Uranium exports, safeguards and the ALP government
Pine Gap 4
Nuclear plants as military targets

Clean energy
- various
- renewables with storage / baseload
- solar baseload
- solar
- biofuels

Radioactive waste dumped in suburban Sydney
Lucas Heights reactor to restart
Coal - more coal-fired electricity plants in australia?
1977 cabinet documents   

Uranium mining in australia
- various
- Marathon  illegal dumping in Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary
- Beverley expansion
- uranium sales to India
- India-US nuclear deal
- uranium price falling
- uranium mining in Queensland
- Honeymoon - final approval
- Roxby expansion

UN general assembly
British bomb tests - health effects
Nuclear weapons - statement by former US secretaries of defense and state
FBI whistleblower on nuclear smuggling
Uranium - global - various
Radiation & cancer
Nuclear power globally - stagnation
Nuclear power in the USA

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

URANIUM EXPORTS, SAFEGUARDS AND THE ALP GOVERNMENT

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

Exporting the problem: Labor's uranium choices
ABC - Opinion
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/05/2109910.htm

We're often told that the nuclear safeguards system 'ensures' that Australian uranium will not be diverted to produce nuclear weapons. But there is a risk of diversion, and a growing recognition of the serious flaws in the safeguards system.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Dr Mohamed El Baradei is remarkably frank about the limitations of safeguards. In speeches and papers in recent years, Dr El Baradei has noted that the IAEA's basic rights of inspection are "fairly limited", that the safeguards system suffers from "vulnerabilities" and "clearly needs reinforcement".

Labor Party policy states that the Government will "strengthen export control regimes, and the rights and authority of the IAEA, and tighten controls on the export of nuclear material and technology."

The policy also states that the Labor Government will "only allow export of Australian uranium to countries which observe the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and which are committed to non-proliferation and nuclear safeguards."

There are one or two things the Labor Government can do to marginally improve safeguards without generating any adverse political reaction - the most obvious being increasing Australia's contribution to the safeguards budget of the IAEA.

But if the Government is serious about improving safeguards, it will need to take steps which are likely to generate opposition from uranium mining companies and from some of the countries which purchase Australian uranium.

For example, none of the nuclear weapons states is serious about its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to seriously pursue nuclear disarmament and therefore they ought not be eligible to purchase Australia's uranium. Yet uranium export agreements are in place with the US, France, the UK and China.

Russia

Earlier this year, the then Coalition government signed a uranium export agreement with Russia and the incoming Labor Government will have to decide whether to approve the agreement.

Russia is not at all serious about its NPT disarmament obligations. Indeed Russian President Vladimir Putin said on national television in October that Russia was developing new types of nuclear weapons and expanding its delivery capabilities via missiles, submarines and strategic bombers.

Another concern is inadequate security of nuclear materials in Russia. On December 1, New Scientist reported "gaping holes" in the arrangements meant to prevent the theft of nuclear materials in Russia. From 2001 to 2006, there were 183 reported trafficking incidents involving nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.

Allowing uranium sales to Russia would not only be unconscionable, it would also be a direct breach of the Labor Party's policy to allow uranium exports only to countries which are "committed to non-proliferation".

Plutonium and spent fuel reprocessing

In addition to IAEA safeguards, countries purchasing Australian uranium must sign a bilateral agreement. The most important provisions are for prior Australian consent before Australian nuclear material is transferred to a third party, enriched beyond 20 per cent uranium-235, or reprocessed.

However no Australian government has ever refused permission to separate plutonium from spent fuel via reprocessing. Even when reprocessing leads to the stockpiling of plutonium (which can be used directly in nuclear weapons), ongoing or 'programmatic' permission has been granted by Australian governments. Hence there are stockpiles of 'Australian-obligated' plutonium in Japan and in some European countries.

At one level there is a simple solution - the Labor Government should simply ban the reprocessing of spent fuel generated from Australian uranium. The problems with reprocessing are such that the Coalition government made it illegal to build reprocessing plants in Australia, and the Labor Party assented to this legislation.

At another level, banning reprocessing of Australian-origin nuclear materials will be difficult - the uranium mining companies will bleat, and some customer countries will insist on their 'right' to do as they please with Australian nuclear materials.

Let's see if Prime Minister Rudd takes a principled stand on this issue of nuclear reprocessing or if he continues the long Australian tradition of putting profits ahead of WMD proliferations risks.

Material Unaccounted For

Perhaps the most intractable problem with safeguards is that nuclear accounting discrepancies are commonplace and inevitable due to the difficulty of precisely measuring nuclear materials. The accounting discrepancies are known as Material Unaccounted For.

This problem of imprecise measurement provides an obvious loophole for anyone wanting to divert nuclear materials for weapons production. In a large plant, even a tiny percentage of the annual through-put of nuclear material will suffice to build one or more weapons with virtually no chance of detection by IAEA inspectors.

The Coalition government refused to publicly reveal any country-specific information, or even aggregate information, concerning accounting discrepancies involving Australian uranium or its by-products such as plutonium. It is to be hoped that the incoming Labor government will be more transparent.

Australians would be further disenchanted with the uranium industry if its negligible contribution to export revenue was better understood. Uranium accounts for just 0.32% of Australia's export revenue - significantly less than the export revenue from cheese or wines. And the industry's contribution to employment is even more underwhelming - uranium mining accounts for .01 per cent of Australian jobs.

As the Labor Party explores and details its fairly vague promises to improve safeguards, perhaps it could reopen discussion on the broader question: do the meagre economic benefits from uranium mining outweigh the weapons proliferation risks associated with the industry?

More information:
* Nuclear Safeguards and Australia's Uranium Exports <www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/mining/UraniumSafeguards.doc/view>
* Medical Association for the Prevention of War, "An Illusion of Protection: The Unavoidable Limitations of Safeguards", <www.mapw.org.au/Illusion%20of%20Protection%20index.html>
* Professor Richard Broinowski, "Fact or Fission? The Truth About Australia's Nuclear Ambitions", Melbourne: Scribe, 2003.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

PINE GAP 4

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

PINE GAP 4

The Pine Gap protesters have spent time in jail for refusing to pay fines from the original protest. And they are in the middle of an appeal against the 'leniency' of their original sentence (a fine rather than jail time).

Details and updates:
http://pinegap6.livejournal.com

Other newspapers/organisations have run stories on their websites, a selection below:

http://news.smh.com.au/protesters-jailed-over-pine-gap-breakin/20080213-1s1j.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/18/2165915.htm

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/740/38300

http://www.cathnews.com/news/802/86.php

http://www.westender.com.au/stories.php?s_id=839

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2263

There is also info and updates on several IndyMedia sites around the world, the best one is the Irish site at the link below. Scroll to the bottom to read the most recent reports and pics of Jim, Adele and Donna going into custody.

http://www.indymedi a.ie/article/ 86180

you can contribute to the discussion board there, or the other the UK and Sydney sites, below

http://www.indymedia.org.uk:80/en/2008/ 02/391083. html

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/solidarity- text-pine- gap-4-heading- darwin-heading- jail

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

NUCLEAR PLANTS AS MILITARY TARGETS

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

Close down Dimona - the risks are just not worth it
By Bennett Ramberg
Saturday, December 22, 2007
<www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=87599&categ_ID=5&edition_id=10>

Nuclear facilities as military targets? The drumbeat appears to be growing louder. Western leaders repeatedly declare that no option is off the table to stem Iran's nuclear ambitions. And, in mid-November, London's Sunday Times reported that Israel put defenses around its Dimona nuclear reactor on "red alert" 30 times, as worries grew that Syria would avenge Israel's September attack on a suspected nuclear site in Syria.

Israel's fear reflects the Middle East's unique history. Since World War II,  strikes to halt nuclear activities have taken place exclusively in the region: Iraq was struck by Iran in 1980, by Israel in 1981, and by the United States in 1991 and in 2003, while Iraq bombed Iran in 1984-87 and Israel in 1991. But raids never generated significant radiological consequences, because plants were under construction, contained inconsequential amounts of nuclear material, had radioactive elements removed prior to the attack, or because the attacker missed the mark.

A successful strike on Dimona, however, would be another matter. So, given the threat of radioactive releases, does the plant's continued operation outweigh the risks?

Dimona is unique. It is the region's largest nuclear plant and sole producer of atomic weapons materials. Since it went into operation in the mid-1960s, it has generated elements for an estimated 200 nuclear weapons. Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, inaugurated the enterprise to compensate for Israel's strategic vulnerability, a fledgling army, and the West's unwillingness to enter into a formal alliance to defend the Jewish state.

Dimona is no Chernobyl. It generates only about 5 percent of that failed Soviet reactor's power. Still, the plant - along with its spent nuclear fuel,    extracted plutonium, and nuclear reprocessing waste - poses significant radiological hazards that a military strike could disperse into the environment.

Israeli officials tacitly acknowledge the risk. Authorities have distributed potassium iodide tablets to the nearby towns of Yerham, Dimona, and Aruar. Potassium iodide blocks thyroid absorption of radioactive iodine, an early risk in a nuclear release. But it would not obstruct serious health consequences from other radioactive elements. And, depending on weather and the nuclear discharge, the radioactive consequences may not remain localized.

Light contamination and hot spots could impact Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian urban centers some distance away. Beyond health effects, contamination could terrorize affected populations, prompting temporary flight and permanent relocation. Serious, long-term economic consequences would follow.

For decades, Israel dealt with this risk through effective air defenses and disdain for its adversaries' ability to strike Dimona. In May 1984, after I authored a book about the consequences of military attacks on nuclear facilities, an Israeli intelligence officer came to California to question me about the vulnerability of the reactor and a proposed nuclear power plant. The officer belittled the risk, arguing that no Arab air force had ever overcome Israeli air defenses, and none ever would.

At that time, history provided odd support. Although Egyptian reconnaissance aircraft had flown near Dimona in 1965 and 1967 without  incident, during the June 1967 war Israel shot down one of its own Mirage jet fighters when it strayed over the facility. In 1973, Dimona's defenders downed a wayward Libyan civilian airliner heading for the reactor, killing 108 people.

But the 1991 Gulf War upset whatever solace Israel could take from the past. Iraqi Scud missiles hit Tel Aviv, and one came close to hitting Dimona. Hizbullah's bombardment of northern Israel in 2006 further demonstrated the country's vulnerability to missile attack. And, while Israel's Arrow ballistic missile  defenses, which now surround Dimona, may be superior to the Patriot system that failed in 1991, Syria's more advanced Scuds and Iran's Shahab-3 rocket present a more capable challenge than Saddam's projectiles.

Dimona has produced all the plutonium that Israel reasonably needs, and the reactor - one of the world's oldest - has suffered minor mishaps and evident deterioration, raising the specter of more serious accidents. So, if Israel cannot guarantee the plant's defense against attack, it should close it.

By doing so, Israel could also derive political benefits. It could claim that closure demonstrates its commitment to reducing regional nuclear tensions,  while sending a message about the wisdom of building reactors in the world's most volatile region.

Indeed, about a dozen Middle East and North African countries intend to build nuclear power plants. Given the historic targeting of atomic installations, planners should consider whether providing adversaries with radiological targets far larger than Dimona makes sense. Until the Middle East resolves its political differences, it may not.

Bennett Ramberg served in the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several  books on international security. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (c) (www.project-syndicate.org)

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

CLEAN ENERGY - VARIOUS

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

Nature gives us all we need to tackle climate change
Steve Shallhorn
December 13, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/nature-gives-us-all-we-need-to-tackle-climate-change/2007/12/12/1197135554022.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

PATRICK Moore (Opinion, 10/12) certainly has one thing right: the most effective way to limit the risk of dangerous climate change "is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels".

Not surprisingly, as a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the so-called Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, Moore proposes nuclear as the answer, claiming it is the only viable technology to replace coal. But economics, urgency and common sense suggest otherwise.

Even if you don't take into account the problem of nuclear proliferation, the threat of terrorism or the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, renewable energy and efficiency are the clear winners on both economic and practical grounds.

First, the potential of renewable energy is far greater than that of nuclear power, not to mention energy efficiency that is safe, pays for itself and reduces waste. While the International Solar Energy Society clearly demonstrates how today's renewable technology alone can generate six times the current global demand, nuclear power currently accounts for only 6% of the world's energy.

And while Moore claims that as the world's 442 nuclear reactors (in fact there are now only 439) produce 16% of our electricity, 1000 could produce 36%, he fails to acknowledge that the proportion of energy provided by nuclear power is actually in decline. The private sector has been scared off by high costs, waste problems and the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear power is not cheap. In country after country, we have seen nuclear construction programs go considerably over budget. In the US, an assessment of 75 of the country's reactors showed predicted costs to have been $45 billion but the actual costs were $145 billion. Similarly in India, which has the most current experience, completion costs of the past 10 reactors have averaged 300% over budget. Wind power is now cheaper than nuclear power even without considering the costs of nuclear waste disposal.

Patrick Moore uses the climate change deniers' and delayers' favourite tactic: belittling renewable energy. But a report released in Bali at the weekend (Renewables 2007 Global Status Report) shows that renewables are thriving. This year, global investment in renewable energy will top $US100 billion ($A112 billion). Furthermore, the renewable energy industry employs more than 2.5 million people globally.

Timewise, renewable energy and energy efficiency are also streets ahead. Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a warning of what would happen to the planet if we did not act on emissions in the next eight years.

Nuclear power just can't make it. Analysis by the World Energy council shows the average construction time for nuclear plants has increased from 66 months in the mid-1970s to 116 months between 1995 and 2000.

And MIT and other studies estimate that for nuclear power to have any effect on global warming, we would need to build a minimum of 1000 reactors worldwide. This is not possible in the next decade, particularly as the nuclear industry has lost most of its engineers to the renewable energy sector. We don't have time to wait, and there's no reason to.

Renewable energy is ready now. A wind turbine takes three days to erect. The first offshore wind farm in Britain, in north Wales, took only eight months to build. And while solar and wind are variable, they are highly predictable. Meanwhile, other renewable energy technologies such as solar thermal, tidal, geothermal and bioenergy are more reliable than coal or nuclear, with none of the hazards.

Cheaper, faster and safer energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are being favoured globally, and this momentum is unlikely to, and shouldn't, change. But even if power plants were safe, and there was a solution to radioactive waste, even if we had an endless supply of uranium at zero cost, nuclear plants could not be built in time to make the smallest contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change.

Nuclear power does not have the power. It is nothing more than a dangerous and unnecessary distraction, which diverts time and money away from the practical solutions of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Steve Shallhorn is chief executive of Greenpeace Australia.

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

Renewable energy lags in power stakes
Siobhain Ryan | December 11, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22903397-5013404,00.html

RENEWABLE energy has become the increasingly poor cousin of fossil fuels, growing at less than a 10th of the rate of non-renewable sources of power over the last generation.

An Australian Bureau of Statistics report released yesterday underlined the challenge facing the sector in a post-Kyoto environment, with just 5 per cent of the nation's power sourced from hydro, solar, wind and other clean energy.

