Return to contents

---

NO NUKES NEWS
FEBRUARY 2007

New information sources

WEAPONS, SMUGGLING, TERRORISM
Quotable quotes on proliferation and safeguards
Nuclear weapons proliferation - the myth of the peaceful atom
Nuclear weapons proliferation
ICAN - International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Impacts of nuclear war
Nuclear smuggling on the rise
Nuclear terrorism
Nuclear terrorism - Australia
Albert Einstein on nuclear weapons
Doomsday clock moves two minutes closer to midnight
Middle East states threaten to go nuclear

CLIMATE / ENERGY
Climate change
Clean energy solutions to climate change
Clean energy - suppression or silencing of critics
Nuclear power and climate change

NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA
Nuclear power for Australia - Ziggy Switkowski / UMPNER Report
Nuclear power for Australia - various
Nuclear power for Australia - potential locations
Nuclear power for Australia - state government responses
Nuclear power - global stagnation, uncertain prospects

URANIUM
Uranium enrichment in Australia
Uranium mining - various
Uranium mining - Roxby Downs water extraction
Uranium - Roxby Downs
Uranium Mining - NT
Uranium - Beverley expansion - Four Mile
Uranium - safeguards are a joke
Uranium mining - House of Reps report
Uranium sales to Taiwan
Uranium sales to China
Uranium sales to India

INDIGENOUS
Indigenous World Uranium Summit
Mining - Indigenous Land-Use Agreements
Government attacks NT Aboriginal Land Rights Act

NT DUMP
Nuclear dump in the NT ... not

OTHER
Lucas Heights reactor closed
Government weakens environment laws
Spent fuel shipment from Lucas Heights
Pine Gap 6
Health effects of radiation
Nuclear waste
Sir Richard Doll exposed

------------------->

NEW INFORMATION RESOURCES

------------------->

USA Beyond Nuclear
www.beyondnuclear.org
http://beyondnuclear.blogspot.com/index.html

------------------->

Australian nuclear reports
 
Several reports were released in late 2006 regarding Australia's nuclear industry:

* The government-appointed panel headed by Ziggy Switkowski advocated an expansion of uranium mining and the introduction of nuclear power. Its report is at <www.pmc.gov.au/umpner>.

* The EnergyScience Coalition was formed to counter the Switkowski panel - see <www.energyscience.org.au>.

* Greenpeace has also commissioned expert reports to counter the Switkowski report – see
<www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/more-nuclear-what-internation> and
<www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/panel-comment-nukes-report>

* The Uranium Industry Framework is a federal government-established body comprising representatives of industry, federal and state governments, and the Northern Land Council. Its report is at: <www.industry.gov.au/uif>.

* A federal House of Representatives committee released its report, 'Australia's uranium: Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world', in December. The report is at <www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium>.

* the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties approved uranium exports to China:
<www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/8august2006/tor.htm>

PROLIFERATION
* Nuclear Proliferation: www.energyscience.org.au/factsheets.html
or direct download: www.energyscience.org.au/FS09%20Proliferation.pdf
* Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change
Ch. 3 and Appendix 4 www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm
* Reactor-grade plutonium and nuclear weapons: www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/rgpu.html
* Proliferation risks of thorium
New Types of Nuclear Reactors www.energyscience.org.au/factsheets.html
or direct download www.energyscience.org.au/FS15%20Reactor%20types.pdf

SAFEGUARDS
* Collection of articles on the limitations of nuclear safeguards:
Nuclear Safeguards and Australia's Uranium Exports (word file)
www.foe.org.au/nc/nc_nuke.htm
or direct download: www.foe.org.au/download/UraniumSafeguards.doc

CLEAN ENERGY
* References to Sustainable Energy literature including 'deep cuts' studies:
www.foe.org.au/nc/nc_nuke.htm
or direct download www.foe.org.au/download/SustainableEnergy.doc

CHAIN REACTION

The Summer 2007 issue of the FoE Australia magazine Chain Reaction will be out late February. It includes articles on
* the Howard government's attack on NT Aboriginal land rights (which will make it easier for uranium mining companies to impose mines on Indigenous communities). And some more positive news about Aboriginal land rights in NSW.
* a photo exhibition by Jessie Boylan on the impacts of the nuclear industry on Indigenous communities
* the Howard government's attack on the already flawed Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
* the Indigenous World Uranium Summit
* climate change (contraction and convergence, Dr Barrie Pittock's views on recent climate change science, carbon quotas, the UN conference at Nairobi, and more)
* and much, much more!

So if you don't already subscribe, please do.

Chain Reaction - Subscriptions
One year (four issues) $22

Two years (eight issues) $40


Please email us your details: chainreaction@foe.org.au
or send cheque/money order to:

Chain Reaction, P.O. Box 222,
 Fitzroy, 3065

(Please note: make cheques for subscriptions out to Chain Reaction).

To pay by credit card, please call the FoE campaigns office in Melbourne:
03 9419 8700

To support Chain Reaction via an on-line donation, please visit:
https://egive.org.au/egive/payments/new_payment.aspx?id=38

Advertising
For advertising rates and inquires, contact cam.walker@foe.org.au



Contact Details
Ph: (03) 9419 8700


Email: chainreaction@foe.org.au
PO Box 222, Fitzroy, Vic, 3065.

------------------->Return to top

QUOTABLE QUOTES ON PROLIFERATION AND SAFEGUARDS

------------------->

QUOTABLE QUOTES ON PROLIFERATION AND SAFEGUARDS:

IAEA Director-General Dr Mohamed ElBaradei:

“The IAEA’s Illicit Trafficking Database has, in the past decade, recorded more than 650 cases that involve efforts to smuggle such [nuclear and radioactive] materials.” (1)

“Today, out of the 189 countries that are party to the NPT, 118 still do not have additional protocols in force.” (1)

“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.” (1)

“… we are only as effective as we are allowed to be.” (1)

“In specific cases of arms control, the Security Council’s efforts have not been very systematic or successful.” (1)

“If a country with a full nuclear fuel cycle decides to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, a nuclear weapon could be only months away.” (2)

“… the Agency’s legal authority to investigate possible parallel weaponisation activity is limited …” (2)

Regarding protecting nuclear material: “… experts estimate that perhaps 50 per cent of the work has been completed.” (1) “… We are in a race against time.” (2)

(1) Putting teeth in the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. 2006 Karlsruhe Lecture, Karlsruhe, Germany, 25 March 2006

(2) Reflections on nuclear challenges today. Alistair Buchan Lecture, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, UK 6 Dec 2005

These and other statements available at www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/index.html

------------------->

"For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal ... then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale."
-- Al Gore, former US Vice President, Quoted in David Roberts, May 09, 2006, "Al Revere: An interview with accidental movie star Al Gore", <www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts>.

"The push to bring back nuclear power as an antidote to global warming is a big problem. If you build more nuclear power plants we have toxic waste at least, bomb-making at worse."
-- Bill Clinton, former US president, Clinton Global Initiative, September 2006.

Any country with a nuclear power program "ipso facto ends up with a nuclear weapons capability".
--Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, October 2006.

“The development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are in much of their course interchangeable and interdependent. … Fear of such surprise violation of pledged word will surely break down any confidence in the pledged word of rival countries developing atomic energy if the treaty obligations and good faith of the nations are the only assurances upon which to rely.”
--Dean Acheson & David Lilienthal
A report on the international control of atomic energy. 16 March 1946, p4

“We are convinced that if the production of fissionable materials by national governments (or by private organisations under their control) is permitted, systems of inspection cannot be by themselves made “effective safeguards … to protect complying states against the hazards of violations and evasions.”
-- Dean Acheson & David Lilienthal
A report on the international control of atomic energy. 16 March 1946, p4-5

“… roughly two-thirds of the energy and effort required to produce HEU goes into enriching natural uranium with 0.711 percent U-235 to fuel grade low-enriched uranium with 3.6 percent U-235, while only about one third goes into further enrichment of that LEU to produce highly enriched uranium with 90 percent U-235.”
-- Brice Smith
Insurmountable risks. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Takoma Park, Maryland, May 2006:127.

“Reprocessing provides the strongest link between commercial nuclear power and proliferation.”
-- US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
Nuclear proliferation and safeguards. June 1977:12.

“No system of safeguards that can be devised will of itself provide an effective guarantee against production of atomic weapons by a nation bent on aggression.”
-- Harry S Truman, CR Attlee & WL Mackenzie King.
Declaration on atomic bomb by President Truman and Prime Minsters Attlee and King.
15 Nov 1945.

“…the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty disintegrates before our very eyes … the current non-proliferation regime is fundamentally fracturing. The consequences of the collapse of this regime for Australia are acute, including the outbreak of regional nuclear arms races in South Asia, North East Asia and possibly even South East Asia.”
-- Kevin Rudd, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Trade & International Security.
Leading, not following. The renewal of Australian middle power diplomacy. Sydney Institute, 19 Sep 2006.

“It would be so easy for us to produce nuclear warheads – we have plutonium at nuclear power plants in Japan, enough to make several thousand such warheads.”
-- Ichiro Ozawa, leader of the Liberal Party in Japan,
lecture in Fukuoka, April 2002.

“I admit that we have excessive amounts of plutonium, but our purpose is for research.”
-- Yuichi Tonozuka.
President, Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute,
April 2005.

“We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation.”
-- High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.
A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. Report to the Secretary-General. 30 Nov 2004:39

“In fact, the NPT is the weakest of the treaties on WMD in terms of provisions about implementation.”
-- Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.
Weapons of Terror. Final Report. WMD Commission, Stockholm, Sweden
1 June 2006:63.

“It is clear that no international safeguards system can physically prevent diversion or the setting up of an undeclared or clandestine nuclear programme."
-- IAEA, Against the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: IAEA Safeguards in the 1990s, 1993.

------------------->

NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION - THE MYTH OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

------------------->

Nuclear Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or Sword?
May 25, 2004 New York Times

By William J. Broad

Recurring fear haunts the West's increasingly tense confrontation with Iran: Is its work on civilian nuclear power actually a ruse for making a deadly atomic arsenal, as has been the case with other countries?

Next month, the United Nations plans to take up that question at a board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna. The diplomatic backdrop includes possible sanctions and even the threat of war.

"If Iran goes nuclear, you worry that Hezbollah goes nuclear," said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a private group in Washington, referring to the Iran-backed terrorist group.

The Iranian crisis, and related ones simmering in North Korea and also around Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani expert who recently confessed to running nuclear black markets, are giving new urgency to limiting proliferation, a central danger of the atomic era. Recently, international inspectors discovered that North Korea may have clandestinely supplied uranium to Libya, demonstrating how an aspiring state can secretly reach for nuclear arms.

The development of such arsenals is often hard to hide, because it takes place in large industrial complexes where nuclear power and nuclear weapons are joined at the hip - using technologies that are often identical, or nearly so. Today, with what seems like relative ease, scientists can divert an ostensibly peaceful program to make not only electricity but also highly pure uranium or plutonium, both excellent bomb fuels.

Experts now talk frankly about a subject that was once taboo: "virtual" Weapon states - Japan, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Taiwan and a dozen other countries that have mastered the basics of nuclear power and could, if they wanted, quickly cross the line to make nuclear arms, probably in a matter or months. Experts call it breakout.

The question now, driven largely by the perception that the world is entering a dangerous new phase of nuclear proliferation, is whether the two endeavors can be separated. And as difficult as that may seem, new initiatives are rising to meet the challenge.

Last year, North Korea stunned the world by withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty. It was the first time a nation had dropped out of the 1968 pact, setting a grim precedent and prompting warnings of the accord's demise.

If another virtual power crosses the line, experts fear, it could start a chain reaction in which others feel they have no alternative but to do likewise.

Yet a country like Iran can retain its virtual-weapons status - and the threat of breakout - even if the International Atomic Energy Agency gives it a clean bill of health. That kind of quandary is driving the wider debate on ways to safeguard nuclear power, especially given that the world may rely on it increasingly as worries grow about global warming and oil shortages.

"We can't give absolute guarantees," said Graham Andrew, a senior scientist at the agency. "But there will be technological developments to make the fuel cycle more proliferation-resistant."

Other experts agree. "The future looks better than the past in terms of this whole problem," said Rose Gottemoeller, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "At the moment, it's a very, very fast-moving arena that a lot of people are into and thinking about."

The central compact of the nuclear age - what critics call a deal with the devil - is that countries can get help from other nations in developing nuclear power if they pledge to renounce nuclear arms. That principle was codified in the 1968 treaty and has produced a vast apparatus of the International Atomic Energy Agency that not only helps nations go peacefully nuclear but also monitors them for cheating.

But surveillance has proved far from perfect, and states have proved far from trustworthy.

"If you look at every nation that's recently gone nuclear," said Mr. Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, "they've done it through the civilian nuclear fuel cycle: Iraq, North Korea, India, Pakistan, South Africa. And now we're worried about Iran."

The moral, he added, is that atoms for peace can be "a shortcut to atoms for war."

Moreover, the raw material is growing. The world now has 440 commercial nuclear reactors and 31 more under construction.

Experts say Iran provides a good example of the breakout danger. With the right tweaks, its sprawling complex now under construction could make arms of devastating force. Recently, mistrust over that prospect soared when inspectors found that Iran had hidden some of its most sensitive nuclear work as long as 18 years.

In the central desert near Yazd, the country now mines uranium in shafts up to a fifth of a mile deep.

At Isfahan, an ancient city that boasts a top research center, it is building a factory for converting the ore into uranium hexafluoride. When heated, the crystals turn into a gas ideal for processing to recover uranium's rare U-235 isotope, which, in bombs and reactors, easily splits in two to produce bursts of atomic energy.

Nearby at Natanz, Iran aims to feed the gas into 50,000 centrifuges - tall, thin machines that spin extraordinarily fast to separate the relatively light U-235 isotope from its heavier cousin, U-238. It recently came to light that Iran had gained much help in making its centrifuges from Dr. Khan and his secretive network.

Iran says it wants to enrich the uranium to about 5 percent U-235, the level needed for nuclear reactors.

But enrichment is one place that good power programs can easily go bad, nonproliferation experts say. By simply lengthening the spin cycle, a nation can enrich the uranium up to 90 percent U-235, the high purity usually preferred for bombs.

Moreover, a dirty little secret of the atomic world is that the hardest step is enriching uranium for reactors, not bombs. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, an arms control group in Washington, said the step from reactor to weapon fuel took roughly 25 percent more effort.

The whirling centrifuges at Natanz could make fuel for up to 20 nuclear weapons every year, according to the Carnegie Endowment. Others put the figure at 25 bombs a year. The Iranians are building a large power reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf meant to be fueled with low-enriched uranium from Natanz. Here too, experts say, a good program can go bad.

Normally, uranium fuel stays in a reactor for three or four years and, as an inadvertent byproduct of atomic fission, becomes slowly riddled with plutonium 239, the other good material for making atom bombs. But the spent fuel also accumulates plutonium 240, which is so radioactive that it can be very difficult to turn into weapons.

But if the reactor's fuel is changed frequently - every few months - that cuts the P-240 to preferable levels for building an arsenal. (And since less plutonium than uranium is needed for a blast of equal size, it is the preferred material for making compact warheads that are relatively easy to fit on missiles.)

John R. Bolton, the State Department's under secretary for arms control, recently told Congress that after several years of operation, Bushehr could make enough plutonium for more than 80 nuclear weapons.

Iran strongly denies such ambitions.

"That we are on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough is true," Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president, said recently, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency. "But we are not seeking nuclear weapons."

If Iran wanted to recover plutonium from Bushehr, or a different reactor under construction at Arak, it would have to extract the metal from spent fuel, a hard job beause of the waste's high radioactivity. Such reprocessing plants have legitimate commercial uses for turning nuclear detritus into new fuel, as France, Britain, Japan and Russia do.

Iran, too, has announced that it wants to master the complete nuclear fuel cycle, apparently including reprocessing. Last year, President Mohammad Khatami said the country wanted to recycle power-plant fuel. "We are determined," he said in a televised speech, "to use nuclear technology for civilian purposes."

Around the globe, experts are struggling to find ways to guarantee such good intentions: not just in Iran, but everywhere.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is calling for "multinational controls" on the production of any material that can be used for nuclear arms. If accepted, that would mean no single country could enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium on its own, but only in groups where members would verify each other's honesty.

Early this month, Iran signaled that it might be interested in teaming with Russia and Europe to enrich uranium, giving arms controllers some hope of a peaceful resolution to the current crisis.

Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, has called for sweetening the deal by guaranteeing members of a consortium lifetime fuel supplies and spent-fuel removal if they forgo enrichment and reprocessing plants.

"What you need is an incentive," he said. One challenge, he added, would be convincing states that consortiums "won't change their minds," given that nuclear policy makers have often done so in the past.

President Bush has taken a harder line, proposing in a February speech to limit drastically the number of nations allowed to produce nuclear fuel. Only states that already have enrichment and reprocessing plants, he said, should do such work, and they in turn would service countries that aspire to nuclear power.

While many experts praise Mr. Bush's attention to the nonproliferation issue, some have faulted his specifics. "It's all sticks and no carrots," said Mr. Bunn, adding that the Bush plan would only feed global resentment toward the nuclear club. "I think you can couch this to be more carrotlike."

Down the road, a different approach involves developing new classes of reactors that would better resist nuclear proliferation, especially by making the recovery of plutonium 239 much harder. Many studies, including one last year at M.I.T., have championed better fuel cycles and security.

"There is potentially a pathway - diplomatic, technical - to see a significant global deployment" of safer technologies and strategies, said Ernest J. Moniz, a former Energy Department official who helped lead the M.I.T. study. "But it can't happen without U.S. leadership and the U.S. partnering with other countries, and that will require a re-examination of our policies."

Mr. Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute said too many of the proposals were too timid. Most fundamentally, he said, nations have to turn away from the commercial use of plutonium, which grows more abundant every day.

"Only denial and greed" can explain the world's continuing to want plutonium for peaceful uses, he said, and added, "It may take the unthinkable happening before the political process can screw up the courage to put an end to this ridiculously dangerous industry."

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION

------------------->

Nuclear double standards

Why should some nations but not others be allowed nuclear weapons, asks Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency

New Scientist, p 17, 10 July 2004.

During the cold war, global security depended on a nuclear stand-off between two broad alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It was based on the rather morbid doctrine of mutually assured destruction. As alliances leaders, the Soviet Union and the US protected and managed their respective spheres of influence and were able to minimise the nuclear of nations acquiring nuclear weapons.

In the past 15 years, the international security landscape has changed. The cold war rivalry disappeared. But rather than the much vaunted “new world order”, this has resulted in a sort of “new world instability.” Ethnic and religious tensions have erupted, while many regional conflicts such as that in the Middle East have continued to fester.

Rather than trying to understand these changes and adapting to the new threats, the international community has inclined towards inaction or unilateral “self-help” solutions. Against this backdrop of insecurity, we should not be surprised that some countries have continued to show an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Four undeclared nuclear programmes, in Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea have come to light since the early 1990s.

We at the IAEA have learned valuable lessons from our recent experience in verifying these undeclared nuclear programmes. Perhaps the most important is that verification and diplomacy, used together, can work.

The Iraq experience demonstrated that inspections can be effective even then the country being inspected is less than cooperative. All the evidence indicates that Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had been effectively dismantled in the 1990s through IAEA inspection, as we were nearly ready to conclude before the war. Inspections in Iran over the past year have also been key to uncovering a nuclear programme that had remained hidden since the 1980s.

Perhaps the most disturbing lesson to emerge from our work in Iran and Libya is the existence of an extensive illicit market for nuclear items.

The ease with which Pakistan nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan and his associates were able to operate a multinational network clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the present export control system.

It should be clear that we are well beyond the point where a few quick fixes will adequately address the new threats. But I find it encouraging that both governments and civil society are beginning to come forward with suggestions for dealing with them. My proposals fall into three areas.

The first concerns strengthened non-proliferation controls over the export of sensitive nuclear materials and technology. The nuclear export control system should be binding rather than voluntary, and should include all countries with the capability for manufacturing sensitive nuclear related items.

We should consider limitations on the production of nuclear material through reprocessing and enrichment, possibly by bringing these operations exclusively under multinational control, while guaranteeing the supply of fuel to legitimate users. A multinational approach could also be applied to the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

We should work to prevent the use of weapon-usable material in civilian nuclear programmes, and eliminate stocks of weapons-usable nuclear materials now in existence.

My second set of proposals involves strengthening the commitment of all states to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament measures, including for example, the establishment of a concrete roadmap for verified, irreversible nuclear disarmament. It is 30 years since the enactment of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and yet 30,000 nuclear weapons are still available for use.

In July 1996, the International Court of Justice (IJC) declared unanimously that nuclear states were obliged to conclude negotiations for “nuclear disarmament in all its aspects”. To my mind, it is hard to reconcile the opinion of the ICJ with the decision by the US to explore new types of nuclear weapons. More importantly, if this type of research proceeds, it is hard to see how we can ask the nuclear “have-nots” to accept the additional non-proliferation obligations and to renounce any sensitive nuclear capability as being adverse to their security.

My third set of proposals involves establishing a functional system for collective international security. The UN Security Council must be able and ready to engage effectively in both preventive diplomacy and enforcement measures. We must also work to address the root causes of insecurity and instability, including the widening divide between rich and poor and the chronic lack of good governance.

We have two possible courses of action. We can wait for the unthinkable to happen, or we can take notice of the writing on the wall and act today.

I repeat that is it time to abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons, but morally acceptable for others to rely on them.

This article is derived from a speech delivered at the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference in Washington DC last month.

------------------->

Kofi Annan at Princeton University on need to abolish nuclear weapons

28 November 2006
Secretary-General
SG/SM/10767
Department of Public Information * News and Media Division * New York

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10767.doc.htm

Let me begin by saying how delighted I am to have been invited to give this address by a School named after Woodrow Wilson, the great pioneer of multilateralism and advocate of world peace, who argued, among other things, for agreed international limits on deadly weapons.

Princeton is indissolubly linked with the memory of Albert Einstein and many other great scientists who played a role in making this country the first nuclear power. That makes it an especially appropriate setting for my address this evening, because my main theme is the danger of nuclear weapons, and the urgent need to confront that danger by preventing proliferation and promoting disarmament, both at once. I shall argue that these two objectives -- disarmament and non-proliferation -- are inextricably linked, and that to achieve progress on either front we must also advance on the other.

Almost everyone in today's world feels insecure, but not everyone feels insecure about the same thing. Different threats seem more urgent to people in different parts of the world.

Probably the largest number would give priority to economic and social threats, including poverty, environmental degradation and infectious disease.

Others might stress inter-State conflict; yet others internal conflict, including civil war. Many people - especially but not only in the developed world -- would now put terrorism at the top of their list.

In truth, all these threats are interconnected, and all cut across national frontiers. We need common global strategies to deal with all of them -- and indeed, Governments are coming together to work out and implement such strategies, in the UN and elsewhere. The one area where there is a total lack of any common strategy is the one that may well present the greatest danger of all: the area of nuclear weapons.

Why do I consider it the greatest danger? For three reasons:

First, nuclear weapons present a unique existential threat to all humanity.

Secondly, the nuclear non-proliferation regime now faces a major crisis of confidence. North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while India, Israel, and Pakistan have never joined it. There are, at least, serious questions about the nature of Iran's nuclear programme. And this, in turn, raises questions about the legitimacy, and credibility, of the case-by-case approach to non-proliferation that the existing nuclear powers have adopted.

Thirdly, the rise of terrorism, with the danger that nuclear weapons might be acquired by terrorists, greatly increases the danger that they will be used.

Yet, despite the grave, all-encompassing nature of this threat, the Governments of the world are addressing it selectively, not comprehensively.

In one way, that's understandable. The very idea of global self-annihilation is unbearable to think about. But, that is no excuse. We must try to imagine the human and environmental consequences of a nuclear bomb exploding in one, or even in several, major world cities -- or indeed of an all-out confrontation between two nuclear-armed States.

In focusing on nuclear weapons, I am not seeking to minimize the problem of chemical and biological ones, which are also weapons of mass destruction, and are banned under international treaties. Indeed, perhaps the most important, under-addressed threat relating to terrorism -- one which acutely requires new thinking -- is the threat of terrorists using a biological weapon.

But, nuclear weapons are the most dangerous. Even a single bomb can destroy an entire city, as we know from the terrible example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and today, there are bombs many times as powerful as those. These weapons pose a unique threat to humanity as a whole.

Forty years ago, understanding that this danger must be avoided at all costs, nearly all States in the world came together and forged a grand bargain, embodied in the NPT.

In essence, that treaty was a contract between the recognized nuclear-weapon States at that time and the rest of the international community. The nuclear-weapon States undertook to negotiate in good faith on nuclear disarmament, to prevent proliferation, and to facilitate the peaceful use of nuclear energy, while separately declaring that they would refrain from threatening non-nuclear-weapon States with nuclear weapons. In return, the rest committed themselves not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons, and to place all their nuclear activities under the verification of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Thus, the treaty was designed both to prevent proliferation and to advance disarmament, while assuring the right of all States, under specified conditions, to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

From 1970 -- when it entered into force -- until quite recently, the NPT was widely seen as a cornerstone of global security. It had confounded the dire predictions of its critics. Nuclear weapons did not -- and still have not -- spread to dozens of States, as John F. Kennedy and others predicted in the 1960s. In fact, more States have given up their ambitions for nuclear weapons than have acquired them.

And yet, in recent years, the NPT has come under withering criticism -- because the international community has been unable to agree how to apply it to specific crises in South Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Middle East; and because a few States parties to the treaty are allegedly pursuing their own nuclear-weapons capabilities.

Twice in 2005, Governments had a chance to strengthen the Treaty's foundations -- first at the Review conference in May, then at the World Summit in September. Both times they failed -- essentially because they couldn't agree whether non-proliferation or disarmament should come first.

The advocates of "non-proliferation first" -- mainly nuclear-weapon States and their supporters -- believe the main danger arises not from nuclear weapons as such, but from the character of those who possess them, and therefore, from the spread of nuclear weapons to new States and to non-state actors (so called "horizontal proliferation"). The nuclear-weapon States say they have carried out significant disarmament since the end of the cold war, but that their responsibility for international peace and security requires them to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

"Disarmament first" advocates, on the other hand, say that the world is most imperilled by existing nuclear arsenals and their continual improvement (so called "vertical proliferation"). Many non-nuclear-weapon States accuse the nuclear-weapon States of retreating from commitments they made in 1995 (when the NPT was extended indefinitely) and reiterated as recently as the year 2000. For these countries, the NPT "grand bargain" has become a swindle. They note that the UN Security Council has often described the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security,but has never declared that nuclear weapons in and of themselves are such athreat. They see no serious movement towards nuclear disarmament, and claim that the lack ofsuch movement presages a permanent "apartheid" between nuclear "haves" and "have nots".

Both sides in this debate feel that the existence of four additional States with nuclear weapons, outside the NPT, serves only to sharpen their argument.

The debate echoes a much older argument: are weapons a cause or a symptom of conflict? I believe both debates are sterile, counterproductive, and based on false dichotomies.

Arms build-ups can give rise to threats leading to conflict; and political conflicts can motivate the acquisition of arms. Efforts are needed both to reduce arms and to reduce conflict. Likewise, efforts are needed to achieve both disarmament and non-proliferation.

Yet, each side waits for the other to move. The result is that "mutually assured destruction" has been replaced by mutually assured paralysis. This sends a terrible signal of disunity and waning respect for the Treaty's authority. It creates a vacuum that can be exploited.

I said earlier this year that we are "sleepwalking towards disaster". In truth, it is worse than that -- we are asleep at the controls of a fast-moving aircraft. Unless we wake up and take control, the outcome is all too predictable.

An aircraft, of course, can remain airborne only if both wings are in working order. We cannot choose between non-proliferation and disarmament. We must tackle both tasks with the urgency they demand.

Allow me to offer my thoughts to each side in turn.

To those who insist on disarmament first, I say this:

-- Proliferation is not a threat only, or even mainly, to those who already have nuclear weapons. The more fingers there are on nuclear triggers, and the more those fingers belong to leaders of unstable States -- or, even worse, non-State actors -- the greater the threat to all humankind.

-- Lack of progress on disarmament is no excuse for not addressing the dangers of proliferation. No State should imagine that, by pushing ahead with a nuclear-weapon programme, it can pose as a defender of the NPT; still less that it will persuade others to disarm.

-- I know some influential States, which themselves have scrupulously respected the Treaty, feel strongly that the nuclear-weapon States have not lived up to their disarmament obligations. But, they must be careful not to let their resentment put them on the side of the proliferators. They should state clearly that acquiring prohibited weapons never serves the cause of their elimination. Proliferation only makes disarmament even harder to achieve.

-- I urge all States to give credit where it is due. Acknowledge disarmament whenever it does occur. Applaud the moves which nuclear-weapon States have made, whether unilaterally or through negotiation, to reduce nuclear arsenals or prevent their expansion. Recognize that the nuclear-weapon States have virtually stopped producing new fissile material for weapons, and are maintaining moratoria on nuclear tests.

-- Likewise, support even small steps to contain proliferation, such as efforts to improve export controls on goods needed to make weapons of mass destruction, as mandated by Security Council resolution 1540.

-- And please support the efforts of the Director-General of the IAEA and others to find ways of guaranteeing that all States have access to fuel and services for their civilian nuclear programmes without spreading sensitive technology. Countries must be able to meet their growing energy needs through such programmes, but we cannot afford a world where more and more countries develop the most sensitive phases of the nuclear fuel cycle themselves.

-- Finally, do not encourage, or allow, any State to make its compliance with initiatives to eliminate nuclear weapons, or halt their proliferation, conditional on concessions fromother States on other issues. The preservation of human life on this planet is too important to be used as a hostage.

To those who insist on non-proliferation first, I say this:

--True, there has been some progress on nuclear disarmament since the end of the cold war. Some States have removed many nuclear weapons from deployment, and eliminated whole classes of nuclear delivery systems. The US and Russia have agreed to limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons they deploy, and have removed non-strategic ones from ships and submarines; the US Congress refused to fund the so called "bunker-buster" bomb; most nuclear test sites have been closed; and there are national moratoria on nuclear tests, while three nuclear-weapon States -- France, Russia and the UK -- have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

-- Yet, stockpiles remain alarmingly high: 27,000 nuclear weapons reportedly remain in service, of which about 12,000 are actively deployed.

-- Some States seem to believe they need fewer weapons, but smaller and more useable ones -- and even to have embraced the notion of using such weapons in conflict. All of the NPT nuclear-weapon States are modernizing their nuclear arsenals or their delivery systems. They should not imagine that this will be accepted as compatible with the NPT. Everyone will see it for what it is: a euphemism for nuclear re-armament.

-- Nor is it clear how these States propose to deal with the four nuclear-weapon-capable States outside the NPT. They warn against a nuclear domino effect, if this or that country is allowed to acquire a nuclear capability, but they do not seem to know how to prevent it, or how to respond to it once it has happened. Surely they should at least consider attempting a "reverse domino effect", in which systematic and sustained reductions in nuclear arsenals would devalue the currency of nuclear weapons, and encourage others to follow suit.

-- Instead, by clinging to and modernizing their own arsenals, even when there is no obvious threat to their national security that nuclear weapons could deter, nuclear-weapon States encourage others -- particularly those that do face real threats in their own region -- to regard nuclear weapons as essential, both to their security and to their status. It would be much easier to confront proliferators, if the very existence of nuclear weapons were universally acknowledged as dangerous and ultimately illegitimate.

-- Similarly, States that wish to discourage others from undertaking nuclear or missile tests could argue their case much more convincingly if they themselves moved quickly to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force, halt their own missile testing, and negotiate a robust multilateral instrument regulating missiles. Such steps would do more than anything else to advance the cause of non-proliferation.

-- Important Powers such as Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Japan have shown, by refusing to develop them, that nuclear weapons are not essential to either security or status. South Africa destroyed its arsenal and joined the NPT. Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up nuclear weapons from the former Soviet nuclear arsenal. And Libya has abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons programmes. The nuclear weapon States have applauded all these examples. They should follow them.

-- Finally, Governments and civil society in many countries are increasingly questioning the relevance of the cold war doctrine of nuclear deterrence -- the rationale used by all States that possess nuclear weapons -- in an age of growing threats from non-State actors. Do we not need, instead, to develop agreed strategies for preventing proliferation?

-- For all these reasons, I call on all the States with nuclear weapons to develop concrete plans -- with specific timetables -- for implementing their disarmament commitments. And I urge them to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.

In short, my friends, the only way forward is to make progress on both fronts -- nonproliferation and disarmament -- at once. And we will not achieve this unless at thesame time we deal effectively with the threat of terrorism, as well as the threats, bothreal and rhetorical, which drive particular States or regimes to seek security, howevermisguidedly, by developing or acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is a complex and daunting task, which calls for leadership, for the establishment of trust, for dialogue and negotiation. But first of all, we need a renewed debate, which must be inclusive, must respect the norms of international negotiations, and must reaffirm the multilateral approach -- Woodrow Wilson's approach, firmly grounded in international institutions, treaties, rules, and norms of appropriate behaviour.

Let me conclude by appealing to young people everywhere, since there are -- I am glad to see -- so many of them here today.

My dear young friends, you are already admirably engaged in the struggle for global development, for human rights and to protect the environment. Please bring your energy and imagination to this debate. Help us to seize control of the rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe landing before it is too late.

------------------->Return to top

ICAN - INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

------------------->

The new ICAN project was conceived by the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, the Australian affiliate of The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). IPPNW are a federation of medical professionals from 60 countries who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for their work against nuclear weapons.

IPPNW decided that they want to launch the next challenge to abolish nuclear weapons once and for all. On one level it seems easy – the vast majority of the people of the world have stated in polls that they don’t want nuclear weapons.  The vast majority of States also want nuclear disarmament – 9 countries stand in the way of democratic majorities.

Thirty-five years ago the world signed a treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons – the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. In 2000, a few months before the Bush Administration assumed power, the same governments devised a 13 point action plan for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet today there are 27,000 deployed nuclear weapons, including the 2,500 the USA and Russia have on hairtrigger alert. Recent announcements by all the Nuclear Weapon States to upgrade their weaponry is not leading to disarmament!

So the challenge is – in light of this can we see a world without nuclear weapons?

I CAN!

The campaign has been strong and global in previous years and hopefully together we can (ICAN!!) make that happen again.

There are already lots of exciting things that the campaign is involved in.

MAPW is working with the newly established Palm Sunday Peace Alliance where the broader community are working together on peace and nuclear issues.

This year Palm Sunday falls on April Fools Day – so this will be part of the theme of activities. See http://nuclearfoolsday.org/ for more information.

MAPW is also involved in the events surrounding the Talisman Sabre military training exercises in Shoalwater Bay in July 2007. This year will see the largest training exercises ever with 14,000 US troops being joined by Australian troops. There is a National Peace Convergence planned in Rockhampton, and many other activities planned to shine the light on how Australia sits under the US ’s nuclear umbrella. See www.peaceconvergence.com for more information.

If you want to do something immediate and practical, the following link is a call from the movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND) asking people to sign a petition for people living in areas surrounding and downstream from an accident at an Indian uranium mine over the new year period.
http://petitions.aidindia.org/jadugoda-tailing-pipe-leak/supporters.php

The Australian Labor Party is considering dropping its “No New Mines” policy about uranium mining at it’s National Conference 27-29 April in Sydney. It’s vital that the ALP do not take Australia down this path. ICAN will be communicating loud and clear to the ALP on these issues and encourage you to do the same.

Let MAPW know if you would like to receive periodical campaign updates by e-mail keeping you up to date with the campaign.

Contact: Jessica Morrison
ICAN National Coordinator
Ph 03 8344 1637
jessica.morrison@mapw.org.au

Web: www.mapw.org.au

------------------->Return to top

IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR WAR

------------------->

Researchers Find Global Danger in Small Nuclear War
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2006_12_12.html#2F6BBA3F
The effects of a limited nuclear war would have larger global consequences than previously believed, climate researchers said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 3).
Smoke and soot would contaminate the atmosphere for months following an exchange of a few dozen nuclear weapons, causing temperatures to drop and food production to fall, said University of Colorado atmospheric researcher Owen Toon at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
“These results are quite surprising,” Toon said. Regional nuclear wars “can endanger entire populations” similarly to a major global nuclear conflict, such as the type once feared between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Another scientist estimated that 5 million tons of soot would be made airborne following the detonation of 100 15-kiloton nuclear weapons. The material would remain in the stratosphere for as long as a decade, leading to global temperatures dropping several degrees.
Even locations very far from the conflict could have growing seasons reduced by 10 days or longer, causing drops in food production.
Toon warned that post-Cold War nuclear threats must be addressed urgently.
“Nuclear proliferation and political instability form the greatest danger to human society since the dawn of mankind,” he said (James Johnson, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12).

------------------->

Small Nuclear War Would Cause Global Environmental Catastrophe
by Jeanna Bryner
Published December 11, 2006 by LiveScience
www.livescience.com/includes/iab.html?url=/forcesofnature/061211_nuclear_climate.html

SAN FRANCISCO - A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the
global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that
could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have concluded.

The scientists said about 40 countries possess enough plutonium or
uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. Setting off a
Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of
World War II.

"Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the
effects are surprisingly large," said one of the researchers, Richard
Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles. "The potential
devastation would be catastrophic and long term."

The lingering effects could re-shape the environment in ways never
conceived. In terms of climate, a nuclear blast could plunge
temperatures across large swaths of the globe. "It would be the largest
climate change in recorded human history," Alan Robock, associate
director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook
College and another member of the research team.

The results will be presented here today during the annual meeting of
American Geophysical Union.

Blast fatalities

In one study, scientists led by Owen "Brian" Toon of the University of
Colorado, Boulder, analyzed potential fatalities based on current
nuclear weapons inventories and population densities in large cities
around the world.

His team focused on the black smoke generated by a nuclear blast and
firestorms—intense and long-lasting fires that create and sustain their
own wind systems.

For a regional conflict, fatalities would range from 2.6 million to 16.7
million per country. "A small country is likely to direct its weapons
against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest
advantage," Toon said.

Chilled climate

With the information, Robock and colleagues generated a series of
computer simulations of potential climate anomalies caused by a
small-scale nuclear war.

"We looked at a scenario of a regional nuclear conflict say between
India and Pakistan where each of them used 50 weapons on cities in the
other country that would generate a lot of smoke," Robock told LiveScience.

They discovered the smoke emissions would plunge temperatures by about 2
degrees Fahrenheit (1.25 degrees Celsius) over large areas of North
America and Eurasia—areas far removed from the countries involved in the
conflict.

Typically when sunlight travels through the atmosphere, some rays get
absorbed by particles in the air, before reaching Earth's surface. After
a nuclear blast, however, loads of black smoke would settle into the
upper atmosphere and absorb sunlight before it reaches our planet's
surface. Like a dark curtain pulled over large parts of the globe, the
smoke would cause cool temperatures, darkness, less precipitation and
even ozone depletion.

At the end of the 10 years, the simulated climate still hadn't recovered.

Global upshot

The study showed it doesn't take much nuclear power to drive meteoric
results. Whereas the scenarios presumed the countries involved would
launch their entire nuclear arsenals, that total is just
three-hundredths of a percent of the global arsenal.

Will the conclusions result in worldly changes? "We certainly hope there
will be a political response because nuclear weapons are the most
dangerous potential environmental danger to the planet. They're much
more dangerous than global warming," Robock said.

------------------->

Toon, Owen B., Richard P. Turco, Alan Robock, Charles Bardeen, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2006: Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism.
Atm. Chem. Phys. Disc., 6, 11,745-11,816. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acpd-6-11745.pdf

Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2006: Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Submitted to J. Geophys. Res., doi:2006JD008235. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/nw4.pdf

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/

Figures from studies of climatic effects of nuclear conflicts

Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Rutgers University
robock@envsci.rutgers.edu

These figures come from the following paper:

Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, Owen B. Toon, Charles Bardeen, and Richard P. Turco, 2006: Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atm. Chem. Phys. Disc., 6, 11,817-11,843. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acpd-6-11817.pdf

BCabsoptdaily.gif is an animation of the smoke distribution as it is spread around the world by the winds. The smoke is heated by absorbing sunlight, lofted into the upper stratosphere, and blown into the Southern Hemisphere.

BCabsopred.gif is the same animation as BCabsoptdaily.gif, but in red.

BCabsoptdailyheight.gif contains the same animation as BCabsoptdaily.gif, but also includes a graph at the side that shows the vertical distribution of the smoke. Within the first week the smoke in the troposphere, the lowest atmospheric layer, is lofted or washed out, and the remaining smoke is lofted well into the stratosphere, removed from weather where it can remain for years. The black horizontal line at about 150 mb marks the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, at about 12 km (7 miles). The top of the stratosphere (at 50 km or 30 miles) has a pressure of about 1 mb.

Fig3TempPrecip.jpg Time variation of global average net surface shortwave radiation, surface air temperature, and precipitation changes for the 5 Tg standard case. The global average precipitation in the control case is 3.0 mm/day, so the changes in years 2-4 represent a 9% global average reduction in precipitation. The precipitation recovers faster than the temperature, but both lag the forcing. For comparison the global average net surface shortwave forcing from a model simulation of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption is shown. By contrast, volcanic particle last for a much shorter time in the atmosphere, as they are not lofted by solar absorption.

Fig5SummerTempMap.jpg Surface air temperature changes for the 5 Tg standard case averaged for June, July, and August of the first year following the smoke injection. Effects are largest over land, but there is substantial cooling over tropical oceans, too. The warming over Antarctica is for a small area, is part of normal winter interannual variability, and is not significant.

Fig9GISStemperatures.jpg Global average surface air temperature change from the 5 Tg standard case (red) in the context of the climate change of the past 125 years. Observations are from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis (Hansen et al., 2001, updated at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/).

Fig10HockeyStick.jpg Northern Hemisphere average surface air temperature change from 5 Tg standard case (red) in the context of the climate change of the past 1000 years. Black curve is from Mann et al. (1999), and the blue curve is from the latest data from the Climatic Research Unit website (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/).

Fig11GrowingSeason.jpg Change in growing season (period with freeze-free days) in the first year following the 5 Tg standard case smoke injection.

References

Hansen, J. E., et al., 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23,947-23,963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.

Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, 1999: Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 759-762.

------------------->

Nuclear war 'could spark climate change'
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Nuclear-war-could-spark-climate-change/2006/12/12/1165685658301.html
December 12, 2006 - 12:14PM
New scientific modelling shows that a regional nuclear conflict between countries such as India and Pakistan could spark devastating climate changes worldwide.
"We are at a perilous crossroads," said Owen Toon of the University of Colorado at Boulder's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.
"The current combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics form perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of society since the dawn of humanity."
Toon was one of the scientists who warned in the 1980s of a "nuclear winter" should the United States and Soviet Union engage in a nuclear conflict.
The demise of the Soviet Union has reduced such a threat, but using supercomputing analysis not available two decades ago, the team calculated a devastating impact from the exchange of 100 nuclear weapons - an amount they said represented the potential of India and Pakistan.
"Regional scale nuclear conflicts can inflict casualties comparable to those predicted for a strategic attack between the United States and the USSR," Toon told a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
"The smoke produced can endanger the entire population of Earth through climate changes and ozone loss."
The study's authors warned of the spread of nuclear technologies to many nations and the risks to ever more concentrated urban centres with large fuel stockpiles that would feed massive fires.
"Owing to the confluence today of nuclear proliferation, migration into megacities and the centralisation of economies within these cities, human society is extremely vulnerable," said Richard Turco of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The scientists said that smoke from a regional conflict would spread across the entire world within weeks and even produce a cooling effect as the sun's rays are partially blocked.
"This is not a solution to global warming because you have to look at the devastating climate changes," said Alan Robock of the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers, who has studied the impact of climatic change from regional nuclear war.
"The main point here is that while most people think that we are on a path of reduced probability of war with the build down of the superpowers and we are on a trend toward a peaceful century, we actually have the opposite situation going on."
"We have a trend where the build up of nuclear weapons in many countries of the world creates the situation where there are 20, 30, 40 nuclear states, all dangerous as the Soviet Union used to be," Robock said.

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR SMUGGLING ON THE RISE

------------------->

Nuclear trafficking reports double
December 27, 2006 - 10:02AM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/nuclear-trafficking-reports-double/2006/12/27/1166895332456.html

Reported incidents of trafficking and mishandling of nuclear material worldwide doubled between 2000 and 2005, mainly because of heightened awareness and more extensive screening, the Department of Homeland Security said in the US today.
The department received 215 reports of nuclear trafficking and related criminal activity worldwide in 2005, compared to 100 incidents in 2000, Jarrod Agen said.
The incidents included illegal diversion, purchase, sale, transport or storage of nuclear material.
"Only a handful of the known illicit nuclear/radiological trafficking incidents involved weapons-usable nuclear materials," Agen said. "Of the known smuggling incidents to date, the vast majority were profit-motivated scams involving bogus materials."
The number of trafficking incidents recorded by the US
Department of Homeland Security was more than double that reported in August by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Geneva-based UN nuclear watchdog said it had received reports of 103 incidents of illicit trafficking and other unauthorised activities involving nuclear and radioactive materials in 2005.
It cited a 2005 New Jersey case in which a lab inadvertently disposed of 0.1 ounce (3.3 grams) of highly enriched uranium. A lab worker failed to locate one of several samples in a shipment and apparently threw it away with the packaging, which was buried at a landfill. The lab was later fined $3,250 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Homeland Security figures include IAEA reporting as well as other information obtained by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, Agen said.
"What has doubled is the number of reported events," he said. "This is due mainly to an increase in awareness, more comprehensive reporting and an increase in the number of number of detection devices."
Since the September 11 attacks, security awareness has become higher worldwide, and the United States has increased the number and sophistication of screening machines across the country.
"We screen about 80 per cent of all cargo that comes into the US through radiation portal monitors, and by the end of next year we will be at 100 per cent," Agen said. "That gives you an indication of how seriously we take screening for radioactive material."
Authorities will begin scanning US-bound freight for nuclear and radiological materials in seven overseas ports early next year as part of the US Secure Freight Initiative.
Ports in Pakistan, Honduras, Britain, South Korea and Singapore are participating, Agen said.
Reuters

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR TERRORISM

------------------->

Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012900572.html

Federal regulators plunged into an energy and national security controversy yesterday by ruling that the nation's 103 nuclear power plants do not need to protect themselves from potential attacks by terrorists using airplanes.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 5-to-0 ruling was in response to a 2004 petition by the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles nonprofit group, that said nuclear plants should build shields made of steel I-beams and cabling or take other steps to prevent a release of radiation in case of an air attack. Eight state attorneys general backed the petition.
 The group cited the 9/11 Commission, which said in its report that the al-Qaeda plot to hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon in 2001 had originally contemplated hijacking 10 planes and striking one or more nuclear power plants.
"Nuclear power plants are pre-emplaced nuclear weapons near major cities," said Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap. "They can't blow up like a nuclear bomb, but they can release a thousand times the radiation of the Hiroshima bomb. They are the most attractive target for a terrorist to hit in our country."
But NRC Chairman Dale Klein said, "Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane."
The commission might impose stricter requirements on new plants, which some nuclear foes hope will add costs or delay licenses for industry expansion.
For now, however, the NRC said that guarding against airborne attacks was the job of the military and other agencies. It added that nuclear plant operators were already required to be prepared to respond to fires or explosions, whatever the cause. The commission said that it was toughening requirements for reactor operators to repel "multiple, coordinated groups of attackers, suicide attacks and cyber threats."
Some members of Congress said that the NRC's steps fell short of what was needed.
"I am disappointed," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). The NRC decision "reflects an inadequate, industry-influenced approach that sacrifices security in favor of corporate profits."
On Friday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, had written to the agency that "the communities that surround existing plants need to be confident that the NRC, as the regulator charged with nuclear safety, did all it could to ensure that plants defend against current security threats" -- including, she added, "large attacking forces and commercial aircraft."
Yesterday, Boxer said that her "initial reaction" was that the NRC "did not follow the direction of Congress to ensure that our nuclear power plants are protected from air- or land-based terrorist threats."
The 9/11 Commission called nuclear plants "vital facilities" and pointed to evidence that the plants had attracted al-Qaeda's attention. The commission's report said that senior al-Qaeda planner Khalid Sheik Mohammed told interrogators after his capture that nuclear plants were on his original target list. And the commission said that during a meeting in Spain in July 2001, Mohamed Atta, thought to be the lead hijacker on Sept. 11, had considered targeting a nuclear facility he had seen during familiarization flights near New York -- a target he and his conspirators referred to as "electrical engineering." In the end, Atta did not have a chance to discuss the idea with senior al-Qaeda leaders.
Timothy J. Roemer, a member of the 9/11 Commission, said that "there should be agencies in our government that make this as high a priority as al-Qaeda makes it." He also said that as the nuclear industry expands, "they should also shoulder some of the burden of our environment and our defense."
The question of whether nuclear facilities should be required to protect themselves against air attacks is frequently mentioned as a cost issue by electric power companies interested in building nuclear plants. There has not been a new order placed for a nuclear reactor in the United States since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. Tax incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have sparked preliminary planning on about 19 nuclear power projects, and several companies are expected to seek NRC approval later this year.
Many of the industry's critics have seized on national security as a reason to block new plants or to raise the costs of construction. Hirsch said, however, that building an I-beam and cabling shield would add only about 1 percent to the cost of a plant.
"Where are the resources best put to use to protect our population?" said Steven Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "There will be far more value in putting those resources toward other parts of the infrastructure that aren't nearly as well protected as nuclear power plants." He cited a 2002 computer modeling study that said a jetliner crash at a nuclear site would not lead to a radiation leak.
The Supreme Court this month decided not to hear an appeal of a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the NRC had violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to include a terrorist attack in an environmental impact report for an application to create dry-cask storage at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, Calif. Pacific Gas and Electric, which owns Diablo Canyon, was granted the license, but the NRC must now reconsider the application.
One NRC commissioner, Gregory B. Jaczko, dissented on the Diablo Canyon license. "I strongly believe . . . that any new nuclear power plants built in this country should be designed to withstand commercial aircraft crashes."
Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, which operates five nuclear units at three locations, is weighing a new plant. It has chosen a design by Areva that is supposed to protect against airplane crashes by doubling the thickness of the containment vessel and redesigning other facilities. One such plant is under construction in Finland; another is planned for France, said Areva spokesman Penny Phelps. A Constellation spokesman said the plant was appealing because it was designed for "a spectrum of events."

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR TERRORISM - AUSTRALIA

------------------->

Nuclear risk could be an inside job
Charles Ferguson
January 9, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/nuclear-risk-could-be-an-inside-job/2007/01/08/1168104921045.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

The comment by the Prime Minister, John Howard, in November about nuclear energy as "one weapon in the armoury" in the fight against climate change now has an unfortunate ring to it in light of the recent news that a home-grown terrorist group allegedly planned to attack the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor with rocket launchers from an Australian armoury.
The good news is that the rockets would not have done much, if any, significant damage to the reactor. The bad news is that the emerging details of the case point to the harm that insiders can perpetrate. If Australia moves forward with ambitious plans - as proposed in the controversial Switkowski report - to build 25 nuclear power reactors by 2050, it should take adequate precautions to guard against external and internal security threats.
First, let's look at the threat from the stolen army rockets. The rockets are 66-millimetre light shoulder-fired anti-armour weapons. The rocket's warhead can penetrate up to 350 millimetres of tank armour. The weapon's maximum effective range is about 220 metres against moving targets and about 300 metres against stationary targets.
In comparison, the Lucas Heights reactor is protected by a containment building that uses heavy shielding. Assuming that terrorists could get access to the inside of the building, they would then need to breach the shielding around the reactor core. The core is about the size of a household washing machine and is surrounded by a steel tank encased in 10 centimetres of lead and 1.5 metres of dense concrete. Thus, the stolen rockets could not penetrate the reactor's protective shielding.
But the disturbing aspect of this case is the insider threat. Someone or some group infiltrated the Australian Army and seized several rocket launchers. The military has even more potent anti-armour weapons than the stolen 66-millimetre rockets. The Defence Force has dozens of shoulder-fired Javelin "fire-and-forget" missiles that have lock-on targeting and infra-red (night-time) guidance. The Javelin has a range of up to 2500 metres, making it an excellent stand-off weapon, and can penetrate more than 600 millimetres of armour. Australian Special Forces used this weapon during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Although, as with the stolen rockets, the Javelin would probably not be able to do much damage to the Lucas Heights reactor, the worry is that long-range and highly penetrating anti-armour weapons could pose a threat to shipments of spent nuclear fuel. In December, casks containing spent fuel from Lucas Heights were shipped from Botany Bay to the United States. While police had tight security during the night journey from the reactor to the ship, it is conceivable that a Javelin missile fired more than a kilometre away could have penetrated the relatively thin shell of the casks.
If the military is susceptible to the insider threat, how susceptible are Australian nuclear facilities? Here again, there is good news and bad news.
The good news is that Australia recently hosted an International Atomic Energy Agency workshop about strengthening physical protection of research reactors, such as used at Lucas Heights. The workshop considered how to guard against the insider threat. But research facilities, by their very nature, are designed to be open to scientific researchers. So, unless thorough background checks are done on every scientist or technician who has access to Lucas Heights, there will be at least some risk to that facility.
Lucas Heights has provided substantial benefits to Australia since 1958. Millions of Australians have benefited from the medical isotopes produced by the nuclear facility, for example.
Weighing the risks versus the benefits, Lucas Heights comes out a winner. However, Australia confronts a debate about the future risks posed by the Howard Government's plan to build nuclear power plants. Australia has no experience in operating commercial nuclear power plants, which are many times more powerful than the Lucas Heights research reactors.
Faced with increased risks of terrorism, Australia should proceed carefully with plans for nuclear expansion and should work co-operatively with foreign governments to protect against common threats.
Charles Ferguson, based in Washington, is a fellow for science and technology at the Council on Foreign Relations, co-author of The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism, and a former nuclear engineering officer in the US Navy.

------------------->

The dangers of nuclear power in the age of terror
Ben McNeil
Canberra Times
Wednesday, 10 January 2007

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=546074&category=Opinion&m=1&y=2007
IT'S FRIGHTENING to know that a group linked to terrorism stole seven rocket-launchers from the Australian Defence Force and may have targeted Sydney's Lucas Heights research nuclear reactor. Strangely, the terror threat has not weighed in on the Prime Minister John Howard's push for Australian nuclear energy, even though each new reactor would be 100 times the size of Lucas Heights.

Reactors would be the ultimate high-impact terror target, whose destruction would lead to fatalities and large-scale permanent evacuations due to radioactive fallout. So can the Howard support building a fleet of nuclear power reactors in Australia and still be strong on terrorism?
The internet age has given terrorists untamed access to plan and target civilian facilities. I lazily opened up the Google Earth program and searched for Indian Point Energy Center, which is a huge nuclear reactor complex 32 kilometres north of New York City in the United States. At the click of a button a very clear visual photo was shown with the reactor domes in crystal clear view. Twenty million people live within 80km of this facility.
According to flight paths, American Airlines Flight 11 flew almost directly over the Indian Point nuclear reactor from Boston airport en route to crashing into the north tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.

More horrifying was that Mohammed Atta, who piloted the plane, had "considered targeting a nuclear facility," as did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the attacks, according to the US government's 9/11 commission report. A study in 2004 by the Union of Concerned Scientists found up to half a million people would have been killed if terrorists had decided to target this facility instead of the World Trade Centre or Pentagon.
The Prime Minister's nuclear energy review, published late last year, skims over the terrorist threat for Australian reactors, stating that the designs of nuclear reactors are specially strengthened against any unauthorised intervention and physical protection measures have been demonstrated to be effective. In contrast, the British Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in 2004 found that new nuclear reactors planned to be built across Europe are not designed to withstand a 9/11-style aircraft attack by terrorists. The same report estimated that a 9/11-style terrorist attack on the Sellafield B reactor in the English county of Cumbria would release 100 times the radioactivity of the 1986 Chernobyl accident and cause at worst "several million fatalities".
In Finland, the government narrowly approved the construction of Western Europe's first nuclear reactor since 1991, in part because Finland has a low terrorist threat level. In backing the decision, a government MP, Mikko Elo, highlighted the lack of concern. "We don't regard terrorism as such a big risk in Finland. I know it is a big fear in London, but it isn't the same in Finland," he said.
With bombings in Bali and the Australian embassy in Jakarta, along with being a strong supporter of the US-led Iraq War, Australia has and will continue to be a target for extremists. On top of the current concerns over the potential use of stolen rocket-launchers, Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor was the known target of a terrorist attack in 2005, before police apprehended the perpetrators.
Couldn't we site the reactors in the middle of nowhere to limit the magnitude of a terrorist attack? Nuclear reactors use massive amounts of water to produce electricity. A parliamentary research note last month estimated that each reactor requires access to nearly 1 trillion litres of water each year. This vast water use makes it a near certainty for reactors to be built on Australia's coastline with ocean access. There is no way to effectively isolate 25 nuclear reactors simply because 86 per cent of the population lives near the coastline.
The methodical planning, execution and impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks has thrown unrealistic terror threats into very real threats. Howard has said Australia would be "foolish" not to consider using nuclear energy, particularly in response to our greenhouse gas dilemma. However, we can address climate change in the electricity sector with natural gas and renewables that don't come with the same terrorist risk as nuclear reactors. Given these less risky options, it will be interesting to see how Howard will try to convince Australians in the lead up to next year's election that building 25 nuclear reactors is good anti-terrorism policy.
Dr Ben McNeil is a research fellow at the Climate & Environmental Dynamics Laboratory at the University of New South Wales.

------------------->

See nuclear terrorism briefing paper by Assoc. Prof. Tilman Ruff
http://www.energyscience.org.au/factsheets.html
or direct download
http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS10%20Nuclear%20Terrorism.pdf

See: Nuclear terrorism: Sydney's nuclear target
http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/nuclearterroroz.html

------------------->Return to top

ALBERT EINSTEIN ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Collection of his articles/speeches at www.geocities.com/jimgreen3
Please let me know if problems downloading. <jim.green@foe.org.au>

------------------->Return to top

DOOMSDAY CLOCK MOVES TWO MINUTES CLOSER TO MIDNIGHT

------------------->

"Doomsday Clock" Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Adjusts Clock From 7 to 5 Minutes Before Midnight
“Deteriorating” Global Situation Cited on Nuclear Weapons and New Factor: Climate Change.
January 17, 2007
www.thebulletin.org/media-center/announcements/20070117.html

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) is moving the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight. It is now 5 minutes to midnight. Reflecting global failures to solve the problems posed by nuclear weapons and the climate crisis, the decision by the BAS Board of Directors was made in consultation with the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates.

BAS announced the Clock change today at an unprecedented joint news conference held at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, DC, and the Royal Society in London. In a statement supporting the decision to move the hand of the Doomsday Clock, the BAS Board focused on two major sources of catastrophe: the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the destruction of human habitats from climate change. In articles by 14 leading scientists and security experts writing in the January-February issue of theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists (http://www.thebulletin.org), the potential for catastrophic damage from human-made technologies is explored further.

Created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday Clock has been adjusted only 17 times prior to today, most recently in February 2002 after the events of 9/11.

By moving the hand of the Clock closer to midnight — the figurative end of civilization — the BAS Board of Directors is drawing attention to the increasing dangers from the spread of nuclear weapons in a world of violent conflict, and to the catastrophic harm from climate change that is unfolding.

The BAS statement explains: "We stand at the brink of a Second Nuclear Age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea’s recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth."

The BAS statement continues: "The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."

Stephen Hawking, a BAS sponsor, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of The Royal Society, said: "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change."

Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said: "As we stand at the brink of a Second Nuclear Age and at the onset of unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the uses and control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable destruction and future human suffering."

Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, professor of cosmology and astrophysics , master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge, and a BAS sponsor, said: "Nuclear weapons still pose the most catastrophic and immediate threat to humanity, but climate change and emerging technologies in the life sciences also have the potential to end civilization as we know it."

Lawrence M. Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, an a BAS sponsor, said: "In these dangerous times, scientists have a responsibility to speak truth to power especially if it might provoke actions to reduce threats from the preventable technological dangers currently facing humanity. To do anything else would be negligent."

Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a BAS director and co-chair of the International Crisis Group, said: "Although our current situation is dire, we have the means today to successfully address these global problems. For example, through vigorous diplomacy and international agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency, we can negotiate and implement agreements that could protect us all from the most destructive technology on Earth—nuclear weapons."

Highlights of the new statement from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists include the following:
* "The second nuclear era, unlike the dawn of the first nuclear age in 1945, is characterized by a world of porous national borders, rapid communications that facilitate the spread of technical knowledge, and expanded commerce in potentially dangerous dual-use technologies and materials. The Pakistan-based network that provided nuclear technologies to Libya, North Korea, and Iran, is an example of the new challenges confronting the international community."
* "Sixteen years after the end of the Cold War, following substantial reductions in nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia, the two major powers have now stalled in their progress toward deeper reductions in their arsenals."
* "More than 1400 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and approximately 500 tons of plutonium are distributed worldwide at some 140 sites, in unguarded civilian power plants and university research reactors, as well as in military facilities."
* "Global warming poses a dire threat to human civilization that is second only to nuclear weapons. Through flooding and desertification, climate change threatens the habitats and agricultural resources that societies depend upon for survival. As such, climate change is also likely to contribute to mass migrations and even to wars over arable land, water, and other natural resources."
* "The prospect of civilian nuclear power development in countries around the world raises further concerns about the availability of nuclear materials. Growth in nuclear power is anticipated to be especially high in Asia, where Japan is planning to bring on line five new plants by 2010, and China intends to build 30 nuclear reactors by 2020."
* "Several factors are driving the turn to nuclear power— aging nuclear reactors, rising energy demands, a desire to diversify energy portfolios and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and the need to reduce carbon emissions that cause climate change. Yet expansion of nuclear power increases the risks of nuclear proliferation."

The BAS statement also outlines a number of steps that, if taken immediately, could help to prevent disaster, including the following:
* Reduce the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces and completely remove nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of their militaries.
* Reduce the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years, as well as greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere.
* Stop production of nuclear weapons material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium—w hether in military or civilian facilities.
* Engage in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion of nuclear power worldwide. While nuclear energy production does not produce carbon dioxide, it does raise other significant concerns, such as the health and environmental hazards of nuclear waste, the production of nuclear materials that can be diverted to the production of weapons, and the safety and security of the plants themselves.

ABOUT BAS AND THE CLOCK

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project and were deeply concerned about the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. In 1947 the Bulletin introduced its clock to convey the perils posed by nuclear weapons through a simple design. The Doomsday Clock evoked both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero). In 1949 Bulletin leaders realized that movement of the minute hand would signal the organization’s assessment of world events. The decision to move the minute hand is made by the Bulletin’s Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates. The Bulletin’s Doomsday Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to nuclear weapons and other threats. Additional information is available on the Web at http://www.thebulletin.org.

------------------->Return to top

MIDDLE EAST STATES THREATEN TO GO NUCLEAR

------------------->

Arab Interest in Nuclear Technology Raises Concerns
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2006_12_15.html#D725D513

A group of Arab nations has agreed to look into developing nuclear technology, raising concerns among some experts of a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 16; Reuters/Khaleej Times, Dec. 14).
At a meeting last weekend, the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council ordered “a GCC-wide study be conducted to formulate a joint program in the field of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, in keeping with international standards and regulations,” said a communique. The council consists of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Raid Qusti, Arab News, Dec. 11).
The move could be a result of the continuing dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions (see related GSN story, today), as well as long-standing Arab concerns over Israel’s nuclear capabilities (see GSN, Dec. 14), said some nonproliferation experts.
“Proliferation of any kind of nuclear technology raises the specter of some sort of nuclear arms race,” said Robin Hughes, deputy editor of Jane’s Defense Weekly.
While the GCC communique asserts the study is peaceful, “it’s clear from the context the region is involved in a nuclear race,” said Adel al-Harby, political editor of the Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh.
The question of intentions is key to assessing the weapons proliferation risk, added senior diplomats in Vienna.
“If the GCC states just want nuclear power reactors, that’s no problem. No state has ever used power reactors to yield nuclear weapons,” one diplomat said.
“No one can give a definitive answer on the motivation of the GCC, but I don’t think it’s too difficult to understand,” said another diplomat. “With Iran defiant and … Israel defiant … it’s only logical that the other states of the region would feel threatened” (Reuters/Khaleej Times).
GCC officials sought to ease potential concerns of neighboring states.
“It is not a threat,” said Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. “It is an announcement so that there will be no misinterpretation of what we are doing. We are not doing this secretly. We are doing it openly.”
“We want no bombs,” he added. “Our policy is to have a region free of weapons of mass destruction” (Qusti, Arab News).

------------------->

How Gulf states could start new nuclear race
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1969873,00.html
Simon Tisdall
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

A weekend decision by the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council to launch an innocent-sounding joint nuclear energy development project is the clearest signal yet that Iran's nuclear programmes, whether sinister or not, could hasten the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction across the Middle East.
But the activities of acknowledged nuclear weapons states such as the US, Russia and Britain, and deepening frustrations among key non-nuclear, non-aligned players such as Indonesia and Argentina, are also stoking worries that the UN's cornerstone non-proliferation treaty (NPT) is not long for this life.

The Gulf countries - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE - made clear that, like Iran, they want nuclear know-how for solely "peace purposes". And it is not the first time the idea of an Arab bomb has come up. Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and Saudi Arabia have already declared an intention to develop civilian nuclear energy.
The council's statement comes amid rising tension between Shia Iran and the Sunni-led Gulf states over political turmoil in Lebanon and anarchy in Iraq. But its timing will be seen as an unsubtle warning to the Bush administration to ignore the Iraq Study Group's advice on softening US policy towards Iran.
The Gulf's message may also be directed at Russia, which is still wrangling with Britain and France over the terms of a UN sanctions resolution on Iran. Diplomats say the resolution may finally pass this week, after first being mooted in July. But Moscow has weakened it. Even as a first step, it hardly amounts to the ringing, united anti-proliferation stand that the US and EU sought.
The resolution's main thrust will be to ban the sale or transfer to Tehran of nuclear and missile-related technology. Straight-faced Iranian diplomats say that is no problem since Iran is not building nuclear weapons and already has plenty of missiles. All the same, it is poised to retaliate. "If there are UN sanctions, there will be trade sanctions on Britain, France and Germany. Our response will be swift and proportionate," an Iranian official said.
Russia's own NPT adherence is also in serious question. Defence minister Sergei Ivanov, a possible successor to Vladimir Putin, last week proudly announced the commissioning of a new, mobile version of the Topol-M nuclear-tipped missile. Capable of vaporising targets 10,000km away, the Topol-M had previously been confined to fixed ground silos. It was specifically designed to penetrate new US "Star Wars" missile defences, Mr Ivanov said. It complements another new Russian "deterrent" - the sea-based Bulava missile.
But the US and Britain are hardly in a position to wax sanctimonious over Moscow's behaviour. President Bush's plan to provide India with nuclear fuel, reactors and technology was approved by Congress at the weekend. Under the new law, India's secret, destabilising 1990s development of nuclear weapons and its ongoing refusal to sign the NPT will be officially forgiven in return for a strategic (meaning anti-Chinese) partnership with Washington - and preferential trade opportunities for US businesses.
Far from gradually disarming as required by the NPT, the US is also developing new "low yield" nuclear weaponry that could, in theory, be more readily used on battlefields. Thanks to these and other factors, like Britain's Trident replacement plan and bomb-happy North Korea's so far unchecked defiance of international law and opinion, fears grow that countries such as Brazil and South Africa that voluntarily eschewed nuclear arms may feel obliged to reconsider.
American unilateralism makes for odd bedfellows. According to Jean du Preez of California's Monterey Institute, writing in Arms Control Today magazine, Washington recently joined North Korea at the UN general assembly "in voting against a rather innocuous resolution put forward by Japan on a 'renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons'". It also blocked a range of other disarmament measures. Such double standards risked rendering the NPT irrelevant, he suggested. "The nuclear non-proliferation regime is in deep trouble."

------------------->Return to top

CLIMATE CHANGE

------------------->

References to Sustainable Energy literature including 'deep cuts' studies:
www.foe.org.au/nc/nc_nuke.htm
or direct download http://www.foe.org.au/download/SustainableEnergy.doc

------------------->

Leaders still avoiding big climate change issue
Mark Diesendorf
February 6, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/leaders-still-avoiding-big-climate-change-issue/2007/02/05/1170524025000.html
The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leads to the inevitable conclusion that deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are needed urgently, before 2020. While individuals can make a contribution, their potential falls far short of what is needed: targets, new policies, strategies and actions from all levels of government, especially federal and state. It is governments that control taxation and funding, choose new infrastructure, and establish regulations and standards.
Unfortunately summits and further inquiries often delay real action. The Federal Government has been delaying greenhouse action for 10 years. Its principal strategy is to support coal-fired electricity with capture and burial of carbon dioxide. With a big subsidy, a pilot plant could be built within a decade. But this is a long way from a mass-produced, commercially available technology, which would take at least 20 years to roll out.
Knowing this, the Government is promoting nuclear power to divert attention from the clean energy technologies that are ready for implementation, given appropriate carbon pricing, regulations and standards: efficient energy use, solar hot water, solar space heating, wind power and bioenergy from crop residues, organic wastes and landfills.
Nowadays, nuclear power entails even greater risks of proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. And there is still no long-term nuclear waste dump operating anywhere. High-grade uranium ore is scarce, while mining and milling low-grade creates big carbon dioxide emissions. The nuclear industry promotes a new generation of nuclear power stations that might be slightly safer and cheaper, but these will take at least 15 to 20 years to mass produce.
Clearly, the Government is attempting to delay efficient energy use and renewable energy for 15-20 years until its chosen technologies may become available. It combines token support for renewable energy with false claims that it cannot substitute for coal.
The federal Mandatory Renewable Energy Target for 2010 was so small it was reached last year. Several years ago the Government ceased to fund the Co-operative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, but it still funds three research centres for fossil fuels. Even efficient energy use, the cheapest and fastest set of technologies and measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, has received little support from the Government.
To give the right message to energy consumers, it is essential to expand and extend the mandatory renewable energy target and to introduce carbon pricing, either as a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. An effective scheme must have a strong cap on emissions, must include all the energy intensive industries and must distribute at least half the emission permits by auction. This will allow cleaner energy technologies to enter the market in competition with the existing fossil fuel technologies. As with water permits, emission permits should be temporary licences, not property rights.
The Federal Opposition promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, expand the mandatory renewable energy target and introduce an emissions trading scheme, without specifying its key features. Useful first steps, but not sufficiently specific to give us confidence that they will achieve big reductions in emissions by 2020.
The best action NSW has taken is to follow Victoria in establishing a mandatory renewable energy target. However, the modest emission reductions from this will be swamped if NSW permits a conventional coal-fired power station to be built. At least three such proposals are on the table. The NSW Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, has indicated he favours a coal station. The Premier, Morris Iemma, has avoided committing himself and has attempted to reassure the public by pointing to the Government's recent approval of a gas-fired power station.
However, this is merely a peak-load station and is not relevant to the choice of the next base-load station. The program to upgrade the state's 12 coal-fired generators from 660 to 750 megawatts each will produce equivalent emissions to a new coal-fired station.
Under pressure from the property and housing industries, NSW has weakened the BASIX scheme for energy-efficient homes. On transport, it reneged on a promise to extend Sydney's light rail system, cancelled the Parramatta-Epping heavy rail link, failed to introduce an integrated ticketing system for public transport and has made negligible investment in a bicycle highway network - all indicators that it is ill-prepared for greenhouse response and for the imminent peak in global oil production.
Perhaps local climate action groups will exert sufficient political pressure to move contenders in the coming elections to adopt effective policies instead of diversions and delaying tactics.
Dr Mark Diesendorf researches and teaches sustainable development and greenhouse response strategies at the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of NSW.

------------------->Return to top

CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE

------------------->

What are the major obstacles for sustainable energy?
08 February 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11141-what-are-the-major-obstacles-for-sustainable-energy.html
What are the major obstacles that lie between our fossil-fuel guzzling present and a future dominated by renewable and sustainable forms of energy? Inadequate ways of storing solar energy, building photovoltaic cells, burying carbon dioxide and converting sugars into fuel are some of the answers given by scientists in a special issue of the journal Science.
No part of the challenge of sustainability "is more complex or more demanding than its energy dimension", writes John Holdren, president of the AAAS in an editorial. "Simply expanding what we are already doing is not merely unsustainable; it is a prescription for disaster."
According to the scientists, the key issues requiring big boosts in research efforts include:
• Developing a full understanding of the chemistry of carbon dioxide, and a better understanding of photosynthesis
• Less costly production of photovoltaic cells – the building blocks of solar panels
• Better systems for converting solar energy into a usable form, and storing it
• Improved methods of converting plant sugars into bioethanol, currently one of the most promising sources of renewable energy
• Better understanding of the risks of capturing carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels and storing it underground
Some of the issues are already being tackled. Clint Chapple at Purdue University, US, is studying the metabolic pathways that produce lignin, a substance found in wood that stiffens its cell walls. But lignin also acts as a barrier between cellulose and the enzymes used to break it down into sugars and then convert it to ethanol. By studying how lignin is made in poplar trees, and genetically engineering trees to contain more or less of it, Chapple is hoping to help poplar trees become a better source of bioethanol.
Grass and corn
Sugar molecules recovered from biofuel plants such as poplars, grasses, and corn are fermented and converted to ethanol by microbes, including yeasts. But ethanol is often toxic to the microbes, limiting the amount of fuel that can be produced.
"Engineering ethanol-tolerant strains of microbes is of the utmost importance," says Gregory Stephanopoulos of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US. In December 2006, he and his team successfully genetically modified a yeast to make it more tolerant of alcohol.
And in the area of solar power, Andrew Blakers and Klaus Weber, at the Australian National University in Canberra, have devised a way of making solar cells that might reduce the cost of solar panels by up to 75%. Their trick is a better way of making thin wafers of silicon.
Deep underground
Yet despite some advances in renewable and sustainable fuels, many energy-hungry countries – China and the US among them – appear unlikely to turn away from the dirtiest source of energy: coal.
Possibly as a result of this, there has been growing interest in carbon capture and sequestration. This technology captures carbon dioxide emissions and then injects the gas deep underground, removing it from the atmosphere and avoiding its harmful greenhouse effect.
The technology is being used on a small scale in some oil fields, where the pressure provided by pumping CO2 into the oil field squeezes out remaining oil and increases yields.
But there is insufficient research to assess how much CO2 would leak out of such reservoirs, says Daniel Schrag of Harvard University, US. He notes deep saline aquifers offer "more than enough capacity to handle centuries of world coal emissions".
But he bemoans the fact that generous allocations in the European emissions trading scheme have so far meant that the price of emitting CO2 in the atmosphere remains small.
As a result, says Schrag, there is little financial incentive to invest in research into carbon capture and storage. If carbon sequestration is to be ready for it is needed, he says, "it is time to get going, not just with small test projects but with full scale industrial experiments".
Journal reference: Science (vol 315, p 781)
Energy and Fuels - Learn more about the looming energy crisis in our comprehensive special report. <www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels>

------------------->

Launch of a comprehensive global energy strategy sets 
out a blueprint 
for tackling climate change


Brussels, 25th January 2007
Renewable energy, combined with 
efficiencies from the `smart use´ of energy, can deliver half of the world´s 
energy needs by 2050, according to one of the most comprehensive plans for 
future sustainable energy provision, launched today. 


The report: `Energy [R]evolution: A sustainable World Energy Outlook´, 
produced by the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and 
Greenpeace International, provides a practical blueprint for how to cut global 
CO2 emissions by almost 50% within the next 43 years, whilst providing a 
secure and affordable energy supply and, critically, maintaining steady 
worldwide economic development.
Notably, the plan takes into account rapid 
economic growth areas such as China, India and Africa, and highlights the 
economic advantages of the energy revolution scenario.
It concludes that 
renewable energies will represent the backbone of the world´s economy - not 
only in OECD countries, but also in developing countries such as China, 
India and Brazil.
The plan states that renewable energies have the potential to 
deliver nearly 70% of global electricity supply and 65% of global heat supply 
by 2050.

"
The Energy Revolution scenario comes as the world is crying out for a 
roadmap for tackling the dilemma of how to provide the power we all need, 
without fuelling climate change," said Sven Teske energy expert of 
Greenpeace International. "We have shown that the world can have safe, 
robust renewable energy, that we can achieve the efficiencies needed and we 
can do all this whilst enjoying global economic growth and phasing out 
damaging and dangerous sources such as coal and nuclear, " he continued. 
"Renewable energies are competitive, if governments phase-out subsidies for 
fossil and nuclear fuels and introduce the `polluter-pays principle`. We urge 
politicians to ban those subsidies by 2010."
However, the report also highlights the short time window for making the key 
decisions in energy infrastructure, which will have to be made by 
governments, investment institutions and utility companies. Within the next 
decade, many of the existing power plants in the OECD countries will come 
to the end of their technical lifetime and will need to be replaced, whilst 
developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are rapidly building up 
new energy infrastructure to service their growing economies.


Arthouros Zervos, president of the European Renewable Energy Industry 
Council (EREC) said: "The global market for renewable energy can grow at 
a double digit rate till 2050, and achieve the size of today´s fossil fuel 
industry. Wind and solar markets, already worth US$ 38 billion, are doubling 
in size every three years. We therefore call on decision makers around the 
world to make this vision a reality. The political choices of the coming years 
will determine the world´s environmental and economic situation for many 
decades to come. Renewable energy can and will have to play a leading role 
in the world´s energy future. There is no technical but a political barrier to 
make this shift." 


The report was developed in conjunction with specialists from the Institute of 
Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and 
more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the 
renewable energy industry around the world.
It provides the first 
comprehensive global energy concept which gives a detailed analysis of how 
to restructure the global energy system based only on a detailed regional 
assessment for the potential of proven renewable energy sources, energy 
efficiency and the utilisation of efficient, decentralised cogeneration.
The 
Energy [R]evolution scenario is compared in the report to the effects on CO2 
emissions (and, thereby climate change) of carrying on with a `business as 
usual´ scenario, that scenario being provided by the International Energy 
Association´s breakdown of 10 world regions, as used in the ongoing series 
of World Energy Outlook reports.


A copy of the Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook report 
can be downloaded at: 
www.greenpeace.org/energyrevolution and www.energyblueprint.info

Notes: 
The Energy [R]evolution scenario describes a development pathway which 
transforms the present situation into a sustainable energy supply, within a 
single generation. Exploitation of the large energy efficiency potential will 
reduce primary energy demand from the current 435,000 PJ/a (Peta Joules 
per year) to 422,000 PJ/a by 2050. Under the `business as usual´ scenario 
there would be an increase to 810,000 PJ/a, and a quadrupling of electricity 
costs. This dramatic reduction is a crucial prerequisite for developing a 
significant share of renewable energy sources, compensating for the phasing 
out of nuclear energy and reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. 

1. The report was commissioned by Greenpeace and EREC from the 
Department of Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment (Institute of 
Technical Thermodynamics) at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR). 

2. The report develops a global sustainable energy pathway up to 2050. The 
future potential for renewable energy sources has been assessed with input 
from all sectors of the renewable energy industry around the world, and 
forms the basis of the Energy [R]evolution Scenario. 

3. The energy supply scenarios adopted in this report, which both extend 
beyond and enhance projections by the International Energy Agency, have 
been calculated using the MESAP/PlaNet simulation model. This has then 
been further developed by the Ecofys consultancy to take into account the 
future potential for energy efficiency measures. 

4. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario describes a development pathway which 
transforms the present situation into a sustainable energy supply through the 
following mechanisms: 

* Exploitation of the large energy efficiency potential will reduce primary 
energy demand from the current 435,000 PJ/a (Peta Joules per year) to 
422,000 PJ/a by 2050. Under the reference scenario there would be an 
increase to 810,000 PJ/a. This dramatic reduction is a crucial prerequisite for 
achieving a significant share of renewable energy sources, compensating for 
the phasing out of nuclear energy and reducing the consumption of fossil 
fuels. 

* The increased use of combined heat and power generation (CHP) also 
improves the supply system´s energy conversion efficiency, increasingly 
using natural gas and biomass. In the long term, decreasing demand for heat 
and the large potential for producing heat directly from renewable energy 
sources limits the further expansion of CHP.
* The electricity sector will be the pioneer of renewable energy utilisation. By 
2050, around 70% of electricity will be produced from renewable energy 
sources, including large hydro. An installed capacity of 7,100 GW will 
produce 21,400 Terawatt hours per year (TWh/a) of electricity in 2050. 

* In the heat supply sector, the contribution of renewables will increase to 
65% by 2050. Fossil fuels will be increasingly replaced by more efficient 
modern technologies, in particular biomass, solar collectors and geothermal. 

* Before biofuels can play a substantial role in the transport sector, the 
existing large efficiency potentials have to be exploited. In this study, 
biomass is primarily committed to stationary applications; the use of biofuels 
for transport is limited by the availability of sustainably grown biomass. 

* By 2050, half of primary energy demand will be covered by renewable 
energy sources.

------------------->

Clean Energy Seen 50 Pct of Supply by 2050 - Report
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40042/story.htm
NORWAY: January 29, 2007
OSLO - Clean energies could surge to supply half of world demand by 2050 if governments crack down on use of fossil fuels, said a study by the renewable energy industry and an environmental group on Thursday.
The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and Greenpeace said renewable energies -- including wind, hydro, solar, tidal power and biomass -- could leap from 13.2 percent of world supply if governments step up a fight against global warming.
"Renewable energy, combined with the smart use of energy, can deliver half of the world's energy needs by 2050," EREC and Greenpeace said in a report entitled "Energy (R)evolution". "The bad news is that time is running out."
The forecast is far more optimistic for renewable energies than a 2006 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which predicted that the share of renewables would gain fractionally by 2030 to 13.7 percent of world energy demand.
The IEA, which advises governments, predicted that oil, coal and natural gas would continue to dominate world energy supply in coming decades.
The EREC and Greenpeace study makes sharply different assumptions from the IEA, including that oil prices will reach US$100 a barrel by 2050, promoting a shift to energy efficiency and to clean energies.
The IEA projects that oil prices, now at about $55 a barrel, will dip and then rise back to US$55 a barrel by 2030.
"The days of 'cheap oil and gas' are coming to an end," the EREC and Greenpeace study said. EREC groups European organisations representing companies making everything from solar panels to wind turbines.
"By contrast, the reserves of renewable energy that are technically accessible globally are large enough to provide about six times more power than the world currently consumes -- forever," it said.
The report also projects that overall world energy demand could fall by about 6 percent by 2050, mainly thanks to greater efficiency and despite a growing world population.
The IEA projected last year that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent by 2030.
Sven Teske of Greenpeace, an author of the report, said the forecasts were realistic if governments take far tougher action to offset global warming.
"This can happen," he told Reuters. "A problem is that governments are now giving subsidies for renewable energies to compete against subsidised fossil fuels. It doesn't make sense."
The report also assumes that governments will impose a global price on emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas released mainly by burning fossil fuels. The study estimated a carbon price of US$50 per tonne by 2050.
Story by Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

------------------->

THIS IS URL FOR REPORT: http://www.energyblueprint.info/

Energy roadmap backs renewables

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6298467.stm
Half of the world's energy needs in 2050 could be met by renewables and improved efficiency, a study claims.
It said alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, could provide nearly 70% of the world's electricity and 65% of global heat demand.
Following a "business as usual" scenario would see demand for energy double by 2050, the authors warned.
The study, by the German Aerospace Center, was commissioned by Greenpeace and Europe's Renewable Energy Council.
The report, Energy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, provided a "roadmap" for meeting future energy needs without fuelling climate change, said Sven Teske from Greenpeace International.
"We have shown that the world can have safe, robust renewable energy, that we can achieve the efficiencies needed and we can do all of this while enjoying global economic growth," he said.
He added that the strategy outlined in the report showed that it was economically feasible to cut global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by almost 50% over the next 43 years.
'Solar generation'
The report calls for ageing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to be replaced by renewable generation when they reach the end of their operational lives.
"Right now, we have five main sources of energy - oil, coal, gas, nuclear and hydro. In our scenario, we have solar, wind, geo-thermal, bio-energy and hydro," Mr Teske told BBC News.
 He added that they had developed 10 regional scenarios to highlight which renewable sources would be most effective in particular parts of the world.
"Of course, for the Middle East we have a lot of solar power, while northern Europe and North America will have a lot more wind energy in the mix.
"We also dissect it by sector," he added. "Renewables will dominate the electricity sector, and the heating and cooling sectors.
"By 2050, in our scenario, the majority of fossil fuels will be used in the transport sector."
China is pushing ahead with a rapid building programme for fossil fuel power plants to sustain its economic growth. A statistic often quoted is that it is effectively bringing a 1GW coal power station online each week.
As these plants are expected to be operating for at least 40 years, there is concern that this is "locking" greenhouse gas emissions into the world's energy supply for decades to come.
Mr Teske said this had been factored into their figures: "If you look at our scenario for China, you will see that the demand for coal will increase over the next 10 years because we have assumed that all the power plants being constructed will be used."
He added that the increase in demand for energy in emerging economies and developing nations would be balanced by greater efficiencies being made in developed nations.
But he said that it would not mean rich nations would have to "freeze in the dark"; strict energy standards would ensure only the most efficient electrical goods, heating systems and vehicles would go on sale.
Political will
The best way to curb greenhouse gas emissions without harming economic growth has made its way to the top of the political agenda.
 The European Commission recently published its strategic review, outlining a range of measures that it felt would deliver a reduction in emissions while not undermining energy security.
These included tighter efficiency standards for goods and housing in the EU; strengthening the European Emissions Trading Scheme; and plans to revamp the region's energy market.
However, plans to introduce legislation to limit CO2 emissions from cars were shelved after disagreements within the commission and further afield.
The apparent lack of political consensus on the best way to proceed was a concern, especially as a number of nations were currently reviewing the shape of future energy supplies, said Arthouros Zervos, president of the European Renewable Energy Council.
"What we want to believe is that there is a change in the minds of politicians, especially after what we have seen happen to the climate," Professor Zervos told BBC News.
"We hope this report will have an effect on the political decision making process."

------------------->

US Wind Power to Grow 26 Percent in 2007 - AWEA
US: January 24, 2007
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39984/story.htm
NEW YORK - Wind power generation in the United States will grow 26 percent in 2007, after increasing by 27 percent in 2006, the American Wind Energy Association said Tuesday.
In 2006, 2,454 megawatts of new wind generating capacity was installed, with US$4 billion invested, the AWEA said. Only natural gas generating plants accounted for more new power generation capacity last year.
A megawatt of wind power can serve between 250 and 300 homes on an average day.
There are now about 11,604 MW of wind power generation capacity, up from 10,000 MW just four months ago.
The federal "production tax credit" for wind power was recently extended to December 2008, which will help the growth in wind power, the AWEA said.
The AWEA wants the tax credit extended for an additional five years.
Wind power is attractive to utilities and governments wishing to produce power without creating greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Texas in 2006 took over from California as the top generator of wind power. Texas has the largest operating wind farm in the world, the 735-MW Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Nolan and Taylor counties.
Texas installed 774 MW of new wind generation last year, followed by Washington (428 MW), California (212 MW), New York (185 MW) and Minnesota (150 MW).
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

------------------->

ANALYSIS - Renewable Energies to Rise on Global Warming Woes
Story by Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
NORWAY: January 9, 2007
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39738/story.htm
OSLO - Solar, wind and other renewable energies are set to surge by 2050, spurred by worries about global warming but their ascent will be braked by high costs and cheap coal from China to the United States.
Many renewable energies, such as geothermal power, biofuels or tidal power, are set to leap from a tiny base but only lobby groups see renewables starting to challenge the dominance of fossil fuels by 2050. Biomass and hydro power are now most used.
"There is a huge technological potential for each type of renewable energy," said Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research. "But coal remains more attractive" unless there is a big swing in policy.
"Renewables will become competitive by the end of the century, but not by 2050" unless governments force up the price of burning coal, oil and natural gas by penalising their emissions of greenhouse gases, he added.
This year may see new impetus towards renewables when the scientific panel that advises the United Nations on climate change releases a report in February pointing to a stronger link between human use of fossil fuels and warming.
The chairman of the panel, Rajendra Pachauri, has told Reuters that evidence of the link is "far more robust" than in the last report in 2001.
That could put pressure for tougher curbs on use of fossil fuels and a shift to renewables, when a first period of restraints under the UN's Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012.
But the United States is the main uncertainty. President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001 and called it an economic straitjacket that wrongly excludes poor nations. US coal is also a reason for opposition.

COAL OR IMPORT
"Signing up for Kyoto would mean a shift from relying on domestic coal to imported energy such as natural gas from Mexico and Canada," a US official said. That goes down badly when Bush is trying to cut dependence on energy imports.
Kyoto binds 35 rich nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Dependence on coal also partly explains why Australia, the only other developed nation outside Kyoto, also pulled out. China, the United States, India and Australia are the world's top coal producers.
And China is opening a coal-fired power plant at a rate of almost one a week.
Despite coal, renewable industry groups are optimistic.
By one reckoning by Renewable Energy Corp., a solar power group, the market capitalisation of more than 30 leading renewable energy firms surged 700 percent in the past three years to 53 billion euros (US$70 billion).
And there are breakthroughs -- Denmark already generates a fifth of its electricity from wind.
The Global Wind Energy Council, for instance, projects that wind could supply 34 percent of the world's electricity by 2050.

SOLAR SURGE
The American Council of Renewable Energy is looking into ways to ensure that renewables make up 25 percent of global primary energy use by 2025 and the German Solar Industry Association reckons the solar power will eclipse fossil fuel use near the end of the century.
But many of the scenarios assume rising oil prices. Yet many investors remember that a barrel cost US$10 as recently as 1998.
The International Energy Agency's 2006 reference scenario forecasts that renewables' share of global energy demand will gain only slightly, to 13.74 percent in 2030 from 13.17 in 2004.
Biomass -- firewood, charcoal and dung that supply energy for about 2.5 billion people in the Third World and makes up about 10 percent of world primary energy use -- will slip because of widening electricity use in poor nations.
Hydropower will gain slightly to 2.4 percent as big projects such as China's Three Gorges Dam are completed while other renewables -- solar, geothermal, wind, tidal -- will surge most strongly but only to a 1.7 percent share from 0.5, it says.
"The IEA projections underestimate oil prices," said Sven Teske of Greenpeace. The IEA assumes that oil prices would dip and then rise to about US$55 a barrel by 2030.
Teske said coal could produce electricity for 4-5 cents a kilowatt hour against 5-15 for renewables. But he said generation costs in Germany, for instance, were 4-5 cents while the grid operator took 8 and the tax authorities 2-6.

------------------->

Good policy will push renewables
Susan Jeanes
January 05, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21011612-7583,00.html
THIS year's release of cabinet papers shows the nuclear power industry in Australia has been opposed for more than 30 years. This opposition was also highlighted in the Newspoll released earlier this year in The Weekend Australian, which reinforced the uphill battle for any Australian government seeking to introduce nuclear power.
In the past year, the commonwealth has established a number of reviews, taskforces and inquiries into the potential of nuclear energy, "clean" coal and geosequestration, the burial of carbon dioxide.
These processes all indicated that nuclear power, clean coal and geosequestration face significant challenges, including higher costs, and they won't be available in Australia for at least 15 years.
It's time to focus on the role that renewable energy should play in the quest to address these challenges. First, existing renewable energy technologies can deliver significantly increased levels of electricity to the national supply system now. Second, there is huge potential for emerging renewable energy technologies to deliver power in the medium to longer term.
The commonwealth last examined renewable energy through its review of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme. This scheme delivers an incentive to the developers of renewable energy projects and infrastructure. The incentive meets the difference between the cost of electricity produced from renewable sources and electricity produced from existing coal-fired power stations with high levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The inquiry, chaired by former government senator Grant Tambling throughout 2003, recommended an extension of the scheme. But the commonwealth chose not to adopt this recommendation on the basis of cost.
The decision not to increase the MRET means that new projects that will deliver emissions-free electricity into the national market will now only be developed in Victoria, NSW and Western Australia, where state incentive schemes are in various stages of development. But these schemes do not provide the national framework required to develop a national clean energy industry.
The commonwealth and Victorian governments recently announced they would contribute more than $100million to the construction of the world's largest and most efficient solar energy power station, to be developed by an Australian company, Solar Systems, near Mildura.
The potential for this technology to be sold across the world in the coming decades is enormous.
But clean energy needs more than one-off grants to build economies of scale and bring costs down.
Australia has some of the oldest and hottest rocks on the planet, relatively close to the surface and running through the centre of South Australia. Geothermal energy from hot dry rocks has received nothing like the focus that its potential deserves. Perceived transmission problems can be overcome with clever planning.
And, most significantly, geothermal energy is predicted to cost even less than all other forms of energy generation from about 2025.
Further, the knowledge and expertise that Australian companies have gained in geothermal development is already being exported through projects in Europe, where the incentives offered by governments are extensive. A number of Australian companies are also exploring opportunities in China, where policy incentives are also considerable.
Hydro schemes have been supplying baseload electricity to Australian consumers for decades. Geothermal energy has the potential to add to that supply and, in fact, there are enough sites in South Australia to meet all of Australia's present energy needs.
One site alone, Paralana in the northern Flinders Ranges, has enough heat to supply eight times South Australia's average daily demand. Imperative to the security of supply with renewables is the development of storage technologies and the integration of technologies such as wind with hydroelectricity.
Hydropower and battery technologies provide optimum storage solutions and a number of companies are trialling a range of these, but much more will be needed from the billions the commonwealth is spending on energy technology development than the $20 million allocated in the energy white paper in 2004. Most of those funds are going to assistance and subsidies for fossil fuels.
We also have to get smarter about the use of renewable energy to meet peak demand.
Not only do we have to rely on new baseload generation, we must better understand the opportunities for intermittent technologies such as solar, which produce optimum levels of energy at the times when it is needed most, on hot sunny days, and at prices much less than the peak prices the market now pays.
We have a complex problem. Not only do we need to develop the new technologies that will deliver increasing levels of energy, but we also need to pull back the rate of increase in our emissions during the time it takes to develop the new technologies.
Renewable energy can play a significant role at both levels. But the industry needs a clear policy framework that enables the ongoing development of projects with existing technologies to pull back the rate of increase in emissions and to encourage the development of the new generation of technologies.
All the recent reports and inquiries conclude that climate change is a serious challenge, that we need clean energy, that it will come at a price and that the price is affordable.
We need policy frameworks that cost the environmental impact of emissions and provide incentives for the development of a clean energy industry. Then, renewable energy technologies will be more than capable of successfully competing for market share.
Susan Jeanes is the chief executive of Renewable Energy Generators of Australia, a former member of the Howard Government and an adviser to the Howard Government on climate change policy.

------------------->

European energy plan targets big carbon cuts
10 January 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10933-european-energy-plan-targets-big-carbon-cuts.html
Europe is "addicted to energy" and needs a "post-industrial revolution", the president of the European Commission said on Wednesday, as he launched the EC's proposal for a new energy plan. The move is needed to conquer the addiction, improving energy security, and combat climate change, he said.
"Like any addiction it is even worse when you depend on someone else for it", said José Manuel Barroso at the launch in Brussels, Belgium. He was referring to the recent Russian decision to interrupt oil supplies to a European pipeline, because it alleges Poland – through whose borders the pipeline runs – has been siphoning off oil.
Barroso underlined reducing reliance on oil suppliers as one driver for moving towards a low-carbon economy. The new action plan proposes a binding target which, if adopted by member states at a summit in March, would require them, by 2020, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20% relative to 1990 levels.
Barroso and Andris Piebalgs, commissioner of energy policy, claimed this was the biggest commitment any country or group of countries has ever made to combating climate change. Pielbalgs added that they hoped it would "help improve prospects for a future international agreement".
The commissioners said pledging now to cut emissions by 20% would underline Europe's commitment to fighting climate change, but that they would push for a 30% cut in developed countries by 2020 in future international negotiations.
Three pillars
Barroso said the energy action plan had three pillars: a truly free internal energy market, where users have their choice of suppliers among all European suppliers; an accelerated shift to low-carbon energy, namely by increasing the share of renewable sources in the energy mix to 20% by 2020; and increased energy efficiency.
As part of the shift towards low-carbon energies, the commission said it would increase its annual spending on energy research by at least 50% for the next seven years.
In the UK, the Department of Trade and Industry welcomed the announcement, saying: "Climate change is the greatest challenge that we face which is why it is right that the EU puts climate change at the heart of its energy strategy. The EU and other developed nations need to show leadership if we are to reach an international agreement on climate change."
But green campaigners WWF said the plan fell short of being revolutionary. They argue Europe should commit to a unilateral 30% cut by 2020, in addition to support to developing countries for reducing their emissions. "This is the only hope we have of staying below 2°C rise compared to pre-industrial levels." A 2°C rise in temperature is often cited as the limit beyond which dangerous levels of climate change will occur.
Carbon capture
Greenpeace has condemned the energy plan's support for carbon capture technologies, which would capture greenhouse gas emissions produced by coal power plants and inject them deep into the ground where they would not contribute to global warming (see Clean energy special: Going underground).
The EC energy plan says the technology will play an important role in achieving emissions targets, and the commission intends to release a proposal for regulating it in the second half of 2007. The EC anticipates that 4.5 % of carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuel power plants could be captured in this way by 2020, and that this could increase to 30% by 2030.
"The EC is ignoring the financial costs of carbon capture and storage, its risk of failure, for example due to leakage, and that focusing on this technology diverts attention away from clean and dependable options like renewable energy and efficiency," said Mark Johnston, energy policy campaigner for Greenpeace.
On the tricky question of nuclear energy, the EC remained on the fence. It acknowledged that it is currently the most important source of low-carbon energy, while saying it is up to individual states to decide whether to adopt it in the long-term. Barroso added that if states did decide to adopt it, they could rely on the EC for assistance with security matters.
Energy and Fuels - Learn more about the looming energy crisis in our comprehensive special report. <http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels>

------------------->

Green light for offshore windfarms
18 December 2006
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12417&channel=0

Two offshore wind farms totalling 1.3GW are to be built in the Thames Estuary after consent for the projects was granted on Monday.

One of the schemes, the 1GW London Array, is set to become the world's biggest offshore windfarm once it goes up 20km off the Kent and Essex coast, occupying an area of 232 square km. The smaller 300MW Thanet wind farm will take up 11.3 square km off the East Kent coast.

Industry secretary Alistair Darling said marine technologies must play a significant role in the development of Britain's clean energy resources: "Achieving rapid growth in offshore renewables is essential if we are to reduce carbon emissions and improve the security of our energy supplies," he said.

London Array and Thanet are the first projects to be granted consent under 'round two' of UK offshore wind development, expected to produce 5-7GW GW-worth of wind power in total.

Offshore wind development in the UK has proceeded in two phases, the first of which resulted in planning permission granted for 17 sites in 2001, with a capacity of around 60-180MW at each site, and came to be known as 'round one.'

Round two is expected to deliver 15 projects, with bigger windfarms located further from shore and a total capacity of up to 7.2GW. Round two development will be focused in the Thames Estuary, the Greater Wash and off the coast of North Wales and North West England, the biggest projects by far being the 1GW London Array and the 1.2GW Triton Knoll.

The London Array project will see up to 341 turbines generating 1,000MW each go up 20km off the coast and is the result of cooperation between Shell WindEnergy, E.ON UK Renewables and CORE Ltd.

The Thanet wind farm, initiated by Warwick Energy, will comprise up to 100 turbines each producing 300MW.

Environment secretary David Miliband said the offshore projects should mark the beginning of large-scale development of offshore wind in Britain:

"We expect this announcement will be the first of a number of large-scale offshore wind farms in the UK and will provide real impetus for the continued developments in the offshore renewable energy sector that will benefit generations to come.

"By issuing the licences to build the world's largest offshore wind farms in the Thames Estuary we are re-enforcing the UK's commitment to renewable energy and combating climate change and ocean acidification," he said.

The British Wind Energy Association said that consent for the offshore farms sends a "clear signal from the UK to the rest of the world that this country is open for business for offshore wind."

"The significance of these decisions is far greater than the projects themselves, although they will bring many notable benefits to the UK in terms of clean carbon free generation," said BWEA chief executive Maria McCaffery."

The UK has the biggest offshore wind potential in the world, totalling over a third of Europe's entire wind resource, thanks to a combination of shallow waters and strong winds, according to the BWEA. Britain is set to over Denmark - which currently has the biggest installed offshore wind capacity - by 2008.

For more information on the London Array wind farm see www.londonarray.com.

For details on the Thanet farm see www.warwickenergy.com.

Goska Romanowicz

------------------->

Producers strain to supply growing wind power market
by Delphine Touitou
Sun Dec 3, 2:30 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061203/sc_afp/worldenergyalternativewindelectricityenvironment_061203040355
STOCKHOLM (AFP) - There is an inexhaustible supply of wind to drive their blades, but materials needed to make wind turbines are limited and the industry fears it will fail to keep pace with growing demand for the clean energy source.
 "We do whatever we can but it's impossible to increase our (production) capacity overnight," a spokesman for the Danish group Vestas told AFP.
"There is a gap between industrial capacity and demand, and it will take several years before we can fill the gap. Don't expect miracles," Peter Wenzel Kruze added.
Vestas is the world leader in wind turbine manufacturing.
Benefiting from spiralling oil prices and the popularity of green energy sources, wind farms -- mostly on land but also offshore -- have in recent years become an increasingly common sight throughout Europe.
Wind-generated power now accounts for three percent of Europe's electricity requirements, according to the European Wind Energy Agency (EWEA). In Denmark the figure is 20 percent, eight percent in Germany and seven percent in Spain.
EWEA hopes 22 percent of European electricity requirements will be filled by wind power by 2030.
Between 1995 and 2005 the amount of electricity produced using wind power grew on average by 32 percent per year in Europe while the number of wind turbines rose by around 22 percent.
Similar growth in the sector has been recorded in the United States where wind power production expanded by 36 percent in 2005 with the help of federal funding.
A number of countries have announced plans for major wind farm programmes both on land and at sea. The rush to wind power has proved a boon for the industry in the shape of lucrative contracts but it has also caused problems for companies as they struggle to meet multiplying deadlines.
Almost all producers have been affected by the problem for some months, according to a spokeswoman at German energy group REpower.
While there was no immediate impact on the group's results, she conceeded that future production capacity could be reduced if delays in deliveries of wind turbine parts continued.
EWEA, representing 80 percent of the wind power industry, acknowledges that delays in wind turbine deliveries, especially turbine motors, are on the increase, but does not wish to overstate the situation.
"I can not say it's a problem to have very strong demand ... it's quite a normal phenomenom in industry. It takes time for both manufacturers and suppliers to adjust production," EWEA president Christian Kjaer said.
Robert Gleitz, wind product chief at General Electric, explains that current supply problems have not affected major component parts of wind turbines such as blades, plinths or turbine pods.
Gleitz does however say that turbines ordered today would not be delivered until 2008 or possibly 2009.
"The industry is adapting and companies are in the process of reorganising their entire supply chain," EWEA spokeswoman Isabelle Valentiny said.
Firms are encouraging suppliers to greatly increase investment and are seeking more long term strategic framework agreements with suppliers and customers.
"The message is: okay, we believe in this (wind energy), you can invest," Wenzel Kruze said.
EWEA added that the price of wind power has fallen steadily in the last 20 years.
"(Wind energy) technology produces 180 times the amount of electricity that it produced in the 80's. It has matured and can compete with other forms of energy," Valentiny said.

------------------->

South Korea turning garbage into eletricity
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1811131.htm
14/12/06
South Korea has opened the world's largest garbage-fuelled power plant and expects to reduce its imports of heavy oil by 500,000 barrels per year as a result.
Officials say the 50-megawatt plant can provide power to more than 180,000 households.
It sits on a mammoth garbage dump in the city of Incheon, west of the capital, Seoul.
The plant utilises the methane gas naturally generated from the decomposing rubbish as fuel.
Officials say it reduces greenhouse gas emissions by burning away methane and avoids burning more fossil fuel for electricity.
South Korea has 12 other landfill gas power plants being built or currently operating across the country.

------------------->

Solar hot water overlooked in rush to reduce pollution
Wendy Frew, Environment Reporter
December 9, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/solar-hot-water-overlooked-in-rush-to-reduce-pollution/2006/12/08/1165081157714.html
WHILE federal and state governments argue over nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, one of the easiest ways of cutting greenhouse pollution is being ignored, energy experts say.
The greenhouse gas emissions generated by Australian homes could be cut by at least 20 per cent if consumers converted their hot water systems to solar hot water.
The technology has been available in Australia for more than 50 years but because of cheap coal-fired electricity it still remains a more expensive option in the short-term and is in only 5 per cent of homes. But industry figures show if even half of Australia's households converted to solar hot water it would cut greenhouse pollution by 14 million tonnes - the equivalent of taking 4 million small cars off the road every year.
On average, the cost of a solar hot water system can be recovered within five to 10 years, depending on the system, the manufacturer Solahart says.
However, energy experts said a direct rebate to consumers for solar hot water systems would make it a more attractive option, and made more sense than the Federal Government's current rebates for the expensive solar panel technology that turns the sun's power into electricity.
"If you are switching from an electric hot water system to solar hot water there is a phenomenal saving of greenhouse gas emissions," said Jane Castle, of the Total Environment Centre. "They are easy to install, very reliable and the high number of households that replace their hot water systems every year means there is an in-built market."
The Federal Government offered some initial support to the industry via its Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. However, that is nearly exhausted.
Putting a solar hot water system into a home was the equivalent of taking a small car off the road every year in greenhouse gas reduction terms, said Stephen Cranch, of Solahart.
Mr Cranch said that if solar hot water systems were installed in place of the more than 500,000 hot water systems replaced each year it would significantly reduce electricity demand.

------------------->

Time for holistic response on climate
Steve Shallhorn
Friday, 8 December 2006
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=538224&category=Opinion&m=12&y=2006

THE CURRENT flurry about nuclear power in Australia misses the point. What's really needed is a holistic approach to meeting our energy needs while also cutting greenhouse emissions. A startling aspect of the Prime Minister's draft Nuclear Taskforce report is the assumption that "Australia's demand for electricity will more than double before 2050". This doesn't have to be the case.

Our international panel of energy experts, who reviewed the draft nuclear report, told us, "The average Australian consumes about 12,000kWh per year; that is twice the EU average consumption per capita. The energy service delivered in Australia via these high consumption levels is not substantially different from the EU. If Australian citizens consumed the same amount of electricity as the Europeans, it could save half of the installed generation capacity, or 22,000 MW, rather than building new plants. Because efficiency is much cheaper than new generation, such a course would also lower Australians' electricity bills and make Australian industry more competitive in world markets."

Energy efficiency is simple common sense. Using more efficient appliances, better building codes and retro-fitting existing buildings are the great unsung hero in the climate-change debate. Even the Nuclear Taskforce report acknowledges that energy efficiency can contribute up to 50 per cent of the total CO2 emissions reductions. And investing a dollar in energy-efficient appliances can save $2 or more through the whole energy system.

Unfortunately, Australia's record on improving energy efficiency has not been good compared with others. The European Union has just introduced an action plan to increase energy efficiency by 20 per cent by 2020, saving an estimated 100billion euros a year in energy bills and resulting in an overall decline in energy consumption.

Energy-efficiency measures will not leave the toxic legacy of radioactive waste for future generations, as does nuclear. The British Association for the Conservation of Energy says the most optimistic assumption is that one new nuclear power plant could be operating in Britain by 2020, delivering perhaps just over one million tonnes of carbon saving. In contrast, energy efficiency "could save around 25million tonnes of carbon through cost-effective energy-efficiency measures" by that date.

The other winner in the climate-change debate is renewable energy which, contrary to government claims, can deliver reliably and not just at the margins. It just requires a rethink about our energy systems, rather than a frozen-in-time approach.

Major energy economies, such as California, plan to fast-track renewables to provide 20 per cent of electricity by 2010 and 33 per cent by 2020. In parts of Germany and Denmark wind power provides 100 per cent of the region's power needs for months of the year, and excess electricity is exported to other parts of Europe.

Taking the renewable-energy route through active policy support can not only dramatically lower CO2 emissions but position Australia as a leader in the rapidly growing global renewables marketplace. Solar and wind energy are the fastest-growing forms of electricity generation, with global growth rates of 40 per cent and 28 per cent a year over the past five years.

The global wind market is expected to have an annual turnover in 2006 of more than $A21.6billion and employ more than 150,000 people. Wind is competitive with gas in some places in Australia and will become cheaper than coal in future. In an honest assessment of the true costs (decommissioning costs and waste) wind is already cheaper than nuclear power.

Australia's solar industry has been almost static since 2003. Last year Germany installed nearly 80 times as much solar power as Australia with an average of half our sunshine. Yet Australia could develop a solar market worth $5billion by 2025, creating 44,000 jobs and cutting billions of tonnes of CO2.

If the Howard Government was serious about addressing climate change it would look at how to encourage greater energy efficiency and speed the uptake of wind, solar, geothermal and bioenergy.

Together renewable energy and energy efficiency can move us to a clean energy future one that is not based on polluting energy such as coal and nuclear power.

Steve Shallhorn is the chief executive officer of Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

------------------->

Greener, cleaner ... and competitive?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1204/p03s03-usec.html
Renewables could supply one-quarter of US energy by 2025, with no harm to economy, a study says.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
The last time renewable-energy entrepreneurs were this gung-ho, in the early 1980s, subsidies - not sales - buoyed their business plans. This time may be different. For example:
• So many utility customers signed up for the "GreenChoice" program in Austin, Texas, that the city organized a raffle to decide who would get the last 1,400 slots. The reason: The program's wind-powered electricity was actually cheaper to generate than traditional power.
• Midwestern ethanol plants this summer were producing renewable fuel at a cost of $1.27 a gallon or less, making it competitive with gasoline even without tax subsidies, notes Vernon Eidman, a University of Minnesota professor of agricultural economics.
• A recent study by the RAND Corp. shows the nation's economy would be likely to benefit, rather than be slowed, if the nation achieved the goal of supplying 25 percent of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2025.
While most renewable fuels can't yet compete with their traditional counterparts, their costs of production are falling steadily. If the trend continues, America's energy mix by 2025 could be far greener and cleaner - without damaging the economy - than most analysts could have antici-pated a few years ago.
That development would not only reduce the nation's dependence on oil, it would mean a substantial start on capping its greenhouse-gas emissions, which most scientists link to global warming. And such a move, if the RAND analysis proves correct, would come at little or no cost to the economy.
"At this point, the lines haven't crossed yet where renewables are cheaper than coal power," says Jonathan Naimon, managing director of Light Green Advisors, an institutional money manager focused on environmental investing. "But we do see a lot of opportunity as this process of renewable power getting steadily cheaper continues.... There have been reports over the years saying the long-term costs of renewables are cheaper than fossil simply because you don't pay for fuel."
New findings, new hope for renewables
The RAND Corp. report - issued in November - estimated that if the cost to produce renewable energy continued to fall at its current rate, renewables could provide 25 percent of the nation's power by 2025 at no additional cost to the economy and perhaps even save money.
If current trends continue, for example, renewable energy will be 20 percent less expensive to produce in 20 years. But the study, which examined 1,500 scenarios, goes further. If renewable costs fell at a faster rate, the nation could save $30 billion in energy costs by 2025, the report found. Even if renewable-energy costs grew slightly and oil prices fell further than expected, any negative economic drag on the economy would be slight, the study concluded.
Beyond the economics, such a shift would have a big impact on US emissions of greenhouse gases, eliminating 1 billion tons of carbon emissions - about one-seventh of total US emissions - by 2025. The US "can achieve significant reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions without significant effects on energy expenditures," the study found.
Such studies are part of a growing body of research that indicates the cost of renewables may not be an economic drag after all.
"There is an emerging consensus that we need to enter a rapid transition to clean energy technology," Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, a nonprofit energy advocacy group that requested the RAND study. "For years there has been this myth of an expensive and painful transition. This report helps knock that down."
President Bush rejected the Kyoto climate accords because of projected high costs to the economy from capping carbon emissions and tapping alternative energy. Some US studies a few years ago estimated Kyoto's potential cost at $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2010.
Building consensus in the business world
Business is also warming to renewables.
"We've reached the same conclusion as this study and so have the capital markets," says energy expert Amory Lovins, who cites $63 billion in global investment in renewables this year. "Anybody who's paying attention to the cost performance of renewables will find many that compete quite nicely now."
For example, renewable power can play a key role in stabilizing energy prices.
Having substantial wind power in a portfolio moderates rates during price swings in natural gas and coal, says Shimon Awerbuch, a British energy economist at the University of Sussex who has studied the moderating impact of wind power on electric rates.
Others agree. "No matter which way costs go as the shift to renewable energy occurs, we're not talking about a gigantic change in the energy bill for the country," says Michael Toman, director of environment, energy, and economic development program at RAND. "There's no reason to look at it as if the economy is going to grind to a screeching halt."

------------------->

Drive for nukes ignores vast geothermal resource
Renfrey Clarke
6 December 2006
Green Left Weekly issue #693 6 December 2006.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/693/35997

The federal government’s Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review, released on November 21, had only one real purpose — to provide John Howard with “evidence” for championing the nuclear power cycle. What other conclusion can we come to, when the review made its assessments while ignoring Australia’s most spectacular renewable energy resource — the “hot dry rock” geothermal energy of the Cooper Basin and other regions.

“Nuclear power is the least-cost low-emission technology”, the review baldly asserted. There was no sign that the review panel had seriously researched the alternatives. Under its terms of reference, it was not even required to do so. But armed with its assumption that no lower-cost renewable alternative to nuclear energy was even in prospect, the panel went on to urge that 25 nuclear power plants be built in Australia by 2050, in close proximity to major cities.

Actually, if review chief Ziggy Switkowski and his team had wanted to inform themselves on the real potential of Australia’s prime renewable energy source, all they needed to do was to read the Australian. In an upbeat article on September 9, the newspaper detailed how the potentially recoverable geothermal energy in the Cooper Basin, in South Australia’s far north-east, equates to Australia’s current electricity consumption for 450 years.

A little more web-browsing would have convinced the panel members that exploiting the “hot dry rock” geothermal resource in the Cooper Basin was no pie-in-the-sky technofantasy. The basic “hot dry rock” concept was demonstrated to work in 2004 at the Soultz-sous-Forêt geothermal prospect in northern France. Testing at this site in the period since has yielded encouraging results. Now that the concept has been shown to be feasible, the argument that the technology involved is unproven holds little weight. With few exceptions, the techniques used are borrowed from the oil industry, where they are familiar practice.

In Australia, investors are impressed enough with the potential of geothermal energy to have committed some $500 million to fund exploration and development work by no fewer than 14 companies. Drilling at several sites, including in the Cooper Basin, has revealed natural conditions markedly more favourable than those in France.

Once producing, Australia’s geothermal resources will release no greenhouse gases or other pollutants. Unlike wind or solar, they will provide continuous, dependable base-load power. Moreover, and giving the complete lie to Switkowski, the electricity they produce will be cheap — probably about half the all-up cost of power from nuclear plants. Modeling by energy companies suggests that the cost will be about 4 cents per kilowatt hour, similar to natural gas and only marginally more than coal.

When the stock exchange is abuzz with talk of the promise of geothermal energy, it’s hard to believe that news of this potential has really passed government advisers by. The reason why Switkowski’s panel pronounced as it did is that Australia’s hot rock riches don’t fit into Howard’s political agenda.

Wedge master Howard has scented an opportunity to split the Labor Party still further on the nuclear issue, while painting the Coalition an improbable shade of green. That’s aside from the fact that Australia’s corporate rich’s hunger for the full nuclear cycle, from uranium mining, through uranium enrichment and nuclear power plants, to reprocessing and storing the world’s reactor wastes.

Developing geothermal energy might promise to give Australia one of the world’s cleanest, greenest power generation industries. But at the end of the yellowcake road lies something far more enticing for the business chiefs — decade upon decade of nuclear industry megaprofits. Beside the money to be made at the most lucrative points of the nuclear cycle, geothermal power is strictly food for energy industry minnows.

Energy extraction

What’s the nature of the geothermal resource that the Australian enthused over in its September coverage, then shut up about in the whole pages it devoted to the nuclear option in mid-November?

Across large stretches of Australia, granites containing radiogenic elements such as uranium, thorium and potassium occur at depths from three to six kilometres, and are overlain by thick deposits of sedimentary rocks that have low thermal conductivity. The slow decay of the radioactive elements in the granites produces heat, which is kept from escaping by the insulating rocks higher up. In the Cooper Basin, an area of 1000 square kilometres has an average temperature of 270*C at a depth of five kilometres.

Like most rocks, the granites contain natural fissures which can be expanded using an oil industry technique known as fracturing. A bore is sunk into the granites and water at very high pressure is pumped in. Numerous mini-earthquakes are set off and when the pressure is released the result is a permanent, many-fold increase in the permeability of the fracture systems.

Other bores can then be sunk as far as a kilometre away, and the process repeated. If the geologists have calculated correctly, the fracture zones interconnect. Water pumped down one bore will emerge from others as superheated steam, which can be used to generate electricity; the steam can then be condensed and recycled. Although the heat has its origins in radioactive decay, the granites are virtually insoluble and, essentially, no radioactive material reaches the surface.

Over a period of perhaps 20 years, the temperature of the rocks in the underground “heat exchanger” falls to the point where extraction of further heat becomes uneconomic. But if the process is halted for several decades, the temperatures build up again.

As already indicated, the technologies used in “hot dry rock” energy extraction of deep drilling, rock fracturing, and managing hot fluids are already well developed. The fact that so much use is made of established technologies suggests that the timelines for bringing sizable geothermal plants on stream should be reasonably short <97> shorter, in all likelihood, than for nuclear power. As with all deep drilling, there are risk factors that mean particular holes can be expensive “duds”.

Lower risk

Nevertheless, the presence of granites at the required temperatures can be predicted with a high degree of certainty, and this means that the business risks involved in developing geothermal energy should be relatively low — much less, for example, than in the case of drilling for new oilfields — provided that the power generated can be got to consumers. Australia’s largest geothermal prospects are 500 kilometres or more from the nearest electrical grid connection.

These distances are not extreme by world standards, and with modern transmission technology, the losses of current en route to consumers would be surprisingly small. In any case, Australia’s geothermal prospects are not all in the remote inland. The project that is probably closest to commercial operation, at Paralana in the North Flinders region of South Australia, is only 130 kilometres from the grid. Other prospects are near the border between South Australia and Victoria, and in the Hunter Valley region of New South Wales.

Also, the building of transmission lines to remote generating plants would allow the development of resources along the way. In South Australia, a number of promising mineral deposits lie along the so-called Moomba-Adelaide corridor.

Nevertheless, the cost of building and upgrading the infrastructure needed to make geothermal energy a prime supplier of Australia’s future energy needs would be massive — as much as $800 million for a grid connection to the Cooper Basin. Development on this scale requires huge financial resources, along with an ability to plan over decades. It is thus a legitimate function of governments, rather than of private investors.

The federal government, in particular, needs to commit itself to making an exhaustive, open investigation of geothermal energy as the bedrock of eastern Australia’s future electricity supplies. If the prospects pan out — as the evidence suggests they will — the private developers should be taken over, and the necessary funds should be put into the coordinated development of publicly-owned energy systems based on renewable power sources.

Howard’s plans are, of course, diametrically different.
The more the federal government locks Australia into the nuclear option, the more potential investors in geothermal energy will conclude that the really big money will not be coming their direction. Plans will be put on hold, then scrapped. Politicians will continue to mouth off about greenhouse gas reduction, but will argue that the commitment to nuclear energy is too entrenched to allow a shift to alternatives. Unless, that is, masses of people revolt against an absurdity, and go on to organise and campaign to compel a change of course.

------------------->

Just so much hot air on warming
Jim Douglas
January 18, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/just-so-much-hot-air-on-warming/2007/01/17/1168709826122.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Those waiting for the message on global warming to get through may now be contemplating the Chinese proverb: "Be careful what you wish for." The positive news is that most politicians have at least recognised the high level of public concern about the problem. The downside is that the political responses so far amount to a flurry of ad hoc (and adlibbed) pronouncements, as politicians sense the need for more relevant and convincing answers but seem overwhelmed by the complexity and the potential for political disaster.
The result is policy chaos.
After a decade of denial on climate change, the Prime Minister, John Howard, first offered some musings on implementing clean coal technology. The coal industry poured cold water on this, and is resisting any change. Next, Howard moved on to high-profile personal sponsorship of the nuclear power option. Even if all of the 25 nuclear plants recommended by the Switkowski report were built, this would reduce Australia's contribution to global warming by only 17 per cent. The Labor Party's new spokesman on climate change and the environment, Peter Garrett, has argued that assumptions used in the report to get even to this figure are "heroic and implausible".
With internal differences on nuclear energy and uranium mining, Labor is vulnerable to policy splits and Government sniping on this issue. Most voters are wary of the nuclear option, but Labor will not benefit from this unless it has a unified position on the issue. If that position involves rejecting nuclear power, Labor will also need to produce a credible plan for how Australia can reduce emissions without nuclear energy, and we have seen no sign of this to date.
Given the uncertainty, how can the electorate decide what is a bona fide initiative on climate change, rather than tokenism or spin? One thing to watch for is how (or whether) the major parties commit themselves to developing comprehensive and impartial analyses of the options on climate change, in a time frame that allows at least some preliminary findings to be made available for the next election. Neither the Government nor the Opposition has shown much appetite for this task so far.
One consequence seems to be that much of the officially sponsored or linked analytical and policy work focuses on the politically safe subject of amelioration rather than adapting to the effects of climate change. Concentrating on amelioration is worthy, but it is also the easy first step since it can be linked to the development of measures to alleviate the effects of the drought and Australia's longer-term water shortages, allowing politicians to make a climate change virtue of necessity.
Cynics would suggest there is a strong element of diversion in this focus and it can be argued that unless it is accompanied by work on climate change abatement the strategy will be unbalanced and ineffective. The value of Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, done for the British Treasury, is that it attempts this balance, globally and for Britain. Stern suggests the cost of achieving the deep cuts in emissions needed to stabilise the climate would be about 1 per cent of gross domestic product by 2050, a figure which he assesses as significant but manageable, and less than the likely costs of catastrophic events that will occur if climate change is not addressed immediately and effectively.
One early indicator of progress would be measures to snare the "low-hanging fruit" among abatement policy options, with regulatory and fiscal measures that can be introduced quickly to provide incentives to cut emissions. The inquiry into emissions trading may be a step in the right direction, but questions remain on the make-up of the committee and the narrow scope of the terms of reference: why not consider carbon taxes, regulatory approaches and other instruments as well?
A second means of evaluating political commitment to climate change abatement will be the attitude towards participation in the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol has problems of design and implementation, but it is still the only multilateral commitment to address climate change. By sponsoring the six-nation pact on climate change, which has no teeth, and by attempting (unsuccessfully) to introduce a "new Kyoto" plan at the recent United Nations conference on climate change in Nairobi, we have embarrassed ourselves internationally.
About 80-85 per cent of greenhouse gases in Australia are created by government and industry, areas over which individual households have limited and indirect control. So, while politicians will want to be seen to offer households incentives to reduce their greenhouse footprint - and should be encouraged to do so - perspective is needed. The place in the Cabinet hierarchy of the ministry responsible for the environment and climate change is an important indicator of how serious a government is about climate change.
The longer we continue without applying effective solutions to climate change, the more irreversible its consequences will be. Australia is lagging very badly on this issue and we should no longer have to determine our positions on it, or on what to do about it, from uninformed, politically divisive notions and half-baked analyses of what is going on. Those who seek to govern us should be willing and able to offer us more than this, in return for our votes.
Jim Douglas is a visiting fellow in the School of Resources, Environment and Society at the Australian National University.

------------------->

MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source
January 22, 2007
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html
A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that mining the huge amounts of heat that reside as stored thermal energy in the Earth's hard rock crust could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.
An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, titled "The Future of Geothermal Energy" (PDF, 14.1 MB). Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, it is the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal, an energy resource that has been largely ignored. (<http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf>)
The goal of the study was to assess the feasibility, potential environmental impacts and economic viability of using enhanced geothermal system (EGS) technology to greatly increase the fraction of the U.S. geothermal resource that could be recovered commercially.
Although geothermal energy is produced commercially today and the United States is the world's biggest producer, existing U.S. plants have focused on the high-grade geothermal systems primarily located in isolated regions of the west. This new study takes a more ambitious look at this resource and evaluates its potential for much larger-scale deployment.
"We've determined that heat mining can be economical in the short term, based on a global analysis of existing geothermal systems, an assessment of the total U.S. resource and continuing improvements in deep-drilling and reservoir stimulation technology," said panel head Jefferson W. Tester, the H. P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT.
"EGS technology has already been proven to work in the few areas where underground heat has been successfully extracted. And further technological improvements can be expected," he said.
The expert panel offers a number of recommendations to develop geothermal as a major electricity supplier for the nation. These include more detailed and site-specific assessments of the U.S. geothermal resource and a multiyear federal commitment to demonstrate the concept in the field at commercial scale.
The new assessment of geothermal energy by energy experts, geologists, drilling specialists and others is important for several key reasons, Tester said.
First, fossil fuels--coal, oil and natural gas--are increasingly expensive and consumed in ever-increasing amounts. Second, oil and gas imports from foreign sources raise concerns over long-term energy security. Third, burning fossil fuels dumps carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Finally, heat mining has the potential to supply a significant amount of the country's electricity currently being generated by conventional fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear plants.

The study shows that drilling several wells to reach hot rock and connecting them to a fractured rock region that has been stimulated to let water flow through it creates a heat-exchanger that can produce large amounts of hot water or steam to run electric generators at the surface. Unlike conventional fossil-fuel power plants that burn coal, natural gas or oil, no fuel would be required. And unlike wind and solar systems, a geothermal plant works night and day, offering a non-interruptible source of electric power.
Prof. Tester and panel member David Blackwell, professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University in Texas, also point out that geothermal resources are available nationwide, although the highest-grade sites are in western states, where hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs.
The panel also evaluated the environmental impacts of geothermal development, concluding that these are "markedly lower than conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants."
"This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact," Tester said.
The report also notes that meeting water requirements for geothermal plants may be an issue, particularly in arid regions. Further, the potential for seismic risk needs to be carefully monitored and managed.

According to panel member M. Nafi Toksöz, professor of geophysics at MIT, "geothermal energy could play an important role in our national energy picture as a non-carbon-based energy source. It's a very large resource and has the potential to be a significant contributor to the energy needs of this country."
Toksöz added that the electricity produced annually by geothermal energy systems now in use in the United States at sites in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to that produced by solar and wind power combined. And the potential is far greater still, since hot rocks below the surface are available in most parts of the United States.
Even in the most promising areas, however, drilling must reach depths of 5,000 feet or more in the west, and much deeper in the eastern United States. Still, "the possibility of drilling into these rocks, fracturing them and pumping water in to produce steam has already been shown to be feasible," Toksöz said.
Panel member Brian Anderson, an assistant professor at West Virginia University, noted that the drilling and reservoir technologies used to mine heat have many similarities to those used for extracting oil and gas. As a result, the geothermal industry today is well connected technically to two industry giants in the energy arena, oil and gas producers and electric power generators. With increasing demand for technology advances to produce oil and gas more effectively and to generate electricity with minimal carbon and other emissions, an opportunity exists to accelerate the development of EGS by increased investments by these two industries.
Government-funded research into geothermal was very active in the 1970s and early 1980s. As oil prices declined in the mid-1980s, enthusiasm for alternative energy sources waned, and funding for research on renewable energy and energy efficiency (including geothermal) was greatly reduced, making it difficult for geothermal technology to advance. "Now that energy concerns have resurfaced, an opportunity exists for the U.S. to pursue the EGS option aggressively to meet long-term national needs," Tester observed.
Tester and colleagues emphasize that federally funded engineering research and development must still be done to lower risks and encourage investment by early adopters. Of particular importance is to demonstrate that EGS technology is scalable and transferable to sites in different geologic settings.
In its report, the panel recommends that:
More detailed and site-specific assessments of the U.S. geothermal energy resource should be conducted.
Field trials running three to five years at several sites should be done to demonstrate commercial-scale engineered geothermal systems.
The shallow, extra-hot, high-grade deposits in the west should be explored and tested first.
Other geothermal resources such as co-produced hot water associated with oil and gas production and geopressured resources should also be pursued as short-term options.
On a longer time scale, deeper, lower-grade geothermal deposits should be explored and tested.
Local and national policies should be enacted that encourage geothermal development.
A multiyear research program exploring subsurface science and geothermal drilling and energy conversion should be started, backed by constant analysis of results.
Besides Tester, Blackwell, Toksöz and Anderson, members of the panel include: geomechanics expert Anthony Batchelor, managing director of GeoScience Ltd. in the United Kingdom; reservoir engineer Roy Baria from the United Kingdom; geophysicists Maria Richards and Petru Negraru at Southern Methodist University; mechanical engineer Ronald DiPippo, an emeritus professor at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth; risk analyst Elisabeth Drake at MIT; chemist John Garnish, former director of geothermal programs of the European Commission; drilling expert Bill Livesay; economist Michal Moore at the University of Calgary in Canada, former California energy commissioner and chief economist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; commercial power conversion engineer Kenneth Nichols; geothermal industry expert Susan Petty; and petroleum engineering consultant Ralph Veatch Jr. Additional project support came from Chad Augustine, Enda Murphy and Gwen Wilcox at MIT.

------------------->

Cloudy future for solar innovators
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cloudy-future-for-solar-innovators/2007/01/28/1169919211783.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Paul Sheehan
January 29, 2007
On Thursday David Mills will board an airliner and fly to the United States to help build something that will exploit the clean and limitless energy source - solar power - that can replace our addiction to energy heroin, which is what oil and coal have become.
What is disturbing about this Australian success story is that Mills and his company, Solar Heat and Power Pty Ltd, are moving to America, where one US investor has just put $42 million into the company. "We are relocating the headquarters of our company in the USA," Mills told me.
"We will be a global company and are planning a number of large solar plants overseas. Some of the largest investors and power companies in the USA have realised that solar thermal power is a probable replacement for coal, nuclear and oil. They believe this will be very big business and power companies are willing to provide the large amount of initial equity to get the industry moving."
His departure is the latest variation on a depressing local theme. "No one here is listening to him," Michael Mobbs told me. Mobbs is an environmental lawyer best known for building the most sustainable, energy-efficient urban home in Australia, his famous "Chippendale house".
Given Australia is the No. 1 nation in the world in terms of available land and available hours of sunlight to develop solar energy, given Australia once led the world in solar energy research, given our appalling level of greenhouse emissions, and given one of the most advanced companies in the field of solar thermal energy is Australian, you might think this would be the place to build an industrial-scale solar power plant. But no.
"Australian business does not offer the risk equity we need, especially under the current climate in which the Government clearly favours existing coal and nuclear options based around mineral resources," Mills told me.
"The Australian Federal Government refuses to put in place strict emissions targets, strict legislation to enforce those targets, and reliable long-term market valuations for carbon emissions avoided. We can find all of those things overseas."
Don't be lulled by last week's announcement by the Prime Minister, John Howard, of the Federal Government's $10 billion, 10-year plan to attack Australia's water and soil degradation. Howard has been in office for 11 years and his response to the greatest environmental threat in Australia's history has been, and remains, incremental, piecemeal, reactive and belated.
Even the Texas oil man and environmental reactionary, President George Bush, has come round to the importance of energy security and renewable energy. In his 2007 State of the Union address before both houses of Congress last week, he said: "For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable … We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power …
"Let us … reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 per cent in the next 10 years. When we do that, we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East. To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 - and that is nearly five times the current target."
Surely this is a straw in the wind. Another straw in the wind last week was the honouring of Tim Flannery as 2007 Australian of the Year, the person who has done more than anyone to mobilise and develop public opinion on the dire fate the Australian environment faces.
Since Flannery's book, The Future Eaters, first published in 1994, sounded the warning, climate change and global warming have mobilised opinion across the political spectrum. For example, I first encountered David Mills at an energy symposium at Sydney Town Hall last year. It was organised by Michael Mobbs, hosted by the Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, chaired by Alan Jones, addressed by Malcolm Turnbull, and Mills delivered the dinner address. An eclectic crew.
Mills explained that solar thermal power was very different from the solar panels we are familiar with, which use solar photovoltaic power but which "are far too expensive for large-scale use". Good for the home, but not for the main electricity grid. In contrast, solar thermal power creates steam, the engine of all power stations. While the retail price and initial plant construction costs of solar thermal energy are higher, once carbon emissions and energy inputs are accounted for, solar thermal power is cheaper and, obviously, incomparably cleaner over the long term.
As for supposedly clean nuclear power, once carbon emissions, long-term operational costs, and the removal and storage of radioactive waste are factored in, solar thermal power is far cheaper and cleaner. Yet the only politician championing Mills's technology is the Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney, Chris Harris, a member of the Greens.
"The lack of discussion in Australia about solar thermal power reminds me of the same lack of interest shown by the media, by experts and politicians 15 years ago when I was the consultant to the parliamentary inquiry into Sydney Water," Mobbs told me. "Most of them said we couldn't use rainwater in Sydney and we couldn't reuse sewage. So I built my house to show we can."
We don't have another 15 years. The metaphor for Australian policy is the imminent departure of Mills and Solar Heat and Power, having developed their technology at a plant in Singleton, in the Hunter Valley, the heart of big coal, with all its political connections and Labor Party strings.

