Thorp nuclear plant may close for years The Guardian John Vidal 19 May 09 • Faulty reprocessing facility threatens UK atomic plans• Critics call for plug to be pulled on ‘white elephant’

The company that runs the Thorp nuclear reprocessing plant admitted that it may have to close for a number of years owing to a series of technical problems.

The huge £1.8bn plant at Sellafield imports spent nuclear fuel from around the world and returns it to countries as new reactor fuel. But a series of catastrophic technical failures with associated equipment means Thorp could be mothballed at a cost of millions of pounds.

Under strict orders from the government’s safety watchdog, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the plant’s operators, Sellafield Ltd, is expected to have little option but to mothball the reprocessing plant for at least four years.

Closure of Thorp for any length of time could cost the company and government hundreds of millions of pounds and embarrass the resurgent nuclear industry,

Nuclear Power: Low Cost, Small Carbon Footprint, Huge Risks OPB News
 BY KRISTIAN FODEN-VENCIL Hanford, WA May 18, 2009 6: – “………………..

But, as most everyone knows, nuclear has problems.

Because of the risks, Wall Street won’t fund it without federal loan guarantees; human errors can be disastrous; and it produces a stream of long-lived and dangerous radioactive waste.

The Trojan plant for example was built by Portland General Electric in the 1970’s and shut down less than 20 years later.

The reactor was shipped off to Hanford and buried; the cooling tower demolished in a widely publicized explosion.  All that remains is a large gravel lot…………………………………….recycling doesn’t make nuclear renewable — there’s still a dangerous waste stream and the process also produces weapons grade plutonium — an attractive target for terrorists………………………..Chuck Johnson: “We know that burning hydrocarbons is causing global warming, that doesn’t therefore logically lead us to do something else that has long-term negative consequences. Like develop nuclear energy that has radioactive waste that lasts 10s of thousands of years. I think future generations will wonder, what was so important about generating electricity back in the 20th and 21st century that we now have to deal with these wastes that these people generated 10-thousand years ago.”

World’s Largest Solar Farm Project For Australia  Energy matters 18 May 09 “………..the Australian Government has highlighted a lofty goal – to build four solar farms that generate three times as much power as the world’s current largest project based in California. The Rudd Government says it remains committed to ensuring 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020.
 
Under the Government’s $1.365 billion Solar Flagships plan, such a project would see the farms generating a combined 1 gigawatt of renewable energy generated electricity; the equivalent of an average sized coal fired power station.
  ……………………………… the Government has also announced Australia will become a member of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). 
 
Launched in January this year; Bonn, Germany based IRENA works on behalf of the renewables sector to promote the acceleration of renewable energy uptake worldwide. The organisation provides advice and support for countries, assists in the development of regulatory frameworks and the building of capacity. IRENA currently has 80 members.
 
The Rudd Government sees the membership of IRENA as a strengthening of Australia’s role as a global leader in tackling climate change and the knowledge gained from operating the Solar Flagships program will contribute to the worldwide fight against carbon pollution.
 

Clikate Change ABC TV Message Stick

17 May 2009

Climate change must be considered as one of our greatest threats to survival. Predictions of devastating weather patterns and rising sea levels are already beginning to unfold and our shared future will depend on our ability to adapt and find new ways of living in harmony with the environment.As the world’s oldest surviving culture, Indigenous Australians offer a profound depth of knowledge, but Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices often struggle to be heard in debates about water scarcity, carbon trading and the protection of our natural landscapes and wildlife. Miriam Corowa discusses these issues with three people who are on the frontline of change………………………..JOE MORRISON: Indigenous people have been taken away from their traditional estates and lands and therefore, the fire frequency in northern Australia has basically gotten out of control, where up to 70% of the nations’ fires occur in northern Australia and they’re usually in the latter part of the year. That’s not a traditional fire regime, so there’s lots of damage being done through that, not to mention more greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. So what we’re doing is using traditional knowledge to reinstate traditional fire regimes, enabling people to get back onto their traditional states, burn earlier, engaging old people and young people and by doing that, they’re able to sell an offset, which is the difference between the late fires and the early fires. This is something Indigenous people, particularly in northern and central Australia, have got an upper hand on, given their longstanding history of fire management in that part of the world. It’s something I think that the nation should celebrate and consider as part of their overall climate change strategy………………………..JOE MORRISON: Absolutely, I think that as a nation, we do have a long way to go. The dialogue only just commenced with the international community, when the Rudd Government signed up to Kyoto. That means we’re at least a few years behind the eight ball at the international scenario, but locally, there is a long way to go. Again, bringing back to that point about the education, I think it’s a two-way thing. It’s not just Indigenous people understanding what non-Indigenous people are talking about, but it’s also about non-Indigenous people understanding that Indigenous people can actually contribute something positive to the climate change agenda.

Australian government announces military buildup as strategic dilemma intensifies World socialist Website By James Cogan18 May 2009In its new Defence White Paper, published on May 2, the Australian Labor government has committed to a major military build-up, under the aegis of the country’s postwar alliance with the United States, despite mounting concern over the decline of American hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and the prospect of conflict with China………………………….The document defines participation in future conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia as “not a principal task” of the Australian military, but goes on to reassure Washington that such participation, if requested, would certainly be considered. It indicates that the deployment of Australian troops in Afghanistan is effectively indefinite and that the US satellite base at Pine Gap—critical to the deployment of the US nuclear arsenal—remains a “central element” of Australia’s relationship with the US…………………………the Navy will be re-equipped with 12 new conventional submarines and several new frigates, all armed with US Tomahawk Cruise missiles capable of hitting targets 2,500 kilometres (1,800 miles) away. While the document makes no mention of it, this will be the first time that the Australian military has weapons capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

Protect nuclear whistleblowers
Upcoming ‘nuclear renaissance’ will bring grave risks to health and safety. The National Law Journal Nicole J. Williams and Debra KatzMay 18, 2009 During the past few years, U.S. public policymakers from across the political spectrum and industry advocates have ushered in a “nuclear renaissance” — an era in which nuclear energy is being touted as the only technology, other than hydroelectric power, capable of generating large volumes of energy without directly producing greenhouses gases…………………………Massive federal subsidies, loan guarantees and production tax credits to the nuclear industry have provided the springboard for the greatest expansion of nuclear power in the United States since the 1960s.

What is troubling, however, is that this resurgence in support for nuclear power comes despite serious concerns about the tremendous costs of constructing new reactors, uncertainty regarding the future of highly radioactive waste disposal and ongoing violations of the rights of workers who bear the day-to-day responsibility of operating nuclear power plants and ensuring compliance with nuclear safety regulations……………………………With the expansion of the nuclear energy, there is bound to be pressure to build and operate nuclear plants faster and cheaper. If history tells us anything, these pressures will invariably lead to a “schedule over safety” culture at some plants, and nuclear workers will be pressured to cut corners and overlook safety problems in the interest of getting and keeping plants online and profits flowing to shareholders. These workers, who serve as the “eyes and ears” of the public, will be forced to decide whether and how vigorously to blow the whistle on their employer’s nuclear safety practices or to be silent out of fear of losing their jobs. It is crucial that these workers, who have a legal duty to report nuclear safety concerns, be aware of their legal rights…………………………………Given the grave consequences that blowing the whistle generally has to the careers of nuclear workers, the Department of Labor must approach its task of protecting the rights of these workers with renewed vigor — a task that will be made especially challenging by the determination of the nuclear industry to bring more reactors online in a shorter period of time than ever before in the industry’s history.

Safety scares at Sellafield threaten to undermine nuclear ‘renaissance’ The Guardian, terry Macalister 17 May 09 Managers insist 14-month radioactive leak and loss of toxic containers pose no threat to public safety

New safety scares at Britain’s largest atomic site – including a 14-month radioactive leak and the loss of two toxic containers – are threatening to undermine confidence in the government’s nuclear renaissance.

Nuclear Management Partners, which runs Sellafield complex, admitted a spillage found in January, the day before Gordon Brown visited, was “level two”, the worst since a 2005 accident that saw then-owners British Nuclear Fuels Ltd fined £500,000………………………………

Environmentalists said the latest scares would further undermine public confidence. “Never mind swine flu, this pandemic of nuclear carelessness poses a far greater risk to us all, and highlights the sloppy housekeeping that is endemic at Sellafield,” said Martin Forwood of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment.Local anti-nuclear campaigners said they were very disturbed that Sellafield Ltd was “clinging to the hope” that the lost cans had been moved to another secure facility on the site.

But they were even more worried that the consortium had so far offered no explanation as to how remotely controlled robots could have effected such a removal service unobserved by managers and workers alike, or by the site’s security services.

A continuing hunt is on to find the materials, which were stored in a “cave” with such high levels of radioactivity that the canisters can only be moved only by robots. NMP said it needed to understand how the materials had been moved to ensure that there could be no repeat.

Government pressed to hold inquiry into construction of nuclear stations• Academics and green groups say system for assessing need is ‘fatally flawed’• Worries over leaving final decision on nuclear plants to Ed Miliband The Guardian, Terry Macalister  17 May 2009

The government is under growing pressure to hold a public inquiry into building new nuclear stations amid claims that the current system of “justification” is fatally flawed and that public confidence in ministers is at an all-time low.

A group of leading academics has joined green pressure groups and others in demanding greater transparency. The justification process is required by the European Union as a high-level assessment to ensure the benefits of new-build nuclear stations outweigh potential detriment…………….

The atomic industry is attacked for having “very high” opportunity costs and will suck investment out of renewables. It cites the example of AMEC selling off its wind energy subsidiary to put its efforts into Sellafield nuclear site, where it has just become a joint manager.

Dorfman and his colleagues, who also include Professor Keith Barnham from Imperial College and Professor Gordon Walker from Lancaster University, say nuclear has a history of cost over-runs at the expense of the taypayer, noting the financial problems of British Energy and the £80bn cost of cleaning up atomic waste.

Could a Clean Energy Bank wreck our economy? Well, Yes, if Clean Energy means NUclear The Seminal May 14th, 2009 You can barely sit through a TV show, listen to the radio, or even read a blog without coming across an ad from someone extolling the virtues of some “clean” energy form or another. Never mind that some of them—from nuclear power to “clean” coal—bear no resemblance to the cleanest solutions like wind, solar and energy efficiency. Some industries have more money to spend on ads than others…………………………what could be more virtuous than a federal Clean Energy Bank? On the surface, the idea sounds perfect: the federal government would set up a bank to support the development and implementation of clean energy technologies, especially those that private investors can’t or won’t fund. In fact,…………………….. there are a couple of teeny-tiny little problems with the concept as written in both the Senate energy bill and Inslee bill in the House. Kind of like there were teeny-tiny little problems with unregulated derivatives trading, or lack of federal oversight and regulation, or corporate greed, that brought our economy to its knees last October…………………..here’s the reality: Sen. Bingaman’s Clean Energy Bank bill would provide more concrete government backing for dirty energy technologies than anything any lobbyist for the nuclear power or coal industries could have dreamed of even a year ago…………………………..that there is no limit—none whatsoever—to the amount of money that can be directed to “clean energy” technologies by this proposed bank. $10 billion? No problem. $100 Billion? No problem? $1 Trillion? NO PROBLEM! This was confirmed in discussions yesterday between Senate Energy Committee staff and experts from Union of Concerned Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council…………………..Let’s take a look at what might be funded under this definition: New nuclear reactors, for one, as many as the industry might consider building, at whatever cost the industry thinks necessary……………………………..the nuclear power industry is the one most in need of this money. Why? Because there is no private capital available to support construction of new nuclear reactors.  It’s that simple—private investors simply won’t take that risk…………………………………private money won’t flow to nuclear power under any circumstances without the taxpayers taking the risk. The reality is that the nuclear industry has already asked for $122 Billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees (most of which would actually be taxpayer-funded as well, through the Federal Financing Bank). And that would cover only about 20 reactors.

US tells Benjamin Netanyahu: no raids on Iran nuke sites

US President Barack Obama has sent a message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Israel not surprise the US with a military operation against Iran, according to reports yesterday in Israel.

The Haaretz newspaper said the message was conveyed by a senior American official who met Mr Netanyahu, ministers and other senior officials in Israel.

Growth of Renewables Transforms Global Energy Picture REUTERS By Environment News Service May 13, 2009

In 2008 for the first time, more renewable energy than conventional power capacity was added in both the European Union and United States, showing a “fundamental transition” of the world’s energy markets towards renewable energy, finds a report released today by REN21, a global renewable energy policy network based in Paris.

Global power capacity from new renewable energy sources in 2008 was up 16 percent over the world’s 2007 capacity from new renewable sources, the REN21 Renewables Global Status Report shows.

“This fourth edition of REN21’s renewable energy report comes in the midst of an historic and global economic crisis,” says Mohamed El-Ashry, chairman of REN21.

“Although the future is unclear, there is much in the report for optimism,” said El-Ashry, an Egyptian national who from 1991 to 2003 served as the first CEO of the Global Environment Facility, which provides grants to developing countries for environmental projects………………………………….The report notes that in response to the financial crisis, several governments have directed economic stimulus funding towards the new green jobs the renewable energy sector can provide, including the U.S. package that will invest $150 billion over 10 years in renewable energy………………….

Feed-in tariffs were adopted at the national level in at least five countries for the first time in 2008 and early 2009, including Kenya, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, and Ukraine.

The report also shows that several hundred cities and local governments around the world are planning or implementing renewable energy policies and planning frameworks linked to carbon dioxide emissions reduction.