REJECT NUCLEAR POWER - nuclear energy is not an option : Melbourne Indymedia

REJECT NUCLEAR POWER - Nuclear energy is not an option!

Why does John Howard continue to regurgitate the Uranium industry line that Nuclear Power is "clean and green," when it is simply not true...?

Upon analysis, nuclear power is definitely not the way to achieve necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - and besides those with a vested interest, nobody seems to want it.

The planet does not need another dirty industry to add to the litany of human-induced problems we custodians of the mighty eco-sphere have caused.

In June, Mr Howard set up an energy review, to be headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski. The review is part of a push for nuclear power to be considered in the nation's future energy mix. and Howard is pushing the barrow for the nuke industry.

But he is wrong.

Nuclear power is not, as suggested by some, a good example of greenhouse gas reduction. This is mainly because of the significant fossil fuel energy requirements for mining, milling and, particularly, enrichment of the uranium for the fuel rods. These energy inputs are highly dependent on the concentration of the original ore.

According to recent analysis, even with high-grade ore, it would take 10 years to "pay back" energy used in the construction and fuelling of a typical reactor. And with lower-grade ore needed - if nuclear power was widely expanded - the net emissions would be far greater than for a gas power station for example.

Water is also an issue: The nuclear energy cycle uses millions of litres of water to get the job done. Yet many towns and shires in across Australia are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle. This is water that we simply cannot afford as chronic drought and climate change dry up water supplies.

And what a waste! Nuclear power stations, in the course of normal operations, produce the most dangerous industrial wastes known to humankind. Unfortunately for the industry, humanity, and the biosphere, this orgy of construction was undertaken without any clear idea of what to do with the waste.

Reports estimate that by 2015 there will be roughly 250,000 tonnes to deal with if the industry is not stopped.

A producer of highly radioactive and hazardous waste, the nuclear industry has not, in over fifty years of trying, found a viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste.

What do you do with hundreds of millions of tonnes of radioactive poison?

Safety is also a problem: Beyond the waste issue, radioactive leaks continue - since Chernobyl in 1986, 22 serious leaks have been recorded.

There are far greater safety issues involved with nuclear than any other method of generating power. Highly toxic radioactive waste is generated at every step of the nuclear cycle and the possibility of an accident, such as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, amounts to completely unacceptable risk.

Efficient? No way. Nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite massive historical government support for the industry globally. It is heavily subsidised by taxpayer money across the planet. Canada for example has a 4 billion dollar debt attributed to nuclear energy.

The same level of support has not been available for energy efficiency and renewable energy. In countries such as the US and Britain, where it has had recent relative exposure to competition, the nuclear power industry has been in the economic doldrums for the past 20 years.

Dubbed a "sunset industry," many believe the renewed global push for nuclear power is a last ditch grasp by a nuclear industry "on its knees."

Climate Change experts are saying Australians must focus on renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. The needs of the people and the environment should come before those of the vested interests promoting and cashing in on nuclear energy.

People's voices and actions matter: In Australia, Local Government led the way with the implementation of Nuclear Free Zones across many council areas as far back as the 1980’s. Governments, and the people that elect them continue to recognise the enormous risks that nuclear technology represents.

There is near-unanimous opposition among environmentalists to nuclear power, suggestions that we are split over the issue are purely misleading.

Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to occur because weak international safeguards of fissile materials are ineffective. When Australia exports uranium overseas we inevitably contribute to the global proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Greenhouse emissions: But the key problem here, is the significant greenhouse gas generation across the nuclear fuel cycle from mining and milling of uranium, construction and decommissioning of rectors, transportation and management of waste including reprocessing and disposal.

Even if it were a viable option, replacing fossil fuel fired electricity plants with nuclear does nothing to address the problem of global warming.

If the money invested in nuclear technology and fossil fuel industry subsidies were spent on energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources we would be a lot closer to meeting our needs at a much lower cost to the environment and consumers.

Wind power, as an example, is the fastest growing energy source in the world, and is now far cheaper than nuclear. For the same investment, wind generates more electricity, and offers more jobs.

In recent years, over 6,000 megawatts of wind generation have been installed every year in Europe, the equivalent of two or three large nuclear power plants.

By comparison, only one nuclear reactor has been built in the past six years, and it takes around 10 years to build the next. In the US, the last new reactor was ordered in 1978.

Furthermore, nuclear is not a renewable energy source, as it needs scarce uranium to fuel its reactors.

If we would replace all fossil fuels with nuclear power, the world would run out of uranium in less than four years.

Currently, nuclear is a marginal energy source, supplying only two percent of the world energy demand, and there is no realistic scenario in which this could be significantly increased.

Clearly Nuclear Power is not the answer. It is a problem...

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT AN OPTION
Why nuclear power is part of the problem
The nuclear power option - expensive, ineffective and unnecessary
Nuclear is not the solution to Greenhouse
UIC
wikipedia: Nuclear_power
Once a sunset industry, the Uranium Lobby Paints a Green Dawn
ANNAWA

actually,
I was surprised hoWARd managed not to mention nuclear today while launching an initiative of the clean development mechanism (the ho...d government's regional alternative to the global Kyoto protocol)

I wonder how many times he hopes to bask in the glory of that single solar plant?
More money for coal, while the solar announcement represents only 5% of australia's 'Clean Development' committment.
see below, Howard asks :
"what could be more practical than to find a way of capturing carbon emissions from existing power stations"
?

here's Howard's presentation from the launch of the Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate
'PARTNERSHIP FOR ACTION 2006' today at CSIRO in Yarralumla

"Thank you very much Alexander, Ian Macfarlane, Geoff Garrett, the Chief Executive of CSIRO, your excellencies representing our five partner countries in AP6, ladies and gentlemen. The first and indeed probably the most important thing to say about AP6 is that together it represents approximately 50 per cent of global energy use, emissions, GDP and world population. So it's not a bad practical foundation for a collaborative approach that will produce a lot of practical outcomes.

"There is a lot of debate about climate change, you'd have to be sort of on another planet to pretend otherwise, and there will continue to be a lot of talk, and there'll be a lot of rhetoric and there will be a lot of well-meaning injunctions to people to sign things and to negotiate things. But side by side with all of that meritorious endeavour, there needs to be practical applications of technology. And although there is debate about how you approach climate change, and that's legitimate, and none of us should be mesmerised by any one particular theory, I don't think there's any doubt that in order to make progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions we need to make progress in cleaning up the use of fossil fuels.

"And I think the other thing we ought to remember as Australians, if I may be permitted in the presence of our guests to sound a little inward looking for a moment, I think we ought to bear in mind that two interrelated factors, the one I've just mentioned, and that is to make progress we have to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use. And the other thing to bear in mind is that there's probably no developed country in the world that depends more on fossil fuel use for its wealth generation and its power generation than does Australia. And we have to be very careful, we Australians, as we move forward, that we don't end up imposing a disproportionate share of the burden of adjustment on our own country.

"Now that is a legitimate plea from the Prime Minister of Australia but it's not in any way discordant with the goals and objectives of this Partnership because what makes me enthusiastic about this Partnership is that it's about practical achievement, not talk. If we'd have sat down at the beginning in January and said we can't do anything until we agree on a bit of paper, until we agree on some targets or some sanctions or some penalties, nothing would've happened. Instead of that we set about trying to build, through a series of task forces some action plans, and in a remarkably short period of time; and Alexander is absolutely right; it's only taken nine months, and we now have and I'm launching today, Australian contributions of $60 million out of the $100 million we committed at the beginning of this exercise nine months ago, and that's going to fund 42 projects covering all of the activities of the task groups. The two in the areas for which Australia is particularly responsible are magnificently displayed outside and both of them are immensely practical. What could be more practical in the climate, dare I say, of the current debate, what could be more practical than to find a way of capturing carbon emissions from existing power stations, separating them out and burying the carbon? What could be more practical than that? And that is exactly what $8 million out of the $60 million which is being contributed to this particular development of CSIRO, that magnificent Australian organisation, and it comes out of its flagship climate change program.

"And the other $5 million is for the projects that are particularly relevant to Australia, which is, of course, going to help the Solar Systems projects. Solar Systems were the partner that we, along with the Victorian Government, funded last week in that major announcement made by the Minister and Treasurer and the Victorian Government. And the development we're funding is an application of that technology which we hope will be exported and used enthusiastically in both China and South Korea.

