Big Business and right-wing Labor are backing nuclear waste project, despite its dodgy economics
Nuclear waste dump case unravels, World News Report, 13 July 16 , Green Left By Renfrey Clarke “……….Business backing The waste dump project may not have good arguments, but it certainly has powerful friends. “We’re absolute advocates,” Nigel McBride, CEO of the industry and commerce peak body Business SA told the Independent Dailyon June 17. “We’re now absolutely saying this is not only feasible but absolutely viable.
“I can tell you Business SA is overtly advocating for a high-level nuclear waste facility in SA, subject to an educational process that will get social consent.”
If this typifies the business skills of South Australia’s moneyed elite, then the state’s economic woes are no mystery.
The Weatherill government has made no formal commitment to the waste dump project, and will not do so before a process of “consultation” with South Australians ends in November.
But few people take the premier’s claim of open-mindedness seriously. Influential figures within the state Labor Party’s dominant right faction are on record as enthusiasts for the waste scheme and big business is cracking the whip.
Weatherill made his views clear when he defied the anti-nuclear thrust of federal Labor policy to set up the royal commission and named the conservative-technocratic retired rear-admiral and former state governor Kevin Scarce as commissioner.
More recently, the government has funded two “citizens’ juries” to hear the testimony of (mainly) pro-nuclear figures and to deliver reports that can be claimed as indicating popular agreement to the nuclear-waste plans……..https://world.einnews.com/article/334731841/OM4SBscz5Dp42697
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill’s deception about the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury
The Citizens’ Jury has delivered exactly what Jay Weatherill wanted- a summary of the Royal 
Commission recommendations, with enough uncertainty to justify the nuclear lobby’s next step.
(I’m correcting a previous version of this post, here) The South Australian government already rushed through legislation that overturned South Australia’s legislation against spending money on nuclear industry development, (making this retrospective of course – to cover the $millions already spent)
The next step is to overturn the whole Act, or at least those parts of it which prohibit importing a nd storing foreign wastes.
Weatherill is quoted in THE AUSTRALIAN today as saying ”
“they (the Citizens’ Jury) are asking us to also change the legislation to undertake that work”.
That is a lie. The jury was merely repeating what the Nuclear Royal Commission said. The jury kept to their brief – no decisions or recommendations – just regurgitate what the Commission said.
Australian Catholic Aboriginal leaders call for a TREATY NOW
Australia is the only country in the English-speaking world that does not have a Treaty with its First Peoples. The USA, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries have treaties with their First Peoples, recognising their rights and prior occupation of their lands. We can be part of this.
It was made clear during community consultations that many Victorian Aboriginal peoples do not want to be recognised in the Constitution, as it will be more of the same lip service we have endured for decades, like many of the promises made to us in the past that changed nothing.
Catholic Aboriginal leaders in Victoria call for a Treaty http://melbournecatholic.org.au/News/catholic-aboriginal-leaders-in-victoria-call-for-a-treaty 28 June 2016 Sherry Balcombe, Coordinator, Aboriginal Catholic Ministry
In 1986 in Alice Springs Pope St John Paul II gave the most dramatic recognition by the Church in Australia to Aboriginal people. He challenged the Aboriginal people to find their rightful place in the Australian Church. Following that speech, the Aboriginal Catholic people around Australia felt new life and inspiration.
We at the Aboriginal Catholic Ministry Victoria have been greatly supported by the Archdiocese of Melbourne and we acknowledge this support and are grateful for helping us make our voice heard. It takes courage to step across the cultural abyss, so many thanks to the Archdiocese.
I feel that it was a personal challenge to me, and continues to be, to find our rightful place; we are constantly challenged to justify ourselves.
For far too long governments, authorities and the Church have tried to do things for Aboriginal people. Our wish is to do things for ourselves. With your support, encouragement and collaboration we can make this a brighter, prouder and more inclusive chapter in Australia’s shared history.
Although dominant cultures in Australia see us as the victims and problems, we know and see our great warriors: people running organisations, bringing up families and educating the wider communities on the deep, meaningful contributions that we can make to the life of this great country.
We have the chance right now to move forward the right and proper way by working with Aboriginal people towards the common goal of a Treaty. Our people have struggled on the fringes of society for far too long. Continue reading
Nuclear waste – Interim storage containers not necessarily safe
LobbyistsRule, – comment on The Advertiser, 11 July 16
The temperatures inside these casks normally sit at 200 to 300 degrees Celcius – but if the vents of the concrete overjacket get blocked the temperature can rise to 500 degrees Celcius.
These casks have only been around for twenty years – they should start popping all over the USA in a decade or two.
All this information is available from the USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission web site for anyone to read. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/citizens-jury-on-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-releases-initial-report/news-story/e76096fa7ec07edcbe18ae0b989683dd
Important questions for the South Australian Nuclear Citizens’ Jury
Dan Monceaux, 11 July 16
1) Jury should ask for access to all submissions made to the Parliamentary Committee currently considering responses to the NFCRC’s Final Report.
2) Jury should realise that future consideration is for a multi-lateral nuclear fuel centre, which could involve enrichment, reprocessing, fuel fabrication etc. Waste storage is an entry point: see “Nuclear Fuel Leasing” in the NFCRC’s Report for details.
3) Jury should ask: What is the defence sector’s interest in the nuclear fuel cycle? If defence wants it, how important is the economic case for further processing? Could these proceed without a commercial proposition?
4) Jury should consider the USA’s Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program and discuss why this was not considered in the NFCRC’s Final Report. it was submitted to the Commission as evidence.
5) Jury should consider the USA’s Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and discuss why this was not considered in the NFCRC’s Final Report. it was submitted to the Commission as evidence.
6) The jury should ask the question: what evidence did the Commission receive and choose NOT to include in its Final Report? Particularly on the topic of safety.
Citizens jury concerned about economics of nuclear waste dump plan
Citizens’ jury questions economics of SA nuclear dump THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 11, 2016 Rebecca Puddy The bid to establish a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia has suffered a further setback, after an independent “citizens’ jury” raised concerns about the economic viability of the project.
A citizens’ jury of 50 people met over two weekends to discuss the nuclear royal commission report, handing a nine-page summary to Premier Jay Weatherill last night.
But after hearing from experts, the jury questioned the economic underpinnings of the commission’s findings.
“There were varying views between expert witnesses on the economic viability of this project and therefore questions remain relating to the economic modelling by the royal commission report to feel comfortable progressing to further involvement,” the jury report said.>Mr Weatherill accepted the report from the jury, describing it as “commonsense”.
But he confirmed there was extra work to be done on the estimated size of the economic benefit. “They want some more work on the assumptions so they can be clear on what the benefits are and those assumptions are really what is the actual price an overseas country is prepared to pay for storing their waste in our country and that will only be known if we undertake that work,” Mr Weatherill said.
“That will require expenditure and they are asking us to also change the legislation to undertake that work, so it’s a commonsense recommendation and one we will work on.” Another 350 people will meet in October in another citizens’ jury to look at feedback from the statewide consultations………The South Australian Labor government’s examination into the merits of engaging in the nuclear fuel cycle has so far cost the state’s taxpayers $11.8 million.
This is despite Labor’s national platform, updated last year, strongly opposing establishment of nuclear power plants and any stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, other than uranium mining, in Australia. The platform states strong opposition to the importation and storage of nuclear waste from overseas.
In his opening speech to the citizens’ jury, Mr Weatherill said the group was not meant to arrive at a decision but “to actually arrive at a decision about whether the government can make a decision”……..Varying expert views on the economic benefits of storing nuclear waste have already prompted the government to review work already undertaken by its $7.2 million royal commission.
Opposition spokesman Rob Lucas questioned the value of the citizens’ jury to government. “If that is all there is it has been a massive waste of money which hasn’t clarified anything or progressed the debate at all.”
Mr Weatherill has committed to providing a response to the royal commission by the end of the year. The report royal commission’s recommended pursuing a waste dump. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/citizens-jury-questions-economics-of-sa-nuclear-dump/news-story/07e997242e2cb7e71daa0dd45d866a51
Citizens’ jury questions safety concerns surrounding dump proposal
Nuclear royal commission: Citizens’ jury questions safety concerns surrounding dump proposal, ABC News, By Daniel Keane, 10 July 16 A grassroots report into a proposal to build a high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia has identified safety as a major concern.
The report by a citizens’ jury of 50 randomly selected South Australians also found “significant additional research” is required before residents can make an “informed decision”.
The report, presented to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday afternoon, followed four days of intense discussions and meetings with experts both for and against the proposal.
Timeline: SA’s nuclear dump debate Plans for a national nuclear waste dump have been on the agenda for decades, and for much of that time SA’s outback has been touted as a possible site.
“The jurors recognise there are potential economic benefits, but there are also substantial risks to consider,” the report stated. “There is a degree of uncertainty around both the benefits and risks associated with establishing such a facility…….
Nuclear radiation a concern to people, environment Continue reading
Losing faith in Nuclear Citizens’ Jury process – today’s hearings
Unfortunately, despite the genuine hard work of the jury members, it could all be a bit of a waste, or worse. The Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission NFCRC was over months ago. But whaddya know – the NFCRC seems to be well in control of the jury proceedings.
DemocracyCo people are trying hard, but are they the patsy in all this?
Dan Monceau reports on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/:
At the session I observed yesterday, Lucinda Byers (of the NFCRC) was a major participant in the conversation about ‘Trust’.
Geordan Graetz, a Royal Commission staff member who was first disclosed in the Royal Commission’s final report was hanging around.
I notice today that Ashok Kaniyal, another Royal Commission staff member appears to be present.
The media manager for CARA (the Department of Premier & Cabinet’s new reponse agency) is Jenny Turner, who was previously Senior Communications officer, employed by the Royal Commission.
DPC is “in charge” of the process, but the Commission’s staff are clearly and quite intimately involved in this current Citizens Jury process.
South Australia Nuclear Citizens Jury afternoon session 9 July
In this session, facilitator (probably Emily Jenke from DemocracyCo) was asking the jury to discuss and develop a consensus on the wording of their reports on several topics.
I hope that there will be a transcript of this – (a) because I missed quite a lot and (b) because the to and fro of questions between jurors is hard to follow in an attempted transcript such as I’m doing.
In fact, I learned only some of the discussion on subjects of Education, Community Consent and Trust, and Safety.
Parts that I found particularly significant –
- On Economics – how much investment does the State of South Australia have to put into development of nuclear waste importing facilities? Some jurors felt that there was not enough economic modelling. on education: when will a yes or no answer be acceptable?
- on Trust : it was stressed that this is important because the current South Australian legislation prohibits import and storage of foreign nuclear waste. We need to decide if South Australia, as producer of uranium, has a moral and ethical obligation to take back wastes. Apparently Haydn Manning in a previous hearing has suggested that there is this obligation. However, one juror stated that this was not the finding of the old Ranger Inquiry. International standards state that the society that generates the waste (i.e in nuclear reactors) has that obligation, (not the society that provides the uranium). The Royal Commission Report also states this.
- on Safety – a comprehensive report was given on this, outlining many questions. Here one juror complained that the risks had been emphasised, rather than safety. He referred the jurors back to then evidence given the previous week on radiation risks. At this point my live-stream reception cut out – just as it was getting interesting, seeing that last week’s Citizens’ jury speakers produced a whole lot of trivial nonsense on this topic.
Nuclear Citizens Jury discusses Community Consent
Enice Marsh from the Adnyamathanha Camp Law Mob led off with a clear and passionate statement on the fact that, despite the friendliness and courtesy of the Nuclear Commission’s Jon Bok, their group utterly rejects nuclear waste importing.
This discussion focused mainly on Aboriginal issues. Of course, mainly white people talking. But it is encouraging to note that these jurors showed real concern for the interests of Aboriginal people.
Some interesting discussion on whether the question of importing nuclear waste is an “ethical question or an economic question”
One juror answered firmly –
“If you read the Royal Commission’s report, it’s all about the money”
Nobody disputed that , and the facilitator moved the discussion on quickly.
A juror questioned the lack of information amongst the ordinary public, including the jurors, about radiation. This matter was not followed up.
Proposals were made that there should be no further discussion, until all potential native landowners be fully consulted, before there is any further progress in the State discussion on nuclear. waste importing. It doesn’t look as if that proposition will be taken up. It was knocked on the head by another Aboriginal speaker – Harry?
The group ended up working out a paragraph for their Final Report. – along these lines:
“We have confidence that the best consultation must be what works for the people being consulted. It should not be rushed, and this must be clear from the start.”
South Australian Greens leader shows up folly of Jay Weatherill’s nuclear waste boondoggle
| Throwing good money after bad – How the nuclear waste dump folly could wreck the State Budget | ||||
The additional $3.6m allocated in the SA State Budget to advance the case for an international nuclear waste dump means that $13m will have been spent on this deeply flawed proposal by the end of the year, according to Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
“If the Government decides at the end of this year to proceed further with the nuclear waste dump, then this amount must be budgeted for. There will be no revenue, only costs. “On the other hand, if the Government abandons this nuclear waste dump folly now, then we can cut our losses and re-allocate that money to genuinely benefit South Australians rather than impose a toxic legacy for countless future generations”, said Mr Parnell. Here are some better uses to which $600m could be spent: · Finish electrification of the Gawler line and new tram lines to make AdeLink a reality · Better cycling infrastructure · Solar panels on all public housing · Better rural health services and mental health services · Reducing payroll tax for wages paid to apprentices and trainees |
||||
Tarlka Matuwa Piarku Aboriginal Corporation signs agreement with uranium company Toro
Toro signs native title deal for Wiluna, Yahoo News Jarrod Lucas, Kalgoorlie – The West Australian on July 7, 2016 Uranium hopeful Toro Energy has signed a native title agreement with the traditional owners of its proposed Wiluna mine.
It comes as Toro waits on the Environmental Protection Authority’s verdict on Wiluna after a three-month public review process was completed in February.
Wiluna is one of three Goldfields uranium projects — alongside Vimy Resources’ Mulga Rock project and WA’s biggest deposit, the Cameco- owned Yeelirrie — which are awaiting EPA approval.
The agreement with the Tarlka Matuwa Piarku Aboriginal Corporation, the native title holding body of the Wiluna people, recognises opportunities for a range of business and employment initiatives.
Toro’s managing director Vanessa Guthrie said the agreement was reached after more than seven years of relationship building with the Wiluna people……….
In July 2013 the Federal Court determined their native claim over almost 48,000sqkm, including the Millipede, Centipede and Lake Way uranium deposits which Toro plans to mine. The Wiluna project also takes in the Lake Maitland deposit, where mining would begin six years into the 20-year project life.There is currently no native title claim over Lake Maitland, but Toro has been engaging with the Barwidgee people who claim an interest.
The Liberal Government overturned a ban on uranium mining in 2008, but WA has not produced a single pound of yellowcake, with prices depressed since the 2011 Japanese tsunami sent the Fukushima plant into multiple meltdowns.
Wiluna became the first mine in WA to win State Government environmental approvals in October 2012 and Toro added Federal approval six months later. But the $35 million acquisition of the Lake Maitland deposit from Mega Uranium in mid-2013 meant Toro went back to the drawing board to win further approvals to add new deposits to the mine plan.
The situation is now delicately poised with Toro, Vimy and Cameco striving to win environmental approval before next year’s State election.
WA Labor remains opposed to the mining and export of uranium, but shadow mines minister Bill Johnston says the party would not over-turn approvals if it wins next year’s State election……….https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32003739/toro-signs-native-title-deal-for-wiluna/
South Australian govt could spend over $600 million on nuclear waste folly, before any contracts signed
Parnell blasts allocated nuclear waste money, Transcontinental Matt Carcich @MattCarcich July 8, 2016, SA Greens state Member of Legislative Council (MLC) Mark Parnell, says the South Australian government’s allocated $3.6 million in the state budget to ‘advance the case for an international waste dump in South Australia’, is deeply flawed.
This advance includes pursuing a waste dump, simplifying mining approvals processes and seeking a relaxation of federal restrictions on nuclear power generation in Australia. It means $13 million will have been spent on the project by the end of the year, a worrying sign, according to Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
“Spending $13 million of scarce taxpayer funds on a project that doesn’t add up economically, is throwing good money after bad,” Mr Parnell said. Mr Parnell says the alleged costs before any substantial announcements is detrimental to the state budget.
“According to consultants engaged by the Royal Commission (and paid for by the Government), the amount of government expenditure prior to any decision to go ahead with the dump and BEFORE any contracts have been signed would be around $300 million to in excess of $600 million, over the next 6 years!” Mr Parnell said.
“Spending in excess of $600 million preparing for a nuclear waste dump that will never eventuate is a shocking waste that will eat a massive hole in the projected surpluses over the forward estimates.”Mr Parnell says if the state government proceeds with the nuclear waste dump, they will inflict further costs to the budget.
However, Mr Parnell says if the state government abandons it, more money could be re-allocated to other projects in Port Augusta. “My number one in Port Augusta would be the solar thermal power plant, replacing the Alinta with solar thermal is a key measure,” “On top of that, rural mental health is far substandard to what’s available in metro areas.”…… http://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/4018264/parnell-blasts-allocated-nuclear-waste-money/
Victoria is beating New South Wales in the renewable energy race
Climate change: how Victoria trumped New South Wales in the great renewable energy race
Wind and solar energy projects are set to be the big winners of the state’s ambitious renewable energy targets, Guardian, Giles Parkinson 6 July 16
Victoria’s ambitious renewable energy targets will see a doubling of the state’s wind energy capacity.
Two years ago Rob Stokes, the then environment minister for New South Wales, promised that his state could become Australia’s answer to California in the clean energy industry.
“We are making NSW No 1 in energy and environmental policy,” Stokes, a Liberal,told the Clean Energy Week gathering in Sydney in July 2014.“When it comes to clean energy, we can be Australia’s answer to California.”
It was a bold vision, and a laudable one, but it didn’t turn out that way.
Investment in large-scale renewable energy, apart from some federally funded large-scale solar projects, has all but dried up. In May, a report by the Climate Council rated NSW as the “worst place” for renewable energy investment in Australia.
It’s ironic because NSW has the biggest pipeline of undeveloped renewable energy projects in the country. But now other states are seeking to grab a bigger share of the renewable energy pie, particularly as traditional industries of car manufacturing and steel-making face an uncertain future.
Last month Victoria became the latest Labor government to announce renewable energy targets over and above the federal target, announcing it would aim to have 25% of its electricity served by renewable energy by 2020, and 40% by 2025.
That compares with a national target that translates to about a 23% by 2020, and the Australian Capital Territory’s 100% target by 2020, Queensland’s 50% target by 2030 and South Australia’s 50% target by 2025, a percentage it is likely to reach later this year.
ut Victoria’s target appears the most ambitious of the lot, simply for the sheer number of new wind and solar farms that will be needed to meet the target. And it also intends to have legislation in place from next year that will ensure the target is met.
The 40% by 2025 target translates into some 5,400MW of new renewable energy capacity to be installed within the next 10 years. That will be almost exclusively wind and solar farms and is three times as much renewable energy capacity as the state has installed up till now and nearly equal to the national target for 2020.
“This is an ambitious target but a very achievable target,” says the Victorian energy minister, Lily D’Ambrosio. She intends to adopt the system of “reverse auctions” pioneered successfully by the ACT, which will have some 600MW of large scale renewables in place by 2020 to meet its own 100% target.
Already, under a previously announced tender designed to support wind projects, the Victorian government has signed contracts that will help two windfarms be built over the next year – a 13-turbine windfarm at Kiata near Horsham and a 44-turbine windfarm at Mount Gellibrand near Colac………https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/06/climate-change-how-victoria-trumped-new-south-wales-in-the-great-renewable-energy-race
Greg Ward, Chad Jacobi, Nigel McBride, Jason Kuchel, Michael Penniment mislead the Nuclear Citizens Jury about Radiation
Bananas, brazil nuts and some other foods contain radioactive potassium-40 — but in extremely low doses. Potassium-40 in bananas has a specific activity of 71 ten millionths of a curie per gram. Compare that to the 88 curies per gram for Cesium-137. This is like comparing a stick of dynamite to an atomic bomb. Our bodies manage the ingested Potassium 40, so that after eating bananas, the excess is quickly excreted and the body’s Potassium-40 level remains unchanged.
The radioactive isotopes that come from nuclear fission (such as strontium -90, cesium -137 and iodine 131) were unknown in nature before atomic fission: our bodies are not adapted to them. And as well as being far more radioactive that Potassium -40, they can accumulate in the body.
I had hoped for something sensible to come out of these Citizens’ Juries. That doesn’t look like happening if the juries continue to be fed this kind of nonsense.
Chocolates, bananas, ionising radiation and a nuclear waste dump https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/chocolates-bananas-ionising-radiation-and-a-nuclear-waste-dump,9200 5 July 2016
On the matter of ionising radiation and health, Noel Wauchope rebuts five misleading speakers at the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury hearings on Australia’s nuclear waste importation plan.
IN TWO DAYS of 25 Citizens’ Jury sessions in Adelaide (on 25-26 June), about nuclear waste importing, there was minimal coverage of the question of ionising radiation and health.
What little there was, was skimpy, superficial and downright deceptive, in 209 pages of transcripts.
There was not one mention of the world’s authoritative bodies on the subject — The World Health Organisation, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or any of the reports on biological effects of ionising radiation.
There was no explanation of the “linear no threshold” (LNT) theory on ionising radiation and health, despite the fact that this theory is the one accepted by all the national and international health bodies, including the Ionising Radiation Safety Institute of Australia who, on this topic, quote the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
Instead of explaining this basic concept in radiation protection, the slight coverage on radiation and health given to the Jury, was done in a trivial manner as the following examples (listed in the transcript report) illustrate. Continue reading
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 