Return
to contents
June 9, 2007
In this exciting edition of No Nukes News:
1. UPCOMING EVENTS
* Indigenous Speaking Tour
* Cycle Against the Nuclear Cycle
* Adelaide - Brisbane - Canberra - Melbourne - Perth - Sydney
2. PLEASE ACT NOW
* Support the Peace Convergence - peaceful protests and many other
activities in opposition to military training exercises taking place in
Queensland.
* Support the Pine Gap 4 - currently on trial for their peaceful protest against the spy/military base at Pine Gap
* Support the Kokatha Mula in their struggle against mining companies near Ceduna in SA
* Have your say at SA Democrats' candidates (and former human shield in Iraq) Ruth Russell's webpage:
* Support ICAN - the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
* emergency appeal to help Terri Keko'olani, community organiser
with DMZ Hawai'i Aloha 'Aina, to travel to Australia to help with
protests against the Talisman Saber war games
* FoE cyberaction: ALP uranium decision: it's a long way from a bad policy to a dirty mine
* Online Petition to Demand Trident Cancellation
* Support the US student hunger strike against nuclear weapons
3. IF YOU ONLY READ ONE THING (OR TWO) ...
* Dr. Mark Diesendorf debunks myths about baseload electricity
* Jill Singer: everything you need to know about the corruption of climate change policy in Australia
NUCLEAR NEWS ITEMS posted in these categories:
* New information sources
* Auntie Veronica
* Uncle Kevin
* Australia as the world's nuclear dump
* ASEN launches report on universities & nukes
* Nuclear dump proposed for NT - ALP policy
* Nuclear dump proposed for NT - Muckaty
* Launch of ICAN - International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
* Clean energy - heaps of stuff - solar, wind, wave, geothermal, bioenergy, efficiency, new reports etc
* Transport greenhouse solutions
* Energy efficiency - building standards
* Missile defence - Coalition - ALP
* Nuclear power and climate change - joint statement by Austria, Iceland, Ireland and Norway
* Lucas Heights reactor
* Hugh Morgan pushing reactors + dump
* Institute of Public Affairs and australia's nuclear debate
* Nuclear debates - Australia -various
* Government limits scrutiny of nuclear projects
* Nuclear power for Australia - heaps of stuff - PMs statement - public opinion - state governments' opposition etc etc.
* UK body snatchers
* Nuclear waste - Sweden
* Nuclear power/weapons in the Middle East
* Nuclear accidents in Japan
* Nuclear power - economics
* Nuclear power - USA - economics / subsidies
* Missile defence - Australia / China / USA
* Veterans of British bomb tests
* Nuclear weapons - usa and china
* Uranium - heaps of stuff, most of it depressing
* Environmental racism
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - INDIGENOUS SPEAKING TOUR
(For Indigenous Speaking Tour events in Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, see city listings below.)
"From the heart, for the heartland"
Traditional owners speak out: NO radioactive waste dump in the NT!
This month, Indigenous traditional owners and community members from
areas proposed for the federal radioactive waste dump are undertaking a
national speaking tour. Timed to coincide with the announcement
of the Federal Government’s preferred dump site, the tour is an
opportunity for national audiences to hear how the dump proposal is
impacting the targeted communities in the Northern Territory. Speakers
will share their stories and experiences and raise concerns related to
contamination of the country that sustains their communities,
livelihoods and traditional culture.
Speakers confirmed for the tour include:
Mt Everard traditional owners Audrey McCormack and Benedict Stevens
Harts Range community members Priscilla Williams and Mitch
Muckaty traditional owner Dianne Stokes
Kalumpurlpa community member Steve Atkinson
Top End Aboriginal Conservation Alliance (TEACA) coordinator and Larrakia Nations’ representative Donna Jackson
Katherine No Dump Action Group founder Vina Hornsby
As well as meetings with local, state and federal politicians, social
justice and environment groups, public meetings are being held in each
city, incorporating speakers, an exhibition of artworks from affected
communities, photos of the proposed dump sites and a short film.
The speaking tour aims to confront and dispel the myth used to justify
nuclear activities in Australia; that remote areas are uninhabited and
lifeless places. Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop suggested that
all of the proposed waste dump sites are "some distance from any form
of civilisation" when in fact, there are communities living and running
successful enterprises three, five and eighteen kilometres away from
the three areas currently being assessed.
This is a unique opportunity for people hear first hand, the impact of
the Federal radioactive waste dump proposal on remote and indigenous
communities. With Australia poised to expand involvement in the global
nuclear industry, the public forums will encourage discussion of
domestic radioactive waste management issues, social and environment
concerns regarding the NT dump proposal and ways people interstate can
engage with and support the NT community campaign.
For more information contact the speaking tour coordinator:
Natalie Wasley, 0429 900 774, [email protected]
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - CYCLE AGAINST THE NUCLEAR CYCLE
------------------->
Website: http://canc.org.au
Northern leg:
Start: Rockhampton Mon, 25 Jun
Finish: Canberra Sun, 02 Sept
Southern leg
Start: Canberra Mon, 03 Sept
Finish: Port Augusta Fri, 02 Nov
How you can help (see web for details)
- join the ride
- donate
- buy a t-shirt
- Tell people about CANC and our website.
- Put up a poster or hand out some flyers for us, You can download PDFs
of our poster and a couple of different versions of the flyer from
Print resources page
- If you are interested in being involved please let us know rough dates you might be riding with us.
- if you're part of a local environment group or have connections with
a school in an area CANC rides through and would like to help us
organise an event in your area, check the itinerary for good dates
email us some details.
- If you, your organisation or someone would like to help with
sponsorship, both financial and in-kind (food, bike parts, spare
cooking equipment etc) email us some details.
Email: [email protected]
Beck Pearse
0405 105 101
[email protected]
Evan Wills
0414 604 641
[email protected]
Georgina Pike
0431 303 084
[email protected]
Moz
0406 853 430
[email protected]
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - ADELAIDE
------------------->
Friends of the Earth Adelaide
FoE Adelaide Clean Futures Collective meetings - every Tuesday night
at 5.30pm at the Conservation Centre, 120 Wakefield St, Adelaide. All
welcome.
http://www.geocities.com/olympicdam
http://cleanfutures.blogspot.com
[email protected]
0403 886951, 8227 1399
The meeting on the fourth Tuesday of every month is dedicated to
welcoming new members and holding a workshop/skillshare.
------------------->
Wednesday 13 June
"From the heart, for the heartland"
Northern Territory Traditional Owners speak out
Wednesday 13 June 2007
6.00pm for a 6.30pm start;
Lecture Theatre HH4-08, Level 4 Hans Heysen Building, UniSA City
West, off Hindley Street, Adelaide
(Venue map at http://www.unisa.edu.au/about/campuses/cwmap.asp)
Presented by the Arid Lands Environment Centre and Friends of the Earth
Adelaide and supported by the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre at UniSA.
Timed to coincide with the announcement of the Federal Government's
preferred radioactive waste dump site, indigenous leaders and
community members from the Northern Territory will be undertaking a
national speaking tour. The tour will discuss the dump proposal's
impacts on targeted communities in the Northern Territory. Speakers
will share their stories and raise their concerns regarding
contamination of the country that sustains their communities,
livelihoods and traditional culture.
Speakers include:
- Mt Everard traditional owners Audrey McCormack and Benedict Stevens
- Harts Range community members Priscilla Williams and Mitch
- Muckaty traditional owner Dianne Stokes
- Larrakia Nations' representative Donna Jackson.
This is a unique opportunity to hear, first hand, the impact of the
Federal radioactive waste dump proposal on remote and indigenous
communities. With Australia poised to expand involvement in the
global nuclear industry, this public forum confronts the human
impacts of domestic radioactive waste management issues and the
serious social, environmental and justice concerns regarding the
Northern Territory dump proposal and offers just and equitable ways
forward.
The evening will comprise speakers, an exhibition of artworks from
affected communities, photos of the proposed dump sites and a short
film.
For more information, contact Joel Catchlove at
[email protected], or on 0403 886 951.
------------------->
CALLING ALL ARTISTS!!
Friends of the Earth Adelaide are seeking your donated artwork for an
ART AUCTION to raise funds to support Indigenous traditional owners
from the Northern Territory in their campaign against the Federal
government’s attempts to impose a nuclear waste dump on their
traditional lands.
All works are accepted (including sculpture, weaving, glassblowing,
jewelry, framed and unframed paintings, new and old works etc), and
specially produced works are particularly welcome.
Works are needed before 20th July 2007.
To register your interest and find out more, contact Sophie at
[email protected] or 0422 487 219.
Expose your work to new audiences!
Support Friends of the Earth!
Saturday 4 August - FoE Adelaide Art Auction!
North Adelaide Institute (community centre), 176 Tynte St, North
Adelaide.
Viewing 4-7pm, Auction at 7pm!
Food and drink available.
The art auction is to raise funds to support Indigenous traditional
owners from the Northern Territory in their campaign against the
Federal Government's attempts to impose a nuclear waste dump on their
traditional lands. Please contribute your work (specially produced
works are particularly welcome!), spread the word, and come along on
the night!
www.foe.org.au
http://cleanfutures.blogspot.com
------------------->
JUNE
Saturday 16, 7pm, Students of Sustainability Benefit Gig, The Duke, 81
Currie St, $10, featuring John Woods, Modulus, Business As Usual, Les
Tazos, Bennie Raw
A night of reggae, folk, roots, trip-hop, electronica, tribal-tech, dub and dancehall
------------------->
JUNE
Sunday 17, 12noon - 4.00pm, Community Garden Gathering, Kurruru
Pingyarendi Garden, Gilles Plains Community Campus, 489b North East
Road, Hillcrest, bring food, seeds and seedlings to share, tours,
networking, trading table.
------------------->
JUNE
Sunday 17, 3pm, 'A Crude Awakening: the oil crash', NOWAR film fundraiser, Palace Cinemas, $10/$15, 0414 773 918 to book.
------------------->
JUNE
Thursday 21, 7.00pm, 'Blowin' in the Wind' free screening, Conservation Centre, phone Richard 0421 188 873
------------------->
The Conservation Council of SA has instigated a new Roxby mine
expansion working group. Friends of the Earth Adelaide is a key
participant in this group, and additional interested groups or
individuals are invited to participate. Details are available from
the Conservation Council <www.ccsa.asn.au>
------------------->
Big congrats to the three winners of the 2007 Conservation Council of
SA Jill Hudson Award for Environmental Protection:
- Arabunna elder Uncle Kevin Buzzacott for his commitment to protect
his traditional country from the impacts of the Olympic Dam copper-
uranium mine.
- Sophie Green and Joel Catchlove for their work with FoE Adelaide
for energising the campaign in Adelaide against the expansion of the
nuclear industry.
------------------->
Saturday 23 June - Clean Futures Collective Strategy Day!
We're holding an all-day strategy session to cook up a solid long- term
strategy for our nukes/energy campaign. Please feel free to come along
and be part of it! It will be held at a beautiful property at Basket
Range, and people are welcome to camp both on the night before and the
night of the strategy day. Contact [email protected] if
interested.
------------------->
JUNE
Saturday 23, 11.00am, Talisman Sabre Protest, Parliament House, North Tce, phone Richard 0421 188 873 for details
------------------->
JUNE
Tuesday 26, FoE New Members Night, starring Joel Catchlove on 'Food
Sovereignty: a new global movement'; 5.30pm for new members intro to
FoE, 6.00pm quick meeting, 6.30pm presentation, bring food to share
------------------->
Thursday 28 June - New food campaign brainstorming night!
6pm, Conservation Centre, 120 Wakefield St, Adelaide.
This is the first meeting of FoE Adelaide's first dedicated food campaign!
The campaign will encompass global and local issues related to
agriculture and trade policy, as well as having a strong emphasis on
local, practical food production and community building. Contact
[email protected] for more info.
Friends of the Earth Adelaide is growing a new community food
campaign, and we want you to be part of it!
The campaign seeks to draw together community members passionate about
contemporary food issues. We intend to campaign both on national and
global issues of agriculture and trade policy (for example, food
sovereignty, the impact of Free Trade Agreements or corporate control
of food production and retailing) as well as having a strong emphasis
on local, practical food production and community building. What the
details of all this might be, however, are up to you!
------------------->
JULY
Friday 6 - Sunday 8, Friends of the Earth Australia Mid-year Meeting, near Melbourne
------------------->
JULY
Monday 9 - Sunday 15, Students of Sustainability, Perth
------------------->
Sunday 15 July - Saturday 22 July - next Nepabunna community work trip.
This Friends of the Earth initiated trip sees a group going up to
Nepabunna indigenous township (Adnyamathanha land) in the Gammon Ranges
twice yearly, and doing volunteer work in the bush tucker garden,
maintenance, childcare, and other projects. The July trip may be
already full, but email [email protected] to register interest in
future trips! (will be one in either October or December).
------------------->
AUGUST
Saturday 4, FoE Art Auction, North Adelaide Town Hall, viewing 4-7pm, auction 7pm onwards
Monday 6, Hiroshima Day
Thursday 9, Nagasaki Day; International Day of the World's Indigenous People
* FoE Adelaide to host 'Inhabited' exhibition *
------------------->
SEPTEMBER
Friday 7 - Sunday 9, APEC Summit, Sydney
Wednesday 27, Maralinga Day
------------------->
OCTOBER
Wednesday 17 - Sunday 21, Nightcap Forest Festival, Northern NSW,
music, film, workshops, forums, contact [email protected]
for more information
------------------->
MEMBERSHIP
As an independent environmental and social justice advocacy
organisation, Friends of the Earth Adelaide depends on the support of
its members and volunteers to keep it going. If you are not already a
member, please consider joining us. Your membership directly funds
our campaigns and helps maintain our independence from government and
corporate funding. The membership fee is as little as $30 concession
a year. A membership form is attached to this email.
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - BRISBANE
------------------->
BOOK LAUNCH & SYMPOSIUM, DR MARK DIESENDORF: "GREENHOUSE SOLUTIONS WITH SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
This book discusses technologies the various technologies that have
been put forward as solutions to the greenhouse crisis, including
efficient energy use, renewable energy, coal with the capture and
burial of CO2, gas and transport systems; and their implementation
strategies.
Brisbane 2 July
5.30-7.30 pm at Brisbane Room, Brisbane Town Hall
Chair: Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe
Organiser: Friends of the Earth, Brisbane.
www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/news.html
------------------->
Peace Convergence events - details at www.peaceconvergence.com
JUNE 12 CREW A YACHT TO THE PEACE CONVERGENCE
Jamie is looking for 2 crew members to accompany him in his yacht, and
'Rashide' top the PC. It will take about a week to get up to
Yeppoon and we will be leaving on the 12th of June. Following the
action on the 19th - 22nd. I will probably continue up the Whitsundays
for a bit and then come back down. Jamie 0402622279
[email protected]
JUNE 16: PEACE GIG - CONCERT FOR PEACE
June 16 Saturday - 7pm, South Leagues Club, West End.
TWO STAGES: Acts inlcude: Ghostwriters (feat. Midnight Oil's Rob Hirst
and Martin Rotsey), Bomba (Reggae), Grassroots Street Orchestra, The
Kidney Thieves, Dead Riot, Skins (feating members of Blue King Brown),
Barleyshakes, Jason Castle + speakers
This fun event will kick off the week of action against War Games (June 18-
24) at Shoalwater Bay. Peace Convergence participants from
Melbourne and Shoalwater will be at the gig and then make their
way up Shoalwater (north of Rockhampton) for a week of peaceful
resistance to the Talisman Sabre US-AUS war games. Fundraiser for
the Peace Convergence action and legal fund!
JUNE 18-24: PEACE CONVERGENCE: STOP THE TALISMAN SABRE WAR GAMES
June 18 (Mon) -24 (Sunday) - with major convergence on weekend of June
22-24 Shoalwater Bay Region (just north of Rockhampton) The Peace
Convergence is a week of non violent resistance to war and war games
time d to coincide with the largest ever military exercises to take
place in Australia - U.S. - Aust Joint war games, Operation Talisman
Sabre 07.
Around 30, 000 troops will practice live firing, bombing and land and
sea manouvers in the Great Barrier Reef marine park, and adjacent
RAMSAR listed Shoalwater Bay area using nuclear powered vessels and
potentially carrying nuclear weapons and adjacent RAMSAR listed
Shoalwater Bay area. FoE has played a major role in responding to
military exercises in the region and in coordinating Peace Convergence
activities; Join us for action at Shoalwater - or find out how
you can take action at home! see our website for more info or
visit: www.peaceconvergence.com
PEACE BUS: Leaving Brisbane - twice during the week of action! more info
see: www.peaceconvergence.com or call FoE!
GIVE US YOUR OLD SHOES!!
We are still collecting 655 pairs of shoes, each pair
representing a thousand deaths since the Iraq war began. The
shoes will be made into an installation to build awareness on the
ongoing war and Talisman Sabre 07 US-Australia joint war games
taking place in Qld May to July this year. You can drop them off
at the FoE Office - 294 Montague Rd, West
End, Brisbane. Call Kim for more info on 0413 397 839
Peace Convergence Tshirts
To order a PC t-shirt ($15 + $5 postage) send a cheque/money order
payable to Brisbane Anti-Bases Coalition, PO Box 5829, West End Qld
4101. Available in women's (sizes 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 & 18 - white
only) and unisex designs (m, l, xl & xxl - white, bone & snow
marle: nb these are biggish sizes). "Peace Convergence Stop the
Talisman Sabre Wargames". Please indicate size and postal
address!!
------------------->
Brisbane Street Theatre/Parade to oppose Talisman Sabre 07 War Games
"Dancing to the beat of a different drum" to begin the Peace
Convergence. A visual procession aimed at seizing the media initiative
from the Australian and US military before the war games start
<www.peaceconvergence.com>
Date: Saturday 16th June
Time: 10.30am briefing for 11.30am start. Sharp!
Place: Meet at St Mary's Church, Merivale St West End, Brisbane.
Contact: David Bradbury 02 6684 0015 or Annette Brownlie 0431 597 256
**Come dressed in your Sunday best and bring a pair of shoes or two!!
Brisbanites and people coming from further a field for the Peace
Convergence are invited to be involved in what we hope will be a huge
stylised street march through West End, Brisbane on the morning of 16th
June.
David Bradbury writes "This is how I ideally imagine the Saturday
morning street theatre – all designed to appeal visually to the
media so they will cover it and have it on their 6pm tv nightly news
that night and in the Sunday morning tabloid papers.
------------------->
FOE Brisbane ANTI-NUKE COLLECTIVE MEETINGS
Generally meets every 1st and 3rd Tuesday 6pm FoE House - 294 Montague
Road West End - please call to confirm Robin 0411 118 737
"Groundswell" newsletter or Friends of the Earth Brisbane - Autumn, 2007.
Is uranium mining in the smart state's future?, Peace Convergence 2007,
Citizens Guide to Climate Justice, Pirates of Compassion: saving whales in
the Southern Whale Sanctuary, FoEB events...and much more
http://www.brisbane.foe.org.au/news.htm
------------------->
QUEENSLAND NUCLEAR FREE ALLIANCE MEETINGS fortnightly Thursdays For meeting
details contact Robin 0411 118 737
STALLS:
Caboolture Region Env. Council space Brisbane World Environment Day - June 9 - Queens Park, City
------------------->
QNFA member groups are in need of volunteers:
1. GRAPHIC DESIGNER - Food Irradiation Watch are in need of a graphic
designer to help put together the second edition of the highly
successful "Irradiation Free Food Guide". See their website for more
info about the guide. http://www.foodirradiationinfo.org Email FIW at
[email protected]
2. Friends of the Earth: HELP WANTED!!! Get active - Get involved!!!!
Volunteers needed in the following exciting areas:
FEAST FOR THE SENSES - Catering and events staff: FoE?s signature
ethical feast and music night will be happening in Sept/Oct this
year. We need your musical talent, culinary skills, or just your
enthusiasm to lend a hand to this important and delicious
awareness/fund - raising event!
FoE FINANCE OFFICER - Do you have a few hours to spare each month and
financial skills just waiting for worthy organization? If so, we
need your help with bookkeeping - bill paying and day to day
administration of our very tight budget!!!!
OFFICE STAFF - Like meeting and talking to people? Got some
time to spare on a regular basis? Want to support your favorite
grassroots organization
in a behind the scenes kind of way? We need you to join our team of office
Volunteers - to answer phones, great visitors and do general tasks that help
FoE keep on keeping on!
VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR - Good with people, well organised - like to delegate?
If you have some regularly available time, a good sense of humour, a
lot of patience, organisational skills and enjoy working with
volunteers, we need you to help coordinate general and campaign
specific FoE volunteers.
TAX APPEAL TELEPHONE CALLERS - Yup! It?s that time of the year - Tax
Time - once again, time for FoE?s annual Tax Time Appeal/Donation
drive. As a volunteer-based community organisation that accepts
no funding from government, FoE needs all the ethical
financial help we can get! If you have some
time to spare before the next financial year and don?t mind talking to
nice people you never met before on the phone about money- join us in
phoning FoE friends and networks to help us raise well-needed funds to
support our campaigns and community action. PS - if you don?t
have time to help out with phoning - we would gladly accept your
support in the form of other administrative support during the Tax
Appeal or a donation!!!!
For more information about volunteer positions, meetings and events contact:
Friends of the Earth Office: (07) 3846 5793 Robin?s Mobile: 0411 118 737
Email: [email protected]
------------------->
Ecological and Social Justice - forum and discussion
Date: June 21 (Thu) 2007
Time: 6:30 for 7pm
Place: Brisbane Workers Community Centre
2 Latrobe Tce Paddington
------------------->
Sustainability and Food - forum and discussion
Date:, July 19 (Thu) 2007
Time: 6:30 for 7pm
Place: Brisbane Workers Community Centre
2 Latrobe Tce Paddington
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - CANBERRA
------------------->
BOOK LAUNCH SYMPOSIA, DR MARK DIESENDORF: "GREENHOUSE SOLUTIONS WITH
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
This book discusses technologies the various technologies that have
been put forward as solutions to the greenhouse crisis, including
efficient energy use, renewable energy, coal with the capture and
burial of CO2, gas and transport systems; and their implementation
strategies..
Canberra 27 June, 5.30-7.30 pm
Building 3T (Fellows Lane Cottage,
immediately to the north of Law Faculty)
Organiser: Nature & Society Forum
Speakers: Dr Mark Diesendorf and Dr Hugh Saddler
www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/news.html
------------------->
"Visions of Peace,"
Parliament House, on Wednesday,
13 June from 12:00 to 2:00 pm, with some Bega folks who are bringing Jane
Goodall Peace Doves.
Organised by the Talisman Sabre '07 PEACE
CONVERGENCE group here in
Canberra: We meet TUESDAYS at 11:00 am at
Hudson's Cafe in the
Botanical Gardens. Contact Benjo <[email protected]>
NO MORE WAR 'GAMES' | MILITARY EXERCISES COST THE EARTH | USE OUR
RESOURCES FOR HEALTH, EDUCATION and WELFARE, NOT WAR
Contact Sue Andrew 6494 9544 or <[email protected]>.
------------------->
Indigenous Speaking Tour
From the Heart, For the Heartland
National Speaking Tour
Traditional Owners Speak Out: NO Radioactive Waste Dump in the NT
Speakers~art~photos~films
Canberra Public Meeting
June 21, 6pm
Legislative Assembly, London Circuit, Civic
Contact: Inge Arnold 0418 345 686
[email protected]
Speakers include:
* Mt Everard traditional owners Audrey McCormack and Benedict Stevens
* Harts Range community members Priscilla Williams and Mitch
* Muckaty traditional owner Dianne Stokes
* Kalumpurlpa community member Steve Atkinson
* Top End Aboriginal Conservation Alliance (TEACA) coordinator Donna Jackson
* Katherine No Dump Action Group members Vina Hornsby and Petrina Ariston
Proudly supported by: The Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund), Northern
Territory Government, Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of
the Earth, The Wilderness Society, Medical Association for the
Prevention of War, Australian Student Environment Network, Arid Lands
Environment Centre, The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre, Nuclear
Free Australia.
For more information or to make a donation to please contact tour
coordinator Natalie Wasley; 0429 900 774 , [email protected]
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - MELBOURNE
------------------->
Say No To Ziggy's Nuclear Illusion
Tuesday June 12 @ 6pm
Prince Phillip Theatre
Architecture Building
The University of Melbourne, Parkville
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Chairman Ziggy
Switovski will speak on climate change and the role of nuclear energy
at a special public forum put on by the University of Melbourne and the
Australian Institute of Physics. This is no genuine debate about energy
climate change, or nuclear safety. The only speaker invited is
pro-nuclear Ziggy.
Admission is free. But you have to book. Bookings: Email:
<[email protected] with "Switkowski" in the subject
heading. or phone (03) 8344 1019.
Please be early to hand out anti-nuclear flyers and blow rasberrys at Ziggy.
------------------->
When: Wednesday 13 June, 6.30pm
Where: Lentils is Anything, Abbotsford Convent, 1 St Heliers St,
Abbotsford
What: A delicious vegetarian banquet, accompanied by the dulcet tones of
acoustic guitar. After dinner a there will be a talk on climate justice
by a leading expert in the field. There will also be an art auction of
work kindly donated by assorted local artists.
Cost: $40 waged, $20 unwaged
Why: This fundraiser is to raise money to get students from around
Victoria sustainably to Perth for the annual Students of Sustainability
Conference (SoS). SoS is a conference of communities, students,
academics, and environment and Indigenous groups from around Australia,
featuring inspiring speakers, practical workshops, community nights,
bands, films, field trips, actions, reflection, dialogue, celebration.
SoS is the reason many young environmentalists go onto become life-long
social change makers, it inspires people to become active, opens them
up to new ideas and equips them with skills to make change. SoS is
essential to the continuation of a vibrant student environment
movement. Please show your support for this amazing conference by
attending Sustenance for Students of Sustainability!
Places are limited please RSVP by Monday 11 June to Nicky at
[email protected]
------------------->
Indigenous Speaking Tour
From the Heart, For the Heartland
National Speaking Tour
Traditional Owners Speak Out: NO Radioactive Waste Dump in the NT
Speakers~art~photos~films
Melbourne Public Meeting
June 18, 6pm
Trades Hall, New Council Chambers
Contact: Michaela Stubbs 0429 136 935
[email protected]
Speakers include:
* Mt Everard traditional owners Audrey McCormack and Benedict Stevens
* Harts Range community members Priscilla Williams and Mitch
* Muckaty traditional owner Dianne Stokes
* Kalumpurlpa community member Steve Atkinson
* Top End Aboriginal Conservation Alliance (TEACA) coordinator Donna Jackson
* Katherine No Dump Action Group members Vina Hornsby and Petrina Ariston
Proudly supported by: The Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund), Northern
Territory Government, Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of
the Earth, The Wilderness Society, Medical Association for the
Prevention of War, Australian Student Environment Network, Arid Lands
Environment Centre, The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre, Nuclear
Free Australia.
For more information or to make a donation to please contact tour
coordinator Natalie Wasley; 0429 900 774 , [email protected]
------------------->
Non-violent National Peace Convergence – Shoalwater, Bay, Qld. 18-24 June 2007 <www.peaceconvergence.com>
Join the Melbourne Peace Train Contingent to National Peace Convergence. Call Kristy: 0421 323 839.
------------------->
Hiroshima Day
Sunday, August 5
12.30pm @ State Library
------------------->
Hello Friends,
My name's Jana, I volunteer with an organisation named OzGREEN who
facilitate transformative learning and leadership programs for
sustainability by enabling people to harness their inner wisdom,
creativity and intelligence to build pathways to an ecologically and
socially sustainable future.
Here are 2 upcoming programs in Melbourne you (or someone you know) may
be interested in. Both programs are wonderful value-adds and will
enhance what you're already doing in the world, while helping you step
closer to YOUR visions for the future.
Upcoming Melbourne programs:
Leading with the Heart (adults of all ages) – Healesville – 22-24 June
Youth LEAD (15-25) – Healesville – 30 June–2 July
Empowering people to make their unique contribution to the planet;
these programs begin with a 3-day residential workshop that enables you
to focus on what you're concerned about, vision how you'd like things
to be, determine some ways to get there and develop a plan of action
that aligns with who you are and what's important to you.
It's also a chance to reflect on what you're already doing, recharge,
be inspired and meet like-minded people. Not to mention all the
fabulous vegetarian food and barrells of fun! After the workshop,
there's ongoing support as well as the space to connect and network
with other YouthLEADers, HeartLeaders, other Oz GREEN programs and to
train as a facilitator or mentor if you wish.
Please distribute this opportunity through all of your networks and
have a look at the attachments for all the information. Feel free to
contact myself or Wendy (program co-ordinator) if you'd like to know
more.
Cheers!
Jana Michaels
Trainee Facilitator
(e) [email protected]
(m) 0425 729 623
Wendy Hopkins
Sustainability Educator and Victorian programs coordinator
Oz GREEN
http://www.ozgreen.org.au
Melbourne office
P 03 9341 8104
M 0409 670 395
F 03 9341 8199
E [email protected]
Level 2, 60 Leicester St, Carlton VIC 3053
(with Environment Victoria)
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - PERTH
------------------->
BOOK LAUNCH & SYMPOSIUM
DR MARK DIESENDORF: "GREENHOUSE SOLUTIONS WITH SUSTAINABLE ENERGY (UNSW Press, 2007)
This book discusses technologies the various technologies that have
been put forward as solutions to the greenhouse crisis, including
efficient energy use, renewable energy, coal with the capture and
burial of CO2, gas and transport systems; and their implementation
strategies.
Perth held 8 May 4.30–6.30 pm at Alinta, Level 6, 12–14 The Esplanade.
Organiser: WA Solar Energy Society.
Speaker: Dr Mark Diesendorf
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - SYDNEY
------------------->
Invitation
Film and Public Meeting
Stop Talisman Sabre 07
Stop War Games
§ Film
"Hard Rain" latest film by David Bradbury.
Speeches,
Raffles and other fundraising activities for the campaign to Stop TS07 called ‘The Peace Convergence’.
At: Freethought Bookshop
58 Regent St,
Chippendale
Time: 7 pm
Date: Sunday, June 10th
Organised by the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, PO Box A899,
Sydney South, NSW 1235. website: www.anti-bases.org, or
mobile: 0418
290 663
------------------->
Wednesday 13 June
"From the heart, for the heartland"
Northern Territory Traditional Owners speak out
Sydney Public Meeting
June 25, 6pm
Redfern Community Centre
29-53 Hugo Street, Redfern
Contact: Adam Wolfenden 0401 045 536
[email protected]
Timed to coincide with the announcement of the Federal Government's
preferred radioactive waste dump site, indigenous leaders and
community members from the Northern Territory will be undertaking a
national speaking tour. The tour will discuss the dump proposal's
impacts on targeted communities in the Northern Territory. Speakers
will share their stories and raise their concerns regarding
contamination of the country that sustains their communities,
livelihoods and traditional culture.
Speakers include:
- Mt Everard traditional owners Audrey McCormack and Benedict Stevens
- Harts Range community members Priscilla Williams and Mitch
- Muckaty traditional owner Dianne Stokes
- Larrakia Nations' representative Donna Jackson.
This is a unique opportunity to hear, first hand, the impact of the
Federal radioactive waste dump proposal on remote and indigenous
communities. With Australia poised to expand involvement in the
global nuclear industry, this public forum confronts the human
impacts of domestic radioactive waste management issues and the
serious social, environmental and justice concerns regarding the
Northern Territory dump proposal and offers just and equitable ways
forward.
The evening will comprise speakers, an exhibition of artworks from
affected communities, photos of the proposed dump sites and a short
film.
For more information, contact Joel Catchlove at
[email protected], or on 0403 886 951.
------------------->
PLEASE ACT NOW
------------------->
Talisman Sabre 2007
US and Australian war training
<www.peaceconvergence.com>
Talisman Sabre is the name of the largest ever military training
exercises, scheduled for May/June 2007 and planned to involve over
30,000 US military personnel.
The 'Peace Convergence' is the answer to this, a network of peace
activists, committed to challenging the war in nonviolent and creative
ways. We will be travelling up to Shoalwater Bay during the excercises
to demonstrate Australian oposition to the use of our soil for US
training exercises.
If you'd like to get involved, check the website:
<www.peaceconvergence.com>
------------------->
Support the Pine Gap 4
At dawn on December 9, 2005 a 'Citizen's Inspection' of Pine Gap took
place causing Pine Gap to shut down for five hours. The reason? A group
of four Christian pacifists had entered the base, seeking to expose the
terrorist acts perpetrated from inside the base (while two others
supported the action without entering the base).
To support their work including their legal battle, check this website:
<www.pinegap6.org> and <www.pinegapontrial.blogspot.com>
They have created a Yahoo group for supporters, to send out up-dates
and information on how you can support the four and become involved in
the trial and the campaign to Expose Pine Gap. Its easy to join the
group: just send an e-mail to:
<[email protected]>
with subscribe in the subject line.
------------------->
Support the Kokatha Mula in their struggle against mining companies
* Fill out the form letter on the Kokatha Mula website
<kokathamula.auspics.org> or write your own and send it to SA
pollies (notably Premier Mike Rann, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Jay
Wheatherill and Environment Minister Gail Gago).
* Organise an information and/or fundraiser event.
* Order a copy of the slide show and/or documentary.
* Help research the companies and proposals involved.
* Purchase Kokatha Mula products or campaign merchandise (email for details).
* Come on one of the twice annual rockhole cleaning trips.
* Donate phone credit, fuel vouchers, satellite phone, food supplies, camping gear or office materials.
Donate money to:
Bank Sa/St Georges Bank
Acc Name: Kokatha Mula Nation far west division Aboriginal Cooporation
Acc #: 105100032491240
More Info and contact:
* <http://kokathamula.auspics.org>
Email: [email protected]
Post: FAR WEST DIVISION ABORIGINAL CORPORATION
PO BOX 484, CEDUNA SA 5690
Ph: 0428 872375.
------------------->
Have your say at SA Democrats' candidates (and former human shield in Iraq) Ruth Russell's webpage:
http://www.ruthrussell.net/campaigns/nuclearpoll
------------------->
Support ICAN
"We are told by some governments that a Nuclear Weapons Convention is
premature and unlikely - don't believe it - we were told the same thing
about a Mine Ban Treaty."
Jody Williams, Nobel Laureate, International Campaign to Ban Landmines
Dear Colleagues,
ICAN is a new campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, launched by
the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and
growing daily. Organisations and individuals are getting involved
because nuclear weapons are not like other weapons - there is no other
weapon that can kill hundreds of millions of people in a few hours and
bring about the end of human civilisation.
Watch our 6 minute ICAN film - feel free to copy and distribute: http://www.icanw.org/launch-video
Sign the ICAN petition - it will be presented annually to the nuclear
terror states at the UN: http://www.icanw.org/petition
Get informed about nuclear dangers and solutions: http://www.icanw.org
Get involved, there are 10 things you can do today: http://www.icanw.org/take-action
Download Securing our Survival (SOS): The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention: http://www.icanw.org/publications
The 27,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of 9 States are illegal,
immoral and genocidal; they can destroy our cities, health, water
catchments and our food chain, and they routinely deplete enormous
funds and attention from achieving human security. Nuclear weapons have
no legitimate purpose. To possess them and thereby threaten their use
is utterly immoral. They are the ultimate weapons of terror. Its
time to outlaw them and get rid of them once and for all.
WE CAN achieve a nuclear weapon free world
YOU CAN get informed, get involved and get your government moving
THEY CAN negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention
------------------->
EMERGENCY APPEAL
Dear Friends,
In June, Australia will host the largest military exercises ever
undertaken in peacetime in this country. Talisman Saber will see
12,400 Australian and 13,700 US troops converging on various locations
around Australia for their biennial ‘war games’.
The exercises will include live firing and bombing, underwater
detonations, the latest laser guided missiles and ‘smart’ bombs, ship
to shore bombing runs, bombing from US bases in Guam, land-based
artillery firings, nuclear powered submarines using high-level
sonar frequency and nuclear weapons capable vessels and planes. There
are no contingency plans for nuclear accidents.
The heart of the exercise will take place in Shoalwater Bay, north of
Yeppoon. This breathtakingly beautiful area is part of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park. It’s beautiful one day – and bombed the next.
Concerned, dismayed and outraged citizens from around the country are
planning a Peace Convergence at Yeppoon from 18 to 24 June to protest
against these military exercises.
In 2005, the Australian Government entered an agreement which provided
the US long-term access to and joint use of Shoalwater Bay Training
Area. This agreement ties Australia to the rapid military build up
taking place in the north-west Pacific, particularly in Guam.
Shoalwater Bay is one of the US Pentagon's largest and most important
training areas and bombing ranges in the Asia-Pacific region. There has
been no disclosure of the terms of these agreements or what weaponry
will be used in military exercises.
HAWAI'I
The Talisman Saber military exercises will be monitored from Hawaii which is the base for the US Pacific Command.
Terri Keko'olani, community organiser with DMZ Hawai'i Aloha
'Aina, has agreed to come to Australia to join the protests against the
war games and to tell us more about the campaigns of her people against
the US military and for their land and sovereignty.
The funding body we had expected to make a major contribution to the
cost of this project has unfortunately rejected our submission at the
last minute. We must therefore try to raise $3,500 in the next 3 weeks.
Can you please help us fund Terri's visit by making an urgent donation
and/or passing this appeal on to other individuals and organisations.
PLEASE SEND YOUR CHEQUES URGENTLY TO:
AABCC Hawaii Fund
PO Box A 899, Sydney South NSW 1235
For further information, please contact Denis Doherty on 0418 290 663 or Hannah Middleton on 0418 668 098
------------------->
ALP uranium decision: it's a long way from a bad policy to a dirty mine
<www.foe.org.au/online-action/cyber-action/alp-uranium-decision-its-a-long-way-from-a-bad-policy-to-a-dirty-mine>
The ALP over turned its no new uranium mines policy at its national
conference at the end of April. Here is a list of things you can do
about this decision.
1/ contact Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett and congratulate them on
leading the anti uranium debate at national ALP conference.
Anthony Albanese:
Phone: (02) 6277 4031, Fax: (02) 6277 8445
Email: [email protected]
Peter Garrett:
Tel: (02) 6277 2037, Fax: (02) 6277 8402
Email: [email protected]
2/ contact Steve Bracks and congratulate him on retaining Victoria as a
nuclear free state. Ask him why he voted for new uranium mines at
national conference. You might have an opinion on whether these two
actions are consistent.
Ph (03) 9651 5000, Fax: (03) 9651 5054
Email: [email protected]
3/ Contact Bill Shorten and express your unhappiness at how he tried to
convince delegates to national conference that to oppose further
uranium mining meant undermining Kevin Rudd as leader. Remind him that
most ALP members do not support uranium mining.
Contact Bill via the AWU National Office located in Melbourne on 03 8327 0888 or email [email protected]
4/ Contact Martin Ferguson and let him know that his undermining of Labor’s policy will cost the Party votes and credibility.
Canberra office:
Tel: (02) 6277 4899, Fax: (02) 6277 8403
Email: [email protected]
Electorate Office (Location/Postal Address):
159 High Street, Preston Vic 3072
Tel: (03) 9416 8690, Fax: (03) 9416 7810
4/ contact ALP leaders Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and remind them
that you do not support any further involvement in the nuclear cycle.
You may want to remind them of the waste problems of mining uranium and
the proliferation risks associated with selling our uranium overseas –
and the fact that Labors’ sensible and popular opposition to plans for
nuclear power in Australia has been undermined by their failure to get
serious about uranium – the mineral that makes nuclear power possible.
Kevin Rudd:
ph (02) 6277 4022, Fax (02) 6277 8495,
<[email protected]>
Julia Gillard:
Tel: (02) 6277 4349, Fax: (02) 6277 8457
Email: [email protected]
5/ Contact Queensland premier Peter Beattie. Express your concern at
him supporting an expansion of mining in Australia at national
conference but congratulate him on his 2006 election promise that
Queensland will remain free of uranium mining.
Remind him that the majority of Queensland voters and most unions would not want to see uranium mines opened in that state.
Phone: 07 3224 4500,
Facsimile: 07 3221 3631
PO Box 15185
City East
Queensland 4002
[email protected]
6/ contact Alan Carpenter, the premier of WA. Congratulate him on
standing strong on the issue of uranium mining. Perhaps mention that
his opposition to any uranium mines in WA is warmly supported by
yourself and many in the community.
e-Mail: [email protected]
Phone number: (08) 9222 9888 - Premier's Office
Fax: (08) 9322 1213
7/ contact Peter Batchelor, Victorian Minister for Energy and Resources
and encourage him to re-write and re-table his anti nuclear bill (the
Nuclear Plebiscite Bill). Encourage him to work with the Greens to
ensure this bill is passed as a matter of urgency.
Ph: (03) 9658 4660
Fax: (03) 9658 4631
Email: [email protected]
8/ Stop the NT waste dump
All Australian uranium becomes radioactive waste. Contact Kim Carr, the
shadow science minister, and let him know that you support Labor’s plan
to drop the federal government’s move to impose a radioactive waste
dump on the NT.
Non imposition, respect for Indigenous rights and community consent
should be pillars of the ALPs approach to radioactive waste management.
Tel: (02) 6277 3730
Fax: (02) 6277 5911
Email: [email protected]
9/ support anti nuclear groups: the fight just got that bit harder and that bit more urgent and we need your help:
FoE Australia: www.foe.org.au
To donate to FoE, see: http://www.egive.org.au/website/index.php
Environment Centre of the Northern Territory: www.ecnt.org.au
No Waste Alliance: www.no-waste.org
ACF: www.acfonline.org.au
10 sign up for 'no nukes news' – a monthly e-newsletter: email: [email protected] with NNN-subscribe in the subject line.
11/ stay tuned for our federal election campaign: www.foe.org.au
Remember – it is a long way from a bad policy to a dirty mine – and
those wanting to see more uranium mining face a long and hard contest.
Australia and Australians deserve better than to be the world’s uranium
quarry and the worlds nuclear waste dump.
------------------->
IPPNW News Alert
Online Petition to Demand Trident Cancellation
The UK Parliament will be voting on whether to renew the UK's
Trident nuclear missile program on March 14, 2007 -- less than
two weeks away. If Trident is renewed, this ensures that the UK
will have nuclear weapons far into the future. As members of an
international community committed to the abolition of nuclear
weapons, we must make our collective voices heard on this issue.
US medical student Tova Fuller, in consultation with IPPNW's UK
affiliate, Medact, has created an online petition demanding the
cancellation of the Trident replacement. You can read and sign
the petition at
<www.ipetitions.com/petition/Trident_Petition>
Please forward this web address to all of your contacts. The
petition deadline is March 7, to allow enough time to disseminate
the text and signatures to key Members of Parliament before the
debate.
More information about Trident and the blockade at the UK
submarine base at Faslane can be found at the IPPNW student
website --
http://www.ippnw-students.org/trident.html.
------------------->
Support the US student hunger strike against nuclear weapons
Check these websites:
www.ucnuclearfree.org
http://nonukeshungerstrike.blogspot.com/
Chelsea Collonge
[email protected]
May 7, 2007
Dear friend,
On Wednesday, May 9th, thirty students and alumni at three UC campuses
went on a hunger strike to demand that the University of California
stop designing, engineering and manufacturing nuclear bombs.
For over six decades, the UC (University of California) has been the US
government's primary nuclear warhead contractor, having managed the Los
Alamos (NM) and Livermore (CA) nuclear weapons compounds since their
inceptions. Every nuclear warhead in the US arsenal was designed by a
UC employee. These include the B61-11 "bunker busters" currently
deployed in the Persian Gulf, with which the US government is
threatening Iran. Now, the UC is even building a new hydrogen bomb:
officially, the first new US nuclear weapon since the end of the Cold
War and setting up one of its labs to actually manufacture nuclear
warhead components.
As hunger strikers, our basic position is this: At this critical time
in our world, with the survival of our planetary ecosystem hanging in
the balance, it is imperative for the UC Regents to stop providing a
fig leaf of academic respectability to the creation of the world's most
toxic and deadly weapons, and instead use their position of political
leverage to spur the US toward genuine nuclear disarmament,
democratization, and demilitarization.
The hunger strike action represents the culmination of over five years
of organizing and struggle by UC student nuclear abolitionists,
anti-war activists, and anti-imperialists. We have petitioned, written
letters, marched, rallied, spoken out at UC Regents meetings, and even
physically disrupted some of those same meetings to demand that the UC
get out of bed with bombs. Now, we are escalating our tactics. We seek,
above all, for our actions to be commensurate with the truly formidable
challenges confronting our generation and the earth.
We'd like to highlight five ways that you can support us, in order of those we consider most important:
*1. Join us for a short-term (one-day, for example) solidarity fast.*
Fasting is a remarkable way to cleanse your body, and doing so for a
short amount of time entails virtually no physical risk.
*2. Attend our "No Nukes In Our Name!" rally at the UC Regents meeting
on Thursday, May 17th at 10 a.m. at UC San Francisco's Mission Bay
building.* Due to the level of local, statewide, and national attention
we expect to gain through this action, we anticipate being able to
bring a great deal of pressure to bear on the Regents. A large
mobilization at this action is crucially important! For driving
directions, visit www.ucnuclearfree.org or contact [email protected].
*3. Call the UC Regents - ask that they vote on our resolution for
nuclear weapons lab severance on May 17th. *It is crucial for as many
supporters as possible issue this demand, whether they be California
tax-payers, UC students, or concerned citizens of the world! A full
list of Regents contact info is enclosed.
*4. Write a letter to the UC Regents - ask that they vote on our
resolution for nuclear weapons lab severance on May 17th.** *Again, a
full list of contacts is attached.* *An online form letter will be
available at www.ucnuclearfree.org beginning on Wednesday, May 9th. We
will notify you as soon as it is posted.
*5. Write a letter of solidarity to the hunger strikers.* Enclosed is a
list of hunger striker contacts. Your letters will go a long way toward
boosting our morale as the hunger strike wears on. We will read many of
them at the rallies and public events we hold to garner support
throughout the action.
We wouldn't be writing to you if we didn't consider your support
vitally important to the success of this initiative. We expect that the
hunger strike will receive national attention and mark a significant
step forward in the struggle for nuclear abolition. It may very well
achieve its aim. If it is to do so, it needs to have broad-based
support both at UC campuses and far beyond!
There has never been a more critical time for the UC Regents to take a
principled stand against the US' nuclear weapons programs. They are in
a very powerful position to do so: They can withdraw their management
of the Los Alamos and Livermore labs, which are the keystone
institutions in the US nuclear weapons complex. They could cast the
UC's enormous political and intellectual weight on the side of
international law and morality, and seize this opportunity to work
toward nuclear disarmament. To do otherwise is to continue to provide a
much-needed veneer of academic legitimacy to the creation and
maintenance of weapons that poison communities and endanger the entire
world.
We recognize that the world we live in is fundamentally unjust, that it
is full of a spate of interconnected problems, and that all of these
problems merit being addressed on their own terms and in their own
ways. We realize our hunger strike will do little to address most of
those problems. But we do believe we have part of the answer to making
the world a much better place. We hope that, by performing this hunger
strike, we can initiate new connections and relationships that will
help us continue to work in solidarity with people engaged in multiple
other fronts of political struggle.
Together, we can make the UC nuclear-free! Thank you so much for your time
and attention! We look forward to connecting with you!
Yours in the struggle for a world free of war, nuclear weapons, and empire,
Chelsea Collonge
on behalf of
The UC "No More Nukes In Our Name!" Hunger Strikers
------------------->
IF YOU ONLY READ ONE THING (OR TWO THINGS) ...
------------------->
See also:
* Dr Mark Diesendorf, "The base-load electricity fallacy", briefing paper #16 at www.energyscience.org.au
* Dr Mark Diesendorf, Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, UNSW Press, 2007
Sustainable energy has powerful future
Mark Diesendorf
The Age
April 13, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/sustainable-energy-has-powerful-future/2007/04/12/1175971264442.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
OPPONENTS of renewable energy from the coal and nuclear industries, and
their political supporters, are disseminating the fallacy that
renewable energy cannot provide base-load power to substitute for
coal-fired electricity.
If this becomes widely accepted, renewable energy will remain a niche
market rather than achieve its potential of being part of mainstream
energy supply technologies.
Electricity grids are designed to handle variability in demand and
supply and have different types of power stations — base-load,
intermediate-load, peak-load and reserve.
A base-load station is, in theory, available 24 hours a day, seven days
a week, and operates most of the time at full power. In mainland
Australia, base-load power stations are mostly coal-fired while a few
are gas-fired. Coal-fired stations are by far the most polluting of all
power stations, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and local air
pollution. Overseas, some base-load power stations are nuclear-powered.
An electricity supply system cannot be built out of base-load power
stations alone. These stations take all day to start up and, in
general, their output cannot be changed quickly enough to handle peaks
and other variations in demand. They also break down from time to time.
A faster, cheaper, more flexible power station is used to complement
base-load, handle the peaks and handle quickly unpredictable
fluctuations in supply and demand.
These peak-load stations are designed to be run for short periods each
day. They can be started rapidly from cold and their output can be
changed rapidly. Some peak-load stations are gas turbines (like jet
engines) fuelled by natural gas. Hydro-electricity with dams is also
used to provide peak-load power.
Some renewable electricity sources have identical variability to
coal-fired power stations and so they are base-load. They can be
integrated into the electricity supply system without any additional
back-up. Examples include:
* Bio-energy, based on the combustion of crops and crop residues, or their gasification followed by combustion of the gas.
* Hot rock geothermal power, which is being developed in South Australia and Queensland.
* Solar thermal electricity, with overnight heat storage in water or rocks, or a thermochemical store.
* Large-scale, distributed wind power, with a small amount of occasional back-up from a peak-load plant.
Moreover, energy efficiency and conservation measures can reliably reduce demand for base-load and peak-load electricity.
The inclusion of large-scale wind power in the list may be a surprise
to some people, because wind power is often described as an
"intermittent" source, that is, one that switches on and off
frequently. While a single wind turbine is certainly intermittent, a
system of several geographically separated wind farms is not. Total
wind power output of the system generally varies smoothly and rarely
falls to zero. Nevertheless, it may require some back-up, for example,
from gas turbines.
When wind power supplies up to 20 per cent of electricity generation,
the additional costs of reserve plant are relatively small. For widely
dispersed wind farms, the back-up capacity only has to be one-fifth to
one-third of the wind capacity. Since it has low capital cost and is
operated infrequently, it plays the role of reliability insurance with
a low premium.
Of course, if a national electricity grid is connected by transmission
line to another country (for example, as western Denmark is connected
to Norway), it does not need to install any back-up for wind, because
it buys supplementary power from its neighbours when required.
By 2040, renewable energy could supply more than half Australia's
electricity, reducing greenhouse emissions from electricity generation
by nearly 80 per cent. In the longer term, when solar electricity is
less expensive, there is no technical reason to stop renewable energy
from supplying 100 per cent of grid electricity. The system could be
just as reliable as the dirty, fossil-fuelled system that it replaces.
The barriers to a sustainable energy future are neither technological
nor economic, but the immense political power of the big greenhouse gas
polluting industries — coal, aluminium, iron and steel, cement, motor
vehicles and part of the oil industry.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is the director of Sustainability Centre, senior
lecturer in environmental studies at the University of NSW, and a
member of the EnergyScience Coalition.
------------------->
Everything you need to know about the corruption of climate change policy in Australia:
Is Howard being fair dinkum?
Jill Singer
June 04, 2007
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21841497-5000117,00.html
JILL Singer writes: How seriously does John Howard take climate change?
Consider who he chooses to listen to on this issue so vital to our
future.
Until last year, the man John Howard appointed to advise him on science policy was Dr Robert Batterham.
How confident can Australians be that he provided independent advice?
At the same time that Dr Batterham was working as the PM's chief
scientist, he was earning an estimated $700,000 a year as a director of
Rio Tinto, a company with a huge vested interest in Australia's carbon
policy.
Taxpayers also fund the Commonwealth Government's Australian Greenhouse Office.
Gwen Andrews was its chief executive for four years, including the
period John Howard was meant to be deliberating whether to ratify Kyoto.
According to Andrews, he did not ask her for a single briefing.
Dr Graeme Pearman was for many years the head of the CSIRO's Division
of Atmospheric Research and reveals that CSIRO scientists were gagged
under pressure from the Government.
They were not allowed to talk about the need to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. But why does the Government want to skew evidence? And why
do its supporters try to pull the wool over our eyes?
Andrew MacIntyre from the Right-wing Institute of Public Affairs told ABC Radio why he was a climate-change sceptic.
Like a host of other government supporters, he points to the anti-Kyoto
Oregon Petition and claims that thousands of scientists signed it, all
under the auspices of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences.
Not true. The petition was organised by Christian fundamentalists. Not
all signatories were scientists. Geri Halliwell Phd was on the original
petition, aka Ginger Spice.
Many of those who did sign it say they regret doing so. More to the
point, the National Academy of Sciences furiously refutes anything to
do with it and declares it does not reflect the conclusions of expert
reports of the academy.
Why promote such discredited muck?
Here's a clue. The IPA gets funding from the fossil-fuel industry.
Clive Hamilton is executive director of The Australia Institute and has
traced how a narrow section of Australian industry wields its influence
over the Government.
Hamilton's latest book, Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change,
recalls a conference held in Canberra in 1997 called Countdown to Kyoto
and sponsored by ExxonMobil and the massive mining company Xstrata.
Its aim was spelled out in a fundraising letter from Frontiers of
Freedom to offer world leaders the tools to break with the Kyoto treaty.
Frontiers of Freedom is a far-Right US think tank funded by ExxonMobil
and tobacco companies and they have great sway over the Australian
Government.
Where is the evidence for this? Australia's delegation to negotiate
Kyoto included fossil-fuel industry lobby groups, the only developed
nation to do so.
An equivalent would be appointing Tony Mokbel as the Government's adviser on criminal justice.
It is known that greenhouse sceptics have direct access to the PM. As
one told Hamilton, there is this arrangement where senior people can
ring direct.
Can access to the PM be that easy? Just remember that John Howard
admitted that powerful Liberal mate Ron Walker rang him about setting
up a nuclear power company.
Great idea, Ron, is what the PM said he told his buddy before setting up another whitewash inquiry to endorse his position.
Back to Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change and the events
of May 6, 2004, when John Howard convened a secret meeting of LETAG,
the Lower Emissions Technology Group that consists of the CEOs of the
major fossil fuels corporations.
Those attending came from Rio Tinto, Edison Mission Energy, BHP Billiton, Alcoa, Energex, Origin Energy, Boral and Orica.
The meeting was meant to be hush-hush, but notes were leaked that
detailed Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane stressing the need for
confidentiality because if the renewable industry found out there would
be a huge outcry.
Macfarlane referred to "us" and "them".
"Us" is the Government and the fossil fuel industry and "them" is anyone involved in renewables.
It gets worse. The PM was revealed to be worried about a review that
recommended extending an investment scheme into renewable energy.
Macfarlane explained the scheme was working too well and that investment in renewables was running ahead of plan.
Clean energy without profits going to the Liberal Party's powerful mates?
That would never do. But, there, in black and white, was the incontrovertible and inconvenient truth.
The Australian Government is determined to protect the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the renewable sector.
We might also note that in June 2004 an email was sent to major
polluters from Rio Tinto's chief lobbyist, none other than Lyall
Howard, the PM's nephew.
Loyal Lyall advised leaders of the fossil fuel industries how to
deliver key messages praising Uncle John Howard's energy statement.
Note that Lyall Howard did this before the PM went public with the policy.
He knew what most Australians did not and he knew it would deliver great news for polluters.
The PM is currently trying to convince us he is on top of climate change and the development of an emissions trading scheme.
What he is on top of is nurturing the interests of himself, his mates, family and powerful polluters.
[email protected].
------------------->
NEW INFORMATION SOURCES
------------------->
Dr Mark Diesendorf, "The base-load electricity fallacy", briefing paper #16 at www.energyscience.org.au
New FoE website, nukes section: <www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear>
- lots on links between nuclear power and weapons
- paper on Impacts of Nuclear Power & Uranium Mining on Water Resources
- nuclear waste, reprocessing etc
- critique of James Lovelock, Patrick Moore and other self-described pro-nuclear environmentalists.
- references to the bestest litrature on Clean Energy: Renewables + Energy Efficiency
------------------->
From Chain Reaction #100, July 2007
Two must-read climate change books
Mark Diesendorf
Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy
May 2007
UNSW Press: Sydney
RRP $49.95
Clive Hamilton
Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change
2007
Black Inc. Agenda, Melbourne
RRP: $29.95
Clive Hamilton and Mark Diesendorf have written important - and
complementary - books on climate change politics and solutions for
Australia.
Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute, focusses on
the corrupt politics of climate change while Diesendorf, who teaches in
the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South
Wales, concentrates on sustainable energy solutions.
Hamilton's Scorcher details the corruption that passes for climate
change policy-making in Australia. It's a blow-by-blow account of the
manoeuvrings of the self-described 'greenhouse mafia' of corporate
fossil-fuel interests, and their secretive dealings with the
self-described anti-elitist Howard government.
Outside of the corporate cabal and the inner echelons of the Howard
government, Hamilton probably knows more than anyone about climate
change politics in Australia and that depth of knowledge makes Scorcher
a compelling read.
Hamilton also explains the "studied ignorance" of most of the corporate
media in Australia and their complicity in the climate change fiasco.
Diesendorf offers critical analyses of nuclear power and 'clean' coal,
and advocates an energy scenario based on renewables, gas and energy
conservation and efficiency. He also address transportation - a
significant contributor to greenhouse emissions.
You won't find another book with as much solid information on clean
energy options for Australia as Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable
Energy.
------------------->
NEWS ITEMS
------------------->
AUNTIE VERONICA
------------------->
VERONICA BRODIE (nee Wilson)
(15/1/1941 - 3/5/2007)
Mrs Veronica Brodie a respected elder from the Ngarrindjeri &
Kaurna peoples of SA, passed away peacefully on Thursday
3rd of May at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, SA aged 66
years.
Known as Aunty Veronica to many she had fought many battles
throughout her life while also appearing in roles of Wrong Side
of the Road, an Aboriginal film and appeared in many
documentaries and media features, she wrote her own
autobiography called 'My side of the Bridge'.
Aunty Veronica was the trailblazer in the formation of many
community initiatives, organisations and political activism
for 40+ years. With her sister Leila Rankine (dec) she
played a significant role in the establishment of the
Adelaide Aboriginal Orchestra and Centre for Aboriginal
Studies in Music (CASM) in the 1970s Aboriginal Sobriety
Group and the "soup kitchen", Camp Coorong & Warriappendi School
into the 1980's. She was a pivotal motivating pioneer with
numerous organisations and programs - Aboriginal Elders
Village, Nunga Mimini's Women's shelters at North Adelaide
& Western region, disability group at Tauondi, the
'grannies' kinship group at the Parks Community Centre, and
lectured at many Universities, schools and at national and
international gatherings. In the 1990s she was again at the
fore in the foundation of Warriparinga Cultural Centre and
held positions on Aboriginal Housing, Health, Womens boards
and committees, being a fierce advocate for the most
disadvantaged. She was a key Ngarrindjeri voice to unite women of
all backgrounds in the Hindmarsh Island case and founded
the Lartelare Glanville land action group in recognition of
the birth site of her great-grandmother, one of the last
Kaurna people living traditional way of life on the
Adelaide plains in the 1890's before being forceby removed.
She is a legend and will always remain that - an inspiring
force that will be felt in the lives of many generations to
come.
Her family would like to distribute this news as she was
always everywhere else but home, and always helping others.
Sister of Bert (dec), Doug (dec) Leila (dec) and Graham
Wilson, special sister to Bulla (dec) & Mickolo (dec).
She is survived by her loving and loyal husband of 45 years
Jimmy and her 5 children Margaret, Colleen, Michael (dec),
Kathleen, Leona and step-son Kevin, and then her much loved
grand children Troy, Tasha, Bonny, JJ, Samuel, Don Don,
Emma and Abbie and her beloved great grand daughter Breanah.
thankyou for just being the most wonderful sister, wife, mother, gran, great-grandma & aunty
Her family would like to thank everyone who has ever been
involved with Aunty Veronica and invite you to join them to
commemorate her life & achievements.
------------------->
UNCLE KEVIN
------------------->
Anti-nuclear activists awarded
Friends of the Earth Adelaide activists Sophie Green and Joel
Catchlove, together with Arabunna elder Kevin Buzzacott, have been
awarded the SA Conservation Council's 2007 Jill Hudson Award for
Environmental Protection.
The award recognises the work of South Australians who have made "an outstanding contribution to protecting the environment".
Sophie Green and Joel Catchlove received the award for their
outstanding voluntary commitment to educate and engage the general
public about environmental issues and for energising the campaign
against the expansion of the nuclear industry.
Kevin Buzzacott, who is recovering from cancer in Adelaide, recieved
the award in recognition of his long-term campaign to protect his
traditional country, near Lake Eyre, from the impacts of BHP Billiton's
Roxby Downs copper-uranium mine. Kevin participated in FoE's
Radioactive Exposure Tour and the Alliance Against Uranium meeting last
year and was in sparkling form.
The awards were presented by the SA Minister for Environment and
Conservation, Gail Gago, in a ceremony on May 19. Past winners include
the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, Aboriginal women elders who successfully
campaigned against the federal government's attempt to dump nuclear
waste on their land near Woomera.
The annual award is in memory of Jill Hudson (1948–1997), a passionate
educator who believed 'Life is an opportunity and its purpose is to
stand for something and to make a difference.'
Kevin Buzzacott was also awarded the Australian Conservation
Foundation's 2007 Peter Rawlinson Award on World Environment Day, June
5, recognising two decades of work highlighting the impacts of uranium
mining at Roxby Downs and promoting a nuclear-free Australia.
The Age carried a feature article on Kevin on April 21. "Uncle Kevin is
a very cheeky man," Marc Peckham from solar-powered hip-hop band Combat
Wombat said. "He's full of charisma, great at motivating people. He's a
sincere individual and, against great odds, he's always managed to pull
off what he needs to pull off."
Peckham told The Age that Kevin has appeared on Combat Wombat's CDs –
the first of which was made in a wind-powered recording studio at the
Lake Eyre camp. "He'd just grab the mike and start rapping. Sometimes
he'd say he was sick and tired of our music and put Creedence
Clearwater Revival on. That's his favourite."
The Age article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/uncle-kevs-devotees-celebrate-credence-for-a-clear-waterrevivalist/2007/04/20/1176697091997.html
------------------->
AUSTRALIA AS THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR DUMP
------------------->
Resolution passed at the Liberal Party's Federal Council, June 2-3 2007 (posted on Liberal Party website):
24. Nuclear Industry (moved by Federal Women’s Committee)
That Federal Council believes that Australia should expand its current
nuclear industry to incorporate the entire uranium fuel cycle, the
expansion of uranium mining to be combined with nuclear power
generation
and worldwide nuclear waste storage in the geotechnically
stable and
remote areas that Australia has to offer.
------------------->
Nuclear waste backflip fear
NICK CALACOURAS
05Jun07
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2007/06/05/1206_ntnews.html
THE Federal Government denied last night that high-level nuclear waste from overseas would be stored in the Territory.
But critics said Canberra backflipped on similar promises to never build a domestic nuclear waste facility in the NT.
The Liberal Party Federal Council passed a motion on the weekend urging
the Government to build a "worldwide nuclear waste storage in the
geotechnically stable and remote areas that Australia has to offer".
Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said it was against the law
for Australia "to take anyone else's nuclear waste" and the Government
had no intention of changing the law.
But Lingiari MHR Warren Snowdon said he has "no doubt if the Howard
Government is re-elected, we'll see a high-level nuclear waste dump in
the Northern Territory."
He said Territory Senator Nigel Scullion promised not to allow a
domestic nuclear waste dump "on his watch" before the last election,
but refused to vote against the legislation.
"They'll say one thing before an election, and do another after," he
said.
Mr Snowdon said it was clear the Liberal Party had a "secret
agenda" to set up a high-level waste facility in the Territory - and
the proposed low-level facility at Muckaty Station is "largely a
side-show".
Arid Lands Environment Centre campaigner Natalie Wasley said the
Government had little credibility when making these promises.
She said the proposed domestic nuclear facility at Muckaty Station, could be upgraded to accept international waste.
"If the Commonwealth couldn't convince the states to take on the
low-level nuclear waste dumps, then they definitely won't be willing to
take international waste," she said.
"They will have to force it on the Territory as well."
The
Commonwealth nominated three sites in the NT for the domestic waste
facility after the states refused to have it built on their land.
The Northern Land Council volunteered Muckaty Station for low and intermediate level waste last month.
------------------->
Minister rejects nuclear dump bid
Samantha Maiden and Jeremy Roberts
June 04, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21843816-601,00.html
LIBERAL delegates have urged the Howard Government to set up a
worldwide nuclear dump as Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane accused the
states of hypocrisy, warning that one was keeping nuclear waste in a
hospital car park.
The Liberal Party's federal council, on the last day of its three-day
conference, yesterday urged the Government to consider establishing a
nuclear dump for the world's waste in Australia.
The motion won the support of the Sydney conference's 68 delegates, but
Mr Macfarlane said the Government was not about to upgrade plans for a
low-level nuclear dump in the Northern Territory.
He instead attacked the Labor states for retaining ad hoc nuclear waste
storage sites in capital cities. He said one hospital was keeping
nuclear waste in a shipping container in a hospital car park.
South Australian Health Minister John Hill was forced to admit Royal
Adelaide Hospital still kept nuclear waste in its basement, more than
two years after the Rann Government blocked a federal plan to build a
national dump in the state.
But West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter hit back, promising to pass
laws to block any federal moves to set up a nuclear facility --
including any reactor -- in his state.
Mr Macfarlane suggested some states lacked a "secure environment" for
nuclear waste. "Let me just ask all the states -- what are they doing
with their nuclear waste right now ... because I know each state health
system has nuclear waste."
The waste includes needles, surgical gowns and nuclear waste used in the treatment of cancer.
"Are they storing it as it's suggested, in one case, in a shipping container in the car park of their general hospital?"
A spokesperson for Mr Macfarlane denied the container was a public
health risk, and declined toreveal which state used the container.
Mr Macfarlane accused the states of hypocrisy.
"Why are they frightening people by saying nuclear waste is so
dangerous when they are not even storing it in a secure environment in
some cases?" He also said nuclear power was one way to tackle climate
change, echoing John Howard's support for nuclear power in any future
national power generation regime.
Mr Carpenter said his planned legislation to block any federal nuclear
push would include a referendum trigger so people would have their say
if the federal Government ever tried to override the new state laws.
He said the referendum would ensure a huge political cost for the commonwealth if it tried to usurp the will of the state.
The legislation will also prohibit transporting materials to a nuclear
facility site and stop nuclear power being connected to the electricity
grid.
Mr Carpenter stopped short of banning uranium mining, but said it would not be allowed while he was Premier.
Additional reporting: Amanda O'Brien, AAP
------------------->
ASEN LAUNCHES REPORT ON UNIVERSITIES & NUKES
------------------->
The Australian Student Environment Network (ASEN) is today releasing a
report, 'Opportunities to Waste, Australian Universities and the
Nuclear Industry', available for viewing or download here:
http://www.asen.org.au/OpportunitiesToWaste/
The launch is held today to commemorate the 21st Anniversary of the
Chernobyl disaster.
The report examines the Federal Government's National Research
Priorities, the involvement and influence of the uranium mining
industry in setting research agendas and curricula, and includes
profiles of academics, research initiatives and university
departments.
A diverse and vibrant anti-nuclear movement saw the closure of the
sole remaining School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of NSW
in the 1980s. In 2006, there were no courses in nuclear engineering
offered in Australia as a result of the sustained public pressure
against an industry that remains unwanted.
The report highlights expansion and investment in nuclear research and
training at universities is a prerequisite for the Howard Government's
push to expand the nuclear industry in Australia.
Australian universities have shown they are eager to exploit the
enthusiasm of the Howard Government, already looking to form an
Australia-wide nuclear science and technology school. Universities
interested include Australian National University, Western Australian
universities, Wollongong, Newcastle, Sydney, Melbourne, Queensland
University of Technology and RMIT.
Students in the Australian Student Environment Network oppose our
universities performing the role of research and training ground for
dangerous and unsustainable industries. In the face of dangerous
climate change, Australian universities have an important opportunity
and responsibility to invest in a safe, secure, non-polluting
renewable energy sector.
In Sydney, the report will be launched with a forum at Sydney
University, Thursday April 26th 2 – 3:30pm, Reading Room (Holme
building), including speakers Dr. Stuart Rosewarne (Political Economy,
Lecturer), and report author Holly Creenaune. The will also be a large
inflatable nuclear power station set up on the front lawns of Sydney
University from midday.
There are also launch events planned for:
Murdoch University: April 26th, 2-4pm, contact Fern York on
[email protected]
Macquarie University: May 1st - contact [email protected] / 0417 682 541
Melbourne University: May 3rd - contact [email protected]
Report launch events aim to begin dialogue with researchers, staff
unionists, the NTEU, academics, and management around building ethical
research frameworks for universities. Climate activists in ASEN have
already taken up the Report's recommendations and research for use in
their Clean Energy on Campus campaigns - to shift universities to
clean energy and divest from coal and nuclear industry research and
funding.
The report includes a number of recommendations for Universities,
Government and the Australian Research Council, which we are hoping
will inform some concrete campaign demands. We plan to continue to add
to the report, and campaign around and challenge proposals for new
schools, degrees and courses in Nuclear Science and Engineering.
We think we CAN stop plans for schools, degrees and courses in Nuclear
Science and Engineering - and shift funding toward research and
education in renewables. We see this as a highly strategic role
students and university staff can play in stopping any expansion of
the nuclear industry!
For further information or to receive a hardcopy of the reportcon,
please contact Holly Creenaune on 0417 682 541 / [email protected]
Thanks to the amazing environment collectives in ASEN, the Beyond
Nuclear Initiative, Scott Ludlam, Jim Green, Dave Hammerton and all
those inspirin' crews out there,
Love from Holly, Fern, Adam and Paddy xx
Opportunities to Waste: Australian Universities and the Nuclear Industry
http://www.asen.org.au/OpportunitiesToWaste/
About ASEN:
The Australian Student Environment Network is the national network of
students active on environmental, social and cultural justice issues.
ASEN is made up of the state environment networks, which are made of
campus environment collectives.
ASEN was created by and continues to be organised by young activists
committed to change. Students use the network to organise local
campaigns, share information and resources, and embark on national
campaigns such as Clean Energy on Campus and Nuclear-Free
Universities.
Web: www.asen.org.au
Email: [email protected]
------------------->
NUCLEAR DUMP PROPOSED FOR NT - ALP POLICY
------------------->
MEDIA RELEASE
April 30, 2007
Labor dumps the NT dump
The Arid Lands Environment Centre-Beyond Nuclear Initiative
(ALEC-BNI) welcomes the motion passed at the ALP National Conference
that would commit a Federal Labor government to repeal Commonwealth
legislation forcing a radioactive dump on the Territory.
The ALP motion, ironically passed the same day the 'no new uranium
mines' policy was overturned by a narrow margin, states that a Federal
Labor government would:
* Not proceed with the development of any of the current sites
identified by the Howard Government in the Northern Territory, if no
contracts have been entered into for those sites.
* Repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005.
* Establish a process for identifying suitable sites that is
scientific, transparent, accountable, fair and allows access to appeal
mechanisms.
* Identify a suitable site for a radioactive waste dump in accordance with the new process.
* Ensure full community consultation in radioactive waste decision-making processes.
* Commit to international best practice scientific processes to
underpin Australia's radioactive waste management, including
transportation and storage.
Natalie Wasley, Beyond Nuclear Initiative campaigner states "This
policy is welcomed by ALEC- BNI and the communities being targeted for
the Federal waste dump, as it acknowledges the lack of community
consultation and ad hoc process being used by the Federal Government to
fast track the NT dump plan".
"It is essential that any Federal Government commits to international
best practice of radioactive materials, which involves thorough
community consultation and acceptance of dump siting and minimal
transport of materials. Obviously the current Federal plan is deficient
in all of these areas".
Ms Wasley also points out that responsible waste management planning
must also include the waste produced from mining-especially if this is
to expand in the coming decades. "Uranium mines produce vast quantities
of long lived radioactive material, and a large proportion of this
remains on site as tailings. Any industry expansion would need a
comprehensive plan to manage increased volumes of waste, so it is hoped
that the ALP commitments in regard to the proposed Federal waste dump
would carry over to considerations of U-mine waste management"
------------------->
NUCLEAR DUMP PROPOSED FOR NT - MUCKATY
------------------->
In a nutshell:
- fed govt announced 3 sites in NT in 2005 for nuclear dump for Commonwealth govt waste
- now a fourth site has been proposed, on Muckaty Station near Tennant
Creek, nominated by NorthernLand Council despite clear divisions among
Traditional Owners.
- site assessment won't be completed til end of 2007
------------------->
Clan allows nuclear dump for $12m
Lindsay Murdoch in Nhulunbuy and Jasmin Afianos in Tennant Creek
May 26, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/clan-allows-nuclear-dump-for-12m/2007/05/25/1179601669086.html
ABORIGINAL elders in a remote Northern Territory community have agreed
to accept $12 million for allowing Australia's first national nuclear
waste dump to be built on their land.
But the secretly negotiated deal has bitterly divided traditional
owners of the 2241-square-kilometre Muckaty station where the Federal
Government will now look to build the controversial dump to store 5000
cubic metres of nuclear waste.
Bindi Jakamarra Martin, a Warlmanpa man from the Ngapa clan, said that
building the dump on a 1.5-square-kilometre site 120 kilometres from
Tennant Creek would "poison our beautiful land" and "change our
dreamings".
"Our dreamings cross right into that land where they want
to put that dump," he said.
But Amy Lauder, a senior elder of the 70-member Ngapa clan, said her
people's acceptance of the deal was right for them - despite protests
from other clans owning the station, which was handed back to the
traditional owners in 1995 after a long court battle.
"Other clans can
speak for their country - not our Ngapa country," she said.
She said the $12 million would "create a future for our children with
education, jobs and funds for our outstation and transport".
Under the deal, Canberra would take the Ngapa clan's land from them for
up to 200 years to store nuclear waste from all the states and
territories.
The deal - made public yesterday after two years of
negotiations - would see up to 150 truckloads of radioactive material
driven thousands of kilometres from Lucas Heights in Sydney and Woomera
in South Australia to the site, which is 10 kilometres from the busy
Stuart Highway and eight kilometres from where people live at the
station homestead.
Experts will now study the site to see if it is scientifically suitable to store nuclear waste.
The Federal Government had previously announced the dump would be built
on one of three Defence-owned sites in the territory after the South
Australian Government scuttled plans to build it at Woomera.
The Muckaty deal has angered the Northern Territory Government, whose
laws against developing a dump in the territory can be overridden by
Canberra.
"This potential facility could compromise the social,
cultural and traditional ties of Aboriginal people to their country,"
said Elliott McAdam, a minister in the territory's Labor Government.
Environmentalists have called on the federal Science Minister, Julie
Bishop, to reject the site.
Dave Sweeney, nuclear campaigner for the
Australian Conservation Foundation, said Muckaty was not selected as a
site on a scientific basis, and turning it into a dump would be
"environmentally irresponsible and socially divisive".
But Mrs Bishop yesterday praised a full council meeting of the
Northern Land Council, which nominated Muckaty as the site for what she
calls a radioactive waste management facility. "The NLC has
consistently taken a responsible approach to this issue, focusing on
the evidence of safely operating radioactive waste management
facilities in Australia and overseas," she said.
The dump will store items such as gloves, clothing, glassware and
contaminated soil, including waste from the treatment each year of
400,000 ill people.
Spent fuel from two research reactors sent to be
stored overseas will also be brought back to be stored in above-ground
containers.
William Jakamarra Graham, another traditional owner, said: "We don't
care about the money - $12 million is nothing to us. But we care about
our land and what will happen to the children of the future - we don't
want to leave them a nuclear dump."
------------------->
Media Release
May 25, 2007
Muckaty not a done deal for the dump
The Arid Lands Environment Centre Beyond-Nuclear Initiative (ALEC-BNI)
has expressed deep concern over the Northern Land Council nomination of
Muckaty for the Federal radioactive waste dump, but says there is a
long way to go before the deal is wrapped up.
"Direct communication with Traditional Owners following the NLC
nomination has confirmed deep concern, division and strong opposition
to this nomination. Muckaty traditional owner Bindi Martin said to me
this morning that he does not agree to the dump proposal and I believe
this is a view held by other Ngapa Elders as well. This proposal can
not be touted as widely accepted within the Muckaty group or the wider
community", stated Natalie Wasley, Beyond Nuclear Initaitive
campaigner.
Ms Wasley added; "All affected people and groups must be consulted and
consent to this proposal. Muckaty people with cultural connections to
sites along the mining access road have stated they oppose the dump.
Their perspective must also be considered if long lived radioactive
waste is to be transported through their country for the next few
hundred years".
"Muckaty Traditional Owners representing all of the recognised family
groups wrote to the NLC Full Council and Minister Julie Bishop earlier
this year expressing opposition to a dump on their land. The letter
asked for negotiations regarding the dump to cease, not be
formalised".
"The Federal Government is attempting to buy its way out of the too
hard basket. Instead of adopting a scientifically driven, prudent and
credible approach to radioactive waste management, they are offering a
radioactive waste dump as a solution to financial disadvantage in
remote areas".
"The whole dump fiasco is clearly a means to get long lived waste
produced at Lucas Heights out of sight and out of mind in an election
year. Political considerations to move the waste to areas with less
voters is obviously being given a higher priority than scientific,
public health or environmental concerns".
"The nomination of Muckaty is not the end of this story. Minister
Julie Bishop has assured the Australian public she would require clear
indication of widespread consent before accepting a nomination, and
this is currently lacking. The Minister must hold true to her word that
she will only accept a nomination if full consultation and consent of
all affected people has been demonstrated".
"There continues to be clear division and difference of opinion and it
is inappropriate and improper for a minister to accept and progress the
nomination at this time. The Arid Lands Environment Centre calls on
Julie Bishop not to accept the NLC nomination of Muckaty unless it can
be demonstrated that all Traditional Owners accept this decision", Ms
Wasley concluded.
