South Australia’s Liberals keen to weaken health and safety laws on uranium
Push to cut green tape for new uranium mines in South Australia, https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/push-to-cut-green-tape-for-new-uranium-mines-in-south-australia/news-story/5cee611673d15b550eabeb7210afdf8f?fbclid=IwAR3nf_aFghOlO3glVVwF964xz0H9dvJJ_GeX-libfDWV1ehu9o6R-allX2Q
29 Dec 19 “Unnecessary” green tape is choking the potential for lucrative new uranium mines in South Australia, the State Government says.
The Marshall Government is calling for Canberra to slash federal environmental approvals to pave the way for new mines as a once in a decade review of the nation’s environmental laws gets underway.
SA already has four of the country’s six uranium mines, which have produced 24,300 tonnes and $2.1 billion worth of uranium over five years.
But SA has made a submission to a federal inquiry into nuclear power calling for Canberra to axe the requirement for Commonwealth environmental approvals, in addition to state approvals, for new uranium mines.
It argues the removal of this duplication “will not diminish existing standards of regulation safety and compliance and will increase efficiency, reduce costs bourne by industry”.
It would also boost SA’s status as a “favourable investment destination”.
The submission notes “unnecessary” extra green tape is a “significant barrier to the viability of new uranium mine developments” in SA.
It also calls for changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to remove the ‘nuclear action trigger’ for uranium and other mines with naturally occurring radioactive minerals, to stop the need for federal approvals.
SA will push for the power to go it alone in a once in a decade review of the EPBC Act, currently being conducted by former ACCC chair Graeme Samuel.
A state government spokesman said SA wanted the federal and state approval duplications removed “so costs can be reduced and economic benefits increased”.
“The nature of our State’s geology means radioactive impurities found in other productive ores are inadvertently captured by the nuclear action trigger, and the review is an important opportunity to address this anomaly,” he said.
Two of SA’s uranium mines are operational, while Boss Resource’s Honeymoon mine is in the process of restarting.
BHP has also discovered copper, which uranium could potentially be found near, at the Oak Dam site 65km from its existing Olympic Dam mine.
New Liberal senator for SA Alex Antic has called for SA to look at using nuclear power generation along with a nuclear fuel waste storage facility, saying it could add
“billions of dollars from our participation in the nuclear fuel cycle”.
The state government’s submission said nuclear power was “unviable now and into the foreseeable future” in SA but noted it could be used in remote mining if small modular reactor technology advanced, although the state was currently looking at renewables with power storage for those situations.
The submission also highlighted that nuclear power could be viable in other states, which would create more demand for SA’s “significant” uranium deposits.
Senator Antic welcomed the possibility of next generation nuclear power technologies playing a role in SA’s future energy grid.
He hit out at nuclear power critics, saying: “Those who tell us that we are in the middle of a climate emergency can’t have their ideological cake and eat it too.”
“Nuclear power has proven to be virtually emission free, reliable, and safe.”
SA Chamber of Mines & Energy chief executive Rebecca Knol welcomed the call to slash “unnecessary duplication” of approvals, saying it could save an estimated $426 million in regulatory and operational costs.
It could help SA achieve its 3 per cent annual growth target, she said.
Mr Samuel is due to report to federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley by October.
A spokesman for the Minister said she had been clear that “stringent environmental protection” was fundamental to any review outcomes.
Evacuation of thousands as Victoria’s bushfires merge
LIVE: Victorian fires merge, thousands told to leave as fire danger worsens, 9 News, By Olivana Smith Lathouris • Producer Dec 30, 2019 With temperatures set to soar, around 30,000 residents and holiday-makers have been urged to evacuate in Victoria’s far east as fires rip through East Gippsland.– Firefighters expecting bushfire conditions in NSW to deteriorate with high temperatures and strong winds forecast in the lead-up to New Year’s Eve.
– Sydney’s NYE fireworks display is expected to go ahead but a final decision will be made later today…… https://www.9news.com.au/national/bushfires-near-me-live-coverage-victoria-nsw-residents-evacuated-ahead-of-catastrophic-fire-conditions/d2fd78c3-c1b4-46f9-adb7-ba2cf6d6a3b8
Horror bushfire conditions for Australia’s New Year’s Eve
Horror conditions predicted for NYE as mercury rises. news.com.au 30 Dec 19
Australians have been told to brace for catastrophic conditions as the heatwave continues, with the bushfire danger peaking on New Year’s.
Australians are in for a horror New Year’s Eve as a fresh heatwave engulfs at least three states, with temperatures expected to soar well past the 40C mark.
The NSW Rural Fire Service says about 2000 firefighters are preparing for peak bushfire conditions on Tuesday, warning travellers to monitor the fire situation before they leave home.
Massive fires continue to rage across NSW, with 85 fires burning statewide — 36 of which remain out of control.
Persistent, large bushfires at Gospers Mountain northwest of Sydney, Green Wattle Creek southwest of Sydney and the Shoalhaven area continue to burn, with authorities admitting only rain will put them out….
The Bureau of Meteorology has predicted the extreme heat will peak on the final day of the year, sparking fears of a last-minute cancellation of Sydney’s Harbour’s $6.5m pyrotechnics display. …..
But the City of Sydney confirmed this morning the fireworks would go ahead, despite the heightened bushfire risk…..
VICTORIANS WARNED TO FLEE
Meanwhile residents in Victoria’s far east have been warned to flee as an out-of-control blaze rages amid worsening fire conditions.
People in Goongerah and Martins Creek have been told to evacuate as a bushfire burning easterly towards their communities is still not under control today. ….. https://www.news.com.au/national/horror-conditions-predicted-for-nye-as-mercury-rises/news-story/b8db8480d57d6c9d72404caf5ffa6c52
South Australia facing hightened bushfire conditions, as blazes continue
 ‘Elevated fire conditions’ to hit South Australia on Monday as firefighters continue to battle blazes ABC, 29 Dec 19Key points:
Extreme temperatures, damaging winds and severe thunderstorms are expected to grip much of South Australia on Monday, prompting a “severe to extreme” fire rating for most of the state. The conditions have prompted the Country Fire Service (CFS) to warn those in bushfire-prone areas to remain vigilant and make decisions early about staying or leaving their property. It comes as the CFS continues to battle blazes at Cudlee Creek, in the Adelaide Hills and at Duncan, on Kangaroo Island, which both remain at advice level….. A catastrophic fire danger rating has been flagged for Adelaide, Mid North and the Yorke Peninsula, while extreme danger is predicted at Murraylands and the Lower South-East districts. A severe fire danger rating is also in place for the rest of the state, which includes the Adelaide Metropolitan, Flinders, Riverland, Kangaroo Island, the West Coast, Lower and Eastern Eyre Peninsulas and the Upper South East……. Weather to bring ‘elevated fire conditions’Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) forecaster Bonnie Haselgrove said very hot conditions were expected on Monday with very hot and dry north to north-westerly winds…… Outside of South Australia, Swan Hill in Victoria is expected to reach 43C on Monday, and Menindee in New South Wales is also forecast for 43C. As for metropolitan areas, Parramatta in Western Sydney is expected to reach 38C on Monday; Melbourne is forecast to reach 43C; and the northern Adelaide suburb of Elizabeth could reach 41C. Canberra is expected to hit 39C on Monday and Tasmanians will not be spared from the heat either with Hobart predicted to hit 40C.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-29/elevated-fire-conditions-to-hit-sa-on-monday-as-fires-burn/11831200 |
|
|
‘Climate Emergency’ – the phrase that elicits anger and outrage
‘You have utterly no clue’: why ‘climate emergency’ is Australia’s ultimate outrage trigger At any level of Australian government, there is little so divisive as suggesting that a climate emergency be declared, Guardian Ben Smee @BenSmee, Mon 30 Dec 2019 Earlier this year, Trudi Beck, a general practitioner from Wagga Wagga, wrote to councillors across New South Wales urging them to acknowledge the climate crisis and declare a local emergency.Some responses were positive. Others less so.
Mark Hall, a Lachlan shire councillor and Baptist pastor, told Beck: “Stick to medicine – you have utterly no clue about climate science. Your email intrusion is truly not welcome.”
In Australia, as ever when it comes to climate policy, the process has been polarising and frustrating.
The leaders of one town might have recognised the climate crisis and committed to developing adaptation measures to help the community deal with the impacts of global heating. The next town over might have decided that climate change has nothing to do with local government business such as carting rubbish or fixing potholes.
“We went from talking about the climate emergency, to now all of a sudden we’re living in it,” says Sarah Mollard, a general practitioner from the coastal NSW town of Port Macquarie.
“It was incredibly unsettling to experience the sky going from blue to red in the space of a few hours. It’s extraordinarily unsettling to be in your home and see smoke haze in your home. This is my home, this is my safe space, and I can’t keep my children safe in it.”
A few months ago, Mollard and other community members began to lobby for the Port Macquarie council to declare a climate emergency. In September, a relatively benign council motion to develop a “climate change action plan” was deadlocked at four-all. The mayor’s casting vote shelved the idea indefinitely…….
Newcastle, the home of the world’s largest coal export port, has declared an emergency and has a policy to work towards a just transition. The Wollongong City c-ouncil – which along with Newcastle was for decades an industrial and steelmaking hub – has also recognised the climate crisis.
In Queensland, where climate politics is most fraught amid a rush to support coal exports, only the Noosa council has declared an emergency. It also set a zero net emissions target by 2026…….
Conservative Wagga Wagga, home of the deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack, earlier this year declared a climate emergency. A few weeks later, after an increasingly nasty debate, councillors rescinded that declaration.
Outraged councillors would later demand the mayor, Greg Conkey, drive an electric vehicle to Sydney and back. He did and has said the journey was a success.
Beck had been instrumental in building local support in Wagga Wagga, and in July, while the city was locked in debate about the declaration, she contacted other council areas soliciting support…….
So far, 84 jurisdictions in Australia covering about a quarter of the population – mostly cities and local government areas – have declared a climate emergency. The first elected body in the world to act, Darebin council in Victoria, is credited with starting a movement that is now supported by governments representing 800 million people worldwide, including the European Union and Bangladesh. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/30/you-have-utterly-no-clue-why-climate-emergency-is-australias-ultimate-outrage-trigger
In water-scarce Australia, cooling water for nuclear power would become an impossible burden
In summary, in a hot dry continent like Australia, providing cooling water for a nuclear power plant would prove a huge cost and distortion to the water industry.
 Nuclear cost and water consumption – The elephants in the control room, Open Forum, Peter Farley | December 20, 2019 “…..Cooling Water
A key issue with nuclear plants is cooling. Because of the cost of shutdowns and the degradation of materials by irradiation, the plants are designed to run at lower peak temperatures (260-320 C) than coal (500-670 C), gas turbines (1,300-1430C) or internal combustion plants (2,000 C). The thermal efficiency of a plant is directly related to the difference between the peak temperature and the cooling medium – what is termed Carnot efficiency. Lower temperature means lower efficiency, as less of the heat energy is converted into work and more is removed by the cooling system. So for a given amount of electrical energy delivered, more cooling is required in a nuclear plant. Furthermore the warmer the cooling water or air the more coolant is required. Thus the Barrakah plants require 100 tonnes of Gulf seawater per second for each generator. In higher latitudes with seawater temperatures in the range of 2-12C, water requirements can still be 40-60 tonnes per second per GW. Just to put that in perspective Melbourne Water supplies 15-20 tonnes per second to the entire Metropolitan area of almost 5 million people. Even so, the water temperature is raised by 7-10C which is enough to kill any fish larvae unfortunate enough to be sucked into the cooling intakes. It is enough to change the local environment for all sea life, so finding a suitabable site is very difficult. There are currently no nuclear plants operating using warm seawater for cooling although Barrakah is soon to be commissioned. The problem there is not just the temperature but the accelerated rates of corrosion and biofouling which will mean the heat exchangers need to be larger, pumping losses will be higher and maintenance bills higher still. Perhaps the area near Portland in Victoria might work, but then the 500kV line would have to be triplicated to carry away the power, further adding to the cost. Plants at the edges of the grid have a whole lot of other issues so a South Australian plant would be extremely difficult to integrate. On land in very cold climates, a small number of air cooled plants have been built but the offset is that about 5% of the output of the power plant is used to run the fans. However in warm climates it is virtually impossible to run an air cooled nuclear power plant. It would require in the order of 450-500 tonnes of air per second to be moved over the heat exchangers per GW of electrical output. At typical air velocities for cooling fans that would have a fan area of 75,000 square meters or if each fan was the cross section of a shipping container, 17,000 fans. It is enough to change the local environment for all sea life, so finding a suitable site is very difficult. There are currently no nuclear plants operating using warm seawater for cooling although Barrakah is soon to be commissioned. The problem there is not just the temperature but the accelerated rates of corrosion and biofouling which will mean the heat exchangers need to be larger, pumping losses will be higher and maintenance bills higher still. Perhaps the area near Portland in Victoria might work, but then the 500kV line would have to be triplicated to carry away the power, further adding to the cost. Plants at the edges of the grid have a whole lot of other issues so a South Australian plant would be extremely difficult to integrate. On land in very cold climates, a small number of air cooled plants have been built but the offset is that about 5% of the output of the power plant is used to run the fans. However in warm climates it is virtually impossible to run an air cooled nuclear power plant. It would require in the order of 450-500 tonnes of air per second to be moved over the heat exchangers per GW of electrical output. At typical air velocities for cooling fans that would have a fan area of 75,000 square meters or if each fan was the cross section of a shipping container, 17,000 fans. In other cases straight through cooling is used from large rivers or lakes. The Murray at the South Australian border is often down to 9 GL/day or even less. 9 Gl/day is about 105 tonnes/second, and so a single unit nuclear power plant located on the Murray would often need the entire flow to cool it, while heating the water by 8-12 C. This is obviously an environmentally impossible situation. That is why cooling towers are the most common cooling method because they are the most efficient. Evaporating water carries away much more heat than liquid flows. In typical Australian conditions the nuclear plant would evaporate between 20 and 24 GL per year per GW so a two unit 2.2 GW plant like Plant Vogtle currently under construction in the US would need 44-50 GL/ year. That is more than the 4.7 GW of coal in the Latrobe Valley and almost 30% more than the entire demand served by Barwon Water which includes 320,000 people and all their business homes, parks and gardens. At current spot prices for irrigation water that would be an additional cost of $50m per year. In summary, in a hot dry continent like Australia, providing cooling water for a nuclear power plant would prove a huge cost and distortion to the water industry. There are many other issue with nuclear power, including a lack of flexibility, large and long duration backup requirements for refueling and outages and large spinning reserve requirements, but these can be explored at another time…….https://www.openforum.com.au/nuclear-cost-and-water-consumption-the-elephants-in-the-control-room/?fbclid=IwAR2M3NxMjfrDJNWTG9tatKSARHGUKWVcG_CE-bSW5wtnAbwhGnYxd1ElugU |
|
New Year heat wave threatens Australia with more bushfires
Sat 28 Dec 2019
However, none were above advice level after more than 1,500 firefighters in the field took advantage of milder conditions over the Christmas week to strengthen containment lines and prepare for a forthcoming heatwave and high fire danger.
The Currowan fire on the south coast and the Green Wattle Creek fire in the southern highlands are among those still out of control, according to the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS), but the Gospers Mountain “megafire” and the nearby Grose Valley fire, to the north-west and west of Sydney, are listed as being controlled……
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, faced widespread criticism after going on a family holiday to Hawaii in the midst of the bushfire crisis without publicly announcing it, and with his office reportedly telling journalists he was not in Hawaii.
Morrison returned early last week, apologising for going away. He continued to face criticism for his government’s failure to develop a credible climate change policy.
At least nine people, including two firefighters, have been killed in fires this season – eight of them in NSW.
Almost 1,000 homes are estimated to have been destroyed in the NSW bushfire crisis, according to the most recent impact assessment from the RFS, published on Christmas Eve.
Another 68 facilities and 2,048 “outbuildings” were also confirmed destroyed.
More than 7,800 homes have been saved by firefighters……
At least three fires remain burning in South Australia at advice level, including two on Kangaroo Island, at Bunbury, and at Cudlee Creek where there have been flare-ups in recent days. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/28/australian-bushfires-out-of-control-as-heatwave-expected-to-peak-on-new-years-eve
Nuclear Groundhog Day in Australia
it is right-wing ideologues who continually resurrect nuclear power
historically-informed judgments matter, as energy policy specialists like Benjamin Sovacool realize, writing that SMRs are almost entirely rhetorical fantasies built upon utopian expectations.
Do you ever get the feeling that the continual resuscitation of the nuclear power option is just one more continual delay in meaningful reform of our energy portfolio? One more continual delay in meaningful reduction of CO2 emissions and the shifting of the electricity grid toward significant incorporation of renewables?
 Australia’s nuclear fantasies: the technological creationism of nuclear power, Nuclear Monitor, December 2019, Dr. Darrin Durant ‒ Lecturer in Science and Technology Studies at the University of MelbourneIt is just a little past Nuclear Groundhog Day in Australia. A 2019 parliamentary inquiry 1 into the conditions under which future Governments might consider nuclear power in Australia recently concluded that emerging nuclear technologies were a clean energy pathway for Australia.2 This recommendation was immediately opposed by Labor and the Greens, and even opened up divisions within the Coalition, while also failing to resolve how partially lifting Australia’s nuclear ban (for one type of nuclear generating technology) could practically work. Much ink and even more pixels have been and will continue to be splayed everywhere on this polarized issue, but the untold story of the nuclear option is that it is in fact a technological form of Creationism. Let me explain. Nuclear power is like a wild goose chase where the goose is a zombie that cannot be killed. The nuclear option in Australia has been buried at least three times previously, only to be brought back from the dead. Nuclear power was originally prohibited by legislation. Section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 prohibits fuel fabrication, enrichment or processing, and nuclear reactors.3 Section 140A of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 prohibits the federal Minister from approving an action leading to such installations.4 Yet a federal Government review of 2006 (the Switkowski Report) considered the potential to establish such installations, although it concluded nuclear power in Australia was uneconomic.5 A 2016 South Australian royal commission to investigate the potential for SA to participate in the nuclear fuel cycle similarly concluded nuclear power in Australia was not commercially viable.6 Nuclear power does not affect its own resurrection by virtue of its own divine power. Instead, like Lazarus was said to have been resurrected by Jesus four days after retirement, nuclear power has divine ideologues on its side. Obviously not the Labor Party, which thinks resurrecting the nuclear option signals the indulging of political fantasies7 , nor the Greens, who think resurrecting the nuclear option is the stuff of crackpot lunatic cowboys.8 Instead, as Friends of the Earth wrote, it is right-wing ideologues who continually resurrect nuclear power, in a culture war trying to wedge the political Left.9 Or as the economist John Quiggin wrote, support for nuclear power is de facto support for coal.10 Given the decades of lead time required for nuclear power to feed into the electricity grid and, assuming publics and politicians swallow the argument that renewables cannot satisfy base-load power requirements, coal is advertised as the only viable option until nuclear comes online. The technological creationism of nuclear power But the nuclear option has more than the business-as-usual commitments of right-wing ideologues on its side. The nuclear option has inherited an argumentative strategy from American Creationists, which the evolutionary biologist Eugenie Carol Scott coined the Gish Gallop.11 Named after the Creationist Duane Gish12, Scott wrote that the strategy involves making “a simple declarative sentence, and you have to deal with not an easily-grasped factual error, but a logical error and a methodological error, which will take you far longer to explain… [Creationists present] half-truth non-sequiturs that the audience misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time. And you never have enough time to deal with even a fraction of the halftruths or plain erroneous statements”.13 We can miss the Gish Gallop at the heart of pro-nuclear advocacy if we chase the controversy. We know nuclear power is politically polarizing and it is easy to report on clashing protagonists making seemingly alternate-reality claims. Thus the Australia Institute’s submission to the parliamentary inquiry dismissed nuclear power as uneconomic, climate unfriendly because of high water use in an already drought-prone Australia, and as lacking a social license.14 In black mirror fashion, the Minerals Council of Australia strongly supported nuclear power as affordable, climate friendly because of zero-emissions, and as enjoying rising public support.15 Like chasing Creationists down the rabbit holes of their homespun Gish Gallops, opponents of nuclear power can spend a fruitless amount of intellectual and emotional energy rebutting half-truths and methodological sleights of hand. The fruitlessness stems from earnestly interpreting the opponents’ claims ‘straight’ and tackling them head on. The Minerals Council of Australia For instance, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) argues that nuclear power is affordable and that Small Modular Reactors (SMR) represent a cheap and feasible option for Australia.15 By contrast, the (independent) World Nuclear Industry Status Report found that nuclear power costs 5-10 times more per kWh than renewables, and that there is no sign of a technological or commercial breakthrough that would render SMRs viable.16 Similarly, the MCA argues that climate change is real, and that nuclear power is the only way Australia can meet our Paris Agreement goals without sacrificing jobs and prosperity. But are the MCA really climate defenders? The thinktank InfluenceMap – which tracks climate policy opponents – ranks the MCA -59 (or 8th worst Trade Group) in its carbon policy footprint scores (-100 is highly and negatively influencing climate policy; +100 highly and positively influencing climate policy).17 Unfortunately, straight rebuttals matter little to technological creationists. Anything can be cheap, depending upon how you trim the costs. Everything can be feasible, depending upon your tolerance for fantasy. Anyone can be green, depending upon your degree of gullibility Gish Gallop The difficulty presented by the Gish Gallop argumentative strategy is that only on the surface is the critic confronted by factual claims open to empirical challenge. Deeper down, we have pregnant misdirection, diversionary reframing, and strategic incompleteness. The strategy does not even have to be deliberate gaslighting18, where the aim is to disorient and destabilize the audience in a quest to leave the speaker the beneficiary of the disenchantment of truth. Instead, the Gish Gallop simply entices the audience to run off in multiple directions at once, earnestly looking for the grounding of a claim that is in fact a groundless fog. For instance, are nuclear reactors zero emissions, as the MCA claims? There is a grain of truth there, if the nuclear life cycle is restricted to reactor operation. But as the energy analyst and environmentalist Mark Diesendorf has shown, to calculate the emissions from nuclear power one must account for fossil fuel use in every other aspect of the nuclear life cycle (mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management). Moreover, the lower the grade of uranium ore, the higher the resulting emissions, so that nuclear power will emit more CO2 over time as highergrade ores are used up.19 Some analysts try to be fair, concluding that emissions from nuclear power are neither zero nor high and made complex by multiple uncertainties20, or that unstated assumptions about the carbon footprints of energy supplied in the non-operational phases of the nuclear fuel cycle strongly determine the ultimate carbon footprint.21 But notice how it is the audience that must supply the context for assessing pro-nuclear technological creationist claims? The necessary context for assessing claims – zero emissions, etc. – is willfully deleted from the message itself. SMRs Similarly, the MCA writes that SMRs ‘are simply an evolution of a proven mature technology’.15 Specific claims about an unproven technology (SMR) are then treated as general warrants for a technology which possesses an actual track record (where the track record is not supplied). Again, straight responses are possible. The anti-nuclear activist Noel Wauchope lists seven reasons why SMRs are unwise 22, and Quiggin questions whether the plant that is supposedly going to manufacture the technology even exists.23 But it is the context deleted by the MCA that is of most relevance, so we must ask about the track record of this ‘mature’ technology and whether SMRs are just an unproblematic next step. The maturity claim typically means nuclear technology has benefited from economies of scale and social learning, so that construction times and costs would go down over time. But as the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (and previous versions) shows, nuclear power lacks an upward learning curve.16 Reactor cost blowouts in time and money have been the norm since the technology’s inception. SMRs have inherited that legacy, with a survey of eight countries showing SMRs are even less economically competitive than large nuclear plants. The Gish Gallop strategy here is simply to delete history from the evaluative criterion. But historically-informed judgments matter, as energy policy specialists like Benjamin Sovacool realize, writing that SMRs are almost entirely rhetorical fantasies built upon utopian expectations.24 Indeed, the broader case for nuclear power in Australia is similarly built upon a Gish Gallop strategy of strategic deletion perversely coupled with proliferating half-truths. For instance, the MCA claims that surveys indicate increasing public support for nuclear power. But closer analysis shows that support varies if nuclear power is framed as a solution to climate change, indicating the support may reflect desired action on climate change itself.25 Moreover, most have no desire to live near a reactor. Climate wedges But this entire argument about a technology-neutral approach being premised on the need to pursue all elements in an energy portfolio at once rests on willfully deleting the context for assessing energy choices. The climate wedge idea derives from a 2004 paper by Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow.27 A wedge represents an activity that reduces emissions to the atmosphere starting at zero today and increases linearly until it accounts for one billion metric tonnes of reduced carbon emissions in 50 years. But as Pacala and Socolow noted, “although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough that not every element has to be used”.27 Not every element! The technology-neutral, all-of-the-above approach is both bad energy economics and deceptive politics, because passive and complacent business-as-usual masquerades as active and concerned political choice. Was democratic debate really meant to be this way? When we say democratic debate is about letting each side have its say, is the kind of argumentative sleight of hand practiced by pro-nuclear technological creationists really what we were imagining? To anticipate a reply that might be offered as complementary but is a mistake: no, truth is not the answer. Truth can be despotic, as the political philosopher Hannah Arendt argued in 1967, peremptorily demanding to be recognized and precluding debate by relying on the coercive force of self-evidence.28 Or put differently, truth is great when you have it on your side, until everyone claims it is on their side, and politics reduces to who coerces last But nor is the abandonment of truth to opinion the answer either. In the phrase of another political philosopher, Nadia Urbinati, to be unpolitical is to remove an issue in need of deciding from the open arena of competing political visions, political groups, and partisan views.29 Urbinati advises we defend the merits of political deliberation, because it allows for contestation and revision, and be wary of forensic decisions by experts. But is a little more of the unpolitical – a little less political deliberation – sometimes a wise move? Do you ever get the feeling that the continual resuscitation of the nuclear power option is just one more continual delay in meaningful reform of our energy portfolio? One more continual delay in meaningful reduction of CO2 emissions and the shifting of the electricity grid toward significant incorporation of renewables? The nuclear power option has had its day but lives to tell another day because we tell ourselves that debating all the options is always good, even if we should really be saying some option needs to be retired. The context at work making this continual resuscitation possible is not just the persistence of business-as-usual elites, but the political ecology in which those elites reside. Political populism radically polarizes public forums and delegitimates the independent advice-giving institutions of democracy. Media and cultural partisans have turned political deliberation into a spectator sport. The business-as-usual ethos exploits that weakened ground of consensus-formation to suggest old options are better than new options. A crisis of truth, authority and legitimacy As the historian of science Steven Shapin has suggested, we are facing a crisis of truth not because facts are being routinely contested or even because facts are being routinely made up, but because our institutions are suffering a crisis of authority and legitimacy.30 We have lost track of who knows and does not know, which is a dearth of social knowledge about reputation and integrity. Keeping the spectre of nuclear power at bay will require rethinking our institutions and how they can assist in making the objects of our political deliberation worthy objects. We can neither give up on experts nor citizens, but we do need to revisit how we think about each. As myself and some fellow sociologists of science have argued, experts at the service of business-as-usual will never escape institutional delegitimisation effects, so we must look to expertise playing the role of a check and balance within our pluralist democracies.31 Similarly, citizens do need to engage with public claims to test their contextual merits and coherency. But as analysts of public participation like Matthew Kearnes and Jason Chilvers have warned, until organizations and institutions are more transparent and candid about their assumptions, values and interests, the burden of proof will fall unevenly on the less powerful.32 In each case, experts and citizens, what we need from them is interrogation of context. Not simply can they be our fact checkers, but can they be our redeemers of context, our arbiters of whether half-truths are masquerading as full claims, and our unmaskers of the pretenders at coherence? Dr. Darrin Durant’s research focuses on how experts and citizens interact in democratic debate, especially in debates about energy politics. Recent books include Experts and the Will of the People (2019) and previous work on the nuclear fuel cycle including Nuclear Waste Management in Canada (2009). Reprinted from New Matilda, 17 Dec 2019, ‘Nuclear fantasies down under: the political and economic problems with old money power’, https://newmatilda. com/2019/12/17/nuclear-fantasies-down-under-thepolitical-and-economic-problems-with-old-money-power/
|
|
Call to Prime Minister Scott Morrison – Time to stop pretending that you have a climate policy
 Prime minister, you need a credible climate policy. It’s too dangerous to keep pretending you have one, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/22/prime-minister-its-too-dangerous-to-keep-pretending-you-need-a-credible-climate-policy Lenore Taylor Scott Morrison’s press conference on the Australian fires was just more talking points and spin. The country needs more than words
@lenoretaylor, Sun 22 Dec 2019
Scott Morrison says this is not a time for division, or partisanship, or point scoring. He says we should unite in response to the current crisis. That’s certainly true. We have been. But prime minister, this is also time to stop pretending. Talking about Australia’s woefully inadequate climate policy at this time is not partisan, it is essential. And, with respect, the same same old talking points you rolled out on your return from Hawaii just don’t cut it any more. As you acknowledged, we are facing Christmas with dread. The immediate losses – of loved people, homes, safety, breathable air, passable highways upon which to drive to holiday, blue summer sky – those are deeply unsettling and sad. But the realisation that this is how Christmas may often be for our children, not carefree like the long summers we remember, but orange-skyed, fearful, choking and desperate – that is dreadful in the truest sense of the word. As you said, we are all grateful for the firefighters’ selfless efforts, but you’re right, we need to ask whether we can really expect this from them year after year, and those questions become more urgent if we face up to the fact that this is now the way things are going to be more often. You ignored the desperate, and as it turns out prescient, warnings from the former fire and emergency chiefs in the lead-up to this season. Your acting prime minister, just this weekend, again dismissed those experts because they had been funded by the Climate Council. Surely it is now time to put those political talking points aside and start to listen. We know global heating is fuelling this unprecedented fire emergency; we’ve been warned this would happen for decades. We know it is also contributing to the drought. Not directly causing, but certainly exacerbating. Surely it is time for your government to face these facts, instead of reciting Dorothea Mackellar or diverting blame to self-combusting manure or falsely claiming “greens” are somehow to blame by preventing hazard reduction burning. They haven’t, just for the record, and those former fire chiefs you refused to meet actually had some advice about hazard reduction burns, had you chosen to listen. That requires something more than just agreeing there is a link between global heating and fires, as you now have done. This isn’t about an adjustment to your language, it requires an adjustment to your policy, it requires a credible policy, the kind of policy we know could benefit us economically, that business is begging you to enact so that they can invest. And we know that would mean we could fight for effective international action rather than continue to act as a hindrance. We know we can’t solve the heating that is exacerbating this crisis on our own, so please don’t insult our intelligence again with that “1.3% of global emissions” argument like you did at the start of this fire season. Given the consequences we are suffering, we should be doing everything we can, and we know that we are not. You’ve just kept pretending. We’ve watched your Coalition immobilised by its climate denialist faction for more than a decade, destroying repeated political efforts to do something. We watched it dispense with Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister to avoid implementing a policy that was supported by industry and green groups alike. We watched you, prime minister, hold up a coal-industry supplied lump-of-coal prop in the parliament and urge us all not to fear it, but then go to the election with a policy that was little more than a sham, enough to appease the electorate’s concerns but with fine print that didn’t promise to do anything much to reduce domestic emissions, and that didn’t offer any explanation of how you would do the things you did promise, like reduce vehicle emissions. We’ve watched our domestic emissions continue to rise, or flatline because of the terrible impact of the drought, according to the latest accounts. We’ve watched Angus Taylor act against reaching an agreement at the most recent climate talks in Madrid, by insisting – against howls of international protest – that Australia be allowed to continue using an accounting trick to meet our emission reduction obligations. Days later, there he was again, interviewed against the orange backdrop of his own burning electorate, still mouthing the same discredited talking points about Australia “meeting and beating” its emission reduction target by the use of that loophole. You just used the same line yourself. It’s too close now, too terrifyingly dangerous and loud in the fire regions, too unendurably long in the regions parched by drought, to keep pretending like this. We need to know how you’re going to transition our economy. We understand that’s a complicated long-term process, so don’t treat us like idiots, as your deputy did on Saturday with the straw-man argument that those concerned about climate change are asking for all coalmining to cease tomorrow and risking the lights going out. Katharine Murphy spelled out your political choices in her final column for the year –you could once again try to damp down our fears and hope the backlash from this summer of fires will ease when the skies do eventually clear, or you could change policy course. On your return from holidays you seemed to choose the former, which is a tragedy, because there really is no more time to waste. We are past the point where the absence of credible policy can be papered over with talking points and spin. Your predecessor knows it, your former departmental head knows it, business, unions and farmers know it, scientists and environmentalists have known it for decades. You asked us all to be kind to one another, and we certainly should be. One kind thing you could do now is to finally stop pretending.
|
|
Pastoralists relieved that Hawker is safe from threat of nuclear waste dump. Kimba is now the nuclear lobby’s target
Attention back on Kimba as Hawker nuclear site dumped, Stock Journal
QUINTON MCCALLUM, 19 Dec 2019, A LACK of community support has prompted the federal government to scrap Hawker as a potential site for the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, with speculation turning to what the decision means for Kimba.With 52.7 per cent of ballot papers from the recent Flinders Ranges community vote not supporting a proposed nuclear waste facility at Wallerberdina Station, Resources Minister Matthew Canavan conceded there was not enough community support and he would no longer consider the site……
The decision to remove Hawker from the site shortlist has been met with relief from the region’s pastoralists.
Kate and Paul Greenfield, South Gap Station, were one of 14 stations in the region who signed and sent a united statement to Mr Canavan stating their strong opposition to any nuclear facility in the lead-up to the ballot.
They held concerns about the proposed site’s proximity to the Lake Torrens catchment and the impact of such a facility on the region’s reputation.
“I think that decision (to not consider Hawker) is incredibly wise,” Mrs Greenfield said.
“It had me perplexed that Hawker was considered as a site in the first place.
“There is a bid for world heritage status for the Flinders Ranges so I didn’t think it sat comfortably to have a nuclear waste dump right beside a world heritage site.” …..
Mr Canavan said he would make an announcement on site selection early next year, with the Napandee and Lyndhurst sites near Kimba still being considered.
While 61.6pc of Kimba residents voted in favour of a radioactive waste facility being built in their region in November, Kimba farmer and facility opponent Peter Woolford said the result was not a clear cut indication of broad community support.
“There’s a long way to go in all of this yet and I still believe they’re imposing it on the community here with nearly 40pc opposed,” he said.
“By Hawker being removed – and so it should have been – it is going to open up this debate to the thought of ‘this is bigger than Kimba’.”
Mr Woolford said the people of SA should be involved in the discussion concerning the construction of a radioactive waste facility and it would be unfair to have a small community make the final decision on a national facility of that nature.
He noted there were only 734 votes in the Kimba ballot, a “tiny proportion” of the state’s population.
“People outside of Kimba should have a say on this because it’s a national issue,” Mr Woolford said…… https://www.stockjournal.com.au/story/6550428/attention-back-on-kimba-as-hawker-nuclear-site-dumped/?cs=4894&fbclid=IwAR3Hinltp3CJXK3v2CtOw_TJPtU5fYlIxY2bTGCAVlwfct1WL6vC_CasJBU
Australian bushfire crisis deepens with record breaking temperatures
Calla Wahlquist (now), Amy Corderoy and Naaman Zhou (earlier), Fri 20 Dec 2019
Melbourne was shrouded in smoke, catastrophic fire warnings issued for parts of New South Wales on Saturday and in South Australia one person died and eight have been injured.
- New South Wales is bracing for catastrophic bushfire conditions on Saturday. A catastrophic warning has been issued for Greater Sydney, Illawarra/Shoalhaven, and Southern Ranges — all areas where fires are currently burning. The Greater Hunter, ACT and Central Ranges will have extreme conditions.
- RFS deputy commissioner Rob Rogers said it would be a “miracle” if more houses were not lost in NSW tomorrow.
- Fire chiefs in NSW, SA and Victoria have all emphasised that they may not be able to get a warning to people, and they cannot guarantee they will be able to get a firetruck to everyone affected by bushfires. The recommendation, across the country, is to leave early. “Early” means before the fire approaches — not after the embers have begun falling.
- People in NSW have been told to put off travel tomorrow because the Princes Highway, Western Highway, Hume Highway and other major arterial roads could be cut.
Scott Morrison’s brand damaged by silly cover-up of his Hawaii holiday
Prime Minister Scott Morrison pulls pin on Hawaii family holiday, but the damage is already done, ABC , By political editor Andrew Probyn , 20 Dec 19, Australia’s marketing expert Prime Minister has just had his first major product recall.Scott Morrison’s brand has been damaged, as he wings his way back to Australia from Hawaii, a trifle shop-soiled and humiliated.
And all because Morrison and his office thought they could engineer silence on a family holiday.
As so often in politics, it’s the cover-up that gets you.
No-one begrudges the fellow going on holiday with his wife and lovely girls who have probably seen less of their dad this year than any in their short lives.
And he’s undoubtedly knackered from a hectic year in which he pulled off a miracle election win…….
There was no official public note issued of his absence and when one Press Gallery journalist inquired with the Deputy Prime Minister’s office as to whether Michael McCormack was Acting PM, the journalist was referred back to the PM’s Office.
And when a couple of journos asked the PMO to confirm the boss was in Hawaii, they were told this was incorrect.
Here’s a tip for the PM’s minders: don’t compound a fudge with a fib……
Morrison is actually lucky more pressure hasn’t been appliedMorrison can be grateful that Anthony Albanese has been very measured this week. Albanese has visited members of the Rural Fire Service, making breakfast for volunteers, but has constrained his commentary……
It is now very clear that the Coalition must recalibrate its climate and energy policies.
Amid the smoke haze, the community horror and angst, this is a point of real clarity.
Morrison’s attempt last week to reassure Sydneysiders concerned by the incessant bushfire haze, by asserting he’d seen it all before, didn’t cut it. Nor does it now…..https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/andrew-probyn-analysis-scott-morrison-hawaii-holiday/11817356
Students’climate protest outside Scott Morrison’s residence. Greens MP arrested
‘Time politicians did something’: Greens MP among arrested at Kirribilli climate rally, Students rallied outside Scott Morrison’s Sydney prime ministerial residence to demand action on climate change. SBS News, BY TYRON BUTSON, 20 Dec 19, NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge was among 10 people arrested by police outside Sydney’s Kirribilli House as they demanded the prime minister take action on climate change.
Demonstrators rallied outside Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s official Sydney residence on Thursday, protesting the PM’s overseas holidays as unprecedented bushfires burn across the state.
Some protesters had vowed to camp out on site until the PM returned from holidays until they were confronted by police on Thursday afternoon.
Mr Shoebridge, a NSW Upper House Greens MP, was among those protesters charged with failing to move on. He took aim at Mr Morrison, saying it was high time politicians left parliament to join the community demanding climate action.
Mr Shoebridge, who alleges he was trying to comply with police directives to move on when he was arrested, will face Manly Local Court on 16 January. ….
Some of the demonstrates were clad in Hawaiian shirts, while others carried placards asking “ScoMo where the bloody hell are ya?” and “When do our firefighters get a holiday?”…. HTTPS://WWW.SBS.COM.AU/NEWS/TIME-POLITICIANS-DID-SOMETHING-GREENS-MP-AMONG-ARRESTED-AT-KIRRIBILLI-CLIMATE-RALLY
Flaws in the Senate Committee’s nuclear report
Parliamentary Committee Supports Nuclear – But Only If Everyone Is Into It , Solar Quotes, December 19, 2019 by Ronald Brakels “……..The Parliamentary Nuclear Committee used 214 pages to come to the wrong conclusion. But arriving at the right conclusion can’t be easy if you have no ability to smell bullshit in your own research.
One Solar Panel Does Not Cause 0.8 Tonnes Of CO2 Emissions
Take a look at this table included in the report, taken from a publication that advocates nuclear power:
Casually looking at that you might think CO2 emissions for both nuclear energy and solar PV are pretty low. But if we stop for one minute and use basic mathematical ability that’s available to anyone who doesn’t have to take their socks off to count to 20, then we can see that a Parliamentary committee saw fit to include a table in an official report that gives ridiculous results.
Looking at their minimum figure for Solar PV (Utility scale), I see they are claiming a large solar farm will result in at least 18 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour generated. While generating electricity from PV doesn’t result in any emissions, they are involved in the manufacture of solar panels, so they aren’t completely emissions-free. However, they are a lot bloody closer to emission free than this table suggests.
These days a typical standard sized solar panel is around 300 watts. In a solar farm in Australia on a fixed mount it will generate around 12,300 kilowatt-hours over 25 years. This means they are saying the solar panel will result in a minimum of 222 kilograms of CO2 emissions. If we use their maximum figure it will result in 2.22 tonnes of CO2, all for a panel that weighs about 18 kilograms. So they are saying manufacturing and installing one solar panel results in emissions equal to burning 80-800 or more kilograms of coal.
Jinko Solar, the world’s largest solar panel manufacturer, has a figure from 2017 of just 2.19 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour generated by a solar farm. As this has been decreasing year by year it will be even lower now. However, this is just for the solar panel and doesn’t include emissions from the construction of its ground mount or inverter, so I’ll double it to 4.4 grams. This means the actual emissions per kilowatt-hour are probably less than the best figure on the table and more than 40 times less than the worst figure. Even if we triple the Jinko figure it still comes to less than their median emissions for nuclear energy and less than 4% of their maximum figure for PV.
It’s clear the committee had no ability to detect figures that were bullshit — or they simply didn’t care.
Renewable Energy Increases The Cost Of Nuclear
Here is section 1.50 of the report:
I note the committee has failed to understand the economics of nuclear power if they think it works well with solar and wind energy. This is because if a nuclear power station produces half the energy its capable of, it almost doubles the cost of that energy. This is due to nuclear fuel being very cheap1 per kilowatt-hour, so very little money is saved by ramping down, while nearly all other costs remain the same.
This means nuclear power, which is already too expensive when operated in the most economical way — almost continuously at full normal power — becomes even more expensive when used in a grid with a significant amount of solar energy and/or wind power capacity. Australia already has more than enough to adversely affect the economics of nuclear energy and, even if we approve and build a nuclear power station in one quarter the average time it has taken overseas this century, things will be much worse for its economics by the time it’s complete….. https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/nuclear-energy-australia/
Questions on the research and legal help given to men who offered their land for nuclear waste dump
Are the land owners who nominated their properties at Kimba for the radioactive waste management facility fully aware of and sought independent technical advice on all aspects of the selection and development of the facility I understand that their surnames are Rayner and Baldock and are they prepared to disclose the nature and result of any independent advice that they may have obtained Can they explain why they are getting legal advice and whether any outside source is meeting Or contributing towards the cost of that advice Will they agree to the Kimba community having access to their respective nominations Were they given any assistance by any government persons in completing their nominations Finally has the Kimba District Council itself sought any proper technical advice independent of the federal government in its various capacities as to the government’s proposals for safeguarding the rights of the Kimba community If not why was this not done because of the importance of this issue and the legal obligations of the Council and its councillors to ensure that the population of Kimba is fully and properly protected This surely should have been done as part of the Council as respondent to the Barngarla application to the federal court I am rather intrigued by this personally and should add that I have been asked for the same information by the various politicians with whom I have been discussing then South Australian situation in the context of the Azark Project at Leonora https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/ |
|
||||||||||
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 