Fantastic news! Port Augusta’s opportunity to become a world class solar energy hub
Revealed: Proposal for $1.2bn solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta June 4, 2016 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/revealed-proposal-for-12bn-solar-thermal-power-plant-at-port-augusta/news-story/58e18b826e4ecedfb57a9d11dc5fe7ba Sheradyn Holderhead Tory Shepherd A NEW proposal for a $1.2 billion solar thermal plant at Port Augusta, backed by former federal Liberal leader Dr John Hewson, can be revealed by The Advertiser just weeks after the city was hit with the closure of its power station.
Solastor Australia will next week unveil its plans to build a solar thermal power station with a generation capacity up to 170 megawatts and energy storage capabilities, The Advertiser has discovered.
While details of the project remain secret until an official announcement on Tuesday, a similar proposal from US company SolarReserve would create up to 1000 jobs during construction and about 50 permanent jobs.
Solastor Australia chairman Dr Hewson will reveal the company intends to build a fully integrated, solar thermal power station and energy storage system to provide SA with “24/7 base load and peak load generation”.
“We’ll be announcing it all on Tuesday,” he said last night. “This is world-class. We think this is something we can roll out not only across Australia but internationally. It’s Australian technology, it gives Australia a real edge … in actually being able to turn sunlight into effective baseload energy.”
The Advertiser understands behind-the-scenes work on the proposal has been underway for months. The company has a plant in China and has been working in the Middle East.
And Solastor believes that it can produce affordable energy from the plant. In a statement, Solastor Australia said the proposed power station would cost about $1.2 billion and would have a generation capacity of 110mW in winter and 170mW in summer.
“Once completed, it will generate approximately 1.25 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per annum, which is sufficient to provide power to more than 200,000 Australian homes,” the statement said.
Both Federal and State governments are aware of the plans — and consider it to be a legitimate proposal.
Last month, Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt promised financial support for the 110mW SolarReserve project, which until now was the only publicly known proposal for a solar thermal plant at Port Augusta.
Port Augusta mayor Sam Johnson said the second proposal was “fantastic news” and, along with four other renewable energy projects, was the “saving grace” for the town and the state’s economy.
“This reinforces comments in the past that Port Augusta will be the renewable capital of Australia,” he said. “This would be South Australia and Australia transitioning to a new world and would be a saving grace for Port Augusta and the SA economy.”
Mr Johnson said this proposal was the fifth renewable energy power station plan, which also included two 100mW solar panel farms, and a combined wind turbine and solar panel farm, the approval of which was expected to be announced next week
These projects will support Arrium and the skilled workforce we have, as well as benefiting small business throughout the region,” Mr Johnson said. “All up these projects would replace the generation from the coal-powered plant.” Repower Port Augusta campaigner Dan Spencer said it was great news that more companies were coming forward with proposals.
“Port Augusta really has the opportunity to become a renewable energy hub,” he said.
“More and more proponents are coming forward and saying they want to invest which is really exciting.
“There’s no reason we couldn’t see both these solar projects get built. The more projects, the more investment, the more clean energy.”
In April a Repower Port Augusta-commissioned ReachTEL poll of 1195 people showed that three-quarters believed the Federal Government should help fund the construction of a solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta.
Submission time again – this time to South Australian Parliamentary Committee
JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINDINGS OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
South Australian ‘Citizens’ Jury’ to kick off expensive nuclear publicity juggernaut
Jay Weatherill launches a nuclear propaganda juggernaut, Independent Australia 1 June 2016, Noel Wauchope examines Jay Weatherill’s elaborate publicity campaign featuring so-called “citizens’ juries” ahead of a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN Premier Jay Weatherill is launching an all out campaign to inform the public about the recent Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission‘s plan for a global nuclear waste importing industry.
This is all going to be terribly democratic, we are told. There will be “citizens’ jury” meetings on 25-26 June and 9-10 July.
I am, in fact, in favour of the citizens’ jury idea. Instead of us being “talked down” to by experts (who are likely to have a vested interest in the nuclear waste import plan), ordinary non-experts hear all the evidence and opposing opinions, discuss these and come up with a sensible verdict……
My first problem with the South Australian citizens’ juries on nuclear waste importing is that the first jury isn’t given a true jury role.
The letter sent to potential jury participants says that their task will be to:
‘… produce an independent guide to help every South Australian understand the recommendations raised by the Royal Commission’s report.’
This jury will not produce a verdict on whether or not the jury thinks that the nuclear waste import plan should go ahead….It is going to provide material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission‘s information campaign. And how will this jury gather this information? Well, it will presumably be informed by the newly created Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency — about which nobody seems to know anything. Who are the members?……
There are other questions as to its role. A citizens’ jury is supposed to have an independent advisory panel. Who will be on this panel? It’s also supposed to have an independent monitor supervising its meetings. Who will this be? The jury will hear expert witnesses. Who will they be? And where will the jury get its documentary information? How transparent will this citizens’ jury be?
One comforting thought is that newDemocracy’s reputation is at stake if their jury process is seen to be unfair. However, will they be able to withstand the pro-nuclear pressure from the Weatherill Government and Kevin Scarce‘s Royal Commission crew?……
Meanwhile, Jay Weatherill has wasted no time in setting out the rest of the process that will follow this first Citizens’ Jury meeting….
This again raises those questions about just who will be informing the public, with what materials and so forth. And there’s another great question that nobody seems keen to answer.
How much is this nuclear publicity juggernaut going to cost taxpayers? https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/jay-weatherill-launches-a-nuclear-propaganda-juggernaut,9055
Globally unprecedented scale of Nuclear waste shipments target Australia:
Nuclear Waste Brief by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner. 3 June 16 An un-declared Australia port is targeted to receive a globally unprecedented scale of high level nuclear waste transport and shipping, facing some 100 000 tonnes of SNF waste over a circa 33 year period of proposed peak Nuclear port operations from project Year 11 to Year 45 (Jacobs MCM, Executive Summary, Figure 3 Timeline of spent fuel transfers, p.5).
This is some 25 per cent higher than the global total of 80 000 tonnes of SNF waste shipped around the world in a 45 year period since 1971 according to the World Nuclear Association report “Transport of Radioactive Materials” (Sept 2015) and the Jacobs MCM consultancy (p.152).
A total of 30 000 tonnes of high level nuclear wastes were shipped to the UK Sellafield reprocessing facility and a total of 40 000 tonnes was shipped to the French La Hague reprocessing facility, by far the world’s largest nuclear ports, in the 45 year period since 1971 (WNA report).
An undeclared Australian port is targeted to take over three times the total tonnage of high level nuclear waste shipped to Sellafield and two and a half times the total tonnage shipped to La Hague.
Some 400 waste ships of high level nuclear waste, totalling 90 000 tonnes SNF waste and requiring 9 000 transport casks, are to be brought into Australia in a 30 year period of peak port operations.
In a comparable 30 year period, there were some 160 high level nuclear waste shipments from Japan to Europe from 1969 to late 1990’s, totalling 7 040 tonnes SNF waste and involving some 4 000 nuclear waste transport casks (WNA report).
Sweden has shipped over 4 500 tonnes SNF waste around the Swedish coast to their CLAB central interim storage facility by mid-2015 (WNA report). Australia is proposed to do so every 18 months.
Questions on the location of a Nuclear port and on the safety of waste shipments:
The SA State government must publicly explain the basis for the farcical claim made by Jacobs MCM (Introduction p.11) of “an abundance of locations” suitable for deep sea Nuclear port sites in SA.
Is a new deep sea Nuclear port and high level SNF waste storage site to be imposed in the coastal region south of Whyalla? Or as reported in The Australian “World’s nuke waste may pass through NT, SA” (12 May 2016): Is the Port of Darwin also in the Nuclear target range?
The Final Report Concludes: “…if a cask was lost at sea and was irrecoverable, there is a potential for some members of the public consuming locally sourced seafood to receive a very small dose of radiation”; and Concludes that terrorist attack scenarios are conceivable and rocket attack has the greatest potential to cause a release of radiation (Appendix L – Transport risk analysis p.312).
A further Jacobs MCM desk top Concludes that radioactivity that escapes from an unrecovered and degrading cask is expected “to be diluted in thousands of cubic kilometres of seawater” (“Safety and risks in the transportation of radioactive material to and from Australia”, April 2016, p.50). see http://www.nodumpalliance.org.au/
Nuclear ‘Citizens Jury’ will be a farce if it relies solely on that biased South Australian Royal Commission
A big limitation of this so called first “Citizens’ jury is that it will take its information from the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission. But there are important aspects that are almost completely glossed over in that Commission. For example – they barely mention the dangers of transporting radioactive trash. That is an issue of high concern internationally.
Quoting a recent UK report on the dangers of a radioactive accident or of a radioactive attack – “The report on nuclear security, compiled by Dr David Lowry, a senior research fellow with the US Institute for Resource and Security Studies, argues that nuclear materials transported by road, rail, sea and air are also potential targets.”
If the “Agenda Setting Jury” is going to rely only on that biased pro nuclear Commission for the topics for discussion, then the whole thing will be a farce
New DemocracyCo’s co-CEO Emily Jenke says Citizens’ Jury not about manufacturing nuclear consent
Nuclear jury about the big picture, not manufacturing consent. InDaily, Tom Richardson, 3 June 16 The citizens’ jury beginning this month to debate South Australia’s nuclear future is not an attempt to manufacture the “social consent” alluded to by Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce, but a bid to establish whether it exists, says one of the architects of the forum.
InDaily can reveal that SA-based startup DemocracyCo has won the tender to deliver the first of the two planned Citizens’ Juries, to be held over two weekends, beginning on June 25.
The company, which also convened last year’s forum on dog and cat management, will oversee a randomly-selected congregation of 50 South Australians to ponder issues surrounding the prospective local establishment of a high-level nuclear waste dump. The jury selection process was conducted by a separate company, the Sydney-based New Democracy Foundation.
New DemocracyCo’s co-CEO Emily Jenke told InDaily the process was part of a broader body of work whose aim was not to engineer public support, but to “get an understanding by the end of the year as to whether the community are comfortable continuing this discussion”.
“This process… is about understanding; it’s not trying to build social consent, but understanding whether it’s there or not,” Jenke said. Continue reading
Infrastructure Victoria draft report includes nuclear power as an option
‘Bicycle highways’ through Melbourne CBD backed by cycling advocate, ABC News, 2 June 16 “….Infrastructure Victoria has proposed the cycle “highways” at a cost of $100 million, one of more than 200 ideas put forward in an options paper looking at state projects for the next 30 years…..
Nuclear port in Australia to receive and store High level Nuclear Wastes
The first high level nuclear waste shipment imposes untenable & unfunded liabilities on Australia, without a disposal capacity or even a site, and facing proposed decades of above ground storage.
David Noonan, 3 June 16 Nuclear port in Australia to store High level Nuclear wastes and receive waste ships every 24 to 30 days for decades:
The SA Nuclear Royal Commission Final Report (9 May 2016, 16 Mb) recommends a deep sea Nuclear port in Australia to receive an average 3 000 tonnes of high level Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) waste per year throughout the first three decades of proposed operations.
“In summary, the report recommends: Management, storage and disposal of waste, Recommendation: Pursue a purpose-built waste storage and disposal facility for used nuclear fuel. … The Commission’s firm conclusion is that this opportunity should be actively pursued, and as soon as possible.” (Nuclear Commission, Report Delivered, 9 May)
The Nuclear Commission report is based on a desk top nuclear waste consultancy “Radioactive waste storage and disposal facilities in SA” (Feb 2016) by Jacobs MCM, stating baseline requirements for:
the proposed Nuclear port is to take a total of 138 000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste (equivalent to 1/3 of total global SNF waste) over some 70 years from Project Year 11;
a “dedicated port facility specifically developed to transfer the canisters from the delivery ship to rail for transportation to the facility site” stating a “greenfield port is proposed”, with an allowance of A$100 million in baseline costs for the development of the port.
(Jacobs MCM, Enabling infrastructure, Port facilities, p.136);
“…estimated receivals of 3,000 tonne of SNF per year. With typical capacity per cask of 10 tonnes , this translates as 300 casks per year, requiring 12-15 sailings (nuclear waste shipments) per annum, meaning one ship each 24-30 days on average.” At 200 – 250 tonnes SNF waste per ship.(Jacobs MCM, Immediate port receival laydown area, p.170);
the proposed Nuclear port is to store high level nuclear waste on site, with a “minimum immediate port storage capacity for casks unloaded from ships suggested as 28 waste casks” required a storage capacity of some 280 tonnes of high level SNF waste, at an average timeline of 10-12 days to clear a shipment of 20 waste casks from the port (p.170). A loaded high level nuclear waste transport cask weighs in range of 100 to 140 tonnes (by type);
In addition, the proposed Nuclear port is required to receive some 390 000 cubic metres of intermediate level nuclear wastes. At a rate of 10 000 m3 per year for the first 28 years of operations (equating to circa 600 x OSO shipping containers per year) stepping down to circa 4 000 m3 per year over the following proposed 24 years of port operations (p.161 and 172).
The proposed Nuclear port is itself to become a high level nuclear waste dump holding SNF wastes (280 tonnes) equivalent to some 14 years operations of a nuclear power reactor. “A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel” (US Nuclear Energy Institute).
The first high level nuclear waste shipment imposes untenable & unfunded liabilities on Australia, without a disposal capacity or even a site, and facing proposed decades of above ground storage.
Climate Council reports on Australia’s top solar states and suburbs
Australia’s top solar states and suburbs http://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/australias-top-solar-states-and-suburbs/ By Sophie Vorrath on May 25, 2016Rooftop solar is becoming as “common as insulation” in some parts of Australia, a new report has found, with 14 suburbs now recording penetration above 50 per cent, and many others recording uptake far above their state’s average, sometimes as high as 65 per cent.
The report is the Climate Council’s latest round-up of data on the performance of renewable energy in Australia’s states and territories. . As you can see in the table below, at the state and territory level, South Australia, Queensland, and Western Australia all have a higher share of Australia’s solar PV installations than their share of the population [Table 3 on original]
But in terms of the percentage of households with solar PV, South Australia and Queensland are still leading the country, with PV penetration levels fast approaching one-third of all households. Western Australia comes in at third place, with solar PV panels on one in five households.
In the suburbs of Australia, the data tells a slightly different story, with some postcodes charting a solar PV penetration rate much higher than the average of the state or territory they are located in. Continue reading
Despite our solar resources, Australia way behind Britain in solar energy
Australia 10th in global solar capacity as industry looks ahead to sunnier times http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-10th-in-global-solar-capacity-as-industry-looks-ahead-to-sunnier-times-20160531-gp83t6.html June 1, 201 Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald Australia installed almost 1 gigawatt of new solar capacity last year but was easily eclipsed by cloudy nations such as the United Kingdom, which installed about four times as much, according to the REN21 Global Status report on renewable energy.
Investment in new renewable energy and energy efficiency programs rose to a record $US286 billion ($396 billion) even as prices for most technologies, such as solar and wind energy, fell. Growth also came despite falling prices for rival fuel sources, such as coal and oil.
“Renewables are now cost-competitive with fossil fuels in many markets and are established around the world as mainstream sources of energy,” Arthouros Zervos, chairman of REN21, said in the report.
Globally solar PV capacity added 50 gigawatts to reach 227 GW of capacity. New wind power capacity rose even more, adding 63 GW of new capacity to reach 433 GW.
Australia added 900 MW of new solar PV last year – the eighth-most in the world – to reach 5.1 GW of capacity.
That total, though, ranked Australia 10th in the world, trailing nations not known for their sunshine, such as the UK, South Korea and Germany. The UK added 3.7 GW alone last year to reach 9.1 GW of capacity, or almost twice Australia’s tally.
Kane Thornton, chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, said it was “obviously disappointing that the UK had almost twice as much solar power as Australia by the end of 2015, given we have some of the strongest sunshine in the world.” Continue reading
Rum Jungle still polluted 45 years after uranium mine was closed
Rum Jungle uranium mine in NT polluting environment 45 years after closure, ABC Radio The World Today By Sara Everingham Traditional owner Kathy Mills finds every visit to site of the old Rum Jungle uranium mine upsetting.
The site, 100 kilometres south of Darwin, is overrun with scrubby weeds, there are two abandoned mining pits, large mounds of waste rock and the water in a diverted channel of the Finniss River is tinged orange and brown from contamination.
But the great-grandmother wants to show people around in the hope it will help her family’s long battle to have the site rehabilitated.
“It has just been lingering on and on and on and many of my people have passed on and I am almost the last man standing in that people who fought for recognition of this land,” she said.
Ms Mills wants the Commonwealth to “hurry up” and rehabilitate the Rum Jungle mine — a Commonwealth-backed venture that produced uranium for the nuclear weapons programs of the US and British governments.
The mine closed 45 years ago but acid and metals are draining into the environment and the site remains off limits to the public including traditional owners.
This month’s federal budget had $11 million for the NT Government to put the finishing touches on a plan for rehabilitation.
Ms Mills said she was running out of time to see Rum Jungle fixed.
Mine took away ‘aspect of land’s importance’
When Rum Jungle was developed traditional owners had no say in it.
One mining pit was dug into a sacred women’s site on the east branch of the Finniss River and the flow of the river was diverted for one kilometre. Ms Mills vividly remembers the anger of one of her older relatives when he saw for the first time how the mine had transformed the land.
“It took away the whole aspect of the importance of that land,” she said.
But in the early 1950s the Commonwealth saw uranium as an opportunity to develop the north.
At the time, Rum Jungle was a major industrial development in northern Australia.
The then prime minister Robert Menzies came to the Top End to open it.
Notorious for environmental problems
When mining finished at Rum Jungle in 1971, no rehabilitation was done and the site became notorious for its environmental problems.
In the early 1980s, the Rum Jungle site could not be handed over to traditional owners as part of the successful Finniss River Land claim in case they became liable for the environmental problems.
The Commonwealth spent $18 million on rehabilitation in the 1980s but some of the work did not last.
At Rum Jungle, scientists from the NT Government are monitoring contamination in the Finniss River…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-30/rum-jungle-uranium-mine-in-nt-polluting-environment-45-years-on/7460666
Australian Conservation Foundation’s environment election scorecard
Environment scorecard rates Coalition’s policies ‘woefully inadequate’, Guardian, Gareth Hutchens, 31 May 2016 The Australian Conservation Foundation’s assessment of the parties’ policies awards the Coalition 11 points out of 100, Labor 53 and the Greens 77
The Australian Conservation Foundation has described the Coalition’s environmental policies as “woefully inadequate” in its traditional election scorecard.
It gave the Coalition 11 points out of a possible 100, Labor 53 and the Greens 77.
The ACF’s chief executive, Kelly O’Shanassy, said: “The politicians who want to lead the country must have real plans to protect people, rivers, reefs, forests and wildlife for the future.”
“The Coalition’s 11 out of 100 on the environment is woefully inadequate. If they are not prepared to lead on climate and nature, they are not fit to lead the country.
“It’s not as if conservatives can’t be good conservationists – Liberal cabinet minister Garfield Barwick was ACF’s first president; Robert Menzies signed the first Antarctic Treaty; Malcolm Fraser made Kakadu a national park; John Howard established the national greenhouse inventory and the national water initiative,” she said.
The scores were calculated by measuring the parties’ policies on clean energy, pollution reduction, and environmental protection, and comparing them with the 40 tests set out in ACF’s national agenda for 2016.
Those tests include setting stronger pollution targets to help limit global warming to less than 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures; stopping uranium mining and export; delivering on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; and shifting to 100% renewable energy by 2050.
The ACF decides how many marks to award for each party policy on the basis of how completely it fulfils the ACF’s tests. Where a policy unwinds existing environmental protection, the ACF awards negative marks.
An ACF spokesman said the organisation had been in contact with all three major parties this year to tell them how their policies would likely rate in its election scorecard with its policies as they stand…….
A recent poll showed climate change is one of the top four issues for voters at this election. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/31/environment-scorecard-rates-coalitions-policies-woefully-inadequate
Greg Hunt’s gaffe over UNESCO and the Great Barrier Reef
How Greg Hunt and his department turned good news into an international scandal
The full draft of the Unesco report on climate change reveals many mentions of Australia were actually positive, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 31 May 2016 Greg Hunt has conducted one of the strangest manoeuvres of his already rather gymnastic career, over the erasure of Australia from a United Nations report on climate change.
Guardian Australia had broken the story that all mentions of Australia and the Great Barrier Reef had been scrubbed from the report at the request of the environment department.
Hunt first denied knowing about it but then justified the move with reasons that went beyond those provided by the department.
In fact the full draft report, obtained exclusively by Guardian Australia, reveals many of the mentions of Australia were positive – but their removal turned what would have been a relatively good news story into an international scandal. Continue reading
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill launches nuclear propaganda campaign
Premier Jay Weatherill Sunday, May 29, 2016 Consultation on nuclear future to extend across all of South Australia http://assets.yoursay.sa.gov.au/production/2016/05/29/01/29/06/0cee3e94-ed82-4dfa-992e-a44d25cec636/nuclearconsult.pdfPro coal, nuclear John White still quietly running Liberal govt’s resources policy
Turnbull’s #Innovation and #IdeasBoom is to flog fossil fuels. KaBOOM! Independent Australia Tracey Anton 28 May 2016 “………In an article in Crikey by Paddy Manning, entitled ‘Hunt pins hopes on uncompetitive clean coal technology’, Manning writes:
‘John White chairs the DICE network of companies and agencies developing the technology, and is an executive and founding shareholder of Ignite Energy Resources,(IER)’
White told Manning:
‘..It halves CO2 emissions and will be eligible for Emissions Reduction Funding under Direct Action policies.’
Not only was White in financial trouble prior to receiving over $20 million in “grants” for the DICE project but he had also incurred a loss of $6 million in the 2012 calendar year.
White is an old Liberal heavyweight who was former Prime Minister John Howard’s right hand man in developing the Uranium Industry Framework for Australia’s nuclear future and just happens to hold dominion over thousands of square kilometres in Gippsland through the company he is shareholder and founder of, Ignite Energy Resources. He also has an uncanny knack of developing new coal technology which will reward him benefits under the Coalition’s Direct Action climate policy that he advised on.
Then there were the concerns over a $3 billion port in Gippsland when White, allegedly, was head of the (GRID) panel on transport infrastructure. That would go with his planned open cut coal minein the groundwater depleted area of Gelliondale.
Next, was the inclusion of biomass (another “clean” energy project) in the Renewable Energy Target securing White feedstock from our Gippsland forests. Now, he is telling government that his Gippsland Gas project will provide an abundance of “clean, agricultural quality” extracted water from his proposed biogenic coal gas project in the water stressed area of South Gippsland. Simply put, it is coal seam gas with the same destructive intrusions and the same hazards.
White’s most grandiose venture was to produce nuclear energy for the world by turning uranium into nuclear fuel rods, leasing them and bringing back the waste (including plutonium from the U.S. weapons industry). It’s interesting that Ignite holds leases for thorium adjacent to the iconic Ninety Mile Beach in Gippsland. Thorium – uranium’s young sister – is hailed by nuclear proponents as the green energy source of the future.
Only problem is, its exploration and mining is banned in Victoria. Bizarrely, when IA‘s Sandi Keane and I reported on White’s involvement in Ignite (‘Victorian government ignores Gippsland gasfield concerns’), the Minerals Council of Victoria rather stupidly tried to get the article pulled. They claimed we’d got the WRONG John White. We didn’t. It was a desperate act by MCA. You can find the whole story here. It seems the reason they wanted us to pull the article was because they’d applied to the former state LNP government to have the legislation banning exploration and mining of thorium and uranium repealed and didn’t want White’s name mentioned. Welcome to the shadowy world of Dr White.https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/turnbulls-innovation-and-ideasboom-is-to-flog-fossil-fuels-kaboom,9038
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
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
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
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 