Return
to contents
In this exciting edition of No Nukes News:
* two must-have anti-nuke publications
* action alert - ALP uranium policy
* donate to FoE
* upcoming events - national - Adelaide - Melbourne - Brisbane - Alice Springs
* list of some anti-nuke campaign groups in Australia (updated)
News items:
Australia's nuclear future - power reactors, enrichment, international nuclear dump etc.
ALP opposes nuclear power in Australia
Nuclear power for Indonesia?
NT uranium mine clean-up
No uranium mining at Koongarra
Chernobyl
Nuclear stockpiles could create 300,000 bombs
Proposed NT nuclear waste dump
New uranium mines in SA
Clean energy - renewables and energy efficiency
Roxby Indenture Act
Nuclear power and climate change
Nuclear power in Europe
Hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons states
The atomic bomb tests in Australia
Uranium exploration in Australia
Synroc
India - nuclear and other energy options + US-India nuclear deal
Uranium sales to India
IAEA boss admits safeguards system is flawed
ALP debates uranium
Nuclear power in China
Critique of nuclear power
Map of nuclear sites in Australia
Nuclear power in the UK
Nuclear spin-doctoring in the UK
UK - criminal action over Sellafield nuclear leak
Unscientific / anti-scientific scientists
Former Environmental Ministers call on UN to reform IAEA mandate and End the Nuclear Age
Uranium at Rum Jungle in the NT
Uranium sales to China
Uranium sales to Taiwan
Australian whistle-blower ostracised - Iraq WMD
Finland - radioactive waste
WWF and nuclear power
Nuclear spin-doctoring - global esp USA
Developed world using about 11 times as much energy per person as those in poor countries
US and Iran threaten nuclear arms control
Nuclear fuel cycle explanation and lots of photos
Bikini, Enewetak to file nuke lawsuits against USA
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation does a faboo monthly newsletter
Nuclear power in Russia
US nuclear weapons bunker busters
------------------->
TWO MUST-HAVE ANTI-NUKE PUBLICATIONS
Please buy up big coz we can't afford to produce these publications unless sales cover costs ...
Hot off the press!
PDF at
<www.foe.org.au> and bulk copies available at cost price, 50
cents each (postage included), contact Jim 0417 318368
<jim.green@foe.org.au>.
Yellowcake Country: Australia's Uranium Industry.
14 pages
May 2006
Edited by Eve Vincent.
Current and potential uranium mines (Dr Gavin Mudd)
Jabiluka/Ranger (Yvonne Margarula)
Radioactive waste dumping (Eve Vincent)
Proliferation risks (Prof Richard Broinowski)
Clean energy solutions to climate change and the nuclear non-solution (Prof Ian Lowe)
Health effects of radiation (Dr Bill Williams)
-----
PDF at
<www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm> and bulk copies
available at cost price, 50 cents each (postage included), contact Jim
0417 318368 <jim.green@foe.org.au>.
Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change
14 pages
Friends of the Earth and other environmental and medical organisations
September 2005
A Limited and Problematic Response
Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: The Myth of the Peaceful Atom
Radioactive Waste
Hazards of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Without Nuclear Power
------------------->
And another useful publication ...
'Let the Facts Speak', a history of nuclear industry accidents. Available here: http://www.rachelsiewert.org.au/
or direct download ...
http://www.rachelsiewert.org.au/files/releases/let-the-facts-speak-3rd-edition.pdf
------------------->
ACTION ALERT: OPPOSE WATERING DOWN LABOR'S ANTI-NUCLEAR COMMITMENTS
From ‘Now We The People’, http://www.nowwethepeople.org
The Howard
Government has decided to facilitate uranium sales to China and play a
role in the global expansion of nuclear power as a partner of the Bush
administration. Therefore, there is an intensive campaign going on to
have the Labor Party water down its anti-nuclear commitments. This is
led by the embattled uranium industry which has enlisted the support of
some important ALP figures.
But it is the State and Territory governments, all Labor, which have the power to approve new uranium mines.
Using the
problem of global warming, the nuclear industry is running an
aggressive campaign projecting uranium as a "clean" energy source to
magically solve both the environmental crisis and future energy needs.
Typically, the Howard Government has grasped this straw to give the
impression it is serious about tackling global warming. Statements have
been made by Howard, Costello, Brendan Nelson and others endorsing
nuclear exports as well as a nuclear industry for Australia.
Instead of
taking the arguments up to a Government vulnerable on this issue, some
Labor figures, notably Shadow Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, SA
Premier Mike Rann and AWU National President Bill Ludwig, have started
a campaign to change Labor policy to a pro-nuclear one. The irony with
Rann is that he only announced his conversion to the pro-nuclear cause
after an impressive state election victory in which he was perceived to
be anti-uranium. Ferguson earned praise from Howard who is no doubt
delighted to find another issue to play "wedge" politics with the ALP.
At the same
time, Howard described Labor's Shadow Environment Minister, Anthony
Albanese, who is opposing the campaign, as a "neanderthal". As Albanese
said in a recent speech marking the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl
disaster in the Ukraine:
"Nuclear energy
doesn't add up economically, environmentally or socially. After more
than 50 years of debate, we still do not have an answer to the issues
of nuclear proliferation or of nuclear waste.
"Of all the
energy options, nuclear is the most capital intensive to establish,
decommissioning is extremely expensive and the financial burden
continues long after the plant is closed.
"On 30 March 2006, Britain estimated it will cost $170 billion to clean up their 20 nuclear sites.
"In the United
States, direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalled $115 billion
between 1947 and 1999, with a further $145 billion in indirect
subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar combined during the
same period totalled only $5.5 billion.
"Those costs don't include the black hole of nuclear waste because there is no solution to the nuclear waste problem."
(See Anthony's website: www.anthonyalbanese.com.au - go to Speeches)
Mikhail
Gorbachev declared this month: "Chernobyl opened my eyes like nothing
else: it showed the horrible consequences of nuclear power, even when
it is used for non military purposes."
Key Labor
figures need to know that many people in the community – Labor voters
and potential Labor voters – are unhappy with any thought that Labor
would water down its current anti-nuclear commitments.
Suggested e-mail message
It would be
preferable if you e-mailed your own unique message to any or all of the
following key Labor Party figures. However, if you are short of time,
here's some words to get you going:
Dear ……….. ,
I write to
voice my concern over any suggestion that the Labor Party should water
down its current policy against the opening of any new uranium mines in
Australia.
I make these points:
After 50 years
there are still no answers to the problems of nuclear waste. Nuclear
energy is still not safe. As the ALP policy states: production and use
of uranium in the nuclear fuel cycle represents risks which include "…
the generation of highly toxic radioactive waste by-products, which
demands permanently safe disposal methods not currently available."
Uranium
intended for "peaceful" purposes can easily be converted to weaponry.
The more uranium there is around, the greater the likelihood that
something can go wrong. A number of key nations are not signatories to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the opportunity for terrorist
groupings to get hold of such weaponry is much greater today. Iran, an
NPT signatory, is the focus of global concern that it is secretly
developing nuclear weapons.
It is a myth
that nuclear power is a "clean" solution to greenhouse gas emissions.
The enormous expenditure required makes no sense even from an economic
rationalist perspective. It would divert much-need funding away from
the development of energy efficient systems and genuinely clean and
renewable energy sources.
Finally, there
are no votes to be gained for the ALP by watering down the policy.
Indeed, there are votes to be lost in watering down the policy.
I urge you to
support either the maintenance of existing Labor Party policy or
changes that would strengthen its anti-uranium stance.
Email addresses:
The Hon Kim Beazley MP, Leader of the Opposition: Kim.Beazley.MP@aph.gov.au
Jenny Macklin MP, Deputy Leader of the Opposition: JMacklin.MP@aph.gov.au
Chris Evans, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate: Senator.Evans@aph.gov.au
Stephen Conroy, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate: Senator.Conroy@aph.gov.au
Anthony Albanese MP, Shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage: A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au
Mike Rann, Premier of South Australia: premier@saugov.sa.gov.au
Bill Shorten, Australian Workers Union: bill.shorten@awu.net.au
Jo de Bruyn, Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Union: joe@sda.org.au
Jeff Lawrence, LHMU National Secretary: jeffl@lhmu.org.au
Doug Cameron, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union: dcameron@amwu.asn.au
Warren Mundine, ALP National President: wmundine@nswnts.com.au
------------------->
Donate to FoE
FoE Australia
runs on something less than a shoe string budget, and yet we do some
excellent work. We get no government or corporate funding, and won't
corner you on the street to sign up. Once a year we do ask supporters
if they can financially help us in any way, since you are our main
funding source.
FoE does good,
solid social justice environmental activism. Sadly, it is very hard to
raise funds for this type of work in Australia. Most of our work is
based on alliances with other progressive organisations and affected
communities. We collaborate strongly on international issues, yet work
firmly from the community level up. We achieved some great outcomes
over the last year, especially on climate and nuclear issues, and your
support in the coming year would be greatly appreciated.
Projects underway at present include:
* on-going
campaigns against the expansion of the uranium industry in Australia
(including the proposed waste facility planned for the NT and
Australia’s plans to export uranium);
* an exposure
tour to investigate the ecological and social impacts of the oil
industry in Nigeria (at the request of FoE Nigeria);
* continuing to
raise the 'equity' or human rights dimension in the global warming
debate; we are currently working with a range of environmental and aid
and development groups to initiate a NGO roundtable on climate change;
* a book on climate refugees;
* our nanotechnology campaign;
* FoE continues to host the Alliance Against Uranium, a national grassroots network of Indigenous and green campaigners;
* continued monitoring of the first independently certified forestry operations in Australia;
* lots more!
Your donation
will ensure that we will continue, with the support of a growing number
individuals, to achieve real outcomes in the year ahead.
There is a form at the end of this letter if you can help in any way. Donations are tax deductible.
There are many other ways you can support FoE. For some ideas, please see: http://www.foe.org.au/mainfiles/contribute.htm
Many thanks for any support you can offer,
Cam Walker
National Liaison
FoE Australia
--
Please print out and send to FoE (details at end of this letter) or
return via email
Donations to FoE are tax deductible. Please feel free to specify where
you would like the funds to be allocated:
__ as needed
__ climate justice, including climate refugees
__ corporates
__ chain reaction magazine
__ environment & population
__ international solidarity
__ mining campaign
__ nanotechnology
__ nuclear campaign
__ sustainable food & agriculture
__ wildspaces film festival
(For further details on all of these, see: http://www.foe.org.au/nc/index.htm)
Name: _________________________________
Address: __________________________________________________________
Postcode: __________
Phone: _______________
Date: ________
Email: ____________________
Dear FoE,
here's $ ________ towards the 2006 tax time appeal.
__ please send me details on the FoE regular giving program.
You can donate on line at:
http://205.234.101.185/egive/donate/default.aspx?MemberID=foe@foe.org.au
For credit card donations, you can call the Melbourne campaigns office:
03 9419 8700
or fill out the form below
--
To donate by Credit Card:
Name of cardholder:
Type of credit card: Visa/ Mastercard/ Bankcard
Card number:
expiry:
Cardholders signature:
To donate by Direct Debit:
Financial Institution:
BSB No:
Account No:
Name on Account:
To donate by cheque
Payable to Friends of the Earth
Please post to: FoEA National Liaison Office
Box 222, Fitzroy, Vic 3065
Friends of the Earth Australia
national liaison office
Box 222, Fitzroy, 3065
Australia
ph (03) 9419 8700 (int: +61 + 3 + 9419 8700)
fax (03) 9416 2081 (int: +61 + 3 + 9416 2081)
http://www.foe.org.au
------------------->Return
to top
UPCOMING EVENTS - NATIONAL
------------------->
2006 Radioactive Exposure Tour & Alliance Against Uranium
When: approx. July 23-Aug 3, 2006
What: Bus
travel from Melbourne, Adelaide, Woomera, Roxby Downs (inc. visit Roxby
mine), Mound Springs, Coober Pedy, Lake Eyre, Alice Springs.
We will arrive
in Alice Springs in time for the 2006 Alliance Against Uranium meeting.
The Alliance is a network of Indigenous and environmental groups formed
in 1997 - info at: <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/radracism.html >.
This year's
trip will visit Alice Springs because it is near two of the sites the
Howard government has short-listed for a nuclear waste dump. The NT is
also vulnerable in relation to new uranium mining projects.
Pics and audio from the 2004 trip at: <www.melbourne.foe.org.au/RART_2004/index.htm>.
Accommodation
will be mostly camping. Yummy vego food. Friends of the Earth has run
many of these tours - they run smoothly, they are a real eye-opener and
great fun too.
More information: Michaela Stubbs - Friends of the Earth, Melbourne - <michaela.stubbs@foe.org.au> 0429 136935.
------------------->
Only 100 sleeps to go til the BNI Nuclear Symposium ...
http://www.foe.org.au/bni_symp.htm
The Beyond Nuclear Initiative is holding a two-day program of symposiums and workshops over September 15 & 16 of September.
Friday 15 will
consist of a series of presentations from experts in various fields of
the anti-nuclear campaign including Richard Broinowski, Assoc Prof
Tilman Ruff (MAPW), Nina Brown (Irati Wanti), Dr Mark Diesendorf,
Dr Bill Williams (MAPW) and Nat Wasley (ALEC) with more to be announced.
Saturday 16
will be a day of workshops on areas of interest including the health
affects of radiation, debunking nuclear myths, real greenhouse costs of
nuclear power, campaign strategy and transferring that into action,
radio active racism as well as opportunities for a few open space
workshops in which people can address areas they feel need more
attention.
The Symposium
and workshops will be the premier event of the year in which anti
nuclear activists from all parts of the country can come together to
expand on their knowledge, plan for the growing campaign and create new
and strengthened networks.
As many people
are coming from across Australia to be a part of this event some monies
have been set aside by BNI to assist with travel expenses, especially
in this time of high fuel prices.
For questions related to the event contact the Symposium Coordinator Louise Morris on <louisemorris@graffiti.net>.
Travel Subsidies
Indigenous participants travel subsidy
BNI has a limited pool of money to assist Aboriginal people from interstate with travel costs to the event.
To register
interest in applying for assistance with travel costs contact
<louisemorris@graffiti.net>. The process will be made quicker and
easier if you have an estimate of the travel expenses you will incur in
getting to Melbourne and back.
Unwaged Activist Subsidy
Some monies
have been raised by BNI to assist unwaged activists from outside of
Victoria with their travel costs in getting to Melbourne. Unfortunately
it is not enough money to be able to sponsor activists outright but we
will be doing our best to take the sting out of fuel/flight costs.
To make the
whole venture more affordable carpooling of people travelling to
Melbourne is highly recommended, as is trying to fundraise on a local
level to help subsidise your costs to get to the event.
To register interest, once again, contact <louisemorris@graffiti.net>
Billeting
A group of
people turning up en-masse to a town is always going to raise the
question of where to stay, in an attempt to minimise those problems we
are working on billeting systems in inner Melbourne that can help out
those who do not have contacts/friends that they can call upon.
To indicate
interest in being billeted out contact
<louisemorris@graffiti.net> with your details as well as whether
you wish to be billeted on your own or have a friend accompanying you.
Volunteering
This Symposium
is one of the key events on the 2006 anti-nuclear calendar and will
require a lot of assistance from people with a variety of skills to
make it a huge success.
There are a few
specific skills that are needed at the moment such as people with
graphic design, sound mixing and recording skills, as well as a burning
desire and skill at organising benefit events to help subsidise travel
costs for activists from interstate and help with billeting for those
travelling activists.
More generally
I will be putting the call out for people who are interested in forming
a small and efficient working group to pull together the bits and
pieces the Symposium will require in terms of publicity, networking and
helping with dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s over the two days of
the event.
If you have any
questions regarding helping to make the Symposium a huge success feel
free to contact me at <louisemorris@graffiti.net>
The Beyond
Nuclear Initiative is a collaboration between the Poola Foundation (Tom
Kantor Fund), Friends of the Earth, and the Australian Conservation
Foundation.
------------------->Return
to top
UPCOMING EVENTS - ADELAIDE
------------------->
FoE stalls are happening and so much fun they ought to be banned. Contact Sophie or Joel.
------------------->
SOS in
Brisbane! There will be a strong Indigenous presence and representation
at the conference and discussions focused around getting SA elders
represented. Peter has been speaking to Uncle Kelvin who has shown
support for going, pending confirmation of his timetable. If anyone is
heading up and would like to accompany Uncle Kelvin to the conference
please contact peter at peter.burdon@foe.org.au
Cat and Bretto
are looking into Aunty Eileen Wingfield attending. Cat will be heading
up to Pt Augusta on Thursday to meet with Aunty and Uncle Kevin
Buzzacott. Whilst there she will talk to Eileen about whether she can
make the conference. If Eileen is able to come, Sophie has offered to
assist with caring.
------------------->
Saturday 3 June
– 7.30pm, World Environment Day benefit gig for SA Uni Enviro
Collectives, 9 Light Square, (upstairs next to Night Train), featuring
The Mandala Project, Fire, Santa Rosa Fire, mkB, Business as Usual,
Sunsound and more! Tickets $10, available from Blue Beat Records, B#
Records, Chapel Gesture or at the door.
------------------->
Sunday 4 June –
2.15pm-5.00pm Me, you, us, together! Conversations on reconciliation,
The Gov, Port Road, register online at
http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawke/events/2006events/ReconciliationSA_Conversations_reg.asp
------------------->
Monday 5 June –
World Environment Day, ‘Deserts and desertification’, street fair,
Scots Church, cnr. Pulteney St & North Tce, Adelaide
------------------->
Tuesday 6 June
– ‘Energy Efficient Revolution’ Seminar, 6.30pm, Room C3-16, Centenary
Building, UniSA City East Campus. RSVP to Stewart Martin 8302 3048,
stewart.martin@unisa.edu.au
------------------->
Wednesday 7
June, Environment Day, Adelaide University, including the amazing David
Noonan (ACF), speaking LIVE on nuclear issues.
------------------->
Don’t forget to keep an eye on the Clean Futures blog:
<http://cleanfutures.blogspot.com/> ; and website http://www.geocities.com/olympicdam for updates and news.
------------------->
G20 On 18-19
November the bank heads from 20 different nations will be convening in
Melbourne to plot the expansion of neo-liberal globalisation. There
will be a strong climate change bloc in attendance complete with
puppetry. There is the potential for a clean futures presence and if
anyone is interested in going over for the ‘party’ contact Joel at
joel.catchlove@foe.org.au. Also possibilities for a wider Adelaide
contingent planning combined actions.
------------------->
Radioactive Exposure Tour
Well its time
to grab your swags, throw away your soap and get down and dirty in the
desert! That’s right friends, the annual radioactive exposure tour is
on again and will be covering land stretching from Adelaide, Lake Eyre
and Alice Springs! There was a strong showing of interest from the
group in attending. If you are interested please get in contact with
FoE at mentioned addresses.
There are some jobs to do before we leave including:
- Catering; Adelaide is responsible for planning six dinners (out of twelve), as well as sourcing food for all meals.
- Promotion
- Finalising camp sites (Sophie will speak to Aunty Veronica about having a Kaurna welcoming and discussion in Adelaide).
- Organising dinner for the opening night – Food Not Bombs?
- Approaching unions and sympathetic organisations for funding support.
If anyone would like to help please let us know!
------------------->
Friends of the Earth Adelaide’s
AMAZING 2006 WINE SALE!
Held in conjunction with Temple Bruer wines
Order by World Environment Day, Monday 5th June 2006
Temple Bruer is
located in the Langhorne Creek district of South Australia, and
produces award-winning organic wines. All of their plantings are
certified as A-Grade Organic by Australian Certified Organics (ACO).
Organic grape growing principles prohibit the use of synthetic
chemicals, and only use organic fertilisers such as manures and
plant-derived composts. Indigenous insect species are encouraged to
provide a balanced ecology. Also, an extensive planting program of
local tree species has been undertaken to provide habitats for native
birds. Visit www.templebruer.com.au for more information.
The wine sale
will help raise funds for Friends of the Earth Adelaide’s ongoing
campaign work. Friends of the Earth Adelaide’s Clean Futures Collective
is one of South Australia’s foremost community-based advocacy groups
for a clean and renewable future.
We’re offering
either a straight or mixed dozen of a 2002 red blend (mainly Cabernet)
and a 2005 Verdelho (white), at the low low price of $110 ($9.17 a
bottle!), or a half-dozen for $60.
After filling
in the order form below and returning it to either Friends of the Earth
Adelaide or a member of the group with appropriate monies by Monday 5th
June, we will place the order. FoE contact Sophie Green at
sophie.green@foe.org.au
The wines will
be available for collection on Saturday 10th June, from 9-12 noon at
the Conservation Centre, 120 Wakefield St, Adelaide.
If you are
unable to make this collection time, for an extra fee we can deliver
the wine to your house. Please contact us to arrange this.
2005 Verdelho - Certified Organic White Wine
The fresh
citrus and honeysuckle nose leads into a berry and fruit palate
balanced with a crisp acid finish. While attractive when young, this
Verdelho will develop in complexity and richness for several years.
This wine is a perfect partner for antipasto and cheese platters and
full flavoured white meat dishes.
2002 Red blend – Certified Organic Red Wine
This wine was
vintaged from primarily Cabernet. It is a medium-bodied wine with
abundant fruit characters of mixed berries, including red currant. It
finishes with some tannin grip. An ideal “food wine” which will
compliment many dishes.
ORDER FORM
Name:
Email:
Phone:
Verdelho dozen ____ @ $110.00
Red blend dozen ____ @ $110.00
Mixed dozen ( ____ white, ____ red) ____ @ $110.00
Verdelho half dozen _____ @ $60.00
Red blend half dozen _____ @ $60.00
Mixed half dozen ( _____ white, _____ red) _____ @ $60.00
Please make
cheques/money orders payable to ‘Friends of the Earth Adelaide’. Please
return order form with money to Friends of the Earth Adelaide, 120
Wakefield St, Adelaide SA 5000, before Monday 5th June.
Thank you for your order!
------------------->Return
to top
UPCOMING EVENTS - BRISBANE
------------------->
Friends of the
Earth Brisbane Anti-nuke Collective meets fortnightly Tuesdays. Next
meetings are May 30, June 6 & 20. 6:30 pm @ Friends of the
Earth, 294 Montgue Road West End. Join us!
June 4: World Envrionment Day Festival
Time: all day
Location: GECKO House – 139 Duringan Street (along Currumbin Creek) Currumbin Gold Coast
June 5: World Environment Day - No Coal - No Nukes - Brisbane Action
Details TBA
June 9-11: Qld Labor Party Conference - Rally for a Nuclear Free Qld
Action details TBA
July 9-15 Students of Sustainability Conference UQ http://www.studentsofsustainability.org/
Including:
Tues July 11: Public Forum: Mines, Energy and War and
Big Issues Forum, Nuclear Australia Forum, Mining Forum, Militarism
Forum, Anti-nuclear Film Night and numerous important and exciting
workshops, events, and actions.
July 16 - Qld
Activist Road Trip/ Environmental Activist Awareness Tour- visit
nuclear, military, and other environmentally questionable sites in Qld
- from Brisbane up to Shoalwater. Meet the locals, see the
country, get informed and take action on the issues.
More details TBA
For more info or to get involved in any of the above:
Friends of the Earth Brisbane Anti-nuclear Collective (07) 3846 5793 or Robin: 0411 118 737
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - ALICE SPRINGS
Heaps of excellent campaign work happening, contact Nat Wasley <natwasley@alec.org.au> (08) 8952 2011, 0429 900 774.
------------------->
UPCOMING EVENTS - MELBOURNE
------------------->
Friends of the Earth Climate Justice Campaign presents - Thank !@#$ It's
Friday
FoE's super duper and amazingly broke climate justice campaign invites you
to kick back with your FoE Friends for relaxing Friday evening drinks.
When? every 1st and 3rd Friday from 6-8pm: Next one is this Friday, May 19
Where? Friends of the Earth 312 Smith St
Fantastic free finger food and a raffle
Contact Michelle 0413 008 312 or Jim 0417 318 368
------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE PUBLIC MEETING & BOOK LAUNCH
MONDAY JULY 3RD @ TRADES HALL 6:30PM
Corner Lygon & Victoria Streets Carlton
Keynote Speaker Helen Caldicott launching her latest book on this topic.
The single most
articulate and passionate advocate of citizen action to remedy the
nuclear and environmental crises, Dr Helen Caldicott, has devoted the
last 35 years to an international campaign to educate the public about
the medical hazards of the nuclear age and the necessary changes in
human behavior to stop environmental destruction.
Other speakers:
Hillel Freedman Nuclear Free Australia
Jacob Grech
Christine Milne Australian Greens Senator
Organised by Nuclear Free Australia www.nukefreeaus.org
and Melbourne University Press http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/
------------------->
Darebin Greens Branch present award winning documentary about Iraq -
IN THE SHADOW
OF THE PALMS portrays what was really happening on the streets before,
during & after the most controversial war of the 21st Century.
WHEN: Wednesday 31st May
WHERE: Cinema Nova, 380 Lygon St, Carlton
TIME: 7pm - tickets to be collected from Pat upstairs in the foyer at least 10 mins prior to film screening please.
COST: $20 full price & $15 concession.
BOOK YOUR TICKETS: Reply to this email or call Pat on 0419 244 412.
"In the Shadow
of the Palms" is the only documentary filmed in Iraq prior to, during
and after ‘liberation’, & documents the changes in Iraqi society
and the lives of ordinary Iraqis by focusing on a cross-section of
individuals.
This is an amazing film - every Australian should see it.
Please let your friends know & I hope to see you all on the night - let me know if you can come.
Many thanks,
Pat
------------------->
LIST OF SOME ANTI-NUKE GROUPS IN AUSTRALIA
------------------->
Adelaide: FoE Clean Futures Collective
Joel Catchlove <joel.catchlove@foe.org.au> 0403 886 951
Peter Burdon <peter.burdon@foe.org.au> (08) 8524 4385, 0401 751285.
Friends of the Earth's Clean Futures Collective meets each Tuesday, 5.30pm, Conservation Centre, 120 Wakefield St, Adelaide.
Web: <www.geocities.com/olympicdam> <http://cleanfutures.blogspot.com>
Alice Springs: Alice Action & Arid Lands Environment Centre
Nat Wasley <natwasley@alec.org.au> (08) 8952 2011, 0429 900 774.
Alice Action meets every Wednesday 6pm at ALEC, 39 Hartley St.
Web: <www.no-waste.org> <www.alec.org.au>
Darwin: Environment Centre of the Northern Territory
Emma King <ecnturanium@iinet.net.au> (08) 8981 1984
Web: <www.ecnt.org>
Darwin: No Waste Alliance <www.no-waste.org>
<darwin@no-waste.org>, ph Justin Tutty (08) 8945 6810
Brisbane: Anti-Nuclear Collective & Food Irradiation Watch
Robin Taubenfield <robintaubenfeld@hotmail.com> 04 1111 8737
Kim Stewart <kim.stewart@brisbane.foe.org.au> (07) 3846 5793
Canberra - Canberra Region Anti-Nuclear Campaign (CRANC)
Meets every second Thursday (June 1, 15, 29), 6pm, at ROCKS meeting room, cnr Kingsley St, off Barry Dr, Acton.
Tim 0405 370782
Melbourne: FoE Anti-Uranium Collective
Michaela Stubbs <michaela.stubbs@foe.org.au> 0429 136935
Friends of the Earth's Anti-Uranium Collective meets each Wednesday, 6.30pm, 312 Smith St, Collingwood.
Perth: Anti-Nuclear Alliance of WA <www.anawa.org.au>
<nfreewa@iinet.net.au> (08) 9271 4488
Fremantle Anti Nuclear Group. Meets fortnightly. Contact Nicola Paris, 0422 990040 or <nicola.paris@aph.gov.au>
There are many
other groups involved in anti-nuclear campaigning around the country -
for details, phone Jim Green 0417 318368 or email
<jim.green@foe.org.au>.
------------------->
NEWS ITEMS
------------------->
Australia's nuclear future - power reactors, enrichment, international nuclear dump etc.
------------------->
We must move to nuclear fuel: PM
By Mark Metherell and Wendy Frew
May 20, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/we-must-move-to-nuclear-fuel-pm/2006/05/19/1147545529224.html
NUCLEAR power is inevitable in Australia and could come sooner than expected, according to the Prime Minister.
In comments
that lift the tempo on the contentious issue, John Howard said nuclear
power in this country "could be closer than some people would have
thought a short while ago". His Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane,
claimed it could be as early as 2020.
"I think it is
inevitable. The time at which it will come should be governed by
economic considerations," Mr Howard told Melbourne radio from Ottawa.
Just four days
previously while in Washington, he struck a more cautious line, saying
he had "a completely open mind to that … It may be desirable that
Australia in the future builds nuclear power plants."
Yesterday, he
said: "The whole atmosphere in Washington, the atmosphere … created by
the high level of oil prices is transforming the debate on energy,
alternative energy sources."
Mr Howard's
announcement risks alienating many voters but it appears to reflect
changing attitudes. A poll commissioned by SBS last September showed 47
per cent of people supported nuclear power and 40 per cent opposed it.
However, the policy switch has angered environmentalists and prompted a
pledge from Labor to remain anti-nuclear.
Mr Macfarlane
said yesterday he expected the Government would soon start discussions
on how to encourage grassroots debate on the issue.
Nuclear power
costs twice as much as coal power, and earlier this week the Treasurer,
Peter Costello, said it was not economically right for Australia now,
"because we have such proven resources of gas and coal".
But Mr Howard
said the Government's white paper on energy 18 months ago was based on
oil price assumptions that were now out of date.
He said the
environmental advantages of nuclear power "are there for all to see. It
is cleaner and greener and therefore some of the people who in the past
have opposed it should support it."
The
Opposition's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, said Labor
opposed nuclear power on cost, safety, waste and proliferation grounds.
"Labor will not change that view. I look forward to Labor ending John
Howard's nuclear fantasy."
According to
energy experts, Australia could not develop a nuclear power industry in
time to stave off the effects of climate change, and such a program
would be prohibitively expensive.
Academics at
NSW University and the University of Technology Sydney said no private
investor would take on the risk without huge government subsidies.
Scientists have
warned that the world needs to make large cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions to avoid further climate changes. But even if there was a
doubling of global nuclear energy output by 2050, it would only reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent, said Greenpeace Australia
Pacific's chief executive, Steve Shallhorn.
The NSW Greens
MLC Ian Cohen said that after 50 years, the nuclear industry still had
not found a way to store its waste safely. "We don't want it back and
we don't want to create it here."
------------------->
The Advertiser (SA) - Editorial - April 27
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/sectionindex2/0,5935,editorialopinion%5E%5ETEXT,00.html
Time to embrace
nuclear energy
THE Chernobyl reactor explosion is a sobering reminder of the inherent dangers of misused nuclear technology.
As the world
commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, it is
ironic that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are once again at the top
of the political agenda.
Australia, as a
uranium exporter, is a key player. It has recently signed a deal to
export uranium to energy-hungry China, and is considering doing the
same with India.
As huge industrial polluters, India and China need to be encouraged to choose nuclear power over fossil-fuel based energy.
But what about here on our own shores?
Australia is
reliant on polluting coal and gas-fired power plants. Renewable energy
is a growing, but as yet small and unreliable, component of our energy
mix.
The western
world has chalked up only one nuclear disaster - Three Mile Island in
1979 - and it was contained. There were no casualties of radiation
poisoning, unlike the Chernobyl reactor explosion in 1986.
In fact, nuclear energy has a better safety record than coal mining's appalling history.
With
greenhouse-gas pollution such a pressing concern, and with the
country's rich uranium reserves, it seems illogical for Australians to
keep opposing nuclear energy.
Nuclear power
has the capacity to deliver the energy Australia needs for its future -
and without the heavy cost to the environment that future generations
will already pay.
------------------->
Costello warms to the nuclear option
By Jason Koutsoukis, Canberra
April 30, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/costello-warms-to-nuclear/2006/04/29/1146198391600.html
TREASURER Peter
Costello has declared nuclear power the "clean energy" of the future,
saying Australia must do more to fight global warming.
Moving to
further differentiate himself from Prime Minister John Howard, Mr
Costello vowed to continue dealing with issues outside his economic
portfolio.
Working on a record 11th straight budget, Mr Costello also refused to commit himself to delivering next year's budget.
"If you look at
my speeches over the last couple of years there have been speeches on
foreign affairs, on culture, on immigration, on Australian history, on
values, and I've got to say to you I probably get much more response
from those speeches than I do from an economic speech," Mr Costello
told The Sunday Age.
He said his
speech slamming "mushy, misguided multiculturalism" in February had
generated "tens of thousands" of responses — more than 90 per cent
positive.
"The response
to the speech that I gave on values and culture earlier this year is
probably the biggest response I have ever had in my life."
Directing his attention to the environment and global warming, Mr Costello said he was now "more aware of these issues".
"I think the
evidence is that there is a gradual warming taking place, and I think
that means we have to begin addressing it," Mr Costello said.
Mr Costello is no longer as sceptical about nuclear power as he was after the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago.
"Far from
nuclear power being the dirty energy source, it may in fact turn out to
be the clean energy source when compared to fossil fuels," he said.
He also warned Australians to get used to the idea of a domestic nuclear power station.
"If it's commercial to build nuclear energy in Australia, it ought to occur," Mr Costello said.
"Australia can't mine uranium and sell it to other people and then pretend that it would never use it in its own country."
Earlier this month, Mr Howard also said Australia should look at using nuclear power if it became economically viable.
Federal
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has said that Labor is opposed to a
nuclear power industry in Australia, but Labor's resources spokesman,
Martin Ferguson, has said the party should be open to the idea.
Mr Costello
said that while Australia was meeting its greenhouse gas emissions
targets established under the Kyoto Protocol, it had a responsibility
to bring the developing world along with it.
"Australia is
such a small, tiny contributor towards global warming that if Australia
meets its emissions target that will have no effect whatsoever on
global warming if other large economies continue to develop as they
are," he said. "We're talking now of countries that are 50 times
Australia and growing all the time in emissions."
Nearly three
years since Mr Costello pledged to speak out on social issues, and
after Mr Howard had told him he would remain leader of the Liberal
Party for as long as the party wanted, Mr Costello said he had been
encour- aged by the public response.
Mr Costello
declined to talk about the size of tax cuts expected in next week's
budget, but said he remained committed to reducing the burden on
families.
"What I have
done is say that if we can balance our budget and meet our expenditures
we should aim to reduce the tax burden, which is what we did in 2003,
2004, 2005 and 2006," he said.
He said putting
together this year's budget, with competing spending priorities from
defence, security against terrorism and the background of the oil
shock, remained difficult.
Discussing the
Government's economic achievements over 10 years, he said: "What other
countries … could you compare us to that have made this kind of
progress?"
Asked if he was
leaving major structural reform of the tax system for his 12th budget,
Mr Costello said: "These are just word games that you're trying now."
------------------->
Nuclear power: it's time to face the realities
April 30, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/nuclear-power-its-time-to-face-the-realities/2006/04/29/1146198386832.html
IF, BY chance,
the Prime Minister had said last week of global warming "I think the
evidence is that there is a gradual warming taking place and I think
that means we have to begin addressing it", there would be far more
astonishment in the fact John Howard said it than in the truth he would
have acknowledged.
The fact that
this statement was made not by Howard but the ever-patient
prime-minister-in-waiting, Peter Costello, is more heartening than
anything else; not because Mr Costello is being a little contrary to
his leader's views, but because he admits to having changed his mind on
a serious environmental issue that the Prime Minister has chosen to
undervalue in the face of disturbing facts on the sustainable future of
Australia and the world. Mr Costello's views on the use of nuclear
power in Australia, which he expresses in an interview published in The
Sunday Age today, are as refreshing as they are rational.
The Treasurer
makes it clear he wants Australia to play its part in helping to reduce
global emissions, and that this would in turn bring developing
countries into line. "Certainly my views on nuclear power have
changed," he says. "I have become more supportive of nuclear power than
I used to be 10 years ago … I'm now starting to turn around to the view
that it is a cleaner source of energy than many of the ones we
currently use."
Ironically Mr
Costello's remarks come at the same time as the world marks the 20th
anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl, in
Ukraine, when explosions destroyed a reactor core, causing widespread
radioactive contamination that continues to affect hundreds of
thousands of people.
To many,
Chernobyl remains the embodiment of nuclear power as a dirty form of
energy, to be avoided at all costs, especially those to human life.
Twenty years on it is necessary to ask the question: was Chernobyl the
exception rather than the rule? Mr Costello has obviously considered
this and has come clean (as it were) about nuclear power and its
potential as an energy source. His voice joins a chorus supporting
nuclear resurgence in the face of growing demands for energy and
reduction of carbon emissions.
Mr Costello's
fiscal conscience, though, shows through his newly discovered
environmental concerns when he says nuclear power should be used in
Australia only if it were commercially viable. "Australia can't mine
uranium and sell it to other people and then pretend that it would
never use it in its own country," he says. There is also the matter of
using remote parts of Australia as nuclear waste dumps — a suggestion
raised again last week by the head of the World Nuclear Association,
John Ritch, who said Australia would be performing "a service to the
world".
Just as it is
not a simple matter of clean or dirty, there is no clear-cut answer to
the question of nuclear power. But this does not mean the issue is not
worth raising. Peter Costello, in at least indicating his view, is also
highlighting the importance of what may well be the only way
successfully to reduce global warming and provide a more rational way
towards powering this continent and, indeed, the earth. There is an
urgent need to have a dispassionate look at nuclear power, its
safeguards and issues, and to find if it is the right solution.
------------------->
Nuclear energy to get a tick from report
By Katharine Murphy
May 18, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-energy-to-get-a-tick/2006/05/17/1147545391232.html
A YEAR-LONG
probe by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee appears set to find that
nuclear power plants are safe, defying concerns that have plagued the
industry since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
Federal
Parliament's Industry and Resources Committee is expected to endorse
the concept of nuclear power by ticking the current generation of
nuclear technology used in Western countries and the next generation
technology.
At the same
time, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has put new nuclear power
plants "back on the agenda with a vengeance" as part of a drive to
ensure reliable energy supplies and combat global warming in a speech
to business leaders.
A recent
attempt by the Canberra committee to expand its terms of reference to
allow it to recommend Australia adopt nuclear energy was rejected by
Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane, who has been cool on the idea of a
nuclear industry here.
The looming
endorsement of nuclear power is therefore expected to be expressed in
general terms, reflecting this restriction on the terms of reference.
The Age
believes the committee is also likely to recommend that Australia
establish a new school of nuclear engineering to allow scientists to
play an active role in the global nuclear fuel supply chain.
It will also
recommend expanding uranium exports to meet the growing global demand
for nuclear energy, not only from China, but from Europe and the UK.
Sources have
told The Age that the report will also likely identify India as a
future market for Australian uranium. Sales to India at present are not
possible, as it has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Government policy, which Canberra has insisted is not changing, is to
sell only to signatories.
The report is being finalised, but is unlikely to be tabled in Parliament until later in the year.
The recommendations follow a year-long inquiry into the future of the uranium industry.
A submission to
the inquiry from Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer revealed the
scope of the Government's ambition to step up uranium production, by
identifying not only China as an important market, but also Indonesia,
Thailand and Vietnam.
It also made
the case that nuclear power was a legitimate option for consideration
as part of a global effort to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
But this idea was rejected in a number of submissions prepared by environmental groups.
Environmentalists argue that nuclear power is inherently unsafe and will not combat global warming.
------------------->
World nuke waste warning for NT
By NIGEL ADLAM
16may06
http://www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,19149847%5E13569,00.html
THE Territory's
nuclear waste facility could be used as a dumping ground for the
world's growing high-level nuclear waste, an environmental group said
yesterday.
The centre's
co-ordinator Peter Robertson said the Australian Government was already
making a "complete mess'' trying to find a place to store the
relatively small amount of radioactive waste produced at Sydney's Lucas
Heights.
He was speaking
after Prime Minister John Howard told US President George W. Bush
Australia would consider taking back spent fuel from uranium it sells
overseas.
Mr Robertson said: "The US President is desperate to expand nuclear reactors in the US but can't dispose of the waste.
"Like the whole nuclear industry, the PM is increasingly becoming a danger to Australia and the world.
"He has
developed some kind of Dr Strangelove-like nuclear mania and seems to
be completely unconcerned about the risks and costs of what he is
proposing.
"His pious talk
about having a `debate' is completely disingenuous when he makes de
facto policy announcements 20,000km away sitting in the office of a
foreign president.''
------------------->
Howard flags N-power
Steve Lewis, Washington
May 17, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19162455-601,00.html
AUSTRALIA may
consider building nuclear power plants as an alternative source of
clean energy and to combat the spiralling price of oil.
Signalling a
new phase in the uranium debate, John Howard has suggested the
Government could issue a white paper outlining the nuclear options for
Australia.
But the Prime Minister cautioned that the economic case for large-scale nuclear power plants had to be made.
"It may be
desirable that Australia in the future builds nuclear power plants," Mr
Howard told reporters in Washington, after meetings with US Energy
Secretary Sam Bodman and the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben
Bernanke.
Mr Howard's
enthusiasm for a possible nuclear future came after he told Mr Bodman
that Australia wanted to be fully consulted over plans for the big six
nuclear-power countries - the US, France, China, Britain, Russia and
Japan - to forge a new informal trading bloc.
But Mr Howard
poured cold water on suggestions Australia could become a waste dump
for nuclear material from other countries, arguing that this was never
contemplated.
"What I
indicated to (Mr Bodman) is that we would want to be kept fully
informed of how this proposal developed. At this stage, Australia is a
willing seller of uranium subject to the provisions of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and our own separate safeguards," he said.
"We would
continue to want to be in that position, but we would want to be kept
informed of any progress towards formation of what could be regarded as
a fuel reprocessing group."
US President
George W. Bush wants a global nuclear energy partnership as part of his
push to generate a viable nuclear industry, to reduce Washington's
reliance on Middle East oil, and coal.
Part of the
GNEP plan is for nuclear leasing, under which nuclear countries would
provide enriched uranium to other countries for energy purposes, then
take back the nuclear waste.
With nearly 40
per cent of the world's uranium reserves, Australia will be a key
player in the world nuclear talks, along with Canada, the No2 global
supplier of yellowcake.
Mr Howard is
clearly seeking a public debate on the future of nuclear energy in
Australia, arguing that even "radical greenies" had changed their
attitude on the use of enriched uranium as an energy source.
"I'm attracted
to Australia selling uranium to people who want to buy it, not lease
it, buy it, in other parts of the world, subject to our obligations
under the (nuclear non-proliferation) treaty and subject to our own
safeguard arrangements - I'm in favour of that," Mr Howard said.
"And I'm in
favour at all times of examining whether it is in our national interest
to progress the use of nuclear power in Australia.
"Now obviously that would include a consideration of whether we should process the uranium here."
Whether Australia goes down the nuclear road will depend on whether the process is economically viable.
China and India
- and more recently Indonesia - want nuclear energy, and Mr Howard does
not want Australia to fall behind in the race to satisfy the increasing
demand for uranium.
But it will be
hard for the Government to win public support for nuclear energy,
although sections of the Labor Party also back a more open debate.
The Democrats said yesterday the Northern Territory could end up with "radioactive waste the rest of the world does not want".
Mr Howard
refused to rule out the release of a white paper on the nuclear leasing
issue, with people increasingly worried about greenhouse gases.
------------------->
Private pilot SA N-plant pushed
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18897154%5E2682,00.html
23apr06
Private sector
investors are preparing a submission to government to build a privately
funded pilot nuclear power plant north of Port Augusta.
In its early
stages, the proposal would seek in-principle support for the
construction of a 20MW to 50MW generation plant at an estimated cost of
between $70 million and $150 million.
"Whether the
State Government likes it or not, we are in the uranium business, so
why shouldn't we be part of the full cycle," said Phil Sutherland,
chief executive of SA's Chamber of Mines and Energy, who declined to
name the interested investors.
"Given we are
captive to the other states for our power needs, why not build a pilot
nuclear power plant in an area where people will not need to be nervous
about its existence?"
Based on the
type of reactors that power warships, Mr Sutherland said a small
"out-of-sight" plant could light up the whole of Adelaide.
"(The aircraft
carrier) USS Ronald Reagan carries 6000 sailors and 80 combat aircraft
– it is powered by two nuclear reactors that can operate for more than
20 years without refuelling," he said.
Discussions on
a pilot proposal followed a presentation at an Adelaide conference on
March 30 by Uranium Information Centre general manager Ian Hore-Lacy.
"Renewed
attention to nuclear power is driven by three factors – improving of
the basic economics, the prospect of carbon emission costs on
fossil-fuelled alternatives, and energy security," Mr Hore-Lacy told
the Paydirt Media's 2006 Uranium Conference.
He explained similar examples of small nuclear power plants where the entire plant was underground, including:
SOUTH Korea's
SMART (system-integrated modular advanced reactor) is designed for
generating electricity (up to 100 MW) and/or thermal applications such
as seawater desalination. A one-fifth scale plant is being constructed,
for operation in 2007.
WESTINGHOUSE'S
International Reactor Innovative & Secure (IRIS) is being developed
as an advanced third-generation reactor. IRIS-50 is a modular 50MW
reactor which could be deployed this decade.
RUSSIA's
KLT-40S, a reactor used in icebreakers and now proposed for wider use
in desalination. Produces 35MW of electricity as well as up to 35MW of
heat for desalination.
"It is not Disneyland thinking," Mr Sutherland said.
"We really are
the uranium state, so it is time we developed the political will to
look into our future power needs that encompasses a mix of diesel, gas
and nuclear energy."
A State Government spokeswoman said its position on nuclear power was unchanged.
In June last year Energy Minister Pat Conlon told Parliament "nuclear power in South Australia is not an option".
Replying to a question, Mr Conlon said construction cost and size were major stumbling blocks.
"Given the
wealth of Australia's energy sources, it is unlikely nuclear power will
ever be a cost-effective method of supplying electricity in any
Australian state," he said.
"The test for
the economics of nuclear power in Australia, however, is the lack of
commercial interest in developing a power station."
Opposition energy spokesman Martin Hamilton-Smith said it was a question of timing.
"Nuclear power generation is a debate we can't avoid, but its time has yet to come," he said.
"The community deservedly needs time to be given assurances and will need some convincing.
"Sooner or later, the debate needs to be had."
------------------->
The Australian - Editorial
A debate on dumping
We should discuss storing nuclear waste from overseas
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19133961-7583,00.html
May 15, 2006
THE case for
Australia expanding uranium exports grows stronger as the economic and
environmental positives of nuclear power outweigh arguments from
another age that this energy source is the devil's fuel. With something
like 40 per cent of the world's low-cost recovery uranium, Australia is
set fair to prosper from growing demand. Yet nuclear power has been
demonised for so long in Australia the debate inevitably advances
slowly. Talks to sell our uranium to China have been conducted
carefully, even though the Chinese are signatories to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Discussions with India, another hopeful
buyer, are even more cautious. While India has an excellent record of
using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it is not an NPT signatory.
And yesterday the Prime Minister made non-committal noises about the
idea of uranium exporters "leasing" radioactive fuel to countries
outside non-proliferation agreements. This would mean Australia taking
back spent fuel, which is hard to store and can be used to make weapons.
Mr Howard
obviously understands how easily public opinion is manipulated by
opponents of nuclear energy. But he was not helped by Acting Prime
Minister Mark Vaile who suggested yesterday that perhaps Australia
could have a role in managing nuclear waste. In terms of energy policy,
it was a sensible suggestion. But Mr Vaile seems to have forgotten the
way state and territory governments went into histrionics, when they
were not hysterical, over Canberra's call a few years back for one of
them to bury the tiny amounts of nuclear waste produced by Australia's
only atomic installation, the research reactor at Lucas Heights. It
will take a great deal of talk before the new idea of taking back for
safe storage the residue of uranium we have exported gets a fair
hearing.
But as with the
overall role of nuclear energy, it is an idea worth discussing. While
antediluvian environmentalists do not like it, nuclear energy is on the
international agenda. Both China and India are looking to nuclear
energy to power their economies and reactors are back on the agenda in
Europe. The International Energy Agency argues that security of power
supplies in the West will be best secured by nuclear means -- a
compelling argument for all but deep-green activists. Some industry
experts suggest the number of reactors around the world will increase
from 440 now to tens of thousands by the end of the century. Nor is the
old environmental case against uranium as convincing as it was 20 years
ago. The Chernobyl disaster had much more to do with the inertia and
incompetence of communist management than any inherent risk in nuclear
power. And compared with the greenhouse gases coal creates, nuclear
power is a clean fuel. In Australia, the populist politics of nuclear
energy are decades behind the debate over uranium's economic and
environmental impact. It is time the nuclear naysayers caught up.
------------------->
Australia gets push on N-waste
By Liz Minchin
April 25, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/australia-gets-push-on-nwaste/2006/04/24/1145861286548.html
THE head of the
world nuclear industry has joined a growing push for Australia to store
nuclear waste in the outback as a "service to the world".
And on the eve
of tomorrow's 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, World Nuclear
Association director-general John Ritch defended his industry as being
unfairly tainted by "one of the most exaggerated events in human
history".
Visiting
Australia for the first time, Mr Ritch applauded the Howard Government
for starting to "guide the public towards a debate" on nuclear power,
while calling on Labor to finally drop its anti-nuclear stance.
"I'm delighted
to see your Labor party is now struggling to come to terms with
previous dogmas," he told The Age. "I'd be happy to debate Mr Beazley
any time."
Mr Ritch said Australia's political and geological stability made it an ideal home for a nuclear waste repository.
"Australia is beautifully positioned to be a world leader in the full nuclear fuel cycle.
"I don't think
Australia should be the home of the only repository. I think there
should be several countries, and the United States should be one of
them, that perform services to the world: the mining of uranium, the
enriching and manufacturing of uranium into fuel, the use of uranium …
in energy production, and the management of waste."
Mr Ritch said
Australians had nothing to fear from accepting radioactive waste,
although he was initially hesitant to say how long it would need to be
stored. "I don't want to get into figures but, yes, it's a long time.
Yes, we're talking about thousands of years … That sounds like a long
time, but the earth has been here for billions of years and there are
many places on earth that have been geologically stable for many
millions of years."
Mr Ritch's
comments echoed former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke's call last year
for Australia to store all the world's nuclear waste "as an act of
economic responsibility".
It also
reflects a growing global push for Australia to house nuclear waste. In
1998, Pangea Resources' secret plans for a high-level radioactive waste
facility in Western Australia collapsed after environmentalists
released a leaked corporate video to the public.
But the former
head of Pangea has not given up on the idea. Now leading a lobby group
campaigning for international nuclear waste facilities, Dr Charles
McCombie plans to visit Sydney this year to "deliberately try to stir
the pot regarding Australia".
Mr Ritch
conceded that many Australians remain suspicious of nuclear power, in
part because of unresolved fears about the explosion at Chernobyl in
1986.
Debate about
the real impact of Chernobyl still rages, despite a United Nations
report last year that concluded that the explosion was less deadly than
many believed, killing 56 people in the immediate aftermath and up to
9000 more people in coming decades.
Yet some charities and environmental groups still claim that, in the long-term, the death toll could climb far higher.
------------------->
Nuclear waste lease 'years away'
By Michelle Grattan and Katharine Murphy
May 16, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-waste-lease-years-away/2006/05/15/1147545263432.html
IT WOULD be
"decades and decades" before Australia was in a position to enter
lease-back arrangements to sell uranium, Treasurer Peter Costello has
declared.
Talking up the
prospect for Australian uranium as "a great export for this country",
Mr Costello did not rule out the concept of lease-back deals in the
longer term, but he did not encourage the idea either.
Leasing
involves nuclear-power generating countries buying fuel and then
returning spent waste to the country of origin for storage in
purpose-built high-grade facilities.
"We are one of the largest holders of proven uranium reserves in the world," Mr Costello said during a visit to Broken Hill.
But he said
that whether Australia would develop "to such a stage that it could get
into the leasing business for nuclear energy" was another matter.
It was "something that we shouldn't rule out, but it's a long way off. You're talking decades and decades."
Before Australia got to that stage, "what we ought to concentrate on is mining and export of Australia's uranium".
The Federal Government has legislated for a site in the Northern Territory, amid much controversy.
Mr Costello's
comments aim to quell a new round of speculation about Australia's role
in the nuclear fuel cycle that has been prompted by Prime Minister John
Howard's latest visit to the US, which has a nuclear co-operation
agreement with India.
Mr Howard is
expected to discuss the Indian agreement during his visit. At the
weekend, Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile left open the door for
Australia to take nuclear waste. The US agreement has sparked
international controversy because India is not a signatory to the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Mr Howard has
not ruled out selling Australian uranium to India, but said there was
no intention to change current policy, which prohibits sales to
countries outside the nuclear club.
Labor and the Greens yesterday demanded the Government come clean about its intentions for storing nuclear waste.
Labor energy spokesman Martin Ferguson told The Age yesterday it was time for Mr Howard to "tell the truth".
"The Labor
Party rejects any suggestion by the Prime Minister that Australia
becomes a repository for high level radioactive waste from India," Mr
Ferguson said.
"We have one
message on these issues in India and the US and another message back
home. It's time for John Howard to tell the truth," he said.
His comments were backed by ALP environment spokesman Anthony Albanese.
"If the Howard
Government cant competently organise low and medium level waste
disposal, why are they talking about high level waste?" he said.
"Why are they now contemplating this US plan, and why can't Mr Howard and Vaile come clean with Australians about this plan?"
The Greens said the Government should be prepared to name the postcode for storing nuclear waste.
"Turning
Australia into a dumping ground for spent nuclear fuel from India is
unacceptable," said Australian Greens energy spokesman Christine Milne.
"What does it say about Australia that our Government gets excited
about an economy founded on digging up and dumping down holes?"
------------------->
Last Update: Monday, May 15, 2006. 4:00pm (AEST)
Premier sounds warning over nuclear waste dump
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1638835.htm
Western
Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says his fears have been confirmed
that the Federal Government is trying to push a nuclear waste dump on
the state.
Deputy Prime
Minister Mark Vaile has called on people to have an open mind about
"nuclear leasing", which would require Australia to take back nuclear
waste from uranium exports.
The Federal Government has previously threatened to use its powers to override the state Government's ban on uranium mining.
Mr Carpenter says the Federal Government's intentions are becoming clearer and he says Western Australians should beware.
"Why would we
want WA, with our lifestyle, with our environmental record, with our
amazing economy, now to plunge itself into becoming a nuclear waste
dump?" he said.
"Why would we want to do that? I don't want that to happen."
Mr Carpenter says the Federal Government has an ulterior motive in ramping up the issue.
"Wake up, wake
up to what's happening. Our State Government stands between this state
being a nuclear waste dump and, if you don't believe it, look at what's
been going on, look at the discussion in the media, look at what your
Liberal Party politicians are saying and think about it," he said.
------------------->
Last Update: Monday, May 15, 2006. 5:03pm (AEST)
NT politicians debate nuclear fuel 'leasing'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1638937.htm
A Northern
Territory politician says if Australia is to store the world's nuclear
waste then it should also enrich uranium before it is sent overseas.
Nuclear fuel "leasing" has been raised during Prime Minister John Howard's visit to the United States.
One option
involves sending uranium to the United States to be enriched before it
is leased to a third country to generate electricity.
The waste would then be sent back to Australia for storage.
Environment group Friends of the Earth says nuclear waste returned to Australia would be brought through the Port of Darwin.
The CLP Member
for Solomon, Dave Tollner, says if that plan goes ahead, uranium
enrichment should take place in the country where it is mined.
"Enrichment is
fundamentally a value-add of uranium and there are many people around
Australia who are upset that we send raw material overseas for other
countries to process and that processing should happen here," he said.
Labor Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, is certain the Federal Government would use the Territory's nuclear waste dump.
"These people
can do anything, and I'm sure that if it was their intention to do so,
they would pass legislation now that they've got the majority in both
houses to achieve that sort of objective," he said.
"They are callous, they don't care, and they haven't consulted or discussed this matter with the Australian community."
Jim Green from Friends of the Earth says the return of waste to Australia through Darwin would be a major operation.
"There's just
potential for terrorist activity or sabotage or accidents, and
basically you're just dealing with extraordinarily toxic material," he
said.
"All the sorts of things that could go wrong have to be guarded against very closely.
"Of course it would be very relevant to Darwin because the stuff would coming in through Darwin port."
------------------->
PM wants in on N-pact
Steve Lewis and Geoff Elliott
May 13, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19118738-2702,00.html
AUSTRALIA will
press the US for a bigger role in the global nuclear energy industry,
demanding a say in a plan to "lease" radioactive fuel for countries
that have not signed non-proliferation agreements, such as India.
Nuclear power
will be a significant part of talks between John Howard, US President
George W.Bush and other American administration officials this week
amid a new push to boost the use of "cleaner" nuclear energy.
Using
Australia's strategic influence as one of the world's two biggest
uranium producers and as a key player in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, the Prime Minister sees a key role for Canberra in shaping the
direction of a new global nuclear club.
Mr Howard will
press for Australia to be formally consulted over the direction of Mr
Bush's global nuclear energy plan when he is briefed on US plans to
confront the multiple challenges of energy security, nuclear
proliferation and global warming. Washington's global nuclear energy
plan envisages "cradle to grave" fuel leasing that would incorporate
taking back spent nuclear fuel from user nations, which could only
operate nuclear power plants.
It is
understood Australia and Canada, the world's two biggest suppliers,
have discussed banding together to lobby for a more upfront role.
"We are the
world's second-largest uranium exporter and soon likely to be the
largest exporter," a senior government figure told The Weekend
Australian. "We'd like to be included in the discussions."
Although
government figures stress that Mr Howard will not press for any formal
outcomes, the desire to be involved highlights the growing interest in
the development of nuclear energy.
In March, a
meeting of the leading industrial countries under the G8 banner
announced plans to foster nuclear power as a means of cutting the
world's reliance on fossil fuels.
Government
sources in Canberra said there were some concerns that countries
including Russia, Japan, the US and Britain were forging a new informal
nuclear bloc, without the involvement of Australia or Canada.
Mr Howard will
have the chance to discuss these issues when he meets Canada's newly
elected conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, during talks in
Ottawa late next week.
Mr Howard is
also expected to press for more details about Mr Bush's Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership plan when he meets US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman on
Monday.
A spokesman for the US Department of Energy confirmed that one of the items for discussion was the GNEP program.
But the GNEP is
proving controversial in the US, as environmentalists and scientists
say reprocessing spent fuel poses both environmental and security risks.
It is also
getting a mixed response in Congress. Yesterday, the US House of
Representatives Energy Appropriations Subcommittee rejected funding
plans for the Bush administration's three proposed demonstration plants
and slashed the GNEP budget.
It cut $US96million ($124 million) from the Bush administration's original $US250million funding request in the 2007 budget.
"The
subcommittee is sending a clear message to the administration that it
has failed to demonstrate that the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is
ready for prime time," said Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist at the
Union of Concerned Scientists.
"In fact, GNEP is entirely unsupportable on technical, environmental, economic or security grounds.
"Reprocessing is dangerous, dirty and expensive."
The GNEP program is decades in the making.
The Department
of Energy said it was hoped the technologies could be demonstrated
"over the next five to 10 years" and that it could "then be in a
position to make judgments on the next round of investments thereafter".
------------------->
PM poo-poos nuke waste plan, critics unsure
May 16, 2006 - 7:08PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pm-poopoos-nuke-waste-plan-critics-unsure/2006/05/16/1147545321027.html
Prime Minister
John Howard appears to have ruled out an American plan to take back
nuclear waste from Australian uranium, but critics believe he is still
considering an international waste dump in the outback.
Mr Howard met US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman in Washington on Tuesday to discuss the idea of nuclear leasing.
Under this
system, the supplier of nuclear fuel would have responsibility for
disposing of it once the leasing country was finished with it.
Mr Howard said after the meeting that he had asked to be kept fully informed about the proposal.
But he said it did not appear to apply to Australia because Australia was only supplying uranium, not nuclear fuel.
"This is an
anti-proliferation strategy to reduce the number of countries involved
in the processing of uranium, of the developing of nuclear fuel, and
obviously Australia would have to take into account its own interests
as the repository of such large resources of uranium," Mr Howard said.
"The question
of waste disposal is an issue for those who process the uranium and
develop the nuclear fuel, rather than the supplier of the uranium,
which if Australia were to remain a bare exporter, would be the
situation pertaining to us."
Australia has some of the largest reserves of uranium in the world and intends expanding its exports.
"I think what
can safely be said about this is that it's a proposal that we want to
follow. It's not something that we're proposing at this point."
Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison believes Mr Howard is prepared to provide an Australian site for US nuclear waste.
"I think it's on the cards," she said.
"The PM is so
keen to impress President Bush, it wouldn't surprise me if he makes
undertakings that down the track he'll try and deliver."
Senator Allison said Mr Howard's comments had not ruled out nuclear leasing.
"We've seen the
government on a number of occasions float a really outrageous idea and
then the PM says we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves, that's his
usual response," she said.
"It's all a
question of softening up people and testing his reactions and it
wouldn't surprise me at all to see (nuclear leasing) happening."
WA Liberal MP
Wilson Tuckey showed there is government support for a nuclear dump,
saying he would rather have nuclear waste brought back to Australia in
an orderly way.
"I prefer the
cradle-to-grave process because really, you don't know where the stuff
is until you take it back," he told The West Australian newspaper.
But Labor's
environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said Mr Tuckey's comments merely
showed there were problems with nuclear waste and proliferation.
Mr Albanese said Mr Howard was clearly in negotiation with the Bush administration on these very issues.
"Nuclear
leasing is being put on the agenda, and the reason why it's being put
on the agenda just highlights that the intractable problems of nuclear
waste and proliferation associated with the nuclear fuel cycle remain,"
he said.
"(As for
Treasurer) Peter Costello's comments yesterday, where he said, 'That's
not the issue, the issue is mining and export of uranium,' well, I'm
afraid that is the issue.
"You can't disregard the consequences of an activity. In law it's described as reckless indifference."
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Claude Mandil also cast doubt on nuclear leasing on Tuesday.
He told The
Australian Financial Review newspaper that nuclear energy could not be
treated the same as other forms of energy in regard to international
transport.
"Nuclear waste is the responsibility of the country that has produced it," he said.
------------------->
We want big role in nuclear club: Howard
By Michael Gordon, Washington
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/we-want-big-role-in-nuclear-club-howard/2006/05/13/1146940775888.html
May 14, 2006
A NATIONAL
debate about Australia's potential to be a major player in a massive
expansion of the global nuclear industry will be initiated by talks
between John Howard and President George Bush this week.
The Prime
Minister will canvass the implications of a much greater role for
Australia in the nuclear industry with US Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman before Mr Howard meets President Bush and his cabinet early on
Wednesday, Melbourne time.
"I think there
will be a big debate in Australia in the months ahead regarding nuclear
energy. I think it's a debate we have to have," Mr Howard said on his
arrival in Washington yesterday.
The talks are
expected to focus on the idea of nuclear fuel leasing, where users of
nuclear power lease finished fuel under strict conditions and then
return the fuel to the supplier for storage and ultimate disposal.
Advocates argue
the system offers the best prospect of ensuring that nuclear power is
used for peaceful purposes because countries that lease the fuel forgo
the uranium enrichment and reprocessing that could lead to the
development of nuclear weapons.
But the big
political hurdle is that suppliers would provide a
"cradle-to-the-grave" service and be responsible for storage and
ultimate disposal of waste.
With global
energy consumption set to double in the next 30 years, nuclear power is
seen by many experts as the best environmental solution to the problem
of global warming before renewable energy is able to meet increased
demand for power.
In a speech in
February, President Bush announced his intention to expand the use of
"safe and clean nuclear power", but said America had to work with other
nations to meet two key challenges.
These were the
safe disposal of nuclear waste and the imperative to keep nuclear
technology and material out of the hands of terrorist networks and
terrorist states.
President Bush also highlighted the need to ensure that developing countries had a reliable supply of nuclear power.
Advocates of
nuclear fuel leasing say it would satisfy these concerns and place
Australia, as a country with no ambitions to have nuclear weapons, in a
position of almost unparalleled influence and able to reap considerable
economic benefits.
Although Mr
Howard did not canvass nuclear fuel leasing in his brief remarks on his
arrival, he said the nuclear debate had "gone beyond the paradigm of
the 1980s". "There are some very interesting shifts of opinion on the
issue within our own country and because of the fact that we have the
largest reserves of uranium of any country in the world, we're
obviously somebody whose view will be sought and whose view is
relevant," Mr Howard said.
The Prime
Minister, who was afforded a full ceremonial welcome, said the
Australian-US relationship transcended his close personal friendship
with President Bush and predicted that it would only become more
important over the years.
"Our economies
will get closer together and our world view, although it will vary on
some occasions, on some issues, will still be very similar," he said.
Mr Howard said
issues to be covered in his talks with the President were likely to
include the rise of China and India in the Asia-Pacific region, the
challenge of "handling Iran in an intelligent, sensible way" and the
growing importance of the potential of nuclear energy.
The close
friendship between the Bush and Howard families will be reflected on
Monday morning, Melbourne time, when the President and first lady are
to plant two trees at the residence of Australia's ambassador to the
US, Dennis Richardson. The elm and southern magnolia are from cuttings
taken from historic trees at the White House.
In a recent,
exclusive interview with The Sunday Age, Treasurer Peter Costello said
nuclear energy was a safe, environmentally friendly option for
Australia.
------------------->
Last Update: Sunday, May 14, 2006. 3:37pm (AEST)
Govt 'open-minded' on uranium waste
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1638022.htm
The acting Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, will not rule out Australia taking back nuclear waste from uranium it exports.
Prime Minister John Howard is in Washington where energy-related issues are expected to be discussed.
Mr Vaile has told Channel Nine the Government is yet to address what should be done with nuclear waste.
"We need to keep an open mind on all these issues," Mr Vaile said.
"If we expect
to extract benefit from selling the product then obviously there is a
role in terms of management through life both in terms of how it's
used, what security circumstance it's used in other countries and then
the question of waste come into being."
Earlier Mr
Howard would not speculate if Australia would be asked to take the
nuclear waste of other countries which was generated using Australian
uranium.
"Look everybody is just running ahead of themselves on this issue," he said.
"There's been
some talk about certain proposals I'll be interested to learn a little
more about it. I have an interest in it, Australia has an interest it
but we're not concern about anything, we haven't been asked to do
anything."
------------------->
ALP opposes nuclear power in Australia
------------------->
Twenty years on: lest we forget the lessons from Chernobyl
http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/twenty-years-on-lest-we-forget-the-lessons-from-chernobyl/2006/04/25/1145861346933.html
Nuclear power has never made any social, financial or environmental sense, writes Anthony Albanese.
THE meltdown of
the Chernobyl nuclear reactor 20 years ago was one of the most
significant disasters of the 20th century, and the effects of it are
still being felt. To get a sense of the scale of the disaster,
authorities are still trying to prevent more radiation from leaking and
there is still a 30-kilometre security radius around the site.
As Mikhail
Gorbachev declared this month: "Chernobyl opened my eyes like nothing
else. It showed the horrible consequences of nuclear power, even when
used for non-military purposes."
The
International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that radiation exposure
from the Chernobyl disaster will lead to the deaths of up to 4000
people, and there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mostly in
children. The agency found that 350,000 people were displaced, with
relocation a "deeply traumatic experience".
Chernobyl
showed the world that nuclear power was not safe, but just 20 years
later our Prime Minister is ready to bring nuclear power to Australia.
On April 7 John
Howard told Southern Cross Radio: "My philosophy is that if it became
economically attractive, I would not oppose [nuclear power] any more
than I oppose the export of uranium."
The Treasurer,
the Defence Minister, the Industry Minister and the Environment
Minister have all said Australia should consider establishing a nuclear
power industry.
The ALP has
opposed nuclear power in Australia for decades. Its platform states
that "Labor will prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear
power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle".
Nuclear energy
doesn't add up economically, environmentally or socially, and after
more than 50 years of debate, we still do not have an answer to nuclear
proliferation or nuclear waste.
Nuclear power
is the most capital intensive to establish, decommissioning is
extremely expensive and the financial burden continues long after the
plant is closed. On March 30 Britain estimated it will cost $170
billion to clean up its 20 nuclear sites.
In the US,
direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalled $115 billion between 1947
and 1999, with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In
contrast, subsidies to wind and solar energy combined during the same
period totalled only $5.5 billion. Those costs don't include the black
hole of nuclear waste - because there is no solution.
The Defence
Minister, Brendan Nelson, said on November 27: "In terms of high-level
waste, if it were ever to be produced from an Australian nuclear
industry, well that will be a matter for the governments of the day".
What an abrogation of responsibility.
The issue of nuclear proliferation is another critical concern that cannot be left to a future government.
According to
the Oxford Research Group, a nuclear weapons designer could construct a
nuclear weapon from three or four kilograms of reactor-grade plutonium.
About 250,000 kilograms of civil plutonium has been reprocessed
worldwide - enough to generate 60,000 nuclear weapons.
It has also
been suggested that two or three people with appropriate skills could
design and fabricate a crude nuclear weapon, using a cricket ball-sized
sphere of reactor-grade plutonium.
Last year's
Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, warned about the dangers of nuclear
proliferation: "Our fears of a deadly nuclear detonation … have been
reawakened … driven by new realities. The rise in terrorism. The
discovery of clandestine nuclear programs. The emergence of a nuclear
black market."
This is the
reality that must shape the nuclear debate. Australia should lead the
world in the adoption of clean energy. We should seize the economic
benefits of the push to cleaner energy and renewable energy.
There is a $1
trillion industry emerging globally in carbon-friendly technologies.
During this month's visit by the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, a $300
million deal was signed by the Tasmanian renewable energy company
Roaring 40s to provide three wind farms in China.
China's renewable energy target of 15 per cent by 2020 puts the Howard Government's 2 per cent target in perspective.
With
investments in solar and wind power, clean coal and gas technology, and
with the right price signals in place, Australia can transform today's
energy industry into tomorrow's energy economy without investing in
nuclear power.
Now is the time
to reflect on the lessons from the Chernobyl disaster. We should ask
ourselves if we want a clean energy future or a toxic waste future.
Anthony
Albanese is the federal Opposition environment spokesman. This is an
extract from a speech being given today at the University of Sydney.
------------------->
Nuclear power for Indonesia?
------------------->
To what extent
is the renewed interest in nuclear enrichment and power in Australia
connected to Indonesia's intention to go nuclear ... and vice versa ...?
Last Update: Saturday, May 13, 2006. 11:49pm (AEST)
Indonesia to have major nuclear plant by 2015
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1637839.htm
Indonesia will
have its first nuclear power plant on densely populated Java island by
2015, the country's energy minister has said.
"We have the blueprint. We will start the construction in six or seven years," Purnomo Yusgiantoro told AFP.
The power
plant, to be built in East Java, will have the capacity of 1,000
megawatts in the first phase, with the cost estimated at $US8 billion
($10.35 billion), he said. The capacity will later be increased to
4,000 megawatts.
"We are open to any investors who are interested in developing this project," he said.
Indonesian
Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda said on Thursday that the
international community had no objection to the country's nuclear power
program.
"Our country
has an excellent record of compliance" with regulations of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr Wirayuda told reporters.
"We have received assurances that if Indonesia wishes to have a nuclear power program, we will have no problems," he said.
Indonesia is
South-East Asia's only member of the Organisation of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) but its oil output has fallen in recent
years to about one million barrels per day amid flagging investment.
Indonesian
nuclear power plans were shelved in 1997 in the face of mounting public
opposition and the discovery and exploitation of the large Natuna gas
field. But nuclear plans were floated again last year.
Critics have
said that Indonesia has many alternative energy sources and that a
decision on whether to build the plant should rest with the people.
-AFP
------------------->
Nuclear disaster warning
By ROB TAYLOR in Jakarta
The Advertiser
23mar05
<www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12631520%255E911,00.html>
AN Indonesian
plan to build two full-size nuclear reactors has outraged green groups
and surprised analysts, who warned it would be a disaster-in-waiting
for the volcanic island chain that is plagued by earthquakes and
terrorism.
Indonesia's
ambassador to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, Thomas Aquino
Sriwidjaja, said yesterday Jakarta has revived a plan to have nuclear
power within 10 years.
He told a Paris
conference on the future of nuclear power that the world's most
populous Muslim nation needed to expand its sources of energy, even
though it was a member of the OPEC oil cartel.
He promised the
proposed plants would be fully protected against the threat of
terrorist attacks, despite Indonesia having been rocked by a series of
deadly bombings in recent years.
"The
introduction of a nuclear power program by the Indonesian government
would not only serve as a solution to the rising demand for
electricity, but is also expected to help save and prolong fossil
energy for other purposes, as well as a part of global efforts to
reduce global warming effects," Mr Sriwidjaja said.
Indonesia
already has three small research reactors located in Serpong,
Yogyakarta and Bandung, operated by its National Nuclear Energy Agency.
An agency
spokesman, Deddy Harsono, said the Government planned to build two
full-size nuclear power plants with a capacity of 600 megawatts by 2016.
One would be in the central Java city of Jepara, while the other would be on Madura island near east Java.
Mr Sriwidjaja
called on developed countries to help Jakarta develop its nuclear
energy program. Australia – a major exporter of uranium – has
previously expressed reservations about the idea.
Green activists
warned of terrorist attacks and said construction safeguards would be
compromised by Indonesia's endemic corruption problem.
"We are worried about sabotage," Ms Mutmainah, an anti-nuclear activist, said.
"When it's in irresponsible hands what would happen?"
Indonesia is
one of the world's most earthquake prone and volcanically active
nations – a fact tragically highlighted by the magnitude 9 quake and
tsunami that devastated Aceh on Boxing Day, she said.
"We know the
technology will not be safe and we won't master it," Ms Mutmainah said.
Hening Parlan, a nuclear expert formerly with the Indonesian
Environment Forum, said Indonesia had other energy options, including
some of the world's largest natural gas reserves.
"Why not maximise them instead of using nuclear as an alternative?" she said.
Mr Sriwidjaja
said Indonesia – a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
signatory and the IAEA's Additional Protocol permitting more intrusive,
short-notice inspections – was aware of the threat of terrorists aiming
to attack atomic facilities or acquire nuclear material.
In Paris
yesterday, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog said world leaders faced
a race against time to keep radioactive materials away from terrorists
as dozens of countries such as Indonesia consider developing civilian
nuclear power programs.
Growing
interest in nuclear power presented an increased risk that terror
networks could try to exploit security weaknesses and steal atomic
material, the UN's Mohamed ElBaradei, said yesterday.
------------------->Return
to top
NT uranium mine clean-up
------------------->
Mine clean-up plan
By GREG McLEAN
11may06
www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,19096556%5E13569,00.html
THE Federal Government is negotiating to incorporate a former uranium mine into Kakadu National Park.
As part
of an agreement with the owners of Newcrest Mining, the Federal
Government will rehabilitate the controversial Coronation Hill mine
site, covering 100sq km, at a cost of $7.3 million.
The rehabilitation is expected to begin in the 2007 dry season with earthworks and cement poured into some mine holes.
It will then be incorporated into Kakadu National Park.
The Federal
Government also announced in Tuesday's Budget that a further $1.77
million would be spent to open up other areas of Kakadu National Park
to tourism and encourage indigenous-owned tourism enterprises.
Established
tour companies will be encouraged to submit ideas on which areas of the
park now closed to tourism should be opened to the public.
The Kakadu National Park board will then negotiate with traditional owners to open up the most attractive areas of the park.
Some areas
considered most viable include Cannon Hill in the north and untouched
Jawoyn country in the south of the heritage-listed national park.
It is hoped
opening new areas would encourage new visitor experiences including
wildlife camps and safari ventures owned and operated by Aboriginal
people.
A further $5.45 million was allocated in the Budget for a new viewing platform at Uluru.
------------------->
Last Update: Wednesday, May 10, 2006. 6:17am (AEST)
Budget funds Kakadu uranium clean-up
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1634724.htm
Money to clean
up parts of the Northern Territory's Kakadu National Park, which have
been contaminated by uranium mining, has been included in the federal
Budget.
Treasurer Peter Costello handed down the Budget last night.
He says the
Federal Government is putting more than $7 million towards
rehabilitating sites around the South Alligator River contaminated by
uranium mining decades ago.
The
Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Greg Hunt, says the Jawoyn
traditional owners want radioactive material stored on-site.
"They have very strong views that that which came out of the ground should return to the same place," he said.
"Traditional owners have said to us they want to find a solution on-site in that part of the land.
"They have a
view that that is where it should be returned, it came from there, so
long as the scientists and the engineers agree we're looking at
solutions in that area."
The Territory Environment Centre's Peter Robertson says it is great news.
"Those sites
that have been lying around there and contaminating the environment for
decades now hopefully they will now finally be cleaned up," he said.
But he says other old mine sites such as Rum Jungle are in more pressing need of a clean-up.
------------------->
No uranium mining at Koongarra
------------------->
Last Update: Tuesday, May 9, 2006. 6:20am (AEST)
Kakadu uranium mine off Areva's agenda
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1633714.htm>
French mining company Areva has ruled out uranium mining at Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory in the near future.
The company owns the mining rights to the Koongarra deposit near the Nourlangie rock art site in the park's north-east.
Areva has been
negotiating with the traditional owners through the Northern Land
Council, but a spokesman at the company's Paris office says Areva has
no plans to mine the site.
By Australian law, every five years the company can ask the traditional owners if it can mine.
So far the traditional owners have said no, and last year the moratorium was extended for another year.
That has now
lapsed, but a statement from Areva's head office says there are no
plans to develop Koongarra in the near future because it is
concentrating on new projects in Canada and Kazakhstan.
The Northern
Territory Environment Centre's Peter Robertson says he is surprised and
pleased to hear of the mining company's move.
"I think even
Areva must understand that between the traditional owners, the wider
community and the Federal Government there is no way that a uranium
mine is going to be able to go ahead at that particular location," he
said.
A spokeswoman
for Northern Territory Resources Minister Kon Vatskalis says the
Territory Government does not support mining at Koongarra.
She says any mining at Kakadu would need to be approved by the Commonwealth.
------------------->Return
to top
Chernobyl
------------------->
The web version of this Chernobyl article has good hyperlinks.
Worth browsing http://www.robedwards.info
Nailed: the lie about Chernobyl's death toll
25 April 2006
Rob Edwards
http://www.robedwards.info/2006/04/nailed_the_lie_.html#more
The message was
pretty clear. "Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident" was the
headline. "UN report provides definitive answers" said the subheading.
And then, the opening paragraph:
"A total of up
to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from
the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident nearly 20 years ago, an
international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded."
Only one problem: it wasn't true.
The news
release, as it was meant to, made headlines around the world after it
was published on 5 September 2005. It was from a clutch of United
Nations organisations, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).
But over the
last few weeks - in the run-up to Chernobyl's twentieth anniversary on
26 April - it has been thoroughly discredited. A report by two
independent radiation scientists, Ian Fairlie and David Sumner, said
the global death toll from cancers was actually going to be between
30,000 and 60,000.
They pointed
out that the UN report had only counted cancers deaths from the most
contaminated parts of the three nearest countries: Ukraine, Belarus and
Russia. It had omitted deaths in the less contaminated areas of these
countries, and from the rest of Europe and the world. This was odd, to
say the least, especially as the majority of the radioactivity actually
fell outwith those three countries.
A series of
other studies since have come up with similarly high, or higher,
numbers. The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon,
France, published a study which put the cancer death toll in Europe at
"about 16,000" - or, allowing for the uncertainties, somewhere between
6,700 and 38,000.
The
environmental group, Greenpeace, released a report quoting Russian
scientists suggesting that radiation from Chernobyl could kill as many
as 90,000. And the European Committee of Radiation Risk published a
book by Chris Busby and Alexey Yablokov claiming "millions" of cancer
deaths.
Critically, WHO
itself issued a new statement. "WHO," it said, "estimates there may be
up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths due to Chernobyl among the people who
worked on the clean-up operations, evacuees and residents of the highly
and lower-contaminated regions in Belarus, the Russian Federation and
Ukraine."
In an
associated fact sheet, WHO also accepted that the radiation released
would cause cancers in other parts of Europe. But it declined to
estimate numbers, saying merely that predictions are "very uncertain".
WHO, in other
words, has effectively disowned 4,000 as a headline figure. Even the
IAEA, whose mission is to promote nuclear power, has wobbled a little.
Put on the spot, the IAEA argued that the total of 4,000 deaths was
highlighted to counter much higher figures claimed earlier by some.
"It was a bold action to put out a new figure that was much less than conventional wisdom," an IAEA spokeswoman reportedly said.
"Bold" is one
way of putting it. "Economical with the truth" would be another. Who
knows exactly what international politicking went on behind the scenes
between the IAEA and the WHO over the wording of last September's
misleading news release. But it looks like the IAEA, a much more
powerful organisation than WHO within the UN, called the shots.
The IAEA spin
doctors must have been proud of their work when the stories spread
across the world's media stressing how few deaths Chernobyl had caused.
But now it has all been undone.
We will
probably never know for sure how many people will be killed by the
world's worst nuclear accident, but we can be sure of one thing. It's
going to be a hell of a lot more than 4,000.
------------------->
Mikhail Gorbachev: The nuclear disaster that opened our eyes to the truth
The former
president of the Soviet Union suggests that the Chernobyl meltdown, 20
years ago this month, was the real cause of the collapse of Soviet
communism
April 19, 2006
<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,18853925-7583,00.html>
THE nuclear
meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month, even more than my launch
of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the
Soviet Union five years later. Indeed, the Chernobyl catastrophe was a
historic turning point: there was the era before the disaster, and
there is the very different era that has followed.
The very
morning of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear station on April 26,
1986, the Politburo met to discuss the situation, and organised a
government commission to deal with the consequences. The commission was
to control the situation, and to ensure that serious measures were
taken, particularly in regard to people's health in the disaster zone.
Moreover, the Academy of Science established a group of leading
scientists, who were immediately dispatched to the Chernobyl region.
The Politburo
did not immediately have appropriate and complete information that
would have reflected the situation after the explosion. Nevertheless,
it was the general consensus of the Politburo that it should openly
deliver the information upon receiving it. This would be in the spirit
of the glasnost policy that was by then already established in the
Soviet Union.
Thus, claims
that the Politburo engaged in concealment of information about the
disaster is far from the truth. One reason I believe there was no
deliberate deception is that, when the governmental commission visited
the scene right after the disaster and stayed overnight in Polesie,
near Chernobyl, its members all had dinner with regular food and water,
and they moved about without respirators, like everybody else who
worked there. If the local administration or the scientists knew the
real effect of the disaster, they would not have risked doing this.
In fact, nobody
knew the truth, and that is why all our attempts to receive full
information about the extent of the catastrophe were in vain. We
initially believed the main impact of the explosion would be in
Ukraine, but Belarus, to the northwest, was hit even worse, and Poland
and Sweden suffered the consequences.
Of course, the
world first learned of the Chernobyl disaster from Swedish scientists,
creating the impression we were hiding something. But in truth we had
nothing to hide, as we simply had no information for a day and a half.
Only a few days later, we learned that what happened was not a simple
accident, but a genuine nuclear catastrophe, an explosion in
Chernobyl's fourth reactor.
Although the
first report on Chernobyl appeared in Pravda on April 28, the situation
was far from clear. For example, when the reactor blew up, the fire was
immediately put out with water, which only worsened the situation as
nuclear particles began spreading through the atmosphere. Meanwhile we
were still able to take measures in helping people within the disaster
zone; they were evacuated, and more than 200 medical organisations were
involved in testing the population for radiation poisoning.
There was a
serious danger that the contents of the nuclear reactor would seep into
the soil, and then leak into the Dnepr river, thus endangering the
population of Kiev and other cities along the river banks. Therefore,
we started protecting the river banks, initiating a total deactivation
of the Chernobyl plant. The resources of a huge country were mobilised
to control the devastation, including work to prepare the sarcophagus
that would encase the fourth reactor.
The Chernobyl
disaster, more than anything else, opened the possibility of much
greater freedom of expression, to the point that the system as we knew
it could no longer continue. It made absolutely clear how important it
was to continue the policy of glasnost, and I started to think about
time in terms of pre-Chernobyl and post-Chernobyl.
The price of
the Chernobyl catastrophe was overwhelming, not only in human terms,
but also economically. Even today, the legacy of Chernobyl affects the
economies of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Some even suggest that the
economic price for the USSR was so high it stopped the arms race, as I
could not keep building arms while paying to clean up Chernobyl.
This is wrong.
My declaration of January 15, 1986 is well known around the world. I
addressed arms reduction, including nuclear arms, and I proposed that
by the year 2000 no country should have atomic weapons. I personally
felt a moral responsibility to end the arms race.
But Chernobyl
opened my eyes like nothing else: it showed the horrible consequences
of nuclear power, even when it is used for non-military purposes.
One could now
imagine much more clearly what might happen if a nuclear bomb exploded.
According to scientific experts, one SS-18 rocket could contain 100
Chernobyls.
Unfortunately,
the problem of nuclear arms is still very serious today. Countries that
have them - the members of the so-called nuclear club - are in no hurry
to get rid of them. On the contrary, they continue to refine their
arsenals, while countries without nuclear weapons want them, believing
that the nuclear club's monopoly is a threat to world peace.
The 20th
anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe reminds us we should not
forget the horrible lesson taught to the world in 1986. We should do
everything in our power to make all nuclear facilities safe and secure.
We should also start seriously working on the production of alternative
sources of energy. The fact that world leaders increasingly talk about
this imperative suggests the lesson of Chernobyl is finally being
understood.
Project Syndicate, 2006
Mikhail
Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union, is chairman of the
Gorbachev Foundation in Moscow and head of the International Green
Cross.
------------------->
Ukrainians challenge UN Chernobyl report
By Steve Waldon
April 26, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ukrainians-challenge-un-chernobyl-report/2006/04/25/1145861348244.html
ONE of
Australia's most active international communities is marking today's
20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident by lobbying the
Howard Government to investigate a United Nations report into the
disaster.
The Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations yesterday said the report's conclusions could lead to complacency.
The report,
prepared by eight agencies including the World Health Organisation and
the International Atomic Energy Agency and presented to the UN last
year, says 56 people died in the aftermath of the nuclear reactor
explosion. It predicts between 4000 and 9000 more might die as a result
of the accident over the next few decades.
The AFUO is one
of many international organisations challenging the figures and says
they are being used by pro-nuclear groups to soften perceptions of
Chernobyl's impact.
Federation
chairman Stefan Romaniw said the Australian Government should review
the reports on Chernobyl's short and long-term impact, and offer
financial help to sufferers.
"Someone needs
to ask the question, how does a report like this get up?" Mr Romaniw
said. "It belittles the reality and creates a false sense of security."
The AFUO says
the Australian Government should use the Chernobyl experience in
educational campaigns. "(It should) look at the impact of Chernobyl and
the lessons Australia should learn while embarking on new international
uranium sales," Mr Romaniw said.
He will present
a written resolution to ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries in Canberra
this morning, asking him to pass it on to the Senate.
------------------->
A disaster we must not repeat
By Christine Milne
April 26, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-disaster-we-must-not-repeat/2006/04/25/1145861346021.html
HE IS an old
man now but his eyes are full of the passion that has driven him all
his adult life. Professor Alexey Yablokov, a member of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, my friend and colleague on the council of the
World Conservation Union, is talking about the sarcophagus at
Chernobyl, the huge steel structure designed to contain the radioactive
parts of the nuclear power plant. He says that it is crumbling and
leaking. He is convinced that it will soon collapse and once again send
a plume of radioactive dust across Europe and yet the world will not
act. He asks: "With the dangers so obvious and construction plans
ready, why is the world waiting to build a new sarcophagus?"
Chernobyl has
become the nuclear family embarrassment to be swept under the carpet.
With the nuclear industry in overdrive sensing a new opportunity to
spin itself as a solution to climate change, it does not want the
spotlight shone on the proof that nuclear power is dangerous.
With Prime
Minister John Howard, Resources and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane
and Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson all confidently declaring
that nuclear power is safe, it is timely to remember the human and
ecological tragedy of Chernobyl.
On April 26,
1986, after an explosion in reactor four, the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant in the Ukraine went into nuclear meltdown. Caused by a steam
explosion and human error in switching off some of the safety systems,
it resulted in a radioactive plume that spread across north-eastern
Europe including Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. The radiation
released was 250 times that released by the Hiroshima bomb.
"Fail-safe"
systems fail frequently because of human error. It is foolish to think
that accidents such as Chernobyl cannot happen again, regardless of the
technologies employed. Given China's record of deaths in coal mining
accidents, shocking industrial health and safety standards and
cover-ups of major pollution spills, why would Australians believe that
such an accident could not happen there?
Instead of
feting China's President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao and turning a
blind eye to the reality of life under the Chinese military
dictatorship, perhaps Howard, Macfarlane, Foreign Minister Alexander
Downer and Ferguson should visit Chernobyl and meet former Soviet
president Mikhail Gorbachev, who said recently: "Chernobyl opened my
eyes like nothing else: it showed the horrible consequences of nuclear
power, even when it is used for non-military purposes."
But they will
not do so. It is inconvenient for those who cannot wait for more
Australian uranium to be mined to be reminded of the consequences of
the worst nuclear power accident in global history.
It is an
unwelcome reminder for Downer, who has assured Australians that there
are safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste, that the legacy of nuclear
contamination lives on in the leaking sarcophagus at Chernobyl and in
the daily lives of the hundreds of thousands of people slowly dying.
As UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in 2000, more than 7 million people
suffer every day as a result of the accident whose legacy will be with
us for generations.
Perhaps the
collective intelligence of the Howard Ministry and Ferguson can
identify who will be the liquidators, those called on to sacrifice
their lives to help clean up a Chinese nuclear power plant fuelled by
Australian uranium? They should listen to Mijorov Antonovich, a former
Soviet weightlifting champion, a Chernobyl liquidator, now dying in a
radiation hospital in Ukraine, who told The Guardian Weekly: "Chernobyl
radiation is killing very many thousands. Of the 25 men in my
(radiation clean-up) team, only four are still alive. I have been to so
many funerals. See for yourself what is happening in our hospitals. We
have so many deformed people, newborn babies with disease. All our
children have problems …"
When will
enthusiasts for nuclear power identify the postcode they have in mind
for a nuclear power plant and waste dump in Australia, since, according
to them, only the uneconomic status of nuclear power is holding it back?
While debate
rages about how many people have died or are dying as a result of
Chernobyl — the latest reports from the Russian Academy of Medical
Sciences cite 212,000 — the fact is that it is a disaster that should
never be repeated.
Nuclear power
is a choice, not a necessity, in a world confronted by irreversible
climate change. Carbon dioxide reduction targets can be met without
nuclear power through demand reduction, energy efficiency,
co-generation and investment in and rapid deployment of renewable
energy. These are cheaper, faster, safer and more sustainable.
Gorbachev
believes that "the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe
reminds us we should not forget the horrible lesson taught to the world
in 1986 … The fact that world leaders talk about this imperative
(alternative sources of energy) suggests the lesson of Chernobyl is
finally being understood."
Perhaps in
Europe, but not in Australia. Will it take the break-up of the
Chernobyl sarcophagus and another nuclear disaster before Liberal and
Labor enthusiasts for the nuclear industry finally put authentically
addressing climate change and the wellbeing of humanity before uranium
profits?
Senator Christine Milne is the Australian Greens spokeswoman on energy and climate change.
------------------->Return
to top
Nuclear stockpiles could create 300,000 bombs
------------------->
Nuclear stockpiles could create 300,000 bombs
from New Scientist, 07 September 2005
http://www.robedwards.info/2005/09/nuclear_stockpi.html#more
The world has
made enough explosives for more than 300,000 nuclear bombs, according
to the latest scientific assessment of countries' nuclear stockpiles.
Stores of
plutonium are growing, and there are new dangers from two lesser-known
nuclear explosives, neptunium-237 and americium. Experts are worried
that terrorists could steal enough to trigger a nuclear catastrophe.
"Our first
concern is the risk of nuclear terrorism," says David Albright,
president of the Institute for Science and International Security
(ISIS), a think tank in Washington, DC, US. "We worry about what could
happen in Russia, Pakistan, India and China."
Nuclear stores
in Europe and Japan could also be vulnerable to theft, he warns. "Even
the best protected bank can be robbed," he told New Scientist.
"Someone, maybe an insider, could make off with something - and then
we'll have hell to pay."
Spent fuel
An updated
global nuclear inventory, published by ISIS on Wednesday, reveals that
there were 1830 tonnes of plutonium in 35 countries at the end of 2003.
That is enough to make 225,000 nuclear bombs.
The total
amount of plutonium, which is created in nuclear reactors, is
increasing by 70 tonnes per year, the report says. Most of it is
combined with radioactive waste in spent fuel, and is hence relatively
difficult to access.
But ISIS points
out that 238 tonnes has been extracted by reprocessing plants, and that
this total is expected to rise to 286 tonnes by 2010. The largest
stockpile - 90 tonnes - will be owned by the UK, followed by Japan (62
tonnes), Russia (50), France (48) and Germany (27).
Efforts to
reduce these stockpiles by blending the plutonium into mixed oxide
(MOX) fuel for power reactors are “not going well", Albright says.
World stores of highly enriched uranium, however, are on the decline,
though there were still 1900 tonnes in more than 50 countries. That is
enough for over 75,000 bombs.
Problems looming
The ISIS report
also highlights the risks from neptunium-237 and americium, which
declassified information from the US government suggests can be made
into bombs. At the end of 2003, there were more than 140 tonnes of the
two materials in 32 countries. If separated from other wastes, that
would be enough for 5000 weapons.
This presents a
problem that has not been appreciated by the authorities, Albright
argues. "It's looming on the horizon and people aren't thinking it
through," he says.
The estimates
of nuclear stockpiles made by ISIS are widely regarded as amongst the
most authoritative available. "ISIS is performing a valuable service in
publishing this information," says Dave Andrews, a consultant to the
British American Security Information Council (BASIC), based in London
and Washington, DC.
"The increasing
worldwide civil stocks of separated plutonium represent a considerable
proliferation risk which is too often ignored," he says. "Likewise,
official pronouncements pay little heed to the proliferation potential
of highly enriched uranium."
------------------->Return
to top
Proposed NT nuclear waste dump
------------------->
Bush site assessed for nuke facility
By NIGEL ADLAM
10may06
http://www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,19085562%5E13569,00.html
DEFENCE Force land near Katherine is being assessed as a possible site for a nuclear waste facility, it was said yesterday.
Territory
Senator Trish Crossin said a five-strong team commissioned by the
Federal Government visited Fishers Ridge, 40km east of RAAF Base Tindal.
She said the inspectors would return next month to begin drilling and conduct a fauna survey.
Senator Crossin said the site was regularly flooded.
She said the interest in Fishers Ridge showed the push to build the waste depository near Tennant Creek "was coming unstuck''.
Traditional owners from Muckaty Station have been asked to accept the facility.
The Northern
Land Council, which is brokering the deal, said many Aboriginal groups
had asked whether a radioactive waste facility could be located safely
on their country.
"These requests
for information do not constitute a formal proposal and are
preliminary,'' the land council said in a written statement.
"The NLC will obtain advice so that traditional owners may consider their position.
"The NLC is not considering any proposal at this time.''
It refused to make any further comment.
------------------->
Letter published in NT News, 8/05/06
‘Quake site’ touted for N-waste facility
Dave Tollner’s
proposal to dump commonwealth nuclear waste in the Territory identified
three potential sites (none of them in his electorate).
With one of
these rendered totally inaccessible by the recent Katherine floods, it
appears that the feds have looked to Muckaty Station, north of Tennant
Creek, as a potential alternative.
Trouble is,
Tennant Creek is home to the Territory’s most intense earthquake
activity. In 1988, three successive quakes hit, resulting in large,
long ground ruptures and a 35 km fault.
The third quake
measured a magnitude of 6.8, the largest ever in the NT, and the second
largest in Australia. It was felt as far away as Cairns, and in high
rise buildings in Perth and Adelaide.
Since then, a
seismic station has been installed, and hundreds of events have been
recorded. Over a dozen tremors were recorded last year, including a
magnitude 4.4 quake which was noticed by people up to 100km from the
epicentre.
These
significant features underscore once again the fact that no technical,
environmental or scientific criteria have been applied to the site
selection process.
When the
Commonwealth decided to dump their unwanted nuclear waste in our
Territory, it threw these criteria out the window. It’s about a dump
being imposed by brute force, not a ‘facility’ developed through
science and consultation.
------------------->
Flood casts doubt on potential dump site
April 12, 2006
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1614251.htm>
The owners of a
Northern Territory property that surrounds one of the Federal
Government's proposed nuclear waste sites says the area has been
affected by the recent flooding.
Fisher's Ridge
is 40 kilometres south of Katherine, and it is one of three proposed
sites in the Territory for the national dump.
Property owner Valerie Utley says Fisher's Ridge has been inundated with water.
"The flooding has been quite extensive in our low-lying areas," she said.
"The Fisher's Ridge area is in the same situation - water is running off that area into the Little Roper River fairly fast."
The Labor Senator for the Northern Territory, Trish Crossin, was in the flood affected areas last week.
She says the flooding means the site is unsuitable to house nuclear waste.
"We tried to get down the Fisher's Ridge road last week and from what we could see it seemed impassable," she said.
"The King River
was flooded over the Stuart Highway so you would have to imagine that
the whole area that they're talking about would also be either under
water or subject to serious flood damage."
Investigation continues
But a spokesman
for the Commonwealth Department of Science, Education and Training says
a nuclear waste dump could still be built at the site.
Pat Davoren
says a review of three potential sites should be completed early next
year, and the Fisher's Ridge site is still being considered.
"The geographic
conditions of the site, especially if it's prone to flooding, will be
one of the main issues that's examined," he said.
"Other issues such as rainfall will also be looked at.
"We know that it's quite a wet site but we'll have to get more data on just how prone it is to flooding."
------------------->
Bush site assessed for nuke facility
By NIGEL ADLAM
10may06
<www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,19085562%5E13569,00.html>
DEFENCE Force land near Katherine is being assessed as a possible site for a nuclear waste facility, it was said yesterday.
Territory
Senator Trish Crossin said a five-strong team commissioned by the
Federal Government visited Fishers Ridge, 40km east of RAAF Base Tindal.
She said the inspectors would return next month to begin drilling and conduct a fauna survey.
Senator Crossin said the site was regularly flooded.
She said the interest in Fishers Ridge showed the push to build the waste depository near Tennant Creek "was coming unstuck''.
Traditional owners from Muckaty Station have been asked to accept the facility.
The Northern
Land Council, which is brokering the deal, said many Aboriginal groups
had asked whether a radioactive waste facility could be located safely
on their country.
"These requests
for information do not constitute a formal proposal and are
preliminary,'' the land council said in a written statement.
"The NLC will obtain advice so that traditional owners may consider their position.
"The NLC is not considering any proposal at this time.''
It refused to make any further comment.
------------------->
Media Release
May 01, 2006
At least 300
submissions opposing a nuclear waste dump were sent by Territorians
last week to ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Agency.
The national
nuclear regulatory body was accepting (until April 28th) public comment
on its “Regulatory Draft Guidance” for the assessment of proposed sites
for the dump. In addition to submissions from town councils,
aboriginal organisations, environment and community groups , hundreds
of Territorians signed letters objecting to the lack of public
consultation in the site selection process so far. The letter calls on
the Commonwealth Government to reduce its production of waste – by not
granting an operating licence for the replacement reactor at Lucas
Heights – rather than force that waste on the Territory.
The sites
currently scheduled to be assessed are Department of Defense land at
Fisher’s Ridge, near Katherine, and Mt. Everard and Hart’s Range near
Alice Springs. The “Regulatory Draft Guidance” will be given to
Parsons Brinckerhoff, a private company which has been awarded the
contract for assessment.
Objections to the dump have come from across the Territory.
“The idea of
spending taxpayer’s money on a convoluted assessment process of the
Fisher’s Ridge site is ridiculous” said Vina Hornsby from
Katherine. “The proposed site was inundated by the floods this
month and is obviously inappropriate. Unless the Commonwealth
wants to turn our rivers into its nuclear waste dump, they should take
Fisher’s Ridge off the list.”
Meanwhile,
Senator Nigel Scullion has offered to ‘bet anyone a beer’ that the
proposed site at Hart’s Range will not be used, due, he says, to
community opposition.
“We welcome the
news from Senator Scullion that community opposition is now being taken
into account,” said Nat Wasley, from Arid Lands Environment Centre
Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Alice Springs.
“If this is the
case, this also discounts the Mt Everard site , where surrounding
communities have also strongly stated their opposition. There has
been no adequate consultation with any of the communities which the
Commonwealth has decided could host the dump.”
The possibility
of a community in the Northern Land Council district nominating a
fourth alternative site further complicates the assessment
process.
“We need to
know more about what process has led to this fourth site proposal,”
said Peter Robertson from the Environment Centre of the Northern
Territory. “Have the residents and their neighbours been fully
informed of the nature of the dump? Is it a case of the
Commonwealth manipulating a situation of social and economic
disadvantage for political purposes? Is it true that the
government cannot meet this community’s basic infrastructure needs
without it agreeing to store radioactive waste?”
Site assessment is scheduled to begin after ARPANSA have compiled a report from the public submissions.
------------------->Return
to top
New uranium mines in SA
------------------->
ALP split over new uranium mine
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
April 21, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18874421-2702,00.html
DIVISIONS have
emerged in Labor on whether looming approvals to open Australia's
fourth uranium mine breach the party's ban on new uranium projects.
Opposition
Leader Kim Beazley said yesterday the South Australian Labor
Government's grant of final approvals for the Honeymoon uranium mine
would not breach the party's "no new mines" policy.
But federal
Labor frontbencher and environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said this
depended on whether a decision to block the mine so far into the
approval process would expose governments to compensation claims from
the project's owner.
"The question
is how far it has gone down the approval road, and that position
remains unclear," he said. "Until I see some expert legal advice then I
cannot comment further.
"That doesn't determine whether the mine goes ahead or not, but it does determine whether it's a breach or not."
Mr Albanese said South Australian Premier Mike Rann had "made it clear" the mine in the state's north was going ahead.
Honeymoon owner
SRX Uranium One expected state government approvals to be granted
within three months, clearing the way for commercial production.
Honeymoon would
join the nation's three other uranium mines - Olympic Dam and Beverley
in South Australia, and Ranger in the Northern Territory.
Labor has abandoned its "three mines" policy in favour of a policy that blocks any new uranium mines.
Mr Beazley and
federal Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson have backed Mr Rann,
who has pledged not to oppose the Honeymoon project.
Mr Rann has
claimed approvals were in place before he came to power in 2002, and
attacked Labor's uranium policy as "anachronistic".
The mothballed
Honeymoon uranium mine, 75km northwest of Broken Hill inside South
Australia's border, is expected to begin commercial production as early
as next year.
SXR Uranium One
needs two final procedural licences from the state Government,
including a mining and milling licence. A spokesman said the company
expected to decide whether Honeymoon would go ahead by the middle of
this year.
The spokesman
said Honeymoon was granted a federal export licence in 2001 and a state
mining lease before that, and a percentage of forecast production was
committed under contract.
Mr Beazley said Honeymoon "would be approved" under Labor's no-new-mines policy.
Asked if he had
legal advice about the risk of compensation claims, Mr Beazley said:
"We wouldn't take the risk. The whole point of changing the policy was
to ensure there was no sovereign risk issue associated with the uranium
mine."
State Labor
Party president Nick Champion endorsed Honeymoon's approval. "There is
no inconsistency between the Premier's position and the party's
platform," Mr Champion said.
But
anti-nuclear campaigner David Noonan, of the Australian Conservation
Foundation, said the "latter-day and pro-project interpretation of
Labor policy was not one given at state convention last year".
The South
Australian ALP endorsed opposition to uranium mining at its annual
convention in October. But Mr Rann and Deputy Premier Kevin Foley have
since pledged to seek to abolish the policy at the national convention
in April next year.
------------------->
ACF: May 2006
Facing the threat of new uranium mines in SA
Recent reports
of support by the Premier for the now South African owned Honeymoon
acid-leach uranium project near Broken Hill and calls to overturn
National ALP commitments against new uranium mines are of serious
concern.
Uranium mining
and exports has no place in a sustainable future and should be phased
out and not expanded. Radioactive pollution, unresolved waste
management and increased nuclear risks are inherent in any proposed new
uranium mine.
ACF consider
that there is no right to proceed to mine uranium at Honeymoon and any
State government approval to do so would be a breach of binding
commitments in the ALP National Platform "to prevent the development of
any new uranium mine" and in the SA ALP "State Platform for Government"
(Oct 2005) against any new uranium mines.
As ALP Leader
the Premier made commitments in both the 2002 and 2006 elections that
Labor "will continue to oppose the establishment of any new uranium
mine in SA".
The Honeymoon
uranium project has always lacked a key State government license
approval, the commercial uranium mining and milling license under the
Radiation Protection and Control Act in the jurisdiction of the
Environment Minister. Successive proponents have never even applied for
the key missing license approval.
The EPA Annual
Report (Sept 2005) states the care and maintenance license for the
Honeymoon project site "...does not permit recovery of uranium from the
ore zone". In fact the proponent is not permitted under SA law to
conduct any commercial operations at the Honeymoon site and there are
no mining facilities on site.
Clearly
Honeymoon is not an approved or an 'existing' uranium mine but it is
pushing a political wedge into uranium policy and already has a
radioactive legacy.
The new South
African owners "Aflease Gold and Uranium" are talking up their uranium
project options and look to release a financial feasibility study mid
year and may soon apply to the Rann government for the key missing
license approval.
Now called "SXR
Uranium One" Honeymoon is a small scale and high risk venture to mine
500 tonnes of uranium a year for only 6 to 8 years, using an acid "ISL"
uranium mining method that has only once been approved in the OECD. At
General Atomics Beverley mine near the Flinders Ranges, where acidic,
radioactive and heavy metal wastes are discharged to groundwater
without rehabilitation.
'Uranium
trials' at Honeymoon under then Liberal government support were closed
and the plant dismantled in 2000 but have left a contaminated site with
an acidic radioactive plume moving in the open ended groundwater
system.
In 1982 the
Bannon government cited environmental concerns and public opposition in
refusing approval to an earlier proposal for acid ISL uranium mining at
Honeymoon, which had also carried out 'uranium trials' and left
pollution on site.
A Senate
Environment Committee Inquiry reported in 2003 that this acid ISL
uranium mining method "should not be permitted until more conclusive
evidence can be presented on its safety and environmental impacts";
that "at the very least" regulation should include "prohibition of
discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater"; and that
"Given the seriousness of potential risks to the environment, the
committee recommends that mining operations at Honeymoon not proceed
unless and until conclusive evidence can be presented demonstrating
that the relevant aquifer is isolated."
ACF are calling on the Premier and on the Environment Minister not to grant approval to the Honeymoon uranium project.
The public have
a right to expect the recently re-elected Labor State government to
delivery on sustainability, on environmental protection and on clear
election commitments against any new uranium mine - including the
Honeymoon project.
Please consider contacting:
The Premier of South Australia, Hon. Mike Rann MP,
Ph: 08-8463 3166
E-Mail: premier@saugov.sa.gov.au
Post: GPO Box 2343, Adelaide SA 5001
The Minister for Environment and Conservation, Hon. Gail Gago MP,
Ph: 08-8237 9100
E-Mail: gago.office@parliament.sa.gov.au
Post: Parliament House, Adelaide, SA, 5000
------------------->Return
to top
Clean energy - renewables and energy efficiency
------------------->
An affordable solution to climate change
http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/lower-emission-future-summary/
AGL, Frontier
Economics and WWF-Australia have completed a pragmatic economic
evaluation of how to achieve emission reductions in the Australian
electricity sector.
This is an
executive summary of the study, which modelled the cost to Australian
society of using low and zero greenhouse gas emission electricity
generating technology to achieve a realistic target by 2030 consistent
with the greenhouse gas reductions advocated by climate scientists.
It shows that
Australians could pay as little as $250 each to achieve a 40% reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions from the country's electricity generation
industry by 2030.
If we act now, Australia could afford to significantly reduce emissions from the electricity sector by 2030.
The study shows that:
A 40% reduction from current emission levels (7% reduction from 1990 levels) can be achieved in the electricity sector by 2030.
This result can be achieved with today's electricity generation technology and knowledge about energy efficiency.
Growing industrial and household electricity demand can still be met.
There are costs
to the Australian economy, but these can be minimised and managed by
staging the emission reduction pathway carefully during the next 24
years.
If energy
efficiency measures were introduced, this cost could be reduced to a
one-off payment of $252 NPV per person, or just $0.43/week per person
if it was paid over 24 years.
The development of new low and zero emission technologies could further reduce the costs.
Adopting an
emission target for 2030 would be a significant step towards achieving
the 60% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 advocated by the CSIRO
and the international scientific community.
The full report is also available for download.
Download (PDF 129.42 KB)
------------------->
Last Update: Saturday, May 13, 2006. 3:15pm (AEST)
Minister lobbied over wind farm options
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1637753.htm
The suspension
of plans to build a multi-million dollar wind farm on Tasmania's west
coast has the Australian Wind Energy Association calling for more
financial incentives.
The Federal
Government's decision not to increase mandatory renewable energy
targets motivated the company Roaring 40s to defer plans to build the
Heemskirk wind farm.
Chief executive
of the Australian Wind Energy Association, Dominique La Fontayne, says
energy targets need to be increased from the current two per cent.
"The demand
that was created by that target is all but fully subscribed and there
is no further incentives to help renewable energy and wind energy get
off the ground," he said.
Chief executive
of the Renewable Energy Generators of Australia, Susan Jeanes, also
says the Government needs to continue to fund electricity generated
from sources other than coal.
"We're part of
a global community and anything that we emit into the atmosphere in
Australia goes into the global atmosphere and we're simply not at this
stage signalling that we're going to play our part," she said.
Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell says there is no need to increase renewable energy targets.
But a leading
voice on renewable energy believes he may have come up with a plan to
soften news that the Heemskirk wind farm has been suspended .
Peter Rae from Renewable Energy Generators has floated his proposal with the Federal Environment Minister.
Mr Rae is in New York attending the United Nations commission on sustainable development.
He says while
he is disappointed the Federal Government will not change its mind on
renewable energy targets, he believes the minister might be warming to
his new proposal.
The former
Hydro chairman says he wants to establish a training facility in
northern Tasmania where technicians from nations like China and India
could be taught the latest wind farm technology.
"We might end
up with a situation where there are more jobs created than there would
have been out of going ahead with the wind farm," he said.
Mr Rae says it would increase the amount of renewable energy created, off-setting damage caused by coal fired generators.
------------------->
Forwarding this
message ... Please see attached decision by Roaring 40's to drop their
South Australian wind farm project at Clare as the Federal renewable
energy target is fully subscribed. This is exactly why we need Mike
Rann to legislate a South Australian renewable energy target. If he
doesn't do so he will be watching South Australian wind projects
disappear and head over the border to Victoria and SA will not meet its
20% aspirational (not legislated) renewable energy target. Let Mike
Rann know what you think about this issue: ring his office on 8463 3166
MEDIA STATEMENT
Thursday 11 May 2006
Roaring 40s halts Australian developments
Roaring 40s
today announced that it was halting work on further developing several
Australian wind energy projects due to the lack of market incentives
for renewable energy.
Roaring 40s
made the announcement after advising the West Coast Council (WCC) that
it was withdrawing its Development Permit Application (DPA) for the
Heemskirk Wind Farm.
Roaring 40s
highlighted the Federal Government’s decision not to increase the
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), as the key reason for halting
work on the project at this stage. It also announced that work on other
Australian developments, including the Waterloo Wind Farm in South
Australia, would be wound back.
“The MRET
measure introduced by the Federal Government in 2001 successfully
kick-started the renewable energy industry in Australia,” said Roaring
40s Managing Director, Mark Kelleher. “However, without an increase in
the initial target level, electricity retailers are reluctant to commit
to long-term REC deals which are crucial in financing renewable energy
projects. Consequently, further substantial investment in the renewable
energy industry is unlikely without an increase in the target”.
Currently, renewable energy projects rely on Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to make them economically viable.
“Roaring 40s
has previously indicated that it would be difficult to proceed with the
Heemskirk project without the demand for RECs. Today’s announcement
confirms that Heemskirk will not be able to proceed until there is a
shift in the current policy position for MRET.”
However, Mr Kelleher indicated that the company was still aiming to develop the Musselroe Wind Farm, in Tasmania’s north-east.
“Musselroe has
all of the necessary approvals and, with an excellent wind resource, is
at the top of the list of projects that could proceed within the
remaining target level,” he said.
“However, in
view of the REC market circumstances, the outlook is very challenging
but we are doing all we can to enable the project to proceed.
“Roaring 40s is
extremely disappointed in having to halt Heemskirk. We have strong
community and government support in Tasmania, and great wind resources,
with our Woolnorth Bluff Point development proving to be one of the
world’s best performing wind farms.
While the
current market environment for renewable energy in Australia is
generally flat, Mr Kelleher said that the Victorian Government’s
initiative to establish a state-based renewable energy scheme was of
great interest to Roaring 40s, and the company is looking for project
opportunities there.
In addition to
this, Roaring 40s is receiving strong support in international markets,
and is making good progress with developments in China, India and New
Zealand. The company continues to expand operations, recently opening
an office in Beijing, and adding further staff to its Hobart head
office.
Mr Kelleher
confirmed that Roaring 40s remained strongly committed to its existing
Australian projects, which include Woolnorth Bluff Point, Cathedral
Rocks (a joint venture with Acciona), and the Woolnorth Studland Bay
wind farm, currently under construction.
“Roaring 40s is
proud to be a Tasmanian-based company, operating in major new markets
and we will be closely monitoring the renewable energy market in
Australia with the hope of restarting the projects in the future,” he
said.
------------------->
Campaign to discredit wind blows to NSW
By Wendy Frew
Environment Reporter
May 19, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/campaign-to-discredit-wind-blows-to-nsw/2006/05/18/1147545460756.html
A VICTORIAN
campaign aimed at discrediting wind power that has links to prominent
climate change deniers and the British nuclear industry has spread to
NSW.
Tactics used by
anti-wind farm activists in Victoria - including making misleading
statements about wind energy - are being copied by some groups in NSW.
Research by the
Herald has found that a loose association of anti-wind farm groups in
Victoria that goes by the name of Landscape Guardians, or Coastal
Guardians, relies heavily for its information and tactics on the
British anti-wind farm pressure group Country Guardians.
That group was
set up by Sir Bernard Ingham, press secretary to Margaret Thatcher when
she was prime minister. Sir Bernard is now a director of Supporters of
Nuclear Energy, and a former consultant to British Nuclear Fuels.
Coastal
Guardians Victoria has also worked closely with the now-discredited
British botanist David Bellamy, who believes climate change is a myth.
He visited Victoria's South Gippsland in 2004 to campaign against wind
farms.
The spokesman
for Coastal Guardians of Victoria, Tim Le Roy, said he was not worried
people would get the wrong idea about his group's connection with Mr
Bellamy and Country Guardians and their links to the nuclear industry.
"I think the wind industry and its proponents have done the nuclear
industry the greatest favour they could have asked for," he said. He
believed wind energy would not help cut greenhouse gas emissions
generated by energy generation.
Mr Le Roy said
he had "a fairly open mind about climate change" and added people in
Victoria were right to be angry about wind power because the Bracks
Government had caved in to developers and ignored community concerns.
"If these windmills were doing any good it would mitigate the concerns."
Mr Le Roy said
wind power would not work because it needed back-up power (the national
electricity grid is, in fact, already served by back-up power); green
groups were split over wind power (all of Australia's major environment
groups support wind power); and that wind turbines did not work because
they could not store electricity. However, there is no effective way to
store large amounts of electricity, regardless of whether it comes from
coal or wind, energy experts say.
In NSW, one of
the groups using the Landscape Guardians moniker is based in the
village of Taralga. Its members are challenging a local wind farm
project in the Land and Environment Court. Their president, Paul
Miskelly, worked for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation for 32 years and has given talks on nuclear power.
------------------->
It's an ill wind …
May 19, 2006
Enemies in high places and activists with nuclear links have taken the puff out of clean energy, writes Wendy Frew.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/its-an-ill-wind-133/2006/05/18/1147545460802.html
IT WAS May 2004
and John Howard was looking for an exit clause. A Federal Government
scheme to kickstart Australia's renewable energy industry had proved
successful beyond anybody's expectations. Wind, the cheapest and most
viable source of renewable energy, was one of the biggest beneficiaries
of the mandatory renewable energy target.
Giant wind
turbines were sprouting all over the country, turbine blade and engine
manufacturers were setting up shop, and cash was pouring in from
foreign and domestic investors. It seemed Australia was finally
tackling its greenhouse gas emissions by getting some clean electricity.
But not
everyone was happy with the mandatory target. Leaked minutes from a
meeting in the chilly confines of Canberra's political corridors show
the Prime Minister had called on some of Australia's biggest
contributors to global warming - including the coal and uranium miners
Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton - to help the Government devise a way to
pull the rug from under the wind industry, but still be seen to be
tackling climate change.
Two years on,
it has become clear just how deadly that meeting was for wind power.
The Government's refusal to extend the mandatory target has left
hundreds of renewable energy projects unable to secure contracts. One
developer last week cancelled two wind farm proposals worth $550
million, while the future of another $250 million project is in doubt.
The Australian
Wind Energy Association says as much as $12 billion worth of proposed
wind farms is at risk. On top of that, the Government has tried to kill
wind farm projects in Victoria and Western Australia and has called on
state governments to sign a development code that would give local
councils the power to veto wind projects because of community
opposition - something that does not apply to new coal mining ventures.
The political
bunfight over wind is matched by what appears to be a grassroots battle
to stop giant wind turbines being built in rural areas. Resident groups
are fighting their case in the media and on the internet.
At a time of
near unanimous scientific agreement that large greenhouse gas cuts must
be made soon to avoid dangerous changes in world weather patterns, how
is it that wind has become a dirty word?
Environment
groups say it is all tied up with Federal Government reluctance to
impose any kind of cost on fossil fuel industries and its desire to
sell more uranium to nuclear weapons states such as China and India.
They say it is no coincidence that wind - which could in time be a
strong, clean competitor to fossil fuels - is being demonised while
nuclear power is being promoted as a solution to global warming.
But nuclear
energy is no solution to climate change, says Greenpeace Australia
Pacific's chief executive, Steve Shallhorn. "The Federal Government and
nuclear industry are trying to force a false choice: polluting coal or
expensive nuclear power. Yet safe, clean alternatives exist," Shallhorn
says. "Even if there was a doubling of global nuclear energy output by
2050 it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent."
In the
increasingly politicised realm of energy policy, the decision by the
federal Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, last month to scuttle a
wind farm proposed for Bald Hills in Victoria's South Gippsland looks
highly unusual. Campbell said a consultant's report on risks to the
endangered orange-bellied parrot had forced him to reject the
development.
"I understand
that this will be a disappointing outcome for the proponents of the
wind farm but it is very clear to me from reading this report that
every precaution should be taken to help prevent the extinction of this
rare bird," he said.
But research by
The Age found the bird had rarely flown near the Bald Hills site and
the Government's consultant concluded banning the wind farm would do
little to save it.
Those who
oppose the project are happy with Campbell's intervention. Among them
is the discredited British environmentalist David Bellamy. In late
2004, at the height of the campaign against the Bald Hills project,
Bellamy visited the area to support the anti-wind cause. "It's the last
place on earth you'd contemplate building them," he said during a visit
to the South Gippsland town of Foster, paid for and organised by
Channel Nine's 60 Minutes. "Think of the damage they are doing, and for
no return at all," he said.
Not long before
his visit to Australia, Bellamy said man-made global warming was a myth
and wind power was not a renewable source of energy.
It is
misleading claims such as these and connections with anti-wind
campaigners overseas that have raised suspicions about Australia's
anti-wind activists. The Australia Institute's Clive Hamilton believes
the sprouting of local opposition groups is not entirely spontaneous.
"I believe there is a network of anti-wind activists associated with
climate change sceptics who are fuelling the fires of local
opposition," he says.
Research by the
Herald shows that a loose association of anti-wind farm groups that
goes by the names of Landscape Guardians or Coastal Guardians relies
heavily for its information and campaign tactics on overseas groups
that have been linked to the nuclear power industry.
The forerunner
of the anti-wind farm pressure group was Britain's Country Guardians,
established by Sir Bernard Ingham, a spin doctor for former the British
prime minister Margaret Thatcher. He is a director of Supporters of
Nuclear Energy. He was also a paid consultant to the British nuclear
group BNFL.
Two British
groups, Stop Windfarms in Moray and No Whinash Windfarm, have been
caught out by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority for making
misleading and unsubstantiated claims about wind power. Similar
inaccurate statements can be found on Australian websites.
The latest anti-wind hot spot in NSW is Lake George, where a company called Capital Wind wants to build 63 massive turbines.
William Hoorweg
and his partner, Julie Gray, who own a property about 2.1 kilometres
from the nearest proposed turbine, are worried about the prospect of
having Australia's biggest wind farm nearby. They will not be able to
see the 125-metre turbines from their home but they do not accept the
developer's assurances they will not be able to hear them, and they
believe the turbines could cause bushfires. They told the Herald the
project was a "sham" because when the wind did not blow the developer
would have to buy electricity from the grid. Gray also says the
turbines will leak electricity. Neither statement is correct.
Like many
others, Hoorweg and Gray believed Bellamy's spin about wind energy.
They also listened to Paul Miskelly, a member of Taralga Landscape
Guardians, a group based near Goulburn. Miskelly says wind farms are
inefficient and will destabilise the electricity grid because of
fluctuations in wind. He is also upset by "the sure knowledge that wind
turbines will do nothing for the environment".
Miskelly, who
says he is worried about what the proposed wind farm at Taralga will do
to the value of the vineyard he owns nearby, worked for the Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation for 32 years and has given
lectures to community groups about nuclear power.
The dubious
scientific and environmental claims made by some anti-wind campaigners
do not mean there are not valid reasons to object to wind farms.
Towering at heights equivalent to 30-storey buildings, and requiring
major roadworks and construction, it is no surprise they are not always
welcome in scenic rural areas. The secrecy that often surrounds offers
made by developers to some landowners has also caused deep rifts in
some rural communities.
The NSW Greens'
renewable energy spokesman, John Kaye, says wind power can make
significant cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
"But that
doesn't mean every project is good or that every developer is good," he
says. "These people are in it to make a buck, like everyone else, and
sometimes they ride roughshod over community concerns."
Kaye says the
key is ensuring everyone in a community benefits, not just property
owners who sell or lease land to wind farm operators.
BUSTING THE MYTHS
MYTH: Wind power is inefficient and has to be backed by base load power.
TRUTH: Wind
turbines convert as much as 45 per cent of the kinetic energy in wind
into useable electricity. In contrast, coal-fired power stations
convert only 30-40 per cent of the energy in coal into useable
electricity. The electricity grid in Australia has back-up capacity.
Wind power could supply as much as 20 per cent of the country's
electricity without the need to build additional back-up.
MYTH: Wind turbines are fans that dry the atmosphere, break up clouds and chase rain away.
TRUTH: There is
no scientific evidence for this. Wind farms only capture energy from
existing winds; they do not create wind like a fan.
MYTH: There is no point trying to replace fossil fuel energy with wind energy. Instead, we should cut our energy demand.
TRUTH: We
should use less energy. But even with very large reductions in energy
use to tackle climate change we would still need to replace some
proportion of fossil fuel energy with renewable energy. It is not an
either/or situation.
MYTH: Wind power is unreliable and can't be stored. Fossil fuels must take up the slack.
TRUTH: There is
no effective way to store large amounts of electricity, regardless of
whether it comes from coal or wind. All energy technologies have
periods when they are not available. These periods are built into the
pricing for the technology. If we locate wind farms in different places
and don't see them as the total solution, we can manage fluctuations in
wind.
MYTH: Wind
power becomes less cost-effective the higher its contribution to
overall energy demand. Beyond 10 per cent it is uneconomical.
TRUTH: Denmark gets 20 per cent of its electricity from wind power and doesn't seem to have any problems.
Source: Dr Chris Riedy, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney.
------------------->
Last Update: Friday, May 12, 2006. 10:00am (AEST)
MRET policy 'stills wind farm plans'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1636839.htm
A Tasmanian
wind energy company wants the Federal Government to urgently review its
policy on the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET).
Roaring 40s is
blaming its decision to stop work on its $300 million Heemskirk wind
farm on the Tasmanian west coast, on the Federal Government's decision
not to extend the MRET.
However, it will go ahead with its Musselroe project in Tasmania's north-east.
In 2004, the Government retained the MRET at 2 per cent.
This requires industries and electricity retailers to buy 2 per cent of their energy needs from renewable sources.
Roaring 40s had been hoping the MRET would be extended, but managing director Mark Kelleher says time has run out.
Mr Kelleher
says with the MRET remaining unchanged, there is no incentive for
electricity retailers to buy wind energy, making Heemskirk non-viable.
"That's it in
the end ... its disappointing that the potential for Tasmania to be a
world class icon for renewable energy with its hydro power and three
great world class wind farms ... none of that can happen for the time
being," he said.
Australian Greens' Senator Bob Brown believes the Federal Government has no understanding of renewable energy.
The Greens' policy requires an MRET of 10 per cent.
Senator Brown says Roaring 40s is being severely disadvantaged, and Tasmania is much the poorer for it.
"This
extraordinary mismanagement of renewable energy, including wind farms,
by the Federal Government is heightened by the Budget we've just seen,"
he said.
"Billions of
dollars flowing all over the place but they're cutting the rug right
from under both wind power and solar power in this country at a time
when global warming is stalking the whole planet."
Cost margins
Tasmanian
Energy Minister David Llewellyn says the Federal Government is
preventing the state from engaging in a full program of wind energy
generation.
"Because the
costs of generating electricity from wind isn't totally competitive
with other forms of generation at this point in time, it means there
needs to be some assistance and that's what was being provided through
the mandated renewable energy program," he said.
But Acting Environment Minister Eric Abetz says if the MRET is extended, power prices will go up and jobs will be lost.
Senator Abetz says it is simply a matter of some wind farms being viable, and some not.
He says those
who argue for an extension of MRET are also advocating higher power
prices, which would flow back to industry and consumers.
"Some wind
farms are going to be more viable than others and there are some that
could only become viable by jacking up the price of electricity," he
said.
"[That] would
have had an impact not only on the zinc works and Comalco, but also
every single pensioner and every single Tasmanian and Australian who
has a power bill to pay."
The Opposition's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese has criticised the Government on the issue.
"This is
further proof that Howard Government's policies are destroying
Australia's clean energy industry and jobs in regional Australia," he
said in a statement.
"Just last
month, Roaring 40s announced a $300 million deal to provide three wind
farms to China. They're welcome in China, but not in John Howard's
Australia."
------------------->
The Australian - Editorial - 26/4/06
Renewable argument
What does Ian Campbell have against wind farms?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18929219-7583,00.html
WHEN federal
Environment Minister Ian Campbell used a vastly overstated threat to a
rare parrot to block a Gippsland wind farm, some critics accused him of
having been fully co-opted by the greens in his ministry. Others
suggested that the real reason behind the spiking of the project was
politics: Senator Campbell fulfilled a promise to local voters opposed
to the wind farm, who delivered a large Liberal swing in the marginal
seat of McMillan at the last election. Now, Senator Campbell is again
playing politics with wind farms – and this time, he hasn't even
bothered finding an endangered species with which to cover himself. On
Monday, Senator Campbell announced he had written to Regional Services
Minister Warren Truss, asking him to block any further funding for the
Denmark wind farm in Western Australia. This after the wind farm's
backers had received a government grant of up to $240,000 to build the
renewable energy development.
Last year,
Senator Campbell announced his intention to wrest control over wind
farms to Canberra, claiming state Labor governments were forcing
turbines on an unwilling populace. It's not hard to see why wind farms
can be unpopular. Beyond their supposed threat to parrots and other
wild animals, local residents often resent their views being blocked by
acres of spinning turbines and feel wind farms hurt their property
values. The Denmark wind farm was opposed by 60 families, some of whom
reportedly do not live in the area of the site. And again, backyard
interests and local politics collided to kill the project, which was to
be built not just in Senator Campbell's home state but in the
electorate of fellow Liberal Wilson Tuckey.
While Senator
Campbell has often – and deservedly – been criticised for having gone
too green on some issues, when it comes to wind farms, he is not green
enough. Killing the Bald Hills wind farm on scanty evidence of a
parrot's presence was bad enough, especially when Senator Campbell's
office looks set to give the tick to a Pilbara iron ore mine where
three rare night parrots were allegedly seen last year. Any human
project is going to have consequences, be it a wind farm or a highway
or a nuclear power plant. But so far, wind farms seem like a pretty
low-impact way to generate power while meeting mandatory renewable
energy impacts. Threats to wildlife appear to be overstated. And
succumbing to not-in-my-backyard arguments is a dangerous road for
politicians to go down. Even the economics of wind farms, which at
first glance look unsustainable (they are more expensive than coal and
require government subsidy) are more nuanced when one examines the
details. Greenpeace estimates wind farms could create 3300 jobs, mostly
in regional Australia, and pump billions of dollars into the states.
Taken together, the nation's wind farms could eventually produce enough
green power for hundreds of thousands of homes. But that won't happen
as long as Senator Campbell keeps playing politics.
------------------->
Renewable energy slowdown
<www.abc.net.au/science/features/alternativeenergy/default.htm>
The renewable
energy industry in Australia is in a 'holding pattern' and needs a kick
start, according to experts in the field. On the other hand, the
government says it is supporting a wide range of energy alternatives.
Jacquie van Santen reports.
In a country
that boasts such warmth and sunshine, it seems a weird irony that
Germany - yes, cold wet and only sometimes sunny Germany, leads
Australia (and indeed the world) in the global solar industry.
More than
100,000 people are employed in high tech solar jobs and German homes
and businesses have embraced the 'clean' energy source with gusto.
The irony is not lost on Phil Mackey, general manager of Origin Energy's Renewables and Low Emission Technologies.
"It does seem
strange that Germany, where they don't have great solar resources, has
a lot higher uptake of solar, but in Australia where we have real
issues with our summer electricity supplies and where solar fits so
beautifully, penetration and support for it is so low."
Mackey is not the only one left scratching his head in wonder at the apparent contraction.
Leaders in
Australia's renewable energy field lament the fact that the industry is
in a sort of twilight 'holding pattern' - aggravated they say by a lack
of government funding into research, and an apparent reluctance by
government to deploy already viable renewable energy technologies.
Research environment 'bleak'
Dr Mark Diesendorf pulls no punches when he describes the renewable energy research environment in Australia as "bleak".
The senior
lecturer in the University of New South Wales' Institute of
Environmental Studies says at present, there is not a single
cooperative research centre for renewable energy ("and yet there are
three such centres for coal and other fossil fuel research") - and
research groups are collapsing because of a lack of funding.
Diesendorf
says while the Federal Government's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
has gone some way to funding the growth of renewable energy industries,
including wind power, hydro-electricity and solar hot water, it's
nowhere near enough.
"The problem is
that the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target is so small - basically
9,500 gigawatt hours of electricity, which is less than half a percent
of our electricity generation in 2010, as projected - that it will be
fully utilised later this year. It won't even get to 2010, and it means
that the small booms that we've been having in areas such as wind power
will turn into busts."
"We've been
creating employment in Australia, building the industry, creating
components factories for wind power in Tasmania - and all this growth
in clean energy industries will collapse, because the government is
refusing to expand or extend the target."
Diesendorf says
while the Federal government has funded some demonstration projects,
including a hot rock geothermal project "which looks extremely
promising," there has been little in the way of funding for solar
energy and wind power energy.
Instead, he
says the lion's share of government funding is going into
geosequestration - a "risky" technology which aims to capture carbon
dioxide from burning coal and then bury it underground.
Diesendorf
would like to see greater concentration on well developed technologies
such as wind power which don't need a lot of research funding - just
the financial incentives to expand the industry. "The Mandatory
Renewable Energy Target would have been quite a good mechanism for
doing that, if it wasn't so small."
FAST FACT:
Around Australia there are 20,000 homes have solar panels on their roof
to produce power and 350,000 have solar hot water.
Lack of support programs
Ric Brazzale,
executive director of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy,
agrees that a key concern for viable technologies is a lack of
deployment programs and opportunities.
"For example,
we've got a solar hot water industry and photovoltaic solar power
industry, but it's still high cost. What we need is to get into mass
production to get the cost down."
"The
industry is in a bit of holding pattern at the moment. There have been
some really successful programs driving the industry, but they're
finishing. That's a concern because it's in the context of ever growing
recognition that greenhouse [emissions] are a problem."
Brazzale said there is no shortage of technologies that could be developed.
"For example,
in the solar area alone we can look at high efficiencies solar, solar
thermal, solar concentrators, and doing more with solar water heating,
and new commercial applications."
"However,
pouring money into research and development is useless unless we have
some sort of market stimulus to drive the deployment and rollout of
these technologies.
One of the lucky ones
Chem Nayar,
Professor of Electrical Engineering at Curtin University, WA, is both a
victim and winner in the renewable energy research equation.
In 2003,
funding for his Centre for Renewable Energy and Sustainable
Technologies, based at the University, ceased. Today, he and his
research colleagues have scaled down their operations to a research
group that continue their work in conjunction with private enterprise.
Nayar says
while he is one of the lucky ones - currently working on three projects
involving power electronics for solar and wind powered energy systems -
funding was secured from the Australian Research Council on the merits
of the research, not because it centred around renewable resources.
"In my opinion,
the government is not doing as much as it could do. Research is only
one aspect [of the issue] and the government needs to come out clearly
with policies that will promote renewable energy. We don't have long
term policies to support that; that is one of the main problems with
marketing these products. The Australian market on its own is not huge
and we're holding back only for the government to take the right sort
of position - and this might possibly involve subsidising renewable
energy resources."
New Funds
Phil Mackey,
general manager of Origin's Renewables and Low Emission Technologies,
would like to "see a recognition that there isn't any one solution. A
portfolio of approaches is required. For example, there was a lot of
talk at the recent Asia Pacific conference about clean coal. Clean coal
is potentially a solution, but it is not the solution. I'd like to see
recognition from the government that a broader range of technologies is
required."
According to the Federal Government, that's exactly what it's doing.
Late last year,
it announced it would offer $23 million in grants for 10 projects under
the Renewable Energy Development Initiative (REDI).
The projects
include a power plant that will harness the energy from hot rocks
beneath the earth's surface; solar-powered technology that uses 90 per
cent less silicon; and research to identify ideal locations for
extracting gas at landfill sites.
Meanwhile, a
spokesperson for the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian
Campbell, said under the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development
and Climate, a total of $100 million funding has been provided - "of
which 25 per cent has been earmarked for renewables."
"In addition,
the renewable energy industry is eligible for funding under the $500
million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund. The Fund is
designed to leverage a further $1 billion or more investment income
from the private sector to support industry-led projects for large
scale demonstration of low emission technologies with significant
long-term abatement potential," she said.
What this level
of investment means for the future of renewable energy research and its
application in Australia, remains to be seen
------------------->
Wind energy drops off the perch
IN GOOD COMPANY
Paddy Manning
April 22, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18887060-30417,00.html
NEVER mind the
orange-bellied parrot. Wind energy, one of the ethical investment
sector's great success stories over the past decade, has passed its
peak.
"It's not only
peaked, it's stopped," says Garry Weaven, Australia's biggest wind
farmer. Weaven chairs Industry Funds Management, which last year paid a
hefty $788 million for the formerly-listed Pacific Hydro energy company.
Weaven blames the federal Government, "so clearly operating at the behest of the aluminium and coal lobbies".
Wind currently
supplies about 2 per cent of our annual electricity generation. That
share was growing until late 2004, when the federal Government rejected
calls to extend the national mandatory renewable energy (MRET) subsidy
scheme beyond 2020.
According to
Babcock & Brown wind executive Miles George, it takes two years to
build a wind farm and the 12 years left until 2020 simply aren't enough
to make a return on investment. The climate change debate has shifted
dramatically, with the focus now on nuclear rather than renewable
energy.
Former NSW
premier Bob Carr commented darkly last year: "You could have a wind
farm across all of outback NSW that would kill every kookaburra but it
wouldn't provide the base-load power we need."
A fortnight ago
federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell sparked a media frenzy when
he blocked a proposed $220 million wind farm at Bald Hills in
Victoria's Gippsland - ostensibly because it threatened the endangered
orange-bellied parrot.
That decision
has called into question a $12 billion pipeline of wind projects
proposed by companies including ANZ, Alinta, AGL, Pacific Hydro and
various state utilities including the Tasmanian Government's Roaring
40s wind business.
You can almost
hear John Howard laughing as greenies are forced to choose between
climate change and protection of endangered species.
But it's a
false opposition. Weaven contrasts the destruction of 25 per cent of
all species over the next 50 years under current climate change
scenarios, with "killing the odd bird".
He says there
have been no endangered birds killed at Pacific Hydro wind farms and
there are ways to reduce birdkill, like removing animal carcasses where
birds of prey are present.
The Australian Greens environment spokesman, WA Senator Rachel Siewert, cautiously agrees.
"My understanding is it's not as much of an issue as was first thought."
Investors can
still do well out of wind energy but all the growth is offshore.
Babcock's $830 million Wind Partners vehicle has risen 31.6 per cent
since it listed on 27 October 2005, from its $1.40 issue price per cent
to $1.68 yesterday. Not a bad return, although the stock is well off
its December $1.93 peak.
Weaven says
Pacific Hydro is also trading profitably and will deliver a return to
its owner, the $1.9 billion IFM Australian Infrastructure Fund - in
turn owned by about 2.5 million industry super fund members. He denies
it overpaid: "Not one dollar in our valuation was based on new projects
in Australia."
But since the
sale, according to AMP Capital Investors sustainability research
manager Ian Woods, there is "no growth story" for investors looking for
an Australian wind play.
State
governments - especially Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania - are
promising support but that will be irrelevant if the federal Government
steps in to block new wind farms, on whatever grounds.
------------------->
No new climate change cash
May 9, 2006 - 9:11PM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/budget2006/no-new-climate-change-cash/2006/05/09/1146940546467.html
New money to tackle climate change and develop more renewable energy is absent from this year's environment budget.
Green groups
had been hoping for substantial funding for both, but the environment
and heritage portfolio focuses on a $500 million program to help
restore the health of the Murray River and a range of significantly
smaller programs.
After the Murray initiative, the next biggest program is almost $38 million over four years for regional marine planning.
That will help
develop management plans for Australia's 14 million square kilometres
of ocean jurisdiction, describing key habitats, plants and animals, and
identifying threat to long term sustainability.
The
government's oil recycling program has won a $30 million boost over
three years to help used oil recyclers adjust to new excise
arrangements.
The only
measure which touches on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is $11.5
million over five years to investigate how to achieve major air quality
benefits from using biofuels including ethanol.
Other
initiatives include $2.5 million for a new Australian Wildlife Hospital
in Queensland, and $320,000 for conservation work on the historic
Mawson's Hut in Antarctica.
Environment Minister Ian Campbell said the budget maintained record levels of funding for the portfolio.
AAP
------------------->
Farming the wind getting bad press
Clive Hamilton and Andrew Macintosh
Friday, 12 May 2006
Canberra Times
<http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=yoursay&subclass=general&story_id=479863&category=Columns%20-%20Opinions&m=5&y=2006>
COMMUNITY
opposition to wind farms is heavily influenced by a network of
anti-environmental activists, some with links to the fossil fuel and
nuclear industries. This helps to explain why apparently independent
local opposition groups reproduce the same misinformation and
distortions about wind power.
As recent
events surrounding the proposed wind farms at Bungendore and Bald Hills
in Victoria have shown, this wave of disinformation aimed at
bamboozling affected communities crowds out legitimate debate about the
pros and cons of wind energy.
Most opponents
of wind farms seem to have no understanding of the threat posed to
their local areas - let alone the entire globe - by climate change
caused by burning fossil fuels. While often claiming to be concerned
about the environment, in campaigning against wind farms they close
their eyes to a far larger threat looming on the horizon.
The Canberra
region, including Bungendore, will not be spared from these changes.
Projections by the CSIRO suggest that the number of days when the
temperature exceeds 35 degrees could rise from five now to as many as
42 by 2070. Imagine what it would be like living with eight times as
many scorchers each year than we experience now.
Droughts in NSW
could be 70 per cent more frequent in 2030 and water availability in
the Murray-Darling Basin - the lifeblood of Australia's agriculture
sector - could fall by up to 25 per cent by 2050 and 50 per cent by the
year 2100. The caution displayed by climate scientists in the past is
giving way to a growing sense of alarm and urgency.
There is only
one way to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that is to
sharply reduce our greenhouse emissions, which in Australia have been
skyrocketing, mainly from burning coal in power plants and petrol and
diesel in vehicles. This will require both a reduction in energy use
and a shift to non-carbon-intensive energy sources.
Renewable
sources of energy, including hydro, biomass, solar, geothermal, wave
and wind, offer the most sustainable solution. However, they suffer
from disadvantages associated with the availability of suitable sites
and intermittent supply.
For this
reason, energy strategists have suggested the use of a range of
different renewable energy sources that are complemented by less
carbon-intensive fossil fuels, such as natural gas.
To date
however, Australian governments have failed to encourage any marked
shift in this direction. Given this failure, the last thing needed is
for additional hurdles based on fallacious arguments. This is precisely
what has occurred at Bungendore in relation to the proposed Capital
Wind Farm near Lake George.
Opponents of
this development have argued that wind power is not competitive, and
that the wind farm would not displace energy generation from fossil
fuels. They also claim that the turbines would be noisy, a fire risk
and kill large numbers of birds. Apparently, these problems are so
insurmountable that European countries like Germany and Denmark are
backing away from wind energy and pursuing other options. All these
arguments are either false or grossly exaggerated.
Wind energy is
competitive with all other sources of electricity other than coal,
which enjoys a huge subsidy because those who burn it to make
electricity are not required to pay for the environmental damage it
causes. In Europe there is more of a level playing field, and investors
have turned wind energy into the fastest- growing source of electricity
in the world.
The claim that
the Bungendore wind farm will not displace fossil fuel generation is
also wrong. It is based on the argument that because wind energy is an
intermittent source, it requires fossil fuel back-up. This is a
distortion of the facts.
The Bungendore
wind farm will be linked to the National Electricity Grid, meaning that
existing power sources will take up the slack when the turbines are not
generating electricity. At other times, every unit of electricity they
generate is a unit that does not have to come from another source - and
90 per cent of other energy comes from burning fossil fuels.
As for fire
risk, there have been only two fires in wind turbines in Australia. One
involved obsolete technology in the 1990s, the other occurred recently
in South Australia. The causes of the latest incident are still being
investigated, but it was quickly contained. Fires on wind farms are
virtually unheard of.
Noise problems
have also been overblown. Modern wind turbines are very quiet; from 1km
away, they are barely audible. Overseas studies show that the
overwhelming majority of people who live near wind farms aren't
perturbed by the noise they make. We have held normal conversations
while standing under the world's biggest turbines spinning at maximum
speed.
The only one of
the above arguments that has any credibility is that wind farms pose a
risk to birds but, in the words of renowned Australian scientist Barrie
Pittock, "the danger to birds has been grossly exaggerated".
When
inappropriately located, wind turbines can kill a significant number of
birds - some studies have suggested mortality rates of around three
birds a turbine a year. This sounds dramatic before it is compared to
other sources of mortality like road kill, habitat loss and predation
by feral animals. Land clearing in Queensland alone is estimated to
kill around 8.5 million birds each year.
While opponents
shout about the threat to birds, the Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds in Britain supports wind power and has quite rightly
identified climate change as "the most serious threat to wildlife".
The final
argument put up by opponents of the Bungendore wind farm is that
European countries are backing away from wind energy. In fact, wind
energy continues to grow across Europe. Germany and Denmark have the
highest and fifth- highest amount of installed wind capacity in the
world respectively. Germany even had the second- highest increase in
wind capacity in 2005 - hardly the signs of retreat.
The truth is
that most wind farm opponents don't like the look of them and don't
want them in their backyards. Fair enough (although you have to wonder
whether they will like looking at a landscape devastated by climate
change). But it would be better if these NIMBY concerns weren't
overlaid with layers of distortion and factual error.
Clive Hamilton is the executive
director of The Australia Institute.
Andrew Macintosh is its deputy director.
------------------->
Cold air blown on wind farmers
By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
May 12, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/cold-air-blown-on-wind-farmers/2006/05/11/1146940682388.html
TWO wind farms
worth a total of $550 million have been shelved and another worth $250
million is at risk because of a lack of support from the Federal
Government, a developer says.
The Federal
Government's refusal to assist wind farmers, and failure to penalise
fossil fuel-fired energy generators for greenhouse gas pollution, was
putting at risk another $12 billion worth of proposed wind farms that
could power all the homes in NSW and South Australia, they have warned.
Yesterday,
Roaring 40s said it had stopped work on its Heemskirk wind farm in
Tasmania and wound back work on its Waterloo farm in South Australia,
while the chances of it building another farm in Tasmania's north-east
were slim because of the Government's decision not to increase its
mandatory renewable energy target.
The target
boosted investment in environmentally friendly forms of power by
requiring 2 per cent of electricity be generated from renewable
sources. However, it was so successful the 2 per cent figure has been
reached.
Without an
increase in the target, electricity retailers were reluctant to commit
to power contracts with wind farmers, said the managing director of
Roaring 40s, Mark Kelleher.
"Further substantial investment in the renewable energy industry is unlikely without an increase in the target," he said.
Roaring 40s, a
joint venture between Hydro Tasmania and Hong Kong-based CLP Power
Asia, announced a $300 million deal to provide three wind farms to
China a month ago.
The Australian
Wind Energy Association's chief executive, Dominique LaFontaine, said
jobs were being lost in Australia's wind farm manufacturing industry.
"Wind power is racing ahead in other countries. The US alone, this year, will install 3000 megawatts of wind power," she said.
She countered
arguments that the industry should not rely on government subsidies by
pointing out that coal-fired power generators received a massive
subsidy on the price of coal.
While the
Federal Government seems reluctant to tackle Australia's rising
greenhouse gas emissions, state and territory governments are pushing
ahead with a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. This would set a
national cap for emissions, and make electricity generators liable for
reducing them.
The director
general for the NSW Cabinet Office, Roger Wilkins, said yesterday a
green paper on the scheme was likely to be released in July, proposing
the scheme start in 2010.
"The question is no longer when to address greenhouse gases but how," Mr Wilkins told an energy conference in Sydney.
"The longer-term costs of inaction outweigh any short-term [energy] price impacts."
------------------->
Solar sell: residents provide the energy to halt climate change
By Wendy Frew
May 20, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/solar-sell-residents-provide-the-energy-to-halt-climate-change/2006/05/19/1147545529277.html
A GROUP of Sydney residents have cast a ray of sunshine on the otherwise gloomy topic of global warming.
Tired of state
and federal government inaction and worried about the kind of world
their children will inherit, they are working to encourage others on
the Balmain-Rozelle peninsula to switch from fossil fuels to clean,
renewable sources of energy.
One of their first programs aims to raise enough money to install solar photovoltaic panels at local schools.
The threat of
global warming was overwhelming for most people, said Alison Potter,
one of the members of the collective of parents and residents calling
themselves Climate Change Balmain-Rozelle. "It is hard to grasp; hard
to get your head around … but it is so tied up with energy use," she
said.
That is why the
group's essential message is a positive one: that small actions taken
by many - such as paying a little extra to buy green power - can make a
big difference.
Climate Change Balmain-Rozelle decided to maximise its impact by targeting the role energy plays in global warming.
"We really want
to focus on the coal industry, which is especially bad in this state,
and the whole connection between fossil fuels and greenhouse gases,"
said Sue Lewis, a Rozelle resident and teacher.
"It is all doable. Everyone in Rozelle and Balmain can change their energy use to renewable energy."
The group
attracted 72 people to a dinner last Saturday at which climate change
was discussed and debated, and at which $3600 was raised towards the
cost of installing solar power in local schools.
The group has
distributed about 6000 postcards to homes on the peninsula explaining
their campaign. The electricity supplier Origin Energy paid for the
cards and is offering a $500 rebate on solar photovoltaic systems for
residents.
The principal
at Rozelle Primary, Lyn Doppler, supports the group's aims, saying the
solar project would mean not only that her school could cut its power
bills and greenhouse gases, but the children would learn about
sustainability.
"[The group's]
aim is to take positive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on
the peninsula," Ms Doppler said. "They realise they have to start small
… but in raising the money they are raising awareness."
------------------->
Tim Hollo
Wednesday 12 April 2006
ABC Radio National, 'Perspective'
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1614652.htm
Topic: Nuclear Fixation Ingnores the Main Game
Program Transcript
It's
fascinating to see how much space the Australian media has dedicated to
the prospect of selling Australian uranium to China. But one issue has
been conspicuously absent from the coverage of Premier Wen shaking an
array of important hands, even though it holds far greater prospects
than uranium for both increasing export dollars and for reducing
greenhouse pollution.
Slipping
through almost unnoticed in the acres of newsprint was the revelation
that, the same day as the uranium deal, a joint enterprise called
Roaring Forties, involving Hydro Tasmania, signed a 300 million
Australian dollar deal to build three 50MW windfarms in Eastern
China.
Those windfarms are part of China's plans to expand its wind
industry to a huge 30,000MW by 2020 in order to meet its legislated
target to meet a full 15% of its energy from renewable energy sources
by 2020.
Over that same
period, uranium's salesmen say nuclear power may meet perhaps 5% of
China's energy needs. But that is a projection, not a legislated
target, and China does not necessarily expect, or want, it to be met.
What that boils
down to is that China's renewable energy market will be at least three
times as large as its nuclear power market, and possibly far larger
still. Most Australians could be forgiven for not realising that, but
ignorance is no excuse for our governments and media.
They know that
China, understanding the need to address climate change and air
pollution, has made a real effort to develop its renewable energy
resources. Thanks to the right policy signals, China has already
installed more solar water heaters than the rest of the world put
together. We've well and truly missed the boat there, but it's China's
huge plans for photovoltaic solar power that hold perhaps the biggest
potential, a potential which UNSW-educated Dr Shi Zhengrong has tapped
into with spectacular effect.
An Australian
citizen, Dr Shi has become a billionaire, and made it to the Forbes
list as the richest man in the world's fastest growing economy, by
taking Australian solar technologies to the huge Chinese market with
his company, Suntech.
Australia's
total uranium exports are currently worth around $400 million a year.
Even if, as expected, they double with this deal with China, the total
earnings are equivalent to less than three individual wind contracts on
the scale of the Roaring Forties deal. And there are perhaps 200 of
those deals to be won, if we want them.
In addition, as
Suntech and Roaring Forties show, the cash from renewable energy
developments can start flowing to us today. Regardless of the deals
dominating the news, uranium sales aren't expected to eventuate for up
to a decade while mines expand and power plants are proposed, sited,
approved - maybe, built and finally commissioned.
Meanwhile, greenhouse pollution continues to grow.
Which brings us
back to the key point. The uranium salesmen have done a great job
pushing their product, based on the argument that climate change leaves
us no choice but to move to nuclear. They only get away with this by
asserting, without any attempt at justification, that renewable energy
can't achieve the desired shift as well as nuclear can.
But an
examination of the facts shows that the opposite is really the case.
Nuclear power takes decades to install and could only ever contribute a
small proportion of global energy supply. And, while achieving much too
little far too late to reduce greenhouse pollution, it would create a
whole new environmental and security nightmare.
Renewable
energy sources, on the other hand, are growing at tremendous rates
around the world, powering whole regions and proving their potential
beyond doubt. A stable mix of solar, wind, bioenergy, tidal and wave
power, and geothermal power sources, introduced alongside energy
efficiency measures, are set to be able to power the globe in the
coming decades – without polluting the atmosphere. Contrary to the
rhetoric of coal and uranium corporations, many of these renewable
energy sources can and do already provide steady and strong baseload
power. Many are cheaper than nuclear power, and some are already
cheaper even than coal once you factor in the costs of coal's favoured
solution - burying its greenhouse pollution.
That's not to say it
won't be a huge challenge making the transition to renewables. It will
be a challenge – but it is achievable.
The problem is,
a concerted push by uranium and nuclear power corporations to discredit
renewables could easily derail that vital transition and make it all
the harder for us to tackle climate change.
Isn't it time the debate
about China's energy future, and Australia's role in powering that,
actually started to reflect the reality of what energy sources China
actually wants? Of where the real export dollars are to be found? Of
what technologies will actually work to reduce greenhouse
pollution?
That would be good news indeed.
Guests on this program:
Tim Hollo
Communications Officer
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Further information:
Dr Shi Zhengrong in Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/EP46.html
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/
------------------->
MEDIA RELEASE
Friday, 28 April 2006
Campbell should vet coal and nuclear as well as wind projects: Greens
Federal
Environment Minister Ian Campbell should amend the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act to include the
power to veto coal and nuclear power stations if they threaten the
Australian environment, Australian Greens climate change spokesperson
Senator Christine Milne said today.
"The World
Conservation Union (IUCN) estimates that at least one-third of all
species on the planet will be extinct in the wild by the year 2050
because of habitat loss and the impact of alien invasive species,"
Senator Milne said in Canberra.
"Global warming
will considerably accelerate this loss of species because it will
dramatically alter ecosystem habitats and the range in which alien
invasive species survive.
"Areas which
have been either too cold or too hot for the survival of alien invasive
species are now so altered as to encourage their proliferation.
"Minister
Campbell must incorporate a greenhouse gas trigger in the EPBC Act if
he wants to avoid the accusation of political opportunism in relation
to his plans to give himself more power to veto wind farms.
"The Greens
tried to amend the Act when it passed the Senate in 2000, to widen the
environment minister's powers to include scrutiny of greenhouse gas
production and nuclear dangers.
"The minister's
intention to give himself veto powers over wind farms looks skewed to
say the least if he does not include the much greater environmental
hazards that come with coal and nuclear development.
"It goes
without saying that the Greens strongly support genuine community
consultation in relation to development proposals. We note that the
government has a poor record in this regard, for example, the
replacement nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights in Sydney."
------------------->
Good clean fun!
Seeking Sustainable Solutions to Climate Change
Joel Catchlove, Friends of the Earth Adelaide, April 2006
http://www.geocities.com/olympicdam/renewables.html
The Gathering Storm
The human
species is at a critical point. Emissions produced from the consumption
of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) that have made the industrialised
world’s affluence possible have also eroded the natural patterns of the
earth’s climate. Already during the 20th Century Australia’s climate
warmed by 0.7°C with global sea levels rising by 15cm (Whetton
2001, p.1) and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) predicts a global temperature rise of 1.4°C to
5.8°C within the next century (Friends of the Earth 2005).
For South
Australia, temperatures are expected to increase by up to 4.4°C,
also significantly increasing the number of days above 35°C.
Rainfall is predicted to decrease over most of the state, and with
increased evaporation, the flow of the already seriously ailing
Murray-Darling Basin may decrease by a further 45 percent by 2070
(Australian Greenhouse Office & Conservation Council of SA n.d).
This decrease is over four times what South Australia currently uses
from the Murray. Rising sea levels and increasingly severe storms will
threaten low-lying coastal areas – including Port Adelaide – while
growing temperatures and more frequent and severe bushfires, floods,
heatwaves and droughts will impact communities (Greenpeace &
Conservation Council of SA 2005).
Communities
across the world are increasingly threatened by rising sea levels,
particularly throughout the Pacific Islands. Despite contributing the
least greenhouse emissions, seven million Pacific Islanders face
displacement as their agricultural land and water supplies becomes
saline due to rising sea-levels and decreasing rainfall (Friends of the
Earth 2005). Predictions suggest that the nation of Tuvalu may be
completely submerged within 50 years (Friends of the Earth 2005).
Globally, by 2050 there may be up to 150 million climate refugees, many
displaced by rising sea levels and other consequences of climate change
(Friends of the Earth 2005).
Underscoring
the threat of climate change is a growing awareness that the same
fossil fuels upon which our culture’s affluence is built are rapidly
diminishing. Estimates for oil peak (when world oil supplies reach
maximum production before rapidly declining) vary, the US Geological
Survey predicts world peak by 2040 at the latest (Appenzeller 2004, p.
90), while others suggest it has already passed (Lowe 2005, p. 22).
Predictions also show world gas supplies are declining (Nielsen 2005,
p. 128; Fleay 1995, p. 129) and coal is no longer acceptable because of
its massive environmental consequences, including its huge carbon
emissions.
In contrast to
the limited resource deposits and environmental destructiveness of
fossil fuel and nuclear power generation, renewable energy creates
usable power from the unlimited “income of natural systems” – the sun,
wind, tidal movements, ocean currents and biomass (organic matter)
(Lowe 2005, p. 26). Communities across the world are recognising and
responding to the threat of irreversible climate change and declining
fossil fuel resources, leaving Australia, despite its vast potential,
far behind. In March 2006, the Sustainable Development Commission, the
British Government’s environmental advisory board, emphasised that
“there is more than enough renewable resource in the UK to provide a
diverse, low-carbon energy supply”, making it “possible to meet our
energy needs in a carbon-constrained economy without nuclear power”
(Sustainable Development Commission 2006, p. 2). In 2005, the German
government resolved to begin its transition to 100 percent renewable
energy generation, including phasing out nuclear power (Aitken 2005).
Iceland and Sweden have pledged to become oil-free, Sweden planning on
replacing all fossil fuel technologies with renewables within the next
15 years also without nuclear power (Vidal 2006).
Sustainable Solutions
For US energy
scientist and policy expert Dan Kammen, the shift to renewables is a
fundamental shift in the way we plan and manage energy; a shift from
what he calls the “hunter-gatherer” pursuit of limited deposits of
fossil fuels to the “farming” and harvesting of the inexhaustible flows
of renewable energy (Parfit 2005, p. 12).
Decentralised
renewable energy generation is increasingly recognised as “the way
forward” to cut carbon emissions (McCarthy 2006). With up to 21 percent
of energy being lost in transmission from power plant to user (Nielsen
2005, p. 123), distributed renewable power generation allows homes,
business and communities to efficiently generate their own clean energy
on or near its site of consumption.
Drawing from
models in Denmark and the Netherlands, where 50 percent of energy
generation is decentralised, London Mayor Ken Livingstone has expressed
a vision of the city as a web of “local energy networks” where
buildings generate their own renewable energy (Hopkins 2005). A recent
study showed that Britain’s current model of centralised power
generation wastes some two-thirds of the power it generates – the
energy wasted at the power station and in transmission is “equal to the
entire water and space heating demands of all buildings in the UK”
(Hopkins 2005).
This level of
inefficiency has been avoided in many European cities through the use
of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) stations. Small enough to be located
in or near cities, CHP stations generate electricity while
simultaneously capturing the heat generated from combustion for
distribution through local heating systems. Small-scale CHP systems are
installed in commercial and public buildings, hospitals and schools
across Europe providing for all of their energy and heating needs. CHP
systems can be fuelled by both fossil fuels or renewable sources
including waste, woodchips or even geothermal energy (Girardet 2004, p.
181).
Livingstone’s
vision of buildings powered by their own energy was recently echoed in
the British Government’s allocation of £50 million to support
community-based ‘microgeneration’ initiatives in its March 2006 budget.
Such initiatives are intended to aid businesses, schools and homes in
adopting community-based renewable technologies “from wind turbines to
solar heating”. The initiative emerged after Woking, a town of 100,000
people in Surrey, reduced its carbon emissions by 78 percent and
installed 10 percent of Britain’s solar energy through microgeneration
(McCarthy 2006). The Government’s £50 million dedicated to
microgeneration will also increase demand for renewable technologies,
helping to lower prices and increase accessibility to the technology
(Lean 2006).
Decentralised,
community-based renewable energy production is also being described as
a strategy to ensure the majority, ‘developing’ world grows
sustainably. If China developed decentralised, renewable energy
generation to meet its growing energy demands, it could reduce carbon
emissions by 56 percent compared to conventional energy generation, and
reduce its costs by 40 percent (Hopkins 2005).
Wind
Wind is a
resource accessible in most parts of the world. Wind turbines convert
wind into electricity, and can be installed both on land and at sea.
While single, large-scale turbines can power several thousand
households (Australian Greenhouse Office 2003a) with one currently in
development to power 5,000 homes (Parfit 2005, p. 11), smaller turbines
are also readily available to supply individual household energy
demands.
Throughout the
early 2000s, wind energy has been the fastest growing energy sector at
22 percent per year (Girardet 2004, p. 188). In the US, increasing
natural gas prices have pushed the costs of conventional electricity
above wind power, leading to a demand that outstrips supply – wind
turbine manufacturers are sold out until at least 2008 (Earth Policy
Institute 2006). Denmark has rapidly become a world leader, generating
3,600 megawatts by 2002 – the equivalent of five nuclear power stations
(Girardet 2004, p. 188) – with supply to rise to at least 25 percent of
Denmark’s total energy consumption by 2009 (Danish Wind Industry
Association 2004, p. 6). Across Europe, by 2005 wind was cleanly
generating the equivalent of 35 coal-fire power plants and growing
(Parfit 2005, p. 22).
Solar
An average of
300 watts of solar energy hits every square metre of the earth every
day (Nielsen 2005, p. 145). Put another way, the amount of solar energy
that hits Australia in one day is about half the world’s total annual
energy use (Lowe 2005, p. 84). Solar technologies harness this energy,
either as heat or for conversion into electricity. Solar hot water
services are an example of the use of solar thermal energy already
common in Australia. They are mandatory in Israel and on all homes,
offices, restaurants and public buildings in Barcelona, and widespread
even across northern Europe (Girardet 2004, p. 183).
Solar
photovoltaic (PV) cells or panels convert solar energy into
electricity. From their original use on satellites and space vehicles,
photovoltaic cells are now increasingly efficient, inexpensive and
accessible for use in smaller household or community-based energy
generation (Greenhouse 2006). Supported by government subsidies, solar
technologies have been widely adopted in Japan and Germany – in 2001,
Japan had 50,000 homes powered by solar electricity, selling the excess
electricity generated back into the grid (Girardet 2004, p. 184). In
order to slice their carbon emissions, Spain announced in 2004 that all
new and renovated homes must have solar panels. Advances in efficiency
and its ability to be structurally incorporated into architecture mean
that solar has a bright future – even at current levels of efficiency,
solar energy could provide all of the US’s energy needs while occupying
less than a quarter of its urban space (Parfit 2005, p. 18).
Biomass
Biomass
describes the conversion of organic matter or waste into electricity or
heat energy. Biofuels, fuels manufactured from plant or animal matter,
are increasingly used across the world, with Australia’s largest
biodiesel plant opening in Adelaide in March 2006. The plant aims to
ultimately produce 45 million litres of renewable fuel a year from oil
seed (ABC News Online, 2006). Ethanol, often produced from sugar cane
or corn waste, already fuels 50 percent of cars in Brazil (Parfit 2005,
p. 22), with a view to have the nation’s transport 80 percent
ethanol-fuelled in the next five years (Vidal 2006).
Seeking to
entirely break its dependency on fossil fuels by 2020, biofuels are one
of many renewable technologies at the centre of Sweden’s new energy
economy. The Swedish Government is working with car manufacturers SAAB
and Volvo to develop vehicles designed for biofuel use, while the
Swedish timber industry produces its own energy from barkchips and
sawdust.
While biofuels
are versatile and able to be easily usable in many existing
technologies, to be fully renewable, the process of transforming the
raw matter into fuel must be powered by renewable energy. There are
also continuing concerns about the water consumption and carbon
emissions produced by some plants during the conversion process (Diskin
2006).
The oceans and the earth
In addition to
solar, wind and biomass, there remain numerous other natural forces
which are only beginning to be explored as renewable energy sources.
Marine energy technologies draw energy from waves, tides, sea currents
and even variations in water salinity (Nielsen 2005, p. 148). One of
the largest marine projects in development is a wave farm tethered off
the coast of West Wales. When complete, it will generate enough energy
to power 60,000 homes, with projections for similar projects to
ultimately supply 20% of Britain’s energy demands (Romanowicz 2006).
There is also
growing interest in geothermal energy, created by pumping water down
through ‘hot dry rock’ (HDR) 3 to 5 kilometres beneath the surface of
the earth. The rocks, warmed by the earth’s molten interior, convert
the water into high pressure steam which then powers turbines. There is
already exploration for geothermal potential throughout central and
eastern Australia (Australian Greenhouse Office 2003b).
