Biofuels from the frying pan into the fire

December 29, 2006

From Blog Article.

Worldwide biofuels are seriously getting in vogue - in fact over the last ten years we’ve seen a veritable ski-ramp of development in ‘clean’ fuels and of late we have high-profile types like Bill Clinton and Richard Branson, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and even Prince Charles getting in on the act. As an industry it’s full steam ahead - with new biofuel plants popping up like dandelions in the U.S., Canada, India, China, Brazil, and elsewhere.

As our previously enormous supplies of fossil fuels begin to wane - they being the liquified form of ancient forests from yester-millennia - will we now turn to fresh, live, plants instead? And if so, will this solve our problems? When we take into account the scale of our past, present, and future transport requirements - are biofuels going to cut it? Do they hold the promise of securing our futures - nationally, economically, and ecologically?

For many people, the idea of using biofuels for the pick-up didn’t immediately conjure up large-scale considerations. Rather - they just happened to have a mate down at the local steak-house or Fish ‘n Chip shop, and recycling their used oil was just a way to save a few bucks from the weekly pay-check and contribute to saving the planet. Today, though, things are going a little further, and at breakneck speed.

...

See http://www.celsias.com/blog/2006/12/29/biofuels-from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire/ for complete entry.

Read More......

Green new years resolusions

Make Green Ones This Year

29 December 2006

Article from Pembroke Shire TV (Great Britian).

This Sunday will see us partying in 2007 and making resolutions we will be lucky to keep into the first few weeks of January. Can you honestly say that you kept last year’s resolutions?

Friends of the Earth suggest that this year, as well as resolving to shed those extra pounds piled on over Christmas, get fit and quit bad habits, we should also resolve to improve the planet we live on and make sure that we carry these resolutions on throughout the year.

“More and more of us are ditching the excesses of previous years to go green - from recycling newspapers to switching to renewable energy,” said the group’s Welsh spokesman Gordon James.

So why not follow Pembrokeshire Friends of the Earth's six eco-friendly resolutions: Good for you and the planet - you're guaranteed to look and feel better for it.

RESOLUTION - GET FIT AND CUT CAR POLLUTION

Ditch the car and start walking or cycling.

Good for you: regular exercise can reduce heart disease and provide protection from strokes, diabetes and cancer. A staggering 70 per cent of all car trips are less than five miles - the ideal distance for a quick spin on the bike. Cycling burns 300 calories an hour and improves fitness. Walking doesn't cost a thing; a brisk walk for 45 minutes a day, four times a week could result in a fat loss of 18lbs over a year. (The Department of Health)

Good for the environment: You'll be helping to cut back on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Road transport is responsible for around a fifth of these emissions in the UK CO2.

RESOLUTION - EAT HEALTHY AND BUY ORGANIC

Say no to fast food and supermarkets and yes to organic and local Pembrokeshire produce.

Good for you: It tastes better and you'll feel better for it. The production of organic food causes much less environmental damage than conventional agriculture. It comes without pesticides and the demand for organic food is growing at 40% a year. Food from farmers markets or grocers helps the local economy and also makes you feel part of the community. It's mad to buy apples that have been flown all the way from New Zealand when we produce fantastic ones here.

Good for the environment: Helps reduce aviation pollution by cutting down on `food miles' which contribute to climate change. The average meal travels 1,000 miles before it reaches your plate.

RESOLUTION - REDUCE STRESS AND PESTICIDES

Take up Gardening

Good for you: Get fit, save money and grow something new from seed. Growing your own fruit, vegetables and plants in the garden is proven to help reduce stress. Digging deep is good exercise and therapeutic at the same time. Get composting. It minimises landfill waste and recycles it back into the earth.

Good for the environment: The garden is the one place where you can make a small but real difference. No pesticides, no wasteful packaging and no food miles.

RESOLUTION - HOLIDAY IN THE UK

Good for you: Britain is a green and pleasant land - get to know it better. All those cheap flights abroad are costing the planet. So why not consider taking a break nearer home. Just one return flight from London to Miami releases the same amount of CO2 as the average family car does in a year.

Good for environment: It would help cut aviation pollution. The world's 16,000 commercial jet aircrafts produce more than 600 million tonnes of CO2 every year, nearly as much as all the countries of Africa put together;

RESOLUTION - SAVE MONEY AND ENERGY

Switch off and insulate.

Good for you: Small changes in your lifestyle can make a real difference to the health of the planet and your pocket. Energy saving measures just within the home can cut bills for a typical family in a three-bedroom semi by £200 a year. It's easy to do. Insulate your home, fit energy efficient light bulbs, switch to a green electricity supply and turn off lights and appliances when you're not using them.

Good for the environment: The UK has set a target to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. Almost half of the UK's emissions actually come from things we do everyday, such as leaving the TV on standby. For free energy efficiency advice phone 0800 512012.

RESOLUTION - SIMPLIFY YOUR LIFE AND RECYCLE

New Year usually means out with the old and in with the new - but don't be so hasty. Recycle and reuse.

Good for you: Getting more than one use out of something not only saves you money but is hugely satisfying. Half of electrical goods left at dumps work or require only very basic repairs, so think before chucking out. Give and buy from charity shops.

Good for the environment: Help stop the planet going to waste by recycling and reusing what you already have. The average person in the UK throws out their body weight in rubbish every three months. Most of this could be reprocessed but instead it's sent to incinerators or landfill.

Read More......

Forbes to be first climate saver town

Thursday, 21 December 2006

Article from Forbes News (Forbes is in country NSW, Australia).

Forbes Shire Council voted to accept an invitation to become Australia's first climate saver town at the regular monthly meeting on Wednesday.

The decision followed a presentation to councillors by Murray Hogarth, the campaign manager for Easy Being Green.

Easy Being Green is a Melbourne-based corporation that helps individuals, companies and communities cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

Council was almost unanimous in resolving to accept Easy Being Green's invitation to join the campaign, which will see Forbes households and workplaces replace incandescent light bulbs with energy saving globes, capable of providing 15,000 hours of light.

The 'Climate Saver Town' campaign will also provide households with AAA-rated low flow showerheads to replace existing fittings.

In his presentation before the meeting, Mr Hogarth told councillors the campaign could save participating households up to $150 off their energy bill each year and cut CO2 emissions by one tonne per annum.

Mr Hogarth said while about five per cent of Australians had already adopted energy saving technology at home and work, the remaining 95 per cent were the target for Easy Being Green.

The campaign corporation was established in 2004 by current chairman, the Reverend Nic Frances, formerly part of the Brotherhood of St Laurence.

Rev Frances is known for his social welfare activities and was awarded with an MBE in the United Kingdom for helping homeless people break the poverty cycle.

The CEO of Easy Being Green is Paul Gilding, the ex-head of Greenpeace International.

Mr Hogarth, a former environment writer with the Sydney Morning Herald, told councillors the energy saving campaigns allow Easy Being Green to trade carbon credits with industry.

He said the company hopes its various climate saver programmes can enlist 500,000 participants and cut C02 emissions by 500,000 tonnes every year.

The programme is free to council and ratepayers, however council would have to pay for any extra activities.

Councillor Graham Falconer said the programme was admirable but Forbes Shire Council could do little to prevent climate change while India and China were using increased amounts of fossil fuels.

Mr Hogarth conceded that light globe and shower head replacement in Forbes would not solve global warming, but said communities, business and all levels of government can make a difference by working together.

Councillor Murray Fraser said the programme was worth adopting, if only for the economic benefits to Forbes ratepayers.

Council later voted to accept Easy Being Green's invitation to become the first Climate Saver Town.

Easy Being Green has already applied for a $150,000 grant from the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability's Energy Savings Fund.

Read More......

Britain Approves World's Biggest Offshore Wind Farm

by Jeremy Lovell

From CommonDreams.org



Up to five offshore substations will be installed to collect power from groups of wind turbines before feeding it to shore via the main export cables. The voltage will also be stepped up to increase the efficiency of power transmission in the export cables.
Each offshore substation will typically comprise the following key components: transformers, electrical switchgear, and back-up electrical generator and batteries.
The offshore substations would be approximately 25m x 25m x 20m high, standing up to 40m above the level of the sea. Foundations will be similar to those used for the wind turbines.

Britain gave a green light on Monday for the world's biggest offshore wind farm, hoping it will help curb greenhouse gases and global warming.

The 341-turbine London Array, along with the smaller 100-turbine Thanet wind farm which was also approved, will supply 1.3 gigawatts of electricity -- enough to power one million homes.

"This announcement will be the first of a number of large-scale offshore wind farms in the UK," said Environment Minister David Miliband.

Thanet should come on stream in 2008 with the London Array about two years later. Both are off the south coast of England.

Environmentalists welcomed the announcement and even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds dropped objections after modifications to the plans to save a local bird colony.

Although Britain is developing other renewable sources of power from waves, tides and biomass, the wind energy sector is by far the most advanced.

Offshore wind farms are sprouting up all round the coast and cause less controversy than onshore farms which critics say are ugly, but detractors say giant wind farms alone cannot do enough to fight global warming as they only operate intermittently.

Most scientists agree that temperatures will rise by two to six degrees Celsius this century due mainly to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport, putting millions of lives at risk from floods and famines.

Britain is bringing in a law next year pledging to cut carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2050. As part of these efforts it has vowed to get 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010, rising to 20 percent by 2020.

The figure is currently barely three percent.

Former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern said in October urgent action on global warming was vital, and that a delay would multiply the cost 20 times.

The London Array -- a consortium of E.ON , Shell WindEnergy and CORE LTD -- will be 20 km (12.5 miles) off the coasts of Kent and Essex counties east of London and cover 232 square km (90 sq miles).

The 500 million pound ($976 million) Thanet farm, led by developer Warwick Energy, will cover 35 square km off Kent.

Read More......

Human beings are self-deluders

From http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2006/1807002.htm

Melbourne Neuroscientist Dr John Reid is somewhat skeptical about theability of science to rescue humanity from its own folly. He suggests thatour planet will be unable to support an ever increasing population andtalks about ways to limit population growth.

Transcript ("Ockham's Razor" Commentary - ABC Science - ABC Radio National)

Robyn Williams: Do you remember a book by Professor Paul Ehrlich called'The Population Bomb'? It was published in 1968. Or perhaps, 'Limits toGrowth', put out by the Club of Rome in 1972? Both offered scenarios ratherthan forecasts about the future, some bleak, some fair, but mostcommentators picked up only the bleak. We had someone from the Limits toGrowth exercise pointing that out on ABC Radio National last week, sayingthat only the first grim scenario was reported, the other eleven ignored.

So what about growth and population all these years later, as we approach2007? Dr John Reid has a view, though a challenging one. He does hisresearch in Melbourne.

John Reid: I have titled this talk, 'Apocalypse Now', a title borrowedunashamedly from the film director, Francis Ford Coppola, because itexpresses both the magnitude and the immediacy of the problem I'mdiscussing.

Most people seem to have a 'business-as-usual' approach to the future oflife on Earth. They assume Planet Earth will keep revolving and generationwill succeed generation. And each generation will be more affluent than thepreceding generation. As one bank advertisement put is, 'Every generationshould live better than the last!'

Science, people believe, will find solutions to the problems that seem topreoccupy Greenies and other doomsayers. Well, I am a scientist, and I haveto say I am more than somewhat sceptical about the ability of science torescue humanity from its own folly.

The fact is, Planet Earth cannot support the present human population.

The Global Footprint Network estimates that in 2001, and I quote,'humanity's Ecological Footprint ... exceed the Earth's biological capacityby about 20%', and the latest WWF Living Planet Report 2006 now puts thefigure at 25%.

Current estimates of world population growth over the next 50 years showthe population stabilising at 9-billion to 11-billions, at least half asbig again as the present population.

The consumption of resources, due to the growing affluence of emergingeconomies, such as China and India, would then require at least fourbiospheres to satisfy the demand.

Or to put it another way, if everyone alive today had a standard of livingequal to ours in Australia, we would need 3.7 biospheres to meet thedemand.

But we only have one planet, although there are people (mostly engineers)who seriously contemplate moving off-planet as a way to solve the problem.

Many people would say the character that most distinguishes human beingsfrom all other animals is language. I suggest the only attribute thatreally distinguishes our species from all others is our ability to deludeourselves.

Human beings are self-deluders. We can convince ourselves, in the face ofirrefutable evidence to the contrary, that black is white and heat can flowfrom a cooler to a hotter body.

It is this power of self-delusion that leads us to believe that somehow wewill find a way to fix the problem of our unsustainable consumption of theEarth's resources.

In the discussion of human impact on the biosphere, two separate butinteractive issues are being conflated. These two issues are climatechange, due to the emission of greenhouse gases, and the excessive demandfor resources, due to overpopulation.

(Bear in mind, population and consumption, like mass and energy, are interchangeable qualia -

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/,
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia(*)
  

Unchecked, both climate change and the overuse of resources are at thelevel of 'catastrophic' on the scale of their impact on the biosphere.

But the problem of climate change is soluble by means we can discuss. Wecan talk about alternative sources of energy, carbon trading,energy-efficient buildings and a host of other technological fixes,including esoteric notions such as a sunshade-in-the-sky, as discussedrecently on The Science Show.

By engaging in this discussion, we can feel at least we are addressing theproblem. And as long as we feel we are doing something about climatechange, we can relegate to the back burner having to think about the muchmore confronting, unmentionable problem of how to reduce the humanpopulation.

I believe the problem of overconsumption/overpopulation will not be solvedby civil means, as the United Nations Millennium Ecosystems Assessmentoptimistically suggests. By the time there is consensus that drastic actionmust be taken to reduce over-consumption it will be too late.

Consider just a few examples of the measures people will have to accept:

First and foremost, the notion of steady economic growth, every year anincrease in the world's GDP, as The Wentworth Group of Scientists, and theStern Review envisage, will have to go into reverse. We in the affluentworld will have to accept substantial reductions in our standard of livingto allow space for the poor, mainly in Africa, to improve their nutritionand health status.

To achieve this, income and wealth distribution within our societies willhave to become much more equal. The higher up the tree one is, the greaterthe sacrifice one will have to make.

Stringent measures will have to be put in place to reduce waterconsumption, particularly in countries like Australia where water is ascarce commodity. Using potable water to cool industrial processes and aswash-water will have to stop, and this includes air-conditioning equipmentsin large buildings, power station cooling towers, paper mills, dairying andagriculture, etc., etc.

And forget the idea that water can be used to grow cotton in Australia. Ihave heard it argued that the return on the cost of the water is higher forcotton than the return on the same water used to grow food.

This is the private-benefit-at-the-expense-of-public-cost argument, and itwon't wash!

Contrary to a recent forecast that the world's fleet of fossil-fuel-burningmotor vehicles will triple over the next 50 years, the fleet will have tobe reduced to no more than about 10% of the present number.

Perhaps water meters that turn off automatically after a household's dailyration of water has been consumed will be fitted to every house.

Meat will be rationed to no more than, say, 200 grams per person per week.

Municipal authorities will provide allotments so that people can grow theirown fruit and vegetables. We could turn some iconic sports arenas intovegie gardens.

And Private Property Rights will be severely curtailed to preventlandowners from engaging in environmentally-damaging behaviours.

And many, many more such infringements on what we now regard as our rightswill have to be accepted.

I'm afraid, by the time this consensus could be reached, we will havecrossed the threshold of the event horizon.

We will be on an accelerating, irreversible downhill run to the HoloceneMass Extinction.

In the words of Elliot Morley, Britain's Special Representative on climatechange, we will 'sleepwalk to oblivion.'

A few years ago, the possibility that our beautiful, life-sustaining planetcould become a Venusian hell was dismissed as being impossibly alarmist.

It's still a highly improbable scenario, but it is no longer seen asimpossible.If we do not delude ourselves, and if we accept the calculations made bythe Global Footprint Network and WWF (and I know of no scientific analysisthat refutes the basic validity of the model) there is only one ineluctableconclusion. The population of the world must be very quickly reduced to5-billions (that is, if 6 billions = 120% of capacity, then 5 billions =100%). And then, as the average level of affluence rises, fairly quicklyreduced further to, say, 2 to 3 billions.

The urgent discussion then becomes, how do we achieve these targets?Leaving aside uncontrollable natural events, such as a collision with alarge asteroid or comet, or the eruption of a super-volcano, there is onlya limited number of ways population decrease can be achieved. These waysare all painful, and most are brutally painful in their effect.

Let us canvass them.

When we consider ways to reduce the human population there is a naturaldichotomy between ways that kill a very large number of people and waysthat control the growth of the population, that is, ways that preventpeople from breeding.

War, Pestilence, and Famine, three of the horsemen of the apocalypse, canbring about a reduction in the human population. But these kill on a scaleof tens of millions, which is not enough to solve the problem ofover-population. And they are most brutal in the ways they kill.Consequently, let us consider the alternative.

The most humane way to achieve a reduction in the human population would befor people to voluntarily stop breeding, but this would never happen. Theurge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienableright, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed,just to save the planet.

One small, but appropriate, token gesture would be to ban immediately allforms of assisted conception, including the use of donated sperm or ova.

The fact that relatively affluent couples, or single women who cannotachieve pregnancy by good old-fashioned copulation, or even choose not todo so, can demand the use of expensive medical technology to satisfy their'need' for parenthood is unacceptable in a hugely overpopulated world.

The next most human way to reduce the population might be to put somethingin the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductivesystem and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile.

Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certainhormones necessary for conception.

The world's most affluent populations should be targeted first. Accordingto the 2006 Living Planet Report, the six populations that have the biggestper capita ecological footprint live in the United Arab Emirates, theUnited States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia.

A question I have been told I should address is this: If we interfere withthe 'natural' structure of the population by limiting the production ofchildren, how do we support an ageing population?

Dealing with a healthy aged population would be manageable. If all theworld's aged were like the 80 to 90 year old Okinawans we could probablymanage quite well. But dealing with an aging population beset by theconsequences of over-eating the wrong food and under-exercising will be anorder of magnitude more difficult.

Societies will not be able to provide the health care services needed tokeep large numbers of unhealthy old people alive.

A triage approach will be necessary so that scarce medical resources go tothose who can contribute most to the long-term viability of the planet.Consequently, many middle-aged-to-elderly people will die uncomfortabledeaths. Not every problem is soluble.

I have also been challenged to say why I claim Australia cannot support alarger population. But how do you explain a self-evident fact? Consideringwater alone, all our capital cities, except perhaps Darwin, and manyprovincial cities are running out of water.

Then there is salination of our agricultural land, which is increasing atthe rate of about 10% per annum.

Not only must Australians cut their own consumption, we are exacerbatingthe problem by producing agricultural products from an increasinglyunproductive land for consumption by other societies.

Our global footprint is worldwide.

Meanwhile, people like the Federal Treasurer promote population increase.Sorry, Mr Costello, your 'One for the wife, one for the husband, and onefor Australia', will have to be changed to 'None for the planet'!

My plea is that we should face reality and begin to discuss theunspeakable. Humanity must undergo a mind-shift. If you must have a God, atleast recognise he/she/it did not give humanity licence to trash theplanet, whatever the Bible may tell you.

Indeed, humanity has been all too compliant with the Biblical injunction tobe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islamrepresent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must beabandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugatedto the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.

Robyn Williams: Some startling suggestions there from John Reid, who livesin Melbourne and does research in cognitive neuroscience there. Of courseit's often suggested that the greatest force for limiting population isaffluence, and the education of women.

Next week some dark thoughts about Charles Darwin: Tony Barta from La TrobeUniversity looks at his record on race.

I'm Robyn Williams.

GuestsDr John ReidNeuroscientistMelbourne

PresenterRobyn Williams

ProducerBrigitte Seega



Qualia (from the Latin, meaning "what sort" or "what kind"; Latin andEnglish singular "quale" (IPA: [?kw??le])) are most simply defined asqualities or feelings, like redness, as considered independently of theireffects on behavior. In more philosophical terms, qualia are properties ofsensory experiences by virtue of which there is something it is like tohave them.

Whether qualia exist is a hotly debated topic in contemporary philosophy ofmind. The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from thefact that they are often seen as being an obvious refutation ofmaterialism. Much of the debate over their existence, however, hinges onthe debate over the precise definition of the term, as various philosophersemphasize or deny the existence of certain properties.

Read More......

Latest media (email) and Australian pollies

4corners@your.abc.net.au;
editorial@newsmail.com.au;
bugle@widebay.net.au;
thestarnewspaper@bigpond.com;
editor@magnetictimes.com;
glw@greenleft.org.au;
Ausnews@yahoogroups.com;
GreenLeft_Discussion@yahoogroups.com;
editor@altnews.com.au;

To cover Qld:
The Courier-Mail and Sunday Mail "Contact Us" online form
(or The Courier-Mail Editorial Letters, or fax: (07) 3666 6690).

ABC

afternoons891@your.abc.net.au
weekends891@your.abc.net.au
891online@your.abc.net.au
mornings891@your.abc.net.au
sagrandstand@your.abc.net.au
evenings891@your.abc.net.au
drive891@your.abc.net.au
breakfast891@your.abc.net.au

pollies

• Sen Stottdespoja, Natasha Dem SA
  
• Sen Nettle, Kerry Green (NSW)
  
• Sen Bartlett, Andrew Dem
  
• Sen Brown, Bob Green (Tas)
  
• MP Forrest,John Nat (Mallee Vic) Chief Nationals Whip
  
• MP Moylan, Judi Lib (WA Pearce)
  
• Sen Troeth, Judith Lib (Vic)
  
• Sen Payne, Marise Lib (NSW)
  
• Sen Joyce, Barnaby (Nat)
  
• MP Georgiou, Petro Lib (Vic)
  
• Sen Nash, Fiona
  
• Sen Trood Russell Lib (Qld)
  
• Sen Ferguson Alan Lib (SA)
  
• Sen Adams, Judith (WA)
  
• MP Burke, Tony ALP (Watson)
  
• MP Draper, Trish (Makin SA)
  
• MP Lawrence, Carmen ALP (Fremantle)
  
• Julian Burnside
  
• Cc: DIMA c/o Sandi Logan
  
• MP Andrews, Kevin Lib (Vic Menzies) Min Assis PM for PS;Min Employment & Workplace
  
• MP Abbott,Tony Lib (Minister for Health and Ageing)
  
• MP Anderson, John (Nats)
  
• MP Bishop, Julie Lib (Min for aging)
  
• MP Costello, Peter Lib (Treasurer)
  
• MP Downer,Alexander Lib (Minister for Foreign Affairs)
  
• MP McGauran, Peter Nat (Vic Gippsland)
  
• MP Nelson,Brendan (Min for War) (Bradfield)
  
• Sen Minchin, Nick Lib (SA)
  
• Sen Vanstone, Amanda Lib (SA Minister Immi)
  
• MP Randall, Don Lib (WA) BBB
  
• MP Andrew, Robb Lib (Vic Goldstein)
  
• MP Billson, Bruce Lib (Vic Dunkley)
  
• MP Bishop, Bronwyn Lib (NSW Mackellar)
  
• MP Ciobo Steven Lib (Qld Moncrieff)
  
• MP Farmer, Pat Lib (NSW Macarthur) Sec to Min Ed,Sc & Trng
  
• MP Kelly, Jackie Lib (NSW)
  
• MP Ley,Sussan Lib (NSW) Sec Children & Youth Affairs
  
• MP Prosser, Geoffrey Lib (WA)
  
• MP Pyne, Christopher Lib (SA) Sec to Min for Health & Ageing
  
• MP Richardson, Kym Lib (SA Kingston)
  
• MP Secker, Patrick Lib (SA Barker)
  
• MP Southcott,Andrew Lib (SA Boothby)
  
• MP Turnbull, Malcolm Lib (NSW)
  
• MP Wakelin, Barry Lib (SA Grey)
  
• Sen Abetz, Eric Lib (Tas)
  
• Sen Boswell, Ron Nat (Qld)
  
• Sen Brandis, George Lib (Qld)
  
• Sen Campbell, Ian Lib (WA)
  
• Sen Chapman, Grant Lib (SA)
  
• Sen Colbeck, Richard Lib (Tas)
  
• Sen Coonan, Helen Lib (NSW)
  
• Sen Eggleston, Alan Lib (WA)
  
• Sen Ferris, Jeannie Lib (SA)
  
• Sen Heffernan, Bill Lib (NSW)
  
• Sen Kemp, Rod Lib (Vic)
  
• Sen Mason, Brett Lib (Qld)
  
• Sen McGauran, Julian Lib (Vic)
  
• Sen Santoro, Santo Lib (Qld)
  
• Sen Watson, John Lib (Tas)
  
• MP Baldwin, Bob Lib (NSW) BBB
  
• MP Schultz, Alby Lib (NSW) BBB
  
• MP Panopoulos, Sophie BBB
  

Read More......

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 10 December 2006

From The Independent.

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitledLivestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens,pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle aremost to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhousegases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other formsof transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and totransport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent ofall emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And theirwind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane,which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including morethan two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causesof acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide,and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges intodesert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourishwater, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides,antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water andendanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "deadzones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, wheremuch of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massivedamage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meatincreases.

Read More......

How mirrors can light up the world

Scientists say the global energy crisis can be solved by using the desert sun

By Ashley Seager
Monday November 27, 2006

From The Guardian

In the desert, just across the Mediterranean sea, is a vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.

We are not talking about the vast oil and gas deposits underneath Algeria and Libya, or uranium for nuclear plants, but something far simpler - the sun. And in vast quantities: every year it pours down the equivalent of 1.5m barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre.

Most people in Britain think of solar power as a few panels on the roof of a house producing hot water or a bit of electricity. But according to two reports prepared for the German government, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa should be building vast solar farms in North Africa's deserts using a simple technology that more resembles using a magnifying glass to burn a hole in a piece of paper than any space age technology.

Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.

Focusing on Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, they say, Europe should build a new high-voltage direct current electricity grid to allow the easy, efficient transport of electricity from a variety of alternative sources. Britain could put in wind power, Norway hydro, and central Europe biomass and geo-thermal. Together the region could provide all its electricity needs by 2050 with barely any fossil fuels and no nuclear power. This would allow a 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production over the period.

CSP technology is not new. There has been a plant in the Mojave desert in California for the past 15 years. Others are being built in Nevada, southern Spain and Australia. There are different forms of CSP but all share in common the use of mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a pipe or vessel containing some sort of gas or liquid that heats up to around 400C (752F) and is used to power conventional steam turbines.

The mirrors are very large and create shaded areas underneath which can be used for horticulture irrigated by desalinated water generated by the plants. The cold water that can also be produced for air conditioning means there are three benefits. "It is this triple use of the energy which really boost the overall energy efficiency of these kinds of plants up to 80% to 90%," says Dr Knies.

This form of solar power is also attractive because the hot liquid can be stored in large vessels which can keep the turbines running for hours after the sun has gone down, avoiding the problems association with other forms of solar power.

Competitive with oil

The German reports put an approximate cost on power derived from CSP. This is now around $50 per barrel of oil equivalent for the cost of building a plant. That cost is likely to fall sharply, to about $20, as the production of the mirrors reaches industrial levels. It is about half the equivalent cost of using the photovoltaic cells that people have on their roofs. So CSP is competitive with oil, currently priced around $60 a barrel.

Dr Knies says CSP is not yet competitive with natural gas for producing electricity alone. But if desalination and air conditioning are added CSP undercuts gas and that is without taking into account the cost of the carbon emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers say a relatively small amount of the world's hot deserts -only about half a percent - would need to be covered in solar collectors to provide the entire world's electrical needs (see map).

The desert land is plentiful and cheap but, more importantly, there is roughly three times as much sunlight in hot deserts as in northern Europe. This is why the reports recommend a collaboration between countries of Europe, the Middle East and Africa to construct a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) grid for the sharing of carbon-free energy. Alternating current cables, which now form the main electricity grids in Europe, are not suitable for long distance transport of electricity because too much is lost on the way. Dr Trieb, of the German Air and Space Agency, says the advantage of DC cables is that the loss in transport is only about 3% per 1,000 kilometres, meaning losses between North Africa and Britain of about 10%.

