Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Noel Wauchope: Response to Tentative Findings of Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission

submission good Noel Wauchope 16 Mar 16 INTRODUCTION
It appears that the core purpose of this Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission is to promote a nuclear waste importation and storage industry for South Australia.  (I use the word “Chain” advisedly, as there is no genuine “Cycle” in the nuclear processes, all of which end with the problem of toxic radioactive wastes.)

In view of this waste importation focus by the Commission,  I ma here responding to that issue. For simplicity, I have stated passages from the “Tentative Findings in pink. 

MANAGEMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE

STABILITY
The storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel in South Australia is likely to deliver substantial economic benefits to the South Australian community. An integrated storage and disposal facility would be commercially viable and the storage facility could be operational in the late 2020s.

The late 2020s      How come Australia could have this nuclear wase facility operational so soon, when other countries have still not satisfactorily completed such a facility over many decades?

The Royal Commission must know that this requires – first of all, overcoming Federal environmental law, and overturning South Australia’s State law against importing nuclear wastes.  And that’s only the beginning in overcoming public rejection (1A)

78. For the management of used fuel and intermediate level wastes, South Australia has a unique combination of attributes which offer a safe, long-term capability for the disposal of used fuel.

They include:
a. the underlying Archaean geological structure,
the Gawler Craton, at an appropriate depth for disposal

Earthquake hazard: For either temporary or permanent storage of radioactive wastes, South Australia poses great risks.  While the whole State has a small earthquake hazard zone, there are large sections which have an increased earthquake hazard. Particularly in the South of the State (1)

Risk to precious artesian water.  While the South of the State has earthquake risks, almost the entire of the rest of the State covers the Great Artesian Basin. (2)

Effectively, this means there is almost no part of South Australia that could safely store radioactive trash for  decades, let alone for thousands of years.

I am grateful to Paul Langley, who has set out the problems in relation to the Gawler Craton –  “The Royal Commission does not provide a map that defines the area covered by the Gawler Craton. ……There are many maps showing the Gawler Craton and most of them vary radically from one another.”

Langley also drew attention to instability within the Ceduna Sub Basin – “The proposed HLNW geologic repository may be (or may not be) flooded with ground water after completion – as part of the design criteria. I have to ask how such a repository might impact occupants of the Peninsular.”

“Agriculture, aquaculture, tourism and mining industries, all reliant on sustainable natural resources, contribute over $2.5 billion to the economy in an average year.  Despite low rainfall and low soil fertility, around 45% of SA’s wheat and 20% of SA’s barley harvest come from the Eyre Peninsula. In addition, the region contributes 45% of the state’s seafood harvest.  Some 95% of farms are broad acre, of which 85% depend on grain growing alone, or a mix of grain and livestock farming. Given all this, the Eyre Peninsula is extremely vulnerable to a hotter, dryer future.” Source: “Effective Adaptation Policy Making: A case study from the Eyre Peninsula” National Climate Change Adaption Research Facility, athttps://www.nccarf.edu.au/content/case-study-eyre-peninsula  https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/

FINANCIAL ASPECTS – REALLY UNKOWN
84. Given the quantities held by countries that are yet to find  a solution for the disposal of used fuel, it is reasonable to conclude that there would be an accessible market of sufficient size to make it viable to establish and operate a South Australian repository.85. There is no existing market to ascertain the price a customer may be willing to pay for the permanent disposal of used fuel.

 What would the (overseas) holders of radioactive wastes be willing to pay for  disposal and storage of radioactive wastes in South Australia?

This question really has no answer. The Commission’s conclusion of total revenue  of more than $257 billion, despite all the high-sounding financial statements, sounds like a nice figure just plucked out of the air.  At present every country with nuclear facilities is struggling with the unanswered question of what do do with their radioactive trash. Even Finland, which has built a 500 metre deep burial place, will not have enough space for their accumulating radioactive trash.  So far, there is no room for Fennovoima’s waste in the Onkalo repository in Olkiluoto. (2)

At this stage there are no proposals for exporting nuclear waste. Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce, in his recent report on the Commission’s overseas visit, said “We haven’t done the financial study”. When anyone does do the financial study, they will need to factor in the financial costs of insurance, of security for hundreds, thousands,  of years, as well as of environmental degradation.

Another factor would be the comparison of the commercial value of renewable energy not pursued, tourist and agricultural opportunities lost as government money went into fostering nuclear schemes rather than  South Australia’s more positive activities.

There would be no revenue for at least 30 years – probably longer – until the waste disposal facility were to be up and running. Who pays up for it all in the meantime? Does South Australia have to borrow heavily – and then – what if it all does not eventuate, anyway?

TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
I am astonished at the minimalist approach  Tentative Findings report towards the transport of radioactive wastes. It’s as if the subject does not matter!

135. During the past 30 years, approximately 11 000 containers of uranium oxide concentrate (UOC) have been exported from Australia. There have been a
number of incidents during the transport of UOC where containers have been knocked or dented. However, given that UOC has low radioactivity and is transported
in sealed drums inside shipping containers, there has never been an accident in Australia resulting in the release of UOC to an extent that has adversely affected
workers, the public or the environment. 
(They  don’t count the Ranger spill in 2014    https://antinuclear.net/2014/10/23/toxic-spill-report-critical-for-ranger-uranium-mine/)

Really ! That transport of uranium oxide has been in the past relatively safe – hardly means that we can be complacent about the transport of High Level Nuclear Waste!137. The transport of nuclear materials is undertaken in accordance with a mature international regulatory regime, which establishes minimum standards for
transport packages….

It’s as if the Royal Commission had never heard of the modern facts about climate change – extreme weather events increasing in frequency and severity. (3)

It’s as if the Royal Commission had never heard of the increasing dangers, and increasing sophistication of terrorist attacks.

It’s as if the Royal Commission had never heard of the growing objections of many communities, to having nuclear waste ships pass near them or through their ports. (4)

155. There is no compelling evidence from any international experience that the development of nuclear facilities in South Australia would adversely affect other economic sectors, provided those facilities are operated safely and securely. There is a perception there would be an impact, which would need to be addressed in the process of obtaining community consent for any proposal. In the event of a major nuclear accident, adverse impacts on the tourism, agriculture and
property sectors could potentially be profound.

Of course – there’s no evidence at all – as it has never been done before – to set up a nuclear waste importing business to a non nuclear country – particularly in a State such as South Australia, with its renowned wine industry, tourism, fisheries, agriculture, including innovative schemes such as Sundrop Farms

In the past, countries like France accepted the risks of nuclear power, and their other industries thrived. Now, even in France, there is concern about polluting industries. For some time  after the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe,  the French wine industry was severely depressed., because the wine growing regions were squarely in the path of the ionising radiation fallout. (5)  There is concern in Washington State about the impact of Hanford nuclear waste facility on the wine industry. (6)

SECRECY ISSUE:  LAWS AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO OTHER COUNTRIES
146. There is significant appetite in the private sector investment community to support new Australian infrastructure projects.

The Tentative Findings assume a great financial bonanza to South Australia, but is very vague on how the costs and (assumed) profits would be carved up between South Australia and the countries sending the wastes.

And, I still wonder, if it’s going to be such  a bonanza, why is no other country offering to host the global radioactive trash?

Once again, Paul Langley has expressed this question most eloquently:

Nuclear nations all have their own laws regarding nuclear matters. For instance the United States has many laws, including the Atomic Energy Act, as currently amended, associated laws and regulations. It has long been an issue that the US Act prevents full disclosure regarding “special nuclear material” – that is plutonium and uranium as used and produced in a reactor. This matter has long been a concern in the US democratic setting. For instance, see CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, VOL 26, NO 4, MARCH 2005, PP. 1401-8.

The HLNW repository is promoted by the Royal Commission as being South Australian, owned by the government and benefitting the people of SA. To what extent then, in the course of contract negotiations, will the government and people of SA become beholden to the provisions of foreign laws regarding disclosure and other matters in regard a client nation’s HLNW? Will the contracts be commercial in confidence ? Will provisions alien to SA law be invoked in order to comply with contracted obligations? Will such provisions restrict our right to know and our freedom to speak? Will the full nature of the stockpile resident in the HLNW repository be secret in any way? Will the people be able to study each contract? What is an unclassified restricted document, and what happens if an ordinary person figures out it’s contents? (7)

 References:  Continue reading

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

A Submission For The Public Good – to #NuclearCommissionSAust

submission goodABOUT SUBMISSIONS 16 Mar 16

Today I take the unusual step of publishing several extracts from one submission. The Royal Commission has allowed very little time for people to send in submissions. So – few are available to me right now.

BUT – Paul Langley of South Australia has prepared a submission. And it is a beauty!  Why? Because not only does it pack a punch, but, equally important, Langley provides a wealth of information, facts, figures, and reference sources – https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/

Sad to mutilate such a strong and lengthy submission, but I have done so on this website. So there are 5 extracts from the submission, on today’s page. If you have time, go to the original. If you don’t have time, at least see what Langley writes about Transport of High Level Nuclear Waste,  Gawler Crater,  The Law and the Profits,  Gaining Public Trust,  AN ALTERNATIVE to nuclear industry 

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Transport of High Level Nuclear Waste: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

submission goodResponse to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16  “……Transport of HLNW from around the world to a SA HLNW geologic repository

The Royal Commission apparently assumes that the movements of many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from many countries around the world to the Gawler Craton will be low risk, no problems and perfectly safe. As contradictory as those stances are. I do not accept that position of default safety. Further I do not accept that the unloading of the HLNW will be perfectly safe. I do not accept that road transport from port to repository site will be perfectly safe, even on a dedicated purpose built road.

I would recommend that Super Freighters laden with the contents of countless reactor cores not sail down the Somali coast nor in the waters to the south of Thailand for fear of pirates. They should avoid man made Islands in the South China Sea. I suppose the ships will be guarded by 6 English policemen each with two revolvers between them. Rather than half the Pacific Fleet they would actually warrant. If they ever get to leave their home ports.  What is the Somali coast going to be like in 40 years? Peaceful or short of rad weapons?…….” https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission: About the Gawler Craton and Ceduna sub Basin

submission goodResponse to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16 “……….Response to Tentative Finding 74……….

Nuclear adventurism invariably claims to be acting in order to “save the world” from one thing or another.

In my final statement I shall remind the Royal Commission of alternatives to the current proposal. A nuclear dump on Eyre Peninsular or anywhere else will not save this planet from anything, and will impose risk upon populations.

Stability   The Royal Commission tentatively finds that the Gawler Craton is stable. The Royal Commission says nothing about the stability of the climate that impacts it and which will impact it in the near future. I choose not to compare SA with lands of snow and glaciers, such as Sweden and Finland. I choose a much more relevant place:

“….even in extremely arid climates such as the Yucca Mountain site, hydrologic interaction is the most prevalent [risk]. It is the primary mechanism of which contamination can occur, and is the most prevalent consequence to other risks discussed…..”

I shall show that the US concern regarding sudden climate change – including extreme rain events – and the impact of this upon arid area HLNW Repositories is much more relevant to Australian scenario than the Swedish and Finnish concerns. …….The risks posed by sudden climate change and increasing extreme weather events include possible flood events on Eyre Peninsular. This is a section of the Gawler Craton that contains no rivers (Source: SA Water Corp). Like Yucca Mountain, Eyre Peninsular appears to be internally drained……..

Contrary to the implications of the written material made available by the Royal Commission, the Swedish and Finnish models do not provide South Australians with a moral precedent or imperative for accepting the nuclear waste generated by the rest of the world.   Rather, both nations conform to the principle of clearing up one’s own mess as best one can. Importing the mess of other nations would, it seems to me, be an anathema to both nations. On one hand the Royal Commission implores us to copy Sweden and Finland. On the other hand, both those nations say no in law to what the Royal Commission is proposing and recommending.

