In a major development, the US outlined a new proactive approach to climate change by strongly backing the science of climate change and supporting the call for legally-binding targets for emission reductions, tradeable permits and joint implementation to be included in a new protocol. While the US position was remarkably short on detail, their change of position towards legally binding targets has significantly altered the nature of negotiations. It also makes the whole US nuclear industry look positively virtuous.
With most parties now favouring legally binding targets (although real differences remain over their nature and level), the potential for Australia to be isolated in future negotiations was underlined when the Ministers from the US, EU, Japan, Canada and most other developing country parties compromised and issued a Ministerial Statement supporting the notion of legally binding targets for emission reductions. Other than the OPEC countries, Australia stood alone in issuing a statement registering dissent on the call for such targets at this point in the negotiations. It took the line that the scientific evidence was inadequate and that the proposed controls were neither fair nor achievable. Most industrialised countries will not achieve the voluntary targets set in 1992.
Despite this "Geneva Declaration" there was little progress in the substantive negotiating sessions in resolving differences and little agreement on how to proceed. Importantly for Australia, more attention is now being given to the issue of differentiation of commitments.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat has called for national submissions on the possible content and structure of a future protocol embodying tougher commitments from developed countries by October 15. Senator Hill has committed Australia to providing a submission. The concept of differentiated commitments will be a focus for the Australian Government's input to the protocol, and industry is working to assist the Government in fleshing this out.
Meanwhile an Australian report shows that greenhouse gas emissions climbed 4% 1990-94, then 3% in 1995, making it unlikely that emissions will be stabilised at 1990 levels by 2000. (However, Australia may take comfort from DFAT figures which suggest that emissions in USA will rise by 10% to 2000, Japan and Europe by 6%.) In Australia power plant emissions rose by 4%, to make up 37% of the total, while heavy industry has reduced emissions by 5% per year due to improved efficiency, particularly in aluminium smelting. Meanwhile Australia's uranium exports, now at 6000 t/yr U3O8, avoid the emission of some 233 million tonnes per year of CO2 in customer countries.
In the UK, notwithstanding its 25% of electricity from nuclear plants, other power stations produce a quarter of the UK's greenhouse gases along with 44% of its acid rain emissions, according to the countryÕs first set of "green accounts". The UK Electricity Association expects its CO2 emissions in 2000 to be 154 million tonnes, 44 Mt lower than in 1990, which is greater than the total national savings target for that period of 37 Mt. The decrease is attributed to improvements in fossil fuel generation and in the performance of nuclear plants.
Not to be outdone, Electricit de France has pointed out that 90% of France's electricity is produced without any greenhouse gases (75% nuclear, 15% hydro), and that CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour are thus seven times lower than UK or Germany and ten times lower than Denmark. There have also been dramatic reductions in France's output of nitrogen and sulphur oxide emissions, despite a tripling in electricity production over 20 years.
The US Nuclear Energy Institute has published figures showing that on conservative assumptions about what fossil fuels were actually displaced, nuclear energy prevented the emission of 535 million tonnes of CO2 there in 1995, and 7000 million tonnes since 1973. Nuclear power has also avoided the emission of 75 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 32 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides since 1973.
The World Coal Institute has reacted to the prospect of "unattainable and unenforceable targets" for emission reductions, pointing out that the reductions are "impossible without unacceptable constraints on developing countries".
Behind the rhetoric and focus on actual emissions both of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (which contribute about half the increment in global warming potential) is the question of how definitive is the science involved and in particular the prognoses provided by various computer models. The annual increase in greenhouse gases is clear, the effect of this is not.
The world nuclear industry knows better than most the effect of irrational pseudoscience and is therefore not likely to exploit any plainly controversial outcomes of politically-propelled science affecting energy policy. Nevertheless, it will watch with interest and no doubt score a few points along the way, but the kind of denigration of coal (and gas) corresponding to what emerged from the World Coal body against nuclear energy in the 1980s seems unlikely.
Minerals Council of Aust., WEC Journal, July Ō96, p39; Power Engineering International May-Jun 1996; NEI Atmospheric Emission report May 96; New Scientist 6/7 & 7/9/96; Age 8, 20, 22, 23, 24/7/96, Aust 23/5/96, 8, 9, 10, 11, 20/7/96; ENS NucNet insider # 29/96.
ERA production and profit reports.
Energy Resources of Australia, operator of the Ranger uranium mine, has announced more than trebled profit for 1995-96 of A$ 40.7 million. Sales revenue grew 29% to A$ 180.4 million, for 4232 tonnes of U3O8, including 3364 tonnes from Ranger, a record.
Ranger production for the quarter to 30/6 was 1137 tonnes U3O8. Total production for the year to 30/6/96 was 3453 tonnes, more than double the previous year's 1548 tonnes. Total ERA sales (including Kazakh material) for the quarter were 2121 tonnes, and for the full year 4232 tonnes, an increase of 23% on the previous 3431 tonnes. On the basis of the last quarter, Ranger's annual rate of production is now 4500 tonnes U3O8 per year.
Five new long-term sales contracts were signed during the year, including one with Korea Electric Power Co. for 3000 tonnes of U3O8 to be supplied over ten years.
ERA 19/7/96, 15/8/96
WMC releases sales and profit figures.
WMC Ltd has just released its annual 1995-96 results for its copper-uranium division: A$ 445.6 million sales and A$ 123.1 million profit. These are predominantly for Olympic Dam, and compare with division sales of $367.7 million and profit of $102.0 million for 1994-95, of which $98.2 million profit and some $350 million sales were attributable to Olympic Dam. This year the OD data are not disaggregated.
WMC 5/9/96
Kakadu Region Social Impact Study announced.
The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Hill, has released terms of reference for a $330,000 study on the social impact of development on Aboriginal communities in the Kakadu region. The study will aim to provide a clear statement of Aboriginal experiences, values and aspirations in relation to development in the region and will produce an action plan to address the impacts associated with development, primarily of Jabiluka.
The study will have two parts: an Aboriginal Project Committee, with membership determined by the Aboriginal community, has a budget of $275,000 to prepare the major report on Aboriginal concerns, to provide the basis of a community development program. An Advisory Group will provide feedback on the Project Committee report and may undertake complementary projects. The Advisory Group will consist of an independent chairman, an expert, and stakeholders such as ERA (who provide half the funds), governments, the Northern Land Council and Aboriginals. The Advisory Group will prepare the action plan with assistance from the Project Committee, whose report is due mid 1997.
Press Release 4/9/96.
Possible Australian uranium sales to Taiwan
The federal government is apparently re-examining the possibility of selling uranium to Taiwan. This was previously explored by the Labor government.
Because it is not recognised as a sovereign independent country, Taiwan is not formally a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), though all its nuclear facilities are under the equivalent of full-scope safeguards and subject to regular inspections by IAEA. However, the lack of official recognition would mean that some arrangement would have to be put into place similar to that allowing sales of Canadian uranium to Taiwan. Under this arrangement Canadian uranium can be enriched in USA and gains an extra US obligation or 'flag' before being fabricated into fuel for TaiwanÕs reactors and supplied under a bilateral agreement involving full-scope safeguards. Australia, like Canada, insists on full-scope safeguards applying in any customer country, meaning that all nuclear facilities and activities are open to IAEA inspection.
China has protested to Australia about the prospect of sales to Taiwan. However, despite the fact that Canada has this arrangement to sell uranium to Taiwan, on 12 July China signed a C $ 3500 million project award agreement with CanadaÕs Atomic Energy corporation for the supply of two Canadian nuclear reactors for Qinshan, near Shanghai (see later item).
Age 16, 17/8/96, ENS NucNet news # 342/96, Senate Hansard 1/6/95, & UIC Briefing Paper # 5.
CRA to acquire balance of Westmoreland.
RTZ-CRA has announced that it has exchanged a letter of agreement for the acquisition of the remaining 53% equity in the Westmoreland uranium deposit in far NW Queensland. Westmoreland is actually a series of small deposits extending over some 10km.
Since 1990 CRA Exploration has been farming in to increase its equity (from an original 11%) in all but the Redtree deposits, which it wholly owned. Joint Venture partners are Queensland Mines and Urangesellschaft Australia (managed by Cogema). The latest reserve figures were published in 1990 and totalled 12,000 tonnes uranium oxide in ore grading 0.166% U3O8.
CRA 25/7/96, UIC mines paper #2
Similar legislation was pending in the US House of Representatives, but it will now consider the Senate Act. The main uncertainty remaining is presidential approval.
The Senate vote came after years of procrastination by the US Department of Energy (DOE), culminating in a US Appeals Court ruling that the DOE is legally obliged to start disposing of spent reactor fuel by 1998. This supported the industry assertion on the basis of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and overturned DOE arguments that the obligation did not exist until it got round to providing somewhere to put it. In June DOE announced that it did not intend to start building an interim facility until 2000.
The central interim storage facility will be at the Nevada Test Site unless in 1998 Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable as a permanent repository. The area has endured several decades of nuclear weapons tests, which led to its selection. Environmental lobbies had characterised the Senate Bill as "anti-environmental" and designed "to ram hazardous waste down the throat of an unwilling host" (Nevada).
TradeTech Market Review 31/7/96, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 5/8/96, ENS NucNet news # 360 & 361/96, Earthwins daily 20/7/96.
US Congress approves funding for advanced reactors.
Sending mixed signals, the US House of Representatives and the Senate approved funding for development of advanced light-water reactors at the end of July. The House approved US$ 17 million for the program, less than half the amount requested, and this was apparently for first-of-a-kind-engineering work rather than design certification. The Senate then approved US$ 22 million for design certification aspects of the program, but nothing for first-of-a-kind-engineering work.
Late News: The House early in September approved US$ 38 million for R&D on the advanced light water reactor program, representing a consensus between the earlier Senate and House bills.
The House also voted to fund the nuclear waste disposal program at US$ 382 million, with almost half of this to come out of funds already levied from electricity consumers but withheld by the federal government.
ENS NucNet news # 367 & 376/96, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 29/7 & 16/9/96.
This N4 design is the first entirely French-designed pressurised water reactor and marks a further step in safety improvement. It is also a partial prototype for the advanced design European pressurised water reactor (EPR) which is being jointly developed with Germany. EdF says it will order the lead EPR unit about 2000.
ENS NucNet news # 365 & 423/96, UI News Briefing 96.37, & see weekly news 2/8/96.
UK nuclear utility British Energy privatised.
The company formed to take over most of Britain's nuclear electricity capacity, British Energy, was privatised in July, raising some £1400 million (US$ 2.2 billion). The long-awaited privatisation encountered a high demand from investors, which led to half the shares being placed with the public and only half with institutions.
The company operates eight nuclear power plants with 14 advanced gas-cooled reactors and a large new pressurised water reactor at Sizewell. They meet 19% of UK's electricity needs. Twelve older Magnox reactors are run by Magnox Electric, which is not being privatised, and the two oldest plants (with 8 small reactors whose operating lives were recently extended to 50 years) are run by BNFL, which is a public limited company but wholly government-owned.
NEI Nuclear Energy overview 22/7/96, UI News Briefing #96.28
BNFL 46% profit surge.
British Nuclear Fuels has announced an 18% sales growth and a 46% increase in pre-tax profit to £316 million in 1995-96. Export sales were £501 million, 32% of turnover. BNFL expects three quarters of its profits to come from overseas earnings and new business within a decade.
THORP reprocessing performance was on target, with 200 tonnes throughput of spent fuel in the year and 400 tonnes scheduled this year. This will rise to 900 tonnes in 1998-99.
ENS NucNet news # 422/96
British report plutonium holdings
The 1996 information of UK plutonium stocks shows that British Nuclear Fuels PLC holds 56 tonnes owned by UK utilities and 35 tonnes owned by BNFL or its overseas customers. Of the total of 91t, 40.5t remains in spent fuel. Only 193kg was in MOX fuel exported (to Switzerland), none in MOX stock. All separated plutonium oxide has more than 15% Pu-240.
UK Dept of Trade & Industry, 7/96.
German Supreme Court clears waste repository ......
After 13 years of legal proceedings the Supreme Court in Luneburg has confirmed the legitimacy of the licence for the Gorleben interim waste repository. The facility is used by German utilities for storage of spent fuel elements as well as high-level waste from reprocessing spent fuel. The Court also refused the right of further appeal.
..........and state government clears vitrification plant
The Baden-Wurttemberg government has approved construction of a small vitrification plant for nuclear high-level waste at the Karlsruhe research centre.
ENS NucNet news # 424 & 435/96
German reactor restarts after regulatory battle.
GermanyÕs 1167 MWe Biblis-A nuclear reactor is back in operation after a protracted legal battle with the Green-led state authorities which had refused permission for it to restart after a routine shut-down more than a year ago.
The utility, RWE, said that following the discovery of a faulty valve in the residual heat removal system, the state environment ministry had prevented the matter being fully resolved for as long as possible. RWE also accused the ministry of adopting a deliberate policy of refusing permission for work on modernising safety systems to take place, then making an issue of the fact that the work had not been done. However, the 21-year old reactor had been substantially upgraded before the current left-wing government came to power, and there was no reason to expect further interference with its operation, at least until the next refuelling shut-down in November 1997.
In May 1995 RWE took the state government to court over its refusal then to allow Biblis-B to restart, accusing it of using spurious safety concerns for political ends. The government promptly relented.
ENS NucNet news # 390/96, also 216 & 221/95.
Swiss authorise central interim store for radioactive waste.
After six years of deliberations and following parliamentary approval in 1994, the Swiss government has now authorised the construction of a central interim storage facility for all kinds of radioactive waste, from electricity generation, medicine, industry and research. The new facility at Wrenlingen will include equipment for conditioning and incineration of low and medium-level radwaste, though the plasma incineration method proposed will need to be licensed later.
It is intended to use dry storage for spent fuel elements or high-level wastes in transport containers in a surface hall. The complex will be run by the Zwilag company, set up for the purpose. It will cost about US$ 416 million to build, funded by the producers of the wastes.
The Energy Department said that there had been no arguments put forward which would weaken the expert opinion of the safety authorities, or which would require more extensive studies.
NucNet news # 410/96, OECD/NEA Radioactive Waste Management in Perspective, 1996.
Finland rejuvenates its Soviet nuclear plants.
The pressure vessel of Finland's Loviisa-1 nuclear reactor has undergone annealing to counter embrittlement after 19 years of neutron irradiation. The process involves heating the part of the pressure vessel near the core to 475¼C for about 100 hours, and is the same as was in contention for Bulgaria's Kozloduy-1 last year (and probably taking place this year). Both reactors are Soviet VVER 440 types, with relatively narrow pressure vessels, though the Loviisa units are later '213' models and have Western control systems and containment. Loviisa-2 is to be annealed later this year.
ENS NucNet news #391/96.
The 14 agreed principles include the optimisation of economic growth through policies and actions which meet the region's energy requirements, security of energy supply, and protection of the environment especially in relation to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The principles also cover reduction of energy subsidies, transfer of technology and the greater involvement of private enterprise, which will have to provide about 65% of the US$ 1600 billion required for electricity expansion. AustraliaÕs Prime Minister urged the meeting to work towards free trade and investment in energy by 2000, rather than APEC's 2010 target date.
The OECD anticipates that some 40,000 MWe of new nuclear capacity will be introduced to Asia, primarily north-east Asia, by 2010, equivalent to 11.5% of present world total nuclear capacity or nearly half of the world increment in that period. China has announced intentions to reach 20,000 MWe of nuclear capacity by 2020.
Australian 29 & 30/8/96
China signs nuclear reactor agreement with Canada.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd has signed a C$ 3500 million financing agreement for the construction of two 700 MWe Candu 6 units at Qinshan, near Shanghai. This settles the key elements of a final contract for the units, including technical scope, price and payment schedule.
The Canadian Export Development Corporation has agreed to a C$ 1500 million loan to cover most of the Canadian content, Hitachi and Bechtel are reported to have arranged finance for the Japanese and US content. A six year project schedule is envisaged, from January 1997.
ENS NucNet news # 342/96, UNECAN News July 96.
Japan approves plans for new nuclear power plant.
For the first time in ten years, Japan's Electric Power Development Coordination Council has approved plans for a completely new nuclear power station. Tohoku Electric plans to build a 1100 MWe boiling water reactor, Higashidori-1, starting December 1998, for completion in 2005. Meanwhile construction has started on Tohoku's Onagawa-3 reactor, a 825 MWe BWR.
ENS NucNet news # 359/96, UI News Briefing 96.29 & 37.
Vietnam explores nuclear energy.
The Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission has launched two studies to investigate aspects of nuclear power development for the country, which has a rapidly-growing electricity demand. Under an agreement signed with France in September, generation of electricity from nuclear energy is expected to commence in 2010, when demand is expected to reach 100 TWh, about two thirds of Australia's current level. The new agreement covers a range of technical and training isssues. One of Vietnam's four nuclear research institutes has a research reactor and waste treatment facility.
ENS NucNet news # 341, 347 & 439/96.
Kazakh Uranium developments
The major French nuclear fuel cycle company Cogema and the state-controlled KATEP company have set up a joint venture, KATCO, to work on the development of uranium resources in Kazakhstan. KATEP is responsible for supervising the production and commercialisation of uranium in Kazakhstan, which holds 19% of the worldÕs low-cost uranium reserves. An initial project of KATCO is to study the feasibility of using in situ leaching on deposits in Muyunkum. Cogema is involved in uranium mining in six other countries, including Australia.
In the last couple of years Kazakhstan has closed down its higher cost mining and now produces uranium solely by in situ leaching.
UI News Briefing 96.33, NucNet news # 408/96
Emerging out of the secrecy of WWII and the Cold War, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission succeeded in developing its own enrichment technology. However, this was not taken up by industry and was further stymied by government, being closed down in 1983.
Clarence Hardy, who was intimately involved with the program from 1971, presents a personal view of the basic technical achievements and their significance internationally. Both centrifuge and laser programs are covered, as well as associated political and commercial initiatives. By 1982 this was the largest of the AAEC's R&D programs, and had provided "a technical achievement which, if further supported, could have amply repaid its investment in enabling a completely independent commercial technology to be developed" at a strategic time in Australia. But he thinks we have not yet quite missed the boat (albeit now the URENCO boat).
The initial chapter presents a potted history of nuclear energy up to the 1950s, and will be a handy reference in itself for teachers and others.
The Nuexco Exchange Value (US$/ pound U3O8) quoted by TradeTech for 1995-96:
| Month end | Restricted | Unrestricted prices | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| January '95 | 9.65 | 7.25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| February | 10.40 | 7.25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| March | 11.15 | 7.35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| April | 11.60 | 7.35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| May | 11.80 | 7.65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| June | 11.90 | 7.90 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| July | 11.85 | 8.40 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| August | 11.70 | 9.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| September | 11.70 | 9.50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| October | 11.70 | 9.80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| November | 11.85 | 10.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| December | 12.20 | 10.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| January 1996 | 13.00 | 10.75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| February | 15.40 | 13.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| March | 15.75 | 13.50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| April | 16.10 | 13.75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| May | 16.50 | 15.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| June | 16.50 | 15.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| July | 16.50 | 15.50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| August 1996 | 16.30 | 15.50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
e-mail: uic@peg.apc.org
fax (03) 9629 7207