New South Wales Productivity Commission slammed for recommending nuclear power while ignoring offshore wind,
NSW Productivity Commission slammed for recommending nuclear power while ignoring offshore wind, https://www.miragenews.com/nsw-productivity-commission-slammed-for-571554/
Maritime Union of Australia
The NSW Productivity Commission is under fire for recommending the NSW Government lift the state’s ban on nuclear power while ignoring proven, lower-cost renewable energy sources such as offshore wind.
Among 60 recommendations aimed at driving productivity and economic growth, the NSW Productivity Commission White Paper released this week proposed the ban on nuclear generation be lifted for small modular reactors.The same report made no mention of offshore wind generation, despite the proven technology producing a growing share of electricity around the world and several major proposals awaiting approval off the NSW coast.
This is despite the CSIRO’s most recent report on electricity generation costs showing that SMR nuclear reactors cost approximately $16,000 per kilowatt, nearly three times offshore wind. Recent UK analysis has found the cost of developing offshore wind is even lower.
The Maritime Union of Australia said it was staggering that the NSW Productivity Commission would recommend resources be thrown into small modular nuclear reactors — a technology that doesn’t yet exist — instead of cheaper, cleaner, proven technologies like offshore wind.“It is unbelievable that the NSW Productivity Commission would propose a major regulatory overhaul for a theoretical technology that doesn’t operate anywhere on earth, yet not even mention one of the fastest growing forms of energy generation,” MUA Deputy National Secretary Warren Smith said.
Rather than waste years debating a theoretical technology, which will come with huge costs and substantial safety concerns, the NSW Government should be getting on with supporting the development of reliable, cheap, and plentiful offshore wind resources.“The NSW Productivity Commission’s focus on an industry that doesn’t even exist, while ignoring a proven technology that can deliver power and jobs for NSW right now, shows an ideological pro-nuclear agenda has been put ahead of the state’s economic interests.“Small nuclear reactors have been promised for half a century, but as yet not one exists. Most countries with nuclear power are moving away from the technology, with new reactors running hugely over budget, requiring massive taxpayer subsidies, and locking in higher power prices for consumers.“In contrast, offshore wind technology continues to mature, delivering massive growth at ever-lower prices.
“Australia has the advantage of long coastlines close to population centres, along with highly skilled seafarers and offshore oil and gas workers who could be utilised to construct local wind projects.“The development of an offshore wind industry would also provide an opportunity to transition highly-skilled workers from fossil fuel industries into a clean, green alternative.“With the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions to address global heating, it’s absurd that the NSW Productivity Commission would suggest sitting on our hands for a decade in the hope a theoretical technology will magically fix the problem when we already have solutions available.“NSW has an opportunity to become a major exporter of clean, renewable energy, securing our economy for the future, but only if the Berejiklian Government takes immediate steps to support proven technologies.”
New South Wales Deputy Premier in the grip of the nuclear lobby
NSW Deputy Premier says nuclear power is the future as ban remains Radio 2 GB, 04/06/2021, BEN FORDHAM NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro says nuclear power is the way forward.However, it is currently illegal in Australia along with the mining of uranium in states like NSW.Mr Barilaro told Ben Fordham he’s looking at reintroducing a bill to lift the ban on mining uranium.“If you really want clean, green energy … to run an average home for 75 years it takes 150 tonnes of coal, to do it with uranium you’re talking about 2kg.“We would be ripe as a nation if we lift the ban today to absolutely embrace it.” https://www.2gb.com/nsw-deputy-premier-says-nuclear-power-is-the-future-as-ban-remains/
Small nuclear reactors for New South Wales ? – dirty, dangerous, and uneconomic
Expensive and dangerous: Nuclear doesn’t stack up https://www.miragenews.com/expensive-and-dangerous-nuclear-doesnt-stack-up-570069/m Electrical Trades Union
Lifting the ban on nuclear power generation in NSW using unproven small-scale reactors will only push up power bills, damage the environment and compromise safety, according to the Electrical Trades Union.
ETU National and NSW Secretary, Allen Hicks, said nuclear power would be hugely expensive compared to renewable energy, and that small nuclear reactors were still a pipe dream.
The recommendation around small scale reactors is one of 60 contained in the NSW Productivity Commission’s White Paper, which is supposedly designed to reboot the state’s economy.
“The Productivity Commission has lost the plot if it thinks small modular reactors, a technology that has been ‘just around the corner’ since the 1970’s but still doesn’t exist, is the answer to NSW’s productivity growth,” Allen Hicks said.
“Even if someone finally manages to build one that works, the electricity price forecast for their output is six times more expensive than renewables.
“Why does the Productivity Commission want NSW residents paying six times more for their electricity?”
“There are massive offshore wind projects waiting for federal approval off the NSW coast near Newcastle, Wollongong and Eden. Rather than pie-in-the sky nuclear nonsense we should get on with approving this clean energy and getting it into out grid.
The commission says lifting the ban would provide another source of firming capacity in the grid. But its own report admits “a wide degree of uncertainty” about small-scale nuclear reactors, mainly due to cost.
NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet said the government “will consider everything” in the report.
But Mr Hicks said the State Government must hit the stop button on nuclear power, as the business model for a dirty and dangerous technology did not stack up.
“Even if they improve the technology, a small modular reactor would take far too long to build, and we don’t have time to waste in the fight against climate change,” Mr Hicks said.
“Globally, most countries are moving away from nuclear power. Few new reactors are being built and nuclear companies are going bankrupt or facing financial distress.
Mr Hicks said the government should instead continue to focus on renewable energy.
“With a bit of foresight, some investment and some big thinkers, Australia is uniquely positioned in the world to become a renewable energy leader.
“Boosting the economy, providing more jobs, and dealing with climate change are big problems, but nuclear power is not the answer.”
Hunters Hill low level radioactive trash to be sent to USA
Are you turning green?‘: Neighbours’ relief as radioactive land to be shipped overseas, rioritised. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/are-you-turning-green-neighbours-relief-as-radioactive-land-to-be-shipped-overseas-20210429-p57nk3.html. , 30 Apr 21,
April 30, 2021 — Up to 1800 tonnes of contaminated land affecting six waterfront properties in one of Sydney’s wealthiest suburbs will be sealed up and shipped to the US in a NSW government resolution that ends decades of anxiety over the harbourside blight.
After more than 100 years, pollution from a carbolic acid plant and a uranium refinery that led to the government’s acquisition of three Hunters Hill homes since the 1980s, and later prompted a parliamentary inquiry over health concerns, will be exported to Idaho over a meticulous, 18-month operation starting from July.
Following media reports that deaths and illnesses of former residents could possibly be attributed to contamination, a NSW parliamentary inquiry was set up in 2008 to determine the extent of radioactivity on the site, concluding it was difficult to establish any link between any reported cancer cases and the low doses of radiation.
However, it found there was a need to remediate the site, which included the government-owned foreshore.
In 2012, Property NSW attempted to have the material sent to a landfill in Kemps Creek, in western Sydney, but the proposal was abandoned after fierce backlash from the community.
A May 2019 proposal to encapsulate the contaminated material onsite in purpose-built cement “containment cells” was also rejected by residents as well as the local council………
Mr Stokes said the latest proposal had overwhelming support from the community and that he was pleased the stakeholders had finally reached an agreement.
“This safe and secure plan will mean these waterfront properties, which have laid dormant for decades, can now be used once the waste is safely moved away,” Mr Stokes said.
Member for Lane Cove and government minister Anthony Roberts, whose electorate serves the area, said the decision would be welcomed by residents after the waste “caused a lot of stress over the decades”.
Two of the three lots owned by the government are empty, while one contains an unused four-storey home with an indoor swimming pool that will have to be demolished. It is likely all lots will be sold on the private market once they are decontaminated.
According to a recent NSW government report on the remediation project, the fresh plan involves excavating the contaminated soil, sealing it in bags, loading them into shipping containers and transporting them to a secure facility in Matraville before shipping them overseas in scheduled consignments.
Property and Housing Minister Melinda Pavey said ANSTO would oversee the excavation and transport of the material and the safety of residents would be prioritised.
New South Wales Energy Minister ”excited about the opportunities” for nuclear power
Energy minister backs nuclear option , Daily Telegraph, 14 Mar 21,
NSW’s energy minister has said the state is “excited about the opportunities” being afforded by nuclear power as he denied climate policies were leading to the closure of coal-powered plants…… (subscribers only)
Central Coast Council will maintain the Nuclear Free Policy
 Council’s Nuclear Free Policy lives on, Coast Community News, FEBRUARY 12, 2021
Central Coast Council will maintain the Nuclear Free Policy put into place by the former Gosford Council. Coast Community News, Administrator Dick Persson rejected a Central Coast Council staff report which wanted to revoke the policy, amid applause from the public gallery, at the Council meeting on February 8. Only about a dozen members of the public attended the meeting but at least two of them carried home-made anti-nuclear signs. Another two people spoke at the public forum in favour of keeping the policy in place. The Greens member and former Wyong councillor Sue Wynn spoke as did Australian Conservation Foundation Central Coast president Mark Ellis. To the surprise of the gallery, when the speakers concluded, Persson said he agreed with everything they had said and the gallery burst into applause. Persson suggested someone had been working through a list of policies that needed removing and that at the last meeting he had dealt with some. This week the only policy on the list was the anti-nuclear policy and it stood out “like the proverbial”, he said…….. https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2021/02/councils-nuclear-free-policy-lives-on/ |
|
Retain Gosford’s nuclear free zone status.
 Keep the Coast nuclear free, https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2021/02/keep-the-coast-nuclear-free/ Donna Carey, Narara Ecovillage, NararaFEBRUARY 12, 2021 I am passionately in favour of retaining Gosford’s nuclear free zone status. No one who I have engaged with, in person or on social media, is in favour of this being rescinded. Opening up Central Coast Council like this would allow the use, storage of or transportation through the LGA of nuclear weapons, waste or material for the first time since 1984. I am strongly opposed to this action being facilitated. It also paves the way for small-scale nuclear facilities on the Central Coast. In addition, it is on the public record that Taylor Martin MLC is in favour of small-scale nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The rationale for this proposal is that “the handling and mining of radioactive materials is now highly regulated at a State and Federal level” and “any public concern regarding nuclear-related activities is best dealt at the State and Federal level”. However, this is not completely correct, and legislation is slowly changing. In 2019, a NSW Upper House inquiry into the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 recommended repealing the original bill in its entirety. Uranium exploration is also already permitted under current legislation; its mining just currently is not. There is no certainty that “there are no known uranium deposits on the Central Coast” (Item 4.1, Attachment 3, Council agenda, Feb 8). As you are aware, the former Wyong Shire Council had a similar nuclear free zone policy, which was revoked in April, 2014, and “policies from the former Gosford City and Wyong Shire Councils still apply in their respective former Local Government Areas, until a new policy is adopted for the Central Coast Council region” (https://www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/council/forms-and-publications/policies). My first preference would be for the nuclear free zone to be extended back into the previous Wyong LGA. If our Council’s “financial crisis” is your main order of business in your role as Administrator, Mr Dick Persson, I urge you to focus on this being the main issue at hand. I also thought that you said that it was not your role to go back over previous decisions. Please resist allowing your professional integrity to be compromised by the Council’s Environment and Planning department, which will pave the way for future nuclear power generation, uranium mining, and/or the storage of nuclear waste on the beautiful Central Coast. |
|
|
Disarray in New South Wales Right-wing parties, over One Nation’s Bill to overturn ban on uranium mining
Environmental groups have been critical of the government’s consideration of Mr Latham’s bill, with the Nature Conservation Council warning uranium mining would threaten water supply.
Berejiklian government to pursue its own uranium push, By Alexandra Smith, August 24, 2020
The Berejiklian government will pursue its own push to allow uranium mining in NSW, after cabinet ministers backed away from supporting One Nation’s nuclear power bill in the upper house.
The bill, introduced by Mark Latham, would lift the 33-year ban on uranium mining and nuclear power, but on Monday night cabinet agreed that it would consider its own bill.
In March, Deputy Premier John Barilaro stunned colleagues when he said his party would support Mr Latham’s bill, despite not taking the issue to the Nationals’ party room.
Mr Barilaro, a long-time supporter of nuclear power, said the government should “lift the ban on nuclear energy” and confirmed his party would support it.
But the move angered several senior ministers, with one saying: “I did not get into Parliament to support a One Nation bill”, while another said: “Crossbenchers don’t set the government’s agenda”.
A shift in policy around uranium mining in NSW has still not been considered by the Coalition joint party rooms, which will not meet this week because only the upper house is sitting.
Mr Barilaro has now been tasked with commissioning more research around uranium mining and will report back to cabinet before any policy decisions are made.
A senior minister said Transport Minister Andrew Constance told cabinet that he could not support the One Nation bill because it could significantly impact electorates, including Bega.
Another minister told cabinet that there needed to be strategic and economic merit and community consultation around uranium mining.
Asked about the bill before it was presented to cabinet on Monday, NSW Energy Minister Matt Kean said uranium was not a viable resource.
“Right now the uranium price is about $30 per pound, that is well below the price needed to extract this from the ground. I think this is more about headlines than actually going to see anything result from digging it out of the ground,” Mr Kean said.
A senior minister, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue was before cabinet, said “uranium mining will never happen so it’s just about letting Barra [Barilaro] have a win.”
“Sometimes the fights with Barra are just not worth it,” the minister said.
Mr Latham could bring the bill on for a vote this week, after the Legislative Council was recalled for another week of sitting days. The bill has been sitting on the business paper for more than a year.
The upper house is also expected to focus this week on troubled public insurer icare.
Environmental groups have been critical of the government’s consideration of Mr Latham’s bill, with the Nature Conservation Council warning uranium mining would threaten water supply.
The council’s chief executive Chris Gambian said the “sweetheart deal with One Nation yet again places multinationals ahead of the people of regional and rural NSW”.
A parliamentary inquiry report recommended the government support the nuclear power bill.
Uranium ban brought benefit to New South Wales
Uranium ban brought us benefit, Newcastle Herald, Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation 23 Aug 20,
THE state government’s proposed removal of a long-standing and popular ban on uranium mining in New South Wales flies in the face of evidence, community interest and market reality. The global uranium price remains depressed following the Fukushima nuclear disaster and is not likely to recover. The uranium market is over supplied and existing producers are shelving projects across Australia and around the world.
In November 2019 the CEO of the world’s largest uranium miner, Canadian company Cameco, stated that “not only does it not make sense to invest in future primary supply, even the lowest-cost producers are deciding to preserve long-term value by leaving uranium in the ground.”
The ban has served NSW well. It has provided policy certainty and avoided the radioactive waste and legacy mine issues affecting other places, including Kakadu, where a massive $1 billion clean-up is underway at the former Ranger mine. This poorly conceived piece of gesture politics could lead to lower tier and inexperienced mining companies cutting corners and increasing environmental and community risk and it simply makes no sense for NSW to jump aboard a sinking nuclear ship. NSW’s energy future is renewable, not radioactive.
Pointless: Removal of New South Wales Uranium mining ban, as uranium glut continues, and nuclear industry declines
Nuke South Wales?, ACF, Dave Sweeney, 20 Aug 20,
The proposed removal of a long-standing and popular ban on uranium mining in New South Wales is empty gesture politics that flies in the face of community interest and market reality, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) said.
The global uranium price remains depressed following the Fukushima nuclear disaster and is not likely to recover.
“The nuclear power age is winding up, so it makes no sense for NSW to jump aboard a sinking ship,” said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“The ban is popular and has served NSW well, providing policy certainty and avoiding the radioactive waste and legacy mine issues affecting other places, including Kakadu, where a massive $1 billion clean-up is underway at the former Ranger mine.
“This is empty gesture politics that could lead to lower tier and inexperienced mining companies cutting corners and increasing environmental and community risk.
“This poorly conceived plan puts political posturing above community benefit and could lead to increased pollution and risk for NSW communities and environment for scant gain.
“NSW’s energy future is renewable, not radioactive – this tired political fix is no substitute for a credible and effective energy policy.
“Deputy Premier Barilaro might see this as in the Nationals’ interest, but it is certainly not in the national interest.”
In November 2019 the CEO of the world’s largest uranium miner, Canadian company Cameco, stated, “Not only does it not make sense to invest in future primary supply, even the lowest-cost producers are deciding to preserve long-term value by leaving uranium in the ground.”
The global market is over supplied as existing producers exit or defer projects and higher-grade uranium ore deposits remain in the ground across Australia and around the world.
For context or comment contact Dave Sweeney on 0408 317 812
Uranium mining to become legal in NSW, as govt supports OneNation in nuclear push.
Uranium Mining. NSW govt to support One Nation in Nuclear Push. Daily Telegraph, 19 Aug 20,
Uranium mining looks set to become legal in NSW after a deal was struck between Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Deputy Premier John Barilaro to get it through cabinet. … (subscribers only) NSW to start mining uranium after agreement on plan to lift ban [$]
.
‘under cover of coronavirus’ New South Wales govt approves US company to mine coal beneath a Sydney drinking water dam
|
Woronora reservoir, an hour’s drive south of the CBD, is part of a system which supplies water to more than 3.4 million people in Greater Sydney. The approval will allow Peabody Energy to send long wall mining machines 450 metres below the earth’s surface to crawl along coal seams directly below the dam. Dr Kerryn Phelps says the fact the decision was made “under the cover of coronavirus” is “unfathomable”. NSW has spent 12 of the last 20 years in drought, with record low rainfall plunging much of the state into severe water shortage last year. “We know about the potential for catastrophe,” Dr Phelps told 9News.com.au. “We just cannot let this [decision] go unchallenged.” The former president of the Australian Medical Association may seem an odd figure to lead opposition to a mining project, but Dr Phelps takes what she calls a broad view on health. She grew up on Sydney’s North Shore when koalas still lived in family backyards and has witnessed firsthand the affects human populations have on the natural world. She has also seen, as a doctor, how the degradation of the nature impacts human health. In her role as City of Sydney councillor, Dr Phelps introduced a motion to the council calling on the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Rob Stokes, to reverse the approval. “We can’t simply risk the water supply in one part of Sydney, without considering the repercussions for the rest of the state and country,” Dr Phelps said. “We have to make a stand now. If not now, then when?” Chain reactionOn the evening of April 6 this year, the City of Sydney council almost unanimously passed Dr Phelp’s motion calling for the approval to be reversed, prompting mayor Clover Moore to send Mr Stokes a strongly worded internal letter. In it, she described the minister’s decision as “scandalous”. Sutherland Labour Party councillor Ray Plibersek says the move also led Sutherland Shire Council to pass a similar motion urging the decision be reconsidered. “We’re very concerned,” Cr Plibersek told 9News.com.au. “There’s been evidence of damage to the water table… and despite assurances from mining companies, there is a threat to a crucial resource – water.” Sutherland Shire and Wollongong, which both have more than 200,000 residents, share the Woronora special catchment area, the rivers and rivulets passing from one jurisdiction to the next. They share the water within it too – the reservoir supplies 100 per cent of the drinking water……….. https://www.9news.com.au/national/coal-mine-under-greater-sydneys-woronora-drinking-water-reservoir-approved-during-coronavirus-pandemic/d3e51de8-f370-4fcf-b4f8-7f62be1c24c7
|
|
Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action taking legal action against NSW Environment Protection Authority
  ‘Kick them into action’: Fire group takes EPA to court over climate, SMH, By Peter Hannam, April 20, 2020 Lisa Roberts spent 25 years building a native plant business that was as sustainable as they come, with off-grid solar power and water harvesting, only to see it go up in flames in the recent bushfires.Her home and nursery in Wandella in southern NSW reduced to rubble, Ms Roberts fled to Canberra, powerless to act as fires threatened another venture in nearby Pialligo. Living in the smoke-choked capital also damaged her vocal cords, which have still not recovered.
“A part of me totally rages at the world for its totally inadequate response to climate change,” Ms Roberts said. “Everybody’s safety is at risk.” That anger is being now channelled into a legal challenge against the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, of which Ms Roberts is a member, began the suit last week with the NSW Environmental Defenders Office “to kick [the EPA] into action”, she said. EDO chief executive David Morris said the case, in the Land and Environment Court, would seek to force the EPA, which does not have a climate policy, to use its powers to keep communities safe from the increasingly severe impacts of a warming world. Mr Morris said the EPA was chosen as a test case among similar agencies nationally in part because of a section of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. That section requires the agency to “develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environment protection”. “It’s an opportunity for the EPA to recognise they have a legal obligation to take action,” he said. “They should have a policy and a plan to address the greatest threat to the environment.”…….. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/kick-them-into-action-fire-group-takes-epa-to-court-over-climate-20200418-p54kzl.html
|
|
Outlandish claims made by Byron Shire Councillors, (Greens!!) promoting mobile Small Nuclear Reactors
What a strange article! The claims made about these “mobile small nuclear reactors” are completely fanciful. These reactors do not exist, 
are just in the planning stage for use by U.S. military. Even more fanciful , the article’s claim – “the pilot scheme, which will attract multi-million dollar grants.”. Just where are these grants to come from? The cash-strapped Australian government? The Russians? The Americans? The Chinese? This entire magical unicorn the Small Nuclear Reactor business is quite unable to attract investors. It’s only hope is to be funded by the tax-payer. I note these unnamed Green proponents talk about “spreading the risk fairly among the population” – and still think it’s just fine. So they understand that there’s a risk of dangerous radiation – a very strange attitude for a supposedly environmental group.
What could go wrong? https://www.echo.net.au/2020/04/what-could-go-wrong/ April 1, 2020 | by Echonetdaily, Mobile 100MW nuclear power plants have been proposed by the NSW National Party.
The latest miniaturisation technology that has seen electronic circuitry reduced from physical nodes to nanoscale impulses in quantum space has had astounding impacts on the relatively macroscale equipment needed to generate nuclear power. Such equipment has become so small it is now possible to build bus-sized nuclear reactors that can be deployed, as needed, to address gaps in the power grid.
Byron’s Greens councillors have indicated support for the proposal, and hope to involve the Shire in the early stages of the pilot scheme, which will attract multi-million dollar grants. A spokesperson for the local Greens said nuclear plants are not only less polluting than coal fired power stations, but being mobile means they spread the risk fairly among the population.
State and federal Greens later issued a statement disassociating themselves, ‘as always’, from Byron Shire councillors.
A nuclear power station is inappropriate for the Central Coast
 A nuclear power station is inappropriate for the Central Coast, https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2020/03/a-nuclear-power-station-is-inappropriate-for-the-central-coast/ Chris Castellari, Avoca Beach MARCH 22, 2020
Just a few points as to why a nuclear power station is inappropriate for the Central Coast. Nuclear power stations can’t be built under existing law in any Australian state or territory. |
|
Antinuclear 