However, no doubt, both nations would happily sell their means and methods to South Australians. The cost of this sale has not been made available by the Royal Commission as far as I am aware. No doubt royalties due to Swedish and Finnish patent licenses would apply………

The Swedish nuclear authorities were given from 1977 until 2020 to consider the mandatory HLNW geologic waste dump by the people of Sweden. That’s Forty Three years.

How is it that the people of South Australia have been given only from 2016 to 2020 to consider the same issue? A mere Four years? The people of Sweden were time generous to the nuclear industry. That same industry now attempts to railroad us into a “fast buck for them” solution……

The Royal Commission has not disclosed whether the HLNW geologic repository/dump will be hot or cold. Will it be flooded with ground water as the Swedes intend for theirs?…………

Where is the groundwater coming from if in SA the repository is to be flooded as proposed by the Swedish text quoted above? Where will the ground water subsequently move to from the repository? Is there in fact any basis for an unthinking acceptance of the Swedish solution in South Australia? How wheat and mutton is produced above the deep, geologic Scandinavian nuclear sewers?   Do they wish they did not have the problem at all? Yes, but sadly they do have the problem. They may have solved their problem. Is their solution to become our problem? Given we do not share much with them, either in environmental type, chemistry or need………

Tentative Finding 78

parts a – c state: “For the management of used fuel and intermediate level wastes, South Australia has a unique combination of attributes which offer a safe, long-term capability for the disposal of used fuel. They include: the underlying Archaean geological structure, the Gawler Craton, at an appropriate depth for disposal. low levels of seismic activity overall and, in some parts, very low levels relative to elsewhere in the world. an arid environment in many parts of the state.”

The Gawler Craton

The Royal Commission does not provide a map that defines the area covered by the Gawler Craton. ……There are many maps showing the Gawler Craton and most of them vary radically from one another…..

The Royal Commission cannot consider the actual location of the HLNW geologic repository, other than to inform that it will be located within the Gawler Craton. While advocating for the repository, the Royal Commission cannot apparently consider Southern groundwater chemistry as compared to Swedish or Finnish groundwater chemistry or any other technical factor. The only technical data it cites in its tentative findings are promotional statements.

The Gawler Craton appears to be very big. I am familiar with some geologic events of the recent past that indicate not all places located over the Craton are “stable” in the common sense.

I refer to the Bight Basin and in particular to the Ceduna Sub Basin of the Bight Basin.

What are the hydrologic and other dynamics of the Gawler Craton? How well is it understood by modern Geology?

“Owing to sparse outcrop, the geology of the Gawler Craton is relatively poorly understood, and its boundaries are entirely subsurface, being interpreted from total magnetic intensity and gravity data combined with outcrop and drillhole information (Schwarz et al., 2006)”. Source: “Geodynamic Synthesis of the Gawler Craton and Curnamona Province” Edited by N.Kositcin, GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA record 2010/27, Australian Government, athttp://minquest.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Genesis-of-the-Gawler2.pdf……

There is evidence of instability within the Ceduna Sub Basin……..

The proposed HLNW geologic repository may be (or may not be) flooded with ground water after completion – as part of the design criteria. I have to ask how such a repository might impact occupants of the Peninsular.

“Agriculture, aquaculture, tourism and mining industries, all reliant on sustainable natural resources, contribute over $2.5 billion to the economy in an average year.  Despite low rainfall and low soil fertility, around 45% of SA’s wheat and 20% of SA’s barley harvest come from the Eyre Peninsula. In addition, the region contributes 45% of the state’s seafood harvest.  Some 95% of farms are broad acre, of which 85% depend on grain growing alone, or a mix of grain and livestock farming. Given all this, the Eyre Peninsula is extremely vulnerable to a hotter, dryer future.” Source: “Effective Adaptation Policy Making: A case study from the Eyre Peninsula” National Climate Change Adaption Research Facility, athttps://www.nccarf.edu.au/content/case-study-eyre-peninsula  https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Renewable-based energy system cheaper than fossil fuels – new research

Parkinson-Report-New modelling shows renewable-based system cheaper than fossil fuels, REneweconomy, (good graphs) By  on 14 March 2016  New modelling from a group of engineers, energy analysts and IT experts in Western Australia shows that a high penetration renewable energy system would be cheaper based around existing fossil fuel generation.

The modelling, known as SIREN, looks at the West Australian grid, known as the South West Interconnected System, and shows that an electricity system with 85 per cent renewable energy will be cheaper than “business as usual” – an average of $124/MWh compared to $127/MWh – and around the same price as current costs.

A system with 91 per cent renewable energy penetration would be slightly higher ($136/MWh), while three separate scenarios for 100 per cent renewable energy would be more expensive (ranging from $157/MWh to $164/MWh).

The modelling assumed that there will be 6,000MW of wind and 3,000MW of solar PV in the high renewables scenarios, and 5,000MW of wind and 2,000MW of solar PV in the 100 per cent renewable energy scenarios. The difference in the 100 per cent renewables scenario is the addition of 1.2GW of solar thermal and storage.

The SIREN modelling template will soon be used for an updated assessment and costing of the main grid in Australia, the National Electricity Market. “We intend to use this to lobby government and show (utilities) Western power and Synergy what we have found, and what they can do,” says Ben Rose, one of the authors.

Some may quibble with the fact that it compares new investment in each scenario, but the fact remains that most of the current generation in W.A., particularly its coal assets – and indeed the rest of Australia – is reaching its used-by date and will need to be replaced by 2030. Yet, says Rose, few politicians are addressing this issue.

The results are also based on relatively conservative technology cost assessments included in the AETA survey done by the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics.

Many of these costs, particularly the solar thermal costs used in the 100 per cent renewable energy scenarios, are expected to come down quickly, and well below the 2025 forecasts included by AETA. Most of the technologies are already cheaper than those forecasts……….http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-modelling-shows-renewable-based-system-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-55032

March 16, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy | Leave a comment

Draconian anti-protest laws for New South Wales?

The proposed protest laws would give police new powers to break up protests, to search and destroy private property. If police say just one person obstructs traffic, they can shut down an entire peaceful assembly.

This is a slippery slope that gives police discretion to silence dissent and could turn NSW into a police state. Far from being a moderate, Baird is taking NSW down the sad road of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensland.

The laws will allow police to arrest anyone carrying or operating anything the police think will be used in a protest. Police would be able to arrest you and confiscate and destroy your car, for example, if they think it will be used to disrupt business in a protest. What has happened to the presumption of innocence?

Protesters could be fined more for opposing illegal mining activity than miners could for operating illegally.

civil-liberty-2smMike Baird’s anti-protest laws risk turning NSW into Bjelke-Petersen’s Queenslanhttp://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/mike-bairds-anti-protest-laws-risk-turning-nsw-into-bjelke-petersens-queensland-20160315-gnj4to.html  March 15 2016  Naomi Hodgson

*Poll: More than 60 per cent of voters opposed Mining protesters could face seven years’ jail

*Freedom of speech and freedom of association are cornerstones of democracy. Continue reading

March 16, 2016 Posted by | civil liberties, New South Wales | Leave a comment

The Law and the Profits: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

submission goodResponse to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16  “…..The Law and the Profits.

Nuclear nations all have their own laws regarding nuclear matters. For instance the United States has many laws, including the Atomic Energy Act, as currently amended, associated laws and regulations. It has long been an issue that the US Act prevents full disclosure regarding “special nuclear material” – that is plutonium and uranium as used and produced in a reactor. This matter has long been a concern in the US democratic setting. For instance, see CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, VOL 26, NO 4, MARCH 2005, PP. 1401-8.

The HLNW repository is promoted by the Royal Commission as being South Australian, owned by the government and benefitting the people of SA. To what extent then, in the course of contract negotiations, will the government and people of SA become beholden to the provisions of foreign laws regarding disclosure and other matters in regard a client nation’s HLNW? Will the contracts be commercial in confidence ? Will provisions alien to SA law be invoked in order to comply with contracted obligations? Will such provisions restrict our right to know and our freedom to speak? Will the full nature of the stockpile resident in the HLNW repository be secret in any way? Will the people be able to study each contract? What is an unclassified restricted document, and what happens if an ordinary person figures out it’s contents? ……..” https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Hot autumn might catch out a denialist government

 Crikey, BERNARD KEANE | MAR 15, 2016 The intensely warm start to autumn across the eastern states appears to have prompted a rise in belief in climate change and the need for Australia to do something about it — one that might catch out a government that appears to be doubling down on the Abbott government’s wilful inaction on the issue.

With an unseasonable autumn heatwave across much….(subscribers only) http://www.crikey.com.au/2016/03/15/hot-autumn-might-catch-out-a-denialist-government/

March 16, 2016 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Gaining Public Trust: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

submission goodResponse to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16  

“……..Gaining Public Trust.   Relevant Safety Assurances made by nuclear “experts” in my life time.  

In the 1980s, the government of South Australia returned ownership of the Maralinga Lands:

“In 1984, the South Australian Government returned the freehold title for the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands to its Traditional Owners. Concerns over radiological hazards prevented the handback of Section 400.” Source: “Maralinga Tjarutja Lands: handback of Section 400” , The Anangu Lands Paper Tracker, at http://www.papertracker.com.au/archived/maralinga-tjarutja-lands-handback-of-section-400/

As I recall at that time the then Premier, the Late John Bannon, visited the Maralinga Lands, along with Peter Burns and other ARPANSA scientists. Peter wrote a detailed description of the problem at Maralinga in a Saturday Advertiser centre page spread at that time. Mr. Bannon was appalled and surprised at the state of some areas of the lands and though the land was handed back, it was too dangerous to permit the owners to return on a permanent basis.

Full handback was not possible until the 21st century………..

For decades the relevant nuclear experts – especially those under Professor Titterton – had assured Australia and Australians that Maralinga was “perfectly safe”.  From the 1950s until 1984. Many individuals who contested the opinion of these experts were threatened with jail for breaching the official secrets act. (Source: Mr Kevin Wakefield, Ex RAN, Monte Bello Island, Mr Terry Toon, Ex Maralinga, Mr Alan Batchelor, Ex Maralinga. Mr John Hutton, Ex Maralinga.)   While some ordinary people knew the truth, they were not allowed to tell it. And when they did speak out, they received threats and disbelief. It is reasonable to think, given that the RAN surveyed the Monte Bello Islands until 1975, the same would be true of the Army and Maralinga. Everyone is a Sergeant Schulz on that one.

Well it was not perfectly safe. Was it? This is one of South Australia’s formative experiences with nuclear authorities. Professor Titterton remained entrenched at the Federal level as a nuclear safety “leader” until the era of the Whitlam government.

This is not ancient history. It is for some people like yesterday. The 1984 McClelland Royal Commission records an exchange between Titterton and the Royal Commissioner. In this exchange Titterton admits he could not disclose all he knew about safety to the Safety Committee due to the fact that he was constrained by the secrecy provisions of both the United States and Great Britain. Will history repeat in this regard? What will Jay not be able to say the people of South Australia? Will silence due to “American and British secrecy provisions” reign again?   The Royal Commissioner McClelland found that some Australians in authority were akin to Fifth columnists acting more in the interests of foreign lands than they were towards Australia and its people.

This earlier Royal Commission also found that nuclear experts had stated to the effect that the critical interests of “a handful of natives” were not going to “stand in the way of the BritishCommonwealth of Nations.”   (Royal Commission, Conclusions, 8.4.38 – 39). Saving the world required some local sacrifice. As far away from the North as possible.   The ones closest in are the ones most affected.  Shall we do it again Jay W.?

Nuclear history is the art of waiting for historic promises to be exposed for what they are at some future point……..

The proposed repository is a sociological experiment. It will take decades for it to provide the history lesson. A very costly higher education.

“Perfectly Safe”, in the History of South Australia, has been a nuclear science fiction, and anyone can prove it. It has never actually true, and contaminated land remains from the time when the owners were forcibly trucked off it in the 1950s. To be concentrated in camps near the Ceduna sub basin of the Bight Basin, which overlays, in part, the Gawler Craton. Such history lies beneath the apparently solid rock statement made by today’s youngster biologists who claim expertise as nuclear people……” .https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Bill Gates’ Nuclear Pipe Dream

Bill Gates’ Nuclear Pipe Dream: Convert Depleted Uranium to Plutonium to Power Earth for Centuries, Truth Out Tuesday, 15 March 2016

By Josh Cunnings and Emerson UrryEnviroNews | Video Report Voice of Bill Gates — “…………Excerpt #1: There was a concept a long time ago that you would do a different type of reactor called a “fast reactor,” that would make a bunch of another element called plutonium, and then you would pull that out, and then you would burn that. That’s called “breeding” in a fast reactor. That is bad because plutonium is nuclear weapons material. It’s messy. The processing you have to get through is not only environmentally difficultly, it’s extremely expensive.

Gates'-travelling-Wave-NuclCunnings: The man considered by many to be supposedly a humanitarian trailblazer when it comes to combatting disease, has a plan to fast-breed the mountainous heaps of depleted uranium at Paducah into plutonium — one of the most dangerous and disease-causing substance on the face of the planet. Then in turn, this plutonium would be used to power what would be the so-called new fourth-generation nuclear power plants. Let’s listen to Gates articulate his plutonium scheme.

Voice of Bill Gates — Excerpt #2: The concept of this so-called “TerraPower reactor” is that you, in the same reactor, you both burn and breed. So, instead of making plutonium and then extracting it, we take uranium — the 99.3 percent that you normally don’t do anything with — we convert that, and we burn it.

[Editor’s Note: Bill Gates is the current Chairman of the Board of TerraPower — a Washington-based nuclear power technology company.]

Cunnings: Now get this, only 60 seconds after Gates acknowledges the tremendous problem of bringing more plutonium into this world, he turns around and makes a joke about it to a crowd filled with university students from nuclear programs — all this, only a few months after the catastrophic triple melt-through at Fukushima Daiichi. Continue reading

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Super expensive UK Hinkley nuclear station might not be built

text Hinkley cancelledThe UK’s Next Nuclear Power Plant Could Collapse Before It’s Built  Motherboard, BY NICOLE KOBIE 15 March 2016 The UK could face power outages and missing emissions targets if the nuclear plant isn’t built – but that doesn’t mean it should be

Nuclear power stations are always controversial, but the UK’s proposed Hinkley Point C is particularly so. It may well be the most expensive object ever built; it guarantees higher power bills; and it’s already taken down executives, despite construction yet to start. Continue reading

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mary Robinson criticises Australia’s cuts to CSIRO climate research

Map Turnbull climateMary Robinson joins chorus against CSIRO cuts, says climate science ‘imperative, not luxury’ By Sara Phillips, ABC News, 16 Mar 16  Former president of Ireland Mary Robinson criticised the proposed cuts to CSIRO climate science in a speech made last night at the University of Melbourne’s Sustainable Society Institute.

Key points:

The highly-decorated former politician was last year a United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change.

She was a key player in brokering the global agreement on climate change reached in Paris in December.

But on Tuesday night she said she was concerned about proposed cuts to long-running climate science programs.

CSIRO chief Larry Marshall announced structural changes to Australia’s national science agency in February, paring back efforts to observe and measure climate change and instead emphasise research into how Australia should prepare for it.

Approximately 350 climate science jobs are expected to be affected.

The cuts were condemned around the world, with an open letter from nearly 3,000 scientists from around the world calling on Dr Marshall to reconsider his plans.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change co-chair and even the World Meteorological Organisation also spoke up against the proposed cuts.

‘I urge Australia to continue to provide leadership’

Ms Robinson, a career diplomat, was forthright in adding her voice to the chorus.

“I think it’s the wrong message at the moment. We need the research at all levels and more of it,” she said.

“Research is an investment in our shared future. It’s not a luxury……….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-16/climate-change-research-‘imperative’-not-‘luxury’-mary-robinson/7249596?section=environment

March 16, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

AN ALTERNATIVE: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

submission goodResponse to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16

“……..An Alternative    We are told Secure Base load Electrical Power is a certainty upon which our civilization rests. Not withstanding the constantly falling price of off grid generation and storage of domestic and industrial power.

As each day passes, alternatives grow in attractiveness. As usual old industries, such as nuclear industry, bemoan the competing technology as inadequate. The odds are by the time today’s five year child is twenty five they will generate, store and use their own off grid power simply, easily and at a cost that would make TEPCO and Westinghouse executives go green. At the moment though the nuclear industry remains a dedicated future-phobe. Those who call for a nuclear revival merely confirm, in the shrillness of their demands, the proven failures of the industry over time, all over the globe.

A large solar power plant, used for both day time power generation and day time sea water electrolysis, could provide 24 hour base load power. An onsite hydrogen fuelled generator station, generating at night or as required, fuelled by solar produced Hydrogen, could transform the SA economy.   The benefits would not have to be weighted against risks spread population wide. This is 2016. Hydrogen is in daily use around the world. In SA there are potential energy sources as yet resolutely untapped.

A hybrid solar hydrogen power plant could be constructed with current knowledge and hardware.   But of course, it would be an inappropriate icon in a state dominated by the nuclear promise.

A far thinking Parliament would not be bound to digging holes in the ground for a living. It might actually originate and facilitate something that actually could save the planet. Sadly it won’t. It does not have the creative will to do so. Such things would already be done if it had.

Such ideas are deemed crazy ones in the halls of nuclear power, in that place where thinking differently seems to be a sin against the prayer book of a compulsory religion.

No thanks, I do not wish to buy this product. It sucks very badly. Have you got anything else? Preferably something sensible and compatible with the future. Not some rust belt thing that the children of all tomorrows curse us for giving them. https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

February – record for hottest month ever globally

climate-changeRecord-breaking heat shows world ‘losing battle’ against climate change, ABC News 15 Mar 16 Alan Finkel tells Q&A Australia’s chief scientist has warned the planet is “losing the battle” against climate change, after new data showed February set a “completely unprecedented” record for the hottest month since global records began.

The data released by NASA compared each month going back to 1880 against average temperatures between 1951 and 1980, and confirmed preliminary analysis that February was the hottest month on record………

Meteorologist Dr Jeff Masters said although the absolute hottest month on record was July 2015, July and August tend to be 4C hotter than January and February because the large land mass in the Northern Hemisphere cools the planet during the northern winter.

Writing on the Weather Underground blog, Dr Masters and his co-author Bob Henson said February was exceptional because it was 1.35C hotter than the long-term average, while July was only 0.75C hotter than average.

“Perhaps even more remarkable is that February 2015 crushed the previous February record [set during the peak of the 1997-98 El Nino] by a massive 0.47C,” they wrote…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-14/february-smashed-all-time-global-heat-record/7246356

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

India’s massive bet on solar power is paying off

text-relevantsunIndia’s big move into solar is already paying off CNN Money by Huizhong Wu   @CNNTech  March 7, 2016:  India’s massive bet on solar power is paying off far earlier than anticipated.

The price of solar power has plummeted in recent months to levels rivaling that of coal, positioning the renewable source as a viable mainstream option in a country where 300 million people live without electricity.

 Solar prices are now within 15% of coal, according to KPMG. If current trends hold, the consultancy predicts electricity from solar will actually be 10% cheaper than domestic coal by 2020.

And that could turn out to be a conservative forecast. At a recent government auction, the winning bidder offered to sell electricity generated by a project in sunny Rajasthan for 4.34 rupees (6 cents) per kilowatt hour, roughly the same price as some recent coal projects.

“Solar is very competitive,” said Vinay Rustagi of renewable energy consultancy Bridge to India. “It’s a huge relief for countries like India which want to get more and more solar power.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made access to electricity a top priority, and has set the goal of making 24-hour power available to all 1.3 billion Indians. Currently, even India’s biggest cities suffer from frequent power outages…..http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/index.html

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment