We need a Royal Commission on exiting nuclear industry – ethical, not just greedy
“We would like to see a royal commission formed to produce a blueprint on how to exit the nuclear industry that also details what the best options are for waste,” Dave Sweeney said.
“This is a major and growing problem and an unresolved environmental issue. There is no question it is unfinished business but we are concerned that it is being perceived as a business opportunity.”
He said reduction of nuclear waste should be the guiding principle, rather than finding a storage solution to enable more waste to be produced.
“We are concerned that the promise of the dollar sign is much shinier than the reality of the danger sign.” news.com.au 21 Feb
Senate motion today on nuclear waste dumping and community opposition
22 Feb 16 NOTICE OF MOTION
I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that –
The Senate –
- Notes that
- the Australian Government has initiated a voluntary site selection process for a
national radioactive waste facility; - consecutive Ministers have confirmed that a such a facility would not proceed against the wishes of host communities;
- six sites have been selected for further assessment for shortlisting, including Hill End in New South Wales, Omanama in Queensland, Hale in the Northern Territory, Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie and Barndioota in South Australia;
- strong local opposition clearly exists at all six sites currently under consideration, and;
- Calls on the Government to:
- Acknowledge the opposition and lack of community support at all six sites
- Respect previous commitments on non-imposition and the importance of community consent and remove all six sites from further consideration
- Initiate a genuinely independent inquiry to investigate long-term stewardship options for spent fuel, reprocessing wastes, and other categories of radioactive waste, including drawing on international examples and experience;
- Investigate options for active waste minimisation, including increased use of non-reactor based methods for radioisotope production, and;
- Clearly reaffirm policy and legislative prohibitions on the importation and disposal of international radioactive waste.
SENATOR SCOTT LUDLAM
Australian govt lies about medicine and nuclear waste
Government information on nuclear waste is misleading and omits important facts. Failure of informed consent? Medical Association for Prevention of War – health professionals promoting peace 22 February 2016 – MELBOURNE:
Nuclear medicine has been highlighted as a key reason to have a nuclear waste repository. MAPW President, Dr Margaret Beavis observes that ‘The Commonwealth government fact sheet: Information for communities- Key questions answered’ is a gross misrepresentation and reads more like a puff-piece for the nuclear industry. The recently released brochure states “One in two Australians – everyone who has ever had a broken bone, heart scan or cancer diagnosis – will need nuclear medicine at some point in their lifetime.”
“This is very clearly misleading in all three areas” said Dr Beavis . “X Rays for a broken bone rarely require nuclear medicine, the vast majority of heart scans are done by ultrasound, and most cancers are treated by surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, none of which use radioisotopes. Even the assertion the half the population needs nuclear medicine is not credible.”
In addition ANSTO continues to insist that using reactors to produce radioisotopes is the only option. In January 2015 Canada – the world leader in radioisotope commerce – had a successful pilot project for commercial cyclotron production. Current regulatory testing and expansion will likely make Canada self-sufficient through cyclotron generation in 3-5 years. “Cyclotrons are a more reliable, safer and cheaper source of radioisotopes than nuclear reactors, and produce no long term waste, but ANSTO has not mentioned this” said Dr Beavis
Nor is mention made of ANSTO’s plans to increase reactor production (from previously 1%) to supply 25-30% of world markets, vastly increasing Australia’s waste from the generation of medical radioisotopes for international sales. “We already have more waste than we know what to do with” said Dr Beavis “We need community debate before massively increasing radioactive waste production.”
Earlier this month it was reported that ANSTO would stop making radioisotopes next year if a waste repository site was not found. Subsequently in Senate Estimates hearings it emerged this was sourced from a previous document and was not the case. These alarming claims have yet to be widely rebuffed by ANSTO, despite requests to do so.
Finally, the telephone information hotline for communities has been very poor. “Comments such as suggesting televisions and microwaves are radioactive when used are clearly wrong.” said Dr Beavis.
If the government is sincere about informed consent it needs to do much better than this.
South Australia”destined to be locked in to nuclear industry” – Adelaide Advertiser
The Adelaide Advertiser – mouthpiece of the nuclear lobby advises that we should all just give up – “see the light’ and let South Australia just roll over like a tame dog, and let the nuclear juggernaut roll over it.
we hosted the British nuclear bomb tests at Maralinga in the 1950s, and we have the world’s largest uranium mine at Olympic Dam.
So we are destined to be locked in to the nuclear fuel industry for decades to come. – Chris Kenny, The Advertiser 21 Feb 16
National Radioactive Waste Management Act overrides any local opposition to nuclear waste dump
Overriding opposition, Jim Green 21 Feb 16 Bruce Wilson said it would be unlikely that the federal government would override state/territory government opposition to a repository. But that’s exactly what the federal government did the first time round (1998– 2004). And that’s exactly what the federal government did in the NT (2005– 2014). As Wilson acknowledged, the government retains the power to override state/territory governments in order to impose a radioactive waste repository/store. The government should amend the legislation so it no longer has that power.
Wilson said the National Radioactive Waste Management Act is consent-driven ‘world’s best practice’ legislation. In fact, it gives the federal government extraordinary powers to override state/territory governments, councils, communities, Traditional Owners and anyone else.
A government rep said the government gave up on the Muckaty / NT site when it realised that community support was lacking. That’s false. The government knew that a majority of Traditional Owners opposed the proposed repository/store in 2006/07 but only gave up in 2014.
Kimba residents are all too aware of the distress and division that the radioactive waste issue has created in the past six months. Muckaty Traditional Owners endured the same problems for the best part of a decade. “We’ll probably have one of the first good sleeps we’ve had in eight years,” Marlene Bennett said when the government finally stopped its thuggish attempt to impose a radioactive waste repository on an unwilling community.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – a losing game, as Westinghouse recognised
Westinghouse ditches small reactors http://funologist.org/2014/02/06/westinghouse-ditches-small-reactors/ 5 Feb 2014 The nuclear industry is often referred to as a priesthood, by critics and supporters alike. The thought is that the followers of the belief in nuclear power have to have a strong faith in the technology and a willingness to sacrifice themselves to advance the ideology. Some of the hardest working people I have ever met, promote nuclear power.
Part of the understanding within the priesthood is that you try to never harm the position of others in the industry when you change your plans. So it was with special interest I read the recent news that Westinghouse had dropped out of the small reactor market. In this news story the Westinghouse spokes people (who are always very careful what they say to the press) tell us that the only reason they are dropping out of this technology is “there are no customers.” They go on to elaborate that the only way they can actually make money on small reactors is by selling a bunch of them. The Westinghouse CEO confessed, “Unless you’re going to build 30 to 50 of them, you’re not going to make your money back.”
Worldwide, no one is building reactors without huge financial incentives from the manufacturer or their supporting country. The idea that small reactors are going to be snapped up by utilities without external generous financing is as fanciful as the notion that nuclear power will be “too cheap to meter.”
But what is really going on here? My guess is that Westinghouse has done the economic math and they see that “they can’t get there from here.” That the persistent experience of the nuclear navy is repeating itself in the non-military world . That being that reactors do not shrink in an economically advantageous way. Nuclear power is fantastically complex stuff, the French EdF/Areva have put a lot of time and money into going the other way and building even larger reactors, hoping to get economies of scale.
The problem is not that you have to sell 50 of them, the problem is that no matter how many you sell, other energies are going to be cheaper, and so it is likely a loosing game from the get go.
Small is Ugly – the case against Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
to make this huge investment even begin to make sense you need to do it in a big way. It is unclear if the mass production savings of SMRs will offset the economy of scale advantages of current designs. what is clear is that attempts to use modular components in the four AP1000s currently under construction in the US have utterly failed to keep costs down, or even controlled.
And similarly this supposed benefit will not help the first handful of SMRs. The non-partisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense gave SMR’s their Golden Fleece Award for using taxpayer money where business should be paying.
The small reactors we find in nuclear military vessels produce electricity at ridiculously high prices per kilowatt. This is why no engineering firm is proposing these well understood designs for mass production. The cost of naval small reactor power never becomes competitive, even if mass produced.
Small reactors reduce costs by eliminating the secondary containment,increasing the chances nuclear accidents will not be contained. There is still no rad-waste solution for these reactors. Oh, and there are not even any finished designs for these reactors, much less prototypes.
Small is Ugly – the case against Small Modular Reactors http://funologist.org/2012/12/09/small-is-ugly-the-case-against-small-modular-reactors/
[With apologies to E.F. Schumacher, who wrote the important book Small is Beautiful] January 2016
“Don’t bet against technology.” is the advice i give to people who are saying certain industrial developments won’t happen, or will not happen soon. There are breakthroughs everyday and most of them are not forecasted much in advance. So why am I not excited about the recent Department of Energy’s decision to fund the development of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) designs?
So the hype runs like this. Continue reading
A Hawke-Howard team to pacify the anti nuclear natives?
Only Labor can deliver a nuclear waste facility, the Libs would face too much opposition, writes Rex Jory, The Advertiser, February 21, 2016
DEAR Premier,
You have asked for public feedback about the possible establishment of a nuclear waste repository in South Australia, as outlined by the Scarce Royal Commission.
Clearly, your Cabinet must press ahead with this proposal. The potential financial benefit for SA is $445 billion over 70 years. That’s $445,000,000,000. Every year SA would reap an extra $6 billion.
This sort of opportunity presents itself to governments — indeed Premiers — once in a lifetime……You now have the nuclear cat by the tail. It is yowling. Some people — notably a rowdy minority — are incensed at the mere thought that your government might adopt the nuclear repository option………
No potential user of the facility will invest a cent if there is perceived political opposition — aside from the rowdy minority — now or in the future.
A failure to build consensus is a failure of the project. Unfortunately, previous Labor leaders have publicly and vociferously opposed the nuclear waste repository idea. To reverse this thinking within the Labor Party and the community is your first challenge.
Only a Labor Party can deliver a nuclear waste facility. If the Liberals tried there would be too much political and community opposition. In the 1980s the Liberal plan to establish the Olympic Dam uranium, gold and copper mine would not have proceeded without Labor’s reluctant support.
Why not ask former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke, who supports a waste facility, to head a “persuasion committee” to convince at least some of the waverers, if not the outright opponents, about the benefits of the plan?
Perhaps former Liberal prime minister John Howard would agree to join Mr Hawke to emphasise the need for bipartisanship. It would be worth asking……..
Your final task is to pacify the non-government organisations and particularly the indigenous community. Once again, a Hawke-Howard team would have the status to persuade even the most sceptical opponent
Without a well-planned indigenous community strategy, your best efforts will fail……….http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/only-labor-can-deliver-a-nuclear-waste-facility-the-libs-would-face-too-much-opposition-writes-rex-jory/news-story/50bbf5ce1dd9a33bcc84fec9c0245370
Julie Bishop, Christopher Pyne, Bill Shorten do their bit for the pro nuclear dance
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has indicated he is open to the idea as long as there is community support, an economic benefit, and reassurance of environmental protection….
Overall Ms Bishop is optimistic that public opinion is in favour of more engagement with the nuclear fuel cycle………http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/australia-the-ideal-location-for-nuclear-waste-dump-says-julie-bishop/news-story/c2655249dd4f655d05bf809d6d1795c8
Australia breaches Paris climate agreement, damages economy, by cutting CSIRO climate modelling
CSIRO climate cuts will breach Paris agreement and cost economy – report
Cuts to climate modelling and measuring research contradict Australia’s pledge to strengthen commitments to climate science, the Climate Council says, Guardian Michael Slezak 21 Feb 16 Cuts to the CSIRO’s climate modelling and measuring research will breach Australia’s obligations under the recent Paris agreement and will result in huge costs to the economy, a report by Australia’s Climate Council has found.
The report adds to a chorus of eminent bodies and individuals criticising the move, which the CSIRO made after almost no consultation with its own scientists or other research institutions.
Earlier in the month it was revealed CSIRO would be cutting up to 350 staff from climate research programs over two years. Over the following weeks, the organisation’s chief executive Larry Marshallexplained that would result in a loss of about 50% of the staff working in climate modelling and measuring.
In a report titled “Flying Blind: Navigating Climate Change without the CSIRO,” the Climate Council said governments and businesses relied on the CSIRO’s climate modelling and measuring work to make billion-dollar decisions and if the cuts went ahead, would be relying on “guesswork”.
