Make your submission on Terms of Reference for South Australia’s nuclear inquiry
http://conservationsa.good.do/renewable-not-radioactive/submission/ – Go to this website for an easy way to make your submissionSouth Australia: Renewable Not Radioactive
A Royal Commission is being established to consider South Australia’s role into nuclear energy.
Premier Jay Weatherill has indicated that the Royal Commission will explore uranium enrichment, nuclear power generation and nuclear waste.
You can help make sure that all aspects of this toxic industry and its history are explored by submitting your ideas about what the Terms of Reference should be. We only have until February 16, 2015 to do it.
Here in South Australia we are already world leaders in renewable energy, such as wind and solar – we believe South Australia’s future should be renewable not radioactive.
Please send a message to the Attorney-Generals Department below.
Make your submission to the Attorney-Generals Department on the Terms of Reference
Feel free to incorporate and use our dot points below, but please make sure to include your own message, subject line and name at the bottom for the email to send.
To the Attorney-General Department,
I urge you to consider the following Terms of Reference to be included for the Royal Commission into nuclear energy. The Royal Commission will be undermined if it doesn’t include the following Terms of Reference.
· The environmental impacts of uranium mining in South Australia.
· Nuclear waste; the Royal Commission must look widely at nuclear waste management in South Australia, including uranium tailings. The Commission should examine proposals to host international nuclear waste and status of the waste industry globally.
· Legacy sites; South Australia’s contaminated nuclear sites including Maralinga, the Port Pirie Uranium Treatment Complex, and Radium Hill. There are unresolved concerns over the status of these sites (in relation to public health and environmental impacts) and the Royal Commission provides an opportunity to finally resolve these issues.
· The opportunity costs of a further embrace of the nuclear cycle, including the impact on our clean and green food and wine reputation, and the tourism and international student markets, particularly if South Australia were to host an international repository for high-level nuclear waste.
· Insurance, financial risk, public liabilities and subsidies; a comprehensive examination of the potential liability of the SA Government in the case of an incident or accident.
· Exploration of alternative energy sources to address the challenge of climate change, including the potential for growth in renewables and other low carbon technologies
Yours sincerely,
South Australian govt’s last ditch pretense at getting public input on nuclear inquiry terms
Royal Commission – Our role in nuclear energy
Consultation on suggestions for the Terms of Reference will close at this time.
Monday 23 February – Friday 13 March
After initial suggestions have been sought from the community, consultation on the draft Terms of Reference will run during this period.
Have your say
Have your say on the discussion below, or send an email to:
Attorney-General’s Department
submissions@agd.sa.gov.au
Only till Monday February 16 for public comment in nuclear inquiry!
We’ve already had the nuclear debate: why do it again? The Conversation Ian Lowe Emeritus Professor, School of Science at Griffith University 11 Feb 15 “…….In principle, there is a process for public involvement in establishing the terms of reference, but the 
timescale for that exercise suggests it is a complete charade. The web site gives only until next Monday, a bare week after Weatherill’s announcement, for public comment on the terms of reference.
Also, there has been no announcement of any independent scientific or environmental expertise to guide former governor Kevin Scarce…”. http://theconversation.com/weve-already-had-the-nuclear-debate-why-do-it-again-37420
Pro nuclear Former SA governor Kevin Scarce to lead nuclear inquiry
Scarce has previously expressed support for a renewed debate on nuclear energy.
Former SA governor to lead nuclear inquiry SBS World News, Source: AAP 9 FEB 2015 Former South Australian governor Kevin Scarce will lead a royal commission into the role of nuclear power in the state’s energy mix.
Premier Jay Weatherill has revived debate on whether SA should embrace the production, enrichment and storage of nuclear power to boost its lagging economy.
He said Mr Scarce, who served as governor of SA from 2007 to 2014, was a strong communicator who was well-placed to lead the contentious debate, despite his lack of legal expertise.
Mr Scarce, who was last year appointed Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, said he expected the work of the royal commission to be completed within a year.
“I come to this with no preconceived views,” he told reporters on Monday……..
The premier has said that a nuclear power plant is unlikely to be built in SA but there was potential for remote parts of the state to host a nuclear waste deposit.
He said the federal government had offered its support and promised the co-operation of agencies.
Business and mining lobby groups have welcomed the inquiry but environmentalists said the state’s clean energy credentials would be in tatters if the government allowed nuclear waste dumping.
The Liberal opposition has offered bipartisan support but criticised the timing of the inquiry after the government last week confirmed plans to close several hospital emergency departments. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/09/former-sa-governor-lead-nuclear-inquiry
Pro nuclear South Australian Premier sides with Liberals, against federal Labor
‘We don’t need federal ALP’
SOUTH Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill has dismissed Bill Shorten’s rejection of his royal commission.(subscribers only)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/weatherill-dismisses-shorten-on-nuclear-energy-royal-commission/story-e6frgczx-1227215197031
S.A. Premier Jay Weatherill says nuclear power ‘not viable’ (he prefers nuclear waste import?)
Nuclear likely not viable in Aust: Weatherill THE AUSTRALIAN AAP FEBRUARY 10, 2015 A nuclear power plant is unlikely to be built in South Australia despite the government reviving debate about the industry, Premier Jay Weatherill says……..
He said he was open to the prospect of remote parts of the state hosting a nuclear waste deposit but played down the prospect of a power plant being built.
“I think that’s the least likely outcome of the royal commission,” he told ABC radio on Monday.
“I think what’s most likely is that it will be regarded as not viable for either the state or the nation.
“There is no doubt that there are some technological changes that are occurring which are bringing small reactors into play … (but) these are highly speculative matters.”
The premier is expected to reveal further details of the royal commission on Monday but it’s not yet clear who will lead the investigation…….http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/nuclear-likely-not-viable-in-aust-weatherill/story-e6frg90f-1227214183408
Top nuclear experts pilloried terms of Australia-India uranium sales plan
Ronald Walker – a former chairman of the global nuclear regulator, the International Atomic Energy Agency – reiterated Mr Carlson’s concerns.
Mr Walker warned the committee that the deal’s terms would injure Australia’s international reputation on nuclear safety.
Nuclear experts put government on notice http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/02/10/nuclear-experts-put-abbott-govt-notice/ Feb 10, 2015 GEORGE LEKAKIS Financial Services Editor A Parliamentary Committee is considering whether to support a criticised uranium pact between Australia and India. Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s quest for a free trade agreement with India has been dealt a potentially fatal blow after two of the world’s most respected nuclear safety experts pilloried the terms of the uranium deal negotiated with the Indian government in 2014. Continue reading
South Australia has a shameful nuclear history and the Royal Commission must be allowed to investigate it.
Mr Weatherill says “storing of nuclear waste” will be on the Royal Commission’s agenda. South Australians fought hard to defeat Canberra’s proposal for a national dump for low- to medium-level waste — so an international high-level nuclear waste dump is a non-starter.
The Premier says the Royal Commission will not be used to “look backwards at things that have gone wrong.” But failing to learn from the mistakes of the past makes it all the more likely that they will be repeated.
South Australia has a shameful nuclear history and the Royal Commission must be allowed to investigate it.
Examine SA’s shameful nuclear legacy Advertiser Dr Jim Green, 9 Feb 15 THE first test with Premier Jay Weatherill’s proposed Royal Commission into nuclear issues comes with his statement that it will be carried out by independent experts.
Is that what he really intends? Or does he plan a re-run of the Switkowski commission established by the Howard federal government in 2006? That commission was comprised entirely of “people who want nuclear power by Tuesday” according to comedian John Clarke. Continue reading
Wrong move for USA to send more nuclear weapons to Europe
Deploying additional U.S. tactical nuclear weapons and more dual-capable aircraft in Europe provides no advantage: It would be an expensive initiative that would add nothing to our security, divert funds from higher priority defense expenditures, likely provoke Russia to deploy nuclear weapons in Crimea, increase the possibility of nuclear war, and be divisive amongst our NATO allies
The Wrong Move: Adding Nuclear Weapons to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict Defense One, FEBRUARY 9, 2015 BY LT. GEN. ROBERT GARDGREG TERRYN Despite the wishes of two key Congressmen, more nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe is a bad idea.
You may have missed it, but last month two key members of Congress asked the military to move additional U.S. nuclear weapons and dual-capable aircraft into Eastern Europe. Continue reading
Nuclear energy’s costs are prohibitive. What is the real agenda for Australia’s nuke lobby?
Weatherill’s reported comments suggested that small modular reactors may offer an option down the track. At the very least, these are a decade away, most likely more. By that time, in South Australia’s own limited target, the state will be more than 55 per cent renewables, and – according to the network operators – will be looking at renewables-based micro-grids as the most cost-effective option.
It is more likely that Weatherill’s commission may be looking
at whether the state should try and cash in on the nuclear waste management industry, which with the tens of billions of liabilities piling up, could be a lucrative opportunity.
The Sellafield plant in Cumbria will cost £70 billion ($A136 billion) to clean up, according to the UK’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC). These “opportunities” will be repeated hundreds of times as other nuclear plants are retired.
Why nuclear industry needs to be paid $500/MWh http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/why-nuclear-industry-needs-to-be-paid-500mwh-67193 By Giles Parkinson on 9 February 2015 South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill raised a few eyebrows about his plans, announced this weekend, for a “royal commission” into the nuclear energy industry.
But Weatherill is right about one thing: Nuclear energy, he says, is “not something that would be economically viable in South Australia, or indeed the nation.”
For most people, Weatherill’s comments about the costs of nuclear energy would be a case of stating the bleeding obvious. Not the nuclear fan club, however, who appear completely detached – even from the nuclear industry – on the reality of nuclear’s costs.
A glance at the contract for the Hinkley C nuclear reactor -the first to be built in the UK for a generation – proves otherwise. Even in the UK, with a well established nuclear industry, and all the infrastructure that has been built, it is still expensive. Hinkley C will start with a tariff of £92.5/MWh ($180/MWh) in 2023 before rising nearly three-fold over the following three and a half decades. Continue reading
Legal problems may stall Australia- India uranium sales deal
It is not clear whether that agreement will have been finalised before Mr Roy’s committee is due to report its findings to government at the end of March.
The committee is expected to conduct public hearings next month.
India uranium deal faces legal challenge, New Daily, Jan 14, 2015 GEORGE LEKAKIS Financial Services Editor The Australian government’s controversial agreement to sell uranium to India may face a legal challenge from a conservation group. The agreement is controversial because India will be the first country permitted to buy Australian uranium without being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
“We will look at those legal options available to us and explore what we think are pretty clear legal inconsistencies between the terms of the agreement with India and Australian laws,” Mr Sweeney said.
“The ACF has real concerns that the wording of the agreement is inconsistent with sections of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Safeguards Act and Australia’s obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free-Zone Treaty that was signed by the Hawke government.” Continue reading
Australia’s federal Labor Party will not back nuclear inquiry – Bill Shorten
Bill Shorten refuses to back South Australian nuclear probe, THE Australian 10 feb 15 BILL Shorten has refused to back the South Australian Labor government’s proposal to investigate nuclear energy.
The refusal of federal Labor to even consider the production, enrichment and storage of nuclear power came yesterday as Premier Jay Weatherill said all political leaders had a duty to explore all potential solutions to climate change……….
spokesman for the federal Opposition Leader said he would not support the inquiry, and the ALP had a “longstanding position on nuclear power based on the best available expert advice”.
Labor has maintained consistent opposition to the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. It is also “strongly opposed” to the importation and storage of nuclear waste sourced from overseas in Australia.
Mr Weatherill yesterday suggested a nuclear waste deposit could be located in remote parts of the state…..
In December, Mr Scarce said South Australia should consider developing a nuclear industry to compensate for a downturn in manufacturing. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/bill-shorten-refuses-to-back-south-australian-nuclear-probe/story-e6frgczx-1227213806115
The energy revolution is underway: many “get it”, but not Tony Abbott
Abbott’s Australia faces an energy revolution, ready or not http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbotts-australia-faces-an-energy-revolution-ready-or-not-19837 By Giles Parkinson on 4 February 2015 Malcolm Turnbull gets it. Last Saturday, after having a test drive of a Tesla Model S electric vehicle in California – an experience he described as ‘exhilarating’ – he declared that an “energy revolution” was upon us.
He noted how battery storage could turn the energy market upside down, reducing peaking power requirements, optimising the use of renewables and in some cases enabling consumers to go off the grid altogether.
“The excitement of technology in the Bay Area is exhilarating…..but not quite as palpable as the jolt you feel when you hit the accelerator!” he wrote. We don’t have a video of Turnbull’s test drive, but if he was in the passenger seat, it might have looked something like this.
Steve Ciobo gets it. The senior Abbott MP, a parliamentary secretary to both Julie Bishop and Andrew Robb, told ABC last week that the combination of solar and battery storage technologies was happening so quickly that Australians were ready to leave the grid. “There is massive change happening,” he said.
The CSIRO gets it. Its landmark report a year ago suggested that nearly one half of Australia’s energy requirements will be met by on-site generation, and up to one third of customers could leave the grid.The only question was when, and the utilities respond.
The biggest utilities in Europe and the US get it. Continue reading
Nuclear royal commission – likely to be just free PR for the nuclear industry
A company called South Australian Nuclear Power Systems Pty Ltd has been lobbying the South Australian and federal government to remove the significant legal and political roadblocks to advance nuclear power in the state. The group is headed by former News International director Bruce Hundertmark and includes veteran American nuclear spruiker Richard Cherry, a former executive of the secretive General Atomics that operates South Australia’s Beverley uranium mine; Ian Kowalick, the former head of Premier and Cabinet; and professors Tom Wigley and Stephen Lincoln from the University of Adelaide, home to a chorus of atomic fellow travellers.
Adding to this push has been the repeated promotion of the money to be made by storing the world’s 
radioactive waste. Senior executives of the World Nuclear Association have joined 
with former prime minister Bob Hawke, Warren Mundine and others to talk up the dollar signs while covering up the danger signs. Their approach ignores South Australians, particularly Indigenous South Australians’ sustained and successful efforts to oppose radioactive waste dumping in their country.
Dave Sweeney The nuclear royal commission is a response to South Australia’s poor fortune, the nuclear lobby, and concerns over climate change. It must remain independent. e announcement this week of a Royal Commission into the nuclear industry in South Australia has raised both stakes and eyebrows around the nation.
Many South Australian politicians have been enamoured with the economic allure of nuclear power. After all, the world’s biggest mining company sits atop the world’s largest uranium deposit at BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam mine, 500km north of Adelaide. But opening the door to talk of uranium enrichment, domestic nuclear power and international nuclear waste is a major escalation in radioactive rhetoric.
The move comes in stark contrast to the current run of play in relation to the domestic and international status of the nuclear industry. Continue reading
No need to repeat the nuclear debate. South Australia has a fine renewable energy future
South Australia leads the mainland states in its harnessing of solar and wind energy. Together they supplied more than one-third of the state’s electricity for the whole of last year and all of the state’s power for one working day in September. The Port Augusta community is campaigning for a solar thermal power station to replace their antiquated coal-fired facility.
Any objective assessment of the state’s needs in the context of a commitment to sustainable development will favour going forward by expanding the proven capacity of clean renewables, rather than gambling on unproven nuclear fantasies.
We’ve already had the nuclear debate: why do it again? The Conversation Ian Lowe Emeritus Professor, School of Science at Griffith University 11 Feb 15 South Australian premier Jay Weatherill made the curious announcement on Sunday that there will be a Royal Commission to examine the state’s future role in the nuclear industry. There has been bipartisan support in South Australia for the state being a major uranium exporter, but no support for any involvement beyond that.
The inquiry will be led by former governor Kevin Scarce. Scarce has previously expressed support for a renewed debate on nuclear energy.
However, we have already had several inquiries into nuclear expansion. The new Royal Commission risks re-treading the same old ground and uncovering nothing new. Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 