The nuclear industry

and

Comment - from watermonitor "Nuclear power adds to global warming big time. In Europe nuclear reactors had to be shut down because water levels were too low to cool the reactors. Why such a drop in water?

Well, to cool the reactors, it takes water from its source, circulates it around the core and then dumps this heated water back into the water source, resulting in speeding up the evaporation rate. In addition, watch the top of the core of the reactor and again, it releases enormous amount of heat in the form of vapour. To me a perfect condition to global warming."

It's energy efficiency, stupid Business Spectator Giles Parkinson May 8, 2008 - "...................................it probably has something to do with the fact that energy costs in Australia have been so low most boards probably thought it was free.
But the impending carbon price might get them thinking again. According to Energetics, a firm that makes its money by advising companies how to save energy, a national energy efficiency target of 1-2 per cent per annum could deliver savings to Australian companies of $5 billion a year by 2020.

In its submission to the Garnaut Review Energetics argued that energy efficiency measures must be one of the key levers to achieve greenhouse reductions - along with an emissions trading scheme and renewable energy targets - in order to arrest Australia's continued and almost uncontrolled increase in emissions.

Energetics argues that if Australia follows Europe and Japan in introducing efficiency targets - be they for homes, industry, cars, or anything else - the impact will be to both reduce emissions and cut costs, counteracting the inflationary impact of an emissions trading scheme.

"Helping vulnerable communities and sectors to reduce their energy requirements when the price of electricity increases will soften the impact of energy price rises on consumers," it argues in its submission.

Last year, the EBA released a report that found energy efficiency measures on their own could deliver a 12 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020.

The Clean Energy Council, which represents the renewable sector, argues that when managed properly, emission efficiency measures could negate the need for any new coal fired power stations that would lock the country into increased emissions - at least until "clean coal" technology is developed and proven, by which time it will likely be competing with geothermal, solar thermal and wind and wave energy......................................".

Greenpeace rejects 'clean coal' The Age Chris Hammer May 6, 2008 - "CLEAN coal technology has been labelled a "scam" by Greenpeace, which says it cannot possibly be ready in time to prevent dangerous climate change.

The Greenpeace report False Hope said that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology would not be ready on a commercial scale until 2030 at the earliest. "If CCS is ever able to deliver at all, it will be too little, too late," the report concluded........

..........Carbon Capture and Storage is a yet-to-be-proven technology to store power station emissions deep underground. It is insanity verging on criminal negligence to pass over clean energy and pin hopes on an unproven technology," said author Emily Rochon at the report's launch in the United States.

The Greenpeace report accused the power industry of using CCS to legitimise constructing new coal-fired power stations by labelling them "capture ready".

The report said that even if CSS technology could be developed, it would be expensive, risky and waste energy.
The report also questioned whether enough underground storage was available for the 6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide it said would require burial annually.

The report has been welcomed by Greens Senator Christine Milne. "Prime Minister Rudd must now jettison any plans to spend public dollars on coal company research, which is increasingly exposed as a sham," said Senator Milne....".

…………..environment groups and climate scientists criticised the Government for investing more in clean coal than renewable energy.

Environment Victoria campaigns director Mark Wakeham said the announcement suggested that next week's state budget would not be good for climate change. 'The demonstration carbon capture and storage projects are likely to be extremely small, and are very unlikely to reduce Victoria's emissions,' he said.

Critics of carbon storage say it will be impossible in the short term to assess whether the process could lead to potentially dangerous gas leaks......................................."

………………Stephen Campbell, the campaign director at Greenpeace, which participated in the 1988 summit, says: 'Australia now has the highest per capita emissions of carbon dioxide in the world, after 11 years of Howard government support for fossil fuel industries. In Germany, which gets much less sunshine, 14 per cent of energy is solar.'

Brown agrees that 'the biggest disappointment has been Australia's failure to harness solar power … With our sunshine we could be the world leader'.............................................."

