Climate change extreme weather making parts of Australia uninsurable
Risks aren’t worth it’: QBE says parts of planet becoming uninsurable due to climate concerns, SMH, Charlotte Grieve February 17, 2020 Global insurance giant QBE has warned climate change poses a material threat to its business and the entire economy as its chief executive Pat Regan said premiums were at risk of becoming too high in areas exposed to repeated, extreme weather……
Mr Regan said there had always been parts of the world that were difficult to insure. But as floods and fires become have dominated headlines this summer, this risk was increasing across “swathes of Australia” and could potentially price out customers from home and business property insurance.
He said climate change was a “big topic” in the sector, requiring the insurance giant to “up its game on a number of fronts”. QBE boosted its reinsurance program for catastrophic events to $2 billion in a process that would be reassessed each year, he said. …..
“The evidence is there for all to see that the amount of weather events globally, not just in Australia, is consistently rising and most of the worst years on record have happened in the last 10 years.”
“The most prone ones [areas] are the ones we see in the news frequently,” Mr Regan said, referencing the Queensland floods and east coast fires…… https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/qbe-warns-of-climate-risk-as-300m-hit-to-revenue-alongside-unusual-weather-20200217-p541e3.html
South Australia’s grain exports could be at risk, if Kimba nuclear waste dump goes ahead
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 17 Feb 20,Keeping in mind the safe standard for radioactive contaminated food in Australia is 1200 becquerels, which fails to keep up with the safer standards of Japan at only 100 becquerels per kilo. Not only is Japans standards safer than ours but Australia’s grain export to Japan is about $646 million per year, and that could be in jeopardy if the program to turn Kimba into a radioactive dump proceeds.
Dr Bandazhevsky’s study came with the added problem of finding children of Belarus free of contamination, there was also a health cluster in children now recorded and known as Chernobyl heart, a condition of multiple holes in the heart, due to radioactive exposure.
Private investors won’t touch new Coalition-backed coal plant, Labor says
Private investors won’t touch new Coalition-backed coal plant, Labor says, Morrison government to spend up to $4m in grant for feasibility study into coal-fired power plant in Queensland, Guardian, Australian Associated Press, Sat 8 Feb 2020 The federal Labor opposition says private investors will not touch “with a barge pole” the Morrison government’s plan to support a coal-fired power plant in Queensland.
The government says it will spend up to $6m in grants for two new Queensland electricity generation projects, including a coal-fired power plant, as part of a bid to lower power prices……..
Labor’s climate change and energy spokesman, Mark Butler, said private investors would not touch a new coal-fired power station “with a barge pole”.
“The government still has no energy policy – just ideological flights of fantasy,” he said in Adelaide on Saturday. The private investment sector had made it very clear it had no appetite for building expensive coal-fired power stations, he said.
Honeymoon uranium mine might restart this year, and pigs might fly
Uranium miner flags restart at Honeymoon within a year if prices jump, others aren’t so sure, ABC BROKEN HILL BY DECLAN GOOCH AND SARA TOMEVSKA 22 Jan 2020, The company behind a proposal to restart uranium mining in north-east South Australia says it would be ready to begin production within a year if prices improve.
But the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has cast doubt on the likelihood of that occurring, arguing the market is moving away from uranium.
Key points:
- Honeymoon is one of only four Australian uranium mines with an export licence but has been mothballed since 2013
- New owner Boss Resources says technology will help it lower operational costs and will reopen the mine once uranium prices improve
- Anti-nuclear campaigners doubt the mine’s prospects, saying significant uranium producers have been deferring or halting development
The Honeymoon uranium mine was mothballed in 2013 because it had become too expensive to run.
But in 2015, the mine, which is about 80 kilometres north-west of Broken Hill, was purchased by WA exploration company Boss Resources.
Boss chief executive Duncan Craib said the company had developed new technology to lower operational costs and had finalised a feasibility study.
He said the mine would reopen once uranium prices improved, which he was expecting to happen soon.
“We don’t want to destroy the resource at low uranium prices, so we’d like an uptick in the market before proceeding,” Mr Craib said.
Honeymoon is one of only four Australian uranium mines with an export licence.
However, Mr Craib said uranium was under-utilised in Australia and he would like to see a domestic uptake of nuclear power…….
Optimism baseless, campaigner says
Anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney from the ACF said he believed the announcement was without substance.
“There is nothing new in their statement,” he said.
“It’s pretty much a holding-pattern statement from a mining company with not a lot of resources, not a lot of projects, that are trying to continue to hold a place in the market, where the market is increasingly in freefall.
“Obviously, Boss is going to say the uranium price is going to soar — they’re a uranium miner.
“We’ve got major producers in this country … We’ve got a third of the world’s uranium and we’re not digging much, and that is because the price is not there.
Mr Sweeney said significant producers were deferring or halting development.
Rio Tinto, a massive mining company, is exiting at the Ranger mine in Kakadu,” he said.
“Cameco, the world’s largest dedicated uranium producer, has written down an asset that it spent $500 million on a decade ago in WA, and says that the best way to preserve the value of uranium is to keep it in the ground.”…….. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-22/honeymoon-uranium-mine-production-within-a-year-company-says/11889466
Bangladesh and Australia- both vulnerable to climate change – but will that stop the coal lobby?
 Despite climate impact, Bangladesh wants Australian coal to fire 29 new power stations, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/rba-told-to-mobilise-all-forces-to-save-the-economy-from-climate-change-20200120-p53szi.html Bangladesh has been criticised for its ambitious plans to build 29 new coal-fired power stations, but its high commissioner to Australia believes the new projects could be an opportunity for greater trade between the two nations. 20 Jan 2020 , BY BRETT MASON SBS chief political correspondent Brett Mason reports from Dhaka, Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s high commissioner to Australia has urged the Australian government to consider new trade opportunities with the country, including the potential to supply it with 80 million tonnes of coal over the next five years. SBS News is currently in Bangladesh as part of a parliamentary learning tour organised by Save the Children. Speaking to SBS News ahead of the trip, Mohammad Sufiur Rahman said Bangladesh’s controversial plans to construct 29 new power stations over the next two decades would require a “huge quantum” of coal to power them. “We’ll have to source it from places, either Indonesia, or Australia, or maybe South Africa,” he said. Mr Rahman began spruiking the “enormous” export opportunity to the Australian media last year and doubled down on it in his interview with SBS News. “The quality and calorific value of Australian coal is much better in comparison to other sources,” he said. Climate impactBangladesh has the sixth-highest number of current and proposed coal-powered projects compared to the rest of the world, according to environmental advocacy group Market Forces. But the nation is also particularly vulnerable to climate change, with fears a projected half a metre sea-level rise by 2050 could leave 11 per cent of the country’s landmass underwater and 15 million people displaced. Continue reading |
It is a big MISTAKE to equate COAL MINING with jobs
It is a big MISTAKE to equate COAL MINING with jobs
1. Australian Tourism employs 10 times more Australians than does mining
2. There are job vacancies in the setting up and maintaining renewables
3. Australia has an opportunity to Lead the World manufacturing and building the equipment and technological infrastructures and components required to set up renewable and sustainable community and economy e.g.. Let’s build Australian Made solar panels instead of importing them
4. Build our own iron ore processing plants run by green hydrogen/hydro/wind/solar/ To make aluminium Keeping profits and jobs in Australia
5. Build sustainable industry, farming, tourism, land management, water management and houses, towns and cities, Leed the world in recycling and green energy transport solutions Manufacture electric cars, buses, commercial vehicles There are so many jobs to be had and created in zero emissions
The world would flock here and pay us to advise and share our sustainable progressive technology and solutions
6. Eco tourism would not only create even more jobs for Austalians boosting the industries that benefit ie. restaurants, bakeries, farmers etc The tourism industry would bring even more billions of $$$$ into Australia
Australia’s $multi-billion climate whammy: Ross Garnaut was right
|
Ross Garnaut’s climate change prediction is coming true and it’s going to cost Australia billions, experts warn, ABC News,
By business reporter Nassim Khadem 8 Jan 2020,Twelve years ago, economist Ross Garnaut made a prophecy that has devastatingly come true.
Key points:
In the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, which examined the scientific evidence around the impacts of climate change on Australia and its economy, he predicted that without adequate action, the nation would face a more frequent and intense fire season by 2020. Speaking to the ABC about the latest bushfires and the potential economic fallout, Professor Garnaut refrained from taking a direct shot at policymakers who ignored many of the review’s calls for action. But he noted: “If you ignore the science when you build a bridge, the bridge falls down.”
The initial damage bill from Australian bushfires that began in September has risen to $700 million, according to Insurance Council of Australia estimates, and is likely to grow. ICA’s Campbell Fuller told ABC News that 1,838 homes have been destroyed across Australia since September and there have been 8,985 insurance claims for fire-related damage and destruction. But insured losses are just a small part of wider economic losses. The total cost of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires was estimated at $4.4 billion. Conservative estimates put the final cost of the current Australian bushfires well into billions of dollars, while some analysts say it could cost the economy $20 billion in lost output. Economist says cost could hit $3.5 billionThe head of economic analysis at SGS Economics and Planning, Terry Rawnsley, has done some early estimates on the economic cost of the bushfires. Based on previous modelling of the Tathra fires in 2018, and taking account of $700 million worth of insured losses, the economic fallout from the latest fires could be as high as $3.5 billion, he said. Between $2 billion to $3 billion includes the direct costs to fire-affected regions such as the loss of tourism and retail income, and the impact on agricultural production. He predicts that some of the worst-affected communities will never fully recover. And smoke haze in major capital cities could be an additional $500 million drag on the economy. “These are places not directly impacted by bushfires, but people aren’t out and about, and people are calling in sick with respiratory and asthma illnesses,” he said. Mr Rawnsley said while SGS Economics had modelled the loss of income from livestock such as sheep and cattle being destroyed, it had not modelled the actual loss of the assets (the loss of the sheep and cattle itself). Professor Tom Kompas, one of three chief investigators in the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis (CEBRA) at the University of Melbourne, said the economic cost of the bushfires would be “massive”. He said he intended to do precise modelling on the impact later this month. His earlier research on economic impacts of climate change had predicted $1.2 trillion in cumulative damages from now to 2050 assuming a global temperature increase of 3.8-4C by 2100. But the $1.2 trillion in losses looks at infrastructure lost due to sea-level rise, losses in agricultural and labour productivity and limited human health and biodiversity impacts. “It does not include the cost of bushfires on infrastructure and resulting increases in insurance premiums,” he said. “It also does not include damages from human health effects due to pollution and smoke-related illnesses, losses in tourism, losses to major environmental assets … or the costs of emergency management, recovery and relocation.” Estimated $20 billion could be wiped off GDPAMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver estimated a reduction of between 0.25 and 1 per cent in the level of national economic output as a result of the fires, which he forecast would show up mostly in the March quarter. Based on Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) of about $2 trillion, a 1 per cent drag could equate to about $20 billion. Still, even a lesser 0.25 per cent hit would be a major drag on economic growth, in an already slowing economy.
Everyone would pay to some degree via higher premiums as insurance claims spiked, he said…….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/economic-bushfires-billions-ross-garnaut-climate-change/11848388 |
|
Not only is the bushfire disaster devastating for Australia: it’s bad for its image, too
‘People aren’t stupid’: bushfire crisis scorches Australia’s image, The Age, By Andrew Taylor, January 5, 2020 A photo of a kangaroo leaping across the pages of British newspapers is the sort of free publicity that tourism authorities usually crave.
Except the animal was another victim of the months-long bushfire crisis, fleeing as flames engulfed a house at Lake Conjola on the NSW South Coast.
Another photo of two German tourists wearing surgical masks against a backdrop of the Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge published in the Financial Times last month under the headline “Wildfire smoke endangers lives and Sydney outdoor lifestyle” is likewise the sort of coverage money would not want to buy.
Apocalyptic images of tourists sheltering in water as flames threatened the Victorian seaside town of Mallacoota or stranded on beaches on the NSW South Coast have also featured across television screens, newspapers and news websites around the world.
They provided a stark contrast to Sydney’s New Year’s Eve fireworks, which went ahead despite calls for the event to be cancelled.
Images of terrified tourists, fire-devastated communities and distressed wildlife are also a far cry from the idyllic beaches and landscapes in Tourism Australia’s new $15 million tourism campaign targeting the British market…….
The vitriolic debate over climate change was also at odds with Australia’s claim to be laid back and friendly, Mr Derwin said. “Our reputation as a tourist destination would be greatly enhanced by taking leadership on climate change, and showing the world that we’re serious about protecting our natural habitats.”
A reality check on the cost of nuclear power for Australia
 Nuclear cost and water consumption – The elephants in the control room, Open Forum.com.au. Peter Farley | December 20, 2019 Cost There are four nuclear plants being built around the world where public information on costs is reasonably reliable.
These are Plant Vogtle in the US (US$27.5bn, 2.2GW), Framanville France (€12.4bn+, 1.6 GW), Olkiluoto in Finland (around €10 bn+, 1.6 GW) and Hinckley Point in the UK (₤22 bn+, 3.2 GW). There are two further plants whose power costs have been published, Akkuyu in Turkey US$127/MWh and Barakah in the Emirates US$110/MWh. It should be emphasised that none of these costs are the full cost recovery. For example in the British case it is estimated that some $10 bn has been spent by others on upgrading the grid and backup power supplies. In Turkey the cost of the plant is just that, and doesn’t include civil works, grid connections, cooling water supply. In the US plant Vogtle has benefited from some US$8bn of federal government loan guarantees and an unusual form of financing where customers have paid about 8% premium on their bills for 10-12 years before the plant is to be commissioned. All of the plants get catastrophe insurance and some security from their government and most have inadequate bond structures for long term waste storage. They also rarely pay for cooling water. Many have preferential supply agreements which will require other cheaper sources of power to turn off to allow the nuclear plants to keep running. However, even on the published information, nuclear power plants in democracies are running at about A$13m/MW. In our case we do not have an experienced nuclear workforce, Australian construction costs are higher by 20-30% for large projects – and there are 5,000 tradesmen on site at Plant Vogtle out of a workforce of 9,000 as nuclear power plants are very large projects. We do not have the heavy fabrication facilities required, and these cost hundreds of millions to build For example the Osborne Naval Shipyard design for 1/10th of the throughput of a nuclear fab shop cost $380m. Even the inspectors would have to be imported. So it is reasonable to suggest that new nuclear in Australia would cost at least A$16m per MW including subsidised construction finance, resulting in a first day of operation cost of a 2.2 GW plant of A$41 bn. Amortised over 50 years station life at a very low weighted average cost of capital at 5.5% – lower than plant Vogtle – that still works out at about $2.4 bn/yr. Due to the variability of demand in Australia the plants would be unlikely to be able to achieve a capacity factor above about 80% – halfway between the US and France and higher than Korea. So over a typical year a two unit 2.2 GW plant would be expected to generate about 15,500,000 MWh meaning the fixed costs per MWh would be $2.4bn/15.5m or $156/MWh. The daily running costs of US nuclear plants average out at US$40/MWh. This is lower than France and almost certainly lower than any new nuclear plant in Australia could achieve due to the much larger American skill base, higher utilisation and lower operating temperatures. The best case for Australia would be A$60+ for maintenace and operation. Thus an Australian nuclear power station could be expected to deliver power at a cost of A$216/MWh. Now if you use the cheaper Barrakah design at about US$5,300/MW and allow for 15 years of inflation at 1.5% to allow time for the project to come online, and a modest 10% Australian premium, power here could be produced at about A$10.4 bn per GW. After a slightly lower capacity factor of 75%, about the same as Korea, and a realistic WACC of 6.5% the ammortisation amounts to $107/MWh with a similar A$60/MWh operating and maintenance cost and the total delivered cost of power is a mere A $167/MWh. This figure aligns closely with the figure quoted by the CEO of the Barrakah plant some years ago at US$110/MWh The costs of a renewable alternative It should be noted that many of the arguments about relative costs are based on the figures used in the Finkel report. These are well out of date. Nuclear power has become even more expensive and actual renewable contracts in Australia are down 40-50% on the Finkel figures. Thus if we dispersed 2 GW of wind $3.6 bn, 1.2 GW of tracking solar $1.8bn, 2 GW of rooftop solar $2.5 bn, 1 GW of waste/biomass/geothermal $2.5bn and 1 GW/15GWh of pumped hydro $1.8 bn and 1 GW/ 2 GWh of batteries $1.2bn across the NEM the total cost would be $13.5 bn. Annual generation would be 17,500 GWh – more than the nuclear plant – and minimum available output would be 2.5 GW+. Typical hot day peak demand at 5pm would be about 4GW. About 30% of generation would go through storage at 85% efficiency, so net output would be around 16,500 GWh. Some would be curtailed so we can assume a similar annual output to the nuclear plant. However the operating costs average around $18 and the capital, even if amortised over 30 years are only $59/MWh for a total of $77 including backup. In summary, for 1/3rd of the investment, in one third of the time, we can get renewable power and backup for 1/3rd of the cost of nuclear power……https://www.openforum.com.au/nuclear-cost-and-water-consumption-the-elephants-in-the-control-room/?fbclid=IwAR2M3NxMjfrDJNWTG9tatKSARHGUKWVcG_CE-bSW5wtnAbwhGnYxd1ElugU |
|
Smaller Nuclear Power Is Not Cheaper Nuclear Power
Parliamentary Committee Supports Nuclear – But Only If Everyone Is Into It , Solar Quotes, December 19, 2019 by Ronald Brakels “……..Smaller Is Not Cheaper
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are suggested in the report as a way of making nuclear power economically viable. The problem with this is they cost more per kilowatt than large ones. This fact should not be a surprise to anyone. The engineers who designed the large nuclear reactors in the world today are not idiots who are currently slapping their foreheads, saying, “I’m so stupid! If only I had thought of making them smaller instead of bigger!” Modern reactors are very large to keep their cost per kilowatt down. Going small has the opposite effect.
That small reactors are not cheap is made obvious by the fact Britain, which has the longest history of nuclear power generation of any country, decided to power their new aircraft carriers with kerosene and diesel rather than small nuclear reactors because of they are so expensive. This is despite the alternative being expensive oil products rather than much cheaper solar and wind energy.
An advantage given for SMRs is they will supposedly suffer from fewer cost overruns. But that sales pitch is not enough to make nuclear energy economically attractive — pay for a more expensive product so you’ll have less of a chance of unpleasant surprise expenses down the line.2…… https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/nuclear-energy-australia/
Rio Tinto appeals Takeovers Panel decision on uranium miner ERA
Rio Tinto appeals Takeovers Panel decision on uranium miner ERA, THE AUSTRALIAN, NICK EVANS, RESOURCE WRITER, 13 Dec 19,
Rio Tinto has appealed a Takeovers Panel decision preventing it from taking complete control of uranium miner ERA, as the fallout from the company’s hard-ball tactics to fund the clean-up of the Ranger uranium mine continues.The Takeovers Panel handed dissident ERA investor Richard Magides a moral victory on Wednesday, declaring ERA’s decision to accept a Rio offer to underwrite a $476m equity issue was made in “unacceptable circumstances”…...(subscribers only)
A foreign corporation gets 89 BILLION litres of Australia’s water, as drought worsens
|
Water restrictions for you, an endless supply for them: How a foreign corporate giant is snapping up 89 BILLION litres of Australia’s H20 as the country suffers its worst drought ever
By ALISHA ROUSE FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA DAILY MAIL UK 12 December 2019 |A multi-billion dollar Singaporean food company is selling 89,000 megalitres of Australian water to a Canadian pension fund. The mega sale of Australian permanent water rights comes as the country is crippled by one of the worst droughts in its history. On Tuesday, NSW brought in a complete ban on hoses as part of the toughest water restrictions implemented for more than a decade. But no such problem existed for food and agriculture giant Olam International, which sold the 89billion litres of permanent water rights for an astonishing $490 million. The company sold it to an entity associated with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, according to Straits Times. It will use the water to irrigate almond trees, in a business venture likely to draw criticism over foreign ownership of farms and water. The water rights are in the lower Murray-Darling Basin. The chairman of the Victorian Farmers Federation’s water council, Richard Anderson, told the Sydney Morning Herald: ‘Really, all you’ve got is a change of ownership, it (the water) has gone from a Singapore-owned company to a Canadian pension fund……. Water restrictions in Sydney, the Blue Mountains and Illawarra were upgraded to level two as dam levels in the region sank to just 45 per cent capacity, the lowest levels since the Millennium Drought took hold in 2003….. The Bureau of Meteorology has predicted a hot-than-usual summer, with no forecast for significant rain. The sale is understood to be giving Olam a ‘one-time pre-tax capital gain of about $311 million’, the paper reported. The agreement is for 25 years, with the option to renew for another 25. In March, the government released its foreign ownership of water entitlement register, showing that investors from China and the US had the largest stake in Australia’s foreign-owned water entitlements. It showed that one in 10 water entitlements is foreign owned. A water entitlement is the right to an ongoing share of water, which can be sold by irrigators, companies or investors. Acting as a property right, it gives access to an exclusive share of water from a water resource. This is different to a water allocation, which is the right to access a volume of water for use or trade. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7780983/Foreign-company-sells-89-billion-litres-Australian-water-rights-490m-drought.html?fbclid=IwAR3wKbYP6OnXTEPhNoZiDeQ2Oj1o6uMzWUmkQSOgMxYjkZn6i0cJFj60Zo4&fbclid=IwAR3oHKAi9vQG4MctY4LMYNppX-pbY88hw0Zj4ACzypNTB_WI9nTtkc710bc |
|
Minerals Council renews push for nuclear energy, but rather coy about its costs
“The construction of nuclear power plants has proven to be an economic disaster for the corporations involved and a massive waste of public monies, given the plants are all entirely reliant on government financial subsidies,” IEEFA said.
