Western Australia politics and a Queensland coal union

In Western Australia, Premier Alan Carpenter has promised to initiate legislation to ban the mining of Uranium if reelected. He is reported to have claimed that "most of the world is moving away from nuclear power".

That claim is not supported by:

1. The ongoing nuclear expansion programme within the UK,
2. Italy's recent vote to reintroduce nuclear power following a complete rejection of the technology in the years immediately following the Chernobyl accident,
3. Reports of statements from German Chancellor Angela Merkel signaling the potential reversal of their nuclear phase-out policy,
4. A dozen license applications within the past year in the USA (and countless approvals and applications for licensing renewals / extensions at currently operating facilities there),
5. Several expansion announcements over the past two years from China - signalling repeated acceleration of their nuclear power development programme,
6. Sweden's serious considerations to reverse its phase-out policy as well as notable public support for the spent fuel repository,
7. Argentina's resumption of a stalled nuclear construction project and their efforts to partner with Brazil to further develop nuclear power capacity,
8. Russia's capacity expansion,
9. Serious interest in currently non-nuclear countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates to name a few,
10. A recent tender for a new reactor in Slovakia,
11. Increasing interest in Canada, South Korea as well as other countries.

The proposed legislation has been criticised by WA business groups as well as traditional owners.

Also in the news is a report that the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union will soon launch an ad campaign with the slogan, "Nuclear power will kill the coal industry."

This claim seems highly unlikely.

First, in this radio interview [hat tip to Luke Weston], Dr. Ziggy Switkowski clarifies that it is not reasonable to expect Australia to have its first nuclear reactor until shortly after 2020. [However, Macarthur Coal Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Nicole Hollows recently predicted 10 years.]

Also, most believe nuclear's potential role represents only a portion of Australia's total electricity generation capability and that with efficiency, conservation, wind, solar, geothermal and considerable development in carbon capture technology, our carbon emissions can be brought under control. As Ziggy Switkowski says, "This is not a zero sum gain".

Finally, the WNN article claims the union is fishing for support of a $1.5 Billion investment in clean coal currently being advocated by Labor and that raising the nuclear spectre will help keep Labor in power. This claim is supported by quotes from this article in the Business Spectator.

1 reactor in 10 to 15 years with up to another 24 in the 30 years that follow does not appear to be an industry breaking development. Particularly when one considers that most [nearly 2/3] of Australia's coal is exported. [According to Nationmaster, Australia's annual coal production is 338 million tonnes and our consumption is 131 million tonnes. Coal exports are expected to remain secure or increase into the foreseeable future.

Uranium mining in Queensland would tighten the labour market which would tend to increase wages.

With respect to the coal power generation industry, transition from a coal station to a nuclear station is not difficult for most skills. Operators, maintenance craft/trade workers and plant administrative staff perform very similar functions. ADD too this the need for licensing, documentation and security staff as well as greater technical/professional expertise to maintain critical systems to what is commonly regarded as 'nuclear grade', and it becomes apparent that a local nuclear plant provides more employment opportunities than a similarly sized fossil station.

WA lunacy??

Paul Murray filed a report in The West Australian citing some differences within the labor party, differences between West Australia and South Australia and making some accusations regarding the Rudd government's real aim from the Garnaut report and recently released Green paper.

If you’re a Labor member standing on the east of that line [WA/SA border], you’re in a party that not only agrees with uranium mining, but is embarked on a campaign to become a major international player and says the energy source is part of the answer to the biggest problem in our future, climate change.

If you’re on the western side, you are in a Labor Party that refuses to permit uranium mining based on the ridiculous proposition that to do so would threaten our future because we would have to repatriate the radioactive waste, something even former ALP leader Kim Beazley thought was laughable.

“I’m quite happy for people to know that while I’m the Premier there’ll be no uranium mining and if I’m no longer the Premier then there may well be,” Mr Carpenter says.

Stopping companies in WA from mining uranium has no effect on the international nuclear industry. It just means that the lucrative contracts go to other suppliers. Such as South Australia.

In fact, SA Premier Mike Rann told the National Press Club on June 11 that, as a result, his State is set “to become the new Western Australia”.

“The scale of what is happening is truly quite staggering,” Mr Rann said. “We currently have around $25 billion worth of mining and energy projects at various stages of development.

“When my Government came to office, there were just four operating mines in SA. Now we have 10, with almost 30 more in various stages of planning and development.”

What Mr Rann politely demonstrated was how complacent WA’s rolling boom has made the Carpenter Government. Mr Rann sounded like a young Charlie Court, whose work keeps Mr Carpenter in a job.

“Since 2004, SA has risen from 36th place to fourth out of 68 international jurisdictions on the ranking of global mining potential compiled by Canada’s Fraser Institute, and is now ranked ahead of WA for the first time,” Mr Rann said.

“And at the core of the State’s booming resources sector is what will become the world’s greatest mine operated by BHP Billiton at Olympic Dam in the State’s north.”

Olympic Dam will become the globe’s biggest uranium mine, providing, according to Mr Rann, 20,000 jobs. But Mr Rann also paints his attitudes to uranium in much more compelling terms than just economic wealth. When he led the charge to drop Labor’s “no new mines” policy last year, he wrote to every one of the national conference delegates challenging them to provide an answer “to the number-one environmental challenge of global warming”. “We need to face the fact that the world must reduce its reliance on fossil fuels as well as recognise the right of less-developed countries to a higher standard of living,” Mr Rann said in his letter. “We cannot do both these things by relying solely on the traditional energy sources that are contributing to global warming. If we do not export Australia’s uranium, other countries with lower environmental and safety standards and weaker safeguards, will fill the gap.”

Since then, South Australia has turned into Australia’s uranium headquarters with the State’s resources minister visiting China in April to encourage interest in its deposits.

Murray goes on to suggest that the Green paper is "politically gutless" and does more to secure the coal industry's hold on Queensland and labor's victory in 2010 than it does to reduce real Australian emissions.

I hope emissions are brought under control, but there is little if any hard technical data to suggest they will be.

WA Premier Alan Carpenter says no to nuclear power

This one news article comprises a complete Australian energy policy, political ecosystem. It can all be found right here. Rejection of nuclear plus investments in renewables results in increased reliance on coal and other fossil fuels over the longer term.

“There is one energy source we won’t be tapping into while I am the Premier,” Mr Carpenter said.

“There will be no nuclear power, no nuclear waste and uranium mining in WA while I am the Premier.”

Instead, WA will be expanding the 300 MWe coal fired power station in Collie.

The decision was made after strong lobbying by Labor MP Mick Murray and the coal industry which believes the state was too reliant on gas.

This lobbying focused on the Varanus island gas explosion which highlights the risks of becoming reliant on a single energy source. The fact that the coal station failed just days before only compounded this problem.

And my favourite quote from the article:

All our climate change commitments will remain firm - it is clear that coal will be part of the states future energy plans.

I note that clean coal continues to be frequently mentioned by many. This technology must be developed, but we are not there yet. Would Alan Carpenter support a moratorium on coal industry expansion unless new or modified facilities deploy sequestration with any expansion project? There you have your answer regarding the legitimate state of the technology.

The news isn't all bad. Six million dollars will be spent for the the construction of a solar power station in Kalgoorlie and the development of an oil mallee harvesting machine. But if coal power generation is expanding, these efforts will have failed to help mitigate any real emission related issues. This money appears to be not much more than a political payoff enabling the further expansion of the Australian coal industry.

Sometimes it’s like drinking from a fire hose…

Whether Peter Beattie in Queensland, Alan Carpenter in Western Australia or Peter Garrett in Canberra… they all seem to be sending the same message…

The Task Group on Emissions Trading report is flawed…

Howard’s continued support for nuclear is stuffed…

And ‘modern’ [mystical] technologies will allow Australia to achieve a 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses with Labor at the helm.

Nothing specific though. Yes there are the common warm-fuzzy words we all know and love – renewables, wind, solar, geothermal etc., but nothing specific; no plans, no siting of examples of stations or capacity in other locations anywhere on the planet; no demonstration of such technologies on an industrial level. Are they serious? Who’s supposed to believe this?

Without nuclear on the table, any substantial goal for emissions reductions are no more than pipedreams.

Sure there’s gas – better than coal, but still not an emissions darling, and the long term price projections, I believe, are anything but stable. Reading the bottom of this We Support Lee post, along with this quote from the International Energy Outlook pg. 46:

Although Australia has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, several of the government’s environmental policies have been put in place to help stimulate increases in natural gas use for electric power generation and to moderate growth in the use of coal, of which Australia has large reserves.

And we can see why Mr. Carpenter is so down on nuclear. The sale of all his State’s gas, will earn them big-bucks – I imagine he is reminded of this frequently.

Also Dr. Ziggy Switkowski’s recent remarks (reported in no less than 402 linked news articles!) are being trumpeted as something significant… an admission of sorts(??). I guess those who are against nuclear are much more willing to defer to his expertise when he is saying something they can use to support their arguments (pathetic). Basically he is saying that the path to nuclear power in Australia will be a fairly long one. On that I agree, at least as I’ve said here and here, there is a hell of a lot of work to do in order to even think about constructing a plant. But the three mines policy is finally dead and Australia is seriously considering a long term used fuel store and becoming more involved in the nuclear Fuel Cycle. So from a 'consider what they do as opposed to what they say' point of view – there is reason to be optimistic.

Not being one to feel the need (or, for that matter, justification) to force anything on anyone, I advocate a patient but steady approach for those in support of nuclear power in Australia. Despite all the headline-grabbing, election year crap being tossed out at the moment – in particular by the same old group of anti-nuclear activists we always see muddying the technical waters – I see shortcomings on both sides.

To me, the Liberals are overly sensitive to the economy, but in general I like the idea of looking forward and progressing via a well thought, measured process. However, I think their targets need to be a bit more in line with Labor. Speaking of which, Labor’s unjustified, fear-driven dismissal of nuclear with no credible alternative technology (other than the fantasies that exist only on report pages from the deep dark world of academic theory) is a type of wishful thinking that will draw out and ultimately kill any hopes of achieving anything close to their stated targets.

We have the resources and capability to do so much better than this, but for nothing more than fear and ignorance – we remain, for the moment, a humiliating stain on the world.

Europe wants to buy WA uranium

As reported in The West Australian:

In his first official WA visit, EU ambassador Bruno Julien will argue that nuclear energy offers the EU a way to slash its greenhouse gas emissions while meeting its future energy needs.

“We need more uranium because we are trying to green our energy supplies, to reduce our CO2 emissions, and it’s our view that we can work with WA.”

[WA Premier Alan] Carpenter has long cited environmental reasons for the ban and says WA would come under immense pressure to take nuclear waste if it sold uranium.

But last month he changed his stance, saying he was opposed to uranium mining because WA may need it to meet domestic energy needs in the future.

Mr Julien acknowledged that uranium mining and nuclear energy were as controversial in Europe as they were in Australia.

But he said it had to be considered as a solution to climate change.