Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Questionable Integrity of #NuclearCommissionSAust scrutinised in 22 questions – Submission by Yurij Poetzl

submission goodSubmission To The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal highly-recommendedCommission Regarding Issues Papers 1 and 4 by Yurij Poetzl   http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/09/Yuri-Poetzl-24-07-2015.pdf

I’m a private citizen and have no vested interest in the nuclear industry; however the nuclear industry does direct ly impact me, my family and my friends As a member of the public I wish to give evidence and express my concerns in regard to the issues being examined by the Royal Commission.

It is valid to examine economics and risks relating to the nuclear industry; however is the Royal Commission a fair and objective examination of the Nuclear Cycle? It has been disclosed that Kevin Scarce Is a shareholder in the Rio Tinto Group,who own and operate uranium mines in Australia and internationally. ls this a conflict of interest for the Royal Commissioner? It is of great concern that the Royal Commissioner has selected predominantly pro-nuclear experts for the R.C’s Advisory Committee (the single exception being Professor lan Lowe). See Appendix 1.

It also seems remiss that there isn’t any health or medical professionals engaged in the R.C’s Expert Advisory Committee or Key Commission staff. It’s well documented that by-products of the nuclear industry can have adverse effects on the health of the global community for many future generations. The omission of health experts makes me question whether the R.C is truly considering what is in my and the general public’s best interest.

The Public Health Association of Australia have made their position clear in regard to the R.C and the Nuclear Industry, see http :1 /www .phaa. net. au/ documents/item/51 0 or http://www .phaa.net.au/documents/item/264  The Royal Commission could prove to be pivotal in South Australia’s future having significant and far reaching consequences, affecting many future generations; however, was the process leading toward the establishment the Royal Commission flawed?

The S.A. public (and wider global communit y) deserve a balanced and unbiased assessment of the issues raised Appendix 2. Contains questions regarding issues papers 1 and 4  Yours sincerely Yurij Poetzl

Appendix. 1 4 of the 5 Royal Commissions Expert Advisory Committee appear to be pro nuclear. They are Professor Barry Brook, Dr Timothy Stone, John Carlson AM and Dr Leanna Read. Below is a brief summary oftheir involvement in the nuclear industry Professor Barry Brook is an active advocate of the Nuclear Industry. The self described”Promethean Environmentalist” is openly critical of people who have concerns regarding the Industry. Professor Brook is the author of, or contributor to several pro nuclear publications such as; Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation, Australia’s nuclear options and, An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy. To name a few.

Dr Timothy Stone is an advocate for nuclear power generation and nuclear industrial expansion in Australia. In the UK Dr Stone has held the position of Expert Chair ofthe Office for Nuclear Development and he is currently on the board of Horizon Nuclear Power as non-executive Director John Carlson AM has been Director General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office. In part 6 of the introduction to Mr Carlson’s paper “Nuclear power for Australia”- an outline of the key issues he claims “Nuclear has a major advantage over other energy sources”. Later in the same document Mr Carlson states “Currently both major parties say that nuclear power is “offlimits”. While this is disappointing, at least it ensures neither side is making statements tlhat will later be embarrassing to retract” It is clear that Mr Carlson is pro nuclear providing the appropriate safeguards are met

Dr Leanna Read has publicly stated that she “has an open mind” regarding the Nuclear Industry. Dr Read is a Fellow of the Australian Academy ofTechnological Sciences and Engineering, which advocated for nuclear power in Australia in August 2014. This seems to contradict Dr Read’s claims of impartiality toward the nuclear industry Given the information in Appendix 1, can the Royal Commission be considered truly independent?

Appendix 2 Continue reading →

September 9, 2015 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Kevin Scarce sees “a long journey” ahead to get the nuclear fuel chain happening in South Australia

Scarce,--Kevin-glowOur nuclear future needs national support: Scarce http://indaily.com.au/news/2015/09/07/our-nuclear-future-needs-national-support-scarce/ ADELAIDE | South Australia will not be able to increase its role in the nuclear fuel cycle without bipartisan support both locally and federally, according to the former governor overseeing a royal commission into the industry’s prospects.

Kevin Scarce’s inquiry will this week begin a series of public forums, with electricity network operatorsscrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAIN and the Australian Energy Regulator’s market analyst set to front the commission in coming days.

Senior executives from Electranet and the Australian Energy Market Operator will give evidence next week, along with Craig Oakeshott, the national regulator’s Wholesale Markets Director, as Scarce tries to paint a picture of the state’s future power needs and likely costs.

But he insists: “Really nothing can happen until we have bipartisan support both at state and federal level.”

“Because these projects have such long gestation periods, if there’s not certainty there’s very little likelihood of us moving forward,” Scarce told InDaily ahead of the first hearing, to be held on Wednesday at the Science Exchange in the Royal Institution of Australia building in Adelaide.

And he says even with political consensus, it would be at least 10 years before any construction work began. “The overseas experience says a decade, and that’s probably optimistic,” he said.

“Should we decide to go ahead, and should the (Weatherill) Government accept our recommendations, the first part is to engage the community in specific terms about what’s proposed to happen. That takes some time; it’s not going to happen overnight.”

Federal Labor has already baulked at the Weatherill Government’s nuclear inquiry, with Bill Shorten’s office re-stating the party’s “longstanding position (against) nuclear power based on the best available expert advice”.

The royal commission has awarded tenders to four firms – Ernst & Young, WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Jacobs Australia and Hatch – to model the business case for each of the inquiries terms of reference, which take in nuclear power generation, enrichment and waste management. “We need to model the costs of developing the infrastructure, because we do have a great disparity of views (in submissions) from roughly the same technical evidence,” Scarce said.

“What we’re doing with the public sessions is using the information we’ve got in the submissions, using our own examination both overseas and here in Australia and drawing out the major issues of contention to help us write our final report.”

The electricity market analysts will be asked to detail both current needs and capabilities, as well as forecasting future trends.

“We’ve asked them a series of questions about the market: what will the market look like? What assets in the market will continue to operate, and what will need to be replaced?” Scarce said.

“We need to understand from them where demand is going in future and what’s happening with supply… We’ve got ageing coal power plants – when do they need to be replaced? What’s going to happen in the world when they get together in December in Paris (for the United Nations Climate Change Conference)? All of those issues are long-term issues that fit into questions of whether nuclear power is an option for us in future.”

Scarce says however he adjudicates, his inquiry is at most the first step in a long journey.“I think a lot of people think this is the only engagement that’s going to happen – it’s not,” he said.“It’s the start of the process.”

September 9, 2015 Posted by | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment