Albanese ‘cautious’ on SA nuclear proposal 9 News 17 Feb 16 Senior Labor figure Anthony Albanese says he is “very cautious” about a proposed high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia’s outback.
This comes after opposition leader Bill Shorten indicated he was open to a royal commission recommendation that SA earn billions of dollars and create thousands of jobs by storing and disposing nuclear waste.
But Labor’s infrastructure spokesman Mr Albanese appears more wary of the proposal, telling 5AA radio “I would be very cautious about it”.
“You should examine it and all the implications and there should be a community debate,” he said.
Mr Albanese also said he was “not a fan” of the nuclear fuel cycle and said renewable energies were more economically viable……… http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/17/10/25/albanese-cautious-on-sa-nuclear-proposal#JtxocOdo0XoCmzd1.99
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
1 Comment
The repeal of the carbon price and the stalling of renewable energy development has put Australia on a path to increase emissions to record levels and will likely not reach a peak before 2030.
The nuclear industry is essentially counting on failure on these tasks, and then having some sort of Marshall plan to allow for the extra expense of nuclear generation.
Nuclear commission findings spell more trouble for wind and solar in Australia REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 15 February 2016 The South Australian Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle has conceded that nuclear power is not a viable alternative for Australia, but has urged authorities to consider it anyway – in what could have serious implications for the roll out of renewable energy across the country.
The commission delivered the results of its “tentative” findings on Monday, indicating that it supports the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the state, the storing of spent nuclear fuel and the expansion of uranium mining.
On the subject of nuclear generation, the commission admitted that it wasn’t viable in South Australia in the foreseeable future (2030) – even with a significant carbon price and a sharp reduction in the cost of capital.
It conceded that Australia should only adopt “proven” new nuclear technologies such as “small modular reactors” and next generation “fast reactors” , but that these were some way off, and likely to be very costly.
But commission chairman Kevin Scarce wants the nuclear generation dream to continue. He admitted that while there were real risks in nuclear generation – and there are “no guarantees on its safety” – he doesn’t “think the positive side of nuclear power is being presented.” Continue reading →
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics |
1 Comment
Despite what nuclear boosters tell us about wind and solar, numerous reports, including by the Australian Energy Market Operator, the French government, and various think tanks, say 100% renewable energy based largely around wind and solar is perfectly feasible, and will likely even reduce costs.
Nuclear commission findings spell more trouble for wind and solar in Australia REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 15 February 2016 “………The Royal Commission has chosen to run with some of those myths, which is disappointing, but not surprising given that one of the biggest proponents is a web-site operated by one of the commissioners, Professor Barry Brook. A paper co-authored by Brook is repeatedly cited in the commission’s report and by pro-nuclear submissions to the commission.
Among these myths, promoted by Scarce on Monday, is the need for more peaking gas and imports in South Australia because of the growth in wind and solar. Actually, as has been pointed out repeatedly,South Australia now uses less peaking gas and less imports from Victoria than before it produced a lot of wind and solar.
The document also says that solar PV has had a negligible impact on peak demand in South Australia. Actually, it has had a significant impact on peak demand, pushing the peak from late afternoon and into the evening and made it smaller, to the benefit of the network in heat waves.
The royal commission document also says battery storage applications are not yet commercial. Actually, they are, and Ergon Energy has already rolled out dozens of 100kWh, utility-scale battery storage arrays, saying it reduces grid upgrade costs by one-third – with no subsidy. Continue reading →
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
1 Comment
Solar company sees potential for NSW Riverina to become renewable energy hub ABC Riverina, 16 Feb 16, A solar energy company believes the western New South Wales city of Griffith has the potential to market itself as a renewable energy hub. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-16/solar-company-envisages-nsw-riverina-energy-hub/7170684
Riverina Solar wants to build a $62 million, 30 megawatt solar farm at Yoogali near Griffith. The project has been shortlisted for funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Director Steve McCall is hopeful a second solar farm project, also shortlisted for funding, will receive backing. He said it could be the start of a new industry for the region.
“We’ve been talking with Griffith council as well. We believe there’s a great opportunity for Griffith to become a renewable energy hub, or a region where you’ve got large scale solar here,” he said.
“That would hopefully potentially attract universities coming in and doing studies. “We’re also looking at other options, potentially in the future of how solar or how other renewable energies could be attracted to the area.”
Information sessions about the Riverina Solar proposal will be held at the Griffith Regional Theatre on Tuesday and Thursday.
Mr McCall said he would like to have the project’s environmental impact statement completed by the end of the month, and is hopeful the solar farm may be approved by mid-year.
“Griffith has an excellent substation based at Yoogali and it has just recently been upgraded over the last few years, so it has sufficient capacity to be able to connect into that site without a great deal of further upgrade,” he said. Mr McCall said the project would not be affected by the grants process. “We’ve got a number of different, interested offtakers and so once we establish that and finalise that aspect of it, that completes the commercial aspect of the project,” he said.
“While the funding would be terrific, and it’s only a small portion of the project, it doesn’t look like it would jeopardise our project going forward in any sense.”
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
New South Wales, solar |
Leave a comment
Karina Lester’s father was affected by the Maralinga atomic tests in the 1950s in outback SA and vowed she would fight to keep any dump out of Aboriginal communities.
“I want to urge all my Anangu representatives and also the wider Aboriginal community to be very actively involved in this and to speak up to tell their stories, because we all have a story to talk about how this nuclear [testing] has impacted on us,” she said.
“We’ve got cultural responsibilities and we’ve also got responsibilities to our next generation.
“It is very immoral and it’s catastrophic to be talking about waste. The waste is not going to end up in Adelaide — it will be remote South Australia.” – ABC News 15 Feb 16
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia |
Leave a comment
The Age today reported on the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission. I guess we should be thankful that this news actually got into more than just the South Australian press and the corporate mouthpiece THE AUSTRALIAN.
Of course, this is in the Business section, not the major part of the paper. . After all, it’s not as if the question of importing radioactive trash is of concern to Australian sin general. Or is it?
Anyway – some of the contradictions, omissions and problems in the Royal Commission findings, as reported.
QUESTIONS
Optimism about money?. I really doubt that anyone has a clue about the long term costs of the 
nuclear waste import plan.
“…….. waste disposal facility could deliver $5 billion in revenue annually for the first 30 years, and would be “highly profitable” because of strong demand from other countries……..
Mr Scarce said he had been conservative in his assumptions.
“I want to under-promise and over-deliver,” he said…..”
“Facility could be open in a decade“….Really?
“He [Scarce] said during the life of a nuclear storage facility, a net present value of profits of more than $51 billion had been calculated”. Why hasn’t some other country with nuclear expertise and experience grasped this opportunity?
The tax-payer will be up for huge costs?
“He [Scarce] recommended that such a facility be government owned.….. the facility would require a dedicated port facility, airport and rail freight line”. Who pays for all that?
OMISSIONS
“There are significant quantities of used fuel from nuclear reactors in temporary storage in the Asia-Pacific region and these quantities will grow ” -not a mention of the transport problems and dangers .
CONTRADICTIONS
“There’s always an opportunity if we dawdle that someone would take the competitive advantage away from us,” he [Scarce] said…
…..Mr Weatherill said.“The critical thing here is we don’t rush the process. There’s no doubt there’s some exciting possibilities for South Australia contained in the report”…… [this statement appears in the online version, but not in the print version]
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, media, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
1 Comment
Chris Murray 16 Feb 16 The issue of low level radiation is crucial to the nuclear debate. If the threshold/hormesis outliers are successful in their campaign, radiation protection limits will be raised and nuclear costs will fall dramatically.
It is unfortunate therefore that The Royal Commission is so economical with the truth on low level radiation. It specifically quotes WHO and UNSCEAR to paint a particular picture. The omission of very relevant material from the same sources does not inspire confidence in its findings. Although it states that “a precautionary approach is appropriate”, by minimizing the possible casualties from Chernobyl and Fukushima, it effectively dumps any such precautionary approach.
While UNSCEAR, citing uncertainties, refuses to give any estimates for the absolute number of casualties from Chernobyl, it does state that “”Although the numbers of cancers projected to be induced by radiation exposure after the accident are very small relative to the baseline cancer risk, THEY COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL IN ABSOLUTE TERMS”
(My emphasis – even a “very small” increase of say, 0.5%, in baseline risk would cause 5,000 extra cancers in a 5 million population, assuming normal cancer mortality of 20% of all deaths.)
Also unmentioned is that the WHO/Chernobyl Forum (of which UNSCEAR was a member) stated that
“The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs)”
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
(this is for the most exposed areas alone)
Also ignored is that the WHO/CF, while acknowledging considerable uncertainties (which can lead to underestimation of effects as easily as overestimation), estimated a possible further 5,000 fatal cancers from the most contaminated areas in wider Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, giving a total of 9,000.
“Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5 000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population from radiation exposure, “
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
Nor is there any mention that even UNSCEAR accepts a proven risk down to 10 mSv:
“Risk estimates vary with age, with younger people generally being more sensitive; studies of in utero radiation exposures show that the foetus is particularly sensitive, with elevated risk being detected at doses of 10 mSv and above.”
Also ignored is that UNSCEAR, in its recent Fukushima report, no longer uses a DDREF (Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor). No DDREF means that the 9,000 could legitimately be doubled to 18,000. And again, this is from the most contaminated areas. The fallout and its effects did not stop there, unless one is claiming a definite threshold, an ideological position rejected again and again by the scientific establishment (See the recent US EPA statement athttp://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0436 ).
Again, unmentioned in the report, the WHO/CF admits that “Chernobyl may also cause cancers in Europe outside Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.“
The Commission seems to have adopted the nuclear industry spin that low level radiation is of no concern if it’s comparable to background radiation. This is like saying it’s ok to deliberately electrocute people so long as the numbers are comparable to those killed by “natural electricity” ie lightning. The Commission seems to have no awareness that the BEIR VII committee, the ICRP, the 21st H L Gray conference etc. examined the “evidence” for the claim that background radiation was harmless and found it wanting, the studies either being ecological or lacking statistical power.
Likewise the Commission seem unaware that a recent study – A record-based case-control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980-2006 – has shown that background radiation may be responsible for 12% of childhood leukaemias. And if it’s responsible for leukaemia, it is almost certainly responsible for other cancers.
One of the authors of this study is Richard Wakeford, the former BNFL principal research sciencist, who can hardly be accused of being an unscientific tree-hugger, an anti-nuke idealogue, a Greenpeace or coal industry shill, etc. etc.
Shockingly, none of this, much from the Commission’s own sources, is mentioned. Instead it hides behind “ongoing scientific debate”, and cherrypicks the most reassuring quotes.
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, health, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia |
1 Comment
Only on the question of the importation, storage and disposal of nuclear waste is the inquiry up-front. This is seen as a definite goer. A big bold tick for the world’s unloved and unwanted nuclear waste. Oh, and by the way, this includes fuel originating from SA’s uranium via “fuel leasing”. The plan is to store the waste for over a decade before it is disposed.
This happens to be just the sort of time delay that would allow the setting up of a plant to produce fresh 
uranium fuel from the spent fuel. Another discretely hidden tick, this time for processing.
Dr Dennis Matthews (BSc Hon, PhD), 15 Feb 16 After setting up an inquiry with biased terms of reference, chaired by a person with known sympathies for the nuclear industry, and appointing a committee calculated to support a pro-nuclear agenda, Premier Jay Weatherill now says, with his best poker-face, that this will be a test for democracy.
Well may Jay say that this is a test for democracy, because in setting the test he has bastardised democracy and is now endeavouring to head off any objections. One can almost hear the storm troopers rattling their swords as they look forward to putting down anyone with the temerity to challenge the beloved leader.
The so-called “tentative findings” of Weatherill’s mock democratic consultation are as devious as the man himself.
Weatherill would like us to believe that all he is doing is setting up a nuclear waste industry that will bring untold economic benefits to SA, benefits which the rest of the world seems significantly less eager to embrace, especially those with mature nuclear industries generating this noxious product.
In fact, this travesty of an inquiry is preparing the ground for a full-on nuclear SA with uranium mining, nuclear waste importation, nuclear fuel manufacturing and nuclear power. Continue reading →
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
SA nuclear inquiry backs waste dump South Australia should take the world’s nuclear waste in
exchange for billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs, the state’s nuclear royal commission has found.
But it would not be viable for SA to host a nuclear power plant or to expand into fuel processing in the foreseeable future.
Former governor Kevin Scarce on Monday handed down the royal commission’s initial findings after months of analysis and public consultation.
His inquiry has strongly backed SA taking nuclear waste, a position that is sure to attract fierce opposition from green groups. Under the model proposed by the commission, an above-ground storage site would initially host nuclear waste in “casks” made of metal or concrete.
The waste would then be stored deep underground in purpose-built canisters.
A storage and disposal facility with a capacity of 138,000 tonnes – or about 13 per cent of the world’s projected used fuel inventory – would generate more than $257 billion in revenue over its 120-year lifespan.
Total costs for the facility would reach $145 billion, including the construction of a dedicated port facility, airport and freight rail line, independent modelling shows.
The report assumes it would take 25 years to build the facility, with employment peaking at up to 5000 jobs before tailing off to 600 during operations.
A waste and storage facility could generate more than $5 billion in annual revenue before the yearly waste intake peaks after 30 years and concludes after 70 years.
The commission has also proposed the creation of a state wealth fund in which all profits and a portion of gross revenue would be invested.
Mr Scarce said waste storage presented significant opportunities for the SA economy.
……Any move to embrace nuclear storage would require changes to state and federal legislation.
The commission found that it would not be commercially viable for SA to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant or develop uranium processing facilities.
But the state should still prepare for the possibility of sourcing nuclear power……..http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/15/03/33/sa-nuclear-inquiry-to-present-findings
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
1 Comment
Today’s Royal Commission ‘Tentative Findings’ report clearly states that nuclear power will not be economically viable. It also says that uranium conversion, uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing are not economically viable. The state’s peak environmental body Conservation Council SA welcomes these findings.
However the report says that South Australia should consider importing international nuclear waste.
“We have had the Royal Commission, now any nuclear waste dump needs South Australia’s permission”, says Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins.
“This is a decision for all South Australians. The issue of genuine acceptance and consent is absolutely critical.
“If we pursue a nuclear waste dump path, we are saying “the best we can do is accept the worst the world has got”. I honestly think we can do better than that.”
An opinion poll commissioned by The Advertiser last year found that less than one in six (15.7%) South Australians support a nuclear waste dump in SA.*
“Now comes the hard part. We’ve had a technocratic, distant process so far – now it turns to real people, real places and real values,” says Mr Wilkins.
“The Royal Commission presents an optimistic view of potential profits from offering Australia as the world’s nuclear waste dump. The Commission acknowledges that nuclear waste needs to be isolated from the environment for “many hundreds of thousands of years” yet there is no attempt to cost the management of waste over those timeframes.
“If there’s one thing we know, the nuclear industry is expert at overstating the benefits and radically understating the costs and risks.
“Ultimately, we think it’s essential that all current and future South Australians should have the freedom to choose. Saying yes to nuclear makes that choice forever, there is no going back.”
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
The tentative findings of the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, released this morning tell us what we already know, according to Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
As predicted when the Royal Commission was established – this process is all about softening South Australians up to be the World’s nuclear waste dump.
We’ve known for years that the uranium reprocessing market is “uncertain” and that there is “no opportunity for commercial development” [Royal Commission quotes]. We’ve also known for decades that nuclear power for SA is “not commercially viable … in the foreseeable future” [Royal Commission quotes].
“The outcome of the Royal Commission isn’t at all surprising. The Greens knew that the most likely result of this process was to support South Australia becoming the World’s nuclear waste dump.
However, the Royal Commission’s tentative findings on the nuclear waste dump are based on dubious economics, heroic assumptions and a big dose of guess work. The Commission has identified a problem that lasts hundreds of thousands of years and proposed a solution with income that lasts just a few decades, but with costs lasting virtually forever. If anything goes wrong in the future – we’re on our own.
“The Greens are calling on the Weatherill Labor Government to protect our State’s reputation and not leave our descendants to deal with a toxic future as their legacy.
Previous State Labor Premier Mike Rann fought off a Liberal plan for a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia last decade. The current proposals are far more sinister and dangerous because they involve South Australia taking the most dangerous radioactive waste on the planet.
South Australians will now need to ask themselves and their politicians: “Is this the best future that we can aspire to?”
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
MR JACOBI: Ms Skarbek is the chief executive officer and executive director of Climate Works Australia since its inception in 2009 and she’s been leading the organisations working in analysing emissions reductions opportunities and partnering with business and government in unblocking barriers to their implementation. She’s also a director of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a trustee of the Sustainable Melbourne Fund, a member of the Australian Government’s Energy White Paper Reference Panel, and the Grattan Institute Energy Program Reference Panel. …..
She’s principally to give evidence today in relation to a report published by Climate Works Australia in September 2014 entitled Pathways to Decarbonisation in 2005, How Australia Can Prosper in a Low Carbon World…….
Anna Skarbek : Extract of evidence given at Nuclear Royal Commission Hearing 9 Sept 15 “…Based on today’s estimates, the real question is: what are the technologies that you need in the 2040s, after we’ve had the 2030s, where renewables have become the majority share? What we find is that there’s still a little bit of coal in the system that you see. It’s begun to retire by 2030, but it’s not all gone. So then the question is: what replaces that baseload? What we find is that renewables can do more than half of the system, based on, if you like, current technologies and management. So demand management, weather forecasting, allows the intermittent sources of electricity to be managed quite successfully for over half, up to around two‑thirds, of the electricity grid…….
it was striking to us in doing this work how blessed Australia is for options in terms of transitioning to a low carbon economy.
We’ve modelled these three scenarios because we could be a 100 per cent renewable powered economy if we wanted to be……..
I see from how rapidly renewable energy technology costs have fallen that they often outperform what the estimate of future costs on paper today says. So it’s possible that renewable costs could fall further than what we have published in this report because past evidence has suggested that’s certainly been the case historically. In that case, renewables would become more competitive than the nuclear and the CCS options that we’ve looked at, unless those technologies also fell further…..”http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/videos/climate-change-energy-policy-992015-11am/
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
Leave a comment
Royal Commission in to nuclear power for SA says it’s not commercially viable for now The Advertiser 15 Feb 16 Business Editor Christopher Russell NUCLEAR power for
electricity in South Australia is not commercially viable at the moment, the royal commission says…….“It would be wise to plan now to ensure that nuclear power would be available should it be required.”…….
The commission said nuclear power plants were “very complex systems designed and operated by humans, who can make mistakes”.
It warns that there can be no guarantee there will never be an accident but goes on to say “the risk of nuclear accident should not of itself preclude consideration of nuclear power as a future electricity generation option”.
The commission considered the three major international nuclear accidents – Fukushima Daiichi in Japan in 2011, Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986 and Three Mile Island in the US in 1979. It said each accident had been thoroughly investigated, leading to lessons which have been applied to enhance safety.
Commissioner Kevin Scarce said safety was paramount but successful risk management was not beyond SA’s capability. “We believe with the new technology developed since Fukushima, with appropriate regulatory oversight, that nuclear power should not be automatically ignored as a future generation technology,” he said.
In addition to receiving submissions and hearing from expert witnesses, the royal commission contracted two professional reports into the viability of nuclear power in SA.
Estimates of costs and a possible business case were studied by consultants WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff.Separately DGA Consulting/Carisway looked at how nuclear power plant in SA could be linked in with the national electricity market which is supplied by both fossil fuel and renewable sources.
The reports found demand in SA’s electricity market was in decline which would work against nuclear power……
The commission heard evidence about Generation IV reactors which use a different cooling mechanism and are able to take nuclear waste from earlier generation reactors……
The PRISM – or Power Reactor Innovative Small Module – employs the latest technology but is still at an experimental phase.
Because this technology was currently unproven, the commission saw it as a future possibility and was not in favour of SA being the testbed or a first of a kind technology. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/royal-commission-in-to-nuclear-power-for-sa-says-its-not-commercially-viable-for-now/news-story/41b42ca6e2127a3f285005f1e3f61315
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Solar Citizens calls on the South Australian Government to harness the sun to generate low-cost clean energy and kick-start jobs and economic growth rather than becoming a dumping ground for an expensive, toxic nuclear waste.
The findings come as new polling released today shows a majority of voters are more likely to give their vote in the upcoming election to a party supporting ambitious goals and innovation for solar”[1]
The preliminary findings of a Royal Commission into nuclear claim that
-
An expansion of uranium mining is “not the most significant opportunity” to develop South Australia’s economy
-
“It would not be commercially viable to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant in South Australia in the foreseeable future.”
-
Storage and disposal of nuclear fuel waste is “likely” to deliver economic benefits to the State.
“We welcome the Commission’s findings which shows that nuclear mining and power generation is not the solution for South Australia”, said Claire O’Rourke, National Director of Solar Citizens.
“The best way the South Australian Government can support clean energy is supporting households in making the transition to solar energy and reducing people’s power bills. The South Australian Government is leading other states with a target of 50% renewable energy by 2025 and has commissioned research which shows it can get to 100% renewable energy as part of its target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 ”
“One in four households in South Australia now has rooftop solar and the power they generate from the sun supplies about five per cent of the state’s energy demand.
“These 190,000 South Australian solar homes are only the beginning of the global solar boom, as affordable, reliable home battery storage places lowering the cost of power bills in reach for the majority of households.
“It is important that the State Government makes sure it adopts policies that encourage further investment in renewables, and the jobs this will create.
“The state’s abundant solar resources have already caught the attention of US solar thermal giant SolarReserve, which in November made a bid to build Australia’s first-ever solar thermal plant with storage in Port Augusta. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9kNVP3oyB-cQ2NQbnROWVlrUjIxbW1TaUhxTlpKZlNkNHNB/view?usp=sharing
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
solar, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Nuclear waste dump tour: Activists travel 10,000km to six shortlisted sites, meet community members, ABC News By Tom Maddocks 13 Feb 16 A doctor from Alice Springs has driven almost 10,000 kilometres to visit all six sites shortlisted for Australia’s first nuclear waste dump.
Hilary Tyler and fellow activist Meret MacDonald spent six weeks on the road, speaking to communities in the Northern Territory, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland.
With a four-wheel drive and a basic camera, the pair documented their trip across the remote land where the Federal Government is planning on storing low-level and intermediate nuclear waste.
Both have been involved in the campaign against one of the proposed sites — a date farm south of Alice Springs.
Dr Tyler said they decided to do the “grand tour” because it was a national issue. “It was really interesting to talk to everybody because they’re worried about the same thing that people in Alice Springs are worried about,” Dr Tyler said.
“They’re worried about the really shonky process that the Government’s pursuing. People are worried everywhere about water. Australia is a dry country.” At Kimba, one of the three proposed sites in South Australia, dryland farmers said they were concerned about potential impacts on the agricultural industry.
“Through all this process it’s the wellbeing of our community, that’s the biggest concern at the moment,” farmer Peter Woolford said. “That has to be considered well in front of money.”
It was a similar feeling among residents at Oman Ama in southern Queensland, where some have been told the value of their land will plummet.”If those land values drop, the mortgage will be worth more than the land and that’s a tremendous worry to our community,” said local doctor Colin Owen, who runs an organic olive farm in nearby Inglewood.
A number of Oman Ama residents said there was a level of anxiety in the community……….
Another proposed site at the historic gold mining village of Hill End in New South Wales’ Central West wasruled out due to community opposition. Bruce Wilson, the head of resources in the Department of Industry, told a public meeting the Government had no intention of building a waste facility if there was no local support…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-13/nuclear-dump-tour-takes-activists-to-proposed-sites/7166218
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Opposition to nuclear |
1 Comment
Antinuclear 