"Contrary to what is commonly supposed it is entirely feasible, and cost-effective, to transmit solar electricity over long distances. Solar electricity imported to Europe would be amongst the cheapest source of electricity and that includes transporting it," he says. "CSP imports would be much less vulnerable to interruption than are current imports of gas, oil and uranium."

Algeria already exports huge quantities of oil and gas to Europe via pipelines but has a vast potential resource in sunlight that could make it a complete energy supplier to Europe. Many members of the Opec oil cartel, which have worried that alternative energies would kill demand for their oil, are blessed with hot, sunny deserts that could become a further source of energy income.

The two reports make it clear that an HVDC grid around Europe and North Africa could provide enough electricity by 2050 to make it possible to phase out nuclear power and hugely reduce use of fossil fuels.

An umbrella group of scientists has been formed across the region called the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (Trec) but the idea has yet to excite the imagination of the British government in spite of the recent Stern review on climate change.

Neil Crumpton, renewables specialist at Friends of the Earth, said: "Most politicians on the world stage, particularly Tony Blair and George Bush, appear to have little or no awareness of CSP's potential let alone a strategic vision for using it to help build global energy and climate security."

European commission president José Manuel Barroso said recently that he wanted to see the European Union develop a common energy strategy based on low carbon emissions. The Trec scientists hope German chancellor Angela Merkel will use next year's joint presidency of the EU and Group of Eight leading economies to push for an agreement on a European DC grid and the launch of a widespread CSP programme.

The outlook is not promising. More than 30 countries last week agreed to spend £7bn on an experimental fusion reactor in France which critics say will not produce any electricity for 50 years, if at all.

That amount of money would provide a lot of CSP power, a proven, working and simple technology that would work now, not in 2056.

Safer and cheaper

Dan Lewis, energy expert at the Economic Research Council, calculates that CSP costs $3-5m per installed megawatt, one-fifth the cost of fusion. "Fusion is basically a job creation scheme for plasma physicists."

Mr Crumpton agreed: "Nuclear power accounts for just 3.1% of global energy supply and would be hard pushed to provide more. Yet CSP could supply 30% or 300% of future energy demand far more simply, safely and cost effectively. In the wake of the Stern report the enlightened investment is on hot deserts, not uranium mines or oil wells."

Read More......

12-Step Plan for Climate Action

November 22, 2006

From Co-op America

With the movie An Inconvenient Truth drawing record audiences last summer, and groups as diverse as the "Evangelical Climate Initiative" and the Pentagon sounding the alarm on the coming climate catastrophe, our country could be on the cusp of taking real action on a very real danger.

But how much action is enough to match the scale of the solution to the scale of the problem? Based on the data - such as rapidly melting polar icecaps - showing that climate change is happening faster than anyone had thought, it is increasingly clear: Baby steps won´t do it.

We need a bold action plan that can evaluate corporate, government, community, and household plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - especially carbon emissions -- to levels we can live with.

Scientists at the Princeton University´s Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) have taken up this challenge, and propose stabilizing carbon emissions by dividing this huge task into smaller, doable action "wedges" of equal size-each with the capacity to reduce carbon emissions by 1 billion tons/year by 2054. CMI lists 15 possible "wedges," out of which we need to achieve just seven to reach carbon stabilization.

At my organization, Co-op America, we added our own filters to this building-block approach. We screened out measures that are too dangerous, costly, and slow (like nuclear power plants, synfuels, and "clean" coal), and we beefed up those that are safe and cost-effective. (Wind energy is cost-competitive at utility scale, and has beaten natural gas in certain markets. Solar energy will be cost-competitive within five years.)

With these filters, we developed a plan that uses current technologies; is safe, clean, and cost-effective; and is big enough to meet the climate challenge-12 "wedges" when we only need seven. Each of the following could reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2054:

Here´s our 12-step plan:

1. Increase fuel economy for the world´s 2 billion cars from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg.
   
   
2. Cut back on driving. Decrease car travel for 2 billion 30-mpg cars from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year, through increased use of mass transit, telecommuting, and walking and biking.
   
   
3. Increase energy efficiency by one-quarter in existing buildings and appliances. Move to zero-emissions plans for new buildings.
   
   
4. Decrease tropical deforestation to zero, and double the rate of new tree plantings.
   
   
5. Stop soil erosion. Apply "conservation tillage" techniques to cropland at 10 times the current usage. Encourage local, organic agriculture.
   
   
6. Increase wind power. Add 3 million 1-megawatt windmills, 75 times the current capacity.
   
   
7. Push hard for solar power. Add 3,000 gigawatt-peak solar photovoltaic, 1,000 times current capacity.
   
   
8. Increase efficiency of coal plants from an average of 32 percent efficiency to 60 percent, and shut down plants that don´t meet the standard. No net new coal plants; for new plants built, an equal number should close.
   
   
9. Replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal with natural gas, a four-fold increase in natural gas usage over current levels - a short-term step until zero-emissions renewable technologies can replace natural gas.
   
   
10. Sequester carbon dioxide at existing coal plants. Sequestration involves storing carbon dioxide underground, an unproven technology that may, nonetheless, be better than nothing.
    
    
11. Develop zero-emissions vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.
    
    
12. Develop biomass as a short-term replacement for fossil fuel until better carbon-free technologies are developed - but only biofuels made from waste, and made without displacing farmland and rainforests.
    

This framework can help us think big and fast enough to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. If we are to achieve each wedge by 2054, the next 10 years must see major action. Anything less and we´re kidding ourselves.

The good news? We can do this. We have the technologies and the know-how. We can take many of these steps today, on our own. For the rest, we need to persuade our elected officials, contact our power companies and auto manufacturers, and demand action from those with decision-making power. The best news? Beating climate change opens the door to more jobs, energy security, progress against poverty, a cleaner environment, and a safer world - a better future for all of us.

-Alisa Gravitz

Read More......

Safeguarding our nuclear ambitions

By Nadia Watson - posted Tuesday, 21 November 2006.

From Online Opinion.

The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office claims that nuclear safeguards "provide assurances that exported uranium and its derivatives cannot benefit the development of nuclear weapons".

In fact, the safeguards system is flawed in many respects and it cannot provide such assurances.

The main component of nuclear safeguards is the monitoring and inspection regime operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory states are expected to bring all nuclear material and activities under IAEA safeguards. There is an important exception to this rule, however, the five “declared” nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France, and China) are not required to put any nuclear facilities under safeguards though they may do so on a voluntary basis.

All but three states - Israel, India and Pakistan - are NPT signatories. North Korea has effectively withdrawn from the NPT although there are ongoing efforts to bring it back within the NPT “tent” through the protracted six-party talks.

IAEA safeguards involve periodical inspections of nuclear facilities and nuclear materials accounting to determine whether the amount of nuclear material going through the fuel cycle matches the country's records. In theory, the system is simple. In practice, IAEA safeguards have proven to be technically complex and politically contentious.

Five states have been reported to the UN Security Council for non-compliance with their safeguards agreements: Iraq in 1991, Romania in 1992, North Korea in 1993, Libya in 2004, and Iran in 2006. Other countries have carried out weapons-related research projects in violation of their NPT agreement, or have failed to carry out reporting requirements, without the matter being referred to the Security Council - including South Korea, Taiwan, the former Yugoslavia, and Egypt.

The five “declared” weapons states have NPT obligations to pursue disarmament. While none have been reported to the United Nations Security Council, they are arguably all in breach of their NPT commitments given their unwillingness to seriously pursue disarmament.

As IAEA Director-General Mohamed El Baradei noted in a February 2004 speech: "We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security - indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use."

IAEA budgetary constraints

The IAEA lacks the resources to effectively carry out its safeguards role. For more than 15 years, the IAEA's verification program operated under conditions of zero real growth. Then in 2004, the budget was increased by 12.4 per cent, with a further 3.3 per cent increase in 2005.

In October, El Baradei stressed the seriousness of the funding problem in a speech to an International Safeguards symposium in Vienna:

Financial resources are another key issue. Our budget is only $130 million; that's the budget with which we're supposed to verify the nuclear activities of the entire world. Reportedly some $1 billion was spent by the Iraq Survey Group after the war in that country. Our budget, as I have said before, is comparable with the budget of the police department in Vienna. So we don't have the required resources in many ways to be independent, to buy our own satellite monitoring imagery, or crucial instrumentation for our inspections. We still do not have our laboratories here in Vienna equipped for state-of-the-art analysis of environmental samples.

The IAEA oversees approximately 900 nuclear facilities in 71 countries. The problem of inadequate funding is exacerbated by the ever-increasing challenge of safeguards. The volume of nuclear material - and the number of nuclear facilities - requiring safeguarding increases steadily and the expanded inspection rights provided by Additional Protocols (discussed later) further stretch the system.

In addition to resource constraints, issues relating to national sovereignty and commercial confidentiality have also adversely impacted on safeguards. In a 2004 paper, Harvard University academic Matthew Bunn points to the constraints enshrined in the IAEA's basic safeguards template, “INFCIRC 153”:

INFCIRC 153 is replete with provisions designed to ensure that safeguards would not be too intrusive. They are to be implemented in a manner designed "to avoid hampering" technological development, "to avoid undue interference" in civilian nuclear energy, and "to reduce to a minimum the possible inconvenience and disturbance to the State". The IAEA is not to ask for more from the state than "the minimum amount of information and data consistent with carrying out its responsibilities", and specific upper bounds are placed on the number of person-days of inspection permitted at various types of nuclear facilities.

Untimely detection

Detection of diversion can only be discovered after it has occurred, thus safeguards can never actually physically prevent the development of clandestine nuclear programs. IAEA safeguards discourage diversion but they cannot stop it.

The “detection time” should be shorter than the “conversion time”, the latter being the "time required to convert different forms of nuclear material to the components of a nuclear explosive device". Conversion times vary - for metallic plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, the time is seven to ten days; for highly-enriched uranium in irradiated fuel, one to three months; and one year for low-enriched uranium.

Facilities using nuclear materials with shorter conversion times ought to be inspected more often. In practice, this objective is compromised as the IAEA does not actually inspect all facilities which are potentially subject to safeguards, because of the aforementioned resource constraints and political and commercial sensitivities.

For example, the federal parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is currently assessing the merits of uranium exports to China, and it has emerged during the course of the Committee's deliberations that of the ten Chinese facilities potentially subject to IAEA safeguards last year, only three were actually inspected. (The application of safeguards to China is the subject of a detailed report released by the Medical Association for the Prevention of War on November 7. See here.)

When suspicions arise regarding the possible diversion of nuclear material, the response has proven to be far from “timely”. An October 2005 paper by the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that there have been standoffs where unresolved discrepancies in nuclear material accountancy have remained unresolved for years. Iran and North Korea provide two contemporary examples of protracted disputes.

Material unaccounted for

“Material unaccounted for” refers to discrepancies between the “book stock” (the expected measured amount) and the “physical stock” (the actual measured amount) of nuclear materials at a location under safeguards. Such discrepancies are frequent due to the difficulty of precisely measuring amounts of nuclear material.

Discrepancies make it difficult to be confident that nuclear material has not been diverted for military use.

“Material unaccounted for” is a problem that is possibly unsolvable. In a large plant, even a tiny percentage of the annual through-put of nuclear material may suffice to build one or more weapons without being detected. For example, the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in Japan will have the capacity to separate about eight tonnes of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel each year. Diverting 1 per cent of that amount of plutonium would be very difficult for the IAEA to detect against the background of routine accounting discrepancies, yet it would suffice to build at least one nuclear weapon a month.

The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office refuses to publicly reveal any country-specific information, or even aggregate information, concerning discrepancies involving Australian uranium or its derivatives. Nor has the Office explained why it refuses to release this information.

Strengthened safeguards

Under traditional safeguards the IAEA was only able to monitor and assess formally declared materials and facilities. This meant that there was plenty of scope for states to develop “undeclared” nuclear capabilities with little or no threat of detection by the IAEA.

Prompted by the inability to address undeclared facilities, and other limitations, the IAEA initiated efforts to strengthen the system in the early 1990s. The IAEA's strengthened safeguards program began in 1993 with “Programme 93+2”. The intention - which proved to be wildly optimistic - was to implement a strengthened safeguards regime in two years.

The Model Additional Protocol was introduced in 1997. With the Additional Protocol in force the IAEA should theoretically be able to develop a more inclusive “cradle to grave” picture of states' nuclear activities. The improvements include:

• requiring substantially more information from states regarding their nuclear activities, other relevant sites, imports and exports, and material holdings;
  
• increased use of environmental sampling, analysis, and remote monitoring;
  
• allowing IAEA inspectors extended access to any location that is included on an expanded declaration, and to other necessary locations; and
  
• additional authority to use the most advanced technologies and intelligence, such as commercial satellite imagery.
  

As of October 2006, 78 NPT states had negotiated and ratified an AP but over 100 NPT states had not done so.

While strengthened safeguards are welcome, serious problems with the safeguards system remain. One is that the development of the full suite of nuclear fuel cycle facilities - including sensitive, dual-use enrichment and reprocessing facilities - is enshrined in the NPT as an “inalienable right” of all NPT states.

El Baradei noted in a December 2005 statement: "If a country with a full nuclear fuel cycle decides to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, a nuclear weapon could be only months away. In such cases, we are only as secure as the outbreak of the next major crisis. In today’s environment, this margin of security is simply untenable."

Another unresolved problem is highlighted by North Korea. It is difficult or impossible to prevent an NPT state from simply withdrawing from the NPT and pursuing weapons. North Korea joined the NPT but withdrew in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006. Iran could be the next country withdrawing from the NPT/IAEA system.

Australia's bilateral safeguards

In justifying Australia's international trade in uranium, the government and the uranium industry place much emphasis on bilateral safeguards agreements which prospective customer countries must negotiate with the government. These agreements cover Australian Obligated Nuclear Material - uranium and by-products such as depleted uranium produced at enrichment plants, and plutonium formed by neutron irradiation of uranium in reactors. The most important provisions are for prior Australian consent before Australian Obligated Nuclear Material is transferred to a third party, enriched beyond 20 per cent uranium-235, or reprocessed.

The provisions for Australian consent for “high enrichment” (to 20 per cent or more uranium-235) and for reprocessing have never once been invoked since the bilateral agreements were initiated by the Fraser government in 1977. No country has ever requested permission to enrich beyond 20 per cent uranium-235. More importantly, permission to reprocess has never once been refused even when it leads to the stockpiling of Australian-obligated plutonium - as it has in Japan and several European countries. Control of reprocessing has also been weakened by allowing open-ended “programmatic” consent instead of the previous policy of case-by-case approval.

Neither IAEA safeguards nor the provisions of bilateral agreements ensure that Australian uranium will not find its way into weapons. Claims from government bodies such as the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, and from the uranium industry, that safeguards provide "assurances" that Australian Obligated Nuclear Material will not be diverted should be disregarded.

Of course, it is possible that safeguards could be improved, and it is possible that Australia could play a leading role in improving safeguards. However, as Professor Richard Broinowski details in his 2003 book Fact or Fission? The Truth About Australia’s Nuclear Ambitions, safeguards pertaining to Australian Obligated Nuclear Material have been gradually weakened over the years. The reason was identified by Mike Rann - then a young Labor Party researcher and now the pro-uranium premier of South Australia - in his 1982 booklet, Uranium: Play It Safe.

"Again and again," Rann wrote, "it has been demonstrated here and overseas that when problems over safeguards prove difficult, commercial considerations will come first".

A genuine nuclear debate in Australia would include a reassessment of the uranium export industry given the risks of diversion and proliferation identified in this article.

Read More......

Nuclear power: not green, clean or cheap

By Mark Diesendorf - posted Friday, 16 June 2006.

From Online opinion.

With growing international concern about global climate change from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, the nuclear power industry has attempted to change the image of its product into that of an energy source that is “clean, green and cheap”. In reality, all the problems that worried us about the nuclear industry in the 1970s and 1980s are either unchanged or have become worse. In the latter case:

• the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons is worse because the US and Australian governments are undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by selling uranium to non-signatories, India and Taiwan. While the NPT is far from adequate, it is better than nothing or unilateral US control;
  
• since September 11, 2001, the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities has increased. The fewer the facilities, the safer everyone is;
  
• now that several countries have created competitive markets for electricity, it is clear that the cost of nuclear electricity is even higher than previously projected (see below); and
  
• detailed recent calculations of the CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle reveal that nuclear energy, based on existing technology, cannot be a long-term solution to global climate change from the human-induced greenhouse effect (see below).
  

This article addresses the last two of these points.

CO2 emissions

The nuclear industry has disseminated widely the false notion that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gas emissions. The truth is that every step (except reactor operation) in the long chain of processes that makes up the nuclear fuel “cycle” - mining, milling fuel fabrication, uranium enrichment, construction and decommissioning of the reactor, and waste management - burns fossil fuels and hence emits carbon dioxide (CO2).

Over the past 20 years there have been several calculations of CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle. The most detailed calculation comes from Van Leeuwen and Smith (VLS) (2005).

Contrary to the claims of the nuclear industry, VLS find that the CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle are only small when high-grade uranium ore is used. But there are very limited reserves of high-grade uranium in the world and most are in Australia and Canada. As these are used up over the next several decades, low-grade uranium ore (comprising 0.01 per cent or less yellowcake) will have to be used.

This means that to obtain 1kg of yellowcake, at least 10 tonnes of ore will have to be mined and milled, using fossil fuels and emitting substantial quantities of CO2. These emissions are comparable with those from a combined cycle gas-fired power station.

In response, the nuclear industry cites a report by Swedish utility, Vattenfall, which only considers a single power station and obtains lower emissions than VLS in the case of high-grade uranium ore and apparently doesn’t address low-grade uranium at all. This report has not been published and is not available on the Internet - only a summary (pdf file 248KB), that does not reveal most of the assumptions or results, is available.

It is very poor science to cite a report that is unavailable to the public. Van Leeuwen and Smith’s report, which is based on the analysis of many uranium mines and power stations, stands unrefuted at present.

In theory, a technically possible solution to the shortage of high-grade uranium would be to switch to fast breeder reactors, which produce so much plutonium that in theory they can multiply the original uranium fuel by 50. Large-scale chemical reprocessing of spent fuel would be necessary to extract the plutonium and unused uranium, and this has its own hazards and costs, since spent fuel is intensely radioactive and plutonium is an excellent nuclear explosive. The “commercial” reprocessing industry has failed in the US and UK. Only France hangs on.

