Rudd's fast move on PM's plan for climate

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Getting in under the wire, just before John Howard receives the report from the emissions trading task force, Kevin Rudd has announced some plans/ideas to address climate change within Australia. Principally these consist of:

$50 million to upgrade the CSIRO's National Solar Energy Centre

$50 million to further the development of geothermal energy

He [Rudd] also promised that a Labor government would lead by example by making Parliament House and all electorate offices reliant on renewable or clean energy. Government offices would be made to turn lights off at night, all Commonwealth buildings would have to have a five-star greenhouse rating, and all computers, fridges and other appliances in such buildings would have high-efficiency ratings.

He also discusses an emissions trading scheme (cap and trade) that would be in place by 2010.

Just one more quote:

Mr Rudd maintained that the Government's latent approach to climate change was driven by the polls rather than conviction.

Hmmm, let's ponder this plan.

I like the idea of supporting solar and geothermal as I've said from the start. But considering the state of the world, this blogger/voter would prefer to hear discussions detailing the deployment of the technology rather than support for further research.

Emissions trading - YES! (Government mandated/regulated preferred over voluntary industry 'target setting').

Also the plans to 'green up' Government - to lead by example - are noteworthy and admirable. They would no doubt have some positive impact (not sure how much it would cost to make this transformation, but I'll assume for the moment that the environmental impact is the 'greater good').

But the sum total of these efforts will fall well short of the massive shift in energy production technology necessary to reach Kevin Rudd's 60% reduction target. Have a look at this report to get some idea of the greenhouse gas contribution of Australian heavy industry as well as the related energy consumption. I invite all to take a careful look at Figure 4. This normalization of energy supply technologies clearly shows nuclear power's ability to displace coal generation.

To this blogger, Mr. Rudd's / Labor's plans also seem "poll driven". And while there appears to be conviction, I don't see much evidence of a firm grasp of maths, science, engineering or energy production technology in general.

Domestic Opportunities

Following the successful launch of the world's newest research reactor OPAL, ANSTO is taking up the task of developing the supporting human resources for the facility's ongoing operation and/or domestic nuclear industry needs in general.

ANSTO recently launched a Graduate Development Programme for engineering and science graduates. The programme includes a total of four years work experience/training. Two at ANSTO and the last two either at ANSTO or overseas within an international nuclear organisation.

According to the web page, applications close 29-June.

NEI Comments on latest Greenpeace report.

Greenpeace has released a report on the economics of nuclear power.

David Bradish at NEI has reviewed and critiqued the report in a very thorough post that I highly recommend.

This appears to be, according to Mr. Bradish, more than what Greenpeace did prior to issuing their press release...

Emissions Trading

As I said before in this post, emissions trading appears to be a prerequisite for any serious deployment of non-carbon based energy production of any sort (nuclear or not), particularly within Australia.

This point has been reiterated in a study completed by the Climate Institute as reported by news.com.au.

"This research highlights that it would be reckless to delay action or only take half measures because of the risk it would pose to the Australian economy," institute chief executive John Connor said.

They go on to say that the introduction of nuclear power in Australia would make a modest contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gasses due to the time required to 'build' a credible, domestic nuclear industry [Hey, I never said nuclear could do it alone, in fact quite the contrary]. However there is one other quote worth repeating, namely the impact of nuclear on other forms of generation;

The institute's policy and research director, Erwin Jackson, said nuclear power generation would reduce the production share of coal rather than cut into renewable energy contributions.

He goes on to say that changes in domestsic coal consumption will not impact Australian coal mining jobs as the bulk of that economy is dependent on coal exports.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Darwin; global warming, emissions and clean energy [including nuclear power] are taking centre stage. Australia's nuclear opportunities are spelled out in this report from The Age by Professor George Dracoulis.

Also at the end of the article readers will find some of the same old anti-nuclear rhetoric by our friends from the Wilderness Society, and Friends of the Earth. While these words are fairly 'catchy', they don't offer much in terms of solutions to the relevant challenges.

To consider some facts, you don't have to look very far at all - Europe is a good example, to see that countries who have embraced the nuclear fuel cycle with renewables as part of a responsible, overarching energy strategy are easily satisfying their Kyoto limits (the Netherlands, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweeden). Those who have rejected nuclear in lieu of an accelerated deployment of renewables (Austria, Portugal, Italy, Denmark) are among the worst emissions performers, Australia of course being the worst.

Green nuclear power coming to Norway

As reported by Cosmos Magazine:

Image courtesy of Cosmos Magazine & Justin Randall

Norway remains quite active in the areas (among others) of nuclear non-proliferation, energy security, and global environmental stewardship. Norwegians - specifically - are looking to Thorium based nuclear power technology to solve the overlapping problems of all three after Norway's state-owned energy company, Statkraft, this week announced plans to investigate building a thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor.

Some relevant highlights of the technology:

• The reaction is 'driven' by a nuclear accelerator (called an Accelerator Driven Sub-critical (ADS) system, and therefore can not maintain a self-sustained nuclear reaction [improved safety].
• ADS technology can be used to 'burn' waste products from existing nuclear reactors. Relevant studies were completed for example as part of the US Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative [waste management and proliferation avoidance].
• The technology produces significantly less high level waste.(see 'New age nuclear', Cosmos, issue 8) [waste minimisation and management].
• Byproducts of the Thorium reaction do not include materials that pose increased weapons proliferation risks (Plutonium and Uranium) [non-proliferation].
• Thorium is significantly more abundant than Uranium and does not require high-tech enrichment technologies [sustainability, energy security and non-proliferation]. [Enrichment being the central issue responsible for the dramas in Iran at the moment, for example.]

The article also discusses an amazing flop in Norwegian public opinion in less than a year, with 80% now favouring Thorium nuclear technology development. [All emphasis is mine]

"It would be a sin of omission not to consider it," said Bård Mikkelsen, CEO of Statkraft, in an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

"Norway has taken the lead on this. We are an energy nation; we have large supplies of thorium – not as much as Australia of course – but we have a very advanced energy industry, and we have a responsibility to the world," said Lillestøl [a nuclear physicist at the University of Bergen, Norway]. "Without nuclear energy we will destroy the world, we will spend all the coal, oil and gas, and we will be left with an energy desert."

As with other things nuclear, there are industrial opportunities and interest within Australia. But one quoted Sydney nuclear scientist expressed his doubts about Australian political will and research resource commitment, claiming Australia is 'lagging behind' while European Union, India, the US, Japan and Russia all work to develop thorium energy technologies.

For further information, including identified reserves per country, see Also:

Thorium Power Limited

World Nuclear Association - Thorium

UIC - Thorium

US Geological Survey (USGS) - Thorium

Australia Power Prices Surge

As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

As I've said before in this post, Australia has been predicted to be the first developed country to be significantly impacted by climate change.

Here are some energy and manufacturing related statistics from the linked article:

Widespread drought in Australia is causing electricity prices to soar, as hydroelectric water-storage levels plummet and coal-fired power stations cut output because of lack of water for cooling.

Energy-intensive manufacturers, already wrestling with expensive oil and a strong currency, face the loss of one competitive advantage: cheap power, long provided by Australia's abundant reserves of coal.

And while the spike in power prices is benefiting generators in areas unaffected by the drought, electricity retailers' margins are being squeezed, and consumers might soon feel the pinch as state governments consider lifting price caps on retail power.

"If energy is an important component of your business, then these sorts of price increases are very difficult to swallow and it starts to impact on operations and investment decisions," said Roman Domanski, executive director of the Energy Users Association of Australia, which represents major users like Alcoa Inc., based in the U.S., and BlueScope Steel Ltd.

Water-storage levels for the bodies that feed Australia's biggest hydropower generator, Snowy Hydro Ltd., which provides 4% of Australia's electricity, have fallen to 8% of capacity.

An even bigger concern is the impact of the drought on coal-fired power stations, which provide 85% of Australia's electricity.

In Queensland, the state-government-owned Tarong, Tarong North and Swanbank B coal-fired power stations have all cut output because of a shortage of water for cooling, and stations in New South Wales state might face the same fate.

The combined loss of production from those three stations amounts to more than 1,000 megawatts, representing more than 5% of Australia's baseload electricity demand.

Reduced output from the Tarong power station has led to job cuts. The 1,400-megawatt station slashed output by 70%, leading Rio Tinto Ltd. to halve production at the coal mine that feeds the station and eliminate 160 positions.

Nuclear power plants (located on the coast of course) are an example of one proven solution to these problems.

Emissions

Uh-oh... this doesn't look good.

As reported in this study, trends of CO2 emissions are increasing... at an increasing rate (i.e. getting rapidly worse), surpassing even the worst case scenarios of the IPCC. Their exact quotes:

Between 2000 and 2004, worldwide CO2 emissions increased at a rate that is over three times the rate during the 1990s - the rate increased from 1.1 % per year during the 1990s to 3.1% per year in the early 2000s.

The research also shows that the actual global emissions since 2000 grew faster than in the highest of the scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Some other statistics thrown in for flavour:

Between 2000 and 2004 the developing countries accounted for a large majority of the growth in emissions, even though they contribute only about 40% of total emissions.

In 2004, 73% of the growth in global emissions came from the developing and least developed economies, comprising 80% of the world's population. [So 80% of the population accounts for only 73% of the emissions growth... we can point no fingers.]

That same year the developed areas (including the Former Soviet Union), contributed about 60% to the total emissions. These countries [including us Australians] account for 77% of the cumulative emissions since the start of the industrial revolution.

Remember, per person, we top the list of offenders... I look forward to some tangible action soon.

To be honest...

I'm not certain whether it was a mistake or (I certainly hope not) deliberate, but in a recent speach reported by the ABC, Dr. Switkowski is quoted as saying the following:

Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter has previously said the state could become a dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste if uranium mining was permitted in WA.

However, Dr Switkowski has told a forum of business people and academics in Perth the fears are a farce.

"I'm not aware of any country that has accepted that logic, quite the reverse," he said.

"As we've travelled around the world, we tried to find a country that would accept radioactive waste from industries in another country and there is none."

Pssst... excuse me Dr. Switkowski, but didn't ANSTO recently ship some spent fuel from HIFAR back to the UK, France and the USA? I understand the UK and French shipments were for reprocessing (with subsequent intermediate level waste to be returned to Australia - at least of the fuel supplied from the UK), but I believe fuel bound for the USA (without fuel processing capability) is destined for disposal there as part of their fuel take-back programme. Why did it go back to the USA? Again, my understanding is because it was enriched in the USA. Also if one does a search on highly enriched uranium (HEU) take-back programmes you will see that both the US and Russia, through their RRRFR programme are very interested in repatriating both fresh and spent fuel with several shipments completed to date [a VERY good thing].

Anyway, the claim above certainly seems incorrect to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

From the UIC website:

Used Fuel

HIFAR's fuel was fabricated in the USA and the UK. In line with recommendations from several government inquiries, the used fuel has been sent overseas for either disposal or reprocessing, depending on the country of origin of the fuel. In 1963 and 1996, ANSTO shipped a total of 264 used fuel elements to the UK. In 1998, 240 were sent to the USA. A total of 1288 used fuel elements were sent to France for reprocessing in four shipments between 1999 and 2004. In 2006 a second shipment of 330 used fuel elements was sent to the USA. This left some 130 HIFAR used fuel elements destined for the USA.

HIFAR used fuel elements are stored on site and were accumulating at the rate of 38 per year. A sum of $88 million (1997 dollars) has been allocated for reprocessing UK-origin used fuel in Europe and shipping US-origin used fuel to the USA.

UK reprocessing was under a 1967 fuel purchase agreement, and the separated uranium was used in the UK for offsetting against ANSTO fuel purchases. The wastes from the reprocessing of the used fuel sent in the 1996 shipment will be held there for up to 25 years and then returned to Australia. It is classified as intermediate-level waste.

Spent fuel

U-Al fuels can be reprocessed by Cogema in France, and U-Mo fuels may also be reprocessed there. U-Si and TRIGA fuels are not readily reprocessed in conventional facilities. However, at least one commercial operator has confirmed that U-Si fuels may be reprocessed in existing plants if diluted with appropriate quantities of other fuels, such as U-Al.

To answer concerns about interim storage of spent research fuel around the world, the USA launched a program to take back US-origin spent fuel for disposal and nearly half a tonne of U-235 from such HEU fuel has been returned. By the time the program was to end with fuel discharged in 2006, U-Mo fuel was expected to be available. Due to the slippage in target date, the US take-back program has now been extended by ten years.

Disposal of high-enriched or even 20% enriched fuel needs to address problems of criticality and requires the use of neutron absorbers or diluting or spreading it out in some way.

In Russia, a parallel trilateral program involving IAEA and the USA is intended to move 2 tonnes of HEU and 2.5 tonnes of LEU spent fuel to the Mayak reprocessing complex near Chelyabinsk over the ten years to 2012. This Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return Program (RRR FRT) envisages 38 shipments (of both fresh and spent fuel) from ten countries over 2005-08, then 8+ shipments from six countries to remove all HEU fuel discharged before reactors converted to LEU or shut down. Seventeen countries have Soviet-supplied research reactors, and there are 25 such reactors outside Russia, 15 of them still operational. Since Libya joined the program in 2004, only North Korea objects to it.

Nuclear Conversions

All in all the score card remains about even.

First, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald: Australian of the year Tim Flannery is now opposing nuclear power, citing Australia's abundant renewable potential - but there's no technology references or studies, examples, case studies or demonstration projects. I would love to know more.

However, as reported by ABC News: The federal Member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, says she now supports the idea of nuclear power, but still strongly opposes a nuclear plant in her electorate on the NSW south coast.

A busy news day for Nuclear Australia

In the Sydney Morning Herald article Partner plan shares benefits - and risks, Mark Coultan describes the US Sponsored Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the related challenges and where Australia fits into the broader equation.

Take a look at the GNEP website via the link above. This programme is being fast-tracked if ever one was.

From a technical perspective, reprocessing is a very good thing. It reduces amount of waste, the required decay time, and increases the total recoverable energy many times over. But I know Prof. von Hippel - a wise man indeed, and the simple example he contributed to the article highlights an issue that must be addressed with ample conservatism (and plenty of margin in all regards).

In regional news: More Market Players Needed if China Is to Meet Nuclear Power Target as reported by Resource Investor. Since trade magazines and the like make their livelihood tracking the flow of capital investments etc. around the world - I put a fair amount of stock in 'following the money'.

Experts are speculating on what China will have to do (break up a current generation monopoly) to facilitate the country's goal of an additional 31,000 MWe of capacity (about 31 large nuclear plants).

Interestingly enough this was being discussed at the "conference on renewable energy" in Beijing. I can barely contain my delight!

"The National Development and Reform Commission's vice director, Chen Demin, recently revealed that the government intends to raise the nation's target to 60,000 megawatts in the future," said Sha Yiqiang, a senior engineer from the China Electricity Council. "The 40,000 megawatt target, which means the addition of at least two 1000-megawatt nuclear generators each year, was already a tough ask," he added. [So this is why they 'really' need to split up the monopoly.]

"China's push to meet such a target though marks a golden opportunity for domestic and foreign companies with sufficient capital and advanced research and development capabilities," Sha explained.

Here's an industry trade news service speaking of nuclear as if it spurs economic and industrial growth... how can this be??? And we hear a lot of Anti-nuclear activists going on about how there's no nuclear expansion - but for China. What do they say about this???

Global competition for uranium will certainly increase in the future as similarly ambitious nuclear power plans are taken up by nuclear powerhouses such as the United States and Russia as well as emerging markets like India. Russia, for example, aims to raise the share of nuclear power in its total electricity generation activities to 25% by 2020 by putting two new reactors into operation each year.

Due to robust demand in the global market and supply disruptions at the two of the world's largest uranium mines, Merrill Lynch & Co. forecast that uranium prices will rise by 78% in 2008. The price of uranium doubled last year and has increased five fold over the last five years.

Yikes! Five fold!?... won't higher uranium prices challenge the industry even further?

"Uranium prices are not such a big deal, as raw materials account for less than 10% of the total cost of nuclear power," Sha said.

Finally, elsewhere in the world, Europe looks to a new generation of atomic energy, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The dawn of the millennium seemed to mark the sunset of nuclear power in Europe. The public did not want it. Only two reactors had been built since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.

Only France, which takes 78 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, and Finland, which decided to build a fifth reactor in 2002, held out against the ebbing tide.

But the tide may have turned. Four days after the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, won the 2005 election, having ducked the issue during the campaign, a leaked Downing Street document revealed that nuclear power was back on the table. Last year Blair said openly it was back "with a vengeance".

In January this year the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, also said the unsayable. "We must think about the consequences of shutting down nuclear power plants," she said, angering her Government partners, the anti-nuclear Social Democrats. "We need a comprehensive, balanced energy mix in Germany."

What happened? First, Europe is alarmed about having to rely on a resurgent and unpredictable Russia, from which it takes a quarter of its gas. Russia's President, Vladmir Putin, sent shockwaves through Europe when Russia's state-controlled energy giant, Gazprom, cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in last year's freezing winter to try to settle a price dispute.

The other change is the belated rise of climate change to the top of the global agenda. Britain's carbon dioxide emissions are growing fast: it will fail to meet its commitment of a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. What's more, wind power will produce just 7 per cent of electricity by 2010, despite big investments in wind farms. Britain's 14 nuclear power stations, which supply a fifth of all electricity, are ageing. Since they take about 10 years to build, it is time, says Blair, to invest in a new generation of reactors.

In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, the case is strong. British environmentalist George Monbiot, who on balance opposes nuclear power, published figures showing that electricity produced by a pressurised light-water nuclear reactor emitted about 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, compared with 356 for gas and 891 for coal.

Nuclear energy now our only option

As reported by David Barnett in the Canberra Times:

Selected paragraphs (I wonder, sometimes, if writers mind me editing them this way...)

Alternative energy can only be peripheral. We do not face up to our real choice because the Greens are watermelon green on the outside and deep Trotskyite red on the inside. Their prime concern is the evil of capitalism, and they command the media. Our politicians are just not game to take them on.

Australia, which has vast reserves of both fossil fuel and uranium, faces a simple choice between failing to meet the political expectations held for the nation in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and developing a nuclear power industry.

The great drawback in staying with fossil fuel is that we will become an increasingly backward nation. Some 30 countries in Europe, Asia and North America produce nuclear energy. Our scientific expertise was deliberately downgraded to the production of medical isotopes under the ALP government.

When it came time to replace the submarine fleet, we had no option but to look backwards to conventional power, instead of to the larger, faster and far more effective nuclear powered submarines because we do not have the infrastructure to support such vessels.

We have dithered over nuclear power for 50 years, while the world has moved on. Newcastle, which once produced the world's cheapest steel, and Wollongong have both become industrial wastelands. We produce cafe lattes as good as any in the world, but our manufacturing has moved north, and so, increasingly are our service industries also relocating.

The International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook for last year observed that the world faced the twin threats of not having adequate and secure supplies of energy together with the environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it.

Switkowski expects demand for electricity to more than double by 2050, while at the same time pollution and emission levels must be brought down on today's levels.

The solution as he sees it is a fast deployment of 25 nuclear reactors by 2050, so that about one third of electricity generation is nuclear, with greenhouse gas emissions down by 18 per cent. The first of them could be operating by 2016 and certainly by 2020.

They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low.

Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said.

Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. Australia would need to invest in research and development, and in education and training across a range of fields.

Australia can only benefit from the great impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. Concerted effort around the world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during the past four years.

We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly known elsewhere by green activism, by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political implications, rather than on their merits.

It is time to put it behind us.

Latest Poll shows nuclear still making gains

As reported at News.com.au:

More than 44 per cent of respondents said they would feel safe having a nuclear power plant within 100km of their home, while 38 per cent thought nuclear power should be a priority to reduce carbon emissions. In a similar NEWS.com.au survey in December, only 35.8 per cent of respondents said they would feel safe near a nuclear power plant and a third thought nuclear power should be prioritised.

In a similar NEWS.com.au survey in December, only 35.8 per cent of respondents said they would feel safe near a nuclear power plant and a third thought nuclear power should be prioritised.

Wood fires up nuclear industry

As reported in the Herald Sun (photo courtesy of):

FREED Iraqi hostage Douglas Wood would happily live next-door to a nuclear power plant, and wants a job helping to develop an Australian nuclear energy industry.

But the Melbourne-based engineer, who was a project manager building nuclear plants in the US, said Australia's engineers and industrial suppliers would be under-qualified to build a local plant.

I fully agree with this conclusion, as I've said here. Wood continues...

But a nuclear industry would have to go offshore for suppliers and engineers with appropriate skill levels.

He'd happily take a job in any emerging industry, however. "Sign me up!" Mr Wood said.

The PM has expressed a hope that Australia will be producing nuclear energy by 2020 but Mr Wood said at least four years would be needed before building could commence, as specialist engineers would have to be trained.

Refusing to name potential sites, he said a coastal location would be best. "It would be logical to use the ocean (as a water source for cooling)."

Nothing quite like the words of someone with practical experience.

So many times in recent months have I read or listened to Australian nuclear industry advocates promote domestic scientific achievements in defence of nuclear energy technology deployment. But I believe this is an erroneous link as the endeavour is principally engineering related (e.g. the application of existing technology to a schedule and budget, where science is more about discovery and the quest to conquer knowledge). And one need not look far to find that nuclear engineering resources around the world are scarce - particularly those under say about 45 years old.

Those who wish to advocate domestic nuclear energy should consider this among other issues.

In Recent News

Ziggy predicts nuclear power in 20 years - from News.com.au

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski predicts 8 nuclear plants for Victoria by 2050 and speaks of the role carbon trading will play in any attempt to reduce Australia's pitiful emissions.

Sadly, Dr. Switkowski has hopped on the bandwagon of looking at Australia's emissions from a nation-state perspective. To me this makes absolutely no sense. Why shouldn't larger nations, particularly those that are developing such as India and China have the right to as much wealth, as much productivity, as much energy and as much emissions (per person) as we Australians.

Do we really think that a do as I say, not as I do approach will work? Is this global leadership at it's best? I believe we can do better. And better we MUST do, because as I've said before in this post - it's our backside that's going to get burnt first.

Also from this Editorial from The Australian:

The Opposition Leader, and his cheer squad in the media, also show signs of being outfoxed over climate change. This is an issue Labor thought to make its own, by attacking the Government on its supposed lack of interest in global warming. Mr Rudd's call for greenhouse gas emissions to be cut by 60 per cent by 2050 certainly looks like a winner to the Left. But while Labor and the Greens have talked a lot about the evils of coal and the risks of nuclear power, they have never explained how Australians are to heat and cool their houses without cheap electricity, or how the country could ever replace the export earnings - and jobs - generated by uranium and coal exports. While Mr Rudd's supporters have huffed and puffed about wind and solar power, in early 2005 the Prime Minister began a serious debate about why we should contemplate nuclear power at home. That Labor continues to support uranium exports but opposes a domestic nuclear industry makes it a good question. Our vast coal resources mean nuclear power for domestic use will never be economically competitive, but this is not the point. As the Government's nuclear adviser, Ziggy Switkowski, says, if Australian initiatives led to nuclear-generated electricity increasing from 15 per cent to just 16 per cent of the worldwide total, the effect would be the same as a 60per cent reduction in our greenhouse gases. And it could be achieved in a bare decade. As the economic impossibility and environmental folly of relying on inefficient alternative energy becomes ever clearer, the trap Mr Howard prepared for Labor with Dr Switkowski's support is now sprung. Mr Rudd is likely to find it hard to explain in an election campaign why he will not support the clean power generation that is used in all the "Kyoto powers" of Western Europe. A scare campaign about nuclear power plants will fall as flat as the Work Choices scare campaign inevitably will.

Queensland Politics

Seems as if Queensland is working to ban nuclear. Is Big Coal behind the push? Is it coincidence that both Labour and the Liberal politicians keep Big Coal's interests in mind while policy pondering on climate change or related matters? As the only real technical challenge to coal as a base-load supplier - what would killing nuclear in Australia mean for Big Coal?

Ruth at We Support Lee has a knack for detailed and informative posts. She's done the research and included many, many relevant links to information and other nuclear bloggers.

I can add no more, but merely pass on the information. Very well worth the read.

Well done Ruth & thanks!!