"Now this is the essence of what this Partnership is about. By all means let us continue the process of discussion, and I've made it clear that Australia will be part of future discussions which are designed to get total international agreement involving all of the major polluters, involving all the nations of the world and if we can do that you can then start talking about an effective world-wide emissions trading system. But that's going to take a lot of time. But in the meantime we are getting on with the job of practical investment in technologies which are going to, in a sensible way, bring about a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And that magnificent combustion capture technology, which is displayed outside, has the potential to capture between 85 and 95 per cent of the CO2 content of the emissions from a basic coal-based power station. And they can, of course, be retrofitted, it's a prototype, and what the CSIRO will be doing, I understand, is going around applying this, plugging it into power stations, testing the consequences and that will lay the foundation, the research coming out of that, will lay the foundations for the custom building of these capture technologies for the needs of individual power stations.

"Now that is my necessarily inadequate technological understanding, I do not claim to be a scientist on this matter, on these matters, but I'm furiously learning and trying very, very hard to understand some of these concepts. But it's a very commonsense concept that we should focus on practical responses. And one of the practical responses is to make it possible for us to go on using fossil fuel in a way that generates fewer CO2 emissions. There could be no argument about that. There's no debate about that. That makes commonsense that we do it. But in the process we have to as a nation, and as a world, understand there is a cost involved in this process. And, you know, a little bit of this debate over the past few weeks has given the impression that all you've got to do is put a signature on a bit of paper, and hey presto, the world stops getting warm. It's not quite as simple as that, I wish it were, it's not, and we have to find practical ways of addressing these issues. And one of these practical ways is the sort of technology that's been demonstrated out there. But internationally, what is magnificent about the Partnership is that it brings together the commitment of half of the world's population, half of the world's GDP, the countries that contribute 50 per cent of the emissions and 50 per cent of the world's global energy use. Now we've actually agreed in nine months on a practical plan of action. Now that beats all the debate. And I'm not objecting the debate and I'm all in favour of debate, it's the stuff of international engagement and the stuff of democracy. But while that debate goes on, isn't it incredibly sensible and important that we invest in technology because there can be no argument.

"And may I remind you that when the Government released its White Paper on energy more than two years ago, we pointed Australia down this path. We said the future lay in developing better technology to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions coming out of the use of fossil fuel. And that was more than two years ago. There's nothing that's, sort of, suddenly come in the last 24 hours on that and of course last week the Minister, with the Treasurer, made a major announcement and earlier this week he made some major announcements in his native state of Queensland.

"So there is a lot happening on this front but I particularly welcome again the representatives of our friends in the Partnership and I'll be meeting the heads of all of their governments, with the exception of India, at the APEC Meeting in Vietnam later this month and I'm quite sure that the issue of climate change will come up at that meeting. But the Partnership is a vivid reminder of the value of practical responses to practical challenges and it's in that spirit and with that enthusiasm I launch it. I know that Australia's contribution of $100 million towards projects under the Partnership is the first, and I know that that contribution will be followed very rapidly by contributions from other countries that are part of the Partnership, so that together we can fund these very exciting projects that I'm announcing today.

"Thank you very much. "

An Inconvenient Hoax

Al Gore may be warning of climate breakdown, but what hope the truth when he's up against such a well-oiled machine? asks Paul Sheridan

Scientists at "world leading" organisations keep banging on about how we humans have pumped all that stuff into the air and that droughts are worse because of it and ice caps are melting and it will only get worse if some big changes don't happen soon. Scary stuff and hard to stomach, right?

What about then those other organisations, like the 39 of them in the UK and US that ExxonMobil last year generously gave US$2.9 million to, to tell us what's really going on - like that the carbon dioxide that comes from the things Exxon's sells can't really be blamed for anything other than making our lives easier? Ckn' oath. Clears things right up, right?

Then there's the politicians. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, says that he's accepted that climate change, or global warming, is real and does represent a challenge, but says he's sceptical about a lot of the more gloomy predictions. He wouldn't be alone in that view, would he?

Because then there's Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair getting together recently and instead of shooting some Commies like Arnie used to on screen, they laid down some targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They're checking the earth's pulse and are worried about those gloomy predictions.

So where do we start with this climate change thing when there's politicians telling us its full on and others telling us its not? There's scientists and then there's scientists too, right? There's so many 'what ifs' involved, how do average punters sort out what's what?

Watch the movie.

In An Inconvenient Truth, failed presidential candidate Al Gore (I mean, 'robbed' isn't as obvious a word to use as he obviously didn't work out that Jeb Bush would give his brother a hand in 2000 did he? He's his BROTHER, work it out) takes us on a graphic tour of how smart scientists came to realise man made climate change is alarming enough to tell us that unless significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - the main culprit - are achieved worldwide within the next decade or so, damage will be irrevocable and life threatening.

Gore's documentary of a lecture series that he has been traveling the US, Europe and parts of Asia with gives a complex issue much needed historical perspective. For many viewers, climate change is a recent phenomena. Most people born before 1980 would think it the same thing as the hole in the ozone layer, while those born after 1980 think global warming and globalisation are the same thing.

Gore is surprisingly engaging as he carefully explains the studies that have been occurring since the 1950s of the planet's heating and cooling cycles and the growing concern about the contribution of carbon dioxide from man made sources to disruptions in that natural cycle.

Luckily, An Inconvenient Truth is not really about Al Gore. He does shed some of the stiffness that made him the butt of jokes while he was, as he describes himself, the man who "used to be the next President of the United States".

The focus of the film is Earth and the drama builds to the point where, for the first time in history, viewers gasp in horror at a graph. That graph, admittedly, is an impressive one as it charts the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over the past 650,000 years found in ice cores. From way back then to recently the concentrations of Co2 vary from season to season in a regular pattern until Gore hops onto a forklift and rises up many feet off the ground to point out where our man made contributions have sent the graph and indeed where it will keep heading - up - unless action is taken.

The sort of action needed is, according to those leading scientists, nothing less than a 60 per cent reduction in current carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. To do this is going to take leadership, not risks, because the business case for this type of action has been made by a coalition of leading companies, such as BP, Westpac, Visy, Origin Energy and the Insurance Australia Group.

Early action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be delivered while GDP grows at a strong rate of 2.1 per cent per annum over the period to 2050, those businesses argue.

But the sad reailty is that An Inconvenient Truth will become fodder for the cynical, ideologically facile sniping that often passes for political discourse these days.

There is no doubt it has opened more eyes, started more conversations and sparked new debate but at the end of the day An Inconvenient Truth is a film that should never have been made.

It is, after all, the job of political leaders and policymakers to protect against possible future calamities, to respond to the findings of science and to persuade the public that action must be taken to protect the common interest.

But you only have to glance over to our own Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane who was unimpressed by the film's assertions. He said that Al Gore was just here to sell tickets to a movie. "It's just entertainment," he said. What a hoax.

The Fear Factor

By Peter Lewis
A new analysis of the history of fear takes us from the war on terror all the way to the modern workplace.

*****

We recently marked the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the day we are told 'the world changed forever', although to some it was just more of the same in stark relief.

In "Fear - the History of a Political Idea' American political scientist Cory Robin places the current War on terror on a trajectory that goes from the book of Genesis and the way to the Twin Towers. His investigation of the central role fear has played in organising societies is a crazy ride of evolving philosophies.

From Hobbes who placed popular fear as the foundation of state legitimacy and Montesqueiu who charted the way the terror of despots created stability; classic political theory is that the imposition of political fear is a necessary, even positive, element of a mature society.

Come the revolutions of the 18th century we find Toqueville observing the triumph of the people in two continents and concluding that the equation works the other way: that free of despotism an anxious populous demands its own repression in order to feel secure;.

And finally, Hannah Arendt surveying the human wreckage of Hitler and Stalin and seeing not simple monsters, but serving even their victims by given them an ideological home that created a certainty of place even in the face of total terror.

Robin's journey continues through to the 21st Century, traversing McCarthyism, the civil rights movement and what he calls the liberal anxiety that finds individuals still adrift and in need even as they enjoy superficial choice at every turn.

Why this summary of political theory Workers Online? Because Robin's analysis ends in the workplace - the end point off the modern politics of fear, the place where vested interests use insecurity to exert a control that is essential to maintaining their exalted plce in the order.

At every step modern employees are made to feel uneasy - from insecure jobs, the spread of contracts, the break down of unions through the abuse of bargaining laws by union-busting companies to the removal of dismissal laws.

But it gets even more personal - drug testing, psychometric testing, surveillance of web and email - a worker's body and mind is less than fully their own.

These intrusions are not just about the ability to do the work, they are about quelling the confidence to challenge the executive packages and privatisation deals that continue to entrench the privileged.

Yes, Robin uses the term 'hegemony' a bit too often and the arguments gets dense, but the point is well made: fear has always been a tool of control that allow abuses of power to fly under the radar.

Fighting this fear - challenging this fear - is the primary job of progressive politicians - be it fear of immigrants, fear of interest rates, fear of terror - if fear is the currency conservatives are in the box seat.

It is only where the dialogue is empowering, where the pitch for change is optimistic, do progressives sweep to power - think Whitlam, think Hawke - their winning pitches were remarkably similar - it was time to dare to dream.

It is not a framework suited to these times, it means the current Opposition is carrying some pretty hefty handicaps. But one thing is clear - outflanking Howard on fear is not the way to win; the wrapping has to be sunnier, convincing people there were a better way, not just that this is the wrong way.

Let’s Dance – Andrews Get Hot

The dance that sent Kevin Andrews’ temperature soaring is in the hunt for top honours in a national rock eisteddfod this weekend.

Andrews did his nut after Workers Online revealed students at Calwell High had scooped the pool at the ACT rock eisteddfod with a WorkChoices-inspired musical, 'The Devil's In The Detail.'

Andrews opened up on schoolteachers, in general, and Calwell High teachers, in particular, gaining national coverage for his claims they had "hijacked" eisteddfod material.

Andrews blasted the eight-minute dance routine as "totally inappropriate".

Calwell dance teacher, cherly Diggins, told the Canberra Times many students had personal experiences of the new laws.

"It (WorkChoices) had already affected some of the kids involved, in that they had had their penalty rates cut," she said, last week.

Andrews went ape after Workers Online quoted renowned Canberra musician, Simone Penkethman, a judge of the ACT eisteddfod panel, praising the performance.

She said it had been like watching "Metropolis on Ice".

"It's entertaining without pulling any punches."

The routine took 120 Year 7 to Year 10 students, five months to put together.

The Devil's in the Detail goes up against other state and territory finalists in a nationally televised finals special, this Sunday.

Hamberger in Cancer Blue

Former federal government IR point-man, Jonathan Hamberger, is considering whether or not the dismissal of a cancer sufferer, who told his boss he needed time off for chemotherapy, was justified.

Hamberger, who built an anti-worker reputation as an aggressive employer representative and John Howard's original Employment Advocate, heard more than 10 hours of evidence, last week, as an IRC Commissioner.

He reserved his decision in the case brought by Lyle Whyte, 57, against Ullrich Aluminium.

Whyte is still allowed to take an unjustified dismissal case because more than 100 people are employed at Ullrich's Smithfield site.

The nervous warehouse supervisor said he couldn't tell which way Hamberger was leaning.

"I'm just hoping," Whyte said, "it's hard to know what counts as unjustified under WorkChoices."

NUW rep, Mark Ptolemy, said Whyte was adamant he lost his job because he needed time off for chemotherapy treatment.

He said Whyte had been diagnosed in January and, after being hospitalised, he returned to work to find he had been demoted.

"In June, the company sacked him on the basis of 'poor performance' halfway through a vital cancer treatment," Ptolemy said.

"There had been no previous performance issues."

Hamberger is expected to rule on the matter this week.

"Aside from being economically justified, it has become a cause of national pride for an old nation with a glorious history. No Iranian government, regardless of its ideology or democratic credentials, would dare to stop the program."….”

- Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sunnis-fear-us-missteps-will-bolster-tehrans-influence/2006/02/28/1141095740977.html?page=4

"OPEC is anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist and a liberator for the development of our people in Latin America, Africa and Asia"....

- Hugo Chavez

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/chavez-grabs-centre-stage-at-opec-to-slam-us/2006/06/02/1148956510785.html

This article is correct. I have been researching the Nuclear Power / Waste topic for years. Powerful vested interests the world over, corrupt the internet, mainstream media, & commissioned reports with pro-Nuclear mis-information. I conclude that it can only be evil forces driving this destructive technology, which otherwise totally defies common sense. The duration of extreme danger from a lot of Nuclear waste is measured in blocks of 100,000 years. Compare this to the age of Egypts ancient pyramids, being under 5000 years old.