As 'Peak Oil' Debate Heats Up
What Are The Energy Alternatives,
And Is Nuclear Power A Dead-End Mirage?
What Use Are More Nuclear Power Stations?
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/EnergyApr2006.htm
Will They Be Cost Effective, Is There Enough Uranium To Go Round,
And Will They Really Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Energy Update, April 2006

"Australia and China signed a nuclear safeguards deal on Monday that set the stage for huge uranium exports to Beijing for its power industry.... [Resources Minister] Macfarlane said China's predicted uranium consumption was estimated at 20,000 tonnes a year, while Australia currently produced only about 10,000 tonnes a year ... " Australia and China sign deal on uranium trade Reuters, 3 April 2006

"Cameco is the world's largest low-cost uranium producer accounting for 20% of the world's uranium production... Existing uranium supply is expected to fall short of demand over the next decade demonstrating a need for new primary mine production which will require higher sustained prices. Cameco is positioned to benefit from this shortfall through our control of more than 60% of known new uranium production." Cameco Corporation, July 2005 "Utilities are scrambling to buy uranium now because they are worried they might not be able to find enough uranium to keep their plants running." Ray Goldie, Salman Partners Calgary Herald, 27 November 2005

Cameco Corporation has four operating mines in Canada and the US. It has controlling ownership of the world's largest high-grade reserves and low-cost operations in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, with ore grades 100 times the world average. It is developing two new mines in Canada and Central Asia. But will that be enough and in time? The signs are not good.

'Do The Mathematics'
Uranium Supply

"Uranium is responsible for about 16 per cent of the world's [electricity] energy supply, but the amount of uranium available to fuel the world's 440 reactors, never mind those planned or under construction in emerging economies like India and China, is dwindling. This year, total global demand for uranium will be 178 million pounds, while the total supply from mines is 105.5 million pounds, says analyst Ray Goldie of Salman Partners. While part of the gap is being filled by recycled uranium and weapons uranium from Russia, totalling some 38 million pounds, that still leaves a shortfall of 35 million pounds this year, he says. 'Utilities are scrambling to buy uranium now because they are worried they might not be able to find enough uranium to keep their plants running,' Goldie says. Meanwhile, demand is growing at 1.1 per cent a year, he says, and there's not much new supply coming on stream.... According to Cameco Corp., the world's largest uranium producer, global demand is predicted to outpace existing supply over the next decade by more than 400 million pounds.... the fall of the Iron Curtain, particularly between the U.S. and Russia, saw the agreement to decommission nuclear weapons, and that enriched uranium was used to fuel existing reactors, so supply wasn't an issue, says Olson, now leader of the Northern Resources Development section of the Alberta Geological Survey. That cycle ended about two years ago, he says.... "
The Rush for Alberta's Uranium
Calgary Herald, 27 November 2005

"As we look to the future, presently known resources fall short of demand. ....Over-reliance on an ever diminishing secondary supply could lead to a major supply shortfall in the future. Complacency resulting from overconfidence in the merits of impressive (but unproved) undiscovered resource totals could have the same effect.... There is little flexibility to increase significantly the production capacities of the projects in Table LI. Table LII helps put the issue of production capacity and unutilized resources into perspective by showing projected output at ten-year intervals from the ten leading producing countries based on known resources.  Kazakhstan is a good example of why there is limited flexibility to increase production capacities beyond those shown in Table LII. ....  The real challenge for the future will be to find large, relatively high grade deposits that can be brought into production by at least 2025, so that their resources can be utilized within the remaining 25 years of the study period, thus avoiding the problem of unutilized resources. To meet this challenge exploration expenditures will have to begin to increase within the next five years to ensure that discoveries are made early enough to accommodate the long leadtime between discovery and production.  The message is clear: long lead times will be the rule rather than the exception, and exploration will have to accelerate to ensure a stable supply of relatively low cost uranium .....exploration must begin sufficiently early to ensure that discoveries can be made, environmental review and licensing procedures completed and projects developed in a timely manner."
ANALYSIS OF URANIUM SUPPLY TO 2050
International Atomic Energy Agency, May 2001

"To 2007 the [uranium] industry will be relatively stable, with between 17 and 19 production centres, all but one of which are currently in operation; two facilities are projected to shut down and one (Cigar Lake) is expected to start up. During this time the industry will be dominated by the large capacity operations in Canada and Australia.... Canada and Australia will continue to be the dominant producers, although in about 2016 their positions are projected to reverse with Australia becoming the leading producing country.... It is not practical to apply broadly historical discovery costs to future exploration requirements. The historical discovery costs benefited from low cost discoveries associated with surface exposures of uranium minerals or anomalous radioactivity. The recent discovery costs in Australia and Canada in part reflect the high cost of exploration in hostile environments, ranging from arctic conditions in Canada to high rainfall conditions in northern Australia. Future exploration will be more difficult as the remaining targets are either deeper, located in difficult terrain or inhospitable climates, or in geologic terrain where geophysical prospecting is very difficult..."
ANALYSIS OF URANIUM SUPPLY TO 2050
International Atomic Energy Agency, May 2001

Uranium Demand

"Australia and China signed a nuclear safeguards deal on Monday that set the stage for huge uranium exports to Beijing for its power industry, but Canberra said the trade was unlikely to start for some years. China is expected to build 40 to 50 nuclear power plants over the next 20 years and needs steady supplies of uranium.... Australia only has three operating uranium mines, owned by BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and General Atomics of the United States, and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane has said big uranium exports to China were unlikely to start until 2010. Macfarlane said China's predicted uranium consumption was estimated at 20,000 tonnes a year, while Australia currently produced only about 10,000 tonnes a year from its existing three mines. He said extra capacity would be needed to supply China... Some analysts say the safeguards deal with China will test Australia's skills at juggling growing ties with Asia's emerging power and its strong alliance with the United States, which is wary of Beijing's military and economic ambitions."
Australia and China sign deal on uranium trade
Reuters, 3 April 2006

".... Currently, the buyers of Australian uranium are the United States, with a 39 percent share, followed by Japan and the EU with 25 percent each, South Korea 10 percent and Canada 1 percent... China is already Australia's second-largest trading partner behind Japan.... China is the world's second-largest energy consumer after the United States and under its plan to diversify away from fossil fuels, aims to quadruple its nuclear energy production by 2020."
Howard: China uranium deal 'close'
CNN, 29 March 2006

Graph Source - International Atomic Energy Authority

China Alone Will Soon Have A Requirement For Uranium
Twice The Entire Current Australian Production

"Australia is years away from being able to supply China with the 20,000 tonnes of uranium it is expected to import each year by 2015. Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane, who will tomorrow brief Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Perth on Australia's trade, said it was unlikely there would be a new uranium mine in Australia before the end of this decade."
Decade to satisfy China's demand for our uranium
The Australian, 1 April 2006

"India could pay an exorbitant price and still fail to strengthen its energy security by accelerating the development of its nascent nuclear power industry with the help of the United States. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's pact with U.S. President George W. Bush last month, which promised to give India access to closely guarded nuclear fuels, was seen as the answer to the rapidly developing country's quest for unlimited energy supplies. But dissent has begun to emerge as uranium fuel prices surge and questions about the hidden costs of decommissioning, waste disposal and insurance arise. Then there is the specter of accidents and terrorist attacks on nuclear plants in one of the world's most densely populated countries. Some say by pushing for nuclear power with U.S. help, Singh's government could be bartering one form of bondage, that to Middle East oil and gas suppliers, with another -- that to a 45-nation club of nuclear fuel suppliers -- to secure its energy needs. ..... Chellaney adds that India's limited uranium deposits mean it will have to depend on imports from the club of 45 nuclear material suppliers for this critical nuclear fuel.'The global nuclear reactor and fuel business, controlled by a tiny cartel of state-guided firms, is the most politically regulated commerce in the world, with no sanctity of contract,' Chellaney said."
Questions emerge on India's nuclear power push
Reuters, 3 April 2006

"Sweden recently announced plans to become the world's first oil-free economy within 15 years, without building a new generation of nuclear power stations... "
India, China and the yellowcake supply problem
The Age (Australia), 31 March 2006

Will More Nuclear Power Really Reduce CO2 Emissions?
The Nuclear Power Mirage

Running Short
Where Will The Uranium Come From?

"The largest deposits of uranium are found in Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada.
High-grade deposits are only found in Canada. The following illustration shows known conventional resources of uranium."
Cameco Corporation, 25 April 2005

Map Source: Uranium 2003: Resources, Production and Demand, OECD/IAEA.
Based on known conventional resources which consist of reasonably assured resources
plus category 1 estimated additional resources at costs less than $80(US) per kilogram U, as at January 1, 2003

Then - 1998/2001

"World uranium production has been below uranium requirements since 1990. Only about 60% of total world requirements for nuclear reactors - about 63,800 tonnes-uranium (tU) - was met by production in 1997. This undersupply situation has caused a cumulative drawdown of world inventories of about 160,000 tU since 1990. (See graphs.) The drawdown is expected to continue at more than 20,000 tU in 1998. The rapid drawdown has depleted the civilian uranium stockpile to a level where some market analysts concluded that there are only limited amounts of excess material available for sale.... Analysis of the availability of supplemental uranium supplies to meet reactor demand leads to the conclusion that uranium production will continue as the predominant source of nuclear fuel. Therefore, the question arises as to the adequacy of both uranium resources and production capacity to meet demand on a timely basis.... In 2005, the estimated production is about 52,500 tU, about 44% higher than the 1996 level. To produce this amount, the production capability has to increase between 22% and 26% from the existing level of 43,000 tU. Under this projection, only seven years remain to plan, license, construct and bring uranium projects into production. Additional capacity will be required to produce about 61,500 tU/year by 2020, as well as to replace capacity that closes as resources are depleted. Based on a projected, modest 1% annual growth rate, world uranium requirements are estimated to grow from 61 500 tU in 1997 to 75 000 tU in 2020. Cumulative demand over the period is 1.638 million tU. In 1996, production met about 60% of world requirements, with most of the balance coming from inventory. This source, which has been supplying an average of about 23,000 tU per year since 1992, is coming to an end. With the end of excess inventory in sight, uranium supplies from other sources will have to increase to meet requirements. What supply sources are available to meet requirements through 2020? Uranium mine production will continue to be the primary source of supply, meeting 76% to 78% of cumulative requirements through 2020. Alternative sources supplying the balance, in order of relative importance, are LEU blended from HEU released from weapons programmes (11% to 13%), reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (6%), and excess inventory (5%). The contribution of US government and other Russian strategic stockpiles is not known at this time. To meet these projected uranium requirements, all sources of supply will have to increase as planned. Otherwise, shortages could result early in the next century from one or more types of producers."
BALANCING NEEDS
Global Trends in Uranium Production and Demand
International Atomic Energy Authority Bulletin, Volume 4, No 1: March 1998

"As we look to the future, presently known resources fall short of demand. However, if significant and timely exploration is conducted and sufficient resources are discovered, there could be an adequate supply of lower cost uranium to satisfy demand. Nevertheless, if the exploration effort is insufficient, or is not implemented in a timely manner, it will become necessary to rely on very high cost conventional or unconventional resources to meet demand as the lower cost known resources are exhausted. Therefore, to ensure maximum utilization of newly discovered resources, exploration must begin relatively soon. Lead times to bring major projects into operation are typically between eight and ten years from discovery to start of production. To this total, five or more years must be added for exploration and discovery and for the potential of completing even longer and more expensive environmental reviews. Therefore it would most likely be no earlier than 2015 or 2020 before production could begin from resources discovered during exploration started in 2000. On the other hand, longer delays will reduce the likelihood that the entire resource base of a large new project will be depleted by 2050. Put another way, discovery of a major deposit in 2030 will have much less impact on alleviating the projected shortfall between production and demand than will a project that is discovered in 2005. Timely exploration is the best solution for ensuring the availability of low cost uranium resources to eliminate the projected deficits between production and market based production requirements. Over-reliance on an ever diminishing secondary supply could lead to a major supply shortfall in the future. Complacency resulting from overconfidence in the merits of impressive (but unproved) undiscovered resource totals could have the same effect.... As shown in Table XLII, known resources (RAR + EAR-I) nearly cover the middle demand case market based production requirements, with a deficit of only 146 060 t U. With the addition of EAR-II there is actually a 2 million t U surplus of available resources compared to requirements. The problem lies in utilizing these resources within the time frame of the study. As a result of nearly 700 000 t U not being produced by the end of the study period, the deficit between production derived from known resources and market based production requirements is projected to be 844 500 t U, or nearly six times the deficit between resources and requirements. Similarly, with the addition of EAR-II, a 2 million t U surplus of resources compared to requirements becomes a 306 750 t U deficit compared to production, with nearly 2.4 million t U of projected unutilized resources. As would be expected, with the accelerated production schedules required to meet the high demand case, the deficits between production and requirements are larger. However, the accelerated schedules provide for more efficient utilization of resources, so the problem of under-utilization of resources actually diminishes in the high demand case. Otherwise, the deficits in the high demand case would be even larger than those projected in Table XLII.... whether market conditions will support the level of exploration needed to convert SR [speculative resources] into viable resources in a timely manner to meet demand remains to be seen.... A recurring theme throughout the preceding analyses has been the potential that significant resources willnot be utilized prior to the end of the study period, resulting in a shortfall in production compared to production requirements. As noted in Table XLII, known resources come within 146 060 t U of satisfying market based production requirements for the middle demand case. However, because nearly 700 000 t U of available resources will not be utilized by 2050, the deficit between cumulative production and market based production requirements is projected to total 844 500 t U, or nearly six times the projected shortfall between available resources and requirements... There is little flexibility to increase significantly the production capacities of the projects in Table LI. Table LII helps put the issue of production capacity and unutilized resources into perspective by showing projected output at ten-year intervals from the ten leading producing countries based on known resources.  Kazakhstan is a good example of why there is limited flexibility to increase production capacities beyond those shown in Table LII. Kazakhstan’s economic ISL production is market based production (i.e. cost justified production) that is incremental to the ISL output projected in the CIS production category. Combining the two categories means that annual ISL output from Kazakhstan could reach 4100 t U by 2030 (assuming 1100 t U from conventional operations), a fourfold increase over projected 2000 output. Production at Kokchetav, another market based production project, is limited as much by mining capacity as by the capacity of the Stepnogorsk mill. Mill feed will come from labour intensive underground mines, each with limited capacity. Because of its large resource base, total production in Kazakhstan is projected to increase to about 5200 t U in 2030 and to 11.2 in 2050, or between 5 and 10 times its projected output in 2000. There is no certainty that Kazakhstan will be able to support this magnitude of increase, and further production capacity increases will only add to the uncertainty.... As shown in Table XLII, there is a projected shortfall of 2.39 million t U between market based production requirements and available known resources in the high demand case... The projected deficit between known resources and market based production requirements in the middle demand case is only 146 060 t U, so exploration expenditure requirements will be considerably less. However, because of unutilized resources, there is a projected deficit between requirements and production derived from known resources of 844 500 t U, which will only be reduced by early discoveries that are large enough to support high production capacities at low cost.  The real challenge for the future will be to find large, relatively high grade deposits that can be brought into production by at least 2025, so that their resources can be utilized within the remaining 25 years of the study period, thus avoiding the problem of unutilized resources. To meet this challenge exploration expenditures will have to begin to increase within the next five years to ensure that discoveries are made early enough to accommodate the long leadtime between discovery and production.  The message is clear: long lead times will be the rule rather than the exception, and exploration will have to accelerate to ensure a stable supply of relatively low cost uranium. In other words, the exploration expenditure requirements shown in Table LV cannot be evenly spread throughout the 50 year study period. They need to come early enough that the resulting discoveries can contribute to production requirements in a timely manner... Projected increases in market price are based on the year in which projects in the next highest cost category will be needed to satisfy market based production requirements. These projections may not, however, accommodate the fact that because of unutilized resources, deficits between production from RAR through to EAR-II and production requirements are forecast in both the middle and high demand cases. As noted in Section 5.2, SR must be converted to discoveries early enough in the study period to ensure that their resources will be fully utilized by 2050. Therefore exploration must begin sufficiently early to ensure that discoveries can be made, environmental review and licensing procedures completed and projects developed in a timely manner."
ANALYSIS OF URANIUM SUPPLY TO 2050
International Atomic Energy Agency, May 2001

Now - 2005/6 (Supply)

"Uranium's spot price has roared to $34.25 US per pound from $20.20 last November. That's nearly five times from the $7.10 fetched five years ago. Running uranium up the charts is a global supply gap that's anticipated to widen as nuclear energy regains prominence..... Uranium is responsible for about 16 per cent of the world's [electricity] energy supply, but the amount of uranium available to fuel the world's 440 reactors, never mind those planned or under construction in emerging economies like India and China, is dwindling. This year, total global demand for uranium will be 178 million pounds, while the total supply from mines is 105.5 million pounds, says analyst Ray Goldie of Salman Partners. While part of the gap is being filled by recycled uranium and weapons uranium from Russia, totalling some 38 million pounds, that still leaves a shortfall of 35 million pounds this year, he says. 'Utilities are scrambling to buy uranium now because they are worried they might not be able to find enough uranium to keep their plants running,' Goldie says. Meanwhile, demand is growing at 1.1 per cent a year, he says, and there's not much new supply coming on stream. Currently, about 15 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from nuclear power. According to Cameco Corp., the world's largest uranium producer, global demand is predicted to outpace existing supply over the next decade by more than 400 million pounds.... Canada is the world's largest producer of uranium. In 2004, Canada produced 13,676 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate - about 30 per cent of total world production - at a value of about $800 million.High-grade uranium has been mined from the Athabasca Basin in Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan for decades. While most of these ore deposits are highly radioactive and require remote-controlled equipment and other safeguards to be mined, sandstone-hosted uranium deposits tend to be small and of low grades and can be mined differently..... Cogema's uranium mines in Northern Saskatchewan have grades averaging 20 to 25 per cent. Southern Alberta isn't on their radar.... Helping to rekindle interest [in Alberta] is an old Alberta Geological Survey report published in 1994 highlighting the province's mineral potential. Compiled by Reg Olson and others, including members of the AGS, the report contained an old exploration report that identified a 1981 uranium 'occurrence' along the Waterton River, meaning there are signs uranium could be in an area as opposed to a deposit. According to the old report, the occurrence was from a rock sample with a uranium grade of 0.2 per cent. As things turned out, it didn't much matter. All exploration in Southern Alberta was dropped before any companies could drill or conduct further exploration as nuclear power fell into disfavour following the Three Mile Island incident in the U.S. and, in 1986, Chernobyl in Russia. At the same time, the fall of the Iron Curtain, particularly between the U.S. and Russia, saw the agreement to decommission nuclear weapons, and that enriched uranium was used to fuel existing reactors, so supply wasn't an issue, says Olson, now leader of the Northern Resources Development section of the Alberta Geological Survey. That cycle ended about two years ago, he says.... Firestone is now in the early stages of prospecting and exploring 48,000 hectares staked in the Fort Macleod and Cardston areas. Firestone president Lori Walton makes no bones about the high risk nature of the venture. The chances of actually finding an economic deposit of sandstone-hosted uranium - mine company speak for the motherlode - are pretty well one in 2,000, she says. Any mining activity, if a deposit is found, would be at least five to 10 years down the road, given the exploration and lengthy federal and provincial regulatory processes required before starting a uranium mine.... Cameco has used ISL [in situ leaching] mining methods to mine uranium at its Crow Butte mine in Nebraska and the Smith Ranch-Highland mine in Wyoming since the 1980s. In 2004, Crow Butte produced 0.8 million pounds of uranium and employed 40 people, while the Smith Ranch-Highland property produced 1.5 million pounds and employed 80 people, says Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn. Production from the two ISL properties in the U.S. represents about 11 per cent of Cameco's overall production, he says. It's tough to measure the economic impact of the ISL mines. 'In situ leach operations tend to be smaller,' Krahn says. 'The deposits in Northern Saskatchewan are exceptional and world class, so they are obviously at a substantially higher grade and really a whole different ball of wax.'"
The Rush for Alberta's Uranium
Calgary Herald, 27 November 2005

Now - 2005/6 (Demand)

China

"An agreement to sell Australian uranium to China could be concluded during a visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to Canberra in the next week, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Tuesday. Wen is due to arrive in Australia on Saturday, April 1 and will leave on Tuesday April 4. Howard told a news conference in Canberra the two sides were 'making good progress' in negotiating a nuclear energy deal.... Australia holds about 40 percent of the world's known low-cost uranium deposits and agreed in principle during a visit by Howard to China in April last year to work on a nuclear safeguards agreement that would permit sales of uranium to China for peaceful purposes.... Currently, the buyers of Australian uranium are the United States, with a 39 percent share, followed by Japan and the EU with 25 percent each, South Korea 10 percent and Canada 1 percent... China is already Australia's second-largest trading partner behind Japan.... China is the world's second-largest energy consumer after the United States and under its plan to diversify away from fossil fuels, aims to quadruple its nuclear energy production by 2020."
Howard: China uranium deal 'close'
CNN, 29 March 2006

"Australia, the world's second- biggest uranium exporter, will ship the nuclear fuel to China within four years after the two nations sign an agreement today, Australian Resource Minister Ian Macfarlane said. 'China and Australia will today sign a safeguard agreement on the use of uranium and that means uranium can be sold to China on the basis that it will be used only for civilian purposes,'' Macfarlane told Australian Broadcasting Corp. in a radio interview today. 'Realistically, we're two to three years away, perhaps even four years.' Macfarlane said his office would give final approval for companies to ship the fuel to China, which plans to boost nuclear energy fourfold by 2020. Australia has 41 percent of global reserves, though it only meets 21 percent demand partly because of mining bans. Australian Prime Minister John Howard is due to meet Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Canberra today to sign the agreement. Australia wants to ensure the uranium won't be used for military purposes. Uranium prices have increased four-fold in the past three years. 'Australia has the opportunity to export uranium under the most rigid and stringent export arrangements in the world,' Macfarlane said. 'It's unlikely that Australian sales to China are likely to occur in the next two years.' The accord may boost sales at Rio Tinto Group's Energy Resources of Australia Ltd., the nation's largest exporter of uranium, and BHP Billiton, whose Olympic Dam contains the world's biggest-known uranium reserves. 'Australia is already fully committed for uranium production through until about 2008, bearing in mind that the signing of this agreement is really only the start of the process,' Macfarlane said. 'We need to move forward, there needs to be commercial negotiations between companies in Australia that are producing uranium and companies in China that wish to purchase it.' Premier Wen wants to establish a price setting mechanism as part of the agreement, the Australian Financial Review reported, citing Premier Wen's comments to businesses executives in Perth yesterday. The comments raised fears of a repeat of the damaging spat between China and its trading partners over iron ore prices, the newspaper reported. Macfarlane played down the comments, saying prices would be set as part of normal commercial arrangements, it said. Macfarlane's Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources will then license agreements between companies, he said, and the mines would need to be developed."
Australia to Ship Uranium to China Within Four Years
Bloomberg, 3 April 2006

"China said on Sunday it would respect international safeguards surrounding the sale of uranium from Australia but called for a pricing mechanism to guarantee a stable supply of the nuclear fuel.The statements by Wen Jiabao, Chinese prime minister, came ahead of an agreement between China and Australia over uranium supplies for peaceful use, expected to be signed by Mr Wen and John Howard, his Australian counterpart, in Canberra on Monday. Mr Wen’s comments suggested, however, that the two countries could face another tense negotiation over the price of an important raw material, on top of the current imbroglio over iron ore. Two Australian mining companies, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, together with Brazil’s CVRD, are negotiating the price of iron ore for this year with Chinese and other steel mills. At one stage the Chinese government threatened to block imports of iron ore if the mining companies insisted on increasing prices, causing an angry reaction from Canberra. Chinese officials have since said that the government will not interfere in the talks. The Chinese government has been studying ways to try to influence the cost of raw materials, many of which have seen steep price rises in recent years due to growing Chinese demand...Ian Macfarlane, Australia’s resources minister, said that there had been no discussions yet about pricing and the agreement to be signed concerned only safeguards. China is searching for new supplies of uranium as part of its strategy to diversify energy supplies away from coal-fired power stations. By 2020, China hopes to increase four-fold the amount of nuclear energy it produces. The agreement has prompted criticism in Australia from environmental groups about increased mining and from some politicians who have questioned whether China would abide by the terms of the deal. Mr Howard said the agreement was similar to those signed with 35 other countries over uranium supply which prohibit military use or sale to a third party. Australia has around 40 per cent of the world’s uranium deposits. However, mining production will have to be expanded to meet part of the 20,000 tonnes a year of uranium China is expected to need."
Beijing makes commitment on uranium safeguards
Financial Times, 2 April 2006

"Today's signing of a safeguards agreement between the two countries was only the start of a protracted process, Mr Macfarlane said. 'It's unlikely that Chinese uptake of Australian uranium will occur in the next two years,' he told ABC radio. 'Australia is already fully committed in terms of uranium production through until about 2008, bearing in mind that the signing of this agreement means that this is really only the start of the process. From there we need to move forward. 'There needs to be commercial negotiations between companies in Australia producing uranium and those companies in China that wish to purchase that. 'That then leads to the licensing process which is done through my department. And finally the mines have to be developed to produce the uranium. 'Realistically in terms of any significant quantity we are probably looking at some time past 2010.' The safeguards agreement will be signed today in Canberra by visiting Chinese premier Wen Jiabao."
No uranium to China 'until 2010'
News (Australia), 3 April 2006

Taiwan Too

"Two Australian mining companies have quietly signed contracts for the supply of uranium to China's arch-rival... In the past Australia rebuffed pressure from Taiwan to sell it uranium, fearing a hostile reaction from China. Taiwanese officials said the deal had been signed by the electricity producer Taipower with BHP Billiton and ERA during the past 12 months.... An ERA spokeswoman said last night that as yet no uranium had been shipped to Taiwan because all available production had already been pre-sold to other customers.....The Taiwanese uranium deals with Australia have escaped public attention even though they constitute a potential precedent for any supply of Australian uranium to India. 'We do not make the signing of individual contracts public,' an ERA spokeswoman told the Herald yesterday."
Now Taiwan is buying our uranium
Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 2006

It's Getting Crowded Out There
India Is Also Now Hunting For Uranium On The International Market

"The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is contemplating outsourcing uranium exploration and mining under the ambit of Atomic Energy Act, Anil Kakodkar, chairman of atomic energy commission and DAE secretary said....The Indo-US nuclear ties will open up avenues for the uranium industry and would open access to international uranium market for India. This would also enable the best utilisation of India's uranium resources and would add value to the available resources,'  he said. The nuclear-energy programme of India was based on the fact that uranium resources in the country were modest as compared to others in the world, Kakodkar said. He was speaking at a international technical meeting on 'Aerial and ground geophysical techniques for uranium exploration and advanced mining and milling methods and equipment' under the aegis of International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, in the uranium township of Jadugora near Jamshedpur recently.....Chaitanyamoy Ganguly, section head of the nuclear fuel cycle and materials section, said around 16 per cent of the electricity in the world came from nuclear power. India and china is the largest market for nuclear power. There was a wide gap between the demand and supply of uranium in the world; he said. Secondary supplies, which came from the inventories of the past, would be depleted within 15 years from now. Ganguly stressed the need to increase the primary production of uranium to bridge the wide demand-supply gap. Hosted by Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL) at Jadugora, about 60 high-level delegates that included 20 eminent scientists from 12 different countries including Canada, Australia, France, China, Egypt, Turkey, Russia and Argentina and 40 Indian scientists and engineers participated in the technical sessions."
Uranium mining may be opened up
Press Trust of India, 30 March 2006

"Indian PM Manmohan Singh has pressed Australia to lift its ban on selling uranium to India. Mr Singh sought the lifting of the ban in the presence in Delhi of his Australian counterpart, John Howard.... India is one of the world's fastest growing economies and Mr Howard is the third world leader to visit the country in as many weeks, following President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac. The Indian economy is expanding at around 8% a year, and this steady economic growth has made India an attractive trade partner, writes the BBC's Jyotsna Singh."
India PM seeks Australian uranium
BBC Online, 6 March 2006

"India could pay an exorbitant price and still fail to strengthen its energy security by accelerating the development of its nascent nuclear power industry with the help of the United States. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's pact with U.S. President George W. Bush last month, which promised to give India access to closely guarded nuclear fuels, was seen as the answer to the rapidly developing country's quest for unlimited energy supplies. But dissent has begun to emerge as uranium fuel prices surge and questions about the hidden costs of decommissioning, waste disposal and insurance arise. Then there is the specter of accidents and terrorist attacks on nuclear plants in one of the world's most densely populated countries. Some say by pushing for nuclear power with U.S. help, Singh's government could be bartering one form of bondage, that to Middle East oil and gas suppliers, with another -- that to a 45-nation club of nuclear fuel suppliers -- to secure its energy needs. 'The deal will help revive the decrepit U.S. nuclear power industry but slow down India's own search for energy security,' said Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. 'Yet those pushing the deal fight shy of discussing the economics of generating electricity from high-priced imported reactors dependent on imported fuel. Creating a new Indian dependency on imports is not a path to energy security.... Chellaney adds that India's limited uranium deposits mean it will have to depend on imports from the club of 45 nuclear material suppliers for this critical nuclear fuel.'The global nuclear reactor and fuel business, controlled by a tiny cartel of state-guided firms, is the most politically regulated commerce in the world, with no sanctity of contract,' Chellaney said."
Questions emerge on India's nuclear power push
Reuters, 3 April 2006

Even Before These Developments The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Was Quietly Sweating Over Forward Uranium Supplies
It Was Only Able To Give Assurances About 'Immediate' Supplies
And To Encourage A Search For 'More Obscure' Uranium Deposits

"The highlights of the Symposium were the keynote lecture titled 'The Nuclear Renaissance – Opportunities and Challenges' by Mr. Gerald Grandey, President and CEO of Cameco Corporation (largest uranium producer in the world), 'Invited Talks' by leading experts from the uranium industry and the panel discussion on 'How to Fill the Gap' between uranium demand and supply.... The consensus of this Symposium was that uranium resources, including both primary and secondary supplies, are adequate to meet the immediate projected demand of uranium to fuel the expanding nuclear power programme. However, the gap between uranium in the ground and yellow-cake (uranium concentrate) in the can has to be narrowed. Airborne and ground exploration based on new geophysical techniques could pave the way for discovering deep and more obscure uranium deposits that do not have a surface expression. New mines and mills are required to be opened. Expansion of In-Situ Leaching (ISL) activities, development of smaller but more efficient equipment to perform better in deep underground mining, radiometric ore scanning and sorting, high pressure filter for efficient solid/liquid separation are some of the technological pathways that are required to be followed to ensure timely delivery of uranium concentrate to the market place."
Inernational Symposium on Uranium Production & Raw Materials for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle:
Supply and Demand, Economics, the Environment and Energy Security
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 20-24 June 2005

'Power Politics'
The Dash For The World's Uranium

Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactors - A Speculative Hope Far Into The Future
As UK Cost Of Nuclear Decommissioning Soars

The Fast Breeder Nuclear Hope

"The Prime Minister is quite right to promote high technology as the way ahead to combat global warming and climate change (report, Mar 29). We live in a technology dominated society and the solutions offered by various green groups who suggest that improved energy efficiency and renewables are all that is needed to deliver a low-carbon dioxide, sustainable-energy future do not stand up to any kind of engineering scrutiny..... The bulk of future electricity supply will have to rely more and more on nuclear power from new generation stations which will include breeder reactors and possibly fusion reactors as we move through the century, quadrupling our demand for electricty."
Professor Ian Fells, Newcastle upon Tyne
London Times, 31 March 2006

The Fast Breeder Nuclear Reality

"Dounreay was opened in 1955 as the centre for the UK's fast-breeder reactor programme fuelled by plutonium. Based near Thurso on the north coast of Scotland, it was chosen as a nuclear site because of its isolated position away from large concentrations of people. The site is owned by the Department of Trade and Industry and run by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) which is also responsible for other nuclear power stations in Britain. The Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) was shut down in the late 1970s and replaced with the larger Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR). This in turn was closed in 1994, along with the Dounreay Materials Test Reactor, when the British government decided to phase out fast-reactor development."
Dounreay: 'Waste dump for the world'
BBC Online, 22 April 1998

"50 years ago a remote farming and fishing community [in Dounreay] on Scotland's north coast was chosen to be the site for the most advanced nuclear reactor in the world. Dr Alice Roberts visits the site of Dounreay to look at the past, present and most importantly the future of this historic plant. In the 1950s the location was chosen precisely because of its isolated position, perched right on the edge of the British Isles. This was to be the world's first electricity-producing fast breeder reactor and would pioneer the development of fast breeder technology. The community was keen for the employment and investment the station would bring, and the population subsequently boomed from 3,000 to 9,000. But as the years passed, the optimism of the post-cold-war era faded and was replaced with concerns about the plant's safety. The programme's aim of generating electricity that was too cheap to be metered was never attained. Now the funding for the fast breeder reactor programme has been withdrawn and the massive decommissioning programme has begun. The site and the community that surrounds it now finds itself pioneering decommissioning of a nuclear research site. It will take 30 years and around Ł2.7 billion to make the Dounreay site safe again."
Life On The Coast - Cape Wrath to Orkney
BBC 2, 11 August 2005

"Controversy also rages over the economic sustainability of nuclear power. In Britain, nuclear power stations proved to be approximately 3.5 times more expensive to build than the equivalent coal-powered station, putting to rest earlier predictions of 'electricity too cheap to meter'. Even now, every new nuclear power station built requires Ł2 billion of public subsidies. A corollary of this is that most countries' fast-breeder reactor plans have been scrapped, as they have proved prohibitively expensive to build. The dream of unlimited nuclear power has proved to be economically unsustainable....Dounreay was at the forefront of fast reactor development, but is now being used to develop decommissioning methods."
Smashing the atom
The Science Museum, 2004

"At a time when more countries are facing rising energy demands and environmental challenges, the role that nuclear power can play in the safe and clean production of electricity is receiving closer attention. At the same time, changing conditions are affecting the plans of the world's nuclear power industries and redefining the technology's future development..... Although the goal of sustainable nuclear energy production can be achieved most effectively by fast-breeder reactors, their introduction may not be seen in the competitive electricity market until after the year 2030, when they could account for only about one to two percent of projected nuclear energy capacity."
CHANGING GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Trends into the Next Century
International Atomic Energy Authority Bulletin, Volume 4, No 1: March 1998

"Fast-breeder reactors like [Japan's] Monju are supposed to be able to produce more plutonium than they consume, and the government initially expected to get the technology into practical use in the 1970s. The government has spent more than 800 billion yen on the reactor, Japan's largest scientific and technological project. Monju reached criticality for the first time in 1994, but a massive sodium coolant leak in December 1995 triggered a claim that the accident resulted from shortcomings in the facility's safety assessment before it was built. The Nagoya High Court's Kanazawa branch supported that claim by 32 plaintiffs, mostly residents living near the facility, who sought to nullify the approval to build the reactor. The Supreme Court's May 30 ruling overturned that decision. Since the accident, mishaps at other nuclear plants and coverups have followed. In addition, the electricity market has been liberalized, sending power companies unable to adapt quickly into a tight financial corner. Fast-breeder reactors use costly plutonium-uranium mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel, and the target year for putting the reactor technology to commercial use was put off to 2010, and then to 2030. "The largest reason for the delayed target is economic efficiency,' an official at the Atomic Energy Commission said. 'The initial forecast proved wrong, and uranium prices have long been stable. Instead of reusing less economical plutonium, it's profitable to use the present light-water reactors as long as possible.' The Atomic Energy Commission, which works out long-term nuclear power plans, decided this year to begin a full-scale study in 2015 on the commercial use of fast-breeder reactors, with Monju's performance as a model. However, precise blueprints are nowhere in sight, and introduction of a reactor for practical use has been further delayed, 'until about 2050.'"
Monju's fast-breeder technology remains far from practical
Japan Times, 9 June 2005

"The Agency for Natural Resources and Energy has decided to build a new fast-breeder reactor by around 2030, a plan that will cost about 1 trillion yen. The new reactor will replace the prototype Monju fast-breeder reactor, which has been out of operation for the past decade following a sodium leak accident in 1995 and has come under criticism over safety issues and its price tag of 800 billion yen. The agency's proposal was presented Monday to a nuclear energy subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy.... A fast-breeder reactor, fueled by a combination of extracted plutonium and uranium, is central to the nuclear fuel cycle. Although the Japan Atomic Energy Agency has recently started preparing Monju with an eye toward resuming full operations, officials of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy have decided to put a shelf life of about 10 years on the facility. They said Monju had been dwarfed by recent nuclear reactors, reducing its economic viability. They added that the Monju reactor would only be used for about a decade in order to develop technology relating to the handling of sodium. If Monju operations are resumed, annual operating expenses are expected to reach about 15 billion yen. The post-Monju fast-breeder reactor would be far more technologically advanced as well as efficient, officials said. It would also be used as a model reactor for about a decade and then commercialized to replace light water reactors from about 2050."
New fast-breeder reactor to replace prototype Monju
The Asahi Shimbun (Japan), 27 December 2005

"The limitations on construction have become more severe. Uranium reserves estimated at a maximum 60 years refer to the number of plants currently in operation. With twice the number, the available time periods would inevitably be cut in half. The expansion calculated by the IAEA could not be realised without an immediate transition to the fast breeders for extending the uranium reserves. The history of the breeder reactors is a history of fiascos. Like the Russian reactor, the British reactor achieved an operating capacity of 15 percent before its shutdown in 1992. The French Super Phoenix (1,200 megawatts) attained 7 percent and cost 10 billion euros. The much smaller Japanese breeder (300 megawatts) cost 5 billion euros and experiences regular operating problems. Making these reactors fit for operation, if that were to prove possible, would require incalculably greater add-on costs. This path of development would be prohibitive without continued or increased public expenditures. The thousand-year nuclear waste question remains an unresolved problem with unforeseeable permanent costs."
Dr Hermann Scheer, member of the German Bundestag
No Need For Nukes
The Socialist Review, December 2005

The Decommisioning Fiasco

"The cost of decommissioning Britain's nuclear power plants has risen to Ł56 billion - Ł12 billion more than previously thought, it was announced yesterday. The taxpayer will have to pick up most of the bill as the Ł500 million-a-year income from the Magnox power stations will dry up when the last state-owned plant closes in 2010, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said. The rise in costs is being seen by environmentalists as a blow to Tony Blair's proposal to replace Britain's existing power stations, which is being examined along with other ways of generating electricity in the future.The new estimated costs were published by the authority, set up last year to handle the breaking up and cleaning of 20 civil nuclear sites including Sellafield and Dounreay, as the Government confirmed it was to sell off British Nuclear Group, switching control of the Sellafield site to the private sector. Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the authority, said: 'These are the best estimates that responsible engineers can come up with.' Reasons for the escalating costs of decommissioning included an allowance of Ł7.5 billion for soil contamination at nuclear sites. .... The first contract for decommissioning will be awarded next year at the low-level nuclear waste repository at Drigg, near Sellafield, Cumbria. Berkeley, Bradwell, Hinkley Point A, Dungeness A and Sizewell A will have contracts awarded in 2008. Public consultations indicated that people around some power stations, such as Wylfa on Anglesey, would be happy to have a new nuclear power station. But they ruled out Dungeness, in Kent, as the site of any future nuclear station, because of accelerating coastal erosion, and also Trawsfynydd, in the Snowdonia National Park. All the plans for decommissioning rely on the building of a new repository for lower level nuclear waste, a report on which is due this summer. It should take 75 years to decommission Sellafield, the site with the highest level of contamination. The Ł5 billion decommissioning contract will be the main income any buyer of the plant can expect. Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth, said: 'We believe nuclear power cannot answer the challenge of climate change because new power stations are going to take so long to get built and because there are other things we could do - such as solar, micro wind and other forms of microgeneration - which would deliver much bigger gains sooner.'"
Cost of dismantling nuclear plants soars by Ł12 billion
Daily Telegraph, 31 March 2006

Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire
Oil Wars To Be Followed By Uranium Wars?

"[The] Chinese government has decided to increase its installed capacity of nuclear power to 40 million kW by the year 2020. Zhang Guobao,deputy director of the State Development and Reform Commission said at a press conference organized by the Information Office of the State Council in Beijing on Tuesday, China’s current installed nuclear power capacity takes up less than 2 percent of the total installed power generation capacity compared with the world average of 17 percent and China plans to increase its for 4 percent of the country's total installed capacity by 2020."
China to increase nuclear power to 40 million kW
Asian Tribune, 15 September 2005

"This comfortable world, as we have known it, is coming to a crucial turning point. And energy, specifically the cost and security of energy supply, lies at the apex of this turning point.... So, while some of the problems, such as Kyoto, have had much attention, others, such as the long-term security of energy supply upon which our prosperity has depended, have been neglected. Now, suddenly, new risks are appearing on the horizon. There are new dangers that could alter our quality of life over the next 20 years. They could put at risk the comfortable social order we have created for ourselves, to which most of the rest of the world has been conditioned to aspire. A key factor in the changing balances of world energy is Russia.... So perhaps we should heed some distant storm warnings. Perhaps we should be concerned when Russia and China seem to be coming to recognise the scale of opportunity that a strategic partnership can offer them in terms of energy security and global influence? And when the US Department of Energy forecasts that, by 2020, the annual shortfall in Opec oil production, against global demand, will exceed the biggest-ever production of Saudi Arabia, the traditional swing producer. And when we expect Canadian gas exports to the US to dwindle and shortly cease because of the need for energy for the processing of tar sands.... What we believe to have been the definitive triumph of the Western democratic way over the sterile misery of the Soviet system may be turning out not to have been the victorious end of the Cold War after all, but just one battle in an unending struggle for global power and influence. The key weapon in the battle lines now being drawn is energy. Even if market forces prevail in setting costs of oil and gas, it seems clear that having so heavily depleted its own relatively low-cost hydrocarbon reserves, the OECD will have no influence over the supply or over the very much higher future costs of that supply."
Energy question may spell end of the good life for the West
London Times, 27 December 2005

The Three Largest Known Reserves Of Uranium Are In Australia, Canada And Khazakstan
Khazakstan Is In The Russian-Chinese Sphere Of Influence
And China Is Ready To Start Taking Australian Resources

"Worse, the number of nuclear plants needed to meet the world's needs would be colossal. At present, about 440 nuclear reactors supply about 2 per cent of demand. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculates that 1,000 more would be needed to raise this even to 10 per cent of need. At this point, the search for new sources of ore would become critical. Where would they come from? Not friendly Canada, which produces most of it at present, but places like Kazakhstan, hardly the most stable of democracies. So much for ‘secure’ sources of energy. We would find ourselves out of the oil-producing frying pan, right in the middle of the ore-manufacturing fire."
Who Says Nuclear Power Is Clean?
London Times, 23 November 2005

"In a lavish ceremony in the Kremlin earlier this month, Uzbekistan and Russia signed a mutual defence pact. 'By signing this treaty... we showed once again with whom we will build our future,' Uzbek President Islam Karimov said afterwards. 'Russia is our most reliable partner and ally.' It marked a stark contrast to a few years ago, when the US appeared to be Uzbekistan's favoured foreign friend, and relations with Russia, its former ruler, were cooler. Mr Karimov's about-turn highlights how US and Russian influence in the Central Asian states - Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan - has been shifting. And with China's emergence as a major power, the region's politics and security concerns are set to become more complex.... The most likely source of competition between the rival powers is over natural resources. [In addition to uranium] Kazakhstan has enormous oil reserves, estimated at 26bn barrels, and Turkmenistan is rich in natural gas..... Lutz Kleveman, author of The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia, believes the US is using the 'war on terror' to further its oil interests in the region. Russia and China, he said, were gaining ground - Russia because it is an important regional trading partner, and China because it is becoming more powerful, in military and economic terms. China is buying up oil concessions and opening a major new pipeline to pump oil from Kazakhstan."
Struggle for influence in Central Asia
BBC Online, 28 November 2005

"Australia, which holds nearly half the world's uranium reserves but has no nuclear industry, is in talks with China over uranium sales.... China is expected to build 40 to 50 nuclear power plants over the next two decades and Downer said he was hopeful an agreement would be reached to allow China to buy Australian uranium....In anticipation of wider sales of uranium, prospectors are scouring the Australian outback in search of the ore.... World prices for uranium have more than tripled to over $30 a pound (0.45 kg) since 2004 as a one-time mountain of reserves runs out."
U.S. backs Australian uranium sales to China
Reuters, 11 January 2006

"Monday's surprise announcement that during his visit to Australia this week the Premier, Wen Jiabao, expects to sign a landmark deal, not only to buy uranium but also to give China a direct role in exploring and mining Australia's uranium reserves, is the latest example of China's determination to secure and diversify its energy supplies. Under its 11th five-year plan, formally adopted this month, China is trying to diversify away from the polluting fossil fuels that have powered the development of its $US2.2 trillion ($3.1 trillion) economy, which this year has overtaken Britain to be the world's fourth-biggest. As part of that plan, China aims to increase its nuclear energy production sixfold by 2020. To achieve this, it will have to start up at least two new generators every year, with a capacity of at least 1 million kilowatts. China is estimated to have 70,000 tonnes of economically recoverable uranium - more than enough for its military purposes, but insufficient to meet its energy demands.... Australia, which has 40 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, and a proven record as a resources supplier, is ideally placed to meet China's uranium needs. With uranium prices rocketing to $US40.50 a pound from about $US9 a pound in recent years, total Australian uranium exports are worth about $US355 million. But some analysts predict sales to China could see exports soar to more than $US1 billion by 2010. China's existing nine nuclear power generators produce about 6.6 gigawatts of power. Another two generators are being built, with plans for another 30 much more powerful reactors by 2020 that would bring annual output to about 40 gigawatts of energy. However, because of the country's massive power needs, this will mean that nuclear energy accounts for just over 4 per cent of power supplies, up from slightly more than 2 per cent now... 'I will be very glad to see a uranium sale contract signed during Premier Wen's visit … because China faces a serious environment problem from coal-based power generation,' Mr Han said. 'If China cannot find a better solution, it will not only deteriorate the global environment, but also destabilise international oil prices.'"
China's energy needs drive uranium search
Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 2006

"Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao hopes to sign a uranium trade deal with Australia on Monday that some analysts say will test Canberra's skills at juggling growing ties with Asia's emerging power and its strong US alliance. Resource-rich Australia has been eager to boost its ties with energy-hungry China's expanding economy, and the two countries will further cement their relationship when Wen arrives in Australia today for a three-day visit. But Canberra's willingness to embrace Beijing has highlighted a divergence with a wary US, which has questioned China's military and economic ambitions and chosen to pursue a nuclear energy deal with India. 'Australia's trying to tread a tightrope between our various trading interests and our strategic alliances,' Monash University political analyst Dennis Woodward said.'... The highest profile trade issue will be China's desire to buy Australian uranium so it can rapidly expand its nuclear power generation capabilities and lessen reliance on polluting fossil fuels.... A supplementary agreement is also expected to be signed allowing Chinese companies to directly explore and mine uranium in Australia."
China set to secure uranium bonanza from Australia
Taipei Times, 1st April 2006

America's Undeclared Energy War Against China - Click Here

'Voodoo Economics'
After 50 Years Why Is Nuclear Energy Still Subsidised By Government?
Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the Oil Crisis

"The end of the fossil energy age approaches. Its ecological limits draw near as material resources are exhausted. The advocates of nuclear energy see a new day dawning. Even some of its critics have joined the appeal for new nuclear power plants. There are now 442 nuclear reactors operating worldwide with a total capacity of 300,000 megawatts. Two and a half times this number will be added by 2030 and four times as many by 2050, says the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the bastion of the global nuclear community. This pro-nuclear argument relies on two-fold inhibition. Amid contrary facts, the economic advantages are praised. The risks are minimised or declared technically surmountable. At the same time, renewable energies are denounced as uneconomical, with their potential marginalised in order to underscore the indispensability of nuclear energy. ... both the massive nuclear and fossil tragedies necessitate mobilising renewable energy as the only prospect for lasting, emission-free, benign and inexpensive supplies. The deployment of nuclear energy is the result of gigantic mechanisms of subsidisation and privilege. Before 1973 OECD governments spent over $150 billion (adjusted to current costs) in researching and developing nuclear energy, and practically nothing for renewable energy. Between 1974 and 1992 $168 billion was spent on nuclear energy and only $22 billion on renewables. The European Union's extravagant nuclear promotion efforts are not even included in this calculation. French statistics are still being kept secret. The total state support amounts to at least a trillion dollars, with mammoth assistance provided to market creation and to incentives for non-OECD countries, above all the former Soviet bloc. Only $50 billion has been spent on renewable energy. Since 1957 the IAEA and Euratom have assisted governments in designing nuclear programmes. By contrast, no international organisations exist today for renewable energy. After the middle of the 1970s, nuclear energy was largely burnt out, due more to enormously increased costs than to growing public resistance."
Dr Hermann Scheer, member of the German Bundestag
No Need For Nukes
The Socialist Review, December 2005

France

"Finally, the veil is beginning to come off the real cost of nuclear energy, which grows heavier as least as quickly as the oil bill. Interviewed on January 2 by le Journal du dimanche [a Sunday news program], Industrial Minister Patrick Devedjian confessed what anti-nuclear activists have claimed for a long time: 'For years the French have contributed to the development of nuclear parks through their taxes.'  These sums do not appear on electricity bills, which appear artificially low, in the sense that they also fail to include the costs of dismantling nuclear installations and taking care of their waste.     Thus, on January 26, 2005, the Court of Accounts showed that the money necessary for those two activities did not exist, or only in ridiculously inadequate amounts. Fortunately - in a manner of speaking - there are also nuclear reactors in Great Britain: that's where the true numbers are little by little coming from....  Carrying back these numbers and applying them to the French nuclear industry - which, apart from its 58 reactors, counts dozens of sites and installations - would produce a minimum cost of 150 billion Euros! It would be even more surprising if the actual bill were not even more.... Finally, not only will the explosion in oil prices and global warming not save nuclear energy, but, on the contrary, the aggravation of these phenomena will rapidly demonstrate the atom's utter inability to provide an alternative. All this data is well-known to French nuclearcrats. Therefore, if they persist, it's neither through ignorance nor stupidity: by pretending to save the planet, they hope to just succeed in perpetuating nuclear energy ... in France. When public opinion wakes up to the fraud, they will say: 'We have brand new nuclear reactors. Perhaps we shouldn't have built them, but now that they're there, we may as well use them.' Now, the truth is that the solutions for getting out of nuclear energy are precisely the only ones that allow us to really fight global warming and consuming more oil. Rich countries must make major reductions in their energy consumption and, at the same time, finance the development of renewable energies on the planet. May those who believe that to be a Utopian program acknowledge that they do not want to leave future generations a habitable earth."
Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the Oil Crisis
Le Monde, 29 August 2005

USA

"During a public lecture in San Francisco last month, Jared Diamond, the mega-selling author of Guns, Germs and Steel, became the latest and most prominent environmental intellectual to endorse nuclear power as a necessary response to global warming....The case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy begins with the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very expensive. Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it usually takes to get a nuclear plant up and running.....A second strike against nuclear is that it produces only electricity, but electricity amounts to only one third of America's total energy use (and less of the world's). Nuclear power thus addresses only a small fraction of the global warming problem, and has no effect whatsoever on two of the largest sources of carbon emissions: driving vehicles and heating buildings......The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative - energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient light bulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential.... The key to lower nuclear costs is to reduce construction times, which could happen if the industry at last adopts standardized reactors and the Bush or a future administration streamlines the plant approval process.... Brand's rejoinder: future demand growth makes nuclear, as well as efficiency and renewables, necessary."
Nuclear Energy Can't Solve Global Warming
San Francisco Chronicle, 7 August 2005

"The country's first new nuclear power plant in decades could be rising 50 miles southwest of Charlotte near Gaffney, S.C. Duke Power said Thursday it picked Cherokee County off the Broad River as the site for what could be its fourth nuclear plant in the Carolinas....Cherokee County, in fact, is offering to rebate 50 percent of the property taxes if Duke does build a nuclear plant there. Environmentalists and other nuclear opponents say they are girding for a battle. They decry the billions in incentives going to the nuclear industry. About a dozen utilities are interested in getting the first nuclear plant license since Shearon Harris near Raleigh two decades ago. The first six can get up to $2 billion in risk insurance to cover costs that would come from construction or operational delays outside the companies' control. Others can get loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of a cost of a project and a 1.8 cent subsidy for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear generated electricity. The subsidy could cost about $6 billion in lost revenue for the U.S. Treasury through 2025, according to Public Citizen, a vocal nuclear opponent."
Duke Power's goal: S.C. nuclear plant
Charlotte Observer, 17 March 2006

"On February 6, US President George Bush confirmed his intention to commit the US to a program of reprocessing nuclear fuel. Touted as a key measure in the 'Advanced Energy Initiative’, outlined in Bush’s January State of the Union speech, the plutonium extracted from spent fuel is allegedly to be used as a fuel source for a new generation of nuclear power plants across the US and elsewhere. The proposal will overturn a 29-year ban in the US on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium, implemented in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter as a gesture of the US’s commitment to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation. The ban was also motivated by the failure of the West Valley reprocessing facility in New York, which was closed down in 1972 after six years of operation and only processing a fraction of the nuclear waste sent there. The clean-up of this site continues, at a cost in excess of US$5 billion.... In addition to the GNEP funding, Bush has requested that $347 million be made available for nuclear power research and development, an increase of 55% on the 2006 budget. The spending boom earmarked for nuclear technology will give a leg-up to the ailing nuclear power industry in the US, where 103 reactors currently generate 20% of electricity. Bush wants the US to emulate France, where nuclear reactors generate 78% of electricity needs. 'We didn’t think nuclear was going to come this hard and fast', Andrew White, chief executive of General Electric Nuclear, stated in an article in the Qatar-based Gulf Times on February 18. According to White, GE Nuclear, a division of the GE Energy unit, is expected to double or treble its income within the next decade. White believes that as many as 200 reactors will be built in the US within the next century, to replace the current reactors and meet the expected increase in demand for electricity. The nuclear slush fund provided by the White House has given greater certainty to GE and other companies that build reactors. Bush’s latest pro-nuclear proclamations follow the energy bill passed last August, which committed $2 billion and tax-break incentives to assist energy companies develop the first six next-generation nuclear reactors. It is estimated that between 1948 and 1998 more than $66 billion was spent on nuclear energy research and subsidies. The bill for the reprocessing component of GNEP is likely to rapidly grow — in 1996 the National Academy of Sciences estimated that the cost of reprocessing irradiated fuel from US reactors would easily exceed $100 billion.... A January 31 press release by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) notes that 'reprocessing just the spent fuel rods produced by US reactors in one year would result in some 20 metric tons of plutonium — enough to build over 3000 nuclear weapons'. Wherever reprocessing has taken place, it has resulted in huge amounts of radioactive waste and major environmental degradation in and around the facilities involved. The Sellafield plant in Britain is responsible for converting large parts of the Irish Sea into a biologically dead body of water. Another infamous example is the Hanford Nuclear Reservation located in south-central Washington. Established in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project for the creation of the world’s first nuclear weapons, a large quantity of weapons-grade plutonium was produced at the site for decades. The 1518 square kilometre site is a toxic contaminated wasteland of immense proportion. Fifty-three million gallons of highly radioactive and chemical waste are stored in 177 underground tanks, each the size of a three-storey building. At least 70 of the tanks have ruptured, leaking an estimated 1 million gallons of waste into the surrounding soil and groundwater. The adjoining Columbia River is considered to be the most nuclear-polluted river in the Western hemisphere. The cost of cleaning up radioactive waste at Handford has been revised upwards in the last five years from $4.3 billion in 2000 — when the contract was awarded to Bechtel (which plans to vitrify the waste into glass logs) — to a massive $50-$60 billion, with completion of works by 2035.... Furthermore, 'to make a significant reduction in the amount of high-level nuclear waste that would require disposal, the used fuel would need to be reprocessed and reused many times with an extremely high degree of efficiency — which is very expensive and would take years. For example, in 1999, the Department of Energy estimated it would cost $279 billion over a 118-year period to fully implement a reprocessing and recycling program for the entire inventory of US spent fuel.'"
The Nuclear Madness Of George Bush
Centre for Research on Globalization, 22 March 2006

Canada

"Environmentalists are pressing Prime Minister Stephen Harper to follow through on his election promise to curb subsidies to business. The Green Budget Coalition, comprised of 20 environmental and conservation groups, says Ottawa could save $1.4 billion by phasing out tax breaks to the oil-gas sector. Activists say that curbing subsidies to nuclear power would save more than $150 million a year, while the mining sector would yield $80 million annually. They recommended that the money saved be used to promote energy efficiency, expand use of alternate fuels, and invest in protected areas. During the January election, Harper said he would review $18 billion in government grants, loans and subsidies to business."
Environmentalists call on prime minister to cut 'corporate welfare'
Canadian Press, 29 March 2006

Britain

"After turning off unnecessary pieces of equipment, improved energy efficiency is the cheapest way for developing countries to maximise their use of limited energy supplies, and for developed countries to achieve cuts in their carbon dioxide emissions. One quick and simple option for improving energy efficiency would be to make greater use of compact fluorescent light bulbs. Each one of these bulbs produces the same amount of light as an incandescent light bulb whilst being responsible for the emission of 70% less carbon dioxide. It also saves money; about Ł7 ($12) per year in the UK, more or less in other countries depending on electricity prices. So why not just ban incandescent bulbs - why not make them illegal? They waste so much energy that if they were invented today, it is highly unlikely they would be allowed onto the market. Nobody would suffer; every energy-saving bulb would save money and help to curb climate change. It is truly a win-win solution.... Declaring plans to phase out, and eventually ban, traditional light bulbs by a deadline would help to ensure that profligate waste was not tolerated forever, and to kick-start an energy-efficiency revolution. Given the huge subsidies awarded to the nuclear industry and to coal production in western nations, it is clear that the funds necessary to provide a financial kick-start certainly exist. In 2002, the UK government spent Ł410m on bailing out its near-bankrupt nuclear sector. That would be more than enough to supply every household in Britain with three energy-saving light bulbs."
Light bulbs: Not such a bright idea
BBC Online, 3 February 2006

"The only way to meet international poverty targets is by a massive switch to renewable energy, such as solar power, a UK think-tank says. The New Economics Foundation (Nef) says the cost of climate change and oil scarcity will otherwise scupper attempts to help the world's poorest. It wants an end to subsidies for fossil fuel projects, and nuclear power. Over the next decade, it says, two billion of the poorest people should be given access to clean energy. In a report, The Price Of Power, Nef says: 'Renewable energy is the great, barely-tapped solution to the two great challenges of the coming century - poverty and global warming.'."
Fossil fuel subsidies 'must end'
BBC Online, 21 June 2004

"The cost of new nuclear power has been underestimated by almost a factor of three and the potential of small scale renewables critically overlooked according to a report from nef (the new economics foundation), Mirage and Oasis, released to coincide with the Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy, on 29 June 2005. Nuclear power has been promoted in the UK and globally as the answer to climate change and energy insecurity. But, as Mirage and Oasis reveals, as a response to global warming, nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too limited. And, in an age of terrorist threats, it is more of a security risk than a solution. Instead, renewable energy offers as safe, secure and climate-friendly energy supply system. It leaves no toxic legacy and is abundant and cheap to harvest both in the UK and globally. Renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal could, in theory each individually meet all of the world’s energy needs. Practically, however, as nef’s report reveals; a broader combination of renewable energy sources than is currently utilized, tapped into with a range of micro, small, medium and large-scale technologies, and applied flexibly, could more than meet all of our needs. Better still, they have the ability to create new access to energy supplies for millions of people around the world who currently lack basics, such as lighting or the ability to cook without inhaling lethal indoor smoke. 'Without sustainable, reliable supplies of energy the world faces a future in which climate change and fuel shortages will combine with catastrophic results. The poorest and most vulnerable will suffer the worst. But a resurgence of interest in nuclear power, justified by voodoo economics, stands to hinder and potentially derail renewable energy,' says Andrew Simms, nef policy director and author of the report. The UK nuclear industry have systematically underestimated the cost of new nuclear power, the report says by almost a factor of three – without even taking into account the wider risks associated with nuclear such as proliferation, insurance, pollution and terrorist threats. More realistic estimates for construction, delays and overruns, the cost of early reactors and actual performance – all push the likely costs of new nuclear power up.....The potential of getting energy from a decentralised system of very small-scale, micro-generation from renewable sources has been critically overlooked. In the UK, for example, one estimate suggests that if just around one third of electricity customers installed 2kW of micro-generation, using solar photovoltaic (PV) or wind systems it would match the capacity of the UK nuclear programme....In the current debate some argue that nuclear power could happily co-exist with renewables. But there are limited resources available and there is a real danger, according to most government sources, that nuclear will continue to ‘crowd out’, more cost effective smaller scale renewable alternatives. But, says Mirage and Oasis, in order to realise the full benefits of renewable energy and micro-generation a number of key steps must be taken. The report calls for a fundamental shift of public support away from fossil fuels and nuclear power, to renewables and micro-generation – to remove anti-renewable distortions and enable them to play ‘catch up’. Specifically, Mirage and Oasis calls for:
       ·          Current total funding for renewables should at least match that which was made available to the nuclear industry during its period of peak research and construction.
              ·           Local authorities to set targets for the uptake of certain microgenerators and to allow them as ‘permitted developments’ on a par in the planning process with, for example,            satellite dishes.
·          A full range of fiscal incentives including, for example, stamp duty concessions for ildings with renewables and tax allowances on renewables investments.
·          An obligation for all electricity suppliers to purchase electricity from microgenerators."
Nuclear Power Costs Underestimated And Renewables’ Potential Overlooked Says NEF Research
New Economics Foundation, 29 June 2005

Sustainability
Why Energy Conservation And Renewables Are The Only Serious Options Left

'Power Politics' The Dash For The World's Energy Resources RICS Valuation Conference, 29 November 2005 "Regrettably, the short-term nature of the electoral cycle in modern democracies is not particularly conducive to prudent long-term decision-making. Given a choice between ‘more jam today’ followed by ‘big pain tomorrow’, or ‘less jam today’ accompanied by ‘reduced pain tomorrow’, there is always the temptation to go for the ‘more jam today’ option. After all, who is keen to opt for immediate sacrifice?The ‘jam today’ syndrome brings us onto the question of ‘sustainability’. This is a development concept that seeks to take into account the economic, social and environmental needs of future generations. But the concept may mean different things to different people. The RICS sustainability policy of June 2005 defines sustainability in part as “…. meet[ing] the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It is about leaving the world a better place than we found it….” British environmentalist Jonathan Porritt is chairman of the UK government’s Sustainable Development Commission. Before taking on that role he provided a more prosaic interpretation at the Congress of the Federation of International Surveyors in Brighton in 1998. He told delegates that the idea of sustainability could be easily applied to any human activity by simply asking the straightforward question: “Can you keep on doing it?”. Another explanation of sustainability is one that can be readily understood by accountants in a financial context, namely the principle of living off income rather than capital. This principle can also be applied to environmental (or ‘natural’) capital and income. The current global reliance on fossil fuels (and also uranium for nuclear power generation if this is also regarded as a depleting non-renewable mineral resource) violates this ‘accountancy’ version of sustainability. After metal ores and aggregates have been mined they are typically transformed into other material assets – buildings, machinery, and other goods and infrastructure. They remain part of the capital base of society. Usually they are durable, or available for reuse through later recycling. With oil and gas (and coal) we do something quite different. Mostly we set fire to them. We burn them. Although the energy produced in doing this is used to create other goods and services, after that process is complete the original mineral resource is essentially destroyed. Worse still, it is actually converted, not into assets, but into liabilities in the form of greenhouse gases (or radioactive waste in the case of nuclear fuel). The cost of those liabilities then has to be carried by future generations for hundreds or thousands of years ahead. It is difficult to see how this kind of use of resources can meet any reasonable measure of sustainability..... it is also apparent that the IEA expects increased investment in high CO2 emitting non-conventional oil production such as tar sands as well (Times, 23 September 2005). Amongst other investments, including improved recovery technology and technology for deep-water exploration, the agency has been specifically pressing for technological developments in this area. An IEA ‘fact sheet’ published in September 2005 states that “Technologies are urgently needed to ensure… Advances … for non-conventional resources, especially heavy oils, bitumen, oil shales and non-conventional gas” (IEA, September 2005). It is apparent that this urgency is driven by the fact that the agency “projects that without new energy policies, oil demand will grow by more than 50% between 2002 and 2030 and that gas demand will almost double, with most of the easy, low cost, hydrocarbons being located in the Middle East” (IEA, 22 September 2005). What is less clear is how the IEA proposes to stabilise global greenhouse gas emission concentrations at between 400 and 550 ppm of ‘CO2 equivalent’ by going down this route, always assuming that it can be followed in the first place. In reality the IEA’s  November reference to this approach being “not sustainable”, more than suggests that that there are people within the agency who believe this is not possible. So if this situation really isn’t sustainable, as the agency has let slip, is there nothing more appropriate in which we might invest the $5 trillion dollars that the IEA says is now needed for further development of the oil and gas sector? And indeed how else might the entire $17 trillion be spent if other energy sectors are taken into account as well (IEA, 5 March 2005; Times, 23 September 2005; Middle East Economic Survey, 7 November 2005; Times, 7 November 2005)? At this point it is worth returning to the ‘accountant’s’ definition of sustainability, based on the simple principle of seeking to live off income rather than capital. From the widest perspective (because ultimately that is what we have to consider), this requires an examination of the relationship of the earth to the sun. Such an approach is, in fact, not entirely foreign to the nuclear power industry, despite its traditional association with technology - in the form of nuclear fission - which many regard as the epitome of ‘unsustainable’ development. However, although most believe there will be little prospect of success in this area for decades to come despite the large amounts of money being invested in it, the ‘holy grail’ of atomic power is the development of cheap energy from fusion technology.  Specifically, nuclear fusion is a potential energy generating method which seeks to mimic the processes that take place within the sun – processes without which there would be no life on earth (BBC News, 1 October 2001; BBC News, 28 June 2005). Broadly speaking (ignoring, for example, the gravitational influence of the moon), it is the sun that provides the earth with its sole source of energy income. In accountancy terms, therefore, it is from this basic starting-point that we should consider attempting to meet our energy requirements wherever possible. Although there are many challenges to be overcome in following this type of path (not least of which is the question of the storage of energy from such sources, although one where hydrogen based technology may play an increasingly important role – TIME, 29 May 2005), this is not as limiting as it may at first sound. Thermal and photovoltaic solar technologies are obvious direct routes. But they are by no means the only ones.  Hydroelectric power (through water evaporation and precipitation), biomass (through the photosynthetic capture of light energy), wind power (through thermal effects in the atmosphere), and wave power (through the influence of the wind), are all sources of energy driven partly or wholly by the sun. The gravitational effect of the sun, in addition to the more powerful pull of the moon, also has influence on our sea tides. 1. Amount of solar energy falling on earth in one year (Income) 2. Present solar energy use (Expenditure) 3. Natural gas reserves (Capital) 4. Coal reserves (Capital) 5. Oil reserves (Capital) 6. Uranium reserves (Capital) 7. World energy consumption in one year (Expenditure) Fig 14: Global Capital And Income Derived Energy Resources Source: ‘Energy Saving Now’ As the results of the Populus poll reported earlier in the year demonstrated there is an instinctive desire on the part of the general public to favour more natural renewable technologies if they can be made to perform. And therein lie the seeds of a much more detailed debate about future policy options, research and development, and investment. It is a debate that needs to happen urgently and in depth. No small consideration is that renewable energy technologies tend to rely on energy sources that are local in their availability, and thereby divorced from many of the foreign policy ‘security of supply’ difficulties associated with the importation of fossil and nuclear fuels. For the moment, however, the recognition that we can’t go on as we are is steadily gathering momentum, sometimes in some surprising places. The IEA is not alone. Boasting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a former board member, Chevron is the second largest oil company in the United States. It clearly already recognises that ‘business as usual’ will not be an option for much longer. Since the middle of 2005 Chevron has been running full page colour advertisements in the high-brow financial and current affairs press – publications such as TIME magazine, the Economist, and the Wall St Journal.  The following wording taken from some of this advertising provides the basic bottom line of Chevron’s blunt assessment: “Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century. One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over.... many of the world's oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract-physically, technically, economically, and politically. When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources. We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions... We call upon scientists and educators, politicians and policymakers, environmentalists, leaders of industry and each one of you to be part of reshaping the next era of energy." (Chevron, July 2005; Financial Times, 4 August 2005). How the accelerating global debate about energy is converted into action will have a crucial influence on the development, use, and management of land and buildings for decades to come. Where it all might end up is a clearly an important question. It is possible that if long-term climate change concerns are not sufficient of themselves to precipitate major behavioural change soon, then the more immediate challenge of near-term mineral-based energy resource depletion might just force the issue instead. To return to Lord Browne’s remarks in India in October: 'At current [oil] prices every single alternative energy source is economical today.' (Indian Express, 14 October 2005). What choices we make now amongst those alternatives will be critical to the future well-being of the world that we, and hopefully numerous generations to follow, will live in."

"Dwindling supplies, increasing demand and an imminent ‘peak oil’ deficit mean that within 10 years the world will be facing an energy crisis.... We must address the basis of the way the world demands and consumes energy, and do it now, not in the long term. Major change in society is usually problematical and can be politically unpopular. Issues such as an impending energy crisis are not well suited to being addressed through the political arena, where time horizons tend to stretch only as far as the next election. Few votes are won by taking difficult decisions that political competitors might choose to postpone. But the longer the issue is put off, the greater the crisis when it comes....."
The Energy Timebomb
RICS Business, January 2005

"What then is to be done? If climate change is driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, the world must diversify quickly into renewable sources of energy — wind power, biomass, wave and tidal power and solar energy. Carbon capture and storage may be an option, but no clean coal-technology prototype has yet been built. But are renewables a feasible option? Europe’s offshore wind potential in waters up to 30m deep could theoretically supply all of the Continent’s power. China has so much wind energy that it could double its electricity generation by using it. The US Department of Energy estimates that just three states — North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas — have enough wind energy to meet America’s entire electricity requirements. Equally, in the field of transport, while gas may provide a transitional feedstock to make hydrogen for fuel celldriven vehicles, a cost-competitive technology should be developed as rapidly as possible to make hydrogen from renewables. All countries have to be involved in a global solution. The Kyoto Protocol aimed to get the 35 main industrialised countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent by 2010, compared with 1990. If the world — 185 countries — is to achieve what the scientists say is necessary, a cut of 60 per cent by 2050, China, India, and the other big developing countries must sign up to significant action (even if not immediately to Kyoto targets) to reduce carbon emissions within limited timescales. Of course the US, the biggest polluter, must also be brought in at the earliest time. Air travel — the single fastest rising cause of greenhouse-gas emissions — should now be urgently incorporated into Kyoto and given emission-reduction targets like other industries. The EU emissions trading system for the main industrial sectors should be progressively tightened. But energy conservation is just as important for domestic households as for industry, since the waste of energy by both sectors is enormous. Higher standards should be laid down in building regulations, as in Sweden, and bigger incentives given to families to switch to renewables, both solar thermal panels and microgeneration, for water heating and house warming, as in Germany. If the energy-efficiency rating of a house had to be provided as part of a vendor’s pack at a house sale, it would provide all house owners with a powerful incentive to upgrade their insulation. People need much bigger incenstives to use smaller engine cars and to make fewer car journeys. Above all, if a cap and trade system were applied to households as well as to industries, it would provide a market mechanism to guide individual choice while cutting domestic carbon emissions overall. Nothing less meets the challenge that confronts us all."
Michael Meacher, former UK Environment Minister
Ten Years To Prevent Catastrophe
London Times, 10 February 2006

"If wind power were subsidized at a fraction of what we already spend with tax breaks, loopholes and outright corporate welfare for polluting and destructive energy sources, it would already be the cheapest, not to mention the cleanest, energy source available. This is not pie-in-sky Naderism (whatever that is), this is right now, 2.85 cents per kilowatt hour. In New York City, the price for power generation charged by ConEd hovers around 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Eat it."
Wake up and smell the clean energy - Corporate welfare is last barrier to economic superiority of wind power
WokingForChange, 21 August 2003

"Forty wind farms off East Anglia's coast could provide a quarter of the UK's electricity, according to a report. The farms - stretching from Essex to the The Wash - would house 15,000 turbines covering 4,000 square kilometres. All would be sited away from shipping lanes and important wildlife sites. The research by AEA technology, the former research arm of the Atomic Energy Authority, says the offshore turbines would create the same level of electricity as 30 conventional power stations. The study's findings have won support from American power firm TXU and National Wind Power."
Wind farms energy 'powerhouses'
BBC Online, 26 July 2002

"According to the [Israeli] Foreign Ministry, 'an estimated 10 square kilometers of the Negev desert receive an annual average of solar energy equal to all of the electricity generated by the Israel Electric Corporation.'"
Solar energy, not shale pollution
Jerusalem Post, 27 March 2006

---

Solar Breakthrough
Spray-On Film Accessing Infra-Red Spectrum Set To Improve Solar Cell Efficiency Five Fold

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough Stefan Lovgren for National Geographic News January 14, 2005 Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day. The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology. Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery. The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs. "The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material. "If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable." Infrared Power Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum. The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion. "Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside." The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared. With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work. Electrical Sweaters The new material could make technology truly wireless. "We have this expectation that we don't have to plug into a phone jack anymore to talk on the phone, but we're resigned to the fact that we have to plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the batteries," Sargent said. "That's only communications wireless, not power wireless." He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone. "A sweater is already absorbing all sorts of light both in the infrared and the visible," said Sargent. "Instead of just turning that into heat, as it currently does, imagine if it were to turn that into electricity." Other possibilities include energy-saving plastic sheeting that could be unfurled onto a rooftop to supply heating needs, or solar cell window coating that could let in enough infrared light to power home appliances. Cost-Effectiveness Ultimately, a large amount of the sun's energy could be harnessed through "solar farms" and used to power all our energy needs, the researchers predict. "This could potentially displace other sources of electrical production that produce greenhouse gases, such as coal," Sargent said. In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today. The biggest hurdle facing solar power is cost-effectiveness. At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power is significantly more expensive than conventional electrical power for residences. Average U.S. residential power prices are less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, according to experts. But that could change with the new material. 'Flexible, roller-processed solar cells have the potential to turn the sun's power into a clean, green, convenient source of energy,' said John Wolfe, a nanotechnology venture capital investor at Lux Capital in New York City."

"Politicians get a lot of mileage out of pledging to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but a trio of U.S.-based solar cell startups might actually be able to do something about it. These startups, Nanosolar, Nanosys and Konarka Technologies, and corporate players such as Matsushita and STMicroelectronics (nyse: STM - news - people ) are striving to produce photon-harvesting materials at lower costs and in higher volumes than traditional crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. Nanosolar has developed a material of metal oxide nanowires that can be sprayed as a liquid onto a plastic substrate where it self-assembles into a photovoltaic film. A roll-to-roll process similar to high-speed printing offers a high-volume approach that doesn't require high temperatures or vacuum equipment. Nanosys intends for its solar coatings--based on structures called nanotetrapods--to be sprayed onto roofing tiles. And Konarka is developing plastic sheets embedded with titanium dioxide nanocrystals coated with light-absorbing dyes. The company recently scored a coup by acquiring Siemens' (nyse: SI - news - people ) organic photovoltaic research activities, and Konarka's recent $18 million third round of funding included the world's first- and fifth-largest energy companies, Electricité de France and ChevronTexaco (nyse: CVX - news - people ). If nanotech solar fabrics could be applied to, say, buildings and bridges, the entire energy landscape could dramatically change. Integrated into the roof of a bus or truck, they could split water via electrolysis and generate hydrogen to run a fuel cell. Who could lose? Certainly current photovoltaic-cell makers such as Sharp and Kyocera (nyse: KYO - news - people ) and battery manufacturers such as Duracell, part of Gillette (nyse: G - news - people ), and Energizer Holdings (nyse: ENR - news - people ). Just don't expect giant utilities to sit and watch their businesses be stolen away."
Nanotechnology's Disruptive Future
Forbes, 21 October 2004

---

Renewable Energy - The Swedes Are Serious About It
Sweden Plans To Go Oil-Free By 2020 With No New Nuclear Power Stations

The Swedes Are Serious

Sweden aims for oil-free economy By 2020

The road to Sweden's oil-free future

Saab BioPower Hybrid Concept: World's First Fossil-free Hybrid

Sweden to build world's largest biogas plant

Sweden's biogas train to run in India

"Sweden has closed its Barseback 2 nuclear reactor two years behind schedule, and 25 years after Swedes voted to stop using atomic energy. Danes celebrated the shutdown, as Barseback lies just across the Baltic Sea from their capital, Copenhagen. Sweden took the decision to phase out nuclear power in 1980, when anti-nuclear protest was at its peak.... the authorities say measures to increase energy from renewable sources to replace the capacity lost through the closure of Barseback 1 and 2 have been completed.  In the 1980 referendum, people voted on three alternative ways of phasing out nuclear power - the vote gave no option to continue nuclear energy. As a result, Barseback 1 was closed in 1999." Sweden shuts down atomic reactor BBC Online, 1 June 2005

"Sweden recently announced plans to become the world's first oil-free economy within 15 years, without building a new generation of nuclear power stations... " India, China and the yellowcake supply problem The Age (Australia), 31 March 2006

---

Have You Submitted Your Response To The UK Energy Review Consultation - No?
Then Do So Before 14 April Deadline
And Demand That No More Of Your Money Is Wasted On The Nuclear Mirage

"The public is sceptical about the case for building new nuclear power stations, despite concerns that Britain may have to rely on imported gas for future energy needs. Hostility to nuclear power is matched by a belief that renewable sources of energy such as wind farms could fill the gap in energy needs in the next 20 years, the Populus survey finds. It also indicates that politicians are not trusted to tell the truth about nuclear safety. The poll found that 59 per cent of those questioned believe that it would be irresponsible to build more nuclear power stations while problems remain in disposing of nuclear waste. Half of respondents go so far as to say that they believe nuclear power to be unsafe.... The findings will be a blow to the Government, which has to find reliable new sources of energy urgently, as many of Britain's older nuclear and coal-fired power stations are due to be decommissioned. Soaring oil prices and fears about the developed world's dependence on Middle Eastern oil have produced a renewed interest in nuclear energy. Some nuclear experts believe that about 80 nuclear reactors will have to be built around the world in the next 10 years. However, the Government is divided over whether a new generation of nuclear power stations should be built. Ministers have left open the question of whether new power stations should be built; an energy White Paper in 2003 neither backed the building of nuclear power stations to generate cleaner electricity nor closed the door on the option. No decision is expected to be taken, or even discussed, until a report on how to handle existing nuclear waste has been completed.... A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said that there were no current plans to build new nuclear power stations. 'No decision will be taken without the fullest consultation,' the department said. 'We realise the importance of having public opinion on our side.'"
Voters prefer wind farms to new nuclear reactors
London Times, 8 August 2005"

UK ENERGY NEEDS Britons consumed 237.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent in 2001, an 11 per cent increase on 1990 The mix has changed since the 1970s, with natural gas replacing coal Natural gas accounted for 40 per cent of fuel consumed in 2001, against 24 per cent in 1990 and 3 per cent in 1970. The increase is due to using gas to generate electricity Coal made up 17 per cent of consumption in 2001, down from 31 per cent in 1990. Petroleum was 32 per cent, against 37 per cent in 1990. Renewables and waste were 1 per cent in 2001 and 0 per cent in 1990 Transport was the biggest consumer of energy in 2001, taking 34 per cent of the total Source: DTI figures, updated in July 2005 London Times, 8 August 2005

TO SUMBIT YOUR RESPONSE TO THE DTI CLICK HERE

Alternative Energy Technology As An Alternative To Permanent War

Wind

Wave

Solar

Biomass

Geothermal and hydroelectric

'The yet to be used' - Storing renewable energy

"This comfortable world, as we have known it, is coming to a crucial turning point. And energy, specifically the cost and security of energy supply, lies at the apex of this turning point.... So, while some of the problems, such as Kyoto, have had much attention, others, such as the long-term security of energy supply upon which our prosperity has depended, have been neglected. Now, suddenly, new risks are appearing on the horizon. There are new dangers that could alter our quality of life over the next 20 years. They could put at risk the comfortable social order we have created for ourselves, to which most of the rest of the world has been conditioned to aspire. A key factor in the changing balances of world energy is Russia.... So perhaps we should heed some distant storm warnings. Perhaps we should be concerned when Russia and China seem to be coming to recognise the scale of opportunity that a strategic partnership can offer them in terms of energy security and global influence? And when the US Department of Energy forecasts that, by 2020, the annual shortfall in Opec oil production, against global demand, will exceed the biggest-ever production of Saudi Arabia, the traditional swing producer. And when we expect Canadian gas exports to the US to dwindle and shortly cease because of the need for energy for the processing of tar sands.... What we believe to have been the definitive triumph of the Western democratic way over the sterile misery of the Soviet system may be turning out not to have been the victorious end of the Cold War after all, but just one battle in an unending struggle for global power and influence. The key weapon in the battle lines now being drawn is energy. Even if market forces prevail in setting costs of oil and gas, it seems clear that having so heavily depleted its own relatively low-cost hydrocarbon reserves, the OECD will have no influence over the supply or over the very much higher future costs of that supply."
Energy question may spell end of the good life for the West
London Times, 27 December 2005

"The need for urgent action is highlighted by the scale of the challenges facing the UK.... Our fears about implementation have proved largely justified. The Energy White Paper is weak on specific measures and contains little that is new... Renewables are likely to assume an ever increasing importance in the context of the UK's growing dependency on imported energy. The Government needs to be fully committed, and we would like to see this commitment reflected in an implementation plan which would provide leadership, direction and confidence that the strategic objectives can be achieved.... we find it incomprehensible that the Government was unable to publish an implementation plan as a supporting document to the White Paper.... the Energy White Paper does not set an explicit target for renewables for 2020, stating only that 'our aspiration is by 2020 to double renewables' share of electricity'... While the Government has put in place a number of policy instruments to promote renewables, we remain unconvinced that this amounts to a coherent and robust strategy for achieving its objectives. The Government's approach still appears to rely too much on wind energy alone....The Government does not have a strategy for other renewables, including biomass and solar photo-voltaic, which adequately reflects the massive challenge posed by the objectives set out in the White Paper.... We highlighted last year our conviction that a transition to an environmentally benign energy system could not be achieved on the basis of unsustainably 'cheap' energy, as the Prime Minister's foreword to the PIU report indicated was a priority."
Environmental Audit, Eighth Report
House of Commons,  9 July 2003

"The Government is facing a battle with leading car manufacturers over the car of the future after deciding that fossil fuels will not be phased out for at least another 50 years. Ministers have rejected a proposal to convert Britain's cars to hydrogen by 2025, and called on manufacturers to develop more efficient models powered by petrol or diesel. However, several manufacturers, including BMW, have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in developing emission-free cars that run on hydrogen.... The Carbon Trust, a government-funded body that promotes low-carbon technology, has advised ministers that to meet this target they should ensure that hydrogen is widely used to power cars by 2025.... Prototypes of BMW's hydrogen powered 7-series have driven 100,000 miles during development without problems. The engine can run on both hydrogen and petrol, meaning that cars could be driven before a network of hydrogen filling stations was established."
Minister is set for collision on move to hydrogen cars
London Times, 22 April 2002

"The UK government's response to climate change and the energy crisis has not yielded concrete results despite many good intentions because its trade- and market dominated approach has prevented it from investing sufficiently in the appropriate technologies and adopting policies that promote self-sufficiency over trade....The [2003] White Paper did not recommend building new nuclear power stations, and stated that while the possibility of building new nuclear power plants was not ruled out, any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations will need 'the fullest public consultation and the publication of a further white paper setting out our proposal.' As almost any other new measure the UK government might now take would have been signalled in the 2003 White Paper, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the reason for an energy review so soon after the White Paper is that the government, dissatisfied with progress so far, now intends to commission new nuclear plants. This would be a serious mistake in terms of safety and as far as providing energy security for the nation is concerned... Nuclear energy should be ruled out on grounds of safety, world security and economics; also because it is a finite, non-renewable resource, and it gives energy returns and savings on carbon emissions no better than gas-fired heat and power co-generation. Energy self-sufficiency is the best guarantee of energy security. This can be achieved by a diversity of sustainable, renewable energies at medium-, small- and micro-generation scales, according to resources locally available, so that energy is used at the point of generation, saving up to 69 percent of the energy lost through long distance transport of electricity from big centralised power plants and the associated carbon emissions."
United Kingdom's Energy Vision – A Case Study
Insitute For Science In Society, 27 March 3006

TO SUMBIT YOUR RESPONSE TO THE DTI CLICK HERE

The Institute of Science in Society

United Kingdom's Energy Vision – A Case Study - Click Here

Global warming is accelerating and energy prices are soaring. We have to find the right survival strategies, and we have to find them now. Time and energy resources are both running out; squander them on the wrong technologies and the consequences will be catastrophic, invest in the right options and we can mitigate climate change and thrive in a post fossil fuel world. This report will help you make the right choices among nuclear, biofuels, wind, solar, energy from wastes, and more… Send it to your policy-makers to input to the global energy debate. Please sponsor this report by making a donation. For details please e-mail: energy@i-sis.org.uk Individual copies are available for pre-order at the ISIS online store Sources for this report are available in the ISIS members site. Full details here

TO SUMBIT YOUR RESPONSE TO THE DTI CLICK HERE

---

No Solution In Sight? The Biggest Challenge Of All Is Changing The Way People Think Transforming Global Consciousness - Before It's Too Late

'PEAK OIL'
GLOBAL ENERGY CRISIS LOOMING
Click Here For More Information
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/energycrisis.htm

'Peak Oil' News Clippings - Click Here

'Peak Oil' DVD Video - Click Here

'Peak Oil' Audio CD - Click Here

'Energy Updates' (If you wish to receive energy bulletin updates please send us an email with 'energy' in the subject line)

Ten Years To Prevent Catastrophe - 'Global Warming Ultra' The Climate Change Implications Of 'Peak Oil' As Conventional Oil Production Faces Accelerating Decline - March 2006

IEA Admits World Energy Policy Not Sustainable - Top Kuwaiti Field Enters Decline - Nov 2005

Dealing With Oil Pressure - September 2005

Chevron Urges Global Energy Crisis Debate - August 2005

G8 On Edge Of Acknowledging Potential For Global Energy Crisis - July 2005

After Peak Oil Do We Have The Technology? - June 2005

Bush 'Energy Policy' Precipitates New Global Anti-US Alliance - May 2005

Report For US Government Warns World Oil Production Fast Approaching Peak - April 2005

Record Shell Profits Mask More Oil Depletion - March 2005

Hot Leading Energy Consultants Tell US Peak Oil To Arrive As Early As 2014 As Deutsche Bank Report Warns Of Global Conflict Over Oil And Gas - January 2005 Hot

Yukos Reserves Commandeered As UK Diplomats Are Sent Out To Beg For Oil And Gas - December 2004

BP Executive Says World Oil Output To Peak In 5 To 15 Yrs - November 2004

Top Middle East Oil Figure Says Saudis Can't Deliver - October 2004

World Oil Demand Surges As Doubts About Saudi Oil Capacity Grow - August 2004

Why The Oil Crisis Is Different This Time - June 2004

---

Solar Energy, Agriculture and World Peace - click here

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex