Australian Nuclear Free Alliance
CLEAN ENERGY
- New report: Growing the Green Collar Economy
- International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
- local gas plants proposed to replace coal in NSW
- geothermal
- clean energy vs coal
- Iceland
- solar
URANIUM MINING IN AUSTRALIA
- various
- Roxby Downs Expansion
- WA
- Hype
- Marathon / Mt Gee
- Uranium & Weapons: Scientists Drop Nuclear Bombshell
- NT Uranium Explorer Admits To Leak At Canadian Operation
- Beverley Four Mile Application
- Uranium Industry Framework / Ferguson
- Honeymoon Uranium Miner In Trouble
- Australian Uranium Companies Overseas
- Uranium Sales To Russia
- Uranium Sales to India
VARIOUS
Kevin Rudd's Nuclear Disarmament Commission
Australia And Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
US-India Nuclear Deal - Rudd Government Supports
Lucas Heights Reactor a Lemon
Hunters Hill - Sydney - Cancers
Clean Coal?
National Nuclear Dump Proposed for the NT
Nuclear Power for Australia?
Nuclear Energy Becoming Less Sustainable
France - Accidents/Leaks
GNEP Funding Cut, Yucca Funded
International News - Various
NUCLEAR POWER
Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Nuclear Power - Economics
Nuclear Power Crawling Forward
Nuclear Power In The USA: Warts N All
Nuclear Power - Kyoto Subidies
Nuclear Power Accident Near-Miss in USA
Nuclear Power: Chernobyl Anniversary
Nuclear Power in South-East Asia
Rokkasho Nuclear Reprocessing Plant In Japan
New Fuel - Risks
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
- Iran
- Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?
- US Loses Missile Parts
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR FREE ALLIANCE
------------------->
August 29-31
Aboriginal people opposing uranium or nuclear waste projects on their
country are invited to the 2008 meeting of the Australian Nuclear Free
Alliance, to be held 120km from Darwin. Talk with other affected
communities and representatives from environmental and public health
organisations. Contact Donna Jackson 0427 847 186.
------------------->
Latest newsletter - Australian Nuclear Free Alliance:
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/alliance
And the fab new Alliance posters at the same website:
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/alliance
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
CLEAN ENERGY - New report: Growing the Green Collar Economy
------------------->
New report: Growing the Green Collar Economy
Growing the Green Collar Economy identifies the employment impact of
action to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Australia and examines the
skills, training and workforce implications. The CSIRO analysis is
based on the latest economic modelling and is released by ACF and the
Dusseldorp Skills Forum (DSF). Using two different economic models,
CSIRO found:
• If Australia takes significant action to cut greenhouse gas emissions
national employment will still increase by between 2.6 and 3.3 million
over the next two decades.
• Jobs in sectors that generate a lot of greenhouse pollution – like
transport, construction, agriculture, manufacturing and mining – are
still forecast to grow strongly in the next decade.
• In these high environmental impact industries 3.25 million workers will need to be equipped with new, more sustainable skills.
Download the report at
<www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1796&preview=yes#related_resources>
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
------------------->
International Renewable Energy Agency
From 9 to 11 April, 2008, the German government hosted the Preparatory
Conference for the Foundation of an International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA). 170 participants from 60 countries attended and
discussed the possible objectives, activities, organisation and finance
of an IRENA. The German government was encouraged by the support
expressed at the conference. It will take the initiative to further
consult the governments of all the participants assembled here and
other countries who might want to join in.
More information: <www.irena.org>
------------------->
LOCAL GAS PLANTS PROPOSED TO REPLACE COAL IN NSW
------------------->
Power stations to be green and local
Wendy Frew, Urban Affairs Editor
March 26, 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/power-stations-to-be-green-and-local/2008/03/25/1206207105049.html
THE city could slash its energy use and wean itself off polluting
coal-fired power under a proposal by the Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, to
decentralise electricity generation and power entire blocks with
natural gas-fired "green transformers".
Under the plan, much of the city and some of the surrounding suburbs
would get their power from small, local gas-fired turbines, delivering
a hefty cut to Sydney's greenhouse gas emissions and offering
protection against blackouts.
The waste heat associated with the generation of electricity would then
be used to heat water and heat and cool buildings, further reducing the
city's energy bill.
The "transformer" idea is one part of a green vision for the city being
promoted by Cr Moore that includes developing a more integrated public
transport system and building more cycle lanes. In some parts of the
city, walking, cycling and light rail would have priority over cars.
The project has not been costed but energy experts say it is technically feasible.
"Instead of burning coal in massive power plants and then distributing
that electricity across the state, this plan proposes locating a number
of green transformers around the city's centre and its villages," Cr
Moore said.
"The benefits are obvious and include reduced air pollution from coal
burning, lower greenhouse gas emissions, free hot water, free heating,
free cooling, less mains water consumption, less landfill and many
more," she said.
Locating the power plants in the city would cut the amount of energy
lost when electricity is transferred from power stations in the Hunter
Valley, and provide greater energy security at a time when as much as
$200 million is expected to be spent upgrading Sydney's electricity
grid to avoid major blackouts.
Modelling done for the city by the energy expert Kinesis showed the
gas-fired plants could generate about 330 megawatts of electricity from
natural gas and, when combined with demand reduction measures, provide
70 per cent of the city's electricity requirements by 2030.
"It's silly to use a valuable resource such as electricity to heat or
cool buildings when you can do it with a byproduct that is free," said
a Kinesis adviser, Bruce Taper.
The owners of the former Carlton United Brewery site at Broadway are
considering generating their own electricity and using the waste heat
at their residential and commercial development, the largest building
project under way in the city.
Co-generation, as it is known, has also been touted by the engineering
group Arup for the East Darling Harbour site, while the Powerhouse
Museum in Ultimo has teamed with the Ian Thorpe Aquatic Centre to use
gas to generate power and warm the pool with the waste heat.
The technology and know-how to carry out the City of Sydney's green
power vision was already widely used around the world, said the UTS
research director at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, Dr Chris
Riedy, who is part of a team advising the developer of the CUB site on
its energy needs.
------------------->
CLEAN ENERGY - GEOTHERMAL
------------------->
Hot rocks taking off
PHIL CORNFORD
6/06/2008 5:21:00 PM
http://adelaide.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/business/hot-rocks-taking-off/784912.aspx
The world is watching a hot rocks plant with massive potential in SA. It is clean, renewable and quiet, writes Phil Cornford.
By the end of the year, the diesel-fuelled generators in Innamincka
will fall silent when Australia's first power plant fuelled by hot
rocks, 4km below the Earth's surface, supplies electricity to the
sun-scorched Cooper Basin outpost 1100km north-west of Adelaide.
"It'll be a lot quieter without the generators running 24 hours a day,"
says Kym Ford, owner of the Innamincka Hotel, one of only a half dozen
buildings in the hamlet, which was not there when explorer Charles
Sturt rode past in 1845. It will also save the hotel an annual diesel
bill of $150,000.
Innamincka, which has a population of 12, is a long way from
everywhere, and the power plant will generate only 1 kilowatt of
electricity, a modest beginning. But it will be the first exploitation
of deep-earth geothermal energy in what is known as the South
Australian Heat Flow Anomaly, a vast area of subterranean fractured
granite with estimated potential to produce 60 times more electricity
than the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme.
In these times of climate change, it is significant that geothermal
power replenishes itself and is clean, producing none of the carbon
dioxide gases that contribute to global warming. Geothermal power
figures as a major contributor in Federal Government plans to
drastically reduce greenhouse emissions, with predictions that hot
rocks will supply 6.8 per cent of Australia's total energy by 2030.
The Innamincka power plant is being developed by Geodynamics Limited,
which plans to expand it to 50 megawatts in 2012. That is enough
capacity to supply up to 50,000 households, but it will send
electricity 110km to the Moomba oil and gas field. The company plans a
500 megawatt plant by 2016, when it expects to supply power down a
500km, high-power transmission line to the national electricity grid in
Port Augusta, and another transmission line to BHP Billiton's Olympic
Dam mine, 490km away. The estimated cost is $2 billion.
Petratherm Limited will drill two 4km wells later this year and early
next year at its Paralana site, 320km north-east of Port Augusta and
180km south of the Geodynamics tenements. Petratherm plans a 7.5
megawatt power plant by 2010, supplying electricity to the nearby
Beverley uranium mine, expanding to 30 megawatts in 2012 and 260
megawatts in 2020, with transmission lines to Port Augusta, and 300km
east to Olympic Dam. The estimated cost is $2 billion.
One of the advantages of hot rocks energy is that, unlike coal and gas
which are consumed in generation, the heat and water resources are
recirculated, giving them life expectancies of 50 years and more. To
produce 50 megawatts, the explorer Geodynamics will drill nine wells
4km down into fractured granite, heated to more than 250 degrees by the
radioactive decay of uranium, thorium and potassium. Broken by
horizontal fractures, the granite becomes a conduit for a reservoir of
superheated water which is thrust up five wells at great pressure,
surfacing at 210 degrees as steam to drive electricity turbines. When
it is used and cooled, it is pumped down four wells to be used again.
Each well costs $10 million and takes 110 days to build, although
Geodynamics expects to reduce this to 70 days after spending $32
million buying the biggest drilling rig in Australia, capable of
drilling down to 6km. But to expand its power plant to a 500 megawatts
capacity, it will have to drill 81wells in four years, a task needing
at least six drilling rigs.
But there is a worldwide shortage of deep drilling rigs, and
Geodynamics, Petratherm and other explorers will all want them at the
same time. Where to get them? "It's a problem we're working on," a
spokeswoman from Geodynamics says. By the end of last year, four other
geothermal companies had drilled in the Cooper Basin – Green Rock
Energy Limited, Geothermal Resources Limited, Torrens Energy Limited
and Scopenergy-Panax. Thirty-three companies have taken exploration
licences in the Cooper Basin, where the Heat Flow Anomaly has the
world's greatest and hottest reservoir of hot fractured rocks within a
depth of 5km.
Geodynamics estimates the potential of its 2500 sqkm exploration area
to be 11,000 megawatts. Petratherm estimates its resources will provide
13,000 megawatts. The potential of the entire Cooper Hot Rocks Flow
Anomaly is estimated to be 100,000 megawatts. These are enormous
resources when compared to Australia's 2006 production of 44,000
megawatts from mostly coal-fired power plants.
Geodynamics also has exploration tenements south of Muswellbrook where
seismic tests suggest there are hot rocks granite deposits, not yet
confirmed by deep drilling. If there is potential for geothermal
energy, it has the enormous advantage of being close to big markets,
unlike the isolated South Australian tenements.
Petratherm has geothermal projects in Spain, the Canary Islands and
China. Geothermal developments are under way in France, Germany,
Switzerland and California, where hot rocks generate 1.6 per cent of
total US energy, the most in the world. But it is the Cooper Basin
which has the greatest prospects, with geothermal potential estimated
to be sufficient to meet Australia's total electricity demand for 450
years.
"We've got the hottest rocks. People are watching us around the world,"
says the managing director of Geodynamics, Gerry Grove-White.
Development, however, is constrained by economics, the most important
being the low cost and availability of coal, which fuels 85 per cent of
Australian electricity production. Coal costs around $30 for every
megawatt hour of electricity, the cheapest of all generation fuels.
Estimates vary for the expected cost of hot rocks generation between
$55 and $70 a megawatt hour, more expensive than natural gas.
But coal also produces 0.9kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt
hour, a principal offender with emissions from electricity generation
predicted to total 204megatonnes a year by 2020, a key date in the
Federal Government's plans to reduce emissions and their impact on
global warming.
By then, the Government wants clean, renewable energies – geothermal,
solar, wind, waves – to produce 20 per cent of Australia's output. To
enable this target it will introduce a national emissions trading
scheme in 2012, setting an impost on carbon production to penalise
emitters and to encourage clean coal initiatives and alternative
technologies. Carbon pricing is perhaps the most controversial of
global warming measures with coal producers and coal-fired power
stations, but it is a vital factor in the future of geothermal energy
production. Without a carbon charge, hot rocks power stations face
difficulties. "Our economic success is highly dependent on carbon
pricing," says Petratherm's managing director, Terry Kallis. "We will
need a significant carbon price signal of at least $30 a tonne or more.
I think we will get $30-$40."
A carbon price of $30 a tonne will make hot rocks energy competitive
and perhaps even cheaper than coal. But in the meantime Geodynamics,
Petratherm and other explorers will have to meet huge expenditures as
they prove their resources, generate electricity, and develop markets.
It is not by chance that both plan expansions to their generating capacities around 2012.
"Beyond 2020, it is very hard to see," Mr Kallis said. But by then,
with carbon pricing, he believes hot rocks energy will be cost
competitive. He expects that by 2030, the knowledge attained and
economies won through sustained production will drop the cost by $20 a
tonne, making hot rocks even more competitive.
"The potential is huge," Mr Kallis said.
------------------->
Day of truth closer on hot rocks
Nigel Wilson, Energy writer | March 25, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23424733-5005200,00.html
AUSTRALIA'S search for reliable zero-emission energy from hot rocks deep underground is approaching a crucial point.
Lighting Rig
Geodynamics' 'Lighting Rig' the largest drilling rig to come to Australia
At the weekend, long-term geothermal energy hopeful Geodynamics
conducted flow tests on its Habanero wells near Innamincka in South
Australia.
The company is not scheduled to report on the results until later this
week, but the Cooper Basin project is now well advanced after years of
technical difficulties.
Geodynamics managing director Gerry Grove-White takes a realistic view, conscious of the disappointments flowing from past hype.
"It has been a long wait but we are making real progress," he said before last weekend's flow test program.
Having established a robust hydraulic link between the Habanero-1 and
Habanero-3 wells, the tests are designed to assess whether there is a
pressure drop between them.
This, and whether the temperature falls significantly, will be
important in deciding whether it is feasible to pump water down one
hole into the hot granites and collect energy in the form of steam from
another hole.
The company, listed in 2002, says the proof of concept will demonstrate
the viability of heat extraction from the underground heat reservoir.
The geothermal reserves will be signed off by independent geothermal experts from the US.
Habanero-3 was drilled last year by Geodynamics' Le Tourneau "Lightning Rig", which can operate to depths of more than 6000m.
Geodynamics said Habanero-3, which reached a depth of 4221m in January, was the project's first commercially viable well.
Last week Geodynamics spudded the Jolokia-1 well, about 9km from
Habanero, which is designed to provide information on the extent of the
hot granites in the company's permit.
Geodynamics is heavily backed by Origin Energy, and Woodside is a foundation investor.
Origin has a 30 per cent stake in Jolokia-1, with the remainder held by
Geodynamics. Mr Grove-White said the company would install a heat
exchanger in early May, once the weekend program had been evaluated,
and conduct an intensive scientific program over six to eight weeks.
That would establish data for the installation of a 1 megawatt
demonstration power plant by the end of the calendar year, to run the
company's operational base.
During the remainder of the year Geodynamics plans to complete its
preferred design for a 50MW power plant, with the aim of having it
operating commercially in 2012, producing zero-emission energy with
zero water requirements.
It is expected to generate enough electricity to supply about 50,000 households continuously.
One of the medium-term drivers of the program is BHP Billiton's
requirement for 800MW of electricity generation capacity to power the
expansion of the Olympic Dam mine, about 490km away.
This would help overcome one of the Habanero project's implicit
disadvantages -- its distance from the main transmission network.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
CLEAN ENERGY VS COAL
------------------->
Reliance on coal could scuttle us
Barry Brook
July 18, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/reliance-on-coal-could-scuttle-us-20080717-3gwe.html?page=-1
THE Rudd Government's green paper on a "carbon pollution reduction
scheme", and the methods to achieve this reduction, have some strongly
innovative elements. But there is a continued emphasis on investment in
offsets and abatement from large-scale carbon capture projects to
significantly extend the life of our coal industry. This poses three
huge risks to the Australian economy. Are we sure that we want our
children to shoulder them?
The first big risk is that carbon capture and storage isn't proven.
Experts believe it may take until 2015 or later to prove the
technology, if then. The second big risk is that it may not prove
cost-effective. Evidence is accumulating that carbon capture and
storage may prove uneconomic because renewables such as solar,
geothermal power and wind are falling in price very rapidly.
But the biggest argument of all for caution — yet hardly ever spoken —
is that there simply may not be enough coal to go around. This could
lead to global shortages, price spikes, economic disruption and a rush
to other energy sources — meaning billions of dollars of stranded
investments.
Incredibly for an energy resource that the world depends on, global
coal statistics are shockingly poor. Take China. Since 1992, the nation
has mined roughly 20% of its reported reserves. Yet, China hasn't
changed its reported reserve figures since that year. The United States
and Australia have reasonably credible reserves, but other nations with
large reported coal assets are Russia, India and South Africa. How
reliable are their figures?
Put bluntly, neither the world nor Australia should commit to carbon
capture and storage until there is a better global accounting of the
underlying energy resource. This matters. The world, led by China, is
rapidly consuming coal. China is now a net importer of coal despite
being the world's largest coal producer. What would happen to all those
new Chinese coal-fired power stations (now opening at the rate of one a
week) if domestic reserves turn out to be inadequate to meet demand?
One outcome could be a scramble for coal resources at any price. That,
in turn, could mean a queue of coal ships off Newcastle in NSW of 100
ships, or maybe 200 instead of 50 to 60 now. It could mean blackouts
and brown-outs in China with huge implications for global supply
chains. If an energy crunch induced by a coal shortage happened in
China, there could be a global contractionary contagion effect, similar
to that which the world is seeing as a result of American subprime
mortgages, except potentially much bigger.
One response to such a risk would be to bet on the "Lucky Country"
scenario, in which Australia would be blissfully unaffected by this
international energy turmoil, because it has large coal supplies
relative to domestic consumption.
That may be true. But Australia operates in a global market. If bad
global coal reserve figures lead to inadequate future capacity
planning, which then leads to global shortages, resultant price spikes
may bring short-term windfall gains in Australia's terms of trade. But
it will do so at the risk of worsening global economic short-term pain
and would probably drive coal prices so high that other countries —
unable to source adequate coal at any price — turn to
quick-to-construct renewable energy resources such as wind, wave, solar
and geothermal power. And we are left behind.
In the end, the global economy will adapt. The question is how fast,
how smartly, and with how much pain. It would be far smarter to spend
the next few years expanding Australia's real, proven and commercially
operating renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal
power.
This is a key element that the Government and Ross Garnaut must be
thinking harder about driving forward. The time to think about carbon
capture and storage will be when the underlying reserve is proven and
credible and certain to be around for long enough to justify the
investment. That certainty isn't there right now.
Barry Brook is Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change and
director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and
Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
CLEAN ENERGY - ICELAND
------------------->
Iceland Has Power to Burn
Daniel Gross
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 4:43 PM ET Apr 5, 2008
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/130626
... Mindful of climate change and the need to limit emissions, many
U.S. states have set goals of obtaining 10 or 15 percent of their
energy from renewables at some point in the distant future, and the
European Union has pledged to reach 20 percent by 2020. But Iceland is
already at about 80 percent. All electricity on the island is generated
through geothermal or hydroelectric sources—low-emissions sources that
don't use fossil fuels. Most homes are heated by water pumped from
geothermal hot spots. ...
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
CLEAN ENERGY - SOLAR
------------------->
Expert Foresees 10 More Years Of Research & Development To Make Solar Energy Competitive
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080407172717.htm
ScienceDaily (Apr. 11, 2008) — Despite oil prices that hover around
$100 a barrel, it may take at least 10 or more years of intensive
research and development to reduce the cost of solar energy to levels
competitive with petroleum, according to an authority on the topic.
"Solar can potentially provide all the electricity and fuel we need to
power the planet," Harry Gray, Ph.D., scheduled to speak here today at
the 235th national meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS). His
presentation, "Powering the Planet with Solar Energy," is part of a
special symposium arranged by Bruce Bursten, Ph.D., president of the
ACS, the world's largest scientific society celebrating the 10th
anniversary of the Beckman Scholars Program.
"The Holy Grail of solar research is to use sunlight efficiently and
directly to "split" water into its elemental constituents -- hydrogen
and oxygen -- and then use the hydrogen as a clean fuel," Gray said.
Gray is the Arnold O. Beckman Professor of Chemistry and Founding
Director of the Beckman Institute at the California Institute of
Technology. He is the principal investigator in an NSF funded Phase I
Chemical Bonding Center (CBC) -- a Caltech/MIT collaboration -- and a
principal investigator at the Caltech Center for Sustainable Energy
Research (CCSER).
This research has the goal of transforming the industrialized world
from one powered by fossil fuels to one powered by sunlight. The CBC
research focuses on converting sunlight to chemical fuels while
research in the CCSER focuses on generating electricity from sunlight
and developing fuel cells.
In his talk at the ACS Presidential Symposium, Gray cited the vast
potential of solar energy, noting that more energy from sunlight
strikes the Earth in one hour than all of the energy consumed on the
planet in one year.
The single biggest challenge, Gray said, is reducing costs so that a
large-scale shift away from coal, natural gas and other non-renewable
sources of electricity makes economic sense. Gray estimated the average
cost of photovoltaic energy at 35 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour. By
comparison, other sources are considerably less expensive, with coal
and natural gas hovering around 5-6 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Because of its other advantages -- being clean and renewable, for
instance -- solar energy need not match the cost of conventional energy
sources, Gray indicated. The breakthrough for solar energy probably
will come when scientists reduce the costs of photovoltaic energy to
about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, he added. "Once it reaches that
level, large numbers of consumers will start to buy in, driving the
per-kilowatt price down even further. I believe we are at least ten
years away from photovoltaics being competitive with more traditional
forms of energy."
Major challenges include developing cheap solar cells that work without
deterioration and reducing the amounts of toxic materials used in the
manufacture of these cells. But producing low cost photovoltaics is
only a step in the right direction. Chemists also need to focus on the
generation of clean fuels at costs that can compete with oil and coal.
Gray emphasized this point: "The pressure is on chemists to make
hydrogen from something other than natural gas or coal. We've got to
start making it from sunlight and water."
Gray noted that the NSF CBC program currently includes Caltech and MIT,
but would expand in a second phase to include several additional
institutions.
Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
------------------->
Sun's rays alone 'can power Australia by 2030'
BY ROSSLYN BEEBYSCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
12/06/2008 7:09:00 AM
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/suns-rays-alone-can-power-australia-by-2030/787947.aspx
Australia could be totally reliant on solar energy by 2030 if the
current obstacles of technical inertia, lack of political will and
entrenched interests can be overcome, a leading CSIRO scientist says.
''Australia should be building a solar backbone,'' atmospheric
physicist Mike Raupach told a national climate change conference at the
Australian National University yesterday.
Pursuing large-scale geosequestration projects to reduce Australia's
rising greenhouse emissions was not the answer and ''is fighting
against the way the Earth's systems want us to go'', he said.
Dr Raupach, a contributing author to the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, said Australia's
greenhouse emissions were growing faster than in any other developed
nation in the world, driven by increasing per capita wealth and the
''aggressive consumption'' of the average urban lifestyle.
''We need a cap on total emissions at around 500 billion tonnes of
carbon, which means an 80 per cent reduction in emissions for developed
countries, and perhaps a 90 per cent reduction for Australia.''
The climate-change threat was ''somewhere between severe and extreme''.
A gap was emerging between ''what the economists tells us is possible''
and what scientists insisted was necessary to tackle the problem, Dr
Raupach said.
Significant reductions in Australia's greenhouse emissions were
''technically achievable and affordable'', with low-cost mitigation
measures including improved refrigeration, lighting, heating and car
fuel efficiencies, better building insulation and reduced travel, with
carbon offsets invested in renewable energy rather than
biosequestration or tree-planting projects, he said. The director of
the University of Adelaide's climate research institute, Professor
Barry Brook, told the conference that ''to have a reasonable chance''
of avoiding a future increase of 2 degrees of global warming, developed
nations must achieve ''at least an 80 per cent reduction in emissions''
by 2050 and begin levelling off emissions ''by no later than 2015''.
Professor Brook said a 2-degree increase in temperature would ''wipe out'' most of the world's coral reefs.
Sea levels could rise by up to 30m in some areas, Australia would
experience more frequent, intensive droughts and between 20 and 30 per
cent of global biodiversity ''will be consigned to extinction''.
At 3 degrees the world would experience a ''freshwater supply crisis''
as the Himalayan glaciers and other snow-pack environments disappeared.
The Amazon basin would collapse from drought and desertification,
tropical weather systems would expand polewards and widespread
permafrost melt would exacerbate global warming by releasing tonnes of
methane into the atmosphere.
At 4 degrees, agriculture would collapse across Australia's mid-latitudes.
''It is a damning indictment of our collective vacillation, inaction
and deliberate stalling to date, that in facing up to this problem with
Australia and the United States being two prominent curmudgeons we are
facing the stark choice between a bad situation, a catastrophic
situation and a civilisation-terminating situation,'' Professor Brook
said.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM MINING IN AUSTRALIA - VARIOUS
------------------->
There's light at the end of the tunnel for junior uranium explorers
http://business.theage.com.au/business/theres-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-for-junior-uranium-explorers-20080720-3i8v.html
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - ROXBY DOWNS EXPANSION
------------------->
HP warns on mine expansion
BHP Billiton's proposed expansion of its Olympic Dam copper and uranium
mine will take longer, cost more and produce fewer jobs than originally
planned ...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23838921-5013404,00.html
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - WA
------------------->
Uranium deal breakthrough
Barry FitzGerald
July 11, 2008
http://business.theage.com.au/uranium-deal-breakthrough-20080710-3d8u.html
ABORIGINAL landowners are set to secure equity involvement in
development of the Kintyre uranium deposit in Western Australia after
its sale by Rio Tinto to Canada's Cameco and Japan's Mitsubishi
Development in a ground-breaking deal worth $US495 million ($A515
million).
Kintyre is one of the world's biggest undeveloped uranium deposits (80
million pounds of uranium now worth $4.8 billion in its finished form)
but its development has been held up by WA's continuing ban on uranium
mine developments.