------------------->
Waste Dump Is Thin Edge Of Howard's Nuclear Wedge
Published in Newcastle Herald
June 2, 2007
Christopher Doran and Annika Dean
The recent decision by Traditional Owners of the Ngapa clan in the
Northern Territory to allow their land to be used as a site for nuclear
waste should be of concern to all Australians. Agreement to a waste
dump is the thin edge of the Howard government's wedge for Australia to
become a full fledged nuclear nation. Howard's stated ambition to
build 25 reactors by 2050 cannot be realised without first solving the
problem of what to do with the extremely toxic high level waste.
It also opens the door to Australia being a repository for the world's
nuclear waste.
The Muckaty proposal comes after a failed attempt to build a waste dump
in South Australia, after a campaign led by senior Aboriginal women.
The dump will be used for storage of low and intermediate level waste
from Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear research reactor. Long lived
"intermediate" waste remains radioactive for tens of thousands of
years. The waste will be transported from Lucas Heights through
densely populated areas around Sydney, and through many towns that are
opposed to nuclear waste being trucked through their communities.
The Ngapa, one of several clans whose traditional ownership of the vast
Muckaty Station 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek was legally
recognised in 1995, nominated their land in return for $12 million in
federal funding. Senior Ngapa elder Amy Lauder said in a
statement that her people agreed in order "to create a future for our
children with education, jobs and funds for our outstation…" The
Ngapa were asked to accept the use of their traditional land as a
nuclear waste dump in return for basic services. Non-Indigenous
Australians are not expected to do deals for these basic
services.
The deal is strongly opposed by surrounding clans at Muckaty and even
by some members of the Ngapa clan itself. Bindi Jakamarra Martin,
a Warlmanpa man from the Ngapa clan has said that building the dump
"would poison our beautiful land", and that "Our dreamings cross right
into that land where they want to put that dump."
Why should Newcastle care about Sydney's nuclear waste being dumped in
the outback? Apart from the appalling injustice and radioactive
racism, a nuclear dump would be a sizeable step towards Howard's plans
for 25 nuclear reactors by 2050- one of which would almost certainly be
in the Hunter region.
A waste dump at Muckaty Station is far from a done deal. Federal
Minister Julie Bishop still has to approve the site. What's more,
approving a site and implementing it are two very different stories.
The Howard government knows from previous unsuccessful attempts to
build a nuclear dump in South Australia and a uranium mine at Jabiluka,
that any attempts to expand the Australian nuclear Industry will be met
by significant public opposition. Australians will not be fooled into
believing Howard's snake-oil pitch that nuclear is safe, or is the
solution to climate change. Renewable energy and efficiency, not
nukes and expanded coal mining, are the answers to Australia's future.
Christopher Doran is a lecturer in Geography at the University of
Newcastle, and a former nuclear campaigner for The Wilderness
Society. Annika Dean is co-founder of Novocastrians Against
Nuclear.
------------------->
N-dump site in quake zone, says ACF
Lindsay Murdoch, Darwin
May 31, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ndump-site-in-quake-zone-says-acf/2007/05/30/1180205338529.html
THE nomination of a site near Tennant Creek for Australia's first
national radioactive waste dump is irresponsible because it lies in an
earthquake zone, environmentalists have said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation's nuclear campaigner, Dave
Sweeney, said it beggared belief that after a decade-long search for a
dump site, "they have chosen one in a seismically active area".
The latest in a series of earthquakes shook the region on Friday,
registering 2.3 on the Richter scale, only hours before the Northern
Land Council, which represents indigenous groups, nominated the site,
120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek, to the Federal Government.
Earthquakes have struck every few months in the Tennant Creek area
since the most intense quake measured in the Northern Territory struck
the area on January 22, 1988, registering 6.8. The quake caused minor
structural damage to hundreds of buildings in the town and twisted a
new gas pipeline.
Federal Government-appointed experts are set to study the suitability
of the 1.5-square-kilometre site on Muckaty Station after the NLC
brokered a deal with the Ngapa Aboriginal owners of the land. Under the
deal, the Ngapa clan will receive $12 million for giving up the land
for up to 200 years.
But the deal has bitterly divided traditional owners of the
2240-square-kilometre Muckaty, which was handed back to them in 1995
after a long court battle.
Mr Sweeney said the deal was socially divisive. He also said the ACF
and other environmental groups called on the Government to reject the
site's nomination because it was not selected on a scientific basis.
He said there were also concerns about underground water in the
sparsely populated area. Some of the waste will be stored in
underground containers.
The Federal Government had previously announced that the dump would be
built on one of three Defence-owned sites in the Territory after the
South Australian Government scuttled plans to build it at Woomera.
------------------->
ANSTO reiterates nuclear waste dump safety
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1934250.htm
Last Update: Sunday, May 27, 2007. 7:31am (AEST)
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) says
the nuclear waste dump proposed for Muckaty Station in the Northern
Territory will be completely safe.
The Northern Land Council has nominated the site, 120 kilometres north
of Tennant Creek, for a low- and intermediate-level repository.
Traditional owners from the region visited ANSTO's Lucas Heights
facility in New South Wales to see the type of waste that could be
delivered to the dump.
ANSTO chief of operations Dr Ron Cameron says the waste includes
plastic gloves and contaminated clothing and is completely innocuous.
"I think some people want to use misinformation to try and get up a
scare campaign. We want to let people know the type of waste that this
really is," he said.
"I think that bringing traditional owners to Lucas Heights has really helped in that process."
Dr Cameron says there are repositories all around the world that are environmentally safe.
"At the moment, waste is stored in really hundreds of temporary stores
all over Australia, and the best international practice is to designate
one site to be the national repository - and that's what's happening
here," he said.
"Such repositories exist all over the world. In fact there's one in the
Champagne district of France and it works very safely without any
concern."
But Friends of the Earth campaigner Dr Jim Green says there are about
two incidents every year with the transportation of nuclear waste to
and from the Lucas Heights reactor.
He says if low and intermediate level waste did not pose a safety risk, it would be left at the current stores.
"Three dumps have had to be closed in the United States because of environmental contamination," he said.
"Also ANSTO is talking about a dump in the Champagne region of France and saying it hasn't had any impact on the environment.
"In fact there's a cracked wall in that dump in Champagne in France and it is contaminating the local environment."
------------------->
FoE Australia media release May 25, 2007
NUCLEAR DUMP DANGEROUS FOR TERRITORY
National environment group Friends of the Earth (FoE) has today
expressed concern over the Northern Land Council's nomination of a site
for a proposed nuclear waste dump at Muckaty, near Tennant Creek in the
Northern Territory.
FoE national nuclear campaigner Dr. Jim Green said: "John Daly from the
Northern Land Council is entirely wrong when he says that a nuclear
dump 'can be safely constructed in many parts of the Northern
Territory' and that nuclear waste transport is 'safe'."
"The government agency responsible for the nuclear waste dump, the
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), has a track
record of mismanaging nuclear projects. When the government planned to
dump nuclear waste in SA, independent nuclear scientists and physicists
argued that DEST could not be trusted to safely construct and manage
the dump because of its lack of expertise. The regulator - the
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency - agreed that
DEST had insufficient expertise to safely manage the project, as did
the International Atomic Energy Agency."
"In theory it might be possible to safely construct and manage a
nuclear repository, but we don't live in theory -- we live in Australia
where the relevant federal government agency has a track record of
incompetence and mismanagement."
"Daly is also wrong to claim that nuclear waste transportation is safe.
There have been countless accidents involving nuclear waste
transportation around the world, such as the radiation contamination
scandal in Germany which led to the indefinite suspension of nuclear
waste transports, the derailment of a train carrying 180 tonnes of
high-level nuclear waste in France, and the truck accident which
spilled strontium-90 onto a highway in Tennessee. The Lucas Heights
nuclear agency ANSTO has acknowledged 1-2 'incidents' each year
involving the transportation of nuclear materials to and from Lucas
Heights."
"Daly's claim that 'every Australian directly benefits from
radiological medical treatment ...produced at Lucas Heights' is also
false. In fact, as two Senate inquiries have found, Australia does not
even need a nuclear reactor let alone a nuclear waste dump in order to
assure high-level nuclear medicine services," Dr. Green concluded.
------------------->
LAUNCH OF ICAN - INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
------------------->
The world must unite to eliminate the growing nuclear threat
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-world-must-unite-to-eliminate-the-growing-nuclear-threat/2007/04/22/1177180476368.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Christopher Weeramantry
April 23, 2007
IN THE past week alone, North Korea failed to meet a deadline to halt
its nuclear program, and Iran announced it was seeking bids to build
two more nuclear power plants, despite international concern that the
enriched uranium is destined to fuel weapons.
As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists declared this year: "We stand
at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs
were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such
perilous choices." The significant threats caused by North Korea and
Iran's increasing nuclear ambitions are among a long and terrifying
list of reasons driving us closer to disaster. They include unsecured
nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing launch-ready
status of thousands of American and Russian weapons, escalating
terrorism, increasing availability of the materials with which to make
a bomb, and a dangerous lowering of the threshold for use in several
nuclear weapons states.
The main reason we are held hostage by the most destructive technology
on earth is simple: the complete lack of international resolve to ban
nuclear weapons and banish them from the arsenals of the world.
Today, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons will be
launched in Melbourne. Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser
will speak, joined by former foreign minister Gareth Evans via video,
some of Australia's leading medical experts and community leaders in a
plea for action. The campaign's demand is simple. It calls for a
Nuclear Weapons Convention, similar to those already achieved for
chemical and biological weapons and for landmines.
Such is the seriousness of the nuclear threat that high-profile and
bipartisan leaders in Australia have joined to urge action to create a
nuclear weapons-free world. Australia has a key role. For decades
Australia has provided uranium to several nuclear weapons states, with
a misplaced faith that safeguards will keep that uranium out of
weapons. Australia, as a provider of a raw material that has such
catastrophic potential, has a responsibility to help eliminate the
ultimate weapons of terror. Australia should also reinforce the message
by ceasing uranium exports to any nation that maintains nuclear weapons.
There have been strong international signals of support for a Nuclear
Weapons Convention. At the 2006 United Nations General Assembly, 125
governments voted for the start of negotiations for such a convention.
Yet if we want more than the kind of snail's pace action of the past 50
years, we need a public campaign worldwide that is vocal enough to
force swift action by Australia and every other nation that has
expressed grave concern over weapons of mass destruction.
There have been several attempts to reduce the number of nuclear
weapons globally. In 1970 the world's governments agreed to abolish
such weapons through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since then,
the number of countries with nuclear weapons has increased to nine —
Russia, United States, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan
and North Korea — that possess a staggering 27,000 between them. None
show signs of eliminating their arsenals. The director of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, believes up to
30 countries have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in a short
time.
The bomb also clearly stands categorically condemned by at least a
dozen basic principles of international law. I was one of 14 judges on
the panel of the International Court of Justice that unanimously held
in the Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear
weapons that: "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and
bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in
all its aspects under strict and effective international control."
But elimination will only happen if all countries — nuclear and
non-nuclear states — genuinely work towards this result. Nuclear states
must abolish their arsenals, as was indicated by the unanimous opinion
of the international Court of Justice, the highest international
tribunal. The five nuclear states seem to expect others to refrain from
obtaining bombs while at the same time maintaining their own caches of
deadly weapons.
In particular, Russia and the United States — far from making a serious
effort to disarm — still possess 26,000 of the world's 27,000 nuclear
weapons. According to the board of directors of the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, the two countries combined have more than 1000
warheads ready to be activated within tens of minutes. Each of these
weapons has a potential destructive force up to 40 times that of the
atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima that killed 100,000 people. Fifty of
today's nuclear weapons could kill 200 million people.
The creation of a nuclear weapons convention is not only achievable, it
is imperative if civilisation is to survive. The international campaign
to ban the landmine was successful. In 1997, governments finally
listened to millions of people demanding action. One decade later, the
call for a Nuclear Weapons Convention must be made even more loudly. So
compellingly that all states including Australia will have no choice
but to end any form of support, direct or indirect, to the nuclear
menace which threatens us all.
Judge Christopher Weeramantry is a former vice-president of the
International Court of Justice. He will speak at the launch of the
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons at State Parliament
today.
ICAN launch info at: www.mapw.org.au/ican.html
------------------->
Fraser urges end to nuclear weapons
Monday Apr 23 16:42 AEST
Australia should pressure its international allies to get rid of their
nuclear weapons, former prime minister Malcolm Fraser says.
Speaking after the launch of an anti-nuclear weapons movement in
Melbourne, Mr Fraser said an Australian government needed to push an
international agenda that would abolish all nuclear weapons.
"We all talk about proliferation, or our governments do, and they get
into a great lather about the actions of North Korea or Iran, whom
they're concerned about, but they don't recognise the reality," he said.
"There will be proliferation, they will not be able to stop it unless
the major nuclear states make up their minds that nuclear weapons must
be abolished."
Mr Fraser said it could take years to rid the world of nuclear weapons,
but it was important that nations such as the United Kingdom and United
States were committed to it.
"The real benefit for that is that you could then be extraordinarily
tough on any other state that sought to upset the movement to
abolition," he said.
"At the moment, countries like North Korea, I'm sure, and Iran and
there would be many others, believe that the original nuclear powers
are just trying to preserve their own superiority."
However, Mr Fraser said it was important to separate weapons from
nuclear energy as it would be impossible to demand countries give up
using nuclear power, particularly in Europe where some rely on it for
up to 80 per cent of their needs.
"Power for peaceful purposes is becoming critical. If you're going to
try to abolish that as well as abolish nuclear weapons then you won't
achieve anything at all and the priority is to abolish nuclear
weapons," he said.
Mr Fraser, a former Liberal prime minister, spoke to reporters after
the launch of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons at
Victoria's parliament house in Melbourne.
He declined to comment on Labor's strong opinion polls in the lead up to this year's federal election .
©AAP 2007
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - VARIOUS
------------------->
Jobs thrown on rubbish heap
Andrew Stephens
June 3, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/jobs-thrown-on-rubbish-heap/2007/06/02/1180205572135.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
THE long-awaited Prime Ministerial taskforce on emissions trading may
have sounded the death knell for Australia's renewable energy sector.
Backing a national emissions trading scheme, it recommended that it be
"technology neutral", which means mandatory renewable energy targets
would be abolished in favour of letting the market decide which energy
source was most likely to cut carbon emissions. The lack of targets has
already relegated Australia, once a global leader in renewable
technology, into a "could have been".
As Prime Minister John Howard released the report, China's Suntech
Power Holdings company was busily churning out shiny solar panels,
ready to soak up all that free energy.
Suntech has every reason to love the sunshine: it's said to be hoping
for a $135 million profit for 2007 — a 70 per cent increase on last
year.
And it might just have been an Australian success story.
Suntech's chief executive, Zhengrong Shi, according to Forbes rich
list, is Australia's fifth wealthiest man (and China's third) and he
learnt the tricks of his solar trade in Sydney. A graduate of the
University of NSW's School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy
Engineering and worth a reported $2.8 billion, he lives in China but
holds Australian citizenship.
With inadequate Federal Government support and a coal industry that,
according to its growing chorus of opponents, is unfairly courted,
there are many renewable energy enterprises with Suntech-style
potential that have either given up or turned their attention overseas,
according to the Greens' climate change spokeswoman, Senator Christine
Milne.
She says it's an economic and environmental tragedy. Ms Milne launched
her Re-energising Australia report last month and says scant Federal
Government support for the renewable industry has also made Australians
feel the onus is on them to make changes. "People are feeling
guilt-tripped," Ms Milne says. "Wherever I go it's clear to me that the
community are way ahead of the politics when it comes to climate
change. They are really worried and they want to take whatever action
they can." But she says shifting to solar electricity or a hybrid car
is often prohibitively expensive.
Ms Milne says renewable energy enterprises frequently tell her they are
ready to dive into the local market but the Government's refusal to
increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) has dried up
investment and to varying degrees forced businesses out.
Because the Government won't increase the MRET (originally set at 9500
gigawatt hours, equivalent to about 2 per cent, of additional renewable
energy generation per year by 2010), Victoria, NSW and South Australia
have instead taken the lead with various targets of their own. Victoria
is aiming to buy 10 per cent of power from renewable sources by 2016.
Another study, released recently by the Australian Conservation
Foundation, Greenpeace Asia-Pacific and Climate Action Network
Australia, said a renewable energy target of 25 per cent by 2020 could
deliver 17,000 new jobs and provide enough electricity to power every
home in Australia. It said such a target would reduce emissions by
about 15 per cent from 2004 levels and bring big savings for Australian
households.
Tristan Edis, policy and research manager for the Australian Business
Council for Sustainable Energy, says there is now a global battle to
develop renewable technologies and industries that can tackle
greenhouse emissions and at the same time end dependence on
"unreliable, volatile and often hostile regimes" that supply oil and
gas.
Renewables are a $40 billion-plus global industry; and while Australia
used to be a leader in solar technology, Mr Edis says the world "has
flown past us", with Germany now taking the lead, building a solar and
wind turbine industry that exports globally and employs 157,000 people,
closely followed by Spain. The rest of Europe is following, with the EU
setting a 20 per cent renewable energy target for 2020. Even the US,
which along with Australia has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol to
reduce greenhouse emissions, is in the ascendant, with populous states
such as California setting a 33 per cent target for 2020.
Some renewable energy enterprises remain hopeful. After announcing in
May last year that it was halting work on its big Australian wind farm
projects and focusing overseas, the Roaring 40s company is now taking
an optimistic line. Its spokesman, Josh Bradshaw, says he now sees a
more buoyant market and, with an approaching federal election, the
Howard Government is making "good move-ments" towards an emissions
trading scheme, announcing on Friday that Australia will begin carbon
emissions trading by 2012.
Melbourne-based Pacific Hydro, a renewable energy power plant
development company owned mainly by an Australian super fund, has had a
hard slog locally but is also having great success — overseas. Its
director, Andrew Richards, says all its Australian wind projects were
stalled for several years due to the Federal Government's refusal to
expand MRET. But in the meantime the company has been busy developing a
number of hydro and wind projects in developing countries such as Chile
and Brazil (both are $500 million investments).
Because Victoria has instituted its own renewable energy target,
Pacific Hydro has now revived its local wind projects at Portland (a
$300 million investment) and South Australia. It is also investigating
a geothermal project in central Australia.
While Mr Richards and others estimate that enormous investment
opportunities have been lost while waiting for the Government to take a
firm stand, a spokeswoman for the federal Environment and Water
Resources Department says it is not true to say that current measures
are focused disproportionately on fossil fuels. Renewables are
important in Australia's "energy mix", she says. "The Government is
supporting a range of low emissions technologies," she says.
This includes the $52 million it has spent on the photovoltaic rebate
program, $25 million committed under the Asia-Pacific Partnership on
Clean Development and Climate program, plus $75 million on the Solar
Cities program. In last month's budget, $741 million of extra funding
over the next five years was committed for bigger rebates for solar
panels and other climate change measures. "Making coal and coal mining
less greenhouse intensive is perhaps the most important contribution
Australia can make on climate change," she says.
But Senator Milne and the ACF remain sceptical about "clean" coal
(removing the CO2 from its emissions), with few signs that effective
technology will be online — or even feasible — within the next decade.
The ACF's executive director, Don Henry, insists that the demand for
renewables is there already, with people keen to live more sustainably.
Taking the lead
* AUSTRALIA - Australian states have taken the lead with renewable
energy targets: NSW (15 per cent by 2020), Victoria (10 per cent by
2016) and South Australia (20 per cent by 2014). The Business Council
for Sustainable Energy has launched a 20 per cent by 2020 campaign to
try and get a national target.
* UNITED STATES - States that make up half the US population have in
place varying schemes. California has set a target of 33 per cent by
2020.
* EUROPEAN UNION - A 20 per cent target by 2020.
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - ACF/GREENPEACE/CANA REPORT
------------------->
Report urges renewable energy action
By David Crawshaw
April 23, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21603625-1702,00.html
HOUSEHOLD electricity bills would rise by just $1.23 a week if a
quarter of Australia's energy came from renewable sources, a report has
found.
The report by three green groups says setting a renewable energy target
of 25 per cent by the year 2020 would deliver more than 16,000 new
jobs, slash greenhouse gas emissions by 69 million tonnes and generate
$33 billion in investment.
Although the average power bill would rise by $64 a year, continuing to
rely on current power sources would cause prices to jump by $234 a year.
The study, A Bright Future, was released today by the Australian
Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and the Climate Change Action
Network.
It warns Australia is missing out on the economic benefits of renewable
energy that are flowing to California and European nations which have
boosted their renewable energy targets.
In 1997, the Federal Government set a mandatory renewable energy target of two per cent, on top of existing supply.
At present, about 10 per cent of Australia's energy comes from renewables like wind, solar and hydro.
"With current policies, (Australia's) electricity emissions will reach
260 million tonnes by 2020, more than double 1990 levels," the report
said.
"Generating a quarter of our electricity from renewable energy and
reversing electricity growth from 2010 onwards by ambitious energy
efficiency measures would reduce overall electricity emissions to 160
million tonnes.
"The reduction of about 100 million tonnes, compared to business as
usual, would be equivalent to removing all the road transport in
Australia.
"Provided we put Australia on track for sustained renewable energy
development, costs should fall to below the cost of fossil fuels over
the next 15 years."
Under the plan, coal's share of power generation would fall from
three-quarters to 59 per cent, drastically reducing greenhouse
emissions.
The study said allowing Australia's energy use to continue rising would
ultimately cost the country far more than switching to renewable
sources now and becoming more energy-efficient.
Australia was blessed with abundant renewable energy resources yet was
lagging behind countries like Germany, which was less windy and
received less sunlight.
Greenpeace campaigner Mark Wakeham said Australia should be a world leader in renewable energy.
"Yet due to current government policies, we're throwing away our
competitive advantage and renewable companies are moving offshore," he
said.
The European Union has set a renewable energy target of 21 per cent by 2010 and California is aiming for 33 per cent by 2020.
------------------->
Green energy to hike cost, so call to cut use
Sid Marris
April 23, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21602724-2702,00.html
CONSUMERS will pay more for renewable energy, but the cost increases
will be kept to a minimum if more energy-saving measures are introduced.
A 25 per cent renewable energy target would add $73 a year, or $1.40
week, to the average family;s power bill by 2020, a new study suggests.
But advocates argue that renewable energy can be competitive if
governments encourage the consumers to use less electricity overall.
If measures to reduce total consumption were introduced -- ranging from
better building standards for new homes to the use of more efficient
machines in industry -- power could be $84 a year cheaper than would
otherwise be the case in 2020, even with the mandatory contribution to
renewable energy.
The study by the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace, to
be released today, argues that an increased target would give
developers and firms certainty for investment.
They argue the technology could be in place to provide one-quarter of
energy from renewable sources, such as wind, biological material, water
and solar, by 2020. This would create 16,000 jobs from an investment of
$33billion.
The average annual power bill at present is about $1017.
By 2020, Electricity prices are expected to rise as a result of
inflation and increased demand to $1251. Presuming unfettered growth in
demand and the take-up of renewable energy supplies, the bill would be
$1324. But even a "medium" level of energy efficiency would trim that
figure back to $1167.
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - WWF STUDY
------------------->
Five years the key to planet’s future
15 May 2007
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=102560
Gland, Switzerland – The world has more than enough sustainable energy
and technology to curb climate change, but only if key decisions are
made within the next five years, according to new research by WWF.
Climate Solutions: WWF’s vision for 2050, a new report detailing the
results of that study, was launched by the global conservation
organization at an international press briefing in Geneva today.
The third report this year of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, released on 4 May, showed that the world could limit its
heat-trapping emissions with known technologies and policy changes, but
WWF’s Climate Solutions report shows how this can be done using only
sustainable, environmentally friendly energy sources.
"The world has never been more aware of climate change, or the urgent
need to slow its advance," said James Leape, WWF International’s
Director General. "The question for leaders and governments everywhere
is how to rein in dangerously high levels of carbon dioxide emissions
without stunting development and reducing living standards.
"The Climate Solutions report shows not only that this can be done, it
shows how we can do it. We have a small window of time in which we can
plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years. We cannot
afford to waste them.
"This is not something that governments can put off until the future.
Governments in power now have a unique opportunity, a duty, to do
something big for the future of the planet. If they fail, generations
to come will have to live with the compromises and hardships caused by
their inability to act."
Princeton University’s Professor Robert Socolow, who in his work with
Professor Stephen Pacala developed the climate stabilization wedges
used in the WWF study, endorsed the Climate Solutions report.
"The WWF study provides a much needed integration of climate change
mitigation within a comprehensive framework of environmental
stewardship," he said.
Jorgen Randers, who in 1972 was one of the authors of Limits to Growth,
the book known for linking economic growth and the state of the natural
environment, also praised the report.
"The WWF Climate Solutions report is important first and foremost
because it shows that it can be done. The plan shows it is possible to
supply the world’s growing energy need in a climate-friendly manner,
even if we choose to limit ourselves to existing and environmentally
acceptable technologies," said Professor Randers, who is also Chairman
of WWF-Norway.
Climate Solutions is the report of WWF’s Energy Taskforce which was set
up in December 2005. More than 100 scientists and experts contributed
their knowledge.
The taskforce set out to answer the question: "Is it technically
possible to meet the growing global demand for energy, using clean and
sustainable energy sources and technologies that will protect the
global climate?"
It began by reviewing 25 different commercially available sustainable
energy sources or technologies and ranking them. From this process,
three groupings emerged: those technologies with clear benefits, those
with some negative but mostly positive impacts, and those where the
negatives clearly outweighed the positives.
Those technologies found to have more benefits than negative impacts
were then run through the newly designed WWF Climate Solutions model.
The findings were clear and had a note of hope: the model showed, with
a high degree of probability (i.e. greater than 90 per cent), that
known energy sources and proven technologies could be harnessed between
now and 2050 to meet a projected doubling in global demand for energy
while at the same time achieving the necessary significant drop (about
60-80 per cent) in carbon dioxide emissions to prevent dangerous
climate change.
The model shows for the first time that this is technically and
industrially feasible. It also shows that measures must be taken within
five years to bring about a reduction in global carbon dioxide
emissions within the next ten years.
The report identifies six key solutions to the problem of meeting global energy demand without damaging the global climate:
• Improving energy efficiency.
• Stopping forest loss.
• Accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies.
• Developing flexible fuels.
• Replacing high-carbon coal with low-carbon gas.
• Equipping fossil-fuel plants with carbon capture and storage technology.
To download the report:
* use the link from: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=102560
* or direct download: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/climatesolutionweb.pdf
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - ABC 4 CORNERS PROGRAM
------------------->
ABC 4 Corners TV programs, 16/4/07.
Transcript, video, links etc at
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1895335.htm
------------------->
CLEAN ENREGY - WAVE POWER
------------------->
Wave technology could be 'holy grail' of renewable energy
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1925888.htm
Last Update: Thursday, May 17, 2007. 3:04pm (AEST)
Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says a new technology
harnessing wave energy could be the "holy grail" in providing
electricity and drinking water to Australia's major capital cities.
The system developed by Perth-based Carnegie Corporation with the help
of more than $775,000 dollars in seed funding from the Federal
Government works through a number of submerged buoys tethered to seabed
pumps.
The company chairman, Alan Burns, says the buoys move in harmony with
the motion of the passing waves, pumping pressurised seawater to shore.
"There is a very slow acting pump that pressurises the water from the
sea brings it to shore at a very high pressure which then runs through
a turbine and desalination plant, so there is no electricity, no oil,
no nothing, it's simply sea water coming to shore at very high
pressure," he said.
Mr Macfarlane says the technology is capable of making a real
difference with power and water supply to people living near the coast
"The fact that the constancy of the waves even when the surface is dead
calm means that you can build a base load renewable energy power
station and that is really the holy grail for us, if you can produce
renewable energy 24/7," he said.
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - ENERGY EFFICIENCY
------------------->
No time like the present to rescue our environment
Jonathan Jutsen
April 5, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/no-time-like-the-present-to-rescue-our-environment/2007/04/04/1175366327236.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Kevin Rudd provided a real contribution to the climate change issue in
Australia through the Labor Party's national climate change summit held
in Canberra last Saturday.
Talented people from a wide range of perspectives were brought together
to discuss what could be done to tackle climate change, rather than
continuing divisive debates on why action should be deferred.
The focus was on innovation, increasing resource productivity and opportunities, rather than just risks.
With such a positive focus, the business and general community will
quickly recognise that with Australia's vast energy reserves and
strategic location near China, we could make large net gains from being
ahead of the game in greenhouse gas mitigation instead of being a
reluctant follower.
Australia has the opportunity to substantially reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions economically by improving energy efficiency across
business, government, homes and transport activities.
This could allow us to reduce to zero our growth in energy use within
five years simply through making efficiency improvements that have a
positive net economic benefit — while maintaining economic growth rates
— thereby demonstrating we can decouple energy growth and economic
growth.
Energy efficiency is not just about collecting the "low hanging fruit",
or cutting waste. It is also about investing to improve the
productivity of energy use throughout the economy, involving such
measures as application of higher-efficiency processes and equipment
(including cars), improving transport infrastructure (perhaps including
better broadband access to reduce the need for travel), and better
material stewardship to reduce wasted energy from disposal of materials
with substantial embedded energy (such as glass and aluminium).
It is important to recognise that the community and businesses do not
have an intrinsic demand for electricity or oil. We seek energy
services — lighting, heating, mobility — and when we apply our full
imagination to exploring how to best deliver these services, we can
unlock larger efficiency opportunities.
Perhaps when we reduce household energy use to a small fraction of its
current level, we might even be able to economically supply the
electricity demand using low-cost solar cells built into roofing
materials.
So let's move past focusing entirely on options for reducing emissions in central power generation plants.
To achieve substantial improvements in efficiency across the economy,
we need to employ the entire policy toolkit including minimum energy
efficiency standards, substantial incentives to encourage businesses
(and home owners) to accelerate efficiency investments, as well as
measures such as carbon taxes and/or carbon trading.
We must implement measures we know will work, as there is no "playback
button" on global warming — if we get it wrong the first time, we are
stuck with the consequences.
One measure that has recently been initiated by the Federal Government
is the Energy Efficiency Opportunities legislation, requiring big
energy-using businesses to report their energy use and opportunities
for savings.
Judging by the fact that 55 companies had registered for the program as
of Monday, and that 250-300 companies are expected to be liable under
the act — and that registrations closed on the weekend — it could be
quite a challenge to activate companies to deal with their full range
of energy-savings opportunities.
It is time to start the process of stabilising the climate by
immediately acting to improve efficiency. There are no losers in this
strategy.
I propose a target of zero energy growth by 2010 to 2012. We have no
time to delay, as every day that we invest in lower-efficiency capital
will make the job of stabilising the climate increasingly expensive.
Let's continue in the co-operative spirit demonstrated at the summit to work together to protect Australia and the globe.
Jonathan Jutsen is an executive director of Energetics.
------------------->
Emissions can be cut, we just need the will
April 4, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/emissions-can-be-cut-we-just-need-the-will/2007/04/03/1175366237715.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
The world has to be made carbon-neutral. There's no option, writes Tim Colebatch.
TOM Burke is an old hand on climate change. A veteran environmentalist,
he has advised British governments on both sides of politics, and
companies such as BP and now Rio Tinto. And he is one of those guys who
makes his case with startling clarity.
Amid the wealth of interesting and valuable points made at Labor's
national climate change summit in Canberra on Saturday, one of his
comments cut to the heart of the issue.
Noting that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have
already risen close to the 400 parts per million seen as "the threshold
of dangerous climate change", that the International Energy Agency
forecasts that global emissions are on track to increase by a further
50 per cent by 2030, and that coal remains central to the world
economy, he paused, then added with deliberate emphasis: "This is an
issue on which we can't afford policy failure.
There is no rewind button. We won't get a second chance to fix it."
You can have a million arguments about global warming, how serious it
will be, and what we should do. As Graeme Pearman, formerly the CSIRO's
top climate change scientist, declared frankly: "We don't know all the
science. We don't know all the solutions. We have to deal with that,
and manage the risk."
But after you've had the million arguments, when all is said and done,
the ultimate truth left is the one stated by Tom Burke: this is an
issue on which we can't get afford to get it wrong.
Burke drew a parallel with the 1930s, when the democracies failed to
face up to what Churchill called "the gathering storm": the threat from
Nazi Germany.
"Bad as climate change has become, it is still a manageable problem,
within the envelope of our technical and economic competence," he said.
"But it is clear that in the near future, it will become an
unmanageable problem, unless we act decisively."
In which direction? A recurring theme of the summit was that there is
no one solution. We need a strong policy framework of economic
incentives for clean energy sources and efficient energy use. And we
need to accelerate research, development and take-up of a wide range of
technologies, to maximise the chance of getting low-cost solutions that
work.
Burke puts the goal simply: "We need to get carbon out of our energy
system, and keep it out forever. We have to make our energy system
carbon-neutral by the middle of the century."
That's a heck of a challenge. But Burke argues it's a feasible one,
given the potential for cost-effective technologies in four areas:
* Carbon capture and storage, with the goal of making coal-fired generation carbon-free.
* Hydrogen fuel cells in transport, to phase out use of petrol.
* Energy efficiency, which the IEA says could cut the world's energy demand in 2050 by half today's demand level.
* Renewable energies such as wind, solar, biomass — and the surprise newcomer, geothermal energy.
How do we get there? Business leaders such as Charlie Lenegan, CEO of
Rio Tinto Australia, and Tim Sims, managing director of Pacific Energy
Partners, said the first step must be to put a price on carbon, through
an emissions trading scheme (the global favourite) or a carbon tax.
Change the prices enough, and you create incentives and disincentives
that make business and households change their behaviour.
Sims said government should "seize the initiative by acting early". Its
initial focus should be on increasing energy efficiency, where easy
gains can be made. Thirty per cent of emissions make no sense, he said,
because cutting energy waste would make consumers better off. "We need
to regulate to ensure that people pick up the $100 notes lying on the
street."
The Government's emissions trading taskforce will report back next
month. With Labor already committed to an emissions trading scheme, and
business now strongly in favour, Prime Minister John Howard is expected
to drop his longstanding opposition, and endorse a scheme before the
election. But it will be the party winning the election that will
decide its shape.
The design will be crucial. The states' own taskforce has proposed a
good model for rolling 10-year target zones in setting carbon prices.
It's a compromise that would give business a degree of certainty while
preserving the Government's flexibility to shift tack gradually if the
urgency of taking action changes.
The states' model, however, proposes scoring an own goal by giving free
allocations of emission permits not only to energy-intensive export
industries such as aluminium (which makes sense) but also to
electricity generators (which doesn't).
As CSIRO economist Steve Hatfield-Dodds pointed out, the generators
have known for years that carbon pricing will come. Effectively
exempting the electricity sector would be a brake on efficiency gains
when we desperately need to accelerate them.
The timing is crucial. It will be 15 to 20 years before the cleaner
technologies we are looking to — carbon capture and storage, nuclear,
geothermal and other renewables — will have any significant impact.
Making rapid gains in energy efficiency would allow us to put off new
power stations until clean technologies are proven and economic.
Picking up those $100 notes buys us time.
The cost of halving emissions by 2050 is minor. Australia's GDP per
head would still double. Annual growth in GDP would fall by about 0.2
per cent.
This is not fanaticism, and it would not wreck the economy. The Howard Government should cut the hot air and get on board.
Tim Colebatch is economics editor.
------------------->
Fast, easy climate remedies 'ignored'
Matthew Warren, Environment writer
April 02, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21487457-601,00.html
AUSTRALIA'S climate change debate is becoming a contest between rival
mega-projects, while both major parties fail to move on simple measures
to drive the cheapest and fastest cuts to greenhouse gas emissions
through efficiency improvements and reducing demand.
Energy experts challenged Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd to make energy
efficiency a priority in Labor's greenhouse platform in the lead-up to
this year's federal election at the national climate change summit in
Canberra on Saturday.
Former Greenpeace International chief executive Paul Gilding said there
was growing frustration at the Howard Government and now Labor for
building their climate change policy response around long-term
charismatic mega-projects with 40-year targets like clean-coal
technology and nuclear power.
"It's easy for politicians to make statements about the long term
because they don't require much policy action or affect voters now," he
told The Australian yesterday.
"Earlier cuts from energy efficiency will make a big difference
compared to later cuts. But there is no policy I see from Labor or the
Coalition that addresses this seriously."
Mr Gilding said Mr Rudd was in danger of falling into the trap of
promoting a suite of "left-wing mega-projects", such as increased
subsidies for renewable energy and developing a green-car industry, to
compete with rival announcements by the Howard Government.
Research by global consultants McKinsey has shown the first 5per cent
of cuts in greenhouse emissions could come from a suite of efficiency
measures - including insulation, retrofitting office buildings and
improving fuel efficiency in transport - that would deliver a net
profit for the economy.
Sustainable Solutions director Alan Pears told the Labor summit the
value of these kinds of efficiency gains and investment had been
wrongly discounted by energy economists.
"The dry economists who have dominated energy policy have been energy-efficiency sceptics," he told the summit.
"They have seen it as a marginal, minor issue because their economic
models are not well suited to modelling dramatic change in the
productivity of energy. Australian business has actually taken its eye
off the ball in terms of energy efficiency because we are obsessed with
energy-market reform to reduce energy prices. A lot of us pay more for
energy now because we are less efficient."
Although Labor and the Coalition have acknowledged the importance of
energy efficiency, there has been few formal policy initiatives. In
February, the Howard Government announced a ban on incandescent light
bulbs, while some Labor states have provided rebates and incentives for
low-energy hot water systems.
------------------->
See the light, and use less of it
Tim Colebatch
May 22, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/see-the-light-and-use-less-of-it/2007/05/21/1179601325246.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
I'M NOT obsessive, I'm just a parent. We have four teenagers or
post-teens. So every time I walk through the house, I have turn off
lights burning in empty rooms. Kids these days are so tech-savvy: why
they can't work out how to turn off a light?
It wouldn't have happened under our grandparents. They didn't know
about global warming, but they knew that electricity costs money, and
the more you waste, the more you pay. Now, with rising affluence and
cheap energy, we don't think like that. If you've got it, flaunt it.
Yesterday's articles in The Age on the energy load from five-star
McMansions reminded me of Al Gore. Remember the recent revelation that
the climate change warrior and his family consumed an incredible
221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity last year, running up combined
electricity and gas bills of $A40,000?
One paper had a photo of the Gore family mansion at night. Lights were
blazing inside and out. You can bet that if it were summer, the
air-conditioners would be going full tilt, and if it were winter, the
central heating would be doing the same.
Almost unconsciously, we have adopted energy wastage as part of our
lifestyle. Back in 1950, the average home used 1500 kWh of electricity
a year. Today the average home has barely half as many people, but uses
6833 kWh. Take out holiday homes, and we consume almost 10 times as
much electricity per head as our grandparents did.
Lighting explains a lot of that. The Australian Greenhouse Office
estimates that lighting is responsible for 25 per cent of greenhouse
gas emissions by corporate Australia, and 12 per cent of household
emissions.
Most of that is produced by hot, inefficient incandescent bulbs, which,
the office points out, are also the most expensive form of lighting,
taking their short lifespan into account. And many homes are overlit.
"Most homes could probably reduce the amount of energy they use for
lighting by 50 per cent or more," the office says. Its website (see
below) has helpful advice on how to do just that. And Malcolm Turnbull
has made it easier by banning incandescent bulbs from 2012, cutting 4
million tonnes a year from our greenhouse gas emissions, and slashing
household lighting bills by up to two-thirds.
Globally, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that lighting
consumes more electricity than all the world's nuclear or hydro power
stations produce. Lighting emits 70 per cent as much greenhouse gas as
all the world's cars. Cut energy use in lighting, and you cut your
contribution to global warming.
The environmental cost of lighting highlights three key points in the greenhouse debate.
First, fixing global warming will not be painless, and don't believe
anyone who tells you it will. Some would have us believe that all we
need is to sign the Kyoto protocol and introduce a low-cost emissions
trading scheme, and we'll be right. Sorry, but no, we won't.
The unpleasant truth is that, by and large, we change our behaviour
when we find it hurts us. Good words and thoughts are not enough. We
cannot tackle climate change seriously without raising energy prices —
and, in Australia and the US, raising them a lot. To exempt electricity
from carbon charges, as state governments propose, would doom any
emissions trading scheme to failure.
The good news is that if the revenue from carbon charges goes to
governments, and not business, it can flow back to us through cuts to
other taxes, and/or subsidies and incentives to help business and
households switch to more energy-efficient technologies. If so, we will
not be much worse off. But we will have to live differently.
Second, of the four paths to solving global warming — clean coal,
renewable energy, nuclear power and energy efficiency — for the next
generation, energy efficiency is the hope of the side.
To make a real difference to greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, the IEA
argues in its 2006 World Energy Outlook on a least-cost strategy,
almost two-thirds of cuts to global emissions would come from improving
the efficiency of energy use. That's twice the savings from nuclear,
clean coal and renewables combined.
The IEA (which is the energy equivalent of the OECD, a think tank for
Western governments on energy issues), argues that nowhere is the
potential greater than in Australia, where energy use per unit of GDP
is 35 per cent higher than the Western average.
While Australia has a lot of energy-intensive industries, the IEA
argued in its 2005 report on Australia, its high energy use also
reflects the fact that cheap energy gets wasted. In transport, we use
40 per cent more energy per unit of GDP than the rest of the West.
Making the most of energy efficiency also gives us breathing space to
wait for new technological breakthroughs. "Every year that the need for
a new power plant is delayed will mean a year of greater technological
development for the plant that is eventually built," the IEA advised.
"The longer the technology has to develop, the more gains can be
realised."
Third, to beat climate change, we should use any lever that works. We
need to raise the price of carbon, but to say we should rely solely on
higher prices is to argue for the poor to be forced to cut their energy
use while the rich can buy their way out. When it makes sense to tackle
a problem by regulation, as with Turnbull's ban on incandescent light
bulbs, just do it.
And as you leave a room empty, please, just turn off the light.
Tim Colebatch is economics editor.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au
http://www.iea.org
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - WIND
------------------->
Wind farm projects in limbo
By Lucy Carne
June 03, 2007 12:00
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,21838721-5006009,00.html
NSW is lagging behind the rest of Australia in developing wind energy
as a viable power source, despite a large number of projects being
granted approval.
Green campaigners blame the State's reluctance to set renewable energy
target incentives as a key stumbling block in getting projects past the
drawing-board stage.
NSW has 26 wind turbines generating 17 megawatts of energy a year,
compared with 216 in South Australia and 150 in Western Australia.
More than 20 wind farms with the potential to generate 1200 megawatts
of power have been approved or are in the planning stages, but
development is lagging.
If these farms go ahead, the wind energy generated could provide power to more than 500,000 homes.
"It's very frustrating,'' Australian Wind Energy Association chief Dominique La Fontaine said.
"It's a technology we could be putting in place to seriously reduce our dangerous carbon emissions.
"Wind farms aren't getting off the ground because there's no market for
clean electricity from wind energy. Renewable energy targets are
something the Government needs to implement.
"It would provide investment certainty by requiring wholesalers to buy
electricity from wind farms.''
Australia's wind-farm market is worth
$2 billion but has the potential to reach $14 billion, wind-power
advocates say.
The industry in NSW is worth $34 million, but if the approved farms were developed this figure would grow to $2.4 billion.
"NSW has fallen behind the other states,'' Jane Castle, of the Total Environment Centre, said.
"There is a cultural bias for coal- fired generation in NSW.
New players like wind power have to compete with this very cheap, very profitable and heavily subsidised coal-fired industry.''
In Denmark, wind farms supply 20 per cent of the nation's consumption.
But in NSW, which has more wind resources than Denmark, wind
contributes only 0.1 per cent of the electricity.
The lack of wind-farm development has left local councils in areas where wind farms had been approved feeling left in the dark.
"We're in limbo,'' Upper Lachlan Council general manager John Bell
said. "We don't know what the result is going to be, and we're yet to
see something happen.''
The southern tablelands shire has eight wind turbines and is awaiting the construction of four approved wind farms.
"Every time we ask the Government to let us know when it's going to start, we're yet to hear back,'' Mr Bell said.
Energy Minister Ian Macdonald said wind-farm development had been
stalled by the Federal Government's refusal to extend a mandatory
renewable energy target beyond 2010.
"This has created a strong financial impediment to significant
investment in renewable energy and has delayed a number of important
wind projects,'' Mr Macdonald said.
------------------->
The answer is blowing in the wind
May 29, 2007
www.smh.com.au/news/environment/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind/2007/05/28/1180205163553.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
You can install your own wind farm but its effectiveness will depend on
where it is and even the time of the year. Judy Adamson reports.
Locals in Camden have dubbed it the twin toilet roll but it is more
properly known as the vertical axis wind turbine. And those involved in
the trials of the device perched atop a tower at Camden High School are
hoping it will revolutionise wind power.
The school's principal, John Jarvis, says locating the turbine at his school was a happy accident.
He had introduced solar energy at his previous school and, because of
Camden's windy location, was hoping to install wind power there. After
a few letters and phone calls Jarvis linked up with a local company
that had been asked to make an "unusual-looking wind generator" from
fibreglass.
The company, Dynamic Systems Australia, was looking for a location
nearby to test the new wind turbine and it ended up being the high
school.
Early results have been exciting, Jarvis says.
"When we originally put in to Camden Council, [the tower] was going to
be 20 metres or 22 metres," he says, "but when it was that high they
found it was so effective that they have actually reduced it to about
half that height. So you could quite easily site it somewhere and put
trees around it, although you'd have to be careful about the trees
affecting the wind catchment. But it could be disguised totally.
"The remarkable thing about this is that it is actually designed so you
can winch it up, and if anything goes wrong with it you can just winch
it down and fix the blades and so on. It'd also be a relatively
inexpensive thing to put into a village in a Third World country or a
farm in outback Australia."
Tony Wright, a consultant project manager for Dynamic Systems
Australia, says that full-scale tests assessing the power capacity of
the vertical axis wind turbine are expected to begin soon. He believes
the turbine has "the capacity to produce 80 kilowatts to 100 kilowatts
at very low wind speeds - at six metres per second, whereas a
traditional turbine would require probably twice that [speed]". (The
turbine's capacity is not a rating in kilowatts per hour. This is what
the testing will accomplish, taking into account the variations in the
wind.)
Small wind turbines have been attracting a lot of attention recently,
especially overseas. In Britain, the Conservative Party Leader, David
Cameron, famously attached a micro wind turbine to the chimney of his
London home, provoking a furious debate there about whether domestic
turbines were of any real value.
There are plenty of turbine kits for sale in Australia. However, Dr
Mark Diesendorf, a senior lecturer from the Institute of Environmental
Studies at the University of NSW, says wind turbines such as Cameron's
would be "almost useless" because they are situated in suburban areas
where much of the wind is screened by houses, trees or other obstacles.
"There is a fashion in Britain for people to buy these things and stick
them on their chimneys, and in most cases it's a complete waste of
money," Diesendorf says. "They would get the same amount of energy
[savings] by replacing an incandescent lamp with a fluorescent bulb."
However, he says large wind turbines are extremely efficient. They are
able to convert more than 45 per cent of the wind that passes through
the circle of the blades into energy. He regards the Southern
Tablelands, Southern Highlands and parts of the Northern Tablelands as
areas with "a lot of potential" for wind farms.
But the smaller turbines that would be used in domestic settings are
less efficient and, Diesendorf believes, not especially practical.
"There will be exceptional cases, usually in places on the coast with a
lot of sea breeze exposure, but generally speaking there are much more
cost-effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the home,"
he says.
On the far South Coast of NSW - where, happily, it often gets very
windy - Steve Garrett, the owner of Pyramid Power, has been installing
domestic-sized wind turbines for 21 years. He agrees they are not for
everyone but says that during the windier months in his area the small
400-watt wind generators he installs are able to provide about two
kilowatt hours a day.
He estimates this is equivalent to one-sixth of the power used by a
reasonably energy-efficient house and 7 per cent of the power in a
non-energy-efficient house.
Of course, in some months there is little or no wind, so no energy is
provided. In addition, Garrett says, most domestic turbines are
inefficient because they are not placed at a sufficient height above
the building. "You need to get clear air," he says, "so it's more an
energy-efficiency flag than an energy-efficiency doer."
Garrett has to prepare a council development application for every wind
turbine tower over a certain height, so he recommends that people
thinking about installing a wind generator at home check their
council's regulations regarding height limits. "And it's a really good
idea to talk to your neighbours as well".
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - SOLAR
------------------->
Energy boss hits out at solar hopes
Jessica Wright
May 24, 2007
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=588176&category=General
The head of Canberra's energy provider ActewAGL has mounted a stinging attack on the solar power industry.
Chief executive John Mackay said solar power technology had shown
virtually no innovation over the past decade and accused those in the
industry of being long on rhetoric and short on delivery.
"Solar power requires a quantum leap in terms of efficiency in
technology as it stands at the moment to be an effective energy source.
"I have been hearing the same good ideas about this as I was a decade ago," he said.
But a report issued this week by the environmental research group
Worldwatch Institute said solar energy was set to become a mainstream
energy choice in three to four years due to the increased output of a
key ingredient used in the production of the technology.
The report indicated costs for solar energy could fall by up to 40per
cent in the next few years as China emerged as a front-runner in the
production of purified polysillicon, which helped panels convert
sunlight into electricity.
Solar power is the world's fastest growing energy source but provides
less than 1 per cent of electricity worldwide, in part because the cost
to householders can be up to twice as much as energy supplied by the
power grid. Senior researcher at Worldwatch and author of the report
Janet Salwin said China's involvement would boost production
significantly.
"We are now seeing major trends that will accelerate the growth of
[solar energy]: the development of advanced technologies, and the
emergence of China as a low-cost producer," she said.
Solar panels for homes in the ACT were costly and less than effective, Mr Mackay said yesterday.
"For a one kilowatt panel array it costs between $13,000 and $14,000
minus the government rebate, so there is still a large cost and
effectively it is a poor investment as the energy produced from these
panels would typically only cover one-third of a household's needs. The
payback generally takes about 20 years."
Currently there were 60 homes in the ACT that employed solar energy
through rooftop panels and they had not been as successful as hoped.
"Over five years only one household out of the 60 has produced enough
energy to be able to contribute back to the grid and that was during a
solo two-month billing period," Mr Mackay said.
"The solar industry in regard to advancements in technology has been very long on rhetoric and very short on delivery."
However, ANU sustainable and solar energy expert Dr Keith Lovegrove
believed solar power as well as other renewable energy sources were the
way of the future and a workable solution for the challenges faced by
energy providers and consumers.
"Solar energy, as part of a complete renewable energy portfolio will become part of the market norm.
"Renewable energy is never going to be as cheap as coal-produced energy however it will be at most 50 per cent more expensive.
"There is plenty of scope to make houses more efficient, and 50 per
cent more efficient is achievable, so in effect this would come out
even."
------------------->
Boomers bask in solar rebate and selling power
Matthew Warren, Environment writer
May 17, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21745378-2702,00.html
AS baby boomers cash in on the most generous solar power rebate scheme
in the world, the renewable energy industry is pushing for an
additional subsidy to boost the price of surplus solar electricity sold
back into the grid.
Solar retailers have been inundated with inquiries since last week's
$150million plan to double the rebate for photovoltaic (PV) cells on
household roofs. Some have reported a backlog of more than three months
as the market tries to cope with the increased demand.
An estimated 400 households had PV systems on order when the rebate was
announced, resulting in widespread cancellations as they wait for the
more lucrative scheme to begin operation.
Adrian Ferraretto from the Solar Shop in Adelaide said it would have
been better if the Government had got the paperwork ready before making
the announcement last week - but "it's a nice problem to have".
He said the main market to date had been environmentally conscious and
cashed-up empty-nesters who had money from superannuation or other
payouts and no plans to move, and who saw the cells as an investment in
their retirement.
"It's baby boomers - the people who stuffed up the planet in the first
place are now trying to do something about it," Mr Ferraretto said.
Semi-retired Sydney resident Brett Hatfield had his top-of-the-range
3KW system installed on his architect-designed house in January but is
not worried about missing out on the extra rebate.
He now sells power back into the grid during the day at the peak retail
electricity rate, while running the pool pump and other big energy
users at night to take advantage of cheaper off-peak rates, cutting 90
per cent off his power bill.
"Had there been no rebate I still would have bought it," Mr Hatfield said.
"It's something I've always wanted to do, not so much for the dollars but really our contribution to the future."
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy yesterday renewed its call
for state Governments to mandate a minimum rate for any extra
electricity sold back to the grid from solar systems.
Germany has regulated this feed-in tariff at four times the retail
rate, resulting in significant growth in its PV electricity supply,
while at the same time there are plans to build up to 26 new coal-fired
power stations.
The Rann Government in South Australia plans to introduce feed-in
tariff legislation in July while Victorian Premier Steve Bracks
promised a similar scheme during last year's election campaign.
------------------->
Solar costs 'to catch up with coal by 2010' (5 April 2007)
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12857&channel=0
Solar electricity could reach the cost of electricity from coal in just
under three years, but consumers may not see the difference for years
to come, according to a new study.
High demand will keep prices up despite low production and installation costs, the study predicts
"The True Cost of Solar Power" suggests that PV companies will see this
growth as an excellent opportunity to expand their earnings in the
coming years.
The report takes a close look at each level in the PV value added
chain, and its predictions suggest that by 2010 solar electricity will
be produced for $0.12 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in Spain, $0.18 in
Southern Germany, and $0.13 in California.
It further predicts that industry leaders will even be able to produce
solar electricity in Spain for as low as $0.10/kWh, which is equivalent
to the delivered cost of electricity from a new coal power plant. These
economics could quickly result in a very large market opportunity for
solar energy.
Michael Rogol, one of the study's authors said: "Prices for solar
electricity in 2004 have become disconnected from costs. Because the
demand is much greater than the supply, a reduction in cost will not
automatically trickle down to the consumer.
"This scenario will likely continue for several years, with solar prices remaining strong due to very large demand," he said.
Until now, solar electricity has had the reputation of being a very
expensive energy source. But this view only takes into account prices
for systems and the very high subsidies they receive.
For instance, in 2007, the price of solar electricity in Germany is
roughly $0.50/ kWh, compared to residential grid-based electricity
prices of under $0.20/kWh. Solar is only economic for installation on
rooftops because of the feed-in tariffs for solar electricity of
$0.60/kWh.
But when it comes to competitiveness, the decisive factor isn't the
system's market price, or the feed-in tariffs, but rather the
production and installation costs.
When looking at the cost side of the equation, by 2010 solar
electricity will cost less than the residential electricity price for
50 percent of all residential consumers in the OECD - that would be an
addressable market of at least 1,500 GW.
The results come from an international study by Photon Consulting,
which took cost information from PV companies, added them together and
then formed an average. The report's authors say the study's accuracy
has been peer reviewed by executives from several large PV companies.
The report only examines costs structures for crystalline cells, with
an examination of thin-film technologies to follow at a later time.
Dana Gornitzki
------------------->
How solar ran out of puff
April 17, 2007
Australian researchers lead the world, but our consumers are lagging, writes Peter Vincent.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/how-solar-ran-out-of-puff/2007/04/16/1176696757654.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
The president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Professor Ian
Lowe, remembers a time when solar had all the answers. "In the 1970s,
the case for solar energy was the case against all other forms of
energy," Lowe says.
It was the superstar solution to the energy crisis. The expectation was
that because solar offered no-risk electricity generation and would
never run out, it would swiftly dispatch coal-fired electricity to the
dustbin of absurd human inventions. And with our climate, it seemed
better suited to conditions in Australia than almost anywhere else.
But 30 years later solar is the renewable power that never grew up - at least in Australia.
While global growth in the installation of rooftop solar panels is
estimated at 40 per cent a year (and higher in booming solar markets
such as Germany and Japan), in Australia it is about 16 per cent, says
the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
And that growth is on such a small base that solar barely registers in
figures from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resources
Economics figures on how our electricity is made.
Of the nearly 8 per cent of Australian electricity generated by
renewables, 6.5 per cent is hydroelectricity, 0.8 per cent is bioenergy
(power from reusing waste), wind accounts for 0.6 per cent and less
than 0.1 per cent is generated by solar power. The rest of our power is
coal-fired electricity, which, Lowe points out, compares poorly to
countries such as New Zealand (mostly hydroelectricity), Norway (where
renewables account for a third of electricity generation) and Iceland
(three-quarters).
Nowhere is the good news/bad news nature of the solar story more
evident than at the University of NSW's world-renowned School of
Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, which claims its many
solar-cell breakthroughs have generated "approximately $1 billion" in
sales worldwide.
The school's researchers have collected a swag of prestigious awards,
including the Alternative Nobel Prize, the Australia Prize and the
World Technology Award. One of its graduates, Zhengrong Shi, heads one
of the largest solar energy corporations in the world, China's Suntech
Power Holdings. He is worth a reported $2.7 billion.
But ask its head of school, Dr Richard Corkish, why more Australians
aren't installing grid-connected solar systems at home and his
frustration is obvious.
"If you don't include the environmental costs of coal-fired electricity
when comparing them with solar, it becomes very difficult. [Saving
money] is not what motivates me and if that's all that motivates the
consumer, then perhaps solar isn't for them.
"I don't want to sound too negative because it's an exciting time for
us - the world is beating a path to our door. But the [Australian]
situation does frustrate me."
Corkish is right: unless you are going to add the environmental costs
of coal-fired electricity to your power bill, it's hard to justify
installing solar panels. Yet.
The problem is the cost of installing a grid-connected solar system -
between $9000 and $40,000, depending on the size of your house and
family. Even when you take into account the maximum $4000 federal
rebate, it's an investment many ordinary, debt-ridden home owners can't
justify.
The price tag is inflated by the cost of producing refined silicon
(which is also in demand for semiconductor manufacture in the
electronics industry), which accounts for about 40 per cent of the cost.
Most estimates show it takes between 20 and 30 years for a
grid-connected solar system to "pay for itself" - that is, to recoup
the initial outlay through savings made compared with existing bills.
As a result, only 30,000 Australian households - out of 8 million -
have installed solar panels.
Apart from reducing the up-front cost of the systems, which is being
explored through research (see panel), one of the best ways to increase
uptake would be if governments changed the electricity pricing
structure, says Duncan Macgregor, of the solar hot water and solar
panel installer Going Solar.
At present, electricity retailers such as Origin Energy pay people with
solar panels about the same rate for feeding surplus solar-generated
power back into the grid as they charge for coal-fired electricity.
This is despite the fact that they on-sell solar-generated electricity
- branded GreenPower - at a premium to environmentally conscious
consumers.
At least two state governments are planning to adopt "feed-in tariffs",
which increase the rate home owners are paid for producing electricity
from solar panels.
Last year South Australia announced a plan to double the rates solar
users are paid for generating surplus power. The Victorian Government
has also introduced legislation in Parliament which is expected to
extend existing feed-in tariffs for wind power to solar from next
January.
Tony Wood, a spokesman for Origin Energy, the largest installer of
solar panels in Australia, says the cost of higher rates paid to the
providers of solar power is likely to be passed onto customers. This
would be done by increasing the distribution network tariff for
consumers of coal-fired electricity, because solar electricity systems
use energy generated locally.
The cost of maintaining the poles and lines of the distribution network
is enormous - it is forecast to cost $9 billion over the next five
years in NSW alone.
The NSW Minister for Energy, Ian Macdonald, says he prefers to let the
market decide which types of renewable fuels to use, "rather than the
Government picking winners". He says that the State Government requires
that 15 per cent of electricity used in NSW to come from renewable
sources by 2020.
The economic story of solar hot water, however, is much more attractive to the average home owner.
A solar hot water system costs up to three times more than a gas or
electric set-up but, at about $4000, it is still much more affordable
than solar electricity.
Because of the money saved, a solar hot water system should pay for
itself "within five to 10 years", says Stephen Kranch, the national
manager of Solahart. And because solar hot water tanks usually last 20
years, installing a solar hot water system can mean free hot water for
up to 10 years.
"The consumer should look very positively at solar hot water. It makes economic as well as environmental sense," says Ian Lowe.
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy says the number of
Australian households buying a solar water heating system more than
doubled between 2001 and last year, when it reached 45,700. In total,
348,000 Australian households have solar hot water - but this is still
only about 5 per cent of the market.
NSW and Victoria are two of the poorest performing states in the uptake
of solar hot water, with 2.5 per cent and 1 per cent of households,
respectively, owning a solar tank.
Kranch says the price gap between a solar system and a conventional one
prevents the market from growing faster. The key to building the
market, he says, is introducing a simplified system of rebates. At
present, consumers can apply for a state government rebate, which in
Victoria is a maximum of $1500. An additional sweetener is offered
through a complex system of renewable energy certificates, a carbon
trading-type scheme of electronic certificates which are traded between
registered organisations and whose value changes depending on supply
and demand.
Solar power is the generation of energy from sunlight, whether direct or indirect.
Solar hot water uses simple thermal technology - similar to what
happens if you leave a bottle of drinking water in direct sunlight.
In conventional solar hot water systems, the water is heated directly
by the sun in rooftop collector panels, then flows into insulated
storage tanks for use later in the day.
The systems are usually boosted by gas or electricity to keep water hot on cloudy days.
In frosty areas, indirect thermal technology is used, in which sunlight
heats an antifreeze-type fluid, which then heats water for household
use.
The most widely used technology for creating electricity from sunlight
is photovoltaics. Power is generated when photons (particles of solar
energy) hit a photovoltaic cell and are transformed into an electrical
current, which is then used to power an electrical device, stored in a
battery or fed back into the grid.
The problem with photovoltaics is the high cost of refining silicon, a
crucial component of the cell, to the 99 per cent purity required.
Tony Wood, of Origin Energy, says silicon represents about 40 per cent of the cost of solar panels.
New "thin film", or "sliver", technology is being tested. It reduces
the amount of silicon needed by up to 75 per cent. Origin Energy is
testing this technology and hopes to begin manufacturing the new cells
within two years.
Elsewhere, researchers are exploring ways to take silicon right out of
the equation. Last month the Victorian Government gave $6 million to
the University of Melbourne for collaborative research exploring
nonsilicon-based solar cells, which it says "could see solar cells
embedded into manufactured roofing for houses and buildings".
Peter Vincent
They'll take the profit, thanks
Chrisa and Gary Dickinson didn't have solar panels installed on the
roof of their Melbourne home in 2005 to provide a better future for
their children. They don't have kids.
Gary believes rising electricity prices in the future will make the money they spent a good investment.
They paid $31,764 for a system that is capable of generating two kilowatts of electricity an hour.
"It's definitely a long-term proposition for us. The way world energy
prices are going up, we think electricity will only get more
expensive," says Gary, a 55-year-old TAFE teacher.
"We thought about getting a block of land and having a rural getaway
but we both work in the city so we decided not to leave this house.
"We have a nice quarter-acre block here and we have also put in fruit
trees and a 4500-litre rainwater tank. We are sort of doing this for
our own future."
Gary says the system they have usually generates more power than they
use - which means most bills return a credit to them. In the quarter to
March, they used 519 kilowatts but generated 984 kilowatts.
"That meant the electricity company owes us $49 at the moment," he says.
The only thing Gary found frustrating in the process was trying to get
the finance to buy the panels. The couple had to approach several
financial institutions before Westpac agreed to lend them the money by
remortgaging their Ascot Vale home.
"If you put an extension on the house the banks can't wait to give you
money," he says. "But when we told them about this, most of the big
banks were not too keen on it."
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - BIOMASS/BIOENERGY
------------------->
How sweet it is: green power from mill
Daniel Lewis Regional Reporter
March 31, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/how-sweet-it-is-green-power-from-mill/2007/03/30/1174761756903.html
AT CONDONG on the banks of the Tweed, amid the "black snow" created by
burning cane fields, they have been milling sugar for 127 years. But
come October, the mill will be NSW's newest producer of green
electricity and the paddocks of flaming cane will start becoming a
memory.
By burning more efficiently the trash and bagasse - the leaves and the
stalk left after sugar has been crushed from the cane - the Condong
mill will produce enough electricity to power half the needs of the
Tweed Valley.
The Broadwater mill on the Richmond River will produce enough
electricity to power one-third of its valley, which includes Ballina,
Casino and Lismore, once it begins to operate next year.
Until now, the trash has been burnt before harvest and the bagasse has
been burnt at the mills simply to provide the power for sugar
processing.
Greg Messiter, chief executive officer of the NSW Sugar Milling
Co-operative, said that because of the need to get rid of a massive
amount of bagasse, the old boilers had been designed to burn
inefficiently.
The Condong mill used to produce three megawatts during the
June-December crushing season, but modern equipment will produce about
30 megawatts all year using a huge on-site stockpile of green matter.
Waste from local timber mills and camphor laurel trees - a noxious weed - will also be burnt for power generation
In terms of greenhouse gas, Mr Messiter said generating power using
cane waste was "pretty well a closed loop", with the growing cane
absorbing about as much carbon dioxide as the burning of it released.
Graham Martin, president of the Tweed Valley Cane Growers Association,
said power generation would earn farmers a few precious extra dollars a
tonne for their product.
Mr Martin said some cane would still need burning to make harvesting
possible, but estimates the unpleasant job will be cut by 70 per cent.
"That's going to make a huge difference," he said. "The time factor in burning can be huge."
Mr Messiter, however, believes that burning could quickly end altogether.
Max Boyd, an administrator of Tweed Shire Council, said the number of
complaints about cane burning was growing every year, particularly from
people with breathing problems and sea changers and tourists worried
about the smoke and ash that can choke local communities.
Mr Boyd has asked the council to examine the feasibility of it buying
all its power from the Condong mill, so that the shire can support its
sugar industry and boast a green and local power source.
Environmentalists in the Northern Rivers area, however, have questioned
the financial and environmental viability of the project, claiming the
sugar industry is in decline and there will not be enough fuel for
power generation in the long term.
A Byron Shire councillor, Tom Tabart, says the sugar mill power is a "bastardised" version of green power.
Alternatives like solar and wind power were superior and burning trees and cane waste "should be the last resort".
------------------->
All power to the super dump's stench
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/all-power-to-the-super-dumps-stench/2007/04/16/1176696757594.html
Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
April 17, 2007
THEY call it the void. A giant open-cut mine on the outskirts of
Goulburn is slowly filling with Sydney's waste, but this super tip is
also a new source of green power.
When the switch is flicked at a small power plant nearby in about six
months, methane from the decomposing waste will be burned to generate
electricity. The food scraps and paper a growing number of Sydneysiders
throw out will be used to generate the electricity to power their
homes. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon
dioxide. About 20 per cent of human-induced global warming since
pre-industrial times has been attributed to methane emanating from
landfills, coalmines, oil and gas operations, and agriculture.
Capturing the gas and using it to generate electricity prevents it from
entering the atmosphere and displaces electricity that would otherwise
have been generated by coal-fired power stations.
What is good for the environment is also good for companies such as
Veolia, the international waste and water group that owns the Woodlawn
tip at Goulburn.
Once viewed as nothing more than a problem that had to be buried,
literally, waste is increasingly considered a valuable resource, Veolia
says.
The company hopes to make money not just from selling methane-generated
electricity into the national electricity grid, but also from turning
organic waste into fertiliser. Hot water from waste processing could
also be used to establish greenhouses and fish farms.
Unlike traditional landfills, which capture the methane only when a tip
is full, Veolia's team of engineering and environmental managers want
to generate as much methane as possible and suck it from the
decomposing waste while the tip fills. They have designed a system of
pipes that run horizontally and vertically through the waste that pumps
the gas to their nearby power plant.
Leachate in the pit - created when rain percolating through the waste
reacts with decomposing material - is pumped through the layers of
rubbish to speed up the decomposition, which in turn generates more
methane.
Veolia has entered a long-term contract to provide the electricity to
EnergyAustralia, which estimates that capturing gas from the landfill
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 800,000 tonnes a year
and generate 20 megawatts an hour, or enough green electricity a year
to power 30,000 homes.
Veolia also has State Government approval to build a 25-turbine wind
farm near the Woodlawn tip, which would generate another 50 megawatts
an hour.
But a $50 a tonne levy imposed by the NSW Government on waste that goes
to landfill has prompted Veolia to look at ways of using some of the
waste instead of burying it.
Veolia's ambitious plans have not been without problems. Clyde and
Auburn residents went to court several years ago in an unsuccessful bid
to stop the construction of a waste transfer station at Clyde, from
which the waste is sent by rail to the tip.
Veolia defends the efficiency of its transport system. It says the
trains that transfer almost 9000 tonnes of waste from Clyde every week
have taken 39,000 truck movements off the roads.
South-western Sydney is likely to get another waste transfer station
similar to that at Clyde under the company's plan to build a recycling
plant at Woodlawn.
The transfer station is expected to handle an extra 240,000 tonnes of
rubbish a year that would travel to Woodlawn by rail. However, it is
likely the waste would be delivered to the transfer station by trucks.
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - GEOTHERMAL
------------------->
Push for geothermal juice picks up steam
By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-06-06-geothermal_N.htm
There's good reason one of the nation's most promising renewable
energies is the industry's best-kept secret: It's buried miles under
the surface of the Earth.
Yet geothermal energy, which taps the Earth's natural heat to generate
electricity, is making a big comeback after a decade-long lull. And a
recent MIT-led report says geothermal could supply at least 10% of U.S.
power by 2050, rivaling nuclear and hydropower, if afforded a $1
billion research investment over the next 15 years.
That's because unlike wind and solar energy — both geographically
spotty and intermittent sources — geothermal resources theoretically
can supply a near-constant underground cauldron of energy almost
anywhere. It can even be harnessed in the heart of East Coast cities if
developers can find ways to drill deep enough at low cost.
But the industry faces several hurdles, including a Bush administration
proposal to ax funding for geothermal research based on a view that the
technology is mature.
Like oil and natural gas prospectors, geothermal developers use giant
rigs to bore deep into the Earth. But instead of mining for fossil
fuels, they hunt for hot water to produce steam that turns turbines.
Booming industry
Today, 62 geothermal plants in California, Nevada, Utah, Hawaii and
Alaska make up 3% of the nation's renewable energy and produce about
0.3% of all U.S. power. Seventy-five projects under development in 12
Western states would nearly double current capacity to 5,400 megawatts
the next three to five years, enough to light about 4 million homes,
says the Geothermal Energy Association.
"It's just a huge boom for the industry," says association executive director Karl Gawell.
Last week, Calpine announced a $200 million expansion of the Geysers in
California, the world's largest geothermal project. Geothermal already
supplies 5% of California's power.
The 1970s oil crisis sparked a construction flurry, but few projects
came online after natural gas prices fell in the early 1990s.
The current surge was triggered by high natural gas prices and a
scramble for renewable energy to help supply a projected 50% increase
in U.S. demand for power by 2030. About half the states require
utilities to use a percentage of alternative energy for supply. That's
likely to increase as Congress looks to limit carbon-dioxide emissions
from fossil-fuel plants amid growing concerns about global warming.
Geothermal got a further boost in 2005 when Congress gave it the same
tax credit wind farms receive — 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour of energy
produced.
Geothermal energy harnesses the heat that rises from the Earth's
white-hot core. In the USA, all projects are in the West, where the
Earth's shifting plates allow molten rock and water to settle nearest
to the surface, letting developers drill no more than a mile or two.
Most geothermal sites are built near obvious signs of resources, such
as hot springs or volcanoes. Many were discovered by farmers who
stumbled upon scalding water while drilling for well water. The first
commercial plant in the USA was built in 1960 at the Geysers, a
40-square-mile steaming valley near San Francisco whose reputed
therapeutic effects led to development of a spa there in the 1850s.
After finding a productive well, developers typically pump roughly
400-degree water into a low-pressure tank, causing it to turn to steam
that cranks a turbine.
At the Geysers, water is so hot, up to 600 degrees, that it turns to
steam underground, then naturally rises to the surface. Calpine is
adding 80 megawatts at the 725-megawatt facility — which powers more
than 500,000 homes — partly by drilling and expanding wells.
Alternative method
A relatively new "binary" process can tap 300-degree water that heats
another liquid, such as isopentane, that vaporizes at lower
temperatures. This lets developers find suitable water in many more
places. U.S. Geothermal is using this method to build Idaho's first
geothermal project in the Raft River Valley at a site discovered by
Mormon ranchers in the 1950s and later developed, but then abandoned,
by the Department of Energy.
"There are very few real juicy geysers left," says U.S. Geothermal CEO
Dan Kunz. "There's a far wider resource available using binary."
Sierra Pacific Power in Nevada relies on geothermal for 7% of its power
needs and is boosting supplies 60% the next four years. "We like it
because it's predictable output 24/7," says Tom Fair, company renewable
energy executive.
But exploration can be arduous. Only one in five wells yields hot water, Gawell says, and each costs a few million dollars.
The tax credit helps, shaving costs to about 7 cents per kilowatt of
energy produced, on par with wind turbines. But Gawell says the credit
often doesn't entice bankers because it expires in 2008, while projects
can take about five years to develop. He's pushing Congress to extend
it at least five years.
Geothermal energy is also getting tougher to find and extract. Top
developer Ormat may partner with oil companies, which often hit hot
water accidentally, says Ormat public policy chief Paul Thomsen.
The MIT report, funded by the Department of Energy, says future
technology could make it cost-effective to drill up to 6 miles deep to
tap water even in the eastern USA. Other advances include funneling
water to sites packed with hot but dry rocks. Calpine already injects
treated wastewater from nearby towns at the Geysers, where groundwater
was depleted faster than nature could replenish it.
DOE has proposed killing geothermal's research funds for fiscal 2008,
but spokeswoman Julie Ruggiero says it "would never turn its back on a
promising technology."
Bills by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and
Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., would devote up to $500 million to
research through 2012.
"You don't quit because the low-hanging fruit" is gone, says MIT
professor Jeff Tester, the report's lead author. "You go after the
mother lode."
------------------->
Green light for hot spots
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/green-light-for-hot-spots/2007/04/25/1177459786020.html
Mathew Murphy
April 26, 2007
PLANS for Victoria to test its potential as a geothermal energy
producer are advancing, with exploratory work about to get the green
light.
The State Government will today announce the issue of six geothermal
licences for companies to drill at 13 sites, believed to stretch along
the Victorian coastline.
Geothermal technology is attractive to those in the energy sector
because of its low greenhouse gas emissions and its low capital costs
compared with most large-scale renewable projects. The technology works
by driving water into holes drilled into the earth's surface. When the
water flows over "hot rocks", the result is a rush of hot water and
steam to the surface. These are captured by power turbines, which
produce electricity.
The technology is now being tested in the Cooper Basin in South Australia and the Hunter Valley in NSW.
In October, the Bracks Government announced it had received tenders
from 20 companies to develop geothermal power in Victoria. Lakes Oil,
which is drilling for oil and gas in the Gippsland area, is believed be
be among the successful tenderers.
In 2005, then energy minister Theo Theophanous established the
Geothermal Energy Resources Act, designed to encourage investors into
geothermal. The act gives a company issued with a licence secure title
to the resource. It also gives it exemptions from exploration permits
or extraction licences where the temperature is less than 70 degrees
Celsius, considered a low temperature for the technology, or the heat
source is less than a kilometre below the earth's surface.
The Federal Government is also interested in geothermal energy. Since
2000 it has invested more than $27 million in projects through grants
at the research and development stage.
http://www.geothermal.org
------------------->
Geodynamics says it has 'hottest rocks on earth'
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21525816-30417,00.html
April 09, 2007
HOT rocks explorer Geodynamics has identified a geothermal resource in
South Australia's Cooper Basin which it says has an energy output equal
to 15 Snowy Mountain hydro electricity power schemes.
The resource contains more than 400,000 petajoules and could support
the generation of in excess of 10,000 megawatts of electricity.
Geodynamics chief executive Adrian Williams said with a temperature
between 250 and 300 degrees, the resource contained the hottest rocks
known on earth.
"The temperature is critical, it is the most important economic driver
and it's equivalent to the importance of gold grade," he said.
Hot rock energy works by exploiting the heat generated by special granite stone located below the earth's surface.
The heat inside the granite is trapped by overlying rocks, which act as an insulating blanket.
It is extracted by circulating water through the rocks in an engineered, artificial reservoir or underground heat exchanger.
Standard geothermal power stations can then convert the extracted heat into electricity.
But Geodynamics has proven that the granite in the Cooper Basin is
naturally fractured, and the fractures are full of pressurised water.
"You put this all together and it means that we can have water flow
from the fractured rocks to the surface and we can abstract the heat
and re-inject it in a completely closed system," he said.
"We do not have any need for an outside water source and we don't produce any wastewater."
Geothermal energy has been harnessed in other parts of the world.
In northern California, US company Calpine has been pumping out
electricity harvested from steam heated deep within earth's surface
since the 1920s.
For the past 15 years the company has been pumping in treated
wastewater from surrounding communities to replenish water lost during
all those years of power production.
And since 2000 its plant has been producing more than six million megawatt-hours, enough to power 750,000 homes annually.
Australia's Centre for International Economics says geothermal energy
could generate 10 per cent of nation's electricity requirements by 2030.
The centre's Sydney office director, and co-author of a report about
the hot rocks energy industry, Kerry Barwise, said there is huge
potential for this renewable energy source.
He estimates recoverable hot rock sources across Australia could meet
to the nation's current electricity consumption for the next 450 years.
"If the industry grows in line with the potential resource that has
been explored, the value of the gains would be about $3 billion to $3.5
billion per year as we get close to 2030," Mr Barwise said.
Because the heat used in the process is eventually replaced by the
earth, the energy source has been classified as renewable energy by the
International Energy Agency and the Australian Greenhouse Office.
Mr Barwise said there would be environmental benefits in further developing and harnessing the hot rock technology.
"The footprint is very small with geothermal power," he said. "You
don't need an enormous mine with huge coal carrying machines, and there
are zero emissions."
But according to New Zealand government there are environmental impacts.
It found arsenic and boron are natural geothermal discharges while
mercury is discharged into the air from geothermal cooling towers and
into water from geothermal wells.
The extraction of heat and fluid could also cause land subsidence, the NZ government said.
There are currently 16 companies in Australia pursuing geothermal energy, with work commitments worth about $500 million.
Although transmission could be sometime away, Mr Williams said he hopes
to be able to direct energy into the national grid by 2010 with
material amounts becoming available by 2015.
------------------->
Scientists get their hot rocks off over green nuclear power
John Garnaut
April 12, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-get-their-hot-rocks-off-over-green-nuclear-power/2007/04/11/1175971183212.html
PEOPLE could be using "green nuclear" energy in their homes within
three years as entrepreneurs rush to produce zero-emissions electricity.
Geodynamics Ltd told the Australian Stock Exchange yesterday it had
sped up plans to harness the heat generated by natural nuclear activity
deep beneath the central Australian desert.