Clean' coal fraud - renewables now! Green Left James Risbey 26 April 2008 - "The recent decision by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Climate Institute to support carbon sequestration and storage (CCS) will set back Australia's efforts to confront climate change, as well as increasing the costs of doing so.
CCS technologies attempt to capture carbon dioxide (CO2)from the waste stream of coal power stations and transport and bury it in underground reservoirs.

The problem with CCS, in a nutshell, is that it is too little, too late, too expensive, too risky, and it displaces other solutions that can do the job.

As our views of the science of climate change have advanced, they have provided sobering news that we are approaching tipping points in the climate system.

If our continued emissions fuel warming of more than a couple of degrees, that is likely to commit us to irreversible melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. That, in turn, locks us in to sea level rises of tens of metres at rates, foreseeably, in the range of several metres per century. ……………………Our best prospects in this regard are renewable energy, efficiency measures, and emissions reduction efforts and infrastructure changes. Renewables can be implemented now and will scale up with time and become cheaper as they are widely commercialised and research and development increases their efficacy..................……………Renewable energy will get cheaper as time goes on, and likely would long have outcompeted CCS by the time CCS could be implemented on a commercial scale. Those countries that choose CCS will be locking themselves into expensive energy futures …………

…The US Department of Energy has estimated that any new coal plants built with CCS would use about twice the water for operation as existing plants. Water is already a limiting factor in the operation of coal plants in Australia..........…………The costs and risks of CCS will be passed on to the public, whereas renewables and efficiency aren't exposed to these costs and risks. …………………………..The flagship CCS project in the US collapsed on cost grounds despite receiving over a billion US dollars in public funds and receiving protection from financial and legal liability in the event of accidental releases of carbon dioxide. Through CCS we will be creating a global network of potentially contaminated and leaky sites that fall on the public purse. "

Nuclear energy becoming less sustainable Cosmos Online by Brooke Borel - '24 April 08 SYDNEY: - "The case for nuclear power as a sustainable alternative energy source is challenged by new evidence that greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining are increasing.

An Australian report, detailed this week in the journal Environmental Science and Technology argues that the availability of high-grade uranium ore will deplete over time making the fuel more environmentally and economically expensive to extract.
The find adds to existing concerns about nuclear energy, such as the problems of disposing of radioactive spent fuel and whether uranium processing leads to the proliferation of nuclear weapons...................

............For the study, Mudd and co-author Mark Diesendorf, an environmental scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, reviewed existing data on uranium mining, milling, enrichment and fuel manufacture from across the world. This included historical figures showing when most mining had occurred, contemporary financial and technical reports, and CO2 emissions reports.

The goal of the research was to evaluate the true economic and environmental costs of uranium mining. 'We wanted to know what the environmental cost regarding mineral production is in terms of greenhouse emissions, water, and energy, and we found that all of these things do increase over time'.........."

Coming clean on 'nice' coal Crikey.com David Spratt 17 April 08 - "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technique to remove carbon dioxide from industrial pollution - and especially from power stations - and compress, transport and store it perpetually in secure underground structures such as expired gas and oil fields and other geological formations.

CCS is experimental, unproven technology at the scale required, and if it works the majority of CCS deployment will not occur until the second half of this century, according to the 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage...............

..………..it is not possible to know at this stage if the whole technology package will work. Proposed new plants in North America including the much-lauded FutureGen have being scrapped before construction started, largely because they were not cost effective.

As a new and complex technology, CCS, like nuclear energy before it, seems destined to be dogged by cost overruns, unforeseen problems and delays. The biggest concern is that stored emissions could slowly leak over the long term, deferring today's problem to create a monster greenhouse headache in the future.
.

' Clean coal' - picking losers GreensBlog April 8, 2008 by Tim Hollo - "For some time, we've been hearing persistent reports of deeper and deeper gloom pervading meetings and conferences around Australia and the world on geosequestration - so-called 'clean coal' technology, or carbon capture and storage. The research, which receives the lions share of government energy funding, just hasn't been making progress. Years down the track, we are no closer to being able to demonstrate that geosequestration is a viable option.

This message was hammered home a few weeks ago when the world pin-up project, FutureGen in Illinois, collapsed thanks to the Bush Administration pulling out because the project was blowing its budget and timeline.
Now, just days after Australia's first carbon storage research project opened in the Otways, the industry here is beginning to express real doubts about the prospects.

The National Generators' Forum head, John Boshier - …'I think we all felt a few years ago that clean coal was do-able and was a great option for Australia ….Well, it certainly is something of a wing and a prayer at the moment for a banker to put any money into clean coal technology. A banker is wanting to see plants that have got a really good prospect of commercial success and we don't have that '......................................"

The Challenge of the 21st Century Westender Dr David Suzuki 26 March 2008 - "...................……………..Australians elected four consecutive Conservative governments that denied the reality of human-induced climate change and refused to ratify Kyoto even though the country suffered severe drought for years. Australia is an island continent with most of its population living along the edges where sea level rise will have its greatest impact. ………

……….North America along with Europe, Japan, Australia and other industrialised countries created the problem of climate change. Our industrial and economic growth now serves as a model for the developing world to follow. If a rich country like Canada or the United States cannot cap its emissions and bring them down, why should countries like India or China or any of the other developing nations pay the slightest attention to the demands to reduce theirs? ………

……….The environmental crisis is a crisis of human beings and we are treating ourselves as a repository for all of the pollution that we send out through our chimneys and tail pipes...................................".

Fixing climate change won't cost the Earth - in fact it's small change Sydney, Mar 21, 2008 (ABN Newswire) - "The Western Australian Sustainable Energy Association Inc. (WA SEA) welcomes further progress from the Garnaut Climate Change Review in the design of an emissions trading scheme that will commit Australia to real emissions reductions targets by 2020.

'These commitments will create market certainty, and provide a confidence in the market to get out and invest in energy efficiency and build lower emissions energy generation' says Dr Ray Wills, CEO of WA SEA

'Strategic investments in the range of $25 to $35 billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy over the next decade should easily deal with the challenge of tackling a 2020 emission target.'

'It's not a big number - yesterday (20 March 2008) the Australian share market traded 2.35 billion shares worth $13.84 billion in one day, and almost two thirds of the value was in just 20 stocks. The falls of 3% of market value effectively shaved about $40 billion off the value of the sharemarket.' says Dr Wills.

'Compare this to a potential emissions trading market - with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions at under 600 gigatonnes, even if they were valued at a large $40 a tonne, those total emissions are worth less than $24 billion dollars per year.

Compared to daily trades on the share market, this is small change - on rough numbers not even $100 million per day. And as emissions reduce, the number is more likely to fall.'........................"

Insurers to map areas at sea risk THE AUSTRALIAN Anthony Klan and Sanna Trad | February 15, 2008 - "THE nation's insurance giants are developing a map of the coastal areas at risk from rising sea levels in a bid to curb billions of dollars in potential payouts resulting from climate change.

The move comes as the NSW Planning Department has refused to release a report expected to warn that tens of thousands of homes on the state's central coast face inundation as sea levels rise.

at left : map of nuclear reactors planned for Australia before the present govrenment took over.

Fortunes of seaside towns under the weather Sydney Morning Herald Wendy Frew,
February 11, 2008 - "……………….In the face of a growing threat from climate change, Sydney risks losing its beaches, and the huge income streams they generate, say researchers behind the project launched this week by the Sydney Coastal Councils Group and the University of NSW. ……

…..Suburbs such as Bondi and Manly may face significant loss of beach sands due to rising sea levels. Their surrounding communities and infrastructure were expected to be threatened by storms, floods and erosion driven by changing climate, said the executive officer of the Sydney Coastal Councils Group, Geoff Withycombe...........................................".

What if we did set up nuclear power plants along the East coast, as planned by the Howard government? - Christina Macpherson

Penny Wong,Minister for Climate Change,

Corporate emissions to be published online Sydney Morning Herald Stephanie Peatling February 5, 2008 "COMPANIES will have to record their energy consumption and production from the middle of the year under new laws preparing the way for an emissions trading system.
From July 1 businesses will have to provide figures to the Department of Climate Change on how much greenhouse pollution they emit and have the details published on the internet, according to a discussion paper released yesterday.

'A new streamlined reporting system will be good news for business' the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, said. 'Moving to a single system will cut duplication in reporting and reduce the cost burden currently imposed by the patchwork of separate greenhouse and energy programs'

Companies also face being audited if they are suspected of reporting false figures. But environment groups say the scheme should be much tougher.

…………In Europe any single plant producing more than 10,000 tonnes of greenhouse pollution a year is covered by the equivalent reporting scheme. In Australia the figure will be 25,000 tonnes...................".

Nature gives us all we need to tackle climate change The Age Steve Shallhorn Steve Shallhorn chief executive of Greenpeace Australia. December 13, 2007 - "....................as a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the so-called Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, Moore proposes nuclear as the answer, claiming it is the only viable technology to replace coal. But economics, urgency and common sense suggest otherwise.

Even if you don't take into account the problem of nuclear proliferation, the threat of terrorism or the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, renewable energy and efficiency are the clear winners on both economic and practical grounds.

First, the potential of renewable energy is far greater than that of nuclear power, not to mention energy efficiency that is safe, pays for itself and reduces waste. While the International Solar Energy Society clearly demonstrates how today's renewable technology alone can generate six times the current global demand, nuclear power currently accounts for only 6% of the world's energy..........................the proportion of energy provided by nuclear power is actually in decline. The private sector has been scared off by high costs, waste problems and the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear power is not cheap. In country after country, we have seen nuclear construction programs go considerably over budget. In the US, an assessment of 75 of the country's reactors showed predicted costs to have been $45 billion but the actual costs were $145 billion.........................Wind power is now cheaper than nuclear power even without considering the costs of nuclear waste disposal...................

a report released in Bali at the weekend (Renewables 2007 Global Status Report) shows that renewables are thriving. This year, global investment in renewable energy will top $US100 billion ($A112 billion). Furthermore, the renewable energy industry employs more than 2.5 million people globally. Timewise, renewable energy and energy efficiency are also streets ahead.Nuclear power just can't make it. Analysis by the World Energy council shows the average construction time for nuclear plants has increased from 66 months in the mid-1970s to 116 months between 1995 and 2000.............................

Cheaper, faster and safer energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are being favoured globally, and this momentum is unlikely to, and shouldn't, change. But even if power plants were safe, and there was a solution to radioactive waste, even if we had an endless supply of uranium at zero cost, nuclear plants could not be built in time to make the smallest contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change.
Nuclear power does not have the power. It is nothing more than a dangerous and unnecessary distraction, which diverts time and money away from the practical solutions of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Peak Minerals: Australian Report warns of Mineral Resource Depletion Sydney Indymedia by Takver - Tuesday Nov 6th, 2007- "A groundbreaking report by Australian academic Dr Gavin Mudd warns of 'Peak Minerals' - the peak and decline in mineral extraction. …

…The report ........is the first comprehensive analysis of Australian mineral production figures gathered since the beginning of the mining industry. According to quantitative evidence gathered in the report on various mining trends: Solid wastes are increasing exponentially - such as tailings and waste rock - which increases the environmental burden of metal and mineral production; …………

………Mining in future will involve a much larger environmental footprint including higher energy, waste, chemicals consumption and greenhouse emissions. ………

Dr Mudd said the statistics were alarming. "On average, 27 tonnes of greenhouse emissions are created to mine a tonne of uranium. That's equivalent to the annual emissions of nine family cars. To mine one kilogram of gold it takes 691,000 litres of water,………………………'Whether you look at it from an economic, strategic, social or environmental perspective, the unfettered expansion of mineral extraction in Australia is a development strategy that is fatally flawed,' said James Courtney, researcher with the Mineral Policy Institute.