But the traditional landowners, the Martu people, will join the new owners to pressure the WA Labor Government to lift the ban.
"We would hope that if the Martu supported any potential development
involving Martu equity ownership to improve their economic position, it
would be strongly considered by the WA Government in the future," the
Martu said yesterday.
It was not lost on Cameco, the world's biggest uranium miner, that
while the Labor Government in WA allows uranium exploration, it
continues to oppose uranium mine developments.
"However, Australian governments and political parties generally are
becoming more supportive of uranium development," the Canadian group
said, noting that the federal Australian Labor Party abandoned its ban
on new uranium mines in 2007.
Financial details on the full nature of the deal struck by the Martu on
the sale of Kintyre to Cameco (70% and operator) and Mitsubishi (30%)
were not disclosed.
But it is believed to include a mix of equity — possibly up to 20% — and payment of royalties and up-front cash.
The deal represents a new breed of hard-nosed commercial arrangements
between traditional owners and the mining industry, rather than the
lower-cost cultural "support" programs of the past.
Uranium is enjoying a resurgence of interest because of the potential
for zero carbon emission nuclear power to provide a lasting solution to
global warming concerns.
Uranium prices have halved in the past year after reaching a record
$US138 a pound. But the current price of $US60 a pound is still a
sixfold increase on the $US10 a pound price in 2002-03.
The Cameco/Mitsubishi partnership said it would "begin working towards
a mine development agreement with the Martu" following settlement of
the Rio deal next month.
The Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation (WDLAC), which acts on
behalf of the Martu people, praised Rio for its handling of the sale.
Chairman Teddy Biljabu and chief executive Clinton Wolf and Martu
owners Lynn Dunn and Billy Landy said they were "very happy with the
conduct" of Rio.
"We are satisfied with the level of our involvement and we look forward
to sitting down with the new consortium to discuss the best way forward
for the project," they said. Adviser to the Martu and principal of
Indigenous Energy, Joe Procter, said that while the Rio sales process
had got off to a bumpy start, Rio had "shown itself to be a leader and
innovator by including the Martu in the sales process".
The sale by Rio is part of its plan to raise $US10 billion from asset
sales this year to reduce debt after last year's acquisition of
aluminium group Alcan.
------------------->
Japanese and Canadian miners' $500m bet on uranium
Amanda O'Brien and Elizabeth Gosch | July 11, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24001991-2702,00.html
JAPANESE and Canadian mining giants have made a $500 million bet on a
change of government in Western Australia after agreeing to buy Rio
Tinto's vast uranium deposit in the Pilbara region of the state.
The state Labor Government remains vehemently opposed to uranium
mining, but with an election expected in October, the sale of Rio
Tinto's Kintyre uranium deposit sets up a major political brawl.
Under the deal unveiled yesterday, and which is expected to be
completed next month, Canada's Cameco and Japan's Mitsubishi
Development will pay $US496million ($519million) to buy the deposit,
which could be worth up to $5 billion at current uranium oxide prices.
Cameco noted yesterday: "Australian governments and political parties
generally are becoming more supportive of uranium development."
But the joint venture will not be able to mine the yellowcake unless
there is a change of government in Western Australia. Although the
federal Labor Party voted last year to dump the long-standing ban on
new uranium mines, the states were left with the power to decide
whether they would allow mining.
Western Australia and Queensland retain the strongest opposition to
uranium mining, while South Australia, home to BHP Billiton's giant
Olympic Dam deposit, is pressing ahead with new developments.
West Australian Opposition Leader Troy Buswell went on the attack
yesterday, saying the state Government's opposition to uranium mining
was "nonsensical and indefensible".
"Given that Australian uranium from South Australia and the Northern
Territory is being mined, exported and used internationally, WA should
be encouraging the mining of our uranium deposits," he told The
Australian. "We are the resource state whose economy has long been
driven by the resources sector, and uranium is strategically very
important."
Premier Alan Carpenter was on a plane last night and could not be
contacted, but Labor sources said there was no way he would change his
view.
Only two weeks ago, Mr Carpenter declared at a state Labor conference
that Western Australia's extensive uranium deposits would stay in the
ground. "There will be no nuclear power, no nuclear waste and uranium
mining in WA while I am the Premier," he said.
Mr Carpenter has repeatedly claimed uranium mining would open the door
to Western Australia becoming a nuclear waste dump. Mr Buswell said the
argument was rubbish.
"Alan Carpenter puts up the most ridiculous argument that if you export
uranium you have to take back nuclear waste but that is not proven," Mr
Buswell said.
Greens state MP Paul Llewellyn said the issue would be front and centre
when parliament resumed next month and would become a key election
issue.
The Greens have previously demanded the Government formalise its views
by legislating to ban uranium mining, and introduced its own
legislation to that effect last year. It has languished in the upper
house, with the Government indicating it was unnecessary as its
position was already clear.
Mr Llewellyn said the fact that companies were prepared to spend
massive amounts in the expectation that Mr Carpenter would not always
be Premier reinforced the need to legislate.
"Alan Carpenter might say it will happen over his dead body, but, if he's dead, the reality is there's no protection," he said.
At least 50 uranium prospecting licences have been issued in Western
Australia, which has extensive deposits. That compares with 250
licences issued in Queensland and 279 licences in South Australia.
Mr Buswell said the West Australian Liberals were already conducting "serious policy work" on the issue.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM HYPE
------------------->
Explosive outlook for uranium well off the real mark
Simon O'Connor - Simon O'Connor is the Australian Conservation
Foundation's economic adviser
Publication: The Age (Business section)
Fri 20 Jun 2008
The economics of the uranium sector are not as strong as the industry
association would have us believe, writes Simon O'Connor.
PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd's ambition to rid the world of nuclear weapons
has prompted a re-examination of Australia's role as a major global
supplier of uranium - the fuel for nuclear weapons.
The push to promote uranium exports has gone up a notch in recent weeks
with Resources Minister Martin Ferguson launching an Australian Uranium
Association report that predicts uranium exports will add tens of
billions of dollars to the nation's gross domestic product by 2030.
This rosy outlook comes as many listed uranium explorers are slipping in
value. Last year, the global uranium spot price hit $US130 a pound. Now
it has slipped back to about $US75.
So what are the prospects for the industry and which direction are share
prices for Australian uranium players heading?
Global uranium is tightly controlled by a small number of low-cost
suppliers. The World Nuclear Association estimates global demand is
about 67kilotonnes a year (ktpa). Of this, only 54 ktpa is supplied by
newly extracted ore from active mines. The remaining 13 ktpa is from
secondary sources, industry inventories and Russian military stockpiles.
Australia supplies about 20% of global uranium from three mines at a
reasonably constant output of 10 ktpa. Despite optimism from the
industry, in reality there will need to be a dramatic global investment
in new reactors to see significant increase in demand. Even the
International Atomic Energy Agency prediction of 60 new reactors in the
next 15 years would make only a slight impact on global demand when
decommissioning of old reactors is also considered.
A nuclear reactor consumes roughly 150 tonnes of uranium oxide a year.
In 15 years, this could mean nine ktpa additional demand from new
reactors - an increase of 13%, before you start to factor in the closure
of old reactors.
The industry association's report*** extended this growth in reactors out
to 2030, projecting a total nuclear energy capacity of 960
gigawatt-equivalent, up from 370 gigawatt-equivalent. This forecast is a
full 80% above the projections of the world's leading global energy
agencies - the IAEA and the International Energy Agency.
In defending its figures, the AUA has described its modelling as
"conservative". It says it has relied on work that factors in a global
price on carbon and the potential flow-on effects for nuclear
electricity generation. But it has missed the point of what this level
of growth in demand within a relatively short time frame would mean.
The AUA projection comes from a highly theoretical position and is
packed with assumptions. It assumes a global carbon price will not
result in any improvement in energy efficiency or reduction in energy
demand.
It assumes it is physically possible to build more than 590 nuclear
reactors globally despite the existing regulatory constraints and the
reality that lead times for nuclear reactors often break the 10-year
mark. And it assumes that despite the ever increasing costs for reactor
construction, return on investment will remain competitive with other
energy sources.
These desperately optimistic assumptions are in no way "conservative".
In fact they massively overstate the real potential for nuclear growth
to 2030.
Add to this the expansion of BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine and the
future becomes even gloomier for the Australian small cap uranium
companies.
Recent peaks in share prices for small uranium explorers reflect
irrational exuberance based on poorly researched analysis of industry
potential for growth, rather than any fundamental growth opportunities.
Clearly, the economics of the uranium sector are not as strong as the
industry association would have us believe.
Simon O'Connor is the Australian Conservation Foundation's economic
adviser.
*** <www.aua.org.au/page.php?pid=388&category=27>
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - MARATHON / MT GEE
------------------->
Marathon retaliates against sacked CEO
Article from: The Advertiser
CAMERON ENGLAND
June 05, 2008 11:50am
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23814308-5016955,00.html
MARATHON Resources is counter-suing former CEO Stuart Hall, claiming he
was "incompetent", and laying the blame for inappropriate disposal of
uranium drilling samples at his door.
Mr Hall is suing Adelaide-based Marathon for $1.6 million, claiming it
breached his $300,000-a-year contract when it terminated his employment
last September.
Supreme Court documents show Mr Hall, who joined the company in April
of last year, claimed Marathon terminated his contract "without any
cause''.
Mr Hall is claiming his base salary until September 30, 2009, plus a $1
million bonus payable if Marathon was granted a mining lease for its Mt
Gee uranium deposit in the northern Flinders Ranges before then.
But Marathon, in a statement of defence and counter-claim lodged with
the court, said Mr Hall is "not entitled to any compensation
whatsoever'' because he:
"HAS caused Marathon to be the subject of a material penalty or serious reprimand imposed by regulatory authorities'', and:
WAS "negligent'' and "incompetent'' in the performance of his duties.
These claims relate in part to the unauthorised burial of uranium
drilling samples on the Mt Gee drilling site, which caused Marathon to
have its drilling activities suspended and for it to become liable for
cleaning up the site to the satisfaction of the State Government.
While Marathon did not know about these alleged breaches of contract at
the time it terminated Mr Hall's employment, it is understood that such
breaches can still be claimed as justification for termination.
Marathon further claimed Mr Hall made comments in a radio interview
which indicated it would spend $500 million constructing an underground
tunnel to mine the uranium deposit in the Arkaroola Wilderness
Sanctuary, and that there would be no need for surface disturbance at
all.
Marathon said the statements came "without authority from Marathon's
board of directors'', and at a time when the firm was assessing the
feasibility of various options for mining Mt Gee.
Marathon said the statements did not reflect Marathon's then current
intentions, and Mr Hall should have known the statements would have "a
material adverse impact on Marathon's capacity to procure debt''.
Marathon is not only claiming Mr Hall is not entitled to compensation,
but is counter-suing him for damages and the costs of the rectification
plan for the site - costs which have not yet been determined.
Owners of the Arkaroola Sanctuary, the Sprigg family, are opposed to
mining in the area, and the Wilderness Society is against any mining
activities there.
Mr Hall could not be contacted yesterday.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM & WEAPONS: SCIENTISTS DROP NUCLEAR BOMBSHELL
------------------->
Scientists drop a nuclear bombshell
The Advertiser
Tuesday 22 April 2008
Lax nuclear safeguards pose a key threat for Australia and the world, write Professor JIM FALK and Dr BILL WILLIAMS.
NUCLEAR proliferation is a key threat facing Australia. The uranium
export industry is worthy of consideration in this context given that
uranium is not only the fuel for electricity-generating reactors but
also feedstock for nuclear weapons - the most destructive weapons ever
devised.
The uranium industry and its supporters routinely claim that the
safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
"ensures'' that Australian uranium (and by-products such as plutonium)
will not be used for nuclear weapons.
However, only a fraction of safeguards-eligible nuclear facilities and
stockpiles are actually inspected by the IAEA.
The director-general
of the IAEA, Dr Mohamed El Baradei, is remarkably frank about the
limitations of safeguards. In speeches and papers in recent years, Dr
El Baradei has noted the IAEA's basic rights of inspection are "fairly
limited'', that the safeguards system suffers from "vulnerabilities'',
"clearly needs reinforcement'' and runs on a "shoestring budget ...
comparable to a local police department''.
The problems with, and limitations of, safeguards are manifold. Nuclear
accounting discrepancies are just one of these intractable problems.
These discrepancies are commonplace and inevitable due to the
difficulty of precisely measuring nuclear materials. These accounting
discrepancies are known as material unaccounted for (MUF).
This
problem of imprecise measurement provides an obvious loophole for
diversion of nuclear materials for weapons production. In a large
plant, even a tiny percentage of the annual through-put of nuclear
material will suffice to build one or more weapons with virtually no
chance of detection by IAEA inspectors - if indeed the IAEA carries out
any inspections at all.
Australia's uranium has resulted in the production of more than 103
tonnes of plutonium. If just 0.1 per cent of this plutonium is written
off as MUF, that is sufficient for 10 plutonium bombs similar to that
which destroyed Nagasaki.
Government agencies refuse to release MUF
figures; for plutonium, it may well be significantly greater than 0.1
per cent.
In addition to IAEA safeguards, countries buying Australian uranium
must sign a bilateral agreement.
However, there are no Australian
inspections of nuclear stockpiles or facilities using Australian
uranium. Australia is entirely reliant on the partial and underfunded
inspection system of the IAEA.
The most important provisions in bilateral agreements are for prior
Australian consent before Australian nuclear material is transferred to
a third party, enriched beyond 20 per cent uranium-235, or reprocessed.
However, no Australian government has ever refused permission to
separate plutonium from spent fuel via reprocessing (and there has
never been a request to enrich beyond 20 per cent U-235).
Even when
reprocessing leads to the stockpiling of plutonium (which can be used
directly in nuclear weapons), open-ended permission to reprocess has
been granted by Australian governments. Hence there are stockpiles of
"Australian-obligated'' separated plutonium in Japan and in some
European countries.
As for the alleged benefits of the industry, uranium accounts for just
one-third of 1 per cent of Australia's export revenue. The industry
makes an even smaller contribution to employment.
Claims about the greenhouse "benefits'' of nuclear power typically
ignore more greenhouse-friendly renewable energy sources and the use of
several types of renewables to supply reliable base-load power (for
example, geothermal, bioenergy, solar thermal with storage, and
sometimes hydro). Furthermore, as the limited reserves of high-grade
uranium ore are used up and low-grade ore has to be used, greenhouse
emissions from mining and milling uranium will become substantial.
Australia would do well to recommend a wide-ranging, independent public
inquiry into the risks and benefits of the uranium industry. Such an
inquiry should also consider the role of the Australian Safeguards and
Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), as now constituted, which has, at
times, offered seriously misleading claims about the uranium industry
and nuclear power. For example, ASNO has claimed that Australia sells
uranium only to countries with "impeccable'' non-proliferation
credentials. In fact, Australia has uranium export agreements with
nuclear weapon states (all of which are failing to meet their
disarmament obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty), with
states with a history of weapons-related research based on their
"civil'' nuclear programs (such as South Korea and Taiwan) and states
(including the U.S.) blocking progress on the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty and the proposed Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
Other seriously misleading statements made at one time or another from
ASNO include that safeguards "ensure'' that Australian uranium will not
contribute to weapons proliferation, that all nuclear materials derived
from Australia's uranium exports are "fully accounted for'' and that
nuclear power does not present a proliferation risk.
While no agency
should be judged simply on the basis of isolated statements, there is
enough smoke to suggest that it would be sensible for any inquiry to
check that in relation to the need for balanced advice, there is not a
smouldering fire.
Professor Jim Falk is Director of the Australian Centre for Science,
Innovation and Society at Melbourne University. Dr Bill Williams is a
General Practitioner and a Vice-President of the Medical Association
for Prevention of War.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - NT URANIUM EXPLORER ADMITS TO LEAK AT CANADIAN OPERATION
------------------->
Alice uranium explorers admit to leak at Canadian operation
Posted Fri May 23, 2008 3:49pm AEST
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/23/2254068.htm
A company applying for a uranium exploration licence near Alice Springs
has admitted it may have leaked uranium into one of North America's
largest lakes.
Cameco is the world's largest uranium producer and along with Paladin
Energy is applying to explore the Angela and Pamela deposit 25
kilometres south of Alice Springs.
The company has told Canadian nuclear regulators their plant at Port
Hope may have leaked uranium, arsenic and fluorides into Lake Ontario.
The plant has been closed since last year to clean up contaminated soil
deposits, but the company says trace elements of uranium could have
flowed into the lake.
Their application to explore near Alice Springs now lies with mines minister Chris Natt.
------------------->
Media Release
July 24, 2008
Disgraced Uranium Miner Opens Alice Shop
Cameco, the Canadian uranium mining company troubled by a string of
recent uranium-related accidents, has recently opened an office in
Alice Springs.
In March this year, a Cameco/Paladin joint venture was granted the
opportunity to apply for an exploration licence at known uranium
deposits Angela and Pamela, just 25km south of Alice Springs. A
decision regarding the exploration application is expected from the NT
Government in early August.
"Opening an office in Alice Springs is a public relations exercise to
manage community concern. There has been clear and sustained opposition
to this project since it was announced, with 950 people petitioning the
NT government to not grant the licence", stated Natalie Wasley, Beyond
Nuclear Initiative campaigner and member of the Alice Springs Angela
Pamela (ASAP) collective.
Jimmy Cocking, Alice Springs Environment Centre coordinator and ASAP
member added, "Cameco has responded to resident's concerns by placing a
company spin doctor in town, and have even hired a PR company to manage
their community engagement. However, people have done their own
research, and Cameco's record of mine mismanagement has many residents
gravely concerned about this company operating a uranium project in our
region".
A recent controversy embroiling Cameco resulted in a 1.4 million USD
settlement with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. This
was in relation to non-compliance issues at the state's Smith Ranch
Highlands mine. Listed environmental regulations breaches included pace
of groundwater restoration, mine permit documentation, site reclamation
schedules, spills and its reclamation cost estimates.
In recent years the company has also been implicated in a number of other incidents, including;
• In May this year, it was discovered during soil decontamination at
the suspended Port Hope uranium processing facility in Canada that
egress from degraded holding floors had contaminated the harbour
surrounding the facility, which flows into Lake Ontario.
• In October 2006 there was a major flooding incident at Cameco's Cigar Lake mine.
• A misjudgement relating to the flow of groundwater in adjacent rock,
as well as failure to respond to specific government instructions
regarding pumping equipment, caused a flood during tunnel blasting.
This accident has delayed the opening of Cigar Lake (the world's second
largest uranium holdings) until at least 2011. Many industry figures
are speculating the mine may never open.
Cameco CEO Jerry Grandey admits the uncertainties of groundwater
geology. "Management's about taking risks -- calculated risks.'' he
said of the Cigar Lake Incident. "We thought we were on the safe side
of that calculation,'' he says. "And we were wrong.'' (1)
Jimmy Cocking added; "ASAP does not believe Cameco should be setting up
to take risks in our community. Many residents are concerned about
potential impacts on the thriving tourism and pastoral ventures in the
region, and also the wind borne and transport risks that a project so
close to town would pose".
"Long after the company has packed up and left, there will be
environmental and social impacts for our community to manage. The ASAP
collective strongly encourages the NT and Federal Governments to reject
the Cameco/Paladin application and promote Alice Springs as a solar,
not a nuclear city", Natalie Wasley concluded.
(1) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=ajq9ZHtjqi.U
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM - BEVERLEY FOUR MILE APPLICATION
------------------->
The World Today - Mining plan has SA Aborigines worried
Thursday 26 June 2008, 12:37pm
[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2286645.htm]
Reporter: Mark Doman
ELEANOR HALL: South Australia's mining boom is producing new players in
the industry on an almost daily basis, but the drive to make money out
of the state's resources and particularly its uranium reserves is
generating tension in the local Aboriginal population. Heathgate
Resources operates the state's third largest uranium mine and now an
affiliate of the company has lodged a mining application to begin
operations in what's considered to be one of the most significant
uranium finds since the discovery of the Olympic Dam deposit. But
establishing the mine is far from assured, as Mark Doman reports.
MARK DOMAN: The mining boom is full steam ahead in South Australia and
it seems little is likely to stand in the way of the rush for precious
resources. But the sites these mining companies drill on is often
sacred land to local Aboriginal communities which means that companies
like Heathgate Resources must negotiate agreements under the Native
Title Act that include royalty payments. Now the company and its
affiliate Quasar are negotiating with the Adnyamathanha Aboriginal
community over a potentially lucrative and yet untapped uranium deposit
just a few kilometres north of the existing Beverley Mine in the
northern Flinders Ranges. Geraldine Anderson is a part of that
community and is one of eight native title applicants for the land
surrounding the Four Mile deposit. She says she won't sign off on any
agreement for mining to begin. Ms Anderson says she was pressured by
Heathgate to sign off on a previous deal for an expansion of the
existing Beverley mine and she won't do it again.
GERALDINE ANDERSON: They bully people, well they bullied me on
Christmas Eve to signing this agreement, and I stood off until they
took me to court, ERD court.
MARK DOMAN: In terms of the bullying, how did Heathgate go about that?
GERALDINE ANDERSON: Oh it's a very bully, it's hard to explain, you'd
have to sit down for a long, long time to listen to how people get
bullied into signing these agreements.
MARK DOMAN: Vince Coulthard is the chairman of the Adnyamathanha
Traditional Land Association and like Ms Anderson receives a royalty
payment from Heathgate. Mr Coulthard says while negotiations haven't
yet begun for the Four Mile lease, he believes the existing
relationship is a strong one.
VINCE COULTHARD: We're like every other community. Not everybody agrees
but, you know, what we look at is trying to get some sort of consensus
or look at what long term benefits it's going to bring us.
MARK DOMAN: Mr Coulthard says mining is inevitable and the Adnyamathanha people should at least benefit from the royalties.
VINCE COULTHARD: Where a mine don't happen today it'll happen there
tomorrow. All the old people have talked about where, if you can't stop
it well then make sure you get something from it.
MARK DOMAN: Jillian Marsh is a community member who's currently doing a
PhD on the Beverley mine and Indigenous participation within the
resource sector, and she worries that the mistakes of the past might be
repeated. In August 2002 Ms Marsh addressed a Senate inquiry into the
environmental regulation of uranium mining. She told the inquiry that
Heathgate's initial negotiations with the Adnyamathanha people, before
the official opening of the Beverley mine in 2001, was
"misrepresentative, ill-informed, and designed to divide and disempower
the community". She hopes Heathgate's affiliate Quasar does a better
job of involving the community.
JILLIAN MARSH: I suppose now with the process again arising before us
as an expansion to the existing lease, from within the community there
are a number of issues. One is that the consultation and negotiation
processes still aren't, I feel that they're still not adequate, and
certainly that's what a lot of people are saying to me - that the
processes that are in place are still ill-equipped to give a fair and
equitable voice for the Adnyamathanha community. Geraldine Anderson
says she's prepared to fight it out in the courts before she hands over
her land to the mining companies.
GERALDINE ANDERSON: I will fight to the end because I think it's time
we stand up and say to these companies and the South Australian
Government that we've got sites, we need our customs still here because
we still practice our customs.
MARK DOMAN: Heathgate and Quasar were both approached for comment on
the allegations of bullying and their relations with the Adnyamathanha
community but had no comment.
------------------->
Indigenous community seeks mining voice
Posted Tue May 20, 2008 7:47am AEST
Updated Tue May 20, 2008 9:21am AEST
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/20/2249651.htm
Members of the Adnyamathanha Aboriginal community feel they are being
silenced by a mining company seeking a lease in their area.
An affiliate of Heathgate Resources which operates in the Beverley
uranium mine, in South Australia's north-east, has lodged a mining
lease application with the SA Government for the nearby Four Mile
deposit.
Jillian Marsh is an Adnyamathanha community member who is completing a PhD on the Beverley mine.
She says people feel they have not been properly consulted.
Ms Marsh say some groups have organised their own meetings to have their voices heard.
"Elders are now going of and having their own meetings, they're having
an elders' forum because the negotiation processes around native title
are not fulfilling what they want, they feel like they are being
silenced and intimidated both by the mining companies and by people in
positions of authority," she said.
"The consultation and negotiation processes still aren't adequate and
certainly that's what a lot of people are saying to me, that the
processes in place are still ill-equipped to give a fair and equitable
voice to the Adnyamathanha community."
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM INDUSTRY FRAMEWORK / FERGUSON
------------------->
Labor resurrects Howard's uranium plan
Katharine Murphy
April 2, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-resurrects-howards-uranium-plan/2008/04/01/1206850911012.html
THE Federal Government has quietly resurrected John Howard's plan to expand uranium mining in Australia.
Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, an enthusiastic industry advocate,
has reconvened the Uranium Industry Framework, a hand-picked advisory
group appointed by the previous government.
Policies on its agenda include a forthcoming information campaign, paid
for by the uranium industry, to address public concern about uranium
mining.
The group also wants to introduce national rules for the industry,
better training for workers exposed to radiation, and a national
register recording mining workers' levels of exposure to radiation.
There is a separate strategy to use uranium mining to improve the
economic fortunes of indigenous communities and to improve "engagement"
between traditional owners and mining companies.
But Mr Ferguson says the Government will not pursue an idea the
previous government flirted with — over-riding state bans in Western
Australia and Queensland that prevent new uranium mines or other
nuclear activities.
Uranium mining remains an extremely sensitive subject in the Labor
Party. An emotional debate at the party's national conference last year
resolved, by the narrowest of margins, to drop a long-standing ban on
new uranium mines, but Queensland and WA declared they would keep their
laws preventing new mines.
Mr Ferguson says Canberra will not override those states, but says it
is only a matter of time before mining developments occur in those
states, which have large uranium deposits.
"Queensland and Western Australia, at a point, will fall into line," Mr Ferguson said. "The uranium industry will open up."
He says exploration for new uranium deposits is under way in all
states, including WA and Queensland, and new mining developments are
likely in the Northern Territory.
He says Australian uranium will play an important role in powering
nuclear reactors in other countries wanting to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions.
He predicts substantial growth in nuclear power outside Australia.
"Some countries see nuclear as part of their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Ferguson said.
"Uranium mining has got a bright future and it's going to lead to increased export earnings for Australia and jobs."
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
HONEYMOON URANIUM MINER IN TROUBLE
------------------->
Shocks at Uranium One
22 February 2008
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C/Shocks_at_Uranium_One_220208.html.html?jmid=4013&j=86520491
Uranium One revised its uranium resources, production estimates and
senior management in a major announcement. The simultaneous 32%
reduction in 2008 production and departure of CEO Neal Froneman saw
stock prices drop over 20%.
The 32% drop in uranium oxide (U3O8) production forecast for 2008
equates to over 1.4 million pounds of U3O8. Production estimates for
2009 have also been downwardly revised by 15%.
The company mainly put the disappointing news down to
slower-than-expected underground development at the new Dominion
uranium mine in South Africa, partly due to the country's power
shortages and equipment failures. Uranium One said it was investing in
diesel generators for those times when South African power supplier
Eskom asks major power users to cut back.
Other factors in the production slump are problems at two of Uranium
One's three uranium mines in Kazakhstan. Akadala appears to be on
target, but South Inkai has had its 2008 forecast reduced due to a
shortage of the sulfuric acid used to leach uranium from sandy soils.
Another Kazakh mine which Uranium One has a stake in, Kharasan, is due
to start up in 2008.
The poor production figures were compounded in the eyes of investors by
the departure of CEO Neal Froneman, and Uranium One stock fell by
around 20% on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Jean Nortier, who currently
serves as executive vice president, will act as interim CEO; David
Hodgson will become chief operating officer.
Aside from production problems, Uranium One also announced a
substantial increase of 73% in the 'indicated resources' at Dominion,
to 51,000 tonnes of U3O8. About two thirds of this represents
reclassification from the less-firm category of 'inferred resources'.
Production from Dominion in 2007 - its first year - was 78 tonnes of
U3O8, and that expected in 2008 is 270 tonnes. Full production of 1730
tonnes U3O8 was earlier anticipated by 2011.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
AUSTRALIAN URANIUM COMPANIES OVERSEAS
------------------->
Czech town knocks back Aussie uranium company
PM - Thursday, 24 April , 2008 18:46:00
Reporter: David Weber
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2227065.htm
MARK COLVIN: A town in the Czech Republic has rejected an Australian mining company's request to explore for uranium.
The Pribyslav Town Council has turned down the request from Uran, despite its offer of a cash incentive.
Uran had been trying to gain local support, after the Environment Ministry turned down the company.
David Weber reports.
DAVID WEBER: Uran has applied for exploration permits for an area near
Pribyslav, which is believed to hold rich uranium deposits.
Uran's Managing Director Kate Hobbs says the Czechs have experienced
Soviet-style operations, which led to considerable environmental damage.
KATE HOBBS: The old mining practices in the North of the country left
quite significant environmental problems and there still are very large
waste dumps of quite radioactive material remaining which are huge
expense for the government to rehabilitate and make safe.
So yes, I can understand their wariness. Uran is taking the view that
this is a long term process that will require a lot of community
consultation and education and we are carrying that process out and
have been doing for nine months.
DAVID WEBER: And the proposal is for some finance to be going to the town council?
KATE HOBBS: It's not exactly finance. You'll find it's very common,
especially in areas where you're working close to communities that
mining companies make contributions to communities and that's all we've
done. We've given them a set of outlines of how we would work with
communities and it covers a lot more than money.
It covers how we would consult with them on traffic and noise and dust
abatement and things like that. But it also envisages a fairly small
actually community contribution during exploration and a still fairly
modest one during mining.
DAVID WEBER: What are some of the disturbances that the people of Pribyslav could be facing?
KATE HOBBS: In the Czech Republic we wouldn't be doing any trenching.
We would envisage doing diamond drilling to infill existing there and
as most people in Australia would know that's a fairly short-term
process; you go in, you do your drilling, you cap it, cover it, recede
it and when you go away really there's little or no evidence that
you've been there in agricultural and grazing land.
But the people in the Czech Republic aren't as familiar with this
process and when uranium mining was carried out at Brzkov in the past,
there was no consultation and no reassurance, so they are once bitten
twice shy.
DAVID WEBER: What principles is Uran guided by in a situation like this; the local laws of the land or Australian standards?
KATE HOBBS: We will always meet the local laws but we think that in
many cases Australian standards are higher and where they are, we
undertake to meet Australian standards, or indeed best practice.
DAVID WEBER: Uran also has interests in the Ukraine.
It's one of several companies based in Australia either looking for or
exploiting uranium deposits in former Soviet republics, and in Africa.
Kate Hobbs says South America is also promising a bright future for Australian miners.
KATE HOBBS: In beginning this company my view was that not only was
Australia high sovereign risk for uranium but that, the largely very
early stage exploration ground for uranium tended to be expensive too
for what it was. So we thought there was a much better return for our
dollar in some other parts of the world. Now this is not necessarily a
strategy that's readily understood by the Australian investor.
DAVID WEBER: So it might even be the case that if uranium mining was
allowed for instance in Western Australia, the opportunities are better
overseas?
KATE HOBBS: You've only got to look at the success that Paladin's
having in Namibia and in Malawi and I think there will be more other
such successes. One of the most exciting areas for uranium at the
moment is in South America in the Macusani region.
But I think that Ukraine has a great story to unfold in uranium. They
have some extremely large resources, which are partly defined and in
some cases fully defined.
DAVID WEBER: The uranium price is high at the moment, is Australia missing out?
KATE HOBBS: Well Australia is the world's second-biggest producer of
uranium, the question is could we and should we be producing more now?
My view is yes, I think it's our opportunity to contribute to a cleaner
form of energy.
I think that the really high uranium prices in this cycle might stand
up for perhaps 10 years and I think things that aren't in production
then will start to experience price falls as probably many more mines
will come on line.
DAVID WEBER: The Managing Director and founder of the Uran company Kate Hobbs speaking to David Weber in Perth.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM SALES TO RUSSIA
------------------->
Parliamentary inquiry:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/14may2008/index.htm
------------------->
Crikey 24//08
Why we should keep our uranium out of Putin's Russia
David Noonan, Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner, writes:
Having given commitments in the federal election to strengthen nuclear
safeguards and to take up a leadership role on nuclear disarmament -
why are Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen
Smith moving to implement the previous Liberal government's flawed plan
for uranium sales to Russia?
The proposed treaty for uranium sales to Russia was signed by then
Prime Minister John Howard and by Russian President Vladimir Putin at
APEC in Sydney in 2007 and has been brought before a Federal
Parliamentary Inquiry by the new ALP government. This Russian treaty
represents former Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer's terms of
nuclear trade, the same set of inadequate and hazardous nuclear
arrangements that were applied by the Liberal's to uranium sales to
undemocratic China, and is now on offer by Labor to Putin's Russia.
The Inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is tasked to
decide if the treaty is in Australia's national interest and will take
evidence from witnesses at a Hearing in Melbourne on Monday 28 July --
including from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).
ACF considers this treaty will unacceptably weaken Australia's policy
and practice on nuclear safeguards, will compromise PM Kevin Rudd's new
International Commission on Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament,
and will make Australia complicit in the serious failings of the non
transparent and unaccountable Russian state -- where the rule of law,
democratic values and human rights are not being observed.
We can not have confidence in claimed nuclear safety, safeguards or
environmental protection in Putin's Russia: as nuclear whistle blowers
are suppressed and jailed; the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) has only a very limited and voluntary role; the military is
still inextricably linked to the so called civilian nuclear industry;
and Australia will rely on a book keeping safeguards exercise conducted
from Canberra on trust with Russian nuclear agencies.
In conflict with ALP election policy commitments the proposed Russian nuclear treaty unacceptably provides for:
* "Substitution" of Australian Obligated Nuclear Materials (AONM) by
materials from other sources held at other locations, without then
safeguarding the original Australian material;
* management of AONM in non-IAEA safeguarded and military run facilities; and
* the elevation of commercial and foreign government nuclear interests over safeguards under the new Federal Government's watch.
We can guarantee that Australia's uranium will contribute to nuclear
risks in Russia, will produce plutonium in Russian nuclear reactors,
and will become high-level nuclear waste -- a serious unresolved
problem for all future generations to have to manage.
Australia should not sell uranium to nuclear weapon states -- like
Russia -- that fail to comply with their nuclear disarmament
obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Russia maintains
the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons and is developing new
weapons delivery systems.
ACF welcomes Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's efforts to rid the world of
nuclear weapons, however we believe those efforts would be seriously
compromised by Australian uranium sales to states that do not fully
comply with their NPT obligations. A new bilateral treaty with Russia
to enable exactly that would seriously jeopardise the aims of the new
Nuclear Non-Proliferation & Disarmament Commission.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
URANIUM SALES TO INDIA
------------------->
URANIUM SALES TO INDIA
The Rudd Labor government prohibits uranium sales to India because
India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the
government is supporting the US-India deal which would allow other
countries to supply India with reactors, uranium and other nuclear
facilities and materials. The following joint NGO statement explains
which the government should oppose the US-India deal.
---
Before the end of the year the Australian Government will have the
opportunity to block the US-India nuclear deal at the 45-nation Nuclear
Suppliers Group. We urge the Government to oppose the deal for the
following reasons:
1. Supporting the US-India deal is inconsistent with the Rudd Labor
Government's principled policy of prohibiting uranium exports to India
and other countries which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT).
2. Nuclear trade with India undermines the fundamental principle of the
global non-proliferation regime – the principle that NPT signatories
can engage in international nuclear trade for their civil nuclear
programs while countries which remain outside the NPT are excluded from
civil nuclear trade. The precedent set by nuclear trade with India
would increase the risk of other countries pulling out of the NPT,
building nuclear weapons, and doing so with the expectation that civil
nuclear trade would continue given the Indian precedent.
3. The US-India deal would allow nuclear trade with India with no
requirement for India to dismantle its nuclear arsenal or to join the
NPT. This would legitimise India's nuclear weapons program and make it
less likely that it will disarm. The US-India deal contains no
commitment from India to curb its weapons program, no commitment to
refrain from testing nuclear weapons, and no commitment to sign and
ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. India would not even be bound
by the NPT disarmament commitments which apply to the five 'declared'
nuclear weapons states (USA, Russia, China, France, UK).
4. Nuclear trade with India would make it less likely that other
non-NPT weapons states such as Israel and Pakistan will disarm and
accede to the NPT. Pakistan resents the selective support for India's
nuclear program and is well aware of the potential for the US-India
deal to facilitate an expansion of India's arsenal of nuclear weapons.
In April 2006, Pakistan's National Command Authority (NCA), chaired by
President Pervez Musharraf, declared that: "In view of the fact the
[US-India] agreement would enable India to produce a significant
quantity of fissile material and nuclear weapons from unsafeguarded
nuclear reactors, the NCA expressed firm resolve that our credible
minimum deterrence requirements will be met."
5. Nuclear trade with India would not only legitimise India's nuclear
weapons program but also facilitate it by freeing up domestic uranium
for weapons production. K. Subrahmanyam, former head of the India's
National Security Advisory Board, noted in 2005 that: "Given India's
uranium ore crunch and the need to build up our minimum credible
nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India's
advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as civilian
ones to be refuelled by imported uranium and conserve our native
uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production."
6. The alleged greenhouse 'benefits' of nuclear trade with India are
minuscule and rest on the arbitrar assumption that nuclear power
displaces more greenhouse-intensive energy sources. There are much
safer ways to help India curb greenhouse emissions than encouraging an
expansion of nuclear power. For example, Leonard Weiss, a former staff
director of the US Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Nuclear
Proliferation, notes that an aggressive program of improved energy
efficiency could substitute for all the future power output from
nuclear reactors currently being planned in India between now and 2020
(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2006).
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
KEVIN RUDD'S NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT COMMISSION
------------------->
Non-proliferation call rises after Hiroshima trip
KEVIN RUDD will try to invigorate efforts to curb the growth of nuclear
weapons and push for eventual nuclear disarmament through the
establishment of a new international commission to be co-chaired by
Japan and Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nonproliferation-call-rises-after-hiroshima-trip/2008/06/09/1212863546334.html
------------------->
Australia urged to rethink uranium exports
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/09/2269500.htm
Greenpeace says Kevin Rudd's new international body to push for nuclear disarmament must discuss Australia's uranium exports.
------------------->
Nuclear doomsday closer
Article from: The Courier-Mail
John Langmore
June 16, 2008 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23866892-27197,00.html
RUDD'S decision to establish a Nuclear Non-Proliferation and
Disarmament Commission is a vital and timely initiative. Nuclear risks
have been rising.
"On August 29 and 30 last year, six cruise missiles armed with nuclear
warheads were loaded on a US Air Force plane, flown across the country
and unloaded. For 36 hours no one knew where the warheads were or even
that they were missing," reports a bipartisan US panel of international
relations celebrities, including George Shultz and Henry Kissinger.
The eminent panel uses this mistake in the handling of nuclear weapons
by the US as part of its case for a nuclear-free world. The commanders
responsible for this mistake have just been relieved of their
responsibilities by the US Secretary of Defence.
The eminent Americans wrote in the Wall Street Journal on January 15 of
"the importance of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons as a
guide to our thinking about nuclear policies, and about the importance
of a series of steps that will pull us back from the nuclear precipice".
Most Australians no longer think about the nuclear threat. Yet the
editors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced last January
movement of the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock from seven to five
minutes to midnight.
They said: "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. North
Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a
renewed US emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the
failure to adequately secure nuclear materials and the continued
presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia
are symptomatic of a larger failure to solve the problems posed by the
most destructive technology on Earth".
That list of reasons is quite long enough to generate profound concern,
yet there are more. The Bush Administration has abandoned commitment to
the international rule of law and encouraged allies to do the same.
Only two of the nuclear weapons states have declared a no-first-use
policy – China and India.
Many of the 12,000 deployed nuclear weapons are on high alert and still
included in active military strategic doctrine. The bargain at the
heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is being broken: the five
nuclear powers which are party to the Treaty, who pledged "the total
elimination of their nuclear arsenals" are instead upgrading their
weapons.
Not only do India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons but so does
Israel. Iran and North Korea have apparently tried, or are trying, to
acquire these weapons. Keeping them out of the hands of terrorists is
vital. There is a stalemate in multilateral disarmament negotiations.
The 2005 Review Conference of the NPT failed to even agree on an agenda.
Many authoritative forums and people have called for complete nuclear
disarmament. The International Court of Justice concluded in 1996 that:
"There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith, and bring to a
conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its
aspects under strict and effective international control."
The Canberra Commission established at Gareth Evans's initiative wrote
that: "The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained and never
used – accidentally or by decision – defies credibility. Nuclear
weapons have long been understood to be too destructive and
non-discriminatory to secure discrete objectives on the battlefield."
The Bush Administration's backing away from the five treaty states'
2000 NPT commitment to nuclear disarmament was a major cause of the
deadlock at the 2005 NPT review conference.
Incremental steps towards outlawing nuclear weapons could begin with
taking them all off high-alert status and making deep reductions in
numbers. Prohibiting the production of fissile material and urging all
nuclear states to make no-first-use pledges are vital steps.
Not only is a nuclear weapons abolition treaty essential, there are
many practical reasons for considering that it is possible. For
example: biological and chemical weapons abolition treaties have been
negotiated successfully; and negotiation of a nuclear weapons
convention is already supported by 125 countries at the UN.
Australia can have a significant role in a global survival strategy by
taking a lead in advocating nuclear disarmament and in defining steps
towards that goal. That is the task of the new Commission to be
co-chaired by Gareth Evans. The support of responsible and perceptive
people is essential to growth of the political will to make it happen.
John Langmore, a former MP and director at the UN, is national president of the UN Association of Australia.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
AUSTRALIA AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION
------------------->
ICAN DVD produced earlier this year "Australia's Central Role in
Nuclear Weapons Abolition" with Carmen Lawrence, Dr Hans Blix and
Gareth Evans, aimed at the ALP, is finally on-line.
The youtube link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfSC_HZMcR8&feature=user
We also have many hundreds of hard copies at the ICAN office if anyone
wants to use them in their lobbying. <www.icanw.org>
<www.mapw.org.au>
------------------->
Getting serious about zero
By Tilman Ruff
Online Opinion
30 July 2008
Last year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday
Clock forwards to five minutes to midnight, stating: "Not since the
first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world
faced such perilous choices."
Recently, state-of-the-art atmospheric models have been applied by
atmospheric scientists Brian Toon of the University of Colorado and
Alan Robock of Rutgers University to evaluate the consequences of a
regional nuclear war involving just 0.03 per cent of the explosive
power in the world's arsenals - within the capacity of eight states
including Israel, India and Pakistan.
Apart from immediate incinerating devastation and radioactive fallout
killing tens of millions, global climatic consequences would be
unexpectedly severe and persist for 10 years. Cooling, with killing
frosts and shortened growing seasons, rainfall decline, monsoon failure
and substantial increase in UV radiation, would combine to slash global
food production. One billion people could starve. Preventing any use of
nuclear weapons is clearly of paramount security concern for every
inhabitant on the planet.
Advertisement
The Australian Labor Party came to office with a commitment to
abolishing nuclear weapons through a nuclear weapons convention. Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd's announcement of an International Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Commission to report to an
international summit in Australia next year is a welcome initiative. If
well-supported and resourced, and focused on building coalitions and
momentum in the lead-up to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
Review Conference, it could help break the logjam and bad faith that
have eroded the NPT disarmament and non-proliferation bargain to the
point of rupture.
There is a lot more that the Australian government can do to walk the
talk towards a nuclear weapons-free world. The Prime Minster and
Foreign Minister should both stay strongly engaged on nuclear issues.
The capacity of their departments on non-proliferation and disarmament
needs to be ramped up.
Australia should also explore ways to denuclearise its military
alliances and not provide facilities or personnel for any possible use
of nuclear weapons. This would greatly strengthen Australia's
credibility in nuclear disarmament by concretely reducing the role of
nuclear weapons in our "own shop". It would apply the most effective
possible political pressure on the US and other nuclear armed states,
and reduce the incentive for nuclear weapons to be targeted at
Australia.
Australia should withdraw from participation in missile defence, which
is destabilising, technically unfeasible and fuels vertical
proliferation. Uranium mining should be phased out.
In the meantime, Australia should work to reduce sharply the
proliferation dangers inherent in the nuclear fuel chain by supporting
urgent efforts for multilateral control of uranium enrichment capacity
globally, and exploring all possible avenues to stop reprocessing of
spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium. This means not participating
in the US Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which envisages extensive
spent fuel reprocessing.
Any R&D on uranium enrichment still being undertaken at Australia's nuclear facility at Lucas Heights should be shut down.
Australia should advocate cessation of civilian and military use of
weapons-usable highly enriched uranium, including the production of
isotopes for medicine. Finally, to show positive leadership through
significant action addressing the energy crisis, Australia should
promote renewable energy and the creation of an International Renewable
Energy Agency.
The growing recognition that nuclear weapons must be abolished and the
imminent election of a new US President provide perhaps the best
opportunity in a generation for serious progress on nuclear disarmament.
The government deserves encouragement and support to grasp a real
opportunity for leadership and integrity by removing the most urgent
threat to global health, and moving decisively away from being part of
the nuclear problem.
This article is reproduced from the August 2008 edition of Australasian Science.
------------------->
Australia & Proliferation
Friends of the Earth
Australia is widely regarded as a nuclear weapons 'clean-skin' which
punches above its weight in international disarmament and
non-proliferation fora. Sadly, there is no truth to that view.
Australia slavishly supports the US nuclear war-fighting machine by
hosting US bases, supporting the US missile defence program, and
(nearly always) supporting the US in disarmament fora.
Australia's uranium exports contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation
risks. Australia's uranium exports have resulted in the production of
over 100 tonnes of plutonium in power reactors around the world, enough
to build over 10,000 nuclear weapons. No Australian government has ever
refused a request to separate plutonium from spent fuel produced from
Australian uranium, even when this leads to the stockpiling of
separated plutonium (as in Japan and some European countries).
Australia has no power reactors but a research reactor is operated by
the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
ANSTO is a notorious organisation, up to its neck in plans to develop
nuclear weapons in Australia from the 1950s to the early 1970s. In the
1990s, a foreign affairs official described ANSTO as "part of the
national kit" - an apt military metaphor.
Even more notorious is the so-called Australian Safeguards and
Non-Proliferation Office, a 'captured bureaucracy' which has the gall
to claim the nuclear power does not represent a proliferation risk,
that safeguards "ensure" that Australian uranium will not be diverted
for weapons production, and that all of Australia's nuclear exports are
"fully accounted for" - all claims that are demonstrably false.
Having defeated plans to introduce nuclear power into Australia,
anti-nuclear and peace campaigners are now concentrating efforts on
uranium mining, in addition to the nuclear and military and alliance
with the US. In addition, the Medical Association for Prevention of War
(the Australian chapter of the International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War) has taken a leading role in the
establishment of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL - RUDD GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS
------------------->
Canberra approves US-India nuke pact
Dennis Shanahan | August 02, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24115988-5013404,00.html
AUSTRALIA has moved to heal a rift with India over uranium sales by
giving the green light to the new nuclear power agreement between the
US and India.
The Rudd Government backed the deal last night at the International
Atomic Energy Agency board, and will do so at the Nuclear Suppliers
Group meeting next month. At a meeting in Vienna, the IAEA board
adopted a safeguards agreement, or inspections plan, crucial to the
deal between India and the US.
Without the IAEA safeguards, India cannot import nuclear technology
from the 45-nation NSG, so the plan is key to India's efforts to gain
access to legal imports of nuclear fuel and technology from the US. The
NSG is set to endorse the deal at a meeting next month.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said last night the Government believed
the agreement on the safety and expansion of India's civil nuclear
power was a "positive step forward".
Mr Smith said Australia believed the agreement "will strengthen nuclear
non-proliferation efforts and is consistent with the non-proliferation
objectives of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".
Last night, the Opposition demanded the Government accept that the
decision meant other suppliers could sell uranium to India, and reverse
its ban on uranium sales.
Mr Smith said the agreement would expand "very significantly the
application of international safeguards to India's nuclear facilities".
The complex agreement quarantines India's civil nuclear program from
its military nuclear program.
The Rudd Government overturned a Howard government decision to sell
uranium to India for nuclear power, because India was not a signatory
to the NPT.
Mr Smith said: "The Australian Government's position remains very
firmly that it will not supply uranium to countries that are not a
party to the NPT."
But the Rudd Government has decided, as a member of the NSG, to endorse the Indian-US agreement later this month.
"Australia will approach the discussions in the NSG in the same
positive and constructive manner that it approached the IAEA
deliberations," Mr Smith said. "Australia will bear in mind
non-proliferation considerations, as well as the strategic importance
of this issue for both India and the United States."
Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Andrew Robb said the Government
should agree to sell uranium to India in Australia's economic interests
and to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
"The decision by the Rudd Government to support the IAEA's approval of
the agreement between India and the US effectively condones the sale
ofuranium to India by other countries around the world," Mr Robb said.
"The Government had no choice but to reverse their earlier opposition
to these sales if they were serious about climate change and reducing
global greenhouse gas emissions.
"(Nuclear power in India) would have a much bigger impact on global
greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Mr Rudd could
propose."
------------------->
Rudd has it both ways on uranium
August 1, 2008
http://www.watoday.com.au/world/rudd-has-it-both-ways-on-uranium-20080801-3ojr.html
The federal government says it will endorse a plan for the United
States to share nuclear fuel and technology with India, but will not
change its view on the sale of uranium.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says the decision to support the plan
does not suggest the Rudd government has relaxed its stance against the
sale of uranium to India.
Australia has a long-standing policy of not selling uranium to
countries, such as India, that have not signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board is meeting in
Vienna today to decide whether to endorse a plan which under which the
US will share nuclear fuel and technology with India.
The agreement will allow the US to sell nuclear plants and related
technology to India once it has separated its civil and military
programs and accepted a certain level of UN inspections.
Mr Smith said Australia - one of the 35 IAEA board members - would not stand in the way of the US-India agreement.
"... The Australian government has formed the view that the safeguards
agreement is a positive step which will strengthen nuclear
non-proliferation efforts and is consistent with the non-proliferation
objectives of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Mr Smith said in a
statement.
But Mr Smith said the decision would not change Labor's position on the sale of uranium.
"It has no effect, nor does it require a change to the Australian Labor
Party's long-standing approach of not exporting uranium to a country
that's not a party to the (NPT)," he told ABC Radio.
"If we were to change our policy approach on uranium it would seriously
undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ... we want that treaty
to be enhanced."
Mr Smith said Australia, which has the world's largest known reserves
of uranium, would continue to encourage all countries, including India,
to join the NPT.
Australia is also a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which
later this month will consider its approach to the pact between the US
and India.
Mr Smith said Australia would approach the discussions in the NSG in
the same positive and constructive manner that it approached the IAEA
deliberations.
"We'll take a positive and constructive approach and we will certainly
have non-proliferation considerations uppermost in mind," he said.
"But we will also take into account the strategic importance of the arrangement to both India and the United States."
He said the decision taken by Australia at the IAEA meeting did not guarantee the same outcome at NSG talks.
"We will treat the thing on its merits," Mr Smith said.
AAP
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
LUCAS HEIGHTS REACTOR A LEMON
------------------->
ANSTO submits application to modify OPAL reactor
http://www.researchcentre.com.au/rndinfo/newsletter.php?issue=118#8131
15/4/08
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has
submitted an application to the nuclear safety regulator (ARPANSA) to
modify the fuel design of its OPAL reactor, and use fuel conforming to
the new design when the reactor returns to operation.
The OPAL reactor is in its tenth month of non-operation, having been
closed in July last year following the partial displacement of some
fuel plates.
Investigations indicated that the problems were caused by a combination
of factors including inadequate design and fuel manufacture techniques.
The $400 million research reactor was switched on in August 2006, and
was officially opened by the then Prime Minister, John Howard, in April
2007, despite ongoing operational and safety concerns. Additional
funding for the reactor of $22 million was announced as part of the
2007-08 Budget to cover increased insurance, water, electricity and
nuclear fuel costs. The cost of importing medical isotopes while the
reactor has been shut down has been of the order of $100,000 per week.
ANSTO has provided responses to 95 questions or requests for information from ARPANSA on the application.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
HUNTERS HILL - SYDNEY - CANCERS
------------------->
NSW parliamentqary inquiry:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/8C6EFA4FA782EDC5CA25744B0007DA3B
------------------->
West's toxic dump
ANDREW CHESTERTON
The Sunday Telegraph
27,Sun 04 May 2008
THOUSANDS of tonnes of toxic soil, believed responsible for at least
five deaths, will be dumped in western Sydney to make way for a
residential development.
The NSW Government will spend more than $2 million to move more than
2000 tonnes of soil, contaminated with radioactive waste, from Hunters
Hill.
NSW Health is pushing to have the soil classified "industrial'', rather
than largely "hazardous''.
No tips here can take hazardous waste.
The Sunday Telegraph understands the soil will be taken to Kemps Creek -- the only city dump receiving industrial waste.
Despite Government assurances that the soil is safe, a NSW Health
report shows it contains arsenic, lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) "well above'' proper
levels -- and unacceptable levels of radium.
"The fill material
contains TPH and PAH, plus arsenic and lead, at concentrations well
above the relevant (residential) land use criteria,'' the report says.
"Levels of radium in parts of the foreshore area have also been demonstrated to be marginally above site validation criteria.
"Groundwater in the foreshore area contains hydrocarbon.''
Dr Mark Imisides, of waste analyst Aqua Diagnostic, said chemicals in
the soil remained very dangerous for nearby residents.
"PAH chemicals
are very toxic,'' he said. "Because of their toxicity, a lot of
industrial processes have been changed to avoid producing them at
all.''
The report reveals the Government plans to build a residential housing
project on the site, where a uranium smelter once operated.
Opposition environment spokesman Michael Richardson said the
Government was "reprehensible'' in trying to reclassify the soil as
industrial waste.
An Environment Department spokesman said the
Government had not finalised plans for the site, but confirmed it could
include dumping the soil at a tip.
------------------->
Luxury home is too radioactive to live in
Ben Cubby Environment Reporter
June 25, 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/luxury-home-is-too-radioactive-to-live-in/2008/06/24/1214073246944.html
A WATERFRONT home on the site of an old uranium smelter at Hunters Hill
is so radioactive that it is "unfit for human habitation", independent
tests have found.
Peter and Michelle Vassiliou, who bought their property at 11 Nelson
Parade from the NSW Health Department seven years ago, are too scared
to go home after radioactive soil next to their bedroom was measured at
350 times safe levels.
The Government has repeatedly said the land is not dangerous but tests
commissioned by the Vassiliou family and undertaken by a private
company, Australian Radiation Services, unequivocally show high levels
of radiation, caused by the processing of uranium on the site nearly a
century ago. The uranium was used to produce luminous radium for clock
and watch faces.
"They are totally distraught that tenants living there may have been
unknowingly exposed to radiation levels like this," said the Vassiliou
family's solicitor, Nicholas Brunton. The owners bought the house in
2001, without being told of the radiation risk, and planned to develop
it into their "dream home". But with children, aged seven, nine and 11,
they refuse to live there or let the house to tenants.
They hope the Government will buy back the property and include it in
the remediation proposed for the government-owned sites next door, said
Dr Brunton, of the legal firm Henry Davis York.
Australian Radioactive Services staff found soil samples ranging from
50 to 350 times more radioactive than samples taken elsewhere in
Hunters Hill. Gamma ray or "background" radiation on the Vassilious
property was between two and 10 times normal levels.
Fourteen of the 27 sites tested in the Vassilious' garden and around
their house exceeded the criteria adopted by the department. Duplicate
samples tested the same in an overseas laboratory. "I personally
wouldn't have my children playing on the site," said the managing
director of Australian Radiation Services, Dr Joseph Young.
The NSW Government has repeatedly declared the site safe. It
commissioned its own tests in February, undertaken by ARS and the
Nuclear Safety Agency, which showed some elevated background radiation
levels but no critical danger. It said no more tests would be
undertaken.
Since then several former residents of the street whose relatives have died of leukemia and cancer have come forward.
Last month, the NSW upper house convened an inquiry to examine the
level of risk to Nelson Parade residents and decide what to do about
the thousands of tonnes of radioactive dirt buried beside the street.
Among those making submissions is the Liberal MP Michael Richardson,
who said: "This is not a minor issue; people may have died as a result
of their exposure."
------------------->
See also
Radioactive house 'unfit to live in'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/25/2284940.htm?section=business
25/6/08
------------------->
Home owners plan to sue after tests find radiation hot spots
Ben Cubby Environment Reporter
April 19, 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/home-owners-plan-to-sue-after-tests-find-radiation-hot-spots/2008/04/18/1208025479619.html
THE radioactive waste dump under a Hunters Hill street is not safe,
despite assurances last week from NSW Health, with the department's
tests showing gamma ray radiation above safe levels.
The owners of a house next door to Government-owned plots on Nelson
Parade are planning legal action, after the February 20 survey by the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation found gamma ray
hot spots under their bedroom and garden.
Peter and Michelle Vassiliou bought their home at 11 Nelson Parade in
2001, without being told that parts of their land were radioactive
because waste from a former uranium smelter had never been removed.
The Vassilious live overseas, but had planned to return and renovate
their property, in the meantime renting it out. Last year they found
out about the radiation risk.
"Given these circumstances, our clients now cannot lease the house nor
have it renovated and they are suffering major losses," said Nicholas
Brunton, of the law firm Henry Davis York, which is representing the
Vassilious.
In a letter in March, NSW Health told the family of areas on their land
that exceeded Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
guidelines, although it maintained there was no health risk.
The tests were "not designed to be a comprehensive radiological risk
assessment, but rather a screening survey", the family was told. The
tests did not consider the risk of radioactive dust or ingesting
radiation particles.
In a statement to the Herald the department said yesterday: "We have
provided the residents of the affected properties, or their legal
representatives, with copies of their results. The results are very
technical in nature, and an offer has been made by NSW Health to
discuss with the residents this very detailed information.
"Given the current land use of the properties, NSW Health believes any
radiation the residents may be exposed to is not expected to exceed
ARPANSA recommendations for … public exposure."
The Vassiliou family is not satisfied. "Our clients are incredulous
that the very agency that is meant to protect public health has failed
to take appropriate action to warn potential purchasers of land that
the site, most of which it owns, was formerly used as a radioactive
waste dump and is contaminated," Mr Brunton said.
The state Liberal MP Michael Richardson, who wants the site to be
independently investigated and all former and past residents to be
offered free health tests, pointed to documents obtained under
freedom-of-information laws, in which department officials expressed
dismay at obstruction. In one, the department's chief financial officer
wrote that the matter went to "basic fundamentals of our role in public
health" and documents should have been made available.
"So poorly has the Health Department handled the public's desire for
answers, it's now even willing to criticise itself," Mr Richardson said.
------------------->
Nuclear dump: family seeks answers on deaths
Ben Cubby Environment Reporter
April 12, 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/11/1207856832354.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
WHEN both their parents died of cancer in their 30s, within nine months
of each other, and with no family history of the disease, Katie and
Greg McGrath thought it was a tragic coincidence.
Nobody had told them their family home in Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill,
was next to an unmarked radioactive waste dump. "But it's just too much
of a coincidence," says Ms McGrath, now 36. "I now genuinely believe it
was related to what occurred on that site, to what's under the ground
there."
The deaths of her parents, Iris and Fabian McGrath, in 1975 and 1976,
bring to at least five the number of people known to have died from
cancer after living in a small group of homes along the southern
waterfront side of Nelson Parade, the site of a former uranium smelter.
There may have been more but records are incomplete and no thorough investigation has been undertaken.
The McGraths learned about the uranium site from newspaper articles,
and started their own research. "It was a devastating shock," said
Katie McGrath, who is considering legal action. "We've had a pretty
horrendous life as a result of both our parents dying. We're not living
in the past but I do believe we owe it to them to find out what really
happened. It's important for other people who may have been affected as
well."
Tests undertaken several times since the mid-1960s have confirmed that
radiation levels are higher than average background levels but NSW
Health has repeatedly declared the site safe. There is no proven link
between the radioactive waste under the street and cancer deaths there.
Greg McGrath, 44, remembers his father digging vegetable patches in the
large block. He said his parents were restaurateurs and "very into
food. They used to grow their own food at home in the vegetable patch.
When we heard about the radioactivity, stomach cancer and leukaemia,
suddenly it seemed to make a lot of sense."
Tests in the 1970s concluded that eating a few sprigs of parsley a week
would eventually mean a person would exceed the safe limits of
radiation contamination. But the then NSW Health Commission told
residents at the time there was no need to worry. Correspondence since
found in the National Library includes a letter telling officials to
"stall and be non-committal" when asked about the danger.
Fabian McGrath was also a builder, and his son recalls him excavating
for additions to their home, including digging deep into the earth to
construct a retaining wall. "I'm angry because we weren't made aware of
any risk," he said. "Our parents obviously wouldn't have moved there if
they had known."
Michael Richardson, the state Liberal MP who has been campaigning for
comprehensive radiation tests and a thorough clean-up, wants free
medical testing for all former and current residents of the street.
"Morris Iemma must make a decision," he said. "This stuff is deadly and it's becoming more deadly as time goes on."
A radiological survey ordered in February, undertaken by personnel from
the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, apparently
showed little radiation danger, though the results have not been made
available to the public. NSW Health did not say whether the tests
included digging below the ground; radiation levels increase
dramatically at a depth of half a metre.
"Results of the testing undertaken at three sites have been provided to
the individual property owners," said a spokesman for NSW Health. "An
offer was made for NSW Health representatives to meet with these owners
to discuss the results.
"Overall, the results indicate that people living in Nelson Parade
should have no health concerns. Exposure levels fall within ARPANSA
[Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency]
recommendations for general public exposure."
No more tests would be undertaken, he said. The State Government plans
to dig out the radioactive waste - thousands of tonnes of processed
uranium tailings, thorium and radium - and sell the site for housing.
At least three others fell victim to cancer, according to
correspondence between NSW Health Department officials, dated from the
1960s - when some former residents had begun to suspect that there were
too many tragedies for a normal street.
One former resident, Gerald Conlan, succumbed to lymphatic leukaemia in
1987, after a 15-year battle with the illness. The house, nicknamed
"Radium", where he had lived with his wife, Joan, was bought by the
then NSW Health Commission and demolished.
Next door, Andrew McClure had lived with his daughter, a Mrs Lucas.
Like Iris and Fabian McGrath, they grew vegetables in their large
garden.
Mrs Lucas died of stomach cancer in 1962, nine years after her father
succumbed to leukaemia in his new home, in Gladesville. Her brother,
Archibald McClure, died in 1956. A former neighbour recalled that he
had died of bone cancer but his death certificate attributes the cause
to tuberculosis and a pulmonary infection.
Other family members reported having wounds that would not heal.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
CLEAN COAL?
------------------->
ANALYSIS - "Clean Coal" Elusive As Governments Balk At Cost
UK: April 11, 2008
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47904/newsDate/11-Apr-200
Story by Gerard Wynn
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
LONDON - Governments and the private sector are balking at the expense
of kick-starting a technology to bury planet-warming gases underground,
casting doubts on "clean coal" plans seen vital to help fight climate
change.
A handful of nations are developing audacious plans to trap and seal
beyond reach the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) produced from
burning fossil fuels in power plants.
The technology -- carbon capture and storage (CCS) -- may help answer
the riddle of how to get more energy for less CO2, given high
carbon-emitting coal is the world's most abundant fossil fuel.
But no plant has yet been built anywhere in the world, challenging
power company claims in Europe and the United States that they are
building "CCS ready" plants, as western companies and governments face
growing environmental opposition to coal.
The notion of being CCS ready is that companies build coal-fired power
plants, for example, and bolt on CCS technology later when it becomes
commercially viable.
But in the short-term being "CCS ready" does not commit them to very much at all.
"The power plant itself is not really very different," said Markus
Ewert, head of research at Germany utility giant E.ON, adding the main
difference was to set aside extra space for CCS equipment in the
future, and to be within about 200 km of a suitable, underground CO2
storage site.
E.ON says all new coal plants will be CCS ready, and aims to fit the
technology to all its coal plants by 2020. It has spent over 55 million
euros ($87.15 million) on CCS research projects to make it work.
"It's not a gimmick," said Ewert.
Several US states have required that all new coal-fired power plants have the "capability" for CCS.
"The problem is that the carbon capture technology isn't here yet,"
said a spokesman for the office of fossil fuel energy at the US
Department of Energy.
"It is remarkably difficult to define exactly what it is," said a
spokeswoman for Britain's department for business enterprise and
regulatory reform, referring to the "CCS ready" label.
Industry estimates suggest that the first commercial-scale CCS test
plant will be running some time between 2012 and 2015, but the
timetable has looked vulnerable after recent project cancellations in
the United States, Britain and Canada.
HOPE
Some environmentalists dislike CCS, as well as coal, because they say
it is a distraction from a drive to develop non-fossil fuel energy, and
leaks may wipe out the point of burying gases.
But industry hopes are high for what it could do for climate change, energy security, and business.
CCS has the capacity to curb global carbon emissions by about a third,
analysts say, given that it can remove around 90 percent of all carbon
from fossil fuel-fired power plants, which in turn account for about 40
percent of all carbon emissions.
It could then aid energy security by allowing countries concerned about
climate change to continue to burn coal, and so for example cut imports
of lower carbon-emitting natural gas.
Economically, CCS could also have applications beyond cleaning up
coal-fired power plants, for example helping develop low
carbon-emitting transport fuels from wood, trap CO2 emissions from oil
refining, or produce hydrogen fuel for cars.
A rule of thumb suggests CCS would add half again, or about 500 million
euros ($786.8 million), to the capital cost of an average-sized
demonstration coal-fired power plant.
Multiplied across dozens or even hundreds of power plants that implies a market in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
"For 2030 we estimated it could be between 76 and 225 billion euros per
year," said Societe Generale analyst Sarbjit Nahal. "Some people say as
high as one trillion euros."
Beneficiaries could include heavy industrial manufacturers, such as
Alstom, GE and Siemens, an oil and gas industry which may own suitable
pipelines and CO2 storage sites, and power generators selling the
resulting, "low carbon" electricity.
Key uncertainties remain a legal framework which could furnish
construction permits, cost inflation on rising steel prices, and a
network of pipelines which may need to be twice as large as that of the
entire natural gas industry now.
TOO LATE
But the biggest doubt is government backing for a technology which has only been a firm option for three or four years.
Britain and the United States are leading the world in ear-marking
finance for commercial-scale pilot plants -- about 500 million pounds
($985.2 million) and $1.3 billion to fund one and up to three projects
respectively.
Norway has budgeted this year over 1 billion Norwegian crowns ($197.7
million) for research, and China has a full-scale plant slated for
2015. Norway has long experimented with burying CO2, although not
trapped from power plants.
The US, British and Chinese initiatives may be pipped by private sector-led initatives.
"The way Britain has written the rules allows people to drift on to
2019 whereas actually there's two or three we can pretty confidently
predict will be operating full-scale by 2012," said University of
Edinburgh's Stuart Haszeldine.
Aside from one-off grants no policy exists yet for supporting CCS in
the same way as solar and wind now, said Lewis Gillies, chief executive
of Hydrogen Energy, a joint venture between mining firm Rio Tinto and
oil company BP, which aims to develop three, commercial-scale CCS
plants.
Hydrogen Energy wants to split fossil fuels into hydrogen and CO2, bury
the latter and sell the hydrogen as a clean fuel to utilities.
Last year it shelved a project in Britain after a lack of government
support there, and is now targeting 2012 for a similar plant fuelled by
natural gas in Abu Dhabi, although it has no details yet of support
there, either.
The joint venture is also in talks with US utilities to sell hydrogen
from a proposed CCS plant in California from 2014, arguing it can
compete with rival clean fuels such as solar.
Similarly German utility RWE, wants to be allowed to sell for a price
premium clean power from two or three major CCS demonstration plants,
much like solar power gets in Germany.
"That's what we are looking for, similar to the renewables tariff," said head of Johannes Heithoff, RWE's head of R&D.
CARBON PRICE
A European emissions trading scheme may provide help, both by forcing
all power generators to buy permits to emit CO2 from 2013 -- delivering
a cost saving from burying the gas -- and possibly yielding government
cash from permit sales.
A carbon price of 70 euros per tonne of CO2 now and 35 euros in 2020
may be enough to make CCS competitive, and less for promising
post-combustion technnologies which absorb CO2 from a power plant
smokestack. EU emissions permits are trading now at about 25 euros and
are widely forecast to rise.
Royal Dutch Shell is lobbying the EU for an extra emissions permits per
tonne of stored carbon, to help finance the capture of CO2 normally
vented from oil refineries.
Norway, Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing states are lobbying for
the United Nations to award carbon offsets to CCS plants under a Kyoto
Protocol carbon trading scheme, with a decision due at a UN meeting in
Poland at the end of the year.
------------------->
Emissions will drop when we end the reliance on coal
Kenneth Davidson
April 17, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/emissions-will-drop-when-we-end-the-reliance-on-coal/2008/04/16/1208025282995.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Carbon dioxide capture is unproven and will cost more than renewable energy.
IF FORCED to choose, I would prefer to live on top of a nuclear waste
dump than a carbon dioxide dump, which is both the Government and
Opposition's preferred method of dealing with the greenhouse gas
emissions from burning coal to produce electricity.
The waste stored in a nuclear fuel dump is easier to monitor and easier
to store than carbon dioxide and, if anything does go wrong, far less
likely to cause a human catastrophe. But both wastes, for all practical
purposes, remain toxic to animals forever.
Carbon dioxide escaped naturally from Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986. A
colourless and odourless cloud of carbon dioxide bubbled up from the
lake during the night and rolled down the valley, asphyxiating about
2000 people. This is unlikely to happen in the areas chosen for
sequestration unless there was a surprise earthquake as occurred in
Newcastle in 1989.
It doesn't take much imagination to see that the geosequestration
process is uninsurable. Politicians who blather on about leaving it to
the market to sort out the energy market while at the same time paying
most of the cost of geosequestration experimentation and underfunding
renewable energy are very much in the business of picking winners and
trying to fix the race at the same time.
The largely publicly funded $40 million pilot geosequestration plant
near Nirranda in the Otway Basin was opened two weeks ago to assess the
risk of leaks and the potential of the gas to corrode the porous rock
that will house it. Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said at the
opening: "We are a fossil-fuel dependent economy and our major export
is coal. In my opinion, we will see at some point in the future new
coal-based power stations in Australia. There is no alternative."
Maybe. But there-is-no-alternative is likely to run up against
not-in-my-backyard. The project backers say the technology is safe and
should be available in 10 years. The pilot plant will operate for two
years. Melbourne University scientist and member of the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, David Karoly, said it would
be a 100 years before it was clear that geosequestration was effective.
It would depend on the unique geology at each site.
Aside from safety, health, the environment and the sheer
bloody-mindedness of public opinion when the implications of
geosequestration enters the national consciousness, there are strong
economic reasons why coal has no future.
According to the UN panel, it is possible to capture 80-90% of carbon
dioxide from a coal-fired power station, but this requires additional
energy in the form of 11-40% more coal. And, in the case of
retrofitting existing plants with a carbon-dioxide-capture feature, the
amount of additional coal needed would be greater than for new plants.
This adds to costs as well as pollution. Two CSIRO witnesses at a
parliamentary inquiry into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in 2006
said that sequestration would double the cost of base load electricity
and reduce output from a power station by about 30% and that beyond 100
kilometres, the cost of carbon dioxide transport would become
"prohibitively expensive". According to a study by the University of
California, pipelines such as those used for natural gas would not be
suitable, meaning dedicated pipelines would have to be built at a cost
of $1.1 million a kilometre. The closest potentially suitable sites to
the Hunter Valley generators are about 500 kilometres distant.
Even the Howard government's taskforce on nuclear power found that
carbon capture "remains to be proved … uncertainties remain about the
cost of CCS and its reliability and security over the long-term".
In a report for the Co-operative Research Centre for Coal in
Sustainable Development, five CSIRO energy technology researchers in
2005 predicted that the cost of electricity from concentrated solar
thermal plants would be competitive with coal-fired generation in five
to seven years. The report was suppressed by the Howard government
while hundreds of millions of dollars were allocated to "clean coal"
research and solar thermal initiatives were driven overseas.
Compared with the prospects for base-load solar power, coal-fired power
with geosequestration is too expensive and too late to be a solution to
carbon dioxide emissions.
Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.
------------------->
Is it crunch time for coal?
Chris Hammer and Adam Morton
June 14, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/national/is-it-crunch-time-for-coal-20080613-2qbd.html?page=-1
TERRY Anders turned up for his first day of work as the glory days of
Victoria's brown coal industry were coming to an end. It was the early
1990s, and the industry was heading towards privatisation. Roughly
10,000 workers were thrown out of work over a handful of years as
international companies first swallowed, then broke up, the old State
Electricity Commission.
"It was a very good job to get into at a young age, but it very quickly
went from being a comfortable, secure job to quite a bit of
uncertainty," Anders says.
He was one of the last hired before the door slammed shut. At 39, he is
the youngest worker in an ageing team of about 100 that keeps the giant
Loy Yang power station ticking over.
Now the Latrobe Valley's brown-coal-fired power station faces an even
greater challenge — global warming. In two years' time, Australia will
get an emissions trading system — a system environmentalists say should
close down brown-coal-fired power stations forever. Anders, a
second-generation coal industry worker, has no illusions about the
threat to his job and those of his colleagues.
"I work in an industry that really would be better off shut down. I
don't think it will happen, and for my own financial good I hope it
doesn't happen," he says.
"There's a lot of talk in the media, and in society generally, about
how evil coal-fired electricity is, and it does generate a lot of
carbon emissions, but I don't think people actually realise the
consequences if it shuts down."
Where Anders differs from his employers, and from the state and federal
governments, is in his lack of confidence in what some see as the
solution — a range of technologies known as "clean coal". It is a term
that has been much mocked as an oxymoron. But while coal can never be
clean, can it be cleaned up enough to give it a future?
Can it save the Latrobe Valley, or should the Government cut its losses and move on to alternatives for the region?
Decisions now being taken in Canberra will provide some of the answers within months.
"It's a blessing and a curse," John Boshier of the National Generators
Forum says of brown coal. "It's plentiful, it's cheap, it's available.
The fact that it can be converted into electricity is a miracle: it's
63% water."
The Climate Institute's John Connor puts it more succinctly: "Burning brown coal is like burning mud."
Brown coal is so sodden with water, it produces up to half as much heat
as black coal but pumps out around a third more carbon dioxide. It is
two to three times more polluting than natural gas.
"Brown coal, with its current high level of emissions, will not have a
future. It's just too polluting," says the Australian Conservation
Foundation's Don Henry.
But close down brown coal and you close down Victoria's electricity grid.
The state is hooked on brown coal; it generates 95% of the state's
electricity. As a result, Victorians are among the world's worst
greenhouse polluters.
It is a political nightmare for Labor, federal and state. Both
governments are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60%
by 2050, but neither wants to throw workers out of a job or drive a
regional economy into reverse.
And so government and industry alike are pinning their hopes on clean
coal technology — essentially catching carbon dioxide before it's
released into the atmosphere and burying it kilometres underground.
It's a technique known as carbon capture and storage.
The Victorian Government has pledged almost $130 million for research;
the Federal Government has a $500 million clean coal fund.
"Our absolute priority as a nation — economically, socially, and
environmentally — is to get a solution to carbon capture and storage.
Otherwise we have a very challenged future as a nation," federal Energy
Minister Martin Ferguson, a champion of the coal industry and the
Latrobe Valley, says.
Carbon capture and storage would need to integrate at least four stages
— all of them unproven on a commercial scale — if it is to work.
First, more efficient technology is needed to dry out the coal before
it's burnt. Second, and perhaps most difficult, is to capture the
carbon dioxide given off when the coal is burnt. There are competing
technologies being developed, none of them cheap.
Third, the carbon dioxide would need to be compressed and transported through a large, expensive pipeline network.
Fourth, the compressed carbon dioxide would be injected into huge,
naturally occurring underground storage chambers, typically the same
geological formations from which oil and gas have been extracted. The
Federal Government is rushing through legislation to enable this to
happen off the Victorian coast.
THERE are about a dozen carbon capture and storage projects under way
around Australia, but no one can say for certain that it will work.
Even if it is technically feasible on the huge scale required, the
massive infrastructure involved could negate brown coal's greatest
advantage — its low cost.
And then there is the biggest problem of all — time. Emissions trading
starts in 2010, climate scientists say global emissions must be
trending downwards by 2015, yet even the most heroic predictions say
commercial-scale capture and storage won't be ready until between 2015
and 2020. A recent report by Washington-based environmental think tank
the World Resources Institute says a 20-to-50-year time scale is more
realistic.
Even the most optimistic projections — with the method commercially
deployed by 2020 — would leave a decade-long hole after the
introduction of emissions trading during which the Latrobe Valley power
stations would run at a loss.
Ferguson refuses to canvass possible Government assistance, such as
free pollution permits, before the release of the Federal Government's
green paper due next month. "The last thing we can do is start trading
sectors in and out on the way through. We'll end up with a dog's
breakfast, and an incapacity to manage the outcome," he says.
But that's not to say the Government won't lend a helping hand when
push comes to shove — it's understood that money may become available
for structural adjustment, but not to prop up existing power stations.
A fallback option being discreetly discussed in Canberra and within the
industry is a gradual conversion of the Latrobe power stations from
coal to gas. This would help preserve jobs while giving Victoria the
baseload power it needs.
The environmental movement is divided on clean coal. At one end of the
spectrum, WWF supports a central role for government; at the other end,
Greenpeace says carbon capture and storage is a dangerous diversion.
"The Government should see the writing on the wall. If they introduce a
robust emissions trading system, then it will be pricing out coal. And
brown coal will be the first to go," says Julien Vincent from
Greenpeace.
The Australian Conservation Foundation takes a middle road. It says the
method should be given a chance, but that government shouldn't be
funding it. Executive director Don Henry says the hundreds of millions,
perhaps billions, of dollars that's required should come from the
hugely profitable multinationals that dominate Victoria's power sector.
"You've got to ask why they're so slow in investing on the scale that's
needed to clean up their act. You've got to worry that they want to
ride on the public purse. I think they're being slack," says Henry.
The response from Ian Nethercote, the Latrobe Valley-based chief
executive of Loy Yang Power, is that climate change is a problem facing
the entire community, and government cannot avoid its responsibility.
Not compensating, Nethercote warns, would potentially endanger the
state's continuous electricity supply as power generators were forced
to cut corners on things such as maintenance.
He says China is building a coal-fired power station every week, and
that we would be inflicting pain on ourselves for no reward if
Australia introduced an aggressive carbon-trading scheme before an
international climate deal is brokered.
"I think there is concern that some people in government and the public
don't yet understand the potential ramifications of this," he says.
Victorian Energy Minister Peter Batchelor, the architect of the state's
support for clean coal, is optimistic. He says work on capture and
storage is well advanced in Victoria, and the state's 500-year reserves
of buried energy have a future. "We've got a huge resource of coal in
the Latrobe Valley, and the challenge for us in a carbon-constrained
world is to continue to use coal, but in a more environmentally
sustainable way."
Power generation isn't the only possible use for brown coal. One
company says it intends building a $2 billion plant to make the
agricultural fertiliser urea in the Latrobe Valley, another aims to
turn brown coal into diesel fuel. That's an old idea, but rising world
fuel prices could finally make it a commercial winner.
Martin Ferguson, for one, is convinced the era of brown coal in the
Latrobe Valley isn't coming to an end. "We are not out there, like
some, saying the coal industry is doomed. We're actually saying if you
get it right, the coal industry has a bright future and so does the
Latrobe Valley and so does Victoria and so does Australia," he says.
Chris Howe has spent three decades at the dirty end of the power
industry. His job is to monitor and remove ash from the coal. At 61,
Howe is just years away from retirement. He says the "nightmare" of
uncertainty of the past 20 years has been replaced by a new type of
insecurity.
Last week he was called into a meeting to be told that half the
Yallourn W station could be shut down within 10 years if the carbon
price is deemed too high.
He suspects clean coal is "some sort of ploy the Government and
industry are playing". He believes the future is more likely to lie in
converting Latrobe Valley electricity generation from coal to gas — a
more immediate alternative to renewable energy, and a cleaner option
than coal, but one that would come at enormous cost.
"People thought by 2026 or thereabouts it would probably close because
of the age of the station, but 2018 came as a surprise to people
because at their age they might not be getting another job. If that is
the situation with Yallourn, Hazelwood would probably be in the same
boat," he says.
"It won't impact on me so much, but the young people with young
families, it impacts on them — will the kids have to leave the valley
if the power industry ceases to operate with the brown coal? Because if
they bring in gas turbines, one man 100 miles away can start 'em up."
JULY 4 Economist Ross Garnaut to release draft report on climate change.
JULY 7-9 G8 meeting in Japan to consider a target of halving greenhouse emissions by 2050.
JULY Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to unveil Government's
emissions trading scheme, which will force businesses to pay to emit
greenhouse gas.
AUGUST Treasury modelling on the impact of climate change on the economy due.
SEPTEMBER Garnaut to release final report.
DECEMBER Government to release details of emissions trading laws.
DECEMBER 2009 World's leaders meet in Copenhagen to sign a new global
treaty on climate change to replace the terms of the Kyoto agreement.
2010 Emissions trading starts in Australia.
Chris Hammer is a Canberra correspondent who writes on the environment. Adam Morton is environment reporter.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NATIONAL NUCLEAR DUMP PROPOSED FOR THE NT
------------------->
Lots of stuff happening with Martin Ferguson manoeuvring to impose a nuclear dump in the NT. Details at:
* No Waste Alliance <www.no-waste.org>
* Nuclear Territory News - dump section - <www.ntne.ws/articles/article.php?section=waste>
* Arid Land Environment Centre <www.alec.org.au>
Detailed paper on Martin Ferguson's disgraceful handling of nuclear
dump controversy, including his failure to repeal blatantly racist
Howard-era legislation:
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/martin-ferguson
------------------->
Media Release
May 23, 2008
Muckaty traditional owners still oppose NT dump proposal.
A group of 28 traditional owners from the Muckaty land trust has
written to Minister for Resources and Energy Martin Ferguson and Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd to express their opposition to a radioactive waste
dump at Muckaty, 120km north of Tennant Creek.
The Northern Land Council used provisions of the Commonwealth
Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA) to nominate the site for
assessment in 2007, despite public opposition from a number of
traditional owners.
Assessments are currently underway at the site,
with the contract for site works due to be completed by the end of
June.
ALP committed to repealing the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste
Management Act if elected and this is enshrined in the ALP national
party platform.
Environment Minister Peter Garrett in November 2005, described the
CRWMA as a "sorry and a sordid business driven by a licensing
imperative for nuclear processes that no-one has consented to.
This government continues to make a mockery of the principle of
informed consent, of community participation and of respect for the
wishes and interests of Aboriginal people in this country.
"
Many ALP politicians expressed concern about the nomination process
whilst in opposition, yet Muckaty people are concerned that the new
federal government is pursuing the site as an option for a federal
dump.
Dianne Stokes, a Yapa Yapa traditional owner from the Muckaty Land
Trust stated; "Warlmumpa people from the Muckaty Land Trust are still
saying no to the nuclear waste dump. We are not feeling happy about
this. We don't have to sell our country to anyone. We have said no to
this since it started".
Janet Mick, traditional owner from the Milwayi family group added;
"We are not happy at all and we don't want nuclear waste on our
country. It won't just hurt our country but everyone's land around us.
We have always said no".
The letter to Rudd and Ferguson from the Muckaty traditional owners concludes with the clear message:
"
We want the government to stop and listen to us. Take our word. We say
NO!
We want you to write back to us and let us know what is happening
with the waste dump".
------------------->
Muckaty plan still not dumped
23/05/2008 9:46:00 AM
http://tennantcreek.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/muckaty-plan-still-not-dumped/775813.aspx
A NUCLEAR waste dump at Muckaty remains on the agenda following an
overwhelming Senate vote against repealing legislation which would
foster its development.
The Federal Labor Government voted against repealing legislation which
facilitates the selection of a site for the establishment and operation
of a radioactive waste management facility.
Greens Senator Christine Milne called on the Government to repeal the
Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 (CRWMA) and a 2006
amendment in the Senate last Thursday.
She also called for the repeal of all sites proposed or nominated under
the legislation including Muckaty which was nominated by the Northern
Land Council.
If chosen, the NLC and some of the Muckaty traditional owners would receive a lucrative pay out.
While refusing to cross the floor might be part of the usual political
game plan it has become increasingly obvious that the Territory's Labor
Government representatives, MHR Warren Snowdon and Senator Trish
Crossin don't intend to make any moves of their own to repeal the
legislation.
This is an Orwellian twist from the two who accused the Howard
Government of "riding roughshod over the rights of all Territorians and
Australians by shoving legislation through Federal Parliament."
(Picture this: Pigs dressed resplendently in black coats, rat-catcher
breeches and leather leggings, laughing, singing and guzzling beer
around the table at the Manor Farm.)
They vowed to restore transparency, accountability and procedural
fairness and said Labor would ensure any proposal for the siting of a
nuclear waste facility on Aboriginal land in the NT would adhere to the
requirements that exist under the Aboriginal Land Rights NT Act.
But so far the silence from the Left has been deafening.
Muckaty comes within the electorate of Barkly whose MLA, Elliot McAdam
has written to Resources Minister Martin Ferguson asking whether the
Federal Government still intends to repeal the CRWMA and when it plans
to do so.
Mr McAdam told the Tennant and District Times he is still waiting for a reply.
"What's happening here is a fundamental denial of natural justice," he said.
"From the beginning the whole process has been secretive and contemptuous," he said.
"Many of us were of the opinion that the election promise to repeal the
CRWMA and amendment would be fulfilled as soon as the Rudd Government
had the opportunity. This has not happened."
Mr McAdam said locating a nuclear dump at Muckaty would have wide
ranging and long term social and environmental consequences especially
for those with traditional ties to land as well the pastoral industry.
"It just doesn't make sense to put a nuclear dump in the middle of Australia's prime cattle production country," he said.
"The industry rides on the back of its clean, green image.
"The nuclear dump plan has to be scrapped and the Government should
hear loud and clear that it should stop treating people of the Barkly
with contempt. We deserve better."
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA?
------------------->
Australia must consider nuclear energy
Julie Bishop blogs exclusively for BusinessDay
http://blogs.theage.com.au/business/archives/2008/07/australia_must_consider_nuclear_energy.html?source=cmailer
The latest statistics released by the National Greenhouse Office show
that Australia reduced its greenhouse gas emissions per person by
almost 14% between 1990 and 2006.
While this is encouraging, over that same time frame there was a 40%
increase in emissions from electricity generation, the vast majority of
which is coal-fired.
The latest statistics released by the National Greenhouse Office show
that Australia reduced its greenhouse gas emissions per person by
almost 14% between 1990 and 2006.
While this is encouraging, over that same time frame there was a 40%
increase in emissions from electricity generation, the vast majority of
which is coal-fired.
Power stations account for 50% of Australia's greenhouse emissions.
The entire transport sector accounts for 14% of emissions.
Demand for energy is forecast to increase by at least 2% per annum until 2030.
For Australia the greatest potential for reductions in emissions is in the area of electricity generation.
In pursuing alternative forms of energy, there has already been
considerable investment in wind generation and a lesser investment in
solar generation.
However, these technologies do not achieve significant reductions because of the intermittent nature of the supply.
Electricity generators must continue with coal and gas power
infrastructure in order to maintain sufficient capacity to supply 100%
of electricity demand.
Sure, when the wind blows it is possible for coal-fired power stations
to reduce their level of operation but power generators cannot shut
down a coal-fired station. It is not possible to judge for how long or
how hard the wind will blow.
Solar power has similar difficulties in that power is not generated at night and it is less effective on cloudy days.
There are other promising technologies such as geothermal but these are not yet proven.
Currently, nuclear power is the only proven technology capable of
delivering low emission reliable baseload power 24 hours per day.
The issue of nuclear power has to be debated rationally if Australia is
serious about making deep cuts to its greenhouse gas emissions.
Before the last election, the Labor party mounted an irresponsible and
highly emotive scare campaign about nuclear power, which means the Rudd
Government will not even consider nuclear power as a possible or
potential means of reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
Australians should consider that some of the most environmentally aware
nations on earth - such as France, Switzerland and Sweden - have
significant nuclear power generation.
A group of physicists from the University of Melbourne has established
a site to provide information to support a rational discussion about
nuclear energy and its alternatives.
It is a good starting point for anyone interested in the debate - http://nuclearinfo.net/
If Australia is to position itself well for a future of low emission
energy, the nation must engage in a coherent debate about the nuclear
option.
------------------->
Nuclear power still an option: Liberals
July 10, 2008 - 11:46PM
http://news.theage.com.au/national/nuclear-power-still-an-option-liberals-20080710-3das.html
The federal opposition has not given up hope of nuclear power coming to
Australia as part of the quest for low-emission electricity.
Liberal senator Helen Coonan said if efforts to clean up coal failed, nuclear power could become an option.
"What you need to do is to keep an open mind about alternatives to
coal, and if you can't clean up coal ... you've got to look at other
options, you can't just go down one track," she told ABC Television's Q
and A program.
"We believe that (nuclear power) should be one of the options but it
has to be bipartisan, and it has to be economically viable."
Senator Coonan said nuclear power was increasingly becoming an option in other countries.
For Australia, cleaning up coal was the best option and renewables were
also important, she said, but nuclear power was still an option.
The federal government's Small Business Minister Craig Emerson said Labor did not support nuclear power for Australia.
Greens senator Christine Milne said renewable energy held the key to cleaning up Australia's electricity.
© 2008 AAP
------------------->
Hypocrisy blinds Labor nuclear view
ANALYSIS: Matthew Warren | June 27, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23929543-21147,00.html
NUCLEAR energy has been stalking the Australian Labor Party for a generation.
Only the nation's vast reserves of coal and gas have kept the menace at
bay, protecting the party from having to confront the darkest of all
ideological divides. That protection has been wiped away by climate
change.
Nuclear energy has never been in the game in Australia because it is
significantly more expensive than coal- or gas-fired power. But
emissions trading and a potentially high price on greenhouse emissions
will change all that.
Nuclear power stations don't have to do anything, just sit there in the
market and wait for the cost of coal and gas to rush past them. Their
electricity costs about 50 per cent more than coal but they have no
greenhouse emissions, and so are unaffected by a rising carbon price.
Massive Chinese growth has pushed up the cost of concrete and steel
such that the price of any new big power station has risen by as much
as 25 per cent in the past year. Even so, a carbon price of about $40 a
tonne would certainly bring nuclear energy into the equation.
Nuclear energy comes with the baggage of waste disposal, operating
safety and proliferation, and may never be needed in Australia,
particularly if clean-coal technology can deliver satisfactory results
quickly and affordably ahead of large-scale clean technologies further
down the track. There isn't much doubt capturing and storing emissions
from power stations will work, but it might cost a bomb.
Recent debate over petrol prices has revealed that whatever the voting
public might tell pollsters on environmental principles, the hip pocket
nerve still drives how they vote and high energy prices are remarkably
unpopular.
Australia's nuclear industry is so small it has a name: Ziggy
Switkowski. The former Telstra chairman headed the Howard government's
2006 nuclear taskforce and says it will take Australia a decade to
build the capacity to run a nuclear industry if required. The question
that precedes this is how long it will take an Australian government to
start the nuclear clock, if ever.
Until now, Labor's biggest headache had been whether to sell some of
our considerable uranium reserves, the biggest in the world, to
countries such as France, Britain and the US, which had built nuclear
power facilities.
Even then, in 1984, the Labor Party nearly tore itself apart on the
issue, needing all of the leadership and consensus-building skills of
former prime minister Bob Hawke to broker the bizarre ideological
construct of the "three mines policy". This allowed production and
export of uranium from three mines, but banned all other sources of the
same fissionable material.
In repealing this policy last year, Kevin Rudd only served to highlight
the deeper hypocrisy in Labor's overall position on nuclear energy: we
think it's all right to sell other countries the fuel, but we don't
think it's acceptable to actually use it ourselves.
------------------->
Unionist Paul Howes's nuclear proposal slammed
Brad Norington | June 28, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23934526-2702,00.html
THE leader of Australia's biggest blue-collar union has been left out
on a limb over his push for the development of a nuclear power
industry, as senior colleagues yesterday debunked his proposal as
fanciful and unnecessary.
Paul Howes, national secretary of the right-wing Australian Workers
Union, was reported in The Australian yesterday as saying that nuclear
power was the only option if the nation was to reduce carbon output and
pursue renewable energy.
Mr Howes was immediately criticised for arguing a case that was not on
the agenda for Australian business and out of step with ALP policy.
Mining union chief Tony Maher said he had followed the energy and
climate change debates closely for many years and did not know of any
stakeholders who considered nuclear power a serious option. "It would
take 20 years to build a nuclear power station and cost a shitload of
money," Mr Maher said.
"It's fanciful and unnecessary. It would mean giving up on Australia's
other energy options such as solar, geothermal, as well as developing
carbon capture."
Mr Maher, president of the mining division of the left-wing
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, also disputed the claim
nuclear energy rated as clean because of unresolved toxic waste
problems. "He's entitled to his view, but I've been following this
debate for 20 years, and it's not part of the program," he said.
Dave Oliver, secretary of the left-wing Australian Manufacturing
Workers Union, said he believed it was widely accepted that nuclear
power was not viable and that other renewable energy options should be
pursued.
Mr Oliver said Mr Howes's position ran contrary to ALP policy and had
been rejected at the federal election when voters opposed the Howard
government's nuclear proposals. He described nuclear power as a
short-term option, saying deep concerns remained about disposal of
nuclear waste and ensuring that uranium was used only for power, not
weapons.
ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence, said he had not heard any economic nor
environmental justification for a nuclear power industry in Australia.
"It was put by the previous government in the election campaign and rejected by the Labor Party," Mr Lawrence said.
"I think there are bigger issues for us to be dealing with, such as
jobs, and there needs to be a focuson other forms of renewable energy."
Mr Howes, who succeeded Bill Shorten as AWU national secretary after Mr
Shorten entered federal parliament as a Labor MP in November, is
supported by his union's national president, Bill Ludwig. His proposal,
made while attending the annual Australian American Leadership Dialogue
in the US, and reported exclusively by The Australian, received warm
support from former NSW premier Bob Carr.
State Labor governments yesterday dismissed the idea.
A spokesman for Premier Morris Iemma said the NSW Government had consistently opposed nuclear power.
"It's a long-held position and it will be maintained," he said.
Queensland Premier Anna Bligh also rebuffed the proposal.
"We are committed to looking at alternative forms of energy but nuclear energy is not on the agenda," she said.
The Greens yesterday lashed out at Mr Carr for supporting nuclear
power, claiming he was using his position as a consultant to Macquarie
Bank to delay action in building "Australia's post-carbon economy".
------------------->
Labor faces inside push on nuclear energy
Paul Kelly and Geoff Elliott | June 27, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23929647-601,00.html
THE head of Australia's biggest blue-collar union, Paul Howes, and
former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr have called for Australia and the
Rudd Government to purge its prejudices and embrace a nuclear power
industry.
Their advocacy at the annual Australian American Leadership Dialogue in
Washington after a debate on climate change signals a campaign to
persuade the federal Labor Government to rethink its policy on nuclear
energy.
Mr Howes, national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, told The
Australian that "if we are going to be a green Labor Government, then
we have to look at nuclear".
"If we don't start today, we are going to put ourselves in a very precarious position in 10, 15 or 20 years' time," he said.
"I've told ministers in the Rudd Government this is my view and the
view of my union. I can't tell you how concerned I am about this. It's
the greatest challenge the union movement has faced since trade
liberalisation in the 1980s, if not greater.
"The only option for us, in my view, is nuclear. If we are going to
reduce our carbon output and still want to have heavy industry then we
have to look at renewable and new sources of energy and that means
nuclear."
The message from Mr Howes and Mr Carr is that Labor's decades-old
policy of rejecting nuclear power must be buried. They represent
different elements in the Labor Party: the trade unions and the
pro-green position.
Kevin Rudd insists Australia can meet its carbon emission reduction targets without resorting to nuclear power.
Labor's national conference last year dumped the party's 25-year ban on
new uranium mines, but reaffirmed its stance against the development of
a nuclear power industry. The shift on new mines does not override
state Labor bans on uranium mining in Western Australia and Queensland.
South Australia - home to two of Australia's three operating uranium
mines, including BHP Billiton's giant Olympic Dam operation - is
central to the push to expand Australia's uranium industry. Premier
Mike Rann, national president of the ALP, derided federal Labor's
former "no new mines" policy as outdated and illogical, and said his
state, which has issued 358 exploration leases, welcomes further
investment in uranium mining.
Mr Carr told The Australian at the dialogue that nuclear power was the
critical bridge between the carbon era and energy from renewable
sources.
"There is no other bridging technology to get us from this catastrophic
burning of coal and oil into the era of cheap and infinite renewable
power," he said. "We all want to get there. But it's decades off and we
need a bridge. The best thing the Western world can do to stop the
melting of the polar ice caps isto sponsor the production ofthe most
modern nuclear power plants."
The Carr argument is that coal-fired powered stations are more damaging
and risky than nuclear power. He said Nicholas Stern's climate change
review for the British Government underestimated the greenhouse gas
problem, and Australia must now rethink its basic attitudes.
"I think it's incontrovertible," Mr Carr said. "France gets 80 per cent
of its power from nuclear, and in Finland, people recently voted
overwhelmingly for nuclear."
He said young people did not have the emotional objection of their elders to nuclear power.
The Howes-Carr position signals a profound unease within the labour
movement about the Rudd Government's approach. This is also spreading
into the business sector.
The two senior ministers at the dialogue were Deputy Prime Minister
Julia Gillard and Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson.
Mr Ferguson refused to endorse the Howes-Carr line. He argued instead
that the immediate energy policy priorities of the Rudd Government were
to develop an emissions trading scheme and the technology for carbon
capture.
The source of alarm for Mr Howes is the case mounted for years by
former prime minister John Howard: that imposing onerous carbon limits
in Australia threatens to send its heavy industry offshore at the cost
of jobs for no environmental gain.
"You can't have a mining industry without significant power generation," Mr Howes said.
"I think we need to do something about climate change. But the last
thing I want to see happen, for example, is to have the aluminium
industry being sent to China where there will be 50 per cent more
emissions, creating a worse problem than anything we have here."
Mr Howes called for a bipartisan debate. The Howes-Carr line is much
firmer than the nuclear power option advocated by Mr Howard before the
last election.
Former treasurer Peter Costello, also at the dialogue, welcomed the
rethink, saying that nuclear power should not be banned but instead be
allowed to compete on a commercial footing.
Despite South Australia's support for uranium mining, the Labor
governments in Western Australia and Queensland remain vehemently
opposed to uranium mining and nuclear power.
Queensland's longstanding ban on uranium mining remains in place under
Premier Anna Bligh, despite the Government having issued more than 250
exploration permits. But with Queensland riding the resources boom, the
ban is more a practical issue than a philosophical one; the Government
will not do anything to exacerbate the labour shortage, and Treasurer
Andrew Fraser is privately concerned new uranium mines in South
Australia might lure away Queensland workers.
------------------->
Showdown looms on climate
Paul Kelly Blog | June 27, 2008 | 56 Comments
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/showdown_looms_on_climate/
AUSTRALIA'S energy policy debate is about to erupt. The emissions
trading system pledged by Kevin Rudd looms as a policy nightmare that
means higher energy and transport prices.
And now an old demon has re-emerged, with demands Australia should go nuclear.
No, this isn't John Howard. It is the pro-green Bob Carr and the
youthful Paul Howes, who runs the Australian Workers Union. And they
are far more strident about the need for nuclear power than Howard was
before last year's election.
Howes and Carr spoke to this newspaper with passion and urgency. While
few people champion the nuclear option, this obscures the real point -
mounting alarm from the unions, business and politicians about the
design and consequences of an emissions trading scheme.
The corridors of the Australian American Leadership Dialogue were
infected this week with multiple sources of this alarm. The unease is
profound. It is as though Australia is sleepwalking into the biggest
restructuring of its economy for a generation, with a popular culture
that thinks climate change solutions are about light bulbs and
carbon-free concerts.
The community is utterly unprepared for the harsh application of
climate change mitigation - if the Rudd Government has the will to
impose it. The question is whether a political constituency can be
mobilised for a rigorous emissions trading system that will make
Australia, outside Europe, one of the few nations to enter such carbon
pricing arrangements.
The dialogue saw an intense debate that finished with few answers.
The fears are contradictory and confusing - that Australian industry
and jobs will be the losers, that any Australian action will be
environmentally insignificant as China's economy advances undeterred,
that nuclear power must be assessed as a commercial option and not
banned, and that a carbon tax may be a better approach.
Julia Gillard and Martin Ferguson heard the warnings. The Rudd
Government faces an epic first-term showdown on climate change policy.
------------------->
Money talks: put plants to tender
Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent | June 27, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23929537-5013404,00.html
CLEARLY the big question about nuclear power plants is: where do you put them?
Nuclear plants have been arguably the safest form of energy production
- particularly now when you throw in the risk of greenhouse gas
emissions from other systems.
Although the spectre of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl still strikes
fear in people's hearts, nuclear power's global safety record stacks up
well.
Now the AWU has come around to that message, as well as leading lights
in the Labor movement, including former NSW premier Bob Carr.
So where to put them? NSW and Victoria, close to the major electricity
distribution networks, are the most plausible states. And existing
coal-fired plants, which might have to be shut down, are logically the
sites of choice should Australia go nuclear.
Former WMC Resources chief Hugh Morgan reckons he has the ideal solution: put it out to tender.
Morgan's model is to ask local councils if they would like the option
of, say, free power for their community and possibly even rebate
cheques every year.
"Locating these plants is not a problem," he says. "Put it out to
tender, with the offer that we will provide more then 20 years of free
power to the community. People will fall over themselves."
It's not so far-fetched. Consider a place such as Alaska. The state is
oil-rich, and citizens are effectively paid to live there. Come
September, a family of four in Alaska can expect a dividend cheque from
the state coffers of more than $US11,000 ($11,485).
Morgan hopes nuclear power can buy off any opposition. The problem
remains its commercial viability. But that equation will change if the
cost of carbon emissions start to wreck the case for coal-fired power
generation.
In Morgan's mind, there is no time to waste. He says there are already international queues to buy nuclear power plants.
"If we don't act now, it will be like trying to get tickets to the grand final the day before the game -- they'll all be sold."
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR ENERGY BECOMING LESS SUSTAINABLE
------------------->
Nuclear energy becoming less sustainable
Thursday, 24 April 2008
by Brooke Borel
Cosmos Online
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1955
Environmental costs: In a new study, scientists question the
sustainability of nuclear power because of anticipated declines in
high-grade uranium ore.
SYDNEY: The case for nuclear power as a sustainable alternative energy
source is challenged by new evidence that greenhouse gas emissions from
uranium mining are increasing.
An Australian report, detailed this week in the journal Environmental
Science and Technology argues that the availability of high-grade
uranium ore will deplete over time making the fuel more environmentally
and economically expensive to extract.
The find adds to existing concerns about nuclear energy, such as the
problems of disposing of radioactive spent fuel and whether uranium
processing leads to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Increasing environmental cost
"Commonly in the mining industry, as higher grade ores are mined, lower
grade deposits become economic - but this is at increasing
environmental costs such as more energy, water, greenhouse emissions,
tailings and waste rock," said lead author Gavin Mudd of Monash
University in Melbourne.
The 'grade' of uranium refers to how much of the element is found in
the ore, an important economic factor in mining. High-grade uranium is
easier to process than low-grade, and less expensive to extract,
however as this is used up, the industry must turn to lower grades.
For the study, Mudd and co-author Mark Diesendorf, an environmental
scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, reviewed
existing data on uranium mining, milling, enrichment and fuel
manufacture from across the world. This included historical figures
showing when most mining had occurred, contemporary financial and
technical reports, and CO2 emissions reports.
The goal of the research was to evaluate the true economic and
environmental costs of uranium mining. "We wanted to know what the
environmental cost regarding mineral production is in terms of
greenhouse emissions, water, and energy, and we found that all of these
things do increase over time," said Mudd.
"Important contribution"
He noted that, as the quality of uranium ores decrease, more trucks and
other equipment are needed to refine them, which wastes more energy and
resources. "This is the first time we've put numbers to this concept,
rather than it being an anecdotal idea," said Mudd, "There were real
numbers available, so it was time to get those numbers together."
Jim Falk, a professor at the University of Melbourne who specialises in
the political, economic and cultural impacts of nuclear technology,
said that the study is "an important contribution to the debate over
climate change and nuclear power."
"The amount of uranium which can be utilised without creating excessive
greenhouse gas emissions – and using excessive water – may be rather
more limited than has been suggested," said Falk, who was not one of
the study's authors. "The potential role of nuclear power, is likely to
be also limited by such considerations."
Nevertheless, Falk noted that while critics argue that nuclear energy
industry generates large quantities of CO2 (sometimes calculated to be
as much for a nuclear power station as an equivalent gas power station)
it still generates much less than a coal-burning power plant.
"Fear campaign"
Not everyone agrees with the outcome of the report, however. Michael
Angwin, the executive director of the Australian Uranium Association,
an industry trade group based in Melbourne, called uranium depletion a
"common myth" that amounts to nothing more than a "fear campaign."
Angwin said that the quantity of available uranium is directly related
to exploration, and that as exploration increases, new uranium sources
will be uncovered. And according to Angwin, Australian uranium
exploration is on the rise – between 2006 and 2007 A$114 million was
spent on it. He also noted that as technologies get more sophisticated,
efficiency will increase, so that the same amount of uranium ore today
will create a larger amount of power in the future.
To bolster these claims, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) reported in March of this year that known uranium resources
recently increased by 17 per cent. But this figure was largely a
reassessment due to expanded drilling at existing sites, Mudd said,
rather than exploration at new sites.
Mudd agreed that there was a connection between exploration and known
reserves, but argued that exploration is getting more difficult in that
it requires increasingly deep drilling. The more significant issue is
the declining grade of new uranium deposits, he said.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
FRANCE - ACCIDENTS/LEAKS
------------------->
FRANCE: Checks Ordered at French Nuclear Sites After Leak
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/49390/story.htm
------------------->
'It feels like a sci-fi film' - accidents tarnish nuclear dream
French nuclear companies are hoping to play a central role in the
government's plan to build a new generation of reactors. At home,
however, the industry has been buffeted by a series of mishaps.
Angelique Chrisafis reports from Bollène
The Guardian,
Saturday July 26 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/25/nuclear.industry.france
Sylvie Eymard's Provence farmhouse kitchen should be the picture of
French rural calm. But the stockpiles of bottled water, disinfectant
rinse and disposable paper plates hint at something strange.
For the past two weeks, Eymard, 41, and her children, 13 and seven,
have had a phobia of taps. To wash up, they go out to the yard and fill
a bowl from a specially delivered plastic tank of purified water on a
fork-lift tractor. They carry the water up to the bathroom to wash.
Even the dog drinks bottled water, and it is left out for the birds.
"I feel as if everything's constantly dirty," Eymard said, her hands deep in soapy lather scrubbing plates.
The view from the house over the fields is dominated by the nearby
cooling towers of the Tricastin site, a nuclear power plant run by EDF,
the company which is poised to buy British Energy and take control of
most UK nuclear stations.
Next to the plant is a nuclear treatment centre run by a subsidiary of
Areva, the nuclear group which hopes to design many of the new British
reactors. Last month an accident at the treatment centre during a
draining operation saw liquid containing untreated uranium overflow out
of a faulty tank. About 75kg of uranium seeped into the ground and into
the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers which flow into the Rhône.
Eymard's house is 100 metres from one of these streams.
Like a handful of rural homes near the nuclear site, hers is plumbed
into the local groundwater from wells. For 20 years she has drunk from
the tap. But after the incident there was a ban on drinking the
groundwater, using it to water fields - as all local farmers do - or
swimming or fishing in local lakes and streams. Since then, Eymard
feels like she is in an episode of The Simpsons, in a Springfield where
people's trust has been abused by haphazard mistakes. "It feels like a
science fiction film where experts constantly come to examine and film
the people who've been exposed."
At the centre for adults with learning disabilities where she works,
some have seen her on the TV news and innocently asked for her
autograph. At 10.30am on the dot, two men in green overalls from the
nuclear site appear at her door to collect the daily sample of water
from her tap to analyse it for uranium. Levels have fluctuated daily.
Even after the official ban was lifted this week and the families'
urine samples tested normal, Eymard won't drink from the tap. "I always
trusted that nuclear was totally secure. But now I wonder, have there
been other accidents in the past we haven't been told about?"
The nuclear site at Bollène sits in a picturesque corner of
Provence between the lavender fields and cypress trees that stretch
north to the nougat capital of Montélimar and to the historic
town of Avignon 30 miles to the south, which was hosting its famous
theatre festival when the spillage occurred.
Until now most locals have accepted the plant as a risk-free part of
everyday life in nuclear-dependent France. More than 80% of France's
electricity is generated by the country's 58 nuclear reactors - the
world's highest ratio. But the leak has shaken French trust in nuclear
safety and embarrassed Nicolas Sarkozy as he crusades for a French-led
world renaissance in atomic power.
The president wants to export French nuclear know-how around the world,
including to Britain where nuclear power supplies 19% of electricity,
and London and Paris are to cooperate on a new generation of nuclear
power plants. Areva, 90% state-owned, is at the heart of foreign
cooperation agreements not just with Europe but countries such as the
United Arab Emirates, Algeria and Libya. Last year it clinched the
biggest commercial nuclear power contract on record, worth €8bn
(£6.3bn), to supply China with two reactors and provide nuclear
fuel for nearly two decades.
Areva has been criticised by France's nuclear safety watchdog over the
Tricastin leak for not adequately informing local authorities and for
unsatisfactory measures and operational procedures. The leak rated at
level one of the seven-stage scale of nuclear incidents.
It was detected on the night of July 7 but the town hall and locals who
continued to drink water contaminated with uranium were not informed
until the following afternoon. Areva's chief executive, Anne
Lauvergeon, called the leak an "anomaly" which posed no danger to
humans or the environment. The treatment plant has been shut and the
subsidiary's director removed.
But in recent days there have been other, lesser incidents at nuclear
sites. In Romans-sur-Isère, north of Tricastin, at another site
run by an Areva subsidiary, officials discovered a burst underground
pipe which had been broken for years and did not meet safety standards.
A tiny amount of lightly enriched uranium leaked but not beyond the
plant. This week, about 100 staff at Tricastin's nuclear reactor number
four were contaminated by radioactive particles that escaped from a
pipe. EDF described the contamination as "slight".
The French government has now ordered tests on the groundwater around
all nuclear sites in France. The environment minister, Jean-Louis
Borloo, said there were 86 level-one nuclear incidents in France last
year and 114 in 2006.
People living near the Tricastin plant remain concerned. In basil and
coriander fields farmed by the extended Eymard family not far from the
nuclear site, part of the crop was ruined after wilting during the ban
on using contaminated water. The herbs, which are sold to make frozen
seasoning, have been tested for radioactivity and cleared.
Roger Eymard, 69, a retired farmer, now washes by pouring purified
water into the shower fitting of his camper van parked in a stable.
"Nuclear was progress and we wanted that. We thought people were
competent. Now we ask, were there previous incidents we weren't told
about?"
France's IRSN nuclear safety institute has pinpointed high levels of
uranium in the groundwater that it said could not have been caused by
the recent leak alone. A separate commission raised the possibility
that this contamination could be linked to military nuclear waste at
the Tricastin plant from 1964 to 1976.
The area's image has been so dented that the nearby Rhône Valley
wine makers whose label is Coteaux du Tricastin want to change their
name. In nearby Bollène, sales of bottled water have soared
despite assurances that the tap water is unaffected. Some people have
even asked chemists for iodine tablets, recommended for a nuclear
emergency.
Not far from the nuclear site, Emilie Dubois, 61, sat by her luxury
swimming pool framed by fig trees, poolside bar, shower and designer
outdoor kitchen. But for two weeks the cover has been on as the family
ordered tests on radioactivity levels in the pool water.
The day the emergency water ban was announced, more than 50 people
swimming in a local lake were ordered out and fled. "It was as if there
was a shark attack," one said.
Dubois was in her pool with her grandchildren when a town hall official
arrived to tell her of a ban on watering with groundwater. He said he
had orders not to give an explanation. She assumed it was a drought
warning and got back in the pool. Only from television that night did
the family learn of the leak. The pool, filled with local groundwater,
was a potential contamination zone. It has now tested safe to swim in.
Her husband is a retired engineer from the plant and her sons work in
the industry. "I've never questioned the safety of nuclear," she said.
She has resumed watering her vegetable patch and ate freshly picked
salad for lunch. "It's organic but it's been watered with the
groundwater after the leak. Why would I eat anyone else's tomatoes that
weren't organic? Although there are thoughts at the back of my mind as
I'm eating."
Sarkozy recently announced that France will build a second
new-generation nuclear reactor, a European pressurised water reactor or
EPR. He said nuclear power was France's best answer to soaring energy
prices and global warming. The Green party attacked the EPR as
"useless, dangerous and expensive", saying: "France is becoming a
nuclear showroom for Sarkozy the sales rep and Areva."
Not far from the stream that was contaminated from the Tricastin leak,
Joel Bernard sat in his farmhouse tallying the loss to his carrots,
radishes, turnips and cherries which couldn't be watered during the
ban. "Until last week, it was paradise here," he said. "I don't want to
return to the rural past. But something like this creates a kind of
suspicion."
------------------->
French Doubts Up After Nuke Mishaps
Friday, Jul. 18, 2008 By BRUCE CRUMLEY / PARIS
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1824284,00.html
Security breaches at nuclear power plants are never a laughing matter.
But with oil prices at near-record levels and the rush on to find safe,
clean sources of energy, news of leaks at two different French nuclear
sites could not have come at a worse time. Concern over the incidents
is rekindling questions about the safety of France's giant nuclear
power grid and could complicate the country's quest to become the
world's leading purveyor of nuclear technology.
On Friday France's Nuclear Safety Agency (ASN) revealed that damage to
an underground conduit at the Romans-sur-Isère plant in
southwestern France had allowed radioactive waste to leak, though in
quantities so small, it said, to have "not at all affected the
environment." But it was not the first such incident. The ASN announced
July 7 that uranium-tainted waste liquids from the Tricastin nuclear
plant, in southern France 30 miles northwest of Avignon, had leaked
into surrounding rivers and topsoil. Inhabitants of the Vaucluse
department were ordered to refrain from drinking water, eating locally
caught fish, and irrigating crops with potentially contaminated water.
The water prohibition remains in effect for thousands of parched locals
as inspections lumber on. "We're being treated like sub-citizens,"
protested Yves Beck, mayor of neighboring town Bollène to the
AFP. Qualifying what he called slow and unsympathetic response of
authorities to the situation "unacceptable," Beck warns legal action
for hardship and losses suffered may be taken. "We've told residents of
Bollène, 'Don't sign anything unless you've sought the help of a
lawyer.'"
Fighting words indeed — and over much more than simply safe drinking
water. Nearly 80% of France's electricity is nuclear-generated, and
French giant Areva has made a massive international business of
constructing and managing nuclear facilities. France has made nuclear
power a national priority since the early 1970s as French governments
of all political stripes sought to lessen the nation's dependence on
foreign oil. The French public embraced nukes as the rest of Europe and
the world said "no thanks." The result is France today has the
second-largest nuclear network behind the U.S., and is the world's
largest net exporter of electricity — a business expected to net around
$4.5 billion in profit this year.
All that has helped Areva become a world leader in the nuclear field,
providing one-stop shopping with construction, management, maintenance,
waste and storage solutions. Under president Anne Lauvergeon, the firm
has been an aggressive player everywhere from China to Britain and a
formidable rival to American companies General Electric and
Westinghouse even on American turf. However, news of nuclear incidents
anywhere on the planet — particularly in Areva's own backyard — tends
to squelch the appeal of nuclear power, record oil prices or not.
What is troubling about both recent French accidents is that they
involved nuclear waste, the disposal of which is perhaps the major curb
to nuclear power's appeal. Areva cited human error in the Tricastin
incident and said it had fired the responsible director after an
internal investigation found "evident lack of coordination" between
administrative and working units had allowed contaminated waste to seep
through the plant's theoretically impenetrable safety lining. Areva
also faulted local operators for significant delays in alerting
authorities once the breach had been identified.
The ASN's said the Romans-sur-Isère incident involved smaller
quantities of radioactive matter and was caused by an entirely
different problem than the Tricastin case. But the agency also noted
the leak discovered Friday may have first occurred "several years
back." Environmental groups have cited the breaches as more evidence of
nuclear power's spotty safety record, and anti-nuke organization
Greenpeace noted the government's "belated concern" reflected its
unquestioning confidence in the technology's reliability.
Though both cases have been assigned the lowest rating on the
seven-point scale of nuclear accidents, officials are moving to protect
France's nuclear reputation. Even before news of Friday's incident
broke, French Ecology Minister Jean-Louis Borloo ordered inspections of
all 58 French nuclear installations and checks on radiation levels in
the underground aquifers surrounding them. Borloo stressed there was no
grounds to anticipate additional breaches. "I don't want people feeling
we're hiding anything from them," Borloo told the daily Le Parisien.
Barring any further revelation of French breaches, this month's twin
mishaps won't alter France's official policy on the technology — nor
are they alone likely to undermine the French public's approval of it
as a clean, cheap energy source. But should Borloo's inspections turn
up additional failings, France's long-term bet on nuclear power could
face shakier odds.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
GNEP FUNDING CUT, YUCCA FUNDED
------------------->
Yucca funded, GNEP 'zeroed'
26 June 2008
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Yucc_funded_GNEP_zeroed_by_US_Representatives-2606088.html
The US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee has approved
an energy and water bill that would see increased support for nuclear
power initiatives and would fully fund the Yucca Mountain repository
for the next financial year but would cut funding for the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program to zero.
Appropriations bills are prepared by committees in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate in response to an annual Presidential
budget request. Once the two versions are reconciled and approved by
Congress, they are sent back to the US President for approval or veto
(overriding a veto required a two-thirds majority in each house). The
whole process is intended to take place before the fiscal year begins
on 1 October.
The $33.2 billion bill drawn up by the committee is more than $2
billion up on that requested by the President. It would increase
funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, as well as
supporting new initiatives to find new energy sources while reducing
overall energy consumption. The Department of Energy (DoE) would
receive $27.2 billion, $2.7 billion up on 2008 and $1.3 billion over
the amount requested by the President. Included in that would be $862
million earmarked for "basic research to address scientific barriers to
advancing technologies for energy generation and storage such as fusion
energy and advanced batteries." It is not clear whether this will
affect US participation in the Iter international fusion reactor being
built in France: in December 2007 the US said it would have to pull out
of helping to finance the project when Congress slashed the funds
available in fiscal 2008.
Other DoE research and development projects, including the Generation
IV reactor program and the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, and the
Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, would also enjoy a slice of the funding.
The bill includes full funding for the Yucca Mountain waste project
plus an allocation of $6.2 billion for the cleanup of contamination
from weapons manufacturing sites.
Non-proliferation wins, GNEP loses
The House committee rejected a cut to the non-proliferation budget,
instead raising it to $1.5 billion, but cut the funding for the US-led
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to zero. GNEP is a US-led
initiative which aims to develop a closed nuclear fuel cycle, with the
aim of enhancing energy security while promoting non-proliferation.
However, the House committee disagrees, saying "the initiative to
reprocess spent nuclear fuel... undermines our nation's nuclear
non-proliferation policy." Last year, a panel of the US National
Academy of Sciences suggested that the commercial-scale reprocessing
facilities envisaged under GNEP were not economically justifiable.
Supporting the bill, David Hobson, representing the minority members of
the committee, said: "I am pleased that the subcommittee continues its
support for nuclear power, with full funding for Yucca Mountain, the
requested extension of the authority for nuclear loan guarantees, and a
significant increase in research for the next-generation nuclear
plant." He also said that although cutting funding to GNEP the
committee was "doing the right thing" by maintaining a modest research
program on spent fuel recycling under the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative. "We have to hedge our bets on a variety of energy sources,
but nuclear power will certainly continue to play a major role in our
energy portfolio for the foreseeable future," he added.
------------------->
The future of GNEP: The international partners
By Leonor Tomero | 31 July 2008
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/reports/the-future-of-gnep/the-future-of-gnep-the-international-partners
The Bush administration intended for the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) to jump-start a global nuclear power revival without
the attendant proliferation risks. But as the administration comes to a
close, the partnership has only heightened proliferation concerns,
leaving GNEP's future murky. In this three-part weekly series Leonor
Tomero, the director of nonproliferation at the Center for Arms Control
and Non-Proliferation, explains how GNEP's stakeholders--both domestic
and foreign--will likely move forward even if GNEP does not.
...
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
INTERNATIONAL NEWS
------------------->
URANIUM MINE EXPANSION THREATENS THE LAKOTA
March 9, 2008
The Canadian-based uranium giant Cameco Resources is attempting to
expand their mining operation near Crawford, Nebraska. Last year they
submitted a proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), asking
permission to use another 2.4 billion gallons of water over the 4.7
billion they currently exploit (per year) from the High Plains aquifer,
the largest aquifer in America.
If the expansion is approved as Cameco hopes it could seriously
infringe on those who depend on water from the High Plains - and
several interconnected aquifers; among them, the People of Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation and others in eight states from Nebraska to Texas.
At the moment, the aquifer is being depleted at a rate of 160 percent
above its ability to replenish.
A group of indigenous stakeholders and environmental organizations say
this expansion must not happen. Led by Debra White Plume and Owe Aku
(www.bringbacktheway.com), Tom Cook of Chadron NE, Slim Buttes
Agricultural Development of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and the
Western Nebraska Resources Council - the groups say the mining
operation is already having a serious impact on Pine Ridge and other
communities. In November, they filed a petition with a panel of judges
with the NRC, seeking the right to participate in the decision
regarding the expansion.
Among several concerns they've raised, the groups point to the massive
spill in 1996 that brought nearly 300,000 gallons of radioactive waste
to the aquifers. The company says they've cleaned it all, but the
groups say Cameco left behind 100,000 gallons which they believe is
slowly moving as a radioactive plume through the aquifers—one of which
lies directly beneath Pine Ridge.
They also say there's a link between the 98 wells that have been closed
because of radioactive contamination and an emerging health crisis at
Pine Ridge. An unusually high number of cases are being reported of
mothers having miscarriages; of children having brain seizures; of
birth defects appearing in newborns; and in adults getting cancer and
kidney disease. (Never mind the expansion, this should be more than
enough to bring Cameco's operation to a grinding halt.)
Another concern raised by the group is directed at Cameco's water use.
As discussed in one of three Press Releases (pdf) sent out by Save Crow
Butte (www.savecrowbutte.org), the ongoing (and possibly increased)
depletion of water not only threatens Pine Ridge's ability to sustain
life, but it also infringes on "the trust responsibility, hunting and
fishing rights, as well as rights to meaningful and effective
consultation concerning activities that may threaten the Tribe's water
resources or the ability of the Lakota people to practice sacred
ceremonies such as the "sweat lodge" using local, pristine water
unadulterated by the ISL mining process."
Source:
http://intercontinentalcry.org/uranium-mine-expansion-threatens-the-lakota
------------------->
BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT CONFIRMS POSITION ON URANIUM DEVELOPMENT
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
April 24, 2008
The Province will not support the exploration and development of
uranium in British Columbia and is establishing a "no registration
reserve" under the Mineral Tenure Act for uranium and thorium, Minister
of State for Mining Kevin Krueger announced today.
"By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are
providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry," said Krueger.
The "no registration reserve" will ensure any future claims do not
include the rights to uranium. Government will also ensure that all
uranium deposits will remain undeveloped. These changes support the
British Columbia Energy Plan commitment of no nuclear power.
The only uranium mines operating in Canada are in Saskatchewan.
------------------->
NAVAJO NATION SCARRED BY LEGACY OF POLLUTION, ILLNESS FROM URANIUM BOOM
The Navajo Nation covers more than 70,000 sq. km in the Four Corners
area of the American Southwest. The area, mostly situated in New
Mexico, is known to host rich deposits of uranium but a legacy of
pollution and illness from the first uranium boom (which began roughly
60 years ago) has turned the Navajo people steadfastly against uranium
mining.
The boom provided jobs for the Navajo for almost 40 years but left some
miners with cancer, and about 1,000 mine sites were abandoned without
being properly cleaned up.
And many Navajo still remember the collapse of a tailings dam at Church
Rock in 1979 that sent radioactive wastewater flooding into their land.
Concerns over water contamination persist, even now.
"The remnants of uranium activity continue to pollute our land, our
water and our lives," Navajo president, Joe Shirley, told a special
U.S. Senate committee. "It is unconscionable to me that the federal
government would consider allowing uranium mining to be restarted
anywhere near the Navajo Nation when we are still suffering from
previous mining activities."
Shirley was in Washington to ask the committee to respect a Navajo
council ban on all uranium mining on its traditional lands. That ban
was passed by the council in 2005 with an overwhelming majority of 63
to 19.
"Certain substances in the Earth that are harmful to the people should
not be disturbed," the Navajo legislation reads, "and that the people
now know that uranium is one such substance, and therefore, that its
extraction should be avoided as traditional practice and prohibited by
Navajo law."
"If they can come up with a science that cures cancer then we might look at (uranium mining)," Shirley says.
(Source: Anthony Vaccaro, The Northern Miner, April 14, 2008)
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE CHANGE
------------------->
The nuclear 'solution' to climate change
Friends of the Earth, Australia
August 2008
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nuclear-climate/summary
In recent years the nuclear industry has tried to exploit concern about
climate change to reverse its stagnation over the past 15 years.
Nuclear power is being promoted not only as the solution to climate
change, but also to water shortages and drought (by desalination), and
world poverty (too cheap to meter … or too expensive to matter?). You
begin to wonder if there's anything nuclear power can't solve!
However, some simple calculations show that nuclear power could at most
be a very partial 'solution' to the challenge of sharply reducing
greenhouse emissions. A major limitation is that nuclear power is used
almost exclusively for electricity generation (a very small number of
reactors are used for heat co-generation and desalination) and
electricity generation accounts for just 16–30% of global greenhouse
emissions.
Ian Hore-Lacy from Australia's industry-funded Uranium Information
Centre (UIC) claims that a doubling of nuclear power would reduce
greenhouse emissions in the power sector by 25%. But the figure of 25%
falls to just 4–7.5% if considering the impact on overall emissions
rather than just the power sector. The figure needs to be further
reduced because the UIC makes no allowance for the considerable time
that would be required to double nuclear output. It is unlikely that
nuclear output could be doubled before the middle of the century. A
fixed additional input of nuclear power will have a relatively smaller
impact if measured against increased overall greenhouse emissions.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, overall emissions could be expected
to double by the middle of the century so the estimated emissions
reduction of 4-7.5% would be halved.
One important assumption has not yet been mentioned. The above
calculations assume that nuclear power displaces coal. But compared to
most renewable energy sources, nuclear power produces more greenhouse
emissions per unit energy produced. For example, the 2006 Switkowski
report states that nuclear power is three times more greenhouse
intensive than wind power. Nuclear power is far more greenhouse
intensive than many energy efficiency measures.
Nuclear advocates justify the comparison with coal on the grounds that,
unlike renewables, coal and nuclear are reliable 'baseload' power
sources. But geothermal 'hot rocks' can provide baseload power.
Bioenergy can provide base-load power. Depending on the water source,
hydro can provide base-load, intermediate-load or peak-load power.
Dispersed wind farms with a small amount of back-up (e.g. from gas) can
provide base-load power. Solar with storage can provide baseload – this
is an expensive option at the moment, but an Australian
government-funded Cooperative Research Centre reported in 2006 that
solar thermal technology "is poised to play a significant role in
baseload generation for Australia" and will be cost-competitive with
coal within seven years. Energy efficiency and conservation measures
can reduce demand for base-, intermediate- and peak-load power.
A temporary response
A very large expansion of nuclear power could make a significant dent
in greenhouse emissions. A ten-fold expansion might reduce overall
greenhouse emissions by about 20%. But the proliferation risks would be
horrendous. Harold Feiveson, writing in a 2001 issue of The Journal of
the Federation of American Scientists, calculates that with a ten-fold
increase in nuclear output, 700 tonnes of plutonium would be produced
annually. Assuming 10 kilograms of 'reactor grade' plutonium is
required for one nuclear weapon, 700 tonnes would suffice to produce
70,000 nuclear weapons annually, or 3.5 million weapons over a 50-year
reactor lifespan.
