Return
to contents
NO NUKES NEWS
AUGUST 4, 2007
<www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/nnn91.html>
PLEASE ACT NOW
* support the 3CR Radioactive Show
* UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - sign the petition
* support anti-nuke activists attacked in Siberia
* From the Heart, For the Heartland - support the campaign against the NT dump
* Turning the Tide CD out now
NEW INFORMATION SOURCES
AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR NEWS
Nuclear waste dump proposed for NT
Greens bill to ban nuclear facilities in SA
Talisman Sabre war games protesters face court
Government attacks Aboriginal land rights
Clean energy
- various
- geothermal hot rocks
- bioenergy
- solar
Nuclear power for Australia
- public opinion
- WA to ban
- proposed US-Australia nuclear cooperation
Uranium enrichment for Australia
Uranium exploration
Uranium sales to India
Uranium mining
- fed govt threatens WA and Queensland
- Roxby expansion
- various
- Western Australia
- NT - Ranger
- NT - Koongarra
Lucas Heights reactor problems
Government's $12.5 million for nuclear research
Pine Gap 4
GLOBAL NUCLEAR NEWS
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Japan earthquake
Nuclear weapons
Brazil - enrichment = bombs = political power
Nuclear power - global
Nuclear power and climate change
Nuclear waste
Nuclear accidents
Fake firm sold bomb material in sting
Nuclear terrorism
Indonesia's nuclear plans
------------------->
PLEASE ACT NOW
------------------->
The Radioactive Show has been
on the air for over 30 years now, and remains Australia’s leading
National Nuclear Peace and Sustainability Show, taking people’s
messages out onto the airwaves…
3CR is very unique in its’ content and is invaluable in its role of
publicising the little known stories and events and helping to keep the
airwaves honest. A big reason why this is possible is because we avoid
direct government sponsorship and corporate advertising. To keep our
show, and our radio station on air, we rely heavily on donations from
the public. There are over 300 volunteers working at 3CR and none of
the Radioactive Show presenters or producers are paid for their work.
(More often it is the other way around!)
So this year, radiothon has arrived again, and we are raising $1,400
for the Radioactive Show, and 3CR is raising $200, 000 to pay for a
third of the years running costs.
Please, will you donate to the Radioactive Show to keep our sounds alive!!
$70 equates to an hour of radio time, and is a valuable contribution, however donations of less or more are much appreciated!!
Donate by calling up to pay by credit card over the phone, drop by the
studio, follow the links on the website, or send a cheque in to 3CR, PO
BOX 1277, Collingwood, VIC 3066
Phone (03) 9419 8377 or go to www.3cr.org.au
------------------->
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Please speak out!
The United Nations General Assembly must make a decision on
the long
awaited and urgently needed UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous
Peoples.
Either the international community will move ahead with final adoption
as
has been urged by Indigenous peoples and their supporters worldwide,
or
adoption of the Declaration will once again be delayed due to the
demands
of a small, yet vocal group of states.
Please take this opportunity to support the Declaration.
More than 14,000 individuals and organizations have already signed
a
global petition hosted by Amnesty International Canada in support of
the
Declaration.
If you haven't already done so, please add your name
and encourage many
others to do so.
The petition is online at <http://www.amnesty.ca/ip_un_petition/UN_indigenous_rights_petition.php>
------------------->
Activist Killed As Nazis Attack Anti-Nuclear Camp In Siberia
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/376699.html
21.07.2007
In the early morning of 21st July, neo-nazi skinheads launched a
vicious and unprovoked attack on an anti-nuclear protest camp in
Angarsk, Siberia, Russia (see map). The nazis violently attacked
activists in their sleeping bags and tents with iron rods, knives and
air pressure guns. 21 year old Ilya Borodaenko from Nachodka suffered a
head-fracture during the attack and later died in hospital from his
injuries. At least nine others have been reported to be seriously
injured, one of which has had both their legs broken. Tents were set on
fire and several belongings were stolen.
The camp started last week and is aimed at protesting against a planned
centre of uranium enrichment in Angarsk. Ever since the arrival of the
activists, the police have tried to intimidate them and have entered
the camp in an attempt to gather information about planned actions. The
organisation who planned the camp, the 'Ecological Wave of Baikal', had
planned various rallies in the surronding area to inform locals about
the plans and drum up support for the campaign.
Financial help and other forms of solidarity are urgently needed.
Contact xmakimax (at) gmail.com or ogopogos (at) gmail.com if you are
able to offer some.
Donations can be sent to the accounts of War Resisters' International,
clearly stating "help for Angarsk protest camp" in the transfer slip:
Eurozone: by giro transfer to War Resisters’ International, in Euros to
Bank of Ireland, IBAN IE91 BOFI 9000 9240 413547, SWIFT/BIC BOFIIE2D
Britain: by giro transfer to War Resisters’ International, in £
sterling to Unity Trust Bank, Account number 5072 7388 Sort code:
08-60-01 (IBAN GB11 CPBK 0800 5150 07 32 10, SWIFT CPBKGB22), or by
sending a cheque payable to War Resisters' International to War
Resisters' International, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX
USA: Send a cheque made out to War Resisters' International to: Ralph
di Gia, c/o War Resisters League (WRL) 339 Lafayette Street, New York
NY 10012
In any case, please send an email to info@wri-irg.org, with "help for
Angarsk protest camp" in the subject line, stating the amount and where
you sent the money to.
War Resisters' International will forward all donations to the Russian activists.
War Resisters' International
mail e-mail: info@wri-irg.org
home Homepage: http://wri-irg.org/en
------------------->
From the Heart, For the Heartland
NT Radioactive Waste dump speaking tour
June 12-26, 2007
After two weeks on the road through Adelaide, Stawell, Melbourne,
Albury, Canberra and Sydney, participants on the NT radioactive waste
dump speaking tour, “From the Heart, For the Heartland”, have arrived
back in the Territory to continue their struggle to protect community,
country and culture.
In each city the delegation met with politicians, environment and
social justice groups, conducted numerous media interviews and held a
public event incorporating speakers, an art and photo exhibition and
short film. The tour had been envisaged as a poignant way to
communicate the NT community opposition to the dump proposal and
mobilise support from people in the southern states.
As well as sharing personal stories and political strategies with a
national audience, traveling together was also important for further
development of relationships between people from each of the proposed
sites. There is strong solidarity, and ongoing commitment to support
each other regardless of which site is eventually chosen as the
preferred location for the federal radioactive dump.
A highlight of the trip for all participants was arriving in Canberra
and sitting at the sacred fire with Aboriginal Tent Embassy residents
and supporters, who offered a heartfelt welcome and hearty meal to the
group. The NT mob had been very excited to visit the Embassy, as
similar fires of resistance have long been burning in hearts across the
Territory. This feeling was further ignited by Prime Sinister Howard’s
announcement while we were in Canberra that the Feds and military would
be ‘intervening’ in NT Aboriginal communities under the guise of what
some indigenous organisations are terming a ‘Trojan horse’ of child
protection.
The announcement will directly impact the speakers’ families and
communities and there was great concern about both the proposal and the
unequivocal support from both major parties. Participants agreed that
the speaking tour should continue to focus on the dump proposal, but as
there are obvious connections with attempts to gain control of land for
mining and development projects, these issues were subsequently
incorporated into media messaging and public outreach.
While some of the meetings with politicians about the dump were
frustrating due to their lack of commitment to action, NGO and public
response to the speaking tour were extremely encouraging and
supportive; people were obviously affected by the depth of concern
regarding the federal proposal and appalling process of waste
management that has led to the imposition of federal radioactive waste
on remote and indigenous NT communities.
After each public event, many people approached the speakers and
offered ongoing support for the campaign. I have received a flood of
emails expressing the deep impact of the tour on people who attended
events and our message book is full of statements asserting how
affected people were by the speakers, and how they have been moved and
inspired to act in support and solidarity.
So what next?
We will send updates to everyone who has passed on their details and
continue to publish independent media reports to complement our
mainstream media outreach. Please let us know how we can best share
information about the government process and NT campaign initiatives
with you and your family, friends and networks. For this campaign to
have national attention and relevance in the lead up to the federal
election, we rely on people in each city, town or region to undertake
creative and strategic initiatives to support the NT communities:
Some suggestions …
* Set up a support group to disseminate information through your networks/region/state and help fundraise for the campaign.
* Arrange a screening in your community of the Living Country DVD (22mins, produced by CAAMA).
* Write letters to Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop and Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull
* Motivate at least one other person to also write a letter (why not have a film screening and letter writing party combined!)
* Add your name to the waste dump email update list
* Make a support banner and send it to the targeted communities
* Send letters of support to the communities
* Encourage your Premier or Chief Minister to publicly support the NT Government in opposing Federal Government bullying
* Write letters to local, state and national papers and keep the issue topical in the media
* Inform your local, state and federal politicians that a responsible
and democratic approach to radioactive waste management will be high on
the voter agenda for the federal election
* Wear a yellow dot in support of the NT communities and send us a photo to add to our website!
* Visit www.no-waste.org for ideas on cyber and other actions
* Visit the NT and walk on country with the people fighting to save their land from a toxic legacy
Defend the heartland ! NO radioactive waste dump in the Northern Territory
Please send questions, suggestions, support letters and donations to:
Arid Lands Environment Centre- Beyond Nuclear Initiative
PO box 2796, Alice Springs, NT, 0871
Natalie Wasley
08 8952 2011
natwasley@alec.org.au
------------------->
TURNING THE TIDE CD NOW AVAILABLE!!!
Turning the Tide is a music project by Australian artists calling for
action to address the grave threats posed by climate change in a manner
that respects all those who share our planet.
There's 33 Aussie artists appearing on the album including the John
Butler Trio, Wolf & Cub, Old Man River, Missy Higgins, The Bird,
Good Buddha, Watussi, Rastawookie, Declan Kelly, Deepchild, and heaps
of others.
The point of the CD is to raise awareness around the issues of climate
change including uranium mining and our country's questionable mining
policies. The voices of Traditional Aboriginal Elders talking about
these issues are interspersed amongst the songs on the CD.
Please check out the websites:
www.turningthetide.com.au
www.myspace.com/turningthetideoz
If you're on myspace, hit us up as a friend. You can find us on
Facebook too. The point is, we need all of you to spread the word,
spread this email, come to the launch party, buy the album....
The LAUNCH PARTY & ALBUM RELEASE is set for WEDNESDAY 8TH AUGUST @ The Gaelic Club, Surry Hills.
The launch party will absolutely rock and if you haven't caught
Rastawookie live before, you're in for a treat. There'll be about 800
people at the launch (including you) and we'll be selling CDs, artists
will be signing and there'll be some great speakers and a rocking DJ
set after the headline act. PLEASE COME!!
Tickets $20 or $40 with the CD and are on sale at Moshtix online, just check out the websites.
www.moshtix.com.au
All proceeds go to charities supporting communities impacted by uranium mining.
Turing the Tide is supported by the Mineral Policy Institute,
Australian Student Environment Network, Rainforest Information Centre,
Friends of the Earth Australia, UM Records and USYNC.
------------------->Return
to top
NEW INFORMATION SOURCES
------------------->
Jessie Boylan's fantabulous 'Inhabited' audiovisual experience is now on the web:
<www.sustenance.net.au/inhabited/images_index.html>
From the website:
Inhabited aims to reveal the myth of uninhabited and lifeless places
that is created by politicians and industry promoting nuclear activity
in Australia. The idea that the outback and the desert is “the middle
of nowhere” shows that the notion of Terra Nullius, brought on by
European invasion, has never left us.
