Submission refutes the spurious and dishonest nuclear claims of Senator Matt Canavan

Canavans argument that the existing prohibitions should be removed to enable the discussion of nuclear options is absurd. Canavan has already been discussing nuclear options without being constrained by any legislation to prevent him. He can go ahead by himself, knock himself out, discuss, but the protections afforded by the prohibitions do not need to be removed merely to enable the marketing arms of the nuclear industry to operate.

The nuclear industry has consistently presented itself as being on the verge of some breakthrough that would magically make the whole industry somehow viable- such as by the vitrification of waste- a dream promulgated for decades and never realised, the eternal dream of fusion, and the current marketing ploy of “small modular reactors”—none of which actually exist, except possibly one on a barge anchored off the Russian Arctic Coast operated by Russia. Any critical thinker should immediately see the sales that selling some future dream to a gullible purchaser is. The Australian public and parliament does not need to enquire into this kind of . A fantasy eternally on the verge of flowering since 1965, simply is . No further enquiry is necessary.

Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 135 NameWithheld

I respond to the notes presented by Matt Canavan, as an explanation for his introduction of a bill to enable the expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia. Ie, the ‘Explanatory memo’ accompanying the second reading.

“First I l would like to acknowledge former Senator for South Australia, Cory Bernardi, for his work in this area “(Canavan)

Canavan acknowledges Bernardi for his ‘work’ in this area. Bernardi was a former Senator, active in obstructing effective action to minimise greenhouse emissions, and as these things roll around- he is now a commentator on Sky News.

The acknowledgement of Bernardis material as a body of work has no merit as an argument—it is merely an appeal to the cult of Cory Bernadi. Canavan has not referenced any single idea, from the “work” as an ‘explanation’, merely the mention of Cory Bernadi’s name, as if this had some meaning or merit by itself. As an argument in favour of expanding the nuclear industry in Australia- it has nil content, except for the appeal to personality- and the argument should be rejected entirely on this basis (or precisely because- it appeals to implied admiration of such a character as Bernadi)

“We are the only developed country, only G20 country in the world that actually bans nuclear energy. This ban was introduced via a Greens amendment in the Senate on 10 December 1999. There was less than 10 minutes of debate on the matter. The Howard Government at the time was seeking legislative support to build a new nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights. With no immediate prospect of a nuclear power station being built, the Government accepted the amendment so it could proceed with the new research reactor at Lucas Heights “(Canavan).

Without this kind of caution and foresight by the Greens- perhaps the nuclear industry would now have carte-blanche in Australia. It is unclear in his presentation of his idea whether Canavan is suggesting that the debate was insufficient (that the parliamentary process at the time was insufficient), or that the argument then, as now against involvement in the nuclear industry- its connections to weapons proliferation, the cost of accidents, the risk of terrorism, the expansion of nuclear weapons empires, was so compelling as to require little debate. The duration of the debate is irrelevant- what matters is the arguments presented in this time, and the context of their delivery. Canavan has presented no new evidence to support the overturning of this decision.

“Of the 20 richest nations in the world only three do not have nuclear power: Australia, Saudi Arabia and Italy” (Canavan).

What is the purpose of this kind of classification richest versus all the rest? It cannot be to imply cause and effect (ie Nuclear power makes you rich)- otherwise these countries would not be rich. Perhaps it is to invoke some fear of being an outsider (as if a need to be in some arbitrary (15% ‘richest’) is an argument with any merit at all.

“Saudi Arabia is building a nuclear power station” (Canavan).

Saudi Arabia also overtly suppresses the freedom of its press and is known to be directly implicated in the killing and chopping into pieces the bodies of journalists who would expose the decision-making processes of its government to public scrutiny. Yet Canavan apparently holds Saudi Arabia as a meritorious exemplar of how things should be done

“Nuclear plants are generally characterised by large capacity and output, high capital cost, and long construction times, but relatively low operating costs and almost zero emissions to air from their operation “(Canavan).

The “relatively low operating costs” presumably do not include the extended costs of operation such as fisheries contamination, land contamination, air contamination, decommissioning, and waste management, or the costs of disaster management and mitigation. The Chernobyl nuclear event caused thousands of hectares of agricultural land across Scotland to be closed to Agriculture for decades precisely because of nuclear emissions to air- somehow this is ‘near zero’ in the decision-making of Canavan et al.

The Fukishima event caused the closure of much of the Japanese fishery, and the ultimately failed containment attempt will soon see the release of millions of tonnes more of contaminated material- again into the Japanese fishery- the food supply for a nation and world- yet Canavans construction of his argument to include only emissions to air- enables him to make blatantly absurd claims. Canavan et al conveniently exclude these events from their decision-making. The magnitude of these costs might be unknown, but they are certainly very large, and overall do not allow anybody to honestly claim, ‘low operating costs’

The implicit belief apparently heald by Canavan et al, that these kinds of events will not be an ongoing part of the nuclear industry is to demonstrate a kind of faith in their own (technical, scientific, managerial) prowess that appears to exist only in the utterly deluded, the evangelical, or the utterly corrupt- and completely ignores the fundamental human factors that contribute these kinds of errors. Eg the pursuit of power, the pursuit of wealth, and the eternally renewed evidence of the failures of systems, and processes under human management.

Many nations are building new nuclear power plants because they provide reliable, emission free power (Canavan).

Nuclear Power is not emissions free. The only intellectual construction that allows this claim, is to somehow exclude the emissions associated with construction, mining, processing, decommissioning, waste-‘management’ and accident ‘management’ in nuclear facilities. When the entire chain is included, (and also including waste and accidents) then this argument fails. It is utterly disingenuous for any claim of ‘low emissions’ to be made that excludes the whole range of inevitable emissions before and after, the fission itself. It is also utterly foolish to believe such a claim made by others.

Over the next 30 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that global nuclear power capacity could increase by 80 per cent, and possibly triple in the Asia-Pacific region (Canavan).

The main role of the IAEA is to market Nuclear power for the nuclear mining weapons waste industries worldwide. Onenwould expect the IAEA to make these sorts of predictions. The ‘claim’ is entirely predictable from their job description, and need not have any regard to more independent perspectives or realities. This appeal by Canavan to join some kind of goldrush, to get in fast before they run out, to ride the wave, is the characteristic cry of spruikers, charlatans and hawkers of all manner of get rich schemes. Canavan et al’s spruiking has this characteristic, and his and his ‘co-sponsors’ other ongoing undeclared interest should raise high suspicion in anybody who hears this kind of argument as to the motive for trying to
whip up some kind of frenzy to remove bans on nuclear power development in Australia.

Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear energy has resulted in far fewer deaths than that from dam failures, oil rig explosions and even, on some measures, the number of people that fall when installing solar panels (Canavan).

Nuclear power is not safe. The use of “number of deaths” as the criterion is simplistic and these numbers are always in dispute. The IAEA (the promoter of the nuclear industry) reports 28 firemen and 2 reactor workers were killed as a direct result of the accident. The IAEA, as marketer in chief for the nuclear mining weapons waste industry, like Canavan, uses an incredibly narrow functional definition of safety , ie you must be killed directly by the event, and otherwise the practice is safe (!). Clearly, this is absurd. In its own marketing the IAEA minimises the thousands of resultant nuclear industry related cancers by claiming they are treatable, minimises the impact of the spread of the contamination across much of the northern hemisphere by saying that in some in some places it was insignificant, but does apparently acknowledge the psychological outcomes as widespread and profound with effects such as suicide, drinking problems and apathy. Canavan’s
reliance on number of immediate deaths, fails to recognise the extent of the safety harms related to the nuclear industry, ie the long term illnesses, the health and safety dangers that do not cause immediate death.

Nuclear does less damage to the natural environment than other energy options. Wind energy takes up 250 times more land than nuclear power and solar takes up 150 times more land (Canavan).

Canavan implies that ‘taking up space’ is the main damage that various energy supply options may cause. By itself, the choice of this as a damage criterion seems odd. Surely Canavan can think of other aspects of ‘damage’ that might be relevant here- water consumption, land contamination, sea contamination, water contamination, food contamination—but no – Canavan thinks as an explanation for the need to urgently consider the use of nuclear power, that taking up space in theissue.

Nevertheless, the physical footprint of uranium mine, its processing plant, a nuclear power station, its dumpsite does take up space far greater than Canavan implies, and this space, for nearly all human purposes will be forever unable to be used for other purposes ( ie space multiplied by time).

Buildings can be built under solar arrays, sheep can graze under solar arrays, and wind turbines, food crops can be grown in the wind farm. So while the egregious harm of a solar panel taking up space might be untenable for Mat- he can nevertheless use the same space for other things at the same time—this is not possible with. And if the solar or wind resource is no longer available at that site, then that space is again available to every other likely use. Not so nuclear- which will leave contamination forever (in human terms)- that denies the human use of this ‘space’, for effectively all human time.

As an explanation of the need for nuclear power, the taking up space argument, as Canavan’s idea of Environmental harm, ism weak on the face of it, and absurd in the detail.

Because of these facts, the critics of nuclear power now tend to focus on the high cost of building nuclear power stations in western countries (Canavan)

Simply that nuclear power might be cheaper in non-western countries is not an explanation as to the need for nuclear power in this country. Trousers too, might be cheaper in non-western countries, reflecting a whole range of considerations, such as workplace safety, transport costs, environmental and health standards, or standards of living. Is Canavan really suggesting that we should all go to work in slavery-like conditions, or where there is much lower than Australian standards for health, safety and Environmental protection, so that the cost of nuclear power could be cheaper than it realistically should be in Australia. The implicit complaint about the relative ‘expense’ of nuclear power plant construction in western countries is absurd, the costs are partly to do with standards of living, more appropriate legislation and regulation, health and safety and environmental protections, and financial integrity. Canavans argument fails at every level, and certainly does
not warrant any further discussion.

April 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

April 23 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Single-Use Plastic Is Wreaking Havoc On The Planet. Here’s What You Can Do To Minimize Your Impact” • The life cycle of plastic begins with oil and gas are extraction. The fossil fuels are refined in facilities that use extreme temperatures and significant amount of water and energy. The plastic is used once. […]

April 23 Energy News — geoharvey

April 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Solar is a runaway global success, and Australia is showing the way forward — RenewEconomy

The current growth rates of solar alone will see the global energy sector decarbonised by mid-century. The post Solar is a runaway global success, and Australia is showing the way forward appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Solar is a runaway global success, and Australia is showing the way forward — RenewEconomy

April 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NBN turns to micro wind turbines in search for power for remote sites — RenewEconomy

Mini wind was once a real contender before cheap solar stole the show; the owner of the latest iteration hopes this proves its viability. The post NBN turns to micro wind turbines in search for power for remote sites appeared first on RenewEconomy.

NBN turns to micro wind turbines in search for power for remote sites — RenewEconomy

April 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment