To October 6th- nuclear, climate and renewable energy news – Australia
The new U.N. climate report will reveal urgent disastrous climate change now on the way.
Beyond Nuclear counteracts the industry’s false propaganda about ionising radiation.
AUSTRALIA
Julian Assange’s health in danger– but he lacks medical care.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science chief economist enthusiastic about the lithium industry.
Australian government grossly inflates the number of jobs to be needed at planned South Australian nuclear waste dump.
Labor Senator Gallacher joins the Labor-Liberal pro nuclear dance team. Flinders Ranges – a top tourist destination – a crazy choice for a nuclear waste dump.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science – no resolution of dispute. Submissions are still accepted.
– Call for independent Inquiry into management of Australia’s Lucas Heights nuclear wastes.
Suggestion that Australia get nuclear weapons.
CLIMATE. The value of Australia’s coal exports is forecast to decline sharply.
WA Indigenous community tries to rid water supply of unsafe level of uranium.
RENEWABLE ENERGY Greens propose 30 renewable energy zones, backed by grid fund. Australia installed solar capacity to double to 18GW by 2020 . Regulator says announced wind and solar projects now topping 10GW. Three biggest solar farms join the grid in Victoria, NSW, and South Australia . Victoria’s renewable energy boom set to create thousands of jobs. It’s a tie! Tasmania defies federal Coalition on bipartisan approach to energy. Kidston Renewable Energy Hub in Far North Queensland fast tracked. Wind farming – a benefit and source of pride to farmers. Energy storage ‘a game-changer’ for Australia.
Australian government grossly inflates the number of jobs to be needed at planned South Australian nuclear waste dump
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. SO there are other sites that would be happy to have the containated waste …………..DO NOT allow the Flinders Ranges SA to become another FUKUSHIMA………Nearly one million tons of water from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant is still dangerously radioactive, according to Tokyo Electric Power…….PLEASE Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA
Beyond Nuclear counteracts the industry’s false propaganda about ionising radiation
nations that rely on the use — and marketing — of nuclear technology, will do everything possible to suppressknowledge about its dangers. This has resulted in public relations campaigns endeavoring to persuade its citizens — as is happening in post-Fukushima Japan —that their “hysteria” and “radiophobia” are causing more illnesses than any radiation that might have gotten out.
This tactic is embedded in a strategy to “normalize” radiation exposures so that exposure limits can be raised. In Japan, the 1 millisievert a year “acceptable” level of exposure was raised to 20 mSv a year after the Fukushima disaster, simply because the Japanese government cannot ever hope to “clean up” areas contaminated with radioactivity back down to the 1 mSv level. Thus, an annual dose rate that is completely unacceptable, especially for children, becomes the new “normal.”
Radioactivity harms us and no dose is “safe” https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/2018491636 A “small” dose can do immense damage; our new handbook explains how and why, By Cindy Folkers and Linda Pentz Gunter, 4 Oct 18All nuclear power plants routinely release radioactive gases and water contaminated with radioactive isotopes. When a nuclear plant has a serious accident — as occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima — orders of magnitude more radioactivity is released into the environment. Uranium mining also releases harmful radioactive isotopes and leaves behind radioactive waste. The 1979 uranium tailings pond spill at Church Rock, NM — 90 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste and 1,100 tons of solid mill waste — was the largest accidental release of radioactive waste in US history and permanently contaminated the Puerco River. Radioactive releases occur all along the uranium fuel chain, beginning with uranium mining and culminating in radioactive waste “management.” All of these releases — whether large or small (because there is no “safe” dose) — impact human health with varying degrees of severity. And yet most of the time, these impacts are poorly understood, hushed up, or even dismissed. When discoveries are made — such as increased rates of leukemia in populations living near nuclear power or reprocessing plants — there is an immediate effort by industry, often supported by governments, to undermine, challenge or negate such findings. The fact remains, however, that both the immediate and long-term damage done to human health — which can last for generations — is the single, most compelling reason not to continue with the use of nuclear power and the extractive, polluting industries that must support it. The Radiation and Harm to Human Health chapter of the Beyond Nuclear anti-nuclear handbook, is available now for download and printing as a standalone booklet. In it, we endeavor to both explain and synthesize the many ways that radioactivity released through the nuclear power sector damages human health, especially the most vulnerable members of our population — women, pregnancy, babies and young children. We begin with some simple explanations about radiation and radioactive releases. When we make the case that nuclear power harms us, it’s necessary to understand the differences between types of radiation and exactly what is released by the different phases of the nuclear industry fuel chain. We also rebut the misleading arguments made by the pro-nuclear lobby about exposures. We explain the difference between internal and external exposures — a very important distinction. We also break down the “natural” versus “man-made” argument. Too often, you may hear suggestions that exposures caused by nuclear plants are no worse than flying in an airplane. The sin of omission is a common tactic by the nuclear lobby. In this booklet, we describe why these arguments are deliberately misleading and unscientific. It is important to remember that the negative health effects caused by the uranium fuel chain are not restricted to radiation exposures. Uranium mining, for example, also releases heavy metals such as lead and even arsenic, just as harmful and in some cases even worse than radiation, depending on the dose. The whole issue of “dose,” of course, and what this means, is also used to cloud facts with mythology in order to suggest that some radioactive releases are not high enough to do real damage. But differentiating between high and low doses is very tricky, depending on whether the doses are delivered to a whole body, an individual organ, or a few cells. For example, even just a single alpha-emitting isotope — such as uranium, radon or thorium —when inhaled or ingested, can impart a huge dose to the cell or cells it travels through. The dose may sound small, but the damage is immense. Medical science is in agreement that women are more susceptible to damage from radiation exposure than men. And yet, so-called “allowable” radiation exposure limits are based on a model known as “Reference Man,” a healthy, white male in the prime of life. This means that current “allowable” exposure levels are putting women and children at higher risk of disease than men. Additionally, “allowable” exposure limits mostly ignore impacts on pregnancy, the life stage most susceptible to radiation damage. We make the case that pregnancy, rather than reference man, should form the basis for any exposure standards. Accidents such as Chernobyl have led to lasting and widespread health problems. But these have been hard to record and quantify. Many affected people were never registered, others moved away or have died. The “burden of proof” that Chernobyl harmed them remains on the victim rather than the obvious perpetrator. This has allowed authorities such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (whose mandate is to promote the use of nuclear power) to capitalize on uncertainty by spreading statistics that grossly underestimate the health impacts of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl. The IAEA gets away with this by using the mouthpiece of the World Health Organization — a seemingly august and reliable authority — to disseminate health statistics related to nuclear accidents. But the WHO submitted to a gag order imposed by the IAEA in 1959, allowing the IAEA to veto any actions by the WHO related to nuclear power. This makes any health figures released by the WHO in relation to Chernobyl or other nuclear incidents highly suspect and likely censored. Similarly, nations that rely on the use — and marketing — of nuclear technology, will do everything possible to suppress knowledge about its dangers. This has resulted in public relations campaigns endeavoring to persuade its citizens — as is happening in post-Fukushima Japan —that their “hysteria” and “radiophobia” are causing more illnesses than any radiation that might have gotten out. This tactic is embedded in a strategy to “normalize” radiation exposures so that exposure limits can be raised. In Japan, the 1 millisievert a year “acceptable” level of exposure was raised to 20 mSv a year after the Fukushima disaster, simply because the Japanese government cannot ever hope to “clean up” areas contaminated with radioactivity back down to the 1 mSv level. Thus, an annual dose rate that is completely unacceptable, especially for children, becomes the new “normal.” Our handbook chapter on Radiation and Harm to Human Health endeavors to keep things concise and simple. We hope you will use it to help educate residents, politicians and the press about the true risks of accepting uranium mining operations, nuclear power plants or radioactive waste management schemes into your communities. We understand that a handbook should be something you can carry in your hand! To that end, we are raising funds to print copies of this booklet. If you would like to contribute, so that we can get this handbook out to the communities that most need it, please donate here. Choose “Handbook” from the pulldown menu to designate your gift. And thank you! Cindy Folkers is the radiation and health specialist at Beyond Nuclear and the primary author of the Radiation and Harm to Human Health handbook. Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear. If you’d like to be the first to read stories like these, sign up for our Monday email digest. We will send you a very brief synopsis of the new stories on our site, with links to read them and learn more. Sign up today! |
|
|
Labor Senator Gallacher joins the Labor-Liberal pro nuclear dance team
I felt during the proceedings that he wasn’t showing impartiality.
He made disparaging remarks about certain evidence presented during the day.
I like to know who.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science – no resolution of dispute with Barngarla Aboriginal group. Submissions are still accepted
Statement on Australian Human Rights Commission conciliation meeting 2 OCTOBER 2018
https://radioactivewaste.gov.au/news/statement-australian-human-rights-commission-conciliation-meeting
The following can be attributed to a spokesperson for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science:
“The department understands the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation and District Council of Kimba have ended conciliation in the Australian Human Rights Commission without being able to resolve their differences,” said the spokesperson.
“Community consultation is central to this process, and the department is continuing to actively seek views about the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. As the legal case between the two parties’ remains ongoing it is not possible at this point to fix a date for the closure of the consultative processes.
“However, we are mindful of the need to reach a decision on the current nominations as quickly as possible and the department thanks the communities around the three nominated sites for their patience.
“The Government continues to work to hear the views of all community members, including local residents, neighbours, business owners and Traditional Owners.
“This includes our direct work with Aboriginal communities both for and against the proposal, and surrounding all three sites currently under consideration.
“We are continuing to accept submissions, our community liaison officers continue to work on the ground and the department is continuing to visit the relevant communities.
“Anyone wanting more information about the project ahead of the decision on the three sites this year, can continue to drop in to one of our project offices, call, email or make a submission.”
For more information on the project, go to: www.radioactivewaste.gov.au
The new U.N. climate report will reveal urgent disastrous climate change now on the way
Climate scientists are struggling to find the right words for very bad news https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/03/climate-scientists-are-struggling-find-right-words-very-bad-news/?utm_term=.1540529e507a
A much-awaited report from the U.N.’s top climate science panel will show an enormous gap between where we are and where we need to be to prevent dangerous levels of warming. By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis October 3 2018 In Incheon, South Korea, this week, representatives of over 130 countries and about 50 scientists have packed into a large conference center going over every line of an all-important report: What chance does the planet have of keeping climate change to a moderate, controllable level? When they can’t agree, they form “contact groups” outside the hall, trying to strike an agreement and move the process along. They are trying to reach consensus on what it would mean — and what it would take — to limit the warming of the planet to just 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, when 1 degree Celsius has already occurred and greenhouse gas emissions remain at record highs. “It’s the biggest peer-review exercise there is,” said Jonathan Lynn, head of communications for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “It involves hundreds or even thousands of people looking at it.” The IPCC, the world’s definitive scientific body when it comes to climate change, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize a decade ago and has been given what may rank as its hardest task yet. It must not only tell governments what we know about climate change — but how close they have brought us to the edge. And by implication, how much those governments are failing to live up to their goals for the planet, set in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. 1.5 degrees is the most stringent and ambitious goal in that agreement, originally put there at the behest of small island nations and other highly vulnerable countries. But it is increasingly being regarded by all as a key guardrail, as severe climate change effects have been felt in just the past five years — raising concerns about what a little bit more warming would bring. “Half a degree doesn’t sound like much til you put it in the right context,” said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. “It’s 50 percent more than we have now.” The idea of letting warming approach 2 degrees Celsius increasingly seems disastrous in this context. Parts of the planet, like the Arctic, have already warmed beyond 1.5 degrees and are seeing alarming changes. Antarctica and Greenland, containing many feet of sea-level rise, are wobbling. Major die-offs have hit coral reefs around the globe, suggesting an irreplaceable planetary feature could soon be lost. It is universally recognized that the pledges made in Paris would lead to a warming far beyond 1.5 degrees — more like 2.5 or 3 degrees Celsius, or even more. And that was before the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter, decided to try to back out. “The pledges countries made during the Paris climate accord don’t get us anywhere close to what we have to do,” said Drew Shindell, a climate expert at Duke University and one of the authors of the IPCC report. “They haven’t really followed through with actions to reduce their emissions in any way commensurate with what they profess to be aiming for.” The new 1.5 C report will feed into a process called the “Talanoa Dialogue,” in which parties to the Paris agreement begin to consider the large gap between what they say they want to achieve and what they are actually doing. The dialogue will unfold in December at an annual United Nations climate meeting in Katowice, Poland. But it is unclear what concrete commitments may result. At issue is what scientists call the ‘carbon budget’: Because carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for so long, there’s only a limited amount that can be emitted before it becomes impossible to avoid a given temperature, like 1.5 degrees Celsius. And since the world emits about 41 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, if the remaining budget is 410 billion tons (for example), then scientists can say we have 10 years until the budget is gone and 1.5 C is locked in. Unless emissions start to decline — which gives more time. This is why scenarios for holding warming to 1.5 degrees C require rapid and deep changes to how we get energy. The window may now be as narrow as around 15 years of current emissions, but since we don’t know for sure, according to the researchers, that really depends on how much of a margin of error we’re willing to give ourselves. And if we can’t cut other gases — such as methane — or