Thorium Reactors - Indian and Australian Prospects

Comments arising from my post Indian-Australian Differences but Hope November 19, 2009 covered India's nuclear, specifically thorium technology prospects:

jbmoore said...

"Disarm? If MIT is correct (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/ [that uranium stocks are very limited but this may encourage deweaponisation of uranium and plutonium]), assuming that cheap solar energy and wind don't come into play, they will need most of their uranium and plutonium for energy production, not weapons. There's a lot of wild cards there. One is thorium reactors, the others are wind, solar, geothermal (ocean thermal and currents), and conventional sources of power. If enough of those technologies come on line, India will be able to stretch its energy supplies and possibly have a decent nuclear and thermonuclear arsenal, and sufficient fuel for energy production. They'll be able to have their cake and eat it, too.

...If Australia played its cards better, it could come out ahead on any deal. Help the Indians develop thorium reactors (you guys have a lot of thorium deposits). Setup joint research programs between India and Australia...Friday, November 20, 2009 11:07:00 AM"
---------------------------------------

Parminder Grewal said...

"I have been going through your blog for the last few days. It has a lot of interesting stuff.

...3. Regarding Australia and the uranium politics: India and Australia are both rich in another ore called as thorium. Thorium is a much more cleaner source of nuclear energy than uranium(less dangerous by products), it cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, it is much more abundant (conservative estimates say that Indian reserves can satisfy Indian needs for 350 years, optimistic estimates talk in terms of millenia).

The technology to use thorium exists with the United States since the 1970's but has not been used (my speculation is that this was ensured by the oil companies and uranium industry). India has been planning to do the same and is at stage 2 of her 3 stage plan to develop thorium based reactors (there is speculation that the civilian nuclear deal was partly aimed at blocking this thorium based energy cycle). Thorium could be the ultimate solution to the climate/energy problem for centuries to come but the vested interests of a few companies is stopping that from happening. Its very sad I'd say. Saturday, November 21, 2009 6:43:00 AM"

Background

Wiki contains this fairly clear description of the Thorium fuel cycle:

The thorium fuel cycle is a nuclear fuel cycle that uses the naturally abundant isotope of thorium, 232Th, as fertile material, and the artificial uranium isotope, 233U, as fissile fuel for a nuclear reactor.

However, unlike natural uranium, natural thorium contains only trace amounts of fissile material (such as 231Th) that are insufficient to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. Thus, some fissile material must be mixed with natural thorium in order to initiate the fuel cycle. In a thorium-fueled reactor, 232Th will absorb slow neutrons to produce 233U, which is similar to the process in uranium-fueled reactors whereby fertile 238U absorbs neutrons to form fissile 239Pu.

Depending on the design of the reactor and fuel cycle, the 233U generated is either utilized in situ or chemically separated from the used nuclear fuel and used in new nuclear fuel.

A thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle, including greater resource abundance, superior physical and nuclear properties of fuel, enhanced proliferation resistance, and reduced plutonium and actinide production.

Concerns about the limits of worldwide uranium resources motivated initial interest in the thorium fuel cycle. It was envisioned that as uranium reserves were depleted, thorium would supplement uranium as a fertile material. However, for most countries uranium was relatively abundant, and research in thorium fuel cycles waned. A notable exception is the Republic of India which is developing a three stage thorium fuel cycle. Recently there has been renewed interest in thorium-based fuels for improving proliferation resistance and waste characteristics of used nuclear fuel.

Thorium fuels have been used in several power and research reactors. One of the earliest efforts to use a thorium fuel cycle took place at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. An experimental Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technology to study the feasibility of such an approach, using thorium(IV) fluoride salt kept hot enough to be liquid, thus eliminating the need for fabricating fuel elements. This effort culminated in the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment that used 232Th as the fertile material and 233U as the fissile fuel. Due to a lack of funding, the MSR program was discontinued in 1976.
-
Advantages of thorium as a nuclear fuel
-
There are several potential advantages to thorium-based fuels.
Thorium is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in the earth's crust, although present knowledge of reserves is limited. Current demand for thorium has been satisfied as a by-product of rare-earth extraction from monazite sands. Also, unlike uranium, naturally occurring thorium consists of only a single isotope (232Th) in significant quantities. Consequently, all mined thorium is useful in thermal reactors.

Thorium-based fuels also display favorable physical and chemical properties which improve reactor and repository performance. Because the 233U produced in thorium fuels is inevitably contaminated with 232U, thorium-based used nuclear fuel possesses inherent proliferation resistance. Uranium-232 can not be chemically separated from 233U and has several decay products which emit high energy gamma radiation. These high energy photons are a radiological hazard that necessitate the use of remote handling of separated uranium and aid in the passive detection of such materials. [can also be seen as a toxic disadvantage].
-
[however plutonium may be worse in toxicity] The long term (on the order of roughly 103 to 106 years) radiological hazard of conventional uranium-based used nuclear fuel is dominated by plutonium and other minor actinides, after which long-lived fission products become significant contributors again.
-
Disadvantages of thorium as nuclear fuel
-
Unlike uranium, natural thorium contains no fissile isotopes; fissile material, generally 233U, 235U, or plutonium, must be supplemented to achieve criticality. This, along with the high sintering temperature necessary to make thorium-dioxide fuel, complicates the fuel fabrication process. Oak Ridge National Laboratory experimented with thorium-tetrafluoride as fuel in a molten salt reactor from 1964-1969, which was far easier to both process and separate from fuel poisons (contaminants that slow or stop the chain reaction.)

If thorium is used in an open fuel cycle (i.e. utilizing 233U in-situ), higher burnup is necessary to achieve a favorable neutron economy. Although thorium dioxide has performed well at burnups of 170,000 MWd/t and 150,000 MWd/t at Fort St. Vrain Generating Station and the German AVR reactor [closed 1980], there are challenges associated with achieving this burnup in light water reactors (LWR), which compose the vast majority of existing power reactors.

Another challenge associated with a once-through thorium fuel cycle is the comparatively long time scale over which 232Th breeds to 233U. The half-life of 233Pa is about 27 days, which is an order of magnitude longer than the half-life of 239Np [Neptunium]. As a result, substantial 233Pa builds into thorium-based fuels. Protactinium-233 is a significant neutron absorber, and although it eventually breeds into fissile 235U, this requires two more neutron absorptions, which degrades neutron economy and increases the likelihood of transuranic production.

Alternately, if thorium is used in a closed fuel cycle in which 233U is recycled, remote handling is necessary for fuel fabrication because of the high radiation dose resulting from the decay products of 232U. This is also true of recycled thorium because of the presence of 228Th, which is part of the 232U decay sequence.

Further, although there is substantial worldwide experience recycling uranium fuels (e.g. PUREX), similar technology for thorium (e.g. THOREX) is still under development.

Although the presence of 232U makes it a challenge, 233U can be used in fission weapons, but this has been done only occasionally. The United States first tested 233U as part of a bomb core in Operation Teapot in 1955. However, unlike plutonium, 233U can be easily denatured [rendered not suitable for weapons ] by mixing it with natural or depleted uranium.

Despite the fact that thorium-based fuels produce far less long-lived transuranics than uranium-based fuels, there are some long-lived actinides produced that constitute a long term radiological impact, especially 231Pa.

Comment

I need to do much more research but my initial comments are:

- thorium reactor research is as difficult a set of tasks (see "Disadvantages" above) as the intense multinational effort that produced the world's first atom bomb.
- without considerable US, European and probably Japanese and Russian involvement, thorium fuel cycles will not be complete, cost-effective or efficient in other respects for decades.
- Compared to building a miniturised submarine reactor (which, in the end, required Russian assistance) India faces a tougher technical hurdle in independently making thorium a mature process.

- there are currently perceptions in most other countries of uranium abundance including all the major nuclear countries, except India

- if ample uranium were available to India in future its nuclear research effort might also move away from thorium (a complex issue which needs to be considered)

- with the post 1998 test sanctions being lifted by all (except Australia) it may well be that India already has sufficient uranium so make thorium research (other than for weapons research) a lower priority.

-

Australia's position (or lack of...)

-

- while Australia has good scientists and some useful theoretical knowledge it has nowhere near the government, academic or commercial resources to assist greately with practical thorium applications let alone standand uranium nuclear reactors.

- in Australia all nuclear research has been intentionally rundown by the government for Labor Party unity, environmental green and nuclear free regional utopia reasons.

- the very abundance of Australian uranium and coal likely means that Australia would not seriously consider undeveloped thorium technology for domestic use for decades - and that is after we build our own standard uranium reactors
- any Australian simple uranium reactors (none planned) might not go on line before 2035 - probably much later, then add 20 years for thorium/fast breeder.
-
Pete

Indian-Australian Differences but Hope

A dozen Indian-Australian women converged on Perth in November 2008 for the finals of the Miss India Australia contest.

This article touches on several things that divide Australia and India politically, socially and culturally. It is politically incorrect in tone but probably nearer to the truth than the platitudes that continue to prevent understanding between our countries. Whether discretion is better than plain speaking is a problem for politicians and diplomats.

Australia's Prime Minister Rudd has come and gone from India in the last 10 days. I suspect making little impression. He is demonstrative and articulate without the safe aristocracy that may have impressed Viceroys of old as much as the forward classes who today hold most real political power in Delhi.

While the class filled English were both impressed by India's even more rigid system, and used it to perpetuate British domination, Australians have little comprehension and no liking for such systems. Our social divider is very money based, a function of what you do and level of education. Family origins count little. Accent is an indicator though rich "larrikan" accents of the John Singleton type are strongly accepted.

India, I think, prefers to bat, preferably with a non-aligned stance, with the big powers, knowing that China is eternal, on the border and more powerful. Russia has long been a key ally enabling non-alignment through the quiet provision of nuclear technology to India. Like Australia America is less class and more money based but -America's dominant military, economic and diplomatic power make it an increasingly valuable ally - even if many in India forward classes would prefer to consider the US an uncouth, overly powerful upstart, which should be taught manners by its old world seniors.

Australia appears, in India's eyes, to be a small, upstart that has too much resource power, especially uranium, for its own good. It should know its place but associates itself too much with China and the US to be put in its place.

On race, little Australia, in India's eyes is a white, always white, however racially mixed it has actually become. Many in India feel that Australians formed a portion of the British colonial oppressors who controlled India for so long. Like no other country India plays the Aboriginal guilt card - a guilt to be resurrected by the sub-continental media whenever profitable. It does not matter that our Aborigines are provided with government services on a per capita level vastly higher than the needy in India.

There is still racism in Australia but less than in most countries. We don't ban people from doing things on the basis of class, religion or race. No pogroms. While muggings of Indian students have produced headlines here and in India this does not reflect how warmly Indians have been embraced.

Indians here are becoming rapidly integrated into the Australian community. Much of this is based on our common language, straight talking Indian openness, flexible religions and Indians striving through higher education. There are many Indian doctors and IT specialists here that do not need to worry about the class rigidities experienced back home. Intermarriage with white Australians is very common and one of my cousins through marriage originally came from India - he's an IT specialist.

-
Am I misrepresenting the Indian view - noting that 1.1 billion people means many views?
-
Pete

Asylum seekers shot over inability to bribe Indonesian vessels

Australian ABC New November 15, 2009 reports:

"Indonesian authorities opened fire on a boat crammed full of Australia-bound Afghan asylum seekers, wounding two, after demanding a bribe the Afghans could not afford to pay, one of the asylum seekers says..."

injuries occurred because the refugees sadly ran out of money to bribe Indonesian pirates on the Indonesian Government payroll but using boats donated by Australia

-----------------------------

As if by chance I posted the following on Friday, November 13, 2009:

Many have wondered in the past whether the Indonesian economy, government and legal system is crippled by bribery. Indonesia is rated the most corrupt country in Asia (according to the 2009 Political and Economic Risk Consultancy survey - see below). Although East Timor (not in this survey) might be rated more corrupt. The Indonesian economy appears to be reliant on bribery/commissions/parallel payments to function.

Most Indonesian Government and military officials are woefully underpaid and have to rely on "commissions" to survive. The dual system of official pay and "commissions" is therefore a reality of life.

What is wrong with it is that big money/bribes/commissions are often to paid to officials/military/politicians at the top who have the discretion either to pass most down to subordinates (as it should be) or keep it - perhaps sending it out of Indonesia - which doesn't benefit the people. Commissions also distort decision making, so as to favour those who can pay.

Recognising reality Australia should do its best to outbid/outspend people smugglers in key refugee collection points and boat launch areas of Indonesia, including Java, Indonesia's heartland, otherwise many more refugees will turn up illegally and uninvited in Australia. Australia is making this "subsidy policy" more plain in Sri Lanka.

Most genuine refugees wait in the immigration queue rather than relying on political stunts with the implicit threat of mass suicide - such as boat burning.

Targeted subsidies which can also be considered protection money keep refugees away. Subsidies also diminish the purchasing power of refugees and smugglers - make them less appealing to third country officials who may want their money.

While the Indonesian Government is no doubt making earnest attempts to minimise the refugee problem for Australia the money-corruption system is probably a massive hindrance to effective measures.

Asia One News, April 8, 2009 records

"SINGAPORE - Here is a table of the corruption scores of 14 Asian economies as seen in a survey of more than 1,700 expatriate business executives by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC)...

Australia and the United States were included in the survey for purposes of comparison. On a scale of zero to 10, zero is the best possible score.

1. Singapore, 1.07 [best]
3. Australia, 2.40
4. United States, 2.89
8. China, 6.16
10. Malaysia, 6.70
11. Philippines, 7.0
13. India, 7.21
15. Thailand, 7.63
16. Indonesia, 8.32 [worst]

Greg Sheridan, The Australian, April 16, 2009 commented:

"THE issue of illegal arrivals coming by boat and landing on Australian territories to our north could easily spiral out of control for the Rudd Government, which desperately needs Indonesia's help.

This is an old issue, going back at least to the 1970s. It has been a reliable feature of Australia-Indonesia relations.

...It may well be that the [Australian Rudd] Government's softened policies on border control have led to the recent sharp upsurge in illegal arrivals. If so, this has the potential to become extremely toxic politically - and to do so very fast.

There is no appetite in the electorate for an unregulated flow of people arriving for permanent settlement in Australia without following any due process.

In the past, it was the combination of the Howard government's tough border-protection policies and active Indonesian efforts, buttressed by sotto voce Australian assistance on the ground, that effectively staunched the flow of illegal arrivals who came through Indonesia.

A great deal of Australian Federal Police and Australian intelligence effort went into supporting Indonesian moves to suppress people-smugglers.

...You can bet that, out of sight, an enormous amount of talking is going on between Australians and Indonesians, across several bureaucracies, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, on these matters."

The Age, April 19, 2009, reports:

"THE Federal Government is set to announce a massive subsidy for Indonesian police and immigration officials to help combat a surge in asylum seekers from the Middle East."

Pete

Fort Hood Memories, Garryowen and Friendship

1st Cav Division troopers fighting in Vietnam.

-

The massacre in Fort Hood is a terrible tragedy and crime. This was the subject of my blog post on the day of the massacre.

I hope it is not irreverent or crass of me to mention a few details about my two years in Fort Hood, about the 1st Cavalry Division and its adopted song, Garryowen.

Fort Hood has been a US Army Base since 1942 and 1st Cav first moved there in 1971. When I arrived there in 1975 as a 13 year old (my Dad was seconded to the US Army) the base also boasted the 2nd Armored Divison. 2nd Armored was at that time commanded by Major General George Patton IV whom I was almost shot by. 2nd Armored had, of course, been under The General Patton III or World War Two fame.

The two years I spent in Fort Hood were the best 2 years of my life, so far. Swimming with Fort Hood Dolphins, going to Fairway Junior High and then Killeen High School were great fun. I made many good friends, who sadly I've lost contact with. My unusual British-Australian accent attracted the girls, but, darnit, I was too damn young and pure to exploit the situation.

In military formations songs are a crucial part of the spirit - best sung in quiet times, in bars, pubs, played at parades or at least viewed in movies.

Garryowen (or Garry Owen) has forever become famous through its adoption by the US 7th Cavalry Regiment ("Custer's") and then by that vastly larger formation the 1st Cavalry Division. While I was at Fort Hood I remember it being played at every opportunity by 1st Cav bandsmen or recordings.

Garryowen is one of the most famous military tunes although it is so quick it is unsingable. Still its strong Irish origins give it strength and remembrance. The origins of Garryowen are unclear, but it emerged in the late eighteenth century, when it was a song of rich young drinkers in Limerick Ireland. It gained immediate popularity in the British Army through the 5th (Royal Irish) Lancers, who were garrisoned in Limerick and was played throughout the Napoleonic Wars. Garryowen was also a major British Army song of the Crimean War just before its association with the US Civil War and the 7th Cavalry (made its official tune in 1867).

This is a fine rendition of Garryowen showing its adoption by the Union in the Civil War through to its years with the 1st Cav in Vietnam. This second rendering with clear lyrics highlights its Irish traditions.

What I'm coming to is that memories of Fort Hood before the massacre, and sorrow about what happened, lie not only with Americans but with others who appreciated the generosity of Americans there, decades ago.

Comment on the Post

jbmoore said...

"Those years were full of promise, but then I was young and foolish then. Now I might be an old fool. Thanks for the history of the song and those who play it. It seems like a song of folly when remembering that Custer and his men rode to their doom and defeat against more than 2,000 Sioux and Cheyenne. No one knows what song the Sioux and their brethren played that night after their victory. Hopefully, the 1st Cav Division will never repeat a mistake such as Custer's (or Fetterman's) and the song will shine while that division exists. One must remember that the good moments greatly outnumber the bad moments in a life be it human or a human organization. Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:01:00 AM"

-
Pete

India's Uranium Supply Problems - Australia Should Help

Hari Sud has written a superb article on India's current and future uranium supply problems. His background in chemical engineering, industry and feel for geo-politics come through.

Australia, which has an abundance of uranium AND thorium certainly appears to be a key future supplier to India - that is once the Australian Government's ideological mindset is rationalised. If Australia freed up its supply of generally less expensive and higher quality uranium to India, then India's supply problem would be reduced or eliminated and world uranium prices would tend to be lower. The article from UPI Asia.com, October 9, 2009 follows:

"India’s quest for uranium"

"Toronto, ON, Canada, — Uranium, the key to nuclear power generation, is in short supply in India. The country’s reserves stand at 75,000 tons of low-grade ore, which requires processing before it becomes fuel for nuclear reactors.

This ore contains between 0.03 to 0.2 percent of triuranium octoxide, or U3O8 – an impure mixture of uranium oxides obtained in the processing of uranium ore – as U-238, which is the non-fissionable isotope found in natural uranium. International mines have anywhere from 2 to 14 percent.

Four mines in the Singhbhum district of Bihar state produce only 220 tons of uranium concentrate. In addition, 120 tons come from byproducts like tailings from phosphate, zinc and copper mines.

India’s 17 operating reactors require 500 to 600 tons of uranium concentrate annually. Additional amounts are needed for its weapons program. Two more mines in Meghalaya and Karnataka state may begin operations in the next four years, boosting output to about 600 tons. This might be enough to feed the existing nuclear reactors, but not enough for the ambitious nuclear power program the government wants to implement.

Generating 470,000 megawatts of nuclear energy by 2050, as envisaged by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, will require huge amounts of uranium. This was a key reason for India to negotiate the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal and seek a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group on the ban it faces on nuclear trade. Although the deal is settled, India still has to go through the international minefield of uranium-producing countries, which have a few hang-ups before they part with the ore.

A major initiative by India’s Department of Atomic Energy is also in progress to locate new ore bodies in India. Miners will go as deep as 1,000 meters to mine the ore. If successful, this may save India valuable time in negotiating agreements and deals with foreign suppliers.
As much as 100,000 tons of new ore is needed by India, but the chances of finding it in the country are slim. Therefore, it has to look at suppliers elsewhere.

Australia has 24 percent of the world’s known uranium reserves of 5.5 million tons. It is followed by Kazakhstan with 17 percent, Russia and Canada with 10 percent each, South Africa and the United States with 7 percent each, Namibia, Brazil and Niger with 5 percent each, and 1 percent each for India, China, Mongolia and Tajikistan. The NSG tightly controls these supplies, to restrict unauthorized trade of this vital and dangerous commodity.

Mined ore must be made into yellow cake, using sophisticated technology, with 80 percent U3O8 content. Then the yellow cake is made into pallets to be fed into the reactor core. To make nuclear weapons, uranium must be converted to gas and then diffused into the concentrated U-235 isotope.

So high-grade uranium ore is highly valued, and India has been scrambling for a year to locate and ensure its supply. Prior to the NSG’s blanket approval, India was facing a shortfall of 50 percent.

Without uranium the country’s 17 nuclear reactors were running at half capacity of 4,000 megawatts. The NSG’s timely clearance brought quick supplies from France and Russia.
India is now looking for uranium in the unexplored areas of Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Niger, Tajikistan and Namibia. Australia is not an option; it sells uranium to China, but continues to deny it to India because it has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

China has also cornered the bulk of Kazakhstan’s uranium by offering it trade and other economic incentives in the last 10 years. But India achieved a major breakthrough when Kazakh Foreign Minister Marat Tazhin visited India in January and signed a host of nuclear, space exploration and energy agreements. These agreements, including economic tie-ups, will enhance cooperation and ensure continuous uranium supplies to India. In return, India will help the Kazakhs with information technology.

In the last few months a slew of agreements with other producers like Namibia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Niger have been signed to ensure future uranium supplies to India. Also, reactors built by France, Russia and the United States will supply uranium through a tripartite agreement.

Thus, uranium from Kazakhstan could end up in a reactor sold by Russia or uranium from Niger in a reactor supplied by France. The United States and Canada would supply uranium from their own sources.

Thanks to these high-powered efforts, India’s uranium supply is fairly well guaranteed. But suppliers could still hold up orders citing minor excuses so, as a precautionary measure, India needs a stockpile of three to five years’ supply.

Anticipating high demand from India and China, and with the United States possibly opening up for additional nuclear energy, the price of yellow cake shot up to US$95 in 2007. The current prices, at US$40 to $45 per pound of U3O8, are three times higher than those from 1996 to 2004. From 1994 to 2004 prices were low due to the availability of uranium from decommissioned U.S. and Russian weapons. But prices took off when these supplies ran dry.
Although India has very little uranium , it has an abundance of thorium, which is another nuclear reactor feedstock. India’s first 300-megawatt reactor using thorium is under construction, designed by the Bhabha Atomic Research Center. The process will burn mostly thorium and a bit of plutonium. If the test design is successful, it will pave the way for replacing uranium with thorium, which is four times more abundant.

Singh has envisaged a three-pronged strategy for India to generate nuclear power. Stage 1 is the current technology of pressurized heavy-water reactors, which are under construction or on order.

Stage 2 will introduce fast breeder reactors that use plutonium from stage 1 and thorium in the reactor core. By 2020 India may be building more stage 2 reactors of indigenous design than the current heavy-water reactors.

Stage 3 is the most ambitious. It will use U-233 from stage 2 and thorium. If India perfects the thorium – U-233 core design and a matching reactor, it will achieve a major technological breakthrough. Construction of this type of reactors is 20 years away.

So India needs the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal for stage 1 nuclear power generation, after which it will be self-sufficient. It may still import specialized equipment that falls under the purview of the deal as well as NSG review, but it will dictate terms. During stage 1 it may still need to import uranium, which will put India again under the NSG scanner.

Nevertheless, India’s current uranium shortage has been addressed. Imports are the way to go until the fast breeder reactor technology is perfected.
--
(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years."
-
Pete

New Australian Bilateral Structures to Communicate With India

Neville Roach AO, Chairman Emeritus of the Australia India Business Council has recently been appointed to the Indian Prime Minister's Global Advisory Council of Overseas Indians. He has written a useful article "New India wants respect" in The Australian and On Line Opinion (November 11, 2009). My comment on it is:

Overall a fair summary of bilateral issues and objectives - except that it understates the ill feeling caused by Australia's uranium embargo on India. What also galls India is that its probable main competitor, China, is the major beneficiary of Australia's inexpensive, plentiful, uranium.

Freeing up of Australian uranium to India would end the uranium drought that has led to forced underutilisation of many Indian reactors.

At the same time our uranium could further promote expansion of clean, peaceful nuclear energy in India. This is a real test of Australia's much pontificated campaign to reduce international greenhouse emissions.

If Australia's says its OK for other countries in the Suppliers Group to supply why can't we?

If Prime Minister Rudd on his current visit to India does nothing else bilaterally with India this year removing the uranium export ban would make India very happy.

Releasing Australia's uranium is unfortunately unlikely. I suspect the potential for a wedge in Labor Party politics on uranium is an ever present concern for Rudd. Supplying to India seems not worth the domestic political risk for Labor. However supplying to existing nuclear weapons powers (except Russia) is of course OK under NPT (a treaty organised by the great powers for the benefit of the great powers). Supply to the officially (NPT) sanctioned nuclear armed is also overlooked by nuclear free regional utopians because the uranium trade is performed in secret.

Profitable supply to Japan, Australia's worst former enemy also involves minimal policy thought.

The opportunity for Australia to nurture relationships through uranium supply should not be stymied by outdated nuclear free visions of just a minority in the Labor movement.

Pete

Remembrance Day Songs 2009

An iconic World War Two photo of remembrance - brotherhood in hard times. A New Guinea native, nicknamed with respect, "Fuzzy Wuzzy Angel" walks a blind digger back from the fighting toward a field hospital.

-

To remember this day I’m focussing on just a few songs, starting with Australia's most recent wars then ending with World War I.

Remembrance Day commemorate the sacrifices of members of generally allied armed forces in times of war. It is observed on 11 November recalling the end of World War I on that date in 1918. In Australia services are held at 11am at war memorials and schools in suburbs and towns across the country, at which "Last Post" is sounded by a bugler and a one-minute silence is observed. In recent decades, however, Remembrance Day has been partly eclipsed by ANZAC Day as the national day of war remembrance.

Australia's new main war in Afghanistan seems too current. As the Afghanistan quagmire slowly deepens time and communication will produce memorable songs. In the meantime Afghanistan War says much without words.

I Was Only 19 is without doubt the most famous and realistic Australian song of the Vietnam War. It was written and sung by John Schumann when he led the far left and undervalued Australian group Redgum. Redgum produced a large number of great songs, but perhaps too critical of the social order, principled and deep for the commercial music industry.

-

While not a song Clip 3 from the 1988 Australian TV series Vietnam is poignant. It highlights a recurring theme of Australia in war - backing the “great and powerful friend” (currently the US) but then losing our way. After footage of the famous, illegal, street execution a young Nicole Kidman (who could then really act) sets it out clearly to her defence official father "you refuse to see what bastards are on your side".

World War II war songs don't appeal much to me. The Dambusters like many tunes appears too unquestioning and British.

Politicians and the commercial media perpetuate the assumption that Remembrance is only about the front line infantry. However, as early as 1916 such men were in the minority compared to the support units (artillery, armour, logistics, engineering, intelligence, and so on) which were usually in shellfire range and all could be bombed from the air.

Other occupations were more dangerous than infantry. Pilots and aircrew often suffered the highest casualties and shortest life expectancy of any service. Sailors, in particular submariners, were often in great danger both from the enemy and also from accidents while encased in their high risk vessels: Eternal Father - The Naval Hymn.

Remembrance does not exlude former enemies. Here is an old German song Ich hatt' einen Kameraden often sung at German veterans' funerals. And then Lili Marlene - which was loved by both sides in North Africa (World War II). Both are German but neither celebrate the Nazi darkness nor display swazstikas.

Religion is an undoubted comfort to many soldiers while fighting and years later to those who returned alive. The hymn Abide With Me is sung by Hayley Westernra from Christchurch, New Zealand.

Australia's connections with New Zealand are extremely close (and I'm married to a Kiwi). Vic McDonald, also from Christchurch, sings In Memoriam.

Given Remembrance Day's origins and that World War I was Australia's worst, most wasteful, war in terms of casualties, it is no accident that the Day is most closely associated here with that war. And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda is by Scottish-Australian singer and songwriter Eric Bogle who, like Redgum, has produced lasting songs of meaning. The song is about a digger who is wounded at Gallipoli, treated in hospital, then returns to Australia.

I think Eric Bogle’s The Green Fields of France or No Man’s Land is the best anti-war song ever written. As a haunting poem, march, song of love and injustice it is a fitting anthem to remember them.
-
Peter Coates