Australia's contribution to international displeasure over Russia's occupation of additional areas of Georgia has come in the form Australia's reconsidering supply of uranium to Russia. This may be symbolic and temporarary in nature as Australian uranium miners would not want to lose the Russian market. Australia also does not want to be seen as an unreliable supplier particularly in view of the Australian Government's decision, earlier this year not to supply to India.
-
The reconsideration in the Australian Government of whether to sell uranium to Russia may have implications for Australia's refusal to supply to India.

- Should Australia supply uranium to Russia, a country long perceived as an enemy. A country that Australia's allies, chiefly the US and UK have through Nato a growing interest in preventing Russia from clawing back territory Russia lost in the early 1990's?

- Should Australia maintain a strict view of the NPT (denying India uranium) when the NPT obviously favours the "Big Five" original nuclear powers (US, UK, France, China AND Russia)?

- Are non-proliferation principles paramount behind Australian Government thinking in supporting the NPT line or are we merely waiting for the US to blaze the trial by it concluding a nuclear agreement with India first and then it will be ethical for Australia to supply uranium to India?

Australia needs to reassess its priorities in supplying what is an increasingly valuable and strategic energy source. Military alliance building as well as broader political and trade relations come into it.

To place Russia before India denies the importance of India as a ally in our region.

Pete

Update from UIC weekly news 5-September 2008

"India wins exemption from trade ban

The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group has resolved to lift the ban on trade with India in civil nuclear materials and equipment, ending a 34 year hiatus. A bilateral agreement with the USA still needs to be approved by US Congress, and similar agreements are likely with Russia and France but these affect only trade controlled by those countries. India is barred from joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the same basis as China, and its exclusion resulted in the trade ban. It is very short of uranium to support its ambitious nuclear power program, and it also hopes to make greater use of western and Russian reactor technology.
Times of India 6/9/08."

Seems good news anti-green

I've been arguing on OLO and my website since August 2007 that Labor should reconsider its strict NPT position regarding India http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/08/australian-labor-party-currently.html.

Labor, now with the responsibilities of Government, apparently recognises the inadequacy of the NPT and the importance of India as a future ally.

As NSG decisions require consensus it appears that Australia went along with the realists - agreeing that India could have uranium. Australia was not reported as opposing the Indian supply at this latest NSG meeting. Apparently Austria, NZ and Ireland were the last to oppose it but finally agreed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7601932.stm

The Australian Government will need to advise some elements of the ALP and anti-nuclear groups why Australia decided to change its strict NPT line. Has the NPT lost validity in cases, like India's, where a country ALREADY possesses nuclear weapons?

While the NSG decision is very significant US Congressional ratification is required. But that still may not occur, or be delayed, due to the US November 2008 election. If the US hesitates some NSG members (Kazakhstan?) might quietly break ranks and supply uranium to India anyway.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Ah, Shadow Minister, sorry I took a while getting back to you, - did not want to leave you in this ignorance of capacity and consumption, - especially as it seems the only reason you still support Nuclear, and therefore nuclear to India or whoever, is that ignorance.
Well, a lot of tenders cross my desk, one a couple of days ago for an over 100 million dollars job called the Shihutang Complex, which has a hydro component, - to quote, " the hydropower plant built within the dam with an installed capacity of 117 MW will generate 480 GWh of electricity per year.
Of course the engineer in that project may have been as wrong as me, despite his awesome responsibilities, just mistaken, or more likely, both of us correct and shadow minister wrong, - what is more likely? - but another article I have seen on several newspaper sites, "According to the AWEA the U.S. has surpassed Germany in wind-powered electricity generation, even though Germany has more installed wind capacity. While the U.S. has 20,152 MW, Germany has about 23,000 MW, but U.S. wind farms produce more electricity because of stronger winds. In the U.S. 20,000 MW is about 56 billion kilowatt hours every year."
Just look carefully dear shadow minister, consider whether you could have been incorrect, and if so, thank the lord for having the opportunity to have your eyes opened.
Possibly helpful to you in answer to your claim that I draw from Pamphlets is to inform you that I created those pamphlets, - to help others understand, and of course did all the hard yards of research to present that info.
You get that.
Cheers,
Geoff.

Geoff,

The US has 21 GW of install wind generation at an average generation of 7 GW.

Compared to average consumption of 3300GW This is 0.2%.

You then talk about a 117MW hydro plant, these hydro plants are limitied by the amount of water available, and still make up a tiny fraction of the world's needs.

What is your point?

All the renewable generation installed over the last decade or so has only covered a small fraction of the increase in power demand.

The way this is going Aus will have higher CO2 emissions in 2020 than now. The Gov is talking the talk, but without nuclear it cannot walk the walk.

All I have seen from labor and the greens is hot air.