The report notes Australia and the rest of the world agreed to strengthen commitments to climate science at COP21 in Paris in December. “The recently announced cuts to climate science mean that Australia has already reneged on one of its obligations under the Paris commitments,” it concludes.
It cites a number of examples of decisions and industries that have relied on the modelling and measuring performed by the CSIRO:………
An open letter signed by more than 2800 scientists raised similar concerns. In response to the chorus of criticisms, Marshall initially said the response was more like religion than science, and compared climate scientists to oil lobbyists in the 1970s…….
It was revealed in Senate estimates that CSIRO executives did not consult with organisations like the Bureau of Meteorology who depend on CSIRO modelling until 24 hours before the cuts were made public.
Even Ken Lee, the director of the division that would take the brunt of the cuts was only told about the cuts four days before they were announced.
The Climate Council, which produced the new report, is a crowd-funded body that seeks to provide authoritative information on climate change to the community. It was created after the Abbott government cut the Climate Commission when it took government in 2013, and seeks to perform the same job. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/22/csiro-climate-cuts-will-breach-paris-agreement-and-cost-economy-report
Michele Madigan points out the National dangers of transporting nuclear wastes
Nuclear waste danger knows no state borders, Eureka Street Michele
Madigan | 09 February 2016 “……..It would be a mistake for anyone living outside of South Australia to think that the premier’s plan is just a South Australian problem. Transport and containment risks are hugely significant. State boundaries are no guarantees of safety.
Professor John Veevers of Macquarie University notes the ‘tonnes of enormously dangerous radioactive waste in the northern hemisphere, 20,000km from its destined dump in Australia … must remain intact for at least 10,000 years.
‘These magnitudes — of tonnage, lethality, distance of transport and time — entail great inherent risk.’
In 1998 when the federal government identified the central northern area of South Australia to be site for a proposed national radioactive waste dump, it was not only South Australians who were concerned.
In 2003 the mayors of Sutherland, Bathurst, Blue Mountains, Broken Hill, Dubbo, Griffith, Lithgow, Orange, Wagga Wagga, Auburn, Bankstown, Blacktown, Fairfield, Holroyd, Liverpool, Parramatta and Penrith — communities along potential transport routes — opposed ‘any increase in nuclear waste production until a satisfactory resolution occurs to the waste repository question’.
The NSW parliamentary inquiry into radioactive waste found ‘there is no doubt that the transportation of radioactive waste increases the risk of accident or incident — including some form of terrorist intervention’. Continue reading
ARPANSA: a not so independent radiation regulator
Jim Green 21 Feb 16 Bruce Wilson (from the federal government’s Department of Industry, Innovation and Science) and other governments reps were keen to talk up the role of the ‘independent’ regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). But ARPANSA has a troubled history. Its troubles began immediately: the government allowed ANSTO a direct role in selecting the founding CEO of ARPANSA, so ARPANSA’s independence was undermined from the start.
Here’s a more recent example of problems with ARPANSA, summarised in a 2011 ABC article:
“A review of Australia’s nuclear industry regulator, ARPANSA, has found an improper relationship with the main agency it monitors [ANSTO]. The Health Department’s audit and fraud control branch has been investigating how ARPANSA handled allegations of safety breaches and bullying at the nation’s only nuclear reactor in Sydney. Whistleblowers had alleged ARPANSA was too close to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which runs the Lucas Heights research facility.”
ABC, 8 July 2011, Nuclear regulator ‘too close’ to ANSTO, www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/07/3264086.htm
An independent regulator could provide some confidence. But a not-so-independent regulator with a poor track record …
More information about ARPANSA:
- www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/arpansa
- ANSTO / ARPANSA whistleblower saga: www.foe.org.au/ansto-whistleblower-saga-2007-ongoing
Dr Helen Caldicott tours St Louis County radioactively contaminated sites
Anti-nuclear activist tours north St. Louis County sites contaminated with radioactive waste, St Louis Public Radio, By STEPHANIE LECCI • FEB 19, 2016 An internationally recognized anti-nuclear activist and Australian physician said the radioactive contamination in north St. Louis County is “worse than most places” she’s investigated.