From 1975-76 to 2005-06, production of black coal, natural gas and other non-renewables has jumped by a massive 415 per cent.

Over the same period, growth in renewables rose by a far slower 31 per cent, its report notes.

Even in the past five years, when the focus has been firmly fixed on greenhouse emissions, "the mix of fuels used to provide energy has changed little", the report said.

By 2005, Australia's emission levels had risen 2.2 per cent above 1990 levels - within the 8 per cent increase allowed under its Kyoto commitments between 2008 and 2012.

On a per capita basis, Australians were emitting 17.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, compared with 11 tonnes for the rest of the OECD.

The nation's energy use has more than doubled since the mid-1970s.

But it has lagged gross domestic product growth since the 1990s, as consumption becomes more efficient and the economy shifts towards less energy-hungry sectors such as services.

As a result, emissions per person have edged downward over the medium term, falling by 14 per cent between 1990 and 2005, partly because of cuts to land clearing rates, preventing the escape of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

In the past five years, mining has posted the strongest growth in energy consumption, up 50 per cent, followed by manufacturing (14 per cent) and farming (9 per cent).

Households recorded a more modest 6 per cent rise, but their cars contributed to transport's status as the biggest single energy user.

The average Australian's price sensitivity could also have become a barrier to change.

The report observed that people were more aware of green power schemes in 2005 than previous years but "less willing to pay extra for green power than previously".

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

CLEAN ENERGY - RENEWABLES WITH STORAGE / BASELOAD

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

Never mind the weatherman
Conrad Walters
December 19, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/never-mind-the-weatherman/2007/12/18/1197740273430.html

WHEN it comes to renewable energy it has long been a case of use it or lose it - until now.

Two companies - one using solar energy, the other using wind energy - are deploying new technology to crack the problem of how to preserve excess energy and make what has been a feelgood exercise for individuals into a viable power source for entire communities.

Storage for renewable energy has largely been limited to compressing air underground, where it can later be released under pressure, or pumping water high above ground and capturing the energy in turbines when gravity pulls the water back down. Both techniques are effective, but they require suitable locations and much infrastructure.

The new solution, developed over the past six years by an Australian scientist, Robert Lloyd, overcomes the obstacles by harnessing energy that would be wasted. It uses graphite - as in graphite pencils - to absorb and retain heat for extended periods. The energy can then be redeployed as superheated steam that spins a turbine on demand rather than merely when the wind blows or the sun shines.

"By using this energy storage system … we can add significant value to solar or wind energy so it is worth more in the market … " says the chief executive of Lloyd Energy Storage, Steve Hollis.

His company is designing renewable energy sites for Cloncurry in north-western Queensland, and Lake Cargelligo in western NSW.

The Queensland project is set to make Cloncurry, population 4828, the first town in Australia to depend exclusively on solar power. Nearly 7200 mirrors will aim sunlight into holes in the bottoms of 54 elevated graphite cubes and heat them to up to 1800 degrees for steam turbines.

Similarly, CBD Energy, which has licensed the Lloyd technology, will build a wind-powered version of the graphite system on King Island. The island, 85 kilometres north-west of Tasmania, relies primarily on diesel to generate power for its 1800 residents.

The $15 million joint venture between CBD Energy and Hydro Tasmania will not make the island wholly powered by renewable energy, but it aims to eliminate the need for 1.25 megalitres of diesel fuel a year, says CBD's chief engineer, John Giannasca.

To achieve this, CBD will install two megawatts of wind turbines to supplement an existing system as well as six graphite blocks, each one the size of a standard shipping container. A few solar panels will be also be available for periods when the island is without wind. All of these would feed a 250-kilowatt steam turbine for power, Giannasca says. CBD Energy would heat its graphite blocks to 800 degrees.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

CLEAN ENERGY - SOLAR BASELOAD

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

Whyalla solar project set to shine
The Advertiser
MATT WILLIAMS, REGIONAL EDITOR
December 01, 2007 12:30am
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22848498-2682,00.html

CONSTRUCTION of the world's first base-load power station will start next October, Whyalla Council says.
Deputy mayor and deputy chairman of the Whyalla Economic Development Board, Eddie Hughes, said site work for the Big Dish project would start after 10 years' hard work by the council and board. That follows 30 years of research and development by the Australian National University.
The $16 million solar demonstration project is a major step forward for the community, which hopes to create a Regional Sustainability Centre through its work with UniSA's Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies.
Mr Hughes said the project was underpinned by a strong partnership among the private sector proponent, Wizard Power, the Whyalla community and the Federal Government through the Australian Greenhouse Office. The Big Dish will be linked to ammonia-based storage technology which will be able to produce on-demand peak-load or base-load power.
The Big Dish is the world's largest high performance parabolic dish and solar thermal concentrator.
It can concentrate the sun's rays 1500 times to produce ultra high temperatures of more than 1200C.
"This project will be an international showcase for base-load and on-demand solar power," Mr Hughes said.
Contracts with the Australian Greenhouse Office have been signed by partners. The Federal Government has contributed $7.4 million towards the Big Dish. It is hoped the State Government will join the partnership by committing financial support.
Co-location of the technology with desalination is an option being considered.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

CLEAN ENERGY - SOLAR

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

Petrodollars to oil world's first desert eco-city
John Vidal, Abu Dhabi
January 22, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/petrodollars-to-oil-worlds-first-ecocity/2008/01/21/1200764168883.html

IN ONE of the world's harshest environments, the United Arab Emirates is about to build the first sustainable city.

The site is far from promising. Kilometres from a polluted sea, a fierce sun raises temperatures to 50 degrees in summer, and there is no fresh water, soil or animals.

But tens of billions of petro-dollars will be poured into these seven square kilometres of desert on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi.

Called Masdar — "the source" in Arabic — the walled city is intended to house 50,000 people and 1500 businesses. It will have no cars and be self-sufficient in renewable energy, the majority of which will be solar.

The formal unveiling of the desert eco-city was to be made last night at a summit on future energy sources in Abu Dhabi.

"It's extremely ambitious," said Gerard Evenden, senior partner in British architect Lord Foster's practice in London, which has had a team working on the design for a zero-carbon city for nine months.

The buildings will huddle together as in a casbah, and will be cooled by wind towers that will collect desert breezes and flush out hot air. No building will be more than five storeys high; the city is to be oriented north-east to south-west to give the optimum balance of sunlight and shade.

It will feel closer to many cities built in the age of the cart and horse. Most roads will only be three metres wide and just 70 metres long to develop a micro-climate and keep the air moving; roofs will allow in air and keep the sun out in the summer.

No one will be more than 200 metres from public transport, and streets will give on to colonnaded squares and fountains.

It is every architect's dream to build a new city and Lord Foster's team say they started from scratch. The idea has been to reduce the amount of energy needed to build it and to live there, and then to let solar energy take over.

"We will start with a large solar power station which will provide the energy to construct the city. Some 80% of all the roof space will be used to generate solar power, and because we expect technology to improve as we are building it, we hope we will later be able to remove the power plant," said Mr Evenden.

The architects also plan some high-tech gadgetry. The 50,000 inhabitants, and everyone who works there, will move around on one of three levels.

A light railway will whizz people to and from Masdar to Abu Dhabi; a second level is reserved for pedestrians; and a third for little vehicles such as driverless personal taxis that run on tracks or magnetic discs in the road.

Money is clearly no object. Abu Dhabi is vying with its neighbour Dubai to be the most dazzling Gulf city and the environment is seen as the new card in the deck.

GUARDIAN

http://www.masdaruae.com

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

Solar
The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity. The solar panels produced by a Silicon Valley start-up company, Nanosolar, are radically different from the kind that European consumers are increasingly buying to generate power from their own roofs. Printed like a newspaper directly on to aluminium foil, they are flexible, light and, if you believe the company, expected to make it as cheap to produce electricity from sunlight as from coal.
More info: Guardian 29th Dec 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/29/solarpower.renewableenergy

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

How Africa's desert sun can bring Europe power
A £5bn solar power plan, backed by a Jordanian prince, could provide the EU with a sixth of its electricity needs - and cut carbon emissions
Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer
Sunday December 2 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower

Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of northern Africa and the Middle East.

More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European Union member nations, including Britain.

Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time, the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.

Last week Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan presented details of the scheme - named Desertec - to the European Parliament. 'Countries with deserts, countries with high energy demand, and countries with technology competence must co-operate,' he told MEPs.

The project has been developed by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Corporation and is supported by engineers and politicians in Europe as well as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and other nations in the Middle East and Africa.

Europe would provide initial funds for developing the solar technology that will be needed to run plants as well as money for constructing prototype stations. After that, banks and financial institutions, as well as national governments, would take over the construction programme, which could cost more than £200bn over the next 30 years.

'We don't make enough use of deserts,' said physicist Gerhard Knies, co-founder of the scheme. 'The sun beats down on them mercilessly during the day and heats the ground to tremendous temperatures. Then at night that heat is radiated back into the atmosphere. In other words, it is completely wasted. We need to stop that waste and exploit the vast amounts of energy that the sun beams down to us.'

Scientists estimate that sunlight could provide 10,000 times the amount of energy needed to fulfil humanity's current energy needs. Transforming that solar radiation into a form to be exploited by humanity is difficult, however.

One solution proposed by the scheme's engineers is to use large areas of land on which to construct their solar plants. In Europe, land is costly. But in nations such as Morocco, Algeria, and Libya it is cheap, mainly because they are scorched by the sun. The project aims to exploit that cheap land by use of a technique known as 'concentrating solar power'.

A CSP station consists of banks of several hundred giant mirrors that cover large areas of land, around a square kilometre. Each mirror's position can be carefully controlled to focus the sun's rays onto a central metal pillar that is filled with water. Prototype stations using this technique have already been tested in Spain and Algeria.

Once the sun's rays are focused on the pillar, temperatures inside start to soar to 800C. The water inside the pillar is vaporised into superhot steam which is channelled off and used to drive turbines which in turn generate electricity. 'It is proven technology,' added Knies. 'We have shown it works in our test plants.'

Only small stations have been tested, but soon plants capable of generating 100 megawatts of power could be built, enough to provide the needs of a town. The Desertec project envisages a ring of a thousand of these stations being built along the coast of northern Africa and round into the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East. In this way up to 100 billion watts of power could be generated: two thirds of it would be kept for local needs, the rest - around 30 billion watts - would be exported to Europe.

An idea of how much power this represents is revealed through Britain's electricity generating capacity, which totals 12 billion watts.

But there is an added twist to the system. The superheated steam, after it has driven the plant's turbines, would then be piped through tanks of sea water which would boil and evaporate. Steam from the sea water would piped away and condensed and stored as fresh water.

'Essentially you get electricity and fresh water,' said Knies. 'The latter is going to be crucial for developing countries round the southern Mediterranean and in north Africa. Their populations are rising rapidly, but they have limited supplies of fresh water. Our solar power plants will not only generate electricity that they can sell to Europe, they will supply drinkable water that will sustain their thirsty populations.'

There are drawbacks, however. At present electricity generated this way would cost around 15-20 eurocents (11 to 14p) a kilowatt-hour - almost twice the cost of power generated by coal. At such prices, few nations would be tempted to switch to solar. 'Unless it is extremely cheap, it won't stop people using easy-to-get fossil fuels,' John Gibbins, an energy engineer at Imperial College London, told Nature magazine last week.

However, Desertec's backers say improvements over the next decade should bring the cost of power from its plants to less than 10 eurocents a kilowatt-hour, making it competitive with traditionally generated power.

Other critics say the the plants would be built in several unstable states which could cut their supplies to Europe. Again, Knies dismisses the danger. 'It's not like oil. Solar power is gone once it hits your mirrors. It would simply be lost income.' The European Parliament has asked Desertec to propose short-term demonstration projects.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

CLEAN ENERGY - BIOFUELS

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

Is There a Plan for Life After Peak Oil?
By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted February 12, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/76782/?page=entire

Yes, but it involves a new generation of biofuels that are an environmental disaster.

Now they might start sitting up. They wouldn't listen to the environmentalists or even the geologists. Can governments ignore the capitalists?

A report published last week by Citibank, and so far unremarked by the media, proposes "genuine difficulties" in increasing the production of crude oil, "particularly after 2012." Though 175 big drilling projects will start in the next four years, "the fear remains that most of this supply will be offset by high levels of decline".

The oil industry has scoffed at the notion that oil supplies might peak, but "recent evidence of failed production growth would tend to shift the burden of proof onto the producers", as they have been unable to respond to the massive rise in prices. "Total global liquid hydrocarbon production has essentially flatlined since mid 2005 at just north of 85 million barrels per day."

The issue is complicated, as ever, by the refusal of the OPEC cartel to raise production. What has changed, Citi says, is that the non-OPEC countries can no longer answer the price signal. Does this mean that oil production in these nations has already peaked? If so, what do our governments intend to do?

Nine months ago, I asked the British government to send me its assessments of global oil supply. The results astonished me: there weren't any. Instead it relied exclusively on one external source: a book published by the International Energy Agency. The omission became stranger still when I read this book and discovered that it was a crude polemic, dismissing those who questioned future oil supplies as "doomsayers" without providing robust evidence to support its conclusions. Though the members of OPEC have a powerful interest in exaggerating their reserves in order to boost their quotas, the IEA relied on their own assessments of future supply.

Last week I tried again, and I received the same response: "the Government agrees with IEA analysis that global oil (and gas) reserves are sufficient to sustain economic growth for the foreseeable future." Perhaps it hasn't noticed that the IEA is now backtracking.

The Financial Times says the agency "has admitted that it has been paying insufficient attention to supply bottlenecks as evidence mounts that oil is being discovered more slowly than once expected ... natural decline rates for discovered fields are a closely guarded secret in the oil industry, and the IEA is concerned that the data it currently holds is not accurate."

What if the data turns out to be wrong? What if OPEC's stated reserves are a pack of lies? What contingency plans has the government made? Answer comes there none.

The European Commission, by contrast, does have a plan, and it's a disaster. It recognises that "the oil dependence of the transport sector ... is one of the most serious problems of insecurity in energy supply that the EU faces." Partly in order to diversify fuel supplies, partly to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it has ordered the member states to ensure that by 2020 10 percent of the petroleum our cars burn must be replaced with biofuels. This won't solve peak oil, but it might at least put it into perspective by causing an even bigger problem.

To be fair to the Commission, it has now acknowledged that biofuels are not a green panacea. Its draft directive rules that they shouldn't be produced by destroying primary forests, ancient grasslands or wetlands, as this could cause a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Nor should any biodiverse ecosystem be damaged in order to grow them.

It sounds good, but there are three problems. If biofuels can't be produced in virgin habitats, they must be confined to existing agricultural land, which means that every time we fill up the car we snatch food from people's mouths. This, in turn, raises the price of food, which encourages farmers to destroy pristine habitats -- primary forests, ancient grasslands, wetlands and the rest -- in order to grow it. We can congratulate ourselves on remaining morally pure, but the impacts are the same. There is no way out of this: on a finite planet with tight food supplies you either compete with the hungry or clear new land.

The third problem is that the Commission's methodology has just been blown apart by two new papers. Published in Science magazine, they calculate the total carbon costs of biofuel production. When land clearance (caused either directly or by the displacement of food crops) is taken into account, all the major biofuels cause a massive increase in emissions.

Even the most productive source -- sugarcane grown in the scrubby savannahs of central Brazil -- creates a carbon debt which takes 17 years to repay. As the major carbon reductions must be made now, the net effect of this crop is to exacerbate climate change. The worst source -- palm oil displacing tropical rainforest growing in peat -- invokes a carbon debt of some 840 years.

Even when you produce ethanol from maize grown on "rested" arable land (which in the EU is called set-aside and in the US is called conservation reserve), it takes 48 years to repay the carbon debt. The facts have changed. Will the policy follow?

Many people believe there's a way of avoiding these problems: by making biofuels not from the crops themselves but from crop wastes. If transport fuel can be manufactured from straw or grass or wood chips, there are no implications for land use, and no danger of spreading hunger. Until recently I believed this myself.

Unfortunately most agricultural "waste" is nothing of the kind. It is the organic material which maintains the soil's structure, nutrients and store of carbon. A paper commissioned by the US government proposes that, to help meet its biofuel targets, 75 percent of annual crop residues should be harvested. According to a letter published in Science last year, removing crop residues can increase the rate of soil erosion 100-fold. Our addiction to the car, in other words, could lead to peak soil as well as peak oil.

Removing crop wastes means replacing the nutrients they contain with fertiliser, which causes further greenhouse gas emissions. A recent paper by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than CO2) from nitrogen fertilisers wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce, even before you take the changes in land use into account.

Growing special second generation crops, such as trees or switchgrass, doesn't solve the problem either: like other energy crops, they displace both food production and carbon emissions. Growing switchgrass, one of the new papers in Science shows, creates a carbon debt of 52 years. Some people propose making second generation fuels from grass harvested in natural meadows or from municipal waste, but it's hard enough to produce them from single feedstocks; far harder to manufacture them from a mixture. Apart from used chip fat, there is no such thing as a sustainable biofuel.

All these convoluted solutions are designed to avoid a simpler one: reducing the consumption of transport fuel. But that requires the use of a different commodity. Global supplies of political courage appear, unfortunately, to have peaked some time ago.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPED IN SUBURBAN SYDNEY

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

NSW tried to pass on contamination costs
The State Government considered an option to sell off a radioactive
waste dump in Hunters Hill for housing without first cleaning up the
site, new documents reveal.
<http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/state-tried-to-pass-on-contamination-costs/2008/02/01/1201801034938.html>
com.au/news/national/state-tried-to-pass-on-contamination-costs/2008/02/
01/1201801034938.html
Monash University's Dr Gavin Mudd  said the dumped uranium and thorium
might have to be included in a national nuclear waste dump - yet to be
built.
Dr Gavin Mudd has chronicled a history of the Woolwich site dating back
to 1911 when it was the site of a uranium ore processing plant, and says
it should be stored at the Lucas Heights nuclear research facility:
www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23129842-5013110,00.html

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

LUCAS HEIGHTS REACTOR TO RESTART

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

Nuclear reactor to reopen after six-month shutdown
Richard Macey
December 27, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-reactor-to-reopen-after-sixmonth-shutdown/2007/12/26/1198345080938.html

AUSTRALIA's $400 million nuclear research reactor should be operating again next month, six months after a design flaw forced its shutdown.

But for a further three months, the country must import vital radiopharmaceuticals that were to have been manufactured at Lucas Heights, chief of operations at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Ron Cameron, said yesterday.

ANSTO is spending about $100,000 a week buying radiopharmaceuticals - including isotopes used in cancer, heart and bone scans - from South Africa. "It is costing us more to import than we sell it for," Dr Cameron said, adding the organisation had no choice but to foot the bill.

The price of the shutdown and repairs would not be known until the reactor, OPAL, was fully operational. However Dr Cameron made it clear he intended to recover its commercial losses through ANSTO's insurance policies, and its redesign and repair costs from its warranty with the reactor's builder, the Argentine firm INVAP.

The reactor was forced out of operation in July - three months after being officially opened by the then prime minister, John Howard, when "five or six" nuclear fuel plates mounted inside the core started coming loose.

Dr Cameron said the fuel assemblies had been redesigned to incorporate "stoppers" that would hold the plates in place.

"We think the [original fuel assembly] design wasn't the best it could be," he said. While it had been developed by an Argentine subcontractor, INVAP was the design authority. "They have to take responsibility for designing the fuel assembly."

Asked if ANSTO had started warranty talks with INVAP, Dr Cameron said: "Yes, of course. We are not sitting back doing nothing. They certainly recognise that they need to work with us."

Last week ANSTO lodged an application with Australia's monitor of nuclear safety, ARPANSA, seeking its approval for the redesign. The plan also calls for the installation of a French-made nuclear core to restart the reactor, replacing the previous Argentine core.

Dr Cameron said that even if approval came in the next two weeks, allowing the reactor to be reopened next month, the shutdown meant associated equipment used to manufacture an isotope of molybdenum, which generates technetium - used in about 80 per cent of radiopharmaceuticals - might not be fully operational for another three months. It had been scheduled to be running either last month or this month.

In addition to the cost of the redesign of the fuel assemblies and the importation of the isotopes, the nuclear research agency had also been forced to suspend its commercial irradiation of silicon, used in making microchips, and had to put many science projects on hold.

Dr Cameron said that ANSTO held business continuity insurance for commercial losses on top of the manufacturer's warranty. "But it's like your house insurance - you never never know whether they are going to pay until the money is in the bank."

Despite the flaw in the fuel assemblies, the OPAL reactor had been working normally when the decision was made to shut it down and begin repairs.

The loose fuel plates were discovered during a routine inspection of the core.

"We put a camera inside and said, 'This is not good'," Dr Cameron said. "But it didn't cause any malfunction in the reactor."

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

COAL - MORE COAL-FIRED ELECTRICITY PLANTS IN AUSTRALIA?

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

Power station plans shelved
Matthew Warren, Environment writer | November 29, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22839811-30417,00.html

PLANS for new coal-fired power stations have been shelved until at least 2020, when technology to capture and store greenhouse emissions may be available.

In the wake of Kevin Rudd's emphatic victory, generators said yesterday it was now too risky to consider building a coal-fired power station unless its emissions could be significantly reduced when faced with Labor's commitment to make cuts of 60 per cent by 2050.

The National Generators Forum, representing the 22 main utilities, expects rising demand for electricity until 2020 to be supplied mainly by new gas-fired power stations and wind farms.

Electricity prices are certain to rise as gas releases about half the greenhouse emissions of coal but is close to 20 per cent more expensive. Wind-generated power is about double the cost.

NGF executive director John Boshier said Labor's 20 per cent mandatory renewable energy target by 2020 would supply about 45,000 gigawatt hours, or half of new generation capacity.

Technology to capture and store emissions from coal- and gas-fired power stations is under development, but not expected to be commercialised until 2020.

"Unless a new coal-fired power station was capture-ready, it would be unlikely to be built in the present environment and I think investors would look at it as too risky," Mr Boshier said.

"Coal-fired power stations will keep going until the end of their economic life, but what that means is - to achieve big cuts in emissions - new power stations have to be low-emission. And, so, building new coal-fired power stations doesn't help to achieve that target."

One big coal and gas generator, TRUenergy, has committed not to build any new coal-fired power stations.

State governments are increasingly looking to the private sector for new investment in electricity generation, with growing speculation that the Queensland and NSW governments are considering privatising utilities.

The Queensland Government sold off state-owned electricity retailers late last year, and the NSW Government is expected to announce the future of its generators and retailers at the end of this year.

The pessimistic view of generators is not shared by the main coal-mining union, which says investment in coal-fired power depends on the details of climate change policies to be unveiled next year.

Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union general president Tony Maher said governments or the private sector would build new coal-fired power stations if they were guaranteed a share of the expanding energy market.

"It's only a matter of taking a bit more risk," he said. "The private sector will build it if there is a guaranteed market share."

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

1977 CABINET DOCUMENTS   

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

Secret plans for troops on wharves
Siobhain Ryan | January 01, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22993047-5013871,00.html

THE Fraser government drew up secret plans to send troops on to the wharves to circumvent industrial action, two decades before police fronted picketers in the landmark waterfront dispute.

The Mary Kathleen uranium mine in Queensland's far northwest, part-owned by the commonwealth, had by the late 1970s become a lightning rod of union discontent over the Coalition's support for uranium mining.

But newly released documents show that opinion in federal cabinet had also hardened, setting the stage for a confrontation.

"MKU must be maintained as an operating mine," says a cabinet paper dated October 1977. "If it fails as a result of union pressure, the effect on the domestic industrial relations scene and on the international front would be irreparable from the Government's standpoint."

A month earlier, the ACTU, led by Bob Hawke, had set a November 15 deadline for the government to commit to a referendum on future uranium mining, warning unions would refuse to mine or handle the ore after that date.

By October, the government was internally canvassing the use of the defence forces to pre-empt or break up expected union blockades of the Mary Kathleen mine, or the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney, which stored up to $140 million in ore.

Cabinet explored options for transport of ore ahead of the deadline, by road, by Chinook helicopter or even chartered jumbo jet, to meet the mine's export contract commitments.

"In the absence of some development such as a mutual accommodation with the ACTU, troops will be required on the wharves in Queensland in the month after the ACTU's deadline of 15 November," the cabinet paper says.

Australia was beset by industrial action in 1977, with air traffic controllers, postal and power workers striking, and unions banning yellowcake shipments.

The government had begun retaliating with tougher workplace laws and was prepared to go further if planned talks with the ACTU failed to avert work bans after November 15. It would "acquaint (Mr Hawke) with the ramifications of confrontation over this issue, i.e. inevitable use of troops, uranium-specific legislation, emergency legislation, etc", cabinet papers say.

Even the 1998 waterfront dispute - in which police confronted picketers in a seminal battle between companies, unions and the Howard government - stopped short of the use of the defence forces.

Mr Hawke's position was precarious, given he personally was inclined to support uranium mining, as were many unions.

He later convinced a February 1978 ACTU conference to adopt a compromise that ruled out any new mines but allowed existing uranium contracts to be fulfilled.

The debate erupted again last year, along similar party lines. The Howard government went into the federal election backing nuclear power while Labor strongly opposed it.

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

French, US bid for nuclear plants
Ben Doherty
January 1, 2008

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/french-us-bid-for-nuclear-plants/2007/12/31/1198949746679.html
FRANCE and the United States wanted to build uranium-enrichment plants on Australian soil to feed their burgeoning nuclear power industries in the late 1970s, newly released documents have indicated.
Cabinet documents from Malcolm Fraser's government of 1977, released today by the National Archives of Australia, show a government that spent much of the year discussing and developing a hardline position on safeguards for the sale of uranium.
And the development of a nuclear industry in Australia, beyond the mining and export of uranium, was seriously considered by the then government.
But while French and American overtures to build uranium-enrichment facilities on Australian soil were noted in cabinet submissions, they were never explored further by government, and the facilities never built.
Enriching naturally occurring uranium is the first step to creating nuclear power and weapons.
One cabinet submission from 1977 noted that US policies "do not rule out the possibility of establishing enrichment capacity in Australia; indeed, approaches have been made recently suggesting US willingness to discuss this possibility.
"There has been increasing evidence of overseas interest in coming to some arrangement for participation in enrichment in Australia."
France's central atomic agency, the CEA, the US government's Energy Research and Development Administration, and private firm Urenco, all made repeated requests to discuss enrichment ventures with Australia.
In 1977, the Fraser government decided to permit the mining and export of uranium from Australia, but would trade only with countries party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Nuclear weapon states to whom Australia would sell yellowcake, such as the US, would have to commit that Australia's uranium would be used only for "peaceful purposes (and) not diverted to military or explosive purposes".
Cold War fears meant there was a blanket ban on the export of uranium to the Soviet Union, and then foreign minister Andrew Peacock said developing countries "had the potential to harm Australian interests significantly in the not-too-distant future, by nuclear blackmail".
The uranium Australia sent overseas would stay there. Mr Fraser's cabinet decided Australia would not act as "a repository for spent fuel or radioactive waste for other countries".
Last year, the Howard government was heavily criticised for agreeing to sell uranium to India, outside the non-proliferation regime.
Mr Fraser's flirting with a nuclear industry prompted a three-decade-long fight within the Labor Party over uranium mining, which was resolved only this year. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has ruled out a nuclear industry in Australia.
Also in 1977, the Fraser government approved the development of the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory, but established Kakadu National Park to protect the environment around it. (The Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium leases, while within the park boundaries, were excluded from the park.)
Indigenous communities living near the Ranger mine would be harmed by it, cabinet conceded. The new mine would provide few jobs for Aborigines, and the influx of non-indigenous workers would likely inflame racial tensions, cabinet was told.
Alcohol abuse was already a serious problem in the area, and the mine would likely "aggravate the problem".
The government wanted the mining companies to build educational facilities and was even considering restricting alcohol sales in some Aboriginal townships to "only draught beer".

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM MINING IN AUSTRALIA - VARIOUS

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

ERA stops mulling on Kintyre uranium
Barry Fitzgerald
December 5, 2007
http://business.theage.com.au/era-stops-mulling-on-kintyre-uranium/20071204-1ewd.html

RIO Tinto's listed uranium subsidiary, Energy Resources of Australia, has ruled itself out as a buyer of its parent's undeveloped Kintyre uranium deposit in Western Australia.

Kintyre is one of the assets Rio is putting up for sale as part of its $US15 billion ($A17.1 billion) garage sale to fund debt reduction after its $US38 billion acquisition of Alcan.

There has been speculation that ERA, 68% owned by Rio, would be a natural buyer of Kintyre, given its 26 years of experience as a uranium miner at the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory. Apart from anything else, it would enhance ERA's growth profile.

But ERA chief executive Chris Salisbury said yesterday the ERA board's strategy was "very much about exploiting the resources that we have on our lease areas" inside Kakadu National Park.

"There is no doubt in my mind that we are sitting in amongst the most prospectable ground in the world," he said. "The board has reaffirmed the strategy of let's exploit that."

The speculation that ERA had growth ambitions beyond its Kakadu leases were partly fuelled by its decision to apply for the exploration licences covering the Angela/Pamela uranium deposits near Alice Springs. Mr Salisbury said the board would "consider opportunities" as they arose but the focus was on its Ranger leases. He said ERA had made an exception in applying for the Angela/Pamela licence.

"It's in our backyard if you like, and we've got a large presence in the NT and it was a low threshold to entry," he said. ERA expects the NT Government will announce the winning applicant in the first half of next year. It faces stiff competition, with more than 40 applicants in the field, including a half a dozen Chinese nuclear groups.

After addressing the Melbourne Mining Club, he said ERA was "very much focused on the ($A57 million) Ranger expansion". The status of the nearby but undeveloped Jabiluka deposit has not changed.

"It remains on care and maintenance, the traditional owners have right of consent over its development," Mr Salisbury said. Jabiluka was a valuable resource and ERA wanted to develop it, but only with consent of the original owners, he said.

ERA shares closed 35¢ higher at $20, with investors at the lunch taking away the message that ERA was bullish on uranium prices. Prices have come back from recent peaks but at about $US93 a pound, the price is still up from the $US10 a pound level of three or four years ago.

"We can see prices being maintained or (going) even higher," he said. "We've seen a number of stumbles by various operations, including Ranger, although that is now behind us."

And because of the potential for more supply disruptions, prices could "rise even beyond where they are now", he said.

Like other uranium producers compelled to sign low-price contracts in the early 2000s, ERA is starting to see them roll off and be replaced by higher-priced contracts that capture more of uranium's price spike.

Mr Salisbury said the low-priced contracts were generally of three to five years' duration and were now starting to end. "The uranium price has been steadily climbing and we've been signing contracts all the way up that climb. We will see improved prices sweep into our portfolio, which will allow us to achieve much better realised prices."

http://tinyurl.com/d49g3

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

Uranium policy to change: Toro chairman
November 20, 2007 - 6:39PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Uranium-policy-to-change-Toro-chairman/2007/11/20/1195321775011.html

Governments in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales are under pressure to change their anti-uranium mining policies, Toro Energy Ltd chairman Ian Gould says.

"It is clear in this changing dynamic that the anti-uranium mining policies of the WA, NSW and Queensland governments are looking increasingly anomalous, even within their own parties," Mr Gould told shareholders at the uranium explorer's annual general meeting.

"We believe there will be substantially more serious consideration of these policies, for example, leading up to the next state election in WA.

"... hopefully, the anomalous policy in WA will be normalised."

After the Australian Labor Party voted to scrap its 'no new uranium mines' policy in April at the party's conference, the NSW and WA governments stood by their anti-nuclear and anti-uranium policies.

WA Premier Alan Carpenter has said there would be no uranium mining in his state while he was leader, but uranium could power WA after its coal and gas reserves were exhausted.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has emphasised the importance of strict safety and environmental safeguards for new uranium mines, hinting she could be persuaded to allow them in the state.

All resolutions were passed at the Toro meeting, including the re-election of Oxiana Ltd managing director Owen Hegarty as a Toro director.

Shares in Toro, which recently merged with Nova Energy, dipped five cents, or 8.62 per cent, to close at 53 cents.

© 2007 AAP

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM - MARATHON  ILLEGAL DUMPING IN ARKAROOLA WILDERNESS SANCTUARY

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

Mining halted in Flinders region
GREG KELTON
The Advertiser
13 Feb 2008
Arkaroola 

MINING operations in the Arkaroola wilderness area have been suspended indefinitely by the State Government. 

The move is in response to what it describes as significant breaches of the miner's exploration licence. 

But the company at the centre of the row has not given up hope of eventually mining the huge mineral deposits in the area.
Marathon Resources has spent more than $10 million exploring for uranium and other minerals in the Mt Gee area near Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary - in the Northern Flinders Ranges - sparking calls from both federal and state Liberals and the Greens for a total ban on mining in the region. 

But the state Liberals appear split on the issue. 

Opposition frontbencher Iain Evans foreshadowed a private member's Bill for a total ban, but Liberal mining spokesman David Ridgway refused to say whether the party would support it. 

Greens MLC Mark Parnell called for a total ban on mining saying it was time for the "madness'' to stop. 


Earlier this year, the Government launched an investigation into the discovery of drilling core samples which had been buried at the mine site. 
It has received the initial findings of an inquiry by departmental officers that confirms a breach involving the unauthorised burial of "a large number'' of exploration samples, drilling material and other waste. 

Premier Mike Rann said the Government's decision sent a clear message to miners. "This is a remote part of our state but it is not the wild west,'' Mr Rann said.


"This Government has been promoting mining exploration and we have seen a 10-fold increase in exploration in this state over four or five years. 


"Mining companies have to be good neighbours and while we are not the American wild west, we will not tolerate cowboys.'' 


Resources Minister Paul Holloway said Marathon Resources had been ordered to safely excavate all the unauthorised buried drill sample material and return the site to, as close as possible, the original conditions.
Marathon chairman Peter Williams said the firm deeply regretted its actions but it was not an intentional breach.

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

Letter sent to Advertisr
If Premier Mike Rann was genuinely concerned about 'cowboy' uranium mining operations in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, he would ban mining there rather than suspending it.
Moreover, if Mr Rann was concerned about 'cowboy' uranium miners he would redress the situation whereby BHP Billiton operates above the law at Roxby Downs. The Roxby Indenture Act provides for a vast number of exemptions and overrides such that the Roxby Downs uranium/copper mine is effectively exempt from the SA Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Water Resources Act and even the Freedom of Information Act.
These exemptions and overrides are racist, anachronistic and offensive. Mr Rann ought to have the decency to abolish them, and BHP Billiton ought to have the decency to relinquish them.
Jim Green
Friends of the Earth, Melbourne.

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

Media Release
12th February 2008
Get all mining out of Arkaroola - Greens

SA Greens MLC Mark Parnell has called for the Rann Government to ban, once
and for all, all mining in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The State Government has announced today they are requiring Marathon
Resources to suspend all current drilling operations, after thousands of
plastic bags full of exploration waste were discovered in shallow pits.

"Marathon Resources has shown they are incapable of exploring this
unique part of Australia without causing significant damage," he said. 

"We need to draw a line in the sand.  Some parts of our state are just
too precious to mine - Mt Gee is clearly one of those.

"It's time for this madness to stop - not just the exploration, but all
mining in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary," Mr Parnell said.

Mark Parnell has a bill currently before Parliament, the National Parks
and Wildlife (Mining in Sanctuaries) Amendment Bill, which will ban all
exploration and mining activity in declared SA nature Sanctuaries.

"It's not just Arkaroola, there are 90 other declared Sanctuaries that
could also be open to mining. These unique and special areas of
wilderness protection total less than 0.1% of South Australia.

"If we can't protect less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the state from
mining, then what hope is there for the preservation of biodiversity in
this state?

"I urge the Government and all other members to support my Bill, and
once and for all rule out mining in our precious wilderness reserves,"
he said.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM - BEVERLEY EXPANSION

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

Uranium 'double standards', says ACF
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/15/2163498.htm
Updated Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:45am AEDT

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has accused the South Australian Government of double standards on uranium mining.

There are plans to extend the Beverley uranium mine in outback SA, but David Noonan from the ACF says it would lead to radioactive liquid being pumped into ground water in the Flinders Ranges.

He says the Government seems set to approve the proposal, despite having banned another company Marathon Resources from uranium mining exploration at Arkaroola because of contamination concerns there.

"The State Government has got a clear contradiction in ... their so-called standards, you can't on one side of the fence order people to take away inappropriately-buried radioactive waste, and on the other side of the fence deliberately arrange for a US nuclear corporation to dump liquid waste in ground water," he said.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM SALES TO INDIA

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

OPPOSING URANIUM SALES TO INDIA
Members of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) will soon be
asked to take a position on the Bush administration's proposal to exempt
India from longstanding NSG guidelines that require full-scope IAEA
safeguards as a condition of supply. MAPW's President, Sue Wareham, is
one of many Australian international signatories to a letter
<http://www.mapw.org.au/mapw-commentary/letters/2008/IntlNSGLetter2008.p
df>  to Australia's Foreign Minister detailing concerns about such
exemptions.

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

Sell India uranium: Nelson

Author: Annabel Stafford, Canberra 
Publication: The Age (4,Mon 31 Dec 2007)

FEDERAL Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has reiterated calls for Australia to sell uranium to India, despite fears of instability on the subcontinent following last week's assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
In August, the Howard government made an in-principle agreement to sell uranium to India on the condition that the uranium be used for peaceful purposes and that India sign a civil nuclear co-operation agreement with the United States.
But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has vowed not to proceed with uranium sales to India until it becomes a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Despite this, Dr Nelson yesterday repeated Coalition support for uranium sales to India as a way of combating climate change.
India was a major emitter of greenhouse gases with growing energy needs, so "it's important that we proceed" with uranium sales, he said.
"I don't believe Australia selling or not selling (uranium to India) will make any material difference (to the stability of the subcontinent)."
He said Mr Rudd could not on one hand agree to interim and long-term targets for cutting emissions without "assisting a nation like India, with burgeoning energy demands, to reduce its carbon footprint".
He said it was important that Australia "proceed with the agreement" made with India by the Howard government.

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

By Arshad Mohammed
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0954728720080109
Jan 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Critics of the U.S.-India civil nuclear
agreement on Wednesday urged two international groups whose approval
is vital to the deal to take steps to ensure it does not undermine
global nonproliferation efforts.

Nearly 100 nongovernmental organizations and 25 individuals made
their case in a letter to the 45 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, which governs international nuclear trade, and to some board
members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear
watchdog.

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters ahead of its
public release on Wednesday, argued that the deal would "damage the
already fragile nuclear nonproliferation system and set back efforts
to achieve universal nuclear disarmament."

Endorsed by groups including the Nobel Peace Prize-winning
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the
letter urged NSG members to agree to cut off all nuclear trade with
India if it resumes nuclear testing for any reason.

Among other things the letter, to be released by the Washington-based
Arms Control Association and Tokyo's Citizens' Nuclear Information
Center, also called on India to declare it has stopped producing
fissile material for atomic bombs and commit to permanently end
nuclear testing.

Analysts said these two conditions, if embraced by the NSG, would
likely kill the deal for India.

The proposed U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreement would give
India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in
30 years even though New Delhi has tested nuclear weapons and refused
to join nonproliferation agreements.

The deal is controversial in India, where it is opposed by the
Communist allies of the Congress Party-led government, who believe it
would infringe on Indian sovereignty. It has also been criticized by
Western nonproliferation experts who fear it will undercut efforts to
stop the spread of nuclear arms.

The Bush administration sees the deal as the centrepiece of a new,
strategic relationship between Washington and New Delhi and argues
that it will help India meet its soaring energy needs and provide
business opportunities for U.S. companies.

U.S. officials deny it will weaken the nonproliferation regime.

The deal was reached during the summer but before it can go into
effect India must reach an agreement with the IAEA to place its
civilian nuclear reactors under U.N. safeguards.

Indian and IAEA officials discussed a safeguards agreement in Vienna
last week and are due to meet again on January 17.

"They made progress but they are still not there," said a Vienna
diplomat close to the IAEA, saying the two sides were looking toward
the possibility of finishing up in time for the IAEA board of
governors to vote on any deal in March.

The deal must also get clearance from the Nuclear Suppliers Group,
whose members work together to prevent nuclear exports for peaceful
purposes from being used to make atomic weapons.

After those steps, the deal must be finally approved by the U.S.
Congress, a tall order in a U.S. election year.

"I don't think it's dead but I don't think it'll be easy to do this
year," said Sharon Squassoni, a Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace nonproliferation expert.

"It looks to me like the Arms Control Association is beating a dead
horse because I think this deal is dead because of political
opposition in India," said analyst Gary Samore of the Council on
Foreign Relations think tank. "It is really an irony that the U.S.
government gave the Indian government an incredibly sweet deal but it
turned out that it's the Indians who can't deliver."

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

INDIA-US NUCLEAR DEAL

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

-- Media Advisory --
Experts and Organizations from 23 Countries Call on States to
"Fix the Proposal for Nuclear Cooperation with India"
Embargoed until January 9, 2008, 4pm Tokyo time

(Washington, D.C.-Tokyo, Japan) In a letter sent to more than four-dozen governments this week, a prestigious and broad array of more than 120 experts and nongovernmental organizations from 23 countries said the U.S. proposal to exempt India from longstanding global nuclear trade standards "would damage the already fragile nuclear nonproliferation system and set back efforts to achieve universal nuclear disarmament."

The international appeal to "Fix the Proposal for Nuclear Cooperation with India" calls upon governments "to play an active role in supporting measures that would ensure this controversial proposal does not: further undermine the nuclear safeguards system and efforts to prevent the proliferation of technologies that may be used to produce nuclear bomb material," or "in any way contribute to the expansion of India's nuclear arsenal."

Among the experts endorsing the appeal is Amb. Jayantha Dhanapala, the former UN Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs and President of the 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. Nongovernmental organizations from South Asia, East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Europe, Africa, and North America endorsed the letter, which was organized by the Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center and the Washington-based Arms Control Association.

In the coming weeks, the 35-member International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) will likely take up the issue. The appeal is part of a global NGO campaign to influence governments' views about the controversial nuclear trade proposal.

Current international guidelines severely restrict trade with states, such as India, that do not allow comprehensive international safeguards over all nuclear facilities and material in their territory. The 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) bars direct or indirect assistance of another state's nuclear weapons program. India, which detonated a nuclear bomb in 1974 made with plutonium harvested from a Canadian and U.S.-supplied reactor in violation of bilateral peace nuclear use agreements, has not to joined the NPT, continues to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, and has not signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Nevertheless, in July 2005, U.S. President George Bush pledged to seek changes in longstanding U.S. laws and international guidelines to permit increased civil nuclear trade with India. In return, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pledged to allow additional IAEA oversight of certain Indian nuclear reactors under a new "India-specific" agreement now being negotiated with the Agency.

"Contrary to the claims of its advocates," the signatories write, "the proposed arrangement fails to bring India into conformity with the nonproliferation behavior expected of other states. India's commitments under the current terms of the proposed arrangement do not justify making far-reaching exceptions to international nonproliferation rules and norms."

Noting that the IAEA Board and the NSG traditionally operate by consensus, the signatories also note that each member state "has a pivotal role to play." The appeal calls upon the governments to consider additional conditions and restrictions on nuclear trade with India.

Among other recommendations, the appeal urges governments "to actively oppose any arrangement that would give India any special safeguards exemptions or would in any way be inconsistent with the principle of permanent safeguards over all nuclear materials and facilities." India is reportedly seeking IAEA safeguards that could allow India to cease IAEA scrutiny if nuclear fuel supplies are cut off - even it that is because it renews nuclear testing.

The appeal insists that NSG states "should under no circumstances" allow for the transfer to India of plutonium reprocessing, uranium enrichment or heavy water production technology, which may be replicated and used to help produce nuclear bomb material. India is seeking access to these sensitive technologies from the United States and other suppliers.

Noting that the nuclear cooperation proposal could help India expand its nuclear weapons arsenal, the appeal also urges governments to insist that India "join the original nuclear weapon states by declaring it has stopped fissile material production for weapons purposes and ... make a legally-binding commitment to permanently end nuclear testing."

