Australia’s uranium companies put on a bold face, but their prospects are not good
The uranium price tanked after the Fukushima disaster and so far there is no sign of a bounce. Current prices are too low to allow the smaller uranium wannabes to proceed with any confidence.
Uranium flashpoint in the wild West, The Drum, Jim Green, 22 May 12, Interesting times in the uranium sector. The mining companies have had a few wins in the 14 months since the Fukushima disaster, but they’ve had more losses.
Bill Repard, organiser of the Paydirt Uranium Conference held in Adelaide in February, put on a brave face with this claim: The sector’s hiccups in the wake of Fukushima are now over with, the global development of new nuclear power stations continues unabated, and the Australian sector has literally commenced a U-turn in every sense.
Yet for all the hype, uranium accounts for a lousy 0.03 per cent of Australian export revenue and a negligible 0.02 per cent of Australian jobs. The industry’s future depends on the nuclear power ‘renaissance’, but global nuclear power capacity has been stagnant for the past 20 years, and if there is any growth at all in the next 20 years, it will be modest. Read more »
Australia’s pro nuclear advocates getting nervous about the industry
Anxiety, fear – these are the emotions that bring about anger, hatred, and extreme statements.
Today’s AUSTRALIAN gives a fine example of this, in a pro nuclear article by Brendan O’Neill. It appears against a backdrop of news that must be very worrying for the nuclear/uranium industries. (BHP possibly going to scrap Olympic Dam uranium expansion, or certainly delay it, at least – Japan looking as if it mightget through the summer without nuclear power (shock horror) – thorium reactor debate suggesting that uranium sales would plummet, renewable eenergy getting cheaper. it’s all a worry for nuclear power proponents.)
So – Brendan O’Neill comes out with “The risks of dumping nuclear are too great”. He tells us that: “green campaigners scream” “anti-nuclear hysteria poses a far greater threat to life and limb than does nuclear power itself” “eco-activists canrole-play being brave warriors”
He is very enthusiastic about the extremism of the anti nuclear side.
But – very low key about nuclear disasters – “ Progress, especially of the nuclear variety, can sometimes have less
than desirable consequences. But as we saw in Fukushima, and also in Chernobyl before it, it is entirely possible to contain those consequences and to limit the downsides” – Less than desirable consequences !- what a lovely way to dismiss the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima
On the effect of Fukushima on Europe – O’Neill says ” it has unleashed a metaphorical tsunami of anti-nuclear panic” - quoting German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the example of such panic. (Last I heard Germany was doing very well in the current global economic problem, and a global leader in renewable energy)
He bemoans the “real lethal danger” of the “hysterical turn” against nuclear energy.
I thought that it was the anti nuclear activists who were supposed to use emotional, panicky language. It looks as if Brendan O’Neill, bereft of facts, is in a bit of a panic himself. - Christina Macpherson
Coal on the decline for new electricity generation,- renewables on the rise
Australia is not leading the charge on the adoption of clean energy, but it is certainly part of a global movement that will be seen in history as one of the great shifts in economic change.
Bloomberg found the data is clear here as well: in 2011 coal attracted just 17 per cent of value of completed electricity generation projects, gas attracted 36 per cent, and renewables 41 per cent (of this 41 per cent was wind and solar was 6 per cent).
King coal dethroned, CLIMATE SPECTATOR, Peter Newman & Ray Wills, 15 May 2012 “King coal still reigns” was the headline emblazoned across a full page article in The Weekend Australian on the 28-29 April 2012, by environment editor Graham Lloyd. The article’s subtitle was, “The world is in the grip of a fossil fuel boom that shows no sign of fading.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. The latest data on global investment in new power production shows the dramatic decline in fossil fuel investment, and an astonishing increase in renewables investment. Read more »
Mass media and State govt policies damaging Australia’s wind farm industry
Economics taking the wind out of farm’s sails, Canberra Times, Graham Downie.May 7, 2012 “……. Infigen Energy, the largest wind farm owner in Australia, owns Capital Wind Farm, between Bungendore and Tarago, east of Canberra, which has 67 turbines.
