Uranium mine- Australia’s largest water guzzler – it’s criminal in a dry climate
Olympic Dam Mine: Largest User of Energy in S. Australia; Largest User of Australia’s Precious Water Resource – The Great Artesian Basin 31 Friday Jul 2015 by miningawareness The largest single user of electricity in South Australia is the Olympic Dam uranium, copper, gold, silver mine. Almost 60% of the energy in South Australia comes from renewables! Why would they need nuclear? Why a “Royal Commission”? They clearly want nuclear power so that they can sell their uranium to make energy to mine more uranium. Furthermore, the wise shun uranium, so to keep mining it in Australia, they need to dump it on Australia in the form of depleted uranium from enrichment, nuclear power, and the too often forgotten nuclear waste, to go with the radioactive tailings which they already have.
Nuclear anything is even more dangerous in a dry climate, so prone to bushfires, and even fire tornados! Using up the precious water resource of the Great Artesian Basin by uranium, or any other mining, is criminal….https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/olympic-dam-mine-largest-user-of-energy-in-s-australia-largest-user-of-australias-precious-water-resource-the-great-artesian-basin/
2 Comments »
Leave a Reply
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Read the published submissions on the Parliamentary website. Read the SUMMARIES of submissions here.
Julian Assange and the Australian Media | Q&A
EVENTS
MELBOURNE – 11 October – #BRING ASSANGE HOME! October 15 – Whyalla, South Australia Say NO to Nuclear Waste in SA – Community Information Night 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – theme for October 19
Christian Porter’s press freedom ‘safeguard’ raises fears over reporters’ independence
Key points:
- Mr Porter’s directive could protect ABC and New Corp employees from prosecution for reporting on national security issues
- But Law Council president Arthur Moses SC fears the decision will pressure journalists to keep in governments’ good books to avoid criminal charges
- The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance says the measure could act as a safeguard but it was the wrong approach
Under pressure to do more to protect press freedom, Christian Porter issued a directive that prosecutors will need his approval before charging journalists under certain sections of Australia’s secrecy laws.
The decision could shield ABC and News Corp employees from facing possible criminal charges over their reporting on national security issues following June’s raids by the Australian Federal Police.
But Law Council of Australia President Arthur Moses SC said it would not help solve the “legitimate concerns raised by the media” since the raids.
“Let me be very blunt about this, it does not allay the concerns that have being raised in relation to press freedoms in Australia,” Mr Moses said.
“It puts the Attorney-General, who after all is a politician, in the position of authorising prosecutions of journalists in situations where they may have written stories critical of his Government.
“It creates an apprehension on the part of journalists that they will need to curry favour with the Government or, in particular, the Attorney-General in order to avoid prosecution………..
The directive did not rule out the prospect of the journalists facing charges, nor did it make any mention of any particular cases.
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance president Marcus Strom agreed Mr Porter’s measure could act as a safeguard, but did not agree it was the right approach.
“We’d like to think it’s a welcome development for Dan Oakes, Sam Clark and Annika Smethurst who have been facing prosecution recently,” Mr Strom said.
“[But] we don’t want politicians to be deciding the fate of journalists.
“It doesn’t seem to be a solution to the problem — which is that journalism is effectively criminalised in this country.”
Mr Strom has argued for the decision to be made as part of a judicial process instead.
The Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said while Labor welcomed the measure, Mr Porter still needed to rule out any charges being laid against the three journalists.
“This direction is not legislation … it won’t prevent police raids, it won’t prevent other actions of intimidation by the Government,” he said.
“What we urgently need are more robust protections for press freedom.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-01/journalists-under-pressure-government-onside-press-freedom-afp/11562102
PETITION
Free Julian Assange, before it’s too late. Sign to STOP the USA Extradition
Errata. It is actually almost 1/3rd of the energy for SA is from renewables. You may want to adjust your post. The following info was already on the post. The solar page says 31.5% and the wind 27%, which is almost 60%. However, the solar page actually says 31.5% renewables and the wind page 27% wind. Thus, it’s almost one third. The good news is that there is an absolutely huge solar potential, as seen on the map at the post. The bad news is that this was a grievous math blunder and shows that it’s always important to double check everyone’s work, and that it’s bad to do numbers when tired. My apologies. On the solar energy page: “During 2012-13, South Australia produced 31.5% of the state’s total energy production from renewable energy.” https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/water-energy-and-environment/energy/energy-supply-and-sources/renewable-energy-sources/solar-energy/solar-energy-in-south-australia On the wind energy page: “The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) estimates that in 2012-13 approximately 27% of the state’s energy production came from wind power.” https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/water-energy-and-environment/energy/energy-supply-and-sources/renewable-energy-sources/wind-energy/wind-energy-in-sa
While the SA government web site says “31.5% of the state’s total energy production from renewable energy” and “27% of the state’s energy production came from wind power”. Actually it is saying production and not use. I found the original mistake wondering if they meant electricity or total energy, but in writing this I realised that this is production and not energy use. Australia and the USA could both be totally run off of solar and wind. The UK will have to be more creative and have mixed renewables.