Nuclear wastes – deliberately left to our grandchildren – theme for February 2021
The nuclear lobby has found the perfect solution to shutting down reactors and dealing with radioactive trash now accumulating. The answer is so simple – Do Nothing, really.
You just extend the operating licenses of old, cracked, tired nuclear reactors for many more decades – 100 years is the recommnded time, now.
That way, all today’s so-called ”responsible” authorities absolve themselves of all responsibility for those problem and outcomes. And – it’s so much cheaper than taking responsibility!
Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump Bill yet again postponed in the Australian Senate
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia 6 Feb 21, High Court ruling a helpful precedent for opponents of Kimba nuclear dump
Peter Remta. 4 Feb 21, The High Court’s decision in the New Acland Coal Mine case (1) delivered by Justice James Edelman on Wednesday and based on the principle of “apprehended bias” should give great heart to all the community members in Kimba opposing the government’s proposed nuclear waste facility.
The background of the appeal is that a Queensland community group known as Oakey Coal Action Alliance and representing more than 60 local residents and landholders who opposed the proposed expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine on the basis that it would destroy otherwise productive agricultural land appealed to the High Court to stop the expansion.
In its unanimous decision delivered by Justice Edelman the High Court ruled that due to the way the original hearings had been conducted leading to previous decisions made by earlier courts favouring the coal mine expansion had been affected by apprehended bias with the result that the Action Alliance had not “had its day in court” and that it had not had the opportunity to present all of its arguments.
The rationale of the decision based on the principle of “apprehended bias” as stated by Justice Edelman in delivering the Court’s decision was that
“these matters are insufficient to justify the highly exceptional course of this court refusing a rehearing for a party whose hearing was decided other than independently and impartially. Indeed, it cannot be said that Oakey Coal Action has “had its day in court” or had lost all of its grounds before an independent and impartial tribunal”.
The Action Alliance had been represented by the Environmental Defenders Office on the appeal to the High Court and the Kimba community members opposing the nuclear waste facility should immediately seek the assistance of the Public Defender on the basis of that appeal.
(1). Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inv v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors
High Court Case No.B34/2020
This description of the appeal is partly based on the report in RenewEconomy by Michael Mazengarb on 3 February 2021
https://reneweconomy.com.au/author/ michael-mazengarb/
Additional reading:
The litigation against the New Acland Coal Mine involved a major and lengthy hearing in the Land Court of Queensland, followed by judicial review, a subsequent appeal and High Court challenge the history of which is extremely well described on the website of Environmental Law Australia .
This website is a free public service provided by Dr Chris McGrath, LLB (Hons), BSc, LLM, PhD, a barrister in Queensland practising in environmental law and an Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Queensland.
Canadian local community group opposes nuclear waste dump on farming land – like Kimba!
|
South Bruce nuclear dump opponents address Minto councilGroup: site near Teeswater would mean transporting waste through neighbouring communities , Wellington Advertiser, Patrick Raftis, February 4, 2021 MINTO – A group fighting a proposal to locate an underground dumpsite for radioactive nuclear waste in neighbouring South Bruce brought its concerns to council here on Feb. 2. “Over 50 years ago the nuclear industry told the government to let them start producing nuclear power and they would have a solution for the waste within five years,” said Michelle Stein of Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste (POWNNW), during a council video-conference meeting. “But they didn’t. Now they have a problem.” Stein explained POWNNW was formed last February after an announcement that 1,300 acres of prime farmland had been purchased and optioned by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). NWMO is proposing to locate a deep geologic repository (DGR) in South Bruce to contain high-level radioactive nuclear waste from all of Canada’s nuclear reactors. Stein said the radioactive waste from Canada’s reactors is “safe where it is right now. “But politically, it’s no longer acceptable and the government and the public are demanding a solution before they grant the nuclear industry permission to expand.” Stein continued, “There’s a lot of money on the line. So the industry has set up [NWMO], which is funded and directed by the nuclear industry and the best idea they’ve come up with is to take this highly radioactive nuclear waste that is dangerous for over 100,000 years and bury it under prime farmland in the municipality of South Bruce.” The proposed site near Teeswater was selected, said Stein, because “that’s where they found owners willing to sell them land” and “South Bruce was one of the municipalities who offered to learn more in exchange for money – lots of money. “A lot of the money is spent on promoting the project, but there’s also donations to local organizations and community projects,” she noted. Stein told council l the proposed site “has the Teeswater river running through it, wetlands at the edge of the Greenock Swamp, springtime floodplain and the town of Teeswater is close enough to see, with its elementary schools and the Teeswater Gay Lea plant.” Stein called the proposed South Bruce repository “an experiment,” noting there are currently no operating DGRs for high level nuclear waste on the planet. She noted an almost complete, but not yet licensed, DGR in Finland is presently the closest to coming on line. According to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, said Stein, the Waste Isolation Plant Pilot (WIPP) in New Mexico is the only operational DGR in the world. It accepts only low/intermediate nuclear waste, not high level, and is located in a desert, 35 kilometres from the nearest town and surrounded by a controlled safety zone encompassing more than 10,000 acres. “The only thing we can really learn from this project is that accident happens and you can’t predict human error,” said Stein. She added that in 2014 the WIPP “became radio actively contaminated by explosion of an underground drum of nuclear waste due to human error.” Stein said the 2014 incident was “a mistake that took three years and $500 million to clean up.” She pointed out establishing a DGR in South Bruce would massively increase the amount of nuclear waste being transported through a wide region. “Currently they are around five loads of high level waste being moved per year, but an operating DGR would increase that to one or two shipments per day. These loads would be transported through surrounding communities,” she stated. “And what does this mean for agriculture? Will consumers want to purchase products produced next to a nuclear dump? Will people want to buy freezer beef or chicken raised on or beside a nuclear dump?” With the NWMO publicly stating it is looking for a “willing host,” Stein said POPNNW wants to see a clear benchmark that defines the term. The group is lobbying for a standard that would require a two-thirds vote in favour of the proposed DGR, using a community referendum with a clear yes or no question, supervised by an independent third party. Councillor Ron Elliott asked Stein what her group believes would be a better solution to burying the waste. “You’re recommending we can’t get rid of the nuclear waste underground. What do you recommend we do with it? Because it’s there, we’ve got nuclear waste to get rid of,” said Elliott. Stein replied, “At this time we’re recommending they go with rolling stewardship, which is keeping it above ground in a monitored state until they come up with a real solution.” “So wouldn’t that be more dangerous?” asked Elliott “Building a DGR doesn’t remove it from above ground. It still needs to be above ground (in containment pools) for 30 years before it can even be moved,” said Stein. “What is a safe recommendation?” Elliott persisted. “At the end of the day the nuclear industry has had over 50 years to come up with an idea and they haven’t,” Stein responded. “To be honest, most of us have only been thinking about it for a year. But to accept the wrong solution is in fact no solution at all.” Bill Noll, another member of the POPNNW delegation, said Ontario Power Generation has stated nuclear waste has been stored safely above ground for 60 years “and it can be stored longer.” Noll said the group would like to see Canada wait for the results from the planned Finnish DGR in 2024 before going ahead with one here. “Let them experiment for a couple of decades while we keep it above ground safely and then maybe we can consider whether or not the DGR is safe,” said Noll. Deputy mayor Dave Turton asked Stein if local officials in South Bruce responded to the group’s concerns. “Are they listening to you?” he asked. Noll replied, “We are up against the wall to some degree. Our council is very much interested to see some economic development in the area, and we certainly understand and appreciate that, and so they’re very much in tune with the agenda being put forward by the NWMO.” Mayor George Bridge thanked the group for sharing information with council. |
|
|
Big risks for South Africa in proposed nuclear power plan
|
South Africa’s new nuclear power plan is a high-regret option, https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-02-05-south-africas-new-nuclear-power-plan-is-a-high-regret-option/ By Chris Yelland• 5 February 2021 The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2019 indicates that a nuclear build programme ‘is a no-regret option in the long term’. I disagree and consider that a nuclear new-build programme is exactly the opposite – and very high-risk.
The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa), has issued a consultation paper and called for public input, comment and response to a determination by the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, in terms of Section 34(1) of the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006, to procure 2,500 MW of new nuclear power in South Africa. The ministerial determination was sent to Nersa for its consideration and concurrence, which is a necessary step before the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) can issue a request for proposals to nuclear vendors following an open, transparent and competitive procurement process. I am opposed to new nuclear power in South Africa, and this is definitely not because I am ideologically against nuclear energy or nuclear technology per se, but for sound, pragmatic reasons and the absence of a valid business case, including, amongst other factors:
This ministerial determination comes at a time when the world of energy and electricity is undergoing rapid change when the prices of renewable and flexible generation technologies are plummeting when new energy storage technologies are emerging, when the future of large-scale, centralised generation is changing and when the demand for electricity over long-distance transmission grids is decidedly uncertain and declining. Continue reading |
Deploying weapons in space crosses a threshold that cannot be walked back.
weaponizing space could become a classic case of trying to solve one problem while creating a much worse problem.
It’s time for arms control planning to address the issues raised by this drift toward militarization of space. Space is a place where billions of defense dollars can evaporate quickly and result in more threats about which to be concerned. China and Russia have been proposing mechanisms for space arms control at the United Nations for years; it’s time for the U.S. to cooperate in this effort.
Deploying weapons in space crosses a threshold that cannot be walked back.
The US should negotiate a ban on basing weapons in space, BY JOHN FAIRLAMB, — 02/04/21, https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/536774-the-us-should-negotiate-a-ban-on-basing-weapons-in-space
The Biden administration is assembling a deep bench of personnel with experience negotiating arms control agreements and already has agreed with Russia to extend the New Start Treaty. It’s clear the administration intends to initiate another look at the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review and the massive buildup in nuclear weapons begun by the Trump administration. While it’s good that the Biden administration intends to resume negotiations to continue nuclear force reductions, the specter of placing weapons in space is another area that requires a serious arms control effort.
Now that separate space organizations have been established, major military commands are advocating to develop new capabilities. Pentagon buzzwords characterize space as a “contested domain” and some consider actual war-fighting in space to be inevitable. Some advocates argue that the U.S. should strive for technological superiority in space to ensure our dominance of that critical domain.
The history of technological advancement in weapons systems shows that any advantage gained usually lasts fewer than five years and guarantees a cycle of ever-increasing cost and new perceptions of threat. Already, there are weapons that can be targeted against space-based assets from non-space domains. Russia and China are believed to have deployed ground-based capabilities to attack satellites, and India joined this club last year by using a ground-based missile to bring down a satellite.
Although it isn’t clear how the Biden administration will shape space policy, during his confirmation hearing, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin seemed to signal a shift away from a more muscular approach and back to a focus on space resiliency and protecting U.S. space assets. As one analyst concluded, the language Austin used signals the Biden team wants to “start to lean away from … the pugilistic aspects of what’s been articulated [by the Trump administration].” Responding to a question about what his advice would be to the U.S. Space Command concerning military space operations, Austin stressed measures to protect U.S. assets that don’t include offensive options for taking the fight to adversaries. While not a fully articulated space policy, this is a welcome change of tone after the past few years of heavy breathing about waging war in space.
If the U.S. and other nations continue the current drift toward organizing and equipping to wage war in space, Russia, China and others will strive to improve capabilities to destroy U.S. space assets. Over time, this would greatly increase the threat to the full array of U.S. space-based capabilities. Intelligence, communications, surveillance, targeting and navigation assets already based in space, upon which the Department of Defense (DOD) depends for command and control of military operations, increasingly would be at significant risk. As a consequence, weaponizing space could become a classic case of trying to solve one problem while creating a much worse problem.
For example, buried in the DOD 2020 budget is $150 million for research into putting missile defense assets in space to attack enemy nuclear missiles in the boost phase. If the U.S. or another nation does deploy weapons in space, it would be the first country to do so and likely would be a disaster for strategic stability. To ensure the credibility of their nuclear deterrents, Russia, China and others could be expected to respond by deploying additional and new types of long-range ballistic missiles, as well as missiles employing non-ballistic trajectories that are harder to hit. Russia and China also would strive to improve their ability to destroy U.S. space-based interceptors, which would greatly increase the threat to the full array of U.S. space assets.
It’s time for arms control planning to address the issues raised by this drift toward militarization of space. Space is a place where billions of defense dollars can evaporate quickly and result in more threats about which to be concerned. China and Russia have been proposing mechanisms for space arms control at the United Nations for years; it’s time for the U.S. to cooperate in this effort.
In 2015, Frank Rose, assistant secretary for arms control, verification and compliance in the State Department, called for arms control in space at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum workshop on space security. But, he said the Obama administration opposed a 2008 Russian and Chinese proposal to ban all weapons in space because it was unverifiable, contained no prohibition on developing and stockpiling space arms, and did not address ground-based space weapons such as direct ascent anti-satellite missiles.
Instead of just criticizing others’ proposals, the U.S. should join in the effort and do the hard work of crafting a space arms control agreement that deals with the concerns we have and that can be verified. A legally binding international treaty banning the basing of weapons in space should be the objective.
Let’s be clear: Deploying weapons in space crosses a threshold that cannot be walked back. Given the implications for strategic stability, and the likelihood that such a decision by any nation would set off an expensive space arms race in which any advantage gained would likely be temporary, engaging now to prevent such a debacle seems warranted.
John Fairlamb, Ph.D., is a retired Army colonel with 45 years of government service, much of it in joint service positions formulating and implementing national security strategies and policies, including two four-year details in the Department of State and as the political-military affairs adviser for a major Army command. His doctorate is in comparative defense policy analysis.
Angus Taylor’s trouble with numbers continues as he snubs EVs on emissions costs — RenewEconomy
Angus Taylor’s claims of $750 a tonne abatement cost for a “typical” electric vehicle is plain wrong, because it is based on the comparison of a big electric van with a small petrol one. The post Angus Taylor’s trouble with numbers continues as he snubs EVs on emissions costs appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Angus Taylor’s trouble with numbers continues as he snubs EVs on emissions costs — RenewEconomy
Coal mine expansion rejected as “unacceptable” risk to drinking water — RenewEconomy
NSW Independent Planning Commission rejects proposal to expand a coal mine under major drinking water catchment, describing it as “not in the public interest.” The post Coal mine expansion rejected as “unacceptable” risk to drinking water appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Coal mine expansion rejected as “unacceptable” risk to drinking water — RenewEconomy
At last, UK government will investigate birth defects amongst children of nuclear test veterans
Mirror 3rd Feb 2021, Thousands of sick children and adults have finally been offered government research into whether their DNA was damaged by Cold War nuclear bomb tests.
An estimated 155,000 descendants of National Servicemen who took part in atomic weapons tests in the 1950s now report 10 times the normal rate birth defects, and are five times more likely to die as infants. Now Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer has promised to consider thorough research into whether they suffer a genetic legacy from Britain’s radiation
experiments.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-offered-research-dna-damage-23436272
February 5 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Automakers Are Going Green To Save Money, Not Just The Planet” • Virtually all major automakers worldwide are shifting to all-electric futures – and that’s as much about the bottom line as it is about the environment. Volkswagen plans to launch roughly 70 pure electric models by 2030 and General Motors hopes to […]
February 5 Energy News — geoharvey
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net
*********************
*******************************
—
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
