Energy & Nuclear

While discussion in 2005 was about imminent oil shortages – often under the title ‘peak oil’ – interesting the first significant energy crisis in 2006 is all about gas. How difficult the future is to predict.

A good summary of the situation in Europe, where Russia was blocking supply to the Ukraine, is perhaps at Germany newspaper Deutsche Welle, it begins:

European editorial writers are keeping an eye on the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine, which has been likened to an energy policy earthquake, the effects of which are being felt across Europe.

Rome’s La Repubblica called the dispute a “threat to the entire region.” “The gas dispute has already moved beyond the borders of Russia and Ukraine,” the paper wrote, adding that it will spread to wealthy western European countries and then to poorer nations as well. The paper doesn’t regard Moscow’s promise to guarantee gas delivery to the EU as stable, writing: “Moscow caved in to the pressure from the European Union, but warned that it won’t be able to continue covering for theft by the Ukrainians.”

The Independent, from London, asked why Ukraine has been singled out by Russia for a price hike in natural gas when other former Soviet states also pay less than the going market rates. The paper concluded that it was a political decision. “Vladimir Putin intends to destabilize Russia’s western neighbor in the hope of unseating its leader, Viktor Yushchenko,” the Independent wrote. “The Ukrainian president has been a thorn in the Kremlin’s side since he was swept to power amid mass demonstrations against Russian influence. With elections looming in Ukraine, President Putin regards this as the right time to exert pressure.” The paper said that the crisis has made it clear that Europe is urgently in need of a common energy policy.”

I gather Britain had been moving to increase its reliance on Russia for energy from gas. Perhaps Russia blocking supply to the Ukrainian will make a second generation of nuclear power plants that much more likely for Britain- a tough call for Tony Blair?

The Northern Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin, has said she will fight “tooth and nail” the building of even a small nuclear waste facility in the Territory.

Australia produces nuclear waste at Lucus Heights., where the Sydney facility undertakes nuclear-related research including for diagnosing and treating cancer, Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis.

The preferred site for storing the waste from Lucas Height, which is apparently a Federal Government responsibility, is Woomera, but the South Australian government has said “no”.

The Northern Territory looks set to end up with the waste facility because the Commonwealth can force it on a Territory.

I have previously written that former Prime Minister Bob Hawke and researcher Geoff Hudson have both endorsed the Australian outback/the Northern Territory as a good place to store not only Sydney’s waste, but the world’s nuclear waste.

I was facinated to read today that an Aboriginal leader is now backing the concept of at least a small nuclear waste facility in the Territory.

According to ABC Online, Galarrwuy Yunupingu says he would be happy to consider a waste dump on his tribal land.

Mr Yunupingu said a [nuclear] dump on Gumatj Land could mean sealed roads, infrastructure and long-term benefits to Aboriginal people as well an oncology unit for Darwin’s Hospital.

He says the dump is an issue of national importance, with over 400,000 Australians receiving radioactive medical treatment each year.

He says Chief Minister Clare Martin should admit that a dump could be safely built in the Territory.

……….

I lived for the first few years of my life (1963-1971) at a place called Coomalie Creek just ‘around the corner’ from the first big uranium mine in Australia at Rum Jungle. The mine site has since been reabilitated and looks like this, View image (100kbs).

Farm Online has the following report on the impact of rising oil prices on Australian farm businesses:

Farm incomes have been tipped to fall by a third in 2005-06, despite the optimism generated from the winter crop comeback and good prices for many rural commodities.

As the Westpac-National Farmers’ Federation Rural Commodity Index rose 2.9pc in September on the back of improved sugar and grain prices and record high cattle prices, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) September Commodities report forecast the fall of net farm income in 2005-06 compared to 2004-05, driven by big fuel price increases.

“It is unfortunate that just as we look like we might be emerging from one of the worst droughts in living memory the farming sector is being slugged by record high oil prices which are feeding into fuel, fertiliser and chemical costs,” NFF Farm Business and Economics Committee chair, Charles Burke, said.

“Compared with the $13B farmers earned in 2001-02, net earnings of $4.4B this year looks fairly grim.

“With fuel costs up 34pc over this time and 20pc up on last year, it is not hard to see oil prices are having a big impact.

After Bob Hawke suggested we should take the world’s nuclear waste, I agreed.

Geoff Hudson gives six good reasons why at Ockham’s Razor:

One. The site should be well away from any fault line. Storage sites would not be recommended for Japan, the San Andreas Fault, New Zealand or Indonesia. We should choose a country sitting in the middle of a large and stable tectonic plate.

Two. The site should be dry. Water can corrode metals given enough time, and time it will have. We want a site in a desert. This will also eliminate the risk of fire. Without vegetation you cannot have large naturally occurring fires which could destroy the safety systems you would want.

Three. The site should be well away from the sea. Preferably 100 kilometres inland. We have not seen tsunamis get 10km inland in recent history, but we need to think in terms of thousands of years, rather than hundreds.

The human risk to a repository of radioactive waste is more difficult to manage. One clear risk is the use of the waste by terrorists. Their objective would be to make a dirty bomb: conventional explosives mixed with radioactive waste. If this achieved the same effect as Chernobyl, but in London, New York or Paris, the consequences would be catastrophic. Imagine if the recent bombs in London had been radioactive. Mass evacuation, transport shutdown, businesses stopped. The effects would dominate the city and be felt as far away as Australia. In fact, this is the main threat which nuclear waste poses to Australians. Not to health or the environment, but to our economy. It might not cause a depression but it could come close. To prevent this, we need to impose further requirements on the site:

Four. The site should be very sparsely inhabited. If there are no people there, then there will be no infrastructure to support the people or the movement of people, so the chance that terrorists will get to the site and be able to remove waste from it will be limited.

Five. The site should be on an island, so a ship is needed to get the waste to a place where it could not do a lot of damage.

Six. The country governing the site must maintain the safety systems at the repository. It should have a stable government, preferably one with no history of civil war. The people in the country should be well educated and technologically advanced enough to know the risks of nuclear radiation, so that the protection of the site is preserved over changes in government.

Is there a place on earth which satisfies these six criteria?

The United States fails on three counts. The Yucca Mountain site, the intended US waste repository, is only 145 kilometres from Las Vegas and has three fault lines below it and volcanos nearby.

Japan, another heavy user of nuclear power, is also out. The whole country is on the geologically active Pacific Rim.

Europe has very few places where the population density is low, and equally fewer which are dry.

There are places in Africa which have few people and which are dry, but the continent is famous for civil unrest.

To my mind, the clear winner in this contest is Australia.