Jobs for South Australians at nuclear morgue? That is a shaky promise.
A nuclear waste jobs bonanza for regional South Australia? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19959, – Jim Green, 27 Sept 19
The federal government is trying to persuade regional communities in South Australia to host a national radioactive waste facility – an underground burial repository for lower-level radioactive wastes and an above-ground ‘interim’ store for long-lived intermediate-level waste. One site under consideration is near Hawker in the Flinders Ranges, and two other sites under consideration are on farming land near Kimba at the top of the Eyre Peninsula.
The government is promising 45 jobs, three times its earlier claim that there would be 15 jobs at the proposed facility. The compensation package on offer has also tripled and now stands at $31 million.
Forty-five jobs would be welcome in small regional communities. But is it plausible that 45 jobs would be created? When the Howard government was attempting to establish a radioactive waste repository in SA from 1998 – 2004, the government said there would be zero jobs – not even any security guards. The government-commissioned PR company Michels Warren said: “The National Repository could never be sold as “good news” to South Australians. There are few, if any, tangible benefits such as jobs, investment or improved infrastructure.”
From 2005 to 2014, Coalition and Labor governments targeted sites in the Northern Territory for a radioactive waste repository and said there would be just six jobs, all of them security guards.
Last year, with SA once again in the firing line, the government said: “At least 15 full-time equivalent jobs will be needed to operate the facility. These will be in site management, administration, security, environmental monitoring, site and building maintenance as well as receiving and packaging waste materials.”
Recently, the jobs estimate was upped to 45, with the government saying: “In addition to the 15 operational jobs already confirmed, the structure now includes roles for community liaison, management, tourism, environmental monitoring, security, health and safety: a total of 45 staff.”
This is the breakdownof the 45 jobs:
14 – security and safeguards
13 – waste operations and technicians
8 – site management and community outreach
5 – environmental protection and quality control
5 – safety and radiation protection
That estimate comes with caveats: “the final workforce design and structure will be based on a number of factors including advice from security agencies, the views of the independent regulator and the details of the final business case, with inputs from across government.”
Overseas comparisons
The Centre de Stockage de l’Aube (CSA) radioactive waste facility in France handles over 200 times more waste per yearcompared to the proposed facility in SA yet it employs only four times as many staff as the proposed facility in SA. CSA processes 73 cubic metres (m3) per employee per year (13,164 m3 / 180 staff).
Is the estimate of 45 jobs credible? Not if overseas radioactive waste facilities are any guide.
The El Cabril radioactive waste facility in Spain has a staff of 137 people and processed an average of 1,395 m3 per year from 1993 to 2016. That equates to 10.2 m3 per employee per year.
Yet the Australian government estimates a workforce of 45 people to process 45 m3 per year: 1 m3 per employee per year compared to 10.2 in Spain and 73 in France. The government evidently has a dim view of the productivity of Australian workers, or, more likely, its jobs estimate is grossly inflated.
Will the government pay staff to do nothing?
Measuring jobs-per-employee doesn’t account for some jobs required whether a facility processes 1 m3 or 1 million m3 per year: administration, security and so on. As a government official stated: “There are a base number of jobs related to the management of the waste which are not linear with volume and a number of jobs that would scale with larger volumes.”
Nevertheless, productivity at the proposed Australian facility would be dramatically lower than comparable facilities overseas.
If we assume that Australia matched the lowest of the figures given above – 10.2 m3 per employee per year at El Cabril in Spain – then the staff at an Australian facility would be processing waste for just one month each year and they’d have 11 months to play ping-pong.
The current government might be willing to pay 45 staff to play ping-pong for 11 months each year, but it’s not a sustainable situation. The Department of Finance wouldn’t tolerate it. If staff at the waste facility are paid by the federal government to do nothing for most of the time, what sort of a precedent does that set, and why shouldn’t the rest of us be paid to do nothing for 11 months out of 12 at a cost to taxpayers of several million dollars each year?
Almost certainly, staffing would be dramatically culled. Almost certainly, a future government would revert to the plan pursued by previous governments: keeping the waste facility closed most of the time, and opening it occasionally for waste disposal and storage. In the jargon, this is called a campaign-based approach with occasional waste disposal ‘campaigns’.
Previous governments said that waste would be sent to the facility just once every 3 – 5 years. For example, the government said in 2003 that waste would be transferred to the facility just once every five years: “It is considered for planning purposes that an average period of 5 years between campaigns will be appropriate” (Volume III of DEST application to ARPANSA, Ch.9, ‘Waste – Transfer and Documentation’, p.5).
In a recent attack on me for questioning its estimate of 45 jobs, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said it was unable to locate any previous government documents regarding periodic, campaign-based plans. The federal government can’t find federal government documents? Seriously?
The government says that it wants continuous operation of the repository (for reasons unexplained) rather than a periodic, campaign-based approach. But even so, the government only plans to shift waste to the facility once or twice each yearaccording to a 2016 document. A July 2018 government document states: “This facility will be an operational facility and not as some have suggested, a minimally crewed warehouse to be opened once or twice a year.” But it is the government itself which says that waste will only be transported to the facility once or twice each year!
Broader economic impacts Continue reading
Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation to continue legal fight over proposed nuclear waste dump
Kimba District Council, 28 Sept 18 : The Australian Human Rights Commission has today formally terminated conciliation between the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation and the District Council of Kimba. The matter is now likely to proceed through a judicial process. In the meantime, the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility site selection ballot will not be undertaken until the matter is resolved.
A spokesperson for Council said that during the conciliation, alternative options for resolution were put to BDAC by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, but were not accepted. For this reason, the outcome is disappointing, but Council remains committed to facilitating a forum on behalf of the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia that ensures the Kimba community has an opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Given the matter is still before the court, Council will be making no further comment, but will keep the community informed as the situation develops.
American transnational corporation AECOM would be the biggest beneficiary from a South Australian radioactive suppository
Tim Bickmore shared a link No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia,
Q. Who would mostly benefit financially from a South Australian radioactive suppository?
A. American transnational corporation AECOM. They already have Oz Gov brass in pocket from the NRWMF, from ADANI, from the NBN. In the UK AECOM services both the Sellafield & Cumbria radioactive waste facilities. AECOM is the 18th largest service provider to the US Govt; runs Los Alamos plutonium factory; Kennedy Space Center & NY World Trade Center.
AECOM is in the box seat to manage & run any OZ radioactive waste facility……https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
When Hurricane Florence struck, solar and wind power were back the next day – unlike coal and nuclear
Hurricane Florence crippled electricity and coal — solar and wind were back the next day https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-florence-crippled-electricity-and-coal-solar-and-wind-were-back-the-next-day/, 25 Sept 18, Nearly two weeks after Hurricane Florence swamped North and South Carolina, thousands of residents who get power from coal-fired utilities remain without electricity.Yet solar installations, which provide less than 5 percent of North Carolina’s energy, were up and running the day after the storm, according to electricity news outlet GTM. And while half of Duke Energy’s customers were without power at some point, according to CleanTechnica, the utility’s solar farms sustained no damage.
Traditional energy providers have fared less well. A dam breach at the L.V. Sutton Power Station, a retired coal-fired power plant near Wilmington, North Carolina, has sent coal ash flowing into a nearby river. Another plant near Goldsboro has three flooded ash basins, according to the Associated Press, while in South Carolina, floodwaters are reportedly threatening pits that contain ash, an industrial waste from burning coal.
The lesson, according to environmentalists: Utilities’ vulnerability to major storms underscores the urgency of shifting to energy that it is not only clean and renewable, but also more resilient.
Stanislav Petrov – the man who saved the world from nuclear holocaust
Great Barrier Reef scientists told to focus on projects to make government look good
Emails tabled in Senate inquiry recommended ‘trade-offs’ to Great Barrier Reef Foundation, Guardian, Ben Smee @BenSmee 26 Sep 2018
Great Barrier Reef scientists were told they would need to make “trade-offs” to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, including focusing on projects that would look good for the government and encourage more corporate donations, emails tabled in the Senate reveal.
The documents, including cabinet briefing notes, contain significant new details about the workings of the foundation and the government decision to award it a $443m grant, including:
- The executives of mining, gas and chemicals companies – and international financial houses that actively back fossil-fuel projects – were among the guests at a six-star retreat hosted by the foundation less than a month after the grant was announced;
- The media companies Foxtel and Fairfax and the tech giant Google are among a tightly held list of donors to the foundation;
- The only CSIRO employee contacted about the grant before the announcement in April was in Patagonia, and did not get the email. Documents have previously revealed that the government’s peak science agency was cut out of the decision to award the grant;
- In August, as scrutiny of the grant intensified, public servants pushed to block a long-planned meeting between the then science minister, Michaelia Cash, and the head of the foundation, Anna Marsden, because of concern about the “optics”.
Emails sent by staff at the Australian Institute of Marine Science outline how government expectations, the ability to leverage private donations and public perceptions “may drive the [foundation] to prioritise shorter-term research initiatives in order to demonstrate progress and return on investment”.
“Where it becomes challenging is that … interventions with the largest future benefit also take the longest to develop,” the institute’s executive director of strategic policy, David Mead, wrote in an email to colleagues.
“Among other trade-offs, we will need to determine to what degree we focus on quick wins or whether we progress longer-term strategic interventions and accept that we will only partially progress them during the next five years (perhaps with little outward visibility of success/progress).”
The emails also reveal an initial state of uncertainty about how a $100m allocation for reef restoration and adaptation would be handled……. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/great-barrier-reef-scientists-told-to-focus-on-projects-to-make-government-look-good?CMP=share_btn_tw.
USA tour to awaken people of dangers of transporting nuclear wastes across the country
“We’re by the railroad tracks because we’re emphasizing that Texas businesses, 
hospitals and schools by the railroads are at high risk,” Hadden said. “It’s a bad idea to bring [nuclear waste] from around the country into Texas.”
The organizations instead want the used nuclear material to be kept at reactor sites in sturdier containers until a permanent storage site becomes available.
“We’re trying to raise awareness because a lot of people don’t know this is planned,”
Generation IV nuclear waste claims debunked
Generation IV nuclear waste claims debunked, Nuclear Monitor 24 Sept 18
Lindsay Krall and Allison Macfarlane have written an important article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists debunking claims that certain Generation IV reactor concepts promise major advantages with respect to nuclear waste management. Krall is a post-doctoral fellow at the George Washington University. Macfarlane is a professor at the same university, a former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission from July 2012 to December 2014, and a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future from 2010 to 2012.
Krall and Macfarlane focus on molten salt reactors and sodium-cooled fast reactors, and draw on the experiences of the US Experimental Breeder Reactor II and the US Molten Salt Reactor Experiment.
The article abstract notes that Generation IV developers and advocates “are receiving substantial funding on the pretense that extraordinary waste management benefits can be reaped through adoption of these technologies” yet “molten salt reactors and sodium-cooled fast reactors – due to the unusual chemical compositions of their fuels – will actually exacerbate spent fuel storage and disposal issues.”
Here is the concluding section of the article: Continue reading
Australia has no plan of action on climate change
“The government has revived the default approach the Liberal-National coalition has had on emissions since the 1990s: do as little as possible, hope that economic developments reduce emissions without policy intervention, deny that there are any policy issues, and defer as many issues as possible to another day,”
In a Country So Dry Even Cows Take Showers, Climate Change Gets Ignored
Australia’s government is as far from a plan of action as it’s ever been.Bloomberg, By Michael Heath, Emily Cadman, and Jason Scott, September 27, 2018,
From cooling showers for cows to airport runways designed for higher sea levels, businesses and parts of Australia’s A$2.7 trillion ($2 trillion) pension industry are starting to find ways to live with rising temperatures.
In the world’s driest inhabited continent, enduring a devastating drought that arrived in mid-winter, private action to prepare for climate change contrasts with years of division on energy and environmental policies. Australia’s latest climate casualties are its farmers, who are being forced to slaughter livestock and watch crops wither amid one of the worst droughts on record……..
Dry conditions are set to continue with eastern states including New South Wales — the most populous and the powerhouse of the economy — the worst affected. Economists estimate the drought could cut as much as 0.75 percent from gross domestic product growth.
Shortly after taking over as prime minister last month, Scott Morrison got on a plane and toured a drought-stricken farm in Queensland, announcing measures to aid the stressed agricultural sector. Yet as for broader climate policy, Australia appears as far away as it has ever been from a consensus on what should be done. Continue reading
Lobbyists for nuclear-related firms hold key positions in National Party
|
Nuclear industry-related firms – Heathgate Resources, General Dynamics, Delta Electricity, St Baker Energy Innovation Fund – some of the firms represented by the two lobbying firms mentioned in the article below. Top Nationals pair hold senior roles at big-business lobby firms Katrina Hodgkinson and Larry Anthony – as well key Labor and Liberal figures – are part of an industry with little oversight
|
|
|
September 27 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Election 2018: Clean Energy’s Future Could Rise or Fall with 36 Governor’s Races” • Some of the most consequential elections for climate policy this fall could be the 36 governors races, where a blue wave could position clean energy advocates as a significant counterforce against the Trump administration’s fossil fuel agenda. [InsideClimate News] […]
Queensland releases new guidelines as another 16 solar projects queue to join grid — RenewEconomy
Queensland releases new guidelines for solar developers as another 16 large scale projects queue for connection to the grid. The post Queensland releases new guidelines as another 16 solar projects queue to join grid appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Queensland releases new guidelines as another 16 solar projects queue to join grid — RenewEconomy
Matthew Guy comes to the party on renewable energy jobs, yet commitment to Vic Renewables Target is the real test — RenewEconomy
Opposition leader Matthew Guy made a renewable energy policy announcement this morning at Keppel Prince in Portland where hundreds are employed manufacturing wind turbine towers.
Clean energy industry releases Victorian election policies for clean energy future — RenewEconomy
The clean energy industry is calling on all political parties to adopt policies that will provide certainty for continued investment in clean energy and put more power back in the hands of Victorians ahead of the upcoming state election. The post Clean energy industry releases Victorian election policies for clean energy future appeared first on…
via Clean energy industry releases Victorian election policies for clean energy future — RenewEconomy
Innogy begins construction of Australia’s biggest solar plant — RenewEconomy
German energy giant Innogy says begins construction on what will be Australia’s biggest solar farm – 349MW – near Balranald in NSW. The post Innogy begins construction of Australia’s biggest solar plant appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Innogy begins construction of Australia’s biggest solar plant — RenewEconomy
Antinuclear 