Yes its about Depleted Uranium Maaaate! : Melbourne Indymedia

Yes, folks, it's about DU - - -

The short version Gittus Report (about 9 pages) is at:

http://www.ansto.gov.au/Nuclear_Options_Paper_May061.pdf

Pithy coverage, though, is just below.
Go to the end of this post a post-script (npi)* by the compiler - - -

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1655802.htm
Broadcast: 05/06/2006

Nuclear power debate heats up
Reporter: Matt Peacock

KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. By this time tomorrow night, we'll
probably know who the Federal Government is going to commission to inquire
into the viability of nuclear power in Australia and although that inquiry
won't be asked to consider possible sites for power stations, a report
released today by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation, ANSTO, suggests that up to five nuclear power stations would
be needed along the east coast. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, wants what
he's called a "full-blooded debate" on the subject, including issues of
cost, nuclear waste and weapons proliferation. Government ministers cite the
need to rein in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions as part of their
motivation for considering going nuclear, although most environmental groups
say that's not the answer. But another question mark over nuclear power goes
to the economic feasibility, and whether investors will play without the
promise of substantial Government subsidies. Matt Peacock reports.

TV ADVERTISEMENT: We need reliable electricity for the 21st century, but we
also need clean air. With nuclear energy, we can have both.

MATT PEACOCK: This prime-time ad may have been pitched at American
television viewers, but, it seems, some Australian Government ministers have
been watching.

TV ADVERTISEMENT: Nuclear - the clean air energy.

BRENDAN NELSON, DEFENCE MINISTER: We have a responsibility in 2006 to have a
responsible and mature debate in our country about whether there is a place
for nuclear power generation.

IAN MACFARLANE, INDUSTRY AND RESOURCES MINISTER: From enrichment of uranium
through to the possibility of generating nuclear power from uranium and
then, of course, the safe disposal of the waste.

MATT PEACOCK: And today, the Government's nuclear research organisation
released a study that says nuclear power makes economic sense.

IAN SMITH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ANSTO: It is economically viable. All the
international reports from the United Kingdom, France, Finland, Japan,
Canada show that, in fact, nuclear power is the cheapest way of producing
electricity. The report that we commissioned to test the Australian
conditions comes to the same conclusion.

DR MARK DIESENDORF, INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, UNSW: It's a
complete rubbish and if one of my students produced something like that,
they would fail.

MATT PEACOCK: According to environmental scientist Mark Diesendorf of the
University of NSW, the ANSTO study assumes Government subsidies. He believes
that nuclear will cost almost three times as much as coal.

DR MARK DIESENDORF: The study does not reveal the most fundamental, basic
parameters of the problem; it doesn't tell us the basic capital cost of the
nuclear power station; and it doesn't tell us the interest rates used on the
capital, in order to calculate the cost of electricity. All it does is
present us with a bottom line that suggests that given some subsidies from
the Federal Government, nuclear power might become competitive.

MATT PEACOCK: That message is reinforced from the top end of town, too. Greg
Houston is an energy specialist with the global economic consultants, NERA.

GREG HOUSTON, ENERGY CONSULTANT, NERA: And it's only going to happen,
really, if the Government is willing to pick up the tab or pick up a lot of
the tab.

MATT PEACOCK: And by 'tab' what are you talking about?

GREG HOUSTON: Billions of dollars. Billions of dollars.

MATT PEACOCK: In the US, though, President George Bush has seized on a
revitalised nuclear industry as the answer to global warming.

GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT: Nuclear power helps us protect the
environment. And nuclear power is safe.

MATT PEACOCK: And with almost half the world's uranium reserves, Australia
should at least be considering the nuclear option, according to the US
industry's Scott Peterson.

SCOTT PETERSON, US NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE: It makes sense, I think, for
Australia to look really at diversifying their electricity production
portfolio - certainly taking advantage of the coal resources that you have,
but really looking at the vast uranium resources that you have; looking at
enrichment technology to convert that into fuel for reactors; and looking at
the new advanced reactor technology that's certainly well advanced over the
last generation.

MATT PEACOCK: That generation will hardly be missed. Demolished last month,
this plant in Oregon cost more to decommission than to build. During its
troubled 30-year history, its customers paid a high price for their
electricity. Once their power bills soared by 600%.

PETER CONNOLLY, SIERRA CLUB: It is sold as that it will be too cheap to
metre; the nuclear power would be so cheap, you wouldn't even have to bill
people for the energy. Well, now, 50 years later, it's been - we've seen
that nuclear power has been the most expensive way ever found to boil water.

MATT PEACOCK: Environmentalists, like the Sierra Club's Peter Connolly, say
nuclear's downsides of proliferation, safety and cost just don't make it
viable.

PETER CONNOLLY: Trying to solve the problem of global warming by switching
to nuclear power is like trying to get off cigarettes by going to crack.

MATT PEACOCK: The next generation reactors, though, says the industry will
be safer.

SCOTT PETERSON: Essentially, they've eliminated a lot of the pumps, valves,
piping, wiring in them; made them much easier to build modulely; and,
really, from a safety standpoint, are taking advantage of gravity rather
than pumps and valves to move water up.

DR MARK DIESENDORF: The reality is that any nuclear power stations built in
the next few years would be the conventional old, dirty and dangerous
nuclear power stations.

MATT PEACOCK: And Diesendorf even doubts that the new plants will save on
greenhouse gases.

DR MARK DIESENDORF: Temporarily, it's true that nuclear power is low in its
carbon dioxide emissions, but if you add up the emissions from the mining
and milling and enriching of uranium, the building of the power station, its
demolishment at the end of its life, the managing of nuclear waste, these
become significant. Particularly, once we run out of high-grade uranium ore.

MATT PEACOCK: Currently, Australia exports raw uranium yellow cake; the next
stage in the nuclear fuel cycle is enrichment. Here, at Lucas Heights, CEO
and founder Michael Goldsworthy's company, Silex, has developed new laser
enrichment technology that's just been bought by the US giant, General
Electric.

MICHAEL GOLDSWORTHY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, SILEX: I can't tell you exactly how it
works because it's a classified technology, but essentially lasers can
discreetly excite one isotope and not the other isotope and cause an effect
which enables you to separate them.

MATT PEACOCK: President Bush has proposed that countries that enrich uranium
form a kind of nuclear cartel. They would then rent their nuclear fuel out
to user countries and take back the waste. It's whether Australia should
join this new nuclear club that John Howard is now addressing.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER (19 MAY): It's not something that we're
proposing at this point, certainly to join. And it's designed to reduce the
number of people who process nuclear fuel, and we'll obviously keep a very
close look at it and we'll follow it very carefully.

MICHAEL GOLDSWORTHY: I think we should be part of the club, because we have
more uranium than anyone else in the world and secondly, our Silex
technology is Australian-born and grown and it is going to the United
States. So, I think, there is some scope there for Australia to be part of
that process.

MATT PEACOCK: But for Greenpeace CEO Steve Shellhaven, any enrichment just
makes the proliferation risk greater.

STEVE SHELLHAVEN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, GREENPEACE: 20 or 30 countries have the
technology to make nuclear weapons if they choose, and if Australia goes
down the nuclear path and starts exporting more uranium to nuclear weapons
countries, or if it starts to enrich uranium and spreading that material
around the planet, then we'll get more countries that will be tempted to
create nuclear weapons.

MATT PEACOCK: Finally, it comes down to money, and the question will be
whose?

GREG HOUSTON: The only way it seems that you could imagine investors wanting
to support nuclear would be if the Government mandated that they had to. So
a lot of Government support, including taking care of the liabilities that
exist at the end of any plant's life. Don't think investors are going to be
rushing to this one without a lot of Government support.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And we'll follow this story up when the commission of inquiry
is announced.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1655802.htm
© 2006 ABC | Privacy Policy

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1655783.htm

Last Update: Monday, June 5, 2006. 8:00pm (AEST)

Independence concerns: Professor Gittus runs a nuclear plant insurer.
ANSTO dismisses conflict of interest claims
By Stephen Long for PM

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has
dismissed concerns about the independence of a report which has found
nuclear power is price-competitive with coal-generated electricity.

The Greens have questioned the neutrality of the report's author, Professor
John Gittus.

Professor Gittus runs Lloyd's of London Syndicate 1176, which insures almost
all of the world's nuclear power stations.

But the head of ANSTO, Ian Smith, has defended the independence of the
report.

"To say that's a conflict of interest is really stretching the point in that
there's not likely to be a nuclear power station in Australia for 10 years,"
he said.

"How it was insured is not something that will be influenced by this
report."

But Dr Mark Diesendorf, who researches sustainable energy and ecological
economics at the University of New South Wales, is not convinced.

"My understanding is that [Professor Gittus's] very deeply embedded in the
nuclear industry himself and that's he's held a number of positions in
there," Dr Diesendorf said.
"It seems to me that there is a clear conflict of interest here."

Findings questioned
The ANSTO report is called Introducing Nuclear Power to Australia.

Both the organisation and the Federal Government maintain it shows that
nuclear power is the world's cheapest source of energy.

But some of its key findings appear to undermine the economic case for
nuclear power.

The report shows that unless the Government took on more than half the
financial risk of building a first-of-a-kind reactor, nuclear energy would
not be viable.

It says the nuclear power generated would cost twice as much as coal-fired
power, and any private operator that took on the costs and risks would
quickly go into liquidation.

Dr Diesendorf says this contradicts the claims that nuclear power is cheap,
cost-effective and viable.
"I draw the opposite conclusion," he said.

"The report shows that very large subsidies would be required for nuclear
power if it was introduced in Australia.

"What's more, the report uses as a case study for the economics, a nuclear
power station that doesn't actually exist at present except on paper.
"So really this is pie in the sky."

The report says it would be cheaper to being producing nuclear power if
Australia copies an established style of reactor.

But even then, the report says Government would need to pay more than 14 per
cent of the construction cost to make it viable.

It would also need to subsidise the energy produced to the tune of about 21
per cent for 12 years.

Insurance risks
The report also assumes that Government bears at least half the liability
for any nuclear accident.

Mr Smith concedes that without that provision, nuclear power would be
uninsurable.

"I think that nuclear viability is another topic which traditionally in the
world, governments have picked up," he said.

"They've never had to pay anything for it but they have in fact undertaken
to cover that risk because it then provides a greater degree of certainty in
a difficult market to insure the risks."

Dr Diesendorf says this is further evidence that nuclear energy is not
viable.
"That contradicts the claim that this is economic, because the financial
risk has to be part of the market process," he said.

"So what this is saying is that the Australian Government wants to continue
the same kind of subsidies to nuclear power that have been given over the
last few decades in the United States and Britain.

"We're talking really about $US90 billion subsidy in the United States over
the last 50 years."

Questions are being asked tonight about the credibility of a new report
promoting Australian nuclear power, because of its author's financial links
to the nuclear industry.
[RealMedia 28k+] [WinMedia 28k+] [MP3]

Related Stories
Nuclear power could 'damage' international relations
Four nuclear plants needed for economic viability: ANSTO
PM warns against nuclear 'fear campaign'
Howard tight-lipped on nuclear inquiry boss

Ex-Telstra chief to head nuclear review

© 2006 ABC | Privacy Policy
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN,
Reuters, CNN and
the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.
AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of UTC
(Greenwich Mean Time)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1655716.htm

Credibility of nuclear report questioned
PM - Monday, 5 June , 2006 18:13:28

Reporter: Stephen Long

MARK COLVIN: Questions are being asked tonight about the credibility of a
new report promoting Australian nuclear power, because of its author's
financial links to the nuclear industry.

Professor John Gittus examined the economic case for power for the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, or ANSTO.

Professor Gittus happens to run a company that insures the vast majority of
the world's nuclear power stations.

The Government and ANSTO are claiming that the report shows that nuclear
power makes economic sense. And yet the detail of the report finds that
building nuclear power stations would not be viable without massive
Government support.

Economics Correspondent Stephen Long has been looking at the small print.

STEPHEN LONG: The report's called "Introducing Nuclear Power To Australia",
and the disclosure comes on page 264 of its 267 pages.

It says the author, Professor John H Gittus, runs Lloyd's of London
Syndicate 1176. It insures almost all of the world's nuclear power station,
and makes big profits from that endeavour.

But the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which
commissioned the report, denies that undermines its credibility.

ANSTO's Executive Director is Ian Smith:

IAN SMITH: To say that's a conflict of interest is really stretching the
point, in that there's not likely to be a nuclear power station in Australia
for 10 years, how it was insured is not something that will be influenced by
this report.

STEPHEN LONG: But some experts say Professor Gittus is a paid up member of
the nuclear club. Dr Mark Diesendorf researches sustainable energy and
ecological economics at the University of New South Wales.

MARK DIESENDORF: Well my understanding is that he's very deeply embedded in
the nuclear industry himself, and that's he's held a number of positions in
there. And I have actually heard that he's actually runs a company that
insures nuclear power stations.

STEPHEN LONG: Indeed it's disclosed that he runs a Lloyd's company that is
the biggest insurer of nuclear installations, and insures just about all the
nuclear installations in the world.

MARK DIESENDORF: Well then it seems to me that there is a clear conflict of
interest here.

STEPHEN LONG: ANSTO and the Federal Government maintain the Gittus report
shows that nuclear power is the world's cheapest source of energy. In fact,
some of its key findings appear to undermine the economic case for nuclear
power.

It looks at the cost of a new style or first of a kind reactor. And it shows
that unless the Government took on more than half the financial risk of
building it, nuclear energy would not be viable. It would cost twice as much
as coal-fired power, and any private operator that took on the costs and
risks, the report says, would quickly go into liquidation.

Mark Diesendorf says this contradicts the claims that nuclear power is
cheap, cost effective and viable.

MARK DIESENDORF: I draw the opposite conclusion. The report shows that very
large subsidies would be required for nuclear power if it was introduced in
Australia.

And what's more, the report uses as a case study for the economics, a
nuclear power station that doesn't actually exist at present except on
paper. So really this is pie in the sky.

STEPHEN LONG: It'd be cheaper if Australia merely copied an established
style of reactor. But even then, the Government would need to pay more than
14 per cent of the construction cost to make it viable. And it would need to
provide to subsidise the energy produced to the tune of about 21 per cent
for 12 years, the report finds.

The report also assumes that Government bears at least half the liability
for any nuclear accident, without which Ian Smith at ANSTO concedes, nuclear
power would be uninsurable.

IAN SMITH: I think that nuclear viability is another topic which
traditionally in the world, governments have picked up. They've never had to
pay anything for it, but they have in fact undertaken to cover that risk
because it then provides a greater degree of certainty in a difficult market
to insure the risks.

STEPHEN LONG: Mark Diesendorf says this is further evidence that nuclear
energy isn't viable.

MARK DIESENDORF: Well that contradicts the claim that this is economic,
because the financial risk has to be part of the market process. So what
this is saying is that the Australian Government wants to continue the same
kind of subsidies to nuclear power that have been given over the last few
decades in the United States and Britain. And we're talking really about $US
90 billion subsidy in the United States over the last 50 years.

STEPHEN LONG: Britain meanwhile is now facing a 90 billion pound bill for
the cost of cleaning up its ageing nuclear reactors. And that could lead to
a rethink of plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in
the UK.

MARK COLVIN: Economics Correspondent Stephen Long.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1655716.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://ww7.investorrelations.co.uk/chaucer/history.jsp

The history of Chaucer Syndicates Limited traces back to 1922, with the
formation of Stewart and Hughman Limited (SHL) as a managing agency to
manage Lloyd's syndicates. SHL was subsequently renamed Stewart Syndicates
Limited (SSL), part of the Stewart Group, and, in 1996, became Chaucer
Syndicates Limited (CSL).

In 1997 Hayward, Brick Stuchbery Holdings Limited (HBSH) was created to
acquire CSL from the Stewart Group. The HBSH Group merged with Aberdeen
Lloyd's Insurance Trust PLC (ALIT) in 1998, and the resultant group was
renamed Chaucer Holdings PLC (the Group).

ALIT had been floated on the London Stock Exchange in 1993 as one of the
first listed vehicles to provide investors with a limited liability
participation in the Lloyd's market through participation on a number of
syndicates.

Chaucer was created to form what is known as a Lloyd's Integrated Vehicle
(or ILV), i.e. a company that controls both the managing agency services and
underwriting capital provided to the syndicates under its management.

At the time of the merger, Chaucer managed four syndicates and provided
underwriting capital to a number of other syndicates. The syndicate
participations were sold in 1999 and, for the 2000 year of account onwards,
the company focused its managing agency skills and underwriting capital on
the 'in-house' Syndicates 587, 1084 and 1096.

In 1999, Chaucer acquired a Danish reinsurance operation, which was renamed
Chaucer Underwriting A/S, from Vesta Fire Insurance Corporation. The
operation, which commenced underwriting in 1990, was acquired to enhance
Chaucer's ability to service and develop new and existing business within
the European market.

During 2000, Chaucer introduced syndicate management services for third
party insurance companies, specifically, Mitsui Sumitomo (Syndicate 3210)
and Broadgate Syndicate 1301, now owned by Clal Insurance.

In 2001, Chaucer raised £18.5m through a new share issue to provide
additional capital for underwriting and to acquire BRIT Insurance Holdings
PLC's 17.9% interest in Chaucer Dedicated Limited, a Group controlled
corporate member that supplied underwriting capacity to the in-house
syndicates.

Additional funds were also raised in 2002 and 2003 to support underwriting
and to take advantage of the favourable market conditions. In August 2002,
Chaucer raised £19m in new shares and £20m in convertible unsecured
subordinated loan stock and, in May 2003, raised an additional £40m in new
shares.

In December 2002, Chaucer assumed the management of Cox Syndicate Management
Limited's Nuclear Syndicate 1176 for the 2003 and subsequent years of
account. The transfer allowed the company to continue development in its
third party syndicate management division.
[NOTE]
Nuclear Syndicate 1176 has, and continues to be, one of the most profitable
syndicates at Lloyd's over recent years.

The merger of the three in-house Syndicates, 587, 1096 and 1084 was approved
in August 2003 and a new divisional structure implemented for the newly
combined operation, Chaucer Syndicate 1084.

For the 2004 year of account the underwriting capacity of Chaucer Syndicate
1084 was £400m and Nuclear Syndicate 1176 was £15m. The Group's underwriting
interest in these syndicates is £310m.

In 2004, Chaucer acquired GE Frankona Limited's entire £51m interest on
Syndicate 1084 to increase the Company's ownership to 98% of the syndicate
for 2005. The Company also reached agreement with Quanta Capital Holdings
Limited to provide managing agency services to its new Lloyd's venture,
Syndicate 4000.

For the 2005 year of account the underwriting capacity of Chaucer Syndicate
1084 is £400m and Nuclear Syndicate 1176 is £18m. The Group's underwriting
interest in these syndicates is £372m.

CSL, our wholly owned subsidiary, is the second largest managing agency at
Lloyd's in 2005 with a total syndicate capacity under management of £853m.

In September 2005 CSL announced a minority buy-out of capacity on Syndicate
1084 taking the Group's ownership to 100% of the capacity for the 2006 year
of account.

In November 2005 the Group signed an agreement with PxRe Reinsurance Company
to acquire its wholly owned subsidiary, PxRe Limited, which provides all the
capital for Syndicate 1224, which ceased underwriting in the 2000 year of
account, will close into Chaucer's Syndicate 1084, subject to the agreement
of the reinsurance to close.

For the 2006 year of account the Underwriting capacity of Chaucer Syndicate
1084 is £450m and Nuclear Syndicate is £22.5m. The Group's Underwriting
interest in these syndicate's is £427m.

CSL is the third largest managing agency at Lloyd's for 2006 with a total
syndicate capacity under management of £919m.

http://ww7.investorrelations.co.uk/chaucer/history.jsp

-=-=-=-=-=-=

You know, I get so tired of hearing complaints about scientific cred.

Gentle reader, do read the above again, about Professor John Gittus, scientist and businessman.

Yes, it is related to DU, we're talking about the next generation of DU factories - more reactors means more enrichment means more DU. Silex, the Australian laser enrichment technology, promises to ramp up nuclear enrichment (and proliferation and DU production) like never before.

And those of you who crap on ad nauseum, about about Leuren and Doug and Bob and Miraki damaging the campaign, try to connect the dots - - -

Cheers,
Robert

Prime Minister Howard's close relationship with President George Bush is once again taking Australia down a dangerous and wrong path towards the enrichment of uranium and the creation of a global high-level nuclear waste dump, the Greens said today.

"Prime Minister Howard needs to be honest with the Australian people and tell us exactly what he discussed with President Bush as part of the President's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership plan," Australian Greens energy and climate change spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said in Hobart.

"President Bush wants to establish a series of nuclear supply centres around the world, so that he can control the supply of nuclear fuel and the reprocessing and disposal of nuclear waste.

"Prime Minister Howard desperately wants to be part of President Bush's grand plan, admitting yesterday that if Australia is not a nuclear fuel supplier then that would shut us out of certain gatherings.

"Expanding uranium mines, enriching uranium at Olympic Dam in South Australia, and sending the enriched uranium by rail to Darwin for leasing to China and India is the first part of Prime Minister Howard's real agenda.

"Taking back high-level nuclear waste, possibly including US nuclear weapons waste, and burying it at Maralinga would make Australia the nuclear waste dump of the world. Is that the vision Australians have for their future?

"Prime Minister Howard must tell the Australian people if he agrees with former Prime Minister Bob Hawke that Australia should become the world's nuclear waste dump."

It occurs to me that Howard’s nuclear stance occurs at a time when the effects of depleted uranium are worryingly clear. While Australia only uses nuclear energy for medical and scientific research we can to some degree hold the high ground regarding its waste, but if we have our own nuclear power plants then we like all other nuclear countries will have to deal with it. The plans to make Australia the dumping ground for nuclear waste have been around for a very long time, its perceived stability geologically confirms the decision that we are the best place to create a nuclear dump. The problem has always been that the Australian population has not been in favor of it, and spin has not been able to convince them that it is in their best interests to take the nuclear approach. So the public is sold the story we have to have nuclear power for future energy requirements because it is the only way to cut global warming, in the hope that it will sway people to accept what they see as inevitable. It will be interesting to watch and see how sheepish the population is to this idea as they have been to all the Bush/Blair/Howard lies. I personally believe that it would be totally irresponsible at this stage to go nuclear, there are many scientists working at this time looking at other concepts for mass energy production, to go nuclear is short sighted when less harmful ways of energy production are around the corner.

Power companies are investigating an ambitious project to place underwater turbines in Cook Strait as an answer to New Zealand's electricity shortage.

Scientists behind the idea say harnessing the tidal currents could meet the entire country's electricity needs.

State-owned power companies Meridian Energy and Transpower are also included in the project's development.

In what would be a multibillion-dollar scheme, up to 7000 turbines would be anchored to the sea floor and float about 40 metres below the surface.

With a brutal early winter and record power use, New Zealand's ability to generate enough electricity has emerged as a national concern.

The project's leaders, Christchurch scientists David Beach and Chris Bathurst, believe the tidal currents could be harnessed to generate enough electricity for the whole country.

The scientists, the founding directors of Neptune Power, are investigating the placing of the submerged turbines in an area stretching over 200 square kilometres of Cook Strait, from its northern fringes close to the Marlborough Sounds to further south between Wellington and Cloudy Bay.

"We think we have the best site in the southern hemisphere," Mr Bathurst said.

Meridian, New Zealand's largest hydro-generation company, met the pair this week to discuss the scheme. The scientists will also meet Transpower, operator of the national grid, in the next few weeks.

A secondary tidal generation project in Foveaux Strait is also being considered.

Mr Bathurst said they would be in Wellington in the next month to talk to the local fishing industry, which would have a "critical role" to play in monitoring and maintaining the turbines.

"We want to keep fishermen on side. All these units are going to require tending. Fishing trawlers will be about the right size. It will be a profitable occupation, to contract to us and still have some system where they are still doing their own work."

He and Mr Beach would also make a presentation to Transpower, as the proposed areas for generation lay on each side of the exclusion zone that surrounds the high-voltage direct current cables that carry electricity between the South and North islands.

Mr Bathurst said the intention was to have the first turbine in place by 2008, but they were waiting for the completion of a trial close to the Orkney Islands.

A total project cost was still being calculated, but he estimated the power from it would cost 12 cents a kilowatt-hour, cheaper than new hydroelectricity or nuclear power (18c a kWh) but more expensive than generated power (7c a kWh).

The meeting with Meridian representatives had been "very, very positive".

"We talked to Meridian about three years ago and all they were interested in was wind power. They're having to change their minds at the moment."

The company is also behind a proposed $380 million 70-turbine wind farm at Makara to boost it power generation.

Meridian chief executive Keith Turner has said New Zealand's electricity generation is at the crossroads and he has supported Transpower's bid to build a new transmission infrastructure.

Meridian spokesman Alan Seay said there had been talks with Neptune Power and Meridian was always interested in looking at a range of generation options.