Fast breeders use liquid sodium as a coolant and so are more dangerous than ordinary nuclear reactors. So far, fast breeders have all been technical and economic failures. The largest was the French 1,200 megawatt Superphoenix, a name that alludes to the mythical bird that burnt itself on a funeral pyre and then arose from the ashes to live again with renewed youth.

Reality was rather different from the myth: Superphoenix commenced operation in 1985 as a “commercial industrial prototype”. It operated only intermittently and very rarely at full power, experiencing leaks from its cooling system and several other accidents. It was shut down at the end of 1998 after costing an estimated total of about A$15 billion.

At present there are no commercial scale fast breeder reactors operating. There is a 600 megawatt demonstration fast neutron reactor in Russia, but it has a history of accidents and does not seem to have ever operated as a breeder. The pro-nuclear study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), entitled The Future of Nuclear Power, does not expect the breeder cycle to come into commercial operation during the next three decades.

In summary, nuclear power, based on existing technologies, is a dead-end side alley on the pathway to reducing CO2 emissions.

Nuclear economics

In most countries where there is a competitive electricity industry, it is clear that nuclear electricity is much more expensive than fossil electricity. In the UK and US nuclear energy is even more expensive than wind power. More specifically, the MIT (2003) report (cited above) estimates that the cost of electricity generated by a new nuclear power station in the US would be US6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh), or about AU9c/kWh Australian. For comparison coal power in eastern Australia costs under AU4c/kWh. Wind power in US costs US4-5c/kWh and in Australia AU7.5-8.5c/kWh, depending upon site.

When the UK electricity industry was privatised, the British Government had to impose a fossil fuel levy to subsidise nuclear electricity. By 1998 the annual subsidy had reached £1.2 billion per year, equivalent to a subsidy of about AU6c/kWh Australian on each unit of nuclear electricity generated. In addition, it has recently been estimated by the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that dismantling Britain’s existing nuclear power stations will cost about £70 billion. Since a full-size nuclear power station (1,000 megawatts or more) has never been decommissioned anywhere in the world, the costs could turn out to be even higher.

The only new “commercial” nuclear power station under construction in a developed country is currently taking shape in Finland. The nuclear industry claims that this demonstrates nuclear energy is competitive in market conditions. But the power station is being built by a consortium, that includes a 40 per cent share by the government of Finland, which will sell its electricity to its own members. Thus the consortium avoids conditions of a competitive market and so has obtained finance at interest rates far below market rates. The European Commission is currently considering a complaint about this practice.

On the global scene, consider the following frank summary of the 1998 electricity generating cost study that was published jointly by the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. The raw data was supplied by the nuclear industries in the countries surveyed, so they are hardly likely to be biased against nuclear energy. The summary was presented by Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist and head of the Economic Analysis Division, International Energy Agency (IEA), at an annual international forum of the Uranium Institute:

The results confirm the current cost advantage of fossil-fuelled power generation … Clearly, under BAU [business-as-usual] assumptions the contribution of nuclear power over the next two decades will be limited.

The harsh reality is, at market interest rates of 10 per cent real or more, nuclear electricity is uneconomic almost everywhere in the world. It is at least double the cost of coal power in the US and UK, and would be nearly three times the cost of coal power in eastern Australia.

The nuclear industry's solution to these harsh economic realities has been to produce a series of reports on the economics of a "new generation" of nuclear power stations that only exists on paper at present. In theory such reactors would be slightly cheaper and possibly slightly safer than existing models. The latest estimate of “new generation” economics is the report to ANSTO by leading nuclear industry figure, John Gittus, claiming that a non-existent nuclear power station, AP1000, would be competitive with coal power in eastern Australia under certain conditions.

The Gittus report’s conditions are indicated in two alternative scenarios. One involves substantial government subsidies on the capital and operating costs of the proposed power station. The other involves "no subsidy", according to Gittus, just a massive government guaranteed, unsecured, "insured loan, which would be repaid to government, together with a retrospective premium, out of revenues from the station once it began to generate electricity".

But, what if the untried nuclear power station proves to be more expensive to build and operate than the paper study estimates? That has always been the case with nuclear power in the past. What if the earnings from electricity sales prove to be insufficient to repay the additional costs and the loans? The Gittus report is vague on such details, suggesting that the government (i.e., the taxpayer) would share the risk. If so, this is a subsidy dressed up as a loan and neither of Gittus’s scenarios is anywhere near being economically competitive with conventional coal power.

If this proposal is a good deal for the lender, why is it necessary for the government to lend anything? Surely, private financial institutions would be queuing up? Though it's strange that no private investors have funded a new nuclear power station in the US for over a quarter century, despite massive subsidies to the industry.

The investor’s choice

The nuclear industry is offering investors and the community a false choice between coal and nuclear power, which are both dirty and dangerous technologies. But the real choice is between clean power - comprising a mix of efficient energy use, natural gas and renewable sources of energy - and dirty power - comprising coal and nuclear power.

Both coal and nuclear power have severe adverse environmental, health and social impacts. Both offer big financial risks to investors. That’s why the Gittus report requests that the government either pay a direct subsidy or take on much of the financial risk, which is an indirect subsidy. It is essential that the Australian community does not permit the government (i.e., the taxpayer) to take on the financial risk of building new coal-fired or nuclear power stations.

A truly ethical and clean investment portfolio in energy would exclude both the coal and nuclear industries. Efficient energy use and renewable energy offer safe and clean investments. Over the past 15 years, wind power has been both the fastest growing and cleanest energy technology in the world. Bioenergy is already making valuable contributions to energy supply in Finland and Austria. China’s target is for renewable energy (mostly wind power) to contribute 12 per cent of electricity and nuclear only 4 per cent by 2020.

Meanwhile, huge potential for hot rock geothermal power has been demonstrated in Australia and a new generation of solar electricity generators (thin films including CSG cells developed at UNSW, sliver cells developed at ANU and solar thermal electricity) is coming onto the global market.

For an article summarising our national scenario study, A Clean Energy Future for Australia, and related studies on four States, go here (pdf file 513KB).

Read More......

Gaia Scientist Lovelock Predicts Planetary Wipeout

Published on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 by Reuters

by Jeremy Lovell

From Commondreams.org Newscenter

LONDON - The earth has a fever that could boost temperatures by 8 degrees Celsius making large parts of the surface uninhabitable and threatening billions of peoples' lives, a controversial climate scientist said on Tuesday.

James Lovelock, who angered climate scientists with his Gaia theory of a living planet and then alienated environmentalists by backing nuclear power, said a traumatized earth might only be able to support less than a tenth of it's 6 billion people.

"We are not all doomed. An awful lot of people will die, but I don't see the species dying out," he told a news conference. "A hot earth couldn't support much over 500 million."

"Almost all of the systems that have been looked at are in positive feedback ... and soon those effects will be larger than any of the effects of carbon dioxide emissions from industry and so on around the world," he added.

Scientists say that global warming due to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport could boost average temperatures by up to 6C by the end of the century causing floods, famines and violent storms.

But they also say that tough action now to cut carbon emissions could stop atmospheric concentrations of CO2 hitting 450 parts per million -- equivalent to a temperature rise of 2C from pre-industrial levels -- and save the planet.

Lovelock said temperature rises of up to 8C were already built in and while efforts to curb it were morally commendable, they were wasted.

"It is a bit like if your kidneys fail you can go on dialysis -- and who would refuse dialysis if death is the alternative. We should think of it in that context," he said.

"But remember that all they are doing is buying us time, no more. The problems go on," he added.

REFUGE

Lovelock adopted the name Gaia, the Greek mother earth goddess, in the 1960s to apply to his then revolutionary theory that the earth functions as a single, self-sustaining organism. His theory is now widely accepted.

In London to give a lecture on the environment to the Institution of Chemical Engineers, he said the planet had survived dramatic climate change at least seven times.

"In the change from the last Ice Age to now we lost land equivalent to the continent of Africa beneath the sea," he said. "We are facing things just as bad or worse than that during this century."

"There are refuges, plenty of them. 55 million years ago ... life moved up to the Arctic, stayed there during the course of it and then moved back again as things improved. I fear that this is what we may have to do," he added.

Lovelock said the United States, which has rejected the Kyoto Protocol on cutting carbon emissions, wrongly believed there was a technological solution, while booming economies China and India were out of control.

China is building a coal-fired power station a week to feed rampant demand, and India's economy is likewise surging.

If either suddenly decided to stop their carbon-fuelled development to lift their billions of people out of poverty they would face a revolution, yet if they continued, rising CO2 and temperatures would kill off plants and produce famine, he said.

"If climate change goes on course ... I can't see China being able to produce enough food by the middle of the century to support its people. They will have to move somewhere and Siberia is empty and it will be warmer then," he said.

© 2006 Reuters

Read More......

Bush faces legal action over global warming

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 29 November 2006

From The Independant.
is legislation, passed by Richard Nixon's administration in 1970, requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations to protect the public from exposure to airborne contaminants.

The Bush administration has argued that the EPA lacks the authority under the act to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. The agency has argued that even if it had the authority, it would still have the discretion not to impose emission controls.

Carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases pumping into the atmosphere that a broad majority of scientists believe are responsible for raising the planet's temperature. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that most of the planet's warming over the past 50 years has been the result of human activity.

The US, with 5 per cent of the world's population, is responsible for 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for 37 per cent of the world's vehicles. The Bush administration has repeatedly refused to agree to limits on emissions, saying it would damage the economy. It has instead proposed developing better technology to limit emissions. One of the first things George Bush did on taking office in 2001 was to signal that the US would not support the Kyoto treaty.

A divided lower court had ruled in favour of the government in this test case, but the Supreme Court has agreed to a request, filed by the State of Massachusetts, to consider an appeal.

The Massachusetts attorney general, Thomas Reilly, said "global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time and the decision by the court on this case will make a deep and lasting impact for generations to come".

In his filing to the court, he added: "Delay has serious potential implications. Given that air pollutants associated with climate change are accumulating in the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the window of opportunity in which we can mitigate the dangers posed by climate change is rapidly closing."

In papers filed with the Supreme Court, the government has argued that the EPA should not be required to "embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions" when there were other ways to tackle climate change.

The Associated Press reported that James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told reporters: "We still have very strong reservations about an overarching, one-size-fits-all mandate about carbon."

The government is being supported by a number of industry groups representing car makers and manufacturers. Quentin Riegel, a lawyer with the National Association of Manufacturers, said dealing with climate change required a global response that was enforced fairly. "It's not a problem you can solve unilaterally," he said. "We want a system where everyone shares the burden."

Read More......

Landmark climate change ruling puts heat on industry

Anne Davies State Political Editor
November 28, 2006

From Sydney Morning Herald

THE climate-change impacts of new industries, including burning coal extracted from NSW mines, will have to be considered by the State Government following a landmark judgement yesterday.

The court victory for a 26-year-old environmental activist, Peter Gray, has put another hurdle in the way of Centennial Coal's giant Anvil Hill coalmine, planned for the Upper Hunter. While the decision, delivered in the Land and Environment court, does not block the mine's development entirely, Justice Nicola Pain ruled that a crucial step - the director-general of planning's acceptance of the environmental assessment - was flawed and invalid.

The Government will now have to take account of the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the mine's output - even though 80 per cent will be exported.

And the case is likely to have ramifications far beyond Anvil Hill. All greenhouse gas producing developments will now be required to include an assessment of their contribution to global warming. This could include coal mines, steel mills, electricity plants, and even new tollways.

The environmental impact statement for the mine may have to be re-exhibited, although government sources said last night they believed this could be avoided. Alternatively, the Government could appeal, although the Premier declared this week that he intended to make climate change a big issue in the coming election campaign.

"I consider there is a sufficiently proximate link between the mining of a very substantial reserve of thermal coal in NSW, the only purpose of which is for use as fuel in power stations, and the emissions of GHG [greenhouse gas] which contribute to climate change/global warming."

It was clear that climate change was affecting the Australian and NSW environments and this meant the burning of coal had to be considered in the environmental assessment process. The judge pointed to legislation requiring the Planning Department to encourage ecologically sustainable development.

According to the Government's own secret assessment, which came to light during the case, the 10.5 million tonnes of coal from Anvil Hill, when burnt, would produce 12.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year - equivalent to doubling the number of cars on NSW roads to 8 million.

Mr Gray, the activist from Newcastle, said after the ruling: "I'm over the moon. It's a huge win for the people of NSW and the people of the globe. We've seen the NSW Government try, quite literally, to defend their right to ignore climate change, but the court has ruled that this is not an acceptable approach."

There was an extra sting for the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor. Justice Pain rejected the argument that the fast-track approvals process for major projects, introduced two years ago, meant that environmental impact statements were either optional or could be less thorough. Mr Sartor said the Government would carefully consider the implications.

"It could have significant implications, not just for the mining industry but for a range of other industries in this state."

---

Planning may face climate test

Matthew Warren
November 28, 2006

From The Australian

ALL planning approvals in NSW may have to include an assessment of a development proposal's future greenhouse emissions, following a landmark court ruling yesterday.

As a result of action brought against Centennial Coal by activists opposed to its proposed Anvil Hill coalmine in the Hunter Valley, the NSW Land and Environment Court found that the Director-General of Planning needed to consider the future greenhouse implications of development proposals as part of the planning approval process, under environmental impact.

A spokesperson for Centennial Coal last night said the decision would not directly affect the progress of the Anvil Hill application because future emissions had been voluntarily included in the approval process.

NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor said he would review the decision, which appears to be based on a broad interpretation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

"It could have significant implications, not just for the mining industry, but for a range of other industries in this state," Mr Sartor said.

The ruling, by judge Nicola Pain, fell short of rejecting outright the Anvil Hill project's environmental assessment, as sought in the application by Newcastle student Peter Gray, who challenged the proposed mine on the grounds that there was no consideration of its climate-change effects.

According to a major group of institutional investors, all Australian listed companies will be required to publicly report their climate-change risk strategies within the next five years.

Read More......

Iemma's NSW Government changes planning legislation

The Iemma Government has passed fundamental amendments to the state's planning legislation, that will allow major developments to be approved, regardless of the adequacy of their Environment Assessment. The amendments will allow greenhouse intensive developments such as coal mines to be approved without any assessment of their impacts through climate change.

The changes to NSW planning legislation, passed by the Lower House last week and the Upper House last night, will:

• allow the Planning Minister to approve Major Projects, even if the Environmental Assessment for a project does not meet Environmental Assessment Requirements.
  
• apply retrospectively to developments currently being assessed. The legislation will therefore nullify the outcome of the current case in the Land and Environment Court which seeks to force assessment of the climate change impacts of the proposed Anvil Hill coal mine in the Hunter Valley.
  

Previously, compliance with the Environmental Assessment Requirements was a prerequisite for a project being approved. Under the new law this will no longer be the case. The amendments merely require the Director General of the Planning Department to prepare a "statement relating to compliance with environmental assessment requirements" before a proposed development is approved. The amendments do not state that the requirements have to be met.

Rising Tide Newcastle issued the following quotes for the media: "The Iemma Government is losing all credibility on climate change. The NSW coal industry is a major global source of climate change, and is expanding rapidly. The amendments passed last night will allow new coal developments to be approved, without any assessment of the climate change impacts of the greenhouse pollution that results. These amendments are a disaster for public accountability. They are a disaster for the environment of NSW, let alone the rest of the world.

"Morris Iemma postures on climate change, but the actions of this government tell a very different story . The world's biggest coal port at Newcastle is gearing up to get twice as big, and the Iemma Government is changing the law to allow that to happen without even assessing the impacts of it. This is disgraceful."

For more info please go to www.risingtide.org.au.

Read More......

Water consumption of various Energy sources

From Anne Goddard from Climate Change Action

with thanks to Adam Dempsey for the document(s) below

Nukes: 2.3 L/ per kWh

vs Wind: 0.004 L/ per kWh,

Solar (PV): 0.11 L/ per kWh

How Much Water Do Wind Turbines Use Compared with Conventional Power Plants?

How much water do wind turbines use compared with conventional power plants? Water use can be a significant issue in energy production, particularly in areas where water is scarce, as conventional power plants use large amounts of water for the condensing portion of the thermodynamic cycle. For coal plants, water is also used to clean and process fuel. According to the California Energy Commission (cited in Paul Gipe's WIND ENERGY COMES OF AGE, John Wiley & Sons, 1995), conventional power plants consume the following amounts of water (through evaporative loss, not including water that is recaptured and treated for further use):

WATER CONSUMPTION- -CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANTS

Technology	gallons/kWh	litres/kWh
Nuclear	0.62	2.30
Coal	0.49	1.90
Oil	0.43	1.60
Combined Cycle	0.25	0.95

Small amounts of water are used to clean wind turbine rotor blades in arid climates (where rainfall does not keep the blades clean). The purpose of blade cleaning is to eliminate dust and insect buildup, which otherwise deforms the shape of the airfoil and degrades performance.

Similarly, small amounts of water are used to clean photovoltaics panels.

Water use numbers for these two technologies are as follows:

WATER CONSUMPTION- -WIND AND SOLAR

Technology	gallons/kWh	liters/kWh
Wind [1]	0.001	0.004
PV [2]	0.030	0.110

Wind therefore uses less than 1/600 as much water per unit of electricity produced as does nuclear, and approximately 1/500 as much as coal.

NOTES

[1] American Wind Energy Association estimate, based on data obtained in personal communication with Brian Roach, Fluidyne Corp., December 13, 1996. Assumes 250-kW turbine operating at .25 capacity factor, with blades washed four times annually.

[2] Meridian Corp., "Energy System Emissions and Materials Requirements, " U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 1989, p. 23.



-----------------------------

QLD Premier Peter Beattie, 28/10/06

"At a time when our farming communities are hurting badly, it is a folly for (Prime Minister John) Howard to be entertaining the thought of nuclear power stations in Queensland or anywhere else," he said.



"Many towns and shires in our state are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle."



Mr Beattie said an independent study commissioned by the Queensland government showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station.



Mr Beattie said a coal-fired power station produced up to 1,400 megawatts of electricity a year and used around 19,500 megalitres of water to condense and recycle steam.



He said a nuclear power station producing the same output would need about 25,000 megalitres.



"That is the equivalent of at least an additional 5,000 Olympic-size swimming pools a year," Mr Beattie said.



"It is water that we simply cannot afford when drought and climate change are drying up water supplies."



He said nuclear power stations needed a guaranteed water supply and a strong connection to an electricity grid, implying a nuclear power plant would need to be close to the eastern seaboard.



"Where is Mr Howard planning to put it? Is it Townsville or Mackay or perhaps further down along the coastline on the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast?



"Even then a guaranteed water supply to meet minimum safety concerns would be a tall order.



A guarantee like that is tough at the best of times, let alone in the middle of the worst drought on record."

Read More......

So is our work all done?

Posted by: Philip Sutton Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:29 am (PST)

Dear Greenleapers,

The Australian Federal Government has started its climate U-turn to get in (just) ahead of the UK releasing its Stern Review economic analysis (see other Greenleap postings). The UK government is moving to lock in a big investment program to move the economy towards a zero carbon structure.

My guess is that with the UK ramping up its profile and real action on climate, and with Australia tagging along behind (the UK now, instead of the US!) it only a matter of time before the US makes a similar policy shift. Whether the Republicans make the shift or whether it is done under Democrat leadership is not yet clear. But they will shift.

So is our work all done? After the champaign has been drunk can we take a long holiday (or for some of us who have been working on this for quite a few decades move into graceful retirement!)?

It's definitely worth celebrating the major milestone that we are reaching. But the job is still only about 1/3 done.

Most climate activists (in government, industry and also in the environment movement) think that the goal to be achieved is either a 60% reduction by 2050 (a goal that is based on 5 year old science and is well past its use by date) or the newer 90% goal by 2030 being advocated by George Monbiot and UK Friends of the Earth (both goals are compared to the 1990 level).

Unfortunately, the freshly minted 90% goal by 2030 goal is already out of date or more accurately it is based on a misreading of the latest science.

What we greenies need to do, now that the climate action tipping point has been reached, is that we need to go back to basics and get the goal right at last.

The reality is that we have too much CO2 in the air right now - and the consequences will be dire just from what we have got now (a further 0.5 ºC rise is built in even if not a single extra excess CO2 molecule goes into the air). So there is no room in the air for more emissions from anyone - whether in developed or underdeveloped countries.

The target has to be zero greenhouse gas emissions, plus taking CO2 out of the air.

There is a small chance that we could trigger a 2ºC warming over the pre-industrial levels with the CO2 that is in the air even now. Within 10 years we will have 400 parts per million of CO2 in the air (unless we take dramatic action now) and there is perhaps a 20-30% chance that this level of CO2 will cause a 2ºC warming.

Many climate scientists think that truly catastrophic climate change will be triggered by a 2ºC warming - for example by the end of the century half of the land globally could be subject to severe drought and about 1/3 not capable of supporting agriculture at all, virtually all the Amazon rain forests are lost to fire and non-forest ecosystems, the complete melting of the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets made irreversible, serious sea level rise locked in and underway, etc.

So, if every country needs to go for zero emissions (plus taking excess CO2 out of the air as well), how fast do we need to act?

If we could wave a magic wand and get to zero emissions right this moment that's what we should do. But given that that's not possible what should we do that is realistic?

Basically we should get to zero as fast as is humanly possible. We can maximise the achievements that are humanly possible by realising that we are in a real state of emergency. Based on the speeds of industrial change that have been demonstrated to be possible in other compelling crises (eg. WW2) we know that we could change the output of the present economy in as short as 12 months (from the start of the emergency program) and this changed output could include the new equipment and infrastructure we need to retool industry and households so that they can achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions within a decade. If in the process of gearing up to act on the sustainability emergency we discovered that is was possible to act faster then we should do that.

Greenies have been pushing for decades for the mainstream to take climate change seriously. We have now achieved the first stage of this. We need to make sure that we don't stick with the old compromised goals that looked brave and unachievable 12 months ago but that are no longer the best expression of what needs to be done.

The environment movement needs to conduct a serious review of its greenhouse gas reduction goals before committing to revised and toughened goals that will still not prevent serious damage from climate warming.

Things are likely to move very fast on climate change until Governments lock in for a decade or so with their preferred response investments. We do not have time to work through yet another drawn out round of inadequate responses. So green groups need to leapfrog over the next few months to the goals and solutions that will actually solve the problem and we need to push for these very hard.

If we push for the declaration of a formal emergency then what's possible can change dramatically for the better.

Later this year the Greenleap Strategic Institute will publish a major report that critiques the current CO2/greenhouse gas reduction targets. We hope this report will assist organisations to set new practical targets that would be able to solve the climate problem if they were achieved.

Cheers, Philip

Philip Sutton
Director, Strategy
Green Innovations

http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/

Read More......

Thoughts about nuclear and alternate energy

From John Hill - Climate Change Action Yahoo Group.


A few things I thought I might list here which the nuclear industry often conveniently ignore:

1. We need to be cutting consumption - not predicating constant increases in use of electricity. There are many ways to do this with present technology and resources and there will, undoubtedly, be more in the future. One very simple step is to get rid of incandescent globes altogether and replace them with the new fluorescent ones which use only about 25% as much electricity. One report I saw in New Scientist magazine said that if all the incandescent globes in the U.S. were changed to fluorescents they wouldn't need a new power station until 2025. That's a pretty good start!
   
   Among many other ways to save electricity may be included these new "laser" colour screens you mention which are said to only need about 25% of the power needed to run a LCD screen and will cost about half the price (and less energy) to manufacture.
   
   
2. Nuclear power plants indirectly produce quite a lot of greenhouse gas emissions - in the processing, transport of fuel, construction, etc. Not as much as oil or coal fired plants, admittedly, but far more than solar, geothermal, biomass, wave and tidal-powered plants.
   
   
3. Nuclear plants destroy forever (in human terms) the land they are placed on. This land is usually prime land beside rivers as they need the water for cooling (and we have very few river banks left in Australia that are suitable and available). Moreover, almost all nuclear plants (and mines) experience some toxic and/or radioactive leaks which end up in our very precious and rapidly diminishing water tables. Additionally the plants heat the water in the rivers which supply them which has led to great biological disturbances downstream in many places.
   
   After the plants have to be decommissioned (usually within 30 years of building them) the land they were sited on is too radioactive to use for much else without prohibitively expensive cleanup regimes - often running into billions of dollars (a cost that is not usually included in the cost of producing the electricity by the nuclear industry)
   
   
4. One of the subjects that is rarely discussed is that nuclear power is hugely expensive and is only made viable by large government subsidies which can take several forms aside from the usual direct financial support, land grants, and tax breaks - e.g.. not including the clean-up costs after decommissioning, allowing companies to put the disposal of wastes on hold indefinitely ("more research needs to be done") - often in very dicey "temporary" containers such as 44 gallon drums, guaranteeing sales of so much electricity per year, and - very commonly - because "peaceful" nuclear reactors give governments the ability to develop nuclear weapons in a hurry if they want to at a future date ("leaving the options open") and thus they are keen to have "peaceful" nuclear facilities.
   
   
5. Peak power demand is usually during weekdays during summer, with a big drop-off at night and on weekends. Nuclear power plants are not good at being able to cope with these rapid spikes and lows in demand (see article below) and so, to be on the safe side, are usually kept up and running at more than needed capacity. This tends to eliminate other forms of electricity generation as there is no point having other forms if one needs to produce more than the full amount needed in nuclear plants. Therefore, once begun, the nuclear energy industry has a stranglehold on power generation and this limits new advances and experiments. Hydroelectric, geothermal and gas-fired plants are much more responsive to variabilities of demand than nuclear.
   
   
6. Because peak demand is usually in the day time and in the summer it makes a very good case for at least a significant mix of solar-generated power.
   
   
7. See the article below, which shows that wind is likely to produce far more electricity in the medium term than projections for nuclear production and has no problems with radioactive pollution, making deadly terrorist targets, there is little need for mining (except to produce the original equipment), the danger of damage from natural disasters (such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, etc. - there are plans to put more and more nuclear reactors in places like Japan and Indonesia and along the San Andreas fault in North America - some of the geologically most active areas in the world.
   
   Also, we can see in the cases of countries like North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and Iran (just to name the most obvious) - having nuclear power leads to obtaining nuclear weapons and this is very dangerous if you have unstable governments (and which countries can we be sure will have stable, sensible governments in 10 or 20 years?) It seems to me it is just a matter of time before one of these factors will cause a really massive disaster.
   
   
8. I should mention that selling uranium for "peaceful purposes" is really an unbelievable goal that is impossible to police. India proved this long ago when they used a Canadian-supplied nuclear power plant and Canadian uranium to make their first atomic bombs and were able to use this knowledge to go on to build bigger and more sophisticated ones themselves. (I remember the Canadian govt. announcing at the time something like: "this is a wonderful foreign aid project to fellow democratic Commonwealth nation that has given binding guarantees to only use it for peaceful purposes").
   
   
9. New and much more efficient ways of storing both electricity and/or heat (that can be used for producing electrify later) are being developed at the moment which will reduce the need for "demand-time" generation of electricity. I am sure if a small fraction of what is being spent on nuclear power were to be spent on finding better alternatives to the primitive 19th century design lead-acid batteries I have to put up with in my home at the moment, solar energy would not only become much cheaper but more viable in many ways - both on the macro and the micro levels.
   
   Furthermore, the new solar cells recently developed at ANU look certain to be able to reduce the cost of production (and the use of energy in producing them) by about 50%. They are past the developmental stage and are just waiting for someone to fund full-scale production facilities.
   
   
10. Finally, when solar or geothermal or biomass or wind or even gas plants finally come to the end of their life there is very little cleanup needed and the land they once covered can be used for productive purposes. (This can even happen between windmills while they are working).
    

Just a few thoughts - perhaps some other listmembers would like to add to the list?

Best wishes,

John Hill

Read More......