Return
to contents
NO NUKES NEWS
AUGUST 4, 2007
<www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/nnn91.html>
PLEASE ACT NOW
* support the 3CR Radioactive Show
* UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - sign the petition
* support anti-nuke activists attacked in Siberia
* From the Heart, For the Heartland - support the campaign against the NT dump
* Turning the Tide CD out now
NEW INFORMATION SOURCES
AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR NEWS
Nuclear waste dump proposed for NT
Greens bill to ban nuclear facilities in SA
Talisman Sabre war games protesters face court
Government attacks Aboriginal land rights
Clean energy
- various
- geothermal hot rocks
- bioenergy
- solar
Nuclear power for Australia
- public opinion
- WA to ban
- proposed US-Australia nuclear cooperation
Uranium enrichment for Australia
Uranium exploration
Uranium sales to India
Uranium mining
- fed govt threatens WA and Queensland
- Roxby expansion
- various
- Western Australia
- NT - Ranger
- NT - Koongarra
Lucas Heights reactor problems
Government's $12.5 million for nuclear research
Pine Gap 4
GLOBAL NUCLEAR NEWS
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Japan earthquake
Nuclear weapons
Brazil - enrichment = bombs = political power
Nuclear power - global
Nuclear power and climate change
Nuclear waste
Nuclear accidents
Fake firm sold bomb material in sting
Nuclear terrorism
Indonesia's nuclear plans
------------------->
PLEASE ACT NOW
------------------->
The Radioactive Show has been
on the air for over 30 years now, and remains Australia’s leading
National Nuclear Peace and Sustainability Show, taking people’s
messages out onto the airwaves…
3CR is very unique in its’ content and is invaluable in its role of
publicising the little known stories and events and helping to keep the
airwaves honest. A big reason why this is possible is because we avoid
direct government sponsorship and corporate advertising. To keep our
show, and our radio station on air, we rely heavily on donations from
the public. There are over 300 volunteers working at 3CR and none of
the Radioactive Show presenters or producers are paid for their work.
(More often it is the other way around!)
So this year, radiothon has arrived again, and we are raising $1,400
for the Radioactive Show, and 3CR is raising $200, 000 to pay for a
third of the years running costs.
Please, will you donate to the Radioactive Show to keep our sounds alive!!
$70 equates to an hour of radio time, and is a valuable contribution, however donations of less or more are much appreciated!!
Donate by calling up to pay by credit card over the phone, drop by the
studio, follow the links on the website, or send a cheque in to 3CR, PO
BOX 1277, Collingwood, VIC 3066
Phone (03) 9419 8377 or go to www.3cr.org.au
------------------->
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Please speak out!
The United Nations General Assembly must make a decision on
the long
awaited and urgently needed UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous
Peoples.
Either the international community will move ahead with final adoption
as
has been urged by Indigenous peoples and their supporters worldwide,
or
adoption of the Declaration will once again be delayed due to the
demands
of a small, yet vocal group of states.
Please take this opportunity to support the Declaration.
More than 14,000 individuals and organizations have already signed
a
global petition hosted by Amnesty International Canada in support of
the
Declaration.
If you haven't already done so, please add your name
and encourage many
others to do so.
The petition is online at <http://www.amnesty.ca/ip_un_petition/UN_indigenous_rights_petition.php>
------------------->
Activist Killed As Nazis Attack Anti-Nuclear Camp In Siberia
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/376699.html
21.07.2007
In the early morning of 21st July, neo-nazi skinheads launched a
vicious and unprovoked attack on an anti-nuclear protest camp in
Angarsk, Siberia, Russia (see map). The nazis violently attacked
activists in their sleeping bags and tents with iron rods, knives and
air pressure guns. 21 year old Ilya Borodaenko from Nachodka suffered a
head-fracture during the attack and later died in hospital from his
injuries. At least nine others have been reported to be seriously
injured, one of which has had both their legs broken. Tents were set on
fire and several belongings were stolen.
The camp started last week and is aimed at protesting against a planned
centre of uranium enrichment in Angarsk. Ever since the arrival of the
activists, the police have tried to intimidate them and have entered
the camp in an attempt to gather information about planned actions. The
organisation who planned the camp, the 'Ecological Wave of Baikal', had
planned various rallies in the surronding area to inform locals about
the plans and drum up support for the campaign.
Financial help and other forms of solidarity are urgently needed.
Contact xmakimax (at) gmail.com or ogopogos (at) gmail.com if you are
able to offer some.
Donations can be sent to the accounts of War Resisters' International,
clearly stating "help for Angarsk protest camp" in the transfer slip:
Eurozone: by giro transfer to War Resisters’ International, in Euros to
Bank of Ireland, IBAN IE91 BOFI 9000 9240 413547, SWIFT/BIC BOFIIE2D
Britain: by giro transfer to War Resisters’ International, in £
sterling to Unity Trust Bank, Account number 5072 7388 Sort code:
08-60-01 (IBAN GB11 CPBK 0800 5150 07 32 10, SWIFT CPBKGB22), or by
sending a cheque payable to War Resisters' International to War
Resisters' International, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX
USA: Send a cheque made out to War Resisters' International to: Ralph
di Gia, c/o War Resisters League (WRL) 339 Lafayette Street, New York
NY 10012
In any case, please send an email to [email protected], with "help for
Angarsk protest camp" in the subject line, stating the amount and where
you sent the money to.
War Resisters' International will forward all donations to the Russian activists.
War Resisters' International
mail e-mail: [email protected]
home Homepage: http://wri-irg.org/en
------------------->
From the Heart, For the Heartland
NT Radioactive Waste dump speaking tour
June 12-26, 2007
After two weeks on the road through Adelaide, Stawell, Melbourne,
Albury, Canberra and Sydney, participants on the NT radioactive waste
dump speaking tour, “From the Heart, For the Heartland”, have arrived
back in the Territory to continue their struggle to protect community,
country and culture.
In each city the delegation met with politicians, environment and
social justice groups, conducted numerous media interviews and held a
public event incorporating speakers, an art and photo exhibition and
short film. The tour had been envisaged as a poignant way to
communicate the NT community opposition to the dump proposal and
mobilise support from people in the southern states.
As well as sharing personal stories and political strategies with a
national audience, traveling together was also important for further
development of relationships between people from each of the proposed
sites. There is strong solidarity, and ongoing commitment to support
each other regardless of which site is eventually chosen as the
preferred location for the federal radioactive dump.
A highlight of the trip for all participants was arriving in Canberra
and sitting at the sacred fire with Aboriginal Tent Embassy residents
and supporters, who offered a heartfelt welcome and hearty meal to the
group. The NT mob had been very excited to visit the Embassy, as
similar fires of resistance have long been burning in hearts across the
Territory. This feeling was further ignited by Prime Sinister Howard’s
announcement while we were in Canberra that the Feds and military would
be ‘intervening’ in NT Aboriginal communities under the guise of what
some indigenous organisations are terming a ‘Trojan horse’ of child
protection.
The announcement will directly impact the speakers’ families and
communities and there was great concern about both the proposal and the
unequivocal support from both major parties. Participants agreed that
the speaking tour should continue to focus on the dump proposal, but as
there are obvious connections with attempts to gain control of land for
mining and development projects, these issues were subsequently
incorporated into media messaging and public outreach.
While some of the meetings with politicians about the dump were
frustrating due to their lack of commitment to action, NGO and public
response to the speaking tour were extremely encouraging and
supportive; people were obviously affected by the depth of concern
regarding the federal proposal and appalling process of waste
management that has led to the imposition of federal radioactive waste
on remote and indigenous NT communities.
After each public event, many people approached the speakers and
offered ongoing support for the campaign. I have received a flood of
emails expressing the deep impact of the tour on people who attended
events and our message book is full of statements asserting how
affected people were by the speakers, and how they have been moved and
inspired to act in support and solidarity.
So what next?
We will send updates to everyone who has passed on their details and
continue to publish independent media reports to complement our
mainstream media outreach. Please let us know how we can best share
information about the government process and NT campaign initiatives
with you and your family, friends and networks. For this campaign to
have national attention and relevance in the lead up to the federal
election, we rely on people in each city, town or region to undertake
creative and strategic initiatives to support the NT communities:
Some suggestions …
* Set up a support group to disseminate information through your networks/region/state and help fundraise for the campaign.
* Arrange a screening in your community of the Living Country DVD (22mins, produced by CAAMA).
* Write letters to Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop and Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull
* Motivate at least one other person to also write a letter (why not have a film screening and letter writing party combined!)
* Add your name to the waste dump email update list
* Make a support banner and send it to the targeted communities
* Send letters of support to the communities
* Encourage your Premier or Chief Minister to publicly support the NT Government in opposing Federal Government bullying
* Write letters to local, state and national papers and keep the issue topical in the media
* Inform your local, state and federal politicians that a responsible
and democratic approach to radioactive waste management will be high on
the voter agenda for the federal election
* Wear a yellow dot in support of the NT communities and send us a photo to add to our website!
* Visit www.no-waste.org for ideas on cyber and other actions
* Visit the NT and walk on country with the people fighting to save their land from a toxic legacy
Defend the heartland ! NO radioactive waste dump in the Northern Territory
Please send questions, suggestions, support letters and donations to:
Arid Lands Environment Centre- Beyond Nuclear Initiative
PO box 2796, Alice Springs, NT, 0871
Natalie Wasley
08 8952 2011
[email protected]
------------------->
TURNING THE TIDE CD NOW AVAILABLE!!!
Turning the Tide is a music project by Australian artists calling for
action to address the grave threats posed by climate change in a manner
that respects all those who share our planet.
There's 33 Aussie artists appearing on the album including the John
Butler Trio, Wolf & Cub, Old Man River, Missy Higgins, The Bird,
Good Buddha, Watussi, Rastawookie, Declan Kelly, Deepchild, and heaps
of others.
The point of the CD is to raise awareness around the issues of climate
change including uranium mining and our country's questionable mining
policies. The voices of Traditional Aboriginal Elders talking about
these issues are interspersed amongst the songs on the CD.
Please check out the websites:
www.turningthetide.com.au
www.myspace.com/turningthetideoz
If you're on myspace, hit us up as a friend. You can find us on
Facebook too. The point is, we need all of you to spread the word,
spread this email, come to the launch party, buy the album....
The LAUNCH PARTY & ALBUM RELEASE is set for WEDNESDAY 8TH AUGUST @ The Gaelic Club, Surry Hills.
The launch party will absolutely rock and if you haven't caught
Rastawookie live before, you're in for a treat. There'll be about 800
people at the launch (including you) and we'll be selling CDs, artists
will be signing and there'll be some great speakers and a rocking DJ
set after the headline act. PLEASE COME!!
Tickets $20 or $40 with the CD and are on sale at Moshtix online, just check out the websites.
www.moshtix.com.au
All proceeds go to charities supporting communities impacted by uranium mining.
Turing the Tide is supported by the Mineral Policy Institute,
Australian Student Environment Network, Rainforest Information Centre,
Friends of the Earth Australia, UM Records and USYNC.
------------------->Return
to top
NEW INFORMATION SOURCES
------------------->
Jessie Boylan's fantabulous 'Inhabited' audiovisual experience is now on the web:
<www.sustenance.net.au/inhabited/images_index.html>
From the website:
Inhabited aims to reveal the myth of uninhabited and lifeless places
that is created by politicians and industry promoting nuclear activity
in Australia. The idea that the outback and the desert is “the middle
of nowhere” shows that the notion of Terra Nullius, brought on by
European invasion, has never left us.
In 2005 the then environment minister Brendan Nelson announced the
federal government’s decision to establish a nuclear waste dump in the
Northern Territory. At the time he said “Why shouldn’t people living in
the middle of nowhere have a radioactive waste dump on their land?”.
Traditional owners and Indigenous communities suffer most directly the
impacts of the nuclear industry but their voices are the least heard.
These images are the result of journeys with Friends of the Earth into
the Australian outback, and meetings with Indigenous and non-Indigenous
peoples directly affected by uranium mining in Australia. With the
current nuclear debate the wishes of the inhabitants are too easily
dismissed.
------------------->
Check the blog of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
http://www.myspace.com/icanw
------------------->
Well funky 5-minute anti-nuke animation...
Uranium Mining Costs The Earth
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=13587247
and you can also watch it at: www.turningthetide.com.au
------------------->
Media release - ABC Books
MARALINGA: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up
By Alan Parkinson
ABC Books; srp: $32.95; paperback; $32.95; ISBN 978 0 7333 2108 5
It is sad, but probably true, that most people living in Australia
today have never heard of Maralinga, know nothing of what happened
there 50 years ago, and don’t know that 12 atomic bombs have been
exploded in Australia. ... Since Australia does not possess a nuclear
arsenal, we could well ask, How could atomic bombs have been exploded
here? The answer is simple – Britain exploded them. But how did that
come about? Who allowed it to happen, and why?
In April 2000, a $108 million clean up of the former British A-bomb
test site in South Australia was declared a success and the Maralinga
Tjarutja Aboriginal people were told it was safe to move back onto
their lands. But leaked documents and key insiders say otherwise.
After voicing his concerns, Alan Parkinson, an official adviser, was
removed from the project and told to be quiet. Refusing to be silenced,
Alan has been fighting for an inquiry for six years. This is his story.
ALAN PARKINSON is a Mechanical and Nuclear Engineer with over forty
years experience in the nuclear industry in the UK, Canada, USA and
Australia. He was first involved in the Maralinga clean up in 1989 when
he assembled some 30 options for rehabilitating the site so that it
could be returned to the traditional owners, the Maralinga Tjarutja. In
1993, he was appointed the government's engineering adviser for the
project, and a member of the Minister's advisory committee MARTAC
(Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee). He set up the
project and was appointed as the Government's Representative to oversee
the whole project. He was removed from all appointments in January 1998
for questioning the future management of the project. He then became an
adviser to the Maralinga Tjarutja, but withdrew from that in April
2000, after going public with his concerns.
To get a copy:
* ABC book sellers
* go to <http://shop.abc.net.au>, enter Maralinga or Parkinson in the search engine, and order via web.
Lots of Alan Parkinson's info on the botched Maralinga clean-up at <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/#bwt>.
------------------->
NEWS ITEMS
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP PROPOSED FOR NT
------------------->
Owners warn of tremors at nuclear waste dump site
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/owners-warn-of-tremors-at-nuclear-waste-dump-site/2007/06/19/1182019116363.html
Andra Jackson
June 20, 2007
TREMORS have twice been felt in a proposed Northern Territory site for
a nuclear waste dump site, according to Aboriginal owners.
"The last one registered 2.5 on the Richter scale," traditional owner
and Warramunga-Warlmanpa woman Dianne Stokes from the Muckaty Land
Trust told a meeting of non-government organisations in Melbourne on
Monday night.
Two weeks ago, the other members of the trust — with the backing of the
Northern Land Council — secretly negotiated a deal under which the
Federal Government would pay $12 million to use the
2241-square-kilometre Muckaty Station as Australia's first national
nuclear waste dump.
Ms Stokes, an elected spokeswoman for the Warramunga and Warlmanpa
tribes, said the deal was made by just one of the 16 family groupings
represented on the trust.
The Northern Land Council failed to listen to the other families, she said.
Ms Stokes, a mother of six, was one of four traditional owners of four
proposed nuclear waste sites in the Northern Territory who spoke at a
public meeting at Melbourne's Trade Hall Council on Monday night.
"I came here with all my spirits from my ancestors to keep my country alive," she said.
Ms Stokes, who lives just half an hour's drive from the site of a
proposed nuclear waste dump at Muckaty, said it would kill the area
environmentally and culturally.
The surrounding country was a source of bush tucker and a place of
burials in both the ground and trees, which were home to ancestral
spirits, she said.
Priscilla Williams, a member of the Hart Range community, the site of
another proposed dump, said the community closest to Muckaty Station
had a primary school that got its water from a river which ran around
the proposed site.
While the Federal Government had insisted there had never been an
accident with a nuclear waste dump anywhere, "we're worried about what
will happen if our water gets poisoned because we get it from under the
ground", Ms Williams said.
The delegation briefed the Wilderness Society and called on state premiers to oppose a national nuclear waste dump.
------------------->
Proposed dump in quake hotspot
BEN LANGFORD
02Jul07
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2007/07/02/1417_ntnews.html
THE Territory site recently nominated for a national nuclear waste facility is near one of the nation's earthquake hotspots.
Muckaty Station, nominated by the Northern Land Council for
consideration by the Federal Government for the national facility, is
about 120km north of Tennant Creek - one of the most seismologically
active areas in Australia.
Figures confirmed by Geoscience Australia, the government seismological
monitoring body, show there have been 239 earthquakes in the area in
the past 10 years and 1298 earthquakes since 1988.
The majority of the quakes since 1988 were measured at less than 4 in magnitude, but 24 had a magnitude greater than 5.
The 1989 Newcastle earthquake measured 5.6.
Tennant Creek was also the scene of a powerful 6.3 quake in 1988 that split open the earth south of the town.
Territory Senator Nigel Scullion defended the process used to choose a nuclear waste site.
"There is an assessment process in place which takes all these issues
into consideration and I have full confidence in this process," he said.
But anti-nuclear campaigners have condemned the nomination of Muckaty as a sham.
The Environment Centre NT's Emma King said the Federal Government
should go back to the drawing board and start a process based on
consultation and science.
"It's another example of the Government going for political expediency
rather than proper scientific evaluation in terms of siting a waste
dump," she said.
Seismologists say the frequent quakes are due to a fault line running through the area.
"The quakes are frequent, due to a weak fault-line running through the area," Geoscience Australia's Craig Bugden has said.
Two small quakes have hit the Tennant Creek area in the past three weeks, both measured under three in magnitude.
A nuclear waste site in the Territory has been opposed by environmentalists, the NT Government and some traditional owners.
------------------->
Four face court over anti-nuclear protest
Posted Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:50pm AEST
Four protesters arrested after a violent confrontation outside the
Perth office of federal Science Minister Julie Bishop yesterday have
appeared in the East Perth Magistrates Court.
Three of the protesters pleaded not guilty to a charge of obstructing a
public officer, with one also pleading not guilty to assaulting a
police officer.
The fourth did not enter a plea and has been remanded in custody until July 17.
The anti-nuclear protesters are all from the eastern states and are in
Perth as part of an Australian Student Environment Network conference.
They will appear in court again in September.
------------------->Return
to top
GREENS BILL TO BAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN SA
------------------->
http://www.markparnell.org.au/speech.php?speech=210
Legislative Council
GREENS BILL: Bill to Ban Nuclear Facilities in SA
August 1st, 2007
On the 1st of August, Mark Parnell introduced a bill (Nuclear Waste
Storage Facility (Prohibition) (Prohibition of Other Nuclear
Facilities) Amendment Bill) to ban nuclear power and nuclear enrichment
in South Australia.
The Hon. M. PARNELL: This week marks the 62nd
anniversary of the nuclear bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. It is a timely reminder to us all of the horrific
capabilities of the worst weapons of mass destruction that have ever
been devised.
Earlier this year I introduced in this place the
Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2007. When the Parliament was
prorogued that bill lapsed. I made a lengthy speech on the introduction
of that bill, and I will not repeat my remarks again now. But, I urge
all members to refresh their memories by looking at the Hansard of 14
March, because the bill that I introduce today is very similar (link
below).
Since March, when I introduced my earlier bill, a number of
developments have occurred and new information has come to hand. In an
interview with The Age newspaper on 5 April this year, former WMC boss
Hugh Morgan indicated that he was in the nuclear business `for the long
haul'. So, the big guns are circling. It is not just Hugh Morgan.
Before that we had Pangea, then we had the United States proposal to
lease Australian nuclear fuel before it was used and then returned to
Australia for disposal. As a state, our ability to say no to these
schemes becomes much harder if we are awash with uranium dollars from
our exports.
On 29 April this year the ALP national conference marked
the death of principal Labor Party opposition to the nuclear fuel
cycle. In June this year the Liberal Party federal council voted to
support the development of a global nuclear waste dump in Australia.
The federal Liberal council passed the following resolution:
'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 generation and
worldwide nuclear waste storage in the geotechnically stable and remote
areas that Australia has to offer.'
I think that is code for South
Australia. On 16 July this year there was a massive radioactive leak in
Tokyo Electric's giant nuclear plant as a result of a magnitude 6.8
earthquake and, just four days later, Prime Minister Howard flagged his
intention to sign a nuclear pact with President Bush. This Howard move
will inevitably bring Australia under pressure to become a global
nuclear waste dump. It will increase terrorist focus on Australia and
will create a direct incentive for nuclear power plants to be built in
Australia.
As you would know, Mr Acting President, time and again
when possible locations for future nuclear plants are mentioned, the
top of the list is usually South Australia's Upper Spencer Gulf region.
So, we cannot deny that we are front and centre to the debate in
Australia over the expansion of the nuclear industry.
I want to speak
very briefly about previous bills that have dealt with the nuclear
question. In the past, South Australian governments from both the Labor
and the Liberal sides of politics have acted appropriately to prevent
the expansion of the nuclear industry in our state. In 2000 the Olsen
government deserved the praise that it received when it moved to
prevent nuclear waste being stored in an above‑ground storage facility,
through the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. When
the Rann Labor government came to power in 2002, one of its first bills
led to the subsequent passing of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility
(Prohibition) Amendment Act 2003, which strengthened the original
Olsen government legislation.
So, the bill that I am introducing
today builds on that earlier work, therefore it takes a different
approach to the bill that I introduced last time, whilst reaching the
same outcome. Effectively, rather than throwing out those earlier
pieces of legislation, I am seeking to keep them and to build on them.
I think that is a respectful approach to take.
The other aspect of my
bill is that it is very much a minimalist approach. The bill is
very simple in its operation. The first thing it does is insert two new
definitions into legislation, that of enrichment and that of nuclear
facility. The bill expands the rest of the act to apply beyond nuclear
waste storage facilities to all nuclear facilities. As my bill includes
enrichment in the definition of a nuclear facility, it is possible to
remove section 27 of the Radiation (Protection and Control) Act 1982,
as that section is now made redundant.
I fully expect this bill to
have the support of the Rann Labor government, in particular, because
it is consistent with frequent public statements made by the Premier
and others in government against nuclear power. If we look elsewhere in
Australia, the Queensland Beattie government in the last couple of
months has cast laws prohibiting nuclear power, joining the states of
Victoria and New South Wales which have longstanding laws against
nuclear power dating back to the 1980s, and the Western Australian
Carpenter government made a strong public commitment to introduce laws
prohibiting nuclear power, especially if the commonwealth sought
to impose a facility in that state. So, to a certain extent we are
lagging behind the other Labor states. I therefore see no reason why
the Rann Labor government would not support this bill when clearly it
represents a consensus position of all the other Labor mainland states.
In conclusion, I think there is the potential in this state for the
ideological zealots to push nuclear power onto a reluctant South
Australia—that is a real risk. This bill, through its amendment of the
earlier acts, would send a crystal clear message that South Australia
will not welcome nuclear power or the nuclear enrichment industry. The
use of laws to prohibit such an outcome is sensible and prudent,
particularly with the recent move by Queensland to join Victoria and
New South Wales in passing similar laws.
With those brief words, I
commend the bill to the house.
