Barrie Hill gives an insight into just what the global nuclear lobby wants from Australia. They want to overturn Australia’ s laws prohibiting nuclear activities, and get the tax-payer to fund the development of the nuclear industry in Australia
His submission (no.60) to the FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia is a fine example of the nuclear-lobby-speak that is turning up in these submissions from nuclear power experts. He’s the Managing Director of SMR Technology, and makes sure to outline his impressive background in the industry.
His is a long submission, in 3 long documents. Here are snatches from his main document.:
*****************************************************
Hill says that for Australia replacing coal with nuclear will be “ the least cost alternative “. He recommends a South Korean type nuclear chain. Says that “the viability and advantages of small modular reactors is fully covered in a separate submission”. Recommends setting up a Federal government authority to lead Australia’s nuclear program. Recommends the South Korean Advanced Power Reactor 1000MWe (APR1000).
“It is recommended that the groundwork for an inevitable future nuclear power program is put in place beginning with the removal of all legislated prohibitions and increased support or familiarisation and training programs.”
“ the government will need to guarantee high level positions with appropriate salaries for qualified persons coming from existing nuclear areas”
Recommends used fuel storage to be ready by 10 years from first plant commissioning “and that storage allow for eventual fuel recovery”. Wants high regulation and documentation, and sites for reactors chosen early.
Outlines his strong background in the nuclear industry.
Discusses the needs for electricity, and limitations of renewable energy. Criticises the electricity marketing structure. All existing subsidies should be removed. Says base-load power is critically needed. Wants a single independent Australian Electricity Commission to be set up.
Goes on at length and in detail about projected.electricity costs. “The development of nuclear reactors for power generation provides a cost effective, safe, and reliable option for the progressive replacement of the current Australian base load generation fleet.” and suggests direct replacement by Small Modular Reactors.
Says that Westinghouse indicated a “good potential for widespread industry involvement within Australia”.
Hill attributes the “difficult acceptance” of nuclear power to “accident outcomes sensationalised by technically uninformed media.”
“At an early point in the process the Federal and State governments should act to remove all legislative bans prohibiting a final decision to proceed so that the work may be developed unobstructed and finally judged on it’s merits. It is clear that the existence of the bans has restricted expenditure on thorough analysis to date particularly by government agencies and has been a severe detriment to the establishment of a coherent energy policy for the nation.”
He moves on to “Stage 2” – a feasibility study, resulting in a “national investment decision”, the forming of a Nuclear Energy Program Implementing Organisation, bring in many experts, including foreign experts for “high level knowledge” . Recommends Government Leadership and Continuous Investment in Nuclear Infrastructure….. “ The Australian government therefore should play a lead role in the program from the initial phase with investment funds, manpower selection, and appropriate planning –
“With the existence of a firm financial guarantee from the government local and overseas companies will actively participate in the national nuclear power construction program with reduced risk. ”.
“Only an Australian government agency can arrange and manage the required level of investment estimated to total $150B to eventually replace all retiring coal fired power stations, to ensure maximum benefit for the Australian community and minimum risk. The Reserve Bank has noted that this time of unprecedented low interest rates is the perfect opportunity for government investment in productive new assets such as power stations.”
Lengthy discussion on need for training and education especially tertiary. International co-operation, especially on safeguards. Need for a standard nuclear design.
[on nuclear wastes)”The work carried out for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission based in South Australia has provided sufficiently detailed pre-feasibility studies to commence final feasibility work for the implementation of used fuel storage in Australia. It is recommended that used fuel storage be available ten years from first plant commissioning and that storage allow for eventual fuel recovery.”
Recommends importing nuclear wastes, as a way to fund nuclear power development :“The economic viability and revenue streams defined for used fuel import storage as part of the work carried out by the South Australian Royal Commission could in the extreme provide sufficient revenue to fund the development of a nuclear power program for all of Australia. This massive economic opportunity cannot be overlooked”
Need for a strong independent regulator.
On insurance, Hill explains why “ beyond a certain level risk had to be socialised. It is now understood that the state needs to accept responsibility as insurer of last resort”
Hill dismisses the idea of any necessary connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation.
Discusses how to organise a leadership team, then process for choosing sites for reactors.
Discusses radiation at length, tending to minimise the health effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and reassures about the nuclear industry’s good safety culture.
“Recent OECD and local studies suggest that Federal action to introduce nuclear power is the only economically viable option to meet minimum cost of supply, maximum reliability of supply, and key environmental imperatives for the Australian electricity sector.”
Hill gives detail on choosing a reactor type- recommending a Korean one.
On risk analysis – “Humans are poor risk managers, focusing too much on consequences and too little on probabilities – something insurance and lottery salesmen relish.” Gives lengthy detail on risk identification and risk mitigation. He includes not only safety risks, but also financial risks, and ways to mitigate them.
Finally, Hill turns to the issue of climate change, recommending nuclear power for reducing greenhouse gases, and replacing coal power.
“The Federal government will be required to manage the financing, construction and operation of all nuclear power stations for the foreseeable future.
A prerequisite for the investment is the establishment of a government leadership andmanagement control organisation the Australian Electricity Corporation”
“ It is time for the Australian Federal government to lead a strategy for change before all those benefits are
irretrievably lost.”
September 12, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Submissions to the Federal Nuclear Inquiry? What are people saying?
Up until 7 September, 38 submissions have been published on the website of the Federal Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia
The numbers of submissions for and against nuclear power are almost 50/50. However, as some submissions may be confidential, we can’t really be sure of the numbers.
The main arguments In the pro nuclear submissions.
The topic mentioned most often was – advocating for thorium nuclear reactors. Pro nuclear submissions also tended to focus on a call for public education about nuclear power, and a need to remove Australia’s laws that prohibit the nuclear industry. Several submissions concentrated on the question of nuclear wastes – arguing that this was not such a problem and a solution would be found. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) were recommended, as cost effective.
The main arguments in the anti nuclear submissions
Overwhelmingly, the most selected topic was economics – the costs of nuclear power, and the government subsidies needed. Nearly as often mentioned was renewable energy, and its role in reducing greenhouse gases. Another big concern was the safety risks of nuclearpower. There were several mentions of water use of nuclear power, of radioactive waste problems, and risks of terrorism and of nuclear weapons proliferation.
There were a variety of other concerns raised by both sides. Radiation is a hotly argued issue. Its hazards are discussed by Paul Savi (Submission No 4), but Erlc Gribble (No 38) argues that low dose radiation is not harmful, in fact can be beneficial (radiation hormesis).
The anti nuclear arguments included social and political claims – that nuclear power has no social licence (EcoEnviro Pty Ltd – Richard Finlay-Jones Submisson 6), – that there is historic Australian opposition – hence the ban, (Greig Myer Submission 25), – the undemocratic history of nuclear activities in Australia,(Paul Savi, Submission 4)
Other anti-nuclear claims- that Australia shouldn’t be the first to try out SMRs, that renewables would provide more employment, that Aboriginals’ historic care of the land should be respected, (Trish Frail 32) .
On the pro nuclear side, there’s some exasperation at Australians’ lack of knowledge about nuclear power. Robert Gishubl (Submission 28) rails at “the irrational faith based objections many people have”. Eric Gribble (38) writes of “a widespread paranoid concern” about radiation, – “It is easy to be a green. You simply oppose everything “.
Pro nuclear suggestions in include first getting an international nuclear waste facility in South Australia, which would then fund the development of Generation IV nuclear reactors – (Matthew Gustafson, (20). Keith Thompson (11) suggests that the government offer generous awards for people who produce solutions to nuclear waste disposal. Geoffrey Hudson (37) warns on delay problems for land-based reactors, and advocates reactors on barges at sea. Ian Fischer(No 8) recommends a voluntary postal plebiscite to allow Australians to decide about a nuclear future. Eric Gribble (38) is keen on nuclear power’s ability to further Australia’s role in space research.
Even on the pro nuclear side, there are some reservations, and not all are sceptical of renewable energy. Goronwy Price (35) sees nuclear as a support to renewables. Geoff Billard, (31)’s support for nuclear power is conditional on it being cost-effective.
At this stage, it’s hard to assess the general opinions on ” the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia”. Submissions are accepted until September 16th. So there will probably a new rash of submissions published, over the next weeks. . The ones published so far have been relatively short. We can expect some longer and more detailed ones from various companies and organisations.
September 12, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 