The company has approval to almost double this. Only the present economics prevent the extension going ahead.
Mr Upson said about 20 new wind farms had been approved in Victoria and about six in NSW. These projects had been delayed by the ”small-scale screw up”. That had now been fixed by separating the small-scale and large-scale schemes but the glut of certificates remained.
Mr Upson said some elements of the media spread a lot of misinformation about wind energy. Certainly, turbines killed a small number of birds, but this was infinitesimal compared to the number of birds killed by power lines, motor vehicles, cats and pesticides.
He also dismissed concerns that wind farms caused illness. ”There is no independent, regulatory, scientific or medical body in the world that thinks wind turbines make people sick.”
With wind energy worldwide doubling every three years, there would be an epidemic of biblical proportions if wind turbines made people sick. ”There are wind turbines everywhere in Europe and no one is getting sick.”
Mr Upson said the wind industry worldwide had grown by more than 25 per cent each year for the past 15 years. ”I challenge you to think of another industry that has had this sustained and long-term growth.”
Wind produced less than 2 per cent of the total electricity demand in NSW and the ACT, but in South Australia, with a greater wind resource and less demand for electricity, wind produced about 25 per cent of that state’s total demand. At times, it reached about 70 per cent.
Though generation from wind turbines was variable, the Australian Energy Market Operator could now forecast wind energy throughout the grid with 98 per cent accuracy an hour ahead. This meant other generators were turned on or off as required.
Wind farms were expensive to build but were very cheap to run. So they could under bid coal and gas generators given suitable wind.
Infigen had plans to develop solar generation and would be pleased to be selected in the Solar Flagships program, he said. ”In which case we would build three large-scale solar facilities.” One would be at the Capital Wind Farm, one at Nyngan and one at Manildra. At present, generating electricity from even large-scale solar plants was about twice as expensive as from wind.
”May be by the middle of the decade it might be more competitive … to build a large-scale solar facility we need some sort of grant or subsidy.” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/economics-taking-the-wind-out-of-farms-sails-SMH 20120506-1y7bt.html#ixzz1uDQDJkG
Quack science, anti science, about ionising radiation from Toro Energy’s Dr Doug Boreham
Doctors take Toro Energy to school on the dangers of radiation , May 1st, 2012 The Australian Greens welcomed today’s call from the Medical Association for Prevention of War for uranium miners Toro Energy to stop promoting the view that low-level radiation is beneficial to human health.
The Greens nuclear policy spokesperson, WA Senator Scott Ludlam, said Toro’s plans to mine uranium at Wiluna, Western Australia, should be abandoned.
“Toro Energy has sponsored a number of speaking tours by Dr Doug Boreham, who promoted radiation as ‘anti-carcinogenic’ at the Paydirt uranium conference in Adelaide. Read more »
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation helping Japan to study radiation
It’s interesting that ANSTO will be studying ‘naturally occurring radiation” and will be “supporting Japan in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster “. They don’t seem to be showing much interest in monitoring nuclear-power-caused radiation, and I can’t help wondering about that support for Japan. Could it be support for the Japanese government and nuclear industry minimising the real impact of the Fukushima disaster? After all, ANSTO’s main business is in keeping the door open for nuclear power in Australia.
Centre gauges radiation St George and Sutherland Shire Leader BY KATE CARR 27 Apr, 2012 AFTER months of searching for the perfect concrete and pre-World War II steel, ANSTO’s new $8.7 million radioactivity measurement centre officially opened on Tuesday. Federal Science and Research Minister Chris Evans helped ANSTO chief executive Adi Paterson cut the red ribbon and opened the centre, where scientists can accurately measure naturally occurring radiation…..
Dr Paterson said the centre would give ANSTO the tools to monitor the amount of radiation in the environment and undertake research which could support Japan in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster that followed an earthquake and tsunami.
The new centre needed to be built using specialised materials so that it had such low background radiation that equipment could detect tiny amounts of radiation which might otherwise be drowned out. The centre also includes the only ITRAX core scanner in Australia, a piece of equipment used to measure the composition of sediment core samples taken by drilling. http://www.theleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/centre-gauges-radiation/2535888.aspx
Australia’s nuclear industry exempted from laws on Aboriginal rights: is Warren Mundine unaware of this?
Aboriginal nuclear power promoter, Warren Mundine, was on the job today, with an article in the Financial Review. Mundine praised nuclear energy, and assured readers that the industry is going ahead. He made out that it is necessary for nuclear medicine. Most alarming of all, Mundine advocates the “full nuclear cycle”. That means Australia not only having nuclear power, but taking in nuclear waste from overseas countries.
We should not be all that surprised at Mundine’s pro nuke spruik. He has for a long time, been part of Australia’s nuclear lobby – its nuclear ‘spin machine’. - Christina Macpherson
FINANCIAL REVIEW JIM GREEN. 30 MARCH 12, As a co-convener of the Australian Uranium Association’s Indigenous Dialogue Group, it’s a shame that Warren Mundine turns a blind eye to the crude racism of Australia’s nuclear industry
He ought to have noted that last year’s amendments to the South Australian Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982 retain exemptions from the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act. Traditional owners were not even consulted. The SA government’s spokesperson in Parliament said: “BHP were satisfied with the current arrangements and insisted on the continuation of these arrangements, and the government did not consult further than that.”
Mundine says that Australia has “a legal framework to negotiate equitably with the traditional owners on whose land many uranium deposits are found”. He ought to have noted that legislation was passed specifically to exempt the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory from the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
And Mundine ought to have noted that Resources Minister Martin Ferguson’s National Radioactive Waste Management Act overrides the Aboriginal Heritage Act, sidesteps the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and allows for the imposition of a dump on Aboriginal land even in the absence of any consultation with or consent from traditional owners. http://afr.com/p/opinion/our_radioactive_racism_UTpKFLGc40Yd3aBCYAJByM
Curiouser and curiouser – Greenpeace accused of being a tool of America’s CIA!
VIDEO Palmer says green groups funded by CIA ABC Radio PM By Matt Wordsworth and staff March 20, 2012 Mining magnate Clive Palmer has accused the United States government of funding environmental group Greenpeace via the CIA to undermine Australia’s coal mining sector. Read more »
Australia: government and industry complicit in Fukushima nuclear catastrophe
Australia could have played a role in breaking the vicious cycle of mismanagement in Japan’s nuclear industry by making uranium exports conditional on improved management of nuclear plants and tighter regulation.
[The Australian uranium industry] has brought shame to all Australians by turning a blind eye to serious problems in customer countries and responding with mock indignation when anyone calls its bluff….
Australia’s role in the Fukushima disaster, March 17, 2012, Green Left, By Jim Green“…..Australia’s role There is no dispute that Australian uranium was used in the Fukushima reactors. The mining companies won’t acknowledge that fact — instead they hide behind bogus claims of “commercial confidentiality” and “security”.
But the truth is out. The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office acknowledged in October that: “We can confirm that Australian obligated nuclear material was at the Fukushima Daiichi site and in each of the reactors — maybe five out of six, or it could have been all of them.” It is likely that TEPCO was supplied with uranium from BHP Billiton’s
Olympic Dam mine, ERA’s Ranger mine, and Heathgate’s Beverley mine. Read more »
Northern Territory nuclear waste dump not needed for medical wastes, says Public Health Association
Misleading arguments influence nuclear waste dump debate, Public Health Association of Australia, 15 March 12, Linking access to cancer treatment with the need for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory is shameful and misleading, reflecting the pro-nuclear ideologies of Ministers rather than facts, said Clive Rosewarne, spokesperson for the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA).
“Waste from nuclear medicine procedures, the majority of which is for diagnostic services rather than treatment, is low level and short term waste can be stored on site and safely disposed of locally. The small amount of higher level waste from nuclear medicine can also be stored locally, as it is currently,” explained Mr Rosewarne.
“Comments by senior Commonwealth Ministers upon the passing of the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill claiming that a dump is needed in order to have a nuclear medicine industry are a gross manipulation of public sentiment and an attempt to create fear in the community over access to health services. It is shameful that senior Ministers are misrepresenting the facts to foster their ideological support of the nuclear industry.
“The increased shipment of radioactive wastes across thousands of kilometres of Australia represents a far greater risk to public health than current storage practices and all of this could be further reduced if the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was decommissioned and stopped from producing more waste. The only waste stream that requires a dedicated facility is soil waste from former CSIRO work and the ongoing waste generated at the nuclear reactor Lucas Heights.
“There is no long term solution to the highly dangerous radioactive waste produced by the nuclear industry and yet proponents of the industry hide from this fact. Transporting waste thousands of kilometres to a remote site certainly fits the Not In My Backyard syndrome, and attempts to locate the waste out of sight and out of mind.
“The anguish and suffering the passing of this Bill has caused to NT locals represents a low point in this nation’s dealing with Aboriginal people and may have long term health impacts. This does not seem to be of concern for Ministers who have refused to meet with traditional owners opposing the nomination of the Muckaty Station site. It would seem their health is of lower consideration than city folk in this appalling process,” said Mr Rosewarne.
Exposing the wrong case for nuclear power put by Professor Barry Brook
As the Fukushima nuclear disaster unfolded in March 2011, Brook maintained a running commentary in the media and on his website insisting that the situation was under control and that there was no reason for concern.
[Brook] is silent on the problem of long-term cancer deaths from exposure to radioactive fallout
Nuclear Power Isn’t A Green Bullet, New Matilda, 12 Mar 2012 By Jim Green ”…… When a scientist with the best of intentions and a prodigious intellect argues that the risks of nuclear power have been overstated and that nuclear power is an essential tool in the battle against climate change, his arguments need careful consideration. The Brook/BNC mantra is this: “it’s nuclear power or it’s climate change”.
[clean energy:] However numerous studies exist that map out the options to sharply reduce emissions without recourse to nuclear power. One of the most practical Australian studies was produced by a group of scientists for theClean Energy Future Group (CEFG)…. University of NSW academic Mark Diesendorf, who contributed to theCEFG study, has proposed a more ambitious scenario that replaces all coal and gas with renewables.
[nuclear weapons:] Barry Brook has shown himself willing to trivialise the repeatedly demonstrated connection between nuclear power and weapons. … Brook claims to be concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation but the evidence suggests otherwise. …
Brook claims that the integral fast reactors (IFRs) he champions “cannot be used to generate weapons-grade material.” The claim isn’t true. To quote George Stanford, who worked on an IFR research program in the US: “If not properly safeguarded, they could do [with IFRs] what they could do with any other reactor — operate it on a special cycle to produce good quality weapons material.”
The misconceptions pile up. Read more »
Mark Diesendorf refutes the pro nuclear Grattan Institute, on renewable energy
Grattan overlooks the research showing that current prices of fossil fuels are too low because they don’t take into account the environmental, health and economic damage produced….. current market prices of energy technologies are less important than future projections, taking into account externalities and relative risks. What would be the costs of insuring a nuclear power station properly against a rare but catastrophic accident such as experienced at Chernobyl or Fukushima? The Japan Center for Economic Research estimates the partial costs of the Fukushima disaster at $US71-250 billion, yet TEPCO was insured for only $US1.5 billion.
Grattan omits to cite, let alone discuss, the two studies that suggest that 100 per cent renewable electricity may be technologically feasible for Australia.
In 2010 the ‘Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan’ found that 100 per cent renewable energy is technically possible for Australia.
A peak at Australia’s energy future , Climate Spectator, Mark Diesendorf, 7 March, 12, A recent contribution to the debate over electricity futures for Australia comes from the Grattan Institute report “No quick fix for Australia’s future energy challenge’ Read more »
Carbon price is ‘business friendly’ – far from being a communist plot
Global warming, a communist plot? Business Spectator: Tristan Edis , 6 Mar 2012 “….. within Australia, climate change science has become tarred as a cause of the left rather than an objective physical phenomenon. Attempts to use a price signal or a market in carbon permits to control the problem, one of the least communist ways of controlling emissions, are represented as the end of the world as we know it. We are told to expect mass job losses, a deep economic recession, the lights going out and even the loss of our democratic freedoms.
Some of this hysteria is clearly the product of public relations exercises by cold, calculating firms looking after their own self
interest, ….
For many of them climate change is seen through the lens of a broader battle against the left’s attempts to curtail achievement of their vision. This is perhaps best personified by someone like Hugh Morgan, former head of Western Mining and president of the Business Council of Australia. Morgan has been a major driver of Australia’s resources industry and has led fights on industrial relations, Aboriginal land rights, and other constraints on development of minerals resources.
When climate change emerged as a major problem in the 90s, Morgan was quick to act with the establishment of the Lavoissier Institute.
This association of climate change with broader causes of the left has been incredibly unfortunate. It means we now have a significant and incredibly influential segment of the business community that is almost irrational in its approach to government policies to control greenhouse gas emissions. Using a price signal or carbon permit market to control greenhouse gas emissions would be the most business friendly way of controlling our greenhouse gas emissions. It should not be seen as some kind of communist plot. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/climate-change-communist-plot-Nick-Minchin-politic-pd20120305-S492K?opendocument&src=rss
Dick Smith shows up a likely nuclear power scam
“I predict that Mr Rossi will delay and delay in producing machines or in getting a proper scientific test done, while behind the scenes more and more people will be investing. “
Dick Smith: “Rossi E-CAT … too fantastic to be true” Forbes, Mark Gibbs, 24 Feb 12, Recently Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith offerred Andrea Rossi $1,000,000 if he could prove that Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) cold fusion (or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) system actually works as claimed. Rossi immediately turned down the challenge. Read more »
Australia’s phony grassroots group or ‘astroturfers’
The list includes several Australian organisations:
the Institute of Public Affairs (the driving force behind Australia’s skeptic movement – surprise, surprise) and
Australian Climate Science Coalition established by the
Australian Environment Foundation, itself a front group for the
Handles like “Citizen”, “Coalition”, “National” and eco-friendly sounding names like “Earthwatch” or“Environment” abound.
In Australia, the word “Foundation” or “Landscape” is popular with climate skeptics and their paymasters (dominated by the mining lobby), to convey authority or a veneer of enviro-cred. Examples include:
- Australian Environment Foundation Note: the look-alike name and logo resulted in the Australian Conservation Foundation suing for trademark infringement.
- Landscape Guardians (also called Coastal, Spa Country and other forms of Guardians, modeled on the UK’s nuclear-funded Country Guardians)
How to spot an astroturfer or an online fake Independent Australia 15 Feb 12, How do you spot an astroturfer, or an online fake? Australia’s finest investigative journalist, environment editor Sandi Keane, provides perhaps the most comprehensive ever guide. A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO TRICKERY & FAKERY IN THE DIGITAL AGE. DECEPTION IS OUR PRODUCT – Part 2 Phony grassroots group or astroturfer
The following are a list of questions this writer employs when on the trail of an astroturfer. They are by no means finite, but proved successful in exposing the Landscape Guardians and the Waubra Foundation in July last year. The third part of this trilogy on “deception” will be the actual Case Studies. Read more »
This month
For international news, go to nuclear-news ion for Western Australia’s energy future
http://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=5755 Mary Olson on how women are more vulnerable to atomic radiation
- Muckaty Gathering 25 May 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1J9q-OeEO4 - NuclearKop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpMhhzkeYjk
Anti nuclear action below: - more info at Action Australia « Antinuclear and at Event details « Antinuclear
- http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/put-the-brakes-on-toxic-trucks-no-nuclear-waste-at-muckaty
- Online Petition - against the proposed national radioactive waste dump at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/no-nuclear-waste-dump-at-muckaty.htmlUranium Free WA Sign the online charter saying no to uranium mining in Western Australia http://ccwa.org.au/takeaction/uraniumnotforsaleSIGN THE PETITION TO STOP LYNAS RARE EARTH EXPORTS TO MALAYSIA http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-rare-earth-exports/
EVENTS
- May 29 – Melbourne - Amnesty International panel on weapons and war .
- May 29 – 30 Melbourne - Wind Farms conference
- May 30 Darwin - expert Panel on Nuclear Waste Dump plan for Muckaty
- June 2 - Nuclear Abolition Day
- June 13 - Melbourne -Lizards Revenge -Shut Roxby Down
- June 14 Melbourne Beyond Zero Emissions ZCA 2020 plan.
- June 19 - Melbourne Public meeting US FORCES IN AUSTRALIA: SECURITY OR THREAT? USforcesflyer-2.pdf
The Nuclear/uranium industry and WOMEN - theme for May 2012
Deceptive information given to women about breast cancer. Women are repeatedly told about “genetic causes”, about “risks of obesity:. about “diet factors”, about “not having babies”, or “having a baby at a later age” even about “stress” – as causes of breast cancer. The not so subtle message is that it is THEIR FAULT – a problem caused by the individual woman, so – the only preventive actions must be those made by individual women.
The facts are otherwise. The single most proven cause of breast cancer is ionising radiation. After that, other environmental causes exist, amongst the wash of chemicals, and synthetic hormones, that pervade our environment. After that – probably some hereditary susceptability, amongst some women.
Why is this so? One could conclude that breast cancer is a growth industry. There’s money at every point in this sorry cycle – from the radiation from nuclear fuel through to the medical radiation used to detect and treat breast cancer. There is no money clearly involved in shutting down a toxic industry, and preventing millions of breast cancers.
How does ionising radiation cause breast cancer? Ionising radiation comes in several forms. for example, Gamma rays, x-rays, and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons In ionising radiation, a tiny electron is released from an atom, and enters a body cell, hitting the DNA in the cell’s nucleus, and damaging it. The damaged DNA sends out ‘wrong’ messages telling the cell to divide in an uncontrolled manner – cancer develops.
“...the time between radiation exposure and breast cancer development is longest in young women and shortest for older women; young children do not show a detectable elevation in breast cancer occurrence for some 35 to 40 years after exposure. Radiation-induced breast cancers appear to occur later in life during the same ages when breast cancer rates, in general, begin to increase. It appears that a single exposure of sufficient dose during early life can increase breast cancer risk even 50 years later...
the relationship between radiation dose and breast cancer risk can be described by a straight line which implies that no matter how low the dose, there is some small risk associated with the exposure.…
The risk of subsequent breast cancer from very high doses is lower than that which might be expected from the effects of lower doses. This is because radiation at high doses is an effective killer of cells and dead cells are not able to develop into cancer…..
Young girls are at highest risk …when a young girl is exposed to radiation, she will have menstrual cycles for several decades that might enhance the development of any underlying damage caused by the radiation. There is evidence to suggest that exposure to the immature breast during early development, and around the age of beginning menstruation, carries a higher risk than at other times of a woman’s life.
It is unclear how radiation exposure of the breast during pregnancy affects a woman’s breast cancer risk. However, a recent study of women treated for Hodgkin’s disease concluded that pregnancy might be a time of increased sensitivity of breast tissue to the cancercausing effects of radiation……”
.” John D Boyce, Jr, DSc, Scientific Director,Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State.. Ionizing Radiation and Breast Cancer Risk
