Farmers squeezed out of energy boon, MATTHEW CAWOOD, Stock and Land 04 Feb, 2012 

Beyond Zero Emissions, a non-profit organisation, has the goal of moving Australia “from a 19th century fossil fuel based economy to a 21st century renewable powered clean tech economy”.
Wind turbines are “about as benign as it gets” for power generation, Mr Wright said, adding CSG is a “fairly destructive option for resource exploitation”.

“You can quantify the environmental impacts of wind turbines pretty
easily, and add them all up; it’s difficult to quantify the impacts of
CSG, because they are quite variable.”

But government policy, as Mr Wright sees it unfolding in NSW – with
other States apparently to follow – appears to be about supporting CSG
and sidelining wind.

“It’s about health. Our predominant energy supply is causing serious
health effects to people and the environment, where wind turbines just
aren’t causing health issues.

“If you offered to resettle those complaining about wind turbines next
to a coal mine in the Hunter Valley, and offered those near coal mines
to resettle within a kilometre or two of a wind turbine, I think a
survey … would find those relocated to the coal mine would want to
go back.”……
Mr Wright estimated 2000 modern 7.5MW on-shore wind turbines could
deliver more than half NSW’s power requirements.

And he pointed to the alternative, on display in the American hotspots
of gas extraction, Wyoming and Pennsylvania.

“From the air you can see roads, wells, pipelines and evaporation
ponds that completely gut the connectivity between farm fields. These
operations are like a web: you can’t avoid them.”

Once a turbine is up, its impacts stop while its benefits accrue, Mr
Wright said.

Landholders receive long-term income from leasing land for wind
turbines, and could potentially make more under the Danish
co-ownership model.

But a 2011 Australia Institute report, “Mining the Truth”, observed
that returns from resource extraction, including gas, mostly go
offshore.

“In 2009-10 mining profits were $51 billion, of which 83pc, or $42b,
accrued to foreign investors,” the report stated.

“Over the next 10 years pre-tax profits for mining will likely be
around $600b; at present levels of foreign ownership around $500b of
these profits will end up in the hands of foreign owners.”……
http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/farmers-squeezed-out-of-energy-boon/2440770.aspx?storypage=2

Her 100% Renewable campaign, which she began from scratch two years ago, now has about 100 groups with tens of thousands of members nationwide, making life uncomfortable for politicians with actions that go well beyond demonstrations and banner waving..

She argues some in the climate movement are naive because they think making a persuasive case without applying political pressure is enough, when ”massive vested interests” such as mining companies run counter-campaigns…..

Knocking on doors of change, SMH, February 4, 2012 No topic is off limits for the environmental optimist who thinks it’s time to stop ‘scaring the pants off people’, writes Debra Jopson. – Lindsay Soutar…. the Young Environmentalist of the Year…..Soutar, 30, is something of a legend in green circles for giving up her paid work advising local councils on emissions reductions and then creating a national campaign aimed at shifting Australia to 100 per cent renewable energy. ….
she sees herself as a door-knocker and political agitator who
harnesses the power of thousands of voters in disparate electorates
into networks that will lobby politicians so hard they commit the
nation to a total shift to solar, wind, geothermal and wave power.
While using online media, much of what her network does is good
old-fashioned face-to-face contact, like the 15,000 conversations
about renewable energy it conducted in 2010, boiled down in a message
to Canberra just before the federal government announced a carbon
price.
Her 100% Renewable campaign, which she began from scratch two years
ago, now has about 100 groups with tens of thousands of members
nationwide, making life uncomfortable for politicians with actions
that go well beyond demonstrations and banner waving……
She argues some in the climate movement are naive because they think
making a persuasive case without applying political pressure is
enough, when ”massive vested interests” such as mining companies run
counter-campaigns…..
Her organisation now has four paid staff and she gets an annual salary
of $40,000 for her six-day week. Funding flows in from grants,
philanthropists, donors such as Greenpeace and GetUp, and renewable
energy companies. Is there a danger the corporate dollar will
compromise the network?
”No. Obviously we had to think quite carefully … but these are the
companies building the energy future we want. Where it would be a
problem is if we were advocating one technology over another or one
company over another, but they are untied donations,” she says.
This year her organisation is launching a ”Big Solar” campaign,
aimed at bringing large-scale sun-powered plants to Australia, which
she argues can provide baseload power by storing heat overnight in
salty water, generating enough steam to drive turbines similar to
those used in coal-fired power stations.
: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/knocking-on-doors-of-change-20120203-1qxh6.html#ixzz1lRtllU3V

Disadvantages of nuclear energy, Biofuelswatch, by Max Rutherford, February 1st 2012  Nuclear Waste 

At this time, radioactive nuclear wastes are usually put inside concrete structures and buried under the ground because concrete and earth are found to be efficient at containing radioactivity. However, these dump sites must be looked after for thousands of years to make sure that the toxic wastes are not set free accidentally as that could contaminate the entire planet. This in fact, would be an unending process unless we are able to find better ways to get rid of the waste because by the time the radioactivity from today’s nuclear wastes comes down; there would be new radioactive waste to dump from tomorrow’s nuclear plants. Eventually, it is very much possible that the reactors may run out of uninhabited places to dispose their waste products.

