Nuclear news – under the radar in Australia
Again – seemingly quiet on the nuclear front in Australia. Yet, again, under the mainstream media radar, things are happening. The pro uranium hype continues, with Uranium SA’s chairman’s report talking up the industry’s prospects, (despite all evidence to the contrary), spruiking its environmental advantages, and promoting Generation IV nuke reactors (even though they use little uranium, and the most hyped one – thorium reactor, is designed to replace uranium. Meanwhile BHP retreated from all uranium exploration in South Australia.
On that point, thorium versus uranium, there’s a call from a “New South Wales “jury”s report about nuclear power for Australia. It recommends “discussion”” on nuclear power – especially in the light of NSW’s ban on uranium mining. You see, THORIUM mining is not banned in NSW.
Australia participated in two regional agreements favouring nuclear power. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will explore nuclear power as a long-term option for the region’s energy needs, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) agreed to “ensure the safe and secure use of nuclear energy as a clean energy source in interested economies.”
Wind energy from South Australia reached amazing levels – a week of average 55% of electricity supplied, at one point, 85%, and some exported to Victoria. New South Wales came up with a renewabl eenergy plan that looks good, but turns out to be a dud. Queensland’s Campbell Newman’s budget was a renewable energy massacre, axing 16 climate change and renewables projects.
Naturally, news of India’s turmoil over anti nuclear protests and police violence did not appear in the Australian media. But well, look, it IS the football final week.
Australia’s mainstream media mindlessly regurgitates Uranium SA’s media release
The Australian media mindlessly regurgitates corporate media releases. Yesterday’s Herald Sun provided a glowing account of Uranium SA’s Annual Report, by its chairman Alice McCleary. But – did any mainstream media look into that report, and its claims?
I was fascinated by Alice McCleary’s mention of “stripped of emotion” – nuclear processes are 
environmentally OK etc. . That is the traditional nuclear spin way of answering any claims of danger, environmental damage, health damage, nuclear weapons risk and so on. Nuclear’s opponents are “emotional” “not rational” – so no need to answer their arguments.
Then she goes on to “Generation IV nuclear reactors which consume 100% of the energy in the uranium fuel, plus the depleted uranium from the enrichment process”. What Is she talking about? There are at least 6 different types of “Generation IV nuclear reactors’ – all still in the design stage. They all use uranium in lesser quantities only. In the case of the much-touted Thorium reactor, uranium is used in small amounts to set off the fission process. But really thorium reactors are being touted as a “welcome” alternative to uranium powered ones.
Anyway, the whole promotion for most the Gen IV reactors is to use up the world’s embarrassing piles of plutonium as fuel – hardly a recipe for expanded uranium mining.
The optimism of the report is in fact, in contrast to the reality of the uranium industry’s prospects. Even BHP’s cancelling of expansion of Olympic Dam has not helped the uranium industry’s market forecast. Paladin Energy made a huge loss on uranium , as did ERA last year.
“Stripped of emotion” Uranium SA’s chairman Alice McCleary wins Furphy Of The Year award
Uranium SA’s Annual Report 12 Sept 12, Alice McCleary, Chairman , “…..As all shareholders will be aware, 2012 continued to be challenging [that’s the understatement of the year!] for small companies. However, the Board maintains its great confidence [amazing!] in the future prospects of UraniumSA ….
Uranium is used for energy generation in proven and safe industrial processes that – stripped of emotion – have lower environmental footprints and higher sustainability than any competing established technology
Generation IV nuclear reactors are now being developed which consume 100% of the energy in the uranium
fuel, plus the depleted uranium from the enrichment process
These are exciting developments. As the world moves away from carbonintensive energy sources, uranium’s benefits will become more and more obvious to all….”
Malaysian protest against Lynas rare earths plant – not going away, in fact – it’s the reverse
“The world will witness one of the biggest civil disobedience events in this nation”
Mr Ibrahim has demanded that Australians ”hear the frustrations of Malaysians” over the project.
First Weld war looms – Malaysians mobilise to fight Lynas plant, The Age, September 
13, 2012 Lindsay Murdoch ACTIVISTS are planning a multi-pronged attack to try to stop the Australian miner Lynas Corp opening a rare earths
processing plant in Malaysia.
Opposition parties, led by Anwar Ibrahim, are also planning to make the $230 million plant a key issue of the country’s national elections, which must be held by April next year. They have vowed to shut the plant if they oust the government. Continue reading
Darwin City Council worried about Muckaty nuclear waste dump plan
Darwin council concerned about nuke dump safety http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/darwin-council-seeks-safety-assurances-over-nuke-dump/4257828?section=nt Kristy O’Brien The Darwin City Council wants to know what safety systems would be in place for transporting waste from the proposed Muckaty Station nuclear dump near Tennant Creek.
The council has weighed into the debate about Australia’s first nuclear waste dump which is expected to be built at Muckaty Station. Councillors want the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT) to seek advice about risk management systems for transporting nuclear waste.
Lord Mayor Katrina Fong Lim says the waste would be taken to Muckaty Station on Northern Territory roads, railways or through the Darwin Port. “It is actually about the risk management of how it could go,” she said.
The council also wants LGANT to press the Federal Government for an inquiry into whether Muckaty Station is an appropriate place to store nuclear waste.
Queensland’s Premier Newman turning that State into renewable energy backwater
Queensland – Solar Star One Day, Renewables Wasteland The Next, by Energy Matters, 13 Sept 12, “……Campbell Newman appears to have decided Queensland should become a clean energy and climate change backwater in terms of further progress from this point forward.
Queensland’s recent budget was a climate change and renewable energy related massacre. Numerous programs are to be axed – some of which had been previously announced:
– Solar Flagships project.
– Queensland Climate Change Fund
– Queensland Renewable Energy Fund
– Queensland Smart Energy Savings Fund
– Solar Initiatives Package
– Waste Avoidance and Resources Efficiency Fund
– Local Government Sustainable Future Fund
– Climate Smart Home Service
– Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme
– Solar Atlas
– Cloncurry Solar Thermal Trial Site Remediation
– Bright Thing Campaign
– Renewable Energy Industry Development Plan
– Climate Smart Business Service
– Sustainable Energy Innovation Fund
– EcoBiz program….
Further analysis of the impact of Queensland’s horror budget in relation to climate change and renewable energy initiatives can be viewed on RenewEconomy.
Facing the facts on climate change
it is worth exploring the question, what would a world with >2°C global surface warming look like?
Global Warming Impacts
The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) summarizes the magnitudes of impact of various degrees of warming here, and graphically….
This is Why Reducing Emissions is Critical
Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like? Sceptical Science 31 August 2012 by dana1981Robert Watson, former Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),recently made headlines by declaring that it is unlikely we will be able to limit global warming to the 2°C ‘danger limit’. This past April, the International Energy Agency similarly warnedthat we are rapidly running out of time to avoid blowing past 2°C global warming compared to late 19th Century temperatures. The reason for their pessimism is illustrated in the ‘ski slopes’ graphic, which depicts how steep emissions cuts will have to be in order to give ourselves a good chance to stay below the 2°C target, given different peak emissions dates
Clearly our CO2 emissions have not yet peaked – in fact they increased by 1 billion tonnes between 2010 and 2011 despite a continued global economic recession; therefore, the green curve is no longer an option. There has also been little progress toward an international climate accord to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which suggests that the blue curve does not represent a likely scenario either – in order to achieve peak emissions in 2015 we would have to take serious steps to reduce emissions today, which we are not. The red curve seems the most likely, but the required cuts are so steep that it is unlikely we will be able to achieve them, which means we are indeed likely to surpass the 2°C target. Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 