Australian news, and some related international items

The probably insuperable hurdles to Australia getting nuclear reactors

The idea of producing nuclear energy in Australia before 2040 is absurd

Joyce and Barilaro revived this idea after the release of a report by Industry Super Australia, which took as the starting point the need to replace most of Australia’s coal-fired power stations by 2040. The report concluded: “It is difficult to see how the the problem can be resolved without some nuclear in the mix.”

It would perhaps be churlish to observe that the small reactors advocated by Barilaro exist only as designs and may never be built. There is a much bigger obstacle which is essentially impossible to overcome.

To make the central point as bluntly as possible: even with a crash program there is no chance of deploying nuclear power in Australia in the required timeframe. I looked at this question in a submission to the South Australian royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle and concluded that “there is no serious prospect of Australia producing nuclear energy before 2040”.

That was in 2015, and the news for nuclear power since then has all been bad. All of the nuclear power plant construction projects under way in the developed world have experienced substantial delays (the VC Summer plant in the US has been cancelled with a loss of billions of dollars).

Most of these projects (Flamanville in France, Olkiluoto in Finland and Vogtle in Georgia) received their initial approval around 2005, and none is now likely to start before 2020. So, to be sure of getting nuclear power going by 2040, we’d need to have projects in their initial stages before 2025, in the term of the next parliament.

To see how absurd this is, consider some of the steps that will be needed before a project could begin.

First, both major parties need to be convinced of the case for nuclear power. That’s highly unlikely but let’s suppose it can somehow be done by 2020. Next, the current ban on nuclear power needs to be repealed. This ban looms large in the minds of nuclear advocates but actually it’s such a minor problem we can ignore it.

The first big problem is the need to set up, from scratch, a legislative and regulatory framework for nuclear power. That would require adapting an overseas model such as that of the US, where the nuclear industry is regulated by at least eight different acts, covering more than 500 pages. Back in the 1970s the French government could do this kind of thing by fiat, without parliamentary debate, but that’s not a feasible option for Australia.

Having passed the necessary legislation, the next task would be to establish and staff a regulator similar to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation. The only Australian body with any relevant expertise is the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation which operates a 20 megawatt (research reactor at Lucas Heights. Ansto has little or no capacity to deal with the problem of licensing and regulating commercial reactors of 1,000MW.

Even with a massive effort, and assuming no political obstacles, it’s hard to see these tasks being accomplished within five years, which would already take us to 2025. But there are many more remaining difficulties.

Most obviously, as the Industry Super report states, we would need a carbon price or a market mechanism with similar effects, such as an emissions trading scheme. On any realistic political analysis, that’s impossible – the overlap between supporters of nuclear power and advocates of carbon pricing in Australia is virtually zero. At a minimum, the adoption of a carbon price would require a change of government at the next election, which may happen though it doesn’t seem likely at the moment. Even if it would occur (and assuming, improbably, that a Labor government relying on Green support could be persuaded to back nuclear power), there would be further delays before the carbon price could be put in place.

But that’s just the beginning. Before any project could be considered, it would be necessary to license designs that could be built and operated here. The processes of the NRC in the US, which were expedited in the hope of spurring a “nuclear renaissance” typically take three to four years.

We could simply accept the judgement of overseas regulators, but even then we would have a problem – there may be no designs available.

In my submission to the SA royal commission, I argued that the only serious contender for Australia was the Westinghouse AP1000. Since then, however, cost overruns and cancellation have sent Westinghouse bankrupt, almost taking its owner, Toshiba, with it. There is no serious prospect of any more plants of this design being built. Areva, which is building its EPR model in Europe, is in similar difficulty. There’s a serious risk that the only contenders would be Chinese or Russian designs, which would pose some obvious problems.

The most difficult step would be the need to identify greenfield sites for multiple nuclear power plants, almost certainly on the east coast, and go through the relevant environmental processes. Reliance on overseas models won’t be of much use here. All the plants under construction in western countries are “brownfield”, that is, situated next to existing plants, built last century, and approved as far back as the 1970s.

In summary, it would be a heroic endeavour to get construction started on a nuclear plant even by 2030. Getting it finished and generating electricity by 2040 is virtually impossible.