While the toxic nuclear waste mainly refers to the used up reactor rods and nuclear fuel residues, even the purifying resins, various tools, clothes, towels and other similar objects that become contaminated with radiation after coming in contact with it at the nuclear plants can also be dangerous. Although they are nowhere near as dangerous as the main waste products, even these less radioactive objects can cause health hazards. The danger lies in the fact that these regular objects may get out by mistake because it is impossible to detect the radioactivity on these day to day items without a Geiger counter……

 Effects of Radioactivity Even Under Normal Conditions Unfortunately, even when a nuclear plant is built well and is ‘safe’ as per the safety guidelines, it is not totally safe. What this means is that though it might be possible to avert disasters through the practice of the safety measures, the workers at a nuclear plant are exposed to small levels of radiation every day, in spite of their special suits. While it may not matter much in the short term, it might be the cause behind cancers if one is exposed to even such small amounts of radiation over a long period of time. ….

Possibility of Accidents with Catastrophic Effects Previously, it was believed that the safety measures are good enough to avoid accidents, but after consecutive incidents at the Three Mile Island in 1979, at Chernobyl in 1986 and finally at the Fukushima Dai-ichi in 2011; that belief is proven to be a myth only. The Chernobyl Disaster is by far the most devastating and dangerous accident that has happened yet and it has not only affected thousands of people with cancers and other deformities that are results of the radioactivity which was released into the environment from the accident, but it has also rendered portions of places like Belarus, Prypiat, Ukraine and Russia uninhabitable for thousands of years to come. The possibility of a nuclear reactor accident is therefore the most fearsome disadvantage of nuclear energy and both theory and history clearly shows us that such accidents can happen. As no nuclear plant can be made in a way so that it is safe from everything, the risk of accidents will increase with each new nuclear reactor.  http://www.biofuelswatch.com/disadvantages-of-nuclear-energy/

But the thing is –  Lynas’ plant will be the biggest rare earths refining plant in the world.  And make a lot of radioactive wastes, and heaps of money for Australian investors.   And we like BIG.  We applaud BHP  - the Big Non -Australian because it’s going to dig the biggest man made hole in the world.

If the Lynas plant is so OK, why not put it in Australia?

The answer – radioactive colonialism.  Just as Australia has been a victim of Britain’s radioactive colonialism, in atomic bomb tests in the 1950s, and today, with our largely foreign owned uranium mines –   well, we Australians like to do our bit of radioactive colonialism, and put the nasty stuff in Malaysia.

Not In Our Backyard for radioactive wastes, as long as we can park them in Malaysia.

The nuclear industry watches this with interest. If Lynas can overcome public opinion in Malaysia, well, perhaps the nuclear lobby can do the same in Southeast Asia.

In Malaysia, the government has quietly put a proposal to build two 1,000 MW nuclear power plants “on the back burner,” said a senior government source.

Analysis: Southeast Asia goes slow on nuclear, Reuters,  By John Ruwitch HANOI  Feb 2, 2012  ”…..Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore are among some 35 countries considering going down the nuclear path, likely doubling the number of operational reactors in the next few decades, according to Lloyds Register.

But even the most ambitious plans will run up against barriers and constraints. In most Southeast Asian countries where there is interest in nuclear power, politics are holding it back. Indonesia’s National Atomic Energy Agency has been researching reactors for more than four decades and preparing the human resources, but the political will is lacking.

“Everything is ready here, except for a political decision,” said
Ferhat Aziz, a spokesman for the agency. “Too many people think it is
too dangerous and too expensive so the key challenge is in people’s
minds.”

The story is similar in Thailand where, like Indonesia, energy demand
outstrips supply. The Thai Energy Ministry is drafting a plan that
could see a nuclear facility go into operation in 2026.

“The nuclear power plant project is still in the country’s power
development plan, but whether it will come into shape depends on the
acceptance of the public,” said Mongkol Sakulkao, deputy head of
policy and planning at state-run Electricity Generating Authority of
Thailand.

“If it is delayed further, they’ll come up with plans to find
alternative fuels to replace nuclear.”

BACK BURNER

In Malaysia, the government has quietly put a proposal to build two 1,000 MW nuclear power plants “on the back burner,” said a senior government source.
The decision came after environmentalists targeted a plan by Australian rare earths miner Lynas Corp to commission a processing plant in central Malaysia that would have to dispose of radioactive waste….
It may be revisited some time down the line,” said the government
source who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the
issue.

Singapore is in the earliest stages of considering how nuclear power
might fit into its power mix, but seems unlikely to build a plant on
its own territory.

And in the Philippines, Fukushima gave pause to efforts to revive the
country’s white elephant, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which was
built in the early 1980s but never went into operation because it sits
on a tectonic fault and volcano.

Malaysian group to file suit to challenge approval for Aussie rare earth plant  Washington Post, : February 2 

Key victory, but battle is not over yet BY: ROWAN CALLICK,  : The Australian February03, 2012  ”….Environmental concerns have been driving greater political involvement in Malaysia as the population becomes better educated.

Growing ecological awareness has provided a common cause for middle-class activists of the three races — Malays, Chinese and Indians — who have tended otherwise to be divided by the country’s political parties…. The plant approval intensifies the need for Lynas to operate it impeccably and to build its community relations, because an election is almost certain to be called in Malaysia later this year.    Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has already warned that his three-party coalition would scrap the plant if it wins the election.

Fuziah says Lynas plant will scare off other investors, The Malaysian Insider, By Shannon Teoh January 31, 2012 KUALA LUMPUR,  — Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh has hit back at Lynas Corp, insisting that the presence of the Australian miner’s RM2.5 billion rare earth plant would deter investors from Pahang.

Lease of ‘own land’ was impetus for campaign, Canberra Times,  BY BREANNA TUCKER 28 Jan, 2012

The Koori men – Billie Craigie, Tony Coorie, Michael Anderson and Bert Williams – claimed to be ”aliens in our own land” after the federal government of the day announced a land rights policy suggesting Aboriginal people take out 50-year leases on land parcels they believed already belonged to them. A mate of the crew, Aboriginal activist Chicka Dixon, later said the men decided that if their country would not treat them fairly, they would establish an embassy to fight for their rights as foreigners.

”I … joined them on the Friday. The Member for the ACT, Kep Enderby, informed me that there was no legislation under the federal Act to remove campers, so we put up eight tents and gave ourselves portfolios,” he said. ”A dear, kind lady from Canberra gave us a big blue tent which became the official tent embassy.

”Like all embassies we needed a flag, so Harold Thomas, [designer of the Aboriginal flag] from Adelaide, gave us his flag to fly.” The creation of the tent embassy became the trigger for what would become a controversial 40-year campaign for Aboriginal rights…

.. The  embassy was pulled down by authorities and re-established by demonstrators time and time again, moving from Old Parliament House to an army corporal’s home in Red Hill, across to Capital Hill and back to its roots at Old Parliament House.

The tent embassy has recorded several victories with the creation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, the negotiation of an Aboriginal rights treaty and a National Heritage Listing that made the camp the only nationally recognised site for the political struggle of Aboriginal people. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/lease-of-own-land-was-impetus-for-campaign/2435783.aspx

Spencer Abraham Cashes, DC Bureau,  By Joseph Trento,   February 2nd, 2012

It all began in the 1990s when the United States’ response to disposing of 34 metric tons of plutonium from shuttered nuclear weapons programs was a proposed mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. When Abraham became Energy Secretary in 2001, Areva was a key contractor for the MOX plant. According to his DOE calendars, among his first trips were to France to visit their nuclear officials and operations. Abraham maintained a close relationship with the then head of Areva, Anne Lauvergeon. In turn, not long after he left the Energy Department, Abraham cashed in and went to work for Areva and “Atomic Annie,” as she was known. In 2007, DOE broke ground on the MOX plant.
Today, the DOE’s MOX fuel plant is still under construction. It has cost billions of dollars, is over budget and behind schedule. But Spencer Abraham will never be held responsible for the cost overruns and delays. In fact, he has been handsomely rewarded.

Despite spending billions of dollars on the MOX plant, DOE has yet to line up a single customer even with massive government subsidies being offered to buy the fuel. No utility will touch it…..

But the good news for Areva is the tax paid contract is still bringing in the big bucks with no end in sight…..

When is enough, enough? How much money do former government officials have to make before they go home and give back to their communities rather than take money to influence their friends in Washington? Perhaps if we knew that answer, we could save the American taxpayers money. Instead of drafting ethic laws that become jokes before the ink is dry, perhaps we could just cut to the chase, cut them a check, and make them go home. http://www.dcbureau.org/201202026986/natural-resources-news-service/spencer-abraham-cashes-in.html

Aum In Australia Aum also launched a scheme of exploring the uranium mines in Australia. …… They also formed two Aum companies – Mahaposya Australia Pvt Ltd and Clarity Investments Pty Ltd – as front businesses to cover up their true activities…

Aum Shinrikyo In Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons – Analysis, Eurasia Review  by: Muhammad Jawad Hashmi February 2, 2012  Aum Shinrikyo has an apocalyptic belief structure where the world is divided into two opposing forces, good and evil. Shoko Asahara, who is leader of the cult, firmly believes that they will prevail after the apocalypse and are motivated to trigger the apocalypse because their own salvation depends upon fighting the final fight and eliminating the enemy. The prospect of nuclear war shaped Shoko Asahara’s concerns to preach that Aum followers would be the only survivors of a coming Armageddon.