Copy of a letter I sent to practically every politician in Australia. I recieved several replies including one from the leader of the Democrats. For privacy reasons I haven't published them in their entirety or part. I give a brief summary of two responses at the end of the page.
To The Honourable ************, Member for
********.
I am writing to you concerning the very grave
situation of Australias latest in an unending series
of drought crisis. There is a longterm technological
solution to this problem which I feel compelled to
raise. We are as you know the driest continent on
Earth. Our population is steadily increasing and fresh
water is a major priority for sustainable development.
Where it cannot be obtained from natural sources,
desalination of seawater or mineralised groundwater is
now a viable alternative. Even on the scale of
supplying an entire continents needs.
Most desalination plants today are powered by fossil
fuels which increase greenhouse emissions. Clearly
that is not a desirable option. We already produce far
too much carbon dioxide. Desalination is an energy
intensive process which can use a variety of low
temperature heat sources depending on relative
economic values. By far the most practical if
controversial source of energy to solve Australia's
water shortage is nuclear power. Nuclear energy has
already been widely used for this purpose and has the
potential for much greater use. Japan has ten
desalination facilities linked to pressurised water
reactors. Much relevant experience comes from nuclear
plants in Russia, Eastern Europe and Canada.
Australia is practically the only developed country
not using electricity derived from nuclear energy. A
proposal to build a 500MWe reactor at Jervis Bay, NSW
was shelved in 1972. Our abundance of cheap coal has
previosly ruled nuclear energy out of contention.
However, concerns about Global Warming have recently
put it back on the table. Uranium is plentiful in
Australia. In 2000 our Uranium exports fuelled the
electricity production for 45 million people and saved
the emission of over 300 million tons of carbon
dioxide. We own 25-30% of the Worlds low cost Uranium
resources, yet produce only 19% of World mining
output. Canada by comparison has expanded its
production to more than 30% of World output, on a
lower resource base.
Nuclear powered desalination of sea water would solve
Australia's drought problems. Forever. It is a
proposal worthy of intensive scrutiny. Especially now,
seeing that the World is moving steadily toward a
nuclear renaissance. Recently, nuclear industry
executives and U.S. government officials gathered in
Washington, DC for a conference called The Nuclear
Renaissance. A comeback for nuclear power in the U.S.
A few days before that, the World Nuclear
Association's Annual Symposium in London featured a
session on the same subject.
At the session, Dr Andrei Gagarinski, a director of
international affairs at Russia's Kurchatov Institute,
said his atomic research facility had teamed with the
U.S. Department of Energy owned Sandia National
Laboratories to put together "a new atoms for peace
and prosperity program". It was considered at
President George Bush's summit meeting with Russian
President Vladimir Putin aswell. Robin Jeffrey,
chairman of British Energy has also called for a
nuclear renaissance. Finland has brought an end to
Europes gradual phasing out of nuclear power by
announcing the construction of a new plant. Energy
shortages and international accords obliging nations
to cut their greenhouse emissions have forced
governments to reconsider the benefits of nuclear
power. Lacking viable alternatives a number of them
including Sweden have opted to extend the life of
their plants from 40 to 50 years. This month of March
2003 there will be a Nuclear Renaissance Forum in
Chicago to further discuss the matter.
The main opportunities for nuclear powered
desalination have been identified as the 80-100,000
metres cubed per day and the 200-500,000 metres cubed
per day ranges. Australia is ideally suited for this
technology. Large-scale deployment of nuclear
desalination on a commercial basis will depend
primarily on economic factors but a tax to finance it
would most likely be acceptable to the public. They
already finance rescue packages every drought. Atleast
this time it would fix the problem rather than offer a
bandaid. It would be a final rescue. The UN's
International Atomic Agency(IAEA) is fostering
research and collaboration on this idea, with more
than 20 countries involved.
When used for generating electricity, reactors produce
no greenhouse emissions but its other wastes are
significant and are considered a major health problem.
However, these wastes are contained and managed. In
fact, nuclear power is the only energy producing
industry which takes full responsibility for all its
waste. The risks from any concievable nuclear plant
(advanced reactor type) in Australia would be even
less than those from other Western plants operating
worldwide since the 1960's, which have not caused any
loss of life in almost 10,000 reactor years of
operation. The storage problems of nuclear waste are
easily taken care of with recycling. Not only does
this virtually eliminate an already tiny amount of
biproduct. It also increases the fuel supply
indefinately. Making nuclear power far more
competitive with other forms of energy.
Breeder reactors are now being planned in India with the first
one beginning construction this April. Australia is
far better suited to taking advantage of such cutting
edge technology. President Carter of the US outlawed
breeders back in 79 in response to pressure from green
groups. Deftly killing the competitiveness of the
industry in one penstroke and almost destroying it.
Now those same grenn groups complain about the nuclear
waste THEY in fact created and are responsible for.
Some people are concerned that nuclear power presents
an unacceptable risk, though the record of nuclear
energy in the West speaks for itself in this regard.
As the greenhouse debate strongly reminded us, no
course of action or inaction is without some risk,
there is an urgent need to evaluate and compare all
options rationally, for the sake of future
generations. I am not employed by the nuclear industry
in any capacity whatsoever. The view expressed here is
entirely my own and the result of my own research into
the matter. Since arriving at these conclusions I have
come to be aware that many others advocate the same
opinion.
As an Australian citizen it grieves me to
witness the seeming inaction of Government in the face
of a national disaster of this scale. Controversial as
this answer might be, it is a real solution. A tough
decision only in the sense that it would enrage
environmental movements and lose their possible
support in an election. It is the right decision and I
believe the vast majority of Australians will welcome
an innovative response like it. Many of them are now
living in dust bowls. I believe that Water is more
important than appeasing ignorant opposition groups.
The major technologies in use for desalination are the
multi-stage flash(MSF) distillation process using
steam, and reverse osmosis(RO) driven by electric
pumps. A minority of plants use multieffect
distillation (MED) or vapour compression(VC). MSF-RO
hybrids exploit the best features of each technology
for different quality products.
Respectfully,
Wayne Smith.
I have recieved responses from the Hon Dr David
Kemp, Minister for the Environment and Heritage and
also from the leader of the Democrats. I forget his
name and feel no compulsion to bother looking it up.
The Government response was that it is uneconomical at
this point in time to pursue such an expensive option.
I would be interested in knowing whether you agree
with this assertion. I don't. The cost to this nation
in terms of farming losses makes it seem quite
ridiculous. Nuclear power is the future and we
cannot afford to ignore this fact. The Democrats are
ofcourse against nuclear power in any way or form as
they must pander to the Greens. The reasons given by
their leader displayed a clear incomprehension of the
subject. Often reiterating absurd gutter science I had
already addressed in my original letter to him.