In addition to the proliferation risks, a very large increase in
nuclear output would run up against the problem of limited conventional
uranium reserves. According to the Nuclear Energy Agency and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the total known recoverable
uranium reserves – reasonably assured reserves and estimated additional
reserves which can be extracted at a cost of less than US$80/kg –
amount to 3.5 million tonnes. At the current rate of usage – 67,000
tonnes per year – these reserves will last for just over 50 years.
Of course, the nuclear power industry will not come to an immediate
halt once the known low-cost reserves have been exhausted. Other
relatively high-grade, low-cost ores will be discovered, and
lower-grade ores can be used. A number of studies estimate the
reasonably-assured, reasonable-cost conventional uranium reserves in
the range of 14-16 million tonnes – enough for about 200 years at the
current rate of consumption.
But if nuclear power increased ten-fold, these reserves would be
depleted in a few decades. Reprocessing - which involves dissolving
spent fuel in acid and separating it into uranium, plutonium and a
high-level waste stream - could be expanded. However, reprocessing is
highly polluting so much so that a director of the World Nuclear
Association has described it as "environmentally dirty". No less
important are the weapons proliferation risks associated with the
separation of plutonium from spent fuel.
Large amounts of uranium are contained in 'unconventional sources' such
as granite (4 parts per million), sedimentary rock (2 ppm) and seawater
(up to four billion tonnes at 0.003 ppm). It is doubtful whether
uranium could be economically recovered from unconventional sources,
and the extraction of uranium from such ultra-low-grade ores raises
further concerns in relation to the amount of energy required to
extract the uranium and the greenhouse
Power and proliferation
The greenhouse benefits of doubling nuclear power would be small. The
same cannot be said of the proliferation risks. Doubling nuclear output
by the middle of the century would require the construction of 800-900
reactors to replace most of the existing cohort of reactors and to
build as many again. These reactors would produce over one million
tonnes of nuclear waste (in the form of spent fuel) containing enough
plutonium to build over one million nuclear weapons.
Former US Vice President Al Gore has neatly summarised the problem:
"For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation
problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And
if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to
back out a lot of coal ... then we'd have to put them in so many places
we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale."
Supposedly 'peaceful' nuclear programs have facilitated many nuclear
weapons research and production programs. Of the 10 nations to have
produced nuclear weapons, five did so under cover of a supposedly
peaceful nuclear program – India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and
North Korea. Over 20 countries have used their 'peaceful' nuclear
facilities for nuclear weapons research.
Nuclear power plants have produced enough plutonium to build over
160,000 nuclear weapons. Safeguarding this material is the
responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yet the
Director General of the IAEA, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, has noted that
the IAEA's basic rights of inspection are "fairly limited", that the
safeguards system suffers from "vulnerabilities" and it "clearly needs
reinforcement", that efforts to improve the system have been
"half-hearted", and that the safeguards system operates on a
"shoestring budget ... comparable to that of a local police department
".
Nuclear power and climate change
Energy expert Mycle Schneider notes that countries and regions with a
high reliance on nuclear power also tend to have high greenhouse
emissions:
"The largest generators of nuclear power also have energy sectors with
the highest CO2 emissions. Western Europe and the United States produce
about two-thirds of the nuclear electricity in the world [yet] their
energy sectors also produce 39% of the world's energy-related CO2
emissions.
"The same analysis applies to overall CO2 emissions per country or
region. There is an interesting correlation between nuclear generation
and CO2 emissions. The United States alone, [with] less than 5% of the
world's population, accounts for 25% of the world's total CO2 emissions
and generates 29.4% of the world's nuclear electricity. Western Europe,
with only 6.5% of the world's population accounts for about 15% of
global CO2 emissions and 34% of the nuclear power production.
"China is the counter example. With 21.5% of the world's population,
the country emits 13.5% of global CO2 and generates 0.6% of the world's
nuclear power. The example of China illustrates well the
potential role of energy efficiency in greenhouse gas abatement.
Analysis of developments between 1980 and 1997 shows that while the
country reduced its CO2 emissions through penetration of "carbon-free
fuel" by hardly more than 10 million tonnes of carbon, the reduction
due to energy efficiency measures delivered savings of more than 430
million tonnes of carbon over the same period."
Similar points can be made in relation to India. Leonard Weiss, a
former staff director of the US Senate Subcommittee on Energy and
Nuclear Proliferation, noted in the May/June 2006 issue of the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists that a concerted program of improved energy
efficiency could substitute for all the future power output from
nuclear reactors currently being planned in India between 2006 and 2020.
Energy efficiency and renewables
A significant and growing body of scientific studies (and practical
experience) demonstrate how the systematic deployment of renewable
energy sources and energy efficiency policies and technologies can
generate major reductions in greenhouse emissions – without recourse to
nuclear power.
To give an example of an Australian study, the Clean Energy Future
Group – which comprises a number of academics and the Worldwide Fund
for Nature – produced a report in 2004 which details how major
greenhouse gas emissions reductions can be achieved. It finds that
Australia can meet energy needs and reduce greenhouse emissions from
the electricity sector by 78% by 2040. As well as concerted energy
efficiency programs, the study envisages the following electricity
supply mix by 2040: natural gas provides 30%; biomass from agriculture
and plantation forestry residues provides 28%; wind provides 20%; ;
coal and petroleum provide 10%; hydroelectricity provides 7%; and
photovoltaic and solar thermal systems provide 5%
As Dr Mark Diesendorf, one of the authors of the study, notes: "The
producers and consumers of fossil fuels, and their supporters among
public officials, the Federal Government and CSIRO, are well aware that
we already have the technologies to commence a rapid transition to an
energy future based on renewable energy and efficient energy, with gas
playing the role as an important transitional fuel. The barriers to
this transition are not primarily technological or economic, but rather
are the immense political power of vested interests."
More information:
* Friends of the Earth et al., 2005, Nuclear Power: No Solution To
Climate Change', <www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear>.
* Prof. Ian Lowe, Quarterly Essay, Issue 27, September 2007, Reaction
Time: Climate Change and the Nuclear Option,
<www.quarterlyessay.com>.
* Mycle Schneider (WISE Paris), April 2000, "Climate Change and Nuclear
Power", published by World Wide Fund for Nature
<www.panda.org/downloads/climate_
change/fullnuclearreprotwwf.pdf>.
* Pete Roche, April 2005, Is Nuclear Power a Solution to Climate Change <www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/reports/index.php>.
* Brice Smith, 2006, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear
Power to Combat Global Climate Change
<www.ieer.org/reports/insurmountablerisks>.
* Greenpeace, "Nuclear Energy: No Solution to Climate Change", <archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html>.
* Mark Diesendorf, June 16, 2006, "Nuclear power: not green, clean or
cheap", Online Opinion
<www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4581>.
* Charles D. Ferguson, Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks
April 2007, US Council on Foreign Relations
<www.cfr.org/publication/13104/nuclear_energy.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fby_type%2Fspecial_report>.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER - ECONOMICS
------------------->
Cost doubts assail new nuclear growth
http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/Resources/News%20Features/eurogrowth08/index.xml
On paper the case for new nuclear in Europe is as compelling today as
it was during the 1970s oil crisis, indeed more so because of new
imperatives to control CO2 emissions.
Until CO2 regulations are set in stone well beyond 2020 a nuclear revival of substance is doubtful.
All the fundamental evidence points in nuclear's favor. Oil is at
$130/barrel. Calendar 2009 baseload power is around €70/MWh (ee chart:
Platts year-ahead base power assessment), driven by the hydrocarbon
energy complex and tighter CO2 emission allocations. The European
Commission is calling for 100% auctioning of CO2 credits from 2013.
European gas prices are high, squeezing spark spreads, but nonetheless
LNG tankers sail past European terminals en route to higher-priced
Asian markets, where a dash for gas in the power sector may be brewing,
driven by clean development mechanism incentives.
Global coal prices are at record highs, forcing developers to think
twice before embarking on new projects. Those who decide to proceed
have to contend with strong, well organized opposition from NGOs, yet
to be convinced that the science behind carbon capture and storage is
keeping pace with policy.
Nuclear's benefits in this context are clear: near-zero carbon baseload
power; ideal for balancing intermittent wind; fuel price stability
relative to hydrocarbons; security of supply, with fuel availability
decoupled from political risk; and proven technology, with no
wing-and-a-prayer promise of a low-carbon future as with coal and
carbon capture.
Looked at in these terms, then, it is hard to credit that Europe's
major utilities, with strong cashflows and solid credit ratings, are
not falling over themselves to at least submit plans for new reactors.
In the liberalized west European markets, only TVO of Finland and EDF
of France are building new reactors. In development are new reactor
proposals for Finland, France and Switzerland. The UK, meanwhile,
awaits the first concrete plans for a new reactor, with the focus for
now on the government's sale of its British Energy stake.
EDF's desire to build four European Pressurized Reactors totaling 6.6
GW in the UK remains just that. Meanwhile the UK is set to need 15-20
GW of new capacity in the next 15 years to offset closure of first
generation reactors and non-LCPD-compliant coal plant.
Taken together, these new nuclear plans will do no more than slightly
impede the technology's declining contribution to west European power
supply. For now, Germany is sticking to its phase out plan. A reprieve
for existing reactors is possible -- even likely if today's hydrocarbon
prices remain at these levels -- but new nuclear build in Germany is a
distant prospect, with gas, wind and coal planned.
Belgium meanwhile is considering reversing its nuclear phase out law,
but again all planned new build is either gas or wind or coal. Sweden
is ignoring its phase out plan, but there is no new build in the works.
As noted, all but one of the UK's nuclear plants, now producing about
20% of UK supply, will have closed by 2023.
No other state in continental west Europe is seriously considering new
nuclear. One has to go east to Russia to find the next new build, and
to state-sponsored schemes in Lithuania, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria and
Ukraine for active development (see table: Central and East Europe:
nuclear capacity in operation and under construction).
A basic fact about new nuclear build is that liberalized generation
markets and nuclear do not mix. For all the espousal of balanced
portfolios, west European utilities have met recent central plant
capacity needs with the 'least-worst' option of gas-fired plant in
combined cycle -- cheap, quick to build, and flexible to operate,
utilities are happier to carry the fuel cost risk in order to get kWhs
into the system as soon as possible.
Competition vs. security of supply
In the UK, in Spain and in Italy, dependence on gas for power has
become a political issue. Now central and eastern European countries
with good relations with Gazprom are getting in on the act. Even
nuclear France is building CCGTs.
The only other technology anywhere near gas in terms of new installed
MWs is wind, with massive state-sponsored incentives bringing forward
plenty of new capacity to the increasing anxiety of transmission system
operators.
Many of these projects are poor deliverers of power. French wind
turbines had average availability of 24% in 2007. As such, the
displacement by wind of CO2 emissions from polluting thermal plant is
quite slight, and considerably less that the 50% cut in CO2 emissions
achieved when a modern CCGT replaces conventional coal-fired output.
With gas MWs cheaper than coal or nuclear MWs, financiers will tell you
that, today, new coal and nuclear are "out of the money." There are
five coal projects in construction in Germany, backed by large
incumbents, but over 6-GW have been cancelled.
For smaller developers of coal, and for potential backers of new
nuclear, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is too short term for comfort.
Beyond a third phase running to 2020, there is no surety. Until CO2
regulations are set in stone well beyond 2020, when the first new
reactors could conceivably be up and running, a nuclear revival of
substance is doubtful.
Hence the special circumstances surrounding any active nuclear project
in development -- state tenders, favorable state bank funding, or the
Finnish model, whereby heavy consumers club together and build the
facility themselves, for their own use. This would appear to be an
effective way to ring-fence a project from the shorter-term concerns of
the market. But even then there are significant cost risks to consider.
Created: May 28, 2008
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER CRAWLING FORWARD
------------------->
Nuclear Power Crawling Forward
by Jim Riccio
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5447?utm_campaign=vital_signs_online&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nuclear
In 2007, global installed capacity of nuclear power grew by less than
2,000 megawatts to 372,000 megawatts.1 (See Figure 1.) The slight
growth in nuclear power is attributable to the addition of three new
reactors in India, China, and Romania.2 The new nuclear capacity is
equivalent to just one tenth of the new wind power installed
globally in 2007.3
Rising gas prices and concern about the carbon dioxide emissions from
coal plants have fueled growing interest in nuclear power in many
nations.4 But only four countries began building new nuclear reactors
in 2007: China, France, Russia, and South Korea.5 The seven new
reactors being built in those countries will account for 5,190
megawatts of new nuclear capacity-about 100 megawatts less than was
added in 2006.6 (See Figure 2.)
No nuclear reactors were permanently shut down in 2007.7 Since 1964,
however, the commercial nuclear industry has retired 124 reactors,
amounting to a total of 36,800 megawatts of generating capacity.8
(See Figure 3.)
By the end of 2007, some 34 reactors were under construction worldwide,
but 12 of these units have been under construction for 20 years or
more.9 In the Americas, only two reactors are being built, in the
United States and Argentina; both began construction in the
1980s.10 In Western Europe two reactors are being built, in Finland and
France.11 In Eastern Europe, reactors are under construction in
Bulgaria and Ukraine (two each), Slovakia (two), and Romania (one).12
In Russia, seven reactors-totaling 4,585 megawatts of electric
capacity-are being built; four of these have been in construction for
two decades.13 Russia is completing a fast-breeder reactor, which
produces more nuclear fuel that it consumes and which uses plutonium,
highly enriched uranium, or even mixed oxide fuel rather than the
conventional fuel, uranium.14 In addition, construction has begun on
two 30-megawatt reactors that will be placed on barges to provide power
to remote regions.15
The U.K. government has indicated interest in resuming its long-dormant
nuclear construction programs, but it will have to navigate long,
uncertain regulatory processes before any new plants can be started.16
Asia accounts for the most nuclear power plant construction, with 20
new reactors currently under way.17 India and China each have six
reactors under construction.18 These 12 plants account for 8,130
megawatts-or more than a quarter of the nuclear capacity currently
being built worldwide.19 South Korea is building three units, while
Japan, Iran, and Pakistan are each building a single nuclear plant.20
Some nuclear projects are being delayed by construction problems. The
expected delivery date of the Olkiluoto Finnish plant has been pushed
back by at least two years because of concerns about concrete in the
foundation and flawed welds for the reactor's steel liner, among other
problems.21 Analysts estimate the problems at this reactor could
add another 1.5 billion euros to the final price tag, increasing
by 50 percent the initial projected cost of 3 billion euros.22
Engineering challenges are also slowing the Chinese and Taiwanese
nuclear programs. China's newest reactor was two years behind schedule
when it went into commercial operation in 2007. Construction was
delayed for almost a year as Chinese regulators examined the welds of
the steel liner of the reactor core.23 Despite these setbacks, the
government continues to forge ahead with nuclear power. French nuclear
giant Areva and the Chinese government will cooperate on future
nuclear reactors as well as the reprocessing of nuclear waste.24
In Taiwan, the Lungman reactors have fallen five years behind schedule,
due in part to welds that failed inspection in 2002 and had to be
redone.25 In addition, the Taiwan Power Company acknowledged that "the
rising cost of steel, concrete and other commodities has gutted
subcontractor profits, causing them to stop work to renegotiate fixed
price contracts."26
In Japan, nuclear power suffered a setback in July 2007 when a major
earthquake struck the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant on the northwest
coast, the largest nuclear complex in the world.27 The earthquake,
measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale, required operators to shut down the
plant's seven nuclear reactors, which account for 8,000 megawatts of
Japan's nuclear capacity.28 Officially, the complex is slated to
remain inactive for at least one year. However, because the quake
caused ground motion two and a half times more powerful than the
reactors were designed to withstand, questions have been raised about
whether they should ever be returned to service.29
In the Middle East and Africa, there is only one nuclear reactor
currently under construction: a Russian-designed 1,000-megawatt reactor
in Iran.30 But the Iranian nuclear program has spurred interest in the
region. In the past year, more than a dozen Middle Eastern countries
have announced they intend to pursue the development of nuclear
power.31 The interest expressed by majority Sunni Muslim states is
viewed by U.S. officials as a direct response to the nuclear ambitions
of Shiite Iran.32
In the United States, no new nuclear construction was initiated in
2007, though one reactor was restarted after a 22-year shutdown, and
construction resumed on a reactor that had been stalled since 1988.33
Nuclear corporations submitted applications for seven new reactors in
2007, the first ones proposed in at least 30 years, and government
regulators expect applications for another 22 reactors in 2008.34 Yet
even nuclear industry officials have questioned whether new reactors
are economically viable without government subsidies. The president of
Constellation Generation Group, an energy company that is planning to
build a reactor in the state of Maryland, has stated that it will not
build nuclear plants without loan guarantees.35
Wall Street has yet to be sold on new nuclear investments in the United
States. Moody's, a credit rating agency, has stated that it "believes
that many of the current expectations regarding new nuclear generation
are overly ambitious," raising questions about the industry's cost
estimates and its schedule for bringing the next U.S. nuclear reactor
online.36 Moody's noted that the costs associated with next-generation
nuclear plants could be significantly higher than the estimates of
approximately $3,500 per kilowatt cited by the industry.37 Moody's
noted that its estimates were $6,000 per kilowatt, and it cautioned
that nuclear investment could affect corporations' credit ratings.38
Moody's concerns seem well placed. By the end of 2007, new nuclear
plant cost estimates for identical Westinghouse-designed nuclear plants
had soared, more than doubling to $12-18 billion.39 MidAmerican Energy
Holdings, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway
Inc., became the first U.S. company to postpone plans for a new reactor
when it withdrew its letter of intent to government regulators in late
2007.40 MidAmerican's spokesperson stated that it does not currently
make economic sense to pursue this project.41
Jim Riccio is a Nuclear Policy Analyst at Greenpeace in Washington, DC.
Purchase this trend
Item# Type Price
VST112 PDF and Excel $10.00 Add to Cart
Includes the following charts and graphs
World Electrical Generating Capacity of Nuclear Power Plants, 1960-2007
World Nuclear Reactor Construction Starts, 1960-2007
Nuclear Capacity of Decommissioned Plants, 1964-2007
Notes
Please purchase this trend to gain access to the fully referenced endnotes and figures.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER IN THE USA: WARTS N ALL
What Nuclear Renaissance?
By Christian Parenti
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti
This article appeared in the May 12, 2008 edition of The Nation.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER - KYOTO SUBIDIES
------------------->
Nuclear Power Among Options for UN Greenhouse Cuts
GERMANY: June 13, 2008
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48766/story.htm
BONN - Developing nations might get help to build nuclear power plants
under proposals at 170-nation climate talks in Bonn for expanding a
fast-growing UN scheme for curbing greenhouse gases.
Nuclear power is the most contentious option for widening a UN
mechanism under which rich nations can invest abroad, for instance in
an Indian wind farm or a hydropower dam in Peru, and get credit at home
for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. "It's one of the issues that
needs to be considered," Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change
Secretariat, said on Thursday of suggestions by countries including
India and Canada at the June 2-13 talks of aid for atomic energy.
Other proposals at the talks include giving credits for capturing and
burying carbon dioxide, for instance from coal-fired power plants, or
to do far more to encourage planting of forests that soak up carbon as
they grow.
Many nations and environmentalists oppose expanding the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) to include nuclear power. The CDM is part
of the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol for curbing emissions of
greenhouse gases running until 2012.
"Nuclear power is not the energy of the future," said Martin Hiller of
the WWF conservation group. "It should not be in the CDM. The CDM
should be about renewable energy."
He said nuclear power was too dangerous although it emitted almost none
of the greenhouse gases associated with burning coal, oil and gas and
which are blamed for heating the planet.
KYOTO
No decisions on overhauling the CDM will be taken at the Bonn talks,
part of a series of negotiations meant to end with a new long-term UN
climate treaty by the end of 2009 to succeed the existing Kyoto
Protocol.
"I think nuclear power in the CDM is a non-starter for most delegations," one European delegate said.
The debate reflects wide uncertainty about whether to turn to nuclear
power as an alternative to fossil fuels in a fight to avert rising
temperatures that could bring heatwaves, droughts, rising seas and more
powerful cyclones.
De Boer projected that the CDM could channel up to US$100 billion a
year towards developing nations in coming decades if industrialised
countries agreed sweeping cuts in emissions and made half their
reductions abroad.
That was also based on the assumption that credits for averting greenhouse gas emissions would average US$10 a tonne.
So far the CDM has projects approved or under consideration that would
avert a combined total of 2.7 billion tonnes of emissions by 2012,
roughly equivalent to the combined annual emissions of Japan, Germany
and Britain.
De Boer rejected criticisms that the CDM was badly flawed, for instance
for handing huge profits to carbon traders and companies in China that
destroy HFC 23, a powerful greenhouse gas that is a waste product from
making refrigerants.
"The fact that people have found a way to remove a powerful greenhouse
gas and make a profit is not morally wrong," he said. "We've created a
market mechanism and, guess what, it's working."
Other criticisms of the scheme focus on whether or not funding has led
to emissions cuts, or whether these would have happened anyway -- for
example because of existing state support for wind power in China or
India.
-- For Reuters latest environment blogs click on: http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/ (Editing by Alison Williams)
Story by Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER ACCIDENT NEAR-MISS IN USA
------------------->
How We Almost Blew Up Ohio
NEWS: Nuclear regulators blame plant employees for a near miss at
Davis-Besse power station. Maybe it's the regulators we should be
worried about.
By Judith Lewis
April 28, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/how-we-almost-blew-up-ohio.html
After inspecting a reactor during a refueling outage in late April
2000, Andrew Siemaszko, a systems engineer at the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station in Ohio, wrote on an official plant work order the four
words that would one day ruin his life: "Work performed without
deviation." Two years later, during a subsequent refueling outage,
workers discovered that boric acid deposits had gnawed a rusty,
"pineapple-sized" hole almost clear through the six-inch-thick steel
cap bolted to the top of the reactor. Had the corrosion gone a third of
an inch deeper, through the steel cladding inside the reactor vessel,
radioactive steam would have flooded the reactor's containment dome,
and Davis-Besse might have become the next Three Mile Island.
Plant operator FirstEnergy ultimately fired Siemaszko, claiming he had
failed to report the corrosion. Five years after the incident, the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) barred him from working in the
nuclear industry for at least the following five years, and Siemaszko,
along with plant engineering manager David Geisen, was indicted in
early 2006 on five counts of lying to the government and falsifying
records. Besse-Davis contractor and consultant Rodney Cook was charged
with four counts of the same.
But Siemaszko and his defenders—which include the Union of Concerned
Scientists and Ohio Citizen Action—insist he never deceived anyone. To
the contrary, documents prove the engineer had repeatedly told his
bosses that the reactor head needed a thorough cleaning. Siemaszko's
four infamous words clearly referred to another maintenance task he had
performed, which involved replacing hard plastic covers on the reactor
head. He'd even written out instructions for a work crew to scrub the
reactor, and personally participated in the cleaning three days later.
But FirstEnergy refused to let the crew complete the job, Siemaszko
alleges, because the workers had exceeded their allowed radiation dose
and the shutdown was costing the company—a nuclear plant in production
earns up to $1 million a day.
In reactors like the one at Davis-Besse, highly pressurized water laced
with boric acid is used to regulate the core temperature and moderate
the neutrons that sustain the atomic chain reaction. Had the acid
corrosion been ignored for another few months, or even weeks, the water
might have exploded out of the reactor and into the containment dome,
risking overheating and meltdown of the core.
But neither FirstEnergy nor the NRC has evidence showing that Siemaszko
was responsible for the corrosion, or ever lied to his supervisors
about the problem. The NRC, in fact, had ordered the reactor shut down
for inspection in December 2001 due to the company's failure to satisfy
safety criteria, according to Union of Concerned Scientists'
nuclear-safety expert Dave Lochbaum. But at FirstEnergy's request, the
commission agreed to delay its inspection to coincide with a refueling
outage that took place in March 2002. "NRC's senior managers shelved
the draft order because it would have cost the company money," Lochbaum
says.
In any case, the problem should already have been evident, if not to
FirstEnergy then at least to the NRC: In a November 2001 briefing for
one of the commission's top executives, agency staffers noted that
certain parts of the reactor head couldn't be inspected because they
were "obscured by boric acid." Later, after the hole was discovered,
staffers noted that an "inspection conducted in 1998 was more limited
in scope and quality because of the presence of boric acid deposits."
And in 2004, a Government Accountability Office investigation
acknowledged that at least one on-site NRC inspector had seen a photo
of the reactor head streaked with rust-colored boric acid in the spring
of 2000, "but did not recognize its significance."
Industry watchdogs, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, say
the Davis-Besse scare highlights a history of regulatory neglect that
harkens back to the agency's founding—the NRC was born in 1974 from the
ruins of the booster-driven Atomic Energy Commission. The UCS has
tallied 47 incidents since 1979 in which the commission failed to
adequately address safety issues until the problems forced plant
shutdowns. In some cases, the UCS reports, "the NRC allowed reactors
with known safety problems to continue operating for months, sometimes
years, without requiring owners to fix the problems."
The commission is still industry funded—albeit indirectly—in the form
of fees, prompting no less than Senator Barack Obama, a cautious
supporter of nuclear energy, to declare it "a moribund agency…captive
of the industries that it regulates." NRC spokesman Scott Burnell
insists that because industry fees are first routed through the U.S.
Treasury, they create no conflict of interest. "It's not a case where
the industry is handing us a check," he says.
But with Davis-Besse, it's a case of an industry-dependent regulatory
agency disciplining plant employees to make it appear that justice has
been done. Siemaszko, whose trial is scheduled for August 11, now lives
in Texas, where he works as a contractor, supporting his wife and
children on a small fraction what he once earned as a nuclear plant
engineer. "I spent 20 years getting to where I got," he told Cleveland
Plain Dealer science writer John Mangels in June 2005, prior to his
indictment. "I spent 20 years listening to the Polack jokes. Finally I
got to the highest level in my profession. Now I'm 51 years old and I'm
back to entry level. I have no money, no profession. This is a
tremendous blow."
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER: CHERNOBYL ANNIVERSARY
------------------->
Ukraine remembers Chernobyl amid anti-nuclear protests
Posted Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:41am AEST
Updated Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:03am AEST
Women hold pictures of their dead husbands during the commemoration ceremony at Chernobyl's memorial
Women hold pictures of their dead husbands during the commemoration
ceremony at Chernobyl's memorial in Kiev on April 26, 2008 as
Ukrainians mark the 22th anniversary of Chernobyl's tragedy. (AFP:
Genia Savilov)
* Related Link: Read an account of a journey inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone
Ukraine has paid tribute to victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster
22 years ago, while anti-nuclear demonstrators at home and abroad also
recalled the worst civilian nuclear disaster in history.
A group of Ukrainians led by President Viktor Yushchenko laid a wreath
during the night at a monument to the victims of the April 1986 reactor
explosion.
"The Chernobyl catastrophe became planetary and even now continues to
take its toll on people's health and the environment," the Health
Ministry said in a statement marking the anniversary.
Demonstrators gathered in the centre of the capital Kiev brandishing
placards including one reading: "Don't build a new Chernobyl".
"The consequences of the Chernobyl power station accident are huge," said activist Dmitry Khmara.
"We are worried that they are again telling us to go along the risky path of developing atomic energy."
In Minsk, the capital of the neighbouring republic of Belarus which
suffered fallout from Cherobyl, some 2,000 people protested against
plans for the country's first nuclear power station.
"No to another Chernobyl," read one placard.
"We have two misfortunes, Lukashenko and radiation," read another.
Alexander Lukashenko, the authoritarian president of Belarus, has been
much criticised by the Opposition and foreign governments for perceived
human rights violations.
Protests
In Geneva, hundreds of anti-nuclear demonstrators wearing white masks
formed a human chain around the headquarters of the World Health
Organisation (WHO).
The anniversary was also marked by an all-night vigil in a small
Ukrainian town called Slavutich, 50 kilometres from Chernobyl, where
many of the reactor site's employees lived.
The disaster occurred on April 26, 1986 at 1:23 am local time, when one
of the reactors exploded - contaminating the Soviet states of Ukraine,
Russia and Belarus with the fallout also spreading to other parts of
Europe.
Over 25,000 people known as "liquidators" - most of them Ukrainians,
Russians and Belarussians - died getting the accident under control and
constructing a concrete shield over the wreckage, Ukrainian official
figures say.
A United Nations toll published in September 2005 set the number of
victims at just 4,000, a figure challenged by non-governmental
organisations.
In Ukraine alone, 2.3 million people are designated officially as "having suffered from the catastrophe".
Some 4,400 Ukrainians, children or adolescents at the time of the
accident, have undergone operations for thyroid cancer, the most common
consequence of radiation, the Health Ministry says.
Chernobyl nuclear power station was finally closed in 2000 after one reactor had continued producing electricity.
But the dead power station remains a threat because the concrete cover
laid over 200 tonnes of magma, consisting of radioactive fuel, is
cracking.
The magma is "our worst problem. It is highly radioactive and we are
doing all we can so that rain and snow do not make it into the
sarcophagus," Ukrainian Emergency Situations Minister Volodymyr Shandra
said.
Work is in hand to reinforce the seal hurriedly flung over the reactor in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
Work will also start later this year on a new steel cover due to be in place by 2012.
United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon on Friday marked the
anniversary by pledging UN assistance for the stricken region's renewal.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR POWER IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA
------------------->
Australia could lead safe path to nuclear
Jonathan Pearlman Foreign Affairs Correspondent
April 10, 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/australia-could-lead-safe-path-to-nuclear/2008/04/09/1207420485927.html
NUCLEAR power generation is set to expand dramatically across the
region in a development that raises safety and security concerns for
Australia and should be dealt with by a Federal Government push for
stronger international safeguards, a Lowy Institute paper says.
The paper, by the Singapore-based analyst Andrew Symon, says nuclear
output across South-East Asia will double in the next eight years and
will rise further as countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam begin
operating their first plants by 2017 and 2020.
It says "the worst case scenario" of a commercial nuclear accident in
the region could cause radioactive fallout in Australia and would
require the Government to take a significant role in providing
emergency assistance - as it did after the 2004 tsunami and the 2006
Central Java earthquake.
"Nuclear energy development in South-East Asia will touch directly on Australian interests," the paper says.
"Australia has commercial and economic interests as a major world
supplier of uranium oxide, the basis for nuclear fuel. However,
Australia's interests extend well beyond this to environmental, safety
and weapons proliferation, and security matters."
The paper says Australia, which supplies about a fifth of the uranium
oxide market, could guarantee fuel supplies in return for assurances
that countries will not acquire sensitive technologies - a move that
would limit the chances of enriched uranium being acquired by
terrorists.
It says a range of federal ministers - not just the energy minister -
should raise concerns about nuclear power and ensure plants are built
within containment structures that would limit the reach of any
radioactive fallout.
"The critical questions for Australian policy are whether South-East
Asian countries will want to have their own enrichment and reprocessing
capabilities," it says. "Longer term, if South-East Asian nuclear power
develops on a much larger scale, as it arguably could, then governments
may want to have this capability … both to achieve economies of scale
and reduce mistrust or misunderstanding about weapons ambitions.
"A key concern for Australian policy then is whether to accept a united
ASEAN enrichment and/or reprocessing capability, or whether to
encourage South-East Asian governments instead to embrace arrangements
where the sensitive aspects of the fuel cycle were restricted to a
minimum number of sites in the world.
"This could be promoted as a cheaper and safer approach."
Mr Symon, a director of the energy consulting firm Menas Associates,
said in the paper that Australia should promote a regional forum -
possibly building on the East Asia Summit - to share plans and
co-ordinate the future growth of nuclear energy.
Louise Frechette, a former United Nations deputy secretary-general and
expert on nuclear security, said yesterday that the region was on the
verge of a "nuclear renaissance" and Australia should use its clout as
a major supplier of uranium to push for mandatory inspections of plants.
"There is a general movement towards nuclear energy, in South-East Asia
and other regions, that poses real challenges when it comes to global
governance," she told the Herald.
"There is really no means of verifying whether or not international
safety guidelines are being followed. There is no inspection system,
other than on a voluntary basis."
Ms Frechette said Australia had strict guidelines for the use of its
exported uranium and could credibly encourage its neighbours to agree
to international supervision of its nuclear processes.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
ROKKASHO NUCLEAR REPROCESSING PLANT IN JAPAN
------------------->
Japan's nuclear waste will spill from new plant's chimney
April 26, 2008
As Chernobyl marks the 22nd anniversary of its nuclear disaster,
Japanese fear they are building their own, writes Justin Norrie in
Tokyo.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/japans-nuclear-waste-will-spill-from-new-plants-chimney/2008/04/25/1208743246473.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Between the Pacific Ocean coastline and the rich farmland of Rokkasho,
in northern Japan, stands a vast and controversial monument to man's
triumph over nature.
The 12.7 trillion yen Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, which can recycle up
to 800 tonnes of nuclear waste a year for reuse, will launch the
pacifist nation into a new era of nuclear power when it commences
operations in July.
Trade Minister Akira Amari has hailed it as "the future" of sustainable
energy for Japan, which has virtually no natural resources and takes a
third of its energy from 55 nuclear power plants. At a press conference
last weekend, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, whose country
contributed technology to the project, proudly declared: "Step by step,
by respecting all the security rules, we would like to bring developing
nations toward mastery of these technologies."
But as Tokyo was celebrating, a growing band of critics feared the
worst. Some have accused plant builder Japan Nuclear Fuel of grossly
under-playing the likely extent of radioactive emissions, which two
scientists have independently forecast could cause hundreds of cases of
terminal cancer each year. Others say the plant, just the third of its
kind in the world, would inevitably create huge stockpiles of plutonium
- one of the most toxic and radioactive substances on the planet.
In between is the Japanese public, almost entirely ignorant of the
controversy due to the reluctance of mainstream media to upset some of
their biggest sponsors in the energy industry.
Unlike Japan's conventional nuclear power plants, the Rokkasho complex
will not burn nuclear fuel. Instead, it will recycle it by taking spent
fuel from conventional plants and separating out usable elements such
as uranium and plutonium from waste. Japan Nuclear Fuel aims to produce
as many as four tonnes of recycled plutonium - roughly equal to 500 of
the bombs dropped on Nagasaki - for reuse each year.
Protestors say that because Japan, which has a "no surplus plutonium"
policy, has yet to repatriate and use 37 tonnes of plutonium that it
sent for recycling at European plants in the 1990s, the facility at
Rokkasho is at best a spectacular waste of money and at worst a dubious
exercise in building plutonium supplies. As it is, the mechanism needed
to convert the plutonium into reusable pellet form will not be ready
until 2012.
William Walker, a professor of international relations at St Andrews
University in Scotland who writes extensively on nuclear reprocessing,
has argued that Japan will never be able to use all of its recycled
plutonium. "[T]he current reprocessing plan will ... lead inexorably to
an expansion of Japan's plutonium stock. Along with the need to ship
large quantities of plutonium from Europe, this is likely to attract
international attention to Japan's plutonium-related activities."
Japan Nuclear Fuel acknowledges that to guarantee the plutonium cycle,
the plant will need to pump out as much radioactive material in one day
as an ordinary plant generates in one year. But instead of trapping the
waste, the plant will release most of it from a 150-metre tall chimney
directly into the yamase ocean winds that travel inland over the
farming communities of Aomori Prefecture. The rest will be conveyed
through a pipe 3 kilometres out into the ocean, into the path of
currents bound for shore.
"There will be sufficient dispersion and dilution so that the yearly
exposure to radiation for the public will be just one one-hundredth
what people are ordinarily exposed to in the natural environment," a
spokesman for the company told the Herald. "And by reusing spent fuel
rather than disposing of it, we're saving resources in a safe way."
Some in the scientific community, such as Haruki Madarame, a professor
in nuclear-safety engineering at Tokyo University, vouch for the claim.
Others are not convinced. Hiroaki Koide, an assistant professor at
Kyoto University's Research Reactor Institute, points out that because
the quantity of liquid contaminants flushed into the ocean will be so
great, Japan Nuclear Fuel has been allowed to bypass ordinary rules for
regulating radioactivity levels in matter before release. Instead, he
says, it has used an ad hoc equation, made up of assumptions and
manipulated figures about the rate of dispersion of radioactive
materials in water, to guess at the effect on humans. His own
calculations, on the other hand, show that "the krypton-85 the Rokkasho
reprocessing plant will release each year will contaminate the whole
world and ... will give rise to a global radiation dose [that] works
out to 130 cancer deaths each year".
A report in February by British environmental radiation expert Dr Ian
Fairlie, commissioned by Greenpeace, found cancer fatalities could
reach 370 a year.
The decision by the plant, Professor Koide argues, to release
contaminants such as krypton-85, tritium and carbon-14 into the air
rather than invest in technology to trap and contain them - "just
because they don't want to pay the costs involved - [means] they are
committing a premeditated crime".
His controversial view is likely to be shared by communities in France
and England living around the only two other commercial reprocessing
plants in operation. One, at Sellafield in England, has been mired in
controversy since an inquiry discovered that the rate of childhood
leukemia in a nearby town was 10 times the national average. No one has
conclusively shown a causal connection to the plant, which is now being
decommissioned.
Because the Rokkasho plant will be recycling fuels with a higher
"burn-up" rate, scientists expect that it will produce much higher
doses of radiation than its counterparts in Europe.
Tokyo-based filmmaker Hitomi Kamanaka, whose 2006 documentary
Rokkashomura Rhapsody weighs arguments for and against the reprocessing
plant, says the greatest problem is that so few Japanese know anything
about it. "The electricity companies are among the biggest financial
backers of big media," she explains. "About 10 years ago, when the
plant was being built, TV Asahi tried to cover this issue in a
three-part series. After the first installment a Tokyo electricity
company visited their offices and threatened to pull all funding if TV
Asahi ran parts two and three. That was the end of the matter."
Kamanaka spent two years interviewing some of Rokkasho's 11,000-odd townsfolk. Many welcomed the boon to the local economy.
Others such as Keiko Kikukawa, who grows tulips in the shadows of the
plant, have been marginalised. "People think we're getting paid, that
we're strange, or communist, unpatriotic, extremist," says the
softly-spoken woman in her 50s, who claims she has been monitored by
police. "I don't want [this area] to be another Chernobyl."
Among the thousands today marking the 22nd anniversary of world's worst
nuclear disaster in Ukraine, some will undoubtedly join her in praying
that Aomori Prefecture, which has at least seven faultlines, will never
bear witness to such a catastrophe.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NEW FUEL - RISKS
------------------->
Nuclear super-fuel gets too hot to handle
12 April 2008
Rob Edwards
Magazine issue 2651
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19826514.200-nuclear-superfuel-gets-too-hot-to-handle.html
IT SEEMS like a no-brainer. Make uranium burn stronger, hotter and
longer in nuclear reactors, and you'll need less fuel, and there'll be
less waste to deal with when it has been exhausted.
For decades, nuclear operators have done just that, but emerging safety
and waste-disposal issues are raising questions about this approach.
The latest high-efficiency fuel may prove to be unstable in an
emergency, and so poses a greater risk of leakage of radioactive
material into the environment. What's more, the waste fuel is more
radioactive, meaning it could prove even more difficult than existing
waste to store in underground repositories.
To boost the efficiency of their reactors, operators have progressively
enriched the uranium they use as fuel to increase its "burn-up" rate.
This is a measure of the amount of electricity extracted from a given
amount of fuel, and is expressed in gigawatt-days per tonne of uranium
(GWd/tU). ...
Rest of article for NS subscribers only.
------------------->
Editorial: Nuclear industry must not forget past lessons
12 April 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19826513.300-editorial-nuclear-industry-must-not-forget-past-lessons.html
IN THE nuclear industry, memories can be distressingly short. In 1976,
the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution declared that it
would be "morally wrong" to make a major commitment to nuclear power
without demonstrating a way of safely isolating radioactive waste. Yet
the UK is about to embark on a programme to build at least 10 reactors
while still lacking a disposal site for the waste that has accumulated
over the past 50 years. What's more, spent fuel from these reactors
will be far more radioactive than existing waste and may even require a
second repository (see "Nuclear super-fuel becomes too hot to handle").
At the same time, it seems the US is planning a new generation of
nuclear reactors without having fully taken on board lessons from the
past about safety. In 1979, a fault with a valve triggered the worst
nuclear accident in US history at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
Yet now US power companies are planning to submit applications to build
up to 30 reactors, despite safety fears over the fuel they will burn.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is having to rewrite its rules to
guard against the threat that the new "high burn-up" fuel will leave
the cladding around the fuel rods dangerously brittle.
We should have learned that compromising public safety for economic
gain is a dangerous game. Ploughing ahead with a vast
reactor-construction programme without finding a solution to the waste
problem and without knowing how to deal with the additional risks of
high-efficiency fuel seems irresponsible. History is full of similar
compromises that were later regretted, if we only care to remember.
The Nuclear Age - Learn more about all things nuclear in our explosive special report.
Energy and Fuels - Learn more about the looming energy crisis in our comprehensive special report.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR WEAPONS - IRAN
Learning from past blunders
Paul Barratt is a former secretary of the Department of Defence and former trade negotiator.
He visited Tehran in 1978 to discuss the conditions for supply of Australian uranium to the Shah's regime
The Age (13,Mon 07 Jul 2008)
There should be a dispassionate and mature approach to Iran that acknowledges its importance, writes Paul Barratt.
AS WE become accustomed to higher petrol prices resulting from Israeli
threats to attack Iran, it is timely to ask whether the West's current
approach to Iran really serves our interests. My critique centres on
three points: the outrage about Iran's assumed nuclear intentions
ignores the fact that the major powers have degraded the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty; the efforts to bluster Iran into dropping its
indigenous program are unrealistic and doomed to failure; and the costs
associated with any military strike would be completely unacceptable -
to all parties.
The NPT was a logical corollary of the Eisenhower-era Atoms for Peace
program. The central bargain was that if nations forswore the nuclear
option, the US and other nuclear powers would spread the benefits of
the peaceful uses of nuclear technology throughout the world, and would
themselves undertake nuclear disarmament. NPT members (Iran is one)
have a right to peaceful nuclear programs, and the nuclear weapon
states have an obligation to disarm.
Aside from the fact that the nuclear arms race accelerated and
enthusiasm for assisting peaceful nuclear programs evaporated, the West
- and the US in particular - has been highly selective in its outrage
about nuclear proliferation. The force of the proposition that any
proliferation whatsoever is unacceptable has been undermined by an
attitude that who was proliferating mattered more than the
proliferation itself.
Iran has historical, commercial and energy security reasons to want as
complete a commercial fuel cycle as it can achieve. The 1980s' war
against Iraq left Iran obsessed with self-reliance. Veterans of that
war believe that Iran's interests cannot be safeguarded by adhering to
international treaties or appealing to Western public opinion. In this,
it mirrors Israel's position.
The commercial backdrop is that in the 1970s Iran lent $US1 billion to
the French Atomic Energy Commission to build its Eurodif enrichment
facility, and acquired a 10% indirect interest in Eurodif - a stake
that still exists. It paid another $US180 million for future enrichment
services.
After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Khomeini regime cancelled the
Shah's nuclear program and sought a refund of this investment. There
followed a decade of bitter litigation, from which Iran was reimbursed
$US1.6 billion for its 1974 loan plus interest. It remains an indirect
shareholder in Eurodif, but under a 1991 settlement has no access to
technology and no right to enriched uranium. It retained its right to
dividends, but financial sanctions prevent it from receiving these
dividends.
This experience left Tehran deeply distrustful of any proposal that it
rely on others for a critical component of its nuclear electricity
program.
Regarding energy security, the suggestion that Iran rely on Russia for
enrichment services looks profoundly unattractive considering Russia's
intransigence in turning off the gas supply to Ukraine, a move that
left the EU anxious about reliance on Russian energy.
It may well be that Iran is also establishing for itself a nuclear
weapons option, an intent the Shah expressed in 1974 but subsequently
repudiated. A better way to persuade Iran to forgo the option would be
to offer security rewards for acceptance of full-scope safeguards, and
for the US to warn Israel that any unilateral attack on Iran would
force the US to reconsider its bilateral treaty arrangements.
Despite its shrill rhetoric, Iran does not look like a country bent on
war. As a proportion of GDP, it has the second-lowest military spending
in the Middle East - less than half Turkey's, about one-third of
Israel's.
Anyone with any knowledge of Iran's history and culture will know that
it will not be bribed or bullied into doing what the West wants. It has
no reason to trust Western promises, and having endured the suffering
of the Iran-Iraq War, is unlikely to buckle under any pressure,
military or economic, that the West would be prepared to impose.
Regarding nuclear proliferation, no self-respecting country would
accept that its nuclear program is a problem because that state itself
is a problem - that an Indian, Israeli or Pakistani nuclear capability
is acceptable because they are the right kind of people, but an Iranian
capability would be unacceptable because of the nature of Iran. The
only way to establish a manageable relationship with Tehran is to
understand its world view, to recognise its legitimate interests, and
deal with problematic issues on a basis of equality and mutual respect.
Iran's demonisation by the Bush Administration only serves to undermine
Iranian reformers, including pragmatic conservatives who see value for
Iran in a more rational relationship with the US. And the constant
brandishing of military options is counterproductive - Iran has too
many means of retaliation. It will be an indispensable partner in any
Iraq settlement.
A strategic approach to the issue would see a more dispassionate and
mature attitude to Iran, dealing with it as an important power in a
critical region, one that is here to stay and is to be taken seriously.
To those who regard such an approach as "idealistic", I would observe
that we have adopted the confrontationist approach for 29 years, and
ask when it might begin working?
Paul Barratt is a former secretary of the Department of Defence and
former trade negotiator. He visited Tehran in 1978 to discuss the
conditions for supply of Australian uranium to the Shah's regime.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR WEAPONS - Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?
------------------->
Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?
By EDWARD J. MARKEY
Rep. Markey (D., Mass.) is chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Wall Street Journal
June 10, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305642257659301.html?mod=Letters
Here's a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size
of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country
has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of
sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by
President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear
possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air
strikes, even wars?
If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you're right.
Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs
of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more
valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this
country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in
developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and
constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130
per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi
Arabia's nuclear ambitions.
Saudi Arabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of
natural gas for domestic electricity production. It continues to invest
in a national gas transportation pipeline and stepped-up exploration,
building a solid foundation for domestic energy production that could
meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the
other hand, would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by
a country with zero expertise in this complex technology.
Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward? The Saudi
desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help
his friends in Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have
offered solar panels, not nuclear plants.
Saudi Arabia's interest in nuclear technology can only be explained by
the dangerous politics of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a champion and
kingpin of the Sunni Arab world, is deeply threatened by the rise of
Shiite-ruled Iran.
The two countries watch each other warily over the waters of the
Persian Gulf, buying arms and waging war by proxy in Lebanon and Iraq.
An Iranian nuclear weapon would radically alter the region's balance of
power, and could prove to be the match that lights the tinderbox. By
signing this agreement with the U.S., Saudi Arabia is warning Iran that
two can play the nuclear game.
In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "[Iran is] already sitting on
an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear,
as well, to generate energy." Mr. Cheney got it right about Iran. But a
potential Saudi nuclear program is just as suspicious. For a country
with so much oil, gas and solar potential, importing expensive and
dangerous nuclear power makes no economic sense.
The Bush administration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to
Iran, because Riyadh said it won't develop uranium enrichment or
spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerous nuclear technologies.
At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off
concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a
weapons program, saying simply: "I presume that the president has a
good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi
Arabia."
That's not good enough. We would do well to remember that it was the
U.S. who provided the original nuclear assistance to Iran under the
Atoms for Peace program, before Iran's monarch was overthrown in the
1979 Islamic Revolution. Such an uprising in Saudi Arabia today could
be at least as damaging to U.S. security.
We've long known that America's addiction to oil pays for the spread of
extremism. If this Bush nuclear deal moves forward, Saudi Arabia's
petrodollars could flow to the dangerous expansion of nuclear
technologies in the most volatile region of the world.
While the scorching Saudi Arabian sun heats sand dunes instead of
powering photovoltaic panels, millions of Americans will fork over $4 a
gallon without realizing that their gas tank is fueling a nascent
nuclear arms race.
Rep. Markey (D., Mass.) is chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
------------------->
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
NUCLEAR WEAPONS - US LOSES MISSILE PARTS
------------------->
The U.S. Air Force's indifference toward nuclear weapons
By Lawrence J. Korb | 17 June 2008
Article Highlights
* During the Cold War, the U.S. Air Force received a bulk of the
country's defense budget because of its significant role in delivering
nuclear weapons.
* But after the Soviet Union disintegrated, the air force became
more interested in traditional air missions and the next generation of
fighter planes.
* This disinterest manifested itself in two recent
nuclear-related mishaps that cost the air force chief of staff and
secretary their jobs.
* Generally, the military considers nuclear weapons costly and
unnecessary, as conventional weapons can capably complete nuclear
missions.
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-us-air-forces-indifference-toward-nuclear-weapons
------------------->
US Nuclear Weapons Parts Missing, Pentagon Says
Thursday 19 June 2008
by: Demetri Sevastopulo, The Financial Times
<www.truthout.org/article/us-nuclear-weapons-parts-missing-pentagon-says>
The US military cannot locate hundreds of sensitive nuclear missile
components, according to several government officials familiar with a
Pentagon report on nuclear safeguards. (Photo: Department of Energy)
The US military cannot locate hundreds of sensitive nuclear
missile components, according to several government officials familiar
with a Pentagon report on nuclear safeguards.
Robert Gates, US defence secretary, recently fired both the US
Air Force chief of staff and air force secretary after an investigation
blamed the air force for the inadvertent shipment of nuclear missile
nose cones to Taiwan.
According to previously undisclosed details obtained by the FT,
the investigation also concluded that the air force could not account
for many sensitive components previously included in its nuclear
inventory.
One official said the number of missing components was more than 1,000.
The disclosure is the latest embarrassing episode for the air
force, which last year had to explain how a bomber mistakenly carried
six nuclear missiles across the US. The incidents have raised concerns
about US nuclear safeguards as Washington presses other countries to
bolster counter-proliferation measures.
In announcing the departure of the top air force officials
earlier this month, Mr Gates said Admiral Kirkland Donald, the officer
who led the investigation, concluded that both incidents had a "common
origin" which was "the gradual erosion of nuclear standards and a lack
of effective oversight by air force leadership".
Mr Gates added that the Pentagon was evaluating the results of a
"comprehensive inventory of all nuclear and nuclear-related materials
[conducted] to re-establish positive control of these sensitive,
classified components".
Adm Donald briefed Congress on the results of his investigation
on Wednesday. Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on
the classified report.
A senior defence official said the report had "identified issues
about record keeping" for sensitive nuclear missile components. But he
stressed that there was no suggestion that components had ended up in
the hands of countries that should not have received them.
But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control
Association in Washington, said the revelation was "very significant
and extremely troubling" because it meant the US could not establish
the positive control referred to by Mr Gates.
"It raises a serious question about where else these unaccounted
for warhead related parts may have gone," said Mr Kimball. "I would not
be surprised if the recent Taiwan incident is not the only one."
A senior military officer said the military leadership, including
Adm Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was "deeply
troubled" by the findings of the Donald report. He added that they
would be paying close attention to recommendations for improving
nuclear safeguards that Mr Gates has asked James Schlesinger, a former
defence secretary, to make.
Gordon Johndroe, National Security Council spokesman, declined to
comment on the disclosure about the unaccounted for components. But he
said the "the White House has confidence that secretary Gates through
his actions with the air force is addressing all of these issues".