2020 February 10 « Antinuclear

SUBMISSIONS 122 Australians want Victoria’s Nuclear Prohibition Laws to stay

Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support.

Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters.

SUBMISSION TO VICTORIAN PARLIAMENT INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITION

Jessica Lawson and 122 others (list is available) Dear Standing Committee on Environment and Planning,

Please accept this submission to the Victorian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Environment and Planning ‘Inquiry into nuclear prohibition’.

Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need. Rather than fuel carbon emissions and radioactive risk through domestic coal power plants and the export of coal and uranium, Australia should embrace the fastest growing global energy sector ‒ renewables ‒ and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology. Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean, and popular. Nuclear is simply not. Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.

I support legal bans prohibiting the development of nuclear power in Australia for the following reasons:

1. Waste: Nuclear reactors produce long‐lived radioactive wastes that pose a direct human and environmental threat for many thousands of years and impose a profound inter‐generational burden. Radioactive waste management is costly, complex, contested and unresolved, globally and in the current Australian context. Nuclear power cannot be considered a clean source of energy given its intractable legacy of nuclear waste.

2. Water: Nuclear power is a thirsty industry that consumes large volumes of water, from uranium mining and processing through to reactor cooling. Australia is a dry nation where water is an important resource and supply is often uncertain.

3. Time: Nuclear power is a slow response to a pressing problem. Nuclear reactors are slow to build and license. Globally, reactors routinely take ten years or more to construct and time over‐runs are common. Construction and commercialisation of nuclear reactors in Australia would be further delayed by the lack of nuclear engineers, a specialised workforce, and a licensing, regulatory and insurance framework.

4. Cost: Nuclear power is highly capital intensive and a very expensive way to produce electricity. The 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission concluded nuclear power was not economically viable. The controversial Hinkley reactors being constructed in the UK will cost more than $35 billion and lock in high cost power for consumers for decades. Cost estimates of other reactors under construction in Europe and the US range from $17 billion upwards and all are many billions of dollars over‐budget and many years behind schedule. Renewable energy is the cheapest form of new generation electricity as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded in their December 2018 report.

5. Security: Nuclear power plants have been described as pre‐deployed terrorist targets and pose a major security threat. This in turn would likely see an increase in policing and security operations and costs and a commensurate impact on civil liberties and public access to information. Other nations in our region may view Australian nuclear aspirations with suspicion and concern given that many aspects of the technology and knowledge base are the same as those required for nuclear weapons. On many levels nuclear is a power source that undermines confidence.

6. Inflexible or unproven: Existing nuclear reactors are highly centralised and inflexible generators of electricity. They lack capacity to respond to changes in demand and usage, are slow to deploy and not well suited to modern energy grids or markets. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not in commercial production or use and remain unproven and uncertain. This is no basis for a national energy policy

7. Safety: All human made systems fail. When nuclear power fails it does so on a massive scale. The human, environmental and economic costs of nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have been massive and continue. Decommissioning and cleaning up old reactors and nuclear sites, even in the absence of any accidents, is technically challenging and very costly.

8. Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support. A 2015 IPSOS poll found that support among Australians for solar power (78‒87%) and wind power (72%) is far higher than support for coal (23%) and nuclear (26%).

9. Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters. This began in the 1950s with British atomic testing and continues today with uranium mining and proposed nuclear waste dumps. These problems would be magnified if Australia ever advanced domestic nuclear power.

10. Better alternatives: if Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not. Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.

February 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Victoria | Leave a comment

Victoria’s Nuclear prohibition laws Inquiry – these are the Committee Members

The members of the Environment and Planning Committee are:

Cesar Melhem (Chair)

Clifford Hayes (Deputy Chair)

Bruce Atkinson

Melina Bath

Jeff Bourman

David Limbrick

Andy Meddick

Samantha Ratnam

Nina Taylor

Sonja Terpstra

The participating members of the Committee are:

David Davis

Georgie Crozier

Catherine Cumming

Tim Quilty

Bev McArthur

If you would like any further details on the Committee members or the Inquiry please see: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/inquiries/inquiry/983

February 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Victoria | Leave a comment

Climate action distracted by talk of uncosted, unbuilt, unproven and unpalatable technologies such as nuclear.

SMH, February 10, 2020 – Chris Danckwerts, Turramurra I thought we’d all realised by now that the nuclear power option was never going to be viable, until I read Katie Allen’s article (“Keep an open mind to nuclear“, February 8-9). She ignores a number of crucial facts. First, the timeframe to build nuclear (a decade at least). Second, the cost (many billions). Third, safety. She says that smaller, more modern reactors will only “moderate” the risks, not eliminate them as most of us would wish. Finally, there would only be “less” nuclear waste to get rid of, which will still continue to be a problem. The sooner we eliminate nuclear, coal and eventually gas power options and move to 100 per cent renewables, pumped hydro, hydrogen et cetera the better off we will be.

Christopher Hill, Kensington, It seems Katie Allen has been electorally charged with selling us nonexistent new-nuclear power technologies and asking us to spend time and taxpayer money on something we never asked for. Sounds familiar. Given the continuing fallout from this government’s self-interested spending of taxpayer money, why not go nuclear? Well, the plea for open minds is all well and good. However, real movement on national energy policy and transition is now on the table. We are at that table and we are hungry for a workable energy and climate change policy. Sure, keep an open mind, but fill it with well-informed realistic debate anchored in the present, not on distracting unwanted promises of uncosted, unbuilt, unproven and unpalatable technologies such as nuclear. –

Helen Lewin, Tumbi , If, as Peter Hartcher suggests (“Be amazed by our masters of delusion“, February 8-9), Allen is voicing her pro-nuclear stance in order to drag her conservative Coalition confreres into a world free of fossil fuels, I respectfully suggest she dumps this minority group of Luddites rather than tempting them with nuclear energy. She admits in her article that the “concerns” around the development of nuclear have only “moderated”. I’m afraid that won’t be enough to drag me along with her or many other Australians. – Umbi https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/argument-goes-nuclear-in-search-for-energy-solution-20200209-p53z2c.html

February 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear Stigma is, and will continue to be the cancer that erodes Kimba future.

Paul Waldon Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 10 Feb 2020

“Them or us, a shit town and a policeman on the fence.”

Kimba farmer / nuclear profiteer, Andrew Baldock who has recklessly fueled the ongoing promotion to degrade a agriculture region is now pleading for the community to reunite. This maybe seen as Baldock’s failed solicitation to procure redemption, forgiveness or clemency for the irremediable damage ignorantly portrayed upon what is mostly a nobbled and unwilling community.

Sunday the 2nd of February anti-nuclear rally, portrayed attending people as welcome contributing visitors to the town until their views of nuclear were apparent only to find they were treated no better than a leper in Kimba’s colony. One local person and yes I say one, that being of the local constabulary claimed to be on the fence and treated people with regard, where the nuclear embracing dichotomy has failed to welcome.

Nuclear Stigma is, and will continue to be the cancer that erodes Kimba future. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/

February 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, South Australia | Leave a comment

Barngarla Native Title Holders excluded from vote on Kimba nuclear waste dump

Kim Mavromatis shared a link.Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges

BARNGARLA EXCLUDED AND THEIR VOTE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY CANAVAN TO MANIPULATE THE VOTE IN DODGY SCOMO GOVT PROCESS

Combined Kimba Community and Barngarla independent vote : 452 Yes, for the nuclear waste dumps, from 1,033 eligible voters, equates to 43.75% in favour, which does not constitute broad community support. It is obvious why Canavan and the Scomo Fed Govt EXCLUDED the Barngarla Native Title Holders from the community vote and ignored the Barngarla Independent vote (not one Barngarla traditional owner voted yes) to get the radioactive nuclear waste dumps over the line. And the other percentages Canavan quotes in his media release need to be scrutinised. If your property is across the road, apparently you are not a neighbour???????

Watch the film and please share – The BARNGARLA SAY NO to Radioactive Nuclear Waste Dumps on their Traditional Lands, near Kimba on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia.

https://vimeo.com/382855709

February 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

UK Campaigners demand a ‘no new nuclear’ clause in climate emergency planning

The nuclear and fossil fuel industry are mutually intertwined.

“There is no such thing as a zero or near-zero-emission nuclear power plant”

the mean value is about 66 grams of carbon dioxide for every kWh produced by nuclear power. This compares to about 9g for wind, 32g for solar and 443 for gas.

“This puts nuclear as the third highest carbon emitter after coal-fired plants and natural gas….

No new nuclear https://theecologist.org/2020/feb/06/no-new-nuclear

Radiation Free Lakeland, 6th February 2020

Campaigners demand a ‘no new nuclear’ clause in climate emergency planning. Climate activists across the world are uniting to protect the planet from continuing fossil fuel use. There is much talk of a green industrial revolution and a Green New Deal. This sounds good, but what does it mean?

Kevin Frea, co-chair of the Climate Emergency Network and deputy leader of Lancaster City Council has worked hard to sign local councils up declaring a climate emergency. He said: “This movement is being led by every political group and is involving local people in planning the actions needed to cut carbon.”

But there’s an important thing missing here. Last September members of Radiation Free Lakeland lobbied Lancaster City Council asking the council to include a No New Nuclear clause in their climate emergency planning. Continue reading →

February 10, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | General News | Leave a comment

Arctic ice melt is changing ocean currents

Arctic ice melt is changing ocean currents https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200207095705.htm

Date: February 7, 2020
Source: NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Summary:: Using 12 years of satellite data, NASA scientists have measured how the influx of cold, fresh water is affecting the Beaufort Gyre, a major Arctic current.; A major ocean current in the Arctic is faster and more turbulent as a result of rapid sea ice melt, a new study from NASA shows. The current is part of a delicate Arctic environment that is now flooded with fresh water, an effect of human-caused climate change.

Using 12 years of satellite data, scientists have measured how this circular current, called the Beaufort Gyre, has precariously balanced an influx of unprecedented amounts of cold, fresh water — a change that could alter the currents in the Atlantic Ocean and cool the climate of Western Europe. Continue reading →