The appeal argues that "in the very least," NSG states should "clarify that all nuclear trade shall immediately cease if India resumes nuclear testing for any reason." To do otherwise "would undercut the international norm against nuclear testing and make a mockery of NSG guidelines," according to the supporters of the appeal.

For the full text of the appeal to "Fix the Proposal for Nuclear Cooperation with India" and list of endorsers, see <www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2008/NSGappeal.asp>.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM PRICE FALLING

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

Energy Resources International expects drop in price


Platts / Nucleonics Week

http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/Resources/News%20Features/uranium/eri.xml


September 2007
Energy Resources International Inc., an electric power advisory group, is
forecasting that the long-term uranium base price will decline to under $50
a pound U308 by around 2012 to 2014 and then increase to about $55/lb by
2020.


Washington, DC-based ERI's price forecast (in 2007 dollars) was in the
company's 2007 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Supply and Price Report, released at the
end of June.


The price will decline to about $53/lb by 2010 and drop 10% more over the
following two to four years before a gradual upturn, it said.


ERI said the "brightening outlook" for nuclear power around the world and
the associated increase in expected uranium requirements have been
contributors to the price rise in U308. (The spot market price increased
from about $7/lb U308 in early 2001 to $122/lb by May 18, ERI said, quoting
TradeTech.)
The rise was largely due to a series of supply-disrupting
events and the entry of speculators into the market, ERI said.


However, ERI said, the outlook for increases in uranium production in the
future may be expected to moderate prices. It cited Kazakhstan, which
produced 5.3 million pounds of uranium in 2001 but is expected to have an
output of about 18 million pounds this year.
Ranked in 2001 in sixth place
among uranium producers, it could overtake Canada for first place in the
world by 2010, ERI said.
Canada and Australia are also expected to increase
output in coming years, it said.
"While uranium supply and requirements may
continue to be tight during the next few years, supply is projected to be
adequate by 2010 and remain adequate through at least 2020 and beyond as
currently prospective deposits are brought into production," ERI said.

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

Uranium stocks take a dive
Article from: AAP
January 10, 2008 03:33pm
THE uranium bubble appears to have burst, with Australia's uranium stocks now 55 per cent weaker on average than all-time highs hit in April-May last year.
The strongest-performing Australian uranium companies during this period are all operating in the African nation of Namibia, home to the huge, partially Rio Tinto-owned Rossing mine.
This was the upshot of research by Perth's oldest brokerage house DJ Carmichael, which focused on 26 key uranium stocks including Rio subsidiary Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, Paladin Resources NL, Summit Resources Ltd, Deep Yellow Ltd, Alliance Resources Ltd, Bannerman Resources Ltd and A-Cap Resources Ltd.
DJ Carmichael head of research Paul Adams said the broker remained bullish on uranium stocks, but the wheat had certainly been separated from the chaff.
"The heat has come out of the uranium market in Australia in general - particularly so in Western Australia - and investor interest really now has to be focused on the quality companies that have good quality projects in uranium-friendly jurisdictions," Mr Adams said.
He said West Australian Metals Ltd, Extract Resources Ltd and Bannerman were the Australian uranium sector's top three performers, all exploring in Namibia.
"Bannerman are 17 per cent off their all time high ... which was reached in December," he said.
"Those companies that have done the best certainly have projects with the potential for large resources.
"These are bulk tonnage, significantly sized operations - many millions of tonnes - at a low grade but the economies of scale means these projects do very well."
This week, New York-headquartered broking house Wall Street Access said in a report that uranium shares had generally trailed oil shares' performance worldwide in 2007, singling out Bannerman as being a rare exception.
Bannerman was the best performing company on the Australian stock exchange in 2006/07 and aside from a share price dip in late August last year, its stellar run continues.
Mr Adams said DJ Carmichael also favoured Botswana-focused uranium companies such as A-Cap Resources Ltd and Impact Resources Ltd.
"Australian investors tend to shy away from Africa but that is certainly not true for Namibia and Botswana ... which are extremely stable, pro-mining countries," he said.
"In fact, in a recent sovereign risk survey, Botswana rated better than Australia.
"I note that Zambia has enacted legislation to develop their own uranium industry."
He said the US was also favourable for uranium mining, with firms active here including Uranium King Ltd, which is currently mid-merger with Monaro Mining NL, Black Range Minerals Ltd and Wildhorse Energy Ltd.
Wall Street Access said the sharp price downturn in uranium stocks mid-2007 "caused investors to reassess the fundamental (good) and speculative (bad) forces that had driven spot prices from $US7 per pound in 2000 to $US135 in 2007".
"After the white hot price gains of most uranium shares in 2006, investors came to the belated realisation that most of these companies are speculative ventures which lack the ingredients needed for success in uranium mining: quality resources, access to capital and executive depth," the broker said in its report this week.
"The majority of listed uranium shares are little more than stock promotion schemes ... and will always be so."
Uranium is currently trading at about $US90 ($A102.16) per pound and Mr Adams said the commodity would trade north of $US100 per pound this year.
"I don't see a fundamental change in the rise in demand," he said.
"In fact, with the problems that hit the Canadian mines (which supply about 25 per cent of the world's uranium) last year, we see continued problems in supplying uranium, which will be supportive for the uranium price throughout 2008.
"Short-term, it looks to be stabilising around $US95-96 per pound.
"Price movements lately have been affected by some dumping of uranium by the US government on to the market and on the other side of the coin, some fund buying and selling."
Mr Adams said there was a window of opportunity that uranium explorers were scrambling to get inside: those that looked set to get mines up and running by 2012/13 could lock in strong prices on long term contracts.
"The window of opportunity closes about 2013 when we'll see supply from (BHP Billiton Ltd's) Olympic Dam (expansion) starting to hit the market.
"Problems with Canadian uranium mines will start to be rectified by then and we'll see some increase in the supply of uranium that will affect the price."
He said Australia's initial public offer market would remain reasonably active for most sectors this year, but not so much for uranium companies.
Uranium-focused listings on the Australian stock exchange in December included Krucible Metals Ltd, Monax Mining Ltd spin-off Marmota Energy Ltd, Rum Jungle Uranium Ltd, Top End Uranium Ltd and West Wits Mining Ltd.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM MINING IN QUEENSLAND

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

Uranium ban will stand: Welford - State stays out of step with Rudd Government
Author: Margaret Wenham
Publication: Courier Mail, Page 011 (Mon 14 Jan 2008)

THE State Government has again ruled out changing its long-standing ban on uranium mining.
 
Acting Mines and Energy Minister Rod Welford yesterday restated the Government stance after news last week that Australia's fourth uranium mine -- the Honeymoon mine in remote northeastern South Australia -- was expected to be up and running by the end of the year.
 
The mine -- estimated to be worth about $600 million -- will be poised to benefit from the British Government's recent decision to expand its use of nuclear power to help meet its climate change goals.
 
"The State Government has a long-standing policy that prohibits uranium mining in Queensland and we have no plans to change this stance,'' Mr Welford said.
 
"We also brought in new laws last year that ban nuclear facilities, including power stations and radioactive waste dumps, in Queensland.
 
"We took this course of action to protect the health, safety and well-being of each and every Queenslander.''
 
Mr Welford said the risks of nuclear generation were too great and far outweighed any potential advantages.
 
The policy has not stopped companies undertaking uranium exploration.
 
Last year, about 20 permit-holders were believed to be actively seeking uranium in Queensland.
 
The largest known deposits are north of Mt Isa at Valhalla with about 25,900 tonnes and Westmoreland, estimated to contain about 22,500 tonnes.
 
The Labor State Government position is now at odds with federal Labor, which overturned its old three-mine policy at the party's national conference last year.
 
Australia has nearly 40 per cent of world's uranium.
 
A spokesman for Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said the Opposition was willing to consider the mining of uranium on three conditions.
 
The first was that the coal industry not to be harmed, the second was for appropriate environmental and public health safeguards to be in place, and the third was that uranium should be supplied for energy production only.
 
The Honeymoon mine -- 80km northwest of Broken Hill -- had its Mining and Rehabilitation Plan approved by the SA Government last week.
 
Construction of electricity and water supplies for the mine will start immediately, while production is expected to start in the last quarter of the year.
 
The Australian Conservation Foundation has said the mine will pollute groundwater with nuclear waste, a claim denied by Uranium One Australia, which owns the mine.
 
------------------->

Energy in all forms offers state rewards
Editorial P16
Publication: Courier Mail, Page 016 (Mon 14 Jan 2008)
 

A QUIET revolution is occurring in Australia's energy policy. After two decades of dormancy when many felt nuclear matters were forever settled, the issue of uranium mining has again been awakened. But pleas for a new look at uranium mining have again fallen on deaf ears in Queensland, as Premier Anna Bligh maintains official policy that no mines shall operate in Queensland. This is a parochial and short-sighted position locked in another age, and it is time Queensland reaped the economic and environmental benefits uranium brings.
 
We are not alone in calling for a policy reversal. Last year, a report by Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation chairman Ziggy Switkowski -- later supported by former prime minister John Howard -- recommended there be no limit to the number of uranium mines operating in Australia. To avoid being electorally "wedged'' on the issue, Kevin Rudd then successfully steered through Labor's national conference a resolution to overturn the hopelessly outdated "three mines policy''. Last week the British Government commissioned more nuclear reactors -- the first in decades -- and, only days ago, South Australia granted approval to open Honeymoon, Australia's fourth uranium mine.
 
Thankfully, the expansion of Australia's uranium mining industry now enjoys federal bipartisan support. But it still suffers opposition from the West Australian and Queensland state governments. This is despite Ms Bligh, when deputy premier, saying she had an "open mind'' on the matter. One can only speculate as to Queensland's continued opposition. In former premier Peter Beattie's case, it appeared he initially feared uranium mining would jeopardise the other goliath of Queensland energy, coal, worth about $8 billion a year in exports. It was, therefore, only right and proper that Mr Beattie should commission a report on how uranium mining would affect our coal industry.
 
Few were surprised when Mr Beattie warmed to the idea of mining uranium when the report found no adverse affect. But his later renewed opposition flummoxed many.
 
Ms Bligh, on the other hand, has previously cited safety concerns. But, as nominal head of the Left faction, it seems the Premier's opposition is instead ideologically-driven.
 
Queensland's uranium reserves have been valued at about $20 billion -- and more as increased international energy demands push up world prices. Similarly, Queensland exports over 130 million tonnes of coal each year, with enough coal to last 300 years. It seems Queensland can afford the happy co-existence of both industries, with the Queensland people reaping taxes and duties from each.
 
But Queensland cannot afford false economies. Any burgeoning uranium industry must make its own way and not be propped by start-up grants, subsidies or other special deals that undermine the viability of energy competitors. Let uranium mining in Queensland stand on its own feet, and its own merits.
 
Responsibility for election comment is taken by David Fagan, 41 Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by Queensland Newspapers Pty. Ltd. (ACN 009 661 778)
 
A full list of our editors, with contact details, is available at news.com.au/couriermail/ourstaff.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM - HONEYMOON - FINAL APPROVAL

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

Uranium mine gets nod amid pollution fears
John Wiseman
January 12, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23040475-5006787,00.html

AUSTRALIA'S fourth uranium mine will begin production in the South Australian outback this year after receiving the go-ahead from the Rann Government yesterday.

The mine, South Australia's third, will be small in comparison to existing projects, producing 400 tonnes of uranium oxide a year. The $50 million Honeymoon project 400km northeast of Adelaide will have a lifespan ofjust six to seven years and return revenue of about $40million a year.

Acting Mineral Resources Minister Michael Atkinson said yesterday it would be established using world's best practice.

"It is using what this Government regards as the most environmentally benign uranium mining method -- namely, solution mining," he said. "It won't leave any tailings or waste rock.

"Today's go-ahead means it has passed the necessary environmental tests."

But environmental groups claimed it would leave a trail of radioactive groundwater behind and slammed Premier Mike Rann for breaching election commitments by approving the mine.

Solution mining involves using local groundwater, acidifying it, and pumping it into the underground ore body to leach out the uranium, which is recovered when the water is pumped back to the surface. The mine's owner, Uranium One Australia, rejected accusations the process would cause pollution problems.

Its executive vice-president in Australia, Greg Cochran, said the groundwater was unfit for human or pastoral consumption. "The water already has radiation with it -- we are moving it around ... We circulate it through the ground once we extract the uranium -- we put it back."

Mr Cochran said the acidification of the water was to the level of red wine or cola.

But the Australian Conservation Foundation's David Noonan claimed the Government was allowing the miner to deliberately pollute the ground water.

"They only extract the uranium. They leave the rest and that radioactive liquid solution will be discharged to groundwater at Honeymoon."

He said the Government had breached an election vow that there would be no new mines.

A spokesman for Mr Rann said Labor's national conference decision last year to overturn the "three mines policy" overrode the state election platform.

A workforce of 60 will be based at the isolated mine between Burra and Broken Hill.

The mine is less than half the size of the existing Beverley mine and just a 10th the size of BHP's Olympic Dam.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM - ROXBY EXPANSION

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

BHP snubs SA carbon reductions
Jeremy Roberts | November 29, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22838774-643,00.html

BHP Billiton has distanced itself from South Australia's ambitious greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy targets, vowing to use the "most economic" power source for its massive Olympic Dam expansion.

On a hot, dry day in Adelaide, new chief executive Marius Kloppers said the company's "local" operations - dominated by the proposed Olympic Dam expansion 600km north of Adelaide - would not be singled out to generate greenhouse gas reductions.

"It is a global issue - it is not a local issue," he said after addressing his first annual general meeting in Australia as chief executive.

Mr Kloppers rejected "any specific item" in BHP's portfolio of 33 current and proposed projects, including an expanded Olympic Dam, as producing emissions cuts.

"What we need to do is deploy every dollar in the most effective way - not target it towards any specific item which might, or might not, be the most effective one in the portfolio," he said.

Mr Kloppers' stance was backed by chairman Don Argus, who was asked if he would like to see significant renewable energy supply an expanded Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine.

"We will work on the most economic way to power what we have to power in this development," he said.

With Olympic Dam already the state's biggest consumer of electricity, the proposed expansion would more than triple its power demand to about 400 megawatts.

The company has committed itself to a 6 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from its operations by 2012.

But the comments by BHP executives fly in the face of the Rann Government's target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in South Australia to 60 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050.

The target was written into Australia's first climate change law, passed in July, which also aimed to have 20 per cent of electricity consumption coming from renewable sources by 2014.

The targets have been criticised for being voluntary. But Mr Rann said yesterday that the Government "was working with big and small business, to help meet these ambitious targets".

He pointed to the emerging hot rocks energy sector, based in the mid-north and northeast of the state, which "may prove to be a vital source of energy for our booming mining industry".

The expansion of the Olympic Dam mine has been delayed since company statements last year pointed to the release of an environmental impact statement by mid-2007.

The release of the massive document is now expected in late 2008 or early 2009, as the company addresses state government concerns over the project's environmental and greenhouse effects. The delay also stems from BHP's examination of a radical redrawing of its project.

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

Rann wants more from BHP
John Wiseman, SA political reporter
January 08, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23020588-5006787,00.html

SOUTH Australian Premier Mike Rann has thrown down the gauntlet to BHP Billiton, warning that it must double on-site processing to secure state backing to expand the already vast Olympic Dam mine.

Mr Rann's decision yesterday to specify his expectations marks a toughening of his negotiating position in the lead-up to a decision by the company's board whether to proceed with the $6billion expansion of the copper, uranium and gold mine.

"The resource belongs to the people of South Australia - the ore belongs to the people of South Australia - it doesn't belong to BHP Billiton," Mr Rann told The Australian.

"I want to see as much in all of these things to maximise the economic benefits and the job benefits for South Australia. I'd want to see a doubling of the capacity on site."

Given that BHP currently refines just under 200,000 tonnes of copper at the mine site annually with a value of about $1billion, doubling that output would represent a huge infrastructure commitment by the mining company. About 4000 tonnes of uranium is also produced from Olympic Dam but no processing of that ore takes place.

BHP late last year stepped up a campaign to be allowed to ship unprocessed copper-uranium ore to China.

Company executives insisted that the mining giant had the right to omit downstream processing from the final configuration of the expanded mine.

At the time Mr Rann said expansion of the mine was "not on" if the miner failed to commit to on-site refining.

Responding to Mr Rann yesterday, BHP Billiton issued a brief statement that it was continuing to discuss the configuration of the proposed expansion with the Government.

"We recognise the Government's desire to see increased processing as well as mining at Olympic Dam," it said.

For BHP the "China option" would provide huge savings by avoiding infrastructure and labour costs at the remote mine 570km northwest of Adelaide.

Last September BHP's departing chief executive Chip Goodyear said the corporation should concentrate on mining and "leave to others the skill set of processing that material".

But the South Australian Premier clearly believes his Government can bring BHP to heel declaring: "I think we are in a very strong bargaining position.

"We own the resource. So they want a lot from us and we want a lot from them and out of that we will negotiate a very successful outcome.

"They are not going to be announcing that this mine is not going ahead - there's been hundreds of meetings with BHP - everyone's going to be a winner out of it," he said.

He expected there would be tough negotiations and there would be "give and take" on both sides, but ultimately there had to be a major increase of processing on site.

The BHP Billiton board is expected to decide by mid-year whether to proceed with the Olympic Dam expansion.

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

BHP pushes 'China option' for cheaper Olympic Dam expansion
Barry Fitzgerald
November 30, 2007
http://business.theage.com.au/bhp-pushes-china-option-for-cheaper-olympic-dam-expansion/20071129-1ds0.html

BHP Billiton has turned up the heat on the South Australian Government to let it pursue the cheapest expansion option at Olympic Dam — to have downstream processing of the operation's copper/gold/uranium ore shifted to China and elsewhere.

The SA Government had signalled its fierce opposition to the plan because it would result in less investment and fewer jobs. But that has not stopped BHP's uranium president, Graeme Hunt, from calling on the Government to have a rethink, raising the issue of sovereign risk if BHP does not get its way. Speaking last night in Adelaide at the 2007 Essington Lewis memorial lecture, Mr Hunt said industry could not change the site of an ore body. Olympic Dam is in outback South Australia.

"The location will always most strongly influence development decisions and the distribution of the value-add from development," Mr Hunt said.

"Beyond the mining stage, there is the need for flexibility in considering further processing options to ensure overall project viability and capacity constraints can be effectively managed.

"Access to human capital and to infrastructure, particularly in remote locations, requires practical thinking so that projects are not faced with unnecessary delays, unmanageable human resource issues or unsustainable costs.

"A company whose core strength is mining needs to have the option of selling product before it is refined if, in its judgement, that is the best way to develop a project on budget, on time and within its demonstrated capabilities." He said that it would be unique in Australia for government to impose a different outcome (Western Australia imposed downstream processing obligations when the Pilbara iron ore province was opened up).

"When, in the early '70s, something of this was mooted for a while, it began to be seen elsewhere that Australia perhaps no longer eschewed sovereign risk," Mr Hunt said. "This was one outcome of taking the industry's continuing growth for granted after the successes of the '50s and '60s. We should guard against this today."

Despite the chest-beating from Mr Hunt, the SA Government has warned BHP Billiton that it faces a legislative backlash if it pursues the "China option".

In July, Premier Mike Rann said he did not want the world-class Olympic Dam operation to be viewed as "some kind of quarry from which both jobs and minerals are exported".

"I have made it perfectly clear that the SA Government, through our indenture agreement negotiations, will maximise the benefit of this mine for all South Australians," Mr Rann said. "I will insist that jobs and value-adding are the foundation of any indenture legislation."

BHP is yet to update its now hopelessly dated $US6 billion ($A6.8 billion) cost estimate for expanding Olympic Dam's annual output to 500,000 tonnes of copper (127% higher) and 15,000 tonnes of uranium (200%), with attendant increases in gold.

Since BHP's 3-for-1 spurned takeover bid for Rio Tinto was revealed, there has been talk the expansion could cost as much as $US15 billion.

But the cost would be much cheaper if, instead of producing finished metal at the site, BHP merely shipped out concentrates.

Rio managing director Tom Albanese briefed shareholders in Sydney yesterday on Rio's stand-alone "value" argument in opposition to the BHP tilt. His roadshow comes to Melbourne today.

BHP closed at $42, up 70¢. Rio was up $4.25 at $139.25.

The reporter owns BHP shares

http://tinyurl.com/34e6wa

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

BHP scare campaign over Olympic Dam
Andrew Trounson | November 30, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22845598-5005200,00.html

BHP Billiton is stepping up its campaign to be allowed to cut back on metal processing at its massive Olympic Dam copper/uranium mine expansion, warning that Australia risks scaring off foreign investment by imposing processing requirements.

"A company whose core strength is mining needs to have the option of selling product before it is refined if, in its judgment, that is the best way to develop a project on budget, on time and within its demonstrated capabilities," said BHP's head of the Olympic Dam expansion, Graeme Hunt, in an industry speech in Adelaide last night.

He said that in the 1970s, when the prospect of government interference in the way projects were developed was being mooted, "it began to be seen elsewhere that Australia perhaps no longer eschewed sovereign risk".

In July, BHP stunned the federal and state governments with its "Option B" plan, to cut costs at Olympic Dam by exporting all expanded production as ore concentrate, rather than smelting it on site into copper metal. The move is doubly controversial because, not only would it reduce jobs and value adding, but the exported copper ore would contain uranium, the export of which is highly controlled.

The cost of the expansion, which could quadruple copper production to 1 million tonnes a year, is believed to have blown out to $US10-$US15 billion, with some reports of a cost estimate as high as $US20 billion.

"There is the need for flexibility in considering further processing options to ensure overall project viability and capacity constraints can be effectively managed," Mr Hunt said.

"Access to human capital and to infrastructure, particularly in remote locations, required practical thinking so that projects are not faced with unnecessary delays, unmanageable human resource issues or unsustainable costs," he said.

BHP has yet to finalise the development plan for Olympic Dam, but amid spiralling costs it is clearly focusing on the no-smelting option.

BHP is aiming for construction work to start in 2009, which would allow first production in 2013.

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

Olympic Dam report dismissed
Andrew Trounson | November 27, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22826403-5005200,00.html

BHP Billiton has dismissed a report that its giant copper and uranium Olympic Dam mine expansion in South Australia could cost up to $US20 billion ($22.6 billion), saying the scope and cost of the project are still being studied.

But with analysts already tipping the cost of expanding the Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs in South Australia at $US10-15 billion, such a cost blowout is likely to prompt analysts to cut their valuations on a project that is seen as one of BHP's jewels.

Citing sources close to BHP, The Times said internal cost estimates for the project had increased to as much as $US20 billion. The story comes as BHP is promoting its informal 3-for-1 share takeover proposal for rival Rio Tinto and any doubts over the project will enhance Rio's rejection of the offer as too cheap.

BHP has not updated the cost of the project since April last year when it was estimated at $US5 billion, but since then BHP has become focused on doubling the size of originally targeted copper production. In addition to converting the underground mine to a giant open cut, the project also requires substantial infrastructure, including major power lines from Port Augusta and a desalination plant on the Spencer Gulf.

The BHP project team is already looking at different development options that could lower costs, including controversial plans to scale back metal processing to export copper concentrate containing uranium.

BHP is working on an environmental impact study and is still at the pre-feasibility stage where it is assessing different options. However, it is aiming to be able to start construction work in 2009 to allow for start-up in late 2013.

BHP spokeswoman Samantha Evans said that it was premature to estimate costs given the project was still undergoing pre-feasibility study and the final scope of the project had yet to be determined.

Having initially planned to double copper production to 500,000 tonnes a year, BHP is now believed to be aiming to produce a million tonnes of copper a year, and as much as 30,000 tonnes a year of uranium.

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

BHP Billiton plead for Roxby co-operation
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/?article_id=10224867

BHP Billiton's most senior South Australian executive, in his first public statement since taking up the management of Olympic Dam, has fired off the first round of an engagement with the SA Government about how the two of them might work together over the next stage of the Olympic Dam expansion.

Graeme Hunt, President of BHP Billiton's Uranium Customer Sector Group, who reports directly to managing director, Marius Kloppers, gave the Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy's 2007 Essington Lewis Memorial Lecture at the Australian Mineral Foundation last week.

Entitled South Australia -- rising to the challenge of world demand for metals, the lecture, to a well-attended mining audience, was a model of measured and restrained language.

But the soft words carried a significant message, and one that Media Mike Rann isn't crazy about -- sending unrefined ore off to China for processing.

The extra cost of building a massive new refinery, a heavy consumer of water and power in a remote arid area and trying to man it with thousands of skilled workers at the height of a skills shortage -- not to mention the fragile nature of water supplies in the Great Artesian Basin -- makes the challenge of local value-adding to ore from Olympic Dam unsustainable.
Arts SA

In the competitive mining space, there was no role for sentiment, argued Hunt.

"The industry cannot change the location of an orebody," Hunt (pictured) said.

"The location will always most strongly influence development decisions and the distribution of the value add from development.

"Beyond the mining stage, there is the need for flexibility in considering further processing options to ensure overall project viability and capacity constraints can be effectively managed.

"Access to human capital and to infrastructure, particularly in remote locations, requires practical thinking so that projects are not faced with unnecessary delays, unmanageable human resource issues or unsustainable costs.

"A company whose core strength is mining needs to have the option of selling product before it is refined if, in its judgment, that is the best way to develop a project on budget, on time and within its demonstrated capabilities," said Hunt.

Hunt joined BHP 32 years ago, his father worked in BHP's steel tube business and his grandfather worked all his life in the Newcastle steelworks. So the family would have known Essington Lewis, the Burra-born Saints boy and brilliant all-round sportsman, who became BHP's general manager and single-handedly prepared the country for war in the late thirties after becoming aware of Japan's extensive armament.

Essington Lewis negotiated the original indenture agreement with the SA Government to establish a blast furnace (eventually a steelworks) and shipyard at Whyalla in 1937.

Hunt read a letter from SA's Premier Butler in that year to Essington Lewis: "Believing that the establishment of such works would not only be an impetus to other industries to do likewise, but would be of material benefit to the people of this State, my Government would like to know if there is anything we can do to remove any obstacle that may stand in the way, or if we can assist in any direction."

"This was written in the days when a company didn't need to publish an Environmental Impact Statement - Bill Nicholas

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

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

Australia, the UN, and nuclear weapons
By Moritz Kütt and John Langmore
Monday, 14 January 2008
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6859

The 2007 session of the United Nations General Assembly saw several significant new resolutions introduced alongside resolutions repeated from previous years. A resolution dealing with the health risks of depleted uranium gained unexpected success and de-alerting of nuclear weapons was a significant discussion point, as were the nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and Iran. Nuclear resolutions stimulated a total of 315 statements and 52 draft texts. Every resolution was adopted either by consensus or by large majorities of countries.

The USA isolated itself from the global framework for disarmament by opposing nearly every resolution dealing with nuclear issues. Other countries often supporting the US “no” votes were Israel and Australia - which has significant implications for our standing in the world.
The operational status of nuclear weapons

Two resolutions dealt with the operational status of the approximately 4,000 nuclear weapons on high alert. These weapons can be launched in minutes, risking unintentional and accidental launches. Therefore a decrease in the readiness of weapons would immediately increase global security.

One resolution sponsored by India (L.21, Reducing nuclear danger), identical to their 2006 resolution, was adopted, but 52 states voted against and 12 abstained. The resistance to this resolution centred on the term “hair-trigger alert”. The US Ambassador said: “US forces are not, and never have been, on hair-trigger alert. In order to comply with this request we would have to first put our forces on hair-trigger alert so that we could then de-alert them.” This is a semantic dispute because the US has a large number of nuclear weapons ready to launch in minutes.

The second resolution by Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden and Switzerland received support from more member states. As in India's resolution, it called for deflating the readiness of weapons. Additionally it invited states to negotiate bilateral agreements and advocated de-alerting as a means for confidence building between Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States. The resolution was supported by 139 states, with only three against (France, UK and US) and 36 abstentions. While Australia, as a state without nuclear weapons abstained, the resolution was supported by Italy and Germany, both of which host US nuclear weapons.

Southern hemisphere nuclear weapons free zones

There are a number of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZs) covering parts of the southern hemisphere.

The Treaty of Tlatelolco sets up a NWFZ in Latin America. The resolution L.10 “Consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco)” calls again upon the states in Latin America to ratify this treaty and was adopted by consensus. However a vote was taken on Resolution L.19 “Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty)” with 174 states favouring the resolution, one voting against (USA) and five abstaining.

With the resolution L.27 “Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas” Brazil and New Zealand called the states in the southern hemisphere to connect the NWFZs to make the whole hemisphere a NWFZ. Besides the NWFZs mentioned above, the NWFZ of South Pacific (Treaty of Rarotonga) and the Antarctic Treaty are referred to in the resolution. It also welcomes other approaches like the negotiation of a NWFZ in the Middle East, and the NWFZ in central Asia (Semipalatinsk Treaty). A vote was called, with 169 in favour, three against (UK, US and France) and eight abstentions. Australia voted in favour of this resolution.

Nuclear disarmament

On the issue of nuclear disarmament, four resolutions were tabled. In similar forms, all resolutions had been discussed in earlier years, so they didn’t signal any new proposals for global disarmament.

Resolutions L.9 “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (tabled by the New Agenda coalition) and L.30 “Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons” (by Japan) were comprehensive resolutions to continue non-proliferation and disarmament activities previously negotiated. Resolution L.9 called for acceleration in disarmament and was adopted with 156 votes in favour, five against (DPRK, France, UK, US and India) and 14 abstentions (including Australia).

Resolution L.30 called upon all states to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and start negotiations about a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT). Unsurprisingly, the United States opposed this resolution as last year, but they referred to the draft as the “most balanced and realistic” of the nuclear disarmament texts. The complete result of the vote showed 170 states supporting this draft (including Australia), three opposing it (US, DPRK, India) and nine abstentions.

Resolution L.40 “General and complete disarmament: nuclear disarmament” related to continuing the work on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with additional initiatives. It urges nuclear weapons states to start negotiations amongst themselves to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons. One hundred and seventeen states agreed with this resolution, 47 opposed and 17 abstained.

The fourth resolution dealing with nuclear disarmament was L.8 “Follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, tabled by Iran and containing the same text as the resolution in 2005. It called upon all states to continue the disarmament progress within the NPT and to ratify the NPT, if they had not yet done so. In the FC this resolution was barely discussed and the delegations tried to complete the topic quickly, because they didn't want to agree with Iran or to recognise Iran as a “guardian” of the NPT. Fifty states including most of the NATO states opposed this resolution, 114 states supported it and there were 10 abstentions.

The Howard Government: neutral about nuclear weapons?

Australia's contribution to the debate about nuclear issues emphasised the importance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the need to continue with the disarmament of nuclear weapons. However Australian votes and statements in the General Debate were only partly consistent with this statement.

The voting behaviour of Australia in this year’s UNGA session can be described as closely aligned with the US with Australia abstaining or voting against most of the resolutions. Often, there was only a minority of states voting with Australia. Of the 25 nuclear related resolutions, Australia supported only six.

Australia contributed no initiatives on nuclear issues and co-sponsored only two, L.28 and L.30, on Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPAD) and a resolution relating to the ban of landmines. Those resolutions are important for the general disarmament, but do not make a contribution to the nuclear issues.

Under the Howard Government Australia lost its role as a country with innovative solutions for the problems caused by nuclear weapons. The election of the Rudd Government offers the opportunity for reversal of this trend, and instead to take leadership in the struggle for nuclear disarmament, which is essential for ensuring our survival.

Moritz Kütt is an intern working with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

When appointed, Professor John Langmore was the most senior Australian working in the UN Secretariat. He was formerly a Labor MP and is now national president of the UN Association of Australia.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Further to the above, note from Alyn Ware
Consultant, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms
 
The ICAN article on United Nations resolutions on nuclear disarmament neglected to mention the most important resolution related to ICAN’s principle aim: (“ICAN aims to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention to ban the development, possession and use of nuclear weapons.”), i.e. the UN resolution calling for the commencement of negotiations leading to the conclusion of such a convention, a resolution supported by 127 countries but on which Australia abstained.
 
Thanks to the efforts of ICAN, Abolition 2000, PNND, IALANA and others, the Nuclear Weapons Convention, and the book Securing our Survival: The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, have gained support from across the political spectrum, including from conservative former Prime Ministers Malcolm Fraser (Australia) and Jim Bolger (New Zealand); Nobel Peace Laureates including Mairead Macguire; United Nations officials including Sergio Duarte, UN High Representative on Disarmament; military leaders including Romeo Dallaire former Commander of UN Forces in Rwanda; parliamentarians including legislators from Nuclear Weapon States and NATO States, and civil society leaders including Mayor Akiba of Hiroshima and the 1900 cities that have joined the Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign.
 
In addition, in 2007 the revised Model Nuclear Weapons Convention was submitted to the NPT Conference and the United Nations General Assembly by Costa Rica and Malaysia, making it an official document for consideration by these bodies.
 
Now is the time to be highlighting these developments and encouraging countries like Australia to be supporting.
 
------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

BRITISH BOMB TESTS - HEALTH EFFECTS

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

Families of A-test 'guinea pigs' to suffer for generations 
CHARLES MIRANDA, LONDON CORRESPONDENT
January 18, 2008
The Advertiser
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23070246-5006301,00.html?from=public_rss

FAMILIES of Australian and British soldiers used as guinea pigs in nuclear testing programs 50 years ago will suffer health problems for up to 20 generations.
A  British parliamentary inquiry has been launched into the medical effects the nuclear testing program had on more than 20,000 servicemen, as 800 surviving veterans and their families mount a High Court challenge for compensation.
Early medical studies into testing at Maralinga in the South Australian Outback, Christmas Island and Monte Bello islands off the West Australian coast and other Pacific Islands including Kiribati, show veterans' children either died hideous deaths with multiple medical complaints or were 10 times more likely to have a deformity; their children's children were eight times more likely to have genetic defects and their children in turn were twice as likely to get cancer.
Even 20th-generation descendants of the victims would still face a 10 per cent greater risk of defects and cancer.
Last month, the British House of Commons cross-party inquiry acknowledged there had been health fallout from the radioactive tests and recommended an interim payment of $10,000 each be paid.
But 50 servicemen a year are dying from cancers and the British Ministry of Defence will this month launch a legal ploy in the High Court which could delay any compensation hearing until at least 2011.
Commercial litigation partner Clive Hyer, from London law firm Rosenblatt, told The Advertiser a bigger compensation payout was being sought but many would not be alive to receive a cent.
"The tactic employed by the MoD is legal but is somewhat immoral," he said.  "It's frustrating, in a sense.  These servicemen were doing their bit for Queen and country and the MoD is saying they should have claimed compensation within three years of suffering any injury."
Mr Hyer anticipated the High Court would decide to allow a claim to be heard.  But arguments of limitations could delay the fight for years.
Former Royal Engineer Denis Shaw was involved in the nuclear clean-up on Christmas Island in 1958 and now suffers debilitating heart problems.
"It's disgraceful the MoD will acknowledge the danger they put us in and appalling they are denying us compensation," he said.
Mr Hyer said: "Some have cancers, others skin conditions, hair and teeth loss. Their families have suffered a high number of stillbirths, miscarriages.  They are seriously annoyed and disappointed at how they are being treated."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last night said the Government recognised the sacrifice the servicemen made that ensured the Commonwealth was protected in the Cold War. But he did not admit a link between the nuclear program and poor health.
Successive Australian governments have maintained they had no legal obligation to pay compensation but the British parliamentary inquiry will give veterans ammunition to fight that.
New Zealand has begun paying compensation to veterans involved in the testing, as has the U.S. Government, which declared "no fault" but paid generous compensation.
More than 22,000 British, 14,000 Australian, 500 New Zealand and U.S., Canadian and Fijian servicemen were involved in 21 nuclear explosions in Australia between 1952 and 1958.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

NUCLEAR WEAPONS - STATEMENT BY FORMER US SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE AND STATE

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

Toward a Nuclear-Free World
By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER and SAM NUNN
January 15, 2008
Wall Street Journal

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.
The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.
One year ago, in an essay in this paper, we called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. The interest, momentum and growing political space that has been created to address these issues over the past year has been extraordinary, with strong positive responses from people all over the world.

Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in January 2007 that, as someone who signed the first treaties on real reductions in nuclear weapons, he thought it his duty to support our call for urgent action: "It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious."
In June, the United Kingdom's foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, signaled her government's support, stating: "What we need is both a vision -- a scenario for a world free of nuclear weapons -- and action -- progressive steps to reduce warhead numbers and to limit the role of nuclear weapons in security policy. These two strands are separate but they are mutually reinforcing. Both are necessary, but at the moment too weak."

We have also been encouraged by additional indications of general support for this project from other former U.S. officials with extensive experience as secretaries of state and defense and national security advisors. These include: Madeleine Albright, Richard V. Allen, James A. Baker III, Samuel R. Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Warren Christopher, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleburger, Melvin Laird, Anthony Lake, Robert McFarlane, Robert McNamara and Colin Powell.
Inspired by this reaction, in October 2007, we convened veterans of the past six administrations, along with a number of other experts on nuclear issues, for a conference at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. There was general agreement about the importance of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons as a guide to our thinking about nuclear policies, and about the importance of a series of steps that will pull us back from the nuclear precipice.
The U.S. and Russia, which possess close to 95% of the world's nuclear warheads, have a special responsibility, obligation and experience to demonstrate leadership, but other nations must join.
Some steps are already in progress, such as the ongoing reductions in the number of nuclear warheads deployed on long-range, or strategic, bombers and missiles. Other near-term steps that the U.S. and Russia could take, beginning in 2008, can in and of themselves dramatically reduce nuclear dangers. They include:
* Extend key provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991. Much has been learned about the vital task of verification from the application of these provisions. The treaty is scheduled to expire on Dec. 5, 2009. The key provisions of this treaty, including their essential monitoring and verification requirements, should be extended, and the further reductions agreed upon in the 2002 Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions should be completed as soon as possible.
 
* Take steps to increase the warning and decision times for the launch of all nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, thereby reducing risks of accidental or unauthorized attacks. Reliance on launch procedures that deny command authorities sufficient time to make careful and prudent decisions is unnecessary and dangerous in today's environment. Furthermore, developments in cyber-warfare pose new threats that could have disastrous consequences if the command-and-control systems of any nuclear-weapons state were compromised by mischievous or hostile hackers. Further steps could be implemented in time, as trust grows in the U.S.-Russian relationship, by introducing mutually agreed and verified physical barriers in the command-and-control sequence.
 
* Discard any existing operational plans for massive attacks that still remain from the Cold War days. Interpreting deterrence as requiring mutual assured destruction (MAD) is an obsolete policy in today's world, with the U.S. and Russia formally having declared that they are allied against terrorism and no longer perceive each other as enemies.
 
* Undertake negotiations toward developing cooperative multilateral ballistic-missile defense and early warning systems, as proposed by Presidents Bush and Putin at their 2002 Moscow summit meeting. This should include agreement on plans for countering missile threats to Europe, Russia and the U.S. from the Middle East, along with completion of work to establish the Joint Data Exchange Center in Moscow. Reducing tensions over missile defense will enhance the possibility of progress on the broader range of nuclear issues so essential to our security. Failure to do so will make broader nuclear cooperation much more difficult.
 
* Dramatically accelerate work to provide the highest possible standards of security for nuclear weapons, as well as for nuclear materials everywhere in the world, to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb. There are nuclear weapons materials in more than 40 countries around the world, and there are recent reports of alleged attempts to smuggle nuclear material in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. The U.S., Russia and other nations that have worked with the Nunn-Lugar programs, in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), should play a key role in helping to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 relating to improving nuclear security -- by offering teams to assist jointly any nation in meeting its obligations under this resolution to provide for appropriate, effective security of these materials.
 
As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put it in his address at our October conference, "Mistakes are made in every other human endeavor. Why should nuclear weapons be exempt?" To underline the governor's point, on Aug. 29-30, 2007, six cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads were loaded on a U.S. Air Force plane, flown across the country and unloaded. For 36 hours, no one knew where the warheads were, or even that they were missing.
* Start a dialogue, including within NATO and with Russia, on consolidating the nuclear weapons designed for forward deployment to enhance their security, and as a first step toward careful accounting for them and their eventual elimination. These smaller and more portable nuclear weapons are, given their characteristics, inviting acquisition targets for terrorist groups.
 
* Strengthen the means of monitoring compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a counter to the global spread of advanced technologies. More progress in this direction is urgent, and could be achieved through requiring the application of monitoring provisions (Additional Protocols) designed by the IAEA to all signatories of the NPT.
 
* Adopt a process for bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into effect, which would strengthen the NPT and aid international monitoring of nuclear activities. This calls for a bipartisan review, first, to examine improvements over the past decade of the international monitoring system to identify and locate explosive underground nuclear tests in violation of the CTBT; and, second, to assess the technical progress made over the past decade in maintaining high confidence in the reliability, safety and effectiveness of the nation's nuclear arsenal under a test ban. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization is putting in place new monitoring stations to detect nuclear tests -- an effort the U.S should urgently support even prior to ratification.
 
In parallel with these steps by the U.S. and Russia, the dialogue must broaden on an international scale, including non-nuclear as well as nuclear nations.
Key subjects include turning the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a practical enterprise among nations, by applying the necessary political will to build an international consensus on priorities. The government of Norway will sponsor a conference in February that will contribute to this process.
Another subject: Developing an international system to manage the risks of the nuclear fuel cycle. With the growing global interest in developing nuclear energy and the potential proliferation of nuclear enrichment capabilities, an international program should be created by advanced nuclear countries and a strengthened IAEA. The purpose should be to provide for reliable supplies of nuclear fuel, reserves of enriched uranium, infrastructure assistance, financing, and spent fuel management -- to ensure that the means to make nuclear weapons materials isn't spread around the globe.
There should also be an agreement to undertake further substantial reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear forces beyond those recorded in the U.S.-Russia Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. As the reductions proceed, other nuclear nations would become involved.

President Reagan's maxim of "trust but verify" should be reaffirmed. Completing a verifiable treaty to prevent nations from producing nuclear materials for weapons would contribute to a more rigorous system of accounting and security for nuclear materials.
We should also build an international consensus on ways to deter or, when required, to respond to, secret attempts by countries to break out of agreements.
Progress must be facilitated by a clear statement of our ultimate goal. Indeed, this is the only way to build the kind of international trust and broad cooperation that will be required to effectively address today's threats. Without the vision of moving toward zero, we will not find the essential cooperation required to stop our downward spiral.
In some respects, the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is like the top of a very tall mountain. From the vantage point of our troubled world today, we can't even see the top of the mountain, and it is tempting and easy to say we can't get there from here. But the risks from continuing to go down the mountain or standing pat are too real to ignore. We must chart a course to higher ground where the mountaintop becomes more visible.

Mr. Shultz was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Mr. Nunn is former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The following participants in the Hoover-NTI conference also endorse the view in this statement: General John Abizaid, Graham Allison, Brooke Anderson, Martin Anderson, Steve Andreasen, Mike Armacost, Bruce Blair, Matt Bunn, Ashton Carter, Sidney Drell, General Vladimir Dvorkin, Bob Einhorn, Mark Fitzpatrick, James Goodby, Rose Gottemoeller, Tom Graham, David Hamburg, Siegfried Hecker, Tom Henriksen, David Holloway, Raymond Jeanloz, Ray Juzaitis, Max Kampelman, Jack Matlock, Michael McFaul, John McLaughlin, Don Oberdorfer, Pavel Podvig, William Potter, Richard Rhodes, Joan Rohlfing, Harry Rowen, Scott Sagan, Roald Sagdeev, Abe Sofaer, Richard Solomon, and Philip Zelikow.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

NATO STRATEGISTS THREATENS USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
The West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new NATO, written by five of the West's most senior military officers and strategists, has been presented to the Pentagon and NATO's secretary-general
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/top-brass-call-for-nuclear-first-strike
/2008/01/22/1200764263744.html

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

FBI WHISTLEBLOWER ON NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

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

January 7, 2008
Nukes, Spooks,
and the Specter of 9/11
We're in big trouble if even half of what Sibel Edmonds says is true…
by Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12166

Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the FBI: Edmonds draws a picture of a three-sided alliance consisting of Turkish, Pakistani, and Israeli agents who coordinated efforts to milk U.S. nuclear secrets and technology, funneling the intelligence stream to the black market nuclear network set up by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The multi-millionaire Pakistani nuclear scientist then turned around and sold his nuclear assets to North Korea, Libya, and Iran.

Full article: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12166

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

URANIUM - GLOBAL - VARIOUS

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

Is uranium's bullish run over?
Weekly spot U3O8 is developing hiccups in the face of waning buyers' interest and looming over supply.
Author: Rodrick Mukumbira
Posted:  Wednesday , 23 Jan 2008
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=44927&sn=Detail
 
WINDHOEK -
Around this time last year, optimists were anticipating that the spot uranium price would march on to US$200 per pound.
But that bullish run seems to be over as prices fall, sparking speculation that they are likely to plunge further in the face of waning buyers' interest and a looming oversupply of the metal.
In late June last year, uranium spot prices hit the highs at US$136 per pound, from a low of US$7/lb in 2000, bolstered by a tight market and speculative buying. Currently, the prices are down by slightly over 37% from June 2007 spot prices, sending quivers throughout the markets.
Last week alone, uranium dropped 5.6% to US$84 as sellers cut prices to generate business after trading volumes in 2007 fell to their lowest in a decade, according to a Bloomberg report Tuesday. During the week, supplies on the spot market more than twice exceeded demand, with two sales totaling 200,000 pounds of yellow cake concluded.
After weeks of little or no activity, Denver based-pricing service Trade Tech LLC told Bloomberg that one seller decided to adopt a more aggressive approach, offering uranium at deeply discounted prices in an effort to attract buyers. TradeTech LLC added that "supply is ample to meet current requirements.''
Last week, two uranium producers reported record production for 2007. A number of uranium projects are expected either to come on line this year or increase uranium production, raising fears of an over supply that is likely to cap the prices into 2009.
Australia's Paladin Energy Ltd. announced last week that its Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia had exceeded its production target in December 2007, the first since the mine came on line in December 2006. Paladin is now on track to produce 2.6 million pounds U3O8 from the Namibia mine this year.
Paladin produced 650,562 pounds U3O8 in the six-month period ended December 31, 2007, surpassing its production forecast of 650,000 pounds. The company is working on expanding production to 3.7 million pounds per year, with construction on the expansion expected to begin early this year.
During the week, Rio Tinto's Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. also reported that improved operations and an increase in ore grade drove 2007 production at its Ranger mine to 11.9 million pounds U3O8 - a 14% increase over the previous year. ERA said that 2007 production was the second highest annual production on record for the Northern Territory mine.
Rio Tinto's Rössing uranium mine in Namibia has just completed an environmental impact assessment on its production expansion and mine life extension process, which will extend mine life by two decades.
ConverDyn has also announced plans to nearly double uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production at its conversion plant in Metropolis, Illinois, having produced 15,000 tonnes UF6 in 2007.
Kazatomprom, Kazakhstan's National Atomic Company, plans on surpassing Canada's Cameco, the world's uranium largest producer, by 2018 through expanding its uranium production output fivefold.
Uranium One Australia's Honeymoon uranium project was recently approved by the South Australia government, bringing the project one step closer to becoming the country's fourth operating uranium mine. Production at Honeymoon is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of this year with a ramp-up to 880,000 pounds U3O8 per year.
Last week, the French mega-nuclear power plant builder, Areva, signed new agreements with the Nigerian government that will see it develop a multi-billion dollar mine at the Imouraren uranium deposit in the country, believed to be the world's second-largest untapped source of the metal.

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

Energy, Carbon Concerns Put Spotlight on Uranium
INTERNATIONAL: December 11, 2007
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45912/story.htm
Source: The World Nuclear Association
(Reporting by Anna Stablum; Editing by Chris Johnson)
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

The spot price of uranium, used to fuel nuclear reactors worldwide, is trading at US$93 per pound on Monday, according to Ux Consulting.

The price has come off due to a seasonal slowdown and inventory de-stocking after hitting a record high of US$136 in June. The price has risen from US$7 in 2000 as nuclear power is back in the spotlight in times of heightened concern about security of energy supply.

The industry is also back in focus as fear of climate change has helped to overcome years of opposition to nuclear power after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Russia.

NUCLEAR POWER

The first commercial nuclear power plants started operation in the 1950s and today there are 439 stations accounting for 16 percent, or 2,658 billion kWh, of global energy consumption.

In the OECD, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant are typically about one third of those for a coal-fired plant.

However, nuclear plants require large initial capital investments.

FROM ORE TO ENERGY

Uranium ore is mined and purified at the mine site. The end product of the mining and milling stages is uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8) and this is the form in which it is sold.

Ore concentrate, or yellow cake, is then chemically converted into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a gas which is transported to enrichment plants.

Once the concentration of U-235 reaches 3 to 5 percent, from 0.7 percent in natural uranium, it is possible to use the converted uranium pellets in power stations where fission releases thermal energy necessary for electricity generation.

When the fuel has been in the reactor for about three years, it is removed and stored.

URANIUM SUPPLY

Production of U3O8 in 2006 was 46,499 tonnes or about 70 percent of utilities' annual requirements. The rest, around 20,000 tonnes, came from secondary supplies such as utility stockpiles, recycled uranium from spent fuel and scrapped atomic weapons.

In 2006, Canada supplied world markets with one quarter of world uranium production and Australia produced some 20 percent.

The other top 10 producers were Kazakhstan, Niger, Russia, Namibia, Uzbekistan, the US, Ukraine and China.

It is estimated that Australia has about 24 percent of the world's low-cost recoverable uranium deposits, Kazakhstan holds 17 percent and Canada around 9 percent.

URANIUM DEMAND

Uranium demand in 2006 was 64,181 tonnes and is estimated at 64,375 in 2007. The world's measured resources of uranium (4.7 million tonnes), in the cost category around the current spot price and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for some 70 years.

There are some 439 reactors operating, another 33 are under construction, 94 are planned (mostly expected to be in operation within 8 years) and 222 more are proposed.

The WNA estimates demand to reach 109,000 tonnes by 2030 in their reference scenario and in the upper scenario 149,000.

URANIUM PRICE

The increased interest in uranium prompted the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) to launch a five-year futures contract together with Ux Consulting Company (UxC) in May.

Before this contract there was no formal exchange for uranium and price indicators have therefore been developed by a small number of private business organisations, such as UxC.

Around 85 percent of all uranium is sold under long-term contracts, ranging from two to 10 years and the rest, some 20,000 to 30,000 million pounds, are sold on the spot market.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

RADIATION & CANCER

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

Nuclear Power | 08.12.2007
Study Finds More Childhood Cancer Near Nuclear Power Plants
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2994904,00.html
Children living near nuclear power stations are more likely to suffer leukemia than those living farther away, a report funded by the German government has found, according to German media.
"Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant ... and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday," the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung quoted the report as saying.
Government radiation specialists said they could not explain the finding, since there was no direct radiation from the 16 German plants, which are all scheduled for closure in the early 2020s.
The study was paid for by the German Federal Radiation Protection Agency [BfS] the government's main adviser on nuclear health.
It was conducted by the German Register of Child Cancer, an office in Mainz which is funded by the 16 German states and the federal Health Ministry.
The study found that 37 children had come down with leukemia in the period between 1980 and 2003 while having home addresses within 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) of nuclear power plants. The statistical average for Germany would have predicted just 17 cases in that group.
Statistically, the 20 extra cases could be associated with living close to the plants, but the BfS said more research was needed to discover if the presence of reactors was actually the cause of the cancers.
Doubts over causality remain
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the government radiation safety committee would analyze the findings and called for additional research to explain the increased number of cancer cases.
"The population's radiation exposure due to the operation of nuclear power plants in Germany would have to be a least a thousand times higher to be able to explain the observed increase in cancer risk," he said.
BfS said current science held that radiation from reactors themselves or their emissions was too weak outside the perimeter to cause cancer, and other conceivable risk factors also could "not explain this distance-related heightening of risk."
Germany generates more than 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power annually, around a quarter of its needs.
Despite broad public opposition to the plants, some German officials have suggested giving nuclear power a reprieve in order to reduce climate-damaging emissions from fossil fuels.

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

NUCLEAR POWER GLOBALLY - STAGNATION

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

Nuclear industry may be running out of steam
25 November 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19626313.300-nuclear-industry-may-running-out-of-steam.html

Rumours of a nuclear power renaissance have been greatly exaggerated. So says an audit of the nuclear power industry released on Wednesday.

The report, commissioned by The Greens, a European parliamentary group, points out that many ageing reactors are due to close before 2030, and that 338 new ones would have to be built just to replace them.
"The world has five fewer nuclear reactors operating today than it did in 2002"

The Paris-based nuclear consultants who compiled the report argue that the industry is growing too slowly to meet this target, and may even be shrinking. The world has five fewer reactors operating today than it did in 2002, they say. Only 91 reactors are now being planned, and a further 32 are under construction, mostly in Asia and eastern Europe. Construction work on 11 of those has been under way for 20 years or more.

The idea that nuclear power is about to experience major growth is "pure fantasy", says the report's author, Mycle Schneider. The industry is facing "a dramatic loss of competence, sceptical financial markets and the severe shortage of manufacturing capacity", he says.

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

Brussels 21.11.2007
Nuclear energy: New report highlights nuclear decline in spite of industry talk of renaissance
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressreleases/dok/206/206845.nuclear_energy@en.htm

The role of nuclear energy is in decline, according to a report 'World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007' presented by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament today. The report outlines that the proportion of nuclear energy in power production has decreased in 21 out of 31 countries, with five less functioning nuclear reactors than five years ago. There are currently 32 nuclear power plants under construction or in the pipeline, 20 fewer than at the end of the 1990s. Commenting on the report and this nuclear decline, German Green MEP and energy spokesperson Rebecca Harms stated:

"In stark contrast to the claims of the nuclear industry and its talk of a renaissance, nuclear energy is in decline. The shrinking of nuclear in Europe is particularly notable, with ten power plants being permanently withdrawn from the network since the last report in 2004.With fewer plants being built and existing plants becoming more decrepit, it seems clear that the grandiose ambitions of the nuclear industry will remain in the realm of fantasy."

False promises for a nuclear revival could lead to misplaced public expenditure, delaying a more intelligent and sustainable approach to energy supply. In addition, plans for building new reactors would be in direct competition for the limited manufacturing capacity that is already stretched by the maintenance costs for existing (aging) reactors.

"The gap between the expectations being promoted by the nuclear industry and reality are perfectly highlighted by the bungled attempt to build a new reactor at the Olkiluoto plant in Finland. This first new nuclear project in 15 years has been blighted by problems.After only two years of construction the project is already two years delayed and the budget is set to be overrun by at least 50%, with 1.5 billion euro in losses and shocking errors in key technical specifications. Clearly, talk of a nuclear revival is divorced from reality and political leaders must call the nuclear industry's bluff," continued Rebecca Harms.
"Nuclear energy is fraught with risk and these risks have in no way diminished. Attempts to position nuclear power as the panacea for climate change are misleading and dangerous. This report reveals that a nuclear revival is unlikely. We must ignore the nuclear smokescreen and focus on proven, clean technologies in response to the climate crisis we are facing."

(1) Click here for the report
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/206749.the_world_nuclear_industry_status_report@en.pdf

and here for the overview/conclusions
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/206808.conclusions_world_nuclear_industry_statu@en.pdf

------------------->RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

NUCLEAR POWER IN THE USA

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

US utilities are sceptical over nuclear energy revival
By Ed Crooks and Sheila McNulty
Published: November 19 2007 02:00 | Last updated: November 19 2007 02:00
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d0782c6-9640-11dc-b7ec-0000779fd2ac.html

After three decades without any applications for a licence to build a nuclear reactor in the US, almost 20 companies are considering applying to build over 30 new plants. In September, NRG Energy of Texas became the first to make an application in 29 years.

With US electricity demand set to rise sharply, government incentives for early movers and some environmental campaigners seeing high-emitting coal-fired power generation as a greater evil, conditions seem propitious for a renaissance of nuclear power.

"Nuclear power is an essential component of any comprehensive national energy plan," says Mary Landrieu, a senator representing Louisiana. "It has been 20 years since we have built a nuclear power plant, and it is long past time that we build a new one."

That view is shared by the administration of President George W. Bush. Yet, for all the political enthusiasm, many in the industry believe the nuclear revival will be limited and slow.

Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and chief executive of General Electric, one of the world's biggest nuclear engineering companies, believes at most a third of those planned nuclear power plants will go ahead.

Nuclear is important in the US energy mix. There are 103 nuclear power plants, which supply about 20 per cent of the country's electricity. Yet many of them are so old that they are operating on 20-year extensions on their 40-year operating licences. At the same time as these plants are going out of service, US electricity demand is rising. It could grow by 45 per cent by 2030, according to projections from the US Energy Information Administration.

That widening gap should create a powerful case for building reactors. However, it has been hard convincing utilities to take the risk.

"If you were a utility CEO and looked at your world today, you would just do gas and wind," Mr Immelt says. "You would say [they are] easier to site, digestible today [and] I don't have to bet my company on any of this stuff. You would never do nuclear. The economics are overwhelming."

The US government has tried to win over nervous utilities by combining what were two separate licensing processes for building and operating nuclear plants.

NRG Energy is seeking a single licence to build and operate, which may take four years. Under the old system, the process could take 11 years. It was possible for a power company to get a licence to build a plant but then fail to obtain approval to operate it, after pouring billions of dollars into construction. Many in the industry recall a $5.3bn New York plant that, once completed in 1984, could not overcome public resistance and be brought on stream.

However, while the new system is supposed to be an improvement, its effects are uncertain. Richard Goffi, a principal at Booz Allen Hamilton, who leads the firm's public sector energy business, says that because the process has not been tested there is no proof it will work as smoothly as planned. "No one knows how this is going to play out," he says.

The US government has offered incentives to the first companies to build reactors under the Energy Policy Act, including tax incentives, federal loan guarantees and insurance should their projects get shut down.

David Crane, chief executive of NRG Energy, says the government "put together precisely the amount of incentives," to make his planned investment viable.

But Mr Immelt believes it will take a much clearer set of incentives, preferably based on an international emissions trading scheme, to give nuclear power the impetus it needs to grow rapidly.

GE is a member of the US Climate Action Partnership, a lobby group of businesses and environmental campaigners that advocates emissions trading to tackle the global warming threat.

"If ever there is a cap and trade system, then nuclear power is going to get accelerated, because it's very much favoured in a reducingcarbon world," he says.

Such a system is fiercely controversial in American politics, although Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, has proposed a domestic cap and trade scheme.

Mr Immelt argues it is time to start taking action. "We can spend three years fighting it, duking it out, to reach an inevitable conclusion in the fifth year, or we can spend these five years actually about the job of setting up a market and driving change," he says.