3CR
 Community Radio 855am

THE RADIO-ACTIVE SHOW

With Eric Miller and Linda Marks

Saturday at 10.00am

19th December 1998

Good morning, this is the Radio Active Show brought to you by the Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service. I'm Linda Marks and with me in the studio is Eric Miller. (Good Morning). The Radio-Active Show is a weekly program bringing you news and information on Nuclear, Peace and Energy issues.

On today's show we look at the nuclear power industry in the world and discuss its future. We hear from Mycle Schneider from the World Information Service on Energy in Paris and Jean McSorley, who has been a Greenpeace Nuclear Issues Campaigner and is a long time anti-nuclear activist. They both spoke at the recent Nuclear Free Australia Forum.

But first, the Jabiluka Action Group. There have been two actions this week in Melbourne against the proposed uranium mine at Jabiluka. The first one was on Tuesday morning at 7am. Activists unfurled a series of banners on three freeways in Melbourne – the Eastern, the South Eastern and Tullamarine Freeways. The banners identified the role of the Westpac Banking Group and the Bank of Melbourne in financing North Ltd, the parent company of ERA, who are constructing the Jabiluka mine.

Morning motorists on the freeways were greeted with the same series of messages as they approached the flyovers on the respective freeways. They read:

  1. North and ERA mine uranium at Kakadu
  2. Westpac deals in shares in North and ERA
  3. Westpac lends money to North and ERA: disinvest
  4. Don't fool yourself, uranium kills. Stop Jabiluka.

This was done two days before Westpac's AGM which was on Thursday in Sydney. Similar actions were done throughout the country.

The people who unfurled the banners told the Radio-Active Show that there were lots of positive responses from motorists and as there were no police, it was a very peaceful action.

And on Wednesday about 20 protesters from JAG confronted the Prime Minister John Howard and the Federal Coalition Minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge outside St Vincents hospital waving placards that read 'Export Howard not Uranium' and 'Land Rights not Uranium Mining.'

Now we go to the future of the nuclear industry. Mycle Schneider has been researching the nuclear industry for over 15 years. He works with the World Information Service on Energy in Paris and he spoke at the Nuclear Free Australia Forum in Melbourne this month. Here is some of what he said. He is speaking about the state of the nuclear industry in Europe and in the US.

Mycle Schneider: The issue I would like to address here, maybe as an introduction is to give you an overview of the current state of the nuclear power industry internationally. The first point is that there's only about 32 countries that have nuclear power plants out of some 200 UN countries, so it's only about 15% of the worldwide countries that operate nuclear power plants. The second point is that there's only 5 countries, the United States, France, Japan, Germany and Russia that produce more than 100 terrawatt hours, 100 billion kilowatt hours of nuclear electricity. As you can see this is making up the vast majority of the nuclear electricity worldwide. Approximately 70% of the nuclear industry worldwide is being produced by 5 countries only. This is to clear up the wrong idea that nuclear power is a worldwide, very significant, well distributed technology. It's basically a technology limited to a small number of countries and that is, as we will see, in the process of decline.

If we have a particular look at the reactor start ups and shut downs over the years in Western Europe and the United States, we see that the vast majority of today's operating power plants started up in the 70s and in the 80s. That is, 34% in the 70s, 44% in the 80s, and only 4% in the 90s. This is basically the finishing off of reactor orders. The last reactor order in the United States was in October 1973. This reactor was only put into operation in 1996. The construction periods have been stretched so far that the last reactor actually had a 23 year construction period. But it also meant that people had the impression that nuclear power programs were still continuing in the United States and in other countries. In Western Europe, outside France, because there is always France and the rest of the world, the last reactor order dates from 1980. So this is also quite a while ago. In France the last construction start up date was in 1993. This was, although it has been claimed, in the late 80s that the reactor building industry in France could not survive without at least 2 orders a year.

The actual cumulated numbers of reactors in Western Europe and the United States looks like this: you have up until 1989 an increase and since 1989 there are actually more reactors being shut down than new reactors coming on stream. It is a situation that will continue since there are no reactors under construction. It will rather get faster than slow down.

Italy phased out nuclear power in 1987, by referendum. It's the only country in the world that has actually had a nuclear power program and has not produced nuclear electricity since Chernobyl. It was a direct result of the Chernobyl accident that the referendum in Italy got through.

It is interesting to note that in 1997 for the first time historically there was a decline in the nuclear electricity output worldwide. We have seen in terms of numbers of reactors, now translating into a decline in electricity production. There is a certain delay, the decline in the numbers of reactors has started earlier, and this does not translate for a while into a decline in electricity production because the units are bigger, so a smaller number of units produce more electricity. There have been a certain number of countries that have had troubles getting new nuclear power plants that have increased the nominal capacity of existing nuclear reactors. This is a kind of a way of circumventing a political problem in getting any new power plants built is to increase the capacity, the output of the existing ones. But it clearly translates into the overall electricity production.

I think it is absolutely clear that with the new German Government having announced a firm and irreversible phase out of nuclear power, in many countries it has not quite been understood how radical this change is going to be. Irreversible, that's the term that is used in the coalition agreement between the Social Democrats and the Green Party, irreversible phase out of nuclear power in Germany within the next, the base line lays down within the next 5 years.

Linda Marks: You're listening to Mycle Schneider from the World Information Service on Energy in Paris. Apart from France, the last nuclear reactor orders in Europe were in 1980 and 1973 in the case of the US. What we have in the West is a slow phase out of nuclear power. Now with Germany announcing a quicker phase policy, this could influence other European countries to speed up the process. Mycle continues:

Mycle Schneider: It is interesting also that in France, despite having the reputation of being the ultimate nuclear country, even there it is possible now to ask questions which have not been possible a while ago. A French, conservative, large print run, weekly magazine, in the issue of November 14, asked the question on its front cover, 'Should we stop, should we phase out nuclear power?' This is in France, in a conservative magazine, on the front cover! So this, even a year ago, would have been hardly imaginable. Even the question was totally taboo. In terms of public debate it was a non-issue. So it is interesting that already you can now feel the effect of the German decision on the debate in other European countries. It would certainly be useful to have that kind of influence on the debate on the Australian situation as well, because of course, those developments will have significant impact on the international uranium market. You can imagine that if countries like Germany announce a phase out, it's not really stimulating for price increases on the uranium market.

This is France, but I got an e-mail today that said that the Belgium Government announced a committee to look at the phase out of nuclear power. In Belgium! This is absolutely mind blowing. For people who know the situation in Belgium. Belgium is the second country in Europe after France in terms of percentage of nuclear power in the electricity production. France has about 75% and Belgium has 60 – 65%. Actually, the first announcement was to say that the reprocessing contracts the country has with France would not be carried out, the post 2000 contracts would not be carried out, which is already a major victory. This is all from the last few days! And the second announcement was that there would be some sort of committee to look into the possibility of phase out of nuclear power in Belgium.

Linda Marks: You're listening to Mycle Schneider from the Paris branch of the World Information Service on Energy. Mycle went on to say that in Japan, the nuclear program is in disarray after the accident in the prototype fast breeder reactor, and two other very serious accidents in the industry. Mycle also mentioned how the nuclear industry tried to cover up these accidents, and how this has backfired on the industry as people become more disillusioned.

Now we hear from Jean McSorely who has been a Greenpeace nuclear issues campaigner and is a long time anti-nuclear activist. Jean now works with the CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union) on energy issues.

She tells us about the nuclear industry in Asia:

Jean McSorely: I'm also doing some work on Rio Tinto with the CFMEU and I work in the mining and energy division. I see the lobby of the fossil fuel industry writ large every day. And that's the same reason the Indonesians knocked off their nuclear power plant idea or delayed it early last year. In fact well before the economic crisis, the Indonesians said we're going to delay our nuclear power plants. But as I say, it's not for the right reasons. It is because the fossil fuel industry wins out and the power of the unions, even though the Government doesn't like the unions, that is what it's about.

So you have to look at the electricity demand situation in Asia, it is huge, it's absolutely vast. You can get reports from the APEC Energy Working Group and they are just terrifying when you look at energy as a whole. China is building a huge number of reactors and even so it will be a small amount of their energy because the coal power plants they are talking about constructing are going to be so vast, the hydro electric system some of them are putting in are quite massive.

But overall there is nothing like the original projections. If you take the region, and what I mean by the region is everything from Pakistan right across, you're only looking at 6 reactors that are being built, about 6 reactors.

A very good web site for this, if want the up to date information, because they provide it free of charge, is ANSTO. ANSTO list every reactor, research, power reactor, everything in the region. It is http://www.ansto.gov.au. Go in there because they give you all the power reactors and the exact status of them.

Certainly nuclear power is not going to take off like they claimed it would do in this region. Of course this brings in a very interesting juxtaposition on what Mycle was saying. If they are really going to get screwed in the traditional markets in a way they never thought would happen a few years ago and they are going to be under incredible political and financial pressures in parts of the region. And there is political pressures in those countries that don't want nuclear power against those who do have them because of just environmental concerns and proliferation concerns and the uranium market certainly isn't as healthy as people claim …

Linda Marks: That was Jean McSorely, long time anti-nuclear activist. Jean works with the CFMEU on energy issues. Jean was also speaking at the Nuclear Free Australia Forum in Melbourne earlier this month.

But the electricity energy market is changing around the world and this means more difficulty for the nuclear industry. Mycle Schneider explains:

Mycle Schneider: … the market conditions are expected to have an enormous impact on currently operating power plants. I've seen several studies by consulting firms for industry utilities in the US, and they are saying that they are expecting in the US, over the next few years, that over 40% of the reactors will be shut down because of deregulation. 40% is enormous, it's over 40 reactors. Not surviving the competition from other energy sources.

It comes to a point where the market situation is such that you put up for competition, for offer, lets say 100 megawatts. For those 100 megawatts you can say how you want to deal with them. You can save them! You can propose that you want to save 100 megawatts. Or you can come up with 50 megawatts saving and 50 megawatts production on whatever, combined heat and power etcetera. Under those conditions nuclear power is totally out. Off the wall as a competitive source! Nuclear power has to confront this kind of mechanism.

Then you have a certain number of issues that are much more linked to the uranium markets and such that I want to add to what was said earlier. I certainly agree with what Jean said. The whole, so-called, fantastic, SE Asian market is complete rubbish and has always been rubbish. It is not only since the big crisis, it was rubbish before. There were a few power plants under construction and some projects, but that doesn't change the overall tendency, that's the key point.

On the other hand you have, in terms of uranium supply, you have new players entering the market. The ex-Soviet Union, like Russia and Khazakhstan are entering massively the market. They have been increasing the supply to the European Union by a factor of five in five years or so. China is massively starting to get into the market. Plus you have the weapons uranium that is being downgraded to low enriched uranium entering the market also and giving the US, potentially the US, but also Russia, the possibility to put weight on the price as they wish to.

So there is no tendency whatsoever, imaginable, that would stimulate an increase in price. The uranium producers have tried to keep production low, under the assumption, that several years now, with out any effect, without any affect. The price still went down. It basically increases two dollars and loses three. It just doesn't work. There's no reason imaginable over the next few years why the price should go up. That is worth a thorough analysis in this country because all kinds of uranium projects become highly speculative under those conditions.

Linda Marks: That was Mycle Schneider from the World Information Service on Energy in Paris speaking at the Nuclear Free Australia Forum in Melbourne this month. It's hardly surprising with the nuclear market depressed as it is that ERA put out a press release this week on the 14th December 1998 that read:

'Production Levels at Ranger.

As foreshadowed in the October 15 quarterly report, firm sales for the current financial year are expected to fall from last year's levels due to weaker market conditions.

The capacity of the expanded Range Mill is 5.000–6.000t/a, depending on grade and ore type. Currently, production is running at an annualised rate of 5,500 t/a, using the original rod-ball mill circuit and the new ball mill in parallel.

In the light of the sales outlook the Company is to reduce production to an annualised rate of 4,000 t/a by shutting down the new ball mill effective 31 March 1999 until further notice. This has minimal manpower implications.

Any additional requirements that the Company may have in order to satisfy its long term contracts will be sourced from the market where this can be done with no adverse impact in ERA's costs.

The situation will be reviewed continuously in the light of changes in market conditions.'

So we must stop any new mines from being constructed.

One last comment by Mycle Schneider. He was asked about wind power in Germany. Mycle was referring to some overheads:

Mycle Schneider: This is the evolution of the renewable energy program in Germany from 1990 to 1997. You have hydro power, wind power and photovoltaics. This is in numbers of installations. So you can see the increase in wind power in the middle is spectacular. But photovoltaics has also had an amazing increase. This is number of installations. It doesn't mean that much, but if you look at installed capacity it becomes mind blowing. This is wind power. The development of wind power 1990 – 1997 and we're talking about 2,000 megawatts that have been built up in 6 years. Germany is now the largest wind power operator worldwide. In 5 years they have built up a larger program than the US in 20 years. They have built up 2,000 megawatts, and you know what happened this year? They added another 1,000 megawatts. In one year! In terms of production you might say, this is times 50 increase. If you look at electricity production by wind power, it's even more spectacular. You have an increase of a factor of over a 100 in this country over the same period.

You might ask, is this a totally artificial thing? Is this something that is highly subsidised or costs a fortune. The public money that has been spent is in the order of, equivalent to, about $250 – 300 million of public money, not more. The rest has been established by an interesting concept. The utilities have an obligation to buy the power for a fixed price that is a percentage of the average income of the utility. So, say, the average kilowatt hour income for the utility was 'x' and it's 80% of that average income which they pay to the producer of renewable energy power or wind power. So this a very stimulating approach because it puts up the kilowatt hour price much higher than the price you would get otherwise, if you leave it open to the market.

Linda Marks: Mycle Schneider works for a terrific organisation, The World Information Service on Energy and they call themselves WISE. WISE puts out a fortnightly communique which is well worth subscribing to if you're interested in keeping up with what's going on in the nuclear industry and also the alternative energy field. It reports on accidents, protests, close downs, developments, government policy, all sorts of things, everything you'd want to know. A subscription to WISE is around $40-50 for individuals. If you are interested in getting hold of a subscription to WISE you can call Friends of the Earth on 9419 8700, and leave a message for either Eric or myself. Or you could write to Eric or myself c/- the Anti-Uranium Collective of Friends of the Earth at 312 Smith Street, Collingwood, 3066. And if you are interested in reading a transcript of today's show you can get it at our web site at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~seaus

What's on:

  1. The People Against the Sanctions on Iraq meet at the GPO in the Bourke Street Mall at 5pm on a daily basis while the USA and Britain continue to bomb Iraq.
  2. If you are going up to Confest this year, visit the Anti-Nuclear stall, the Friends of the Earth and Roxby Action Collective stall and they are raising money for the Radio-Active Show this year, so you'll by supporting the Radio-Active Show as well. You can get tickets from FOE and the Confest is at Tocumwal this year. Get along.

Eric Miller: This is all we have time for the Radio-Active Show this year, this is the last live show for 1998. Next week's show on Boxing Day will be taped, but listen in because you'll hear lots of good things over the summer break. It's bye from Eric.

Linda Marks: Have a wonderful Christmas and New Year period, and it's goodbye from Linda.

Transcript produced by Linda Marks - with much thanks!!!
Page last updated January 8, 1999.
Back to the Radio-Active Show Archivesor Back to the SEA-US Front Page

Copyright © SEA-US 1999