Independent scientists find Switkowski report flawed
Media Release November 24, 2006
Independent Scientific Panel delivers scathing analysis of Switkowski report
An independent panel of Australian scientists and nuclear experts has delivered a scathing analysis of the findings of the Switkowski nuclear inquiry. The EnergyScience Coalition analysis found that the Switkowski draft report makes a large number of flawed assumptions that reveal a bias towards nuclear energy on economic, technological, health and environmental grounds.
Key findings of the analysis include:
• The report has no basis for its claim that "Nuclear power is the least-cost low-emission technology ..." In reality, nuclear power is likely to cost more than double dirty coal power and more than wind power which would become even more competitive if a carbon tax was implemented.
• The report’s premise that nuclear energy would help to combat climate change evades the issue of the large increases in CO2 emissions from mining and milling uranium ore as the ore grade decreases from the current high-grade to low-grade over the next few decades
• The report recommends up to 25 nuclear reactors which would produce 45,000 tonnes of nuclear waste but fails to deal with how the waste would be stored or where.
• The report’s recommendation to expand Australian uranium exports is irresponsible in today's political climate and Australian nuclear materials are increasingly likely to end up in weapons programs.
• The report fails to assess potential health hazards from a nuclear program including increased risks to workers in nuclear industry and increased cancer rates and congenital malformations in the vicinity of nuclear reactors.
Coalition member Professor Jim Falk said, “The narrow terms of reference set by the federal government have restricted the panel to a study of nuclear power, not a serious study of energy options for Australia.”
“While the Switkowski panel was prevented from asking key questions, there's no reason for the rest of us to avoid them.”
“A body of existing research indicates that the objectives of meeting energy demand and reducing greenhouse emissions can be more cheaply met with a combination of renewable energy and gas to displace coal, combined with energy efficiency measures, without recourse to nuclear power.
Members of the Energyscience Coalition include Prof. Falk, retired diplomat Prof. Richard Broinowski, Assoc. Prof. Tilman Ruff and Dr. Bill Williams from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Dr. Mark Diesendorf from the University of NSW, Dr. Peter Christoff from Melbourne University, Dr. Gavin Mudd from Monash University and Dr. Jim Green from the Beyond Nuclear Initiative.
The full analysis can be downloaded from energyscience
Further information: Prof. Jim Falk 0412 290 885 or Dr. Jim Green 0417 318 368.
Media: Erin Farley 0409 510 879
Fact Sheets and other material can also be downloaded from energyscience
Independent Scientific Panel delivers scathing analysis of Switkowski report
An independent panel of Australian scientists and nuclear experts has delivered a scathing analysis of the findings of the Switkowski nuclear inquiry. The EnergyScience Coalition analysis found that the Switkowski draft report makes a large number of flawed assumptions that reveal a bias towards nuclear energy on economic, technological, health and environmental grounds.
Key findings of the analysis include:
• The report has no basis for its claim that "Nuclear power is the least-cost low-emission technology ..." In reality, nuclear power is likely to cost more than double dirty coal power and more than wind power which would become even more competitive if a carbon tax was implemented.
• The report’s premise that nuclear energy would help to combat climate change evades the issue of the large increases in CO2 emissions from mining and milling uranium ore as the ore grade decreases from the current high-grade to low-grade over the next few decades
• The report recommends up to 25 nuclear reactors which would produce 45,000 tonnes of nuclear waste but fails to deal with how the waste would be stored or where.
• The report’s recommendation to expand Australian uranium exports is irresponsible in today's political climate and Australian nuclear materials are increasingly likely to end up in weapons programs.
• The report fails to assess potential health hazards from a nuclear program including increased risks to workers in nuclear industry and increased cancer rates and congenital malformations in the vicinity of nuclear reactors.
Coalition member Professor Jim Falk said, “The narrow terms of reference set by the federal government have restricted the panel to a study of nuclear power, not a serious study of energy options for Australia.”
“While the Switkowski panel was prevented from asking key questions, there's no reason for the rest of us to avoid them.”
“A body of existing research indicates that the objectives of meeting energy demand and reducing greenhouse emissions can be more cheaply met with a combination of renewable energy and gas to displace coal, combined with energy efficiency measures, without recourse to nuclear power.
Members of the Energyscience Coalition include Prof. Falk, retired diplomat Prof. Richard Broinowski, Assoc. Prof. Tilman Ruff and Dr. Bill Williams from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Dr. Mark Diesendorf from the University of NSW, Dr. Peter Christoff from Melbourne University, Dr. Gavin Mudd from Monash University and Dr. Jim Green from the Beyond Nuclear Initiative.
The full analysis can be downloaded from energyscience
Further information: Prof. Jim Falk 0412 290 885 or Dr. Jim Green 0417 318 368.
Media: Erin Farley 0409 510 879
Fact Sheets and other material can also be downloaded from energyscience
posted by Pax Christi @ Tuesday, November 28, 2006
<< Home