AUSTRALIA - NUCLEAR + CLIMATE + ENERGY DEBATES
New Information Resources
Climate Change
Clean Energy Solutions for Climate Change
Climate Change and Nuclear Power
Maralinga
Nuclear Dump Proposed for the NT
Australia as the World's Nuclear Waste Dump
Enrichment of Uranium for Australia?
Push for Asian Nuclear Energy Body Like Euratom
Nuclear Power for Australia - Government's Nuclear Inquiry (Ziggy Switkowski)
Nuclear Power for Australia - Responses to Switkowski Draft Report
Nuclear Power for Australia - EnergyScience Coalition info
Nuclear Power for Australia - Various
Nuclear Power for Australia - Economics
Nuclear Power for Australia - Locations
Nuclear Power For Australia - Workforce Issues
Nuclear Power - Summary Of Impacts
Uranium - Various
Uranium - Ranger Extension in NT
Uranium Industry Framework
Uranium - Safeguards are a Joke
Uranium - SA Government
Honeymoon Approved
Uranium Mining - Roxby Downs
Uranium Mining In WA ... Not
Uranium Sales To Russia
Uranium Sales To China
Uranium Sales To India + USA Reactor Supply
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ISSUES
Uranium Reserves
Indonesia - Nuclear Power
THORP UK Reprocessing Accident
Fusion
Nuclear Smuggling
------------------->
NEW INFORMATION RESOURCES
------------------->
Energyscience - coalition of nuclear experts, briefing papers at <energyscience.org.au>
------------------->
Greenpeace-convened expert international panel on nuclear power:
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/more-nuclear-what-internation
or direct download:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/more-nuclear-what-internation.pdf
------------------->
Hi everyone,
The 'Living Country' DVD, produced by CAAMA (Central
Australian Aboriginal Media Association) about the waste dump, is
finally available for purchase!
The 22 minute film is an excellent
introduction to the NT waste dump issue, with interviews expressing the
concerns of communities living closest to the sites (as close as 3km
away) and beautiful shots of country targeted for the dump.
It has so
far been screened in Darwin, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne and of
course Alice Springs, each time with fantastic feedback.
I have bought
copies directly from CAAMA for $38.50 each and am selling these on for
$45 to cover packaging, postage and a small change donation to round it
out!
Any extra donation on top of the suggested $45 will go toward
the vibrant but extremely underfunded community campaign against the
dump.
There have only been 50 copies of the DVD made, and while there
could be another run in the future, it has been a long time and a lot
of persistance in hassling CAAMA to get these out for sale, so I
recommend you grab one while you can!
Please contact me with any
questions.
Any cheques please make out to 'Arid Lands Environment
Centre' (and address the envelope to me).
Thanks,
Nat
------
Beyond
Nuclear Initiative
Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC)
Cummins Plaza,
67 Todd Mall / PO box 2796,
Alice Springs, NT
Australia 0871
ph: 08
8952 2011
mobile : 0429 900 774
email: [email protected]
------------------->
Heaps of info on uranium mine in Oz and globally ...
http://www.infomine.com/commodities/uranium.asp
------------------->
Great new report on flawed safeguards at: <www.mapw.org.au/Illusion%20of%20Protection%20index.html>
------------------->
Anna Rose (ASEN) on JJJ Hack re climate change, the Australian Youth
Climate CHange Coalition and a youth response to the Shitkowski report,
particularly around the chapter on the role universities are gonna be
pushed to play to expand the nuclear industry
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/podcast/tuesday.htm
------------------->
UNSW (anti-)nuclear power conference papers at <www.ies.unsw.edu.au/events/events.htm>
------------------->
Lots of excellent info re nukes:
www.waltpatterson.org
------------------->
FoE Adelaide's 'Call the Honeymoon Off' action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk1AmSVXbvA
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
CLIMATE CHANGE
------------------->
Is Howard burnt out?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20705462-5000117,00.html
November 06, 2006
JILL Singer writes: John Howard wants a new Kyoto because he reckons the old one is useless.
I want a new PM for much the same reason.
The evidence is irrefutable that he is stubbornly refusing to take the
threat of climate change seriously and is prepared to engage in media
stunts and window dressing only in the hope he can fool us into
thinking all is well.
Just listen to his use of language. It's all designed to soothe
Australia into thinking the problem isn't necessarily all that bad and
that he is absolutely on top of it.
Consider the release of Britain's devastating report by Sir Nicholas
Stern, which warns that poor old parched Australia is at particular
risk of devastating environmental and economic disaster.
First, Mr Howard advises Coalition MPs not to get mesmerised by one
report, never mind that it echoes last year's dire predictions by
Australia's CSIRO scientists.
Then he tells the public it is very important we don't overreact to Stern.
No one, he says, can assert with any confidence that Sir Nicholas's doomsday scenarios are right or wrong.
It's almost as if you can hear Joh Bjelke-Petersen's voice from the grave saying, "Don't you worry about that".
Then, last Thursday, a Newspoll revealed that 79 per cent of
Australians wanted the Government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and
commit itself to greenhouse-gas emission targets.
And 91 per cent wanted the Government to shift from fossil fuels, such
as coal, to renewable sources. Surely, such public concern cannot be
dismissed lightly?
Think again. Mr Howard's response to the poll was to question its
veracity but he later had to correct himself in Parliament and admit it
was legitimate.
Furthermore, he says it's not surprising people say we've got to do
more because of all the focus of the last few days on climate change.
The last few days . . . Who is he kidding?
Obviously, Mr Howard is bargaining on the public having the collective attention span of a gnat.
You know, today we're worried about climate change, tomorrow we'll all
be so preoccupied with a horse race that we will forget about it.
He could be right. For now we have Channel 7's Mel and Kochie plugging
events, such as the Walk Against Warming and asking irritating
questions, such as why the Howard Government is spending twice as much
taxpayer money on advertising the Government as it spends on climate
change.
But such programs are not noted for keeping the heat on, if you'll pardon the pun.
Tomorrow, I'm sure, it will all be jolly old hats and feathers and next
week it could well be some other worthy cause that shocks their socks
off.
The fact is that today marks the start of the United Nations Climate Change conference in Kenya, Nairobi.
Over the next two weeks, the 165 countries that have ratified the Kyoto
Protocol will discuss the way forward for global co-operation in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
India and China, the two countries that John Howard highlights as not
doing enough to combat climate change, will be there and exercising
their right to vote.
And Australia, the greatest per capita producer of greenhouse gases in
the world, will be sitting on the sidelines, along with the world's
single greatest polluter, the US, plotting how to form a splinter group
that will advantage their coal and oil industries.
Yes, it's true Australia is in the Asia Pacific Clean Development and Climate Partnership (the AP6).
It's also true the Howard Government announced last week $60 million
for initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. But let's get this in
perspective. It's akin to putting a Band-Aid on a bloke shot at
point-blank range.
Not only is Australia the nation most reliant on dirty fossil fuels for
energy, we also export a staggering $61 billion worth of pollution a
year in the form of coal, according to economic modelling based on the
Stern report.
What's more, the Australian Conservation Foundation estimates the Government is spending $1 billion on subsidising company cars.
And here is the PM expecting us to get all excited because he is
contributing a mingy $57 million to a $319 million solar power project
in Victoria.
For another comparison, Howard's much vaunted national chaplains in schools are going to cost $90 million.
Why, oh why, are we still being encouraged to think we shouldn't overreact or get hysterical about our future?
Listen again to the PM's language.
In a prime bit of Biblespeak, John Howard reckons he won't destroy the
natural advantage that Providence has given the working men and women
of Australia: apparently the retired, the unemployed and children are
exempt from any natural advantage.
Ah, Divine Providence.
God has delivered unto us plenty of coal and it would be economically sinful not to capitalise on it.
God also happened to bury lots of uranium deep under our land, so we'd better use that up too.
One might point out that Providence has also given us lots of wind and sunshine.
No doubt, come election time, Mr Howard will post everyone a cheque for
some reason or other, have his photo taken alongside some token
windmill or solar panel and reckon it will be enough to get him over
the line, yet again.
It might even work for him, but the risks he is taking now are not
personally large for him. He has already had a long, happy and
successful life.
The risks he is taking threaten the future of the country he professes to love.
They also threaten the rest of the world, from which he is increasingly alienating us.
I am beginning to understand why Mr Howard says we need chaplains in
school. They are particularly good at bereavement counselling in times
of crisis and loss.
The only option left us may well be prayer.
[email protected]
------------------->
PM's windy rhetoric denounced as a scare tactic
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pms-windy-rhetoric-denounced-as-a-scare-tactic/2006/11/12/1163266413050.html
Richard Macey
November 13, 2006
A SCIENTIST has accused the Prime Minister of frightening the public to undermine wind power's potential.
Responding last week to a Herald/ACNielsen poll showing 91 per cent of
people regarded climate change as serious, John Howard warned that wind
power could become a key source of energy only if the coast was
festooned with windmills.
"Unless you want to have a windmill every few hundred feet starting at
South Head and going down to Malabar," he said, "you simply won't be
able to generate enough power from something like wind in order to take
the load of the power that is generated by the use of coal and gas and,
in time, I believe, nuclear."
Looking "years ahead", the only means of generating the required energy were fossil fuels and nuclear power.
However, Mark Diesendorf, an expert in renewable energy at the
Institute of Environmental Studies, University of NSW, dismissed Mr
Howard's comments as "just not true".
He said the depiction of a coastline of windmills was "a straw man …
designed to frighten people … It's the same old misleading stuff."
The truth, Dr Diesendorf said, was that wind farms could supply 20 per
cent of Australia's energy needs by 2040, using less land than required
today for generating coal-fired power.
And no one was proposing dotting the coast with wind farms. In NSW, the
most likely sites would be inland, "in high country on the Southern
Tablelands".
Only "1 or 2 per cent" of a wind farm would be covered with turbines
and associated works, such as access roads. The rest would remain
available for agriculture, including grazing.
Dr Diesendorf said the turbines and roads for a wind farm that could
replace a 1000-megawatt coal-fired station would occupy between five
and 19 square kilometres. An open-cut coalmine to support a station
producing the same amount of power could take up 50 to 100 square
kilometres.
Dr Diesendorf said Mr Howard's comments followed equally misleading
claims by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, in May.
"It has been estimated," Mr Downer told Parliament, "that you would
need a wind farm occupying 3200 square kilometres to produce the
equivalent energy of a medium-sized power station."
A 2004 study, Clean Energy Future for Australia, found carbon dioxide
emissions from stationary sources could be halved by 2040 with existing
technology. Natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, could supply 30 per
cent of power, said Dr Diesendorf, who worked on the study.
Small "bioenergy" power stations burning crop leftovers could supply 28 to 30 per cent, and wind power another 20 per cent.
------------------->
(Unpublished)
Howard and the greenhouse mafia
On Saturday, tens of thousands of Australians participated in the 'Walk
Against Warming' to express concern about climate change and show
support for clean energy solutions. That morning, the leading news item
was a leak from the government's nuclear inquiry to the effect that
nuclear power might be economical in 15 years if the government puts a
price on carbon (which it insists it will not do).
The leak was attributed to an unidentified 'source'. No doubt the
'source' was part of the nuclear inquiry secretariat located in the
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. No doubt the leak was timed
to coincide with the Walk Against Warming.
Howard's strategy is clear: muddy the push for clean energy -
renewables and energy efficiency - by tossing the 'N' word into the
debate at every opportunity.
That strategy distracts attention from the government's disgraceful
record: closing the Energy Research and Development Corporation in
1997; shutting down most renewable energy research within the CSIRO;
withdrawing funding from the Co-operative Research Centre for Renewable
Energy in 2002; allowing fossil fuel interests to buy their way on to
the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics climate
change modeling team; refusing to extend the Mandatory Renewable Energy
Target, which was set at a paltry 2%; blocking wind farm projects and
promoting a "national code" which would have the effect of blocking
more wind farms; establishing a self-described "greenhouse mafia" of
fossil fuel interests, the Lower Emissions Technical Advisory Group, to
formulate energy and climate change policy; and persisting with its
relentless efforts to kill, weaken, and marginalise the Kyoto Protocol.
No wonder the contribution of renewable energy has fallen from 10% in
1999 to its current level of 8%. Howard and his greenhouse mafia should
be held to account.
Jim Green
Friends of the Earth
------------------->
PM's stance on climate change immoral
By Robyn Eckersley
November 8, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/pms-stance-on-climate-change-immoral/2006/11/07/1162661678871.html
Prime Minister John Howard has long maintained the Kyoto Protocol is
flawed because it excludes major carbon emitters in the developing
world. In Parliament last week, in defiance of the British Stern
report, he declared that it would be foolish for Australia to embark on
a carbon trading scheme, because developing countries would enjoy a
free ride at our expense.
Yet the Prime Minister's stance directly contravenes Australia's
obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992.
The fundamental environmental justice principle running through this
convention, which Australia has signed and ratified, is that parties
should take steps to protect the climate "on the basis of equity and in
accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capacities" (article 3(1)). The convention provides that
developed countries must "take the lead in combating climate change".
Developed countries have benefited from a long history of exploiting
fossil fuels and are responsible for the bulk of past emissions. They
also have a greater economic capacity to absorb emission reductions and
develop technological alternatives.
These environmental justice principles also served as the cornerstone
of the Berlin mandate, which framed the negotiations for the Kyoto
Protocol. Developing countries, including growing aggregate emitters
such as China, are not expected to undertake mandatory emissions
reduction until developed countries have shown the way. For the Prime
Minister to maintain that the protocol is flawed because it allows free
riders, flies in the face of the principles of the Kyoto Protocol's
parent convention. The main reason the Kyoto Protocol is suboptimal, in
both environmental and political terms, is because the world's biggest
aggregate carbon polluter (the US) and the world's second biggest per
capita carbon polluter (Australia) have defected.
The idea that a rich country such as Australia should not reduce its
oversized per capita carbon footprint unless poorer countries also take
measures to reduce their tiny per capita footprint is to kick the
ladder down. It denies poorer countries the opportunity to improve the
livelihoods of their peoples and avoids Australia's obligations under
the convention. Such a stance is morally and politically unjustifiable.
Robyn Eckersley teaches global politics at the University of Melbourn
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS & CLIMATE CHANGE
------------------->
It's clean and it's green, but Howard isn't interested in it
Suzy Freeman-Greene
September 26, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/its-clean-and-its-green-but-howard-isnt-interested-in-it/2006/09/25/1159036469469.html
IN MAY, John Howard called for a "full-blooded debate" on nuclear
power. When the Prime Minister asks for debate, we oblige, and the
issue has attracted headlines since. But while nuclear, wind power and
even carbon geosequestration are the subject of spirited discussion as
we grapple with global warming, there's a clean, green power source
that barely seems to rate a mention. It's solar power.
Australia is one of the world's sunniest countries and an innovator in
solar research. "We used to be a world leader in solar power," says the
Australian Conservation Foundation's Erwin Jackson. "Now we're falling
abysmally behind countries like Japan."
For more than a decade, according to the New Internationalist, the
Japanese Government has paid subsidies to householders who install
photovoltaic panels on their roofs. The subsidies are being phased out
but capacity is still expected to grow by 20 per cent a year.
Germany, meanwhile, has installed more than 100 times Australia's
grid-connected solar capacity. "Yet if you put the same panel on a roof
in Australia (where it's sunnier) it would produce twice as much
capacity," says Jackson.
But in Australia, the Federal Government is quietly phasing out the
rebates available to homeowners who install panels. The rebate has been
replaced by the $75 million Solar Cities project, in which four
locations will be used to demonstrate and trial solar technology. In
North Adelaide, the first "solar city", panels and "smart meters" will
be installed in 1700 homes.
The project will run until 2012-13. While worthy, it will be limited to
just a few locations and seems small fry compared with what's going on
elsewhere. In Spain, the Government has legislated to require solar
panels in all new and renovated shopping centres, offices, hotels or
warehouses. Jackson says about 70 per cent of the panels made at BP
Solar's Sydney manufacturing plant are sold overseas.
It costs about $10,000 to $15,000 to put panels on your roof. We have
the technology. We just need to make it cheaper. Says Haydn Fletcher
from Melbourne firm Going Solar: "We already know how to become solar
cities … What we need is policy change." He says the past 10 months
have been the quietest he's seen.
No single power source can replace our reliance on coal; we need
diversity. Solar is not the panacea. But there's so much more we could
do to foster an affordable, large-scale industry. Far from a fringe
affair, the foundation says solar PV is the fastest-growing energy
technology in the world, with growth rates of 60 per cent annually over
the past five years.
One effective way to encourage investment in solar power is to reward
panel owners for the unused power they can feed into the electricity
grid. Many in the local solar industry are calling for the introduction
of a "feed-in tariff", where a small levy is added to all power bills.
The money is then used to pay households or businesses for their excess
solar power at a higher rate than that paid to dirtier sources.
Governments in Germany, Italy, China, Indonesia, Spain, South Korea and
Switzerland have kick-started their industry with such a tariff. A
draft proposal prepared by BP Solar and Conergy, says a feed-in tariff
would cost the typical power consumer the equivalent of one cup of
coffee a year (presumably about $3).
Things are happening slowly here. Melbourne firm Solar Systems has
proposed a $420 million solar power station in north-western Victoria
that could power 40,000 homes. Solar Systems and Boeing have developed
the project using PV technology designed for satellites. They have
applied for federal funding from the low emission technologies fund.
The State Government has legislated to require electricity retailers to
meet 10 per cent of their energy needs through renewable sources by
2016. But the Victorian Opposition has pledged to scrap the scheme.
When the Prime Minister spoke in May, he described nuclear power, which
produces radioactive waste, as "cleaner and greener than other forms of
power".
Whose debate do we want to have? The one framed by politicians in
thrall to the mining lobby or a discussion about genuinely clean forms
of power? Clearly the Government wants to boost our coal and uranium
industries, but in 100 years' time will there even be an economy around
to protect?
Suzy Freeman-Greene is a staff writer.
------------------->
Here's the plan for fast and effective action on climate change
By George Monbiot
Published in the Guardian 31st October 2006
It is a testament to the power of money that Nicholas Stern's report
should have swung the argument for drastic action, even before anyone
has finished reading it. He appears to have demonstrated what many of
us suspected: that it would cost much less to prevent runaway climate
change than to seek to live with it. Useful as this finding is, I hope
it doesn't mean that the debate will now concentrate on money. The
principal costs of climate change will be measured in lives, not
pounds. As Stern reminded us yesterday, there would be a moral
imperative to seek to prevent mass death even if the economic case did
not stack up.
But at least almost everyone now agrees that we must act, if not at the
necessary speed. If we're to have a high chance of preventing global
temperatures from rising by 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, we
need, in the rich nations, a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
by 2030(1). The greater part of the cut has to be made at the beginning
of this period. To see why, picture two graphs with time on the
horizontal axis and the rate of emissions plotted vertically. One falls
like a ski jump: a steep drop followed by a shallow tail. The other
falls like the trajectory of a bullet. To the left of each line is the
total volume of greenhouse gases produced in that period. They fall to
the same point by the same date, but far more gases have been produced
in the second case, making runaway climate change more likely.
So how do we do it without bringing civilisation crashing down? Here is
a plan for drastic but affordable action the government could take. It
goes much further than the proposals discussed by Tony Blair and Gordon
Brown yesterday, for the reason that this is what the science demands.
1. Set a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on the
latest science. The government is using outdated figures - restated by
Blair and Brown yesterday - aiming for a 60% reduction by 2050. Even
the annual 3% cut proposed in the early day motion calling for a new
climate change bill does not go far enough. Timescale: immediately.
2. Use that target to set an annual carbon cap, which falls on the ski
jump trajectory. Then use the cap to set a personal carbon ration.
Every citizen is given a free annual quota of carbon dioxide. He spends
it by buying gas and electricity, petrol and train and plane tickets.
If he runs out, he must buy the rest from someone who has has used less
than his quota(2). This accounts for about 40% of the carbon dioxide we
produce. The rest is auctioned off to companies. It's a simpler and
fairer approach than either green taxation or the Emissions Trading
Scheme, and it also provides people with a powerful incentive to demand
low-carbon technologies. Timescale: a full scheme in place by January
2009.
3. Introduce a new set of building regulations, with three objectives.
A. Imposing strict energy efficiency requirements on all major
refurbishments (costing £3000 or more). Timescale: comes into
force by June 2007.
B. Obliging landlords to bring their houses up to high energy
efficiency standards before they can rent them out. Timescale: to cover
all new rentals from January 2008.
C. Ensuring that all new homes in the UK are built to the German
passivhaus standard (which requires no heating system). Timescale:
comes into force by 2012.
4. Ban the sale of incandescent lightbulbs, patio heaters, garden
floodlights and several other wasteful and unnecessary technologies.
Introduce a stiff "feebate" system for all electronic goods sold in
this country. The least efficient are taxed heavily while the most
efficient receive tax discounts. Every year the standards in each
category rise. Timescale: fully implemented by November 2007.
5. Redeploy the money now earmarked for new nuclear missiles towards a
massive investment in energy generation and distribution. Two schemes
in particular require government support to make them commercially
viable: very large wind farms, many miles offshore, connected to the
grid with high voltage direct current cables; and a hydrogen pipeline
network to take over from the natural gas grid as the primary means of
delivering fuel for home heating. Timescale: both programmes commence
at the end of 2007 and are completed by 2018.
6. Promote the development of a new national coach network. City centre
coach stations are shut down and moved to the junctions of the
motorways. Urban public transport networks are extended to meet them.
The coaches travel on dedicated lanes and never leave the motorways(3).
Journeys by public transport then become as fast as journeys by car,
while saving 90% of emissions. It is self-financing, through the sale
of the land now used for coach stations. Timescale: commences in 2008;
completed by 2020.
7. Oblige all chains of filling stations to supply leasable electric
car batteries. This provides electric cars with unlimited mileage: as
the battery runs down, you pull into a forecourt. A crane lifts it out
and drops in a fresh one. The batteries are charged overnight with
surplus electricity from offshore windfarms. Timescale: fully
operational by 2011.
8. Abandon the road-building and road-widening programme, and spend the
money on tackling climate change. The government has earmarked
£11.4 billion for new roads(4). It claims to be allocating just
£545 million a year to "spending policies that tackle climate
change"(5). Timescale: immediately.
9. Freeze and then reduce UK airport capacity. While capacity remains
high there will be constant upward pressure on any scheme the
government introduces to limit flights. We need a freeze on all new
airport construction and the introduction of a national quota for
landing slots, to be reduced by 90% by 2030. Timescale: immediately.
10. Legislate for the closure of all out-of-town superstores, and their
replacement with a warehouse and delivery system. Shops use a
staggering amount of energy (six times as much electricity per square
metre as factories, for example), and major reductions are hard to
achieve: Tesco's "state of the art" energy-saving store at Diss has
managed to cut its energy use by only 20%(6). Warehouses containing the
same quantity of goods use roughly 5% of the energy(7). Out-of-town
shops are also hard-wired to the car - delivery vehicles use 70% less
fuel(8). Timescale: fully implemented by 2012.
These timescales might seem extraordinarily ambitious. They are, by
contrast to the current glacial pace of change. But when the US entered
the second world war, it turned the economy around on a sixpence.
Carmakers began producing aircraft and missiles within a year, and
amphibious vehicles in 90 days, from a standing start(9). And that was
65 years ago. If we want this to happen, we can make it happen. It will
require more economic intervention than we're used to and some pretty
brutal emergency planning policies (with little time or scope for
objections). But if you believe these are worse than mass death, there
is something wrong with your value system.
Climate change is not just a moral question: it is the moral question
of the 21st century. There is one position even more morally culpable
than denial. That is to accept that it's happening and that its results
will be catastrophic; but to fail to take the measures needed to
prevent it.
George Monbiot's book Heat: how to stop the planet burning is published by Penguin.
References:
1. This is explained, with references, in Heat: how to stop the planet burning.
2. The idea was first proposed by Mayer Hillamn in 1990, and has been
championed and refined by David Fleming. See David Fleming, no date
given. Energy and the Common Purpose: descending the energy staircase
with tradeable energy quotas (TEQs). http://www.teqs.net/book/teqs.pdf
3. This plan was proposed by Alan Storkey, 2005. A Motorway-Based
National Coach System. Available from [email protected] . I summarise
his paper in Heat.
4. Department for Transport statistics, December 2005, collated by Road
Block.
http://www.roadblock.org.uk/press_releases/info/TPI%20and%20local%20schemes%20Dec05.xls
5. Lord McKenzie of Luton, 10th October 2005. Parliamentary answer HL
1508.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51010w04.htm
6. http://www.tescocorporate.com/crreport06/pdf/Tesco_CRR_2006_Full.pdf
7. See the figures and discussion in Heat.
8. S. Cairns et al, 2004. Home shopping. Chapter in Transport for
Quality of Life, p. 324. Report to the Department for Transport. The
Robert Gordon University and Eco-Logica London, UK.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_susttravel_029756.pdf
9. Jack Doyle, 2000. Taken for a Ride: Detroit's big three and the
politics of pollution, pp.1-2. Four Walls, Eight Windows, New York.
------------------->
The choice is not nuclear energy v coal
Ric Brazzale
November 24, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-choice-is-not-nuclear-energy-v-coal/2006/11/23/1163871546318.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
THE findings of the Government's nuclear taskforce should come as
little surprise, as the focus was narrowly on nuclear power and
excluded consideration of clean energy sources, such as renewable
energy, gas-fired generation and energy efficiency.
In essence, the review posits a false choice — between nuclear energy
and coal — as if no other large-capacity power options were available.
This is a false choice.
What conclusions might have been drawn if it had been a wide-ranging
inquiry that compared solar power, wind power, bioenergy, geothermal
"hot rocks", energy efficiency, solar water heating and natural gas, as
well as nuclear power?
We can only wonder, because it wasn't that sort of inquiry.
So, what has the review contributed?
First, it was encouraging to see it conclude that a carbon price signal
is essential for greenhouse gas reduction and for investment in the
development and deployment of zero and low-emission technologies.
This is a critical step towards a clean economy. Per capita,
Australians are the most polluting people in the world. Greenhouse gas
emissions from coal-dominated electricity generation in Australia are
soaring and forecast to rise rapidly. ABARE predicts our energy
emissions will be more than 60 per cent higher over the next 25 years
if we continue with "business as usual".
The most effective way to begin reining in these galloping emissions is
to put a price on pollution. Putting a price on carbon pollution would,
as former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern says, simply
"correct the greatest market failure the world has ever seen". A carbon
trading scheme can be designed in a way that protects trade-exposed
industries. But a carbon trading scheme needs to start soon, not in
five or 10 years.
And this matter — of time — is of critical importance.
We don't need to wait 15 to 20 years to build nuclear power stations.
More importantly, we don't have 15 to 20 years to wait to build them.
As Stern observed in his recent report: "There is a high price to
delay. Weak action in the next 10 to 20 years would put stabilisation
even at 550 ppm (parts per million) carbon dioxide beyond reach — and
this level is already associated with significant risks."
Time is a precious commodity we don't have much of in relation to global warming.
Every tonne of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere is up
there for the next 100 years. Every year we wait is a 100-year legacy
that makes our job that much harder and requires much steeper cuts
later.
If Stern is right, making nuclear power the vanguard of an energy
revolution pitches Australia head first into risky territory —
economically and otherwise — simply because of the delay it demands.
Australia already has an abundance of zero-emission renewable and
low-emission energy technologies. They could be deployed en masse
tomorrow and begin to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. This would be
instead of our waiting 15 or 20 years for a nuclear power station to be
built.
Australia does have lots of coal and uranium. But it also has almost
unlimited quantities of clean renewable energy from the sun, wind,
biomass, geothermal "hot rocks" and other sources, which can be used
far more. We also have vast reserves of natural gas, which produce
about one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal.
Some of these clean energies are being put to good use. Their
contribution needs to be expanded and others can — and should — be
added to the energy mix now. This can take place while we consider and
debate the merits of nuclear power.
Biomass, geothermal energy and gas are all storable forms of energy
that can be turned up or down as needed, exploding the myth that coal
or nuclear energy are our only base-load (24-hour) power options.
Renewable energies are proven and affordable. They work well now and they produce zero emissions.
By next year, South Australia will have 15 per cent of its power needs
met from wind when only a few years ago it was zero. The same could be
done for the whole of Australia.
Another 20 per cent saving could be met by conserving the coal-fired
electricity we already waste; another 20 per cent from converting from
coal to natural gas; and another 20 per cent from bioenergy. The list
goes on.
The decisions we will soon make about energy sources will go down in
history as among the most defining ever — economically, socially and
environmentally.
Generations to come will judge us on the paths we now take. Did we look
at all the options and make use of all the clean energy sources at our
disposal? Did we map out a responsible, strategic path to lower
greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining a healthy economy and
forging dynamic new markets in clean renewable energies?
Ric Brazzale is executive director of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
------------------->
Carpenter warms to geothermal energy
Amanda O'Brien, West Australian political reporter
November 18, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20777815-30417,00.html
"HOT rocks" 7km below the earth's surface could soon be used to produce power for Western Australia.
Premier Alan Carpenter said vast amounts of clean, green energy could
be drawn from the hot granite rocks, which have temperatures of up to
300C.
He said geothermal energy was created by passing water over the hot, dry rocks and using the heated water to generate power.
Mr Carpenter said the Government would legislate next year to provide a
clear legal framework for companies to pursue large-scale geothermal
energy projects and called for expressions of interest from companies
wanting to harness the hot-rock power.
The call was answered immediately by local company HGR Energy, which
confirmed it would apply for a geothermal exploration licence.
HGR director Tony Veitch said its desktop analysis showed prospective
areas in Western Australia for geothermal production and the company
wanted to move to the exploration and drilling phase as soon as
possible.
While hot-rocks technology is still to be commercially proven,
considerable activity has already begun in South Australia and NSW to
prove it is possible.
Mr Carpenter claimed Western Australia had an edge over the other
states because its hot-rock deposits were near populated areas all over
the state.
He said exploration elsewhere was mainly in remote areas.
As well, Western Australia was at the forefront in deep-drilling technology from its oil and gas industry.
"We are the masters," Mr Carpenter said.
------------------->
The rise of solar: why the sun is shining on main street
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-rise-of-solar-why-the-sun-is-shining-on-main-street/2006/11/11/1162661949377.html
Brod Street on the roof of his house in Smart Street, Hawthorn, which
is almost completely powered by the energy captured from the sun by
these solar panels.
Photo: Justin McManus
Paul Heinrichs
November 12, 2006
BROD Street is quietly reaping satisfaction — and huge savings — from a decision four years ago to go solar.
As well as cutting his power bill to just $190 a year, he's doing his bit to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Brod, wife Vivienne and son Alexander live in their own smart house in
Smart Street, Hawthorn — one smart enough to reduce emissions from
about 12,000 kilograms to just 700 kilograms a year.
"We're not far off zero greenhouse," he said. "Let's be honest — if
people followed in our footsteps, we'd probably have a different
debate, a different world."
By choosing to add $40,000 worth of environmental efficiency to a
$250,000 renovation four years ago, they have shown what can be done,
and now see others joining the solar movement.
Under the impact of what one industry figure calls an environmental
"perfect storm" — a unique convergence of influential factors — solar
energy is shifting rapidly from the fringe to the mainstream of
Australian life.
As well as solar water heaters, there is suddenly a big market
developing among wealthier people — environmentally conscious doctors,
lawyers and retirees — for the expensive photovoltaic (PV) solar power
systems.
Until now, Victoria has lagged behind the nation in installations of
this equipment, with only about 2000 out of a national total of about
25,000 homes carrying the panels on their roofs, many in the outback
off the electricity grids.
But conversely, Victoria has been installing solar hot water services at about twice the rate of the rest of the country.
Executive director of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Ric
Brazzale, says there has been a huge spike of interest in both solar
hot water and power systems.
Mr Brazzale attributes new levels of climate-change awareness to a
"perfect storm" which included the hottest October since 1950,
including bushfires, the arrival of the Al Gore film An Inconvenient
Truth, the ongoing drought and the Stern Review, which argues that the
cost of inaction will be significantly greater than that of action.
His observations have been confirmed by industry sources such as solar
power installer Going Solar and the Alternative Technologies
Association.
Across Australia, the most significant move is the shift to solar
hot-water heating, a move the environmentalist David Suzuki calls the
best single step a household could make to reduce greenhouse gases.
Electric water heaters account for 30 per cent of greenhouse gas
emissions of the total energy consumed in a typical home. Solar water
heaters can reduce those emissions by 85 to 90 per cent.
Solar water heater sales in Australia have doubled since 2000-2001, and
were estimated to be 42,700 units in 2004-5, up from 36,000 units sold
in each of the previous two years.
According to Australian Bureau of Statistics data, nearly 350,000 homes
in Australia have had a solar hot water system installed — about 5 per
cent of homes. The systems can pay for themselves in savings over about
10 years.
Sales of solar hot water services in Victoria are running at about 4000
a year, four times that of 2000, and there have been about 14,000 units
installed since mid-2000.
Sustainability Victoria offers householders a rebate of up to $1500 to
replace a gas water heater with a gas-boosted solar water heating unit,
which can cost up to $4000.
Sales are now being driven by regulations that require either a solar
hot water service or a water tank to be installed in all new homes
built since July 1.
Mr Brazzale said the industry was hoping that up to half of new-home
builders opted for the solar unit — or went for both options.
"We are arguing that given the heightened water crisis and energy and
climate crisis, there's no reason why you shouldn't go for both. It's
not an either/or situation — you should do both," he said.
The big new market opening up in Victoria for PV solar systems includes
people such as St Kilda architect Marcus O'Reilly, who has recently
ordered a system for his new house. As well, he is designing a
four-storey commercial office block for the Nepean Highway, Brighton,
which will have a huge system of 140 square metres of photovoltaic
panels on its roof.
Mr O'Reilly said the owner was initially reluctant to use solar because
it would add significantly to the cost, but changed his mind.
The agent had indicated that this would be an attractive feature in
selling or leasing the building, especially as it would not hit the
market for a couple of years.
Another commercial development using solar as a selling point is the
Bluemountrise development at Trentham, where covenants on the land
being subdivided require econologically sustainable houses.
Australian householders are eligible for a federally funded rebate of
up to $4000, based on $4 per watt of electricity for a solar PV system
of up to one kilowatt.
The Bracks Government is also promising a significant new incentive for PV system buyers if it is re-elected on November 25.
Victoria's Energy Minister, Theo Theophanous, told The Sunday Age that
a Bracks Government would legislate to make power companies pay solar
power households the retail price of power (about 14 cents a kilowatt
hour) for electricity their systems put back into the grid.
Currently, many power retailers pay only the wholesale rate or less,
about four cents a kilowatt hour, to those households whose PV systems
produce more than the household uses.
Mr Theophanous flagged a time after the end of next year when the big
roll-out of so-called "smart meters" begins, when households might even
get better than the retail rate for power fed into the system during
peak periods.
Brod Street's system, with 18 panels on his roof producing up to 1.35
kilowatts, actually contributed a net 1245 kilowatt hours to the grid
in the past year. He's on a good wicket — Origin Energy is already
paying him its full retail rate of 12.54 cents a kilowatt hour.
Climate change possibly represented by October's heat meant Mr Street's
system produced a record 212 kilowatt hours, twice as much power as he
used for the month.
All the same, he wishes the world would return to its old pattern.
------------------->
Renewable energy has power to generate opportunities
Evan Thornley
November 8, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/renewable-energy-has-power-to-generate-opportunities/2006/11/07/1162661685349.html
THOMAS Watson, the founder of IBM, said in 1943: "I think the world
market for computers is maybe five." Visionary as he was, Watson turns
out to have been a little conservative. But he certainly did better
than The Australian Financial Review, which in 1997 announced with
world-weary scepticism that "the internet is the CB radio of the '90s".
It was just wrong.
And so it is for conservative politicians who are having a devil of a
time getting their head around the possibilities for renewable energy.
