The plan to use nuclear bombs for fracking in Western Australia
Most recently, his dives into the archives led him to a largely forgotten episode in Western Australia’s past — the serious discussions that took place about using a nuclear weapon to create a deep harbour at Port Hedland in the state’s north.
The discussions were between the WA Government, United States nuclear scientists, and mining companies.
In 1961, the US Government began Operation Plowshare, a program investigating using atomic technology for civil purposes.
“[The US] had the bomb at the end of the war and they were looking for ways to get some value back out of it after all the money they had spent developing it,” Mr Clancy said.
The original fracking was atomic fracking. But it was too strong for that. It was doing too much damage underground.”
Various Plowshare ideas floated included using atomic bombs to cut a highway through southern California or duplicate the Panama Canal in Nicaragua, but they were deemed too big and too risky.
“They’d have needed 30 or 40 bombs to do that,” he said.
“There would have been too much leftover waste and they didn’t quite know what a big concentration of it in one place would end up doing.”
His interest in the connection to WA was first roused years ago on a trip to the United States.
“You can do a public tour of the Nevada [nuclear] Test Site (NTS), and I did that,” he said.
“They had one particular test that they (the NTS) had set up with Port Hedland in mind, seeing how much dirt they could shift with one blast and how big the hole would be. That’s the first I heard of this.”
Recently, his online research led to an array of documents held in the State Records Office including reports, correspondence, and newspaper clippings about the plans during the 1960s.
“I never thought there would be this much information on it,” he said.
The files reveal numerous discussions the State Government, north-west mining companies, and nuclear scientists had around using nuclear technology in the Pilbara.
At the same time, the discovery of vast iron ore deposits in the Pilbara meant that the region was rapidly opening up to mining and industrial development.
A port was needed to ship million of tonnes of iron ore offshore.
Mr Clancy said the project in Australia’s remote north-west, requiring only one or two bombs, would have seemed an ideal first project.
“The Plowshare operation was quite prominent, they were shopping around anywhere they could for someone that was interested,” he said.
“While this was going on, they were still doing underground testing in America, they were gathering information all the time.
“They [Operation Plowshare] were open to anything.”……….
While it’s not entirely clear who first suggested it, the flurry of correspondence between the Western Australian government, engineering firms and mining companies throughout the 1960s shows the idea was firmly on the drawing board.
In one letter to Charles Court, a former premier and minister for regional development and the north-west from 1959 until 1971, an engineering firm wrote they had met with Australia’s atomic energy attache at the embassy in Washington and were eager to proceed:……..
A report of a visit by Australian Atomic Energy officers to BHP’s Deepdale iron ore development, dated February 1, 1966, gives some hint of the magnitude of the political challenge faced.
It also raised the inconvenient problem of the existence of the Test Ban Treaty:
The report goes on to discuss how an exemption may have been possible, but it would have required the Australian Government to be the first in the world to propose changing the treaty.
Mr Clancy also suspects the fallout from the British tests on the Montebello Islands in Western Australia’s north-west and in Maralinga in South Australia also played a part in why the ideas came to nothing.
By 1971, the Liberal government under Premier David Brand had been defeated and the records come to an end.
In 1977, the United States Government formally ended Operation Plowshare, never having found a site for the peacetime application of nuclear weapons……..https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-08/documents-reveal-plans-to-use-nuclear-bombs-in-port-hedland/12848004
The Public Relations battle for nuclear in the UK
A secret military agenda. UK defence policy is driving energy policy – with the public kept in the dark, Beyond Nuclear, By David Thorpe, 8 Nov 20 , ”…………The PR battle for nuclear
There is a PR battle in the UK media for new nuclear – and now there are two sides to it.
Editors seem to favour giving pro-nuclear writers a clear ride and rarely question their baseless claims that nuclear is zero carbon. This is misguided and not based on empirical data, says Dr Lowry.
If the carbon footprint of the full uranium life cycle is considered – from uranium mining, milling, enrichment (which is highly energy intensive), fuel fabrication, irradiation, radioactive waste conditioning, storage, packaging to final disposal – nuclear power’s CO2 emissions are between 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewable energy technologies, according to a recent study by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, California.
Another recent peer-reviewed article in Nature Energy shows that nations installing nuclear power don’t have lower carbon emissions, but those installing lots of renewables do. Moreover, investment in new nuclear “crowds out” investment in renewables.