if the Arctic permafrost starts emitting large volumes of additional gases, then the budget gets even narrower. “It would be an enormous challenge to keep warming below a threshold” of 1.5 degrees Celsius, said Shindell, bluntly. “This would be a really enormous lift.” So enormous, he said, that it would require a monumental shift toward decarbonization. By 2030 — barely a decade away — the world’s emissions would need to drop by about 40 percent. By the middle of the century, societies would need to have zero net emissions. What might that look like? In part, it would include things such as no more gas-powered vehicles, a phaseout of coal-fired power plants and airplanes running on biofuels, he said. “It’s a drastic change,” he said. “These are huge, huge shifts … This would really be an unprecedented rate and magnitude of change.” And that’s just the point — 1.5 degrees is still possible, but only if the world goes through a staggering transformation. An early draft (leaked and published by the website Climate Home News) suggests that future scenarios of a 1.5 C warming limit would require the massive deployment of technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the air and bury it below the ground. Such technologies do not exist at anything close to the scale that would be required. “There are now very small number of pathways [to 1.5C] that don’t involve carbon removal,” said Jim Skea, chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III and a professor at Imperial College London. It’s not clear how scientists can best give the world’s governments this message — or to what extent governments are up for hearing it. An early leaked draft of the report said there was a “very high risk” that the world would warm more than 1.5 degrees. But a later draft, also leaked to Climate Home News, appeared to back off, instead saying that “there is no simple answer to the question of whether it is feasible to limit warming to 1.5 C . . . feasibility has multiple dimensions that need to be considered simultaneously and systematically.” None of this language is final. That’s what this week in Incheon — intended to get the report ready for an official release on Monday — is all about. “I think many people would be happy if we were further along than we are,” the IPCC’s Lynn said Wednesday morning in Incheon. “But in all the approval sessions that I’ve seen, I’ve seen five of them now, that has always been the case. It sort of gets there in the end.” |
Regulator says announced wind and solar projects now topping 10GW — RenewEconomy
Regulator dramatically increases estimates of “firmly announced” large scale wind and solar projects, saying they now exceed 10GW – well above the needs for the RET. The post Regulator says announced wind and solar projects now topping 10GW appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Regulator says announced wind and solar projects now topping 10GW — RenewEconomy
Australia installed solar capacity to double to 18GW by 2020 — RenewEconomy
Australia is likely to double its installed solar capacity to 18GW by the end of 2020, lifting its share of generation to around 10 per cent and reinforcing argument for battery storage. The post Australia installed solar capacity to double to 18GW by 2020 appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Australia installed solar capacity to double to 18GW by 2020 — RenewEconomy
It’s a tie! Tasmania defies federal Coalition on bipartisan approach to energy — RenewEconomy
Tasmania energy minister Guy Barnett speaks at All-Energy wearing a tie decorated with wind turbines. The contrast with federal counterpart Angus Taylor could not be greater. The post It’s a tie! Tasmania defies federal Coalition on bipartisan approach to energy appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via It’s a tie! Tasmania defies federal Coalition on bipartisan approach to energy — RenewEconomy
Suggestion that Australia get nuclear weapons
Nuclear Weapons Time for Australia? Could this happen? The National Interest
We face no such risk these days. Nevertheless, we now have the prospect—for the first time since World War II—of a potential major-power adversary threatening us with high-intensity military conflict in our neighborhood. This is not to identify China as an inevitable adversary, but prudent defense planning needs to accept that Beijing is developing the conventional military capabilities to threaten us seriously—were its intentions to change. Military developments in our region of primary strategic concern now require a change to our assessments about intelligence warning time.
President Donald Trump’s attitude towards US friends and allies has been negative, which raises important questions about the need for us to become more self-reliant. Because of the uncertainties now surrounding America’s commitment to its allies, we may also need to revisit the reassurance about extended nuclear deterrence that we have enjoyed since the creation of ANZUS in 1951…….https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/nuclear-weapons-time-australia-32572
Thorium Molten Salt Nuclear reactor (MSR) No Better Than Uranium Process
The safety issue is also not resolved, as stated above: pressurized water leaking from the steam generator into the hot, radioactive molten salt will explosively turn to steam and cause incredible damage. The chances are great that the radioactive molten salt would be discharged out of the reactor system and create more than havoc. Finally, controlling the reaction and power output, finding materials that last safely for 3 or 4 decades, and consuming vast quantities of cooling water are all serious problems.
The greatest problem, though, is likely the scale-up by a factor of 500 to 1, from the tiny project at ORNL to a full-scale commercial plant with 3500 MWth output. Perhaps these technical problems can be overcome, but why would anyone bother to try, knowing in advance that the MSR plant will be uneconomic due to huge construction costs and operating costs, plus will explode and rain radioactive molten salt when (not if) the steam generator tubes leak.