What the future looks like
As is
highlighted by the growing movement towards decentralised, distributed
renewable energy generation, “new low-carbon technologies dictate a
different infrastructure” from the “old” and “phenomenally expensive”
centralised network of cables (Hopkins 2005). Developments like
Christie Walk, a community-developed ‘eco-city’ project in Adelaide’s
south west or Britain’s BedZed (Beddington Zero (Fossil Fuel) Energy
Development) are practical demonstrations of the possibilities and
potential of renewable, low-carbon urban environments.
Both Christie
Walk and BedZed redeveloped existing urban or industrial land with
homes and commercial space built for maximum energy and water
efficiency and, in the case of BedZed, to be ‘carbon neutral’. Both
developments acquired building materials from recycled or renewable
sources, with BedZed sourcing as much material as possible from within
a 35 mile (56 kilometre) radius in order to reduce transport costs (Low
et al., 2005 p. 54). Likewise, Christie Walk and BedZed utilise passive
solar design to allow the buildings to self-regulate temperature with
minimal energy input. As Christie Walk project architect Paul Downton
comments, compared with a conventional development of the same size,
Christie Walk
provides more housing (27 units rather than 24), more productive
landscape (one third of the site, plus roof garden rather than just
10%), more resource conservation, higher energy efficiencies (25% of
normal SA summer running costs according to initial research results),
more community space and social interaction (none provided at all in
the conventional scheme), capture of stormwater (all water captured
on-site rather than none), capture and treatment of effluent (75%
rather than none), and renewable energy capture and use (enough to heat
water and power the entire site – compared with no renewable use at
all). (Downton 2004)
BedZed
generates all its power and heating needs with an on-site CHP station,
connected to the grid to allow the development to sell excess energy.
The station is powered by tree waste, pruned from the site and public
parks in the surrounding district and which would normally be sent to
landfill (BedZed 2006, Low et al. 2006, p. 55). To meet its energy
demands, Christie Walk plans installation of solar panels and because
of its efficient design, it’s expected that power will be exported to
the grid for much of the year (Downton 2001).
The
developments share a determination to cut fossil fuel consumption
through transport. BedZed plans to reduce its car use by 50 percent in
10 years (Low et al 2005, p. 55), supported by a strong emphasis on
localism. Commercial properties located onsite, along with childcare
and shopping facilities, encourage residents to work locally, reducing
car commuting journeys. The development also has solar powered charging
points for electric vehicles and plans to develop a community car
pooling system. It is linked with bikeways and, like Christie Walk, is
located close to public transport. In addition to minimal carparking
space and an emphasis on pedestrian walkways, Christie Walk also
highlights the importance of food production in energy efficiency. By
providing space for a community food garden onsite, the energy demands
of food transport are also reduced.
There’s all kinds of things you can do to help reduce your impact on the environment, but here’s a start:
Conduct an
energy audit on your home, either get someone in or enquire at your
local council or library about loan home auditing kits to determine how
you can save energy, money and carbon emissions. You might start by
turning off appliances when you don’t need them, replacing your light
bulbs with compact fluorescent globes and making sure you get
energy-efficient appliances.
Source your
energy from renewable wind or solar. If you’re not ready to generate
your own solar or wind energy onsite, many energy suppliers now allow
you to select where you want your energy to be sourced from – make sure
it’s certified Green Power at www.greenpower.com.au. And if you’re hot
water service is coming up for replacement, think about switching to
solar and research what subsidies might be available.
Buy local and
grow your own. You can reduce your carbon impact by reducing the
distance your food has to travel. Buy food that’s grown locally or find
some space to grow your own herbs or vegetables. Look around for a
local food co-op, community garden or permaculture group to get you
started. You can also get composting systems or worm farms to suit even
small homes, classrooms and offices.
Consider how
your organisation, school, church, business or university can reduce
its carbon impact. Supported by the Australian Student Environment
Network (ASEN), environment collectives at universities across
Australia are working to improve their universities’ energy efficiency
and to source energy from renewable sources. Find out how to get
started at www.asen.org.au.
Ride a bike,
catch public transport or car pool. You might even like to get involved
in Critical Mass, a regular group bicycle ride in your city. In
Adelaide, Critical Mass meets on the last Friday of the month, 5.45pm
at Victoria Square before taking to the streets.
Get involved
with Friends of the Earth or your local environment group. Even if you
can’t come along to campaign, there are always lots of other ways you
can help out – and environment groups are always appreciative of
donations! In Adelaide, Friends of the Earth’s Clean Futures Collective
meets every Tuesday 5.30pm at the Conservation Centre, 120 Wakefield
Street. The Clean Futures Collective is committed to promoting
intelligent, sustainable solutions to the nuclear and fossil fuel
industries, come along to find out more or contact the group on (08)
8227 1399, or email joel.catchlove@foe.org.au.
Recommended Reading
Climate Action
Network of Australia, n.d., Australia's Climate Change Strategy: The
Real Way Forward, available online at
www.cana.net.au/documents/real_way_forward.pdf
Friends of the
Earth 2005, A citizen’s guide to climate refugees, available online at
http://www.foe.org.au/download/CitizensGuide.pdf or from Friends of the
Earth Adelaide.
Friends of the
Earth 2005, Nuclear power: no solution to climate change, full report
available online at http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm or a
hardcopy summary is available from Friends of the Earth Adelaide.
Girardet, H 2004, Cities people planet, liveable cities for a sustainable world, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester
Low, N,
Gleeson, B, Green, R, Radovic, D 2005, The green city: sustainable
homes, sustainable suburbs, University of New South Wales Press Ltd,
Sydney
Lowe, I 2005, A big fix: radical solutions for Australia's environmental crisis, Black Inc., Melbourne
WWF 2004, Clean Energy Future for Australia, available online at http://wwf.org.au/ourwork/climatechange/cleanenergyfuture/
References
ABC News Online
2006, 'Biodiesel plant opens', ABC News Online, accessed 23 March 2006,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1599051.htm
Aitken, D 2005,
‘Germany launches its transition to all renewables’, Sustainable
Business.com, May 2005,
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/features/feature_template.cfm?ID=1208
Appenzeller, T 2004, 'The end of cheap oil', National Geographic, June 2004, pp. 80-109
Australian
Greenhouse Office & Conservation Council of South Australia Inc.,
no date, Global Warming & Climate Change: what’s in store for South
Australia?, pamphlet, Conservation Council of South Australia, Adelaide
Australian
Greenhouse Office 2003a, ‘Renewable energy commercialisation in
Australia – Wind projects’, Department of the Environment and Heritage,
accessed 31 March 2006,
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/recp/wind/index.html
Australian
Greenhouse Office 2003b, ‘Renewable energy commercialisation in
Australia – Hot dry rock projects’, Department of the Environment and
Heritage, accessed 31 March 2006,
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/recp/hotdryrock/index.html
BedZed 2006, ‘What is BedZed?’, Peabody Trust, accessed 30 March 2006, http://www.bedzed.org.uk/main.html
Diskin, C 2006,
'Betting the farm on ethanol', North Jersey Media Group, 23 March 2006,
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTAyMDMzJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg==
Downton, P 2004, Building and Social Housing Foundation World Habitiat Awards 2004 Entry, September 2004
Downton P 2006,
‘Christie Walk Fact Sheet’, Ecopolis Pty Ltd, accessed 30 March 2006,
http://www.christiewalk.org.au/factsheet.html
Earth Policy
Institute 2006, 'Wind Energy Demand Booming: Cost Dropping Below
Conventional Sources Marks Key Milestone in U.S. Shift to Renewable
Energy', Environmental News Network, accessed 24 March 2006,
http://enn.com/aff.html?id=1189
Fleahy, B J
1995, The decline of the age of oil, Petrol politics: Australia's road
ahead, Pluto Press Australia Limited, Annandale
Friends of the Earth 2005, A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees, Friends of the Earth, http://www.foe.org.au
Girardet, H 2004, Cities people planet, liveable cities for a sustainable world, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester
Greenpeace
& Conservation Council of South Australia Inc., 2005, Climate
change in SA: the driest state gets drier, Conservation Council of
South Australia Inc., Adelaide
Hopkins, D
2005, 'Call for decentralised power system as two-thirds of energy is
wasted', Edie News Centre, 20 July 2005, accessed 23 March 2006,
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=10297&channel=0
Lean, G 2006,
'Turn your home into a mini power station', The Independent, 26 March
2006, accessed 27 March 2006,
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article353700.ece
Low, N,
Gleeson, B, Green, R, Radovic, D 2005, The green city: sustainable
homes, sustainable suburbs, University of New South Wales Press Ltd,
Sydney
Lowe, I 2005, A big fix: radical solutions for Australia's environmental crisis, Black Inc., Melbourne
McCarthy, M
2006, 'Renewable Energy: £50m plan to boost generation of solar
and wind power', The Independent, 23 March 2006,
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article353058.ece
Nielsen, R 2005, The little green handbook: a guide to critical global trends, Scribe Publications Pty Ltd, Carlton North
Parfit, M 2005, 'Future Power', National Geographic, August 2005, pp. 2-31
Romanowicz, G
2006, 'Welsh wave farm to power 60,000 homes', Faversham House Group
Ltd, 14 March 2006, accessed 24 March 2006,
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11184
Vidal, J 2006,
'Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy', The Guardian, 8
February 2006, accessed 24 March 2006,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html
Whetton, P 2001, ‘Climate Change: projections for Australia’, Climate Change in Australia, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Aspendale
------------------->
A sustainable energy future for Australia
ABC Radio National - Ockham's Razor
Sunday 30 April 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1625259.htm
Summary
Our electricity
supply systems are predominantly based on coal, the most greenhouse
intensive of all fuels. Dr Mark Diesendorf, who teaches sustainable
development at the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University
of New South Wales, comments on some of the new technologies aimed at
giving Australia a clean energy future.
Mark
Diesendorf: Australia has the biggest per capita emissions of
greenhouse gases in the world. Australia’s biggest single source of
emissions is burning coal to generate electricity. Coal-burning also
emits dangerous air pollutants, including oxides of sulphur and
nitrogen, sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, boron, fluoride, particulate
matter, mercury and even low-level radioactivity. In addition, coal is
responsible for much water pollution, water consumption, land
degradation, and occupational health and safety hazards.
In the face of
global climate change from the enhanced greenhouse effect, it is
essential that Australia and all other countries phase out coal-fired
power stations and other intensive uses of fossil fuels, and implement
energy systems that are based primarily upon the efficient use of
renewable energy sources. But in the debate about commencing the
transition to such a sustainable energy future, it is claimed by some
that existing renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar or biomass,
are not capable of substituting for coal-fired power stations.
Well this
notion has been refuted by a set of scenario studies for a clean energy
future for Australia and its States. The results of these studies
indicate that combinations of efficient energy use, renewable energy,
and as a transitional fuel, natural gas, are technologically feasible
now. Furthermore, the clean energy mix may also be cheaper than
continuing with coal, even without taking into account the huge
environmental and health costs of coal.
The national
study, A Clean Energy Future for Australia, was carried out by Hugh
Saddler, Richard Denniss and myself. It had the challenging goal of
achieving a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions from stationary energy use
by 2040. This is similar to official targets in the UK and Denmark. A
reduction of at least this magnitude is necessary to stabilise CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that is likely to be safe
for future generations.
The study
assumes that the economy grows 2.4 times in real terms between its
starting date, 2001, and 2040, as set out in the Federal government’s
Intergenerational Report. The choice of 2040 allows sufficient time for
most existing power stations and all energy using appliances and
equipment, apart from buildings, to be phased out at the ends of their
operating lives and replaced with cleaner and more efficient
technologies.
The study was restricted to small improvements to existing technologies. This means that the scenarios have:
No cheap solar electricity, or hot-rock geothermal energy, although there is huge potential for both in Australia;
We have no cheap storage and transportation of renewable energy in the form of hydrogen;
There is no cheap nuclear energy; and
No cheap capture and burial of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power stations.
Nuclear energy
is at present being marketed as a solution to the greenhouse problem.
But the marketing omits to mention that there are carbon dioxide
emissions from all stage of the nuclear fuel cycle except the operation
of the power station itself. When high-grade uranium ore is used, these
emissions are small. But reserves of high-grade uranium are very
limited. Within a few decades, low-grade uranium ore will have to be
used. Then the CO2 emissions from the mining, milling and enrichment of
uranium will become so large that they are comparable with emissions
from an equivalent gas-fired power station.
The only way
for the nuclear industry to avoid low-grade uranium would be to return
to the dangerous and expensive pathway of generating lots of plutonium
in fast breeder reactors and using that as a fuel. But so far, fast
breeders and reprocessing of their spent fuel have been technological
and economic failures. Therefore, nuclear power, based on existing
technologies, does not appear to be a solution to the enhanced
greenhouse effect.
As for carbon
dioxide capture from coal-fired power stations and its burial
underground, this still requires major technological development and so
is unlikely to make a significant reduction in CO2 emissions for
several decades, if ever.
In our national
scenario studies, energy use in 2040 is derived from projections of
economic activity and population growth. Then a large number of
cost-effective efficient energy use measures are applied across the
economy, generating what we call a ‘medium’ energy efficiency scenario.
Solar hot water also makes a big reduction to the demand for
electricity. These demand-side measures are particularly valuable in
economic terms, because they substitute for electricity delivered to
customers at 10-16 cents per kilowatt-hour, rather than electricity
generated at the power station for (typically) under 4-cents per
kilowatt-hour. So energy efficiency has high economic value.
The medium
efficiency scenario succeeds in stabilising Australia’s CO2 emissions
at a level 14% below the 2001 value by 2040. That’s a good start, but
it’s not enough.
The further
reduction in emissions, to 50% below the 2001 level, is achieved from
cleaner energy supply. The main contributors to our supply mix are:
Gas, the least
polluting of the fossil fuels, used in both cogeneration (that’s
combined heat and power) and in highly efficient combined-cycle power
stations;
In addition,
bioelectricity contributes 28% of electricity, and since it is
generated almost entirely from burning crop residues, it does not
require additional land;
Wind power contributes 20% of electricity, which happens to be the same as its current percentage contribution in Denmark;
Coal contributes 9%, as opposed to 85% today; and
Hydro-electricity 7%, much the same as today.
The wind energy
contribution and some of the bio-electricity are already less expensive
than the estimated costs of coal-fired electricity with capture and
burial of CO2 emissions.
Transport is
addressed together with stationary energy in a Canadian study with
similar assumptions to our own, carried out for the David Suzuki
Foundation. Once again, based on small improvements to existing
technologies, a 50% reduction in emissions could be achieved within a
few decades. The Canadian study utilises improvements in urban public
transport and further dissemination of fuel-efficient vehicles, such as
hybrids and clean diesels.
So for both
stationary energy and transport, 50% reductions in CO2 emissions can be
achieved from existing technologies, buying us time for the development
of new technologies. In the long term, it is vital for Australia to
stop continually increasing its demand for materials and energy. This
means changing Australia’s economic structure and also achieving zero
population growth.
The transition
to a sustainable energy future cannot be driven by the existing market
and policies. It needs new policies and strategies, whose
implementation must be commenced seriously now. One of the most
urgently needed policy changes is to stop the construction of new
coal-fired power stations, which undermines substantial programs for
efficient energy use. These are incompatible with the economics of
bringing on-line a 1000 megawatt power station.
While the
national scenario study takes a long-term perspective, the separate
State studies examine the short-term problem of substituting for the
next proposed coal-fired power stations by 2010. There are currently
proposals for new coal-fired power stations in Western Australia, New
South Wales and Queensland. There is also a proposal, which
unfortunately has been given the go-ahead, to extend the operating life
of Victoria’s most greenhouse-polluting old power station, Hazelwood,
for another 22 years. Despite the rhetoric from the Federal government
and the coal industry about CO2 capture and burial, all these proposals
are for conventional ‘dirty’ coal-fired power stations.
Our State
reports show that a proposal for a 1000 megawatt base-load coal-fired
power station could be replaced by 2010 by a mix of efficient energy
use, natural gas, wind power and bio-electricity from organic residues.
This alternative mix generates the same amount of electricity each year
and is just as reliable as the coal-fired power station. In New South
Wales it would reduce CO2 emissions by nearly 5 million tonnes per year
compared with the coal station, a reduction of 80%.
If adopted, the
cleaner system would be cost-effective, with the economic savings from
efficient energy use paying for the additional costs of renewable
energy and gas-fired electricity. Although the cleaner energy supply
mix will increase the average price of a unit of electricity, the
improvements in efficiency of energy use will reduce the number of
units of electricity purchased. The net result is that, for the vast
majority of consumers, energy bills will either decrease or remain
approximately the same.
Then the
challenge in moving onto the sustainable energy pathway becomes neither
technical nor economic, but rather organisational and institutional:
namely, how to deliver cost-neutral packages of energy efficiency,
renewable energy and natural gas to consumers. Since State governments
would have to play the leading role in making organisational and
institutional changes, the key issue becomes one of political will at
the State level.
The proposed
substitution would reduce the socio-economic risk faced by States as
the result of having electricity supply systems that are based
predominantly upon coal, the most greenhouse-intensive of all fuels. In
the likely event that international greenhouse gas emission constraints
are tightened up in the future, this high dependence upon coal could
become a major economic liability. At the current carbon trading price
on the EU market of 23 Euros per tonne of CO2 (that’s $AU38 a tonne), a
new 1000 megawatt black coal-fired station could incur over its 40 year
lifetime a liability of about $AU7.7-billion. For brown coal, the
liability could be over $AU10-billion.
Until a ban on
new conventional coal-fired power stations is in place, State
governments should ensure that the greenhouse gas liability of all new
and refurbished coal-fired power stations should be carried by the
proponents, not by the government or electricity consumers or taxpayers.
Since the
Federal government’s modest existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
is expected to be fully utilised by the end of this year, another
essential policy measure is to introduce State-based schemes to foster
the development of the new renewable energy industries. The Victorian
government has taken the lead, at least rhetorically, by announcing
that it will provide a support system for its goal of 1000 megawatts of
wind power by the end of 2006. In the longer term, we need a carbon tax
or levy, or tradeable emissions permits of the cap and trade type,
implemented by a group of co-operating States if the Federal government
maintains its refusal to implement this market mechanism.
State
governments should also extend energy performance standards, such as
the BASIX scheme in New South Wales, from new buildings to several
categories of existing buildings.
The time has
also come for consumers who run air conditioners to be charged the
costs of additional power stations and additional transmission lines
required to support them. This could be done by requiring air
conditioners to be metered separately and the electricity consumption
charged by time of day.
A very
important benefit of undertaking the transition to a clean energy
future is that it will stimulate job growth and increased economic
activity. For each unit of electricity generated, wind power creates
two to three times the number of local jobs as coal, while
bio-electricity generates 3.5 times, and most of its jobs are in rural
areas where they’re needed.
To conclude, a
sustainable energy future is technically feasible, economically viable
and environmentally essential. We don’t have to wait several decades
until CO2 capture and burial may become a large-scale commercial
reality. We already have technologies to halve our emissions. But most
of the clean energy industries are small and cannot afford large
political donations.
Dr Mark Diesendorf
Institute of Environmental Studies
University of New South Wales
Sydney
------------------->
A tragic tale of a nation that drowned in greed and neglect
By Elizabeth Farrelly
May 10, 2006
<www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-tragic-tale-of-a-nation-that-drowned-in-greed-and-neglect/2006/05/09/1146940545443.html>
THERE was a
time, or so we'll tell our great-grandchildren, as seawater laps the
steps of the town hall, when being Australian was a point of pride.
When Australianness stood for honesty, optimism and a fair go; for sand
between the toes, a twinkle in the eye and one up authority. Two-up,
even. For a lean, larrikin ingenuity in solving problems, and in
getting going when the going got tough.
When things did
get tough, in the early 21st century, there was a fleeting chance for
us to signify, to show leadership, imagination and courage. There we
sat, at the far, balmy end of the world, with vast resources, limitless
space, a glorious climate and relatively few mouths to feed. We were
educated, healthy and remarkably rich. All of this we could have used
as a force for good. A force for survival.
Instead, we
chose to get richer, fatter and smugger. We had resources to burn and,
my, we burnt them. What a fire it was. We let our fauna drift into
extinction and our indigenes into indigence. Instead of harvesting
wind, wave, hot-rock or sun energy, which we had in sparkling
abundance, we sold our forests for toilet tissue, our rivers for
cotton-farming, our space for radioactive waste, our military for oil.
And yet, as the
icecaps started to melt and the earth to drown, we sank ever deeper
into denial. While old Europe poured her energies into sustaining big,
dense populations on the few renewables she could muster, we, stuck in
neutral, let the mining lobby draft our energy policy and the
developers draft our urban plans. So, while the old world leapt forward
we new worlders went on filling our air with fossil fuels and covering
our remaining farmlands with fat, eaveless houses.
Hectare upon
ugly hectare of gadget-swollen houses we aligned, cheek-by-jowl like
children ogling the telly, along every one of the 12-lane highways we
built to truck food back in from interstate.
What's that?
Didn't anyone revolt? Didn't some Joan of Arc or Martin Luther King
stand up and say: "Stop! This is suicide. You all know it. Follow me"?
Well, no. We would have followed such a hero. So I like to think. But
no one did. Not really.
In fact, our
politicians were more timid than anyone. Perhaps our weakness for the
larrikin undid us, making us elect wide-boy premiers. But the
government talked about "sustainability" while frantically building
roads; chopped down more trees for sustainability press releases than
were saved in their national parks. Only when they finally shuffled off
did we notice they hadn't done anything but line the pockets of the
mates-in-industry.
That's all core
curriculum now, isn't it? How mateship came to mean graft, and the RSL
sued for corruption of language? Meanwhile the feds simply pretended
climate change wasn't real. Like children under the bed they rejected
international agreements and put every freak climate event down to
"intelligent design". (It was, you recall, before humanity voted for
excision of its god-gene.)
And yes, people
noticed. Sure. Outsiders especially, who came expecting a land of hope
and instead found the entire country out to a very long lunch. (As
Clive Hamilton once groaned, even as they extracted his thumbnails:
"The Howard Government still doesn't get it.")
There was a
moment, though, during the long Labor Decades - that's right, at the
beginning of the dark ages. You've studied them? - when a decision
could have been made. There was talk, but that meant nothing. For
decades, train lines, green belts and conservation strategies had been
rhythmically announced and cancelled. So expectations were pretty low.
But there was, momentarily, more than talk.
BASIX was a
Danish pop sextet, a "new generation livelihood promotion institution"
in Hyderabad and a gay-and-lesbian nightclub in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It
was also the NSW Building Sustainability Index. BASIX; designed to
reduce not the spread of McMansionism, but its impact - at no cost to
government.
From the winter
of 2004, BASIX required new homes to reduce energy use by 25 per cent
and water use by 40 per cent. Nothing drastic. Nothing you couldn't
achieve with eaves, a little insulation and a rainwater tank or two.
BASIX was
smart. It didn't stipulate particular shower heads, eaves depths or
insulation levels. Rather, it was an online points-based performance
system that let you earn your certificate with a mix'n'match of design
devices - native planting, Hills hoists or pale roofs. Like playing the
SIMS, you remember?
It assessed
you, allowing for postcode-dependent microclimate (cooling breezes in
Brookvale but not in Bringelly, for example) then printed your
certificate. All common sense, but when 80 per cent of houses had
air-conditioning instead of eaves or insulation, it seemed to need
spelling out.
And for two years it worked. Houses were built, the sun shone and Australia went on with its core business of getting richer.
Arguably, that
was the problem. BASIX cost about $5000 on a $300,000 dwelling. Not a
lot, but enough to disgruntle the developers. Then - maybe it was the
election, or the developers or even friendly fire. Whatever the
machinations, BASIX was suddenly called in for review and threatened
with execution. Just like that. Stuff the environment.
Of course, it
had its funny side. We were rich, sure, but within 50 years most of
Sydney's treasured waterfront, including the central business district,
was sea bottom. The Property Council of Australia sued for negligence
and, overnight, the state ceased to exist. So now we have just two
tiers of government; federal and regional. And everyone wonders what
took us so long.
Elizabeth Farrelly writes on planning and architecture issues for the Herald.
------------------->Return
to top
Roxby Indenture Act
------------------->
http://www.geocities.com/olympicdam/indenture1.html
Above the law?
Roxby Downs and BHP Billiton’s Legal Privileges
Peter Burdon, Friends of the Earth Adelaide, May 2006
What would you
say if you were told that a large portion of South Australia is subject
to an entirely different set of laws to the rest of the state? How
would you feel if you knew that those legally responsible for this land
consume more energy and water, create more waste and dangerous material
and extract more resources than any other body in South Australia?
Over 20 years
ago the South Australian Government enacted the Roxby Downs (Indenture
Ratification) Act 1982 (Indenture Act). In a single document the
Government legislated that some 1.5 million hectares in central South
Australia, including the Roxby Downs mine and surrounding areas, would
be exempt from some of our most important environmental and indigenous
rights legislation. The Indenture Act provides BHP Billiton the legal
authority to override the:
· Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988
· Development Act 1993
· Environmental Protection Act 1993
· Freedom of Information Act 1991
· Mining Act 1971
· Natural Resources Act 2004 (including the Water Resources Act 1997
This decision
undermines community expectations that corporations should be regulated
to limit the potential damage they can cause and to ensure they remain
accountable for their actions. It also challenges the South Australian
Government’s expressed commitment to the “strictest environmental
standards” for the Roxby Downs/Olympic Dam mine. Such sweeping
legislative power is unprecedented and inconsistent with modern
practices and government promises.
The Indenture Act and Aboriginal Heritage
The inclusion
of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (AHA) in the Indenture Act has
significant consequences for issues of equality and questions how
seriously our State Government treats Indigenous rights and interests.
The AHA is the
key legislative enactment aimed at protecting Indigenous heritage in
South Australia. Prior to the operation of Native Title in the early
90s the AHA governed most government/Indigenous relations concerning
land and cultural heritage. The Act continues to play an important
function for Indigenous cultural heritage. However, under the Indenture
Act the traditional owners of the land surrounding Roxby Downs, the
Kokatha, Arabunna and Barngarla peoples, are now forced to deal with
BHP Billiton to have their heritage recognised. As ACF nuclear
campaigner David Noonan noted, BHP Billiton is
[I]n a legal
position to undertake any consultation that occurs, decide which
Aboriginal groups they consult and the manner of that consultation. As
the commercial operator and proponent of expansion within these areas,
[BHP Billiton is] in a position of deciding the level of protection
that Aboriginal heritage sites received and which sites they recognised.
Through the
Indenture Act, the government has abdicated its responsibility to
address Aboriginal Heritage issues in relation to the Roxby Downs mine.
They have placed BHP Billiton in a legal position to:
· Ignore the provisions of the 1988 Act designed to protect Aboriginal heritage
· Determine the nature and manner of any consultation with Indigenous communities
· Choose which Aboriginal groups to consult with
· Decide the level of protection that Aboriginal Heritage sites receive
• Decide which Aboriginal Heritage sites they recognise
As owners of
the Olympic Dam mine, BHP Billiton clearly cannot participate in
decisions concerning the recognition and protection of Aboriginal sites
without a gross conflict of interest.
Freedom of Information
In October 2002
Premier Mike Rann and the Minister for Administrative Services, Jay
Weatherill, signed the ‘Citizens Right to Information’ charter. This
Charter commits the Government of South Australia to making information
in Government documents and records readily accessible to the citizens
of South Australia. Contained within this document is a promise that
the “South Australian Government is committed to attaining the highest
standards of openness and accountability.”
To fulfil this
promise the Charter directs citizens to the Freedom of Information Act
1991 (FOI) and provides information about how to use the legislation.
On this point Friends of the Earth campaigner Joel Catchlove notes,
Freedom of
Information legislation is an indispensable element of any society
represented by a government. The legislation promotes government
accountability and fosters informed public participation in government.
Legally, the
FOI consists of rights and obligations concerning access to and
amendment of, information in the hands of government. The principal
right conferred is a general right of access to a document of an agency
or an official document of a minister. The other basic rights and
obligations which FOI confers or imposes are, in summary:
· The
obligation of the responsible minister to publish certain information,
including: a statement setting out the organization and functions of
agency; a statement of the categories of the document that are
maintained in the possession of the agency; and a statement of any
information that needs to be available to the public concerning
particular procedures of the agency in relation to obtaining access to
documents.
· The
obligation to make available for inspection and purchase documents that
are used by the agency in making decisions, such as manuals containing
guidelines and practices.
Under
confidentiality clause 35 of the Indenture Act, BHP Billiton have veto
power over information relating to activities undertaken within the 1.5
million hectares covered by the indenture. Mr Catchlove notes:
There is thus a
massive portion of South Australia where mining giant BHP Billiton
operates which is not subject to open public review or discussion and
the fundamental tenancies of representative government have been laid
to waste. The government promises openness and accountability with one
hand and takes it away with the other.
This fact was
also commented on by Hedley Bachmann in his 2002 report to the State
Government on reporting procedures for the South Australian uranium
industry. In his report Bachmann recommended:
In order to
allow the release of information about incidents, which may cause or
threaten to cause, serious or material environmental harm or risks to
the public or employees, the government should revise and appropriately
amend the secrecy/confidentiality causes in the legislation.
The Bachmann
report addressed a range of transparency or secrecy clauses contained
in legislation relating to uranium mining. At the conclusion of his
work the State government amended two pieces of legislation to comply
with his recommendations. They were the
· Radiation Protection Act 1982: Section 19
· Mines and Workers Inspection Act 1920: Section 9
While the veto
power held by BHP Billiton remains intact, citizen confidence and faith
in the South Australian government cannot. South Australian citizens
have a right to know exactly what actions, decisions or activities our
representatives and corporations are undertaking, particularly in such
a high-risk operation as the Roxby Downs uranium mine. The mine
consumes more resources than any other enterprise in the state and has
the potential to serious damage the health of South Australian workers
and South Australia’s natural heritage. Many natural wonders, which are
of deep significance to the land’s Traditional Owners, come under the
Indenture Area. Responsible, accountable governments and corporations
should have no need for secrecy, and in a project the scale of Roxby
Downs, there is too much at stake to maintain it.
Environmental Protection
At 2006 levels
of operation, the Roxby Downs/Olympic Dam uranium mine is licensed to
take 40 million litres of water a day from the Great Artesian Basin
(GAB). The GAB is a vast and ancient body of water that lies deep under
the surface of central Australia. It begins in far north Queensland and
is a source of water for many pastoral properties and habitats,
including the fragile and unique mound springs in South Australia’s
arid north. Currently BHP Billiton extracts 33 million litres a day
from the GAB and farmers, environmentalists and traditional owners have
reported dramatic reductions in water pressure threatening and
sometimes extinguishing rare ecosystems. Under the Indenture Act, BHP
Billiton is not required to pay for this water.
The radioactive
waste tailings dam at Olympic Dam amounts to 60 million tonnes and is
growing at 10 million tonnes annually. The tailings dam has been
plagued by spills – most significantly in 1994, when the mine operators
admitted some five million cubic litres had leaked from the dams over
two years. Environmental audits provided to the Rann Government
continue to emphasise that the mine tailings are inadequately managed
and “an issue of real concern” requiring “the implementation of urgent
remedial measures”. BHP Billiton has no long-term plans for the
management of these tailings, which because of their radioactivity may
remain dangerous for thousands of years. When all valuable resources
have been extracted BHP Billiton simply plans to ‘cap’ the tailings
dump with soil.
Additionally,
Olympic Dam consumes more electricity than any other body in the State,
ten percent of the state’s production, effectively making it SA’s
single biggest producer of greenhouse gas. This impact will only
increase with the mine’s projected expansion.
The Indenture
Act provides an override to the Environmental Protection Act 1993 (EPA)
and the powers and functions contained within. The EPA was enacted to
provide for the protection of the environment and the establishment of
an Environmental Protection Authority to monitor and enforce compliance
with the Act. The key objective of this legislation is the avoidance of
‘environmental harm’, a term that is defined in the legislation to mean
any harm or potential harm to the environment, of whatever degree or
duration. Potential harm includes risk of harm and future harm.
The legislation
imposes different penalties for offences causing environmental harm.
The most heavily penalised offence is the offence of causing serious
environmental harm by polluting the environment intentionally or
recklessly and with knowledge that serious environmental harm will or
might result. A lower penalty is imposed where a person, by polluting
the environment, causes serious environmental harm.
The Environmental Protection Authority is charged with enforcing these provisions. The Authority has the power to:
· Serve notices on people violating the EPA and order them to comply.
· Place conditions on licences and other environmental approvals.
· Impose or vary a condition of an environmental authorisation.
· Demand
financial assurance to be made where there is a high risk that
operation will result in environmental harm. This money is used to
counteract resulting environmental or community damage.
Require an organization to prepare a plan of action in the event of emergencies that might arise out of the operation.
These
provisions are South Australia’s most important and strongest
environmental safeguards and they are absent from BHP Billitons Olympic
Dam operation. In fact, under the Indenture, Primary Industries and
Resources South Australia (PIRSA), is responsible for overseeing the
project’s environmental standards. As a government body dedicated to
promoting mining, PIRSA has a clear conflict of interest in this role.
Friends of the Earth Campaigner Sophie Green notes:
Whether you
support the mining operations at Olympic Dam or not commonsense
dictates that where a massive project is being undertaken which has the
potential (and indeed likelihood) of damaging vast portions of the
environment, our strongest environmental safeguards should apply. We
are only asking that BHP Billiton be held to the same standard as every
other corporation in Australia.
In reviewing
the conditions surrounding the massive 1994 leak, Dr. Gavin Mudd
emphasises that the Indenture Act essentially prevents the mine from
environmental responsibility and “until the [Indenture] Act is revoked
entirely there can be no truly independent, external environmental
assessment of the impacts of Olympic Dam”.
Legal
accountability and guarantees of BHP Billiton’s environmental
performance are crucial, particularly in light of the proposed
expansion of the Olympic Dam mine into the largest open cut mine in the
world. The scale of this operation and the associated risks threaten
damage to the environment on a scale we have not yet seen. Ms Green
notes,
Our Government
is playing a dangerous balancing game with promises on one hand and
contrary legislative action on the other. Actions speak louder than
words and its time we demanded more from our representatives.
Take action
With BHP
Billiton seeking a four-fold expansion of their Roxby Downs/Olympic Dam
uranium mine and the Indenture Act due to come up for review in the
next 18 months, now is a crucial time to act for government and
corporate accountability.
Write to
Premier Mike Rann and the ministers listed below to express your
concern about BHP Billiton’s legal privileges and urge them to amend
the Indenture Act. Use the form letter below as a guide.
Dear Mr. Rann,
I’m writing to
express my deep concern regarding the legal immunity granted to BHP
Billiton’s Olympic Dam mine through the Roxby Downs (Indenture
Ratification) Act 1982.
While I welcome
your commitment to the “strictest environmental standards” for Roxby
Downs, such standards cannot be guaranteed while BHP Billiton’s
operations at Olympic Dam are given precedence over the Freedom of
Information Act 1991, the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Natural
Resources Act 2004 (including the Water Resources Act 1997) and the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, among others.
Furthermore, by
allowing Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) to
oversee the mine’s environmental standards is unacceptable. PIRSA
exists primarily to promote mining in this state and therefore has a
serious conflict of interest. Environmental oversight should be granted
to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and other independent
regulatory bodies.
The most
certain way to ensure the “strictest environmental standards” for BHP
Billiton’s Olympic Dam mine, and the transparency to maintain them, is
to make the mine subject to the same laws and responsibilities as every
other corporation in Australia.
I seriously
urge you to repeal the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982
and to push for the removal of the conflict of interest in PIRSA’s
responsibilities for environmental oversight of mining operations.
Yours sincerely,
…
Premier Mike Rann
GPO Box 2343,
Adelaide SA 5001
Phone: 08 8463 3166
Fax: 08 8463 3168
premier@saugov.sa.gov.au
Hon. Paul Holloway
Minister for Mineral Resources Development
Parliament House
Adelaide SA 5000
Phone: 08 83032500, 08 8237 9100
Fax: 08 83032597
ministerDTED@state.sa.gov.au
Hon. Gail Gago
Minister for the Environment and Conservation
Parliament House
Adelaide SA 5000
gago.office@parliament.sa.gov.au
Hon. Jay Weatherill
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation
GPO Box 2269,
Adelaide SA 5001
Phone: 8303 2926
Fax: 8303 2533
cheltenham@parliament.sa.gov.au
Hon. Iain Evans
Leader of the Opposition
Shadow Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change
1/7-9 Young Street,
Blackwood SA 5051
Phone: 8278 5844
Fax: 8370 2626
davenport@parliament.sa.gov.au
Hon. David Ridgway MLC
Shadow Minister for Environment and Conservation
Parliament House,
Adelaide SA 5000
Phone: 08 8237 9100
david.ridgway@parliament.sa.gov.au
Mitch Williams
Shadow Minister for Mineral Resource Development
Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation
30 Ormerod Street, Naracoorte, 5271
Phone: 8762 1211
Fax: 8762 1121
mackillop@parliament.sa.gov.au
References
1 Noonan, D 2006, personal communication, 30 March 2006
2 Government of
South Australia, ‘Citizens Right to Information’, accessed 1 May 2006,
http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/system/foi.html
3 Catchlove, J 2006, personal communication, 7 April 2006.
4 Catchlove, J 2006, personal communication, 7 April 2006.
5 Bachmann, H 2002, ‘Reporting Independent Review of Reporting Procedures for the SA Uranium Mining Industry, August 2002, p. 1
6 Wiese Bockmann, M 2006, ‘Waste fears at uranium mine’, The Australian, 10 March 2006, p. 7
7 Green, S 2006, personal communication, 7 April 2006.
8 Mudd, G 1997,
‘SA Parliamentary Inquiry into the Tailings System Leakage’, Sea-US,
accessed 11 May 2006, http://www.sea-us.org.au/roxby/sa-inquiry.html
------------------->Return
to top
Nuclear power and climate change
------------------->
Good research paper:
WHY NUCLEAR POWER CANNOT BE A MAJOR ENERGY SOURCE
by David Fleming, April 2006
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm
------------------->
Nuclear no cure for climate change, scientists warn
By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
May 2, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-no-cure-for-climate-change/2006/05/01/1146335671432.html
AUSTRALIA could
not develop a domestic nuclear power industry in time to stave off the
effects of climate change and such a program would be prohibitively
expensive, energy experts say.
The cost of
building the large number of nuclear power stations needed to even
partly replace coal as a source of electricity would be so heavy no
private investor would take on the risk without huge government
subsidies, they said.
The Federal
Treasurer, Peter Costello, warned at the weekend that Australia would
have to get used to the idea of a domestic nuclear power industry
because it was part of the solution to global warming.
Scientists have
warned the world needs to make large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
now to avoid further big changes to weather patterns.
But coal-fired
power plants could not be replaced fast enough with nuclear plants to
make any real difference, said the research principal at the Institute
for Sustainable Futures, Chris Riedy.
"It would take
10 years to get one nuclear power plant up even if there was no public
protest," Dr Riedy said. "And all of the evidence from where they have
been built [overseas] shows they have had to have massive [government]
subsidies to keep them going."
A 1000-megawatt
nuclear power plant would generate between 2 and 3 per cent of
Australia's current electricity consumption, said Dr Iain McGill,
research co-ordinator for the Centre for Energy and Environmental
Markets at the University of NSW.
"Coal
generation is about 85 to 90 per cent of national electricity market
generation, so it might require around 30 to 40 such plants to replace
coal-fired generation," he said. "Such a program would almost certainly
take numerous decades."
Dr Mark
Diesendorf, a senior lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies
at the University of NSW, said a 1000-megawatt nuclear plant would cost
at least $3 billion to build - 2.5 times that of a coal-fired power
plant - and much more to operate than fossil fuel plants. To build a
lot of nuclear plants, say, over 20 years, would emit so much
greenhouse gas it would take 40 years to break even in terms of CO 2,
he said.
"You would have
this great big spike in CO 2 emissions … I think the whole thing is
insane," he said of suggestions that nuclear power could help fight
global warming.
In Britain a
House of Commons environmental audit committee report published two
weeks ago rejected constructing new nuclear power plants to replace
those that will soon be shut down, because they could not be built
quickly enough to meet demand for electricity.
The US
Government is offering financial subsidies to the country's stalled
nuclear industry to encourage construction of new plants worth about
$US17 billion ($22.4 billion).
A campaigner
with the Australian Conservation Foundation, David Noonan, said nuclear
power would be "incredibly expensive and too slow and ineffective" a
way to tackle climate change.
"It is the only
source of power that could annihilate your city. It would certainly be
a terrorist target as well as a signal to the region that Australia
might be going down the nuclear weapons path," he said.
------------------->
The Nuclear Non-Option
Arena Magazine - Editorial
Issue 82 ~ February-March 2006
<www.arena.org.au/ARCHIVES/Mag%20Archive/Issue%2082/editorial_82.htm>
If the cover of
TIME magazine is any guide, attitudes to global warming have come a
long way since it first made the cover in October 1987, when TIME went
with the relatively neutral ‘How the Earth’s Climate is Changing, Why
the Ozone Hole is Growing’. The 1990s saw a similarly restrained
treatment, with stories on the vanishing ozone layer and the Rio Earth
Summit.
It was only in
April 2001 that a degree of urgency started to creep into TIME’s
presentation, the cover showing an egg in a frying pan, a desert-yellow
Earth digitally imposed as the yolk and the headline ‘Global Warming —
All Over the Planet We’re Feeling the Heat. Why Isn’t Washington?’
2002 saw a more
optimistic outlook, with a special report on ‘How to Save the Earth:
The hot and wild weather is a sign of things to come. But fresh ideas
and new technology can cool us down and make this a GREEN CENTURY’.
However, the faith in good ideas and technology couldn’t withstand
Hurricane Katrina (‘Are We Making Hurricanes Worse’, October 2005) with
global warming singled out as a possible factor in the severity of the
storm. The recent 3 April cover was blunter still: ‘BE WORRIED. BE VERY
WORRIED’.
The justified
and long-overdue concern with climate change has prompted many to
reconsider nuclear power as a way of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The ALP’s Martin Ferguson and some Coalition MPs, for example, have
proposed the nuclear option. While some of these advocates may be
dismissed as having other motives than confronting global climate
change — lucrative uranium exports to China for example — other
advocates for nuclear power have advanced more considered arguments:
for example, James Lovelock.
Lovelock is far
from a cheerleader for the nuclear power industry. He’s a critic of the
current notions of development and his position springs from an
extensive knowledge of the science of climate change and an
unimpeachable reverence for the interconnectedness of life on the
planet, as articulated in his Gaia theory, combined with an alarm at
the complacency around the seriousness of global warming.
His proposal
that we prepare for global warming as we would a war, with a total
mobilisation of society — cited in this issue’s essay by John Hinkson —
and his image of a future in which the remnants of humanity trek to the
artic across barren stretches of wasteland, which concludes his latest
book The Revenge of Gaia, is a sobering reminder of the disaster that
awaits us if we maintain the current complacency. Lovelock doesn’t
regard nuclear power as a silver bullet that will eliminate CO2
emissions. Rather, he views it as a stop-gap measure, allowing us the
breathing space to address the heating of the planet.
Lovelock’s is
an authoritative argument, but nuclear power isn’t a solution to global
warming. As Alan Roberts argued in issue 78 of this magazine — the
original, expanded version of which can be found in issue 23 of Arena
Journal — even if it were possible to convert all the power stations in
the world to nuclear power stations without adding to the levels of
greenhouse gases, the impact would still be marginal, since generating
electricity plays a ‘significant but subsidiary’ role in generating
greenhouse gases.
Supposing the
problems associated with nuclear power could be overcome, taken in
isolation, nuclear power might begin to look like an attractive option.
But placed back within the context of the international systems of
states — itself a kind of living ecosystem, every bit as sensitive and
responsive to change and reverberation as the natural ones at the heart
of Lovelock’s Gaia theory — then things start to look quite different.
The entry of nuclear power into the international state system is, in
short, akin to the introduction and proliferation of a new species into
an ecosystem.
To think that
nuclear power will simply be a temporary measure which will then
gradually be reduced as newer, safer fuels come online is fanciful. For
nation-states, nuclear power isn’t just another means for generating
power. It’s bound up with deeply ingrained cultural meanings of
progress and modernity; a means of being taken seriously on the
international stage. While we might agree that such meanings are
irrational, that doesn’t make them any less potent.
This is to say
nothing of the military applications of nuclear fuel. While military
applications are not a straightforward outcome of civilian power
generation and the business of building centrifuges to enrich uranium
is a complex one, the likely outcome of any proliferation of nuclear
power generation is to push us headlong into a new era of nuclear
armament. Once admitted to the nuclear club, most nation-states will be
reluctant to hand back their membership card.
Lovelock’s
response to those who warn of the dangers of nuclear conflict is to
regard them as yesterday’s problem. With some justification, he argues
that many of the claims about the dangers of nuclear were overstated
within the context of superpower rivalry of the Cold War, which he
regards as a ‘twentieth-century problem’ — the dangers of which pale in
comparison to the dangers of global climate change.
While the Cold
War is unlikely to be repeated, Lovelock’s is a remarkably static
understanding of international politics. The best current illustration
is of course is the current stand-off between Iran and the West over
nuclear power. But even leaving aside the military applications, and
naively accepting that Teheran’s arguments that their nuclear program
is solely for civilian purposes, it’s difficult to find good
environmental grounds for supporting it. The search for more sources of
power remains predicated on a culture that accepts no limits to
development; one driven by the idea that the natural environment is no
more than a storehouse of raw material to fuel economic growth at
almost any cost.
In this regard,
the West’s opposition to Iran — or any other state pursuing nuclear
power, for that matter — is hypocritical given that it is Western
governments who fervently support this model of development as central
to ‘our way of life’. The proliferation of nuclear power is likely to
exacerbate the culture of consumer capitalism rather than rein it in,
simply reinforcing the idea that there are endless sources of energy to
satisfy endless desires.
Far from being
a band-aid, nuclear power is an infected dressing, polluting the wound
that it was intended to heal while causing new sores. The only tenable
solution to climate change is a change in the culture of unfettered
consumption and unending development that has produced it. Or, as
Lovelock succinctly puts it, ‘As always, we come back to the
unavoidable fact that there are far too many of us living as we do now’.
Christopher Scanlon is co-editor of Arena Magazine.
------------------->
The Nuclear Debate Continued
16/4/06
<http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1613742.htm>
Dr John Coulter, Adelaide, South Australia
Dr Coulter
spent 21 years in Medical Research, then became a Democratic Senator in
Canberra. Now he’s Vice President of Sustainable Population Australia.
John Coulter:
An Ockham’s Razor late last year urged Australia to embrace nuclear
energy and suggested that we could make a large amount of money by
becoming the repository for the world’s nuclear waste. The dangers of
nuclear power were gravely misrepresented. For example, it was asserted
that:
‘The Chernobyl disaster killed only 31 people and less than 100 deaths have been clearly linked to the explosion in 1986.’
But John
Gofman, Professor of Medical Physics at Berkeley, a well recognised
world expert in both the physics and biology of radiation, has
calculated that 950,000 people will have got, or will get cancer as a
result of the Chernobyl fallout, and roughly half will die of their
cancers.
The claim that
only 31 deaths occurred deliberately hides behind the impossibility of
identifying the exact cause of particular cancers and the statistical
impossibility of identifying a proportionately small change in a large
background of spontaneous cancers.
Let me explain.
In most populations, about 25% - 30% will get a spontaneous cancer at some time in their lives.
Radiation increases the amount of genetic damage in an exposed population and some of this damage leads on to cancer.
The amount of cancer being proportional to the dose of radiation.
Small exposures will cause only a low incidence of cancer in the exposed population.
And no cancer caused by radiation exposure is distinguishable from a cancer that may have arisen spontaneously.
Therefore we
can never say that a particular cancer was caused by radiation. Only
when enough people are exposed to large enough doses can we say that
the increased number of cancers in the exposed population is more than
we would expect from chance variation alone. We may then say that the
exposure has increased the cancer rate by a certain percentage. The
maths is the work of epidemiologists and statisticians.
Let me
illustrate this point. If we toss a coin 100 times, we don’t expect it
will come down exactly 50 heads and 50 tails. Suppose we get 45 heads
and 55 tails. Is the coin dodgy? Well it might be, but a statistician
couldn’t say. We expect this amount of variation too frequently to be
sure. To be reasonably sure that the variation from the expected value
is not due to chance, statisticians and medical epidemiologists ask
that there be less than a 5% probability that the outcome could be due
to chance alone.
Similarly, we
don’t expect the cancer rate across northern Europe to be the same
every year. Natural fluctuations occur. The Chernobyl explosion sent a
radioactive plume across northern Europe as far as the Atlantic coast
of Ireland. The exposed population numbered in the hundreds of
millions. It’s easy to show that quite large numbers of additional
cancers could occur without these cancers teaching a statistical
significance, just as the 45 heads and 55 tails may be due to a dodgy
coin but the maths can’t prove it.
How then might
we calculate the cancers caused by the Chernobyl fallout? We do it by
knowing the amount of radiation to which individuals or groups were
exposed, the number of people so exposed and by extrapolation from
known dose response relationships. The additional risk for a given
individual may be extremely small, but when large numbers are exposed,
the absolute number of additional cancers can be quite large. And that
number may be quite undetectable by any epidemiological examination of
the exposed population.
Suppose in
round figures the population of Northern Europe at the time of
Chernobyl was 300-million. We would expect about 75-million of these
people to get cancer spontaneously at some stage in their lives.
Suppose an additional one-million got cancer as a result of Chernobyl
fallout. This is the variation that one would expect almost 20% of the
time by chance alone, so this number would remain undetected as a
consequence of exposure.
It is on the
basis of this more careful and informed analysis that Professor Gofman,
of Berkeley, has calculated that 950,000 people will have got or will
get cancer as a result of the Chernobyl fallout and that roughly half
will die of their cancers.
Only a short
time before Chernobyl blew its top, the Deputy Director General of
Nuclear Safety with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr B.A.
Semenov, described the Chernobyl-type reactor in the Bulletin of the
IAEA. And he said:
‘The design
feature of having more than a thousand individual primary circuits
increases the safety of the reactor system, a serious loss of coolant
accident is practically impossible.’
This is the body we rely on to guarantee nuclear safety.
Last year’s
Ockham’s Razor also claimed that Australia possesses three
characteristics which make it ideal as a site for the world’s nuclear
waste: geological stability, extensive areas of dry climate, and
political stability. This, it was said, placed a responsibility upon us
to take the waste, and by the way, we could make a lot of money out of
it. Australia is geologically stable. But claims in regard to the other
two factors take little account of the time scale through which this
material must be safely stored. The world is entering a period of rapid
climate change as a consequence of greenhouse warming. We may speculate
on rainfall distribution 100 or 500 years from now but is it brave, or
foolish, to store the world’s nuclear waste based on our speculations?
Political
stability? We’re looking to the care of this material for at least a
thousand years. Who, looking back over the turbulent ups and downs of
nations and regions over the last thousand years, would confidently
predict a politically stable Australia for the next millennium? Who in
Russia only twenty years ago would have predicted the economic collapse
of that nation to the point that it’s now incapable of caring for a
number of rusting nuclear facilities scattered widely across its vast
expanse? The inherent dangers associated with nuclear power demand an
extremely high level of security and vigilance that may prove
impossible to maintain.
There is
compelling evidence that the peaking of oil presages a near future of
considerable international unrest, conflict and economic decline; a
future in which it is most unwise to mix an expansion of things nuclear
with the associated risks of nuclear weapons and terrorism.
And, by the
way, do we get paid up front for the cost of a thousand years of safe
storage, or are we prepared to take a deposit and a yearly instalment?
And what do we do if a nation defaults on its payments? Do we send the
waste back? Where does Australia invest a thousand-year deposit so that
the cost of looking after the waste can still be met 900 years from now?
Those who
assert that civil nuclear power can be totally divorced from the
military and criminal use of nuclear material are asking us to forget
history. The first reactors were built specifically to produce the
materials for the first atomic bombs and only later became suppliers of
electricity. The bombs exploded at Maralinga were fashioned from
material made in a reactor that went on to become a power reactor on
the UK electricity grid. Much of nuclear knowledge and technology is
common to both power generation and the making of weapons. The Non
Proliferation Treaty has proved quite incapable of ensuring that
nuclear fuels and facilities are not misused. The Iraq war was started
over a claim that that nation possessed nuclear weapons. The IAEA and
the NPT could not provide an assurance that was not the case.
The suggestion
that nuclear power can be a solution to our energy needs arises in a
‘business as usual’ view of the world in which all problems have
technical solutions. Experience has shown that each round of technical
solutions brings more intractable problems in its wake. Such an
approach to problems is also predicated on confidence that even if we
don’t find solutions in our lifetime, problems can be left and solution
will be found by our descendants.
But this
technical problem-technical solution view of the world ignores some
fundamental realities. It’s piecemeal. Seeking solutions within this
paradigm requires that we simplify the nature of the problem and
deliberately ignore many contextual factors. Problem: using coal, gas
and oil to produce electricity leads to greenhouse induced climate
change. Solution: build nuclear power stations or here, I might equally
insert, photovoltaic or wind generators. But the wider context reveals
that greenhouse induced climate change is only one among a large number
of indicators that humans are living unsustainably. Excessive energy
use, including electricity, is one of the important drivers of this
unsustainability. More energy for human abuse can only accelerate the
descent into an even less sustainable future for our children.
The more
comprehensive context of unsustainability is this. Over the last 180
years humans have exponentially exploited cheap, non-renewable fossil
fuels. We have used that temporary energy bounty to build a global
human population from about one billion to over 6-billion. We now face
a time when that cheap energy is not going to be available and none of
the vaunted alternative sources can fill the gap. A very basic example:
it has been said that modern industrial agriculture is the process of
using soil to turn oil into food. Global food supply is less than 1% as
energy efficient as our gatherer/hunter forebears. The 99% energy
subsidy comes overwhelmingly from oil and we are now passing through
the peak of oil production. In only a few years oil production will
fall ever more steeply while demand will remain high. The cost of
petroleum and all the products we now derive from it will rise more and
more steeply, very large numbers will starve, economies will collapse.
There will be greatly increased intra and international tension and
strive of which the present Iraq war is but a gentle prelude. Not only
can nuclear energy not replace oil and its many vital services such as
fertilisers to grow crops in Australia’s poor soils, it adds an
additional danger into this increasingly turbulent mix.
Too many people
are each demanding, on average, too much from the natural environment.
Our primary efforts should not be directed toward technical fixes for a
fundamentally unsustainable way of life. Our work must be directed
toward stopping population growth as rapidly as possible and doing all
in our power to reorganise our lives, our social, institutional and
economic arrangements so that our demand for energy from all sources is
drastically curtailed. We have only a few short years of relatively
cheap energy left. We should use this small window of opportunity to
make this transition. If we fail we will have lost the opportunity.
Then Nature will do the job for us.
------------------->Return
to top
Nuclear power in Europe
------------------->
Europe’s new nuclear reactors will not be 9/11-proof
NewScientist.com news service
Rob Edwards
May 18, 2006
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9191-europes-new-nuclear-reactors-will-not-be-911proof.html
New nuclear
reactors planned to be built across Europe are not designed to
withstand a 9/11-style aircraft attack by terrorists, a leaked report
has revealed.
The European
pressurised water reactor (EPR) is capable of resisting an accidental
crash by a five-tonne military fighter, says the French nuclear power
company, EDF. But only by extrapolation does it argue that the reactor
will also withstand the impact of a 250-tonne commercial airliner flown
deliberately into it.
This
assumption, according to independent nuclear engineer, John Large, is
"entirely unjustified". This "reflects what seems to be an almost total
lack of preparation to defend against the inevitability of terrorist
attack," he says.
Europe's first
EPR, seen by the nuclear industry as the forerunner of a new generation
of nuclear power plants, is under construction at Olkiluoto in Finland.
It is the most likely type of reactor to be built in the UK, now that
the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has put nuclear power "back on the
agenda with a vengeance".
The leaked
document is a 2003 report from a senior EDF official, Bruno Lescoeur,
to the French nuclear safety regulator, IRSN. It attempts to show that
the post-9/11 risks of planes crashing into an EPR are low.
Act of war
Because the
reactors are designed to withstand a military jet crash, the report
contends, they will also withstand the hardest parts of a passenger
airline - its engines. It also claims that terrorists would have
difficulty steering an aircraft towards a reactor at a low enough angle.
But EDF does
not give any absolute guarantees. "EDF does not envisage assuring a
capacity to resist every act of war or every foreseeable act of
terrorism," writes Lescoeur. "The hypotheses relating to an impact must
cover a 'reasonable risk', and cannot pretend to include all the
possibilities."
EDF's
assessment is dismissed as "extremely inadequate" by Large, who was
commissioned by the environmental campaign group Greenpeace to evaluate
the leaked report. He points out that the newly released footage of the
attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 showed that trained terrorists could fly
low and on target.
A similar
attack on a reactor would cause "a total calamity", with the release of
large amounts of radioactivity, Large claims. The only way to protect
the reactors would be to cover them with a specially hardened concrete
superstructure, or to build them underground.
The leaking of
the document has provoked a fierce controversy in France, one of the
world's biggest users of nuclear electricity. A French anti-nuclear
activist, Stephane Lhomme of Sortir du Nucléaire, was detained
by police for 14 hours on 16 May in connection with the leaked report.
The French
green movement responded by distributing the document as widely as
possible, making it available on a dozen websites. So far, EDF has
declined to comment.
------------------->
French protest new nuclear reactor (19 April 2006)
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11343&channel=0
French plans to
build a new nuclear reactor near the port of Cherbourg in Normandy
sparked large-scale protests at the weekend, timed to coincide with the
upcoming 20th anniversary of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
Electricité
de France, the country's main electricity provider, plans to build the
new generation European Pressurised Reactor in Flamanville near
Cherbourg.
The reactor
will generate 1600MW by 2012 if it comes online as planned, and will
help test a new technology that could replace France's existing 58
nuclear reactors when they are decommissioned.
In response to
the plans, between 12,500 and 30,000 anti-nuclear protestors took to
the streets under banners that read "20 years after Chernobyl, stop the
EPR nuclear reactor."
The French
Government is considering new nuclear build in the face of rising oil
and gas prices. The protestors, from French anti-nuclear movement
"Sortir du Nucleaire" and environmental groups, said that the 3bn Euro
investment would be better spent on improving energy efficiency and
developing renewables.
"This was a
very strong turnout, especially considering the location is difficult
to get to, and it marks a turning point in the history of French energy
policy.
"It proves that
people have a strong will to go towards energy efficiency and
developing renewable energies," said Stéphane Lhomme,
spokesperson for Sortir du Nucleaire.
France currently gets 80% of its electricity from its 58 nuclear reactors located in 19 nuclear power stations.
EDF is to make
a final decision on whether to go ahead with the Flamanville plant
within three months. If it decides in favour of the project,
construction will begin next year and continue through to 2011.
Goska Romanowicz
------------------->
Chernobyl anniversary fuels anti-nuclear wave (25 April 2006)
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11362&channel=0
Twenty years to
the day after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster spread radioactive fallout
around Europe, 200 NGOs have called for a Europe-wide end to nuclear.
The coalition
of European NGOs chose Wednesday's anniversary of the April 26, 1986
disaster to highlight the dangers, costs and unsustainability of the
nuclear renaissance that many European politicians are considering as a
way to combat climate change and energy security problems.
Campaign
coordinator Frank Van de Scheik said: "The nuclear industry is back and
trying to sell its outdated and dangerous technology as a solution to
climate change. More than 200 European civic society groups
representing millions of Europeans are convinced: this is a myth."
Europeans
overwhelmingly pronounce themselves for renewables rather than nuclear
as the solution to climate change, the NGOs said. A recent
Eurobarometer survey found that 12% of Europeans believe nuclear be a
way to tackle climate change, while 68% went for renewables.
The coalition,
led by anti-nuclear groups from Austria, France, Holland and Finland,
also called on the EU to scrap the Euratom treaty.
Silva Hermann
of Friends of the Earth Austria called the Euratom treaty a "political
oddity" that does not reflect the attitudes of European states and
citizens.
"Despite the
fact that many EU citizens oppose nuclear energy, all member states are
forced by the Euratom treaty to fund nuclear research.
"In addition, new Euratom loans may help build new nuclear power plants in Bulgaria and Russia," she said.
Reactor no. 4
of Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear plant exploded after a routine safety
test in the night of April 25, 1986, went wrong. An unexpected power
surge led to the reactor spinning out of control after the emergency
shutdown systems failed.
The accident
spread radioactivity around 40% of Europe's territory as well as
heavily contaminating land across Ukraine, Russia and Byelorussia,
according to a recent report. About two thirds of the nuclear fallout
ended up outside of these three worst affected countries, and was
mostly spread around Western Europe. The effects are still felt today.
The coalition
of 200 NGOs is calling on Europeans to sign an anti-nuclear petition,
with the aim of collecting one million signatures by the autumn.
Details of the campaign can be found at
www.million-against-nuclear.net.
Goska Romanowicz
------------------->Return
to top
Hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons states
------------------->
The fate of nuclear weapons is no farce
Sue Wareham
Friday, 28 April 2006
Canberra Times
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=yoursay&subclass=general&story_id=476614&category=Columns%20-%20Opinions&m=4&y=2006
ON OCCASION,
the meetings of the UN Security Council appear more akin to a
theatrical farce than to deliberations on our security.
Now is one such occasion.
This season's
Security Council performance follows the trial of a man who has not yet
committed any crime, but, rogue that he is, might be contemplating
murder.
On the jury are
five convicted confessed murderers who have served no sentence and
enjoy positions of leadership in the community. And so it goes on.
On trial is, of
course, Iran, whose nuclear program leaves open the possibility of it
developing and using the world's worst weapons. It currently has no
nuclear weapons.
The five
permanent members of the Security Council (P5) threaten humanity with
nearly 30,000 nuclear weapons between them, and thus continue to abuse
the authority vested in them by the UN member states to promote peace
and security.
Of the P5,
three have made alarming declarations in recent years. The US, the only
nation to have used nuclear weapons, repeatedly states that it might
use them again, possibly against Iran.
In January this
year, and for the first time ever, France announced the possibility of
a nuclear first strike, when President Jacques Chirac stated that his
nation's response to any state that used terrorist means against it
"could be conventional, it could also be of another nature".
In March 2002,
and on several occasions since, British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon
confirmed that there are situations where Britain would consider a
nuclear first strike. Without exception, these declarations of
readiness to use weapons of mass destruction have barely raised a yawn
in the Western world.
On July 8,
1996, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion
that nuclear weapons were generally illegal. The ICJ judges decided
unanimously that, "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith
and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament."
This ruling applies to every nuclear weapons state (Russia, US, France,
China, Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea). These nations
continue to violate international law by refusing to disarm.
Importantly,
the ICJ drew no distinction between the use of a nuclear weapon and the
threat to use (that is, the possession of) a nuclear weapon. An illegal
act must be neither committed nor threatened.
The Australian
Government appears more preoccupied with nuclear weapons that do not
exist, such as Iran's, rather than with those that actually do. China
is set to receive Australian uranium, and it is likely that India will
too as soon as Prime Minister John Howard judges that he can get away
with it.
Safeguards are
little more than window-dressing. There is ample historical evidence
that they fail and that Australian uranium can end up in weapons. In
any event, even if safeguards work as promised, Australian uranium will
free up any other uranium that China and India have for their weapons
programs, and is therefore a tacit nod of approval for those programs.
Back to the
problem with Iran, whose nuclear program must indeed be taken extremely
seriously. However, while the utterances of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad are grossly irresponsible (as are those of his US
counterpart) we should not forget that they reflect widespread and
well-founded hostility towards Western hubris in the region. Nor should
we ignore one of the many lessons from the invasion of Iraq, namely
that bad situations can be made worse.
As we pass the
third anniversary of that invasion, President George W. Bush's growing
sense of urgency about Iraq's neighbour has a sickening deja vu quality
about it. Is our collective memory so appalling that we would fall a
second time for the White House line, "We may face no greater challenge
from a single country than from X" (insert Iran on this occasion), or
the alarmist British Foreign Office line that Iran might gain the
technical know-how to build the bomb within months?
There are a
number of rational ways forward. As a preliminary, the importance of
abandoning threats, particularly the threat to use nuclear weapons,
cannot be overstated. A threatened Iran will be an increasingly armed
and hostile Iran.
There have long
been calls - by the International Atomic Energy Agency, by the
Non-Aligned Movement (representing over 100 countries), by UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan and by countless non-government
organisations - for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ).
They have been sabotaged because, well, Israel wouldn't like the idea,
and Israel has powerful friends. The proposal can be ignored no longer.
It is fair and non-discriminatory, and would be stabilising for the
region.
There has also
been a call recently from prominent non-government organisations and
individuals for Kofi Annan to set up a UN Mediation Commission on Iran.
Like the NWFZ proposal, this proposal aims partly at consultations
"that go far beyond the scope of the present nuclear conflict".
If this fact
damns the idea in the eyes of those calling for "tough action" on Iran,
then it is clear that the agenda is not the threat posed by nuclear
weapons but rather who is allowed to pose such a threat.
Finally, there
is an urgent need for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, to ban the
development, testing, production, threat and use of nuclear weapons by
all nations, just as there are conventions banning biological and
chemical weapons.
The incessant
mantra of "non-proliferation" that we hear, as if this goal can be
achieved without disarmament by the nuclear weapons states, is
increasingly irksome and futile. It shifts our focus from the real
criminals whose weapons provide the incentive to others to arm
themselves.
It is time to
demand rational, non-inflammatory action to deal not only with Iran,
but all those nations that threaten mass destruction. Farce and
absurdity are fine in the theatre but have no place in determining the
fate of the earth.
Dr Sue Wareham is the immediate past president of Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia).
------------------->Return
to top
The atomic bomb tests in Australia
------------------->
N-tests report deflects blame
By COLIN JAMES
28apr06
<www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18954772%5E2682,00.html>
BRITISH nuclear
test veterans will challenge an official report which disputes
thousands of deaths of servicemen were caused by exposure to
radiation.
The Federal Government study instead has blamed the deaths
of nuclear test veterans on other factors such as exposure to asbestos
and cigarette smoking.
The report -
due to be officially released next week - follows a five-year study
into the deaths of 11,000 Australian servicemen who were present during
British nuclear tests in South Australia and Western Australia between
1952 and 1963.
Veterans have
been unsuccessfully seeking compensation since the early 1970s for
cancer-related illnesses, while hundreds of widows have sought
compensation for the deaths of their husbands, many of whom were in
their 40s or 50s.
Longtime
campaigner for nuclear veterans, Avon Hudson, of Balaklava, said last
night veterans remained adamant cancers which affected thousands of
servicemen were caused by exposure to radiation.
"Rather than
examine all of the deaths in their proper context, the committee which
put together the report has manipulated various factors to get the
result it wanted," Mr Hudson said.
"While we haven't seen the full report yet, we understand it blames other factors such as smoking and asbestos.
"This flies in
the face of how men can be sent without any protective clothing to
stand and watch nuclear bombs being exploded less than a mile away and
then being sent virtually straight away into these contaminated zones
without adequate protection or safeguards."
The Federal Government said yesterday it would not comment until the report was publicly released.
------------------->
Nuclear test findings grim news for veterans
By Cynthia Banham
April 27, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-test-findings-grim-news-for-veterans/2006/04/26/1145861419477.html
A STUDY into
cancer rates among Australian veterans exposed to radiation during
British nuclear tests in the 1950s and '60s has found their incidence
of cancer 23 per cent higher than the general population.
The British
nuclear tests were carried out on the Monte Bello islands off Western
Australia, and at Maralinga and Emu Field in South Australia between
1952 and 1963.
The Department
of Veterans Affairs agreed to carry out a study into the cancer
incidence and mortality among former defence personnel who were exposed
more than five years ago.
About 17,000
servicemen and civilians, including a large numbers of Aborigines, were
exposed to the tests. Many of the service personnel were ordered to
line up unprotected in the open air and turn away from the blasts.
The findings,
which have not yet been released by the Government but have been
obtained by the Herald, show the overall death rate among participants
was similar to that of the general population. But death from cancer
was 18 per cent greater among test participants than among the general
population.
The study also
showed "the number of cancer cases found among participants was 2456,
which was 23 per cent higher than expected".
It found a
significant increase in the number of deaths from, and cases of,
cancers of the lip, oral cavity and pharynx, lung cancer, colorectal
cancer and prostate cancer. Cancer cases, but not deaths, were also
significantly greater among participants for oesophageal cancer,
melanoma and leukaemia.
Avon Haudson,
69, was serving in the RAAF when he was exposed to the British nuclear
tests at Maralinga. He has been fighting a compensation battle against
the Government for 45 years and blew the whistle on the testing in 1975.
"We have known that all along. This doesn't come as a surprise to me … We have all got mates who have died," he said.
However, the study concludes that "the increases in cancer rates do not appear to have been caused by exposure to radiation".
"No relationship could be found between overall cancer incidence or mortality and exposure to radiation."
A spokesman for the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, said the report was "a matter for the Department of Veterans Affairs".
The study's
findings are likely to offer little comfort to the veterans, who have
been waiting for years for their compensation claims against the
Government for physical and psychological illness caused by the
exposure to nuclear radiation.
A 1999 report
found no clear link between exposure to the tests and deaths, because
of the limited information available. The Federal Government then
conducted a more comprehensive study. The latest study was carried out
on 11,000 participants.
A total of 12
nuclear bombs were exploded during the British tests. There were also
hundreds of minor trials in which raw uranium, plutonium, beryllium and
other toxic materials were blasted with conventional explosives to
simulate accidental detonation.
------------------->Return
to top
Uranium exploration in Australia
------------------->
NSW URANIUM FEARS CONFIRMED
Uranium targeted as part of new exploration mining in Wiradjuri Country:
Uranium, gold and silver resources are being targeted as part of an
expanding mineral exploration in the Lachlan River Valley
Mooka and Kalara traditional owners have raised grave concerns that NSW
exploration company Champion Resources have been granted nine exploration
licenses for gold in the Lachlan Fold Belt. Champion are waiting for an
outcome on a license application to explore for uranium in a 300 square
kilometre area at Nangerybone half way between Condobolin and Cobar.
The `aggressive exploration' activity is also targeting gold and silver
deposits at Manna Mountain, adjacent to the recently commenced Barrick
Gold's controversial Lake Cowal gold project.
Spokespersons for the Mooka and Kalara traditional owners, Willie Gilbert
and Steven Coe, say: "We are very very concerned that this exploration
activity has commenced without notification or consultation with Wiradjuri
Traditional owners, particularly in areas which are sacred to us, such as
Manna mountain. It has now been brought to our attention that Champion
Resources have applied to conduct exploration on our country for uranium.
No one has told us this is happening and nor has the public been made
aware that this is the opening up of NSW to the terrible scourge of
uranium, which our culture says should be left in the ground."
The traditional owners are requesting that these matters be raised in the
NSW parliament at its next sitting.
------------------->
Uranium is hot, but don't get burnt
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/uranium-is-hot-but-dont-get-burnt/2006/04/02/1143916408517.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
By Barry Fitzgerald
April 3, 2006
DURING the
dotcom bubble, mineral explorers simply had to state that they were
"reviewing possible internet-related investments" to get some pep into
their share price.
The current
uranium boom is providing a similar opportunity, with daily statements
from junior explorers about the possibility of them floating off new
companies to hold ground that might just have the potential to host
some of the radioactive stuff.
And who can
blame them. Oxiana and Minotaur showed what could happen when they
floated off their South Australian uranium exploration ground into Toro
Energy. At the float price, Toro would have had a market capitalisation
of $36 million.
That it had a
market cap of $150 million on Friday tells you that these are
interesting times for uranium-focused explorers. But junior explorers
looking to extract some value from the uranium boom need to tread
carefully. Overemphasising their uranium sex appeal can quickly cause
market credibility issues.
It happened in
the dotcom bubble. Those explorers that chased internet-related
opportunities at the expense of their mineral exploration heritage were
shunned by serious mining market investors when they did an about-face
on the dotcom bubble bursting in 2002.
It is an issue
Batavia Mining is dealing with right now. While it is happy for its
uranium interests to become what they may, the company is keen for
near-term gold/copper development opportunities to remain front and
centre in the minds of investors.
Batavia boss
Greg Durack hits the roadshow circuit this week, with copper and gold
prices at record highs and investor enthusiasm for all things uranium
continuing unabated.
Batavia has all
three commodities in its portfolio — the first two as part of the
Deflector gold/copper project at Gullewa in Western Australia's
Murchison region and the uranium as part of an early-mover portfolio of
Northern Territory tenements.
Batavia will no
doubt be reviewing its options to maximise the benefit of its uranium
exploration portfolio for shareholders and a spin-off would not
surprise. Given the uranium-friendly NT addresses of the portfolio,
it's fairly certain.
But Durack's
main reason for the roadshow is to bring the market up to date on
progress of the group's scoping study into the development of
Deflector. The market expects the study to be released in a week or two.
Durack, a
metallurgist and former Normandy executive, has been the main man in
the past 14 months in turning around the prospects for Deflector, a
project with a chequered history.
Key to the
turnaround has been the development of a treatment flowsheet for all
three ore-types at Deflector, a challenge that has confounded previous
owners of the deposit.
The project has
also come into its own from an exploration perspective, with successful
deep-drilling programs resulting in a bigger than expected resource
upgrade to 775,000 gold equivalent ounces late last year. The
metallurgical progress and the resource upgrade prompted Batavia to
accelerate the scoping study, which could confirm the viability of a
project development costing only $15 million or so thanks to the
existing plant and infrastructure at the Gullewa site. Annual
production could be more than 40,000 ounces of gold and 2000 tonnes of
copper, with first production possible in 2007.
Funding should
not be a problem, with the company's interim requirements covered by an
$8.9 million raising comprising a $1 million placement to an Asian gold
fund and an options issue, involving the early exercise of the
company's June 2006 options at 5¢ each. Both the placement and
options issue are up for shareholder approval at a meeting in Perth
today. Batavia shares closed at 7.5¢ each on Friday.
------------------->
Labor faces tough battle on uranium policy
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-faces-tough-battle-on-uranium-policy/2006/04/02/1143916408962.html
By Michelle Grattan
April 3, 2006
LABOR'S
environment spokesman Anthony Albanese says the ALP's uranium policy
shouldn't be changed — laying the basis for a tough battle in the run
up to next year's national conference.
Mr Albanese, a
leading member of the left, said there was no clamour within the party
or from the unions to alter the long-standing policy. This says a
federal Labor government will not allow any new mines to open beyond
those already approved when it comes to office.
His comments
come in response to a push within the party, including from resources
spokesman Martin Ferguson and South Australian Premier Mike Rann, for a
liberalisation. That needs national conference approval.
Those wanting
change had to have answers to a number of intractable problems, Mr
Albanese told The Age yesterday. These included the economic costs of
nuclear power, the disposal of waste, and the effect on nuclear
proliferation.
He said there
were increasing difficulties with the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty,
and high level of waste from power plants that could be used to make
nuclear weapons. "In the global climate of terrorism, the issue of
nuclear proliferation has never been more serious.
"Even after
half a century of the nuclear industry its advocates are no closer to
resolving the issues, particularly of waste. This is highlighted by
Australia's difficulty in finding a satisfactory solution to disposing
of the minimal amount of low-level waste we have from medical
procedures."
The problems of
nuclear power had meant fewer nuclear power plants in Western Europe
and the US since 1986, Mr Albanese said, with some countries
decommissioning plants.
Mr Ferguson
said yesterday on Nine's Sunday: "It's no longer about whether we have
another mine or two. It's about the conditions of export." He also
strongly supported the projected opening of the Honeymoon mine in South
Australia, which Mr Rann has said he will back.
------------------->
Uranium hopefuls
Tim Boreham
April 11, 2006
The Australian
THE current
valuations being ascribed to even the most rag-tag uranium hopefuls
might look reasonable in a decade's time. But it's just as likely that
we've solved the Middle East's woes and sent a man to Mars by then as
well.
The truth is:
even if another ripper uranium resource is proved up, there's
bugger-all prospect of an Australian mine being built (and approvals
granted) in that period.
While the world
will clamour for more uranium, shorter-term demand is likely to be
satisfied by known new mines and existing projects, such as BHP
Billiton's Olympic Dam.
Even Rio
Tinto's Leigh Clifford - who's now known for pontificating on commodity
prices - warns the current $US40 a pound uranium price - which has
almost doubled in the past year - cannot be sustained.
He notes the planned new nuclear power plants - such as the 40 slated by the Chinese - could take a decade to fire up.
Clifford's
salient warning is supported by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural
& Resource Economics, which forecasts a modest 1 per cent per annum
uptick in uranium demand over the next five years.
ABARE forecasts
that the value of Australia's uranium exports will decline to $521
million by 2010-11, compared with $712 million in 2005-06.
"Despite recent
significant increases in expenditure on uranium exploration, uranium
production over the outlook period is expected to be largely dictated
by production from existing operations," ABARE says.
While there's a
big global supply/demand gap, the void is filled by recycling material
from decommissioned bombs and reprocessing spent fuel.
There's also
new production this year: Paladin Resources' Langer Heinrich project in
Namibia (1180 tonnes per year) and the Zarechnoye mine in Kazakhstan
(590 tonnes).
Next year, it's
Southern Cross Resources' Dominion project in South Africa (1800
tonnes), while Cameco (the world's biggest producer) is expanding
output at its existing Cigar Lake operation in Canada.
As with all
manias, investors are spoiled for choice in terms of options to do
their dough. At least 40 listed miners claim a uranium exposure. Dozens
have packaged up their uranium tenements (or, strictly speaking,
patches of dirt where uranium might reside) and flogged them off.
Oxiana, for
instance, spun off Toro Resources (TOE) at 20c on March 24. Toro only
yesterday announced the start of its drilling program, but that didn't
stop the stock leaping to a high of $1.60 in late March. TOE stock
yesterday closed 5.5c better at $1.22.
The uranium mania has been fuelled by political developments which look promising, but might be red herrings more than anything.
First, Labor's
likely rethink on its "three mines" stance could remove a 20-year
impediment to the sector's development. Labor governs in the relevant
states of South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland, but expect
them to handpass the hot potato into the calloused hands of their
federal comrades.
Criterion
suspects Labor's policy will change, given Australia has $32 billion of
current uranium reserves. Alternatively, Labor is likely to be voted
out of office in at least one of these states over the next decade,
with Queensland looking the most vulnerable.
In the shorter term, it's more important for miners to prove up a resource for the politicians and greenies to argue over.
Uranium
enthusiasts have also been heartened by the feds' agreement with China,
to allow the Chinese to buy yellowcake and explore for the stuff here.
Hmm, very
promising. But once again, the existing mines will fill the short-term
demand. China did sign an exploration deal with Uranium Exploration
(UNX), but there's more than a sneaking suspicion it's more interested
in Uranex's Tanzanian ground.
Criterion
ascribes a SELL recommendation to a whole sector: uranium explorers
with no proven resources and little hope of achieving production.
It's a bit
tough to tar all the players with the "overvalued" brush, but the
valuations look crazy. At the very least, there's no way of knowing
whether they're ridiculous or not.
Examples are Toro, UNX (38.5c), Nova Energy (NEL, $1.74), Encounter Resources (ENR, 60.5C) and Globe Uranium (GBE, 55c).
Paladin (PDN) should make good money from Langer Heinrich and its Malawi project will probably get off the ground.
But Paladin's
market cap stands at $2.1 billion: more than the value ascribed to the
Seven Network, Unitab, Dyno Nobel or the soon-to-be-producing Bendigo
Mining.
A handful are
worthy of a SPECULATIVE BUY. Summit Resources (SMM) has a proven ore
body at its Mt Isa project: 22,100 tonnes of "measured and indicated
resources". It's the local deposit most likely to be developed.
Marathon Resources (MTN, $1.07) has 33,000 tonnes of inferred resources at its Mt Gee tenement in the Flinders Ranges.
"Marathon Resources appears to be in the right place at the right time," says stock-picker Fat Prophets.
Another investor says: "Marathon has run ahead of itself. Needs to do more work."
Compass
Resources (CMR, $2.35) also earns Brownie points for looking in the
right place: the Rum Jungle field in the Northern Territory, which
supplied Cold War uranium to the British and Americans before being
forgotten for four decades.
Monaro
Resources (MRO $1.06) is taking a different tack and looking to the
Kyrgyz Republic, Russia's traditional source of uranium.
Monaro is still
setting up, but boasts the biggest acreage in the consonant-rich
republic. As well as being deficient in vowels, Kyrgyz also lacks the
usual pesky environmental standards and red tape.
Alternatively, investors could forget about the blue sky and stick with ERA, the only dedicated uranium producer.
The trouble is,
ERA's output is subject to long-term contracts well below current spot
prices. Over time, these contracts will be rewritten at higher prices,
so uranium's old-timer will be able to join the party.
ERA shares look fully valued at $15 but we rate them a LONG-TERM BUY.
Criterion
subscribes to uranium watcher (and Monaro chairman) Warwick Grigor's
view that investors should hold back for more drilling results.
His rule of thumb is that anyone with a 1000-tonne plus resource is worth a look at.
Grigor believes uranium is not just a cyclical play, but will benefit from sustained long-term energy demand.
The world certainly can't rely on wind farms if those orange-bellied parrots keep flying in the way.
Grigor adds: "I think the sector needs to play it cool for a little while." Indeed.
borehamt@theaustralian.com.au
The Australian
accepts no responsibility for stock recommendations. Readers should
contact a licensed financial adviser. The author does not hold shares
in the above-mentioned companies.
------------------->
Nuclear frisson spells dawn of a new ERA
27apr06
Herald Sun
URANIUM miner Energy Resources of Australia will boost spending on exploration amid growing interest in nuclear power.
"With a
stronger outlook for the industry, ERA has significantly increased
exploration spending," ERA chairman David Klingner told the company's
annual meeting in Sydney yesterday.
"We hope this will lead to an increase in the known ore reserves and resources, and the discovery of new deposits."
ERA, which is
majority-owned by mining giant Rio Tinto, said expenditure on
exploration was expected to surpass $5 million this year.
The world's
third largest uranium miner is due to stop mining at the Ranger mine in
Kakadu National Park in 2008, but uranium oxide will continue to be
processed at the site, 250km east of Darwin, until 2014.
Dr Klingner
said prices for uranium oxide had risen in the past year as nuclear
power gained favour in the face of increasing demand for energy.
About 16 per cent of the world's electricity comes from nuclear power.
Dr Klingner
said contracts being negotiated would reflect the higher price levels,
as those tied to lower prices several years ago expired.
"We are going to be in a position to progressively reap the benefits of the high prices."
Meanwhile, the
company is continuing to assess the impact of the downgraded cyclone
Monica, which hit just north of Jabiru this week.
AAP
------------------->Return
to top
Synroc
------------------->
Fast-bake fix straight from nuclear kitchen
By Richard Macey
April 26, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fastbake-fix-straight-from-nuclear-kitchen/2006/04/25/1145861349936.html
ALMOST three
decades after it was proclaimed the solution to the world's nuclear
waste problem, construction of the first synroc plant is about to begin.
Unveiled in
1978 by Ted Ringwood, a geochemist from the Australian National
University, synroc, or synthetic rock, was said to copy the way nature
locked up radioactivity in the earth. But when Professor Ringwood died
in 1993 there was little to show for his revolutionary idea.
"Synroc had a
marketing problem," said George Collins, chief of research at the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at Lucas
Heights. "It was designed for high-level waste, concentrated waste from
the reprocessing of fuel from nuclear power stations. But not many
countries have high-level waste."
But Dr Collins
said synroc was "still a good idea". Instead of high-level nuclear
waste, the synroc plant, to be operational in about two years, will
store 5700 litres of intermediate-level waste produced at Lucas Heights
during 30 years of making radioactive pharmaceuticals.
The waste, from
an isotope called molybdenum-99, will be bound into artificial rock
made from titanium oxide, using a process Dr Collins described as
similar to baking a cake.
It re-created
conditions near the planet's centre that naturally trapped radioactive
elements such as uranium and thorium inside the crystal structures of
rocks for millions of years.
The technique
has been refined at ANSTO by a team led by a Turkish-born couple, Dr
Erden Sizgek and his wife, Dr Devlet Sizgek, who have completed a scale
mock-up of the synroc plant, often hammering out technical details over
the dinner table.
The synroc and its waste would be put into cans and stored for ever at the proposed Northern Territory nuclear waste depot.
------------------->Return
to top
India - nuclear and other energy options + US-India nuclear deal
------------------->
Power points
By Leonard Weiss
May/June 2006 pp. 21, 63 (vol. 62, no. 3) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Leonard Weiss
is the former staff director of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and
Nuclear Proliferation and the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj06weiss
As skeptics
increasingly voice concerns that the proposed U.S.-India nuclear
agreement could damage the world's nonproliferation regime, advocates
of the deal have sought to put a positive spin on the issue by
stressing the energy benefits to both countries. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice wrote in the March 13 Washington Post, "Civilian
nuclear energy will make [India] less reliant on unstable sources of
oil and gas." Indian Amb. Ronen Sen declared in a March 21 interview
with the online news site Rediff.com that "If we in India reduce our
dependency on imported fossil fuels, one obvious consequence would be
the stabilization of international oil prices at lower levels."
These claims,
however, don't stand up to scrutiny. In 2005, only about 1 percent of
India's installed electrical capacity of 120 gigawatts electric (GWe)
was fueled by oil, according to figures available at Indian President
A. P. J. Abdul Kalam's website. Nuclear energy accounts for only about
2.7 percent of India's capacity. Most of India's energy comes from coal
(55 percent) and hydroelectric power (26.4 percent); some comes from
natural gas (10.3 percent). Wind, solar, and other renewable energy
sources (5.2 percent) produce more centrally generated electricity than
both oil and nuclear combined.
This is not
surprising. India prefers not to use its oil for centrally generated
electricity, but rather reserves it for other uses such as
transportation. So India's use of nuclear energy will do little to
release more oil into the international market. And while nuclear
energy could supplant coal energy, doing so would be far more expensive
than raising the level of energy efficiency, not to mention the huge
additional costs of storing radioactive spent fuel and disposing of
nuclear waste.
India's Bureau
of Energy Efficiency reports that, in the industrial sector alone, more
efficient use of energy could conserve 15 GWe of electricity a year.
Further improvements in end-use efficiency of household appliances
could save another 3-5 GWe. That means 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. One argument made in favor of building nuclear reactors
is that nuclear energy reduces greenhouse gases. But if India were to
go the route of increasing energy efficiency over more nuclear plants,
the reduction of greenhouse gases would be greater, since such
improvements can be made in a much shorter time.
Of course,
improved efficiency alone is not the answer. As India's economy and
population grow, it will need additional energy. But according to
India's own picture of what its power production would look like if it
were to achieve energy independence by 2030, most of such production
would not come from nuclear power. Under this scenario, the projected
level of electric power production would be 456 GWe and would still be
fueled mainly by coal (43.8 percent), followed by hydro (22 percent),
renewables (27.6 percent), and, finally, nuclear (6.6 percent). It is
clear that India does not see nuclear power as the solution to its
energy problems for the next 25 years.
India's energy
problems go beyond finding adequate supply. Rural areas, where 70
percent of India's population lives, use only 13 percent of the power
on the grid. Nationally, only 55 percent of Indian households have
power-grid connections. It is evident that India's most pressing
electrical energy issue is distribution, yet more than 90 percent of
investment in its power sector goes into generation and transmission.
One approach to
this problem is decentralized, distributed energy generation, in which
small- to medium-sized facilities are located near sites of power
demand, in contrast to relying on large central power plants. Because
the electricity produced by distributed generation flows shorter
distances to consumers, it is cheaper than relying on a vast
transmission and distribution network, which has high capital,
operations, and maintenance costs, as well as significant energy
losses. Distributed generation encompasses a number of options: wind
power, biomass- (organic matter) and waste-driven fuel cells,
microturbines, and solar photovoltaics. It includes the use of natural
gas-fueled turbines for combined heat and power installations for large
facilities.
Worldwide,
nations are recognizing the benefits of this approach. According to the
Britain-based nonprofit World Alliance for Decentralized Energy, in
2004 decentralized sources generated 52 percent of the electricity in
Denmark, 39 percent in the Netherlands, 37 percent in Finland, 31
percent in Russia, 18 percent in Germany, 16 percent in Japan, and 15
percent in China. Moreover, Amory Lovins, a world-renowned energy
analyst and CEO of the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute, recently
published data in Nuclear Engineering International (December 2005)
demonstrating that new nuclear plants and central coal- or gas-fired
power plants are all uncompetitive with various decentralized
renewables, combined heat and power installations, and efficient end
use of electricity.
Beyond this,
one of the most ignored or misrepresented issues in the current debate
over the nuclear deal is the huge potential of India's alternative
sources of electricity. According to a study by the international
management consulting firm Frost and Sullivan, India's untapped
electrical generating capacity is 150 GWe from hydro (the equivalent of
150 large nuclear plants), 85 GWe from biomass, and 45 GWe from wind
power. India is already the world's fourth-largest producer of wind
power, which currently produces 50 percent more electrical power than
India's nuclear reactors.
All of these
facts lead to the conclusion that the nuclear deal with India is the
wrong deal with the wrong energy source at the wrong time. India needs
outside assistance in meeting its growing energy demand, but that
assistance should be focused on those energy investments with the
greatest potential for meeting demand with the least cost and
environmental insult.
A more
appropriate energy agreement would concentrate on developing India's
indigenous resources in the areas of hydro, wind, biomass and solar;
assist in improving end-use efficiency; and aid planning for more
distributed generation. Since India has no choice at this point but to
rely on coal until the potential of these other sources are more fully
realized, clean coal technologies and coal gasification are also
appropriate and important areas for cooperation.
New natural gas
supplies, domestic or imported, can play an important role as well.
Natural gas is the most benign fossil fuel in terms of the production
of greenhouse gases, and its use in place of coal is beneficial to the
environment.
With so many
better alternatives than the expansion of nuclear on the table, it is a
pity that the White House chose to fashion a deal that caves to the
powerful nuclear lobby in India and increases proliferation risks but
does nothing for the Indian energy consumer or the world's need to
conserve oil.
------------------->
India won't commit on nuke testing
From correspondents in New Delhi
April 18, 2006
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18847041-5001028,00.html
INDIA will not
make a commitment to the United States that it will ban nuclear
testing, which Washington has linked to a landmark atomic deal between
the two countries, the foreign ministry said today.
The deal signed
during a visit in March by US President George W. Bush seeks to lift an
embargo on the transfer of nuclear fuel and technology to India for
civilian purposes.
New Delhi has promised to separate its military and civil facilities, opening most of the latter to international inspections.
The deal must be ratified by the US Congress and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group.
New Delhi has
refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which bans
nuclear explosions but has announced a unilateral moratorium on atomic
explosions after carrying out such tests in 1998.
The
foreign ministry said Washington had suggested in a new draft of the
agreement that the deal would be cancelled if India conducted a nuclear
explosion.
In a statement,
the ministry said: "India has already conveyed to the United States
that such a provision has no place in the proposed bilateral agreement."
"India's position on CTBT...is well known and continues to remain valid."
US opponents
said the nuclear deal abandons non-proliferation principles and will
complicate efforts to curb the spread of atomic weapons elsewhere, such
as in Iran and North Korea.
India had asked
Australia to sell it uranium during a visit by Prime Minister John
Howard shortly after Mr Bush's visit but was turned down because it was
not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
------------------->
U.S. Acknowledges “Double Standard” on Indian Deal
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2006_4_12.html#1C6CF041
WASHINGTON —
The United States is unapologetically pursuing a “double standard” as
it seeks a civil nuclear trade agreement with India, while pressuring
Iran and North Korea to abandon their alleged nuclear weapons programs,
the top U.S. negotiator on the agreement said last week (see GSN, April
7).
India has never
joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and Iran has been a member
since 1970, although the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of
Governors found Tehran to be in noncompliance with its nuclear
safeguards agreement late last year. North Korea was alleged to have a
nuclear weapons program before and after it announced withdrawing from
the treaty in 2003.
“A lot of our
critics will say that’s a double standard. ‘How can you treat India one
way and treat other countries another?’ And we say, ‘It is a double
standard,’” said Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas
Burns in a brief speech Thursday before a gathering of lawmakers,
lobbyists and others presumably favoring the deal in the U.S. Capitol.
The approach
was valid, he said, because of differences between India’s government
and the regimes in Iran and North Korea, because New Delhi is friendly
with the United States, and because India has “played by the rules” of
nuclear nonproliferation in recent decades, a point disputed by
critics.
“We treat
India, a democratic, peaceful friend, differently than we treat Iran
and North Korea and we’re very happy to say that. India is inviting the
IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] in, Iran is pushing the IAEA
out. India is playing by the rules. Iran is not. If that’s a
system of double standards, we’re very proud to establish that double
standard on behalf of a democratic friend,” Burns said.
The potential
agreement — which because of India’s nuclear weapons program requires a
relaxation of export control restrictions by an undecided U.S. Congress
and unanimous support for an Indian exception to the export rules of
the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group — would strengthen the
nonproliferation system, he said.
“Let’s consider
where we are right now in 2006. We have an anomalous situation.
We have an NPT regime where cheaters and violators Iran and North Korea
are inside the system. And we have a great friend of the United States,
democratic India, which has played by the rules for 30 years, has not
proliferated its nuclear technology, and is outside the system,” he
said.
“And so, what we did is sat back and said, ‘What is the best interest of our country over the long term?’” he said.
Critics of the
deal have challenged India’s nonproliferation credentials, noting it
conducted in 1974 a nuclear test explosion supposedly using technology
and material obtained from the United States and Canada; is one of four
NPT hold-outs believed to possess nuclear weapons, along with North
Korea, Pakistan and Israel; has amassed an arsenal of potentially 200
nuclear weapons, comparable to neighboring rival Pakistan; has refused
to sign the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; and reportedly
conducted five nuclear weapons tests in 1998. Critics have also noted
that the U.S. State Department twice sanctioned Indian entities in
recent years for alleged nuclear exports to Iran.
“Of course
India is a major proliferator. Their detonations in 1974 and 1998
directly convinced other countries to develop their nuclear programs,”
said Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation director at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace and a critic of the agreement.
“It’s their
actions that are contributing to proliferation. It’s convenient for the
administration to define proliferation narrowly as the sale of
technology, but that has never been primarily what the proliferation
problem has been about. It’s about countries acquiring nuclear weapons.
One country’s arsenal begets its neighbor’s arsenal, that’s the
proliferation problem, that’s where India has never cooperated,” he
said.
Burns’ comment
that India has “played by the rules” echoed those of another senior
Bush administration official in March suggesting that India’s defiance
of international nonproliferation agreements could be excused because
New Delhi had never signed them.
“They never
pretended that they had given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. They
never tried to tie what they were doing under a cloak of international
legitimacy. They did it openly and they did it legitimately,” U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said, adding the next day,
“India and Pakistan had never signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and
therefore, they weren’t in violation of it by having nuclear programs.”
Burns rejected criticisms that the deal could provoke increased nuclear proliferation in Asia.
“Others have
said, ‘This is going to lead to an arms race in South Asia. There are
unintended consequences. This is a leap of faith. How do
you know that this won’t promote between India and China, India and
Pakistan, an expansion of nuclear weaponry between them?’ We said, look
at India’s record. It has a very small deterrent force. It has a
policy of no first use [of nuclear weapons], and is a peaceful country
that doesn’t attack its neighbors. And by the way, India’s got enough
uranium, enough scientific technology and mastery to double or triple
[its] arsenal,” he said.
“We don’t think
the motivation of the Indian government is to spend money on nuclear
weapons. It’s to spend money on nuclear power,” he said.
Potential Perks
Burns said
Thursday there was a lot riding on the potential nuclear deal, citing a
potential package of agreements for closer relations in a number of
areas, including high-tech trade, space cooperation, agriculture,
science, health and the environment.
“This agreement
will help cement the strategic partnership that I just talked
about. It is the lynchpin of it. And if we achieve it, the
future is limitless. If for any reason we cannot achieve it, then I
think it will be a major setback,” he said.
He told the
Indian ambassador to the United States, R.S. Jassal, who was in the
room, that the Bush administration would also like to see the United
States win nuclear energy deals in India once U.S. and international
restrictions are lifted.
“We certainly
hope Mr. Ambassador that you’re going to look kindly on American firms
when facing their European and Russian counterparts. We’re banking on
that, because we know that does mean jobs for American citizens,” he
said.
“It’s
outrageous for American officials to sell out vital national security
interests so that some companies can make a buck,” said Cirincione.
“Proliferation
double standards cannot work. If this deal stands, the nonproliferation
treaty will fall and U.S. national security interests will be set back
a generation or more. You cannot maintain this treaty if
this U.S. starts picking and choosing who are legitimate nuclear
powers,” he said.
U.S. officials have said the deal is not intended to endorse India’s nuclear weapons status.
A Pakistani
official reportedly said Friday it should be allowed access to nuclear
technology along with India and that it had proposed a “strategic
restraint regime in South Asia” that would head off an arms race in the
region (see GSN, April 10).
Pakistan’s
president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, reportedly said yesterday his country
might sign a nuclear technology deal with China (see GSN, April 11).
------------------->
SAY NO TO THE US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL
by David Krieger and Jonathan Granoff, April 26, 2006
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/04/26_krieger_granoff_no-us-india.htm
George W. Bush
thought that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He
was wrong. Now Mr. Bush has returned from India, and has proposed
a nuclear deal that he believes will help both the Indian and American
people. He is wrong again.
Mr. Bush wants
to cut a deal that will advance India’s nuclear capabilities, with
potential profit for US corporations. The deal will bring some of
India’s nuclear reactors under international safeguards, but will have
the effect of further undermining the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In exchange for
robust nuclear technology sharing, Mr. Bush’s “deal” will place 14 of
India’s 22 nuclear facilities under international safeguards.
That will leave eight of India’s nuclear facilities without safeguards,
including a fast breeder reactor program that produces plutonium that
can be used by India to increase its production of nuclear weapons. The
deal provides no cap on India’s production of more nuclear
weapons-grade fissionable materials.
India
never joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but it did
develop nuclear weapons. The deal is being sold to the Congress
and American people on the basis of strengthening relations with the
world’s largest democracy, while the fact that it undermines the
non-proliferation regime is being swept under the carpet.
The deal with
India also undermines US credibility in its efforts to prevent Iran
from developing nuclear weapons. Unlike India, Iran is a party to the
NPT and has publicly renounced nuclear weapons. Iran is subject to
inspection and monitoring by the international community, which could
be strengthened. The US loses its ability to influence the Iranians by
dealing in such an unprincipled manner with India. Certainly
Iranian leaders have not failed to notice the double standards in the
US application of its non-proliferation policies.
Further, the
nuclear weapons states that are parties to the NPT have obligations
under the treaty to participate in “good faith” negotiations to achieve
nuclear disarmament. India has no such obligation. India
gets all the benefits with none of the obligations. Iran gets none of
the benefits and all the burdens. What does this say to the rest of the
world?
It gets worse:
the deal will allow India to harvest the plutonium and enriched uranium
from its non-safeguarded nuclear facilities and use it for increasing
the size of its nuclear arsenal. Not only is Pakistan upset about
this potential change in its nuclear balance with India, but other
countries will question why they should stay bound by their
non-proliferation pledges under the treaty. An enlarged Indian
nuclear arsenal will undoubtedly provoke China to increase its arsenal.
The US and Russian reaction to such a build up predictably will lead
them to further strengthen their own arsenals.
To the rest of
the world, the proposed US-India nuclear deal says that the US isn’t
serious about preventing nuclear proliferation. A country such as
India that develops nuclear weapons only has to sit back and wait for
the US to place other geopolitical or economic interests ahead of
non-proliferation and the sanctity of the rule of law. Other
countries, such as Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria and Brazil, which could
potentially develop nuclear arsenals, may decide to rethink their
options and follow the path of India.
What will China
do in its relations with Pakistan? Will they refrain from sharing
nuclear technology and helping to strengthen Pakistan’s nuclear
capacities? On what basis will the US seek to stop China’s
nuclear sharing with Pakistan when the US has played fast and loose
with its own obligations under the law?
Fortunately,
the Bush administration cannot make this deal by itself. It must
have the approval of Congress to alter the 1954 Atomic Energy Act as
well as the approval of the 45 member international Nuclear Suppliers
Group. The Bush administration has already submitted legislation
to Congress that essentially asks it to waive its oversight functions
with regard to nuclear proliferation matters in this deal.
Congress should certainly not relinquish its power of oversight,
thereby giving the president a blank check to make any deal he wishes
with India, regardless of the proliferation consequences.
Congress should say No to this overreaching of the Executive
branch.
There is to no
good argument for the Nuclear Suppliers Group to change its rules to
allow this deal to go forward. Greed is not a good argument. The
proposed US-India deal punches a big hole in the ship of
non-proliferation. The argument that by making this deal with India we
bring it onto the ship thus fails, for the deal itself will sink the
ship.
The deal should
not be given a pass by either Congress or the Nuclear Suppliers Group
unless all of India’s nuclear facilities, civilian and military, are
placed under international safeguards; a verifiable fissile material
cut-off treaty is negotiated, signed and ratified by both the US and
India; and both countries make clear and binding their commitment to
universal nuclear disarmament by providing leadership in creating a new
international Treaty for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The
obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament is required of the US as a
signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. While India is not
similarly bound by the provisions of the NPT, its leaders have stated
on numerous occasions they India would eliminate its nuclear arsenal if
the NPT nuclear weapons states would lead the way.
The current
predicament of the US-India deal further undermining the
Non-Proliferation Treaty would not exist if the US followed its own
principle that no person or country stands above the law. To achieve
this globally, we need a global standard for controlling all nuclear
weapons and nuclear weapons-capable materials. The US should be
leading the way to achieve this global standard, rather than pursuing
ad hoc arrangements that undermine non-proliferation efforts and the
rule of law.
Jonathan Granoff is president of Global Security Institute (www.gsintitute.org).
David Krieger
is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org),
and a leader in the global movement to abolish nuclear weapons.
------------------->Return
to top
Uranium sales to India
------------------->
Dear Editor,
Your call to
give a fair hearing to the latest US-inspired ploy to expand the
nuclear industry irregardless of the consequences is in sharp contrast
with the rest of your histrionic, exaggerated, dismissive, opinionated
and erroneous editorial (The Australian, 15/5/06).
It is clear where you stand and that you have no time for those with a different view.
Anyone who
thinks, after two successive rounds of nuclear weapons testing (1974
and 1998), that “India has an excellent record of using nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes” is either ignorant or too biased to be convinced
otherwise.
Dennis Matthews
------------------->
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19097027-601,00.html
Canberra set to sell uranium to India
Dan Box and Rahul Bedi
May 11, 2006
TOP-level
Australian officials have told their Indian counterparts Canberra will
consider selling uranium to New Delhi even if India refuses to sign the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
At meetings
held in Delhi last week, officials including India's most senior
foreign ministry diplomat, Shyam Saran, discussed how Australia may
agree to change its ban on exporting uranium to countries that have not
signed the NPT if there was "suitable reciprocal movement" from India.
Australian
government sources said yesterday Canberra would require guarantees
from India as strong as those provided by China to secure Australian
uranium, such as agreement to allow inspections of India's nuclear
facilities by the international nuclear watchdog, the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
The
seven-member Australian delegation was led by David Ritchie, deputy
secretary in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and included
John Carlson, director-general of the Australian Safeguards and
Non-Proliferation Office.
The
delegation's visit was decided during a meeting between John Howard and
Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh in March, and was officially intended
to discuss a recent agreement between the US and India to share nuclear
power technology.
However, senior
diplomatic sources said the talks went much further than this. "It was
decided the two sides should have discussions at export level to talk
about Indian and Australian nuclear co-operation," one source said.
The Indian
Government does not intend to sign the NPT, even as a condition of
buying more uranium, and instead has discussed the possibility of
accepting other regulatory safeguards.
India has long
seen the NPT, which restricts the development of nuclear weapons to
those countries with an existing nuclear arsenal when the treaty was
drawn up in 1970, as unfair because it bans every country but the five
original signatories from developing nuclear weapons.
"India's
position is that the NPT is not a non-discriminatory treaty ... you
notice the double-negative," an Indian source said. "We have been
discussing this issue, including safeguards. We are discussing that
with the US and other countries, including Australia."
A DFAT spokeswoman said yesterday the details of the discussions between the two governments were confidential.
"There are no
current intentions to change Australia's long-standing policy of only
selling uranium to countries that are party to the nuclear NPT and with
which we have a bilateral safeguards agreement," the DFAT spokeswoman
said.
India has 14 small and one mid-sized nuclear power reactors, with eight more under construction and others planned.
New Delhi
conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 and five others in April 1998,
two days after a successful missile test by neighbouring Pakistan.
While the size
of the country's nuclear arsenal is not known, the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace estimates India has enough weapons-grade
plutonium for 50-90 nuclear weapons and a smaller quantity of
weapons-grade uranium.
Australia holds
about a third of the world's uranium reserves. The Labor state
governments are debating whether to allow the development of new
uranium mines.
------------------->
Question No.1613
Questions from Senator Allison upon notice, on 9 March 2006.
Answered by Senator Coonan - answers provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Q(1)
Was the Government briefed by the United States (US)
Administration on the nuclear cooperation agreement reached last week
between the US and India; if so, when and by whom.
A(1)
The Government learnt of the contents of the agreement reached
between the US and India when the agreement was announced jointly
by the US President and the Indian Prime Minister on 2 March 2006.
(2)
As part of the agreement, does India retain the right to deny United
Nations inspectors access to a 'fast-breeder' reactor suitable
for producing weapons-grade fissile material.
(2)
Under the agreement India has undertaken to separate its civilian
nuclear energy sector from its military sector. As part of
that undertaking it intends keeping its prototype Fast Breeder
Reactor (PFBR) and Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR), both located
at Kalpakkan, separate from its civilian reactors which are to
be subject to IAEA safeguards.
(3)
Is it also the case that since India refused to agree to a cap, there
is no limit on the expansion of its nuclear arsenal.
(3)
The agreement does not aim to regulate India's nuclear weapons arsenal
but to separate India's nuclear energy sector from its military sector
and place the civilian sector under IAEA safeguards.
(4)
Is the Government aware that President Bush is quoted as saying, at a
gathering of students at Hyderabad, 'When a fast-growing country like
India consumes more fossil fuels, it causes the price of fossil fuels
to go up not only in India, but around the world.'
(4) Yes
(5)
Does the Government consider it legitimate to risk the proliferation of
nuclear weapons in order to reduce competition for world oil.
(5) No
(6)
Does the Government have any information to suggest that making India
more prosperous and well-armed is a US hedge against Chinese military
ambitions, as has been suggested in the press.
(6)
The Government understands that the United States is seeking to support
the development of India's civil nuclear program so as to help in
meeting India's rising energy needs in an environmentally-friendly
manner which will bring India further into the international non
proliferation mainstream.
(7)
Does the Government consider that the supply of uranium and nuclear
technology to India is: (a) appropriate; and (b) likely to undermine
nuclear non-proliferation and encourage non-nuclear nations to proceed
with bomb building programs; if so, why; if not, why not.
(7)
(a) Australia has a longstanding policy of only selling uranium to
countries that are party to the NPT and with whom Australia has a
safeguards agreement. In April 2005 Mr Downer announced that the
Additional Protocol on strengthened IAEA safeguards would be made an
additional condition for supply of Australian uranium. India is
not an NPT party, nor does Australia have a safeguards agreement with
it, nor has it yet signed an Additional Protocol.
(b) India has a good record of preventing onwards proliferation of its nuclear materials and technologies.
(8)
Can details be provided of what representations were made by the
Government to the US Administration on the matter of its nuclear
cooperation agreement with India.
(8)
Since July 2005, when President Bush and Prime Minister Singh announced
in Washington an agreement on facilitating civil nuclear cooperation
with India, there have been discussions between Australian officials
and their US counterparts to seek more information on US intentions for
implementing the agreement.
(9)
Is the Minister aware that Mr Ashley J Tellis, a senior US State
Department official and a key architect of the new strategic policy on
India, has argued that a build-up of India's nuclear arsenal is not
only in New Delhi's interest, but Washington's, as it will cause
Beijing to worry more about India and less about the
United States.
(9) I have received no advice from my department on Mr Tellis' views.
(10)
Does Australian intelligence support reports that India is engaged in a
massive arms buying spree; if so, what is the extent of this.
(10)
Consistent with the practice of successive governments, I do not intend
to comment on intelligence matters.
(11)
Does the Government consider there is a risk that this agreement with
India will encourage China to undertake a similar arrangement with
Pakistan.
(11)
The Chinese Government has given no indication that the US agreement
with India is likely to prompt a substantial change in China's
relations with Pakistan.
(12)
By what process will the Government arrive at a decision whether
Australia will join the US in allowing Australian uranium to be sold to
India.
(12)
It is a matter for the Australian government to determine its policy on
exports of Australian uranium. Australia has a longstanding
policy of only selling uranium to countries that are party to the NPT
and with which we have a bilateral safeguards agreement, and there are
no current intentions to change that policy.
(13) What conditions would apply to uranium sales from Australia to India.
(13) See response to (12) above.
------------------->
Cowboys and Indians
The Bulletin
21/3/06
<http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/62163ED60FF219AFCA25712C002516C3>
Selling uranium to India will only undermine what are, no matter how flawed, the world's only nuclear rules, writes Paul Daley.
So, selling
Australian uranium to China is somehow safer for the world than
flogging it to India? That’s what John Howard and Alexander Downer
would have you believe right now. But it’s a disingenuous proposition.
They know it. And they’re likely to change their tune pretty soon.
According to
their argument, China (which is, by the way, the world’s biggest
dictatorship and one of its foremost human rights violators) can safely
take our uranium because it’s a signatory to the flawed and outdated
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – an agreement with zero prospect of
stopping Beijing fashioning nukes from our yellowcake.
China (as one
of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) is also a
member of the Club of Five (also comprising France, Britain, the United
States and Russia), who enjoy special privileges unavailable to other
signatories. Not the least of which is the capacity to nominate which,
if any, “civilian” nuclear facilities they’ll open to inspectors from
the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose job it is to police
nuclear proliferation across the globe. Despite what China assures the
world, the only difference between its nuclear weapons and energy
programs is a state bureaucracy designed to appease international
critics and confuse inspectors.
There’s another
small problem. China has already proven itself to be a venal, reckless,
and downright irresponsible proliferator of nuclear materials and
know-how. Western intelligence agencies believe China has covertly
exported fissile weapons technology to such rogue nuclear (and would-be
nuclear) weapons states as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Pakistan. With
nuclear friends like them, why should Australia believe China genuinely
intends – as it will contend in a treaty with Canberra when (not if)
the deal to import Australian uranium goes ahead after the current
“negotiations” – that our yellowcake will not make its way into its
weapons program?
All this, of
course, begs two big questions: Why trust China with Australia’s
uranium? And if China can be trusted using this flawed formula, then
why can’t India?
Downer and
Howard are walking both sides of the fence on India and Australian
uranium exports. On the one hand they are deferential to the NPT,
saying India can’t import our uranium because only signatories to the
1970 treaty can do so (even though India would be willing to subject
itself to IEAE inspections if a deal happened). On the other, they have
left the door wide open for India to buy Australian uranium in the
future, after the US this month announced a deal to operate outside the
ambit of the NPT. Despite some recent red-faced public back-pedalling,
Industry Minister Ian McFarlane has previously strongly indicated
Australian uranium could make its way to India.
The US has
chosen to export uranium to India despite the fact Delhi is not a
signatory to the NPT. Because it possesses a sophisticated armoury of
nukes that are not subject to UN controls, India is a rogue nuclear
weapons state though not, it should be said, on a par with North Korea,
Pakistan and perhaps Iran and Syria. (Israel, which has a
long-developed secret nuclear weapons program, is in a league of its
own; there is no evidence its government or Israeli companies have ever
exported nuclear weapons technology – with the possible exception of
apartheid-era South Africa.)
It’s true, as
Washington argues, that India’s case is also different from that of
some of the other rogue nuclear weapons states, not least because it is
a democracy, a key western ally and an emerging trade superpower. But
the case for selling uranium to Delhi to fuel its nuclear reactors for
domestic power supplies nonetheless has little merit.
India, as
Howard noted on his recent arrival there, is the world biggest
democracy. There is a clear distinction between its military and its
executive. This is not, however, the case with India’s civilian and
military nuclear programs, which are, to all intents and purposes,
merged. While there is no evidence the Indian government has ever
traded its covert nuclear weapons know-how, some western intelligence
agencies are unsure about the activities of some Indian companies in
this regard.
The big
problem, however, is that the sale of Australian or American uranium to
India rewards recalcitrant proliferation, further erodes the NPT and
encourages would-be or alleged treaty violators, most notably Iran, to
carry on outside the diplomatic tent.
To understand
why, you must return to 1974 when India tested its first nuclear bomb,
the “Smiling Buddha”. India had refused to sign the 1970 NPT so that it
could develop its weapons capacity away from any international and
diplomatic scrutiny or consequence.
It states the
obvious to say that because India did not sign the NPT, it was not
subject to its strictures, including random inspections of its domestic
nuclear facilities. But its deliberate decision to become a rogue
nuclear weapons state is highly significant in terms of the current
nuclear debate.
India’s Buddha
naturally sparked a regional nuclear arms race with neighbouring
Pakistan. Pakistan, another NPT non-signatory, quickly – under the
tutelage of the entrepreneurial rock star-like atomic scientist Dr
Abdul Qadeer Khan – began developing its own nuclear arsenal based on
stolen plans and hardware, much of it acquired from Europe. Pakistan,
the rogue’s rogue, has sold its know-how to all the usual suspects,
including North Korea, Syria and Saddam’s Iraq. Its generals and
nuclear supremos, not least Khan himself, have become ostentatiously
rich on the proceeds.
Pakistan is a
virtual military dictatorship. It’s also a key American ally in “the
war on terror”. Of course, Washington’s decision to sell uranium to
India rewards Delhi’s NPT recalcitrance and prompts the inevitable
question from Pakistan: Why won’t you sell it to us, too?
Australia will
be asked the same question if it decides to circumvent the
less-than-perfect NPT and follow the American lead in selling uranium
outside the world’s only guidelines on an arbitrary, case-by-case
basis, starting with India.
It’s worth
remembering that the latest global bad boy, Iran, has actually signed
the NPT, although its evasive behaviour is now landing it in trouble.
Based on past inspections of its domestic nuclear facilities (the IAEA,
charged with promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy, does not
actively try to find nuclear weapons factories), Iran is now suspected
of having a nuclear weapons program. As such, it risks Washington’s –
and, less likely, the UN’s – wrath.
Had Iran not
signed the NPT, it would, of course, not be in breach of the UN’s
nuclear guidelines. Conversely, the US, which now threatens to attack
Iran, could not do so with the diplomatic legitimacy it now enjoys if
Iran – like India – had not signed the NPT.
As Australia
prepares to export uranium to China and later, perhaps, to India, it is
worth remembering that Canberra was preparing to sell yellowcake to
Iran in the 1970s, just before the ayatollahs deposed the Shah.
All this shows,
of course, that the single set of rules governing global nuclear
proliferation are a long way from perfect. Rewrite them by all means.
But operating outside the rules is clearly not the answer.
------------------->
Nuclear deal 'important'
Dan Box and Andrew Fraser
May 12, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19107788-2702,00.html
THE possible
sale of uranium to India represented a "very important moment in
Australia's engagement with Asia," India's High Commissioner, Prabhat
Prakash Shukla, said yesterday.
At a series of
meetings in India last week, senior government officials from both
sides discussed the possibility of Australian uranium sales despite
India's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Indian
diplomatic sources have confirmed to The Australian.
The meetings
followed John Howard's visit to India in March and were intended to
gather information about the recent agreement between India and the US
to share nuclear fuel and technology.
Mr Shukla told
the Future Summit on the Gold Coast that, while India had not signed up
to the NPT, it nevertheless remained willing to rid itself of nuclear
weapons once the rest of the world did.
"We have never
deviated from this and this is still our position - if you're willing
to get rid of nuclear weapons on a global basis, we'll be there," Mr
Shukla said.
The Prime Minister said yesterday the meetings held in India last week did not "of itself indicate or flag a change of policy".
"We are not
currently disposed to change our policy in relation to selling uranium
to countries that aren't party to the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty," Mr Howard said.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer also said Australia had not "indicated to the Indians any planned change to that position".
"Their
(India's) general position is that they will sign up to International
Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, but they will only allow inspections
for, if you like, non-sensitive or non-military reactors," Mr Downer
said. Senior Indian diplomatic sources continued to insist yesterday
that the two countries discussed how India might be able to buy
Australian uranium without first signing the NPT. "India does not have
the uranium it needs and since we do not, we need to buy it, and
Australia has uranium," one source said.
During the
talks, India suggested it was prepared to open some of its nuclear
facilities to international inspectors but would refuse to sign the
NPT, which would prohibit its development of nuclear weapons.
Uranium
industry analysts point to the recent nuclear power agreement between
the Bush administration and India as a possible model for future
negotiations.
On May 29,
Australian officials will travel to Rio de Janeiro to attend a plenary
meeting of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, where the US is
expected to lobby other countries to accept the deal.
A spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Australia expected the agreement to be discussed.
"Australia and
other NSG members want to examine this closely, ensuring that the
question of possible nuclear supply to India is addressed in a way that
upholds the wider nuclear non-proliferation regime," the spokesman said.
------------------->
No uranium sales to India yet
By Katharine Murphy
May 12, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/no-uranium-sales-to-india-yet/2006/05/11/1146940676840.html
PRIME Minister
John Howard will seek more information on the recent US nuclear deal
with India when he meets US President George Bush later this week, but
says Australia will not sell uranium to New Delhi — at least for now.
"I will be
seeking further information about the arrangement between America and
India," Mr Howard said yesterday. "We are not currently disposed to
change our policy (which is to sell only to countries that have signed
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has not).
Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer denied a newspaper report that Australian
diplomats had suggested to India that Canberra could sell uranium to
India despite it not signing the treaty.
Mr Downer said
Australia's position had not changed. "I saw an article in the
newspaper today suggesting that our officials had been suggesting to
the Indians that we were planning to change policy and I've checked
that out with the officials because the newspaper reports surprised
me," Mr Downer said yesterday. "The officials have assured me that
that's not correct."
A Foreign Affairs spokesman confirmed that Australian diplomats met Indian counterparts in New Delhi on May 2 and 3.
He said the
diplomats presented Australia's position that there was no current
intention of selling uranium to countries that are not treaty
signatories.
The Howard
Government has been divided on the issue, with Mr Howard not
categorically ruling out future sales to India, and Mr Downer saying
Australia does not sell uranium to countries outside the nuclear club.
Australia
recently completed a safeguards agreement that will allow uranium to be
exported to China, while the US signed its nuclear co-operation
agreement with India.
The Greens and
the Democrats yesterday called on the Government to immediately rule
out selling Australian yellowcake to India. Environmental groups also
expressed concern about any change in Australian policy.
"This would seriously undermine the treaty and jeopardise regional security," Greens senator Christine Milne said.
------------------->
PM plays down India uranium sales talk
Last Update: Thursday, May 11, 2006. 1:44pm (AEST)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1636218.htm
Prime Minister John Howard has played down speculation that the Government is preparing to sell uranium to India.
The Australian
Greens and Democrats have seized on reports of a meeting between
Australian and Indian officials in Delhi to discuss nuclear issues.
India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Mr Howard says the talks do not signal a change in Australia's policy.
He has told Reuters that the meeting was a follow-up to his visit to India in March.
"But it doesn't of itself indicate or flag a change of policy," he said.
"Our policy is
that we don't sell to anybody who's not a party to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and we currently don't have any intention of
changing that."
Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says the Government has not changed its position opposing uranium sales to India.
Mr Downer is playing down the significance of meetings between Australia and India on the issue.
"Our officials
went to India as a result of the visit by our Prime Minister and the
discussions he had with Prime Minister Singh," he said.
"Those
officials have come back, they've provided a report, those officials
are also going to talk to the Americans about the agreement so we have
a better understanding of it all."
Greens Senator
Christine Milne says if the deal goes ahead, it will open the door for
other states that have not signed the agreement to buy Australian
uranium.
"The choice is
quite clear. The Howard Government can undermine the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and go ahead and export uranium to India, or
it choose to be a responsible global citizen," she said.
------------------->
In the world of trade, it's money over morals
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/money-over-morals/2006/04/22/1145344317605.html
April 23, 2006
The powerless are sacrificed to the exigencies of international trade. By Maher Mughrabi.
In September
2002, I paid a visit to the King Centre in Atlanta, Georgia. There I
read a speech Martin Luther King gave on a visit to India. In what he
called an age of "guided missiles and misguided men", India mattered to
King as the home of Mohandas Gandhi, who had inspired his commitment to
non-violence, and for its opposition to nuclear weapons.
For once, I was
almost glad King was not alive. India at that time was governed by the
Bharatiya Janata Party, which had detonated a nuclear weapon in 1998
and hailed it as a triumph of national progress.
Rakesh Sharma's
documentary Final Solution, screened in Melbourne in February, showed
BJP leaders reacting to Gandhi's message with impatience and even
contempt. In classrooms, the BJP and associated organisations have
sought to rehabilitate Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse, and when
Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon paid a state visit in September
2003, the BJP took him to scatter petals on the tomb of the prophet of
non-violence while concluding arms deals worth billions of dollars.
Should
Australia sell uranium to India? The Howard Government's position has
not always been clear, but seems to be that the Chinese regime can be
sold uranium in good conscience because it has signed up to global
accords, while democratic India is outside the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and so can't be considered - yet.
The United
States would like to see that policy bias reversed, and US Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice pushed India's case when she met Howard in
Sydney last month. After his more recent meeting with Tony Blair, the
Prime Minister gave himself room for manoeuvre, saying that India's
"behaviour since exploding a (nuclear) device in 1974 has been
impeccable". The 1998 tests conveniently faded from view.
India's
democracy might also be cited in support of uranium sales, especially
now that Washington has reached its own understanding with New Delhi on
nuclear power. A letter written to The Age after Howard's March visit
to India pointed out that India's President was a Muslim, its Prime
Minister a Sikh and the leader of its largest party a woman, and
contrasted this with Australia's political scene. But is this a fair
take on Indian democracy?
In 1997, I
helped put together a feature on 50 years of Indian and Pakistani
independence. One expatriate Indian banker said: "India is doing very
well, but the huge tail of 'Bharat', the villages, is dragging us
back." Half a century after British India's bloody Partition, a second
division seemed to be under way, between those with power and prospects
and those to be cast aside.
The BJP no
longer governs India at the federal level. Its slogan was "India
Shining", but enough people in the "huge tail" felt the economic pinch
to know better. Its replacement is a shaky coalition headed by the
Congress Party. Yet where the letter writer sees a Muslim (A.P.J. Abdul
Kalam), a Sikh (Manmohan Singh) and a woman (Sonia Gandhi), I see two
men preoccupied with national aggrandisement in business and
technology, and the figurehead of a ruling dynasty.
Last week,
Singh told hunger strikers from Bhopal, whose lives were laid waste by
a gas leak from a Union Carbide plant in 1984, that he would not take
legal action against Union Carbide's current owner, Dow Chemical. "We
have to do business," he said. "India will have to survive despite
these tragedies." But what is India if not its people? Can their
interests truly be forgotten for decades so that the shop stays open?
We have seen
here in recent weeks the extent to which international trade can
involve dubious assumptions about the probity of those concerned and a
blind eye to impropriety when it is in "the national interest". India
is not Saddam's Iraq, but that doesn't mean our sole interest in the
country is what it can do for us financially. When "realists" say
another nation's internal politics and the rights of its population are
concerns too remote to shape trade policy, they should be reminded that
Iraq is a lot smaller and further away from Australia than India. And
that uranium is not wheat.
Maher Mughrabi is a staff writer.
------------------->Return
to top
IAEA boss admits safeguards system is flawed
------------------->
The IAEA
Director-General Dr. Mohamed El Baradei has made any number of
statements about the "fairly limited" basic safeguards system,
"half-hearted" efforts to improve the system, the difficulty of
operating the safeguards system on a "shoestring budget" comparable to
a "local police department".
Check his statements at: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/index.html
Remember
Australia is entirely reliant on the IAEA to prevent military use of
Australian uranium and derivatives such as plutonium and depleted
uranium.
Below is a recent statement from El Baradei.
------------------->
25 March 2006 | Karlsruhe, Germany
Putting Teeth in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n004.html
It is a
pleasure for me to deliver the 2006 Karlsruhe Lecture. My wife asked me
a few days ago why I was so excited to be visiting a group of
distinguished dentists. I told her it was the first time for me to open
my mouth in front of dentists and actually be able to speak.
But more
seriously, I believe it is important that our common challenges in the
search for global security are outlined to dentists - as well as to
people from every profession and background. We are one human family,
connected as never before, and facing an uncertain future. As one
family we will succeed together, to live in peace and dignity, or we
will fail together.
Today my talk
will be focused on what can be done to strengthen the existing order
for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and move towards nuclear
disarmament.
But I also will
explain why, in my view, this order will be of limited value if we fail
to understand and address the major causes of insecurity in our world.
If we want to "put teeth", real teeth, into the nuclear arms control
regime, then not only must we examine the structure of the regime, but
equally important, we must examine the social and security environment
in which this regime operates.
Twentieth Century Changes: Technology and Multilateralism
The 20th
Century brought a number of fundamental changes to the international
security landscape. I would like to discuss two of those changes
because of their particular relevance to our efforts to curb the spread
of nuclear weapons.
Technological
Superiority: The Coming of the A-Bomb
The first change was
"technological". With the advent of submarines, fighter jets and
missiles, traditional borders and barricades no longer afforded the
same protection. Advances in technology figured prominently in the
scale of devastation wrought in Europe and elsewhere during the two
World Wars; they made it clear that technological superiority was key
to military dominance.
The atomic bomb
took that axiom to its ruthless extreme. The destruction of the cities
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were grim manifestations of the power of the
atom.
The development
of nuclear weapons also made clear that unrestrained global conflict
would never again be an option. This reality was best expressed by
Albert Einstein: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be
fought; but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Socio-Political
Evolution: The Rise of Multilateralism
The second 20th Century change
was socio-political: the rise of multilateral alliances and
institutions — both global and regional — as a means of keeping the
peace.
Alliances
between countries were not a new concept. However, the 20th Century
alliances were different. As with wartime alliances, they were formed
as a way to achieve greater strength against common enemies. But as
peacetime alliances, they had an additional objective: to create the
conditions and institutions to prevent and solve conflicts through
peaceful means.
The League of
Nations founded in 1919 eventually proved ineffective. But many of its
basic objectives were inherited by the United Nations. Economic and
social development. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The resolution of disputes through peaceful means. The regulation and
reduction of armaments. And combating aggression through a system of
collective security.
These two
phenomena — advances in military technology, culminating in nuclear
weapons, and the emergence of multilateral institutions, culminating in
the United Nations and its system of organizations — became defining
characteristics of the 20th Century security landscape.
The Cold War Security Framework and Its Aftermath
The Cold War
security framework was, on its surface, symmetrical. Two superpowers,
each backed by an enormous arsenal of nuclear weapons, each stockpile
shaped to offset the threat of the other. Two blocs of nations — the
alliances under NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Even within the evolving
global alliance of the United Nations, East–West tensions frequently
were the constructs through which decision-making was channeled.
The
Post-Cold-War Era
The structure of the current global security system,
by contrast, is somewhat asymmetrical. One remaining superpower. One
military alliance of note - NATO, its membership expanded to include
many countries of the former East Block.
In terms of the
"protection" afforded by nuclear weapons, States continue to fall into
two camps, of "insiders" and "outsiders". The "insiders" are those
States that either possess nuclear weapons or are protected by a
nuclear weapons holder. The "outsiders" are everyone else.
For some
regions, the post-Cold-War security landscape has improved. In Europe,
for example, a process of rejuvenation and democratization has
continued to develop and expand eastwards, and a generally improved
security system is being built based on integration and cooperation.
For many other regions, however, the security situation has deteriorated - driven by a number of factors.
First, the
re-emergence and escalation of old conflicts. Since the end of the Cold
War, ethnic and other conflicts that were once held in check have
erupted to the surface. The recent wars in the former Yugoslavia are
but one example. And longstanding regional conflicts, most notably in
the Middle East, in South Asia and on the Korean Peninsula have
continued to fester, and at times seem on the verge of yet another
eruption.
Second, for the
developing countries of the world, poverty and associated problems of
lack of good governance — ranging from ineptness to tyranny — continue
to influence the security environment. Standards of living are low. The
resources are scarce to support development and the required
institutions and infrastructure are lacking. The results in some cases
are the stifling of civil rights and human rights abuses; and in other
cases, civil wars and ethnic cleansing.
Third, the gap
between North and South, rather than narrowing, is becoming more
visible. Not only is there a continuing reliance on nuclear weapons for
the protection of a limited few, but the global distribution of wealth
and consumption also continues to be far from equitable. The "upper
class" of the world - the wealthiest 20% - consume 80% of the
resources. Over $1 trillion is spent annually on armaments, but less
than 10 per cent of that amount - a mere $80 billion - on official
development assistance to the developing parts of the world. Meanwhile,
two-fifths of the world´s population lives on less than $2 per
day. And 850 million people go to bed hungry every night.
These factors
appear in different combinations in different countries and regions. In
some cases, the local population bears a double burden: the "internal"
hardships brought about by poverty, poor governance and repression; and
the "external" hardships driven by the unwillingness or inability of
the international community to engage fully to help resolve
decades-long conflicts. Naturally, a pervading sense of humiliation,
injustice and despair exists in these regions.
Responses:
Sub-National, National and International
This post-Cold-War environment
has produced a number of responses - at the sub-national and national
level - which, in turn, influence the evolving security situation.
At the
sub-national level, terrorism has planted its footprint on the new
landscape. The conditions I have just described have made various
countries and regions a fertile breeding ground for recruitment of
disaffected youth by extremist groups. Violence perpetrated by such
groups has risen to appalling levels, resulting in horrific tragedies
from New York to Madrid, Istanbul to Bali. Extremist groups have grown
increasingly sophisticated, both in their approach to technology and
their ability to carry out complex missions - and have expressed a
clear desire to acquire nuclear weapons.
At the national
level, a number of countries have taken strategic steps towards
becoming members of the "insider" club of those relying on nuclear
weapons - as a means of reducing their vulnerability or projecting
their power. India, Pakistan and Israel have succeeded, while remaining
outside the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Other countries, such as
North Korea, Iraq and Libya, have made clandestine efforts while being
members of the regime, and North Korea seems to have succeeded. Iran
continues to assert that its nuclear programme is entirely for peaceful
purposes, but the fact that the programme was conducted so long in
secret, and particularly that important aspects of it have not been
clarified, has created a confidence deficit regarding its nature and
its direction.
In the face of
this changing security landscape and its varied security threats, the
response by the international community has been ad hoc. Rather than a
systematic collective effort to adapt to new threats and challenges,
the actions of both States and multilateral institutions have tended to
be uneven and uncoordinated.
Re-Engineering The Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime
Against this
backdrop, we can better assess the effectiveness of existing mechanisms
to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons - and we are also more
equipped to identify the needed adjustments.
The Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has for more than three decades formed
the centrepiece of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament
regime. The Treaty has 189 members - an almost universal membership,
with the notable exception of India, Israel and Pakistan. The NPT
provides important security benefits - by giving assurance that, in the
great majority of non-nuclear-weapon States, nuclear energy is not
being misused for weapon purposes. The NPT is also the only legally
binding agreement in which the five nuclear-weapon States party to the
Treaty have committed themselves to move forward towards disarmament.
But much has
changed since the NPT came into being. In the area of security, in
addition to the renewed drive to acquire nuclear weapons on the part of
States and extremist groups, globalization has brought with it two
unwelcome developments: (1) the spread of nuclear technology and
know-how; and (2) the emergence of clandestine nuclear procurement
networks. These trends make the current challenges to the regime quite
acute.
To address
these challenges, I would offer five practical measures - adjustments
to our current modus operandi. Let me briefly discuss each measure in
turn.
Measure One:
Tighten Controls for Access to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology
The task
of restricting access to sensitive nuclear technology has grown
increasingly difficult in recent years.
Globalization -
with its reduction of trade barriers, interlinked financial networks,
and ease of travel and information exchange - has made the industrial
marketplace more complex and fluid. Far more countries have
sophisticated engineering and industrial capacity. Six decades of
research have created broad diversity in nuclear technology, making it
more difficult to track procurement and sales. Electronic communication
has simplified the transmission of component designs and the exchange
of operating expertise. Many types of sensitive nuclear equipment are
"dual use" - meaning that they could have both civilian and military
applications - which makes it harder to justify export restrictions
and, more importantly, to control trade of these items.
This creates a
markedly different situation from that anticipated by the founders of
the NPT in 1970. Under NPT rules, there is nothing illegal about any
State having enrichment or reprocessing technology - processes that are
basic to the production and recycling of nuclear reactor fuel - even
though these operations can also produce the high enriched uranium or
separated plutonium that can be used in a nuclear weapon.
An increasing
number of countries have sought to master these parts of the "nuclear
fuel cycle", both for economic reasons and, in some cases, as a good
insurance policy for a rainy day - a situation that would enable them
to develop at least a crude nuclear weapon in a short span of time,
should their security outlook change. Whatever the reason, this
know-how essentially transforms them into "latent" nuclear-weapon
States. That is, regardless of their peaceful intentions, they now have
the capability to create weapon-useable nuclear material, which experts
consider to be the most difficult step towards manufacture of a nuclear
weapon, and can use this capability as a deterrent. In today´s
environment, this margin of security is simply not adequate.
Facing up to
this vulnerability in the system, in 2004 I asked a group of experts to
explore options for better control over these sensitive parts of the
nuclear fuel cycle. Their work and the ideas of others have helped to
shape my thinking on how such controls might be put in place.
At the root of
this measure is the concept of making these operations multinational,
so that no one country would have exclusive control over the most
sensitive parts of the fuel cycle. The first stage involves setting up
a reserve fuel bank to be managed by the IAEA, so that every country in
compliance with its non-proliferation commitments would be assured of
getting the fuel needed for its bona fide peaceful nuclear activities.
By providing
this assurance of supply, we can remove the incentive - and the
justification - for each country to develop its own complete fuel
cycle. We can then move towards an agreed moratorium on new national
facilities, and begin work on multinational arrangements for
enrichment, fuel production, waste disposal and reprocessing.
I have been
encouraged by the range of supportive reactions to this initiative. The
nuclear industry has been exploring strategies for fuel assurances. The
US announced last September that it would make fuel available to be
used under an assurance of supply scheme. Russia has also recently
indicated that it intends to make fuel available to the IAEA, to be
used as part of an Agency fuel bank. And President Putin has also
announced that Russia is ready to establish international centres,
operating under IAEA oversight, that would provide fuel cycle services,
including uranium enrichment, on a non-discriminatory basis.
In my view, it
is urgent that the international community develop a unified approach
on this measure and begin moving forward. I should also point out that
many countries are moving to introduce or expand their use of nuclear
energy. A multinational approach to the sensitive parts of the nuclear
fuel cycle is therefore key to our efforts to prevent the emergence of
more countries with the capability to develop nuclear weapons on short
notice.
Measure Two:
Accelerate Global Efforts to Protect Nuclear Material
A second measure
is to accelerate global efforts to protect existing nuclear and
radioactive material. It is essential that such material be kept out of
the hands of extremist groups.
The
IAEA´s Illicit Trafficking Database has, in the past decade,
recorded more than 650 cases that involve efforts to smuggle such
materials. I am relieved to say that only a relatively small number of
these cases have involved high enriched uranium or plutonium. But this
gives me little comfort. The sheer volume of activity makes it clear
that such a marketplace exists. We must assume that, if an extremist
group were to acquire nuclear or radioactive material, they would not
hesitate to use it.
In late 2001,
the IAEA launched a worldwide campaign to assist countries in enhancing
the security of such material. In the years since, other international
and regional organizations - as well as some private groups - have also
taken a leading role in this effort. Protecting nuclear facilities.
Identifying and securing powerful radioactive sources. Training law
enforcement officials. Monitoring border crossings.
This effort is
ongoing on every continent. In a little more than four years, experts
estimate that perhaps 50 per cent of this work has been completed. But
the vulnerability remains; we should always remember that security is
only as strong as its weakest link.
Measure Three:
Support Effective Nuclear Verification
A third measure is to ensure
that the nuclear verification regime - the inspection and oversight
mission of the IAEA - has the teeth it needs to be effective.
The primary key
to effectiveness is the extent of access inspectors are given to
information and locations. The discovery of a clandestine nuclear
programme in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War made it painfully clear that
the IAEA verification system was inadequate. At that time, IAEA
verification activities were performed under legal agreements that
focused IAEA verification primarily on the nuclear activities that a
country had "declared" to the Agency. The limited rights of access to
information and nuclear sites were not adequate for the IAEA to
investigate whether there were "undeclared" activities.
The lessons
learned in Iraq in the early 1990s prompted the international community
to significantly expand the IAEA´s verification rights. These new
rights were incorporated into a 1997 "additional protocol" to the basic
verification agreement between each State and the Agency. This
additional protocol gave IAEA inspectors expanded access to a
country´s nuclear activities. Most importantly, it gave the
Agency better verification tools to uncover possible "undeclared"
activities.
But the
introduction of the "model additional protocol" did not automatically
solve the problem. The protocol only applies to those countries that
actually subscribe to it. Today, out of the 189 countries that are
party to the NPT, 118 still do not have additional protocols in force.
This
half-hearted response, eight years after the adoption of the protocol,
falls well short of our goal of a robust verification system. The
Agency’s verification efforts cannot be fully effective until the
additional protocol becomes the universal standard for verifying
nuclear non-proliferation commitments. For this to happen, governments
must take action, both by bringing their own agreements into force and
by making sure that others do the same.
Another key to
making verification effective is the availability of sufficient
resources. IAEA verification today operates on an annual budget of
about €100 million - a budget comparable to that of a local police
department. With these resources, we oversee approximately 900 nuclear
facilities in 71 countries. When you consider our growing
responsibilities - as well as the need to stay ahead of the game - we
are clearly operating on a shoestring budget.
It was
gratifying to note, in the report of a UN High Level Panel just over a
year ago, that the IAEA was considered "an extraordinary bargain" -
based on the Agency’s considerable success over time in preventing the
spread of nuclear weapons on such a limited budget. But in my view, it
would be still more gratifying to deliver even better services, which
would require increased funding.
Whether the
issue is access, information, or resources, if the IAEA is to be fully
effective, the governments we serve must provide a level of support
equal to the task we are asked to perform. Said differently, we are
only as effective as we are allowed to be.
Measure Four:
Reinvigorate Disarmament Efforts
A fourth measure is to reinvigorate
nuclear disarmament efforts. This is the responsibility of the
nuclear-weapon States. In my view, they should lead by example, and
their efforts should by necessity extend to the three countries that
remain outside the non-proliferation and disarmament regime altogether:
India, Israel and Pakistan.
Nuclear
disarmament strategies to date have focused on the negotiation of
bilateral arms control agreements between Russia and the United States
- as the holders of the two largest nuclear arsenals - and on
multilateral agreements designed to curb nuclear weapons testing and
the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The end of the
Cold War brought impetus to these efforts. The Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START I), which came into force in 1994, made significant cuts
in the level of deployed strategic weapons. But this progress
unfortunately slowed as the 1990s progressed. START II, signed in 1993,
has been abandoned. The conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty in 1996 was considered an important milestone, but the
rejection of the Treaty by the US Senate in 1999 was a sharp setback.
And negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty - which would cap
the production of materials to be used in nuclear weapons - have come
to a virtual standstill.
That is not to
say that there has been no disarmament activity or effort on the part
of the nuclear-weapon States in the last few years. Both France and the
United Kingdom unilaterally reduced their deployed nuclear weapons
nearly a decade ago, leaving them with a few hundred each. The Moscow
Treaty of 2002 committed the USA and Russia to reduce their numbers of
operationally deployed strategic warheads to between 1700 and 2200 each
by the end of 2012. The number of submarines, bombers and ballistic
missile launchers capable of delivering nuclear weapons has been
reduced.
But the problem
with many of these recent nuclear disarmament efforts is that they are
neither verifiable nor irreversible. As security perceptions change,
non-deployed weapons can be redeployed. The bottom line is that today,
15 years after the end of the Cold War, we still have 27 000 nuclear
warheads in existence. Even more baffling is that the major
nuclear-weapon States continue to operate with their arsenals on
hair-trigger alert. In the case of a warning of a possible launch of a
nuclear attack, their leaders would have only 30 minutes to decide
whether to retaliate. The risk of the nuclear devastation of entire
nations continues to hinge on a matter of minutes.
And reliance on
nuclear deterrence shows no signs of abating. Statements continue to be
made by officials from nuclear-weapon States regarding the need, for
the foreseeable future, to retain both nuclear forces and the
capabilities to sustain and modernize those forces - as well as
actually "using" them in certain circumstances.
Some contend
that this continued emphasis on the strategic role of nuclear weapons
by some States bears no relevance to the willingness of
non-nuclear-weapon States to keep to their non-proliferation
commitments. I disagree. An atmosphere of cynicism regarding the
nuclear-weapon States adhering to their disarmament commitments is
becoming widespread, and the regime is increasingly perceived by many
to be discriminatory.
Every five
years, the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gather to
review progress and determine how to increase the effectiveness of the
regime. At the 2005 NPT Review Conference last May, the division in
views was so sharp that parties failed to reach any agreement on how to
respond to what is clearly some of the most serious and urgent security
threats of our time. This state of affairs was repeated at the UN World
Summit in September, where the final declaration on global challenges
did not even mention nuclear non-proliferation or disarmament. To my
mind, in order to maintain the integrity of the nuclear
non-proliferation regime, there is an urgent need to change the
strategic posture given to nuclear weapons, and to drastically reduce
existing weapons arsenals.
Ultimately,
however, success in achieving nuclear disarmament will depend on having
in place a system of collective security that provides a credible
alternative to nuclear deterrence. Such a system will in all likelihood
rely heavily on an effective United Nations Security Council - which
brings us to the next point.
Measure Five:
Increase the Effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council
A
fifth measure would be to strengthen the international body entrusted
with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and
security: the UN Security Council.
Too often, the
Security Council’s engagement is inadequate, selective, or after the
fact. The tragedies of recent years in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, and Darfur are cases in point. In the case of Rwanda in
mid-1994, the Security Council was unable to move much beyond hand
wringing, with the result that 800 000 people lost their lives in the
span of a few months. In the Second Congo War, the Security
Council´s efforts in the interest of diplomacy and peacekeeping
were not enough to prevent the deaths of an estimated 3.8 million
people.
And whatever
the lessons learned from these admitted failures, the more recent case
of Darfur continues to suffer from the inability of the Security
Council to muster sufficient peacekeeping troops and sufficient
resources to prevent the continuing atrocities.
In specific cases of arms control, the Security Council´s efforts have not been very systematic or successful.
In the case of
Iraq, the Council for over a decade imposed a series of blanket
economic sanctions - which were manipulated to the advantage of the
ruthless regime in power, and resulted in the death and suffering of
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The Council could not
later agree, in 2003, on either the need for or the timing of the use
of force in Iraq.
In the case of
India and Pakistan, the Council in 1998 requested both countries to
stop further nuclear testing and the development of their nuclear
weapons programme. The resolution was not implemented by either country.
In 1981, Israel was also requested to submit all its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards. The resolution was not implemented.
The case of
North Korea was reported to the Council first in 1993, and again in
2003, in connection with North Korea´s decision to withdraw from
the NPT. While the Council in 1993 adopted a resolution asking North
Korea to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the Treaty, it was
not able to agree on how to respond to the North Korean decision to
finally withdraw in 2003.
I should also
note here that the Security Council has not engaged itself in the whole
question of formulating a system for the "regulation of armaments", as
mandated by Article 26 of the UN Charter. This is, admittedly, a
complex assignment, given that the five permanent members of the
Council are also the five nuclear-weapon States recognized by the NPT.
But for the Council´s approach to be equitable - a key to its
credibility - this mandate cannot continue to be ignored.
In sum, when
dealing with threats of nuclear proliferation and arms control, the
Security Council has too often fallen short. It has made little effort
to address nuclear proliferation threats in context, by dealing with
the ‘drivers’ of insecurity that give rise to proliferation. It has not
responded or followed up effectively to the emergence of new countries
with nuclear weapons. And it has not exercised its arms limitation
mandate. It is clearly time for the Security Council to be reformed,
expanded and strengthened, as part of the current efforts to reform and
revitalize the United Nations.
Conclusion
The current
challenges to international peace and security, including those related
to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear arms control, cannot be wished
away.
The five
measures I have outlined - tightening controls, protecting materials,
supporting verification, reinvigorating disarmament and strengthening
the Security Council - are all necessary and urgent steps. But to
return to my opening theme, all of these measures affect each other,
and all will fail to protect us if the root causes of insecurity are
not addressed.
The longer we
delay in placing sensitive nuclear operations under multinational
control, the more new countries will seek to build such facilities. The
longer we take to protect global stocks of nuclear and radioactive
material, the higher the risk they will fall into terrorist hands. The
longer effective verification authority is not universally in place,
the more the potential for clandestine activity. As long as disarmament
measures are not progressing meaningfully, efforts to strengthen
nuclear non-proliferation will be poisoned by cynicism, and more
countries will try to "join the major leagues". And the longer the
Security Council is not acting systematically, equitably and
effectively, as the guardian of international peace and security, the
more its legitimacy will be undermined, and a sense of insecurity will
continue to prevail.
In short, we
will not succeed if we continue to treat the symptoms of insecurity and
ignore or only pay lip service to the root causes. Asymmetry cannot
remain the dominant characteristic in our approach to global security.
The security concerns of all countries and regions must be acknowledged
and addressed. The world has grown too small, and globalization has
become a double-edged sword.
Will the
reliance on nuclear weapons and the doctrine of "nuclear deterrence"
continue to figure prominently in the security strategies of more and
more nations? Or will more countries evolve towards a doctrine of
"deterrence based on interdependence", similar to the one emerging in
the European Union and Europe in general - the construction of
relationships that contain threats and drive common interests so as to
make the use of military force the least desirable and most costly
option? It may not be an exaggeration to say that, ultimately, the
international security landscape of the 21st Century will be shaped by
how we choose to treat these two competing approaches.
The irony is
that we know the problems, and we know the solutions. What is yet to
come is the vision and leadership to overcome the hubris that threatens
our mutual destruction, and to build a civilization rooted in the unity
of the human family, the sanctity of all human life and the core values
we all share - a civilization that is humane and just.
More statements from D-G IAEA: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/index.html
------------------->Return
to top
ALP debates uranium
------------------->
Don't touch uranium, MP warns
By Michelle Grattan, Canberra
April 26, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dont-touch-uranium-mp-warns/2006/04/25/1145861348235.html
LABOR'S
environment spokesman Anthony Albanese will today warn his party that
liberalising its uranium mining policy will lose, not win, votes.
In a speech to
mark the 20th anniversary of the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear
power plant, Mr Albanese challenges the view that Labor's restrictive
uranium policy will damage it electorally.
"Does anyone
seriously believe that there are … people in marginal electorates whose
position is 'I would change my vote to Labor if only they would change
to a pro-uranium and pro-nuclear policy?' "
Mr Albanese
will tell Sydney University Labor Club that many Australians would be
"extremely disappointed" if the ALP shifted its position — and "may
consider changing their primary vote".
The party faces
a tough debate over its uranium mining policy, with resources spokesman
Martin Ferguson urging liberalisation. Current policy is no new mines
beyond those already approved when Labor assumes government.
Chernobyl was
one reason why many Australians were reluctant to embrace nuclear
power. "The intractable problems of economic cost, safety, nuclear
waste disposal and nuclear proliferation remain," Mr Albanese says.
Yet the Howard
Government wanted to develop a nuclear power industry, remove
restrictions on new uranium mines, and had raised the prospect of
selling uranium to India, which had not signed the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Mr Albanese says. "The same ministers who
claim to have no idea how $300 milllion was paid to Saddam in the
wheat-for-weapons scandal, claim absolute diligence in ensuring our
uranium can never contribute to weapons development."
Mr Albanese
says the problem of safely storing nuclear waste has been reinforced by
the inability of governments to find suitable sites to store low-level
waste from medical procedures in Australia.
State
governments prohibit storage in their states. The Federal Government
has overridden the Northern Territory Government and shortlisted three
sites for possible waste storage. One site was recently flooded during
the Katherine floods. "We cannot afford the policy sloppiness which
characterises the Howard Government when it comes to nuclear issues,"
Mr Albanese says.
There have been more than 130 reported leaks and spills at the Ranger mine in the NT, he says.
Mr Albanese says the nuclear debate is a subset of the real debate about how Australians adopt a clean-energy economy.
"If we doubled
the global use of nuclear energy we would use all known reserves of
uranium in 25 years," he says. "We would achieve emission reductions of
only another 5 per cent compared with the 60 per cent reduction that is
required to avoid dangerous climate change."
A better alternative is pursuing clean energy such as wind and solar power, he says.
------------------->
Beazley risks party split on uranium
By Louise Dodson Chief Political Correspondent
May 1, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/beazley-risks-party-split-on-uranium/2006/04/30/1146335611790.html
KIM BEAZLEY has
flagged a change in Labor's uranium policy, risking upsetting key
sections of the party as he strives to rebuild its image before the
next election.
The Opposition
Leader says Labor's policy of banning new uranium mines should be
lifted, but tougher nuclear safeguards are needed.
"The problem is
not where the uranium is dug out, the problem is the exports and making
sure there are tougher safeguards," Mr Beazley told the Herald.
His position
puts him at odds with Labor's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese,
who said in a speech to Sydney University's Labor Club last week that
he did not see the need to change the party's policy.
Mr Beazley also
accused the Government of watering down Australia's commitment to the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty, citing comments by the Prime
Minister, John Howard, supporting the new nuclear co-operation
agreement between the US and India.
He said that
instead of undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Australia
had "a special responsibility to lead the international debate on
nuclear safety and disposal of waste as it has the largest known
uranium reserves".
The party's
national conference will debate the policy in April next year and Mr
Beazley will make recommendations before that meeting.
Labor is divided on the issue of uranium mining.
Mr Albanese
wants no change in the policy; other Labor frontbenchers, such as the
resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, and the revenue spokesman, Joel
Fitzgibbon, have called for a change.
In his speech
last week, Mr Albanese described the existing policy as "an
anti-uranium policy" which states that Labor would "prevent, on return
to government, the development of any new uranium mines".
He warned of an
electoral backlash if Labor changed its opposition to new uranium
mines. "There are many Australians who would be extremely disappointed
by a shift in our position and who may consider changing their primary
vote."
The latest
Herald/ACNielsen poll, taken from April 20 to 23, showed support for
the Greens is already rising. Overall, the Greens' primary vote was up
2 percentage points to 10 per cent. In the baby-boomer 40-54 age group,
it was 13 per cent.
Mr Howard has
not ruled out changing the policy of restricting exports of uranium to
countries which are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty. He also has not ruled out Australia developing a nuclear energy
industry.
The Treasurer,
Peter Costello, went further yesterday, saying it was illogical not to
generate nuclear energy if it made sense commercially.
"Look, we mine uranium and we sell it to people to build nuclear power stations," Mr Costello told Channel Ten's Meet the Press.
"What would be
the logic in saying nuclear power stations are acceptable in every
other country except the one where the uranium is mined … if it does
become commercial, I believe we ought to do it."
------------------->
Nuclear divisions
Expansion of
uranium mining is giving Kim Beazley the policy jitters and opening the
door for others to take the initiative, writes Tom Richardson
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,18762824-28737,00.html
April 10, 2006
MIKE Rann is a
self-proclaimed fan of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film classic Dr
Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. It's
a fitting cinematic choice for the South Australian Premier, who is
spearheading a campaign that could be subtitled "How the Labor Party
Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Uranium".
In the wake of
the federal Government's historic uranium export agreement signed last
week by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao - and with the prospect of a similar
deal with India - the ALP has been besieged by speculation over when,
or even if, it will overhaul its widely condemned policy limiting
uranium mining in Australia.
While federal
Labor leader Kim Beazley seems frozen on uranium policy, Rann is making
the running after beginning his career as a staunch opponent of nuclear
power. Rann now stands to be the beneficiary of what will almost
certainly become the world's biggest uranium mine, Olympic Dam, which
mining giant BHP Billiton last year acquired in a takeover of WMC.
Export licences
must be granted by the commonwealth, but the South Australian
Government has final say over exploration and mining in its backyard.
The state ALP maintained its opposition to new uranium mines at its
last annual conference, but it was a case of forfeiting the battle
before the inevitable war timed for the party's national conference in
April next year.
Rann recently
upped the ante, calling the national ALP policy "anachronistic and
therefore ... likely to be changed". A year out from the conference,
uranium mining is already proving one of the party's most divisive
issues. Beazley insists the general public is "very cautious" about the
nuclear industry, saying Labor will "hasten slowly" to work out its
policy position.
Beazley's
softly-softly approach is rankling with some of his colleagues, who
fear a debate will further divide a party already reeling from a spate
of bloody factional brawls over preselections. Four Labor frontbenchers
have come out in support of a change to allow state Labor premiers to
approve new mines to meet Chinese demand.
But Beazley
insists "there is more than enough uranium around and slated for
production to deal with any level of demand that arises from China in
the medium term".
Many expect the party to opt for a default position at next year's conference, whereby "each state can make up its own mind".
"I would expect
a fallback position: if South Australia wants to dig up their uranium,
let them; if Western Australia wants to leave it in the ground, they
can," said one South Australian source.
Ian Hore-Lacy,
head of the Melbourne-based Uranium Information Centre, says change in
the ALP is long overdue, particularly with "obvious prospects for
mining being held up in Queensland and WA".
"Obviously
there's an expectation of change - the policy is so ludicrous, it's
unsustainable ... The industry is conscious it makes Australia a bit of
a laughing stock," Hore-Lacy says.
In 1977, the
ALP adopted a policy of total opposition to any mining, processing and
export of uranium, with then-leader Bill Hayden saying: "A Labor
government will repudiate any contracts signed by non-Labor
governments." When the Hawke government was elected in 1983, Labor
adopted its three mines policy, allowing no further expansion beyond
the existing uranium mines at Ranger and Narbalek in the Northern
Territory, and the fledgling Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs. The
policy allowed the ALP to have its cake and eat it, ostensibly
appearing anti-uranium, but able to reap the benefits of uranium
production.
But the relatively small Narbalek deposit was quickly mined out, and the project was closed in 1988.
The ALP
maintains its opposition to any new mines, but Beazley has declared he
will not shut any mines approved by state or federal Liberal
governments. The previous South Australian Liberal government opened a
mine in Beverley in 2000, and granted construction approval to the
Honeymoon project, near Broken Hill.
Labor divisions
over uranium have never been resolved, but it is only now, with world
uranium prices and international demand increasing, that the wounds are
once again exposed. WA, Victoria and NSW favour the status quo, but
some in the South Australian and Northern Territory governments have
made no secret of their opposition to the three-mines policy.
South
Australian Treasurer Kevin Foley slams it as "idiotic", while Rann
says: "There's no real issue in the South Australian party, because
we've got the world's biggest uranium mine."
Significantly,
last week Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, whose opposition to uranium
has been driven by a desire to protect the state's coal exports,
signalled a softer stance, saying: "I don't want to see anything that
would undermine Queensland's coal ... but obviously if the Labor Party
changes its view on uranium we would follow suit."
Martin
Ferguson, the federal Labor resources spokesman, has articulated the
need for industry development, saying he has noticed a change in
perception, both "in the community and among some of my colleagues in
the party".
"In the 1970s,
uranium mining was identified as akin to a campaign against nuclear
war," Ferguson says. Now, he argues, the debate has turned to
delivering greenhouse-friendly energy.
While Ferguson
is open to debate about the future of Labor's no-new-mines policy, he
argues that "Australia doesn't have to have a change in ALP policy to
be the largest exporter of uranium in the world".
The expansion
of Olympic Dam will see to that. But Ferguson believes giving BHP
Billiton carte blanche to expand while not allowing other players into
the market will "create serious questions in people's minds".
"If you are the
biggest exporter with the biggest mine in the world, is it acceptable
to say: 'That's good for BHP, but not for other smaller companies'?" he
says.
"I personally
have always had an open mind on this issue ... Obviously it's more
important for SA and the NT than for NSW and Victoria because they're
resource-rich states. Uranium mining, like any opportunity, is about
growth and jobs. Olympic Dam creates an opportunity for thousands of
jobs and a tripling of production size; that's nothing to be sniffed
at."
Hailing from
the Labor Left, Ferguson, a one-time Miscellaneous Workers' Union
secretary and ACTU president, says the uranium debate has "historically
been argued along factional lines".
But others in
the party are lobbying for change, with Australian Workers' Union
national president Bill Ludwig pushing for uranium development, saying
the union had "no in-principle opposition to nuclear power, provided it
is done in a responsible way".
While the AWU
is a right-wing union in most states, in SA it traditionally votes with
the Left, and is yet to publicly express a position on uranium. The
state's AWU secretary Wayne Hanson says: "I don't think uranium is
anywhere near the sensitive issue that it was in the 20th century ...
whether it's three mines, or five mines, or more, the stuff is still
being mined, isn't it?
"I'm not
convinced yet that we can come up with all the necessary safeguards to
address the ramifications of using uranium, but the fact is I'm more
concerned about the workers in the industry," Hanson says.
BHP Billiton is
still awaiting environmental approvals from state and federal agencies
for Olympic Dam, but it anticipates an expansion from its present 4500
tonnes of yellowcake a year to 15,000 tonnes by 2010. The new open-cut
mine stands to be about 3km long, 2.8km wide and 1km deep, enough to
swallow the entire Adelaide CBD and more.
"Out there will
be the world's biggest open-cut mine, worth hundreds of billions of
dollars," Rann said on a recent visit to the site.
"This is like witnessing the beginning of another Broken Hill - only better."
Long-time
observers, including Liberal stalwarts, cannot believe their ears.
Roger Goldsworthy, the man who signed the deal giving the Roxby project
life, is convinced Rann has achieved a genuine conversion.
In 1982,
Goldsworthy negotiated an indenture with Western Mining, who then ran
the mine at Olympic Dam, giving the company a 50-year lease and
exclusive rights of entry to the land.
The 1979-82
Tonkin Liberal government also pushed unsuccessfully for the latent
Beverley and Honeymoon mines to be opened, and argued for a uranium
enrichment plant, which never eventuated. Then-Labor leader John Bannon
labelled the Olympic Dam mine "a mirage in the desert" and the prospect
of a uranium-led boom "pie in the sky". Another strident critic in the
early 1980s was Bannon's press secretary, Mike Rann.
"He was doing his best to can the project," Goldsworthy says.
"If we'd been
able to press on in 1982 with those other mines, they'd be up and
operating now and we could well have had an enrichment plant up and
running as well ... It's been a damn hindrance (and) it's put the state
back 25 years in terms of further development."
In 1982, Rann
penned a 32-page booklet Uranium: Play It Safe espousing the prevailing
wisdom in South Australian Labor: "Underground uranium mines have
proven the worst source of radiation contamination for miners ...
Obviously if an immensely dangerous substance like plutonium - an
essential ingredient in the manufacture of nuclear weapons - got into
the wrong hands, world peace could be threatened."
Rann now
dismisses such views as the product of youthful political naivete,
fairly arguing that he is not the only public official to have changed
his mind over more than 20 years.
Goldsworthy agrees, noting that Rann appears to have recognised changing public attitudes to uranium mining.
"Politicians
tend to follow the public mood and the public has come largely to
accept that this is a very valuable mine ... Often if you lose an
opportunity, it's gone. In this case it's come back 25 years later,"
Goldsworthy says.
"The state Labor Party has come good, no doubt about that."
There are signs
that even the Left of the ALP is changing the tune it has sung for
almost three decades. South Australian Left powerbroker Mark Butler
strongly argues for an open and structured debate. "I personally
wouldn't be sticking my hand up to oppose a new policy just because
that was what the Left did 25 years ago," Butler says.
"The debate is
already on, and the national conference is 13 months away ... The
sooner we can put the issue to bed one way or another, the sooner we
can get on with the issues that affect the day-to-day lives of the
electorate.
"I still think
safety and proliferation issues are very big hurdles, and we haven't
had enough information about them yet, but I think the big fact that's
changed is the capacity for nuclear power to contribute to a reduction
in fossil fuel emissions, particularly in China and India ... that's
probably the big issue that wasn't on the agenda 25 years ago."
------------------->Return
to top
Nuclear power in China
------------------->
Nuclear dreams clouded by cost, waste
Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:51 AM BST
By John Ruwitch
http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-04-21T095224Z_01_PEK359886_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-ENERGY-CHINA-NUCLEAR-DC.XML
DAYA BAY, China
(Reuters) - Look away from the four giant nuclear reactors, and Daya
Bay's manicured lawns, golf range and ocean-front apartments seem like
the trappings of a luxury south China housing enclave.
Just 50 km (30
miles) from the heart of Hong Kong as the crow flies, they form a ring
around one of the oldest fission-powered electricity plants in China, a
template for success in an industry launching one of the most ambitious
expansion drives in the world.
China's leaders
think nuclear power offers a partial remedy for ills ranging from the
pall of smog hanging over its cities to a growing addiction to foreign
oil.
But analysts
and environmentalists warn a range of challenges, from waste disposal
to the daunting price tag on new generators, could give the energy cure
a bitter taste.
Beijing began
commercial nuclear generation late, after devoting resources and
scientists to weapons development during Mao Zedong's rule. The
country's first atomic bomb exploded in 1964 but civilian reactors only
came online in the 1990s.
It is now
racing to catch up and to meet booming energy demand with plans to more
than quadruple capacity by 2020 and work on a new technology that
scientists tout as accident-proof.
At present,
nine reactors contribute barely 2 percent of the nation's power -- just
one eighth of the global average. The target is to raise this to 40
gigawatts, or 4 percent over the next 15 years by building 30 new
reactors.
"China started
late, but to build two major reactors a year is a very ambitious
program and I don't think anyone has ever attempted that," said
Clarence Hardy, vice-president of the Pacific Nuclear Council.
REACTOR MIX
China has what
is probably the largest variety of nuclear technologies within a single
nation's borders. It has used Canadian, French and Russian designs and
is considering signing up for a U.S. one, as well as supporting
home-grown technology.
"It was a
deliberate, not accidental, mix and it probably was a good strategy as
it keeps them up to speed on what is going on worldwide," said
Beijing-based energy analyst James Brock.
Besides
cherry-picking the best international technology, Chinese scientists
believe they may have found a way to lay to rest the ghost of the 1986
Chernobyl explosion, which still haunts the industry.
The pebble bed
reactor being developed at Tsinghua University is meltdown-proof, said
scientist Wu Zongxin, who has worked on the project for over two
decades.
It uses fuel
"pebbles" -- roughly the size of tennis balls and wrapped in graphite
with a higher melting point than the uranium inside -- to prevent
runaway reactions, he explained.
"It is
impossible that the nuclear fuel could melt ... the passive safety
mechanism does not rely on humans to control the temperature," Wu told
Reuters.
A 10-megawatt test reactor is on-line near Beijing and work starts on a demonstration plant in Shandong in 2008, he said.
Chinese power
developers are also pursuing designs that use less uranium. As nations
trying to cut pollution take another look at nuclear power, world
uranium prices have risen, more than tripling since 2004.
Despite the new research, China's government may struggle to persuade listed utilities to help fund the nuclear expansion.
Although
nuclear plants are cheap to run, with low exposure to fuel costs
particularly valuable as oil and gas prices rise, they are very
expensive to build.
"I do not think
Chinese power producers are going to rush into nuclear power because
it's the 'in' thing," said Joseph Jacobelli, utilities analyst at
Merrill Lynch in Hong Kong.
"For a
2-gigawatt power plant, you have costs of around $3 billion and all of
that is front-loaded. They will want a high level of guarantees," he
added.
WASTE, MONITORING CONCERNS
Rigorous safety
procedures copied from the designers have given China a solid record so
far despite the variety of reactors it uses. A single operating
company, China National Nuclear Corporation, helps unify safety plans.
But if
something does go wrong and officials are tempted to cover up, there
may be no one to call them to account in a society that brooks limited
dissent from central control.
"Civil society
safeguards -- press freedom, whistleblower protection, human rights
laws -- form a more amorphous layer of protections which are largely
absent in China," said Jim Green, nuclear campaigner from Friends of
the Earth in Australia.
Disposing of
the over 1,000 tonnes a year of radioactive waste that the expansion
could produce, according to the World Nuclear Association, is another
minefield.
