Nuclear news - mostly Australian
June-September 2006
* Alliance Against Uranium
* Radioactive Exposure Tour
* Pictures and Animation
* Are You Accidentally Investing In Uranium?
* Prof. Richard Broinowski On Oz Nuclear Developments - And Ausralia's Nuclear Weapons History
* The Secret Push For Nuclear Weapons In Australia In The '60s
* Asia's Arms Race And Australian Uranium
* Clean Energy Solutions To Climate Change
* Nuclear No Solution To Climate Change
* George Monbiot in The Guardian
* Clive Hamilton and ACF on Tim Flannery
* Uranium Enrichment for Australia?
* Enrichment in the USA
* Plan for Commonwealth Nuclear Dump in the NT
* Trashing Land Rights to Mine Uranium
* Foreign vs Australian Ownership of Uranium Mines
* USA - Australian Government Nukes Talks Kept Secret
* Macfarlane's Nuclear Trip to Scotland Backfires
* Uranium Industry Framework, and the Nuclear Fuel Leasing Group
* Australia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle Inquiry - UMPNER
* Nuclear Power for Australia?
* Nuclear Power - Economics
* Uranium Mining - Queensland
* Uranium Mining - ALP
* Uranium Mining - Exploration
* Uranium Mining - Honeymoon
* Uranium Mining - Various
* Uranium Mining - Roxby Downs
* Parsons Brinckerhoff Doing Howard's Dirty Work
* Lucas Heights - Various
* 'Clean' Coal
* Australia as the World's Nuclear Waste Dump
* Russia As Global Nuclear Dump
* Nuclear Desalination in Australia
* Geothermal Energy for Roxby Downs?
* Maralinga Health Study
* Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
* Depleted Uranium - Israel
* Global Nuclear Power Decline Predicted
* Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - More Stalling
* Indonesia Plans Nuclear Power
* Fusion
* UK Nukes - New Reactors + Safety Concerns
* Nuclear Accidents in Japan
* China Set to Fuel New Nuclear Arms Race
* Depleted Uranium
* Nuclear Smuggling, Proliferation, Black Market
* Nuclear Power - Safe As Houses ... Not.
* Nuclear Scare In Sweden
* Nuclear Vs Clean Energy Otions in The USA
* UK Study On Risks Of Nuclear Dumps
* Sellafield - Thorp Accident
* Risks of Ageing Nuclear Reactors
* Nuclear Waste In France
* Worldwatch 'Vital Signs'
------------------->
* ALLIANCE AGAINST URANIUM
------------------->
Statement of the Alliance Against Uranium
July 29-30 2006
The meeting was
attended by members from Arrernte, Luritja, Adnymathahana, Arabunna,
Warlmanpa and Larrakia/Wulna Aboriginal Nations , Engawala and Atitjere
communities and environmental, public health and social justice groups
including; Friends of the Earth, Medical Association for the Prevention
of War, the Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA, Australian Conservation
Foundation, The Wilderness Society, Arid Lands Environment Centre,
Environment Centre NT, Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Australian Student
Environment Network, Canberra Region Anti Nuclear Campaign, Queensland
Nuclear Free Alliance.
The meeting was
held on Athenge Lhere land at Mt Everard near Alice Springs in Central
Australia. This is one of the areas now being targeted by the Federal
Government as a potential Commonwealth radioactive waste dump, along
with sites at Harts Range, Fishers Ridge and Muckaty Station – all in
the NT.
The meeting
opposed plans to dump radioactive waste at any site in the Northern
Territory and condemned the imposition of a nuclear dump anywhere in
Australia. The meeting recognised the strong opposition from
Traditional Owners and committed to actively campaign against the dump
across Australia.
The meeting
affirmed the right of Traditional Aboriginal Owners to enjoy clean
country and clean water and practice strong culture and called on all
political parties to oppose moves for more uranium mining, radioactive
waste dumping and other nuclear developments.
The meeting
heard the deep concerns by Indigenous people over the impacts of
nuclear activities on land, water, bush tucker and culture.
Participants at
the meeting undertook to build networks, share information and campaign
together towards a safe, clean nuclear free Australia.
------------------->
* RADIOACTIVE EXPOSURE TOUR
------------------->
The 2006
Radioactive Exposure Tour was just totally amazing ... here is a
write-up by Adelaide peacenik and eternally disappointed Crows
supporter Caz ...
(no) fear and loathing in the desert
by Caron Ward
Hunter S.
Thompson would’ve been impressed. For those who’ve read his seminal
book ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’, you’ll know what I’m talking
about ; for those who haven’t – it’s a great read. On the
Radioactive Exposure Tour ’06, we cruised desert roads day after day,
but without Hunter and Gonzo’s store of pharmacopoeia – we carried
stores of organic food instead. After all, it’s not the 1960’s
anymore. (Is that wistful sighs I hear?) But there was NO
fear – we were on a mission of learning and connection. Sadly
though, there WAS much loathing – Roxby Down(er)s; Woomera (Rocket Town
– a fitting ghost for the obsolescence of violence); and the evidence
of ancient nations of people and lands usurped, abused, exploited, and
tossed aside. (“Get outta the way, the Feds are comin’ - and the
corporations ain’t far behind ‘em”. Or is it the other way
around?) BUT – this loathing was tempered by the connection
we all experienced to the land and its people who were our teachers on
the tour. As Uncle Kev kept saying; “I love you’se all!! And it’s
true – love was in the air…..
The tour began
at frenetic pace; the Melbourne mob arrived at the (just established)
Karen Eliot Social Centre on Saturday night to a warm welcome from
Aunty Veronica Brodie (Kaurna elder), and an excellent feed provided by
Food Not Bombs. After a typically perspicacious overview
provided by David Noonan (anti-nukes campaigner, ACF), they snuggled up
in their swags and sleeping-bags with some of the Adelaide contingent
(hmmm, cosy….), for a final sleep under city skies before the tour set
off early the next morning.
We met with
Avon Hudson along the road to Woomera. Avon is a veteran
serviceman who was unwittingly involved in the Maralinga atomic tests
during the 1950’s. We were also joined by women from the Kokotha
nation including Mrs Eileen Wingfield and Rebecca Bear-Wingfield
- and after a late arrival at camp settled down to eat, chat, and
sleep. The desert skies were beautiful, but eerie that night –
there were strange periodic flashes on the horizon – it was difficult
to work out whether it could have been lightning, or whether there were
war-games being played out in the desert. The Kokotha women spoke to us
of their ongoing struggle for the survival of their people and
their land – fighting uranium mining, nuclear waste-dumps, and general
antipathy directed toward their culture. They spoke of the
silent, black cloud that floated toward indigenous people during the
Maralinga bomb tests – “Could it be a dust storm?” they thought….”but
it can’t be….it’s too quiet…” The quiet poison soon enveloped
many of their people, its repercussions resonating to this day.
Upon arriving
at Woomera, Avon gave us a guided tour of the ‘Rocket Park’, giving us
an insight into particular missiles and carriers - and their
capabilities and histories. Morbid, fascinating. Then we
left for Roxby Downs, where we were taken on a very nicely-orchestrated
bus tour of the Olympic Dam uranium mine by members of BHP Billiton’s
management and PR staff. Some heated debate ensued between the
‘believers’ and the ‘disbelievers’; I would call it a ‘healthy’ debate,
but then we were traveling through a uranium mine. Personally, I
appreciated the chance to peruse the developments made in this massive
mining venture, since I had last seen it in 1983 when I joined many of
the South Australian community in trying to stop it from opening in the
first place. They’re going ‘great guns’ now, which is more than
can be said for the surrounding desert environment, the Great Artesian
Basin, and the traditional lands and culture of the Kokatha
people. I guess you just call all that stuff ‘collateral damage’
when there are such big bucks to be made.
We retired that
night to the beauty of the desert dunes, red sand in our toes, camping
under those ubiquitous starry, starry skies, while Avon regaled us with
some very sorry stories of deception and collusion between UK and
Australian governments and military brass; and its consequent effects
upon the lives and health of regular servicemen.
The following
day, we drove to Alberrie Creek, linking up with Uncle Kevin Buzzacott,
an elder of the Arabunna, on the way. Uncle Kev introduced us to
his brother, Reg Dodd, traditional Arabunna owners of the Mound Springs
region (who, by the way, assured us all that the Crows are going to be
AFL Premiers this year – yeah!!). After setting up camp, we drove
to nearby Lake Eyre to experience sunset at this most beautiful
place. Providing a 360 degree vantage point of earth and sky, we
were all mesmerised by this extraordinary site. It felt like
peace on earth and heaven. If only………
Next day, we
were in for a treat - we were to visit the mound springs. These
surprising oases in the middle of the desert rise from the ancient
waters of the Great Artesian Basin, then bubble up to the desert’s
surface to provide sustenance and life to all who live in the desert;
people, plants, and creatures. Uncle Kev took us to Wabma Kadarbu (The
Bubbler), a mound spring still in reasonable health; built up from
centuries of mineral deposits from the waters of the GAB, it is home to
creatures seen nowhere else on Earth, and trickles down in a waterfall
to the desert below. We saw the sadness in Uncle Kev’s eyes as he
showed us the decay setting in through the exploitation of the precious
resources of the desert. He showed us that the desert is alive, but it
is dying. The mound springs are dwindling, in number and in
vigour; some have vanished completely, others are drying out
rapidly. It appears that the waters of the GAB are prioritised
for the use of mining companies – BHP (Billion Dollars) Billiton in
particular - and not for the life and longevity of the arid lands
ecosystem. Sorry business everywhere. Uncle Kev was a
wonderful traveling companion and teacher. He told us many
stories along the way; about his homelands, and the Dreaming and
history of his people. Such a character, both hilarious and
serious, it was a privilege to be in his company. We camped near
William Creek that night, in preparation for our journey to Wallatina
Station, on APY (Anangu/Pitjantjara/Yankunytjatjara) lands, the
following day.
On our way to
Wallatina we stopped off in Kupa Piti (Coober Pedy), to have a bit of a
look around and meet some locals. Our timing was fortuitous in
that Nina Brown was in town, and met us for lunch. Nina lived in
Kupa Piti for some years previously, making herself available to assist
the women of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta in fighting the nuclear waste
dump that was then to be sited on their lands. Nina gave an
inspirational insight into the Kungkas travels and travails, assuring
us that there is much we white Australians can do in supporting the
self-determination of indigenous Australians, and in the protection of
the lands we all share. For my part, I found it inspiring to
finally be walking through communities where there were as many
indigenous Australians as white – I’ve long known I have always lived
on Aboriginal land, but where were their
people?
Onward to
Wallatina. Among the many privileges and pleasures we experienced
during our journey, one was definitely staying on Uncle Yami’s
lands. What a perfect paradise these lands are; and the singalong
he orchestrated that night – hilarious! I sneaked about late that
night, stoking the fire for the shower-water. I ventured out
further from the camp looking for firewood as I didn’t want to wake my
fellow travellers – then, being no great navigator, got myself promptly
lost on APY lands. I wandered around for about an hour, enjoying
the beauty and the silence (though in the dark, every bush was looking
the same to this whitefella) - thinking that I might need to dig a hole
to keep myself warm till sunrise, then bingo! – there was Uncle Yami’s
house! I must be near a road, I thought - this being confirmed
when I stepped into a calf-deep puddle of mud. I definitely
needed that shower now.
Uncle Yami
spoke to us again in the morning. Like Uncle Kev, he spoke to us of the
history of his people on these lands. And like Aunty Eileen and
Rebecca, he too spoke of the Maralinga tests that many of his people
were unwittingly subjected to. The silent, strange, black cloud
- the bomb tests that blinded Yami as an eight-year old boy were
conducted at Emu Field, slightly north of Maralinga. Yami spoke
of the lone white man who traveled throughout the traditional lands to
count the indigenous population, and warn them to leave. It would
have been impossible for him to find them all. Warning signs
written in English, erected on lands where, in many cases, English was
not spoken. The Royal Commission that followed concluded that Wallatina
was contaminated, however, would not conclusively state that Yami’s
blindness was caused by the bomb tests held on 15th October 1953.
We left Yami’s beautiful homelands for our next adventure – onward to
Alice Springs, land of the Arrernte people.
We were
welcomed to our campsite (outside of Alice) that night by the people of
the Athenge Lhere – their land on which we were to camp for the next 3
days is right next to one of the sites slated for the national
radioactive waste dump. We were provided with camp ‘lodgings’ by
Aunty Kath, and beautiful food and facilities by local activist group,
Alice Action. During the 3 days we spent on these lands, we met
with local indigenous and activist groups, primarily to demonstrate our
support for their fight against the imposition of the waste dump in the
Territory. We listened to their stories, and shared ideas and
strategies for the ongoing struggle for self-determination against the
Federal Government’s heavy-handed and undemocratic tactics in foisting
unwanted poisons onto local communities.
An Alliance
Against Uranium meeting was held, bolstered by the attendance of key
campaigners from an array of environmental NGO’s, and we joined the
local community in a colourful public action in the mall at Alice
Springs – NO NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP ON THESE LANDS! We shared three
sunny days (and cold, cold nights) with our new friends – until we had
to head south for home – assuring them that they are NOT alone in their
fight, and we will NOT forget them. Their fight is our fight
too.
We are back in
the city now, but I can still see the desert in my minds eye, and feel
it in my soul. The stories we were told, the people we met, the
lands we explored, the Dreaming we encountered, and sensed for
ourselves. I arrived at an agreement with my sleeping-bag that I
would shake the desert sands from within it, ONLY on the condition that
it would never forget the experiences from which we had both just
emerged. I know I speak for others when I say that many of us
will never be the same after this most excellent and exhausting
adventure. There is no comparison between reading about and
studying these environmental and indigenous degradations whilst living
on the concrete of the cities - to stepping on the desert sands,
hearing firsthand from our indigenous teachers the stories of their
beautiful lands; their meaning, their culture, their history, their
Dreaming, their lifestyle. As my partner Ross mentioned, to look
in their eyes is to understand the magnitude of what they (and the rest
of us, too) are losing – through public ignorance and apathy,
government misinformation, pernicious policy, corporate greed,
isolation, and dispossession. These factors go hand in hand with
the lack of respect shown to them as people of many indigenous nations,
in a land they have cared for, maintained, and held sacred for so many
generations. These lands are not empty, potential vessels for
exploitation and dumping. Every grain of sand holds the memory of
those generations who have walked before; sometimes I could almost see
them through the trees. Every bush, tree, and grass is a key to the
survival of all that live in these arid lands. Every hill, mound,
and ravine is of symbolic and cultural importance. (I told Aunty
Kath I will never pass by a hill or rock with nonchalance EVER again!)
Big hugs and
support to our teachers - Uncle Kev, Aunty Veronica, Kath Martin,
Eileen Wingfield, Rebecca Bear-Wingfield, Yami Lester, Mitch, Margie
Lynch, Marlene Bennett, Avon Hudson - who helped us all to understand.
Uncle Clayton was our teacher too – his people come from the Gippsland
area in Victoria – and he travelled with us through to Alice
Springs. Endlessly dapper, he emerged each day to give Joel a run
for his money in the desert-style stakes. Like our other teachers, he
is a treasure to us all.
Many thanks
also to the far-seeing businesses who put some commercial
considerations aside to support our educational travels - in
particular, Steve’s Organics (Cavan), Wilson’s Organics (Gouger St),
and The Food Forest (Gawler). Their generosity of spirit helped to
sustain our travels, and was much appreciated. Many of the tour’s
participants, and many FoE members and supporters, are organically
inclined, so make sure you all get out there and support these
businesses. Also, thanks to Food Not Bombs and the Karen Eliot
Social Centre for their wonderful food and hospitality – you guys are
COOL!!
And I cannot
end this article without acknowledging the Herculean effort put into
the organisation of this tour by Michaela, in particular, from the
Melbourne FoE office. Michaela, you pulled it all off beautifully
– what a great adventure we all shared!
The health and
vigour of our ‘civilisation’ can be measured in the way we treat our
indigenous (and other) brothers and sisters, our environment, and the
animals that share this world with us all. The prognosis is poor,
right now – things are not very ‘civilised’. It’s up to us all to
set this right. It was inspiring to meet such a vast array of
concerned and talented comrades on the Radioactive Exposure Tour. Let’s
keep up the momentum.
------------------->
* PICTURES AND ANIMATION
------------------->
Fun nuke animation <www.markfiore.com/animation/spring.html>
Check Pip Starr's web for some wicked pics of the SA desert and the Roxby mine etc:
<http://www.starr.tv>
And pics ofd Roxby, the Radioactive Exposure Tour and other stuff at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cookielovescake/sets/
------------------->
* ARE YOU ACCIDENTALLY INVESTING IN URANIUM?
------------------->
Are you
investing in uranium, unbeknownst even to yourself?! Even in the
ethical investment sector, there are funds investing in uranium. One of
a small number of funds which does not invest in uranium is Australian
Ethical Investment <www.austethical.com.au>.
AEI helped fund
the Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change publication last year,
and they are supporting a new publication being co-ordinated by the
Beyond Nuclear Initiative, a booklet and website called 'Renewables
Now!'
Please let
<[email protected]> know if you know of other investment funds
which refuse to invest in the nuclear/uranium industry ... and I'll
note them in future editions of No Nukes News. And check te articles
immediately below.
------------------->
ANTI-NUKE? YOU'RE MAKING MONEY FROM IT
The Adelaide Advertiser, Page: 1
Wednesday, 7 June 2006
Anthony Keane
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19391131%255E910,00.html
MORE than 90
per cent of Australian workers are set to help fuel the world's growing
thirst for uranium. As Prime Minister John Howard yesterday announced a
six-member taskforce would conduct a full inquiry into nuclear energy,
conservationists said many Australians were unwitting investors in the
uranium industry. While Mr Howard feels public attitudes to nuclear
energy have changed, ethical investment groups say many people do not
realise they have funds tied up in uranium miners such as BHP Billiton,
which they own indirectly through superannuation funds. Industry super
fund figures show at least 90 per cent of fund members stick with the
default investment option which almost always holds shares in big
miners such as BHP and Rio Tinto - which controls uranium miner ERA.
With BHP
planning a $6.9 billion expansion of its Olympic Dam copper and
uraniummine in South Australia to meet growing global demand, uranium's
role in investment returns will rise. BHP has said Olympic Dam's
expansion will almost quadruple its uranium production to 16, 000
tonnes a year - a timely movewith uranium prices jumping from $US9.61
per pound in 2000 to $US43 per pound today.
Ethical
Investment Association executive director Louise O'Halloran yesterday
said there were options for people looking for investments without
uranium. ''There are plenty of ethical funds with a uranium screen, and
they certainly don't suffer in their performance, '' she said. Three
quarters of the population were unlikely to know exactly how their
super was invested, Ms O'Halloran said. Super funds are tipped to
deliver more than 15 per cent growth for investors this year thanks to
a booming Australian sharemarket, which comprises at least 30 per cent
of assets in a typical default portfolio.
BHP has been a
star performer, rising 60 per cent in the past year. SA's biggest super
fund, Statewide Superannuation Trust, said its default fund held BHP
shares but it had other investment options for those concerned about
uranium mining. ''It's such a small portion of what we do, and people
need to put it in context of their overall investments, '' Statewide
chief executive Frances Magill said. The Australian Conservation
Foundation said the introduction of super choice last year had made it
easier for people to switch to socially responsible investment (SRI)
funds.
However, some
SRI funds invest in companies that mine uranium, arguing that the
environmental advantages of nuclear energy outweigh the negatives. ACF
nuclear free campaigner David Noonan said funds that excluded uranium
miners had performed well for investors. ''Why would they invest in
something making them beholden to the standards of the Chinese state
nuclear industry, because that's where the uranium would go under BHP's
plans for Roxby?'' Mr Noonan said. The author owns BHP shares.
------------------->
Uranium: an active issue
Leon Gettler
June 8, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/uranium-an-active-issue/2006/06/07/1149359818288.html
WITH the Howard
Government's inquiry into nuclear energy opening the way for more
uranium mines and nuclear power plants, ethical investors are caught in
an almost-even three-way split.
Ethical funds
are divided on the issue too. Some, like BT Sustainability Australian
Shares Fund, have stopped regarding uranium as a "sin stock". The
debate is complicated by BHP Billiton, which covers 45 per cent of the
resources sector, now operating as a uranium miner.
But just as
important is the view taken by some environmentalists, such as esteemed
British biologist James Lovelock. In his so-called "Gaia hypothesis",
he argues that nuclear energy might be the most practical way of
producing power without adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
In Australia, environmental scientist Tim Flannery has argued that
nuclear power could, if properly handled, replace coal-fired plants and
help avert climate change.
A survey by
Ethical Investor magazine found that investors were evenly divided.
Asked whether they supported uranium mining in Australia, 30 per cent
said no, 35 per cent were positive and 35 per cent said they could see
arguments for both sides.
And with 82 per
cent saying they were happy to get a good return as long as it did not
compromise a sustainable future, the message was clear: many ethical
investors do not see uranium mining as ethically flawed.
Ethical
Investment Association executive director Louise O'Halloran said the
ethical investment community was not divided, it just encompassed many
different views.
"I've had a
sense the outside world would like the ethical investment world to make
one decision and it will never do that," Ms O'Halloran said. "We are
not one amorphous mass. The market is made up of different choices,
different opportunities and different products, and each has a sincere
and deep research base and reasoning.
"It's not
superficial, you wouldn't find many superficial reasonings behind
decisions fund managers make about what they are going to invest in."
Erik Mather,
head of BT's governance advisory service, said: "The issue is not
nuclear itself. The real issue is dealing with climate change and, in
dealing with climate change, nuclear is but one part of a potential
portfolio response."
But Terry
Pinnell from Directed Ethical Investment said real ethical investors
would shun uranium mining and that funds investing there were not truly
ethical. "They are not ethical fund managers, it's just a fund manager
who has an 'ethical fund'," Mr Pinnell said.
"I think that
people in ethical funds don't realise what they are actually in and
once they realise the nuclear stuff in there, they'll move to other
ethical funds."
------------------->
* PROF. RICHARD BROINOWSKI ON OZ NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENTS - AND AUSRALIA'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS HISTORY
------------------->
http://nautilus.rmit.edu.au/forum-reports/0624a-broinowski.html
Austral Policy Forum 06-24A 24 July 2006
Australia's New Nuclear Ambitions
Richard Broinowski *
Introduction
Richard
Broinowski, former diplomat and Adjunct Professor at the University of
Sydney, argues that "without transparency from government about its
plans Australians are left uninformed about what is really going on"
concerning the Howard government's thinking about nuclear energy. "But,
for speculation, there are a number of indicative straws blowing in the
wind", with possibilities including enhanced exports, nuclear waste
imports, uranium enrichment, nuclear waste reprocessing, and even
nuclear power generation.
Broinowski concludes:
"Outlandish as
it may seem to many Australians, the challenge may soon be to reassure
Australia's neighbours, especially Indonesia, that Mr Howard has no
plans to build nuclear weapons in Australia."
For the full article, go to the website:
http://nautilus.rmit.edu.au/forum-reports/0624a-broinowski.html
------------------->
http://nautilus.rmit.edu.au/forum-reports/0623a-broinowski.html
Austral Policy Forum 06-23A 17 July 2006
Australian nuclear weapons: the story so far
Richard Broinowski *
Richard
Broinowski, former diplomat and author of the 2003 study Fact or
Fission - the Truth about Australia's Nuclear Ambitions, writes that
"in his call for a 'full-blooded' nuclear debate, Prime Minister Howard
probably doesn't wish to see such a taboo subject raised."
But, says
Broinowski, "for more than three decades Australian politicians and
military, scientific and cabinet officials conducted a campaign to
persuade the government of the day to acquire or develop nuclear
weapons. The fact is that Australia has the resources and technology to
develop its own nuclear weapons."
For the full article, go to the website:
http://nautilus.rmit.edu.au/forum-reports/0623a-broinowski.html
------------------->
* THE SECRET PUSH FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN AUSTRALIA IN THE '60s
------------------->
Gorton's grand plan to produce an N-bomb
Joseph Kerr
May 27, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19270501-2702,00.html
JOHN Gorton's
desire to build an Australian nuclear bomb could have received a huge
boost from tonnes of plutonium generated by a nuclear power plant at
Jervis Bay. Cabinet papers show the planned facility at Murrays Beach
could have produced $1.1million worth of plutonium a year -- a fact
that was used to bolster the economic case for nuclear power.
The Gorton
government was keen to develop nuclear power because it wanted a
nuclear industry so as to be able to introduce fast-breeder reactors
when they became available.
But Gorton
seized on a particular type of reactor that would also produce
significant amounts of plutonium, which could later be used to develop
an Australian nuclear weapon.
His Coalition
government's efforts to build a power station were backed by the US,
which offered to finance the project through the Export Import Bank and
to supply enriched uranium for 30 years if the tender was won by
American firm Westinghouse.
In 1969,
Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania were not interested. South Australia
was interested in supplies of nuclear power for itself and Victoria.
NSW was keen, and seven sites on major water courses across the state
and the ACT were examined.
It was
essential for the site to be near water to cool the reactor, but sites
on inland waterways were rejected because of the risk of a radioactive
spill. By the early 1970, commonwealth land at Murrays Beach at Jervis
Bay on the NSW coast was chosen as the preferred site. The federal
government believed nuclear power could become competitive with other
energy sources in at least three states by the 1980s, and accepted that
it would have to build the first station, as governments in Britain,
France and Japan had done.
It believed
that if the industry were set up in the 1970s, by the end of the
century it would be a "major new industry with wide ramifications in
Australian industry, and a not negligible export potential". It said
$1.1 million worth of plutonium a year would be produced as a
by-product (six tonnes over 25 years) which could be used as fuel for a
fast-breeder reactor "or other special purposes". In 1971, national
development minister Reginald Swartz predicted "nuclear power will be
with us in Australia in the 1980s, of that I have no doubt".
The revival of
the nuclear debate has enthused the last general manager of the
Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Keith Alder, who believes
Australia could already have been producing the cheapest electricity in
the world if a plant had been built in the 1970s. Mr Alder, 85, said
this week that the best bet was to get into the enrichment industry,
turning our raw uranium into processed rods that could fuel nuclear
power stations.
"Whether we
want to remain a quarry for the rest of the world or whether we
establish a full industry in Australia and (export) the processed
product," Mr Adler said. "I think that (enrichment) should take
priority at this stage over whether or not we now look into nuclear
power."
The options for fuelling the plant 30 years ago were setting up our own enrichment facilities or importing fuel from overseas.
But by June 1971, Treasury was calling for key decisions on reactor type and construction to be delayed for five years.
The project had
originally been costed at about $120 million, but by then had already
blown out in estimates to $160 million and tenderers were putting in
prices closer to $210 million. Cabinet papers show the commonwealth
stood to lose as much as $100million on the power plant, $4million a
year over 25 years.
"This is a large price for the nation to pay in order to hasten the birth of an industry," William McMahon argued as treasurer.
"They (states)
will not introduce it before it becomes economic to do so - and there
is no reason why the commonwealth should attempt to influence them to
do otherwise," he said.
It was
ultimately dismissed as one of Gorton's follies. "The proposed Jervis
Bay station therefore gives every sign of having been conceived in one
of the somewhat grandiose national visions which sometimes struck Mr
Gorton to the detriment of careful policy-making and sound forward
planning," a newspaper reported at the time.
Assistant
professor of government at Smith College in the US, Jacques Hymans,
said a head of the atomic energy commission under Gorton, Philip
Baxter, was a strong supporter of uranium enrichment and nuclear power
generation and wanted to push forward with a weapons program.
Baxter pushed
for the development of a 500MW Canadian "Candu" reactor, a system that
had as one of its production side effects the creation of a significant
amount of plutonium, which could be used in a nuclear bomb.
But Baxter was
outnumbered within the commission by others who had safety concerns
about Candu. Gorton's successor as prime minister, McMahon, was
concerned about his and killed off the reactor after he took control of
the government in 1971.
------------------->
More on the weapons push:
www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/weapons.html
www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/anstoweapons.html
www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/reynolds.html
------------------->
* ASIA'S ARMS RACE AND AUSTRALIAN URANIUM
------------------->
New Asian arms race sees uranium peace tag go up in smoke
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/uranium-peace-tag-goes-up-in-smoke/2006/07/14/1152637872439.html
Hamish McDonald
July 15, 2006
IF KIM JONG-IL didn't exist, would George Bush and Junichiro Koizumi have to invent him?
The North
Korean dictator's escalation of his nuclear-and-missile blackmail game
is certainly helping them push ahead with two pet schemes, Bush to
build a missile defence shield for the US, and Koizumi to strip
anti-war provisions out of the Japanese constitution.
But Kim and his
strange regime are for real, and the danger is that his threats will
one day materialise into a credible nuclear strike force.
The question
then is whether Japan goes nuclear too, which could in effect end its
subordinate role in its US alliance and open a new strategic chapter
for Asia.
Even without
the North Koreans, profound changes are taking place in the nuclear
weapons scene in Asia. A new arms race is getting under way, making
Australia's hope of selling uranium to its big countries for distinctly
peaceful purposes look a bit naive.
One change has
been started by the American missile defence system, ostensibly
intended to protect the US against a few missiles fired by "rogue"
states like North Korea and Iran.
But the
still-unproven shield has a planned capability of taking out as many as
200 incoming missiles, meaning it could nullify China's existing
intercontinental nuclear strike force of an estimated 40 missiles.
Professor
Desmond Ball, of the Australian National University's Strategic and
Defence Studies Centre, sees the Chinese augmenting their nuclear
strike force, at present put at 450 to 500 weapons, to as many as 1000.
Within that
total, long-range nuclear missiles such as the upgraded Dongfang-31
could number about 400, a tenfold increase, to guarantee penetration of
the US missile defences.
In turn, the
expanding Chinese nuclear numbers are changing the nuclear deterrent
planning in India, since any of these DF-31s could hit Indian cities.
Ball and others estimate India to have about 120 nuclear weapons.
Only about 40
of these are needed against its regional rival Pakistan. "There are
only about five places with a population of more than a million in
Pakistan," Ball says. "You could basically get the whole of the
population with 10 or 20 weapons."
The bulk of
India's nuclear arsenal is set aside to deter China, and huge efforts
are being made to acquire delivery systems. In the short term, the
Indians will rely on Tu-22 long-range bombers supplied by Russia and
Ukraine. For the medium to longer term, they are working on the
3500-kilometre-range Agni III missile. This solid-fuel missile was
tested last Sunday, with partial success.
Ball sees India
being forced by its strategic logic into expanding its nuclear force to
perhaps 350 weapons to counter the growing Chinese force.
Already the
nuclear arsenals of China and India are bigger than those of Britain
and France. When expanded they will still be below the numbers kept by
the US (5300 operational, 5000 in de-activated reserve) and Russia
(7200 operational, 8000 in reserve).
How much
further the emerging Asian powers expand their nuclear forces depends
on their perceptions of deterrent. The British and French threatened
the Russians "only" with the destruction of Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev
in a nuclear exchange - "tearing a limb off you" as the commanders of
the French force de frappe used to say.
Mao Zedong used
to proclaim that China could survive a nuclear attack by virtue of its
huge population. Only a year ago, Major-General Zhu Chenghu, a dean at
China's National Defence University, was quoted as saying China would
use nuclear weapons in response to US strikes in a Taiwan conflict.
"We … will
prepare … for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xi'an," Zhu
told visiting journalists. "The Americans will have to be prepared that
hundreds … of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
With this kind
of talk, the calculus of deterrent moves beyond decapitation - taking
out each other's capitals and financial centres, Beijing and Shanghai
for Delhi and Mumbai - towards billion-plus human loss on either side.
Back in the
R.G. Casey Building in Canberra, bureaucrats in the nuclear safeguards
office expect to be able to track Australian-supplied uranium going
into Chinese and Indian reactors, making sure the right amount of spent
fuel comes out and is kept from weapons diversion.
Ball is
dubious. "It's a whole new scenario," he says. "Even without diversion
there are other sophisticated forms of leakage. You can devote all your
Australian and other internationally applied uranium to civilian use,
and devote all your other stuff to the weapons supplies. It's
intrinsically related."
------------------->
* CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE
------------------->
Good clean fun!
Joel Catchlove (FoE Adelaide)
OnlineOpinion
Aug 21 2006
On the web at:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4803
------------------->
Solar is a real option: CSIRO Report says sun will soon match coal
Rosslyn Beeby
Friday, 26 May 2006
Canberra Times
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=environment&story_id=483163&category=environment&m=5&y=2006
Solar thermal
technology is capable of producing Australia's entire electricity
demand and is the only renewable energy capable of making deep cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions, a confidential coal research report obtained
by The Canberra Times says.
The report, by
the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development,
claims solar thermal technology "is poised to play a significant role
in baseload generation for Australia" and will be cost-competitive with
coal within seven years.
It says solar
thermal-generated power is capable of meeting the requirements of two
major electric power markets - "large-scale dispatchable markets
comprised of grid-connected peaking and base-load power and rapidly
expanding distributed markets including both on-grid and remote
off-grid applications".
The draft
report, written by five CSIRO Energy Technology division scientists,
was submitted to the CRC in August last year but has not been
published. CSIRO is one of 19 research and funding partners within the
CRC - other participants include BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers Coal, Xstrata
Coal and Rio Tinto.
Greens leader
Senator Bob Brown said the report clearly indicated Australia should be
investing in developing and commercialising new solar technologies to
meet growing global demand and has accused the Federal Government of
undermining solar research by cutting back funding. "This report
demonstrates that Australia's future is definitely solar. It also
places a question mark over Government decisions to scale-back funding
for research in this area. You begin to wonder if there are vested
interests that are making sure cost-efficient renewable energy drops
off the agenda.
"It is
inexplicable because solar energy is absolutely right for Australia's
climate and dispersed populations in remote areas," Senator Brown said.
The CRC's
report claims a 35sqkm area with high levels of sunlight and low cloud
cover "could produce Australia's entire current power demand" using
solar thermal technology.
"Solar
radiation is the largest renewable resource on earth and, if harnessed
by existing technology, approximately 1.5 per cent of the world's
desert area could generate the world's entire electricity demand," the
report says.
CSIRO renewable
energy manager Wes Stein, who advised the CRC on aspects of the report,
said Australia had the potential to be a world leader in solar thermal
technology.
"The technology
that has been developed over the last 10 years has a lot less risks for
investors, both financial and technical. The potential is massive," he
said.
Solar thermal
technology involves concentrating sunlight to produce heat to generate
electricity, or to increase the chemical energy of natural gas.
Technologies
being developed and tested in Australia include parabolic troughs and
dishes, power towers, solar arrays and solar thermal reactors.
CSIRO's Energy
Transformed national flagship has designed and built a world-first
solar thermal tower at its headquarters in Newcastle which uses rows of
200 electronically positioned mirrors to track the sun as it moves
across the sky. The tower captures and stores the sun's energy as
"bottled sunshine" or solar natural gas.
Mr Stein, who
led the team that developed the solar thermal tower, said that using
new solar thermal technology, Australia's current electricity demand
could be supplied "within an area that would take about four minutes to
fly over on a plane trip from Sydney to Perth".
Solar thermal was also "as cheap or cheaper than the cheapest wind-power technology".
The ANU's
deputy director of sustainable energy systems, Dr Keith Lovegrove, said
solar thermal had the potential to replace Australia's ageing
coal-fired power stations with solar-powered steam turbines.
"It would
simply be a matter of changing over running the turbines off steam
provided by coal to solar-produced steam, but the only problem is that
most of Australia's coal-fired power stations aren't located in sunny
areas," Dr Lovegrove said.
The ANU has
designed and built a 400sqm solar concentrator dish system - the
world's largest - for use in large arrays for multi-megawatt scale
electric power generation.
------------------->
The lights are on, and it's costing a fortune
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-lights-are-on-and-its-costing-a-fortune/2006/08/12/1154803145356.html
Clay Lucas
August 13, 2006
ALL night,
every night, millions of lights blaze away in empty offices across
Melbourne's CBD. For every 20-storey building that leaves its lights on
overnight, $100,000 a year is wasted and 2800 tonnes of greenhouse gas
are pumped into the atmosphere. That's the equivalent of running 600
cars a year, or powering 230 Victorian homes.
But at a small but increasing number of the city's 7800 offices, when staff finish work the lights go out.
Even though
it's not always economical for them to do so, many modern offices are
doing away with the traditional light switch in favour of
sensor-controlled lighting.
Accountants
PricewaterhouseCoopers' Southbank office, which has 1500 employees, is
among the offices to have made the change. A motion sensor switches off
lights across the company's 13 floors if there is no movement for more
than 20 minutes.
Sensors also monitor how bright it is and can manage electric lighting during the day.
"If it's a bright, sunny day, it dims the internal lighting system," says Jay Lomax, who oversaw the fit-out of the building.
At its Sydney
office, where the same technology has been installed,
PricewaterhouseCoopers says it cost $1 million to install and will save
about $200,000 a year, paying for itself in five years.
Melbourne City
Council's Council House 2, or CH2, on Little Collins Street, due to
open next week, has also made minimising power wasted on lights central
to its design. The building, the first to get six stars for design from
the Green Building Council of Australia, links computers to lighting so
that when computers are switched off, so are the lights.
The managing
director of Big Switch Projects, Gavin Gilchrist, said many companies
were tacitly encouraged to leave their lights on overnight because
off-peak power was so cheap.
"Power is less
than half the price at night," says Gilchrist. "Originally that was
because it was so hard to turn off the coal-powered power stations, and
they needed to do something with their power."
And it isn't
just lights at desks that are the problem. "Lighting in lifts far
exceeds the power used by them moving up and down, because those lights
are on 24 hours and the lifts only run for eight hours".
In the middle
of the national argument over greenhouse gases versus nuclear power,
Gilchrist says such moves could reduce power use by 70 per cent.
"If we could
capture only half of that and save 35 per cent, we could shut down one
of the Latrobe Valley power stations," says Gilchrist. "This stuff
should be a no-brainer, but it isn't happening."
Lighting is
often forgotten by building managers because it represents around 2 per
cent of total costs, says Alan Pears, adjunct professor of planning at
RMIT.
"We have not got a good culture of 'Last one out switches off the lights'," Professor Pears said.
The Australian
Business Council for Sustainable Energy agrees. Installing energy
efficient lighting systems pays for itself quickly, policy manager
Tristan Edis says.
"Lighting
changes will pay for themselves within a year. After that it's all
cream. The return on investment is vastly superior to putting your
money into the best performing stock on the stock exchange."
Seeing the light
Buildings using low-power systems:
* Kangan Batman TAFE at Docklands, which uses light sensors;
* Melbourne Council's new Council House 2 building, which uses 85 per cent less energy than the Town Hall;
* Holiday Inn,
corner of Flinders Lane and Spencer Street, which cut its energy use
through changing globes and turning off lights during the day;
* RMIT's building 51, which uses a new lighting sensor system;
* 40 Albert Road, a retrofitted office with low-energy lighting.
------------------->
Windfarm to power up, but bills will rise
Rick Wallace, Victorian political reporter
July 19, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19838215-601,00.html
ONE of the
largest windfarms in the nation will be built in central Victoria
following a state Government decision to subsidise wind energy by
increasing power bills.
Spanish wind
energy giant Acciona Energy announced yesterday it would build the
first stage of the windfarm at Waubra, near Ballarat. Once completed,
the 128-turbine windfarm will provide a capacity for 192MW of
electricity, potentially tripling the state's current supply of wind
energy.
The project has
already received planning approval, unlike the Bald Hills windfarm in
Victoria, which was blocked by federal Environment Minister Ian
Campbell over risks to an endangered parrot, even though research
showed the project might potentially cause the death of only one bird
every 1000 years.
But despite Acciona paying landholders $7000 a year for each turbine on their land, the project has attracted local opposition.
The Victorian
Government claimed yesterday its 10 per cent renewable energy target
and the subsidies associated with it had persuaded the company to
commit to the $50million first stage of the project.
The scheme
forces electricity retailers to obtain 10 per cent of their power from
renewable sources. This effectively doubles their outlay for this
portion of the power, and retailers will recoup the cost by increasing
prices toconsumers.
Premier Steve
Bracks appeared to stumble in parliament yesterday when he claimed that
power bills for homes and businesses would rise by less than $1 a month.
This would mean
that massive consumers of electricity, such as the Alcoa smelter, would
receive a minuscule $10 addition to their yearly bill.
Energy Minister
Theo Theophanous refused to release the research on which the
Government based its claim that power bills would rise by no more than
$10 a year, claiming it was "market sensitive", even though the
Government has repeatedly referred to the amount in public.
Opposition
Leader Ted Baillieu said the rise in bills would be far greater. "I
think it is a nonsense ... we estimate the subsidy from other consumers
would be around about $300million," he said.
"Something doesn't add up."
Waubra district
farmer Lawrence Gallagher has agreed to have six of the turbines on his
323.7ha farm. He said he would receive a yearly rent of $42,000,
indexed to inflation, for the towers, boosting the income of his
potato, lamb, wheat and cattle farm.
"The stock can
graze right up to the towers and, although there will be tracks through
the paddock, they will run them along the fences. To me, all it is is a
big windmill, which you find on most farms anyway."
But local
independent MP Dianne Hadden, who quit the Victorian ALP last year,
said the windfarm would be a disaster for the area and had pitted
"family against family".
------------------->
How many people does it take to change a bulb and save the globe?
Liz Minchin
July 1, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-many-people-does-it-take-to-change-a-bulb-and-save-the-globe/2006/06/30/1151174396140.html
THE world's reliance on old-fashioned light globes drains more power than is produced by all the world's 441 nuclear plants.
In the first
detailed analysis of global energy use from lighting, the United
Nations' International Energy Agency has found that if every old light
globe was replaced with an energy-efficient one, it would avoid more
than 16,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions between now and
2030.
The equivalent would be to take every car in the world today off the road for six years.
Saving energy
would even be good for the global hip pocket, saving $3500 billion
through lower energy and maintenance bills over the next 25 years.
The report
shows that Australians have one of the highest per capita rates of
lighting consumption in the world, using an estimated 62 million hours
of electricity last year — equivalent to each person leaving seven
100-watt lights on year round.
Our use is exceeded only by Americans (101 million hours) and the Japanese (72 million hours).
Launching the
book Light's Labour's Lost: Policies for Energy-efficient Lighting in
Paris, the International Energy Agency's executive director, Claude
Mandil, warned that governments and businesses could not afford to
ignore its findings.
"Without rapid
action the amount of energy used for lighting will be 80 per cent
higher in 2030 than today," he said. "However, if we simply make better
use of today's efficient lighting technologies and techniques, global
lighting energy demand need be no greater at that time."
Electric
lighting consumes 19 per cent of total global electricity production,
slightly more than is used by all of Europe, and 15 per cent more than
is generated by either hydro or nuclear power.
Australians
spend $2.5 billion a year on lighting, which accounts for 10 per cent
of overall electricity consumption and 25 million tonnes of the
country's annual greenhouse gas emissions.
NSW residents
can receive free energy-efficient light globe packs from retailers and
environment groups, which earn carbon credits in return, under the NSW
Government's mandatory greenhouse gas abatement scheme.
But there are no such schemes in other states because NSW is the only state to have carbon emissions trading.
Business
Council for Sustainable Energy spokesman Richard Wise urged the federal
and state governments to act on the International Energy Agency's
findings, and follow NSW's lead.
------------------->
Nic Frances: Greener water and light
Why the need for nuclear when carbon pricing is more efficient energy use
June 08, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19397073-7583,00.html
WE all know the
federal Government is touting nuclear energy as a solution to global
warming and as a "clean" way to power giant water desalination plants.
But there is a far more immediate and cheaper alternative. And one
state is showing the way.
In NSW, more
than 100,000 households have already received free of charge, a
six-pack of low-energy light globes and many of them a water-saving
shower head as well.
That number could easily grow to a million or more households before the end of this year.
Yes, in the
halls of power, promoting simple consumer energy efficiency in the
suburbs and regions may sound pretty uninspiring alongside grand
visions of multi-billion-dollar nuclear power plants lining our coast,
next to similarly expensive desalination plants. Yet it's an amazingly
easy, if low-key way for Australia to avoid building a number of new
base load power stations altogether - whether coal, gas or nuclear -
and save huge volumes of water.
So, as the
nuclear debate we're being told we have to have gathers fury, and
carbon dioxide emissions rise at the same rates as the political hot
air in Canberra, one state is quietly fighting climate change through a
very simple market-friendly action. It put a price on carbon.
The NSW
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, Australia's only mandated carbon
trading system, has started a quiet revolution in the suburbs. A
revolution that could soon spread around the world.
It may surprise
many people to learn that carbon trading is now a dynamic,
multi-million-dollar a year market in NSW with buyers, sellers,
brokers, watchful regulators and new businesses rushing to compete.
In a little
more than two years, about 20 million tradeable carbon credits, worth
more than $250 million at today's market prices, have been created via
accredited carbon dioxide emission reductions from 159 separate
projects, and more than six million have been traded.
Globally the
world's carbon trades totalled more than $US10 billion in value in
2005, up from $US1 billion in 2004. According to a World Bank carbon
trading expert, last year's figure is considerably more than the entire
trade value of the US wheat crop, at about $US7.1 billion, making
carbon a commodity on the make internationally.
Unlike nuclear
power stations, a price on carbon is no longer a theory, at least in
NSW. And it lets ordinary people make a difference. When customers take
the crucial step of installing the globes and shower head, they can on
average cut more than $150 a year off their energy and water bills,
while also reducing annual carbon dioxide emissions by up to one tonne
and water use by about 21,000 litres a year. If one home does it the
savings are worthwhile but small. If a million homes do it, the
economic and environmental benefits from this energy and water-saving
activity are large. And that's the plan in the next year, a million
homes.
Installation in
a million homes would reduce pressure on government to increase supply
by building new power stations and dams, cut carbon dioxide pollution
by about one million tonnes a year (equivalent to taking 300,000 cars
off the road permanently) and save about 21 billion of litres of
drinking water a year. So it's good economics and good politics. It
saves money for those who shop and vote. It helps the environment. And
it creates economic activity and jobs.
Replicate that
across most of the six million or so homes in Australia and the savings
both financially and environmentally will get very big indeed. And all
governments need to do is put a price on carbon. If this approach was
taken nationally, the benefits would be considerably greater than the
entertainment created by the nuclear debate. We'd see consumers
benefiting financially, the environment being protected, and government
avoiding some costly and politically unpalatable infrastructure
decisions. Add to this the entrepreneurial businesses that are finding
creative ways to seize the opportunity the market has created and
that's a lot of winners.
Having spent
much of my working life searching for innovative ways to help the
socially disadvantaged - among other things, I ran the Brotherhood of
St Laurence for five years - I reckon I know a good deal for people
when I see one. For my money, a nuclear future isn't the debate we need
at all. Certainly not until we've exhausted the opportunities for
simple energy efficiency in all walks of life, from our homes to our
grandest infrastructure. It may seem an old-fashioned ethic, but "waste
not want not" - in this case of energy and water - makes more sense
than creating hot air and nuclear waste.
Nic Frances, an
Anglican priest, is founder of Easy Being Green, a company with a goal
to make 70 per cent of Australian homes 30 per cent more energy and
water efficient within 10 years.
------------------->
Last Update: Friday, June 23, 2006. 3:44pm (AEST)
Wind farms forgotten amid nuclear debate, say states
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1670455.htm
State
Environment Ministers have accused the Commonwealth of attempting to
curb the growth of wind farms in Australia in favour of nuclear power.
The states have
rejected a plan to introduce a national code for wind farms, put
forward by the Federal Government at a meeting of state and federal
Ministers in Sydney today.
The Victorian
Environment Minister, John Thwaites, says the code would have created
another bureaucratic barrier to the growth of a renewable energy source.
"The lack of
support for wind farms from the Howard Government is coming at the same
time they seem to be supporting nuclear energy," he said.
"We believe that clean, green, renewable energy wind farms are much more the way to go.
"It's a much more preferable way to go than going down the track of nuclear energy."
The Federal
Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell, says the states should be
embracing all forms of renewable energy, including nuclear power.
"Ruling out one technology effectively puts your head in the sand on greenhouse and on energy security," he said.
"Australians deserve an honest, open and well informed debate on all of their energy options."
------------------->
Media release
From the Minister for Environment
23 June 2006
ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS SUPPORT VICTORIAN MOTIONS ON GREENHOUSE GASES, NUCLEAR AND WIND POWER
A meeting of
State and Commonwealth Environment Ministers in Sydney today rejected
Federal Government calls for a National Code on wind farms, called on
the Federal Government to not overturn State laws prohibiting nuclear
power stations and agreed on mandatory greenhouse gas reporting.
Victorian
Environment Minister John Thwaites said he was pleased that the
Environment and Heritage Protection Council ministerial meeting had
supported Victoria's motions on greenhouse gases, nuclear and wind
power.
Mr Thwaites
said the Council supported an important further step on the mandatory
reporting and disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions by industry.
“Council has agreed to draft proposed changes to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) to include greenhouse gas emissions.
“A statutory
consultation period will follow, after which the Council can make a
final decision to implement the new greenhouse gas reporting
requirements.
“Today's
decision follows a successful Victorian led pilot, using the NPI
mechanism. A final decision on a reporting scheme is expected next year.
“To make
meaningful progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we need a
cost efficient, transparent and uniform measure of emissions, and the
NPI model provides that.”
On nuclear power, Mr Thwaites said the Council had adopted three important resolutions.
“The first of
these is to call on the Commonwealth not to overturn State or Territory
laws prohibiting nuclear power stations,” Mr Thwaites said.
“The second is to call on the Australian Government not to allow construction of nuclear power plants on Commonwealth land.
“And the third
is to call on the Australian Government not to amend it's own
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which outlaws
the building of nuclear power stations.”
On wind farms,
Mr Thwaites said Victoria's planning arrangements for wind farms were
more than adequate to appropriately locate wind farms.
“Another
layer of red-tape is unnecessary and would needlessly hold up the
development of clean, green energy from wind farms,” he said.
“The industry itself already has national guidelines in place and is not calling for another layer of regulation.
“In seeking a
National Code the Commonwealth is actually trying to take over control
of the wind industry and undermine wind power as a viable energy source.
“The Bald Hills parrot fiasco shows the Commonwealth's true colours in opposing renewable energy development.”
Mr Thwaites
said recent actions by the Commonwealth showed that it was not
interested in supporting renewable energy and is now pushing the
nuclear barrow.
“We hope
today's resolutions will result in more support for renewable energy
and send a strong message about nuclear power which is yet to be proved
safe or economically feasible.”
www.vic.gov.au
------------------->
MEDIA RELEASE
Friday, 16 June 2006
Geothermal power potential greater than nuclear: Greens
The federal government should be getting behind geothermal power instead
of taking Australia down the nuclear track, the Australian Greens said
today.
"Reports today that Pacific Hydro estimates geothermal power generated
by hot water in the Great Artesian Basin could reliably meet a quarter
of the east coast's base-load power needs for the next 100 years are
great news for renewable energy," Australian Greens energy spokesperson
Senator Christine Milne said in Canberra.
"The news comes on top of a report which last month found that solar
thermal power could easily meet Australia's entire base and peaking load
electricity demand at prices competitive with coal by around 2013.
"Australia is awash with renewable energy potential, but to stimulate
expansion of these industries the Howard government needs to increase
the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target and level the playing field by
following the European example of pricing carbon by introducing carbon
levies or an emissions trading system.
"Given the enormous potential of renewable energy, with none of the
long-term radiation hazards and spills of nuclear power, it makes no
sense for the federal government to be backing a nuclear power future
for Australia.
"This is particularly so given the revelations this week of a number of
leaks and accidents at Australia's only nuclear reactor, at Lucas
Heights in Sydney.
"These incidents are further evidence of why nuclear power is not safe
and why Australia should not be considering adopting nuclear power. We
simply don't need it.
"What we do need is a thorough review of the best energy sources to meet
Australia's future needs while making the deep cuts to greenhouse gas
emissions required to reduce the threat of catastrophic climate change.
"Next week I hope the Senate will support my motion for a full public
inquiry into all of Australia's potential energy needs and the potential
of renewables to meet them."
Senator Christine Milne
www.christinemilne.org.au
------------------->
Last Update: Thursday, June 8, 2006. 8:16am (AEST)
Hot rock power suggested as nuclear alternative
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658044.htm
A company
testing resources in the Cooper Basin, on the Queensland-South
Australian border, is confident new exploration will reveal huge power
potential.
Geodynamics is
working in the far north-east of South Australia where it says the
known resource is the equivalent of 50 billion barrels of oil. It will
shortly move over the border to explore in Queensland's south-west.
Managing
director Bertus de Graaf says while the current nuclear debate is
important, he hopes the hot rock technology is given similar
consideration.
"We think we
can play a large role here in the base load power ... and zero
emissions and so far fewer problems than nuclear has to cope with in
terms of its disposal of wastes and also other security issues," he
said.
"We think that hot rocks can play a major role in the future."
The concept involves generating power by pumping water through hot rocks several kilometres below the earth's surface.
Mr de Graaf says it is hoping the enormous potential will continue once the company crosses the border into Queensland.
"It's enormous
... the known resource in the two licences we've been working at ...
the first kilometre of the hot rocks have the potential to provide
really thousands of megawatts of power on the scale of nuclear power
stations," he said.
"In fact, the potential is so large that it could in theory supply the total power needs for Australia for the next 70 years."
------------------->
Last Update: Friday, June 9, 2006. 5:47am (AEST)
Gorbachev warns against new nuclear power plants
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658958.htm
Former Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whose time in office included the world's
worst nuclear accident, says countries building new nuclear power
plants to tackle global warming should think again.
From Japan to
the United States, governments seeking an alternative to burning fossil
fuels for power are reviewing the de facto ban on building new nuclear
plants that followed the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear station in
Ukraine in April 1986.
"Think again,
think seven times again before you leap and start construction of new
nuclear power plants," Mr Gorbachev told a meeting of British lawmakers
at London's Houses of Parliament, speaking through an interpreter.
"With my
experience of Chernobyl I know what is involved. The explosion of one
reactor required a superpower country to spend tens of billions of
roubles.
"Still there was the longer pollution of the soil, the deaths of a number of people and consequences that will be far reaching."
Nuclear
advocates, who argue that nuclear power emits little of the major
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, reject comparisons with Chernobyl.
They say the
Chernobyl design was flawed and the plant badly run, and that the
accident could not be repeated with new designs, fail-safe mechanisms
and technology.
But Mr
Gorbachev says climate change can only be stopped through a combination
of developing new energy sources like solar and wind and increasing
efficiency of energy usage.
New predictions
being studied by UN scientists for a report next year point to average
global temperatures rising by three degrees Celsius this century,
melting ice caps and causing floods, storms and famines.
Environmentalists
mostly agree with Mr Gorbachev that the answer lies in non-nuclear and
non-carbon alternatives to traditional power sources like nuclear,
coal, gas and oil.
-Reuters
------------------->
* NUCLEAR NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
------------------->
Nuclear power 'ineffective' against climate change
from Sunday Herald, 09 July 2006
http://www.robedwards.com/2006/07/power_station_k.html
AS the use of
nuclear power expands, it will become increasingly ineffective at
combating global warming, warns a report by an independent think tank
published today.
The Oxford
Research Group argues that a worldwide shortage of high-grade uranium
ore will force new nuclear reactors to exploit increasingly lower-grade
ores for their fuel. Because that requires more energy to extract, the
process will result in ever-greater amounts of climate-wrecking
pollution.
A report by the
Dutch nuclear expert Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen says that, after
2034, the grade of uranium ore being dug out of the ground will fall
dramatically . “This will cause nuclear power to become increasingly
inefficient and expensive, leading to an increase in carbon dioxide
emissions,” he says.
By 2070 the
grade of uranium ore being used will have become so poor he predicts
that nuclear power will become a net energy user. At the end of 2005
the world’s known recoverable uranium resources amounted to about 3.6
million tonnes, mostly in Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan.
A similar point
will be made tomorrow when the Scottish National Party (SNP) publishes
its energy review. It has been written for the party by leading energy
experts Stephen Salter, Kerr MacGregor and Clifford Jones.
The SNP review
argues that within 50 years or less carbon dioxide emissions from
nuclear power could be as high as those from gas-fired power stations.
Nuclear technology also releases chlorine and fluorine which can be
thousands of times more effective at causing climate chaos, it points
out.
The value of
nuclear power as a weapon against climate change might have been
exaggerated, the review concludes. “The advantage may not be as large
as has been claimed.”
The nuclear
industry, however, is optimistic that new reserves of uranium will be
discovered. And, if not, it will rely on the fast breeder reactor,
which extracts up to 60 times more energy from uranium than
conventional reactors.
According to
Luis Echavárri, director-general of the Nuclear Energy Agency of
the OECD club of industrialised nations, fast reactors will be needed
in 60 years’ time. They are “most attractive from a sustainable point
of view”, he said.
But the
industry’s view is dismissed by the Green MSP Chris Ballance. The fast
reactor was a “discredited technology across the world”, he said. “And
building nuclear power stations to tackle climate change is about as
much use as a chocolate fireguard.”
------------------->
Uranium: making the world a dirtier and more dangerous place
Green Left Weekly,/ June 21 2006.
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/>
Ian Lowe,
emeritus professor of science at Griffith University and president of
the Australian Conservation Foundation, spoke to /Green Left Weekly’s
Dave Riley about the nuclear debate.
*The Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANTSO) has recently
released a report advocating nuclear energy production for Australia.
But it is costed with complete disdain for any alternative option to
nuclear power.*
I don’t know of
any objective study in Australia that has ever concluded that nuclear
power comes within a bull’s roar of being economic. ANTSO is arguing
that a new generation of nuclear reactors will be cheaper and safer and
more efficient than any that have yet been built. The nuclear industry
has been saying that for 40 years. But so far nuclear power hasn’t
proved to be cost effective, even in crude economic terms, and even if
you aren’t concerned about the environmental and security issues.
*Interestingly, ANTSO revealed that nuclear energy wasn’t possible without government investment and subsidies.*
That’s right.
The nuclear power program is predicated on the assumption that there
will be massive government subsidies. The only part of the nuclear
industry that has ever been profitable in this part of the world has
been the mining and selling of uranium. Alan Roberts, now retired from
the Monash University physics department, pointed out 20 years ago that
uranium enrichment is subsidised by the public everywhere and, as he
put it, “wherever uranium is enriched the taxpayers are impoverished”.
*The irony about this is that it is a backhanded way of recognising that global warming does exist.*
At the National
Press Club last year I said I welcomed the debate about nuclear power
because it was at least a recognition that climate change was a serious
problem. It remains true, as we used to say in the 1970s, “if nuclear
is the answer it must have been a pretty silly question”. There is no
doubt that efficiency improvements are by far the most cost effective
way of reducing climate change. And if you are looking at supply
technology, there is a range of renewable options that are more
attractive economically than nuclear power [and don’t have] its
security and environmental problems.
*You also point
out that this is a false argument because it’s pitched as nuclear
versus coal when it should be nuclear versus sustainable forms of
energy creation.*
That’s right,
because what we are talking about is what form of energy will supply
the new generating equipment that will be built in the next 25 years.
That’s really an issue of whether you supplement what we have now and
phase out power stations as they go with nuclear or alternative energy
resources. It’s not just that wind and a good site is now more
economically attractive than nuclear is ever likely to be. A new CSIRO
report says new solar thermal technology is economically competitive
with coal. There’s really no reason at all to be exploring the nuclear
option.
*What do you
think of John Howard’s special investigation team headed by Ziggy
Switkowski — ex-Telstra boss — with a few others?*
It is about as
independent as an Alabama sheriff. At the time of his appointment,
Switkowski was on the board of ANTSO and part of the group that
commissioned that shonky report claiming that nuclear was
cost-effective for Australia. Even though he has now stepped aside from
his ANSTO position, he hasn’t stood aside from his pro-nuclear
position. The group looks like it has been set up to provide a positive
report to justify further involvement of the government in the nuclear
industry.
*There are
three aspects to this debate: one is the question of uranium mining,
another is the question of uranium used in energy production and the
third is the storage of uranium in “fantastically safe” sites across
the country.*
There are three
reasons for bringing the issue up now. One is that it distracts
attention from the government’s other problems and palpable
deficiencies. The second is that it very effectively wedges the Labor
Party, which is divided on the issues of uranium mining and export. The
third is that it poses the spectre of an Australian nuclear power
industry. When the inquiry concludes that this would only happen if
there were massive government subsidies, people will be so relieved
that we aren’t having nuclear power stations that they will be more
accepting of an expansion of uranium exports, and possibly more
accepting of the argument that we should put public money into
enriching uranium on the grounds that this produces a value-added
product. Then, of course, the government will run the argument, as they
have /sotto voce/ for a few years, that as a massive uranium exporter
we have a moral responsibility to accept the waste back.
*This is a win-win situation for John Howard.*
I’m sure he
sees it that way. But it could come back to bite him because it is so
obviously a shonky inquiry. It looks like he is playing grubby politics
with something that should be a serious issue: namely, how the world’s
worst greenhouse polluter per person moves to a more responsible energy
policy that provides clean, safe and affordable energy.
*The movement
against uranium mining was the campaign linking the anti-war activism
of the 1960s and ’70s and the nuclear disarmament movement of the ’80s.
Do you think that sentiment against uranium mining can lead to a strong
campaign against nuclear energy production?*
The fear of
nuclear power stations might well lead to concerted opposition to
uranium mining and its export. If we are opposed to nuclear power
because of the weapons and waste problems, then we should be just as
opposed to it in China or India or Taiwan or the United States of
America or the United Kingdom as we are here.
At the moment
we are being a bit dishonest; we’re maintaining the position that we
don’t have nuclear power, therefore we aren’t contributing to weapons
and waste. But we are flogging uranium for all it’s worth — 13,000
tonnes per year — every gram of which ends up as radioactive waste. We
cannot guarantee that it won’t be used for weapons’ production. So
whether we like it or not, we are involved in making the world a
dirtier and more dangerous place. The nuclear power debate may focus
people’s attention on this moral double standard.
*That also puts the Labor Party under a lot of pressure.*
There are
certainly some within the Labor Party, like Martin Ferguson, who have
been saying we should expand mining and should look favourably at
enriching uranium. The Murdoch press has, with characteristic
dishonesty, been portraying this as a test of the economic credentials
of the Labor Party. In other words the Labor Party will only, in the
view of Rupert Murdoch, be worthy of being elected if it advocates
policies indistinguishable from the Liberals by being in favour of an
open-slather approach to uranium mining, uranium export and possibly
enrichment.
*The attempted
sale of the Snowy scheme suggests that business wants the
capitalisation carried by the government and the profiteering open to
be grabbed by corporations. The nuclear proposal is based on the same
pitch, isn’t it?*
This is the
standard approach of so-called public-private partnerships; the private
sector want to go to the casino with public money and keep the winnings
if they get lucky and have the government pick up the tab if they are
not. It is fundamentally dishonest and should be seen for what it is —
putting the private sector’s hand into the public wallet and allowing
it to rifle around and take what it wants.
*How do you
assess the practicality of alternative power options? What would it
take for wind or solar to become a viable proportion of energy
generation in this country?*
It would only
take some of the commitment in resources and political support that
we’ve given nuclear power and coal over the years. We’ve been funding
nuclear science and technology at Lucas Height at the rate of between
$50 million and $100 million a year for 50 years. The Howard
government, and now the Queensland and Victorian governments, are
putting in about $1 billion into research and development of so called
“clean coal” technology.
We’re probably
spending $10 million of public money [on] all forms of renewable energy
put together. We can improve our efficiencies and produce extra energy
from a range of alternative sources — hot dry rock, geothermal, solar,
wind and biomass. That would produce a lot more jobs in regional
Australia and more economic benefits than the path we are going down
now.
------------------->
* GEORGE MONBIOT IN THE GUARDIAN
------------------->
Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past - but we still don't need it
George Monbiot
Tuesday July 11, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1817394,00.html
If someone had
worked out how to cause a war within the environment movement, they
could not have developed a better means than nuclear power. In public
we will line up to attack the energy review published by the government
today. But in private we will reserve some of our venom for each other,
as we start to ask ourselves whether we have made the right decision.
The UK's dying
nuclear power stations are, at the moment, its principal source of
low-carbon energy. Electricity produced by a pressurised light water
reactor, when all its carbon costs have been taken into account, emits
around 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Gas produces 356
tonnes and coal 891. If our nuclear power stations are replaced by
thermal plants, the UK's annual output of CO2 will rise by roughly 51m
tonnes, or 8% of the total. Zac Goldsmith, arguing against new nukes,
calls this percentage "miniscule". This is breathtaking. We campaign to
prevent electrical appliances being left on standby, hoping to save
some 4m tonnes of CO2 a year. How can we then dismiss a cut 13 times as
great?
Some groups,
such as Greenpeace, the New Economics Foundation and the Sustainable
Development Commission, have produced reports showing that we can meet
the government's target - a 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050 -
without recourse to atomic power. They are right, but the target is now
irrelevant. In the book I am publishing in September, I will show that
when you take into account both human population growth and the
anticipated reduction in the biosphere's ability to absorb carbon, we
require a worldwide cut of roughly 60% per capita by 2030. If emissions
are to be distributed evenly, this means that the UK's need to be cut
by 87% in 24 years.
In seeking the
best means by which this cut can be made across all sectors (transport,
electricity, heating and construction), I have been forced to set aside
my prejudices. I hate nuclear power, but do we need it to help prevent
the planet from cooking?
Answering this
question means challenging people on both sides of the debate.
Anti-nuclear campaigners have a tendency to believe anything that casts
the industry in a bad light. Last month's edition of The Ecologist
magazine, for example, contends that 14m tonnes of concrete are
required to build a nuclear power station, resulting in a massive
release of carbon dioxide. Specifications are notoriously hard to come
by, but I have managed to find the figures for Calder Hall A, opened in
1956. It used 72,500 cubic yards of concrete, which equates to 108,000
tonnes, or less than 1% of the Ecologist's estimate. Modern power
stations are smaller.
We have made
similar mistakes over the global supplies of uranium. Noting that the
world possesses "assured reserves" of high-grade ores sufficient to
last for 40 or 50 years at current rates of use, some environmentalists
have argued that if new nuclear plants are built, they will run out of
fuel before they reach the end of their lives. But they have confused
assured reserves with total global resources. In other words, they have
assumed that no further discoveries will ever take place. Forty to 50
years is in fact a very high level of assurance.
There's little
doubt that extracting these ores kills. Last month New Scientist
reported that the 400,000 uranium miners working in East Germany
between 1946 and 1990 were exposed to an increased risk of lung cancer
of about 10%. But it didn't say whether this is the case elsewhere, or
how it compares to other kinds of mining. One tonne of uranium,
according to government figures, produces as much energy as 75,000
tonnes of coal. It is impossible to believe that coal has the lesser
impact.
I am forced to
admit that an accident like Chernobyl's could not take place in a new
nuclear power station. Secondary containment of the reactor core and
new safety systems make a total meltdown impossible. Nor do I believe
that new reactors would present a useful target for terrorists. It
would not be difficult to make the containment buildings strong enough
to resist an impact with an airliner.
But there are
other arguments that do stand up. The most fundamental environmental
principle - one that all children are taught as soon as they are old
enough to understand it - is that you don't make a new mess until you
have cleared up the old one. To start building a new generation of
nuclear power stations before we know what to do with the waste
produced by existing plants is grotesquely irresponsible. The
government's advisers have determined only that it should be buried. No
one yet knows where, how or at what cost.
This is just
one of the factors that make a nonsense of the economic projections.
How on earth can we say what nuclear power stations will cost if we
don't even know what their decommissioning entails? The government will
assure us today that there will be no subsidies and no guaranteed
prices for the nuclear industry. This should allow us to forget about
the cost, and leave the market to determine whether nuclear power
stations should be built. But in order to guarantee public safety, the
government must be ready to rescue our power stations or their waste
piles if the nuclear operators are in danger of going bankrupt. To
ensure that the operators don't fudge their figures, the government
must make it clear that it is not prepared to rescue them. It is a
paradox that cannot be resolved.
And how does
any system - political or technological - cope with the timescales
involved? If, as a result of slow leakage into the groundwater,
radioactive materials from a burial site were to kill an average of
only one person a year for one million years, those who made the
decision to bury them will - through their infinitesimal and unrecorded
impacts - be responsible for the deaths of a million people.
It has also
become clear that we will never rid the world of nuclear weapons if we
do not also rid it of nuclear power. Every state that has sought to
develop a weapons programme over the past 30 years - Israel, South
Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran - has done so by
manipulating its nuclear power programme. We cannot deny other states
the opportunity to use atomic energy if we do not forswear it ourselves.
But perhaps the
strongest argument against nuclear power is that we do not need it,
even to reach the extraordinarily ambitious target that the science
demands. With similar levels of investment in energy efficiency and
carbon capture and storage, and the exploitation of the vast new
offshore wind resources the government has now identified, we could cut
our carbon emissions as swiftly and as effectively as any atomic power
programme could. In North America, where natural gas supplies have
already peaked and are in long-term decline, this is a much tougher
challenge than in Eurasia; but while our supplies of gas persist we
should use them, and bury the carbon dioxide that our power stations
produce, while developing the electricity storage systems that will
eventually replace them.
Some of our arguments against nuclear power have collapsed, but it seems to me that the case is still robust.
www.monbiot.com
------------------->
* CLIVE HAMILTON AND ACF ON TIM FLANNERY
------------------->
A trump card in the nuclear power play
Clive Hamilton
August 8, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-trump-card-in-the-nuclear-power-play/2006/08/07/1154802818599.html
WITH its
strongly pro-business orientation, the Howard Government has found it
difficult to gain credibility for its environmental policies. It has
nevertheless made considerable headway through the use of a clever and
aggressive strategy of dividing the environment movement by cultivating
friendly organisations and individuals and punishing those that refuse
to fall into line.
WWF (formerly
the World Wide Fund for Nature) is the foremost of the friendly
organisations. It is close to the Government, providing a stream of
favourable commentary on its policies and bestowing several awards for
the Government's environmental achievements, including three "Gift to
the Earth" awards, which the Environment Minister, Ian Campbell,
displays in his office. In return, the Government has been generous,
sending tens of millions to the fund for various programs.
The force
behind the emergence of the organisation as the leading group backing
the Government's environment policy is the businessman Robert Purves.
He has made a very large donation to WWF and is now its president.
Purves has
drawn Tim Flannery into the orbit of conservative environmentalism by
funding the preparation of Flannery's book on climate change, The
Weather Makers. Flannery, who came late to the climate change debate,
has eloquently summarised the work of hundreds of climate scientists
and his book has undoubtedly raised public awareness and understanding
of the threats posed by global warming. Purves is said to have spent $1
million promoting Flannery's book, including costly backlit billboards
outside Qantas Club lounges around the country.
But isn't there
an inconsistency here? Why would Purves, sympathetic to the Government,
spend large sums funding and promoting a book that rings alarm bells
about climate change, which can only make life more difficult for the
Government?
The answer is
that Flannery's book does not make life harder for the Government, but
sends the sort of message the Government wants us to hear.
Flannery is an
advocate of individual consumer action as the answer to environmental
problems. Instead of being understood as a set of problems endemic to
our economic and social structures, we are told we each have to take
personal responsibility for our contribution to every problem.
Flannery
concludes his book by arguing that "there is no need to wait for
government action" - voluntary action by well-meaning consumers is the
only way to save the planet.
"It is my firm
belief that all the efforts of government and industry will come to
naught unless the good citizen and consumer takes the initiative, and
in tackling climate change the consumer is in a most fortunate
position."
He then lists
11 things concerned citizens can do to reduce their own greenhouse gas
emissions, urging each of us to "do the right thing" in the belief that
these noble appeals will transform the market: "If enough of us buy
green power, solar panels, solar hot water systems and hybrid vehicles,
the cost of these items will plummet."
This is music
to the Government's ears. The assignment of individual responsibility
is consistent with the economic rationalist view of the world, which
wants everything left to the market, even when the market manifestly
fails.
Yet it is at
best a naive, and at worst a reckless, approach to the looming
catastrophe of climate change. The world did not eliminate the
production of ozone-depleting substances by relying on the good sense
of consumers in buying CFC-free fridges. We insisted governments
negotiate an international treaty that banned CFCs. We did not invite
car buyers to pay more to install catalytic converters, the greatest
factor in reducing urban air pollution. We called on government to
legislate to require all car makers to include them.
When pressed,
Flannery will call on government to act, too, but his consistent
headline message is an appeal to consumers. Thus, when accepting a
prize for his book recently, he gave a four-word acceptance speech:
"Install a solar panel."
Green
consumerism such as that advocated by Flannery privatises
responsibility for environmental decline, shifting blame from elected
governments and industry onto the shoulders of individual citizens. The
cause of climate change becomes the responsibility of "all of us",
which, in effect, means nobody. It is obvious why a government that
wants to do nothing finds such an approach appealing: it can pretend to
be concerned while protecting powerful business interests.
Flannery's
"firm belief" that we can be saved only if consumers take the
initiative is one he shares with the ideologues of the right-wing think
tanks who argue that environmental problems should be left to the
unfettered market. If consumers don't make green choices then it is
obvious they don't care much about the environment.
But it is not
just his advocacy of do-nothing green consumerism that endears Flannery
to the Government. Alone among Australian environmental advocates, he
has declared his support for the development of a nuclear industry. The
Prime Minister, John Howard, now regularly buttresses his nuclear push
by saying that even some environmentalists "like Tim Flannery" support
nuclear power.
Even Howard
knows it would be folly to build nuclear power plants in Australia, a
fact that his nuclear inquiry will conveniently affirm. The Prime
Minister's game is to provide cover for his plan to expand uranium
mining and get an enrichment industry established.
Flannery is now part of the climate change debate, and whether he likes it or not, has become a trump card in Howard's hand.
Dr Clive Hamilton is executive director of the Australia Institute.
------------------->
Climate changes nuclear debate
August 25, 2006 12:00am
Herald Sun
DENISE BOYD - campaigns director of the Australian Conservation Foundation
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20240368-5000117,00.html
WHAT has been clear to the scientific community for a long time has, at last, been accepted by the Federal Government.
Climate change is here, it's real and it's serious.
So far, so good. We've identified the problem. It's when we start to look at potential solutions things get confusing.
The science
writer and commentator Tim Flannery, one of the nation's strongest
voices for urgent action on climate change, has called for Australia to
exploit uranium "in a morally responsible manner" and adopt the "noble
option" of nuclear power to address climate change.
Dr Flannery
says the need to act on global warming, the failure of federal
leadership on this issue and the distorted economics of the energy
market mean Australia should go nuclear: more uranium mining, uranium
enrichment, domestic nuclear power and international radioactive waste
storage.
The only problem is the doctor's prescribed remedy fails to cure the disease.
You cannot solve one monumental environmental problem by embracing another.
Nuclear is high
cost and high risk and will not deliver the cuts we need in greenhouse
pollution to avoid dangerous climate change.
Science is telling us we must cut greenhouse pollution by at least 60 per cent within a generation.
Even if we
doubled the number of nuclear reactors operating around the world, we
would achieve only a 5 per cent drop in emissions.
Big risk for tiny reward.
Nuclear power is no answer to climate change.
It's too slow
and ineffective to make a difference, too costly and is directly linked
to the production of the world's worst weapons and most dangerous
industrial waste.
The idea that
Australians should become "forceful nuclear pacifists", who export
uranium to the world then aggressively back international efforts to
stop weapons proliferation, is naive in the extreme. It's also a
contradiction in terms.
Safeguards cannot guarantee Australian uranium won't end up in nuclear weapons.
The only thing
that can be guaranteed is that every gram of exported uranium will end
up as a 250,000-year radioactive waste legacy for our children and
their children.
Safeguards rely
on trust. Take for example the safeguards the Federal Government is
developing to facilitate uranium sales to China.
They will depend on Australia trusting not only the current Chinese Government, but also every future government in Beijing.
Even if we were prepared to extend our trust that far, uranium exports raise other significant security concerns.
Terrorists do not respect safeguard agreements.
Once uranium is out of our hands it is impossible to guarantee its safe use and storage.
We do need to
change the way we create and consume energy, but we do not need to fuel
regional insecurities or create an eternal radioactive waste burden.
Why would we choose nuclear power when there are safer, cleaner, more credible energy options available?
While it would
take 10 to 25 years and at least $3 billion before a nuclear power
station could deliver a single watt of electricity in Australia,
renewables are ready to provide climate-friendly energy today.
Wind power has the potential to supply at least 10 per cent of Australia's electricity in the short term.
Wind and solar
energy are growing by about 30 per cent every year. Each time the
amount installed doubles, the costs fall by about 20 per cent.
Converting 80
per cent of Australian homes from electric water heating to solar, or
heat-pump systems would save the same amount of energy as that produced
by a nuclear power station.
And while most
Australians would be understandably nervous about a reactor in their
backyard, nobody minds a solar panel on the roof.
Geothermal energy, generated from hot rocks beneath the ground, is in its infancy but holds potential.
A single
project under development near Mt Gambier in South Australia is
believed to contain enough resources to generate 1000 megawatts of
geothermal power for 25 years.
This would be equivalent to a nuclear power station, but without the radioactive waste and risk.
Renewable
energy presents far greater employment and export opportunities than
expanding mining of uranium and playing host to the world's nuclear
waste.
Australia can become a world leader with renewables, or a world loser with nukes.
------------------->
Forget about left or right, I'm just the weatherman
Dan Silkstone
August 26, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/forget-about-left-or-right-im-just-the-weatherman/2006/08/25/1156012741421.html
THE Australian
Government is the "worst of the worst" on the issue of climate change,
according to environmentalist and bestselling author Tim Flannery.
Flannery,
recently criticised as being too close to the Government, has also
attracted controversy for saying that global warming is happening more
rapidly than suspected and for raising the possibility that nuclear
energy might be a solution.
His position on
nuclear energy, which he says has been misrepresented, has made him a
target for many former admirers on the left of Australian politics.
But in June,
when John Howard was trying to kick-start a "debate" about nuclear
power, he enlisted Flannery, saying on ABC Radio: "We do have a lot of
people in the green movement now — even people like … Tim Flannery —
saying we've got to look at the nuclear option."
With friends
like the PM, Flannery has not wanted for new enemies in the sometimes
overheated world of the environment movement. In The Age earlier this
month, the Australia Institute's Clive Hamilton accused him of being
too close to the Government. Yesterday, however, Flannery said that
curbing emissions was the Government's responsibility.
"Government
should be making the polluters pay," he says. "Our Government is the
worst of the worst, anywhere. Not even in the US am I seeing the same
welded-on opposition that I find in Australia … on every aspect of
energy policy."
While
Flannery's book, The Weather Makers, has made him a target at home, he
is celebrated overseas. When British Prime Minister Tony Blair signed
an emissions trading deal with California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger in Los Angeles, the men were photographed holding a copy
of the book. British entrepreneur Richard Branson has urged "everyone"
to read it and US billionaire Ted Turner is a fan. Flannery points to
such supporters as proof that climate change is too important to fall
between the left-right divide of conventional politics.
Time is running
out for the environment, he says. In the past 12 months scientists have
realised that the pace of global warming has been seriously
underestimated. "The Greenland icecap is melting away three times
faster than we imagined."
Flannery has
been surprised by the misrepresentation of his views in Australia and
by the vitriol levelled at him from both sides of politics. "There's an
idea that I'm pro-nuclear, that I'm somehow captured by the nuclear
lobby," he says. "I'm just not … The far left and far right unite in
making me a target. It's bizarre."
Flannery has
suggested a possible nuclear future for Australia but says this could
only happen if coal and other dirty fuels were scrapped. Even then, it
is simply one of many options.
------------------->
Let's talk about nuclear power and other energy sources
By Tim Flannery
May 30, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/lets-talk-about-nuclear-power-emandem-other-energy-sources/2006/05/29/1148754933159.html
Should
Australia "go" nuclear? It's a question that has split
environmentalists and threatens to deprive the climate debate of
oxygen. But it is an important question, and it needs to be answered.
Greenhouse gas
emissions are now so great that Earth's climate system is
destabilising, and as it destabilises, so will our global civilisation.
If we keep adding to the pollution, rising seas, extreme weather, water
and food shortages will lead to mass migrations and a breakdown in the
global treaties and understandings that keep us at peace rather than
war.
We can see the
beginnings of the process now. With CO2 accumulating at the rate of 2.5
parts per million per year, we have just a decade or two to make big
reductions.
Australians are
the worst per capita emitters of polluting greenhouse gases on Earth,
and Victoria is home to the most polluting coal-fired power station in
the world. Fifty-six per cent of the greenhouse gases you generated
this morning boiling the jug or taking the kids to school will still be
in the atmosphere in a century's time, blighting the lives of our
children's children. That's quite a moral issue.
Over the next
two decades, Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our
coal-fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like
that of France, and in doing so we would have done something great for
the world, for whatever risks go with a domestic nuclear power industry
are local, while greenhouse gas pollution is global in its impact.
This, I fear,
is not what is intended. Instead, many will want Australia to have its
cake and eat it too, which will mean keeping the coal-fired power
plants and supplementing them with a bit of nuclear. And exports of
both coal and uranium would, of course, be pursued as vigorously as
possible.
Where would
such a policy lead us? Within a few decades, we could be living in a
world undergoing substantial destabilisation of its environmental and
political structures. And that world would be awash with Australian
uranium capable of making the most destructive weapons ever devised.
What's the way
out of this predicament? It's simple, and it begins with asking a
question: is it right to enrich ourselves by degrading our children's
future? If your answer is no, then certain actions must follow.
First, you
would burn as little fossil fuel as possible. That might mean buying a
smaller car, or asking your electricity provider for green power. It
might mean buying a solar hot-water heater, or even learning more about
how electricity is generated and how we use it. If everyone from the
Prime Minister down acted in this way, we would need no more power
plants - coal or nuclear - because the demand for electricity would
drop. So would our petrol use, and our politicians would, of course,
take the lead in emergency efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution
internationally.
These moral
questions also have profound implications for our uranium industry.
They may lead to us using nuclear power to offset coal, especially in
places such as China (where nuclear power is cost-effective) and, of
course, we would seek to make nuclear power as safe as possible. That
means insisting on good regulation of the nuclear industry and adhering
to international treaties.
I do not
believe, incidentally, that nuclear power is entirely safe. But neither
is coal. Indeed there can be lots of uranium in coal, which gets into
the air when we burn it, and which can lead to high rates of cancer.
The three risks
from uranium are bombs, accidents and waste. Our only defence against
bombs is good international regulation that prevents uranium being
turned into bombs, and to minimise this risk, Australians must become
forceful nuclear pacifists.
Because a
single new accident could destroy the entire nuclear industry
worldwide, lots of work has gone into minimising the risk of accidents.
As a result, new nuclear technology is relatively safe. While much work
remains to be done in dealing with waste, we have also made progress in
this regard.
Is it better to
bequeath our children the remaining problems associated with disposing
of nuclear waste, or life in a climate-induced dark age? Of course, the
ideal solution would be to leave them neither, but few people in power
are talking about accelerating the development of wind, solar and
geothermal options that might allow us this choice.
Before we make
up our minds on how we respond to the Prime Minister's call for debate
on nuclear power, let's think through where our response might lead. An
angry rebuttal of nuclear power could mire our nation in a heated but
not very enlightened argument that will take the focus off the real
issue - climate change - for years.
Ignoring the
whole thing as just too hard isn't an option either, because that will
condemn our world to a new dark age, which may be just a few decades
off. Asking for a renewed focus on renewable energy is morally right,
but no mainstream politician is listening, and time is short.
You and I must win the battle for our children's future, in double-quick time. The alternative is just unthinkable.
Tim Flannery is an environmental scientist and director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide.
------------------->
* URANIUM ENRICHMENT FOR AUSTRALIA?
-------------------->
Enriching Australia?
Jim Green
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4786
24/8/06
Recently, the
Prime Minister has become fond of likening a domestic industry for
enriching uranium to building factories to knit garments from Aussie
wool.
It’s a cosy
argument for value-adding, but it masks the security and environmental
threats of a domestic uranium enrichment industry.
Unlike
enrichment plants, garment factories don’t generate large volumes of
radioactive waste in the form of depleted uranium and they don’t have
the potential to destabilise the region.
We can safely
assume that the Lucas Heights nuclear plant in Sydney never operated a
secret program to knit woollen garments. But in 1965, the Lucas Heights
plant, then known as the Atomic Energy Commission, did begin a secret
uranium enrichment program. It was known as the “Whistle Project” - the
idea being that workers would whistle as they walked past Building 64
and studiously avoid any mention of the secret enrichment program
underway in the building's basement.
There can be no
doubt that the Whistle Project had a military agenda. Indeed, in the
archives of the University of New South Wales, you can find
hand-written notes by the then chair of the Atomic Energy Commission,
Sir Philip Baxter, in which he calculates how many nuclear weapons
could be produced if the enrichment work proceeded as he hoped it would.
As it happens,
the enrichment work was publicly revealed in the 1967-68 Annual Report
of the Atomic Energy Commission and the project continued in fits and
starts until the incoming Hawke Labor Government put an end to it in
1984.
Other countries
also proceeded with their “peaceful” uranium enrichment programs. More
precisely, they proceeded to build nuclear weapons using
highly-enriched uranium from their “peaceful” enrichment programs. This
is how Pakistan and South Africa developed their arsenals of nuclear
weapons.
The Iraqi
regime was pursuing uranium enrichment until its nuclear weapons
program was terminated during and after the 1991 Gulf War. North Korea
claims to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons which use enriched uranium
as their fissile material. There is enormous controversy over the
current uranium enrichment program in Iran.
The simple fact
is that “peaceful” enrichment plants can produce low-enriched uranium
for power reactors, and they can produce highly-enriched uranium for
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Further, the
depleted uranium tailings waste produced in large volumes at enrichment
plants can be used in munitions, such as those used by the US and NATO
in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan.
Australia could
not credibly oppose uranium enrichment programs in North Korea or Iran
if we had the same capacity to produce fissile weapons material. Nor
could we credibly oppose the current plans in Indonesia to build
plutonium production - oops, I mean peaceful power - reactors.
In the June 6
edition of The Bulletin, Max Walsh discusses the “elephant in the room”
in the current nuclear debate - the possibility that it is being driven
by a military agenda. Could it be that John Howard is interested in
uranium enrichment precisely because of its military potential? Does he
subscribe to the “Fortress Australia” views which led former Liberal
Prime Minister, John Gorton, to approve construction of a plutonium
production - oops, I mean peaceful power - reactor at Jervis Bay in the
late 1960s?
The Prime
Minister is undoubtedly aware of widespread concern that the
international non-proliferation regime could collapse because of the
recalcitrance of the major nuclear weapons states and the ambitions of
would-be weapons states. As the 2004 report of the UN
Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change
noted: "We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the
non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a
cascade of proliferation."
The Prime
Minister has argued that in the emerging Nuclear World Order, countries
supplying nuclear fuel might also take responsibility for spent nuclear
fuel disposal. If Australia is to supply not just raw yellowcake but
enriched uranium or fuel rods, the pressure on Australia to host an
international high-level nuclear waste dump will continue to build.
As Professor
John Veevers from Macquarie University wrote in the Australian
Geologist in the late 1990s - when Pangea Resources was attempting to
foist a nuclear dump on Australia - such a dump would pose serious
public health and environmental risks: "[T]onnes of enormously
dangerous radioactive waste in the northern hemisphere, 20,000kms from
its destined dump in Australia where it must remain intact for at least
10,000 years. These magnitudes - of tonnage, lethality, distance of
transport, and time - entail great inherent risk."
Instead of
pursuing his nuclear dreaming, the Prime Minister should focus his
attention on adding value to benign and clean energy resources.
Australia was once a leader in solar power, an industry that has been
left by his government to wither on vine as capital and brains take
flight overseas, where more visionary policies are in place.
The Canberra
Times obtained a confidential CSIRO report in May which argues that
solar thermal technology "is poised to play a significant role in
baseload generation for Australia" and will be cost-competitive with
coal within seven years.
But this
potential won't be realised unless the Government can be persuaded to
shift its nuclear ambitions from enrichment plants and power reactors
to the nuclear fusion power supplied by the sun at a safe distance of
150 million kilometres.
An expanded
renewable energy target, like those recently announced in Victoria and
South Australia, would provide jobs and energy security while slashing
greenhouse emissions. And it won’t upset the neighbours.
------------------->
Good hour-long radio doco ... audio-on-demand + transcript at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1726921.htm
Australia and the nuclear renaissance
Nuclear is
back. Australia, with its abundant ore and 'good guy' status could
become a key member of the uranium enricher's club. But what would the
neighbours think? And how would the twin threats of weapons
proliferation and waste disposal be addressed? Reporter Tom Morton.
------------------->
DEMOCRATS
MEDIA RELEASE
Wednesday 19 July 2006
SENATOR LYN ALLISON
Enrichment bad for global security and environment
The Australian Democrats Leader Senator Lyn Allison said the Prime
Minister's push for enrichment in Australia flies in the face of
global security and is not environmentally or economically sound.
"Enriching uranium is highly energy intensive contributing further to
Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and leaves a massive amount of
chemical waste.
"Uranium enrichment in the US alone releases 14 million tonnes of CO2
pa, and for every tonne of natural uranium mined and enriched for use
in a nuclear reactor, the majority - 87% - is left as waste.
"The bulk of the byproduct is depleted uranium (DU), for which there
are few applications. The United States alone has 470,000 tonnes in
store, and 1.2 million tonnes stored around the world.
"The PM's ongoing suggestion that exporting non-enriched uranium is
analogous to exporting wool as a raw product is outrageous. Turning
wool into knitted garments doesn't leave a pile of intractable waste
behind!
"Expanding uranium mining and enriching uranium in Australia will do
nothing to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and only exacerbates the
situation.
"Every state that has sought to develop a weapons program over the
past 30 years has done so by manipulating its nuclear power program
and, by moving to enrichment, Australia would be encouraging that.
"Just because we have 40% of the world's uranium doesn't mean it's
safe or smart to dig it up, enrich it or send it off to an uncertain
and possibly destructive end product, damaging the environment in the
process.
"Australia could instead be exporting renewable energy technology and
equipment around the world. Instead our innovative technology
companies are being forced overseas" Senator Allison said.
Media contact - Media Officer Senator Lyn Allison 03 9416 1880
------------------->
Enrichment giant wants a plant here
Amanda Hodge
May 27, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19270495-2702,00.html
ONE of the
world's biggest uranium-enrichment companies, Urenco, is interested in
building a plant in Australia - more than 20 years after it was refused
approval to do so.
The British,
Dutch and German consortium, which operates three enrichment plants in
Europe and is building another in the US, told The Weekend Australian
that Australia would be a good base for servicing the growing
Asia-Pacific market for nuclear power fuel.
Urenco group
communications manager Jayne Hallett said the world's four major
uranium-enrichment suppliers had enough capacity to meet forecast
market demand for the next decade.
"But given the
anticipated world growth in nuclear power generation (as forecast by
the World Nuclear Authority), there is possibly scope for further
investment in enrichment capacity in Australia," Ms Hallett said.
Her comments
came after French nuclear giant Areva ruled out interest in investing
in uranium enrichment in Australia, saying it made little commercial
sense unless the nation was prepared to go for nuclear energy.
And the move follows this week's sale of Australian-developed laser enrichment technology to US energy giant GE.
The
new-generation technology was developed by Australian company Silex,
but was sold offshore because the company saw little prospect of the
project being developed to a commercial stage in this country.
Urenco's own
developed and patented uranium-enrichment technology, known as gas
centrifuge, is now the dominant method for separating U238 uranium from
U235 to make uranium hexafluoride, which is in turn used in the
production of nuclear fuel rods. In the late 1970s, the South
Australian and federal governments courted Urenco to build a uranium
enrichment plant in this country.
While the South
Australian government eventually dropped the plan, the Uranium
Enrichment Group of Australia -- comprising BHP, CSR, Peko-Wallsend and
WMC -- released a study in 1982 recommending that the nation pursue
uranium enrichment.
The election of
the Hawke Labor government in 1983 brought an end to those plans -
until this month, when John Howard set nuclear power and uranium
enrichment firmly back on the national agenda. The Prime Minister has
called for a new debate on nuclear power.
Ms Hallett said
her company would be interested in assessing the economics of building
an enrichment plant in Australia if it were invited to do so.
Urenco has
invested $US1.4 billion ($1.8billion) in the construction of a new
3000-tonne-capacity uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico.
"Potentially
such a facility employing Urenco's proven centrifuge technology could
be located in Australia to serve the Asian Pacific market," Ms Hallett
said.
"Urenco is well placed to meet the needs of such a requirement, and if invited would research the business plan.
"However, such a project would be subject to governmental approval and economic viability."
Australia holds
40 per cent of the world's known low-cost uranium deposits, but
processes the ore only to uranium oxide concentrate, which is then
exported for enrichment.
------------------->
Howard pushes for uranium enrichment
Doug Lorimer
From Green Left Weekly, June 14, 2006.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/671/671p3.htm
On June 6, PM
John Howard announced the appointment of former Telstra CEO Ziggy
Switkowski, who is also a board member of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), to head a six-member task
force to “review” Australia’s uranium mining industry and the
possibility of building nuclear power plants in Australia.
Australia’s
current involvement in the nuclear industry is limited to the mining
and export of “yellowcake” (powderised uranium ore) and the operation
of a small research reactor at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney.
However, Australia has 40% of the world’s known low-cost recoverable
uranium reserves.
While promising
that the task force would carry out an “objective, scientific and
comprehensive” review, Howard argued that the establishment of nuclear
power plants would be good for Australia’s economy. “Energy prices and
energy security are key considerations for future economic growth in a
lower [carbon dioxide] emissions future”, he said.
The review will
begin this month, with a draft report planned for public consultation
by November and the final report due by the end of the year.
The corporate
media has focused on Howard’s remarks since returning from Washington
on May 19 about nuclear power being the solution to climate change
caused by greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power stations. The
government is most keen on massively expanding exports of Australian
uranium, and adding value by turning the yellowcake into nuclear fuel
rods. To do this, however, would require building a uranium enrichment
plant.
“It doesn’t
seem to me to make a lot of sense to favour the export of uranium
without looking at enrichment”, Howard told ABC TV’s June 3 Insiders
program. “There is significant potential for Australia to increase and
add value to our uranium extraction and exports”, he repeated on June
6. He also noted that recent developments in global energy markets have
renewed international interest in nuclear power as a technology that
“can help meet growing demand for electricity without the fuel and
environmental costs associated with oil and gas”.
Australian
Greens energy and climate change spokesperson Senator Christine Milne
said that everything about Howard’s announcement “points to enrichment
of uranium as the prime minister’s real agenda ... During his recent
visit to the United States, Prime Minister Howard had talks in
Washington with President [George] Bush about the president’s desire to
set up new nuclear fuel supply centres around the world with a view to
having these supply centres enrich uranium and lease it with an
agreement to take back the spent fuel rods.”
The Bush
administration is pushing a massive expansion of the nuclear power
industry as the “best” solution to global warming. Last year, Bush won
from the US Congress a host of “incentives” for the nuclear power
industry, including tax breaks and insurance against regulatory and
legal delays in constructing new plants. On May 22, the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission announced that 16 US corporations had expressed
interest in building 25 nuclear reactors in the US.
Bush has also
proposed that Australia and Canada — the world’s major uranium
exporting countries — join with the US to form a marketing cartel, the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). They would enrich the
uranium, then “rent” their nuclear fuel rods out to user countries and
take back the waste.
According to
the June 6 Australian Financial Review, before and during his visit to
Washington, Howard was briefed by US officials about the role they
expect Australia to play in the GNEP. This would involve “mining and
enriching uranium at Olympic Dam in South Australia, exporting it to
India and China via the Adelaide-Darwin rail line and re-importing the
waste the same way for storage at the former nuclear test site at
Maralinga ... The GNEP could create immediate profits for any private
firm building an enrichment plant at or near the Olympic Dam uranium
mine.”
The Olympic Dam
mine, owned and operated by BHP Billiton, holds the world’s largest
known uranium ore deposit, with about 66% of Australia’s proven
reserves. Under the Bush plan, Maralinga would become the world’s
principal site for dumping used nuclear fuel rods.
------------------->
Last Update: Friday, August 25, 2006. 6:37pm (AEST)
Federal Labor warns of NT nuclear dump
Federal Labor
says moves to investigate the prospect of a local uranium enrichment
industry could lead to a high-level radioactive waste dump being built
in the Northern Territory.
Members of the
Country Liberal Party will vote this weekend on whether to formally
investigate the viability of enriching uranium.
Labor science
spokeswoman Jenny Macklin says it is a dangerous move while the Prime
Minister is investigating nuclear power options.
"What he's not prepared to do is tell us where the nuclear waste dumps are going to go," she said.
"He won't tell
us where the uranium enrichment plants are going to go, he won't tell
us where the reactors are going to go and now we have the Country
Liberal Party in the Northern Territory opening this up."
She says waste and enrichment go hand-in-hand.
"That's the big danger is that that's what will be required if they go down the track of uranium enrichment," she said.
"They'll be
required to take the waste and that is the big concern that many, many
people have and certainly, many people in the Northern Territory are
worried that will be the result."
------------------->
Lord Downer on ABC AM 17/8/06
- Fran Kelly
refers to Beazley saying enrichment would send wrong message to
countries in the region because it raises the spectre of nuclear
weapons.
- claiming that
a domestic enrichment industry would raise the spectre of Australia
producing nuclear weapons is "absurd" and "childish"
- Question:
"Doesn't enrichment bring us much closer to the nuclear weapons
threshold?" Downer: "Not at all." (In fact it would give Australia the
capacity to produce highly-enriched uranium and dramatically lower the
barriers to nuclear weapons production.)
- Downer
refutes suggestion that Aust is on "threshold" of building nuclear
weapons - straw man, no one is suggesting that. But enrichment
significantly lowers the barriers to nuclear weapons.
- Downer says Australia leader in non-proliferation regime
- Fran Kelly
queries re Aust history, nuclear program with military and civil
objectives, covert enrichment program. Downer says decision made in
1960s not to build nuclear weapons and "no Australian government has
ever contemplated going down that path any time since." Which is
largely true because of Australia's status as a nuclear weapons state
by proxy thanks to the US nuclear umbrella.
- Downer says
he introduced the CTBT in 1996 to UN which was endorsed and adopted
(but key countries refuse to sign/ratify e.g. USA, China). Downer says
he mentioned possible enrichment in Australia to Condi Rice when he met
her in Malaysia the other day.
- Downer supports domestic enrichment industry but waiting for UMPNER review findings.
- Downer says
better enrichment in Australia and Canada rather that from other
countries "which you might politely describe as less stable".
- Downer obsolutely categorically rules out nuclear weapons program in Australia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US backs Howard's nuclear vision
Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20155550-601,00.html
August 17, 2006
THE Bush
administration has indicated it will support Australia developing a
uranium enrichment industry, despite the White House's policy to
restrict new entrants to the world nuclear club.
In response to
John Howard's campaign to ensure the existing nuclear powers do not
lock Australia out of future nuclear development, a senior US official
has said "special rules" apply to Australia and Canada.
Dennis
Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear power at the US Department of
Energy, said Australia and Canada were likely to be given special
consideration because they would play a pivotal role in a new nuclear
suppliers club the US is trying to establish.
"I think
Australia, and Canada for that matter, play a special role in world
nuclear affairs because obviously you are two countries that have the
majority of economically recoverable uranium resources," Mr Spurgeon
said in an exclusive interview with The Australian yesterday.
Asked if this
gave Australia and Canada a strong bargaining chip in negotiating their
entry into a new nuclear club, he replied: "Exactly. So in any
discussion, you have to take into account the facts as they lay."
"I think
Australia is viewed as a totally reliable and trustworthy country, so I
don't think there is any issue there whatsoever."
The Government
has launched an inquiry, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy
Switkowski, to examine the economics of expanding Australia's uranium
mining sector, becoming involved in uranium enrichment and establishing
a domestic nuclear power industry.
It comes after
the Bush administration unveiled last year the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, which is designed to restrict the number of countries
enriching uranium to existing players such as the US, Britain, China,
Russia and France.
But under the
GNEP, nuclear fuel would be shipped to feed energy-hungry developing
countries and the spent fuel taken back to the supplier so it could not
be reprocessed and used for weapons. Its clear aim is to prevent
nuclear proliferation as witnessed in rogue states such as North Korea
and as fears grow that Iran's civilian nuclear push is simply a cover
for nuclear weapons manufacture.
It is also designed to promote a fuel source that does not produce greenhouse gases.
But the plan
caught the Howard Government off guard and it was one of the main
issues the Prime Minister raised with US President George W.Bush on his
trip to Washington in May. Mr Howard then travelled to Canada to
discuss the GNEP program with counterpart Stephen Harper.
Last month, Mr
Howard told The Australian he was not suspicious of the initiative "but
I'm keen to keep an eye on it and keen to ensure it doesn't damage
Australia's position".
The GNEP
policy, as it stands, would freeze Australia out of the enrichment club
and presents an awkward policy conflict between Australia and the US.
Mr Spurgeon admitted the GNEP policy as envisaged presented an "unusual situation" in relation to Australia and Canada.
"Any time you
make a general rule you always find maybe it doesn't apply in all
circumstances," he said. "The United States depends on, and wants to
continue to have, a very close partnership and working relationship
with Australia.
"We end up with
a little bit of an unusual situation here because the policy is really
designed to try to help countries like Vietnam, for example, to be able
to have the benefit of nuclear energy without needing that kind of
enrichment plant and without needing a reprocessing facility."
Keen to assuage
fears that Australia would not be dealt a bad hand in the program, Mr
Spurgeon added that future discussions with Australia "comes down to
the way in which we might jointly agree on a path forward for
implementing the principles contained in GNEP".
"But it is just that. It's a discussion. It's not a dictation in any manner of speaking.
"We are pleased
Australia is looking at nuclear energy and does want to be an active
partner as we attempt to increase the use of nuclear energy worldwide
in a responsible way."
He stressed he
was not in a position to make a definitive comment on what the
administration's position would be on Australia enriching uranium,
saying that was for the State Department to comment on.
However, a spokesman for the State Department's Bureau of Non-proliferation declined to comment.
-------------------->
* ENRICHMENT IN THE USA
------------------->
New Research Indicates Health Risks from Uranium May Be More Varied Than Reflected in Current Federal Policy
http://www.ieer.org/reports/du/LESprfeb05.html
Depleted
Uranium from Proposed New Mexico Enrichment Plant May Become
Multi-Billion Dollar Taxpayer Liability without a Hefty Financial
Guarantee
Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and Corporate Options for DU Disposal Risk
Long-Term Violation of Health and Environmental Standards, New Analysis
Indicates
Update to report, July 5, 2005 [PDF, 861 kB, 28 pp.]
TAKOMA PARK,
MD, FEB. 23, 2005 - A new report about a uranium enrichment plant
proposed to be built in New Mexico concludes that it would cost between
$3 billion and $4 billion to properly manage and dispose of the
depleted uranium (DU) waste that the plant would generate. Such high
costs could not be recovered from the customers for enrichment services.
The report also
discusses recent research on the health effects of DU, much of it
performed at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in
Bethesda, Maryland after the 1991 Gulf War, that has implications far
wider than the New Mexico plant. The research indicates that depleted
uranium may be mutagenic, tumorigenic, teratogenic, cytotoxic, and
neurotoxic, including in a manner analogous to exposure to lead.1 It
may also cross the placenta and harm the embryo/fetus. There is also
research that indicates that the chemical and radiological toxicities
of uranium may, in some cases, be acting in a synergistic manner.
Federal regulations limit uranium inhalation based on cancer risk and
drinking water intake based mainly on kidney toxicity.
There are
currently some 740,000 tons of depleted uranium in unstable
hexafluoride form stockpiled at Department of Energy sites at Paducah,
Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. LES, a corporate
consortium led by the European company Urenco, wants to build the plant
in New Mexico. Another company, USEC, seeks to build a similar plant in
Ohio.
The report -
released today by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
(IEER) and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service
(NIRS)-concludes that unless LES provides at least $2.5 billion dollars
in financial guarantees, it is likely that the people of New Mexico,
U.S. taxpayers, and future generations would be stuck with a
multi-billion dollar radioactive waste liability. The report was filed
with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in late November 2004
by NIRS and the public interest group Public Citizen as part of their
legal intervention in the licensing proceeding of LES. A redacted
version excluding proprietary LES corporate financial data is being
released to the public today.
"The labeling
of depleted uranium as 'low-level' waste by the NRC is not going to
diminish its dangers," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, principal author of
the report and president of IEER. "To paraphrase Shakespeare, dangerous
radioactive waste by any other name would still pose significant public
health risks."
The report is
entitled Costs and Risks of Management and Disposal of Depleted Uranium
from the National Enrichment Facility Proposed to be Built in Lea
County New Mexico by LES. It provides data showing that depleted
uranium is radiologically comparable to transuranic waste, which is
waste that is significantly contaminated with plutonium and other
long-lived radionuclides like it. Federal regulations define
transuranic waste as that which has more than 100 nanocuries per gram
of long-lived transuranic radionuclides that emit alpha radiation. DU
has a specific activity of about 400 nanocuries per gram. Transuranic
waste from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities is now being
disposed of in a deep geologic repository in New Mexico called the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, which is a multi-billion dollar federal
government project.
"The people of
New Mexico and the taxpayers of the United States may find themselves
saddled with enormous liabilities," said Michael Mariotte, executive
director of NIRS, which sponsored the IEER report. "Corporations can
easily wiggle out of their obligations. It happened, for example, when
Getty Oil dumped the wastes from its plutonium reprocessing plant into
the laps of the federal government and the State of New York over three
decades ago. That multi-billion dollar mess still hasn't been fully
cleaned up, and the waste has nowhere to go."
"The health
risks of depleted uranium may be far more varied than is recognized in
federal regulations today," said Dr. Brice Smith, Senior Scientist at
IEER and co-author of the report. "Children in the future may be
saddled with a legacy similar to that of the sorry history of lead
poisoning over the past three generations, but this time we are dealing
with a heavy metal that is also radioactive."
The license
application constitutes LES's fourth attempt to build a uranium
enrichment plant in the United States. The first attempt, which was for
a plant in Louisiana, cost LES more than $30 million. LES withdrew the
application after a citizens' group successfully challenged the NRC's
environmental impact statement for the project on environmental justice
grounds. Two other locations, both in Tennessee, were also explored but
abandoned in the face of local opposition. DU disposal has remained a
central public concern throughout.
"The NRC has so
far failed to back up its claims that radiation doses from depleted
uranium disposal in an abandoned mine would be within regulatory
limits," said Dr. Makhijani. "Data-free analysis ought to be
unacceptable in any forum, but it is especially so in an environmental
impact statement prepared by a government agency charged with
protecting public health and safety."
LES may
consider shallow land disposal as option; sites in Utah or in Texas
just across the border from LES site in New Mexico may be considered.
LES may elect to pay the federal government to take on its waste. DOE
is building a plant to convert DU hexafluoride to a more stable oxide
form but it has not yet identified a viable long-term disposal strategy
even for its own DU.
"Transfer to
the DOE cannot be considered a solution to LES's waste problem," said
Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program. "The DOE has yet to take charge of a single spent
fuel bundle from nuclear power plant operators-despite a legal
commitment to begin in 1998 and billions of dollars in payments to the
federal government by nuclear electricity consumers."
The report can be downloaded in full at www.ieer.org/reports/du/LESrptfeb05.pdf
1. That is, it
may cause or contribute to genetic mutations, tumors, birth defects,
neurological damage, and cellular level toxicity.
------------------->
* PLAN FOR COMMONWEALTH NUCLEAR DUMP IN THE NT
------------------->
MEDIA RELEASE
19 June 2006
Green & black alliance seeks answers on radioactive waste dump but Bishop ‘too busy’
A delegation of
indigenous women and environmentalists will visit Canberra on Wednesday
and Thursday of this week (21 & 22 June) to draw attention to
problems around the Federal Government’s plans to impose a national
radioactive waste dump in the Northern Territory.
The Minister
responsible for site selection, Julie Bishop, has rejected several
invitations to visit communities living nearest the proposed sites.
“We wanted
Julie Bishop to come and see that these sites are not in the middle of
nowhere. There are communities living and gathering bush tucker
and water nearby. We are concerned that we are not being given
the full story about safety and that one day our country might become
an international waste dump,” said Kath Martin, a traditional owner
from Mt Everard.
Recognising the
busy schedule of the Minister, the women decided to make the journey to
Canberra. They have arranged to meet with Parliamentarians For a
Nuclear Free Future, a range of Opposition MPs and one coalition
Senator, Nigel Scullion.
Minister Bishop has indicated there is no time in her schedule to meet with the delegation.
“The Minister
has been calling for a ‘full and open debate’ on nuclear issues.
But by being unable to fit these women into her schedule the Minister
is missing a significant opportunity to engage with communities that
will be directly affected by the government’s plans for a nuclear
future,” said Leanne Minshull, Nuclear Free campaigner with the
Australian Conservation Foundation.
“After visiting
some of the proposed sites, which are surrounded by water courses and
communities, I am incredulous that the Government is considering
putting a nuclear dump at any of them. The sites are all obviously
inappropriate and chosen purely for political, not scientific reasons.
We hope this trip will bring concerns from the NT into the national
arena,” said Nat Wasley, Arid Lands Environment Centre - Beyond Nuclear
Initiative Campaigner from Alice Springs.
------------------->
AAP
Thurs August 4
NT: Fed Labor will repeal nuke dump laws if elected: Beazley
DARWIN, Aug 3
AAP - Labor will repeal legislation that imposes a nuclear waste dump
on the Northern Territory if it wins government.
But Opposition
Leader Kim Beazley said there would still be a need for a nuclear waste
facility and believed a site should be found "by negotiation."
In Darwin on a whirlwind tour of the NT, Mr Beazley said the way the NT had been treated on the issue was "shocking".
The federal
government is moving ahead with plans for a nuclear waste repository in
the territory despite its parliament passing legislation prohibiting
such a facility.
Three sites are
being considered; Harts Range, 100km north east of Alice Springs, Mt
Everard, also in Central Australia, and Fishers Ridge, near Katherine.
In December,
federal parliament passed two bills to override the NT's objection to
the dump, after the SA government opposed the federal government's
preferred site near Woomera.
"We'll not use
that legislation, we'll repeal it and we'll put something else in
place," Mr Beazley told ABC radio.
"We do have to find an
alternative, a location for that dump, but we oppose that legislation."
Mr Beazley said
he believed it would be possible to find a solution to the problem of
waste through negotiation.
"There is a need for a nuclear waste dump
and that ought to be talked through with the communities and done in a
way that at the end of the day is based on a consensus," Mr Beazley
said.
"I oppose the
way the NT has been treated on this.
"If we are in a position because
final decisions or substantial decisions have not been taken, contracts
let and all the rest of it ... we will sit down and make our way
through this issue to come to a conclusion that is not on the basis of
an imposition."
AAP km/jt/bwl
------------------->
http://abc.net.au/news/items/200607/1691255.htm?nt
ABC Northern Territory
Indigenous community to challenge nuclear dump proposal
Wednesday, 19
July 2006. 20:26 (AEDT)Wednesday, 19 July 2006. 19:26 (ACST)Wednesday,
19 July 2006. 19:26 (AEST)Wednesday, 19 July 2006. 20:26
(ACDT)Wednesday, 19 July 2006. 17:26 (AWST)
A Warlmanpa
woman says her people will challenge the Northern Land Council (NLC)
over its proposal to allow a nuclear dump site at Muckaty in the Barkly
region of the Northern Territory.
Marlene Bennett says the majority of Warlmanpa people are opposed to the plan.
She says the
NLC's consultation process is flawed and she is concerned people with a
traditional connection to the land are being duped.
"They've sent an invitation to John Daley from the NLC to come and meet with them," she said.
"They want to
inform him face to face that he has no right to be discussing a nuclear
waste site in their country without their informed consent."
------------------->
Last Update: Thursday, June 22, 2006. 3:32pm (AEST)
Nuclear dump protesters take their case to Canberra
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1669449.htm
A delegation of
protesters from Central Australia has met with Parliamentarians in
Canberra to discuss plans for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern
Territory.
The group includes activists and a traditional land owner of a proposed nuclear dump site.
Beyond Nuclear
Initiative campaigner, Nat Wasley, says the group has met with the
Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, the Northern Territory Senator
Nigel Scullion, and a delegation of Labor Party MPs.
But Ms Wasley says the group still has not been able to meet with the Minister for Science, Julie Bishop.
"Since the
waste dump's been proposed the Minister for Education, Science and
Training Julie Bishop has been invited to come out and sit with the
communities living near the proposed waste dump site, as have other
Ministers, and they haven't yet made the effort to come and sit down
properly," Ms Wasley said.
"So we decided that we'd come across to Canberra and talk to them here."
------------------->
June 5
Preparation Begins for Nuclear Waste Spill
This morning,
to mark World Environment Day, a team consisting of members of
AliceAction community action group, will commence training for
emergency response to a nuclear waste spill. Dressed in radiation
suits and armed with geiger counters, dustpans and brooms, the disposal
team will prepare for a worst case scenario; an accident related to the
proposed NT radioactive waste dump.
“We are
training for emergency response because there are no nuclear experts in
Alice Springs that are equipped to attend to a spill. It appears
it is up to community minded citizens like us to take initiative and be
prepared” said Susanna Bady of AliceAction.
“There is a
real possibility of an accident if waste was brought to the NT and
dumped in the desert. Before the South Australian dump proposal
was defeated, the government’s own research indicated that there was a
23% likelihood of a truck having an accident transporting the national
waste store”, stated Nat Wasley, Beyond Nuclear Initiative campaigner
in Alice Springs.
Added Tim
Collins, new coordinator of the Arid Lands Environment Centre, Alice
Springs; “A radioactive waste dump would present a significant long
term environmental and economic risk for the Territory. The waste
should be left in Sydney where it can be monitored by the Commonwealth
agencies that produce it”.
------------------->
* TRASHING LAND RIGHTS TO MINE URANIUM
------------------->
Excerpt:
Martin Flanagan, The Age, 2/6/06
Last year in
Quadrant magazine, former Liberal minister Peter Howson, a not
insignificant figure in the so-called debate, wrote: “Now that ATSIC
has fi nally been laid to rest, the debate over the future of
Aboriginal policy has moved on to land rights. The Howard government
has promised to under- take reform of the Northern Territory Aboriginal
Land Rights Act, passed by the Fraser Government in 1976.
Two developments are driving reform.
The first is
the realisation within the Coalition and in some degree within the ALP,
that the Coombsian policies of the last thirty-five years have been
responsible for the social and moral disintegration of many Aboriginal
communities.
“The second is
the prospect of the resurgence of the world’s nuclear power industry
The Northern Territory has long been regarded by exploration geologists
as a uranium province of world class, and the prospect of uranium
exports worth billions of dollars is, from a Commonwealth government
perspective, very enticing. However, until the barriers to exploration
and mining in the Aboriginal lands (which make up more than half the
Territory) are dismantled, there is no prospect of such an outcome.”
In fairness to
Howson, he clearly believes Aboriginal people would be better off in
terms of employment and lifestyle if the uranium industry was developed
and their existing title to the land taken from them. The problem — to
put it mildly — is that I don’t know many Aboriginal people who agree
with him.
------------------->
* FOREIGN VS AUSTRALIAN OWNERSHIP OF URANIUM MINES
------------------->
Ranger - 15% Australian ownership
Roxby Downs - 40% Australian ownership
Beverley - 0% Australian ownership
Honeymoon - 0% Australian ownership
-----------
Heathgate Resources is 100% owned by US company General Atomics.
-----------
http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/05/31-1541-8519.html
31 May 2006
The ownership break down of $95 billion dual-listed company Rio Tinto, which has 56% of its assets in Australia, is as follows:
UK: 50%
North America: 20%
Australia: 15%
Europe: 10%
Asia: 5%
$150 billion BHP-Billiton which breaks down as follows:
Australia: 40%
UK: 25%
North America: 15%
South Africa: 10%
Asia: 5%
Europe: 5%
------------------->
* US - AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT NUKES TALKS KEPT SECRET
------------------->
Secrecy on Howard's nuclear trip
Richard Baker
June 29, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/secrecy-on-howards-nuclear-trip/2006/06/28/1151174268792.html
DETAILS of
nuclear talks between Prime Minister John Howard and American officials
are being kept secret to ensure the US does not shy away from
communicating with Australia about key issues.
The Department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet has refused to search for documents about
the nuclear talks in response to a freedom of information request from
The Age.
The department has made a blanket assumption that documents would be exempt from release due to their sensitivity.
Following his
Washington visit last month, Mr Howard announced that former Telstra
chief executive Ziggy Switkowski would head an inquiry into nuclear and
uranium issues.
The inquiry
will include an examination of a US plan for Australia to export
enriched uranium and store nuclear waste from other countries.
The decision by
the Prime Minister's department prevents the public from knowing who Mr
Howard and other Australian officials met in Washington for talks on
nuclear issues or the nature of their talks.
It contrasts
with the Department of Foreign Affairs' decision last October to
release under FoI edited transcripts of conversations that Foreign
Affairs Minister Alexander Downer and Australian officials had with
Chinese representatives on nuclear energy and uranium.
In a letter to
The Age, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's assistant
secretary, Allaster Cox, wrote that he would not search for documents
on Mr Howard's nuclear talks because he believed that all would be
exempt from release because they could damage Australia's international
relations and divulge information given in confidence to the Federal
Government.
"The
conversations concern nuclear power and uranium, which are issues of
key strategic importance for the parties involved in the
conversations," Mr Cox wrote.
"The
conversations were conducted at the highest levels of government, which
suggests that any conversations about nuclear power and uranium would
be sensitive.
"If such
conversations were to be disclosed then I consider the United States
would feel inhibited communicating with Australia about key issues,
including nuclear power and uranium, thereby making the conduct of
Australia's international relations more difficult."
It has been
reported that Mr Howard was briefed in Washington about the role US
President George Bush expects Australia to play in his country's global
nuclear energy partnership.
The US plan
will involve countries with large uranium deposits, such as Australia
and Canada, enriching uranium and leasing it out to other countries for
civilian power generation. It is proposed that Australia and Canada
would then accept shipments of nuclear waste to prevent other countries
from using it to develop a nuclear weapons.
While in
Washington, Mr Howard remarked on his evolving views on nuclear power,
saying: "The context of the last week or so has given my developing
views more prominence."
He said he wanted to be kept "fully informed" of the US proposal.
Opposition
foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said yesterday that although
nobody expected the Government to disclose the precise detail of the
nuclear talks, Australians had a right to know what broad topics were
discussed.
Greens senator
Christine Milne said the Government was abusing the FoI Act, especially
as documents on nuclear talks with China were released last year. She
said the refusal indicated the Government was "taking instructions from
Washington" on nuclear issues.
------------------->
* MACFARLANE'S NUCLEAR TRIP TO SCOTLAND BACKFIRES
------------------->
Macfarlane visits 'flawed' reactor
July 5, 2006 - 12:49PM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Renewable-energy-may-be-used-in-future/2006/07/05/1151778990012.html
If he was
looking for something to support the push for a nuclear industry in
Australia, then the visit to an ageing reactor in Scotland was not
quite the ticket for industry minister Ian Macfarlane.
As the minister
was visiting the Torness reactor, south of Edinburgh, reports broke in
the British media on Wednesday that the reactor has cracks in the
graphite bricks in its core, and no-one knows why.
Experts are calling for Torness to be shut down, along with several other ageing British reactors with similar problems.
It's an
embarrassment for the federal government, particularly as debate raged
on Wednesday over an issues paper prepared by the prime ministerial
taskforce on nuclear energy.
The issues paper lists more than 100 matters for inquiry, 80 of them economic.
The task force is to report by the end of the year.
A spokeswoman
for Mr Macfarlane, who is an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power
generation for Australia, confirmed on Wednesday the minister was
visiting the Torness reactor.
The Guardian
newspaper reported in London that Torness, and several other ageing
British reactors, had cracks in their reactor cores. It quoted experts
calling for them to be closed down.
The source is a report obtained under freedom of information.
The report said
the reactors, including Torness, posed increased risks and that British
Energy, which owns them, did not know the extent of damage to the cores.
"According to
the papers, the company does not know the extent of the damage to the
reactor cores, cannot monitor their deterioration and does not fully
understand why cracking has occurred," the report said.
"Cracks in the
graphite brick cores of ageing reactors have been observed for some
time but until now there has been little public knowledge of the extent
of the problem.
"British Energy
warned in 2004 that its Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Heysham 2 and
Torness plants might not be able to be extend their 30-year lives
because of cracked bricks, but it gave few details of the extent of the
problem."
A spokesman for
the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, Peter Robertson, said
the British report shows how secretive the nuclear industry is.
"The first
question we have to know is, did Macfarlane know about these cracks or
was he told about the cracks by the people he met with at Torness," Mr
Robertson said.
"If he didn't
know about them and wasn't told about them, then this once again
demonstrates what a very secretive and dangerous industry the nuclear
industry is."
The federal government was already under fire over the issues paper prepared by the prime minister's task force.
Environment
groups and the federal opposition criticised the scope of the inquiry,
which is headed by former Telstra CEO, Dr Ziggy Switkowski.
The
opposition's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, said Mr
Macfarlane's visit "just adds to the concern that Australians feel
about the inquiry, which overnight has been determined that economic
analysis will (comprise) 80 of 100 questions that are being considered.
"It's extraordinary that you have a nuclear inquiry ... which will not take into account public consultation," he said.
"(And) they're not considering location."
Dr Switkowski defended his review from claims it is sidelining environmental issues.
He said more economic issues than any others were being canvassed because they were easier to itemise.
"It is a lot
easier to itemise a whole lot of financial and kind of numerical
categories, which we have done, and we have left the questions of the
environment and occupational health and safety as reasonably broad
ones, but these are just to guide the debate," Dr Switkowski said.
© 2006 AAP
------------------->
* URANIUM INDUSTRY FRAMEWORK, AND THE NUCLEAR FUEL LEASING GROUP
------------------->
Howard adviser spurns N-fuel leasing plan
Cath Hart and Joseph Kerr
September 01, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20322026-2702,00.html
THE Howard
Government's key adviser on nuclear safeguards has criticised the
concept of leasing nuclear fuel to other countries as "unrealistic" and
ineffective against the proliferation of atomic weapons.
Australian
Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office head John Carlson warns in a
submission to John Howard's nuclear review that the US preference
"fails to address the real proliferation risk".
He says cases
such as Iraq, North Korea and Iran "show the danger lies, not with
diversion of declared materials from safeguarded facilities, but with
clandestine nuclear facilities and undeclared materials".
Under the
concept of nuclear leasing, countries such as the US, Britain and
France would produce and lease nuclear fuel to countries that want to
run civilian nuclear power. The fuel suppliers would take back the
nuclear waste to prevent it being used to make weapons.
The scheme
could ultimately allow uranium suppliers including Australia to send
enriched uranium to countries that have not signed the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, such as India. The Prime Minister wants
Australia to dramatically increase uranium exports and has appointed
former Telstra chief executive Ziggy Switkowski to head a taskforce to
explore moves to enrich uranium rather than simply export it.
US officials
have indicated that Australia could have a key role in Mr Bush's plan
to lease nuclear fuel around the world. During his May visit to
Washington, Mr Howard was briefed on the leasing concept, which
advocates claim would minimise the threat of proliferation.
However, Mr Carlson's warnings will be viewed as a reality check for the pro-nuclear lobby.
Mr Carlson said
practical issues such as cost, infrastructure, availability of an
experienced workforce and substantial lead times were also obstacles to
the concept.
"It is
unrealistic - it would not be practicable for Australia to manufacture
fuel assemblies for all our uranium customers," Mr Carlson said. "It
implies, incorrectly, that Australia's current safeguard arrangements
are deficient. It fails to recognise major changes taking place on
spent fuel management."
The submission
comes as a report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute
yesterday said a move by Australia into enrichment could spark a
regional race in nuclear technology.
Andrew Davies,
a theoretical physicist and former analyst with the Defence Department,
said if Australia became an enricher of uranium, some countries in the
region might feel threatened by Australia's expertise and "be tempted
to develop a capability of their own as a balance".
As the world's
richest source of known uranium deposits, Australia was originally seen
as playing a role as a supplier of uranium to the nuclear powers.
John White, the
former head of the Government's uranium industry taskforce, says
Australia could play a more substantial role in the process, by
enriching the uranium and being directly involved in nuclear leasing.
But Mr Carlson
said development of the domestic industry would require an overhaul of
regulations and legislation. He said: "Australia lacks a satisfactory
regulatory framework for an expanded nuclear industry. This deficiency
... is hardly conducive to nuclear proposals."
------------------->
Blueprint for a nuclear nation
Jun 16 2006
AFR
Fred Brenchley
An advisory
group set up by the federal government will urge an ambitious
development of uranium reserves, which would result in Australia
exporting nuclear energy and re-importing waste for recycling, storage
and disposal.
The Uranium
Industry Framework - which was appointed by Industry Minister Ian
Macfarlane - will urge the government in a report next month to adopt a
"stewardship" approach to Australia's involvement in the full nuclear
fuel cycle to gain the maximum socio-economic benefit.
The government
and the mining industry should start planning for broader engagement in
the nuclear fuel cycle - from mining to processing, enrichment,
domestic nuclear energy, export, and re-importation of waste for
storage, recycling and disposal - the report says.
The UIF plan,
which Mr Macfarlane is expected to receive next month, complements a
private enterprise bid by the Nuclear Fuel Leasing Group, a four-member
group pushing to develop an enriched uranium export business based on
Olympic Dam's reserves in South Australia.
It outlines a
timetable to detail a business case by early next year, a stewardship
plan with agreed responsibilities by December 2007, and endorsement by
government and industry by May 2008.
The NFLG plan
was outlined to Prime Minister John Howard in Washington last month as
he was briefed on US President George Bush's plan for a Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership. Mr Bush's partnership concept would allow Australia
and Canada to become one-stop nuclear shops leasing enriched uranium to
encourage greenhouse-friendly power generation.
With Mr Bush
pressing on the global stage, the UIF scheme will urge the Howard
government to develop the necessary domestic policies to ensure that
all "materials, goods and services that make up the uranium value chain
are produced, managed and disposed of in a socially and environmentally
friendly way".
John White,
executive director of Global Renewables and one of the four members of
NFLG, which developed the business plan behind the Bush scheme, is also
chairman of Mr Macfarlane's UIF group.
The UIF,
appointed in August 2005, will report on opportunities and impediments
for development of Australia's uranium reserves, which are about 39 per
cent of the world's total.
Comprising
representatives of state and territory governments, miners such as BHP
and ERA, as well the Northern Lands Council, the UIF is separate from
Mr Howard's nuclear taskforce under Ziggy Switkowski that will study
the economics of nuclear power.
The UIF will
report on a range of issues including the skills needed to develop
uranium reserves, transport, regulation, royalties, land access and
indigenous employment.
But the
stewardship working group's report is likely to be the most
controversial as it outlines its goal of "shaping public perceptions,
building community confidence and taking a whole-of-value-chain
approach".
A draft copy of
the report says growing demand for energy coupled with concern about
human-induced climate change has led to a re-assessment of nuclear
power.
"Ongoing
community concerns and associated political restrictions remain as key
impediments to the sustainable growth of the uranium industry, and its
ability to maximise its contribution to sustainable development," the
draft report says.
"There is a
pressing need to address community perceptions of risk and manage
community concern by both empathising with those concerns, identifying
actual hazards and promoting the effectiveness and efficacy of current
regulatory and operational arrangements in managing and mitigating
risk."
Citing concerns
over nuclear waste, the UIF report stresses the need to reinforce the
stringent regulatory controls over uranium transport and storage as
well as waste disposal technologies.
"While there is
a growing understanding and acceptance about the use of uranium in the
nuclear fuels cycle within the wider community, there remains a need to
provide assurance that the flow of uranium throughout its value chain
is both understood and adequately controlled," it says.
"In particular,
the uranium mining industry needs to demonstrate that the potential
risks (both real and perceived) to human health and the environment can
be and are adequately controlled."
Urging
governments, current uranium mine operators and other stakeholders to
support and develop a stewardship plan, the UIF outlines a program to
develop a business case, undertake analysis of all steps from mining to
disposal, document hazards and risk management controls and develop new
stewardship actions to take uranium through the entire nuclear fuel
cycle.
The Northern
Land Council's presence on the UIF is significant, as it is an open
supporter of uranium mining and waste disposal as a boost to indigenous
economic development.
As well, the
Mirrar traditional owners will reopen discussions with Rio Tinto's ERA
later this year on the future of the huge Jabiluka uranium deposit near
the Ranger mine, which is in the NLC 's area.
Mitch Hooke,
chief executive of the Minerals Council and chairman of the UIF's
stewardship committee, confirmed that it was Minerals Council policy to
develop stewardship approaches for resources to maximise value and
manage environmental and social effects of production.
------------------->
* AUSTRALIA'S NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE INQUIRY - UMPNER
------------------->
The UMPNER inquiry website is:
http://www.pmc.gov.au/umpner/index.cfm
------------------->
MEDIA RELEASE
Tuesday, 27 June 2006
Public shut out of PM's nuclear review: Greens
Prime Minister John Howard wants to shut out the Australian public from
his nuclear review, making a lie of his call for a 'full-blooded
debate', Australian Greens energy spokesperson Senator Christine Milne
said today.
"Reports today that the hand-picked review panel will not hold public
hearings and probably won't call for public submissions show just what a
sham the process is," Senator Milne said in Alice Springs.
"Prime Minister Howard said he wanted a 'full-blooded debate' about
whether Australia should go down the nuclear track but he doesn't want
to hear what Australians have to say on the matter," Senator Milne said.
"Instead, the panel will ask selected individuals to make submissions,
and even these may not be released to the public until after the review
panel reports to the Prime Minister.
"This latest revelation about how the review panel will operate further
demonstrates how deeply flawed the review is. Rather than fostering full
debate across the community, it is designed to bolster the Prime
Minister's plan to develop uranium enrichment and turn Australia into a
global nuclear waste dump.
"The lack of public consultation is consistent with the federal
government's style. While in Alice Springs I visited the Indigenous
community near one of three sites short-listed for a national nuclear
waste dump, who have not been consulted.
"We should be debating Australia's future energy mix in the context of
needing to make deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, not how to turn
Australia into a nuclear nation.
"The nuclear option shows the government's lack of vision after a decade
in office. A much smarter alternative for Australia is to embrace energy
efficiency and renewable energy, developing new industries with the
potential to create thousands of jobs and generate export income."
------------------->
(Even this far-right front group for the IPA thinks the federal government's nuclear inquiry is inadequate ...)
Nuclear Energy Only One Option Says Environment Group
11/7/06
http://aefweb.info/media779.html
Don Burke,
Chair of the Australian Environment Foundation, has called for a
significant expansion of the federal government’s inquiry into nuclear
energy, as the current review will not produce a sufficiently accurate
or useful comparison between the various energy generating options.
“My members are
telling me that while nuclear energy might be a solution to Australia’s
sustainable energy problems we’ll never know unless all solutions are
studied and compared to each other in a meaningful way.
Mr Burke said
that the inquiry was also only comparing nuclear power generation to
‘existing electricity generation technologies’.
“This might
seem fair enough, except that the committee intends to deal with the
‘projected’, not present, costs of nuclear power generation, and will
also consider use of future technologies, such as nuclear power
generation from thorium.
“In making
decisions for power generation in 10 to 20 years time it is not a valid
approach to take no account of the likely future costs and benefits of
all competing technologies.”
Mr Burke said
that the government should either expand the terms of reference of the
existing inquiry, or set up a number of additional expert inquiries
into alternative electricity sources and co-ordinate them
through a central standing committee.
“In 2004 oil
was trading at just over $20 US a barrel, now it is over $70. A
standing committee is needed because the future will be volatile and
unpredictable.”
“The issues
paper released by the inquiry last week lists over 100 points, but only
two of these deal with non-nuclear energy generation.
“This
represents 2 percent of the committee’s considerations, well out of
proportion to most likely scenarios where coal and gas will continue to
provide the bulk of more than 50 percent our electricity.”
Mr Burke said that the questions his members would like answered are:
1. What is the
‘full cycle’ likely cost of all current forms of electricity
generation?
2. What is the ‘full cycle’ likely cost of emerging
electricity generation technologies, including alternative forms of
nuclear power generation, as well as coal, gas, hydro, solar, tidal,
wind, and biomass?
3. What is the ‘full cycle’ likely carbon balance
from each of the current and emerging viable electricity generation
technologies?
“Australia has
the opportunity to lead the world in producing a comprehensive
comparative study, and as a leading energy producer, a duty to do so.
“It’s what my members want, and I’m sure it’s what most Australians want.”
------------------->
Profits are driving Howard's nuclear taskforce, say environmentalists
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/profits-drive-pms-nuclear-taskforce-say-environmentalists/2006/07/05/1151779015408.html
Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
July 6, 2006
GOVERNMENT
subsidies are not among the economic issues that will be examined by a
Federal Government taskforce on nuclear energy, despite the role they
have played in the industry here and overseas.
A paper
released by the taskforce on Tuesday cited more than 100 issues
associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, almost half of them related to
the money that could be made from uranium exports, uranium enrichment
and the management of nuclear waste.
The economics
of nuclear power will be examined but, of the 14 areas raised in the
paper, none referred to government subsidies. Also, economic issues
heavily outweighed references to environmental and health concerns,
which green groups and opposition parties said showed the Government
was not serious about pursuing nuclear power as an answer to climate
change.
"The Prime
Minister's focus on the profits to be made from Australia adding to the
nuclear fuel cycle is reflected in the discussion points issued by the
nuclear power review panel, which give a cursory mention to the
profound ramifications of nuclear proliferation and threats to the
environment," said the Greens' energy spokeswoman, Christine Milne.
A Friends of
the Earth campaigner, Dr Jim Green, said the economic issues could not
be evaluated without looking at the role of government subsidies.
He pointed out
that the South Australian Government had already committed $22.5
million over five years to subsidise uranium and other mineral
exploration by the private sector.
In the US, a
government energy bill last year provided $US13 billion ($17.5 billion)
in subsidies and tax breaks to the nuclear industry, including plant
operating subsidies.
Britain faces a
nuclear waste clean-up program that could cost £70 billion($173.5
billion), the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority says, while the
country's private sector last month said it could not shoulder the full
clean-up costs of new nuclear power plants.
Australia's
taskforce has also been criticised for ignoring renewable sources of
energy, but the head of the review, the former Telstra boss Ziggy
Switkowski, told ABC radio yesterday he expected the Government would
look at them later.
"Now clearly
the Government, when they make decisions about the energy equation in
the decades ahead, will then make comparisons between the nuclear
alternative versus conventional power, wind and solar energy etcetera."
------------------->
(You can get the Future Directions International report only if you're prepared to cough up $1,500.)
G-G linked to group pushing nuclear debate
Jason Dowling
July 2, 2006
<www.theage.com.au/news/national/gg-linked-to-group-pushing-nuclear-debate/2006/07/01/1151174441343.html>
A RESEARCH
company with close links to Governor-General Michael Jeffery has
claimed it was behind the Prime Minister's decision to examine nuclear
power in Australia.
Future
Directions International was established by Major-General Jeffery in
2000 and he remains the group's patron and has a say on the topics the
organisation researches.
Executive
director of Future Directions International, Craig Lawrence, said the
think tank's October study "Australia's Energy Options" was the
inspiration for the Federal Government's review of nuclear energy.
"We would
believe that the Prime Minister's study that is now going on into the
future of nuclear energy and the costs and so on, we believe that has
come as a result of our exposing the issue politically," Mr Lawrence
told The Sunday Age.
The study was
released at Parliament House on October 6 last year, after a week of
political briefings. Mr Lawrence said terms in the report were now
quoted by politicians.
"If you look
now at the nuclear life cycle discussion, that all occurred within two
weeks of us launching the report," Mr Lawrence said.
The report
examined Australia's energy options, including oil, natural gas, coal
and nuclear. "It is now time for Australia to undertake a complete
review of new nuclear technologies," the report stated.
Mr Lawrence
said that while the Governor-General did not attend the launch, he had
a luncheon the following day at Government House.
Mr Lawrence said most of the people who attended the luncheon had been involved in the development of the study.
He said the
Governor-General did not attend the launch because "he can't be seen to
be leading a debate about nuclear energy or any other energy".
"But he was the
founder of FDI, and he is still the patron and he takes an active
interest in what we are doing," Mr Lawrence said.
He confirmed the Governor-General contributed to research topics.
"You ask me
what Michael (Jeffery) does, he and I and board members and people that
we meet, we discuss and throw around these ideas," he said. He said
they discuss "what are the big issues".
Mr Lawrence
indicated the next issue to be researched by the think tank would be
"creating a stronger nation" and would look at "how do we help cure the
asymmetries that exist between the indigenous people of Australia and
the general population" and also migrant populations of Australia.
Mr Lawrence said the think tank was an apolitical organisation that received donations from a range of places.
The group's
website said the organisation had received "strong financial and other
support from the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments, and
from the academic and private sectors. The departments of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, and Defence have both seconded staff."
Prime Minister John Howard recently announced General Jeffery's position as Governor-General had been extended for two years.
Government House spokesman Stephen Jiggins said they had no comment on Future Directions International.
"The
Governor-General's role now in that is as patron and he doesn't comment
on issues raised by organisations for which he is patron," Dr Jiggins
said. He said the Governor-General would not comment on the issue of
nuclear energy.
------------------->
Preordaining the outcome: the PM’s nuclear task force
Green Left Weekly, June 21 2006.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/672/672p12b.htm
Justin Tutty
The nuclear
industry would be happy with PM John Howard’s June 6 decision to
appoint a task force to review uranium mining, processing and nuclear
energy in Australia. Defending the composition of his pro-nuclear task
force, he said, “You can’t have an investigation into something as
technical as this without having a number of people on it who are
whiz-bang nuclear physicists, because it’s a very complicated business
and it’s an area where laymen tread very carefully”.
It appears that
the PM has already decided that ecological impacts and community
concern aren’t relevant to the proposal for a major expansion of the
nuclear industry in Australia.
The inquiry’s
terms of reference highlight the export potential of Australian
uranium, delve into the future viability of nuclear power in this
country, and propose the establishment of uranium enrichment. Some
observers suggest that the inquiry is not about nuclear power, but
about solidifying a fall-back position of massively expanded uranium
exports, while deferring any decision on the more contentious proposals
for building reactors.
However, anti-nuclear campaigners warn that nuclear fuel production is already well advanced.
A recent
commercial agreement between US reactor builder General Electric (which
is looking forward to a reported $40 billion windfall on the back of
proposed nuclear trade with India) and the Australian research company
Silex — based at the Lucas Heights site of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) — could allow for the Silex
laser technology for nuclear fuel enrichment to go into production
within three years. This, combined with Howard and US President George
Bush’s discussions about uranium leasing, could take Australia down the
path of leasing enriched uranium to international customers, and taking
back the nuclear waste to dump in outback Australia.
Former Telstra
boss Ziggy Switkowski has been appointed as chairperson of the task
force. He was an experimental nuclear physicist working at ANSTO and
joined the ANSTO board last year. ANSTO is the federal nuclear science
body that runs the research reactor program at Lucas Heights. It also
houses the highly secretive Silex uranium enrichment project. ANSTO
would benefit from any decision to embark upon commercial nuclear fuel
production or nuclear power reactors in Australia.
Nuclear
physicist Professor George Dracoulis from the Australian National
University, who is recognised as a leader in the field of atomic nuclei
research, has also been appointed. Dracoulis was quick to claim an open
mind on the question of nuclear power. However, given he is a member of
the reactor working group of the Australian Academy of Science, a
strong supporter of the Lucas Heights program, this isn’t convincing.
In this
capacity, Dracoulis is associated with Jim Peacock, Howard’s chief
scientist, who will lead the peer review of the task force. While
Howard insists that Peacock is a cleanskin, the latter made it clear
upon his appointment last February that he is in favour of nuclear
power.
Warwick
McKibbin, an economist formerly at the ANU and now on the Reserve Bank
board, is also on the force. He has argued against binding greenhouse
targets but supports carbon taxes as a mechanism for making nuclear
power more competitive with carbon-intensive energy production.
Federal
treasurer Peter Costello has said that new taxes are not an issue, and
environment minister Ian Campbell has labelled the proposal “stupid”.
Analysts suggest that without massive subsidies, nuclear power will be
too expensive. This, together with statements from the PM, have led
some to conclude that the government’s objective is not to produce
nuclear power, but rather go for nuclear fuel leasing based on a
massive expansion of uranium mining, the establishment of enrichment
plants and the imposition of a nuclear dump.
Arthur
Johnston, another nuclear physicist, was a supervising scientist at
Kakadu and entrusted with the difficult task of ensuring that the
Ranger uranium mine was not seen to adversely impact on the surrounding
Kakadu National Park. For the last six years, Johnson has told us that
uranium mining in Kakadu is safe, and helped Energy Resources of
Australia hide an endless stream of problems at the Ranger mine. Now
he’s going to tell us that nuclear power is safe, having already
concluded that Australia should develop enrichment capacities to a
commercial level.
Sylvia Kidziak
brings experience in engineering, occupational health and nuclear
safety. Formerly chairperson of Australian Radiation Protection and
Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) nuclear safety committee, she is
chairperson of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council
(RHSAC), which includes Johnston, and advises John Loy, ARPANSA’s CEO.
ARPANSA, a
not-too-independent body, has overseen the development of the research
reactor program at Lucas Heights. RHSAC is the body that has determined
“acceptable limits” for human exposure to radioactive contamination —
bureaucratic targets for pollution that institute an “acceptable” level
of fatal cancers in the impacted population.
Martin Thomas
is the chairperson of Dulhunty Power, which deals in products and
services related to power distribution and transmission. This
commercial interest is tied to the old model of centralised power
production, and is antithetical to the evolving future of decentralised
and diversified renewable energy sources. Dulhunty’s business includes
production in China, targeted for expanded uranium exports from
Australia. Critics of nuclear trade with China point to its failure to
sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Interestingly,
an approach was made to Greg Bourne, the Australian head of the World
Wide Fund for Nature. Bourne caused a stir in May when he was quoted in
the Australian saying that since we’re stuck with mining uranium, we
should work out how to minimise the impacts. Environmental
organisations were angry that his statement weakened the otherwise
united opposition to the nuclear industry, and they re-issued a strong
statement of opposition to every aspect of the nuclear industry.
However, Bourne refused Howard’s invitation, saying “this is really an
inquiry about the nuclear industry, and it’s about economics. It’s not
about the environment.”
In a bizarre
twist, Douglas Wood, the former Iraq hostage, has offered to take
Bourne’s place, saying Australia’s been good to him and he wants to
give something back. He claims 25 years’ experience with nuclear power
reactors, including the patchwork reconstruction at Chernobyl and the
design of Australia’s (failed) Jervis Bay reactor.
The review’s
terms of reference have been roundly criticised for a predetermined
conclusion to massively expand uranium mining, develop commercial
enrichment capacities and work towards nuclear power reactors. Notably,
the unresolved problem of nuclear waste is not addressed.
Australian
Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry warned, “If the
inquiry looks at the dirty, dangerous and slow option of nuclear power
and ignores safe, clean and immediate solutions like renewables and
energy efficiency, it will constitute a serious failure of leadership”.
Howard claims
that renewable energy technologies, while an inevitable feature of our
future energy industries, are currently not economically viable. More
than one industry representative has pointed out that the government
should conduct a review on that before coming to such a definite
conclusion.
Environment groups are proposing the following alternative terms of reference for the task force:
* What are the
most effective policies to ensure we act early to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions by at least 60% by 2050, and by 20% by 2020?
* How do we dramatically cut energy waste and improve energy efficiency in Australia?
* How can we
rapidly increase the uptake of clean and safe renewable energy,
including solar, and establish Australia as a leading exporter of
renewable energy technology?
* What more can be done to increase the deployment of low-emission energy technologies?
[Justin Tutty is a member of Darwin’s No Waste Alliance.]
------------------->
PM Howard
June 2006
REVIEW OF URANIUM MINING PROCESSING AND ,
NUCLEAR ENERGY IN AUSTRALIA
Today I
announce the establishment of a Prime Ministerial Taskforce to
undertake an objective, scientific and comprehensive review into
uranium mining, processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in
Australia in the longer term.
Australia's
energy sector has played a key role in our sustained economic growth.
Australia's ability to reliably access competitively priced power and
optimise the value of our energy resources has underpinned our economic
prosperity while at the same time providing an effective response to
our domestic and international environmental responsibilities.
Australia holds
40 per cent of the world's known low-cost recoverable uranium reserves.
There is significant potential for Australia to increase and add value
to our uranium extraction and exports.
Recent
developments in global energy markets have renewed international
interest in nuclear energy as a technology that can help meet growing
demand for electricity without the fuel and environmental costs
associated with oil and gas. This also comes at a time when energy
prices and energy security are key considerations for future economic
growth in a lower emissions future.
A growing
number of environmentalists now recognise that nuclear energy has
several other advantages over fossil fuel electricity generation,
including significant lower levels of air pollution and greenhouse
emissions.
Australia also
has the capacity to significantly increase its contribution to nuclear
science internationally with consequent economic, medical and
environmental benefits.
It is against
this background that the Australian Government has decided to establish
a Taskforce to review uranium mining, processing and the contribution
of nuclear energy in Australia in the long term. This review will
contribute to a wide ranging public debate on Australia's future energy
needs and the broad range of emerging energy technologies.
The terms of reference for the Prime Ministerial Taskforce are below.
The Taskforce
will be chaired by Dr Ziggy Switkowski. Dr Switkowski, the former chief
executive officer of Telstra Corporation, has demonstrated commercial
and managerial experience and has relevant technical and scientific
skills as a nuclear physicist.
In addition the Taskforce will include:
* Professor
George Dracoulis: George Dracoulis is Professor and Head of the
Department of Nuclear Physics at the Research School of Physical
Sciences and Engineering at the Australian National University.
Professor Dracoulis is an internationally renowned expert on nuclear
physics and issues relating to nuclear reactors and their design; and
* Professor
Warwick McKibbin: Warwick McKibbin is currently Professor of Economics
at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian
National University and is a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of
Australia. Professor McKibbin is an internationally renowned economist
with a deep understanding of the economics of energy and issues
relating to climate change.
Three other members of the Taskforce will be named shortly.
The Chief
Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock will support the review, including by
facilitating a peer review of the scientific aspects of this review.
The work of the
Taskforce will be supported by a whole-of-government secretariat based
in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
I have asked the Taskforce to report by the end of this year.
6 June 2006
Review of Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy in Australia
Background
Recognising that:
* Australia holds 40 per cent of the world’s known low cost, recoverable uranium reserves
* there has
been renewed international interest in nuclear energy as a technology
that can meet growing demand for electricity without the impact of the
fuel cost fluctuations associated with oil and gas
* a growing
number of environmentalists now recognise that nuclear energy has
several other advantages over fossil fuel electricity generation,
including significant lower levels of air pollution and greenhouse
emissions
* there is significant potential for Australia to increase and add value to our uranium extraction and exports, and
* Australia has the capacity to significantly increase its contribution to nuclear science internationally
the Australian
Government will establish a review of uranium mining, processing and
the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the longer term. The
review will contribute to a wide ranging public debate on Australia’s
future energy needs and the broad range of emerging energy
technologies.
Terms of Reference
The nuclear energy review will consider the following matters:
1. Economic issues
(a) The capacity for Australia to increase uranium mining and exports in response to growing global demand.
(b) The
potential for establishing other steps in the nuclear fuel cycle in
Australia, such as fuel enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing, along
with the costs and benefits associated with each step.
(c) 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.
(d) The current
state of nuclear energy research and development in Australia and the
capacity for Australia to make a significantly greater contribution to
international nuclear science.
2. Environment issues
(a) The extent to which nuclear energy will make a contribution to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.
(b) The extent to which nuclear energy could contribute to the mix of emerging energy technologies in Australia.
3. Health, safety and proliferation issues
(a) The potential of ‘next generation’ nuclear energy technologies to meet safety, waste and proliferation concerns.
(b) The waste processing and storage issues associated with nuclear energy and current world’s best practice.
(c) The security implications relating to nuclear energy.
(d) The health and safety implications relating to nuclear energy.
Timing of the Review
The Review will
commence in June 2006 with a draft report to be available for public
consultation by November 2006. A final report will be completed by the
end of 2006.
06 June 2006
------------------->
Wide view to energy talk urged
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19400406%5E3462,00.html
08jun06
A FEDERAL
inquiry into nuclear power should be broadened to examine all energy
options, Tasmanian Energy Minister David Llewellyn said yesterday.
Mr
Llewellyn agreed with Prime Minister John Howard that the country's
energy policies were out of date.
But he said the nuclear energy inquiry announced this week was a return to past debates about nuclear reactors.
"In the national interest, Australia needs a proper debate about our energy future including renewable energy," he said.
"While I do welcome the debate about nuclear power, this inquiry needs to open its eyes to all energy alternatives."
The taskforce running the inquiry has until December to report.
Meanwhile, the head of the new inquiry defended his independence against claims of bias.
Former Telstra
boss and nuclear scientist Ziggy Switkowski has been hand-picked by Mr
Howard to head a wide-ranging inquiry into uranium mining, enrichment
and nuclear power.
Green groups
and Labor say Dr Switkowski is biased because he sits on the board of
the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which
supports the expansion of the nuclear industry.
"There's no
question we should have people looking at this issue with a much more
impartial eye," Opposition deputy leader Jenny Macklin said yesterday.
But Dr Switkowski said he was approaching the inquiry with an even-handed attitude.
"I think that
the panel is going to end up having strong and varied opinions about
all the things that matter in this debate," he said.
"I don't think
having a nuclear physics background should be interpreted as orienting
me towards being pro-everything to do with nuclear."
In a move seen
as balancing the taskforce make-up, Mr Howard yesterday announced the
remaining members: nuclear safety expert Sylvia Kidziak, environmental
scientist Dr Arthur Johnston and chairman of electricity firm Dulhunty
Power Ltd Martin Thomas.
They join Profs George Dracoulis and Warwick McKibbin from the Australian National University.
------------------->
Last Update: Wednesday, June 7, 2006. 1:00pm (AEST)
Gas supplier sees benefits in nuclear power inquiry
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1657364.htm
One of Queensland's biggest coal seam gas suppliers says the industry will benefit from a federal inquiry into nuclear power.
Former Telstra
chief and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski has been appointed to run
an inquiry into nuclear energy and uranium mining.
The Queensland Gas Company operates two gas fields on the Western Downs in southern Queensland.
Managing director Richard Cottee says the inquiry will boost the profile of coal seam gas as a cleaner, greener energy source.
"Nuclear is
only useful for base load. It's a high capital cost, low operating cost
power generator and therefore is very inefficient in being responsive
to the intermediate peak demand," he said.
"I think eventually if it ever came about [it] would occupy a different market segment to the gas-fired power stations anyway."
------------------->
Australia's energy future
June 8, 2006
Editorial
http://www.smh.com.au/editorial/index.html
THE Prime
Minister, John Howard, is right that a fresh debate on uranium is
overdue, and right to establish an expert committee to initiate it -
whatever the cynicism about his motives. The last rigorous public
investigation was the Fox inquiry more than three decades ago. Since
then, largely silence. There was a flurry of interest in 1984 when
Labor introduced its illogical three mines policy, but the Coalition
was able to quietly junk it after coming to power in 1996. The world
has changed; Mr Howard's expert committee can reinvigorate a discussion
dormant for too long.
That is not to
dismiss the scepticism about the Prime Minister's reasons for setting
up the inquiry; Mr Howard's belated interest in uranium processing and
nuclear power may well have more to do with exports than the
environment - not to mention an opportunity to widen Labor's divisions
over uranium. Nor is it surprising that some committee members are seen
as partisan, particularly Ziggy Switkowski. Surely Dr Switkowski should
stand down from the board of the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation, a research body, during the inquiry. However,
the committee will ultimately be judged on the quality of its report,
not the CVs of its members. It certainly has the skills to provide
answers to the difficult questions involved, or at least to refine them.
The committee
is to investigate uranium mining and processing and nuclear energy.
Processing is the key issue. The Prime Minister does not expect the
committee to challenge Australia's established place as a major uranium
miner and exporter. Nor does he expect to hear that nuclear power will
be an option any time soon; it is simply too expensive. However, the
committee is charged with examining the contribution nuclear power
could make to reducing greenhouse gases. It will be very useful to know
whether the committee believes claims for uranium as clean fuel stand
up when the whole process, from initial mining to recycling old nuclear
power plants, is considered. And the committee must surely compare
nuclear power with other existing technologies, in particular natural
gas, which is clean and abundant but currently too expensive for
Australia to use for other than peak loads. The Prime Minister concedes
that the uranium review is only a start to a broader inquiry into
Australia's energy options. Let's have that broader discussion sooner
rather than later.
That leaves
uranium processing as the committee's central focus. Yes, Australia
should seek to add value to resources before exporting them - and
enriched uranium is about 500 times the price of yellowcake. Yet the
moral and practical problems of selling uranium remain, whether it is
processed or sold as yellowcake; chief among them is retrieving and
disposing of the waste. Should Australia, for example, deal with
countries such as India, a nuclear power which is not a signatory to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? And what effective guarantee is
there that even signatories, such as China, keep their nuclear fuel
secure? Mr Howard appears to think that the answer might be the Bush
Administration's proposed global nuclear energy partnership, which
would sell enriched uranium for nuclear power and take back spent fuel,
thus keeping the uranium out of untrustworthy hands. Such sensitive
policy questions would seem to be within the committee's terms of
reference, should it choose to pursue them. And it most certainly
should.
------------------->
Last Update: Thursday, June 8, 2006. 8:48am (AEST)
Inquiry member says nuclear power clean and safe
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658069.htm
An
environmental scientist appointed to the Federal Government's nuclear
task force has defended the safety record of nuclear power and says
that, along with uranium enrichment, it can be achieved safely.
Dr Arthur
Johnston, former supervising scientist with Environment Australia, has
spent much of his time examining the impact of uranium mining on the
Northern Territory's Kakadu National Park.
He says from an environmental perspective, nuclear power has much to offer.
"There is no
reason at all why in principle you couldn't have continued protection
of the environment under the circumstances of enrichment," he said.
Dr Johnston says, Chernobyl aside, the risks have been exaggerated.
"There has been one incident in the entire period of nuclear power. One could say its record is very good," he said.
He says he has an open mind on the issue.
The head of the
Federal Government's nuclear task force has stood down from the board
of the nuclear science agency, ANSTO, to avoid a conflict of interest.
Yesterday
afternoon, Dr Switkowski was defending his role on the board of ANSTO,
the organisation which runs Australia's only reactor.
Just hours later, he revealed to ABC TV's Lateline program, that he has made moves to sever his ties to the nuclear industry.
Dr Switkowski says he has stood down from the board to prevent claims of bias.
"So I won't be party to any submissions that ANSTO makes to the committee over the next six months," he said.
------------------->
* NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA?
------------------->
Wanna know how nuclear reactors produce electricity ...?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
------------------->
Energy debate is running on hot air
June 12, 2006
Malcolm Farr
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19440302-5001033,00.html
THE
over-reaction to John Howard's inquiry into Australia's nuclear
potential has hidden some real and literally burning problems with his
energy program.
The
Government's energy policy is all but dormant. It's simply not moving
forward at a time when global events are demanding quick responses.
And it's stuck in the steam age of burning coal.
Former NSW
premier Nick Greiner, now a respected consultant and company director,
recently surprised a function held by the Committee for Economic
Development of Australia (CEDA).
Greiner had
been asked to give a vote of thanks to a speaker but went much further.
He criticised the implementation of Australia's energy policy, which he
said was moving at glacial pace.
Much of the Australian energy industry agrees.
Remarkably, John Howard is being criticised elsewhere for moving too quickly by commissioning the nuclear study.
The Prime Minister has been depicted as rushing to put a reactor in every garage and a radioactive chicken in every pot.
In fact, he is merely hoping to catch up with prospects being examined by the rest of the developed world.
Meanwhile, two
years after the release of a government white paper on energy security,
the rate of progressive change in other aspects of policy guiding the
$50billion-a-year energy industry has not been setting any records.
We are less
than a year away from the creation of a national energy authority, with
no one knowing the detail of the legislation needed for this body.
It's not just the Federal Government that is dawdling, according to critics.
The collapse of
the deal to privatise Snowy Hydro was one example offered of political
failure. The Snowy sale was to have cleared the undergrowth for a
sell-off of power stations.
It didn't
happen because the NSW and Victorian Government neglected the political
spadework needed to convince their electorates the Snowy had to go
private enterprise.
The Federal Government's response to high petrol prices has been extremely limited.
It has rightly
said that bowser charges have risen because of demand for fuel from
growing economies generally, and from China and India in particular.
The pressure from this demand will ease, but it won't disappear and oil prices will continue to be towards the top of the range.
The Government
has rejected a cut in excise, again quite rightly. It's a short-term
measure when consideration should be given to tax increases to penalise
use of cars and thus limit local demand.
And then there is nuclear energy. John Howard feels in his bones a change of attitude to nuclear power in Australia.
He's also slowly being converted by more global concerns, including our vulnerability to extortion from oil producers.
A few weeks ago
he and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper proposed a co-operative
body on the sale of uranium which wasn't a long way from being a
version of OPEC, the petroleum suppliers cartel.
However, while
he was overseas, Howard had a more basic realisation. He found a
greater emphasis on nuclear energy for reasons of environmental
protection and energy security.
He also found
that Australia was a marginal player in this growing sector, even
though we had some 40 per cent of quality uranium reserves.
He is not necessarily a big fan of Australian nuclear energy.
He struggles to see a solid economic case for it against that of the Australian coal industry.
Enrichment is
another thing. It is value-adding and would put Australia at the
international nuclear table. Selling rocks and selling power capacity
are two different things.
He had to push the study through the Cabinet, where opinions range from pro-nuke to fossil fuel zealots.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has backed nuclear power to desalinate water for his home town of Adelaide and create jobs.
Fellow South
Australian Nick Minchin, the Finance Minister, doesn't want an atom
split anywhere near him and has warned of problems disposing of
contaminated waste.
Meanwhile, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, a loyal son of the Queensland coal deposits, wants his miners looked after.
The clash of local interests affected the contents of the 2004 white paper.
There was a
strong effort for a carbon tax to penalise emitters of pollution. The
then Environment Minister David Kemp was its champion.
Howard rejected it and anything else which looked like it would lose jobs and add to business costs.
The substitute
was the low emissions technology fund, started with $500 million in
public money, to find ways to eliminate those pollutants.
No great success there -- yet.
[email protected]
------------------->
Nuke discussion didn't include terror: Ellison
June 11, 2006 - 1:47PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuke-discussion-didnt-include-terror-ellison/2006/06/11/1149964398152.html
The potential
of a nuclear power station being a terrorist target was not something
the federal cabinet looked at before deciding to hold an inquiry into
nuclear energy, Justice Minister Chris Ellison says.
Labor and some security experts are warning a nuclear reactor would be a target for a terrorist attack.
Senator Ellison
said the threat had not been part of cabinet considerations on the
inquiry, a fact labelled "daft" today by the Australian Greens.
Prime Minister
John Howard has appointed a special taskforce to report back by the end
of the year on whether Australia should develop a nuclear industry.
"When you look at sources of energy you don't look at any potential terrorist threat," Senator Ellison told the Nine Network.
"You look at what is best for the community and the way forward.
"Energy sources
are very important for the future of any community and I think we're
not about to be stymied or restricted in that approach because of any
threat of terrorism.
"I mean, we're going to continue living in the way we do. Once we change that, the terrorists win."
Senator Ellison
said cabinet discussed a range of measures to protect infrastructure,
but said a nuclear power plant was no more a target than the
electricity grid or a rail network.
"Any basic
infrastructure, whether it be a source of power, whether it be
transport or any other infrastructure which the public rely on, is the
subject of a terrorist threat and we've seen that in recent incidents,"
he said.
"So I don't think really singling out one aspect of it is beneficial."
Greens leader
Bob Brown said Senator Ellison was ignoring the potential for
terrorists to get their hands on enriched uranium and nuclear fuel to
create weapons.
"It's daft to
say the least and it's really pig-ignorant of the dangers of nuclear
material coming into the hands of terrorists," Senator Brown said.
"The government
doesn't understand that their paving the way for nuclear enrichment or
reactors in Australia encourages Indonesia, which has plans for up to
12 nuclear reactors and which the government knows has real problems
with terrorism.
"It does make
the threat of terrorists getting nuclear materials or targeting a
reactor real, and it must be a consideration for any inquiry."
Senator Brown
said nuclear reactors and the transportation of nuclear material held a
vastly different attraction for terrorists than coal-fired power
stations or windmills.
"We're in an
age of handbag-sized nuclear bombs and so-called dirty bombs, where the
gaining of nuclear materials that can be spread by conventional
explosives are real options for terrorists," Senator Brown said.
Labor says the taskforce, to be headed by nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, is stacked in favour of nuclear power.
Opposition
frontbencher Stephen Smith said the whole debate was a distraction from
Australia's reliance on oil from the Middle East and soaring petrol
prices.
"If the
government wanted to have a good hard look at nuclear power, why wasn't
nuclear power part of the government's so-called energy white paper
less than two years ago?" Mr Smith told the Ten Network.
He said Australia had abundant gas and coal resources and great capacity for renewable energy like solar and wind power.
"These are the
areas where you can do two things - you can take away our import oil
dependency, you can make a significant contribution globally to
greenhouse gases, and you can take the pressure off Australian families
in the long term who are now, as we've seen this morning, just being
whacked every time they go to the petrol bowser," Mr Smith said.
"We don't think
that the economics are there for nuclear power stations in Australia,
let alone the national security risks that go with that and the waste
disposal risks that go with that."
AAP
------------------->
All the way with the USA: Howard’s dream of a nuclear future
Christine Milne
From Green Left Weekly, June 14, 2006.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/671/671p12b.htm
Make no
mistake: the current debate about nuclear power in Australia is a
furphy. The real agenda is the development of a nuclear enrichment
industry and a global nuclear waste dump to store huge volumes of
depleted uranium and to take high-level waste from all over the world,
including the United States.
The prime
minister’s task force is hand picked for the task. It will find that
nuclear power is not economically viable but that an expanded uranium
mining, nuclear enrichment industry and waste dump will be highly
lucrative and will make Australia a key player in the global nuclear
industry.
The plan is to
develop the enrichment facility in South Australia in association with
the huge expansion of the Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs and to
transport the enriched uranium via the Halliburton-owned railway to
Darwin for leasing to overseas countries like India. By leasing and not
selling, Australia will be able to join the US in circumventing the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Since it is
clear that nuclear is too slow, too dirty and too dangerous to address
climate change or energy security, why has nuclear rushed onto the
Australian agenda? Look no further than the mutual admiration club of
US President George Bush and PM John Howard.
During the
Vietnam war Australians had to endure the sickening refrain “All the
way with LBJ”, referring to the federal government’s support of then-US
President Lyndon B. Johnson. Now we are seeing Howard clamouring to be
part of President Bush’s grand nuclear plan, the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP).
Howard, a
long-time admirer of all things American just as former prime minister
Menzies was of all things British, could hardly contain his excitement
after his recent visit to Washington, that President Bush had a real
strategic role for Australia to play in the US’s 21st century empire.
The US wants to
control which countries can access nuclear technologies and develop
civilian nuclear power, and it wants to find a global waste dump for
high-level nuclear waste, including its own. What’s more, the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, set up by the US to oversee rules governing the supply
of uranium, nuclear fuel and technology, has now offended its creator,
with Sweden and Switzerland blocking consensus on the US-India nuclear
technology deal because it undermines the NPT. Instead of respecting
multilateralism and the rule of law, the US now wants to set up a new
organisation that will do what it wants.
Who better for
Bush to turn to than his good friend and ally Howard? Australia, with
40% of the world’s uranium reserves and wide open spaces ripe for a
dump, presents a perfect solution.
The US
initiative for a GNEP proposes a number of nuclear fuel supply centres
around the world. GNEP participants would offer other countries a
reliable supply of nuclear fuel and fuel services including waste
storage.
While Australia
might argue that exporting uranium will not lead to leakage into
weapons programs in countries like China and India, the US is keenly
aware of the danger and the loopholes in safeguard arrangements. It
also fears that bomb-ready plutonium derived from re-processing spent
nuclear fuel rods from power plants would be susceptible to misuse,
theft or terrorist attack. But it cannot secure support in the United
States for a dump at home.
So to address
the nuclear proliferation and waste storage and disposal issues, US
deputy energy secretary Clay Sell said: “We hope to develop an
international regime … so that fuel can be leased to a country
interested in building a reactor and taking fuel, but then the fuel can
be taken back to the fuel cycle country.”
This plan for
fuel suppliers to take back the high-level waste would suit the US
because public opposition there has stalled the US government’s plan to
open a long-term spent nuclear fuel and waste repository at Yucca
Mountain.
Howard’s remark
while announcing the nuclear task force - “If we are not a nuclear fuel
supplier then that shuts us out of certain gatherings” - reveals
exactly where the PM is coming from. Just as he was desperate to be
part of the Coalition of the Willing that invaded Iraq in 2003, he is
determined not to be left out of Bush’s nuclear plan.
It is ironic
that those who stand in front of the flag and invoke the memory of
ANZAC to reaffirm their patriotism are the very politicians who are
compromising Australia’s independence and global positioning so
profoundly.
The Greens do
not share a vision of Australia as an adjunct to the US. We do not want
a nuclear future for Australia as a global uranium supplier and nuclear
waste dump. We want Australia to be a world leader in renewable
industries like solar and build up a global reputation for solar
thermal and sliver cell technologies. We want to be part of the global
drive for peace and a solution to global warming.
[Senator Christine Milne is the Green’s energy and climate change spokesperson.]
------------------->
AWU still fighting for N-power debate
Imre Salusinszky and Michael McKenna
June 12, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19442541-601,00.html
ONE of the
nation's most powerful unions has vowed to continue the fight to put
nuclear power on the national agenda despite being steam-rollered by
the Labor Party's Left faction at its NSW conference.
A motion by the
state branch of the Australian Workers' Union urging the NSW Labor
Government "to undertake an investigation into the use of nuclear
technology in the provision of energy" was withdrawn despite winning
support from the party's Industry and Infrastructure Development
Committee.
It was replaced
by a motion from federal Opposition environment spokesman and leader of
the Left faction Anthony Albanese stating that "nuclear power can never
be part of Australia's future" while problems of cost, safety, waste
disposal and security remain unresolved.
However, AWU state president Mick Madden said his union would push the debate forward regardless.
"There's no way this thing's going to go away," he told The Australian on the conference floor yesterday.
"It (the
debate) is going to happen over the next couple of years. It has to be
brought to a head. The AWU says there has to be a discussion."
Mr Madden
seconded the Albanese motion, which was passed unanimously, but
interprets its list of nuclear power's problems as matters the party
will investigate, rather than as barriers. "There's now a timeline," he
said, insisting Labor would reconsider nuclear power once it had
reviewed its "three mines" policy at its national conference next April.
This is at odds
with the interpretation of Mr Albanese, who told The Australian the
gist of what his motion means for an Australian nuclear industry could
be summarised as: "No!"
The AWU
represents 130,000 workers in mining, steel and other industries and
would be sure to represent many of those employed in a nuclear power
industry.
The union's NSW
secretary, Russ Collison, said the AWU motion was withdrawn because
John Howard had seen nuclear power as an opportunity to wedge Labor.
"We weren't going to play into Howard's hands," he said.
"If he hadn't moved we might have taken it a step further."
The Prime
Minister last week established an inquiry into nuclear energy chaired
by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski -- a move Mr Collison claims
was inspired by the AWU motion and Mr Howard's wish to highlight
"differences between groups within the ALP".
"Nuclear energy
is still on the agenda," he said. "Even people who weren't pro are now
saying we should look at it, because everyone's fully aware of the
problems we're got with the greenhouse effect.
"It would be remiss of our party at the federal level if we didn't have a debate about it."
At the
Queensland state conference, a motion to debate Labor's uranium policy
was yesterday quashed, with Premier Peter Beattie saying the national
conference was the proper forum for policy-making on the issue.
"The fact is
that whatever we debate here and decide, it is going to be irrelevant
because the national conference is where the decisions will be made,"
he said.
------------------->
Labor votes down nuclear power
From: AAP
http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,19429562-31037,00.html
June 10, 2006
THE New South Wales Labor party has voted to oppose the development of a nuclear power industry in Australia.
Premier Morris Iemma today said nuclear power facilities had been banned in NSW since 1986 and would remain so.
"There will be no nuclear power stations in NSW," he told the NSW ALP Conference in Sydney.
The conference
later voted in favour of a motion by federal Labor environment
spokesman Anthony Albanese which rejected nuclear power as a possible
future part of Australia's energy infrastructure.
Mr Albanese said nuclear power was too expensive, too unsafe and too dangerous to be considered for use in Australia.
He also said
nuclear power stations could be targeted by terrorists as the Lucas
Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney has allegedly previously been.
"We already
know that Lucas Heights has been a terrorist target," he told the
conference. "We know that nuclear power plants must be built near where
people live and near to the (power) grid."
"They would also become terrorist targets."
The Australian
Workers' Union has previously called for public discussion on the
nuclear option but supported today's resolution.
AWU NSW president Mick Madden said the Labor party had now come to a position on the issue.
"We are not participating in John Howard's agenda," Mr Madden said.
The Federal Government has set up an expert inquiry into whether Australia should have a domestic nuclear power industry.
------------------->
PM should seek clean, green and cheap answers
MICHAEL GORDON
June 7, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-should-seek-clean-green-and-cheap-answers/2006/06/06/1149359745258.html
THIS is a modest, limited and hastily announced start to the debate we have to have — but it is a beginning.
It is modest
and limited because it pursues the nuclear question in isolation,
without examining how it stacks up against the various alternatives,
including renewable energy.
This is a
mistake. The key to any decision to tread further down the nuclear path
is whether that decision will be cleaner, greener, cheaper and safer
than what else is on offer. How will you know if you don't have a good
look at the renewable, non-carbon-dioxide-producing sectors?
Prime Minister
John Howard concedes the merit of looking at "other aspects of the
whole energy scene", but expresses the concern that an all-encompassing
review might mean that not much ends up being achieved.
The inquiry is
hastily announced because the names of half the taskforce that will
undertake it are still to be confirmed. Given the importance of
assembling a group that can deliver objectivity, rigour and knowledge —
and command the confidence of a sceptical public — it would have been
wiser to wait until all the personnel had been confirmed.
Much will
depend on how the taskforce interprets the terms of reference approved
by cabinet yesterday. A liberal interpretation could see some
examination of other emerging energy technologies, though this seems
unlikely.
Given the focus
on the economics of the next steps in the nuclear fuel cycle —
enrichment, fabrication, reprocessing — the taskforce may feel obliged
to touch on the politically charged but economically relevant question
of where these steps could be undertaken. Again, this seems unlikely.
But given the
enthusiasm for the concept of nuclear fuel leasing in the global debate
about nuclear power, the taskforce should feel compelled to offer an
assessment of its potential for Australia.
Under the
concept, countries lease nuclear fuel, rather than buy it, agreeing not
to invest in their own enrichment technologies in return for a reliable
supply. Suppliers take the spent fuel back for disposal.
The debate has
already prompted opportunist scare politics, with Labor challenging Mr
Howard to declare where nuclear reactors would be built, and the PM
responding, not unreasonably, that this is putting the cart before the
horse.
Even so, the
inquiry poses more potential risks for the Government than it does for
Labor. Yesterday Mr Howard appeared to rule out subsidising an
Australian nuclear industry or making it more attractive by imposing a
carbon tax on other energy sources. This, too, smacked of putting the
cart before the horse.
But he was spot
on when he remarked: "We've had a paucity of debate, a dwindling store
of knowledge and an absence of rigour in the whole discussion for a
long time now."
The inquiry should, at the very least, go some distance to rectifying this sorry situation.
------------------->
Howard 'senses' a nuclear future
Murphy and Sarah Smiles, Canberra
June 7, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-senses-nuclear-future/2006/06/06/1149359745252.html
JOHN Howard has
flagged a wide-ranging rethink of the nation's energy needs after
appointing former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski to run a politically
risky inquiry that could lead to nuclear power in Australia.
The Prime
Minister yesterday declared that Australia's energy policies were out
of date and signalled he would review key areas once his nuclear power
taskforce was established.
"Energy is one
of the big challenges this country has," Mr Howard said. "There is
merit … in looking at more aspects of the whole energy scene."
He also
declared on the ABC last night that he had a sense that "one day, it
could be generations into the future, it could be shorter than that,
there will be nuclear power in Australia".
The taskforce
announced yesterday will examine uranium mining, processing and nuclear
energy. It will deliver a report to the Government in five months,
followed by public consultations and a final report in November.
Yesterday's
announcement followed a marathon cabinet deliberation during which
ministers expressed a range of views about whether the industry would
ever be viable in Australia.
Dr Switkowski's
taskforce will have wide scope to recommend ground-breaking policies,
ranging from possible taxes on carbon to how many nuclear power
stations Australia might need.
The former
Telstra boss with a doctorate in nuclear physics was viewed by some
cabinet members as a risky choice, but was championed by Resources
Minister Ian Macfarlane as technically qualified and having the right
commercial focus.
Dr Switkowski
will be joined by Australian National University academics George
Dracoulis, a nuclear physicist, and Warwick McKibbin, an economics
professor and Reserve Bank board member who has done extensive work on
climate change.
Professor
Dracoulis told The Age last night he had "no problem with nuclear power
as a technology that's going to be important worldwide". But the
separate question for the inquiry was "whether it's the appropriate
technology for Australia given Australia's political climate and
economic resources".
Professor
McKibbin has been a critic of the Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding
greenhouse gas emissions targets, but favours a permit system in which
Australian companies would be able to trade in emissions.
Another three members of the taskforce — including a nuclear safety expert — are expected to be announced today.
Mr Howard
ducked questions about whether he would take a clear policy on nuclear
power to the next election. He also suggested that nuclear power
stations could be as much as 25 years away, and described as
"optimistic" suggestions that nuclear energy could be up and running
within a couple of years.
Labor leader
Kim Beazley attacked the Government for refusing to spell out where
future reactors would be located. "John Howard not only wants to take
Australia down the wrong path — the nuclear reactor path — he
arrogantly refuses to tell Australians where the reactors will go."
But Mr Howard
said the debate was essential and defended his choice of appointees
against accusations the expert committee was stacked with nuclear
supporters.
Australian
Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry said the inquiry
was a nuclear promotion exercise. While its chairman was a nuclear
physicist and board member of the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation, it was being supported by the Government's
Chief Scientist, a proponent of nuclear power.
Mr Howard said
the experts were qualified to lead a proper debate on the issue. "I
would hardly appoint an urban planner to chair the inquiry, I would
hardly appoint a social worker to chair the inquiry." With
NASSIM KHADEM
------------------->
Nuclear is just part of the mix
Julian Cribb
June 07, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19385845-601,00.html
JOHN Howard may
have done Australian science an inadvertent favour when he called on
the nuclear debate, apparently egged on by chief scientist Jim Peacock
and Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering
president John Zillman.
Given that
almost nothing in our society would work without energy and that our
use of it will double by the 2020s, it is high time Australia had a
sensible discussion about where it is coming from in future, and in
what forms, to replace the squalid babble of self-interest and
ideological prejudice that has passed for energy debate in the past
quarter of a century.
For decades
Australia has managed to ignore the necessity for a strategic
investment in research for our future national energy needs. In 1997 we
abandoned any pretence to planning when the Government axed the
short-lived Energy R&D Corporation, with its puny $10m budget,
asserting the private sector would soon take care of it.
Plainly it
hasn't. Today Australia's long-range energy policy consists of little
more than a squabble of competing interests: coal, oil, gas, nuclear,
wind, solar, hot rock, biofuels, hydro and so on, each pushing their
own barrow and bagging the alternatives.
Australian
energy is a $50 billion business, and will be a $100 billion business
by the 2020s. It is hard to imagine a $5 million business, let alone a
$50 billion business so unplanned and with so little idea of where it
is heading. We have better plans for managing salinity.
It's not as if
Australia is short of energy. In fact we're spoiled for choice, with
half a millennium's worth of coal, a century or so of gas (depending on
how quickly the Chinese consume it), and any amount of wind, sunlight,
hot rocks, uranium, thorium, methane hydrates and biofuels. It's not
the form of energy that's important: it's finding the optimal mix that
is clean, convenient and affordable. And that is why having a good
research plan makes sense.
A troubling
aspect is transport fuels. In theory at least, a blow-up in the Middle
East could put half Australia off the road inside a fortnight. What
that might do to business and jobs, let alone food production, in the
medium term doesn't bear thinking about. Despite our growing dependency
on imported oil - now running at 20 to 40 per cent - the 2004 policy
white paper largely poo-pooed this possibility.
There are
plenty of alternatives, including liquefied natural gas,
gas-to-liquids, coal-to-diesel, shale oil, biodiesel and even hydrogen
but, due to a weak, fragmented and undirected research effort over
decades, these are mostly still uneconomic and far from adoption. They
certainly wouldn't be much help in a sudden crisis. In the long run, as
even oilman George W. Bush has acknowledged, society has to get off
oil, but do we have a clue what Australia's future transport fuels will
be? The CSIRO's David Lamb says no, and recently called for a plan.
Another area of
uncertainty is the cost of carbon. Few companies are prepared to take
the risk of installing a new power station, because of the massive loss
they could incur. If you build a pulverised coal station and a carbon
tax comes in, you will go broke. If you invest in a $1 billion
greenhouse-friendly integrated coal gasification combined cycle unit,
and no carbon tax is introduced, you'll go equally broke. Our future
energy infrastructure investment is almost at a standstill for want of
decision.
Excellent
alternatives such as oxy-fuel generation and "coalar thermal" (coal
generation with added solar) also lack the clear market signals needed
for adoption, as does geosequestration (apart from the technical
questions).
In nuclear, the
current "debate" would strand us with 20th century uranium technology,
with all its qualifications, without exploring the scope for cleaner,
safer thorium reactors (and we have, apparently, the world's largest
supplies of thorium) or the ultimate, fusion reactors.
Australia does
a certain amount of energy supply research: about $300m a year,
according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Industry,
universities, several co-operative research centres and CSIRO are all
involved. Some of this work is excellent, but it is also fragmented,
unco-ordinated, riven with self-interest, ad hoc and devoid of national
vision.
It may also be
underfunded: is $300 million a suitable level of investment for a
fast-growing $50 billion industry, when agriculture invests three times
that in an industry worth half as much? The only strategic national
areas where Australia invests less in research than energy are
education, transport and environmental policy.
We have
national research investment plans for beef, wheat and dairying,
minerals, defence, water, land, for wine, racehorses, essential oils
and honeybees. We have a research plan for macadamia nuts, but not for
energy.
In this, the
most critical area of all, the research policy is "She'll be right."
The common view is "the Americans'll fix it". Would we tolerate the
same approach to health research?
In energy
research and development there is no sense of the big picture, no
co-ordination, no way of backing the brilliant idea or discovery
through to adoption, no vision for how to blend our prodigious fossil
and renewable resources for the most advantageous outcomes. There is no
plan for making promising but still uneconomic sources (such as solar
thermal) viable through targeted R&D.
Every
Australian home, every job, every workplace and industry, every social
service, every vehicle and every scrap of food or glass of water
depends on a secure supply of affordable energy. The lack of a coherent
research vision for Australia's future energy supply is the nation's
achilles heel.
------------------->
Where will the nuclear power plants and waste dumps be?
Anthony Albanese
June 6, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/where-will-nuclear-plants-and-dumps-be/2006/06/05/1149359670507.html
The arguments for nuclear energy are easily discounted.
IF THE answer
is nuclear power, we are asking the wrong question. The question we
need to ask is: what is a safe, secure way to supply energy for our
children and avoid dangerous climate change? The answer is cleaning up
coal and supporting renewable energy — not dangerous, expensive nuclear
power.
The Prime
Minister now wants a nuclear power debate in Australia. If he is
serious about debating nuclear power he should lay all his cards on the
table. He should tell Australians which suburbs and towns will house
the nuclear reactors and where the high-level nuclear waste dumps will
be.
Yesterday, the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation stated that four
or five nuclear power plants were needed near east-coast cities to make
the industry viable.
In 1997, the
Howard Government secretly shortlisted 14 sites for nuclear reactors,
without community consultation. According to the cabinet submission,
that's because a "release of information" would "alarm communities".
If John Howard thinks nuclear energy is inevitable, he should say where he will put the reactors.
Now, the Government's inquiry into nuclear energy will be made up of nuclear advocates.
The debate over
nuclear power has been around for more than 50 years. Nuclear power
advocates have failed to provide solutions to the intractable problems
of economic cost, safety, nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation.
The economics
of nuclear power do not stack up. Of all the energy options, nuclear is
the most capital intensive to establish, decommissioning is extremely
expensive and the financial burden continues long after the plant is
closed.
On March 30, Britain estimated it would cost $170 billion to clean up its 20 nuclear sites.
Nuclear power
is not possible in Australia without substantial taxpayer subsidies.
This may be why the Finance Minister has said nuclear power would not
be viable in Australia for 100 years.
Amory Lovins of
the Rocky Mountain Institute, a leading US authority on energy use and
supply, has stated that "a portfolio of least-cost investments in
efficient use and in decentralised generation will beat nuclear power
in cost, speed, and size by a large and rising margin. This isn't
hypothetical: it's what today's market is proving."
The storage of
nuclear waste is also a public policy black hole. In Australia, we have
been unable to find a solution to low-level waste, let alone the
high-level waste created by nuclear reactors.
The plan for
leasing nuclear fuel, with waste being returned to the country of
origin, is a plan for Australia to become the world's nuclear waste
dump.
Nuclear waste and the threat of nuclear proliferation are unresolved problems.
Recently,
former US vice-president Al Gore said that "for eight years in the
White House, every weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was
connected to a civilian reactor program".
In the era of
terrorism, this threat is more acute. The Nobel peace prize winner
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
has warned: "Our fears of a deadly nuclear detonation … have been
re-awakened … driven by new realities. The rise in terrorism. The
discovery of clandestine nuclear programs. The emergence of a nuclear
blackmarket …"
This is the cold, hard reality that must shape the nuclear debate.
We know the
Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney has been targeted by terrorists. The
establishment of nuclear power plants would increase this risk.
Nuclear energy is not a solution to climate change.
Think of this —
if we doubled the global use of nuclear energy, we would use all known
reserves of uranium in 25 years. We would achieve emissions reductions
of only another 5 per cent compared with the 60 per cent reduction that
is required to avoid dangerous climate change.
Australia
should be leading the world in the adoption of clean energy. Australia
is in a great position to seize the economic benefits of the worldwide
push to cleaner energy and more renewable energy.
There is a trillion-dollar industry emerging globally in carbon-friendly technologies.
During Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao's recent visit to Australia, a $300 million deal was
signed by renewable energy company Roaring 40's to provide three wind
farms in China. Roaring 40's announced after the budget last month that
it would not proceed with projects in Tasmania and South Australia
because of a lack of Government support.
It is appalling that Australian renewable energy innovation is welcomed in China, but not Australia.
Instead of fantasising about nuclear energy, we should support our clean energy industries and cut our greenhouse pollution.
Anthony Albanese is the federal shadow minister for the environment.
------------------->
Julie Bishop: Sensible energy alternative within grasp
International
experience demonstrates that properly constructed and operated nuclear
power stations are clean, safe and efficient
June 05, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19361834-7583,00.html
CONSIDER the
following: a 500MW coal-fired power station produces almost 320,000
tonnes of toxic waste while a comparable nuclear power station produces
about 20 tonnes per annum. The coal-fired facility will release into
the atmosphere 4.38 million tonnes of carbon dioxide while the nuclear
power station will release 87,600 tonnes. The coal waste will include
2.6 tonnes of uranium and 6.4 tonnes of thorium.
These are just
a few of the facts that must be injected into the debate on nuclear
power being urged by Prime Minister John Howard. International
experience demonstrates that properly constructed and operated nuclear
power stations are clean, safe and efficient. Nuclear generated
electricity presents the most practical prospect for satisfying the 50
per cent increase in world energy demand between now and 2030 predicted
by the International Energy Agency.
A range of
considerations including energy security, economics, environmental
issues and safety support the widespread adoption of nuclear fission as
an energy source. Several large industrialised nations use nuclear
power to generate a substantial proportion of their electricity
requirements. They include France, 78 per cent; Sweden, 50 per cent;
South Korea, 40 per cent; Germany, 28 per cent and Japan, 25 per cent.
Currently there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation throughout the
world, 30 under construction, 30 undergoing licensing and about 60 in
the planning stage.
Nuclear power's
clean and green credentials are beyond dispute. Compared with practical
alternatives, nuclear power makes only a small contribution to
greenhouse gases. During construction it produces some greenhouse gases
-- like other technologies -- but little during operation. The nuclear
power plants operating throughout the world each year save greenhouse
gas emissions equivalent to 600 million tonnes of carbon. They make a
contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions comparable with that
of hydro-electricity.
In addition to
its minimal carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power does not produce
the methane, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions of coal-fired
electricity production. Nor does it require the extensive areas of land
that are needed to produce large amounts of energy through renewable
technologies such as wind or solar power.
Nuclear power
produces a relatively small volume of waste, which can be effectively
isolated from people and the environment. In France, which produces
almost 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, the annual
production of high-level radioactive waste is less than 10g a person
each year. Compare this with 100kg a person each year of toxic chemical
waste that coal-fired power generation would produce.
The
technologies for management of low and intermediate level radioactive
wastes have been demonstrated at many facilities throughout the world.
The technologies already exist for disposal of the high-level
radioactive wastes from nuclear power stations in deep geological
formations. Projects to develop such deep repositories have already
begun. Contrary to the views of nuclear opponents, safe management of
radioactive wastes does not depend on some long-awaited technical
breakthrough.
Nuclear power
has proven to be the safest of the large energy production systems. The
results of expert comparative safety studies show that nuclear power is
10 times safer than hydro-electricity, the next safest large-scale
energy production technology. Nuclear is 100 times safer than oil,
natural gas and coal-fired electricity production, and 1000 times safer
than systems based on liquid petroleum gas.
There have been
more than 12,000 operational years of nuclear power reactor operation
during which there has been one nuclear accident -- Chernobyl in the
Ukraine -- which has resulted in loss of life. It is widely recognised
that the Chernobyl accident was the result of a flawed reactor design,
operated by inadequately trained staff with little regard for safety.
The Three Mile Island accident in the US resulted in no adverse health
or environmental consequences, despite severe damage to a reactor.
While the
causes of the Chernobyl accident are mostly confined to circumstances
unique to the operation of nuclear facilities in the former Soviet
Union, this accident has prompted an even greater international focus
on nuclear safety. New advanced reactor designs include inherent safety
features which require no active controls or operational intervention
to avoid accidents.
The latest
nuclear reactor designs are also more economic to construct and
operate. There is strong evidence they are competitive with coal and
gas-fired electricity generation, without adjustments for the cost of
carbon emissions. For example, the cost of power from the advanced
reactor to be constructed at Flamanville in France is projected by
Electricite de France to be competitive with an advanced gas-fired
plant based on current gas prices, without consideration of carbon
taxes.
The cost
competitiveness of new nuclear power technologies has also been
demonstrated in studies conducted in Finland, the US, Japan and
Britain. Recent studies conducted on behalf of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation have shown that in Australia
nuclear power could be cost competitive with coal generation, even
without considering the cost of carbon emissions.
As a
responsible supplier of uranium to the world, Australia must consider
seriously the growing body of evidence that demonstrates nuclear power
is the most convincing response to the stability of the global
environment and human health presented by greenhouse gas emissions.
Julie Bishop is
Minister for Education, Science and Training, with portfolio
responsibility for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation. The ANSTO report "Introducing Nuclear Power to Australia:
An Economic Comparison" can be read at www.ansto.gov.au
------------------->
Guy Webber: Rational assessment needed
We need a nuclear policy discussion that is not subjected to irrational logic
June 07, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19387765-601,00.html
THE debate on
nuclear power and national energy policy is essential to the prosperity
of the nation. So it's disappointing to hear Kim Beazley say he'll
fight the next election on an anti-nuclear platform. It is not that
such a stance is necessarily good or bad; it's just that there is no
comprehensive rationale for the decision.
Of course,
Beazley's stance might be explained as a way of differentiating the
Opposition from the Government. But it also highlights the inadequacy
of public policy development in Australia. It is a system hijacked by
short-term political expediencies, dominated by apparatchiks
masquerading as "ministerial advisers" who salivate at the thought of
preselection nomination, and emasculated by a politicised civil service
unable to provide advice without fear or favour.
Beazley is not
alone. In their apparently ideologically driven stance on nuclear
matters, Labor's Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett appear indifferent
to the notion of rational debate. Meanwhile, Nick Minchin and Peter
Costello have blithely commented on nuclear power and energy economics,
subjects on which neither is an acknowledged expert. Ditto, Morris
Iemma and other premiers. Indeed, it's no stretch to say that political
posturing and gamesmanship have triumphed in recent weeks.
What matters is
that we engage in policy debate that is less subject to throwaway lines
and more a result of considered thought, mindful that advocacy of
better longer-term outcomes for the nation must be the driver, rather
than outcomes for the party.
Australia may
eventually choose not to develop a civil nuclear power program. It may
do this because the economics are shown not to stack up, or the
assessed hazards may be deemed too problematic, or for other reasons
that may militate against such a move.
Equally, the
decision may go the other way. Considerations of global climate change,
energy security and manufacturing competitiveness, combined with
advanced reactor designs and new approaches to reducing the burden of
nuclear waste may be persuasive. But the arguments are likely to be
more complex.
The case
against adopting nuclear power: we have large reserves of good quality
coal and gas, and access to wind, geothermal, hydro, solar and tidal
alternatives. The establishment and decommissioning costs of reactors
are high. And there is the ever-present issue of security, waste
handling and storage. The development of nuclear power may act to defer
or discourage expansion of alternative and renewable technologies or,
at least, skew the economics against their establishment.
The case in
favour of nuclear power: when mining and carbon emission impacts are
assessed, the costs are potentially less expensive and less
environmentally harmful than other energy sources. A nuclear program
would require an increase in the technical and scientific capacity of
the nation. This would be critical, particularly given that we have
problems fielding enough skilled workers with our present industrial
and technical mix. There is strong argument to suggest the real benefit
of a nuclear power program would be the concomitant boost to education,
research and technical expertise, especially in the STEM (science,
technology, engineering and manufacturing) fields.
Ultimately,
though, we may have little real choice. We are a geographically large
nation with a small population and relatively small net wealth base. We
continue to rely heavily on the export of raw materials with little or
no value-adding undertaken. Our lifestyle demands may end up driving an
expanded (and value-added) uranium sector. Our tertiary competitiveness
is dropping in many areas. And, on many criteria, we are being
outperformed in academic and research excellence by, for instance, the
citizens of south and east Asia.
Morally, we may
have little choice. While we produce only a small part of global
greenhouse gas emissions, on a per capita basis we are profligate. We
hardly endear ourselves to others when we engage in such behaviour. The
ability to provide China and India with a source of energy that could
drastically cut atmospheric pollution levels would reduce the terrible
health impact of poor-quality coal now used in their power stations.
There also
appears little doubt that the world cannot support another two
mega-consumers, the equivalent of the US, without radical changes in a
number of areas, including energy provision. It is unlikely that the
aspirations and needs of India and China will be stifled by a call for
less consumption by the likes of us.
Moreover, the
harsh reality is that in a world hungry for energy, we may not be
allowed to sit on 40 per cent of global uranium (and large reserves of
thorium). Economic and other pressures may force our hand regardless,
especially if we continue to be net importers of high-end technical
products. The potential to lease fuel and return it to Australia for
processing, in conjunction with a global waste repository, may have
many benefits including greater control over global management of
nuclear fuels and significant financial advantages to rural Australia.
The debate on
the merits or otherwise of nuclear power needs to be a rational,
objective assessment based on hard science, economics and fact. It must
be open and public so that the issues, supported by reference material
that is peer-reviewed and unbiased, can be appraised. As with any other
public policy development, it cannot and should not be subjected to the
harm of political expediency or the agenda of interest groups.
It remains to
be seen whether the national attention deficit will allow the depth or
breadth of discussion that is needed. Nonetheless, the next time a
public figure pronounces with shallow thinking, blind ideology or
media-driven imperative on any issue of policy, think about how such an
approach to the development of this nation is harming us all.
