This week in climate/nuclear news Australia and beyond
I never want to minimise the nuclear perils. But, it is a dying industry, and can look irrelevant as news about the climate crisis continues to be revealed.
One thing about nuclear power – the mainstream media continues to mindlessly hype the industry as the climate solution, while in fact nuclear is the third highest carbon emitter after coal-fired plants and natural gas. Even if they were “zero carbon”, nuclear reactors would never be installed in time to make a difference.
CLIMATE – where to start? Combined environmental crises could trigger ‘global systemic collapse‘, scientists warn. Some climate modelling is now predicting an unprecedented and alarming spike in global temperatures — perhaps as much as 5 degrees Celsius. Ya know that things are getting serious when it hits industry and markets – The northern hemisphere winter has been unusually mild: That’s making life difficult for oil and gas traders,
Antarctica posts a record high temperature. Arctic ice melt is changing ocean currents . Coronavirus likely to be connected to climate change – bats the likely first vector. Fires and floods: Australia already seesaws between climate extremes – and there’s more to come. Delhi’s disaster – disappearing water supplies.
A little bit of good news – Nuclear energy exhibit to be closed, turned into clinic for doctor-hungry Yamaguchi town
AUSTRALIA
NUCLEAR.
- Philip White shows folly of nuclear activities for Victoria: Submission No.112. SUBMISSIONS 122 Australians want Victoria’s Nuclear Prohibition Laws to stay. Victorian govt Nuclear Inquiry – published Submissions strongly anti -nuclear. My Submission to INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITION (focussing on thorium etc). Victoria’s Nuclear prohibition laws Inquiry – these are the Committee Members.
- Liberal MP Katie Allen touts nuclear energy for Australia. Climate action distracted by talk of uncosted, unbuilt, unproven and unpalatable technologies such as nuclear. Coalition nuclear stooge MPs line up to push for removing Australia’s prohibition on nuclear activities. Know your Federal govt pro nuclear stooges.
- The sorry Kimba nuclear waste saga– Michele Madigan spells it out (and it’s not over). The shambles of the Australian government’s Kimba nuclear waste dump plan. Kimba nuclear waste deal makes the “sports rorts” look like petty cash. ANSTO Senior Nuclear Officer Admits Admits ANSTO reclassifies High Level Wastes as Intermediate Level. Bangarla legal case: voting manipulation brought about “Yes” vote for Kimba nuclear waste dump ballot. Nuclear Stigma is, and will continue to be the cancer that erodes Kimba future. Kimba nuclear waste dump: PM and South Australia Premier Marshall must step in.
Flooding events highlight the danger to proposed uranium mining sites Yeelirrie and Wiluna.
CLIMATE.
- Australians will cringe, when our govt gives its climate-denialist policy in Glascow. Australian Parliament and its coal-smudged deals.
- #ScottyFromMarketing appoints nuclear-coal enthusiast as Australia’s new resources minister. #ScottyFromMarketing “won’t be bullied” by climate science.
- Liberal politicians jump on the climate bandwagon to promote nuclear power. Coalition compares wind and solar to “dole bludgers”, pushes for coal, nuclear.
- Zali Steggall , independent MP for Warringah, luring Liberals towards climate action. Adam Bandt, The new Australian Greens leader looks to hopeful action on climate catastrophe. Bandt vows to hold torch to Coalition on climate.
Coalition hands out $4 million to pursue new coal generator in Queensland. Private investors won’t touch new Coalition-backed coal plant, Labor says.
Why can’t the Australian government do the right thing by the persecuted Julian Assange?
RENEWABLE ENERGY – lotsa news – check out reneweconomy.com.au
INTERNATIONAL
Climate emergency plans must have a ‘no new nuclear’ clause.
Nuclear power went backwards in 2019, and the outlook is bleak.
Nuclear power and harm to animals.
Permafrost thawing -“fast and dramatic, affecting landscapes in unprecedented ways.ar compensation claims from Tahiti.
Philip White shows folly of nuclear activities for Victoria: Submission No.112
Submission 112 Philip White to Victorian govt INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITION
A very brief summary of conclusions that can be drawn from the attached submission with respect
to each of your inquiry’s terms of reference are as follows:
(1)investigate the potential for Victoria to contribute to global low carbon dioxide energy production through enabling exploration and production of uranium and thorium The notion that nuclear energy is low carbon is superficial. A deeper analysis shows that nuclear energy is an obstacle to realisation of a low carbon economy (refer “c. environmental
impacts” in the attached submission). Hence the idea that uranium and thorium exploration and production could make a useful contribution to global low carbon
dioxide energy production is mistaken.
