Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Energy & Nuclear

Is a Bioreactor Suitable for this Community?

By

G’Day Jennifer,

Maroochy Shire Council on the Sunshine Coast is attempting to build a mega garbage dump in a beautiful fertile valley just 500 metres from homes.

This dump is a Bioreactor, like the two at Ipswich west of Brisbane. Our committee members have visited both of these dumps and you can smell the stench for 3km on a good day and 6km on a bad day.

Maroochy Shire Council’s proposed dump is within 3km of two hospitals, two schools and thousands of homes.

It is also 2km from the Maroochy River, overseas the recommended minimum is 10km from rivers.

Please visit our website http://www.bioreactor.org.au.

Regards,
John Mason

Moving Beyond Rhetoric to a Nuclear Future: A Note from Haydon Manning

By

Dear Jennifer,

Mark Diesendorf’s new book on renewable energy – ‘Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy’ is likely to receive plenty of comment if the last few days are anything to go by.

I think it’s important that his work is put under the spot light as it is often, I feel, rather dogmatic and driven by conspiratorial notions of how government works. Certainly his survey of an area I know a something about, nuclear power debates, is rooted in 1970s style anti-nuclear rhetoric.

Last week my University convened a two day conference on nuclear matters, Mark addressed a session and I had the opportunity to critique his views and debated a few points with him during one of the breaks. I am researching the area and have two critiques of the anti- nuclear movement out to review with journals and am at the happy to forward these to anyone interested (the more feed back the better!).

Mark claims that the nuclear fuel cycle underpinning nuclear power is highly carbon emitting, especially the mining and milling stages. This is largely fanciful and, likewise, his assessment of the latest designs for reactors as somehow just “theory” albeit, unpleasant theory for the anti-nuclear power camp, given its promise of ever greater safety features and nuclear fuel efficiency, ie. some of these designs would see reactors require far less nuclear fuel than is currently the case with Generation 3 reactors.

Mark argues that high grades of uranium ore are likely to be depleted soon and thereby the carbon emissions entailed in processing uranium for nuclear fuel will increase considerably in coming decades. I think this misses two rather vital points –

1] While nuclear power was unpopular during the 1980s and 1990s and the price of uranium remained low there was little by way of investment in exploration. This has changed remarkably over the last few years and, given that uranium is one of the most abundant minerals, there is every reason to believe high grade ores will be found. Indeed, the extent of current exploration in Australia, and also where high grades are appearing, in Africa, suggests the nuclear power industry’s claim to low carbon emissions compared with other reliable base load power, such as coal and gas, remains as convincing as ever.

But worse for Mark’s line of argument is this rather fundamental aspect of mining.

2] Uranium usually occurs with other ores, notably copper and gold. BHPs mine in northern South Australia, at Roxby Downs, is a copper mine – that’s why BHP bought out Western Mining, for the copper and gold. Yes, the mine will soon become the biggest uranium mine in the world, but BHP would still be there at Roxby even if there was not an ounce of uranium to be extracted. This is commonplace with uranium mining because uranium seems to like bobbing up with other valuable minerals! Point is, the mining and separation of various minerals, all carbon intensive activities, would be happening anyway. How convenient to neglect this very obvious aspect of the equation and, in the process, trump up the charge that nuclear power is high on the carbon emitting front.

As for reactor designs it is rather disingenuous to maintain so confidently that future science regarding reactors design and safety features ( making meltdowns impossible and securing against ‘worst case’ terrorist attack scenarios) is just theory nor likely to happening with sufficient speed to be a major contributor to relatively carbon free power generation. With the growing interest in nuclear power it is highly likely that so-called Generation 4 reactors will be built in the next two decades, in fact many of them will be built as their designs are not foolhardy constructs but arguably realistic – ie. nuclear physicists have not been designing them just for fun and investors are likely to find the great safety angle reassuring.

There are a number of designs (for info on this go to http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm) one of particular interest is the so-called, ‘pebble bed modular’ reactor. Contrary to Mark’s view that no Gen 4 reactors exist today a pebble bed modular, is operating in China (some readers may have seen this featured on ABC TV’s ‘Catalyst’ program a couple of months ago). This design is remarkable because meltdown is claimed to be impossible and this was the key point of the ‘Catalyst’ report where a mock ‘accident’ proved the point – the reactor’s systems enacted shut down, rather than meltdown, in what was a convincing display in front of a swag of Western nuclear physicists and experts.

The problem for many anti – nukes environmentalists is that they just don’t bother to note that much has changed since the 1970s. The second big problem is that unless nuclear, along with other suitable renewables, cannot replace, at a reasonable rate, the introduction of ever more coal burning power stations in countries such as China and India then projections on climate change may well fall more readily into the alarmist category.
Obviously, the emerging Chinese and Indian middle classes are not going to forgo Western style consumerism, in particular the purchase and use of cars. One can only hope that the future of transport lies with electric cars and possibly in decades to come hydrogen will play big role in ‘driving’ transport. Heavy duty base load power is required for this future and I fail to see how wind and solar (or even one of my favourites, geo thermal – ‘hot rocks’) will fill the bill here – thus my concern that too many environmentalists remain so dogmatically opposed to nuclear power.

Sure, in a perfect world uranium should be left in the ground…alas, who sees a perfect world?

Notwithstanding my misgivings sections of Mark’s book are very interesting.

His case for wind power being able to produce base load electricity generation argues for windmills stretching over 600 or so kms and is quite convincing and ‘rational’ but only if you take the politics out. Point is, just how many federal and state electoral boundaries would they cross? And then there’s the potential disgruntled mayors, councilors and community groups – arguably an investor’s and Premier’s nightmare!

Mark complains of ‘the treble’ of opponents to wind power, namely the coal and nuclear lobbies and the NIMBies; it is largely their fault that the Howard government shuns backing wind power. For mine the ‘equation’ here is mainly about simple politics of uncertainty surrounding such widely spread structures and how this may translate into potential investor reluctance to commit. Given that I teach electoral politics and political/electoral behaviour such matters do tend to readily come to mind and suggest there must be better options than Mark’s favourite.

Haydon Manning
Adelaide
haydon.manning@flinders.edu.au

G8 Declaration on Fighting Climate Change

By

Climate change has dominated discussions at the three day summit of the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial economies which began on Wednesday in Heiligendamm, Germany.

Those section of the G8 Summit Declaration of the 7th June 2007 which relate to flighting climate change include:

40. Humanity today faces the key interlinked challenges of avoiding dangerous climate change and ensuring secure and stable supplies of energy. Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global
economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialised
economies, while avoiding economic distortions.

41. We recognise the important opportunities offered by effective action addressing climate change, in particular for innovation, technological development as well as poverty reduction. Strong economies together with a wide range of policy instruments such as market-based mechanisms, including emissions-trading, tax incentives, and regulatory measures as well as technology cooperation and a shared long-term vision, are key to guide investment decisions, to generate technology commercialisation, to enhance energy security, to promote sustainable development and to slow, stabilize and then significantly cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.

42. We are committed to take strong leadership in combating climate change. We confirm our determination to work among ourselves and with the global community on global solutions that address climate change while supporting growth and economic development. We commit ourselves to implement approaches which optimally combine
effective climate protection with energy security. To this end, we are committed to the further development of the international regime to combat climate change, especially in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year. Addressing climate change is a long term issue that will require global participation and a diversity of approaches to take into account differing circumstances.

43. Energy is a fundamental driver of growth and development around the world, and the use of energy has been steadily expanding along with the world’s populations and economies. Our ability to provide secure access to clean, affordable and safe sources of energy to maintain global economic growth complements our desire to protect our environment. Addressing the challenge of energy security will require unprecedented
international cooperation in several areas, including market transparency, enhancing energy efficiency, diversifying energy supplies and developing and deploying new and transformational technologies.

48. We take note of and are concerned about the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The most recent report concluded both, that global temperatures are rising, that this is caused largely by human activities and, in addition, that for increases in global average temperature, there are projected to be major
changes in ecosystem structure and function with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems, e.g. water and food supply.

49. We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting
a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us
in this endeavour.

50. As climate change is a global problem, the response to it needs to be international. We welcome the wide range of existing activities both in industrialised and developing countries. We share a long-term vision and agree on the need for frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade. Complementary national, regional and global
policy frameworks that co-ordinate rather than compete with each other will strengthen the effectiveness of the measures. Such frameworks must address not only climate change but also energy security, economic growth, and sustainable development objectives in an integrated approach. They will provide important orientation for the necessary future investment decisions.

51. We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their
particular situations. We recognise however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development.

52. We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change. We are committed to moving forward in that forum and call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major
emitters.

53. To address the urgent challenge of climate change, it is vital that major economies that use the most energy and generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would contribute to a global agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009.

We therefore reiterate the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change. We embrace efforts to work with these countries on long term strategies. To this end, our representatives have already met with the representatives of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa in Berlin on 4 May 2007. We will continue to meet with high representatives of these and other major energy
consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries to consider the necessary components for successfully combating climate change. We welcome the offer of the United States to host such a meeting later this year. This major emitters’ process should include, inter alia, national, regional and international policies, targets and plans, in line with national circumstances, an ambitious work program within the UNFCCC, and the development and deployment of climate-friendly technology.

The full G8 Summit declaration can be found at:
http://www.g-8.de/Content/DE/Artikel/G8Gipfel/Anlage/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng,property=publicationFile.pdf

IPCC Too Optimistic on Fossil Fuel Supplies

By

“The issues of climate and future temperature increases have become part of our everyday life, and central in this debate is carbon dioxide. The fossil fuels we use contain carbon and hydrocarbon compounds, and carbon dioxide is released together with energy when we burn these.

“However, it seems that the amounts of fossil fuels themselves are not perceived as a problem among those debating climate change. Instead, the problem is only ever that we are expected to use too much of them. The idea that the combined volumes of these fuels are insufficient to cause the changes in climate that are currently discussed is nowhere to be heard…

This article entitled ‘Severe Climate Change Unlikely Before We Run Out of Fossil Fuel’ by Kjell Aleklett and republished yesterday by Australian e-journal On Line Opinion concludes with comment that “the world’s greatest future problem is that too many people must share too little energy.”

Read the complete article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933

Australia to Embrace Carbon Trading

By

On 10 December 2006 the Australian Prime Minister announced the establishment of a joint government-business Task Group on Emissions Trading. Yesterday, the Report of the Task Group on Emissions Trading was publicly released. It “outlines the state of play in international cooperation on climate change and the possible development of emissions trading at the global level. Against this background, the Report outlines a proposed Australian domestic emissions trading scheme, together with a set of complementary policies and measures, that would enable Australia to position itself for international developments while maintaining economic growth and safeguarding our competitive advantage.”

The report includes comment that, “The most common type of emissions trading systems are known as ‘cap and trade’ schemes. Under such a scheme, the government determines limits on greenhouse gas emissions (that is, sets a target or cap) and issues tradable emissions permits up to this limit. Each permit represents the right to emit a specified quantity of greenhouse gas (for example, one tonne of CO2-e). Businesses must hold enough permits to cover the greenhouse gas emissions they produce each year. Permits can be bought and sold, with the price determined by the supply of and demand for permits. Governments can choose how they wish to allocate permits, for example, by auctioning, grandfathering, benchmarking, allocating to meet specific equity objectives, or any combination of these options (a more detailed discussion of these methodologies is included in Chapter 7).
By placing a price on emissions, trading allows market forces to find least cost ways of reducing emissions by providing incentives for firms to reduce emissions where this would be cheapest, while allowing continuation of emissions where they are most costly to reduce. This underlines the fact that emissions trading is not an objective in itself, but a means of achieving a certain level of abatement at the lowest cost possible.”

Paul Kelly writing in The Australian newspaper has commented, “The essence of John Howard’s belated response to climate change is to commit early, think global and implement slowly. After years of dispute and scepticism, Australia now has a strategic blueprint for action — a blueprint superior to the defect-ridden European emission trading regime.

“This is the start of Australia exerting serious influence on the global debate. In substantive terms, it closes the gulf between Howard and Kevin Rudd on climate change. It insists that Australia must act now and not wait for global agreement. It makes the timetable for emission trading almost bipartisan — Howard in 2011 and Labor by 2010.

“While Howard’s report does not specify a target — in response to Rudd’s 60 per cent cut by 2050 — its entire “cap and trade” scheme depends upon a long-term target to be finalised next year after more analysis. Labor, equally, wants the scheme’s design finalised “by the end of 2008”.

And yesterday the Australian Prime Minister announced his support for a new US climate change initiative, a new post-Kyoto framework.

John Howard said, “The Australian Government welcomes the United States’ initiative announced overnight to build a broader coalition for practical international climate change action. This is a genuine attempt to get past the political stand-offs of previous negotiations, to cut through the entrenched positions of the north-south divide enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol and instead to focus on real solutions.

“My Government has consistently championed the need for practical action that makes a difference. In particular, we have advocated meaningful co-operation with developing countries and a new global framework in which all major economies feel able to participate.

“The US initiative – and the recent statement by Japan calling for a new global response that goes beyond Kyoto and brings in all major emitters – is further evidence that a new international consensus on climate change is starting to emerge.

“Australia has been very active in shaping this emerging consensus, which represents a significant move away from the empty symbolism of Kyoto towards the approach the Government has consistently advocated. The Government has been in frequent contact with the US Administration and our other key international partners.

“We have been at the forefront of practical, regional initiatives such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) and the Clean Coal Partnership with China. The Government has launched a $200 million Global Forests Initiative to tackle deforestation and has put climate change at the centre of the APEC leaders’ agenda in September.

“The US approach recognises that to deal with climate change a multi-pronged strategy is required, including areas such as energy efficiency, technology development and transfer – including nuclear power – and forestry, as well as ways to adapt to changes in the climate.”

EU to Continue Support for Coal

By

Dear Jennifer,

An announcement by the European Commission, as reported by the Chinese news agency, has the EC supporting the continued use and subsidisation of coal with the simple statement “No change should be made…” They also note that “domestic coal production reduces the energy dependency of the Union and contributes to a diversification of our sources of energy supply” – this could be reflection of recent political tensions with Russia over the supply of gas.

Using double speak the press agency EurActiv reports that the EU “has not expressed a commitment to phase out coal completely from Europe’s energy mix.”

Greenpeace has criticised the decision saying: “If Europe is serious about fighting climate change, as is claimed, then it must divert public money and support from polluting energy sources such as coal to clean energy options such as efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies. With today’s report, the Commission has missed an opportunity to put an end to coal subsidies once and for all.”

The message is clearly “do as I say not as I do” and China and other countries will continue to exploit this ambivalence.

Cheers,
Rog