The company plans to pipe high-pressure hot water from the granite
bedrock four kilometres beneath the Queensland-South Australia border,
where the slow decay of potassium, thorium and uranium generates
temperatures as high as 300 degrees.
"The granite is hot because of the natural nuclear activity in there -
it's green nuclear," said the company's chief executive, Adrian
Williams.
Dr Williams expects the company to send electricity to the national
power grid by 2010 and later directly to western Sydney. By 2015, it
could produce as much electricity as the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme.
Some scientists say hot-rocks technology could soon deliver huge
volumes of economically viable power, thanks to the continent having
the hottest and most geologically favourable granite deposits on earth.
"There's enough energy to run the country for thousands of years," said
Prame Chopra, a scientist who sits on the Geodynamics board.
According to a conservative estimate by the Centre for International
Economics, Australia has enough geothermal energy to meet electricity
consumption for 450 years.
The industry has strong backing in Canberra. "I've been a fan for a
long time," the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, told the Herald.
"The theory is very sound. What they've got to do now is prove that it
works."
The granite in South Australia's Cooper basin contains "fractures" that
hold super-hot, high-pressure water. It could power a steam turbine
then recyle water back into the bedrock for reheating.
The hotter the water, the more efficiently it can be converted into electricity.
Australia is home to all of the world's six listed hot fractured rock
geothermal energy companies. One, Petratherm, recently signed a
memorandum of understanding to supply geothermal electricity to South
Australia's Beverley uranium mine by late 2009.
Torrens Energy, which listed on the stock exchange three weeks ago, is exploring hot sites near Adelaide.
The greatest impediment to the renewable energy industry is that the
nation's electricity is among the cheapest in the world, thanks to huge
deposits of high-grade coal.
But geothermal energy is expected to be economically viable after a moderate cost is imposed on greenhouse gas emissions.
Geodynamic, assisted by $11.8 million in federal grants, said it would
produce one megawatt of electricity for about $45 an hour - compared
with coal power of about $35.
The Prime Minister's taskforce on nuclear energy estimated the cost of
nuclear energy at $40-$65, "clean coal" at $50-$100 and photovoltaic
solar energy as high as $120.
------------------->
Rocks are hot in future of energy
Peter Hannam
April 10, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/rocks-are-hot-in-future-of-energy/2007/04/09/1175971018444.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
INVESTORS in geothermal energy projects exploring the potential to
generate carbon-free electricity should view the industry as other
high-risk mining ventures, backers say.
About 16 companies, six of them listed, have plans to spend $500
million to find and develop "hot rocks" that can be used to generate
superheated water to drive electric turbines.
"It should be treated by investors as a pseudo-exploration play similar
to uranium exploration, similar to coal and oil exploration," said
Roger Leaning, senior analyst at ABN Amro Morgans.
Geodynamics, which plans to tap hot rocks in the Cooper Basin, in the
north-east corner of South Australia, is the best placed, Mr Leaning
said. "It appears they have potentially the greatest reserve and
resource both through volume and temperature," he said.
Started with an initial grant of $6 million, Geodynamics has a market
value of $172 million and boasts a 26 per cent share price gain so far
in 2007.
However investors have endured a bumpy ride, with the stock losing more
than a fifth of its value in a day last October, when the company
missed out on extra government assistance because of drilling problems.
Geodynamics has been forced to bring in a new rig from the US and delay
drilling of its third well, down to depths of about five kilometres,
until after June.
Adrian Williams, the company's interim chief executive, said rock
temperatures range from 250 to 300 degrees, making the Cooper Basin
"arguably the most attractive place in the world for generating power
from hot rocks."
Mr Williams estimates the power-producing capacity may exceed 10,000 megawatts, in the order of 15 Snowy Hydro schemes.
He estimates geothermal power can be produced at about $45 per
megawatt-hour, equivalent to natural gas but without the carbon
emissions. (Electricity from brown and black coal costs about $35 per
MWh.)
Tim Flannery, scientist and current Australian of the Year, says the
technology "is relatively simple compared with clean coal and nuclear,
(and) involves things like drilling that Australians are already rather
good at."
Mr Flannery says he holds about $15,000 worth of Geodynamics shares in
his super fund. Geodynamics' biggest shareholders are Origin Energy,
with about 13 per cent, and Woodside Petroleum, with 7 per cent.
Pacific Hydro is another company in the race to develop geothermal resources in the Cooper Basin.
The breakthrough project may be to supply BHP Billiton's expanded
Olympic Dam site, which is likely to require about 400 MW of
electricity, according to Andrew Richards, a Pacific Hydro spokesman.
"While it's a fantastic resource, it's in the middle of nowhere, so
connecting it to the national market is probably one of the greatest
challenges," Mr Richards said. "If the resource was on our back
doorstep, we'd be doing it today."
Conventional geothermal power, as the name implies, is a known
technology, in use in New Zealand and Papua New Guinea (see Lihir Gold
on this page) and elsewhere. It effectively mines hot water contained
in aquifers, such as at the 2.5-kilometre depths being prospected by
Pacific Hydro, passing the water as super-heated steam through turbines.
Hot fractured rocks technology, which Geodynamics plans to deploy, will
instead mine the heat contained in the granite beds. "We have much
higher pressure, much higher temperatures, and that affects the
efficiency and economics," Mr Williams said.
Deployment, though, will be years off, even with a successful third
drilling that would allow Geothermal to reapply for $75 million in
federal funds to cover about a third of the estimated $226 million cost
of a 40 MW demonstration plant to produce for the grid by 2010.
"From then, it will be a matter of ramping up as hard as we can go," Mr
Williams said. "There's no reason we won't be looking at hundreds of
megawatts by 2015, and the resource has the potential to support
thousands of megawatts of capacity."
http://www.geodynamics.com.au
http://www.pacifichydro.com.au
------------------->
Geothermal power may play big part soon
Barry Fitzgerald
April 2, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/geothermal-power-may-play-big-part-soon/2007/04/01/1175366076819.html
GEOTHERMAL energy could meet up to 10 per cent of Australia's electricity consumption by 2050, the Federal Government believes.
And unlike other renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power,
geothermal sources have the potential to meet base-load power (24
hours) needs.
Canberra last week hosted the first meeting of the geothermal industry
round table. Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane and Environment and
Water Resources Minister Malcolm Turnbull hosted the meeting.
Mr Macfarlane said the Government would work with industry on a
geothermal industry development framework that would act as a guide for
the long-term development of this emerging energy sector, dominated by
potential hot-rock developments.
The Government has invested more than $27 million in research and development in geothermal energy projects since 2000.
Mr Turnbull said a key benefit of geothermal energy was its ability to
produce energy without greenhouse gas emissions. "Large-scale
geothermal power plants have the potential to substantially reduce
Australia's carbon dioxide emissions," he said.
"The success of the sector will depend on the readiness of industry,
research and government to work together," Mr Macfarlane said.
------------------->
Company seeks more federal funds for hot rocks work
Last Update: Thursday, March 29, 2007. 7:47am (AEST)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1884243.htm
A major geothermal energy company working in the remote Cooper Basin in
outback Queensland says it is hoping for increased Commonwealth support
for the sector.
Geodynamics Limited was one of several participants at the first
geothermal roundtable held this week, chaired by federal Industry
Minister Ian Macfarlane and Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Chief executive Dr Adrian Williams says it marks an important step
forward in improving partnerships between government and industry.
"Both ministers clearly recognise the potential that geothermal offers
this country ... there's enough evidence to say that Australia has got
hot rocks to support geothermal power generation of a size that is
comparable to all of Australia's coal and gas ... the size of that
resource that we believe is there is absolutely huge," he said.
------------------->
TRANSPORT GREENHOUSE SOLUTIONS
------------------->
Cutting greenhouse emissions can start in simple ways
March 30, 2007
www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/cutting-greenhouse-emissions-can-start-in-simple-ways/2007/03/29/1174761660077.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
It is not necessary to wait for "clean coal" and other new technologies, writes Nicholas Low.
SIR Nicholas Stern has told us that Australia needs to set a target of
at least a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on 1990
levels by 2050. That target has to apply to the transport sector where,
according to the Allen report a few years ago, Australia was on track
towards a 67 per cent increase in emissions by 2050. Growth of
transport energy use is closely coupled to economic growth. It has to
be decoupled if global warming is not to make the Earth uninhabitable.
What's the answer? Well we can wait for technological advance to come
up with "the golden bullet" — the hydrogen car, nuclear power stations
or clean coal. Or we can get on with the job of reducing carbon
emissions right now with what works. Two scientists from Princeton
University, writing in the journal Science, tell us that the necessary
reduction in emissions can be achieved without the development of
dramatic new technologies, but rather by a mixture of current and
well-known technologies, and some change in human behaviour.
If these scientists' thinking is applied to transport, a 70 per cent
reduction in greenhouse emissions can be achieved. A 70 per cent
reduction from transport looks daunting, but if just five smaller steps
are taken simultaneously, and spread over, say, 20 years, the goal
looks more possible.
Step 1: Reduce travel demand by 20 per cent. Obviously people in cities
have to travel to get to work, but are the massive flows of the daily
journey to work really necessary? A 20 per cent cut would take
Melbourne back to about the amount of travel in 1998. Remote
communications with the use of the internet and email could make it
possible for a significant number of people to go to the office just
three days a week instead of five. Improved logistics in the delivery
of goods could make some of those journeys by half-empty trucks
unnecessary. Still, most people, 80 per cent, would continue to travel
as before.
Step 2: Shift 20 per cent of journeys to low or non-greenhouse gas
emitting modes of transport. Most trips in the city are of less than
five kilometres. Some of these trips could be made on foot, or by bike.
Some could be made by low emission public transport.
Step 3: Improve vehicle greenhouse performance by 20 per cent by the
use of alternative fuels (biofuels, LPG etc). Improvements in engine
technology now in train could well deliver such a reduction.
Step 4: Improve fuel efficiency for travel by 20 per cent. This is
perhaps the easiest step of all. Travel does not require large heavy
fuel-guzzling cars. Such vehicles are for style, not travel, and style
can be delivered in other ways once the true price of travel is paid.
Step 5: Obtain 20 per cent of energy for travel in individual motor
vehicles from zero-carbon sources. Solar electric energy is coming.
Electric vehicle refuelling could be linked to housing equipped with
high-efficiency solar arrays to recharge batteries, as already
installed in one suburban house in Oxford, UK. New generation
photovoltaic "sliver" cells could be used.
These are things that can be done, starting now. We don't know for sure
whether these steps will each deliver the 20 per cent improvement
necessary. There may be other steps that could be taken. There are
certainly still many questions to be answered: for instance, about
whether biofuel production will displace food production or natural
forests. Some steps may deliver less, some much more. The point is that
together they will multiply to nearly a 70 per cent reduction in
emissions from transport over 20 or 30 years.
However, to achieve these steps, regime change will be necessary, not
of the political regime but the regime of incentives, subsidies and
regulations that frame market transactions today. For instance, the
Government subsidies to four-wheel-drive vehicles would have to be
changed to subsidies to low-emission vehicles. Much more money must be
spent improving safety on the roads for cyclists and pedestrians
everywhere in cities. Major improvements will be necessary to public
transport systems whether the service is delivered by the public or
private sector or a mixture of both.
Australia cannot afford climate change on the scale now predicted. No
dollar value can possibly reflect the loss of human habitat and food
production that climate change will bring in its train. To meet the
challenge, the price of greenhouse gas emitting energy will have to
rise to a level that reduces its consumption. But that price will be
lower if the alternatives are readily available. We need to start
thinking about them now, and planning to adapt to the new reality.
Nicholas Low is director of the Australasian Centre for Governance and Management of Urban Transport, University of Melbourne.
------------------->
ENERGY EFFICIENCY - BUILDING STANDARDS
------------------->
Series on crap building standards in Victoria ...
Bright appearance puts green dream in the shade
Liz Minchin
May 21, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bright-appearance-puts-green-dream-in-the-shade/2007/05/20/1179601242838.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Wholesale changes to home-energy ratings system
Royce Millar and Liz Minchin
May 22, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/wholesale-changes-to-homeenergy-ratings-system/2007/05/21/1179601329970.html
Making a farce of five-star
Royce Millar and Liz Minchin
May 21, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/state-deal-on-green-homes-to-stay-secret/2007/05/22/1179601410993.html
State deal on green homes to stay secret
Royce Millar and Liz Minchin
May 23, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/state-deal-on-green-homes-to-stay-secret/2007/05/22/1179601410993.html
------------------->
UNEP Says Greener Buildings Could Slow Global Warming
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12483
March 29, 2007 — By Alister Doyle, Reuters
OSLO
Better architecture and energy savings in buildings could do more to
fight global warming than all curbs on greenhouse gases agreed under
the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, a U.N. study showed on Thursday.
Better use of concrete, metals and timber in construction and less use
of energy for everything from air conditioners to lighting in homes and
offices could save billions of dollars in a sector accounting for 30-40
percent of world energy use.
"Buildings can play a key role in combating climate change," the U.N.
Environment Programme said in a report issued in Oslo during a
conference on ways to promote economic growth without damaging the
environment.
Simple measures include more blinds to keep out the sun in hot
climates, switching to energy efficient lightbulbs, better insulation
and ventilation. "Avoid building a bigger house than you need," was
among the tips.
"By some conservative estimates, the building sector worldwide could
deliver emission reductions of 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide,"
said Achim Steiner, the head of UNEP. Carbon dioxide is the main
greenhouse gas.
"A more aggressive energy efficiency policy might deliver over two
billion tonnes or close to three times the amount scheduled to be
reduced under the Kyoto Protocol," he said.
The U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol binds 35 industrial nations to cut missions
of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, by about 5
percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 to slow a warming that may cause
more heatwaves, droughts and rising seas.
But Kyoto has few incentives for more efficient buildings even though
they are a big part of a problem also stoked by sectors such as
transport and farming. The report urged global action to promote
greener buildings.
"The savings that can be made right now are potentially huge and the
costs to implement them relatively low if sufficient numbers of
governments, industries, businesses and consumers act," Steiner said.
GREAT WALLS OF CHINA
The report said fast-growing developing nations needed to focus on more
efficient new buildings. China is the world's top builder, adding
almost 2 billion square metres (21.53 billion sq ft) of new building
space every year, it said.
"Typically construction costs increase by 3-5 percent due to the
introduction of energy efficient solutions," it said. The UNEP study is
part of a project also supported by companies such as Lafarge, Skanska
and Arcelor.
The report said most energy used in buildings is during their lifetimes
-- from heating to lighting -- rather than in construction. Overall,
most energy is used by homes, ahead of shops, offices and other
buildings such as schools or hospitals.
For builders, timber was often a cheaper and lighter-weight alternative
for house frames than steel. Energy consumption in making steel was 2-3
times higher than in making glulam beams -- wood glued together and
laminated for more strength.
It also recommended refurbishing old buildings rather than demolishing them and designing new buildings for long use.
The report also said there were other factors to keep in mind -- even
gender. Some studies have shown women prefer higher room temperatures
than men, even with similarly thick clothing.
Source: Reuters
------------------->
MISSILE DEFENCE - COALITION - ALP
------------------->
Australia may build missile shield
Patrick Walters and Peter Alford
May 23, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21779354-601,00.html
AUSTRALIA could develop its own missile defence system, with the nation
poised to join the US and Japan in research on ballistic missiles.
Washington is spearheading the initiative as part of its long-term plan
to build a global missile defence shield in response to the nuclear
ambitions of North Korea.
The Howard Government is considering the extent to which Australia will become involved in the planned missile defence system.
But a trilateral missile research agreement involving Australia, the US
and Japan would further antagonise China, which already has concerns
about the defence ties between Washington, Tokyo and Canberra.
There is a strong possibility the Royal Australian Navy's new air
warfare destroyers, due to enter service in 2013, will eventually be
equipped with SM-3 missiles, which are designed to intercept incoming
missiles outside the earth's atmosphere.
Ballistic missile defence is one of the key issues being debated under
the newly formed trilateral security dialogue taking place between the
US, Japan and Australia.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson declined to comment yesterday on
Japanese media reports that a framework agreement on missile defence
had been agreed between the three countries last month.
"Japan and the United States will work together with Australia to
strengthen security in the Asia-Pacific region," a senior official at
Japan's Defence Ministry told the Nikkei newspaper.
Japanese Defence Minister Fumio Kyuma claimed yesterday not to be aware
of details, but appeared to confirm three-way discussions on missile
defence were under way.
"I wasn't aware that the program had developed that far in concrete terms," he said when questioned about the Nikkei report.
Japan is implementing a two-stage missile shield program jointly with
the US. It considers a ballistic missile attack from Pyongyang as its
most pressing security threat.
Dr Nelson and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer will travel to Tokyo
early next month for bilateral security talks at which the potential
missile threat posed by North Korea will be discussed. The RAN's $7
billion warships will be equipped with the Aegis combat system and the
SM-2 surface-to-air missile, and will have the potential to upgrade to
the SM-3 ballistic missile defence system.
Japan's navy, the Maritime Self-Defence Force, is now commissioning its
fifth Aegis destroyer and a sixth will be launched next March. The
destroyers operate mainly in the Sea of Japan, usually in co-ordination
with at least two US Aegis-equipped vessels.
The four operational Japanese destroyers are now fitted with SM-2
anti-aircraft missiles, but all six vessels are scheduled to be fitted
with the
SM-3 ballistic missile interceptors by March2010.
Australia and the US are already co-operating far more closely on
missile defence research under a 25-year agreement signed in 2004.
Dr Nelson said recently that the memorandum of understanding would
allow Australia to explore practical ways of assisting the US to build
a global missile defence system.
This would allow Australia to leverage US technology and ensure mutual
development of specific technologies and approaches that would underpin
the missile defences of both nations.
Canberra and Tokyo are now in the process of updating an agreement on
defence co-operation following the signing of a new bilateral defence
agreement by John Howard and his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe,
inMarch.
But any further move to co-operate on the ballistic missile threat is
more likely to fall under the trilateral defence umbrella than
bilateral arrangements, according to defence officials.
The threat posed by North Korea's missile program has strengthened
US-Japan collaboration on missile defence, with Tokyo acquiring both
sea-based SM-3 missiles as well as Patriot land-based systems.
Japan recently installed its first Patriot Advanced Capability-3
battery at an airbase north of Tokyo. The US Air Force has stationed
the surface-to-air missiles at its Futenma base on Okinawa, and
batteries will ultimately be installed in the capital.
However, the close co-operation between the US and Japan has been
disrupted by Tokyo's failure so far to resolve the question of whether
its ballistic missile defence weapons can be used against missiles
aimed at US territory.
US military officials are also growing concerned about Japanese security breaches.
Mr Kyuma refused to comment on a reported investigation by Japanese
security police and the MSDF into the leak of information about the
SM-3 program. US officials are believed to have strongly criticised
MSDF security when Mr Kyuma visited Washington on April 30.
------------------->
Labor backs naval missile defence
Patrick Walters, National security editor
May 24, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21784901-2702,00.html
A LABOR government would support the development of a sea-based theatre
missile defence system to protect Australian forces on overseas
operations from ballistic missile attack.
Labor defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said the Opposition did not
have a philosophical objection to ballistic missile defence, but there
were fundamental threshold issues associated with developing a national
missile defence system.
"An in-theatre system is an entirely different question," Mr Fitzgibbon said, citing the problem of North Korea's missiles.
Mr Fitzgibbon said a sea-based system deployed on Australia's air
warfare destroyers could become a critical component of long-term
national security.
The Howard Government is studying the feasibility of deploying a
theatre ballistic missile defence screen on the navy's air warfare
destroyers, due to enter service from 2013.
John Howard has also agreed to join the US and Japan on a framework
agreement for a trilateral research program on a ballistic missile
defence system.
Details of the plan could emerge when Australia and Japan's defence and foreign ministers meet in Tokyo on June 6.
Existing plans for the warships involve fitting standard missiles
rather than the SM-3 missile defence system, which will be fitted to US
Navy destroyers.
Kevin Rudd said Labor remained deeply sceptical about a national missile defence system for two reasons.
"One is the technology and the adequacy of the technology to deliver
the so-called shield. And the second is the impact of shields of
themselves on the overall proliferation debate.
"That is, does the existence of a shield, in itself, or the proposal
for one, bring about a further escalation in ballistic missile
proliferation and nuclear warhead production, as other countries seek
to develop a sufficient arsenal to penetrate any shield?"
Mr Rudd said that if missile defence technology had advanced in recent
times, he would ask Mr Fitzgibbon to get a briefing on it.
Labor's recently endorsed policy platform expressed concern that a
national missile defence program could have adverse security
consequences in the Asia-Pacific region "and serious consequences for
Australia's strategic circumstances and national security".
A unilateral national missile defence program would be
"disproportionate, technically questionable, costly and likely to be
counter-productive".
The ALP national conference agreed last month that a national defence
system had the potential "to undermine non-proliferation and derail
world progress towards nuclear disarmament".
The Australian Democrats said yesterday that any move to embrace
ballistic missile defence could antagonise China and Indonesia and help
to fuel a dangerous new arms race.
"I don't think in any sense it's in our interests in terms of our own
region or the cost of equipment," Democrats leader Lyn Allison said.
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE CHANGE - JOINT STATEMENT BY AUSTRIA, ICELAND, IRELAND AND NORWAY
------------------->
Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming'
Mon Mar 26, 6:04 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070326/sc_afp/irelandicelandnorway_070326220437;_ylt=AnEl8tOBcDYdi_s1rw4yictrAlMA
DUBLIN (AFP) - Environment ministers from Austria, Iceland, Ireland and
Norway said Monday that nuclear power was not the solution to global
warming.
In a joint statement following a meeting in Dublin, the four ministers
from the non-nuclear countries said the "inherent risks and problems
associated with the nuclear energy option remain and it can not
therefore claim to be a clean alternative to fossil fuel use."
They said it was the sovereign right of each country to decide its own energy mix.
"However, for Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and Austria, we voice serious
concern that nuclear energy is being presented as a solution to climate
change.
"It is our collective view that the current debate seeks to downplay
the environmental, waste, proliferation, nuclear liability and safety
issues and seeks to portray nuclear energy as a clean, safe and problem
free response to climate change."
The statement said the trans-boundary nature of health and environment
risks associated with nuclear energy dictated that governments in
countries with nuclear power needed to ensure that other countries'
concerns were taken into consideration.
"The specific international liability regimes currently in place for
the nuclear industry do not provide full scope compensation for
potential damage or injury and provide a hidden subsidy to that
industry," the ministers said.
After 50 years of nuclear power, waste remains the most intractable issue, they added.
"The legacy of the nuclear industry for many generations to come
continues to increase with little evidence of any real implementation
of necessary long term solutions to the waste issue.
"Nuclear waste reprocessing, advocated as a solution to the management
of nuclear waste, has long since lost its lustre and today the industry
remains economically and environmentally untenable."
They said that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel represents a key
source of pollution risks and remains a significant source of
radioactive pollution and called on Britain not to re-open the THORP
plant at its Sellafield site.
The ministers announced that a further meeting would take place in Vienna in late 2007.
------------------->
LUCAS HEIGHTS REACTOR
------------------->
Action near the opening ceremony for the OPAL research reactor:
Sky News
http://www.skynews.com.au/story.asp?id=165164
AHN
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7007097033
SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-predicts-big-future-for-nuclear-industry/2007/04/20/1176697054903.html
The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Protesters-target-Sydney-reactor-opening/2007/04/20/1176697036177.html
Milton Ulludulla
http://milton.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=national%20news&subclass=general&story_id=577087&category=general
------------------->
Media Relese
April 19th, 2007
Reality Rains on Howard's Nuclear Parade
As John Howard opens the new Opal reactor at ANSTO tomorrow, Sydney
residents and activists will stage a protest reminding "Half-Life"
Howard of the radioactive legacy of the Lucas Heights reactor.
Holly Creenaune, Nuclear-Free Campaigner with Friends of the Earth
Sydney says: "Tomorrow we are displaying a 6-metre long mock
radioactive waste transport castor to remind John Howard of the ongoing
thorn in the nuclear industry's backside: the problem of nuclear waste."
"After 50 years of reactor operations at Lucas Heights, there is still
no safe way to safe way to store nuclear waste. The Federal
Government proposal to impose a nuclear waste dump on communities in
the NT could see radioactive waste transported from Lucas Heights
through NSW for the next forty years, exposing communities along the
transport route to risk of spill and contamination."
Nicky Ison, National Convenor of the Australian Student Environment
Network says: "In a moment of unprecedented political honesty, John
Howard is tomorrow opening a non-performing, not working nuclear
reactor in Sydney. Nuclear does not work as a solution to climate
change, it does not work for Australian communities and ecosystems, and
not for community safety and security.
"The new Opal reactor at Lucas Heights represents John Howard's vision
for the future – imposed, secretive, unwanted and unnecessary."
------------------->
Eye on the future: nuclear research reactor ready
April 19, 2007 10:58 AM
By John Mulcair
http://www.theleader.com.au/2007/04/eye_on_the_future_nuclear_rese.php
WHEN Prime Minister John Howard officially opens the $380 million OPAL
nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights tomorrow, there will be some
symmetry with the opening almost 50 years ago of its predecessor,
HIFAR.
On April 18, 1958, Prime Minister Robert Menzies, speaking against a
background of the Cold War and a push for peaceful use of atomic
technology, said nuclear energy had an unlimited future.
With Australia's uranium resources, he told 1000 guests at Lucas
Heights that ''we can approach the problem of nuclear power coolly,
scientifically and with judgement''.
Last June, the Federal Government commissioned a report into uranium
mining, processing and nuclear energy against a backdrop of global
warming and a need to cut carbon emissions.
One scenario that the report presented was a network of 25 nuclear
reactors, coming on line from 2020, producing about one-third of
Australia's electricity by 2050, although their economic viability
would be dependent on carbon emissions costs being recognised.
OPAL, however, is a much smaller reactor that will be used for broad
materials research, especially in new technologies, to keep Australia
largely self-sufficient in nuclear medicines and radioactive products
for industry and to irradiate silicon for use in computers.
The OPAL project to replace the ageing HIFAR was announced in 1997,
with an estimated cost of $287 million before inflation over time.
An ANSTO-commissioned review of the environmental impacts of the
project gave it approval, but environmental groups and Sutherland Shire
Council (depending on its political leaning of the time), were strongly
critical.
While the reactor to be built was still far smaller than
power-generating reactors, there were pushes for alternative sites away
from residential areas and for alternative technologies to produce
nuclear materials.
Criticism mounted when the contract to build the reactor was awarded to
Argentine firm INVAP over longer-credentialled German, Canadian and
French competitors. Construction stalled for several months when a
geological faultline was discovered during excavations for the
reactor's foundations.
International experts eventually decided that as the faultline had been
dormant for millions of years it was unlikely to pose a threat.
Quality control was questioned when it was discovered that the critical
stainless steel tank which holds the reactor core had been assembled
inside-out with another long and expensive delay following.
September 11, 2001 and the World Trade Centre, Pentagon and Virginia
terrorist attacks in the United States prompted a major review of
security at Lucas Heights to the extent that new measures are regarded
as the world's best for a research reactor.
The OPAL reactor is already earning dividends for Australian science by
attracting bright young scientists from around the world.
------------------->
AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
MEDIA RELEASE
20 April 2007
New nuclear reactor no cause for celebration
The opening of a new unsafe and unnecessary nuclear reactor in the
growth corridor of Australia’s largest city was no reason to celebrate,
the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.
Prime Minister John Howard and the chairman of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Ziggy Switkowski, will
this morning cut the ribbon on the new ‘OPAL’ nuclear reactor at Lucas
Heights in suburban Sydney.
"A brand new radioactive waste producing terrorist target is the
last thing greater Sydney needs right now," said ACF nuclear campaigner
Dave Sweeney.
"The Federal Government has failed to provide Sydneysiders with any credible rationale for imposing this nuclear reactor.
"The radioactive waste it produces – which the Federal Government hopes
to dump in the Northern Territory, against the wishes of the NT
community and Parliament – will be a threat to people and the
environment for thousands of years.
"And it is not needed in order for Australia to remain supplied with medical isotopes.
"Unfortunately, the imposing of reactors and waste dumps is entirely
consistent for a Prime Minister who hand picks a pro-nuclear taskforce
to examine the viability of domestic nuclear power, then – before the
Government has even formally responded to this report – appoints its
chief author, Dr Switkowski, to lead its implementation.
"While Mr Howard and Dr Switkowski are celebrating today, those facing
the threats of imposed reactors and radioactive waste dumps will be
keeping the champagne firmly corked."
------------------->
HUGH MORGAN PUSHING REACTORS + DUMP
------------------->
Morgan eyes SA-WA outback for nuke dump
April 5, 2007 - 10:44AM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Morgan-eyes-SAWA-outback-for-nuke-dump/2007/04/05/1175366373031.html
Former mining executive Hugh Morgan says there should be an
internationally-owned and run nuclear waste facility in Australia, and
the ideal site is an area across the South Australian and West
Australian border.
The former head of WMC (Western Mining Corporation) said he was doing
preparatory work to establish a nuclear business in Australia.
"What I would propose is that there ought to be an internationally-owned facility in Australia," Mr Morgan told ABC Radio.
Mr Morgan said the facility should be owned by various governments and
utilities around the world, together with the Australian government and
leading Australian businesses.
He said there were three preferable sites for a nuclear waste dump - the best one being in the Australian outback.
"A site in one of the three most secured geological sequences in the world," Mr Morgan said.
"One of those sequences lies in South Australia and extends into Western Australia, one is in South Africa and one is in China."
Mr Morgan said that Australia offered the best geological and political stability to have such a facility.
"I would say South Australia - Western Australia, that's where the geological sequence lies," he said.
"I know politically they're (anti-nuclear lobbyists) going to get up and say 'not over my dead body, etc, etc.'
"I'm saying that's where ... in the international interest ... you would go."
Mr Morgan said fears about nuclear waste disposal were ill-founded.
"There are many satisfactory disposal locations already ... in Sweden, in France, in the United States," he said.
"There are technologies that are continuing to come forward to provide
changes in the nature of the nuclear power plants themselves - the
nature of the waste which reduces the time to achieve half life."
Mr Morgan also wanted the public to stop calling facilities for nuclear waste dumps.
"Call it a repository ... not a dump," he said.
© 2007 AAP
------------------->
Morgan reveals vision for nuclear Australia
Katharine Murphy
April 5, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/morgan-reveals-vision-for-nuclear-australia/2007/04/04/1175366326273.html
FORMER mining executive Hugh Morgan has declared he is in the nuclear
business for the long haul, and is considering opportunities such as
power plants and waste dumps.
In his first interview since news broke that he had formed an energy
company with Fairfax chairman Ron Walker and fellow mining executive
Robert Champion de Crespigny, Mr Morgan confirmed he was doing
"preparatory work" to establish a nuclear business in Australia.
Mr Morgan said the industry faced considerable practical and political
hurdles, but he believed it was "just" possible to see nuclear power in
Australia within 10 years, if there was the will to embrace more
expensive energy sources.
Reports in February suggested that Mr Morgan's company, Australian
Nuclear Energy, planned to build nuclear power plants in Australia.
This was played down by company secretary Bruce Fitzgerald. But in an
interview with The Age, Mr Morgan confirmed his company remained
active. He declined to comment on specific proposals but acknowledged
there were future opportunities in mining, power plants and waste
repositories.
Revelations of the company's existence caused an uproar in Federal
Parliament, with Prime Minister John Howard revealing that he had a
discussion with Mr Walker about the company days before he announced an
inquiry into nuclear power.
The inquiry, conducted by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski,
predicted that Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors producing a
third of the country's electricity by 2050.
Labor is running a strong campaign on the issue, which it believes will
cost the Federal Government votes at the federal election.
Mr Morgan ran Western Mining Corporation before becoming president of
the Business Council of Australia. The Howard Government appointed him
to the board of the Reserve Bank in 1996, and he maintains contacts in
conservative politics.
Mr Morgan told The Age it was unlikely that Australia would enrich uranium soon.
But he said he was open to possible joint ventures with key players in
the global nuclear business, such as Melbourne businessman John White,
who pioneered the concept of nuclear fuel leasing.
Mr Morgan indicated he was in the business for the long haul.
"If you were serious about making money and lowering carbon, you would look at waste repositories," he said.
But Mr Morgan conceded nuclear energy faced significant hurdles, the
most important of which was a lack of bipartisan political support.
He said for Australia to embrace nuclear energy, consumers would have
to accept that energy prices would rise as part of any policy change to
cut greenhouse gas emissions.
He said governments might have to review regulations governing
Australia's electricity industry because there was no functional
national electricity market and energy companies were reluctant to
invest.
The Howard Government has opened a political battle with Labor by
supporting a nuclear industry, arguing that nuclear power plants
provide reliable base-load electricity without emitting damaging
greenhouse gas.
The Prime Minister will soon respond to the recent Switkowski review of
nuclear energy and also to Mr White's review of the regulations
governing the uranium industry.
Both recommended Australia move deeper into the nuclear cycle.
Mr Morgan endorsed the Switkowski review, which he said had started to focus the energy debate.
------------------->
INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND AUSTRALIA'S NUCLEAR DEBATE
------------------->
Institute of Public Affairs
http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs
Background
Founded in 1943, the Institute of Public Affairs is a right-wing,
corporate-funded think tank "dedicated to preserving and strengthening
the foundations of economic and political freedom". Based in Melbourne,
it advocates for, among other things, increased privatisation,
deregulation, genetically-modified crops and nuclear power. [1]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_about)
According to SourceWatch
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs),
the IPA "has been the driving force behind the establishment of a
number of new non-profit front groups, including the Australian
Environment Foundation - which campaigns for weaker environmental laws
- Independent Contractors of Australia - which campaigns for an end to
workplace safety laws and a general deregulation of the labour market,
and the ironically named Owner Drivers Australia, which campaigns
against safety and work standard for truck drivers". [2]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_SW)
In a speech to the IPA justifying the 2003 Iraq War, Australian Prime
Minister John Howard said that "the Institute has played a role in
shaping, as well as articulating, our nation’s values." [3]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_howard)
Staff with Links to Nuclear Industry
The IPA’s executive director, John Roskam, is a former Manager of
Government and Corporate Affairs for Rio Tinto Zinc, which is heavily
involved in mining uranium. Before joining IPA, Roskam was the
Executive Director of The Menzies Research Centre, a think tank for the
Australian Liberal Party. He was also Chief of Staff to Dr David Kemp,
the Federal Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, and Senior Advisor to Don Hayward, Victorian Minister for
Education in the first Kennett Government. [4]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_roskam)
Board member Tim Duncan is a former Head of Australian External Affairs
at Rio Tinto Zinc. He now works for PR company Hinton and Associates.
[5]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_Duncan)
Let’s Import Nuclear Waste
The Public Affairs Institute is so determinedly pro-nuclear that it wants Australia to import other countries’ nuclear waste.
The June 2005 edition of IPA’s periodical Review carried a substantial
section devoted to nuclear power. Writing about energy policy, then
Executive Director of the IPA Mike Nahan concluded: "There are three
possibilities – exotic renewables, nuclear power or turning off the
lights. In reality, the first and the last are not options. It will
either have to be nuclear or fossil fuel." [6]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_Reviewnuke)
Alan Moran, Director of the IPA Deregulation Unit, also wrote an
article that argued that nuclear power can help the Australian
government towards greener energy production. Moran stated: "Concern
about climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas production
will result in a dramatic change in the power industry worldwide, and
the main beneficiary would be nuclear." He also predicted that: "exotic
renewables, such as wind, will remain a small but costly token to the
deep Green ideology". [7]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_Reviewnuke2)
IPA Board member (and former Deputy Chairman of Energy firm Vencorp)
Tom Quirk argued that Australia should consider building a long-term
underground dispository for its and other countries’ nuclear waste. He
wrote: "Australia should offer to dispose of the wastes generated from
the uranium supplied from our own mines in the first instance and, in
addition, consider the disposal of wastes from our region where
countries are unlikely to find secure high-isolation sites… The
disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste in Australia is a major
opportunity. It would not only be a significant business opportunity,
but also a major enabling step for the use of nuclear power, an
important contribution to nuclear safety, and a major contribution to
our region."[8]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_Reviewnuke3)
Quick, on behalf of the IPA, submitted further details of his plans to
the Australian Government’s Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear
Energy Review, which considered, among other things, "the extent and
circumstances in which nuclear energy could in the longer term be
economically competitive in Australia". [9]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_submission)
[10]
(http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#endnote_hearings)
References
* ‘About the IPA (http://www.ipa.org.au/about.asp), IPA website, undated, accessed February 2007
* ‘Institute of Public Affairs’
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs),
Sourcewatch, undated, accessed February 2007
* ‘Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon John Howard MP address to
the Institute of Public Affairs, The Australian Club, Melbourne’
(http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech878.html), Prime Minister’s
website, 19 May 2004
* People and associates – John Roskam
(http://www.ipa.org.au/people/bio.asp?peopleid=68), IPA website,
undated, accessed February 2007
* Press release: NMA Council Appointment
(http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_5-2_4009-4_117441,00.html),
Australian Government Department of Communications, Information
Technology and the Arts (http://www.dcita.gov.au), 27 November 2003
* Mike Nahan, ‘The Politics of Nuclear Power’, Review
(http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review57-2.pdf), published June 2005,
accessed December 2005
* Alan Moran, ‘The Economics of Nuclear Power’, Review
(http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review57-2.pdf), published June 2005,
accessed December 2005
* Tom Quirk, ‘The safe disposal of nuclear waste’, Review
(http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review57-2.pdf), published June 2005,
accessed December 2005
* Tom Quirk, ‘Nuclear Waste Management in Australia - Submission to the
Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review’
(http://www.dpmc.gov.au/umpner/submissions/221_sub_umpner.pdf),
Institute of Public Affairs, September 2006
* Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review – Terms of
reference (http://www.dpmc.gov.au/umpner/reference.cfm), undated,
accessed December 2006
------------------->
NUCLEAR DEBATES - AUSTRALIA -VARIOUS
------------------->
A battle won has to be fought again
March 31, 2007
www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-battle-won-has-to-be-fought-again/2007/03/30/1174761748781.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Now, 24 years since we sang and danced our nuclear fears away at the
bowl, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle again and tomorrow's
Nuclear Fools Day concert at the bowl feels like groundhog day, writes
Tracee Hutchison.
A MONTH before Bob Hawke became prime minister in 1983, a couple of
friends and I painted a huge banner with a mushroom cloud in the middle
of it. The banner was long enough to span the stage of the Sidney Myer
Music Bowl and emblazoned in big yellow letters on it were the words
"STOP THE DROP". To maximise the dramatic effect of the anti-nuclear
message we fashioned the mushroom cloud around the H in the "THE".
The concert of the same name, in February 1983, featured INXS, Midnight
Oil, Goanna and Redgum. And the prevailing mood among the tens of
thousands of people who were there suggested a looming fear that the
development of a nuclear industry would be bad for our health and our
future.
With the fallout of the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor accident still
casting a long shadow, we sang and danced and shouted our opposition to
nuclear proliferation and anointed people such as anti-nuclear
campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott as our patron saints.
As the '80s rolled on, Hawke introduced the ALP's famed three-mines
policy and confidence in nuclear power as a viable and legitimate
energy source continued to wane, thanks largely to the 1986 nuclear
meltdown in Chernobyl that sent a radioactive cloud across much of
Europe exposing 5 million people. The price of uranium plummeted.
Now, 24 years since we sang and danced our nuclear fears away at the
bowl, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle again and tomorrow's
Nuclear Fools Day concert at the bowl feels like groundhog day.
Exactly when the tide turned on nuclear power is hard to pin down. Was
it English scientist Dr James Lovelock's declaration that he'd happily
store nuclear waste under his home as a heat source? Is it a triumph of
economic rationalists with short memories or simply boy-men with
warmongering tendencies? It's anyone's guess. But somewhere along the
way Australia, with 32 per cent of the world's uranium, became a major
player in the nuclear industry.
Without a real clue on alternative energy options or a strategy to
combat global warming, Prime Minister John Howard became the nuclear
industry's pin-up boy, stacking an inquiry into nuclear energy options
in Australia with nuclear advocates and appointing its chairman, Ziggy
Switkowski, to a plum job heading the country's top nuclear research
and lobby group ANSTO — before the pro-nuke report was handed down.
Somehow the Federal Government also managed to persuade itself that
sending our uranium to non-signatory countries to the international
nuclear non-proliferation treaty with little post-it notes saying "Not
for Weapons" was a reasonable enough guarantee that we're not part of a
nuclear arms race.
Suddenly the idea that some of that uranium that had underscored the
resources boom would have to come back to its country of origin in
waste form was firming as our responsibility.
And just when you'd think the ALP would step up and take a strong stand
on the nuclear issue it buckles. Suddenly the three-mines policy is up
for grabs at next month's national conference. Suddenly Queensland
Premier Peter Beattie is eating the words he took to the electorate
that returned his Government to power just six months ago and dumps a
pro-nuclear bombshell from the safety of an overseas junket.
Suddenly South Australian Premier Mike Rann is approving a fourth
uranium mine, subject to the Feds giving it the green light, with the
charming name of "Honeymoon". And suddenly NT Chief Minister Clare
Martin is suggesting that the lady may well be for turning.
Somehow all of this is supposed to be good for Australia. Yet none of
us wants a nuclear reactor or a nuclear waste dump in our backyard. Ask
around. I doubt you'll find any takers. And contrary to Martin
Ferguson's rhetoric the unions are not on board.
No other mineral is connected to the most destructive weapon ever built. It needs to stay in the ground.
As Caldicott said on the cover of her most recent book, Nuclear is Not
the Answer to Global Warming or Anything Else, it is not the magic
non-polluting answer to protracted inaction on alternate energy
strategies.
And this is not the time to forget that accidents do happen. See you at the bowl tomorrow. I just wish I still had that banner.
Tracee Hutchison is a Melbourne writer and broadcaster.
------------------->
Why big business wants nuclear power
Renfrey Clarke
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/704/36547
Green Left Weekly issue #704 28 March 2007.
Late February three wealthy business leaders with close Liberal Party
connections — Robert de Crespigny, Ron Walker and Hugh Morgan —
announced the formation of Australian Nuclear Energy to develop nuclear
power generation. Prime Minister John Howard praised the initiative as
"a great idea".
Why would these business magnates, and their political mates, be moving
to plant a string of nukes around our coast? It’s not as though the
safety issues surrounding nuclear power have suddenly been resolved.
Nor is it because nuclear power represents an attractive economic
option. Even the most modern nukes are likely to produce power at a
cost at least 50% higher than that of Australia’s prime renewable
resource, "hot dry rock" geothermal energy.
Those pushing nuclear power aren’t out to do the public a service. They
undoubtedly count on receiving handsome profits — not because nuclear
power is competitive, but because the nuclear industry around the world
has, notoriously, been able to prise subsidies out of the public purse.
Most crucially, the building of nuclear power plants would set in place
a key element in a broader scheme that with all its dangers, promises
vast profits to Australia’s business elite. That scheme is the creation
of an integrated Australian nuclear industry, extending from uranium
mining all the way through to repositories for storing the world’s
nuclear waste.
Backed by a powerful alliance of corporate, political, bureaucratic and
military interests, an integrated Australian nuclear industry would be
a cousin to the rapacious US military-industrial complex. Focused on
export earnings, the nuclear industry would become a pillar of
Australia’s balance of payments. The need to support it would be cited
endlessly as essential to national wellbeing.
Historically, the nuclear industry developed in the US, Britain and
France on the basis of just such an alliance between the military,
large-scale industry and pro-business politicians and state officials.
The military’s "need" for nuclear bombs led to state investments in
creating a uranium enrichment industry. The enriched uranium could, of
course, be used in nuclear power plants as well as in bombs. And what
better way to justify the cost of nuclear weapons than by promising the
public cheap electricity?
The power nukes created radioactive waste that required reprocessing.
Agreeably enough, this provided the fissile material for yet more
bombs.
As the nuclear industry developed, its social, economic and political
processes catalysed one another. Nuclear-armed generals gained in
prestige and influence. State officials linked to the industry saw
their clout multiply. Industrial corporations prospered on fat
contracts. All lobbied less-than-skeptical politicians to advance
nuclear industry interests, and the public paid for everything.
Economic absurdity
To believe its proponents, nuclear power — and especially power from
modern plants built to standard designs — is cheap enough to compete
with fossil fuels, at least when the real costs of carbon-based
generation are taken into account.
The trouble is the economic figures for new-generation nukes are highly
speculative. It’s not as though anyone has ever built, operated and
(especially) decommissioned such a plant. Moreover, almost all the
quoted figures have their sources in the nuclear industry itself, and
the nuclear firms are notorious for citing best-case price scenarios as
established fact.
"The UK nuclear industry has systematically underestimated the cost of
new nuclear power", reads a 2005 British report from the New Economics
Foundation. "More realistic estimates for construction, delays and
overruns, the cost of early reactors and actual performance — all push
the likely costs of new nuclear power up."
When figures yielded by existing nukes are substituted for the hopeful
guesses of the nuclear planners a quite different picture emerges. A
2006 Canadian study provides an example. Conducted for the Ontario
Clean Air Alliance, the study observes that if data for the nukes now
operating in Ontario are used in the cost calculations, the real price
of power from a new CANDU6 nuclear plant comes in at 2.5 times the cost
of renewable alternatives, mainly wind power.
New-model nukes might produce electricity more cheaply than the old
ones. But we should not expect the quantum-leap increases in cost
efficiency needed to make nuclear power a rational economic choice.
All this begs the question: why have private energy corporations ever
built nuclear power plants anywhere? The answer is that the
well-connected nuclear industry has regularly been able to secure vast
government subsidies.
In the first 40 years of operation, one study suggests, commercial
nuclear power in the US enjoyed subsidies amounting to some 20% of its
spending. "Commercial atomic power has thus far cost [US]$492 billion
dollars", a 1992 Greenpeace report states, "[US]$97 billion of which
has been in the form of federal subsidies".
The proportion may be considerably higher. More recent studies of US
nuclear power spending cite figures for government subsidies as high as
US$145 billion.
The founders of Australian Nuclear Energy are shrewd entrepreneurs. If
they lend their names and capital to such a venture, it’s because
they’re confident they have the clout to extract corresponding
subsidies from governments.
Nuclear-industrial complex
Corporate Australia already has the world’s largest uranium mine, and
few people expect the Labor Party to resist pressure to allow the
mining of dozens of other uranium deposits.
Now the business elite want nuclear power plants, and they haven’t
rejected the other elements of the nuclear cycle: uranium enrichment;
waste reprocessing; and the running of an international repository for
high-level waste. There are even people who want an Aussie bomb.
The so-called Switkowski report on nuclear energy, commissioned by the
Howard government and released in December 2006, observes that
enrichment could quadruple the value of Australia’s uranium exports to
$2.4 billion a year. While the present commercial prospects for
enrichment are seen as unpromising, the report recommends that the
government should not discourage development of an enrichment
capability if commercial prospects improve.
How better to improve these commercial prospects than to build dozens
of Australian nukes by 2050, as the Switkowski report recommends?
With dozens of operating nukes, Australia would have a need for a waste
reprocessing industry. Since it is selling uranium abroad, why not
improve competitiveness by offering to contract with the foreign
customers to take their reactor waste for reprocessing and storage?
Indeed, it will be argued, Australia has a responsibility to offer this
service. Along with Canada, Australia is the only stable First World
country to have vast areas of remote wilderness inhabited "only" by
Indigenous peoples.
With its own uranium enrichment industry, and with plutonium from a
waste reprocessing plant, Australia would be only two or three years
from possessing nuclear weapons — a goal urged, with careful
obliqueness, in a recent issues paper from the right-wing Centre for
Independent Studies. Australia should not rule out domestic uranium
enrichment, the paper argues, after all it warns the day may come when
our country can no longer be certain that the US will safeguard its
interests.
But isn’t nuclear power needed to prevent global warming? That’s what Howard has been telling us. But it’s garbage.
Recent US analysis, based on International Energy Agency data,
indicates that the world would need around 10,000 nuclear reactors by
2050 to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide to safe levels. It won’t
happen, not least because nuclear power on that scale would exhaust the
Earth’s stock of accessible uranium within a decade.
Nuclear power isn’t even useful as an interim measure. Big cuts to
greenhouse gas emissions need to start within the next few years.
Industry experience indicates the time taken to get new nukes on stream
is too great.
Bringing global warming to a halt requires an accelerated shift to
genuine renewables, plus measures to force the really big energy users
to economise.
Starving renewables
Typically, renewable energy firms are modest-sized operations. They
lack the influence and connections of the large resource and
engineering corporations that are poised to take on the building of an
Australian nuclear complex. What chance will wind and solar energy
companies have of attracting capital and government grants once giant
industrial firms start to demand funding for nuclear power?
When powerful corporations lobby pro-business governments, rational
decision-making goes out the window. This is the lesson of the success
of the coal industry in winning lavish government support for its
"clean coal" and geo-sequestration schemes, despite the dim promise of
these technologies.
Meanwhile the geothermal industry, potentially able to power Australia
hundreds of times over cheaply and with virtually no emissions, remains
starved of development capital. Bizarrely, work on world-class
geothermal prospects has been stalled because of an inability to hire
drilling rigs in the face of oil industry competition.
According to neoliberal doctrine, private ownership of industry is
essential to allow competition and to keep prices down. But when a
sector is dominated by a handful of giant private oligopolies, most of
the competition is between advertising pitches and between corporate
lobbyists for space outside the doors of government ministers.
Even where competition operates, it’s competition for the last sliver
of profit, not for the interests of the public and of the environment.
Understandably, the outcomes of this system are often absurd and, for
the planet, mortally dangerous. There is no way such a system can be
reformed, and no way it can be allowed to remain in place. Ownership of
the resource and energy sector must be taken away from the favour
seekers and profit junkies, and put in the hands of society as a whole.
Social ownership of vital industries will open up a huge expansion of
democracy so that democratic control can extend not just to certain
areas of state administration, but across broad areas of the economy.
But wouldn’t public ownership just mean bureaucratic control and
official arbitrariness? Indeed, you wouldn’t leave industry in the
hands of the state as run by John Howard or, putatively, Kevin Rudd.
Saving the environment will need a radical democratisation of society
and its institutions. The people holding responsibility within the
state and the economy must answer directly to an informed, politically
engaged public.
Working people must have our hands both on the levers of production and
on the mechanisms of administration. Only then can enlightened popular
debate result in rational choices, and in the practical action needed
to keep both civilisation and nature intact.
------------------->
GOVERNMENT LIMITS SCRUTINY OF NUCLEAR PROJECTS
------------------->
Limited scrutiny on nuclear projects
Monday, 9 April, 2007
Katharine Murphy
The Age
CONTROVERSIAL nuclear facilities, such as waste dumps and uranium
mines, can be approved by the Federal Government with only limited
scrutiny, according to a respected lawyer.
Stephen Keim, SC, who acts in environmental and planning matters, says
nuclear "actions", including waste dumps and new mines, can be given a
green light through "conservation agreements" between the minister and
the business proposing the development.
The agreements proposed under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act are much less transparent than a normal
environmental impact assessment, Mr Keim says.
"The use of conservation agreements for this process seems particularly
unsuitable and particularly lacking in safeguards, public input and
transparency," Mr Keim says in an advice for the Wilderness Society.
The advice that it is now easier for Canberra to approve nuclear
facilities comes as former mining executive Hugh Morgan has flagged an
internationally owned nuclear waste repository being built in remote
country in South and Western Australia.
Imogen Zethoven, nuclear campaign co-ordinator for the Wilderness
Society, said: "After 50 years of the global nuclear industry, there is
no safe, proven method of disposing of high-level nuclear waste."
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
------------------->
PM John Howard
Media Release
28 April 2007
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2007/Media_Release24284.cfm
Uranium Mining and Nuclear Energy:
A Way Forward for Australia
In light of the significance of global climate change and as the
world's largest holder of uranium reserves, Australia has a clear
responsibility to develop its uranium resources in a sustainable way -
irrespective of whether or not we end up using nuclear power.
The expert advice that my Government has received clearly shows that
Australia is giving up a major economic opportunity as a result of the
excessive barriers that have been put in place to prevent uranium
mining and export.
A key theme of the advice that the Government has received is that
Australia should do what it can to expand our uranium exports and to
remove unnecessary barriers that are acting as impediments to the
efficient operation and growth of the industry.
Nuclear energy is a fact of life and a key source of clean energy in 30 countries across Europe, Asia and North America.
Nuclear energy already supplies 15 per cent of the world's electricity and is set to grow further.
I am announcing today a new strategy for the future development of uranium mining and nuclear power in Australia.
The Government will implement this strategy to increase uranium exports
and to prepare for a possible expansion of the nuclear industry in
Australia.
The strategy will involve a number of actions that can be taken immediately, including:
- removing unnecessary constraints impeding the expansion of uranium
mining, such as overlapping and cumbersome regulations relating to the
mining and transport of uranium ore;
- making a firm commitment to Australia's participation in the Generation IV advanced nuclear reactor research programme.
My Government will also develop four major work plans mapping out a way forward for:
(i) an appropriate nuclear energy regulatory regime - including those
to govern any future potential nuclear energy facilities in Australia;
(ii) skills and technical training to address any identified gaps and
needs to support a possible expanded nuclear energy industry;
(iii) enhanced research and development; and
(iv) communication strategies so that all Australians and other
stakeholders can clearly understand what needs to be done and why.
Relevant Ministers and their Departments are to commence this work
immediately and to report to Cabinet by around September this year;
The work plans are to be implemented in 2008.
The Government's next step will be to repeal Commonwealth legislation
prohibiting nuclear activities, including the relevant provisions of
the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
This will be addressed soon.
My Government's strategy is in response to the findings of three major
recent reports and inquiries into the complex issues relating to
uranium mining and nuclear power:
- The Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER) inquiry chaired by Dr Ziggy Switkowski;
- The recommendations of the Uranium Industry Framework (UIF) undertaken jointly by industry and government;
- The HOR Standing Committee on Industry and Resources Inquiry into Developing Australia's Non-fossil Fuel Energy Industry.
Australia has 36 per cent of the world's low cost uranium reserves.
Policies or political platforms that seek to constrain the development
of a safe and reliable Australian uranium industry - and which rule out
the possibility of climate-friendly nuclear energy - are not really
serious about addressing climate change in a practical way that does
not strangle the Australian economy.
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRLIA - FEDS THREATEN TO OVERRIDE STATES
Government has apparently sought 'informal' advice on overriding state
government opposition to nuclear power but not formal advice.
------------------->
Canberra's nuclear power play against states
Brendan Nicholson and Jewel Topsfield
May 30, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/canberras-nuclear-power-play-against-states/2007/05/29/1180205250347.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
THE Federal Government is seeking legal advice on whether it can force
the states to allow the construction of nuclear facilities, including
power stations, inside their borders.
In the wake of Prime Minister John Howard's recent statements
supporting nuclear power, a Resources Department official, Tania
Constable, has confirmed that legal advice has been sought on whether
Canberra could override state laws to introduce it.
Her admission could intensify the nuclear debate in the lead-up to this
year's federal election, with Labor and the states having already
flatly rejected Mr Howard's push for nuclear power as a possible option
to counter global warming.
Victoria is one of several states that have laws designed to prevent
the establishment of nuclear power stations. A Bracks Government
spokeswoman said last night that if Canberra tried to force nuclear
power on Victoria, it would have a fight on its hands.
A spokesman for Mr Howard last night referred The Age to comments made
previously by him and Resources and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane
that nuclear power would not be forced on the states.
But Federal Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the
states should be extremely concerned about Ms Constable's admission,
particularly if the Government was already considering weakening laws
governing nuclear matters.
Mr Garrett said that along with forcing the establishment of a nuclear
power industry, the Commonwealth could override state laws designed to
prevent or control the transportation or storage of nuclear materials.
Ms Constable, general manager of the Resources Department's energy and
environment division, made her admission at a Senate estimates hearing
on Monday night, saying officials had sought advice from the Government
Solicitor's office.
She told Labor senator Chris Evans the department was looking at
existing laws and whether any overlapping and cumbersome regulations
should be streamlined. "The second component of that is to look at, if
Australia was to look at an expanded nuclear industry, what would that
regulatory framework need to have," she said.
Asked if the Commonwealth had sought advice on whether it had the power
to override the state laws, Ms Constable said those issues were being
looked at. "Anything we do on an expanded nuclear industry would need
to be considered on a national basis."
Ms Constable said the use of Commonwealth powers to override a state
was never desirable. Senator Evans said in reply: "It's an undesirable
option much in vogue these days from a supposedly federalist
Government."
Ms Constable said officials examining a wide range of issues relating
to the nuclear industry would report to the Government in September.
She said the research was focusing on Commonwealth legislation at the
moment but said state regulations that would impede the development of
a nuclear industry had largely been identified.
"Of course state legislation and regulation would need to be taken into
account in terms of the impediments for an expanded nuclear industry
and any discussions with the states have not occurred at this
particular point in time," she said.
"We would need to discuss with states their current legislation, their
current regulatory framework, their desire to participate in an
expanded nuclear industry going forward and hope to receive bipartisan
support if that was required," Ms Constable said.
Senator Evans said the Government clearly wanted the power to remove
all barriers to a nuclear power industry. "We believe there are cleaner
and safer alternatives and we should be building on our natural
advantages such as clean coal and gas," he said.
A spokeswoman for Premier Steve Bracks said last night the Victorian
Government remained opposed to any form of nuclear energy in Victoria.
"We will continue to fight the Commonwealth's efforts to force any kind
of nuclear reactor on the state," she said.
------------------->
Advice found on axing state bans on nuclear
Stephanie Peatling and Marian Wilkinson
May 30, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/advice-found-on-axing-state-bans-on-nuclear/2007/05/29/1180205251546.html
THE Federal Government has received legal advice on how to overturn bans by the states on nuclear power stations.
Preliminary work has also been done on an advertising campaign to tell
people about nuclear power, senior departmental sources have confirmed.
The Australian Government Solicitor was asked to investigate if it was
possible for the Government to overturn or get around the bans states
such as NSW now have in place and which pieces of its own legislation
it would need to amend to remove the legal barriers that now prohibit a
local nuclear power industry.
Tania Constable, the general manager of the resource development branch
of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, confirmed to a
Senate estimates committee hearing on Monday night legal advice had
been received. The Opposition's resources spokesman, Chris Evans, who
questioned Ms Constable, said it showed that the Government had "begun
considering legal options to sweep those bans aside and force through
the building of nuclear reactors at sites of its choosing".
Commonwealth legislation such as the Environmental Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act and the laws setting up the nuclear
watchdog, the Australia Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency,
also prohibit a domestic nuclear power industry.
The Commonwealth laws could be easily amended but the Federal Government would also need to get around the state bans.
Sources yesterday speculated the Federal Government could use its
powers under the Corporations Act or the External Territories Act to
force nuclear power stations on the states rather than mount a
constitutional challenge.
But the states will react angrily to any move to force nuclear power stations on them, with all opposing nuclear power.
The Premier, Morris Iemma, said he would use every means available to make sure no nuclear power station were built in NSW.
"If John Howard has secret plans to overturn NSW's long standing ban on
nuclear power, I will fight it with every legal means at my disposal
and in every seat, city and town in NSW where he may wish to build a
nuclear power station. If the Prime Minister wants to build a nuclear
power station in NSW he'll have to get past me first," Mr Iemma said.
Nuclear power stations and the development of a nuclear power industry have been illegal in NSW since 1987.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, has previously cited the legislative
bans and the public's suspicion about the safety of nuclear power as
obstacles that would need to be overcome before he made any decision
about whether Australia should use nuclear power.
Yesterday Mr Howard talked up nuclear power as the most environmentally friendly form of power.
The Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, is preparing a submission on
what needs to be done to prepare for nuclear power to take to cabinet
in September.
Mr Macfarlane said it was irrelevant whether advice had been sought
because a nuclear power industry was impossible without support from
both sides of politics.
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - TASMANIA
------------------->
Premier opposed to nuclear power
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1944473.htm
Last Update: Thursday, June 7, 2007. 6:00am (AEST)
The Premier Paul Lennon has repeated his opposition to nuclear energy in Tasmania.
State Parliament yesterday debated a Greens bill which would have
prohibited uranium mining and nuclear power generation in Tasmania.
It was defeated by the Government and the Opposition.
Mr Lennon says there were a number of issues with the legislation, even though he does not want nuclear energy in the state.
"I do not support nuclear energy for Tasmania. We have no need to go
down that path in this state. We have ample alternate sources of power
in this state, and we should be exploring those," Mr Lennon said.
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - WA TO LEGISLATE
------------------->
Referendum on nuclear power
Joe Spagnolo
June 02, 2007 01:00pm
Article from: AAP
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21837252-2761,00.html
PREMIER Alan Carpenter will hold a referendum if the Federal Government
tries to override state laws and establish a nuclear power plant in WA.
Mr Carpenter is expected to tell the ALP's weekend state conference
that he will introduce laws which will give West Australians a say on
whether they want nuclear plants here.
A new Bill to prohibit the establishment of nuclear power stations and
enrichment facilities within WA is expected to be introduced into
parliament in a fortnight.
But Mr Carpenter is so concerned that John Howard or future prime
ministers will override WA's nuclear laws, that his new legislation
includes powers to call a referendum if a federal government ever moved
to develop nuclear power facilities in the state.
Mr Carpenter believes West Australians would vote overwhelmingly
against a nuclear industry being established here and that a strong
referendum result would send a powerful message to Canberra to back
off.
While federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd has assured Mr Carpenter that WA
can make its own decisions in relation to uranium mining and a nuclear
industry, Mr Howard has not ruled out nuclear power stations being
built anywhere in the country.
Just a few weeks ago, Mr Howard committed the nation to a nuclear
future, saying only nuclear and clean-coal energy could respond to the
threat of climate change.
Locally, the state Liberal Party has committed to reversing a ban on
uranium mining if it wins government. Leader Paul Omodei also says he
supports nuclear energy.
Dennis Jensen, the federal Liberal Member for Tangney, said he believed
West Australians were in favour of nuclear power and predicted nuclear
power stations could be located here within 15 years.
It's been estimated that uranium reserves worth about $18 billion are
in the ground and WA could be missing out on $45 million a year in
royalties.
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - QUEENSLAND LEGISLATION
------------------->
Wed May 2, 2007 7:42 pm (PST)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/New-law-bans-nuclear-power-in-Qld/2007/05/02/1177788192581.html
New law bans nuclear power in Qld
May 2, 2007 - 11:34AM
Nuclear power stations, nuclear facilities and radioactive waste dumps are now banned in Queensland.
Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson said the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2006 came into effect on Monday.
"The Act bans nuclear facilities in Queensland in order to protect the
health, safety and wellbeing of each and every one of us," Mr Wilson
said.
"There is no need for Queensland to go down the path of nuclear power plants or toxic waste dumps when we don't need to."
Premier Peter Beattie has long maintained Queensland's anti-nuclear
stance despite last weekend's vote by the federal ALP to overturn its
opposition to new uranium mines.
But the federal party still opposes nuclear power stations in Australia and the local enrichment of the mineral.
On Saturday, Prime Minister John Howard announced plans to legislate for nuclear power stations in Australia.
But Mr Wilson said on Wednesday that under Queensland's new law, a
plebiscite would have to be held if the federal government tried to
override it to build a nuclear facility in Queensland.
"We won't let the feds foist nuclear power plants or toxic waste dumps
on our state without the wishes of the people who live and work here
made known," Mr Wilson said.
Banned nuclear facilities include reactors, uranium conversion and
enrichment plants, fuel fabrication plants, spent fuel processing
plants and facilities used to store or dispose of material associated
with the nuclear fuel cycle such as radioactive waste material.
Facilities for research and medical purposes and the operation of a nuclear-powered vehicle are exempt.
Mr Wilson said other countries had nuclear power because they lacked
other energy resources or had to pay high prices for importing fuel.
"Here in Queensland we have access to abundant, long-term supplies of coal and gas," he said.
"We're confident that clean coal technology will provide a similar
level of greenhouse abatement to that of nuclear generation and in a
shorter timeframe."
"Why go down a nuclear path when we don't need to?"
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - VARIOUS
------------------->
Resolution passed at the Liberal Party's Federal Council, June 2-3 2007 (posted on Liberal Party website):
23. Nuclear Power (moved by Young Liberal Movement)
That Federal Council believes that nuclear power is the most
significant
component of an immediate response to climate change and
calls on the
Australian Government to introduce a technical and
regulatory scheme,
including appropriate environmental and operation
safeguards, and any
other measures necessary for the development and
provision of nuclear
power on a market driven basis.
------------------->
Nuclear push gains momentum
Mark Davis and Mark Metherell
June 4, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/nuclear-push-gains-momentum/2007/06/03/1180809340802.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
THE Federal Government will consider dismantling legal barriers to the
development of nuclear power before the election, the Minster for
Industry, Ian Macfarlane, said yesterday.
Mr Macfarlane said it would not be possible to cut greenhouse gas
emissions enough to tackle climate change without the use of nuclear
power.
He said every significant economy in the Asia-Pacific region, except
New Zealand, was looking at nuclear energy as a way of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
"If you want a base-load, zero-emission safe technology that is already
operating, then nuclear energy is the only one that can generate
electricity and not emit," told Channel Ten.
Mr Macfarlane said he was examining the changes needed to federal law
to open the way for a domestic nuclear industry and would take
recommendations to cabinet in September.
The minister's comments indicate the Government will step up its
pro-nuclear push before the election, which is expected to be dominated
by environmental and energy policy.
Labor supports expansion of uranium mining, subject to improved
international safeguards to ensure Australian uranium is not diverted
from civilian uses, but opposes local uranium enrichment or nuclear
power on environmental and safety grounds.
The Government's policy is to have a public debate on nuclear power. It
argues nuclear power is likely to be a critical part of the solution to
climate change by providing an energy source which does not emit
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, told the Liberal Party Federal Council
meeting in Sydney yesterday that Australia should not pay higher energy
costs than necessary to cut the emission of greenhouse gases.
"Governments need to let the market sort out the most efficient means
of lowering emissions with all low-emissions technologies on the table,
and that of necessity must include nuclear power," Mr Howard said.
Nuclear power is banned in Australia by two pieces of federal
legislation. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act prohibits establishment of nuclear power plants, while the
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act provides that
the industry regulator may not issue licences for nuclear power,
uranium enrichment or fuel fabrication facilities.
Mr Macfarlane said the Government's goal was to amend these acts so
Australia could move further into the nuclear fuel cycle if the public
accepted nuclear power.
"Our default policy is to have a debate on nuclear energy on the basis
that we don't see how you can put together a low-emission future
without nuclear," he said. "But we want to engage the Australian people
in this. This is a step forward that is very significant."
He said the Federal Government would also look at whether it had legal
powers to override the states if they opposed development of nuclear
power.
"You must deal with this issue of what do you do if Australia and its
people say yes and some belligerent state premier, perhaps of either
persuasion, says no."
The West Australian Premier, Alan Carpenter, announced yesterday his
government would legislate to prohibit nuclear power generation.
Mr Macfarlane also said he had heard reports that at one hospital,
nuclear medicine waste was being stored in a shipping container in the
car park. He declined to name the hospital.
Premiers were screaming about nuclear power, he said, and he questioned
whether state governments had made appropriate arrangements to store
nuclear waste.
"Why are they frightening people by saying nuclear waste is so
dangerous when they are not even storing it in a secure environment in
some cases?" Mr Macfarlane asked.
His spokeswoman later said the minister had not sought more details
about the nuclear container because he did not have concerns about its
safety.
Previous reports of the insecure storage of nuclear medicine waste
raised fears it could be plundered by terrorists for the manufacture of
dirty bombs, conventional explosives tainted with radioactive material.
A NSW Health spokeswoman said yesterday all public hospitals had to
comply with radioactive waste management regulations and the department
was not aware of any non-compliance.
------------------->
Letter sent to papers ...
Macfarlane wrong on nuclear power
Federal industry minister Ian Macfarlane said on Sunday morning TV
that: "If you want a base-load, zero-emission safe technology that is
already operating, then nuclear energy is the only one ..."
Why would the minister make such as comment when he surely knows it is
not true? Leaving aside the fact that there are significant greenhouse
emissions across the nuclear fuel cycle, Macfarlane is ignoring the
various renewable energy sources which are perfectly capable of
supplying reliable base-load power, namely hydro, geothermal and
bioenergy.
Moreover, as Dr Mark Diesendorf from the University of NSW noted in a
recent EnergyScience briefing paper, dispersed wind farms with a small
amount of gas-fired back-up can replace coal-fired baseload plants.
Macafarlane would also be aware of the leaked report from the federal
government funded Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable
Development, which states that solar thermal technology "is poised to
play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia" and will
be cost-competitive with coal within seven years.
Jim Green
Friends of the Earth
Melbourne
------------------->
Australia ready for nuclear: IAEA
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Protesters-target-Sydney-reactor-opening/2007/04/20/1176697036177.html
April 20, 2007 - 6:09AM
The head of the world's atomic watchdog says Australia is ready to
switch to nuclear power, but needs an informed public debate before
taking such a controversial step.
International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director general Professor
Werner Burkart's comments came as he helped Prime Minister John Howard
open Australia's new $400 million nuclear research reactor at Lucas
Heights in Sydney's south on Friday.
Prof Burkart described the OPAL reactor as "top notch", saying it would
play a vital role in scientific research in the key fields of medicine
and climate change.
And he said now Australia had such a cutting-edge nuclear research
facility, it appeared ready to take the next step toward introducing
atomic power.
"I think Australia would have the technology level, you would have the
kind of good governance, you would have the kind of regulatory
infrastructure," Prof Burkart told reporters.
"But this is very much a political decision.
"We would try to be a good partner in checking your arguments.
"You should have an informed debate. Look at the arguments, judge the arguments."
A federal government taskforce last year found Australia could have 25
nuclear power stations in operation by 2050, delivering one third of
the nation's electricity needs.
A strategic think-tank, the Kokoda Foundation, also argues that
Australia would need a nuclear power industry if it wanted to develop
top-of-the-range nuclear-powered submarines to replace the
controversial Collins subs.
The prime minister, who has said he would be prepared to live next door
to a nuclear power plant, stressed that nuclear energy would play a key
role in Australia's future.
"Nuclear energy, nuclear science, nuclear power is part of Australia's
future and those who seek to shut the nuclear option out of anything in
relation to power generation or science or medicine in the future are
really looking backwards rather than forwards," Mr Howard told
reporters.
Security was extremely tight for Mr Howard's visit to Lucas Heights,
with dozens of police, sniffer dogs and a helicopter patrolling the
site.
A group of about 20 protesters with a truck carrying a mock nuclear
waste container were forced to rally outside the gates after police
refused them entry.
People Against a Nuclear Reactor spokeswoman Genevieve Rankin, said the
Lucas Heights facility was "an outrageous waste" of Australia's
scientists.
"Australia does not make any unique contribution in the nuclear field, at best they will repeat what goes overseas," she said.
But Mr Howard said the new reactor, which replaces the original
facility built on the same site in 1958, was a "triumph of science",
especially in the field of medicine.
"As a self-confessed sports lover and cricket tragic, let me simply say
... I do look very much to the day when the achievements of Australian
science and Australian scientists are as celebrated and as revered as
the achievements of the sports men and women of this country," he said.
"This facility will relieve human suffering, it will be of direct,
often life-saving, benefit to countless thousands of our fellow
countrymen and women."
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) chairman
Ziggy Switkowski, who headed the government's nuclear taskforce,
described the new reactor as Sydney's third icon, after the Harbour
Bridge and Opera House.
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - PUBLIC OPINION
------------------->
Australia Institute
2 May 2007
Media release
Australia still doesn’t want to go nuclear
Reports of a dramatic shift in support among Australians for nuclear
power are incorrect and based on inaccurate analysis according to new
research by the Australia Institute.
Only one third of Australians support the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia.
The finding is made in Attitudes to Nuclear Power: Are they shifting?,
a paper analysing support for nuclear power in Australia by Institute
Deputy Director Andrew Macintosh and Executive Director Dr Clive
Hamilton.
"In March, The Australian newspaper claimed Newspoll surveys showed
there had been a dramatic reversal in attitudes to nuclear power. But
The Australian seriously misrepresented the results of the surveys by
comparing the responses to two different questions," Dr Hamilton
said.
"Our results show that attitudes to nuclear power have been fairly
stable since the Federal Government began its nuclear campaign 12
months ago and that there is still widespread opposition to nuclear
power."
Polling for the Institute by Newspoll in April 2007 found that 36 per
cent of Australians support the construction of nuclear power plants,
similar to the findings in Newspoll surveys from May and December 2006.
"Since December 2006, opposition to nuclear energy has declined
slightly, falling from 50 per cent to 46 per cent. However,
substantially more people oppose nuclear energy than support it and the
proportion of Australians who are strongly opposed to nuclear power is
almost double that which is strongly in favour," Mr Macintosh
said.
The survey found that opposition to nuclear power is highest among
females (55 per cent), the young (49 per cent) and middle-aged (49 per
cent), parents (50 per cent), people from middle income households (49
per cent) and those living in Tasmania (57 per cent), Western Australia
(55 per cent) and Victoria (51 per cent). Support for nuclear power is
highest amongst males (47 per cent), older Australians (43 per cent),
people without children (40 per cent) and those living in South
Australia (47 per cent) and New South Wales (41 per cent).
"Despite the Government’s promotion campaign, there is still widespread
opposition to nuclear power. The Government has a considerable amount
of work to do if it wants to win the Australian public’s support for
its nuclear strategy", Mr Macintosh said.
Copies of the report are available on the Australia Institute website. <www.tai.org.au>
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - COUNCILS
------------------->
Call for councils to keep right to ban nuclear power
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1938460.htm
Last Update: Thursday, May 31, 2007. 9:38am (AEST)
The New South Wales Shires Association says it would oppose any plan
from the Federal Government to override state and local government bans
on nuclear power.
New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria have legislation banning nuclear power plants.
But the Federal Opposition says the Government is trying to overcome
legal barriers which currently stop nuclear reactors being built.
Shires association president Col Sullivan says councils know the needs
of their communities and must keep the right to ban nuclear power in
their regions.
"I think in most cases ... councils are well aware of what's happening
in a local area. They're well aware of the feelings of the community
about these particular problems. Local councils should have the say in
these matters," he said.
"We'll be watching it with interest and certainly we'll be expressing our opinion about it ... should it become a reality."
------------------->
UK BODY SNATCHERS
------------------->
UK nuclear sites kept body parts
LONDON: Two British uranium enrichment plants, a nuclear power station
and an atomic defence installation all secretly removed and stored body
parts of dead former workers, the Government admitted yesterday.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21588208-2703,00.html
------------------->
NUCLEAR WASTE - SWEDEN
------------------->
Sweden Halts Nuclear Waste Storage at Forsmark
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42275/story.htm
STOCKHOLM - Swedish authorities on Wednesday halted storage of
radioactive waste at the Nordic country's troubled Forsmark nuclear
plant.
The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) said in a statement
the company in charge of handling the waste, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and
Waste Management (SKB), had failed to live up to safety standards at
the Forsmark storage site.
"The current flaws do not constitute any immediate risk to the
surroundings, but SSI still takes a serious view of the situation at
(the facility)," SSI said in a statement.
The authority, the regulatory body charged with promoting effective
radiation protection in Sweden, said the firm had submitted late and
incomplete accounts of operations, which indicated safety flaws, such
as exceeding radiation limits.
Storage of nuclear waste at the plant would therefore be stopped as of
June 21, it added. SKB's owners include state-owned energy firm
Vattenfall and E.ON's Swedish nuclear subsidiary.
Sweden's nuclear industry has been hit by a number of incidents and
sharp criticism following an emergency shutdown at one of the Forsmark
nuclear plant's reactors in July last year. The International Atomic
Energy Agency has begun inspections of Sweden's 10 nuclear reactors at
the request of the government. The United Nations nuclear watchdog is
expected to report on its findings next year.
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER/WEAPONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
------------------->
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nuclear26may26,1,754545.story?track=rss
Arabs make plans for nuclear power
Iran's program appears to be stirring interest that some fear will lead to a scramble for atomic weapons in the volatile region.
By Bob Drogin and Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writers
May 26, 2007
VIENNA — As Iran races ahead with an illicit uranium enrichment effort,
nearly a dozen other Middle East nations are moving forward on their
own civilian nuclear programs. In the latest development, a team of
eight U.N. experts on Friday ended a weeklong trip to Saudi Arabia to
provide nuclear guidance to officials from six Persian Gulf countries.
Diplomats and analysts view the Saudi trip as the latest sign that
Iran's suspected weapons program has helped spark a chain reaction of
nuclear interest among its Arab rivals, which some fear will lead to a
scramble for atomic weapons in the world's most volatile region.
The International Atomic Energy Agency sent the team of nuclear experts
to Riyadh, the Saudi capital, to advise the Gulf Cooperation Council on
building nuclear energy plants. Together, the council members —
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the seven sheikdoms of
the United Arab Emirates — control nearly half the world's known oil
reserves.
Other nations that have said they plan to construct civilian nuclear
reactors or have sought technical assistance and advice from the IAEA,
the Vienna-based United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, in the last
year include Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Yemen, as well as several
North African nations.
None of the governments has disclosed plans to build nuclear weapons.
But Iran's 18-year secret nuclear effort and its refusal to comply with
current U.N. Security Council demands have raised concerns that the
Arab world will decide it needs to counter a potentially nuclear-armed
Iran. The same equipment can enrich uranium to fuel civilian reactors
or, in time and with further enrichment, atomic bombs.
"There is no doubt that countries around the gulf are worried … about
whether Iran is seeking nuclear weapons," Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S.
representative to U.N. agencies in Vienna, said in an interview.
"They're worried about whether it will prompt a nuclear arms race in
the region, which would be to no one's benefit."
The United States has long supported the spread of peaceful nuclear
energy under strict international safeguards. Schulte said Washington's
diplomatic focus remained on stopping Iran before it could produce fuel
for nuclear weapons, rather than on trying to restrict nations from
developing nuclear power for generating electricity.
But those empowered to monitor and regulate civilian nuclear programs
around the world are worried. Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of
the IAEA, warned Thursday that the surge of interest in sensitive
nuclear technology raised the risk of weapons proliferation. Without
singling out any nation, he cautioned that some governments might
insist on enriching their own uranium to ensure a steady supply of
reactor fuel.
"The concern is that by mastering the fuel cycle, countries move
dangerously close to nuclear weapons capability," ElBaradei told a
disarmament conference in Luxembourg.
Iran is the obvious case in point. Tehran this week defied another U.N.
Security Council deadline by which it was to freeze its nuclear
program. The IAEA reported that Iran instead was accelerating uranium
enrichment without having yet built the reactors that would need the
nuclear fuel. At the same time, the IAEA complained, Iran's diminishing
cooperation had made it impossible to confirm Tehran's claims that the
program is only for peaceful purposes.
That has unnerved Iran's neighbors as well as members of the Security Council.
"We have the right if the Iranians are going to insist on their right
to develop their civilian nuclear program," said Mustafa Alani, a
security expert at the Gulf Research Center, a think tank based in
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "We tell the Iranians, 'We have no problem
with you developing civilian nuclear energy, but if you're going to
turn your nuclear program into a weapons program, we'll do the same.' "
Iran sought to rally Arab support for its nuclear program at the World
Economic Forum meeting of business and political leaders this month in
Jordan.
"Iran will be a partner, a brotherly partner, and will share its
capabilities with the people of the region," Mohammed J.A. Larijani, a
former deputy foreign minister, told reporters.
Arab officials were cool to his approach, however, and openly questioned Iran's intentions.
The IAEA team's weeklong foray to Saudi Arabia followed ElBaradei's
visit to the kingdom in April. The Gulf Cooperation Council plans to
present the results of its study on developing nuclear plants to the
leaders of council nations in the Omani capital of Muscat in December.
"They don't say it, but everyone can see that [Iran] is at least one of
the reasons behind the drive to obtaining the nuclear technology," said
Salem Ahmad Sahab, a professor of political science at King Abdulaziz
University in Jidda, Saudi Arabia. "If the neighbors are capable of
obtaining the technology, why not them?"
Officially, leaders of the Arab gulf states say they are eager to close
a technology gap with Iran, as well as with Israel, which operates two
civilian reactors and is widely believed to have built at least 80
nuclear warheads since the 1960s. Israel does not acknowledge its
nuclear arsenal under a policy aimed at deterring regional foes while
avoiding an arms race.
Advocates argue that the gulf states need nuclear energy despite their vast oil and natural gas reserves.
The region's growing economies suffer occasional summer power outages,
and the parched climate makes the nations there susceptible to water
shortages, which can be offset by the energy-intensive processing of
seawater.
"The promising future of nuclear energy in electricity generation and
desalination can make it a source for meeting increasing needs,"
Abdulrahman Attiya, the Kuwaiti head of the Gulf Cooperation Council,
told the group this week in Riyadh.
Attiya also cited long-term economic and environmental advantages to nuclear energy.
"A large part of Gulf Cooperation Council oil and gas products can be
used for export in light of expected high prices and demand," he said.
"It will also help to limit the increase in carbon dioxide emissions in
the gulf region."
It remains unclear how many countries will carry through on ambitious
and enormously expensive nuclear projects. In some cases, analysts say,
the nuclear announcements may be intended for domestic prestige, and as
a signal to Iran that others intend to check its emergence as a
regional power. As a result, some analysts say fears of a nuclear arms
race in the Middle East are overblown.
"Those who caricature what's going on as Sunni concern about a Shiite
bomb are really oversimplifying the case," said Martin Malin, a nuclear
expert at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, referring
to Sunni Muslim-led Arab countries and Shiite Muslim-led Iran.
Aggressive international monitoring, he contended, could ensure that
nuclear energy programs don't secretly morph into weapons capabilities.
"If what Jordan is really concerned about is energy, and the U.S. is
concerned about weapons, all kinds of oversight can be provided," Malin
said.
A Russian diplomat here similarly cautioned that Iran's influence on
other nations' nuclear plans might be overstated. "I should be very
cautious about any connection between these two things," he said. "We
don't deny that even Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear activities."
Although enthusiasm for prospective nuclear programs appears strongest
in the Middle East, governments elsewhere have displayed interest in
atomic power after years of decline in the industry that followed the
1979 reactor accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the far
worse 1986 radiation leak at Chernobyl in Ukraine. About 30 countries
operate nuclear reactors for energy, and that number seems certain to
grow.
"There's certainly a renaissance of interest," said an IAEA official
who works on the issue. "And there's likely to be a renaissance in
construction over the next few decades."
IAEA officials say the largest growth in nuclear power is likely to
occur in China, India, Russia, the United States and South Africa, with
Argentina, Finland and France following close behind. The United States
has 103 operating plants, more than any other country, and as many as
31 additional plants are under consideration or have begun the
regulatory process.
And there are other nations in line. Oil-rich Nigeria and Indonesia are
preparing to build nuclear plants. Belarus and Vietnam have approached
the IAEA for advice. Algeria signed a deal with Russia in January on
possible nuclear cooperation. Morocco and Poland are said to be
considering nuclear power. Myanmar disclosed plans to purchase a
Russian research reactor.
Even Sudan, one of the world's poorest countries, has expressed interest.
"When Sudan shows up, we say, 'You're in a real early stage and here's
what you need. A law. Get people trained. Build roads. And so on,' "
the IAEA official said.
So far, the nuclear programs around Iran are in the early planning
stages. Alani, the security expert in Dubai, said most of the nations
in the region were scoping out the possibilities but had made no final
decisions or begun constructing facilities.
"They feel it's a right and significant move at least to put [their]
foot in the door of civilian nuclear energy," he said. "It's not a
race, not yet."
------------------->
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS IN JAPAN
------------------->
Japan Nuclear at Full Power Despite Safety Doubts
JAPAN: April 5, 2007
Story by Elaine Lies
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41263/story.htm
TOKYO - Cover-ups at Japanese nuclear plants have dented public trust,
but the government looks set to forge ahead with plans to boost
reliance on nuclear power, already providing almost one-third of the
country's energy needs.
While a series of confessions about unreported safety lapses and
worries about earthquakes could boost local opposition to nuclear
power, the long-term impact will probably be minimal, analysts said.
"Given the current situation of Japan's high dependency on nuclear
power, and the fact that switching to thermal power would be bad for
the environment, it's hard to think that the government will change its
policy," said Takeshi Shigemoto, an associate director who follows the
industry at Fitch Ratings.
A strong earthquake struck the coast of central Japan last month near
the site of a nuclear power plant, although the operator said it was
prepared for big tremors.
"Not enough steps in general have been taken against quakes, so now
fears are stronger than ever," said Masako Sawai, at the Citizens'
Nuclear Information Centre.
Earthquakes are not the only thing rattling consumer confidence in the nuclear power industry this year.
Since mid-March, two separate electric power firms have admitted that
mishandling nuclear fuel rods caused "criticality" incidents --
unintended self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reactions -- one in
1978, one in 1984 and one in 1999.
Hokuriku Electric Power Co. has confessed to covering up the 1999
mishap at its Shika plant, near the site of last week's earthquake,
while Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said the same about the other
two incidents, including the one in 1978 -- which may have gone on for
as long as 7- hours.
None of the incidents led to any radiation leak, but there have been
reports of other fuel rod mishaps, as well as emergency reactor
stoppages that were never reported, five years after a scandal over
long-term falsification of safety records by TEPCO.
FATAL ACCIDENTS
One of the nation's worst nuclear accidents took place in September
1999, when workers at a nuclear facility in Tokaimura, northeast of
Tokyo, set off an uncontrolled chain reaction by using buckets to mix
nuclear fuel. Two workers were killed.
"People have to have electricity, so the companies can't be punished in
a significant way, such as shutting down plants," said Hideyuki Koyama,
from an anti-nuclear group in western Japan.
In 2004, four workers at a nuclear power plant were killed by a leak of
high-pressure steam from a pipe. Prosecutors recently said negligence
was involved in their deaths but that management had been lax for so
long it was impossible to prove those at higher levels had failed to
take action, media reports say.
Despite these mishaps, Japan still plans to boost its nuclear power
supply to 40 percent of total energy supply from the current roughly 30
percent, while power firms have announced plans to build 13 new
generators on top of the existing 55 plants.
Officials say the incidents emerging now are the result of trade
ministry orders to go through power plant records and report all
mishaps by the end of March, an effort to restore public trust.
"These are all old incidents," said Hisanori Nei, director of the Trade
Ministry's Nuclear Plant Inspection Division. "It's much harder to hide
such problems now."
In 2003, inspection standards were tightened so inspectors work in
teams instead of solo. Fines for cover-ups of 300,000 to 1 million yen
(US$2,500 to $8,500) a person, and 100 million yen (US$850,000) per
company were introduced, along with the possibility of up to a year in
prison.
Other changes are afoot.
Reporting rules may be tightened further, and TEPCO said that it will
delay three of its four new nuclear projects. Hokuriku Electric also
said it would keep its nuclear units shut through the business year
that started on April 1.
Activists remain sceptical.
"The government standards are way too soft, and there's nothing there
to intimidate the power firms at all," said Sawai at the Citizens'
Nuclear Information Centre.
"I believe that more cover-ups will take place." (US$1=118.86 Yen)
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER - ECONOMICS
------------------->
Weighing the financial risks of nuclear power plants
Public release date: 3-Apr-2007
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/uoc--wtf040307.php
New study of historical costs of nuclear power shows potential for high costs in future technologies
Berkeley -- Enticed by the gleam of government subsidies, many
companies are rushing to invest in nuclear power, expecting that new
technology and safer reactors will make them as good an investment as
other types of power plants.
A new study appearing in the April 1 issue of the journal Environmental
Science and Technology notes, however, that the country's history of
unexpected cost overruns when building nuclear plants should sound a
cautionary note for power companies that nuclear power may not be
financially attractive.
"For energy security and carbon emission concerns, nuclear power is
very much back on the national and international agenda," said study
co-author Dan Kammen, UC Berkeley professor of energy and resources and
of public policy. "To evaluate nuclear power's future, it is critical
that we understand what the costs and the risks of this technology have
been. To this point, it has been very difficult to obtain an accurate
set of costs from the U. S. fleet of nuclear power plants."
The study, conducted by a research team from Georgetown University,
Stanford University and UC Berkeley, analyzes the costs of electricity
from existing U.S. nuclear reactors and discusses the possibility for
cost "surprises" in new energy technologies, including next-generation
nuclear power.
What they found was a range of electricity costs, from 3 cents per
kilowatt hour to nearly 14 cents per kilowatt hour, with the higher
costs attributed to such problems as poor plant operation or
unanticipated security costs.
"In the long term, whether these plants are 4 cents or 8 cents per
kilowatt hour, they are still a good deal, if you think carbon is an
issue," Kammen said, referring to the carbon dioxide emissions from
oil, coal and gas-fueled power plants that exacerbate global warming.
"If the argument is that cost really needs to be important, then I'm
not sure nuclear competes that well."
Some politicians also tout the increased security benefits of having
domestic sources of energy, but this doesn't translate into decreased
risk for investors, the study notes.
"In a deregulated electricity environment, investors will increasingly
share the financial risks of underperformance of generation assets,"
said co-author Nathan Hultman, assistant professor of science,
technology and international affairs at Georgetown University in
Washington, D.C., and a visiting fellow at the James Martin Institute
for Science and Civilization at the University of Oxford. "We don't
have a good way of forecasting these risks yet, but looking at the
historical data can be one way to understand the possibilities and
scenarios for the future."
No new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in 29
years, in part because they've proved to be poor investments, producing
far more expensive electricity than originally promised. In 2005, about
19 percent of U.S. electricity generation was produced by 104 nuclear
reactors.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Advanced Energy Initiative of
2006 sought to change that, offering financial incentives for new plant
construction that employs new reactor and new safe-operating
technologies. Current nuclear plant operators have given notice that
they intend to apply for approval of 27 new "generation III+" reactors.
But Kammen points out that in the past, when U.S. companies have
introduced new technologies, they've run into unexpected costs that
have kept electricity prices high. France, on the other hand,
standardized the design of its nuclear power plants and encountered
fewer cost surprises.
"Some U.S. plants were really well done, and they happen to be the
older ones," he said. "If we can learn the lessons from those plants,
which are often simplicity of design and standardization of design,
then I think nuclear could make a comeback."
New and safer technologies are essential to making nuclear power more
acceptable, he said, but "we need to optimize a few designs, we don't
need a proliferation of types of plants, because we have proven we are
not good at managing them."
The answer to the increased riskiness is not more government
subsidization, he added, but more savvy investment decisions by the
companies interested in nuclear power.
###
The project leader for the study was Jon Koomey, a staff scientist at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a consulting professor in the
department of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford
University. Additional aspects of this large study will be published
later this year in Environmental Research Letters, an open-access
journal published by the London-based Institute of Physics.
The research was supported by the Karsten Family Foundation, the Energy
Foundation and the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization
at the University of Oxford.
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER - USA - ECONOMICS / SUBSIDIES
------------------->
High Cost Key Roadblock to New US Nuclear Plants
Story by Scott DiSavino
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
US: March 30, 2007
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41176/story.htm
NEW YORK - The biggest obstacle the US nuclear industry must overcome
to build new reactors is financing the construction costs, nuclear
experts said at a Manhattan Institute conference in New York Wednesday,
the 28th anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident.
The country needs more baseload generation to meet growing demand for
electricity. Support for nuclear power is growing among politicians,
the public and even some environmentalists because of low operating
costs and the lack of emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to
global warming.
"Investors are open and interested but still need to be convinced. The
financial community has long memories. They lost tens of billions of
dollars" during the 1980s and 1990s when utilities built the current
reactors, said Caren Byrd, Morgan Stanley Executive Director, Global
Power and Utilities Group.
"The most important thing the industry can do is to keep the operating
reactors safe and reliable. If anything happens to those units, that is
it," Byrd added.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has streamlined the licensing
process that has delayed the operation of some current reactors. Still,
nuclear reactors are massive projects that cost billions of dollars and
take years to build.
The construction of a new reactor, estimated to cost up to US$4 billion
to $5 billion, is a make-or-break decision for most US utilities, the
biggest of which (Exelon Corp. of Chicago) has a market cap of less
than US$50 billion.
"The market cap of the companies is small compared with the cost of the
projects, which requires a significant amount of state and federal
support," said Richard Myers, vice president of the Nuclear Energy
Institute, the industry's lobbyist.
GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
The most important federal program is the loan guarantee provision of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which, depending on how the Department
of Energy implements the program, could allow companies to fence off
investments in new reactors without compromising other operations,
Meyers noted.
But Jerry Taylor, senior fellow, at the Cato Institute, said the government should not subsidize the nuclear industry.
"If the government is worried about carbon dioxide, they should tax
carbon, not subsidize nuclear power. If nuclear power has merit,
investors will embrace it," Taylor said.
If the federal government decides to regulate carbon, as some panelists
guessed could occur over the next several years, it would likely make
it easier to finance nuclear power.
"The nature of nuclear technology is that it can generate huge amounts
of energy without carbon dioxide emissions," Clay Sell, deputy
secretary of the US Department of Energy, said.
Climate change is a real problem and nuclear power can be an important
part of the solution, said John Woody, business solutions fellow at the
Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
"What the nuclear industry really needs is a mandatory climate change policy," Woody said.
------------------->
MISSILE DEFENCE - AUSTRALIA / CHINA / USA
------------------->
June 4? 2007
AABCC media release
China's objections to 'missile defence' signals danger
for Australia
"China's public criticism of Australia's, Japan's and the US 'missile
defence' system signals danger for Australia and Australia's economy," Denis
Doherty, national co-ordinator of the Australian Anti-Bases Coalition, said.
"It's an open secret that the 'missile defence' system is not about defence.
Its main purpose is the stationing of weapons in space. The United States
Government openly asserts that it will fight from space if its interests are
threatened.
"The Australian Defence Minister's response to China's complaints was
laughable," Mr Doherty said. "Australia has nothing to fear from North Korea
and no non-state actor has the capability to fire missiles at Australia.
"In reality, the Howard Government is playing an active role in United Sates
plans for containment of China.
"The role of the Pine Gap base and the Jindalee Over the Horizon radar in
the missile system and the $6 billion purchase of three warships show how
Australia is becoming increasingly enmeshed in US war fighting plans.
"All this creates heightened tensions in our region and the threat of a new
arms race in addition to undermining our crucial trading relationship with
China," Denis Doherty said.
"Meanwhile Australia's budget for the military of over $55 million a day
continues to expand while social services such as education and health
contract and insufficient resources are available for Australia's problems
with global warming and the drought.
"We need a new non-aligned foreign policy that does not skew Australia's
role in the world to make us just the deputy sheriff for the Bush
administration."
------------------->
VETERANS OF BRITISH BOMB TESTS
------------------->
Last Update: Tuesday, May 15, 2007. 8:00am (AEST)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1922903.htm
Nuclear test veterans to push for legal action
Veterans involved in the nuclear tests at Maralinga in South Australia's outback 50 years ago are planning legal action.
Their case is based on a study linking exposure to radiation and genetic diseases.
The study by New Zealand's Massey University analysed chromosomes of
Navy veterans present at nuclear tests in the Pacific in the 1950s.
President of the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, Ric
Johnstone, says the study is more evidence that veterans suffered
long-term harm from radiation.
"This study vindicates what we've been saying for many, many years," he said.
"We've always known that cancer rates have been higher amongst nuclear
test participants as have many other genetic type of illnesses."
------------------->
Scientists urge study on nuclear veterans
Ean Higgins
May 18, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21751743-2702,00.html
SCIENTISTS have called for a new study into the health effects of
nuclear tests at Maralinga after New Zealand research found Kiwi
sailors exposed to similar blasts in the 1950s had suffered long-term
genetic damage.
The federal Opposition also weighed in, attacking Veterans Affairs
Minister Bruce Billson for refusing to grant entitlements to the
nuclear veterans, which he had called for as a backbencher.
The Australian Nuclear Veterans Association plans to launch a class action on behalf of the 2000 survivors of the tests.
The New Zealand study by Massey University released on Monday found the
551 sailors who participated in British nuclear testing in the Indian
Ocean and the Pacific had three times the normal rate of genetic
abnormalities.
It has renewed debate in the Australian scientific community about the
validity of a health study commissioned by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, which Mr Billson is relying on to withhold entitlements.
An estimated 8000 Australian military personnel and a similar number of
civilians were involved in the tests at Maralinga in South Australia
and two other locations from 1952 to 1967.
The DVA study, led by Adelaide University's Richard Gun, compared
cancer and mortality rates among participants against estimated
exposure to radiation.
The study found a much higher rate of cancer among the nuclear veterans
than the general population, such as a 43 per cent higher rate of
leukemia.
But Dr Gun told The Australian that if the nuclear tests were
responsible, there would be a high correlation between incidence of
cancer and degree of exposure to radiation, but none was found. Dr Gun
said "we do not have a complete explanation" for the higher rates of
cancer, but that smoking and asbestos could be factors.
Nuclear physicist Jack Lonergan, who worked as a military scientist and
as deputy secretary of the Department of Science, said the methodology
was flawed.
He said the suggestion that smoking was responsible for many of the
cancers was an untested "circular assumption", and that the radiation
dosage levels were based on theory rather than actual data.
Dr Lonergan, who sat on a committee overseeing the research, said
documented cases of radiation levels collected by instruments and
unearthed by an army engineer who had served at Maralinga, Major Alan
Batchelor, showed that some soldiers had been exposed to thousands of
times more radiation than allowed for in Dr Gun's study.
He said a cytogenetic study of the type conducted in New Zealand would
be invaluable. "If the New Zealanders had the foresight to do it, why
did we miss out?"
Mr Billson said yesterday there were "leaps of conclusions" being read into the new research.
Labor veterans affairs spokesman Alan Griffin said Mr Billson had
refused to implement a recommendation of the Clarke Review that
suggested giving nuclear veterans the status of "non-warlike hazardous
service".
This would enable them to apply for a pension for war-related injuries, and for their widows to receive a war pension.
Mr Billson admitted he had called for such a move as a backbencher in 2002.
But he said that now that he was a minister he had enjoyed access to
more factual and up-to-date information, and added that nuclear
veterans had access to "non-liability" health services.
------------------->
Nuclear veterans' children denied health records
Ean Higgins
May 19, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21757275-2702,00.html
A BAN on disclosure of service and health records of veterans involved
in British nuclear tests will stay in place amid fears of a flood of
claims from opportunistic lawyers.
The Howard Government yesterday refused to lift the confidentiality laws banning the records' disclosure.
Veterans groups say the lack of access to the records could deprive
thousands of veterans' children of compensation for genetic illnesses.
The Australian Nuclear Veterans Association is planning a class action
for the 2000 surviving former servicemen and women who participated in
the nuclear bomb tests in Australia from 1952 to 1967.
The veterans have been buoyed by a New Zealand study that found Kiwi
sailors involved in British tests in the Pacific and Indian oceans in
the 1950s had long-term genetic damage.
Minister for Veterans Affairs Bruce Billson said veterans could obtain
their records through Freedom of Information. But a spokesman later
confirmed such applications might be subject to restrictions, and the
veterans' offspring might not get any access.
------------------->
NUCLEAR WEAPONS - USA AND CHINA
------------------->
The new nuclear arms race
May 10, 2007
Australia can help persuade the US and China to limit their strategic weapons, writes Hugh White.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-new-nuclear-arms-race/2007/05/09/1178390386423.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
SINCE the end of the Cold War we have stopped worrying about nuclear
war between the major powers, and have turned our concern to
proliferation among rogue states and terrorists. But the big states
still have big nuclear arsenals, and they are not standing still. Both
the US and China are steadily developing their strategic nuclear
forces. As they do so, they risk slipping into a destabilising
competition for nuclear advantage against one another, which could
affect their wider relationships, and threaten peace and stability in
the Asia-Pacific region. This matters a lot to Australia, and there is
something simple that we can and should do about it.
America today is upgrading its missiles and warheads to make them more
accurate and destructive, and building a national missile defence
system. This raises the possibility that in future the US could destroy
most of China's missiles in their silos, and the rest after they were
launched.
Chinese strategists therefore worry that before long the US will be
able to threaten nuclear attack on China without fearing nuclear
retaliation in return, laying China open to nuclear blackmail over
issues such as Taiwan. To avoid that, China is determined to maintain
its "minimum deterrent" — the capacity to land at least one or two
warheads on the cities of an adversary in retaliation for any attack.
It will therefore respond to American plans by building more new
missiles, so it has enough to ensure that some would survive a first
strike and penetrate American defences.
The risk is that the US will respond to China's moves by further
expanding its offensive and defensive systems, and China will then
further expand its nuclear forces in turn. A classic arms race may thus
begin.
This carries two grave dangers. First, strategic nuclear competition
between Washington and Beijing would amplify suspicions and stoke
hostility, making the already potent competitive elements in the
relationship harder to manage. That would help lock them into an
adversarial relationship that would destroy our hopes for the Asian
Century — the hope of a peaceful, integrated and prosperous
Asia-Pacific.
Second, present trends increase the risk of nuclear war between the US
and China. The balance of strategic forces that the two countries'
nuclear programs seem likely to create may be inherently unstable. The
longer they go unchecked, the greater the risk that, in a crisis over
an issue such as Taiwan, one side or the other might be pushed across
the nuclear threshold by fear that the other might strike first.
This all has grave implications for Australia, but there is something
we can do about it. The solution is simple, but not easy. Short of the
elimination of nuclear weapons, the US and China can moderate their
nuclear competition and reduce the risk of nuclear war by reaching an
agreement about the size and nature of each other's nuclear forces,
offensive and defensive.
The key to such a deal would be limits on US national missile defences
and Chinese intercontinental and submarine-based forces, set at levels
that gave Beijing an assured capacity to respond to any US first strike
by putting a few — but only a few — warheads on US cities. A deal like
this would require much of both sides. It would require China to accept
that the US will remain by far the stronger nuclear power, and preclude
China from entering full-scale nuclear competition with the US in
future. It would require the US to forgo the option of using its
nuclear superiority to pressure China in a crisis, and accept instead
that US cities must remain subject to Chinese nuclear attack.
Perhaps even more fundamentally, it would require the US and China to
change the way they relate to one another, adjusting to the new
realities and responsibilities of their relative power over coming
decades. For China, this means accepting the responsibilities and
restraint required of a major power in the international system. For
the US, it means learning to treat China as an equal partner in the
management of regional and global affairs, one whose legitimate
interests and perspectives need to be respected and accommodated to
strengthen peace and stability.
Australia can play a part here. We should try to push both sides to
reach this kind of agreement. No need to play the go-between: Beijing
and Washington do not need us to do their negotiating for them. But
they do need to be nudged towards recognising that such an agreement is
possible, and that the benefits to both of them, and to the rest of us
in Asia and beyond, outweigh the costs and risks.
We could promote that message to both governments and beyond government
circles, helping to inform wider public opinion in each country. And we
could try to build regional support for the proposal among other
nations in Asia: their interests are as closely engaged as ours.
Of course we might fail. Even so we'd stand to gain. By promoting the
idea we'd send powerful messages about Australia's views on the future
of the international system in Asia. Australia accepts that as China
grows, its power needs to be respected and accommodated, and its role
as a regional leader recognised — including by Washington. That is an
important message to send to Washington.
Equally we believe that China's growing power brings growing
responsibilities, including the willingness to see its power
circumscribed by the demands of wider stability and peace. Even a
failed campaign for an arms control agreement between them would get
their attention and ensure they know what we think on an issue that is
vital to us. What do we have to lose?
--- Hugh White is a Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute and Professor of Strategic Studies at ANU.
------------------->
URANIUM - VARIOUS
------------------->
Pepininni's to open mine pending scrapping of Labor's uranium policy
Last Update: Saturday, March 24, 2007. 12:15pm (AEDT)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1880499.htm
A South Australian uranium company is planning to set up Australia's fifth uranium mine, 100 kilometres west of Broken Hill.
Pepininni Minerals says it plans to start production at the Croker Well deposit within three years.
Much of the mine's resource would go to China as Pepininni has entered
a joint venture with Chinese Government-owned company SinoSteel.
Pepininni's general manager Phil Sutherland says SinoSteel is committing $30 million to the $160 million project.
"The Chinese Government has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
and other safeguards required by the Australian Government so the
application by China of Australian uranium and uranium from this
project will be very very closely monitored," he said.
Mr Sutherland says the mine will not go ahead until Labor scraps its 'no new uranium mines' policy.
"Well of course it is subject to the Labor Party changing its policy at
its policy platform convention in Sydney at the end of April as you'd
appreciate most Labor governments are currently governed by this
policy."
------------------->
Uranium to top $1bn 'by end of decade'
Jeremy Roberts
March 22, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21427857-5005200,00.html
THE uranium industry's peak body expects exports to eclipse $1 billion
within the next decade as mining companies push to fill the gaps
between world uranium supply and demand.
"Australia cannot isolate itself form the search for additional
energy sources," Australian Uranium Association executive director,
Michael Angwin told a conference in Adelaide today.
"Significantly, middle Australia has shifted ground considerably and
positively on uranium exploration and mining and there is now a much
larger groundswell of support for an expansion of this potential," Mr
Angwin said.
"This shift has occurred under the influence of a high level of
economic understanding, including the link between jobs and exports,
awareness about climate change and growing appreciation that uranium
does not produce carbon dioxide emissions in generating electricity.
"Uranium demand is expected to increase by 50 per cent in the next 25
years and will exceed supply within the next decade, allowing an
opportunity for Australia to double its uranium exports and double its
uranium earnings within the next few years."
South Australia's mineral resources minister Paul Holloway said the
nation needed to take advantage of its competitive position after a
surge in projects over the past three years.
Mr Holloway said Australia was well placed to lead the global trade but
other countries with less regard for the appropriate safeguards would
step in if Australia did not seize the opportunity, he said.
"Uranium is about as common as tin and is fairly widely distributed,"
the minister told a uranium industry conference. "We're very fortunate
to have a large share of the world's resources, but it's not unique,
and we have the opportunity of supplying that to the world."
------------------->
Digging deep: uncovering the true costs of uranium
<www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20070314/uranium.html>
14 March 2007
Environmental Researcher Dr Gavin Mudd has found the uranium mining
industry faces a future of high financial and environmental costs.
There is plenty of controversy associated with the environmental impact
of uranium mining and equally, much debate between governments and
conservationists over the real cost.
This is not lost on Monash University researcher Dr Gavin Mudd who, for
years, has raised questions about the impact of uranium mining on our
environment. His latest research challenges the economic and
environmental sustainability of the process.
In his latest paper - researched with the assistance of Mark
Diesendorf, Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies,
University of New South Wales - Dr Mudd has collected enough evidence
and documentation to destroy any perception that uranium mining is
somehow an infinite resource that provides a solution to the world's
demand for energy.
"Just how sustainable uranium mining is in terms of the costs of water
consumption, energy use and carbon emissions has never really been
tackled before. We set out to question the costs involved in uranium
mining and how efficient the process really is," Dr Mudd said.
Dr Mudd, a Lecturer and Researcher at Monash University's Department of
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, said, "From an environmental
sustainability perspective, it is critical to evaluate accurately the
true life cycle costs of all forms of electricity production,
especially with respect to greenhouse emissions. For nuclear power, a
significant proportion of greenhouse emissions are derived from the
fuel supply, including uranium mining, milling, enrichment, and fuel
manufacture."
Using existing data, Dr Mudd found that financial and environmental
costs escalate dramatically as the uranium ore is used. The research
confirmed the chain of events which push prices up; the deeper the
mining process required to extract the ore, the higher the cost for the
mining companies, the greater the impact on the environment and the
more resources needed to obtain the product.
"For example, mining at Roxby Downs (in South Australia) is responsible
for the emission of over one million tonnes of greenhouse gases per
year and this could increase to four million tonnes if the mine is
expanded," he said
Dr Mudd presented his findings to the 2nd International Conference on
Sustainability Engineering and Science held in New Zealand last month.
------------------->
fffURANIUM - TRADITIONAL OWNERS STOP EXPLORATION IN CEDUNA
------------------->
FAR WEST DIVISION ABORIGINAL CORPORATION
PO BOX 484
CEDUNA SA 5690
Mb: 0428872375
MEDIA RELEASE
1st April 2007
MINING EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES STOPPED BY INDIGENOUS TRADITIONAL OWNERS IN OUTBACK CEDUNA
Iluka Mining Corporation's activities were disrupted by Indigenous
Traditional Owners, their families and supporters on a dusty back road
in the Yumbarra Conservation Park near Ceduna on Friday 29th March.
The Kokatha Mula Traditional Owners are currently in the Conservation
Park undertaking preservation of country including vital maintenance of
rockholes. On Friday they encountered Iluka Resources workers clearing
roads in preparation for mining exploration, which could include
drilling for water.
Sue Coleman Haseldine, Kokatha Mula Traditional Owner, met the
road-clearing crew on the track on Friday. After a peaceful discussion
the miners and contractors agreed to leave, ceasing work for the day.
Sue Coleman Haseldine stated: "The wealth and the future of this
country lies in the preservation of its beauty, not in short-term
mining projects that leave a legacy of problems for the environment and
the local community."
Iluka Resources are currently undertaking mineral sands exploration
from within what is part of the largest stretch of pristine stunted
mallee woodland in the world. Traditional owners have stated that any
removal of underground water could seriously affect the supply of water
to rockholes that hold particular cultural significance, as well as
being essential for the survival of thousands of species of plants and
animals. In an era when household water restrictions are ever
tightening, Iluka Resources have announced an interest in using ground
water from the area for possible mining operations, indicating an
amount of 6 Gigalitres a year.
A second team of Iluka Resources representatives attempted to resume
activity on Sunday 1st April but were again turned away. Senior
representatives of the company are expected to return for further
discussions with the Kokatha Mula Traditional Owners, who continue to
hold their vigil.
------------------->
Mining Exploration on Kokatha Mula Land
Munda Yumadoo Iliga – Leave the Land As It Is
Breony Carbines and Simon Prideaux
Turn on any television station or open any newspaper in South Australia
and you will be told that "SA great" is on the edge of an employment
and economic boom fuelled mainly by massive expansions in the mining
and defence industries. Mining exploration for a variety of minerals is
at an all time high. Financially, politically and philosophically
supported by the SA state government; mining and exploration companies
are busy all over the state. The search is on for copper, gold, uranium
and zircon. In 2004 the SA government implemented the PACE program
(plan for accelerating exploration), and by 2009 it would have provided
$22.5 million to the exploration frenzy.
In the far west region of SA in the traditional lands of the Kokatha
Mula Nation (far west division), sixteen companies engaged in
exploration lay claim over the culturally and ecologically significant
areas of Yellabinna Regional Reserve and the Yumbarra and Pureba
Conservation Parks. It is an area of 4,000,000ha, containing sand
dunes, clay pans, granite outcrops, water rock holes and is the largest
stretch of intact stunted mallee in the world. Acting as an ecological
link between the northern mulga woodlands and the southern Mallee dune
system and between the western and eastern mallee, the area hosts
significant biodiversity.
"The land holds culture and law for the Kokatha Mula people, we do not want it to be broken." Simon Prideaux – Kokatha Mula.
There has been undeveloped mineral interest in the area on and off for
more than half a century. But given the current climate of a pro-mining
SA premier, a decline in agricultural employment due to drought and
global markets and a growing demand in the minerals involved, this
latest wave poses a greater threat than ever before. Mining and
exploration companies involved include Red Metal, Adelaide Resources
and Iluka Resources. Iluka are the most prominent and active of the
sixteen companies currently undertaking mineral sands exploration.
Iluka are world leaders in mining, exploration, processing and
marketing of mineral sands particularly titanium (pigment and metal)
and zircon. These materials are used in a wide range of products
including makeup, porcelain, sunscreen, paint and electronic
components. Notably zircon is the only product suitable to line the
internal walls of nuclear power plants.
In 2002, Labor’s election policy included a promise to ban mining in
the Yumbarra Conservation Park "if the current exploration lease proves
fruitless and expires". The exploration lease over Yumbarra did expire
in February 2003 but subsequent licenses have been granted over
Yumbarra. The state government has broken its election process and
consistently sends the message that the area is open for exploration
and mining.
In October 2005, S.A premier Mike Rann announced 500,000 ha of the
Yellabinna region, as a wilderness area, making it "off limits to
mining and e`xploration". Although this was a welcome development
the SA government has consistently failed to understand that the entire
area deserves protection. In April 2005, Kokatha Mula women gave a
painting to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which showed the lay
of the land, the rockholes and contrasted the areas then "nominated"
for protection with those at risk. As there was no response from the
department, and no delivered report as promised the painting was
reclaimed. Both the department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Premier
have ignored that "the significance of the rockholes are individual,
yet interrelated. You can’t have some without the others". Sue Coleman
Haseldine – Kokatha Mula.
Currently the areas are "owned" by the SA environment minister, Gail
Gago and managed by National Parks and Wildlife. An amalgamated Native
Title claim, which does not include the Kokatha Mula Nation– far west
division is in process. Key traditional owners who have maintained an
unbroken connection to this area and who engage in a variety of
cultural activities including maintaining the health of significant
water rock holes dispute the legitimacy of this claim. The Kokatha Mula
Nation – far west division will again attempt to have their own Native
Claim recognised. In the meantime the Kokatha Mula continue to live
their culture, express their grave concerns about mining, take measures
to protect their cultural heritage and share with those willing to
learn the significance of this unique stretch of country.
"The greater Yellabinna is the last inland area where I can teach our
children traditional survival and cultural skills – this is our School
our teaching ground. The land houses our bush medicine – this is our
pharmacy. Our traditional foods are out there. Hunting for our meat,
gathering our food – this is our grocery stores, our garden. Our
spiritual beliefs are within and throughout the land – this is our
church". Sue Coleman Haseldine – Kokatha Mula.
For several years the Kokatha Mula have been working with a handful of
"greenies", participating in national environmental conferences,
lobbying politicians and working to raise the profile of a campaign
against exploration and mining in Kokatha Mula Country. To raise
awareness and generously share their culture, members of Kokatha Mula
Nnation – far west division have been and will continue to take
visitors out on twice annual rockhole cleaning trips. The last three
trips consisting of groups of 20-30 people and a mix of Kokatha Mula,
visitors, age groups and backgrounds have made significant progress in
returning important water rockholes back to good health. The trips are
a unique opportunity to visit a currently pristine ecosystem and make a
practical contribution to land conservation with the direction of
committed traditional owners.
As the largest stretch of untouched stunted mallee woodlands in the
world this area holds a rich but fragile biodiversity. The area is home
to Kangaroos, Red and Western Greys, Western Pygmy Possums, Wombats,
Echindnas, Dingos, Stumby Lizards, Thorny Devils, Geccos and Greater
Long Eared Bats. It is also valuable habitat for endangered, rare and
threatened flora and fauna including the Mallee Fowl, the Kularr, the
Hairy Footed Dunnart, the Scarlet Chested Parrot, the Pimpin Mallee,
Sandlewood Tree, the Long-scaped Isotome and a probable community of
the highly endangered Miniature Marsupial Mole (Notorcytes Caurinus).
As the area becomes riddled with exploration the status of these
species becomes increasingly precarious.
Not only a threat to endangered or unique species, mining activities
have greatly compromised key hunting grounds of the Kokatha Mula.
Tripitaka is an exploration site approximately 180km west of Ceduna
jointly run by Iluka and Adelaide Resources. Once a rich site for
wombats and bush turkey the surrounding area has been rapidly altered
by roadworks, sample drilling and other exploration activities
resulting in a noticeable reduction of bush foods. Mining companies
argue that current stages of exploration and any subsequent mining will
only have a limited impact on a small area of a large stretch of
country. Furthermore they have claimed rehabilitation works will be
able to successfully restore areas akin to a pre exploration and mining
state.
However Kokatha Mula have already witnessed impacts at this early
stage. The worry is that further impacts may not only restrict their
access to foods, medicine and places of cultural importance but limit
their ability to share their culture with others and most importantly
educate their children.
"We want to keep the land and rockholes, the way it is. For the
importance of our family and our culture" --- Marcina Coleman Richards,
Senior Kokatha Mula woman.
In late March, Kokatha Mula and participants in the latest rockhole
cleaning trip came across Iluka Resources workers clearing roads in
preparation for mining exploration. After peaceful discussions with the
road-clearing crew Kokatha Mula and their supporters stopped work on
this day. A road block that included the vigil of an eighty year old
Kokatha Mula elder was established, stopping work for a further
fourteen days before protestors were evicted by National Parks and
Wildlife. This was the first direct action of its kind in the area and
was an important step for Kokatha Mula. The blockade created extensive
media and built awareness and support around the country including from
the Hon. Sandra Kanck MLC, member of the Democrat Party in SA and the
Aboriginal Alliance Coalition Movement (AACM).
"This is surely a win for our people. We have been campaigning for
protection of this region for many years. The short term profits from
mining will never outweigh the natural and cultural values of this
land, and what it means to our people. Our message to the state
government and any mining companies with interests in the area is
‘Munda Yumadoo Iliga’ which means ‘leave the land as it is’. Marcina
Coleman Richards – senior Kokatha Mula woman and Sue Coleman Haseldine.
Despite the successes of the campaign so far, the urgency of the
situation remains. Exploration activity is still underway, occurring
both on the ground and in preparations made in the offices and
boardrooms of companies concerned. Due to the number of companies
involved, the multiplicity of sites and the remote nature of the
country involved political intervention and proper protection is
paramount. The SA State Government needs to be held accountable for its
broken election promise and immediately rectify the situation by
returning Yumbarra to true conservation status and granting Yellabinna
and Pureba the same level of protection which would disallow all mining
exploration in this part of Kokatha Mula Country.
"We don’t want broken promises we need action" --- Bronwyn Coleman Sleep, Kokatha Mula.
What you can do…
* Fill out the form letter on the Kokatha Mula website or write your
own and send it to SA pollies (notably Premier Mike Rann, Minister for
Aboriginal Affairs Jay Wheatherill and Environment Minister Gail Gago).
* Organise an information and/or fundraiser event.
* Order a copy of the slide show and/or documentary.
* Help research the companies and proposals involved.
* Purchase Kokatha Mula products or campaign merchandise (email for details).
* Come on one of the twice annual rockhole cleaning trips.
* Donate phone credit, fuel vouchers, satellite phone, food supplies, camping gear or office materials.
Donate money to:
Bank Sa/St Georges Bank
Acc Name: Kokatha Mula Nation far west division Aboriginal Cooporation
Acc #: 105100032491240
More Info and contact:
* <http://kokathamula.auspics.org>
Email: [email protected]
Post: FAR WEST DIVISION ABORIGINAL CORPORATION
PO BOX 484, CEDUNA SA 5690
Ph: 0428 872375.
------------------->
fffURANIUM HYPE
------------------->
For bunch more articles along these lines, email <[email protected]>
Uranium explorers striking it rich
Jamie Freed
June 4, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/uranium-explorers-striking-it-rich/2007/06/03/1180809338240.html
THESE days a uranium explorer doesn't need any actual uranium in the
ground for its float to be nearly four times oversubscribed.
Take Fission Energy. The Tasman Resources spin-off had to turn down
money when punters were willing to give it $11.5 million more than it
was asking for in its $4 million offering.
"We certainly are very popular," Fission executive chairman Greg Solomon said.
Fission's tenements have received little, if any drilling in the past.
And Mr Solomon admitted Fission's parent company hadn't yet found
anything "mineable" since listing in 2001. But he said Tasman had done
some joint venture deals and successfully spun off Fission and another
company, coal-seam methane and hydrogen technology hopeful Eden Energy.
It turns out Fission, Tasman and Eden have a lot in common. They share
the same head office in Perth, the same executive chairman, the same
legal counsel and some of the same non-executive directors.
It has proven a solid money-spinner for Mr Solomon, a partner in Perth
law firm Solomon Brothers who serves as executive chairman of all three
companies.
Mr Solomon last year received $242,726 in cash, salary, commissions and
superannuation from Eden and another $117,175 from Tasman. Combined
with his initial annual salary of $180,000 plus superannuation listed
in the Fission prospectus, he could receive more than $540,000 this
year.
Mr Solomon's brother, Doug, is a partner in the law firm and also
receives fees for serving as a non-executive director of all three
companies. Solomon Brothers received $50,000 for preparing the Fission
prospectus and it has received legal fees from Tasman and Eden.
Additionally, Princebrook, a company in which both brothers have an
interest, last year received $275,811 in management and administration
fees from Tasman and Eden. And the brothers have millions of shares and
options in Tasman and Eden.
Mr Solomon told the Herald his compensation seemed fair given he worked
more than 90 hours a week and spent nine months of the year travelling
for his roles at Eden and Tasman.
He added he could handle the additional workload at Fission because he was hiring more support staff.
"I'm an executive chairman," Mr Solomon said. "I'm not doing all of the hands-on work."
In a report last month Far East Capital analyst Warwick Grigor noted
Tasman had a portfolio of uranium exploration projects in South
Australia, but "none of them have shown anything other than a generally
prospective environment".
"Tasman is one of a large field of grassroots explorers with a market
capitalisation that is greater than it would be without the inclusion
of uranium and the prospective [Fission] spin-off," he said.
------------------->
fffURANIUM - ALP NATIONAL CONFERENCE OVERTURNS BAN ON NEW URANIUM MINES
------------------->
Labor opts for open slather uranium mining
Zoe Kenny
4 May 2007
Green Left Weekly issue #708 9 May 2007.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/708/36766
Environmentalists and anti-nuclear campaigners are disappointed but not
surprised by the ALP national conference decision on April 28 to drop
its "no new uranium mines" policy. This allows state Labor governments
to approve new mines, a policy backed by the South Australian and
Queensland premiers.
Opposition leader Kevin Rudd and his deputy, Julia Gillard, used the
debate to prove to the big end of town that they could push through an
unpopular policy. Internal opposition to the change meant that Rudd won
by only 15 votes (190 votes to retain the policy and 205 to drop it).
Despite the vote against, there was little willingness within the party
to conduct a concerted campaign against Rudd’s policy. Shadow
environment minister Peter Garrett, who opposed changing the policy,
gave up the fight before it began by pledging to accept whichever
decision in the interests of being a "team player". Dave Sweeney, an
anti-nuclear campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation,
told Green Left Weekly that 20 delegates who didn’t want to vote in
favour of the expansion of uranium mining proxied their votes to other
delegates who would vote in favour of it.
Holly Creenaune, an anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth
(FoE) who coordinated two protest actions outside the conference, told
GLW, "The vote was narrow, unpopular and a serious mistake. Uranium
mining remains highly controversial, unwanted, unsafe and unnecessary."
She added that there was lot of pressure on delegates, with Labor
leaders, including SA premier Mike Rann and Australian Workers Union
leader Bill Shorten "failing to articulate coherent arguments and
opting instead to pressure delegates to not ‘roll’ the leader".
While Western Australian premier Alan Carpenter has pledged to oppose
uranium mining and obstacles remain to the development of uranium mines
in Queensland, Labor’s decision has put the Northern Territory and SA
at the frontline of uranium mining expansion.
Immediately after the conference, Rann (who declared that his state was
set up to become the "Saudi Arabia" of uranium if the old policy was
dropped) announced that he would fast-track applications for another
100 uranium exploration licenses. There are already 60 companies with
160 licenses exploring for uranium. Any new mines will be in addition
to the Beverly mine, the soon-to-be-opened Honeymoon mine and BHP
Billiton’s Olympic Dam mine, which is likely to receive approval for a
four-fold expansion, making it the biggest uranium mine in the world.
Emma King from the NT Environment Centre told GLW that Labor’s decision
"has direct implications for the [Indigenous] communities and the
environment near the sites of uranium deposits". King noted that
several of the known uranium deposits in the NT are located near
important water supplies which, if mined, could pose a serious threat
to water security, human health and the environment.
"The Angela and Pamela deposits are just 23 kilometres south of Alice
Springs, within the town’s water catchment area and only a few
kilometres from the bore field that supplies the town’s water. The Mt
Fitch deposit, which Compass Resources has said it wants to start
mining in 2009, is only 3.5 kilometres from Darwin River Dam, which
provides Darwin with drinking water.
"The Biglryi deposit is near Yuendumu in central Australia. Yuendumu
already has naturally occurring high levels of uranium in its drinking
water and a uranium mine in the area is likely to increase these
levels. Ingestion of uranium is known to have adverse health effects
including increasing the incidence of kidney disease, already a problem
in many Indigenous communities. The Biglryi deposit is located in the
Trueur Ranges in an area where 13 permanent springs create a unique
green oasis in the desert. Traditional owners are extremely concerned
about the impact a mine in the area would have on water and bush
tucker."
Anti-uranium activists are gearing up for a fight against the new
uranium mines. Resistance activist Simon Cunich, who helped organise
the actions outside the ALP conference, told GLW that it is important
now to mobilise the widespread anti-uranium sentiment. He pointed to
the successful national mass movement and Indigenous resistance that
stopped the Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu National Park, saying that
such a strategy will also be the only way to stop Labor from selling
out on its promise not to support nuclear power plants in Australia.
"Nuclear power is no solution to global warming — here or overseas.
It’s hypocritical for Labor to argue that while it doesn’t support
nuclear power in this country, it’s happy to support it elsewhere by
selling Australian uranium. This also transfers the unsolved problem of
waste disposal when we could be helping other countries develop
renewable energy alternatives", Cunich said.
------------------->
This is the form letter ALP politicians send to people about the new uranium policy ...
Dear
Thank you for taking the time to contact Senator Evans in regard to
Federal Labor’s policy on uranium. Senator Evans has asked me to
reply to you on his behalf.
At the ALP’s 2007 National Conference in Sydney, the party’s platform
was amended to remove the ban on new uranium mines. The policy change
is recognition of Australia’s ongoing role as a major uranium supplier.
This change in Federal Labor’s policy does not alter the right of State
Governments to approve or reject any proposed new uranium mines within
their borders.
Labor’s revised platform takes a strong position on nuclear
non-proliferation and international nuclear safeguards and commits
Labor to work towards a number of outcomes, including:
* strengthening export control regimes and the rights and authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
* appropriate international responses to violations of existing safeguard commitments;
* limiting the processing of weapon usable material (separation of plutonium and high enriched uranium in civilian programs);
* tightening controls over the export of nuclear material and technology;
* criminalising actions of individuals and companies that assist in nuclear proliferation; and,
* revising the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to prevent
countries from withdrawing from the NPT and passing a new resolution in
the UN Security Council addressing the penalties for withdrawal from
the NPT.
The 2007 National Conference has also reiterated Labor’s opposition to
the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants, and all other
stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, and to the importation and storage in
Australia of nuclear waste that is sourced from overseas.
Nuclear power is not the answer to Australia’s future energy
needs. Labor is focussed on energy policy which tackles
climate change, maximises our existing energy advantages and provides
long-term energy security. Labor’s approach includes: the
introduction of a carbon trading scheme and carbon reduction target of
60 per cent by 2050; a substantial increase in the Mandatory Renewable
Energy Target; and our National Clean Coal Initiative. Labor will
continue to argue for a future energy mix based on clean coal and gas,
geothermal and other renewable energy sources – not nuclear power.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact Senator Evans in regard to this important issue.
Yours sincerely
------------------->
Uranium highlights differences in Labor stances
30-April-07 by Julie-anne Sprague
WA Business News
Premier Alan Carpenter today ruled out lifting a uranium mining ban in
WA despite agreeing to federal Labor's decision to lift its 25-year ban
at its national conference at the weekend.
Mr Carpenter's position was in stark contrast to the reaction of his
Labor colleague, South Australian premier Mike Rann, who today welcomed
the changed federal position to "finally end its illogical, outdated
and ineffectual 'no new mines' policy".
Mr Rann, speaking at a resources conference in Adelaide, said Labor had
decided to "at last join the real world when it comes to uranium".
He thanked Mr Rudd for helping South Australia score a big victory, a
change that will help underpin the state's position as the most mining
friendly jurisdiction, with exploration up 433 per cent in four years.
The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies's Ian Loftus also
focused on the difference between the WA and South Australian
positions, and said Mr Carpenter's rejection of mining on the basis
that the state would become a nuclear waste dump was "an increasingly
desperate attempt to find reasons on which to justify a ban on uranium
mining".
In Perth, addressing the resource-dominant audience at the Chamber of
Minerals and Energy's annual meeting, Mr Carpenter said he would not
agree to uranium mining as long as we was Premier because it would
increase pressure on the state to accept nuclear waste.
"Our position when we went over there (to the ALP conference) was that
we would support a change to the position to allow the expansion of
uranium mining if that is what other jurisdictions want to do," Mr
Carpenter said.
But he said his government would not lift its ban.
"The Western Australian people, I believe, have quite clearly said they
don't want uranium mining in this state and until the do, and they
won't while I am the Premier, we won't have any.
"I understand all the issues there. I've said it before, the pressure
would be enormous on WA to be the recipient of the waste. I don't want
us to be the jurisdiction in the world that people point at and say
that is where the world's nuclear waste goes. We have better things to
promote here in Western Australia. We don't support uranium mining. The
key change is that it will allow states to determine if they mine
uranium or not and how much. I suspect that this issue will go on being
debated and that's a good thing.
"It doesn't trouble me that there is debate and I do not feel under the slightest bit of pressure."
Mr Carpenter said "great financial benefits are being promised to WA if we establish an international nuclear facility".
"WA as it stands right now does not uranium and we in a strong position
to resist any pressure that says we should be the recipient of nuclear
waste," he said.
------------------->
Letter sent to newspapers:
Federal Labor front-bencher Martin Ferguson argues that Labor will act
as a "strategic supplier of uranium to influence events." (Youth 'open'
to uranium option, May 17.)
Here are the tests to apply.
Will Labor allow uranium sales to nuclear weapons states such as the US, the UK, France, and China?
Will Labor allow uranium sales to states with a recent history of covert weapons research, such as South Korea?
Will Labor allow uranium sales to states most blatantly in violation of
their disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, such as the US, the UK, and China?
Will Labor allow uranium sales to states blocking progress on a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty,
such as the US and China?
Will Labor allow uranium sales to undemocratic, brutal and secretive regimes such as China?
And will Labor overhaul the so-called Australian Safeguards and
Non-proliferation Office, which argues that Australia only exports
uranium to countries with an "impeccable" disarmament and
non-proliferation record?
Or will Labor be as unprincipled as the Coalition government and the previous Labor government?
Jim Green
Friends of the Earth
Melbourne.
------------------->
ALP to block nuclear processing
Sid Marris
April 24, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21610191-2702,00.html
KEVIN Rudd will offer to block any move to develop a uranium enrichment
industry in Australia as part of his pitch to win Labor Party support
for an expansion of uranium ore exports.
A draft policy amendment, which will be put to the weekend's Labor
conference by either the Opposition Leader or resources spokesman Chris
Evans, seeks to strengthen the party's position on nuclear waste and
proliferation in a bid to win over waverers concerned about uranium
mining.
As well as seeking to revive and strengthen international nuclear
non-proliferation treaties, Labor would vigorously oppose ocean dumping
of waste and the importation of waste from overseas.
The amendment bans nuclear power stations, in line with Mr Rudd's
declared policy, but includes a ban on "all other stages of the nuclear
fuel cycle".
The ban will be a blow to those in Labor who think Australia could
develop a lucrative export industry developing nuclear rods for power
stations, particularly for energy-hungry China and India.
The restriction comes amid intense lobbying by factional brokers to
shore up the numbers to overturn Labor's 1982 compromise platform,
which banned new uranium mines.
Already there have been rumblings of bullying or suggestions that known
opponents will be "proxied" out of the debate. The activity suggests
the numbers have been closer than the Right would have observers
believe.
The effort to hold the ranks on uranium will make it more difficult on
other controversial issues, such as support for a free-trade deal with
China or greater recognition of independent contractors.
The Left, led by frontbencher Anthony Albanese, who learned the craft
of gathering numbers in the cauldron of NSW state conferences, says
Labor must improve protections before overturning the existing Labor
ban on new mines.
Mr Albanese is supported by environment spokesman Peter Garrett, who
said yesterday he did not believe there was a case for a significant
expansion of Australia's involvement in uranium.
But Senator Evans said the Left amendment avoided the main issue: that
a 25-year-old policy designed to limit uranium exports had failed.
"Some say it's a balance between the practical and ideals, but it is an
illogical policy that brings Labor Party policy-making into disrepute,"
he said.
Senator Evans said there were now four mines operating in Australia -
there were three in place in 1982 - and a proposed expansion of BHP's
Olympic Dam would create a single mine bigger than all of Canada's
industry.
"The irony seems to be lost that the people who viewed the 1982 policy
as a defeat are now arguing it should stay in place," he said.
But Mr Albanese said he was seeking a sensible balance between existing
contracts and the intractable problems of the uranium industry.
He said his amendment to the party platform, which he would put up as a
compromise after Mr Rudd's proposal was put forward, was ultimately
practical, not ideological.
"Waste is the elephant in the room," he said. "It is not a responsible
thing to do to expand further when there are still problems to be dealt
with."
When Labor delegates begin meeting on Friday at the Sydney Convention
Centre, the Right will command about 52per cent of the delegates.
While there are some discrete state and union blocks, the right faction
has healed many of the fractures that had weakened it over recent
years, such as during Simon Crean's preselection fight.
Some were concerned that members of the Victorian Right, such as former
frontbencher Kelvin Thomson, might continue a long-held tradition of
opposing an expansion of uranium mining.
In Queensland, a small grouping of the Right, separate from the main
sub-faction led by the Australian Workers Union's Bill Ludwig, had
traditionally opposed an expansion of mining.
This group was Mr Rudd's sub-faction and includes Queensland Premier
Peter Beattie and frontbencher Arch Bevis and is now expected to
support the main amendment. Powerbrokers are confident that there will
only be a bleeding of support from the Right and towards keeping the
ban on new mines if Mr Rudd looks set to win.
The leaders' case will be bolstered by some members of the very small
Centre-Left, as well as left-wing frontbenchers Julia Gillard, Senator
Evans and Martin Ferguson. But they do not bring a large bloc of votes.
While the leadership group seems to have locked in the uranium debate,
the fight continues over conditions on any free trade agreement with
China, which threatens to drag away right-wing unions to the Left's
position.
Led by Senate aspirant and metal workers boss Doug Cameron, amendments
are expected to demand there must not be a deal until Labor and human
rights standards are addressed.
There is no planned insurrection over industrial relations, but leading delegates are not ruling out a debate.
------------------->
fffURANIUM - JABILUKA
------------------->
MEDIA RELEASE: 23 MAY 2007
The Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation issues the following written
statement regarding media reports on the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine.
Mirarr Consent to Jabiluka Not Forthcoming
The Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, on behalf of the Mirarr
Traditional Owners, is disappointed at the public speculation by Rio
Tinto regarding the prospective development of the proposed Jabiluka
mine by Energy Resources of Australia (ERA). The community is extremely
distressed at the interpretation Rio has placed on the relationship
between the Mirarr community and ERA. Such comments are injurious to
that relationship and immediately throw the prospect of future
engagement into jeopardy.
The developing engagement with ERA had seen collaborative participation
by Mirarr traditional owners in cross cultural awareness training
programs, cultural heritage survey work and environmental management
activities on the Ranger Project Area (RPA). This occurred in the
spirit of redressing deficiencies in ERA’s practices that previously
ignored the interests and depth of cultural connection held by
Traditional Owners to their lands affected by an imposed mining
development.
Acceptance by Mirarr to be involved in these activities had been a leap
of faith, Mirarr hoping to ensure that closure of the RPA would be
conducted in accord with world’s best practice, with their input and to
their absolute satisfaction. The ultimate goal is for their traditional
lands to be finally returned to them for inclusion into the
neighbouring Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage
Area.
It was made clear to ERA, in brokering the involvement of Mirarr in
these activities, that at no time should participation be construed as
being evidence of any forthcoming traditional owners’ support for the
development of Jabiluka.
The future of the Jabiluka mine is governed by the Jabiluka Long-Term
Care and Maintenance Agreement between the Mirarr, ERA and the Northern
Land Council (NLC) which was realised by the parties after the Mirarr
led a concerted international campaign of opposition to earlier
attempts to develop the site.
ERA is legally and morally bound to adhere to its obligations under
that agreement, which include that there will be no development at
Jabiluka without the written consent of the Mirarr Traditional Owners
and the Northern Land Council. To date the Mirarr concerns and
opposition to that development remain completely unchanged.
In a period of time when the Uranium industry seeks to gain the
confidence of Indigenous land owners, these reported comments made by
Rio significantly reaffirm a traditional lack of trust held by Mirarr
for the terms of any collaborative partnerships to be respected.
------------------->
Mine a royalty bonanza
Barry FitzGerald
May 31, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/mine-a-royalty-bonanza/2007/05/30/1180205336923.html
THE Mirarr people stand to benefit from multimillion-dollar royalty
flows if they ever agree to the development of the Jabiluka uranium
deposit in the Northern Territory.
Just how big is not known.
But using present uranium prices and the 4.25 per cent net sales
revenue paid by Rio Tinto uranium subsidiary Energy Resources of
Australia at the nearby Ranger mine, the royalty could be worth as much
as $71 million a year on a development producing 5000 tonnes a year.
If it takes a 10 per cent royalty to help secure Mirarr approval, the
royalty stream balloons to $168 million a year. At 20 per cent, it
becomes $336 million and at 30 per cent — as some talk suggests might
be needed — it becomes more than $500 million.
The Mirarr would not become the new rich of Kakadu, as it is assumed
that the royalty collection would, as with Ranger, be the
responsibility of the Federal Government, which would pass the
royalties to various NT Aboriginal groups, including the traditional
owners.
In a political environment where land councils and other Aboriginal
representative groups are under funding pressure, the independence from
Canberra that could come from a large royalty stream from Jabiluka will
be tempting for the Northern Land Council and other representative
groups.
But the leader of the Mirarr, Yvonne Margarula, continues to
demonstrate that there is more to her opposition than Aboriginal
politics and money.
------------------->
Owner lashes out over Jabiluka bid
Lindsay Murdoch
May 31, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/owner-lashes-out-over-jabiluka-bid/2007/05/30/1180205336908.html
YVONNE Margarula, the Aboriginal elder opposed to development of the
$50 billion Jabiluka uranium deposit on her land, has criticised the
Northern Land Council over its plans to broker a meeting between her
clan and mining giant Rio Tinto.
Ms Margarula said yesterday NLC chief executive Norman Fry had not
spoken to any of her Mirarr people before saying last week the issue of
mining Jabiluka would soon be fleshed out at a meeting of Rio Tinto,
the NLC and traditional owners.
In a statement released by the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, which
represents the Mirarr, Ms Margarula said Mr Fry had "no idea what is
going on out in our country or what is going on between us and the
mining company".
Gundjeihmi said the Mirarr were stunned to learn that the NLC, which
represents Aboriginal groups, intended to push for the development of
more uranium mines in the Northern Territory.
The corporation said in a statement there was no role for Mr Fry over
the Jabiluka deposit, and his reported comments had embarrassed and
jeopardised the interests of the parties involved. It said: "Under the
Land Rights Act, we expect our land council to be working to protect
our interests and representing us."
Ms Margarula has opposed development of Jabiluka for years, saying
uranium mining on Mirarr land at Ranger, in the Kakadu National Park,
had created problems of alcoholism and other social maladies for her
people.
Jabiluka is the world's largest known untapped uranium deposit.
It became the focus of renewed speculation last week when Rio Tinto
chief executive Preston Chiaro said there was good reason to believe Ms
Margarula would soon say yes to the mine's development.
The comments angered Mirarr elders, including Ms Margarula, who decided
to end their involvement in training, cultural and other programs with
Rio Tinto subsidiary Energy Resources of Australia, which operates the
Ranger mine. The reaction caused ERA's shares to fall 5 per cent in a
day.
The company has an agreement with the Mirarr that Jabiluka cannot be developed without approval of the traditional owners.
Gundjeihmi's statement said there was nothing in the Land Rights Act
that "authorises the land council to be pushing for more uranium mines
or inserting itself as an uninvited broker in matters in which they
have so far made no useful contribution".
"In the opinion of the Mirarr, the Northern Land Council has failed as
a representative in the past so it is fanciful for them to suggest that
they are anyone's broker," it said.
Work stopped at Jabiluka in the late 1990s after an eight-month blockade of the site, 250 kilometres south-east of Darwin.
http://www.mirarr.net
------------------->
Jabiluka talks urged in push to reopen mine
Lindsay Murdoch in Darwin
May 29, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jabiluka-talks-urged-in-push-to-reopen-mine/2007/05/28/1180205163491.html
THE Northern Land Council plans to broker a meeting between Rio Tinto
and indigenous owners of Jabiluka, reviving hopes of reopening the $50
billion uranium deposit in Kakadu National Park.
Norman Fry, the chief executive of the council which represents
Aboriginal groups in northern Australia, has declined to pre-empt the
outcome of the meeting even though the Mirarr traditional owners said
last week their approval for the mine was "not forthcoming".
Asked about the possibility of the Mirarr reversing their opposition,
Mr Fry said: "We will be sitting down with Rio Tinto and the Mirarr in
the not-too-distant future and that particular issue will be fleshed
out."
Mr Fry made the comments last Friday on the sidelines of a full council
meeting at a bush site at Gulkula near Nhulunbuy in Arnhem Land but
they have not been made public until now.
Mirarr elders last week reacted angrily to comments made in London by
Rio's chief executive, Preston Chiaro, that there was good reason to
believe that the Mirarr elder Yvonne Margarula would soon agree to
develop the mine.
The Mirarr's Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation later issued a statement
scathing of Rio's comments, which caused the share price of its
subsidiary Energy Resources of Australia to fall by 5 per cent.
The pro-nuclear Northern Land Council appears certain to try to
influence Ms Margarula and other Mirarr to agree to develop Jabiluka,
which is the world's largest known untapped uranium deposit. The Mirarr
could negotiate a multimillion-dollar royalty stream from the mine.
But Ms Margarula has for years strongly opposed its development,
telling a federal parliamentary inquiry two years ago that uranium
mining had "completely upturned our lives, bringing greater access to
alcohol and many arguments between Aboriginal people, mostly about
money".
Under a long-term care and maintenance agreement between the Mirarr,
ERA and the council, Jabiluka cannot be developed without the written
approval of the traditional owners.
The council spent two years secretly negotiating for Aboriginal land
near Tennant Creek to be developed as Australia's first national
nuclear waste dump.
Also speaking on the sidelines of the Gulkula meeting, the chairman of
the council, John Daly, said that Aboriginal people want and are ready
to do business on their land, including uranium mining.
"We need an economy out here so our kids can get something out of it," he said.
------------------->
Owners sink Rio's Jabiluka hopes
Barry Fitzgerald and Lindsay Murdoch
May 24, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/owners-sink-rios-jabiluka-hopes/2007/05/23/1179601487471.html
RIO TINTO'S hopes that its uranium subsidiary Energy Resources of
Australia would soon secure Aboriginal approval for the development of
the $50 billion Jabiluka deposit in the Northern Territory have been
dashed, sending ERA shares down 5 per cent.
Jabiluka's traditional owners, the Mirarr people, yesterday confirmed
Tuesday's report in BusinessDay that despite Rio telling the market on
Monday that clearance could be close, their consent for Jabiluka's
development was "not forthcoming".
ERA shares yesterday fell $1.26 to $23.80.
A statement from the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of the Mirarr was scathing of Rio's comments.
It attacked Rio energy chief executive Preston Chiaro's suggestion that
there was good reason to believe Mirarr leader Yvonne Margarula would
soon say "yes" to a Jabiluka development.
"The community is extremely distressed at the interpretation Rio has
placed on the relationship between the Mirarr community and ERA,"
Gundjeihmi said.
"Such comments are injurious to that relationship and immediately throw the prospect of future engagement into jeopardy."
Rio said it remained committed to its long-held position that there
would be no development of Jabiluka without the consent of the
traditional owners. It said comments at Monday's briefing were not
meant to pressure the traditional owners.
But Gundjeihmi said that at a time when the uranium industry sought to
gain the confidence of indigenous landowners, the comments by Rio
"significantly reaffirm a traditional lack of trust held by Mirarr for
the terms of any collaborative partnerships to be respected".
Gundjeihmi warned Rio against construing co-operation between the
Mirarr and ERA over training and other programs at the ERA-run Ranger
uranium mine, 20 kilometres from Jabiluka, as evidence of any
traditional owners' support for the development of Jabiluka.
After years of animosity and distrust, the Mirarr said their recent
co-operation with ERA had been a leap of faith that the company would
close Ranger in accord with world's best practice.
The Mirarrs' ultimate goal was for their traditional lands to be
returned to them for inclusion in the neighbouring Kakadu National
Park, a World Heritage Area, Gundjeihmi said.
Ranger, which has had more than 120 leaks and spills since it opened in
1981, had been due to wind down operations over the next few years, but
ERA has decided to extend its life to 2020.
Gundjeihmi said that under a long-term care and maintenance agreement
between the Mirarr, ERA and the Northern Land Council, Jabiluka could
not be developed without the written approval of the traditional owners.
The agreement was signed after the Mirarr led a concerted international
campaign of opposition to earlier attempts to develop the site,
Gundjeihmi said.
ERA spokesperson Amanda Buckley said yesterday that ERA remained committed to the agreement.
------------------->
Uranium glows for Rio
Barry Fitzgerald
May 22, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/uranium-glows-for-rio/2007/05/21/1179601330127.html
RIO TINTO has outlined major near-term expansion potential in its
uranium business, allowing it to maximise the benefits of the supply
shortage in the nuclear material that has sent prices to record levels.
But much of the growth outlined at a London briefing relies on the
group securing approval from traditional landowners for a development
of the Jabiluka deposit in the Northern Territory and, in the case of
the Kintyre deposit in Western Australia, approval from the
anti-uranium mining state Labor Government.
Rio's energy chief executive, Preston Chiaro, outlined growth
opportunities that could result in annual group uranium production
almost quadrupling to 20,000 tonnes by 2015.
The forecast production lift would come from existing mines (Ranger in
the Northern Territory and Rossing in Namibia) and includes first
production from the development of Jabiluka, Kintyre and Sweetwater in
the US.
Mr Chiaro cautioned that Jabiluka would not be developed unless Rio got
a "yes" from the traditional owners, the Mirrar people. Their leader,
Yvonne Margarula, has long been opposed to Jabiluka's development but
Mr Chiaro claimed that the relationship with Rio had "improved
dramatically in the past two years".
"Hopefully, we can get her to say a 'yes' in the near-term future," Mr Chiaro said.
He said Rio would nevertheless continue to be cautious about seeking
Mirrar approval. Under the approval process, Rio would not be able to
seek permission for another four years.
Mr Chiaro said that at the Kintyre deposit, the traditional owners had
approached the company about a development. Discussions were proceeding
with the Martu people on a "commercial agreement" for Kintyre's
development.
Mr Chiaro said that the Martu had also agreed to be the "leaders in approaching the Government about a possible development".
The group's Sweetwater opportunity is less challenging. The project was
mothballed in 1983 because of low demand and prices at the time, but it
remains one of only four mills in the US with all the required permits
to operate.
Rio could switch it back on as early as next year.
Spot uranium prices now stand at $US122 a pound. That compares with a
low of $US7 a pound in 2000. Mr Chiaro told the briefing "there remains
plenty of upside to uranium fuel prices". He noted that the cost of
uranium in the nuclear energy cycle was relatively small at 26 per cent
of overall costs. That compares with about 78 per cent for coal.
He said the cost of nuclear power would become "even more competitive
in a carbon-constrained world". The upbeat presentation comes as the
$US90 billion Rio remains subject to takeover speculation.
Rio's chief financial officer, Guy Elliott, finished off the promotion
by declaring that Rio was intent on ensuring its "value was understood
in the market".
He said that along with the group's iron business, uranium was "one of
our most exciting near-term growth opportunities". Rio closed up
29¢ at $92.90.
http://tinyurl.com/k23ke
------------------->
fffURANIUM - ROXBY DOWNS
------------------->
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1898094.htm
Last Update: Monday, April 16, 2007. 11:28am (AEST)
Cuttlefish at risk from desalination plant: biologist
A marine biologist says BHP Billiton's proposed desalination plant in
Upper Spencer Gulf could wipe out the cuttlefish population off Whyalla.
The sea around Whyalla is the world's largest cuttlefish breeding zone.
Adelaide University Associate Professor Bronwyn Gillanders says cuttlefish only breed once in their lifetime.
She says if increased salt levels caused by the proposed plant
negatively affect the cuttlefish reproductive process, the entire
population could be devastated.
"I'm particularly concerned about them at that Point Lowly, Port Bonython area because that's where they aggregate," she said.
"We do know that they breed in other places but nowhere near the hundreds and thousands that they do at Point Lowly."
BHP says its research shows that increased salt levels caused by the plant will not affect local sealife.
Ms Gillanders says unlike fish, increased salt levels may be disastrous for cuttlefish.
"Squids and cuttlefish are generally short-lived," she said.
"They live a year. They breed only once. So if you damage the eggs or
affect their reproductive ability then potentially that will have
devastating consequences for the population."
The South Australian Government has given BHP Billiton permission to build a pilot plant to see if the proposal will work.
------------------->
fffURANIUM THEFT FROM ROXBY DOWNS
------------------->
Uranium theft terror warning
NICK HENDERSON, POLITICAL REPORTER
April 19, 2007 02:15am
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21581301-2682,00.html
A TERRORISM expert yesterday warned that radioactive material stolen
from the Olympic Dam site could have been used to paralyse the city in
an attack if it had not been recovered.
UniSA Associate Professor of Risk and Strategy Robert Heath said the
material did not pose a significant health threat but could easily have
created widespread panic in Adelaide.
He said it was more likely the 3kg of yellowcake uranium samples, found
in a workers village away from the mine, were removed for commercial
gain or taken accidently but said it was also possible the material
could have been used to create panic in the city.
"If somebody put a bomb with radioactive materials in it the
authorities would have to take proper precautions in case it was more
serious than what it is," he said.
"In terms of a disruption it is quite possible it could be used by a
local group or terrorist group simply as a threat, but it wouldn't be
considered by the authorities once they realised what it was as a
serious threat."
The Australian Conservation Foundation said putting the material into a
water system or distributing it throughout city streets could shut
Adelaide down until a thorough investigation and clean-up had been
completed.
Police Minister Paul Holloway said the investigation, which now
involves at least four government agencies, was being led by the state
protective security branch of the police.
The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office has also ordered
an audit, PIRSA minerals is gathering information but has not decided
whether to launch an official investigation, and the EPA is also
investigating.
Greens MLC Mark Parnell yesterday called for the results of the investigations to be made public.
------------------->
fffURANIUM - BEVERLEY
------------------->
ABC Online
Catalyst: Beverly Uranium Mine - ABC TV Science
Transcript at:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1926042.htm]
------------------->
URANIUM - HONEYMOON
------------------->
SXR sets sights on uranium from Honeymoon within a year
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/sxr-sets-sights-on-uranium-from-honeymoon-within-a-year/2007/03/22/1174153254786.html
March 23, 2007
SXR Uranium One, owner of the Honeymoon uranium deposit in South
Australia, intends to start production within a year, becoming
Australia's fourth operating uranium project.
Engineering contracts are working on the final design of the plant,
setting up supporting production systems and completing site work, Greg
Cochran, SXR executive vice-president, Australia and Asia, said at a
conference in Adelaide yesterday. The company wanted to add further
projects in Australia, he said.
SXR last month agreed to buy UrAsia Energy for $3.1 billion, seeking to
form a company that may become the world's second-largest uranium
producer as demand for nuclear fuel drives prices higher. The company
in January got a permit to export uranium from the Honeymoon project in
South Australia.
"We are building now, we are employing now, and in 12 months we will be
producing," Mr Cochran said. "Honeymoon has never been regarded as a
one-off operation for Uranium One in Australia: it is a springboard for
more exploration and more uranium mines here."
South Australia, where more than half of Australia's uranium
exploration is being carried out, might overturn a ban on new mines
soon, a state minister said. South Australia was "very confident" the
so-called "no new mines" policy would be overturned, Paul Holloway,
Minister for Mineral Resources Development, said yesterday. Once that
occurred, "it's my opinion that South Australia will move fairly
quickly to change our policy", he said.
Federal Labor is due to vote next month on whether to overturn the ban on new uranium mines.
------------------->
ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
------------------->
EcoWellness: Race and hazardous waste
By CHRISTINE DELL'AMORE
UPI Consumer Health Editor
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20070320-050832-6558r
WASHINGTON, March 22 (UPI) -- Twenty years after a landmark study
proved a link between hazardous-waste sites and minority neighborhoods,
the phenomenon has only settled deeper into U.S. towns and cities, a
new report says.
What's more, the racial differences are much greater than previously
thought, according to "Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty," a preliminary
anniversary report released today. The full report will be made public
on April 22, Earth Day.
The updated report found more than 9 million Americans live in
neighborhoods within about 2 miles of the 413 commercial
hazardous-waste facilities in the United States.
"When we think of the U.S. in the 21st century, we think we've made a
great deal of progress in environmental protection and civil rights,"
said David Pellow, a sociologist and professor of ethnic studies at the
University of California, San Diego. "This suggests the opposite, and
it's quite disheartening."
The original 1987 report, sponsored by the United Church of Christ
Commission for Racial Justice, is widely considered by experts as the
smoking gun that shows people of color do indeed bear the brunt of
living in areas of hazardous waste.
In recent decades, the UCC document has also spurred a homegrown
revolution of non-profits, community organizers and lawyers who have
taken up the cause of environmental justice. Broadly defined,
environmental justice means the fair treatment of all races, cultures
and incomes in environmental legislation.
In the anniversary report, study leader Robert Bullard, director of the
Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, and
colleagues employed new, distance-based techniques using 2000 census
data. They parsed out racial and income disparities near
hazardous-waste facilities, examining data by region, state and
metropolitan area. Big cities contain the most facilities.
The researchers found more than 5.1 million people of color, including
2.5 million Hispanics or Latinos and 1.8 million blacks, live in
neighborhoods with at least one hazardous-waste facility. Overall, more
minorities reside near hazardous-waste sites than in 1987.
However, it's possible more efficient methods of tracking these racial
differences may account, at least in part, for the increase, said Paul
Mohai, a study author and professor in the School of Natural Resources
and Environment at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
Mohai has just completed research -- still unpublished -- on what
environmental-justice experts call "the chicken or the egg question":
whether minorities move into neighborhoods with hazardous-waste sites,
or vice versa.
Mohai and colleagues examined data of hundreds of facilities sited
between 1966 and 1995, and used a new method of analysis focusing more
on populations within a certain radius of a waste facility, instead of
just census data.
He found minorities are already present when hazardous waste sites are
put in. Although the numbers of people of color and poor increase,
these changes had already been set in motion before the facilities were
sited.
The study is a "breakthrough" that lays to rest the chicken-or-egg
dilemma, Pellow said. With this knowledge, better policies can be
crafted to avoid these environmental disparities.
But regardless of what came first, the hazardous-waste dilemma is real
and detrimental to community health and quality of life, Mohai said.
Such communities are plagued by putrid smells, trucks rumbling noisily
down streets all day, plummeting property values and the health impacts
from living near hazardous waste, which could range from respiratory
ailments to cancer.
Those living near hazardous-waste sites can also feel abandoned and
powerless -- like "the dumping grounds of the country," Mohai said.
The UCC report was released in an era of weakened government oversight
of industry actions, said Albert Huang, an environmental-justice
attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency recently decided to
exempt federal facilities from reporting their waste to the Toxic
Release Inventory, a public database containing information on toxic
chemical releases.
"These studies come at a time when it's clear at least the federal
government is not taking environmental justice seriously," Huang said.
Even so, the environmental-justice movement has made progressive
inroads, ushering in a "blossoming of environmental activity" among
diverse sets of communities, said Rachel Morello-Frosch, an assistant
professor of community health and environmental studies at Brown
University in Providence, R.I.
The movement's visibility and clout, for one, has prompted the EPA to
open an office on environmental justice. Among other initiatives, the
office runs a grant program for leaders in the field.
In 1994 President Clinton issued an executive order asking all federal
agencies to consider environmental justice in their decisions. Some
states, such as California, have taken the lead and put in place their
own environmental-justice legislation, Morello-Frosch said.
The anniversary report laid out several solutions, from grassroots
action to sweeping federal law. Some examples include requiring state
"report cards" on environmental justice, increasing private
foundations' funding support of environmental-justice groups and
establishing community land trusts, which would allow communities to
purchase abandoned plots of land at below-market rates and redevelop
them.
Yet the problem is so pervasive and endemic, Pellow said, no one can
reach a solution by thinking in solely environmental or social terms.
"That's the beauty of environmental justice as a field: We have to think of things as completely intertwined," Pellow said.
Return
to top
Return
to contents