Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained
Murdoch papers and Murdoch’s Sky News have ramped up their campaign to have nuclear laws repealed, and far-right Coalition MPs and former MPs are along for the ride. The post Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained — RenewEconomy
State parliaments in NSW and Victoria have completed nuclear inquiries over the past two years but the governments of both states have no intention of repealing laws banning nuclear power.
The Morrison government established an inquiry into nuclear power in 2019 but made it clear that the federal ban would be retained regardless of the findings of the inquiry.
Nevertheless, supporters continue to campaign for the repeal of federal and state laws banning nuclear power. The Murdoch papers and Murdoch’s Sky News have ramped up their campaign to have those laws repealed.
Far-right Coalition MPs and former MPs are along for the ride.
And a tangled web of far-right conspiracists and fossil fuel interests: for example a recent article promoting nuclear power in Australia was written by a Policy Associate at the impressive-sounding Institute for Energy Research — the impressive-sounding, Koch-founded, fossil fuel-funded Institute for Energy Research.
There’s conflict within the Coalition, as demonstrated by the unwillingness of the federal and NSW Coalition governments to repeal legal bans, and submissions opposing nuclear power to the federal inquiry from the SA and Tasmanian conservative governments as well as the Queensland Liberal-National Party.
Coalition Senator Matt Canavan is at war with himself, previously noting that nuclear power would increase power bills but now supporting taxpayer funding for nuclear power through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
Yes, it’s entertaining watching the Coalition at war with itself over an energy source that has well and truly priced itself out of the energy debate and has instead found a home in the culture wars.
Former PM Malcolm Turnbull describes nuclear power as the “loopy current fad … which is the current weapon of mass distraction for the backbench”.
But there’s a serious side to the problem.
Firstly, the promotion of nuclear power muddies the energy debate and helps to delay the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Economist Prof. John Quiggin notes that, in practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal.
Secondly, politicians who are silly enough to promote nuclear power over cheaper renewables would probably be silly enough to gift billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to nuclear companies.
And not all of these MPs are fringe figures like Craig Kelly — some have real clout such as NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro, former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, and former PM Tony Abbott (who thinks the Coalition should promote nuclear power to “create a contest” with unions, GetUp, the Greens, the ALP and the “green left“.
There are plenty of recent examples demonstrating how badly nuclear power projects can go wrong.
All of the recent projects in the US and western Europe have cost about A$20 billion per reactor and all of them are at least A$10 billion over budget and many years behind schedule.
Multi-billion-dollar taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies for these failed projects have been ever-expanding. It would be naïve to expect a better outcome — in other words, a non-disastrous outcome — in Australia given our lack of experience and expertise.
Thirdly, culture wars based on lies and conspiracy theories can escalate beyond anyone’s wildest imagination, as we see with the MAGA movement in the US.
There has to be push-back against irrational ideologues lest they become dangerous irrational ideologues.
The rest of this article summarises the reasons to oppose nuclear power in Australia and to keep legal bans in place. This summary comes with the caveat that rational arguments won’t shift the culture warriors; a cult deprogrammer might shift them, but not rational arguments.
Nonetheless, the rest of the population needs to be inoculated against the misinformation of the ideologues. Continue reading
Australian government’s nuclear waste plans unacceptable – Dr Margaret Beavis
 Long-term impact of quick nuclear dump fix https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2021/02/23/long-term-impact-of-quick-nuclear-dump-fix/Legislation to set up a national nuclear waste storage site on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula is being debated by federal parliament. Margaret Beavis argues that both the site selection process and storage plans for long-lived intermediate nuclear waste are unacceptable.
Today, the government is planning a Senate vote to lock in moving highly radioactive nuclear waste to Kimba. This bill will deny any judicial oversight or review, despite major flaws in the proposal. However there is no rush to find a home for Australia’s nuclear waste. The federal nuclear regulator, ARPANSA, has been crystal clear; the nuclear waste at the ANSTO Lucas Heights reactor can stay there safely for decades. Claims that moving the waste is urgently needed to continue nuclear medicine in Australia are patently false. As a GP, I use nuclear medicine and ongoing access is necessary. Other arguments that we need to consolidate nuclear waste at one site are misleading, given hospitals will be handling waste for as long as there is nuclear medicine. Hospitals currently manage their own nuclear medicine wastes on a ‘delay and decay’ basis on site; after use in a patient, the waste very rapidly loses its radioactivity. After a few months the vast majority is safe enough to go to a normal rubbish tip. There will always be multiple sites. Many South Australians would be unaware that this proposed “temporary storage” of nuclear waste in Kimba is a second-rate cheap solution. World’s best practice requires deep geological disposal, which costs a lot more. Countries such as Finland have spent over 40 years researching locations and properly involving communities. They are only now building a deep geological repository, at a cost of over A$5 billion In contrast, the Kimba plan will cost shift onto future generations, who will be left to do the job properly at great expense. Indeed, whilst the government promises to move the waste yet again some decades hence, there are no plans whatsoever for proper longer-term disposal. It is highly likely to end up stranded at Kimba and a significant liability for South Australians. In addition to the dodgy storage proposal, there are many other flaws. The big ones include: four years of a misleading government marketing campaign, a deciding vote using a biased sample of residents and a complete disregard of profound opposition by the Traditional Owners. The site selection process has been poor. The community has endured several years of very one-sided marketing, and remains deeply divided on the issue. Low-level waste has been the major focus thoughout, yet the elephant in the room is the intermediate waste that is radioactive for over 10,000 years. The community vote was based on town boundaries, which biased the sample towards businesses who may profit from the facility. It excluded farmers who are closer to the site than the township. At the alternative Hawker site last year, a much less biased vote with a 50 km radius was used, and the waste was clearly rejected. This current proposal also rides rough shod over the clear opposition of the traditional owners. In April 2020 the Federal Parliament’s own Joint Committee on Human Rights found the National Radioactive Waste Management Act does not sufficiently protect the Barngarla’s rights and interests. The Federal Government admits its proposed legislation will deny farmers, Traditional Owners and other interested parties a right to a judicial review. Indeed, the legislation is designed to do just that. This bill locks in a second-rate process for a second-rate facility that will be a major future liability for South Australians. Highly radioactive intermediate level nuclear waste is going to be with us for a very, very long time. There is plenty of time to do it right. We need a proper disposal plan, not moving the waste unnecessarily to a temporary store and leaving it for our kids to pay for. This waste is highly radioactive for millennia. If this legislation passes, it will come back and haunt South Australians for generations to come. Margaret Beavis is a GP and vice president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. |
|
Assange’s partner exposes ongoing denial of his legal and democratic rights,
 Assange’s partner exposes ongoing denial of his legal and democratic rights, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/02/22/assa-f22.html?pk_campaign=assange-newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws, Oscar Grenfell, 21 February 2021 In an online post last week, Stella Moris, the partner of Julian Assange and mother of his two young children, outlined the ongoing denial of the WikiLeaks founder’s fundamental legal and democratic rights, even after a British Magistrates’ Court ruled early last month against his extradition to the United States.
Moris provided a succinct summary of the issues of democratic principle at stake, in the US attempt to prosecute Assange for lawful publishing activities that exposed war crimes, and updated his supporters on the current stage of the legal campaign to secure his freedom. The January 4 verdict, forbidding extradition, had “taken into account” the “extensive medical evidence” presented during last year’s trial, Moris explained. Assange’s dispatch to the US had been blocked on the grounds that it would be “oppressive.” His health issues, including serious depression, and the brutal character of the US prison system, meant there would be a great risk of Assange taking his own life if he were extradited. The US immediately responded, in the final days of the administration of President Donald Trump, by formally signalling an appeal. Trump’s Democratic Party successor, President Joe Biden, in his first weeks in office, rejected calls by civil liberties and press freedom organisations for the US Department of Justice to drop its pursuit of Assange, demonstrating the bipartisan character of the persecution. The High Court will decide after March 29 whether prosecutors, acting on behalf of the US state, will be permitted to proceed with their appeal. Moris stated that the next stage for the defence was to submit a response to the US grounds of appeal. She then reviewed the anti-democratic implications of Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s January 4 ruling. It had denied Assange’s extradition on health grounds, but “did not side with him on the wider public interest arguments.” Baraitser had upheld virtually all of the prosecution’s substantive arguments, effectively green-lighting future attempts by governments to prosecute journalists and publishers for exposing material that they deem to be “classified” and of “national security” significance, regardless of the public interest of what is exposed. Continue reading |
The remediation of Ranger uranium mine: will it really restore the environment?
Traditional owners were given land rights in return for their support for the Ranger mine, and Kakadu National Park was born. ……. the land will finally be returned to the traditional owners… the question is, in what state? ……… we could find the site an eroding heap of substandard scrub.
As part of cleaning up the mine site, contaminated buildings and equipment will be buried in one of the mine’s enormous pits.
We’ve been told that burying the equipment and the contaminated material in the mine site is out of step with global best practice in the mining industry.
|
Kakadu in crisis, ABC 22 Feb 2021, Crisis in Kakadu: The turmoil threatening Australia’s biggest national park
“It’s gone downhill. No one basically trusts anybody, no one respects each other anymore. That’s how bad it is here.” Traditional owner Kakadu is one of the great natural wonders of the world. The stunning landscape, teeming with wildlife, is a major tourist destination with scores of Instagram friendly sites. For tourism operators it is an iconic symbol of what Australia has to offer. “It’s one of the most special places in Australia. It’s for so long been one of the reasons why people visit Australia and for Australians, one of their must do life experiences.” Tourism industry representative Despite its beauty, there is trouble inside Australia’s biggest national park. This World Heritage listed site is in crisis. “It’s an absolute mess because the institutions responsible for fixing it up aren’t doing their job.” Traditional owner On Monday Four Corners investigates accusations of mismanagement and neglect which have fuelled a bitter dispute between the park’s traditional owners and the authority that runs the park. |
National Farmers Federation want govt to support renewable energy (not coal or nuclear)
released on Tuesday, the NFF makes the call for renewable energy to be part
of new investment to address the $3.8bn annual shortfall in infrastructure
in regional Australia. The paper, which makes no mention of coal or nuclear
energy supporting jobs in the regions, comes as the Nationals push for the
Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in those technologies.
Kimba radioactive trash Bill stagnates in the Senate, as Right-wing media extols nuclear power
Resources Minister Keith Pitt and Australia’s nuclear schills must be getting a bit desperate. The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 keeps on not getting itself discussed in the Senate.
This could be because (a) it’s likely to be defeated, or (b) if passed, there will be a successful court action opposing it, or (c) the plan would not meet the required international safety standards.
I’m betting on (d) – the Senators just don’t know wotthell to do about it.
Meanwhile Australia’s the prevailing media, the Murdochracy,and commercial media is in a frenzy, in their anxiety about Australia’s huge need to embrace nuclear technology.
Why we need to flick the switch and embrace nuclear power -THE AUSTRALIAN 23 February
Wise warning to Australian government to withdraw embarrassing Nuclear Waste Dump Bill
Peter Remta, 21 Feb 21, to Senator Slade Brockman
I am aware that the Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has been listed in the Senate’s order of business for Tuesday 23 February but with respect suggest that this a completely futile exercise on the part of your government and the responsible minister
The bill will not be passed because of the unwavering opposition by the crossbench and any preceding debate could be extremely embarrassing for your government because of the untoward and disingenuous information previously put out by Pitt and his department and its agencies being raised by the opposing senators
If Pitt then falls back on the existing legislation he will be subject to administrative and judicial and now because of the High Court decision earlier this month in the New Acland Coal case(1) will be completely stopped with his proposals if the opposing community at Kimba start their legal action since their situation is one real and not just apprehend bias as in that case
Should that litigation ensue then practically all written material held by the government in all its guises will be fully disclosed through the litigation procedure of discovery
From my limited personal knowledge of some of that material it will prove extremely embarrassing and your government will not be able to claim any privilege to prevent its disclosure
This is the view of several senior lawyers including some retired superior court judges but ask the attorney should you have any doubts
Perhaps the most pertinent aspect of the whole situation is the proposal for Kimba will in any event fail to get any of the necessary licences as ARPANSA is already being criticised for not carrying out its proper regulatory functions with respect to ANSTO and as a result the licence applications will be subject to an overseas peer review which will completely remove the licensing process from your government and its agencies
In any case ANSTO is already under a cloud due to its dismal performance and awkward responses at the Senate estimates hearing on 29 October 2020 which will I understand be subject to further extensive questioning and explanations
Please bear in mind that I was the source of the information for the questioning senators and the further questions to be asked due to the complete inadequacy of the responses by ANSTO to the notified questions(2)
I therefore suggest that you and Dean Smith as the government whips withdraw the bill before it becomes a further embarrassment to your government in a possible election year
With kind regards
Peter Remta
(1). Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inv v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors
High Court Case No.B34/2020
(2). SENATE ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Estimates
Hansard THURSDAY 29 OCTOBER 2020
Senator Abetz pages 11 to 13 and Senator Carr pages 5 to 11
News Corpse fervently promoting nuclear power to Australia
From THE AUSTRALIAN, 17 Feb 21, ‘‘Think of the deaths that could have been avoided, since installing solar panels and wind turbines is a surprisingly dangerous exercise. The death toll from solar power per unit of energy supplied is more than five times as high as the death toll from nuclear, according to estimates from Cambridge House in Canada. By the same measure, nuclear power is 1000 times safer than coal and 400 times safer than natural gas. Yet still Albanese persists with the lame excuse that nuclear power is too dangerous to consider.”
Cambridge House doesn’t seem like a credible source for deaths in different power sources.
Maybe not the most reliable source of info, journalist at The Australian.
Some excellent scientists did, in fact, do meticulous studies, and documented illnesses,deaths, birth defects resulting from the Chernobyl disaster. The Russian government happily collaborated with the West in a successful campaign to discredit those scientists. Most notably Alexey V. Yablokov – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment
Queensland neeeds job-supplying, clean, renewable energy, NOT antiquated nuclear power
“What regional Queensland needs is an Australian government that is united on growing manufacturing and delivering cleaner, cheaper, energy.
“Not a Government that is tearing itself apart and proposing antiquated solutions.”
LNP comes clean on plans for Queensland nuclear power, https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/91502 18 February, 2021
The LNP’s latest thought bubble on energy policy has again exposed the rifts in the coalition party room, Energy, Renewables and Hydrogen Minister Mick de Brenni said today.
Mr de Brenni said the LNP’s latest announcement to bring nuclear energy to Queensland would not be welcome by the public.
“Queenslanders have emphatically rejected nuclear power time and time again and today’s revelation flies in the face of every State and Territory’s nuclear ban,” the Minister said.
“Inner city Liberals are pushing renewables, Nationals are nuclear and the result is the lack of a coherent national energy policy.
“Manufacturing and resources companies are investing in cheaper, cleaner energy to grow jobs in Queensland by investing in renewables, not old fashioned, dangerous options.
“Queensland’s renewable energy zones have been flooded with enough interest to create 60,000 megawatts of extra clean energy, which could create up to 57,000 jobs in construction alone, let alone the influx of load intensive manufacturing jobs…
“This ongoing investment in large-scale renewable energy is only happening because of Queensland’s very clear energy policy.
“What regional Queensland needs is an Australian government that is united on growing manufacturing and delivering cleaner, cheaper, energy.
“Not a Government that is tearing itself apart and proposing antiquated solutions.”
Mr de Brenni said the Queensland Opposition Leader should immediately reject the calls and ask his party for a coherent energy policy.
“He should call his Queensland federal colleagues today to put an end to calls to bring nuclear energy to Queensland,” Mr de Brenni said.
“Any decision to overturn the Australian ban on nuclear by the LNP has the potential to kill off Queensland’s chance to onshore manufacturing and the Palaszczuk Government’s plans to develop a clean, renewable hydrogen sector and thousands of renewable jobs.”
“Queensland’s renewable energy zones have been flooded with enough interest to create 60,000 megawatts of extra clean energy, which could create up to 57,000 jobs in construction alone, let alone the influx of load intensive manufacturing jobs.
“And we have the youngest fleet of coal-fired power stations.
“This ongoing investment in large-scale renewable energy is only happening because of Queensland’s very clear energy policy.
“What regional Queensland needs is an Australian government that is united on growing manufacturing and delivering cleaner, cheaper, energy.
“Not a Government that is tearing itself apart and proposing antiquated solutions.”
Mr de Brenni said the Queensland Opposition Leader should immediately reject the calls and ask his party for a coherent energy policy.
“He should call his Queensland federal colleagues today to put an end to calls to bring nuclear energy to Queensland,” Mr de Brenni said.
“Any decision to overturn the Australian ban on nuclear by the LNP has the potential to kill off Queensland’s chance to onshore manufacturing and the Palaszczuk Government’s plans to develop a clean, renewable hydrogen sector and thousands of renewable jobs.” Media contact: Rosie Gilbert 0466 834 330
Nationals add nuclear enthusiasm to the government’s energy bill
Nationals’ nuclear flare-up on energy bill https://au.news.yahoo.com/nuclear-ideal-cutting-emissions-joyce-222058648.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAG3X514QPdgktFOrKbKPrnzoSz6joD3PVpI6uSj2DBv3oIZTOIzUDZWnifcsw_SXXPYtt3h1orA3QYlShoI_rlgBn5o675_PqDys5-xmgpGOEFmBJ1ooQWfTzK9RMofsPeZk-CfshnVXybppn5h7kGhpqKtNAaeAVwv0YCeavNKn, Thu, 18 February 2021, The Nationals have gone nuclear on energy policy, flagging another amendment to their own government’s plans.
The government wants the bill to pass parliament next week so a raft of projects go ahead.
Former Nationals leader turned backbencher Barnaby Joyce has already wedged his colleagues by introducing an amendment which would allow the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in coal-fired power stations.
Now the Nationals Senate team wants the green bank to invest in nuclear power as well as carbon capture and storage.
The five Nationals senators led by Bridget McKenzie and Matt Canavan fronted a media conference promoting their plan.
“We compete against the world with one hand behind our back while other nations avail themselves of cutting edge, low emissions technologies,” Senator McKenzie said.
There is a longstanding moratorium on nuclear energy generation which has been maintained by both Labor and coalition governments.
The coal and nuclear-pushing Nationals are putting renewed pressure on current leader Michael McCormack.
By introducing amendments to the government’s own bill they are forcing their colleagues to either vote for or against the original plan.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Mr McCormack has been a resilient leader, having already batted off an attempt from Mr Joyce to snatch back the party’s top job.
Mr Frydenberg said the Nationals and Liberals had so far worked effectively on energy under the current leaders.
“It’s a pretty complex area, as I know,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“If I took off my jacket I could show you the scars from being the energy minister.”
Mr Frydenberg was the minister behind the previous coalition government’s National Energy Guarantee, which played a role in Malcolm Turnbull’s downfall as prime minister.
Mr Joyce claims small modular nuclear reactors are ideal to replace decommissioned coal-fired power stations and reduce emissions.
“Nuclear reactors can do it,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“Why not, if you want zero emissions.”
Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese said nuclear energy in Australia doesn’t stack up.
“What we are witnessing here is just a part of the chaos that is the coalition when it comes to energy policy,” he said.
The Nationals argue the $1 billion grid reliability fund to be run out of the CEFC should support small nuclear energy projects and get involved in developing the technology.
The Australian Conservation Foundation says there’s nothing clean about nuclear, coal or gas.
“Nuclear is not a credible climate response and has been repeatedly rejected by the market and the community,” ACF spokesman Dave Sweeney said.
Australia a renewables leader – or the Saudi Arabia of nuclear energy”
Northern Territory Senator Dr Sam McMahon says she is “delighted” her push for nuclear has been backed, after the Nationals announced new amendments to a bill in favour of nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage.
Nationals Senators, led by Matt Canavan and Bridget McKenzie have announced a raft of amendments to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) bill to invest in nuclear power.
Senator McMahon says the drafted legislation supports her long-established calls to unlock nuclear energy…..
The Northern Territory, with our abundance of Uranium and potential nuclear fuel Thorium, should be the Saudi Arabia of nuclear energy.
But political activist group Get Up’s national director Paul Oosting says that as Australia forges ahead with solutions to the climate crisis, such as solar technology, the push for nuclear could delay climate action.
“Nuclear power is dangerous, unnecessary and colossally expensive. It would take more than a decade to build a nuclear reactor in Australia and cost billions. It’s the ultimate climate action delay tactic,” Mr Oosting said.
“Australia has an opportunity to position itself as a world leader in renewables. It’s critical this pivotal moment in our history not be squandered on obsolete and failing technologies that will lock in irreparable climate damage.”
Mr Oosting said he was concerned the clean energy corporation could become a “slush fund” for the coal, gas, and nuclear industry, and cautioned politicians from backing the bill.
“When Taylor’s Bill comes before Parliament, politicians who accept the seriousness of the climate crisis we face – of all parties and none – must act to ensure coal, gas, and nuclear are excluded from any definition of ‘low emissions technology’, the return-on-investment requirement is kept, and the independence of the CEFC board is maintained,” he said………….he said…………. https://www.hepburnadvocate.com.au/story/7134825/the-nt-should-be-the-saudi-arabia-of-nuclear-energy-senator-mcmahon/
Federal energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor wants to include dirty energy in Clean Energy Finance Corporation
Renew Economy 18th Feb 2021, The Morrison government is set for a fight from within over proposed changes to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, with a growing number of
Nationals looking to lift restrictions on investments in unproven fossil fuel technologies and nuclear energy projects.
Federal energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor has introduced legislation to establish a new $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund to be administered by the Clean Energy
Finance Corporation, that the government wants to use to underwrite new gas and storage projects, which would require re-defining gas as a ‘low emissions technology’.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is restricted to only investing in ‘low emissions technologies’, and is explicitly prohibited from investing in nuclear energy technologies and carbon capture and storage projects.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/nationals-push-nuclear-in-new-attempt-to-highjack-cefc-changes/
Nothing clean about nuclear, coal or gas – Australian Conservation Foundation
The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged parliamentarians not to undermine Australia’s successful clean energy bank by changing its mandate to invest in dirty, dangerous energy options like gas, coal and nuclear.
The government’s Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill, which would give Energy Minister Angus Taylor power to direct the CEFC to invest in technologies that are not renewable and make investments that would not generate a financial return, is listed for debate today in the House of Representatives.
Some government MPs and Senators want the CEFC to be able to fund coal and nuclear.
“Undermining the popular and successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation would be a massive own goal,” said ACF campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“Talking up nuclear and new coal-fired power plants is a dangerous distraction from facing up to Australia’s very real energy challenges and choices.
“There is nothing clean about the fuel behind the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters, which produces waste that remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years.
“There is no such thing as clean coal and the CEFC wouldn’t be considered a trusted investment partner if it was expected to invest in this outdated, dirty technology.
“Despite the urgent need to cut climate pollution – which is why the CEFC was established – no country in the world is choosing to set up a nuclear industry from scratch.
“When it comes to climate action, nuclear power is a dead end. The reactors that exist are expensive and risky; the promised new reactors don’t exist. Nuclear is not a credible climate response and has been repeatedly rejected by the market and the community.
“To spruik nuclear as the world approaches the tenth anniversary of the Fukushima disaster is an act of wilful blindness and political convenience – a fission fig leaf for politicians stuck in a previous century.
“Australia’s energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
ACF is proud to have come up with the idea of a Clean Energy Finance Corporation in a 2010 report, Funding the transition to a clean economy.
Australian Liberal National Coalition enthusiastic for nuclear power
Coalition MPs in drive for nuclear energy, THE AUSTRALIAN, 17 Feb 21, Nationals senators have drafted legislation allowing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in nuclear power as two-thirds of Coalition MPs backed lifting the ban on the controversial fuel source.
The block of five Nationals senators, led by Bridget McKenzie and Matt Canavan, will move an amendment to legislation establishing a $1bn arm at the green bank to allow it to invest in nuclear generators, high-energy, low-emissions (HELE), coal-fired power stations and carbon capture and storage technology.
The Nationals’ move comes as a survey of 71 Coalition backbenchers conducted by The Australian revealed that 48 were in favour of lifting the longstanding prohibition on nuclear power in the EPBC act.
Liberal MPs Andrew Laming, John Alexander and Gerard Rennick are among backbenchers who want Scott Morrison to take a repeal of the nuclear ban to the upcoming election ……
The new amendment proposed by the Nationals would go further than Mr Joyce’s push by ensuring the CEFC — established by the Gillard government in 2012 to invest in green energy initiatives — could help kick-start nuclear projects as well as new clean coal plants……..
Out of the 71 Coalition backbenchers surveyed by The Australian, only Queensland senator Paul Scarr was opposed to changing the nuclear prohibition enshrined in the EPBC Act, citing a lack of community support “at this stage”. A further 22 backbenchers were undecided or did not respond to questions.
Other supporters of lifting the ban on nuclear generation, including Trent Zimmerman, Ted O’Brien and Rowan Ramsey, believe the government should not move ahead with legalising the energy source while the proposal is bitterly opposed by Labor.
In-principle support for lifting the nuclear prohibition is prevalent by members in every faction of the Coalition, which has been divided over climate change action since Tony Abbott became prime minister in 2013.
City-based Liberal MPs ……. including Jason Falinski, Tim Wilson, Katie Allen, Andrew Bragg and Dave Sharma — argue that nuclear should be an option in a technology-agnostic approach …..
The Prime Minister has signalled he will not move ahead with legalising nuclear energy unless there is bipartisan support with Labor. MPs told The Australian Mr Morrison was unlikely to pursue a policy change on the issue in this term of parliament. However, small modular nuclear reactors were included as a potential technology in the federal government’s technology investment roadmap discussion paper………..
Mr Tim Wilson attacked Labor and the Greens as nuclear science deniers. …….
Many government MPs acknowledge the power source is not currently competitive on price, but say investment decisions should be a matter for private companies and lifting the nuclear ban would encourage technological advancement..
Other Liberal MPs in favour of lifting the prohibition are: Warren Entsch, Russell Broadbent, James Stevens, Ian Goodenough, Rick Wilson, David Fawcett, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Sarah Henderson, Hollie Hughes, James McGrath, Jim Molan, Julian Simmonds, Bert van Manen, Ben Small, Dean Smith, David Van, Terry Young and James Paterson.
Nationals MPs who want the energy source legalised include Anne Webster, Damian Drum, Perin Davey, Llew O’Brien, Sam McMahon, Susan McDonald and Ken O’Dowd.
Boothby MP Nicolle Flint has previously publicly backed nuclear power.
Mediation continuing over rehabilitation of Range uranium mine
Mediation continues behind closed doors, but the case is a clear reminder that commitments are not set in stone and that clean-up funding for even the most environmentally destructive projects is not guaranteed.
While national and/or state law jurisdictions regulate specific requirements for closure and associated financial assurance, which also determine the period of rehabilitation, it is essential that members of the mining community are aware of applicable law and regulation in all jurisdictions of operation……….
“In the context of price volatility, investment shifts and now Covid-19, many major companies have been mothballing operations and selling mines to juniors, smaller and/or less resourced companies around the world. The most notable may be Blair Athol coal mine in Queensland, sold for $1 in 2016.”
The socio-economic and financial arrangements for closure agreements are especially important in order to avoid dumping the costs on taxpayers and society .
How long should a miner commit to oversight? https://www.mining-technology.com/news/mining-rio-tinto/ Yoana Cholteeva11 February 2021
A subsidiary of Rio Tinto is currently in mediation with the Australian Government over continuing commitments to scientific monitoring of the Ranger mine. We examine the dispute and take a look at some positive examples of land remediation.
Land rehabilitation as part of mining oversight is an essential process where the land in a mining area is returned to some degree of its former state. Recently, a new dispute over the rehabilitation of the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory of Australia, owned by a Rio Tinto subsidiary, once again reignited the debate over how long a miner should maintain oversight once operations have stopped.
Rio Tinto’s oversight dilemma
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
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
Antinuclear 