By Christina Macpherson, publisher of Antinuclear
While Australia’s nuclear lobby has gone a bit quiet , it’s still hard at work. Its best spokesman, Australia’s Minister For Nuclear Energy, Martin Ferguson is dutifully campaigning on the nuclear lobby’s goal of stopping the progress of renewable energy. Unfortunately, Ferguson has let them down a bit, stuffing up Australia’s Draft Energy White Paper. I bet Ferguson is glad that people’s minds are on the Christmas season, and not on the inadequacies and inaccuracies of this draft.
In New South Wales, “astroturf” bodies are condemning wind power. the Waubra foundation and Landscape Gardeners are the best known of these. Behind them are pseudo environmental bodies, the Australian [against] Environment Foundation, and the rightwing Institute of Public Affairs.
Another reason why the nuclear lobby is lying low about its products is the gloomy state of the uranium market. Uranium company’s shares have dropped continuously over the year - Energy Resources of Australia’s by 82.1%, Cameco’s by 50%. Overall, uranium companies dropped by 54% over the past 12 months: it’s not just because of Fukushima.
For Australia, the bleakest news must be that China is doing a rethink and a slow-down on its nuclear power project. Disastrous for Australia’s uranium companies who are pinning their last hopes on China!
Japan has announced this “cold shutdown” at Fukushima nuclear plant. This is a creative use indeed of the term, designed to make everyone think that Fukushima is OK now. Not so – indeed this is on of the most glaring lies that the nuclear lobby has come up with.
With all the lies going on – about Fukushima being OK, about ionising radiation being good for you, about wind power being bad for you - this calls for a special focus on NUCLEAR LIES – which will be the theme of next month’s Antinuclear page.
Ferguson got renewable and other energy costs wrong
[Draft Energy White Paper Gets Renewables Cost Wrong – Bloomberg , Energy Matters, 20 Dec 11]
It’s a good thing the Australian Government’s recent Energy White Paper was a draft, because it appears they will be busy rewriting it. According to an article on The Australian, analysis by Bloomberg reveals figures in the Draft Energy White Paper overestimated the cost of solar power threefold and wind power by 50 per cent. Bloomberg says the paper has also underestimated the price of geothermal energy.
Bloomberg points out, as others have done, that some analysts fail to understand just how fast the cost of renewables is dropping. While calculations may be based on figures just a few years old, such data is ancient history given the evolutionary pace in the renewables sector. The Draft Energy White Paper has been widely panned by those committed to a renewable energy future for Australia and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson’s apparent enthusiasm for nuclear power has been treated with suspicion.
Minister Ferguson may be given further pause for thought after revised estimates by the Japanese government for energy costs in the nation include a 50% increase in the estimated cost of nuclear power generation.
The increase in nuclear costs has been attributed to subsidies to nuclear-hosting communities and expenses related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, although whether the increase is sufficient to account for the unsettled costs of the disaster is being questioned by some.
While the Draft Energy White Paper played down the role of renewable energy, it also attempted to bolster the reputation of fossil fuel sources such as coal seam gas (CSG). Greens Senator and environmental lawyer Larissa Waters last week claimed the White Paper sang the praises of coal seam gas without recognising any of its devastating costs.
“This paper appears to have been written by someone living in a last-century bubble, with no consideration of the impacts of coal seam gas beyond the industry spin,” Senator Waters said. ”How can you possibly plan for Australia’s energy future without factoring in the true costs of this energy source – the costs to water, to land, the environment and the climate, as well as the economic impacts on other industries?”
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article...
The LOCK THE GATE Alliance is a national alliance of over 120 community, industry and environmental groups and over 1000 supporters concerned with the devastating impact that certain inadequately assessed and inadequately-regulated fossil fuel extraction industries are having on our short and long term physical, social, environmental and economic wellbeing. We are particularly concerned with the damage caused by the coal and coal seam gas (CSG) mining industries.
Comments
A few points here are not quite on the mark
A few points here are not quite on the mark.
"For Australia, the bleakest news must be that China is doing a rethink and a slow-down on its nuclear power project. Disastrous for Australia’s uranium companies who are pinning their last hopes on China!"
Is this really correct? I read recently that they had announced a new research initiative in molten-salt reactors. That's an already proven but completely unimplemented technology that is far cleaner and greener than the present fusion technology deployed. So why has it not been deployed? Because nuclear power has always been driven by a military aganda, not a clean green agenda. This has meant light water reacotrs and thier variants, becuase you can make these small for driving ships and especially submarines. The US is hanging onto the MSR technology and the Chinese will be developing it pretty much from scratch. But given the history of nuclear power technology and who's used it, and what for, I don't think there's any grounds for optimism that a clean green fission power technology will come out of this.
"Japan has announced this “cold shutdown” at Fukushima nuclear plant. This is a creative use indeed of the term, designed to make everyone think that Fukushima is OK now. Not so – indeed this is on of the most glaring lies that the nuclear lobby has come up with."
"Cold shutdown" is a nuclear engineering term. It is not a PR term invented to make the Fukashima plants seem safer than they are. In a rapid shutdown that stops the nuclear chain reaction, like in an emergency situation, the fuel still produces heat through normal, and unstoppable, radioactive decay. Perhaps as much as 10-15% of the heat in these old Fukashima-style reactors comes from nuclear decay, not nuclear fission. So in the short term, 10-15% of output is about as 'off' as these reactors get. CAVEAT, not 100% sure on that figure. But this is still enough heat to require cooling to prevent the fuel from melting. At Fukashima all the cooling systems were out of action because of the earthquake and tsunami, so this was the problem. Saying they have acheived cold shutdown just means that by one way or another, the residual heat being generated by the fuel rods has been decreased to the point that you don't need to cool the reactor any more so that there is no further risk of a meltdown of the core. But that is all it means. This will have been achieved mainly through withdrawing fuel rods from the core.
"about ionising radiation being good for you". I have never heard that one from the nuclear lobby. There is some reputatble research that says that there may be some immune system stimulation against cancer from limited exposure to UV radiation. Simmilar to how it's beneficial to the immune system to get some exposure to disease-causing bacteria. The possible limit is very small though. It's only really dark-skinned people who cover up all the time or live in really low sunlight places that don't get enough UV. It's not something most of us have to worry about at all.
As for ionising radiation from nuclear sources, I don't think that there is any research that suggests any possibility of beneficial exposure levels. It's possible to speculate on the possibility of an immune stimulation response similar to the possible response from UV radiation. But that really is drawing a long bow.
You can say that there are levels of exposure below which health effects on a population are not detectable. But that is true for any potentially disease causing agent. If the rate of caused disease is low enough, it hides in the noise. Then you just can't tell if it's there or not.
Most disease models for radiation exposure use a linear no-threshold model. But that's really just a matter of practicality. There may actually be a disease causing threshold, but we won't ever be able to tell.
reply to fizick
ABOUT CHINA: "Even before Fukushima, China’s government was asking tough questions of its nuclear growth ambitions. Late last year, its State Council Research Office issued a report outlining a number of concerns about the expansion program.
Since Fukushima, China’s government has pressed the pause button on nuclear expansion
the new generation AP1000 reactors that make up a large portion of the proposed nuclear capacity are not yet in operation anywhere in the world. It is an as yet unproven technology
There is reason for the people of China to be asking questions about the country’s ability to deliver large-scale, hi-tech projects as memories of July’s tragic Wenzhou high-speed rail crash, in which 40 passengers died, are still fresh in their minds….. Nuclear will remain a fringe source of power in China" SOURCE - China’s nuclear ambitions move to the slow lane, BY: PAUL GARVEY , The Australian, December 19, 2011
ABOUT COLD SHUTDOWN: Engineering term it may be, but the Japanese government and nuclear lobby have definitely used this term as P.R. And its use for Fukushima is doubtful anyway: "TEPCO has not been able to take direct measurements of the temperatures at the bottoms of the containment vessels, and the site is still too radioactive for the fuel rods’ status to be visually confirmed.
Radiation levels are too high for people to get close to the reactors, leaving engineers and scientists to make important judgments using computer simulations, scattered bits of data and guesses".
SOURCE: Skeptics cast doubt on Fukushima status, even as Japan declares nuclear reactors ‘stable’ Christian Science Monitor, By Arthur Bright, December 16, 2011
.. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/1216/Skeptics-cast-doubt...
ABOUT LOW LEVEL IONISING RADIATION BEING GOOD FOR YOU: "Professor Pamela Sykes, recently appointed to the University’s Strategic Professorship in Preventive Cancer Biology in the Flinders Centre for Cancer Prevention and Control. Sykes recently received wide publicity with her statements that the world overreacted to the Chernobyl nuclear accident. She minimised the ill effects of Chernobyl radiation and supported the view of low level radiation as beneficial to human health. For example, the idea that low dose radiation may prevent or delay the onset of cancer, and may treat diabetes and arteriosclerosis. Professor Sykes and her team are currently examining low dose radiation therapy in reducing or preventing prostate cancer, with a grant from the Prostate Council Foundation of Australia….
And some very high sounding persons – in Canada, USA, Japan, Iran, and yes, Australia – are on the “bless radiation” bandwagon. I mention just a few of them here:
Bobby R. Scott, Ph.D. Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque NM, USA, contractor for USA Department of Energy; John Leslie Redpath, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of California; Dr Kazuo Sakai, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI); Javad Mortazavi, Biology Division, Kyoto University of Education, Kyoto (previously of Iranian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (INRA))". SOURCE:
After Fukushima: the rise of nuclear radiation denialists, Independent Australia, by Noel Wauchope, 21 Aug 2011
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/health/after-fukushima-the-rise...
It hides in the noise and you can't tell if it's there or not
I am not familiar with Sykes comments about low dose, but it sounds as if she's saying that low dose, targeted, medically administered radiation can be beneficial, which is definately true. If she's saying that generic exposure to low dose can be beneficial, I don't believe there's any research to support that. That would be her doing the media hustings to support her own research, which happens a lot.
As for her comments about Chernobyl, I don't see how the world overreacted. It's not like there were mass shutdowns of nuclear reactors or anything. The Chernobyl accident was a confluence of many factors, in particualr the design of the reactor which has not been used in any other country. My take on it is that the general response from governemnts was 'we don't have those reactors, we don't have a problem'. I don't see how you can characterise that as an overreaction. You may be able to construct a case that some media overreacted, especially when fallout was detected in Western Europe.
Have just read the referenced article, it's going too far in using the term 'radiation denialism'. Denialism is the refusal to accept evidence. That's different to skepticism, which is refusing to believe until sufficient evidence is presented.
The crucial point is that there is no evidence to disprove the linear no-thrshold model. But then there's none to prove it either. It's a working hypothesis that is widely accepted, because we don't have anything better. It's essentially a statistical issue. Once the radiation-caused disease-rate drops below a ceratin level, it can't be distinguished or seperated out from the normal random fluctuation in disease rate. It hides in the noise and you can't tell if it's there or not. This is how a 'Safe Dose' is, or at least should be determined. It's safe if it does not cause a detectable increase in disease rate. There's no logical point in worrying about something that you can't tell if it's happening or not.
But on the positive side, our technology for detecting radiation is far more sensitive than our bodies are. So we can detect levels that are far far below what will cause detectable increases in disease rates. So we do have good tools for managing the risks. We just have to make sure that people with other agendas don't hold sway.
Dr Pam Sykes and low level radiation
No-one is here arguing against the benefits to the patient of medical radiation therapy, (though there are some concerns about nursing and other people nearby to the patient).
On its own, Pam Sykes' comments might appear innocent enough. However, there are two concerns about her comments.:
FIRST: Sykes' comments have already been used publicly by the uranium industry to bolster their public image, and allay any community concern about radioactive wastes. This news item appeared shortly after publicity about Syke's research (which was funded by USA Department of Energy)
“Addressing the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy in Adelaide, chair of the uranium company Toro Energy Erica Smith said the true cost of coal was not yet being paid for by the community. She also said that there was a strong argument that some radiation “was good for you” …..”
Adelaide Advertiser newspaper, August 13, 2011 page 7.
SECOND: I think that "radiation denialism" is the appropriate word for the program of Sykes and of Bruno Comby and the people that I have mentioned in my earlier comment. They are proponents of the quack theories of “radiation hormesis” and "radioadaptive response"
Their research is funded by nuclear agencies, in particular the USA Department of Energy. More information : http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/health/after-fukushima-the-rise...
Re: Nuclear lobby’s underground campaign against renewable ...
We all know that Bloomberg is pro Carbon tax and emissions trading to help their mates in the banking sector to create a new commodity trading scheme out of nothing.So the same can be said for the Pro renewable energy people they are just pushing their own wheel barrow to make a lot of money out of nothing (commodity trading) with a emissions trading scheme.
So who do you trust?
Lets forget about all the talk and look at the facts there are a lot of people around the world getting sick from wind farms they are leaving their houses at a cost to them what motives do these people have to do this?People are selling their houses at a loss when they move their health is restored considering most of them were Pro wind power to let these farms on their property in the first place what conspiracy makes them do this or are they just sick?.We now have people who can not sleep in their houses because of the wind farms and stay at relatives and friends house at night to get sleep then return in the day to go about their lives can you really see people doing this if they are not paid off?they are doing this for their Health.
Clean energy has to be a good thing weather you believe in man made Global warming or not.
No matter what spin you put on it people are getting sick since the wind farms arrived if you want to ignore this fact to push clean energy then you are no better than the nuclear lobby Groups.