Fortunately, there are alternatives, though the Industry Super report dismisses them. The combination of solar photovoltaics and battery storage is already cheaper than new coal-fired power. As a backup, Australia has huge potential for storage using pumped hydroelectricity. We don’t need to call on the phantom of nuclear power to secure a reliable, carbon-free electricity supply for the future.

 John Quiggin is professor of economics at the University of Queensland

July 18, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

John Quiggan demolishes the case for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in South Australia

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINJOHN QUIGGIN John Quiggin is Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland.

John Quiggan’s Submission to the #NuclearCommissionSAust addressed Question 3.2 of the Issues Papers:

“Are there commercial reactor technologies (or emerging technologies which may be commercially available in the next two decades) than can be installed and connected to the NEM?” 

Extract “….Business SA wants Australia to adopt the PRISM reactor, a so-called Generation IV design. Unfortunately, “design” is the operative word here: PRISM is, literally, still on the drawing

(Tell them they’re dreaming • Inside Story 3 of 4 26/06/2015)

It does not exist even in prototype form. The US Department of Energy, along with designers GE and Hitachi, looked at the idea of building such a prototype at the Department’s Savannah River plant a few years ago, but the project has gone nowhere.

Much the same is true of another popular piece of nuclear vaporware, the “small modular reactor.” All but one of the American firms hoping to produce a prototype have abandoned or scaled back their efforts. The remaining candidate, NuScale, is hoping to have its first US plant operational by 2024, with commercial-scale production some time in the 2030s.

And, of course, there’s no guarantee that the new designs will work in economic terms, or that the problems of waste disposal and proliferation can be resolved. Even assuming this optimistic projection is met, small modular reactors aren’t going to be a viable option for Australia any time soon.

Unfortunately, that didn’t stop the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics from asserting, in its 2012 Australian Energy Technology Assessment, that “SMR technology could potentially be commercially available in the next five to ten years” and presenting it as a low-cost option for 2020. This absurdly optimistic claim was abandoned in the 2013 update, which drastically increased the estimated costs and dropped the claim that the technology would be feasible in 2020.

There is still a chance for nuclear power to contribute to decarbonisation of the global economy in China and other countries with an existing program or the state power to force through a crash program. But these conditions don’t exist in Australia, and there is no serious prospect that they will do so in time to play a substantial role in decarbonisation. Anyone who pretends nuclear power is a serious option for Australia under current conditions is dreaming or, worse still, deliberately diverting attention from the real issues. ……….”

July 18, 2019 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

How the Mirrar Aboriginal people, helped by environmentalists stopped uranium mining at Jabiluka

Leave it in the ground: stopping the Jabiluka mine, Red Flag Fleur Taylor, 15 July 2019  “…… The election of John Howard in March 1996 marked the end of 13 years of ALP government…..

Australia’s giant mining companies – major backers of the Coalition – got their wish list. Howard immediately abolished Labor’s three mines policy, and the business pages crowed that “25 new uranium mines” were likely and possible. And in October 1997, then environment minister Robert Hill blew the dust off an environmental impact statement from 1979 that said mining at Jabiluka was safe. Approval of the mine quickly followed.

The Jabiluka uranium deposit, just 20 kilometres from the Ranger uranium mine, is one of the richest in the world. The proposal was to build a massively bigger mine than that at Ranger, which would be underground and therefore more dangerous for the workers. It was projected to produce 19 million tonnes of ore over its lifetime, which would be trucked 22 kilometres through World Heritage listed wetlands.

The Liberals hoped to make a point. After all, if you could put a uranium mine in the middle of a national park in the face of Aboriginal opposition, what couldn’t you do?

The fight immediately began. The traditional owners of the area, the Mirarr, were led by senior traditional owner Yvonne Margarula and the CEO of the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, Jacqui Katona. They were supported by anti-nuclear campaigners around the country, most notably Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation, as well as a network of activist groups.

The most important objective was to delay construction of the mine, scheduled to begin in 1998. To do this, the Mirarr called on activists to travel to Jabiluka in order to take part in a blockade of the proposed mine site until the onset of the wet season would make construction impossible.

The blockade was immensely successful. Beginning on 23 March 1998, it continued for eight months, attracted 5,000 protesters and led to 600 arrests at various associated direct actions. Yvonne Margarula was one: she was arrested in May for trespass on her own land after she and two other Aboriginal women entered the Ranger mine site.

The blockade also attracted high-profile environmental and anti-nuclear activists such as Peter Garrett and Bob Brown. This helped signal to activists that this was a serious fight. The sheer length of time the blockade lasted created a fantastic opportunity for the campaign in the cities. Activists were constantly returning from Jabiluka with a renewed determination to fight.

The Jabiluka Action Group was key to building an ongoing city-based campaign in Melbourne, and the campaign was strongest there of any city. It held large – often more than 100-strong – weekly meetings, organised endless relays of buses to the blockade and  took the fight to the bosses and corporations that stood to profit from the mine.

We were determined to map the networks of corporate ownership and power behind the mine. But in the late 1990s, when the internet barely existed, this wasn’t as simple as just looking up a company’s corporate structure on its glossy website. It took serious, time consuming research.

A careful tracing of the linkages of the North Ltd board members showed that they were very well connected – and not one but two of them were members and past chairmen of the Business Council of Australia (BCA) – one of Australia’s leading bosses’ organisations. So our June 1998 protest naturally headed to the Business Council of Australia. We occupied their office, and the two groups of anti-uranium protesters, 3,800 kilometres apart, exchanged messages of solidarity, courtesy of the office phones of the BCA.

We were also staggered to learn that the chairman of a company that owned two uranium mines and was Australia’s biggest exporter of hardwood woodchips was also a member of the Parks Victoria board, the national president of Greening Australia and the Victorian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) board president!

The EPA, and corporate greenwashing in general, thereby became a target for the campaign. Another target was the Royal Society of Victoria, which made the mistake of inviting Sir Gus Nossal, a famous scientist and longstanding booster for the nuclear industry, to give a dinner address. We surrounded its building, and the organisers, somewhat mystified, cancelled the dinner. This action once again made headline news, helping to keep the issue of the Jabiluka mine in people’s minds.

We held regular protests at the headquarters of North Ltd on Melbourne’s St Kilda Road. On the day that Yvonne Margarula was facing court on her trespass charge, a vigil was held overnight. When we heard she had been found guilty, the protest erupted in fury. Cans of red paint – not water-based – materialised, and the corporate facade of North Ltd received an unscheduled refurbishment. The Herald-Sun went berserk.

The leadership of the Mirarr people gave this campaign a different focus from other environmental campaigns of the time. It was fundamentally about land rights, sovereignty and the right of Aboriginal communities to veto destructive developments on their land. In Melbourne, the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation appointed long-time Aboriginal militant and historian Gary Foley as their representative. Gary worked tirelessly to provoke and educate the many activists who turned up wanting to “support” or “do something” for Aboriginal people.

At a time when “reconciliation” was strongly supported by liberals and much of the left, Foley told us that reconciliation was bullshit. He argued native title (supposedly a key achievement of Keating) was “the most inferior form of land title under British law”, and that the ALP was every bit as racist as One Nation – if not worse. He insisted activists must educate themselves about sovereignty and the struggles happening right here, not just those happening 3,800 kilometres away. The way the Jabiluka Action Group activists approached this challenge was an example of how people’s ideas change. Many came into the campaign primarily as environmental activists, but almost all left as committed fighters for Aboriginal rights.


When the blockade wound down at the onset of the wet season, it was an opportunity to fight on some other fronts. Representatives of the UN World Heritage Committee visited Kakadu in late 1998 and issued a declaration that the World Heritage values of the area were in danger. They called on the government to stop the mine. Yvonne Margarula and Jacqui Katona travelled to Paris to speak to the European Commission about the mine.

John Howard, at the time mired in ministerial scandals and resignations, had called an election for September 1998, and there was hope in some quarters that Labor might win and stop the mine. But Howard scraped back in on only 48.3 percent of the vote, and it was clear that the fight on the ground would have to continue.

In the meantime, an important legal loophole had been identified. North Ltd had failed to secure agreement for the Jabiluka ore to be trucked to the Ranger mine for processing. It turned out the Mirarr did have the right to refuse this, and by exercising this right they would increase the cost of the project by $200 million (the cost of building a new processing plant at Jabiluka). This, combined with the ongoing protests, became a huge problem for the company.

Something we enjoyed doing at the time was monitoring North Ltd’s share price. It started out high when the Liberals took power. But after a year of protest and controversy, it had started to sink. The slump world uranium prices were going through didn’t help. But what the share price correlated to most closely was the major protests – it showed a drop after every single one.

Fund managers everywhere had absorbed the simple message that Jabiluka meant trouble, and early in 1999 this formerly prestigious blue-chip mining stock was described as one of the year’s “dog stocks”. Encouraged by this, the campaign launched its most ambitious action to date – the four-day blockade of North Ltd, from Palm Sunday until Easter Thursday 1999. This was the beginning of the end for the mine. In mid-2000, Rio Tinto bought out the struggling North Ltd. With no appetite for a brawl, the new owners quietly mothballed the Jabiluka project, signing a guarantee with the Mirarr to that effect. The campaign had won.


The Jabiluka campaign was one of those rare things – an outright victory. It was a win not just for the Mirarr people, but for every community threatened by a devastating radioactive mine. And it was a win for humanity as a whole, protected from more of this deadly substance. Our chant – “Hey, North, you’re running out of time! You’re never going to get your Jabiluka mine!” – for once came true.

The victory inspired a neighbouring traditional owner, Jeffrey Lee, single-handedly to challenge the development of the Koongarra uranium deposit, resulting in the cancellation of that entire mining lease. In Melbourne and other cities, the Mirarr resistance inspired sustained and creative campaigning from a wide variety of participants – from vegan Wiccans and revolutionary socialists to doof-doof rave organisers and corporate-philanthropist Women for Mirarr Women. The campaign was chaotic and argumentative, but united by a commitment to challenging corporate power and standing up for Aboriginal sovereignty.

It still serves as an inspiration for anti-nuclear and anti-mining campaigns, such as the brave and determined opposition of the Wangan and Jagalingou traditional owners to the Adani mine. It stands as a great example of how blockades on country can nourish and inspire actions in the cities.


July 18, 2019 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, history, Opposition to nuclear, opposition to nuclear, reference | Leave a comment

Warning on the likely police surveillance of young climate protestors

July 18, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, civil liberties, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

New research shows deadly plutonium levels – high radioactivity in Marshall Islands

Nuclear isotopes on Marshall Islands up to 1000 times higher than Chernobyl or Fukushima, 17 July 19, Between Australia and Hawaii are islands where locals were banished due to nuclear testing. New research reveals the extent of the problem. Rohan Smith@ro_smith

Never mind Chernobyl and Fukushima.

New research shows a tiny island halfway between Australia and Hawaii has concentrations of nuclear material up to 1000 times higher than at two well-known meltdown locations in Ukraine and Japan.

Research carried out by Columbia University and published this week shows deadly plutonium levels are far higher than previously thought on the Marshall Islands. The group of 29 atolls was subject to 67 US nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, with locals forced to flee as the country dropped bomb after bomb in paradise.

The United States entombed nuclear waste under a dome on the island of Runit that some believe is leaking into the Pacific Ocean. However the real impact of the contamination is only now being realised.

Researchers wrote that two atolls, Bikini and Enewetak, “were used as ground zero” and took the brunt of the impact.

On Enewetak, the first-ever hydrogen bomb was tested. But Bikini was the site of the world’s largest-ever hydrogen bomb test — known as Castle Bravo.

The tests, researchers say, “caused unprecedented environmental contamination and, for the indigenous peoples of the islands, long-term adverse health effects”.

Researchers tested levels of radioactive isotopes in soil and food sources and found “a real concern” on Runit where the huge dome was designed to contain radiation but is not working.

The presence of radioactive isotopes on the Runit Island is a real concern, and residents should be warned against any use of the island,” researchers said.

Moreover, wash-off of existing isotopes off the islands into the ocean from weathering and continued sea level rise continues to threaten, further contaminating the lagoon and the ocean at large.”

On Bikini, researchers found concentrations of particular radioactive material “were up to 15-1000 times higher than in samples from areas affected by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters”.

Though residents were banished from the Marshall Islands during the height of the Cold War, many have returned. The Los Angeles Times reports more than 600 people call Enewetak, Runit and Enjebi home.

Jan Beyea, a retired radiation physicist, told the newspaper: “Implicitly, I think these results might caution efforts to return because of the readings found.” previously reported rising sea levels were degrading the concrete dome at Runit, and the US Department of Energy concluded the “burial site” was leaking highly toxic waste.

Locals refer to it as “the poison” and have already been complaining of birth defects and high cancer rates.

After Castle Bravo, islanders more than 160km away mistook fallout for snow. It “caused skin burns, hair loss, nausea and eventually cancer” in many who were exposed, the Times reports.

The warnings from researchers clash with advice from the US Government, which signed a memorandum of understanding with the Republic of the Marshall Islands agreeing it was safe for those who wished to return home.

In the Marshall Islands, the most common cause of death is diabetes, which is related to a thyroid disorder. The second most common cause of death is cancer.

The population of the Marshall Islands is around 70,000 people, with local Marshallese people allowed to live and work in the US without a visa as part of the reparations for the nuclear testing that took place.

Over a third have already moved to the US. It is said when you leave the Marshall Islands, you buy a one-way ticket.

— Additional reporting by Phoebe Loomes

July 18, 2019 Posted by | General News | 1 Comment

Heat wave impacting France’s nuclear power plants

July 18, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

July 2019 – world’s hottest month on record

July on course to be hottest month ever, say climate scientists

If global trends continue for another fortnight, it will beat previous two-year-old record, Guardian, Jonathan Watts @jonathanwatts17 Jul 2019 Record temperatures across much of the world over the past two weeks could make July the hottest month ever measured on Earth, according to climate scientists.

The past fortnight has seen freak heat in the Canadian Arctic, crippling droughts in Chennai and Harare and forest fires that forced thousands of holidaymakers to abandon campsites in southern France and prompted the air force in Indonesia to fly cloud-busting missions in the hope of inducing rain.

If the trends of the first half of this month continue, it will beat the previous record from July 2017 by about 0.025C, according to calculations by Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, and others.

This follows the warmest-ever June, which was confirmed this week by data from the US space agency Nasa, following Europe’s Copernicus satellite monitoring system. …….

July 18, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Can we REALLY be optimistic about the health of space travellers?

Space radiation hasn’t contributed to astronaut mortality — yet, study shows

An analysis of all living and dead astronauts and cosmonauts shows that radiation hasn’t contributed meaningfully to their mortality rates. Astronomy, By Korey HaynesJuly 5, 2019  …………   they found no trend in the deaths suggesting any common cause, meaning radiation didn’t play a major role in the health outcomes of the astronauts and cosmonauts they studied.
Of course, this doesn’t mean humans are in the clear.

“We would expect that at some level of dose there should be adverse health effects,” Reynolds says. “We keep getting the answer ‘no.’ This doesn’t mean radiation isn’t harmful or greater doses wouldn’t be. But so far the doses have been low enough that we don’t see anything.”

That’s probably because the vast majority of space farers so far have spent most or all of their time in Earth orbit, where Earth’s magnetic fields still protect them from the majority of harmful space radiation. Only those 24 astronauts who ventured to the Moon went beyond Earth’s radiation protection, and they stayed for just a few days.

Reynolds says that it’s difficult to draw meaningful results from that tiny sub-sample of people.

By contrast, a Mars mission might last multiple years, and would take place almost entirely beyond Earth’s shielding.

Other researchers are looking at alternative ways of testing the dangers of radiation exposure. But it’s possible that the next round of human space explorers will be guinea pigs, much like the first generation, and only time will tell how radiation has affected them.–yet-study-shows

July 18, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Glum future for Japan’s nuclear industry

Is there a future for nuclear power in Japan?, Japan Times, BY SUMIKO TAKEUCHI, JUL 16, 2019

ARTICLE HISTORY   This is the third in a series of reports on Japan’s energy policy…….

the damage from nuclear accidents can be catastrophic, in addition to the challenges posed by nuclear waste disposal. The Fukushima disaster has led to strong opinions that Japan should denuclearize, and this is still the case.

…. ………The fact is that the economic benefits of nuclear power have been losing their shine. Because of the sharp hike in safety standards imposed by the Nuclear Regulation Authority after the Fukushima disaster, exorbitant safety upgrades nearly equal in cost to building a new reactor are being installed at each site. To get a return on investment, this intensive capital spending will require long-term operation and high utilization rates, but the need to get local consent to operate and to respond to dozens of lawsuits from anti-nuclear residents is making stable operations difficult. Reactor operations are also capped at 60 years. Nuclear power could potentially be a source of cheap electricity, depending on the utilization rate and other conditions, but there’s also a possibility it won’t. ……

The impact of the Fukushima disaster, however, was enough to completely overshadow the benefits. The majority of the public is still against nuclear power. In light of persistent public opinion, Japan’s nuclear power business has been surrounded by three big uncertainties.

The first is political uncertainty. The administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, despite its long-term stability, has not provided enough support to the nuclear power business. In addition, the government has entrusted the utilities with the job of gaining local consent.

The safety agreements that stipulate the rules of the industry, such as disclosure of information to the host governments, are not legally binding. But running reactors would be next to impossible without local consent based on such agreements. Whenever there’s an election, the utilities are thrown into confusion, and if a new leader is elected, they will initiate communication from scratch.

The second is policy uncertainty. Japan has fully liberalized the retail power sector. In a liberalized market, reactors for which returns on investment have fully recovered could have high cost competitiveness, but there will likely be no companies that will take up the challenge of building new ones.

Since nuclear plants require huge capital, curbing fundraising costs to a low level would have a big impact on competitiveness, but cheap fundraising is something that cannot be expected in a liberalized market. …….

The third is regulatory uncertainty. It has become quite common for reactor safety reviews to take multiple years because of inadequate communication between utilities and regulators. The U.S. has a presidential executive order that stipulates regulation shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to society from regulation outweigh the potential costs of dealing with the regulation.

Though Japan has no such principles, appropriate oversight on regulatory activities is being called for to check whether the public is suffering from any disadvantages from unforeseeable regulatory activities. In the meantime, the finishing blow is the plethora of lawsuits that have been filed demanding the halt of nuclear power plants……..

When utilities are placed in such an uncertain environment, it is a foregone conclusion that the nuclear power business will become unsustainable and there will be no future for it in Japan…..

July 18, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Defence signs contract to power Darwin bases with solar and battery storage — RenewEconomy

Defence bases in Darwin to source solar and battery storage after deal signed with Lendlease. The post Defence signs contract to power Darwin bases with solar and battery storage appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Defence signs contract to power Darwin bases with solar and battery storage — RenewEconomy

July 18, 2019 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Alinta signs up for huge solar and battery project in South Australia — RenewEconomy

200MW S.A. solar project that proposes to add “one of the largest” batteries in the Southern Hemisphere secured power purchase agreement with major utility, Alinta Energy. The post Alinta signs up for huge solar and battery project in South Australia appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Alinta signs up for huge solar and battery project in South Australia — RenewEconomy

July 18, 2019 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Construction starts at Northern Territory’s largest solar farm — RenewEconomy

Construction commences at 25MW Katherine Solar Farm as Northern Territory begins shift towards target of 50% renewables by 2030. The post Construction starts at Northern Territory’s largest solar farm appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Construction starts at Northern Territory’s largest solar farm — RenewEconomy

July 18, 2019 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

July 17 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “What Happens When Parts Of South Asia Become Unlivable? The Climate Crisis Is Already Displacing Millions” • South Asia is already suffering as a result of climate change, a crisis caused by the developed world’s consumption patterns and fossil fuel-driven capitalism. Extremes of weather are driving people from their homes. [CNN] ¶ “High […]

via July 17 Energy News — geoharvey

July 18, 2019 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A description of Onkalo, the Finnish GDF – a burial site for nuclear waste — Cumbria Trust

In his recently published book, Underland, Robert Macfarlane describes in great detail the Finnish approach to burying its inventory of nuclear waste, and the need to warn future societies to avoid reopening the facility for hundreds of thousands of years. That is a remarkably complex problem, as Robert illustrates. The author is also reassured by […]

via A description of Onkalo, the Finnish GDF – a burial site for nuclear waste — Cumbria Trust

July 18, 2019 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia’s first compressed air energy storage system gets development approval — RenewEconomy

S.A. government awards planning approval for compressed air energy storage system, a national first and another big step forward for clean energy in Australia. The post Australia’s first compressed air energy storage system gets development approval appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Australia’s first compressed air energy storage system gets development approval — RenewEconomy

July 18, 2019 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment