Deflating Barry Brook’s pro nuclear bubble
Solar and wind energy projects are going apace in the world right now. And that’s where private investment is going, too, not into nuclear power. I would say that hurdle No 1 would be in persuading people to invest in nuclear power – and that’s a big hurdle. Hurdle 1a would be in getting the government to subsidise nuclear power.
I suspect that even in Australia, solar and wind power systems, both centralised and small, will be well established by 2050, and nuclear power will be a forgotten dream.
Answering Barry Brook on Australia’s nuclear power future, Online Opinion, Noel Wauchope, 13 June 2012 Australia’s nuclear propagandists are at it again, although Ziggy Switkowski, the usual leader of the pack, has been very quiet lately. However, Professor Barry Brook, and his acolyte, Terry Krieg of Australian Nuclear Forum, seem to be taking up the torch now….
Costs Barry Brook claims that there would be “cost benefits” for Australia to adopt these generation 1V nuclear reactors. This is a bald statement. As far as I can tell, nobody at present is able to estimate the costs. Particularly when it comes to the small reactors. One thing is accepted: the only way that these could ever be commercially viable would be if they were to be manufactured and sold in large numbers. The likelihood of this happening, of a mass production and sale of small reactors is dubious.
For fast neutron reactors, large or small, Barry Brook himself admits that there are currently none in commercial operation.
David Biello comments: Fast-neutron reactors would not improve the economics of nuclear power
based on past experience, …. As far back as 1956, Adm. Hyman Rickover, who oversaw both the Navy’s nuclear-propulsion efforts as well as the dawn of the civilian nuclear power industry, cited such sodium-cooled fast-neutron reactors as
“expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair.” That judgment remains despite six decades and $100 billion of global effort, Continue reading
The future for outback mining energy is in renewables, not nuclear
Green group rejects outback nuclear push http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-08/green-group-rejects-outback-nuclear-energy/4060024?section=sa June 08, 2012 The Australian Conservation Foundation has rejected outright that nuclear power would be a better alternative for parts of South Australia’s outback.
An environmental scientist from the University of Adelaide has this week predicted some outback mines could be nuclear-powered within 20 years. The statement has prompted some support for so-called small modular reactors at places like Olympic Dam.
However, the foundation’s Dave Sweeney says wind and solar power are quite rightly becoming more prominent in regional and remote areas. “Regional Australia is perfectly placed to be using these renewable materials and to be processing minerals, accessing minerals based on a much cleaner production cycle and a much cleaner whole of life
industrial assessment which has far less impact,” he said.
Mr Sweeney says there is simply no place for nuclear power. “There is the real opportunity in regional Australia to use regional sustainable energy systems,” he said. “We’re already seeing mines in regional Australia increasingly using
geothermal, we’re seeing mining operations and other operations and communities using wind and solar.”
Australia’s uranium companies put on a bold face, but their prospects are not good
The uranium price tanked after the Fukushima disaster and so far there is no sign of a bounce. Current prices are too low to allow the smaller uranium wannabes to proceed with any confidence.
Uranium flashpoint in the wild West, The Drum, Jim Green, 22 May 12, Interesting times in the uranium sector. The mining companies have had a few wins in the 14 months since the Fukushima disaster, but they’ve had more losses.
Bill Repard, organiser of the Paydirt Uranium Conference held in Adelaide in February, put on a brave face with this claim: The sector’s hiccups in the wake of Fukushima are now over with, the global development of new nuclear power stations continues unabated, and the Australian sector has literally commenced a U-turn in every sense.
Yet for all the hype, uranium accounts for a lousy 0.03 per cent of Australian export revenue and a negligible 0.02 per cent of Australian jobs. The industry’s future depends on the nuclear power ‘renaissance’, but global nuclear power capacity has been stagnant for the past 20 years, and if there is any growth at all in the next 20 years, it will be modest. Continue reading
Australia’s pro nuclear advocates getting nervous about the industry
Anxiety, fear – these are the emotions that bring about anger, hatred, and extreme statements.
Today’s AUSTRALIAN gives a fine example of this, in a pro nuclear article by Brendan O’Neill. It appears against a backdrop of news that must be very worrying for the nuclear/uranium industries. (BHP possibly going to scrap Olympic Dam uranium expansion, or certainly delay it, at least – Japan looking as if it mightget through the summer without nuclear power (shock horror) – thorium reactor debate suggesting that uranium sales would plummet, renewable eenergy getting cheaper. it’s all a worry for nuclear power proponents.)
So – Brendan O’Neill comes out with “The risks of dumping nuclear are too great”. He tells us that: “green campaigners scream” “anti-nuclear hysteria poses a far greater threat to life and limb than does nuclear power itself” “eco-activists canrole-play being brave warriors”
He is very enthusiastic about the extremism of the anti nuclear side.
But – very low key about nuclear disasters – ” Progress, especially of the nuclear variety, can sometimes have less
than desirable consequences. But as we saw in Fukushima, and also in Chernobyl before it, it is entirely possible to contain those consequences and to limit the downsides” – Less than desirable consequences !- what a lovely way to dismiss the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima
On the effect of Fukushima on Europe – O’Neill says ” it has unleashed a metaphorical tsunami of anti-nuclear panic” – quoting German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the example of such panic. (Last I heard Germany was doing very well in the current global economic problem, and a global leader in renewable energy)
He bemoans the “real lethal danger” of the “hysterical turn” against nuclear energy.
I thought that it was the anti nuclear activists who were supposed to use emotional, panicky language. It looks as if Brendan O’Neill, bereft of facts, is in a bit of a panic himself. – Christina Macpherson
Coal on the decline for new electricity generation,- renewables on the rise
Australia is not leading the charge on the adoption of clean energy, but it is certainly part of a global movement that will be seen in history as one of the great shifts in economic change.
Bloomberg found the data is clear here as well: in 2011 coal attracted just 17 per cent of value of completed electricity generation projects, gas attracted 36 per cent, and renewables 41 per cent (of this 41 per cent was wind and solar was 6 per cent).
King coal dethroned, CLIMATE SPECTATOR, Peter Newman & Ray Wills, 15 May 2012 “King coal still reigns” was the headline emblazoned across a full page article in The Weekend Australian on the 28-29 April 2012, by environment editor Graham Lloyd. The article’s subtitle was, “The world is in the grip of a fossil fuel boom that shows no sign of fading.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. The latest data on global investment in new power production shows the dramatic decline in fossil fuel investment, and an astonishing increase in renewables investment. Continue reading
Mass media and State govt policies damaging Australia’s wind farm industry
Economics taking the wind out of farm’s sails, Canberra Times, Graham Downie.May 7, 2012 “……. Infigen Energy, the largest wind farm owner in Australia, owns Capital Wind Farm, between Bungendore and Tarago, east of Canberra, which has 67 turbines.
The company has approval to almost double this. Only the present economics prevent the extension going ahead.
Mr Upson said about 20 new wind farms had been approved in Victoria and about six in NSW. These projects had been delayed by the ”small-scale screw up”. That had now been fixed by separating the small-scale and large-scale schemes but the glut of certificates remained.
Mr Upson said some elements of the media spread a lot of misinformation about wind energy. Certainly, turbines killed a small number of birds, but this was infinitesimal compared to the number of birds killed by power lines, motor vehicles, cats and pesticides.
He also dismissed concerns that wind farms caused illness. ”There is no independent, regulatory, scientific or medical body in the world that thinks wind turbines make people sick.”
With wind energy worldwide doubling every three years, there would be an epidemic of biblical proportions if wind turbines made people sick. ”There are wind turbines everywhere in Europe and no one is getting sick.”
Mr Upson said the wind industry worldwide had grown by more than 25 per cent each year for the past 15 years. ”I challenge you to think of another industry that has had this sustained and long-term growth.”
Wind produced less than 2 per cent of the total electricity demand in NSW and the ACT, but in South Australia, with a greater wind resource and less demand for electricity, wind produced about 25 per cent of that state’s total demand. At times, it reached about 70 per cent.
Though generation from wind turbines was variable, the Australian Energy Market Operator could now forecast wind energy throughout the grid with 98 per cent accuracy an hour ahead. This meant other generators were turned on or off as required.
Wind farms were expensive to build but were very cheap to run. So they could under bid coal and gas generators given suitable wind.
Infigen had plans to develop solar generation and would be pleased to be selected in the Solar Flagships program, he said. ”In which case we would build three large-scale solar facilities.” One would be at the Capital Wind Farm, one at Nyngan and one at Manildra. At present, generating electricity from even large-scale solar plants was about twice as expensive as from wind.
”May be by the middle of the decade it might be more competitive … to build a large-scale solar facility we need some sort of grant or subsidy.” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/economics-taking-the-wind-out-of-farms-sails-SMH 20120506-1y7bt.html#ixzz1uDQDJkG
Quack science, anti science, about ionising radiation from Toro Energy’s Dr Doug Boreham
Doctors take Toro Energy to school on the dangers of radiation , May 1st, 2012 The Australian Greens welcomed today’s call from the Medical Association for Prevention of War for uranium miners Toro Energy to stop promoting the view that low-level radiation is beneficial to human health.
The Greens nuclear policy spokesperson, WA Senator Scott Ludlam, said Toro’s plans to mine uranium at Wiluna, Western Australia, should be abandoned.
“Toro Energy has sponsored a number of speaking tours by Dr Doug Boreham, who promoted radiation as ‘anti-carcinogenic’ at the Paydirt uranium conference in Adelaide. Continue reading
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation helping Japan to study radiation
It’s interesting that ANSTO will be studying ‘naturally occurring radiation” and will be “supporting Japan in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster “. They don’t seem to be showing much interest in monitoring nuclear-power-caused radiation, and I can’t help wondering about that support for Japan. Could it be support for the Japanese government and nuclear industry minimising the real impact of the Fukushima disaster? After all, ANSTO’s main business is in keeping the door open for nuclear power in Australia.
Centre gauges radiation St George and Sutherland Shire Leader BY KATE CARR 27 Apr, 2012 AFTER months of searching for the perfect concrete and pre-World War II steel, ANSTO’s new $8.7 million radioactivity measurement centre officially opened on Tuesday. Federal Science and Research Minister Chris Evans helped ANSTO chief executive Adi Paterson cut the red ribbon and opened the centre, where scientists can accurately measure naturally occurring radiation…..
Dr Paterson said the centre would give ANSTO the tools to monitor the amount of radiation in the environment and undertake research which could support Japan in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster that followed an earthquake and tsunami.
The new centre needed to be built using specialised materials so that it had such low background radiation that equipment could detect tiny amounts of radiation which might otherwise be drowned out. The centre also includes the only ITRAX core scanner in Australia, a piece of equipment used to measure the composition of sediment core samples taken by drilling. http://www.theleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/centre-gauges-radiation/2535888.aspx
Australia’s nuclear industry exempted from laws on Aboriginal rights: is Warren Mundine unaware of this?
Aboriginal nuclear power promoter, Warren Mundine, was on the job today, with an article in the Financial Review. Mundine praised nuclear energy, and assured readers that the industry is going ahead. He made out that it is necessary for nuclear medicine. Most alarming of all, Mundine advocates the “full nuclear cycle”. That means Australia not only having nuclear power, but taking in nuclear waste from overseas countries.
We should not be all that surprised at Mundine’s pro nuke spruik. He has for a long time, been part of Australia’s nuclear lobby – its nuclear ‘spin machine’. – Christina Macpherson
FINANCIAL REVIEW JIM GREEN. 30 MARCH 12, As a co-convener of the Australian Uranium Association’s Indigenous Dialogue Group, it’s a shame that Warren Mundine turns a blind eye to the crude racism of Australia’s nuclear industry
He ought to have noted that last year’s amendments to the South Australian Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982 retain exemptions from the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act. Traditional owners were not even consulted. The SA government’s spokesperson in Parliament said: “BHP were satisfied with the current arrangements and insisted on the continuation of these arrangements, and the government did not consult further than that.”
Mundine says that Australia has “a legal framework to negotiate equitably with the traditional owners on whose land many uranium deposits are found”. He ought to have noted that legislation was passed specifically to exempt the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory from the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
And Mundine ought to have noted that Resources Minister Martin Ferguson’s National Radioactive Waste Management Act overrides the Aboriginal Heritage Act, sidesteps the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and allows for the imposition of a dump on Aboriginal land even in the absence of any consultation with or consent from traditional owners. http://afr.com/p/opinion/our_radioactive_racism_UTpKFLGc40Yd3aBCYAJByM
Curiouser and curiouser – Greenpeace accused of being a tool of America’s CIA!
VIDEO Palmer says green groups funded by CIA ABC Radio PM By Matt Wordsworth and staff March 20, 2012 Mining magnate Clive Palmer has accused the United States government of funding environmental group Greenpeace via the CIA to undermine Australia’s coal mining sector. Continue reading
Australia: government and industry complicit in Fukushima nuclear catastrophe
Australia could have played a role in breaking the vicious cycle of mismanagement in Japan’s nuclear industry by making uranium exports conditional on improved management of nuclear plants and tighter regulation.
[The Australian uranium industry] has brought shame to all Australians by turning a blind eye to serious problems in customer countries and responding with mock indignation when anyone calls its bluff….
Australia’s role in the Fukushima disaster, March 17, 2012, Green Left, By Jim Green“…..Australia’s role There is no dispute that Australian uranium was used in the Fukushima reactors. The mining companies won’t acknowledge that fact — instead they hide behind bogus claims of “commercial confidentiality” and “security”.
But the truth is out. The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office acknowledged in October that: “We can confirm that Australian obligated nuclear material was at the Fukushima Daiichi site and in each of the reactors — maybe five out of six, or it could have been all of them.” It is likely that TEPCO was supplied with uranium from BHP Billiton’s
Olympic Dam mine, ERA’s Ranger mine, and Heathgate’s Beverley mine. Continue reading
Northern Territory nuclear waste dump not needed for medical wastes, says Public Health Association
Misleading arguments influence nuclear waste dump debate, Public Health Association of Australia, 15 March 12, Linking access to cancer treatment with the need for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory is shameful and misleading, reflecting the pro-nuclear ideologies of Ministers rather than facts, said Clive Rosewarne, spokesperson for the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA).
“Waste from nuclear medicine procedures, the majority of which is for diagnostic services rather than treatment, is low level and short term waste can be stored on site and safely disposed of locally. The small amount of higher level waste from nuclear medicine can also be stored locally, as it is currently,” explained Mr Rosewarne.
“Comments by senior Commonwealth Ministers upon the passing of the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill claiming that a dump is needed in order to have a nuclear medicine industry are a gross manipulation of public sentiment and an attempt to create fear in the community over access to health services. It is shameful that senior Ministers are misrepresenting the facts to foster their ideological support of the nuclear industry.
“The increased shipment of radioactive wastes across thousands of kilometres of Australia represents a far greater risk to public health than current storage practices and all of this could be further reduced if the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was decommissioned and stopped from producing more waste. The only waste stream that requires a dedicated facility is soil waste from former CSIRO work and the ongoing waste generated at the nuclear reactor Lucas Heights.
“There is no long term solution to the highly dangerous radioactive waste produced by the nuclear industry and yet proponents of the industry hide from this fact. Transporting waste thousands of kilometres to a remote site certainly fits the Not In My Backyard syndrome, and attempts to locate the waste out of sight and out of mind.
“The anguish and suffering the passing of this Bill has caused to NT locals represents a low point in this nation’s dealing with Aboriginal people and may have long term health impacts. This does not seem to be of concern for Ministers who have refused to meet with traditional owners opposing the nomination of the Muckaty Station site. It would seem their health is of lower consideration than city folk in this appalling process,” said Mr Rosewarne.
Exposing the wrong case for nuclear power put by Professor Barry Brook
As the Fukushima nuclear disaster unfolded in March 2011, Brook maintained a running commentary in the media and on his website insisting that the situation was under control and that there was no reason for concern.
