Major General Jeffrey says the use of thorium as a nuclear fuel alternative could prove to be an important means of securing Australia's future energy supply

 Nuclear Waste
14 November 2007

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders): Since 3 May 2006, when I spoke of hearing Mr Wilson da Silver on the ABC Science Show, I have mentioned in this house the need to take the mineral thorium seriously to help us to take back the nuclear waste safely, particularly plutonium, created from the sale of our uranium. I believe that we are morally obliged to take back these wastes to ensure a safer world, as currently, our uranium, after use, can easily find its way to less stable countries where it could be used to devastate us and the people of the world far more efficiently than climate change ever will.

On 7 March 2007, I recommended the article 'New Age Nuclear' by Tim Dean in the April 2006 issue No. 8 of Cosmos magazine. I heard almost nothing about thorium since then until, to my amazement, I opened The Advertiser Review of Saturday 3 November 2007 to page 2 under 'Can You Believe It?' with Professor Stephen Lincoln, entitled 'Uranium alternative: A safer, more plentiful nuclear fuel is in our backyard'. In a box headed 'The “other” nuclear fuel' three points were made as follows:

· There is three times more known thorium than uranium. A quarter of these reserves are in Australia.

· Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction alone, making it a safer fuel and reducing its usefulness as a weapon.

· The radioactive waste produced by thorium has a shorter life span than normal uranium fuels.

I am delighted that Professor Lincoln is a professor of chemistry at our very own University of Adelaide and I note that he is the author of Challenged Earth which I have yet to find time to read. However, I want to quote his article, which was buried on page 2 of the Review, in order to draw it to the attention of a broader audience than it probably found there in the hope that the government (both state and federal) will invest in thorium research. Hopefully, they might reconsider taking back our nuclear waste and help replace nuclear power stations around the world with thorium ones. The article stated:

Is this too good to be true? A fuel that offers to reduce climate-change gases and consume dangerous weapons-grade plutonium and uranium? Uranium has a new competitor: the dense silvery metal thorium-232. Named after Thor, the Norse god of thunder, the slightly radioactive thorium-232 is three times as plentiful as uranium. Australia has 300,000 tonnes of it in the form of monazite sands, a quarter of world’s known deposits. Thorium-232 is not a nuclear fuel. However, it is very close to being one. Thorium-232, when hit by a neutron, can change into uranium-233, which is a nuclear fuel similar to the uranium-235 used in nuclear reactors now...

When uranium-233 is 'burnt', a neutron strikes a uranium-233 nucleus which splits into lighter nuclei—otherwise known as fission products—and more neutrons. These 'loose' neutrons then go on to strike another uranium-233 nucleus, forming what is known as a 'chain reaction'. As the nucleus breaks apart, it generates heat which may be used to produce high-pressure steam to drive electricity turbines.

However, when the thorium-232-produced uranium-233 is split by a neutron, it does not produce enough extra neutrons to sustain the energy-producing chain reaction. It needs an extra 'injection' of neutrons. This is where weapons-grade nuclear materials come into the picture. Since the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty of 1968, the dismantling of nuclear warheads has made redundant hundreds of tonnes of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium-235 and plutonium-239. These explosives must be stored safely to avoid accident and theft. Thorium-232 reactors offer a path to transform these metals into less dangerous materials.

Fuel rods containing mainly thorium-232 can be 'primed' with a smaller amount of either uranium-235 or plutonium-239. This provides the neutrons to transform the more stable thorium-232. These primed thorium-232 rods have another, commercially attractive advantage: they can be used in existing conventional nuclear reactors. Without the weapons-grade plutonium-239 and uranium-235, with thorium-232 reactors will need another source of neutrons. This can be produced by electrically driven linear accelerators. These shoot a 'beam' of neutrons into the thorium-232 to keep it 'burning'. These accelerators can be switched off, stopping the thorium-232 reaction immediately. Because there is three times more thorium than known uranium deposits, it promises a longer-lasting source of non renewable energy. And 'burnt' thorium-232 produces less long-lived radioactive waste than its counterpart.

Time expired.

Nuclear Waste
6 June 2002

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders): The subject of nuclear waste has been drenched with misinformation and politicised to the point of absurdity. The Labor Party, at both state and federal level, has been actively involved with the search for a national nuclear waste repository since at least 1986. The 1991 Labor state government of which Premier Mike Rann was a cabinet member was actively involved with the then Labor federal government in seeking a national nuclear waste repository. I quote from a letter written by Dr Don Hopgood, then state Deputy Premier, to Simon Crean, then federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Dr Hopgood stated:

South Australian government officials have participated from the outset in the collaborative development of proposals for national radioactive waste facilities through the Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee, and they took part in the desk study completed in 1986 to identify broad areas of Australia that are likely to contain sites satisfying the International Atomic Energy Agency’s criteria for siting a low level radioactive waste repository.

Labor’s public opposition to a nuclear waste facility is simply grandstanding, using misinformation to generate fear in the community. Why were they willing to acknowledge acceptable selected sites in 1986 under a federal Labor government but in 2002, under a federal Liberal government, those same potential sites are suddenly taboo? Let us examine the fear that surrounds anything nuclear. Where does the fear come from?

When the nuclear industry was in its infancy in the 1930s it was hailed with positive excitement as a boon to humankind, principally due to the invention of X-rays for medical use. The Second World War was followed by the Cold War of the 1950s in which western free thinking was opposed by communist ideology. The threat of a nuclear war was used to gain public support for the development and maintenance of the defence industry and personnel. Propaganda played on fear, fear of another world war and of the destruction that such a war would bring. But fear is a powerful motivator, especially when it is allied with ignorance.

Leadership—that is, genuine positive leadership—means giving the public all the facts, not just those that suit a particular facet of an argument. The Labor government is not showing sound leadership in its handling of the nuclear waste debate. We are all subject to radioactivity all the time: it is  part of the environment. Chernobyl was one of the earliest nuclear power generators. Technology has advanced since that time, as would be expected. It is rather like comparing the first vehicles with the cars being manufactured today. Even such a small thing as tyres changing from solid rubber to pneumatic can be overlooked in such a comparison.

The fear of radiation health effects, particularly from severe accidents and radioactive waste, is central to public concerns about the nuclear industry but, as mentioned before, radiation is a fact of everyday life. Radiation is a natural component of the air we breathe, of the earth we walk on, of the homes we live in, of the food we eat and of human tissue and bones. It will be a major step forward when we consider the nuclear industry in the same way as we look upon coal, gas, oil or chemicals. It is an industry where potential negatives must be ascertained and adequate safeguards put in place, as is done in other industries.

I doubt that anyone would propose that the chemical industry be abandoned, yet this has the potential to cause massive ill health, deaths and environmental disasters. The 1984 accident at a chemical plant at Bhopal in India caused some 3 000 early deaths and severely affected the health of several hundred thousand. The fossil fuel industry has likewise had some catastrophic accidents. A  pipeline gas leak explosion in the Urals involved 500 fatalities, while the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker accident in Alaska led to severe environmental damage.

The disposal of empty chemical drums and waste oil is a concern. However, the concern is met with commonsense so that  acceptable, practical solutions are worked out. Let us treat the nuclear industry the same way. Let us look at the environment for a few moments. We are all—or should be— concerned about global warming. That is brought about largely by the use of fossil fuels. Power generation is a considerable component of that use. If we are serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the pollutant effects of the fossil fuels industry, then we would be examining nuclear power generation as an alternative option, along with wind and solar power generation. Forward thinking countries are already doing this. I quote from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) figures from 1997, as follows:

Globally, the nuclear share of electricity is more than 20 per cent in 19 countries. Regionally in 1996, western Europe, with a 33 per cent share, had the highest percentage of nuclear electricity—the  nuclear share in France, Belgium and Sweden being 77, 57 and 52 per cent respectively. Two large plants in Lithuania supplied almost 85 per cent of the country’s electricity requirements.

With a continuation of the current trend, the next century [which is the one we are now in] will see global electricity demand grow faster than overall energy demand as electricity provides the greatest flexibility in use at the point of consumption. Already, Turkey, an example of a rapidly industrialising developing country, has seen its electricity capacity increase tenfold in 25 years.

It is plain commonsense to produce electricity using technology that has the least effect on the environment. That means a move away from the use of fossil fuels, a move that the oil industry will doubtless oppose strongly. It means an increasing use of nuclear generators, and that means, of course, that waste repositories will be needed. And they must be safe ones.

When this whole nuclear waste debate gained momentum a couple or so years ago, a then 17 year old supported the establishment of a waste repository in South Australia to take all grades of nuclear waste. His comment was that South Australia could charge for material deposited in such a facility, thus generating revenue for the state—revenue that could be used for health, education, roads, scientific research or any of the many other areas where the government never has enough funds to meet perceived needs. The suggestion is one that I support and one that I have heard regularly since from all age groups.

Port Lincoln resident and South Australian advocate for a nuclear waste dump, Terry Krieg, calls for public debate and education on nuclear waste disposal. He believes that there is massive community ignorance despite nuclear materials, including waste, having been handled safely since the late 1960s. He suggests that a waste repository could become a new and valuable industry for the state. He stated:

I didn’t create the problem but I’m prepared to help find a solution. We can help isolate the waste from the environment forever and it will be good for the earth and for the South Australian economy.

However, the issues would need to be debated rationally and factually, rather than like the debates that now take place in a sea of misinformation, fear and hysteria. Much of the current debate gives the impression that nuclear waste is somehow to be avoided at all costs. Yet what we are talking about is waste—whether low, intermediate or high level— from the everyday use of nuclear technology. Some examples of short-lived intermediate level waste are exit signs, industrial smoke detectors and radium painted watch or instrument dials (the type that glows in the dark).

Smoke detectors are probably one of the most common everyday uses of nuclear technology. Many detectors contain a tiny amount of radioactive material, which makes the detector sensitive to smoke. These smoke detectors save lives. The eventual waste product has to go somewhere. I repeat: nuclear waste products have to go somewhere. The alternative is to reject any nuclear technology. Try to imagine a world without X-rays, radiology, soil testing, radiotherapy, scans, and the ability to track hidden courses as diverse as underground water or blood circulation in the body.

My own husband Geoff was so irradiated to kill cancer cells when our children were young that I was advised that our children should go to live with their grandparents, and so should I if I wanted any more children. Geoff recently turned 60 and is in good health, despite very high radiation, in fact, because of it.

I commend Port Lincoln Mayor Peter Davis on his stand supporting the establishment of a low level radioactive waste repository in South Australia and regret that it was not supported by the Port Lincoln city council. Mayor Davis observed:

If we don’t support a low level radioactive waste repository, then we shouldn’t have smoke detectors, no glow in the dark watches, no cancer treatments, no microwaves, no road surveying technology. It’s about time we debated this issue rationally because we need to know what to do with all this stuff instead of storing it unsafely in cupboards in Adelaide.

Mayor Davis, addressing the Local Government Association in Adelaide earlier this year, stated:

Nuclear technology is not going to stop tomorrow so we need to find a sensible place to store the waste instead of it being stored in hospital cupboards. In fact, if the geologists and nuclear physicists say it would be in my backyard, then that’s where it will be.

I support a nuclear waste facility in whatever location is deemed safest and best. If that is South Australia, so be it. Also, let us look at charging other states if they want to make use of it. Of course, if the state Labor government misses the opportunity to set up a financial stream for the state and the facility is set up by the commonwealth, we will still have the facility with no ancillary financial benefit to the state. We will probably have to pay them.

Premier Mike Rann is very keen to fritter away the state’s funds on a referendum. It has been estimated that such a referendum would cost about $6.4 million for the Electoral Commission alone, without the educating process that is essential to enable people to make a choice. A good leader accepts responsibility, along with the power that accompanies leadership. It seems that Mr Rann wants the power without the responsibility. Being able to blame someone or something else—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. From early in the member for Flinders’ forthright contribution, she continues to refer to the Premier by his Christian name and surname, particularly by his surname. I ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, to draw to her attention the requirement to refer to the Premier by his office or his electorate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Snelling): The Attorney-General is always on the alert. I missed the references, and I ask the member for Flinders to refer to their members by their titles.

Mrs PENFOLD: My apologies, Mr Acting Speaker.
Mr Barry Wakelin, federal member for Grey, the federal electorate where a facility may be sited, recently stated in the local paper:
This nuclear waste is as a result of extremely useful purposes in many cases about saving human life.
He asked a number of questions of the Premier, including:
1. Where he will store his South Australian waste safely? Or will he continue to leave it in many places all over the state, as is currently the situation?
2. What does Simon Crean, the federal Labor leader, say after initiating the policy for a national repository in 1991 and then dumping waste in Woomera in 1994-95?
3. Will Mr Rann abolish the use of nuclear products—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, not again.

Mrs PENFOLD: No, this is a quote. I am allowed to do so in a quote, am I not?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Okay, go ahead.

Mrs PENFOLD: Thank you. He asked:
3. Will Mr Rann abolish the use of nuclear products which save lives?

Let us bring sanity back into the nuclear debate. We have a nuclear industry; it is a part of our 21st century life. The industry will generate waste. Let us store that waste in the most appropriate geographical and politically safe location. If that is the north of South Australia, then let us support the decision with commonsense.
 

Back to Speeches

E-mail address:  flinders.portlincoln@parliament.sa.gov.au