Guy Webber is a consultant analyst. The Australian National Forum on Nuclear Power Options will be held in Sydney in October.
www.npoforums.org
------------------->
Energy debate must include nuclear option
By John Howard
June 5, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/energy-debate-must-include-nuclear-option/2006/06/04/1149359604546.html
Too often
politicians are criticised for taking short-term decisions and ignoring
long-term needs. That is usually because the decisions that look to the
long term are often the most difficult.
But I have
always taken the view that if people are given the facts, and can be
persuaded that the policy is in the national interest - as with the GST
- they will respond positively.
So it is with
nuclear energy. It is the debate we must have. I will shortly be
announcing a review of our approach on nuclear energy.
Concerns about
climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, the rising costs of energy
and the possible availability of a cheaper source of fuel, will form
the basis of our arguments for this debate. The arguments of our
opponents, meanwhile, defy logic.
First they say
it is OK to mine uranium from three sites but not from others. Then
they say it is OK to sell uranium, but not to enrich it. And then they
say, well, maybe it is OK to enrich it, but we shouldn't use it to
power our towns and cities. It is policy anachronism piled on
contradiction, capped by inertia.
These are
arguments driven by emotion and by factional rigidities rather than
facts, and not by any consideration of the needs of Australians in 10,
20 or even 100 years' time.
These are
arguments driven by fear, which would have meant the first fires being
snuffed out or the first wheels left in the paddock. Surely we have
more confidence in ourselves today and in our ability to tackle
difficult issues and find their solution than we did decades ago when
this debate surfaced. A comprehensive debate, and a review, will help
inform our thinking.
In 1996, my
Government abolished Labor's illogical no-new-mines policy. In 2005,
Australian uranium exports were a record 12,360 tonnes, valued at $573
million. Uranium mining is carried out under stringent environmental
requirements and exports are subject to companies holding valid export
permits and passing stringent safeguards assessments on a shipment by
shipment basis.
But we need to
be informed on how much further we can, or should, go. A review will
help establish whether uranium enrichment or nuclear power plants are
viable options for Australia. Are they affordable? Are they safe? What
technological developments have been made and what methods are being
worked on for the disposal of waste? What are the potential benefits
for consumers, the environment and the economy?
If nothing
else, the high petrol prices of the past few months show that we are
approaching a crisis in oil production and consumption. We have entered
an environment of high global demand and limited spare capacity for the
production and refinement of crude oil. We need to ensure access to
diversified sources of power and energy.
The debate on
alternative energy sources has to include nuclear energy, or we run the
risk of denying Australians an affordable power source that will not
pollute the environment, or put a brake on the economy.
The report by
the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, released
yesterday, dissects the costs of nuclear power compared with that of
coal and gas-fired electricity generation. This report, prepared by
international energy consultant Professor John Gittus, challenges the
view that the cost would be prohibitive.
Renowned
British scientist, and environmentalist, Sir James Lovelock, argues
that the green movement needs to take a more scientific approach on
climate change and has argued strongly in favour of nuclear energy.
The facts, not
emotion, need to guide this debate. The expert review that I am
considering will examine the economics of nuclear energy in Australia,
and the circumstances in which it could be competitive with other
existing electricity generation technologies, including any
implications it would have for the national electricity market.
Naturally,
health, safety and proliferation issues will be crucial, including the
potential of "next generation" nuclear energy technologies to meet
safety, waste and proliferation concerns; the waste processing and
storage issues associated with nuclear energy and current world's best
practice; and any security, safety or health issues emanating from
nuclear energy.
Environmental
factors will also be a major consideration, including the extent to
which nuclear energy could help reduce Australia's greenhouse gas
emissions to 2050 and beyond.
We have an obligation to look at these issues and we will engage in a full public debate.
------------------->
Nuclear reactor sites no big deal, Howard insists
Phillip Coorey Political Correspondent
June 6, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-reactor-sites-no-big-deal-howard/2006/06/05/1149359674916.html
THE Prime
Minister, John Howard, has tried to allay fears over where nuclear
power stations could be built, as cabinet prepares to approve a
feasibility study into nuclear energy today.
Yesterday Mr
Howard said that debating potential sites for nuclear power plants was
a scaremongering campaign by Labor that amounted to "putting the cart
before the horse".
"The first
thing is to work out whether it's economically feasible or not," Mr
Howard said. "Then people will come forward with investments; then you
start talking about sites."
A fortnight ago Mr Howard said nuclear power in Australia was inevitable, with economic considerations governing its timing.
The Foreign
Minister, Alexander Downer, echoed Mr Howard's remarks yesterday,
saying the science and economics of nuclear power should first be
ascertained, and it was "childish" and "pathetic party politics" to
argue now about sites.
However, he
repeated a suggestion he made on Friday that a nuclear-powered
desalination plant should be built in his home state of South Australia
to solve its growing water and energy crises.
As the NSW
Premier, Morris Iemma, vowed there would be no nuclear power stations
in NSW "while ever I'm Premier", the federal Minister for Health, Tony
Abbott, said he would not object to one in his Sydney electorate of
Warringah, if there was enough room. "If we had the space I would not
have any particular problem with it."
The chief
executive of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation, Ian Smith, said four or five nuclear power stations would
have to be built along the east coast for Australia to have a viable
industry. "Because nuclear power produces large quantities of power, it
would need to be on the major grid," he told ABC radio. "The east coast
is the major grid in Australia."
Labor's
environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, said given that Mr Howard
believed nuclear power was inevitable, he was duty-bound to "say where
he'll put the nuclear reactors".
"Communities
have a right to be alert and alarmed at the Howard Government's future
plans for nuclear reactors and waste dumps at unnamed sites," he said.
"There's
nothing new about a nuclear debate; what's new is the Prime Minister's
assertion we can have a hypothetical debate without naming sites for a
reactor."
Today cabinet
will approve a study into nuclear energy by a panel of experts,
including the Government's chief scientist, Jim Peacock. It is expected
to be chaired by either the former chief executive of Telstra, Ziggy
Switkowski, or a Macquarie Bank executive, Paul McClintock.
It will
principally examine the feasibility of nuclear power and uranium
enrichment. Its conclusions would be subject to a peer review, Mr
Howard said.
A report for
the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation published by
the Government on Sunday says nuclear power generators would be
competitive with gas- or coal-fired electricity stations, so long as
they were underwritten by taxpayers.
Professor James
Gittus, author of the report, says three new-generation power stations
replacing coal-fired stations could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
38 million tonnes a year, or as much as the five measures the
government proposes to reduce global warming.
Professor
Gittus, 75, who has worked in Britain's nuclear industry since 1960,
said nuclear power was cleaner than coal power. "One wagonload of
uranium per year would keep [a power station] going, while a coal-fired
station would require many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of coal.
"Every atom of carbon from that coal goes into the atmosphere."
------------------->
Coal hits back at nuclear power
Andrew Fraser and Rick Wallace
June 06, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19378253-601,00.html
THE coal
industry believes power stations that do not produce greenhouse gases
could be operating across Australia in the same time it takes to
establish nuclear power stations.
Fighting back
against the push towards nuclear power, the industry claims the rapidly
developing methods of making coal cleaner and more valuable would make
nuclear power plants obsolete.
Federal cabinet
is today expected to approve an inquiry into nuclear energy after John
Howard said nuclear power in Australia was "inevitable".
Australian Coal
Association executive director Mark O'Neill said last night that the
potential of clean coal technology and the investments of key
stakeholders could not be overlooked.
Work will begin
later this year in the US on the world's first zero-emissions
coal-fired plant, which will be running by 2012, and Mr O'Neill said
Australia's involvement in the project meant zero-emission plants could
be operating in Australia within a decade.
"Between 2012
and 2020 the cost of this reduced and zero-emission technology will
come down," Mr O'Neill said. "The technologies will be competitive with
the alternatives."
Clean-coal
technology involves removing carbon dioxide from the emissions of
coal-fired power stations and burying it in the ground.
Two Australian
scientists are working closely on the US project - Peter Cook, the
chief executive of the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas
Technologies, and Kelly Thambimuthu, chief executive of the Centre for
Low Emission Technology - and examining how the technology may help the
coal industry here.
With Queensland
relying more on coal revenues, which will partly underpin today's
budget, state power generator CSEnergy has also been undertaking a
project to use oxygen to enable easier separation of carbon dioxide.
While the
federal Government is putting $500 million into research, the coal
industry has also put up $300 million and the Queensland Government a
further $300 million through the sale of its two energy retailers,
Ergon and Energex.
Victoria has
pumped $106 million into clean-coal technology, with much of it going
into a scheme to foster private-sector research into reducing emissions
from coal plants.
Through the
Energy Technology Innovation Strategy, the state Government is
examining geosequesteration (storing carbon dioxide emissions in
underground wells) and gasification (transforming coal to react with
oxygen without burning) to reduce emissions from the coal-fired plants
in Victoria's Latrobe Valley, which generate most of the state's power.
A spokesman for
state Energy Minister Theo Theophanous said Victoria was putting money
into clean coal technology because nuclear power "doesn't stack up on
environmental grounds, it doesn't stack up on economic grounds and
doesn't have the acceptance of the community".
He said a Victorian study more than a year ago found it cost twice as much money to produce electricity through nuclear power.
Queensland
Premier Peter Beattie warned yesterday that a nuclear industry would
undermine Australia's coal industry, particularly in NSW and his home
state, where there is a 300-year supply of coal and 16,000 workers in
the industry.
Mr Beattie said
buyers in some world markets were already making a choice between
nuclear energy and coal, and the growth of a nuclear industry would
inhibit the coal industry.
"I don't understand why people undermine the coal industry," said Mr Beattie.
"We're going down the road of clean coal technology and we've got 300 years supply of coal."
Mr Beattie said
the federal Government had seriously misread the electoral mood and
there was little public support for nuclear reactors or a nuclear waste
dump.
"Coal royalties
fund a large part of our police, nurses, doctors, paramedics, school
teachers. And why would you give that up," Mr Beattie said.
"In many ways, it is the backbone of the Queensland economy.
"The Prime
Minister is, quite frankly, wrong on this. While I'm Premier we will do
everything we can to block a nuclear reactor."
NSW Premier Morris Iemma declared his Government would block any nuclear power plants planned for the state.
West Australian
Premier Alan Carpenter went a step further, threatening to mount a High
Court challenge against any move by the commonwealth to enforce uranium
mining, reprocessing or nuclear energy on the state.
Mr Carpenter
attacked the integrity of the Howard Government's inquiry, saying its
suggested members had "a predisposition in favour of nuclear energy".
He said Australia's chief scientist, Jim Peacock, was a strong
supporter of nuclear power, and that Macquarie Bank executive Paul
McClintock had a vested interest in promoting infrastructure projects.
Rio Tinto mining executive Andy Lloyd said it was in the interests of the coal industry to reduce greenhouse gases.
"The coal
industry has put $300million into research and it doesn't put its hand
in its pocket to that extent unless it really means it," Mr Lloyd said.
Reserve Bank
director Warwick McKibbin warned that the federal inquiry would be a
"lost opportunity" if it failed to compare the economics of nuclear
power with other energy sources.
He said
yesterday he supported a study into the feasibility of nuclear power.
But its true cost in Australia could be determined only by considering
it "within the broader debate on energy, climate and environment".
His comments
came as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
warned that nuclear power could not proceed unless the Government was
willing to meet the costs of cleaning up nuclear waste and to guarantee
against accidents. Chief operating officer Ron Cameron said industry
was unlikely to invest in nuclear power stations without such a
government guarantee.
"The key issue
is borrowing money in the market. The market is going to say, 'What is
the risk here?' and so the Government is going to have to insure the
risk," Dr Cameron said.
The
organisation believes Australia must build as many as five power
stations if the sector is to be viable. Executive director Ian Smith
said the initial costs of establishing a nuclear power industry were so
great they were likely to prove prohibitive unless shared between a
number of separate plants.
Additional reporting: Amanda Hodge, Ean Higgins, Dan Box
------------------->
Steve Lewis: Bomber finds his target
On nuclear energy, Kim Beazley is giving John Howard a taste of his own populist medicine
June 06, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19373016-7583,00.html
KIM Beazley has
entered a new phase in his campaign to win office, borrowing liberally
from John Howard's political handbook. Better known for being affable
and verbose, the Labor leader has morphed into a ruthless pragmatist.
And a shameless opportunist. He hungers for success, and will do
whatever it takes to win over middle Australia. Ban foreign
apprentices? Sure. After all, it plays out a treat with the Howard
battlers.
The new-look
Beazley sees the nuclear debate going down a similarly opportunistic
path. He has eschewed the national interest in favour of an
easier-to-sell argument: Labor will oppose nuclear power. Full stop.
The nuclear
debate has opened up a dramatic political faultline, pitting Howard's
thirst for taking on dangerous and unpopular reforms against the brazen
populism of Beazley's just-say-no stance. Beazley is giving Howard a
taste of his own medicine. Labor copped the full brunt of the voters'
wrath over its timidity on refugees in 2001. Beazley is determined not
to be caught out again. He has sharpened Labor's message of economic
sobriety and will build on his budget reply "pact with middle
Australia". So, with a sudden whiff of wind in its sail, Labor is
planning the mother of all scare campaigns over nuclear energy,
portraying Howard's nuclear inquiry (to be announced today) as a
reckless leap into the unknown.
You doubt me?
Justine Elliot, Labor MP for the northern NSW seat of Richmond, has
already begun the process of scaring the wits out of her constituency.
The former
police officer, who narrowly turfed out the Nationals' Larry Anthony at
the 2004 election, will this week launch an anti-nukes petition, as
part of a four-page newsletter distributed to 30,000 voters. Labor says
it is the first of many such campaigns to be rolled out across the
country.
Under the
headline, "Nuclear power not on my watch", Elliot's message is blunt:
"As your federal MP, as a local resident and a mother, I am deeply
concerned about nuclear power plants on Australian soil. Towering
nuclear power plants and toxic waste is not the sort of future we want
to hand over to our children. We don't need nuclear energy. We don't
need to build power plants next door to our schools, in our
neighbourhoods, near our homes." No doubt Elliot's potent message will
serve as a template for other Labor MPs, as they seek to capitalise on
antipathy towards nuclear power.
Against this
backdrop, Howard and his cabinet know they are taking a risk with
today's announcement of a full-blooded inquiry into nuclear energy. But
the Prime Minister is equally determined not to kill off debate at the
first sign of community angst or public opposition.
Unlike last
Friday's spectacular Snowy backflip, Howard wants the nuclear debate
played out in full. It will mirror, in some ways, the emotion of the
GST debate led by the Government in the late 1990s, pitting the
anti-reform Labor Party against a crusading Howard-led Coalition.
But nuclear is
far riskier than GST, with the potential to go seriously off the rails.
Howard, the consummate conviction politician, is hoping to pitch the
nuclear issue as the debate we have to have. He knows popular opinion
is stacked against him. But he will try to win over the doubters, using
the same brand of argument that he used to ultimately win over the tax
reform sceptics.
The message:
nuclear is in Australia's longer term interest, part of a cleaner
energy mix that exploits Australia's abundance of fossil fuels with a
modest rebalance towards renewable energy sources. He is gambling on
the community being prepared to debate - soberly, sensibly - the merits
of Australia going down the same road as China, the US, France,
Britain, Sweden and Armenia.
Unfortunately,
he cannot rely on Labor or any of the Opposition parties to support
this cause. Beazley is forgoing a legitimate debate on nuclear power,
instead preferring to adopt a hardline anti-nuke stance. Under
Beazley's watch, Labor is largely frozen out of the emerging nuclear
debate. Instead, the only issue on the Labor agenda is the party's
nonsensical "no new mines" policy, to be debated at next April's ALP
national conference. That should be overturned, allowing Labor to argue
that it is not against mining yellowcake, just the process of turning
it into nuclear energy on home soil.
Beazley wants
nothing to distract from the hard politics of trying to convince
communities of the merits of locating potential nuclear plants in their
area. He is relying on a healthy dose of nimbyism; one that will dwarf
the debate over where to locate a second international airport in
Sydney (a debate that has vexed successive governments, forcing Howard
to place it in the too-hard basket before the 2004 poll).
Howard was
yesterday frantically trying to hose down the debate, arguing it was
premature to be talking about location. Today's announcement will
instead focus on examining the merits (including the economic
viability) of developing a nuclear industry in Australia.
The schedule
has a team of experts reporting later this year, with the Government
formally responding before the next election. That is the current
thinking. But Howard will drop nuclear like a hot potato if it
generates similar community angst to the Snowy sell-off. Conviction and
courage only go so far when the issue is as explosive as nuclear energy.
------------------->
Nuclear task force will not consider locations
Phillip Coorey Political Correspondent
June 7, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/ntask-force-will-not-consider-locations/2006/06/06/1149359747298.html
A PRIME
MINISTERIAL task force would examine every stage of the uranium cycle
except how many nuclear power stations might be needed and where they
would be built.
The Prime
Minister, John Howard, announced a six-member task force yesterday, to
be headed by the former Telstra boss and nuclear physicist Ziggy
Switkowski.
After a long
cabinet debate on nuclear power, including the political risk of
embracing the technology, Mr Howard said he was yet to be convinced and
did not envisage nuclear power stations being built "over the next two
to three years".
But he said a
perceived softening of public opinion towards nuclear energy made it
worth examining. "My mind is open. I'm not persuaded yet, but in my
bones I feel there has been a fundamental change.
"There are
always political risks in particular doing something like this, but
there are political and long-term national costs in sitting on your
hands and ignoring reality.
"Why not give
ourselves the protection, the luxury, the opportunity of having a
proper investigation of it now when we have time, when we have the
policy freedom to do so?"
The task force
must report by the end of the year. It will examine the capacity to
increase uranium mining, the potential for enriching the mineral into
nuclear fuel, the feasibility of nuclear power, and how to deal with
the toxic waste generated.
Professor
George Dracoulis, a nuclear physicist from Canberra's Australian
National University, and Warwick McKibbin, an economics professor from
the same university, will also be part of the task force. The other
three members will be announced today.
Mr Howard
rejected Greenpeace's complaint that the task force was stacked with
pro-nuclear experts. "I want people who are expert and also people who
are clear-headed and open-minded about the pros and cons."
He said the
location and number of power stations need not be dealt with for the
"foreseeable future" and he had yet to turn his mind to overcoming the
objections now voiced by all states.
The Opposition
Leader, Kim Beazley, accused Mr Howard of returning to the past by
"rehashing old debates about nuclear reactors".
Labor opposes nuclear power and instead wants efforts dedicated to developing renewable energy sources.
"Australia needs renewables, not reactors," Mr Beazley said.
He said Mr
Howard was being disingenuous by shying away from the number and sites
of any nuclear power stations. "A nuclear inquiry that does not examine
reactor locations is nothing short of arrogant."
Mr Howard
dismissed the assault as predictable. "That's to be expected of a
negative, backward-looking, old-fashioned, bankrupt-of-ideas
Opposition."
He conceded,
however, that there was merit in also examining other future forms of
energy and hinted that plans were in the pipeline to do so.
But nuclear
energy warranted a separate review because a combined examination
"could become a survey of everything under the sun", Mr Howard said.
Earlier
yesterday, the gas industry added its opposition to the pursuit of
nuclear power, saying natural gas was plentiful, cheap and clean, and
did not have the waste and security issues associated with nuclear
energy.
------------------->
Save your energy for a clean debate on fossil fuels
Peter Hartcher
Political Editor
June 7, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/save-your-energy-for-a-clean-debate/2006/06/06/1149359747309.html
JOHN HOWARD'S inquiry into nuclear power is a radioactive red herring - for two reasons.
First was its conception. The Prime Minister announced his intention to call the inquiry during a trip to Canada. Why?
Because he
faced growing criticism that his 12-day tour was an indulgence, and
because he was anxious to change the subject of national conversation.
Second, the
inquiry does not address the real national policy problems. Australia,
one of the world's great energy exporters, does not have an energy
shortage.
Australia has
an advantage as an exporter of fossil fuels. They account for a quarter
of exports; it is how we make our living in the world. Our uranium
exports are worth 2 per cent as much.
Howard
stridently defended Australia's vast fossil fuels industry in the Kyoto
debate. He needs to defend this interest now by advocating technologies
that will improve the cleanliness and viability of fossil fuels.
Even if
Australia did have a shortage of energy, nuclear power is not the
answer. It is not commercially viable anywhere in the world without
substantial government subsidy. It is even less viable in Australia, a
country awash in cheap alternatives.
The research
published by the Government's own Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation last month showed that the taxpayer would need
to subsidise 21 per cent of the cost of a nuclear power station for the
first 12 years to make it viable.
Now the Prime
Minister announces an inquiry to discover if it is viable. John, we
already know. In any case, the states have refused to host a nuclear
reactor. The concept is just not practical.
So why persist
with this idea? What Howard conceived as a subject-changing device he
is now pursuing as a Labor-goading instrument, hoping it will prod the
Opposition into tearing itself apart on the subject as it approaches a
controversial change to the Labor policy platform at its national
conference next April.
So it is a red
herring. And it is a radioactive one because it has potential to burn
Howard at least as much as Labor. Public opinion is hostile to nuclear
reactors. By threatening to install them - even only in-principle -
Howard risks a public-opinion meltdown.
------------------->
Mike Steketee: Howard reheats old debate
It is 32 years since an Australian trade minister first put our uranium on the international market
May 25, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19245340-7583,00.html
IN 1974, Jim
Cairns, trade minister in the Whitlam government and darling of the
Left, went to Iran to promote the sale of Australian uranium.
That was when
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was in power and Iran was a staunch ally of
the US. It was five years before the Islamic revolution that overthrew
the shah and three decades before the arrival of an Iranian president
committed to the destruction of Israel and whose progress towards
developing nuclear weapons is considered the largest present threat to
world peace.
How times
change. But more than that, it demonstrates how, despite all the
preaching about non-proliferation and safeguards, there ultimately are
no guarantees of safety when it comes to nuclear issues.
It was about
the same time that Whitlam's minerals and energy minister Rex Connor
wanted to build a uranium enrichment plant in Australia. It was only a
few years after the Gorton government had started preparing the site
for a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay on the NSW south coast.
John Gorton
thought Australia should also develop nuclear weapons. But then Bill
Hayden had a similar position. Hayden revealed in his memoirs that, as
foreign minister in 1984, he raised with Bob Hawke and other senior
ministers the idea that Australia should develop nuclear technology to
take us to "the threshold of being able to assemble nuclear weaponry"
in the event that other countries in the region looked like acquiring
them.
Hayden wrote that he thought his colleagues agreed with him, though nothing further happened.
Perhaps John
Howard had some of this history in mind last weekend when he proposed a
full-blooded debate on uranium and nuclear power. The opposition to
nuclear power and concerns about uranium mining made its way into Labor
Party policy from 1977 onwards, with the post-Cairns Left leading the
push for Labor to restrict uranium mining in what was supposed to be a
step to ultimately phase out the industry.
It was
reflected in legislation as recently as 1998 when, to help get a
measure through a Senate where it lacked the numbers, the Howard
Government included provisions proscribing the licensing of nuclear
power and uranium enrichment in Australia.
It may be that,
in the grand sweep of history, this is seen as a period of aberration.
Peter Costello, revelling in his role as Acting Prime Minister, put the
realpolitik position this week.
Telling
parliament that Australia had 8 per cent of the world's proven coal
reserves, 2 per cent of natural gas reserves and 40 per cent of
low-cost uranium resources, he added: "Nobody in their right mind would
think that we would deny ourselves export markets for gas or coal.
Nobody in their right mind should deny Australia export markets for
uranium, provided they are in countries with safeguards which comply
with international obligations."
Despite a
present policy opposed to new uranium mines, a future Labor government
would take the same attitude. Even if Kim Beazley were to fail at next
year's ALP national conference to change the policy, a position that
already allows Roxby Downs to be developed into the world's largest
uranium mine will not impose many constraints.
The politics of uranium is littered with hypocrisy.
The last
inquiry into the nuclear industry in Australia was initiated by the
Whitlam government and conducted by Justice Russell Fox and two fellow
commissioners. Its main recommendation was that "the nuclear power
industry is unintentionally contributing to the increased risk of
nuclear war". That did not stop the Fraser government from going ahead
with uranium exports, based on the argument that Australia needed to
participate to ensure the strictest international safeguards. The
Howard Government is still using the argument, brushing aside concerns
such as those raised last year by the International Atomic Energy
Agency's Mohamed ElBaradei about what he described as "new realities":
the rise in terrorism, the discovery of clandestine nuclear programs
and the emergence of a nuclear black market.
When it comes to the morality of uranium mining and exports, the horse bolted many years ago.
Even if
Australia refused to sell uranium, it would not stop other countries
doing so, let alone the reprocessing of existing vast stockpiles of
nuclear fuel.
One motivation
for Howard's decision to trigger a debate and call an inquiry is to try
to deal himself into international developments.
Under George W.
Bush's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, countries would
forgo enrichment and reprocessing - and therefore the means to produce
weapons - in return for guaranteed access to nuclear fuel. Countries
supplying the fuel also would agree to take back the spent fuel rods.
An international agreement along these lines could prevent Australia
from enriching its uranium in future. The argument is that climate
change and rising costs for alternative energy sources could ultimately
make nuclear power a viable option for Australia.
Bush's proposal
is not all that Howard has on his mind: he sees an opportunity to
exploit divisions in the Labor Party. Beazley displayed agility by
recruiting federal Labor's biggest nuclear supporter, industry
spokesman Martin Ferguson, to join him in a statement ruling out
nuclear power in Australia under a Labor government. But a debate
generated by Howard will put pressure on Beazley to take a position on
future uranium mining and development well before next April's national
conference, dragging out the divisions in the party.
The urgency for
Howard is not climate change or an early decision on building a nuclear
reactor but next year's election. Nuclear power will not make economic
sense in Australia for a long time, if ever. Nor is it a silver bullet
for tackling climate change, given electricity generation supplies only
about 30 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases and that it would
take too long to expand the nuclear industry by an amount sufficient to
make a large difference to carbon dioxide emissions.
------------------->
Ministers put forward nuclear issue: PM
June 1, 2006 - 6:49PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Ministers-put-forward-nuclear-issue-PM/2006/06/01/1148956474516.html
Prime Minister
John Howard has spurned suggestions his enthusiasm for a national
nuclear debate was an attempt to damage Labor, saying two ministers
urged him to consider the matter months ago.
Nuclear issues
dominated a trip by Mr Howard to North America and Europe last month,
leading to questions about why the domestic matter was given such
prominence during an overseas itinerary.
It was
speculated Mr Howard's sudden interest was designed to create dissent
among the opposition, which has differing views on expanded uranium
mining, as well as the benefits of enrichment and nuclear energy.
While overseas,
Mr Howard signalled a desire for a full-blooded nuclear debate,
signalling plans for an inquiry into issues such as uranium mining and
enrichment and nuclear power generation.
Speaking to
mining industry leaders on Thursday, Mr Howard said the idea was put to
him months ago by Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane and Defence
Minister Brendan Nelson, a previous science minister.
"(It) is not
something that was plucked out of the air by me during the last few
weeks with malign political intent in relation to those who sit
opposite me," he said.
"As Ian
Macfarlane will know, it's something that both he and Brendan Nelson
... began raising with me, and putting the desirability of it to me,
some months ago.
"I think it is an important debate."
Mr Howard vowed
to persevere with plans for a nuclear inquiry in the face of growing
community opposition to the prospect of nuclear power in Australia.
The government
believes it is hypocritical to sell uranium to other countries for
power generation and then refuse to consider nuclear energy in
Australia on the basis that it may be dangerous.
"For ... these
reasons the government has come to the view that (it is necessary to
have) a proper expert inquiry into all aspects of nuclear power,
whether it's desirable and economic that we have the possibility of
uranium enrichment," Mr Howard said.
"We have a very
well settled policy ... in relation to uranium mining and uranium
export, but all aspects of the fuel cycle should be examined in this
inquiry."
Labor has promised it won't allow nuclear power in Australia if it wins the next election.
Mr Howard predicted an examination on the pros and cons of nuclear power and uranium enrichment would stir up a fear campaign.
He pointed to a
report by left-wing think tank The Australia Institute on possible
locations for a nuclear power station as an example of the anticipated
scaremongering.
"(But) I want
to make it clear that the government intends to persevere with the
inquiry and I hope to say something in more detail about the nature and
scope of this inquiry," Mr Howard said.
"We intend to persevere with it, irrespective of the reaction of that kind that may arise in the future."
------------------->
Nuclear dawn won't be tomorrow
The hot topic is powering on and is taking the Resources Minister along with it, energy writer Nigel Wilson reports
May 30, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19298486-30417,00.html
IN the debate
on whether Australia should embrace nuclear power, it is worth
remembering one very important point: nuclear energy is not yet
commercially viable in this country.
That, at least,
is the view of federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane who has found
himself - courtesy of the Prime Minister - accelerating a pro-nuclear
power strategy.
As a result, he has been forced to defend himself against allegations of backflipping on the issue.
While
Macfarlane had been keenly promoting Australia as a uranium exporter to
the power-hungry developing world since the World Energy Congress in
Sydney two years ago, he had - until earlier this month - been
reluctant to support nuclear power for domestic use.
Essentially, he
maintained, there was no public appetite for nuclear energy and
therefore it was a debate we did not need to have - just yet.
But all that has changed because of events overseas that have influenced John Howard's advocacy of nuclear.
Macfarlane had
to accelerate his rhetoric rapidly, while explaining that in fact all
his previous remarks and actions had been building up to encouraging a
public debate about domestic nuclear power.
"Previously,
the very word uranium has stirred a smog of hysteria which has
smothered any sort of rational debate," he said immediately after the
PM's view became public.
"The industry
has matured, the technology has evolved, more countries are signalling
their move to, or expansion of, a nuclear energy industry, there's
greater demand for Australian uranium and the debate has moved to a
more informed level.
"This has to be
a national decision but only once everyone is given the opportunity to
learn more about the issue in a dispassionate, factual manner."
Even so, the minister conceded that the cost of nuclear power was still around double the cost of coal-fired electricity.
"Back of the
envelope calculations show nuclear energy to be twice as expensive as
our traditional energy sources at the moment and, for that reason, this
isn't an issue on which Australia has to make an immediate decision,"
he told The Australian.
Almost at the
same time as Howard was talking up prospects for a domestic nuclear
future, British counterpart Tony Blair was also pushing the nuclear
button. In a speech in London on May 17, Blair endorsed a new
generation of nuclear power stations. The difference is that Britain
already has a nuclear industry. Australia doesn't. And that's a real
issue for the $100 billion Australian electricity industry.
Blair warned
that failing to replace Britain's ageing nuclear plants would fuel
global warming, endanger the country's energy security and represent a
dereliction of duty to Britons.
Even so, he said, nuclear was only one option to meet Britain's looming energy gap.
Howard, while
on his overseas tour, also had the benefit of the views of his other
great international friend, George W. Bush, who has been pushing
nuclear as the Advanced Energy Initiative.
Last week, the
US President told an audience at Exelon's nuclear plant at Limerick,
Pennsylvania, that new plants would cut dependency on imported oil.
Bush said energy demand in the US was expected to rise 50 per cent in the next 25 years.
He focused on nuclear power, saying it was abundant and affordable with low operating costs.
In Australia, analysts say, the dynamic and therefore the need, is somewhat different.
Australia's
looming energy gap is in liquid transport fuels, not in fuelling
electricity generation. At current rates of use, Australia has around
400 years supply of coal and more than 100 years of natural gas.
Indeed, earlier
this year the Government committed, through Macfarlane, to encourage
the use of natural gas as the fuel of choice for up to 70 per cent of
Australia's future baseload power stations.
Macfarlane
announced a new government/industry strategic approach initiated by the
Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association that,
while acknowledging the underlying priority of the gas industry was to
see Australia become one of the world's top five LNG suppliers, there
was also a need to focus on the growing domestic market.
The Resources
Minister said the key was industry enthusiasm because it would have to
involve changing business and community attitudes about energy
production, opening doors which were currently closed, but not locked,
to natural gas options.
Substitute nuclear power and you would need the same enthusiasm but as yet it appears absent in Australia.
Andrew Blyth,
the newly appointed chief executive of the Energy Networks Association,
points out that Australia will have to do a lot of work before
committing to nuclear.
Aside from the
inherent problem that nuclear energy is currently priced at about
double what Australian coal-fired generators can achieve - although
that is likely to change as coal becomes more costly through the
application of clean technologies - just fitting nuclear into the
Australian system poses challenges. Blyth says Australia's physical
energy infrastructure is in urgent need of renewal and expansion.
During the next
five years, around $16 billion needs to be invested in new distribution
networks and in refurbishing gas distribution. Yet in Blyth's terms,
there is insufficient incentive through the Government's regulatory
approach to ensure the investment takes place.
At the most simple energy regulation is so confused that it acts as a disincentive for remedial work in the system.
The net result
is that networks will become unreliable and the costs of fixing them
will be passed on to consumers, either through higher electricity and
gas tariffs or higher government charges, depending on whether
suppliers are privatised or still remain in government hands.
While there is
much discussion concerning the change in scale of nuclear power
stations - some experts argue that units as small as 100 megawatts
could be constructed efficiently - the consensus is that units of
around 1500MW would be most likely to meet Australia's needs.
Reactors of this size are the mainstay of China's plans to expand its nuclear capacity to 40 gigawatts by 2020.
Sue Ion,
executive director of technology at British Nuclear Fuels, has said
that evolutionary designs are intended to replace existing nuclear
plants and to prevent sizeable increases in carbon dioxide emissions.
The revolutionary designs, known as generation IV, aim to deliver safe, competitive and sustainable energy.
Generation IV
is an international initiative aimed at developing nuclear energy
systems that can supply future worldwide needs for electricity,
hydrogen, and other products.
They feature
so-called passive safety systems that do not require human intervention
in the case of an accident. Some will operate at sufficiently high
temperatures to produce hydrogen from water as well as electricity.
Experts say the new systems will be more economical to build, operate and maintain.
According to
the World Nuclear Association, 441 nuclear power reactors operate in 31
countries, producing more than 363 billion watts of electricity.
Another 30 reactors are under construction, and some 24 countries -
including six that do not currently operate nuclear reactors - are
planning or proposing to build an additional 104 reactors.
But for
Australia, Macfarlane concedes the only thing that would make nuclear
energy commercially viable in the next 10 to 15 years would be a carbon
tax on other energy sources.
But therein lies the paradox.
"The Government does not support a stand-alone Australian carbon tax," Macfarlane said.
That might need
rethinking with huge ramifications for electricity generators which are
the nation's biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
------------------->
Iemma rocks boat on push for nuclear power
Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
May 31, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/iemma-rocks-boat-on-push-for-nuclear-power/2006/05/30/1148956346921.html
NUCLEAR power
was not a solution to climate change, the Premier Morris Iemma said
yesterday in a speech in which he criticised the Federal Government and
distanced his administration from the pro-nuclear stance of the former
premier Bob Carr.
In an address
to the green movement that covered other environmental concerns such as
illegal land clearing and water shortages, Mr Iemma said the Federal
Government was "wasting time and effort" chasing the red herring of
nuclear power.
"Rather than
focusing on renewables - gas, clean technologies and demand management
- [John Howard] wants us to debate a high-cost, high-risk solution
whose only real purpose is to split the ranks of his opponents," Mr
Iemma said. "Let me be clear on this: nuclear power is not a realistic
option for NSW … While I am Premier [nuclear facilities and uranium
mining] will remain illegal."
NSW would tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions by developing a national emissions trading scheme, he said.
Green groups
welcomed the Mr Iemma's rejection of nuclear power. Earlier this month
Mr Carr said the world could not be saved from global warming without
it. He also said it should be possible to devise a way of safely
storing highly radioactive nuclear waste, even though the US Government
has failed to do that despite spending more than 10 years and billions
of dollars to solve the problem.
Environmentalists
and the NSW Greens were also pleased Mr Iemma had recommitted to ending
broad-scale land clearing, but called on the Government to release data
about alleged illegal clearing.
They said Mr
Iemma did not cover key environmental problems such as the Government's
failure to clean up all the dioxin hot spots in Sydney Harbour, the
threat to energy and water saving targets for residential high-rise
from developer pressure, and unchecked coastal development.
------------------->
Nuclear power is uneconomic and won't stop climate change
Steve Shallhorn
Friday, 26 May 2006
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?story_id=483151&class=Your+say%2D+General
IN THE wake of
Prime Minister Howard's trip to the US and Canada, you might get the
impression the silver bullet to save us all from climate change would
be made of uranium. Australian uranium.
Yet the cold
hard fact remains that nuclear power is uneconomic and impractical on
its own terms. And even if uranium supplies were infinite and zero
cost, nuclear power could not stop climate change. Only a portion of
greenhouse pollution is carbon dioxide, a small portion of which is
generated by electricity production.
What's more,
uranium will eventually run out. According to the global nuclear
watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency, there are 3.5 million
tonnes of recoverable uranium reserves, enough for just over 50 years
at current use rates [IAEA, 2004]. So if world nuclear energy use
doubled, these reserves would run out after 25 years.
On the
economics front, nuclear power dramatically increases electricity cost.
In fact, high energy costs and massive debt are hallmarks of nuclear
power in every free market country where it exists.
Nuclear power plants only get built if propped up by unaffordable public subsidies.
Nuclear plants are also subsidised by radically limiting their liability in the face of possible accidents.
Take Canada,
with 22 nuclear reactors, where the Nuclear Liability Act restricts
liability to a paltry $C75 million ($A89million) - barely enough to
cover costs of lawyers fees for lawsuits that would follow a serious
accident. In the event of a nuclear accident the costs are usually
borne by others, often individuals who lose their livelihood and/or
their health.
But the biggest
subsidy of all, probably most relevant to Australia, is the cost of
containing nuclear waste, which can easily endure 10,000 years or more.
No power utility comes even close to adequately providing for waste
containment; they'd be out of business if they did.
Those arguing
for a permanent nuclear waste dump in Australia haven't said how it
will be paid for. What is the net present cost of safe storage of
thousands of barrels of nuclear waste for unknown thousands of years?
Not only are the costs unimaginable, future generations would be the ones to pay for a few years of electricity for us.
Quite apart
from its bad economics, nuclear power also fails the climate change
test. More nuclear power will mean we also pay the price of an elevated
threat of nuclear war or nuclear terrorism.
Four of the
nine nuclear weapons states obtained their weapons from power reactors
in India, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel. Five if you believe North
Korea has nuclear weapons.
The true
tragedy of more investment in dirty and dangerous nuclear technology
would be the diversion of capital away from clean, green renewable
energy just when we need these technologies most.
By 2020 the
wind industry alone can supply 12 per cent of the worlds electricity
needs, and Denmark expects to obtain 29 per cent of its power from wind
by 2010.
Sweden is shutting down its reactors, going oil-free and switching to renewables.
After visiting
the US and Canada, which are still stuck in the nuclear rut, Mr Howard
should visit these European countries who show true vision on energy
production.
Steve Shallhorn is chief executive
of Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
------------------->
Most Aussies oppose nuclear plants: poll
May 30, 2006 - 5:59AM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-Aussies-oppose-nuclear-plants-poll/2006/05/30/1148754962490.html
Most Australians are opposed to nuclear power stations, a new poll shows.
And while there
is greater opposition than support for uranium enrichment, approval for
the idea has grown since the late 1980s, according to a Newspoll of
1,200 voters, published in The Australian newspaper.
It showed 51 per cent of respondents were opposed to nuclear power stations in Australia.
More people
opposed uranium enrichment than approved of it (46 per cent to 34 per
cent), while 44 per cent were against the opening any new uranium
mines, and 22 per cent wanted no uranium mining at all.
Majority opposition to nuclear power stations came from women, people aged between 18 and 49, and Labor voters.
Supporters were mostly men or Coalition affiliates.
While more
people still oppose enriching Australian uranium before exporting it
for nuclear reactors, there has been a dramatic closing of the gap in
the past 20 years.
A 1988 poll showed 59 per cent of people were against uranium enrichment in Australia and only 25 per cent supported it.
In the latest
poll, there was a 13-point drop since 1988 to 46 per cent opposed to
uranium enrichment, and a nine-point rise to 34 per cent for those in
favour.
------------------->
Rann vow: No nuclear plant here
By GREG KELTON
31may06
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19312872%5E2682,00.html
PREMIER Mike
Rann has pledged South Australia would not accept a nuclear power plant
being built in the state.
Mr Rann told Parliament in a ministerial
statement yesterday Cabinet had ruled out the prospect, despite an
international consortium lobbying to be allowed to construct a plant at
Woomera. "It is considered neither economically viable nor necessary,"
he said.
He said it would cost about $2 billion to build a plant and it would force up power prices.
Despite rowdy
Opposition interjections, Mr Rann said there was no market demand. He
was not aware of any industry wishing to pursue the nuclear option
commercially. "That is because nuclear power in this state would be an
absurdity," he said. "I am told that the large size of a nuclear power
plant means it cannot supply a small state market due to its inability
to vary supply quickly to meet changes in demand." His statement was
criticised by Democrats Leader Sandra Kanck. She called on him to rule
out allowing SA to host a uranium enrichment industry. "It makes me
wonder if the Premier is hedging his bets on the enrichment issue," she
said.
Mr Rann ruled
out suggestions SA should take back the nuclear waste generated from
the uranium it exported around the world. "That is just not going to
happen," he said. "That would be as silly as this state agreeing to
take back every bottle and every empty cask of wine we sell overseas."
He said he
would move for the end of Labor's uranium policy which prevented any
new mines opening in Australia. "This policy is illogical and doesn't
make sense," he said.
Opposition
Leader Iain Evans said the Premier's statement about nuclear power
plants was "blindingly obvious". "What he should have been stating is
what he is going to do to change Labor's no new mine policy," he said.
"It is a change in that policy that will bring big economic development
for SA."
------------------->
Last Update: Friday, May 26, 2006. 10:02pm (AEST)
Stanhope says ACT, NT site most likely for nuclear reactor
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1648765.htm
The ACT Chief
Minister Jon Stanhope says the Federal Government is most likely to
choose the Northern Territory or the ACT for a reactor if it decides to
go ahead with nuclear power.
The Prime Minister John Howard has called for a national debate on whether Australia should embrace nuclear energy.
Mr Stanhope
says the Federal Government could use its Commonwealth powers to build
a reactor in the territories and avoid clashing with the states.
The Chief Minister says the nuclear debate is important but he suspects he knows Mr Howard's motivation for raising the topic.
"But lets engage in the debate, you know lets not walk away from it," he said.
"I think we can
be rightly cynical about the Prime Minister's reasons for initiating
this particular debate at this particular time, I personally think it's
because Rupert Murdoch told him it was time to go and he needs a
statesman-like issue to justify his continuation."
ACT Liberal
Senator Gary Humphries says there is no likelihood at all that any
future nuclear power plant in Australia will be sited in the ACT or
more specifically at Jervis Bay.
"What we're
seeing here is quite a clever attempt on the part of some Labor
politicians to turn this debate away from the debate we should be
having, which is, is there a role for nuclear power in Australia - into
the much more emotive and difficult to manage issue of where is this
horrible nuclear power station going to be located?" Senator Humphries
said.
But the Member
for Fraser Bob McMullen, whose electorate takes in the area, says there
is no doubt the plan is for the nuclear power plant will be built at
Jervis Bay.
Mr McMullen says he will do all in his power to stop it proceeding.
"Absolutely certain that I'm not going to be supporting one in Jervis Bay," he said.
------------------->
Nuclear Power in Australia
http://www.anthonyalbanese.com.au/file.php?file=/news/1164/index.html
MEDIA RELEASE -
JOINT STATEMENT
THE HON KIM C BEAZLEY MP
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
and MARTIN FERGUSON MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY
23
May 2006
There will be no nuclear power in Australia under a Beazley Government.
The economics
don’t stack up; we have abundant sources of alternative energy; waste
disposal issues are unresolved; and there are important national
security issues to be considered.
For these reasons Labor doesn’t support nuclear power in Australia.
Labor’s position is clear. What is the Prime Minister’s view?
Never before has a PM talked so much about an issue but said so little.
John Howard refuses to rule out nuclear power.
If the Prime Minister is planning to introduce nuclear power, we have some questions for him to answer while he’s away:
· Which
suburbs will be home to the new nuclear reactors?
· What will
he do to ensure local residents and schools are safe?
· Will
there be nuclear reactors in each major city, or just Sydney?
·
What would he do with the nuclear waste?
· Given he has no
solution to low and medium-level nuclear waste, how does he plan to
dispose of or store high-level waste?
· Does he rule out a tax
on carbon emissions that would be necessary to encourage a transition
to nuclear power?
· What is his response to the sensible comments on this issue made by Senator Minchin and other Coalition colleagues?
Australians are
uncomfortable with the prospect of a nuclear nation under John Howard,
and this is made worse by his refusal to clarify his plans.
Labor has a clear position, the Howard Government does not.
Australians need the Prime Minister to immediately come clean on his plans for nuclear power in Australia.
TIME FOR THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT TO COME CLEAN ON ITS POSITION ON NUCLEAR POWER IN AUSTRALIA
Kim Beazley:
“Labor’s clear position is that nuclear power is not appropriate for
Australia. The economics of nuclear power simply don’t stack up here.”
[Address to the University of Sydney Government and International
Relations Lecture Series, 23 March 2006]
MITCHELL: You do also believe, don’t you, that nuclear or broader nuclear power in Australia itself is inevitable?
PRIME MINISTER:
“I think it is inevitable…Clearly the environmental advantages of
nuclear power are there for all to see. It is cleaner and greener and
therefore some of the people who in the past have opposed it should
support it.”
[Prime Minister John Howard, Interview with Neil
Mitchell, 3AW, 19 May 2006]
COSTELLO: “At
some point I would think that it would become commercial, that's some
time off.”
[Treasurer Peter Costello, Southern Cross Radio, 23 May
2006]
COSTELLO: “It
is not economic at this time in Australia because we have such proven
resources of gas and coal.”
[Treasurer Peter Costello, Doorstop
Interview, Broken Hill, 15 May 2006]
MINCHIN: “I
cannot see how nuclear power could possibly be viable in this country
for at least 100 years. I think we could waste a lot of time and hot
air debating nuclear power, when really it's just not going to be on
the horizon economically for a very long time."
[Finance Minister Nick
Minchin - Sunday Mail Interview, 21 May 2006]
CAMPBELL: “My
assessments of the economics of nuclear power for Australia have not
changed - I suspect it would be a long, long way down the track”
[Environment Minister Ian Campbell - AAP, 23 May 2006]
MACFARLANE:
“The economics of nuclear power just simply don't add up.”
[Industry
Minister Ian Macfarlane – AM Program ABC, 22 May 2006]
BARRIE CASSIDY:
On nuclear power, do you share the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for a
full-on debate in this country on nuclear power?
ALEXANDER
DOWNER: “I certainly do. I think in the context of a number of things.
First of all, the climate change debate, that's, I think, very
significantly changed the focus of the debate on nuclear power…I think
it's just an issue where people need to have open minds and think about
the issue, particularly in the context of climate change.”
[Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer – Insiders Program ABC, 21 May 2006]
------------------->
Bob Brown: Go for clean and green, not nuclear greed
The Australian Greens leader makes the case against nuclear energy
May 29, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19286332-7583,00.html
LAST year,
Finance Minister Nick Minchin told a Liberal council meeting: "We must
avoid, in my view, being lumbered as the party that favours nuclear
energy in this country." He sidestepped NSW premier Bob Carr's
implication that the alternative to burning more coal was nuclear
power, saying "we would be political mugs if we got sucked into this".
Last week Prime
Minister John Howard sucked Australia right into the nuclear debate,
flagging uranium enrichment and, potentially, Australian nuclear power
reactors. His fatuous description of nuclear power as "clean and green"
was made on a trip to visit George Bush.
Since Hurricane
Katrina smashed into New Orleans, the White House has shifted ground on
global warming. The President has even cajoled Americans to guzzle less
gas. While we know that where Bush goes Howard likes to follow, the
Prime Minister had been secretly reviewing the nuclear option for some
time and he remains oblivious to the enormity of climate change.
The Government
ignored climate change in its $15 billion budget surplus. Meanwhile,
uranium prices have risen from $US7 a pound at the beginning of 2001 to
$US42 ($55) a pound now. Uranium prices, not global warming - greed,
not green - got Howard going nuclear. With zilch reference to key
colleagues back home, Howard recklessly jump-started the debate on
Australia's nuclear future. Besides the economic and environmental
risks, there are very dangerous regional ramifications of his nuclear
trajectory.
Indonesia can
now foster its own nuclear future, free of worries about chastisement
from Canberra. The Suharto plan for 12 nuclear reactors, concentrated
on earthquake-prone Java, is likely to resurface, and Megawati
Sukarnoputri's interest in floating nuclear power stations from Russia
almost certainly remains on Jakarta's drawing board.
When either or
both options resurface, Australians will worry about some future
reactor accident sending a pall of radiation across the populous
islands to our north, as well as northern Australia. And the prospect
of a future Indonesian leader opting for nuclear weapons will grow
stronger.
Before Howard
set out to wedge the divided Labor Opposition on nuclear power, he
should have stopped to seriously consider his move, in light of the
threat posed by religious extremists in Indonesia. The dangerous mix of
jihadists and nuclear energy will stalk Australia's future long after
he has left office.
The Australian
Greens oppose uranium mining. We will campaign vigorously against
nuclear enrichment, reactors and the growing prospect of our lucky
country being pressured to become the world's waste dump.
A much faster,
safer and cheaper alternative to nuclear power is the combination of
energy efficiency, which could free up 30 to 50 per cent of current
power production for new use, and renewable energy.
A recent report
from five CSIRO scientists indicates that solar thermal energy could
provide for all of Australia's energy needs and will be
cost-competitive with coal within seven years.
Renewables
offer job-rich industries for Australia with huge export potential, not
least to Indonesia and China. Wind farms, solar, biomass and geothermal
power do not require a non-proliferation treaty.
The assumption
that nuclear energy can match the environmental credentials of these
alternatives is simply wrong. Once the world's high-grade uranium
deposits are mined (in another three or four decades), nuclear energy
will become vastly more inefficient and polluting.
While nuclear
may deliver low-emission energy for a few decades, the waste has to be
stored securely for another 150,000 years. Can Howard really make that
guarantee on behalf of millions of future Australians, especially when
the budget papers reveal the Government can't even put a price on the
cost of decommissioning the small Lucas Heights reactor?
Every time the
Prime Minister mentions nuclear power and climate change in the same
breath, the question arises: why has his Government refused to extend
the hugely successful Mandatory Renewable Energy Target? That failure
is costing Australia at least half a billion dollars in investment in
wind farms.
Why defund
solar research? That decision has taken Australia from the forefront in
solar technology and manufacturing to the status of also-ran. Australia
is at a tipping point. We can choose a true "clean and green" future
and a nuclear-free region for our children. Or go nuclear with Howard.
------------------->
Nuclear risk is 'remote'
LAURA ANDERSON
29may06
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19288763%5E911,00.html
A NUCLEAR power
station in Australia would have a "negligible" effect on people's
health, a report on the economics of nuclear power has found.
A
summary of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
report, held by Science Minister Julie Bishop, was publicly released
yesterday.
The Introducing
Nuclear Power to Australia report declared nuclear power was "the
safest way of generating electricity" and an "excellent source of
secure supplies".
"The cost of
the harm done to people's health by generating electricity from a
nuclear power station in Australia is negligible," the report said. "By
way of contrast, the health costs for coal-fired generations in EU
countries are significant."
State
Opposition mineral resources spokesman Mitch Williams said Premier Mike
Rann must choose between Labor's strict "no new mines" policy and the
best interests of South Australia. A spokesman for Mr Rann said the
premier had made it clear he expected the national Labor policy would
"likely change".
The release of
the synopsis came as Prime Minister John Howard called for the debate
to include uranium enrichment and nuclear power plants. "It doesn't
seem to me to make a lot of sense to favour the export of uranium
without looking at enrichment . . . without looking at potential to
have nuclear power stations in this country," he said.
Labor resources
spokesman Martin Ferguson called for national energy market reforms,
claiming "nuclear power just doesn't stack up".
The report, by
Professor John Gittus, proposed two finance plans to fund a nuclear
power station. In the first, financial risks would be shared by
stakeholders, the Government and insurers. The second plan involved a
Government grant and subsidising the cost of electricity produced by
the station.
------------------->
No nuke plant in 100 years
Brad Crouch
21may06
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19203024%255E911,00.html
FINANCE
Minister Senator Nick Minchin has flatly ruled out the need for an
Australian nuclear power station "for at least 100 years".
His views
are in contrast to Prime Minister John Howard, who on Friday said an
Australian nuclear power station was "inevitable".
Senator Minchin
made his remarks during an interview with the Sunday Mail this week,
before Mr Howard said in Canada rising oil prices were making nuclear
power more attractive.
Mr Howard said
the push to take up nuclear power was gathering momentum, though the
timing would be governed by economic considerations.
"I think it is inevitable," Mr Howard said in Ottawa.
"Clearly the environmental advantages of nuclear power are there for all to see.
"It is cleaner and greener, and therefore some people who in the past opposed it should support it."
Mr Howard said
oil prices were transforming the debate on energy, and nuclear power
"could be closer than some people would have thought a short while ago".
He repeated this view yesterday, saying "the scene on nuclear energy in Australia is going to change significantly".
"The pressure
for change is driven in part by environmental considerations, in part
by the soaring price of fuel, in part by a realisation that confronting
the problem of high energy pricing is one of the big economic
challenges of nations such as Canada and Australia," Mr Howard said.
"I want a full-blooded debate in Australia about this issue."
However, Senator Minchin believes simple economics plus waste means there is no need for a domestic nuclear power plant.
"I'm a
supporter of exporting our uranium under the safeguard arrangements we
have and only to signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,"
he said.
"However, I
don't really see much point to a discussion about nuclear power in this
country at the moment because I cannot see it will be economically
viable for a very, very long time.
"We have some
of the best and most abundant coal and gas reserves in the world, and
you'd have to tax them out of existence to make nuclear power viable.
"I cannot see how nuclear power could possibly be viable in this country for at least 100 years."
The waste issue
would also torpedo the notion of a nuclear power plant, Senator Minchin
said. He noted that efforts to get even a low-level depository for
radioactive waste from places such as hospitals had faced huge
community and political opposition.
"My experience
with dealing with just low-level radioactive waste from our research
reactor tells me it would be impossible to get any sort of consensus in
this country around the management of the high-level waste a nuclear
reactor would produce," he said.
"I think we
could waste a lot of time and hot air debating nuclear power, when
really it's just not going to be on the horizon economically for a very
long time."
Australia has about 40 per cent of the world's uranium supplies – the bulk in SA.
The lure of
uranium is helping drive a resources exploration boom in SA, while BHP
Billiton is considering a $5 billion expansion of its uranium-rich
Roxby Downs mine.
------------------->
Ziggy's election Chernobyl is a non-starter
Terry McCrann
08jun06
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19398988%5E36281,00.html
S OMEBODY must have got into John Howard's deaf ear. That's rocket scientist, John, not nuclear physicist.
Well,
that might explain why he chose the Zigmiester, former Telstra CEO
Ziggy Switkowski, to head the special inquiry into nuclear power.
But why on earth is he having the inquiry in the first place?
There is no way
on God's green earth -- short of it turning permanently brown, or
Kirribilli House disappearing under the waters of Sydney Harbour,
along, incidentally, with any chance of NSW balancing the books, that a
nuclear power station is going to be built in Australia.
All the calm
cool analysis from Switkowski & Co is not going to go within one
zillionth of 1 per cent of overcoming the NCIMBY factor. That's: No
Chernobyl In My Back Yard, thank you very much.
Even when
there's no way in the world you could even build another Chernobyl
anyway; and 'back yard' would have to be rather loosely defined as
anywhere within, say, 1000km as the crow flies in a very straight line.
Going to two elections promising a GST was red-hot enough to lose both times on the popular vote -- in 1993 and 1998.
Although by the skin of the prime minister's formidable teeth, he managed to scramble over the line in 1998 in terms of seats.
Boy, to
digress, did we dodge two huge 'prime ministerial' bullets. Paul
Keating, for all his sins, saved us from one in 1993; Howard saved us
again in 2004.
So if promising a GST was 'red-hot', the only word to describe running a 'nuclear' campaign would be, I guess, 'radioactive'.
And while Howard might be deaf, and left completely unmoved by Mahler, he certainly doesn't have a political 'tin ear'.
So why call an
inquiry which he knows can have only one outcome: recommending nuclear
power? There is no even half-rational alternative.
When he also
knows that to 'accept' the recommendation would see him becoming the
first prime minister to go out with less than 40 per cent of the
two-party vote?
Is the answer
that this is the 'nuclear cycle' which will get the voting public to
thankfully embrace comparatively unthreatening enrichment? If so, the
plant should be named 'The Ziggy'.
------------------->
* NUCLEAR POWER - ECONOMICS
------------------->
Nuclear electricity is just more expensive
Kenneth Davidson
June 8, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/nuclear-electricity-is-just-more-expensive/2006/06/07/1149359815041.html
PRIME Minister
John Howard is not serious about a national debate about Australia
going nuclear to reduce the nation's output of greenhouse gases unless
he is willing to consider the introduction of a carbon tax and to join
the Kyoto Protocol and pressure the United States to join as well.
Howard is in
thrall to the coalminers. He recognises the importance of the coal
found in the Sydney Basin and the Latrobe Valley to manufacturing
competitiveness. Hence his willingness to make taxpayers' funds
available for energy research into geosequestration rather than
encouraging the development of renewable energy.
It is possible
to argue that a change in policy direction in Australia away from the
generation of base-load electricity from coal to nuclear power would
involve a far bigger adjustment for the Coalition parties than Labor.
The right in
Australia has only recently grudgingly conceded that there is a
greenhouse problem caused by human activity. The left in Australia (and
I include the Democrats and Greens) have been seriously debating the
policies needed to stabilise (and, it is hoped, reverse) global warming
by regulation and relative price changes through shifting the incidence
of tax against activities that pollute in favour of activities that
conserve energy.
The serious
debate about the role of nuclear energy in reducing greenhouse gases in
green/environmental circles took off a year ago when the globally
respected deep green ecologist James Lovelock argued that the world was
already at the tipping point at which climate change was irreversible,
and the planet had already reached the point when the risks associated
with nuclear power were trivial compared with the cost of global
warming.
Lovelock's Gaia
theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as
revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced
God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth
as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual
rights.
Howard has it
half-right. The nuclear option can't be dismissed because it is
perceived to be unsafe, because radiation from high-level nuclear waste
from the generation of electricity can still be lethal or because the
proliferation of nuclear power stations increases the chance of rogue
states or terrorists having the opportunity to build dirty nuclear
bombs. These bombs are capable of wiping out civilisations and hence
Australian NIMBYs will vote against politicians who threaten to put
nuclear plants in their region.
There may be
some countries for which nuclear power is a sensible option based on
their own unique circumstances or preferences. Providing they are
signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and are prepared to
allow inspections by the UN inspection agency, Australia should feel no
pangs of guilt about selling uranium oxide to them.
But Australia
is unlikely to build nuclear power stations unless the electricity
generated from nuclear power is competitive with electricity generated
from coal-fired power stations. Nuclear power has a long way to go
before it comes within cooee of electricity generated from coal or the
much less greenhouse-polluting natural gas, which Australia also has in
abundance.
Electricity
generated from nuclear power stations operating now costs about $70 to
$100/MWh compared with about $13/MWh from the Latrobe Valley. Brown
coal produces 0.8/MWh and black coal from NSW produces 1.5/MWh for
every tonne of CO 2.
To make even
the most efficient nuclear power stations competitive with coal-fired
power stations would require a carbon tax equal to about $40 to $50 a
tonne. This would double the wholesale price of electricity and,
assuming the retail margin would be squeezed to hold the mark-up
constant in dollar terms, the carbon tax would add about 50 per cent to
the retail price of electricity — in today's dollars the annual
household bill would increase from about $800 a year to about $1200 a
year.
But the
required carbon tax to make nuclear power competitive would cut the
demand for electricity so severely that the need for nuclear power
stations to meet additional demand would disappear.
This doesn't
mean that Melburnians would freeze in winter and boil in summer or
suffer a catastrophic decline in living standards. The higher cost of
electricity would encourage households to invest in insulation and
solar energy. At present, solar installations have a payback period of
10 years. With a $40 carbon tax, the payback period would be about four
years.
The carbon tax
would also apply to transport fuels (petrol, diesel and LPG), which
would reduce mobility, encourage the use of small, fuel-efficient cars
and increase the use of rail at the expense of trucks in the shifting
of goods, and encourage public transport use.
Taxes on income
and consumption should be reduced to offset the higher taxes on
pollution so that the burden of taxation remains the same.
Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.
[email protected]
------------------->
Nuclear power needs a coal tax
Steve Lewis and Joseph Kerr
June 07, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19390797-601,00.html
A CARBON tax on
coal will be considered as part of John Howard's inquiry into nuclear
energy that could lead to more uranium mines and the introduction of
nuclear power plants.
Setting up an
explosive pre-election battle with Labor, the Prime Minister yesterday
announced former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski would head a taskforce
to consider ways to "add value" to Australia's significant uranium
reserves.
Taskforce
member George Dracoulis, the head of the Department of Nuclear Physics
at the Australian National University, said comparisons between
nuclear, renewable and fossil fuel power generation needed to take into
account all costs.
"It's hard to
beat (coal) in Australia if you don't charge some premium for emissions
because it's a very cheap resource in Australia," he said.
Senior mining
industry figures told The Australian they believed the inquiry was
about increasing the number of uranium mines and encouraging the
creation of an enrichment industry rather than ushering in nuclear
power plants.
"This is
classic John Howard," said a senior mining industry figure. "He wants
to open up the three-mines policy and create a justification for a
value-adding industry and at the same time open up the discussion about
the safe storage of nuclear waste."
But he described the immediate-term prospect of nuclear power plants as a "furphy". "They are at least 25 years away," he said.
However, Deputy
Prime Minister Mark Vaile said last night he believed nuclear energy
could be operating within 20 years, despite strong community concerns
over the placement of power plants.
The inquiry was
also being launched in the context of global pressures on greenhouse
gas emissions and would open up the opportunity to discuss issues such
as clean coal technology.
In announcing
the inquiry yesterday, Mr Howard acknowledged a growing number of
environmentalists believed nuclear energy, with its lower air pollution
levels, was a viable alternative to coal.
The taskforce
will examine the scope for Australia to make better use of its vast
uranium reserves, which make up 40 per cent of world supplies.
This will
include enrichment of uranium and potentially establishing a brace of
nuclear power plants to generate electricity and reduce the reliance on
coal.
Any economic
analysis of nuclear power would also have to consider putting a tax on
carbon pumped into the atmosphere by other energy sources, particularly
coal, key members of the taskforce believe.
While the
federal Government is currently opposed to a tax on carbon, two members
of the taskforce are pushing for a full reckoning of all the costs of
energy production and are open to carbon taxes.
Another
taskforce member, Warwick McKibbin, stressed it was important to
consider different means of energy production as part of the debate.
The Reserve
Bank board member also wanted to keep open the idea of putting a tax on
carbon, an idea that has the potential of making nuclear energy
commercially viable.
"Whatever
decisions are made should be based on a full comparison of all the
costs and benefits, including whether there's a tax on carbon or not
because that makes a big difference in any of these decisions,"
Professor McKibbin said.
The potential
for the introduction of carbon taxes has been one of the drivers behind
extensive research into clean coal technologies. Four proposed plants
utilising the technology are at various stages of development in
Queensland.
CS Energy is
converting a unit at its Callide A power station in Biloela, central
Queensland, to clean coal technology; Stanwell Energy is trialling a
coal gasification (where the hydrogen is separated from carbon monoxide
in coal which also allows a concentrated stream of carbon dioxide)
plant at Emerald; the Centre for Low Emission Technology is building a
small-scale Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant
for carbon capture and storage; while the CSIRO is trialling a gasifier
at Pullenvale.
The CSIRO is also building a post-combustion CO2 capture unit in Newcastle in partnership with Rio Tinto.
In Victoria,
Monash Energy is developing a plant at the Otway Basin, using the
gasification of brown coal to produce the equivalent of 60,000 barrels
of synthetic diesel a day.
And the CRC for
Greenhouse Technology is trialing a sequestration plant in the Otway
Basin that will capture carbon dioxide from natural gas reserves and
test storage capabilities.
After
convincing cabinet colleagues to back the inquiry, the Prime Minister
left the way open for government subsidies to help nuclear power become
viable.
Careful to
avoid a major public backlash, Mr Howard said he did not expect nuclear
power stations in Australia "within the next two or three years". But
he left open the prospect of such stations operating in the medium-term.
Labor
immediately vowed to oppose the introduction of nuclear energy and
overturn any decision to establish nuclear power plants. "If you elect
a Labor government there will be no reactors," Kim Beazley said.
The threat of a
campaign against nuclear power prompted derision from Mr Howard, who
described Labor as a "negative, backward-looking, old-fashioned,
bankrupt-of-ideas Opposition".
Australia
should consider ways to value-add to uranium, Mr Howard said, instead
of simply exporting it to countries that have embraced nuclear power.
"I've always
maintained that holding the reserves of uranium that we do, it is
foolish to see ourselves as simply an exporter of uranium," he said.
"We should also look at the value-added process, which is principally
enrichment, and we should also look at whether (a) nuclear power
station in Australia (would) become economically feasible."
Taking on one
of the biggest challenges of his political career, Mr Howard was
careful not to lock the Government into embracing nuclear power.
But he said he believed "in my bones" there has been a fundamental change in community attitudes towards nuclear power.
Mr Howard said the inquiry would not consider possible locations of nuclear plants.
But Mr Beazley said an inquiry that does not examine locations was "nothing short of arrogant."
Additional reporting: Nick Leys, Sid Maher
------------------->
Victoria rejects nuclear power push
Ben Doherty and Katharine Murphy
June 6, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/victoria-rejects-nuclear-push/2006/06/05/1149359675989.html
JOHN Howard's
push for a nuclear energy debate is set to hit a political brick wall
in Victoria, with the State Government and the Opposition signalling
they would reject any move to build a nuclear power plant in the state.
As the federal
cabinet meets today to sign off on an inquiry into nuclear power in
Australia, the Bracks Government has sought an assurance from Canberra
that it will not try to impose nuclear power stations on Victoria.
State Energy
Minister Theo Theophanous said yesterday nuclear energy did not make
economic sense for Australia when the cost and problems of waste
disposal were considered.
State
Opposition energy spokesman Philip Davis joined him in declaring
opposition to nuclear power, saying there was no evidence that it would
be more cost-efficient than coal.
"We welcome a
debate on the merits of nuclear power, but we do not see, at this
stage, that Victoria will be in any way advantaged by adopting it," he
said.
Queensland
Premier Peter Beattie and NSW Premier Morris Iemma also moved to head
off the debate, signalling they would not allow nuclear power stations
inside their borders.
The states
acted after the release of a report commissioned by the Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, saying nuclear power could
compete against coal or gas-fired electricity in Australia if it were
subsidised by tax- payers.
The chief
executive of the organisation, Ian Smith, said Australia would need
four or five nuclear power plants, and they should be near big
population centres in the eastern states.
The report's
author, British scientist John Gittus, said Australia's uranium
reserves gave it a "marvellous" opportunity to build a competitive
energy industry around nuclear power.
He said
Australia should get the benefit of its uranium "rather than just
giving that benefit to overseas countries by selling uranium to them".
Professor
Gittus' report argues that an Australian nuclear industry could supply
electricity at prices competitive with electricity supplied by oil and
gas. As the prices of oil and gas rose, and with rising concern about
global warming, now was the time to go nuclear, he said.
But Mr
Theophanous said an inquiry by his department a year ago found nuclear
energy would be unviable. "The problem is a commercial one as much as
anything else, it costs roughly double the price to produce power out
of nuclear energy," he said.
"If you're
going to pay double the price, why not put in wind farms? Why not use
renewable energy, which is even cheaper than nuclear energy?"
Mr Theophanous
said the subsidies needed to make a nuclear industry competitive could
be better used to make the coal-fired power industry more
environmentally friendly.
His comments
came after state Environment Minister John Thwaites wrote to his
federal counterpart, Ian Campbell, asking that Victoria's legal ban on
nuclear activities be respected.
The letter,
seen by The Age, seeks an "assurance that the Commonwealth would not
attempt to utilise its powers under the constitution to facilitate the
building of a nuclear power plant or any other nuclear facility in
Victoria".
The move to
pressure Canberra over the location of any nuclear power plants came as
the Prime Minister yesterday rejected what he branded a "fear campaign"
from opponents of nuclear energy.
Mr Howard also said it was "premature" to be talking about where future nuclear power plants could be built.
"Let's have the
inquiry first and determine what the facts are and then if there's
sufficient economic momentum for the construction of any sites that
will be the time to talk about it."
But senior
cabinet minister Tony Abbott said he would "not have any particular
problem" with a nuclear reactor being built in his Sydney electorate,
provided there was enough space.
Mr Howard confirmed that Australia's chief scientist, Jim Peacock, would be asked to review and co-ordinate the public inquiry.
Federal
Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane hit back at the Victorian
Government's stand. "You can generally rely on Labor politicians … to
do what's in their short-term political interest rather than take the
responsible action in the interests of the broader population," he said.
Federal
Government backbenchers welcomed the debate, but three MPs told The Age
they were against nuclear power plants in their electorates.
Queensland
Liberal Peter Lindsay, Tasmanian Mark Baker and NSW MP Joanna Gash said
their electorates were either unsuitable, or the question was premature.
Ms Gash said
she would resign if a nuclear reactor was constructed at Jervis Bay in
NSW, while Mr Baker said: "I can't see the need for a nuclear power
plant in Tasmania in my lifetime."
Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer, who has backed a nuclear-powered
desalination plant in his home state of South Australia, said it was
too early to discuss sites. "What's the point of having a debate about
a site if in the end … they turn out not to be economically viable?" he
told ABC radio.
But in the
north Queensland city of Mount Isa, Mayor Ron McCullough said he would
be happy to investigate putting a reactor in the area.
"To be honest,
this country's very stable up here and if there was going to be a site
for it, well, this would be as good as any," he said.
------------------->
Nuclear remains too expensive to curb emissions
June 2, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-remains-too-expensive-to-curb-emissions/2006/06/01/1148956480956.html
Wendy Frew
THE nuclear
industry is unlikely to be competitive with fossil fuels or some
renewable energy technologies any time soon because of its large set-up
and waste costs, a report finds.
At a time when
the Government was promoting nuclear energy as an affordable climate
change solution, the report found Australia would not be able to make
significant greenhouse gas emission cuts without supporting further big
investments in renewable energy. Written by the energy consultants
McLennan Magasanik Associates for the industry body Renewable Energy
Generators of Australia, the report says nuclear energy may be cost
competitive before 2016, with some kinds of highly efficient fossil
fuel power generation backed by carbon capture and storage. When carbon
capture is eventually commercially available, it will add dramatically
to the cost of fossil-fuel-fired electricity.
Nuclear power could also be competitive with natural gas combined-cycle power and carbon capture after 2045.
"Even though
nuclear energy had the advantage over fossil fuels of low emissions,
some renewable technologies were likely to be as cost-effective," the
report said.
Nuclear power's
ability to deliver a lot of power in plants that generated low
greenhouse gas emissions was offset by its long construction time
(three to seven years) and community opposition, the report said.
The Prime
Minister, John Howard, is expected to soon announce an inquiry into
what role nuclear energy could play in curbing climate change. There is
widespread agreement in scientific and political circles that
greenhouse gases must be cut by about 50 per cent by 2050 to stabilise
the world's climate.
------------------->
Subsidies or Kyoto essential for nuclear power
David Uren
29may06
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,19288921,00.html
HEAVY taxpayer
subsidies would be required to get privately owned nuclear power into
operation in Australia unless the Government joins the Kyoto Protocol.
A report
prepared for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
finds the Government would have to foot 21.4 per cent of electricity
bills for the first 12 years and contribute to the cost of building the
plant.
"If the owner
takes the entire financial risk, then the nuclear station produces
electricity at a cost that is significantly higher than would a new
coal-fired or gas turbine power station," it says.
The report,
commissioned from a British scientist, appears to undermine the
Government's push for a fresh debate on nuclear power in Australia.
John Howard
yesterday set out the case for Australia to carry out uranium
enrichment, likening selling uranium overseas to selling wool without
processing it.
"For decades,
we've lamented that we sent wool to Manchester to have it processed.
Now I don't want a modern-day version of that," the Prime Minister told
ABC television.
"It doesn't
seem to me to make a lot of sense to favour the export of uranium
without looking at enrichment. It doesn't make much sense to look at
enrichment without looking at the potential to have nuclear power
stations in this country.
"I don't know whether it's economically feasible to have nuclear power generation in this country, but I want to find out."
He said the
Government would soon announce the terms of its review into nuclear
power but ANSTO has already been conducting its own research.
ANSTO executive
director Ian Smith said the report from a British nuclear power
specialist, John Gittus, was commissioned because of the possibility
that Australia's abundant gas and coal supplies might affect the
economics of nuclear power here.
ANSTO has
released only a synopsis of Professor Gittus's report, which argues
that nuclear power would be much more competitive than coal if
Australia were to join the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.
That is because
the international treaty places a penalty price on greenhouse gases
such as the carbon dioxide emitted from coal-fired power stations,
creating an incentive to invest in more expensive, cleaner energy
options.
Labor education and science spokeswoman Jennie Macklin called on Minister Julie Bishop to release the full 400-page report.
"It is a total
farce for the Science Minister to call for an informed nuclear debate
but sit on the document that supposedly informs that debate," she said.
The report
assumes that Australia buys a state-of-the-art 1000-megawatt power
station from US manufacturer Westinghouse. None of these stations has
yet been built.
If Australia
were to be the pioneer, the Government would have to cover 53 per cent
of the construction cost, which Westinghouse has estimated at $US1.4
billion ($1.8 billion).
If Australia
were to wait until at least four of the plants had been built
elsewhere, the level of subsidy would be reduced to 14.3 per cent of
the construction cost.
In both cases,
the Government would continue to subsidise a fifth of the electricity
bills for 12 years. To these costs must be added 2 per cent for
managing spent fuel and 2 per cent for decommissioning the plant when
it reaches the end of its working life.
The Government could substantially reduce the need for subsidies if it took on a large share of the financial risk.
Nuclear power
stations built in the 1970s and 80s typically suffered huge cost
over-runs, with construction costing five times as much as Westinghouse
quotes for its new reactors.
Professor
Gittus said the cost of generating electricity with coal almost doubles
if the cost of damage to the environment, as calculated under the Kyoto
Protocol, is included.
------------------->
Last Update: Friday, May 26, 2006. 2:01pm (AEST)
Nuclear power economically viable: ANSTO
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1648257.htm
The head of the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) says
nuclear power is an economically viable alternative to other forms of
power generation.
The organisation has today given a report it commissioned into nuclear power to the federal Science Minister, Julie Bishop.
ANSTO executive
director, Ian Smith, says the report shows that nuclear power is
cheaper to produce than other forms of energy, and also better for the
environment.
Dr Smith says concerns over nuclear waste have been overstated.
"A 500 megawatt nuclear power station in Australia would produce something like 800 kilograms of waste," he said.
"A 500 megawatt coal-fired power station produces 300,000 tonnes of solid waste for over 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
"When it is
treated properly, [nuclear power plant waste is] probably safer than
the waste that comes from coal-fired power stations."
The Australian
Conservation Foundation (ACF) says the report fails to take into
account the ongoing costs of maintaining a nuclear facility and its
waste.
ACF head Don Henry says nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive to be seriously considered as a solution to climate change.
"Apart from the
ethical issues that we shouldn't leave our kids with nuclear waste for
tens-of-thousands of years, the problem is a lot of the costing doesn't
include the long-term costs of looking after highly dangerous
radioactive waste for tens-of-thousands of years, so we just should
rule it out.
"Isn't it a surprise that the Government's nuclear agency will come out and recommend nuclear power."
Meanwhile, ACT
Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says a nuclear power plant will most likely
end up in the Northern Territory or the ACT.
Mr Stanhope
says the likelihood of strong resistance from the states, plus the
Federal Government's ability to use is Commonwealth powers, mean the
two territories could be targets for a plant.
"That's why the
ACT needs to engage in this debate because if John Howard does pursue
it and we get all gung ho and decide this is the future, a nuclear
power station in Australia will be located in either the Northern
Territory, the ACT or Jervis Bay," he said.
------------------->
Nuclear power twice as costly as brown coal
Ben Doherty and Katharine Murphy
June 9, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-twice-as-costly-as-brown-coal/2006/06/08/1149359883662.html
NUCLEAR power would cost twice as much to produce as coal-generated electricity, a Victorian Government report says.
And the man who
will head the Federal Government inquiry into the viability of a
nuclear energy industry, Ziggy Switkowski, has stood down, amid claims
of conflict of interest, from the board of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation.
Dr Switkowski's decision was welcomed by Prime Minister John Howard, who said the Government did not apply any pressure.
"I didn't ask
him to do so and I'm not aware that anybody in the Government did, but
it seemed to me to be a very sensible thing and he's handled all of
these absurd allegations about a conflict of interest very
effectively," Mr Howard said.
Dr Switkowski
has argued since his appointment to the taskforce on Tuesday that his
association with the nuclear policy and his technical training as a
nuclear physicist should not lead people to conclude that he was in
favour of nuclear power stations in Australia.
The Victorian
report, prepared by the Department of Infrastructure for Energy
Minister Theo Theophanous in July last year, says nuclear energy is
uneconomical.
Mr Theophanous
sought the report when debate on nuclear technology came to national
attention, even though it is illegal under the Nuclear Activities
(Prohibition) Act 1983 to build a nuclear reactor in Victoria.
Victorian Environment Minister John Thwaites has sought a Federal Government assurance that it will not override the state laws.
The report
shows that, based on long-range costs for new entrants to power
industries, electricity can be generated from brown coal at a cost of
$35 a megawatt hour, the industry's standard measure. The comparative
cost for nuclear energy, the report said, would be between $60 and $80,
and gas is $38 to $51. More than 90 per cent of Victoria's electricity
comes from brown coal.
"Nuclear power
is not cost-competitive with other forms of electricity generation, in
the absence of a substantial greenhouse cost," the report says.
"Hence, coal and gas will remain economically attractive to countries such as Australia, USA and China."
The report says
the price of uranium, the fuel used to create nuclear energy, is stable
and that the electricity produced by nuclear energy is carbon-free.
"However, high capital costs and long-term waste storage problems,
together with anti-nuclear sentiment, continue to represent major
problems for the industry."
As well, the
siting of any plant would pose an environmental issue, according to the
report, and the problem of disposing of radioactive materials would
remain for generations.
"Disposal of
nuclear waste is one of the most contentious issues … deep geological
burial appears to be the best option for permanent disposal of nuclear
waste."
Mr Theophanous
said nuclear energy did not make economic sense for Australia when the
cost and problems of waste disposal were considered.
"The problem is a commercial one as much as anything else," he said.
"It costs
roughly double the price to produce power out of nuclear energy. If
you're going to pay double the price, why not put in wind farms? Why
not use renewable energy, which is even cheaper than nuclear energy?"
The State Opposition has said it opposes nuclear power plants in Victoria.
Liberal energy
spokesman Philip Davis said there was no evidence that nuclear energy
would be more cost-efficient than coal-fired electricity.
He said
Victoria had the cheapest electricity in Australia, using brown coal
power generators, and that underpinned the state's powerful
manufacturing base.
------------------->
Subsidies or Kyoto essential for nuclear power
David Uren
May 29, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19288921-2702,00.html
HEAVY taxpayer
subsidies would be required to get privately owned nuclear power into
operation in Australia unless the Government joins the Kyoto Protocol.
A report
prepared for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
finds the Government would have to foot 21.4 per cent of electricity
bills for the first 12 years and contribute to the cost of building the
plant.
"If the owner
takes the entire financial risk, then the nuclear station produces
electricity at a cost that is significantly higher than would a new
coal-fired or gas turbine power station," it says.
The report,
commissioned from a British scientist, appears to undermine the
Government's push for a fresh debate on nuclear power in Australia.
John Howard
yesterday set out the case for Australia to carry out uranium
enrichment, likening selling uranium overseas to selling wool without
processing it.
"For decades,
we've lamented that we sent wool to Manchester to have it processed.
Now I don't want a modern-day version of that," the Prime Minister told
ABC television.
"It doesn't
seem to me to make a lot of sense to favour the export of uranium
without looking at enrichment. It doesn't make much sense to look at
enrichment without looking at the potential to have nuclear power
stations in this country.
"I don't know whether it's economically feasible to have nuclear power generation in this country, but I want to find out."
He said the
Government would soon announce the terms of its review into nuclear
power but ANSTO has already been conducting its own research.
ANSTO executive
director Ian Smith said the report from a British nuclear power
specialist, John Gittus, was commissioned because of the possibility
that Australia's abundant gas and coal supplies might affect the
economics of nuclear power here.
ANSTO has
released only a synopsis of Professor Gittus's report, which argues
that nuclear power would be much more competitive than coal if
Australia were to join the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.
That is because
the international treaty places a penalty price on greenhouse gases
such as the carbon dioxide emitted from coal-fired power stations,
creating an incentive to invest in more expensive, cleaner energy
options.
Labor education and science spokeswoman Jennie Macklin called on Minister Julie Bishop to release the full 400-page report.
"It is a total
farce for the Science Minister to call for an informed nuclear debate
but sit on the document that supposedly informs that debate," she said.
The report
assumes that Australia buys a state-of-the-art 1000-megawatt power
station from US manufacturer Westinghouse. None of these stations has
yet been built.
If Australia
were to be the pioneer, the Government would have to cover 53 per cent
of the construction cost, which Westinghouse has estimated at $US1.4
billion ($1.8 billion).
If Australia
were to wait until at least four of the plants had been built
elsewhere, the level of subsidy would be reduced to 14.3 per cent of
the construction cost.
In both cases,
the Government would continue to subsidise a fifth of the electricity
bills for 12 years. To these costs must be added 2 per cent for
managing spent fuel and 2 per cent for decommissioning the plant when
it reaches the end of its working life.
The Government could substantially reduce the need for subsidies if it took on a large share of the financial risk.
Nuclear power
stations built in the 1970s and 80s typically suffered huge cost
over-runs, with construction costing five times as much as Westinghouse
quotes for its new reactors.
Professor
Gittus said the cost of generating electricity with coal almost doubles
if the cost of damage to the environment, as calculated under the Kyoto
Protocol, is included.
------------------->
Sharing the vision for a nuclear future
May 29, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/sharing-the-vision-for-a-nuclear-future/2006/05/28/1148754873234.html
Australia must
remove fear and ideology from the nuclear debate and recognise its key
strategic role in the nuclear industry, writes Jon Stanford.
THOSE who
choose to regard the Prime Minister's recent trip to Washington as a
lap of honour are wide of the mark. The significance of what was
discussed in North America has yet to be widely recognised, but it was
probably of greater moment to the future of Australia than the outcome
of any of his previous visits.
The issue in
question, of course, is nuclear power. But the real parameters of the
argument go far beyond uranium exports to India and the beginnings of a
debate about using atomic energy domestically. They are defined by a
new vision for a nuclear future shared by both George W. Bush and Tony
Blair, and prompted by concerns about both energy security and the need
to deal with global warming.
The role for
nuclear power in combating climate change is widely accepted overseas.
Even one of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has said:
"Nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet
from possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."
At present
there are 443 nuclear power stations operating around the world. If
nuclear fission were to meet one-third of the world's electricity needs
by 2050, about 6000 new nuclear plants would be needed over the next 45
years. With 40 per cent of the world's economically recoverable
reserves of uranium (and probably significantly more once serious
exploration resumes), Australia could be facing a new El Dorado.
This
opportunity will not be realised, however, if Australia chooses to
remain an exporter of yellowcake. There is a clear logic in favour of
developing a domestic uranium enrichment industry. This is not a
technologically challenging or unsafe activity. Several countries,
including small nations without nuclear weapons such as the
Netherlands, possess an enrichment industry.
However,
although the economic benefits of enrichment are obvious — the
processed fuel is worth about five times as much as yellowcake — the
danger of proliferation provides an even more persuasive argument.
While current safeguards may be just sufficient to provide comfort that
Australia's uranium will not be used for weapons production, they would
be swamped by a major increase in demand from a much broader spectrum
of customers.
Hence the Bush
Administration's argument for leasing nuclear fuel. If Australia leased
fuel rods to customers, rather than selling them raw uranium, new rods
would be supplied only when the used ones were returned. This would
provide far greater safeguards against other countries either enriching
the yellowcake or reprocessing the spent fuel rods in order to
manufacture weapons.
The next
logical link in the chain, however, is probably the most difficult
politically. Once the spent fuel rods are returned, they have to be
disposed of.
This implies,
in the context of a vastly expanded nuclear industry, that Australia
could become the repository of about half the world's high-level
nuclear waste. While this may cause angst, it should be noted that the
safe storage of waste is essentially an international problem and that
the geology of parts of central Australia make it one of the safest
sites for storing waste in the world.
The nuclear
waste storage industry is at present worth about $US12 billion ($A15.8
billion) a year globally. With expansion, this could grow to over
$US150 billion. Once again, there is a clear economic opportunity for
Australia, coupled with the assumption of a global environmental
responsibility.
Compared with
enrichment and waste disposal, the case for the domestic use of nuclear
power in Australia is relatively simple. Contrary to some recent
statements, the new nuclear power plants provide the cheapest way of
generating carbon-free electricity. For example, 78 per cent of
France's electricity is generated by nuclear plants and, according to
the OECD, French industry enjoys some of the lowest electricity costs
in Europe. Canada is investing in new nuclear plants because they
produce cheaper electricity than gas.
In Australia,
there has been no detailed assessment of the costs of nuclear
generation. We benefit from cheap coal, which at present provides a
long-run average generation cost of about $40 per megawatt-hour. Adding
carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities would increase that cost to
nearly $100, although this may fall to about $70 as CCS technology
improves. The costs of most renewables remain high, with wind at about
$80 per MWh.
The main costs
of a nuclear plant lie in its construction, although new reactor
designs have significantly reduced these costs in recent years. In the
US, the long-run average costs of a new Westinghouse 1100 MW nuclear
reactor are stated to be under $US35 a MWh (about $A46). This is said
to include all costs, including waste disposal and decommissioning. In
a carbon-constrained world, this will represent cheap electricity.
The
contemporary problems with nuclear energy have little to do with
operational safety. Rather, the main concerns relate to terrorism,
namely possible attacks on nuclear generators or on waste
transportation. These issues would clearly need to be dealt with.
With the
leaders of the US and Britain now agreed about the future role of
nuclear power, Australia becomes a key strategic player and there may
be increasing international pressure for us to share this vision. The
potential economic pay-off could be enormous, with very substantial
greenhouse benefits as well. Yet the nuclear debate in Australia tends
to be dominated by fear, ignorance and ideology. The issue may be more
difficult politically than anything the government has tackled before,
including gun control, the GST and the invasion of Iraq.
Jon Stanford is co-chairman of Insight Economics. His consultancy practice focuses on greenhouse and energy issues.
------------------->
N-power twice cost of electricity from coal
Rick Wallace, Victorian political reporter
June 09, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19412598-2702,00.html
NUCLEAR-POWERED
electricity would cost twice as much as that produced from coal, and
the world's viable uranium supplies could be depleted within 24 years,
a Victorian government report has found.
The internal
review, seen by The Australian, found that nuclear power was "not
cost-competitive" and a carbon tax of up to $30 per tonne of carbon
dioxide would have to be imposed on coal-fired generators to make it
viable.
The Victorian
Department of Infrastructure report found coal-fired power stations
could produce power for $35 per megawatt hour, while nuclear power
would cost between $60 and $80 per megawatt hour.
"Nuclear power
is not cost-competitive with other forms of electricity generation, in
the absence of a substantial greenhouse cost of approximately $25-$30
per tonne of CO2," the report says. "Hence coal and gas will remain
economically attractive to countries such as Australia, the USA and
China."
The report concedes that nuclear power produces no CO2 emissions, but it raises concerns about radioactive waste.
"Due to the
outstanding environmental issues surrounding plant siting and waste
disposal, it is unlikely that nuclear's ability to produce electricity
with no carbon dioxide emissions will lead to its increased use," the
report says. "High capital costs and long-term waste storage problems,
together with anti-nuclear sentiment, continue to represent major
problems for the industry."
The report
emerged after John Howard this week appointed a taskforce, led by
former Telstra boss and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, to examine
the viability of further uranium mining, enrichment and atomic energy.
The Victorian
Government, which is stridently opposed to nuclear power, has chosen
instead to depend on the state's massive coal reserves, along with wind
and hydro power.
It has pumped
$106 million into clean-coal technology to try to reduce carbon-dioxide
emissions and has written to the commonwealth seeking assurances that
no reactors will be built in the state in contravention of the 1983 ban
on atomic power passed in state parliament.
The report
found that while there was 4.3 million tonnes (or 60 years' worth) of
known uranium resources, only 1.7 million tonnes (or 24 years' worth)
was economically viable to extract.
Although it
paints a gloomy picture of nuclear power's prospects in Australia, the
report predicts a boom in atomic energy in Asia, with 20 plants planned
in Japan alone.
------------------->
N-power plant would cost $400m to insure
By Stephanie Peatling
May 29, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/npower-plant-would-cost-400m-to-insure/2006/05/28/1148754873020.html
THREE nuclear
power stations would be needed to produce the same amount of energy
created by existing and planned coal fired power stations, according to
a brief summary of a report on nuclear power commissioned by the
Federal Government.
The report also
warned that the increased likelihood of a terrorist attack on a nuclear
power plant since September 11 meant any plant could require a $400
million insurance policy.
The Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation handed a 400-page report on
nuclear power to the Government on Friday but yesterday made public
only a five-page synopsis of its contents.
The
Opposition's science spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, said any debate about
nuclear power was "farcical" until the full report was released.
The Minister
for Science, Julie Bishop, would not comment on the contents of the
report but promised to release it once she had distributed it to her
cabinet colleagues.
The report
looks at two ways of starting a nuclear power plant - one with
government funding and one without - and compares the cost of power
produced by a nuclear power station with the cost of power produced by
coal.
It says the
cost of nuclear power is only comparable to energy generated by
coal-fired power stations if Australia waited to use technology until
after it had been used elsewhere. Just one station would mean the
initial costs would make nuclear power much more expensive.
The report was
done by Professor John Gittus, a consultant and engineer who teaches at
the universities of London, Plymouth and Swansea.
Professor
Gittus estimated that the risk presented by an Australian nuclear power
station was low but still 50 per cent higher after the terrorist
attacks of September 11.
Similar
security assessments made by Professor Gittus for the governments of
Britain, Canada and Japan resulted in insurance policies of $400
million for their power plants.
The Federal
Government has been promoting nuclear power as an immediate way of
coping with global warming. But it is unlikely a nuclear power plant
could be built for at least 15 years.
The Opposition
and environment groups say alternatives to fossil fuels must be
increased now if the worst excesses of climate change are to be headed
off.
The full ANSTO report is expected to be submittedto an inquiry to be set up by the Prime Minister, John Howard.
Mr Howard
yesterday would not be drawn on whether the inquiry would investigate
possible locations for any nuclear power plants, but it wouldexamine
the feasibility of an Australian nuclear power industry as well as
uranium mining and enrichment.
"I don't know
whether it's economically feasible to have nuclear power generation in
this country, but I want to find out," Mr Howard said yesterday.
------------------->
Nuclear power and coal competitive: Government
May 26, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-and-coal-competitive-government/2006/05/25/1148524820556.html
THE cost of
nuclear power for Australia is "competitive" with energy from fossil
fuels and poses far lower threats to human health, a report
commissioned by the Federal Government has found.
The Minister
for Science, Julie Bishop, yesterday received a 400-page report from
the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation comparing
coal-fired energy with potential domestic nuclear power.
Ms Bishop will visit the Lucas Heights reactor today but is unlikely to release the report.
She said last
night the report "shows that a nuclear power station would be
competitive with a newly built coal power station in Australia".
The report also
found there were "significant health risks associated with coal energy
production, but minimal risks with nuclear power," Ms Bishop said.
The Treasurer, Peter Costello, said this week the only argument against nuclear power was its cost.
Ms Bishop last
night seemed to lay that concern to rest, saying: "Overall, the report
is positive about the economic basis for establishing a nuclear power
industry in Australia."
The Government
has been pressing the case for nuclear power, but has still not
commissioned a full inquiry into the issue, despite promising to do so.
Labor, which opposes a domestic nuclear power industry, is raising concerns about where a station might be located.
Stephanie Peatling
------------------->
Nuclear risk cost 'falls to taxpayers'
By Misha Schubert
May 29, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-risk-cost-falls-to-taxpayers/2006/05/28/1148754871319.html
TAXPAYERS would
be forced to underwrite part of the insurance risk and contribute
hundreds of millions of dollars to build and operate a nuclear power
plant if Australia wanted nuclear electricity within a decade,
government advice suggests.
But by waiting
until nine of the nuclear reactors had been built overseas, letting
other nations incur the cost of trial and error, the private sector may
be able to produce cost-competitive nuclear power without operational
subsidies. That option is still likely to require taxpayers to shoulder
some of the insurance risk.
Yet with just
three nuclear plants — built to replace ageing coal-fired stations —
the nation could slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 38 million
tonnes a year.
Professor John
Gittus, a consultant to the Government's nuclear advisory body, the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, has concluded
that nuclear power would be viable under at least two financial models.
In a five-page
synopsis of his 400-page report, released yesterday, his models are
conditional on how quickly Australia aspires to become a nuclear power
producer.
A major
taxpayer investment would be needed to produce cost-effective nuclear
power (without a carbon tax being applied) if Australia wanted to build
the world's fifth Westinghouse AP1000 reactor in about 10 years.
But the level
of public aid required would drop dramatically if Australia waited to
build the world's 10th AP1000 reactor two decades or more from now.
Prime Minister
John Howard yesterday talked up the prospects of Australia building
enrichment plants to process uranium before it was exported overseas,
regardless of whether it opted for nuclear power plants.
"For decades
we've lamented that we sent our wool to Manchester to have it
processed, now I don't want a modern day version of that," Mr Howard
said.
Labor resources
spokesman Martin Ferguson accused Mr Howard of trying to divert the
nation's attention from more imminent power supply issues.
Mr Ferguson
called for a ban on any new enrichment plants globally until there was
an international review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
"There is no proposal by Labor to propose that we go down the nuclear enrichment path," he said.
Democrats leader Senator Lyn Allison slammed Mr Howard's analogy of nuclear enrichment with the wool industry.
"Turning wool
into knitted garments doesn't leave a pile of intractable waste
behind," she said. "The PM's narrow nuclear debate is designed to take
us down the nuclear power path without considering the alternatives or
the immediate need to plan for big reductions in greenhouse gases."
Science
Minister Julie Bishop received the 400-page nuclear science and
technology organisation report on Friday. It is yet to be considered by
cabinet.
------------------->
Hot air could be costly
Andrew Bolt
09jun06
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19412326%5E25717,00.html
THE Howard
Government might turn out to be as stupid as its critics, after calling
its inquiry into a possible nuclear industry here.
True, its
critics exhibit a special kind of ignorance by pretending nuclear power
stations are ticking timebombs, radiating danger.
Just as bizarre
are the green groups and ABC hosts who complain that this inquiry is
headed by Ziggy Switkowski, the former Telstra boss and -- gasp -- a
nuclear physicist.
That makes him
biased, apparently, because he understands the industry he's
investigating. I guess they would rather put a fool in charge with a
judgment unclouded by knowledge.
Yet the
Government could match this stupidity because it actually makes no
commercial sense, with our coal still cheap, to have nuclear power
stations.
I suspect Prime
Minister John Howard just mentions them as an ambit claim, so he can
settle for what indeed adds up: a nuclear enrichment industry.
But his mistake
is to sell the idea of nuclear power by saying he's driven by "concerns
about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions" -- as if the hype
about it all is all true.
He no doubt has
fun belting greens with the climate-change stick, but what happens when
we hear that nuclear power is indeed too costly? Howard must then slash
those greenhouse gases he claims are so frightening, or be seen as a
fraud.
So will that
mean a carbon tax to make coal power more costly? Massive subsidies for
wind power? His hot air may cost us plenty.
------------------->
Genie's out of the bottle
Rod Myer
June 19, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/genies-out-of-the-bottle/2006/06/18/1150569212719.html
THE Prime
Minister's concerted move to put nuclear power on the Australian agenda
culminating in his appointment of Ziggy Switkowski's taskforce to
examine the issue not only wakens the nuclear genie that has been
asleep in Australia since the 1970s. It represents a radical change in
the Government's approach to the whole of Australia's energy future.
To date, the
Howard Government has been happy to bet the energy future on
Australia's massive, and cheap, coal reserves. It eschewed the Kyoto
system with its penalties for carbon emissions and made only the most
marginal commitment to renewable energy. It also has devoted more than
$500 million to low-emission energy solutions likely to target the coal
industry.
Now, however,
nuclear is on the agenda and significantly that is an admission that
one way or another Australia faces a carbon price on its massive coal
reserves. Without such an impost, nuclear energy will never be in the
competitive ball park.
Given the
nuclear genie is out of the bottle, one question that needs to be
answered is can nuclear power be cost effective in Australia? It's a
difficult and highly political question and to deal with it a series of
set-piece responses need to be negotiated.
Broadly these
fall into two categories. The anti-nuke position that says the industry
is uncompetitive and its environmental problems are unsolvable. The
nuclear lobby, meanwhile, points to the increased interest in the
industry, the safety issues are solved, and it offers major
possibilities for greenhouse emission reduction.
The
Government's Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's
recent paper on the issue put nuclear power firmly in the ball park of
current costs, claiming power stations could be built using new
(untried) technology and producing power costs of somewhere between $36
and $70 per megawatt-hour plus 4 per cent for fuel storage and
decommissioning, and including some government subsidies.
However, work
from a number of private organisations, including nuclear believers,
rejectionists and agnostics, put the base figures higher.
Jon Stanford,
of Insight Economics, who has done a lot of work on the costs of
tackling greenhouse emissions, takes the economic rationalist approach
to nuclear energy.
"No one should
subsidise nuclear energy but it should be on the table once carbon
prices reach levels that make it an option," he said. "Then nuclear,
wind, biomass, coal, gas and solar could compete on their merits."
Rohan Zauner,
principal of engineers Sinclair Knight Merz, has done work on the
relative costs of nuclear power. He found that using current
technologies, the nuclear option would cost about $60 per MWh, maybe
coming down to as little as $43 per MWh once new technologies were
developed and experience gained in their usage. That compares with
about $41 for the latest coal technologies and $47 for gas-fired
generation.
However, he
cautions that Australia has no framework for managing and regulating
the nuclear fuel cycle and decommissioning. That effectively means
costs would be high until the industry reached a critical mass. That
would mean the building of a number of power stations and living with
high costs until the industry established itself.
Like other
observers, Zauner says a nuclear future for Australia would depend on a
price for carbon. If Australia adopts a limited carbon price of between
$15 and $20 a tonne, levels around which the emissions market in Europe
is trading, coal generation is likely to rise in cost by about $10 per
MWh. That would push brown coal to nuclear price levels, but not black
coal. Given all the issues, that would not be enough to tip the balance
to nuclear.
But "if society says we want near-zero emissions from coal, nuclear will have a place in the debate", Zauner says.
Zero emissions
would mean introducing as-yet-untried sequestration, the burying of CO2
underground, and the price of coal energy would jump accordingly.
The nuclear
industry sees little problem with a nuclear future for Australia once
carbon is priced. The Uranium Information Centre's Ian Hore-Lacy says
already many countries harness it efficiently.
France, with 58
reactors providing 75 per cent of its energy needs, is the largest net
exporter of power in Europe, earning $4 billion a year from the trade
and, the OECD says, providing cheaper electricity for industrial users
than Australia.
The fuel cycle
and decommissioning are not a problem, he says. Reactor cores are
entombed in concrete for 50 years and spent fuel is stored on site for
40 years until its radioactivity declines to 0.1 per cent of its
original levels and it is ready for permanent storage.
Greg Houston,
of economic consultancy NERA, says some of the economic arguments in
favour of nuclear energy ignore differing institutional realities in
different countries. "Australia now has a competitive energy market
that is very different to the environments where nuclear power has been
developed overseas."
In France the
industry has developed under government ownership and direction and the
actual costs are not verifiable. In Britain, privatisation of nuclear
energy failed, with the government having to keep ownership of the
older reactors. The newer models were later privatised under British
Energy. They had to be bailed out a few years ago and government
agencies charged with cleaning up reactor sites face liabilities of at
least £56 billion ($A140 billion), according to Mark Diesendorf
of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW.
In the US,
where no new reactors have been built since the 1970s, the Bush
Administration has now offered billions in support for new investment.
This includes construction subsidies, guaranteed power prices and
insurance against nuclear accidents. To date there are no takers, but
this may change.
Nuclear
detractors say Britain's blow-out in decommissioning costs and the need
for governments to offer insurance against nuclear accidents show the
real costs of nuclear energy are almost impossible to calculate and
cannot be accepted by private investors.
Australian
Conservation Foundation anti-nuclear campaigner David Noonan says no
country has yet found a permanent nuclear waste dump. Even a giant tomb
being built in Sweden is seen as an interim measure, with the political
and technical battles still to come on a permanent solution.
Nonetheless,
nuclear power provides about 15 per cent of the world's electricity.
Countries such as China and India see it as part of their future
prosperity. Even Germany and Sweden, which voted to phase it out, have
delayed or suspended those decisions.
In Australia,
however, with its abundance of fossil fuels and renewable potential,
nuclear seems a political and economic unreality. "No National
Generator Forum member is actively investigating nuclear power," says
John Boshier, executive director of that organisation.
------------------->
* URANIUM MINING - QUEENSLAND
------------------->
Experts’ statement on uranium mining in Queensland
1 September 2006
After 60 years
of the global nuclear industry, there is still no demonstrated safe,
longterm method to store high level radioactive waste, there is renewed
grave concern over nuclear weapons proliferation and new concerns about
nuclear terrorism. Exporting uranium into such an unstable world
climate is unwise and high risk. We believe Queensland should avoid
exacerbating these serious global threats and expand its investment in
a nonnuclear, lowcarbon smart energy future.
Uranium mining
has significant site specific impacts. A 2003 Senate Inquiry into the
adequacy of current Commonwealth regulation of uranium mining in
Australia reported a pattern of under performance and noncompliance.
Local environmental damage, intensive water use and water contamination are key management issues.
Uranium mining
generates large volumes of longlived tailings waste. This material is
radioactive and remains a longterm environmental and human health
threat. The Olympic Dam in South Australia, for example, has produced
80 million tonnes of tailings waste.
Across
Australia, there is a total of 300 million tonnes of tailings and waste
rock. There is no demonstrated longterm plan to deal with this waste.
Australia’s
uranium exports fuel nuclear power plants in over 20 countries around
the world, yet not one of these countries has been able to implement a
safe method of storing the end product of Australia’s exported uranium:
high level radioactive waste. No proven safe method of longterm storage
exists anywhere in the world. After 20 years of research and US$9
billion expenditure, the US Department of Energy can no longer give an
estimate of the opening date of the first national longterm high level
waste repository (at Yucca Mountain, Nevada).
Nuclear
technology is also 'dual use' technology linked with the proliferation
of nuclear weapons. Israel, India and Pakistan have all developed
nuclear weapons via their 'civil' nuclear programs. Today nuclear
programs in Iran and North Korea are the focus of attention and
concern. The 2004 report of the UN Secretary General's High Level Panel
on Threats, Challenges and Change noted: "We are approaching a point at
which the erosion of the nonproliferation regime could become
irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation."
More nuclear
material in circulation also means more chance of unauthorized use by
people or groups getting access to the raw materials. With a faltering
safeguards system, Australia cannot be sure that its uranium exports
will always be used for peaceful and legal purposes. Increasingly
nuclear facilities themselves have been recognized as credible
terrorist targets. Uranium mining is a contentious industry. Polling
conducted by Newspoll in May 2006 showed 66% of respondents supported a
position of either no uranium mines or no new uranium mines in
Australia.
Finally,
nuclear power is not necessary to make the required reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions in Australia or globally. Australia has
abundant renewable energy resources and enormous opportunities to
improve energy efficiency, with gas used as a bridging fuel.
Globally, it is
possible to make recommended deep cuts in carbon emissions without
proliferating the problems of the nuclear fuel cycle. Industrialized
nations must move swiftly and decisively in that direction now.
For all of the above reasons, we urge all political parties in Queensland to rule out uranium mining in Queensland.
Signatories:
* Dr Mark Diesendorf, University of New South Wales
* Professor Jim Falk, The University of Melbourne
* Professor Ian
Lowe AO, Emeritus Professor of Science and Technology at Griffith
University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation
* Dr Gavin Mudd, Monash University
* Dr Alan Roberts, physicist, ecologist and former member of the (advisory) nuclear safety
committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
* Associate Professor Tilman Ruff, The University of Melbourne
------------------->
* URANIUM MINING - ALP
------------------->
Labor split as Albanese seeks ban on uranium
Sarah Smiles, Canberra
June 12, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-split-as-albanese-seeks-ban-on-uranium/2006/06/11/1149964410772.html
LABOR'S
environment spokesman is pushing for the "phasing out" of uranium mines
in Australia, pitting himself against senior Labor figures who want the
party's "no new mines" policy dumped in favour of expanding uranium
mining.
Anthony
Albanese argued yesterday for the closure of uranium mines when their
contracts expire, in defiance of indications by Opposition Leader Kim
Beazley that Labor's three mines policy will be dropped at the party's
national conference in April.
"We have a
position that balances the economically responsible position of
honouring existing contracts … but also one that recognises that there
are problems with the nuclear fuel cycle," Mr Albanese said in defence
of existing policy on ABC's Insiders program.
Australian
Workers Union national secretary Bill Shorten has described restricting
the number of uranium mines as akin to being "half-pregnant".
A spokesman for
Mr Beazley acknowledged party members' division on the issue. However,
Labor has forged a united stance against the development of nuclear
power in Australia, with Mr Beazley saying "nuclear reactors have no
place in Australian communities".
Mr Albanese
said an expert panel selected to a Federal Government inquiry into the
viability of domestic nuclear power production was "stacked with
nuclear proponents".
Prime Minister John Howard has in turn accused Labor of waging a scare campaign on the nuclear issue.
Speaking to
Channel Nine, Federal Minister for Justice and Customs Chris Ellison
said that the threat of a terrorist attack on nuclear reactors should
not prevent them from being built.
Energy Networks
Association chief Andrew Blyth yesterday said that $30 billion needed
to be invested in energy infrastructure over the next five to 10 years.
------------------->
Kim quells ranks over uranium
Samantha Maiden, Political correspondent
August 08, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20054313-2702,00.html
KIM Beazley has
stared down a frontbench rebellion over his plans to dump the ALP's no
new uranium mines policy, amid fears it could encourage hardliners to
vote Green.
At the first
meeting of the Opposition front bench since the Labor leader flagged
plans to overhaul the policy, Anthony Albanese, Tanya Plibersek and
Alan Griffin raised concerns over the strategy.
Mr Albanese, a
Left powerbroker, warned Mr Beazley that the pro-uranium push was bad
politics and bad policy, signalling he would oppose the shift when it
was debated at next year's ALP national conference.
Mr Griffin
warned that if the ALP dumped too many "iconic" issues, such as
protecting forests and opposing new uranium mines, it risked alienating
traditional supporters and losing preferences from Greens voters that
could help deliver government.
High-profile
recruit Peter Garrett spoke out on the issue at a caucus meeting
yesterday, saying Aboriginal communities should be consulted over plans
to open new uranium mines.
Former ACTU president Jennie George also challenged Mr Beazley, saying the arguments did not stack up for a change in policy.
However, Mr
Beazley told MPs he was determined to push ahead with the policy change
while acknowledging there were "different views".
He said he
would also work to "restore credibility" to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, as he considers laying the groundwork to
boost Australia's uranium exports.
He said the positive way the debate had been handled showed Labor was "fit to govern".
------------------->
Last Update: Saturday, August 5, 2006. 6:33pm (AEST)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1707179.htm
Tas Labor opposes Beazley's uranium plans
The Tasmanian
branch of the Labor Party has voiced its concern over Labor leader Kim
Beazley's plans to change his party's policy on uranium mining.
The issue was the subject of heated debate at the Labor Party's state conference in Hobart this afternoon.
Mr Beazley
wants Labor to scrap its ban on the development of new mines, but is
pushing for stronger safeguards on uranium exports.
At the party's
state conference today, Tasmanian members moved to endorse the party's
current three mines policy until more work is done to address the safe
disposal of waste.
The issue has clearly divided Tasmanian ALP members.
Tasmanian Federal Labor MP Dick Adams described today's motion as dumb.
"The debate on that has moved on considerably," he said.
Another conference delegate, Max Brown, says Kim Beazley cannot tell him what to think.
"Kim Beazley says this is what we must do. Well I say, nuts to that."
The motion passed after a show of hands.
------------------->
ACF media release
25 July 2006
U-turn puts Beazley out of step with public opinion
The Australian Conservation Foundation has described Opposition Leader
Kim Beazley's newfound support for open slather uranium mining as
disappointing and out of step with Labor rank and file and public
opinion.
"Two-thirds of the public and three-quarters of his own party's voters
don't want more uranium mines*," said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave
Sweeney.
"To get Australia deeper into the nuclear cycle is not in the national
interest. The issues of security, safety, weapons and waste are
directly linked to uranium mining and they remain unresolved. The
only thing that has changed are perceptions.
"To rely on safeguards to try to stop Australian uranium ending up in
nuclear weapons is to have blind trust in not only the current
governments that buy Australian uranium, but also in every future
government of those countries.
"Terrorists do not respect safeguards and future governments can
quickly change the terms of the agreement. Once uranium is out of our
hands it is impossible to guarantee its safe use and disposal.
"Paper promises are cold comfort when you are dealing with permanent pollution.
"The suggestion that uranium mining is beneficial to indigenous
communities is wrong.
"Detailed research presented to the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study
showed 20 years of mining at Ranger in the Northern Territory had left
local landowners with no net economic benefit. It also left them with
a degraded natural environment and thousands of years of radioactive
tailings.
"ACF will work with the 78 per cent of ALP voters who don't agree with
Mr Beazley's position and would prefer a clean safe energy future for
Australia and the rest of the world.
"We will do whatever we can to ensure next year's ALP National
conference does not lead Australia further into an unwelcome, unsafe
and unnecessary nuclear dead end."
* 66% of Australians and 78% of ALP voters do not want an expansion of
uranium mining in Australia (Newspoll, May 2006).
------------------->
Long critique of Martin Ferguson's pro-nuclear advocacy at: <http://www.foe.org.au/nc/nc_nuke.htm#submissions>
------------------->
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,19942623-3122,00.html
GEIGER counters
buzzed into action as soon as Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley
reversed the Labor Party's long-held three uranium mines policy.
Uranium stocks
enjoyed a brief boost this week but not to the same extent as earlier
in the year during speculation Australia would sign a deal to export
nuclear fuel to China.
And far from the 1954 frenzy sparked by the discovery of the Skal deposit near Mount Isa by a small syndicate of miners.
The next day, Mount Isa Mines sent every available man and vehicle to peg out adjoining leases.
That same
deposit is tipped to be the first cab off the rank if Premier Peter
Beattie bows to the federal lead at next April's Labor Party conference.
Perth-based
Summit Resources, whose joint venture partner Valhalla is subject to a
$167 million scrip bid by Paladin Resources, has been playing the
policy waiting game since 1990 when it pegged out leased land 40km from
Mount Isa.
So far, it has
been able to carry out preliminary investigations as to the size of the
deposit and others including the Valhalla deposit, but is waiting for
the state government green light to commit more money to carry out a
$15 million to $20 million engineering study.
For exploration
manager Peter Rolley, it made economic sense to keep plugging away
through the no uranium mines policy because "Beattie hasn't always been
in power" and Beazley's rethink this week was nothing new to the
company.
"Back in May, it was flagged he was investigating the opportunity to change the Labor Party platform," Rolley says.
"There's a groundswell of change and the signs are very encouraging."
And he
disagrees with Beattie's claim that uranium mining is a threat to the
state's booming coal industry which contributes $1.1 billion in
royalties to Government coffers.
"Most coal exported from Queensland is metallurgical coal which is not used for power generation overseas," he says.
Queensland
Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche is in favour of a green
light for uranium mining and disputes Beattie's coal claims.
"With the
International Energy Agency forecasting that global energy demand will
grow by more than 50 per cent between 2003 and 2030, there is going to
be more than enough scope to sell all our energy commodities," Roche
says.
"It would be
good news for Queensland in terms of new mines in the northwest of the
state, the direct and indirect jobs created and a new source of mineral
royalties, adding to the $1.5 billion already being pumped into the
state's coffers."
Whether coal or
nuclear is a cheaper source of electricity generation depends on who is
doing the numbers and brings into the equation a range of variables.
A report
commissioned by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation (ANSTO) earlier this year presented a number of scenarios
on the costs.
It found
nuclear power would be competitive with the actual costs of coal and
gas generation when taking into account the price of raw materials.
But when
considering a variety of factors including safety, carbon credits,
greenhouse emissions and government subsidies, nuclear power was on par
with coal.
A 2004 report
by the Royal Society of Engineers in Britain in 2004 found the cost of
nuclear generation was more stable than coal.
It found
uranium in nuclear power was about 5 per cent of the total costs of
electricity generation, so even if the fickle uranium price doubled,
the cost of electricity goes up 1-2 per cent. This compares with coal
where the raw material cost is more than 50 per cent.
The contract
price for uranium has risen from $US18 per pound to $US21.58 per pound
in the December 2005 quarter. Credit Suisse forecast the contract price
to continue to climb, reaching $US23.16 per pound in 2010.
Most of the
uranium produced in Australia is sold on long-term contracts rather
than the spot market, which is hovering around $US45 per pound.
Trying to
ascertain the value of the deposits in Queensland is difficult –
economists say it is not as easy as multiplying the 45,000 tonnes of
known possible reserves with the spot price, which would give it a
value of $US4.46 billion ($A5.85 billion).
Queensland has
the least amount of uranium of all of the states with known deposits
amounting to no more than about 3 per cent of Australia's 1.14 million
tonnes.
Geosciences Australia says Australia has about 40 per cent of the world's uranium deposits.
South
Australia, which includes the Olympic Dam and Beverley mines has 72 per
cent while the Northern Territory, with the Ranger mine and the
potential Jabiluka, has 18 per cent. Western Australia has 7 per cent..
But Geosciences
Australia's Ian Lambert says Queensland's 45,000 tonnes is a
conservative estimate because exploration has been limited.
Two of
Queensland's other known deposits are owned by Canadian companies
looking for future supply in the same way the Chinese are hunting base
metals and coal assets.
Mega Uranium
holds the Ben Lomond lease 50km from Townsville which is said to have
about 4770 tonnes of uranium oxide as well as the smaller Maureen
deposit which has about 3000 tonnes of uranium oxide.
"Overseas
predators are taking a five to 10-year view with these companies,
betting on a change of heart by governments that will allow uranium
mining in the future," Fat Prophets analyst Gavin Wendt says. "Most
activity is being generated by Canadian players who are the biggest
producers of uranium in the world."
Half a century
after the Skal boom, Summit Resources is more confident than ever about
being able to mine the Skal and Valhalla deposits.
"The next step
is to continue drilling at a low-key level," Peter Rolley says. "If
these deposits are given permission to be developed they are
world-class uranium deposits."
Atoms and arguments
URANIUM stocks
enjoyed a brief spike during the week after Kim Beazley unveiled a push
to overturn the Labor Party's two-decade ban on expanding uranium
mining.
The buying was
at its most intense earlier in the week following the announcement but
some traders were still enjoying some speculative yellowcake action
yesterday.
Summit
Resources, which has uranium deposits in northwest Queensland, leapt 6
per cent on the back of the news on Wednesday from $1.50 to $1.59. It
fell half a cent to $1.57 yesterday.
Equinox Minerals rose 7.5¢ to $1.64 yesterday.
Sector darling
Paladin Resources also was firmly in buyers' sights, jumping 8 per cent
from $4.34 between Monday and Thursday but retreated 9¢ to $4.25
yesterday.
Energy Metals rose 3¢ to $2.15 yesterday, up from $1.95 on Monday, while Deep Yellow eased half a cent to 14¢.
The retreat
late in the week showed the lack of real support until a major policy
decision was made, according to Far East Capital analyst Warwick Grigor.
------------------->
* URANIUM MINING - EXPLORATION
------------------->
Redport's uranium draws bid
Robin Bromby, Takeovers
July 08, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19720221-643,00.html
THERE goes the junior uranium sector.
A third
explorer is now in the sights of a predator with Redport yesterday
recommending that shareholders accept a paper offer valued at 14c a
share from Canada's Mega Uranium.
Redport's share price managed to reach only 13.5c yesterday but was a considerable improvement on its drop to 9.4c in May.
Redport chairman Richard Homsany said Mega's offer represented a 33 per cent premium to his company's recent share price.
This merger would fulfil Redport's objective of becoming an international uranium company, he added.
Mega earlier
this year paid just under $20 million for Hindmarsh Resources, which
had a large number of tenements in South Australia.
On Thursday,
Hong Kong investment bank Crosby Capital Partners made a 68c-a-share
bid for another South Australian explorer, Marathon Resources. This
bid, however, is unlikely to succeed as it seems to be pitched too
cheaply and because the directors, who own 22.8 per cent, say they
won't sell.
The effective
takeover of Redport adds a new dimension to the inevitable
consolidation of the industry: most of its prospects are in Western
Australia, where the state Government has banned uranium mining.
Only South Australia and the Northern Territory are sympathetic to the industry.
This indicates
that the Canadians are prepared to take the long view and expect that
state government policies on uranium will eventually change.
But investors are also taking the hint that this is not the full extent of Mega's ambitions.
They yesterday
marked up Nova Energy, which has uranium prospects in the same region
of Western Australia, from 15c to $1.39. It is understood that Redport
at one stage contemplated a merger with Nova.
The new
takeovers will be a tonic for the junior uranium sector, where prices
have come off substantially after the bull run for many companies in
the first months of 2006.
Toro Energy, for example, hit $1.395 in March but closed yesterday at 69.5c. Nova itself is well off its $1.85 high on March 4.
Mega, which is
capitalised at about $440 million, holds the advanced Ben Lomond
project in Queensland with its 4850-tonne resource along with
properties in South Australia and the Northern Territory.
Mega also has
prospects in Argentina, Bolivia and Mongolia. It is offering 10 Mega
shares for every 574 Redport counters, along with 10 shares for every
894 Redport 5c listed options and 10 shares for every 1479 unlisted 12c
options.
Redport's main
asset is its Lake Maitland project, where it has made good grade
intercepts. The deposit is shallow, meaning a low stripping ratio. A
resource statement is due by late September.
Earlier this year, Redport acquired adjacent ground from View Resources, adding an estimated 996 tonnes of uranium.
------------------->
Lots of spoils in uranium
James Kirby
September 3, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/lots-of-spoils-in-uranium/2006/09/02/1156817149793.html
You'D think the
uranium mining sector would be worried about the headlines: they say we
risk an Asia-Pacific arms race if Australia processes uranium.
The funny thing
is, the 30 uranium companies listed on the Stock Exchange are barely
aware of the rumpus - the only thing they know for sure is the debate
over mining uranium is over and the miners have won.
As politicians
get excited about whether Australia should enrich uranium (the raw
material for nuclear power) or store the world's nuclear waste, the
miners are paying no attention because these developments are simply
not going to happen. Commodities such as copper and zinc have been
mined in Australia for generations and still all we do is dig it and
ship it. Uranium will be no different.
Just last week
the three mines policy that had sedated the uranium sector since the
Hawke era quietly fell in a heap. On Tuesday the board of Canadian
mining multinational SXR Uranium One approved its latest big project -
a new uranium mine called Honeymoon in South Australia. SXR signed off
on it because it already knows the Rann government will give the green
light to the application.
So do we now
have a four mines policy? Paul Sutherland, chairman of the SA Chamber
of Mines says: "Three mines, four mines, it's nonsense to talk like
this - the number of mines will depend on new discoveries."
And the more
companies that are out there exploring for uranium, the more likely a
new discovery will take place. With the price of uranium rising
relentlessly, the outlook for the string of highly speculative uranium
stocks on the ASX remains promising. In fact the commodity market
correction in May barely dented the uranium sector. The price of
uranium rose fourfold to $US36 a pound in the three years to December.
This year, driven primarily by China's plan to build dozens of nuclear
power stations, the price has risen again from $US36 to $US48.50.
"What matters
to all the uranium stocks is not these debates about nuclear power in
Australia but the outlook for uranium prices around the world - and the
outlook is very good," says Paul Steven, a mining analyst at Montagu
stockbrokers in Perth.
The real issue
for uranium investors is the lack of choice. On the ASX there are
dozens of uranium explorers but there is only one Australian uranium
producer that's directly open to stockmarket investors - BHP Billiton.
The other three uranium mines are controlled by foreign companies.
Moreover, while exploration stocks regularly race higher in price, the
BHP stock price is flat. What is that old mining joke? Never spoil a
good exploration prospect by drilling a hole.
James Kirby is editor of Eureka Report at eurekareport.com.au
[email protected]
------------------->
* URANIUM MINING - HONEYMOON
------------------->
(Honeymoon ...
still needs SA government approvals. Total deposit at Honeymoon is just
3,000 tonnes compared to annual exports from Australia of 10-12,000
tonnes.)
Honeymoon gets green light
Ben Sharples
Wednesday, 30 August 2006
AUSTRALIA is
set to get its fourth uranium mine with sxr Uranium One giving the
green light to the development of the Honeymoon project in South
Australia, 34 years after the discovery of the deposit.
The development
of the Honeymoon project is expected to cost $US41.5 million ($A54
million) including $5.6 million for working capital costs, and produce
400 tonnes of uranium oxide annually over a life of six to seven years.
Cash operating costs are pegged at $14.13 per pound of uranium oxide.
Capital
expenditure and cash operating costs have increased on a 2004
feasibility estimate of $24.6 million and $12.40 per pound,
respectively.
The project has
a net present value of $37.7 million at an 8% discount and an internal
rate of return of 40%, applying a flat uranium price of $46.50/lb over
the life of the project. The uranium spot price is currently $48.50/lb.
The development
decision comes after a review of a 2004 Ausenco feasibility study by
Mayfield Engineering and Aker Kvaerner Australia and a revised mineral
resource estimate compiled by Adelaide-based Ore Reserve Evaluation
Services.
Extraction of
the yellowcake will be via in situ leaching and the project is fully
permitted with a mining licence in effect for 20 years. sxr Uranium One
said it plans to finance the project with a mix of finance from debt
and internal sources.
In addition, sxr Uranium One has revised the indicated resource to 1.2 million tonnes at 0.24% uranium oxide for 2900t.
The company
said while the grade of the deposit has increased from 0.11%, the
resource has reduced by 12%, with the company excluding a number of
thin, low-grade intercepts believed not amenable to ISL mining.
Honeymoon is expected to come online in 2008.
Elsewhere, sxr
Uranium One is looking to bring its Dominion uranium project in South
Africa, which has 47.49 million pounds in the indicated category and
199.19Mlb in the inferred category, online next February.
© 2006 MiningNews.net - www.miningnews.net
------------------->
Attention Business Editors:
sxr Uranium One Announces Honeymoon Feasibility Study and Approves Honeymoon Project
Trading Symbols: SXR - The Toronto Stock Exchange, the Johannesburg Stock
Exchange
TORONTO and JOHANNESBURG, Aug. 29 /CNW/ - sxr Uranium One Inc. announced
today that its Board of Directors has approved the development of the
Honeymoon In-Situ Leach (ISL) Uranium Project in north-eastern South
Australia.
The Board's decision follows a detailed review of a feasibility study on
the Honeymoon Project prepared by Mayfield Engineering Pty Ltd. and Aker
Kvaerner Australia and others and a revised mineral resource estimate for the
Honeymoon Project completed by K.F. Bampton MSc, MAusIMM, MAIG of Ore Reserve
Evaluation Services (Adelaide).
<<
Highlights from the feasibility study include:
- Indicated mineral resource estimate of 1.2 million tonnes ore,
grading 0.24% U(3)O(8) (2,900 tonnes U(3)O(8))
- Project capital costs of US$35.9 million
- Life of mine average cash operating costs of US$14.13/lb U(3)O(8)
- NPV of US$37.7 million at an 8% discount rate and after-tax IRR of
40%
- Payback period of 2.9 years from commencement of construction
>>
In light of the results of the feasibility study, Uranium One's Board of
Directors has approved the development of the Honeymoon Project. The Company
intends to fund the Project with an appropriate mix of finance from debt and
internal sources.
In commenting on the feasibility study, Neal Froneman, CEO of Uranium
One, said: "We are pleased that the feasibility study confirms that the
Honeymoon ISL Project is both technically viable and financially robust.
Today's announcement follows closely on feasibility studies completed for our
Dominion Uranium Project in late July and for the Modder East Gold Project in
early August. It is particularly gratifying to be in a position to announce a
production decision on a second uranium project within the span of 4 weeks.
With the feasibility studies behind us, we are now moving towards uranium
production, first in South Africa at Dominion in the first quarter of 2007 and
then at Honeymoon, where we look forward to commissioning Australia's fourth
uranium mine in 2008."
The Honeymoon Project
The Mayfield feasibility study examined the development of a commercial
uranium ISL project with an annual production capacity of 400 tonnes (880,000
lbs) of U(3)O(8) and a total project life of between 6 - 7 years. The basic
wellfield design will be based on '7-spot' patterns consisting of six
injection wells arranged in a 20 - 60 metre hexagon, with a centrally located
production well. The production plan is designed to bring the wellfield
on-line in two stages during the first year; first year production is assumed
to be 75% of design.
The process plant will utilize solvent extraction technology to recover
uranium from the pregnant leach solution. While Honeymoon ore shows greater
than 90% recovery rate in laboratory leaching tests, the Project model assumes
a 70% recovery rate in commercial operation, based on published information on
acid in-situ leach operations in central Asia. The 70% recovery rate, however,
is subject to qualifications relating to the efficiency of leach operations,
including the control of gypsum precipitation and the possible need to reduce
well spacing to improve solution passage through mineralized areas.
Implementation of the Project has already been initiated. Discussions are
underway with potential suppliers for long-lead items and infrastructure
development. Project commissioning is expected within 17 months.
Capital and Operating Costs
Capital costs for the Honeymoon Project are estimated by Mayfield and
Aker Kvaerner to be US$35.9 million, with an additional US$5.6 million
allocated for working capital-related costs (all at an assumed exchange rate
of US$0.75/A$1.00). The life of mine average operating costs are estimated at
US$14.13 per pound of U(3)O(8).
Financial Evaluation
Based on a 70% recovery rate from an indicated mineral resource
containing 2,900 tonnes of U(3)O(8), the Project has a net present value of
US$37.7 million at an 8% discount rate and an after-tax internal rate of
return of 40%, applying a flat uranium price of US$46.50 per pound over the
life of the project. The payback period is 2.9 years.
Revised Mineral Resource Estimate
The revised mineral resource estimate reflects the results of a recent
two-stage drilling program that comprised a total of 236 holes (29,200 m) on a
nominal 40 metre square pattern directed at the Honeymoon deposit only and
excluding the East Kalkaroo resource. Grade estimation is based solely on the
new holes using PFN technology to directly measure U(3)O(8) grades and refined
geological modelling using sophisticated geophysical techniques applied to
model the resource. Economic mineralisation extends over an area of 900 x 450
metres at an average depth of 110 metres within Tertiary-aged Eyre Formation
Basal Sand. While the grade of the Honeymoon deposit has increased from 0.11%
to 0.24%, the revised resource estimation reflects a 12% reduction in
contained U(3)O(8) to 2,900 tonnes (6.5 million pounds) from the previous
indicated mineral resource estimation (2.8 million tonnes ore, grading 0.12%
U(3)O(8) (3,300 tonnes U(3)O(8))) contained in the December 2001 independent
technical report prepared by Hackester Pty Ltd. (available on SEDAR). The
reduction in contained U(3)O(8) can be ascribed to the fact that many thin
low-grade intercepts, believed not addressable by ISL mining, have been
excluded.
The revised resource estimation has, however, significantly improved the
geological understanding of the deposit, which will enhance wellfield design,
thereby resulting in the potential for improved recoveries during future
mining operations. The main difference in the resource estimation is that the
revised resource has been individually calculated for 5 laterally extensive
sand packages, whereas the previous resource was estimated from only upper and
lower sand units whose intercepts were cumulated.
<<
In addition, the revised resource has been:
- directly measured using PFN, whereas the previous estimation was
based on indirect gamma methods (estimated equivalent eU(3)O(8)
grades from gamma-emitting daughter products);
- estimated from new drilling undertaken on a regular 40 metre square
grid, whereas the previous resource was based on irregular historic
drilling undertaken during the 1970's and early 1980's; and
- estimated from drill intercepts with more stringent parameters
applied (0.03% vs. 0.01% U(3)O(8) primary cut-off and 40cm minimum
width versus no minimum width intercepts).
The revised indicated mineral resource estimations per sand unit,
estimated from drill intercepts of 0.4m minimum thickness and 0.03% U(3)O(8)
minimum grade with up to 1m of internal dilution, are shown in the table
below. An economic grade thickness cut-off of 0.1m% U(3)O(8) has been applied.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand
Ore Grade
Tonnes Pounds
Thickness GT
(tonnes) (%U(3)O(8)) U(3)O(8) U(3)O(8) (Metres)
(m%U(3)O(8))
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBS-5 89,000
0.13
120 260,000
1.4 0.18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBS-4 45,000
0.17
77 170,000
1.2 0.20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBS-3 140,000
0.37 530
1,170,000
1.4 0.51
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBS-2 410,000
0.28 1,100
2,500,000
1.7 0.47
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBS-1 530,000
0.20 1,100
2,400,000
2.1 0.43
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,200,000
0.24 2,900
6,500,000
1.7 0.42
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Minor apparent multiplication mismatch of contained U(3)O(8) in the
resource figures is due to post-computational rounding of all
components to 2 significant figures.
(2) Mineral resources have been estimated by K.F. Bampton, MSc, MAusIMM,
MAIG, of Ore Reserve Evaluation Services (Adelaide) and reported in
accordance with JORC.
(3) Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have
demonstrated economic viability.
>>
The majority of drilling was open hole rotary-mud, which is the most
applicable drilling method suitable for wireline logging in unstable
unconsolidated sediment; however, a total of 7 core holes were also drilled
for quality control/assurance purposes, mineralogical analysis and to confirm
the geological model.
Sophisticated geophysical logging backed up by logging drill cuttings and
the core drilling has significantly improved the geological model of the host
stratigraphy. The Basal Sand unit has now been modelled as five separate
laterally continuous sand packages, each with its own hydro-geological
characteristics arising from different genetic episodes of sedimentation. This
model has been generated in conjunction with a detailed sedimentalogical
analysis undertaken by Dr. Ian Dyson. Professor Paul Ashley of the University
of New England has completed a mineralogical study of selected core samples
and concludes that mineralisation comprises an extremely fine grained, acid
soluble mineralogy of uraninite, coffinite and uranium phosphates, which are
amenable to ISL mining.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
All drilling was carried out under the direction of Mr. Colin Skidmore
MAusIMM, Vice President Exploration Australia, sxr Uranium One Inc. who is a
qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101. A comprehensive quality
control and quality assurance programme was overseen by Dr. David Lawie of
ioGlobal (Perth), who compared PFN measured grades with the results of XRF
assays from quarter core, compared duplicate PFN data collection runs and
verified the quality of the PFN calibration process. The resource estimation
was undertaken by Mr. Ken Bampton MSc, MAusIMM, MAIG of Ore Reserve Evaluation
Services (Adelaide), who is a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101
and a competent person under the JORC code and Mr. Bampton audited the
available drill hole data for completeness, consistency of hole identifiers,
negative PFN values, overlapping sample intervals or sample data beyond
maximum hole depth. The resource estimation, geological model and independent
technical report, which is being prepared by Mr Bampton for filing in
accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101, has been independently audited
by SRK Consulting (Perth).
Ken Bampton is the qualified person as defined in NI 43-101 responsible
for the preparation of the information relating to the revised mineral
resource estimate contained in this news release.
Victor J. Absolon MSc.(Eng), FAusIMM, C.P. Met., M.M.I.C.A is the
qualified person as defined in NI 43-101 who supervised for Mayfield
Engineering Pty Ltd the preparation of the information relating to the
feasibility study contained in this news release.
About sxr Uranium One
sxr Uranium One Inc. is a Canadian uranium and gold resource company with
a primary listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange and a secondary listing on the
Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The Corporation owns the Dominion Uranium Project
in South Africa and the Honeymoon Uranium Project in South Australia, and is
actively pursuing growth opportunities in the western United States. The
Corporation holds a 75% interest in Aflease Gold Limited, which owns the
Modder East gold project in South Africa. Through a joint venture with
Pitchstone Exploration Ltd., the Corporation is also engaged in uranium
exploration activities in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan.
Cautionary note concerning forward-looking statements and disclosure of
mineral resources: No stock exchange, securities commission or other
regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained
herein. This news release includes certain "forward-looking statements" within
the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and
"forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian
legislation. All statements other than statements of historical fact included
within this release, including without limitation, statements regarding
potential mineralization and reserves and future plans and objectives of
Uranium One are forward-looking statements (or forward-looking information)
that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that
such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events
could differ materially from Uranium One's expectations. Such factors include,
among others, the actual results of exploration activities, actual results of
reclamation activities, the estimation or realization of mineral reserves and
resources, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of
production, capital expenditures, costs and timing of the development of new
deposits, availability of capital required to place the Company's properties
into production, conclusions of economic evaluations, acceptance of the
Mayfield feasibility study by financial or lending institutions, changes in
project parameters as plans continue to be refined, future prices of
commodities, possible variations in ore grade or recovery rates, failure of
plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated, accidents, labour
disputes and other risks of the mining industry, delays in obtaining
governmental approvals, permits or financing or in the completion of
development or construction activities, Uranium One's hedging practices,
currency fluctuations, title disputes or claims limitation on insurance
coverage, as well as those factors discussed under "Risk Factors" in Uranium
One's Annual Information Form and Management's Discussion and Analysis as
filed with securities regulatory authorities in Canada. Although Uranium One
has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from anticipated results, there may be other factors that
cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.
There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate
as actual results and future events could differ materially from those
anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue
reliance on forward-looking statements. Uranium One does not undertake to
update any forward-looking statements which are included herein, except in
accordance with applicable securities laws.
To receive the Corporation's news releases by email, please register on
the Corporation's website at www.uranium1.com.
%SEDAR: 00005203E
For further information: Jean Nortier, Chief Financial Officer, Tel: +
27 11 482 3605; Chris Sattler, Vice President, Investor Relations, Tel: (416)
350-3657; Greg Cochran, Executive Vice President, Tel: +61 8 8363 7006
------------------->
* URANIUM MINING - VARIOUS
------------------->
EXPLORATION
www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19334054%5E913,00.html
02jun06
New group chief
IAN Gould, the
chairman of uranium exploration company Toro Energy, has been appointed
to head the State Government's South Australian Minerals and Petroleum
Exploration Group.
He replaces Robert de Crespigny in the role of
promoting the SA resources industry and previously has been managing
director of both Comalco Mineral Products and Normandy Mining.
------------------->
Media Release: Monday 17 July 2006
Batchelor uranium mine threat to horticulture and tourism
The Environment
Centre of the NT (ECNT) is extremely concerned about Compass Resources’
claims that it can develop a uranium mine at Mt Fitch, near Batchelor
in the NT, by 2008.
Compass
executive director Malcolm Humphrey’s statement that “the land up there
is NT freehold land, which doesn’t provide a lot of obstacles in terms
of the permitting process” is an alarming one for local residents.
“There are a
lot of people in the Batchelor region who are opposed to the expansion
of uranium mining,” local horticulturalist Mark Hawkins said. “The EPA
has stated that the Compass Resources oxide project would be
potentially drawing in excess of 1 million litres of water per hour
from the local aquifer. This would have crippling long-term effects on
the local horticultural industry. Uranium mining uses even more water,
and if allowed to go ahead could be the final nail in the coffin for
local growers.”
The development of the Batchelor region into a uranium mining hub is also likely to have negative impacts on local tourism.
“Rum Jungle
mine has already left a legacy of radioactive and other pollution, not
only on site but downstream along the Finniss River”, ECNT uranium
campaigner Emma King said.
“Uranium mining
releases a number of radioactive isotopes into the environment. This
proposed mine is only 3 kilometres from the Darwin River Dam drinking
water catchment, and could also pollute the local aquifer.”
Kungarakun
traditional custodian Speedy McGuiness, who attended a national
environment conference last week, said: “There is widespread national
opposition to the expansion of uranium mining in Australia. If Compass
tries to go ahead with this project, there will be overwhelming support
for local opposition to the mine.”
Contrary to
media reports, the federal government cannot unilaterally approve new
uranium mines in the NT – it must rely on NT legislation for the grant
of an operating license and mine regulation. The ECNT calls on the NT
government stand by its no new mines policy and refuse to allow the
Commonwealth to use NT laws to facilitate the opening of this dirty and
dangerous project.
------------------->
Uranium fever sends warm glow across the sector
Barry FitzGerald
July 10, 2006
www.theage.com.au/news/business/uranium-fever-sends-warm-glow-across-the-sector/2006/07/09/1152383611143.html
STAND by for a
second bull run in local uranium exploration/development stocks — one
driven by a frenzy of merger and acquisition activity.
The second bull
run is just starting to take shape and already it has emerged that
there is likely to be three key playmakers — Canadian/Australian Mega
Uranium, John Borshoff's Paladin and Toro Energy.
They are the
ones with the fancy market capitalisations that can make things happen
through scrip takeover bids for their smaller brethren.
Their fancy share prices also allow them to tap, at will, the market for equity funding when the right deal comes along.
It was the
first bull run in uranium stocks that gave those groups their
firepower. It ran out of puff in March after 15 months on the go, with
the subsequent repricing of uranium equities at lower levels in
April-June setting the scene for the launch of the second, and
merger-and-acquisition-driven, bull run.
The first bull
run was a response to the growing acceptance that nuclear power has a
key role to play in the response to global warming.
Spot uranium
prices have responded to the looming surge in demand — as well as the
fact that current annual consumption outstrips mine supply — by
advancing steadily and are now more than $US45 a pound.
That compares
with the sub-$US10 a pound level of a couple of years back. It's no
wonder then that with Australia's known prospectivity for the
radioactive material, uranium exploration/development is now the prime
focus of no less than 80 listed companies.
The explosion
of uranium explorers means that the sector is ripe for some
consolidation, with the aim being to achieve some bulkiness, as well as
project and country-risk diversity.
Attaining that
magical mix could deliver big rewards for those that can pull it off,
as the issue of global warming is not about to go away in a hurry.
Evidence that the second bull run is starting to take shape is coming in thick and fast.
Mega kicked it
off in January with its $20 million acquisition of South Australian
uranium explorer Hindmarsh Resources in a scrip-only takeover bid.
The agreed bid
marked the return to the Australian uranium industry of Tony Grey, the
Sydney-based Canadian lawyer who founded Pancontinental Mining, of
Jabiluka fame, in the early 1970s.
Mega, which has
the Ben Lomond and Maureen deposits in uranium-unfriendly Queensland
under its belt, is now back for another acquisition.
This time it is a friendly bid worth $98 million for West Australian uranium explorer and royalty holder Redport Ltd.
Redport's
royalty is over Paladin's Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia, where mining
is about to start. As an aside, it was interesting to see that Paladin
went into a trading halt on Friday as it is "negotiating a potentially
material transaction".
Also on Friday,
Valhalla Uranium, the Queensland and Northern Territory uranium
explorer 83 per cent owned by Resolute Mining, went into a trading halt
pending an announcement. We will know soon enough if the two trading
halts are related.
Further
evidence that M&A activity in the uranium sector is on the boil
came last week with a $34 million bid for SA uranium explorer Marathon
Resources from Hong Kong-based investment bank Crosby Capital.
Unlike the
other bids in the sector, it is not friendly. It also differs on the
count that it's a cash offer of 68¢ a share.
Missing in
action so far is Toro, the Oxiana and Minotaur sponsored float that
listed with a bang in March, but which quickly drifted back in price.
Toro rose
11.5¢ to 69¢ on Friday. It has put out some encouraging
exploration results but the real reason for the share price running has
been put down to Toro's expected lead role in the sector's M&A
activity.
It's all well
and good to have a bag of the best exploration ground in SA, but it's
better to have a proven resource on the books. Expectations of more
M&A action in the uranium sector helped on Friday nearly all the
junior explorers that might benefit in the long run.
Some of the
gains included Arafura (up 2¢ to 37¢), Giralia (up 1.5¢
to 30¢), Deep Yellow (up 1.5¢ to 15¢) and Summit (up
19¢ to $1.44).
------------------->
* URANIUM MINING - ROXBY DOWNS
------------------->
Roxby Downs EIS website: http://www.olympicdameis.com/index.htm
------------------->
Whale may threaten Olympic Dam
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
July 10, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19735435-2702,00.html
THE $6 billion
expansion of the Olympic Dam uranium mine in outback South Australia
could be threatened by a whale and a rare seabird.
Federal
Environment Minister Ian Campbell must consider the impact on the
habitats of the endangered southern giant petrel and the southern right
whale in the approvals process for a $300million desalination plant
that is crucial to the mine's expansion.
Mr Campbell
blocked a Victorian wind farm development in April because of the
perceived threat to the rare orange-bellied parrot. And he was forced
to intervene last month to guarantee the future of a $650 million pulp
mill in South Australia, amid concerns its impact on the endangered
red-tailed black cockatoo could have the project scuttled.
BHP Billiton
wants to build the seawater desalination plant in South Australia's
upper Spencer Gulf region to supply water for its expanded Olympic Dam
uranium mine at Roxby Downs, 570km north of Adelaide.
According to
documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws, BHP says the
petrel and the whale may live in areas affected by the proposed
desalination plant. The animals are included in a list of flora and
fauna referred to the Environment Department as potentially affected by
the expansion.
Southern right
whales, which frequent South Australian waters to mate from May to
October, were recently seen near Port Augusta in the upper Spencer
Gulf. They can come within 20m of the shore, according to South
Australian Whale Centre spokesman Brad Riddle. BHP is also
investigating the effect that brine discharge from the plant could have
on the Australian cuttlefish. Its documents refer to the Spencer Gulf
as "a unique breeding ground" for the cuttlefish.
The company's
EIS project manager, Michael Ryan, said detailed studies for an
environmental impact statement were under way but had yet to determine
whether threats existed to any species. He said the southern giant
petrel and southern right whale were on the list but the company
believed "they are least likely to be impacted by the whole project".
"We're doing
modelling in relation to what potential impact (the plant) could have
on the marine environment," he said. "We're also doing assessments on
birds, the petrel being one of those, and other wader birds to
determine what potential impact it could have on their feeding or
breeding areas, or staging sites."
He said the
petrel had not been seen in the area "to the best of our knowledge".
The EIS required joint South Australian and federal government
approval, with a draft due for completion in the middle of next year.
The draft would cover all necessary mine infrastructure, including the
plant and its pipeline and energy needs.
------------------->
* PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF DOING HOWARD'S DIRTY WORK
------------------->
Media Release - August 30, 2006
Parsons on the Brink of Nuclear Disaster
People in
numerous cities across Australia will today target Parsons
Brinckerhoff, the private company contracted to assess the Federal
Government's proposed sites for a Commonwealth nuclear waste dump in
the Northern Territory.
A range of
creative and diverse actions will occur at Parsons Brinckerhoff offices
in Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.
Holly
Creenaune, National Convenor of the Australian Student Environment
Network said "Communities surrounding all of the sites being assessed
in the Northern Territory ; Harts Range, Mt Everard, and Fishers
Ridge, remain strongly opposed to hosting a nuclear waste dump
for the next few thousand years."
"We don't want
radioactive waste transported through or stored in our communities.
There is still no safe way of storing nuclear waste. The proposed NT
waste dump will be a radioactive blight on Australia and a direct
threat to humans and the environment for thousands of years."
Joel Catchlove
from Friends of the Earth Adelaide said, "Parsons Brinckerhoff is a key
player in the expansion of Australia's nuclear industry, providing
consultancy to push ahead new uranium mines, nuclear reactors and waste
dumps in Australia."
Natalie Wasley
from the Arid Lands Environment Centre, Alice Springs, added "new
Commonwealth legislation overriding NT law, and an absence of public
consultation and information raises legitimate concerns that Parsons
Brinckerhoff's site selection process will be secretive and ignore
important social and environmental criteria."
"The Federal
Government is trying to force their radioactive waste onto the
Territory because they believe it is the middle of no-where and no-one
cares what happens in the desert. The support shown today by people
around the country is a strong reminder that this issue resonates with
many Australians who are concerned about the undemocratic process
foisting a Commonwealth radioactive dump on the NT."
------------------->
On the Brink of Nuclear Disaster
By Michaela Stubbs
Concerned
Melbourne citizens disrupted ‘business as usual’ at the Parsons
Brinckerhoff office on August 30 as part of a national day of action
opposing the federal government's plan to impose a nuclear dump on the
NT. Parsons Brinckerhoff is the company contracted to assess the
proposed dump sites.
Actions at
Parsons Brinckerhoff offices in Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney, and
Melbourne highlighted the company's involvement with the dirty and
dangerous nuclear industry. The company has previously carried out work
in relation to the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, the Beverley uranium
mine and the abandoned plan to dump nuclear waste in SA.
“Parsons
Brinckerhoff is a key player in the expansion of Australia’s nuclear
industry, collaborating with the Howard government to push ahead with
new uranium mines, nuclear reactors and waste dumps in Australia”, said
Jim Green, nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth.
“Last year the
Howard government passed legislation overriding NT environmental and
Aboriginal heritage protection laws to facilitate the nuclear dump
project. The planned dump is an unwanted, unnecessary imposition and
Parsons Brinckerhoff should play no part in the government's grubby,
racist nuclear dump plans."
In Melbourne a
group of twenty peaceful protesters entered the Parsons Brinckerhoff
office to demand that the company end its involvement in the planned
dump. The protesters also asked to view a copy of the Community
Consultation Plan for the nuclear dump - which the company would not
provide. Meanwhile, a colourful contingent dressed in radiation
protection suits engaged with the public on St.Kilda Rd.
Communities
surrounding the proposed dump sites being assessed in the Northern
Territory – Harts Range, Mt Everard, and Fishers Ridge – are strongly
opposed to hosting a nuclear waste dump for the next few thousand
years.
Danya Brynx
from the Australian Student Environment Network said: “We don’t want
radioactive waste transported through or stored in our communities.
There is still no safe way to store nuclear waste. The proposed NT
waste dump will be a toxic blight on Australia and a direct threat to
humans and environment for thousands of years. This mornings action is
part of an ongoing campaign that will highlight the involvement of such
companies in the dirty, dangerous and polluting nuclear industry.
"We are letting Parsons Brinckerhoff know that they can’t do the federal government's dirty work and get away with it."
------------------->
* LUCAS HEIGHTS - VARIOUS
------------------->
OPAL reactor goes critical
http://www.aip.org.au/news/119
Australia´s
OPAL reactor, built by INVAP in the premises of Lucas Heights, NSW,
reached critical status for the first time on August 12, 2006. This is
the first stage of the effective functioning of the reactor. Once the
fuel is in place, control bars are slowly lifted, and a selfsustained
nuclear reaction with neutron emmission begins to take place at a
controlled rate.
The uranium
silicide fuel was provided by the Argentine Atomic Energy Commission
(CNEA) and was loaded very recently after the Australian Nuclear
Control Agency, ARPANSA, gave the go-ahead to operate the reactor.
Criticality
allows the performance of low-power tests, and this is the first step
of a lengthy process of power increase and measurement of diverse yield
and safety parameters. Full power of the OPAL reactor – 20 MW - is
expected to be achieved later this year. Official inauguration is
scheduled to take place in April, 2007.
Further Info:
http://www.invap.net/news/novedades-e.php?id=20060815050701
------------------->
Lucas Heights in 13 safety breaches
Nassim Khadem, Canberra
June 19, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/lucas-heights-in-13-safety-breaches/2006/06/18/1150569213435.html
Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor has recorded 13 safety breaches in the past 18 months.
This included one case in which a worker was exposed to abnormally high radiation.
The Federal
Opposition has accused Science Minister Julie Bishop of being
uninformed about radioactive leaks at the reactor, and the Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation of trying to hide
information about safety breaches.
The Government,
meanwhile, has admitted that radioactive waste from Lucas Heights will
be a problem until it builds a nuclear waste dump in the Northern
Territory.
Concerns
surfaced again last week when ANSTO confirmed four accidents, including
one worker getting radioactive material in his clothing, another in his
eye and a third ingesting a small amount of gas.
Health checks found none had received dangerous doses.
Since the start
of last year, there have been 12 reported safety breaches at Lucas
Heights relating to procedural errors and engineering failures.
Last October
there were calls for the reactor to be shut down after an ANSTO
investigation was unable to say if a maintenance worker had recorded an
abnormally high dose of radiation.
When the
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency investigated
the incident, it could not rule out that the worker had been exposed.
The worker, who
was already above the allowable limit of 20 millisieverts a year, had
to be moved to a different area. The accepted maximum limit is just 100
millisieverts over five years.
The reactor's
general manager of safety and radiation, Cait Maloney, said the worker
had misplaced his badge, which recorded the exposure. Ms Maloney said
it was unlikely he had been exposed, but exposure could not be ruled
out.
The ALP says
the organisation should be more open about accidents at the site. A
2001 Senate inquiry into the new reactor proposed for Lucas Heights
found "a culture of secrecy so embedded" that the organisation had lost
sight of its responsibility to be accountable.
Labor's
environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, said the accidents showed that
Australia was not ready for another nuclear power plant.
------------------->
Media Release
Jenny Macklin MP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Shadow Minister for Education, Training, Science & Research
15/6/06
MINISTER IGNORANT OF SECOND LUCAS HEIGHTS ACCIDENT
Science
Minister Julie Bishop was unable to answer any questions today about
another accident that happened at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in
Sydney yesterday.
Labor revealed
during Question Time today that a canister carrying radioactive
material was received from the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Cyclotron in Camperdown and at 11 am
yesterday, an apparent contamination on the outside of the canister
vapourised during processing at Lucas Heights.
Radiation
alarms in the immediate work area were not activated, but barrier
alarms were triggered by the technician who was working with the
canister.
The technician was then scanned and found to have ingested radioactive Iodine-123.
Julie Bishop
was at a loss when asked to confirm if this accident occurred at Lucas
Heights yesterday. Nor could she answer if she was undertaking any
investigation of the Cyclotron in Camperdown in Sydney, or of the
transport of radioactive materials through the streets of Sydney, or at
the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor itself.
Earlier this
morning, the Minister made a statement this morning that she was not
aware of any other incidents at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in
the past 12 months.
If the Minister
bothered to read the four compliance reports that the nuclear
regulator, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
(ARPANSA) has tabled in Parliament, she would know that there were 12
incidents at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in 2005.
The Minister’s incompetence is of serious concern at a time when the Howard Government is pushing the benefits of nuclear power.
------------------->
Nuclear fallout
16jun06
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19481810%5E24218,00.html
Editorial
IF Australia is
to have a sane and sensible debate about nuclear power a precondition
is openness and veracity on both sides of the argument.
Prime
Minister John Howard started the debate rolling when he first raised
the possibility of nuclear power generation in this country and then
announced a high-profile inquiry into the option.<p>
The PM
might curse his luck that within days of launching the inquiry, several
accidents involving radioactive material and a radiation leak from
Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor were revealed.<p>
Various gases,
including krypton, escaped on Wednesday after a pipe inside a
radioactive hot cell ruptured. A worker was washed down and checked for
contamination.<p>
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation, which manages Lucas Heights, said the gases did not
escape from the immediate area.<p>
But there was political
fallout. Science Minister Julie Bishop played down the leak while the
Opposition alleged a cover-up.<p>
The radioactive gas escape
came to light a week after it happened when secret emails were made
public by Deputy Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin.<p>
The nuclear
industry has an unfortunate history of secrecy and of playing down
incidents that might alarm the public.<p>
If that culture is to
form a backdrop to the nuclear energy debate then the public will quite
rightly be sceptical about industry claims it can produce cheap and
safe energy for this country.
------------------->
Thursday June 15, 09:07 PM
Nuclear worker receives radiation dose
Four accidents
have been reported at Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in a week
in what authorities say is an "extremely unusual" series of events.
A worker at
Australia's only nuclear reactor received a low dose of radiation on
Wednesday, while two more "minor" incidents occurred on Thursday, said
the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
The accidents
follow the escape of gases after the rupturing of a pipe at the reactor
on June 8, which disrupted the production of isotopes used in medical
scans.
News of the incidents comes just days after Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into nuclear power.
Labor
questioned the government in federal parliament on Thursday over
Wednesday's accident at Lucas Heights, saying a worker had ingested
radioactive contamination from a canister.
ANSTO on
Thursday night confirmed a worker received a low radiation dose of
iodine-123 while packaging radiopharmaceuticals for patient use on
Wednesday morning.
It said the
dose was four per cent of the annual limit for radiation workers and
significantly less than a patient would receive getting a nuclear
medicine scan for thyroid cancer.
In a statement, ANSTO said the worker was examined and found to have absorbed a small amount of radioactivity.
However the worker did not need treatment and continued work as normal.
"While not common, incidents of this type are not unprecedented and can occur in any production line process," ANSTO said.
However it admitted two more incidents had occurred on Thursday involving radiopharmaceutical production workers.
"This is extremely unusual. Minor incidents of this nature normally occur around once a month," ANSTO said.
In the first incident on Thursday, a worker burst a pack of radioactive material which splashed into his eye.
The second involved a worker who dropped a small glass vial containing a radiopharmaceutical.
In both cases, dose levels were significantly less than the amount ANSTO was obliged to report to the nuclear regulator ARPANSA.
"All these incidents will be thoroughly investigated and the importance of safety underlined to staff," it said.
Science Minister Julie Bishop refused to confirm Wednesday's incident when questioned in federal parliament.
Labor's
environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said the worker had ingested
radioactive iodine 123 from a canister sent to Lucas Heights from the
National Medical Cyclotron at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in
Sydney's Camperdown.
"In relation to
this further incident, what investigation and action has the minister
ordered into the cyclotron in Camperdown, the transport of radioactive
materials through Sydney, and at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor?" Mr
Albanese asked Ms Bishop.
Ms Bishop accused Labor of scaremongering and of wanting to shut down Lucas Heights.
"We know what this is all about. This is all about Labor trying to get the Lucas Heights reactor closed down," she said.
Three Labor
MPs, including Deputy Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin, were thrown out
of parliament as Ms Bishop answered a series of questions about
Wednesday's incident, and the one on June 8.
The June 8 event saw a pipe at the reactor rupture, venting a small amount of gas into the atmosphere.
"I am advised
that the puff of inert gas was harmless ... in fact, the air quality on
that side of the house is more toxic," Ms Bishop said, pointing at the
Labor benches.
Lucas Heights
was forced to temporarily shut down production, and ration supplies of
an isotope used for medical scans as a result of the June 8 incident.
ANSTO
spokeswoman Sharon Kelly said production of the isotope used in many
important diagnostic medical scans - Technetium-99m - had been
disrupted while an investigation into the mishap was completed.
Major hospitals
in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane on Thursday received
supplies of molybdenum, a liquid used in production of Technetium-99m.
However, most hospitals would only receive 55 per cent of their normal weekly order, she said.
"It's now up to these clinics to prioritise which patients will get their scans done first," Ms Kelly said.
The hospitals should have a full supply of the medical isotope from June 26.
In the
meantime, Lucas Heights has stepped up production of another
radiopharmaceutical, thallium, which can be used instead of
technetium-99 in some heart scans.
- AAP
------------------->
Safety of nuclear jobs called into question
Julie Robotham Medical Editor
June 3, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/safety-of-nuclear-jobs-called-into-question/2006/06/02/1148956546599.html
A STUDY that
showed workers at the Lucas Heights nuclear facility had a lower risk
of dying from cancer has been criticised as flawed by a prominent
occupational health specialist.
Bruce Hocking
said the apparently reassuring results of the study, sponsored by the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which
oversees the reactor, did not give a reliable picture of cancer risk.
This was
because it had not considered cancers such as leukemia that are
frequently not fatal, and it had averaged radiation exposure across the
entire group of more than 7000 workers at the reactor, instead of
analysing in separate groups those who had been exposed to higher or
lower radiation doses.
As well, the
follow-up of people who worked at Lucas Heights between 1972 and 1996
was not long enough to identify brain tumours or mesothelioma that may
take much longer to develop.
The results
"should not be taken as reassurance regarding risks of cancer in
nuclear workers at Lucas Heights or elsewhere", Dr Hocking wrote in a
letter to the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,
which published the study last year.
The study - by
Rima Habib and Samer Abdallah from the American University of Beirut
under the supervision of University of NSW epidemiologist John Kaldor -
found Lucas Heights workers' risk of dying was one-third less than
other NSW residents over a given period, and their chance of dying of
cancer was one-fifth lower.
In a press
release issued at the time, ANSTO publicised the reduced death rates
without mentioning a probable explanation cited by the authors in the
report: the so-called "healthy worker effect", which means employed
people are generally healthier than the community average, because
people with chronic illnesses may be unable to work.
An ANSTO
spokeswoman yesterday acknowledged this possibility, saying it was "not
unusual in health studies of radiation workers".
But she did not
comment on the other criticisms by Dr Hocking, who is well known for
previous work on the health effects of radiation exposure.
She said the
radiation exposure of Lucas Heights workers was well below the maximum
allowed in a safety standard set by the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
ANSTO had
contributed the data on the workers and provided $100,000 to the study
over five years, said the spokeswoman, but had not been involved in
designing the research.
The findings
contrast with a 15-country study, published last year in the British
medical journal BMJ, which concluded that 1 to 2 per cent of cancers in
nuclear workers were probably attributable to radiation exposure, even
at low levels. That analysis included the same Lucas Heights employees.
Dr Hocking, now
in private practice in Melbourne, said there was no evidence Lucas
Heights was a dangerous place to work but the results did not
demonstrate it was safe, as they purported to.
------------------->
* 'CLEAN' COAL
------------------->
Green power for the future
Impressive advances are being made in clean coal technologies, writes Andrew Trounson
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19421162-30417,00.html
June 10, 2006
IT seems almost
too good to be true. Can we really make our dirty coal-fired power
stations green? Have we discovered the silver bullet to slay the
monster that has transformed our abundant coal reserves into sources of
evil greenhouse gases?
As the Prime
Minister's crusade to reassess the potential for nuclear power gained
momentum this week, the coal industry was claiming that by the time
nuclear power could become a reality in Australia, the technologies for
effectively plugging greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants
will have been commercially proven.
The idea is to
commercialise technologies that "clean" coal before it is burnt to
bring down emissions closer to natural gas, which generates about half
the emissions of brown coal. Carbon dioxide emissions would then be
captured and compressed into almost liquid vapor that could then be
piped to geological sites and injected hundreds of metres underground.
But while
achieving this energy nirvana for the world's coal resources is
feasible, it will be expensive, making alternative sources, such as
natural gas and renewables, such as sun and wind, relatively more
competitive.
According to
numbers from the National Generators Forum that represent the country's
main coal and gas-fired generators, by 2015-20 the generating cost of
coal with carbon capture and burial, or sequestration, will be roughly
the same as that for nuclear and wind.
Critics such as
the environment lobby are concerned that carbon capture and
sequestration technologies are unlikely to be widely enough employed to
significantly cut global emissions until 2020 or more. That, they say,
is too long a wait while we continue to burn coal, and that we should
stop building new coal-fired plants and extending the life of new
plants in favour of proven gas and renewable energy. It is why
Victoria's decision last year to extend the life of the Hazelwood brown
coal power plant from 2009 to 2031 so angered the environment lobby and
renewable energy industry.
Nevertheless,
there hasn't been a new coal-fired plant built in either Victoria or
NSW in the past 10 years, with new capacity already largely coming from
gas.
The seductive
attraction of the self-styled clean coal technologies is the huge
potential gain to be had from sequestering carbon emissions from coal,
given its importance as a power source.
Australians get
nearly 80 per cent of their electricity from coal-fired generation and
the country has coal resources big enough to last hundreds of years.
And despite the
threat of climate change, the energy-hungry populations of China, India
and the rest of the developing world will be demanding ever more cheap
fossil fuels to raise them out of poverty.
Globally,
fossil fuels are expected to remain the planet's primary energy source
until at least 2050, by which time scientists warn that we need to have
stabilised carbon levels in the atmosphere or face serious, and in some
places devastating, climate change. Many already think climate change
is under way with the rising incidence of floods, hurricanes and other
events.
China, where
coal supplies 69per cent of the country's power, is effectively
installing the equivalent of Australia's total coal power industry
every year.
The
International Energy Agency expects China to account for 26 per cent of
all new global emissions between 2002 and 2030, more than all the
emissions from the developed world combined. And in the 20 years to
2025, the IEA expects coal to account for 33per cent of global carbon
dioxide growth.
Clearly,
finding a solution to coal emissions is where the biggest dividends can
be made in cutting global emissions. According to the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scenario analysts suggest
that including carbon capture and sequestration in a carbon dioxide
mitigation portfolio could cut the cost of stabilising its levels in
the atmosphere by 30 per cent or more.
"There is no
reason why by 2020 we can't be putting a quarter of our emissions from
coal and gas back into the ground, and no reason why by 2030 it
wouldn't be about half," Mark O'Neill, chief executive of the
Australian Coal Association, says.
It is the huge
size of this tantalising alchemist's cherry that has driven the
formation this year of the six-nation Asia-Pacific partnership on clean
development and climate that is betting on technology to beat climate
change.
It brings
together Kyoto rebels Australia and the US, with the world's emerging
energy consumption giants China and India. In the US the Government has
teamed with industry, including coal giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton,
to invest $US1 billion ($1.34 billion) in the FutureGen project that
aims to have the world's first commercial scale emissions-free
coal-fired generator in operation by 2012 using carbon capture and
sequestration.
In Australia
the coal industry is putting $300 million into a technology development
fund. Low emission technologies for fossil fuels are also expected to
take the bulk of the Government's $500million low-emission fund
announced last year, much to the chagrin of the renewable industry that
complains the Government is punting too heavily on coal.
There are
several low-emission coal demonstration projects under way in Australia
aimed at reducing and or capturing coal emissions. But the most
important is a $30 million trial of geo-sequestration in Victoria's
Otway Basin by the Government-backed Co-operative Research Centre for
greenhouse gas technologies.
Late this year
the CRC plans to start injecting carbon dioxide underground into an old
gas well at Nirranda, 20km east of Warrnambool in western Victoria. It
will be piped from a naturally occurring underground reservoir some 2km
away, with 100,000 tonnes of the gas to be re-injected underground over
two years.
That compares
with the 400million tonnes of carbon dioxide Australia emits every
year. The CRC estimates that Australia has enough geological capacity
to store up to six billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which, assuming an
injection rate of 50 million tonnes a year, would give us 120 years of
storage.
But while the
capture and sequestration technology is feasible and is used to varying
degrees already in the oil and gas industry, the challenges of
achieving carbon capture and sequestration shouldn't be underestimated.
To get a
feeling for the scale of the undertaking to capture and store coal
emissions, it has been estimated that the volume of flue gas emitted by
coal-fired power stations across Australia every year is equivalent to
about 20 times the amount of natural gas produced every year from
Australian gas fields.
Capturing,
compressing and storing such vast quantities of gas would be a
Herculean undertaking. But since only 14 per cent of this vapour from a
coal-fired power station is actually carbon dioxide, the key is using
various technologies to strip out the nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour
and significantly reduce the amount of gas that needs to be captured.
The other
challenge is finding places to store the gas. While potential
geological sites have been identified within reasonable distances of
population centres in Victoria and Queensland, no such sites have been
indentified within a 500km radius of Sydney or Newcastle. In an age
when proposals for a gas pipeline between Papua New Guinea and
Queensland are close to becoming a reality, this isn't an
insurmountable problem, but it adds significantly to the overall cost.
There are also
inevitable concerns over the safety of transporting and storing large
quantities of concentrated carbon dioxide. Concentrated carbon dioxide
is nasty stuff. In 1986, a freak geological disaster released a massive
natural bubble of carbon dioxide from under Lake Nyos in Cameroon that
asphyxiated more than 1700 people.
However, an
IPCC assessment found that piping carbon dioxide posed no greater risk
to the public than piping natural gas, and could be lower. And storing
the carbon dioxide would involve injecting the gas hundreds of metres
underground into reservoir rocks that have held oil and gas for
millions of years.
------------------->
* AUSTRALIA AS THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP
------------------->
Nuke dump would earn us acclaim: Morgan
Cameron England
12jul06
www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19761060%5E664,00.html
AUSTRALIA'S
global status would rise significantly if it became home to an
international nuclear waste repository, Reserve Bank board member Hugh
Morgan has claimed.
While it would also form the basis of an industry worth billions of dollars, economic factors were secondary, Mr Morgan said.
"To put together an internationally managed repository would bring great standing in the international community for Australia."
He said a
jointly owned institution overseen by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and in partnership with the Australian government and several
corporations, direct government participation "whether it's France,
Japan, Korea, by way of example" would add to "Australia's standing in
the United Nations family in a very important manner".
"This to me has
always been far more important than the money. As a side issue of
course, money is not irrelevant because there is a lot of money."
Mr Morgan, in
Adelaide attending the Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy's "Australia's Uranium" conference, said while potential
earnings were massive, the Australian contribution to building a
facility would likely be zero, with overseas energy utilities likely to
fund it.
The former
chief executive of Western Mining and former operator of the Olympic
Dam uranium mine, said yesterday such a proposal was canvassed by WMC
in the early 1980s, but abandoned for corporate reasons.
At the time South Australia was identified as the best place in the world geologically to site a nuclear waste repository.
Mr Morgan said he believed both major political parties were cautious about the issue.
"It's easy to
adopt the NIMBY (not in my backyard) idea. It gets blown out of all
proportion, when you look at the hundreds of thousands of square
kilometres of ground up there, and you only want a couple of square
kilometres because you're going underground, in very solid geological
conditions, there's no better use to which I can think you can put the
country."
On Monday,
Uranium Information Centre general manager Ian Hore-Lacy said a nuclear
waste storage industry could contribute up to 1 per cent of Australia's
gross domestic product, or about $9.75 billion.
In 2004 the
Federal Government backed down on plans to build a national low-level
waste repository near Woomera after the SA Government successfully
argued in the Federal Court that its land acquisition process was
flawed.
------------------->
Environment Centre of the Northern Territory
Territorians call for Commonwealth Waste Dump legislation to be amended to ban overseas waste
Darwin, Friday
7 July 2006 -- The Prime Minister’s assurances that Australia would not
accept foreign nuclear waste were greeted with skepticism by Northern
Territory environmental groups today.
Territory
groups fighting the Commonwealth's proposed radioactive waste dump in
the NT say the PM's latest backflip has no credibility without
amendment of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA)
2005.
Environment
Centre of the NT (ECNT) Coordinator Peter Robertson said the CRWMA,
rushed through Parliament last year, should be amended to specifically
rule out overseas-generated waste.
"Having
previously said there would be no Commonwealth waste dump in the NT (or
indeed anywhere on the Australian mainland), we are very skeptical
about off-the-cuff assurances given by the Howard Government on any
matters relating to the nuclear industry,” said Robertson.
"Frankly, their
record of dishonesty and mis-management in relation to uranium mining
in the NT, the Lucas Heights reactor, and radioactive waste management
is appalling.
"The two
Commonwealth-regulated uranium mines in the NT -- Rum Jungle (closed)
and Ranger -- are toxic time bombs that will go on contaminating the
surrounding environment for centuries,” said Robertson.
"Things will
only get worse, and the consequences even more serious, if the PM
succeeds in establishing a 'remote' waste dump in the NT and an
enrichment facility somewhere in Australia."
“Why is the
Howard Government considering taking us further down this dirty,
dangerous nuclear road when the rest of the world is shifting to clean
energy -- solar, wind, biomass energy and energy efficiency?” Robertson
asked.
------------------->
Nuclear waste in SA not welcome
By PAUL STARICK
09jun06
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19410036%5E2682,00.html
A SCHEME to
dump nuclear waste at Maralinga does not have the backing of state or
federal governments.
Both Prime Minister John Howard and Premier Mike
Rann have not been briefed on the plan, which also reportedly involves
exporting enriched uranium from Olympic Dam to China and India.
The U.S. was urging Mr Howard to adopt the plan, according to a report in The Australian Financial Review yesterday.
But it is
understood Mr Howard was briefed only on President George W. Bush's
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - not the Olympic Dam and Maralinga
plan - during a visit to Washington last month.
Mr Rann also
has emphatically rejected any knowledge of the plan, saying it took
years of lobbying to get the British to clean up nuclear waste
deposited from nuclear bomb tests at Maralinga, in the state's
north-west.
"The thought of
saying: 'OK, now that it's been cleaned up, we're going to dump some
more there,' is sort of offensive," Mr Rann told Adelaide radio.
------------------->
ABC
Aust urged to take more responsibility for uranium waste
Friday, 09/06/2006
Australia has been told it needs to take more responsibility for the waste produced from exporting uranium.
About 40 per
cent of the world's uranium stocks can be found in Australia and it is
shipped to the US, Japan and Europe for use in nuclear power.
A founder of
Greenpeace but now one of the world's main supporters of the nuclear
industry, Dr Patrick Moore, says Australia should consider using
nuclear power.
But he says the nation must take more responsibility for dealing with nuclear waste.
"I think you wave it goodbye at the dock and wash your hands of any responsibility for what goes on in the world," he said.
"And in fact
Australia is part of the nuclear energy, you're supplying a large
percentage of nuclear materials to the world and there are
reponsibilities involved there."
------------------->
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1681018.htm
Last Update: Friday, July 7, 2006. 10:07am (AEST)
Tollner wants debate on nuclear waste storage
The Northern
Territory Member for Solomon says he would like to see a discussion on
allowing Australia to store overseas nuclear waste, despite the fact
that the Prime Minister appears to have ruled out the idea.
Prime Minister John Howard says taking nuclear waste from overseas is not in the Government's plans.
Coalition backbencher Dave Tollner says Mr Howard is limiting the nuclear debate.
"I'm a bit
disappointed that the Prime Minister is now trying to limit the
discussion, but it would be a major step for Australia to take on the
world's nuclear waste," he said.
Mr Tollner says
the nuclear inquiry should include what ultimately happens to the
world's waste and Australia's part in storing it.
"My view is
that we should have the discussion, and we should have a pretty
thorough investigation into what happens with the world's nuclear
waste," he said.
"I think that's only fair as global citizens and as a country that exports 40 per cent of the world's uranium."
The Federal
Labor Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, says the Prime Minister can
not be trusted on assurances that taking nuclear waste from overseas is
not in the Government's plans.
Mr Snowdon says taking overseas waste is on the Government's hidden agenda.
"We know we
can't trust the Prime Minister, I'm sure he'd be encouraging Tollner to
go out there and make these statements knowing that regardless of what
any inquiry says he's got the potential to another 180-degree turn and
say at some point down the line that we should take in high-level
nuclear waste from other countries," he said.
------------------->
We won't become world's nuclear dump: PM
7th July 2006, 7:14 WST
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=28&ContentID=650
Prime Minister
John Howard has ruled out taking nuclear waste from foreign countries,
quashing a politically damaging issue he discussed with the United
States earlier this year.
Mr Howard said
he did not want Australia used as a repository for other countries'
nuclear problems, sparking accusations from Labor that he is
interfering in the inquiry he ordered into nuclear energy.
An issues
paper, released by nuclear task force head Ziggy Switkowski on Tuesday,
said the inquiry would evaluate whether there was a business case for
Australia to take radioactive waste from overseas.
But the prime minister insisted: "We don't have that sort of thing in mind.
"I'm not going to have this country used as some kind of repository for other peoples' nuclear problems ... waste problems."
In May, Mr
Howard met US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman in Washington to discuss the
idea of nuclear leasing - which would see Australia take back nuclear
waste from countries to which it exported uranium.
The Americans had been considering the idea, but Mr Howard appeared to rule it out soon after the talks.
However,
critics remained sceptical and believed the prime minister was still
considering an international waste dump in the outback.
Deputy Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin accused Mr Howard of interfering in the inquiry.
"Labor drew
attention to the fact that this nuclear inquiry was considering the
importation of nuclear waste from foreign countries," she said.
"John Howard's ruled that out - even though he's previously said that this nuclear inquiry was apparently independent."
Ms Macklin said it was clear Mr Howard was directing the inquiry.
"We can see quite clearly today, it's not independent, it's going to be doing whatever John Howard tells them," she said.
Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison accused the prime minister of trickery.
She said he had
kicked off the nuclear debate by floating a range of radical proposals
only to pull back on the most contentious, leaving his original plan
intact.
"Telling Mr
Ziggy Switkowski not to bother inquiring into the option of making
Australia a global nuclear waste dump might be reassuring to some
Australians, but this still leaves the field wide open for nuclear
power and uranium enrichment, neither of which is in our interests to
pursue," Senator Allison said.
"The PM's manoeuvring and tactics are clear."
Australian
Conservation Foundation spokeswoman Leanne Minshull said Mr Howard must
specifically order the inquiry not to look at the possibility of
Australia taking radioactive waste from overseas.
"If the prime
minister is fair dinkum about not making Australia the world's nuclear
waste dump, then he should instruct his inquiry panel not to examine
the economic viability of importing high-level radioactive waste from
overseas," she said.
AAP
------------------->
* RUSSIA AS GLOBAL NUCLEAR DUMP
------------------->
Iran key to US nuclear deal with Russians
Correspondents in Washington
July 10, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19735327-601,00.html
THE US is to
reverse decades of bipartisan policy and open negotiations with Russia
on a civilian nuclear energy accord, but has made it clear any deal
would be conditional on Moscow's full cooperation in US attempts to
block Iran's atomic ambitions.
Reporting the
deal yesterday, The Washington Post said US President George W.Bush had
resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop
building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf.
But the paper
said US officials had shifted their view of Moscow's collaboration with
Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin had become a more
constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up its
aspirations for nuclear weapons.
Russia and
China have been a key impediment to efforts by the US to rally members
of the UN Security Council behind its plan to slap international
sanctions on Tehran and isolate the Islamic regime in order to force it
to halt uranium enrichment.
The issue is
expected to feature in negotiations between Mr Bush and Mr Putin at the
Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg next weekend.
The propsed
nuclear deal is seen as an attempt by the Bush administration to soften
Russia's recalcitrance ahead of the Bush-Putin talks and bring Moscow
firmly into the US camp.
Announcing the
change of course, White House spokesman Peter Watkins said: "We are
initiating negotiations on a peaceful nuclear co-operation agreement
with Russia. Such an agreement would benefit both the United States and
Russia, and indeed the world, by enabling advances in greater use of
nuclear energy." He did not say when the talks would formally begin,
but another official speaking on condition of anonymity said a formal
announcement could be expected at the G8 summit.
The White House
was adamant in linking the deal to Russia's approach to Iran and its
readiness to co-operate with the Bush administration in halting what it
sees as Iran's secret nuclear weapons program.
"We have made
clear to Russia that for an agreement on peaceful nuclear co-operation
with the United States to go forward, we will need Russia's active
co-operation in blocking Iran's attempts to obtain nuclear weapons," Mr
Watkins said.
"Our policy on assistance toIran's nuclear program has not changed."
In a reversal
of decades of bipartisan policy, the Bush administration would allow
extensive US civilian nuclear co-operation with Russia. The move could
be worth billions of dollars to Russia, clearing the way for it to
import and store thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from
US-supplied reactors around the world -- a lucrative business so far
blocked by Washington.
The Post said
the deal would be critical to Mr Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear
energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place
tosend the used radioactive material.
Administration
officials confirmed the President's decision to the paper at the
weekend only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts
privy to the situation.
Analysts said
Mr Bush's decision marked a milestone in US-Russian relations, despite
tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbours.
"It signals
that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're
someone we can try to work with on Iran," Rose Gottemoeller, a former
Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now
directs the Carnegie Moscow Centre, told the Post.
"It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before."
The paper said
that since Russia was already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once
drafted, presumably would conform to the US Atomic Energy Act and
therefore would not require congressional approval.
Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.
The US has
civilian nuclear co-operation agreements with the European Atomic
Energy Agency, as well as China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries.
Mr Bush
recently sealed an agreement with India, but it requires congressional
approval because of India's unsanctioned weapons program.
Russia has
sought such an agreement with the US since the 1990s, in an attempt to
use its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel.
Estimating that
it could make as much as $US20billion from such a deal, Russia enacted
a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing
of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90per cent opposition in public
opinion polls.
AFP, Reuters
------------------->
* NUCLEAR DESALINATION IN AUSTRALIA
------------------->
DOWNER PUSHES FOR SA NUCLEAR PLANT
By MARK KENNY
03jun06
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19346701%5E910,00.html
SOUTH Australia
should consider building a nuclear power station to run a desalination
plant that could supply half of Adelaide's water, Foreign Affairs
Minister Alexander Downer said yesterday.
In a speech in Adelaide to
the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Mr Downer said a
nuclear-powered desalination plant could curb demand on River Murray
water by 75 per cent.
In what was
likely to be seen as a new front in the campaign for a domestic nuclear
industry, Mr Downer said nuclear technologies should be considered in
terms of their capacity to limit emissions. "It (assessment) should
include the potential for complementary processes such as
desalination," Mr Downer said.
He said that
coupling a nuclear power station with a desalination plant, in places
such as SA that faced power and water shortages, would make the idea
very attractive.
"For example,
it may be possible to build a nuclear power plant in SA supplying 1000
megawatts an hour of electricity and 75 gigalitres of water at a cost
in the order of $2.5 to $3 billion," he told the conference.
That, he said,
would equate to about half of Adelaide's current water needs and could
reduce the call on River Murray water by nearly 75 per cent.
Mr Downer endorsed the call from Prime Minister John Howard two weeks ago to have a full-blooded debate on the nuclear industry.
"We must be
prepared to take a dispassionate look at what nuclear power could bring
to Australia's energy mix and the downsides, if any," he said.
Desalination
plants were used in some parts in the world to provide drinking water
but the process required large amounts of electricity.
The NSW
Government this year mothballed plans for a desalination plant amid
community outcry and criticism from experts on the costs.
Mr Downer, however, believed those problems could be overcome by linking the desalination plant to a nuclear power station.
"Such a project
would have two enormous environmental advantages - large-scale
electricity supply with no carbon dioxide emissions and keeping much
needed water in the Murray," he said.
Mr Howard
re-ignited the debate about nuclear power, calling for all aspects to
be on the table. He said a reassessment was needed because of the
realities of climate change and advances in the safety of nuclear power
generation.
The debate,
however, quickly became bogged down on the question of where a nuclear
facility would be located, with community resistance remaining strong.
Mr Downer said fears of nuclear accidents, leading to radiation leaks, often were not based on fact.
He said while
there was no safe way of producing electricity, accidents such as Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl would not happen today. "The Chernobyl
reactor would never have been licensed in the West - a similar accident
is not physically possible with a modern reactor," he said.
A recent report
by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation found
nuclear power would be economic in Australia.
The Australian
Conservation Foundation, however, said it was too expensive and too
dangerous to be seriously considered as a response to climate change.
The ALP was set
to remove limitations on the number of uranium mines but remained
firmly opposed to a domestic nuclear industry.
------------------->
Nuclear power push for desalination plant
Samantha Maiden and Joseph Kerr
June 03, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19345915-601,00.html
AUSTRALIA should tackle a shortage of power and water by embracing nuclear power plants that also desalinate water.
As John Howard
prepares to announce an inquiry into nuclear energy, Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer argued yesterday for building desalination facilities
alongside nuclear power plants.
The call came
as academic and former Labor prime ministerial adviser Ross Garnaut
suggested China's demand for energy meant all greenhouse gas
emission-friendly technologies, including nuclear, would have to be
supported.
"Developments
using coal are going to be very important in the Chinese future. The
main constraint on that will be what I would see as the inevitable,
eventual place of China in effective global greenhouse regimes. The
alternative to that - greenhouse anarchy on a global scale - doesn't
bear thinking about," Professor Garnaut said.
Mr Downer,
warning that the threat of climate change would force Australia to
consider new technologies, has predicted that one desalination plant
powered by nuclear energy could deliver half of South Australia's water
requirements and replace three-quarters of the water currently
delivered by the Murray River.
"Such a project
would have two enormous environmental advantages, large-scale
electricity supply with no CO2 emissions, and keeping much-needed water
in the Murray," he said yesterday.
"I believe this is an idea we cannot afford to dismiss, and certainly not on ideological grounds. It deserves serious study."
The NSW
Government still keeps plans for a desalination plant on the books for
Sydney although it was scrapped after a range of protests.
Then NSW
premier Bob Carr also raised the need to consider nuclear energy as a
means to supply clear electricity until renewable energy sources
improved.
Western
Australia has announced plans for a desalination plant but is
implacably opposed to nuclear power as well as uranium mining.
In his speech
to the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Mr Downer predicted the
post-Kyoto reality was that the world needed to look to new technology
to tackle climate change and allow China and India to pursue continued
economic growth.
Dismissing "the
conventional view" that nuclear power was too expensive, Mr Downer said
Australia should examine the potential for complementary processes such
as desalination.
"This could
make nuclear very attractive in areas facing both power and water
shortages," he said. "For example, it may be possible to build a
nuclear plant in South Australia, supplying 1000 megawatts an hour of
electricity and 75 gigalitres a year of water, at a cost in the order
of 2.5 to three billion dollars.
------------------->
* GEOTHERMAL ENERGY FOR ROXBY DOWNS?
------------------->
The Australian
BHP Billiton plan for steam power
Andrew Trounson
June 16, 2006
STEAM from water heated by radioactive granite beneath the Australian
outback will power the expansion of the nation's biggest uranium mine
under a plan being considered by resources giant BHP Billiton.
The power plant would be built 400km north of the remote Olympic Dam
mine South Australia.
The proposal raises the prospect of Olympic Dam, owned by BHP, using
natural underground radiation to expand production of radioactive
uranium for reactors in Russia.
As the federal Government pursues its inquiry into nuclear power,
renewable energy company Pacific Hydro said reservoirs of steaming
hot water in the Great Artesian Basin had the potential to supply up
to a quarter of the east coast's power needs while reducing the
country's greenhouse gas emissions.
BHP is considering the $1 billion power project from Pacific Hydro,
which believes it could have a greenhouse gas emission-free,
400-megawatt plant up and running within three or four years.
That would be big enough to meet all BHP's expanded power needs,
including a desalination plant in Whyalla. "We are talking about a
resource here of national significance," Pacific Hydro director Ian
Court told The Australian.
The project would also need some government support to make it
competitive with coal and natural gas, which incur no penalty for the
greenhouse gases they create.
Pacific Hydro has geothermal exploration permits covering 9000sqkm of
ground in northeastern South Australia that Mr Court said was the
"sweet spot" of the Great Artesian Basin for accessible geothermally
heated water.
Pacific Hydro is proposing to drill wells 2km underground to tap into
water heated to about 130C.
------------------->
* MARALINGA HEALTH STUDY
------------------->
A lifelong battle with Maralinga's sick legacy
Elise Kinsella
June 29, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-lifelong-battle-with-maralingas-sick-legacy/2006/06/28/1151174268808.html
WHEN the
British military was conducting nuclear tests in South Australia in the
1950s, Ric Johnstone was an air force motor mechanic employed to
recover and assess vehicles exposed to the blasts.
Mr Johnstone
became ill while working at the Maralinga blast site. He reported his
nausea and vomiting to doctors and was told he had probably eaten some
badly prepared food.
Three months
later, Mr Johnstone's tour of duty ended. Still ill, he reported to
medics at his base in Laverton. This time he was diagnosed with
radiation poisoning, and hospitalised.
Mr Johnstone,
now president of the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, has ever
since suffered from a range of health problems including heart disease
and calcified tendons.
He has a blood
disorder doctors once thought was leukaemia but now believe is a
condition they know little about, and regularly has skin cancers
removed.
"Every six months I have to go and have pieces cut out of me. I am slowly being chopped away," he said.
Mr Johnstone is
not eligible for the health-care assistance the Government has
announced for those who were involved in nuclear testing because he
does not have cancer, although he can claim on his skin cancers.
"Lots of
survivors are ill with problems that are not cancer. There are lots of
veterans with blood disorders and other diseases that might not have
killed them but has made them very ill," he said.
Mr Johnstone
said his family had also been affected, and he blamed the stress of his
many illnesses for the breakdown of his marriage. His two sons were
both born with minor defects.
Mr Johnstone said those with cancer have had to wait too long for help.
He wants
servicemen who were involved in nuclear testing, and their widows and
children, to receive the same compensation under the Veterans'
Entitlements Act as servicemen who served overseas.
------------------->
Free cancer care for Maralinga vets
June 28, 2006 - 3:09PM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/free-cancer-care-for-maralinga-vets/2006/06/28/1151174253773.html
All surviving
Australians who took part in British nuclear tests in Australia between
1952 and 1963 will be eligible for free cancer treatment under a policy
announced today by the federal government.
The news
follows the release of the results of a seven-year study into the link
between the tests and the incidents of cancer in those who took part.
The study found
that there was no connection between exposure to radiation in the tests
and the rate of cancer in those who took part.
Veterans
Affairs Minister Bruce Billson said the study had found that the rate
of certain cancers among the test participants was higher than in the
general population.
"(But) it did not find any link between the increase in cancer rates and exposure to radiation," Mr Billson said.
"Despite the
lack of association between cancer rates and radiation exposure, the
Government has decided that it would be appropriate to provide health
cover for nuclear test participants who have any form of cancer."
Some 16,000
Australians participated in the tests conducted at Emu Field and
Maralinga in South Australia and at the Monte Bello Islands off the
West Australian coast.
Of those, more
than 11,000 participated in the health study which began in 1999. Since
the study began half of the participants have died.
------------------->
Last Update: Thursday, June 29, 2006. 7:00am (AEST)
Radiation exposure findings disputed
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1674260.htm
A former Army
Major has questioned the findings of a study which says there is no
link between the high cancer rates among those who took part in British
nuclear tests in Australia in the 1950s - and their exposure to
radiation.
The Federal
Government commissioned study released yesterday found that while those
who took part in the nuclear tests had higher rates of certain cancers,
it was not linked to their exposure to radiation.
Veterans
Affairs Minister Bruce Billson says despite there being no connection,
there will be free cancer treatment for those who took part.
But former Army
Major Alan Batchelor who was at the nuclear test site, and took part in
the study, claims the findings are flawed and there is a link.
He says information in the study showing extremely high radiation levels among veterans are ignored in the findings.
"You will find that the levels are about 200 times out," he said.
"I've taken
these discrepancies to both Ministers Nelson and Billson and I've
spoken to the study about them but nobody seems to have taken any
notice."
The RSL has
also expressed doubts about the study but has welcomed the Government's
offer of free health care for cancer sufferers involved in the atomic
testing.
The Veterans Affairs Minister is yet to respond to the latest claims.
------------------->
Helping hand, 50 years on
Carolyn Webb
June 29, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/helping-hand-50-years-on/2006/06/28/1151174269491.html
AUSTRALIAN participants in British nuclear tests will be entitled to free health care.
At a cost to
the taxpayer of $4 million a year, those who took part in the tests can
obtain free screening for cancer through the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Those who have cancer can receive free treatment.
The Veterans
Affairs Minister, Bruce Billson, announced the scheme yesterday at the
RSL's 91st state conference at Caulfield racecourse in Victoria.
Mr Billson
released a study of 11,000 participants in the nuclear tests in the
Australian outback between 1952 and 1963. About 5000 of the 11,000
study participants have died.
The seven-year
study found test participants had a higher rate of some cancers than
the general population, but did not find a link between this increase
and exposure to radiation.
However, Mr
Billson said the Government "wanted to respond positively" and the
health plan was appropriate given decades of veterans' concerns.
The RSL's
national president, Bill Crews, said he was pleased participants in the
tests were being offered "appropriate health care for any cancers,
irrespective of whether [the cancers] are related to the tests or not".
But he
criticised governments for taking more than 50 years to act. "Of
course, it is of great concern that it does take such a long time,
firstly to recognise there might be problem and then to do something
about it," he said.
"The offer of
health cover in the first instance is quite a critical offer because
many people desperately need help. This will save them considerable
expense in seeking help where they do have identifiable cancers,
irrespective of whether those cancers relate to radiation exposure or
not."
Mr Billson said
the Government expected the cost of the $4 million-a-year health-care
scheme to rise as nuclear test victims aged and became more susceptible
to illness.
Asked whether
the plan was too little, too late, Mr Billson said the delays were
"concerning", but it had been important to get the study righ
------------------->
(RSL role has always been disgraceful, refusing to acknowledge or support Maralinga veterans. JG)
RSL applauds cancer screening for bomb testers
Carolyn Webb
June 29, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rsl-applauds-cancer-screening-for-bomb-testers/2006/06/28/1151174268797.html
THE RSL has
praised a program offering free cancer screening and treatment for
Australians involved in British nuclear testing in the outback in the
1950s and '60s.
Participants
can get free cancer screening through the Department of Veterans
Affairs, at an expected cost of $4 million a year. Those found to have
cancer can get free treatment.
Veterans
Affairs Minister Bruce Billson announced the scheme yesterday at the
RSL's 91st state conference at Caulfield Racecourse.
He also released a study of 11,000 people involved in Britain's nuclear tests in the Australian outback.
The tests were
carried out from 1952 to 1963 at Emu Field and Maralinga in South
Australia and the Monte Bello islands off Western Australia. The
seven-year study found the test participants had a higher rate of some
cancers than in the general population, but did not find a link between
this increase and exposure to radiation.
Mr Billson said
that despite this, the Government "wanted to respond positively" and
the health plan was appropriate given veterans' concerns.
The initiative applied equally to defence personnel, public servants and civilian contractors.
RSL national
president Bill Crews said he was pleased that those involved in the
tests were "now being offered appropriate health care for any cancers,
irrespective of whether they are related to the tests or not".
But he was critical that it had taken more than 50 years before any government had acted.
"It is of great
concern that it does take such long time, firstly to recognise there
might be problem, and then to do something about it," he said.
Mr Crews said
there was already provision for test-victim compensation under the
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
"But the offer
of health cover in the first instance is quite a critical offer,
because many people desperately need help and this will save them
considerable expense in seeking help where they do have identifiable
cancers, irrespective of whether those cancers relate to radiation
exposure or not," he said.
Mr Billson said
the Government anticipated the annual cost of the scheme would be "in
the order of a bit over $4 million", but this figure was likely to rise
as victims aged and were more susceptible to illness.
Asked whether
the plan was too little too late, given that 5000 of the 11,000 study
participants had died, Mr Billson said the delays were "concerning" but
the study was important.
"That process
has taken some time — to validate the scientific information, then
understand the link between the radiation exposure and the health
consequences," he said.
"This is a
clearing house of all we know. This is the most contemporary,
up-to-date scientific and medical information we have available."
------------------->
* GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
------------------->
GNEP: not quite ripe
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=76&storyCode=2038013
Nuclear Engineering International
07 August 2006
As with most
new programmes, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was big on vision
and short on specifics. Now more information is coming out, but the
details and the vision do not always add up. By Ivan Oelrich
The US
administration’s proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) has
been something of a moving target. When first announced, GNEP was cast
as a bold new approach toward the global nuclear economy, aimed at
attacking the dangers of proliferation and significantly reducing the
nuclear waste problem at the same time (see GNEP: the right way
forward? at www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2036516). The story
presented to the US Congress is decidedly domestic, focusing almost
entirely on a way to stretch the capacity of Yucca Mountain.
The objectives
of GNEP are sound, going a long way toward fulfilling International
Atomic Energy Agency director general Mohamed ElBaradei’s proposal for
an internationalised nuclear fuel regime. But the administration’s
actions toward that goal have been limited to an offer of 17t of highly
enriched uranium to be downblended for reactor fuel, enough to keep one
large reactor operating for 15-20 years, or a couple of months of US
consumption.
At the same
time, Congress is searching for politically plausible alternatives to
Yucca Mountain. Last year’s Department of Energy (DoE) appropriation
required the department to provide a report to Congress outlining its
plan for recycling. This important document, the DoE Spent Nuclear Fuel
Recycling Program Plan, was recently delivered. As directed by
Congress, the focus is on the recycling technology, not on the larger
GNEP. Even so, it is surprising how the report concentrates on
management of domestic nuclear waste with barely a mention of the
international responsibilities created by GNEP.
The current
proposal is to take spent nuclear fuel from light water reactors,
separate the fission products, the uranium, and the plutonium along
with all other transuranics. The fission products will go eventually to
a geologic repository, which by default must mean Yucca Mountain. The
uranium is the huge bulk of the fuel by weight and volume but is only
slightly radioactive and so presents a less challenging disposal job.
The plutonium and other transuranics would be fabricated into new fuel
for a fleet of yet-to-be-built fast neutron reactors. The fast neutron
reactor fuel would be continually recycled until all the transuranics
are consumed and rendered into fission products. Those fission products
would then be disposed of in a geologic repository.
Debate in the
Congress demonstrates that some of GNEP’s supporters believe that
plutonium breeding and the consequent stretching of the world’s uranium
supplies is one of its major assets. The DoE strongly downplays this,
excluding it from the current technology plan and leaving it as a
possible option for the long term.
There are two
almost independent bases of support for GNEP in the Congress. Nuclear
power supporters seem to believe it is an important advance in nuclear
power technology and see it as a way of jump-starting America’s near
moribund nuclear research and development community. Even nuclear
skeptics see it as political cover that provides some protection from
painful choices on the unpopular programme at Yucca Mountain.
Few are willing
to argue that Yucca Mountain is the ideal long-term geologic waste
repository. It was picked, in part – and there can be much debate about
how large a part – because of political expediency. At the time of the
decision, Nevada had a much smaller population and was politically
weak. Since then, the population of Las Vegas has exploded and Senator
Harry Reid of Nevada is the Minority Leader in Congress. Whatever the
fate of Yucca Mountain, it continues to be an ugly political battle
that no-one wants to repeat. Thus, a few look to recycling as an
alternative to Yucca while most supporters of recycling look at it as a
way to substantially increase the loading of Yucca while avoiding
having to decide on a second repository site during any current
politician’s lifetime.
The effects of
reprocessing on waste storage are more complex than the DoE public
information suggests. The GNEP website boasts that reprocessing will
substantially reduce the volume of radioactive waste. While this is
true, volume is easily the least relevant measure of the nuclear waste
problem. For example, the great majority of the waste coming out of a
nuclear reactor is uranium-238, which, with a five billion year half
life, is not particularly radioactive. What is relevant is the total
radioactivity, the half lives of the radioactive components, the
geologically mobile radioactivity, and the heat generation.
The greatest
source of radioactivity for recently-removed fuel rods is the fission
products. These are unavoidable. All fuel cycles will produce about the
same fission products for a given amount of electric energy produced.
In some fuel cycles the fission products will come from uranium-235 and
in others from plutonium-239, but there will be only small differences
between the mixtures of fission products.
In fuel from
the once through fuel cycle, longer-term radioactivity and the heat
production after the first several decades are dominated by a few
transuranic isotopes, such as plutonium and americium. With fully
recycled fuel, these elements would, indeed, be substantially reduced.
And it is heat production, not volume, that limits the amount of waste
that can be put into Yucca Mountain. Since recycling would reduce
substantially the heat production, it would allow a much tighter
packing of fission products. However, the long-term exposure danger due
to water transport to the surface comes primarily from fission
products, particularly isotopes of iodine and technetium, not from the
transuranics. Thus, removing the heat producers and packing more
fission products in could actually increase the ultimate surface
radiation exposure from fission products. Note, of course, that this
does not increase total surface exposure, it simply concentrates the
surface exposure at one site, which may be considered an advantage by
someone living anywhere else.
Part of this
proposal calls for the selected site to provide ‘process storage’. That
is, fuel expected to be reprocessed at the site will be moved from the
reactor site and stored at the reprocessing site until needed.
Considering that the fuel will have to be packaged securely enough to
be transported to the site and then stored potentially many years, the
fuel will have to be in something equivalent to dry casks. Thus, even
if no fuel is ever reprocessed, the plan will have produced an
intermediate term interim above-ground storage site that will provide
an alternative to Yucca.
One might hope
that the DoE would be backing up its recycling proposal with a detailed
economic analysis, but only the sketchiest assertions about costs have
been made thus far. The report to Congress says that one of the goals
of the R&D programme is to make recycling ‘economic’ but little
else. The value of recovered fuel will not make recycling worthwhile
for the many decades that cheap uranium supplies are expected to last.
Moreover, fast neutron burner reactors will inevitably be more
expensive than their thermal cousins. Cheaper electricity is not the
justification for recycling. The cost of operating reprocessing
facilities and fast neutron reactors will be reflected in their
management, ownership, and control. Without economic incentives,
commercial utilities will not choose to operate fast reactors. Various
models are possible: government-owned plants, whether government or
contractor operated; or commercial plants operating with large
government subsidies to cover the difference between the cost of
electricity and its market price.
Without a cost
advantage, recycling is being sold primarily as waste management. The
comparison is with a geologic repository and, with the ever-escalating
costs estimates of Yucca Mountain, recycling should look attractive. It
is important to keep in mind, however, that the amount spent on Yucca
Mountain is far in excess of original estimates. Much of the increased
cost came about because of changes mandated through various technical
and environmental reviews. Reprocessing has not yet been subject to
those sorts of reviews with their resulting cost increases. Tomorrow’s
blueprint will almost always seem cheaper when compared to today’s real
world engineering problems.
The political
calculus is somewhat analogous to the economic analysis. To an extent,
reprocessing is an attempt to escape the political pain of finding a
site for a second geologic repository. But this simply trades the
well-know political problems of Yucca Mountain for the thus far
hypothetical, but most likely equally intense, local political
resistance that can be expected from trying to site more than a dozen
fast neutron reactors, a couple of reprocessing centres, and the
transportation of spent fuel.
The political
debate has not yet come to grips with the conundrum that the
international responsibilities implied by the GNEP are in conflict with
the waste reduction goals. Recycling can reduce nuclear waste but if
the rest of the world is shipping additional waste to the USA, any gain
could be easily wiped out – and bringing foreign radioactive waste into
the country would be a political challenge.
GNEP was
covered in considerable detail at the DoE FY2007 budget rollout that
included a $250 million request for reprocessing technology development
and demonstration planning. At the time of writing (mid-June) the
Energy and Water Bill has been marked up in the House of
Representatives and $100 million was cut from the request directly
while another $30 million was diverted to other energy programmes in a
second cut that left only $120 million. Members of the house expressed
some skepticism about the DoE’s ability to efficiently manage the
programme. Senate support is not clear at this moment but certain key
Senators are strong supporters. There may be a wide gap between the
Senate and House positions that will have to be resolved in a
conference committee.
CONCERNING PROLIFERATION
The other half
of the GNEP proposal is its proliferation advantages. The
anti-proliferation arguments contain two important logical fallacies.
First, the overall GNEP proposal calls for current nuclear fuel
producers to become the world’s exclusive nuclear fuel producers. That
means that countries that cannot now enrich uranium would be denied
that capability in the future because enrichment can be used to produce
weapons grade uranium. In a reactor, nuclear fuel containing
uranium-238 produces plutonium, which can also be used in nuclear
weapons. Therefore, fuel producers would not only provide fuel for
consumer nations but would take back the used fuel for reprocessing.
The fallacy is not just that the fuel has to be taken back – it could
be placed in an appropriate geological repository in the user country –
but that it has to be taken back for reprocessing. Whether the fuel is
reprocessed, put into a geological repository, or launched to the moon,
once it is out of the hands of the non-nuclear weapons state, the
anti-proliferation goal has been met. The GNEP proposal tries to make
an essential logical connection between reprocessing and
non-proliferation when, in fact, there is little or none.
Second, the
GNEP proposal states that the envisioned separation technologies are
‘proliferation resistant’. (The DoE is very careful not to claim that
anything is ‘proliferation proof’.) There have been various proposals
for new separation techniques, for example, Urex, Urex+, UREX+1, and
now Urex+1a. As the names imply, they are variations on a theme. In the
longer term, other techniques, such as pyroprocessing might become
available on an industrial scale. When GNEP proponents say that these
techniques are ‘proliferation resistant’, they mean they are when
compared to the Purex process. Purex was developed during the Manhattan
project specifically to provide plutonium for the first atomic bombs.
The claim is, then, that Urex variants are less proliferation prone
than a process that was specifically designed for bomb manufacture, a
very low hurdle indeed. But none of these processes is more
proliferation resistant that what we are planning to do now, that is,
disposal of sealed, intact fuel rods in a geologic repository.
Part of the
alleged proliferation resistance comes about because some variations on
Purex – for example Urex+ – intentionally leave radioactive
contaminants in the plutonium to make them more difficult to steal and
handle if stolen. Frank von Hippel and Jungmin Kang at Princeton
University have calculated the radiation doses from Urex+ and
pyroprocessed fuel and found them falling short of meeting the
standards of ‘self protection’. Moreover, even if impurities are
intentionally left in the plutonium, nothing prevents a thief from
using a simplified version of the 60-year-old Purex technology to get
pure plutonium out. Some approaches, such as leaving in chemically
similar radioactive rare earth elements make self protection more
robust but substantially increase the final fuel fabrication costs.
Finally, as pointed out by Richard Garwin recently in Congressional
testimony, spent fuel from a nuclear reactor is about 1% plutonium,
while Urex+ fuel would be more than 90%, so a thief would need to steal
only about 9kg of Urex+ fuel to get an 8kg critical mass of plutonium
but would have to steal approximately 800kg of lethally radioactive
spent fuel to get a critical mass.
The DoE
proposal will restart plutonium reprocessing in the USA after a
three-decade hiatus. Plutonium reprocessing was tried and abandoned in
the country because it was uneconomic and increased the global
availability of plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons. It has
been US government policy to set an example against commercial
reprocessing because of the nuclear weapons proliferation danger. The
example has not proved persuasive in all cases, obviously. Some other
countries, at great expense, continue reprocessing. The USA kept, of
course, a programme for production of military plutonium, but even that
has now ceased.
The track
record on reprocessing is not good: the one commercial plant in the
USA, in West Valley, New York, took six years to reprocess one year’s
worth of reactor waste and was shut down as uneconomic, leaving behind
a multi-billion dollar environmental cleanup bill; Japan has just
opened a new reprocessing facility in Rokkasho that, at $20 billion, is
about three times more expensive than originally budgeted; the Thorp
facility in Britain was shut down last year after a huge leak; and the
subsidised French programme continues to produce separated plutonium
faster than commercial reactor operators are willing to accept it,
resulting in ever-increasing stockpiles.
If plutonium
and transuranic reprocessing and recycling are not the answer, then
what is? Whether or not Yucca opens, there will be more waste that has
to be handled somehow because Yucca’s capacity will be reached long
before any recycling system is ready. Geologic storage will probably
turn out to be cheaper, more proliferation resistant, and, as
politically painful as a second repository would be, less painful than
the recycling alternative. And there is no rush. We don’t have to force
ourselves into early decisions about immature technologies. Even if
reprocessing moves forward, waste will have to be placed in dry casks
for transport. The consensus is that dry cast storage is stable for at
least a century. Interim – but many decades long – storage of waste
allows time for a research programme without a forced demonstration
schedule, delays the capital costs, and allows time for the decay of
important fission products.
Does this mean
that GNEP dies? Not at all. The goals of GNEP can still be met. An
international enriched fuel bank could be supplied by several nations
across the political spectrum. If the bank were heavily subsidised so
that enrichment is effectively sold at below cost, then any nation
pursuing independent enrichment capability could be assumed to be up to
no good. An international market in spent fuel disposal, operating
under stringent international safety and containment standards, would
more likely result in regional geologic repositories than regional
burner reactor centres. But geologic storage under international
observation in fuel supplier nations would solve the proliferation
problem as well as recycling in the supplier nations. Plutonium
recycling needs GNEP, but GNEP does not need plutonium reprocessing.
Author Info:
Ivan Oelrich is a member of the Federation of American Scientists, 1717
K St., NW, Suite 209, Washington, DC 20036, USA
------------------->
FYI Number 70 : May 24 , 2006
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/070.html
House Appropriations Committee Report Language: GNEP
There is
extensive - and quite critical - language in the FY 2007 report of the
House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee
regarding the Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
initiative. Chairman David Hobson (R-OH), Ranking Minority Member Peter
Visclosky (D-IN), and their colleagues are quite supportive of nuclear
energy, and favor the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, but fault the
Department of Energy's approach to GNEP and the Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste repository.
The GNEP
initiative has attracted considerable attention, with authorization and
appropriations hearings in the House and Senate, and public appearances
by senior DOE officials. While many Members are supportive of nuclear
energy, there is much less consensus that GNEP is the correct approach.
Moving forward with this proposal will require significant funding, and
House appropriators are less than completely happy about GNEP, with
Hobson saying he has "serious policy, technical, and financial
reservations" about it. DOE officials have estimated that GNEP could
cost $3 - $6 billion in the first five years. The Administration
requested $250 million for GNEP for FY 2007; House appropriators cut
this amount in H.R. 5427 by $96 million. Senate appropriators are
likely to take a different course since Pete Domenici (R-NM), a strong
supporter of nuclear energy, has said he will fully fund GNEP, and look
for additional money for the initiative.
Selections from
House Report 109-474 follow outlining the subcommittee's views. In the
interest of space, not all language is included on topics such as
University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance, and Nuclear
Energy Research and Development (including an extensive discussion of
the UREX+ process demonstration.) See http://thomas.loc.gov/, and
request House Committee report 109-174 in "Committee Reports" to view
this language.
"The Department
requests $250,000,000 for a major new initiative called the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This initiative would address the
challenges of spent fuel disposal, nuclear nonproliferation, and growth
in nuclear energy through the application of advanced technologies to
recycle spent nuclear fuel. The Committee strongly endorses the concept
of recycling spent nuclear fuel. Continuing the once-through fuel cycle
not only would waste much of the energy content of spent fuel and leave
an environmental legacy of radioactive materials, some of them useable
in nuclear weapons, but will require the construction of eight more
Yucca-sized repositories by the end of the century (assuming nuclear
energy continues to supply twenty percent of the nation's electricity
needs).
"However, the
Committee has serious reservations about GNEP as proposed by the
Administration. The overriding concern is simply that the Department of
Energy has failed to provide sufficient detailed information to enable
Congress to understand fully all aspects of this initiative, including
the cost, schedule, technology development plan, and waste streams from
GNEP. GNEP in some ways addresses Congressional direction with respect
to Integrated Spent Fuel Recycling given in the Statement of Managers
accompanying the Conference Report on Energy and Water Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 2006, but the GNEP proposal differs in several
significant aspects from what the conferees directed last year, and the
GNEP proposal falls short in a number of critical areas:
"Integration of
Recycling Facilities - Congress provided funding in fiscal year 2006
for DOE to begin the competitive selection of sites willing to host
integrated spent fuel recycling facilities. Integration is critical to
address nonproliferation and security concerns, keeping sensitive
materials and sensitive facilities within a secure perimeter and
minimizing offsite transportation of special nuclear materials.
Unfortunately, the Department has ignored this key concept of
integration. The Request for Expressions of Interest for GNEP
(solicitation DE-RP07-06ID14760) only mentions three facilities: one
for the separation of usable elements from waste products in spent
fuel, one for the conversion of transuranics, and an advanced fuel
cycle facility. There is no mention of the requirement that these
facilities be integrated or co-located at a single site, nor (as is
detailed below) is there any mention of the need for interim storage as
part of an integrated recycling complex.
"Interim
Storage - In the Committee's view, any such integrated spent fuel
recycling facility must be capable of accumulating sufficient volumes
of spent fuel to provide efficient operation of the facility. A first
test of any site's willingness to host such a facility is its
willingness to receive into interim storage spent fuel in dry casks
that provide safe storage of spent fuel for 50 to 100 years or longer.
In this Committee's view, if any site refuses to provide interim
storage as needed to support the operation of an integrated recycling
facility, at whatever scale, then that site should be eliminated from
all further consideration under GNEP. As noted above, the Department
failed to include any requirement for interim storage in its Request
for Expressions of Interest for hosting GNEP facilities. Further, the
Department failed to include any language regarding interim storage in
its legislative proposal that was submitted to Congress on April 5,
2006.
"Resolution of
the spent fuel problem cannot wait for the many years required for the
GNEP to proceed through comprehensive planning, engineering
demonstration, NRC licensing of the recycling plant, any new reactor
types such as fast reactors, and each new recycled fuel type, and
ultimate operations. The credibility of the Administration's support
for the future of the nuclear power industry rests on its resolution of
the issues associated with taking custody of spent fuel and opening a
permanent geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste (Yucca
Mountain), as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. GNEP will not
be ready to begin large-scale recycling of commercial spent fuel until
the end of the next decade, and the Yucca Mountain repository will not
open until roughly the same time. Such delays are acceptable only if
accompanied by interim storage beginning this decade.
"Inclusion of
Fast Reactors - When Congress provided funding in fiscal year 2006 for
Integrated Spent Fuel Recycling, Congress understood integrated
recycling to involve four steps: an advanced separation technology such
as UREX+ that would not yield separated plutonium, fabrication of new
mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use in commercial light water power reactors
thereby recycling any plutonium containing product of UREX+,
vitrification of waste products, and interim storage of spent fuel to
support the recycling process. GNEP envisions a very different process,
using fast burner reactors to destroy more completely the plutonium and
other actinides in the spent fuel. While such an approach may be
desirable from a technical perspective, the inclusion of fast reactors
adds significant cost, time, and risk to the recycling effort. The
Department has failed to provide any comparison of the relative costs
and benefits of the two approaches to convince Congress, and the
public, that UREX+ coupled with fast reactors is the best approach to
recycling spent fuel.
"Linkage to
Yucca Mountain - Unfortunately, it appears that the Department has
decided to put its emphasis on GNEP and put Yucca Mountain on the back
burner. That choice is unacceptable to the Committee. The Yucca
Mountain repository is essential regardless of whether GNEP is
successful or the United States retains a policy of a once-through
nuclear fuel cycle, and the Committee fully supports proceeding to
construct and operate this repository. The latest schedule from the
Department of Energy has a license application for construction being
filed in fiscal year 2008, construction start three to four years later
and disposal of commercial spent fuel sometime near the end of the next
decade. This is a seven-year delay from the schedule just two years
ago. During the delay, the Department has estimated that it will incur
added costs of $500 million per year in liabilities to the nuclear
utilities for the Department's failure to begin accepting commercial
spent fuel. As noted above, this delay is acceptable only if
accompanied by centralized interim storage in the near term.
Furthermore, the Department has estimated that it will include an
additional $500 million per year in costs to protect and manage its own
wastes that are destined to be placed in Yucca Mountain. The Committee
is reluctant to embark on any new initiative that has the potential to
produce significant chemical and radioactive waste streams.
"Inadequate
Information on Waste Streams and Life Cycle Costs - The cost estimates
for construction and commissioning of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant
(WTP) have gone from $4.3 billion to over $11 billion in just three
years, and are still not yet well established. This plant is designed
to process the high-level radioactive waste derived from past
reprocessing activities. The Department has failed to produce a
complete accounting of the estimated volumes, composition, and
disposition of the waste streams that will be involved in GNEP. The
Department has also failed to produce even the most rudimentary
estimate of the life-cycle costs of GNEP. Before the Department can
expect the Congress to fund a major new initiative, the Department
should provide Congress with a complete and credible estimate of the
life-cycle costs of the program.
"Future of
Nuclear Energy - At present, 103 civilian light-water nuclear reactors
generate twenty percent of the nation's electricity. The generation
process produces no greenhouse gases, is carefully regulated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and rate payers pay into the Nuclear
Waste Fund for the permanent disposal of spent reactor fuel. However,
the current fleet of reactors are generally one-third to half way
through their expected operating lifetimes. To retain this component of
our domestic energy supply, even at the twenty percent level, the
United States will have to reach a consensus supporting the
construction of dozens of new nuclear reactors. Delays in opening the
Yucca Mountain repository cast a shadow over the future of nuclear
energy, as it is doubtful that the NRC will be able to license new
reactors without a clear disposal path for the spent fuel those
reactors will generate. Unfortunately, the timeline for
commercial-scale implementation of GNEP is too far off in the future to
assist with licensing new reactors in the next decade. The Department
has chosen, unwisely in this Committee's view, to seek legislation that
would eliminate the availability of disposal space in a permanent
repository as a consideration for NRC in licensing new reactors.
Aggressive development of the initial Yucca Mountain repository,
coupled with either expansion of Yucca's capacity or development of
additional repositories, would be a responsible solution to the waste
confidence question. The provision of centralized interim storage, so
that the Department could begin moving spent fuel away from commercial
reactor sites, would also be a responsible alternative. Attempting to
legislate away the waste confidence problem is not.
"The concept of
recycling spent nuclear fuel has real promise, with benefits both
domestically and internationally. However, the Committee recognizes
that implementation of advanced recycling on any significant scale is
at least a decade or more in the future. The Department has yet to
submit a compelling and complete justification for the $250,000,000
request for GNEP in fiscal year 2007. Therefore, the Committee supports
a more modest effort on GNEP, continued emphasis on Yucca Mountain, and
renewed emphasis on the provision of centralized interim storage.
Specific guidance on this issue is provided in the sections of the
report dealing with the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and with Nuclear
Waste Disposal."
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
American Institute of Physics
[email protected]
301-209-3095
------------------->
* DEPLETED URANIUM - ISRAEL
------------------->
Depleted uranium situation worsens
Posted by: "davey garland" [email protected] thunderelf
Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:47 am (PST)
www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=2507&blz=1
Depleted Uranium Situation Worsens Requiring Immediate Action
By President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert
states
Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD.
former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium project
July 26, 2006
The delivery of
at least 100 GBU 28 bunker busters bombs containing depleted uranium
warheads by the United States to Israel for use against targets in
Lebanon will result in additional radioactive and chemical toxic
contamination with consequent adverse health and environmental effects
throughout the Middle East. Israeli tank gunners are also using
depleted uranium tank rounds as photographs verify.
Today, U.S.,
British, and now Israeli military personnel are using illegal uranium
munitions - America's and England's own "dirty bombs" while U.S. Army,
U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, and British
Ministry of Defence officials deny that there are any adverse health
and environmental effects as a consequence of the manufacture, testing,
and/or use of uranium munitions, to avoid liability for the willful and
illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxic material - depleted uranium.
The use of
uranium weapons is absolutely unacceptable, and a crime against
humanity. Consequently, the citizens of the world and all governments
must force cessation of uranium weapons use. I must demand that Israel
now provide medical care to all DU casualties in Lebanon and clean up
all DU contamination.
U.S. and
British officials have arrogantly refused to comply with their own
regulations, orders and directives that require United States
Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and effective medical
care to "all" exposed individuals. Reference: Medical Management of
Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties, DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, Medical
Management of Army personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU)
Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Command 29 April 2004, and section 2-5
of U.S. Army Regulation 700-48. Israeli officials must not do so now.
They also
refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive Contamination as required by
Army Regulation - AR 700-48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated With
Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" (Headquarters, Department
Of The Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002) and U.S. Army Technical
Bulletin- TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling,
Storage, And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or
Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department Of The
Army, Washington, D.C., JULY 1996).
Specifically, section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation-AR 700-48 dated September 16, 2002 requires that:
(1) "Military personnel "identify, segregate, isolate, secure, and label all RCE" (radiologically contaminated equipment).
(2) "Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible."
(3)
"Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed of through
burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in place, or abandonment"
and
(4) "All
equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed,
packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released IAW Technical
Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48" (Note: Maximum exposure limits are
specified in Appendix F).
The previous
and current use of uranium weapons, the release of radioactive
components in destroyed U.S. and foreign military equipment and
releases of industrial, medical, research facility radioactive
materials have resulted in unacceptable exposures. Therefore,
decontamination must be completed, as required by U.S. Army Regulation
700-48 and should include releases of all radioactive materials
resulting from military operations.
The extent of
adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons
contamination is not limited to combat zones but includes facilities
and sites where uranium weapons were manufactured or tested including
Vieques, Puerto Rico; Colonie, New York; Concord, MA; Jefferson Proving
Grounds, Indiana; and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Therefore medical
care must be provided by the United States Department of Defense
officials to all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing,
and/or use of uranium munitions. Thorough environmental remediation
also must be completed without further delay.
I am amazed
that fifteen years after I was asked to clean up the initial DU mess
from Gulf War 1 and over ten years since I finished the depleted
uranium project, that United States Department of Defense officials and
others still attempt to justify uranium munitions use while ignoring
mandatory requirements.
I am dismayed
that Department of Defense and Department of Energy officials and
representatives continue personal attacks aimed to silence or discredit
those of us who are demanding that medical care be provided to all DU
casualties and that environmental remediation is completed in
compliance with U.S. Army Regulation 700-48. But beyond the ignored
mandatory actions, the willful dispersal of tons of solid radioactive
and chemically toxic waste in the form of uranium munitions is illegal
( http://www.traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf ) and
just does not even pass the common sense test and according to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, is a dirty bomb. DHS issued
"dirty bomb" response guidelines,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
, on January 3, 2006 for incidents within the United States but ignore DOD use of uranium weapons and existing DOD regulations.
These
guidelines specifically state that: "Characteristics of RDD and IND
Incidents: A radiological incident is defined as an event or series of
events, deliberate or accidental, leading to the release, or potential
release, into the environment of radioactive material in sufficient
quantity to warrant consideration of protective actions. Use of an RDD
or IND is an act of terror that produces a radiological incident."
Thus the use of uranium munitions is "an act or terror" as defined by DHS.
Finally,
continued compliance with the infamous March 1991 Los Alamos Memorandum
that was issued to ensure continued use of uranium munitions can not be
justified.
In conclusion:
the President of the United States - George W. Bush, the Prime Minister
of Great Britain - Tony Blair, and the Prime Minister of Israel - Ehud
Olmert must acknowledge and accept responsibility for willful use of
illegal uranium munitions - their own "dirty bombs" - resulting in
adverse health and environmental effects.
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert should order:
1. medical care for all casualties,
2. thorough environmental remediation,
3. immediate
cessation of retaliation against all of us who demand compliance with
medical care and environmental remediation requirements,
4. and stop the already illegal the use (UN finding) of depleted uranium munitions.
References- these references are copies of the actual regulations and orders and other pertinent official documents:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_3_ques.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_dtic_wakayama_Aug2002.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
http://cryptome.org/dhs010306.txt
Photo by David Silverman (Getty Images ) Image 71440735 http://editorial.gettyimages.com
Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD.
former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium project
July 26, 2006
------------------->
* GLOBAL NUCLEAR POWER DECLINE PREDICTED
------------------->
Why nuclear power is not the global cure-all
Mycle Schneider, Lutz Mez and Steve Thomas
Thursday, 27 July 2006
Canberra Times
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=yoursay&subclass=general&story_id=497564&category=Opinion&m=7&y=2006
NUCLEAR power
is back on the agenda. Media attention is remarkable. The G8 Summit has
just made it an issue. But what is behind the "nuclear revival"?
Surprisingly little, so far, as a brief analysis reveals.
Today worldwide
there are 442 operating nuclear reactors. Only 19 more than in 1989 and
two less than in 2002, they represent an installed capacity of
370,000MW. Nuclear power plants provide 16 per cent of the world's
commercial electricity (and not "16 per cent of the world's energy" as
Greg Hunt, parliamentary secretary to the Minister for the Environment
and Heritage, who should know better, wrote in The Australian on July
17). This represents the same 6 per cent share in commercial primary
energy as hydropower, which equally covers about 2 per cent of final
energy in the world.
In the European
Union nuclear power has declined steadily since 1989, when the number
of operating units reached an historic high with 172. There are now 147
reactors operating - 25 units less than 17 years ago. There are 31
countries with nuclear power plants, but the big six alone - the United
States, France, Japan, Germany, Russia and South Korea - produce
three-quarters of the world's nuclear electricity. Even in these
countries the role of nuclear power in the overall energy supply is
limited.
France, the
"most nuclear" country, generates 78 per cent of its electricity (not
of its energy, as Greg Hunt wrote) with nuclear power, yet this still
only provides 17.5 per cent of its final energy. Like most other
countries, France is highly dependent on fossil fuels, which provide
more than 70 per cent of final energy consumption. In the other big
five countries the nuclear contribution is not more than 7 per cent of
their final energy and in the US and Russia it is less than 4 per cent.
Globally the
International Atomic Energy Agency lists 27 reactors as "under
construction". However, 11 of these have been "listed" for between 18
to 30 years. The Indian expansion program is essentially limited to
small domestic-type reactors and there is little prospect that nuclear
power will provide significantly more than the current 2 per cent of
its electricity any time in the near future.
And China? The
country will have a maximum of 10,000MW installed by 2010, again
providing less than 2 per cent of the country's electricity. As to
figures of up to 40,000MW by 2020, they are nothing more than wild
speculation with little industrial credibility.
Lead times for
nuclear plants - the time from final investment decisions to grid
connection - are about 10 years. Many projects experience extreme
delays. The last nuclear reactor to be built in the US was under
construction for more than 23 years before it was finally connected to
the grid in 1996.
France has
decided to build a new plant, but the main reason is fear of a
competence gap. It is 15 years since the French began construction of a
reactor. Interest in nuclear related technical and higher education
options are decreasing. The effect is not as dramatic as in a country
like Germany, where in five years only two students took a full nuclear
option, but it is there. Maintaining competence has become a major
issue.
Finland is also
building a new reactor, the first one to be ordered in the European
Union outside France, since the 1980s. After one year of construction,
the project is already delayed by about a year.
Finland has had
the highest electricity consumption growth rate in the European Union,
mainly because of pricing policy and the large-scale introduction of
space heating. The country doubled per-capita consumption over the past
20 years to reach a level 60 per cent higher than Australia.
Existing
nuclear power plants are aging rapidly. The current average age of
operating reactors is roughly 22 years. Experience with longer
operating times is limited. Industry expectations of 40 years on
average seem highly optimistic. That aside, about 80 reactors will be
40 or older by 2015. An additional 200 units will be 40 by 2025. So
even if it was possible to double the current average operating age of
all reactors, their replacement at age 40 would mean a need to connect
a unit to the grid every 45 days until 2015 and one every 18 days
between 2015 and 2025!
Considering the
long lead times of nuclear power plants such a scheme is impossible. In
other words, either the average age of operating plants must be
significantly extended beyond 40 years, or the number of operating
units will decline. We expect the latter, a slow but steady decline,
where new units don't make up for the ones that are shut down.
In conclusion,
nuclear power plays a modest role in the international energy
situation. In sharp contradiction to numerous reports and media "hype",
the number of nuclear power reactors in the world is very likely to
decline. This decline will not be prevented even if some major plans
for additional capacity become reality.
Unfortunately,
the current focus on nuclear may prevent societies from massively
investing in energy conservation and efficiency and might actually
constitute a significant barrier to the implementation of necessary and
urgent greenhouse gas abatement strategies.
Mycle Schneider
is an international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in
Paris, France.Lutz Mez is the executive director of the Environmental
Policy Research Centre (FFU) of Freie Universitat Berlin, Germany.
Steve Thomas is senior researcher at the Public Service International
Research Unit at the University of Greenwich, England.
------------------->
* COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY - MORE STALLING
------------------->
ElBaradei Calls for Entry Into Force of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
IAEA Director General Opens CTBT Symposium
Staff Report
1 September 2006
IAEA Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei and Mr. Tibor Tóth, Executive
Secretary of the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test-Ban-Treaty Organization (CTBTO) at yesterday´s Symposium
"CTBTO: Synergies with Science", marking the Treaty´s 10-year
anniversary. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA)
Story Resources
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
Dr. ElBaradei's Opening Keynote: Audio :: Video
The
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a key to global
security, IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei remarked at the opening of a
two-day symposium marking the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the
Treaty.
Praising the
organization in setting up a comprehensive monitoring system for
verification, he said that the Treaty is "our best hope of stemming
nuclear proliferation". It was against this background that Dr.
ElBaradei expressed his disappointment that the Treaty was still not
formally in force.
"The CTBT is
key to a system of security we are trying to build. A system of
security that does not rely on nuclear weapons," Dr. ElBaradei told the
500-plus participants who gathered to mark the anniversary in Vienna.
"We either send a clear message that we want to see a world free from
nuclear weapons or we will continue to see a gradual erosion of the
kind of system we have tried to build since the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was adopted in the late
1960s."
The CTBT, which
bans all nuclear weapons testing, will not enter into force until it
has been ratified by all 44 States that are listed in the agreement.
Still missing are seven States (China, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia,
Iran, Israel and the United States) that have signed but not ratified,
and three States (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India and
Pakistan) that have yet to sign the CTBT. The Treaty was adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly and opened for signature in New York in
September 1996 when it was signed by 71 States, including the five
nuclear-weapon States. To date, it has 176 signatories and 135
ratifying States. (See Story Resources for related links).
Quoting the
preamble to the NPT which recalls the determination of all parties "to
seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear
weapons for all time...", Dr. ElBaradei cited the CTBT as the most
logical step after the NPT for the international community to "make
good on a desire to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons."
The slow pace
of the CTBT's entry into force is not an isolated phenomenon, noted Dr.
ElBaradei but rather it is "symptomatic of the slow progress with the
regard to movement toward disarmament." In this context, the IAEA Chief
noted the on-going work to achieve a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty
(FMTC). "These are instruments which should work in parallel," he
noted, "to prohibit both the quantitative and qualitative tools which
will enable countries to move and develop nuclear weapons."
In his closing
remarks, Dr. ElBaradei recalled that the CTBT has been described as
"the longest sought, hardest fought prize in the history of arms
control." The description served to underline how much the
international community "yearns" for the CTBT.
"We owe it to
ourselves, we owe it to humanity and we owe it to our people to see
that the CTBT comes into force as early as possible."
------------------->
* INDONESIA PLANS NUCLEAR POWER
------------------->
Is Darwin at risk from Indonesian
nuclear fall-out?
www.tai.org.au
6 June 2006
Media release - Australia Institute - <www.tai.org.au>
Plans by
Indonesia to build a nuclear power plant on Java could pose risks for
northern Australia, according to the Australia Institute.
The head of
Indonesia’s National Atomic Power Agency, Soedyartomo Soentono,
announced last month that investors from France, South Korea and Japan
have offered to fund the Rp35 trillion (US$3.8 billion) nuclear power
plant that Indonesia plans to build at the foot of Mt Muria on the
north coast of Central Java.
When plans
(subsequently shelved) to build at Mt Muria were first announced by the
Suharto Government in 1993, researchers using a global meteorological
model at the Australian National University found that “the lives of
thousands of Australians could be harmed” if a major accident at the
plant caused a release of radioactive gas during summer months.
Maps show that
at that time of the year prevailing winds would take only a few days to
carry a radioactive cloud across the Northern Territory, including
Darwin and Kakadu National Park, and the northwest of Western
Australia.
The Mt Muria
reactor would be located in an area subject to intense geological
instability, including earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. The planned
nuclear plant will be located on the coast to make use of sea water for
cooling.
According to
the Antara news agency, construction of the 4,000-MW plant is due to
start in 2010 and be completed in 2015. It is likely to be supplied
with uranium sourced from Australia.
“Although the
risks of a major accident are very low, a cloud of radiation blowing
over northern Australia would pose a severe danger to public safety and
would jeopardise the cattle industries over an enormous area”, said
Institute Executive Director Dr Clive Hamilton.
“The Federal
Government should initiate an inquiry into the possible impacts and
develop a contingency plan for such a situation.”
In 1994, the
Opposition science spokesman, Peter McGauran, called on the Labor
Government to pressure Jakarta to cancel plans to build nuclear
reactors citing concerns over public safety. Opposition members also
called on the Government to develop an action plan to deal with a
nuclear accident in Java.
------------------->
Safety concerns over Java nuclear reactor
ABC RN
PM - Wednesday, 31 May , 2006 18:32:49
Reporter: Jennifer Macey
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1652222.htm
MARK COLVIN: The city of Yogyakarta is the site of one of Indonesia's three nuclear research reactors.
Indonesia's nuclear authorities say the Kartini research reactor is safe and wasn't damaged during Saturday's earthquake.
But the issue
has revived worries about plans to build a full-scale nuclear power
station on an island which is prone to earthquakes and home to more
than 100 million people.
Jennifer Macey reports.
JENNIFER MACEY:
The Kartini research reactor has been operating at Yogyakarta since
1979, and is used as a training facility for medical students at the
nearby university.
Indonesia's nuclear atomic energy agency, BATAN, says the reactor was not damaged when the earthquake struck on Saturday.
The head of BATAN's public relations, Ferhat Aziz, says the reactor was also not operating at the time of the tremor.
FERHAT AZIZ:
The reactor is safe, and it was designed so anywhere there is an
earthquake it will safely go to shutdown stage. So the building was
intact and no damage done to the laboratory equipment or human life
whatsoever there.
JENNIFER MACEY: What about reports that there were cracks in one of the buildings?
FERHAT AZIZ:
Yes, there was a crack, but the administer of the building is somewhat
far from the reactor building. The reactor building itself is okay.
JENNIFER MACEY:
Java is the most densely populated island in the Indonesian
archipelago, but gets most of its energy resources - coal, oil and
natural gas - from the neighbouring island of Sumatra.
Last year, the Indonesian Government announced plans to begin building the country's first nuclear power plant in central Java.
Mr Aziz says the twin reactors will incorporate safety mechanisms to withstand earthquakes.
FERHAT AZIZ:
And we are going to use proven design, meaning the design that has been
proven to be operated safely in the west, western world, either it is
from Japan, France or United States, or Korea.
JENNIFER MACEY: The site for the proposed power plant is next to a dormant volcano called Mount Muria.
Professor
Richard Arculus, a geologist from the Australian National University,
says there's no guarantee that Mount Muria won't erupt.
RICHARD
ARCULUS: There's some problems with knowing when the last eruption took
place, probably as young as several thousand years ago. The longer they
sit inactive the more likely it is that if there is an eruption it's
going to be a big and explosive one.
JENNIFER MACEY:
Professor Arculus says it's not unusual to build nuclear power plants
in seismic active regions, citing California and Japan as examples.
RICHARD
ARCULUS: I mean, if I had a choice I wouldn't put them anywhere near a
volcano or a fault. And I guess that's really an engineering problem.
You can tell an engineer, for example, in the event of the maximum
probable sized earthquake, these are the accelerations of the ground
that you would experience. They can't design a building that will stand
that.
JENNIFER MACEY: There are doubts that Indonesia, a poor country, will meet the same level of safeguards that operate in Japan.
Dr Jim Green
from Friends of the Earth did his PhD on nuclear reactors. He says
Indonesia has a generally poor record when it comes to safety and
management.
JIM GREEN: So
if you get a serious Chernobyl-style accident with breach of
containment structures, then you're going to get a much greater death
toll than we had in Chernobyl, because Java is such a populated island.
You'd also get, quite possibly, contamination of north-west Australia.
JENNIFER MACEY:
Indonesia's nuclear authorities expect the first reactor to start
operating in 10 years' time. By 2025 they plan to have four nuclear
power plants to meet the country's growing energy needs.
------------------->
* FUSION
------------------->
Fusion on the way
The Age
Friday, 4 August 2006
AUSTRALIAN
nuclear scientist Barry Green is in town promoting the cause of nuclear
fusion as a way of producing emissionsfree energy.
Green, now an
employee of the European Union, has spent years working on a
multinational fusion project known as ITER, supported by the EU,
Russia, Japan, South Korea, China and India.
ITER plans to
build a fusion reactor in France and is feeling out the Australian
Government, with its new-found interest in the nuke business, about
joining the party.
The proposition
goes something like this.
ITER (Latin for ''the way'') will take 10
years to build, costing a cool A5 billion ($A8.4 billion). Once up and
running, it will burn in its reactor centre at 100 million degrees,
contrasting with the sun's paltry 15 million degrees. But howmuch power
will it generate? Five hundred megawatts, an amount a gas plant could
produce for maybe $300 million.
It gets worse.
While a gas plant might last 30 years, ITER will be able to produce
that power for only 400 seconds-a shade under seven minutes.
The reactor will be run for longer than that, however, as scientists work out how to build its successor.
Then dismantling is expected to cost another A5 billion.
And when can
fusion be expected to be commercially viable? Some say in 2050 but
Green says this may be a bit optimistic. He's got that right.
------------------->
Australia needs to get back to the front on fusion power
Matthew Hole and John O'Connor
June 8, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/we-need-to-get-back-to-the-front-on-fusion/2006/06/07/1149359815047.html
THIS week, the
federal cabinet has announced the terms of reference for the inquiry
into nuclear power generation. Driving the debate are the urgent need
to develop responsible energygeneration policies in response to climate
change, the increasing cost of oil and the opportunity to develop
Australia's significant uranium reserves. Such a discussion, if
properly founded on frontier scientific technology, environmental
impact assessment and economics, will provide a valuable foundation for
policy.
But the scope
of the inquiry should not be limited to power generation using nuclear
fission. Rather, the inquiry should include all generation schemes,
encompassing all forms of nuclear power, renewable energy and clean
coal. The debate also should recognise the long-time scales of energy
development and deployment (a matter of decades).
In this
context, it is also prudent to consider next-generation nuclear power
options, including generation IV fission technology and nuclear fusion.
Fusion, a
process discovered by eminent Australian Sir Mark Oliphant, powers the
sun and stars. If harnessed, it offers the possibility of a virtually
limitless supply of clean energy. As its name implies, fusion energy is
released by joining light nuclei (typically deuterium and tritium,
isotopes of hydrogen) in high pressure, extremely high temperature
"plasma" contained by magnetic fields. Like fission, fusion produces no
greenhouse gases. Unlike fission, in which radioactive waste is a
byproduct of the reaction, the fusion process is intrinsically clean,
with waste generated only indirectly through neutron activation of the
shield of the reactor. Based on existing technology, fusion power
plants could be recycled in 100 years. Research into the use of
advanced alloys and ceramics suggests that this period could be even
shorter.
Deuterium, a
fusion fuel, is naturally abundant in water. Any country with access to
water automatically has access to deuterium, thereby reducing
geopolitical tensions based on energy supplies. Per kilogram of fuel,
fusion releases four times more energy than fission, and a staggering
10 million times more than coal. World deposits of deuterium are
sufficient to power civilisation for millions of years: access to fuel
will therefore no longer be an issue, economically or politically.
More
importantly, the fusion reaction is inherently safe. Turn off the
heating power and the reaction ceases. There can be no chain reactions,
no reactor meltdowns and no explosions.
Reproducing star-like conditions on Earth is an incredible technological and scientific challenge.
Despite the
difficulties, progress in fusion power has exceeded the spectacular
improvement in computer power. In 30 years, power output has increased
by a factor of more than 1 million. Present experiments have a power
output of tens of MW. Fusion power has entered the pre-prototype power
plant stage, with the imminent construction of the next generation
500MW fusion experiment, the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor.
The experiment
will explore the burning plasma regime in which the heat of the
confined products of reaction (helium, the gas used in balloons) is
comparable with the external heating. In continuous operation, the
reactor will yield five times more power than is required to sustain
the reaction, while in pulsed mode, the power gain could be as high as
30.
On May 24, the
research ministers of seven nations and alliances (the United States,
Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, India and the European Union)
initialled the reactor's implementing agreement. Once ratified by the
host governments (planned for December 2006), construction will begin
in Cadarache in the south of France.
The reactor is
the world's largest science project and spans more than 30 of the most
developed nations. Despite Australia's foundation role in fusion
research and substantial contributions to fusion development, it is not
involved.
A group of more
than 100 scientists and engineers have formed the Australian ITER
Forum, which aims to develop the case for an Australian role in the
project, both by participation and the formation of an International
Centre of Research Excellence in Fusion-Related Research.
With Federal
Government support, the Australian forum has scheduled a workshop for
October 12-13 called Towards an Australian involvement in ITER. It will
bring together the research community, industry, government and the
reactor partners to formulate a role for Australia in the project.
Dr Matthew
Hole, from the ANU, is chairman of the Australian ITER Forum. Professor
John O'Connor is head of the school of mathematical and physical
sciences at the University of Newcastle.
------------------->
* UK NUKES - NEW REACTORS + SAFETY CONCERNS
------------------->
Documents reveal hidden fears over Britain's nuclear plants
Unexplained cracks in reactor cores increase likelihood of accident, say government inspectors
John Vidal and Ian Sample
Wednesday July 5, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1812794,00.html
Government
nuclear inspectors have raised serious questions over the safety of
Britain's ageing atomic power stations, some of which have developed
major cracks in their reactor cores, documents reveal today.
The safety
assessments, obtained under Freedom of Information legislation, show
the Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD) has issued warnings over the
deterioration of reactor cores at Hinkley Point B in Somerset and other
British nuclear plants. The directorate also criticises British Energy,
which operates 13 advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors including
Hinkley.
According to
the papers, the company does not know the extent of the damage to the
reactor cores, cannot monitor their deterioration and does not fully
understand why cracking has occurred. They reveal that in June last
year, the NSD said it was faced with "significant regulatory issues ...
for all operating AGR reactors".
The NSD's most
recent safety assessment of Hinkley, completed in April, warns that its
continued operation is likely to increase the risk of an accident.
While the NSD says it does not believe that there is any immediate
radiation danger to the public, it says there is a possibility of
serious faults developing that would force the long term or permanent
closure of other nuclear plants of the same design.
"While I do not
believe that a large release [of radiation] is a likely scenario, some
lesser event ... is, I believe, inevitable at some stage if a vigilant
precautionary approach is not adopted. There is an an increased
likelihood of increased risk should we agree to continued operation,"
says the inspector.
The documents
show the NSD wants more frequent and more probing inspections of the
reactor cores at all Britain's AGR plants. These inspections require
the reactors to be shut down for weeks. The premature closing of any
nuclear power plant could throw Britain's electricity supplies into
chaos. Closure of Hinkley Point would be likely to lead to closure of
at least three other nuclear stations built at the same time, which are
also known to be suffering from cracks in their cores.
Cracks in the
graphite brick cores of ageing reactors have been observed for some
time but until now there has been little public knowledge of the extent
of the problem. British Energy warned in 2004 that its Hinkley Point B,
Hunterston B, Heysham 2 and Torness plants might not be able to be
extend their 30-year lives because of cracked bricks, but it gave few
details of the extent of the problem.
British Energy
is keen to extend the life of its AGR reactors but the papers, obtained
by Greenpeace via Stop Hinkley, a local nuclear watchdog group, suggest
that unless British Energy improves safety checks, the plants might
have to be closed.
The revelations
come at a critical point, with the government's energy review expected
to be published in the next two weeks and both Tony Blair and Gordon
Brown having indicated that a new generation of nuclear power is
needed. Yesterday the prime minister told the Commons liaison committee
that he had altered his position in favour of nuclear power since the
last white paper on energy policy in 2003. "I'll be totally honest with
you, I've changed my mind," he said.
However, John
Large, an independent nuclear engineer who has advised the government
and who reviewed the FoI papers for Greenpeace yesterday said it was
"gambling with public safety" to allow Hinkley Point to continue
operating. Calling for other AGR stations to be closed, he said: "The
reactors should be immediately shut down and remain so until a robust
nuclear safety case free of uncertainties has been established".
He accused the
NSD of being reluctant to call for the closure of Hinkley Point because
of the Mr Blair's stated intention to review nuclear power. "What
nuclear installations inspector is going to close a plant down at such
a politically critical time?", he asked.
In the papers
from June 2005, an inspector concludes of Britain's AGR power stations:
"I judge that there is significant uncertainty in the likelihood and
consequences for the core safety functionality posed by ... core
damage. The assessor needs to assume worst case consequences of ...
core damage unless the licensee is able to provide robust arguments."
In a 2004
assessment, the inspector complains about the "lack of clarity" by
British Energy, "continued uncertainty" in the prediction of behaviour
in reactor cores, and the "lack of progress" made by British Energy in
addressing issues in all AGR reactors.
British Energy
said yesterday it had provided new evidence to the NSD. "If the health
and safety executive [the government body that oversees the NSD] were
not confident in the safety of the reactor cores we would not allow the
reactors to operate. The assessment report was part of the ongoing
regulatory process ... The Nuclear Safety Directorate is monitoring
closely British Energy's work on graphite and, where necessary, is
influencing the scope and extent of the reactor core inspections that
the company carries out.
"British Energy
has also been working on methods to monitor the cores whilst the
reactors are in service. This will provide added re-assurance on the
condition of the cores."
Stephen Tindale
, executive director of Greenpeace said: "These documents show the
incompetence of the government and British Energy who have known about
these cracks yet have refused to do anything about it."
Problem sites
Hinkley Point B, Somerset (switched on 1976)
Known to have core damage
Hartlepool, Cleveland (1983)
Known to have core damage
Hunterston B, Ayrshire (1976)
Known to have core damage
Heysham 1, Lancashire (1983)
Known to have core damage
Dungeness, Kent (1983)
Documents hint that core damage found
Torness, East Lothian (1988)
Documents hint that core damage found
------------------->
* ANALYSIS - UK Private Sector Raises Doubts on Nuclear Support
UK: June 16, 2006
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36848/story.htm
LONDON - The
private sector could not shoulder the full clean-up costs of new
nuclear power plants in Britain, potential investors say, casting
doubts on government claims this week that it would not subsidise new
reactors.
The big problem
is no-one knows what the full decommissioning costs will be -- Britain
is still consulting on both near-term and permanent waste disposal
options at current sites, and research has not begun into such costs at
new sites, according to engineering firm AMEC PLC.
"The government
needs to tell us what to do with the waste, and that will affect the
sums. If the sums don't add up we won't do it," said Jonathan Smith,
spokesman at E.ON UK, whose German utility parent E.ON owns nuclear
plants in Germany and is a potential investor is Britain's nuclear
sector.
All but one of Britain's ageing reactors, which produce a fifth of the UK's electricity, are due to shut by 2020s.
Prime Minister
Tony Blair, under pressure to deliver a strategy that will both keep
the lights on and cut greenhouse gas emissions, has signalled he will
back the construction of a new fleet of reactors in a policy review due
out next month.
But Energy
Minister Malcolm Wicks this week ruled out a direct subsidy for new
reactors -- including decommissioning costs when a plant retires --
while the Department of Trade and Industry would not comment on whether
that excluded any public backing.
Likely
private-sector players say they would support only limited
contributions to uncertain decommissioning costs for new plants,
possibly through a levy during the 40 to 60-year lifetime of plants.
"It would not
be unpalatable to have a tariff mechanism where at the end of the plant
lifetime the tariff takes care of what it can and the NDA (Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority) takes over the liability," said Gerry
McGill, Managing Director at the nuclear division of AMEC.
The UK's
biggest power producer British Energy, another possible new build
backer, owns 8 nuclear plants and it contributes 65 percent of its net
cash flow to a decommissioning fund -- in a possible model going
forward.
AMEC was
involved in the design and construction of Britain's existing nuclear
power plants and wants a big role in any new build, but says the
private sector needs a limited liability guarantee.
"You'd want a reasonably robust contract," said Jim Wright, AMEC Strategy and Development Director.
RISK
The potential costs of decommissioning future nuclear plants represent huge risks for investors.
Britain's
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) estimates the clean up costs
for Britain's 11 oldest nuclear reactors and research sites at 70
billion pounds. That does not include permanent disposal, which would
cost in excess of an extra 10 billion pounds, a source close to the NDA
said.
British Energy
estimates the separate disposal costs at its plants at 5.5 billion
pounds, and while the company says its current profitability could
cover that entirely, it agrees on the need for clarity.
"Clarity needs
to come from the government before investors can come forward. It needs
to be clear who is liable," said BE spokesman Martin Pearce.
Story by By Gerard Wynn
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
------------------->
* NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS IN JAPAN
------------------->
Japan Nuclear Worker Exposed to Radiation, Unhurt
JAPAN: June 26, 2006
www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36992/story.htm
TOKYO - A
worker at a Japanese nuclear fuel reprocessing plant was exposed to a
small amount of radiation on Saturday, but appeared to suffer no health
problems, an prefectural government official said.
The incident
occurred at a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho in
Aomori prefecture, northern Japan, operated by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd.
The worker had
been checked by a doctor, the official said, and there had been no
effect on the environment around the plant. Officials were looking into
the incident.
One of the
worst accidents at any nuclear facility in Japan occurred at a
uranium-processing plant in Tokaimura on Sept. 30, 1999, when an
uncontrolled chain reaction was triggered after three poorly trained
workers used buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a tub.
The resulting release of radiation killed two workers and forced the evacuation of thousands of nearby residents.
In August 2004,
hot water and steam leaking from a broken pipe at Kansai Electric Power
Co.'s Mihama No. 3 nuclear power generator killed five workers in
Japan's worst nuclear power plant accident.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
------------------->
* CHINA SET TO FUEL NEW NUCLEAR ARMS RACE
------------------->
China set to fuel new nuclear weapons race
Michael Richardson
Thursday, 22 June 2006
Canberra Times
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=yoursay&subclass=general&story_id=489143&category=Opinion&m=6&y=2006
IN THE MIDST of
the intensifying debate in Australia over nuclear power, China is
casting a widening shadow over the world with its nuclear weapons.
Critics of
Australia's recent decision to export uranium to Asia's rising giant
assert that it will enable the Chinese military to use more of the
country's own limited supply of the radioactive material to make arms.
The metallic element is the source of atomic energy for both bombs and reactors for generating electricity.
China is moving
from limited deterrence to fully fledged nuclear weapons power for what
it sees as compelling strategic reasons. In its recent annual report on
China's armed forces, the United States Defence Department said that
several developments had surprised US analysts, including the pace and
scope of the program to modernise Chinese long-range nuclear forces.
However, this can hardly be surprising.
In fact, the surprise must be that development has not been quicker - as the Pentagon frequently predicted in the past.
Consider the
current imbalance. The US and Russia each have about 6000 nuclear
weapons in their operational stockpiles, with several thousand more in
reserve. China has less than 400, 15 times fewer than either of its
former Cold War rivals.
The US and
Russia can strike targets in any part of the world by using an
impressive array of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, submarines and
aircraft. China has about 85 nuclear-capable land-based missiles. But
no more than 20 can reach the US continent.
The Chinese
bombers that carry nuclear weapons are based on 1950s designs, have
limited range and speed, and would have difficulty penetrating modern
air defence systems.
China has just
one operational submarine that can fire long-range nuclear weapons.
Even after a four-year overhaul, it lacks real potency.
It has never
sailed beyond China's regional waters or conducted a real deterrent
patrol. However, the Pentagon report predicts that some significant
enhancements of Chinese nuclear capability are imminent.
If correct,
these will enable it to hit targets in the US with land-based
intercontinental ballistic missiles and similar nuclear-tipped missiles
fired from submarines.
Starting next
year, China is expected to deploy DF-31A missiles with a range of more
than 11,270km, sufficient to cover all parts of the US.
China already
has an estimated 20 CSS-4 long-range missiles in underground silos. But
with a range of about 8500km, they can reach less than half of US
territory.
The new DF-31A missiles can be moved around on special truck-like vehicles and use solid, not liquid, fuel.
As a result, they are more difficult to detect and quicker to launch than the older liquid-fuel, silo-based missiles.
Moreover, a new
class of nuclear-powered submarine is expected to be armed with an
advanced sea-based variant of the DF31 between 2007 and 2010.
Known as the JL-2, it has a range of at least 8000km.
Assuming the
JIN-class sub works better than its sole nuclear-missile carrying
predecessor, the Xia, it would be able to hide beneath the sea not too
far from the Chinese coast and still be able to cover the whole of the
US.
China's small existing force of CSS-4 missiles already has the range to reach all parts of Asia and Australia.
The new
land-based and submarine-launched missiles will enable China to extend
its choice of targets almost anywhere in the world. These long-range
missiles, based on submarines and on mobile platforms moving from place
to place on land, will give China what it has long lacked - the
assurance of being able to strike back even if it is hit by nuclear
weapons.
Why is China
increasing the number and improving the quality of its nuclear forces?
US readings of growing Chinese power and military modernisation in
recent years have reportedly prompted a shift in US nuclear targeting
priorities away from Russia and towards China.
Reflecting that
trend, an increasing number of US submarines armed with nuclear
missiles have been shifted from the Atlantic and based in the Pacific.
China is
acutely aware of this trend. It is also concerned that the successful
development of US defences against incoming ballistic missiles might
degrade the deterrent effect of China's current nuclear counter-strike
force against the United States, which consists of just 20
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Japan has tense
political relations with China and could build nuclear weapons quickly,
probably in a matter of months, if it decided to do so.
It is an active participant in the US-led missile defence program.
India, too, has
long felt threatened by China's nuclear-armed missiles and remains wary
of China despite improving ties. India is now developing a counter
force. It has a small but growing stockpile of nuclear weapons as well
as long-range missiles that could carry them deep into southern China.
In future, Indian missiles with nuclear warheads will be able to cover the whole of China.
India has also
expressed interest in missile defence at a time when its military links
with the US are becoming increasingly close.
Paradoxically,
having more and better nuclear-armed missiles may still the debate in
Chinese military circles about whether to change the long-standing
policy that China will never be the first to use its nuclear weapons.
This debate
about the "no first use" policy surfaced publicly last year when a
senior Chinese general said in Hong Kong that if the US attacked China
with its overwhelmingly superior conventional forces, China might have
to respond with nuclear arms.
China is far
from nuclear parity with the US; being a bit more equal may help build
Chinese confidence in the deterrent effect by reassuring it that
whatever happens, some of its missiles would be able to get through and
strike their targets.
But this is a sensitive equation.
If any of the players miscalculate, a dangerous arms race could ensue.
The writer is a
visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South-East Asian
Studies in Singapore, and former Asia editor of the International
Herald Tribune.
------------------->
* DEPLETED URANIUM
------------------->
What a waste for weapons! – Democrats on depleted uranium
11/8/2006 Ethical Investor: www.ethicalinvestor.com.au/news/story.asp?Story_ID=1756
The Australian
Democrats have called for a global ban on depleted uranium weapons as
ethical investors take shareholder action against military
manufacturers in America.
Senator Lyn
Allison, Democrats Leader, announced last week that the reported
delivery from America of 100 ‘bunker buster’ bombs containing depleted
uranium (DU) warheads to Israel, for use against targets in Lebanon,
should be condemned.
‘While the
radioactive levels in depleted uranium maybe small, the World Health
Organisation has found that following conflict, levels of DU
contamination in food and drinking water might be detected in affected
areas years later.
‘The Australian
Democrats call on the United Nations and international governments to
ban the use of depleted uranium in weaponry,’ she said.
In America it
has been reported that ethical investors including the Interfaith
Center on Corporate Responsibility are placing DU on the corporate
agenda by filing a shareholder resolution that expresses health and
environmental concerns and asks for a report on their involvement with
DU, from 3 companies.
According to
the report on SocialFunds.com the resolution received 6.4 % of
shareholders’ support at Lockheed Martin, 9 % support at Textron, and
is in the process of being filed at Alliant Techsystems.
The resolution not only makes a moral and ethical case, but also a business case against DU, says the report.
Valerie
Heinonen, a corporate social responsibility consultant to the Sisters
of Mercy Regional Community of Detroit Charitable Trust, which filed
the resolution at Lockheed, is reported to have said:
‘The business
case against DU centres around the potential liability for human and
environmental impacts and damage to the companies' reputations.
‘Rather than
seeking a market for radioactive waste, the Federal Government and
corporations should work with NGOs to find solutions for long-term
storage.’
According to
wikipedia.org DU is a byproduct of the enriching of natural uranium for
use in nuclear reactors. A less common source of the material is
reprocessed spent reactor fuel. As a toxic and radioactive waste
product that requires long-term storage as low-level nuclear waste,
depleted uranium is costly to keep but relatively inexpensive to
obtain. With DU stockpiles estimated to be more than 500,000 tonnes it
is more economical to use depleted uranium rather than storing it.
------------------->
* NUCLEAR SMUGGLING, PROLIFERATION, BLACK MARKET
------------------->
www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/traffickingstats2005.html
Trafficking in Nuclear and Radioactive Material in 2005
IAEA Releases Latest Illicit Trafficking Database Statistics
Staff Report
21 August 2006
Story Resources
Full Report: 2005 Nuclear Trafficking Statistics [pdf]
Security of Radioactive Sources
IAEA and Nuclear Security
IAEA Office of Nuclear Security
There were 103
confirmed incidents of illicit trafficking and other unauthorized
activities involving nuclear and radioactive materials in 2005, newly
released statistics from the Agency´s Illicit Trafficking
Database (ITDB) show.
The ITDB covers
a broad range of cases from illegal possession, attempted sale and
smuggling, to unauthorized disposal of materials and discoveries of
lost radiological sources.
Eighteen of the
confirmed incidents in 2005 involved nuclear materials; 76 involved
radioactive material, mainly radioactive sources; two involved both
nuclear and other radioactive materials, and seven involved
radioactively contaminated materials.
Another 57
incidents from previous years were reported. They involved illicit
trafficking and other unauthorized activities and had occurred earlier,
mainly in 2004.
Two reported
cases in 2005 involved small quantities of high-enriched uranium (HEU)
which is a fissile material. In New Jersey, USA, a package containing
3.3 grams of HEU was reported lost. The second incident occurred in
Fukui, Japan, when a neutron flux detector containing 0.017 grams was
lost at a nuclear power plant.
"From the
terrorism threat standpoint, these cases are of little concern but they
show security vulnerabilities at facilities handling HEU," the latest
report from the ITDB said. Indeed the majority of cases reported in
2005 showed no evidence of criminal activity.
The ITDB
facilitates the exchange of authoritative information on incidents of
trafficking in nuclear and radioactive materials. There are 91
countries that report to the IAEA´s database. See Story Resources
for the full report, which covers the past 13 years.
The Past 13 Years: 1993 - 2005
Nuclear Materials
During the
thirteen year period, there were 16 confirmed incidents that involved
trafficking in HEU and plutonium - which are fissile materials needed
to make a nuclear weapon. A few of these incidents involved seizures of
kilogram quantities of weapons-usable nuclear material, but most
involved very small quantities.
View Chart: Incidents Involving HEU and Pu (1993-2005) » [pdf]
The majority of
confirmed cases with nuclear materials involved low-grade nuclear
materials, i.e. low enriched uranium (LEU) mostly in the form of
reactor fuel pellets, and natural uranium, depleted uranium, and
thorium. "Where information on motives is available, it indicates that
profit seeking is the principal motive behind such events," the ITDB
report said.
View Chart: Incidents Involving Nuclear Materials (1993-2005) » [pdf]
Other Radioactive Materials
During
1993-2005, just over 60 incidents involved high-risk "dangerous"
radioactive sources, which present considerable radiological danger if
used in a malicious act. "In the hands of terrorists or other
criminals, some radioactive sources could be used for malicious
purposes, e.g. in a radiological dispersal device (RDD) or ´dirty
bomb´," the ITDB said. The overwhelming majority of incidents
concerning "dangerous" sources were reported over the last six years.
The majority of all incidents involved the radioisotope Caesium 137.
View Chart: Incidents Involving Radioactive Sources, by Type of Radioisotope (1993-2005) » [pdf]
View Chart: Incidents Involving Radioactive Sources, by Type of Application (1993-2005) » [pdf]
------------------->
Humanity betrayed
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20173811-28737,00.html
August 19, 2006
Pakistani
scientist A.Q. Khan confessed in 2004 that he had sold nuclear
technology to Iran and North Korea. Today, some of that technology
could be in the hands of other radicals, yet his country continues to
protect him. Gordon Corera examines the dangers of the nuclear black
market
IN the story of
the spread of nuclear technology during the past 30 years, the elusive
figure of Abdul Qadeer Khan casts a blurred but unmistakable shadow
over proceedings. From Pakistan's clandestine program - born in an era
of shifting nuclear sands and driven by fear of India - to today's
equally unstable international security environment, Khan is the
sometimes visible but often unseen thread drawing together what may
otherwise seem like a disparate array of events in the story of the
spread of nuclear weapons.
It was he more
than any other individual who undermined the idealistic structure of
Atoms for Peace - of supporting nuclear power generation while
discouraging the spread of weapons - fashioned by US president Dwight
Eisenhower in the 1950s. Former CIA director George Tenet has
reportedly described Khan as "at least as dangerous as Osama bin
Laden", a label richly deserved given that Khan has wreaked havoc on
attempts to contain one of the greatest threats facing the world today:
the spread of nuclear technology.
Khan was
responsible not only for developing the nuclear capability in his
native Pakistan but for building an unrivalled clandestine procurement
network that spanned the globe. Many states have longed for the power
that nuclear weapons are perceived to provide, but the technical
challenges had appeared insurmountable to all but a few. And so they
might have remained until Khan began looking for customers and shifting
his exceptional business model from import to export.
This is also a
story that cannot be understood, however, without recognising that for
many people, and not just in his native Pakistan, Khan was - and
remains - a hero. Many developing countries perceive a profound
duplicity in a handful of states denying to others the technology they
themselves refuse to relinquish.
Critics argue
that the US particularly has sought to maintain a restrictive cartel on
nuclear weapons. For the West, the spread of the bomb may be a
nightmare, heightening global insecurity and making it more likely the
weapon will be used. But for any individual nation facing its own
particular challenges, the bomb may represent the notion, real or
imagined, of security. For Pakistanis, Khan delivered the security and
cachet that his country so desperately desired, and he was feted for it
accordingly.
Most countries
with nuclear weapons have engaged in atomic espionage. Most have also
proliferated nuclear technology, based on perceived strategic
priorities: the US to Britain, France to Israel, the Soviet Union to
China, China to Pakistan. Khan was different. Here was an individual
willing to proliferate to any country that was ready to pay, including
Iran, North Korea and Libya. And for the first time a dangerous array
of products was available entirely in the private sector, outside of
state control, creating what Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the UN nuclear
watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls a "Wal-Mart of
private-sector proliferation".
In short order,
thanks to Khan's network with its one-stop shopping, a country - any
country - could take several huge steps towards becoming a nuclear
power.
Although it may
be tempting to over-individualise the story, to present Khan as the
lone villain, a spy film caricature, the "A.Q. Khan network" was very
much a network. Khan was a middleman: a broker for businesses willing
to supply and for states wanting to buy, he fused the commercial greed
of the former with the strategic interests of the latter. His
activities provide a unique window into a shadowy world in which a
small group of nations worked collaboratively to develop advanced
missile and nuclear technology out of sight of the rest of the world,
technology that then became the foundation for a global trade that will
far outlast its most famous contributor.
Why did he do
it? Khan is often portrayed as either an agent of the Pakistani state
or an entirely rogue actor. But each of the deals Khan cut was
different: - they differed in time scale, in scope and in terms of the
motivation behind them. Understanding this is vital to unlocking one of
the frequently asked questions about Khan's activities: just how much
did the Pakistan Government know? The evidence is murky, fragmentary
and often circumstantial, but for Pakistan almost any answer is an
uncomfortable, unhappy one. Either its highest officials knew nothing
and their most sensitive national security programs were essentially
out of their control, or they knew of Khan's actions and still failed
to stop them. Either answer has profound consequences for understanding
how easily the bomb can spread to more and more countries.
Given the
damage he inflicted, why wasn't he stopped? Calling the emergence and
resilience of the Khan network a failure of intelligence is too
simplistic. Khan's activities and the existence of a network around him
were known to Western intelligence agencies for decades. But
intelligence itself is not enough. The question is how it is used.
There were periods when the trail went cold and warning signs were
missed, but the intelligence was often hazy, right to the end, partly
because programs developing weapons of mass destruction are the most
closely held secrets of the most secretive regimes.
Furthermore,
knowing something is not the same as being able to do something about
it. The problem all along was not so much uncovering Khan's activities
as finding a way of acting against him. If there was a long-term
failure, it was as much a failure of policy and political will - one
revolving around America's strange, convulsive relationship with
Pakistan - as it was of intelligence. For too long, the West was
distracted.
Khan's network
was eventually broken through an effective harnessing of the different
tools of intelligence and diplomacy. Khan did immeasurable damage but
he could have done much more if he had not been stopped when he was.
Despite this victory, the nuclear non-proliferation system is creaking.
In the
post-9/11 era with its pervasive sense of insecurity, a sense in part
heightened by Western policy, more states seem to be keeping their
options open and watching and waiting to see which way the tide breaks.
Iran's ambitions may well signal the death knell of the existing
non-proliferation system because of the fear - so far not backed by
definitive proof - that it is manipulating the system's weaknesses by
exploiting its legal right to civilian power to garner technology that
can also be used for a weapons program.
But whatever
happens in the case of Iran, the broader problems revealed by Khan's
story remain with us. A fundamental problem has been that the same core
technologies can easily be diverted from producing power to
manufacturing weapons. In a world of transnational networks,
international terrorists and rapidly developing technology, preventing
the spread of nuclear weapons is becoming more important but ever
harder. Thanks to the Khan network, much of the equipment and knowledge
for developing nuclear technology is no longer controlled by states: it
is in the marketplace. Putting this genie back in the bottle may be
impossible.
Why did Khan do
what he did? Why wasn't he stopped? Much remains unknown. The final
answers lie with a man under house arrest in Islamabad, out of touch
with the outside world and out of the reach of those who want to talk
to him.
The IAEA, which
was set up as part of Atoms for Peace, and the CIA have been able to
send written questions to Pakistan which are then supposed to be
submitted to Khan before being sent back, but few believe the answers
are full and open. President George W. Bush continues to press for more
access to Khan (and especially the possibility of joint
interrogations), as he did during his March 2006 visit to Islamabad.
"We are going forward on that," was all that Pakistan's President
Pervez Musharraf would say about discussions on the subject.
TWO related
phenomena call for pessimism about the future of proliferation. One is
the growing supply of nuclear technology, in which Khan's legacy is
vital; the other is the growing demand, which Khan has also helped to
fuel.
One dangerous
legacy of the Khan network lies in the physical material to which he
had access, and which remains unaccounted for. Complete centrifuge
machines - used to make more concentrated, or enriched, uranium - have
gone missing.
These
centrifuges were of Pakistan's more advanced P-2 variety. They were
last seen in Dubai and the network claims they were destroyed, but
there is no evidence of this and it seems unlikely, given their value.
Are they still being held somewhere for a later sale? Were they sold or
passed on to other clients, either known customers such as Iran or
those that remain unknown?
Have any of the
20 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride gas promised to Libya been diverted
elsewhere? Good-quality UF6 is a highly valuable commodity, as the
conversion of uranium yellowcake into a gas pure enough to enrich is a
difficult task.
But even more
than the physical material, the most worrying question is how much of
the previously secret, tightly held knowledge on nuclear technology may
now be circulating in the market.
Khan would
sometimes claim he had passed on only old, used parts to countries such
as Iran. But even if that were true, which it isn't, the real damage he
inflicted was through the release of designs and technical information
into the marketplace. It was this knowledge that allowed others to go
about building their programs with a high degree of confidence,
eliminating a swath of difficult research. How much further the
information may have spread is a concern that keeps those trying to
prevent proliferation awake at night.
Technology has
greatly expedited the spread of highly sensitive information. From 2002
the Khan network in Dubai began transferring material from paper into
electronic formats. Eventually, investigators found the entire plan for
an enrichment program on a set of discs in Libya. On a single disc was
the complete set of drawings for the P-1 centrifuge, including how to
manufacture, test and assemble every component. Another disc held data
for the P-2.
In this form,
the highly sensitive material that Khan stole so long ago and based his
career around can be copied in a few seconds and passed around or even
emailed. This makes it far easier for anyone who has hold of the plans
to build their own network without bothering with the kind of espionage
with which Khan began his career. A number of copies were thought to
have been made in Dubai but only the Libyan copy has emerged. "One of
our jobs is to find who got this," explains Olli Heinonen of the IAEA.
"We are talking to people who made copies and ... trying to get from
them a list of who got it."
There's no
concrete evidence but the suspicion is that the same could have
happened to the nuclear weapons design, and that this could now be on
the market. Khan certainly passed some material on different parts of
the weapon design around the network in order to help with the
procurement and development process, but no one is sure how much of the
design is now readily available in the open market.
Khan was at the
centre of a web but he may not have been the only supplier of material
within it. The source of the uranium hexafluoride that came to Libya is
an important unanswered question. There were some indications in 2002
that North Korea was planning on becoming a supplier of equipment and
possibly of nuclear material. North Korean front companies received a
number of payments routed through the Khan network. This would make no
sense if they were simply customers of the network. Was North Korea,
instead, more of a partner in Khan's work? Evidence pointing to North
Korea as a supplier of nuclear material direct to countries such as
Libya would be a major worry, not least because North Korea could still
be out on the market, exploiting the channels of contact opened up
through Khan. And because Pyongyang already has so much weapons traffic
with countries such as Syria, Iran, Libya and Pakistan, this could
easily provide cover for UF6 cylinders, which could be disguised as
missile parts. A secret trade might mean that countries such as Iran
had received material without anyone knowing, which could dramatically
shorten the time frame for developing weapons, given that uranium
conversion has been one of Iran's main technical problems.
Given
Pyongyang's record of selling missile technology to anyone who is
looking to buy, the fear has always been that North Korea would do the
same with nuclear material, and not just to states but also possibly to
terrorists. "The export of arms equipment is currently reckoned to be
North Korea's most important source of income," read a 2005 European
intelligence report, and there is a fear in many quarters that North
Korea could step into the gap left by the Khan network, not least
because it is perennially short of cash.
The rings of
proliferation among states, of which Khan was but one part, continue to
operate, spreading and perfecting illicit technology, trading on each
other's comparative advantage. In 2003, the British Joint Intelligence
Committee assessment found that North Korea's missile export program
was continuing apace, with Pyongyang looking for new customers and
offering upgrades to established customers. There are reports that
North Korea has been secretly helping the Iranian nuclear program since
the 1990s. It was also reported that in October 2005 Iran encouraged
North Korea in its nuclear program by offering oil and natural gas.
Iran reportedly
hoped to spread the pressure over nuclear development to other
countries rather than see it focused on Tehran alone: the same motive
that may have driven Khan in his early years of spreading technology.
Iran also has explicitly threatened to pass on its nuclear technology.
The country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Al Khamenei, told Sudanese
officials last April that his country was "prepared to transfer the
experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists".
Even Pakistan
remains active. In May 2005 the US indicted a Pakistani military
supplier for running a clandestine nuclear technology procurement
network in conjunction with a South Africa-based Israeli. A July 2005
European intelligence report warned that Pakistani efforts to procure
for its nuclear program were continuing, with the range of materials
and components being ordered clearly exceeding the amount required for
spare parts or replacements for its program. The same aluminium tubing
that Khan bought for Libya was still being bought. Could someone -
possibly the state itself - still be selling?
Though it may
have burned the brightest, Khan's network operated within a wider
constellation of proliferators. Khan's great innovation was to offer a
full service, providing all the required designs and access to the
businesses that could supply the parts, allowing states short cuts
through the development and purchasing process. Khan was also unique in
shifting his work from state control to the private sector. But
although his network may be out of action, others may now attempt to
grab some of its share in this very lucrative market.
A European
intelligence report listed hundreds of front companies and institutions
involved in proliferation, including more than 200 from Iran.
Intelligence agencies continue to see indications of people in the
marketplace looking for equipment and, given the huge riches on offer,
where there is demand, chances are that people will try to meet it.
The
non-proliferation system that was constructed in the mid-'70s in
response to India's nuclear testing was designed to prevent the spread
of technology from Western states to developing countries. But since a
broader array of countries have themselves developed nuclear
technology, it has become much harder to prevent them from exporting
their know-how to others.
Countries can
now buy, sell and share technology among themselves, rather than
needing to start programs from scratch, or import material, or steal
plans from the West, as Khan and Pakistan were forced to do. The
exposure of the Khan network is unlikely to halt the growth of these
activities. This secondary proliferation has happened for a long time
with missile technology, but its emergence in the nuclear field under
Khan is a serious worry, particularly when states such as North Korea
are involved. It threatens to shatter the non-proliferation system. It
is unclear whether the wreckage will produce a new, workable system or
a world of many more nuclear states.
Edited extract
from Shopping for Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity, and
the Rise and Fall of the A.Q. Khan Network by Gordon Corera (Scribe,
$30). Corera is a BBC journalist specialising in security issues.
------------------->
Terror and the black market
International underground weapons networks are essential for extremists, writes Gordon Corera
SOME sellers in
the nuclear black market are amateurs trying to make a quick buck;
others are far more dangerous. A serious fear is that organised crime
recognises the profits and could move in to fill the vacuum. As
international organised crime networks increasingly overlap and even
merge with terrorist networks, this could be a route for terrorists
getting hold of technology or nuclear material.
There's little
doubt of al-Qa'ida's desire for nuclear weapons, and the more states
there are with the bomb and the more technology and material there is
in the marketplace, the more likely it is that al-Qa'ida will succeed
in its ambition.
Since the early
1990s, Osama bin Laden has been seeking nuclear material.but the
cylinder he received proved to be useless. Another individual in Sudan
tried to get material for al-Qa'ida but was probably scammed into
buying low-grade reactor fuel or other useless material. In 1998, bin
Laden said that getting hold of unconventional weapons was a "religious
duty". Terrorists are unlikely to be able to develop their own
infrastructure to produce fissile material. The Japanese terrorist cult
Aum Shinrikyo tried to develop nuclear weapons but lacked the
scientific expertise to fulfil its ambition.
So if
terrorists get hold of a weapon, it will likely be from a state. Buying
or stealing has always been a fear when it comes to the nuclear
stockpiles of the former Soviet Union and Pakistan. In late 2001, this
possibility was beginning to look very real. A CIA source called
Dragonfire warned that al-Qa'ida already had its hands on a weapon, to
be detonated in New York.
Events on the
ground in South Asia compounded the growing anxiety. As US troops and
intelligence operatives swept through Kabul in October 2001, they found
startling new details of al-Qa'ida's ambitions regarding nuclear
weapons, and the role of Pakistan. The speed of the Taliban's fall
meant that safe houses were abandoned still filled with documents that
offered a huge intelligence haul. They revealed al-Qa'ida's
capabilities and intentions had been seriously underestimated. It was
further along with its biological weapons program than had been
previously thought.
What really set
off alarm bells was that the documents found in Kabul made clear that
Pakistani nuclear scientists had met the Taliban and al-Qa'ida to
discuss the development of nuclear devices. One of the men who had met
them was Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, a scientist whose zeal had caught
former Pakistani prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's eye in Multan in
1972. After being shoved aside by Khan, he moved to the Pakistan Atomic
Energy Commission, rising to become the director for nuclear power. But
he also became increasingly radical and religious.
He wrote a book
entitled Doomsday and Life after Death. In 1999 he was forced out of
the nuclear establishment amid increasing concern over his views
(including advocating the transfer of nuclear technology and materials
to other countries) after he protested against Pakistan signing the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Another
scientist who went with Mahmood to Afghanistan, Chaudhri Abdul Majeed,
had retired from Pakistan's nuclear program in 2000.
After the two
men left Pakistan's program, they founded a charity called Umma
Tameer-e-Nau, which carried out relief work in Afghanistan. Mahmood's
sympathies for the Taliban were well known and when he was visiting
Kabul in 2000, bin Laden is reported to have heard of his presence and
sent an al-Qa'ida operative to his hotel to arrange a meeting. A second
meeting with bin Laden occurred in August 2001 in a Kabul compound.
Mahmood's son said: "Osama asked my father, 'How can a nuclear bomb be
made, and can you help us make one?"' According to the White House,
during a follow-up meeting, an associate of bin Laden indicated that he
had nuclear material.
No one is sure
of the exact nature of the conversations and how much advice Mahmood
may have given, although his son says he declined to help.
If the Taliban
had not been overthrown, the relationship could have moved forward.
When it emerged Mahmood had met bin Laden as well as Mullah Omar and
discussed nuclear weapons, there was panic in Washington. CIA director
George Tenet raced to Islamabad. Pakistani officials stressed that
nothing sensitive had been passed on, but there were suspicions other
scientists had been to Afghanistan. There was no evidence that
al-Qa'ida had fissile material for a weapon and there seemed to be a
realisation that a dirty bomb might be more feasible than an actual
nuclear bomb.
Mahmood and
Abdul Majeed were arrested by Pakistani intelligence officers on
October 23 along with the entire UTN board, which had ties to the
Pakistani military: former military intelligence chief General Hamid
Gul was reported to have been UTN's "honorary patron". Gul met Mahmood
in Kabul the same month Mahmood met bin Laden, although Gul said he
knew nothing of contacts with bin Laden, according to reports filed by
Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl shortly before he was
killed. Mahmood was interrogated jointly by the CIA and ISI and failed
six lie-detector tests.
But for all the
fears of nuclear leakage from Pakistan, Islamabad was not confronted
about Khan. There were too many other priorities and too much still to
learn about the network.
The tremendous
danger posed by the nexus between the development of weapons of mass
destruction by states and the desire for those weapons by non-state
terrorist groups was fast becoming the new orthodoxy in Washington.
After the surprise attack of 9/11 and fear that the next attack might
involve unconventional weapons, a new forward-leaning policy was
formulated.
This policy put
the greatest emphasis on stopping states from developing weapons of
mass destruction rather than closing down the networks that might be
supplying them: hence the identification of Iraq, Iran and North Korea
in George W. Bush's "axis of evil" speech in January 2002. The Bush
White House never had much faith in traditional arms control regimes
and treaties, with their universalistic principles, perceiving them as
ineffective and too focused on process rather than results, in turn
constraining US action. The problem was dangerous regimes, not
dangerous weapons.
------------------->
Company linked to nuclear weapons
Deborah Cameron Herald Correspondent in Tokyo
August 26, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/company-linked-to-nuclear-weapons/2006/08/25/1156012739239.html
THE
international blackmarket in parts for nuclear weapons involves a
Japanese company that is one of the world's biggest makers of precision
instruments, say Tokyo police who made a series of arrests yesterday.
An Iranian trading house based in the Japanese capital was also being investigated.
Five executives
of Mitutoyo Corp, including its president, are accused of illegally
exporting instruments that could be converted for use in building
nuclear weapons. The company, which operates globally, makes finely
calibrated measurement devices, including machines that are able to be
used in the uranium enrichment process.
Police said
they had evidence of false declarations in 2001 about then illegal
exports to Libya and that inspectors from the International Atomic
Energy Agency inspectors had found Mitutoyo equipment in Libya during
investigations. At least one of the devices was shipped on an Iranian
freighter but it was unclear whether there was more to connect the
company with Iran.
The order for
the measuring devices was placed by a Malaysian company, Scomi
Precision Engineering, allegedly set up by the rogue Pakistani nuclear
scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, Kyodo News Agency reported.
Suspicions
about Mitutoyo first became public in February, when, during another
raid, police said the company had exported machines to Japanese firms
in China and Thailand without obtaining the government permission that
was required.
Yesterday's raids appear to be part of a crackdown on Japan's high technology exporters.
It follows a
raid earlier this year on Yamaha, the world's second biggest motorcycle
maker, for illegally exporting miniature robotic helicopters to China.
------------------->
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2006_8_25.html#4365DCAA
Japan Arrests Five for Illegal Equipment Exports
Tokyo police
have arrested five executives and employees of a Japanese precision
equipment manufacturing firm on suspicion of illegally exporting
machinery that could be used to produce nuclear weapons, officials
announced today (see GSN, Feb. 13).
Kazusaku
Tezuka, president of Mitutoyo Corp., joined four other company staffers
under arrest after authorities found evidence that the firm in 2001
improperly shipped two three-dimensional measuring devices to a
subsidiary in Malaysia. The firm was also discovered to have
illegally shipped similar equipment to Japanese firms in Thailand and
China the same year, Kyodo News reported.
Three-dimensional
measuring machines can map cylindrical shapes with great accuracy and
cannot be exported without government approval, according to officials
from the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry. The machines can
help to produce centrifuges used to enrich uranium, said ministry
official Hiroyuki Murakami.
Mitutoyo
equipment was reportedly found in Libya after that nation revealed a
long-time nuclear-weapon program and helped to uncover the
international nuclear smuggling network led by former top Pakistani
nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, according to the Associated
Press. The Khan network used a Malaysian firm that was found to
have purchased equipment from Mitutoyo, Kyodo News reported (Carl
Freire, Associated Press/Washington Post, Aug. 25).
------------------->
Khan Network Ripples Could Spur Proliferation
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2006_6_8.html#6B82B97F
The nuclear
black market launched by former top Pakistani atomic scientist Abdul
Qadeer Khan remains a model for other potential proliferators to
emulate, two experts said Monday (see GSN, May 12).
David Sanger
and William Broad, investigative reporters for the New York Times, said
elements of the network could continue to operate, Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty reported.
“What is
uncertain here is not only which countries purchased [the technology],
but what’s left of the network, even with the head cut off? Clearly
there are a lot of elements of the network that can operate by
themselves, and we have still seen Iranians, for example, importing a
fair bit of goods from around Europe,” Sanger said during a Council on
Foreign Relations panel discussion.
“We don’t know
whether each of the pieces of this were Khan-related or not. But you
have to remember that this was a prototype business, it showed a
business model that others can replicate,” he said.
Sanger and Broad said Khan’s work might have furthered the nuclear efforts of Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Broad warned
that private corporations might someday be able to acquire nuclear
technology from a government and sell it to a third party.
“Pakistan, in
the semi-stable structure that it's in today, may not be that way
tomorrow,” he said. “We know from history that other states that had
nuclear weapons went through periods of incredible turmoil, revolution.
Soviet Union, China, South Africa; a peaceful revolution, but they had
nukes, and that was an open question for a while. So things change.”
Broad also said nuclear personnel trained in uranium enrichment could also be involved in leaks.
“We are moving
into the second nuclear age, where some of the estimates are that maybe
by 2050 we’ll have a nuclear infrastructure around the world of 1,000
nuclear reactors going. Today there’s what, 250? Just an enormous
increase,” Broad said. “With that comes a whole kind of nuclear
commerce, nuclear infrastructure. People, lots and lots of people who
are learning the intricacies of the ‘star guard.’”
The equipment
needed to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium is also easier to
operate and smaller than prior technologies, Broad said.
“There’s
another generation of even more efficient smaller technologies up
around the bend,” he said. “It’s called laser-isotope-separation. It’s
not real efficient for making commercial fuel but it looks like it
could be pretty good for special circumstances where you want to enrich
some uranium for a bomb. It’s something that the Iranians looked at.”
The reporters
said it was more likely that a terrorist group would seek to acquire
ready-made fissile material rather than to produce the material.
They also said
there was no evidence that al-Qaeda has obtained such material. Sanger
said the more pressing concern is how authorities should react if they
discover that a group has and could be preparing to use a nuclear
device.
“If you think
this went to the hands of a terror group, do you retaliate against the
country that knowingly or unknowingly slipped this to the terror group?
Do you retaliate against the civilian population for the act of a small
group of terrorists? It’s a much more complex political calculation
than it was in the simpler days of the Cold War, where you said: ‘If
you take out New York, we take out Moscow,’” he said (Nikola Krastev,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, June 7).
------------------->
* NUCLEAR POWER - SAFE AS HOUSES ... NOT.
------------------->
Radioactive Leak Reaches Nuclear Plant's Groundwater
At San Onofre, the cancer-causing tritium isn't known to infect drinking water, but experts are checking.
By Seema Mehta and Dave McKibben, Times Staff Writer
August 18, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-radioactive18aug18,1,7354171,full.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Radioactive,
cancer-causing tritium has leaked into the groundwater beneath the San
Onofre nuclear power plant, prompting the closure of one drinking-water
well in southern Orange County, authorities said.
Officials have
not found evidence that the leak from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, California's largest, has contaminated the drinking water
supply.
As a precaution, San Clemente officials shut down and are testing a city well near the contaminated area.
"We owe it to
our residents and business folks to properly test the water," said Dave
Lund, San Clemente's public works director.
In recent
years, tritium leaks have been found at more than a dozen nuclear
plants across the nation, prompting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to form a task force this year to study the cause of the contamination.
The findings are scheduled to be released this month.
... (go to the website for full article)
------------------->
* NUCLEAR SCARE IN SWEDEN
------------------->
SPIEGEL ONLINE - August 7, 2006, 04:16 PM
URL: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,430458,00.html
Nuclear Scare -
How Close Did Sweden Come to Disaster?
By Philip Bethge and Sebastian Knauer
The incident at
Sweden's Forsmark plant underscores the vulnerability inherent in the
process of producing nuclear energy. Experts say the accident won't be
the last of its kind.
The culprit was
as simple as it was troubling: a short-circuit. But that short-circuit
caused an electricity failure that nearly led to catastrophe at
Sweden's Forsmark 1 nuclear reactor.
Nearly two
weeks ago, around noon on July 25, a power outage occured at Forsmark,
throwing the plant's control room into a state of chaos. As the power
failed, so did two of the plant's four emergency backup generators. The
numbers on the controls started to go berserk, and it took a full 23
minutes before the workers, who for a time had no idea what was
happening inside the reactor, were able to bring Forsmark 1 back under
control.
Describing the
mishap, the environmental organization Greenpeace wrote that the events
at Forsmark were comparable to a "ghost ship," with nobody at the
rudder. And the Swedish Environment Ministry described the event as a
"serious" safety incident. Swedish nuclear expert Lars-Olov
Högland, who served as chief of construction for Vattenfall until
1986, put it far more dramatically. "It was pure luck that there was
not a meltdown," he said. "It was the worst incident since Chernobyl
and Harrisburg," a reference to the 1979 meltdown at Three-Mile Island
in Pennsylvania.
But what really
happened at Forsmark? The incident was a serious one -- but also less
dramatic than many headlines that appeared during the past week would
lead one to believe. Like many nuclear power plants, Forsmark has four
independent backup generators to provide emergency power. Although two
of the diesel generators actually did fail, the remaining two
functioned normally.
The plant's
emergency shutdown system also funtioned. The system automatically
lowered the control rods into the reactor's core, stopping the
hell-fire.
"At no point in
time was there a danger of an accident," asserted Anders Markgren of
the plant's operater, Forsmarks Kraftgrupp. Nevetheless, Markgren said
he was relieved that Forsmark has been taken off the grid. The failure
of the two diesel generators has been headache enough for experts. "If
the other two subs had been knocked out as well this would have led to
a total loss of power," stated a report issued by the Swedish
government's nuclear regulatory agency, Statens
Kärnkraftinspektion (SKI).
Even the
battery secured so-called Uninterrupted Power Supply wouldn't have
helped in such a case, experts fear. The system is the final safety net
of any nuclear power plant. And because a complete power failure would
also cause a plant's critical cooling system to stop working, it could
quickly lead to the type of core meltdown that happened at Chernobyl.
For critics,
the incident shows yet again how vulnerable nuclear power plants are to
a failure in electricity systems. "Nuclear power plants can quickly
spin out of control and lead to meltdowns if short circuits or even
power surges occur," warned Henrik Paulitz, of the German chapter of
the group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
Paulitz also took the opportunity to point out that Germany's nuclear
plants haven't been immune to problems either. They included a power
failure at Germany's Biblis B nuclear reactor on Feb. 8, 2004. "And
that was just because the weather was bad and there was a short in the
power line," he recalled. Less than a decade earlier, in 1986,
lightning disrupted operations at the plant. And in 1992, at a plant in
Philippsburg, Germany, a defective electrical component caused an
incident that had similarities with the July 25 incident in Sweden.
Should these
incidents have served as a forewarning to Sweden? Experts at SKI
believe that inverters affected by the short circuit thwarted the
startup of the diesel generators. According to SKI, the components were
provided by German manufacturer AEG. The experts believe that the same
components have been used at Forsmark's second plant as well as two
further nuclear power plants in the southern Swedish city of
Oskarshamm. Swedish authorities have taken all of the suspected plants
offline as a precaution.
By the end of
last week, the question of whether those plants use the same components
had not yet been clarified. And in Germany, the Federal Environment
Ministry last week ordered a technical investigation of plants here to
ensure that none are vulnerable to the same problems experienced at
Forsmark. Geography (Sweden is located just a few hundred kilometers
north of Germany) wasn't the only factor that concered people here:
Forsmark 1 is operated by Swedish utility giant Vattenfall, which also
operates similar facilities in Germany and other European countries.
But Vattenfall spokesman Ivo Banek, whose company operates two nuclear
power plants in Germany, sought to assuage any fears. "We have no
reason to doubt the security of our facilities," he said. The German
Atomic Forum, a Berlin-based, pro-nuclear power lobby also sought to
give the all-clear sign. "There are absolutely no indications that this
incident could happen here," the group stated, adding that German
plants have different safety setups.
Still, the
unease over the fact that a plant came close to a meltdown because of
something as simple as a defective electrical component remains.
Although the Forsmark plant has a number of backup electricity
supplies, that wasn't enough to shield it from serious problems. "The
flaw in nuclear power plants is their complexity," said Michael Sailer,
a nuclear energy expert at the Institute for Applied Ecology in
Darmstadt near Frankfurt. "Based on its principle alone it is
impossible to test all the contingencies with nuclear power."
"Someday, when
we experience our next major accident, it will likely happen because of
a disruption like this one," Sailer said. He's not alone in his
thinking. A report released in 1992 by Germany's GRS, an organization
that promotes improved safety at nuclear power plants, examined the
lightning strike at the Biblis B nuclear plant in the German state of
Hesse and concluded: "A repeat of the incident cannot be ruled out."
------------------->
* NUCLEAR VS CLEAN ENERGY OTIONS IN THE USA
------------------->
New US Investment in Nuclear Power is Risky - Study
US: June 9, 2006
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36735/story.htm
NEW YORK -
Energy conservation and renewable energy such as wind power would be a
better investment for US taxpayers than subsidies for new nuclear
plants, according to a study released on Thursday by several
environmental, health and public interest organizations.
The
organizations, including Friends of the Earth, GRACE Policy Institute
and the US Public Interest Research Group, pointed to several problems
that have plagued the industry, including higher-than-expected
construction costs, terrorist threats and the unresolved issue of how
to safely store spent radioactive fuel.
The US$1.5
billion to US$2 billion estimates of what it will cost to build the
next generation of power reactors are "extremely optimistic and
unlikely to be achieved" despite federal subsidies, the organizations
said.
"Nuclear
construction cost estimates have been notoriously inaccurate," the
organizations said, noting actual costs for some operating nuclear
reactors were two or more times their estimate.
Rather than
throw money at the nuclear industry, the environmental organizations
recommended the US invest more in conservation and renewable
technologies, including wind power.
Steve Kerekes,
a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry trade
group, however, said the groups opposed to nuclear power "seem to be
stuck in the past."
Kerekes blamed
past cost overruns on an unwieldy licensing process and said the
industry believed a new, streamlined licensing process would reduce
construction costs.
To date, nine
companies have announced plans to file for licenses to build up to 20
new reactors. But none of the companies has made firm plans to build a
new reactor.
ACCIDENTS AND TERRORISM
The
environmental groups noted that the Three Mile Island accident in 1979
caused utilities to stop work on several units at high cost to
ratepayers, and they warned that a terrorist attack or accident at a
nuclear plant could halt construction of new power reactors.
They cited a near-accident at FirstEnergy Corp.'s Davis-Besse plant in Ohio in 2001.
NEI's Kerekes
said the industry has adopted safer procedures and better training
practices since the Three Mile Island accident. As for the threat of
terrorism, he contended that power reactors were the "best defended
industrial facilities in the nation's civilian infrastructure."
The study opposing nuclear power also warned the United States has yet to decide on a way to store used nuclear fuel.
The groups said
the industry cannot count on a federal plan to reprocess used fuel.
They noted that the planned Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada is
behind schedule and said it may never open, while past attempts to
reprocess fuel were not viable.
Kerekes conceded that the nuclear power industry was frustrated by the lack of a long-term storage solution.
"We want to see
Yucca up and running and we would like to see reprocessing. Things are
moving forward but not at the pace we want," Kerekes said.
Kerekes said alternatives to nuclear power were not practical.
"Nuclear
reactors are baseload units that run around the clock and cannot be
replaced by wind turbines or other renewables. We need renewables and
we need nuclear reactors," he said.
Story by Scott DiSavino
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
------------------->
* UK STUDY ON RISKS OF NUCLEAR DUMPS
------------------->
Cloud over N-tests
Nick Richardson
07jul06
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19710691%255E5000111,00.html
THERE were 16,000 Australians who took part in the 12 British nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and 1960s.
Only 5500 are still alive and some of them are seriously ill.
The question is
brutally simple: how many Australians involved in the tests died or
became ill after being exposed to nuclear radiation?
For the past 20
years scientists, governments, veterans and even a royal commission
have investigated and analysed participants and data to try to find out
what happened to the bodies of those men during the tests.
Now the Federal Government has released a scientific study on the issue.
The fundamental conclusion is the death rate among the nuclear veterans was "similar" to the general population's.
But did they die from cancer before, statistically, they would have died from something else?
The study found
the most common cause of death among those Australians who took part in
the tests was cancer, and that death from cancer was 18 per cent higher
among the veterans than would be expected among the general population.
The Federal
Government's conclusion, expressed by Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce
Billson, was that the study did not find "any link between the increase
in cancer rates and exposure to radiation".
The study
itself concluded: "No relationship could be found between overall
cancer incidence or mortality and exposure to radiation."
The report explained the incidence of several kinds of recorded cancers from non-radiation causes.
Mesothelioma
was related to asbestos exposure, and the rate of lung and several
other cancers was "probably" because of "a higher-smoking prevalence in
participants than in the general population".
You could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
Most of us feel
instinctively the dangers of radiation exposure are so profound that
cancer is a likely consequence, either in the medium or long term.
Many Australian veterans seem to share that view. They have tried, unsuccessfully, to mount cases for compensation.
Only a handful
ever made it to trial. Some have been settled out of court, others have
been withdrawn, and one led to an $867,100 payout.
So what is the problem?
Is it really
that veterans do not have a credible case to link their illness to
radiation exposure? Or are we looking in the wrong place?
Five years ago, scientists at New York's Columbia University found it was time to review radiation cancer risk.
The team announced low levels of radiation might cause more genetic damage and cancer than initially thought.
"The effects of
radiation are very complex," one of the team told New Scientist
magazine. "We should reconsider the risk of low levels."
According to
Billson, most of the veterans were exposed to the equivalent of one CAT
scan a year. This might well be the case but if the US study is
correct, low doses may be potentially dangerous.
Servicemen at the atomic tests were given special film badges that acted as a crude measure of their exposure to radiation.
The National
Archive documents detailing veterans' exposure in some of the tests at
Maralinga, for example, reveal that the badges were inaccurate in
recording low levels of radiation, which is a point partly recognised
in the Australian report.
Under normal circumstances and certainly in terms of the government report, it might not have been an issue.
BUT it is feasible that even low-level exposure could be a risk.
There is one
other telling consideration. The survey did not consider genetic
issues, though one of the scientists involved, Prof Grant Sutherland,
told the ABC last year: "The most likely event from small to moderate
doses of radiation is that there is a slight increase in the risk of
leukemia and some cancers.
"The risks of increased likelihood of having children with birth defects has never really been shown."
But in 1997,
Scotland's Dundee University revealed that among 2300 British nuclear
test veterans, there were 400 whose grandchildren were affected by
chronic mental conditions and handicaps.
The Dundee
study has its critics within the scientific community but eradicating
those doubts should become part of a new genetic study of Australian
nuclear veterans.
It is all very
well for the Federal Government to provide health cover for any nuclear
test veterans who have a cancer, but it does not help us find, once and
for all, what the physical effect of those tests were on those who took
part, and on the generation who followed.
In an
atmosphere of renewed international tension as North Korea launched
missiles this week, these concerns become more pressing.
The least we
can do for these veterans is to remain committed to finding out exactly
what exposure has meant for them and their families.
[email protected]
------------------->
High radiation risk from waste dump
from Sunday Herald, 11 June 2006
http://www.robedwards.com/2006/06/high_radiation_.html
A leaking
nuclear waste dump could expose future generations to radiation levels
up to 1,000 times higher than safety targets, according to the
government's radioactive waste agency, Nirex.
Documents
obtained by the Sunday Herald reveal that people hundreds of thousands
of years in the future face an increased risk of cancer because their
drinking water could be contaminated by radioactive waste buried today.
As well as
posing an acute ethical dilemma, the revelation may cause immediate
political difficulties for the First Minister, Jack McConnell. He is
scheduled to make his first official visit to a nuclear power station
at Torness in East Lothian tomorrow.
Although the
visit has not been publicised by the Scottish Executive, it has already
attracted criticism because it comes amidst fierce arguments over the
future of nuclear power. The Executive's current policy is not to
support further nuclear development "while waste management issues
remain unresolved".
The high
radiation doses that Nirex says could result from a waste repository
deep underground in the UK have shocked experts and campaigners. And
they have prompted the government's Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management (CoRWM) to reassess the risks.
In April CoRWM
published its draft recommendation in favour of deep disposal, but now
it is re-examining the potential health effects of future leaks. "I've
got doubts about what future generations will find acceptable," said
Pete Wilkinson, a member of CoRWM.
"There are
still outstanding issues that we've got to resolve and one of them is
the radiation impact of a natural or catastrophic failure of a
repository," he added. CoRWM's final report, which won't recommend any
specific sites for dumps, is due next month.
Nirex provided
its estimates of future radiation doses in response to detailed
questions from CoRWM. Its responses were released to the Sunday Herald
on request, though they have yet to be published.
Nirex puts the
peak radiation dose from waste escaping from a deep repository within
the next million years at ten milliSieverts a year. That is ten times
higher than the international safety limit for members of the public.
Crucially, it
is between 500 and 1000 times above the target doses recommended by
regulatory agencies in Britain, Sweden and Japan. This makes it a "show
stopper" for the whole idea of deep disposal, according to Max Wallis,
a campaigner with the Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance.
"It's
fundamental that we safeguard our environment for our grandchildren and
the planet for generations into the distant future," he said. "A
nuclear dump that could expose future residents to radiation levels far
higher than are legal today is quite out of order."
Pete Roche, a
former government radiation adviser and consultant to Greenpeace, said
we should be aiming to greatly reduce the risk. "I'm staggered by these
high doses that we could inflict on future generations," he said.
Although no
site has been chosen for a waste repository the UK, Nirex has suggested
that the area around the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria would be
"suitable". If a separate site is needed for Scotland, Dounreay in
Caithness is the favourite.
Those most at
risk would be local farmers drinking water from a well "that intercepts
the calculated plume of groundwater contaminated by radionuclides from
the repository", Nirex said. They would be exposed to radium-226,
chlorine-36, iodine-129 and uranium-238.
The maximum
radiation dose they would receive "equates to the dose currently
received by people living in areas of relatively high natural radiation
background in the UK", Nirex added. It stressed that the risks were
very low.
But that is
disputed by the Green MSP, Chris Ballance. "The prospect of dumping
massive levels of radioactivity into the environment of future
generations would be grossly irresponsible and the antithesis of
sustainable development," he said.
"We hope that
Jack McConnell will take the opportunity during his visit to Torness to
say to the workers that, although there are likely to be many jobs
there in the short to medium term, the real opportunity for long term
employment is in alternative sources of power."
Download a copy of the Nirex's responses to CoRWM here (doc).
http://www.robedwards.com/files/nirex_responses_to_cowrm.doc
------------------->
* SELLAFIELD - THORP ACCIDENT
------------------->
Sellafield faces huge fine over 20-ton uranium leak
TELEGRAPH
By Nigel Bunyan
(Filed: 09/06/2006)
British Nuclear
Group faces an unlimited fine after pleading guilty to safety breaches
that allowed radioactive material to leak from the Sellafield nuclear
reprocessing plant for up to eight months.
A broken pipe
was discovered at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) in April
last year. By then acid containing 20 tons of uranium and 350lb of
plutonium had escaped without staff noticing.
Yesterday BNG
pleaded guilty at Whitehaven magistrates' court, Cumbria, to three
counts of breaching the conditions of its licence under the Nuclear
Installations Act 1965.
Lesley Latham,
for the Health and Safety Executive, which brought the prosecution,
said: "This is a very serious case. BNG fell well below the standard
required."
Andrew Carr, for BNG, said the leak had presented no risk either to health and safety or the environment.
Thorp is still closed, costing the company £50 million in lost revenue and wages.
Local
magistrates could fine BNG no more than £15,000, so referred the
case to Carlisle Crown Court, where it is due to be dealt with on July
8.
------------------->
SELLAFIELD
operators British Nuclear Group have admitted three charges brought by
the Health and Safety Executive following a massive radioactive leak
which went undetected at the Thorp plant for months. The company
pleaded guilty to breaching the Sellafield site licence conditions when
it appeared at Whitehaven Magistrates Court yesterday. It now faces an
unlimited fine after magistrates decided that their sentencing powers
were not enough. They could only fine BNG up to £15,000 – based
on a maximum of £5,000 per charge - and have sent the case to
crown court, where there is no upper limit on what the company can be
fined. The charges relate to the leak of 83,000 litres of highly
radioactive liquor from a fractured pipe within the Feed Clarification
Cell at Thorp. It had gone undetected for nine months. The £1.8bn
reprocessing plant is still shut following the incident. Lesley Latham,
on behalf of the HSE, told the court that they were notified of the
incident on April 20 last year, although it was discovered the previous
day. The case was adjourned until July 7.
Carlisle News
and Star, Dow Jones, Guardian, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Times, 9th June
2006, BBC, UTV, 8th June
2006
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=376664
http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2006060809520003&Take=1
http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/story/0,,-1793798,00.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389807&in_page_id=1770
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/09/nsella09.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29390-2217750.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/5058150.stm
------------------->
* RISKS OF AGEING NUCLEAR REACTORS
------------------->
Aging nuclear plants pushed to the limit
Increased power output raises safety concerns
By Mike Hughlett and Robert Manor
Published June 11, 2006
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0606110294jun11,1,1064403.story?page=1&coll=chi-news-hed
CORDOVA, Ill.
-- The Exelon nuclear plant here has suffered damaging vibrations for
years, the unintended effect of an industry effort to run reactors
harder, longer and faster than ever before.
When Exelon
upped power output by nearly 18 percent at its Quad Cities plant in
2002, key components began shaking so badly that vibration monitors
were thrown from their mounts and insulation fell from steam lines.
Later,
Chicago-based Exelon, the largest U.S. nuclear plant operator, found
that vibration in the steam system had caused gaping cracks in heavy
metal plates. Steel fragments ended up in places they decidedly
shouldn't be, like stuck in a key steam pipe and wedged in the bottom
of the reactor. "The plant literally began shaking itself apart at the
higher power level," said David Lochbaum, an expert on nuclear energy
safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Regulators were
concerned, too: Metal chunks should never course haphazardly through a
nuclear plant. They concluded, however, that the incident was unlikely
to cause an accident.
Further,
Exelon, which experienced similar but less severe cracking at another
Illinois nuclear plant, believes it finally fixed the problem this
spring.
To Lochbaum and
nuclear power critics, however, Quad Cities' quaking raises a question:
If the big power boost caused such severe vibrations, what other less
visible problems might it cause? After all, Quad Cities' damage was
relatively easy to spot.
The ratcheting
up of power at Quad Cities, one of the nation's oldest nuclear plants,
is part of a trend. Utility companies are wringing more from their
aging reactor fleet.
Over the last
five years, six U.S. plants have boosted power by 15 percent to 20
percent beyond their originally licensed level. Regulators are
reviewing plans for 15 percent-plus boosts at two more plants, one in
Alabama and one in New York. Similar requests are likely in the next
few years.
Federal safety
regulators and nuclear experts say power boosts like those at Quad
Cities are thoroughly reviewed for safety problems.
The nuclear
power surge has been a quiet process with little public debate. It
comes at a time when deregulation of the electric utility industry
gives power companies the chance to profit by increasing production as
cheaply as possible.
New nuclear
plants won't be built for years, if ever. So operators, with
regulators' blessings, devised ways to get more output from existing
plants.
"The incentives
are in place to push people and machinery harder," said Mark Sadeghian,
a Morningstar utility analyst. "Everyone is doing it."
One way to do it is to increase production beyond the level for which a plant was originally licensed, like at Quad Cities.
In a separate
attempt to increase efficiency, nuclear plants are getting more power
from reactors by using uranium fuel containing more energy, and then
using that fuel for longer stretches of time. Exelon boasted in
February that its LaSalle Plant Unit 1 reactor had set a world record
of 739 days between refuelings.
As the industry
has powered up, most traditional safety measures have improved or at
least not eroded. For instance, forced plant shutdowns and safety
system failures are rare compared to the 1990s.
But unexpected
side effects have appeared, such as Quad Cities' quaking and less
severe cracking at Exelon's Dresden plant 60 miles southwest of
Chicago. Exelon will spend at least $160 million to fix vibration
issues at the plants.
Meanwhile,
uranium fuel began failing at an increasing pace four years ago,
cracking and leaking radiation into coolant water. Industry observers
say stress from increased demand over longer periods of use pushed the
fuel past its structural integrity.
Just last
month, LaSalle's Unit 1 reactor had to cut power output for several
days because a fuel failure could have potentially leaked radioactive
material in the reactor. While not an immediate safety problem, it
could create problems for Exelon for months to come.
In March,
Exelon found it couldn't fully insert a control rod--a key safety
component--into LaSalle's Unit 1 reactor. That problem may be linked to
the long run between refuelings, some nuclear experts say, though
Exelon says otherwise.
Fuel issues
like LaSalle's have garnered scrutiny from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the nuclear safety regulator. As with Quad Cities' shaking,
the NRC says damaged fuel is not a safety problem but can be expensive
to fix.
Near-disaster haunts critics
Nuclear power
watchdogs are still worried. Critics are haunted by a 2002 incident at
FirstEnergy Corp.'s Davis-Besse plant in Ohio.
Workers at
Davis-Besse found a pineapple-size cavity at the top of the plant's
reactor. Six inches of carbon steel had been eroded by acid, leaving
only a thin stainless steel lining. It was bulging and cracking.
Had the lining
given way, a disastrous accident could have occurred. It was the most
serious nuclear safety problem since the 1979 partial reactor meltdown
at Three Mile Island.
It happened at
a time when the industry's safety record looked good, and it happened
at a plant that regulators considered well run, meaning it received
fewer inspections.
Davis-Besse's
problems didn't stem from boosting power. Instead, the plant deferred
maintenance and therefore missed a brewing problem. FirstEnergy later
acknowledged that its managers emphasized production over safety.
The NRC was
criticized by its own internal investigative arm for weak oversight
that allowed FirstEnergy to put profits above safety. The General
Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, agreed.
To critics of nuclear power, Davis-Besse reinforced long-held fears, particularly in an era of deregulation.
"We have long
been concerned that the nuclear industry has pitted profit margins
against safety margins," said Paul Gunter, of The Nuclear Information
and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear group.
But the nuclear
power industry says it has a huge incentive to uphold safety: Billions
of dollars in assets and revenues are at risk if an accident occurs.
"It is not to
our benefit to run any of these billion-dollar assets into the dirt,"
said Christopher Crane, president of Exelon's nuclear arm. "We are
confident of our safety margins."
Exelon has had a solid safety record for years. The company runs 11 nuclear plants, including six in Illinois.
While no new
U.S. nuclear plant has been authorized for decades, the industry has
quietly boosted power output for years through "uprates" granted by the
NRC. Since uprates began in the late 1970s, the industry has added the
equivalent generating capacity of about four reactors.
Until 1998,
uprates didn't exceed 7 percent of a plant's originally licensed power
level. At most plants, equipment tweaks handled those increases, but
for larger uprates, regulators require plant modifications.
That's because
power boosts add stress to a plant's equipment. An 18 percent increase,
for instance, leads to a roughly 18 percent stronger flow of steam
through a plant's pipes.
To some uprate
critics, that's akin to pushing a 1970s vintage car 18 percent harder.
But uprate proponents argue that with plant modifications--like new
turbines and reinforced steam lines--that "old car" has had a major
makeover.
The industry
moved toward larger uprates because smaller boosts, which are those of
about 5 percent, had proven successful over the years, said Lochbaum of
the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is neutral on nuclear power.
The NRC has no upper limit on uprates. But the larger the uprate, the more costly to equip a plant for the greater stress.
Quad Cities was
in the first crop of 15 percent to 20 percent uprates. Quad Cities
houses two boiling water reactors. Heat from the nuclear reaction
within the reactors creates steam to drive generators that produce
electricity.
Exelon sank
"tens of millions of dollars" into upgrading the plant to handle the
power boost, said Tim Tulon, site vice president at Quad Cities, which
opened in 1972.
Excess steam results in hole
The first of its two reactors revved up power in March 2002. Five months later a major problem was discovered.
Workers found a
gaping hole in a "steam dryer," a 33-ton piece of equipment the size of
a garage that sits above the reactor. The dryer extracts excess
moisture from steam heading to a turbine that generates electricity.
The increased
steam flow from the power boost had caused vibration that in turn
caused the cracking. One dryer fragment was found wedged in a steam
line. Another piece was found in a screen in the plant's turbine room.
Lochbaum said that given the path the pieces traveled, they could have
become jammed in a key safety feature known as a "main steam isolation
valve."
In an accident,
those valves are supposed to close. If held open by metal fragments,
Lochbaum said, radioactive steam could escape into the environment.
The NRC concluded that Lochbaum's scenario was possible but improbable.
"There was a
very low likelihood of any issues with the pieces coming off," said Tom
Scarborough, the NRC's senior mechanical engineer for component
integrity. "That said, we don't want to see loose pieces coming off the
dryer."
Exelon made
repairs and restarted the reactor. But in May 2003, workers found
another large crack. Then, the steam dryer in the plant's other reactor
cracked, dislodging a chunk of metal 6 1/2 inches by 9 inches.
The missing piece was never found, but Exelon concluded that the piece posed no safety threat. The NRC agreed.
In December 2003, more cracking was found, this time in a steam dryer at Exelon's Dresden plant.
Dresden won
permission in 2001 to raise power 17 percent at its two reactors.
Dresden's cracking was also caused by vibration from the power boost.
Questions raised elsewhere
Exelon's
problems helped spark the first challenge to a big power uprate: a
proposed 20 percent boost at the 33-year-old Vermont Yankee plant in
southern Vermont, which is owned by New Orleans-based Entergy.
"Quad Cities
confirmed our suspicions," said Raymond Shadis, of the New England
Coalition, an anti-nuclear group. The coalition and the state asked the
NRC for assurances that Yankee could bear the stress of such a big
power boost.
Quad Cities'
woes caused the NRC to look hard at vibration issues when it studied
Vermont Yankee, significantly lengthening the review process, the
commission said.
The New England
Coalition never got the assurances it wanted, though the state of
Vermont withdrew its concerns in May, a few months after the NRC
approved Yankee's uprate.
Vibration problems are limited to Quad Cities and Dresden, the NRC says. So why has Quad Cities shaken so badly?
"We're still looking at that," said the NRC's Scarborough. He thinks the answer involves the layout of the plant's steam system.
Despite
repairs, Quad Cities' vibration woes continued. So Exelon decided to
replace steam dryers at both Quad Cities and Dresden, an expensive task
never done before at a U.S. plant.
Even with new
dryers, Quad Cities' problems continued. Last winter, workers found
that several safety valves had become worn and needed replacement,
apparently because of vibration, according to the NRC.
The valves release pressure in an emergency. Their degradation was of "very low" safety significance, the commission said.
But Quad Cities
was fortunate to discover the problem as the valves would have likely
degraded further, potentially resulting in the "unavailability of a
safety system," the NRC said.
Finally,
workers this spring found one of Quad Cities' brand new steam dryers
had developed a 5-foot crack. Exelon blames the crack on installation
problems.
Quad Cities believes it recently solved the quaking through a complicated $40 million revamp of the plant's steam-line system.
"It works
beyond expectations," said Tulon, the site vice president. Vibration
levels are less than before the power uprate, he said.
Lochbaum said
time will tell if this fix did the trick; Exelon has said before it's
solved the problem and "they were equally confident in the past," he
said.
Lochbaum
worries about less visible problems caused by uprates. Steam dryer
cracking, after all, can be easily spotted during maintenance, he said.
"If similar
problems are out there in terms of safety systems, these problems may
not surface until an accident and they don't do what you want them to
do," Lochbaum said.
Exelon's Tulon
noted, though, that Quad Cities' steam dryer cracking caused the
company to go back and reassess what could go wrong with myriad safety
system components.
"That's what good nukes do," he said.
Despite Quad Cities experience, some nuclear experts aren't worried by the uprates.
Neil Todreas, a
nuclear engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, is one of them. "The bottom line is I don't think they are
pushing us to a dangerous limit or putting us towards the edge in any
way. They've been thoroughly reviewed [by the NRC]."
Refueling less frequently
While large
uprates are perhaps the most dramatic way of boosting output, the
nuclear industry has wrung more production out of its fleet in several
other ways, not just running its plants harder but also running them
longer and hotter.
Reactors used
to refuel annually. Now they refuel every two years, on average, with
fuel containing more powerful uranium, reducing the interval when
plants produce no electricity.
That has led to its own problems.
Reactors are
powered by uranium pellets contained in thousands of zirconium tubes
called fuel rods. The zirconium cladding is the first barrier to the
release of radioactivity, and it must remain intact.
Beginning in 2002, increasing numbers of fuel rods suffered structural failure.
Under longer
use in an environment of intense radioactivity and furiously boiling
water, the fuel rods increasingly grew brittle and cracked, the first
step toward structural failure.
Too often, cracks expand into holes in the rod and the fuel within spills into the reactor.
"The longer you
put [fuel] in the reactor, the likelihood of failure is greater," said
Rosa Yang, a fuel expert at the Electric Power Research Institute.
In 2000, the
NRC counted 58 fuel failures. In 2003, the number rose to 147. Failures
declined to 72 last year, still far above the industry's goal of zero
defects.
Nuclear
engineers say failing fuel is not a safety issue, as the uranium is
contained within the reactor's heavy steel vessel. But failed fuel is
expensive to clean up and can force a nuclear plant to shut down. It is
a basic principal of nuclear safety that no barrier to radioactive
material can be allowed to fail.
NRC Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield has raised the alarm about fuel failures.
"This is a trend we can neither ignore nor tolerate," Merrifield said at a commission meeting last year.
Merrifield now
says the situation may have stabilized, as fuelmakers work to design
more durable fuel rods. He said the total amount of failed fuel is very
small in comparison with the amount of uranium consumed by the nation's
103 power generating reactors.
Meanwhile, the
longer use of nuclear fuel appears to have aggravated a problem
involving control rods, a vital reactor safety feature.
The chain
reaction within reactor fuel is managed by control rods. Inserting the
dozens of control rods through channels into the fuel reduces power
output; withdrawing the rods increases power production.
Under bombardment by radiation, the channels can distort, making it more difficult to move the control rods.
That phenomenon
appeared in February at Exelon's LaSalle Unit 1 reactor in Seneca,
which is about 75 miles southwest of Chicago. During a reactor shutdown
there, one control rod failed to fully insert and a distorted channel
was found in the fuel.
"We are
definitely seeing an increase" in fuel channel problems, said Jim
Malone, vice president of nuclear fuels for Exelon, adding that the
company is working to reduce the problem.
Malone doesn't
believe fuel failures are the fault of nuclear operators. He blames
nuclear fuel manufacturers for not making their product more durable.
Areva NP manufactures nuclear fuel and is working to make its product stronger.
"We don't
understand how all these effects work together," said John Matheson,
senior vice president for fuel at Areva. "Clearly the fuel is being
challenged more."
[email protected]
[email protected]
------------------->
* NUCLEAR WASTE IN FRANCE
------------------->
Radioactive waste 'threatens' Champagne
June 1, 2006
http://www.decanter.com/news/85961.html
Oliver
Styles
Leaking radioactive waste from a dump in the Champagne region
is a 'threat' to its vineyards, says Greenpeace.
According to the
environmental organisation, the Soulaine waste dump, 10km from
Champagne vineyards in the Côte des Bar, is contaminating
underground water on and near the facility.
Although
Greenpeace has admitted that there is no actual proof of vineyard
contamination, it said the dump had been 'releasing radioactivity into
the atmosphere and underground water for ten years'.
ANDRA, the
Government agency responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste admits
there are 'tiny' levels of contamination in the groundwater but denied
there was any threat to vineyards.
'The threat
cannot exist because the water table flows to the north-west and the
vineyards are to the south,' said ANDRA's Jacqueline Eymard.
She
added that the contamination recorded was 'tiny', at 17 Bequerels per
litre (Bq/l). The European safety limit is 100Bq/l.
According to a
government report published in May 2005, a waste storage container wall
at Soulaine cracked as a layer of concrete was poured in to seal the
waste. ANDRA has just been given the go-ahead by the government to
repair the damaged casement.
Although Eymard
said contamination levels were 'miniscule' and was 'absolutely no
worry' to the region, Greenpeace is citing the example of another dump
in Normandy.
The La Hague
facility, near Cherbourg, was closed in 1994 when it reached its
capacity of over 0.5m cubic metres of radioactive waste. Since then,
several other sites, including Soulaine which has a capacity double
that of the La Hague site, have dealt with the radioactive by-products
of nuclear energy. Greenpeace says levels of radioactivity near La
Hague measure around 750Bq/l.
'We are sounding the alarm for future dangers,' said Frédéric Marillier of the organisation.
The move by
Greenpeace comes as the French Senate begins debating new laws on
nuclear waster management. Around 80% of France's electricity, supplied
by EdF (Electricité de France) comes from nuclear energy.
------------------->
Nuclear Threat to French Champagne - Greenpeace
FRANCE : June 1, 2006
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36601/story.htm
PARIS -
France's world renowned champagne-producing vineyards could be
threatened by radioactive waste seeping into ground water, Greenpeace
said on Wednesday.
In a report
sent to the French Senate, the environmental group said high levels of
the radioactive isotope tritium had been detected in ground water near
a now closed La Manche storage site.
A replacement
facility at Soulaines in the Champagne region has also begun
contaminating ground water -- though at far lower levels -- 10 years
after its construction, Greenpeace said.
The group sent
bottles of contaminated La Manche ground water to French senators due
to begin on Wednesday debating a law authorising the burial of highly
radioactive nuclear waste deep underground, notably in an area
bordering the Champagne region.
"The pollution
of ground water in La Manche is already very serious," Greenpeace
campaigner Frederic Marillier told Reuters by telephone.
"The fear we
have is that, with this plan for a new storage site in Champagne, in
the future there will be a radioactive pollution in this region which
has a very, very special nature."
France sold
around 300 million bottles of the famous sparkling wine last year, with
around 55 percent of production consumed in France, 45 percent exported.
ANDRA, the
French agency responsible for managing nuclear waste, confirmed in a
statement placed on its Web site on May 24 that Soulaines had leaked.
It said it had ordered repairs and that no harm had been done to the
environment.
Marillier said
Soulaines water samples showed 17 becquerels of radioactivity per litre
last year, a rise from 2004 but still well below the EU alert level of
100 becquerels.
Samples from
near the La Manche site, close to the La Hague nuclear reprocessing
facility on the Channel, showed tritium pollution was 180 times the EU
safety level, Marillier said.
France, the
world's second-largest nuclear power producer, has accumulated
radioactive waste for 40 years and its storage is a contentious issue.
Around 80
percent of French electricity comes from nuclear power and currently,
nuclear waste is only stored on the surface. The new law will provide
for so-called deep geological disposal underground.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
------------------->
Greenpeace Says Nuclear Waste Seeping into Groundwater from French Storage Site
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10571
May 31, 2006 — By Ingrid Rousseau, Associated Press
PARIS —
Greenpeace said Tuesday that nuclear waste from a storage facility is
seeping into groundwater in the Champagne region and threatening
vineyards that produce the sparkling wine.
The
environmental group presented the French Senate on Tuesday with a
report saying that groundwater samples 10 kilometers (6 miles) from
champagne vineyards showed contamination from the waste facility in
Soulaines.
The group also
took samples from near the other major nuclear waste site in France, in
the Manche region on the English Channel, that they said contained
radioactivity levels 170 times higher than European legislation allows.
Storing nuclear
waste is difficult, costly, politically sensitive and potentially
extremely dangerous -- all of which are key arguments used against
nuclear energy.
The French
Senate was to debate a law Tuesday on what to do about France's 1.05
billion cubic meters (35 million cubic feet) of nuclear waste. The
lower house of parliament passed the law in March, calling for storing
the most dangerous waste deep underground in sealed containers. Other
countries, including the United States, already bury nuclear waste.
The national
nuclear waste agency issued a statement on May 24 in which it
acknowledged a "defect in the design of storage air pockets" at the
Aube facility, which is in the Champagne region.
Waste at the
site is stored in successive concrete containers. While workers were
filling in the concrete for the last container in April 2005, one of
the inner containers cracked, the statement said.
The nuclear
safety agency ordered it rebuilt, but classified the incident as "zero"
on a zero-seven scale. The agency said it caused no environmental
damage.
Currently, 85 percent of France's radioactive waste is stored
in the Manche and Aube storage sites. The remaining 15 percent -- which
includes the most highly radioactive materials -- are in temporary
facilities around the country.
The most
nuclear energy-dependent country in the world, France has 59 reactors
churning out nearly 80 percent of its electricity. It also has nuclear
weapons and imports waste from nuclear warheads and reactors in the
United States and other countries for reprocessing.
Source:
Associated Press
------------------->
* WORLDWATCH 'VITAL SIGNS'
------------------->
World 'hotter, richer more crowded'
July 13, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19774051-30417,00.html
THE world is
getting hotter and using more fossil fuels as people get richer and the
population surges towards the 6.5 billion mark.
The Worldwatch
Institute report on the state of the globe found the amount of
greenhouse gases working their way into the atmosphere is at an
all-time high, with the world consuming more oil and coal.
However, there are signs dependence on fossil fuels may be ebbing with big increases in ethanol, solar and wind energy.
Worldwatch is an environmentally-focused organisation that analyses global trends, from the environment to the economy.
It's Vital
Signs publication, released today, is an annual exploration of a large
number of issues, including deforestation, infant mortality rates,
aluminium production and mobile phone use.
There are now 6.45 billion people on the planet, an increase of 74 million over 2004.
Those people used 3.8 billion tons (tons) of oil, or 83.3 million barrels a day, an increase of 1.3 per cent over 2004.
Coal use rose
6.3 per cent to 2.8 billion tons of oil equivalent, while natural gas
use rose 3.3 per cent to 2.4 billion tons of oil equivalent.
There were 45.6
million passenger cars built (up 3.2 per cent), an extra 18.5 million
light trucks constructed (up 2.8 per cent), and another 101 million
bicycles were made (up nine per cent).
The world now has more than 603 million cars, and 220 million light trucks, on its roads.
However, Worldwatch found a strong increase in alternative energy fuels.
Ethanol production soared 19 per cent to 36.5 billion litres.
Solar power is
now the world's fastest growing energy source, with photovoltaic cell
production up 45 per cent to 1700 megawatts during 2005.
There are now 125 million square metres of solar heating installed.
Wind power
capacity increased 24 per cent to 59,600 megawatts last year. In the
United States, there are now enough wind turbines to meet the needs of
2.3 million households.
Worldwatch Institute president Christopher Flavin said the increase in alternative fuels was a good sign.
"These
developments are impressive and are likely to provoke far-reaching
changes in world energy markets within the next five years," he said.
"But the
transition will have to move even faster to prevent the kind of
ecological and economic crises that may be precipitated by continuing
dependence on fossil fuels."
But the report also found major problems confronting the world.
The average
temperature in 2005 was 14.6 degrees Celsius, which it said is the
warmest year ever recorded on the Earth's surface.
Five of the warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.
Carbon dioxide
concentration reached 379.6 parts per million, an increase of 0.6 per
cent over the record amount in 2004. The 2005 increase is the largest
ever recorded.
And carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning increased 4.5 per cent to a record 7.6 billion tons.
Project director of Vital Signs, Erik Assadourian, said it was clear the world was living beyond its means.
"Business as usual is harming the Earth's eco-systems and the people who depend on them," he said.
"If everyone
consumed at the average level of high-income countries, the planet
could sustainably support only 1.8 billion people, not today's
population of 6.5 billion.
"Yet the
world's population is expected not to shrink but to grow to 8.9 billion
by 2050."
Weather-related disasters in 2005 cost the globe $US204
billion ($271.7 billion) - a record - due largely to Hurricane Katrina
in the US.
The average
number of people now affected by weather-related disasters reached 260
million. More than 13,600 people died from those disasters.
Worldwatch
found that while the number of wars and armed conflicts fell to 39
during 2005 (the lowest number since the early 1990s), military
expenditure by governments increased to their highest level since 1991.
Top of page
Return
to contents page.