Perth Indy Guide
Editorial Policy
You Publish!
Search Us
Calendar
Library
Chat
Email Lists:
Perth-IMC General
Editorial Mob
RadioFreePerth
Techgeeks
RadioFreePerth:
Oceania
Oceania Indymedia
newswreal
email list
video list
tech list
chat
wiki
about indymedia
indymedia
www.indymedia.org
Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video
Africa
ambazonia
canarias
estrecho / madiaq
kenya
nigeria
south africa
Canada
hamilton
london, ontario
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor
winnipeg
East Asia
burma
jakarta
japan
korea
manila
qc
Europe
abruzzo
alacant
andorra
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
bristol
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
imc-london
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
nice
norway
oost-vlaanderen
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
saint-petersburg
scotland
sverige
switzerland
thessaloniki
torun
toscana
toulouse
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia
Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela
venezuela
Oceania
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
oceania
perth
qc
sydney
South Asia
india
mumbai
United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
austin
baltimore
big muddy
binghamton
boston
buffalo
charlottesville
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
tennessee
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester
West Asia
armenia
beirut
israel
palestine
Topics
biotech
Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer
|
email the perth indmedia mob...
Howard's Nuclear Future - Reeks of Cronyism, Hypocrisy and Misinformation |
| by Elliot K - Perth Indymedia |
2007-03-05 4:36 PM +0900 |
MARCH 5, 2007: The controversial appointment of high profile nuclear-power proponent, Ziggy Switkowski - to head Australia's nuclear research body (ANSTO) has been widely criticised. Dr Switkowski's report to Prim Minister Howard late last year proposed a scenario of 25 Australian nuclear reactors. Critcs say "due process had been thrown out the window in the nuclear debate".
“We are talking about the world’s most hazardous energy source, yet the Government process to investigate whether Australia should adopt it has not been independent, not rigorous, not transparent, not robust. It is simply not good enough,” said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney.
Meanwhile, John Howard's push for dozens of Australian nuclear reactors and his relationship with nuclear reactor proponents - Ron Walker and friends - highlights the cronyism and hypocrisy of a nuclear power push in Australia... |
The Federal Opposition has criticised the Government's appointment of Ziggy Switkowski as chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). Science Minister Julie Bishop says Switkowski is the ideal choice to head ANSTO, as Australia considers nuclear power as an alternative to coal.
Labor's Kim Carr is critical of Switkowski's ANSTO appointment, saying: "his recent report for the Prime Minister lends weight to the view that he will be pursuing an agenda by this Government, for this Government, to impose nuclear power upon Australia."
With the Prime Minister's push for nuclear reactors, and his dubious relationship with nuclear-reactor proponent Ron Walker, the subject of intense scrutiny, the nuclear power hypocrisy deserves to be put under the microscope.
Howard admitted last week that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Switkowski. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce. ANE was forced to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia.
ANE issued a statement saying it was a "private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs" and denied it had proposed to build nuclear power plants.
Greens' nuclear spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, said Howard and Rudd need to be straight with the community about uranium mining, exports, nuclear reactors and waste dumps and the discussions they are having with party backers, pollsters, the mining industry and nuclear proponents.
"It is no wonder Australians are confused about how Australia is suddenly in the grip of a major nuclear push when overwhelmingly the community opposes it. Conflicts of interest, hypocrisy, and cronyism are rife. Transparency of process and freedom of information are the cornerstones of democracy. They are sadly lacking in Australia right now," Senator Milne said.
The federal opposition says the new chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has been appointed to follow the government's agenda. "Whatever Mr Ziggy Switkowski's considerable professional qualifications, this will be seen as a highly controversial appointment," Labor's science spokesman Kim Carr said.
Despite scientists and the community objections, Switkowski's report proposed that nuclear-power would offset climate change because it would be clean and cost competitive in its own right.
Labor's Energy spokesman Chris Evans says Mr Howard is pushing an agenda. "It's clear that the Prime Minister is encouraging people to go down the path of nuclear energy," he said. "The Howard Government's plan to take us down the nuclear path is much more advanced than people thought."
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) says Switkowski's appointment represents a conflict of interest. ACF's Dave Sweeney said Switkowski's appointment showed that due process had been thrown out the window in the nuclear debate currently raging in the country. Mr Sweeney said the appointment highlighted the Government's quest to push nuclear energy, especially when the Government had not yet responded to Dr Switkowski's nuclear inquiry report.
"We are talking about the world's most hazardous energy source, yet the government process to investigate whether Australia should adopt it has not been independent, not rigorous, not transparent, not robust," he said. "It is simply not good enough."
Mr Sweeney said the Prime Minister's haste towards a nuclear program had seen an unashamedly pro-nuclear Mr Howard hand-pick a taskforce to examine domestic nuclear power and then appoint as taskforce chairman a man who was on the board of Australia's largest nuclear agency.
He said the taskforce delivered a "one-eyed pro-nuclear report" that lacked detail on costing and siting, failed to address the two key issues of nuclear safeguards and radioactive waste, and was widely criticised. "Before the dust settles on this report, before the Government has even formally responded to this report, its chief author is promoted and put in charge of its implementation," Mr Sweeney said. "Mr Switkowski has a clear conflict of interest. "
Labor called Dr Switkowski a "pawn for the Government". But Dr Switkowski said his experience heading up the nuclear power study would be an advantage in his new position. "ANSTO itself, I think, is well progressed in its thinking around all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle," Dr Switkowski said on ABC radio. "The fact that I now return as chairman will lead to a situation where the board will continue to be, I think, conversant with and in some cases quite expert in the areas of ANSTO, which is what you would want."
Meanwhile, John Howard himself told Parliament last week that: "I might remind the leader of the Opposition that the laws of the Commonwealth and the state as they now stand, prohibit any nuclear power generation in Australia..."
The Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, said he would hold a plebiscite if the Federal Government tried to override state laws and build a plant in Victoria. "There's no safe way of storing radioactive waste, No. 1," he said. "No. 2, the general safety of the plan is questionable, and No. 3, the economics are just not there." The South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, said no reactor would be contemplated while he was premier.
Labor's environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, said he was surprised the plans to build a plant were so advanced. "Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and nuclear power in this country."
The Wilderness Society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven said any Australian nuclear plan must be stopped. "If we just went blindly down this path of producing nuclear power we would just end up with this massive waste problem which would become Australia's biggest waste problem ever and for an extremely long time."
The 'debate' continues...
---
SEE RELATED:
Suburban homes uninsured against nuclear accidents
http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=50626
NT Uranium Mine Danger: Heavy rains pose radioactive risk to Kakadu:
http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=50621
---
SOURCES: |
|
|
ABC News
Media Release - Senator Milne
The Age
News Ltd
Ziggy’s promotion a process meltdown - ACF
WA Business News
Govt to nuclear company - ABC PM
Howard's nuclear plan 'more advanced' - ABC News
Sydney Morning Herald
Businessmen deny nuclear proposal - SMH
Nuclear costs understated: report's critics - SMH
RON WALKER - CRIKEY ARTICLE
Experts query nuclear power plant proposal - The Australian
Bid to build nuclear power plant in SA
Nuclear costs low-balled to keep it in energy debate - New Matilda
scale pictures
|
Link here
Add multimedia to story
Add links to story
|
Facts about nuclear energy |
| by Via Queensland Government |
2007-03-07 11:31 AM +0900 |
Nuclear energy won’t solve climate change.
* Nuclear energy is not carbon neutral. Significant quantities of greenhouse gases are produced throughout the nuclear cycle – in mining, milling, enrichment, construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, mine cleanup, intermediate storage, long-term disposal and transport.
* A significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed by 2050 if Australia is to make its contribution to curb climate change. Recent estimates suggest that even aggressive use of nuclear power in Australia would only see a reduction of 8% to 18% in national greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, which includes the CEOs of six major Australian companies, showed that greenhouse gas emissions could be cut 60% from 2000 by 2050 while maintaining economic growth, without the use of nuclear power.
* Even the Commonwealth commissioned Switkowski task force, said it would take at least 10-15 years to build just one nuclear power station in Australia. A review group chaired by the Commonwealth Government’s own Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, concluded this estimate is unrealistically optimistic because we do not have the skilled workforce that would be needed to design and build nuclear power stations.
* Nuclear power needs large quantities of water. Just one large nuclear power station would use more water than the total household demand of Queensland. A British 1170 MW nuclear power station needs 108 million litres per hour. A study by the Australian Parliamentary Library gave a range of 100-150 million litres per hour for a potential Australian nuclear power station. That is more water per hour than 400 average Queensland houses use in an entire year.
* With hot summer temperatures and limited freshwater resources, nuclear energy presents too great a pressure on the availability and quality of water.
Nuclear energy is expensive.
* Energy efficiency improvements deliver seven times greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per average dollar spent than nuclear power.
* Reactors cost billions of dollars each to build. Investment in renewable energy programs, clean coal technologies and energy efficiency initiatives would meet our energy needs without producing radioactive waste.
* Nuclear energy is estimated to be 20%-50% more expensive to produce than energy sourced from coal or gas under current conditions.
* The cost of de-commissioning large reactors and storing high-level waste for up to 250,000 years has not yet been accurately calculated. Past experience suggests that such projects nearly always cost more than claimed.
There are better alternatives.
* Renewable energy (including hydro, wind, solar and biofuels) already supplies 19% of the world’s electricity compared to nuclear’s 15%. Renewables don’t have the risks and expense of nuclear.
* Australian companies are leaders in the global renewable energy market and Australia has immense solar resources. The amount of solar energy hitting Australia in just one summer day is about half the total global energy use for an entire year.
* The Commonwealth Government’s Department of Resources and Energy estimated 15 years ago that a mix of renewables could provide 30% of our electricity by 2020 at no more than 10% extra cost. The Switkowski report warned that nuclear power could cost up to 50% more.
Nuclear energy is risky.
* Nuclear reactors have so far produced a global toxic pile of 250,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste with no long-term management solution. Queensland is free of this high level radioactive waste.
* Radioactive wastes arise across the nuclear fuel cycle. High-level waste, which includes spent nuclear fuel and the waste stream from reprocessing plants, is by far the most hazardous. A typical power reactor produces 25-30 tonnes of spent fuel annually. About 12,000 to 14,000 tonnes of spent fuel are produced each year by power reactors worldwide.
* Despite 50 years of investment in the nuclear industry, no safe long-term disposal method has been found. There is evidence the waste is contaminating groundwater and surface water.
* The high-level and long-lived waste will remain a problem for hundreds of thousands of years after the reactors have been closed down.
* There are potential health and safety risks associated with the location and operation of nuclear facilities and the transport of nuclear material. While risks to the health of the public and plant workers from normal operations of modern nuclear facilities might be low and safeguards can be put in place, exposure to nuclear contamination through accidents can result in significant health effects.
* The Chernobyl death toll is still rising. There have already been more than 50 deaths and several thousand cases of childhood thyroid cancer. In the longer term, several tens of thousands of people around Europe will probably die prematurely from the fallout. 40% of Europe was contaminated to various degrees. The radioactive fallout continues to affect agriculture and food management in several countries. The Chernobyl-4 reactor generated power for just over two years, but human suffering, health problems and environmental pollution will go on for generations.
* Nuclear power facilities have been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a security risk and potential terrorism target. There are no such risks with wind turbines, solar panels or generators using clean coal technology.
http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/news/initiatives/nuclear/facts.shtm
Link here
|
A Nuclear Power Renaissance |
| by Spiegel Bot |
2007-03-07 11:43 AM +0900 |
With concerns about global warming and energy security on the rise, countries the world over are taking a new look at nuclear energy. Some are building new reactors as fast as they can...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460011,00.html
Link here
|
I cant beleive we have to keep fighting nuclear power. The majority has spoken enough times already! |
| by Petey |
2007-03-08 9:53 PM +0900 |
Consindering the triple c is the flavour of the month right now in regards to the brian burke saga, why dont the ccc stick their nose into the nuclear report and find out exactly why nuclear is "the only way" and find out who in this country has paved their way to benefit immensly from the mining and generation of uranium. Its stinks of corruption to me that masses of "investors" have bought stocks in mining companies that deal with uranium even tho a decision hasnt even been made.
Even more surprising is the proof that MOST australians DONT support this nuclear push. No matter how fancy they try to make it sound this technology is outdated already! Any power generation that relies on digging resources out of the earth is OLD. Uranuim is just like coal and it will run out eventually so it certainly isn't the way of the future unlike solar and wind power.
All u need to do is look at the bp servos with solar panels on their canopy roofs... now if every building in this country had solar panels as roofs, every street light, every phone box, every shopping centre, every school then we wouldn't have a problem. If the federal government still subsidised the contruction of solar panels in conjuction with bp then they wouldn't be so expensive and would be a perfect alternative to coal and nuclear, providing plenty of jobs to the poor coal workers.
Odd that in this time of climate change the government can do a massive backflip on renewable energy only to favour something that has the potential to cause massive problems.
I would love to kno if this push by howard and yanky switskoski has anything to do with North Americas insatiable demand for uranuim to power their own nuclear reactors. After all if Australia was to go down the path of nuclear generation, then of couse, uranium mining then its obvious that we would export significant amounts to feed North America isnt it.
Cant we just have free power provided by the physics of our universe for heavens sake? Do governments of this world have to make a buck out of every single thing they can... Im sooo over it its time for a revolution. These sick fucks are in it for themselves instead of doing things for the good of everybody and every living thing in this world including our "living" but dying planet. What is this materialistic world going to do without a physical world to exist on?
So please ccc bring on an investigation into the constituents of this nuclear push BEFORE a decision is made so we can find out who the dodgy characters are! (Like we don't already kno!)Then we can put their ideas to rest once and for all and perhaps vote in somebody who actually gives a damn about everyday ppl and not big business or other countrys leaders. ie Pauline Hanson : )
Link here
|
Indeederly dooderly |
| by Nedley |
2007-03-10 8:30 PM +0900 |
"I would love to kno if this push by howard and yanky switskoski has anything to do with North Americas insatiable demand for uranuim to power their own nuclear reactors."
Huh? Switowski isn't American. Is he?
Nevertheless, Howard announced his passion for nuclear power after a meeting in the States with President Bush last year.
It's more about cashing in on the billions to be made from selling Yellowcake to the Chines and Indians - who are building nuke plants.
Link here
|
|
| by Petey |
2007-03-11 2:27 AM +0900 |
I googled to check where zigster is from and its apparently not america... Mayb im just confused with the other guy called sol i think he may b the american in all of this! Yeah it will also be sold to china and india, ur right.
Strange that howard is interested in nukes after speaking with bush almost a coincidence.
Another coincidence is that this zwiggy fella is a nuclear physicist and happened to be the chairman of the nuclear inquiry. Almost certainly picked by the government to put pro nuclear spin all over the issue.
Link here
|
Indeed |
| by Elliot |
2007-03-11 12:46 PM +0900 |
Well, its not a coincidence.
Since Howard returned from Washington on May 19 2006, he's been bleating about "nuclear power being the solution to climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power stations."
The government is most keen on massively expanding exports of Australian uranium, and adding value by turning the yellowcake into nuclear fuel rods. To do this, however, would require building a uranium enrichment plant.
"It doesn’t seem to me to make a lot of sense to favour the export of uranium without looking at enrichment”, Howard told ABC TV’s June 3 Insiders program. “There is significant potential for Australia to increase and add value to our uranium extraction and exports”, he repeated on June 6.
He also noted that recent developments in global energy markets have renewed international interest in nuclear power as a technology that “can help meet growing demand for electricity without the fuel and environmental costs associated with oil and gas”.
During his recent visit to the United States, Prime Minister Howard had talks in Washington with President Bush about the president’s desire to set up new nuclear fuel supply centres around the world with a view to having these supply centres enrich uranium and lease it with an agreement to take back the spent fuel rods.”
The Bush administration is pushing a massive expansion of the nuclear power industry as the “best” solution to global warming. On May 22, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that 16 US corporations had expressed interest in building 25 nuclear reactors in the US.
Bush has also proposed that Australia and Canada — the world’s major uranium exporting countries — join with the US to form a marketing cartel, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). They would enrich the uranium, then “rent” their nuclear fuel rods out to user countries and take back the waste.
According to the June 6 Australian Financial Review, before and during his visit to Washington, Howard was briefed by US officials about the role they expect Australia to play in the GNEP.
This would involve “mining and enriching uranium at Olympic Dam in South Australia, exporting it to India and China via the Adelaide-Darwin rail line and re-importing the waste the same way for storage at the former nuclear test site at Maralinga ... The GNEP could create immediate profits for any private firm building an enrichment plant at or near the Olympic Dam uranium mine.”
The Olympic Dam mine, owned and operated by BHP Billiton, holds the world’s largest known uranium ore deposit, with about 66% of Australia’s proven reserves. Under the Bush plan, Maralinga would become the world’s principal site for dumping used nuclear fuel rods.
FROM:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0606/S00199.htm
Link here
|
|
ALLOWED:50629
|
|