Prime Minister John Howard says we'll never get there without nuclear
power. Victorian Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu promises to tear up the
Victorian Renewable Energy Target scheme because he claims it is "too
expensive". In stark contrast, the Stern review, led by Sir Nicholas
Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, reviewed the
literature and came to the opposite conclusion. We can't afford not to
move to more renewables — and fast.
Why? Firstly, when you look at the full cost of energy sources, some
renewables are already cheaper. Secondly, the costs of doing nothing
are horrendous. And thirdly, we might actually reignite our
manufacturing sector by leading the world in smart renewables
technology.
When you look at the full cost of any energy source, there are three
elements — the capital cost of the equipment, the operating costs of
fuel and staff, and the cost of cleaning up the mess once you've
finished. Those who argue that renewable sources are "too expensive"
base their entire argument on today's capital costs for the equipment,
since both the fuel costs and the clean-up costs are close to zero.
But the history of technology and manufacturing tells us capital costs
in any new technology decline dramatically once mass adoption occurs.
Why? Firstly, economies of scale mean unit costs reduce once design and
tooling costs are spread over large volumes. Secondly, anyone making
anything learns as they go about it. With each new version we simplify,
make it more efficiently, solve production bottlenecks, find cheaper
materials, our suppliers learn more, and so it goes. That's how cars
went from a luxury for the few to commonplace. It was the same with
computers. It can be the same with wind turbines and solar cells.
Stern makes the same observation: "Experience shows that the costs of
technologies fall with scale and experience." That is why he argues
that "particularly in electricity generation … policies to support the
market for early-stage technologies will be crucial". That's why the
Bracks Government's VRET is an essential building block for change and
why the Liberals' "promise" to tear it up looks reckless. The closer
you look at fossil fuels and nuclear, the more expensive they become.
As Stern is now showing, the cost of cleaning up the mess you make
turns out to be large indeed. In rough terms it is somewhere between
five and 20 times cheaper to take action now to reduce emissions than
to cope later with the cost of not doing so.
Similarly, I don't know if Howard asked his accountants to look at the
net present value (the cost in today's dollars of things that happen in
the future) of guarding plutonium waste from terrorists for the next
500,000 years or more, but I suspect it's a big number.
Finally, this debate is not just about minimising the economic and
social downsides of climate change, it's also about capturing the
opportunities. When Stern talks of the world investing $US500 billion
($A647 billion) now or having to spend 20 times that later, that $US500
billion is a massive business opportunity. And, as is often the case,
"first movers" will have greatest opportunity to capture that
opportunity.
There's no reason why Silicon Valley had to be in Silicon Valley and
not New York, London or Frankfurt. But it did start there and, having
done so, it's hard for anyone to catch up.
And so it is with renewable energy technology at the early stage of its
development. Victorians can not only become large customers for this
technology and save ourselves a bundle in the medium term, if we become
large suppliers, we might even make a bundle. Given the high design and
technology-intensive nature of the renewable energy business, it
presents a bright opportunity for us to make a virtue of necessity and
see if we can build a new high-value, manufacturing export industry.
The targets are expected to produce $2 billion of investment and 2200
jobs. By creating a strong market, the VRET allows companies to
compete, and for those who succeed, the potential to open up global
markets.
There are always risks in doing something new. But sometimes the risks
of doing nothing are bigger. In 1962, Decca Records rejected four
Liverpool musicians — "we don't like their sound … and guitar music is
on the way out anyway". The cost
of not taking the risk was the Beatles going elsewhere.
Baillieu thinks we "can't afford" to pursue the renewable energy
target. He's got it wrong, but fortunately voters have a clear choice —
the Bracks Government knows we can't afford not to.
Evan Thornley was co-founder of technology company LookSmart and is a Labor candidate for the Southern Metropolitan Region.
------------------->
Households may reap dollars in energy plan
Jason Dowling
November 5, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/victoria-votes/households-may-reap-dollars-in-energy-plan/2006/11/04/1162340095859.html
VICTORIAN households would receive hundreds of dollars in rebates to
help save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions under a Labor
Government, Steve Bracks announced yesterday.
Mr Bracks said a Labor Government would provide up to $100 in rebates
to households for installing insulation, replacing energy inefficient
washing machines and fridges, and upgrading heating. There would be no
cap on the number of rebates per house.
In a carrot-and-stick approach, Labor also said the new Victorian
Energy Efficiency Target scheme would increase household energy bills
by about $12 a year, if no energy savings measures were made.
The Premier also recommitted Victoria to a nuclear-free state under
Labor. "Nuclear energy is the wrong way to go. We have legislation
prohibiting nuclear energy in this state. That will be reinforced in
the future," he said.
Mr Bracks, who launched Labor's $14 million policy at an energy
efficient house in the Dandenongs, also announced that energy retailers
would be forced to assist in the aim of a 10 per cent reduction in
household energy emissions by 2010.
He also announced that households and small business that generated
their own power through solar or other methods would be able to sell
excess power back into the state's power grid. Energy Minister Theo
Theophanous could not say how much money households with solar panels
would make from this.
Environment Victoria's Marcus Godinho welcomed the energy saving
initiatives. "They are good for families and good for the environment,"
he said.
Liberal environment spokesman David Davis said it was too little too late from Labor.
------------------->
Opposition to Wind Farms Hot Air
www.tai.org.au
26 October 2006
Media release
A detailed critique of concerns raised by anti-wind farm groups reveals
the opposition is based largely on fallacies according to the deputy
director of the Australia Institute Andrew Macintosh.
The critique is contained in a new report published today by the
Institute. Mr Macintosh has co-authored the report entitled Wind Farms:
The facts and the fallacies.
"A lot of hot air has been expended trying to undermine the economic
and environmental credentials of wind farms," Mr Macintosh said. "Our
analysis of the best available national and international evidence
shows convincingly that wind farms are an efficient and
environmentally-friendly way of reducing greenhouse emissions while
meeting Australia's growing energy needs."
He said the analysis showed that wind energy is cost-competitive with
other forms of renewable energy, effectively displaces greenhouse gases
and has only minor adverse environmental impacts.
Mr Macintosh said claims that wind farms negatively affect birds, bats
and landscape values, are noisy and a fire risk are greatly
exaggerated. All available evidence indicates that these risks have
been overstated and that in practice the negative environmental impacts
of wind farms are insignificant.
"The Coalition's attempts to obstruct the wind industry are flying in the face of these facts," he said.
Mr Macintosh and his co-author Christian Downie said the suggestion by
the Federal Government and opposition parties in Victoria that local
communities should have a veto power over wind developments is absurd.
"Wind farms should be subject to the normal planning procedures and not
be treated any better or worse than any other major energy
development," Mr Downie said.
The Federal Environment Minister is due to decide whether the proposed
Bald Hills wind farm in Victoria will be allowed to proceed in the next
two weeks.
"The Minister's previous decision to block the proposal illustrates the
extent of the politicisation of federal approval processes," Mr
Macintosh said. "The Coalition should help allay community concerns
about wind farms rather than manipulating the situation for political
purposes".
The report can be found under 'What's New' on the Institute's website: www.tai.org.au.
------------------->
AP6 Going Nowhere Fast
1 November 2006
Media alert
www.tai.org.au
The Asia-Pacific Partnership is in danger of collapse after the US
Congress twice rejected appropriations to fund Bush administration
commitments to the pact, according to the Australia Institute.
In late May a Republican-led House Appropriations sub-committee blocked
a White House request for US $46 million to fund commitments to AP6.
Legislators had rejected another request in early May.
"The lack of support for AP6 in the US Congress is mirrored in other
AP6 countries. There has been no political engagement and the process
has been left to the bureaucracies", said Dr Clive Hamilton, executive
director of The Australia Institute.
US Senator John McCain, the front-runner to be the next Republican
Presidential candidate, has dismissed the Asia-Pacific Partnership
declaring that it "amounts to nothing more than a nice little
public-relations ploy … It has almost no meaning. They aren't even
committing money to the effort, much less enacting rules to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions".
"The Australian Government is desperate to bolster its climate change
credentials by presenting AP6 as a serious alternative to Kyoto, but it
is a Clayton's climate pact", said Dr Hamilton.
More than 150 nations have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and are acting
on its obligations. The treaty received a new lease of life at last
November's Montreal conference where it was agreed to begin
negotiations for its second commitment period covering 2013-2018.
Four of the six members of the Asia-Pacific Partnership - China, India,
Japan and South Korea - have ratified the Protocol and have a number of
legally binding obligations under it. While the Government makes much
of the fact that AP6 includes countries responsible for nearly half of
global greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol accounts for 75% of
global emissions - and
mandates action.
"Significantly, none of the delegates from China, India, Japan or South
Korea mentioned the Asia-Pacific Partnership in their high-level
addresses at Montreal, and all four strongly affirmed their continued
commitment to the UN process", said Dr Hamilton.
The Chinese Ministry for Foreign Affairs was unambiguous; "This pact
has no power for legal restrictions. It is a compliment to the Kyoto
Treaty, not a replacement".
"Australia is alone in putting money into AP6. The projects being
announced today by the Government are vague in construction and likely
outcomes. It looks like $100 million of tax payer's money will be
wasted trying to provide cover for the Howard Government's embarrassing
refusal to participate in the Kyoto Protocol", said Dr Hamilton.
------------------->
Government Still Deludes on Climate Change
www.tai.org.au
24 October 2006
Media release
In announcing funding under its Low Emission Technology Fund the
federal government is trying to convince the public that we must wait
for new technologies to reduce Australia's greenhouse pollution,
according to the Australia Institute.
"We can cut our emissions sharply with existing technologies as
demonstrated by the huge response of renewable energy companies to the
MRET scheme, which is now fully subscribed", said Institute Executive
Director Dr Clive Hamilton.
Dr Hamilton was addressing a meeting at Manning Clark House in Canberra.
"Mr Howard is determined to bail out the coal industry even if it means
we must wait another 10-15 years before 'clean coal' technologies
become viable", he said.
"We have lost ten years with the Howard Government's denial,
obfuscation and bloody-mindedness; we simply cannot afford to lose
another ten years before we tackle the most severe threat to our future.
"For a decade the Government has been trying to persuade us that
throwing a bucket of money at industry will deal with climate change.
It has not worked so far and will not work in the future.
"The only answer is to mobilise market forces to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by putting a price on carbon. There is no alternative."
Dr Hamilton said that the Government's climate change policy is mired in contradictions.
* The Government says ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would be
economically ruinous, yet claims Australia will meet its Kyoto target
anyway.
* It says it rejects Kyoto because the treaty does not include big
greenhouse polluters like China and India; yet a treaty that did
require those countries to reduce their emissions would immediately cut
demand for Australian coal exports.
* In a 2003 report titled Voluntary Approaches to Environmental Policy
the OECD confirmed that voluntary programs such as those once again
being relied on by the Federal Government rarely have any impact.
"Australia's energy and industrial greenhouse gas emissions have been
sky-rocketing throughout the tenure of the Howard Government, and the
only test of effective policies will be when they start to fall", said
Dr Hamilton.
------------------->
A climate protection act must have priority
November 2, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-climate-protection-act-must-have-priority/2006/11/01/1162339917711.html
The latecomers should have heeded strong voices long ago, write Stuart White and Chris Riedy.
THE Stern report, while not revealing much we don't know, represents a
fork in the road for the debate over climate change in this country.
Surveys indicate the majority of Australians are unhappy with the
Government's handling of this critical issue.
Well might they be. Arguments based on narrow self-interest and
short-term planning make the community cynical about politics and
politicians.
One example of this is "we won't act unless China and India act".
Deflecting responsibility to the developing world, as both the
Treasurer and Prime Minister have done, is morally bankrupt, when we
have one of the highest rates of emissions per capita in the world,
second only to our mentor in these matters, the United States.
Between Al Gore, once the "next US president", and Nicholas Stern, a
former World Bank economist, a pincer movement has developed which
gives these issues the gravity they deserve. The drought in Australia
adds to the urgency.
The "do-nothing" option can be dismissed; Stern makes it clear strong
action is needed in the next decade. It is a crucial period, and
attention should shift swiftly from arguing whether or not we have a
problem, to how best to respond.
Of course, not all strategies and solutions are the same. At the global
level, Australia needs to demonstrate a genuine commitment to work in
co-operation with the international community by ratifying the Kyoto
Protocol or an equivalent global agreement. The Government's
alternative, the Asia-Pacific Partnership, has no targets and no teeth
- it will not deliver the necessary reductions in greenhouse pollution.
In A Clean Energy Future for Australia, independent work undertaken for
WWF-Australia shows that the reductions in greenhouse emissions of 60
per cent by 2050 argued by Stern are technically feasible.
Will this cost too much? The Stern report makes it clear the costs of
not acting are so high that the cost of taking action is five to 20
times less than that. In Australia, as our research indicates, the
fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of at least $9 billion a
year. Removing these would free funding for a more sustainable energy
future.
The largest, cheapest and quickest component of that sustainable energy
future will be improving the energy efficiency of existing and new
households, businesses and industries.
Improving energy efficiency simply means doing better with less energy,
through the use of improved or "smarter" design, appliances, equipment
and energy-using practices. This will be the unsung hero of the future,
despite the attention being paid to high-profile, high-cost options
such as "clean coal".
We will need large-scale support for the development of renewable
energy, including wind, solar and bio-energy. While much attention is
paid to wind, photovoltaics and large-scale electricity production, it
is worth noting that the development and application of solar
technology for industrial process heat has a great future in Australia,
as does the use of micro-generation at the household level.
There is no need for nuclear power: it is too expensive, too slow and
too risky. It is not a coincidence that it is only countries with
centrally planned economies or active weapons programs that are
continuing to invest in nuclear power.
Like Britain and California, we need a climate protection act at the
federal level, a legislative underpinning for the actions needed in the
next 10 years to make inroads into this global problem.
Above all, Australians need to have input to the decision-making on
this important issue that affects all of us. The time for paternalistic
political responses has passed. We propose a national conversation on
climate change, a series of regional forums where citizens are asked
what they want to have done in response to the challenge that the Stern
report has issued.
If surveys are anything to go by, people have a lot they want to say
and they will be prepared to play their part in meeting this challenge
so our politicians had better get out of the way.
Professor Stuart White, director, and Dr Chris Riedy, research
director, are at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the
University of Technology, Sydney.
------------------->
Climate's last chance
Tim Flannery
October 28, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climates-last-chance/2006/10/27/1161749313108.html
THE Howard Government seems recently to have accepted that climate
change is caused by humans and needs to be dealt with. But has it
really accepted this? And will its policies make a difference? The key
to answering these questions lies in understanding how urgent the
climate threat is.
The main indicator of how long we have to address climate change is the
state of the Arctic icecap, which covers Earth's northern ocean. The
entire weather system of the northern hemisphere depends on the
temperature gradient between it and the equator, so if the North Pole
warms up, the winds, monsoons, rains, temperatures and seasons will
shift in dramatic ways. And of course, the southern hemisphere's
weather system will be affected as well.
By the mid-1970s, the Arctic icecap began melting away at the rate of 8
per cent a decade. This rate of melting persisted almost unchanged
until 2004, by which time about one-quarter of the icecap had melted,
revealing the dark ocean underneath.
During the summer, the sun falls for 24 hours a day on the Arctic
icecap, delivering a huge amount of energy. But ice is bright, and
before its melting the Arctic icecap reflected 90 per cent of the sun's
energy back into space, keeping the planet cool. But as the ice has
melted, more of the sun has fallen on the ocean, and it absorbs 90 per
cent of the sun's energy, turning it into heat.
By last year, so much of the sunlight was being captured by the ocean
and turned into heat energy that a dramatic change occurred: the ocean
stayed so warm that the winter ice did not form properly, and the
following summer about 300,000 square kilometres of ice melted. The
same thing happened this year, so now huge areas of ocean are exposed
where just a few short years ago there was ice.
Before 2004, the rate of melt was such that scientists believed the
icecap would melt entirely by about 2100. At the trajectory set by the
new rate of melt, however, there will be no Arctic icecap in the next
five to 15 years. And with no ice, the Arctic region will rapidly begin
heating, perhaps by as much as 12 degrees.
This change will put further pressure on the Greenland icecap, which is
already melting at the stupendous rate of 235 cubic kilometres a year.
If it succumbs to the heat, the ocean will rise by six metres, and
icecaps in the Antarctic may destabilise.
James Hanson, director of NASA's Goddard Institute, is arguably the
world authority on climate change. He predicts that we have just a
decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea. Picture an eight-storey
building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a
25-metre rise in sea level looks like.
Whatever you think of such predictions, the rate of melt of the Arctic
icecap is indisputable and deeply troubling. It should convince
everyone that climate change is by far the most urgent threat facing
humanity. It also tells us that the long recalcitrance of the Howard
Government in respect to climate change has already cost us dearly, and
that we must now make great changes in just a few short years. Had we
begun a decade earlier, our actions would have been far more effective
and less disruptive.
As we judge the Howard Government's climate change policies, we must
keep several things in mind. One is the potentially great cost of not
ratifying Kyoto. Phase 2 of the treaty begins in 2012, and already the
parties are debating who shall accept what restrictions on carbon
dioxide emissions. Both China and India must take on meaningful
restrictions if our civilisation is to survive this crisis, but with
Australia and the United States outside the treaty, they have the
perfect excuse to decline: why should they accept such binding
restrictions when the richest nations of Earth refuse to do so?
A second thing to watch is Australia's total emissions. Before we
rejected Kyoto, Australia was given a target that allowed for a
substantial increase in emissions. When the Howard Government talks of
meeting its Kyoto target, this is what it's referring to. Sticking with
such a lax target is disastrous, and government-funded projects such as
the recently announced solar farm and more efficient burning of brown
coal cannot achieve a significant reduction in carbon dioxide pollution.
So far the Howard Government's approach has been to hand out
hard-earned taxpayers' money — some of it to big corporations — and
proclaim that it's doing something. With a world facing as grave a
threat as it faced in 1938, John Howard is quickly becoming the
Chamberlain of the chequebook, while a climate-change Churchill is
nowhere to be seen in Australian politics.
What must the Howard Government do if it is to effectively protect Australians from the looming climate disaster?
First it must inform Australians of the gravity of the situation, then
lay out an ambitious plan for emissions reduction that includes public
participation. Immediate reductions are required, and these can be had
through efficiency gains. In addition, a long-term target of an 80 per
cent emissions reduction by 2050 should be set. If we are to achieve
that we must use the power of the market. A carbon tax and carbon
trading scheme are absolutely indispensable tools to achieve such
targets. And of course we must ratify Kyoto immediately.
My sense of the matter is that none of this will happen.
Instead, the Howard Government will do the bare minimum required to
appease public opinion, for it appears to have no one able and willing
to absorb the scientific evidence, and to champion a more resolute
response through the cabinet.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, because this Government and the one that
follows it may well be the last in Australian history to have the
chance to avert a climate disaster.
Tim Flannery is an environmental scientist.
------------------->
A huge wind farm and a dire warning
Sasha Shtargot, James Button and Liz Minchin
October 28, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/27/1161749315223.html
A $600 million wind farm generating enough electricity to power almost 190,000 homes will be built in western Victoria.
Planning Minister Rob Hulls said yesterday the wind farm, the biggest
in the southern hemisphere, would be built on 5500 hectares of farmland
at Macarthur, near Port Fairy.
...
The 183-turbine Macarthur project, will be operated by AGL.
Premier Steve Bracks yesterday cast the state election as presenting
voters with a clear choice: "whether they want a cleaner environment in
the future, with less greenhouse gases and tackling climate change, or
whether they don't."
Mr Bracks said the wind farm would be lost to Victoria if the
Government's 10 per cent renewable energy scheme was abandoned. The
Opposition has pledged to end the scheme.
But former Liberal leader Denis Napthine, MLA for South-West Coast and
a supporter of the project, said abolition of the scheme would not
affect the wind farm's viability.
The Macarthur wind farm is the ninth to get the go-ahead in Victoria. A
planning panel recommended approval after it received 1295 submissions,
of which 1148 were in favour. David O'Brien, the Nationals candidate
for South-West Coast, also supported it.
Annie Gardner, a Macarthur sheep farmer, said the turbines would
devalue her property by 40 per cent and decimate local brolga numbers.
------------------->
Hazy dawn on a greenhouse fix
Herald Sun
October 26, 2006 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20646612-5006880,00.html
RIC Brazzale writes: encouraging that the Federal Government is taking action on climate change.
The announcement yesterday of the first allocation of its Low Emissions
Technology Demonstration Fund -- $75 million for a 154 megawatt solar
station near Mildura and $50 million for the Hazelwood coal power plant
to experiment with making coal cleaner -- is welcome recognition that
climate change is a problem.
But it falls short of what is needed most. That's a robust, strategic
government policy that will make deep cuts to dangerous greenhouse gas
emissions now, and develop a vibrant renewable and clean energy
industry.
What that means in practice is putting a price on carbon pollution with a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading.
It also entails raising the national Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
from its paltry 2 per cent of electricity to come from new clean
renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
China has a 15 per cent renewables target, yet it has fewer renewable energy choices and less expertise than Australia.
Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Carbon Terminator and
leads a thriving economy; he has demanded a cut in carbon emissions of
25 per cent by 2020.
These market-based incentives -- a carbon price "signal' and a useful
renewable energy target -- are sensible, sustainable and affordable
ways to usher in the genuinely clean, green power that we already have
pouring from the sun, roaring in the wind and simmering in rocks under
central Australia.
The clean energy industry wants these measures.
Increasingly, many big businesses are clamoring for them too.
Even if climate change weren't a concern, the security of our electricity is.
A huge $24 billion has already been committed to our electricity
infrastructure, which is cracking under the pressure of our soaring
peak energy demand.
This is where solar panels in particular are good for providing zero-emission peak energy.
On hot summer afternoons, when the air-conditioner is on full blast,
solar panels on the roof can pour clean power into your home.
But the clean energy industry has never called for coal to be completely replaced by any single "green energy" source.
Rather, it advocates a gradual build-up of a new clean-energy mix of
renewable and low-emission energies; solar, wind, geothermal (hot
rocks), bioenergy and natural gas.
AGL, one of Australia's major energy companies, undertook a study with
Frontier Economics that found Australia could reduce its greenhouse
emissions from electricity by 30 per cent by 2030 at a high-end cost of
$2 a person a week.
Would it wreck the economy? Hardly.
The energy choices we make now, especially electricity, are crucial to
whether humans manage to slow global warming. Electricity is the
largest and fastest growing generator of greenhouse emissions in
Australia.
Yet, and this is the good news, it makes up less than 3 per cent of
most industry sectors' material costs, and Australian households spend
more on grog than they do on electricity.
It means switching to cleaner energy reaps big greenhouse benefits but costs comparatively little.
It's easy to get lost in despair over global warming.
But when you break it down and start putting the issue in context you
realise that this is a problem for which we do have the answers.
Their names are solar power, bioenergy, wind power, cogeneration, energy efficiency, hydroelectricity and natural gas.
They have been around for many years and are excellent at cutting greenhouse gas emissions today.
But the longer we wait the less time we have, and the bigger the mess we will have to deal with.
RIC BRAZZALE is the Executive Director of the Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy
------------------->
Backing a long shot
Punting millions on the world's biggest solar power plant guarantees an
environmental windfall for a government that has been slow to act on
climate change, writes Matthew Warren
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20645117-30417,00.html
October 26, 2006
Follow the sun: Solar Systems plans to locate a solar plant near
Mildura in northwestern Victoria that will be similar to, but larger
than, this one in the US
IT'S spring carnival racing time and the Howard Government has gone to
Victoria to back what it hopes will be a sure thing. Yesterday it
dropped $75 million on what will be the world's biggest solar power
station as its first big punt on a range of new low greenhouse emission
technologies in the coming weeks.
It's been more than two years since it announced the formation of its
Low Emissions Technology Development Fund. The realisation of pulling
together more than 30 starters and a forensic review of the form by a
panel of eminent and expert Australians couldn't have come at a better
time for a government seriously needing to back a political winner in
the climate change stakes.
Howard's first wager certainly looks handy: a remarkable and innovative
Australian solar technology that has enough wow-factor to make
Australians simultaneously proud and impressed, with its fancy talk of
using space technology, Boeing and even the US Department of Energy.
It's enough to cast doubt into the minds of even hardened rationalists
with its potential for delivering affordable and clean electricity in
the future. It might even work.
Solar Systems managing director Dave Holland got the nod for his
innovative approach to solar energy and a $420 million power station
using hi-tech mirrors called heliostats which will pump sunlight on to
super solar cells on the top of a 40m tower. The project has also
received a $50million grant from the Victorian Government's Energy
Technology Innovations Fund. In the spring, it seems, everyone loves a
winner.
"If Holland can get his costs down to $50 per megawatt hour, he is
right in the play," says Brad Page, chief executive of the Energy
Supply Association of Australia. "This is quite an unusual approach.
Where he has got some advantages is the volume of sunlight he is
concentrating and capturing, and, second, the quality of the
photovoltaics (converting light to energy) he is using. I think it's in
the space where you have got to start feeling a bit more positive about
some of these new approaches to solar that just aren't about stacking
solar cells on your roof."
The global industrial economy has, naturally, been built on access to
affordable energy. The relatively uncomplicated but effective, strategy
has been to find resources on earth that are densely packed with energy
and burn them: first on their own, then in engines and power stations.
Wood, then coal and then gas. The processes of extracting the energy
have become more refined, but the logic is still pretty much intact.
That was until the threat of climate change. The allure of renewable
sources such as wind and solar has been self-evident: they are
abundant, clean and free once the relatively expensive plant to capture
them is built.
But the big problems have been twofold: they come and go as days pass
to night and winds become calm. And they're also frustratingly un-dense.
Research and development on solar thermal power generation has been
going on in Australia and overseas for at least 30 years. Conversion of
the concept to commercial use has been run down by the low cost of coal
and gas power and even, more recently, by wind power.
The diffuse nature of solar has meant that conventional photovoltaic
systems, which transform parts of the spectrum of light rays directly
into electrical energy, need too much to generate too little power.
Their electricity costs about 10 times the power from fossil fuels and
their applications are limited to specific remote applications.
The other problem with these cells is they cannot cope with high
temperatures. Some solar technologies have looked to magnifying and
collecting the sun's energy to generate high temperatures, which can
then be used to run more conventional steam turbines. These solar
thermal technologies are cheaper and more promising.
Solar Systems thinks it has gone one better. It has developed
breakthrough photovoltaic cells that can withstand temperatures that
would melt steel while delivering a wider band of the sun's light
directly into electricity, claiming about 35 per cent transformation
efficiency. "Like most good technology, it's a very powerful
combination of smart engineering and simple concepts," Holland says.
The company will build its 154 megawatt power station in about six
large areas covering 600ha to 800ha in yet to be determined sites
across the Mildura region, chosen for its relatively high levels of
sunshine and suitable topography for broad-acre solar farming.
The first power will come on stream in 2008, with the station fully
operational by 2013. While coy about the start-up price, Holland
expects to find renewable and boutique markets for all the electricity
generated by the plant.
"The objective of this project is to bring the capital costs down to
the point (where) you can produce power stations rolling on from this
at a capital cost that can compete in the market," he says, "but this
project has been put together on the basis that the power from it can
be sold for the life of the project.
"Some people will pay a premium to buy electricity that they can market
the fact that they are using." In other words, pay more for green power.
While his immediate concerns lie in ensuring a return on the nearly
$300 million of private investment in the technology, the public purse
has been opened for much longer-term goals. That is, can this or any of
the other technologies being funded by the Howard Government under its
LETDF make the big jump on the cost curve from development to
application and become real players in an affordable low-emissions
solution to climate change?
Solar Systems is betting it can get its costs down to about $50 a
megawatt hour by 2025 or so, which is extremely ambitious by industry
standards and not that much higher than the longer-term estimate for
the latest technology in coal-fired power. A tough but not unrealistic
price on carbon could conceivably close the gap.
But despite the excitement surrounding Solar Systems' windfall, 2025 is
still a long way off and there are still a number of ifs. Aside from
cost, the other big challenge for this and any other advanced solar
technologies is night time.
But Holland is a realist. He sees his electricity as similar to that
from a peaking power plant, which takes advantage of higher demand and
prices into daytime markets when peak demand and prices are higher.
That suits his business case but does not fulfil the dream of
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley and others who see a solar-base future
for Australia replacing the tranche of reliable but ageing coal-fired
power stations that supply about 75 per cent of Australia's electricity
and all of its base-load supply.
Until technology can be found to cheaply and efficiently store the
clean energy from Holland's power stations for use at night, or at
least pick up the slack as the sun sets over Mildura, then even solar
technology as clever as this is still a fringe player.
But these rational concerns are unlikely to dampen Howard's appetite
for further subsidies for potentially green technologies. Not only do
they add urgently needed environmental cachet to a government that has
been slow to move on climate change, but as ACIL Tasman energy
economist Mike Hitchens points out, they are possibly Australia's best
way out of its energy catch 22.
He says while putting a price on carbon is a well-established way of
driving business to invest and find low-cost, low-emission energy
solutions, it would require either a genuinely global price on carbon
or such a high domestic price that the ability to deliver solutions in
25 years may be significantly hampered by the impact such an energy
spike would have on the economy.
"So in this scheme of public good arguments, this (scheme) is a good
one," Hitchens says. "We know there is a market failure, we don't think
we have the technologies we need to correct the market failure, and
because there is no market there is not going to be private investment
until we can create a market some time in the future."
Acting professor Tony Owen from the University of NSW's Centre for
Energy and Environmental Markets agrees with the philosophy of
investing in infant industries such as Solar Systems, but cautions that
these are still relatively risky investments in new technology which
will not continue to proceed without being able to benefit in some way
from a carbon market.
"If you subsidise these sorts of immature technologies to the stage
where they perhaps get economies of scale in production and their
development costs are stabilised, and everyone has learned what they
have to learn by doing (this), then that's quite acceptable," Owen says.
"Where I have a problem is that they might even still be financially non-viable then.
"And that largely could be due to the fact that there is no carbon price in the competing industries."
Matthew Warren is The Australian's environment writer.
------------------->
PM turns up heat on solar power
Joseph Kerr and Dennis Shanahan
October 25, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20640740-601,00.html
A PROPOSED $400 million solar plant that could deliver 154 megawatts of
power will be the cornerstone of the Howard Government's fight against
climate change.
In a political shift that steals an approach trumpeted by federal
Labor, the federal and Victorian governments will contribute $125
million towards the plant, to be built in northern Victoria using
technology developed by Melbourne firm Solar Systems.
The announcement today, part of a $230 million package, is the first in
a series that will see an eventual $2 billion invested in new
technology aimed at cutting greenhouse emissions.
A coal-drying project in the Latrobe Valley is also expected to be
announced today, to help burn Victoria's large brown coal deposits more
cleanly than current technology allows. Other projects include seed
funding for developing affordable ways of pumping carbon gases from
coal-fired power stations underground or diverting carbon dioxide from
coal before it is used to generate electricity.
The federal Government hopes its spending will encourage up to $10 billion in greenhouse-friendly electricity projects.
The funding is also going towards developing solar and wind
technologies as part of a mix between fossil fuel power and renewable
energy sources.
Treasurer Peter Costello, who will announce the funding today with
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, has kept alive the prospect of
domestic nuclear power, predicting that a plant will be built in
Australia as soon as it becomes economically viable, perhaps within 10
years.
Mr Costello said the Government should not legislate to stop companies
investing in nuclear energy apart from on safety and environmental
grounds. "I don't think we should legislatively stop it," he said
yesterday.
"I think we should legislatively say, provided you meet all of the
requirements in relation to safety and export controls and all those
sorts of things, environmental consideration, that there is no
legislative bar and then I would let the market work. And the day it
becomes commercial someone will build it."
The Howard Government's announcements come before the release next week
of a British review, which will radically change the attitude to the
economic effect of climate change with long-term predictions of
economic costs if it's not addressed quickly.
Before heading to Fiji for the Pacific Islands Forum, where climate
change and rising sea levels are major concerns, John Howard said
climate change had to be addressed.
The Prime Minister said there was no single answer, but Australia's
role as an energy producer for the world meant it should look at
technological ways to cut greenhouse emissions from coal-fired power.
Instead of simply converting direct sunlight that hits expensive
photovoltaic cells to electricity, the Solar Systems technology works
by concentrating the sun's rays with cheap glass and steel on to highly
efficient photovoltaic units. The Melbourne-based company has been
focusing its efforts on drawing ever greater efficiencies from
photovoltaic cells, as well as improving its mirror technology. It has
invested more than $40 million in developing its technologies.
Such a solar power station would be one of the biggest in the world,
but would produce only a quarter of the power of a small coal-fired
station.
The funding comes from various federal Government commitments,
including promises under the Asia-Pacific Clean Development agreement -
struck by the AP-6, which includes India, China and the US - of
$500million, state governments and the coal industry's own $300million.
A spokesman for Victorian Energy Minister Theo Theophanous said the
state was "likely to attract more significant renewable energy projects
thanks to our renewable energy targets, which will cut 27 million
tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions".
More announcements are expected in Queensland - where Premier Peter
Beattie has pledged his own funding to develop clean coal technology -
and one other state.
Mr Beattie recently said he wanted a clean coal process developed
before he committed Queensland, a large coal producing state, to a
proposed states-backed emissions trading system that would push up the
cost of electricity and impose costs on carbon emissions.
Mr Howard on Monday said the Government was about to reveal funding
"for exciting new technologies, including those designed to ensure that
the use of our abundant fossil fuel reserves will in the future occur
in a cleaner, greener fashion, thus reducing the process of climate
change".
------------------->
Boss queries climate change action
Andrew Trounson and Joseph Kerr
October 26, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646447-2702,00.html
AT least one member of the expert panel helping to direct hundreds of
millions of government money into new low-emission technologies is
unsure how effective they will be in fighting climate change.
As the Government yesterday began dishing out money from its $500
million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, business leader
John Ralph warned it was possible little could be done to halt climate
change because it might not be the result of human activity.
"We have to be careful that (efforts to cut emissions) don't lead to a
situation where people expect there will be large changes by what we
do," the former boss of mining giant CRA told The Australian yesterday.
Mr Ralph said that while he backed moves to try to "ameliorate" the
effects of climate change by reducing emissions, it was possible
climate change might be occurring naturally, rather than being
primarily driven by human activities.
"I don't doubt the climate is changing, but I don't know human activity is the primary cause of it," Mr Ralph said.
His stance was immediately welcomed by Finance Minister Nick Minchin,
who strongly endorsed Mr Ralph for making his views public, suggesting
the extent of atmospheric damage done by humans was an open question.
"It's good that people of John Ralph's standing and character are
prepared to contribute to the public debate about the extent, if any,
to which human activity has contributed to climate change," Senator
Minchin said.
Mr Ralph notes that given Australia generates less than 1.5per cent of
world greenhouse gas emissions, there is a limit to what Australia can
do in isolation.
"It (cutting greenhouse gas emissions) will do good at the margin, but
expectations might be greater than the capacity to deliver," he warned.
However, Peter Costello said he accepted the scientific view on global warming that saw human activity as the prime culprit.
"I accept the scientific evidence, which is that global warming is
taking place, that it is caused by carbon emissions, that restraining
the increase in carbon emissions will counteract that process of global
warming, and that we should play our part," the Treasurer said.
But while backing the need to cut emissions, Mr Costello warned that
without the participation of growth nations such as China and India,
little would be achieved. "You could close all of Australia's power
stations today, and China would open up the equivalent in one year and
then they would do double the equivalent in two years and triple in
three years," he said.
Mr Ralph said panel members, including former Telstra boss Ziggy
Switkowski and former National Australia Bank chief Nobby Clark, had to
go through "crates" of documents assessing reports on the various
technologies from consultants.
At the time the fund was announced in 2004, there were fears among
green groups and the renewable energy sector that it would favour
fossil fuel projects, such as technologies to clean up coal emissions.
But Mr Ralph said the panel had been careful to assess projects on their merits, rather than supporting different industries.
"The panel was interested in what was best for Australia, not picking one industry over another," Mr Ralph said yesterday.
Nevertheless, coal has been one of the first beneficiaries. Of the two
projects that won funding yesterday, one was a $360 million pilot plan
to reduce brown coal emissions from the Hazelwood power station in
Victoria, which provides up to 25 per cent of the state's power.
The federal Government has put $50 million into the project, which aims
to dry the coal before burning it and then capture the emissions by
absorbing the carbon dioxide in a solvent.
The Government also put $75million towards building a $420 million solar power station in northwest Victoria.
------------------->
Targets 'crucial' to solar project
Joseph Kerr and Andrew Trounson
October 26, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646443-2702,00.html
THE Victorian company awarded a massive commonwealth grant to set up
the biggest solar energy power plant in the world has praised a state
scheme as vital to the project.
Peter Costello yesterday awarded Solar Systems $75 million, with
Victoria contributing $50 million, to set up the facility from 2008 as
part of the Howard Government's move to fight global warming and
climate change.
But while the federal Treasurer provided the lion's share of government
funding, the company cited Victoria's mandatory renewable energy scheme
as crucial to the project's viability.
Victoria has set a target of 10per cent of all electricity being
provided by renewable sources by 2010, giving a clear advantage to
renewable energy providers setting up in the state, compared with other
parts of Australia.
Solar Systems managing director Dave Holland said the Victorian
renewable energy target was "a key ingredient in the economics of the
project", which will provide the equivalent of 154MW of power to the
state grid.
There was strong support for the $420 million project yesterday, as
well as for a $360 million coal-drying and carbon-capture project in
Victoria.
John Howard stressed solar power was not the whole answer. "Solar power
will never be able to provide base-load power ... in the way that, say,
coal and, I believe in the long run, nuclear power can," the Prime
Minister said.
"But it's part of the response."
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley dismissed the package as "quite a small
one" even though it was "worthy", accusing Mr Howard of simply putting
out "bits and pieces of technology" while secretly wanting to turn to
nuclear power. "John Howard's lips say solar but his eyes say nuclear,"
he said.
A further project based in Queensland is expected to be announced on Monday, possibly using clean-coal technology.
NSW Premier Morris Iemma insisted his state was leading the way in
providing incentives for alternative power sources, even though
Victoria has been the focus of the two projects announced so far and
NSW is not expected to win any commonwealth funding.
The long-awaited rollout of the federal Government's $500 million
low-emission fund drew criticism from the renewable industry yesterday
for not doing enough to encourage the take-up of low-emission
technologies.
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy said proven low-emission
technologies were already in place, such as wind, biomass and solar,
but needed a carbon price signal to make them viable against cheap coal
and encourage their development.
------------------->
Eco companies to quit NSW
Catharine Munro
October 22, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/eco-companies-to-quit-nsw/2006/10/21/1160851182456.html
(From Sun-Herald.)
NSW risks losing $9 billion in energy investment if it fails to make a
quarter of the state's electricity green by 2020, says a report to be
released today.
High-tech companies have confirmed they will abandon projects combating
climate change and go overseas if Premier Morris Iemma does not do more
to help.
With a national scheme about to expire, the companies want new state
laws to force electricity retailers to buy energy that is generated
using solar power, wind or waste instead of fossil fuels, which are
blamed for climate change.
NSW would be halfway towards meeting a 25 per cent renewable energy
target if 19 proposed projects, worth $3.1 billion, were developed, the
report, co-written by Greenpeace, the Total Environment Centre and the
Nature Conservation Council, said.
One proposed project, a solar power development near Moree in the
state's north-west, could generate enough power to light up a town the
size of the state's largest inland city, Wagga Wagga. Managing director
of Solar, Heat and Power, Peter Le Lievre, who is planning the Moree
development, said government schemes in Europe and the US were far more
profitable.
"If there's nothing coming from NSW we will go overseas," he said. "We are up and out of here.
"It's a pity because we got our start in Australia but we have to pay our bills and make money."
The company has one pilot scheme running. It feeds electricity,
generated by solar power, into the grid at the Liddell plant near
Singleton in the Hunter Valley.
As the March state election approaches, the issue of alternative energy
is shaping up to challenge the Labor Government's green credentials.
The results of polling by independent think tank the Lowy Institute show voters see climate change as a serious concern.
Even China appears to be doing more to find alternatives to fossil
fuels, by demanding that 15 per cent of its energy must come from
renewable sources by 2015.
Australia was the first country to introduce targets for renewable
energy, but the Federal Government has not maintained the targets,
leaving no incentives for new companies to look for ways of creating
electricity out of alternatives to fossil fuels. Victoria and South
Australia have already decided to set their own targets.
"NSW has one of the worst regimes in place for ensuring renewable
energy," said Greenpeace's green energy campaigner Mark Wakeham.
"The proof is that since 2001 only two wind turbines have been introduced in NSW and there have been 215 in South Australia."
Meanwhile, a 1 per cent increase in temperatures in Australia would
make the drought in NSW increase by 70 per cent, the report says.
------------------->
Green power gets the vote
25/9/06
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bid-for-sport-whistle-for-the-rest-unis-told/2006/09/25/1159036472176.html?page=2
UNIVERSITY of Sydney students have "overwhelmingly" voted for their
administration to adopt renewable energy, in their first referendum in
27 years.
Students were asked last week whether the university should reduce its
energy use, whether it should purchase 20 per cent green power, and
whether the university should declare any partnerships with nuclear or
fossil fuel industries.
"They're still finalising [the count], but the vote is an overwhelming
'yes' for the university to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said
Wenny Theresia of the Student Representative Council's environment
collective.
It was the university's first referendum since Tony Abbott and Tanya
Coleman, Peter Costello's future wife, urged students to abolish
compulsory unionism in 1979.
The student council has estimated it would cost the university
$125,000 a year to buy 20 per cent of its energy from a provider
approved by Green Power, the Federal Government's accreditation
program.
But the university's vice-chancellor, Gavin Brown, said money would be
better invested in renewable energy research, to which the university
would give $1 million in March.
The students' push is part of a general campus movement towards
renewable energy.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER
------------------->
The truth? 'Nuclear is not the answer'
Leon Gettler
November 17, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/16/1163266712885.html?from=top5
NUCLEAR energy is not the panacea for tackling global warming, says one
of the world's most celebrated climate change campaigners, former US
vice-president Al Gore.
Mr Gore also shrugged off Prime Minister John Howard's recent claim
that his film An Inconvenient Truth showed "a degree of the peeved
politician".
"It may be one of those elements that's in the eyes of the beholder," he told The Age yesterday.#
Mr Gore said nuclear power was unlikely to play a significantly bigger
role in the climate change battle. "Even if you set aside the problem
of long-term waste storage and the danger of operator accident and the
vulnerability to terrorist attack, you still have two others that are
more difficult," he said.
The first problem was one of economics.
"Nuclear power plants are the costliest to build and they take the
longest time and at present they come in only one size — extra large."
The second was nuclear weapons proliferation. "For eight years when I
was in the White House, every problem of weapons proliferation was
connected to a reactor program," he said.
The Prime Minister has recently talked up the prospects of nuclear
power plants being built in Australia, arguing the country could not
afford to "sacrifice rational discussion on the altar of anti-nuclear
theology and political opportunism".
Next week an inquiry into nuclear power headed by former Telstra chief
executive Ziggy Switkowski is due to deliver its findings.
Mr Gore said it was extremely important that Mr Howard had now acknowledged the damage from carbon dioxide emissions.
"Let me say I want to be respectful of the Prime Minister's change in rhetoric.
"It's not easy to do something like that and … this position might be a
way station for him on the real road to Damascus where he actually
joins the world community," he said.
"And he may. I don't know, I can't look into his heart."
Mr Gore said that Australia and the US should sign the Kyoto Protocol
but he acknowledged that this presented Mr Howard and US President
George Bush with big political problems given that they had previously
"demonised" it.
Of Australia's promotion of a new global climate change pact he said:
"Obviously neither Australia nor the United States can write its own
little treaty and be separate from the rest of the world."
But there was, he said, a third path: "To join the world discussion now
in Nairobi on how to strengthen Kyoto and how to make whatever changes
Prime Minister Howard wants to advocate and join the rest of the world
community. That's the test."
Mr Gore, now chairman of investment firm Generation Investment
Management, yesterday met with Premier Steve Bracks and his deputy John
Thwaites. He described Victoria as forward thinking on climate change
and said he would take a number of local initiatives back to the United
States.
He was particularly impressed with the Bracks Government's "black
balloons" advertising campaign, which links household energy usage with
the amount of carbon dioxide it releases into the air.
"I'm going to take that ad back and show it to some folks there, maybe put it on YouTube," he said.
------------------->
Nuclear is not the answer to warming
By Jim Douglas
Canberra Times
Tuesday, 24 October 2006
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=524866&category=Opinion&m=10&y=2006
JUST a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was batting away questions
about climate change with responses suggesting that he would need to
read the science on this subject, and so on. Now it appears the subject
has become significantly more interesting to the Government. The
Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, has apparently had a
damascene moment on this subject on an unseasonably hot day at the Port
Elliott Show, and has let it be known that he now recognises the need
to act on this matter.
What has produced this apparent change in attitude? Perhaps the Prime
Minster is an absolute whiz at speed-reading, and has gotten through
all those scientific documents on climate change to come up with an
informed view. Or perhaps it is that some recent polling data indicate
that most Australians are seriously worried about this issue, and want
something done about it.
We need to consider this question of motive, because if it remains a
superficial political response, then we can expect measures which are
partial, partisan and ineffective. Two pieces of evidence suggest that
at present it is going this way. First, the Prime Minister, and the
Minister for Industry have recently abandoned their cautious approach
to nuclear energy: remember that when the Prime Minister formed the
panel of inquiry into nuclear energy, he advised all and sundry to wait
on the results of this process before forming a view. Now, with the
inquiry ongoing, Mr Howard and Mr MacFarlane have suddenly begun to
boost the virtues of the nuclear option as the answer to climate
change. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, he chose to launch this
campaign just as the head of that inquiry, Ziggy Switkowski, has done
his own little bit of premature evaluation by announcing that compared
to the coal option for energy in Australia, nuclear energy is not
economically viable. This is hardly a revelation. It is blindingly
obvious to anyone who has a fleeting knowledge of the energy sector
that virtually no alternative source of energy can compete with coal in
Australia - at least, while coal-fired energy plants are not required
either to do anything about global warming themselves, or to pay for
someone else to do so. We did not need Dr Switkowski to tell us this,
and neither did the Prime Minster.
In reality, it hardly matters who wins the nuclear debate. By the time
the dust has settled, and sufficient new plants have been built and
brought on line, if we have not in the meantime taken other significant
measures to abate climate change, then we will have lost another two
decades. In a previous article on climate change in this newspaper, I
argued that if continued inactivity on this issue increases the risks
of potentially catastrophic events occurring in some time-frame
relevant to our own lives and those of our children and grandchildren
(and most informed analysts of climate change would say that, without
significant abatement starting now, this is the likely outcome), then
inactivity or business-as-usual is the wrong approach,.
The second reason to doubt the Government's commitment to this issue is
that the Prime Minster, and his economic ministers, Mr Costello and
Senator Minchin, continue to rule out carbon taxes, and the associated
options of emissions trading that could form around these - even though
this is the only immediate route to lowering emissions that we have
available. This is really the crux of the question of what to do about
climate change in Australia. We now know that there are costs
associated with emission of greenhouse gases, even if we cannot yet
specify exactly what they are. For example, the more coal-fired energy
plants are required to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions (which
presently they are allowed to do for nothing), the less competitive
they will become with the alternative forms of energy, which have lower
(or zero) emissions. Importantly, however, this does not necessarily
mean the coal-based energy plants could not compete at all: they could
improve their technology to reduce emissions (or sequestrate those
emissions in a form that prevents their release into the atmosphere),
and they could make offset investments by financing activities that
actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these sorts of
investments (for example, avoided deforestation and plantation
forestry) may actually be profitable activities in their own right, and
end up costing the companies making the offset investments relatively
little.
However, these things will not happen voluntarily or spontaneously,
even if the Government attempts to subsidise such solutions into
existence. They will require introduction of policies requiring
emission of greenhouse gases to be priced: a carbon tax system (but
with the important addition of rebates for greenhouse-gas reduction
activities); or a greenhouse gas licensing system which would issue
permits for emission, which industries that succeed in lowering their
emissions below permitted levels could sell, and those that exceed
their emission permit level would have to buy.
The Prime Minister might not welcome the fact that a defence of sorts
of this position comes from none other than Karl Marx, who observed in
his essay A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that
"Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to
solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem
itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are
already present or at least in the course of formation".
If this Government, or any other that might replace it in Australia,
wants to set in formation realistic solutions to this particular
problem, then it needs to do two things. First, it must develop
meaningful carbon emission targets for all heavy-emission activities in
Australia, via taxes or permits, and then establish a trading system
that will allow those industries and technologies which prove
themselves best at reducing emissions to be rewarded, and those who
perform badly to be penalised. Australians have already indicated, in
polling data and otherwise, that they are willing to pay more for
energy, and this should be seen as a gift for any government that
really wishes to lead effectively on this issue. Second, it needs to
sponsor the sort of research and policy work that can answer important
questions about the best options to pursue to maximise our greenhouse
reductions (and minimise the costs to ourselves of doing so). There are
difficult and complex choices to be made here: how much effort should
be expended on amelioration of drought and land degradation effects,
compared to improving climate change abatement approaches? What sort of
policies will work in this new environment? Integration of economic
modelling work with the results of scientific and technical innovation
into a properly thought-out national strategy for greenhouse gas
reduction is the way to approach these issues and questions. This
process will certainly not be assisted through boosting silver-bullet
solutions such as nuclear energy, nor through a flurry of
indiscriminate support for anything which looks like an abatement
activity.
Jim Douglas worked on climate change and natural resource issues when
employed as Forests Adviser to the World Bank in Washington, and
continues to do so in his position as a Visiting Fellow in the School
of Resources, Environment and Society at the Australian National
University.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
MARALINGA
------------------->
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fadt_ctte/nuclear_tests_bills_06/index.htm
Inquiry into the provisions of the Australian Participants in British
Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Bill 2006; and, the Australian Participants
in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) (Consequential Amendments and
Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006
Submissions received
Public hearing and transcript
Report
------------------->
Media release – 27th September 2006
'One tree' planted in Alice Springs to commemorate 50 years since the first atomic test at Maralinga.
Fifty years ago today, the first of seven atomic bombs was detonated at
Maralinga in South Australia. The bomb, code-named 'one tree' by the
Australian and British Governments who conducted the tests, lead to
widespread sickness and deaths from the fallout, which was spread
heavily across Central Australia.
To commemorate the first atomic test at Maralinga in 1956, one tree
will be planted by Alice Springs community members, on the Uniting
church lawns in the Todd Mall today at 11am.
"This tree is being planted to recognise and remember the thousands of
people who were affected by the nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga,
whether by death, sickness or the destruction of country and a way of
life. These things can never be replaced and can never be forgotten,"
said Betty Pearce from Lhere Artepe; a Native Title holder of the Alice
Springs area.
Very little warning was given to Aboriginal people in the region, who
consequently suffered significant radiation exposure from the blasts.
Australian and British military personnel were also deliberately
exposed, to test the effects of radiation on humans, clothing and
equipment. People were forced to move from their country, which is
still highly contaminated and uninhabitable today.
It was only in 2002 that the clean up of the Maralinga site was finally
declared successful, though it was widely considered by many in the
nuclear industry to be grossly inadequate.
"There are only two end products of the nuclear cycle; nuclear weapons
or nuclear waste," said Jayne Alexander from Alice Action, a local
social justice and environment group. "We have seen the results of
weapons contamination here in Central Australia, let's not wait around
to find out what happens with the waste as well."
"This is a timely reminder to the rest of the country that Central
Australia is not just 'the middle of nowhere', a place suitable for
nuclear testing or radioactive waste, but a lived in, unique
environment that has cultures and ecosystems with significant meanings
for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians." added Reverend
Tracy Spencer from the Uniting Church.
------------------->
Tests held in undue haste, claims MP
The Advertiser
14/10/06
Colin James
FEDERAL Parliament has heard a detailed account of why British nuclear
test veterans believe they have been poorly treated for 50 years by
successive Australian governments.
"They argue the testing of atomic test weapons was hazardous and
exposed individuals to ionising radiation and toxic chemicals and other
risks beyond normal peacetime duties, causing high levels of disease and
death among participants,'' Opposition veteran affairs spokesman Allan
Griffin told the House of Representatives.
"The tests were conducted in undue haste with immature technology,
inadequate understanding of the science and poor planning and
management.
"They were conducted with inadequate safety provisions in place and
insufficient knowledge of the risks involved.
"Health physics teams were inexpert and the various test management and
safety committees, including the Australian safety committee, were
ill-informed and negligent.
"Australian members of the armed services were used as guinea pigs in
the tests - that is, they were deliberately exposed to radiation, or at
the very least, those in charge had little regard for their safety,
especially if test outcomes were likely to be jeopardised.
"The nature of the tests, the extent of radiation exposures and the
shortcomings in safety management of the tests have been deliberately
hidden from the Australian public.''
------------------->
MARALINGA Veterans still battling for recognition
The Advertiser
SAT 14 OCT 2006
By: COLIN JAMES, LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR
FIFTY years after the first British atomic bomb was tested at Maralinga,
surviving veterans remain immersed in the political fallout it created.
Their latest battle is with scientists who recently published a
comprehensive report dismissing their long-standing claims they were
exposed to excessive levels of radiation during their service in the
South Australian desert during the 1950s and early 1960s.
The report - much of it written by a team of researchers at the
University of Adelaide - blamed other factors such as smoking, skin
cancer and asbestos on the premature deaths of thousands of servicemen
and civilians sent to Maralinga, where hundreds of devices were
detonated in a secret program aimed at developing nuclear weapons for
the British Government.
Nuclear test representatives, who spent seven years working with the
Department of Veterans Affairs on the study, have claimed their views
have not received adequate scientific exploration.
The dispute spilled into Federal Parliament this week, with the Labor
Opposition accusing the Howard Government of ignoring extensive research
accumulated by the veterans on radiation and the medical impact on the
veterans, particularly cancers they developed.
During a debate over legislation introduced by Veteran Affairs Minister
Bruce Billson to grant free cancer treatment to veterans - without any
official acknowledgement of liability - the House of Representatives
heard they have been fighting for decades to have the tests declared
dangerous, which would make them eligible for compensation.
Mr Billson was accused by Labor of "back flipping'' on a promise he
made four years ago to help ensure the veterans received official
recognition. Former ALP leader Simon Crean tabled a letter Mr Billson
wrote to his predecessor, Danna Vale, in August, 2002, saying service at
Maralinga had exposed the veterans to radiation.
"A high proportion of our veterans have experienced conditions
attributed to their exposure to radiation, with many losing their
lives,'' says the letter. "I wholeheartedly support the concept of
graduated benefits to our veterans that takes into account the harm and
hostility to which they have been exposed.''
Among those veterans calling for Mr Billson to stand by his letter is
Peter Webb, who was 21 when he was sent to the top of a small hill to
watch the first nuclear bomb explode at Maralinga at 5pm on September
27, 1956.
Dressed in boots, khaki shorts and a short-sleeved shirt, the Australian
Army private and other soldiers were positioned about 1km away from a
tower containing a 15-kiloton nuclear bomb - 15 times more powerful than
the device detonated 10 days ago by North Korea in a test condemned
across the world.
"The countdown was called and we were ordered to turn our backs to the
tower, shut our eyes and cover them with our hands,'' he said.
"When the bomb was detonated the noise was deafening, there was a vivid
flash, more powerful than a flashlight going off in your face, and you
could see an X-ray of your hands, and there was a scorching sensation on
the skin.
"We were ordered to turn and we saw a dark brown cloud coming up from
the ground with vivid orange flames. For these scientists to say we
weren't exposed to radiation is just absolute nonsense and so typical of
how we have been treated for 50 years.''
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR DUMP PROPOSED FOR THE NT
------------------->
Radioactive Waste Act Amendments Fuel Fears of Dodgy Deals on Dump
Environmentalists and Traditional Owners have today expressed disgust
at the Commonwealth Government's attempt to rush through legislative
changes that would remove the need for procedural fairness and consent
of the community, in their attempt to impose a radioactive waste dump
on the Northern Territory.
"The original Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill was bad
enough, but these changes have seen John Howard and Julie Bishop stoop
to new lows", said Nat Wasley of the Beyond Nuclear Initiative.
With all the whispers about deals being struck between the Northern
Land Council and the Commonwealth Government to dump radioactive waste
at Muckaty Station, there's a real reason to fear that the passage of
these amendments may be designed to expediate this process.
The proposed changes mean that a nomination by a Land Council will no
longer require:
* consultation with the traditional owners
* that the nomination be understood by the traditional owners
* that the traditional owners have consented as a group
* that any community that may be affected has been consulted and had adequate opportunity to express its views
These scandalous and undemocratic additions will also see the removal
of the right to appeal on the grounds of procedural fairness.
"Clearly the federal Liberal Government sees procedural fairness as
something that could prevent them imposing their radioactive waste on
the Territory. One can only wonder, in light of these changes,
what dirty tricks the Commonwealth Government has in mind, to get their
way on the nuclear waste dump", said Tim Collins, Coordinator of the
Arid Lands Environment Centre.
Given the likely passage of the amendments (no doubt with the ongoing
support of "Nuclear" Nigel Scullion) the ball is now squarely in the
Northern Land Council's court.
"The Northern Land Council must publicly declare its intentions in
regard to the consultation of the Traditional Owners of Muckaty
Station. If their process is anything but completely transparent,
it will raise questions that they have either bowed to bully-boy
tactics of the Howard Government, or have been enticed by undisclosed
benefits that may have been offered", stated Mr Collins.
"The eyes of the Territory are on Muckaty Station. Traditional
Owners, green groups, the Territory Government and minor parties will
be closely monitoring this situation and will not tolerate the dumping
of radioactive waste on a community that has so strongly voiced their
opposition to the plan." Ms Wasley concluded.
Full details of the proposed amendments http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/browse.aspx?NodeID=41
------------------->
Bill to cut traditional owners out of waste dump consultations
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bill-to-cut-traditional-owners-out-of-waste-dump-consultations/2006/11/27/1164476139354.html
Annabel Stafford, Canberra
November 28, 2006
Aboriginal elders may no longer have to be consulted before their land
is turned into a radioactive waste dump under controversial new
legislation set to be passed by Federal Parliament in the next
fortnight.
The legislation could clear the way for Aboriginal land to be nominated
for use as a radioactive waste repository without the consent of
traditional land owners - and without consultation of them or other
indigenous people who may be affected.
It will also remove the right to a judicial review or procedural
fairness for parties that oppose a particular site being nominated or
approved for a dump.
The legislation comes amid speculation that the Northern Land Council
is considering a radioactive waste dump at Muckaty Cattle Station in
the Northern Territory.
The Labor Party, Aboriginal groups and the environment lobby savaged
the Government for giving a parliamentary inquiry just a few hours to
investigate the bill. The inquiry was held yesterday evening.
Labor Senator for the NT Trish Crossin said the bill was meant to
"block the rights of traditional owners or others from challenging any
nomination of Aboriginal land for a dump site". It would "absolve the
Government from any responsibility to traditional owners of a site, to
ensure that they agree with it becoming a radioactive dump site and
losing access to it", she said.
Aboriginal Land Councils in the NT are split over the legislation. The
Northern Land Council supports the bill, saying provisions that stop a
site selection being overturned - even if the rules about consulting
traditional owners have not been followed - are no different from
existing arrangements for certain mining leases.
There was "no way" the legislation would allow Land Councils to
nominate a waste site without getting the approval of traditional
owners, NLC representatives told the parliamentary inquiry. Instead it
would simply stop green groups and other parties delaying developments.
But the Central Land Council says the legislation "diminishes the
rights of traditional owners, is a gross abuse of process and must be
rejected in its entirety".
Nationals senator for the NT Nigel Scullion said he was "absolutely
confident" the legislation would not wind back the protections of the
Land Rights Act or requirements to consult traditional owners.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
AUSTRALIA AS THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP
------------------->
(Long, rambling pro-nuclear rant ...)
The big U-turn
Friday, November 17, 2006
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=161844
The threat of climate change and the fear of rogue states are pushing
Australia into the role of the world's champion of safe nuclear power.
Paul Toohey reports.
------------------->
Excellent articles by Julie Mackin in New Matilda
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=1913
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=1921
Part 3 is subscribers-only
------------------->
Nuclear fuel leasing still 'very much a theory'
Katharine Murphy
October 6, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-fuel-leasing-still-very-much-a-theory/2006/10/05/1159641461932.html
THE chairman of the Government's nuclear inquiry has raised questions about the prospects of nuclear fuel leasing.
Ziggy Switkowski told The Age the idea of Australia converting its
uranium into fuel rods, exporting them and taking back waste was "very
much a theory".
His taskforce had examined nuclear facilities overseas and looked at
various ways countries dealt with nuclear waste. "There is little
encouragement around the world for gathering up spent fuel rods and
storing them away from where they were used," Dr Switkowski said.
But in a radio interview, he appeared to leave the door open for an
enrichment industry, saying that "if you project out several decades",
increasing demand for nuclear fuel "may provide opportunities for new
(enrichment) plants".
Dr Switkowski's taskforce visited a number of international facilities
and also went to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. He said the sites had
left a powerful impression, but the technology had now improved to the
extent that those sites "no longer represent the modern nuclear
industry".
His comments came as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation argued in a submission to the inquiry that by considering
the development of enrichment and reprocessing industries, Australia
could "boost its position as an energy superpower".
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM FOR AUSTRALIA?
------------------->
Plan to export enrinched uranium
Dennis Shanahan and Joseph Kerr
November 21, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20793380-601,00.html
AUSTRALIA could quadruple the value of its uranium exports to $2.4
billion a year by enriching uranium oxide before sending it overseas.
The federal Government's energy inquiry report, to be released today,
has found "nuclear power can play a role in Australia's future
electricity generation mix" on cost and environmental grounds.
The Government has been advised that the strongly growing global demand
for uranium for nuclear power is a significant opportunity for
Australia.
The nuclear options inquiry, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy
Switkowski, finds the $573 million worth of uranium oxide exported last
year could have been "transformed into a further $1.8 billion in value
after conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication".
But the report warns of "very significant" investment and technology
obstacles to the development of uranium enrichment capacity.
Australia is home to more than a third of the world's known low-cost
uranium deposits - much of it at BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in
outback South Australia - but uranium oxide is sent to countries such
as the US and France to be enriched for use in nuclear power plants.
On the question of cost, the report estimates nuclear power would be 20
to 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired power stations "if
pollution, including carbon dioxide emissions, is not priced". However,
when the cost of carbon reduction to cut emissions is taken into
account, nuclear power becomes competitive with coal energy.
The report finds nuclear power "is the least cost, low-emission
technology that can provide baseload power available today and can play
a role in Australia's future generation mix".
A discussion paper by the Energy Reform Infrastructure Group says
Australia will need to more than double current existing electricity
supply by 2050 to meet growing demand.
Ron Oxburgh, chairman of the British House of Lords science and
technology committee and former chairman of Shell Oil, said yesterday
that nuclear plants were now much cheaper and faster to build and
nuclear power could be available within five years.
He said most nuclear power plants operating today were designed before
the computer age. "Today, because there is a lot of prefabrication, you
can now build one of these things in 4 1/2 years," Lord Oxburgh told
ABC radio.
John Howard commissioned the nulear energy review amid a fierce debate
on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister has
argued nuclear power is "clean and green" and being used increasingly
overseas to generate electricity, with China expected to rely heavily
on it as its economy grows in coming decades.
The Labor Party is opposed to nuclear power in Australia and the
creation of a uranium enrichment industry, although it is likely to
lift its limits on uranium mining at the ALP national conference next
year.
The US has been opposed to the idea of countries such as Australia
joining the tight club of countries able to carry out uranium
enrichment.
Once developed, the technology can be used to enrich material to the
point where it can be used in a nuclear warhead. Some critics view this
as a key weapons proliferation risk. But, keen to reduce Australia's
heavy reliance on greenhouse-gas-creating fossil fuels, the Government
is understood to want to consider enrichment.
Senior figures wanted the Switkowski review to make its findings without being hamstrung by political pressure.
The review is understood to have looked favourably on a submission from
the director-general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation
Office, John Carlson, who argued that Australia could increase uranium
mining and exports without raising any new nuclear proliferation risks.
Mr Carlson said the next generation of nuclear reactors offered hope
for producing power while substantially reducing the long-lived
radioactive waste produced by current models.
But he warned that any expansion of Australia's nuclear industry into
new phases in the fuel cycle - such as uranium enrichment or nuclear
power generation - would require key regulatory changes and a boost in
personnel.
Dr Switkowski's report will devote a chapter to the skills and manpower
shortages resulting from the long decline of the nation's nuclear
industry.
Bertrand Barre, the former director of reactor engineering at the
Atomic Energy Commission in France, said yesterday state and federal
governments could establish a national nuclear regulator within one to
three years - a key precursor for planning to begin on any domestic
nuclear power reactors.
------------------->
Miner wanted to enrich uranium at Olympic Dam
Andrew Trounson
October 18, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20600603-2702,00.html
IF last year's $9.2 billion takeover battle for miner WMC Resources had
turned out differently, Australia could already be on the way to
shifting its uranium industry towards enrichment of nuclear fuel.
Early last year, WMC was in advanced talks with French nuclear fuel
giant Areva on developing uranium enrichment facilities at its Olympic
Dam copper and uranium mine in South Australia.
The talks came to nothing when mining giant BHP Billiton took over WMC
last year, but former WMC chief executive Andrew Michelmore remains a
strong advocate of developing a nuclear power industry Australia.
Mr Michelmore said that rather than just "digging it up and shipping
it", the country had a unique opportunity to develop a value-adding
downstream uranium industry.
It could even extend to taking back radioactive spent fuel rods and
burying them deep beneath the stable geology of South Australia.
He said WMC's discussions with Areva were based on producing enriched
uranium that could then be shipped to fuel fabricators for conversion
to pellets and then fuel rods.
In March, Mr Michelmore was close to putting some proposals to the WMC
board as an alternative to accepting a hostile takeover bid from
Swiss-based miner Xstrata. Instead, BHP launched its successful
takeover bid.
Since then, BHP has made it clear it is not interested in moving downstream in uranium.
------------------->
Woolly thinking on enrichment
There is little economic logic to setting up a domestic industry that
would succeed only at the cost of stratospheric taxpayer subsidies,
writes David Uren
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20475616-30417,00.html
September 26, 2006
ENRICHED uranium is the most politically corrupted commodity market in
the world. It is a market where the Cold War never ended and the
spectre of nuclear terrorism hangs heavy.
Although there is a semblance of competition among the four giant
companies that supply it, governments control who may operate, where,
and with whom they may trade.
Prime Minister John Howard has called for Australia to enter the market
so that we do not repeat the history of sending our wool to Manchester
for processing. However, an industry less like grazing sheep or
scouring wool is difficult to imagine.
Analysts say there is little economic logic to a quest that would succeed only at the cost of stratospheric taxpayer subsidies.
"Enrichment supply is an oligopoly of four major players: two from
Europe, one from the US and one from Russia. The US firm USEC was
privatised in 1998 but still has many tentacles back into government,
while the rest are government controlled," says uranium enrichment
specialist Ruthanne Neely.
Ms Neely was marketing director for USEC until early this year and is
now vice-president of the nuclear industry advisory firm UX Consulting,
which sets the world spot price for both enriched and natural uranium.
She says the four companies behave as any oligopoly, minutely following
each other's steps, while being careful to avoid any appearance of
collusion.
She says it would not be practical for Australia to enter the market
from scratch; it would have to entice one of the big suppliers who
control enrichment technology.
"The reason it may not be very interesting for these big suppliers is,
Australia doesn't use enrichment. It has no nuclear power. There are
problems with enrichment once you've got to ship it. The world gets
concerned about terrorism and terrorists," she says.
In fact enriched uranium is shipped - Japan buys it from the US and
Europe, while, under a bizarre deal that highlights the political
nature of the industry, the Russians ship military-grade enriched
uranium to the US to be blended down for commercial reactors.
However, Neely says transport restrictions are tight and Australia's
distance from markets is a barrier to its entry. If a supplier were
going to build a plant in the region, Singapore would be much more
attractive, being closer to China.
The industry is fraught with trade barriers. The Russian
government-controlled corporation, Rosatom, faces a wall of embargoes
and quotas in the West.
The US has a law forbidding imports of Russian enriched uranium, other
than the nuclear fuel from decommissioned Soviet warheads, which is
shipped under a deal signed in 1993 between former presidents George
Bush Sr and Boris Yeltsin.
The European nuclear industry is controlled by Euratom, which restricts
imports of Russian enriched uranium to 25 per cent of the market,
although it actually delivers much less than that.
Japan also forbids imports of Russian enriched uranium, because of its dispute over sovereignty of the Kurile Islands.
Neely says the Russians are trying to break into the Japanese market and have established a Tokyo office.
They have warned Japanese utilities that the Americans on whom they
currently depend could find themselves short of enriched uranium after
2013.
This is when the Russian contract to supply the Americans with military
nuclear fuel expires. That contract accounts for about 20 per cent of
American supply.
The Europeans also face obstacles in the US market, as a result of
allegations by USEC that the two European suppliers - the French-owned
Areva, and the German, British and Dutch conglomerate Urenco - were
dumping their product.
Punitive duties were imposed, but the Europeans have since won legal
appeals arguing that enriched uranium is a service, not a product, and
is therefore not covered by US anti-dumping law. USEC is now appealing
this finding.
The problem is that USEC uses an old and extremely energy-hungry
technology, gas diffusion, whereas Urenco (and also the Russians) use a
much more efficient gas centrifuge.
Neely says it is not possible to determine from the USEC accounts
whether it makes a profit or a loss from its enrichment activity,
because it pools its earnings from natural uranium sales.
Both the Americans and the French, who also use the old technology, are
replacing it, with the construction of major new centrifuge plants
working their way through the approvals system.
The World Nuclear Association, which represents nuclear utilities,
believes these projects will be sufficient to keep the industry
supplied for the foreseeable future. In an assessment of the nuclear
fuel market over the next 25 years, obtained by The Australian, the
association points out that centrifuge plants can be expanded simply by
adding new centrifuge modules.
"Given the modular expansion capability of gaseous centrifuge designs
and the required timelines for building new nuclear plants, capacity in
the enrichment sector of the fuel cycle should be able to meet the
requirements of the worldwide commercial nuclear fleet under any
current projection of demand in the forecast period."
France's Areva, the only one of the four giants to make a submission to
the Government's inquiry into the practicality of establishing a
nuclear industry in Australia, has dismissed Australia's prospects for
enrichment.
It says a country can only consider enriching uranium if it has a large
number of nuclear power plants. It says there is about 20 per cent
excess capacity in the industry.
Moreover, it says the global approach to nuclear proliferation by
organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the G8
states is that there should be no increase in the number of countries
with enrichment capability.
"It could be difficult to justify (such a) heavy investment, in both
economic and political terms, as creating an enrichment activity in
Australia," it says.
Not every one shares the view that enrichment is oversupplied, with a
submission to the inquiry by Australian listed company Silex Systems
arguing there is scope for a new entrant.
Silex is developing a new technology for enriching uranium, based on laser separation.
Chief executive Michael Goldsworthy argues that centrifuge supply cannot be expanded quickly because of its high capital cost.
He says the Russian nuclear weapons material will stop flowing to the
market altogether once the deal with the US expires and that the four
operators will be able to produce no more than their existing
commitments. He says this would leave demand for enriched uranium 33
per cent ahead of supply by 2015.
Silex has signed a commercial development contract with General Electric which Goldsworthy believes can fill this gap.
Neely says the technology is very impressive and, if it can be
developed at a commercial scale, has the potential to revolutionise the
industry.
"If laser separation works, it is so cheap it will turn centrifuges
into dinosaurs. General Electric has enormous resources and its
manufacturing engineers are the best in the world, so my feeling is
they are very likely to succeed."
She says an enrichment plant based on Silex technology would cost a
small fraction of the $US1.7 billion ($2.25 billion) budget for the
next USEC centrifuge plant.
Goldsworthy says it is unlikely that USEC's centrifuge technology, if
it is successfully developed, would ever be licensed for deployment
outside the US. Russia would also refuse to license its centrifuge
technology to Australia.
Urenco has just licensed its technology to a joint venture with the
French, which many believe will have the effect of reducing the present
two European manufacturers to one.
Goldsworthy says the size and significance of this commitment would
preclude Urenco from supplying its technology to a third country.
This leaves the Silex technology, and, although Goldworthy would like
to see it deployed in Australia, he says such a step is not
straightforward.
"Any future deployment of the Silex technology in Australia would be at
the discretion of GE, and would require the approval of the US
government." The US government has control, because the final form of
the technology will have significant input from the GE.
Neely says that if Australia could strike an agreement with the US
government, gaining access to technology may be possible. Everything
has a price tag she says.
"There are lots of things that governments do to entice people to build
plants. It may be very high royalties, tax incentives or labour
incentives. If they did that, it could be attractive."
However she says that GE, thinking about where to situate its first
uranium enrichment plant, would be much more likely to choose the US.
"That is where the market is. They might put one in Europe for the same
reason."
Economists say the argument for adding value to mineral resources before exporting them is flawed.
It makes sense to refine bauxite into alumina before exporting it
because there are huge savings in transport costs. But transport is an
insignificant component of the cost of enriched uranium.
Executive director of the Centre for International Economics, Andy
Stoeckel, says raw materials should be processed by whoever has the
economic advantage. It is for this reason that Australia exports iron
ore but China makes the steel. He says the governments of the
Australian colonies in the last century were perfectly correct to let
the raw wool go to Manchester for processing.
"That's where the industrial revolution happened and where original
woollen mills were. They were the first movers and had the comparative
advantage in processing. If we could have done it cheaper, we would
have.
"Governments can't force these things," he says.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
PUSH FOR ASIAN NUCLEAR ENERGY BODY LIKE EURATOM
------------------->
AUSTRALIA: Push for Asian atomic energy body
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/programs/s1766200.htm
Last Updated 16/10/2006 8:14:34 PM
Australia is considering the creation of an Asian organisation to
encourage the generation of nuclear power across the region. The
Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, says Asia could use the
model of EURATOM, the European body in charge of the peaceful use of
atomic energy.
Presenter/Interviewer: Graeme Dobell
Speakers: Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer; Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Dr Andrew Davies
DOBELL: Australia is looking at an Asian version of Euratom, the body
established by the European Community nearly 50 years ago to offer
nuclear energy technology to member countries. Australia's Foreign
Minister, Alexander Downer says an Asian version of Euratom would offer
the region greater energy security, based on a technology, he says,
that has improved dramatically, and new generations of reactors that
are cheaper to build and run.
DOWNER: There has been some thought given to this and some work done on
the idea of having a Euratom for Asia, because it's something we've
been having another look at in recent weeks and some internal
discussions about the viability of it.
DOBELL: Mr Downer says nuclear energy is especially sensitive at the
moment because of North Korea's declared nuclear test. But he says
nuclear power is going to be part of the answer for Asia's future
energy needs - pointing to Japan's 54 nuclear power stations, and the
nuclear programs in place or announced by China, South Korea, Taiwan
and Indonesia. Add to that list, he says, Malaysia and Vietnam, which
are considering nuclear power generation.
DOWNER: The idea of the region working together under a single
framework in the way that the European Union does is I think quite a
good idea and it's an area where Australia is the world's largest
repository of at least economically recoverable uranium can take a lead
and it would also help to reinforce the strength of the Non
Proliferation regime in the region, which I mean, quite apart from
anything else, the publics of Asia need constant reassurance about the
commitment of governments to Non Proliferation.
DOBELL: The thinking about an Asia-wide structure for peaceful use of
nuclear power reflects a new debate within Australia about its possible
nuclear futures. Australia, with massive coal deposits, doesn't
generate any electricity from its one small nuclear plant. But
Australia does have a quarter of the world's known deposits of uranium,
and 40 percent of the easily exploitable or low-cost uranium. In June,
Canberra set up an inquiry to look at the future of uranium mining,
nuclear energy and the possible reprocessing of the nuclear fuel. That
led to report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warning
that Asia could see Australia as a potential nuclear-weapons break-out
state if Australia seeks to enrich uranium for export. Dr Andrew Davies
says Australia will need the utmost openness and careful diplomacy if
it moves to uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing.
DAVIES: The first thing to notice is that Australia would be the first
country in the region that has the ability to produce fissile material,
through uranium enrichment or later on even through plutonium
reprocessing. No one else in the region has the ability to do that. We
would be the first, and regional countries might reasonably ask what
does that mean to the strategic picture in the area?
DOBELL: The Foreign Minister says the enrichment issue is highly
sensitive, but Mr Downer denies any danger of Australia being seen as
reaching towards nuclear weapons.
DOWNER: To claim that expanding the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia
sends a signal that we want to build nuclear weapons is of course
ridiculous. Other countries are not so stupid. They'd know we don't
have any motive of that kind at all.
DOBELL: The United States prefers that no new countries should enrich
uranium - a position being questioned by both Australia and Canada. Mr
Downer says the Nuclear Suppliers Group is looking at criteria for a
regime to be applied to new enrichment countries which would cover a
nation's nuclear track record, whether it's in a sensitive and
dangerous region, and whether enrichment would be destabilising.
DOWNER: Our government will make sure that any decision on enrichment
would be internationally responsible and in line with preserving
regional and international security and indeed enhancing it. We
certainly wouldn't want this to become a cause for concern in the
region or amongst our allies and there's no reason that it should. In
fact, regional governments have already indicated that they understand
our position.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER - GOVERNMENT'S NUCLEAR INQUIRY (ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI)
------------------->
Report of the UMPNER / Ziggy Switkowski panel at:
http://www.pmc.gov.au/umpner/index.cfm
In a nutshell: Given its origins and the composition of its panel, the
nuclear taskforce report chaired by Ziggy Switkowski, and issued last
Tuesday, is in some respects surprisingly downbeat. It supports uranium
mining and nuclear power, but for at least the medium term effectively
rejects uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication and
spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, and all but ignores the original
requirement to investigate the "business case" for establishing a
repository accepting high-level nuclear waste from overseas.
------------------->
Nuclear power a practical option for Australia
By Dr Ziggy Switkowski
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/news/opinion/items/200611/s1792659.htm
The review was established to examine uranium mining, value-added
processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the
longer term. It is intended to provide a factual base and an analytical
framework to encourage informed community discussion. The draft report
provides an opportunity for the public to comment on the task force's
findings.
The task force examined the capacity for Australia to increase uranium
mining and exports. As a holder of substantial reserves (38 per cent of
known low cost global reserves) and producer of uranium (23 per cent of
global production), Australia is well positioned to meet growing market
demand. Value adding to Australia's resources is possible and could be
worth $1.8 billion annually. However, this is not without its
challenges.
Australia's demand for electricity will more than double before 2050.
More than two-thirds of existing electricity generation will need to be
substantially upgraded or replaced and new capacity added. This
additional capacity will need to use near-zero greenhouse gas emitting
technology if Australia is just to keep greenhouse gas emissions at
today's levels.
On average, nuclear power would be 20–50 per cent more expensive than
coal in Australia but can become competitive with fossil fuel-based
generation in Australia with the introduction of low to moderate
pricing of carbon dioxide emissions.
Nuclear power has a low emissions signature. Although the priority for
Australia should continue to be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from
coal and gas, the task force sees nuclear power as a practical option
for Australia.
The handling and storage of radioactive waste was an issue often raised
in submissions. The safe disposal of low and intermediate-level waste
is practised today at many sites around the world. Australia has
suitable locations for deep underground repositories for the safe
storage of high level waste and spent nuclear fuel.
Many Australians associate nuclear power with the accidents at Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl. The task force visited these sites and found
that while the health and safety legacy from Chernobyl is real, the
nuclear industry is far safer than other energy-related industries.
However, no industry is risk-free.
Nuclear weapons proliferation is another issue of concern to the
public. Increased Australian involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle
would not change the risks. It is clandestine activity that is likely
to lead to the production of nuclear weapons, not civil nuclear
activities.
Nuclear power today is a mature, safe, and relatively clean means of
generating baseload electricity. Nuclear power is an option that
Australia should seriously consider if it is to meet its growing energy
demand and reduce its greenhouse gas signature.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - RESPONSES TO SWITKOWSKI DRAFT REPORT
------------------->
Crikey Editorial, 22/11/06
www.crikey.com.au
If a government wanted to figure out how best to defend the country, it
wouldn't hold an inquiry into the air force. It would hold an inquiry
into … defence. So if a government wanted to figure out how to plan for
responsible energy consumption in an age of climate change you'd assume
it would hold an inquiry into energy consumption. Instead, the
Australian government holds an inquiry into … nuclear energy.
That single fact tells you almost as much as you need to know about the
value of the Switkowski inquiry into nuclear power. It's a political
con job perpetrated by a government which is less than a year away from
an election and is being dragged kicking and screaming into the debate
about climate change.
In fact, Australia did hold an inquiry into energy in 2004 which
produced the white paper Securing Australia's Energy Future. This told
us what we already knew – that, economically speaking, renewables are a
hard sell in Australia. Our embarrassment of fossil fuel riches means
that low-emission technology will be more expensive for the foreseeable
future. That includes nuclear energy. Nuclear and "other forms of
energy like renewables probably can only be competitive" with a carbon
tax, acknowledged Ziggy Switkowski yesterday.
If the Howard government was genuine about climate change it would
conduct a comprehensive inquiry into all energy sources, all
technologies, all emissions and all the economics.
In the meantime it's just window dressing and Labor Party wedging tarted up with false gravitas.
------------------->
Nuclear Review: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Continue To Go Up For 25 Years WITH NUCLEAR POWER
Climate Institute - Media Release
<www.climateinstitute.org.au>
21st November 2006
Today's release of the draft nuclear power review shows that nuclear
power cannot halt the rise in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The
review shows that even if 25 nuclear power stations were built across
the country, emissions would increase by around 40% by 2030. (Graph
attached.)
"25 years is too late to get our national emissions under
control. Any credible Government action on climate change must start to
immediately drive emissions down, not up. National emissions have risen
by 10% in the last decade and will rise 17% in the next 15 years," said
Corin Millais, Chief Executive of the Climate Institute.
The recent Stern Review on the economics of climate change concluded:
"the task is urgent. Delaying action, even by a decade or two, will
take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of
opportunity close."
"The cheapest, fastest and fairest way to cut emissions is to introduce
a carbon price so that all technologies can compete on a level playing
field."
The Review says that:
* Australia's greenhouse gas emissions would continue to rise until
2030 when they would plateau to 2050 even with 25 nuclear power
stations in place.
* A carbon price makes low-emission technologies such as nuclear power
and renewables more competitive with energy generated by fossil fuels.
It also makes technologies that remove emissions more economically
viable.
* Delaying emissions reduction can result in more rapid warming,
increasing the risk of exceeding critical climate thresholds and making
dangerous impacts more likely.
"Whether nuclear power, renewable energy or low emission fossil fuels
have a future in Australia depends on one thing - a commitment from the
Government to urgently put in place the laws and a carbon price signal
to drive all new energy investment into zero or low emission
technology".
------------------->
ACF Brief to ENGOs: The Prime Minister's Nuclear Taskforce Report 21st Nov
'Factual findings' that Nuclear power is safe & nuclear waste management is resolved
The report dismisses concerns over nuclear safety and also claims that
Australia's electricity system would be no more of a terrorist target
if it were nuclear powered. The Chair says there is no reason that high
level nuclear waste can not be safely managed in Australia and that we
won't need such a facility till 2050 - so that we should produce the
nuclear waste for decades before having a specific answer and site as
to how we then manage these wastes forever.
The report makes 'factual findings' rather than recommendations but
cant even count as evidenced by the Chair saying the Inquiry received
230 public submissions – not acknowledging the thousands from ACF
supporters, counting them as one under ACF's.
Calls for a carbon price signal & emissions trading and claims nuclear power will become economic
The Chair says that IF you are serious about addressing climate change
you will have a price on carbon and bring in an emissions trading
system. This presents a challenge to the PM and will heighten pressure
for a credible outcome to the flagged Emission Trading Inquiry in the
federal election year. The report claims that an emission trading
carbon price of $15-40 tonne will make nuclear power economic verses
current coal (Note that env groups expect an ET scheme of at least $35
tonne for it to be of use).
The report falsely claims that nuclear power is the cheapest low
emissions option for baseload electricity supply while acknowledging
that private investment in the first-built nuclear reactors "may
require some form of government support or directive" - meaning federal
government public subsidies and draconian imposition?
To push the fact that Nuclear power will remain uneconomic without public subsidies
A carbon tax or emissions trading system will not bridge the gap in
nuclear economics or address the real costs in nuclear power, across
high and uncertain capital & construction costs, the unacceptable
consequences of nuclear accidents and the prohibitively high cost of
any real 'nuclear insurance', de-commissioning and perpetual nuclear
waste management liabilities, and the fact that nuclear facilities are
potential terrorist targets.
The environment movement must not get caught out wrongly conceding that
nuclear can become economic in Australia and we should draw on nuclear
power's record of massive public subsidies across the west and
remaining un-costed liabilities especially in UK.
Nuclear Taskforce Chair Ziggy Switkowski calls for a massive 25 GW
nuclear power build with 25 nuclear reactors coming online from 2020 to
2050
Nuclear power is said to comprise 30% of Australia's electricity by
2050 with the first nuclear reactor coming on line in 2020. The report
expects an average time of 15 years for: creation of a regulatory
framework & vendor selection & planning approvals & reactor
construction; with a potential accelerated timeline of 10 years and a
'slow' timeline of 20 years. The report acknowledges this first
requires a national strategy for nuclear power with community
involvement but barely cites public opposition and the range of
State/Ter anti-nuclear laws.
Nuclear power the solution to climate change by 'reducing' emissions relative to coal
The Chair stated "the only reason" to build nuclear power in
Australia is to address climate change by reducing electricity sector
emissions, and said that you would not build nuclear in Australia for
energy security or for electricity pricing given our fossil fuel
options. This is both a huge misleading PR push for nuclear &
uranium and also a fundamental weakness in their case. To unravel the
nuclear push we need to publicly establish that renewables and energy
savings do work, can provide baseload and replace fossil fuel baseload
plants
Report & Chair's false claim that nuclear power will reduce Australia's GHGE
The report relies on an ABARE 'business as usual' model of electricity
demand & of Aust's total GHGE and projects new nuclear power build
of 25 GW to displace coal from 2020 on, 'reducing' Australia's total
GHGE "by approximately 18% relative to business as usual" increases
from 2020 to 2050. This INCREASES Aust total GHGE by app 25% from now
to 2020, an increase of app 70% by 2020 over the 1990 Kyoto Treaty
reference year, and projects stabilisation of Australia's total GHGE
(excluding land use change and forestry) at over 700 Mt CO2 -equivalent
compared to app 560 Mt now and app 425 Mt in 1990.
The report accepts a 70% increase in electricity demand from 234 TWh in
2003 to app 400 TWh in 2030, and thereafter proposes that new nuclear
build displaces 25 GW of black coal. The Chair's talk of "emission
reductions" and the nuclear report's media coverage is misleading
Australian's to think that nuclear power provides a significant GHGE
reduction option, while completely ignoring demand management options,
delaying energy efficiency options until after 2020, and dismissing
renewables.
Calls for delayed action on climate change and dismissal of renewables
The Chair stated that renewables can not provide continuous
electricity, and the report projects renewables will only comprise 8.5%
of Australia's electricity by 2030 and 20% by 2050. Further, the
proposed new nuclear power program will take over 22 years to light one
net new lightbulb in Australia. With the first reactor said to operate
in 2020 and then an additional wait for the energy payback time in
nuclear of a further 7 year average period. Should we delay emission
reductions by nearly a quarter century and await a dangerous and at
best ineffective nuclear option?
Proposed siting of 25 nuclear reactors and of a high level nuclear waste dump
The Chair said that nuclear reactors should be 10's not 100s of
kilometres from the market and from the grid and proposed co-location
with existing power plants, essentially targeting millions of
Australians who lives within an hours drive of our cities with nuclear
accident fallout and terrorist targeting. On being asked where the high
level nuclear waste was to go the Chair rather flippantly said
"Honestly take your pick" and has falsely claimed that most of
Australia has suitable geology and groundwater for deep geological
burial of nuclear wastes (500m to 1.2 km deep).
This has opened up a powerful 'postcode' campaign against nuclear
siting and imposition across Australia and is a gift to the Federal ALP
who will now run this as their environmental and nuclear (dont mention
uranium) credibility through out the federal election year.
Backing for a 100-150% increase in uranium production by 2014-15
The report supports expansion of all 3 existing uranium mines and a
doubling uranium exports to over 20 000 tonnes/yr and cites potential
for 5 new uranium mines with a combined production of 5 000 tones/yr if
State & NT government uranium policy is changed. Calls for
'harmonisation' of uranium regulation and backs the Uranium Industry
Framework report recommendations.
Finds no increased Proliferation Risks from a doubling of Australian uranium exports
The report is fully accepting of existing safeguards and in denial over
proliferation risks from uranium exports. See the ACF & MAPW Report
"An Illusion of Protection" for a reality check.
On Uranium Enrichment, Nuclear Fuel Leasing and International Nuclear Dumping
The report cites significent commercial and technical barriers to
uranium enrichment and finds "there may be little real opportunity for
Australian companies to extend profitably into these areas."
However media coverage & PR on 'value adding' is likely to continue
with a $1.8 billion/yr cited increase in export value if all of Aust's
uranium production was processed here.
The Chair was dismissive of nuclear fuel leasing, reprocessing and international dumping.
The ALP response on uranium policy?
This report further heighten prominence to the nuclear & climate
change debate through to the federal election providing a 'cover' for
the ALP to overturn their no new uranium mines policy at their National
Conference in April 2007 – which we need to contest.
------------------->
Greenpeace expert international panel:
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/more-nuclear-what-internation
or direct download:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/more-nuclear-what-internation.pdf
------------------->
Howard nukes states
Herald Sun
27/11/06
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20824680-5000117,00.html
JILL Singer writes: The real issue surrounding the state election was how much longer will they be necessary?
At the rate the Howard Government is centralising power and over-riding
state rights, our state and territory governments are already
hopelessly neutered.
Remember when the Northern Territory introduced dying with dignity legislation?
The Prime Minister killed it in cold blood.
The recent High Court decision on the Federal Government's workplace
reform legislation was the nail in the coffin for state governments.
Now, the Commonwealth has the power to meddle in virtually any area of policy or regulation it chooses.
Big Ted or Bracksy, what does it ultimately matter?
If John Howard wants state schools to have the same curriculum in Queensland and Victoria, he can have his way.
And, as we've seen, he's very keen to involve himself in our schools, right down to their flagpoles and religious teachings.
One might well ask what sort of preacher would choose to be paid by a
government rather than his church, but we already know what sort of
politician is willing to play boss to preachers and premiers.
The big issue now, of course, is nuclear energy. John Howard states
that his taskforce's evidence provides compelling economic evidence
that Australia must pursue a nuclear future. This simply isn't right.
It actually provides compelling evidence that any nuclear power
industry would need to be given huge financial advantages by government
and would come on stream too slowly to bring the urgently needed
reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.
The allegedly unprejudiced taskforce made no serious examination of
sustainable, renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind.
Instead, it was asked to examine our uranium industry and possibilities
for nuclear power. The Federal Government instructed it to do this with
our massive uranium deposits kept in mind.
Now, this is not terribly good science. It is akin to asking for a
report on capital punishment in light of us having plentiful supplies
of good rope.
I'm sure if a prime-ministerial taskforce had been established to
investigate solar or wind power technologies based on our plentiful,
free and renewable supplies of sunshine and wind, we would have seen a
slightly different outcome.
Australians are being asked to think of our future energy needs free of prejudice. But just who is being prejudiced here?
Apart from accepting submissions, the nuclear taskforce commissioned
just three reports. One focused entirely on the global market for our
uranium.
Another, on Life-Cycle Energy Balance, conducted by the University of
Sydney, stressed the need for what is called triple bottom line
analysis.
This means that social, economic and environmental factors should all be factored in.
Strange how this hasn't made its way onto the Prime Minister's radar.
Another report was commissioned from the US Electric Power Research
Institute, which basically just pulled together eight previously
conducted studies, most done in the US and focused on comparing fossil
and nuclear technologies, not renewables.
Interestingly, it noted that the costs of uranium are just a small fraction of the total costs of generating nuclear power.
Nuclear power is extremely expensive, but most of the costs are in the
lengthy construction of plants and, of course, the disposal of
radioactive waste. So much for our massive uranium deposits.
Now, if there is incontrovertible evidence that the only feasible way
of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and averting climate disaster
is to go nuclear, then I would agree that it would be the lesser of two
evils.
But there is no evidence. There is just mean and tricky political self-interest.
The Federal Government knows it cannot go nuclear without massively
penalising the coal industry. It has a choice for this, a tax on
carbon, or joining a global emissions trading scheme.
We should not forget that up until a couple of weeks ago the Government
was scoffing at greenies for worrying about climate change. It also
denounced carbon taxes and an emissions trading scheme.
Now, we are suddenly told we have got to go nuclear because climate
change is such a big problem. This is policy on the run. It certainly
isn't good leadership.
But while Bracksy and big Ted declare Victoria won't be having nuclear
power stations, it is evident neither of them have had a say in the
matter.
As the head of John Howard's Mickey-Mouse Go Nuke Taskforce has already
conceded, states could be forced to have nuclear power plants.
So much for democracy.
[email protected]
------------------->
It's a big risk starting what you can't stop
Katharine Murphy
November 20, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/its-a-big-risk-starting-what-you-cant-stop/2006/11/19/1163871268495.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Flirting should carry a public health warning: feels like fun, but
watch out, it could bring complications you neither want nor expect.
Perhaps this simple warning, if it existed, would have been sufficient
to deter John Howard's Government from eyeing off nuclear energy when
it started courting the concept two years ago. Because opening the
nuclear box has delivered consequences well beyond those envisaged in
the original plan, not only by reviving a political debate that had
been dead in Australia for two decades, but also by the questions it
has now raised over the direction Australia takes in two critical
areas: whether we need a serious revision of our present energy policy
and what we do about global warming.
Nuclear was supposed to be a boutique preoccupation for Howard and his
cabinet to help legitimise an expansion of uranium mining, to have a go
at Labor on an issue that breaks its heart every 10 years or so, and to
have a quiet think about Australia's energy mix in a silo safely away
from the environment.
It was supposed to be a dalliance, not a life partnership. But while
the Government started playing, the rules changed. Two areas once
regarded as fairly distinct in policy terms - energy and the
environment - began to overlap, sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes
noisily, so that one now can't be contemplated seriously in isolation
from the other.
There are lots of reasons for this fusion. There is an obvious
intersection point between the two: energy is a highly regulated
business, and much of those regulations deal with managing pollution.
But the knitting of the issues in recent times is principally a product
of our moment in history. And here is that moment in very crude
shorthand: oil prices are unstable; governments are thinking seriously
about alternative fuels. The days of CO2 belching unconstrained into
the atmosphere are coming to an end.
The world's first draft at constraining carbon, the Kyoto Protocol, is lurching towards failure.
Cynics joke that raising nuclear energy has allowed Howard finally to
accept climate change on terms he can comprehend. If climate is a
problem, then hey presto, nuclear can fix it, because nuclear power is
a low-CO2 emission technology. But this analysis implies the Government
embarked on the nuclear adventure to deal with climate change - when
the evidence points to the collision being, at least in part,
accidental.
At first, nuclear was framed by the Government as a technology for use
offshore (with Australian uranium of course), and therefore the tough
issues it raised, principally whether we need to actually deal with
dirty coal, could be kept out of the domestic debate.
But one by one, ministers started to suggest nuclear could work in
Australia - and as nuclear moved onshore, so did the climate debate.
Howard still looks slightly bemused to be in this position. The
conviction politician lacks genuine conviction on this issue, but he
knows the Government's stance is now a significant negative for the
Coalition. So he has begun the conversion from climate sceptic to
believer, and in typical Howard fashion, a backdown starts in
increments.
Environmentalists have lurched between fury and despair at the way the
nuclear debate has played out in Australia in the past couple of years,
but what I'll flippantly dub the yellowcake road has delivered two
significant things that should give the movement cause for hope.
The first is that renewable energy is back on the agenda seriously for
the first time in a decade and it will remain there for reasons I'll
explain in a minute; and the second is Howard is inching closer to
accepting the principle that polluters must pay.
If Howard needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions because the public will
punish him if he doesn't, then his reality looks a bit like this. Dirty
coal has to be cleaned up.
However this is done - by "green" taxes, emissions trading schemes,
subsidies, tax incentives - it will increase the cost of coal-fired
electricity. On that basis, both nuclear energy and renewable energy
become more cost-competitive with coal.
Governments are also talking about "clean coal" as if it actually
exists. The reality is it doesn't. At the moment it is a lovely pipe
dream: a hideously expensive oxymoron. And the stark reality is we may
not succeed in developing the technology now under consideration.
If coal is dirty and emissions need to be cut, then our options are
gas, nuclear and renewables. The Greens say renewables can do the job
without nuclear, but the reality is all options will need to be
considered, certainly internationally and probably in Australia too.
The question for governments around the world has become what do you
fear more: Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or the doomsday scenarios
of rising sea levels, millions of refugees and disappearing icecaps.
Two years ago, when nuclear energy was put on the table in Australia,
who could have predicted where we are now: that climate change would be
a reality rather than a myth perpetuated by crazed scientists and
hippies, that renewables would be back in vogue, that Howard would be
inching cautiously towards an emissions-trading scheme. Watch that
flirting. It started with a kiss, never thought it would come to this.
Katharine Murphy is a staff writer.
------------------->
Peter Bradford: Nuclear not the answer
Australia's power push won't stop global warming
November 23, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20804330-7583,00.html
THE draft nuclear taskforce report released this week presents an
unbalanced assessment of nuclear power's prospects. Like many other
such reviews, it is too optimistic about the price of nuclear power and
too quick to dismiss the potential of the alternatives. The US has
wasted a lot of money by relying on similarly euphoric assessments
through the years. Australia has the chance to learn from that
experience.
The safety of nuclear power plants depends on vigilance, careful
engineering and construction. It can be seriously compromised if a
country freights the technology - as the US did in the 1970s - with
unrealistic expectations. What we are seeing from many nuclear
proponents today is their old five P game plan: pushed power plants;
postponed problems. Nuclear power's asserted comeback in the US rests
not on new-found competitiveness in power plant construction but on an
old formula: subsidy, licensing shortcuts, risks borne by customers and
taxpayers, political muscle, ballyhoo and pointing to other countries
to indicate that the US is falling behind. Climate change has replaced
oil dependence as the bogeyman from which only nuclear power can save
us.
But nuclear power cannot be a magic bullet answer to climate change.
Even if it is scaled up much faster than anything now in prospect, it
cannot provide more than 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the greenhouse
gas displacement that is likely to be needed by mid-century. Not only
can nuclear power not stop global warming, it is probably not even an
essential part of the solution to global warming.
Princeton University professors Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow
introduce the useful concept of a wedge, defined as any measure that
will lead, during the next 50 years, to a global reduction of 25
billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions relative to business as
usual. The number of wedges required to avoid dangerous climate change
depends on many factors. Under optimistic assumptions, seven wedges
will be needed; this number could increase significantly under less
optimistic assumptions.
The study lists 15 measures from technologies to public policy
initiatives that exist today and could be scaled up to become one or
more wedges. Energy efficiency and conservation comprise three wedges,
alternatives to business-as-usual, gasoline-powered transport accounts
for another four, and increasing natural sinks, such as forests,
provides two wedges. Generating electricity in less carbon-intensive
ways contributes four wedges. Of these, at most one wedge would be
contributed by a worldwide tripling of nuclear power.
Such a tripling would require other expenditures. There is also fuel
enrichment (perhaps an additional 15 plants), waste repositories
(perhaps the equivalent of 14 Yucca Mountains) and perhaps reprocessing
plants. The only effort to model the cost of this undertaking that I
have seen comes from the Natural Resources Defence Council in the US
and puts the total bill at $2000 billion to $3000 billion.
Prime Minister John Howard recently said: "Nuclear power is potentially
the cleanest and greenest of them all." Such statements invite the
nation into a la-la land in which nuclear power will be over-subsidised
and under-scrutinised while other more promising and more rapid
responses to climate change are neglected and the greenhouse gases that
they could have averted continue to pollute the skies.
Nuclear power has never been viable in any country with competitive
power supply procurement. No nuclear plant has won an open competitive
power supply auction. There is no reason to think this would be
different in Australia, a country with abundant coal and no nuclear
experience. So without a large carbon tax, this proposition is
nonsense. But even with a large carbon tax, nuclear is not an assured
winner against coal with sequestration, and it is an assured loser
against energy efficiency and probably against combinations of fossil
fuels with renewables.
A sensible approach to climate change would start with a trading regime
or a carbon tax that would put a significant price on fuels according
to their carbon content. It would offer non-discriminatory governmental
support to technologies in accordance with their ability to achieve the
needed reductions rapidly, inexpensively and in a manner acceptable to
the public. It may well mimic the California approach to new electric
facilities, in which all practical efficiency and renewable options are
deployed before a new power plant is considered.
For Australia to seek instead to achieve a set number of nuclear plants
by a particular time assumes that government is wiser than markets in
picking the most promising technologies; surely an odd position for an
economically conservative government to embrace.
Peter Bradford is a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and former chairman of the New York and Maine utility
regulatory commissions. He was commissioned to review the draft nuclear
taskforce report by Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
(See: <www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/climate-change/solutions/not-nuclear>
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - ENERGYSCIENCE COALITION RESPONSE TO SWITKOWSKI
EnergyScience Coalition formed to counter Ziggy Switkowski's pro-nuclear panel.
For fact sheets, media releases, and a review of the Ziggy draft report, check the web: <www.energyscience.org.au>
------------------->
Switkowski report misses point on energy efficiency
Jim Falk
Canberra Times
27/11/06
<http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=534602&category=Opinion&m=11&y=2006>
GIVEN its origins and the composition of its panel, the nuclear
taskforce report chaired by Ziggy Switkowski, and issued last Tuesday,
is in some respects surprisingly downbeat.
It supports uranium mining and nuclear power, but for at least the
medium term effectively rejects uranium conversion, uranium enrichment,
fuel fabrication and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, and all but
ignores the original requirement to investigate the "business case" for
establishing a repository accepting high-level nuclear waste from
overseas.
The Switkowski report stresses that nuclear power could be competitive
only if a substantial carbon tax is imposed, and estimates the cost of
nuclear power to be 20-50 per cent greater than the cost of electricity
from coal. Even this seems an optimistic assessment.
The narrow terms of reference set by the Federal Government restricted
the Switkowski panel to a study of nuclear power, not a serious study
of energy options for Australia. As a result, the main problem with the
report is that it simply misses the point.
A panel with a broader range of expertise and a less limited brief
could have been asked to explore the impact of carbon tax and other
policy measures on energy demand. It could have tackled the most
effective means by which that demand could be met, and greenhouse
emissions reduced, taking into account all the energy options, costs,
time frames, waste, safety and other relevant issues.
The report simply accepts that energy demand will grow remorselessly
along a projected curve. But it also proposes imposition of a carbon
tax in which the cost of electricity will significantly increase.
Of course, as we know with water, in this situation, the simplest thing
when a resource becomes harder to buy, is to use it less wastefully.
Similarly, a host of studies show that the potential for removing
energy wastage is large, and that a dollar invested in energy
efficiency will produce some two to seven times the returns in energy
and emissions savings versus a dollar invested in new nuclear power.
While the Switkowski panel was prevented from asking key questions,
there's no reason for the rest of us to avoid them. A body of existing
research indicates that the objectives of meeting energy demand and
reducing greenhouse emissions can be met with a combination of
renewable energy and gas to displace coal, combined with energy
efficiency measures, without recourse to nuclear power.
For example, a study by AGL, Frontier Economics and WWF Australia
published in May 2006 finds a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from electricity generation in Australia can be achieved by
2030 at the modest cost of 43c a week a person over 24 years. A
detailed study, A Clean Energy Future for Australia, by Hugh Saddler,
Richard Denniss and Mark Diesendorf, identifies methods by which a 50
per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions from stationery energy
generators and uses can be achieved by 2040.
The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, and the Renewable
Energy Generators of Australia, have produced research on climate
change abatement strategies. Many studies dispel myths which,
unfortunately, have been promulgated by Switkowski this week, such as
the claim that only coal and nuclear power are suitable to provide
reliable base-load power.
This claim is an oversimplified rendition of the complex question of
how to provide statistical reliability in an energy generation system.
Different technologies present different challenges. Nuclear reactors
are stable while they work, but when they have an "outage" they can
leave a big hole in supply. Once a reactor shuts down it can take days
or even weeks to restart.
There are renewable energy sources which are at least as reliable as
nuclear power, such as bio-energy, while geothermal "hot rocks"
technology may provide another energy source in the near future.
While a single wind turbine cannot be relied upon as a constant source
of power, wind farms spread over a wide area provide a reliable power
source.
Studies of Australian wind patterns have shown wind power, supported by
a small amount of peak-load plant, can substitute for and hence may be
regarded as equivalent to base load.
Energy efficiency and waste-saving measures are too often ignored.
Apart from their other advantages, energy-efficiency measures can
reduce the demand for both base-load and peak-load power.
Energy-efficiency measures can also deliver large reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse emissions.
The Australian Ministerial Council on Energy published a report in
2003, Towards a National Framework for Energy Efficiency, which
concludes that "consumption in the manufacturing, commercial and
residential sectors could be reduced by 20-30 per cent with the
adoption of current commercially available technologies with an average
payback of four years".
But as Switkowski has stressed in recent appearances, the taskforce was
not charged with assessing those issues. Rather it was to look at the
possibilities of a nuclear future. Will the Prime Minister now convene
a panel to explore the potential of a non-nuclear future for Australia
supported by rapid development in renewable energy sources and energy
efficiency?
It is hoped he will, or better still, the Government will simply get to
work supporting the implementation of the myriad of clean-energy
solutions to the problem of climate change, such as those identified by
the Ministerial Council on Energy.
Professor Falk is director of the Australian Centre for Science,
Innovation and Society at the University of Melbourne. The centre
assists the development of the Energyscience Coalition which provides
briefing papers at energyscience.org.au
------------------->
All that energy wasted on a 'greenwash' for the nuclear industry
Mark Diesendorf
November 22, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-greenwash-for-the-nuclear-industry/2006/11/21/1163871403328.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
THE draft report on uranium mining processing and nuclear energy is an
exercise in "greenwash" for a dirty and dangerous industry. It skates
over the serious risks of proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear
terrorism and nuclear waste management, misrepresents the carbon
dioxide emissions from the nuclear fuel chain, and presents a highly
selective and excessively optimistic choice of numbers for the cost of
nuclear electricity.
The single positive outcome of the report is the recognition that
carbon pricing - either in the form of a carbon tax or an emissions
scheme - is essential for reducing Australia's greenhouse gas
emissions. However, a more realistic assessment of nuclear economics
would recognise that the carbon price range envisaged in the report -
$15 to $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted - is far too low to make
nuclear power competitive with dirty (conventional) coal-fired power
stations. Indeed, the report recognises this implicitly where it
admits: "If investor perceptions of risk were greater [than for other
base-load technologies], higher carbon prices or other policies [that
is, subsidies] would be required to stimulate investment in nuclear
power."
The report's very low estimates of carbon prices, required to make
nuclear power economically viable, are achieved by a magician's trick.
The report shows the cost estimates depend critically upon interest
rates and that, at the high interest rates prevailing in a competitive
market, nuclear electricity is likely to cost about 10 cents a
kilowatt-hour.
However, in the comparison with the costs of competing technologies,
the report selects much lower interest rates for nuclear power, in
effect halving the cost of nuclear electricity. These carefully
selected results are then reproduced in the executive summary, without
any explanation that low interest rates were assumed, without
justification.
As spelled out clearly in the unbiased Ranger Uranium environmental
inquiry, published a generation ago, nuclear power inadvertently
contributes to the spread of nuclear weapons and hence the risk of
nuclear war. Since then, the risk has become much worse. India,
Pakistan and North Korea have all used civil nuclear technology to
develop nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the fragile barrier to nuclear proliferation - the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty - is being actively undermined by the United
States and Australia. The US is selling uranium to India and Australia
is permitting sales to Taiwan. Neither country has signed the treaty.
These sales are part of a US strategy to build a nuclear wall around
China. The obvious response by China will be to expand its own nuclear
weapons arsenal. However, China's uranium reserves are too small to do
this and fuel its nuclear power stations as well. Don't worry,
Australia has come to the rescue with its uranium sales to China. This
will free Chinese uranium for more nuclear weapons. A future
confrontation over Taiwan could be hot indeed.
The report's conclusions on proliferation are breathtaking in their
complacency: "Increased involvement [in the nuclear industry] would not
change the risks" and "Australia's uranium supply policies reinforce
the international non-proliferation regime". This goes beyond greenwash
to repainting black as white.
It gets even better. The report dismisses nuclear terrorism with "nor
would Australia's [electricity] grid become more vulnerable to
terrorist attack". What about an attack on a nuclear power station,
high-level nuclear waste in a cooling pond, or highly radioactive
nuclear materials being transported? Even if they didn't hijack a jumbo
jet, a small paramilitary group with suicidal tendencies could make a
ground attack to take over the control room of a nuclear power station
and initiate a core meltdown, creating hundreds of thousands of
casualties.
The idea of adding value to uranium mining by introducing uranium
enrichment is appealing to the authors of the report. However, there is
a global over-capacity for uranium enrichment at present and the US is
building a new plant. With no market, there would be no value-adding.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Federal Government's
push for nuclear power, assisted by the Switkowski report, is a means
of distracting attention from its failure to implement strong policies
in response to greenhouse gases.
As shown in the report A Clean Energy Future for Australia,
commissioned by the Clean Energy Australia Group, carbon dioxide
emissions from the electricity industry could be cut by 80 per cent by
2040 using a mix of efficient energy use, bioenergy, natural gas and
wind power.
The barriers are neither technological nor economic, but rather the political power of the big greenhouse gas emitters.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is with the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW.
------------------->
Scientists to review PM's nuclear report
Stephanie Peatling
November 18, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/scientists-to-review-pms-nuclear-report/2006/11/17/1163266787615.html
THE REPORT on nuclear energy commissioned by the Prime Minister will be
reviewed by a group of scientists to provide an alternative view to
what they say is a politically stacked taskforce.
The group, which calls itself the EnergyScience Coalition, yesterday
put a series of reports and studies on nuclear power on its website and
said it would continue to provide alternative views on the energy
debate.
Jim Falk, the director of the Australian Centre for Science, Innovation
and Society at Melbourne University, is joined by the retired diplomat
Professor Richard Broinowski, academics from the University of NSW and
Monash University, and members of the Medical Association for the
Prevention of War.
The head of the Federal Government's inquiry into nuclear energy, Ziggy
Switkowski, will release his report next week but has already given an
interview in which he said it was not economically viable.
Dr Switkowski told the Herald last month that Australia has so much
cheap coal that "any comparisons will be unfavourable for every
alternative source" of energy, including nuclear.
But it could become economically competitive if new taxes were placed on coal.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, surprised many people this week when
he announced that he would establish another taskforce to examine
carbon trading, a system of taxing greenhouse gas emissions.
A member of the nuclear taskforce, Warwick McKibbin, a member of the
Reserve Bank board, has already developed a model for carbon trading.
Dr Switkowski, the former head of Telstra and a nuclear physicist, will
release his report in Canberra on Tuesday. There has already been much
fanfare before its release, with the Department of Prime Minister and
Cabinet organising a busy schedule of media appearances for Dr
Switkowski after the report's release.
Environmentalists believe the report's findings are a foregone
conclusion, pointing to Dr Switkowski's time as a board member of the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. He was serving
on the board when Mr Howard asked him to head the inquiry, and stepped
down from it shortly afterwards.
Professor Falk said he believed that Dr Switkowski's report would
support the continued mining of uranium as well as a domestic uranium
enrichment industry.
He said any finding that nuclear power could be economically effective
in the future could be disputed because of the high level of government
subsidies required to overcome side effects of nuclear power such as
waste disposal and storage.
------------------->
Nuclear power would generate tonnes of weapons fuel
Stephanie Peatling
November 25, 2006
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-would-generate-tonnes-of-weapons-fuel/2006/11/24/1164341401038.html
IF AUSTRALIA pursued a nuclear power industry it could create enough
spent fuel for up to 45,000 nuclear weapons, scientists say.
The EnergyScience Coalition scientists reviewed the report produced by
a Federal Government taskforce, which found Australia could build 25
nuclear power stations by 2050 to generate one-third of the country's
energy.
They criticised the report, saying it did not adequately deal with the
issues of proliferation and nuclear waste. If the reactors produced 25
gigawatts of power and were used for 60 years, the scientists
estimated, between 37,000 and 45,000 tonnes of spent fuel would be
produced.
"That amount of spent fuel contains 370 to 450 tonnes of plutonium …
which is enough to build 37,000 to 45,000 nuclear weapons," they found.
That report section was written by Dr Jim Green, with the environmental
group Friends of the Earth.
The Federal Government taskforce, chaired by the former Telstra boss
and nuclear physicist Dr Ziggy Switkowski, said there would be no need
for a nuclear waste plan until 2050.
The group includes Jim Falk, the director of the Australian Centre for
Science, Innovation and Society at Melbourne University, the retired
diplomat Professor Richard Broinowski, academics from the University of
NSW and Monash University and members of the Medical Association for
the Prevention of War.
Professor Broinowski wrote that Australian nuclear materials were "increasingly likely to end up in weapons".
Professor Broinowski said the report relied too heavily on Australia's
bilateral relationships and the effectiveness of the world's
non-proliferation regime.
------------------->
SMH letters, 27/11/06
More power to plutonium
As the EnergyScience Coalition of scientists says, 25 nuclear power
stations would produce a lot of plutonium ("Nuclear power would
generate tonnes of weapons fuel", November 25-26). However, it would
contain more than 30 per cent non-fissile plutonium-240. The highest
concentration of the 240 isotope that has ever been present in
plutonium successfully exploded in a bomb was about 10 per cent. This
explosion required the highest level of bomb-making expertise in the
US.
On the other hand, plutonium is a valuable fuel material. If it is
recycled into power-generating reactors, the presence of plutonium-240
is not a disadvantage because it absorbs neutrons to produce fissile
plutonium-241.
Dr D.J. Higson Paddington
------------------->
Letter sent to SMH
Plutonium and weapons
D.J. Higson agrees with the newly-formed EnergyScience Coalition that
25 nuclear power reactors would produce a large amount of plutonium
(letter, 27/11). He disputes whether this 'reactor grade' plutonium
could be used in nuclear weapons because it "would contain more than 30
per cent non-fissile plutonium-240". In fact, plutonium from a
commercial power reactor typically contains about 23 per cent
plutonium-240.
Higson asserts that the "highest concentration of the 240 isotope that
has ever been present in plutonium successfully exploded in a bomb was
about 10 per cent." The facts of the matter are that the US conducted a
successful nuclear test in 1962 using sub-weapon-grade plutonium but
Higson has no way of knowing the isotopic ratio as that information is
classified.
There is no serious scientific dispute that reactor-grade plutonium can
be used in nuclear weapons. The only questions concern the costs to be
paid in relation to reliability and yield. As the Director General of
the International Atomic Energy Agency noted in 1990, "the Agency
considers high burn-up reactor-grade plutonium and in general plutonium
of any isotopic composition with the exception of plutonium containing
more than 80 percent Pu-238 to be capable of use in a nuclear explosive
device. There is no debate on the matter in the Agency's Department of
Safeguards."
Nor is it in dispute that power reactors can produce large volumes of
weapon-grade plutonium. It could hardly be simpler - all that needs to
be done is to irradiate the fuel for a shorter than normal time to
maximise the ratio of plutonium-239 to other, unwanted isotopes.
Dr Jim Green
EnergyScience Coalition
Melbourne.
------------------->
Switkowski's nuclear report at first glance
Crikey.com.au 22/11/06
Jim Green from the EnergyScience Coalition writes:
You'll not be surprised to learn that the Switkowski report supports an
expansion of the uranium mining industry, regardless of the
International Atomic Energy Agency acknowledgement of serious flaws in
the safeguards system.
No news there, but the report does manage to surprise by pouring
buckets of cold water on the Howard government's enthusiasm for
establishing a uranium enrichment industry in Australia.
The report states that: "The enrichment market is very concentrated,
structured around a small number of suppliers in the United States,
Europe and Russia. It is characterised by high barriers to entry,
including limited and costly access to technology, trade restrictions,
uncertainty around the future of secondary supply and proliferation
concerns."
The report finally decides that "there may be little real opportunity
for Australian companies to extend profitably" into enrichment and that
"given the new investment and expansion plans under way around the
world, the market looks to be reasonably well balanced in the medium
term."
Howard likes to compare uranium enrichment to value-adding in the wool
industry, which ignores the weapons proliferation protential of uranium
enrichment. As the Switkowski report notes: "The greatest proliferation
risk arises from undeclared centrifuge enrichment plants capable of
producing highly enriched uranium for use in weapons."
On the "con" side, the report states that nuclear power would be 20-50%
more expensive than coal or gas-fired power, and that nuclear and
renewable energy sources will only become economically competitive in
Australia "in a system where the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are
explicitly recognised." Unpack that and there's a significant economic
challenge for the government.
Further, Switkowski seems to be using the most optimistic estimates of
the cost of nuclear power. A recent Victorian Department of
Infrastructure report found that coal-fired power stations produce
power for $35 per megawatt-hour, while nuclear power would cost between
$60-80 per megawatt-hour.
Unfortunately, Switkowski chose to leave out any mention of the
numerous studies which find that energy efficiency is 2-7 times more
cost-effective than nuclear power in reducing greenhouse emissions.
------------------->
Summary of EnergyScience Coalition's review of Swikoski draft report (full review at www.energyscience.org.au)
The Switkowski report misses the point (Professor Jim Falk)
* The narrow terms of reference set by the federal government have
restricted the Switkowski panel to a study of nuclear power, not a
serious study of energy options for Australia. A body of existing
research indicates that the objectives of meeting energy demand and
reducing greenhouse emissions can be met with a combination of
renewable energy and gas to displace coal, combined with energy
efficiency measures, without recourse to nuclear power.
Economics (Dr. Mark Diesendorf)
* The Switkowski report makes questionable assumptions that are highly
favorable to nuclear power. In reality, nuclear power is likely to cost
more than double dirty coal power and hence even more than wind power.
The report's very low estimates of the costs of nuclear electricity are
achieved by means of a magician's trick.
* The report cites studies on the external costs of electricity
generating technologies. The low environmental and health costs
obtained are misleading, because these studies do not include the main
hazards of nuclear power - the proliferation of nuclear weapons and
terrorism - and most do not treat adequately the hazards of rare but
devastating accidents.
CO2 emissions (Dr. Mark Diesendorf)
* The Switkowski report evades the issue of the large increases in CO2
emissions from mining and milling uranium ore as the ore grade
decreases from the current high-grade to low-grade over the next few
decades.
Renewable energy (Dr. Mark Diesendorf)
* The report has no basis for its claim that "Nuclear power is the
least-cost low-emission technology ..." How can the Switkowski panel
assert that nuclear is least cost, when it has neither performed any
analysis nor commissioned any on this topic? To the contrary, wind
power is a lower cost, lower emission technology in both the UK and USA
and would also be lower cost in Australia. Hot dry rock geothermal
power should be commercially available within a decade and is likely to
be less expensive than nuclear power. So are some power stations
burning biomass from existing crops and existing plantation forests.
Weapons proliferation and uranium safeguards (Professor Richard Broinowski)
* Switkowski's recommendation to expand Australian uranium exports is
irresponsible in today's political climate: the international
non-proliferation regime is deeply flawed, pressures exist for both
vertical and horizontal nuclear weapons proliferation, and Australian
nuclear materials are increasingly likely to end up in weapons programs.
Despite statements from as high as the Prime Minister from within the
current Federal Government advocating extending nuclear fuel cycle of
activities in Australia, the report is correctly dismissive of the
economic potential and technical capacity of Australia to participate
in these, at least in the medium term.
Uranium enrichment (Professor Jim Falk)
* The Switkowski report is pessimistic about the short- to medium-term
prospects for uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication
or spent nuclear fuel reprocessing industries to be established in
Australia.
* On the issue of enrichment, the report concludes that "there may be
little real opportunity for Australian companies to extend profitably"
into enrichment and that "given the new investment and expansion plans
under way around the world, the market looks to be reasonably well
balanced in the medium term."
* The report states: "Reprocessing in Australia seems unlikely to be
commercially attractive, unless the value of the recovered nuclear fuel
increases significantly."
* The report states that: "While all fuel cycle activities are covered
by Australia's safeguards agreement with the IAEA, a decision to enrich
uranium in Australia would require the management of international
perceptions, given that enrichment is a proliferation-sensitive
technology." Given the present intense global attention on this matter
in the context of Iran, the evident increasing weakness of the
effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the
resulting increasing possibility of nuclear proliferation and arms
races commencing in various regions, including the Asia-Pacific region,
this comment from the Report is if anything an understatement.
A doctor's perspective (Dr. Bill Williams)
* The report optimistically asserts that 25 nuclear reactors could give
an 8-18% reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but
is silent on the vast amount of weapons-useable plutonium the reactors
would produce.
* The report fails to seriously address the vulnerability of nuclear
reactors to sabotage resulting in catastrophic radiation emergencies.
* The report is silent on known and quantified increased risks to
workers in nuclear industry, and it is silent on multiple reported and
controversial clusters of childhood cancers and congenital
malformations in the vicinity of nuclear reactors.
* The report is silent on the well-documented capacity of low-level
ionising radiation to injure chromosomes and the long-term genetic
implications, i.e., gene pool effects and generational toxicity.
* The report fails to anticipate 'necessary' increases in the power of
police and other surveillance authorities associated with a nuclear
power program, in addition to the potential for restrictions on the
public's right-to-know and to resist imposition.
Uranium mining (Dr. Gavin Mudd)
* The Switkowski report fails to properly account for the increasing
environmental cost of uranium mining. This includes the magnitude of
mine wastes, the long-term impacts on surface water and groundwater
resources, the energy costs of extraction which will invariably
increase in the future for proposed, and the true life-cycle greenhouse
emissions.
* Uranium market / nuclear power scenarios in the past have always proven to be overoptimistic, often by a large margin.
* The current "boom" in uranium exploration from 2004-2006 has not seen
any new economic deposit discovered at all - only further drilling at
known deposits or prospects.
* There are no "well established plans" for rehabilitation at Ranger as
the mining-milling plan changes every year. Additionally, the current
bond held by the Australian Government is only one-fifth of the
estimated cost of full rehabilitation. For Olympic Dam, the bond held
by the South Australian Government is only one-tenth of the estimated
cost.
* The Beverley and Honeymoon projects are not required to rehabilitate contaminated groundwater following mining.
* Not one former Australian uranium mine site has demonstrated
successful and stable long-term closure of mine wastes (tailings, waste
rock and/or low grade ores).
Radioactive waste (Dr. Jim Green)
* The Switkowski report notes that 25 power reactors would produce up
to 45,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel but is silent on the
proliferation and security implications of the 450 tonnes of plutonium
contained in that amount of spent fuel.
* The Switkowski report floats the possibility of exporting spent
nuclear fuel to the USA although that is at best a remote prospect. The
report then ignores the term of reference regarding importation of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste for disposal in
Australia.
* The Switkowski report stresses the need for public acceptance of
waste management proposals but is silent on the draconian imposition of
a nuclear dump in the NT. An expanded nuclear industry in Australia
would very likely result in further impositions of nuclear facilities
on unwilling communities.
* A member of Switkowski's panel, Prof. Peter Johnston, has previously
attacked the federal government over its incompetent handling of
radioactive waste but there is no mention of these problems in the
Switkowski report.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - VARIOUS
------------------->
Nuclear power plants in a decade
Matthew Warren
October 17, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20594327-601,00.html
AUSTRALIA has been put on a path towards nuclear power after the Howard
Government said construction on new plants could start within a decade.
John Howard said yesterday Australia had to consider the nuclear power
option, given the nation had the largest uranium deposits in the world,
and it had to be debated as part of the response to global warming.
The Coalition's strongest endorsement of nuclear power yet establishes
a clear divide on climate change policy, with the Labor Party yesterday
moving quickly to oppose nuclear and back solar energy as an
alternative source of low greenhouse-emissions energy. Solar energy is
currently 10 times the cost of conventional sources of power.
The Coalition is also facing a grassroots backlash, with Labor already
running a marginal seat campaign with the theme that the Government
wants to build a power station in voters' neighbourhoods.
But the Prime Minister said nuclear power had to be examined.
"I believe very strongly that nuclear power is part of the response to
global warming, it is clean green, it is something in relation to which
many rabid environmentalists have changed their views over recent
years," he said.
Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane, who has largely stayed
out of the power debate until now, yesterday claimed Australia could
start construction on a nuclear power plant within 10 years.
Mr Macfarlane said the mood towards nuclear energy in Australia was
likely to change when the community understood its ability to supply
affordable electricity while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"Around the world, uranium is coming in from the cold," he said. "This
shift isn't driven primarily by the need for energy - we have hundreds
of years in coal and gas reserves. It's a demand propelled by
communities seeking to balance their economic development and the
challenge of curbing greenhouse emissions."
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said that now the Prime Minister had
"declared he wants a nuclear power industry, John Howard must declare
where he will build the reactors".
While no sites have yet been identified in Australia, experts say
cost-effective nuclear power stations would need to be built on a
series on coastal sites about 100km from major cities and energy demand.
Clarence Hardy, president of the Pacific Nuclear Council, said
identifying locations would only be feasible if there was clear public
acceptance of the technology and an established regulatory framework.
He said possible locations included the coast south and north of Perth,
the Hunter Valley in NSW or the coast north of Newcastle, the Iron
Triangle in South Australia and north of Brisbane. The coast south of
Victoria's La Trobe Valley may also be a potential site.
Nuclear power already generates 16per cent of global electricity
supply, with 442 reactors operating and another 30 under construction.
China is building three new plants each year.
Australia has been relatively immunised from a debate on nuclear power
because of its abundance of low-cost coal and gas, which has continued
to undercut the cost of nuclear power - and therefore the necessity of
considering it.
New nuclear-powered energy is increasingly cost-competitive in most
parts of the world as a result of rising oil and gas prices and
improving nuclear technology.
The Prime Minister's taskforce reviewing uranium mining, enrichment and
nuclear energy in Australia, headed by former telecommunications
executive and nuclear scientist Ziggy Switkowski, is due to table its
draft findings next month.
The Labor Opposition has backed solar energy, not nuclear, as the
low-emission solution for Australia energy needs, even though the
technology is intermittent and expensive.
"Australia's energy future is in renewables, not reactors, and John
Howard must abandon his push to build nuclear reactors in Australia's
major cities," Mr Beazley said.
"Middle Australia now has a clear choice on Australia's energy future.
There will be no nuclear power in Australia under a Beazley Labor
government. There will be under John Howard."
While Mr Beazley has rejected nuclear power as a climate-change
solution for Australia, he has backed a review of the ALP's no new
uranium mines policy, which will be considered at the federal party
conference next year.
A paper to be presented today by Geoscience Australia will show that
global uranium production may need to double by 2020 to meet growing
demand.
Australia currently holds about 36 per cent of the world's minable uranium resources.
Geoscience Australia estimates it would take more than 70 years to mine
uranium from the world's biggest deposit, at the Olympic Dam mine in
South Australia, which alone represents more than a quarter of global
reserves.
Experts say cost-effective nuclear power stations would need to be built on coastal sites about 100km from major cities.
------------------->
No word on PM's White House talks
Richard Baker
October 17, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/no-word-on-pms-white-house-talks/2006/10/16/1160850871756.html
WHEN Prime Minister John Howard went to Washington in May, it seems
everyone from President George Bush down wanted to talk about nuclear
power and uranium.
But every word of those discussions is being kept from Australians.
Documents show that in addition to nuclear talks with Mr Bush in the
Oval Office and cabinet room of the White House, the Prime Minister
discussed Australia's position on nuclear and uranium issues with US
Senate Majority Leader William Frist, Speaker of the House of
Representatives Dennis Hastert, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and the
chairman of the Federal Reserve board, Ben Bernanke.
The conversations with the US leaders were important, as they coincided
with a strong shift in Mr Howard's support for nuclear power and
increased uranium mining in Australia.
Just after the talks, Mr Howard announced that former Telstra chief
Ziggy Switkowski would head an inquiry into nuclear and uranium issues.
The Prime Minister's Department has upheld an earlier decision not to
release a word of the conversations between Mr Howard, Mr Bush and
other officials about nuclear power.
In response to a request from The Age to review a freedom of
information decision, the department said the conversations were of
such strategic importance to both countries that any disclosure could
cause the US to "feel inhibited" in communicating with Australia about
key issues in the future.
The decision contrasts with the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade's release last year of dozens of pages of confidential
discussions with China about nuclear and uranium issues, including
China's wish to buy its own uranium mines in Australia.
------------------->
Macfarlane sees green light
COMMENT
Dennis Shanahan
October 17, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20594345-601,00.html
IN June last year, Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane declared he wasn't
going "back into that bear pit". That bear pit was a debate about
nuclear energy.
He said there was no prospect of Australian nuclear energy for decades and he didn't want to enter the debate.
Sixteen months later, Macfarlane is all but spruiking for a nuclear
power station in Australia within years and John Howard is pushing the
"debate" harder than ever before towards a pro-nuclear conclusion.
In June last year, Macfarlane was seen as the strongest advocate of the mining industry in the Coalition cabinet.
While Alexander Downer and Brendan Nelson were talking about the need for a nuclear debate, he didn't want a bar of it.
The official change of attitude is a result of the unexpected momentum
of the nuclear debate and the perceived political advantage for the
Coalition.
Howard is clearly positioning for the potential for more uranium
exports and a domestic nuclear industry as a key theme for the next
election. He's doing this by linking what may seem to be an unpalatable
prospect with an attractive environmental proposition - nuclear is
"clean and green" and cuts worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
It provides a counterpoint for Labor, which is internally divided over
more uranium mines and exports, is anti-nuclear and is attacking the
Coalition for failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse
emissions.
Yesterday, it was Howard accusing Labor and Kim Beazley of being
old-fashioned by being anti-nuclear and not serious about cutting
greenhouse gas emissions.
Even Macfarlane went into the bear pit on the nuclear side and said putting carbon taxes on industry wasn't the answer.
------------------->
PM rules out nuclear weapons
Ben Packham
October 16, 2006 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20586876-2862,00.html
JOHN Howard has ruled Australia out of the nuclear arms race, but his support for nuclear power is undiminished.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20586876-2862,00.html
The Prime Minister said Australia should not acquire nuclear weapons, despite the new threat from a nuclear-armed North Korea.
"I'm not in favour of Australia having a nuclear bomb," he told Channel Nine's 60 Minutes program.
"I'm in favour of Australia developing nuclear power for peaceful
purposes. It's clean and green, and in an age where we're worried about
global warming we should be looking seriously at nuclear power as an
option . . . and I can't understand why the extreme greenies oppose it."
A Government taskforce is examining the potential for nuclear power and whether Australia should process uranium.
The inquiry, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, is also
looking at the idea of nuclear leasing, where Australia would process
uranium into fuel rods and accept back nuclear waste.
Mr Howard has said Australia should build nuclear reactors if the power source can compete economically with coal.
Mr Howard's one-time adversary, former prime minister Paul Keating, sees the issue differently.
"Nuclear energy is a bad fuel, a dirty fuel, a dangerous fuel," he told Sky News.
"Nuclear is a no-no generally in my opinion. It is a bad business."
Instead, Mr Keating would prefer to focus on alternative strategies to
reduce Australia's reliance on fossil fuels, options such as hybrid
cars and hydrogen fuel cells.
Labor is opposed to Australia having nuclear power but Opposition
Leader Kim Beazley has called for an end to Labor's policy of no new
uranium mines.
Labor has pledged there will be no nuclear power if it wins government,
but it does plan to re-examine its policy of no new uranium mines at
its national conference next year.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley wants the policy changed but faces a
difficult job persuading some sections of Labor that it is the way to
go.
Mr Keating thinks a change in the Labor policy would be a mistake.
"I think I would stay with the existing policy," he said.
"This is not a good industry to encourage, and anyone that has an
electricity program, ipso facto ends up with a nuclear weapons
capability."
The party will vote on the proposed policy change at its coming national conference.
------------------->
PM warned on nuclear findings
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
November 21, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-warned-on-nuclear-findings/2006/11/20/1163871341139.html
A LANDMARK report paving the way for Australia to adopt nuclear energy
within two decades is already causing turbulence in Federal Government
ranks.
Senior MPs warned Prime Minister John Howard yesterday against dramatic
policy shifts to increase the viability of the nuclear industry.
Before today's release of a 150-page report by the Prime Minister's
nuclear energy taskforce, Finance Minister Nick Minchin warned that
energy prices should not be increased to help level the playing field
between coal-fired and nuclear power.
Senator Minchin's comments against making polluters pay for their
carbon dioxide emissions in a large-scale way were backed by one of the
Government's strongest backbench advocates of nuclear power, West
Australian Liberal Dennis Jensen, who said he was still a climate
change sceptic.
Today's report from an expert nuclear taskforce led by former Telstra
head Ziggy Switkowski is expected to argue that nuclear power will be
economically viable within two decades if a carbon "price" — such as an
emissions trading scheme floated by Mr Howard last week — is imposed on
polluters.
The report will argue that modern nuclear reactors are basically safe
and that countries with nuclear industries are working to solve the
problem of safe storage of radioactive material.
The report was initially expected to tackle a broader range of issues,
including the problem of vehicle emissions, but it is believed that the
draft now focuses more narrowly on the nuclear cycle.
The public will have three weeks to comment on the report. Opponents
are preparing to argue that nuclear plants cannot be built in Australia
in the time frame for action proposed in Britain's recent Stern review.
The nuclear debate has raised the stakes for the Government in
responding to community concerns about climate change, with Mr Howard
signalling last week that he would consider whether Australia should
join other countries in an emissions trading scheme.
Senator Minchin said yesterday that any changes in policy should not
"wantonly or carelessly" give up the economic advantages Australia
enjoys from "our access to relatively cheap, reliable energy".
Dr Jensen said emissions trading locked the Government into the idea
that human-induced climate change was a fact rather than a proposition
advanced by some scientists.
"There might be other mechanisms that are cheaper and more do-able than carbon trading," he said.
But Dr Jensen said the Coalition should go to next year's election with
a policy removing legal barriers to Australia building a nuclear
industry.
Meanwhile, a British energy expert predicted nuclear power plants could
be built within five years if Australia gave its approval. Lord
Oxburgh, chairman of the House of Lords science and technology
committee and former Shell Oil chairman, told ABC radio that nuclear
plants were now cheaper and faster to build.
With AAP
------------------->
PM to play nuclear card
Clinton Porteous
November 17, 2006 11:00pm
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20775289-27197,00.html
A YEAR out from a federal election John Howard and Kim Beazley are like
two poker players holding their policies close to their chests.
But the Prime Minister is about to play his nuclear card and believes it's a winner.
Beazley knows the atomic play is coming but thinks it's a dud.
The Labor leader is confident his mixed hand of wind, solar and clean coal technology will triumph over nuclear reactors.
Next Tuesday at the National Press Club the nuclear energy plan for Australian will be laid out.
Former Telstra chief and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski will unveil
a detailed report into the viability of nuclear power in Australia.
It is known that Howard's handpicked team of experts will conclude that
nuclear power will become commercially viable within 15 years.
But Labor has already dismissed the report – it was like asking the AFL
to investigate which is the best footy code in Australia.
What else would you expect but a pro-nuclear answer?
But the real test will be the reaction by experts, opinion makers and
ultimately the public about the rationale underlying the report.
If there is a strong sense that the economic modelling doesn't stack up it will be a major blow for Howard.
But if it gets a tick of approval, the Prime Minister will gain even greater confidence to go down the nuclear path.
Howard is embarking on a high-risk electoral strategy because
inevitably it involves the construction of reactors and a high-level
waste dump which no one wants in their back yard.
But Howard believes his timing is perfect in the midst of the global debate about climate change.
And he relishes talking up the environmental benefits of "clean, green" atomic energy compared to alternative sources of power.
"Nuclear power is potentially the cleanest and greenest of them all," he said earlier this month in Brisbane.
"I believe that the world attitude to nuclear power is changing and Australia's attitude to nuclear power is changing."
The nuclear option for Howard is also politically irresistible.
He thinks it can help crack open historical divisions in Labor.
One of his favourite pastimes in Parliament is to praise Labor's
resources spokesman Martin Ferguson, who strongly supports the
development of new uranium mines in Australia.
This position is bitterly opposed by Left-winger and environment
spokesman Anthony Albanese who wants the present Labor ban on new mines
to remain.
However, this split should be resolved at Labor's national conference
next April and Ferguson's side, backed by Beazley, should overturn the
ban so Labor supports the expansion of uranium exports.
Beyond this, Beazley draws a line in the sand and says Labor is rock
solid in opposing a nuclear power industry or nuclear enrichment in
Australia.
He thinks Labor is way ahead of the Government on climate change and
Howard is desperately playing catch-up by pushing the nuclear button.
"John Howard's climate change minister will be the minister for nuclear power. Plain and simple," Beazley said recently.
"Kim Beazley's climate change minister will be the minister for
ratifying Kyoto, setting realistic targets and he will be about
renewables, not reactors."
The difference between Labor and the Coalition on nuclear power is black and white.
While it might not be a major issue come election time it is part of the broader umbrella of climate change.
Herein lies the danger for Howard. If the nuclear option backfires it
undermines his attempt to build credibility on climate change.
When the report is delivered next week Howard will still be overseas as
part of his APEC trip but it is believed he had a detailed briefing on
its contents before he left Australia.
One of the problems for Howard is that there is deep suspicion within his own ranks about the economics of nuclear power.
Some of his own ministers will be having a long, hard look at the economic modelling.
Key industry groups, particularly the coal sector, will also be analysing the modelling.
A key argument in the report will be that the relative price of power
from coal-fired power stations will rise with the shift to clean coal
technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time the price of nuclear power production should come down with new technology and economies of scale.
The crossover point where nuclear power becomes competitive against
coal is the key to the economic argument and will be heavily
scrutinised.
But there is sure to be a second line of attack from the coal industry and the Government's own nuclear sceptics.
They will want to ensure there is adequate modelling about the economic cost of storing high-level waste.
Nuclear energy might have zero carbon emissions but radioactive waste is very expensive to store.
Howard will be hoping the numbers hold up otherwise his nuclear vision could be dead on arrival.
Clinton Porteous is The Courier-Mail's national political correspondent
------------------->
French want to be N-pals
Ben Packham and Fiona Hudson
October 19, 2006 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20605952-662,00.html
A FRENCH nuclear giant wants to build a $5 billion reactor in Australia
in a plan it says would tackle the nation's water crisis.
State-owned AREVA has launched a major push for a slice of Australia's
atomic energy market in the hope the Howard Government will flick the
switch.
A decade after the French ended nuclear testing in the Pacific, the
company has made a submission to the Government's nuclear taskforce.
The submission says:
NUCLEAR power could ease water shortages by giving carbon-free energy for desalination plants.
AUSTRALIA'S uranium reserves would give it a strategic advantage over other nations when considering nuclear power.
BIG reactors are usually favoured over smaller ones, and fleets of identical reactors are often used because of cost advantages.
NEW generation reactors are safe and economically competitive with coal and gas-fired power.
USED fuel should be considered as a resource, containing valuable materials that can be recovered.
The submission says four Japanese reactors are already powering
desalination plants, while another in Kazakhstan has been used for that
purpose since 1999.
AREVA spokesman Charles Hufnagel said the company was very interested in breaking into a future market in Australia.
AREVA is behind a $5 billion, 1600 megawatt reactor being built in
Finland, the first in the world to use so-called "third generation"
technology.
Mr Hufnagel said similar pressurised water reactors would likely suit Australian conditions.
He conceded discussion of nuclear power was in its early stages in
Australia but the company was keen to do a deal if the Government gave
the technology the green light.
"After the decision is made to support new builds, AREVA would be very
looking forward to business with your country," Mr Hufnagel said.
"The cost depends on the type and the power.
"The more powerful it is the more expensive. The global trend in the market is for the bigger reactors."
The Federal Government's nuclear taskforce, led by former Telstra boss
Ziggy Switkowski, is looking at all aspects of the nuclear industry and
is due to release a draft report next month.
In its submission, AREVA says high-level waste is treated to a form that holds it for hundreds of thousands of years.
It offers no solution as to where the waste would be dumped, but says it could be safely stored either above or below ground.
------------------->
Letter published in The Australian
Former NSW Premier Bob Carr said on ABC's Lateline program on Friday
November 10 that "fourth generation reactors are safe". In fact, fourth
generation nuclear power reactors are non-existent. The hype
surrounding these non-existent reactors has attracted scepticism and
cynicism even from within the nuclear industry, with one industry
representative quipping that "the paper-moderated, ink-cooled reactor
is the safest of all" and that "all kinds of unexpected problems may
occur after a project has been launched."
Mr. Carr also said on Lateline that "in 30 years spent fuel won't be a
problem, it will be recycled". Such schemes would require reprocessing
plants as well as new fleets of plutonium-fuelled fast-neutron reactors
to 'transmute' radioactive waste, thus rendering it less harmful.
Richard Lester, professor of nuclear science and engineering at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that the reprocessing and
transmutation schemes outlined in the US government's Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership amount to an "appealing vision, but the reality is
that GNEP is unlikely to achieve these goals and will also make nuclear
power less competitive."
According to Steve Kidd, a director of the World Nuclear Association,
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposals have been received
"politely, but coolly" by the nuclear industry itself.
Jim Green
Melbourne
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - ECONOMICS
------------------->
Nuclear costs understated: report's critics
Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
November 22, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-costs-understated-reports-critics/2006/11/21/1163871403156.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
TAXPAYERS could be forced to subsidise the nuclear energy industry to
the tune of several billion dollars as well as facing higher
electricity prices, to get the industry up and running in Australia,
energy experts say.
A Federal Government-commissioned report published yesterday
underestimated the current operating costs of nuclear energy, and put
too low a price on the carbon pollution generated by coal-fired power,
critics said. Alternative forms of energy will only be able to compete
with coal if coal pays for its greenhouse gas pollution.
But a carbon price at least double that recommended by the taskforce,
which was headed by the former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, would be
necessary if nuclear power was to compete with coal, said Mark
Diesendorf, a lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies at the
University of NSW.
On top of that, it was likely extra government support would have to be
offered to private companies to encourage it to invest in the industry,
a point even the taskforce conceded in its report.
"The difference between me and Mr Switkowski is that I don't think
nuclear power will get up even with carbon pricing … I don't think it
could compete with coal on a price of $40 a tonne of carbon," Dr
Diesendorf said.
Based on Massachusetts Institute of Technology research, the Sydney
academic has estimated construction of a 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor
would cost about $3 billion. That does not take account of the cost of
insurance, storage of highly radioactive waste and its eventual
decommissioning.
In his report, Dr Switkowski said nuclear power would be between 20 and
50 per cent more costly to produce than coal or gas-fired power.
"This gap may close in the decades ahead, but nuclear power and
renewable energy sources will only become competitive in Australia in a
system where the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly
recognised," the report said.
"Even then, private investment in the first-built nuclear reactors may require some form of government support or directive."
It said nuclear power plants were initially likely to be 10 to 15 per
cent more expensive than in the US because Australia had no nuclear
power construction experience or any physical or regulatory
infrastructure.
Studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University
of Chicago showed the industry would also initially suffer from what is
known as "first of a kind" costs common in complex engineering projects
and initial learning curves. However, the report dismissed those costs.
A campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation, Dave Sweeney,
agreed the taskforce's calculations were unrealistic. "We welcome a
carbon price, but on this basis [$15-$40 a tonne of carbon] I don't
think that it will be significant enough to cover all the costs
associated with nuclear power, and that is reflected in the report
itself, which says the first plants in Australia could not be built as
cheaply as they could be built in the US, and would need additional
measures to kick start them.
"This is saying very clearly that if nuclear power is pursued in
Australia the public purse will have to be open a very long time."
A campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Jim Green, said the Switkowski
report's estimate that nuclear power was now up to 50 per cent more
expensive than coal or gas-fired power was optimistic.
A recent Victorian Department of Infrastructure report had found that
nuclear power was twice as expensive as coal-fired power, Dr Green said.
THE DRAWBACKS:
* Insurance companies will not take on the risk associated with nuclear plants, forcing governments to act as underwriters.
* The cost of cleaning up Britain's ageing nuclear facilities stands at £90 billion ($222 billion).
* A carbon price of about $35 a tonne would make wind power competitive with coal.
------------------->
Nuclear costs just a drop in ocean
Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
November 23, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-costs-just-a-drop-in-ocean/2006/11/22/1163871481953.html
THE full cost of adopting nuclear power in Australia would probably be
several hundred billion dollars and would be likely to go even higher
because of a history of cost blow-outs in plant construction,
decommissioning and waste storage, energy experts say.
Not only was there no guarantee costs and construction timetables for
the latest-model nuclear plants could be controlled, other costs
associated with the industry would probably be passed from industry to
taxpayers, and from current to future generations, they said.
The $75 billion figure estimated by a Federal Government-commissioned
report released on Tuesday covered only the construction of 25 nuclear
power plants.
The nuclear industry was shocked last month by news the first reactor
being built in Western Europe for two decades, at Olkiluoto in Finland,
was running well over budget and causing financial losses for the
French builder, Areva.
"It is hard to conceive that the Australian industry as a total
newcomer to nuclear power would do better than the largest and most
experienced builders in the world, and these builders struggle getting
one large project off the ground," said Mycle Schneider, a French
consultant on energy and nuclear policy.
Estimated costs for the eventual decommissioning of nuclear reactors
have also blown out and there was little experience of how much it
costs to dispose of the highly radioactive waste from a nuclear
reactor, said Professor Steve Thomas, of the University of Greenwich in
Britain.
"Even before there is actual experience of these operations, estimates
are going up rapidly and, for example, the estimated cost of
decommissioning Britain's oldest reactors has gone up by a factor of
about six in only 15 years," Professor Thomas said.
"This could create huge problems for a plant owner that has taken money
from consumers to pay for these operations, only to find halfway
through the life of the plant that the cost is dramatically higher than
predicted," he said.
In June, the British Government said the cost of cleaning up 20 nuclear
facilities had risen to £90 billion ($220 billion), up from an
estimated £70 billion in 2005.
An Australia Institute analyst, Andrew Macintosh, said other costs for
the Government included establishing an agency to regulate the nuclear
sector. Based on annual operating costs for the federal environment
department, that could cost between $30 million and $50 million a year,
he said.
It is also likely the Government would have to spend heavily on an
advertising campaign to assure voters nuclear energy was safe, he said.
Last year, the Howard Government allocated $55 million to advertise its
industrial relations changes.
The storage of radioactive waste would be another costly exercise. The
US Government's plan to build a nuclear waste storage facility in the
Nevada desert is expected to cost more than $US40 billion ($52 billion).
Mr Macintosh said there could also be intangible costs such as damage
to diplomatic relations with Asian neighbours worried about Australia's
nuclear build-up.
------------------->
Nuclear dream too pricey
Peter Hartcher Political Editor
October 20, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-dream-too-pricey/2006/10/19/1160851070471.html
THE head of the Federal Government's inquiry into nuclear energy, Ziggy
Switkowski, has dashed the Prime Minister's hopes for the future of
nuclear power by saying that it is not economically viable.
Dr Switkowski told the Herald yesterday that Australia had so much
cheap coal that "any comparison will be unfavourable for every
alternative source" - including nuclear power - unless taxes were
imposed on coal.
Ministers including the Treasurer, Peter Costello, have ruled out new taxes on coal or carbon emissions.
Yet the Prime Minister, John Howard, said this week: "I believe very
strongly that nuclear power is part of the response to global warming.
It is clean green." And the Minister for Industry and Resources, Ian
Macfarlane, promoted nuclear power in a speech on Monday as the only
non-fossil fuel energy source available to provide large loads of
electricity. He said nuclear power plants could be under construction
here within 10 years.
Dr Switkowski's conclusion mirrors the submissions he has received from
two big producers of uranium. Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton have both told
his inquiry that processing of uranium in Australia would not be
economic.
Dr Switkowski, a nuclear physicist and former head of Telstra, said his
panel was writing its report and expected to deliver it to the
Government in about a month.
"Australia is blessed with a couple of things - very low-cost
electricity because of access to coal and gas, and it has many
centuries of coal supply available," he said. "Any comparison will be
unfavourable for every alternative source in the absence of an explicit
cost for carbon."
An "explicit cost for carbon" means the Government would need either to
charge a carbon tax or introduce a cap on national carbon emissions and
set up an emissions trading system.
The alternative way to make nuclear power economic would be for the Government to subsidise it.
The Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, predicted Dr Switkowski's findings
in June when he said nuclear power would not be financially viable.
"Nuclear power could only be really viable if you so taxed the coal and
gas industries as to make them unviable," Senator Minchin said, adding
that Mr Macfarlane's 10-year prediction was optimistic.
Labor opposes nuclear power because of the toxic waste it produces. It
is advocating cleaner renewable energy sources such as wind, gas, solar
and clean-coal technology.
------------------->
Nuclear 'unviable till coal price rises'
Matthew Warren
October 18, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20600604-2702,00.html
NUCLEAR power is too expensive to be developed in Australia and would
only become viable through a massive spike in future coal and gas
prices or a significant government-imposed impost on carbon emissions.
Energy generators claim current nuclear technology is between 50 to 100
per cent more expensive than conventional coal-fired power, and faces a
range of political and technical hurdles before the first nuclear plant
could be built.
Opposition resources spokesman Martin Ferguson yesterday accused the
Howard Government of playing wedge politics between sections of the
Labor Party by suggesting Australia could start building nuclear plants
within a decade.
John Howard this week deliberately put nuclear power back on the
political agenda as a potential low greenhouse-emissions energy
solution, a month before his taskforce is due to report its draft
findings on nuclear energy, reprocessing and uranium mining.
Mr Ferguson told The Australian that nuclear power was a distraction
from the Government's unwillingness to properly engage in the energy
security debate.
"There's no doubt the Prime Minister's fancy with nuclear power has
been consistent with his 11 years of wedge politics," he said. "If he's
not careful he's going to wedge himself because nuclear power does not
stack up in Australia."
At an international nuclear conference in Sydney yesterday, Energy
Supply Association chief executive Brad Page said that while nuclear
power might be part of Australia's future energy mix, it would require
either a significant rise in coal and gas prices or a regulatory
constraint on carbon to be viable.
The Howard Government has consistently opposed carbon regulation without Australia being part of a global scheme.
Mr Page said as well as overcoming relatively higher costs, an
Australian nuclear industry would need the support of the community and
governments, the development of a skilled nuclear workforce and an
established regulatory regime. He said energy investors would also want
to minimise the political risk of investing in an expensive and
politically sensitive investment such as a nuclear power plant.
"The assets that our industry builds are fixed in nature, very
long-lived, and they cost billions of dollars when you are building
base-load (power generators)," he said. "You cannot afford for an
investment of that size to become stranded for what is seemingly an
arbitrary political act."
Mr Page said a more rational perspective on nuclear energy was that it
was one of a number of higher-cost, low-emission technologies and might
be available by about 2030 as part of a composite of energy solutions
to climate change.
"You'd be a very brave person today to say there was a silver bullet to
greenhouse and it was any individual technology," Mr Page said.
Globally there are about 30 new nuclear plants under construction and
more than 200 planned or proposed, with the World Nuclear Association
forecasting a doubling of uranium demand by 2020. Australia holds the
world's largest uranium reserves.
------------------->
PM's nuclear push outrageous: Suzuki
Paul Maley
Wednesday, 18 October 2006
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=517647&category=General&m=10&y=2006
One of the world's most prominent environmentalists has rubbished
suggestions by the Prime Minister that the environmental movement must
rethink its opposition to nuclear power, saying nuclear energy was
costly, unreliable and vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Dr David Suzuki, who is in Australia on an autobiographical tour, was
scathing of the environmental record of the Howard Government,
criticising it for its failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol and
ignoring the potential of alternate energy sources such as wind and
solar.
"This is a man who for four terms has denied the reality of climate
change when people in his country, leading scientists, have been
telling him urgent action is needed," Dr Suzuki said. "So now suddenly
he has discovered climate change is something to do something about and
he's telling [the environmental community] 'you've got to get on board
with nuclear energy?' I think this is absolutely outrageous."
Dr Suzuki was at the Australian National University last night where he
delivered a lecture on his own experiences as an environmentalist.
Speaking to The Canberra Times beforehand, he described the Prime
Minister's endorsement of nuclear fuel as "the biggest crock of baloney
I've heard". "How can you talk about a serious alternative form if you
can't even answer questions about cost, reliability, protection from
terrorism and nuclear waste? I mean it's crazy. Especially when there
are so many other opportunities."
Dr Suzuki said Australia should be making use of its climate to become a leading exporter in solar technology.
"You've got something most countries would kill for called sunlight.
Every bit of water in this country should be heated by the sun. The
roof of every house in this country should be solar collectors and
water collectors and right away you're dealing in a serious way with
two big issues, water shortages and energy."
Dr Suzuki said a clear link existed between industrial activity and the
current drought, which some have labelled the worst in the nation's
history. "I think the scientists are very reluctant to say this is the
result of global warming. It seems to me rather obvious the climate is
changing, that's indisputable. We've added more carbon, that's
indisputable. What do we think's going to happen? Weather patterns are
going to change."
Dr Suzuki agreed with Mr Howard's comments earlier this week that
nuclear energy emitted fewer CO2s than fossil fuels, but he denied it
was a clean form of energy.
"It's not free, you still have to dig the stuff up out of the ground,
you have to process it, you have to manufacture the plants."
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - LOCATIONS
------------------->
Nuclear sites listed
Anthony Black
October 29, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun
http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,21985,20660922-2862,00.html
FIVE potential sites have been identified for nuclear power stations in Victoria.
The Latrobe Valley, Avalon, near Geelong, Hastings, on Westernport Bay,
Wonthaggi and Portland have been earmarked for possible future nuclear
sites.
They are listed in a confidential part of a report to the Federal Government compiled by a group of nuclear experts.
One of the nation's leading nuclear scientists, Dr Clarence Hardy, said
Victoria needed to change its ways if it wanted sustainable energy.
And he said the Latrobe Valley was the ideal site for a nuclear power station.
It would cut greenhouse gases as part of federal and state government moves to fight global warming and climate change.
"When coastal properties are threatened because of rising seawater
levels, then people might want to invest in nuclear power," he said.
Dr Hardy said the Latrobe Valley was a premier power producer and highly regarded as an industrial centre.
He said a nuclear facility would complement existing brown-coal-fired stations, solar energy projects and wind farms.
"Nuclear is one option which must be considered in any future energy mix," he said.
"Solar and wind power are suitable for intermittent supply, but not for base load power.
"No nuclear power would mean building more coal-fired or gas-powered stations."
Dr Hardy, who heads the Pacific Nuclear Council, said coastal regions
close to capital cities would be the best location for the plants,
eliminating the need for cooling towers.
"I think these sites would be the right ones, but I am sure the environmentalists would have different views," Dr Hardy said.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - WORKFORCE ISSUES
------------------->
Atomic jobs explosion
The greatest barrier to developing a nuclear industry in Australia is
not political or public will but the lack of a qualified work force,
writes Joseph Kerr
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690453-30417,00.html
November 03, 2006
UKRAINE, Finland, Britain, the US, Canada, France, South Korea and
Japan: Ziggy Switkowski has been a dedicated globe-trotter in recent
weeks. In charge of a key prime ministerial inquiry into Australia's
nuclear future, the former Telstra chief executive has been to nuclear
reactors, enrichment facilities and waste storage depots across the
world.
Along with the rest of his six-member taskforce, he has been within
100m of the damaged Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine and heard about the
long-term effects of the 1986 disaster that remains the world's worst
atomic accident. Charged with working out what contribution nuclear
energy may make to Australia, Switkowski has gone to the countries with
the technology and know-how.
Australia has 40 per cent of the world's most accessible uranium.
Despite a strong push to build a reactor by prime minister John Gorton
between 1969 and 1972, no enrichment facilities or power plants exist.
That could be about to change.
The push by Prime Minister John Howard, to value-add to Australia's
uranium exports, and US President George W. Bush, who wants an
international fuel leasing scheme, means Australia may develop
enrichment facilities or power plants in the future.
But there is a key issue to be confronted if, as expected, Switkowski
recommends an expansion of Australia's nuclear activity: skilled
workers. If the Switkowski taskforce backs a second government push for
nuclear power, Australia will face a vital skills shortage.
A significant part of the report, which is to be produced in draft form
by November 21, is understood to look at the gaping holes in the
Australian nuclear work force.
It is expected to explore the chasm in Australia's nuclear skills base
and the key workers Australia will need to produce or import to build a
nuclear industry, including health and safety experts, radiation
physicists, mining engineers and geologists.
The estimated size of the nuclear work force in Britain is 50,000,
including about 20,000 involved in the production and reprocessing of
nuclear fuel and waste handling.
After the 1972 decision not to proceed with the planned 500-megawatt
plant at Jervis Bay on the NSW south coast, Australia's nuclear work
force withered. Accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in
the US gave nuclear power a bad name worldwide.
Australian university courses closed and research was mostly confined
to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation facility
at Lucas Heights near Sydney.
Liberal MP and former CSIRO research scientist Dennis Jensen says the
development of an Australian nuclear work force was stunted by
political setbacks and accidents during the past 30 years. "I think the
final nail there at the time was Chernobyl; they just thought: '(We)
can't see any future here at all,"' he says.
"Despite Gough (Whitlam) and (William) McMahon and so on having stopped
the Nowra nuclear power station, it was still seen as somewhat of a
possibility through the '70s. But you had Three Mile Island in '79
which put a bit of a dampener on it, then Labor got in, in '83, and
they adopted the three-mines policy and '86 finally killed it."
Jensen says the last Australian nuclear engineering faculty, at the
University of NSW, closed down in 1988. Since then, there has been a
greying of the nuclear work force with many of the experts in their 70s
and 80s.
Aidan Byrne, head of physics at the Australian National University,
says there are only a few educational centres in Australia where people
can train in nuclear fields and graduates tend to work in hospitals
with medical isotopes, where radioactive atoms are used in therapies
for diseases including cancer.
Opposition resources spokesman Martin Ferguson says: "After 25 years,
when not only Australia but the rest of the world has let its nuclear
skills base decline, there is a serious shortage of skilled people; at
the same time global demand for reactors is at unprecedented levels."
But Jensen says given the growing interest in nuclear energy as a
partial solution to greenhouse gas emissions, this deficit will have to
be reduced if Australia goes down the nuclear path.
Emboldened by the Howard Government's nuclear push, universities are
looking to develop postgraduate courses to cope with work force needs
for nuclear physicists, chemical engineers and miners trained in
radiological safety.
Whatever steps are taken to expand the nuclear industry in Australia -
whether through increased mining, conversion, enrichment, nuclear power
provision or waste storage - more people with the skills to handle
radiological material safely will be required, Byrne says.
If Australia decides to develop a conversion and enrichment facility,
more chemical engineers will be needed, Byrne explains. If Australia
wants to develop a nuclear enrichment plant, it will also need
physicists and chemists and centrifuge experts. "That's a really
complicated process where you need some really skilled people," Byrne
says.
As it seems unlikely the Government will bear the pain of nuclear power
to produce just one reactor, Australia may need thousands of skilled
workers.
People skilled in environmental sciences and geology are needed for the
storage and handling of radioactive waste, Byrne says. A beefed-up
regulatory bureaucracy will also have to oversee the industry. "In
health physics, we can expand the existing programs around Australia,
but for nuclear engineering nobody here does it," he says.
The Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering has told
the Switkowski review that if "Australia were to set up a reprocessing
plant similar in size to that at La Hague (in France), it is estimated
that approximately 1500 positions for engineers and managers as well as
another 2400 technicians" would be needed.
Likewise, an enrichment plant "like that on the Tricastin nuclear site
(in France) could employ 300 people, most of whom would require
specialist education and training in nuclear science and engineering".
Even if Australia takes a minimalist option and expands uranium mining
to feed China's vast growth in coming decades, it will need hundreds of
trained staff. At BHP's Olympic Dam mine in South Australia, for
example, about 30 people work in radiation and environmental
management, including environmental scientists.
Jensen believes Australia will need to import a reactor from overseas,
as was the case with the new Open Pool Australian Light-water, or OPAL,
research reactor at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation that was Argentine designed and built. ANSTO uses neutrons
produced in the reactor to conduct research in areas as diverse as food
science, engineering science, biology and chemistry.
There are some Australian experts living and working overseas who may
be enticed back. But while some of the labour can be imported, Jensen
says the expansion of nuclear power production anticipated in China
during the next decades and a resurgence in interest across the world
because of fossil fuel-driven global warming will mean a great demand
for this talent pool.
"Particularly with a growing of the nuclear industry worldwide, there
is going to be a shortage of that skill set all over the world," Jensen
says.
The Switkowski review is expected to show that while international
competition may be fierce for the exact skills needed in Australia, the
long lead times for developing an indigenous industry will help relieve
the problem.
Dennis Mather, the scientific secretary at AINSE - the link between
universities and ANSTO in providing research grants to university
researchers to conduct experiments at the Lucas Heights reactor - says
it will be possible to import people to train Australians or to do the
work themselves.
But some elements of the process, such as the processing and
reprocessing of fuel rods, contain highly sensitive information often
restricted to a small number of companies internationally. "It may not
be possible to gain the necessary licences to operate the technology to
fabricate or dismantle fuel rods," Mather says.
To construct a nuclear power plant, a consortium of Australian and
foreign companies may be involved, as the Argentines were in the OPAL
reactor at Lucas Heights.
Mather says work has begun on developing a new multidisciplinary university course to help breed an Australian work force.
With the results of the Switkowski nuclear review on the horizon - the
final report should be in the Government's hands in December - AINSE is
surveying universities to see what sort of programs they have in place
and "what you think we might have to do if any or all of these parts
come to fruition".
"We're still conducting that review but we have established already
there's a fair amount of postgraduate education and training going on
in the general area," Mather says. "What we don't have is specific
training on nuclear engineering." This includes reactor construction
and operation, and the processing and reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods.
A multi-badged postgraduate course could be developed between
universities across the country, which would allow people to tailor a
course to develop the skills they want. ANSTO also has $250,000
fellowships on offer that could help bring in international researchers.
Some experts aren't worried about the skills shortage. John White,
former head of the Government's uranium industry taskforce, says
building a nuclear power plant can take up to 15 years.
"When you start off on a new class of infrastructure like a new class
of submarines (or nuclear power plants), of course you don't have the
skilled people," White says.
"But you can put through three to four rounds of graduates and trainees
from scratch in the gestation period of the projects we're talking
about."
In all the projects White has been involved in, including offshore oil
and gas work and the Anzac frigate project, expert subcontractors have
been sourced from across the world.
"We can do about anything in this country we've wanted," he says.
------------------->
Nuclear industry skills 'lacking'
Joseph Kerr
November 03, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20691951-2702,00.html
THE federal Government review into nuclear energy is likely to find
that the lack of a home-grown nuclear power industry has left Australia
with skills shortages in key areas.
The review - headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski - is
expected to produce a draft report by November 21 identifying skills
and education in nuclear science as key issues in need of attention.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said yesterday an Australian nuclear
industry could act as a magnet to highly skilled scientists and
technicians who went overseas to pursue their careers.
It could also create job opportunities for Australians and boost universities that moved to capitalise on its development.
If the review by the six-member taskforce recommends an expansion of
the nuclear industry - such as into enrichment - or identifies a way to
make nuclear power economically competitive, experts have warned that
Australia would need to develop skilled workers.
Some of the nuclear scientists and technicians might have to be
imported along with the likely infrastructure for a power reactor, but
other key experts could be trained in Australia.
Talk is already turning to designing new university courses to make up the skills shortfall.
It is understood the committee has been considering the steps that
would need to be taken should there be an expansion of the nuclear
industry in this country, including setting up an appropriate
regulatory regime.
The report is also expected to consider the number of health and safety
staff that would be required, along with mining engineers, physicists,
geologists and radiation physicists.
One of the concerns understood to be expressed in the report is that
Australia has allowed a gap to develop in its nuclear skills base over
the past two decades due to a lacklustre interest in the technology.
This could leave the nation exposed as it tries to attract the staff it needs from overseas.
Other countries are showing much greater interest in going nuclear or
expanding their nuclear power industries themselves as international
pressure grows to reduce greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.
But Mr Macfarlane said a nuclear energy industry could provide benefits beyond electricity and greenhouse gas emissions.
"Further development of the nuclear energy sector could not only create
job opportunities for people in Australia now, but potentially draw
back to the country those who have left to pursue careers in the
nuclear industry which is already well established in many countries
around the world," he said.
"It could also create good opportunities for universities."
However, Mr Macfarlane urged caution until the Switkowski report was released.
"We first need to determine whether there is an economic and environmental case for nuclear energy in Australia," he said.
The nuclear taskforce was established in June to review uranium mining,
the prospects for processing the ore here and the possible contribution
of nuclear energy to Australia in the longer term.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
------------------->
Electricity from Nuclear Energy
US Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/nuc.htm
Nuclear energy originates from the splitting of uranium atoms in a
process called fission. Fission releases energy that can be used to
make steam, which is used in a turbine to generate electricity. Nuclear
power accounts for approximately 19 percent of the United States'
electricity production. More than 100 nuclear generating units are
currently in operation in the United States.1 No nuclear power plants
have been built since 1996.2
Uranium is a nonrenewable resource that cannot be replenished on a
human time scale. Uranium is extracted from open-pit and underground
mines. Once mined, the uranium ore is sent to a processing plant to be
concentrated into a useful fuel (i.e., uranium oxide pellets). This
uranium enrichment process generates radioactive waste. Enriched fuel
is then transported to the nuclear power plant.
At the power plant, the uranium oxide pellets are bombarded with
neutrons, causing the uranium atoms to split and release both heat and
neutrons. These neutrons collide with other uranium atoms and to
release additional heat and neutrons in a chain reaction. This heat is
used to generate steam, which is used by a turbine to generate
electricity.
Environmental Impacts
Although power plants are regulated by federal and state laws to
protect human health and the environment, there is a wide variation of
environmental impacts associated with power generation technologies.
The purpose of the following section is to give consumers a better idea
of the specific air, water, land, and radioactive waste releases
associated with nuclear power electricity generation.
Air Emissions
Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or
nitrogen oxides. However, fossil fuel emissions are associated with the
uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport
of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant.
Water Resource Use
Nuclear power plants use large quantities of water for steam production
and for cooling. When nuclear power plants remove water from a lake or
river for steam production and cooling, fish and other aquatic life can
be affected.
Water Discharges
Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts, build up in the water
used in the nuclear power plant systems. These water pollutants, as
well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power
plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life.
Although the nuclear reactor is radioactive, the water discharged from
the power plant is not considered radioactive because it never comes in
contact with radioactive materials.3 However, waste generated from
uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate
groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of
radioactive uranium.
Radioactive Waste Generation
Every 18 to 24 months, nuclear power plants must shut down to remove
and replace the "spent" uranium fuel.4 This spent fuel has released
most of its energy as a result of the fission process and has become
radioactive waste.
All of the nuclear power plants in the United States together produce
about 2,000 metric tons per year of radioactive waste.5 Currently, the
radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear plants at which it is
generated, either in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or
in above-ground steel or steel-reinforced concrete containers with
steel inner canisters. The Department of Energy is currently preparing
a license application to construct a permanent central repository at
Yucca Mountain. If the license is granted, the respository could begin
to accept waste by 2012. In addition to the fuel waste, much of the
equipment in the nuclear power plants becomes contaminated with
radiation and will become radioactive waste after the plant is closed.
These wastes will remain radioactive for many thousands of years.
Uranium processing produces radioactive wastes that must be adequately
stored and isolated to minimize the risk of radioactive release. The
management, packaging, transport, and disposal of this waste is
strictly regulated and carefully controlled by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Land Resource Use
The construction of nuclear power plants can destroy natural habitat
for animals and plants or contaminate local land with toxic
by-products. For example, the storage of radioactive waste may preclude
any future re-use of these contaminated lands.
Reserves
In 2003, U.S. uranium ore reserves were estimated at about 890 million
pounds. These reserves are located primarily in Wyoming and New Mexico.6
1. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,
Uranium Industry Annual 2000 (PDF, 81 pp., 491 KB, About PDF).
2. Ibid.
3. Nuclear Energy Institute, Fact Sheet: Nuclear Energy and the Environment. July 2000.
4. Ibid.
5. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency, Nuclear Power Generation and Fuel Cycle Report 1997.
6. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Uranium Reserves Estimates, June 2004.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - VARIOUS
------------------->
Yellowcake fever
Friday, November 17, 2006
Uranium shares are booming as an energy-hungry world and global warming become significant factors, reports Alan Deans.
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=161894
------------------->
Uranium's glow waning, investors warned
Robin Bromby
27oct06
The Australian
URANIUM investors beware: there aren't many bargains left in the sector.
This is the conclusion reached by Far East Capital's Warwick Grigor
after he analysed more than 50 uranium stocks listed on the Australian
Stock Exchange. The size of the known resource, the market
capitalisation per pound of uranium in the ground and exploration
results were all examined.
Stocks where there is still value to be found at present prices are pretty thin on the ground.
Top of the pile is Metex Resources, which has a uranium deposit in
Italy, although Mr Grigor believes the resource needs to double in size
to make it worth developing. But with Metex shares trading at 6.1c on
Tuesday (the day on which all price calculations were based), the
shares offered good upside.
"It is a cautiously and competently managed company that would be one
of the lower risk ways to play the uranium market," the report says.
Nova Energy gets a "sound" rating because its projects have real
production possibilities once the political opposition in Western
Australia is resolved.
Summit Resources has been one of Far East's preferred uranium plays for
some time, having, in Queensland, one of the largest undeveloped
uranium resources in Australia.
Mr Grigor expects Paladin Resources to make a move on Summit, following
the latter's successful takeover of Valhalla Uranium, which owns half
of Summit's main deposits.
Mr Grigor has a big stake in uranium. He is chairman of Monaro Mining,
which is in Krygyzstan; a director of Peninsula Mining, which is
looking in South Australia and South Africa; and a shareholder in
Western Metals.
All three, as would be expected, get a "good" grading at Far East
Capital - Monaro because it is seen as one of the cheapest potential
producers, Peninsula because of the potential of its grassroots
projects, and Western Metals because its ex-WMC Resources management
team has picked up uranium ground in Tanzania.
The report - "What is the value in the Uranium Sector?" - says uranium
prices up to $US100/lb (nearly double the present $US56/lb spot) could
be reached in a year or two, allowing many marginal projects to come on
stream.
But Mr Grigor says investors should pick out the companies with
sizeable deposits with the potential for between 25,000 tonnes and
50,000 tonnes of uranium.
He warns against placing too much emphasis on a few good intersections or assays.
"Beware of beat-ups designed to drive the share price," Mr Grigor says.
Tricks that companies use to get a good headline for a stock exchange
release include drilling right beside an old hole that had good grades
- which guaranteed a good intercept but doesn't add any new information
about the deposit - and reassaying previous drilling as a substitute
for getting stuck into detailed drilling programs.
There are plenty of uranium stocks that don't appeal to Mr Grigor, who charts these and many other resources juniors daily.
Compass Resources, which has the old Rum Jungle project in the Northern
Territory, had been taken to unrealistic levels because US funds bought
aggressively.
Uranium Exploration Australia is another to get the thumbs-down.
Bannerman Resources has been running since August and its $152 million market cap is looking "a bit heady".
Toro Energy, while having good projects, has too much expectation built into its 74c share price.
Aurora Minerals, which is looking for uranium projects, gets dismissed: "There is nothing compelling here."
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - RANGER EXTENSION IN NT
------------------->
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773519.htm
Last Update: Wednesday, October 25, 2006. 4:28pm (AEST)
Ranger processing operations extended
The mining company operating the Ranger uranium mine, which is
surrounded by Kakadu National Park, has announced it will extend
processing operations for a further six years.
Energy Resources Australia (ERA) says it will be able to extract an
additional 11,000 tonnes of uranium from low grade material that has
been sitting in stockpiles for some years.
The chief executive of ERA, Harry Kenyon-Slaney, says that will extend the life of the processing operations until 2020.
"Clearly one of the reasons that this has been possible is that the
market price of uranium has increased significantly over recent years,
and that lowers the cut-off grade that we can use," he said.
------------------->
Media - Release
27/11/06
Kakadu uranium miner's blurred 2020 vision
Plans by Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) to extend uranium
production at its controversial Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu until
2020 have been described as radioactive roulette and bad news for the
Kakadu environment by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).
ERA has broken an earlier commitment to end milling operations by 2014
and is planning to process greater volumes of low grade ore. This move
would see more radioactive waste and water made and stored in Kakadu
National Park.
"ERA is putting perceived short term profit ahead of prudent risk
management, long term corporate responsibility and the unique Kakadu
environment," said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney.
"More milling of low grade ore means trouble for Kakadu and a bigger clean up cost for ERA and its parent company Rio Tinto".
"The aging Ranger mill is under pressure and underperforming and ERA's
plan means more tailings, more waste and more contamination will need
to be managed at Ranger when operations do end," said Dave Sweeney.
"This long term financial burden for ERA will far outweigh any short term gain."
The Ranger mine has been plagued with continuing serious water and
waste management issues and has a long history of leaks, spills and
incidents.
A 2003 Senate report into the operations of Ranger called for urgent
changes to the operation in order to avoid 'serious or irreversible
damage'.
------------------->
Uranium soars as new mine flooded
Nigel Wilson, Energy writer
October 26, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646375-643,00.html
A FLOOD at a new uranium mine in Canada spurred uranium stocks around
the world to fresh highs yesterday with shares in Australia's biggest
uranium exporter, the 68 per cent-owned Rio Tinto subsidiary ERA,
jumping almost 8 per cent for a second day of gains.
Cameco, the world's biggest uranium producer, reported earlier in the
week that it was unable to control flooding at the Cigar Lake
development in Saskatchewan following a rock fall on Sunday.
The accident has led market analysts to suggest that the spot price,
which was $US56 a pound this week, could top $US100 a pound as
consumers attempt to find replacement supplies for post-2008
consumption.
Uranium prices, which were languishing at under $US10 a pound four
years ago, have increased from $US36.25 since the end of last year.
Cigar Lake is a joint venture owned by Canada's Cameco (50 per cent),
French nuclear giant AREVA (37 per cent) and Japanese groups Idemitsu
(8 per cent) and Tokyo Electric (5 per cent).
The new underground mine had been expected to be in production in 2008,
exploiting proven and probable reserves of 232 million pounds grading
19 per cent uranium at an annual plateau rate of 18 million pounds.
ERA was queried by the stock exchange on Tuesday about the increase in
its share price from closing at $14.28 on Friday to $15.77 mid Tuesday.
It responded by pointing to the Cigar Lake incident and noting that a
number of uranium stocks had risen since Cameco's announcement. ERA
shares closed up $1.19 or 7.7 per cent to $16.70 yesterday.
ERA also yesterday confirmed that the operational life of its Ranger
mine would be extended until at least 2020 and probably much longer.
Mining at Ranger was still expected to end in 2008 but milling
previously mined material, which was expected to end in 2014, will now
continue to 2020.
ERA said it had increased its total reserves of contained uranium oxide
by 11,100 tonnes - from 44,458 at the beginning of January to 52,433
tonnes at the end of September.
The reserves increase results from screening and processing stockpiled
material grading between 0.02 and 0.08 per cent uranium oxide.
ERA said the additional reserves, with an average grade of 0.074 per
cent uranium oxide, would be processed between 2014 and 2020 - adding
six years to the predicted life of Ranger.
The company said a further 41.8 million tonnes of material grading
between 0.02 and 0.08 per cent with an average grade of 0.04 per cent
would be in stockpiles at the end of mining.
This was not included in ERA's mineral resources or ore reserves.
"The company is investigating methods of economically processing this
material. Options include further sorting and plant throughput
increases," ERA said.
It is understood the stored material is too much for the existing process facilities to treat economically.
Last week ERA reported encouraging drilling results from its program to
define new economic reserves that could extend the life of Ranger well
beyond the new closure date.
ERA said drilling to the east of the Ranger pit had yielded significant
intersections grading above 0.4 per cent uranium oxide about 150 to 250
metres underground.
A feasibility study into whether the existing pit can be extended by up
to 300m is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
------------------->
Kakadu under threat - again
The Environment Centre of the NT (ECNT) has vowed to vigorously oppose
ERA's move to expand the controversial Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu.
ERA are considering significantly expanding the existing open cut
operation – a move that would have serious impacts on the region's
unique environment.
"The current closure plan to end mining in 2008 and milling in
2014 has been much anticipated by those concerned with protection of
the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National," said ECNT uranium
campaigner Emma King.
"Since Ranger opened in 1979 there have been over 200 accidents
and spills. Many of these have released radioactive material into the
local environment.
"There are on-going problems with the containment and management
of water at the mine. Fundamental design mistakes made during the
development of Ranger continue to cause problems for the mine operators
and increase the risk of wider contamination.
"Monitoring of surface water has shown that levels of
contamination – including uranium - downstream from the mine are
steadily rising.
"The other big issue for the mine is the storage and containment
of tailings. The existing tailings dam is leaking and contamination is
moving through the groundwater. Despite this ERA are increasing the
size of this dam.
"The current authority to mine includes a legal requirement that
all tailings be placed back into the pits at the end of operations. ERA
is required to physically isolate the tailings from the environment for
at least 10,000 years.
"If ERA is allowed to expand Ranger, keeping pit 3 open, there will be even greater problems with tailings management.
"ECNT will keep a close eye on the proposed expansion and
continue to work for the long-term protection of Kakadu National Park."
Ranger is currently the only operating uranium mine in the NT.
The development of other deposits in Kakadu have been consistently
vetoed by traditional owners. Following a major anti-mining fight the
Jabiluka deposit has been stalled under a long term care and
maintenance agreement between Mirarr people and ERA. Applications for
an exploration licence by French company Areva over the Koongarra
deposit have been vetoed by traditional owners several times.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM INDUSTRY FRAMEWORK REPORT
------------------->
Uranium Industry Framework report now uploaded at http://industry.gov.au/uif
------------------->
Uranium mining report angers environmental groups
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1787743.htm
Last Update: Tuesday, November 14, 2006. 9:00am (AEDT)
Environmental groups have been incensed by a report published by the
Uranium Industry Framework Steering Group, which is aimed at removing
impediments to uranium mining.
The Federal Government-commissioned report gives 20 recommendations to remove impediments to uranium mining.
It recommends a national program to ease transport restrictions on
uranium oxide and calls for uranium "stewardship" rather than punitive
regulation of the industry.
Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) spokesman Dave Sweeney says
the steering group is dominated by uranium industry executives and
pro-mining government officials.
He says the report reads more like a brochure for uranium mining than a serious discussion of a contentious industry.
"It is not inevitable, it is not desirable, it is not safe or
sustainable and if you do a genuine and rigorous assessment, it is not
a good clean business for this country to be involved in," he said.
"Unfortunately this report doesn't do a genuine or rigorous assessment, it's an industry advocacy document."
Environment groups are also sceptical about a promise from the federal
Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane not to start new uranium mines
without the support of Indigenous traditional owners.
Four recommendations urge closer partnerships with Indigenous people who own land sitting on uranium deposits.
Mr Macfarlane has reiterated that mines will not go ahead without their
consent, but Mr Sweeney says it is a surprising promise given the
industry's history.
"I wish they could make that retrospective, because they'd close Ranger," Mr Sweeney said.
"It has never enjoyed Aboriginal consent. It was actively opposed by
the Mirrar people, but there was a determination following a Federal
Government process at that time that the opposition of the Mirrar would
not be allowed to prevail, and ever since then we've seen a gradual
increasing pressure on people to say yes to mining."
ACF says a report from senior figures connected to the mining industry
cannot guarantee that uranium exports will not be used in nuclear
weapons.
Mr Sweeney says the document glosses over massive holes in the global
nuclear safeguards regime and its inability to track Australian uranium.
"We have to be absolutely red hot certain that we can track, guarantee and isolate and quite frankly we're not," he said.
"We cannot guarantee that Australian uranium will not inadvertently
either end up in nuclear weapons programs or free up other uranium to
end up in nuclear weapons programs."
------------------->
Macfarlane welcomes uranium industry shake-up
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1787581.htm
Last Update: Monday, November 13, 2006. 8:20pm (AEDT)
The federal Resources Minister has welcomed a report aimed at removing
restrictions to the growth of Australia's uranium mining industry.
Ian Macfarlane says a plan for the future of the uranium mining
industry is aimed at removing the structural and political impediments
to growth.
Mr Macfarlane set up the Uranium Industry Framework (UIF) steering group in August last year.
He has backed the group's report that lists 20 recommendations,
including the creation of a uranium stewardship system that it says
avoids a punitive and regulatory approach.
"But there's no suggestion that in any way the regulation or the safety requirements will be lessened," he said.
The recommendations also include redressing a shortage of radiation
safety officers, a national approach to transporting uranium and closer
partnerships with Indigenous land owners.
Mr Macfarlane says state governments should ease restrictions on
transporting uranium oxide that force all exports through Darwin's port.
"In the end many of these regulations are set by state governments and
therefore subject to the vagary of their politics," he said.
Mr Macfarlane says until recently the biggest roadblock has been opposition by state and territory governments to new mines.
"That's created an uncertainty in the industry about its future," he said.
"But with the support of the South Australian Government and with
mining proceeding in the Northern Territory, most people in the
resources sector see the uranium industry as a secure industry to be
part of."
------------------->
MEDIA ALERT 13/11/06 ------ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, AUSTRALIA
RESPONSE TO URANIUM INDUSTRY FRAMEWORK REPORT
Federal industry minister Ian Macfarlane will this afternoon release
the report of the Uranium Industry Framework Steering Group, which will
include numerous recommendations to expand Australia's uranium mining
industry.
The UIF Steering Group is chaired by Dr. John White from the
controversial Nuclear Fuel Leasing Group (NFLG), a consortium which
wants to import high-level nuclear waste and to dump it in Australia.
See the NFLG submission at:
<www.pmc.gov.au/umpner/submissions.cfm> and the article by
journalist Julie Macken at <www.newmatilda.com>.
Some facts which will not be included in the Uranium Industry Framework report:
* A 1999 survey found that 85% of Australians want the federal
parliament to pass legislation banning the import of foreign nuclear
waste into Australia (Insight Research Australia). Not only has the
Howard government refused to enact such legislation, but all Coalition
Senators opposed a May 2006 Senate motion opposing the import of
nuclear waste.
* A May 2006 Newspoll of 1200 Australians found that 66% are opposed to new uranium mines.
* An International Atomic Energy Agency survey of 1000 Australians in
2005 found that 56% think the IAEA's safeguards system is ineffective.
Dr Mohamed El Baradei, the Director-General of the IAEA, describes the
safeguards system as "fairly limited", subject to "vulnerabilities" and
operating on a "shoestring budget ... comparable to a local police
department". Australia's uranium has produced 86 tonnes of plutonium in
power reactors around the world, enough for about 8,600 nuclear
weapons, yet we are entirely reliant on the flawed and underfunded
safeguards system of the IAEA to prevent the misuse of that plutonium.
Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner for Friends of the Earth,
said: "Last year, uranium accounted for one third of 1% of Australia's
export income. Wine and medicines each accounted for five times as much
export revenue. We can export wine and medicines with a clear
conscience but the same cannot be said for exports of WMD feedstock in
the form of uranium. The best-case scenario is that uranium will end up
as high-level nuclear waste and lead to a growing push to dump the
waste in Australia since there is no permanent repository for
high-level waste anywhere in the world. The alternative scenario is
that Australian uranium finds its way into nuclear weapons - the most
destructive weapons ever devised."
David Noonan from the Australian Conservation Foundation said: "Far
from 'harmonising' the regulation of the uranium mining industry, as
Ian Macfarlane claims, the Uranium Industry Framework report will
promote self-regulation and fast-tracking the imposition of expanded
uranium mining and exports."
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - SAFEGUARDS ARE A JOKE
------------------->
Safeguarding our nuclear ambitions
By Nadia Watson
November 21, 2006
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5168
The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office claims that
nuclear safeguards "provide assurances that exported uranium and its
derivatives cannot benefit the development of nuclear weapons".
In fact, the safeguards system is flawed in many respects and it cannot provide such assurances.
The main component of nuclear safeguards is the monitoring and
inspection regime operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory states are
expected to bring all nuclear material and activities under IAEA
safeguards. There is an important exception to this rule, however, the
five "declared" nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France, and
China) are not required to put any nuclear facilities under safeguards
though they may do so on a voluntary basis.
All but three states - Israel, India and Pakistan - are NPT
signatories. North Korea has effectively withdrawn from the NPT
although there are ongoing efforts to bring it back within the NPT
"tent" through the protracted six-party talks.
IAEA safeguards involve periodical inspections of nuclear facilities
and nuclear materials accounting to determine whether the amount of
nuclear material going through the fuel cycle matches the country's
records. In theory, the system is simple. In practice, IAEA safeguards
have proven to be technically complex and politically contentious.
Five states have been reported to the UN Security Council for
non-compliance with their safeguards agreements: Iraq in 1991, Romania
in 1992, North Korea in 1993, Libya in 2004, and Iran in 2006. Other
countries have carried out weapons-related research projects in
violation of their NPT agreement, or have failed to carry out reporting
requirements, without the matter being referred to the Security Council
- including South Korea, Taiwan, the former Yugoslavia, and Egypt.
The five "declared" weapons states have NPT obligations to pursue
disarmament. While none have been reported to the United Nations
Security Council, they are arguably all in breach of their NPT
commitments given their unwillingness to seriously pursue disarmament.
As IAEA Director-General Mohamed El Baradei noted in a February 2004
speech: "We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally
reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction
yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security - indeed
to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their
use."
IAEA budgetary constraints
The IAEA lacks the resources to effectively carry out its safeguards
role. For more than 15 years, the IAEA's verification program operated
under conditions of zero real growth. Then in 2004, the budget was
increased by 12.4 per cent, with a further 3.3 per cent increase in
2005.
In October, El Baradei stressed the seriousness of the funding problem
in a speech to an International Safeguards symposium in Vienna:
"Financial resources are another key issue. Our budget is only $130
million; that's the budget with which we're supposed to verify the
nuclear activities of the entire world. Reportedly some $1 billion was
spent by the Iraq Survey Group after the war in that country. Our
budget, as I have said before, is comparable with the budget of the
police department in Vienna. So we don't have the required resources in
many ways to be independent, to buy our own satellite monitoring
imagery, or crucial instrumentation for our inspections. We still do
not have our laboratories here in Vienna equipped for state-of-the-art
analysis of environmental samples."
The IAEA oversees approximately 900 nuclear facilities in 71 countries.
The problem of inadequate funding is exacerbated by the ever-increasing
challenge of safeguards. The volume of nuclear material - and the
number of nuclear facilities - requiring safeguarding increases
steadily and the expanded inspection rights provided by Additional
Protocols (discussed later) further stretch the system.
In addition to resource constraints, issues relating to national
sovereignty and commercial confidentiality have also adversely impacted
on safeguards. In a 2004 paper, Harvard University academic Matthew
Bunn points to the constraints enshrined in the IAEA's basic safeguards
template, "INFCIRC 153":
"INFCIRC 153 is replete with provisions designed to ensure that
safeguards would not be too intrusive. They are to be implemented in a
manner designed "to avoid hampering" technological development, "to
avoid undue interference" in civilian nuclear energy, and "to reduce to
a minimum the possible inconvenience and disturbance to the State". The
IAEA is not to ask for more from the state than "the minimum amount of
information and data consistent with carrying out its
responsibilities", and specific upper bounds are placed on the number
of person-days of inspection permitted at various types of nuclear
facilities."
Untimely detection
Detection of diversion can only be discovered after it has occurred,
thus safeguards can never actually physically prevent the development
of clandestine nuclear programs. IAEA safeguards discourage diversion
but they cannot stop it.
The "detection time" should be shorter than the "conversion time", the
latter being the "time required to convert different forms of nuclear
material to the components of a nuclear explosive device". Conversion
times vary - for metallic plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, the
time is seven to ten days; for highly-enriched uranium in irradiated
fuel, one to three months; and one year for low-enriched uranium.
Facilities using nuclear materials with shorter conversion times ought
to be inspected more often. In practice, this objective is compromised
as the IAEA does not actually inspect all facilities which are
potentially subject to safeguards, because of the aforementioned
resource constraints and political and commercial sensitivities.
For example, the federal parliament's Joint Standing Committee on
Treaties is currently assessing the merits of uranium exports to China,
and it has emerged during the course of the Committee's deliberations
that of the ten Chinese facilities potentially subject to IAEA
safeguards last year, only three were actually inspected. (The
application of safeguards to China is the subject of a detailed report
released by the Medical Association for the Prevention of War on
November 7. <www.mapw.org.au>.)
When suspicions arise regarding the possible diversion of nuclear
material, the response has proven to be far from "timely". An October
2005 paper by the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that there have
been standoffs where unresolved discrepancies in nuclear material
accountancy have remained unresolved for years. Iran and North Korea
provide two contemporary examples of protracted disputes.
Material unaccounted for
"Material unaccounted for" refers to discrepancies between the "book
stock" (the expected measured amount) and the "physical stock" (the
actual measured amount) of nuclear materials at a location under
safeguards. Such discrepancies are frequent due to the difficulty of
precisely measuring amounts of nuclear material.
Discrepancies make it difficult to be confident that nuclear material has not been diverted for military use.
"Material unaccounted for" is a problem that is possibly unsolvable. In
a large plant, even a tiny percentage of the annual through-put of
nuclear material may suffice to build one or more weapons without being
detected. For example, the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in Japan will
have the capacity to separate about eight tonnes of plutonium from
spent nuclear fuel each year. Diverting 1 per cent of that amount of
plutonium would be very difficult for the IAEA to detect against the
background of routine accounting discrepancies, yet it would suffice to
build at least one nuclear weapon a month.
The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office refuses to
publicly reveal any country-specific information, or even aggregate
information, concerning discrepancies involving Australian uranium or
its derivatives. Nor has the Office explained why it refuses to release
this information.
Strengthened safeguards
Under traditional safeguards the IAEA was only able to monitor and
assess formally declared materials and facilities. This meant that
there was plenty of scope for states to develop "undeclared" nuclear
capabilities with little or no threat of detection by the IAEA.
Prompted by the inability to address undeclared facilities, and other
limitations, the IAEA initiated efforts to strengthen the system in the
early 1990s. The IAEA's strengthened safeguards program began in 1993
with "Programme 93+2". The intention - which proved to be wildly
optimistic - was to implement a strengthened safeguards regime in two
years.
The Model Additional Protocol was introduced in 1997. With the
Additional Protocol in force the IAEA should theoretically be able to
develop a more inclusive "cradle to grave" picture of states' nuclear
activities. The improvements include:
requiring substantially more information from states regarding their
nuclear activities, other relevant sites, imports and exports, and
material holdings;
increased use of environmental sampling, analysis, and remote monitoring;
allowing IAEA inspectors extended access to any location that is
included on an expanded declaration, and to other necessary locations;
and
additional authority to use the most advanced technologies and intelligence, such as commercial satellite imagery.
As of October 2006, 78 NPT states had negotiated and ratified an AP but over 100 NPT states had not done so.
While strengthened safeguards are welcome, serious problems with the
safeguards system remain. One is that the development of the full suite
of nuclear fuel cycle facilities - including sensitive, dual-use
enrichment and reprocessing facilities - is enshrined in the NPT as an
"inalienable right" of all NPT states.
El Baradei noted in a December 2005 statement: "If a country with a
full nuclear fuel cycle decides to break away from its
non-proliferation commitments, a nuclear weapon could be only months
away. In such cases, we are only as secure as the outbreak of the next
major crisis. In today's environment, this margin of security is simply
untenable."
Another unresolved problem is highlighted by North Korea. It is
difficult or impossible to prevent an NPT state from simply withdrawing
from the NPT and pursuing weapons. North Korea joined the NPT but
withdrew in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006. Iran
could be the next country withdrawing from the NPT/IAEA system.
Australia's bilateral safeguards
In justifying Australia's international trade in uranium, the
government and the uranium industry place much emphasis on bilateral
safeguards agreements which prospective customer countries must
negotiate with the government. These agreements cover Australian
Obligated Nuclear Material - uranium and by-products such as depleted
uranium produced at enrichment plants, and plutonium formed by neutron
irradiation of uranium in reactors. The most important provisions are
for prior Australian consent before Australian Obligated Nuclear
Material is transferred to a third party, enriched beyond 20 per cent
uranium-235, or reprocessed.
The provisions for Australian consent for "high enrichment" (to 20 per
cent or more uranium-235) and for reprocessing have never once been
invoked since the bilateral agreements were initiated by the Fraser
government in 1977. No country has ever requested permission to enrich
beyond 20 per cent uranium-235. More importantly, permission to
reprocess has never once been refused even when it leads to the
stockpiling of Australian-obligated plutonium - as it has in Japan and
several European countries. Control of reprocessing has also been
weakened by allowing open-ended "programmatic" consent instead of the
previous policy of case-by-case approval.
Neither IAEA safeguards nor the provisions of bilateral agreements
ensure that Australian uranium will not find its way into weapons.
Claims from government bodies such as the Australian Safeguards and
Non-Proliferation Office, and from the uranium industry, that
safeguards provide "assurances" that Australian Obligated Nuclear
Material will not be diverted should be disregarded.
Of course, it is possible that safeguards could be improved, and it is
possible that Australia could play a leading role in improving
safeguards. However, as Professor Richard Broinowski details in his
2003 book Fact or Fission? The Truth About Australia's Nuclear
Ambitions, safeguards pertaining to Australian Obligated Nuclear
Material have been gradually weakened over the years. The reason was
identified by Mike Rann - then a young Labor Party researcher and now
the pro-uranium premier of South Australia - in his 1982 booklet,
Uranium: Play It Safe.
"Again and again," Rann wrote, "it has been demonstrated here and
overseas that when problems over safeguards prove difficult, commercial
considerations will come first".
A genuine nuclear debate in Australia would include a reassessment of
the uranium export industry given the risks of diversion and
proliferation identified in this article.
Nadia Watson recently completed her undergraduate studies in
International Relations at LaTrobe University. She has spent the
previous six months researching the effectiveness of the international
nuclear safeguards system.
------------------->
Great new report at: <www.mapw.org.au/Illusion%20of%20Protection%20index.html>
An Illusion of Protection
The unavoidable limitations of safeguards on nuclear materials and the export of uranium to China
The Federal government has spoken repeatedly of the strength of
international safeguards when it comes to export of Australian uranium.
The government have insisted that these safeguards ensure Australian
uranium can only be used for peaceful purposes, even by those nuclear
trading partners that have existing nuclear weapons programs. But is
this true? Can Australian uranium be safely secured from contributing
to nuclear weapons production? Or is there a more sinister reality?
Illusion of Protection – the unavoidable limitations of safeguards on
nuclear materials and the export of uranium to China is a new report
(launched on 5 November 2006) prepared for the Australian Conservation
Foundation and the Medical Association for Prevention of War which
addresses these questions in detail.
Although the Illusion of Protection report makes a case specifically
against sales of Australian uranium to China, the lessons and problems
outlined are applicable to any plans to sell uranium to India or any
other state with nuclear weapons programs or ambitions.
The key messages
The dual use and coupled nature of military and civilian nuclear
programs confounds attempts at safeguards such that Australia's uranium
exports contribute toward threshold and actual nuclear weapons
capabilities.
Strengthened safeguards face the challenge of competing commercial
considerations by Australian uranium mining interests, particularly BHP
Billiton, and that of nuclear corporations and governments including
Japan.
The IAEA's conflict of interest in promoting and expanding nuclear
power, while seeking to deter proliferation through the unavoidable
limitations of safeguards, invalidates the IAEA as an independent
nuclear regulator.
Nuclear disarmament is going nowhere. All the nuclear weapons states -
including China - are developing their nuclear arsenals further, the
global non-proliferation regime is under severe strain and has clearly
failed in the case of Israel, Iraq, India and Pakistan, Libya and North
Korea. Military confrontation in Korea or Taiwan risks nuclear
escalation.
China has a disturbing history of exporting sensitive nuclear and
missile equipment and know-how to numerous other countries. Chinese
nuclear weapons designs have been distributed on the international
nuclear black market. All nuclear facilities in China - military
and civilian - are run by the same organisation.
Proposed uranium exports to China and to India can both directly and
indirectly fuel the fires of future nuclear weapons, and likely further
regional insecurities, compromising Australia's national interests for
private gain.
The key recommendations
Australia should stop its contribution to the global nuclear chain by phasing out mining and export of uranium.
Australia should not export uranium to China. On such a serious matter
as proliferation of nuclear weapons, China's poor non-proliferation
record and lack of transparency – and indeed active contribution to
horizontal nuclear proliferation – warrants the disqualification of
China as an appropriate recipient of Australian uranium on these
grounds alone.
Massive resources and government support in Australia and China, as
elsewhere, should be directed as an urgent priority to research,
development and deployment of safe and renewable sources of energy, in
combination with improved efficiency of energy use; and not to nuclear
power. China has made clear a substantial financial and planning
commitment to developing renewable energy technologies over the coming
decade, and should be encouraged to replace their plans for nuclear
power with an expanded commitment to energy efficiency and deploying a
mix of renewable energy sources.
IAEA safeguards should be strengthened through universal, mandatory and
permanent application, including the full application of Additional
Protocols, to Nuclear Weapon States including China, to the same degree
as to Non-Nuclear Weapon States.
Australia should withdraw from agreement to export uranium to Taiwan
and fully enforce and maintain restrictions against nuclear trade
including uranium sales to any non-NPT signatory entities, including
India, Pakistan and Israel.
Proposed administrative arrangements to enact the Australian bilateral
safeguards agreement with China should be made public and be subject to
parliamentary scrutiny as part of the process of formal consideration
of the proposed Nuclear Cooperation Treaty with China.
The Australian Government should withdraw consent in existing bilateral
treaties, and not provide any future agreements or consent, including
to China, for reprocessing of Australian Obligated Nuclear Materials or
for any use of such materials in mixed oxide (MOX) or other
plutonium-based fuels.
Australia should require verifiable cessation of production of missile
material and support for a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty that
prohibits reprocessing and the separation of weapons-usable fissile
materials, from all countries with which Australia currently has
bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements.
Application of IAEA safeguards should be extended to fully apply to
mined uranium ores, to refined uranium oxides, to uranium hexafluoride
gas, and to uranium conversion facilities, prior to the stages of
enrichment or fuel fabrication.
Australia should not enter into additional bilateral agreements
allowing for conversion and enrichment of Australian uranium in
countries, including China and India, where such safeguards
arrangements are not in place.
Australia should withdraw uranium sales from all Nuclear Weapon States
that have breached their non-proliferation obligations, or continue to
fail to comply with their nuclear disarmament obligations under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that fail to ratify and abide by the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty including verifiable closure of nuclear
weapons testing facilities.
The contents: The report includes a critique of the international
nuclear safeguards system, but also deals specifically with the
proposed sale of Australian uranium to China. It provides a background
on the history and current status of the nuclear non-proliferation and
disarmament measures internationally, an overview of the current
international safeguards systems, how they are designed to work and the
inherent difficulties and flaws in them. It also profiles the attempts
of the IAEA to strengthen safeguards through Additional Protocols and
the problems they face.
The final chapter looks in detail at the China question in the current
context of the Federal Parliament considering proposals to export
uranium to this nuclear weapons state. It examines the proposed
bilateral agreements with China, considers the Chinese energy strategy,
and China's record of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation as well
as the potential for nuclear modernisation and conflict within the
region.
Report contributors: The report has been prepared for the Australian
Conservation Foundation and the Medical Association for Prevention of
War (Australia) by a team of academic, medical and non-governmental
experts on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear
safeguards.
The Foreword has been written by Dr Frank Barnaby BSc, MSc, PhD, DSc
(Hon), a nuclear physicist by training, known as an expert on nuclear
weapons and a consultant to the Oxford Research Group in the UK.
Online: Both the Executive Summary and the Full Report will be
available online after 5 November from the ACF and MAPW websites:
www.acfonline.org.au or www.mapw.org.au
------------------->
Uranium export safeguards found wanting
Michelle Grattan
November 5, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/uranium-export-safeguards-found-wanting/2006/11/04/1162340095835.html
AUSTRALIA'S proposed safeguards are inadequate to track any diversion
of its uranium exports to China's nuclear weapons program, a report
released today claims.
The planned big exports to China and potential large through-puts of
spent reactor fuel to extract plutonium increase the risks Australian
nuclear material could be diverted, without detection, to military
programs, it says.
"The capacity to verify that such diversion has occurred is lacking,"
says the report, issued by the Australian Conservation Foundation and
the Medical Association for Prevention of War. The report has been
prepared by a team including academic experts.
It says the way in which Australian safeguards in China are to operate
will be subject to secret administrative arrangements, yet to be
negotiated. "Beijing is likely to drive a hard bargain. The history of
Australian diluting of safeguards in favour of commercial
considerations suggests that Canberra is likely to oblige," it states.
The report calls for the administrative arrangements to be made public
and Parliament to scrutinise them. The safeguards agreement is
currently before the parliamentary treaties committee.
The nature of the strategic and economic relationship between the two
countries shows China has greater leverage over Canberra than vice
versa, the report says. The result is that "claimed safeguards
assurances in the bilateral agreement cannot be relied upon in
practice".
China's system for accounting for its nuclear material is lax. It lacks
even an adequate physical inventory of fissile materials. This
seriously erodes "the veracity of the book-keeping exercise of
Australian safeguards policy", says the report. "If Beijing does not
have a precise inventory of nuclear material it becomes difficult to
accept the proposition that Canberra can do better."
The question of relative influence is important because the bilateral
agreement doesn't lock China into a set system of safeguards over the
30 years of the agreement, the report says.
Should the safeguards agreement be revised, as the agreement allows
for, "it is to be expected that the revision will again continue the
trend of weakening Australian safeguards policy in favour of commercial
interests".
------------------->
Trust us
By Tilman Ruff
17/11/06
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5156
The Howard Government has spoken repeatedly of the strength of
international safeguards when it comes to exporting Australian uranium
to other nations. The government has insisted that these safeguards are
strong enough to ensure Australian uranium is not used in nuclear
weapons, even by those trading partners that have existing nuclear
weapons programs. But is this true? Can Australian uranium be safely
secured from nuclear weapons production? Or is there a more sinister
reality?
On Sunday, November 2, a major new Australian report was released
entitled Illusion of Protection: the unavoidable limitations of
safeguards on nuclear materials and the export of uranium to China.
This report, prepared for the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)
and the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) (MAPW),
addresses the flaws and limitations of the international nuclear
safeguards system with particular reference to the proposed sale of
Australian uranium to China, a declared nuclear weapons state. The
report highlights the limitations of the global nuclear safeguards
regime, an issue of particular importance in the context of current
moves to dramatically expand the Australian uranium industry.
The report finds there is a serious and unavoidable risk that
Australian uranium exports to China will directly or indirectly support
Chinese nuclear weapons manufacture, and potentially nuclear weapons
proliferation in other countries.
There is much that could and needs to be done to improve the
international safeguards system, however its fundamental flaws and the
pervasive interconnections between the civil and military applications
of nuclear technologies and materials mean that the most prudent and
responsible position is to phase out the mining and export of uranium.
Supporters of Australia's uranium export industry claim that the
safeguards applied to Australia's uranium exports are the equal of, or
better than, safeguards applied by other uranium exporting nations.
This claim ignores the problem that all uranium-exporting nations are
reliant on the inadequate and under-resourced safeguards system of the
IAEA, and it cannot be credibly advanced to justify Australian uranium
exports.
Australia's Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office (ASNO) has no
substantive verification capacity to add to limited IAEA safeguards.
The government's Regulation Impact Statement for the nuclear agreement
with China foreshadows annual visits to reconcile nuclear material
transfer reports. This is essentially an arms-length book-keeping
exercise that relies on the importing state's adherence to materials
accountancy standards. Little is known or verifiable about the veracity
of China's nuclear materials accountancy, but available information is
concerning.
Claims that Australia would have no leverage in relation to
international nuclear safeguards in the absence of a uranium export
industry are false. Australia's moral and political authority to
actively pursue a strengthened non-proliferation and safeguards regime
would be enhanced by such an approach. Furthermore, non-nuclear and
non-uranium exporting states can and do influence international
safeguards through the Board of Governors of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and by engagement with a range of other
international fora and mechanisms.
Although the Illusion of Protection report makes a case specifically
against sales of Australian uranium to China, the lessons and problems
outlined are applicable generally, and particularly to any plans to
sell uranium to India or any other state with nuclear weapons programs
or ambitions.
The unique physical and medical realities of nuclear materials and
technology have powerful implications. The assurances of safety and
safeguards needed are way higher than for any other materials. At issue
are materials which can be used to make nuclear weapons. Just 100 - 0.4
per cent - of the 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world, if targeted on
major cities, could end human civilisation and drastically compromise
the earth's ability to support life in the space of a few hours.
Uranium, nuclear fuel, and extracted plutonium will still be toxic and
usable for nuclear weapons in hundreds of thousands of years, much
longer than any human institution has survived.
The timeframes of political leaders, governments and political systems
represent just the blink of an eye in these geological timeframes.
Policies, governments and political systems can change rapidly. Only
three decades ago, former foreign minister Andrew Peacock was
advocating sale of Australian uranium to Iran. The half-life of
plutonium is 24,400 years, after which its radioactivity will have
declined by half. The half-life of uranium-235, the isotope enriched
for reactors and weapons, is 713 million years.
To put this in perspective about 30,000 years ago, neanderthals still
roamed parts of Europe and Asia. As little as 12,000 years ago, no
society practiced widespread agriculture. Writing was developed about
5,000 years ago.
Fissile materials will still be hazardous and weapons-usable when the
world has changed beyond our wildest dreams. People for thousands of
generations to come will have no choice but to still be dealing with
the nuclear legacy of the present generation.
Nuclear weapons constitute the greatest immediate threat to global
survival and health. In the event of a nuclear war, don't bother to
call your doctor. No meaningful response will be possible for most
victims if even one nuclear weapon is detonated in a city.
Anything which increases the number of nuclear weapons; the number of
places they are kept; the number of groups who build, steal or buy
them; the number of people who have access to them; anything which
increases the range of ways and the number of situations they might be
used, or reduces the threshold for their use, is bad for your health.
Like other nuclear powers, rather than disarming as the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty requires, China is currently expanding and
modernising its nuclear arsenal. This is largely driven by the US
missile defence program, to which Australia contributes, and US plans
to militarily dominate space.
The standards of safety and caution need to be extraordinarily high
when dealing with nuclear materials, and the first rule of the healing
professions applies to decision-makers as well: First, do no harm.
IAEA safeguards are intended to have a 90-95 per cent probability of
detecting a significant diversion in time before weapons could be made.
The significant quantities of fissile materials defined by the IAEA as
sufficient to build a nuclear weapon are several times too high. The
conversion times within which diversion is supposed to be able to be
detected, are also too high. And add to that the lack of universal
implementation of safeguards. As of last month, the Additional Protocol
which was developed 10 years ago in response to Iraq's advanced weapons
program was in force in only 78 of the more than 180 countries signed
up to the NPT.
States can withdraw from the NPT, as North Korea has done, with three
months' notice. Application of safeguards in a nuclear weapons state is
voluntary. In China only about 10 of 44 proliferation-sensitive nuclear
facilities are eligible for safeguards (and therefore might process
Australian uranium). In China for the past few years, IAEA safeguards
have been implemented at only three facilities. And only one of these
has a detailed facility-specific Subsidiary Arrangement in place with
the IAEA.
The IAEA does not in any way specifically safeguard uranium from any
particular source. If you were dealing with these kinds of gross
deficiencies in being investigated for a serious illness, you would be
right to find this completely unacceptable and look for another doctor.
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of the Federal Parliament has
been holding public hearings on the nuclear co-operation and safeguards
agreements the government has signed with China in the hope these will
pave the way to large and growing exports of Australian uranium to
China. The committee is expected to report in the coming month.
However, there seems to be a disturbing systematic pattern of error,
misinformation and complacency which is alarming, and which undermines
the long-term interests of Australians. The Federal Government and the
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) are
increasingly part of the problem of proliferation risk, rather than
part of the urgently needed solution.
The Federal Government claims that for years it was ignorant of, and
cannot be held accountable for, the world's largest case of illegal and
corrupt sanctions breaches, involving the Australian Wheat Board (AWB).
For years it ignored, played down and didn't want to hear questions and
what should have been alarm signals from the UN, US and Canada. And
that was about wheat. Yet in relation to uranium the government is
asking us to trust flawed safeguards regarding the most dangerous of
materials, where the weight of leverage lies with China.
The processing of Australian uranium in China prior to enrichment is
not subject to safeguards, which only begin to apply at the enrichment
stage. And the one organisation - the China National Nuclear
Corporation - manages nuclear materials and facilities for both power
and weapons purposes. Australians have little reason to be confident in
such arrangements.
It is almost 30 years after the Fox Inquiry established by a previous
coalition government characterised nuclear safeguards as providing "an
illusion of protection", and since then the frailty of this illusion
has been repeatedly demonstrated - in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North
Korea. Since then Australian safeguards have also progressively been
watered down, for example in allowing blanket advance, or
"programmatic", approval for reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to
extract plutonium.
This is the most proliferation-sensitive of nuclear processes, which is
technically impossible to effectively safeguard. China is an
authoritarian state with an appalling record of proliferation of
sensitive nuclear and missile materials, technology and know-how to
other countries. The nuclear weapons designs sold by the international
nuclear black market headed by Pakistani scientist AQ Khan were
Chinese. Yet the government asks us to trust their assurances on
safeguards on Australian uranium and that these will apply to every
future government of Australia and China and their instrumentalities
and all the companies involved, and whatever succeeds them, essentially
forever. Now that is utopian.
Australian uranium used in nuclear reactors can end up as either
radioactive waste, or fissile material for weapons. The safeguards
applied to Australian uranium, reflected in the agreement signed with
China, do in truth provide only an illusion of protection.
At best, Australian uranium would indirectly contribute to weapons by
expanding the pool of uranium China says it needs for both power and
weapons. At worst, Australian uranium could be directly used in Chinese
nuclear weapons, or in nuclear weapons elsewhere. Under current and
proposed safeguards, Australians could sleep easy only because if this
happened, there would be no way they would ever know.
Both the executive summary and the full report are available online from the ACF and MAPW websites.
------------------->
Worth reading El Baradei's stuff re flawed safeguards:
Addressing Verification Challenges
16 October 2006 | Vienna, Austria
Address to Symposium on International Safeguards (16 - 20 October 2006)
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n018.html
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - SA GOVERNMENT
------------------->
LABOR has rejected nuclear enrichment or nuclear power for South
Australia but referred any decision on allowing further uranium mines
to the national convention.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20587880-2682,00.html
A deal between the party's Left and Right wing powerbrokers has ensured
any brawl over the uranium issue will be confined to the national
conference next year.
A total of five motions dealing with the uranium issue had been on the
agenda for the SA branch's convention over the weekend but the main
motion was amended, three others withdrawn and one - dealing with water
supplies for Roxby Downs - was passed.
The main motion, which called on the party not to allow any additional
uranium mines in SA, was amended when the Left and Right combined to
refer to the federal conference the issue of allowing any new mines.
The amendment also bound the party in SA to oppose uranium enrichment
and nuclear power and also to insist that uranium only be sold to
signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
The amendment, moved by ministerial adviser Susan Close from Substance
Abuse Minister Gail Gago's office, was seconded by Labor backbencher
Tom Kenyon, a former adviser to Mines Minister Paul Holloway.
After the vote, Mr Holloway said it was the right decision.
"The State Government has made it clear all the way we would advocate
for change to the uranium policy at the next federal conference," he
said.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
HONEYMOON APPROVED
------------------->
FoE Adelaide info:
http://cleanfutures.blogspot.com/
http://cleanfutures.blogspot.com/2006/07/best-wishes-for-rann-wedding-but-call.html
http://www.geocities.com/olympicdam/honeymoon.html
------------------->
Rann approves Honeymoon uranium mine
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
September 29, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20496873-2702,00.html
SOUTH Australia's government has approved the final, crucial licence
needed to open the country's fourth uranium mine at Honeymoon.
The Environmental Protection Authority today granted the mining and
milling licence, clearing the path for developers SXR Uranium One to
begin commercial mining at the site, 80km north west of Broken Hill.
The Rann government has disputed claims that granting the licence would breach the ALP's no-new-mines policy.
The Honeymoon mine will use the contentious underground in-situ leaching method also used at the nearby Beverley mine.
EPA chief executive Paul Vogel said SXR Resources had demonstrated that
it could protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of
radiation.
More than 161 public submissions were received by the Radiation
Protection Committee, established earlier this year to assess the
Honeymoon licence application.
SXR Uranium One board approved plans last month to begin mining at the
mothballed site as early as 2008, and are building a $53 million plant
to produce 400 tonnes of uranium oxide annually.
------------------->
Uranium go-ahead defended
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
September 30, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20500892-2702,00.html
THE final, crucial licence needed to open the country's fourth uranium
mine has been granted by the South Australian Labor Government, but it
insisted the move did not breach the party's no-new-mines policy.
The Environment Protection Authority yesterday granted a mining and
milling licence to developers SXR Uranium One, clearing the way for
work to begin at its Honeymoon site, 80km northwest of Broken Hill.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann -- who has described Labor's uranium
policy as "anachronistic" -- denied that granting the licence breached
the ALP ban on new uranium mines.
"It's an existing mine," a spokesman for the Premier said.
Mr Rann has argued that a mining lease was approved by the previous
Liberal government in 2002, which conveniently places Honeymoon outside
the no-new-mines policy.
The Australian Conservation Foundation said the uranium mine was the
first approved by a Labor administration and broke an election promise.
"Mike Rann gave an election commitment that in this four-year term his
Government would not promote the development of any uranium mines,"
said ACF anti-nuclear campaigner David Noonan. He said Mr Rann "was not
living up to the same standards as his predecessors" who had previously
rejected the mine.
Former Labor premier John Bannon cancelled trials at Honeymoon in 1982.
Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has backed Mr Rann and called for
the no-new-mines policy to be overturned at the party convention next
year.
The SXR Uranium One board approved plans last month to begin mining at
the site as early as 2008, building a $53 million plant to produce 400
tonnes of uranium oxide a year.
------------------->
SA government Honeymoon approval documents ...
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/honeymoon.html
Southern Cross Resources Australia Pty Ltd has applied under the
Radiation Protection and Control Act (1982) for a license for
commercial uranium mining operations at its Honeymoon mine site.
Southern Cross Resources, a subsidiary of SXR Uranium One Inc,
currently holds a license for non-commercial operations at this site.
It currently has an approved Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
Mining Lease and uranium export licence.
The acid In-Situ Leach uranium mining process is the same as that currently used at the Beverley uranium mine.
The EPA Chief Executive is responsible for assessing the application
for a licence under the Radiation Protection and Control Act. The
assessment process determines whether the application satisfies the Act
and associated Regulations and considers whether workers, the public
and the environment are adequately protected from radiological hazards.
The statutory Radiation Protection Committee provides advice to the
Chief Executive regarding the application.
The public was invited to comment on the application. Public submissions closed on 30 June 2006.
Decision by the Chief Executive of the EPA on the Honeymoon Uranium Project Licence Application (65KB PDF)
Summary of public submissions (128KB PDF)
Media release - licence issued to Honeymoon Uranium Project (27KB PDF)
Application documents
To view the following documents you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader,
freely available from Adobe. (Click on the graphic on the right).
Application—Licence to Mine or Mill Radioactive Ore (2.6MB PDF)
Environmental Impact Statement (15MB PDF)
Proposed Radiation Management Plan (210KB PDF)
Proposed Radioactive Waste Management Plan (185KB PDF)
Reference documents
Radiation Protection and Control Act (1982)
www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Catalog/legislation/Acts/r/1982.49.un.htm
CSIRO 2003 Review of the Environmental Impacts of the Acid In-situ
Leach Uranium Mining Process
www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/isl_review.pdf
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency national
Code of Practice and Safety Guide for Radiation Protection and
Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral
Processing
www.arpansa.gov.au/rps9.cfm
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM MINING - ROXBY DOWNS
------------------->
Drilling reveals more uranium, copper and gold at Olympic Dam
Barry Fitzgerald
September 26, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/drilling-reveals-more-uranium-copper-and-gold-at-olympic-dam/2006/09/25/1159036472874.html
BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam in South Australia's outback, already the world's biggest uranium deposit, has just got a lot bigger.
Aggressive drilling by BHP and previous owner WMC Resources has allowed
the June 2006 resource estimate for the ore body to be upgraded more
than 11 per cent.
The upgrade adds more than 188,000 tonnes of uranium — worth close to
$30 billion at current spot prices — to the previous estimate of 1.5
million tonnes, itself accounting for about 40 per cent of the world's
known uranium resources.
And that is before taking into account the additional 5.1 million
tonnes of copper — the main revenue earner at the remote mine site —
indicated by the resource upgrade. The additional 7.5 million ounces of
gold will not hurt, either.
But it is Olympic Dam's status as the world's biggest and growing
uranium deposit that gives the operation its global significance, given
the rush to secure long-term uranium supplies for nuclear power, with
China and India emerging as buyers.
Since acquiring WMC Resources last year for $9.2 billion, BHP has
carried on with an intense drilling program. The drilling has shown the
deposit remains open in several directions — notably to the south — and
at depth.
Results from the drilling will determine the feasibility of a $7-$10
billion expansion of Olympic Dam, which would at least triple annual
production of copper (210,000 tonnes) and uranium (5000 tonnes) through
development of a huge open cut. A feasibility study is due to be
finished at the end of next year.
The rush to secure long-term supplies of uranium comes as new mine
production continues to fall well short of global consumption of 77,000
tonnes a year. The squeeze has been reflected in spot prices surging
from less than $US10 a pound five years ago to more than $US53 a pound.
Australia is scrambling to expand sales options to the boom economies
of China and India. In April, an agreement allowing uranium exports to
China was signed, but that has yet to translate into contract sales.
China is still tipped to be a major buyer of expanded output from
Olympic Dam.
India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but is
pressuring Canberra to find a way around the ban on uranium sales.
The resource upgrade at Olympic Dam was noted without fanfare in the 2006 annual report, released yesterday.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM MINING IN WA ... NOT
------------------->
ABC Last Update: Thursday, August 10, 2006. 10:02am (AEST)
No uranium mining on my watch, Carpenter says
Premier Alan Carpenter says it will take a change of Government before uranium is mined in Western Australia.
Mr Carpenter has told the ABC the South Australian Resources Minister's
pro-uranium comments this week only referred to his state and had no
implication on WA's uranium policy.
Paul Holloway says states like Western Australia are being left behind
in the resources industry because of their anti-uranium stance.
Mr Carpenter says the Labor Party has won two state elections on a
anti-uranium policy and will go to the 2009 poll with the same platform.
He says WA should be concerned about the current uranium debate.
"The issue that I think really needs to be addressed in tandem with
uranium mining in Western Australia is that we have been earmarked
already, potentially, as a site for waste disposal," he said.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM SALES TO RUSSIA
------------------->
Russia to buy Aussie yellowcake
October 18, 2006 12:00am
Article from: AAP
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20602966-663,00.html
Australia is in negotiations to sell uranium to Russia, the Greens say,
as it raised fears of it's 'shocking' nuclear safety record.
In parliament today, Greens senator Christine Milne claimed the
government was holding meetings this week with Russian officials about
the sale of uranium.
"What is clearly happening is that whilst the prime minister is talking
up nuclear power in Australia, behind the scenes his real agenda is
being enacted and that is increasing uranium mining and exports and
uranium enrichment," Senator Milne said.
Despite Russia being part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
Senator Milne said the country had a shocking nuclear safety record.
"Now we find the Russian officials are here organising an agreement
with Australia to sell Australian uranium into Russia, in spite of
Russia's appalling safety record on uranium."
Senator Milne wants the government to explain the details of the alleged deal.
She wants to know how far advanced the negotiations are and, if it goes
ahead, which countries have the potential to access Australian uranium.
Senator Milne said it is not a good time for Australia to be selling uranium overseas, a week after North Korea's nuclear tests.
"If ever there was an example of the link between nuclear power and
nuclear weapons its the proof that the North Korean bomb came from
plutonium," she said.
In parliament today, Finance Minister Nick Minchin would not confirm or deny Senator Milne's claims.
"We only export to those countries who are signatories to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and those countries by which we have bilateral
safeguard agreements," Mr Minchin said.
"Australia has probably the strictest standards with respect to the
export of uranium of any uranium exporting country in the world."
A spokeswoman for Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said she was not aware of any meeting with Russian officials on uranium.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM SALES TO CHINA
------------------->
No way to check use of uranium in China
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
October 06, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20533313-2702,00.html
AUSTRALIAN exports of uranium could be used in China's nuclear weapons
program ... and there is nothing Canberra can do about it.
The Australian Conservation Foundation told a federal parliamentary
inquiry yesterday that a lack of proper safeguards meant Australian
uranium "could disappear off the radar" as soon as it arrived in China.
But the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office has insisted
that China will not use Australian uranium for military purposes
because it has enough already. ASNO director general John Carlson also
cited "open source" information indicating China "ceased production of
fissile material for nuclear weapons some time ago".
ACF spokesman David Noonan said claims that if Australia did not supply
uranium to China somebody else would amounted to "the drug dealer's
defence".
The inquiry is examining the Howard Government's April agreement to export uranium to China.
Mr Noonan said Australian yellowcake would be converted and enriched
with uranium from other countries at facilities in China jointly run by
the military, outside of the International Atomic Energy Agency's
inspection regime. There was no way to adequately monitor whether
uranium was used for nuclear weapons, he said.
The ANSO's submission responding to the ACF's claims was released
yesterday. It said despite concern about China's non-proliferation
record, Beijing "now has in place the policy and export control
framework needed to implement its non-proliferation commitments".
China's appetite for uranium for non-military purposes is expected to
increase four-fold in the next 15 years. It has 10 nuclear power
reactors and plans to build a further 13.
China's uranium demands would be significant and treaties would be the
"optimal" method of securing influence to monitor its use, the
Association of Mining and Exploring Companies submission said.
The federal Government predicted Australia would supply China with up
to a third of its yellowcake needs - 2500 tonnes a year - by 2020,
currently worth $250 million.
BHP Billiton, owner of the Olympic Dam uranium mine, gave evidence
behind closed doors. A $7 billion proposed expansion for the mine would
make the mine the world's largest and BHP Billiton the major
beneficiary of Chinese uranium sales.
------------------->
China 'could use Australian uranium for bombs'
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
October 05, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20529169-2702,00.html
CHINA could siphon off Australian uranium for military purposes because
a bilateral agreement lacked proper safeguards, the Australian
Conservation Foundation told a federal parliamentary inquiry in
Adelaide today.
ACF spokesman David Noonan said claims that if Australia didn't supply
uranium to China somebody else would amounted to "the drug dealers'
defence".
The inquiry is examining the Howard government's April 2006 agreement
to export uranium to China, reversing a long-standing policy not to
supply uranium to the nuclear weapons state.
Mr Noonan said Australian yellowcake would be enriched and converted at facilities in China jointly run by the military.
He said there was no way international or Australian authorities could
adequately monitor or check whether uranium was used for nuclear
weapons.
China's appetite for uranium for non-military purposes is rapidly
increasing. Ten of the world's 442 nuclear power reactors are in China
with plans to build a further 13 and proposals for another 50, the
Association of Mining and Exploring Companies (AMEC) said in its
submission.
China's uranium demands would be "significant," and establishing
treaties the "optimal" method of securing influence to monitor its use,
the AMEC said.
BHP Billiton, which owns the Olympic Dam uranium mine, gave evidence behind closed doors, requesting a private briefing.
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties chairman Dr Andrew Southcott said
the private briefing was necessary to secure the information.
A $7 billion proposed expansion for the mine, to triple output to
15,000 tonnes of uranium oxide annually, would make the mine the
world's largest and BHP Billiton the major beneficiary of China uranium
sales.
The inquiry will hear evidence in Perth tomorrow, Melbourne later this
month with a report and recommendations would be prepared by year's
end, Mr Southcott said.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM SALES TO INDIA + USA REACTOR SUPPLY
------------------->
'No plans' for uranium exports to India
11th October 2006, 10:00 WST
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=9390
Australia has no plans to sell uranium to India, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says.
The government is backing away from recent suggestions that it may be
willing to change its nuclear supply policy in order to sell uranium to
India.
Fears are growing that North Korea's action could fuel a regional arms
race and set back global efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
Liberal backbencher Russell Trood believes the North Korean nuclear test means now is not the time for a change in policy.
In the face of pressure from New Delhi and Washington, the government
had been expected to reverse its policy and supply uranium to India.
Australia's policy currently allows the sale of uranium only to
countries which are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
(NPT).
India, which is not a signatory, is exerting pressure for Australia to reconsider its policy.
Mr Downer on Wednesday denied Australia had any plans to sell uranium to India.
"We've made no decision to sell uranium to India and it's not really an
issue we've given any consideration to in the last few weeks or
months," he told reporters.
"We have no plans to reconsider the issue at all."
Later, during a speech to an energy security conference, Mr Downer
definitely stated: "We're not planning to sell uranium to India."
AAP
------------------->
RPT-India presses nuclear case for uranium with Australia
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD208117.htm
16 Nov 2006 05:46:05 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Repeats to more subscribers)
SYDNEY, Nov 16 (Reuters) - India's finance minister on Thursday pressed
Australia's prime minister to give India access to the country's
uranium, arguing it needs nuclear power if it is to reduce carbon
emissions.
India has sought previously to buy Australian uranium, but Canberra
earlier this year stood by its policy of not selling to countries, such
as India, that have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
India's finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, said he paid
Australian leader John Howard a courtesy visit on Wednesday ahead of a
weekend G20 conference in Melbourne. Australia has more than 40 percent
of the world's known reserves of uranium.
"I did mention that India would expect Australia to support India's
case in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and that we should be allowed
access to uranium," Chidambaram told a briefing, adding that he
believed Howard understood the Indian position.
India has agreed a deal with the United States under which it will
receive U.S. nuclear technology in return for separating its military
and civil nuclear operations and opening civilian plants to inspections.
The agreement, which has been delayed in the U.S. Senate, requires a
rule change by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which oversees
nuclear exports and is divided over the deal.
Chidambaram said India needed to pursue rapid economic growth, but was willing to accept its obligations to control emissions.
"For that I suggest we be given access to technology, especially clean
coal technology and we be given access to uranium so that a significant
proportion of our energy requirements can be met by nuclear energy," he
said.
India currently generates about 3 percent of its total energy
production through nuclear power, and hopes to raise this level to 10
percent, he said.
Australia has 20 nuclear safeguards agreements covering 37 countries
and Howard has long said Australia was keen for further uranium sales.
------------------->
U.S. Senate takes step on India nuclear deal
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16198106.htm
17 Nov 2006 03:15:32 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Updates with Indian reaction, paragraphs 8-10; Bush comment, final paragraphs)
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Nov 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate approved long-stalled
legislation on Thursday that is a key step toward U.S.-India nuclear
cooperation for the first time in three decades.
The vote was 85 to 12 after the Republican-led Senate defeated a
handful of amendments that India said would kill the deal, including a
requirement that New Delhi end military cooperation with Iran. That
amendment failed 59 to 38.
Several more critical approvals -- by Congress, the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group -- are
needed before the agreement can take effect.
But the Senate action put India closer to being able to purchase U.S. nuclear fuel, reactors and related technology.
Critics offered the amendments in an attempt to allay concerns that the
landmark deal would encourage an expanding Indian nuclear weapons
arsenal and spur a regional arms race with nuclear rivals Pakistan and
China.
Senate leaders, under strong pressure from New Delhi, the White House
and well-funded business lobbyists, held the line against what they
considered "killer" proposals.
But they accepted by voice vote an amendment requiring President George
W. Bush to determine that India is "fully and actively" participating
in international efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program before
U.S.-India nuclear cooperation could proceed.
India said it was pleased with the Senate approval but noted that more steps remained.
"Of course we are pleased," a top Indian official, closely involved in negotiating the deal, told Reuters.
"The fact that it is done is good. But what this does is every time a
step is completed, it shifts our focus onto the next one that needs to
be tackled," said the official, who declined to be identified.
The United States has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and is
pushing the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions. Tehran says it
only aims to produce nuclear energy.
IRAN TIES
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California urged her colleagues to go
further and force India to end military ties with Iran, given U.S.
concerns about Tehran's nuclear program, support for "terrorism" and
disruptive role in Iraq.
The United States since 1989 has sanctioned Indian individuals or
companies a half dozen times for transferring nuclear or
chemical-related technology to Iran.
But Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, said the Boxer amendment would kill the
nuclear agreement and undercut U.S. efforts to get India to cooperate
in curbing proliferation.
"This legislation will allow the United States to engage in peaceful
nuclear cooperation while safeguarding U.S. national security and
non-proliferation efforts," he told the Senate.
Lugar, a respected advocate of efforts to stem the spread of weapons of
mass destruction, called the agreement "the most important strategic
diplomatic initiative" undertaken by Bush.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, who will be committee chairman when
Democrats take control of Congress in January and who co-sponsored the
bill with Lugar, stressed the need for cooperation with India, one of
the "pillars of security in the 21st century."
But Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota said the agreement
would enable India -- which never signed the landmark nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty -- to accelerate nuclear arms production,
spurring Pakistan and China to do likewise.
More broadly, Dorgan said, the deal repudiated decades of U.S. policy
of "telling the world it's our responsibility and our major goal to
stop the spread of nuclear weapons."
"It's a horrible mistake," he said.
The deal, bringing India in line with some key international norms, was
reached in principle by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
in July 2005.
It would require the rising South Asian power to open some civilian
nuclear facilities to international inspections, forgo future nuclear
tests and cooperate with the United States and other nations on halting
the spread of nuclear exports.
Amendments that failed would have required India to stop producing
weapons-grade fissile material and undertake non-proliferation
obligations similar to the United States, like not helping non-nuclear
weapons states acquire weapons capability.
Bush, en route to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam, praised the law's passage.
"I appreciate the Senate's leadership on this important legislation and
look forward to signing this bill into law soon," he said in a
statement.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM RESERVES
------------------->
In a nutshell:
* considerable uncertainty about uranium reserves
* but unless there is a massive increase in the rate of uranium
consumption, the problem of limited conventional uranium reserves is
unlikely to be a problem for the nuclear industry for a very long time.
* at the current rate of consumption (67,000 tonnes p.a.), the
estimated total conventional uranium reserves of about 15-18 million
tonnes would suffice for over 200 years.
* lost count of the number of times nuclear critics have claimed that
uranium reserves will be depleted within 20-50 yers or whatever, it is
not accurate.
- JG
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2006
www.iaea.org
International Atomic Energy Agency
<www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/ntr2006.pdf>
(IAEA says: This section is based on the OECD/NEA–IAEA 'Red Book' (OECD
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY–INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Uranium 2005:
Resources, Production and Demand, Publication No. 6098, OECD, Paris
(2006)). More detailed information on IAEA activities concerning
nuclearresources is available in relevant sections of the latest IAEA
Annual Report <www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2005>, at
<www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/nfcms_home.html>, and in Annex
III.)
Identified conventional uranium resources are currently estimated at
3.8 million tonnes (Mt U) for resources recoverable at costs below
$80/kg and at 4.7 Mt U for costs below $130/kg. For reference, the spot
market price of uranium at the end of May 2006 was $112/kg. For both
categories these estimates have increased in the last two years due
both to new discoveries and to the reallocation of some resources from
higher cost categories to lower cost categories.
Undiscovered conventional resources add another estimated 7.1 Mt U at
costs less than $130/kg. This includes both resources that are expected
to occur either in or near known deposits, and more speculative
resources that are thought to exist in geologically favourable, yet
unexplored areas. There are also an estimated further 3.0 Mt U of
speculative resources for which production costs have not been
specified.
Unconventional uranium resources and thorium further expand the
resource base. Unconventional uranium resources include about 22 Mt U
that occur in phosphate deposits and up to 4000 Mt U contained in sea
water. The technology to recover uranium from phosphates is mature,
with estimated costs of $60–100/kg U. The technology to extract uranium
from sea water has only been demonstrated at the laboratory scale, and
extraction costs are currently estimated at $300/kg U.
Thorium is three times as abundant in the Earth's crust as uranium.
Although existing estimates of thorium reserves plus additional
resources total more than 4.5 Mt, such estimates are considered still
conservative. They do not cover all regions of the world, and the
historically weak market demand has limited thorium exploration.
Figure A-6 (NOT INCLUDED IN THESE NOTES - JG) compares the geographical
distribution of identified conventional uranium resources with the
distribution of uranium production in 2004. Three countries —
Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan — account for 50% of the identified
conventional resources and for 60% of production.
Uranium production in 2004 totalled 40 263 t U, only about 60% of the
world's reactor requirements (67 320 t U). The remainder was covered by
five secondary sources:
- stockpiles of natural uranium
- stockpiles of enriched uranium
- reprocessed uranium from spent fuel,
- MOX fuel with U-235 partially replaced by Pu-239 from reprocessed spent fuel, and
- re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails (depleted uranium contains less than 0.7% U-235).
Of these five secondary sources, the largest contributions come from
stockpiles built up from the beginning of commercial exploitation of
nuclear power in the late-1950s through to about 1990. Throughout this
period uranium production consistently exceeded commercial requirements
due mainly to slower than expected growth in nuclear electricity
generation plus high production for military purposes. Since 1990, the
situation has been reversed, and stockpiles have been drawn down.
However, precise information is not readily available, and possible
future political decisions on releasing military material for
commercial purposes add an additional element of uncertainty.
Recycling of spent fuel as MOX fuel has not significantly altered
uranium requirements, given the relatively small number of reactors
using MOX and the limited number of recycles possible using current
reprocessing and reactor technology. Uranium recovered through
reprocessing of spent fuel, known as reprocessed uranium, is currently
recycled only in France and the Russian Federation. Available data
indicate that it represents less than 1% of world requirements.
Depleted uranium stocks are substantial, estimated at about 1.5 Mt U at
the beginning of 2005. Re-enrichment, however, is currently only
economical in centrifuge enrichment plants that have spare capacity and
low operating costs. Complete data are unavailable, but European Union
(EU) statistics show that deliveries of re-enriched tails from the
Russian Federation were 6% of the total uranium delivered to EU
reactors in 2004.
Uranium prices generally declined from the early-1980s until 1994 due
to over-production and the availability of secondary sources, and
between 1990 and 1994 low prices led to significant reductions in many
sectors of the world uranium industry. Beginning in 2001, however, the
price of uranium has rebounded to levels not seen since the 1980s, with
the spot price increasing more than six-fold from 2001 to 2006.
Table A-2 summarizes the potential longevity of the world's
conventional uranium resources. For both the current LWR once-through
fuel cycle and a pure fast reactor fuel cycle, the table estimates how
long conventional uranium resources would last, assuming electricity
generation from nuclear power stays at its 2004 level.
TABLE A-2. Years of Resource Availability for Various Nuclear Technologies
Reactor/Fuel cycle
* 85 years - Years of 2004 world nuclear electricity generation with identified conventional resources (LWR, once-through)
* 270 Years of 2004 world nuclear electricity generation with total conventional resources (LWR, once-through)
* 5000–6000 Years of 2004 world nuclear electricity generation with
identified conventional resources (Pure fast reactor fuel cycle with
recycling)
* 16 000–19 000 Years of 2004 world nuclear electricity generation with
total conventional resources (Pure fast reactor fuel cycle with
recycling)
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
INDONESIA - NUCLEAR POWER
------------------->
Australia 'turning a nuclear blind eye'
From correspondents in Jakarta
November 10, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20738400-1702,00.html
ENVIRONMENTALISTS today accused Australia of turning a blind eye to
Indonesia's plans to build nuclear power plants by agreeing to sign a
security pact next week.
Australia and Indonesia are due to sign a new security treaty on the resort island of Lombok on Monday.
The treaty covers bilateral co-operation in a range of areas, including
defence, counter-terrorism and steps to battle trans-national crime,
but will also cover agreements on nuclear programs.
Indonesia's nuclear power plans were shelved in 1997 in the face of
mounting public opposition and the discovery and exploitation of the
large Natuna gas field. But the plans were floated again last year amid
growing power shortages.
"Australia is closing their eyes to the whole non-transparent process
and only put forward their uranium export business aspect," despite
efforts to support democracy in Indonesia, the Indonesian Anti-Nuclear
Community said.
"It is not fair for Australia to support Indonesia's nuclear program
but prohibit the industry in some of their own states," Dian Abraham,
spokesman for the non-governmental organisation said.
"There seem to be no plans to consult the people in developing nuclear
plans in Indonesia as written in the 1997 Nuclear Energy Act," he said.
Australia holds 40 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves.
Prime Minister John Howard has said Australians "would be foolish, from
the national interest point of view, with our vast resources of
uranium, to say that we are not going to consider nuclear power."
"Indonesia is developing a legal framework for the country's nuclear
industry in preparation for an operational nuclear plant by 2017, as
laid out in the 2005 National Energy Policy," Sukarman Aminjoyo, head
of the National Nuclear Monitoring Body, said.
He said that monitoring body "will open the tender for construction and
operation (for the nuclear power plant) as soon as we have the law
ready."
Indonesia has previously said that it plans to build its first nuclear
power plant, with a capacity of 1000 megawatts, on densely-populated
Java island.
------------------->
Russia to Build Indonesia's First Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/10/16/indonesianpp.shtml
Created: 16.10.2006 11:40 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:40 MSK
(MosNews)
Russia's power grid monopoly UES will build Indonesia's first nuclear power plant, local media reported on Monday, Oct. 16.
The facility will be located in Gorontalo province, Sulawesi Island, in
order to meet long-term demand for electricity there and in nearby
provinces, The Jakarta Post reported.
Gorontalo Governor Fadel Muhamad said the new plant is expected to
start operations by the end of 2007. He also claimed that Gorontalo
would be registered as the first province in Indonesia to enjoy nuclear
electricity.
The nuclear plant would be designed to have a generating capacity of 90
megawatts, which would be sold to state-owned electricity company PT
Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN) at a price one-third lower than that of
conventional electricity.
A cooperation agreement will reportedly be signed by Fadel and UES representatives in Russia.
"The Russian side has prepared everything. It's now waiting for
Gorontalo province's response", Farino Sariowan, an UES project
developer in Indonesia, was quoted as saying.
------------------->
INDONESIA: Russian company to build nuclear power plant
Last Updated 20/10/2006 12:55:21 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/programs/s1769189.htm
Indonesia is the latest Asian country to consider nuclear power.
Government officials are reportedly in talks with a Russian electricity
company to build the nation's first power plant on a floating platform
off the island of Sulawesi. As remarkable as this might seem,
earthquake-prone Indonesia has long held ambitions to meet its energy
needs with the help of nuclear power.
Presenter/Interviewer: Karon Snowdon
Speakers: Former Australian diplomat Richard Broinowski, Adjunct Professor at Sydney University;
Dr Mark Diesendorf, Senior Lecturer, Instiutue of Environmental Studies the University of New South Wales
SNOWDON: Indonesia's central government has dusted off a previously
shelved plan to develop nuclear power with a proposal to build a plan
to build a 1000 megawatt nuclear plant in Java by 2015.
Its yet to the the investment go-ahead.
Though the country has an increasing demand for electricity, dwindling
oil production and growing power shortages. And that means Indonesia,
like others in the region, is looking at the nuclear power idea again
according to a former Australian diplomat, Richard Broinowksi,
BROINOWSKI: You can understand that in this stage when everyone else is
talking nuclear and Australia's very excited about exporting more
uranium, that they should resurrect such a proposal.
SNOWDON: Do you think they'd be any reason for say the Australian
Government to be concerned about Indonesia's nuclear power plant and
ambitions?
BROINOWSKI: I think that probably one would have to turn that question
round. Are the Indonesians concerned about Australia's nuclear plants?
Let's remember that Australia did have an active and open debate about
developing or acquiring nuclear weapons in the Cold War in the 50's and
the 60's. That seems to have receded of course for the time being, but
some Indonesian generals have in fact recently questioned Mr Howard's
proposal to enrich uranium. So one can understand that, the fact that
Mr. Downer's treated that with incredulous content shows that perhaps
we're not in that situation at this time. But I can understand why the
Indonesians are saying such things.
SNOWDON: Richard Broinowski, author of the 2003 book Fact or Fission,
the Truth About Australia's Nuclear Ambitions. Reports in local and
international media suggest the province of Gorontalo in Sulawesi could
be the first site of a nuclear power plant in Indonesia.
According to comments by Gorontalo's Mayor, businessman Fadel Mohammad,
the small plant will generate 90 megawatts of electricity for sale to
the state-owned electricity company PLN. PLN's business manager, Sunggu
Anwar Aritonang, was travelling and could not be reached for comment.
Part of the sales pitch for Gorontalo's proposed nuclear plant is based
on the claim that the electricity generated would be at a third of the
cost of other sources.
Dr Mark Diesendorf from the Environmental Studies Institute at the
University of New South Wales is sceptical and says the nuclear
industry globally has only survived to this point on government
subsidies.
DIESENDORF: There hasn't been a new nuclear power station built in the
United States for nearly 30 years now and the prime reason for that is
bad economics. The cost of a new nuclear power station in the US would
be between 6.7 and 7 and a half US cents per kilowatt hour of
electricity generated.
SNOWDON; So claims in Indonesia that nuclear power could be generated
for half of that, say three and a half cents per kilowatt hour. How
much water does that hold?
DIESENDORF: Oh they're unbelievable.
SNOWDON: Any decision on nuclear power would ultimately lie with the
national government in Jakarta despite the relative autonomy now
enjoyed by the regions following decentralisation some years ago.
But what of the floating plant? Would this also be a first?
DIESENDORF: Well as far as I know, the only nuclear reactors that are
floating are those that drive nuclear submarines at present and they
are very small ones. I guess the other worry is that one would hope
that Indonesia would not choose the kind of reactor that exploded at
Chernobyl.
SNOWDON: On its website, the Russian company that might build the
plant, RAO-UES is described as a dynamically developing transnational
company with more than 20 offshoots in 14 countries. It contains no
information about its Indonesian office.
There's a long way to go yet before its proposal to build Indonesia's
first nuclear power plant might get off the ground if at all.
But according to Richard Broinowski, any plans for power plants,
Australia's included, increase the risk of a diversion into weapons in
Asia.
BROINOWSKI: And yes I think that one leads to the other and we haven't
at present following North Korea's capacity to demonstrate a capacity
to detonate a nuclear weapon. Other countries in the region will be
very much more interested in the nuclear chain than they have been
before.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
THORP UK REPROCESSING ACCIDENT
------------------->
Sellafield fined over leaking nuclear pipe
By Anil Dawar
(Filed: 17/10/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/17/npipe17.xml
The operator of Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant was fined
£500,000 yesterday after 83,000 litres of radioactive acid leaked
out of a broken pipe.
Scientists took eight months to detect the spillage when it should have
been discovered "within days", Carlisle Crown Court heard.
The acid, which contained 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium,
was destined for a sealed concrete holding site at the west Cumbrian
plant but dripped from a crack in the system.
No one was injured in the leak and no radiation escaped, but the plant has been closed ever since it was uncovered.
British Nuclear Group Sellafield was handed the fine after pleading
guilty to three counts of breaching conditions attached to the
Sellafield site licence.
Yesterday's punishment comes on top of a £2million penalty
imposed on BNG Sellafield by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
earlier this year.
News of the fine came on the same day that British Energy announced it
was shutting down key nuclear reactors after discovering cracks inside
boilers.
The discovery forced the firm to shut down its Heysham plant in
Lancashire and prepare to shut down two similar reactors at Hinkley and
Hunterston, in Ayrshire.
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
FUSION
------------------->
Australia urged to warm to fusion reactor
Leigh Dayton, Science writer
October 13, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20572275-2702,00.html
SCIENTISTS hope a meeting in Sydney will help Australia hitch a ride on
an international effort to harness fusion energy, the nuclear reaction
that powers the sun.
Although Australia is not a full member of the $16 billion
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a project official
said he was keen to find a way for the nation's scientists and
engineers to be involved.
"We need to be part of the journey," said Matthew Hole, a physicist
with the Australian National University in Canberra and chair of the
two-day Australian ITER Forum, which ends today. "What will it cost us
to get the technology back later on? To buy back the developed
technology?"
Fusion - discovered in the 1930s by Australian physicist Mark Oliphant
- promises the key to virtually limitless and waste-free energy.
It is in stark contrast to fission, the reaction behind conventional nuclear power plants.
That is why participants in the ITER see the development and
commercialisation of fusion power as a sustainable solution to the
world's long-term energy needs.
The seven ITER partners - Japan, China, India, South Korea, Russia, the
US and the EU - plan to build a trial electricity-generating fusion
reactor in France within the decade. But according to physicist Didier
Gambier - head of the EU's ITER implementation office - Australia has
already "missed the boat" as a full partner in the ITER.
Dr Gambier said the ITER International Agreement was initialled by all parties in May and would be signed next month.
Still, because of Australia's expertise in plasma physics and materials
science, he said the ITER was keen to find a way for local scientists
and engineers to be involved.
Dr Gambier said he had had "informal" discussions with Australian
scientists, as well as government representatives. While they chose not
to be identified, the officials are attending for informational
purposes on behalf of the federal departments of Education, Science and
Training and Industry, Tourism and Resources, as well as the Uranium
Mining and Processing Nuclear Review secretariat.
The forum is timely, as the UMPNR will complete its draft report next
month, with the final document to be tabled in parliament by the end of
the year.
According to Dr Hole, Australia could benefit quickly from participation in the plan.
A large part of the cost of the ITER would be returned to the
construction and hi-tech sectors in the participating nations through
contracts to build the huge new machine, he said. When it is up and
running, the reactor will generate 500 megawatts of fusion power - 10
times more energy than is needed for the reaction.
Atoms of deuterium and tritium - types of hydrogen - would be heated to
about 100 million degrees, causing them to fuse together.
In the process, they would produce helium and energy in the form of high-speed neutrons. The energy would drive turbines.
While the reaction is well understood, developing a safe and reliable
reactor has been difficult, said Dr Gambier. "But if fusion technology
is deployed worldwide the value to Australia would be enormous."
------------------->TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR SMUGGLING
------------------->
Smuggled nuclear waste cases double
Lewis Smith, London
October 07, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20538886-2703,00.html
SEIZURES of smuggled radioactive material capable of making a terrorist
"dirty bomb" have doubled in the past four years, according to official
figures.
Smugglers have been caught trying to traffick dangerous radioactive
material more than 300 times since 2002, statistics from the
International Atomic Energy Agency show. Most of the incidents are
understood to have occurred in Europe.
The disclosures come as al-Qa'ida is known to be intensifying its efforts to obtain a radioactive device.
Western security services, including Britain's MI5 and MI6, last year
thwarted 16 attempts to smuggle plutonium or uranium. On two occasions,
small quantities of highly enriched uranium were reported missing. All
were feared to have been destined for terror groups. Scientists
responsible for analysing the seizures have warned that traffickers are
turning to hospital X-ray equipment and laboratory supplies as a source
of radioactive material.
Investigators believe that the smugglers, who come mainly from the
former Eastern bloc, are interested only in making a swift fortune and
have no idea that their customers are jihadist groups plotting an
atrocity. Most undercover operations and recent seizures have been kept
secret to protect the activities of Western security services.
Rigorous controls on nuclear processors, especially with Russia
co-operating to stop the trafficking of enriched plutonium and uranium,
have limited smugglers' access to weapons-grade nuclear materials. But
medical and laboratory sources, including waste, remain vulnerable.
Such radioactive waste can be used to make a dirty bomb.
A dirty bomb combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with
radioactive material such as spent nuclear fuel, including highly
enriched uranium and plutonium. In most instances, the conventional
explosive would kill more bystanders but the dispersion of the
radioactive material could make it more lethal overall.
There were 103 cases of illicit trafficking last year, compared with
fewer than 30 in 1996. Fifty-eight incidents were reported in 2002,
rising to 90 in 2003 and 130 in 2004.
Seizures of the past three years equal the amount of trafficking in the previous seven years.
Olli Heinonen, deputy director-general of the IAEA, which monitors
trafficking and inspects nuclear plants to audit their radioactive
materials, said that while weapons-grade nuclear-material smuggling was
rare, there were concerns about other radioactive substances.
"A dirty bomb is something that needs to be taken seriously," Mr
Heinonen said. "We need to be prepared for anything because anything
could happen. Terrorists look for the weakest link. We need to be
alert."
Al-Qa'ida makes no secret of its desire to obtain a dirty bomb. Its
leader in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, last month called for scientists to
join it and experiment with radioactive devices for use against
coalition troops.
Even before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Osama bin
Laden invited two Pakistani atomic scientists to visit a training camp
in Afghanistan to discuss how to assemble a bomb using stolen
plutonium. Captured al-Qa'ida leaders have since confessed to the CIA
of their attempts to smuggle a radioactive device into the US.
Klaus Lutzenkirchen, who helps analyse the seized substances, said even
small quantities of radioactive material could be of use to terrorists.
The Times
TOP OF PAGE