Renewables therefore offer a more rapid and cost-effective means to address net zero targets. The opportunity cost of nuclear is severely negative. The 2019 version of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report comprehensively demolishes any evidence-based arguments on the utility of nuclear to help address climate change.
But that’s not the real argument. It’s military. At the very least, we deserve to be told. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3011373103
David Thorpe is author of books such as Solar Technology and One Planet Cities. He also runs online courses such as Post-Graduate Certificate in One Planet Governance. He is based in the UK. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3011373103
Politics in the age of pandemics, global heating, and nuclear danger – theme for November 20
The global threats of pandemic, climate change, and nuclear danger clearly require co-operation between nations, if we are to have any hope for a decent future – indeed – perhaps any future, for the human species, and for the rest of the other species, too.
Tensions as Armenia- Azerbaijan conflict pauses. War in Syria grinds on. USA and China already in some sort of cold war. National pride and one-up-manship are perpetually on display among the leaders of countries. Nationalist and populist leaders seem to be in charge, with competitiveness and dog-eat-dog as their prevailing philosophy.
It is time for political leaders to pay attention to the efforts of global bodies, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, and the many international agencies that work for the public good. What a timely winner for the Nobel Peace Prize was the United Nations World Food Programme!
As I write, people all over the world sigh in relief as the USA’s Democratic Party, led by reaonable people, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, wins the American election. The disastrous 
results of four years of the Trump presidency for the United States will take some fixing. A return of President Trump would mean disaster for the whole world.
A rational team in the White House could begin the change that the world needs – co-operation between the powerful nations to address the threats that now preoccupy the world’s people.
The Biden-Harris team will address the horrors of pandemic and climate change.
But let’s be aware. They’ll be more co-operative on nuclear arms control, but they are just as much in the grip of the nuclear lobby as the Republicans are.
NSW targets 12GW of renewables and storage under new roadmap that includes auctions — RenewEconomy
NSW government unveils its $32 billion investment plan for wind, solar, and storage, expected to cut emissions and costs for consumers as coal exits. The post NSW targets 12GW of renewables and storage under new roadmap that includes auctions appeared first on RenewEconomy.
NSW targets 12GW of renewables and storage under new roadmap that includes auctions — RenewEconomy
More Australian drivers embrace electrified cars, as hybrid SUV sales triple — RenewEconomy
Australian drivers embrace electrified drivetrains, with figures showing hybrid SUV sales tripling compared to same period in 2019, and passenger EVs up 25 per cent. The post More Australian drivers embrace electrified cars, as hybrid SUV sales triple appeared first on RenewEconomy.
More Australian drivers embrace electrified cars, as hybrid SUV sales triple — RenewEconomy
November 8 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “A Joe Biden Presidency – A New Day In Fight For Climate Action” • You know that feeling when you awake from a long nightmare and see the sun shining outside? Yes, that’s what it feels like today. The US presidential election results have been confirmed in favor of Joe Bidenand Kamala Harris. […]
November 8 Energy News — geoharvey
More wind and solar means early closure of coal plants is more likely — RenewEconomy
We now estimate that Australia’s main grid will be around 45% renewable as early as 2025, and that spells bad news for some coal generators. The post More wind and solar means early closure of coal plants is more likely appeared first on RenewEconomy.
More wind and solar means early closure of coal plants is more likely — RenewEconomy
A win for decency, rationality, co-operation , and science
Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Democrats have won the American election.
For four years, the world has put up with a lying, narcissistic, sociopath as American President. Trump has done such damage to civil systems of health and environment, to democratic institutions, and to international relations. He has epitomised the bullying style of leadership that has become so popular and so dangerous in this 21st century world.
Jo Biden, in the way that he ran his campaign, and in his winning speech, demonstrates a completely opposite style – one of reasonableness, courtesy, and respect for science and democratic agencies.
A key factor today is the appalling state of coronavirus cases, and coronavirus deaths in the USA. That is a no. 1 challenge to the American administration. Now, they will have a leader who understands the seriousness of the pandemic, and cares.
The Democratic leadership understands the climate crisis, and even if the Senate should be dominated by Republicans, Biden can still rejoin the USA to the Paris Climate Accord. Much action against global heating can be done by executive action, bypassing the Senate,
On the nuclear issue, Biden will almost certainly support international arms control agreements, but not the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party now, as it did under Obama, still basks in the arms of the ”peaceful”nuclear lobby, and the nuclear weapons making industry.
