Never Again Nuclear War – Australia’s role – theme for August 2019
Australia has long been part of the USA’s nuclear war strategy. Pine Gap, USA’s secret facility in Central Australia, has since 1966 been a centre for espionage and for co-ordination of US air strikes. It has been part of America’s “Star Wars” plan to put missiles into space. American congressmen have made $millions from their investments in Defense Department contracts in Pine Gap, and can tour Pine Gap. But Australian Members of Parliament are denied entry.
Being part of the American nuclear war machine makes a hypocrisy out of Australia’s supposed posture against nuclear weapons.
As an exporter of uranium, Australia plays a key part in nuclear weapons. There are no effective safeguards against uranium being used for weapons, – no real barrier between the “peaceful atom” and the “military atom”
The plan to buy French submarines, that could later be converted to nuclear submarines has been linked with the 2016 failed plan for an international nuclear waste dump , as Dan Monceaux has detailed in his submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry.
Another big worry is the apparent inability of Australia’s politicians, especially the ruling Liberal Coalition, to understand the contradictory position that they put us in. Enthusiastic support of USA’s militarism towards China, is a dangerous attitude for Australia to take, and most unwise, with China being our top trading partner.
With the Trump administration in USA, there’s a real danger of an attack on Iran. With the Morrison government in Australia, there’s a real danger of Australia mindlessly signing up to this.
Meanwhile there’s a strong and growing movement supporting the UN Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. It was instigated in this country, and many are working towards Australia joining the 122 nations that have signed it.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese asks “Where would the Liberal Coalition like nuclear reactors to be placed”?
Anthony Albanese MP https://www.facebook.com/AlboMP/posts/2531261843574579– 25 July 19
This week, the Government said they had an “open mind” about nuclear power in this country. If they really mean that, where on this map are they going to build it? Because these locations haven’t just been pulled out of some hat. These are the locations that the nuclear industry says a nuclear power plant would need to be located.
And if they want to build these things, every single Australian – from Geraldton to the Gold Coast – deserves to know where.
Union opposes nuclear power because it is uneconomic and dangerous
Wake up and smell the radiation. Nuclear is not the answer https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/wake-up-and-smell-the-radiation-nuclear-is-not-the-answer/news-story/dc3ea481d9d6083a9c6b391268f6d078m Allen Hicks, 24 July 19
State Development Minister Cameron Dick says that Nuclear power would gut Queensland
Nuclear power would gut Qld, minister says https://thewest.com.au/business/markets/nuclear-power-would-gut-qld-minister-says-ng-s-1957385, Sonia KohlbacherAAP, Wednesday, 24 July 2019
A senior Queensland politician has shot down a push by a handful of federal politicians to reconsider nuclear power.
The state’s energy and farming sectors would be gutted if Queensland played host to a nuclear power plant, State Development Minister Cameron Dick told a budget estimates hearing on Wednesday.
Mr Dick was responding to several coalition MPs who want to explore the viability of nuclear power, which is banned under federal law.
“A nuclear power plant would be a disaster for industry, for jobs and for growth in our state,” Mr Dick said.
“We’ve got new energy industries, industries that will create jobs for our children, that will be completely gutted by this proposal.” Mr Dick said nuclear power would run renewable energy sources out of town at a time of significant investment, strangle efforts to build a hydrogen industry and require massive government subsidies to get off the ground.
The nuclear push is being led by Hinkler MP Keith Pitt with the backing of Senator James McGrath, while other MPs within the ranks of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government have failed to dismiss it when probed.
Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor noted the ban when asked to rule it out in federal parliament on Tuesday.
“We’re not focused on the fuel source, we are focused on the outcome,” he said.
Mr Taylor said there were no plans to overturn the ban.
Senate moved to call on Senator Canavan to explain nuclear waste dump plan – size of dump, and types of wastes
24 July 19, Sarah Hanson Young has a motion in parliament today re the rumours about a larger dump site
Senator Hanson-Young: moved —That the Senate—
- notes that recent reports that the proposed nuclear waste dump site in South Australia will be expanded, covering at least 160 hectares, an increase of 60%, are deeply troubling given the lack of consultation; and
- calls on the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Senator Canavan, to provide a full explanation of the current plans for the nuclear waste dump site, and to clarify exactly how large it will be and what level of waste it will hold.
News South Wales South Coast touted as the place to site a nuclear power plant
|
Is nuclear power an energy solution that could come to the South Coast? Bega District News , Albert McKnight ,23 July19,
Nuclear power has again become part of the national conversation and South East NSW is still being touted as a potential location to install a plant. Earlier this year Nuclear for Climate Australia said NSW could host 10 nuclear power plants and reiterated how the South Coast was a place of interest as a construction site. Under its proposal it states the South Coast has potential if included with other power plants that could be built at East Gippsland, the Snowy Mountains or Jervis Bay.
While it states the coast has many sites with “good access to once through sea water cooling” – running a large amount of water through a power plant’s condensers then discharging it into a waterway with only a small amount of evaporation – an extensive grid upgrade would be required for a 2.2GW plant. …… While federal and state laws do not allow the development of a nuclear power industry, several MPs want this changed according the Sydney Morning Herald, and at a recent conference the NSW Nationals passed a motion stating the party’s support for nuclear energy in Australia. Deputy Premier and Member for Monaro John Barilaro has been vocal about the need for a conversation around the technology for years, last month saying it was “guaranteed baseload energy with zero emissions, no fossil fuels and probably the cheapest cost to the average Australian household”. He said last year he attended a global seminar in the US on the next generation of nuclear energy systems called small modular reactors (SMRs), which are are smaller in size than conventional reactors and can be placed in remote areas without the need to feed directly to the grid. “Given their size and efficiency, their waste is minimal (new advancements in technology continues to address the waste issue) and compared to reactors of bygone eras, they are becoming very affordable,” he said. But Electrical Trades Union national secretary Allen Hicks said there were significant safety risks associated with nuclear power and the cost to construct, maintain and dispose of nuclear waste far outweighed any perceived benefits. “If Barilaro was being honest, he would tell people that nuclear is not a viable option without massive taxpayer subsidies which would see Australians’ good money thrown after bad,” he said. “The best option for cheap, clean and safe energy for Australian workers and consumers is for unions, industry and government to work together on pursuing a just transition towards renewable energy.” https://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/6288083/is-nuclear-power-an-energy-solution-that-could-come-to-the-south-coast/ |
|
Continuing problem of radioactive waste at Hunters Hill – contamination from old uranium processing site
Key points:
- The area on Sydney’s north shore was the former site of the Radium Hill refinery, which closed in 1915
- Residents have fought for decades to have the Government remove the contaminated soil
- A plan to keep the waste in “cells” on site has been rejected and labelled a “temporary” fix
Several properties on Nelson Parade at Hunters Hill have been built on land contaminated by the former Radium Hill uranium processing plant in the 1900s.
Residents have spent decades urging the government to remove the affected soil, which the NSW Environment Protection Authority found was contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, coal tar pitch, arsenic and lead.
The Council has now voted against a recommendation by its own consultants to “encapsulate” the low-level radioactive material in cement “cells” and store it onsite.
Philippa Clark from the Nelson Parade Action Group said residents felt the plan would make their lives worse.
“The cells will make the stigma permanent, our anxiety increased, trapped in unsaleable homes.
“The proposal is silent on all of those impacts.
She said most Hunters Hill residents knew nothing of the latest plan by Property NSW as few residents were formally notified and it was on exhibition over the school holidays.
The existence of the radioactive material, in the soil for over a century, was discovered 53 years ago and remains unmanaged.
The Council and residents want the soil removed altogether but an earlier proposal to send it to a waste facility at Kemp’s Creek in Sydney’s West was abandoned after a backlash from the local community.
There is no other waste facility in the state licenced to handle the material and a national radioactive waste management facility is yet to be established by the Federal Government.
Ms Clarke told Monday night’s council meeting that if the radioactive material was stored onsite at Hunters Hill, there was no guarantee it would be moved later when suitable off-site storage becomes available.
Former Hunters Hill mayor Richard Quinn also urged the Council to reject the proposal.
“Whilst we might wish to see progress at last and endorse this [proposal], the onsite encapsulation component of this report I believe cannot be accepted,” he said.
“It’s contrary to the best practice in sustainable remediation, and it’s not unreasonable for this community to expect anything less than best practice.”
Resident John Akin thought the Council had no choice but to accept the proposal, saying those pushing for outright rejection “overlook the health risk from the waste being left in its current uncontrolled state”.
But Mayor Mark Bennett said Property NSW told the Council during a meeting that the majority of Hunters Hill ratepayers were against the encapsulation option.
“It will be interesting to see what the Government decides to do as a result of this … it’s a decision of the Government at the end of the day.
“My opinion is we should not vote for encapsulation because I think it could be a permanent solution without any guarantees that it’s an interim solution — I can’t support it.”
Last year the NSW Government announced $30 million to fully remediate the land after a parliamentary inquiry a decade ago.
Adani’s Carmichael coal mine surviving on lifeline from Indian parent company
Key points:
- The company responsible for the Carmichael coal mine has current liabilities of more than $1.8b versus current assets of less than $30m
- The auditors signed off on the company being a “going concern” because of a 12-month guarantee from the Indian parent firm
- Accounting expert Sandra van der Laan says “effectively on paper they are insolvent. I wouldn’t be trading with them”………
The more immediate concern is Adani Mining Pty Ltd, the Australian-registered company which is the proponent of the Carmichael coal mine in the Galilee Basin.
Adani Mining recently provided ASIC with its financial accounts to March 31.
As a private company, the subsidiary is only required to release reduced financial statements with limited detail — but enough to raise red flags for Professor van der Laan and other critics.
The accounts show the owners have contributed less than $9 million in equity to the business and total liabilities exceed total assets by more than half a billion dollars.
Current assets of less than $30 million are swamped by current liabilities, due over the next 12 months, of more than $1.8 billion.
“Adani Mining is in a very fragile, even perilous, financial position,” Professor van der Laan observes.
‘They will never pay any material corporate tax in Australia’
Adani is now going it alone and “self-funding” the Carmichael mine after failing to secure loans from banks or government wealth funds.
Although the mine has been scaled down to an initial 10 million tonnes a year output, rather than the mega-mine of 60 million tonnes a year it has approval for, the price tag for building it and an accompanying railway will still be a multi-billion-dollar sum.
Even for a man as rich as family patriarch Gautam Adani, it is no small ask.
But in the tangled web that is the Adani Group, there are ways.
Adani’s ports business is the most profitable part of the empire, headed by the Bombay stock exchange-listed company Adani Ports SEZ.
It is currently raising more than $1 billion in debt on global markets.
Whether or not concerns about the solvency of various Adani companies or funding for the Carmichael mine are well-founded, the promise of a company tax bonanza from the Queensland mine seems destined to remain unfulfilled, according to Tim Buckley.
Already, accumulated losses mean that, if the mine is built, Adani Mining won’t pay company tax for many years in Australia and may never do so — like the Abbot Point Coal Terminal, which has paid little to no company tax under the ownership of Adani.
“They have carry forward losses that mean the first $1.5 billion of profit are corporate tax free,” says Mr Buckley.
Senate voted on Press Freedoms – Matter of Public importance
Press Freedoms – Matter of Public importance Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
Antinuclear 