------------------->

Solar power eliminates bills in US home
Wednesday January 17, 2007 12:09 PM
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070117/2/123gy.html
Michael Strizki heats and cools his house year-round and runs a full range of appliances including such power-guzzlers as a hot tub and a wide-screen TV without paying a penny in utility bills.
His conventional-looking family home in the pinewoods of western New Jersey is the first in the United States to show that a combination of solar and hydrogen power can generate all the electricity needed for a home.
 Hopewell Project, named for a nearby town, comes at a time of increasing concern over US energy security and worries over the effects of burning fossil fuels on the climate.
"People understand that climate change is a big concern but they don't know what they can do about it," said Gian-Paolo Caminiti of Renewable Energy Associates, the commercial arm of the project.
"There's a psychological dividend in doing the right thing," he said.
Strizki runs the 3,000-square-foot house with electricity generated by a 1,000-square-foot roof full of photovoltaic cells on a nearby building, an electrolyzer that uses the solar power to generate hydrogen from water, and a number of hydrogen tanks that store the gas until it is needed by the fuel cell.
In the summer, the solar panels generate 60 per cent more electricity than the super-insulated house needs. The excess is stored in the form of hydrogen which is used in the winter - when the solar panels can't meet all the domestic demand - to make electricity in the fuel cell.
Strizki also uses the hydrogen to power his fuel-cell driven car, which, like the domestic power plant, is pollution-free.
Solar power currently contributes only 0.1 per cent of US energy needs but the number of photovoltaic installations grew by 20 per cent in 2006, and the cost of making solar panels is dropping by about seven per cent annually, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.
As costs decline and the search accelerates for clean alternatives to expensive and dirty fossil fuels, some analysts predict solar is poised for a significant expansion in the next five to 10 years.
The New Jersey project, which opened in October 2006 after four years of planning and building, cost around $US500,000 ($A639,754), some $US225,000 ($A287,889) of which was provided by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
The state, a leading supporter of renewable energy, aims to have 20 per cent of its energy coming from renewables by 2020, and currently has the largest number of solar-power installations of any US state except California
New Jersey's utility regulator supported the project because it helps achieve the state's renewable-energy goals, said Doyal Siddell a spokesman for the agency.
"The solar-hydrogen residence project provides a tremendous opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming," he said.
The project also got equipment and expertise from a number of commercial sponsors including Exide, which donated some $US50,000 ($A63,975) worth of batteries, and Swageloc, an Ohio company that provided stainless steel piping costing around $US28,000 ($A35,826). Strizki kicked in about $US100,000 ($A127,950) of his own money.
While the cost may deter all but wealthy environmentalists from converting their homes, Strizki and his associates stress the project is designed to be replicated and that the price tag on the prototype is a lot higher than imitators would pay.
Now that first-time costs of research and design have been met, the price would be about $US100,000, Strizki said.
But that's still too high for the project to be widely replicated, said Marchant Wentworth of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group in Washington.
To be commonly adopted, such installations would have to be able to sell excess power to the grid, generating a revenue stream that could be used to attract capital, he said.
"You need to make the financing within reach of real people," Wentworth said.
Caminiti argues that the cost of the hydrogen/solar setup works out at about $US4,000 ($A5,118) a year when its $US100,000 cost is spread over the anticipated 25-year lifespan of the equipment.
That's still a lot higher than the $US1,500 ($A1,919) a year the average US homeowner spends on energy, according to the federal government.
Even if gasoline costs averaging about $US1,000 ($A1,279) per car annually are included in the energy mix, the renewables option is still more expensive than the grid/gasoline combination.
But for Strizki and his colleagues, the house is about a lot more than the bottom line. It's about energy security at a time when the federal government is seeking to reduce dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East, and it's about sustaining a lifestyle without emitting greenhouse gases.
For the 51-year-old Strizki, the project is his life's work.
"I have dedicated my life to making the planet a better place," he said.

------------------->

How mirrors can light up the world
Scientists say the global energy crisis can be solved by using the desert sun
Ashley Seager
Monday November 27, 2006
The Guardian

In the desert, just across the Mediterranean sea, is a vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.
We are not talking about the vast oil and gas deposits underneath Algeria and Libya, or uranium for nuclear plants, but something far simpler - the sun. And in vast quantities: every year it pours down the equivalent of 1.5m barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre.
Most people in Britain think of solar power as a few panels on the roof of a house producing hot water or a bit of electricity. But according to two reports prepared for the German government, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa should be building vast solar farms in North Africa's deserts using a simple technology that more resembles using a magnifying glass to burn a hole in a piece of paper than any space age technology.
Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.
Focusing on Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, they say, Europe should build a new high-voltage direct current electricity grid to allow the easy, efficient transport of electricity from a variety of alternative sources. Britain could put in wind power, Norway hydro, and central Europe biomass and geo-thermal. Together the region could provide all its electricity needs by 2050 with barely any fossil fuels and no nuclear power. This would allow a 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production over the period.
CSP technology is not new. There has been a plant in the Mojave desert in California for the past 15 years. Others are being built in Nevada, southern Spain and Australia. There are different forms of CSP but all share in common the use of mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a pipe or vessel containing some sort of gas or liquid that heats up to around 400C (752F) and is used to power conventional steam turbines.
The mirrors are very large and create shaded areas underneath which can be used for horticulture irrigated by desalinated water generated by the plants. The cold water that can also be produced for air conditioning means there are three benefits. "It is this triple use of the energy which really boost the overall energy efficiency of these kinds of plants up to 80% to 90%," says Dr Knies.
This form of solar power is also attractive because the hot liquid can be stored in large vessels which can keep the turbines running for hours after the sun has gone down, avoiding the problems association with other forms of solar power.

Competitive with oil
The German reports put an approximate cost on power derived from CSP. This is now around $50 per barrel of oil equivalent for the cost of building a plant. That cost is likely to fall sharply, to about $20, as the production of the mirrors reaches industrial levels. It is about half the equivalent cost of using the photovoltaic cells that people have on their roofs. So CSP is competitive with oil, currently priced around $60 a barrel.
Dr Knies says CSP is not yet competitive with natural gas for producing electricity alone. But if desalination and air conditioning are added CSP undercuts gas and that is without taking into account the cost of the carbon emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers say a relatively small amount of the world's hot deserts -only about half a percent - would need to be covered in solar collectors to provide the entire world's electrical needs (see map).
The desert land is plentiful and cheap but, more importantly, there is roughly three times as much sunlight in hot deserts as in northern Europe. This is why the reports recommend a collaboration between countries of Europe, the Middle East and Africa to construct a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) grid for the sharing of carbon-free energy. Alternating current cables, which now form the main electricity grids in Europe, are not suitable for long distance transport of electricity because too much is lost on the way. Dr Trieb, of the German Air and Space Agency, says the advantage of DC cables is that the loss in transport is only about 3% per 1,000 kilometres, meaning losses between North Africa and Britain of about 10%.
"Contrary to what is commonly supposed it is entirely feasible, and cost-effective, to transmit solar electricity over long distances. Solar electricity imported to Europe would be amongst the cheapest source of electricity and that includes transporting it," he says. "CSP imports would be much less vulnerable to interruption than are current imports of gas, oil and uranium."
Algeria already exports huge quantities of oil and gas to Europe via pipelines but has a vast potential resource in sunlight that could make it a complete energy supplier to Europe. Many members of the Opec oil cartel, which have worried that alternative energies would kill demand for their oil, are blessed with hot, sunny deserts that could become a further source of energy income.
The two reports make it clear that an HVDC grid around Europe and North Africa could provide enough electricity by 2050 to make it possible to phase out nuclear power and hugely reduce use of fossil fuels.
An umbrella group of scientists has been formed across the region called the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (Trec) but the idea has yet to excite the imagination of the British government in spite of the recent Stern review on climate change.
Neil Crumpton, renewables specialist at Friends of the Earth, said: "Most politicians on the world stage, particularly Tony Blair and George Bush, appear to have little or no awareness of CSP's potential let alone a strategic vision for using it to help build global energy and climate security."
European commission president José Manuel Barroso said recently that he wanted to see the European Union develop a common energy strategy based on low carbon emissions. The Trec scientists hope German chancellor Angela Merkel will use next year's joint presidency of the EU and Group of Eight leading economies to push for an agreement on a European DC grid and the launch of a widespread CSP programme.
The outlook is not promising. More than 30 countries last week agreed to spend £7bn on an experimental fusion reactor in France which critics say will not produce any electricity for 50 years, if at all.
That amount of money would provide a lot of CSP power, a proven, working and simple technology that would work now, not in 2056.
Safer and cheaper
Dan Lewis, energy expert at the Economic Research Council, calculates that CSP costs $3-5m per installed megawatt, one-fifth the cost of fusion. "Fusion is basically a job creation scheme for plasma physicists."
Mr Crumpton agreed: "Nuclear power accounts for just 3.1% of global energy supply and would be hard pushed to provide more. Yet CSP could supply 30% or 300% of future energy demand far more simply, safely and cost effectively. In the wake of the Stern report the enlightened investment is on hot deserts, not uranium mines or oil wells."

------------------->

New hope on climate change
February 01, 2007 01:15am
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21150087-5006336,00.html
SOUTH Australia's councils must be commended for enthusiastically embracing renewable energy targets set by the State Government.
More than half of the 66 local government authorities are now using renewable energy - particularly wind and solar power - for at least 20 per cent of their power needs.
Others are achieving considerable reductions or are planning to do so.
A report commissioned by the New South Wales Government about the likely impact of climate change in Sydney in the next 50 years underlines the importance of reducing Australia's reliance on fossil fuels as the major source of power.
The Sydney report suggests summer temperatures will rise by up to 4.8C, there will be reduced rainfall but more severe storms and sea surges.
While no parallel assessment has been made in South Australia, it would be naive - even irresponsible - to believe SA will somehow be spared the consequences of global warming, which is in part caused by the excessive industrial use of fossil fuels.
It is now time for the example set by local government to be replicated, not only by the State Government but by private industry and even in homes. This may ultimately require amendments to planning laws so that renewable energy facilities are included in future new buildings, in much the same way as water tanks are now included in new homes.
Local Government Association president John Rich said one of the surprise elements of the councils' greenpower initiative has been that costs of conversion have been lower than expected.
In many cases, neighbouring councils have combined resources to implement greenpower infrastructure.
The SA Strategic Plan drawn up by the State Government set a target of 20 per cent renewable energy consumption across the state by the year 2014.
Local government is well on the way to achieving this, years ahead of the State Government's timeline.
It is now up to the rest of us to do the same.

------------------->Return to top

CLEAN ENERGY - SUPPRESSION OR SILENCING OF CRITICS

------------------->

Climate of fear silencing scientists when they must be heard
Rosslyn Beeby
Thursday, 4 January 2007
Canberra Times
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=544528&category=Opinion&m=1&y=2007

LAST MONTH former United States president and climate change activist Al Gore told 5000 scientists attending an American Geophysical Union conference to speak out on climate change. "Get involved because so much is at stake," he said.

Gore was well-aware of the political implications of his challenge. Getting involved in the global warming debate means taking a stand against government censorship and running the risk of a funding backlash or full-frontal assault on your reputation.

Here in Australia we've seen intimidation, exclusion from influence, political ridicule and censorship of scientists. We've also seen a dumbing down of the political debate on climate change as a result, with rhetoric rather than science the weapon of choice adopted by government and opposition.

The National Farmers' Federation recently claimed the Prime Minister's Emissions Trading Taskforce was "stacked" with mining, manufacturing and energy generation interests, "opting to embrace those sectors that represent the problems, and excluding many of those who offer solutions".

This selective approach was in evidence recently when federal environment minister Senator Ian Campbell addressed the National Press Club. He quoted a study published in Scientific American that he claimed cited seven options or "wedges" needed over the next 50 years to stabilise global greenhouse emissions, including carbon capture and nuclear energy.

Australian Greens climate change spokeswoman Senator Christine Milne quickly pointed out that Campbell had misrepresented Professor Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacalas' work. They had described 15 options in their study and Milne argued that by ignoring eight of these options Campbell "misled his audience about the choices we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implying that carbon capture and storage and nuclear technology are essential rather than optional."

He also failed to mention that for nuclear power to constitute one wedge in the model, "The world's nuclear power output would need to treble over the next 50 years compared with the worldwide annual growth in the nuclear power industry of about 5 per cent."

In May last year, The Canberra Times obtained a copy of a confidential report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development. It stated that solar thermal technology was capable of producing Australia's entire electricity demand and was the only renewable energy capable of making deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Written by five CSIRO Energy Technology scientists, the report said solar thermal technology was "poised to play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia" and would be cost-competitive with coal within seven years.

But sources claim that until details were published by The Canberra Times, the draft report was passed around "like a political hot potato", with no date set for its release. Despite federal government claims that the CRC "just hadn't got around to releasing it", the view taken by senior climate change scientists was that the report had been deliberately suppressed.

There are also rumours circulating that a second CSIRO report on the feasibility of geosequestration (carbon capture and underground storage) was so damning that all copies have been confiscated and possibly destroyed.

Sound far-fetched? Perhaps not when you consider many scientists working on developing renewable energy options are quite literally terrified of the implications of speaking to journalists or giving a background briefing to elucidate some of the complexities of their work.

The Canberra Times has spoken to scientists who are worried that their phone calls may be traced or emails scrutinised for comments critical of government policy. In one instance, a scientist who merely provided the correct details for a photo caption was subsequently carpeted for "unauthorised contact with the media", One senior scientist refused to be interviewed for a feature on Australia's renewable energy options, apologetically explaining that "it's just not worth the possible risk to my program's future funding."

Murdoch University's Professor on Energy Studies, Dr Phillip Jennings, has described a "climate of fear" operating among solar energy researchers. Sources at the Australian National University say two of the nation's leading solar researchers, Professor Andrew Blakers and Profess Klaus Weber the inventors of the solar sliver cell which is predicted to revolutionise the rate of global uptake of solar energy have been warned against speaking out publicly.

It's a pity, because Blakers and Weber are the kind of climate change visionaries we need to hear from, given the recent predictions by the Stern Report that we have only a decade to get greenhouse emissions under control.

This week Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop claimed Australia had to "find new ways" to encourage more students to study science at universities. For that to happen the current political climate must change. Bright students simply won't fancy a career where George Orwell's Big Brother is watching.

Rosslyn Beeby is Science and Environment Reporter.

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE CHANGE

------------------->

You can’t have your yellow cake and eat it too
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5268
Chris Dey, Manfred Lenzen
12/12/06
The future of Australia’s energy needs has opened a discussion about the various sources of power and how these will be able to sustain our increasing demand over the next 50 years and beyond.
There is divided opinion about nuclear energy with important issues including the potential misuse of uranium, long-term disposal of radioactive waste, and the infrastructure that needs to be created in order to support nuclear power, being cited as key concerns. However, nuclear power is an energy source that will produce less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, effectively helping to dissipate possibly the even more serious problem of climate change.
While Australia has, in the main, depended on coal as its main source for generating electricity, coal mining and combustions produce high levels of GHG emissions that lead to potentially dangerous climate change. It does not appear that by 2050 renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, will be able to supply sufficiently large amounts of energy, at any time of demand, to an ever-burgeoning population.
It has often been argued that Australia contributes only negligibly to global emissions, and that China and India contribute much more, and that therefore those countries should be made to act to decrease their emissions. Since climate change is a global concern, it is our considered opinion that this issue addresses all of us equally as people, as personal affluence is the main determinant for the level of emissions.
Twenty five per cent of the world’s affluent population cause 75 per cent of global emissions. Therefore the responsibility for abatement has to be measured per capita and not per country. In other words, we should not be comparing Australia versus India but rather Australians versus Indians.
Emissions in Australia have been increasing at an average rate of 2.3 per cent a year since 1970. The main driver for this is affluence.
In detailed research on the changes in the Australian economy over the last 35 years, we have shown that affluence increases have clearly outstripped technological improvements. The average Australian emits 26 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, which is about 17 times more than the average Indian.
This demonstrates how the issue of climate change is very much entwined with the issue of global inequity. Why is this so? The basic story is that rich countries have high emissions, and poor countries have low emissions. This is due to material comforts such as cars, plasma televisions, computers, refrigerators, microwave ovens, washing machines - basically modern comforts that are taken for granted in more affluent countries but not necessarily owned by citizens in those less developed nations.
In fact, the average world citizen emits about just five tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. To give all people on the planet an equal right to emit, Australians alone would need to reduce their emissions by 80 per cent, down from 26 tonnes to 5 tonnes.
Of course, this involves a major cultural change that can only commence with the commitment of individuals to make a difference in their lifestyles. For instance: are people really willing to use less power, walk or take public transport rather than drive a car?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body that collates information on the science and impacts of climate change, has drawn up future scenarios that would lead to the stabilisation of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 parts per million, which is almost double the pre-industrial level.
Under this scenario, we have to halve emissions globally by 2050, leaving just 2.5 tonnes of CO2 a year for everyone on the planet. (Note that this scenario would still lead to an average global warming of +2C and many climatic disruptions.)
To give all people on the planet an equal right to emit plus halving emissions globally, Australians would need to reduce their emissions by 90 per cent, down from 26 tonnes to 2.5 tonnes.
In their submission to the IPCC, the Brazilian Government holds the view that the problem we are now facing is the result of 100 years of economic development by the developed world. The 20th century saw major developments such as motor cars, aeroplanes, refrigeration and television, but it has left a legacy. This legacy is our accumulated effect on the climate over the last 100 years.
According to the 2002 Long-term Greenhouse Gas Scenarios report from the Australian Institute, energy efficiency measures and renewable energy can achieve greenhouse emissions reductions of up to 60 per cent by 2050. However, these emissions reductions are not enough nor, more importantly, will they occur soon enough.
The IPCC says that the earlier and the quicker emissions are reduced now, the better we can avert potentially dangerous climates a few generations down the track.
Researchers have calculated that over the past 15 years alone, Europe and North America have incurred an “emissions debt” of more than 400 billion tonnes of CO2, while the developing world has an “emissions credit” of 100 billion tonnes of CO2.
It would be hard to imagine that if Australia halved emissions, as well as giving each person an equal right to emit, while also repaying our emissions debt, we would be able to do so without nuclear energy.
Therefore there is a “Sophie’s choice” to be made between nuclear energy and fossil fuels. One risks damages from dangerous climate change and one risks damages from radioactivity. While there is no 100 per cent objective and scientific comparative assessment of these risks, which stretch many generations into the future, results of a study by the European Commission and the US Department of Energy indicate that the damages to be expected from fossil fuels are likely to exceed those from nuclear energy by an order of magnitude.
This means there is a clear trade-off between nuclear energy and fossil fuels and this is why an increasing number of scientists are realising that the real question in the debate about nuclear energy is what role our affluent lifestyles and our energy needs will play in the future.
The difficult questions to answer are: is our level of affluence non-negotiable, and if yes, what is the lesser of two undesirable outcomes - the management of the disadvantages of nuclear power (which tend to be concentrated but local) or the dispersed and global consequences of climatic disruption, with even greater unknowns.
Nuclear electricity for Australia has to be considered in this light. By changing our lifestyles and resorting to more humble needs will we be able to evade this Sophie’s choice altogether.
Professor Manfred Lenzen and Dr Chris Dey took part in last week’s Sydney Ideas forum: ‘Is Australia’s Future Nuclear?’

Dr Chris Dey is a research physicist from the Integrated Sustainability Analysis Group at the University of Sydney’s School of Physics.
Professor Manfred Lenzen is a research physicist from the Integrated Sustainability Analysis Group at the University of Sydney’s School of Physics.

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI / UMPNER REPORT

------------------->

The government-appointed panel headed by Ziggy Switkowski advocated an expansion of uranium mining and the introduction of nuclear power. Its report is at <www.pmc.gov.au/umpner>.

EnergyScience Coalition critique of Ziggy draft report at <www.energyscience.org.au>

Greenpeace has also commissioned expert reports to counter the Switkowski report – see
<www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/more-nuclear-what-internation> and
<www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/panel-comment-nukes-report>

------------------->

Experts explode Ziggy's nuclear power theory
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/experts-explode-ziggys-nuclear-power-theory/2006/12/11/1165685616752.html
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
December 12, 2006
A PANEL of eminent scientists has contradicted one of the central findings of the recent nuclear review commissioned by John Howard, declaring it unrealistic that Australia could have nuclear power plants within 10 years.
A "peer review" panel of experts from Australia and overseas, led by the chief scientist Jim Peacock, has challenged several assertions made by the inquiry headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski.
The experts urge the Switkowski taskforce to do more to sell the positive greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy by pointing out that Australia does not need nuclear power to tackle climate change. "The report needs to make clear the reasons why Australia should be considering the nuclear option," the peer review says.
The review team also concludes that the Switkowski report "under-estimates the challenge that will confront Australia if it should choose to expand the scope of its nuclear activities".
The wide-ranging critique is the result of a process where scientific experts, led by Dr Peacock, were asked to examine the Switkowski report and provide feedback to the panel.
Dr Switkowski's draft review, unveiled a month ago, argued that Australia could add nuclear energy to the mix to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions if the Government was prepared to impose a price on pollution. Dr Switkowski said Australia could build a nuclear power plant within 10 to 15 years.
The peer review was initially expected to remain confidential. But Dr Switkowski's panel has taken the decision to release the report before handing their final document to John Howard later this month.
The review team included Dr Peacock, the chairman of the Future Fund and former Commonwealth Bank boss David Murray, and a group of experts from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Their five-page report raises a number of important issues for the taskforce to consider. These include the unrealistic time frames proposed for building nuclear plants and an "under-estimate" of the amount of workers needed to be trained to work in the industry.
The peer review also says the public must better understand the risks of global warming to understand the connection between the two areas. "Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change," they say.
Environment group Greenpeace said the review had "torpedoed" the Switkowski report. "The review vindicates Greenpeace's position that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to be any solution to climate change," Greenpeace spokesman Steve Campbell said.

------------------->

MEDIA RELEASE
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Government’s own review damns Switkowski on greenhouse

Canberra, 9 December 2006: The formal scientific review of the Switkowski report shows that nuclear is no solution to climate change, Greenpeace Australia Pacific said today.

Late on Friday afternoon the Government released the official peer review of the Switkowski draft report. The peer review was chaired by pro-nuclear Australian Chief Scientist Dr Jim Peacock.

Steve Campbell, Head of Campaigns for Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “Initially the Government refused to release the peer review and now they have sneaked it out late on a Friday afternoon. It is no surprise that the Government wanted to cover it up.

"The review declares that nuclear activities need not be part of a response to climate change. Furthermore the review finds it unrealistic that nuclear power could be developed in the timeline outline by Ziggy Switkowski.

“This means that the supposed nuclear greenhouse gas savings outlined by Switkowski– already small – have also been torpedoed.

"The review vindicates Greenpeace’s position that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to be any solution to climate change.

Some quotes from the scientific review Panel released on Friday include:

"Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change."

"The draft report appears to the Review Panel to underestimate the challenge that will confront Australia if it should choose to expand the scope of its nuclear activities."

"In our view it is unrealistic to believe that a reactor could be operating in as little as ten years. Similarly, the view that only 20 people a year would need to undergo relevant training and education is an underestimate."

“In the wake of this report The Government should abandon its nuclear folly and get on with the real solutions to climate change. Renewable energy and energy efficiency could slash Australia's greenhouse gases by far more than that and in a much shorter time frame,” concluded Mr Campbell.

------------------->

ACF BACKGROUND BRIEF
 
20 November 2006
 
Matters to consider in appraising the PM's Nuclear
Taskforce Report
 
Nuclear power will remain uneconomic without major public subsidies

A carbon tax or emissions trading system will not bridge the big gaps in nuclear economics, such as massive construction costs, accident insurance, de-commissioning and perpetual nuclear waste management liabilities and the fact that nuclear facilities are potential terrorist targets. 
 
Climate change demands urgent, deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions

Nuclear power is too slow and too ineffective to make a serious dent in our greenhouse pollution levels. The Stern Review showed delayed action is much more expensive than early action. Any new nuclear power build is decades away from lighting up even a single Australian light bulb or paying its own way.
 
Nuclear power is in decline and will make a lesser relative contribution to reducing greenhouse pollution in 2030 than it does today The International Energy Association’s ‘World Energy Outlook 2006’ predicts the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear power will decline from 16 per cent globally today to only 10 per cent globally by 2030. Even under the IEA’s ‘Alternative Policy Scenario’, which assumes implementation of policies aimed at enhancing energy security and mitigating CO2 emissions, nuclear power continues to decline, “hovering around 14 per cent throughout the projection period” to 2030. Energy efficiency measures out-performed nuclear by eight to one in reducing emissions.
 
Australian uranium is a lower value export than Australian cheese

In 2005 cheese exports were valued at $875 million and uranium exports at $600. Uranium is only some 1 per cent of Australia's mineral exports and 2 per cent of our energy exports; proposed maximum uranium sales to China by 2020 would be $250 million a year – only 1 per cent of our exports to China. Uranium sales from Roxby Downs represent less than 1 per cent of BHP Billiton's global profits – a hazardous margin we can do without.
 
Safeguards can’t guarantee Australian uranium won’t end up in nuclear weapons

Australia’s role as a uranium quarry to the global nuclear industry is based on false assurances about the peaceful use of Australian uranium by importing nations.

Safeguards have unavoidable limitations. With proposed expansion of uranium exports to unaccountable China and Non-Proliferation Treaty non-signatory India, we could see Australian uranium being used by two more states that have operational nuclear weapons programs. Safeguards can’t guarantee Australian uranium won’t end up in nuclear weapons. The only thing that can be guaranteed is every gram of exported Australian uranium will end up as long-lived radioactive waste.
 
There is no economic case for uranium enrichment in Australia BHB Billiton and Rio Tinto have said there is no business case for uranium enrichment in Australia. Any move toward enrichment in Australia would contradict UN and IAEA calls for a moratorium on additional enrichment capacities as a key nuclear proliferation technology of concern and would have the potential to cause instability in our region. For every tonne of enriched uranium exported Australia would retain nine tonnes of toxic long lived radioactive wastes requiring isolation for thousands of years. Dr Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said: “There is no compelling reason to build more of these facilities.”
 
For further information see:

‘An Illusion of Protection: the unavoidable limitations of safeguards on nuclear material and the export of uranium to China’, a joint report by the Medical Association for the Prevention of War and the Australian Conservation Foundation. www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1012
 
and The Energy Science Coalition: www.energyscience.org.au
A panel of scientists, engineers and nuclear policy experts have launched a series of new nuclear briefing papers on their website on all aspects of the nuclear industry. The Energy Science Project has been supported as a community service by the Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society (ACSIS) at the University of Melbourne and will be expanded and updated as Australia's energy and climate change debate unfolds.

------------------->

PM puts faith in nuclear power
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-puts-faith-in-nuclear-power/2006/12/29/1166895479257.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
December 30, 2006
PRIME Minister John Howard has stepped up the case for nuclear power, telling reporters the Government would be "crazy in the extreme" if it blocked the development of nuclear energy in Australia.
Indeed, Mr Howard would not object to a nuclear plant being built next door to his Sydney home. "I wouldn't have any objection, none whatsoever. I'm serious, quite serious," Mr Howard said when asked if he would want a reactor next door.
"I believe very strongly that I'd be failing Australia if I didn't factor in nuclear power as part of the solution (to global warming)," he said. A nuclear industry would not happen "tomorrow", but over a period of 10 to 20 years. "It is foolish and backward-looking and old-fashioned of people to say we will always oppose the use of nuclear power."
His comments followed the release of the recommendations of his hand-picked nuclear energy taskforce, lead by former telco boss and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski.
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd immediately condemned Mr Howard's decision to give the industry the green light.
"Mr Howard's plan for 25 nuclear reactors is too expensive, too dangerous, too slow, when it comes to the impact of green-house gas emissions," he said.
Labor was committed to renewable energy sources. "We think the right way, in fact, involves clean, green energy." The final report was also blasted by state governments, including Victoria's, and the Greens.
"The Government is now scrambling to create a perception that it is doing something, knowing full well that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to provide any answer to global warming," said Greens senator Christine Milne.
A Victorian Government spokesman said the state will retain its existing laws preventing uranium mining.
"Nuclear energy does not make environmental or economic sense … We aim to cut 27 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by focusing on solar, hydro and wind energy," the spokesman said.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie challenged the Federal Government to reveal where it planned to put the waste generated by nuclear reactors.
The final taskforce report, released by Mr Howard yesterday, predicts that Australia could build up to 25 reactors, providing one-third of Australia's electricity by 2050.
The report says nuclear is 20 to 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired electricity and will not be viable unless a price is placed on the carbon pollution from fossil fuels, perhaps in combination with government subsidies.
It also stands by its claim that Australia could build its first reactor within 10 to 15 years, despite the doubts of Australia's chief scientist, Jim Peacock.
The final report includes a new chapter explaining at length how nuclear energy could help cut carbon dioxide emissions, following a request from the peer review team led by Dr Peacock.
The new chapter draws on Britain's recent Stern Review and other international work finding that temperatures will rise due to the so-called greenhouse effect.
Mr Howard acknowledged nuclear power was not economically feasible at present, but said it would become viable as the push to clean up fossil fuels drove up the price of coal.
He said Dr Peacock had written to him at the conclusion of the Switkowski inquiry restating his support for nuclear energy.
Greenpeace said the Government was sidelining clean energy in its haste to go down the nuclear path.
"If the Government is really serious about reducing Australia's greenhouse emissions, they should get out of coal (and) support energy efficiency and renewable energy like solar, wind and geothermal," spokesman Stephen Campbell said.

------------------->

Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Secretariat
c/- Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
3-5 National Circuit
Barton ACT 2600

Dear Secretariat

Re: Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review draft report

The Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) provides this feedback on the draft report released by Dr Ziggy Switkowski on 21 November 2006. MAPW presented a detailed submission to the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER) in August 2006, outlining our considerable concerns about the health, safety and proliferation aspects of the inquiry.

----

Despite its self-congratulatory and solipsistic claim to providing ‘a factual base’ and ‘an analytical framework’ for considering the role of nuclear power in Australia’s energy future, UMPNER is inherently partisan and depressingly narrow in perspective. The authors begin from the assumption that there is little if any role for energy conservation and efficient use of electricity. This failure to explore and implement habitat-friendly behaviours is precisely the kind of uncritical thinking which drives the climate change catastrophe.
Within the report there are many examples of intrinsic and habitual bias. An example is the (optimistic) assertion that 25 nuclear reactors could give an 8-18% reduction in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (page 2). However the reports authors neglect to mention the resulting generation of plutonium, a weapons fuel. Those 25 reactors working over 30 years (from 2020 to 2050) would produce approximately 150 tonnes of Pu-239, enough for thousands of nuclear weapons.
If the adoption of multiple nuclear reactors were to effect a greenhouse gas reduction of 8 – 18 % of national emissions by 2050 as asserted in the draft report, evaluation of a limitation on nuclear power’s benefit will help to guide public policy decisions on electric generation technologies. The draft report notes that it is only the nuclear reaction that is greenhouse neutral. Greater emphasis must be given in the summary of the final report to the CO2 emissions associated with the mining and processing of uranium, with the construction and decommissioning of the power plant, and with the associated transport fuel.

THE TRUE COSTS:
The draft report recommends that all electricity generation activities must be treated on an equal footing, “on a whole life cycle basis” (page 6). This includes full and proper costing of CO2 emission for all the technologies. It also includes radioactive waste management, security measures, decommissioning, monitoring and lifetime insurance in the nuclear power case. This is a key public policy recommendation and should be emphasised in the final report, particularly in its summary.
The draft report notes that current uranium reserves could last 50 – 100 years at current levels of use. Uranium is not a renewable resource, and this fact alone makes nuclear power unsustainable. An important corollary of that, missing from the summary, is that as the years pass, the reserves remaining will be of ever decreasing quality. This lower quality means that dollar costs, energy costs and carbon emissions all must rise as higher grades of ore are depleted. This is a significant public policy conclusion that must be included in the summary to the final report.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION:
Importantly, nuclear weapons proliferation is inadequately addressed in the draft report. It is a crucial issue for national security and associated public policy. The Taskforce did not commission a study on the issue.
The bold assertion that increasing uranium exports would not have any influence on weapons proliferation is based on faith, not the facts, illustrating the recurring role of non-military nuclear applications in proliferation of weapons programs in multiple instances.
The final report must acknowledge that the Taskforce did not have professional competence in international relations, nuclear proliferation issues and national security. Thus the final report should advise that a competent evaluation of those issues must be made before decisions are made about further mining and export of uranium or about nuclear power for Australia.

NUCLEAR WASTE:
The report admits that "no country has yet implemented permanent underground disposal of high level waste... several countries are now proceeding with well developed and thoroughly researched plans for deep geological disposal of high level radioactive waste" (p5) It fails to identify that the longest planned site, Yucca Mountain in the US, which despite 20 years and US$9 billion expenditure, has still not been able to guarantee its safety as a long-term nuclear waste disposal site. A license application has not been submitted, it is unclear that a license would ever be granted by the US Nucear Regulatory Commission, and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman admitted in Feb 2006 that no date could be estimated for when the repository might open. And even without new nuclear reactor construction, by 2012 the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the US will exceed the 63,000 MT statutory limit for Yucca Mountain.
No country currently plans to have a repository in operation before 2020 at the very earliest, and all repository programs have encountered serous problems.
If the cost of disposal is included in the overall economics of nuclear electricity as the draft report says it must, then it would have to allow for potentially huge cost blowouts for management of waste, if the current world experience is to be a guide. However by stating that this long term solution would not need to be in place until 2050, it passes the responsibility on to our descendants to manage the poisonous legacy of our energy profligate generation.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY:
The report asserts ‘good management’ in Australian nuclear industry to date. This is a clear misrepresentation in view of hundreds of instances of mismanagement (leaks, spills, contamination, regulatory breaches) at the existing Ranger, Roxby and Beverly uranium mining operations and a failure to monitor health impacts in local populations despite known distribution of radio-toxins into the habitat and food chain.
The draft is silent on known and quantified increased risks to workers in nuclear industry. It does not take into consideration the multiple reported and controversial clusters of childhood cancers and congenital malformations in vicinity of nuclear reactors, while advocating for 25 new reactors to be built close to (ie within tens of kilometers as stated by Dr Switkowski in launching the draft report) population centres.
Further the draft report displays no consideration of the well-documented capacity of LLIR to injure chromosomes and the long-term genetic implications, including gene pool effects and generational toxicity
The authors have failed to consider the community health implications of building 25 nuclear reactors in our communities. As well as the enormous financial burden, we can anticipate ‘necessary’ increases in the power of police and other surveillance authorities, in addition to the potential for restrictions on the public’s right-to-know and resist imposition.

ACCIDENTS, TERRORISM and SABOTAGE:
The failure to seriously address the vulnerability of nuclear reactors to sabotage or terrorism resulting in catastrophic radiation emergencies suggests the report’s authors were not interested in detailing the less savoury potentialities of nuclear electricity generation. Failure to do so is a case of profound bias and intellectual neglect.
It is grossly inadequate to simply assert the unassailability of ‘modern’ reactors. There is as yet no practical experience with most new reactors designs, which must therefore be regarded as unproven and at this stage, theoretical. Serious and meaningful examination of the risks of building multiple new nuclear reactors around Australia would include modeled projections of meltdown scenarios in vicinity of the reactors either from accident or sabotage. Human error can not be ruled out of the risks posed by this industry. The near miss of a core meltdown and catastrophic release of radioactivity at Wappenfall in Sweden this year highlights that these risks are not specific to particular reactor designs or settings. Contrary to the impression given by the report, there have been not one or two serious nuclear reactor accidents, but a total of seven incidents, involving different types of reactors in different countries, including the US, Canada and UK, where breach of the reactor vessel have occurred.
In several key areas there are biased and blinkered references to Chernobyl data. A ‘balanced’ assessment would refer to the multitude of scientific data available which authoritatively contradicts the IAEA material. Selective reporting does not provide either ‘a factual base’ or ‘an analytical framework’ for discussion: it gives a whitewash to a complex and controversial subject.

COMMUNITY IMPACT:
In ‘Looking ahead’ [p.8] the authors refer to the importance of ‘community involvement’, not ‘community agreement’. This is in contradistinction to recognised world’s best practice. There is also no acknowledgement that ‘community involvement’ post Harrisburg and post-Chernobyl brought the nuclear industry to its knees in the US and Western Europe. There is an implicit assumption that the community will not resist imposition of nuclear facilities and yet this is the factor most likely to ensure the non-viability of nuclear power in Australia [witness the restraints on uranium mining over the past decade, the failure to resolve waste management, the rejection of the Jervis Bay reactor]

---

This draft report fails in these ways to investigate and state the full implications of nuclear power industry in Australia and globally. Furthermore, it should not be allowed to take the place of a comprehensive inquiry into future energy management in Australia in the context of global warming and nuclear proliferation, the two greatest threats to all humans and our total planetary system.
The Medical Association for Prevention of War therefore finds that the UMPNER draft report is a made-to-order green light for a massive expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia. The draft report demonstrates a cavalier disregard for the inevitable detrimental impact on human health resulting from the spread of nuclear weapons, accumulation of radioactive waste, the appalling lost opportunities in energy efficiency, conservation, and the development and deployment of benign, sustainable and renewable energy technologies.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Bill Williams, MB, BS - MAPW Vice President
Dr Ian Newman, BSc PhD FAIP - MAPW Tasmania Spokesperson and Visiting Fellow in Biophysics (University of Tasmania)
Dr Jenny Grounds, MB, BS     - MAPW Treasurer
Dr Sue Wareham, OAM, MB, BS     - MAPW Immediate Past President
Assoc Prof Tilman Ruff, MB, BS (Hons), FRACP - MAPW President

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - VARIOUS

------------------->

MEDIA RELEASE
JANUARY 31, 2007

ENERGY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION GETS IT WRONG ON NUCLEAR POWER

The EnergyScience Coalition has today criticised the report of the Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) which proposes the introduction of nuclear power into Australia. (<www.esaa.com.au/papers__submissions.html>)

Dr Mark Diesendorf, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies at University of New South Wales and EnergyScience Coalition member, said: "The ESAA study claims to be 'informed, expert and fact-based'. But the input assumptions and hence the results reflect the vested interests of a number of its members who own most of Australia’s coal-fired power stations, including the two most greenhouse-polluting, Hazelwood and Loy Yang A."

Dr. Diesendorf continued: "Many of the assumptions underlying the ESAA study are unrealistic, especially in an era of greenhouse crisis. For instance the ESAA model assumes:
* absurdly high growth in demand for electricity;
* a very limited role for efficient energy use, which actually has huge economic potential;
* a price for wind power in 2030 that is higher than its current price at most Australian sites;
* operational performance of bioenergy power stations that is far below current performance overseas;
* unrealistically low prices for electricity from coal-fired power stations with carbon capture and sequestration;
* unrealistically low prices for nuclear power stations of a type that don't exist at present."

"No doubt ESAA had the best of intentions in commissioning the report. But, its choice of unrealistic assumptions has turned the report into a political document which could be used by the federal government to try to justify its neglect of efficient energy use and renewable energy," Dr. Diesendorf said.

Dr. Diesendorf concluded: "Embedded in the unrealistic assumptions and results are some important admissions:
* Coal-fired electricity with carbon capture and storage “is unlikely to be available before 2020”.
* To meet a 2030 emissions target which is equal to or less than the 2000 level of emissions, brown coal power stations would have to be phased out.
* Although the report highlights low-costs for coal-fired electricity with carbon capture and storage, it concedes that costs could be up to twice the current cost of dirty coal."

(The EnergyScience Coalition is a panel of independent scientists, engineers and nuclear policy experts formed to provide factual and objective information on nuclear and energy issues. <www.energyscience.org.au>.)

------------------->

Greenpeace has produced some useful reports on nuclear power ... here is the media release plus URLs to the reports ...

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/news/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-industry-a-failu

Nuclear power industry a failure
Australia — The nuclear power industry has had 50 years to prove itself and failed! Energy efficiency is still Australia’s best answer to climate change, says the international panel of experts Greenpeace commissioned to look into the Prime Minister’s Nuclear Taskforce draft report.
Download the panel's latest comments (pdf 78kb).
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/nuclear-power/additional-comments

Read about their original comments.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/news/nuclear-power/real-answers

Another flawed nuclear report

Hot on the heels of the release of this draft report comes the House of Representatives Uranium report. Released on 4 December, the 800 page report -- Australia's uranium -- greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world -- also paints a rosy future for going all things nuclear.

The report is part of a House of Representatives committee Inquiry into developing Australia's non-fossil fuel energy industry established in March 2005. The first 'case-study' of the inquiry was to look at uranium.

The report paints uranium as a climate change saviour and also
recommends that Australia further consider becoming part of the 'back-end' of the nuclear fuel cycle -- code for Australia becoming an international
nuclear waste dump.

Steve Shallhorn, CEO Greenpeace Australia CEO says the Uranium report is completely misguided. "The assertion that nuclear is the only solution to climate change is so off the mark as to put into question the integrity of the whole report."

The report waxes lyrical about nuclear power as the main solution to climate change and the only 'clean', proven way of delivering reliable ongoing electricity. Yet the report itself acknowledges that it did not consider other energy options stating "the committee does not wish to enter into a nuclear versus renewables debate". Why not?"

Particularly when renewables and energy efficiency offer the way for substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 10 - 20 years. Even the best forecast in the pro nuclear Switkowski report showed that even with 25 nuclear power stations Australia would get no greenhouse benefits before 2030 and then as little as an eight per cent reduction in gases by 2050.

Mr Shallhorn also said: "it's just ludicrous to suggest that nuclear power is 'green' when after 60 years there is still no acceptable solution for disposing of dangerous radioactive nuclear waste."

The Uranium report also paints a glowing future of 'modern reactors' but this is all conjecture. These so called new generation nuclear technologies don't exist yet. It’s still just paper physics. So once again the nuclear industry wants us to go down some long and risky path, big on promises, short on outcomes. When our resources and environment would be better off by creating the framework for renewables and promoting energy efficiency.

Just this week, the only new reactor being built in the European Union, the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 reactor, is once again surrounded in controversy with another announcement that the project was further delayed. Greenpeace International said: “the main reason is the attempt to push down costs at the expense of safety and reliability." This is the reactor project that was supposed to demonstrate 'new' reactors could be built on time and to budget.

The whole world is made unsafe by any expansion of the uranium and nuclear fuel cycle, meanwhile the clean, efficient and safe energy options are ready to go right now.

------------------->

Nuclear the way to go: Howard
Peter Martin
30/12/06
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=political&story_id=543576&category=Political&m=12&y=2006

Prime Minister John Howard, until now a staunch supporter of the coal industry, has spoken of the need for Australia to cut its reliance on the present generation of coal-fired power stations as it moves to a nuclear future.

Claiming that nuclear power stations were safer than coal-fired stations, the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would have no objection to having one built next to his own home in Sydney.

Asked whether he was serious, MrHoward replied, "I am serious, quite serious. I wouldn't have any objection. None whatsoever."

Launching the final report of the Switkowski inquiry into nuclear energy, Mr Howard said that Australians "clearly need to recognise that we can't go on using coal with the current level of greenhouse-gas emissions and also make a contribution to climate change". As recently as last month, the Prime Minister spoke of wanting to shield Australia's coal industry from the consequences of action to fight global warming, saying it was "in Australia's national interest to play a part in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but in a way that doesn't damage our vital industries such as the coal industry".

The new stance came as the Prime Minister undertook to refer the Switkowski report's findings on greenhouse-gas emissions and the costs of different forms of power to his Emissions Trading Taskforce which is due to report in May 2007.

It heightens the likelihood that the Prime Minister will mid-next year endorse some form of emissions-trading regime that imposes a financial penalty on the operators of Australia's existing coal-fired power stations in order to assist the development of new low-emission technologies, including nuclear power. He warned that the changes would mean higher power prices. "If there are to be reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, power bills will over time go up. There's not much doubt about that, that's been said before and it ought to be acknowledged," he said.

He has asked his Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane to bring a submission to cabinet early in the new year on ways in which the Government could quickly remove impediments to the development of nuclear power.

The Switkowski report foresees the development of 25 nuclear reactors along Australia's coast, producing about one-third of the nation's power when nuclear generation becomes cost competitive.

Mr Howard said the Government itself would not be building any of the reactors and it would not be choosing the sites. "I think they should be where it makes commercial sense, where environmentally it's reasonable and all the other factors that will be taken into account. But we won't be building nuclear power stations and none are going to be built in the immediate future," he said.

The Opposition Leader, Kevin, Rudd said that the Prime Minister's stance would present voters with a clear choice at next year's election. "Either they can vote for Mr Howard, and get 25 nuclear reactors in the country; or they can vote for us, and we'll not be having one bar of nuclear reactors for this country," he said.

Mr Howard also called yesterday on Labor state and territory leaders to remove any remaining restrictions on mining and export of uranium. Restrictions remain part of Labor's national policy platform.

------------------->

Support for N-power falls
Steve Lewis and Joseph Kerr
December 30, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20989451-601,00.html
SUPPORT for a nuclear power industry in Australia has softened, undermining John Howard's campaign to win backing for the "clean and green" energy source.
A special Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Weekend Australian, shows Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's pledge not to build any nuclear reactors is backed by most voters.
Just 35 per cent of voters support the construction of nuclear power plants across Australia - down from 38 per cent in May.
Nearly 40 per cent of voters remain strongly opposed to nuclear power, highlighting the challenge for the Prime Minister as he embarks on an election-year crusade in support of the alternative energy source.
Setting up a robust election-year battle, Mr Howard slammed Labor as "foolish, backward-looking and old-fashioned" as he released a high-level report suggesting nuclear power could be viable in 15 years.
He predicted nuclear power would become "increasingly economic" as consumers faced higher energy bills in response to cleaner coal technologies.
But Mr Rudd repeated Labor's pledge on nuclear reactors, claiming the energy source was too expensive and dangerous.
And he demanded Mr Howard spell out where up to 25 nuclear reactors would be positioned.
Labor's quest to win back the thousands of female voters who were alienated by Mark Latham in 2004 should also receive a boost from its hardline anti-nuclear stance.
Only 24 per cent of women support nuclear power compared with 47 per cent of men. Support is also stronger among Coalition voters, with 51 per cent backing nuclear energy - compared to just 29 per cent among Labor supporters.
Despite weak public backing, Mr Howard yesterday predicted community support would build for nuclear power as he released the final report by Ziggy Switkowski's taskforce into uranium mining and nuclear energy.
"I think the public over time will accept it because I think Australians are very rational and sensible people. They will understand that nuclear power is clean and green," he said.
The final report is strongly consistent with the draft released last month, which suggested 25 nuclear power plants could provide a third of Australia's electricity needs by 2050.
It found Australia could double its uranium exports by 2015, but any move to develop a uranium enrichment industry here faces challenges.
But with Labor likely to make great political mileage from the spectre of power plants located in constituencies across the country, the final report goes to greater lengths to set out the safety of modern nuclear technology.
The report argues the health risks posed by other chemical or physical agents are greater than those by exposure to radiation.
It also spells out the massive challenge that "rapid climate change" poses for human adaptation and "the stability of nation states", arguing nuclear is a low-emission technology that can help achieve deep cuts in greenhouse gases.
But compared with the draft, the final report revises down by 10 per cent the extent to which Australia's electricity demand will grow by 2050.
As he prepared to go on annual leave, Mr Howard used the findings of the Switkowski taskforce to argue that nuclear power must be part of Australia's future energy solution.
"If we are to plan for the future ... the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years, you have to take nuclear into account," he said.
"We have the largest uranium mine in the world and we have about 38 per cent of the world's recoverable uranium reserves so we would be nationally indolent if we didn't take advantage of that enormous gift that providence has left us."
Mr Howard, who owns a family home in the leafy north shore of Sydney, said he would be happy to live near a nuclear reactor: "I wouldn't have any objections, none whatsoever."
But he stressed the Government would not be dictating where reactors may be placed, saying this would be driven by commercial decisions.
The 67-year-old Prime Minister sought to pre-empt Labor's fear campaign by arguing he was about the future, not about the past.
"I have thought about this issue a great deal and I believe that I would be failing Australia if I didn't stand up for a sensible, rational consideration of the nuclear option," he said.
"And if the Labor Party wants to run an old-fashioned, negative fear campaign, if it wants to embrace the old politics, let it do so but it's not going to alter my view because I know that what I am saying is right for Australia's future."
But Mr Rudd, speaking in Queensland, challenged his rival to name where nuclear reactors would be located.
"Mr Howard is now talking about 25 nuclear reactors for the country," the Opposition Leader said. "He has to answer the question about where are they going to go and we know from previous scientific reports that a large number would have to go near the coastline."
While Dr Switkoswki's taskforce found that nuclear energy could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Labor leader stridently rejected nuclear power as a way of addressing climate change.
"We believe that Mr Howard's plan for 25 nuclear reactors on our coastlines is too expensive, too dangerous and too slow in delivering real results on reducing emissions," Mr Rudd said.
One of the big challenges for the Government will be consideration of a carbon tax on coal as a means of making nuclear more cost-efficient. But Mr Howard was cautious when asked whether the Government would consider subsidies.
"Well, we are great believers in allowing as much as possible the market forces to operate," he said yesterday. "We need to push ahead with developing clean coal technology."

------------------->

Nuclear fits if energy is to get clean
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-fits-if-energy-is-to-get-clean/2007/01/30/1169919337161.html
Liz Minchin, Environment Reporter
January 31, 2007
Australia will not significantly cut its greenhouse gas emissions from energy unless the Federal Government introduces a long-term reduction target and people pay more for electricity, the country's major energy suppliers have warned.
And nuclear power could be a big winner if that happened.
That finding comes as a new survey shows most Australians are opposed to nuclear power, with Victorians and middle-class people the most concerned about living near a nuclear plant.
Electricity production generates about a third of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions every year.
According to a new study by the Energy Supply Association, Australia could achieve a 30 per cent cut in energy emissions by 2030 without using nuclear power or new technology to capture and store carbon emissions underground, mainly by using far more natural gas, closing most existing coal plants and reducing demand.
That option would cost between $4 billion and $10 billion less in construction costs than the two other alternatives the association considered — nuclear power or carbon capture technology.
But the association says production costs of relying mainly on gas, renewables and, to a lesser extent, coal, would be up to twice as high. For that reason, the study concludes that the cheapest way to cut Australia's high energy emissions would involve going nuclear and building "cleaner coal" plants, although neither is expected to be possible before at least 2020.
Meanwhile, a poll of 1200 people released yesterday showed that two-thirds of Australians were opposed to having a nuclear plant in their local area, a quarter were in favour, and 9 per cent were undecided.
In general, middle Australia was most strongly opposed to living near a nuclear plant, with 73 per cent of middle-income households saying they were against the idea, compared with 61 per cent of low-income households and 63 per cent of high-income households. Women and Victorians also expressed particularly high opposition.The survey was commissioned by left-leaning think-tank, the Australia Institute.
The institute also released its own study identifying 19 sites that may be suitable for nuclear power plants, building on previous research it published last year.
Possible Victorian sites were South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip and Portland.
Taking into account waste and decommissioning costs, the Energy Supply Association study concluded that nuclear plants could provide 15 per cent of power needs by 2030.
But the study cautioned that regardless of what technologies were involved, if people want cleaner electricity, it could mean paying between 25 to 50 per cent more than today.
Association chief executive Brad Page stressed that the study should not be taken as backing any single energy source.
"What this shows us is there's no silver bullet and no sole technology is going to deliver all the answers we need," Mr Page said.

------------------->

PM bets house on uranium
Mark Davis Political Correspondent
December 30, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-bets-house-on-uranium/2006/12/29/1166895479956.html
THE Prime Minister, John Howard, has declared he would have no problem with a nuclear power plant being built next door to his family home in Wollstonecraft as he stepped up his push for Australians to embrace the nuclear fuel cycle.
Releasing the final report of a government taskforce on uranium mining and nuclear energy, Mr Howard said a country like Australia with abundant uranium reserves would be "crazy in the extreme" if it did not allow for the development of nuclear power.
Asked by reporters whether he would share community concerns about safety if a nuclear reactor was located next to his own home, Mr Howard said: "I wouldn't have any objection, none whatsoever. I'm serious, quite serious."
He said the taskforce headed by the former Telstra chief executive, Ziggy Switkowski, had shown there were no sound reasons to prevent expansion of uranium mining and debunked several myths about nuclear energy.
He called on state governments to lift bans on further uranium mining and exploration.
The Federal Government would respond soon to the report's recommendations to boost training of skilled workers such as geologists with uranium experience and radiation safety officers.
"Nuclear power is part of the solution both to Australia's energy and climate change challenges," Mr Howard said.
"It is not going to come immediately because it is not economic at the present time, but it will become increasingly economic as we clean up the use of coal."
His pro-nuclear comments mean the issue will figure prominently in next year's federal election. Labor says it will campaign locally on the issue by warning that nuclear plants could be built in neighbourhoods or towns if the Government was re-elected.
The report found that growing world demand for uranium gave Australia a timely opportunity to expand mining of the ore. It estimated exports of uranium oxide could double to more than $1 billion a year by 2010 if state legislative restrictions were lifted.
It gave a more qualified endorsement to processing and enrichment. Although this would add significant value to local production, there were high commercial and technological barriers to a local processing industry, it said.
The report said investment in nuclear plants would ease the challenge Australia faced in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
But it said nuclear power would be commercially viable only if coal- and gas-fired electricity generators were obliged to meet the environmental costs of their greenhouse gas emissions through a carbon pricing scheme.
The Wilderness Society released its own report, arguing that several European countries were containing growth in greenhouse emissions without going down the nuclear path. It said this could be achieved by Australia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and adopting a target of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

------------------->

Scientists say: go solar for answers on climate change
Ben Selinger
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=lifestyle%20news&subclass=innovation&story_id=554386&category=science

CANBERRA:The debate over climate change and our energy future must take place within a framework set by the natural laws of the physical world.

There are only three main sources of energy on earth. There is solar energy captured by plants in earlier eons and now stored as coal, oil and gas.

There are radioactive elements, like uranium and thorium, from which energy can be extracted.

Nuclear also includes "hot rocks" that derive heat from underground nuclear energy, and nuclear fusion mimicking the sun, both of which might some day provide high-density, relatively clean energy.

And there is an unlimited supply of low-density solar energy which continually downloads on to earth.

The most relevant natural law by which we are bound is the second law of thermodynamics. In its simplest form it says, "There are no free lunches."

When we burn fossil fuel, carbon and hydrogen in the fuel react with the oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide, water and heat. This process is not easily or quickly reversed. Carbon dioxide and water are very stable. The bonds between the atoms are very strong, so to split CO2 back into carbon and oxygen, or water back into hydrogen and oxygen, requires more energy than was released by the original burning. Using fossil fuels to power such a step would be self-defeating, so we need to think about other sources of energy.

As this process takes lots of energy, and solar is really diffuse, perhaps what we need is a factory that's really spread out. Hey, let's design a forest.

Up till now we have relied on plants to break down carbon dioxide and water, but we have been overloading the system ever since we invented the steam engine.

So what are the options for continued use of fossil fuel?

1)Invent solar reversers that are better and faster than plants. Plants have had the odd billion years start but we might improve marginally through genetic engineering. We would need to do this on a huge scale, which would require a lot of agricultural land.

2)Collect CO2 from burning fossil fuels, compress it and store it forever. I doubt if anyone sees this as a realistic solution that will make a difference globally. Mega-quantities of stored CO2 represent a lethal hazard if ever released by accident or intent. And compression of a gas as anyone who has pumped up a bike tyre knows requires a lot of energy that is wasted as heat. Piping away excess carbon dioxide is a pipe dream aimed at sustaining an unsustainable industry.

3)We can use solar energy directly via solar water heating, solar thermal, photoelectric, wind, tide energy, and bio-fuels. Although fossil energy is needed to produce and maintain the mechanics for these energy options, solar provides by far the best answer, for relatively low-intensity domestic use. Because solar energy is low intensity and widely dispersed it is secure from natural and unnatural disasters, and contiguity of supply and use means low transmission losses. How about hydrogen? What holds for carbon, holds equally for hydrogen. There are no free lunches, just bludging off the sun. Some exotic plant species might allow us to tame them into using solar reversal to convert water to hydrogen. Chemists have devised synthetic water-splitting solar cells that show promise. But it is all very small bickies.
Say someone invents a brilliant hydrogen fuel cell. This still needs a supply of hydrogen. Another finds a good solvent for CO2 but then still needs to do something with this greenhouse gas. Emperor Coal's new cleaner clothes can't disguise the fact that the Emperor is mainly carbon and still ends up as carbon dioxide. He will need to be taxed on the damage he does.

To sustainably counter global warming we need a solar process for either energy generation or fuel regeneration. It can be natural plants or synthetic plants which split CO2 into carbon and oxygen or water into hydrogen and oxygen. There is no sustainability without the sun.

The apparent exception to the thermodynamic rule is the one energy source that most are prejudiced against nuclear. It's not a free lunch but a significant packed lunch provided when the earth was formed and as it matured. We can draw down on it without affecting the overall equations that keep us in compliance with the physical laws. The lunch menu nuclear fuel is "eat once and throw away". Nuclear reactions are not recyclable. Nuclear energy is high intensity and generates about 16 per cent of the world's electricity. Its efficiency is increasing and fuels like thorium make it safer and weapon-free. There is no doubt that it is a necessary technology, at least in intermediate timeframes. It requires fossil fuel energy to make its hardware, dismantle it safely, and deal with the waste.

Solar also requires hardware built using fossil-fuel energy. While the energy payback for wind energy is very good, for silicon photo-voltaics it is very poor, and this may not change much. A significant investment in solar photo-voltaic energy would require huge amounts of silicon. Remember the idea of a charcoal factory on the South Coast to be used to produce silicon from sand near Lithgow? Charcoal becomes CO2 as sand silica becomes silicon.

Further necessary purification of silicon is also energy intensive and, ironically, the service of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is required to neutron-dope silicon for photo-voltaics, iPod memory chips and the like.

Large ingots, each a single crystal of silicon, are exposed to a neutron beam which causes one in every billion silicon atoms to gain a proton and an electron and thus turn into a phosphorus atom . This irradiated silicon is sliced into chips and used for a wide variety of applications. The sun runs a series of nuclear energy reactions and will maintain its enormous energy output for a few more billion years. Except for our minute solar lunch, it all appears to be "wasted". To enjoy a bigger lunch not to mention breakfast, dinner and heavy snacking between meals we need only pay for the energy cost of the hardware needed to collect and use it. And that energy might eventually be solar as well.

So the long-term outlook for sustainable energy points to solar. Significant investment should flow that way, but the pressing question is "what is the best intermediate strategy?" Nuclear investment does make sense. And on-going scare campaigns about nuclear power-plant placement provide a market mechanism for bringing down seaside property prices to more realistic levels.


Ben Selinger is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the ANU. secondlaw.com

This story originally appeared in The Canberra Times.

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - POTENTIAL LOCATIONS

------------------->

Nuclear family: 12 sites named as most suitable
Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
January 31, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/nuclear-family-12-sites-named-as-most-suitable/2007/01/30/1169919341557.html
SOME of the most scenic and historically important locations in NSW could be the best places to build nuclear power plants. But the Federal Government may need to offer land owners generous compensation to overcome opposition, a report says.
Botany Bay, Port Kembla, Sussex Inlet and the Central Coast are among 19 sites identified by the Australia Institute as most suitable for nuclear power plants because they are near large bodies of water needed to cool the plants and are close to the national electricity grid.
But a Newspoll of 1200 people done for the think tank in December showed that although only 50 per cent of Australians opposed a domestic nuclear power industry in general, 66 per cent would not want a plant in their local area.
Overseas experience shows elaborate schemes are needed to overcome fierce local opposition, the report says. In Japan, for example, laws were introduced to compensate communities that have nuclear facilities in their area, while in the US and parts of Europe, location problems have prevented private operators from owning and operating plants.
"Overseas experience shows that the siting of power plants is one of the most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate," said the institute's director, Clive Hamilton.
In May last year, the Prime Minister called for a "full-blooded debate" on whether Australia should have a domestic nuclear power industry, and not long afterwards established an inquiry.
He said debating potential sites for nuclear power plants was a scaremongering campaign that amounted to "putting the cart before the horse". The first thing to establish was whether an industry was economically feasible.
But Dr Hamilton said you could not have the debate without considering the sites.
"Research from Japan found that when people assess the value of nuclear power at a general level, they weigh both the perceived risks and potential benefits," the report says. "Yet when it comes to a siting situation, perceived risks become the overriding factor and the weighting given to potential benefits is greatly diminished."
The report said the four main criteria for the siting of a nuclear power plant were proximity to electricity infrastructure, large centres of electricity demand, transport infrastructure to move uranium and nuclear waste, and access to large quantities of water to cool a plant's core.
Other considerations included building plants as far away as possible from large population centres on safety grounds; building them in a seismically stable area and one that did not suffer from extreme weather events; and building them away from ecological and economic areas that would suffer from any potential contamination of ground water and soil.
The seven sites identified in earlier reports by the institute has risen to 19 in its latest report, with Queensland topping the list with seven locations including Bribie Island and the Sunshine Coast.

------------------->

Nuclear Plants - Where would they go?
Two thirds of Australians oppose nuclear power plants in their local area according to new research by the Australia Institute.
The finding is made in Who Wants a Nuclear Power Plant?, a paper analysing support for nuclear power in Australia by Institute Deputy Director Andrew Macintosh. Polling for the Institute by Newspoll shows that while 50 per cent of people oppose the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia, opposition escalates when people consider the prospect of a plant being sited in their local area.
“Middle Australia is most concerned,” Mr Macintosh said. “A large 73 per cent of middle income households are opposed to living near a nuclear plant, compared to 61 per cent of low income and 63 per cent of high income households.
A large proportion of women (75 per cent) and people with children (72 per cent) are also opposed to living near a nuclear power plant.”
In a second paper, Siting Nuclear Power Plants in Australia, Mr Macintosh identifies 17 likely sites for nuclear power plants in Australia.
Launching the papers today, Institute Director Dr Clive Hamilton said “Overseas experience shows that the siting of power plants is one of the most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate.”
“The Prime Minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded debate about nuclear energy,” Dr Hamilton said. “We can not have this debate without considering siting issues”.
Based on four primary and six secondary criteria, including proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national electricity grid, areas identified as possible nuclear plant sites are:
* in Queensland – Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast
and Bribie Island;
* in NSW/ACT – Port Stephens, Central Coast, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex
Inlet;
* in Victoria – South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip and Portland; and
* in South Australia – Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port Augusta/Port Pirie.

Copies of the two papers are available on the Australia Institute website. <www.tai.org.au>

------------------->

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=105091
Coastal sites flagged for nuke reactors
Tuesday Jan 30 22:35 AEDT

Nuclear reactors are likely to be spaced out along the Australian coast from Townsville in Queensland to Port Augusta in South Australia under a nuclear-powered future, a new study says.

Queensland would have six reactors and the coast around Sydney from Port Stephens to Jervis Bay would have four power plants, left-wing think-tank the Australia Institute says.

Victoria would have four more and South Australia three, including one at Port Adelaide, it suggests.

In all, the study names 17 likely sites for reactors, based on criteria such as proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national electricity grid.

The institute also surveyed 1,200 Australians on their attitude towards having a reactor in their local area and found that 66 per cent were opposed.

A quarter of those surveyed, 25 per cent, were supportive and nine per cent undecided.

Fifty-five per cent were strongly opposed and just 10 per cent strongly in favour.

The study follows a determined push by the federal government towards the nuclear generation of electricity.

A government commissioned inquiry headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski last year reported reactors would have to be positioned within tens of kilometres of the east coast national power grid.

It found that nuclear generation was attractive in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions and could be viable if there were to be a price on carbon.

That inquiry posed the scenario of 25 reactors producing a third of Australia's electricity needs by the year 2050.

The institute's director Dr Clive Hamilton said overseas experience showed that the siting of power plants is one of the most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate.

"The prime minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded debate about nuclear energy," Dr Hamilton said.

"We cannot have this debate without considering siting issues."

Report author Andrew Macintosh said the fact that nuclear energy attracted moderate levels of support at a general level but fierce opposition from local communities when concrete proposals were put forward suggested the presence of the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomenon.

"That is, even if people do not oppose nuclear power plants at a general level, they often object to proposals to construct them in their local areas," he said.

The report raised the possibility that governments might compensate communities in a bid to placate local opposition to nuclear facilities.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane declined to comment on the report, saying the nuclear debate was too young to be talking about placement of reactors.

"It's too early to start speculating," a spokeswoman for Mr Macfarlane told AAP.

"He just wants to talk about it and start investigating it. Deciding on sites is something that's going to happen way down the track."

Labor's resources and energy spokesman Chris Evans said people in the communities identified by the report should expect a nuclear power plant in their area if Prime Minister John Howard's nuclear plans are successful.

Labor is opposed to a nuclear industry in Australia.

"Instead of talking up nuclear power John Howard should be encouraging an immediate increase in the use of renewable energy and the introduction of clean coal technologies," Senator Evans said.

"With Australia's existing energy resources, there is no reason for us to go down the nuclear path."

Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the report was further evidence Australia should not go nuclear.

"Australia needs to go on a low carbon diet, not a nuclear binge, and these figures show John Howard is increasingly out of step with Australians who are desperate for real action on climate change," he said.

Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the report unsurprisingly showed that populations close to the suggested sites did not want nuclear power plants.

"Instead of talking about 25 possible nuclear power plants, the prime minister should be looking for another 25 sites for major wind power stations and another 25 solar power stations," she said.

©AAP 2007

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - STATE GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

------------------->

Last Update: Saturday, December 30, 2006. 8:08am (AEDT)
Beattie presses PM on nuclear waste plan
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1819522.htm
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says communities across the country face the threat of becoming home to nuclear reactors, after the Prime Minister yesterday said Australians must accept that nuclear energy will be part of the future.
Prime Minister John Howard released the final report into nuclear energy yesterday morning, saying it would be crazy to say no to its future use.
Mr Beattie says the Queensland Government will continue to oppose the development of a nuclear industry.
He says he is concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste.
"What do you do with the waste? It's here for a few hundred thousand years," he said.
"We've got to store it in Australia, there's not going to be people around the world who are going to want the waste."
Mr Beattie says he is concerned that Queensland communities may be forced to accommodate nuclear plants and waste.
"A number of Queensland communities now face the real threat of becoming home to nuclear reactors and a dumping ground for dangerous nuclear waste," he said.
"I'd say to the Prime Minister, where are we going to dump the nuclear waste? What part of Australia?"
Acting West Australian Premier Eric Ripper has also rejected the Prime Minister's claims that the nation needs to embrace nuclear power in its energy future.
Mr Ripper says the Federal Government needs to consider other options.
"There are alternatives, clear coal technology, renewables, geothermal electricity, investments in energy efficiency, these are the measures that should be looked at, not nuclear power which will be very expensive, very, very expensive for electricity consumers," he said.
Mr Ripper says he is very concerned a recent High Court decision may enable the Commonwealth to force nuclear power on the states.
"The extent of the Commonwealth's potential power following the High Court's decision on the industrial relations legislation is very alarming," he said.
"I would not want the Commonwealth to abuse its rights [but] that's a potential given the sort of decision the High Court made."

------------------->

WA looks at anti-nuclear laws
November 28, 2006 01:00pm
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20836874-2761,00.html

WA may introduce laws banning a nuclear power industry, following the federal government's commitment to developing the energy source.
It follows a similar move announced yesterday by Queensland Labor Premier Peter Beattie after a report released by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski that 25 nuclear reactors could produce a third of the country's electricity by 2050.

"We already have laws in WA banning the importing, transporting and storage of nuclear waste,'' Premier Alan Carpenter said.

"However given the Howard Government's commitment to establishing a nuclear industry in Australia, I think it is now time to go one step further and explicitly ban the construction of nuclear power plants and uranium enrichment in our state.''

Mr Carpenter said the Howard Government and its Federal Liberal colleagues had signalled an intention to use Commonwealth powers to ride rough-shod over the states on this issue.

"That should not stop us from fighting on behalf of the people of WA to stop this unnecessary and unwanted push,'' Mr Carpenter said.

"Legislation banning a nuclear industry in WA would send a clear message to the Federal Government from the State Parliament and the people of WA.

"Like Mr Beattie, I also think a referendum on the issue would be warranted.''

Mr Carpenter said WA would watch the passage of the Queensland legislation with interest.

It could be possible to use that state's legislation as a template for use in WA, with a view to introducing legislation next year or amending the current laws relating to nuclear waste storage.

"We do not need, nor do we want nuclear energy in WA.

"A far better option is to promote the use of our clean natural gas reserves and increase the use of renewable energy sources such as wind power, bio-fuels and solar.''

------------------->

WA to ban nuclear facilities
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1799591.htm
Tuesday, November 28, 2006. 6:15pm (AEDT)

Western Australia is to follow the lead of Queensland and introduce legislation banning the construction of nuclear power stations.
Premier Alan Carpenter says the legislation will be introduced early next year.
He says it will include a provision for an immediate referendum, should the Federal Government override Western Australia's laws.
Mr Carpenter says the results of the referendum would send a clear message to Canberra that the people of Western Australia do not want a nuclear power industry.
But State Opposition leader Paul Omodei says he does not take the proposal seriously.
"I think the nuclear power referendum situation is the biggest red herring that I've seen in my whole life," he said.
"It's unlikely that we'll ever have a nuclear power plant in Western Australia, given our abundant natural resources - certainly gas and coal.

------------------->

Beattie will ban nuclear facilities
Tony Koch
November 28, 2006
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20832579-30417,00.html
LEGISLATION will be introduced in the Queensland parliament prohibiting the building of nuclear power plants, despite Peter Beattie acknowledging the federal Government has powers to override such laws.
The Premier said yesterday the legislation would be presented to parliament this week banning nuclear facilities, including uranium enrichment plants, nuclear power stations and waste sites.
"Under the Howard Government, Queensland communities face the very real threat of becoming home to nuclear reactors and a dumping ground for dangerous nuclear waste," Mr Beattie said.
"They have given no consideration to the impact of this decision on Queensland's multi-billion-dollar coal and mineral industry - the backbone of our state's booming economy."
Mr Beattie said the legislation would provide for a future plebiscite on nuclear issues.
"The Howard Government wants to push ahead with this proposal regardless, but we want to make sure Queenslanders have a chance to have their say," he said.
Mr Beattie said that if the federal Government adopted a policy supporting nuclear generation, uranium enrichment or dumping facilities, a plebiscite would be put to Queenslanders seeking a vote on whether they supported such facilities. "At least Queenslanders would be given the chance to be heard."
Treasurer Anna Bligh said the negative impact of nuclear power on the nation's coal industry and economy had to be taken into account.
"A recent independent study we commissioned shows a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station," she said.
"That is not a smart option when we are experiencing the worst drought on record."

------------------->

Last Update: Friday, December 29, 2006. 6:12pm (AEDT)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1819469.htm
Potential nuclear power sites must be revealed, says Labor

Labor leader Kevin Rudd says the Prime Minister must identify where nuclear power plants would be built if Australia were to go down the path of nuclear energy.
John Howard has released the final report of the Government's review into nuclear energy, uranium mining and processing.
The report has found nuclear power is part of the solution to Australia's future energy needs and the challenge of climate change.
Mr Howard expects, over time, Australians will come to accept nuclear power.
"They will understand that nuclear power is clean and green," he said.
Mr Howard says he would have no problem with living next door to a nuclear power plant.
But Mr Rudd has questioned both the safety and cost of nuclear power and the location of future reactors.
"The key question is this, Mr Howard is now talking about 25 nuclear reactors for the country," he said.
"He has to answer the question about where are they going to go and we know from previous scientific reports that a large number of them would have to go near the coastline."
He is also adamant there would be no reactors built under a Labor government.
"We need to make renewable energies part and parcel of our future," he said.
It is a position backed by both the Greens and environment groups.
States and territories

The Northern Territory Government has expressed its concerns over where waste created by a nuclear power industry in Australia would be stored.
The Territory's Chief Minister Clare Martin says she is fearful scientific research of nuclear waste will be ignored and the Territory will be turned into a waste dumping ground.
"We've been chosen for the site of a nuclear waste dump because the Prime Minister can choose a site in the Territory," she said.
Ms Martin says uranium mining is only one of a number of energy options Australia should consider.
She would also like to see an increase in natural gas and solar power production.
Meanwhile, Victorian Premier Steve Bracks has accused Mr Howard of taking the energy debate in the wrong direction.
Mr Bracks wants the Federal Government to invest more in renewable technology instead.
He says nuclear energy would be an economic and environment disaster for Victoria.
"The reality of nuclear power generation is, one, we don't have a sound or secure source to store radioactive waste," he said.
"Secondly, of course we know it's enormously expensive - something like a 50 per cent increase in power prices around the country would be required to make it even viable."
Also, South Australian Premier Mike Rann says a nuclear power plant in his state would not be viable.
"We are making a lot of money as a state and employing a lot of people in uranium mining, but that doesn't mean to say that we should move to build a nuclear power station here," he said.
"If it's going to be financially irresponsible, economically unviable - that would be daft."
Western Australia's Acting Premier Eric Ripper also says his Government is standing firm and will not accept uranium mining or nuclear power in the state.

------------------->

Nuclear power is the story of the past
By Peter Garrett
January 2, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/nuclear-power-is-the-story-of-the-past/2007/01/01/1167500057942.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
On Saturday night, TV news bulletins carried breathtaking satellite photographs of a massive ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields breaking off from Ellesmere Island, in Canada's remote north.
Scientists labelled it a dramatic and disturbing incident that may signal the onset of accelerated climate change. As our own drought may be indicating, our planet's climate appears to be heating up and changing faster than previously thought.
Given this urgency, can we afford to wait decades for the slowest and riskiest alternative to fossil fuels - nuclear power - to come on line when faster, greener and more affordable solutions already exist?
Prime Minister John Howard's hand-picked pro-nuclear panel led by Ziggy Switkowski has released a report that says Australia can meet a third of its electricity generating needs by 2050 by building 25 nuclear reactors.
Howard has hailed the report by saying it proves that nuclear power is "clean and green" and "increasingly economic". He has been repeating this obviously focus-tested mantra for some time, believing that repetition will make it true.
But I suggest the mantra has as much credibility as his other claim, that he and his neighbours on Sydney's North Shore would be happy to have a nuclear reactor close by to destroy their property values.
It's important to put the Prime Minister's claims into their proper perspective.
They certainly don't stack up environmentally. In reality, electricity generation accounts for only about 40 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. So even if we accepted the far-fetched scenario that up to 25 reactors could be built, nuclear power potentially addresses only a maximum of 17 per cent of Australia's contribution to the heating up of our planet.
Clearly, nuclear power cannot take the place of serious efforts to reduce our greenhouse emissions. But even this 17 per cent is based on a set of heroic and implausible assumptions that make Switkowski and Howard into the proverbial kings of wishful thinking.
They fail to include a number of important calculations relating to waste disposal and decommissioning, making the whole risk much more expensive than we are being led to believe.
They assume the viability of a cheaper and safer so-called "new generation" of nuclear power plants and enrichment technologies that are currently nothing more than a set of theoretical assumptions - and, of course, history tells us that previous new generation reactors, like the failed "fast breeder" reactors, have failed to live up to their promise.
They assume it will be possible to achieve economies of scale by building 25 reactors, starting just a decade from now, despite our lack of existing nuclear skills and infrastructure.
And, most reckless of all, they canvass the removal of legal and regulatory "impediments" that protect the environment and affect the nuclear industry's economic viability - which we can take as code for massive taxpayer subsidies and protection.
The spectre of public subsidies hangs over the Switkowski report, and this explains the reluctance of Treasurer Peter Costello and the Treasury to make a submission to it.
In fact, as the British House of Commons' Audit Committee on the Environment reported earlier this year, half a century of failed predictions from the nuclear industry inspire little confidence in their claims of affordability and efficiency.
How strange then, that a Government led by a supposedly devout believer in the free market is pushing hard for a nuclear power industry that will only stand up if subsidised.
What we need is a fair system in which cleaner energy alternatives are allowed to compete within an international market for carbon emissions.
Surely it's economically smarter to allow investment in clean technologies to be determined by the market than by a bias for any one particular industry. Australia needs to act now, not 20 years from now, and we already have the technologies to do it. We need to improve our use of gas, which is far cleaner than coal at present.
We also need to raise the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target to encourage investment in wind, geothermal, wave and solar technologies. It's easy to forget that until recently Australia was a world leader in solar power. Renewable energy is one of the fastest-growing industry sectors in the world, making it, not nuclear power, which is stuck in a rut, the logical place to start.
And we need fair dinkum energy efficiency measures that would make the sort of savings the Switkowski report says are possible through the creation of a nuclear industry - all without making us a repository for much of the world's radioactive nuclear waste, another part of the Prime Minister's dream to make Australia an energy superpower.
I believe that once people read the Switkowski report and see for themselves that it's based on little more than rubbery figures and superhuman assumptions, they will see through the Prime Minister's claim that nuclear power is clean, green, affordable and futuristic.
In reality, nuclear power is an old, dirty and vulnerable technology that will require massive subsidies and come online only when it will be too late. Nuclear is not the way of the future, it's the way of the past. It's the lazy, risky alternative to real energy reform.
Combating climate change is one of the biggest environmental, economic and political challenges we have ever faced, so it is vital that we get the answer right.
Peter Garrett is the federal member for Kingsford Smith, and Labor's spokesman on climate change, environment and heritage and the arts.

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR POWER - GLOBAL STAGNATION, UNCERTAIN PROSPECTS

------------------->

ANALYSIS - Nuclear Power Faces Reduced Role in Energy Mix
UK: January 9, 2007
Story by Daniel Fineren
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39732/story.htm
LONDON - Nuclear power's share of global power supply is likely to shrink over the next few decades as political indecision and public opposition stunt its growth.
Even optimists do not see a big expansion in nuclear power's share of electricity production over the next few decades, despite governments warming to it as fears over climate change and security of energy supply intensify.
"In relative shares, in most projections out to 2030 nuclear power is going to decline," Hans-Holger Rogner, head of nuclear energy planning at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters.
The IAEA expects nuclear power to produce 12-13 percent of global electricity by 2030, down from the current 16 percent, while the International Energy Agency forecasts 10-14 percent. But Rogner said that long construction times, planning obstacles, a lack of trained nuclear engineers and lingering public fear all hindered the progress of nuclear energy.
"Even if there is a momentum of rising expectations for nuclear power, it will take time to propagate to the system," he said. "Many countries, even nuclear countries, have lost the capability. They don't have the licensing authorities in place any more, and they have to re-educate their people."
The IAEA forecasts an increase in nuclear generation capacity of 20-30 percent by 2030, but as overall electricity generation capacity is going to double in that period -- with most of that met by coal, renewables and gas-fired plants -- nuclear looks like being left behind.
Beyond 2030 is very hard to predict because it mostly depends on whether fears over climate change override the fear of nuclear power that still lingers 20 years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
"One accident could set everything back," Rogner said. "If we have a little bit more climate catastrophe it may just go the other direction."
If there is a big shift towards nuclear over the next few decades, amid accelerating climate change and diminishing fossil fuel reserves, the technology might grow its share of generation, but not until the middle of the century and beyond.
"Our 2050 projections, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios and so on... you get into the 20 to 25 percent range of nuclear generated electricity," Rogner said.

CLIMATE CHANGE
The global response to climate change, together with soaring oil and gas prices, has helped bring nuclear power out from the shadow cast by Chernobyl.
But growing political discussion in the developed world about the benefits of the technology has yet to result in large scale nuclear build, while Europe's ageing, state-built reactors hobble towards retirement.
"Is it just lip service that our politicians pay or do they really mean it?" Rogner said. "That will make a difference over the next 20 to 30 years."
Because of the huge costs involved in building new nuclear plants and disposing of the waste, private companies demand investment security from governments, particularly a long-term, global cost on carbon emissions. There is no sign of that yet.
Even where there is a cost for carbon, potential investors in new European reactors are reluctant to commit to new build because Europe's CO2 trading scheme currently ends in 2012.
"It's hard to see private industry investing in nuclear power stations without guarantees from government, not only for carbon but also for... waste disposal and decommissioning," Andrew Nind of Poyry Energy Consulting said.
Nind said that increasingly liberalised markets of Europe discourage new nuclear build, but that growing environmental concerns might force governments to assume enough of the risks involved to encourage private industry to build it.
"A lot will depend on the weather and the political will to do something about global warming," he said.

GROWTH AREAS
As it stands, Asia will probably see the biggest nuclear energy growth over the next few decades, observers say.
The IAEA says 16 of the 29 reactors being built are in developing countries. Most of those are in Asia, with India leading the pack with seven new reactors and China just behind.
Meanwhile, 20 years after Chernobyl, public distrust of nuclear power lingers in Europe and its role in generation there is likely to shrivel as political indecision and public opposition persist.

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM ENRICHMENT IN AUSTRALIA

------------------->

MEDIA RELEASE - NOVEMBER 21, 2006

SWITKOWSKI REPORT ENDS HOWARD'S URANIUM ENRICHMENT DREAM

The Ziggy Switkowski nuclear report commissioned by the Howard government puts an end to the Howard government's ill-conceived plans to establish a uranium enrichment industry in Australia.

According to Friends of the Earth's national nuclear campaigner Dr. Jim Green: "By far the most significant and surprising aspect of the Switkowski report is that it pours buckets of cold water on the Howard government's enthusiasm for establishing a uranium enrichment industry in Australia. It confirms that an enrichment industry would be an expensive white elephant which would struggle to attract business."

The Switkowski report states that: "The enrichment market is very concentrated, structured around a small number of suppliers in the United States, Europe and Russia. It is characterised by high barriers to entry, including limited and costly access to technology, trade restrictions, uncertainty around the future of secondary supply and proliferation concerns." The report concludes that "there may be little real opportunity for Australian companies to extend profitably" into enrichment and that "given the new investment and expansion plans under way around the world, the market looks to be reasonably well balanced in the medium term." The Switkowski report also notes: "The greatest proliferation risk arises from undeclared centrifuge enrichment plants capable of producing highly enriched uranium for use in weapons."

Dr. Green said: "While Howard likes to compare uranium enrichment to value-adding in the wool industry, enrichment plants can be used to produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons. Establishing a nuclear weapons production capacity by pursuing enrichment would be foolish and would encourage other countries in south-east Asia to develop a weapons production capacity."

The Switkowski report states that nuclear power would be 20-50% more expensive than coal or gas-fired power. Dr Green said: "Switkowski is using the most optimistic estimates of the cost of nuclear power. A recent Victorian Department of Infrastructure report found that nuclear power is twice as expensive as coal-fired power. Unfortunately, there is no mention in the Switkowski report of the numerous studies which find that energy efficiency is 2-7 times more cost-effective than nuclear power in reducing greenhouse emissions."

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM MINING - VARIOUS

------------------->

Nuclear resurgence boosts uranium
Barry FitzGerald
December 28, 2006
www.theage.com.au/news/business/nuclear-resurgence-boosts-uranium/2006/12/27/1166895359470.html

URANIUM stocks are finishing the year with a flourish in response to soaring prices for the radioactive material.
Spot prices recently hit $US72 a pound, double the price at the start of the year and a 605 per cent increase on the December 2002 price of $US10.20 a pound.
The surge reflects the potential for near-term supply shortages as nuclear power is enjoying unprecedented acceptance because of its role in fighting global warming.
The Australian mining and exploration industry has responded with gusto. While there are just two listed uranium-only producers (ERA and Paladin), the number of companies that now claim to be involved in exploration is approaching 100.
Investors have joined the nuclear party by driving equity values sharply higher. ERA, at its closing price yesterday of $19.94, is sporting a 100 per cent gain for the year. Paladin's $8.25 close gives it a 325 per cent gain.
Dozens of explorers and would-be developers have done better still. They include Alliance Resources (up 1046 per cent in the year to date), Nova Energy (up 333 per cent), PepinNini (up 379 per cent), Summit (up 373 per cent) and Compass (up 311 per cent). Sydney-based equity research group Resource Capital Research (RCR) has forecast that the uranium price could reach $US90 a pound by mid-2007, an increase of 25 per cent on the current spot price, and $US115 a pound by 2008, an increase of 59 per cent on the spot price.
RCR analyst John Wilson, in his December-quarter review of the uranium sector, said there had been a dramatic increase between May and November in the number of planned and proposed nuclear power plants, with the total increasing by 70 reactors to 223.
This has increased pressure for new mines to fill the perceived widening of the gap between new mine supply and consumption.
Some analysts predict mine supply plus inventory might not be enough to meet global demand soon.
Also driving the uranium price higher was the shock flooding in October of the Cigar Lake uranium project in Canada.
The World Nuclear Association has forecast that uranium demand could rise from about 65,000 tonnes in 2006 to 78,000 tonnes in 2015 and 111,000 tonnes in 2030.
Australia is poised to cash in on that growth, with BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam project in South Australia planning to at least triple annual production to 15,000 tonnes.
And subject to state Labor governments in Western Australia and Queensland lifting current bans on uranium mining, the number of Australian mines could easily double before 2010.
The reporter owns BHP shares.

------------------->

The yellowcake road winds back to Mary K
Robin Bromby
January 04, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21008570-643,00.html
STAND by for another phase of the uranium frenzy - this time in northwest Queensland.
Goldsearch ignited it, and now another exploration junior, Deep Yellow, has added fuel to the fire with its announcement yesterday that it had joined the crush looking for uranium around Mt Isa.
Expect, too, to hear the name Mary Kathleen, as the historic uranium mine is invoked by companies pegging tenements anywhere in the neighbourhood.
Mary Kathleen, which lies about halfway between Mt Isa and Cloncurry, was discovered in 1954. A year later, Rio Tinto formed a company to mine Mary Kathleen to supply Britain's Atomic Energy Authority.
It operated in two bursts, 1958-63 and 1975-82, producing a total of 8882 tonnes of uranium.
As with any market craze, it is unclear who has what in terms of finds in the Mt Isa-Cloncurry belt. Only one local explorer, Summit Resources, has come up with significant established uranium resources (about 34,000 tonnes) at its 50 per cent-owned Skal and Valhalla deposits close to Mt Isa.
Summit is in partnership with Paladin Resources after that company paid $174 million to buy Valhalla Uranium, which held the other half of Skal and Valhalla. The only other established deposit is held by Canada's Laramide Resources, its Westmoreland project 350km northwest of Copper City holding 20,900 tonnes of uranium.
The rest is all speculation.
But one thing can be said: while the Mary Kathleen mine itself has been depleted, there is every chance the region could become a significant uranium province.
This story was ignited only last week when frantic trading in Goldsearch stock began, even though the company said it was unaware of anything that would have set traders going. Results are expected from samples later this month, and the company has said only that those samples indicated grades above 0.005 per cent - and that is a very low grade.
But the stock nearly doubled in price when the market reopened on Tuesday.
Then Deep Yellow came out yesterday morning saying it had acquired six uranium tenements in the Mt Isa district. So it was off to the races with that stock, Deep Yellow climbing 9.5c to 56.5c.
Deep Yellow is also in joint venture with Matrix Metals in the latter's various uranium prospects close to Mary Kathleen. Drilling began on those in November.
The great swath of Queensland running from north of Mt Isa through to Cloncurry has only in recent years been opened up by smaller explorers, much of the area having been locked up for years by the former MIM. It was thick with uranium explorers in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and with some big players including BP, Esso, the then CRA (now Rio Tinto) and Belgium's Union Miniere.
They all pulled up and left when the uranium price collapsed. Now that Goldsearch and Deep Yellow have taken off, the other uranium players in the area - Universal Resources, Monaro Mining and Paradigm Gold - will also be watched carefully by traders.
Universal Resources has tenements that lie within 4km of the Mary Kathleen mine site, and on which CRA did some exploration in the 1970s. That exploration recorded rock chip samples up to 6.18 per cent uranium.
Universal began exploration on that ground last month.
Paradigm has picked up ground that was prospected by Energy Resources of Australia in 1978 when samples graded up to 0.03 per cent uranium. ERA went no further, as it was focused on its huge Ranger deposit in the Northern Territory.
Monaro holds tenements north of Mary Kathleen.
It picked these up in September through an alliance with their owner, Mohan Varkey, who was credited with the discovery of the Nabarlek uranium deposit in the Northern Territory and then went on to help find Cigar Lake in Canada.

------------------->

Joyce on U-mines: leave it to states
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
January 9, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/joyce-on-umines-leave-it-to-states/2007/01/08/1168104922313.html
CANBERRA should back off and leave such sensitive issues as uranium mining to the discretion of state governments, Queensland's outspoken senator Barnaby Joyce has said.
A new push by Canberra to convince Western Australia to end its ban on new uranium mines has prompted a fightback from Senator Joyce, of the Nationals, who is an outspoken advocate for states' rights.
"If you believe in states then you have to believe in states' rights," Senator Joyce told The Age yesterday. "It's not just about uranium, it is about everything. I think the states would never have federated if they had seen how much over-centralisation there would be."
Senator Joyce's comments follow the weekend decision by Environment Minister Ian Campbell to resume pressure on the WA Government, which bans uranium mining and nuclear activities.
The Federal Government has been campaigning to have states with valuable uranium deposits, particularly Queensland and WA, scrap their restrictions and allow the industry to expand.
Legal experts believe Canberra would have power under the constitution to override state objections to nuclear power plants, by creating laws using the corporations power to allow business to build reactors.
Senator Campbell said WA was failing to tackle the challenges of global warming by not allowing more uranium mining, which could fuel nuclear power plants, which do not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
"The more the community is aware of the seriousness of climate change and the contribution that WA can make, not just exporting gas but also exporting uranium, the public pressure will build to the extent that the absurdity of the WA policy will become obvious," Senator Campbell told the ABC yesterday.
Senator Campbell's call was backed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals leader, Mark Vaile.
But Senator Joyce rejected the new push, which he said would only increase centralisation.
He said people might support a concentration of decision-making in Canberra in times when they liked the government in power, but this would change if a new party took office, and imposed policies they did not agree with.
The new push was also rejected by the WA Government yesterday.

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM MINING - ROXBY DOWNS WATER EXTRACTION

------------------->

(Roxby Downs mine draws 33 million litres of water a day from the basin free of charge. If a Sydney household or business managed to use that much water, its daily bill would be more than $52,000 ... which works out to just under $19 million per year.)

BHP alarm over PM's river plan
Phillip Coorey
Chief Political Correspondent
February 2, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bhp-alarm-over-pms-river-plan/2007/02/01/1169919474127.html
JOHN HOWARD'S plan to take control of the Murray-Darling Basin threatens to put him on a collision course with the mining giant BHP Billiton, which uses millions of litres of water a day without paying for it.
His plan for the Commonwealth to take control of the river system includes cracking down on the unsustainable extraction of water from the Great Artesian Basin.
"I seek your agreement … to establish proper entitlements, metering, pricing and reporting arrangements for water extracted from the Great Artesian Basin," the Prime Minister said in his letter to the premiers this week.
The basin is a giant aquifer which runs beneath NSW, Queensland, the Northern Territory and South Australia.
Under a 1982 agreement with the South Australian Government, BHP's Olympic Dam uranium, gold and copper mine and the neighbouring town of Roxby Downs draws 33 million litres of water a day from the basin free of charge.
If a Sydney household or business managed to use that much water, its daily bill would be more than $52,000.
Other users of the aquifer are subject to a management plan for the basin, but BHP is exempt.
Asked last week whether the new arrangements for the basin would apply to the Roxby Downs mine, Mr Howard said: "Everybody's got to make a contribution to solving this problem."
BHP said yesterday it would resist any such move. BHP's Base Metals spokesman, Richard Yeeles, said BHP and its predecessor, Western Mining, had spent more than $100 million over the past 20 years building pipelines, bores and pumps.
It had also spent more than $2 million to help local pastoralists use water more efficiently. "We're saving more water through those measures than Olympic Dam is using at the moment," he said. "We've been anxious to support the sustainability of the basin."
Mr Yeeles indicated any change to the water arrangement could threaten the mine.
"We have operated in the Great Artesian Basin on the basis of the agreement with the South Australian Government that doesn't require us to pay for the water."
A planned expansion of the mine will increase the daily water requirement to 150 million litres, but BHP has said it would build a desalination plant to provide for the increase while maintaining its current draw from the basin.
David Noonan, of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the mine was destroying the basin, had reduced the water pressure and killed many of the oasis-like mound springs the basin feeds. "They've got a right to do what no other public company can do," he said. "They should have to pay for both the water and the impact of the draw-down effect."
Mr Howard was in South Australia yesterday, where he rejected a call by the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, for an apolitical body like the Reserve Bank to manage the river system, rather than the Commonwealth.
"That sounds great on the surface but in reality it is a surrender of representative democracy," he said. "We won't agree to that."
Mr Rann was in Sydney trying to sell his idea to his NSW counterpart, Morris Iemma, and appeared to soften his stance by saying he would compromise if his state's interests were safeguarded.
Mr Iemma, who has supported Mr Howard's plan, was again lukewarm on Mr Rann's idea. "It is not an issue of power and control, it is about getting the best possible outcome," he said.
"Mike has put forward a proposition which is worthy of consideration and ought not to be dismissed out of hand as [Water Resources Minister] Malcolm Turnbull has done," he said.
The federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, urged Mr Howard to consider the merits of Mr Rann's idea.

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM - ROXBY DOWNS

------------------->

Calls for BHP to use renewable energy in dam expansion
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1841451.htm
Last Update: Tuesday, February 6, 2007. 3:00pm (AEDT)

The South Australian Government is being urged to force BHP Billiton to use renewable energy to power its proposed Olympic Dam expansion in the state's north.
State Greens' MP Mark Parnell says if it goes ahead, the expansion will contribute more to South Australia's greenhouse gas emissions than all the homes in Adelaide combined.
He says it is up to the State Government to insist the company use renewable energy to power at least part of its operations.
Mr Parnell says he hopes BHP will lead by example.
"This is a massive enterprise, it's going to be one of the biggest holes in the ground if it goes ahead," he said.
"It's going to emit vast quantities of greenhouse gasses and we've got to keep that to a minimum by ensuring that the expansion is fuelled by renewable sources as far as we can possibly make it."

------------------->

Media Release - November 30, 2006

BHP Billiton Shareholders must hold Olympic Dam mine to the law

Friends of the Earth Brisbane, attending yesterday’s BHP Billiton Annual General Meeting in Brisbane, say that shareholders have a lot more to lose than their money if they continue to allow the Olympic dam uranium mine to operate outside the law.

Yesterday, BHP Billiton Chairman Don Argus told shareholders that they would not make a commitment to relinquishing their extra-legal privileges granted to former owners, Western Mining Corporation, under the Roxby Downs Indenture Act.

The Indenture exempts the Olympic Dam mine from key legislation meant to protect the community including: The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, the Development Act 1993, the Environmental Protection Act 1993, the Freedom of Information Act 1991, the Mining Act 1971 and the Natural Resources Act 2004 (including the Water Resources Act 1997).

Spokesperson for Friends of the Earth, Kim Stewart, asked Mr Argus if the board would relinquish those legal exemptions to maintain his companies stated commitment to the “highest ethical standards” and the “strictest environmental and health standards”.

Mr Argus argued that they would continue to benefit from those legal exemptions, that it was “not uncommon” in the mining industry. Mr Argus says that the shareholders would have to trust his word that they were doing the right thing. He says, “we will apply to the highest standards...we are acting within the law.”

Ms Stewart says that, “BHP's refusal to relinquish special exemptions from basic environmental laws, suggest that its normal practices would be in breach of them."

“While they operate outside the law and with no accountability to environmental and social concerns, the community has no assurance of culpability for accidents.”

“Their exemption from the Freedom of Information Act means that if they have an accident, a radioactive a leak or destroy aboriginal artefacts, we may never know. It is within the realm of possibility that these things may happen. In 1994, the Olympic Dam mine had a considerable leak of radioactive water from its tailings dam that went undiscovered and unremedied for years. Things do go wrong. The community needs to know it can be protected.”

“The Chairman's word does not constitute a legally binding commitment to protect the natural and cultural environment from harm and for future generations. It behoves the world's biggest mining corporation to set the example of good environmental and ethical practice and not simply
pay it lip service.

"Until they relinquish the Roxby Downs Indentures, their admissions of best practice, sustainability and integrity with regards to the Olympic Dam mine will remain a sham.”

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM MINING - NT

------------------->

Battle for our uranium
By ALISON BEVEGE
08jan07
www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,21025638%5E13569,00.html

THE NT Department of Mines is facing legal action over the coveted Angela and Pamela uranium deposits, which are said to be worth as much as $2 billion.
 An injunction has been lodged in the Darwin Supreme Court, preventing the Department of Mines from making a decision over which -- out of almost 40 applicants -- will be granted mining exploration rights over the deposits.
Territory mine developer Norm McCleary, founder of Arafura Resources, says the NT Department of Mines did not follow correct procedure when dealing with his application for access to the Angela and Pamela sites, unfairly denied consent for him to enter the land and did not provide reasons for their refusal.
NT Department of Mines spokesman Stephen Yates confirmed the department could not make a decision now on the Angela and Pamela deposits, as the matter was before the courts.
"Because the matter is before the courts, we can't make any comment and the timeframe for it to be resolved is entirely up to the courts," Mr Yates told the Northern Territory News.
The uranium deposits are about 25km south of Alice Springs on land released when the NT Government lifted its reservation from occupation (ROs) over 18 sites last month.
The Australian Uranium Association reports that the Angela deposit alone contains about 10,250 tonnes of uranium at an ore grade of 0.13 per cent.
The two deposits have been estimated to be worth between $1 billion and $2 billion.
Almost 40 applicants, reading like a "who's who" of the global uranium industry -- including Cameco, Paladin, Energy Resources of Australia and China's state-owned Sinosteel -- have applied for mineral exploration rights over the deposits.
It is believed that China's giant state-owned conglomerate, China National Nuclear Corporation, may also have applied.
The NT Department of Mines is to decide which applicant will be granted the exploration rights.
The decision had been expected by the first quarter of 2007.
An injunction restraining the Mines Department from giving consent to any other party to enter the land for mineral exploration was lodged on December 21.
A directions hearing will be go before Justice Stephen Southwood at the Darwin Supreme Court on January 18.

------------------->

Media Release: Monday 8 January 2007
Battle for uranium a waste of time and money
The legal squabble over access to the Angela and Pamela uranium deposits is a waste of time and money, the Environment Centre of the NT (ECNT) said today.
“These deposits are located within the Alice Springs water catchment area and should never have been released from reservation from occupation,” ECNT Uranium Campaigner Emma King said.
“I find it impossible to imagine that any government could allow a uranium mine to operate there.
“Alice Springs is already struggling to ensure the town residents and businesses have adequate water – apart from risks of contamination from a mine, the amount of water used in uranium processing could threaten water supplies even further.”
Other issues of concern include:
* The likelihood that these deposits would be mined using the in situ leach (ISL) process where acid is pumped into the deposit to dissolve the ore. This process is illegal in every other OECD country.
* The possibility that radioactive radon gas released during mining and milling could reach Alice Springs.
* The difficulty managing the mine tailings for the 10,000 years or so they remain radioactive.

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM - BEVERLEY EXPANSION - FOUR MILE

------------------->

Hanging out for big uranium numbers
Barry FitzGerald
January 3, 2007
www.smh.com.au/news/business/hanging-out-for-big-uranium-numbers/2007/01/02/1167500123556.html

AUSTRALIA'S uranium inventory is set to be boosted by an initial resource estimate for the Four Mile discovery in the South Australian outback.
The area is held by Alliance Resources and the US group Heathgate, via its exploration arm Quasar Resources.
Four Mile is so named because that is its distance from Heathgate's Beverley uranium mine.
High-grade uranium hits at Four Mile, and betting by the market that it could eventually prove the biggest uranium deposit of its type in the world, put a rocket under Alliance's share price last year. Its shares rose from 17c at the start of the year to $1.83 by year's end. Yesterday they rose 8c to $1.91, valuing the company at $467 million.
Businessman Ian Gandel controls about 36 per cent of Alliance which, ahead of the 2005 discovery of Four Mile, was best known for its Maldon gold project in Victoria.
Alliance has a 25 per cent free-carried interest in Four Mile. Quasar is the project's operator and a 75 per cent partner in the find. Quasar's parent Heathgate (itself part of US group General Atomics) is the owner-operator of Beverley, which produced 854 tonnes of uranium in 2005-06.
Quasar has been working towards producing a compliant inferred resource estimate for the high-grade part of the Four Mile West zone. The estimate was expected to be released in December but it has been delayed to "early in the new year".
The delay was blamed on hold-ups in chemical analyses from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's laboratories in Lucas Heights, Sydney, and the need to verify the data, Alliance has told the market.
Alliance would not comment yesterday on what the initial resource estimate might be. But in the past it has referred to Four Mile as "Australia's premier uranium discovery".
While the initial resource estimate will be based on a small section of the Four Mile West area which has been drilled on 100 metre by 100 metre spacings, it is the expected high grade of the initial resource estimate that could again fire up market interest in the find.
And while Alliance has not made any estimate on the eventual size of Four Mile, there has been speculation - and that is all it is - that it could eventually weigh in at more than 40,000 tonnes of uranium. That would be equivalent to four years of current Australian production from the Olympic Dam, Ranger and Beverley mines.
Among Australia's undeveloped uranium deposits, only Kintyre (Rio Tinto) and Yeelirrie (BHP Billiton) in Western Australia would rank bigger. Both date from the 1970s uranium exploration boom/bust and are on hold because of the West Australian Labor Government's ban on uranium mining.

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM - SAFEGUARDS ARE A JOKE

------------------->

SAFEGUARDS
* Collection of articles on the limitations of nuclear safeguards:
Nuclear Safeguards and Australia's Uranium Exports (word file)
www.foe.org.au/nc/nc_nuke.htm
or direct download: www.foe.org.au/download/UraniumSafeguards.doc

------------------->

Flawed system the only check on nuclear safety
Nadia Watson
Sydney Morning Herald
December 7, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/flawed-system-the-only-check-on-nuclear-safety/2006/12/06/1165081019995.html

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report on uranium sales to China was tabled in Parliament yesterday, advocating an expansion of the uranium export industry. Australia's uranium industry and the Federal Government frequently claim there is no risk of Australian uranium finding its way into nuclear weapons. However, the international nuclear safeguards system is flawed and it cannot provide such assurances.
Australia is reliant on the safeguards inspection system of the International Atomic Energy Agency to prevent military misuse of its uranium exports. The agency's director-general, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, is remarkably blunt about the limitations of safeguards. He has stated in articles and speeches in recent years that the safeguards system suffers from "vulnerabilities", that the agency's basic inspection rights are "fairly limited", that efforts to improve the system have been "half-hearted", and that the safeguards system operates on a "shoestring budget".
Agency safeguards involve periodic inspections of nuclear facilities and nuclear materials accounting to determine whether the amount of nuclear material going through the fuel cycle matches the country's records. In theory, the system is simple; in practice, it is complicated and weakened by political and commercial imperatives.
One of the most challenging problems involves "material unaccounted for" - discrepancies between the "book stock" (the expected measured amount) and the "physical stock" (the actual measured amount) of nuclear materials at a safeguarded location. Such discrepancies are frequent because of the difficulty of precisely measuring amounts of nuclear material, yet they provide an obvious loophole for a would-be proliferator.
In a large plant, even a tiny proportion of the nuclear material handled each year might be enough to build one or more weapons without the threat of detection. For example, the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in Japan will have the capacity to separate about eight tonnes of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel each year. Diverting just 1 per cent of that amount of plutonium would be very difficult for the IAEA to detect against the background of routine accounting discrepancies, yet it would be enough to build at least one nuclear weapon a month.
Another problem is that the agency does not inspect all "safeguarded" nuclear facilities because of resource constraints and political and commercial sensitivities. For example, it emerged during hearings of the joint standing committee that of the 10 Chinese facilities potentially subject to agency safeguards last year, only three were inspected.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented a number of standoffs whereby discrepancies have remained unresolved for years. Iran and North Korea provide two contemporary examples of protracted disputes and, of course, North Korea has built and tested a nuclear weapon while the international negotiations over its nuclear program continue.
Prompted by the limitations of traditional safeguards, the IAEA initiated efforts to strengthen the system. The model Additional Protocol, introduced in 1997, meant the agency was theoretically able to develop a more inclusive "cradle-to-grave" picture of states' nuclear activities.
The improvements include requiring substantially more information on nuclear facilities and activities; increased use of environmental sampling; and allowing agency inspectors extended access, which includes entry to undeclared nuclear sites. As of October this year, 78 countries had negotiated and ratified an Additional Protocol, but more than 100 had not done so.
While strengthened safeguards are welcome, serious problems remain. One is that the development of the full suite of nuclear fuel cycle facilities - including "dual-use" enrichment and reprocessing facilities - is enshrined in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as an "inalienable right" of all countries which have ratified the treaty.
As ElBaradei noted in December last year: "If a country with a full nuclear fuel cycle decides to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, a nuclear weapon could be only months away. In such cases, we are only as secure as the outbreak of the next major crisis. In today's environment, this margin of security is simply untenable."
Clearly there is a sharp divergence between the reality of nuclear safeguards, as acknowledged by the nuclear watchdog, and the false claims made by the Australian Government and uranium industry.
Of course, it is possible that safeguards could be improved, and it is possible that Australia could play a leading role in improving safeguards. However, as Professor Richard Broinowski details in his 2003 book Fact or Fission? The Truth About Australia's Nuclear Ambitions, safeguards pertaining to Australian uranium have been gradually weakened over the years.
The reason for this weakening of safeguards was identified by Mike Rann - then a young Labor Party researcher and now the pro-uranium Premier of South Australia - in his 1982 booklet Uranium: Play It Safe.
"Again and again," Rann wrote, "it has been demonstrated here and overseas that when problems over safeguards prove difficult, commercial considerations will come first."
A genuine nuclear debate in Australia would include a reassessment of the uranium export industry given the risks of diversion and proliferation identified in this article.

Nadia Watson recently completed her studies in international relations at LaTrobe University and has spent the past six months studying the international nuclear safeguards regime.

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM MINING - HOUSE OF REPS INQUIRY REPORT

Report at: www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium

------------------->

Last Update: Monday, December 4, 2006. 1:16pm (AEDT)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1803471.htm
Uranium mining impediments should be removed: report
A federal parliamentary committee has called for the removal of all impediments to developing Australia's uranium industry.
The bipartisan report by the House of Representatives Committee on Industry and Resources has called for all governments to reconsider opposition to uranium mining and change laws preventing exploration and mining.
The committee found nuclear power significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and is the only energy alternative to fossil fuels for reliable electricity on a large scale.
The report says Australia must also consider how to value-add by developing industries in uranium enrichment, nuclear waste treatment and disposal.
But the report also calls for the Government to pursue a stronger global non-proliferation regime, give money to rehabilitate mine sites and provide greater scientific scrutiny of the industry.

------------------->

Boost uranium mining, report urges
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20868214-5001028,00.html
December 04, 2006 12:00
Article from: AAP

THREE opposition MPs are backing a government push to take on the Labor states over their refusal to agree to open up uranium mining.

A House of Representatives report on uranium, tabled in parliament today, recommends that, at the next Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) meeting, the federal resources minister "encourage state governments to reconsider their opposition to uranium mining''.

It also wants the minister to urge the states to abolish legislative restrictions on uranium mining and exploration.

The report, by the 10-member House Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, includes Labor MPs Michael Hatton, Dick Adams and Martin Ferguson.

In the report's foreword, Committee chairman Liberal Geoff Prosser pointed out that the committee had been unanimous in its view on opening up uranium mining and exports.

"It is notable that on such an historically controversial subject as uranium mining and exports, the committee has produced a unanimous report,'' he said.

"All members are agreed that the present restrictions on uranium exploration and mining are illogical, inconsistent and anti-competitive.

"Restrictions have impeded investment in the industry and have resulted in a loss of regional employment and wealth creation opportunities, royalties and taxation receipts.

"The committee concludes that state policies preventing development of new uranium mines should be lifted and legislative restrictions on uranium mining should be repealed.''

The report backs the argument for Australia to grow its current uranium exports, saying the nation has the ability to help ease the global warming problem by supplying the fuel to uranium-hungry countries.

"The committee wholeheartedly agrees with a submitter who stated that through its supply of uranium 'Australia should throw the world a climate lifeline','' Mr Prosser said.

In an effort to address community concern about nuclear issues, the committee has suggested a number of ways to address misinformation and public ignorance about nuclear matters.

The committee recommended stronger measures to protect nuclear workers, as well as a renewed effort to boost nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

It also wants further examination of how Australia could benefit from its uranium resources, including the establishment of facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment.

"The committee further recommends that such examination take account of full life cycle costs and benefits of the proposed facilities,'' the report said.

------------------->

ALP split on new uranium mining
By Sandra O'Malley and Susanna Dunkerley
December 04, 2006 12:00
www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20869926-5001028,00.html

LABOR states are refusing to soften their stance against the expansion of uranium mining, despite opposition MPs supporting a Government push to take them on over the issue.
Three federal Labor MPs added to the momentum for Labor to abandon its no new uranium mines policy as they supported a Government report which took issue with states for refusing to agree to open up uranium mining in Australia.
The House of Representatives report on uranium, tabled in Parliament today, recommended the Commonwealth encourage state governments to reconsider their opposition to uranium mining at the next Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) meeting.
It also wants the minister to urge the states to abolish legislative restrictions on uranium mining and exploration.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane called on the states to repeal laws which he said were strangling the nation's uranium export industry.
Committee chairman Liberal Geoff Prosser said the present restrictions on uranium exploration and mining were illogical, inconsistent and anti-competitive.
"Restrictions have impeded investment in the industry and have resulted in a loss of regional employment and wealth creation opportunities, royalties and taxation receipts," he said.
The report is by the 10-member House Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, which includes Labor MPs Michael Hatton, Dick Adams and Martin Ferguson.
But Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland showed few signs of changing their opposition to uranium mining today.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann and Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin back expanded mining.
A spokesman for NSW Premier Morris Iemma said the state Government was not considering introducing legislation to repeal the ban.
Victoria, too, says it won't be pushed into changing its laws.
The issue will come to a head next April at Labor's national conference, when the party is set to vote on a push to abandon the policy.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie will abide by the conference decision.
But, at present, Mr Beattie said his Government doesn't support uranium mining.
WA Premier Alan Carpenter remains firmly in the no mining camp.
"They do not want to see West Australia become a nuclear waste dump and if they don't want that, they won't be supporting uranium mining either, because one thing will lead to the another," he said.
However, Mr Ferguson, a long-term advocate for change, expects Mr Rudd will be able to convince the party to abandon the current policy.
"With Kevin as leader – he reaffirmed last Friday at the media conference his support for changing our policy on uranium for preventing additional mines in Australia – my view is that Kevin will win the day at the national conference," he said.
While the Labor members support the call for a relaxation of the rules on uranium mining, they are against a recommendation for a further examination of how Australia could benefit from its uranium resources, including the establishment of uranium conversion and enrichment facilities.
"We are not in the mind to support the rest of the committee in regard to enrichment in Australia or a nuclear industry for Australia," Mr Ferguson said.
The committee also recommended beefed up measures to protect nuclear workers, as well as a renewed effort to boost nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
In an effort to address community concern about nuclear issues, it has suggested a number of ways to address misinformation and public ignorance about nuclear matters, including more school programs.

------------------->

SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE PARLIAMENTARY URANIUM REPORT

Scientists from the EnergyScience Coalition have criticised the pro-uranium and pro-nuclear report released yesterday by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources.

Professor Jim Falk, Director of the Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society, at the University of Melbourne, said: "The analysis in this report displays a superficiality which extends from its coverage of nuclear proliferation to the comparative economics of nuclear power, enrichment and other nuclear fuel cycle activities. The comparison between nuclear energy and renewables, based on the belief that only nuclear can do the job of baseload generation, is particularly weak. Statistical studies show that in terms of reliability of supply renewables can, in many situations, emerge as perfectly competitive with ‘baseload’ power."

Dr. Mark Diesendorf, a Senior Lecturer at the University of New South Wales, said: "The report's false claims about renewable energy are based on submissions from the uranium/nuclear industry, hardly an objective source. The report is incorrect in claiming that renewable energy is generally "intermittent", "poses significant energy storage problems", "require substantial backup generation" and "are not capable of providing baseload power on a large scale". There are many different types of renewable energy system, with different characteristics, and few fit these descriptions.

"For example, bioenergy, solar thermal electricity (with storage in water, rock beds or thermochemical systems), and hot dry rock geothermal power are all capable of substituting for coal-fired power stations. None is intermittent and all are baseload. Efficient energy use and solar hot water can reduce substantially the requirement for baseload electricity. Furthemore, the total electricity generated from an array of dispersed wind farms, located in different wind regimes, cannot be accurately described as intermittent. With a small amount of supplementary peakload plant, which does not have to be operated frequently, large-scale wind power can also substitute for some coal power and be equally reliable," Dr. Diesendorf said.

The EnergyScience Coalition has produced a critique of the Switkowski report and a series of briefing papers on nuclear and energy issues. See <www.energyscience.org.au>

------------------->

Uranium report completely misguided

Canberra, 4 December 2006: The House of Representatives Uranium Report
released today is completely misguided, Greenpeace Australia Pacific
said today.

Steve Shallhorn, CEO Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: "The assertion
that nuclear is the only solution to climate change is so off the mark
as to put into question the integrity of the whole report.

"The dangerous uranium and nuclear industry are no solution to climate
change. Renewables and energy efficiency offer the only substantial
cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 10 - 20 years.

"Even the best cases scenarios for nuclear power show it making a
minimal contribution to greenhouse reduction and not for decades.

"The pro nuclear Switkowski report itself showed that even with 25
nuclear power stations Australia would get no greenhouse benefits
before 2030 and then as little as an 8% reduction in gases by 2050.

"Australia should be embarking on a massive investment program in
renewables and energy efficiency, not a dangerous dalliance with
uranium mining and the nuclear industry.

"To suggest that nuclear power is 'green' is ludicrous when after 60
years there is still no acceptable solution for disposing of dangerous
radioactive nuclear waste.

"The glowing future painted of 'modern reactors' is all conjecture.
These so called new generation nuclear technologies don't exist yet.
It is still just paper physics. So once again the nuclear industry
wants us to go down some long and risky path, big on promises, short
on outcomes. When our resources and environment would be better off by
creating the framework for renewables.

"The whole world is made unsafe by any expansion in any aspect of the
uranium and nuclear fuel cycle, meanwhile the clean, efficient and
safe energy options are ready to go," concluded Mr Shallhorn.

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM SALES TO TAIWAN

------------------->

Uranium's slow boat to Taiwan
Craig Skehan
December 18, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/uraniums-slow-boat-to-taiwan/2006/12/17/1166290412417.html
THE controversial first shipment of Australian uranium to Taiwan is scheduled to leave tomorrow amid debate about potential for the move to help clear the way for future exports to nuclear-armed India.
BHP Billiton yesterday refused to confirm the timing of the shipment to Taiwan via the United States, but the buyer, the electricity generator Taipower, was less constrained.
"We like to diversify our fuel sources, so this first shipment from Australia is appreciated," said Samson Lee, a Sydney-based executive of Taipower.
As the uranium would "only be for peaceful power generation" there was no reason for China to be sensitive, he said.
BHP Billiton, asked about Taipower revealing that the first shipment was due to leave tomorrow, said implementation of its contract was "between us and the customer".
"We are not going to give a running commentary," a BHP Billiton spokesman said.
The shipment to Taiwan employs an indirect sale arrangement through the US, which will first convert and enrich the ore under a bilateral agreement between Canberra and Washington.
It came as anti-nuclear campaigners complained that highly radioactive spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney were to be transported through city streets overnight to Botany Bay for transport to the US.
Federal officials responsible for Lucas Heights said recently that the spent fuel rods would be moved before the end of the year, but last night said that for security reasons a formal announcement would not be made until after the transport had taken place.
The first uranium sale for Taiwan and movement of the rods - which Greenpeace last night said posed a danger through a potential accident or hijacking - coincides with political debate over whether to sanction new uranium mines.
Although Lucas Heights produces radioactive material for medical and research purposes, critics argue that risks would increase dramatically if Australia moved to uranium enrichment and nuclear power generation.
As Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations - due to the long and bitter dispute with Beijing over sovereignty - it is not a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Supporters argue Taiwan will be covered by the same safeguards as other existing buyers of Australian uranium and has agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.
However, critics point to attempts by some Taiwanese companies to establish power station radioactive waste dumps in Pacific island countries.
They also say the uranium export deal could be used to undermine the current prohibition on Australian uranium sales to India, which cannot become a signatory to the treaty because it is an acknowledged nuclear weapons power.
Although Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons, the CIA said in the 1970s that it had established a program to acquire them.
Recently it emerged that Taiwan is developing cruise missiles capable of reaching mainland Chinese cities in the event of any attack by Beijing.
The US Administration has moved to clear the way for involvement with India's nuclear power industry.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, has also signalled a willingness to consider alternative mechanisms under which uranium may be sold to India.

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM SALES TO CHINA

------------------->

foe mr re exports

and to only call for "dialogue" on governance and transparency with
China, and increased IAEA & ANSO funding, with only one specific call
fro strengthened safeguards - manadatory safegaurds on all uranium
conversion facilities - but does not cite any prerequisites to the China
deal going ahead.

------------------->

Uranium to China within months
Matthew Franklin
January 06, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21017794-2702,00.html
AUSTRALIA could start exporting uranium to China within months after the nations ratified nuclear co-operation agreements yesterday.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement and the Nuclear Co-operation Agreement would come into effect in 30 days.
"The legal framework for Australian uranium producers to commence exports to China is expected to be in place early in 2007," Mr Downer said.
"The timing and quantities of exports will be a matter for commercial negotiation."
China has long sought access to Australian uranium to meet its growing energy needs.
But Australia does not export uranium ore unless recipient nations have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and nuclear safeguards agreements.
The agreements reached yesterday remove the final impediment to exports.
They come as the Howard Government continues to talk up the need for increases in uranium exports and the possible development of a nuclear energy industry in Australia.
With 38 per cent of the world's lowest-cost recoverable uranium -- more than any other country -- Australia is the second-largest exporter of uranium oxide, with only Canada exporting more.
Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle said the decision to sell to China was a mistake.
"A report by federal parliament's joint standing committee on treaties on the bilateral agreement to permit this trade last month highlighted serious shortcomings in safeguards, including deficiencies in the international inspection regime and the ability to ensure our uranium is not misused," Senator Nettle said.
"The world doesn't need more uranium and nuclear power. Australia should be developing and selling clean and safe renewable energy technology to China, not adding to regional instability."
China has long been attracted by Australian uranium, with state-owned mining companies showing interest in local miners.
Chinese companies were invited to bid for WMC Resources, the operator of the giant Olympic Dam uranium mine in outback South Australia, but the company was ultimately bought by BHP Billiton.
Australia is also considering allowing exports of uranium to India, which has not signed theNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The emerging economic powerhouse has intensified its lobbying of the Government to allow it to buy uranium for nuclear power generation.
One option would see India "lease" uranium from countries such as Australia.
The uranium could be used for power generation, with nuclear waste then returned so it could not be used in nuclear weapons programs.

------------------->

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES
Report 81 – Nuclear transfer and safeguard agreements with China
Website: www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct
MEDIA RELEASE Issued: 6 December 2006

Treaties Committee clears way for Australian uranium to be sold to China
The Treaties Committee has cleared the way for Australian uranium to be sold to China. China is planning to quadruple its nuclear energy output by 2020 and requires imported uranium to achieve this.
Report 81 tabled in Federal Parliament today recommends Australia ratify two agreements between Australia and the People’s Republic of China to allow for the transfer and safeguard of nuclear material and technology.
The nuclear material transfer agreement would allow for the supply of Australian uranium to China’s nuclear power program. The nuclear cooperation agreement provides for cooperation in various nuclear areas; including the transfer of nuclear-related material, equipment and technology. Together, the Agreements include safeguards on the use of Australian uranium and have the same effect as provisions contained in Australia’s other nuclear safeguards agreements. The safeguards provisions in the Agreements ensure that Australian uranium can be used only for non-military purposes.
Report 81 makes seven recommendations. These recommendations include: the ratification of the treaties; increasing Australia’s monetary contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office to improve the safeguards system; lobbying the IAEA for mandatory safeguarding of conversion facilities located in the five declared nuclear weapons states under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and continuing dialogue with the Chinese Government about governance and transparency issues.
“The Agreements allow Australia’s uranium industry to expand its export market while helping China to meet its future energy requirements. The Agreements also strengthen the Australia-China relationship and foster continued dialogue with China on nuclear related issues,“ Committee Chair Dr Andrew Southcott said.
“The Committee has made its recommendations in a bipartisan way. Importantly, among the recommendations, the Committee believes that a boost to the IAEA’s verification budget will ensure a more robust international safeguards system,” Dr Southcott added.
Report 81 is available on the Committee’s website at: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/report.htm

------------------->

Kim Wilkie MP
ALP - Federal Member for Swan
6 December 2006

Report ticks Australian uranium treaties with China

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report on Australian-Chinese uranium and nuclear cooperation treaties supports the ratification of these treaties but recommends that safeguards measures be strengthened.
 
“With the economic benefits which uranium sales to China will deliver for Australia, it is the Government’s duty to take a lead role in efforts to strengthen nuclear safeguards”, said Mr Wilkie.

Mr Wilkie was especially concerned with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s lack of funding for its safeguards department

“It is imperative that the international agency charged with ensuring the legitimate use of nuclear fuels and technology be adequately funded to perform its duties. The IAEA’s lack of funding places significant constraints on its activities. This is an issue on which Australia cannot afford to be complacent”.

Recommending that the Government lobby for an immediate international review of the IAEA safeguards department levels of funding and that Australia set an example through increased voluntary contributions, Mr Wilkie is confident that this problem can be redressed.

“In addition to increasing the IAEA’s funding we also recommended an increase in funding allocated to the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office’s “Safeguards Support and International Outreach” programs to enable Australian experts to increase their efforts to further strengthen nuclear safeguards.

Noting the concern expressed by a number of witnesses during the inquiry regarding the starting point of IAEA safeguards, the committee also recommended that all conversion facilities be brought under international supervision.

In developing new proliferation resistant technologies the Committee also recommended that the Australian Government provide funding for intensive research and development of Thorium reactors.

Mr Wilkie said that through these concerted efforts uranium producing nations such as Australia can remain confident that the commodities exported from their shores only serve their intended peaceful purposes.

------------------->

Australian uranium exports to China to begin
12 January 2007
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12464&channel=0

Australia is set to start exporting uranium to China within months after the two countries ratified an agreement on trade in nuclear fuel.

Australia, which holds 40% of the world's uranium stocks, agreed to supply the nuclear fuel to China in April 2006 when it signed up to a deal that will see its revenues in this sector almost double. Despite massive stocks, Australia currently only produces 23% of total global uranium - partly because of opposition from Australians themselves motivated by safety concerns.

The Australian mining industry welcomed the deal, which it called "both timely and opportune."

"It really paves the way for the export of Australian uranium and technology and services and so on without compromising Australia's strict uranium regulatory regime," said Rob Rawson from the Minerals Council of Australia.

But environmental campaigners Friends of the Earth argue that the deal risks contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, pointing out that four Chinese firms have previously been found guilty of supplying Iran with "missile-related and dual-use nuclear components."

Foe Australia's Jim Green said: "The US has acknowledged that China fails to meet basic thresholds in relation to non-proliferation so it is a disgrace that Howard [Australian PM] and Beazley support exporting WMD-feedstock in the form of uranium to China and it is a disgrace that the so-called Safeguards Office fails to inform the parliament about China's appalling track record of missile and WMD-related exports."

The Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement and the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement will enable cooperation between the two states on civilian nuclear energy production as well as trade.

"The agreements will enter into force 30 days after ratification," said Australia's foreign Alexander Downer as he announced the deal.

"Accordingly, the legal framework for Australian uranium producers to commence exports to China is expected to be in place early in 2007.

"The timing and quantities of exports will be a matter for commercial negotiation," he said.

Goska Romanowicz

------------------->

Last Update: Wednesday, December 6, 2006. 2:39pm (AEDT)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1805562.htm
Committee approves sale of uranium to China
A parliamentary committee has cleared the way for Australian uranium to be sold to China, but only for non-military purposes.
Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett was the only Treaties Committee member to oppose the sale of uranium to China.
"I'm disappointed I am the sole dissenting voice and the only member of the committee to oppose selling uranium to China," he said.
"I think there was a lot of evidence provided to the committee that showed that the safeguards against misuse of uranium are not as strong as we like to think."
Senator Bartlett says the safeguards are too flimsy.
"I don't think you can trust any nuclear power, any country that already has nuclear arms, not to use some of those resources for proliferation," he said.
"Even if it's not the actual Australian uranium that ends up going into nuclear weapons, by exporting uranium to China it will free up their ability to use their own uranium they mine locally for such purposes."
Greens Senator Christine Milne also says the report vindicates concerns about the inadequacy of the international safeguards regime.

Nuclear watchdog
Meanwhile, the parliamentary committee has also recommended the resources of the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), be boosted.
The deputy chairman of the Treaties Committee, Labor's Kim Wilkie, says it is important to increase the money available for the IAEA, which is headed by Mohamed El Baradei.
"Mr El Baradei has said that the agency is totally under-resourced in order to perform its function - in fact, he stated their budget is less than a small police force," he said.
"Therefore one of the recommendations calls on Australia to make a voluntary additional contribution to that body and to lobby the rest of the world, after investigation of how much money it needs, to actually increase their contribution."
Mr Wilkie says uranium sales to China will deliver economic benefits for Australia, and it is the Federal Government's duty to take a lead role in efforts to strengthen nuclear safeguards.
He says the IAEA is constrained by a lack of funding and Australia should set an example by increasing its contributions.
He also says Australia needs to boost funding for its own safeguards and non-proliferation office.
"I think at this stage their funding's around 400,000-odd dollars, whereas in Canada a few years ago they were spending $4 million on similar programs," he said.
"So Australia needs to look at improving what we do in that whole area of improving safeguards world-wide, particularly as we're such a major player in the sale of uranium in the international community."

------------------->

MEDIA RELEASE

Wednesday, 6 December 2006

China uranium sales raise grave proliferation concerns

A parliamentary report into the proposed uranium sales treaties with China vindicates concerns about the inadequacy of the international safeguards regime, the Australian Greens said today.

Greens energy spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said that despite identifying serious shortcomings in safeguards, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended that the treaties proceed, paving the way for uranium sales to China.

"How could the committee recommend selling uranium to China when it acknowledged that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is under-funded and that the inspections regime is deficient?" Senator Milne said.

"The committee confirmed that the IAEA does not have enough funding to do its job properly and called on the Australian government to provide more funds to the IAEA to undertake its inspections.

"The committee identified deficiencies in the international inspection
regime, recommending that facilities used to manufacture nuclear fuel be subject to inspection.

"Australia's chief agency which will oversee the bilateral treaties also
needs additional resources to ensure that safeguards are effective, the committee found, and it recognised risks associated with lack of
transparency of the Chinese government.

"After highlighting all these problems associated with trying to ensure that Australian uranium will not contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation in China, the Labor and Liberal committee members made the astonishing recommendation that the bilateral treaties proceed.

"The committee's evidence vindicates the concerns that the Australian Greens have expressed about selling Australian uranium to China but their recommendations fly in the face of good sense.

"For the Howard government to now proceed with these bilateral treaties would be an act of gross negligence and would increase global and regional insecurity."

------------------->Return to top

URANIUM SALES TO INDIA

------------------->

Switkowski tips uranium sales to India in a decade
9th February 2007, 17:15 WST
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=159&ContentID=20988
One of the government's chief nuclear advisers is tipping Australia could be selling uranium to India within a decade.
Former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, who headed the government's nuclear task force, believes it may not be too long before India follows in the footsteps of China, which last year got the green light to buy Australian uranium.
Australia has so far refused to consider selling the resource to the sub-continent because India is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. China is a party to the treaty.
However, it has faced pressure from Washington and New Delhi to alter its line after the US struck a deal with India that fell outside the NPT.
In a landmark deal, the US agreed to share its technology and uranium in return for India agreeing to let 14 of its 22 reactors - those used for its civilian needs - to be opened to international inspections.
Last year, in the wake of North Korea's controversial nuclear test, the government was insistent it had no plans to change its uranium policy.
But last month Foreign Minister Alexander Downer appeared to have softened his position.
In a speech to an energy forum in Los Angeles, Mr Downer indicated it was an issue still up for discussion between the two countries.
"We have been talking with the Indian government about whether it would be possible to put together some arrangement with India whereby we could export uranium and be sure that that uranium could only be used for civil purposes power generation," he said.
"(It would) not be used in any way, shape or form for military purposes."
Mr Downer described the matter as an issue Australia was "feeling our way on rather cautiously".
Speaking in Melbourne today, Dr Switkowski said while it was a political decision, he expected sales to India would not be too far off.
"I expect that India could join the nations to which we export (uranium) in the not too distant future," Dr Switkowski said.
"It is dependent on the working out of the political process.
"But if it's going to happen, I would expect it to happen before the end of the decade.
"My understanding is that there has been a lot of progress in the last 12 months."
While India had not signed the NPT, Dr Switkowski said it had good credentials.
"India's credentials are well regarded in Australia and...therefore it may mean they emerge eventually as a potential market for Australian uranium," he said.
Australian Greens energy spokeswoman Christine Milne said Prime Minister John Howard needed to come clean on whether the government was planning to overturn its commitment to the NPT.
"Everyone knows that the prime minister is very close to Ziggy Switkowski so we can assume he's let the cat out of the bag," she said.
"Ever since the prime minister went to India in the weeks after US President George W Bush - and his subsequent visit to the US - Australia has been angling to find a way to support the US in exporting nuclear technology to India to make way for Australian uranium exports."
Senator Milne said Mr Howard had equivocated on the issue too long.
"The prime minister must come out and tell Australians now whether Australia is going to completely ignore and overturn its commitment to the NPT by selling uranium to India," she said.
AAP

------------------->

A matter of when, not if
Tuesday Jan 23 15:00 AEDT

By Tim Lester
National Nine News
Political correspondent

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=181003
For the last 10 months, John Howard and Alexander Downer have danced around the question of Australian uranium exports to India.

Howard has made the more flirtatious moves.

He has repeatedly hinted that his government will eventually allow sales of the nuclear raw material to India.

This would involve Australia making an exception to its long-held position of only exporting uranium to countries that sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such an exception runs the risk of weakening non-proliferation efforts.

Each time Howard's India comments excite this sort of criticism, he or Foreign Minister Alexander Downer quickly step into a more defensive pose.

Usually this involves saying something like: "we currently don't have any intention of changing (the policy)."

Yet the government itself is helping put in place the circumstances where — before much longer — it will probably be far easier to argue that withholding Australian uranium from India is pointless.

The key event in ridding India of its nuclear pariah status has been the Bush Administration's civil nuclear deal with New Delhi. President Bush finally signed it into law in December.

The deal will allow US companies to export nuclear related goods to the lucrative Indian market despite India's refusal to sign the NPT.

In exchange, India's government will permit International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of 14 of its 22 reactors — the civilian side of its nuclear program.

Howard has taken the "glass half full" approach to the deal.

He welcomes the planned addition of 14 nuclear sites to the IAEA's reach, but avoids commenting on the eight still-hidden military sites that will allow India to maintain — perhaps increase — its nuclear deterrent against neighbour Pakistan.

The US India deal still has to win the backing of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), whose members include the country with 40 percent of the World's easily mined uranium — Australia.

The NSG relies on consensus. Any one of its 45 members could veto the Washington/New Delhi deal.

So when the NSG considers the new bid to give India nuclear legitimacy, probably at a meeting in South Africa in April, how will Australia vote?

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade isn't saying, but the US State Department already has its trusted ally down as a solid supporter.

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, has told reporters, "There are some countries — Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, the Nordics — that have had some questions."

But he lists Australia among countries that have undertaken not to oppose the deal.

The Howard Government has said virtually nothing about the NSG vote.

Little wonder. If the US-India deal wins NSG backing (with Australia's help), the world's nuclear suppliers will be free to do business with New Delhi.

The Howard Government will then be able to argue that there is no possible benefit in pursuing a ban on exports that every other relevant country has decided to abandon.

Australians will be told we might as well take the final step of concluding the needed bilateral agreements and give our resource companies the benefit of having energy-hungry India as a potential uranium customer.

A second argument will make the case all the more persuasive.

In April last year, the Howard Government concluded uranium export agreements with China.

While anti-nuclear groups were still working out their attack on the arrangements, Howard was having his yellowcake and exporting it too, arguing that Australians "would see it as anomalous that we would sell uranium to China, but not India".

To justify the China agreements, Beijing had been cast as a worthy client for our nuclear exports.

When the deal was in place, it could be recast as a uranium low water mark, against which most of the rest of the world could be judged as more worthy potential customers.

The "We-sell-to-China-so-why-not" argument will be a convincing match with the "Everyone-one-else-sells-to-India" argument.

The US-India civil nuclear deal could still stumble at several hurdles, but Washington hopes to have it in place within six months.

If that happens, Howard will be ready for the final flourish of his uranium dance. Exports to India will follow — sooner or later.

------------------->

'Safe' sale of uranium to India viable
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/safe-sale-of-uranium-to-india-viable/2006/12/04/1165080880929.html
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
December 5, 2006
AUSTRALIA could sell uranium to India without increasing the risks of weapons proliferation, according to an investigation of the nuclear industry tabled in the Federal Parliament.
The report, from a bipart- isan committee, finds "sound reasons to allow an exception to Australia's exports policy in order to permit uranium sales to India".
It says it is "conceivable" that Australian uranium sales would "not undermine the non-proliferation regime".
But the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources stops short of recommending a change to Australia's current policy, which prevents uranium sales to countries outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Prime Minister John Howard has flagged that the policy may be changed in the future — particularly in the wake of a recent nuclear co-operation agreement between the US and India.
The report also calls for an expansion of uranium mining, the possible development of enrichment and conversion facilities, and the removal of bans on nuclear power plants.
It urges the industry to better educate the public about the sector — including allowing schoolchildren to visit uranium mines.
The proposal has outraged the Australian Greens. "It seems that school students are to become the new battleground in the Government's nuclear offensive," Greens energy spokeswoman Christine Milne said.
In a highly unusual move, three Labor committee members, Michael Hatton, Martin Ferguson and Dick Adams, issued "supplementary remarks" indicating they did not support Australia enriching uranium, building nuclear power plants or importing radioactive waste.
Committee chairman, Liberal MHR Geoff Prosser, had praised the ALP committee members for their "enthusiasm and spirit of bipartisanship for this important and historic inquiry".
Despite the "supplementary remarks", the report has reignited Labor's internal tensions over uranium by the three MPs' call for existing state bans on new mines to be scrapped.
The national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Doug Cameron, said Australia's focus should be on manufacturing.
"We should not be concentrating on niche industries that employ less than 1.4 per cent of the workforce," he said.
Labor's national conference next year is scheduled to debate a controversial motion calling for the party's current uranium mining policy to be scrapped.
New Labor leader Kevin Rudd has indicated he will support a change to the current policy.
A spokesman for Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria would not be bullied into changing its policy on uranium mining.
"Steve Bracks made it clear in the election campaign that Victoria will not be part of John Howard's nuclear plan and will retain existing laws that prevent uranium mining," the spokesman said.
"Victoria will continue to be nuclear free under a Bracks Labor Government."

------------------->

Tuesday, 19 December 2006
HOWARD AND RUDD MUST NOT APE BUSH IN TRAMPLING
INTERNATIONAL LAW ON NUCLEAR
The Australian Greens have condemned the Bush
administration's decision to once again trample international law by
agreeing to export nuclear fuel and technology to India.
Greens' spokesperson on nuclear issues, Senator
Christine Milne said John Howard and Kevin Rudd must abandon the
globally reckless U.S. nuclear agenda, and rule out immediately the
export of uranium from Australia to India.
"Either you respect and uphold international law or you
abandon it in favour of a lawless world. President Bush may favour
lawlessness but Australia should not.
"Australia's subservience to the US, especially on Iraq
and climate change has severely damaged our international standing. We
are becoming a global rogue, undermining international law and making
the world less safe," Senator Milne said.
"India is a nuclear armed power and a non-signatory to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The U.S. India
deal further damages an already weak international agreement and should
not be condoned.
"President Bush claimed that invading Iraq would make
the world safer and instead he created a debacle. Who is going to
believe him when he says that this Indian nuclear deal will make the
world safer?
"The world and especially our region will be less secure
as a result of this deal.
"George Bush's argument to support this dangerous trade
between two nuclear powers that it will provide opportunities for
American business is ethically and morally moribund. 
"To further compound security concerns, ongoing
negotiations with Iran and North Korea can only be serious undermined by
the U.S India nuclear trade.
"Prime Minister Howard followed Bush into the Iraq war
debacle - there is absolutely no excuse for making the same mistake
twice," Senator Milne said.

------------------->Return to top

INDIGENOUS WORLD URANIUM SUMMIT

------------------->

From the FoE Australia mag Chain Reaction #99, Summer 2007.
To subscribe: http://www.foe.org.au/mainfiles/cr.htm

Indigenous World Uranium Summit

Jim Green

The Indigenous World Uranium Summit and Nuclear Free Future Award was held from November 30-December 2, 2006 on Navajo land at Window Rock, Arizona.

The goals of the summit were to organise resistance to current and new uranium mining in Native communities; stopping nuclear waste dumping in Native lands; developing national and international collaborations on the nuclear fuel cycle; and promoting sustainable development and renewable energy.

The Summit continues a tradition dating from 1992 when delegates from around the world met in Salzburg, Austria, and ratified a declaration opposing all uranium mining on indigenous lands.

Winona LaDuke, Nuclear Free Future Award advisor, told the conference: "The greatest minds in the nuclear establishment have been searching for an answer to the radioactive waste problem for fifty years, and they've finally got one: haul it down a dirt road and dump it on an Indian reservation".


Recipients of the 2006 Nuclear Free Future Awards were:
* Resistance - Sun Xiaodi from China, for his moral courage to petition for an end to the toxic mismanagement of Chinese uranium mining and milling;
* Education - Gordon Edwards from Canada, for his enduring role in demystifying nuclear technology;
* Solutions - Wolfgang Scheffler 
and Heike Hoedt from Germany, for the valuable contributions their solar reflectors have made towards improving the quality of life in developing regions;
* Lifetime Achievement - Ed Grothus from the United States, for his unique brand of gadfly peace activism in the community of Los Alamos, the birthplace of the bomb;
* Special Recognition - Phil Harrison from the Navajo Nation, for his many years of struggle as a visionary activist calling the uranium industry to account;
* Special Recognition - 
Southwest Research and Information Center, United States, for helping people and communities across the south-west understand and overcome their radioactive legacy.

The final Declaration of the 2006 Summit states:

"We, the Peoples gathered at the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, at this critical time of intensifying nuclear threats to Mother Earth and all life, demand a worldwide ban on uranium mining, processing, enrichment, fuel use, and weapons testing and deployment, and nuclear waste dumping on Native Lands. Past, present and future generations of Indigenous Peoples have been disproportionately affected by the international nuclear weapons and power industry. The nuclear fuel chain poisons our people, land, air and waters and threatens our very existence and our future generations. Nuclear power is not a solution to global warming. Uranium mining, nuclear energy development and international agreements (e.g., the recent U.S.-India nuclear cooperation treaty) that foster the nuclear fuel chain violate our basic human rights and fundamental natural laws of Mother Earth, endangering our traditional cultures and spiritual well-being.

"

More information: <www.nuclear-free.com> and <www.sric.org/uraniumsummit>.

------------------->Return to top

MINING - INDIGENOUS LAND-USE AGREEMENTS

------------------->

Overlooked by the boom
Land access deals have failed to deliver jobs and benefits to Aborigines, writes Victoria Laurie
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21137800-28737,00.html
January 30, 2007
IN the southeast mining region of Western Australia, the mining boom is passing the locals by. Goldfields Land Council executive director Brian Wyatt says hundreds of medium and small land-use agreements between Aboriginal people and mining parties exist in the Goldfields, but few have translated into jobs or skills training. Wyatt estimates that only about 50 Aborigines out of an indigenous population of about 3000 are employed in the mining sector. An estimated 1900 local job vacancies exist, "but you'd be lucky if any Aboriginal people will fill them".
Aboriginal unemployment in Kalgoorlie is nearly 15 per cent, or three times non-Aboriginal levels, "and what's really frightening is that our population is growing at twice the rate of non-Aboriginal people". In a state where even cleaners can earn $100,000 a year on mining sites, Wyatt says it's shocking that the resources boom is bypassing the Aboriginal population. "We don't want to be given bread, we want to be breadwinners," he says.
When Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh, Griffith University professor in politics and public policy, studied 45 indigenous land-use agreements or ILUAs between indigenous groups and mining and government partners across Australia, he found half were either "basket cases" that should not have been entered into by indigenous groups, or were deals that have delivered few benefits.
"Some NSW mine agreements have offered a total of less than $100,000 over the life of the mine," O'Faircheallaigh says. "There is a big problem with agreements not delivering and a lot of people are missing out.
The study has found that 15 years after the High Court's Mabo decision, most land-use agreements between native title claimants and mining companies had failed to deliver significant outcomes for indigenous people.
One major disappointment was Murrin Murrin, a large nickel deposit in WA, where mining entrepreneur Andrew Forrest signed a complex agreement with 28 indigenous groups. The deal was praised at the time, generous in its promise of up to 20 per cent Aboriginal employment and a payment of $1million a year into an Aboriginal trust fund.
But the mine changed hands in 2002 and the Goolburthunoo and Bibila-Lungutjarra peoples (two of the claimant groups) have taken new owners Minara Resources to court over their alleged failure to pay nearly $12million. The company has indicated it will vigorously defend the proceedings. The Murrin Murrin agreement should have been a landmark, Wyatt says, "but it's turned out probably one of the worst. "The agreement was all over the place, no finesse about it. It was policy on the run."
Almost every day, news emerges of an agreement between Aborigines and a mining company, a pastoral leaseholder, a national park administration or local government. This month the NSW Government signalled that 19 national parks and state forests covering about 6000km in northern NSW would be jointly managed with the Githabul people as part of a native title settlement.
Across Australia, there are now 264 ILUAs. Introduced in 1998 under amendments to the Native Title Act, ILUAs permit Aboriginal claimant groups to negotiate access to land in return for negotiated benefits.
Most ILUAs have been signed in Queensland (138), followed by the Northern Territory (78) and Victoria (27). That relatively few ILUAs exist in other states - South Australia (10) WA (seven) and NSW (four) - masks the fact that huge tracts of land can be involved, such as the sparsely-populated Ngaanyatjarra traditional lands and the Pitjanjatjara homelands in South Australia. In WA, 167,000sqkm of Ngaanyatjarra traditional lands are subject to three agreements covering mining, Telstra access and landing strips for air traffic.
Some ILUAs are multimillion-dollar agreements resulting from complex negotiations, like the landmark 2001 deal between Comalco and the western Cape York peoples, or the 2003 Argyle Diamond mine agreement in WA.
ILUAs are subject to a degree of scrutiny because they are registered with the National Native Title Tribunal and are invariably driven by a desire by commercial interests for access to land and Aboriginal groups' need to get a stake in any future prosperity. A large proportion are deals with companies seeking prompt access to mineral resources.
A typical example is at Koolan Island, off the northwest coast of WA, where Aztec mining has signed a "co-existence agreement" with the Dambima-Ngardi people of Derby. In return for Aztec's access to the island's iron ore (the first shipment is due to leave at the end of 2007), Aborigines have been promised a 30 per cent share of 220 jobs by the mine's eighth year. Wayne Bergmann, executive director of the Kimberley Land Council, has participated in dozens of negotiations, including Koolan Island. He says the Aztec deal was carefully structured to ensure benefits were not handed out as "finger money" to individuals but pooled as community wealth to fund business development.
Further east, in the water-rich Ord River region, Bergmann and the KLC oversaw the largest Kimberley agreement. The Ord Stage Two agreement gave the green light to agricultural expansion, in return for recognition of native title ownership by the Miriuwung Gajerrong people, a $50 million compensation package, jobs and indigenous involvement in environmental management.
While it's early days, Bergmann is confident benefits will materialise at Koolan Island and the Ord River. But he's not so sure about the promises of other business and mining executives beating a path to the KLC's door, especially as WA's resource boom escalates.
"The general talk is 'we'll give Aboriginal people employment and business opportunities and all this', but that's a company talking at largesse level," Bergmann says. "When you talk about making it a commitment, it's like 'we can't do that'."
The National Native Title Tribunal's deputy president Fred Chaney admits some agreements are flawed and points to one of the first ever struck back in 1979 under Northern Territory land rights legislation between uranium miner Narbalek and the Gagadju people. "They handed over $14 million, a large sum at that time, and little was used for long-term investment," Chaney says. "It's largely gone and it's a sorry story of the mistakes of the past. It was a good faith agreement and there were attempts to set up indigenous businesses, but they failed."
Chaney worries about the incidence of "wildcat agreements": deals hastily cut by miners who prefer to short-circuit the native title process by paying out traditional owners. But he says many current agreements deliver what Aborigines living in remote areas need: real jobs. He cites the case of Argyle Diamond Mine, where 25 per cent of the work force (about 120 workers) is Aboriginal, with a target of 40 per cent in coming years. Only six years ago, the indigenous work force was a mere 5 per cent. Argyle is routinely praised as the gold standard in native title agreements.
Royalties are divided into different funds earmarked to set up a tourism industry, traditional business and community infrastructure, and an Aboriginal trust has so far funded renal health and school development.
"The structure of agreements is very important and Argyle is very prescriptive about what money can be used for," says ex-Rio Tinto senior mining executive Ian Williams, now a trustee of the Argyle trust fund and another BHP-Billiton indigenous agreement in the Pilbara.
Williams says indigenous agreements represent a huge change in company attitudes towards Aborigines. "When Mabo happened, I was in the Pilbara and I saw industry people say, 'This is the end of industry as we know it."' In 1997, Williams led the negotiations for one of the earliest and biggest land use agreements in far north Queensland, over Rio Tinto's Century Zinc mine. After protracted negotiations, three native title groups signed up to a $66 million package, with compensation money held in a legal trust for creating indigenous businesses.
"We said we'd also put aside $1 million a year for training of Aboriginal people," Williams says. "In fact, it cost $2 million a year for the first three years to train indigenous workers, so the company will have ended up spending more than the $66 million. And there are six full-time people involved in implementing the agreement."
The investment has paid off: Century Zinc, now owned by Zinifex, has 25 per cent to 27 per cent indigenous staff.
"If they're done properly, agreements can help with the solution of intractable problems of health and employment," Williams says.
"In remote Australia, there's very little opportunity for Aboriginal people to become independent of handouts and welfare."
An ABARE report estimated that 2450 Aboriginal people were working in the mining industry in 2002.
"That would certainly have increased to at least 3000 now, with possibly another few hundred or even up to 2000 more employed by contractors," says Marcia Langton, a professor in indigenous studies at the University of Melbourne. Langton, coauthor of the forthcoming book Settling with Indigenous People, says Comalco's western Cape York agreement, signed in 2001, has spawned Aboriginal success stories such as Gina Castelain, a western Cape York woman who at 22 is a director of an earthmoving company, a wetlands charter company, and sits on two trusts. "Where (agreements) do work, they work well," Langton says, adding that Pilbara mining agreements have spawned two Aboriginal-owned earthmoving businesses, Ngarda Civil and Mining and Gumula.
"Both of them got financed from agreements with Pilbara Iron, and they are both good outcomes." Ngarda has a work force of about 160, of whom 85 per cent are Aboriginal, and is set to double its revenue to $88 million in the next year.
Dodgy agreements do exist, Langton says. "The local traditional owners who negotiate them don't understand how royalty arrangements are arrived at. Aboriginal people think $100,000 is a lot of money," she says.
"The problem is some companies keep their agreements confidential, and nobody's going to give me access to a dodgy agreement.
"But we do know the good ones, because they are not afraid to stand up in public and say what they are."
Victoria Laurie is a senior writer with The Australian.

------------------->

Dodgy land-use deals 'not investigated'
Victoria Laurie
January 31, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21145817-2702,00.html
MILLIONS of dollars had vanished in dodgy land-use agreements between Aborigines and mining companies yet authorities were reluctant to properly investigate, indigenous leader Warren Mundine claimed yesterday.
Mr Mundine, ALP national president and head of the NSW Native Title Service, also accused rogue lawyers of "shopping around" to find compliant Aborigines willing to cut their own communities out of any substantial agreements for personal gain.
Mr Mundine backed findings of Griffith University research into 45 land-use deals, reported in The Australian yesterday, that showed many agreements involving indigenous communities, governments and mining companies were "basket cases" that delivered few cultural, environmental or monetary benefits to Aboriginal people.
Mr Mundine said many good agreements existed, but they needed to be matched with well-structured corporate bodies to handle money. A gas pipeline agreement on the NSW south coast, for example, had delivered $4 million into the well-run Nyarmin trust for the benefit of five claimant groups.
But he said a growing number of rogue lawyers "shopped around" to find individual Aborigines willing to sign off on agreements cutting whole communities out of financial benefits.
In one 2003 case, Mr Mundine said his agency was asked to negotiate for Aboriginal claimants over another NSW coastal development.
"We were then sacked as negotiators, another lawyer came into place and we heard substantial monies went out," he said.
Community members later complained to him they had not seen any of the money, rumoured to be more than $1million.
"We passed on copies of our files and evidence to the fraud section of ATSIC but we never heard back," Mr Mundine said. "As far as I know, it disappeared into the ether."
National Indigenous Council member Wesley Aird, who is also a Gold Coast native title claimant, said it would not cost much to set up a responsible body to handle funds on behalf of all Aboriginal claimants.
He said government agencies and companies were regularly failing to follow the right processes in negotiating agreements.
"Developers and governments must genuinely engage with the community and not just the loudest person or the one with the Land Cruiser," Mr Aird said.
But he said some of the 7000 Aboriginal organisations playing a role in agreement-making were also at fault by allowing powerful family groups or individuals to take over at the expense of the community good.

------------------->Return to top

GOVERNMENT ATTACKS NT ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS ACT

------------------->

From the FoE Australia mag Chain Reaction #99, Summer 2007.
To subscribe: http://www.foe.org.au/mainfiles/cr.htm

Government attacks Aboriginal Land Rights Act

Jim Green

The Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 (ALRA) was the strongest piece of Aboriginal social justice legislation in the country. About half the land in the NT is Aboriginal land under the Act.

 However, the legislation has been seriously weakened by amendments pushed through the federal parliament by the Howard government.

On June 22, 2006 the government agreed to a Senate inquiry into the amendments but insisted that it report by August 1. Only one day of public hearings was held – in Darwin in July 21. So little time was allowed for written submissions that only 15 were received.

A cross-party Senate committee, including government Senators, expressed unanimous concern about the "totally inadequate" time for the inquiry into "fundamentally important" legislation, saying that it was "extraordinary" that stakeholders had little more than two weeks to prepare submissions. Despite those objections, government members on the Senate committee argued that the legislation should proceed.

Even Indigenous affairs minister Mal Brough agreed the Senate committee process "could have been done better" – but he continued to railroad the legislation through the parliament.

Proposals from the Central Land Council and others to split the Bill, such that the non-contentious aspects could be enacted and others considered in greater detail, were rejected by the government. The government cut short debate in the parliament on June 19, limiting debate to three hours. A petition with 22,260 signatures, calling on the legislation to be delayed, was ignored by the government.

Land councils

The ALRA amendments significantly weaken the four NT Land Councils and undermine their independence. The Indigenous affairs minister assumes greater control over the level and usage of Land Council funding, through a number of amendments including removal of the statutory funding guarantee (previously fixed by statute at 40% of annual royalties earned from mining on Aboriginal land in the NT).

Central Land Council (CLC) director David Ross said in a May 31, 2006 statement: "We do not support the new funding arrangements which puts the Land Council's funding at Government whim. It significantly undermines the CLC's independence."

The Indigenous affairs minister now has the power to delegate Land Council functions to other bodies. Northern Land Council (NLC) chief executive Norman Fry warned in a June 1, 2006 statement that development on Aboriginal land will be "choked by process and inefficiency" because of the delegation of Land Council functions to other, smaller bodies. Fry said: "These and other amendments are unfair and unworkable, strike at the independence of Land Councils, and are a recipe for litigation, dispute and possible international complaint."

The ALRA amendments also facilitate the creation of new Land Councils if 55% of Aboriginal people living in an area want a new Council.

Mining

A number of changes to mining provisions in the ALRA were supported by the Land Councils and mining interests. However, the amendments also contain controversial mining provisions.

Before the ALRA amendments, Land Councils consulted Traditional Owners and the entire Council signed off on it when it was satisfied that the decision was fully supported at the local level. The ALRA gave Traditional Owners the right to veto mining. The amendments allow for different processes to be followed at the discretion of the Indigenous affairs minister.

David Ross said in May 31, 2006 statement that devolving decision-making about mining and commercial enterprises could encourage corruption and bribery: "As we have seen in other parts of Australia, it is easy to coerce poverty stricken people into making decisions when a bit of cash is splashed around and somebody says 'sign on the dotted line'. It happens and this amendment opens the way for that to happen more often. ... The Minister will have to exercise a great deal of diligence in his administration of the provisions which provide for delegation to groups and new land councils. These very small entities are often highly susceptible to governance issues – especially in matters involving conflicts of interest."

The Minerals Council of Australia also expressed concern about the delegation of Land Council powers to other bodies. The Council's submission to the Senate committee warned of an "extraordinary unintended consequence" whereby a developer must negotiate with multiple institutions responsible for making the same or related decisions regarding the same land – the result being "disjunctive processes, increased complexity, and inefficiencies to the detriment of all interested parties."

National Indigenous Times editor Chris Graham argued in Crikey on June 1, 2006 that one of the government's motivations with the ALRA amendments is to expand uranium mining: "It's no coincidence that most of Australia's uranium sits in the Northern Territory and on Aboriginal land. At present, traditional owners can veto mining on their land with the support of an independent, well-resourced land council. In the future, while their right to veto will be preserved, their capacity to enact it will be gone."

Peter Howson, former Liberal minister for Aboriginal 
affairs and now vice-president of the 
Bennelong Society, argued in the June 2005 edition of Quadrant magazine that the ALRA amendments were being driven by two factors – the failure of "Coombsian policies" and the government's desire to expand the uranium mining industry.

Land leasing

Country Liberal Party MP David Tollner complained in the federal parliament on June 19, 2006 that: "When you travel around community after community on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory nowhere do you see a market garden that grows fresh vegetables; nowhere do you see a butcher shop or a small abattoir; nowhere do you see bakeries. You do not see hairdressers; you do not see clothing stores – let alone a McDonald's or an Irish theme pub."



Mal Brough was scarcely any less offensive and condescending in characterising Aboriginal townships as abnormal. "This is about opportunity and choice and enables Aboriginal communities to operate like normal Australian towns," Brough said.

 He also likened Aboriginal townships to "communist enclaves" in parliament on June 19, 2006.

The government's policies and its rhetoric borrow heavily from far-right organisations such as the Bennelong Society (<www.bennelong.com.au>) and Quadrant magazine (<www.quadrant.org.au>). The Bennelong Society applauded Brough for his purported concern for Aborigines "locked out of the real economy by the ideology of separate and collective development".

To encourage the introduction of McDonalds and Irish theme pubs into Aboriginal communities, such that they might become 'normal' and 'real', the ALRA amendments encourage private ownership of homes and businesses. The ALRA amendments enable 99-year headleases to government entities over townships on Aboriginal land, with sub-leases subsequently to be made by that entity.

It is arguable whether private home ownership on Aboriginal communities will be beneficial, and in any event it is doubtful that it will eventuate given that the average annual income in remote NT communities is $13,500.

The CLC did not oppose home ownership but argued that the ALRA already contained provisions allowing for home ownership. The CLC was more concerned about whole-of-community leasing and commercial enterprises. David Ross said in a May 31, 2006 statement: "We see whole-of-community leases by the Northern Territory Government on Aboriginal land as unnecessary, expensive and flawed. ... Leasing the entire community could also deprive the traditional owners of the benefits of commercial development in the future and runs the risk that commercial leases will be granted to businesses that the traditional owners do not want in their community."

The government claims that Aboriginal communities will not be forced into leasing their land. However, communities may be coerced or bribed. The Senate committee was presented with evidence of two occasions where funding for education and housing improvements was offered by the government in exchange for the community's agreement to enter into a 99-year lease. In one case, the government claimed that extra housing and a secondary college represented "special and particular benefits that would otherwise be unavailable". 



Traditional Owners from North East Arnhem Land noted in their submission to the Senate committee that some traditional owners "may be inappropriately induced by short term financial gain to 'sign away' the traditional rights/interests of their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren, and those of other clans with a traditional interest in this land."

More Information:
* Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, <aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/aborig_land_rights>.
* Central Land Council, 'Our Land, Our Life', <www.clc.org.au/media/publications/olol.asp>.
* National Indigenous Times <www.nit.com.au>.
* History of the ALRA: <www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=57>.
* Allison Rickett and Sean Brennan (UNSW Law School), Report on Parliamentary Process, <www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/news/docs/ALRA_2006.pdf>.
* Jennifer Norberry and John Gardiner-Garden (Department of Parliamentary Services), June 9, 2006, Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006, <www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/bd/2005-06/06bd158.pdf>.
* Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Indigenous Housing, <www.ahuri.edu.au/themes/indigenous_housing>.

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR DUMP IN THE NT ... NOT

------------------->

Please support this hugely important campaign with volunteer work (from anywhere in Australia) and/or a $ donation ... please contact:
Nat Wasley
Arid Lands Environment Centre
0429 900 774
natwasley@alec.org.au

------------------->

6/12/06

Despite strong opposition from the ALP, Greens and Dems the Senate passed the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill. This law removes the requirement for community consultation, informed traditional owner consent, procedural fairness and administrative review from any potential waste dump site that may be nominated by the Northern Land Council.
 
The law is inconsistent with both international best practise and the statutory obligations of a Land Council under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
 
The move comes exactly a year to the day that the federal government used its Senate majority to pass the original Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act - overriding any federal, state or territory laws that could be used to delay the dump.
 
The decision is a setback and a hard knock to the many traditional owners concerned about imposed nuclear developments on their country. But it is absolutely not the end of the story or the campaign against the dump.
 
The federal government has had a victory but it is a victory that guarantees its loss. The government has now completely abandoned any attempt at due process and procedural or scientific credibility and this will ultimately undo the current dump push.
 
It is important to remember that this dump is being pushed in the NT now because it was stopped in SA then - and history will repeat on this one.
 
Last week traditional owners from potential NT dump sites made a strong presentation to the NT government. Their efforts meant that this legislation did not happen without comment, scrutiny or media profile. Environmental groups and traditional owners are working well together and key stakeholders like the NT government and the Central Land Council are actively engaged in efforts to stop any imposed dump.
 
It is important now to take the dump issue to the wider national stage - especially against the context of Ziggy's reactor dreams and in those communities along potential transport corridors - ahead of the 2007 federal election.
 
There are many options and many allies in our work from here and as the Romans said - non carborundum illegitimi.
 
Solidarity, commiserations and strength to those who have been so active on this issue to date.
 
Now lets ensure that the federal government gets the message loud and clear that imposing a nuclear waste dump on Indigenous lands and unwilling communities is never acceptable and never happening.
 
(From DS - a special NNN contributor.)

------------------->

Bishop declares NT a nuclear terra nullius
Media Release
January 31, 2006

Territorians are shocked by Science Minister Julie Bishop’s assertions that no one is living near the proposed sites for the Commonwealth radioactive waste dump in the NT, when each of the areas being considered has communities within a ten kilometre radius.

At the event marking the closure of the Lucas Heights HIFAR nuclear reactor yesterday, speaking on the NT dump proposal, the Minister asserted that:

“….all the sites in the NT are well away from houses”, and that the three sites
“…are some distance from any form of civilisation" (ABC online, Jan 30, 2007)

Natalie Wasley from the Arid Land Environment Centre in Alice Springs, says these comments are uninformed, and indicative of the Federal Government’s unwillingness to engage and involve targeted communities in discussions around this controversial issue.
“The Minister’s statements regarding the proposed dump sites are incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate. There are communities extremely close to each of the areas under investigation, all of which have strongly and frequently said no to the proposal. It can hardly be considered a civilised act to force a radioactive waste dump on an unwilling community”, Ms Wasley stated.
She added, “It is outrageous that Julie Bishop was so cavalier to say that the sites are ‘some distance from any form of civilisation’. Traditional owners, pastoralists and communities directly affected by the proposal have attempted to engage with the Government and have made it clear that they oppose the dump. This begs the question what “social perspective”, a component put forward as important by the Minister, is being considered in the assessments”.
“Despite the ongoing efforts of local communities, the Minister has failed to realise that the plan to dump Commonwealth radioactive waste in the Territory actively undermines a range of values and land uses in areas where people practice the oldest living culture, the oldest civilisation, on Earth. Bishop is pushing the Government’s nuclear agenda in the Territory by announcing the targeted areas as terra nullius”.
 “As Julie Bishop seems unaware that people live so close to the sites, traditional owners have suggested that she come to the Territory and visit communities in the immediate vicinity of the potential dump sites. Until then, she cannot credibly assert that the dump plan and process is democratic or adhering to international best practice, which would entail community participation”, concluded Ms Wasley.

------------------->

Community profiles for the proposed Commonwealth radioactive waste dump sites

 Mt Everard (Athenge Lhere)
Arrernte country, 40km north west of Alice Springs on the Tanami road.

Were Therre community is literally across the road from the Mt Everard Department of Defence site, with some houses as close as 3 kilometres. Steven McCormack, traditional owner for the area, musters wild horses for sale and the community has recently begun a programme for groups of interstate school children to stay at Werre Therre and learn about bush tucker, bush medicine and local indigenous culture.

"This land is not empty - people live right nearby. We hunt and collect bush tucker here and I am the custodian of a sacred site within the boundaries of the defence land. We don't want this poison here”. Steven McCormack

Harts Range (Alcoota)
Arrernte country, 165km north east of Alice Springs on the Plenty Highway.

Engawala community and Aboriginal owned Alcoota cattle station are situated 8km north of the Harts Range Department of Defence site.

“We don’t want anyone destroying our land, culture, ceremonial life and all other things in our surroundings” Marjorie Petrick, Atitjere (Harts Range) community.

"Other pastoralists have also expressed concern over the perception by the public that the beef will be contaminated. The cattle industry out here prides itself on being clean and green”. William Tilmouth, Alcoota Aboriginal Corporation Chairman.    

Fishers Ridge
Jawoyn country, 43km south east of Katherine.

Valerie and Barry Utley own and manage a 230sq km pastoral station, Yeltu Park, which completely surrounds the Fishers Ridge Department of Defence site. Their home is around 3km away from the area under investigation.

“If we find anything that's any worry in the future about our staying here, we'll have to put the place on the market. It's such a pristine environment that we wouldn't want to see anything changed”. Valerie Utley

------------------->

Minister should live by her words

Science minister Julie Bishop calls for a more polite, civilised society, but she doesn't live by her words. Bishop has repeatedly refused to meet Aboriginal Traditional Owners who are being targeted for a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. Even when Traditional Owners went to Canberra, Bishop refused to meet them. Next time she gives a talk on the need for a more polite, civilised society, perhaps she could share her thoughts on hypocrisy and racism.

------------------->

Anger at NT waste dump
Tara Ravens
November 29, 2006 11:00pm
Article from: AAP
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20844369-5010960,00.html
COMMONWEALTH plans for a nuclear waste dump in desert communities have been slammed by Aboriginal elders, pastoralists, environmentalists and the Northern Territory Government.
Legislation for the move was passed in the House of Representatives yesterday, paving the way for a potential dump at one of four sites in the Northern Territory.
The legislation is aimed at preventing legal challenges against any move by the Northern Land Council (NLC) to offer up its land for radioactive waste.
Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop told Parliament that claims indigenous landowners were being bullied were "ridiculous" and dismissed the suggestion the NLC was nominating sites against the wishes of traditional owners.
But Dianne Stokes, a traditional owner from the proposed site of Muckaty Station in Central Australia, said only five of the 16 land groups had been consulted by the NLC.
"I don't know who the NLC was talking to, I have never seen the NLC talk to any of these other groups or families," she told reporters in Darwin.
"We are not happy to have this, it is not our spirit, our spirit is our country, the country where our ancestors were born."
Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the legislation contradicted the statutory obligations of Land Councils, who are required to consult the community before making a decision.
"It is not ethically acceptable to impose a radioactive waste facility on an unwilling community," he said.
"The current amendments that have passed the House of Representatives today seek to remove the need for community consultation and procedural fairness."
A private contractor is currently examining three mooted commonwealth-owned sites in the territory - Harts Range and Mt Everard, near Alice Springs, and Fishers Ridge near Katherine.
Muckaty Station has also been flagged with a full report on the possible sites due by March 2007.
Valerie Utley, a pastoralist living at Fishers Ridge, said the area was a high flood zone and unsuitable for development.
"It's just disastrous when you think of the site environmentally because there is such a large area that depends on this drainage system and it floods every year.
"It would be the most unstable place in the world."
Mr Sweeney said plans for a dump would affect all Australians because it required large volumes of radioactive material to be trucked, shipped or transported by rail across Australia.
NT Minister for Central Australia Elliot McAdam called on the federal government to start working with the territory.
"It (the amendments) take away the rights of not only traditional owners but also territorians...
"This the commonwealth government stomping on the rights of territorians - both indigenous and non-indigenous."
The bill passed by 79 votes to 57 and will go to the Senate tomorrow.

------------------->

MEDIA RELEASE    
December 5, 2006
Scullion’s groundhog day: Commonwealth wasting no time on NT waste dump push

Exactly one year since the Commonwealth passed the controversial Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA), amendments are being rushed through Federal Parliament to further inhibit opportunity for community input and judicial review of the siting of the Commonwealth waste facility.

The original Act, overriding NT laws prohibiting transport and storage of nuclear waste in the NT, was passed with the support of Senator Nigel Scullion and MP Dave Tollner on December 5 last year, despite strong opposition from targeted communities, the NT Government and Territory and national environment groups.

Now, exactly one year later, amendments are being rushed through to continue the legislative onslaught forcing a dump on the NT. The legislation, being voted on in the Senate this week, essentially allows sites to be nominated without consultation and consent of traditional owners and wipes out the opportunity for “procedural fairness” and judicial review by any interested parties including communities, pastoralists and the NTG.

The Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC), Environment Centre of the Northern Territory (ECNT) and NT No Waste Alliance strongly condemn the way the Government is continuing to change legislation to hurdle any obstacles presented to its NT dump push.

“Despite rhetoric of ‘international best practice’, the Commonwealth is far from following international trends that recognise the importance of community input in the siting of radioactive waste facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) encourages early and sustained public participation, which is a clear contrast to the method of imposition being undertaken by the Commonwealth”, stated Natalie Wasley, Beyond Nuclear campaigner at ALEC.

Emma King from the ECNT agrees, pointing out that "the report released in June this year by the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommends that 'community involvement in any proposals for the siting of long term radioactive waste facilities should be based on the principle of volunteerism, that is, an expressed willingness to participate' . The UK report also notes that 'there is a growing recognition that it is not ethically acceptable for a society to impose a radioactive waste facility on an unwilling community'. (1) "

"The Commonwealth has demonstrated disregard for public opinion since they announced the NT dump plan." said Justin Tutty from the Darwin No Waste Alliance. "The process of siting a dump should involve opportunity for input from affected communities at every stage. Instead, the Commonwealth Government, including our federal politicians, Dave Tollner and Nigel ‘not on my watch’ Scullion, have acted with contempt for people they are elected to represent."

A delegation comprising community members, traditional owners and pastoralists from all sites being considered by the Commonwealth has recently returned from a road trip to Darwin, where they met with senior NTG members, national environment group representatives and Darwin community members, galvanising support and building networks between the targeted communities and stakeholders.

"Individuals and groups throughout the NT are committed to working together to oppose the Commonwealth dump plan and will continue to carefully monitor each stage of the process," said Mr Tutty.

------------------->

Media Release
December 13, 2006
Territory Nuke Plans ‘Off the Rails’
   
Following the derailment of the Ghan train near the Adelaide River yesterday, Territory and national environment groups expressed concern about transport of radioactive materials along this route amidst the push for increased nuclear activity in the Territory.

Yellowcake (uranium ore) from Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia travels regularly along the Ghan rail line for export through Darwin port and the track is also a potential route for radioactive waste transport if a Commonwealth nuclear dump is established in the NT.

Natalie Wasley from the Arid Lands Environment Centre said there are inherent risks with frequently transporting radioactive materials across long distances. “Though this rail line has only been open a relatively short time, this is not the first incident, which provides little reassurance that one of the many freight trains carrying radioactive materials will never have an accident like we saw yesterday,” Ms Wasley added.

“It is of great concern that people were injured when the train crashed and derailed yesterday afternoon. This accident shows that despite best planning and care for cargo - human or otherwise- accidents can happen. Given the current push for increased nuclear activity in the Territory, we should consider the profound implications of such an accident if radioactive materials were involved” stated Emma King from the Environment Centre of the NT.

“This incident should serve as a warning about the dangers of increased yellowcake transports if Olympic Dam mine in South Australia is expanded, a clear alarm bell to the Federal Government to back off plans to transport and dump Commonwealth waste in the NT, and a wake up to the CLP, who are canvassing for a uranium enrichment facility to be developed in the NT,” concluded Dave Sweeney from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

------------------->

Nuke warning in Ghan crash
December 13, 2006 11:00pm
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20925432-5010960,00.html

ENVIRONMENTAL groups say the crash of the Ghan passenger train highlights the dangers associated with Australia's burgeoning nuclear industry.
Natalie Wasley, from the Arid Lands Environment Centre, said uranium ore from the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia regularly travelled on the same rail line for export from Darwin.
She said the track also was a potential route for radioactive waste if the Federal Government pushed ahead with a nuclear dump in the Northern Territory.
"Though this rail line has only been open a relatively short time, this is not the first incident, which provides little reassurance that one of the many freight trains carrying radioactive materials will never have an accident like we saw yesterday," Ms Wasley said.
Two locomotives and 11 carriages of the Ghan were derailed on Tuesday when the train and a road train collided south of Darwin.
A 50-year-old female passenger was in a critical but stable condition after the crash while three others – the 57-year-old male truck driver and two passengers, a 70-year-old man and a 71-year-old woman – were being treated for less serious injuries in Royal Darwin Hospital.
NT Environment Centre spokeswoman Emma King said the crash showed accidents could still happen despite the best planning.
"Given the current push for increased nuclear activity in the territory, we should consider the profound implications of such an accident if radioactive materials were involved," she said.

------------------->

MEDIA RELEASE
   
November 22, 2006

NT community groups concerned waste dump legislation designed to remove input and accountability

NT community and environment groups have warned a Senate Committee Inquiry that amendments to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA) due to be debated in Federal Parliament at the end of this month, would override hard-won rights of Traditional Owners currently enshrined in the landmark NT Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

Submissions made to the Committee from Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, Arid Lands Environment Centre and the Darwin No-Waste Alliance all express strong opposition to the changes proposed earlier this month by Julie Bishop, Minister for Science, Education and Training.

The current CRWMA legislation, passed last December, includes provisions that for a Land Council to nominate a site for assessment for the Commonwealth radioactive waste dump, they must demonstrate evidence of:
consultation with traditional owners
that the traditional owners understand the nomination
that they have consented as a group   
that any community or group that may be affected has been consulted and had adequate opportunity to express its view

Less than one year after the CRWMA was passed, the Government is attempting to further weaken community input into radioactive waste management, with proposed amendments clearly stating that if the above conditions are not met, this does not affect the validity of a nomination.

Natalie Wasley from the Arid Lands Environment Centre notes “the implications of this are extraordinary, as it reduces the former rules of nomination to guidelines, allowing Land Councils to nominate land for a Commonwealth dump irrespective of traditional owner and community opposition and concerns, contrary to their usual, statutory obligations under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act”.

“The legislation also removes the process of procedural fairness, whereby communities could challenge any such nominations. Placing this process outside of the ambit of judicial review is demonstrative of the bullying tactics being employed by the Federal Government to secure a site for its radioactive waste by any means possible, with blatant disregard for the opinions of affected communities”, added Emma King from the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory.

“We will be closely monitoring the Senate Committee Inquiry and debate in Federal Parliament in the hope that community opposition to these proposed changes is taken into account. We encourage the Senate Committee to take note of our concerns and recommend that this shameful legislation not be passed”, concluded Justin Tutty from Darwin’s No Waste Alliance.

------------------->

Media Release  
November 26, 2006
Anti Dump Delegation En Route to Darwin

Traditional owners from sites being targeted for the Commonwealth radioactive waste dump and other concerned community members have embarked on a week long road trip to Darwin to join forces in raising awareness about the anti-dump campaign.

This trip aims to galvanise support from the Territory government and the wider community to oppose the imposition of the Commonwealth radioactive facility in the NT.

“This trip is particularly timely as it will coincide with the Senate Committee inquiry into proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act. The amendments propose removing any requirement for consultation, understanding and consent from traditional owners before their country can be nominated by a land council for assessment,” said Natalie Wasley from the Arid Lands Environment Centre.

Ms Wasley added “it is exciting that people from each of the three proposed Defence sites and from Muckaty Station, also rumoured as a potential site, are travelling together to share campaign ideas and speak as a united voice to NTG, media and the community. There is strong opposition to the Commonwealth dump throughout the Territory and this journey will be an important milestone in the anti-dump campaign”.

------------------->

Organising against NT waste dump plans
Justin Tutty
24 November 2006

Senate estimates hearings in November revealed that the federal government’s plans for a nuclear dump in the Northern Territory are not running smoothly. The site evaluation is lagging six months behind schedule and, as a result, Canberra wants to conduct environmental assessment and site licensing processes concurrently.

Federal science minister Julie Bishop has also proposed a set of amendments that, if passed, will override legislation passed last December. The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA), 2005 included provisions that stipulated that to nominate a site for assessment for the Commonwealth radioactive waste dump, a Land Council must demonstrate evidence: of consultation with the traditional owners; that the traditional owners understand the nomination; that they have consented as a group; and that any community or group that may be affected has been consulted and had adequate opportunity to express its view.

Less than a year later, Bishop wants to further weaken community input into the debate over radioactive waste management, with amendments that mean that if the above conditions are not met, the validity of a nomination is not affected. This paves the way for traditional owners’ rights to be wiped out.

On November 22, the Environment Centre of the NT, Arid Lands Environment Centre and the Darwin No Waste Alliance put their strong opposition to the proposed amendment to the senate inquiry. The bill is due for debate at the end of November. Natalie Wasley, from the Arid Lands Environment Centre, is concerned about the implications of amendments to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA), 2005. Wasley said that this is because, “it reduces the former rules of nomination to guidelines, allowing [Northern] Land Councils to nominate land for a Commonwealth dump irrespective of traditional owner and community opposition and concerns, and contrary to their usual, statutory obligations under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act”.

Predictably, federal MPs have welcomed the Uranium Industry Framework report which outlines a massive expansion of uranium exports based on “product stewardship” — a notion that could result in Australia accepting responsibility for the waste generated by any uranium exported from this country. This document makes clear that a dump in the NT could become a destination for international nuclear waste. Ziggy Switkowski’s Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review also opens the door to a domestic nuclear power industry.

But opposition to the government’s plans is growing. Traditional owners and community representatives from the various NT sites targeted for the nuclear dump will meet with politicians and the Darwin community on November 29 at 6.30pm at the Museum Theaterette. All welcome.

Justin Tutty is a member of No Waste Alliance.
Visit http://no-waste.org

------------------->

Nuclear waste dump a step closer
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Nuclear-waste-dump-a-step-closer/2006/11/28/1164476190412.html
November 28, 2006 - 3:04PM

Australia's nuclear research body will have a greater say in the storage of radioactive material.
Federal parliament passed legislation on Tuesday enabling the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) greater power in managing nuclear waste.
This would also include control of radioactive material or waste if an Australian nuclear facility becomes the target of a terrorist or criminal attack.
The move comes despite attempts by the Australian Democrats to limit the storage to material generated by Australia's Lucas Heights Research facility in Sydney and also health and medical facilities.
The Democrats amendment was designed to stop the storage of radioactive waste from overseas.
However government minister Amanda Vanstone told the Senate that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 did not allow for the importation of all manner of radioactive waste.
"(The Bill) will not authorise ANSTO to import any radioactive waste. It will authorise ANSTO to manage once returned to Australia the waste arriving from overseas, re-processing of ANSTO's spent fuel," she said.
The Democrats proposed changes would also have had an impact on the government's planned radioactive waste dump scheduled for 2011 in the Northern Territory.
Democrat leader Lyn Allison said there were concerns that the legislative changes would make it easier to import nuclear waste.
"It's really to make sure that there is no hidden agenda here, no intention that high level waste from anywhere else...ends up in the Northern Territory," Senator Allison said.
Despite backing from Labor and the Greens, the Democrats were unable to force a change to the government's legislation which was passed.

------------------->Return to top

LUCAS HEIGHTS REACTOR CLOSED

------------------->

Nuclear group says new reactor ready soon
Tuesday, January 30, 2007. 3:00pm (AEDT)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1836374.htm

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) says it is confident problems with Australia's next nuclear reactor will be fixed by the time it is meant to come on line.
Today marked the end of the old reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney's south, after nearly 50 years of operation.
The work of the reactor will be taken over by the Argentinian-designed research reactor called OPAL.
ANSTO chief executive Ian Smith says he expects the new reactor to be up and running by April, despite some teething problems in the commissioning phase.
"This is simply a leak of light water coolant into the heavy water; this doesn't constitute a safety hazard," he said.
Waste dump

Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says its not yet known which site in the Northern Territory will be chosen as Australia's first central nuclear waste dump.
Ms Bishop says a facility is needed, as medical and research nuclear waste is being kept in hospitals and storerooms around the country.
She says all the sites in the NT are well away from houses.
"There are three sites that are currently being considered and they are former defence sites so they are some distance from any form of civilisation," she said.
"We are looking at them from an environmental perspective as well as a social perspective."
Used reactor parts

Environmentalists have warned against dumping the Lucas Heights reactor's old radioactive parts in the NT.
Arid Lands Environment Centre spokeswoman Natalie Wasley says it would be much better for the old parts of the reactor to remain at Lucas Heights.
"The Australian Nuclear Association have all said that there is room here, they have the technology, they have the capability and they have the storage room," she said.
"Also there are trained personnel here who deal with radioactive material, and they'll be on site all the time.
"So that's definitely a lot better option than sticking it out in a remote area in the desert."
Wilderness Society nuclear spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven says the Federal Government should say where it is planning to dump radioactive waste from the decommissioned site.
"We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said.
"We actually think that the reactor, now that it's shut down, should stay where it is and be managed locally."

------------------->

Nuclear reactor's life coming to an end
Tuesday, January 30, 2007. 10:00am (AEDT)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1835977.htm
Australia's first nuclear reactor is being shut down from today.
The 50-year-old reactor, called HIFAR, is at Lucas Heights in Sydney's south.
Chief executive of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organsation (ANSTO), Ian Smith, says the reactor will be replaced by a new one, called OPAL.
He says a ceremony with the federal Science Minister Julie Bishop will mark the beginning of the decommissioning process.
"The Minister is turning off HIFAR and the process will then begin for decommissioning and we would expect that it would be completed in about 10 years, because for some of the time of course we simply allow the radiation in the reactor to decay naturally," he said.
"This class of reactor - this has had the longest working life of any in the world.
"It's still working very well and we're very proud that we've maintained it and we've been able to deliver a great service to the Australian community, Australian industry, the nuclear medicine community by keeping this reactor going for almost 50 years."

------------------->Return to top

GOVERNMENT WEAKENS ENVIRONMENT LAWS

------------------->

Greens slam environmental law overhaul
December 7, 2006 - 11:01PM
www.smh.com.au/news/National/Greens-slam-environmental-law-overhaul/2006/12/07/1165081091696.html

Parliament has approved a major overhaul of Australia's environmental laws which green groups have lamented as a backward step for the country's natural habitat.
In a late-night sitting, the Senate passed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which the government says will streamline environmental regulations and cut red tape.
The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2006 reduces processing time and costs for developers, relaxes environmental assessments and simplifies development approvals for large projects like the controversial liquefied natural gas scheme on Western Australia's Burrup Peninsula.
The bill also allows the government to make decisions on different development approval stages simultaneously.
A furious Greens leader Bob Brown condemned the legislation as a regressive step for the environment that was designed to curry favour with big businesses wanting to profit from developments.
"This is a disgraceful piece of legislation ... that will debase the Australian environment for a long, long time to come," he told parliament.
"What a lot of sellouts you people are. How could you do this to the coming generations of this country?."
The legislation contained an amendment designed to allow the controversial Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania to proceed, Senator Brown said.
In his second reading speech, Environment Minister Ian Campbell said the bill would streamline development processes while protecting the natural environment.
"This legislation gives our money, our effort and our partnership a renewed focus," he said.
"It gets away from saying, `Let's have legislation, let's have bureaucracy and let's have more paperwork'.
"Let us, in fact, have more action to protect Australian wildlife, protect habitat and actually protect our environment."
© 2006 AAP

------------------->

MEDIA RELEASE

Friday, 8 December 2006

Rudd's Labor backs nuclear fast-tracking in EPBC Act

Labor has backed the federal government's move to bypass environmental assessment of uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and the transport of nuclear material, the Australian Greens said today.

"Ever since Prime Minister John Howard embraced US President George Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership earlier this year, the government has been on a fast track to wipe out any legislative impediments to expanded uranium mining, operation of nuclear waste dumps and the transport and export of nuclear materials," Greens energy spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said in Canberra.

"Labor has been right there supporting the government's every move to expand Australia's role in the global nuclear fuel cycle.

"Early this week Labor MPs including resources spokesperson Martin Ferguson signed off on a controversial House of Representatives report on Australia's uranium future, which encouraged state governments to overturn their opposition to uranium mining and abolish 'legislative restrictions' on uranium mining and exploration.

"As if this isn't bad enough, they also wanted to 'streamline' processes associated with land access, native title assessment and approvals, and address transport 'impediments'.

"On the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) legislation, Rudd's Labor put these aspirations into effect by backing the government's loopholes such that nuclear actions - uranium mines, waste dumps and transport nuclear fuel - can be exempted from environmental assessment processes.

"The amendments Labor backed allow the Minister for the Environment to declare that a nuclear waste dump does not have to be assessed for environmental impact if it occurs in the context of a bioregional plan, a strategic assessment, a conservation agreement or bilateral agreements.

"Rudd's Labor will be seen to be weeping crocodile tears when the government fast-tracks a high-level nuclear waste dump on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory whilst exempting it from environmental assessment.

"Labor has failed this early test to provide a genuine policy alternative and not be merely an echo of the government. The echo in the Senate chamber last night was deafening."

------------------->

From the FoE Australia mag Chain Reaction #99, Summer 2007.
To subscribe: http://www.foe.org.au/mainfiles/cr.htm

Federal environmental laws further weakened

Jim Green

The federal Coalition government enacted the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act in December 2006. The legislation significantly amends and weakens the already-flawed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999.

The 409 pages of amendments were rushed through parliament with minimal opportunity for public or parliamentary examination.

The EPBC amendments weaken threatened species protection, reduce public and scientific input into environmental decision-making, increase Ministerial power and discretion while reducing Ministerial accountability, and do nothing to redress a number of long-standing problems with the EPBC Act.

The government's EPBC website says the aims of the amendments are to "streamline the Act with a series of amendments that will benefit industry, the economy and the nation", to "cut red tape" and to "provide greater certainty for industry".

Threatened species

Organisations which had previously supported the EPBC Act and had played a role in its formulation - WWF-Australia, Humane Society International (HSI), and the Australian Democrats - have been highly critical of the amendments. Those groups have also become increasingly critical in recent years as the government has largely failed to use the powers of the EPBC Act to achieve positive environmental outcomes.

The amendments further weaken a threatened species protection regime which is already failing. HSI and WWF-Australia noted in September 2004 that the government has failed to keep lists of threatened ecological communities and critical habitat up to date. Of over 1400 threatened species, HSI and WWF-Australia noted, only four had their critical habitat listed by the government on the EPBC Act Register, while over 500 threatened ecological communities were stuck in a backlog.

Instead of providing sufficient resources to redress the problem, the government is reducing its legal requirements to monitor and protect threatened species. HSI director Michael Kennedy said in a December 8, 2006 media release: "In effect these changes relegate real threats to species and communities to a secondary position behind the whim of the Environment Minister. Australia’s biodiversity is at risk now more than ever, and now nominations to protect it will have to fall into a theme arbitrarily appointed by the Minister. Even if they fall into that theme, they still have to run the gauntlet of a ‘priority assessment list’, again which the minister has the right to amend on any grounds which he chooses."

HSI has 38 nominations for threatened species, ecological communities and heritage pending with the government. Fourteen are overdue, of which 12 were submitted in 2000.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) noted in its October 2006 submission to a Senate inquiry on the EPBC amendments that there is a backlog of 640 threatened ecological communities requiring assessment. While the government points to 250 threatened species recovery plans adopted under the EPBC Act, the ACF notes that many of these have not been reviewed and are years out of date. In 2004-05, the ACF notes, there were scheduled reviews of 20 threatened species recovery plans, not a single one of which was completed according to the statutory schedule.

Apart from the lack of political will, under-resourcing has been an ongoing problem. The ACF notes in its Senate submission that the environmental assessment budget for 2006-07 is $13.8 million which is a $1.3m decrease from the previous year, with a further $1.6m reduction in 2007-08. This amount has to cover the assessment of 300-500 project referrals every year, monitoring and enforcement actions, as well as post-referral and post-approval monitoring of compliance with conditions. The ACF submission notes that the government is spending far less money each year on monitoring matters of national environmental significance than it spends on subsidising the consumption of draught beer ($170 million).

Public exclusion

The original EPBC Act included provisions for public involvement in EPBC processes including notifying the Department of actions that should be referred under the Act, providing other information about suspected breaches, taking legal action under the Act, and ensuring that administrative decisions are made in accordance with the law.

This public involvement is wound back by EPBC amendments which limit public nominations of threatened species and heritage sites. Nominations which do not come within arbitrary "themes" established by the Minister will be more likely than ever to be ignored.

An example of the importance of public input was the first significant successful legal enforcement action under the EPBC Act. This resulted from the efforts of a scientist, Dr. Carol Booth, whose successful legal action in relation to a threatened species of flying fox occurred in the context of governmental inaction.

The EPBC amendments will further limit public input by making it more financially risky for individuals and organisations to take out a legal injunction in relation to alleged breaches of the EPBC Act. This is achieved by the repeal of a section of the Act which prohibited orders for security for costs against parties seeking preliminary injunctions under the Act.

The EPBC amendments reduce the scope for appeals against Ministerial decisions. Ministerial power and discretion have been increased but accountability decreased. Andreas Glanznig from WWF-Australia said in a December 8, 2006 media release: "The amended EPBC Act will significantly reduce the ability of the public to ensure the Act is complied with and to challenge certain Ministerial decisions. The Minister will now have an extraordinary level of unfettered discretion."

In addition to reducing public input, the EPBC amendments reduce the input of scientific advisory bodies in favour of still more Ministerial power. Michael Kennedy from HSI noted in a December 6, 2006 media release that: "These amendments take us, as a country, back to the 1980s in terms of public access to the courts, as well as ignoring the need for scientific objectivity when dealing with environmental issues. By giving up these fundamentals, the government has signalled a retreat to the days of unparalleled executive power and equally restricted public rights".

Expect more examples of the EPBC Act being used in a partisan, political manner as was the case when the government refused permission for the Bald Hill wind farm in Victoria on the specious grounds of its possible impacts on the orange-bellied parrot.

In a 2005 critique of the operation of the EPBC Act, the Australia Institute suggests that the listing of threatened species and ecological communities has also been politicised and that there are strong grounds for arguing the Minister is in breach of his statutory duty to ‘take all reasonably practical steps’ to maintain the lists of threatened species and ecological communities appropriately. The Institute noted that no commercial marine fish species had been listed and that the Minister has listed only ten ecological communities when the available evidence suggests the total number of threatened terrestrial ecosystems and ecological communities is in the vicinity of 3,000.

A July 2006 paper from the Australia Institute states that of the approximately 1,900 development proposals referred to the Federal Environment Minister between July 2000 and July 2006, 76% were declared to be exempt from the regime, and of the remaining 462 applications only four were blocked by the Minister.

The Australia Institute noted in its 2005 paper that despite evidence of widespread non-compliance, the federal government had only taken two enforcement actions in five years. One response from the government to the problem of unflattering statistics has been to stop publishing regular statistics on the operation of the EPBC Act.

The EPBC amendments fail to redress a number of long-standing flaws in the Act:
* The amendments do nothing to redress the problem that climate change is not identified as a matter of national environmental significance such that projects exceeding a certain level of greenhouse emissions automatically trigger the assessment and approvals provisions of the Act.
* Other key issues - such as major water projects or genetically modified organisms - do not automatically trigger the Act.
* Project proponents - rather than independent, expert bodies - write their own Environmental Impact Statements.
* The EPBC Act contains exemptions which make it inapplicable where it is most needed. For example, sections 38-42 of the EPBC Act exempt forestry operations conducted in accordance with Regional Forest Agreements. Another example is the exemption from EPBC compliance of activities related to site selection for a nuclear waste dump.
* The Act requires all relevant economic factors to be considered in project assessments, but some environmental issues are automatically precluded from consideration. For example, uranium mining companies need not concern themselves with the possibility that their product will find its way into nuclear weapons or into the hands of terrorists, and the coal industry need not concern itself with climate change.

More information:
* Federal government EPBC site: <www.deh.gov.au/epbc>
* Andrew Macintosh (Australia Institute), July 2006, "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act: An Ongoing Failure", <www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP91.pdf>.
* Andrew Macintosh and Debra Wilkinson (Australia Institute), July 2005, "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act: A Five Year Assessment," Discussion Paper No. 81, <www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/DP81.pdf>.
* WWF Australia <http://wwf.org.au/about/epbc>
* EPBC Project <www.epbc.com.au>
* Senate Inquiry into the provisions of the Environment & Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, <www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/environment_heritage>. See esp. minority reports by ALP, Greens and Democrats. See also submissions e.g. from the Australian Network of Environmental Defender’s Offices.
* ACF, December 5, 2005, "Background Brief: Not the Time to Weaken Environmental Laws", <www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_epbcbrief.pdf>.
* Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society, June 1999, "82 reasons why the new environment legislation is bad for the environment", <www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/policy/legislation/82reasons>.
* Chris McGrath, 2006, 'Review of the EPBC Act', paper prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the Environment and Heritage, <www.deh.gov.au/soe/2006/emerging/epbc-act/index.html>.

------------------->Return to top

SPENT FUEL SHIPMENT FROM LUCAS HEIGHTS

------------------->

Secret nuclear shipment exposes dangers of Government's energy agenda
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/nuclear-power/secret-nuclear-shipment-expose
December 18, 2006

SYDNEY, Australia — A secretive and controversial transportation of spent nuclear fuel was escorted by a police convoy through suburban Sydney streets at 12.30am this morning. This latest nuclear waste shipment highlights serious national security concerns and casts a dark shadow on the Howard government's push for nuclear power expansion as a solution to climate change.
Greenpeace activists in 3 inflatable boats exposed the transfer of 10 shipping containers holding nuclear waste casks, onto the "Seabird" cargo ship at Brotherson's Wharf at Botany Bay, and protested peacefully against the shipment.

Greenpeace Head of Campaigns, Stephen Campbell said that if the government continues on it's current trajectory to push for a nuclear future as a solution to climate change, Australians can expect an escalation of unsafe nuclear transports, effectively creating a 'nuclear highway' through communities and the region.

"In an age of terrorism and fears about nuclear proliferation, these nuclear waste shipments are a magnet for terrorist activity. Spent fuel rods can be combined with explosives to make 'dirty' nuclear bombs," he said.

Nuclear power is no solution to climate change. A recent report commissioned by the Federal government concluded that even if Australia were to build 25 nuclear reactors by 2050, it would only cut Australia's emissions by between 8-18% on a business as usual basis. In comparison energy efficiency and renewable energy like solar, wind and geothermal could cut Australia's emissions by 30% by 2020.

"Nuclear power is too dangerous, costly and dirty to be an answer to climate change," said Mr Campbell. "The dangers of toxic radioactive waste and weapons proliferation have only become worse. Quick, available, clean solutions like energy savings and renewable energy investment are Australia's future."

------------------->

ANSTO says nuclear cargo is safe
December 18, 2006 - 9:44AM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/police-intercept-nuclear-protesters/2006/12/18/1166290443999.html

The nuclear regulator says it cannot tell Sydney residents when cargoes of nuclear material are transported through their suburbs because the information could attract "mischief".
Last night, containers carrying spent nuclear fuel rods were taken under police escort from the Lucas Heights nuclear facility in Sydney's south to a ship at Port Botany, for reprocessing in the US.
Helicopters and firefighters were involved in protecting the convoy that transported the containers through Sydney streets.
Greenpeace, which used inflatable craft to witness the cargo being taken to a ship at Port Botany in the early hours of this morning, says the convoy could have been a terrorist target.
"In an age of terrorism and fears about nuclear proliferation, these nuclear waste shipments are a magnet for terrorist activity," Greenpeace spokesman Stephen Campbell said.
"Spent fuel rods can be combined with explosives to make dirty nuclear bombs."
A spokesman for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) said local councils were told about nuclear waste shipments but the secret routes were determined by police.
"Local councils are sent a letter a few weeks before the shipment takes place and media are notified as well, but specific residents aren't informed," the spokesman said.
"We can't inform people of the timing or the route of the shipment for security reasons, in case somebody tries to make mischief and in fact ends up causing more harm to local residents than if they weren't informed.
"NSW police determine the route of the shipment."
 
ANSTO chief of operations Dr Ron Cameron said he wanted to assure residents last night's transfer of waste had been carried out safely.
"Residents' safety was of paramount concern," Dr Cameron told ABC radio.
"These containers are very robust and very well engineered.
" ... overseas they crashed a locomotive and four wagons into them and the locomotive was destroyed and the cask was intact, so that just shows how strong they are.
"We do of course have contingency arrangements whereby if one truck broke down we have two spare trucks and the capability of transferring the loads onto those."
He said more than 7,000 similar shipments had been undertaken throughout the world since 1971.
A police spokeswoman said a Greenpeace boat attempted to stop the material being loaded onto a ship at the Port Botany terminal.
"A vessel carrying protesters was intercepted and inspected by police from the Marine Area Command as it sailed towards the ship before it docked at Port Botany," she said.
But a Greenpeace spokeswoman said no attempt had been made to intercept the shipment and the three Greenpeace inflatable craft had stayed outside the stipulated 30-metre exclusion zone at all times.
AAP

------------------->

Greenpeace angry after nuclear waste transported through Sydney
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1813471.htm
Monday, December 18, 2006. 6:11am (AEDT)

A shipment of used nuclear material has been transported through Sydney overnight.
Spent nuclear fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor have been trucked during the night to a ship docked at Port Botany.
The covert operation involved police, helicopters and firefighters to monitor the operation and direct the 10 trucks carrying the nuclear material.
Greenpeace says there were a dozen police boats and three Greenpeace boats surrounding the specialised nuclear ship carrier, the Seabird.
Greenpeace mounted a protest, which campaigner Steve Campbell says is about highlighting the issue of nuclear waste.
"We're here to warn the Australian community that if the Government pushes through with its plan to build nuclear reactors around Australia, that it's going to mean a massive escalation in this kind of dangerous nuclear waste transport through Australian communities," he said.
Mr Campbell says the public should be told when nuclear material is being transported through their suburbs.
"Residents have not been told of this nuclear transport," he said.
"They never are, they always keep these shipments secret, which basically shows how unsafe they are.
"The shipment will also be passing out through the Pacific and around the region and if we build more nuclear reactors in Australia we are going to see many many more transports like this."
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation chief of operations Ron Cameron says Greenpeace is blowing the issue out of proportion.
"I think it's important to say that residents are informed so, as I say, there have been eight such shipments and each time we have told people beforehand that they will be transported," he said.
"We have regular community forums with our residents and they have the opportunity to ask questions and to learn some more - this hasn't been a major issue for them."
It is understood the Seabird is heading to the United States, where the spent nuclear material will be stored.

------------------->Return to top

PINE GAP 6

------------------->

Pine Gap - the Empire Strikes Back
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1828
Bryan Law is a Cairns-based peace activist. His previous piece for Webdiary was If you've ever wanted to end a war... http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1571
by Bryan Law
Along with my good friends Jim Dowling, Donna Mulhearn and Adele Goldie, I'll be standing trial in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory at Alice Springs, beginning Tuesday 29 May 2007. The trial is expected to run two weeks. If convicted, we face up to 7 years' imprisonment.

Background
We are Christians Against ALL Terrorism. Our indictments arise out of a Citizens Inspection we conducted on 9 December 2005 at the Top Secret US-controlled Pine Gap Spy Base outside Alice Springs in the heart of Australia.
Pine Gap is the most important single component of the US military machine in Australia. Pine Gap is a ground receiving station for several satellite systems which collect information about people and places of interest in the middle east, east Asia, and the Indonesian archipelago.
Pine Gap provides intelligence and targeting information to assist the "war on terror" in Iraq.
Pine Gap is an an essential component of the "missile defence shield" (read "nuclear black-mail machine") being developed by the US  since it withdrew from the ABM treaty in December 2001.
Christians Against ALL Terrorism believe that the US employs state terror in pursuit of global economic advantage. We believe that Pine Gap is a state terrorist facility and therefore criminal.
For three years and more, each one of us had sought to avoid, constrain and end the obscene assault against humanity that our government is pursuing in Iraq, in subservience to the US. We had done this individually, and in organization with others. Donna Mulhearn had gone so far as to become a human shield in a water treatment plant in Baghdad in March 2003, throughout the "shock and awe" bombardments.
The Australian government responded to all peace overtures, including ours, with lies and the criminal abuse of executive authority - doing its best to avoid scrutiny, accountability and the fair exercise of electoral power.
Thus we are driven to interventionary non-violent action in the tradition of Gandhi, King Jr., and Dorothy Day. Christians Against ALL Terrorism planned a citizens' inspection of the Pine Gap terror base.

Liaison
Before we conducted our inspection, we informed the Australian Federal Police about our suspicions and asked them to investigate Pine Gap for terrorist activity. Jim Dowling had done this many times in recent years since the "Terror Hot-Line" was established. The AFP response ranged from invisible to dismissive.
We also asked permission from then Defence Minister, Robert Hill, to inspect Pine Gap for terrorist activity, and informed him of our intention to conduct an inspection anyway should he fail to provide one.
In the months after sending that letter to Minister Hill we were investigated by ASIO, the AFP, and the intelligence branches of the Northern Territory Police in Darwin and Alice Springs. The Defence Security Authority opened a file on us, and a covert AFP agent was assigned to our public meeting on 6 December 2005 at the Arid Lands Environment Centre in Alice Springs. We were subsequently interviewed covertly by an ASIO agent. (Covertly: an ASIO agent pretending to be some other kind of official)
One has to assume that all these agencies found our group to be non-violent. Otherwise they each enjoy ample powers of preventive arrest, detention, control orders, etc to prevent any suspected attempt at an act of political violence.
Minister Hill wrote back to me, warning us of heavy penalties under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 (DSU). This Act has been used to threaten thousands of peace activists in the past 54 years, but has never actually been used. Until now. On 9 December 2005 our group entered the high-security compound at Pine Gap. On 11 March 2006, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock assented to our prosecution under the DSU.
The prize for our successful action is a first-hand experience of the security state in action, a trial in the Supreme Court at Alice Springs, and a probable sentence of months or years in a prison population that's 80% Aborigine. A quintessentially Australian experience in the first decade of the third millennium after Jesus.

Legal State of Play
As Christians, we celebrate life, hope and redemption. As non-violence activists the most important principles are to disclose truth and accept consequences.
The law is an arbiter of fairness, a check on executive power, and essential to a functioning democracy. We'll use the Court in the best way possible to state our case and bring it before our fellow citizens both on the jury and in our communities.
For the committal hearing last March, and for the trial if we found no eminent legal assistance, we were prepared to do our best in Court by ourselves, while making political organizing (outside the Court) our first priority.
We'd been scheduled for trial in October 2006. In September 2006, we obtained offers of eminent legal assistance from Professor Ben Saul of UNSW, and Ron Merkel QC from Melbourne.
Ron Merkel QC was, until June 2006, a Justice of the Federal Court.
He resigned to go back into private practice and pursue strategic litigation to constrain what he perceives as the abuse of executive authority by government. He is experienced in immigration, native title and security issues. Just before Christmas he was in the High Court advocating for the rights of "Jihad" Jack Thomas in relation to the control orders Mr Thomas has been placed under. Good on him.
Because ours is the first test in Court of the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act (DSU), because it invokes many issues of national security, and because it contains such harsh penalties for non-violent political behaviour, Ron Merkel is keen to see a proper examination of the issues at law. He has therefore agreed to act for us pro bono in these matters. Double good on him.

Pre-Trial - the Defence
In October 2005 we argued and lost our first pre-trial application - that under Section 8 of the DSU the Crown must prove Pine Gap is objectively necessary for the defence of Australia.
Our counsel on that occasion was Ms Rowena Orr from Melbourne, who we all thought did a real good job.
Justice Thomas ruled that the fact was determined by the Minister for Defence as an exercise of executive authority and was not open for review by a criminal Court. Justice Thomas read words into the DSU Act which made that meaning plain. We may appeal this decision after the trial. We've raised the possibility of a referral to the Full Bench for determination before trial.
Meanwhile Ron Merkel is considering an advice from Professor Saul about the Constitutional powers that the DSU rely upon. A key argument turns on the distinction between a legitimate "defence" power, and waging a pre-emptive war of aggression.
We seek to challenge the validity of the Ministerial declarations by two separate Defence Ministers, Alan Fairhall in 1967 and Robert Ray in 1992. We'd be arguing that the present conditions and operation of Pine Gap go well beyond the defence power invoked by the Ministerial declarations. The declarations are therefore void and of no effect. Our Counsel is invoking The Communist Party Case for precedent.
We're in the Supreme Court in Darwin before Justice Thomas to argue these matters on 21st March. I'm fascinated to watch it evolve.

Pre-Trial - being constrained
All four defendants are presently constrained by Orders of Justice Mildren of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. I can tell you that the orders exist, and that they relate to evidence in the Pine Gap trial. I'm not allowed to tell you what that evidence is or what the orders say. We're not allowed to see the supporting affidavit applying for our constraint. The matter is only referred to in a closed court. We hope to obtain relief from the orders later this month. For procedural reasons we can't have a proper hearing until after 27 March 2007. Maybe I can tell you more then. (It's a funny story)
What can I say? I find it an intolerable situation to be so constrained.
I've noticed over the last year or so that every proposal and request we make of the prosecution, or of relevant Commonwealth agencies - every single one - is opposed and some requests bring new forms of repression. I know we have an adversarial legal system, but these people appear to have absolutely NO sense of humour. Poor them.
I've noticed that organizing non-violent political action is now regularly the subject of security surveillance and punitive action. Poor us.
Trial
Our trial is set down to commence on 29 May 2007. I'll be acknowledging all relevant facts, and availing myself of the defence of necessity under Section 10.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. We have a number of related defences (self defence, lawful authority etc) to explore and/or present, and some elements depend on whether or not we gain discovery of crown documents. More later.
Politics
Surrounding the trial and our hopes for acquittal, and more important than both, lies the ongoing politics of peace.
Christians Against ALL Terrorism identify as part of the global non-violent resistance to war. Not just the war in Iraq, but war all over the world - and those institutions which support war, like the arms trade.
At this particular time in history, Australians are complicit in the systematic use of military terror by the USA in numerous locations around the world, and the threat of military terror everywhere.
At this particular time in history the Emperor's new clothes are failing to spin. The US people have turned against this war, and are trying to bring their government to heel. We can support these efforts.
As Australian peace activists, our immediate job is to frustrate, oppose, interfere with and stop all joint operations between Australian and US forces. Our actions at Pine Gap are one example of that work.
We recognize that our social capacity is low.
As well as demonstrating the techniques of non-violent resistance, we need to bring young people forward with both skills and commitment to expand our capacity for interventionary non-violence.
Every time CAAT has visited Alice Springs since December 2005, we've conducted meetings, actions, workshops and networking activities with an expanding number and variety of local activists and Australian citizens. We publicise our activities around Australia.
On 7 October 2006 there was a further, gentler act of non-violent civil disobedience by five activists who blocked the access road to Pine Gap.
Edward Kranski appears in the Alice Springs Magistrate's Court on Monday 5 February 2007 to argue his own defence on a charge of obstructing traffic. Edward is a US citizen with expertise in geology, nuclear tests, and satellite imagery analysis. He believes Pine Gap can be put to useful purposes.
We intend to continue this development work around Pine Gap, and we call on all peace activists in Australia to form in small autonomous affinity groups and take some appropriate action against Pine Gap.
Converging for Peace
We're calling another Peace Convergence at Alice Springs from 28 May to 8 June 2007, with a day of Action against Pine Gap on Saturday 2 June 2007. I'd like to see some interventionary NVDA during this convergence.
There's an equally important Peace Convergence at Rockhampton in June 2007, immediately after our trial.
This other convergence is to transform the ongoing series of military exercises called Talisman Sabre. Held outside Rockhampton every second year, Talisman Sabre involves 26,000 or so US and Australian troops practicing the sea-borne invasion of another country.
Talisman Sabre involves air, sea and land forces up to and including a nuclear powered and nuclear capable US Aircraft Carrier Battle Group. The urban warfare scenario played out is an attack on a city which is built around a walled square. Like Mecca.
This exercise is a focal point of Australian national resistance to war.
If we Christians Against ALL Terrorism are acquitted in Alice Springs this year, we'll all be in Rockhampton in June to act against Talisman Sabre. Small non-violent affinity groups practicing direct intervention.
Vive le Resistance!

------------------->Return to top

HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIATION

------------------->

No safe dose
Bill Williams
12/12/06
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5249
The recent zeal among conservative politicians for expanding Australia’s nuclear industry should raise questions about its potential impact on the health of humans and their habitat. Unfortunately, the recently released Switkowski Report (pdf 3.63MB) on Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy brings little serious critical analysis to bear on the subject.
We exist in a naturally radioactive environment: the rocks and mountains, the sun in particular, produce a “background” level. Average exposure to “background” ionizing radiation worldwide is measured at 2.4 millisievert (mSv) a year. About half of this is from radon gas and its decay products.
However, human activities in the past century have greatly increased our exposure to ionizing radiation, through atomic weapons development, testing and use, as well as uranium-mining and nuclear electricity generation. The ongoing atmospheric fallout from the nuclear weapons testing in the 50s and 60s adds an average extra dose to us all of 0.02mSv per year.
These doses are estimated to have already resulted in 430,000 additional fatal cancers worldwide by the year 2000, and a total of 2.4 million extra cancer deaths long-term.
Unfortunately there is no level of radiation exposure below which we are at zero risk: even low-level medical exposures such as chest X-rays (0.04mSv per test) carry a quantifiable risk of harm. While high doses of ionizing radiation will cause greater health damage, even low doses are associated with adverse environmental and human consequences.
Using the “linear no-threshold” risk model, the 2005 US National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) estimated:
over a lifetime, a dose of 1mSv creates an excess risk of cancer of approximately 1 in 10,000. Higher doses are associated with proportionately higher risk, for example a dose of 100mSv would cause 1 in 100 people to develop cancer;
approximately 1 individual in 100 persons would be expected to develop cancer from a lifetime (70 years) exposure just to background x and gamma rays (excluding radon and other high LET radiations)

It should be noted that while these are average risks, the risks in vulnerable groups of the population may be considerably higher. BEIR VII assessed women as having about twice the radiation risk for solid cancer incidence as men, and 38 per cent higher cancer mortality risk than men.
Children are at even greater risk - radiation during infancy for boys results in three to four times the cancer risk as between 20 to 50 years of age, and female infants have double the risk of boys.
Ionizing radiation causes damage to the DNA in living cells. Atoms and molecules become ionized or excited, which can produce free radicals, break chemical bonds, produce new chemical bonds and cross-linkage between macromolecules and damage molecules that regulate vital cell processes such as DNA, RNA and proteins.
In recent years biologists have identified specific radiation-induced damage at the molecular level to nucleotide sequences on chromosomal DNA, including double-strand breaks, large deletions and sister chromatid exchange.
The cell can repair certain levels of damage in its chromosomal DNA: at low doses cellular damage is usually repaired. However, faulty repairs may lead to cell death or to proliferation of abnormal cells which form a cancer.
At higher levels, cell death results. At extremely high doses, cells cannot be replaced quickly enough, and tissues fail to function; this can result in massive cell death, organ (particularly bone marrow and gut) damage and death to the individual.
Radiation effects are often categorised by when they appear.
The prompt effects include radiation sickness and radiation burns. High doses delivered to the whole body within short periods of time can produce effects such as blood component changes, fatigue, diarrhoea, nausea and death. These effects will develop within hours, days or weeks, depending on the size of the dose. The larger the dose, the sooner a given effect will occur.
When radiation effects are delayed, DNA abnormalities are passed on to subsequent generations of cells, where the abnormal coding can lead to tissue abnormalities, including cancers.
Cancer development is a multistage process, and is similar for radiation-associated cancers as for spontaneous cancers or those associated with exposure to other carcinogens.
Low dose radiation appears to act principally on the early stages of cancer initiation, whereas for higher doses, effects on later stages of cancer promotion and progression are also likely. Genetic disorders associated with deficiencies in the ability to repair DNA damage and in tumour-suppressor type genes (which normally suppress cancer development) increase the radiation cancer risk.
Mutational events at key points such as “proto-oncogene” or “suppressor gene” sites provide a credible mechanism for radiation-induced malignant (cancerous) transformation.
Such cancers will take many cell generations to develop, so it may be several decades before they are detected.
The delay enables polluters to avoid responsibility for the disease-promoting properties of radiation. This avoidance is amplified by the fact that leukemia and other cancers induced by radiation are indistinguishable from those that result from other causes.
Ionising radiation is also responsible for serious reproductive effects through prenatal exposure. Rapidly proliferating and differentiating tissues are most sensitive to radiation damage, so radiation exposure can produce developmental problems, particularly in the developing brain, when the fetus is exposed in the womb.
The developmental conditions most commonly associated with prenatal radiation exposure include low birth weight, microcephaly, mental retardation, and other neurological problems.
Long-term, inter-generational genetic effects are also possible if the damage to the DNA code occurs in a reproductive cell (egg or sperm) whereby the coding error may be passed on to offspring … resulting potentially in birth defects and cancers in the children.
While many plant and animal experiments leave no doubt that radiation exposure can alter genetic material and cause disease, and human data also show DNA and chromosomal damage associated with exposure to ionizing radiation, a resultant effect on genetic diseases has not yet been observed in the case of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.
This does not mean that there is no such effect in humans. It may be that there were genetic abnormalities produced that were incompatible with life and those pregnancies therefore ended in miscarriage. It may also be that an increased rate of genetic abnormalities will be found in future generations, that is, the changes will skip one or more generations. Radiation-induced genetic damage is likely to manifest mainly as multi-system developmental abnormalities.
Evidence has emerged recently that the cell may also exhibit the phenomenon of “genomic instability”, where the progeny of an irradiated cell may unexpectedly become highly susceptible to general mutation and damage is detected only after several cell divisions. This may also occur in the progeny of cells close to the cell which is traversed by the radiation track but which themselves are not directly hit (“bystander effect”).
This phenomenon has been reproduced several times in laboratory studies of human cells but has not been confirmed in living humans. Such studies would necessarily need to be extraordinarily long. However if the theory of induced genetic instability is correct, then the human gene pool could be permanently altered.
Radiation health authorities use scientific modelling to calculate and set “permissible limits” for ionizing radiation exposure. As the scientific techniques have become more sophisticated, the recommended exposures for the public and the workforce have steadily been reduced: levels once regarded as “safe” are now known to be associated with cancers, bone marrow malignancies and genetic effects.
The dose limits recommended in 1991 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) which are most widely used internationally are more than 12 times lower that those recommended in the early 1950s at the time of the first British nuclear test explosions in Australia.
The growing scientific literature refining our understanding of the pathogenic properties of ionising radiation has dramatically increased pressure on the nuclear industry to reduce radiation exposures.
However, in their rush to give the thumbs-up to nukes, the Prime Minister’s team of “experts”, led by former Telstra chief and ex-nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, make light of the health burden attributable to the nuclear industry.
They are silent on the recent study published in the British Medical Journal which revealed that a cumulative exposure for adult workers in the nuclear industry of 100mSv - the current recommended five-year occupational dose limit - would lead to a 10 per cent increase in mortality from all cancers, and a 19 per cent increased mortality from leukemia (of types other than chronic lymphatic leukemia).
They are silent on multiple reported and controversial clusters of childhood cancers and congenital malformations in the vicinity of nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities.
They frequently assert a record of “good management” in the Australian nuclear industry to date: a clear misrepresentation in view of hundreds of instances of mismanagement (leaks, spills, contamination, regulatory breaches) at Ranger, Olympic Dam and Beverly and the total failure of either industry or regulators to monitor health impacts in local populations despite known distribution of radio-toxins into habitat and food chain.
The Switkowski Report does not provide either “a factual base” or “an analytical framework” for discussion: it gives a whitewash to a complex and controversial subject. Not only is it likely to exacerbate Australia’s greenhouse emissions by vociferously promoting the nuclear non-solution, but it endangers Australians long-term by threatening to expand an industry whose toxic legacy will continue for many generations.

Dr Bill Williams first joined MAPW in 1983 out of concern about the nuclear industry, which he saw as the greatest threat to global health. Bill notes that as medical professionals, there is "no point improving the nation's collective cholesterol level if we poison the earth for our grandchildren." He is the Vice President of the Victorian branch of MAPW.

------------------->Return to top

NUCLEAR WASTE

------------------->

Setback for safe storage of nuclear waste
10 January 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
Rob Edwards
From issue 2586 of New Scientist magazine, 10 January 2007, page 26
www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19325865.400-setback-for-safe-storage-of-nuclear-waste.html

A material that promised to lock up nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years may not be up to the job.
At present high-level waste is "vitrified" by combining it with liquid borosilicate glass and solidifying the mixture. This makes the waste safer as it delays leakage of the radioactive material. The glass is not ideal, though, because geological activity can break it up, so researchers are on the lookout for more robust "immobilisation" materials.
Minerals such as zircon (ZrSiO4) are believed to have kept naturally occurring radioactive uranium and thorium locked in the Earth's crust for up to 4.4 billion years, surviving earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. As a result researchers have argued that zircon, or similar synthetic ceramics, could trap nuclear waste within their crystalline structures for at least 241,000 years, the time plutonium-239 takes to become relatively safe.
Now a study shows that this is unlikely. It turns out that alpha particles released as plutonium decays knock the atoms in zircon out of position faster than originally predicted, impairing the material's ability to immobilise waste (Nature, vol 445, p 190).
Ian Farnan of the University of Cambridge and colleagues at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington, added plutonium to zircon and used nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to distinguish between crystalline zircon and its leaky, damaged form.
The researchers found five times as many damaged zircon atoms as estimated by computer simulations. They conclude that radioactive plutonium trapped in zircon would start leaching out after just 210 years and lose its crystal structure entirely after 1400 years.
The result could dash hopes for ceramics similar to zircon under consideration in Australia, Russia and the US. Farnan believes, however, that it is still possible to develop synthetic ceramics that don't lose their crystalline structure as quickly as zircon. "We have demonstrated a method that will allow us to be more confident about the storage of waste in the future," he says.

------------------->Return to top

SIR RICHARD DOLL EXPOSED

Eminent British scientist Sir Richard Doll exposed as being on the take ... which many have suspected for years.

Doll was trotted out to support new Lucas Heights reactor some years ago.

For examples of corruption in Australian nuclear science, see: http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/marston.html

Many of the corrupt Australian scientists were also knighted, and Wollongong Uni academic Brian Martin unearthed their shenanigans in his book 'Nuclear Knights'.

I think the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a sharp critique of Rochard Doll some years ago ... but can't find it now.

------------------->

THE COMBINED VETERANS' FORUM INTERNATIONAL

Shirley Denson - Dennis Hayden (Co - founders) - Ken McGinley (Consultant)

This is an open email for press release.
 
Due to recent revelations of the late Sir Richard Doll being a paid consultant of the following industries: Monsanto, Dow Chemicals, ICI, Turner & Newell and various UK and US petrochemical companies etc., much of his scientific and epidemiological work is now totally discredited. This includes the following :
 
* Agent Orange : used in the Vietnam War, was denied by Doll in 1985, of having any causal link to cancers in Australian Servicemen . This cleared Monsanto and the Australian Government of responsibility .
 
* Asbestos: in 1982 his consultative link with Turner & Newell, the leading UK asbestos corporation, was used to 'reassure' workers that occupational exposure limits of 1 to 40 ( 2.5%) for contracting cancer was a "reassuring risk limit ".
 
* Petrol Exhaust: in 1983 his support of UK and US petrochemical companies, which was generously funded by General Motors, claimed that lead, in petrol exhaust emissions, from vehicles was not a causal link to the learning disabilities of disabled children.
 
* Radiation: in 1987 Doll dismissed the evidence of childhood leukemia clusters close to 15 UK nuclear power plants and a 21% excess of lymphoid leukemia in children and young adults living within 10 miles radius of these plants was also dismissed by him by the bizarre, unscientific hypothesis that the homes of nuclear workers were "over clean", thus rendering their children more susceptible to a causal link to radiation induced cancers.

* Nuclear Explosions: in 1988 his NRPB study claimed that excess leukemia and multiple myloma in UK nuclear test veterans was a "statistical quirk" . In a follow up study in 1993 Doll eliminated the majority of cancer cases which developed within two years of exposure and removed 1520 servicemen, who had excess leukemias from the 1988 study, in order to further dilute the findings of any causal links to cancer.
 
Following the honest scientific work, carried out in the 1950's by Sir Richard Doll in establishing a link between smoking and lung cancer, it is now apparent that he was, in later years, attracted to the dark forces of international corporations and the nuclear power protection lobby by the lure of generous consultation fees.
 
This forum has campaigned for many years that the science and epidemiology, of the 1988 and 1993 NRPB UK Veterans mortality and radiation studies, produced under Doll's leadership, is significantly flawed . The so called "peer reviewed" expertise of this scientist is a diseased and corrupt manipulation that has been seized upon by dishonest UK politicians to block responsibility to provide a duty of care to the casualties of those participating in the UK nuclear test programme.
 
In 1996, to add to his knighthood, Sir Richard Doll was made a 'companion of honour' by a grateful government "for services of national importance". We believe this was an award , by a corrupt honours system, to acknowledge the work of a scientist who had embraced the dark forces by sponsoring the government's policy to exclude chemical, biological and nuclear casualties from receipt of any duty of care.
 
This year, the Australian Senate Inquiry into their 2006 Veterans mortality/ radiation study has also exposed the science as significantly flawed. It is further confirmation that this corrupt application of scientific manipulation of radiation risk by Doll and others has been exported abroad.
 
Also, this year , internally ingested radioactive isotopes , like polonium - 210 used as a trigger for nuclear weapons, have been highlighted as a hazard to health by the case of Alexander Litvinenko. However, it is significant that isotopes from the fissionable fall out of weapons explosions , of which po-210 is just one of a cocktail of many, were ignored by Sir Richard Doll and others when assessing radiation risk to nuclear veterans. These servicemen were placed at extreme risk from inhaling, eating and having these radioactive emitters entering the blood through scratches and cuts in the skin.
 
There is a revolving door in place regarding the UK government's scientific assessment of radiation and other health risks . A door that admits risk to the public from ingesting radioactive isotopes whilst it has denied, for decades, any risk to service personnel. It is a revolving door supported by scientists and some leading UK politicians who have sold their souls to the devil.
 
From The Action Executive of the Combined Veterans Forum International
In support of Australian, New Zealand and UK Servicemen injured, disabled
or killed by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

---

Return to top
Return to contents