Out of site out of mind – Australian govt has NO PLAN for nuclear waste disposal.
Divisive campaign on South Australian facility highlights urgent need for long term nuclear waste management plan, Croakey, 6 Nov 20, Tillman Ruff
“……..No long term management plan for nuclear waste
Australia needs to develop a plan for long-term management and disposal of long-lived intermediate level nuclear waste, which must be kept strictly isolated from people and the environment for 10,000 years.
More than 90 percent of Australia’s radioactive waste comes from nuclear reactors managed by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney. This waste is stored there in a dedicated Interim Waste Store facility at Australia’s principal nuclear facility, with the best expertise and capacity in the country to manage this safely, monitored 24/7 by the Australia Federal Police.
A serious, open, transparent, evidence-based process is required to carefully consider the options, and develop the most responsible plan for ongoing long-term management and disposal of this waste.
nstead, successive governments — both Coalition and Labor — have sought to impose a succession of ill-considered waste dump plans on SA and NT remote communities. All have previously failed because of deeply flawed processes and strong community opposition.
Transport, taxpayer burdens absent health need
The risks of accident or theft are greatest during transport of nuclear materials. Kimba is 1,700 km from Lucas Heights. Road or sea transport of radioactive waste would involve lengthy routes potentially traversing many communities in multiple states.
The nuclear regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has recently confirmed to a Senate inquiry that Lucas Heights has the capacity to safely store Australia’s radioactive waste for several decades, and that there is no urgent need to relocate it.
The Senate Inquiry last month recommended the South Australian plan go ahead, but there was a split among the committee membership, with Senators Jenny McAllister (Labor), Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens) and Rex Patrick (Independent) dissenting.
The government’s repeated claim that an immediate interim radioactive waste dump is needed to ensure the continuation of nuclear medicine in Australia is false.
Every sizeable hospital currently manages their radioactive waste on a ‘delay and decay’ basis on site; the residual waste rapidly loses its radioactivity and is stored on-site until it has decayed and can be discarded with normal waste. This doesn’t need to and won’t change.
The emotive but fallacious claim that provision of nuclear medicine services needed for diagnosis and treatment of cancer will be jeopardised if a new nuclear waste dump is not urgently progressed is being dishonestly but persistently promoted.
To support passage of the government’s amendments, Federal Resources, Water and Northern Australia Minister Keith Pitt is believed to be planning a “nuclear medicine roundtable” at Parliament House on Monday 9 November.
The true driver of increasing need for waste management is ANSTO’s institutional nuclear ambitions, reflected in its current massive ramp-up of production of medical isotopes for export — from around one percent to a target of 25-30 percent of global supply over the next several years.
Not only are we left with the waste legacy of this expanding isotope export business, Australian taxpayers also pick up the bill, paying $400 million for the Lucas Heights OPAL reactor, and subsidising ANSTO on an annual basis for its nuclear operations.
ANSTO received $313.8 million in 2019-20, and was given an additional $238.1 million over 4 years in last month’s Budget.
Cost analyses in several other countries have found that medical isotope sales usually only recover 10-15 percent of the true cost of production once waste, decommissioning, insurance and other costs are factored in.
ANSTO’s export expansion push is increasing domestic nuclear waste pressures, and this is happening without proper public and parliamentary accountability and scrutiny………..
Out of sight, out of mind
The government’s approach, codified in the proposed amendments, would see long-lived radioactive intermediate level nuclear waste transported long distances from the best and most secure site to manage radioactive waste in Australia, to a distant site in South Australian farming country with no current expertise, facilities or experience in securely managing long-lived hazardous radioactive waste.
Effectively, this “temporary” storage facility for waste that must be kept safe from the environment for over 10,000 years will be a large shed.
There is currently no plan and no process to develop a plan for the long-term management and eventual disposal of this waste. Therefore the intermediate level waste will likely languish indefinitely above ground in a facility inadequate for safe long-term storage or disposal, but out of sight and out of mind from Canberra or Sydney.
Australia needs an open, transparent, evidence-based and independent review of Australia’s current and projected radioactive waste production. This review should examine and make recommendations on the best practice long-term management of Australia’s radioactive waste production and disposal.
It should be conducted independently of ANSTO, given their role as proponent of the current proposal and plans to significantly increase nuclear waste production over the next decade for reasons which are not based on the health or other needs of Australians.
It should be open to input from Indigenous organisations, civil society organisations, experts and the public, and be undertaken before any soil is turned for a dump in Kimba and before any waste is moved from Lucas Heights. We have ample time to do this properly.
Tilman Ruff AO is Associate Professor at the Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne. He is Co-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and co-founder and founding chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, both Nobel Peace Prize laureate organisations. https://www.croakey.org/divisive-campaign-on-sa-facility-highlights-urgent-need-for-long-term-nuclear-waste-management-plan/
Australian govt will feel the heat when a Biden administration rejoins the Paris climate agreement
Biden says the US will rejoin the Paris climate agreement in 77 days. Then Australia will really feel the heat, The Conversation Christian Downie, Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, Australian National University, November 6, 2020 When the US formally left
the Paris climate agreement, Joe Biden tweeted that “in exactly 77 days, 
a Biden Administration will rejoin it”.
The US announced its intention to withdraw from the agreement back in 2017. But the agreement’s complex rules meant formal notification could only be sent to the United Nations last year, followed by a 12-month notice period — hence the long wait.
While diplomacy via Twitter looks here to stay, global climate politics is about to be upended — and the impacts will be felt at home in Australia if Biden delivers on his plans.
Biden’s position on climate change
Can he do it under a divided Congress?
While the votes are still being counted — as they should (can any Australian believe we actually need to say this?) — it seems likely the Democrats will control the presidency and the House, but not the Senate.
This means Biden will be able to re-join the Paris agreement, which does not require Senate ratification. But any attempt to legislate a carbon price will be blocked in the Senate, as it was when then-President Barack Obama introduced the Waxman-Markey bill in 2010.
What’s needed are ambitious targets and mandates for the power sector, transport sector and manufacturing sector, backed up with billions in government investment.
Fortunately, this is precisely what Biden is promising to do. And he can do it without the Senate by using the executive powers of the US government to implement a raft of new regulatory measures.
Take the transport sector as an example. His plan aims to set “ambitious fuel economy standards” for cars, set a goal that all American-built buses be zero emissions by 2030, and use public money to build half a million electric vehicle charging stations. Most of these actions can be put in place through regulations that don’t require congressional approval.
And with Trump out of the White House, California will be free to achieve its target that all new cars be zero emissions by 2035, which the Trump administration had impeded.
If that sounds far-fetched, given Australia is the only OECD country that still doesn’t have fuel efficiency standards for cars, keep in mind China promised to do the same thing as California last week.
What does this mean for Australia?
For the last four years, the Trump administration has been a boon for successive Australian governments as they have torn up climate policies and failed to implement new ones.
Rather than witnessing our principal ally rebuke us on home soil, as Obama did at the University of Queensland in 2014, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has instead benefited from a cosy relationship with a US president who regularly dismisses decades of climate science, as he does medical science. And people are dying as a result.
For Australia, the ambitious climate policies of a Biden administration means in every international negotiation our diplomats turn up to, climate change will not only be top of the agenda, but we will likely face constant criticism.
Indeed, fireside chats in the White House will come with new expectations that Australia significantly increases its ambitions under the Paris agreement. Committing to a net zero emissions target will be just the first.
The real kicker, however, will be Biden’s trade agenda, which supports carbon tariffs on imports that produce considerable carbon pollution. The US is still Australia’s third-largest trading partner after China and Japan — who, by the way, have just announced net zero emissions targets themselves……
With Biden now in the White House, it’s not just global climate politics that will be turned on its head. Australia’s failure to implement a serious domestic climate and energy policy could have profound costs.
Costs, mind you, that are easily avoidable if Australia acts on climate change, and does so now. https://theconversation.com/biden-says-the-us-will-rejoin-the-paris-climate-agreement-in-77-days-then-australia-will-really-feel-the-heat-149533
Zali Steggall calls on Australia’s chief scientist to clarify position on net zero emissions by 2050
|
Zali Steggall calls on Australia’s chief scientist to clarify position on net zero emissions by 2050
More than 100 businesses and organisations have supported the independent MP’s climate change bill in ads in major newspapers, Guardian, Adam Morton Environment editor @adamlmorton, 6 Nov 20, The private member’s bill, which was announced in February but delayed due to Covid-19, is supported by Steggall’s fellow crossbenchers Rebekah Sharkie, Helen Haines, Andrew Wilkie and the Greens, and has been backed by climate scientists, economists and some business leaders, including the Business Council of Australia’s Jennifer Westacott, who described it as “sensible”. It is opposed by the government, which controls whether it will be debated in parliament and has rejected a 2050 net zero target……..https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/07/zali-steggall-calls-on-australias-chief-scientist-to-clarify-position-on-net-zero-emissions-by-2050 |
|
Minister Keith Pitt reluctant to name property owner who sold land for nuclear dump
Australian government’s Nuclear Waste Bill – divisive, undemocratic and racist processes
Divisive campaign on South Australian facility highlights urgent need for long term nuclear waste management plan, Croakey, 6 Nov 20,
Tilman Ruff writes: Radioactive waste production and management need a sound evidence-based plan, not shoddy and racist imposition based on misguided nuclear ambition.
On Tuesday 6 October, under the cover of the Federal Budget, the Government planned to introduce controversial amendments to laws on radioactive waste management in the Senate.
The amendments were dropped from the Senate list the following day, only to reappear the following day, the last sitting day for this parliamentary session. They were ultimately not tabled, for reasons unstated, but most likely because the government was concerned it did not have the numbers to pass them.
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 seeks to confirm the siting of a national radioactive waste facility near Kimba in regional South Australia. It would also remove any legal right to review this decision.
These laws were opposed by Labor, minor party and independent members when they passed in the lower house in June, and remain actively contested in Parliament and more so in the community.
Nonetheless $103.6 million was allocated in the budget over the next four years for the planned radioactive waste dump at Kimba, a clear sign the government remains committed to this flawed legislation, which is again scheduled to be debated in the Senate next week.
The radioactive waste management plans it would lock in deserve greater public scrutiny than they have received to date…………
Divisive, undemocratic and racist processes
The government campaign to persuade the residents of Kimba to accept a radioactive waste dump has been misleading and divisive, with much inaccurate information about risks and benefits, inflated employment promises, and very poor process to assess genuine community views.
The people selected to vote on this proposal (with shifting and nebulous goalposts) were town-based, excluding many farmers who actually live closer to the site than those in Kimba township. The local community has become divided.
Crucially, despite multiple requests, Barngarla Native Title holders were explicitly excluded from the government’s community ballot, and remain actively opposed to the planned waste facility. The Barngarla people unsuccessfully attempted to have their exclusion from the consultation process struck down in the Federal Court in March on the grounds that it contravened the Racial Discrimination Act.
When the Barngarla people commissioned a survey themselves, 100 percent of those surveyed were opposed. Nonetheless the process has proceeded, despite government promises that Aboriginal views would be taken into account.
Minister Pitt visited Kimba for the first time in months on 3 November. His media release thanking the Kimba community and chronicling his meetings with the mayor, proposed waste site landowner and various local organisations mentions Barngarla people not once.
Removing the right to legal review
The clear and unacceptable rationale of the proposed amendments are to remove the right of legal challenge to the choice of a national radioactive waste facility near Kimba.
Minister Pitt already has the power under the existing National Radioactive Waste Management Act (2012) to advance the planned Kimba facility, however this would be subject to legal review.
The right to independent legal recourse is a fundamental principle of our democracy and should not be jettisoned without compelling reasons – especially on an issue with such significant long-term implications and impacts as radioactive waste.
To remove the right to judicial review for affected people is unfair, unnecessary and unjustified. It violates the rights of Aboriginal people. ……….. https://www.croakey.org/divisive-campaign-on-sa-facility-highlights-urgent-need-for-long-term-nuclear-waste-management-plan/
Mike Cannon-Brookes, investors issue call for Climate Change Bill — RenewEconomy
Mike Cannon-Brookes leads group of more than 100 organisations issuing endorsement of Zali Steggall’s Climate Change Bill. The post Mike Cannon-Brookes, investors issue call for Climate Change Bill appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Mike Cannon-Brookes, investors issue call for Climate Change Bill — RenewEconomy
1 This month
17 October, Free Public Talk on Nuclear Issues in South Australia
David Noonan will speak on public interest concerns over the new Roxby Downs Indenture Act 2026 on BHP copper-uranium mining and ore processing in SA, and on how AUKUS may face SA with a High-Level nuclear waste agenda.
Dr Jim Green will discuss international developments in the field of nuclear power including ‘small modular reactors’ and Generation 4 ‘advanced’ nuclear reactor concepts.
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
