hi - Any changes will not materially affect content delivered, tutorial tasks or learning objectives. Document Preview: Any changes will not materially affect content delivered, tutorial tasks or...

One of the most debatable concepts in Australia has been the Nuclear Power in Australia.
Australia has rich share of Uranium deposits which amounts to a 31 percent share and makes
Australia the world’s third largest producer of Uranium after Kazakhstan and Canada but even
after holding such position in the world there are no nuclear plants in the country which could
assist in generating electricity. The other main issue of avoiding nuclear power in the country has
been its rich extensive low cost coal and natural gas reserves. In the year 2005, the government
of Australia threatened to use their constitutional power in order to have a complete control over
the approval process for the new uranium from the authoritative concern, the anti-nuclear
Northern territory government. The government of Australia is also in negotiating terms with the
government of china to weaken the safeguards and to allow easy flow of exports of uranium in
china.
The government is favouring the adoption of nuclear power but in a survey it came out as a result
that the citizens of the country are against the installation of nuclear power as it too dangerous
and expensive. One of the prime reasons of the government favouring it seems to be the
investment of huge amounts of money and effort by the power companies. Due to such an
investment the government have huge profits and thus they have sufficient funds for promotion.
As per my understanding, I speak against the idea of nuclear power in Australia as I believe
that for a continuous supply of electricity in the Australia in a sufficient quantity is the coal and
gas. Although there has been arguments that state it is difficult for the country to rely on the
basic source of electricity in the country and other renewable energy sources because Australia is
the only country among 25 other economies without nuclear power. But I would disagree here
because nuclear power industry would take several years/decades to become operational and of
use to the people and the country. Apart from this the years that most crucially need the
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will not happen as during these period the nuclear power
industry will be in its process of getting established in Australia it would make very little or
rather no contributions. Also in the current times of financial crisis, it will become difficult to
invest in the proposed project of nuclear power plants and when we are aware that there will be
no current outcomes from the power plants.
The following are the four arguments that justify my part:
1. Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Dangerous.
To justify the arguments the following are the most dangerous accidents that have took place due
to nuclear power in other countries:
- The year 1957 – Windscale in Britain
- The year 1979 – Three Mile Island in the United States
- The year 1986 – Chernobyl in the Soviet Union
- At present – Fukushima
All the accidents that are mentioned above were unique in there way and were supposedly
impossible to take place.
According to a recent book, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the
Environment, in the years 1986 to 2004 there has been 985,000 people who died due to cancer
just because of the accident at Chernobyl. The New York representative of the nuclear age peace
foundation, Alice starter also comments: "The tragic news uncovered by comprehensive new
research that almost one million people died in the toxic aftermath of Chernobyl should be a
wake-up call to people all over the world to petition their governments to put a halt to the current
industry-driven 'nuclear renaissance, aided by a corrupt IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency)".
The accident at Fukushima was the considered as the worst industrial disaster ever. It was the
impossibility of stopping the three simultaneous on-going meltdowns, which started almost two
years ago. The effect is such that at present these meltdowns are still emitting radiations
polluting the Japanese landscape. According to the...