There are plans
to expand a small facility in western Gansu province to deal with much
of the spent fuel, but Green says details are opaque and, with concern
over environmental issues growing in wealthier east coast areas, poorer
areas may be forced to host their nuclear waste.
"We are
concerned that politically less powerful groups like Tibetans and
people in northwest China are going to be targeted (for waste disposal
facilities)," Green said.
(Additional reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison in Beijing)
------------------->Return
to top
Critique of nuclear power
“Nuclear Power – Myth and Reality: The risks and prospects
of nuclear power”, Heinrich Boell report by Gerd Rosenkranz,
<www10.antenna.nl/wise/tmp/nm/Nuclear_Power_Myth_and_Reality.pdf>
------------------->
Map of nuclear sites in Australia
http://www.ecovoice.com.au/evonline/evo-26/nukemap-evo26.html
------------------->
Nuclear power in the UK
------------------->Return
to top
Three reports undermine UK nuclear push
Three recent reports have undermined the British government's push to build a new generation of nuclear power plants.
A cross-party
parliamentary environment committee released a report in late March,
'Keeping the lights on: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change'. The
reports conclusions include the following:
* We remain
convinced that the vision contained in the 2003 White Paper—with its
focus on energy efficiency and renewables as cornerstones of a future
sustainable energy policy - remains correct. What is now needed is a
far greater degree of commitment from the Government in implementing it.
* Nuclear power
raises a variety of issues which would need to be satisfactorily
resolved before any decision to go ahead is taken. These include
long-term waste disposal, public acceptability, the availability of
uranium, and the carbon emissions associated with nuclear. There are
also serious concerns relating to safety, the threat of terrorism, and
the proliferation of nuclear power across the world.
The report is on the internet at: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmenvaud.htm>
The British
government also commissioned a report by the Sustainable Development
Commission (SDC). The report concluded that even if the UK’s existing
nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only give an 8% cut on
greenhouse emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010).
The report identifies five major disadvantages to nuclear power:
1. Long-term
waste – no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable
to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the
long- term disposal of waste.
2. Cost – the
economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little,
if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs
escalate, there’s a clear risk that the taxpayer will be have to pick
up the tab.
3.
Inflexibility – nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised
distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when
opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are
stronger than ever.
4. Undermining
energy efficiency – a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong
signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological
fix is all that’s required, weakening the urgent action needed on
energy efficiency.
5.
International security – if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power
programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology*. With
lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation
exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks.
The SDC report
concludes that it is possible to meet the UK’s energy needs without
nuclear power, with an aggressive expansion of energy efficiency and
renewables.
The SDC report is on the internet at: < www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html>.
A report
released in March by UK churches also rejects the nuclear option. The
report, 'Faith and Power', describes a low consumption, non-nuclear,
energy strategy as a “moral imperative.”
The report
argues that: “The high consumption, nuclear path may appear easier for
government to pursue in the short term, but we believe that there is a
moral duty to follow a more challenging and more sustainable option. We
conclude that substantially enhanced Government support for efficient,
less profligate energy consumption and investment in renewable sources
of energy supply rather than nuclear power is a moral imperative.”
The report is on the internet at: <www.christian-ecology.org.uk/pr-fp.htm>.
------------------->
Tally of mishaps hits Blair's nuclear hopes
Sam Jones
Friday May 19, 2006
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1778680,00.html
Tony Blair's
hopes of persuading the public that a new generation of nuclear power
plants is the best way to plug the country's energy gap suffered a
setback yesterday after it emerged there have been 57 incidents at
existing sites since 1997.
They ranged
from radiation leaks and machinery failure to contamination of ground
water and employees' clothes, and a fire. Eleven were serious enough to
be classed as an "incident" or "serious incident" on international
nuclear measures, according to the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker,
who obtained the figures from the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks.
Three incidents
were recorded last year, all at Sellafield, Cumbria, including a large
leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel which forced the closure of the
Thorp reprocessing plant in April. High radiation was also detected in
the Hales storage plant and three staff were contaminated while
carrying out maintenance.
Two incidents
were recorded in 2004 - a release of radioactivity at Bradwell, in
Essex, and a leakage at Hartlepool - but none the previous year.
Mr Baker said:
"It is extremely worrying that there have been such a high number of
incidents since 1997, especially as the government is considering new
nuclear building."
A Department of
Trade and Industry spokesman said: "Few of the documented 'incidents'
are of any serious danger. Even the most serious incident - the widely
reported leakage at the Thorp plant detected last year - was contained
and posed no threat to staff, public or environment."
The Tories
joined the Lib Dems, environmental groups and some Labour MPs yesterday
in attacking the government's handling of the issue.
The shadow
environment secretary, Peter Ainsworth, urged David Miliband, the
environment, food and rural affairs secretary to "speak up" on the
matter.
------------------->
Blair turns N-power switch to go
Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent
May 18, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19173197-601,00.html
TONY Blair
wants to build a new generation of British nuclear power plants,
providing another lucrative market for Australian uranium exports.
The British
Prime Minister made it clear yesterday he planned to revive his
country's 50-year-old nuclear power industry, which had been due to
start shutting down in the next few years.
Australia's
uranium miners, with 40per cent of the world's known reserves, are best
placed to provide yellowcake to Britain, which joins China, India and
possibly Indonesia as potentially lucrative new export markets.
Green groups
reacted furiously to Mr Blair's declaration yesterday that the
replacement of Britain's ageing nuclear power plants was back on the
agenda "with a vengeance".
Pre-empting a
review of national energy needs commissioned by his Government, Mr
Blair said the nuclear option was crucial to securing new power
supplies while keeping Britain's promise to reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions that cause global warming.
Mr Blair had
previously identified the future of the nuclear industry as one of the
long-term challenges he wanted to resolve before stepping down as Prime
Minister before the next general election, due in 2010, but yesterday
he removed any doubt about his willingness to renew the nuclear option.
"If we do not
take these long-term decisions now, we will be committing a serious
dereliction of our duty to the future of this country," the Prime
Minister told a dinner meeting of British business leaders.
Mr Blair's
intentions to go nuclear were signalled before his speech, when his
official spokesman predicted his comments would provoke "despairing
shrieks of outrage".
Many Labour MPs
and environmental groups fiercely oppose an extension of the nuclear
power industry, but Mr Blair has the support of his cabinet on the
issue and is clearly willing to take on any critics of his decision.
His
long-serving Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, was sceptical
about nuclear power, but Mr Blair moved her to the Foreign Office two
weeks ago and replaced her with one of his strongest supporters, David
Miliband, who has already professed "an open mind" on the construction
of new nuclear power plants.
Mr Blair's
expected successor, Chancellor Gordon Brown, also supports new power
stations, so the mainly left-wing MPs who oppose nuclear power have
little chance of prevailing.
Greenpeace
director Stephen Tindale said Mr Blair's decision made a farce of the
energy review he set up last November, which is not due to report its
findings for another two months.
"The Prime Minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago," he said.
Mr Blair said
tough choices were inevitable, because the run-down of Britain's North
Sea gasfields and the imminent closure of most of its nuclear and many
of its coal-fired power plants coincided with record high prices for
oil and gas and the search for ways to reduce carbon emissions. "We
will move from 80 or 90per cent self-reliance on gas to 80 or 90 per
cent dependency on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, Africa
and Russia," he said.
Those stark
facts "put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on
renewables and a steep change on energy efficiency, engaging both
business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance".
Mr Blair's
decision is a major turnaround for Britain - where no new nuclear
plants have been ordered for almost 20 years - and for Europe.
Outside
nuclear-keen France, a reactor in Finland is the only nuclear plant to
be commissioned in Europe in the past 20 years, and Germany has pledged
to shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2020.
Almost all of
Britain's current nuclear plants will be decommissioned by 2020, but if
they are replaced there is plenty of potential for Britain to increase
its reliance on nuclear energy.
Nuclear power
provides 19 per cent of Britain's electricity, which is about the same
proportion as in the US on 20 per cent, but well down on European Union
countries such as France (78 per cent), Lithuania (72 per cent),
Belgium and Slovakia (55 per cent), Sweden (52 per cent) and Germany
(28 per cent).
------------------->
Cabinet split over cost of nuclear energy
Patrick Wintour, political editor
Thursday May 18, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1777244,00.html
Tony Blair was
last night facing cabinet-level opposition over his plans for a new
generation of nuclear power stations following Treasury predictions of
"eye-wateringly large" costs.
Ministers are
seeking assurances that they will be given detailed figures on the
costs of nuclear power, and not bland assurances from the Department of
Trade and Industry before the energy review is published next month.
Cabinet sources
say the political achilles heel of the nuclear industry is uncertainty
over its costs, rather than safety. Some months ago, the sources say,
the Treasury produced "eye-wateringly large" estimates for the cabinet,
and they expect Gordon Brown to take a close interest in the costings
in the next two months.
Formal requests
have been circulated at cabinet committee level demanding detailed
costings. Ministerial sceptics want detailed figures on the costs of
decommissioning existing as well as new stations. They also want
figures on the capital costs for construction, and disposal of waste.
In March the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said the cost of nuclear
cleanup had risen to £ 70bn.
A recent study
for the government's sustainable development commission pointed out:
"There is a complete absence of recent real-world data on the capital
costs of reactors of the kinds likely to compete in the UK. Indeed no
reactors of the type likely to compete in the UK have yet been built
anywhere." It added: "All of the data available can be traced back to
industry sources, usually reactor vendors."
The cabinet
sources complain that there is a lack of certainty as to what the DTI
means when it insists that there will be no taxpayers' subsidy to
encourage the private sector to build the new stations. The sources
believe the government will be forced to make guarantees, soft loans,
or rig the market in a way that crowds out the case for renewables.
At prime
minister's questions yesterday Mr Blair told MPs that ruling out more
use of nuclear technology in the future would be a "collective
dereliction of duty". On Tuesday, he delighted the CBI by telling it
that the nuclear option was back on the agenda "with a vengeance".
The energy
minister, Malcolm Wicks, is starting to meet senior ministers to brief
them on the outline thinking of the review, which he is leading. The
DTI says no first draft of the report yet exists, and the industry
secretary stressed no final decisions will be taken yet.
One former
cabinet member said Mr Blair had spoken too soon this week. "What's the
point of having an energy review if you don't have that energy review?
Nuclear power is not the New Labour energy message, sustainability is
the New Labour energy message, though you can argue that nuclear is
part of it."
Some Labour MPs
believe the Tories will try to paper over the cracks on nuclear power
in their own party by focusing on the costs.
The Liberal
Democrats' energy spokesman, David Howarth, said it would be outrageous
if the government tried to push through the conclusions of the review,
including the endorsement of a new generation of power stations,
without a parliamentary vote. He added that new nuclear stations could
not come on stream in time to meet the coming energy gap.
The protest was
joined yesterday by Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, who said
choosing nuclear would be "the great misjudgment of our generation". He
said in a statement: "I would say to Tony Blair and every politician
who has the ability to influence the future energy strategy of our
country that giving the green light to nuclear power would be an
expensive and dangerous mistake that is simply not the solution to the
problem of climate change.
"The government
will get it disastrously wrong if it reactivates the nuclear option. We
need a solution to climate change that protects the environment, not
damages it. It will be the great misjudgment of our generation to go
back down the nuclear road, which would saddle our children and
grandchildren with the consequences."
Ministers
speaking to the Green Alliance last night emphasised the role of
greater energy efficiency in the review. The housing minister, Yvette
Cooper, promised a simpler and stronger set of building regulations and
a new planning policy statement on climate change.
She also
announced a new feasibility study that will explore the scope to make
the Thames Gateway a low-carbon development area within the next
decade, and then to move towards carbon neutrality.
The new
environment secretary, David Miliband, said: "Just as social justice
needed a new social contract in the 19th and 20th centuries, so
environmental security in the 21st century needs a new environmental
contract."
Such a contract
"would have new and clear rights and responsibilities for [the]
government, for business and for individuals, to balance what we take
from nature and what we give back".
------------------->
More nuclear power will not avert energy crisis, say MPs
John Vidal, environment editor
Monday April 17, 2006
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1755244,00.html
A new
generation of nuclear power stations will be unable to avert a serious
energy crisis within 10 years, a committee of MPs said yesterday. In a
scathing analysis of how Britain intends to generate power in future
and of the way decisions are being made today, the environment audit
committee urged the government to start investing heavily in
alternative power sources to meet increasing demand and global warming
objectives.
The committee's
report said the government had become "too focused" on nuclear, and now
risked the lights going out by not investing heavily in energy
efficiency and more wind and gas stations. It called for a significant
growth in renewables as well as political leadership.
The 16-member
cross-party group with a majority of Labour MPs said that by 2016, 25%
of Britain's electricity generating capacity will have to be replaced.
Even if a new generation of nuclear reactors were agreed tomorrow, this
would be too late to fill the "power gap" between supply and demand
forecast for the UK by 2016. The proposed new nuclear network would not
be generating at full capacity until as late as 2030 because nuclear
power takes so long to plan and build.
The report is
the second from a government committee in three months to reject
nuclear power, and will be a major setback to the industry which is
pressing hard to build 10 new stations. It will also disappoint Mr
Blair, who is committed to nuclear on the recommendtion of the chief
scientist, Sir David King, and other advisers.
The MPs said
any decision to opt for nuclear must not be rushed. "There are also
serious concerns relating to safety, the threat of terrorism, and the
proliferation of nuclear power across the world. Moreover ... it is by
no means clear whether investors will wish to commit themselves to 70
years of nuclear generation."
The committee
noticed striking similarities to 1980 "when a similar large scale
nuclear programme eventually resulted in the construction of only one
new reactor - Sizewell B". But the MPs said opting for nuclear power
could stymie the advance of renewable technologies like solar and
tidal. The committee accused the Treasury of discouraging energy
efficiency and said that it had no confidence in government modelling
of Britain's future needs for power. It said renewable energy sources
could provide 20% the UK's electricity by the year 2020 but the
government did not appear to be committed to developing them. The
Treasury was making it as difficult as possible for some technologies
to be adopted.
------------------->
Dash for new nuclear power rejected
Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:08 AM BST
By Jeremy Lovell
LONDON
(Reuters) - A parliamentary committee on Sunday rejected any dash for
nuclear power to stop the lights going out as ageing power stations are
closed down by 2016, because new nuclear plants would not be ready in
time.
In a blow to
Prime Minister Tony Blair who is believed to back nuclear power, the
all-party Environment Audit Committee said the answer lay in many more
gas-powered electricity plants and boosting sources of renewable energy
like wind and waves.
"Over the next
ten years, nuclear power cannot contribute either to the need for more
generating capacity or to carbon reductions as it simply could not be
built in time," said the report entitled "Keeping the Lights On".
"Nuclear power
raises a variety of issues which would need to be satisfactorily
resolved before any decision to go ahead is taken," it added, citing
questions of long-term waste disposal, public acceptability, and the
availability of uranium.
Published just
10 days before the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,
the report also raised questions of safety, terrorism and the risk of
nuclear proliferation.
The report is the second time a government body has come out against a new generation of nuclear power stations.
The government,
which has acknowledged it is likely to miss its own goal of cutting
carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010, is half way through a
six-month review of the country's future energy needs and how to meet
them.
Bound by
pledges to slash emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil
fuels, it must decide the shape of the country's electricity supply
network for coming decades as demand grows and North Sea oil and gas
run out.
Nuclear and coal power plants supply about 60 percent of Britain's electricity.
"For nuclear
power to be economic there have either to be huge subsidies or
government guarantees," Simon Shackley from the Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research told Reuters.
On one side is
"big power" promoting coal and nuclear generation. On the other, the
green alternative advocating a wider mix of power sources including
turning homes into mini power stations using solar panels and roof-top
windmills.
"If we are
going to have a sustainable, low-carbon society then we have to have
low-carbon citizens," said Philip Sellwood, head of the Energy Saving
Trust (EST), a body which promotes energy efficiency.
The
parliamentary report noted that within a decade one quarter of the
country's electricity capacity would be closed down, with the same
amount again going offline by 2025.
The report
warned that with the nuclear industry's chequered financial and
operational performance record, significant government subsidies would
be needed to entice private finance.
It also said a
decision to go nuclear would rob alternatives like carbon capture and
storage to create so-called clean coal, renewables and energy
efficiency of the pump priming they need.
Public opinion has swung gradually back in favour of nuclear power, but only when taken as an option against global warming.
The Group of
Eight leading industrialised nations -- Britain, the United States,
Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Russia -- are widely expected
to endorse nuclear power at a Moscow summit in July.
------------------->
Parliament’s nuclear sceptics make a stand
By Richard Orange
16 April 2006
http://thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?Parliament’s%20nuclear%20sceptics%20make%20a%20stand&StoryID=3EE8DB13-9BFA-4748-A02F-6B7C8E91FDED&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE
PARLIAMENT’S
anti-nuclear lobby has made its first concerted counter-attack on the
push for a new nuclear programme in the government’s Energy Review,
which is due to conclude this summer.
A report from
the Commons environment and audit select committee, released on Sunday,
attacks nuclear on safely grounds, cost and security of supply. It also
claims that nuclear power stations could not be built sufficiently
rapidly to help fill the 20GW “gap” in generation capacity the UK will
face by 2016.
Tim Yeo, a
Conservative MP and chairman of the cross-party committee, said: “We
are concerned with the government’s focus on nuclear power and the
nature of any ‘decision’ on nuclear. We do not think that it is
necessarily the answer.”
The report,
titled Keeping the Lights On, dismisses the nuclear industry’s claims
on cost, pointing to its record of massive overruns. It notes the lack
of a long-term solution to radioactive waste disposal. It questions
whether nuclear offers the secure energy supplies, given a potential
uranium shortage by 2015. And it expresses “serious concerns” on
safety, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.
It concludes:
“There are striking similarities here to the position in 1980, when a
similar large scale programme of nuclear new build eventually resulted
in the construction of only one reactor – Sizewell B.”
Sceptics such
as Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett and Welsh Secretary Peter
Hain have been silent in the face of powerful lobbying for a new
generation of nuclear power stations, backed by Prime Minister Tony
Blair and the government’s chief scientist, Sir David King.
The
anti-nuclear lobby won out in the government’s last serious review of
energy, with the UK’s energy white paper, Our Energy Future, published
in 2003, essentially putting the nuclear option on hold.
The select
committee report even questions the need for the present Energy Review.
It concludes: “We remain convinced that the vision contained in the
[2003] white paper – with its focus on energy efficiency and and
renewables as the cornerstones of a sustainable energy policy – remains
correct …
“If the
government does come to a decision on nuclear, it is unclear why it
should not also come to a decision on offshore wind, marine, or
micro-combined heat and power, let alone measures to support energy
efficiency.”
------------------->
UK 'radioactive bunker' boosts nuclear reactor plans
http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=7&newsID=5192
Publisher: Keith Hall
Published: 27/04/2006 - 14:50:35 PM
The UK has
moved closer towards a new nuclear power station programme this morning
after an interim report by independent experts claimed radioactive
material could be safely stored in deep underground bunkers.
The Committee
on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) was set up in 2003 to assess
how Britain could best dispose of its existing mountain of nuclear
waste, in addition to that produced by any new reactors.
A full report
is due to be presented to the Government in July, however, a statement
from CoRWM states that it "considers deep geological disposal to be the
best available approach."
A further month
of evidence will be presented and assessed by the committee from both
experts and the public, before ministers then consider a potential
restart to the UK's controversial nuclear power programme in order to
meet ever increasing energy demands.
The CoRWM
recommendation paves the way for a political decision on 'new nuclear'
as until now the UK has failed to come up with a long term strategy for
handling the deadly radioactive waste that remains lethal for tens of
thousands of years.
In an open
meeting of CoRWM's eleven members this morning the group has confirmed
that a deep underground bunker sealed off from the associated bedrock
is, in their opinion, the best way forward.
An underground repository would be 'safe' and represents a "fair burden to pass to future generations."
The ongoing
review of Labour's energy policies indicates a likely return to a new
nuclear programme of reactors, however, public concern over safety
remains a huge obstacle to future development.
It is
understood that a specific site for an underground bunker has yet to be
decided, although many geologically 'stable' areas have been
highlighted. However, critics claim no area can realistically be deemed
100% safe because of the potential effects of erosion, subsidence and
earthquakes - no matter how small - in the centuries to come.
Despite this the CoRWM insist the concept is sound, but specific design models require extensive future study and development.
Parts of the Lake District, Wales, central Scotland and the east coast of England have been earmarked for potential bunkers.
An underground
laboratory was planned in the 1990s near the Sellafield reactor,
however, an acrimonious public inquiry forced an early halt to possible
construction.
In an effort to
build confidence in CoRWM's recommendations the group has enlisted the
advice and views of many - including schoolchildren - but some remain
cautious. Indeed the Royal Society are worried that the committee has
placed public consultation ahead of scientific advice.
Friends of the
Earth are unconvinced by the expert opinion provided so far, and claim
waste could leak from containers within 500 years.
It believes the
immediate priority should be to ensure waste is safely stored so that
long term options can then be properly investigated.
FoE spokesman
Roger Higman, who has been involved with the CoRWM process, said:
"Britain's nuclear waste is a serious hazard. Urgent action is needed
to ensure this waste is safely stored. But it must not be dumped deep
underground.
"Much of this material will remain highly toxic for tens of thousands of years.
"It is vital
that we take every possible care to ensure that long term solutions to
the waste problem are properly investigated and don't lead to
contamination in the future.
"Ultimately all
ways of disposing of nuclear waste are fraught with risk. This means we
shouldn't create any more. Nuclear power is expensive, dangerous and a
major security threat.
"This is a
massive decision that could lead to very large amounts of nuclear waste
buried deep under the UK in a way that is very difficult to get it back
again. It must not be rushed."
Over 350,000
cubic meters of 'high-level' and 'intermediate-level' waste exists in
various locations across Britain. Official figures have indicated that
spent uranium rods from a new nuclear reactor programme in the UK would
virtually triple current radioactive waste levels.
Meanwhile,
according to Friends of the Earth, CoRWM have highlighted a warning
that Britain's nuclear waste is vulnerable to terrorist attack which
the Government must take urgent action to deal with.
It is
understood that "security specialists" have warned about terror
threats, and have advised the committee that "it is our unanimous
opinion that greater attention should be given to the current
management of radioactive waste held in the UK, in the context of its
vulnerability to potential terrorist attack.
"We are not
aware of any UK Government programme that is addressing this issue with
adequate detail or priority, and consider it unacceptable for some
vulnerable waste forms such as spent fuel, to remain in their current
condition and mode of storage."
The experts
urge the Government to instruct the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA) to make the radioactive waste safe from terrorists.
They say the
NDA should be told "to produce an implementation plan for categorising
and reducing the vulnerability of the UK's inventory of radioactive
waste to potential acts of terrorism, through conditioning and
placement in storage options with an engineered capability specifically
designed to resist major terrorist attack."
Rail chiefs
have however hit back at claims by the environmental charity Greenpeace
that nuclear waste transported by rail through Cumbria is a "prime
target" for terrorists.
The charity
took out a full-page advert in a national newspaper claiming that an
attack on one of the trains could spread radiation over a 100km area
and cause as many as 8,000 deaths.
Officials at
the Sellafield reprocessing plant and Direct Rail Services (DRS), which
transports the nuclear material, both insist that public safety is
their priority.
They say
nuclear materials are transported in purpose- built steel containers
called flasks, each designed to withstand severe "incidents".
But Jean
McSorley, Greenpeace's senior adviser on nuclear issues, said there is
strong evidence that the nuclear transports have already been
identified as likely targets for terrorists.
As far back as 1983, the IRA had included nuclear transports in Cumbria on their hit-list of targets.
She said: "If
they breached the flask in situ with ground-to air-missiles, which are
in the hands of terrorist organisations, the environmental, economic
and social damage would be huge.
"These trains are prime terrorist targets."
She said that
the nuclear transports pass along main rail networks every day. Uranium
fuel rods are also sent abroad by sea via Workington Docks, she added.
A spokesman for
DRS said: "The safety record of moving used nuclear fuel by rail is
exemplary. This material has been transported in this way since 1962,
travelling over eight million miles without any incident involving the
release of radioactive material."
--
CoRWM draft report at: <www.corwm.org.uk>
------------------->
'Optimism gone mad' on nuclear waste
09 May 2006
http://www.robedwards.info/2006/05/optimism_gone_m.html
The UK has
still not developed a plan for disposing of its nuclear waste, says New
Scientist magazine. So the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, cannot go ahead
with a new nuclear power programme claiming that it has.
An editorial in
the 6 May edition of New Scientist argues that draft recommendations
from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), revealed
last month, do not provide a solution to the problem of what to do with
the waste produced by 50 years of nuclear power and weapons.
CoRWM has said
that disposal deep underground is the "best available" long term
solution for the waste, some of which remains dangerous for hundreds of
thousands of years. But it has not expressed any preference for the
type of geology in which a repository should be built.
Nor has the
committee been able to say whether the waste should be retrievable or
not. "The committee is split," says New Scientist, "with some members
arguing that retrievability would benefit future generations and others
saying it would burden them."
Blair has said
that new reactors cannot be built until there is a plan for disposing
of radioactive waste, the editorial points out. "Some advocates of
nuclear power will doubtless argue that CoRWM has now provided that
plan. This is optimism gone mad," it concludes.
"Deciding to
put waste down a hole, with no idea what form the repository should
take or where it should be, is no more of a plan than has existed for
the past 30 years."
------------------->Return
to top
Nuclear spin-doctoring in the UK
------------------->
Nuclear spin-doctoring in the UK <http://www.nuclearspin.org>
------------------->
EXPOSED: SECRET PLOT TO BACK RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPS
Friends of the Earth Press Release
Immediate use: 14 May 2006
EXPOSED: SECRET PLOT TO BACK RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPS
Shocking agency documents reveal nuclear industry tactics
Plans by the government's nuclear waste agency, Nirex, to run a secret
campaign to overturn political and public opposition to dumping Britain's
nuclear waste underground have been exposed today. Details of the covert
campaign to manipulate the public debate about nuclear waste are revealed in
documents written by, and on behalf of, the agency. [1]
The covert tactics listed include:
* Putting "third party pressure to bear" on CoRWM - the independent group
set up to examine ways to deal with the country's 470,000 cubic metres of
radioactive waste
* lists of English and Scottish politicians, civil servants and journalists
who were "suggested targets" for briefings
* "enlisting" sympathetic politicians and "isolating" those who were not.
This was to be done by "enlisting a cadre of MPs who are ready and
well-briefed to respond 'spontaneously' to the CoRWM report".
* that "'opinion leaders are carefully recruited and groomed".
* The ultimate aim was to convince these "target groups" to support the
underground dumping on nuclear waste "Otherwise there can be no future
development of the nuclear industry".
Friends of the Earth's Chief Executive, Duncan McLaren, said:
"These documents are truly shocking. They expose a covert and unaccountable
political campaign which is entirely inappropriate for a body such as Nirex
which represents no public interest or constituency, and appears instead to
be acting as a Trojan horse for the interests of the nuclear industry.
"For all Nirex's assertions that it has changed and learned the lessons of
its dumping debacle at Sellafield, it is clear that the leopard has not
changed its spots. This strategy is not designed to ensure the best possible
approach to dealing with this country's nuclear legacy, but to pre-judge
political opinion in favour of Nirex's preferred option of dumping waste at
one of the sites on its recently exposed secret shortlist. [2]
"The nuclear industry is clearly desperate to curry political and public
favour. However, their mask has again slipped to reveal exactly what they
are thinking and plotting. The public are not being fooled. They know
nuclear power is a white elephant and should have no place in this country's
energy future."[3]
ENDS
Media contact: Lang Banks on 0131 554 9977 or (pager) 07654 200937
NOTES TO EDITORS:
[1] The documents have been posted on the anti-nuclear website
nuclearspin.org
See: http://www.spinprofiles.org/images/f/fb/Nirex.pdf
The internal Nirex document was produced in 2004 following the creation of
the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) - the body charged
with looking at the nuclear waste problem. Last month, CoRWM accepted
Nirex's proposals that nuclear waste should be dumped underground.
See: http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/press/pr20060408.html
[2] Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, in June 2005, Nirex was forced
to publish the names of all 537 locations once identified as potential sites
for disposing of the UK's dangerous radioactive waste.
For a regional list or post code search of all 537 sites see:
http://www.nirex.co.uk/477002/index7.html
[3] Friends of the Earth is fighting plans to impose a new nuclear
power programme on the public. Instead of electricity "too cheap to meter"
nuclear power has led to the radioactive contamination of land, sea and air.
There is also the major problem of what to do with all the radioactive
waste.
Friends of the Earth also opposes the construction of a new generation of
nuclear reactors because a range of safer, greener and cleaner
alternatives can deliver greenhouse gas reductions to meet climate
change targets and maintain energy security.
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/elephant
------------------->
Revealed: the nuclear waste agency's undercover plans
14 May 2006
http://www.robedwards.info/2006/05/from_sunday_her.html
Nirex, the
government's nuclear waste agency, had secret plans to promote the
burying of radioactive waste and open the door to new nuclear power
stations, the Sunday Herald reports today. The full story follows.
from the Sunday Herald, 14 May 2006
A covert
campaign to ensure that opposition to burying waste was overcome has
angered anti-nuclear groups and raised questions about the tactics of a
government agency.
By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor
Plans to launch
a covert campaign to overturn sustained opposition to burying nuclear
waste and pave the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations
were drawn up by a government agency, it has been revealed.
The proposals
included putting "third party pressure" on a separate government
committee given the task of investigating the issue, "enlisting"
politicians sympathetic to their cause and "isolating" those who were
not.
Nirex, the
government agency responsible for the disposal of radioactive waste,
also produced a list of MPs, MSPs, civil servants and journalists to
lobby about disposing the waste produced by nuclear power stations.
The agency has
admitted drawing up the "media and public affairs strategy" but insists
it was merely a draft put together by a junior member of staff and that
some of the suggested tactics were not used.
The UK
government-appointed Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM)
has accepted the Nirex proposals and overturned previous opposition to
the burying of nuclear waste. Its recommendations are expected to be
used by Tony Blair to support his plans for a revived nuclear power
industry, which would have been held back because of uncertainty over
how to deal with the waste.
Nirex's plans have come under fire from campaigners sceptical about the safety of burying nuclear waste.
“It is
genuinely shocking that such a covert operation should have been
considered by a public body,” said the Green MSP, Chris Ballance. “It
exposes the extent of the spin operation that the nuclear industry has
waged in order to skew the debate on nuclear power and this should be
publicly and independently investigated.”
The internal
Nirex document (pdf available here), which is posted on the
anti-nuclear website, nuclearspin.org, was produced in 2004, the year
after the Government set up CoRWM to review the options for dealing
with 470,000 cubic metres of waste from nuclear power and weapons.
Nirex, which
was established by Britain's nuclear industry and became a government
agency last year, has always favoured disposing of the waste in a deep
underground respository. It was determined to win CoRWM support for its
cause.
Forseeing the
looming debate on storing nuclear waste, the Nirex strategy "draft"
noted that it was essential for the agency to “bring third party
pressure to bear" on CoRWM. Oral briefings with key figures would
enable Nirex “to engage in a more candid dialogue about CoRWM”, it said.
It then lists
MPs who were “suggested targets” for briefings, including Scottish
backbenchers and front-bench performers from all the major political
parties. Holyrood was also in Nirex's sights, including a “targeted
mailing” of MSPs and trips to Finland or Sweden. The report mentions
the need to “extend contact” with Environment Minister Ross Finnie, his
former deputy Allan Wilson and Scottish Executive special adviser Peter
Hastie.
Other “possible
contacts” included Highlands MSPs Jamie Stone and Maureen Macmillan,
special adviser Derek Munn, Tory David Mundell and journalists. The
report also mentioned the need to lobby councillors: “The May 2003
elections saw change in personal [sic] and, although approaching them
without causing suspicion will be difficult, contact needs to be
renewed and updated.”
The Nirex
report also noted that Scotland suffered from a “dangerous combination”
of interest in waste issues and a “lack of up to date knowledge”.
In addition,
the public affairs strategy complained of "frustration" at UK civil
servants who sought, it said, "to keep us wrapped up". A publicly
funded trip to Finland or Sweden was seen as a way to win over the
doubters.
“By including
both enthusiastic and reluctant officials and special advisers the aim
would be to win over those who have concerns about the political and
environmental acceptability/ practicality of a solution," the report
said.
More
controversially, another report - which was written by Allan Rogers, a
one-time consultant to Nirex - urged them to go further in their
attempts to woo the media and political elites.
Rogers, whose
report says he was “asked to comment” on the 2004 strategy, said there
would be a need to “push the government into action” if CoRWM backed
underground storage. He stated: “They will still be facing the same
problems and lobby groups that they face today - NIMBY, anti-Nirex,
community worry, green and environmental groups etc.”
A “process of
preparation for the target groups” must be put in place, his report
said, adding that “it can't be high profile.” Recruits would be
selected on the basis of “influence potential”, after which they would
be provided with “appropriate communications messages and platforms”.
His advice also
focused on how to tailor Nirex’s message to parliament and government.
The report noted that it would be essential to “bolster” sympathetic
MPs and “isolate” those who were hostile. “This can be done
by….enlisting a cadre of MPs who are ready and well-briefed to respond
‘spontaneously’ to the CoRWM report,” it said.
“We have to be
sure that 'opinion leaders are carefully recruited and groomed,'” the
Rogers report said. In the margin a Nirex offical has handwritten
“careful!”.
The aim was to
convince "target groups" that deep underground disposal was the best
way forward "otherwise there can be no future development of the
nuclear industry," it argued.
Rogers' dossier
also mentioned Nirex’s poor public reputation. It stated that the body
could be perceived as “an arm of the nuclear power industry”, as well
as an organisation that “hasn’t always been open and forthright in the
past”.
The waste issue
is acutely sensitive in Scotland because of the polarised debate on
whether to build a new generation of reactors. MSPs will have the final
say over any planning application - hence the nuclear lobby’s interest
in Scotland.
Nirex has also
come under fire for the amount of taxpayers’ money it has spent on
public affairs specialists and lobbyists. The group has paid Edinburgh
based Fleishmann Hillard, formerly GPC, around £400,000 since
2001 for “corporate communications advice”.
The company has
facilitated contacts between Nirex and MSPs and also helped officials
attend a meeting of the Parliament’s cross party group on the civil
nuclear industry.
A spokesman for
Nirex said the internal report was a “first draft” written by “the most
junior member” of staff. He also said it was “unfortunate” the report
mentioned putting “third party pressure” on CoRWM.
On the Rogers
report he said: “That was a pitch document. We did not agree with his
comments on what we needed to do in the future, and his advice was not
taken up.”
But this was
rejected by critics. “Nirex is an offshoot of the nuclear industry. The
leopard hasn’t changed its spots,” said Friends of the Earth Scotland
chief executive, Duncan McLaren. “This report is unacceptable as it is
unaccountable to public scrutiny.”
------------------->
From: www.campaignstrategy.org
Meta-spin - UK Government Picks Climate Context For Nukes (first posted 1 December 2005)
The UK
Government is currently indulging in a campaign to get the media to
cajole the British population into accepting nuclear power. So
far it's not doing at all badly.
For months a
series of leaks and briefings have laid the groundwork by letting
everyone know that Tony Blair is warm to the idea of nuclear power.
Like the frog
that never responds to the slowly warming pond and eventually boils to
death, the gradual build up is designed to make the final decision seem
like an inescapable inevitability.
By not putting
a clear case, and not creating any decision points or events, the
government briefing machine tries to create an expectation without
giving its opponents a target or opportunity to call a division (see
page 103 in How To Win
Campaigns)
which it can win. This strategy of dribbling out the bad news is
often credited to Bill Clinton. The current political game plan
is explored in a short article in the Guardian, by Tom Burke of
Imperial College ["The power and the unglory"
http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1653
490,00.html ].
On Tuesday 29
November the Independent newspaper's front page consisted of two 1970s
style 'Nuclear Power' sun symbols - "no thanks" and "yes please", with
five reasons for and against. The nuclear lobby must be delighted
- the media are at least framing it as a debate of equal merits (even
if the inside editorial condemned it as 'this costly dangerous and
expensive distraction'.
Perhaps the
main interest for campaigners though, is the context. The UK Government
has now launched an 'energy review' and called for a 'debate'.
Much of the UK
media is dutifully covering the Montreal talks on the climate.
This gives them the context they need, because nuclear is being
promoted as an answer to climate change.
The Power of Context
Not long ago I
sat down with others and sifted through mountains of evidence based
studies of 'what worked' in communications on drugs. Unlike most
other areas of communication efforts, campaigns on (illegal) UK drugs
have often been thoroughly evaluated. We came up with seven
factors which are necessary to make an 'effective message'. This
tool can be used to interrogate any communication exercise - the useful
thing about it is that it does not use the word 'message'.
Debates about 'messages' often go nowhere because people are arguing
past each other saying they are talking about 'messages' while they are
actually arguing about one of the seven elements.
These are:
CAMP CAT
* Channel - how the message gets there
* Action - what we want to happen (and what the audience is asked to do)
* Messenger - who delivers the message
* Programme - why we're doing it (essential to know this to assess effectiveness)
* Context - where and when the message arrives (including what else is going on)
* Audience - who we are communicating with
* Trigger - what will motivate the audience to act
The actual 'message' is, like a binary warhead:
the
call-to-action (effectively 'do this'), plus the trigger, or motivator
(effectively 'why you should'). They may be communicated by an example
or argument, or visually, but not often as an instruction or
admonishment.
The programme
is internal. The audience and the action should be determined by the
critical path of the campaign. Qualitative research should determine
the trigger, context, messenger and channel. Campaigners have to accept
that they will not always be the best messenger. (In this case
the UK Government is doing its best to enlist media commentators as
'messengers').
Timing (part of context) can alter the effect.
This is not
spin but meta-spin. Right now the UK nuclear proposition is
wrapped in the climate issue, sustained by ongoing media coverage of
the international UN talks. Every time the NGOs and other climate
campaigners draw attention to the need to reduce climate emissions,
they inadvertently reinforce the framing that the UK Government wants
to use to promote nuclear power.
(See George Lakoff's various works including Don't Think Of An Elephant and
www.frameworksinstitute.org)
To see what
difference context makes, consider what would happen if the UK
Government had suddenly announced it was considering more nuclear power
stations, in the wake of a major series of terrorist attacks, or while
the 'War On Terror'
involved
military action against supposed nuclear threats. Climate would
not feature, or if it did, it would soon be overwhelmed by other
connections.
If campaigners
are now to succeed in convincing the UK public and media that more
nuclear is a bad idea, they'll probably need to use different frames.
Arguing from inside the climate frame is almost certainly doomed to
failure. Others in which nukes invariably fail as a proposition
include security/terrorism and economics. Of these, the one that
most threatens Tony Blair's case for nuclear is terror - because he
himself has been the champion of the 'war on terror'.
Triggering the
alternative frames means starting the debate anew - signalling this for
example with new events, actors or evidences - and doing so again and
again.
Resentments And Well Placed Fears
A couple of
years ago I was involved in some research into UK public perceptions of
nuclear weapons. It hardly need be said that after the Cold War
ended, the 'issue' dropped from the forefront of the 'public mind', and
that post 9/11 world views of security had changed - but how?
We looked at
what routes might be used to bring the issue of nuclear proliferation
alive. The findings are relevant to the current UK Government
plan to build more nukes because, of course, more nuclear power
stations and more piles of radioactive waste create more potential
terror targets, while the plutonium it produces can make nuclear bombs,
or the waste can make 'dirty bombs'.
We found three clear groups, which we called the Abolitionists, the [Frightened] Sceptics and the Resigned
* The
Abolitionists are convinced that nuclear weapons are and always were a
live and critical threat - they are the people who support, have
supported or would support existing anti nuclear groups (a small
minority)
* The Sceptics
are defined by their high level of concern at global insecurity, which
they see as driven by a breakdown in trustworthiness of politicians,
coupled with a policy of belligerence on the part of the US and UK. (A
lot of people).
They worry that
this is increasing the risk of specific terrorism and a general
breakdown of world norms and order. They are anxious for a return to a
more honest, responsive, reasonable world but very sceptical of
politicians and political processes.
They were not
Abolitionist in the past and are not necessarily disarmers (certainly
not unilateral disarmers). They do not approach the security issue from
a starting point of nuclear weapons but they do have relevant views
about nuclear weapons.
They are
motivated by a very live and current sense of concern and want
resolutions. Given the right cues or triggers they would engage with
nuclear issues.
* The Resigned
are defined by their belief that there is nothing they can do, nor do
they need to do anything because it is not their place and more expert
people are in charge.
Although we do not know they are in this segment for sure, such reasoning is typical of the security driven values groups (see
www.cultdyn.co.uk)
who most of all want security and belonging; as is their
willingness to resort to punitive measures against external threats
(which they see everywhere all the time). Eg it makes sense to have
nuclear capability in order to deter or punish anyone who transgresses
against us.
For them
pre-emption of any sort is a relief from a weak world relying on moral
norms. The nation state, like other 'clubs' easily provides a dividing
line for us-and-them, hence most 'global'
issues are immediately cast as tests of
patriotism.
While unimpressed by any idea of disarmament, these people are unlikely
to actively engage in politics or discussion in the media (though the
tabloid press often pitch to them).
This three-way picture is significantly different to the situation that prevailed in the Cold War.
Then there was a bipolar map of public opinion.
The threat -
nuclear annihilation was largely undisputed and it was only a question
of which camp you were in, pro-nuclear weapons (led by the
Government) or
anti. Now, in marked contrast, the threat is multifactor, and cause and
effect are often inter-changed (eg the role of aspects of
globalisation). Nuclear weapons are one fish in this sea.
This
tripolarity is not well reflected in the media which is more
influenced/ intimidated by the government than is the public. The news
media largely shared the Bush-Blair framing of bipolarity - you are for
or against us and the war on terror is bipolar. Hence large scale
expressions of opposition to the Iraq war or war on terror or its
conduct, or measures of opinion about that, were discounted as 'wrong'
by invoking 'experts'. This is important to the government because the
'Sceptics' are not abolitionists or others who they would have
substantial reasons to discount.
A corollary of
this is that the government response to any issue or campaign
mobilising the sceptics will be to suggest they (the sceptics) are not
bad but misguided and misinformed (as these are people the government
feels should be natural allies). The best way to prevent this happening
is to show that these people are becoming concerned as they get better
informed.
"The more I know - the less I like this ..."
In this
tripolar world, the government's only default supporters are the
Resigned - but then they are resigned to being ignored as much as
anything else. UK political leaders are in a position of labile
disconnection: formally they are in power but with many of the 'natural'
ligatures that connect them to 'the people' and confer legitimacy, severed by distrust.
The research
identified a 'cross over' zone between War on Terror issues (the
dominant cause of concern) and nuclear issues (many of which were
extant in the Cold War). This included:
* WMD
* Non-first strike (especially against non nuclear
states)
* Battlefield weapons development
As well as
* nuclear weapons information/ locations
* dirty bombs
Several of
these are blurring-concerns: ie concern generated by a belief that
politicians are trying to deceive, withhold information or blur lines
and important distinctions; making things grey that should by rights be
black and white. These people fear further application of the logic and
reflexes (punitive action, pre-emption, revenge, weak analysis leading
potentially to disaster) that led to a macho war on terror after 9/11,
knowing however vaguely that this itself was somehow driven by
hegemonic aspirations of the Neocons in the USA.
In the Cold War
people feared what could happen if a lunatic got elected and pressed
the button. Now they fear that the people who they have elected, are
only too happy to press buttons, and so these people (messrs Blair,
Bush and their class) need to be restrained.
It is also
likely that many of the 'sceptics' will include esteem driven groups.
These people eschew social risk (so don't normally 'campaign' and are
allergic to 'lost causes'), like big brands, success and getting what
they deserve. For these people, relationships are highly transactional
so to be deceived by politicians they voted for, is a big deal. This is
a major part of their
discontent:
Blair et al promised a better world and they have insecurity, and in
part this comes about from ill-judged belligerence.
Here's an alternative frame to the
we-need-nukes-because-of-climate change:
What Sort Of Electricity Would Osama Like?
If someone bent on terrorising Britain could write Tony Blair's energy policy, what would it say?
"Our country will in future rely on wind, wave, biomass and solar power"?
Or
"We will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear by over 50% through implementing best practice energy efficiency"?
Or
"We will build a new generation of nuclear reactors spread around Britain"?
Would our
hypothetical terrorist prefer us to depend on a few centralised nuclear
power stations, or millions of micro-generation systems for individual
homes or communities, when it comes to security of a network?
And which would the terrorists stipulate when it came to potential targets for explosions?
Nuclear waste stockpiles and nuclear power stations?
Or
Factories making wind turbines and warehouses full of insulation materials?
Answers on a post-card please to Energy Review, c/o Tony Blair, 10 Downing Street, London, UK, SW1
If campaigners
are to defeat the Blair bandwagon on bringing back nuclear power, they
first need to kick the ball off the climate pitch, and then restart the
debate on a new one. Economics would do but terrorism is the one built
by Tony Blair.
Postscript: In
January, the BBC reported [1] "a majority of people in Britain [54%]
would accept new nuclear power stations if they helped fight climate
change". This spawned public-supports-nuclear headlines, even though
the same poll showed "Nearly 80% thought renewable technologies and
energy efficiency were better ways of tackling global warming" (another
quote from further down the BBC report).
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4619204.stm
------------------->Return
to top
UK - criminal action over Sellafield nuclear leak
------------------->
Criminal action over nuclear leak
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/4970236.stm
The operators
of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria are to face a
criminal prosecution over the leak of tonnes of radioactive material.
Acid containing
20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium spilled from a ruptured
pipe into a sealed cell at the site's Thorp complex.
The leak was discovered in April 2005, but investigators claimed it could have happened eight months earlier.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says it is bringing the action.
Operators British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd (BNGSL) were strongly criticised after the incident.
No-one was hurt and no radioactive material escaped into the atmosphere.
Safety systems
An investigation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) found "significant deficiencies" in procedures at the site.
Work at the Thorp complex was halted when the leak was discovered.
The HSE alleges
BNGSL breached conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence which
were granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.
It says the
company failed to ensure that safety systems were in good working order
and that radioactive material was effectively contained.
A spokesman for
British Nuclear Group said: "The company has co-operated fully with the
NII throughout its investigation and continues to make good progress
against its measures needed to enable the Thorp facility to become
operational again.
"As this matter is before the courts it would not be appropriate for us to comment further."
------------------->Return
to top
Unscientific / anti-scientific scientists
------------------->
Astonishing how unscientific scientists can be. Two cases in point:
- a physicist called Comby writing in the Advertiser (see critique below)
- James Lovelock, see appendix six in long version of the report at
<www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm>.
- the Melbourne Uni physicists whose report is riddled with factual errors <http://www.nuclearinfo.net>
Dear Editor
Not another
nuclear physicist promoting nuclear power (The Advertiser Review,
15/4/06). But wait, he’s an environmentalist. Well that’s different.
Only trouble is, his science is 100% flawed.
Solar and wind
incapable of supplying the energy required by an industrialised
civilisation? Is that with or without help from fossil fuels? If
without then the same should be applied to nuclear power and let’s see
where that get’s us.
Coal is the
most polluting energy source? Is that with or without fuel and waste
treatment? Is coal the only fossil fuel? What about oil and gas? And is
nuclear non-polluting? Not judging by uranium mines in Australia, and
60 year old problems with nuclear waste disposal.
Nuclear energy
produces (almost) no harmful gases but fossil fuels do? What about the
fossil fuels used to mine and process uranium, to build and
decommission the nuclear reactors, and to make huge caverns in
mountains just to test nuclear waste disposal proposals?
No one died as
a result of the meltdown at Three Mile Island and only 50 people died
as a result of Chernobyl? How do we know? The link between deaths and
ionising radiation is not immediate nor traceable, but is predictable
with a high degree of certainty.
Nuclear wastes
are not gaseous? You would have expected a nuclear physicist to know
that radon is not only gaseous but highly dangerous.
Nuclear wastes
are not rejected into the biosphere? The 500 acres of radioactive
wastes spread over the ground at Roxby, from which gaseous radon
emanates whilst radioactive liquid seeps into the ground must be a
mirage.
Unlike nuclear
waste, chemical waste lasts forever? Chemical wastes like carbon
dioxide and methane don’t last forever, nuclear waste remains dangerous
for thousands of years.
(Ionising)
radiation is present everywhere in the environment? Well yes, but so is
arsenic. The issue is where and in what amounts.
With science like that, who can be blamed for looking for a new tag.
Dr Dennis Matthews
------------------->Return
to top
Former Environmental Ministers call on UN to reform IAEA mandate and End the Nuclear Age
------------------->
Former Environmental Ministers call on UN to reform IAEA mandate and End the Nuclear Age
11 April 2006
<www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/former-environmental-ministers>
VIENNA, Austria
— In the run up to the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster,
former European Environmental Ministers (1) and Greenpeace are calling
on Secretary-General Kofi Annan and International Atomic Energy Agency
Director Mohamed ElBaradei to reform the Agency’s mandate and withdraw
its promotion of nuclear technology, thereby eliminating the risk of
another nuclear disaster of Chernobyl’s magnitude.
This demand
highlights the contradictory roles the IAEA plays in the international
arena. On one hand, the IAEA is tasked with stopping the spread of
nuclear weapons and providing technical assistance to support the
nuclear disarmament process. On the other, the IAEA’s mandate promotes
the dangerous myth of peaceful nuclear power. The former environmental
ministers call on the UN to propose amendments to the IAEA statute at
the forthcoming IAEA Board of Governors and General Conference in mid
September.
"The risk of
nuclear arms proliferation seems to be growing rapidly. To be able to
function effectively, the IAEA should end its schizophrenic role. It
cannot effectively prevent nuclear arms proliferation when it, at the
same time, promotes nuclear energy technology, which produces material
for bombs. Therefore the time has come to make end of this double role
of IAEA,” said Mrs. Satu Hassi, Member of European Parliament and
former Finish Environmental Minister.
“The United
Nations should dedicate this reform to the thousands of people in
Russia, Ukraine and Belarus whose lives were scarred forever on the
morning of the 26th of April 1986. The 20th anniversary of the biggest
nuclear disaster in history is an opportunity to remove the threat of
nuclear disasters from the planet, starting with reforming the IAEA,
said Felicity Hill, Nuclear Political Advisor for
Greenpeace. “Atoms for Peace sounds like a nice ideal, but we all
know that the reality of atomic energy is anything but peaceful.”
“The IAEA acts
as a true promoter for the nuclear industry worldwide. By deliberately
ignoring the interlink between civil and military nukes, it contributes
to the proliferation of fissile materials. Nations are also responsible
in this dangerous interaction. France particularly, must end its sales
policy of nuclear materials and technologies to whomever is willing to
pay. This trade jeopardizes world peace…” concluded Mrs. Dominique
Voynet, Senator and former French Minister for the Environment.
Notes to Editor
(1) Signatories of the Ministers’ letter are the following former Environmental Ministers:
1. Former
Ukrainian Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Sergiy
Kurykin
2. Former Russian Minister of Environment, Mr. Victor
Danilov-Danilian
3. Former Belarusian Minister of Environment, Mr.
Anatolii Dorofeev
4. Former Italian Minister of Environment, Mr. Edo
Ronchi
5. Former Danish Environment and Energy Minister, Mr. Svend
Auken
6. Former Belgian Minister of Environment, Ms. Magda Alvoet
7.
Former Czech Minister of Environment, Mr. Ivan Dejmal
8. Former Finish
Minister of Environment and Development Cooperation, Ms. Satu Hassi
9.
Former French Minister of Environment and Regional Planning, Ms.
Dominique Voynet
10. Former British Minister of Environment, Mr.
Michael Meacher MP
(2) A copy of the letter from the Ministers can be found at
http://www.greenpeace.org/ministersletter
(3) A copy of the letter from Greenpeace can be found at
http://www.greenpeace.org/reformletter
------------------->
Excerpt:
A Call to Reform the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mandate
11 April 2006
On The 20th
Anniversary of Chernobyl: A Call from former Environment Ministers to
reform the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mandate and end
the Nuclear Age.
We believe
that, on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the time has
come to reform IAEA mandate to withdraw its promotion of this dangerous
and destabilising technology. Nuclear power is no longer necessary: We
now have numerous renewable technologies available to guarantee the
right to safe, clean and cheap energy. The Agency should therefore
abandon its inappropriate dual role of both nuclear salesman and
referee of a commercial industry that creates the world's most
expensive form of electricity with a radioactive legacy that lasts for
hundreds of thousands of years.
Download Document
------------------->
Uranium at Rum Jungle in the NT
------------------->
ECNT Media Release: Monday 10 April 2006
Rumblings at Rum Jungle
Members of the
Environment Centre of the NT (ECNT) and the Darwin No Waste Dump
Alliance travelled to Batchelor on the weekend to meet with traditional
custodians and local residents concerned about proposed uranium
projects in the region.
The gathering
was held at Lok-Cabay on the Finniss River Land Trust at the invitation
of Kungarakun/Gurindji elder Speedy McGinness. Thirty people attended
the two days.
Mr McGinness
has been looking after country in the region since it was handed back
to the traditional custodians in 1993. He invited those attending the
gathering to accompany him to the abandoned Rum Jungle uranium mine
site to see first hand the damage already done by
Commonwealth-instigated uranium mining.
On-going
environmental problems observed during the site visit include extensive
weed infestation, surface salt contamination, contaminated outflow from
the mine pits into the East Finniss River and wide-spread tree die-back.
Local residents
are concerned that some if not all of these problems will be compounded
if uranium exploration and mining is permitted in the region.
A number of
local property owners attended the gathering and raised issues
including weed intrusion as a result of exploration for uranium,
effects on ground water supplies, and contamination from possible
future mines.
“Batchelor
township is currently surrounded by exploration licenses granted to or
applied for by companies wanting to develop uranium projects,” ECNT
Uranium Campaigner Emma King said.
“If any of
these projects go ahead, there will be a huge impact on the local
community, including negative effects on the local tourism and
horticulture industries.
“Darwin and
Batchelor residents are concerned that any re-opened uranium mine at
Rum Jungle will be very close to the Darwin River Dam drinking water
catchment. Airborne or groundwater borne radioactivity and other
contaminants could find their way into Darwin’s drinking water.
“The NT
Government should back up its stated support for no new uranium mines
in the NT, and refuse to grant any new exploration licences to uranium
interests.”
------------------->
Uranium sales to China
------------------->
Let them eat [yellow]cake: National Protests at Uranium Sales to China
by AliceAction 2006-04-05
Across
Australia today community, environment and peace groups held yellowcake
stalls to protest the signing of a deal to sell uranium to China.
“Selling
uranium is a crumby idea at the best of times,” said Louise Morris,
spokesperson for Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Melbourne. “but we could
really get our fingers burnt with this most recent deal.”
China is a
nuclear weapons state with around 400 nuclear warheads. For them to
have access to a reliable source of cheap and plentiful uranium is just
the icing on the cake.