In 2005 the then environment minister Brendan Nelson announced the
federal government’s decision to establish a nuclear waste dump in the
Northern Territory. At the time he said “Why shouldn’t people living in
the middle of nowhere have a radioactive waste dump on their land?”.
Traditional owners and Indigenous communities suffer most directly the
impacts of the nuclear industry but their voices are the least heard.
These images are the result of journeys with Friends of the Earth into
the Australian outback, and meetings with Indigenous and non-Indigenous
peoples directly affected by uranium mining in Australia. With the
current nuclear debate the wishes of the inhabitants are too easily
dismissed.
------------------->
Check the blog of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
http://www.myspace.com/icanw
------------------->
Well funky 5-minute anti-nuke animation...
Uranium Mining Costs The Earth
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=13587247
and you can also watch it at: www.turningthetide.com.au
------------------->
Media release - ABC Books
MARALINGA: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up
By Alan Parkinson
ABC Books; srp: $32.95; paperback; $32.95; ISBN 978 0 7333 2108 5
It is sad, but probably true, that most people living in Australia
today have never heard of Maralinga, know nothing of what happened
there 50 years ago, and don’t know that 12 atomic bombs have been
exploded in Australia. ... Since Australia does not possess a nuclear
arsenal, we could well ask, How could atomic bombs have been exploded
here? The answer is simple – Britain exploded them. But how did that
come about? Who allowed it to happen, and why?
In April 2000, a $108 million clean up of the former British A-bomb
test site in South Australia was declared a success and the Maralinga
Tjarutja Aboriginal people were told it was safe to move back onto
their lands. But leaked documents and key insiders say otherwise.
After voicing his concerns, Alan Parkinson, an official adviser, was
removed from the project and told to be quiet. Refusing to be silenced,
Alan has been fighting for an inquiry for six years. This is his story.
ALAN PARKINSON is a Mechanical and Nuclear Engineer with over forty
years experience in the nuclear industry in the UK, Canada, USA and
Australia. He was first involved in the Maralinga clean up in 1989 when
he assembled some 30 options for rehabilitating the site so that it
could be returned to the traditional owners, the Maralinga Tjarutja. In
1993, he was appointed the government's engineering adviser for the
project, and a member of the Minister's advisory committee MARTAC
(Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee). He set up the
project and was appointed as the Government's Representative to oversee
the whole project. He was removed from all appointments in January 1998
for questioning the future management of the project. He then became an
adviser to the Maralinga Tjarutja, but withdrew from that in April
2000, after going public with his concerns.
To get a copy:
* ABC book sellers
* go to <http://shop.abc.net.au>, enter Maralinga or Parkinson in the search engine, and order via web.
Lots of Alan Parkinson's info on the botched Maralinga clean-up at <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/#bwt>.
------------------->
NEWS ITEMS
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP PROPOSED FOR NT
------------------->
Owners warn of tremors at nuclear waste dump site
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/owners-warn-of-tremors-at-nuclear-waste-dump-site/2007/06/19/1182019116363.html
Andra Jackson
June 20, 2007
TREMORS have twice been felt in a proposed Northern Territory site for
a nuclear waste dump site, according to Aboriginal owners.
"The last one registered 2.5 on the Richter scale," traditional owner
and Warramunga-Warlmanpa woman Dianne Stokes from the Muckaty Land
Trust told a meeting of non-government organisations in Melbourne on
Monday night.
Two weeks ago, the other members of the trust — with the backing of the
Northern Land Council — secretly negotiated a deal under which the
Federal Government would pay $12 million to use the
2241-square-kilometre Muckaty Station as Australia's first national
nuclear waste dump.
Ms Stokes, an elected spokeswoman for the Warramunga and Warlmanpa
tribes, said the deal was made by just one of the 16 family groupings
represented on the trust.
The Northern Land Council failed to listen to the other families, she said.
Ms Stokes, a mother of six, was one of four traditional owners of four
proposed nuclear waste sites in the Northern Territory who spoke at a
public meeting at Melbourne's Trade Hall Council on Monday night.
"I came here with all my spirits from my ancestors to keep my country alive," she said.
Ms Stokes, who lives just half an hour's drive from the site of a
proposed nuclear waste dump at Muckaty, said it would kill the area
environmentally and culturally.
The surrounding country was a source of bush tucker and a place of
burials in both the ground and trees, which were home to ancestral
spirits, she said.
Priscilla Williams, a member of the Hart Range community, the site of
another proposed dump, said the community closest to Muckaty Station
had a primary school that got its water from a river which ran around
the proposed site.
While the Federal Government had insisted there had never been an
accident with a nuclear waste dump anywhere, "we're worried about what
will happen if our water gets poisoned because we get it from under the
ground", Ms Williams said.
The delegation briefed the Wilderness Society and called on state premiers to oppose a national nuclear waste dump.
------------------->
Proposed dump in quake hotspot
BEN LANGFORD
02Jul07
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2007/07/02/1417_ntnews.html
THE Territory site recently nominated for a national nuclear waste facility is near one of the nation's earthquake hotspots.
Muckaty Station, nominated by the Northern Land Council for
consideration by the Federal Government for the national facility, is
about 120km north of Tennant Creek - one of the most seismologically
active areas in Australia.
Figures confirmed by Geoscience Australia, the government seismological
monitoring body, show there have been 239 earthquakes in the area in
the past 10 years and 1298 earthquakes since 1988.
The majority of the quakes since 1988 were measured at less than 4 in magnitude, but 24 had a magnitude greater than 5.
The 1989 Newcastle earthquake measured 5.6.
Tennant Creek was also the scene of a powerful 6.3 quake in 1988 that split open the earth south of the town.
Territory Senator Nigel Scullion defended the process used to choose a nuclear waste site.
"There is an assessment process in place which takes all these issues
into consideration and I have full confidence in this process," he said.
But anti-nuclear campaigners have condemned the nomination of Muckaty as a sham.
The Environment Centre NT's Emma King said the Federal Government
should go back to the drawing board and start a process based on
consultation and science.
"It's another example of the Government going for political expediency
rather than proper scientific evaluation in terms of siting a waste
dump," she said.
Seismologists say the frequent quakes are due to a fault line running through the area.
"The quakes are frequent, due to a weak fault-line running through the area," Geoscience Australia's Craig Bugden has said.
Two small quakes have hit the Tennant Creek area in the past three weeks, both measured under three in magnitude.
A nuclear waste site in the Territory has been opposed by environmentalists, the NT Government and some traditional owners.
------------------->
Four face court over anti-nuclear protest
Posted Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:50pm AEST
Four protesters arrested after a violent confrontation outside the
Perth office of federal Science Minister Julie Bishop yesterday have
appeared in the East Perth Magistrates Court.
Three of the protesters pleaded not guilty to a charge of obstructing a
public officer, with one also pleading not guilty to assaulting a
police officer.
The fourth did not enter a plea and has been remanded in custody until July 17.
The anti-nuclear protesters are all from the eastern states and are in
Perth as part of an Australian Student Environment Network conference.
They will appear in court again in September.
------------------->Return
to top
GREENS BILL TO BAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN SA
------------------->
http://www.markparnell.org.au/speech.php?speech=210
Legislative Council
GREENS BILL: Bill to Ban Nuclear Facilities in SA
August 1st, 2007
On the 1st of August, Mark Parnell introduced a bill (Nuclear Waste
Storage Facility (Prohibition) (Prohibition of Other Nuclear
Facilities) Amendment Bill) to ban nuclear power and nuclear enrichment
in South Australia.
The Hon. M. PARNELL: This week marks the 62nd
anniversary of the nuclear bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. It is a timely reminder to us all of the horrific
capabilities of the worst weapons of mass destruction that have ever
been devised.
Earlier this year I introduced in this place the
Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2007. When the Parliament was
prorogued that bill lapsed. I made a lengthy speech on the introduction
of that bill, and I will not repeat my remarks again now. But, I urge
all members to refresh their memories by looking at the Hansard of 14
March, because the bill that I introduce today is very similar (link
below).
Since March, when I introduced my earlier bill, a number of
developments have occurred and new information has come to hand. In an
interview with The Age newspaper on 5 April this year, former WMC boss
Hugh Morgan indicated that he was in the nuclear business `for the long
haul'. So, the big guns are circling. It is not just Hugh Morgan.
Before that we had Pangea, then we had the United States proposal to
lease Australian nuclear fuel before it was used and then returned to
Australia for disposal. As a state, our ability to say no to these
schemes becomes much harder if we are awash with uranium dollars from
our exports.
On 29 April this year the ALP national conference marked
the death of principal Labor Party opposition to the nuclear fuel
cycle. In June this year the Liberal Party federal council voted to
support the development of a global nuclear waste dump in Australia.
The federal Liberal council passed the following resolution:
'That
federal council believes that Australia should expand its current
nuclear industry to incorporate the entire uranium fuel cycle, the
expansion of uranium mining to be combined with nuclear generation and
worldwide nuclear waste storage in the geotechnically stable and remote
areas that Australia has to offer.'
I think that is code for South
Australia. On 16 July this year there was a massive radioactive leak in
Tokyo Electric's giant nuclear plant as a result of a magnitude 6.8
earthquake and, just four days later, Prime Minister Howard flagged his
intention to sign a nuclear pact with President Bush. This Howard move
will inevitably bring Australia under pressure to become a global
nuclear waste dump. It will increase terrorist focus on Australia and
will create a direct incentive for nuclear power plants to be built in
Australia.
As you would know, Mr Acting President, time and again
when possible locations for future nuclear plants are mentioned, the
top of the list is usually South Australia's Upper Spencer Gulf region.
So, we cannot deny that we are front and centre to the debate in
Australia over the expansion of the nuclear industry.
I want to speak
very briefly about previous bills that have dealt with the nuclear
question. In the past, South Australian governments from both the Labor
and the Liberal sides of politics have acted appropriately to prevent
the expansion of the nuclear industry in our state. In 2000 the Olsen
government deserved the praise that it received when it moved to
prevent nuclear waste being stored in an above‑ground storage facility,
through the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. When
the Rann Labor government came to power in 2002, one of its first bills
led to the subsequent passing of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility
(Prohibition) Amendment Act 2003, which strengthened the original
Olsen government legislation.
So, the bill that I am introducing
today builds on that earlier work, therefore it takes a different
approach to the bill that I introduced last time, whilst reaching the
same outcome. Effectively, rather than throwing out those earlier
pieces of legislation, I am seeking to keep them and to build on them.
I think that is a respectful approach to take.
The other aspect of my
bill is that it is very much a minimalist approach. The bill is
very simple in its operation. The first thing it does is insert two new
definitions into legislation, that of enrichment and that of nuclear
facility. The bill expands the rest of the act to apply beyond nuclear
waste storage facilities to all nuclear facilities. As my bill includes
enrichment in the definition of a nuclear facility, it is possible to
remove section 27 of the Radiation (Protection and Control) Act 1982,
as that section is now made redundant.
I fully expect this bill to
have the support of the Rann Labor government, in particular, because
it is consistent with frequent public statements made by the Premier
and others in government against nuclear power. If we look elsewhere in
Australia, the Queensland Beattie government in the last couple of
months has cast laws prohibiting nuclear power, joining the states of
Victoria and New South Wales which have longstanding laws against
nuclear power dating back to the 1980s, and the Western Australian
Carpenter government made a strong public commitment to introduce laws
prohibiting nuclear power, especially if the commonwealth sought
to impose a facility in that state. So, to a certain extent we are
lagging behind the other Labor states. I therefore see no reason why
the Rann Labor government would not support this bill when clearly it
represents a consensus position of all the other Labor mainland states.
In conclusion, I think there is the potential in this state for the
ideological zealots to push nuclear power onto a reluctant South
Australia—that is a real risk. This bill, through its amendment of the
earlier acts, would send a crystal clear message that South Australia
will not welcome nuclear power or the nuclear enrichment industry. The
use of laws to prohibit such an outcome is sensible and prudent,
particularly with the recent move by Queensland to join Victoria and
New South Wales in passing similar laws.
With those brief words, I
commend the bill to the house.
For more information see Mark's earlier speech on the Nuclear Facility (Prohibition) Bill he introduced in March 2007
http://www.markparnell.org.au/speech.php?speech=109
------------------->Return
to top
TALISMAN SABRE WAR GAMES PROTESTERS FACE COURT
------------------->
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=283121
Nude embrace lands protesters in court
Friday August 3, 2007
A group of 18 anti-war protesters have fronted a Central Queensland court
over a colourful demonstration during joint US-Australian military exercises
in June.
Their protests allegedly included playing Frisbee on an airstrip, climbing a
cow fence and refusing to return, and dancing the Hokey Pokey at the
Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area on the Capricorn Coast.
Two were also arrested naked and embracing while shouting "make love, not
war".
The group, comprising protesters from Melbourne, Brisbane and the Sunshine
Coast, appeared before Yeppoon Magistrates Court yesterday charged with
offences including public nuisance and trespass.
Two of the group, Brisbane nurse Carole Powell and social worker Jessica
Morrison, pleaded guilty to one count each of trespassing on prohibited
commonwealth land.
The remaining 16 pleaded not guilty and will appear in court again for a
hearing mention on October 4.
Military police located Powell at 10.45am (AEST) on June 21 as she walked
along a Shoalwater Bay airstrip with four other protesters during the
Operation Talisman Sabre exercise.
She told police she rallied because she wanted to save lives and had seen
the effects of war first hand through her job.
Morrison was arrested on military land after spending three days there. She
argued her actions were morally right.
She was fined $400 while Powell was placed on a good behaviour bond.
©AAP 2007
------------------->Return
to top
GOVERNMENT ATTACKS ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS
------------------->
Using children to nuke Aboriginal land rights
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070627-Nuking-Aboriginal-Land-Rights-Howards-Latest-Yes-Minister-Genius.html
DATE: WEDNESDAY, 27 JUNE 2007
As an environmental engineer, Gavin Mudd has over ten years' experience
in issues concerning Aboriginal land rights and mining. He is a
lecturer in environmental engineering at Monash University, and a
concerned Australian. He writes:
It is ironic that at the time of the 40th anniversary of the 1967
referendum John Howard is in the middle of gutting the Northern
Territory’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (ALRA) -- the Commonwealth
legislation made possible by that referendum.
The land rights were long overdue, hard fought for and won by
Aboriginal people, but they are about to be critically undermined, not
just by the politics of military-style interventions in problematic
Aboriginal communities, but by a more insidious, as yet unrecognised
agenda -- mining and nuclear waste on Aboriginal land.
The ALRA gives legitimate powers such as access permits for entry to
Aboriginal freehold lands, a veto over exploration and mining and other
activities. As noted by the 1974 Woodward Land Rights Inquiry, to deny
Aboriginal people the right to prevent mining on their land is to deny
the reality of their land rights.
Since gaining control of the Senate, the Howard Government has finally
had the parliamentary power to gut the ALRA, which they are doing, but
have needed a massive diversion before they introduce the most
controversial reforms: radically altering the mining royalty regimes,
and potentially remove the veto provision for exploration and mining.
It is no coincidence that many of the communities targeted for
“military style intervention” are also areas that are heavily targeted
for minerals exploration, particularly uranium, as well as for
potential nuclear waste dumps. This includes Western Arnhem Land and
Central Australia, where numerous known uranium deposits are being
actively investigated by various wanna-be uranium producers.
I have personally visited numerous Aboriginal communities, including
some with major social dysfunction and others which have escaped the
tyranny of petrol sniffing, grog and domestic violence. This was
achieved by the communities and took hard yakka over a decade (or
more). Now, they are vibrant, positive and functional communities proud
to be truly sustainable. Mining has rarely aided this process.
The use of “social issues” as a diversion to hide the gutting of
Aboriginal land rights is malicious and cold-hearted. As with almost
everything Howard does, there is clearly more at play -- perhaps it’s
time to have a real debate about problems, true partnerships and the
future.
As noted by Yvonne Margarula, Senior Traditional Owner of the
Mirarr-Gundjeihmi clan of Kakadu and on whose lands the Ranger uranium
mine and Jabiluka project lie, “None of the promises last, but the
problems always do!”
------------------->Return
to top
CLEAN ENERGY - VARIOUS
------------------->
Article Preview
Is it all over for nuclear power?
26 April 2006
Michael Brooks
Magazine issue 2548
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025481.400
ADAM TWINE doesn't look like the kind of person the nuclear industry
should be scared of. An organic farmer, Twine is skinny, with big round
glasses and unruly hair that makes his head look like it's fraying at
the edges. How could he possibly be a threat to a multibillion-dollar
industry?
Maybe he wouldn't be if he were operating alone, but Twine is far from
alone and has serious money behind him. He has just managed to persuade
2127 people to send him a total of more than £4 m�illion that he
will use to set up a co-operative wind farm on land he owns in the
south of England. In fact, the idea of owning a share in the Westmill
wind farm in Oxfordshire has proved so popular that the project is
having to return some of the cash: it only needed £3.7 million.
The plan now is to give priority in ownership to people living within
80 kilometres of the site, and asking others to accept a smaller stake
in the co-op.
Though the wind farm is small - five turbines in a vast, bleak field,
amounting to 6.5 megawatts of electricity - it represents another nail
in the coffin of nuclear power, one of many being hammered in all over
the world. If the nuclear industry wanted to convince governments to
start building another generation of nuclear reactors as soon as
possible, it needed to bury the likes of Twine before their schemes
took off. Now it may be too late.
According to projections by the International Energy Agency and a
handful of energy industry experts, 2005 was the first year nuclear
power's electricity output dropped behind that of small-scale plants
producing low or no carbon dioxide emissions (see Graph) - and that's
not counting large hydroelectric projects on the low-carbon side of the
balance sheet.
Though small, such projects are already flourishing. Much of the
world's small-scale generation involves combined heat and power
"co-generation" projects, whose carbon dioxide emissions are 30 to 80
per cent less than that of large-scale gas-fired plants. On average
they ...
The complete article is 3123 words long - for subscribers only.
------------------->
Energy revolution = money saved
06 July 2007
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/energy-revolution-money-save-060707
International — US$180 billion. That's the massive amount of money the
world could save by moving to a renewable energy future. The Future
Investment report demonstrates that a safe renewable energy future
would not only cut our global CO2 emissions from the electricity sector
in half by 2030, it would also cost 10 times less than a ‘business as
usual’ fossil-fuel future would.
By shifting global investments to renewable energy (including solar,
wind, hydro, geothermal and bio energy), within the next 23 years, and
away from dirty and dangerous coal and nuclear power, we can save a
massive US$180 billion a year.
So we face a simple but crucial choice: we can either invest in over
10,000 new polluting coal and gas power plants, which would double fuel
costs and increase C02 emissions by more than 50 percent. Or we can
choose a safe renewable energy future, producing 70 percent of the
world’s electricity from our planet’s natural resources.
By doing this we would not only save money but also cut CO2 emissions from the electricity sector in half by 2030.
What to do with all that money
We asked Action Aid what development needs could be done with the
US$180 billion a year savings. They told us that it is the exact amount
needed in extra aid to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by
their target date of 2015.
The goals are to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; universal
primary education; gender equality and women’s empowerment; reduce
child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and
other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a
global partnership for development.
Under our renewable energy future, part of the Energy [R]evolution the
world urgently needs to curb catastrophic climate change, the savings
would be enough to reach these most basic goals for human need and
development. The maths as well as the choice is simple.
The poorest paying the price
It is the poorest people in the world who are already suffering the
devastating effects of climate change, and who stand to lose the most
if we do not take urgent action now. The costs of a ‘business as usual’
scenario go much deeper than pure economics. How, for example, do you
put a price on a Pacific Islander finding their home is sinking?
The developing world has contributed the least to the climate change we
already see today, and yet are paying by far the highest price. By
embracing the Energy [R]evolution, we can start to make some amends..
It’s so simple, and so essential, the extra investment of $22 billion
needed in renewables to achieve the Energy [R]evolution is easy to
obtain if we convert the massive subsidies of $250 billion a year that
coal and gas receive to clean, safe energy from the world’s natural
resources.
Governments must listen to the voices of the billions of people
engaging with Live Earth and make the right decisions NOW. In the next
decade, many existing power plants will need replacing, and emerging
economies such as China, India and Brazil are rapidly building new
energy infrastructure.
The UN Environment Programme says of our report that “it is just the
kind of publication that will strike a thoughtful chord with the expert
and the novice in the field of renewable energy. I am sure it will
spark even greater interest and action towards a more sustainable,
climate friendly, energy mix and allow renewables to achieve their full
and very exciting potential.”
The market for wind energy grew by a massive 36 percent in 2006, and
the total renewable energy sector would be worth a massive US$288
billion by 2030 if we take the Energy Revolution pathway. The renewable
energy industry is willing and able to deliver the power plants the
world needs, we must just make the right choices now!
TO DOWNLOAD THE REPORT:
www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/future-investment
------------------->
Wind and hot rock companies pick up steam
The low emissions energy sector will benefit from changes in the political climate, writes Matthew Warren
July 02, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21999654-5005200,00.html
FEW sectors are more sensitive to the radical change in the political
mood on climate change than energy and in particular the increasingly
less speculative low emissions energy sector.
Last month, the federal Government committed Australia to an emissions
trading scheme from 2012. With only minor differences between the major
parties, a constraint on greenhouse emissions is now a certainty in
Australia. This is, at least for the time being, on top of a suite of
different mandatory renewable energy targets set by state governments
and a new 18 per cent mandatory gas target in Queensland.
While the policies may be questionable from a rational perspective,
valuing investment in this sector is as much about factoring in
political risk alongside more conventional technical and financial
criteria.
Coal-fired electricity will remain the cheapest energy source for the
next decade, but will become more expensive with the application of a
price on its emissions or the installation of technology to capture and
store emissions.
Gas can provide an important bridge with around half the emissions of
coal, with increased demand pushing up price - great news for the
sector providing it doesn't price itself out of the market.
A month ago, the Beattie Government increased its mandatory gas target
to 18 per cent by 2020. Companies such as the Queensland Gas Company
have been developing coal seam methane technology, which captures the
methane embedded inside coal seams.
It not only is a new source of affordable methane, but can help reduce
fugitive emissions of the potent greenhouse gas. In a nearly static
market, QGC has almost doubled its value in the past two months.
Wind energy is the current lowest-cost zero emissions technology in
Australia and is likely to be another beneficiary of the price on
carbon and the mandatory targets. Virtually all of Australia's current
wind generation assets are either part of internationally listed
companies, part of larger enterprises or part of government-owned
energy companies. BP and Origin Energy have begun to invest in
modest-scale solar panel manufacturing, while emerging technology
companies such as Solar Systems have welcomed considerable and highly
politicised government assistance, but have not needed the market to
raise capital.
Perhaps the most immediate barometer of this market shift is
Australia's fledgling geothermal industry, which wants to make
electricity by exploiting the massive amounts of energy in hot granite
rocks close to the earth's surface.
These heat assets 4km to 5km underground are found in various locations
around the globe, including the Cooper Basin in northeast South
Australia.
Geothermal energy is unproven at the scale being flagged here and the
world is watching Australian developments closely to see whether they
can actually deliver. An independent report for the Energy Supply in
January estimated that hot rocks could reach 7 per cent of national
electricity demand by 2030. That's more than a billion dollars worth of
electricity a year.
The technical risks that need to be removed include proving they can
reliably drill the deep holes in high temperatures and that they can
sustain circulating water through the system to generate steam.
This work is being pioneered in Australia, with market leader
Geodynamics Limited due to start drilling a 5km hole later this month.
A result is hoped for by end of the year, possibly sooner. If all
succeeds, a trial $225 million 40 megawatt power plant is scheduled for
2009. All going well, a 500 megawatt plant will follow, delivering a
$200 million energy business. In the longer term, the energy asset
identified in its hot rocks leases is estimated by the company at
10,000 megawatts.
After raising $32 million to buy the rig that will drill the big hole,
shares in Geodynamics have nearly doubled in the past month, as have
shares in nearby rival Petratherm, which has a more modest but possibly
realisable plan of supplying power to local mining operations, with a
140 per cent increase in their value over the past month.
Other smaller geothermal companies have been even more successful.
Torrens Energy (TEY) has doubled in the past month, as has Green Rock
Energy (GHT) while Geothermal Resources Limited (GHT) has increased by
60 per cent in the past month and nearly 400 per cent since February.
If successful, it's unlikely any of these companies will evolve into
power companies. Big energy and resource companies with much deeper
pockets are watching closely. Woodside and Origin Energy have an 18 per
cent share in Geodynamics. Beach Petroleum is in a joint venture with
Petratherm.
There are likely to be further rewards if they succeed. A new round of
low emissions technology development grants is one of a suite of
climate change announcements tipped in the pre-election cycle.
The political cache of this type of technology may help overcome some
of its financial constraints. State governments such as South Australia
and NSW are looking to both fill their mandatory renewable energy
targets and brand themselves with a new green technology. The cost of
linking the latest green energy source to their state could trigger a
bidding war between the states to help underwrite the otherwise
expensive transmission costs.
And this is just the start of it.
Matthew Warren holds shares in Geodynamics and Petratherm
------------------->
Investors Flock to Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=512&ArticleID=5616&l=en
Climate Change Worries, High Oil Prices and Government Help Top Factors Fueling Hot Renewable Energy Investment Climate
Investors Flock to Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies;
Transactions Leap to Record $100 Billion in 2006, Says UNEP Study;
Renewables Shed Fringe Image; American, European Markets Dominate
, But
9% of Global Investments are in China, 21% in Developing Countries
Paris, 20 June 2007 - Climate change worries coupled with high oil
prices and increasing government support top a set of drivers fueling
soaring rates of investment in the renewable energy and energy
efficiency industries, according to a trend analysis from the UN
Environment Programme.
The report says investment capital flowing into renewable energy
climbed from $80 billion in 2005 to a record $100 billion in 2006. As
well, the renewable energy sector's growth "although still volatile ...
is showing no sign of abating."
Rest of this summary + link to full report:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=512&ArticleID=5616&l=en
------------------->
2006 a boom year for investment in renewable energy (29 June 2007)
Renewable energy is becoming an increasingly popular commodity to
invest in, according to a new trend analysis from UN Environment
Programme (UNEP).
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=13227&channel=0
Factors such as concerns over climate, high oil prices and government
help are listed as some of the top reasons driving capital into
renewable energy from $80 billion in 2005 to the record $100 billion in
2006.
Most popularly, investment money is being poured into renewable energy sources
like wind, solar power and biofuels, UNEP said. About a fifth of 2006 investment was in the developing world.
"One of the new and fundamental messages of this report is that
renewable energies are no longer subject to the vagaries of rising and
falling oil prices," UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said.
"They are becoming generating systems of choice for increasing numbers
of power companies, communities and countries irrespective of the costs
of fossil fuels.
"The other key message is that this is no longer an industry solely
dominated by developed country industries. Close to 10 per cent of
investments are in China with around a fifth in total in the developing
world.
"We will need many sustained steps towards the de-carbonizing of the
global economy. It is clear that in respect to renewables those steps
are getting underway."
Today renewable energy accounts for only 2% of the electricity around
the world, however, the report said. Renewable energy makes up 18% of
the world's investment in generating power.
Also spurring the sector's growth has been the persistently high price
of oil - averaging more than $60 a barrel in 2006 (although one report
conclusion is that the sector is becoming more independent of the price
of oil).
"Growing consumer awareness of renewable energy and energy efficiency -
and their longer term potential for cheaper energy, and not just
greener energy - has become another fundamental driver," it says.
"Most importantly governments and politicians are introducing
legislation and support mechanisms to enable the sector's development."
The report forecasts even higher rates of investment in the coming year.
Dana Gornitzki
------------------->
Emission possible
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/emission-possible/2007/06/17/1182018934799.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
June 17, 2007
By Louise Williams
Vaxjo is a city in southern Sweden with a population of 85,500. Near a
series of lakes, the university town is the commercial, cultural and
educational centre of a region of 1.2 million people. Earlier in the
year, the City of Vaxjo received the Sustainable Energy Europe Award
during the European Sustainable Energy Week.
Vaxjo is a city in southern Sweden with a population of 85,500. Near a
series of lakes, the university town is the commercial, cultural and
educational centre of a region of 1.2 million people. Earlier in the
year, the City of Vaxjo received the Sustainable Energy Europe Award
during the European Sustainable Energy Week.
The Howard Government has warned of economic disaster if carbon
emissions are cut too drastically. But in Sweden, the opposite has
occurred. Bold policies have turned a city into an eco-powerhouse.
IN THE cool forest region of southern Sweden, the city of Vaxjo has
turned off the heating oil, even on the darkest, snowbound days of
winter.
Coal, too, is gone and next on the fossil fuel hit list is petrol. In
the underground car park of the local government offices, there are no
private vehicles, just a communal green-car fleet. Staff who cycle or
take the local biogas buses to work book ahead to drive - fuelling up
on biogas or E85, a blend of 85 per cent renewable ethanol.
Petrol is still readily available to the public, but carbon emissions
in Sweden are heavily taxed. Drivers pays about 80 cents a litre extra
at the bowser.
Vaxjo is chasing a future free of fossil fuels, and it's almost halfway
there without having sacrificed lifestyle, comfort or economic growth.
When local politicians announced the phasing out in 1996, it was little
more than a quaint curiosity. Oil prices were hovering around a
manageable $US20 a barrel and global warming was still a hotly
contested debate. Today, at least one international delegation a week -
mainly from China and Japan - beats a path to Vaxjo to see how it's
done.
The Vaxjo model has been repeated all over Sweden, creating a network
of "climate" municipalities. Sweden's total emissions have long been
falling and last year the Government announced its own ambitious
national goal: to end oil dependency by 2020.
Today, Sweden's annual greenhouse gas emissions are just over five
tonnes per capita, compared with Australian and US levels in the high
20s and climbing. That's before calculating Sweden's forests, which
serve as huge carbon sinks that could offset emissions by another 30
per cent. In Vaxjo, it's 3.5 tonnes of carbon per capita, the lowest
urban level in Europe.
See the website for rest of this article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/emission-possible/2007/06/17/1182018934799.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
------------------->
An overdue farewell for old King Coal
Sven Teske
June 8, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/an-overdue-farewell-for-old-king-coal/2007/06/07/1181089237552.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
In the early 1990s wind turbines were seen as small-scale, fringe
technology. The industry was a backyard enterprise, carried on in
garages and on farms by starry-eyed pioneers. In 2007 there are now
214,000 people employed in renewable energy in Germany, so it surprises
me that Australia's Government still has such a black view of renewable
energy.
The world has decided we need to stop using fossil fuels, but the
International Energy Agency still has no idea how to switch from coal,
oil and gas. It was to fill this need that Greenpeace commissioned an
economic and technological model of how to clean up the energy sector
globally, cutting emissions by half by 2050. Surprisingly, we found
that eliminating nuclear power and reducing dependence on fossil fuels
increases energy security and often lowers consumer energy prices. This
finding is so counter to traditional "economy versus environment"
thinking that it is taking time to be accepted.
The warning from our study is urgent: if the world listens to "King
Coal" and his renewables sceptics, we face a future not just of climate
disaster but also of massively rising energy prices, energy insecurity
and economic stresses due to electricity supply instability alone.
Greenpeace's "energy revolution" scenario was developed by the German
Space Agency in conjunction with engineers and scientists from a number
of institutes globally and the European Association for Renewable
Energy. Stopping climate change requires a revolution in government
policy, but it can be achieved by an evolution of proven technologies.
Wind alone is providing 8 per cent of electricity in Germany and 20 per
cent in Denmark. The biggest coal plant-scale solar factories in the
world are in China.
When presenting the details of our study to members of the federal
parliamentary inquiry into renewable energy, we were able to
demonstrate how Australia is missing out on a jobs and economic boom as
the country lags other countries in implementing the clean energy
revolution. Few realised this country is being outperformed by
unexpected places, such as the Philippines, Texas, China and Egypt.
The biggest intellectual misconception was the idea that renewables
cannot provide baseload power generation, yet geothermal, bioenergy,
hydro-electricity, concentrated solar power with thermal storage
capacity all can. With sophisticated wind forecasting, wind power's
variable nature can be relied upon to keep the economy humming.
The biggest economic benefit is energy efficiency. This is the
"low-hanging fruit" of the clean energy revolution and gives the
fastest return on investment. Our figures show that by 2050 energy
savings alone will account for 47 per cent of displaced demand against
the business-as-usual scenario. These efficiencies range from better
appliances to best-practice factories and new approaches to energy,
such as decentralising energy production. These technologies are not
spectacular like wind farms or futuristic systems like "hot rocks", but
are the bedrock of humanity's response to climate change.
So what might global trends mean for Australians heading into a federal
election? Investors will start to cool on coal companies that stake
their futures on unproven and financially risky clean coal technology.
Investors will compare the risks and likely delays in clean coal to the
annual growth in solar and wind of more than 30 per cent over the next
decade. When consumers understand that renewable energy offers more
security, coal will begin to face real political trouble.
The Australia-based emissions trading scheme will likewise lose its
sheen once it is understood. International evidence demonstrates that
emissions trading will not create a booming renewables sector. A weak
and uncertain scheme can even be a step backwards. No country has
relied on emissions trading alone to switch from high-carbon to
climate-safe energy because it does not work.
The benchmark for the Government's policy on climate is
straightforward: will it ensure that we look beyond coal and will it
result in a reduction in greenhouse emissions? History is gathering
pace around a clean energy revolution. We now know that dropping global
reliance on fossil fuels will be good for security, the economy and
consumers.
You do not need to be a brave engineer to predict that Australia is about to make a big switch, and not a moment too soon.
Sven Teske is the renewables director at Greenpeace International.
------------------->Return
to top
CLEAN ENERGY - GEOTHERMAL HOT ROCKS
------------------->
Some like it hot
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/?article_id=10224514
Geothermal energy offers one solution to ease the global warming
problem. Bill Nicholas takes a look at Green Rock Energy, one of the
hottest of the 'hot rocks' companies.
Geothermal energy is the natural heat of the earth and presents a
potential commercially viable and sustainable solution to problems of
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and rising fuel prices.
The US Department of Energy has estimated that global geothermal energy
resources aggregate to approximately 50,000 times the energy of all the
world's known reserves of oil and gas.
Rest of this article at:
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/?article_id=10224514
------------------->Return
to top
CLEAN ENERGY - BIOENERGY
------------------->
The Examiner Newspaper
17 July 2007
http://northerntasmania.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=today&story_id=1022410&category=today
By JULIAN BURGESS
RUBBISH at Launceston's Remount Rd landfill site will be producing
enough methane gas to provide electricity to power about 1000 houses
for the next 50 years.
Launceston City Council civic operations manager Sean Adams said
yesterday that the site's innovative gas-fired electricity generation
system could be operating up to 20 years after the tip closes in 30
years time.
The system, developed in conjunction with Australian company LMS
Generation, recovers landfill methane gas to run a large motor that
produces electricity.
The process will reduce about 40,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions
every year over the life of the project and limit the amount of ozone
damaging methane released into the atmosphere.
Mr Adams said the gas collection system was commissioned last June and
the electricity generation plant was operational in January this year.
"The plant's motor drives an alternator that is generating 1.1megawatts
of power per hour and is connected straight into the Aurora grid," he
said.
"To equate that to supplying houses, it's approximately 1000 houses," Mr Adams said.
Forty-five "wells" in the tip are connected by a network of pipes buried in the tip.
A small vacuum force extracts the methane gas which is cleaned and pressurised, ready to supply the LMS power generation plant.
Generally the gas collection system goes in when you've completed the
landfill but the Launceston system was installed five years ago when
the tip was extended, Mr Adams said.
"This tip has got a life of 30 years to go and so our tip is possibly
going to get bigger over the 30 years and possibly produce more gas.
"Usually you still get gas anywhere from 20 years to 50 years after the landfill is closed off," Mr Adams said.
The system is one of three in Tasmania with tips at Hobart and Glenorchy councils also producing electricity.
Launceston Mayor Ivan Dean said the system was a major achievement for
everybody involved and a considerable step forward for the waste and
renewable energy industry.
"This facility provides a proactive solution to waste management issues
that has local, national and global ramifications," Ald. Dean said.
------------------->
Media Release
23 July 2007
Don’t burn their homes to heat yours
A pile of animals representing endangered species have this morning
been torched outside the Rydges Hotel on Exhibition St, in a protest
against the logging lobby’s push to burn Victoria’s native forests for
power.
“Burning native forests for power is a primitive technology that
belongs to the 17^th century, not the 21^st ,” said Luke Chamberlain,
forest campaigner for The Wilderness Society. “The logging lobby is
claiming that throwing native forests into furnaces is a renewable way
to generate electricity. At a time when protecting forests is the best
and most immediate climate change repair kit we have at hand, they are
trying to influence government to incinerate them.”
“We fully support the government and industry’s push for promoting
renewable technologies, but including burning native forest woodchips
completely contaminates the otherwise credible and progressive advances
of the bionergy industry,” Mr Chamberlain said. “As Australia’s
woodchip customers are now buying woodchips from plantations, our
logging industry is looking for another reason to continue destroying
our native forests”.
“Woodchipping is the driver, not the byproduct, of the native forest
logging industry”, said Environment East Gippsland’s Sarah Rees. “It is
driving species to the point of extinction. Species such as the Sooty
Owl, the Leadbeaters Possum and the Long Footed Potoroo all need old
growth forests to survive. Giving another lifeline to the native forest
logging industry will surely push many of our endangered species over
the brink.”
“The Victorian state government has previously committed to exclude
native forest wood in any Victoria’s Renewable Energy Target scheme,”
said Lauren Caulfield, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth. “However,
after pressure from the Victorian Association of Forest Products,
legislation has been tabled that allows native forest woodchips to be
burned for power. The legislation has yet to be passed, and environment
groups strongly encourage the Bracks government to stick to its
previous commitment.”
“Blind Freddie can see that burning forests for power is clearly not
renewable,” Ms Rees said. “The proposal is so absurd, it is laughable,
were it not so devastating to our wildlife, our water supplies, and our
greatest carbon stores, our forests”.
------------------->Return
to top
CLEAN ENERGY - SOLAR
------------------->
PM's climate plan: Better ways to spend the money
Crikey 19/7/07
Dr Hugh Saddler, Managing Director of Energy Strategies Pty Ltd, writes:
The Prime Minister’s plan to spend $252 million on rebates for
residential solar hot water installations, as announced earlier this
week, has been widely seen as a populist policy response.
But it also happens to be good policy in terms of its overall aim if
not its specific approach. The main defect is that it does not go far
enough. The funds provided will be enough for about 225,000 solar
systems to replace off-peak electric water heaters, but this is only 8%
of the existing stock of these heaters.
As the fact sheet accompanying the announcement states, each solar
system will save between three and five tonnes of greenhouse emissions
annually. They will also save at least 3,000 kWh per year of electrical
energy each, more than halving the quantity of electricity used to heat
water in households that make the switch to solar.
The electricity saved is, by definition, supplied off-peak; that is,
for about six hours per day. It therefore equates to about 300 MW of
base load generating capacity. Based on the cost of the new Kogan Creek
power station, now nearing completion in Queensland, the capital cost
of this amount of generating capacity would be at least $450 million,
and more likely well over $500 million. If the baseload power were
(notionally) supplied by a nuclear or “clean coal” power station, the
capital investment required would be 50% to 100% higher again.
These comparisons make the Prime Minister’s plan look like very good
value for money. But let's take it a step further. A policy that was
more carefully designed, aimed at realising economies of scale in the
roll-out of solar water heaters, could almost certainly achieve the
same outcome at much lower cost to government.
So why not have a better designed and greatly expanded program, aimed
at gradually replacing the entire stock of off-peak electric water
heaters with solar? This could save up to eight million tonnes of
emissions per year and reduce the need for baseload generating capacity
by over 3,000 MW. Nearly half of this saving would be in NSW, and most
of the rest in Queensland and South Australia (these three States have
much higher shares of electric water heating than Victoria and Western
Australia).
These figures also throw new light on the supposed need for a new
baseload, (that is, coal-fired) power station in NSW. They suggest that
a combination of aggressive solar water heater roll-out combined with
new intermediate load (probably gas-fired) generation could achieve the
same level of supply security at lower cost and with much lower
emissions.
Unfortunately, the other populist component of the Prime Minister’s
package, called “Green vouchers of Schools” has few redeeming features.
Solar water heaters in schools will do very little either to reduce
emissions or to reduce the costs of energy purchases by schools. The
largest use of energy in most schools is lighting, followed by heating
and cooling. Water heating is trivial by comparison. There are
abundant, very low cost options to reduce school electricity
consumption by upgrading lighting systems and improving the performance
of (or, depending on location, avoiding the need for) active heating
and cooling systems.
What schools need is a subsidised energy management program
specifically directed to their particular requirements. But of course,
that does not have the same superficial electoral appeal as pictures of
government cheques being handed to grateful school communities.
------------------->
Solar benefit heats up debate
July 11, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/solar-benefit-heats-up-debate/2007/07/10/1183833518296.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
ALAN Moran displays either significant ignorance or deliberate
deception in his opinion piece (BusinessDay, 10/7). In claiming solar
electricity is the "least valuable" form of electricity, he misses or
avoids several critical points.
First, the value of electricity in the national market is based on the time of generation, and how this matches demand.
Peak demand typically occurs during hot summer afternoons, at the very
times when solar photovoltaic systems are producing their maximum
output. Hence, solar power is worth significantly more to the network
than is recognised, and the proposed Energy Legislation Amendment Act
goes some way to tackling this.
Further, by being generated close to the point of consumption, rather
than a power station, roof-top solar avoids the need for more poles and
wires.
Fewer poles and wires over less distance means less transmission loss and significant savings to the customer.
It is the customer who pays for these networks in their bill, and with
$24 billion committed to network augmentation in the next five years,
it will be costly. Providing incentives for decentralised energy could
avoid significant amounts of network investment.
Financial incentives in Germany — which installed 1000 times the solar
capacity of Australia — is responsible for less than 3 per cent of the
average electricity bill. Despite this extensive uptake of solar, as a
response to the incentives, German electricity bills have fallen in the
seven years since they were introduced due to the savings across the
network.
It is also disingenuous for Moran to speak of subsidies for solar
without mentioning coal subsidies. A University of Technology Sydney
report puts fossil fuel subsidies at more than $9 billion a year.
Renewable energy receives a little more than $325 million, or less than
3 per cent.
The greatest subsidy to coal energy is the lack of accounting for the environmental cost of greenhouse gas and other pollution.
With no existing mechanism for accounting the economic, social and
environmental costs of climate change, renewable energy subsidies are
the only practical way to allow clean forms of energy to compete with
polluting fossil fuels.
Brad Shone, energy policymanager, Alternative Technology Association
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - PUBLIC OPINION
------------------->
Miners send a message: time to clean up our act
Jessica Irvine
July 30, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/miners-send-a-message-time-to-clean-up-our-act/2007/07/29/1185647743479.html
THE most powerful mining union has begun a $1 million advertising
campaign to convince workers of the need to combat climate change, as
polling shows most Australians still oppose nuclear energy as a
solution.
...
Meanwhile, polling conducted by Essential Research of 800 voters in 16
marginal seats found a majority did not support the development of a
nuclear power industry.
Just 39 per cent supported nuclear energy, compared with 95 per cent in
favour of investment in renewable energies such as solar and wind.
"Clean" coal technologies were supported by 74 per cent.
------------------->Return
to top
NUCLEAR POWER FOR AUSTRALIA - WA TO BAN
------------------->
Anti-nuclear stance becomes law
Jim Kelly
June 05, 2007 09:00am
Article from: AAP
Perth Now
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21852497-2761,00.html
PREMIER Alan Carpenter will introduce legislation this month to the WA Parliament banning a nuclear industry in WA.
Legislation to prohibit the construction of a nuclear power plant in
WA, ban the transportation of certain materials used by the industry
and outlaw the use of nuclear generated electricity.
The laws are
designed to thwart any moves by the Commonwealth to override the States
on the development of nuclear reactors.
Mr Carpenter said his
government remained strongly opposed to uranium mining and nuclear
energy.
"I will do all I can to ensure WA remains free of nuclear
power facilities,'' he said.
Mr Carpenter said the legislation would
allow for a referendum to be held if the Commonwealth tried to override
the new State laws.
"The people of WA will then be able to have their
say on the issue if the Commonwealth moves to develop nuclear power
facilities in this State,'' he said.
"In other words, it could be at
the Commonwealth's political peril if they ever proceeded with such a
move.''
------------------->Return
to top
PROPOSED US-AUSTRALIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION
------------------->
Australia poised to sign nuclear deal with US
Anne Davies, Washington
July 20, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/australia-poised-to-sign-nuclear-deal-with-us/2007/07/19/1184559956513.html
AUSTRALIA is negotiating a major deal with the United States to co-operate on development of a nuclear energy industry.
According to draft plans seen by The Age, Foreign Minister Alexander
Downer and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane want the deal announced
when US President George Bush comes to Australia in September for the
APEC leaders' summit.
The deal could advance Prime Minister John Howard's push for Australia
to embrace nuclear power, including providing access to the latest
technological advances.
"The proposed action plan would help to open the way for valuable
nuclear energy co-operation with the United States," a briefing note
says.
"It would also be consistent with the Government's strategy for the
nuclear industry in Australia. An action plan on nuclear energy would
also have bilateral advantages further broadening our relationship with
the United States.
"While the US has not raised the possibility, the action plan may be a
possible 'announceable' for President Bush's visit in September."
But the proposal appears to stop short of recommending Australia sign
up with the controversial club of nuclear nations, the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP), being championed by Mr Bush.
An initiative of Washington, the GNEP is seeking to control the
distribution, reprocessing and storage of nuclear fuel around the
world. Member nations include Russia, China, the US, Japan and France.
Mr Bush has said the initiative is central to tackling climate change,
and that its aim is to ensure the safe growth of the nuclear industry
while limiting the risk of proliferation of nuclear material for
weapons.
US officials have indicated that Australia's status as a "totally
reliable and trustworthy" nation could allow its inclusion in the plan
as a fuel supplier.
But the proposal is controversial for Australia partly because storage
of nuclear waste by GNEP partners is an integral part of the
arrangement.
The Federal Government has repeatedly said Australia will not take other countries' waste.
The GNEP countries met in Washington in May and agreed to work on plans
that control the supply of all nuclear fuel and its reprocessing and
waste disposal. Non-partnership countries would be leased fuel only if
they complied with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Australia, the world's biggest exporter of unprocessed uranium, and
Canada, another big supplier, have expressed interest in GNEP.
But GNEP is seen by some developing nations as highly divisive, and
Australia's membership could alarm neighbours including Indonesia.
It would also rekindle heated debate in Australia over the development
of nuclear power, and would inevitably raise the spectre of a nuclear
waste dump.
Officials working on the US-Australia initiative flag this concern in
their note, saying that signing "a joint nuclear energy action plan
would be on the basis that this would not limit possible future choices
regarding Australia's nuclear industry. It will be important also to
ensure there is no misperception on the United States' part that
conclusion of an action plan could have implications for the
Government's policy of not taking other countries' radioactive waste or
spent nuclear fuel."
A US Energy Department spokeswoman, Angela Hill, said: "The vision of
GNEP is something we would hope Australia and other countries can
support."
A spokesman for Mr Downer confirmed that discussions on an agreement
were under way, focusing on safeguards and research and development.
------------------->
Nuclear partnership with US in the offing
Anne Davies Herald Correspondent in Washington
July 20, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nuclear-pact-with-us-in-the-offing/2007/07/19/1184559957213.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
AUSTRALIA is negotiating a big nuclear energy plan with the US and is
considering whether to join an exclusive American-led club of nations
to control the distribution, reprocessing and storage of nuclear fuel
worldwide.
According to draft plans seen by the Herald, the ministers for foreign
affairs and resources have urged John Howard to announce the joint plan
during George Bush's Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation visit in
September.
"The proposed action plan would help to open the way for valuable
nuclear energy co-operation with the United States," the briefing note
says. "It would also be consistent with the Government's strategy for
the nuclear industry in Australia. An action plan on nuclear energy
would also have bilateral advantages further broadening our
relationship with the United States.
"While the US has not raised the possibility, the action plan may be a
possible 'announceable' for President Bush's visit in September."
But the proposal appears to stop short of recommending Australia sign
up with the controversial Global Nuclear Energy Partnership championed
by Mr Bush.
The partnership involves the main nuclear-fuel cycle countries, the US,
Russia, China, Japan and France. Mr Bush says it is central to the
world tackling climate change and aims to ensure the nuclear industry
grows safely, while limiting the spread of material able to be used for
weapons.
The five countries met in Washington in late May and agreed to work on
plans that would involve them taking control of the supply of all
nuclear fuel and its reprocessing and waste disposal. Countries not in
the partnership would be leased fuel only if they complied with the
non-proliferation treaty.
Pushing the US-Australia plan are the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, and the Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane.
A spokesman for Mr Downer confirmed discussions on an agreement
focusing on safeguards and research and development of nuclear
technology were under way.
He said the Government had made no decisions about whether it would
embark on enrichment of uranium, but the Prime Minister had made it
clear Australia would not be taking other countries' nuclear waste. No
decision had been made on joining the broader GNEP, the spokesman said.
The GNEP partners have agreed to work towards new technologies for
nuclear power generation and reprocessing that would produce less
plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
The problem with nuclear power is that spent fuel rods can be used
once, but must then be stored or reprocessed. Reprocessing leads to the
production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which can be used
for nuclear weapons.
The issue is so sensitive that even the US has had a policy against reprocessing dating back to the Carter administration.
Australia, the world's biggest exporter of unprocessed uranium, and
Canada, another big source, have expressed interest in GNEP. But the
partnership is seen by some developing nations as highly divisive.
The former diplomat Richard Broinowski, author of a history of
Australia's nuclear ambitions, said joining the partnership would be
seen as highly divisive in the region. "It's seen as a move by the
nuclear haves against the have-nots," he said. "It's seen as
perpetuating a double standard."
If Australia were to join GNEP it is likely to alarm some near neighbours, notably Indonesia.
Domestically, it is also likely to rekindle debate over whether
Australia should venture further down the nuclear path as a means of
countering greenhouse gas emissions, or to put its efforts into
renewable technologies. It will also raise the spectre of a nuclear
dump in Australia, since storage of nuclear waste by GNEP members is an
integral part of the arrangement.
The officials working on the US-Australia plan mention this concern,
saying that in any discussions it will be important to ensure there is
no perception on the part of the US that conclusion of an action plan
could have implications for the Government's policy of not taking other
countries' radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel.
Last week Mr Howard said it would be "folly in the extreme" for
Australia to remain aloof from nuclear power.He also announced $12.5
million for a research program between the Australian Nuclear Science
and Technology Organisation and universities.
------------------->
Canberra's interest no surprise
Daniel Flitton
July 20, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/canberras-interest-no-surprise/2007/07/19/1184559956521.html
THREE factors drive the nuclear debate in Australia: profit,
environment, and the risk of mass destruction. And these same three
considerations are evident in Australia's reported effort to sign up to
a US plan to control nuclear energy supplies.
The chance to make money off Australia's vast uranium reserves is the
key element in the Government-led push to invigorate the country's
nuclear industry. Prime Minister John Howard made this rationale clear
to a Melbourne audience this week, noting Australia has almost 40 per
cent of the world's low-cost uranium.
He also announced a $12.5 million fund for nuclear research. To stand
aloof from the potential of nuclear power, he argued, would be economic
"folly in the extreme".
So, by participating in Washington's effort to regulate the world's
nuclear material, Canberra could help enhance its place in the
international energy market.
But Mr Howard has also linked nuclear power to reducing the impact of
global warming. "Nuclear power has no direct carbon dioxide emissions
and is already a significant part of the world's energy system," he
said.
This broad attempt to recast the nuclear industry as clean and green is
a paradox in the current obsession with environment issues. But it
helps make a controversial technology more palatable to the public.
Yet Australian officials apparently knocked back a US proposal to
return spent nuclear fuel to its country of origin, a policy known as
nuclear fuel leasing.
During a visit to Washington last year, Mr Howard said he was attracted
to the idea of selling uranium to other countries — "not lease it, buy
it". The spectre of nuclear waste dumps in Australia makes many people
uneasy. An earthquake under a major Japanese nuclear reactor earlier
this week was a potent reminder of the dangers.
And nothing is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon. The Bush
Administration is pushing its nuclear energy plan in an effort to limit
the proliferation of nuclear technology. A US intelligence report
warned this week the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation will continue its
efforts to acquire radiological or nuclear material to use in attacks.
The US plan is designed to further secure existing and known nuclear
supplies. It will not prevent the secret attempts to develop nuclear
technology. But the new deal would allow nuclear material to be traced
and monitored — essential safeguards for the sale of nuclear technology
to countries such as India. No wonder Australia has taken an interest.
------------------->
Australia may join US-led nuclear plan
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Australia-may-join-USled-nuclear-plan/2007/07/20/1184559984397.html
July 20, 2007 - 5:54AM
Australia is considering whether to join an American-led group of
nations to control the distribution, reprocessing and storage of
nuclear fuel worldwide.
The ministers for foreign affairs and resources have urged Prime
Minister John Howard to announce the joint nuclear energy plan during
the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation visit in Sydney in September,
Fairfax reports.
"The proposed action plan would help to open the way for valuable
nuclear energy co-operation with the United States," the briefing note
says.
"It would also be consistent with the government's strategy for the nuclear industry in Australia.
"An action plan on nuclear energy would also have bilateral advantages
further broadening our relationship with the United States.
"While the US has not raised the possibility, the action plan may be a
possible 'announceable' for President Bush's visit in September."
However, the proposal appears to stop short of recommending Australia
sign up with the controversial Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
Mr Bush says the partnership, which involves the main nuclear-fuel
cycle countries, Russia, the US, France, China and Japan, is central to
the world tackling climate change.
Prime Minister John Howard has again endorsed Australia embracing nuclear power but ruled out taking other countries' waste.
The Wilderness Society (TWS) said a deal for Australia to join an
exclusive global nuclear club would ensure Australia became the dumping
ground for the world's nuclear waste.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said nothing had been signed in
regard to proposed partnership - the negotiations had been instigated
by the US, not by Australia.
But whatever happened, said Mr Howard, Australia would not take the nuclear waste of other countries.
"We've made that clear, we're not taking other people's waste," Mr Howard told ABC radio in Adelaide.
However, he said nuclear power remained a very clean source of energy and something that should be considered.
"In time it will become an attractive option," Mr Howard said.
"What I have said is we shouldn't close our minds to nuclear power.
"I keep hearing from people in the Labor Party and elsewhere that we want cleaner alternatives to this dirty commodity coal.
"Well, the cleanest alternative of all, which is capable of generating enough power to run our nation, is nuclear."
TWS spokesman Alec Marr said recent actions by the government to remove
legal barriers to an international nuclear waste dump had led the
country to the point of no return.
"On the final day of parliament last year the federal government rushed
through changes to legislation that allowed for the first time
radioactive waste to be imported from overseas," Mr Marr said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has also urged the government to
reject overtures from the US for Australia to get involved in uranium
enrichment, nuclear fuel leasing and international radioactive waste
storage.
"Enriching uranium produces the material that is used in nuclear weapons," ACF spokesman David Noonan said in a statement.
"Our neighbours in the region would be very concerned about Australia becoming a nuclear weapons fuel producer.
"By getting involved in this US initiative we risk starting a nuclear
arms race in the Asia-Pacific and fuelling existing regional
insecurities."
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says it makes sense to be involved in negotiations over a global nuclear energy partnership.
"The US Department of Energy came to us and suggested that we might be
interested in negotiating some sort of updated agreement to the 1982
agreement on nuclear cooperation, particularly in areas like research
and development and safeguards and the like," Mr Downer told ABC Radio.
"I think it makes good sense to get into negotiations. Where those
negotiations would lead and what sort of an agreement we would conclude
at the end I don't know.
"But I have no problems with it."
Mr Downer was non-committal on whether the talks would lead to Australia joining.
"I'm not sure about that. This isn't a negotiation about joining the
global nuclear energy partnership, but whether we would join it or not
would depend on where the Americans end up themselves in developing the
global nuclear energy partnership," he said.
"For example, they wish to limit the number of countries in the world
that can enrich uranium to a small list of countries that currently do
enrich uranium.
"Australia would, under the global nuclear energy partnership as it
currently stands, at least the draft of it currently stands, not be
able to enrich uranium.
"Whether we'd want to sign up to that or not, well, that would be a matter for discussions and consideration.
"We haven't got to that point."
Mr Downer said the government had not agreed to return spent fuel to its source.
"We have a policy of not accepting nuclear waste and we're certainly not in the game of changing that policy," he said.
"We've made that very clear to the Americans."
© 2007 AAP
------------------->
Nuke pact sparks dumping fears
July 20, 2007 - 9:29AM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuke-pact-sparks-dumping-fears/2007/07/20/1184559994391.html
A deal between Prime Minister John Howard and US President George W
Bush to join an exclusive global nuclear club would ensure Australia
became the dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste, The Wilderness
Society (TWS) said today.
The Age today quoted leaked draft plans by Mr Downer and Industry
Minister Ian Macfarlane to have Australia's involvement in President
George Bush's global nuclear energy partnership ready to be announced
at the APEC leaders' summit in Sydney in September.
Mr Downer this morning confirmed negotiations on such an arrangement were underway although nothing had been agreed.
TWS spokesman Alec Marr noted the report on the previously secret deal
followed the Liberal Party's federal council meeting in June at which
it unanimously supported an international waste dump being built in
Australia.
"The prime minister says he wants to develop a nuclear industry but he
hasn't been honest about Australia being lined up to become the world's
nuclear waste dump," Mr Marr said in a statement.
He said recent actions by the government to remove legal barriers to an
international nuclear waste dump had led the country to the point of no
return.
"The prime minister has misled the Australian public many times over
his true intentions for a nuclear industry in Australia and he cannot
be trusted now," Mr Marr said.
"On the final day of parliament last year the federal government rushed
through changes to legislation that allowed for the first time
radioactive waste to be imported from overseas."
"The prime minister is laying down to President Bush who is desperately
seeking somewhere to dump American nuclear waste because he has not
been able to build his own in the US."
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has urged the federal government to reject the deal.
"Enriching uranium produces the material that is used in nuclear weapons," ACF spokesman David Noonan said in a statement.
"Our neighbours in the region would be very concerned about Australia becoming a nuclear weapons fuel producer.
"By getting involved in this US initiative we risk starting a nuclear
arms race in the Asia-Pacific and fuelling existing regional
insecurities."
Mr Noonan said he did not think Australians would want their government
to follow the US into nuclear power and radioactive waste storage in
Australia.
AAP
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM ENRICHMENT FOR AUSTRALIA
------------------->
Australia goes back to the future over nuclear energy
By Rich Bowden Jun 20, 2007, 11:24 GMT
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/features/article_1320027.php/Australia_goes_back_to_the_future_over_nuclear_energy
The Howard government will consider a revived proposal to build an
Australian nuclear enrichment plant, twenty years after the Hawke Labor
government ended a similar program over fears of provoking a regional
arms race. A report recently aired on Australian television revealed
how the Australian government is revisiting the controversial dream of
a nuclear-powered future for the country.
Over two decades ago, Australian researchers at the nuclear research
facility at Sydney’s Lucas Heights had developed one of the world’s
most advanced nuclear enrichment programs, akin to a similar European
project at the same time regarded as a world leader in the field.
The results the team achieved was remarkable according to Dr Clarence
Hardy, senior manager and physicist on the team speaking to the
Australian ABC’s 7.30 Report.
“We exceeded expectations. We had far
more advanced machines in development in the [research and development]
labs which were comparable to any of those operated in the [European
project] Urenko field,” he said.
The controversial process of enriching uranium occurs when uranium is
turned into a gas which spins in tubes called centrifuges, separating
out the isotopes. The enriched uranium powers nuclear stations for
energy however highly enriched uranium is also used to build nuclear
weapons.
The Howard government, after supporting the ban on enriching uranium
since taking power in 1996, is now considering an alternative option of
nuclear enrichment to fuel the nation’s current fossil-fuel –driven
economy.
Nuclear Fuel Australia, of which Dr Hardy is a director, has submitted
a detailed proposal to the Australian government outlining its proposal
for an Australian nuclear enrichment plant at an undisclosed site. The
proposed plant will cost $2.5 billion AUD (1.57 billion EUR) and be
operational by 2015.
Though remaining coy on the details of the company’s proposal, Dr Hardy
suggested to the 7.30 Report the success or otherwise of the project
“depended on the outcome of the next election,” due later this year.
The Opposition Labor party, though supporting the expansion of uranium
exports, has rejected the establishment of a uranium enrichment plant
in the country.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane admitted talks had begun with
companies over building a nuclear enrichment facility but said they
were in their infancy and “literally years away from happening.”
Speaking to ABC radio following the revelation of Nuclear Fuel
Australia’s plan he said, “They're not advanced at all, I mean
companies are expressing their interests, I've had discussions with one
or two companies about their ideas on it.”
“But as I've said, I've made it very plain in those discussions that
there needs to be a public debate on the future of nuclear power in
Australia before we do anything further,” he said.
He added no decision would be made on the subject before the federal
election while calling for a “sensible fact-based debate” on the
question of nuclear energy in the country.
However, despite the minister’s remarks, the contentious issue of the
location of the proposed nuclear enrichment plant has raised
objections, particularly in the Labor-run states. Queensland’s premier
Peter Beattie slammed the proposed siting of the plant in Caboolture in
south-east Queensland as “crazy” and dangerous.
“It would simply destroy not just the amenity of the community but it
would raise issues about safety,” the premier said on local radio. “It
would be in my view an endangerment to that whole community.”
South Australian premier Mike Rann called on the federal government to
provide further information saying to reporters the S.A. government
needed to be involved in any discussions of a plant to be located in
his state.
Despite reassurances from Dr Hardy – who said the company’s proposal
contained no suggestions for a site – rumours have circulated in the
press that it was considering a location near the city of Port Pirie in
the state’s southwest.
With global warming set to play a key role in the outcome of the
Australian federal election, the Howard government has been keen to
promote the idea of the more atmosphere friendly nuclear energy as a
viable alternative to fossil fuel energy. However Mr Howard’s
whole-hearted support for nuclear energy will need to be skilfully
managed as successive polls have shown Australians to be consistently
opposed to uranium enrichment plants – especially those situated in
their own backyards.
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM EXPLORATION
------------------->
Uranium surges on ALP shift
Paul Maley
July 02, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21999893-5005200,00.html
LABOR'S junking of its no-new-mines policy has contributed to a
dramatic expansion of the uranium industry, with spending on
exploration set to double.
The Australian Uranium Association says a total of $76.6 million has
been spent on uranium exploration since June 2006, compared with $56.1
million for 2005-06.
AUA executive director Michael Angwin said that while high prices and
an increased global demand for energy were the main structural factors
driving growth, there was no doubt the ALP's policy reversal had also
contributed by ending Australia's "ambiguous" relationship with the
controversial fuel.
"We now have the major political parties both supporting the expansion
of uranium mining with the effect of the change in ALP policy having
disposed of the anti-uranium case," he said.
Mr Angwin said fears about climate change as well as the energy needs
of a rising global population and increased prosperity were driving
demand.
He said that by 2030, there would be a doubling in demand for electricity and a 50 per cent boost in uranium demand.
In 2003-04, $10.5 million was spent on exploration, compared with $20.7 million for 2004-05 and $56.1 million for 2005-06.
The spike was being driven by the high spot price for uranium, now more
than $130 per pound, which Mr Angwin said was 13-14 times greater than
it was five years ago.
The director of the Northern Territory Geological Survey, Ian
Scrimgeour, said there had been a boom in uranium prospecting in the
territory, home to one of Australia's three uranium mines, the Ranger
mine.
The other two, the Olympic Dam and Beverely mines, are in South Australia.
------------------->
Uranium price still glowing but share prices cooling a little
Barry Fitzgerald
July 2, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/uranium-price-still-glowing-but-share-prices-cooling-a-little/2007/07/01/1183228957830.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
THERE has been a distinct cooling down in the share-price performance
of the uranium explorers, due more to market saturation in the number
of listings than anything else.
The uranium price itself has been doing the right thing, rising by 45
per cent in the past three months to $US138 a pound (spot).
And according to John Wilson from Sydney-based Resource Capital
Research, there is good reason to think that the price could run off to
$US165 a pound by September next year.
But Wilson's latest uranium-company review also found that, while the
market value of a selection of 143 Australian uranium juniors was up by
5 per cent in the past month, the gain over the past year was 175 per
cent.
So there has been no meltdown, just a cooling down in equity values.
To those pundits who reckon the uranium price will continue to march
higher, the cooldown has been welcomed as it might just represent a
return of value to the sector.
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM SALES TO INDIA
------------------->
U-industry wants India details
George Lekakis
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22141173-664,00.html
July 27, 2007
THE uranium industry's peak body will seek talks with the Federal
Government over Cabinet's push to remove the ban on uranium exports to
India.
Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane yesterday confirmed the
Government may open the way for uranium exports to India, even if the
Indian Government does not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Such a deal would break new ground for Australia, which exports uranium
to 11 countries - all of which are signatories to the non-proliferation
pact.
Michael Angwin, executive director of the Australian Uranium
Association, said his organisation would not support the sale of
locally-mined uranium to countries if it involved a weakening of the
world's non-proliferation regime.
"On issues as significant as this then we would expect the Government to consult with the industry," Mr Angwin said.
"I think this has come on a lot faster than people generally anticipated.
"We wouldn't support any arrangements that Australia agreed to which
undermined the world's or Australia's anti-proliferation regime."
While the export of uranium to India could help to accelerate the roll
out of new mines in South Australia and the Northern Territory, it is
also a tricky issue for the AUA - which is finalising a code of
practice for the industry.
A key feature of the new code will be the requirement for Australian
mining companies to help ensure that uranium is used only for peaceful
purposes.
India has consistently refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty
despite pressure for more than 30 years from the United Nations and
leading superpowers. If India signed the treaty it would be forced to
disarm its nuclear weapons.
In the 1990s, India and Pakistan were engaged in a regional arms race
that led to the test-detonation by both countries of several nuclear
devices. However, India has never been linked to the spread of nuclear
weapons technology to other nations.
"India has an impeccable record in terms of nuclear non-proliferation
and there will be a straight and very strict requirement in terms of
the safeguard agreement between Australia and that country," Mr
Macfarlane said.
"It's simply not realistic to say that India cannot buy uranium from Australia."
Mr Macfarlane was asked whether the Government was prepared to export
uranium to countries such as India that were not signatories to the
non-proliferation treaty.
Mr Macfarlane said India had given assurances that Australian uranium would only be used for electricity generation.
Also, Australian uranium used in nuclear power plants would be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"If a country is going to continue its economic development as India
is, its energy requirements are going to be substantial and, rather
than just rely on treaties, I think their actions are the things you
would need to take into consideration," Mr Macfarlane said.
"To
suggest that Australian uranium will be used for anything but peaceful
purposes is just a scare campaign."
Federal Cabinet would make a decision on uranium sales to India after
the US and India completed a bilateral agreement on nuclear
co-operation.
The push to sell uranium to India came as Mr Macfarlane also said he
was reviewing possible legal options for overriding the bans on new
uranium mines in Queensland and Western Australia.
The threat to circumvent the Beattie and Carpenter Governments followed
comments by Professor Greg Craven, of Curtin University, that the
Federal Government had constitutional powers to overturn the bans.
------------------->
Premiers to dig in on uranium
Nigel Wilson and Bruce Loudon in New Delhi | July 27, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22142033-601,00.html#
...
Confirming yesterday's revelation by The Australian that he would seek
cabinet approval for Australia to sell uranium to India, Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer said inspectors would ensure its use was
confined to power generation.
India is not a signatory to the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, which has previously ruled it out of contention to buy
Australian uranium. Mr Downer said bilateral negotiations could begin
if India agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and
inspections.
But Pakistan's Minister for Religious Affairs, Muhammad Ijaz ul-Haq,
last night warned of a possible diplomatic backlash should Australia
decide to sell uranium to India.
"As a Pakistani, I can tell you the entire nation is going to be very upset," Mr Ijaz ul-Haq told the ABC's Lateline program.
He said because Pakistan and India both had active nuclear weapon and
nuclear power programs, and neither was a signatory to the NPT,
Australia should now consider supplying uranium to Pakistan.
"They have to keep the balance of power," he said. "Pakistan's nuclear
program is totally peaceful. If we are are going to go further into
nuclear, it is going to be for energy because we are suffering from
power shortages and ... strikes all over the country. So I would expect
Australia to consider assisting Pakistan alongside India and also put
your foot into resolving the Kashmir problem."
The nuclear stakes in South Asia rose sharply last night as Pakistan
announced it had successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile just
as Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was seeking political support
for his civilian nuclear deal with Washington.
Despite its timing, most analysts believe there is no direct link
between the announcement by Islamabad that it had successfully
test-fired a Babur Hatf VII.
But the test underlined the sensitivity of Mr Downer's move to push ahead with uranium sales to neighbouring India.
Mr Downer said there's was "no reason to believe ... that India would
behave irresponsibly" if Australia exported uranium to the country.
But Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland attacked the
move as premature, saying Labor felt Australian uranium sales should be
limited to countries signed up to the NPT.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann, an advocate of expanded uranium
mining, but not of its enrichment or use in nuclear power generation in
Australia, said exports should be confined to parties to the NPT.
------------------->
Libs, Labor at odds on India
Jewel Topsfield and Daniel Flitton
July 27, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/libs-labor-at-odds-on-india/2007/07/26/1185339168485.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
A LABOR government would not pursue any deal to sell uranium to India
unless Delhi signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This puts it at loggerheads with the Government, which yesterday
flagged that it could break its longstanding policy and proceed with a
yellowcake deal with India despite Delhi not being a signatory to the
treaty because it has a nuclear weapons program.
It also comes as federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says the
Government will seek further legal advice on whether it has the
constitutional powers to override the states' bans on uranium mines in
Western Australia and Queensland.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia would consider
supplying uranium to India even if if didn't sign the treaty, provided
it agreed to inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Just two months ago, Mr Macfarlane vowed Australia would not sell
uranium to India unless it signed the international treaty. "The answer
is no," he told The Age in May. "The Australian uranium industry can
prosper without India."
Shadow foreign affairs minister Robert McClelland said that the Federal
Government's "unrestrained promotion of nuclear power was a cause for
great concern" especially because of its "poor record in nuclear
non-proliferation".
"Instead of … seeking approval for the export of Australian uranium to
India, the Foreign Minister should … join Labor in campaigning for
wide-ranging reform of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to encourage India
to join."
The Non-Proliferation Treaty allows the development of nuclear-energy industry, provided countries do not build nuclear weapons.
India — which tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 — Pakistan, North
Korea and Israel are the only four countries that have not signed the
treaty.
Mr Downer said that while he would prefer the countries signed the treaty, "you have to face up to the facts".
He said India had no record of exporting nuclear weapons technology to
other countries and the export of uranium would help curb greenhouse
emissions on the subcontinent.
"India is the second biggest country in the world in population terms,"
Mr Downer said. "Its economy is growing at nearly 9 per cent a year.
It's going to be a massive consumer of energy and we want to deal with
the issue of climate change."
Mr Downer said any uranium exported to India could be used only in
civil nuclear facilities and Australia would never sell yellowcake for
nuclear weapons or nuclear-powered military vessels.
"But we haven't made any final decision about this," Mr Downer said.
"We certainly will have to wait and see what the conclusion is of
negotiations between India and America."
The Government's deliberations follow a deal between the US and India
that aims to give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment for the
first time in 30 years, to help meet its soaring energy needs.
Rory Medcalf, a former Australian diplomat who served in Delhi, said a
uranium deal could mark a new phase in Australia's relations with India.
Meanwhile, the Commonwealth is seeking legal advice after Curtin
University's Professor Greg Craven said yesterday it could use its
constitutional powers to override Queensland and Western Australia's
bans on uranium mines.
Mr Macfarlane said he was given legal advice 18 months ago that the
Commonwealth could not override the states, but that would now be
reviewed.
"We need to ensure that these ideologically based oppositions to
uranium mining do not have a net economic effect on Australia, so the
Commonwealth is interested to see the basis of Professor Craven's
opinion," he said.
But West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter indicated the state could challenge the "outrageous move" in the High Court.
"It is completely and utterly unacceptable to me that the Federal
Government would try to impose uranium mining in WA when the people of
WA have quite clearly and consistently said they don't want it," he
said.
With AAP
------------------->
MEDIA RELEASE 26/07/07
URANIUM SALES TO INDIA MUST BE REJECTED
In response to reports that foreign minister Alexander Downer is to
propose to Cabinet that uranium sales be permitted to India, Friends of
the Earth, Australia (FoE) has today called on the government to reject
uranium sales to this rogue nuclear weapons state.
FoE national nuclear campaigner Dr. Jim Green said: "Proposed uranium
exports to India must be rejected because India is a nuclear weapons
state and is one of just three nations which has not ratified the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Uranium sales would undoubtedly
weaken the international non-proliferation regime and would increase
the risk of other countries pulling out of the NPT and developing
arsenals of nuclear WMD — and doing so with the expectation that
uranium could still be procured."
Retired diplomat Professor Richard Broinowski noted last year: "The
sale of Australian uranium to India would not just weaken our
non-proliferation credentials — it would also signal to some of our
major uranium customers, such as Japan and South Korea, that we do not
take too seriously their own adherence to the NPT. They may as a result
walk away from the Treaty and develop nuclear weapons — against North
Korea, China, or perhaps Russia — without necessarily fearing a cut-off
of Australian supplies."
Green said: "India and Pakistan both tested a series of nuclear weapons
in 1998. It is unwise and irresponsible to be supplying WMD feedstock
in the form of uranium to the subcontinent given the history of
regional tension and the active nuclear weapons programs in India and
Pakistan. If Australia sells uranium to India, there will be pressure
to sell uranium to other nations which refuse to sign and ratify the
NPT, such as Pakistan and Israel."
"India has limited domestic reserves of uranium so in addition to the
risk of direct use of Australian uranium in Indian nuclear weapons,
there is the risk that Australian uranium sales would free up India's
limited domestic reserves for the production of nuclear weapons."
FoE also challenged The Australian newspaper to get its facts straight.
Green said: "The Australian's foreign editor Greg Sheridan has today
claimed that the US-India deal is 'good for non-proliferation' though
it clearly undermines the NPT and will do nothing to curtail India's
weapons program. He claims that the US-India deal puts India's nuclear
power industry under IAEA supervision but in fact limited IAEA
safeguards already apply and the deal will only marginally increase
their scope. Sheridan claims that the global warming considerations of
uranium exports to India are 'substantial' but in fact they would be
negligible, zero, or negative. And Sheridan's claim that the potential
economic returns to Australia could be 'very significant' is ridiculous
- even if India does expand its nuclear power sector, the economic
returns to Australia would be minimal."
Sheridan's opinion piece at:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22134207-7583,00.html
------------------->
India to buy our uranium
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
July 26, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22135830-601,00.html#
FOREIGN Minister Alexander Downer will ask cabinet to approve the
export of Australian uranium to India in a submission to be considered
by the Government within weeks.
Sources have told The Australian that cabinet's National Security
Committee will shortly consider a submission from Mr Downer that would
allow Australia to sell uranium to India despite the nation not being a
signatory to the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The move, which has been strongly backed by John Howard, will almost
certainly be opposed by federal Labor and create a wedge between John
Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd ahead of the federal election.
Labor has traditionally argued that selling uranium to India would
undermine the NPT. The Government believes the politics of this
position will become increasingly difficult for Mr Rudd, who will be
seen as standing against India, the US and the Australian uranium
industry, which would profit from the burgeoning Indian market.
The Prime Minister is reported to have told colleagues that the public
cannot understand why Australia exports uranium to China but refuses to
export it to India.
India has an impeccable record of never having proliferated nuclear
technology to anybody else, but China has been accused of complicity in
the exporting of nuclear technology.
India desperately needs assured supplies of uranium to provide fuel for
nuclear reactors that will generate energy to drive its economic boom.
The 14 nuclear power plants used for peaceful purposes in India
contribute only 4per cent a year to the country's electricity needs.
But there are plans for a massive increase in atomic power generation
aimed at reducing India's reliance on polluting fossil fuels and
generating electricity to drive factories.
The Australian understands Mr Downer's submission has been finalised
but has been awaiting the outcome of long-running negotiations on a
nuclear co-operation deal between the US and India, which were
concluded yesterday.
Under the US-India deal, India's nuclear power stations, which are
designated as part of the peaceful energy program, will come under the
supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
US officials regard this as a great step forward in the cause of
countering potential nuclear proliferation. The US-India nuclear
negotiations, first mooted by US President George W. Bush and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in March last year, yesterday received
approval from India's cabinet.
The agreement would pave the way for civilian nuclear co-operation with
the US and give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment for the
first time in 30 years.
The pact now has to be approved by US Congress, while India needs to
get clearances from the Nuclear Suppliers Group of nations that govern
global civilian nuclear trade and also conclude an agreement to place
its civilian reactors under UN safeguards.
But Canberra will not need to wait for full ratification by the US Senate and Indian parliament to proceed.
Australia plans to negotiate a nuclear safeguards agreement with India, governing the uses for Australian uranium.
The agreement will be similar to the deals it has struck with other nations to which it exports uranium.
Under the planned agreement, India would separate its peaceful nuclear
energy program from its nuclear weapons program and Australian uranium
would go only to its peaceful nuclear energy power plants. Exporting
uranium to India would be a substantial change of policy for Canberra,
which has until now refused to sell uranium to nations that are not in
the NPT. India has never joined the NPT.
But the sale of uranium to a non-signatory would not be completely unprecedented.
The Fraser government in 1981 negotiated a nuclear safeguards agreement
with France to sell it uranium, but Paris did not join the NPT until
1992.
Australia exported uranium to France through the 1980s.
In March last year, just before Mr Howard visited India, Mr Singh, in
an exclusive interview with The Australian, signalled he would seek
Australian support for the US-India deal.
In a separate development the Howard Government has failed to have
India admitted to APEC at this year's meeting in Sydney. Canberra
argued strongly for India's inclusion, but Washington opposed it.
The US believed that if India joined it would be necessary to allow one
other Southeast Asian nation and one other Latin American nationto join
as well to maintain the regional balance.
------------------->
No uranium for Pakistan, says Downer
July 28, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/no-uranium-for-pakistan-says-downer/2007/07/27/1185339258043.html
THERE is no prospect in the near future that Australia will export uranium to Pakistan, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says.
The Federal Government confirmed on Thursday that it was considering selling uranium to Pakistan's nuclear rival, India.
That prompted Pakistan's Minister for Religious Affairs, Ejaz ul-Haq,
to call on Australia to also consider selling uranium to Islamabad.
Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
Mr Downer said yesterday that Pakistan had shown no interest in
negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Agency to establish a
system of safeguards and inspections for its two non-military nuclear
power stations.
"I don't think that bears any prospect in the foreseeable future of
exporting to Pakistan, unless Pakistan gets into some sort of a system
of UN inspections and controls over its two nuclear facilities and it
comes to Australia and signs a nuclear safeguards agreement," Mr Downer
told reporters in Perth.
"It doesn't seem likely that's about to happen."
------------------->Return
to top
URANIUM MINING - FED GOVT THREATENS WA AND QUEENSLAND
------------------->
Premiers to dig in on uranium
Nigel Wilson and Bruce Loudon in New Delhi | July 27, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22142033-601,00.html#
THE federal Government will investigate seizing control of uranium
reserves from anti-mining states, triggering another constitutional
showdown with the Labor premiers.
Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said yesterday he would seek
fresh legal advice on the commonwealth's capacity to override state
bans on uranium mining in Western Australia and Queensland.
Although the federal Government has been advised on two separate
occasions that such a move would be unconstitutional, leading
constitutional commentator Greg Craven said yesterday that the
commonwealth's use of its corporations powers to reform industrial
relations had changed the situation.
"Based on Professor Craven's advice we received this morning, I'm
prepared to go back and re-examine the advice we received," the
minister said. "We need to ensure that these ideologically based
oppositions to uranium mining do not have a net economic effect on
Australia, so the commonwealth is interested to see the basis of
Professor Craven's opinion."
Branding the move "outrageo