waste in fact is maybe the most negative thing about nuclear energy. But, through more advanced technology, waste may be able to be reduced to nothing.
As populations grow, countries develop and industries boom, demand for energy continues to increase. Many countries see nuclear power as a way of meeting their electricity needs while reducing their CO2 emissions. There are many misconceptions in society about nuclear power. While it may be dangerous, nuclear can solve the energy demand for a country’s growing population, particularly Australia. The truth behind nuclear physics will be discussed in this report, the types of nuclear radiations and its effects, the enormous amount of energy a nuclear reaction can produce, the developments of nuclear generators, along with suggestions for Australia regarding the development of nuclear power plant in the country.
“Every dollar spent on nuclear energy is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand” (Jacobson). Most countries today are becoming more and more dependent on nuclear power as a source of energy because of its high energy output and the availability of uranium used for fuelling nuclear reactors that generate power to provide electricity in households. Although using nuclear power as a source of energy has benefits like this, the danger posed by using nuclear power is too ominous.
Like I said before, no source of energy comes without flaws. First of all, uranium mining isn’t a sanitary process, and can provide pollution hazards in the radius that the uranium was disposed of. Also, Nuclear waste is extremely difficult to store, as it is highly radioactive and has to be stored properly. Consequently, it would take hundreds of years for the radioactive material to actually be at a safe level. Nevertheless, accidents that release chemicals can have harmful effects on the people near the area, the environment, and will leave the area contaminated, or at a uninhabitable
Amongst the numerous benefits of uranium mining, production of uranium from mining has a significant impact on sustainable global energy production. As seen in the table (Figure 3) extracted from the World Nuclear Association’s report on the benefits of using uranium as a primary source of obtaining electricity, Uranium generates the highest capacity of energy per kilogram when combusted, proving to be the most exothermic. Hence, being the most viable supply of energy in comparison to other fossil fuels, uranium mining has the potential to becoming a preeminent source of electricity in future.
Nuclear power is known to us as a source of energy and not much more than that. We do not consider the risks of this power source in which we use. Using nuclear power plants hurts our planet by producing harmful fumes and radioactive wastes. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that has to be disposed properly but even with precautions the waste stays dangerously radioactive for several years with nothing we can do about it. It is not only dangerous because of life of the radioactive waste but also the consideration that it might be spilled in an area in which can harm our planet even more and/or people and animals. These power plants are technically atomic bombs since they have the same process to be able to produce high outputs of energy, messing around with atoms, which can be extremely dangerous. They are not only dangerous because of their output but also because their behavior is unpredictable when there is no systems to cool them down. For example, not to long ago Japan was struck by a massive earthquake which tampered with their nuclear power plants controlling systems and they were afraid that if the plants heated up to much they would explode. Japan had many fail-safes but in such a disaster as they were in we have to expect the unexpected. Nuclear power plants need to many precautions. If we switched our dependency on these plants we would be able to live a much more healthier and safer life. We can switch to green alternatives
Nuclear power is a very interesting yet controversial subject. One of the main benefits of nuclear power is the electricity produced by nuclear power plants. These plants produce one-fifth of the electricity used in the United States, providing more electricity than other sources like solar and wind. It is claimed that of all of the energy sources available, nuclear energy probably has the lowest impact on the environment, because nuclear power plants do not release harmful gases that can threaten the air, land, water or cause impact on global warming. So, if the energy produced by nuclear power is a cleaner, more environmentally friendly and efficient source of power, then where is the controversy? The controversy is not necessarily in nuclear power itself, but instead in the “front end” process of obtaining the uranium needed for it, and the “back end” process of disposing of it after it is used.
As one of the greatest alternatives to fossil fuels, an important advantage of nuclear energy is the significantly lower emission rate of CO2 in comparison to plants which use coal and natural gas.2 Nuclear power is not reliant on fossil fuels and therefore producing energy by this method reduces pollution and the contribution to climate change. However, whilst the actual process of generating energy releases few emissions, uranium must be mined and purified and in the past this has not always been an environmentally clean process.2 Ultimately, uranium will one day run out, but nuclear reactors are versatile and may also run on Thorium. Despite being finite, this would allow nuclear power stations to function for a longer period of time.
One downside to nuclear energy is that even though it does not produce any greenhouse gases, we would eventually run out of uranium, which is why it is not considered a renewable resource1. Another downside is that the use of nuclear facilities and energy do produce radiation. The radiation, however, is released in very tiny levels that are regulated in order to keep people and their lives safe. The power plants produce radioactive liquid waste and gases during use, but the plants have tanks that are used to store those gases and liquids until their radioactive levels have dropped and are safe to be treated and release in a safe fashion1. However, if in the event of a disaster, in which the radiation is somehow release in a larger amount, the effects of nearby life would be devastating. This can kill people in a matter of days due to radiation poisoning and if not death, it can have a great effect on those who were exposed to unsafe levels of the radioactive wastes and its radiation. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of these clean nuclear plants is the cost1. Not only do they cost a lot to make, but to decommission them is very costly. It cost about seven billion euros in order to shut them down safely. To mine Uranium is expensive as well. As a result, Uranium is only mined in a few countries in the world which include Canada, Australia, and Kasakhstan3.