“The half baked
assurances that Australian uranium won’t go into nuclear weapons
programs are laughable,” said Nat Wasley, spokesperson for Arid Lands
Environment Centre- Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Alice Springs
“China loses
hundreds of workers to industrial and mining accidents each year, and
sees untold environmental damage as a result of these too,” stated
Scott Ludlam, spokesperson for Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western
Australia. “Adding yellowcake into the mix is just a recipe for
disaster.”
Ms Morris
concluded by saying, “The major political parties are playing packet
mix politics to the mining lobby – just add water to get the instant
policy you want.
“But the
Australian community have shown time and again that they are willing to
turn up the heat to stop nuclear projects, and we will do so again.”
Groups in Alice
Springs, Melbourne and Perth tested their recipes today, with Canberra
preparing for a "pie on ya face" gallery on Friday and Brisbane keeping
their concoctions a secret until Sunday.
------------------->
Nuclear powerhouse
This week's China deal may prove to be a watershed in our attitude to uranium exports. Joseph Kerr reports
April 08, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18743883-28737,00.html
AUSTRALIA has
the world's richest deposits of uranium, the most important ingredient
for nuclear power generation as well as for making nuclear weapons.
We're very good
at digging it up and sending it overseas for other people to use. But
we're not the best in the world, and as the ink dries on the deal
stitched this week allowing uranium exports to China, offering the
potential for us to double our export volumes, some are saying it's
time to stop holding Australia back, raising the question of how safe
the whole deal is.
Australia could
be pretty much the undisputed leader in exporting uranium. The Uranium
Information Centre says it is one of the most common elements, but this
country has the most accessible mass deposits of any place in the
world, with 30 per cent of the uranium that can be dug up for less than
$US80 ($110) a kilogram. Kazakhstan has 17 per cent of the world total,
followed by Canada with 12 per cent and South Africa with 8per cent. Of
the cheapest uranium - that costing less than $US40 per kilogram to
recover - we have 40 per cent of the world total.
But we're not
the leader. We're second on the uranium export list behind the
Canadians. Canada produced 11,597 tonnes in 2004, compared with
Australia's 8982 tonnes. The gap has been narrowing, but Canada has
held a substantial lead over Australian production for nearly two
decades.
Australia
exports much more coal than it does uranium. In 2005, we sold 11,215
tonnes of uranium oxide worth $573 million overseas, less than
one-twelfth of the $6.96 billion worth of thermal coal we exported.
Indeed, uranium is a tiny fraction - only 1per cent - of Australia's
vast mineral and energy export sector.
In a sign of
how potentially powerful uranium is on the world energy stage,
Australia's much smaller export of uranium packs in more energy than
the masses of coal we sold overseas. The energy value of all that coal
was only 3068 petajoules, but the relatively tiny amount of uranium we
exported in 2005 was worth nearly double that: 5300 petajoules.
And its
significance to the growing powerhouses of China and India cannot be
understated. China plans to install about 40 1000-megawatt nuclear
reactors by 2020 as its power demands quadruple and it tries to shift
away from its dependence on energy resources blamed for greenhouse
gases, such as coal. That could provide about 6 per cent of China's
energy needs (1.5 times Australia's total electricity production). If
that power were to be produced by greenhouse-polluting methods, it
would generate as much CO2 as Australia produces each year.
This week the
two governments signed two agreements that together allow Australian
uranium to be exported to China. Set alongside Chinese Premier Wen
Jiabao's comments calling for significant breakthroughs on a
China-Australia free trade agreement, to be reached within two years,
the deal sets the scene for a huge increase in exports.
The energy we
export through uranium is about 1.5 times Australia's domestic
electricity production and supplies about 14 per cent of the power
generated internationally from nuclear sources: about 2per cent of the
world's electricity production.
We're not the
world leader, agrees Geoff Prosser, the chairman of a parliamentary
committee looking into further opportunities for Australian uranium
exports. "Australia was at the forefront of nuclear technology in the
1950s and '60s [with] world-recognised and respected physicists,"
Prosser says. "Effectively we have dropped the ball completely, because
we don't have an industry now."
There are only
three mines in operation - Ranger, Olympic Dam and Beverley - with a
fourth, South Australia's Honeymoon, not yet operational despite having
government approval since 2001.
Prosser
believes the potential for increasing Australian uranium exports to
China in coming years as the two countries work on a free trade deal is
big: potentially $1 billion a year in extra exports.
He says China
has an enormous appetite for power. "We have the opportunity to
[service] that market and we're dumb if we don't do it." If we don't
grab that opportunity, Prosser says, Canada will.
He says there
has been a fundamental shift in the way nuclear energy is viewed.
"We've been surprised by the realisation that if you want clean energy
with zero emissions, nuclear is the only option. It's time for
Australia to awaken from its slumber."
Locally, the
key constraint has been the Labor Party's no-new-mines rule, which
blocks new mines as long as Labor governs the states. As originally
formulated, the policy limits Australia to three operating uranium
mines at a time. Now it blocks any new mine from being opened.
Engineer John
White, who chairs the Government's uranium industry framework, says the
policy has stopped mining exploration despite the industry being
profitable.
"It's an
industry which we would probably say has been in the doldrums because
it has been constrained by the no-new-mines policy imposed by the state
governments," White says.
Opposition
Leader Kim Beazley has been criticised for refusing to dump the policy
ahead of the ALP's next national conference in April 2007, despite
waning support from state premiers.
Industry
Minister Ian Macfarlane says: "Beazley is really outside the Labor
Party tent on this issue, with only the vehemently anti-business
Anthony Albanese standing naked in the cold beside him."
Internationally,
however, the critical constraint on Australia's ability to sell its
uranium is the worldwide desire to stop the spread of nuclear
technology and weapons. It is potentially such a dangerous substance,
once enriched far beyond its natural state, that its trade and use
internationally are bound by special rules.
As a result of
a web of multilateral and bilateral deals between the countries that
export and use uranium, the International Atomic Energy Agency plays a
critical role in monitoring the use of uranium and nuclear technology
in the hope of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons even as more
countries turn to nuclear power.
Before this
week's China deal, Australia had forged 19 bilateral agreements with
countries that wanted to import our uranium, although some - including
Egypt and The Philippines - have never been fully activated. The
agreements place certain requirements on countries importing Australian
uranium.
The most
important element is that Australian uranium be used only for peaceful
purposes, such as power generation and medical applications, and not
for warfare, either in bombs or in depleted uranium munitions.
The key
mechanisms for ensuring that those agreements are honoured - that
Australian uranium is not diverted to China's weapons program, for
example - are inspections by the IAEA and accounting rules that require
shipments to be monitored and tracked as they are used in the nuclear
fuel cycle.
The IAEA's inspection regime has been questioned this week: can it ensure China plays by the rules?
Only a tiny
fraction of its inspections budget is applied to the declared
nuclear-weapons states (the US, Britain, China, Russia and France),
with the rest dedicated to stopping the spread of nuclear materials to
non-weapons states.
Only selected
Chinese facilities will be open for inspection, with weapons' sites off
limits, raising questions about whether China might divert Australian
uranium into bomb-making.
However, John
Carlson, the director-general of the Australian Safeguards and
Non-Proliferation Office, says it isn't in China's economic interests
to break the rules and the consensus is it stopped production of
fissile material for weapons in 1991.
Only about five
tonnes are needed for a warhead, Carlson says, compared with 200 tonnes
to run a power plant for a year. "The uranium that weapon states need
for their weapons programs is tiny compared with what they need for
nuclear power," he says. "China has got plenty of uranium for its
weapons program in the past."
And Australia
would only conclude an agreement if it was confident China would stick
to the rules. "Why would it cheat?" Carlson asks.
------------------->
Uranium sales to Taiwan
------------------->
Aust-Taiwan uranium deal signed
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18704858%255E29277,00.html
April 04, 2006
TWO Australian
mining companies have signed contracts for the supply of uranium to a
Taiwanese power company, a deal that will be done through US
channels.
Taiwan, which is not a signatory to the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, confirmed the deals yesterday - the same day
that China - Taiwan's arch-rival - and Australia signed a deal in
Canberra for the supply of uranium.
Taiwanese
officials said the deal had been signed by the electrical producer
Taipower with BHP Billiton and ERA during the past 12 months.
Osman Chia,
from the Taipei economic and cultural office in Canberra, said the
arrangement provided for indirect trade route through the US.
"We don't have official relations with Australia so we go through the United States," Mr Chia said.
In the past, Australia has rebuffed approaches from Taiwan to sell it uranium, fearing a hostile reaction from China.
Australia has
also recently turned down requests from India to sell it uranium,
citing the fact that it has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty as the reason.
Federal
Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said Taiwan was a member of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and subjected itself to inspections
by the organisation.
------------------->
Now Taiwan is buying our uranium
By Craig Skehan
April 4, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/now-taiwan-buys-our-uranium/2006/04/03/1143916466699.html
TWO Australian
mining companies have quietly signed contracts for the supply of
uranium to China's arch-rival, Taiwan, raising fears that it could
undermine efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Taiwan is not a
signatory to the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear arms, but it has
confirmed the uranium deals to the Herald yesterday - on the same day
that China's Premier signed a uranium deal with Australia in Canberra.
Although Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons, the CIA revealed in the '70s that it had established a program to acquire them.
In the past Australia rebuffed pressure from Taiwan to sell it uranium, fearing a hostile reaction from China.
Taiwanese
officials said the deal had been signed by the electricity producer
Taipower with BHP Billiton and ERA during the past 12 months.
Osman Chia,
from the Taipei economic and cultural office in Canberra - Taiwan's de
facto embassy - said yesterday the arrangement provided for indirect
trade through the US.
"We don't have official relations with Australia, so we go through the United States," Mr Chia said.
An ERA
spokeswoman said last night that as yet no uranium had been shipped to
Taiwan because all available production had already been pre-sold to
other customers.
Late last year
Taiwan warned that China's build-up of missiles - including with
nuclear warheads - posed a threat to Australia and all other nations in
the region.
There has been
debate about the strategic wisdom of selling the ore to China as well
as over John Howard recent floating of the idea of uranium sales to
India.
India already has nuclear weapons and, like Taiwan, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
The Taiwanese
uranium deals with Australia have escaped public attention even though
they constitute a potential precedent for any supply of Australian
uranium to India.
"We do not make the signing of individual contracts public," an ERA spokeswoman told the Herald yesterday.
The Hawke Labor
government announced in 1986 that it would not allow any export of
Australian uranium to Taiwan, noting a lack of diplomatic relations or
bilateral safeguards agreement.
In 1996 the
Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said Australia was "exploring
conditions" for a reversal of the ban. But negotiations stalled amid
diplomatic sensitivity over cross-straits relations and Canberra's
alliance with the US.
Australia is
also a party to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which bans
uranium sales to any countries which have not signed the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty.
BHP Billiton
refused to say when the first shipments to Taiwan would take place, but
confirmed there was no public announcement in Australia when it signed
the supply contract.
"It is not company policy to comment on the implementation of contracts," the BHP Billiton spokesman said.
The federal
Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, told the Herald that Taiwan was a
member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and subjected itself
to inspections by the organisation. "However, Australia does not, and
has no avenues, to sell uranium directly to Taiwan," he said.
"There is a
strong global uranium market - Canada has already signed multi-billion
contracts with China for the supply of nuclear reactors, at the same
time as having an arrangement to sell uranium to Taiwan.
"As the largest
holders of uranium, we can deal ourselves into the process of closely
monitoring how the product is used around the world or we can just look
on as others set rules we may not think are tough enough."
In 2002 little
attention was paid to an "exchange of notes" between Australia and the
US allowing "re-transfer" of Australian uranium.
The US recently
agreed to provide nuclear technologies to India despite it not having
signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
------------------->
Australian whistle-blower ostracised - Iraq WMD
------------------->
Words of Mass Deception
May 13, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/words-of-mass-deception/2006/05/12/1146940739531.html
Rod Barton blew
the whistle on Australian, US and British lies about Iraq's hidden
weapons cache. And the Australian Government has made sure he pays a
high price for his stand. Hamish McDonald reports.
FOR a decade
Rod Barton knew the special loneliness of a United Nations weapons
inspector in Iraq, teasing out clues from one of the world's nastiest
regimes about biological weapons of unspeakable effect.
He worried
about assassination by Saddam Hussein's secret services, not an
unrealistic fear. He felt the derision of the ascendant hawks in
Washington, confident they knew better than the UN inspectors about
Saddam's secret weapons.
Now Barton is
suffering a new kind of isolation after turning whistleblower on how
the American, British and Australian leaders distorted intelligence to
justify their invasion of Iraq and how they condone the torture of
Iraqi prisoners.
Back home in
Canberra, Barton is ostracised and unemployed in his old intelligence
profession, to which at 58 and still formidably incisive, he could
still contribute a lot. He looks at the view of the Brindabellas. He
roams the world's trouble spots on Google Earth, the satellite imagery
website. The house could not be any tidier, nor the garden crammed with
any more shrubs.
Barton made
waves and is being punished. In March 2004, he and another Australian,
the Foreign Affairs disarmament specialist John Gee, resigned in
protest from the Iraq Survey Group, set up by the US Central
Intelligence Agency to find the Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons that had been the excuse for invasion. The CIA was refusing to
face the truth that Saddam's weapons had been destroyed in 1991.
In February
last year, Barton went public on ABC television. Now he has written a
devastating book about it, The Weapons Detective (Black Inc. Agenda,
$29.95). His security clearances withdrawn, Barton knows he will not be
getting any more contracts from his old employer, the Defence
Intelligence Organisation, which he had joined as a young
microbiologist in 1972.
Old colleagues
at the intelligence organisation have been warned not to have contact
with him, not even social meetings. In one act of spectacular
pettiness, at the insistence of the Prime Minister's staff, Barton and
Gee were dropped from the guest list for last year's 20th anniversary
meeting in Sydney of the Australia Group, a forum of intelligence
specialists from 38 countries on chemical and biological weapons, which
the two had helped set up in 1985.
"I knew that
blowing the whistle would bring some penalties, but not to this
extent," Barton says. "Was I that much a threat to the security of
Australia when - what was it I spoke out about: prisoner abuse?"
In his new
book, Barton lays out in shocking clarity that the reason for the Iraq
invasion cited by America's George Bush, Britain's Tony Blair and
Australia's John Howard was false.
Blair and
Howard knew it was false, Barton says. Bush may not have known, because
his intelligence agencies were reporting what he wanted to hear.
When shown the Australian intelligence assessment, Howard even asked: "Is that all there is?"
Barton saw both
the British and Australian intelligence assessments about Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction before the March 2003 invasion. Saddam had
at most a few chemical and biological weapons left over from the 1980s,
and no means of delivering them. There was no evidence he had resumed
WMD programs after UN weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998.
It was no
grounds for war, so the intelligence was doctored - notably in the
British "dossier" published on the orders of the British Joint
Intelligence Committee chairman, John Scarlett, which claimed Saddam
had chemical and biological weapons deployable "within 45 minutes of an
order to use them".
Howard cited
the British dossier in assuring the Australian public and Parliament
his Government had "compelling evidence" that Saddam possessed these
weapons. "Is it a lie or is it a spin or what?" Barton said. "But it's
certainly misleading the people."
The liars and
spin doctors have prospered, the whistleblowers have been shafted.
Barton's former UN colleague and friend, the British defence scientist
David Kelly, killed himself in July 2003 after being outed for telling
a BBC journalist how Scarlett had "sexed up" the Iraq intelligence.
Scarlett was still "sexing up" the post-invasion intelligence, Barton
shows, but has been made chief of Britain's famous spy service, MI6.
Barton shakes his head: "John Scarlett should not head any intelligence
organisation." In the CIA, the medals, cash bonuses and promotions go
to agents who tell their chiefs about new weapons threats, not the ones
who caution the evidence is weak.
In Australia,
Barton sees a general culture of compliance in the public service
spreading to the intelligence agencies. "You know you're not going to
get promoted if you tell the Government something that's unpopular," he
says.
One bit of
unwelcome reporting by Barton, to Australia's Defence Department, was
the first indication of the special "purgatory" centre being run by US
Special Forces at Camp Nama, next to Baghdad Airport.
"High value"
prisoners selected for disorientation before interrogation have a
hessian bag put over their heads for up to 72 hours, and are deprived
of food, water and sleep, made to stand up for long periods, exposed to
intense heat or cold, and bashed at random intervals. Unlike the
improvised brutality by US soldiers exposed at the Abu Ghraib prison,
all this is sanctioned by the US Administration, which claims it does
not amount to torture. "That's what makes it so much worse," Barton
says.
"We went to war
on WMD, which is withdrawn now. And now the casus belli is to bring
democracy and human rights - yet we, the coalition, are detaining
people without trial, and we the coalition are using torture
techniques," Barton says. "As a member of the coalition we have a
responsibility. We, the Australians, should be telling our American
colleagues: This is just not acceptable; if you want us as a member of
the coalition, to continue our presence there, then we ask you to stop
this practice.
"But of course this Government doesn't want to upset the Americans, so we won't do that."
------------------->
Finland - radioactive waste
------------------->
Finland buries its nuclear past
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4948378.stm
An
unprepossessing tunnel entrance set in low forest on the western coast
of Finland marks the probable final resting place of the country's most
dangerous nuclear waste.
While British
authorities agonise over what to do with the legacy of half a century
of nuclear power, Finland is one of a handful of countries which has
embarked on the journey towards a "final" waste solution.
Enter the
6.5m-high, 5m-wide (20ft-high, 16ft-wide) Onkalo tunnel, and you would
drive down a spiralling track which will eventually stretch 5km
(3miles) through solid rock, reaching a depth of 500m (1,600ft).
The first
travellers to go down the tunnel will be investigators aiming to
demonstrate that the rock is structurally sound enough to proceed with
the disposal of spent fuel rods containing plutonium and other
unpleasant materials.
If they were to
turn up a positive result, and if government agencies grant the
necessary licences, the first canisters of spent fuel would begin
rolling down the tunnel about 15 years from now.
As things
stand, Finland is on course to become the first country in the world to
entomb its most troublesome nuclear waste in a designated final resting
place.
'Multiple barriers'
The Onkalo
facility is run by the company Posiva, and the system it uses is a
Swedish concept called KBS3, which Sweden's proposed repository would
also implement.
The other country close to solving its problem, the US, is exploring a different technology at its Yucca Mountain site.
"The safety
concept is based on so-called 'multiple barriers'," says Timo Aikas,
Posiva's vice-president in charge of engineering.
"One barrier is
of course the solid stable crystalline rock. The remaining barriers are
engineered barriers, the most important of which is long
corrosion-resistant copper canisters, inside which we put the actual
fuel rods."
In this vision, the bottom of the Onkalo tunnel would sprout a grid of horizontal shafts.
Canisters containing the spent fuel rods would be deposited into holes in the bottom of each shaft.
The canisters
would nest in a bed of bentonite clay, which swells when it absorbs
water. This comes with twin benefits; cushioning the cargo from
geological movement, and ensuring there are no voids where substantial
quantities of water can penetrate, corroding the canisters and carrying
away their radioactive contents.
As each canister goes in, the tunnels would be filled up again with yet more clay and rock.
By 2100, the
repository would be complete, access routes would be filled and sealed.
What to do next would be a decision for Finns of that era; but the
concept is designed to allow them, if they want, to cover the tunnel
mouth, landscape it and walk away, leaving no entrance into the rock
and no sign of the material buried underneath.
A granite curtain would have descended on the first civilian nuclear epoch.
Through the ice age
Some of the
radionuclides - atoms with unstable nuclei that undergo radioactive
decay - in spent fuel rods remain radioactive for more than 100,000
years. In that time, could not even the tiny quantities of water which
the bentonite allows through penetrate the copper canister shells,
allowing dangerously active isotopes to escape?
Timo Aikas believes not. "We have seen that the copper canister will not be corroded away," he says.
"We have native
copper in the Finnish and Swedish bedrock, which means we have good
conditions for such things. We know from corrosion testing that 1.5cm
[thickness] of copper would be enough from the corrosion standpoint for
times longer than 100,000 years, but we have 5cm (two inches) copper."
The time period
is so mind-bendingly long that it will almost certainly take the world
through another ice age; which, if history is a guide, would bury
Finland and Sweden under 2-3km of ice.
The huge
pressures created by this ice will certainly deform even bedrock,
compressing the copper canisters and fuel rods which lie inside (the
rods are contained within channels bored into a steel cylinder).
So concerned
have European authorities been about this that the European
Commission's Institute for Energy in the Netherlands commissioned
pressure tests on the steel cylinders.
"The maximum
[ice] thickness is 3km, which equates to a pressure of 30 megapascals
(MPa)," says the engineer in charge, Kalle Nielsson.
Combined with
pressure from groundwater and the tight embrace of bentonite clay, the
cylinders would experience a total pressure of 45 MPa, which
corresponds to the pressure you would have 4,500m (15,000ft) down in
the ocean.
In tests, the cylinders stood up to a pressure three times that value before failing.
"I would say
that it's safe," is Kalle Nielsson's conclusion. "And we have made a
probabilistic calculation - 'what is the probability that it would fail
at this 45 MPa?' - and it is less than one out of a million canisters
that would fail. So I would say as a concept that it's safe."
Far-sighted funds
Technology is only one part of the Finnish solution; the other vital component is finance.
"Our current cost estimate for this 'funeral' is about 3bn euros," says Timo Aikas.
Three billion
euros is a significant sum of money. Is this another example, then, of
the state having to pay vast sums to clean up a nuclear industry which
has in the past generated profit for private ends?
The signs point
in a different direction. The advent of commercial nuclear power to
Finland in the late 1970s saw the establishment of a fund to pay for
the eventual clean-up.
"Every year, we
have re-calculated the fund based on the amount of spent fuel
accumulated," says Timo Aikas, "and at the moment the fund is
approximately 1.4bn euros."
The money has come from generating companies through a small levy on the price of nuclear electricity.
It is, perhaps,
the sort of measure which current British leaders looking at a waste
disposal facility bill in the region of £10bn (14bn euros) would
wish their predecessors had chosen to implement.
Rocky site
Even if the
KBS3 concept is sound, even if Finland has the money to implement it,
there is a question over whether Eurajoki is the best place to put it
into action.
Greenpeace,
which has been spearheading a campaign against the new Olkiluoto-3
nuclear reactor taking shape just a kilometre from the Onkalo site, is
concerned that the local geology may not be the soundest available.
"When the
site selection started in Finland, the nuclear industry said they would
find the best geological site," says energy campaigner Kaisa Kosonen.
"And,
eventually, they chose the site on sociological reasons, because
eventually Eurajoki was the first municipality to say 'ok, we can take
it', and there wasn't an active nuclear opposition in this area."
That lack of
local opposition may be down to the fact that nuclear reactors have
stood in the area for three decades, gaining acceptance for an industry
which has maintained a good local safety record and brought employment.
"It boils down basically to trust," comments Timo Aikas.
"When you make
a decision concerning this kind of thing, which takes us to 2100 when
the final sealing takes place, there will always be uncertainty. So you
have to have trust."
Kaisa Kosonen urges caution; the case for Onkalo, she says, is not proven.
"I would like
to see much more research done and not having this hasty process," she
says. "And I would not want this marketed as 'waste issue solved',
because it's not."
But Timo Aikas
believes his system and his team deserve the trust they have found in
Eurajoki, and that Onkalo will prove as safe a resting place for highly
active radionuclides as can be found, barring any surprises with the
local geology.
And he urges other countries, Britain included, to take a decision and find a solution.
"Nuclear waste doesn't go away," he reflects.
"And if we just
keep it in stores above ground we just push the problem to the next
generation. It's much more responsible now to develop solutions on how
to take care of it."
------------------->
WWF and nuclear power
------------------->
Green group accepts uranium mines
Amanda Hodge
May 04, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19019395-601,00.html
ONE of the
nation's largest environment groups, WWF Australia, has accepted the
federal Government's push to expand uranium mining and exports.
WWF chief
executive Greg Bourne, former boss of BP Australasia, told The
Australian yesterday the nation was "destined under all governments to
be mining uranium and exporting it to a growing world market".
"We have been
mining uranium and exporting it for many years and we're doing more
because demand is going up, whether people like it or not," he said.
"The key issues are if we're going to be a nation exporting uranium, we
have to know absolutely it's only being used for peaceful purposes and
waste products are being stored safely."
The move is
likely to drive a wedge through the environment movement, which is
fighting to make the Government's planned uranium exports to China -
and the nuclear power debate - a federal election issue next year.
Former
Greenpeace International executive director Paul Gilding, who is now an
environmental consultant, yesterday defended WWF's uranium position.
"I think it's
rational to say: we oppose nuclear power, but given there is nuclear
power let's make sure we make it as safe as possible," he said. "The
risk to anybody in this area is it's such a highly ideological, almost
religious, debate."
Mr Gilding said
WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund, had "always been the one closest
to the corporate conservative side, and good luck to them. Someone
needs to be."
Mr Bourne's
comments come just weeks after John Howard signed a uranium export deal
with China under which billions of dollars of Australian uranium could
be shipped to the Asian powerhouse to fuel as many as 40 new nuclear
power plants.
As a condition
of the deal, China has agreed not to use Australian uranium in nuclear
weapons. Environment groups argue there are insufficient monitoring and
safety procedures in place to prevent that occurring.
Labor is
reconsidering its long-held opposition to expanding uranium mining.
While resources spokesman Martin Ferguson has called for Labor to ditch
the policy, environment spokesman Anthony Albanese, from the Left, is
fiercely opposed to change.
Mr Bourne said
all Australians should demand transparency in any uranium export deals
to ensure the mineral was being used for peaceful purposes only. But
his position has provoked a furious response from Wilderness Society
leader Alec Marr, who called last night for the WWF chief to consider
going "back to industry where he came from".
"Uranium
mining, anywhere, any time, is an immoral act and the job of all
environment groups should be to stop every aspect of the nuclear fuel
cycle, including uranium mining," Mr Marr said.
"WWF should do something other than simply tread the footsteps of the Liberal Party when it comes to uranium."
Mr Marr claimed
Mr Bourne was out of step with WWF International's anti-nuclear power
policy and called for him to "either toe the line or leave".
WWF
International opposes nuclear power as a clean-energy alternative to
greenhouse intensive coal-fired power, citing contamination risks,
waste problems and security concerns.
But as head of
WWF Australia, Mr Bourne has publicly acknowledged nuclear power will
play a role in the world's move towards clean energy, while maintaining
Australia has no need for nuclear power because of its abundance of
renewable energy resources.
He told The
Australian yesterday that the current nuclear debate in Australia was a
"red herring" drawing attention from the need to stem climate change.
"We don't
believe nuclear power is the solution to global warming," he said.
"(But) there are something like 440 nuclear power stations around the
world and 20 more on the books.
"Others might
wish the Pandora's box had never been opened, but we have the honesty
to recognise there are some big issues and as the world seeks ... to
move away from a global-warming catastrophe, (it's) going to explore
all sorts of things."
The comments
are unlikely to improve relations between WWF and other environmental
groups in Australia, which view with suspicion its close relationship
with the federal Government.
Last year, the
Australia Institute claimed the WWF's federal funding had gone up in
direct proportion to its increased support for commonwealth policy.
------------------->
WWF says nuclear no answer to climate change
04 May 2006
http://www.wwf.org.au/news/wwf-says-nuclear-no-answer-to-climate-change/
WWF-Australia
said today it has never supported nuclear energy as a climate change
solution, and that the current debate about uranium mining was a
dangerous distraction from the real task of tackling climate change -
the biggest threat to the planet.
The Australian
Government's current climate change policy would allow a 100% increase
in global greenhouse gas emissions, which would lock the world into a
three to four degree rise in average global surface temperatures and
catastrophic climate change.
<http://www.wwf.org.au/news/ap6-locks-world-in-to-four-degrees-global-warming>
"Australia has
more renewable resources per person than any other nation on earth - we
do not need nuclear power plants in this country," WWF-Australia CEO
Greg Bourne said.
Together with
other major environmental groups, WWF urges the Australian Government
to immediately set interim targets for emissions reduction that put us
on the pathway for 60% cuts in emissions by 2050.
Only yesterday,
WWF launched a joint report showing the electricity sector could reduce
emissions by 40% by 2030 in an affordable and manageable manner. The
critical issue is to set targets now.
<http://www.wwf.org.au/news/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-is-affordable-and-achievable>
With regard to
uranium mining, which has been undertaken in Australia for decades,
WWF-Australia believes that the public requires absolute safeguards to
ensure that Australian uranium is only being used for peaceful
purposes, that the waste products are being stored safely, and that
proliferation cannot occur. Australians must demand these guarantees
from our Government and businesses.
------------------->
Paul Gilding: Climate change causes backflips
May 05, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,19027193-7583,00.html
CLIMATE change
is doing strange things to the weather, but it's beginning to do even
stranger things to the worlds of environmentalism, politics and
business. I suspect the process has just begun and we had all better
hold on for what will be a very interesting and surprising ride.
WWF's Greg
Bourne has acknowledged uranium mining and nuclear power will
inevitably play a role in the future global energy mix. Although this
is merely stating the obvious, his statement will create division and
debate in the environmental community. This is because no
environmentalist is supposed to take anything other than the "no, none,
never" position on nuclear power. It's pretty much an article of faith.
But the strangeness and the division are not restricted to the
environmentalist movement.
A few weeks
ago, some of Australia's largest companies, including Westpac, IAG,
Visy, BP and Origin, called on government to impose a price on carbon:
yes, that's right, business, powerful business, arguing for increased
costs. In doing so they brought to the fore what is known to be a deep
split on climate change in the Australian big business community. And
there are strange happenings in Canberra as well.
The federal
Government recently took a strong anti-development turn when it stopped
a $200 million wind farm because of the alleged risk to the
orange-bellied parrot. Normally pro-business conservatives don't pay
much attention to the risk of killing a single endangered parrot every
thousand years (the risk this project posed).
I suspect in
this case the opportunity to take revenge on environmentalists by
stopping a green development over a green issue proved too tempting to
resist.
Last year, John
Howard largely acknowledged the scientific consensus on climate change
for the first time. About the same time, no doubt coincidentally, he
started his push to promote uranium exports on the grounds of
addressing climate change. Self-interest is a wonderful thing.
So what is
going on? Conservatives worrying about climate change and endangered
parrots? Business arguing for increased costs? Environmentalists
accepting nuclear power?
Is nothing sacred?
What's going on
is simple. It's called climate change, and it changes a lot more than
the weather. It's time we all woke up and reconsidered many of our old
assumptions and heartfelt beliefs, because the change has just begun.
The biggest
global threat to biodiversity, for example, is climate change. On our
present emissions path, we face the risk of wiping out up to half of
the species on the planet, including all coral reefs and the Amazon
rainforest. That's a lot of parrots.
In the context
of the threat posed by climate change and the speed with which we need
to respond, nuclear power will simply not help very much. It is a
marginal issue, a small part of the mix. As is well argued by many
environmentalists and energy experts, nuclear power stations are
incapable of having a substantial effect on rising emissions because
they are too expensive, too slow to build and they account for too many
greenhouse emissions during construction. Then add the inherent
security threat posed by the technology, as we see with Iran and North
Korea.
But as Bourne
says, nuclear power is already part of the mix, with hundreds of
stations in place, and it's not going to go away any time soon. So how
we handle nuclear technology in the meantime is a very important
question and one we need to discuss logically rather than religiously,
but with effort commensurate to the threat it poses, weighing that
against the huge threat posed by climate change.
For the record,
as an environmentalist, I think nuclear power is solidly illogical
energy strategy and clearly unsustainable. It's expensive and it's
inherently risky, creating dangerous waste and potent security
challenges.
For these
reasons I'm happy to have the technology fight it out in the
marketplace and in the court of public opinion along with other
choices, including renewable wind and solar energy, so-called "clean
coal technologies", gas and other emerging alternatives.
Nuclear will
lose in a fair fight, so I reject the use of moral and emotional
arguments in opposing it. Let the facts speak for themselves. Oh, and I
can't wait to see how much attention is paid to parrot safety if anyone
ever does try to build a nuclear plant in Australia.
Paul Gilding, a former executive director of Greenpeace International, is a founding partner of Ecos Corporation.
------------------->
Nuclear spin-doctoring - global esp USA
------------------->
U.S. Nuclear Industry Fires Up Public Relations Campaign
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-24-10.asp
By J.R. Pegg
WASHINGTON, DC,
April 24, 2006 (ENS) – The nuclear industry launched a new campaign on
Monday to generate support for increased nuclear power, spearheaded by
Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore and former U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.
Nuclear power
advocates are hoping that Moore and Whitman can sell the American
public on the benefits of nuclear power and help spark the resurgence
of an industry that has not constructed a new plant in some 30 years.
“Scientific
evidence shows that nuclear power is an environmentally sound and safe
energy choice,” said Moore, who along with Whitman will cochair the
Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy).The coalition, which is
funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), includes more than 50
charter member organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the National Association
of Manufacturers.
NEI represents
the owners and operators of the nation’s 103 commercial nuclear
reactors – these facilities currently produce 20 percent of U.S.
electricity.
With Whitman delayed because of a late flight, Moore took center stage at Monday’s event announcing the new initiative.
A founding
member of Greenpeace and a past president of the Canadian chapter of
the environmental advocacy group, Moore has emerged as a controversial
figure in the environmental community – often taking positions at odds
with the organization he helped launch.
Moore was a
crewmember on the first Greenpeace protest vessel. It sailed from
Vancouver, British Columbia in September 1971 to the U.S. nuclear
weapons test zone on Amchitka Island, Alaska to demonstrate opposition
to nuclear weapons. He was president of Greenpeace Canada between 1977
and 1986 and a director of Greenpeace International for seven of those
years.
He told
reporters today that he left Greenpeace in 1986 because it had become
too extremist and “developed a tendency to use sensation instead of
information.”
Moore, who runs
an environmental policy consulting firm in Vancouver, heads a group
created by the B.C. timber industry, and speaks in favor of
biotechnology. He told a biotechnology conference earlier this year
that global warming and the melting of glaciers is "positive" because
it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up
demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees.
At the news
conference today, Moore defended his paid role with the nuclear
industry-funded coalition, but declined to detail how much he is being
paid for his services.
“We deserve to be paid because we are putting a lot of effort into this,” he said.
Moore said his support for nuclear power reflects that “times have changed and I have changed with them.”
“Climate change
is now at the top of the world’s agenda,” he said. “I am not an
alarmist on climate change, but I am not a skeptic either. It would be
wise, it would be cautious, to slow down greenhouse gas emissions.”
The only
realistic solution for the United States to shift away from fossil
fuels is a combination of renewable energy and nuclear power, Moore
said, and the renewable energy sources touted by many environmental
groups are not ready to drive that change.
“Wind and
solar are intermittent and unreliable,” Moore said. “We do know when
the sun comes up, but we don’t know when it is going to be cloudy. And
we don’t know when the wind is going to blow.”
Whitman told
reporters at the Washington, DC press briefing, that the Clean and Safe
Energy Coalition will work to reverse the “fear and misinformation”
that have stunted the growth of the U.S. nuclear industry,
Whitman, who
was administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2001
to 2003 and is a former governor of New Jersey, said the 1979 accident
at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania
scared the public away from nuclear power even though the core meltdown
at the plant was contained.
“TMI was the
nuclear industry working,” Whitman said. “I am convinced that as people
learn more about nuclear power, they will come to share my certainty
that increasing America’s supply of nuclear energy makes sense from an
environmental and economic standpoint.”
Critics contend
it is not just fear that has halted the expansion of nuclear energy -
it is concerns about cost, safety, waste disposal and nuclear weapons
proliferation that have caused investors and the public to balk at new
nuclear plants.
When asked
about the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste, Moore replied that the
material at issue “is not waste” because much of it can be safely
stored and eventually recycled and reused.
Moore called
nuclear weapons proliferation “the most serious economic, social and
human issue around nuclear energy.” But he said that changing
technologies are making it more difficult – and less likely – that
individuals or nations seeking nuclear weapons will opt to exploit
commercial nuclear reactors to get them.
“You don’t need
a nuclear power plant to make a nuclear weapon,” he said. “Iran is
enriching uranium and they don’t have a nuclear power plant … With
centrifuge technology you don’t need a nuclear reactor – it would be a
waste of time to build one - if all you really want is a bomb.”
Jim Riccio, a
nuclear power analyst with Greenpeace USA, said Moore has been “living
off his reputation with Greenpeace for some time now and lacks
credibility.”
To call nuclear
power clean and safe is “the height of hypocrisy, especially as we are
ready to commemorate Chernobyl,” Riccio told ENS.
Wednesday is the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine – the world’s worst nuclear power accident.
Although U.S.
plants are much safer than the doomed Chernobyl facility, critics
remain unconvinced that the nation's regulatory agency, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, or the nuclear industry, in fact focus on safety.
A report released Monday by Greenpeace finds that the industry has had some 200 “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns since 1986.
The study shows
that nuclear power plants are a “clear and present danger,” Riccio
said, and packaging nuclear power as a solution to global warming is
“dead wrong.”
The primary
driver of increasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is the
transportation sector, he said, and nuclear power will do nothing to
address the nation’s thirst for oil.
------------------->
PR Watch, First Quarter 2005, Volume 12, No. 1
PR Watch, First Quarter 2005, Volume 12, No. 1
This issue of PR Watch features several articles on the reinvention of nuclear power PR.
http://www.prwatch.org/epublish/1/v12n1
------------------->
Developed world using about 11 times as much energy per person as those in poor countries
... but let's blame the Chinese and Indians anyway ...
------------------->
China, India are Fast-Growing Polluters - World Bank
US: May 11, 2006
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36299/story.htm
WASHINGTON -
Greenhouse gas pollution from China and India rose steeply over the
last decade, but rich countries, including the United States, remain
the world's biggest polluters, a World Bank official said on Wednesday.
The United
States accounts for nearly a quarter -- 24 percent -- of all emissions
of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas linked to global warming,
said Steen Jorgensen, the bank's acting vice-president for sustainable
development.
The countries of the European Monetary Union contribute 10 percent.
But China and India are catching up.
"(Greenhouse
gas emissions from) China and India are growing very rapidly at the
moment, very much because of inefficient investments in energy, in
power generation," said Jorgensen.
China, the
world's second-largest polluter after the United States, increased
carbon dioxide emissions by 33 percent between 1992 and 2002, according
to the bank's "Little Green Data Book," a survey of world environmental
impact released on Tuesday. India's emissions rose 57 percent over the
same period.
Jorgensen said
those likely to suffer most from the consequences of these emissions,
including the increasingly severe weather patterns associated with
global climate change, are farmers in the poorest parts of the world.
'GLOOM AND DOOM'
"The gloom and
doom (is) if you are a farmer on a small island state somewhere,
looking at sea level rise, looking at more severe weather -- those are
really the people we should be concerned about," Jorgensen said in a
telephone interview from New York. "It's an unequal distribution of the
people who pollute and the people who suffer from the pollution."
He said the
main reason emissions from China and India are rising so fast compared
to the rest of the world, which had a 15 percent rise in carbon dioxide
emissions between 1992 and 2002, was older, inefficient coal-fired
power plants in both countries.
While cleaner coal-fired plants are possible, India and China cannot afford to make the switch.
"They can't
afford to take (the old, heavily polluting power plants) out of
commission to repair them because basically, if you don't have power
for even three months, that has huge economic costs for them,"
Jorgensen said.
Even as
emissions rose rapidly in these two growing economies, the growth of
emissions slowed in some of the richest industrialized nations, the
bank's report found. And still, people in the developed world used
about 11 times as much energy per person as those in poor countries,
Jorgensen said.
More information and a link to the report are available online at www.worldbank.org/environmentalindicators.
Story by Deborah Zabarenko
------------------->
US and Iran threaten nuclear arms control
------------------->
The US and Iran threaten nuclear arms control
May 13, 2006
Iran is sandwiched between two countries invaded and occupied by the US.
<www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-us-and-iran-threaten-nuclear-arms-control/2006/05/12/1146940731655.html>
Tehran and Washington appear to be set on a collision course, writes Mark Baker.
Later this year
the United States is due to select the design of a new generation of
warheads to replace its stockpile of 6000 nuclear weapons. According to
The Washington Post, the next series - to be introduced over the coming
decade - will be larger, heavier and slightly less powerful.
Long after the
Cold War ended and its illusory promise of a new era of global peace
faded, nuclear weapons remain the backbone of US military power; the
most persuasive tool in the arsenal of a sole superpower holding the
greatest military firepower in history.
Since the five
original nuclear weapons states formed their exclusive club in the
aftermath of World War II and took veto-wielding control of the United
Nations Security Council, America has led the fight against interlopers
and wannabes. But its opposition to proliferation has been selective,
if not self-serving.
While
vehemently resisting the nuclear ambitions of old adversaries such as
North Korea and Libya, Washington has been happy to see Israel get the
bomb and it has done little to stem the nuclear arms race between its
friends India and Pakistan, who sit astride one of the most dangerous
strategic faultlines in the world today.
This week, as
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad upped the ante in the world's
latest nuclear stand-off - sending a provocative letter to Washington
before heading off on a grandstanding tour of Indonesia - he again
accused the US of double standards in opposing what Tehran claims is a
peaceful plan to develop nuclear energy but what almost everyone else
believes to be a clandestine weapons program.
At one level
Ahmadinejad has a point. If it can be argued that Israel, surrounded by
deadly enemies since its inception, had understandable reasons to take
out a nuclear insurance policy, what of Iran's vulnerability?
Since the
Iranian revolution in 1979, America has been a determined antagonist.
Today Iran is sandwiched between two countries invaded and effectively
occupied by the United States - Afghanistan and Iraq. Early in his
presidency, George Bush cemented a policy of hostility by declaring
Tehran part of a global "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea.
Now there are credible reports that the Pentagon is weighing the use of
tactical nuclear weapons as one option to respond to Iran's nuclear
defiance.
But although
Iran might have good reasons to fear US intentions, many of them are of
its own making. For two decades, while professing to adhere to its
obligations as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty,
Iran has been pressing ahead with its uranium-enrichment efforts,
experimenting with plutonium and evading the scrutiny of International
Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. At the same time, Tehran has been a
key backer of radical Palestinian groups, is reported to be harbouring
a number of senior al-Qaeda officials and, most recently, stands
accused of fuelling the deadly insurgency in Iraq.
Since assuming
the presidency last year, Ahmadinejad has steeled Washington's loathing
and invited international opprobrium by stepping up his violent
anti-Western rhetoric and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.
In Jakarta this week he returned to the theme, denouncing Israel as "a
regime based on evil that cannot continue and one day will vanish".
The stand-off
has now reached a dangerous level of intensity, which many analysts
fear could see Iran formally declare and then fast-track its plans to
build nuclear weapons, and the US respond by launching military strikes
against Iranian nuclear facilities - a move that would probably only
delay the effort while strengthening Tehran's resolve.
Crucial to any
hope of defusing the crisis is the need for the key Security Council
member states to maintain united pressure on Iran to renounce nuclear
weapons and open its nuclear-energy program to full IAEA scrutiny.
China and Russia - which have their own economic and strategic agendas
in Iran - have emboldened Ahmadinejad's defiance by resisting US
pressure for a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that would
declare Iran a global threat and trigger sanctions or possible military
action if it does not suspend uranium enrichment.
As the war of
words continued this week, there were signs of a possible shift within
the complex labyrinth of Iran's leadership. Hassan Rowhani, a senior
official close to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - Ahmadinejad's
boss - released an eight-point plan that defended Iran's right to
enrich uranium but proposed strengthened UN inspections to verify the
program's peaceful intentions.
The initiative
might yet prove as ephemeral as the Ahmadinejad letter - which promised
a possible solution to the impasse but delivered little more than the
same old invective. But both developments hinted at a possible
willingness by Iran to reopen a constructive diplomatic dialogue.
Meanwhile, as
it continues to lecture Iran in the name of non-proliferation, the Bush
Administration's credibility is hardly helped by its simultaneous
bending of the rules that have for several decades helped slow the
spread of nuclear weapons. In agreeing to help India, which refuses to
sign the NPT, develop its nuclear industry - a move the Howard
Government appears willing to endorse by selling uranium - Bush has
issued a challenge to the future of the treaty as profound as Tehran's
defiance.
In a message to
the Americans this week, Hassan Rowhani said: "It is high time to cease
sensationalism and war-mongering, pause and think twice about where we
are heading." He might equally have directed his remarks to the Iranian
leadership.
Mark Baker is diplomatic editor.
------------------->
Nuclear fuel cycle explanation and lots of photos:
http://www.energybulletin.net/15345.html
------------------->
Bikini, Enewetak to file nuke lawsuits against USA
------------------->
BIKINI, ENEWETAK TO FILE NUKE LAWSUITS AGAINST U.S.
By Giff Johnson
March 10, 2006
MAJURO, Marshall Islands (Marianas Variety, March 10) — Islanders from two
ground zeros for 67 American nuclear tests and a third island that was
engulfed in radioactive fallout in a Chernobyl-style nuclear accident are to
file lawsuits in United States courts seeking more than $1 billion in
compensation.
Seeing virtually no progress on the Marshall Islands government's petition
to the U.S. Congress asking for additional nuclear test compensation that
was filed nearly six years ago, the nuclear test affected atolls are
preparing to take their cases back to the U.S. court system for action.
Bikini Atoll will file a claim in U.S. courts this month, the 60th
anniversary of their removal by the U.S. Navy to start the first post-World
War II nuclear tests, according to Bikini Senator Tomaki Juda. The Bikinians'
lawsuit will be an effort to get payment on the $563 million judgment issued
but not paid by the Nuclear Claims Tribunal in 2001, said Bikini official
Jack Niedenthal on Wednesday.
Bikini was the site of 23 nuclear tests, including the 1954 Bravo hydrogen
bomb, which was the largest U.S. weapon ever tested.
Enewetak Atoll, which received the first land damage award from the Nuclear
Claims Tribunal in April 2000, is gearing to file a suit in the next several
weeks in order to beat the six-year statute of limitations for filing a
claim. Enewetak wants to get action on a $386 million Nuclear Claims
Tribunal award. Enewetak was the site of 44 nuclear tests.
Because of a lack of funds, the Tribunal made only two small payments on
these awards in 2002 and 2003, amounting to about $2.2 million for Bikini
and $1.6 million for Enewetak.
Although the Tribunal has not yet ruled on Rongelap Atoll's land damage
claim, Rongelap is preparing for U.S. court action later this year.
Rongelap's lawyers and scientific advisors will begin a series of community
meetings next week Tuesday in Majuro to discuss legal strategy. Unsuspecting
islanders on Rongelap, about 100 miles east of Bikini, were engulfed in
radioactive fallout from the 1954 Bravo test. They suffered serious burns
and other radiation-induced illnesses in the days after the test, and have
suffered numerous health problems, including a high rate of thyroid tumors,
in the 50 years since Bravo.
"If we get the Tribunal award by August, then we'll file (in the U.S.
courts) later this year," said Rongelap Mayor James Matayoshi, adding that
the Tribunal has no funding left to satisfy any awards made.
"We have no other choice," he said. "The message from the United States
government is that 'changed circumstances' doesn't exist."
A provision in a now-expired nuclear compensation agreement between the U.S.
and Marshall Islands governments said that if the Marshall Islands could
show that there were "changed circumstances" that rendered the $270 million
compensation already paid "manifestly inadequate," then the U.S. Congress
would consider additional compensation.
Nuclear test-affected islanders, including officials from the Majuro-based
Nuclear Claims Tribunal, say that the U.S. compensation was clearly
inadequate based on new information about the numbers of cancers that are
arising from people's exposure and new scientific understanding about the
hazards of radiation. A petition seeking several billion dollars in
additional nuclear test compensation and health care has been pending with
the U.S. Congress since 2000 with little movement.
The Bush administration last year issued a report to the Congress stating
that there is no legal obligation for the U.S. government to provide more
compensation. U.S. Ambassador to the Marshall Islands Greta Morris told the
Bikini people at a ceremony to mark the 60th anniversary of their relocation
last Friday that the U.S. government continues to be "concerned about the
damage done to the Marshallese people and environment caused by the nuclear
tests in the 1940's and 1950's." She also expressed the U.S. government's
"deepest gratitude to the people of the Marshall Islands for your
contribution to security, peace and freedom through your participation in
the nuclear testing program."
But she described the 1986 compensation package as a "full and final
settlement" of all Marshall Islands claims and confirmed that the Bush
administration does not support additional compensation.
"Allow me to stress that nothing in the administration's report in any way
reflects a weakening of U.S. commitments to the Marshallese people," Morris
said. "Indeed, the United States has no closer relationship with any nation
in the world than it has through the Compact of Free Association with the
Marshall Islands."
Bikini and Enewetak had lawsuits pending in the U.S. courts for land
damages, and thousands of Marshall Islanders had personal injury claims
pending when the first Compact of Free Association with its nuclear test
compensation package came into effect in 1986. The more than $5 billion in
lawsuits were dismissed in 1986 by a U.S. judge on the basis that an
alternative forum — the Compact's $270 million compensation section, which
included direct compensation payments to four nuclear affected atolls and
established the Nuclear Claims Tribunal to review claims for future nuclear
damages — had been created by the two governments to address the nuclear
test problem problem.
Matayoshi said the nuclear affected atolls spent the last 20 years going
through this process, but that because the Tribunal was not adequately
funded by the U.S. to pay the amounts awarded, the process has failed to
satisfy the claims.
March 10, 2006
Marianas Variety: www.mvariety.com
Copyright © 2004 Marianas Variety. All Rights Reserved
------------------->
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation does a faboo monthly newsletter ...
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/sunflower/index.htm
------------------->
Nuclear power in Russia
------------------->
N-boost for Russia
May 19, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nboost-for-russia/2006/05/18/1147545460857.html
MOSCOW: Russia
is to commission at least two reactors a year beginning in 2010 as part
of a massive effort to expand its nuclear energy sector.
Sergei
Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said on Wednesday
that the program would start with the construction next year of a new
nuclear power plant with four reactors near St Petersburg - next to the
existing nuclear plant in Sosnovy Bor.
Nuclear power
now accounts for about 17 per cent of Russia's electricity generation,
and the Kremlin has set a target to raise its share to one-quarter by
2030. Mr Kiriyenko said recently that Russia would have to build a
total of 40 new reactors to fulfil the goal.
According to
the World Nuclear Association 16 countries, not including Iran, now
have proposals to build 107 new civil reactors. The majority are in
Asia. Russia's announcement came as the British Prime Minister, Tony
Blair, faced cabinet-level opposition over his plans for a new
generation of nuclear power stations following Treasury predictions of
"eye-wateringly large" costs.
------------------->
US nuclear weapons bunker busters
------------------->
Bush's Latest Nuclear Gambit
By Lawrence S. Wittner, April, 2006
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/04/00_wittner_nuclear-gambit.htm
In 2005, U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, recognizing that the Bush
administration's favorite new nuclear weapon--the "Bunker Buster"--was
on the road to defeat in Congress, told its leading antagonist, U.S.
Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio): "You may win this year, but we'll
be back."
And, now, like malaria or perhaps merely a bad cold, they are.
The Bush
administration's latest nuclear brainchild is the Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW). According to an April 6, 2006 article in the Los Angeles
Times (Ralph Vartabedian, "U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan"), the RRW,
originally depicted as an item that would update existing nuclear
weapons and ensure their reliability, "now includes the potential for
new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in design
competition."
Moreover, as
the Times story reported, the RRW was part of a much larger Bush
administration plan, announced the previous day, "for the most sweeping
realignment and modernization of the nation's system of laboratories
and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War." The
plan called for a modern U.S. nuclear complex that would design a new
nuclear bomb and have it ready within four years, as well as accelerate
the production of plutonium "pits," the triggers for the explosion of
H-bombs.
Although
administration officials justify the RRW by claiming that it will
guarantee the reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and
reduce the need for nuclear testing, arms control and disarmament
advocates are quite critical of these claims. Citing studies by
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers, they argue that
U.S. nuclear weapons will be reliable for decades longer than U.S.
officials contend. Furthermore, according to Hoover Institution fellow
Sidney Drell and former U.S. Ambassador James Goodby: "It takes an
extraordinary flight of imagination to postulate a modern new arsenal
composed of such untested designs that would be more reliable, safe and
effective than the current U.S. arsenal based on more than 1,000 tests
since 1945." Thus, if new nuclear weapons were built, they would lead
inevitably to the resumption of U.S. nuclear testing and, thereby, to
the collapse of the moratorium on nuclear testing by the major nuclear
powers and to the final destruction of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty.
Most worrisome
for nuclear critics, however, is the prospect that the administration
will use the RRW program to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons. Daryl
Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, remains
convinced that the replacement process initiated by the RRW program
could serve as a back door to such development. Peace Action, the
nation's largest peace and disarmament organization, maintains that
"the weapons labs and the Department of Defense will be the ones to
decide the real scope" of the RRW program.
Even
Representative Hobson, who seems to favor the RRW, appears worried that
the administration has a dangerously expansive vision of it. "This is
not an opportunity to run off and develop a whole bunch of new
capabilities and new weapons," he has declared. "This is a way to redo
the weapons capability that we have and maybe make them more reliable."
Hobson added: "I don't want any misunderstandings . . . and sometimes
within the [Energy] department, people hear only what they want to
hear. . . . We're not going out and expanding a whole new world of
nuclear weapons."
Certainly, some
degree of skepticism about the scope of the program seems justified
when one examines the Bush administration's overall nuclear policy.
Today, despite the U.S. government's commitment, under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, to divest itself of nuclear
weapons through negotiated nuclear disarmament, the U.S. nuclear
stockpile stands at nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, with more than half
of them active or operational.
Not only does
the Bush administration steer clear of any negotiations that might
entail U.S. nuclear disarmament, but it has pulled out of the ABM
treaty and refused to support ratification of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (negotiated and signed by former President Bill Clinton).
According to the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review Report
of February 2006, "a robust nuclear deterrent . . . remains a keystone
of U.S. national power."
Furthermore,
there are clear signs that the Bush administration is shifting away
from the traditional U.S. strategy of nuclear deterrence to a strategy
of nuclear use. The nuclear Bunker Buster, for example, was not
designed to deter aggression, but to destroy underground military
targets. Moreover, in recent years, the U.S. Strategic Command has
added new missions to its war plans, including the use of U.S. nuclear
weapons for pre-emptive military action. Seymour Hersh's much-cited
article in the New Yorker on preparations for a U.S. military attack
upon Iran indicates that there has already been substantial discussion
of employing U.S. nuclear weapons in that capacity.
This movement
by the Bush administration toward a nuclear buildup and nuclear war
highlights the double standard it uses in its growing confrontation
with Iran, a country whose nuclear enrichment program is in accordance
with its NPT commitments. Of course, Iran might use such nuclear
enrichment to develop nuclear weapons--and that would be a violation of
the NPT. But Bush administration policies already violate U.S.
commitments under the treaty, and this fact appears of far less concern
to Washington officialdom. Logic, however, does not seem to apply to
this issue--unless, of course, it is the logic of world power
Dr. Wittner is
Professor of History at the State University of New
York, Albany. His
latest book is Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of
the World
Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present (Stanford
University
Press).
Return
to top
Return
to contents