For more information see Mark's earlier speech on the Nuclear Facility (Prohibition) Bill he introduced in March 2007
http://www.markparnell.org.au/speech.php?speech=109
------------------->Return
to top
TALISMAN SABRE WAR GAMES PROTESTERS FACE COURT
------------------->
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=283121
Nude embrace lands protesters in court
Friday August 3, 2007
A group of 18 anti-war protesters have fronted a Central Queensland court
over a colourful demonstration during joint US-Australian military exercises
in June.
Their protests allegedly included playing Frisbee on an airstrip, climbing a
cow fence and refusing to return, and dancing the Hokey Pokey at the
Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area on the Capricorn Coast.
Two were also arrested naked and embracing while shouting "make love, not
war".
The group, comprising protesters from Melbourne, Brisbane and the Sunshine
Coast, appeared before Yeppoon Magistrates Court yesterday charged with
offences including public nuisance and trespass.
Two of the group, Brisbane nurse Carole Powell and social worker Jessica
Morrison, pleaded guilty to one count each of trespassing on prohibited
commonwealth land.
The remaining 16 pleaded not guilty and will appear in court again for a
hearing mention on October 4.
Military police located Powell at 10.45am (AEST) on June 21 as she walked
along a Shoalwater Bay airstrip with four other protesters during the
Operation Talisman Sabre exercise.
She told police she rallied because she wanted to save lives and had seen
the effects of war first hand through her job.
Morrison was arrested on military land after spending three days there. She
argued her actions were morally right.
She was fined $400 while Powell was placed on a good behaviour bond.
©AAP 2007
------------------->Return
to top
GOVERNMENT ATTACKS ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS
------------------->
Using children to nuke Aboriginal land rights
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070627-Nuking-Aboriginal-Land-Rights-Howards-Latest-Yes-Minister-Genius.html
DATE: WEDNESDAY, 27 JUNE 2007
As an environmental engineer, Gavin Mudd has over ten years' experience
in issues concerning Aboriginal land rights and mining. He is a
lecturer in environmental engineering at Monash University, and a
concerned Australian. He writes:
It is ironic that at the time of the 40th anniversary of the 1967
referendum John Howard is in the middle of gutting the Northern
Territory’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (ALRA) -- the Commonwealth
legislation made possible by that referendum.
The land rights were long overdue, hard fought for and won by
Aboriginal people, but they are about to be critically undermined, not
just by the politics of military-style interventions in problematic
Aboriginal communities, but by a more insidious, as yet unrecognised
agenda -- mining and nuclear waste on Aboriginal land.
The ALRA gives legitimate powers such as access permits for entry to
Aboriginal freehold lands, a veto over exploration and mining and other
activities. As noted by the 1974 Woodward Land Rights Inquiry, to deny
Aboriginal people the right to prevent mining on their land is to deny
the reality of their land rights.
Since gaining control of the Senate, the Howard Government has finally
had the parliamentary power to gut the ALRA, which they are doing, but
have needed a massive diversion before they introduce the most
controversial reforms: radically altering the mining royalty regimes,
and potentially remove the veto provision for exploration and mining.
It is no coincidence that many of the communities targeted for
“military style intervention” are also areas that are heavily targeted
for minerals exploration, particularly uranium, as well as for
potential nuclear waste dumps. This includes Western Arnhem Land and
Central Australia, where numerous known uranium deposits are being
actively investigated by various wanna-be uranium producers.
I have personally visited numerous Aboriginal communities, including
some with major social dysfunction and others which have escaped the
tyranny of petrol sniffing, grog and domestic violence. This was
achieved by the communities and took hard yakka over a decade (or
more). Now, they are vibrant, positive and functional communities proud
to be truly sustainable. Mining has rarely aided this process.
The use of “social issues” as a diversion to hide the gutting of
Aboriginal land rights is malicious and cold-hearted. As with almost
everything Howard does, there is clearly more at play -- perhaps it’s
time to have a real debate about problems, true partnerships and the
future.
As noted by Yvonne Margarula, Senior Traditional Owner of the
Mirarr-Gundjeihmi clan of Kakadu and on whose lands the Ranger uranium
mine and Jabiluka project lie, “None of the promises last, but the
problems always do!”
------------------->Return
to top
CLEAN ENERGY - VARIOUS
------------------->
Article Preview
Is it all over for nuclear power?
26 April 2006
Michael Brooks
Magazine issue 2548
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025481.400
ADAM TWINE doesn't look like the kind of person the nuclear industry
should be scared of. An organic farmer, Twine is skinny, with big round
glasses and unruly hair that makes his head look like it's fraying at
the edges. How could he possibly be a threat to a multibillion-dollar
industry?
Maybe he wouldn't be if he were operating alone, but Twine is far from
alone and has serious money behind him. He has just managed to persuade
2127 people to send him a total of more than £4 m�illion that he
will use to set up a co-operative wind farm on land he owns in the
south of England. In fact, the idea of owning a share in the Westmill
wind farm in Oxfordshire has proved so popular that the project is
having to return some of the cash: it only needed £3.7 million.
The plan now is to give priority in ownership to people living within
80 kilometres of the site, and asking others to accept a smaller stake
in the co-op.
Though the wind farm is small - five turbines in a vast, bleak field,
amounting to 6.5 megawatts of electricity - it represents another nail
in the coffin of nuclear power, one of many being hammered in all over
the world. If the nuclear industry wanted to convince governments to
start building another generation of nuclear reactors as soon as
possible, it needed to bury the likes of Twine before their schemes
took off. Now it may be too late.
According to projections by the International Energy Agency and a
handful of energy industry experts, 2005 was the first year nuclear
power's electricity output dropped behind that of small-scale plants
producing low or no carbon dioxide emissions (see Graph) - and that's
not counting large hydroelectric projects on the low-carbon side of the
balance sheet.
Though small, such projects are already flourishing. Much of the
world's small-scale generation involves combined heat and power
"co-generation" projects, whose carbon dioxide emissions are 30 to 80
per cent less than that of large-scale gas-fired plants. On average
they ...
The complete article is 3123 words long - for subscribers only.
------------------->
Energy revolution = money saved
06 July 2007
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/energy-revolution-money-save-060707
International — US$180 billion. That's the massive amount of money the
world could save by moving to a renewable energy future. The Future
Investment report demonstrates that a safe renewable energy future
would not only cut our global CO2 emissions from the electricity sector
in half by 2030, it would also cost 10 times less than a ‘business as
usual’ fossil-fuel future would.
By shifting global investments to renewable energy (including solar,
wind, hydro, geothermal and bio energy), within the next 23 years, and
away from dirty and dangerous coal and nuclear power, we can save a
massive US$180 billion a year.
So we face a simple but crucial choice: we can either invest in over
10,000 new polluting coal and gas power plants, which would double fuel
costs and increase C02 emissions by more than 50 percent. Or we can
choose a safe renewable energy future, producing 70 percent of the
world’s electricity from our planet’s natural resources.
By doing this we would not only save money but also cut CO2 emissions from the electricity sector in half by 2030.
What to do with all that money
We asked Action Aid what development needs could be done with the
US$180 billion a year savings. They told us that it is the exact amount
needed in extra aid to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by
their target date of 2015.
The goals are to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; universal
primary education; gender equality and women’s empowerment; reduce
child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and
other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a
global partnership for development.
Under our renewable energy future, part of the Energy [R]evolution the
world urgently needs to curb catastrophic climate change, the savings
would be enough to reach these most basic goals for human need and
development. The maths as well as the choice is simple.
The poorest paying the price
It is the poorest people in the world who are already suffering the
devastating effects of climate change, and who stand to lose the most
if we do not take urgent action now. The costs of a ‘business as usual’
scenario go much deeper than pure economics. How, for example, do you
put a price on a Pacific Islander finding their home is sinking?
The developing world has contributed the least to the climate change we
already see today, and yet are paying by far the highest price. By
embracing the Energy [R]evolution, we can start to make some amends..
It’s so simple, and so essential, the extra investment of $22 billion
needed in renewables to achieve the Energy [R]evolution is easy to
obtain if we convert the massive subsidies of $250 billion a year that
coal and gas receive to clean, safe energy from the world’s natural
resources.
Governments must listen to the voices of the billions of people
engaging with Live Earth and make the right decisions NOW. In the next
decade, many existing power plants will need replacing, and emerging
economies such as China, India and Brazil are rapidly building new
energy infrastructure.
The UN Environment Programme says of our report that “it is just the
kind of publication that will strike a thoughtful chord with the expert
and the novice in the field of renewable energy. I am sure it will
spark even greater interest and action towards a more sustainable,
climate friendly, energy mix and allow renewables to achieve their full
and very exciting potential.”
The market for wind energy grew by a massive 36 percent in 2006, and
the total renewable energy sector would be worth a massive US$288
billion by 2030 if we take the Energy Revolution pathway. The renewable
energy industry is willing and able to deliver the power plants the
world needs, we must just make the right choices now!
TO DOWNLOAD THE REPORT:
www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/future-investment
------------------->
Wind and hot rock companies pick up steam
The low emissions energy sector will benefit from changes in the political climate, writes Matthew Warren
July 02, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21999654-5005200,00.html
FEW sectors are more sensitive to the radical change in the political
mood on climate change than energy and in particular the increasingly
less speculative low emissions energy sector.
Last month, the federal Government committed Australia to an emissions
trading scheme from 2012. With only minor differences between the major
parties, a constraint on greenhouse emissions is now a certainty in
Australia. This is, at least for the time being, on top of a suite of
different mandatory renewable energy targets set by state governments
and a new 18 per cent mandatory gas target in Queensland.
While the policies may be questionable from a rational perspective,
valuing investment in this sector is as much about factoring in
political risk alongside more conventional technical and financial
criteria.
Coal-fired electricity will remain the cheapest energy source for the
next decade, but will become more expensive with the application of a
price on its emissions or the installation of technology to capture and
store emissions.
Gas can provide an important bridge with around half the emissions of
coal, with increased demand pushing up price - great news for the
sector providing it doesn't price itself out of the market.
A month ago, the Beattie Government increased its mandatory gas target
to 18 per cent by 2020. Companies such as the Queensland Gas Company
have been developing coal seam methane technology, which captures the
methane embedded inside coal seams.
It not only is a new source of affordable methane, but can help reduce
fugitive emissions of the potent greenhouse gas. In a nearly static
market, QGC has almost doubled its value in the past two months.
Wind energy is the current lowest-cost zero emissions technology in
Australia and is likely to be another beneficiary of the price on
carbon and the mandatory targets. Virtually all of Australia's current
wind generation assets are either part of internationally listed
companies, part of larger enterprises or part of government-owned
energy companies. BP and Origin Energy have begun to invest in
modest-scale solar panel manufacturing, while emerging technology
companies such as Solar Systems have welcomed considerable and highly
politicised government assistance, but have not needed the market to
raise capital.
Perhaps the most immediate barometer of this market shift is
Australia's fledgling geothermal industry, which wants to make
electricity by exploiting the massive amounts of energy in hot granite
rocks close to the earth's surface.
These heat assets 4km to 5km underground are found in various locations
around the globe, including the Cooper Basin in northeast South
Australia.
Geothermal energy is unproven at the scale being flagged here and the
world is watching Australian developments closely to see whether they
can actually deliver. An independent report for the Energy Supply in
January estimated that hot rocks could reach 7 per cent of national
electricity demand by 2030. That's more than a billion dollars worth of
electricity a year.
The technical risks that need to be removed include proving they can
reliably drill the deep holes in high temperatures and that they can
sustain circulating water through the system to generate steam.
This work is being pioneered in Australia, with market leader
Geodynamics Limited due to start drilling a 5km hole later this month.
A result is hoped for by end of the year, possibly sooner. If all
succeeds, a trial $225 million 40 megawatt power plant is scheduled for
2009. All going well, a 500 megawatt plant will follow, delivering a
$200 million energy business. In the longer term, the energy asset
identified in its hot rocks leases is estimated by the company at
10,000 megawatts.
After raising $32 million to buy the rig that will drill the big hole,
shares in Geodynamics have nearly doubled in the past month, as have
shares in nearby rival Petratherm, which has a more modest but possibly
realisable plan of supplying power to local mining operations, with a
140 per cent increase in their value over the past month.
Other smaller geothermal companies have been even more successful.
Torrens Energy (TEY) has doubled in the past month, as has Green Rock
Energy (GHT) while Geothermal Resources Limited (GHT) has increased by
60 per cent in the past month and nearly 400 per cent since February.
If successful, it's unlikely any of these companies will evolve into
power companies. Big energy and resource companies with much deeper
pockets are watching closely. Woodside and Origin Energy have an 18 per
cent share in Geodynamics. Beach Petroleum is in a joint venture with
Petratherm.
There are likely to be further rewards if they succeed. A new round of
low emissions technology development grants is one of a suite of
climate change announcements tipped in the pre-election cycle.
The political cache of this type of technology may help overcome some
of its financial constraints. State governments such as South Australia
and NSW are looking to both fill their mandatory renewable energy
targets and brand themselves with a new green technology. The cost of
linking the latest green energy source to their state could trigger a
bidding war between the states to help underwrite the otherwise
expensive transmission costs.
And this is just the start of it.
Matthew Warren holds shares in Geodynamics and Petratherm
------------------->
Investors Flock to Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=512&ArticleID=5616&l=en
Climate Change Worries, High Oil Prices and Government Help Top Factors Fueling Hot Renewable Energy Investment Climate
Investors Flock to Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies;
Transactions Leap to Record $100 Billion in 2006, Says UNEP Study;
Renewables Shed Fringe Image; American, European Markets Dominate
, But
9% of Global Investments are in China, 21% in Developing Countries
Paris, 20 June 2007 - Climate change worries coupled with high oil
prices and increasing government support top a set of drivers fueling
soaring rates of investment in the renewable energy and energy
efficiency industries, according to a trend analysis from the UN
Environment Programme.
The report says investment capital flowing into renewable energy
climbed from $80 billion in 2005 to a record $100 billion in 2006. As
well, the renewable energy sector's growth "although still volatile ...
is showing no sign of abating."
Rest of this summary + link to full report:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=512&ArticleID=5616&l=en
------------------->
2006 a boom year for investment in renewable energy (29 June 2007)
Renewable energy is becoming an increasingly popular commodity to
invest in, according to a new trend analysis from UN Environment
Programme (UNEP).
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=13227&channel=0
Factors such as concerns over climate, high oil prices and government
help are listed as some of the top reasons driving capital into
renewable energy from $80 billion in 2005 to the record $100 billion in
2006.
Most popularly, investment money is being poured into renewable energy sources
like wind, solar power and biofuels, UNEP said. About a fifth of 2006 investment was in the developing world.
"One of the new and fundamental messages of this report is that
renewable energies are no longer subject to the vagaries of rising and
falling oil prices," UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said.
"They are becoming generating systems of choice for increasing numbers
of power companies, communities and countries irrespective of the costs
of fossil fuels.
"The other key message is that this is no longer an industry solely
dominated by developed country industries. Close to 10 per cent of
investments are in China with around a fifth in total in the developing
world.
"We will need many sustained steps towards the de-carbonizing of the
global economy. It is clear that in respect to renewables those steps
are getting underway."
Today renewable energy accounts for only 2% of the electricity around
the world, however, the report said. Renewable energy makes up 18% of
the world's investment in generating power.
Also spurring the sector's growth has been the persistently high price
of oil - averaging more than $60 a barrel in 2006 (although one report
conclusion is that the sector is becoming more independent of the price
of oil).
"Growing consumer awareness of renewable energy and energy efficiency -
and their longer term potential for cheaper energy, and not just
greener energy - has become another fundamental driver," it says.
"Most importantly governments and politicians are introducing
legislation and support mechanisms to enable the sector's development."
The report forecasts even higher rates of investment in the coming year.
Dana Gornitzki
------------------->
Emission possible
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/emission-possible/2007/06/17/1182018934799.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
June 17, 2007
By Louise Williams
Vaxjo is a city in southern Sweden with a population of 85,500. Near a
series of lakes, the university town is the commercial, cultural and
educational centre of a region of 1.2 million people. Earlier in the
year, the City of Vaxjo received the Sustainable Energy Europe Award
during the European Sustainable Energy Week.
Vaxjo is a city in southern Sweden with a population of 85,500. Near a
series of lakes, the university town is the commercial, cultural and
educational centre of a region of 1.2 million people. Earlier in the
year, the City of Vaxjo received the Sustainable Energy Europe Award
during the European Sustainable Energy Week.
The Howard Government has warned of economic disaster if carbon
emissions are cut too drastically. But in Sweden, the opposite has
occurred. Bold policies have turned a city into an eco-powerhouse.
IN THE cool forest region of southern Sweden, the city of Vaxjo has
turned off the heating oil, even on the darkest, snowbound days of
winter.
Coal, too, is gone and next on the fossil fuel hit list is petrol. In
the underground car park of the local government offices, there are no
private vehicles, just a communal green-car fleet. Staff who cycle or
take the local biogas buses to work book ahead to drive - fuelling up
on biogas or E85, a blend of 85 per cent renewable ethanol.
Petrol is still readily available to the public, but carbon emissions
in Sweden are heavily taxed. Drivers pays about 80 cents a litre extra
at the bowser.
Vaxjo is chasing a future free of fossil fuels, and it's almost halfway
there without having sacrificed lifestyle, comfort or economic growth.
When local politicians announced the phasing out in 1996, it was little
more than a quaint curiosity. Oil prices were hovering around a
manageable $US20 a barrel and global warming was still a hotly
contested debate. Today, at least one international delegation a week -
mainly from China and Japan - beats a path to Vaxjo to see how it's
done.
The Vaxjo model has been repeated all over Sweden, creating a network
of "climate" municipalities. Sweden's total emissions have long been
falling and last year the Government announced its own ambitious
national goal: to end oil dependency by 2020.
Today, Sweden's annual greenhouse gas emissions are just over five
tonnes per capita, compared with Australian and US levels in the high
20s and climbing. That's before calculating Sweden's forests, which
serve as huge carbon sinks that could offset emissions by another 30
per cent. In Vaxjo, it's 3.5 tonnes of carbon per capita, the lowest
urban level in Europe.
See the website for rest of this article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/emission-possible/2007/06/17/1182018934799.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
------------------->
An overdue farewell for old King Coal
Sven Teske
June 8, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/an-overdue-farewell-for-old-king-coal/2007/06/07/1181089237552.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
In the early 1990s wind turbines were seen as small-scale, fringe
technology. The industry was a backyard enterprise, carried on in
garages and on farms by starry-eyed pioneers. In 2007 there are now
214,000 people employed in renewable energy in Germany, so it surprises
me that Australia's Government still has such a black view of renewable
energy.
The world has decided we need to stop using fossil fuels, but the
International Energy Agency still has no idea how to switch from coal,
oil and gas. It was to fill this need that Greenpeace commissioned an
economic and technological model of how to clean up the energy sector
globally, cutting emissions by half by 2050. Surprisingly, we found
that eliminating nuclear power and reducing dependence on fossil fuels
increases energy security and often lowers consumer energy prices. This
finding is so counter to traditional "economy versus environment"
thinking that it is taking time to be accepted.
The warning from our study is urgent: if the world listens to "King
Coal" and his renewables sceptics, we face a future not just of climate
disaster but also of massively rising energy prices, energy insecurity
and economic stresses due to electricity supply instability alone.
Greenpeace's "energy revolution" scenario was developed by the German
Space Agency in conjunction with engineers and scientists from a number
of institutes globally and the European Association for Renewable
Energy. Stopping climate change requires a revolution in government
policy, but it can be achieved by an evolution of proven technologies.
Wind alone is providing 8 per cent of electricity in Germany and 20 per
cent in Denmark. The biggest coal plant-scale solar factories in the
world are in China.
When presenting the details of our study to members of the federal
parliamentary inquiry into renewable energy, we were able to
demonstrate how Australia is missing out on a jobs and economic boom as
the country lags other countries in implementing the clean energy
revolution. Few realised this country is being outperformed by
unexpected places, such as the Philippines, Texas, China and Egypt.
The biggest intellectual misconception was the idea that renewables
cannot provide baseload power generation, yet geothermal, bioenergy,
hydro-electricity, concentrated solar power with thermal storage
capacity all can. With sophisticated wind forecasting, wind power's
variable nature can be relied upon to keep the economy humming.
The biggest economic benefit is energy efficiency. This is the
"low-hanging fruit" of the clean energy revolution and gives the
fastest return on investment. Our figures show that by 2050 energy
savings alone will account for 47 per cent of displaced demand against
the business-as-usual scenario. These efficiencies range from better
appliances to best-practice factories and new approaches to energy,
such as decentralising energy production. These technologies are not
spectacular like wind farms or futuristic systems like "hot rocks", but
are the bedrock of humanity's response to climate change.
So what might global trends mean for Australians heading into a federal
election? Investors will start to cool on coal companies that stake
their futures on unproven and financially risky clean coal technology.
Investors will compare the risks and likely delays in clean coal to the
annual growth in solar and wind of more than 30 per cent over the next
decade. When consumers understand that renewable energy offers more
security, coal will begin to face real political trouble.
The Australia-based emissions trading scheme will likewise lose its
sheen once it is understood. International evidence demonstrates that
emissions trading will not create a booming renewables sector. A weak
and uncertain scheme can even be a step backwards. No country has
relied on emissions trading alone to switch from high-carbon to
climate-safe energy because it does not work.
The benchmark for the Government's policy on climate is
straightforward: will it ensure that we look beyond coal and will it
result in a reduction in greenhouse emissions? History is gathering
pace around a clean energy revolution. We now know that dropping global
reliance on fossil fuels will be good for security, the economy and
consumers.
You do not need to be a brave engineer to predict that Australia is about to make a big switch, and not a moment too soon.
Sven Teske is the renewables director at Greenpeace International.
------------------->Return
to top
CLEAN ENERGY - GEOTHERMAL HOT ROCKS
------------------->
Some like it hot
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/?article_id=10224514
Geothermal energy offers one solution to ease the global warming
problem. Bill Nicholas takes a look at Green Rock Energy, one of the
hottest of the 'hot rocks' companies.
Geothermal energy is the natural heat of the earth and presents a
potential commercially viable and sustainable solution to problems of
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and rising fuel prices.
The US Department of Energy has estimated that global geothermal energy
resources aggregate to approximately 50,000 times the energy of all the
world's known reserves of oil and gas.
Rest of this article at:
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/?article_id=10224514
------------------->Return
to top
CLEAN ENERGY - BIOENERGY
------------------->
The Examiner Newspaper
17 July 2007
http://northerntasmania.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=today&story_id=1022410&category=today
By JULIAN BURGESS
RUBBISH at Launceston's Remount Rd landfill site will be producing
enough methane gas to provide electricity to power about 1000 houses
for the next 50 years.
Launceston City Council civic operations manager Sean Adams said
yesterday that the site's innovative gas-fired electricity generation
system could be operating up to 20 years after the tip closes in 30
years time.
The system, developed in conjunction with Australian company LMS
Generation, recovers landfill methane gas to run a large motor that
produces electricity.
The process will reduce about 40,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions
every year over the life of the project and limit the amount of ozone
damaging methane released into the atmosphere.
Mr Adams said the gas collection system was commissioned last June and
the electricity generation plant was operational in January this year.
"The plant's motor drives an alternator that is generating 1.1megawatts
of power per hour and is connected straight into the Aurora grid," he
said.
"To equate that to supplying houses, it's approximately 1000 houses," Mr Adams said.
Forty-five "wells" in the tip are connected by a network of pipes buried in the tip.
A small vacuum force extracts the methane gas which is cleaned and pressurised, ready to supply the LMS power generation plant.
Generally the gas collection system goes in when you've completed the
landfill but the Launceston system was installed five years ago when
the tip was extended, Mr Adams said.
"This tip has got a life of 30 years to go and so our tip is possibly
going to get bigger over the 30 years and possibly produce more gas.
"Usually you still get gas anywhere from 20 years to 50 years after the landfill is closed off," Mr Adams said.
The system is one of three in Tasmania with tips at Hobart and Glenorchy councils also producing electricity.
Launceston Mayor Ivan Dean said the system was a major achievement for
everybody involved and a considerable step forward for the waste and
renewable energy industry.
"This facility provides a proactive solution to waste management issues
that has local, national and global ramifications," Ald. Dean said.
------------------->
Media Release
23 July 2007
Don’t burn their homes to heat yours
A pile of animals representing endangered species have this morning
been torched outside the Rydges Hotel on Exhibition St, in a protest
against the logging lobby’s push to burn Victoria’s native forests for
power.
“Burning native forests for power is a primitive technology that
belongs to the 17^th century, not the 21^st ,” said Luke Chamberlain,
forest campaigner for The Wilderness Society. “The logging lobby is
claiming that throwing native forests into furnaces is a renewable way
to generate electricity. At a time when protecting forests is the best
and most immediate climate change repair kit we have at hand, they are
trying to influence government to incinerate them.”
“We fully support the government and industry’s push for promoting
renewable technologies, but including burning native forest woodchips
completely contaminates the otherwise credible and progressive advances
of the bionergy industry,” Mr Chamberlain said. “As Australia’s
woodchip customers are now buying woodchips from plantations, our
logging industry is looking for another reason to continue destroying
our native forests”.
“Woodchipping is the driver, not the byproduct, of the native forest
logging industry”, said Environment East Gippsland’s Sarah Rees. “It is
driving species to the point of extinction. Species such as the Sooty
Owl, the Leadbeaters Possum and the Long Footed Potoroo all need old
growth forests to survive. Giving another lifeline to the native forest
logging industry will surely push many of our endangered species over
the brink.”
“The Victorian state government has previously committed to exclude
native forest wood in any Victoria’s Renewable Energy Target scheme,”
said Lauren Caulfield, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth. “However,
after pressure from the Victorian Association of Forest Products,
legislation has been tabled that allows native forest woodchips to be
burned for power. The legislation has yet to be passed, and environment
groups strongly encourage the Bracks government to stick to its
previous commitment.”
“Blind Freddie can see that burning forests for power is clearly not
renewable,” Ms Rees said. “The proposal is so absurd, it is laughable,
were it not so devastating to our wildlife, our water supplies, and our
greatest carbon stores, our forests”.
------------------->Return
to top
CLEAN ENERGY - SOLAR
------------------->
PM's climate plan: Better ways to spend the money
Crikey 19/7/07
Dr Hugh Saddler, Managing Director of Energy Strategies Pty Ltd, writes:
The Prime Minister’s plan to spend $252 million on rebates for
residential solar hot water installations, as announced earlier this
week, has been widely seen as a populist policy response.
But it also happens to be good policy in terms of its overall aim if
not its specific approach. The main defect is that it does not go far
enough. The funds provided will be enough for about 225,000 solar
systems to replace off-peak electric water heaters, but this is only 8%
of the existing stock of these heaters.
As the fact sheet accompanying the announcement states, each solar
system will save between three and five tonnes of greenhouse emissions
annually. They will also save at least 3,000 kWh per year of electrical
energy each, more than halving the quantity of electricity used to heat
water in households that make the switch to solar.
The electricity saved is, by definition, supplied off-peak; that is,
for about six hours per day. It therefore equates to about 300 MW of
base load generating capacity. Based on the cost of the new Kogan Creek
power station, now nearing completion in Queensland, the capital cost
of this amount of generating capacity would be at least $450 million,
and more likely well over $500 million. If the baseload power were
(notionally) supplied by a nuclear or “clean coal” power station, the
capital investment required would be 50% to 100% higher again.
These comparisons make the Prime Minister’s plan look like very good
value for money. But let's take it a step further. A policy that was
more carefully designed, aimed at realising economies of scale in the
roll-out of solar water heaters, could almost certainly achieve the
same outcome at much lower cost to government.
So why not have a better designed and greatly expanded program, aimed
at gradually replacing the entire stock of off-peak electric water
heaters with solar? This could save up to eight million tonnes of
emissions per year and reduce the need for baseload generating capacity
by over 3,000 MW. Nearly half of this saving would be in NSW, and most
of the rest in Queensland and South Australia (these three States have
much higher shares of electric water heating than Victoria and Western
Australia).
These figures also throw new light on the supposed need for a new
baseload, (that is, coal-fired) power station in NSW. They suggest that
a combination of aggressive solar water heater roll-out combined with
new intermediate load (probably gas-fired) generation could achieve the
same level of supply security at lower cost and with much lower
emissions.
Unfortunately, the other populist component of the Prime Minister’s
package, called “Green vouchers of Schools” has few redeeming features.
Solar water heaters in schools will do very little either to reduce
emissions or to reduce the costs of energy purchases by schools. The
largest use of energy in most schools is lighting, followed by heating
and cooling. Water heating is trivial by comparison. There are
abundant, very low cost options to reduce school electricity
consumption by upgrading lighting systems and improving the performance
of (or, depending on location, avoiding the need for) active heating
and cooling systems.
What schools need is a subsidised energy management program
specifically directed to their particular requirements. But of course,
that does not have the same superficial electoral appeal as pictures of
government cheques being handed to grateful school communities.
------------------->
Solar benefit heats up debate
July 11, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/solar-benefit-heats-up-debate/2007/07/10/1183833518296.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
ALAN Moran displays either significant ignorance or deliberate
deception in his opinion piece (BusinessDay, 10/7). In claiming solar
electricity is the "least valuable" form of electricity, he misses or
avoids several critical points.
First, the value of electricity in the national market is based on the time of generation, and how this matches demand.
Peak demand typically occurs during hot summer afternoons, at the very
times when solar photovoltaic systems are producing their maximum
output. Hence, solar power is worth significantly more to the network
than is recognised, and the proposed Energy Legislation Amendment Act
goes some way to tackling this.
Further, by being generated close to the point of consumption, rather
than a power station, roof-top solar avoids the need for more poles and
wires.
Fewer poles and wires over less distance means less transmission loss and significant savings to the customer.
It is the customer who pays for these networks in their bill, and with
$24 billion committed to network augmentation in the next five years,
it will be costly. Providing incentives for decentralised energy could
avoid significant amounts of network investment.
Financial incentives in Germany — which installed 1000 times the solar
capacity of Australia — is responsible for less than 3 per cent of the
average electricity bill. Despite this extensive uptake of solar, as a
response to the incentives, German electricity bills have fallen in the
seven years since they were introduced due to the savings across the
network.
It is also disingenuous for Moran to speak of subsidies for solar
without mentioning coal subsidies. A University of Technology Sydney
report puts fossil fuel subsidies at more than $9 billion a year.
Renewable energy receives a little more than $325 million, or less than
3 per cent.
The greatest subsidy to coal energy is the lack of accounting for the environmental cost of greenhouse gas and other pollution.
With no existing mechanism for accounting the economic, social and
environmental costs of climate change, renewable energy subsidies are
the only practical way to allow clean forms of energy to compete with
polluting fossil fuels.
Brad Shone, energy policymanager, Alternative Technology Association
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - PUBLIC OPINION
------------------->
Miners send a message: time to clean up our act
Jessica Irvine
July 30, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/miners-send-a-message-time-to-clean-up-our-act/2007/07/29/1185647743479.html
THE most powerful mining union has begun a $1 million advertising
campaign to convince workers of the need to combat climate change, as
polling shows most Australians still oppose nuclear energy as a
solution.
...
Meanwhile, polling conducted by Essential Research of 800 voters in 16
marginal seats found a majority did not support the development of a
nuclear power industry.
Just 39 per cent supported nuclear energy, compared with 95 per cent in
favour of investment in renewable energies such as solar and wind.
"Clean" coal technologies were supported by 74 per cent.
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - WA TO BAN
------------------->
Anti-nuclear stance becomes law
Jim Kelly
June 05, 2007 09:00am
Article from: AAP
Perth Now
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21852497-2761,00.html
PREMIER Alan Carpenter will introduce legislation this month to the WA Parliament banning a nuclear industry in WA.
Legislation to prohibit the construction of a nuclear power plant in
WA, ban the transportation of certain materials used by the industry
and outlaw the use of nuclear generated electricity.
The laws are
designed to thwart any moves by the Commonwealth to override the States
on the development of nuclear reactors.
Mr Carpenter said his
government remained strongly opposed to uranium mining and nuclear
energy.
"I will do all I can to ensure WA remains free of nuclear
power facilities,'' he said.
Mr Carpenter said the legislation would
allow for a referendum to be held if the Commonwealth tried to override
the new State laws.
"The people of WA will then be able to have their
say on the issue if the Commonwealth moves to develop nuclear power
facilities in this State,'' he said.
"In other words, it could be at
the Commonwealth's political peril if they ever proceeded with such a
move.''
------------------->Return
to top
PROPOSED US-AUSTRALIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION
------------------->
Australia poised to sign nuclear deal with US
Anne Davies, Washington
July 20, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/australia-poised-to-sign-nuclear-deal-with-us/2007/07/19/1184559956513.html
AUSTRALIA is negotiating a major deal with the United States to co-operate on development of a nuclear energy industry.
According to draft plans seen by The Age, Foreign Minister Alexander
Downer and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane want the deal announced
when US President George Bush comes to Australia in September for the
APEC leaders' summit.
The deal could advance Prime Minister John Howard's push for Australia
to embrace nuclear power, including providing access to the latest
technological advances.
"The proposed action plan would help to open the way for valuable
nuclear energy co-operation with the United States," a briefing note
says.
"It would also be consistent with the Government's strategy for the
nuclear industry in Australia. An action plan on nuclear energy would
also have bilateral advantages further broadening our relationship with
the United States.
"While the US has not raised the possibility, the action plan may be a
possible 'announceable' for President Bush's visit in September."
But the proposal appears to stop short of recommending Australia sign
up with the controversial club of nuclear nations, the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP), being championed by Mr Bush.
An initiative of Washington, the GNEP is seeking to control the
distribution, reprocessing and storage of nuclear fuel around the
world. Member nations include Russia, China, the US, Japan and France.
Mr Bush has said the initiative is central to tackling climate change,
and that its aim is to ensure the safe growth of the nuclear industry
while limiting the risk of proliferation of nuclear material for
weapons.
US officials have indicated that Australia's status as a "totally
reliable and trustworthy" nation could allow its inclusion in the plan
as a fuel supplier.
But the proposal is controversial for Australia partly because storage
of nuclear waste by GNEP partners is an integral part of the
arrangement.
The Federal Government has repeatedly said Australia will not take other countries' waste.
The GNEP countries met in Washington in May and agreed to work on plans
that control the supply of all nuclear fuel and its reprocessing and
waste disposal. Non-partnership countries would be leased fuel only if
they complied with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Australia, the world's biggest exporter of unprocessed uranium, and
Canada, another big supplier, have expressed interest in GNEP.
But GNEP is seen by some developing nations as highly divisive, and
Australia's membership could alarm neighbours including Indonesia.
It would also rekindle heated debate in Australia over the development
of nuclear power, and would inevitably raise the spectre of a nuclear
waste dump.
Officials working on the US-Australia initiative flag this concern in
their note, saying that signing "a joint nuclear energy action plan
would be on the basis that this would not limit possible future choices
regarding Australia's nuclear industry. It will be important also to
ensure there is no misperception on the United States' part that
conclusion of an action plan could have implications for the
Government's policy of not taking other countries' radioactive waste or
spent nuclear fuel."
A US Energy Department spokeswoman, Angela Hill, said: "The vision of
GNEP is something we would hope Australia and other countries can
support."
A spokesman for Mr Downer confirmed that discussions on an agreement
were under way, focusing on safeguards and research and development.
------------------->
Nuclear partnership with US in the offing
Anne Davies Herald Correspondent in Washington
July 20, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nuclear-pact-with-us-in-the-offing/2007/07/19/1184559957213.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
AUSTRALIA is negotiating a big nuclear energy plan with the US and is
considering whether to join an exclusive American-led club of nations
to control the distribution, reprocessing and storage of nuclear fuel
worldwide.
According to draft plans seen by the Herald, the ministers for foreign
affairs and resources have urged John Howard to announce the joint plan
during George Bush's Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation visit in
September.
"The proposed action plan would help to open the way for valuable
nuclear energy co-operation with the United States," the briefing note
says. "It would also be consistent with the Government's strategy for
the nuclear industry in Australia. An action plan on nuclear energy
would also have bilateral advantages further broadening our
relationship with the United States.
"While the US has not raised the possibility, the action plan may be a
possible 'announceable' for President Bush's visit in September."
But the proposal appears to stop short of recommending Australia sign
up with the controversial Global Nuclear Energy Partnership championed
by Mr Bush.
The partnership involves the main nuclear-fuel cycle countries, the US,
Russia, China, Japan and France. Mr Bush says it is central to the
world tackling climate change and aims to ensure the nuclear industry
grows safely, while limiting the spread of material able to be used for
weapons.
The five countries met in Washington in late May and agreed to work on
plans that would involve them taking control of the supply of all
nuclear fuel and its reprocessing and waste disposal. Countries not in
the partnership would be leased fuel only if they complied with the
non-proliferation treaty.
Pushing the US-Australia plan are the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, and the Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane.
A spokesman for Mr Downer confirmed discussions on an agreement
focusing on safeguards and research and development of nuclear
technology were under way.
He said the Government had made no decisions about whether it would
embark on enrichment of uranium, but the Prime Minister had made it
clear Australia would not be taking other countries' nuclear waste. No
decision had been made on joining the broader GNEP, the spokesman said.
The GNEP partners have agreed to work towards new technologies for
nuclear power generation and reprocessing that would produce less
plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
The problem with nuclear power is that spent fuel rods can be used
once, but must then be stored or reprocessed. Reprocessing leads to the
production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which can be used
for nuclear weapons.
The issue is so sensitive that even the US has had a policy against reprocessing dating back to the Carter administration.
Australia, the world's biggest exporter of unprocessed uranium, and
Canada, another big source, have expressed interest in GNEP. But the
partnership is seen by some developing nations as highly divisive.
The former diplomat Richard Broinowski, author of a history of
Australia's nuclear ambitions, said joining the partnership would be
seen as highly divisive in the region. "It's seen as a move by the
nuclear haves against the have-nots," he said. "It's seen as
perpetuating a double standard."
If Australia were to join GNEP it is likely to alarm some near neighbours, notably Indonesia.
Domestically, it is also likely to rekindle debate over whether
Australia should venture further down the nuclear path as a means of
countering greenhouse gas emissions, or to put its efforts into
renewable technologies. It will also raise the spectre of a nuclear
dump in Australia, since storage of nuclear waste by GNEP members is an
integral part of the arrangement.
The officials working on the US-Australia plan mention this concern,
saying that in any discussions it will be important to ensure there is
no perception on the part of the US that conclusion of an action plan
could have implications for the Government's policy of not taking other
countries' radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel.
Last week Mr Howard said it would be "folly in the extreme" for
Australia to remain aloof from nuclear power.He also announced $12.5
million for a research program between the Australian Nuclear Science
and Technology Organisation and universities.
------------------->
Canberra's interest no surprise
Daniel Flitton
July 20, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/canberras-interest-no-surprise/2007/07/19/1184559956521.html
THREE factors drive the nuclear debate in Australia: profit,
environment, and the risk of mass destruction. And these same three
considerations are evident in Australia's reported effort to sign up to
a US plan to control nuclear energy supplies.
The chance to make money off Australia's vast uranium reserves is the
key element in the Government-led push to invigorate the country's
nuclear industry. Prime Minister John Howard made this rationale clear
to a Melbourne audience this week, noting Australia has almost 40 per
cent of the world's low-cost uranium.
He also announced a $12.5 million fund for nuclear research. To stand
aloof from the potential of nuclear power, he argued, would be economic
"folly in the extreme".
So, by participating in Washington's effort to regulate the world's
nuclear material, Canberra could help enhance its place in the
international energy market.
But Mr Howard has also linked nuclear power to reducing the impact of
global warming. "Nuclear power has no direct carbon dioxide emissions
and is already a significant part of the world's energy system," he
said.
This broad attempt to recast the nuclear industry as clean and green is
a paradox in the current obsession with environment issues. But it
helps make a controversial technology more palatable to the public.
Yet Australian officials apparently knocked back a US proposal to
return spent nuclear fuel to its country of origin, a policy known as
nuclear fuel leasing.
During a visit to Washington last year, Mr Howard said he was attracted
to the idea of selling uranium to other countries — "not lease it, buy
it". The spectre of nuclear waste dumps in Australia makes many people
uneasy. An earthquake under a major Japanese nuclear reactor earlier
this week was a potent reminder of the dangers.
And nothing is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon. The Bush
Administration is pushing its nuclear energy plan in an effort to limit
the proliferation of nuclear technology. A US intelligence report
warned this week the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation will continue its
efforts to acquire radiological or nuclear material to use in attacks.
The US plan is designed to further secure existing and known nuclear
supplies. It will not prevent the secret attempts to develop nuclear
technology. But the new deal would allow nuclear material to be traced
and monitored — essential safeguards for the sale of nuclear technology
to countries such as India. No wonder Australia has taken an interest.
------------------->
Australia may join US-led nuclear plan
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Australia-may-join-USled-nuclear-plan/2007/07/20/1184559984397.html
July 20, 2007 - 5:54AM
Australia is considering whether to join an American-led group of
nations to control the distribution, reprocessing and storage of
nuclear fuel worldwide.
The ministers for foreign affairs and resources have urged Prime
Minister John Howard to announce the joint nuclear energy plan during
the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation visit in Sydney in September,
Fairfax reports.
"The proposed action plan would help to open the way for valuable
nuclear energy co-operation with the United States," the briefing note
says.
"It would also be consistent with the government's strategy for the nuclear industry in Australia.
"An action plan on nuclear energy would also have bilateral advantages
further broadening our relationship with the United States.
"While the US has not raised the possibility, the action plan may be a
possible 'announceable' for President Bush's visit in September."
However, the proposal appears to stop short of recommending Australia
sign up with the controversial Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
Mr Bush says the partnership, which involves the main nuclear-fuel
cycle countries, Russia, the US, France, China and Japan, is central to
the world tackling climate change.
Prime Minister John Howard has again endorsed Australia embracing nuclear power but ruled out taking other countries' waste.
The Wilderness Society (TWS) said a deal for Australia to join an
exclusive global nuclear club would ensure Australia became the dumping
ground for the world's nuclear waste.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said nothing had been signed in
regard to proposed partnership - the negotiations had been instigated
by the US, not by Australia.
But whatever happened, said Mr Howard, Australia would not take the nuclear waste of other countries.
"We've made that clear, we're not taking other people's waste," Mr Howard told ABC radio in Adelaide.
However, he said nuclear power remained a very clean source of energy and something that should be considered.
"In time it will become an attractive option," Mr Howard said.
"What I have said is we shouldn't close our minds to nuclear power.
"I keep hearing from people in the Labor Party and elsewhere that we want cleaner alternatives to this dirty commodity coal.
"Well, the cleanest alternative of all, which is capable of generating enough power to run our nation, is nuclear."
TWS spokesman Alec Marr said recent actions by the government to remove
legal barriers to an international nuclear waste dump had led the
country to the point of no return.
"On the final day of parliament last year the federal government rushed
through changes to legislation that allowed for the first time
radioactive waste to be imported from overseas," Mr Marr said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has also urged the government to
reject overtures from the US for Australia to get involved in uranium
enrichment, nuclear fuel leasing and international radioactive waste
storage.
"Enriching uranium produces the material that is used in nuclear weapons," ACF spokesman David Noonan said in a statement.
"Our neighbours in the region would be very concerned about Australia becoming a nuclear weapons fuel producer.
"By getting involved in this US initiative we risk starting a nuclear
arms race in the Asia-Pacific and fuelling existing regional
insecurities."
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says it makes sense to be involved in negotiations over a global nuclear energy partnership.
"The US Department of Energy came to us and suggested that we might be
interested in negotiating some sort of updated agreement to the 1982
agreement on nuclear cooperation, particularly in areas like research
and development and safeguards and the like," Mr Downer told ABC Radio.
"I think it makes good sense to get into negotiations. Where those
negotiations would lead and what sort of an agreement we would conclude
at the end I don't know.
"But I have no problems with it."
Mr Downer was non-committal on whether the talks would lead to Australia joining.
"I'm not sure about that. This isn't a negotiation about joining the
global nuclear energy partnership, but whether we would join it or not
would depend on where the Americans end up themselves in developing the
global nuclear energy partnership," he said.
"For example, they wish to limit the number of countries in the world
that can enrich uranium to a small list of countries that currently do
enrich uranium.
"Australia would, under the global nuclear energy partnership as it
currently stands, at least the draft of it currently stands, not be
able to enrich uranium.
"Whether we'd want to sign up to that or not, well, that would be a matter for discussions and consideration.
"We haven't got to that point."
Mr Downer said the government had not agreed to return spent fuel to its source.
"We have a policy of not accepting nuclear waste and we're certainly not in the game of changing that policy," he said.
"We've made that very clear to the Americans."
© 2007 AAP
------------------->
Nuke pact sparks dumping fears
July 20, 2007 - 9:29AM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuke-pact-sparks-dumping-fears/2007/07/20/1184559994391.html
A deal between Prime Minister John Howard and US President George W
Bush to join an exclusive global nuclear club would ensure Australia
became the dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste, The Wilderness
Society (TWS) said today.
The Age today quoted leaked draft plans by Mr Downer and Industry
Minister Ian Macfarlane to have Australia's involvement in President
George Bush's global nuclear energy partnership ready to be announced
at the APEC leaders' summit in Sydney in September.
Mr Downer this morning confirmed negotiations on such an arrangement were underway although nothing had been agreed.
TWS spokesman Alec Marr noted the report on the previously secret deal
followed the Liberal Party's federal council meeting in June at which
it unanimously supported an international waste dump being built in
Australia.
"The prime minister says he wants to develop a nuclear industry but he
hasn't been honest about Australia being lined up to become the world's
nuclear waste dump," Mr Marr said in a statement.
He said recent actions by the government to remove legal barriers to an
international nuclear waste dump had led the country to the point of no
return.
"The prime minister has misled the Australian public many times over
his true intentions for a nuclear industry in Australia and he cannot
be trusted now," Mr Marr said.
"On the final day of parliament last year the federal government rushed
through changes to legislation that allowed for the first time
radioactive waste to be imported from overseas."
"The prime minister is laying down to President Bush who is desperately
seeking somewhere to dump American nuclear waste because he has not
been able to build his own in the US."
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has urged the federal government to reject the deal.
"Enriching uranium produces the material that is used in nuclear weapons," ACF spokesman David Noonan said in a statement.
"Our neighbours in the region would be very concerned about Australia becoming a nuclear weapons fuel producer.
"By getting involved in this US initiative we risk starting a nuclear
arms race in the Asia-Pacific and fuelling existing regional
insecurities."
Mr Noonan said he did not think Australians would want their government
to follow the US into nuclear power and radioactive waste storage in
Australia.
AAP
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM ENRICHMENT FOR AUSTRALIA
------------------->
Australia goes back to the future over nuclear energy
By Rich Bowden Jun 20, 2007, 11:24 GMT
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/features/article_1320027.php/Australia_goes_back_to_the_future_over_nuclear_energy
The Howard government will consider a revived proposal to build an
Australian nuclear enrichment plant, twenty years after the Hawke Labor
government ended a similar program over fears of provoking a regional
arms race. A report recently aired on Australian television revealed
how the Australian government is revisiting the controversial dream of
a nuclear-powered future for the country.
Over two decades ago, Australian researchers at the nuclear research
facility at Sydney’s Lucas Heights had developed one of the world’s
most advanced nuclear enrichment programs, akin to a similar European
project at the same time regarded as a world leader in the field.
The results the team achieved was remarkable according to Dr Clarence
Hardy, senior manager and physicist on the team speaking to the
Australian ABC’s 7.30 Report.
“We exceeded expectations. We had far
more advanced machines in development in the [research and development]
labs which were comparable to any of those operated in the [European
project] Urenko field,” he said.
The controversial process of enriching uranium occurs when uranium is
turned into a gas which spins in tubes called centrifuges, separating
out the isotopes. The enriched uranium powers nuclear stations for
energy however highly enriched uranium is also used to build nuclear
weapons.
The Howard government, after supporting the ban on enriching uranium
since taking power in 1996, is now considering an alternative option of
nuclear enrichment to fuel the nation’s current fossil-fuel –driven
economy.
Nuclear Fuel Australia, of which Dr Hardy is a director, has submitted
a detailed proposal to the Australian government outlining its proposal
for an Australian nuclear enrichment plant at an undisclosed site. The
proposed plant will cost $2.5 billion AUD (1.57 billion EUR) and be
operational by 2015.
Though remaining coy on the details of the company’s proposal, Dr Hardy
suggested to the 7.30 Report the success or otherwise of the project
“depended on the outcome of the next election,” due later this year.
The Opposition Labor party, though supporting the expansion of uranium
exports, has rejected the establishment of a uranium enrichment plant
in the country.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane admitted talks had begun with
companies over building a nuclear enrichment facility but said they
were in their infancy and “literally years away from happening.”
Speaking to ABC radio following the revelation of Nuclear Fuel
Australia’s plan he said, “They're not advanced at all, I mean
companies are expressing their interests, I've had discussions with one
or two companies about their ideas on it.”
“But as I've said, I've made it very plain in those discussions that
there needs to be a public debate on the future of nuclear power in
Australia before we do anything further,” he said.
He added no decision would be made on the subject before the federal
election while calling for a “sensible fact-based debate” on the
question of nuclear energy in the country.
However, despite the minister’s remarks, the contentious issue of the
location of the proposed nuclear enrichment plant has raised
objections, particularly in the Labor-run states. Queensland’s premier
Peter Beattie slammed the proposed siting of the plant in Caboolture in
south-east Queensland as “crazy” and dangerous.
“It would simply destroy not just the amenity of the community but it
would raise issues about safety,” the premier said on local radio. “It
would be in my view an endangerment to that whole community.”
South Australian premier Mike Rann called on the federal government to
provide further information saying to reporters the S.A. government
needed to be involved in any discussions of a plant to be located in
his state.
Despite reassurances from Dr Hardy – who said the company’s proposal
contained no suggestions for a site – rumours have circulated in the
press that it was considering a location near the city of Port Pirie in
the state’s southwest.
With global warming set to play a key role in the outcome of the
Australian federal election, the Howard government has been keen to
promote the idea of the more atmosphere friendly nuclear energy as a
viable alternative to fossil fuel energy. However Mr Howard’s
whole-hearted support for nuclear energy will need to be skilfully
managed as successive polls have shown Australians to be consistently
opposed to uranium enrichment plants – especially those situated in
their own backyards.
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM EXPLORATION
------------------->
Uranium surges on ALP shift
Paul Maley
July 02, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21999893-5005200,00.html
LABOR'S junking of its no-new-mines policy has contributed to a
dramatic expansion of the uranium industry, with spending on
exploration set to double.
The Australian Uranium Association says a total of $76.6 million has
been spent on uranium exploration since June 2006, compared with $56.1
million for 2005-06.
AUA executive director Michael Angwin said that while high prices and
an increased global demand for energy were the main structural factors
driving growth, there was no doubt the ALP's policy reversal had also
contributed by ending Australia's "ambiguous" relationship with the
controversial fuel.
"We now have the major political parties both supporting the expansion
of uranium mining with the effect of the change in ALP policy having
disposed of the anti-uranium case," he said.
Mr Angwin said fears about climate change as well as the energy needs
of a rising global population and increased prosperity were driving
demand.
He said that by 2030, there would be a doubling in demand for electricity and a 50 per cent boost in uranium demand.
In 2003-04, $10.5 million was spent on exploration, compared with $20.7 million for 2004-05 and $56.1 million for 2005-06.
The spike was being driven by the high spot price for uranium, now more
than $130 per pound, which Mr Angwin said was 13-14 times greater than
it was five years ago.
The director of the Northern Territory Geological Survey, Ian
Scrimgeour, said there had been a boom in uranium prospecting in the
territory, home to one of Australia's three uranium mines, the Ranger
mine.
The other two, the Olympic Dam and Beverely mines, are in South Australia.
------------------->
Uranium price still glowing but share prices cooling a little
Barry Fitzgerald
July 2, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/uranium-price-still-glowing-but-share-prices-cooling-a-little/2007/07/01/1183228957830.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
THERE has been a distinct cooling down in the share-price performance
of the uranium explorers, due more to market saturation in the number
of listings than anything else.
The uranium price itself has been doing the right thing, rising by 45
per cent in the past three months to $US138 a pound (spot).
And according to John Wilson from Sydney-based Resource Capital
Research, there is good reason to think that the price could run off to
$US165 a pound by September next year.
But Wilson's latest uranium-company review also found that, while the
market value of a selection of 143 Australian uranium juniors was up by
5 per cent in the past month, the gain over the past year was 175 per
cent.
So there has been no meltdown, just a cooling down in equity values.
To those pundits who reckon the uranium price will continue to march
higher, the cooldown has been welcomed as it might just represent a
return of value to the sector.
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM SALES TO INDIA
------------------->
U-industry wants India details
George Lekakis
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22141173-664,00.html
July 27, 2007
THE uranium industry's peak body will seek talks with the Federal
Government over Cabinet's push to remove the ban on uranium exports to
India.
Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane yesterday confirmed the
Government may open the way for uranium exports to India, even if the
Indian Government does not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Such a deal would break new ground for Australia, which exports uranium
to 11 countries - all of which are signatories to the non-proliferation
pact.
Michael Angwin, executive director of the Australian Uranium
Association, said his organisation would not support the sale of
locally-mined uranium to countries if it involved a weakening of the
world's non-proliferation regime.
"On issues as significant as this then we would expect the Government to consult with the industry," Mr Angwin said.
"I think this has come on a lot faster than people generally anticipated.
"We wouldn't support any arrangements that Australia agreed to which
undermined the world's or Australia's anti-proliferation regime."
While the export of uranium to India could help to accelerate the roll
out of new mines in South Australia and the Northern Territory, it is
also a tricky issue for the AUA - which is finalising a code of
practice for the industry.
A key feature of the new code will be the requirement for Australian
mining companies to help ensure that uranium is used only for peaceful
purposes.
India has consistently refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty
despite pressure for more than 30 years from the United Nations and
leading superpowers. If India signed the treaty it would be forced to
disarm its nuclear weapons.
In the 1990s, India and Pakistan were engaged in a regional arms race
that led to the test-detonation by both countries of several nuclear
devices. However, India has never been linked to the spread of nuclear
weapons technology to other nations.
"India has an impeccable record in terms of nuclear non-proliferation
and there will be a straight and very strict requirement in terms of
the safeguard agreement between Australia and that country," Mr
Macfarlane said.
"It's simply not realistic to say that India cannot buy uranium from Australia."
Mr Macfarlane was asked whether the Government was prepared to export
uranium to countries such as India that were not signatories to the
non-proliferation treaty.
Mr Macfarlane said India had given assurances that Australian uranium would only be used for electricity generation.
Also, Australian uranium used in nuclear power plants would be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"If a country is going to continue its economic development as India
is, its energy requirements are going to be substantial and, rather
than just rely on treaties, I think their actions are the things you
would need to take into consideration," Mr Macfarlane said.
"To
suggest that Australian uranium will be used for anything but peaceful
purposes is just a scare campaign."
Federal Cabinet would make a decision on uranium sales to India after
the US and India completed a bilateral agreement on nuclear
co-operation.
The push to sell uranium to India came as Mr Macfarlane also said he
was reviewing possible legal options for overriding the bans on new
uranium mines in Queensland and Western Australia.
The threat to circumvent the Beattie and Carpenter Governments followed
comments by Professor Greg Craven, of Curtin University, that the
Federal Government had constitutional powers to overturn the bans.
------------------->
Premiers to dig in on uranium
Nigel Wilson and Bruce Loudon in New Delhi | July 27, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22142033-601,00.html#
...
Confirming yesterday's revelation by The Australian that he would seek
cabinet approval for Australia to sell uranium to India, Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer said inspectors would ensure its use was
confined to power generation.
India is not a signatory to the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, which has previously ruled it out of contention to buy
Australian uranium. Mr Downer said bilateral negotiations could begin
if India agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and
inspections.
But Pakistan's Minister for Religious Affairs, Muhammad Ijaz ul-Haq,
last night warned of a possible diplomatic backlash should Australia
decide to sell uranium to India.
"As a Pakistani, I can tell you the entire nation is going to be very upset," Mr Ijaz ul-Haq told the ABC's Lateline program.
He said because Pakistan and India both had active nuclear weapon and
nuclear power programs, and neither was a signatory to the NPT,
Australia should now consider supplying uranium to Pakistan.
"They have to keep the balance of power," he said. "Pakistan's nuclear
program is totally peaceful. If we are are going to go further into
nuclear, it is going to be for energy because we are suffering from
power shortages and ... strikes all over the country. So I would expect
Australia to consider assisting Pakistan alongside India and also put
your foot into resolving the Kashmir problem."
The nuclear stakes in South Asia rose sharply last night as Pakistan
announced it had successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile just
as Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was seeking political support
for his civilian nuclear deal with Washington.
Despite its timing, most analysts believe there is no direct link
between the announcement by Islamabad that it had successfully
test-fired a Babur Hatf VII.
But the test underlined the sensitivity of Mr Downer's move to push ahead with uranium sales to neighbouring India.
Mr Downer said there's was "no reason to believe ... that India would
behave irresponsibly" if Australia exported uranium to the country.
But Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland attacked the
move as premature, saying Labor felt Australian uranium sales should be
limited to countries signed up to the NPT.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann, an advocate of expanded uranium
mining, but not of its enrichment or use in nuclear power generation in
Australia, said exports should be confined to parties to the NPT.
------------------->
Libs, Labor at odds on India
Jewel Topsfield and Daniel Flitton
July 27, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/libs-labor-at-odds-on-india/2007/07/26/1185339168485.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
A LABOR government would not pursue any deal to sell uranium to India
unless Delhi signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This puts it at loggerheads with the Government, which yesterday
flagged that it could break its longstanding policy and proceed with a
yellowcake deal with India despite Delhi not being a signatory to the
treaty because it has a nuclear weapons program.
It also comes as federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says the
Government will seek further legal advice on whether it has the
constitutional powers to override the states' bans on uranium mines in
Western Australia and Queensland.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia would consider
supplying uranium to India even if if didn't sign the treaty, provided
it agreed to inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Just two months ago, Mr Macfarlane vowed Australia would not sell
uranium to India unless it signed the international treaty. "The answer
is no," he told The Age in May. "The Australian uranium industry can
prosper without India."
Shadow foreign affairs minister Robert McClelland said that the Federal
Government's "unrestrained promotion of nuclear power was a cause for
great concern" especially because of its "poor record in nuclear
non-proliferation".
"Instead of … seeking approval for the export of Australian uranium to
India, the Foreign Minister should … join Labor in campaigning for
wide-ranging reform of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to encourage India
to join."
The Non-Proliferation Treaty allows the development of nuclear-energy industry, provided countries do not build nuclear weapons.
India — which tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 — Pakistan, North
Korea and Israel are the only four countries that have not signed the
treaty.
Mr Downer said that while he would prefer the countries signed the treaty, "you have to face up to the facts".
He said India had no record of exporting nuclear weapons technology to
other countries and the export of uranium would help curb greenhouse
emissions on the subcontinent.
"India is the second biggest country in the world in population terms,"
Mr Downer said. "Its economy is growing at nearly 9 per cent a year.
It's going to be a massive consumer of energy and we want to deal with
the issue of climate change."
Mr Downer said any uranium exported to India could be used only in
civil nuclear facilities and Australia would never sell yellowcake for
nuclear weapons or nuclear-powered military vessels.
"But we haven't made any final decision about this," Mr Downer said.
"We certainly will have to wait and see what the conclusion is of
negotiations between India and America."
The Government's deliberations follow a deal between the US and India
that aims to give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment for the
first time in 30 years, to help meet its soaring energy needs.
Rory Medcalf, a former Australian diplomat who served in Delhi, said a
uranium deal could mark a new phase in Australia's relations with India.
Meanwhile, the Commonwealth is seeking legal advice after Curtin
University's Professor Greg Craven said yesterday it could use its
constitutional powers to override Queensland and Western Australia's
bans on uranium mines.
Mr Macfarlane said he was given legal advice 18 months ago that the
Commonwealth could not override the states, but that would now be
reviewed.
"We need to ensure that these ideologically based oppositions to
uranium mining do not have a net economic effect on Australia, so the
Commonwealth is interested to see the basis of Professor Craven's
opinion," he said.
But West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter indicated the state could challenge the "outrageous move" in the High Court.
"It is completely and utterly unacceptable to me that the Federal
Government would try to impose uranium mining in WA when the people of
WA have quite clearly and consistently said they don't want it," he
said.
With AAP
------------------->
MEDIA RELEASE 26/07/07
URANIUM SALES TO INDIA MUST BE REJECTED
In response to reports that foreign minister Alexander Downer is to
propose to Cabinet that uranium sales be permitted to India, Friends of
the Earth, Australia (FoE) has today called on the government to reject
uranium sales to this rogue nuclear weapons state.
FoE national nuclear campaigner Dr. Jim Green said: "Proposed uranium
exports to India must be rejected because India is a nuclear weapons
state and is one of just three nations which has not ratified the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Uranium sales would undoubtedly
weaken the international non-proliferation regime and would increase
the risk of other countries pulling out of the NPT and developing
arsenals of nuclear WMD — and doing so with the expectation that
uranium could still be procured."
Retired diplomat Professor Richard Broinowski noted last year: "The
sale of Australian uranium to India would not just weaken our
non-proliferation credentials — it would also signal to some of our
major uranium customers, such as Japan and South Korea, that we do not
take too seriously their own adherence to the NPT. They may as a result
walk away from the Treaty and develop nuclear weapons — against North
Korea, China, or perhaps Russia — without necessarily fearing a cut-off
of Australian supplies."
Green said: "India and Pakistan both tested a series of nuclear weapons
in 1998. It is unwise and irresponsible to be supplying WMD feedstock
in the form of uranium to the subcontinent given the history of
regional tension and the active nuclear weapons programs in India and
Pakistan. If Australia sells uranium to India, there will be pressure
to sell uranium to other nations which refuse to sign and ratify the
NPT, such as Pakistan and Israel."
"India has limited domestic reserves of uranium so in addition to the
risk of direct use of Australian uranium in Indian nuclear weapons,
there is the risk that Australian uranium sales would free up India's
limited domestic reserves for the production of nuclear weapons."
FoE also challenged The Australian newspaper to get its facts straight.
Green said: "The Australian's foreign editor Greg Sheridan has today
claimed that the US-India deal is 'good for non-proliferation' though
it clearly undermines the NPT and will do nothing to curtail India's
weapons program. He claims that the US-India deal puts India's nuclear
power industry under IAEA supervision but in fact limited IAEA
safeguards already apply and the deal will only marginally increase
their scope. Sheridan claims that the global warming considerations of
uranium exports to India are 'substantial' but in fact they would be
negligible, zero, or negative. And Sheridan's claim that the potential
economic returns to Australia could be 'very significant' is ridiculous
- even if India does expand its nuclear power sector, the economic
returns to Australia would be minimal."
Sheridan's opinion piece at:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22134207-7583,00.html
------------------->
India to buy our uranium
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
July 26, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22135830-601,00.html#
FOREIGN Minister Alexander Downer will ask cabinet to approve the
export of Australian uranium to India in a submission to be considered
by the Government within weeks.
Sources have told The Australian that cabinet's National Security
Committee will shortly consider a submission from Mr Downer that would
allow Australia to sell uranium to India despite the nation not being a
signatory to the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The move, which has been strongly backed by John Howard, will almost
certainly be opposed by federal Labor and create a wedge between John
Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd ahead of the federal election.
Labor has traditionally argued that selling uranium to India would
undermine the NPT. The Government believes the politics of this
position will become increasingly difficult for Mr Rudd, who will be
seen as standing against India, the US and the Australian uranium
industry, which would profit from the burgeoning Indian market.
The Prime Minister is reported to have told colleagues that the public
cannot understand why Australia exports uranium to China but refuses to
export it to India.
India has an impeccable record of never having proliferated nuclear
technology to anybody else, but China has been accused of complicity in
the exporting of nuclear technology.
India desperately needs assured supplies of uranium to provide fuel for
nuclear reactors that will generate energy to drive its economic boom.
The 14 nuclear power plants used for peaceful purposes in India
contribute only 4per cent a year to the country's electricity needs.
But there are plans for a massive increase in atomic power generation
aimed at reducing India's reliance on polluting fossil fuels and
generating electricity to drive factories.
The Australian understands Mr Downer's submission has been finalised
but has been awaiting the outcome of long-running negotiations on a
nuclear co-operation deal between the US and India, which were
concluded yesterday.
Under the US-India deal, India's nuclear power stations, which are
designated as part of the peaceful energy program, will come under the
supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
US officials regard this as a great step forward in the cause of
countering potential nuclear proliferation. The US-India nuclear
negotiations, first mooted by US President George W. Bush and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in March last year, yesterday received
approval from India's cabinet.
The agreement would pave the way for civilian nuclear co-operation with
the US and give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment for the
first time in 30 years.
The pact now has to be approved by US Congress, while India needs to
get clearances from the Nuclear Suppliers Group of nations that govern
global civilian nuclear trade and also conclude an agreement to place
its civilian reactors under UN safeguards.
But Canberra will not need to wait for full ratification by the US Senate and Indian parliament to proceed.
Australia plans to negotiate a nuclear safeguards agreement with India, governing the uses for Australian uranium.
The agreement will be similar to the deals it has struck with other nations to which it exports uranium.
Under the planned agreement, India would separate its peaceful nuclear
energy program from its nuclear weapons program and Australian uranium
would go only to its peaceful nuclear energy power plants. Exporting
uranium to India would be a substantial change of policy for Canberra,
which has until now refused to sell uranium to nations that are not in
the NPT. India has never joined the NPT.
But the sale of uranium to a non-signatory would not be completely unprecedented.
The Fraser government in 1981 negotiated a nuclear safeguards agreement
with France to sell it uranium, but Paris did not join the NPT until
1992.
Australia exported uranium to France through the 1980s.
In March last year, just before Mr Howard visited India, Mr Singh, in
an exclusive interview with The Australian, signalled he would seek
Australian support for the US-India deal.
In a separate development the Howard Government has failed to have
India admitted to APEC at this year's meeting in Sydney. Canberra
argued strongly for India's inclusion, but Washington opposed it.
The US believed that if India joined it would be necessary to allow one
other Southeast Asian nation and one other Latin American nationto join
as well to maintain the regional balance.
------------------->
No uranium for Pakistan, says Downer
July 28, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/no-uranium-for-pakistan-says-downer/2007/07/27/1185339258043.html
THERE is no prospect in the near future that Australia will export uranium to Pakistan, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says.
The Federal Government confirmed on Thursday that it was considering selling uranium to Pakistan's nuclear rival, India.
That prompted Pakistan's Minister for Religious Affairs, Ejaz ul-Haq,
to call on Australia to also consider selling uranium to Islamabad.
Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
Mr Downer said yesterday that Pakistan had shown no interest in
negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Agency to establish a
system of safeguards and inspections for its two non-military nuclear
power stations.
"I don't think that bears any prospect in the foreseeable future of
exporting to Pakistan, unless Pakistan gets into some sort of a system
of UN inspections and controls over its two nuclear facilities and it
comes to Australia and signs a nuclear safeguards agreement," Mr Downer
told reporters in Perth.
"It doesn't seem likely that's about to happen."
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM MINING - FED GOVT THREATENS WA AND QUEENSLAND
------------------->
Premiers to dig in on uranium
Nigel Wilson and Bruce Loudon in New Delhi | July 27, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22142033-601,00.html#
THE federal Government will investigate seizing control of uranium
reserves from anti-mining states, triggering another constitutional
showdown with the Labor premiers.
Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said yesterday he would seek
fresh legal advice on the commonwealth's capacity to override state
bans on uranium mining in Western Australia and Queensland.
Although the federal Government has been advised on two separate
occasions that such a move would be unconstitutional, leading
constitutional commentator Greg Craven said yesterday that the
commonwealth's use of its corporations powers to reform industrial
relations had changed the situation.
"Based on Professor Craven's advice we received this morning, I'm
prepared to go back and re-examine the advice we received," the
minister said. "We need to ensure that these ideologically based
oppositions to uranium mining do not have a net economic effect on
Australia, so the commonwealth is interested to see the basis of
Professor Craven's opinion."
Branding the move "outrageous", West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter
said he would challenge in the courts any bid by Canberra to take over
the state's uranium reserves.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie warned he would respond by calling a referendum.
"If they try to overrule us on this issue, we will put it to the people of Queensland," he said.
...
But Professor Craven, the deputy vice-chancellor of Perth's Curtin
University, told The Australian that attempts to maintain existing
state bans on uranium mining would be purely symbolic. The federal
Government could legally override any state ban on uranium mining using
its constitutional powers, he said.
"I think a state premier might well pass legislation, but at the back
of his mind he would always know that if push came to shove, and you
had an absolutely determined and capable commonwealth government, that
legislation would ultimately not prevail," he said.
When the federal Government resumed control of the issue of uranium
licences from the Northern Territory Government last year it was
advised it could not take similar action in state jurisdictions. That
position was confirmed earlier this year when the Labor states opposed
the location of nuclear power stations within their boundaries.
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM MINING - ROXBY EXPANSION
------------------->
Political foes unite against BHP plan
Jeremy Roberts
July 13, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22065876-2702,00.html
BHP Billiton was under intense pressure last night to abandon a
controversial plan to scale back value-added ore processing at its vast
Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine, after federal Industry Minister
Ian Macfarlane joined forces with South Australia's Labor Government to
denounce the move.
Premier Mike Rann said the BHP Billiton proposal to export
uranium-infused copper concentrate from the outback mine was "simply
not on".
And Mr Macfarlane warned the world's biggest miner that the federal Government would resist the proposal.
As revealed by The Australian yesterday, BHP Billiton stunned the
Howard and Rann governments with its "Option B" proposal to export all
new ore production from the planned expansion of Olympic Dam, instead
of smelting the uranium-bearing copper on site.
Mr Macfarlane met the company's new chief executive, Marius Kloppers,
on Wednesday night. "I made it clear I had serious reservations about a
plan which reduces the number of Australian jobs created from the mine
expansion, as well as removing an opportunity to add value to the ore,"
Mr Macfarlane said yesterday.
Mr Rann suggested that hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of
government investment tied to the proposed mine expansion would be at
risk if BHP pursued the offshore smelting option.
"We gave them the firm message this was not on," Mr Rann said. "We have
considerable rights in all this. No1 right isthat we own the resource:
they don't."
Kevin Rudd's office is also understood to have been briefed about the
proposal, but there was no comment last night from the federal
Opposition Leader.
Under the Option B proposal, BHP Billiton would each year export an
estimated 1.2 million tonnes of copper concentrate, containing up to
2500 tonnes of uranium in trace amounts, to China.
The ore would be processed into copper and uranium at Chinese
facilities, feeding the country's rapidly expanding economy and
burgeoning nuclear power industry.
The option is cheaper for BHP Billiton because it avoids tripling its
smelting operation at the Olympic Dam site, as it ramps up mining
operations by converting the existing underground mine into the
southern hemisphere's largest open-cut operation.
But the option potentially involves hundreds fewer jobs.
The expansion of Olympic Dam is at pre-feasibility stage, and the
company faces several state and federal hurdles before it is given
approval.
A BHP Billiton spokeswoman said Option B remained on the table but the
company would "listen to, and take into account, views expressed by
governments and local communities".
"We look at all the options to come up with the best project
configuration that is sustainable environmentally, socially and
economically, and that provides value to shareholders," the spokeswoman
said.
Any Olympic Dam expansion must be approved by the South Australian parliament under an indenture act.
South Australian Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said it was
"reckless" of Mr Rann "to, in effect, threaten BHP Billiton ... Mr Rann
should be selling the best option for South Australia to BHP Billiton".
All uranium exports from Australia are controlled by the Australian
Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, in the Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade. An ASNO spokesman said the office "could move
reasonably quickly" to approve any BHP Billiton exports to China,
following the signing of the Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement
in April.
------------------->
Water, not just ore, the subject of BHP's intensive study
The Advertiser
Chris Russell
Tue 26 Jun 2007
THE largest pre-feasibility study ever undertaken by a mining company
is in full swing in Adelaide offices and on-site at BHP Billiton's
Olympic Dam.
Crews on 18 drill rigs are exploring the size and shape of the
copper-gold-uranium resource, mostly in the area where Australia's
largest open pit is planned.
"We're drilling 4500m a week,'' said Neil Jansen, site manager for the expansion project.
As well as ore, the company is looking for local sources of water for
use in processing and dust suppression. "We've made a commitment not to
exceed our Great Artesian Basin drawing allocation,'' Mr Jansen said.
Projections for the project include job numbers of 4000 permanent
workers with up to 20,000 more being created in contracting and service
industries.
The mine's contribution to gross state product would increase from $1
billion a year to about $2.5 billion and royalties from $35 million to
$80 million.
Energy use will increase from 120MW to 400MW, with BHP Billiton looking at building a new gas-fired power station.
Water is critical, with consumption to increase from 32Ml/day to
100Ml/day - with a desalination plant the most likely option.
* Chris Russell travelled to Olympic Dam and Prominent Hill with SA Great
------------------->
Last Update: Saturday, June 16, 2007. 4:42pm (AEST)
Greens urge SA Govt to dump plans for desal plant
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1953255.htm
The Greens have called for the South Australian Government to scrap
plans for a desalination plant on the Upper Spencer Gulf to help
provide water for the Roxby Downs mine expansion.
Greens spokesman Mark Parnell says the desalination plant plan should
be replaced with a scheme to pump waste water from the Bolivar
treatment works to Roxby Downs.
Mr Parnell obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act,
which outline an SA Water plan to use waste water instead of
desalinated water.
But the State Government has said it is not going ahead with the wastewater option and the desalination plant will go ahead.
Mr Parnell says that is a big mistake.
"It's clear from the correspondence that this was a cost effective option," he said.
"From environmental terms it's a far better option than desalination
and it's far better than simply pumping Adelaide's waste water out to
sea, where it destroys the sea grasses."
Mr Parnell says he is puzzled why the wastewater plan has not been adopted by the Government.
"We have the opportunity to prevent pollution to the Gulf of St Vincent
and to provide water to the Roxby Downs mine in a way that doesn't add
to our greenhouse problem, because that's what desalination will do,
and yet it seems to have been abandoned and there's no clear reason
why," he said.
But the Deputy Mayor of Whyalla, Eddie Hughes, says Adelaide should use
the waste water itself, instead of pumping it into the far north.
Mr Hughes says Mr Parnell's comments about the desalination plant are misguided.
"This is typical metro-centric attitude that has been expressed by Mark [Parnell]," he said.
"The water from the desal plant is not just to serve the needs of the
mine at Roxby Downs, but also the Upper Spencer Gulf and to a degree,
the Eyre Peninsula."
------------------->
Copper-coated uranium for China
Matthew Stevens
July 12, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22058833-643,00.html
BHP Billiton has asked the federal Government to approve the export of
uranium-bearing copper concentrate to China, signalling a huge and
politically fraught change in planning for the proposed
$US5billion-plus ($5.8 billion-plus) expansion of Olympic Dam.
BHP's next chief executive, Marius Kloppers, met Industry Minister Ian
MacFarlane in Melbourne last night to signal a formal request to
directly ship up to 1.2 million tonnes of Olympic Dam copper
concentrate a year, rather than convert the ore into metal at the mine
site.
The idea means that BHP would be, by stealth, selling uranium directly
to China, which is why the company needs to secure federal endorsement.
The export copper concentrate would contain relatively low levels
uranium. But even at the expected 0.01 per cent to 0.15 per cent
concentrations, BHP would still be shipping up to 2500 tonnes of
uranium to Chinese smelters each year.
It is not yet clear whether BHP would propose, or be required, to repatriate that uranium.
Clearly it would make more economic sense for the product to be sold
from China and its nuclear industry, if under the Australian
Government's restrictions. That would first require the finalisation of
the bilateral safeguards agreement which is part of the Australia-China
Nuclear Transfer Agreement signed in April this year. When that deal
was signed, it was foreshadowed that Australia would eventually export
up to 20,000 tonnes of uranium to China.
BHP's new concentrate-only development option has also been raised with
South Australian Premier Mike Rann, who met BHP on Monday.
The canvassing with both governments of a radically different plan for
the crucial Olympic Dam expansion so late in BHP's pre-feasibility
process indicates that the economics of the original plan might not be
stacking up. There is no question that Olympic Dam is an amazing
resource. But getting at it is going to be an engineering feat because
the ore body is 350m below the surface and is covered by, among other
things, a layer of granite.
Under option A, which remains under consideration, BHP would increase
the smelting capacity at the massive desert mine site by 150 per cent
so that all the copper, uranium, gold and silver could be extracted and
transformed on site.
In briefings as recently as December, BHP put the projected output of
an expanded Olympic Dam at 500,000 tonnes a year of copper, 15,000
tonnes of relatively low-grade uranium, 500,000 ounces of gold and 2.9
million ounces of silver. At that time BHP said it hoped its extensive
pre-feasibility work would be completed by the end of 2007 and that the
necessary government approvals would be collected by 2008. Then, given
construction runs to schedule, the expanded Olympic Dam would ramp up
to the new production levels from 2013.
The option B proposal, which is still being developed by BHP's
550-strong pre-feasibility team, would effectively export the
processing of all the new production at Olympic Dam.
That means the most likely destination of the concentrate would be
China, which is expected to have a serious over-capacity of copper
processing for the foreseeable future.
But BHP's new option, while it might profoundly improve the economics
of the project, will at the same time create two huge new political
hurdles for the company.
The Rann Government will clearly be concerned at the potential loss of
what would have been a showcase in South Australia's capacity to
value-add to its mineral resources.
The Government might also be concerned at a potential reduction of the
expected $80 million royalty flow and the more certain loss of
permanent jobs which would be needed should BHP go with option B.
The original project would require up to 10,000 workers at peak stages
of construction and would create 4000 new permanent jobs. But the
concentrate-only option would reduce permanent jobs by 10 per cent and
the construction workforce by substantially more given that the
additional 300,000 tonnes of smelting capacity would not be constructed.
Obviously that will reduce the total construction cost of the project.
But it will also reduce the continuing costs of operation as it will
reduce the project's electricity demand by at least 15 per cent.
Power remains one of the key problems for the project. Olympic Dam
currently draws 120MW from the South Australian grid, which represents
about 10 per cent of the state's base load.
That demand had been expected to swell to 400MW, with the new
requirement being generated on-site, most likely from gas or
co-generation.
A plan to export concentrate would mean that the greenhouse
implications of the processing will also be shifted to China, where it
is likely the electricity would be drawn from nuclear-fuelled
generation.
One aspect of the project not changed by this potential new approach is the water demand.
Olympic Dam will still require 100Ml a day which will be drawn from the
Great Artesian Basin and a coastal desalination plant. That plant,
which will be the second biggest in the world, will be a joint venture
with a state government.
The Government wants to pipe its share of the output to the north of
the state to replace water currently being drawn from the Murray River.
One other notable aspect of what is going on at Olympic Dam is the depth and breadth of BHP pre-feasibility work.
BHP has 200 people working on plans in Adelaide with another 350 at the
Olympic Dam site. Most of them are busy operating the 20 drill rigs
(this is the biggest single drilling program in the world) which
continue trying to define a resource that BHP believes is already the
second biggest base metal discovery ever.
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM MINING - VARIOUS
------------------->
Uranium industry must earn support
Nigel Wilson, Energy writer | July 27, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22140295-643,00.html#
URANIUM companies have a responsibility to secure community support so
the industry has a "social licence" to mine uranium, the Australian
uranium conference in Fremantle was told yesterday.
Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said the Government
recognised uranium was different to other minerals and that the public
had particular expectations.
Because of this the Government was standing firm on three
non-negotiable points: that Australia and the environment must be safe
and uranium mined in Australia be transported safely; that communities
must be consulted; and that Australian uranium would be used only for
peaceful purposes and not for weapons.
Mr Macfarlane told more than 400 conference delegates the Government
would only approve mines that met stringent environmental requirements.
It also expected all industry participants to respect traditional
owners and uphold the values and principles developed by the Uranium
Industry Framework, which reported last year and recommended the
expansion of uranium mining under strict safeguards.
"With these safeguards nuclear energy can and should be part of the
long-term solution for our energy needs and a lower emission future,"
the minister said. "The Government believes that it will be the
Australian people who will judge whether nuclear energy is suitable for
our nation and that such a decision should be based on facts, not scare
campaigns."
Mr Macfarlane used the conference to announce that Geoscience
Australia, the Government's minerals and petroleum research arm, would
for the first time release historical data on uranium exploration
reports and drill hole data on the Angela uranium deposit in the
Northern Territory.
The Angela deposit, 25km south of Alice Springs, was discovered in 1973
and extensively drilled by German group Uranerz Australia in 1989,
under joint venture with MIM.
It is estimated to contain about 11,500 tonnes of U3O8, at 0.13percent, spread over several kilometres in sandstone.
The Angela deposit lies above the aquifer from which Alice Springs draws its town water supply.
The tenement licence passed to Uranium Australia, which in 1998
announced it had no plans to develop the Angela deposit because of
economics and the ALP's three mines policy -- overturned earlier this
year.
Mr Macfarlane said Geoscience Australia was currently considering
options for the release of further historical uranium exploration
covering material originally submitted ton the Australian Government by
exploration companies, mainly between 1975 and the early 1990s.
------------------->
Drop the fission line
Ian Lowe
June 29, 2007 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21983824-27197,00.html
THE Queensland ALP conference this weekend offers an important forum
for the Beattie Government to steer the state away from the risks of a
radioactive future and towards sustainable energy options.
Prime Minister John Howard is actively promoting nuclear power as a
belated answer to global climate change. Recent media reports suggest a
wider federal nuclear agenda for Queensland that includes uranium
enrichment and nuclear power.
Against this background it is important Premier Peter Beattie continues
to keep the door firmly shut on uranium mining and the nuclear industry.
Uranium mining in Queensland would be economically short-sighted and
environmentally disastrous. If we want to be the Smart State, we must
use solar energy and other forms of renewables.
We should move towards better efficiency, turning our energy more
effectively into the services we want. There are many more jobs and
dollars in becoming a world leader in clean energy.
We have known for more than 20 years that burning coal, oil and gas is
changing the global climate. Moves by the coal industry to clean up its
act and reduce its pollution are welcome, but rushed pledges of
taxpayer funding to assist this are not. The same money would do much
more to curb greenhouse pollution if it were allocated to efficiency
improvements and clean energy.
Some claim nuclear energy could help to slow climate change, but this
is not a sensible solution. Even the Switkowski report, put together by
a hand-picked group of pro-nuclear technocrats, did not make a
convincing case.
The summary was optimistic, but the fine print of the report shows it
would take about 15 years to build one nuclear power station if we
started today, and the cost of electricity would more than double.
Even the most fanciful crash program, dotting 25 nuclear power stations
all over the landscape, would only slow the growth in greenhouse
pollution by less than 20 per cent. The science shows we need to make
serious cuts, 60-90 per cent by 2050, not allow more increases.
Would uranium exports be an economic bonanza? No. The most optimistic
forecast of the possible export income is about a third of our earnings
from cheese exports. Uranium accounts for only about 1 per cent of our
mineral exports and there is little prospect of it becoming a big
earner.
What would be the cost of mining and exporting uranium? Huge volumes of
radioactive mine tailings, depleted and degraded water resources and an
increased risk from nuclear weapons and waste. We are still living with
the legacy of the mines at Mary Kathleen and across the Northern
Territory border at Rum Jungle.
Uranium mining needs large volumes of water – not easy to find in
Queensland at the moment – and uses vast amounts of fossil energy,
actually worsening greenhouse pollution.
Finally, as the Ranger uranium report said 30 years ago, uranium
exports inevitably produce high-level radioactive waste that will have
to be managed for hundreds of thousands of years and equally inevitably
increase the risk of nuclear weapons.
Even if we say we have the best safeguards in the world and only export
to the most responsible leaders, they won't be in power forever and
can't control what others will do with the fissile material we sell.
We should learn the lesson of Iran. The world is now getting nervous
about its possible nuclear developments. Thirty years ago, we were
being urged to export uranium to Iran, and the US was trying to sell
its nuclear technology to the Shah. Had that deal gone ahead, Iran
would now have all it needs to build nuclear weapons.
The report A Bright Future showed we could get 25 per cent of our power
from a mix of renewables by 2020. We should use solar hot water
universally. Going that way would create literally thousands of real,
skilled and permanent jobs in regional Australia.
Rather than facing a future of leaking tailings dams and increased
pressure for nuclear reactors and waste dumps, Queensland can lead
Australia and the world in sustainable and clean energy solutions.
The smart sunshine state is a much better option than being a toxic quarry.
Before last year's state election, the Premier stood firmly against the
nuclear lobby and promised that the state would not support the mining
or processing of uranium.
Beattie also resisted the silly suggestion that we should allow others
to inflict on Queensland other stages of uranium processing, such as
enrichment or dumping waste. As a Smart State ambassador, I strongly
urge the Premier to resist those who want to drag us back into the Dark
Age of uranium mining.
Ian Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at
Griffith University and president of the Australian Conservation
Foundation
------------------->
Labor won't press states on uranium
Elizabeth Gosch
July 26, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22134454-643,00.html
THE opposition by mining powerhouses Western Australia and Queensland
to new uranium mines was unsustainable but federal Labor would not
pressure the governments to change their policies, Labor Resources
spokesman Chris Evans said yesterday.
At the Labor National Conference in April, the party removed its
25-year opposition to an expansion of uranium mining but despite their
federal colleagues' change of heart, WA and Queensland have stuck fast
to their ban on new uranium mines.
Speaking at the 2007 Australian Uranium Conference in Perth yesterday,
Senator Evans questioned the logic behind the states' position.
"A Rudd Labor government will support the mining of uranium in
Australia subject to prudent and rigorous environmental and safety
requirements," Senator Evans told the conference.
"I think it is unlikely the WA and Queensland Labor Governments will
change their positions in the short term, but it's much more likely
than it was prior to federal Labor's national conference decision in
April.
"The logic of state bans on uranium mining is unsustainable and the bans will eventually be removed."
Federal Labor had no intention of trying to overrule the states'
policies or to put pressure on them to change, but external factors
would influence their position, Senator Evans said.
"The question state governments must now confront is why they should
continue to ban uranium mining in their state when there is no federal
impediment to mining and South Australia and the Northern Territory
reap the benefits of their development of uranium reserves," he said.
In 2006-07, Australia exported 9535 tonnes of uranium valued at a
record $658 million.
Patersons Securities research head Mark Simpson told the conference the
value of uranium stocks had jumped 83 per cent in the past year and 700
per cent over the past three years.
"The respective economic conditions in each state obviously have a bearing on party and government policy," Senator Evans said.
"South Australia has been desperate for economic development opportunities, but Queensland and WA have been booming.
"Despite market opportunities for uranium miners with proven resources
being very good, the WA and Queensland Governments are under little
economic or political pressure to alter their position."
Senator Evans reiterated Labor's opposition to developing an Australian nuclear power industry.
"While nuclear energy is a viable option for some countries, the Labor
Party's view is that Australia does not need nuclear power," he said.
"Australia has the luxury of making the choice not to pursue nuclear
energy. Labor believes there are better choices. There is certainly a
distinct policy divide between Labor and the Coalition on this issue."
Last month, Prime Minister John Howard said it was "inevitable"
Australia would have to consider nuclear power as an alternative for
baseload generation.
Mr Howard said he was interested in any advice about overriding state planning laws to develop a nuclear power industry.
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM MINING - WESTERN AUSTRALIA
------------------->
BHP bets on a change in WA policy
Nigel Wilson, Energy writer
July 12, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22058830-5005200,00.html
RESOURCE giant BHP Billiton has resumed work on the moribund Yeelirrie
uranium deposit with the expectation that Western Australia's
anti-uranium mining policy will be thrown out once Premier Alan
Carpenter departs.
New analytical work is being undertaken on the prospect south of Wiluna
and the agreement between former owners WMC and the State of Western
Australia is being reviewed in preparation for the possibility of new
legislation.
The company's announcement that it will create a uranium and Olympic Dam division coincides with a a renewed focus on Yeelirrie.
The company is spending substantial sums on assessing Yeelirrie, which was reported as a discovery by WMC as far back as 1972.
The deposit, about 500km north of Kalgoorlie, is estimated to contain
about 55,000 tonnes of uranium oxide in what is claimed to be the
world's largest calcrete-type deposit.
The man appointed to head the new division, Graeme Hunt, has previous
experience in WA as the head of the group's Pilbara iron ore operations.
Renewed activity at Yeelirrie is matched by Rio Tinto, which, according
to locals, has resumed drilling through its exploration arm Canning
Resources on the Kintyre deposit found in 1985 on the edge of the Great
Sandy Desert in the eastern Pilbara next to the Rudall River national
park.
Kintyre is estimated to contain about 36,000 tonnes of U308.
Both prospects are being worked on the basis that WA will change its
anti-uranium policy in the future under a different premier.
Another driver is sustained high uranium prices with spot softening only slightly from $US135 a pound in recent weeks.
Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said yesterday that uranium
exploration spending, at about $77 million, was at a 25-year high with
more than 200 companies looking for uranium last year compared with
only 34 a year earlier.
The minister said significant discoveries since 2005 included a new
deposit north of the Beverley mine in South Australia, major extension
of the Olympic Dam site and extensions to several known deposits in the
Mt Isa region.
"Although the record level of mineral exploration is broadly
encouraging, almost two-thirds was in brownfields. Exploration
expenditure must be maintained at high levels if Australia's resource
base and mineral production capacity is to be increased," Mr Macfarlane
said.
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM MINING - NT - RANGER
------------------->
ERA pulls production upgrade and profit out of hat
Jamie Freed
July 27, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/era-pulls-production-upgrade-and-profit-out-of-hat/2007/07/26/1185339165381.html
NORTHERN Territory uranium miner Energy Resources of Australia stunned
the market with a substantial production upgrade yesterday.
The Rio Tinto-controlled company's shares rose 8.6 per cent to close
$1.66 higher at $20.92 after it forecast production of 5000 tonnes of
uranium this year and 5200 tonnes next year.
Following heavy rains earlier this year which flooded the high-grade
portion of its open pit mine, ERA had predicted it would produce around
4750 tonnes this year and 3300 tonnes next year.
"It was surprising, wasn't it?" Macquarie analyst John Moorhead said.
"I don't think many in the market would have had the production figures
doing what they are doing."
ERA said it had received approval to use some surrounding land for
irrigation and had made efforts to increase uranium recovery from ore
in its processing plant.
"The issue was really about the movement of water," ERA spokeswoman
Amanda Buckley said. "It's not just as easy as finding an engineering
solution. We [had] to get regulatory approval for it."
ERA declared "force majeure" on its contracts after the rainfall,
allowing it to deliver the uranium to customers later than expected.
Given ERA signed its contracts during a time of historically low
uranium prices, it received an average of only $US16.90 per pound in
the first half.
Now that it has announced a production upgrade, it should be able to
satisfy those contracts sooner than analysts had expected, replacing
them with higher-priced contracts. ERA noted new long-term contracts
were being signed at $US95 a pound. The spot price of uranium fell
$US10 a pound to $US120 a pound this week but remains near record
levels due to a shortage.
Along with the production upgrade, ERA reported a half-year profit of
$5.7 million, down 71 per cent from last year's $19.9 million figure.
Last month ERA predicted it would lose between $5 million and $10
million in the first half, but accounting adjustments instead led to a
small profit.
Earlier this week UBS said it liked the outlook for ERA over the longer
term due to continued strong uranium demand and potential mine life
extensions.
"A key near-term risk is that spot uranium prices have declined for
each of the last four weeks," UBS said. "While we think this is a
short-term easing due to seasonality, it still represents a risk to
sentiment."
ERA said it had received encouraging results from recent exploration
drilling. A feasibility study on an extension to its Ranger pit 3
should be completed later this year. It has also begun construction on
a plant meant to produce 400 tonnes a year from stockpiled lateric ore.
The project should be commissioned early next year.
------------------->
Uranium outlook still bleak
17th July 2007, 15:45 WST
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=32&ContentID=34669
Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA) has delivered an improved
production performance in the second quarter of 2007, but the outlook
for the uranium miner remains bleak.
Output for the three months to June 30 from the Ranger mine in the
Northern Territory increased to 1,490 tonnes of yellowcake, compared
with 596 tonnes in the corresponding period last year.
ERA attributed the performance, which was also an improvement on the
1,006 tonnes produced in the first quarter of 2007, to the processing
of high-grade ore stockpiled before the wet season.
"Overall performance in the second quarter of 2007 improved when
compared with the same period last year when wet weather associated
with cyclone Monica and unusually high rainfall throughout the wet
season prevented access to high-grade ore," ERA said.
ERA said production and sales deliveries for the balance of 2007 and
2008 would continue to be affected as a result of water levels in the
open pit, following adverse weather earlier in the year.
Cyclone George dumped 850 millimetres of rain over the Ranger mine in
February, flooding the open pit and temporarily ceasing milling
operations.
"Notwithstanding the second quarter production, ERA's sales contracts
remain subject to force majeure as a result of flooding of the
operational pit," ERA said.
The adverse weather event forced ERA to forecast a loss of as much as $10 million in the first half of 2007.
ERA's exposure to the buoyant uranium spot price is already constrained
by long-term contracts, but the reduction in production and sales will
minimise any upside in the near term.
Analysts from UBS expect the spot price, which is fetching about $US133 per pound, to reach $US200 a pound in 2008.
"Thereafter we expect that prices could decline modestly as primary and
secondary supply becomes more meaningful and results in more balanced
market conditions," UBS said in a client note.
ERA, which is 68.4 per cent-owned by Rio Tinto Ltd, closed down 61 cents to $20.10.
AAP
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM MINING - NT - KOONGARRA
------------------->
Who wants to be a billionaire? I don't
Lindsay Murdoch
July 14, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/who-wants-to-be-a-billionaire-i-dont/2007/07/13/1183833774711.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
JEFFREY Lee is not interested in the soaring price of uranium, which could make him one of the world's richest men.
"This is my country, look, it's beautiful and I fear somebody will
disturb it," he said, waving his arm across rocky land surrounded by
the Kakadu National Park, where the French mining giant Areva wants to
extract 14,000 tonnes of uranium worth more than $5 billion.
Mr Lee, the shy, 36-year-old sole member of the Djok clan and senior
custodian of the Koongarra uranium deposit, has decided never to allow
the ecologically sensitive land to be mined.
"There are sacred sites, there are burial sites and there are other
special places out there which are my responsibility to look after," Mr
Lee told The Age.
"I'm not interested in money. I've got a job. I can buy tucker. I can go fishing and hunting. That's all that matters to me."
Mr Lee said he thought long and hard about speaking publicly about why
he wanted to see the land incorporated into the World Heritage-listed
Kakadu where, he said, "it will be protected and safe forever".
The Koongarra deposit is only three kilometres from Nourlangie Rock, one of the most visited attractions in Kakadu.
"Now I want to talk about what I have decided to do because I fear for
my country," he said. "I was taken all through here on the shoulder of
my grandmother … I heard all the stories and learnt everything about
this land and I want to pass it all on to my kids."
Mr Lee this week took The Age to a rocky outcrop overlooking the
Koongarra deposit, a sacred place where, according to his clans'
beliefs, a giant blue tongue lizard still lurks and should not be
disturbed.
Here it is, painted on a rock hundreds, or even thousands, of years ago, its jaw apparently bitten off in a mystical fight.
This is what Mr Lee calls a "djang", or place of spiritual essence,
which he has closed to the 230,000 tourists who visit Kakadu each year.
"My father and grandfather said they would agree to opening the land to
mining but I have learnt as I have grown up that there's poison in the
ground," he said.
"My father and grandfather were offered cars, houses … but nobody told them about uranium and what it can do.
"If you disturb that land, bad things will happen … there will be a big
flood, there will be an earthquake and people will have a big accident."
Mr Lee said there were places on his land where the Rainbow Serpent — a
mythological creature believed to be in control of water — had entered
that were so sacred "I can't even go to them or even talk about them".
Areva, the world's biggest nuclear power company, wants to extract the
uranium on its 12.5-square-kilometre mineral lease at Koongarra because
the price of the ore has soared.
But Mr Lee's declaration will pressure the Howard Government to formally incorporate the land into Kakadu.
Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory), Areva must
get Mr Lee's approval at a meeting called by the Northern Land Council
before it can start extracting the uranium.
In August 2005, the Government seized control of uranium mining from
the Northern Territory, declaring the territory open for new mines.
Ranger, a mine with a history of leaks and owned by Energy Resources of
Australia Limited, has been extracting uranium inside Kakadu since 1981.
But the Howard Government has always maintained that no new mine would
be approved in the territory unless it had the approval of traditional
owners.
The Government has told UNESCO, the world body under which Kakadu is
listed as a heritage site, that it would agree in principle for
Koongarra to be incorporated into the park if the traditional owners
requested it.
Mr Lee, who works as a Kakadu ranger, said incorporating Koongarra into
the park would allow him to see that the land remains protected.
"Being part of the park will ensure that the traditional laws, customs,
sites, bush tucker, trees, plants and water stay the same as when they
were passed on to me by my father and great grandfather," he said.
Mr Lee, who became known as Kakadu's mystery man because he has avoided
publicity, has another concern. As the sole member of the Djok clan he
has no children to pass the land on to. "I'll have to see what I can do
about that," he said.
------------------->Return
to top
LUCAS HEIGHTS REACTOR PROBLEMS
------------------->
(Admission from ANSTO that reactor shutdown will not effect nuclear medicine.)
AAP: Nuclear reactor shut down to repair faults
Fed: Nuclear reactor shut down to repair faults
Friday, 27 Jul 2007
AAP - The new Opal reactor at Sydney's Lucas
Heights nuclear plant is
to be shut down for eight weeks because of
technical faults, the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation (ANSTO) said
today.
There were no safety or radiation exposure issues, ANSTO said.
The temporary closure follows problems identified since the new
reactor began operating 11 months ago.
ANSTO chief executive Ian Smith said the shutdown would affect
silicon customers and cause delays in neutron beam research.
"During the shutdown, equipment which has faults will be
thoroughly investigated and, where possible, repaired," he said.
This included a dilution problem earlier this year where light
water
from a reactor pool seeped into the heavy water contained in
the
reflector vessel around the core.
"To solve the dilution problem, further pressure testing is
required,"
Dr Smith said.
"Whilst the dilution issue does not affect safety or
operation,
if left unrepaired it would ultimately affect the
performance of
the reactor."
Dr Smith said ANSTO also would examine fuel plates that were
dislodged
this week when fuel assemblies were inserted into the
reactor's core
during the last monthly fuel change.
"ANSTO will be undertaking a
series of tests to fully determine
the cause of that event," he said.
The supply of nuclear medicines would not be affected by the
temporary
shutdown as arrangements were in place to import these
products, he
said.
------------------->Return
to top
GOVERNMENT'S $12.5 MILLION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
------------------->
PM signals nuclear boost
Sid Marris | July 17, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22089578-11949,00.html
NUCLEAR power research will be given an additional boost and a plan to
help Australia contribute to the next generation of low waste nuclear
energy systems.
In a speech delivered today, “Climate Change: the right balance for
Australia”, Mr Howard said Australia cannot stand aloof from future
developments surrounding nuclear power, particularly with 40 per cent
of the world’s reserves of uranium.
“Nuclear power has no direct carbon dioxide emissions and is already a
significant part of the world’s energy system,’’ he said today.
“Improved economic competitiveness and safety of nuclear power, along
with concern for energy security and climate change, are leading to a
steady increase in worldwide nuclear power capacity.’’
Mr Howard said the Government would spend $12.5 million on a Nuclear
Collaborative Research Programme between the Australian Nuclear Science
and Technology Organisation and the university sector.
The research is designed to ensure Australia was part of the
development of the global Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
Initiative – a multi-nation program looking at developing an advance
form of nuclear generator which re-uses uranium fuel.
------------------->
Media Release
18 July 2007
ANSTO Welcomes PM’s Nuclear Research Funding
http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/15821/nuclear_research_funding.pdf
ANSTO today welcomed the $12.5 million nuclear research funding announcement made by The Prime
Minister, the Hon John Howard yesterday to fund a five-year collaborative programme focussed on future
nuclear power technologies involving ANSTO* and Australian universities.
Dr Ian Smith, ANSTO’s Chief Executive said the programme will help develop a core nuclear skills base by
funding university staff and post-graduate students to work in specific nuclear power related areas.
“Importantly the programme will also provide for ten undergraduate research studentships worth $5,000 per
annum commencing in 2009,” he said.
“Overall the program is part of a nuclear capability building exercise that will introduce research programmes
into universities and facilitate the training of graduate engineers, chemists, and materials scientists whose
skills are needed in the nuclear power industry.
“The program will also encourage the introduction of nuclear components into science and engineering
programmes in Australian universities.
“Australian University research activities will also augment ANSTO’s core activities as a participant in the
international Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative (Gen IV), a major international project which
aims to further examine and develop six next generation nuclear power technologies. The Prime Minister
recently announced that the Government is seeking to participate in the Gen IV research programme.”
The community is also set to benefit from Australia being at the cutting edge of this key international
research by having access to the latest information in power technology.
Of the $12.5 million, $5 million is earmarked for establishing infrastructure at ANSTO to support the
research. This will be made available to university researchers in the same way as other nuclear-related
infrastructure at ANSTO currently is but would include facilities to enable irradiation, testing, and
characterisation of materials that may be used in the next generation of nuclear reactors.
“Importantly the research has many areas in common with other major challenges in energy production such
as carbon capture and high temperature conventional power plants,” said Dr Smith.
MORE INFO: media release at www.ansto.gov.au
------------------->
Scientists urged to build reactors
Sid Marris | July 18, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22093481-30417,00.html
AUSTRALIAN researchers will be encouraged to participate in a global
project to build a new-generation nuclear reactor under Howard
Government climate-change plans, which include grants to help
homeowners and schools buy rainwater tanks and solar hot water systems.
John Howard yesterday savaged Labor plans to cut emissions as confusing
"panic with virtue" as he allocated $637million for a strategy that he
said involved "a blend of prudent conservatism and economic liberalism"
to address climate change.
The Prime Minister said he would offer $50,000 rebates for schools installing solar hot water systems or rainwater tanks.
And he said families earning less than $100,000 a year would get a
$1000 rebate to replace an electric hot water system with a solar one.
After announcing the grants on the internet site YouTube early
yesterday, Mr Howard moved quickly in a lunchtime speech to commit
$12.5million to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation and local universities to contribute to the US-led project
to develop a nuclear reactor that recycles its own waste material.
Mr Howard said with 40per cent of the world's uranium deposits,
Australia could not stand apart from developments in nuclear
technology. "Nuclear power has no direct carbon dioxide emissions and
is already a significant part of the world's energy system," he told
the Melbourne Press Club.
The US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has established a
multi-nation research project into what are known as Generation IV
nuclear reactors.
Using gas rather than water to cool the reactor, designers hope the
plant will re-enrich spent uranium to be reused, cutting down on waste.
Labor has rejected nuclear energy as part of its climate change
response and labelled the Government's pursuit of nuclear technology as
an "obsession".
Opposition industry spokesman Kim Carr said the Government's
announcement was a "nuclear waste" and argued that Australia should be
putting its efforts into developing nuclear medicine.
"Australia is blessed with an abundance of clean energy resources and
we should be using them to power our future," he said. "Instead,
Australian taxpayers will once again be footing the bill for Howard's
nuclear power obsession."
Mr Howard launched a 46-page glossy publication outlining the
Government's climate change agenda, saying the policy was designed to
link in with emerging global schemes.
But Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett warned that Australia
must not create a "competing" system that might undermine the
UN-sponsored climate change negotiations.
Mr Garrett said the Howard Government's desire to go it alone could
ultimately leave Australia isolated, particularly after last month's
meeting of the Group of Eight economies, where nations including the US
signalled there must be a global target for emissions.
"Labor believes there is no place for establishing competing regimes.
Instead, Mr Howard's task is to ensure Australia and APEC create a
unifying force that brings together the various initiatives that are
being advanced," he told the Lowy Institute.
------------------->
media release
Wednesday, July 18th, 2007
Students want no part in Howard's Nuclear Research Plan
Students from universities across Australia are outraged by Prime
Minister John Howard's announcement of a $12.5 million investment in a
Nuclear Collaborative Research Program between the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and Australia's university
sector.
Spokesperson for the Australian Student Environment Network Holly
Creenaune says ""Students oppose our universities performing the role
of research and training ground for dangerous and unsustainable
industries. In the face of climate change, Australian universities have
an important opportunity and responsibility to invest in a safe,
non-polluting renewable energy sector.
"The sole remaining School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of
NSW was closed 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.
"It is outrageous universities are being forced into collaboration with
the nuclear industry as one of their few options for much-needed
funding. The $12.5 million allocated for Howard's Nuclear Collaborative
Research Program will create a disturbing focus on non-renewable energy
research and education in Australian universities.
"Students are increasingly demanding universities invest and channel
their research towards sustainable and renewable technologies.
Australia's energy future lies with solar and wind power, not nuclear
power production, and we are calling on universities to lead the way,"
Ms Creenaune concluded.
The Australian Student Environment Network report Opportunities To
Waste: Australian Universities and the Nuclear Industry , detailing the
role of Australian universities in supporting the nuclear industry, is
available for download from www.asen.org.au/OpportunitiesToWaste
------------------->Return
to top
PINE GAP 4
------------------->
Dear friends
It’s not over yet - it seems they really, really want to see us go to jail.
The Pine Gap 4 recently received a hand-delivered a document from the
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions informing us that they
will appeal the leniency of our sentences in the Northern Territory
Court of Criminal Appeal.
They listed nine grounds for the appeal pointing out our lack of
contrition, saying the judge failed to have regard to the maximum
penalties and that the imposition of fines was “manifestly inadequate”.
But that is not the only appeal. I have lodged an appeal against our
conviction based on various points of law relating to the use of the
Defence (Special Undertakings) Act and other matters that did not allow
us to have a fair trial.
So, the journey continues.
Things won’t happen fast, but we will keep you posted as it progresses.
In the meantime, below are links to excellent articles written by Pine
Gap defendants Bryan Law and Jim Dowling that provide analysis and
reflection on the trial and ideas for ‘where to next?’
Bryan has written this thoughtful de-brief article on Webdiary which
makes a proposal about developing nonviolence capacity in Australia.
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1944
He would appreciate people reading and circulating the article, and responding to it.
The details of the Crown's appeal against our sentence are here:
http://bushtelegraph.wordpress.com/2007/07/15/pine-gap-4-crime-and-punishment/
followed by a colourful personal reflection on the trial from Jim.
Democrats Senator for Queensland Andrew Bartlett links this appeal with the detention of Haneef and terror laws here:
http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1586#comments
Peace to all
Donna
------------------->Return
to top
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
------------------->
Detailed article:
JUNE 18, 2007 VOLUME 85, NUMBER 25 PP. 48-54
Reprocessing Key To Nuclear Plan
Nuclear waste impasse drives DOE to push for reprocessing spent fuel despite costs, technological hurdles
Chemical & Engineering News
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/85/8525gov1.html
Jeff Johnson
---
On GNEP see also briefing paper at <www.energyscience.org.au>
------------------->Return
to top
JAPAN EARTHQUAKE
------------------->
Aftershocks for Japanese nuclear power chief from an irate minister
PETER ALFORD, TOKYO CORRESPONDENT
The Australian
Wed 25 Jul 2007
Officials have been misled repeatedly and intentionally on the extent of breakdowns
AT midnight, 12 hours after last Monday's Niigata earthquake triggered
a series of accidents at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant,
Economy Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari hauled Tokyo Electric
Power Co president Tsunehisa Katsumata into his office for a rare and
humiliating verbal caning.
Amari was furious that management at TEPCO, the world's third-largest
power generator, had initially misled his officials -- and not for the
first time, either -- about the extent of breakdowns at
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the world's largest nuclear electricity-generating
complex.
The magnitude 6.8 quake 10km offshore from the Honshu west coast plant
caused subsidence of the main structure, ruptured water pipes, started
a fire that took five hours to extinguish, and triggered small
radioactive discharges into the atmosphere and sea.
Japan has had reactors shut and superficially damaged by earthquakes
before, nuclear power stations have had safety system failures before,
and TEPCO management has been caught before covering up its plant
problems. But this was the first time all three circumstances had
coincided. This was the nearest thing Japan had seen to
genpatsu-shinsai (a nuclear power station earthquake disaster).
Had the epicentre been 10km to the southwest and at magnitude 7, claims
eminent seismologist Katsuhiko Ishibashi, Kashiwazaki City would have
experienced the real thing -- a nuclear plant emergency, possibly a
damaged reactor, breaking out in the destruction and chaos of a
population-centre earthquake.
Within 24 hours, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general
Mohamed ElBaradei had swished his own cane. He made Amari a polite but
insistent "offer'' that the UN nuclear safeguards agency's inspectors
assist Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission with a "fully transparent''
review of the accident and measures needed to guard against a
recurrence. Some headlines described the IAEA approach as a "demand''
for access and co-operation. That was crude, but not inaccurate.
ElBaradei was making an offer he knew the Japanese Government did not
want but would be unable to refuse.
Dealing that way with a country that has always supported ElBaradei,
and is in most respects a model nuclear citizen, was not a lightly
taken step. But equally clearly, what happened at TEPCO's Kashiwazaki
site was no "ordinary'' accident. The four reactors in service at
Japan's largest nuclear power complex shut down safely at the first
tremor, as designed, and there are no reports of reactor damage.
So the big safeguards worked. But this was the first time in
ElBaradei's decade as chief of the agency -- a term characterised by
his boasts about the nuclear power industry's excellent safety record
post-Chernobyl 1986 -- the IAEA had intervened so directly and
publicly.
That should be a warning to TEPCO and the 10 other power companies that
the ultimate cost to them and their customers from this accident will
considerably out-scale the initial Y1.5 trillion ($14.1 billion)
estimate of damage and economic loss from the Niigata quake.
Amari has already instructed the nuclear EPCOs to examine and report
back urgently on their automatic fire-fighting systems. The Government
is likely to toughen the 2006 nuclear plant design and safety
guidelines, particularly their retro-active application to older
plants. These rules arose as a result of the 2004 Mihama-3 steam leak
accident which killed five workers in 2004. (Katsuhiko Ishibashi quit
the sub-committee, writing to them in protest at their inadequacy.)
Ishibashi coined the genpatsu-shinsai phrase to dramatise his argument
that the most seismically active country in the world cannot afford the
risk of operating 55 nuclear reactors. He knows, however, that unless
or until the grim event he foresees actually materialises, there is no
chance Japan will go non-nuclear. Close to one-third of its electricity
is now generated by reactors and the official target is to move that
share to 40 per cent within 20 years.
Nuclear electricity and the imminent move to large-scale fuel recycling
is the only large-scale relief any Japanese government can envisage to
the acute reliance -- more than 90 per cent of total energy supply --
on imported oil and gas.
That also means, however, that after Niigata the Government will
redouble its efforts to improve the industry's safety performance and
standards. Since TEPCO's 2002 false safety reporting scandal and
Mihama-3, the Government has been steadily tightening the screws on
plant design and safety regimes.
TEPCO is in very serious trouble now. Even temporary closure of
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa removes close to 10 per cent of the company's peak
generating capacity. But there is, in fact, a very real chance the
plant will never return to service.
For 30 years, residents in Niigata tried to prevent the building, then
the operation, of the TEPCO complex. Tokyo courts twice rejected their
argument that the Kashiwazaki plant is adjacent to an active fault line
and thus fundamentally unsafe.
Now their appeal awaits a judgment in
the Supreme Court.
Further, if the IAEA-Nuclear Safety Commission investigation finds
other covered-up problems at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the Government could
decide it's curtains -- not just for the plant but for TEPCO in its
existing form. And if the Government accepts that Kashikawa-Kariwa
should not reopen, the pressure to shut down Chubu Electric Power Co's
Hamaoka complex would be huge.
Only 190km southwest of Tokyo and sitting astride an active fault that
could well be the epicentre of Japan's next "great earthquake'', three
of Hamaoka's five reactors are more than 24 years old and plagued with
safety problems.
------------------->
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Japan-Quake.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Japan Nuke Plant Still Leaking Radiation
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 19, 2007
Filed at 2:19 p.m. ET
KASHIWAZAKI,
Japan (AP) -- Radioactive material leaked undetected for days
at an
earthquake-battered nuclear power plant even as the utility
was
assuring the public that the damage posed no danger to those
outside the
site, company executives admitted Thursday.
The revelation cast more doubt on the plant's emergency measures and
the
response by Japan's largest power company, while the indefinite
shutdown of
the world's most powerful electricity generating facility
raised serious
fears of a summer power shortage.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. confirmed reports that radioactive material
was
leaking as late as Wednesday night, nearly three days after the
plant
suffered a near-direct hit from a quake that killed 10 people and
injured
more than 1,000 in Kashiwazaki on Japan's northern coast.
It was government inspectors who found radioactive iodine venting from
an
exhaust pipe at the plant's No. 7 nuclear reactor, said Hisanori
Nei, an
official with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It
escaped between
Tuesday and Wednesday night, Nei said.
Tokyo Electric
previously announced other radioactive materials had escaped
from the
pipe, but not iodine. An exhaust fan inside the building may not
have
been turned off as instructed in the operations manual,
company
spokesman Manabu Takeyama said.
Government inspectors concluded the iodine leak was too small to harm
the
environment or public health, Nei said.
The utility also stressed
the amount was extremely low and said it posed no
threat to the
environment or local people.
But the revelation reinforced concerns about the plant's safety, coming
a
day after Tokyo Electric issued a list of previously unreported
damage from
the quake -- including a fire, burst pipes and waste
spillage.
The seven reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant shut down
automatically
when the quake hit, and authorities have ordered the
plant closed
indefinitely while inspections and repairs are carried out
to assure it can
be restarted safely.
Tokyo Electric has warned that the closure could cause a power shortage
in
Japan as demand rises from summer use of air conditioners.
Six other power companies have said they will cooperate in
providing
emergency electricity and Tokyo Electric is considering
restarting
generating plants fueled by oil and natural gas, the utility
said late
Thursday.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki urged the operators of
Japan's 55
nuclear reactors -- suppliers of one-third of Japan's energy
-- to speed up
safety checks for earthquake resistance, a top concern
in the temblor-prone
nation.
''Since there was such a huge earthquake that surpassed our
expectations, we
need to consider future measures for quake
resistance,'' Shiozaki said. ''I
asked them to speed up the assessment
and checkups wherever possible.''
Officials at the plant conceded earlier that they had not foreseen
the
possibility of an earthquake as powerful as the magnitude-6.8
temblor that
hit Monday. They also said the utility hadn't known about
the nearby
offshore fault line in which the quake occurred.
The
utility announced Thursday that the force of the quake exceeded
its
resistance guidelines at all seven reactors, sometimes by more than
double.
Public broadcaster NHK said the reading at the No. 1 reactor
was the
strongest quake ever measured at a Japanese reactor.
Tokyo
Electric has repeatedly underreported the quake's impact.
After
initially saying it had caused a fire in an electrical
transformer and the
spill of radioactive water into the Sea of Japan,
the company reported 50
incidents of damage or leaks. Then it upped the
number to 63.
Its stock tumbled again Thursday, sliding 5.6 percent to
3,400 yen a share,
or $27.88, bringing its losses since the quake to
10.3 percent.
Members of the Nuclear Safety Commission toured the sprawling plant
Thursday
and criticized Tokyo Electric for missteps in its response to
the
earthquake.
Even so, they concluded none of the errors had
threatened public health.
The safety of the ''plant was fundamentally
maintained and we avoided the
serious consequences of a nuclear
accident,'' commission Chairman Atsuyuki
Suzuki said in a statement.
''The list of problems announced by TEPCO have
no serious effect on the
safety of the reactor.''
Tokyo Electric has been punished for failing to accurately inform the
public
of problems in the past.
Four years ago, the utility was forced
to halt all of its 17 nuclear
reactors after admitting it misreported
safety problems in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. The halt caused a
power shortage in the summer of 2003, and
other utilities stepped in
with emergency electricity production.
In that scandal, a trade
ministry report revealed 29 cases of cracks or
minor structural damage
in eight of Tokyo Electric's reactors, including two
reactors at
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa. The company's top three executives resigned,
but
the utility insisted the cracks never posed a serious danger. The
last
of the shuttered reactors wasn't cleared to reopen until July
2005.
------------------->
Crikey editorial 18/7/07
linking Howard's nuclear spin to the Japanese earthquake:
Lunchtime yesterday, as reported by the Herald Sun:
Nuclear Vision by Howard
Prime Minister John Howard yesterday reiterated the Federal
Government's commitment to nuclear power, saying that its introduction
would contribute to the lowering of greenhouse emissions.
Addressing the Melbourne Press Club on the proposed carbon trading
scheme, Mr Howard said it would be economic and environmental folly for
Australia to ignore the nuclear option.
"Nuclear power production has no direct CO2 emissions and is already a
significant part of the world's energy system," Mr Howard said.
"Improved economic competitiveness and safety of nuclear power, along
with concern for energy security and climate change, are leading to a
steady increase in worldwide nuclear power capacity."
Monday morning as reported by Daily Grist:
Earthquake causes nuclear headaches in Japan
A strong earthquake hit
northwestern Japan yesterday morning, and aftershocks continued into
the night. The 6.8-magnitude quake killed at least nine people, injured
more than 900 others, and flattened houses and highways. It also led to
a fire, leak, and waste spills at a powerful nuclear plant. The
Kashiwazaki Kariwa facility, which produces the most electricity of any
nuclear plant in the world, shut down during the event, but not before
a transformer caught on fire and a reactor ruptured, sending about 315
gallons of radioactive water into the sea. The trembling also toppled
at least 100 barrels of nuclear waste stored on site. Company officials
delayed, then downplayed news of the damage, saying there was little
environmental risk. But others in the country, which is home to 55
nuclear reactors, were left feeling uneasy. Weakness in the face of
quakes is, said Aileen Mioko Smith of the Japan-based eco-group Green
Action, "the Achilles heel of nuclear power plants."
------------------->
Seven dead, reactor breached in Japan earthquake
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/seven-dead-reactor-breached-in-japan-earthquake/2007/07/16/1184559705729.html
Issei Kato
July 17, 2007
A STRONG earthquake has killed at least seven people in north-western
Japan, injuring more than 800, flattening houses and causing a
radioactive leak at the world's largest nuclear power plant.
It was found that water containing radioactive materials leaked from a
reactor at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant — the world's
largest — after the quake, a company spokesman said.
A fire in an electrical transformer at the plant was quickly
extinguished, but it was unclear when Tokyo Electric Power Co would
restart three power units.
Two women in their 80s died when their homes collapsed during the
magnitude 6.8 earthquake, centred in Niigata prefecture about 250
kilometres north-west of Tokyo.
A police spokesman confirmed seven deaths, with media reporting that another elderly woman and a couple were among the dead.
"First there was a sharp vertical jolt and then it shook sideways for a
long time and I couldn't stand up," said Harumi Mikami, 55, a teacher
who was at her school in Kashiwazaki City, near the focus of the quake.
"Tall shelves fell over and things flew around."
Houses, many wooden with traditional heavy tile roofs, were flattened,
a temple roof caved in and roads cracked in the quake, which was in the
same north-western area as a tremor three years ago that killed 65
people.
"My house is half-destroyed and the pillars are damaged," Ms Mikami said. "My biggest worry is where I will live now."
TV footage showed one elderly woman, apparently alive, being rescued
from the wreckage of her collapsed house about five hours after the
quake.
Aftershocks of up to magnitude 5.6 rattled the area.
About 1700 people had fled their homes to nearly 100 evacuation centres.
Troops and extra emergency teams were being sent to help with rescue
and relief efforts, while Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cut short
campaigning for elections to inspect the area.
Japan is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries.
REUTERS
----------------->
Quake hits Japan nuclear plant
Correspondents in Kashiwazaki, Japan
July 17, 2007
A STRONG earthquake killed at least six people in Japan
yesterday,injured more than 600, flattened houses and triggered a fire
at the world's largest nuclear power plant.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22085481-2703,00.html
Four women and two men, all in their 70s and 80s, died after being
crushed when buildings collapsed on them as a result of the
magnitude-6.8 tremor, centred in Niigata prefecture about 250km
northwest of Tokyo, a police spokesman said.
Flames and billows of black smoke poured from the Kashiwazaki nuclear plant, which automatically shut down during the quake.
The fire, at an electrical transformer, was put out shortly after noon
and there was no release of radioactivity or damage to the reactors,
Tokyo Electric Power Company spokesman Motoyasu Tamaki said.
But it was unclear when the power company could restart three power units there.
Fire sirens could be heard in hard-hit Kashiwazaki city, and older buildings were reduced to piles of timber.
National broadcaster NHK reported that more than 600 people were hurt, with injuries including broken bones, cuts and bruises.
About 2200 people were evacuated from their homes, city official Takashi Otsuka said.
Kashiwazaki city police officer Masao Honma said: "It was too strong to
stand. Some people got under tables, others immediately went outside."
At least 12 people were trapped in collapsed houses in the city.
A temple roof caved in and roads cracked in the quake, which was
centred in the same northwestern area as one three years ago that
killed 65 people.
A hundred evacuation centres were being set up, a Niigata Prefecture
official said, and troops and extra emergency teams were being sent to
help with rescue and relief efforts.
"It brought back memories of the previous quake," a woman told television from her home, where furniture had been toppled.
Buildings swayed as far away as Tokyo, and nuclear reactors in Niigata
prefecture automatically shut down for checks, but no radiation leaks
were reported.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cut short campaigning for an upper house
election and returned to Tokyo, where the Government established an
emergency office to deal with the quake, which officials said had
damaged 350 buildings.
"We need to take every step tosave lives," Mr Abe told reporters.
Bullet trains in northern Japan were halted briefly after the quake,
and local trains stopped. One local train came off the rails, but no
one was reported injured.
Power and gas were cut to many homes and 37,000 households lost water supplies.
"We have a water tank for two days, but the city called to say they
don't know when water will be running again," said Reiko Nakao, who
works at a hotel in Kariwa village.
Tsunami warning sirens sounded along affected stretches of the Sea of Japan but the warning was later withdrawn.
Niigata was hit in October 2004 by a quake with a matching magnitude of
6.8 that killed 65 people and injured more than 3000. That was the
deadliest in Japan since a magnitude-7.3 quake hit the city of Kobe in
1995, killing more than 6400.
Reuters, AP
-------------->
Japan quake toll rises amid new shocks
July 17, 2007 - 10:06AM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/quake-tolls-rises-amid-new-shocks-nuclear-leak/2007/07/17/1184559740647.html
More than 10,000 people are sheltering in evacuation centres in Japan's
northwest after a strong earthquake flattened hundreds of houses,
killing at least nine people and injuring more than 900.
...
The country was rattled late yesterday evening by a deep tremor under
the Sea of Japan estimated at magnitude 6.6 to 6.8 that caused
buildings in Tokyo to sway, but there were no immediate reports of
further damage.
Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) said 1.5 litres of water containing
radioactive materials had leaked from a unit at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
nuclear power plant - the world's largest.
A similar amount of contaminated water had been released into the ocean
and had had no effect on the environment, the company said in a
statement, adding that the quake was stronger than its reactors had
been designed to cope with.
A fire in an electrical transformer at the plant was quickly
extinguished but it was unclear when TEPCO could restart three power
units there.
Japan is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries, with a tremor occurring at least every five minutes.
Houses, many wooden with traditional heavy tile roofs, collapsed and
roads cracked in yesterday's quake, centred in the same northwestern
area as a tremor three years ago.
Troops and extra emergency teams helped with rescue and relief efforts,
including distributing water and rice. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cut
short campaigning for parliamentary elections to inspect damage.
"We need to take every step to take lives. It's supposed to rain
tomorrow (Tuesday) in the area so we have to take every step to save
lives, secure lifelines and reassure people," Abe told reporters.
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
------------------->
Media Release
8 July 2007
Revitalizing Nuclear Disarmament:
Policy Recommendations of the Pugwash 50th Anniversary Workshop
Co-Sponsored by the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
and the Middle Powers Initiative
Pugwash, Nova Scotia, 5-7 July 2007
As long as nuclear weapons exist, they will one day be used.
This sober, inescapable truth continues to haunt the international
community. Every minute of every day, more than 26,000 nuclear weapons -
many thousands of them on hair-trigger alert - are poised to bring
monumental destruction if they are ever used. Nuclear weapons have spread
to more countries, and the international non-proliferation regime is
perilously close to collapse. Poorly guarded stockpiles of highly enriched
uranium and plutonium around the world could fall into the hands of
terrorists who would think nothing of exploding a nuclear device in a major
city.
Momentum is growing in the international community, however, from many
different political quarters, to re-energize the campaign to declare nuclear
weapons illegal and immoral, and to reduce and eliminate them. But the time
is now for decisive leadership and action to mount a global political
campaign to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction, before it is too
late.
Great changes in history - the end of slavery, the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the end of the Cold War - have come about through concerted political
action, often suddenly and with little warning. The international community
has the opportunity to achieve yet another epochal event: ending the
reliance on nuclear weapons and the total elimination of these genocidal
weapons.
We ask all governments, nuclear and non-nuclear alike, a simple question.
What are you doing to fulfill the basic obligation of every government - the
'responsibility to protect' the lives and human rights of its citizens that
would be obliterated by nuclear devastation?
Given political leadership and political will, implementation of the
following steps could greatly reduce the risk of nuclear weapons use:
* Immediate de-alerting of the thousands of nuclear weapons, on quick
reaction alert, that could be launched by accident, miscalculation, or
unauthorized computer hacking of command and control systems;
* Official declarations by all nuclear weapons-states of a No First
Use policy, and adoption of Negative Security Assurances that nuclear
weapons will never be used against countries who have legally bound
themselves not to acquire nuclear weapons;
* Immediate resumption of US-Russian nuclear negotiations to reduce
their nuclear forces to 1,000 or fewer nuclear weapons; to accelerate the
dismantlement and destruction of all excess nuclear forces and fissile
material; and to jointly develop early warning systems to reduce the risk of
accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons.
* Political agreement by NATO to withdraw all US nuclear weapons from
Europe, and to conclude a global agreement that nuclear weapons of any
country not be deployed on foreign territory;
* Full funding and implementation of the International Monitoring
System of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to ensure the continued
moratorium on nuclear testing, prior to the entry into force of the CTBT;
* An early start to negotiations of a global Fissile Material Cut-off
Treaty and a complete prohibition on the deployment and use of space
weapons;
* Finally, all States should affirm the goal of the complete abolition
and elimination of nuclear weapons through a multilaterally-verified
instrument - a Nuclear Weapons Convention - and work towards making such a
convention a reality.
We hope that the Government of Canada especially will play an active role in
the achievement of these objectives.
The goal of all these initiatives should be the strengthening of an
equitable non-proliferation regime that emphasizes the obligations of
non-nuclear states not to acquire nuclear weapons, and of nuclear
weapons-states to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals as soon as
practicable.
Only by concerted political will and public pressure can we avoid the
inevitable catastrophe that will surely come if nuclear weapons continue to
exist.
---
From 5-7 July 2007, a distinguished group of 25 international scientists and
specialists on nuclear weapons issues met in the fishing village of Pugwash,
Nova Scotia - on the 50th anniversary of the first Pugwash Conference - to
discuss the urgency of revitalizing nuclear disarmament in order to free the
world from the ever-present threat posed by nuclear weapons. Co-sponsored
by the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which received the
1995 Nobel Peace Prize with its co-founder and then President, Sir Joseph
Rotblat, and the Middle Powers Initiative, the full list of workshop
recommendations and analysis will be available shortly in the forthcoming
workshop report.
------------------->Return
to top
BRAZIL - ENRICHMENT = BOMBS = POLITICAL POWER
------------------->
Lula resumes nuclear program to make Brazil 'world power'
11 Jul 2007, 0456 hrs IST,AFP
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Rest_of_World/Lula_resumes_nuclear_program_to_make_Brazil_world_power/articleshow/2193094.cms
SAO PAULO: President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Tuesday relaunched
the country's nuclear program, promising to complete a nuclear
submarine and a third atomic power plant both mothballed 20 years ago.
"Brazil could rank among those few nations in the world with a command
of uranium enrichment technology, and I think we will be more highly
valued as a nation -- as the power we wish to be," Lula said at the
navy's Technological Centre in Sao Paulo.
"If money was lacking, it won't be lacking now," Lula said. Finishing
the nuclear submarine would cost an estimated 68 million dollars over
eight years, he said.
"And who knows, with a little more (money), we may build it sooner,
because it is running late," Lula said, 20 years after the project was
abandoned.
He also confirmed the government would complete the Angra III nuclear
plant in Rio de Janeiro state, after the National Committee on Energy
Policy approved the project two weeks ago.
"We will complete Angra III, and if necessary, we'll go on to build
more (nuclear plants) because it is clean energy and now proven to be
safe," Lula said. The plant will cost 3.5 billion dollars over five and
a half years, he said.
"Nuclear energy has been tested and approved in Brazil. It is safe and
we have the technology. So why not go for it?" Lula said.
Two weeks ago Lula said the country's energy demand was growing at five
percent a year. He said the government had to assure investors that
there will be no energy shortage after 2010.
However, Greenpeace criticized Lula's announcement as reviving a dream
of Brazil's 1964-1985 military regime, which Lula battled as a trade
union leader.
"He will reignite the 30-year dream of the military, with no benefit --
but lots of problems -- for the country," Greenpeace anti-nuclear
leader Guilherme Leonardi said.
Leonardi said the submarine could be "used for spying or sneak attacks and is unneeded in peacetime."
"Nuclear energy is unnecessary because it is expensive, dirty,
dangerous and outdated," he said, adding: "Brazil has enormous
potential in clean, environmentally friendly solar and biomass energy."
Brazil has the world's sixth largest reserves of uranium, and
completing the nuclear submarine would help Brazil to learn uranium
enrichment.
Brazil could then command the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining
to recycling, navy commander Julio Moura said recently. A
submarine-size reactor could also power a small city, he said.
"We have what it takes to become a great energy power and we are not going to give that up," Lula said.
However, Lula's Environment Minister Marina Silva opposes the projects:
"In the last 15 years, no country has built nuclear power plants
because of the problems with the waste.
"We have other sources of power: a great potential in hydroelectric, and clean energies in which we should invest," she said.
The 2004 opening of a uranium enrichment facility in Resende, outside Rio de Janeiro, triggered international controversy.
Brazil, a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, obliged
the International Atomic Energy Agency to accommodate Brazil's demand
for an inspection regime that protected the plant's technology and
trade secrets.
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR POWER - GLOBAL
------------------->
Nuclear industry revival hits roadblocks
29 June 2007
NewScientist.com news service
From issue 2610 of New Scientist magazine, 29 June 2007, page 6
http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19426103.200-nuclear-industry-revival-hits-roadblocks.html
The much-touted resurgence of the European nuclear industry, promoted
as a local solution to climate change, is already running into trouble.
Construction of Europe's first new nuclear power station since 1991 -
the European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) at Olkiluoto, Finland -
started in August 2005.
Now the Finnish nuclear regulator, STUK, has uncovered a series of
safety "deficiencies" in the new-style plant's manufacture and design.
This setback has already caused it to fall 18 months behind schedule
and about 700 million over budget.
The idea that nuclear power is making a comeback globally and that
Finland is at the forefront of this revival is no more than "hype",
according to Jorma Aurela, a senior energy official in the Ministry of
Trade and Industry. "I always want to put ice cubes in the hats of
those who talk about a nuclear renaissance," he says. "Nuclear power
has its role, but it is not the answer to climate change."
The EPR is not scheduled to operate commercially before 2011. It represents the favoured design for future reactors in the UK.
------------------->
Fission for Answers
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13124/fission_for_answers.html
Updaetd: April 19, 2007
Lee Hudson Teslik
While ethanol captures the imagination of energy officials in the
Western Hemisphere, a familiar fuel source—nuclear power—appears to be
stirring excitement on an even broader scale. Take Asia, where eighteen
new plants are under construction and about 110 more are planned
(Uranium Information Center), due in part to voracious demand from
China, India, Japan, and South Korea. Or take the Middle East, where
Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program has spurred oil titan Saudi Arabia
to launch its own system (NYT) of nuclear reactors that would span the
Persian Gulf region. Egypt also wants to tap nuclear energy (BBC), as
do Turkey and Jordan. “The rules have changed (Haaretz) on the nuclear
subject,” said Jordan’s King Abdullah in a recent interview.
“Everybody's going for nuclear programs.”
Of course, nuclear energy is also back in favor in the United States.
“A secure energy future for America must include more nuclear power,”
said President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address. At the time
of the president’s speech, no new reactor had been built in the United
States since 1996. Now one decommissioned nuclear reactor is being
brought back into operation, and electrical utility companies are
considering twenty three additional possible reactor projects (FT).
A confluence of factors has made nuclear power suddenly more popular.
Leading the list is Bush’s goal of energy independence, which requires
reducing oil imports. No less significant is the drive to counteract
global warming and cut back on energy sources that produce carbon gas.
A new report from the Center for Naval Analyses points out that these
goals can be interrelated, noting that climate change may well present
a serious national security threat. More basically, the world faces a
severe energy crunch. Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs writes in a May 2007
Scientific American article that the size of the world economy must
increase by a factor of four to six by 2050 to accommodate population
growth. At the same time, Sachs says, “global emissions of greenhouse
gases will have to remain steady or decline to prevent dangerous
changes to the climate.”
Nuclear power promises to factor into this tricky equation, but it’s no
magic bullet. Far from it, argues a new Council Special Report. The
report says nuclear energy is unlikely to play a major role either in
bolstering U.S. energy security or countering climate change. In fact,
the report argues, expanding U.S. nuclear facilities fast enough to
stem climate change would undermine energy security: “To realistically
address global warming, the nuclear industry would have to expand at
such a rapid rate as to pose serious concerns for how the industry
would ensure an adequate supply of reasonably inexpensive reactor-grade
construction materials, well-trained technicians, and rigorous safety
and security measures.” Testifying before Congress on April 18, CFR's
President Richard N. Haass said the United States faces major “hurdles
to maintaining, much less increasing” the percentage of American
electricity produced by nuclear power plants.
Similar concerns are echoed in a 2003 MIT study on nuclear energy’s
prospects. The study concludes nuclear energy faces four major
competitive obstacles: high costs; perceived safety, environmental, and
health effects; the security risks of proliferation; and unanswered
questions about managing nuclear waste. These factors in mind, a
special report from the Economist makes the case that governments
should not fund nuclear projects, but rather should let the market
decide.
------------------->
Nuclear Plants in Finland and Worldwide
FINLAND: July 10, 2007
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/43031/story.htm
OLKILUOTO, Finland - Finland -- eager to avoid power shortages ahead of
tighter EU carbon emission policies -- is building a fifth nuclear
reactor and seeing new plans emerging from an industry keen to build
more.
Following are key facts about nuclear power in Finland, Europe and the world.
FINLAND'S 5TH REACTOR
* Finland's parliament voted in 2002 to allow utility Teollisuuden
Voima (TVO) to build the new reactor at Olkiluoto, on the western
coast, the first such decision to build a new nuclear plant in Western
Europe for more than a decade.
* The pressurised water unit is being built by a consortium led by France's Areva and Germany's Siemens.
* The total cost of the plant, Finland biggest single industrial investment, is about 3 billion euros.
* The new plant was originally scheduled to come on line in 2009 but
was then put off until late 2010, and again until the start of 2011,
due to slower-than-expected construction works.
* Finland's 1,600 megawatt Olkiluoto 3 reactor will be the world's
largest single unit when it comes on line in 2011 and is seen as a
test-case among older EU member states wary of piling back into nuclear
projects. France, which uses almost 80 percent nuclear power, aims to
have a new 1,600 megawatt unit on line a year later.
* Since the new plant was agreed, industry-controlled TVO and utility
Fortum have already launched studies on new plants in Olkiluoto and
Loviisa on the southeastern coast.
* A newly set up venture Fennovoima, backed by Germany's E.ON, also
plans a nuclear plant in Finland, and Sweden's Vattenfall has also
expressed interest.
FINLAND'S ENERGY MIX
* Total energy consumption in 2006: Oil 24 percent, wood fuels 20
percent, nuclear energy 16 percent, natural gas 15 percent, coal 11
percent, peat 6 percent, hydro power 3 percent, net imports of
electricity 3 percent, and other 2 percent.
NUCLEAR ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE AND GLOBALLY
* Worldwide there are 437 working reactors, with 30 under construction, 74 planned and 182 proposed.
* Nuclear power supplies 16 percent of the world's electricity and 34 percent of the European Union's.
* Nuclear power proponents say it is a clean power source that, in
contrast to fossil fuels, does not emit climate-warming carbon dioxide.
They also say its fuel can be easily stockpiled and does not leave
countries at the mercy of oil and gas exporting nations such as Russia.
* 15 of the EU's 27 members have nuclear power plants, with the
percentage of electricity supplied ranging from 78 percent in France to
just 3.5 percent in the Netherlands.
* Attitudes vary across the bloc. France has committed to renewing its
reactor fleet, Finland is building a new plant, Germany and Sweden have
committed to phasing out nuclear power and the Dutch have reversed a
previous decision to phase it out.
* France is Europe's nuclear champion with 58 reactors: it is building a new unit at Flamanville due to be finished in 2012.
* Italy used to have four nuclear power reactors, but it shut down the
last two after the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. It is
considering building new nuclear capacity.
* Among the EU's newer members, ex-communist Lithuania has teamed up
with Poland and other Baltic states to plan a new nuclear plant in the
country. Also Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia have plans to build new
reactors.
* Nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of electricity in the United
States and the government is actively promoting new nuclear plants
through tax breaks.
* Boom economy China gets just 1.9 percent of its electricity from 11
nuclear reactors, but four more are under construction, 23 are in the
planning stages and there are proposals for another 54.
Sources: the World Nuclear Association and Statistics Finland.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE CHANGE
------------------->
World Cannot Afford Nuclear Climate Solution - Report
UK: June 28, 2007
Story by Jeremy Lovell
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42844/story.htm
LONDON - The world must start building nuclear power plants at the
unprecedented rate of four a month from now on if nuclear energy is to
play a serious part in fighting global warming, a leading think-tank
said on Wednesday.
Not only is this impossible for logistical reasons, but it has major
implications for world security because of nuclear weapons
proliferation, the Oxford Research Group said in its report "Too Hot To
Handle - The future of civil nuclear power".
The report fired a series of broadsides against the growing momentum
for more nuclear-generated electricity to help cut climate-warming
carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels.
"A world-wide nuclear renaissance is beyond the capacity of the nuclear
industry to deliver and would stretch to breaking point the capacity of
the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to monitor and safeguard
civil nuclear power," it said.
The report comes less than a week after the World Energy Council -- the
global organisation of electricity generators -- said nuclear power had
to be a significant part of the new energy mix both to beat global
warming and guarantee security.
Nuclear power now provides about 16 percent of a world electricity
demand that is set to at least keep pace with the growth in population
-- predicted to rise by more than half to 10 billion people by 2075.
The report said that if it was to play a significant part in curbing
carbon emissions, nuclear power would have to provide one-third of
electricity by 2075.
That, it said, meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, globally for the next 70 years.
Not only had top civil nuclear power France, which gets 78 percent of
its electricity from 59 nuclear reactors, never got remotely near that
rate of construction, but the implications for wholesale weapons
proliferation were overwhelming, it said.
"Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can
make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power
should be taken out of the mix," the report said.
Proponents say nuclear power emits little of the carbon dioxide that
scientists say is the major cause of global warming, while opponents
point to the lethal toxicity that lingers for thousands of years.
The report said there were 429 reactors in operation, ranging from 103
in the United States to one in Armenia, with 25 more under
construction, 76 planned and 162 proposed.
It noted not only major nuclear expansion plans in boom economy China
-- which is already building two coal-fired plants a week -- but
nascent interest across the oil-rich Middle East and the likelihood of
demand from across Africa and Asia.
Surging demand would place great strains on supplies of uranium ore --
probably leading to exploitation of poorer grades and therefore more
carbon expended on extraction and refining.
This would push development of fast breeder reactors which produce more
radioactive fuel than they consume, solving the fuel problem but
creating a security nightmare, the report said.
The report said if the 2075 scenario came about then 4,000 tonnes of
plutonium would be being processed into reactor fuel each year --
twenty times the current military stockpile.
The probabilities were large that some of this plutonium would end up
in the wrong hands and be used as a "dirty" bomb even if it was not
used to make a sophisticated nuclear device.
------------------->
Nuclear is not climate solution: report
June 28, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Nuclear-is-not-climate-solution-report/2007/06/28/1182624023540.html
The world must start building nuclear power plants at the unprecedented
rate of four a month from now on if nuclear energy is to play a serious
part in fighting global warming, a leading think-tank says.
Not only is this impossible for logistical reasons, but it has major
implications for world security because of nuclear weapons
proliferation, the Oxford Research Group said in its report "Too Hot To
Handle - The future of civil nuclear power".
The report fired a series of broadsides against the growing momentum
for more nuclear-generated electricity to help cut climate-warming
carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels.
"A world-wide nuclear renaissance is beyond the capacity of the nuclear
industry to deliver and would stretch to breaking point the capacity of
the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to monitor and safeguard
civil nuclear power," it said.
The report comes less than a week after the World Energy Council - the
global organisation of electricity generators - said nuclear power had
to be a significant part of the new energy mix both to beat global
warming and guarantee security.
Nuclear power now provides about 16 per cent of a world electricity
demand that is set to at least keep pace with the growth in population
- predicted to rise by more than half to 10 billion people by 2075.
The report said that if it was to play a significant part in curbing
carbon emissions, nuclear power would have to provide one-third of
electricity by 2075.
That, it said, meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, globally for the next 70 years.
Not only had top civil nuclear power France, which gets 78 per cent of
its electricity from 59 nuclear reactors, never got remotely near that
rate of construction, but the implications for wholesale weapons
proliferation were overwhelming, it said.
"Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can
make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power
should be taken out of the mix," the report said.
Proponents say nuclear power emits little of the carbon dioxide that
scientists say is the major cause of global warming, while opponents
point to the lethal toxicity that lingers for thousands of years.
The report said there were 429 reactors in operation, ranging from 103
in the United States to one in Armenia, with 25 more under
construction, 76 planned and 162 proposed.
It noted not only major nuclear expansion plans in boom economy China -
which is already building two coal-fired plants a week - but nascent
interest across the oil-rich Middle East and the likelihood of demand
from across Africa and Asia.
Surging demand would place great strains on supplies of uranium ore -
probably leading to exploitation of poorer grades and therefore more
carbon expended on extraction and refining.
This would push development of fast breeder reactors which produce more
radioactive fuel than they consume, solving the fuel problem but
creating a security nightmare, the report said.
The report said if the 2075 scenario came about then 4,000 tonnes of
plutonium would be being processed into reactor fuel each year - twenty
times the current military stockpile.
The probabilities were large that some of this plutonium would end up
in the wrong hands and be used as a "dirty" bomb even if it was not
used to make a sophisticated nuclear device.
------------------->
Nuclear doesn't have power to halt global warming
5:00AM Saturday June 16, 2007
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=37&objectid=10446073
WASHINGTON: Nuclear power would only curb climate change by expanding
worldwide at the rate it grew from 1981 to 1990, its busiest decade,
and keep up that rate for half a century, a report said this week.
That would require adding on average 14 plants each year for the next
50 years, all the while building an average of 7.4 plants to replace
those that will be retired, the report by environmental leaders,
industry executives and academics said.
Currently, the United States, the world's top nuclear power producer,
has 104 plants that generate 20 per cent of the country's electricity.
Nuclear power, which has near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide, has
recently come back into fashion as an alternative to generating
electricity from coal and other carbon-based sources that contribute to
global warming.
While the report also supported storing US nuclear waste at power
plants until the long-stalled Yucca Mountain repository opens, 10 dumps
the size of Yucca Mountain would be needed to store the extra generated
waste by the needed nuclear generation boom.
That outlook was too optimistic in light of how many new nuclear plants are currently on the drawing board.
The needed rate of expansion would be faster than during the industry's
first 40 years and the Energy Information Administration's forecast for
the next 30 years in the US.
Some individuals differed, though, on how much the industry would expand, and said it could still make some kind of impact.
Twenty-seven people from organisations spanning a broad ideological
spectrum, including the Natural Resources Defence Council and GE
Energy, spent nine months on the report, called The Nuclear Power Joint
Fact-Finding.
The group said that as companies limited generating electricity from
coal and other fossil fuels, there would be more financial incentives
to build nuclear power plants.
The group also said that President George W. Bush's Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP) could help countries and groups interested in
building nuclear weapons obtain plutonium, the key ingredient in those
munitions, which could help spread nuclear weapons.
While the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit organisation of
scientists focused on the environment, had trouble with most of the
report, it agreed with assertions on GNEP.
"By promoting the commercial production and use of plutonium, the Bush
Administration is facilitating the spread of nuclear bomb materials
around the world," said Edwin Lymann, a scientist working on security
issues for the group.
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR WASTE
------------------->
Nuclear option is cleaner: ANSTO chief
July 25, 2007
Stephanie Peatling
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/nuclear-option-is-cleaner-ansto-chief/2007/07/24/1185043117243.html
THE waste generated by nuclear power stations is tiny compared with
that of coal-fired power stations and should not be considered an
obstacle to the development of a domestic nuclear power industry, the
head of the nuclear technology body says.
Ian Smith, executive director of the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation, released figures yesterday showing while a
nuclear power plant produced about 315 cubic metres of waste over its
life, a coal fired power station produced 3.3 million cubic metres.
He said in a briefing in Canberra that the waste from coal stations was
potentially more toxic than that produced by nuclear stations.
He cited the case of France where between 70 and 80 per cent of power
comes from nuclear. Over 25 years the stations had not produced enough
waste to fill one Olympic-sized swimming pool, he said.
Letter sent to The Age
Nuclear waste and weapons
Ian Smith, executive director of the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation, notes that the volume of waste generated by
nuclear reactors is tiny compared with that of coal-fired power
stations ("Nuclear option is cleaner: ANSTO chief", July 25).
The claim is true - but also utterly disingenuous. Volume has never
been the problem with spent nuclear fuel. The problems include the
intense radioactivity and heat of this high-level nuclear waste. And
there is another, greater problem - spent fuel contains plutonium which
can be used in nuclear weapons.
The government-commissioned Switkowski report noted that 25 reactors
would produce up to 45,000 tonnes of spent fuel. One percent of spent
fuel is plutonium, and about 10 kilograms of 'reactor grade' plutonium
are required for one weapon. Consequently, 25 reactors would produce
enough plutonium for a staggering 45,000 nuclear weapons.
Other countries in the region would be encouraged to develop a fissile
material production capacity, either via nuclear reactors or uranium
enrichment.
Jim Green
Friends of the Earth
Melbourne
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS
------------------->
(The figures on the liquid spill at the Japanese nuclear plant are
based on early, false 'information' supplied by the nuclear utility.)
July 25, 2007
Nuclear Mishap or Meltdown?: It's All a Matter of Degree
An obscure scale helps communicate the relative severity of a nuclear accident
By David Biello
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=FD9E82DA-E7F2-99DF-3889FDE5D7101770&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular
NUCLEAR RATING: The International Nuclear Event Scale was devised to communicate the relative severity of a nuclear accident.
Earthquake stories are incomplete without information from the Richter
scale. Without the measurement of magnitude 6.8, for instance, few
could grasp the relative severity of the recent earthquake off the
western coast of Japan. Scales are also essential to any weather
report—from hurricane intensity (measured on the Saffir-Simpson
hurricane scale from categories 1 to 5) to the temperature.
An analogous scale exists for portraying the broad range of potential
danger from a nuclear accident—whether it be a small leak of
radioactive material or the meltdown of a reactor—though it lingers in
relative obscurity. But with plans to build many more nuclear reactors
worldwide, including as many as 30 in the U.S. alone over the next few
decades, the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) may become more
familiar.
The scale ranges from level 0 (a "deviation" of "no safety
significance") to level 7 (a "major accident"). No major nuclear
accidents have occurred since it was implemented in 1992, but it has
been used to assess damage from previous events. Only one event, the
1986 meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, has merited
its most serious degree, level 7. The explosion in the reactor core
spread both short- and long-lived radioactive material as far as the
U.K. Therefore, it fulfilled all three of the scale's criteria: on-site
impact, off-site impact and so-called "defense in depth."
The latter concept refers to the numerous safeguards designed to limit
the impact of potentially deadly accidents. "How did the safety
provisions function and how close the event was to causing a problem,"
says Cynthia Jones, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)
senior technical advisor for nuclear security. "It's like if you had a
car accident and you broke your turn signal. Can you still drive the
car? Yes, but you've lost one of your defenses. It's a degradation of
warning."
In the case of Chernobyl, all such preventive measures failed. In the
case of the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near
Middletown, Pa., radioactivity spread but was limited to a 10-mile
radius, which led to it being downgraded it to level 5, even though it
had the makings of a full-scale catastrophe due to human error.
In all, there were 10 incidents at U.S. nuclear plants last year that
merited ratings of 2—"significant spread of contamination /
overexposure of a worker" and "incidents with significant failures in
safety provisions," as the INES handbook puts it—or above, Jones says.
"Two reactor events and eight nonreactor events."
Among the eight nonreactor events was a spill at the Nuclear Fuel
Services, Inc., fuel production plant in Erwin, Tenn., in March 2006.
More than eight gallons (31 liters) of highly enriched, weapons-grade
uranyl nitrate, the liquid form of transportable uranium, nearly pooled
in a sufficient quantity to achieve the conditions necessary for a
spontaneous chain reaction—uncontrolled fission, otherwise known as a
criticality.
"Nothing did happen in terms of a criticality event," says NRC
commissioner Gregory Jaczko. "That would have been the kind of event
that would have been a potential." Because such fission was avoided,
the incident was reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) by the NRC as a level 2 event on the INES scale. Subsequently,
the plant was closed for seven months and a major reorganization has
been undertaken by Nuclear Fuel Services, according to notes from a
meeting with NRC commissioners.
The INES scale notwithstanding, word of this near-fission event did not
reach the public until this year due to secrecy provisions put in place
by the Bush administration to stop would-be terrorists and others from
getting information about nuclear power plants. "Certainly, in my view,
this was something we should have reported initially," Jaczko says.
Notes Rejane Spiegelberg Planer, who is in charge of incident reporting
at the IAEA: "There is no obligation to report." So far, 63 countries
have agreed to voluntarily report and rank incidents on the scale. Each
country has its own internal reporting requirements; the NRC requires
that all licensed U.S. nuclear operators promptly notify it of any
incidents.
The information, of course, can only be as good as the reporting—and
the scale itself. The leaks of nuclear fuel rod cooling water, a
burning transformer and other problems at the world's largest nuclear
reactor—Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan—caused by the earthquake this past
week have yet to rise above INES level 0. The coolant's radioactivity
has been reported as 16,000 becquerels per liter in the roughly
liter-and-a-half (0.39-gallon) spill. (One becquerel is the measure of
a material's radioactive decay equal to one nucleus disintegration per
second.) To merit a 2 on the scale, for example, would require the leak
of material emitting several gigabecquerels. "We can't even measure
that [Japanese spill] with any kind of device that we have," Jones says.
A malfunction in the water pump at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant
in New Jersey caused it to shut down on July 17 and release one curie
of tritium (an isotope of hydrogen) in vented steam, according to the
NRC. One curie equals 37 billion becquerels, "just half the
radiological exposure of living with a household smoke detector,"
according to Exelon, the power company that runs the plant. As a
result, this incident at the oldest operating nuclear reactor in the
U.S. also does not merit inclusion on INES.
But with more nuclear power plants being built and planned (there are
licenses pending at the NRC to build 30 plants in the U.S.), the aging
of those currently on line as well as the proliferation of radioactive
materials used in other applications, the INES scale may yet become
more familiar. "I like to compare it with a very simple scale that is a
thermometer," IAEA's Spiegelberg Planer says. Level 0 is equivalent to
the human body at its normal temperature. Level 2 might be a slight
rise in temperature that prompts taking an aspirin. "You don't go to
the emergency room if you can take an aspirin," she says, whereas at
level 7 "you are already in the hospital."
--------------->
Nuclear under fire
Dangerous reactors send a clear signal: phase out nuclear power
06 July 2007
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/nuclear-under-fire-050707
Germany — It's been a bad few weeks for the nuclear industry,
especially in Germany. While the nuclear companies were lobbying to
reverse the German nukes phase out, two German nuclear plants suffered
a fire and emergency shut down.
With the nuclear industry's false assurances of safety and reliability
exposed, German chancellor Merkel announced Germany would not revise
nor abandon the plan for nuclear-phase out by 2021.
As in many other countries, nuclear energy companies are lobbying the
German government to keep old, dangerous reactors open for longer. But
it was recent events that highlighted the growing nuclear risks. Less
than a week before the German energy summit a fire broke out at
Kruemmel nuclear station and another one in Brunsbuttel suffered an
emergency shut down due to technical failure. Also, there was a similar
UK accident in May where a fire shut down an old reactor at Oldbury.
In many countries most nuclear plants are reaching the end of their
planned life spans of 25-30 years. Most energy companies who operate
the plants are pushing to extend operations many years beyond the time
the plants were originally planned to close. This has serious safety
implications. Not only are older reactors prone to all kinds of
failures, like any old, complex machines, but many of their crucial
components are physically loosing their ability to withstand extreme
situations that may occur during an accident. For example the reactor
vessel, at the very heart of the plant and key for nuclear safety, gets
more and more brittle over time due to intensive radiation.
Compromising on safety
While an old car that fails a safety test is taken off the road, an old
nuclear plant that fails safety tests tends to get patched up and given
a license to continue working, despite the fact a serious accident
could threaten millions of lives. Operators claim that due to their
growing experience and technical upgrades, they can run reactors much
more safely and reliably twenty one years after Chernobyl. State safety
inspectors buy this line and tend to be positive about proposals for
plant life extensions.
These reactor fires were a reminder that we cannot trust operators, and
not even state regulators. Often the true scale of the problems are
hidden. Only a week after the fire at Krummel station it was revealed
that there was a direct nuclear risk involved. Yet a spokesperson from
plant operator Vattenfall stated the fire "looked more dramatic than it
really was" and that "it affected only a transformer with no
implication for nuclear safety".
"I always want to put ice cubes in the hats of those who talk about a nuclear renaissance."
Jorma Aurela, a senior energy official in the Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry.
New reactor, same problems
The great hope of the nuclear industry is the showcase EPR reactor in
Olkiluoto, Finland. But even before it's close to being finished it's
demonstrating the familiar problems of nuclear energy. After just two
years of building it is 18 months behind schedule and a massive E700
million over budget. This supposed 'showcase' project has had so many
safety problems with substandard construction that the Finnish nuclear
regulator has uncovered a series of safety "deficiencies".
In just two years there have been multiple major problems with
construction of this 'bright new hope' for the nuclear industry at
Olkiluoto. First the concrete base was made of poor quality concrete,
and then the reactor vessel failed safety standards. Cooling pipes had
to be scrapped due to bad quality steel and it was discovered the steel
containment lining (crucial to protect against radiation leaks) was
found to have almost 50 holes in the wrong places.
Relying on keeping old dangerous reactors going long past their close
by date and unable to even build on new reactor without massive delays,
blowing the budget and failing minimum safety standards. That betrays
the industry hot air of an "nuclear renaissance" for what it really is
- an industry on life support, kept alive only by massive tax payer
subsidies and putting profit over safety.
Luckily we can secure energy supply and prevent dangerous climate
change without hazardous nuclear power. As our Energy Revolution
scenario shows, we can phase out existing reactors without building new
ones, and achieve the required cut in greenhouse emissions.
------------------->Return
to top
FAKE FIRM SOLD BOMB MATERIAL IN STING
------------------->
Fake firm sold nuclear bomb material in sting
July 12, 2007
This story is from our news.com.au network Source: Reuters
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22062152-1702,00.html
UNDERCOVER investigators, working for a fake firm, obtained a licence
to buy enough radioactive material to build a 'dirty bomb,' amid little
scrutiny from federal regulators, according to a government report.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the licence to the dummy
company in just 28 days with only a cursory review, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) said in a report to be released on
Thursday.
The GAO, which set up the sting, said the NRC approved the licence
after a couple of faxes and phones calls and then mailed it to the
phony company's headquarters - a drop box at a United Parcel Service
location.
"From the date of application to the issuance of the licence, the entire process lasted 28 days," the GAO said.
"GAO investigators essentially obtained a valid materials licence from the NRC without ever leaving their desks."
The NRC oversees the US nuclear industry and nuclear material safety issues.
The GAO report said its undercover agents made counterfeit copies of
the licence, changed the wording to remove restrictions on how much
they were allowed to buy and then ordered enough radiological materials
to build a dirty bomb.
The GAO, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, said its
investigators did not take possession of the radiological materials.
US officials have warned that militant groups, including al-Qaeda,
could use conventional explosives and material from sources as common
as hospital X-ray departments to build so-called dirty bombs that could
spread radioactive waste across urban centres.
The GAO sting was requested by a Senate panel that has been exploring
post-September 11 security gaps in the US government's regulation of
radioactive material.
The senior Republican on the panel, Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota,
said the panel found the NRC was issuing licenses for "dangerous" level
materials before visiting facilities making the applications.
"The NRC's first visit to the facilities could be up to one year after
the license was issued. That's like handing out a gun license and
waiting a year to do the background check," Sen Coleman said in a
statement.
The GAO recommended the NRC improve its process for examining license
applications for radioactive materials and explore ways to prevent the
counterfeiting of licenses.
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR TERRORISM
------------------->
Al-Qa'ida 'moving to blast American city with N-bomb'
Patrick Walters, National security editor
July 11, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22053993-2702,00.html
THE prospect of al-Qa'ida detonating a nuclear device in a US city is
the top security threat facing America - and there is a real chance
they will succeed, one of the country's leading weapons experts has
warned.
"Over a 10-year period, it becomes quite plausible," Robert Gallucci
said yesterday. "If you said there was a 20 or 25 per cent probability,
that's a hell of a high probability for an event that could kill a
quarter or half a million people.
"It's a threat against which the US has neither a defence nor a deterrent."
On a visit to Australia hosted by the Australian Strategic Policy
Institute, Dr Gallucci said a small team of five to 15 people could
build a simple bomb with the power of the blast that exploded over
Hiroshima in 1945.
"The US and Britain are probably the major targets for this kind of enterprise.
"This would be a major logistical planning effort for any terrorist group."
Dr Gallucci, the head of Georgetown University's School of Foreign
Service, is a former senior US State Department official who served on
the UN Special Commission on Iraq and was the lead negotiator for the
1994-agreed framework on North Korea's nuclear program.
He said it was unlikely al-Qa'ida would acquire a ready-made nuclear
weapon because the nine nuclear weapon states were "pretty good" at
securing their arsenals.
"For me, the issue is not could they make the weapon, the issue is could they get the fissile material?"
Highly enriched uranium or plutonium could be acquired from a
sympathetic Islamist working in Pakistan's nuclear industry or possibly
by bribery from Russia.
A Hiroshima-type bomb, rather than more sophisticated implosion
devices, would involve a carefully machined metal tube in which two
pieces of fissile material slammed into each other and generated a
nuclear reaction.
"It's not hard, it's not necessary to do tests with it. I think that's within their reach," Dr Gallucci said.
"This is not a device that would require someone putting it together
either having a nuclear weapons background or being familiar with
nuclear weapons.
"All they have to do is have a basic understanding of nuclear engineering, some knowledge of materials and of high explosives."
Even a small sub-kilotonne device using plutonium or enriched uranium could have a devastating effect in a large city.
Dr Gallucci said the US was making serious efforts to improve its
ability to track fissile materials, with the aim of identifying the
source either before a detonation or soon afterwards.
The more likely scenario was after the bomb detonated, when there would
be a race to find what kind of fission material was used and where it
was manufactured, even down to the individual nuclear reactor.
"This is an objective of our effort," he said. "We have some capability
for attribution now, and we expect that capability would get better."
------------------->Return
to top
INDONESIA'S NUCLEAR PLANS
------------------->
In Indonesia, Japan quake casts shadow over nuclear plant plans
By Donald Greenlees
Published: July 26, 2007
http://iht.com/articles/2007/07/26/asia/nuclear.1-102247.php
------------------->
Last Update: Tuesday, June 12, 2007. 9:30pm (AEST)
Thousands protest against Indonesian nuclear plant
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1949428.htm
Thousands of protesters have rallied in Indonesia's Central Java,
calling on the Government to abandon plans to build a nuclear power
plant on the outskirts of their city.
The Government, under increasing pressure to improve energy supplies to
the world's fourth most populous nation, plans to built its first plant
on the foothills of Mount Muria, a dormant volcano on the north coast
of Java island.
Police say nearly 4,000 local residents, students and anti-nuclear
activists have taken to the streets in the city of Kudus, about 30
kilometres from the volcano.
Lilo Sunarya, one of the protest organisers, says the district
Government will send a letter to Jakarta, urging national authorities
to cancel the project over fears of the dangers posed by nuclear waste.
Mr Sunarya says that although the nuclear plant is expected to generate
power for 40 to 50 years, the waste created could threaten the health
of local residents for centuries.
The Indonesian Government shelved plans to develop atomic energy in
1997 in the face of mounting public opposition and the discovery and
exploitation of the large Natuna gas field.
But the plans resurfaced in 2005 amid increasing power shortages and as
part of a government drive to develop and diversify energy resources.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed Indonesia's plans to
build nuclear plants, despite opposition from environmentalists.
Greenpeace says the plan poses a danger to quake-prone Indonesia and its neighbours.
- AFP
Return
to top
Return
to contents