[Brook] is silent on the problem of long-term cancer deaths from exposure to radioactive fallout
Nuclear Power Isn’t A Green Bullet, New Matilda, 12 Mar 2012 By Jim Green “…… When a scientist with the best of intentions and a prodigious intellect argues that the risks of nuclear power have been overstated and that nuclear power is an essential tool in the battle against climate change, his arguments need careful consideration. The Brook/BNC mantra is this: “it’s nuclear power or it’s climate change”.
[clean energy:] However numerous studies exist that map out the options to sharply reduce emissions without recourse to nuclear power. One of the most practical Australian studies was produced by a group of scientists for theClean Energy Future Group (CEFG)…. University of NSW academic Mark Diesendorf, who contributed to theCEFG study, has proposed a more ambitious scenario that replaces all coal and gas with renewables.
[nuclear weapons:] Barry Brook has shown himself willing to trivialise the repeatedly demonstrated connection between nuclear power and weapons. … Brook claims to be concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation but the evidence suggests otherwise. …
Brook claims that the integral fast reactors (IFRs) he champions “cannot be used to generate weapons-grade material.” The claim isn’t true. To quote George Stanford, who worked on an IFR research program in the US: “If not properly safeguarded, they could do [with IFRs] what they could do with any other reactor — operate it on a special cycle to produce good quality weapons material.”
The misconceptions pile up. Continue reading
Mark Diesendorf refutes the pro nuclear Grattan Institute, on renewable energy
Grattan overlooks the research showing that current prices of fossil fuels are too low because they don’t take into account the environmental, health and economic damage produced….. current market prices of energy technologies are less important than future projections, taking into account externalities and relative risks. What would be the costs of insuring a nuclear power station properly against a rare but catastrophic accident such as experienced at Chernobyl or Fukushima? The Japan Center for Economic Research estimates the partial costs of the Fukushima disaster at $US71-250 billion, yet TEPCO was insured for only $US1.5 billion.
Grattan omits to cite, let alone discuss, the two studies that suggest that 100 per cent renewable electricity may be technologically feasible for Australia.
In 2010 the ‘Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan’ found that 100 per cent renewable energy is technically possible for Australia.
A peak at Australia’s energy future , Climate Spectator, Mark Diesendorf, 7 March, 12, A recent contribution to the debate over electricity futures for Australia comes from the Grattan Institute report “No quick fix for Australia’s future energy challenge’ Continue reading
Carbon price is ‘business friendly’ – far from being a communist plot
Global warming, a communist plot? Business Spectator: Tristan Edis , 6 Mar 2012 “….. within Australia, climate change science has become tarred as a cause of the left rather than an objective physical phenomenon. Attempts to use a price signal or a market in carbon permits to control the problem, one of the least communist ways of controlling emissions, are represented as the end of the world as we know it. We are told to expect mass job losses, a deep economic recession, the lights going out and even the loss of our democratic freedoms.
Some of this hysteria is clearly the product of public relations exercises by cold, calculating firms looking after their own self
interest, ….
For many of them climate change is seen through the lens of a broader battle against the left’s attempts to curtail achievement of their vision. This is perhaps best personified by someone like Hugh Morgan, former head of Western Mining and president of the Business Council of Australia. Morgan has been a major driver of Australia’s resources industry and has led fights on industrial relations, Aboriginal land rights, and other constraints on development of minerals resources.
When climate change emerged as a major problem in the 90s, Morgan was quick to act with the establishment of the Lavoissier Institute.
This association of climate change with broader causes of the left has been incredibly unfortunate. It means we now have a significant and incredibly influential segment of the business community that is almost irrational in its approach to government policies to control greenhouse gas emissions. Using a price signal or carbon permit market to control greenhouse gas emissions would be the most business friendly way of controlling our greenhouse gas emissions. It should not be seen as some kind of communist plot. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/climate-change-communist-plot-Nick-Minchin-politic-pd20120305-S492K?opendocument&src=rss
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 