SAY NO TO A NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA

Shell Withdraws from the London Array Wind Farm.

2:36 PM, Sat 3 May 2008 .. Posted in Conspiracy Theories .. 2 comments .. Link

While researching an article on wind power today, I was appalled to read of the decision by Shell to sell off their one third interest in the London Array wind farm project. So I had to add this one in here too. A bit of background...

On the 18th of December 2006, British government approved the plans to build the world's largest offshore wind farm off the south-east coast of England. This wind farm, London Array, a partnership project between Shell, E.On and Dong Energy, was to incorporate 341 turbines, would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1.5 - 2 billion, and would generate 1000 mW of power, or enough to feed 1% of the UK's energy needs... that's enough to power a quarter of London.

But today's news reports that Shell has decided to sell it's share of the project, leaving E.On and Dong to ponder the future of the project. Shell has defended its' action, saying that ity has decided to sell its stake as part of its "ongoing review of projects and investment choices," and noting that the company has 11 other wind projects across Europe and the U.S.

The Chronicle Herald, on the 2nd of May 2006 reported...

"Friends of the Earth spokesman Nic Rau said Shell’s decision was especially hard to take since it came just two days after Shell posted a 25 per cent rise in first-quarter profit to a record $9.1 billion on the back of soaring crude oil prices.
"We’re very disappointed that Shell, which touts itself as a progressive green company, is . . . leaving a key clean energy project high and dry," said Rau."

An extract from an article in The Star dated the 3rd of May 2006 states...

"It came just before the consortium signed a contract with a turbine manufacturer - the point at which the companies had to put their money on the table. Shell's move is an economic one, with funds redirected towards potentially more profitable wind schemes in the US.

But the company came under fire from green groups who accused them of leaving the clean energy project "high and dry" while investing in fossil fuel extraction which was wrecking the climate. And on Thursday night the row widened, with opposition parties claiming the UK was in danger of missing green energy targets because of the Government's failure to encourage investment in renewables.

Shadow business secretary Alan Duncan said: "This really is a disaster and it potentially blows a huge hole in Government's already shambolic attempts to hit targets for renewable energy."

I'm sorry, but the numbers just aren't stacking up. Shell recorded a profit of $27.5 billion (£13.9 billion) in 2007. That makes their share of the £2 billion that the London Array would have cost seem like a piddling little trifle, doesn't it? So why have they justified pulling out of this project over a concern about money when they made such a whopping amount last year?

Probably because it's more profitable to sell their oil to the poor ignorant slobs at home. Shell is now making a $75 million (£38 million) per day profit... that's PER DAY... on the price of oil. That means that they could pay for their share of the project after a single day's trading. Uh???

But once the wind farm has been accounted for, how much could they reasonably ask the British public to pay for a resource that's obtained almost free of charge? Not as much as for oil, obviously.

Controversy as FutureGen Plans are Cancelled.

5:33 AM, Thu 28 Feb 2008 .. Posted in Conspiracy Theories .. 0 comments .. Link

Plans for FutureGen, a near zero emission coal fired power plant planned for Mattoon Township, Coles County, Illinois was cancelled by the Department of Energy (U.S.A) on Janurary 29 2008, among much controversy. The DOE announced that it would pull its funding for the project, after concerns of costs rising to higher than expected levels. However, some Illinois local and state officials have experessed frustration over the time and resources wasted by the state in competing for the FutureGen contract, and have questioned why the decision was made after the Illionois site was chosen over one in Texas.

Mattoon mayor David Cline said "one could question the motivation of the Department of Energy which was ready to move forward with the project until a site other than Texas was chosen." Illinois senator Dick Durban claimed that "when the city of Mattoon, Illinois, was chosen over possible locations in Texas, the secretary of energy set out to kill FutureGen."

Samuel W Bodman, U.S. Energy Secretary however, has countered these claims, explaining that that the restructuring of the FutureGen project will "equip multiple new clean-coal power plants with advanced CCS technology, instead of one demonstration plant. That will provide more electricity from multiple clean-coal plants, sequestering at least twice as much CO2 and providing for wider use and more rapid commercialization."

The move is likely to delay the project as other members seek the additional funds that the DOE was to provide. Despite the cancellation of funding by the DOE, the FutureGen Alliance continues to move forward with the project, opening an office in Mattoon and planning to buy the land for the plant in August 2008, in partnership with a local group.

According to the New York Times in an article dated January 31, 2008...

"The Energy Department on Wednesday canceled its main program for demonstrating how to use coal without adding to global warming, saying the project needed an overhaul to rein in soaring costs. The announcement ends a program started four years ago and described at the time as “one of the boldest steps our nation has taken toward a pollution-free energy future.” The program, called FutureGen, was also intended to provide hydrogen for fuel-cell cars and other uses. But the estimated cost has risen to about $1.8 billion from $1 billion, and officials feared it would increase. The department said it would start over with a new program, but that is unlikely to happen before the Bush administration leaves office."

According to an article on CNet News.com, February 1, 2008...

" The FutureGen Alliance, which includes companies like Foundation Coal and Peabody Energy, says that the DOE initially agreed to contribute $800 million to the project. The DOE's share has only risen to $1.1 billion. Alliance members have also agreed to provide the DOE partial or full repayment for overruns. "The cost is manageable," the organization read. The DOE also claimed that financing such a project was inappropriate. Hardly, said the Alliance. Power plants are always financed. It also disputed the DOE's claim that the plant wouldn't be commercially viable. Not so, says the Alliance. Finally, the DOE claimed that the new projects will sequester as much carbon dioxide at a lower cost than FutureGen. "The Mattoon site as currently configured can sequester approximately 2 million tons per year," the Alliance said. The new projects aim for 1 million tons a year--or half as much. Whoever is right, the dispute seems to add to the Department of Energy's (or at least the Department as it has been configured for the last couple of years) inability to keep its mind on research. In the '90s, it kicked off an ambitious program to build hybrid cars. Japanese manufacturers weren't invited. In response, Toyota and Honda released hybrids. The DOE program was canceled. It then shifted to developing a hydrogen economy. We're still waiting on that one."

A report from the Washington Post, dated February 16, 2008 states...

"President Bush announced in 2004 and then continually promoted a public-private venture he hoped would usher in an era of clean coal and be a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to address global warming. The FutureGen plant would have created electricity by stripping coal of harmful carbon dioxide and pumping the gas underground. The result would be power generation with zero greenhouse gas emissions. In December, Matoon Ill., was selected as the site for the coal plant. And then, on Jan. 30, Energy secretary, Samuel W Bodman pulled the plug."

Personally, I believe that one should wonder about the motives for such a move. Texas is the home state of President Bush, after all. But even if it is all about money, shouldn't the $50 million US that the state of Illinois has already sunk into the project bear some consideration. $40 million of this came from US taxpayers, and is now just wasted funds. Why scrap the project for someone else to take up when such a large amount has already been invested, especially when the government was so much in favour of the project initially? It doesn't really make sense.

PM's Nuclear Plant Denial

11:25 AM, Wed 28 Feb 2007 .. Posted in Conspiracy Theories .. 6 comments .. Link

Printed in The Morning Bulletin, Rockhampton, 28th February 2006.
"PM's Nuclear Plant Denial
Canberra: Prime Minister John Howard says Melbourne businessman Ron Walker told him last year about his plan to start a nuclear energy company.
But Mr Howard denies that Mr Walker or fellow businessmen Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny- his associates at Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd- had told him of any proposals for a nuclear power plant in Australia.
Newspapers yesterday reported that the three businessmen were examining the viability of setting up Australia's first nuclear power plant, in either Victoria or South Australia. Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd has put out a short statement denying that any plans were underway.
"The government is not having any secret discussions," Mr Howard told parliament."

The following is an extract from The Herald Sun, 28th February 2006.
PM knew of nuclear plan.
"Mr Howard announced on May 31 last year his intention to commission an expert task force to look into the viability of nuclear power.
ANE was registered as a business on June 1, while the members of the Switkowski review were announced on June 6.
The Prime Minister denied any suggestion of inside information.
"The Government is not having any secret discussions," he said.
Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said he was surprised plans to build a nuclear plant were so advanced.
"Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and nuclear power in this country," Mr Garrett said.
Victoria's Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said a nuclear plant was unlikely to happen in Victoria.
"We have extraordinary energy reserves in Victoria, gas, coal and oil," Mr Baillieu said.
Most local state MPs around Western Port, a potential N-plant site, declared their opposition. Hastings Liberal MP Neale Burgess said he was totally opposed to nuclear power.
"I don't know why we would even consider it. We've just got so many other options," Mr Burgess said.
Mornington Liberal MP David Morris said it was out of the question.
But Bass Liberal MP Ken Smith said he had an open mind."

The following is an extract from The Age, 28th February 2006.
Walker told me about nuclear plans, says PM.
Mr Howard accused Mr Rudd of peddling conspiracy theories.
He said the Government would press ahead with the nuclear debate despite the political attacks from Labor and the Greens and jitters among his own MPs. "I am not ruling out power stations anywhere in this country," he said.
The company said in a statement it had not "put forward a proposal to build nuclear power plants in Australia."
The Age believes the businessmen looked at the feasibility of building reactors but decided not to proceed, given the long lead times in acquiring components and equipment.
However, Mr Morgan and Mr Champion de Crespigny did have discussions with Melbourne industrialist John White last year about his proposal for nuclear fuel leasing.
Mr White, who provided policy advice to the Government last year on uranium mining, is part of a group arguing the commercial case for nuclear fuel leasing, where uranium is mined, enriched, converted to fuel rods, then stored in Australia at a radioactive waste facility.

The following is an extract from The Sydney Morning Herald, 28th February 2006.
Businessmen deny nuclear proposal.
"The Government is not having any secret discussions," Mr Howard told Parliament.
The only contact I've had with these three very reputable businessmen is in about the middle of last year, Mr Walker in a telephone conversation I had with him ... he said that he and Hugh Morgan and Robert de Crespigny had decided to register a company that could be interested in nuclear power.
"And I said 'That's a great idea, Ron, you know my view on it.'
"My view and the view of the Government about nuclear being an option has been well known.
"The question of whether it ever goes any further will be a matter for commercial opinion."
Mr Howard said there was nothing conspiratorial about him speaking to Mr Walker, a former Liberal Party honorary treasurer and friend for the past 20 years.

I think that it bears mentioning that the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age are components of the Fairfax Media Group. Since Mr Walker is also the chairman of the Fairfax group, I must wonder how much of the truth we will be getting from these newspapers. The stories certainly seem to be suggesting a little favouritism on the whole nuclear idea. Co-incidence? I doubt it.

Co-incidentally, Mr Walker is not only a 'good friend of more than 20 years' to John Howard, but he was also 'National treasurer' to the Liberal Party from 1987 to 2002. Now, loathe is me to suggest that something crooked is going on here... but knowing Little Johnnie and his penchant for 'not being completely informed' within his own party... well... you can't blame me for wondering. In the stock market world this kind of association might suggest the practice of insider trading, and people could go to jail. In the world of government and big businesses, though, it seems to be par for the course. All you have to do is deny, deny, deny. Keep it up Johnnie, it just might work.

Conspiracy Theories... A Nuclear State

5:20 AM, Fri 9 Feb 2007 .. Posted in Conspiracy Theories .. 1 comments .. Link

So, the Australian Government wants us to convert all of our coal-burning power installations to nuclear. But why? Is it really because they want us to have the best and cheapest source of power, or is there something more sinister generating their motives? Is it money? Is it nuclear weaponry? Is it the influence of other powerful sources at work? Is it peer pressure on a worldwide scale? Is it a step up the rung of world domination that they're looking for? We can be almost sure of one thing... the government is not interested in nuclear power purely for it's effectiveness and good safety record. It's not the most innovative technology, it's not a power that will be readily accepted, and it's definitely not the cheapest alternative available to us, either. So why do they want it so badly? Could they have alterior motives for this one? Would they?

Now, this entry was inspired by a comment made by rrpl on this blog's very first entry. He suggests that it may be the desire to arm Australia with nuclear weapons that has the greatest pull with the government. And yes, I think that suggestion has a lot of merit. At the moment our country is still one of the 'little' guys on the field of world influence. And why? Why, despite being the sixth largest country in the world... despite having a population of over 20 million... despite having some of the world's most popular tourist attractions... despite possessing a great wealth of natural resources... and despite being credited with some of the world's most innovative inventions and breakthroughs in the field of medical sciences, are we still seen in some parts of the globe as being a bunch of half-witted crocodile wrestlers perched upon some dry little piece of useless dirt somewhere in the middle of the ocean? A tribe of half-ferals who don't know what treasures they possess... wide-eyed dolts who, with a little effort, can easily be hypnotized by bright colours, spinning things and round, shiny objects. Oh, wait a minute... do you think that might have something to do with our PM's image? I just hope that when John Howard gets chucked into that big pond that he's aiming for, he'll be able to swim fast enough to keep out of the big fish's jaws. Have a look at Wikipedia's List of States with Nuclear Weapons to see who he'll be swimming against, and just how fast he'll have to paddle.

But yes, the advantages of becoming the reigning government of a nuclear state would be great... at least for them. There would be many added benefits to being one of the 'big boys'. We'd be able to intimidate smaller countries... demand that our resources were worth more than before we obtained the weapons... we'd gain a modicum of respect from overseas super powers and heads of large multi-national corporations... John Howard would ensure himself a place in history books. And if everything runs smoothly it might go ok for the Australian public too... as long as we don't become a threat to the US... they have a history of turning on old allies when they start getting too big for their boots... and they usually leave a hell of a mess to clean up.

Do We Want This?

Here is a place where we
can discuss the current
nuclear power debate
in Australia.
A place to voice our
concerns and discuss
alternative sources.
The content of this blog
will periodically be sent
to our leaders in Canberra.
Please feel free to make
comment on the issues
raised for discussion here.
They need to know
just how we feel.

Interesting Reading

Greenpeace - Aust/Pacific
Greenpeace International - End the Nuclear Age
The Australian Wilderness Society
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
CSIRO Energy Research
TreeHugger
Real Climate
Change.org
Green Options
Matter Network
AGO- Map of Renewable Energy Generators