Terms of reference are key to Howards reports. The Cole report into AWB paying $300 million to Saddam Hussain was framed so that the governments culpability in the affair was not to be investigated.
Appendix A. 1 Economic Issues (c)
Howard: "The extent and circumstances in which
nuclear energy could in the longer term
be economically competitive in Australia
with other existing electricity generation
technologies, including any implications
this would have for the national
electricity market."
Key findings of the Report (page. 2)
Ziggy: Nuclear power is likely to be between 20 and 50 per cent more costly to produce than
power from a new coal-fired plant at current
fossil fuel prices in Australia. This gap may
close in the decades ahead, but nuclear
power, and renewable energy sources,
are only likely to become competitive in
Australia in a system where the costs of
greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly
recognised. Even then, private investment
in the first-built nuclear reactors may
require some form of government support
or directive.
So nuclear power is expensive. So is solar and wind power.
What if Chernobyl had been a wind farm?
What do solar power stations do with their waste?
Why are solar and wind not suggested as preferable options? Because the terms of reference did not include comparing with other options.
Appendix S. Depleted Uranium
Several submissions to the Review argued
that exposure to depleted uranium, including
depleted uranium weapons, is responsible for
severe health effects. The conclusions of these
submissions are not supported by experts in
the health physics community in Australia
and overseas.
This goes against what I've read. Need to investigate.
Depleted uranium sourced from Australian
uranium is covered by Australia’s nuclear
safeguards requirements and cannot be
used for any military application.
I don't trust that this is the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment