INCIDENTS RELATED TO TRANSPORT OF RADIATION INSTRUMENTS IN AUSTRALIA
Kim Mavromatis No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, October 2
INCIDENTS RELATED TO TRANSPORT OF RADIATION INSTRUMENTS IN AUST (ARPANSA Aust Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority website identifies transport accidents) : “The most common incidents include vehicles carrying the source (radioactive material) being involved in a road accident or the source falling from the vehicle carrying the source. On other occasions containers may be damaged in transit and subsequently sources (radioactive material) may be dislodged from internal packing and shielding. CAUSES : Human Error, speed, alcohol, fatigue, loose fittings, maintenance, inadequate systems, training, oversight”.
Transport accidents of nuclear waste have occured in Aust, because of human error :
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH / THE ADVERTISER (2012) : TOXIC HIGHWAY : “Why radioactive materials, a banned pesticide and food were on the same truck that crashed on the New South Wales Pacific Highway in 1980 is a mystery. But the political fallout of its roadside burial and discovery 32 years later – which left five contractors vomiting and exposed another 13 workers to possibly lethal toxic waste – will be nothing short of nuclear”.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Climate change the essential factor in planning about droughts
Drought plan must factor in climate change, https://www.smh.com.au/
business/small-business/drought-plan-must-factor-in-climate-change-20191003-p52xfn.html Lisa Davies, 4 Oct 19, As country towns across the inland run out of drinking water, the federal government has started to show its concern for farmers affected by the drought.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to Dalby in Queensland last week to announce a $100 million drought package and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has taken time off his day job for a three-day tour of NSW and Queensland.
On one hand, country people will be comforted that the government is paying attention to their plight. On the other, they will ask whether another parade of politicians putting on moleskins and fronting a press pack in the dust will make any difference.
As country towns across the inland run out of drinking water, the federal government has started to show its concern for farmers affected by the drought.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to Dalby in Queensland last week to announce a $100 million drought package and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has taken time off his day job for a three-day tour of NSW and Queensland.
On one hand, country people will be comforted that the government is paying attention to their plight. On the other, they will ask whether another parade of politicians putting on moleskins and fronting a press pack in the dust will make any difference.
Everyone says the government needs to do something but for now the government’s basic approach is to dribble out more money and hope that it rains.
That is probably all that can be done in a crisis.
But it is not the whole answer. It ignores the crucial issue of what to do if the scientists are right and droughts are becoming longer and more frequent.
This question should not be conflated with the equally important issue of whether Australia should have a stronger climate change policy.
Deeper cuts in Australia’s carbon emissions are needed to help slow the rise in global temperatures but it will not solve the farmers’ problems overnight. Scientists say droughts will get worse for decades.
The Herald backs drought assistance to help farmers cope but it should be fair and efficient and it should be designed to encourage farmers to adjust to the new climate conditions.
In fact, the Productivity Commission says a lot of money is already being spent. Sheep, cattle and grain farmers in 2017-18 received about $1.3 billion in state and federal government subsidies. Those farmers now receive 5.8 per cent of their income as subsidies from the government, compared with just 3.7 per cent five years ago, a higher rate of subsidy than any industry sector.
Farmers also receive lots of other indirect help such as state subsidies on freight for fodder as well as generous household payments worth up to $37,000 per couple, far more than age pensioners or single parents.
Yet many people who receive drought relief are not poor. The latest drought package has allowed people with assets up to $5 million to apply.
Mr Morrison says this is not welfare but it is still taxpayers’ money and it should be spent prudently.
Sometimes it seems it is not. The government was left red-faced this week when it emerged that Moyne Shire in western Victoria that got $1 million under Mr Morrison’s announcement was not actually affected by the drought. Equally, it appears that former “drought envoy” Barnaby Joyce was was not required to produce a report to justify his salary and expenses.
Farmers groups sometimes call for more dams as a panacea. But it is often hard to produce a long-term business case for them. Fans of dams also often ignore the risk that they will reduce water flows to surrounding farms and the environment.
Unfortunately, even with the best government plan, climate change will reshape Australia’s rural society.
Some farmers will adjust their methods and succeed. Some will decide to sell up their farms to big businesses and do something else. Governments should help those in need but rural Australia must accept that the times are changing
Black swans – the bushfires of the future are already here.
Australia is not prepared to fight the bushfires of the future, experts warn, Background Briefing Oct 5 19, An investigation by Background Briefing, ABC Regional and Landline The bushfires of the future are already here. They burn earlier in the season, and more ferociously, and can interact with extreme weather events to create fires we don’t know how to fight.
Key points
- The national aerial firefighting centre, which two years ago flagged the need for an $11m funding boost, still has not received a decision from the Federal Government
- The Government has not guaranteed funding for the only national body researching the future of bushfires
- Twenty-three emergency services experts calling on the Government to consider the threat of climate change in fire planning have not received a response
This year, the bushfire season began with the worst September in recorded history, with 55 homes destroyed.
The Australian winter was only just in the rear-view mirror when 130 bushfires ripped through southern Queensland and northern NSW in one day.
Australia’s former chief scientist, Ian Chubb, said it was clear the climate was changing.
“It’s not just some passing phase that it didn’t rain this decade,” he said. “The implications of that for fire are pretty obvious.”
Former New South Wales fire and rescue commissioner and Climate Council member Greg Mullins said unprecedented conditions could give rise to so-called Black Swan fire events.
“We’re going to have fires that I can’t comprehend, and I’ve been in the game for nearly half a century,” he said.
A Black Swan is something without precedent and thought to be impossible, until it happens.
When it comes to bushfires, these Black Swans happen as our environment changes, creating conditions firefighters have never seen before.
Emergency experts and senior scientists have told a joint ABC investigation that a comprehensive national plan is needed to tackle the fires of the future, and they are concerned about the lack of financial commitment from the Federal Government for resources and research.
“This is a national issue that all people in Australia, regardless of whether they are left or right, have a right to expect that we will face up to challenges that are ahead,” Professor Chubb said.
Inside a Black Swan fire event
When an unprecedented heatwave swept New South Wales in 2017, it set the conditions for a Black Swan fire event.
The Sir Ivan fire began east of Dunedoo and would burn through 55,000 hectares……….
Australia: NSW fires out of control and the temperatures nears 50C
The blaze was unlike anything the NSW RFS had ever dealt with, according to Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons.
“It was unprecedented in New South Wales,” he said……..https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-04/the-bushfires-of-the-future-are-here-black-swan/11559930
A nuclear industry for Australia would be a huge cost to taxpayers
Nuclear inquiry hears cost, health h risks https://www.9news.com.au/national/environment-groups-front-nuclear-inquiry/79884d6e-f161-4624-9bac-b6f283d96598 By AAP Oct 1, 2019 Taxpayers would be bear the brunt of a potential nuclear energy industry in Australia, a parliamentary committee has been told.
Environment groups began the inquiry on Tuesday in Melbourne, a day after the committee was told the potential economic benefits of more uranium mining.New involvement of Attorney General in press freedom
The order could shield News Corp’s Annika Smethurst and the ABC’s Dan Oakes and SamClark who were named in Australia Federal Police (AFP) warrants used during raids in June and have not yet been cleared of any criminal charges. The move, however, has ignited debate about an elected politician’s direct involvement in police matters and press freedom.
Now, Smethurst, Oakes and Clark can only be charged if the Attorney-General gives written consent to the charges. A directive was signed to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) in September, the details of which have only come to light this week. The decision follows legal challenges from both the ABC and News Corp Australia over the legitimacy of the raids and the warrants used.
“The direction means where the CDPP independently considers that there is a public interest in a prosecution for one of the relevant offences involving a journalist, the consent of the Attorney-General will also be required as a separate and additional safeguard,” Porter said in a statement.
“This will allow the most detailed and cautious consideration of how an allegation of a serious offence should be balanced with our commitment to freedom of the press.
“I have previously said that I would be seriously disinclined to approve prosecutions of journalists except in the most exceptional circumstances and would pay particular attention to whether a journalist was simply operating according to the generally accepted principles of public interest journalism.”
Porter hasn’t yet commented on the cases regarding Smethurst, Oakes or Clark.
An ABC spokesperson called the directive a ‘welcome step’, but said the organisation continues to look forward to the results of the two press freedom inquiries which have been triggered by the raids.
“The Attorney General’s directive is a welcome step. It is one plank in a raft of legislative reform that the ABC identified in its submissions to the two concurrent media freedom parliamentary inquiries,” said the spokesperson.
“The ABC looks forward to seeing the recommendations from those inquiries as well as an expeditious conclusion to the current AFP investigation into ABC journalists.”
“The direction issued by The Attorney General is unremarkable. They make the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution seek the Attorney General’s consent to take legal action against journalists in a few more instances but they offer no comfort for journalists disclosing information in the public interest that they are safe from prosecution for doing their job,” said Reid.
“This so-called safeguard falls a long way short of what media organisations are seeking to recognise the role of journalists to keep the public informed.”
The Law Council of Australia has also weighed in on the move, with president Arthur Moses SC citing grave concerns over the Attorney General’s involvement with press freedom.
“I have grave concerns that this sort of direction undermines the independence of the CDPP by requiring her to obtain the consent of the Attorney General before prosecuting an offence,” Moses said.
“What will enhance press freedoms in this country is a proper review of our laws to ensure that the actions of journalists doing their job as a watchdog of government are not criminalised and put at risk of prosecution.
“I have no doubt the Attorney General would act in good faith. But it puts the Attorney General – a politician – in the position of authorising prosecutions of journalists in situations where they may have written stories critical of his government.
“It creates an apprehension on the part of journalists that they will need to curry favour with the government in order to avoid prosecution. The media must be able to lawfully report on matters of public interest without fear or favour.
“Journalists should not need to fear prosecution because of a story that embarrasses government.”
The government seeks to intimidate the media
The national security bureaucracy doesn’t want a police state. It is more ambitious than that. The hope is to return Australian culture to the conformity and political quietude of the 1950s.
Now the government seeks to intimidate the media through laws and criminal prosecutions into a deferential posture once more, with editors becoming habituated to asking permission before they publish.
Clinton Fernandes, The Witness K case and government 
secrecy https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2019/09/28/the-witness-k-case-and-government-secrecy/15695928008833 In recent months, I have sat in court as an observer as Canberra lawyer Bernard Collaery has faced charges over disclosing information about the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS). On Thursday, Collaery’s case was back before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. It is a good time, then, to consider this case and the national security state’s assault on Australia’s democratic culture more generally.
In 2004, ASIS installed listening devices in the government offices of newly independent Timor-Leste to eavesdrop on its internal discussions during oil and gas negotiations with Australia. The espionage operation occurred while Alexander Downer and John Howard, who were respectively foreign minister and prime minister at the time, said they were deploying Australia’s resources against extremist Muslim terrorism in Indonesia.
But the Timor operation diverted precious ASIS resources away from the war on terror. On September 9, 2004, Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists succeeded in bombing the Australian embassy in Indonesia. To make matters worse, the Timor bugging occurred under cover of an aid project, jeopardising the safety of Australian aid workers everywhere.
A senior ASIS officer, known only as Witness K, expressed concerns about the Timor bugging operation. His career is believed to have suffered as a consequence. He approached the inspector-general of intelligence and security and obtained permission to speak with a lawyer – Bernard Collaery. Both men are now on trial: Collaery in the ACT Supreme Court, where he will exercise his constitutional right to a jury trial, and Witness K in the ACT Magistrates Court……. Continue reading
Ballot dates confirmed for Flinders Ranges on nuclear waste dump issue
Flinders Ranges Council confirms ballot dates for waste facility, Transcontinental, Amy Green, 1 Oct 19
Communities in the far north are one step closer to finding out if they will have a radioactive waste management facility in their backyard with ballot dates confirmed by both councils in contention.
Voting commences in the District Council of Kimba next week, while the Flinders Ranges Council have confirmed that it will hold a community ballot between November 11 and December 12.
- Notes banned during committee meetings
- Closed meeting sparks secrecy concerns
- Barngarla group loses out in legal battle
“In addition to the ballots, anyone can have their say through the submissions process.”
But the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney said the ballots are divisive and are raising tensions in otherwise cohesive communities.
“The ballot is important and essential obviously for communities in the affected areas to have a say and voice their opinion,” he said.
“But this is not a decision just for Kimba or just for Hawker, it’s a national radioactive waste management facility and the government has turned it into a bidding war or a how much are you prepared to fight struggle between two regional communities.
“The ballot and the government’s entire approach has been divisive, unnecessarily divisive. They are consistently asking people to make decisions and take positions on the basis of completely insufficient evidence.
“You wouldn’t buy a secondhand car on the basis of what we know about this project, yet they are asking communities to sign off yes or no about radioactive waste that will need to be managed for 10,000 years.”https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6412542/flinders-ranges-council-confirms-ballot-dates-for-waste-facility/
Queensland Liberal National Party opposes nuclear power
Queensland LNP breaks with federal branch to oppose nuclear power, Amy Remeikis, 3 Oct 2019 Queensland LNP says it supports a greater focus on energy efficiency measures
One of the biggest detractors of the federal Queensland Liberal National party’s push to investigate nuclear energy as a potential power source for Australia has come from within its own house.
The state LNP opposition has publicly declared its opposition to making any changes to the current bipartisan ban on nuclear energy generation, declaring the government would be better served in its goals by focusing on renewable energy sources, in a marked split from their federal state colleagues.
Australia is once again looking at nuclear energy as a potential solution to its power woes, after a group of Coalition MPs, led by a cohort from Queensland, pushed the federal party room into investigating the prospect, through a parliamentary inquiry.
But in a move which has surprised their federal counterparts, the Queensland state LNP spokesman for energy, Michael Hart, made a written submission to the inquiry, announcing his arm of the party’s opposition to any attempt to allow nuclear energy generation, citing the risks to the communities and the environment.
Instead, Hart said the Queensland LNP supports “greater focus” on “energy efficiency measures, along with encouraging investment in renewable energy options like wind and solar, in combination with battery storage when it is technologically and economically feasible to do so”.
“It is considered that Australia’s rich renewable energy resources are more affordable and bring less risk than the elevated cost and risk associated with nuclear energy,” Hart submitted.
“The LNP encourages additional jobs and investment in Queensland’s renewable energy industry, while also supporting resource jobs and exploration which provides baseload power and employment for thousands of Queenslanders.
“In addition to the possibility of accidents and operational failure, nuclear facilities can be a potential target for terrorists. Securing insurance around such possibilities would be virtually impossible.
“In conclusion, the commercial, as well as the political risks, associated with nuclear energy are substantial. To this end, the LNP is strongly committed to an energy policy that delivers safe, affordable and reliable energy to consumers, while fulfilling Australia’s international emissions reduction obligations.
“We believe this can be achieved without lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy generation. Accordingly, we would encourage the committee to ensure an increased emphasis is placed on measures to encourage investment in renewable energy that creates green jobs and lowers electricity bills, for both consumers and industry, which does not (underlined) include nuclear energy”.
The state Labor government established a 50% renewable energy target by 2030 upon winning power in 2015.
The federal inquiry was established after a group of Coalition MPs, led by Hinkler LNP member Keith Pitt and Queensland LNP senator James McGrath, pushed for an investigation into whether nuclear power should be considered as part of the mix, as the government hunts for a long term solution to Australia’s surging energy prices.
Not wanting to reignite the war that led to the downfall of the national energy guarantee, and ultimately, Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership, the government acquiesced to calls for an investigation, which was established after a recommendation from Angus Taylor.
The state LNP position stands in stark contrast to their federal colleagues, including conservative senator Amanda Stoker, who said that “Australia must develop a nuclear energy industry”, as well as her Queensland colleague Gerard Rennick.
McGrath has publicly pushed for the nuclear discussion in numerous interviews and his own social media, as well as within the party room. Pitt, who describes himself as “technologically agnostic”, said the discussion had to be had.
“The first priority for the nations future energy needs will always be reliability and affordability,” he said. “As technology changes I expect our energy mix will also change over a period of time. I am completely technology agnostic in terms of the fuel types that might be utilised. Currently Queensland has the country’s youngest fleet of coal fired generators and I expect they will continue to be a critical part of Queensland’s energy mix into the future.”
He demurred from any questions on the split between state and federal lines, saying the state arm could “speak for themselves”, but attacked the state Labor government for its price management of the state owned power assets.
But the submission did give Queensland Labor senator, Murray Watt, a late week boost.
“This submission shows the LNP’s state MPs have had enough of their federal counterparts’ pointless culture war against renewable power,” he said. “Even the LNP’s state MPs acknowledge that renewables are a cheaper and safer way of meeting our future energy needs.
“They have also slammed their federal counterparts’ pursuit of nuclear power as a massive waste of time and resources.
“The Queensland LNP’s federal representatives should stop wasting everyone’s time by pursuing their obsession with nuclear power and get behind cheaper and safer means of meeting our energy needs.”
A Kimba resident says there’s no going back: a plea to vote NO to nuclear dump
Kimba residents to vote on waste facility, RACHEL YATES, 30 Sept 19, https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/6412750/kimba-residents-to-vote-on-waste-facility/While I would really like to see an extra 45 jobs in our community, this ‘process’ has made me very sceptical and I have very little trust in the government to keep their word, especially when we don’t even know who will actually be running the ‘facility’.
There are still so many unknowns in regards to the dump and yet we are being asked to vote on something that will be here forever.
We won’t be able to change our minds once it is here.
No matter what has been promised or how safe they say it is, this facility will be forced onto people in this community.
I am a neighbour and my family and I still do not want to live anywhere near it.
Nuclear waste should not be dumped on agricultural land.
I can live with being blamed for losing this ‘opportunity’ if we are not chosen but, if we are, and I have to live near this, I will never ‘get over’ feeling like the government and my community has forced this on me and my family.
So far, the government has broken numerous promises and continually change the rules to suit themselves.
Can you truly trust them?
The upcoming vote is our final chance to have a say.
This is it!
There is no going back.
Please, please make sure you are absolutely certain before casting your vote.
If you have even the slightest doubt, please vote no.
Nuclear waste dump for Kimba? Residents to vote soon
This is supported by the reality that the Palmer/federal Liberal agreement on preferences at the last federal election saw a overwhelming victory for the Liberals.
Importantly, the Palmer policy was strong advocacy for nuclear power in Australia, which saw the strong Liberal victory, so to me the wheels are rolling and the only impediment ironically is the large and increasing investment in South Australia in renewable energy.
As far as Kimba accepting the international nuclear waste the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, once the decision to accept the higher level waste was made and confirmed prior to the last federal election.
After 60 years of nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights, Kimba is political heaven for our national Parliament.
A yes vote at Kimba means a $300 million investment by the federal government almost immediately, or they could have their ‘facility’ at Leonora in Western Australia for no cost to taxpayers and in a much more isolated area without the risks and without breaching their own guidelines.
So next week Kimba may well be going in to the history books for different reasons to their up-to annual $80 million export agriculture.
Good luck with whatever their decision.. I don’t have a vote even though I am a partner in a farming business of almost 100 years, near a preferred site.
50+ groups sign joint civil society statement on domestic nuclear power
Friends of the Earth Australia is proud to be among the 50+ groups to sign the following statement calling for a clean, green, nuclear-free future.
The statement has been submitted to the federal inquiry into nuclear power (you can read the FoE submission about ‘small modular reactors’ here and our statement about nuclear power and climate change here).
The strong level of trade union support for a nuclear-free future is very welcome, with key national unions and peak union bodies including the ACTU endorsing the statement below.
*************************************************
Our nation faces urgent energy challenges. Against a backdrop of increasing climate impacts and scientific evidence the need for a clean and renewable energy transition is clear and irrefutable. All levels of government need to actively facilitate and manage Australia’s accelerated transition from reliance on fossil fuels to low carbon electricity generation.
The transition to clean, safe, renewable energy should also re-power the national economy. The development and commercialisation of manufacturing, infrastructure and new energy thinking is already generating employment and opportunity. This should be grown to provide skilled and sustainable jobs and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia.
There should be no debate about the need for this energy transition, or that it is already occurring. However, choices and decisions are needed to make sure that the transition best meets the interests of workers, affected communities and the broader Australian society.
Against this context the federal government has initiated an Inquiry into whether domestic nuclear power has a role in this necessary energy transition.
Our organisations, representing a diverse cross section of the Australian community, strongly maintain that nuclear power has no role to play in Australia’s energy future.
Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need. We maintain this for a range of factors, including:
- Waste: Nuclear reactors produce long-lived radioactive wastes that pose a direct human and environmental threat for many thousands of years and impose a profound inter-generational burden. Radioactive waste management is costly, complex, contested and unresolved, globally and in the current Australian context. Nuclear power cannot be considered a clean source of energy given its intractable legacy of nuclear waste.
- Water: Nuclear power is a thirsty industry that consumes large volumes of water, from uranium mining and processing through to reactor cooling. Australia is a dry nation where water is an important resource and supply is often uncertain.
- Time: Nuclear power is a slow response to a pressing problem. Nuclear reactors are slow to build and license. Globally, reactors routinely take ten years or more to construct and time over-runs are common. Construction and commercialisation of nuclear reactors in Australia would be further delayed by the lack of nuclear engineers, a specialised workforce, and a licensing, regulatory and insurance framework.
- Cost: Nuclear power is highly capital intensive and a very expensive way to produce electricity. The 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission concluded nuclear power was not economically viable. The controversial Hinkley reactors being constructed in the UK will cost more than $35 billion and lock in high cost power for consumers for decades. Cost estimates of other reactors under construction in Europe and the US range from $17 billion upwards and all are many billions of dollars over-budget and many years behind schedule. Renewable energy is simply the cheapest form of new generation electricity as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded in their December 2018 report.
- Security: Nuclear power plants have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets and pose a major security threat. This in turn would likely see an increase in policing and security operations and costs and a commensurate impact on civil liberties and public access to information. Other nations in our region may view Australian nuclear aspirations with suspicion and concern given that many aspects of the technology and knowledge base are the same as those required for nuclear weapons. On many levels nuclear is a power source that undermines confidence.
- Inflexible or unproven: Existing nuclear reactors are highly centralised and inflexible generators of electricity. They lack capacity to respond to changes in demand and usage, are slow to deploy and not well suited to modern energy grids or markets. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not in commercial production or use and remain unproven and uncertain. This is no basis for a national energy policy.
- Safety: All human made systems fail. When nuclear power fails it does so on a massive scale. The human, environmental and economic costs of nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have been massive and continue. Decommissioning and cleaning up old reactors and nuclear sites, even in the absence of any accidents, is technically challenging and very costly.
- Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support. A 2015 IPSOS poll found that support among Australians for solar power (78‒87%) and wind power (72%) is far higher than support for coal (23%) and nuclear (26%).
- Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters. This began in the 1950s with British atomic testing and continues today with uranium mining and proposed nuclear waste dumps. These problems would be magnified if Australia ever advanced domestic nuclear power.
- Better alternatives: If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not. Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.
The path ahead:
Australia can do better than fuel higher carbon emissions and unnecessary radioactive risk.
We need to embrace the fastest growing global energy sector and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology and a world leader in renewable energy technology.
We can grow the jobs of the future here today. This will provide a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and the certainty to ensure vibrant regional economies and secure sustainable and skilled jobs into the future.
Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean and popular. Nuclear is simply not.
Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.
Nuclear waste dump ballot to go ahead in Kimba, South Australia
Robyn Wood Note the end with a quote from the Kimba pro nuker who will profit by selling his land. No quote from nuclear opponents. Have a read of the comments, most of them are opposed to the nuclear waste dump plan. The Barngarla people’s request for an injunction to stop the Kimba vote has been denied. The Kimba ballot is happening now. The Flinders Ranges council has agreed to do a risk assessment, but Canavan is not going to wait for the results before doing the Flinders ballot in November.
It plans to post out ballot papers on Thursday, asking locals if they back locating the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at one of two nominated sites in the region.
The vote comes after the Federal Court on Friday rejected another bid by the Barngarla people to stop it going ahead, pending more court action next year.
The Barngarla, who possess rights over much of the region around Kimba, have argued the poll is unlawful because it excludes native title holders.
Two sites near Kimba have been short-listed as potential locations for a low-level radioactive waste storage facility, while a third is near the Flinders Ranges town of Hawker.
The federal government is yet to reveal its preferred location but said recently it was mindful of the need to reach a decision.
On Friday the government said as well as the Kimba ballot and one to be conducted in the Hawker region in November, business owners and residents within a five-kilometre radius of the three nominated sites would also be surveyed.
The Barngarla had claimed their exclusion from the Kimba ballot was based on their Aboriginality and would impair their human rights or fundamental freedoms as native title owners.
Rejecting that argument in July, Justice Richard White ruled the council’s actions did not contravene racial discrimination laws.
On Friday, Justice Craig Colvin rejected the Barngarla’s argument that its chances of winning on appeal were strong and said the basis for an immediate injunction had not been made out.
National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce general manager Sam Chard said the decision confirmed the community ballots could proceed.
“What this means is that after more than two years of consultation, communities will have multiple ways in which they can have their say on the proposal,” Ms Chard said.
‘”Whether individuals are for or against the facility, we’re confident the communities at the centre of the process are well informed.”
The Kimba council said it intended pushing ahead with the ballot as there was “no legal impediment” to it going ahead.
“Council’s position has always been to facilitate the ballot on behalf of the minister for resources and northern Australia so our community could have its voice heard,” Mayor Dean Johnson said.
The council plans to post out the voting papers on October 3, with the ballot to close on November 7.
Support for the nuclear waste facility is thought to be mixed across the local community.
Jeff Baldock, who has nominated his Kimba farm as a possible site, is backing the project as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to secure Kimba’s future”.
Sir David Attenborough slammed the Australian government’s response to climate change
|
David Attenborough says Australian government ‘doesn’t give a damn’ about rest of the world, Telegraph, UK, Giovanni Torre, perth 24 SEPTEMBER 2019 While the United Kingdom has reduced its carbon emissions over the past 12 Sir David said the current Australian government had departed from the Sir David noted that Mr Morrison brought a lump of coal into one of “If you weren’t opening a coal mine okay I would agree, it’s a joke. But you Sir David noted that Mr Morrison had campaigned for re-election on a Speaking from Chicago, Mr Morrison defended his government’s record on
|
NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro wants to “normalise”nuclear power
NSW Deputy Premier calls for nuclear vote within three years, AFR, Aaron Patrickn 30 Sept 19, NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro suggested holding a non-binding vote at the next federal election to approve the introduction of nuclear power, a step that could help overcome entrenched opposition from the left to the low-emissions technology.
The leader of the state National Party is one of the leading political advocates for nuclear power, which is currently being investigated by parliamentary inquiries at the federal level and in NSW and Victoria.
“We could quite simply have a plebiscite at the 2022 election,” he told a conference run by the Australian Nuclear Association in Sydney. “We need to normalise [?] the conversation.
“Bit by bit it has become the norm. The negativity isn’t happening anymore. Australia is welcoming the conversation.”[?]
Supporters of nuclear power have been buoyed by the new political interest in nuclear, which received a boost when federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor initiated the federal inquiry last month.
At the University of Technology Sydney on Friday, several hundred engineers, regulators and policy experts gathered at the conference to discuss international developments and the Australian outlook.
“The conference is genuinely standing room only,” South Australian nuclear advocate Ben Heard said. “I have never seen it like this. Something is changing down under.”
The federal Coalition’s current policy is not to legalise nuclear power, but some federal and state Coalition MPs hope that developing community attitudes, and the pressure for action on global warming, could change the political environment.
The Labor Party and the Greens remain adamantly opposed. Labor climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler has challenged the government to identify which cities, suburbs or towns would be the location for future nuclear reactors……..
Under a plan advocated by members of the Australia Nuclear Association, the federal government would build at least 20 nuclear power plants from 2030 to 2050.
At a cost of around $6 billion each, each plant would have a generating capacity of 1000 megawatts, which is about half AGL’s NSW Liddell power station, which is due to close in 2023…….
Nuclear critics, including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, have said that the cheapest way to reduce emissions is to combine wind and solar power with some form of storage.
Although batteries have very limited capacity at the moment, experts expect them to improve in coming years. https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nsw-deputy-premier-calls-for-nuclear-vote-within-three-years-20190929-p52vz2
Nuclear submarines for Australia? Dangerous, would require costly taxpayer insurance
|
Nuclear subs idea worth floating It has been debated in some quarters for years that Australia should operate and maintain nuclear-propelled attack submarines. ……. This prospect raises two significant policy issues for Australia. The first is whether the commonwealth can operate and maintain nuclear submarines in a sovereign environment that has no civilian nuclear power industry to supply the nuclear-trained staffs, as well as build and maintain the infrastructure that is necessary. The second is whether Australia is prepared to establish an indemnification and regulatory environment that would be critical to safely and effectively operate and maintain nuclear vessels for 50 years. ……. A unique aspect of such submarines is the enormous amount of energy stored in their reactor cores. Built, operated, and maintained properly, this energy is released in a controlled manner over a long period. A sudden, uncontrolled release of this energy could be catastrophic, not only to the submarine, but to people and property nearby. Given that private insurance typically does not cover nuclear risks, an effective scheme to indemnify possible victims of a nuclear accident could be critical. Without such an indemnity scheme, companies might be unwilling to provide components and services to maintain and operate propulsion plants. As Australian policymakers and the public debate the nuclear submarine option for the Royal Australian Navy, it could be valuable for them to broaden their understanding of what it would take to establish: • A sovereign and robust industrial capability to operate and maintain submarines equipped with mobile nuclear power propulsion plants; • A rigorous regulatory scheme to ensure mobile power reactors are safely built, tested, operated, maintained and deactivated; • An indemnity scheme to cover third-party liabilities in the event of a “nuclear” incident; • Training and development paths for regulators, engineers, operators and maintainers; and • Facilities necessary to service nuclear-powered submarines……. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/nuclear-subs-idea-worth-floating/news-story/61c003a41e9303ca7883561983da90ac |
|
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
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 