Nuclear inquiry sparks industry campaign to lift moratorium, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/nuclear-inquiry-sparks-industry-campaign-to-lift-moratorium-20191201-p53fsz.htl By Mike Foley, December 1, 2019 — The Minerals Council is ramping up its long-run campaign to remove Australia’s ban on nuclear power, claiming new market research shows majority community support for the technology.
Federal Parliament banned nuclear power in 1998, and the moratorium has remained in place with bipartisan support ever since.
The Morrison government has asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Energy to investigate the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia.
According to the Minerals Council of Australia, one prerequisite for nuclear power, community support, could be achieved if the public are properly informed about the technology.
The Minerals Council commissioned JWS Research to sample Australians’ support for nuclear power. The survey of 1500 people found 40 per cent support nuclear power and 33 per cent oppose it.
The support for nuclear energy rose to 47 per cent when respondents were presented a range of positive and negative facts about the technology.
“The more people learn about it, the greater the support for nuclear energy,” said Minerals Council chief executive Tania Constable.
She said the survey showed politicians that Australians wanted nuclear to be considered in their future energy mix.
“This should give them the courage to act. Any government serious about addressing climate change must be looking at nuclear, the zero-emissions foundation of electricity systems across the globe.”
The factors for nuclear energy were delivery of emissions-free power around the clock, Australia’s vast landmass could safely house reactors in remote locations, increased uranium mining, and nuclear power plants could bring jobs growth, and Australia already permits uranium exports – which could be utilised at home.
The factors against nuclear energy were the potential for human error to cause accidents at a reactor or waste facility, previous catastrophic failures such as Three Mile Island and Fukushima, concerns of health impacts for people living near reactors or waste facilities, and the risk that uranium exports could be used for weapons.
Energy analyst Lazard’s estimates the current cost of energy production for nuclear is more expensive than renewables.
The levelised cost of solar power around the world for solar power is about $60 per megawatt hour, $42/Mwh for wind, $145/Mwh for coal, and $220/Mwh for nuclear.
Nuclear power production costs could come with new technology. Small to medium sized reactors are proposed as potential cost savers, but there are no commercial examples in operation.
Government contributions would likely be required to underwrite private investment in a nuclear power plant in Australia. The cost of building Britain’s first nuclear plant in a generation, Hinkley Point, has blown out to more than $42 billion. It is contracted to supply the government with power at $176/Mwh.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis submission to the inquiry believes nuclear is one of the most expensive power sources.
“The construction of nuclear power plants has proven to be an economic disaster for the corporations involved and a massive waste of public monies, given the plants are all entirely reliant on government financial subsidies,” IEEFA said.
The Minerals Council submission said nuclear’s zero emissions power generation had to be incorporated into Australia’s future energy mix.
Rio Tinto drives ERA rehabilitation of Ranger uranium mine
Rio Tinto drives ERA rehabilitation of Ranger, https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/rio-tinto-drives-era-rehabilitation-of-ranger/
The company has announced an offer of new fully paid ordinary shares to raise the rehabilitation funds, with support from majority owner Rio Tinto.
As ERA’s largest shareholder, Rio Tinto is subscribing to its full entitlement of approximately $326 million.
ERA is not able to secure third-party underwriting support, therefore Rio Tinto is also acting as the underwriter to ensure ERA secures the funds it needs.Rio Tinto energy and minerals group executive Bold Baatar said it was committed to ensuring ERA’s position to fund the rehabilitation.
“We take mine closure very seriously and ensuring ERA is able to fund the closure and rehabilitation of the Ranger project area, through participating in this entitlement offer, is a priority,” Baatar said.
The shares will be offered to all eligible shareholders for $0.15 per share, representing a 38 per cent discount to the $0.24 per share 10-day volume weighted average price (VWAP).
After the increase in the rehabilitation provision in 2018, ERA found it did not have sufficient existing cash resources or expected future cash flows to fulfil the Ranger rehabilitation.
ERA believes it will have an achievable plan for the Ranger rehabilitation with the completion of this entitlement officer.
As per the obligation with the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments and the Traditional Owners, ERA will return the Ranger project area to an environment similar to the nearby Kakadu National Park.
Under its mining approval terms, ERA must end mining and processing at Ranger by January 2021 and finish final rehabilitation by January 2026.
ERA is not expected to generate any direct financial return from the Ranger rehabilitation expenditure.
There’s no market for new uranium mines or re-opening old ones – Cameco
Cameco: No market for new uranium mines, THE AUSTRALIAN, NICK EVANS, RESOURCE WRITER, NOVEMBER 6, 2019 The world’s biggest uranium company says it cannot see any case for construction of new uranium mines, despite signs the sector is on the cusp of a long-awaited recovery.
Canada’s Cameco delivered the blunt assessment in its third-quarter financial results, released to the market late last week, saying there was still no case for reopening the mines it shut down in 2016 and 2017, stripping more than 20 million pounds of annual uranium oxide production from world supply.
Uranium prices remain in the doldrums, with spot prices averaging only $US25.68 a pound in the September quarter and long-term pricing sitting at an average $US31.50, , but chief executive Tim Gitzel told analysts the company was now receiving more interest in new contracts from customers than at any time since the Fukushima disaster in 2011.
But, as Australia’s state governments face pressure to reverse laws banning uranium mining, and a federal parliamentary commission examines the economics of building a nuclear power plant in Australia, Mr Gitzel warned there would be no case for the construction of new uranium mines for some years to come.
Mr Gitzel said Cameco was seeing increased demand for the conversion of uranium oxide to enriched products, which he said was a precursor for a mining sector recovery. But he warned that nuclear utilities were still reluctant to commit to the long-term supply contracts needed to return mothballed mines back to production amid an excess of uranium oxide still in the market.
Cameco plans to fill more than 70 per cent of the 32 million pounds it needs to deliver to customers next year by buying on the spot market and produce only 9 million pounds from its mines.
“Today, the activity we’re seeing in the spot market is largely churn, the same material changing hands many times. There’s been a lack of fundamental demand (and) is more appropriately thought of as delayed purchasing decisions,” Mr Gitzel said.
“Utilities are delaying their purchasing decisions due to the uncertainty caused by changing market dynamics, including the ongoing market access and trade policy issues.”
Cameco has two Australian uranium projects in Western Australia — Kintyre and Yeelirrie — that have largely negotiated the necessary environmental permitting processes allowing constructions. But both are well out of the money, with Yeelirrie — bought from BHP for $US430m in 2012 — needing a long-term price of $US55-$60 a pound to be viable, and Kintyre, worth $US346m in 2008, closer to $US75 a pound.
While Mr Gitzel said he was concerned the lack of new mines could cause issues for the industry over the next decade if the number of nuclear power plants in the planning became a reality, he said there was no economic case for building new supply.
“Not only does it not make sense to invest in future primary supply, even the lowest-cost producers are deciding to preserve long-term value by leaving uranium in the ground,” Mr Gitzel said in Cameco’s financial report.
Signs of a recovery in the global market, partly spurred by the looming closure of ERA’s Ranger mine in the Northern Territory in 2021, have led to renewed activity from listed uranium plays.
Paladin Energy successfully raised $31.7m in October to fund feasibility studies on the restart of its Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia, and in the September quarter Deep Yellow raised $11.3m for its Namibian uranium exploration.
Cameco chief financial officer Grant Isaac said he did not believe new mines could win financial backing without a far stronger recovery in demand for uranium than was currently on the horizon, given the amount of idled supply sitting on the sidelines.
“It’s pretty hard to say you’re going to take the risk on an asset … that isn’t licensed, isn’t permitted, probably doesn’t have a proven mining method, when you have idle tier 1 capacity that’s licensed, permitted, sitting there,” he said.
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
Nuclear Power in Australia | FYI
of the week
The Industry Push to Force Nuclear Power onto Australia
EVENTS
27 February – Wayville, Adelaide Nuclear Waste in South Australia ‒ What do we know?
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
Germany’s Climate Action Plan: step-by-step to a liveable future. Nuclear power is of course completely excluded