(2) identify economic, environmental and social benefits for Victoria, including those related to medicine, scientific research, exploration and mining.
Nuclear energy related facilities tend to create host communities which are economically dependent
on these facilities and which are therefore under huge pressure to overlook the safety and environmental risks associated with these facilities (refer “b. health and safety” in the attached submission). The safest approach is not to build these facilities in the first place. (I assume the phrase “including those related to medicine, scientific research, exploration and mining” is not meant to exclude nuclear power plants and other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.) It is doubtful whether exploration and mining could generate significant
economic benefits given that the long‐term prospects for nuclear energy are so uncertain. Refer
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2019‐Assesses‐Climate‐Changeand‐the‐Nuclear‐Power‐Option.html
(3) identify opportunities for Victoria to participate in the nuclear fuel cycle The attached submission provides many reasons why it would be unwise for
Victoria to participate in the nuclear fuel cycle.
(4) identify any barriers to participation, including limitations caused by federal or local laws
and regulations.
There are many legitimate barriers to nuclear fuel cycle activities, including safety, environmental protection, non‐ proliferation concerns and lack of public acceptance, but ultimately the barrier that is most likely to
stick is that nuclear energy is not economically viable (refer “d. energy affordability and reliability and economic feasibility” in the attached submission- below).
Submission to the Inquiry into the Prerequisites for Nuclear Energy in Australia …….
For reasons outlined below, nuclear energy is not and will not in the foreseeable future be a desirable option to supply Australia’s energy needs. The specific terms of reference are addressed below, with particular attention to issues and perspectives that proponents of nuclear energy are inclined to neglect or downplay:
a. waste management, transport and storage ………
b. health and safety ……
c. environmental impacts …….
d. energy affordability and reliability, and e. economic feasibility …….
f. community engagement and i. national consensus ……..
g. workforce capability …….
h. security implications ……
j. any other relevant matter
Based on the above analysis, it would be unwise for Australia to embark on a nuclear energy program and it is very sensible to declare this in the clearest possible terms. In this regard, I am encouraged to see in the Terms of Reference for this inquiry the statement that “Australia’s bipartisan moratorium on nuclear energy will remain in place.” https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4348
The sorry Kimba nuclear waste saga- Michele Madigan spells it out (and it’s not over)
10 February 2020 On January 31st, just three days before he offered his resignation as Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Matthew Canavan made his long awaited, if predictable, announcement: Australia’s long lived intermediate radioactive waste will be stored, and the low level waste deposited, at the Napandee site in the Kimba region of South Australia. Canavan’s decision was a natural follow on from his December 13th announcement that with just 47 per cent of voters in favour, the Flinders Ranges site of Wallerberdina was no longer under consideration. As such, the Kimba decision was predictable. However it still came as a jolt to most of the farmers and others rightly fearful of the plan to host nuclear waste which even the government now admits will remain toxic for an unimaginable 10,000 years.
The early November Kimba vote of 61.17 per cent in favour on the proposed project followed the four year divisive government campaign. On December 5th, Kimba region farmer Terry Schmucker explained the vote’s long history: ‘We have already been through this once already where everyone was on equal terms. The minister at the time had already ruled there was not broad community support. However the landholder that nominated his land the first time then renominated a different part of his farm and his friends and family within the Kimba council moved for a vote of only the council area. The community funding has now been restricted to the Kimba council area only because of this — people are looking at the large inducement, not the radioactive waste issues.’ He concluded that ‘if the 50 km radius was applied at Kimba like it is at Hawker the vote would fail at these waste sites.’
After their 20 year struggle to successfully obtain their native title rights, which included the Kimba region, the Barngarla people were astonished at their own exclusion from the vote. As Jeanne Miller movingly explains in Kim Mavromatis’ four minute film, as Aboriginal people with no voting power they are put back 50 years, ‘again classed as flora and fauna.’ The Barngarla case against the Kimba Council will return to the Federal Court on February 21st. After the Kimba region announcement, most predictable was the delight of the man due to profit the most from the arrangement in monetary terms. Jeff Baldock of Napandee is to be paid four fold for the 160 hectares of his land that the federal government plans to acquire.
Not much doubt, however, that Baldock and his family over future generations may get much more in repercussions than bargained for. At our privileged gathering on 5th February in Adelaide’s CBD, every time a guest referred to ‘intermediate long lived nuclear waste’, Dr Helen Caldicott, an internationally known anti-nuclear campaigner, insistently corrected the term to ‘high level’ nuclear waste. Somewhat surprisingly, on February 6, ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) senior nuclear officer Hef Griffths voiced the same opinion. Speaking to the ABC’s Paul Culliver, Griffiths admitted France classifies waste from reprocessed spent nuclear fuel as high level nuclear waste — and when the waste gets shipped back to Australia it is reclassified as intermediate.
Unsurprisingly, there has been more media coverage of this issue in the Murdoch owned Adelaide Advertiser since Senator Canavan’s anouncement. One opinion piece to one (extreme) side, more facts than usual have been reported. Unswerving however has been the insistence by many correspondents of the repetition of the government mantra that the project is all about medical nuclear waste. The reality is that over 90 per cent of the waste, measured by radioactivity, is intermediate long-lived waste including the nuclear spent fuel rods and also the parts of the previous nuclear reactor. And no, X-rays and radiotherapy aren’t nuclear medicine.
After their 20 year struggle to successfully obtain their native title rights, which included the Kimba region, the Barngarla people were astonished at their own exclusion from the vote. As Jeanne Miller movingly explains in Kim Mavromatis’ four minute film, as Aboriginal people with no voting power they are put back 50 years, “again classed as flora and fauna”‘. To avoid any unnecessary repetition of details regarding the medical waste argument I suggest that any interested reader would do well to read the respondents’ questions and information to my last published article. In addition, there is always the valuable Friends of the Earth scientific information source.
The hosts of the Kimba Rally for Sunday February 2nd, expecting 100, were overwhelmed and delighted with the crowd, a physical count revealing five times that number. Mrs Waniwa Lester, widow of the late Yami Lester blinded by the 1953 British nuclear tests at Emu Junction, travelled the 467 kilometres from Adelaide with me to attend. Weeks in the planning, it turned out the rally took place two days after the Minister’s actual announcement of the nuclear site. MC Peter Woodfold, President of No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA, summarised the local divisive campaign in his speech, saying ‘if you want to know what intimidation is, you stand between people and money.’ Perhaps most moving of all the excellent speeches were those from other farmers, James Shepherdson and Tom Harris. As reported in the Stock Journal, Shepherdson said the community had not initially been told that the facility would be used to temporarily store intermediate-level radioactive waste, in addition to the storage and disposal of low-level waste. He said funding injections, such as a $20 million government community fund, did not outweigh potential problems with grain quality. ‘Farmers are under scrutiny and at the beck and call of buyers and brokers, and to risk what is an $80m income for this district every 12 months, for a one-off $20m payment, that’s absurd,’ he said. Kimba farming land is an important part of South Australia’s just 4.5 per cent agricultural cropping land. Tom Harris revealed with some distress the current doubt by insurance agents regarding his insurance viability because of its proximity of his farm to the nuclear storage site; this may jeopardise his sons’ succession. Reflecting the determination of local No campaigners, ACF ‘s Dave Sweeney warns that the fight is far from over. Various hurdles along the way in which opponents can be involved include the required Environmental Impact Statement and then the assessment the regulator ARPANSA (The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) must make. The inclusion of other opponents is more likely when transport routes are finally revealed. Coming from a long established Eyre Peninsula family, P Boylan is clear: all of SA’s West Coast will be affected and must have a say. Peter Woolford goes further, in view of the extraordinary ramifications of this decision for the whole state, a referendum is needed. No, it’s not over yet. Nor will it be. On an issue that will have implications for every generation to come, just 452 local residents cannot be allowed to speak for 1.7 million South Australians. |
|
|
Coronavirus likely to be connected to climate change – bats the likely first vector
The Wuhan Coronavirus, Climate Change, and Future Epidemics…...TIME, 10 Feb 2020,
Fires and floods: Australia already seesaws between climate extremes – and there’s more to come
|
Fires and floods: Australia already seesaws between climate extremes – and there’s more to come
Neville Nicholls, Guardian 10 Feb 20, Australians take pride in winning against the odds but we have to move quickly to slow global warming and the extreme weather it creates
Mon 10 Feb 2020 ”Unprecedented” is the word that keeps being tied to the apocalyptic weather Australia has faced over the past few months. Bushfires have always been a reality in Australia, but never recorded on this scale with such widespread damage. It’s estimated that more than 60,000 sq km have been scorched in New South Wales and Victoria alone. Days of smoke have shrouded Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. And after the fires, flooding at the weekend in NSW and parts of Queensland left thousands without power and dozens of schools closed on Monday. While the country is still grappling with the economic reality and human devastation caused by the fires, it’s easy to think the worst of this disaster is over. But unfortunately other extreme weather may yet occur this summer and these will also require safety preparations and rapid responses. Continental floodsLast year was the driest and hottest year on record in Australia. Some parts of the country have had several years of drought in a row. But all droughts end eventually. At the weekend devastating storms swept through eastern NSW, causing flooding, power outages and commuter chaos. The Bureau of Meteorology says 391.6mm of rain fell over Sydney in the past four days, the most since 414.2mm fell from 2 to 5 February 1990. Historically Australian continental-scale droughts are often broken by widespread heavy rain, leading to an increased risk of flooding, including potentially lethal flash floods. The flood risk from the heavy rains is exacerbated by the bare soil and lack of vegetation caused by the drought and by bushfires that destroy forest and grassland. When a decade-long drought ended in 2009, what followed were two extremely wet years with serious flooding. Flooding also brings the risk that ash might contaminate water supplies. The heavy rain falling on bare soil can also lead to serious erosion……. |
|
Coalition compares wind and solar to “dole bludgers”, pushes for coal, nuclear
Coalition compares wind and solar to “dole bludgers”, pushes for coal, nuclear https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-compares-wind-and-solar-to-dole-bludgers-pushes-for-coal-nuclear-41714/ Giles Parkinson, 10 February 2020 The wind and solar industries are bracing for another verbal assault and an extended period of policy indifference from the federal government, after a senior Coalition MP likened renewable energy to “dole bludgers’, the government funnelled $4 million into a study for a new coal fired power station in Queensland, and so-called government “moderates” declared their support for nuclear.
Despite the plunging costs of solar, wind and storage, the war against renewables is accelerating dramatically as the government comes under pressure to improve its climate policies, and even consider re-instating the long term zero carbon pledge for 2050 that it scrapped, along with the carbon price, in 2014, and which all states have since adopted.
But the language against wind and solar is now being scaled up to levels not seen since the Abbott government, when the prime minister, the then Treasurer Joe Hockey and others railed against the sight of wind farms, including on their drive down to Canberra.
Barnaby Joyce, the former deputy prime minister whose electorate of new England hosts some of the state’s biggest wind and solar projects, ranted against both wind and solar last week after losing his bid to regain the leadership of the LNP.
Matt Canavan, the former resources minister who backed Joyce in that failed leadership bid, and resigned after revealing his membership of a sports club that received a $20 million loan from a government fund that Canavan had responsibility for, went one step further on Monday.
“Renewables are the dole bludgers of the energy system, they only turn up to work when they want to,” Canavan wrote in an opinion piece in the Courier Mail that also got a page one headline. The opinion piece – from the man who likes to describe himself as “Mr Coal” – argued that only coal would support Australia’s mining and manufacturing industries.
The views of the LNP and the hard right of the Liberals are well known, but even so-called “moderate” Liberals are now arguing that wind and solar cannot be relied upon to power a modern economy, and nuclear should be open as a low carbon choice.
Katie Allen,the MP for Higgins, wrote as much in Nine Media over the weekend, repeating a claim she made in her parliamentary debut. Those views are reportedly supported by other Liberals also described as moderates, including Trent Zimmerman, and Tim Wilson, whose previous job was climate policy director for the climate-denying Institute of Public Affairs.
The demonisation of wind and solar also extends to the media. The Murdoch position against wind and solar is well established, but it is infused also into the ABC, which – appallingly – ran as its headline story on radio National on Monday morning a split in the Coalition between “cheap” coal and low emissions technology, as though it was matter a fact.
This is either the result of ignorance, or stupidity. In either case, it is inexcusable, although sadly not atypical. There is no study that points to new coal generators being the cheapest option to replace Australia’s ageing coal, polluting and increasingly decrepit fleet.
AEMO, in its Integrated System Plan, also makes it clear that renewables can power Australia’s modern economy and manufacturing sector. Its 20 year blueprint assumes a 74 per cent share of renewables in Australia’s grid as a minimum by 2040, and up to 90 per cent – a level that will dramatically reduce emissions – by around 90 per cent. The lights will stay on.
The ability of wind and solar to lower prices is now being witnessed in Australia’s main grid, with AEMO citing a 39% increase in wind and solar output in the last quarter, along with a fall in coal output due to outages and coal shortages, for a significant fall in prices to their lowest level since 2016.
The claim that renewables cannot power industry also flies in the face of the experts, including chief scientist Alan Finkel, who has mapped out a hydrogen strategy that could, and should, be fuelled by wind and solar. Others point to the potential of the country going “700 per cent renewables” to give it a global advantage in clean fuel exports and “green metals”.
Those supporters include Professor Ross Garnaut, who says Australia could likely reach 100 per cent reenables by the early 2030s, thereby slashing electricity costs and creating the base for more industrial growth.
Billionaires Mike Cannon-Brookes and Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest are investing tens of millions in one of several massive projects designed to export solar, or wind, to Asia countries. Forrest’s iron ore company Fortescue is investing huge amounts adding solar and battery storage to the Pilbara grid to lower the cost of electricity for his mines and improve reliability.
But it is impossible to name a single federal Coalition MP that recognises the potential of wind and solar, even though the state Liberal government in South Australia, for instance, has a target of “net 100 per cent renewables” by around 2030, and sees its economic future built on becoming a wind and solar energy powerhouse.
UNSW scientist Matt Edwards laments the government’s insistence that lower emissions could only be accompanied by either higher taxes or higher electricity costs. In an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald, he said the Coalition is being “wilfully blind” to the economics of renewables, which “wipe the floor” compared to coal, gas and nuclear.
Edwards pointed to the conclusions of the CSIRO and AEMO studies mentioned above.
“One of the greatest frustrations as a scientist is to see interpretations of data misrepresented by politicians,” he writes. “Unfortunately in Australia, much of this bluster has come from the far-right side of conservatives, part of our broad church, whose members have traditionally prided themselves on prudence and level-headedness.
“We must fight the political expediency of appealing to a voter base spooked by fossil fuel scare campaigns and the denialists in the media, while avoiding getting rolled by rogue elements within the party, those whom Malcolm Turnbull labelled “terrorists” at our Climate Conversations event on Wednesday night, “willing to blow the joint up if they don’t get their way”.
“Our conservative politicians should ideally act according to conscience, free market principles and prudence. They should also seize upon the opportunity for Australia to become a renewables export powerhouse, alleviating global emissions reduction well beyond the 1.6 per cent often quoted as our share, and providing vast economic stimulus at the same time.”
We’ve been waiting for that to happen for more than two decades. There’s still no sign of it.
Why can’t the Australian government do the right thing by the persecuted Julian Assange?
Bravo Alison Broinowski and Independent Australia . I am utterly fed up with the Australian government, and the mainstream media’s abject failure to even consider the plight of Australian citizens speaking truth – especially re Julian Assange. I did admire Ita Buttrose’s spirited defence of the freedom of the press – UP TO A POINT. But she, and the rest of the media pack were completely hypocritical in pretending that the persecution of Julian Assange had nothing to do with them.
|
Assange, Collaery, Snowden, Smethurst: criminalising truth https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/assange-collaery-snowden-smethurst-criminalising-truth,13573#.XkDpbKeRTRw.twitter
By Alison Broinowski | 9 February 2020 Truth-tellers and whistleblowers need our support in Australia and across the globe, says Dr Alison Broinowski.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. You’ve often heard that from leaders clutching at their last straw. Australia, you would think, has had enough this year and it’s only February. Enough of a scorched, smoky summer. Enough eviscerating loss of family. Enough people fleeing for their lives from infection. Enough inaction in the face of existential threats. Enough excuses made. Enough blind eyes turned. Enough lies. But no. There’s more to come. In Australia, telling the truth is now a crime. At least four Australians who did so face secretive trials in the coming weeks, three of them in Canberra. Another is imprisoned in the ACT without you knowing what for or at whose orders. You aren’t allowed to know his name, nor the name of Witness K. You are familiar with the other two: Bernard Collaery, K’s lawyer, and Annika Smethurst, a Newscorp journalist whose home was raided by police last July. The fourth Australian is in pre-extradition detention in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison, also for telling the truth. Evidently, this is now a crime in your allies’ system as well, even though the U.S. has its First Amendment and the UK has a Bill of Rights. Revealing the embarrassing truth is what Chelsea Manning is back in a U.S. gaol for, what Edward Snowden is exiled in Russia for, and what Julian Assange did in 2010 when WikiLeaks published documents selected from more than 700,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, assessment files of Guantánamo Bay detainees, military incident logs, and videos from Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s why Assange, having been in diplomatic exile for seven years in London, faces 175 more years for espionage in a U.S. gaol. The absurdity of such a sentence, when the worst war criminals get 45 years, reflects the fury of the U.S. security state at being caught out and the subservience of its UK colleagues. Those on both sides of the Atlantic determined to get Assange are unrelenting and his extradition hearing begins on 24 February. Almost too late, the Guardian has re-discovered its editorial conscience and begun opposing extradition, not wanting justice for Assange, but press freedom. Professor Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture supports that, but has gone further, deploring Assange’s mental and physical state. He has written to the UK and U.S. governments pointing out their responsibility for his treatment. He is to raise Assange’s case this week with Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6 during the Iraq invasion. Good luck with that. Since Kevin Rudd, Australian prime ministers have been silent if not virulently negative about Assange. In recent months prominent individuals, including Bob Carr and Dick Smith, have pointed to the urgency of his case and advocated his release. In November the Greens’ Peter Whish-Wilson presented a petition with 200,000 signatures to the Senate, calling for Assange to be brought back from the UK to Australia. Late last year, Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie formed the “Bring Assange Home” Friendship Group, which he co-chairs with George Christensen of the Liberal-National Party. It has no Liberal Party member. Wilkie and his supporters are seeking appointments in London this week to make the case for Assange. He says UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and U.S President Donald Trump have made Assange their “political plaything”. Why can’t Morrison ask Trump, as a favour, to ‘do the right thing by this Australian’? |
|
Nuclear power – the industry in its terminal agonies
| Nuclear power went backwards in 2019, and the outlook is bleak
Jim Green, RenewEconomy, 11 Feb 2020 https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-went-backwards-in-2019-and-the-outlook-is-bleak-61834/ Nuclear power went backwards last year with the permanent shutdown of nine power reactors and the startup (grid connection) of six. Startups were concentrated in Russia (three) and China (two), with one in South Korea. The shutdowns were spread across eight countries. Worse still for the industry – much worse – is the paucity of reactor construction starts. There were just three construction starts in 2019: one each in China and Russia, and Bushehr-2 in Iran which faces an uncertain future. No countries entered the nuclear power club in 2019 (construction starts or grid connections). The average age of the global reactor fleet passed 30 years in 2019. That’s an old fleet, increasingly prone to accidents, large and small; increasingly prone to extended outages and thus increasingly uncompetitive in electricity markets. As a result of the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of up to 139 GW from 2018‒2030 – more than one-third of current global capacity of 395 GW (including idle reactors in Japan). Based on IAEA figures, the industry will need about 10 new reactors (10 GW) each year just to match shutdowns. The industry did indeed average nearly 10 construction starts from 2008‒13. But the number has sharply declined in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster and catastrophic cost overruns. There were more construction starts in 2010 (16) than in 2016‒19 combined (15). This table captures the birth, mid-life crisis (Fukushima) and death of the nuclear power mini-renaissance:
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Vice-Chair of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group, notes in the foreword to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019: “Trend indicators in the report suggest that the nuclear industry may have reached its historic maxima: nuclear power generation peaked in 2006, the number of reactors in operation in 2002, the share of nuclear power in the electricity mix in 1996, the number of reactors under construction in 1979, construction starts in 1976. As of mid-2019, there is one unit less in operation than in 1989.” The number of power reactors under construction has been falling slowly but steadily in recent years, from 68 in 2013 to 46 as of Jan. 2020 (52 according to the IAEA). The Era of Nuclear Decommissioning Currently, nuclear power reflects two contradictory dynamics. The earlier mini-renaissance is evident but will subside by the mid-2020s. The Era of Nuclear Decommissioning is in its infancy (with nine reactor closures, historians may mark 2019 as the beginning of this qualitatively new era) and will be in ever-sharper focus by the mid-2020s. The Era of Nuclear Decommissioning will be characterised by a decline in the number of operating reactors; an increasingly unreliable and accident-prone reactor fleet as aging sets in; countless battles over lifespan extensions for aging reactors; an internationalisation of anti-nuclear opposition as neighbouring countries object to the continued operation of aging reactors; and escalating battles over and problems with decommissioning and waste disposal. Until such time as the rot sets in, the nuclear industry can console itself with these 10-year figures indicating a marginal increase or decrease depending on whether reactors in long-term outage (most of them in Japan) are included or excluded. Including reactors in long-term outage is “misleading” and “clearly ridiculous” according to former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd, because many of them may never operate again.
Pro-nuclear spin So how are the nuclear industry and its supporters responding to the industry’s miserable state? Mostly with denial and delusion. Here are the ‘top 6 nuclear power achievements‘ of 2019 according to the executive editor of POWER magazine. 1. World’s first EPR nuclear power plant enters commercial operation with the Sept. 2019 commencement of commercial operation of the second of two EPR reactors in Taishan, China. The original 2013/14 startup dates for Taishan 1 and 2 were missed by five years due to construction problems and safety concerns (including the extraordinary Creusot Forge scandal in France). Excavation work for the Taishan reactors began in 2008 and construction of the two reactors formally began in 2009 and 2010. China General Nuclear Power Corporation acknowledged a cost increase of 40 percent for the two Taishan reactors to US$11 billion. As a result of delays and cost overruns, the market for EPRs in China has all but evaporated. The EPR reactor under construction at Flamanville, France, is 10 years behind schedule: construction began in Dec. 2007, the planned startup date was 2012, and EDF now says that commercial operation cannot be expected before the end of 2022. The current cost estimate of €12.4 billion (US$13.7 billion) is 3.8 times greater than the original estimate of €3.3 billion (US$3.6 billion). The EPR reactor under construction at Olkiluoto, Finland, is 10 years behind schedule: construction began in April 2005, startup was anticipated in 2010, and startup is now scheduled in 2020. The current cost estimate of about €11 billion (US$12.2 billion) is 3.7 times greater than the original €3 billion (US$3.3 billion) price tag. The estimated combined cost of the two EPR reactors under construction at Hinkley Point, UK, including finance costs, is £26.7 billion (US$35.0 billion) (the EU’s 2014 estimate of £24.5 billion plus a £2.2 billion increase announced in July 2017). A decade ago, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was almost seven times lower at £2 billion. The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for Hinkley Point will amount to £30 billion (US$39.4 billion), while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £50 billion (US$65.6 billion). Undeterred, POWER magazine claims that a 6-unit EPR project in India will be the world’s largest nuclear power plant “if completed as planned”. It would be a miracle if the project is completed as planned; indeed it would be a minor miracle if it even begins given funding constraints. 2. World’s first ACPR-1000 nuclear power plant begins commercial operation in China Grid connections of ACPR-1000 reactors in China in 2018 and 2019 mark a significant achievement. But the broader picture is highly uncertain. There has only been one reactor construction start in China in the past three years. The number of reactors under construction has fallen sharply from 20 in 2017 to 10 currently. No-one knows whether or not the Chinese nuclear program will regain momentum. Wind and solar combined generated nearly double the amount of electricity as nuclear in 2018. 3. Akademik Lomonosov connects to grid Estimated construction costs for Russia’s floating nuclear power plant (with two 32-MW ice-breaker-type reactors) increased more than four-fold and eventually amounted to well over US$10 million / megawatt (US$740 million / 64 MW). A 2016 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report said that electricity produced by the plant is expected to cost about US$200 / MWh, with the high cost due to large staffing requirements, high fuel costs, and resources required to maintain the barge and coastal infrastructure. The primary purpose of Russia’s floating nuclear power plant is to help exploit fossil fuel reserves in the Arctic – fossil fuel reserves that are more accessible because of climate change. That isn’t anything to celebrate; it is disturbing and dystopian. 4. Vogtle nuclear expansion progresses Construction of the twin-AP1000 project in the US state of Georgia began in 2013 and the planned startup dates were April 2016 and April 2017. The project is 5.5 years behind schedule and it is unlikely that the revised completion dates of Nov. 2021 and Nov. 2022 will be met. In 2006, Westinghouse claimed it could build one AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion. The current cost estimate for the two Vogtle reactors – US$27‒30+ billion – is 10 times higher. The Vogtle project only survives because of mind-boggling, multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies including US$12+ billion in loan guarantees, tax credits and much else besides. Westinghouse declared bankruptcy in 2017, largely as a result of its failed AP1000 projects in South Carolina (abandoned after the expenditure of at least US$9 billion) and Georgia, and Westinghouse’s parent company Toshiba was almost forced into bankruptcy and survives as a shadow of its former self. 5. NRC approves Clinch River nuclear site for small modular reactors (SMRs) 6. NuScale’s SMR design clears Phase 4 of NRC review process But who will pay for SMRs? Industry won’t budge without massive taxpayer subsidies. A 2018 US Department of Energy report states that to make a “meaningful” impact, about US$10 billion of government subsidies would be needed to deploy 6 gigawatts of SMR capacity by 2035. And the pro-nuclear authors of a 2018 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science argue that for SMRs to make a significant contribution to US energy supply, “several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies would be needed to support their development and deployment over the next several decades”. The prospects for SMRs are just as bleak in other countries. And as the AEMO/CSIRO GenCost 2019-20 report notes, SMRs in Australia would be 2-4 times more expensive per kW than wind and solar. Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter. |
Some climate models now predict unexpected , unprecedented spike in global temperatures
A few climate models are now predicting an unprecedented and alarming spike in temperatures — perhaps as much as 5 degrees Celsius, Business Insider, CONNOR PERRETT FEB 9, 2020
- A handful of climate projections are predicting much higher rise in global temperatures than scientists have seen in the models before.
- While there’s concern over the number, some scientists hope the latest projections are outliers.
- A 2-degree rise in temperature could lead sea level to jump, coral reefs to die, and water to become dangerously scarce in some parts of the world. Some models right now predict a 5-degree rise.
The startling anomaly first appeared in models from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which suggested that if Earth’s atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration doubles (as it’s expected to do by the end of the century), the planet could wind up 5.3 degrees hotter. That’s 33% higher than the group’s previous estimate.
Scientists hope the models are an “overshot,” Bloomberg reported. It will take scientists a significant amount time – at least months – to figure out how to interpret the results.
The climate models estimate “climate sensitivity,” which tells scientists how much warmer the planet will get as a result of rising CO₂ concentrations. For four decades, the expected temperature rise if CO2 levels double has been about 3 degrees.
These models have a proven track record of accurately forecasting climate change. A recent study from the American Geophysical Union found that climate projections over the past five decades have largely been accurate – actual climate observations aligned with the models’ predictions.
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
of the week
EVENTS
22 February – Sydney – Climate Crisis: National Day of Action–
more at Action Australia
Victorian Government INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITIONThe submission closing date is Friday 28 February 2020. more – https://antinuclear.net/2019/11/07/victorian-government-inquiry-into-nuclear-prohibition/
Climate Action (Nuclear has no role)- theme for February 2020
Climate Action Network https://www.cana.net.au/
OUR VISION
A fair and sustainable Australia free of climate pollution, where people and nature are protected from dangerous climate change.
OUR MISSION
Is to support our members and their allies to take actions to protect people at home and abroad from climate change, to safeguard our natural environment, and to build a fair, clean, healthy Australia for everyone.
To do this we will create a diverse network with distributed leadership that links people and organisations working toward our vision. The network will support the setting and achievement of shared goals and be the underlying infrastructure that supports us to work together.
TOGETHER WE WORK TO
- Reduce Australia’s climate pollution to zero, and beyond.
- Transition to a society and economy powered by clean energy and clean exports.
- Protect people, water, air, land, and nature from the impacts of fossil fuel extraction.
- Build climate leadership and resilience in communities most affected by climate change.
- Ensure Australia does its fair-share in international efforts to confront the crisis.
WE WORK BY:
- Building and aligning strategies in common areas of our work.
- Co-designing and collaborating to deliver climate campaigns and projects.
- Co-operating on community-led transition projects.
- Engaging more people and diverse sectors to take action on campaigns connected to climate.
- Developing policies and proposals that will help deliver on our vision.
- Linking to international efforts, networks, and campaigns.
The Network provides infrastructure for ongoing communication between members, as well as convening meetings and working groups for particular regions, sectors, and issue areas.
The CANA Annual Report for 2018/19 details how our network members support each other to build a powerful, connected, diverse and innovative climate movement.
For more information on joining the network, see here.
Free Julian Assange, before it’s too late. Sign to STOP the USA Extradition
FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Read the published submissions on the Parliamentary website. Read the SUMMARIES of submissions here.
