Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

  • Home
  • 1 This month.
  • Disclaimer
  • Kimba waste dump Submissions

Frank Simpson warns against the pollution of Victoria’s agricultural land by thorium/uranium mining

Risk in contaminating a prime green food producing region of Victoria. (3) This implies all stages of the fuel cycle from exploration to waste repository storage.
The Act should not be amended to permit exploration for or the mining of uranium and thorium (derived from monazite or thorianite). . Such activities need to be prohibited.
Excerpts from Submission to Victorian Nuclear Prohibition Inquiry from Frank Simpson no 24 
“……Water‐related risk management 
In the event of a serious accident, such as an overheated reactor, a nuclear power plant is required by federal regulation to have an emergency supply of water that can continue to cool the plant for at least 30 days. These water sources, called Ultimate Heat Sinks (UHS), are used to cool the reactor, which will continue to produce heat long after it is turned off. During an accident, a UHS may need to supply 10,000 to 30,000 gallons of water per minute for emergency cooling. A UHS can be the same water source used for power plant cooling (lake, river, or ocean) or it can be a separate, dedicated water supply.
When nuclear plants draw water from natural water sources, fish and other wildlife get caught in the cooling system water intake structures. While this is an issue for all power plants with water‐cooled systems, a study completed in 2005 in Southern California indicates that the problem is more acute for nuclear facilities. The study investigated impacts from 11 coastal power plants and estimated that in 2003, a single nuclear plant killed close to 3.5 million fish‐‐32 times more than the combined impact of all of the other plants in the study. …….
  Waste storage  
  There are no Economic, environmental and social benefits for Victoria,in including those related to exploration and mining;of uranium & thorium because : Risks In Mining Uranium http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/longstaff1/ Uranium mining facilities produce tailings that generally are disposed of in near surface impoundments close to the mine. These tailings pose serious environmental and health risks in the form of Randon emission, windblown dust dispersal and leaching of contaminants including heavy metals and arsenic into the water. [5] Historically in many countries around the world these risks have been politicized as they have disproportionately affected low income and minority populations. For example, from 1944‐1986 the United States extracted 4 million tons of Uranium ore from and left 500 abandoned mines in native Navajo territories. In that time the rates of lung cancer and other diseases effecting Navajo living near the mine rose drastically. [5] While the Navajo eventually were able to ban mining on their land these problems still exist within other communities today and should not be overlooked in considering the future of Uranium mines.
  Water Usage https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/water‐nuclear Mining – Uranium mining consumes one to six gallons of water per million Btus of thermal energy output, depending on the mining method.[6] Mining uranium also produces waste that can contaminate local water sources, and which can be especially dangerous given the radioactivity of some of the materials involved. Processing – Uranium processing consumes seven to eight gallons of water for every million Btus of thermal output.[7],[8]
Milling – The milling process uses a mix of liquid chemicals to increase the fuel’s uranium content ; milling leaves behind uranium‐depleted ore that must be placed in settling ponds to evaporate the milling liquids.[9] Enrichment – The next step, enriching the gaseous uranium to make it more effective as a fuel accounts for about half of the water consumed in uranium processing. The conventional enrichment method in the United States is gas diffusion, which uses significantly more water than the gas centrifuge approach popular in Europe[10],[11] Fuel Fabrication – Fabrication involves bundling the enriched uranium into fuel rods in preparation for the nuclear reactor.
  Risk in contaminating a prime green food producing region of Victoria. (3) This implies all stages of the fuel cycle from exploration to waste repository storage. Victoria does not need o participate in the nuclear fuel cycle.for the reasons given in 1 & 2 above plus waste repository storage risks as per https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear‐waste are: Nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after it is no longer useful in a commercial reactor. The resulting waste disposal problem has become a major challenge for policymakers as the search for a repository site has stalled, with no resolution likely in the near future. The Union Of Concerned Scientists opposes reprocessing because it increases proliferation and terrorism risks while actually adding to the waste problem rather than reducing it. https://greentumble.com/nuclear‐waste‐storage‐and‐disposal‐problems/
in reality there is no such thing as a safe exposure to nuclear waste and the poisonous radiation it produces. Because of its tremendous toxicity, which will make it lethal for tens of thousands of years or longer, high‐level nuclear waste is not fit for conventional disposal. It must be stored in safe, secure locations, in durable containers that won’t crack, leak, or be vulnerable to damage from bombs, earthquakes, or high‐powered weapons used in military or terrorist attacks.
Conclusion   based upon the above facts The Act should not be amended to permit exploration for or the mining of uranium and thorium (derived from monazite or thorianite). . Such activities need to be prohibited.   ……. …https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4348

February 20, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Victoria | Leave a comment

Greens in the Senate will oppose bill to storage nuclear waste at Kimba farm

Greens to oppose bill to storage nuclear waste at SA farm, Queensland Country Life, Jamieson Murphy@jamiesonmurph18 Feb 2020, THE government may have to negotiate with the Senate crossbench to get through legislation that will transform a South Australian farm into a nuclear waste facility, after the Greens declared their opposition to the bill.

The Kimba farm, which was voluntarily nominated and chosen after a four-year search, would store medical nuclear waste for 100 years.

South Australian Senator and Greens nuclear spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young said her party would work to block the “offensive” legislation.

“The federal government wants to dump on South Australia and we won’t leave it to the community of Kimba to hold the line on their own,” Senator Hanson-Young said.

“It is wrong to say there is broad community support. Traditional Owners have rejected the proposal. Once again the Morrison government and [former Resource] Minister Canavan haven’t listened.

“A government minister from Queensland thinks South Australia is the place to dump and it’s deeply offensive to the people of SA.

“Every South Australian should be concerned this government is more interested in building a radioactive waste dump than they are in investing in renewable energy and our growing potential for green industry.”

Labor resource spokesperson Joel Fitzgibbon did not respond to questions about whether his party would support the bill.

The recently appointed Resource Minister Keith Pitt introduced the legislation to the House of Representatives last week – just two weeks after the Kimba site was announced – where the government will have the numbers to pass the bill.

With the Greens opposing the bill in the Senate and Labor not stating its position, the government will need the backing of either the Centre Alliance or One Nation to carry the bill.

A spokesperson for Mr Pitt said the new minister was “working with other parties to deliver the outcome”.

“Minister Pitt wants bipartisan support on the National Radiation Waste Management Bill,” the spokesperson said.

“This bill has been 40 years in the making and the establishment of a national radioactive waste facility is a national priority.”

South Australian Energy and Mining Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan said the federal legislation would override SA’s state legislation….. https://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/story/6635712/greens-to-oppose-bill-to-storage-nuclear-waste-at-sa-farm/?cs=4704&fbclid=IwAR17gRLqP-DpCp_Ya5UqDUHu0Tj7y3siBi04TWo1wktCu-ZqtuBRG-PVyaE

February 20, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Solar thermal energy the way forward for Australia- says nuclear expert

Dr Wilson described nuclear power as simply “too risky”.

He also said the cost factor was also a major deterrent from going nuclear.

“It’s not the cost of building it. They are expensive to build and they are expensive to run but it’s the cost of demolition when it gets to the end of its life,” he said.

“Nuclear is not cheap, it’s not safe, and will be destructive to key Queensland industries like agriculture and tourism.”

Solar thermal power the way forward for Australia despite hiccups, nuclear expert says 

 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-18/solar-thermal-power-should-be-major-export-expert-says/11971938?fbclid=IwAR3zjCStZwOvdHFGY0EtSWxu4oQ0i43QAgm6O9S5YNW5I3KKna370tb7KtQ  ABC Radio Brisbane 

By Rebeka Powell  19 Feb 2020, As the world looks to Germany as a shining example of how to shift away from polluting coal power, a Queensland-based nuclear expert says solar thermal power is the way forward for Australia.

Key points:

  • Paul Wilson, a nuclear and solar expert, says Australia should not only be using solar thermal power but selling it
  • Dr Wilson says there is “no engineering impediment” and a network of small systems could support the country
  • A parliamentary inquiry last year recommended a partial lifting of the moratorium on nuclear power plants

Paul Wilson is an electrical and control systems engineer with almost five decades’ experience who has previously made submissions to the parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power.

Dr Wilson told ABC Radio Brisbane’s Steve Austin he was disappointed Australia was not showing leadership or innovation in renewables.

“We’re very good in Australia at innovation and at engineering and I think we should take a leaf out of the German book,” he told the Drive program.

“And they’re basically trying to systematically close down their coal mining industry but they’re doing it by replacing jobs. So they’re deliberately setting out, for every job that is lost in coal mining, they’re trying to create another job. Continue reading →

February 20, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics | Leave a comment

Religious leaders urge ScottyFromMarketing to move Australia away from fossil fuels

Faith leaders press PM on climate action, Herald Sun 

Heather McNab, Australian Associated Press

February 20, 2020 

Religious leaders have appealed to Prime Minister Scott Morrison as a “fellow person of faith” to heed climate science following the country’s catastrophic bushfire season.

The open letter – signed by 18 Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and other faith leaders – urges Mr Morrison to show leadership and urgently transition Australia away from fossil fuels.

The signatories include: Dr Peter Catt, the Dean of St John’s Anglican Cathedral in Brisbane, the Most Reverend Vincent Long Van Nguyen OFM, Chair of the Catholic Bishops Commission on Justice, Mission and Service Muslims Australia president Dr Rateb Jneid and Buddhist Council of NSW Religious leaders have appealed to Prime Minister Scott Morrison as a “fellow person of faith” to heed climate science following the country’s catastrophic bushfire season.

The open letter – signed by 18 Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and other faith leaders – urges Mr Morrison to show leadership and urgently transition Australia away from fossil fuels.

The signatories include: Dr Peter Catt, the Dean of St John’s Anglican Cathedral in Brisbane, the Most Reverend Vincent Long Van Nguyen OFM, Chair of the Catholic Bishops Commission on Justice, Mission and Service Muslims Australia president Dr Rateb Jneid and Buddhist Council of NSW president Dr Gawaine Powell Davies…. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/faith-leaders-press-pm-on-climate-action/news-story/48ebb95e2fdee026ccc593583ea622ab

February 20, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics, religion and ethics | Leave a comment

Divisions within both Liberal and Labor parties over Coal

Anthony Albanese backs Adani coalmine but criticises proposed Collinsville power plant  The ALP leader says a feasibility study into a new coal-fired power station in Queensland is ‘hush money’ for climate sceptics.  Guardian,  Katharine Murphy Political editor
 @murpharoo, Wed 19 Feb 2020, Anthony Albanese says he supports jobs and economic activity from the Adani coalmine, but he has blasted a feasibility study into a new coal-fired power plant in Collinsville as “hush money” for climate sceptics in the Coalition……

Both the Coalition and Labor are battling divisions over climate policy and the future of coal.

The feasibility study examining Collinsville is proceeding because of strenuous lobbying by Queensland Nationals, but a number of Liberals have argued taxpayers should not be subsidising new coal plants.

While a majority of Labor MPs believe the opposition needs to stay the course on climate action, some in the party’s right argue the party needs to be more positive about the coal industry……. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/19/anthony-albanese-backs-adani-coalmine-but-criticises-proposed-collinsville-power-plant

February 20, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

143 Anti-Nuclear, 10 Pro Nuclear Submissions (published) to Victorian Parliament

Submissions published so far to the Victorian Government’s Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition  are running strongly  ANTI NUCLEAR   https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4348  

There are currently 143 submissions opposing the nuclear industry.

There are 10 submissions favouring the nuclear industry.  (You can bet that vested interests have sent in confidential submissions)

PRO nuclear 

1. Don Hampshire  ( with attack on ABC, The Age )
2 Robert Heron – vaguely
3 Terje- Petesen
116 Leah McDermott
122 Simon Brink
123 CFMMEU Mining and Energy Division   21 Azark  26 Buchanan, Bill    27   Murphy, Barry      28  Patterson, John

ANTI nuclear
4 Jessica Lawson    5 Pro Forma list of 122 contributors    48 Janet Nixon     49 Karen Furniss          63 Graeme Tyschsen        68 Barbara Devine 76 Vivien Smith
77 Lachlan Dow         81 RVS Industries       92 Alan Hewett and Joan Jones    103 Anne Wharton       106 John Quiggin   vague        107 Amy Butcher     109 Nick Pastalatzis            112 Philip White      22 Friends of the Earth      23 Derek Abbott    24 Simpson, Frank  25 Wauchope, Noel      29 Wissink, Bart     30  Sharp, Robyn    31, Smith, Colin

 

February 18, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Victoria | Leave a comment

Labor stays strongly against nuclear power, despite pro nuke push from one union

Labor bipartisanship on nuclear energy needed: AWU,Australian Financial Revieew Phillip Coorey – Political Editor, Feb 18, 2020
The Australian Workers’ Union has stepped up its call for Australia to embrace nuclear power by urging Labor leader Anthony Albanese to provide the political bipartisanship that is needed.  …….

Two weeks ago, after appointing nuclear power advocate Keith Pitt to cabinet as Resources Minister, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the government was not about to change its policy of opposing nuclear power unless there was bipartisan support and an agreed solution to deal with waste.
A spokesman for Mr Albanese said there would be no change in policy .……

Like other pro-nuclear advocates, Mr Walton supports small modular reactors. He also accepts that if Labor were in government, nuclear power would not be an option for it.

“Nuclear is probably not the solution Labor would opt for if we were in government. But we’re not, and politics is the art of the possible,” he says……

In the Coalition, the Nationals are hardening against a proposal floated by Mr Morrison and Energy Minister Angus Taylor to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
On Monday, Mr Morrison was very cautious.

“I don’t sign up on anything if I can’t look Australians in the eye and see how much it will cost,” he said.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/labor-bipartisanship-on-nuclear-energy-needed-awu-20200217-p541eh

February 18, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | 1 Comment

For Australia “business as usual” on climate change, will cost many $billions


Australia faces a multi-billion dollar economic hit without strong climate action 
https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2020/02/australia-faces-a-multi-billion-dollar-economic-hit-without-strong-climate-action/  

________________________________
Inaction on climate change could cost the global economy up to US$9.87 trillion by 2050,
Pro Bono, 17th February 2020, Luke Michael   A “business as usual” approach to tackling climate change would cost the Australian economy at least $29 billion a year, new research shows.A report from the World Wide Fund for Nature calculated the economic cost for 140 countries if the world doesn’t urgently act on the global environmental crisis.

Australia was ranked the fifth worst affected nation by the loss of nature over the next 30 years, with the country’s annual income set to decline by 1.43 per cent by 2050.

WWF-Australia economist Joshua Bishop said across all countries the reduction was 0.67 per cent, meaning Australia was projected to lose more than twice the global average.“Because so much of Australia’s population, infrastructure and service sector output is concentrated in coastal areas, we are more vulnerable than most to sea level rise and storm surges,” Bishop said.

WWF noted that the damage could be much worse than anticipated, as the economic cost calculated did not consider the destruction from future bushfire emergencies.

The study used new economic and environmental modelling to assess the macroeconomic impact if the world continued a “business as usual” approach to the environment.

This approach – which includes continued greenhouse gas emissions increases, and further loss of natural habitats – would cost the world up to US$9.87 trillion (A$14.68 trillion) by 2050.

Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International, said the study showed how conserving nature was not only a moral issue but a social and economic one.

“People across the world are already feeling the impact of rising food prices, droughts, commodity shortages, extreme flooding and coastal erosion,” Lambertini said.

“Yet for the next generation things will be many times worse, with trillions wiped off world economies by 2050.”

The report said if land-use was better managed in the future to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services, it would deliver dramatically better economic outcomes.

Under this scenario, global GDP would rise by $490 billion a year above the business as usual calculation, while damage to Australia’s GDP would be halved to $14.3 billion by 2050.

Bishop said this highlighted the opportunity Australia had “to save billions by protecting our coastal areas, forests and woodlands and becoming a world leader in renewable energy”.
Meanwhile, new analysis from the Australian Conservation Foundation has found that fossil fuel industry donations to Australia’s major political parties have more than doubled over the past four years.

Australian Electoral Commission data revealed that the coal, oil and gas industry’s political donations grew from $894,336 in 2015-16 to $1.9 million in 2018-19.

This figure excludes Clive Palmer’s $83.7 million donation to his own party.

ACF’s democracy campaigner Jolene Elberth said these figures highlighted the extent of the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to buy political power in Australia.

“As more Australians demand action on climate change and the pressure builds on politicians to take the problem seriously, the fossil fuel industry is doubling down by spending more money to influence public policy,” Elberth said.
“Serious donations reform is needed to curb the power of big money in politics which harms our natural world and drives more climate damage.” 

February 18, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Climate change extreme weather making parts of Australia uninsurable

Risks aren’t worth it’: QBE says parts of planet becoming uninsurable due to climate concerns,  SMH, Charlotte Grieve February 17, 2020  Global insurance giant QBE has warned climate change poses a material threat to its business and the entire economy as its chief executive Pat Regan said premiums were at risk of becoming too high in areas exposed to repeated, extreme weather……

Mr Regan said there had always been parts of the world that were difficult to insure. But as floods and fires become have dominated headlines this summer, this risk was increasing across “swathes of Australia” and could potentially price out customers from home and business property insurance.

He said climate change was a “big topic” in the sector, requiring the insurance giant to “up its game on a number of fronts”. QBE boosted its reinsurance program for catastrophic events to $2 billion in a process that would be reassessed each year, he said. …..

“The evidence is there for all to see that the amount of weather events globally, not just in Australia, is consistently rising and most of the worst years on record have happened in the last 10 years.”

“The most prone ones [areas] are the ones we see in the news frequently,” Mr Regan said, referencing the Queensland floods and east coast fires…… https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/qbe-warns-of-climate-risk-as-300m-hit-to-revenue-alongside-unusual-weather-20200217-p541e3.html

February 18, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Australian public unaware of the dangers of small nuclear reactors

Thorium advocates say that thorium reactors produce little radioactive waste, however, they simply produce a different spectrum of waste from traditional reactors, including many dangerous isotopes with extremely long half-lives. Technetium 99 has a half-life of 300,000 years and iodine 129 a half-life of 15.7 million years. 

 

HELEN CALDICOTT: The dangers of nuclear power in Australia https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/helen-caldicott-the-dangers-of-nuclear-power-in-australia,13597

By Helen Caldicott | 16 February 2020  Long-time anti-nuclear campaigner and writer Dr Helen Caldicott believes the risks of nuclear power outweigh the benefits.

AS AUSTRALIA grapples with the notion of introducing nuclear power as an energy source, it is imperative that people understand the intricacies of these new technologies including small modular reactors (SMR) and thorium reactors.

There are basically three types of SMRs which generate less than 300 megawatts of electricity compared to current 1000 megawatt reactors.

Light water reactors designs – smaller versions of present-day pressurised water reactors – will be built underground but with the same attendant problems as those at Fukushima and Three Mile Island.

They will be mass-produced, so large numbers must be sold yearly to make a profit, and should a safety problem arise like the Boeing Dreamliner plane, they all will have to be shut down interfering substantially with electricity supply.

SMRs will be expensive because the cost of unit capacity increases with decrease in the size of the reactor. To alleviate costs, it is suggested that safety rules be relaxed including reducing security requirements and a reduction in the 10-mile emergency planning zone to 1000 feet.

High-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR) or pebble bed reactors Continue reading →

February 17, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, reference, technology | Leave a comment

South Australia’s grain exports could be at risk, if Kimba nuclear waste dump goes ahead

Paul Waldon   Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 17 Feb 20,
Guidelines set by ARPANSA may suggest concerns for radioactive waste in an agriculture environment. These concerns are reaffirmed with Dr Yury Bandazhevsky’s study where he reported the health impacts in children around Belarus after 1986, this is where he states that the biomagnification of radioactive food ingested at a rate of 10 becquerels per kilo of contaminated food daily over a period of 500 days will culminate in a reading of 1400 Becquerels per kilo of body weight.

Keeping in mind the safe standard for radioactive contaminated food in Australia is 1200 becquerels, which fails to keep up with the safer standards of Japan at only 100 becquerels per kilo. Not only is Japans standards safer than ours but Australia’s grain export to Japan is about $646 million per year, and that could be in jeopardy if the program to turn Kimba into a radioactive dump proceeds.

Dr Bandazhevsky’s study came with the added problem of finding children of Belarus free of contamination, there was also a health cluster in children now recorded and known as Chernobyl heart, a condition of multiple holes in the heart, due to radioactive exposure.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/

February 17, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business, Federal nuclear waste dump, health, South Australia | Leave a comment

NukeMap – what if Australian cities were hit by a nuclear bomb

What Happens If Australia Is Hit By A Nuclear Bomb? lifehacker, Jackson Ryan | Feb 16, 2020, “….NUKEMAP provides a few different readouts for each map with colour coded rings :

  • The yellow ring is the size of the nuclear fireball
  • The red ring denotes the air blast zone where 20 psi of pressure is felt – enough to damage concrete buildings
  • The green ring denotes the radiation diameter – within this ring, you would receive a 500 rem radiation dose. That’s enough to kill 65-90% of all exposed within 30 days.
  • The grey ring denotes the air blast zone where 5 psi of pressure is felt
  • The orange ring is the thermal radiation zone – if you are within this ring you receive third degree burns that extend through the layers of the skin.

The most recent bomb tested by North Korea was reportedly around 50 kilotons. So if we used that as a base, what would the damage from a 50 kiloton nuclear bomb do to:

Sydney

If a nuclear bomb of this size were to drop over the harbour bridge, then the bridge would be completely engulfed by the nuclear fireball. The amount of pressure emanating from the explosion would destroy Luna Park, most of Kirribilli, including the Prime Minister’s residence and the Opera House. Circular Quay would see an extreme amount of damage and radiation. Darling Harbour wouldn’t be subjected to quite the same amount of instantly fatal pressure, but anyone in the area would still be badly injured.

Melbourne

The size of the nuclear fireball would destroy Melbourne’s CBD and the resulting pressure from the explosion would flatten the land around it. Most of the iconic landmarks in Melbourne’s inner city would be gone.

Brisbane

Brisbane City would be engulfed by the fireball and Suncorp Stadium would take a huge hit. Most of the bridges in the area would need to withstand huge pressures and the thermal radiation causing third degree burns would reach out as far as Fortitude Valley, one of the more busy night strips in Brisbane. …..

Adelaide

Adelaide’s CBD would be mostly non-existent, with the fireball engulfing a large portion and the overpressure extending from North to South Terrace. Rundle Mall would be hit hard and you wouldn’t expect Adelaide Oval to remain standing, either. The thermal radiation would extend out as far as the parade in Norwood and almost entirely cover North Adelaide.

Perth

Owing to its place right next to the Swan River, Perth City may not see the same level of immediate fatalities but the destruction would be extensive. The thermal radiation ring would extend from the centre of the CBD out to the Perth Zoo and as far as Lake Monger. The famous Perth Mint would sadly be caught in the 5psi overpressure zone, a space where most buildings collapse.

Canberra

Parliament House as a target, would be completely decimated by the fireball and the 20psi overpressure would flatten everything as far as National Circuit. The National Library, the National Museum and the National Gallery would also likely crumble under the pressure of the air blast. The Australian War Memorial and the Royal Australian Mint would fall just outside the thermal radiation zone.

Hobart

A direct hit on Hobart’s CBD would see a lot of the blast rip across the River Derwent. The fireball would circle most of the city, while the overpressure blast would extend up Elizabeth Street and out to the Salamanca Market. The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens would receive a huge amount of thermal radiation, which would reach across the Tasman Highway bridge and into Rosny.

Darwin

The size of an atomic bomb blast of this size would take out a lot of Darwin’s waterfront, but the thermal radiation wouldn’t extend all the way across Charles Darwin National Park but, provided it hit the CBD, the overpressure air blast would do incredible damage all the way through the city and across to the Gardens…..

…….. https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/02/how-much-damage-would-a-nuclear-bomb-do-to-australian-capital-cities/


 

February 17, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia must learn to mine rare earths responsibly

 We Australians can be so righteous about our environmental credentials, but we don’t seem to notice the problems with renewable energy.

We must jump on to the circular economy.  If the world could RECYCLE rare earths elements –   there’d be so much less need for mining and processing of rare earths, with its problematic creation of radioactive wastes.

What is needed is DESIGN – clever design of all devices that use rare earths, so that these elements can be easily retrieved, to use again in new devices.
While renewable energy technologies are used in the same old way –  dig it up, throw away the wastes, we are locked in the  20th Century thinking – that also includes the aim of endless energy use, endless growth. 

Critical minerals are vital for renewable energy. We must learn to mine them responsibly Bénédicte Cenki-Tok, Associate professor at Montpellier University, EU H2020 MSCA visiting researcher, University of Sydney
https://theconversation.com/critical-minerals-are-vital-for-renewable-energy-we-must-learn-to-mine-them-responsibly-131547,  February 17, 2020 .  As the world shifts away from fossil fuels, we will need to produce enormous numbers of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries. Demand for the materials needed to build them will skyrocket.

This includes common industrial metals such as steel and copper, but also less familiar minerals such as the lithium used in rechargeable batteries and the rare earth elements used in the powerful magnets required by wind turbines and electric cars. Production of many of these critical minerals has grown enormously over the past decade with no sign of slowing down.

Australia is well placed to take advantage of this growth – some claim we are on the cusp of a rare earths boom – but unless we learn how to do it in a responsible manner, we will only create a new environmental crisis.

One consequence of a massive transition to renewables will be a drastic increase not only in the consumption of raw materials (including concrete, steel, aluminium, copper and glass) but also in the diversity of materials used.

Three centuries ago, the technologies used by humanity required half a dozen metals. Today we use more than 50, spanning almost the entire periodic table. However, like fossil fuels, minerals are finite.

Can we ‘unlearn’ renewables to make them sustainable?

If we take a traditional approach to mining critical minerals, in a few decades they will run out – and we will face a new environmental crisis. At the same time, it is still unclear how we will secure supply of these minerals as demand surges.

This is further complicated by geopolitics. China is a major producer, accounting for more than 60% of rare earth elements, and significant amounts of tungsten, bismuth and germanium.

This makes other countries, including Australia, dependent on China, and also means the environmental pollution due to mining occurs in China.

The opportunity for Australia is to produce its own minerals, and to do so in a way that minimises environmental harm and is sustainable.

Where to mine?

Australia has well established resources in base metals (such as gold, iron, copper, zinc and lead) and presents an outstanding potential in critical minerals. Australia already produces almost half of lithium worldwide, for example…….

Fuelling the transition

For most western economies, rare earth elements are the most vital. These have electromagnetic properties that make them essential for permanent magnets, rechargeable batteries, catalytic converters, LCD screens and more. Australia shows a great potential in various deposit types across all states.

The Northern Territory is leading with the Nolans Bore mine already in early-stage operations. But many other minerals are vital to economies like ours.

Cobalt and lithium are essential to ion batteries. Gallium is used in photodetectors and photovoltaics systems. Indium is used for its conductive properties in screens.

Critical minerals mining is seen now as an unprecedented economic opportunity for exploration, extraction and exportation.

Recent agreements to secure supply to the US opens new avenues for the Australian mining industry.

How can we make it sustainable?

Beyond the economic opportunity, this is also an environmental one. Australia has the chance to set an example to the world of how to make the supply of critical minerals sustainable. The question is: are we willing to?

Many of the techniques for creating sustainable minerals supply still need to be invented. We must invest in geosciences, create new tools for exploration, extraction, beneficiation and recovery, treat the leftover material from mining as a resource instead of waste, develop urban mining and find substitutes and effective recycling procedures.

In short, we must develop an integrated approach to the circular economy of critical minerals. One potential example to follow here is the European EURARE project initiated a decade ago to secure a future supply of rare earth elements.

More than ever, we need to bridge the gap between disciplines and create new synergies to make a sustainable future. It is essential to act now for a better planet.

 

February 17, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, rare earths | Leave a comment

Greens leader Adam Bandt seeks new deal with “renewable mining and manufacturing” sector

 New Greens leader Adam Bandt will tour Australia’s mining regions to promote his plan to create a “renewable mining and manufacturing” sector and repair his party’s poor relations with ­resources industry workers.    THE AUSTRALIAN , RICHARD FERGUSON FEBRUARY 16, 2020

New Greens leader Adam Bandt will tour Australia’s mining ­regions to promote his plan to create a “renewable mining and manufacturing” sector and repair his party’s poor relations with ­resources industry workers.

Mr Bandt — who started his tenure as leader saying big business was “killing people” — wants to shift the mining sector towards lithium and process materials such as iron ore in Australia to build a domestic “zero-carbon” manufacturing industry…. (subscribers only)

February 17, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics | Leave a comment

Australian government pushes on with nuclear dump, tramples on indigenous rights

Kimba nuke decision dumps on Indigenous rights, https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2020/02/13/kimba-nuke-decision-dumps-on-indigenous-rights/    The federal government’s decision to place a a nuclear waste storage site at Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula turned deaf ears to the opposition of the area’s native title holders, argue Jim Green and Michele Madigan.

The federal government recently announced that it plans to establish a national nuclear waste ‘facility’ near Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula.

It will comprise a permanent dump for low-level nuclear waste, and an ‘interim’ store for long-lived intermediate-level waste.

Shamefully, the federal government has decided to move ahead despite the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners, native title holders over the area.

The federal government refused a request from the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) to include traditional owners in a community ballot held last year.

So BDAC initiated a legal action protesting their exclusion. The court case is ongoing and an outcome is expected soon.

BDAC also engaged the Australian Election Company to conduct a confidential postal ballot. Not a single Barngarla Traditional Owner voted in favour of the dump.

BDAC wrote to the government calling for the dump proposal to be abandoned in light of their unanimous opposition, and stating that BDAC will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it being imposed on Barngarla Country against their will.

The National Radioactive Waste Management Act systematically discriminates against Australia’s First Nations.

For example, the nomination of a site for a nuclear dump is valid even if Aboriginal traditional owners were not consulted and did not give consent.

And the Act has sections which nullify or curtail the application of laws such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, and the Native Title Act 1993.

The federal government recently announced that it plans to amend the Waste Management Act. While the Act is sorely in need of an overhaul, the planned amendments aren’t those that are needed. Clauses in the Act that dispossess and disempower traditional owners will remain untouched.

The SA Labor Party argues that traditional owners ought to have a right of veto over nuclear projects given the sad and sorry history of the nuclear industry in SA, stretching back to the British atomic bomb tests.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition Susan Close says that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to the recent announcement regarding the Kimba site.

Compare that to the federal government, whose mind-set seems not to have advanced from the ‘Aboriginal natives shall not be counted’ clause in the Constitution Act 1900.

As Barngarla Traditional Owner Jeanne Miller says, Aboriginal people with no voting power are put back 50 years, “again classed as flora and fauna.”

The current debate follows a history of similar proposals ‒ all of them defeated, with traditional owners repeatedly leading successful campaigns.

In 2004, after a six-year battle, the Howard government abandoned plans for a national nuclear waste dump in SA. The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta ‒ a senior Aboriginal women’s council ‒ congratulated the government for belatedly getting their ‘ears out of their pockets’.

In 2016, the plan to import high-level nuclear waste from around the world was abandoned after a Citizens’ Jury noted the lack of Aboriginal consent and concluded that “the government should accept that the Elders have said NO and stop ignoring their opinions.”

And last year, the federal government abandoned plans for a national nuclear dump in the Flinders Ranges, a plan that was fiercely contested by Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners.

SA Premier Steven Marshall is rightly proud of his record promoting the growth of renewable energy in SA.

And he’s proud of his significant role in putting an end to the plan to import high-level nuclear waste from around the world.

So where will the Premier ‒ whose portfolio includes Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation ‒ stand on this latest nuclear controversy?

He needs, as the Kungkas put it, to get his ears out of his pockets and to respect the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla First Nation.

Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia. Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent the past 40 years working with Aboriginal people across SA.

February 15, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

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

No Nuclear Weapons in Australia

of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)

​To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity

– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/

  • Pages

    • 1 This month.
    • Disclaimer
    • Kimba waste dump Submissions
      • NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION
      • Submissions on Radioactive Waste Code 2018
      • SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE INQUIRY 18
    • – Alternative media
    • – marketing nuclear power
    • business and costs
    • – Spinbuster 2011
    • Nuclear and Uranium Spinbuster – theme for June 2013
    • economics
    • health
    • radiation – ionising
    • safety
    • Aborigines
    • Audiovisual
    • Autralia’s Anti Nuclear Movement – Successes
    • climate change – global warming
    • energy
    • environment
    • Fukushima Facts
    • future Australia
    • HEALTH and ENVIRONMENT – post Fukushma
    • media Australia
    • Peace movement
    • politics
    • religion – Australia
    • religion and ethics
    • Religion and Ethics
    • secrets and lies
    • Spinbuster
    • spinbuster
    • wastes
    • ethics and nuclear power – Australia
    • nuclear medicine
    • politics – election 2010
    • secrecy – Australia
    • SUBMISSIONS to 2019 INQUIRIES
    • weapons and war
  • Follow Antinuclear on WordPress.com
  • Follow Antinuclear on WordPress.com
  • Blogroll

    • Anti-Nuclear and Clean Energy Campaign
    • Beyond Nuclear
    • Exposing the truth about thorium nuclear propaganda
    • NUCLEAR INFORMATION
    • nuclear news Australia
    • nuclear-news
  • Categories

    • 1
    • ACTION
    • Audiovisual
    • AUSTRALIA – NATIONAL
      • ACT
      • INTERNATIONAL
      • New South Wales
      • Northern Territory
      • Queensland
      • South Australia
        • NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016
          • Nuclear Citizens Jury
          • Submissions to Royal Commission S.A.
            • significant submissions to 6 May
      • Tasmania
      • Victoria
      • Western Australia
    • Christina reviews
    • Christina themes
    • Fukushima
    • Fukushima 2022
    • General News
    • Japan
    • Olympic Dam
    • Opposition to nuclear
    • reference
    • religion and ethics
    • Resources
    • TOPICS
      • aboriginal issues
      • art and culture
      • business
        • employment
        • marketing for nuclear
      • civil liberties
      • climate change – global warming
      • culture
      • energy
        • efficiency
        • solar
        • storage
        • wind
      • environment
      • health
      • history
      • legal
      • media
      • opposition to nuclear
      • people
      • personal stories
      • politics
        • election 2013
        • election 2016
        • election 2019
        • Submissions Federal 19
      • politics international
      • religion and ethics
      • safety
        • – incidents
      • secrets and lies
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • rare earths
        • thorium
      • uranium
      • wastes
        • Federal nuclear waste dump
      • weapons and war
    • water
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • Wikileaks
    • women

Site info

Antinuclear
Blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Antinuclear
    • Join 865 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Antinuclear
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...