Dr. Helen Caldicott toured several local sites Friday afternoon, including: the recently remediated St. Cin Park in Hazelwood; West Lake Landfill Superfund site, which contains radioactive nuclear waste dating back to 1940s and ’50s; and the Bridgeton Landfill, whose underground smoldering has caused concern due its proximity to the waste in West Lake.
Byron DeLear, an executive for a clean-energy company, helped take Caldicott on the tour.
“This is truly an historic opportunity for this community to have the expertise of Helen to show up and really start to investigate what’s going on here,” he said.
Caldicott, founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, whose umbrella parent organization International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War won the Nobel Peace Prize, called the situation “obscene.”
“When you inhale radon, it decays into lead 210 and stays there in the bronchus irradiating just a small volume of cells with alpha radiation, very carcinogenic,” she said. “Radon is one of the most potent causes of lung cancer.”
Caldicott said she will discuss other elements along the decay chain of uranium and “where they go in the body and how they cause cancer” during a symposium at St. Louis Community College-Wildwood Saturday at 7 p.m. Caldicott will be the keynote speaker on the impacts of nuclear weapons development, and will be joined by a panel of other experts. The presentation will also be live-streamed………
World-wide nuclear energy beaten by wind power
Global wind power capacity tops nuclear energy for first time, Japan Times, 20 Feb 16 The capacity of wind power generation worldwide reached 432.42 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2015, up 17 percent from a year earlier and surpassing nuclear energy for the first time, according to data released by global industry bodies.
The generation capacity of wind farms newly built in 2015 was a record 63.01 GW, corresponding to about 60 nuclear reactors, according to the Global Wind Energy Council based in Brussels. The global nuclear power generation capacity was 382.55 GW as of Jan. 1, 2016, the London-based World Nuclear Association said…….
Wind power is the leading energy source in the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, the wind energy council said as it released the data last week.
China led all other countries in wind energy generation capacity with 145.10 GW. Beijing is promoting wind power to shift from coal and other fossil fuels to combat air pollution and global warming.
Coming in second behind China is the United States with 74.47 GW, followed by Germany with 44.95 GW, then India with 25.09 GW and then Spain with 23.03 GW. Japan produced 3.04 GW. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/02/20/national/global-wind-power-capacity-tops-nuclear-energy-for-first-time/#.VsoiRX197Gh
Nuclear waste dump plan for Kimba – govt ignores relevant standards and codes
Jim Green 21 Feb 16 Some comments on the 18 Feb 2016 government ‘information session’ in Kimba regarding plans for a radioactive waste repository and above-ground ‘interim’ store for long-lived intermediate-level waste.
1. The government ignores and breaches relevant standards and codes when it suits.
As a Kimba resident noted at the meeting, the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NH&MRC) ‘Code of Practice for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia (1992)’ states that “the site for the facility should be located in a region which has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”.
So the government has breached the NH&MRC Code of Practice by short-listing the Kimba sites.
Following the so-called clean-up of the Maralinga nuclear test site in the late 1990s, nuclear engineer Alan Parkinson wrote: “The Department has claimed that burial is a safe disposal method consistent with “the [NH&MRC] Code.” This was the first time that the Code had been mentioned in relation to the Maralinga project. When three of the five authors said that it was not applicable (the other two were Commonwealth public servants and would not comment), the Department claimed that it did not have to follow the Code but had chosen to do so. It made this statement despite the fact that not a single requirement of that Code was satisfied.”
(Alan Parkinson, “The Maralinga Rehabilitation Project: Final Report”,
http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-parkinson.pdf)
So the government ignores relevant standards and codes when it suits, and the government breaches relevant standards and codes when it suits. Why would anyone trust the government to safely operate a radioactive waste facility in the Kimba region in those circumstances?
Alan Parkinson summarises the problem (keep in mind that he is pro-nuclear and a nuclear engineer): “The disposal of radioactive waste in Australia is ill-considered and irresponsible. Whether it is short-lived waste from Commonwealth facilities, long-lived plutonium waste from an atomic bomb test site on Aboriginal land, or reactor waste from Lucas Heights. The government applies double standards to suit its own agenda; there is no consistency, and little evidence of logic.”
(Alan Parkinson, 2002, ‘Double standards with radioactive waste’, Australasian Science, www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/clean-up)
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 