The film team has finally arrived Down Under.

Many environmental groups, different independent media groups and other organisations from all over the country have given us a very warm welcome in Australia. We would like to thank everyone for their support 🙂
Four of has have travelled to the other side of the world to show that nuclear power is embedded into a global production process. For us, weighing up the pros and cons of nuclear power has to include weighing up all aspects of nuclear power that arise at any step of the production chain.

What do we know about the steps of the global nuclear process? We have heard a lot about global warming and climate change in the last month. What has nuclear power got to do with all this? Some say, nuclear power is the solution to climate change. That it emits almost no CO2 – even less or about the same as wind power. Is nuclear power really the solution to our future energy needs?

We want to show that the nuclear power we are using in Europe is embedded into a production process that spans the globe. Uranium is the fule for nuclear power. The mining of uranium is the first step of a nuclear production process.

What is uranium? Where does it come from? What advantages and disadvantages does it’s mining hold for people affected by it? We are here to find out.

Uranium mining in Australia

Australia holds the world’s largest uranium deposits and is the world’s second largest export nation of the nuclear fuel. Australia is currently looking at widely expanding it’s uranium mining activities.

What does uranium mining mean for Australians both in cities and in the Outback, for indigenous people and non-indigenous Australians alike, both for industry and politics? What economic advantages do people see in it? And what about environmental and health impacts?

Our film team has travelled to Australia to ask different people from different backgrounds these questions. We are interviewing decision makers from governmental and non-governmental organisations, science, the uranium industry as well as traditional landowners.

Whilst we do have our own point of view on the issue, we try to keep our approach as balanced as possible:

What we think:

Alone taking the risks of nuclear energy itself into account, such as waste management and the constant risk of an accident, we do not believe that this is a save, clean or cheap source of energy. 1000 nuclear power plants would have to be build in order to reduce the world’s green house gases by 5-7% . A realistic and affective way to stop Climate Change?

An expansion of nuclear power on this scale would mean that the world’s uranium reserves would be finished in a few decades.

What others think:

The number of people who believe in the nuclear industry as a solution to climate change seems to be growing. In their eyes, uranium mining is not different to other forms of mining, let’s say coal or copper.

Uranium mining certainly does provide Australia with economic advantages. We are here to document these advantages, as well as the negative aspects.

What is the film team doing Down Under?

The first two weeks of our arrival in Melbourne were reserved for research and networking.

One major event in recent Australian politics that affected us definetely was the new Labor government’s apology to the Stolen Generation of indigenous people.

Soon you can read about this journey of ours to the Tent Embassy in Canberra where we documented the government’s Apology to the Stolen Generation and interviewed Traditional Landowners.

For further reading on the Sorry speech go to:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sorry-speech-revealed/2008/02/12/1202760289239.html
****** Background information nuclear power in Europe******************************
About 30% of Europe’s electricity derives from nuclear power. Some countries using nuclear power as their main source such as France with over 50 nuclear power plants, others only having a few reactors such as Switzerland and again other countries having none at all such as Denmark or Italy. The latter pulled out of nuclear power after the devastating accident in Chernobly in 1986.

On the contrary, Great Britain just decided to build new nuclear power plants replacing the old ones, thus committing themselves to at least another 70 years to nuclear power.

Despite a phase-out legislation in Germany according to which we are slowly pulling out of nuclear power, the issue is not totally banned yet: We still have 17 operating nuclear power plants today. With climate change and the nuclear lobby’s claim of being able to reduce green house gasses on a large scale, this policy might change again: Chancellor Angela Merkel has already stated at several occasions that she would like to rethink the nuclear issue and possible let the existing nuclear power plants run longer.

With about 1 Million Euros profit from a nuclear power plant per day the nuclear industry’s interest of sticking to nuclear power is understandable – from an economic point of view at least. Yet, when a nation admits oneself to nuclear power all the chances as well as the risks for everyone involved have to be weighed up.

Keeping in mind that nuclear power is a global product starting with uranium mining, we must stop thinking nationally: Not only must we weigh up the pros and cons involved for the country that uses nuclear energy. We have to start thinking on a global scale and put the pros and cons of uranium mining on the scale as well.

********************************************************************************