Beverley uranium mine expansion approved

Reuters is reporting the approval.

Heathgate Resources has been give approval to produce up to 1,500 tonnes of uranium oxide per year.

Environment minister Peter Garret issued the following statement.

"I am satisfied that the tough conditions attached to this approval will ensure the highest standards of environmental management by the mine operator."

Heathgate is working to obtain approval to mine the Four Mile deposit sometime next year.

Garrett and Wong splash water on Macfarlane's nuclear spark

It may not quite be a debate, but the two sides are talking about nuclear at the same time.

As I posted yesterday, Ian Macfarlane has joined an increasing number of Australian leaders in calling for a rational discussion of nuclear's power's role in any credible emissions reduction [and economy salvaging] energy technology deployment strategy.

A brief recap of the past six months or so
From Australia's political right, MacFarlane was quickly joined by Nelson.

"Our view is that there needs to be consideration in Australia given to the development of a nuclear power industry."

Also on the right are Julie Bishop and let's not forget the National's vote in support of nuclear technologies back in June. Rounding out Coalition support, the WA opposition urged discussion and consideration of nuclear power back in February.

Looking left, the very first outspoken pro-nuke on my radar following the election was Paul Howes in early February this year. Howes was later joined by Carr as well as Commonwealth Bank chairman John Schube [who also chairs the Great Barrier Reef Foundation]. This was followed of course by Bob Hawke last month.

In the centre we have the Australian coal industry, Marcarthur CEO] Nicole Hollows, forecasting a Nuclear Australia in 10 years. There's also a plea to consider the technology from WA's Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Meanwhile, they are circling the wagons in Canberra - all three of them. Consider what Garrett had to say:

"The last election showed that Australians are absolutely of one mind about not having 25 nuclear power plants dotted around their suburbs and in and around their cities.''

Really? I thought the last election was about the ratification of Kyoto, Australia's thirst for action over excuses and our passionate desire for decisive leadership to cut Australian emissions and cut them relatively fast. I thought is was also about WorkChoices, education and health care. Did some people vote solely on the potential of a Nuclear Australia? Possibly, but Garrett seems to be getting a bit emotive on the subject.

Elsewhere, Garrett's replaying his favourite song and dance - the back-flip accusation. Again? It seems the Labor strategy is pretty clear. Have Garrett play the attack dog with respect to nuclear, while Wong strives to focus on an undefinable strategy based principally on renewables. But, by all means keep them as separate as possible.

Sadly and predictably; Penny Wong says:

"Are they really saying that they have a plan for 25 nuclear reactors in Australia? Where are they going to put them?''

"Australia has an abundance of renewable energy sources. We have a lot of solar, we have a lot of wind, we have geothermal resources."

[Ah, beg your pardon Ms. Wong, don't forget the recent announcement of yet another coal station required to satisfy increasing demand. I should also note that per the OECD International Energy Agency, fossil fuel based electricity generation in Australia from January to May 2008 INCREASED 5% from the previous year. This happened despite a 4.8% increase in hydro based generation and a 35% increase in electricity generation from all other renewables. - Thanks to Luke for this. Here is objective data that while renewables are good, they simply do not pack the punch required to keep even with increasing demand let alone facilitate credible reductions.]

I say 'sadly' due to the unproductive [and very political] duplicity in Wong's mini-soundbites. Of the numerous reports, studies and plans issued of late by the current government, none scratch the surface with respect to quantifiable technology deployment necessary to achieve even significant [let alone adequate] emission reductions while preserving Australia's broader economic viability.

Our emissions are going up and they are stalling.

No Engineer with a functioning nuron would propose the location of a nuclear power plant within Australia's interior - there's simply no significant demand there, let alone very little water. Many of today's nuclear power plants are cooled using sea water. That leaves our [very large] coast. The plants are typically near, but obviously not 'in' large industrial or population areas. This is not a technically complicated issue.

The 'location' discussion is an irrelevant political diversion, designed only to invoke the politics of fear.

The recent news report mentions nuclear power's tendency to split both parties like a proverbial U-235 atom. It also includes a statement from Nelson that I have emphasised in this blog countless times:

Dr Nelson said a nuclear industry would get off the ground only if both the coalition and Labor backed it.

He offered to talk with the government about it.

Considering the recap above, it looks as if we are moving slowly closer to a consensus among and between the major political camps. I look forward to further discussions and hope all partys work to identify common ground. Whether it's jobs, industrial security, low cost energy, emissions mitigation, or reliability of supply; there seems to be considerable common interest with respect to nuclear power.

I remain confident our thought horoizon extends beyond the next election and hope to see some tangible action well before it.

Kevin Rudd - Names Minister(s)?

Kevin Rudd has named Peter Garrett minister of the environment, but appointed a second minister, Sen. Penny Wong, to take responsibility for climate change.

More from this report from the Canadian Press.

The reporter sees this as a rebuke for Garrett and I can't seem to find much on Sen. Wong beyond that she is a South Australian [one of our more pro-U export States] and has a history that includes mining union work.

In this report from AFP, Sen. Wong is said to have responsibility for negotiations such as Kyoto and those occurring at the upcoming meeting in Bali. The report lists other cabinet appointments as well.

Election 2007 - Year of the Backflip

Whether you're talking about the Liberals' reluctance to discuss nuclear technology or Labor admitting to a Kyoto-2 boycott without developing nations, it's obvious the election is upon us. That said, there's little value in trying to objectively discuss Australia's nuclear options any time soon.

Regardless of who 'wins', it appears that concerned Australians [the vast majority of us at the moment] will continue to keep a close eye on our contribution to [as well as impacts from] the related energy issues. These may include Australia's contribution to emissions linked to climate change, newly proposed fossil fueled generation plants, the price of petrol, our ever increasing coal exports, new mines, port expansions, the cost of electricity, lingering drought, severe weather, etc.

Can we wave our meager 1.4% of global emissions banner and honestly expect to get away with it? Is there a shred of moral or ethical justification to support the average Australian's HUGE contribution to global emissions vs. say the average Indian or China-man?

Eventually, Australia will become serious about implementing changes that amount to more than a 'drop in the ocean'. It won't happen soon, but - considering all technologies currently available - Australia can not and will not get there without considerable nuclear power capacity.

Tim Flannery - Climate change worse than feared

2007 Australian of the Year - Professor Tim Flannery

While Garrett and Labor shamelessly arrange for large sums of money to go to Al Gore to stoke the fears of voters, Professor Flannery remains focused on the problem - and its steadily increasing magnitude.

A man of mature technical aptitude and conscience, Flannery sticks to the facts, supported by the data and draws on the relevant solutions.

See the full report filed by the AFP

Flannery said predictions in a 2001 UN report, warning the atmosphere was likely to warm by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5-10.4 Fahrenheit) from 1990 to 2100 now appeared conservative.

"In the six years since then, we've collected enough data to (check) whether those projections are valid or not," he said.

"It turns out they're not valid, but in the most horrible way -- because for the key performance indicators about climate, change is occurring far in advance of the worst-case scenario," he said.

"Carbon dioxide's increasing more rapidly, sea levels are rising more rapidly (and) the Arctic ice cap is melting away more quickly than were projected in 2001."

Flannery said nations needed to "de-carbonise" their economies by 2050, increasing reliance on geo-thermal, nuclear and renewable energy.

Garrett backs renewable energy sources

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald

To no surprise to me, Peter Garrett is promoting pretty much every form of renewable energy that is even remotely feasible; wind, solar, geothermal, waves and tidal. Interestingly he does not mention hydro. I have no problems with these forms of energy generation - they do indeed have their place.

Most interesting is what Mr. Garrett says about nuclear:

Mr Garrett told the Our Planet - Leaving a Legacy sustainability forum on Friday that Labor was opposed to nuclear power as a source of energy but was enthusiastic about the prospects for a range of renewable sources.

"In particular, we're not saying we should pick winners.

He said Labor did not support nuclear energy because it was expensive and there was a significant time lag between building and generating the energy.

Significant to me is that nuclear is both the first and last energy generation source mentioned in the article. Of particular interest are the reasons Mr. Garrett gives for his/Labor's negative view of nuclear power - cost and schedule. [So glad to see we've gotten over those other unjustified hangups].

Nuclear must be [and, truth be told already is] competitive with other no/low emissions energy sources.

Just more pre-election political spin.

If you take what he is saying literally [and note that Peter Garrett holds degrees in Arts and Law]; what it translates to in hard, technical terms is large subsidies and steadily increasing fossil fueled plant deployment - with the associated emissions increases, because even the maximum feasible deployment of renewables will not enable Australia to achieve the 60% or more reductions Labor is currently dangling in front of voters AND satisfy Australia's increasing demand for energy.

Believe me... don't believe me... it's up to you. Many people will simply see what they want to see. But you can't politic, cheat, swindle or cajole the laws of physics.

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.