Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Exploding Senator Edward’s plan for nuclear waste importing

Edwards,-Sean-trashThe impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work.  THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE Dan Gilchrist February 2016
 “……..Edward’s plan seems like an excellent deal for South Australia. Who would say no to jobs and free electricity and billions in reduced taxes? But the most cursory scrutiny exposes some serious flaws.
WASTE
The plan is to build a dry-cask storage facility, capable of securing spent fuel on the surface for 100 years. South Australia would be paid to take 60,000 tonnes over a 20 year period.
There would then be a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, designed to reprocess 100 tonnes of this waste per year. The economic value of this proposition is highly speculative as 100 tonnes per year is far in excess of Australia’s likely needs. However, if our pioneering development of PRISM reactors proved the technology and made it affordable, then other countries might also build PRISMs, which could use the output of the processing plant. 14
 However, even assuming Australia finds a use or a buyer for the entire output of the reprocessing plant, over the 40 year life span of the facility South Australia would process just 4,000 tonnes of the imported waste.
What happens to the other 56,000 tonnes of nuclear waste?
 It would remain in temporary storage. There is no long term solution costed or even mentioned in Edwards’ plan. It is never discussed again.
It must be kept in mind this would be waste another country paid Australia to take, specifically because paying us was better than developing a permanent solution of their own. As perhaps may be expected, if one country pays another to take on a massive problem, and the second country solves less than 10 percent of that problem, it could make a large short term profit. But in 100 years when the dry cask system reached the end of its rated lifespan, future generations of South Australians would be left to deal with 56,000 tonnes of high-level waste, with no money left, and no plan.
If the plan was funded only by taking the 4,000 tonnes of spent fuel it actually used, then the result would be a spectacular financial loss.15
The Edwards plan makes the point that Australia would not be taking waste, but only ‘spent fuel’. It says: “This submission is not … proposing the simple establishment of waste management or disposal services or the importation of radioactive wastes in any sense.”
This statement is justified in the plan by the definition of radioactive waste as “…waste materials which contain radioactive substances for which no further use is envisaged.”
As long as we intend to use that spent fuel, it is not, strictly speaking, waste. However, the plan provides no use for over 90 percent of the material to be accepted. It would be, in the truest sense of the word, waste. And the proposal simply ignores that waste. If there is a future use envisaged for it, it is not mentioned in the plan, nor has it been costed.
The plan earns all of its money in the first few decades, spending it all on free electricity, tax reductions and other projects over 50 years.16 The remaining 56,000 tonnes is left to future generations to worry about, with no money left to deal with it.
This is a plan unlikely to be embraced by the Australian public in general, or South Australians in particular………. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/496/attachments/original/1455085726/P222_Nuclear_waste_impossible_dream_FINAL.pdf?1455085726

February 13, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, reference, South Australia, Submissions to Royal Commission S.A., wastes | Leave a comment

2900 scientists urge Malcolm Turnbull to prevent the drastic cuts to CSIRO’s climate researchers

Australia played a vital role in monitoring and modelling, particularly for the southern hemisphere.

Turnbull in hot panCSIRO climate cuts ‘devastating’, almost 3000 scientists tell Malcolm Turnbull http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-climate-cuts-devastating-almost-3000-scientists-tell-malcolm-turnbull-20160211-gms3ea.html  Environment Editor, Almost 3000 scientists from nearly 60 nations have appealed to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other Australian leaders to halt the CSIRO’s plans to halve the number of researchers working on climate monitoring and modelling.

In a letter that was also sent to the CSIRO’s board and chief executive Larry Marshall, the 2900 researchers said the decision to cut 100 full-time positions out of about 140 staff from two units of the Oceans and Atmospheric division “alarmed the global research community”.

“The decision to decimate a vibrant and world-leading research program shows a lack of insight, and a misunderstanding of the importance of the depth and significance of Australian contributions to global and regional climate research,” the letter said.

“The capacity of Australia to assess future risks and plan for climate change adaptation crucially depends on maintaining and augmenting this research capacity.”

The letter follows a statement earlier this week by the World Climate Research Program that the proposed axing risked severing “vital linkages with Australian colleagues and to essential southern hemisphere data sources, linkages that connect Australia to the UK, the US, New Zealand, Japan, China and beyond”. Continue reading →

February 13, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

The massive holes in Senator Edward’s arguments for “new nuclear” technology for South Australia

not a single PRISM [ (Power Reactor Innovative Small Module]  has actually been built…. the commercial viability of these technologies is unproven

Crucially, under the plan, Australia would have been taking spent fuel for 4 years before the first PRISM came online, assuming the reactors were built on time.

nuclear-wizards

if borehole technology works as intended, and at the prices hoped for, why would any country pay another to take their waste for $1,370,000 a tonne, when a solution exists that only costs $216,000 a tonne, less than one sixth of the price?

highly-recommendedThe impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work.  THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE Dan Gilchrist February 2016

“……NEW TECHNOLOGY  This comprehensively researched submission asserts that a transformative opportunity is to be found in pairing established, mature practices with cuspof-commercialisation technologies to provide an innovative model of service to the global community. (emphasis added) Edwards’ submission to the Royal Commission

Two elements of the plan – transport of waste, and temporary storage in the dry cask facility – are indeed mature. There is a high degree of certainty that these technologies will perform as expected, for the prices expected.
It should be noted, however, that the price estimates used in the Edwards plan for the dry cask storage facility draw on estimates for an internal US facility to be serviced by rail.17 No consideration has been given to the cost of shipping the material from overseas.
Around a dozen ship loads a year would be needed to import spent fuel at the rate called for in the plan.18 It is likely that a dedicated port would also need to be constructed. The 1999 Pangea plan, which proposed a similar construction of a commercial waste repository in Australia, made allowances for “…international transport in a fleet of special purpose ships to a dedicated port in Australia”. 19
 Needless to say, building and operating highly specialised ships, or paying others to do so, would not be free. Building and operating a dedicated port would not be free. Yet none of these activities are costed in the plan.
Furthermore, beyond the known elements of transport and temporary storage, the principle technologies depended on – PRISM reactors and borehole disposal – are precisely those which are glossed over as being on the “cusp of commercialisation”.
To put it another way: the commercial viability of these technologies is unproven.
PRISM  [Power Reactor Innovative Small Module]The PRISM reactor is based on technology piloted in the US, up until the program was cancelled in 1994. 20 It offers existing nuclear-power nations what appears to be a tremendous deal: turn those massive stockpiles of waste into fuel, and reduce the long-term waste problem from one of millennia to one of mere centuries. It promises to be cheap, too, with the small modular design allowing mass production.
Despite this promise, not a single PRISM reactor has actually been built. Officials at the South Korean Ministry of Science have said that they hope to have advanced reactors – if not the PRISM then something very similar – up and running by 2040.21 The Generation IV International Forum expects the first fourth generation reactors – of which the PRISM is one example – to be commercially deployed in the 2030’s.2
After decades spent developing the technology in the United States, a US Department of Energy report dismissed the use of Advanced Disposition Reactors (ADR), a class which includes the PRISM-type integral fast reactor concept, as a way of drawing down on excess plutonium stocks. It compares it unfavourably to the existing – and expensive – mixed oxide (MOX) method of recycling nuclear fuel.
The ADR option involves a capital investment similar in magnitude to the [MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility] but with all of the risks associated with first of-a kind new reactor construction (e.g., liquid metal fast reactor), and this complex nuclear facility construction has not even been proposed yet for a Critical Decision …. Choosing the ADR option would be akin to choosing to do the MOX approach all over again, but without a directly relevant and easily accessible reference facility/operation (such as exists for MOX in France) to provide a leg up on experience and design.23
 Nevertheless, the Edwards plan hopes to have a pair of PRISMs built in 10 years.
Crucially, under the plan, Australia would have been taking spent fuel for 4 years before the first PRISM came online, assuming the reactors were built on time.
The risk is that these integral fast reactors might turn out to be more expensive than anticipated and prove to be uneconomical. This could leave South Australia with expensive electricity and no other plan to deal with any of the spent fuel acquired to fund the reactors in the first place.
For countries that have no long-term solution for their existing waste stockpiles, the business case for constructing a PRISM reactor is much clearer: even if the facility turns out to be uneconomical, it will nevertheless be able to process some spent fuel, thus reducing waste stockpiles. This added benefit makes the financial risk more worthwhile for such countries
Australia, on the other hand, doesn’t have an existing stockpile of high-level nuclear waste. The Edwards plan would see Australia acquire that problem in the hopes of solving it with technology never before deployed on a commercial scale. We would be buying off the plan, with many billions of dollars at stake, in the hopes that we, with little experience and minimal nuclear infrastructure, could solve a problem which has vexed far more experienced nations for decades.
 By the time the first PRISM is due to come online it will be too late to turn back, no matter what unexpected problems may be encountered. Australia would have acquired thousands of tonnes of spent fuel with no other planned use.
Counting on the development of other PRISM reactors around the world is another gamble. The proposed reprocessing plant accounts for all of the 4,000 tonne reduction in waste over the life of the plan. Australia will have no use for most of this material – the rest must be used by other PRISMs. If PRISMs are not widely adopted, Australia will have no takers. This could leave Australia with even more than 56,000 tonnes of waste, with no planned or costed solution.
Borehole disposal 
The second element of the plan is the long-term disposal of waste from the PRISM reactors in boreholes. However this technology is still being tested.
According to an article in the journal Science, bore-hole technology has significant issues to overcome.
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent panel that advises [the United States Department of Energy] DOE, notes a litany of potential problems: No one has drilled holes this big 5 kilometers into solid rock. If a hole isn’t smooth and straight, a liner could be hard to install, and waste containers could get stuck. It’s tricky to see flaws like fractures in rock 5 kilometers down. Once waste is buried, it would be hard to get it back (an option federal regulations now require). And methods for plugging the holes haven’t been sufficiently tested.
However, if estimates used by the Edwards plan are correct, and boreholes can be made to work as hoped, it would allow high-level nuclear waste to be disposed of for only $216,000 per tonne. The Edwards plan reduces this further for Australia, quoting only $138,000 a tonne, on the understanding that our own waste would be comparatively low level output from a PRISM – disregarding, as discussed above, the 56,000 tonnes left over.
Nevertheless, the figure of $216,000 per tonne is important, because that is the price at which any country with suitable geology could store high level waste. It should be noted that Australia will not have exclusive access to borehole technology. If it is proven to be as effective as hoped there is nothing stopping many other countries from using it.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes that borehole siting activities have been initiated in Ghana, the Philippines, Malaysia and Iran.26 A pilot program is underway in the US.27 The range of geologies where boreholes may be effective is vast.
This may have serious implications for Australia’s waste disposal industry, given that other countries could build their own low-cost solution, or offer it to potential customers.
 However, if boreholes do not work as hoped, Australia will have no costed solution for the final disposal of high-level waste from its PRISM facilities. Australia would find itself in the very situation other countries had paid it to avoid.
PRICE What are countries willing to pay to have their spent fuel taken care of?
 This is an open question, as to date there is no international market in the permanent storage of high-level waste.
A figure of US$1,000,000 (A$1,370,000) per tonne is used by the Edwards plan, but this estimate does not appear to have any rigorous basis.
The Edwards plan gives only one real world example of a similar price: a recent plan by Taiwan to pay US$1,500,000 per tonne to send a small amount of its waste overseas for reprocessing. From this, the report concludes that an estimate of US$1,000,000 is entirely reasonable.
 However, the report neglects to mention several important facts about Taiwan’s proposal. First, this spent fuel was to be reprocessed, not disposed of, and most of the material was to be reclaimed as usable fuel. 29 This fuel would not be returned, but would continue to be owned by Taiwan, and be available for sale.30 If they could find a buyer, Taiwan might expect to recoup part or all of their costs by selling the reclaimed fuel to a third party.
 Second, the 20 percent of material to be converted into vitrified waste by the process was to be returned to Taiwan – no long-term storage would be part of the deal.
Third, and most importantly, the tender was suspended by the Taiwanese government pending parliamentary budget review.31 This occurred in March 2015, several months before the Edwards plan was submitted to the Royal Commission.
 Not only was the Taiwanese government proposing a completely different process to the one proposed by the Edwards plan, they weren’t willing to pay for it anyway. So the use of the Taiwanese case as a baseline example for the price Australia might hope to receive to store waste simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
The plan does briefly mention that the US nuclear power industry has set aside US$400,000 a tonne for waste disposal – to cover research, development and final disposal.32 This much lower figure is disregarded for no apparent reason, making the mid-scenario’s assumption of a price more than double this, at US$1,000,000, seem dubious. Even the pessimistic case considers a price of US$500,000 a tonne, higher than the US savings pool.
As will be discussed in the next section, the question remains: if borehole technology works as intended, and at the prices hoped for, why would any country pay another to take their waste for $1,370,000 a tonne, when a solution exists that only costs $216,000 a tonne, less than one sixth of the price?
 If South Australia led the way to prove the viability of the borehole disposal method and took on the risks associated with a first of its kind commercial operation, many other countries should be expected to use the technology for their own waste, or could offer those services to others. This alone makes the idea that other countries would pay $1,370,000 a tonne highly unlikely. ….https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/496/attachments/original/1455085726/P222_Nuclear_waste_impossible_dream_FINAL.pdf?1455085726

February 13, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, reference, South Australia, Submissions to Royal Commission S.A., technology | 2 Comments

Utility scale solar projects to benefit from ARENA funding as solar costs have fallen

logo-ARENACost cuts set solar on track to capture share of RET http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/cost-cuts-set-solar-on-track-to-capture-share-of-ret-20160209-gmp73f.html February 11, 2016  Energy Reporter Rapid cost reductions have put solar power on a fast-track to capturing at least some of the 2020 Renewable Energy Target market for large-scale projects and are attracting a new breed of player into the local sector.

Last month’s short-listing by the Australian Renewable Energy Association of 22 projects for funding under its $100 million grant round featured a number of names new to Australia, as well as many taking their first foray into solar. Indian conglomerate Adani, better known for its controversial Galilee coal ambitions, also revealed its local solar ambitions this week.

Australia’s wealth of sunshine sets it up to become a leading player in large-scale solar, according to ARENA chief executive Ivor Frischknecht, in a logical follow-on from our enthusiastic adoption of rooftop solar.

Frischknecht points to startling progress on the cost front over the past few years for utility-scale solar projects. Continue reading →

February 13, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, solar | Leave a comment

Western Australia’s Environmental Defender’s Office slams biodiversity bill

WA enviro defender slams biodiversity bill https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/30797749/wa-enviro-defender-slams-biodiversity-bill/  AAP February 11, 2016,  The Environmental Defender’s Office has advised against passing the West Australian government’s biodiversity conservation bill in its current form, saying the touted benefits are illusory. Environment Minister Albert Jacob introduced the bill in November, describing changes to the Wildlife Conservation Act as “the Holy Grail” of legislation change for every government going back to the 1980s.

The EDO, however, has released a 36-page white paper that strongly disagrees with the touted benefits of the changes.

Principal solicitor Patrick Pearlman conceded the bill had some good features including repealing two obsolete laws and substantially increasing potential fines for violations, but takes “a giant step back in many other ways”.

He said the proposed removal of “even the threat of jail time” for harming highly threatened species was particularly disturbing.

Mr Pearlman said the proposed changes would give virtually unfettered discretion to either the state environment minister or the Department of Parks and Wildlife’s chief executive in decision-making, leaving the scientific community and the public out in the cold when it came to identifying vulnerable species, critical habitat or key threats.

The bill would give offenders defences that would likely undermine enforcement efforts, and broadly exempt government and industry from the new law’s reach, he said.

“Even worse, the bill appears to promote short-term declines to foster development and permits the minister to allow species to be taken to the point of extinction,” he said.

Last year, the state government cut the EDO’s funding completely.

February 13, 2016 Posted by | politics, Western Australia | Leave a comment

Inescapable conclusion – nuclear waste dump plan for South Australia is areal dud

thumbs-downEdwards,-Sean-trashThe impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work.  The Australia Institute Briefing paper Dan Gilchrist February 2016 
“……Conclusion There are no magical solutions in the real world. When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
 Even setting aside the technological and economic problems of the Edwards plan, its impossibility can be deduced by a simple observation: it only works if no-one else does it. It is a Catch-22. If the plan is a technological success it will open up competition, which would make it an economic failure.
There is also the question of popular will: perhaps Australia’s edge would be in a unique willingness to implement such a plan? However, Australia has historically had a great deal of hostility toward the nuclear industry. If Australians could be convinced to embrace PRISMs and boreholes, surely some countries with an existing nuclear industry – countries which have, therefore, shown a much greater willingness to accept it – would also be willing to implement those solutions.
It makes far more economic sense to pay for your own boreholes, or PRISMs, or reprocessing, than it does to pay up to ten times the cost for Australia to do it for you – you would save on shipping and port costs, at least.
 Not every country would or could implement this solution, but it would take just one other nation on earth to provide competition. If the deal really is as attractive as Senator Edwards claims, surely at least one other nation would be tempted to take a share of such a wildly profitable business. Assuming that Australia will somehow maintain a monopoly in technologies it does not own is naïve.
 Deploying new technologies is inherently risky. PRISMs and boreholes may turn out to be massive white elephants financially, and leave us with thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste to deal with. But even if these technologies worked, some other countries would surely be in a position to implement them, and at a reduced risk, once Australia had piloted its development.
It is a plan which creates its own competition.
 In reality, there is no reason to think any country would pay what the Edwards plan assumes they will. With no mature nuclear power or waste industry, holding no monopoly on the technologies needed, and far from potential markets, there is no reason to think that Australia would have a competitive advantage. There is no reason to think that Australians will accept 56,000 tonnes of waste with no costed long-term solution.
No other country will line up to take advantage of this amazing opportunity, because it does not exist. Sadly, Senator Edwards’ dream is impossible. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/496/attachments/original/1455085726/P222_Nuclear_waste_impossible_dream_FINAL.pdf?1455085726

February 12, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia, wastes | 1 Comment

Australia Institute Analyses Senator Sean Edwards’ Nuclear Plan For South Australia

The impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work.  The Australia Institute Briefing paper Dan Gilchrist February 2016 

Edwards,-Sean-trash

Summary
South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was established on 19 March 2015 and is due to report on its findings in May 2016. It is inquiring into the risks and opportunities to the economy, environment and community of the expansion or development of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Perhaps the most prominent plan has been the one championed by South Australian Senator Sean Edwards.1 He claims to be able to bring tremendous economic prosperity to South Australia, with the almost incredible by-product of providing free electricity to the state, and with money left over to reduce state taxes.
The plan involves being paid to take spent fuel from other countries and store it in Australia. The state can then use that old fuel to power a new generation of reactors, producing tiny quantities of easily handled waste. With money earned from taking troublesome radioactive materials off the hands of countries struggling with stocks of nuclear waste, South Australia can fund next-generation reactors.
The plan sounds perfect. The reality is far from it.
The Edwards plan ignores the cost of shipping the waste to Australia, and relies on technology that has never before been deployed commercially. It hopes that unjustified and unrealistic amounts of money will be paid for the disposal of waste.
Furthermore, although the plan includes the acceptance of 60,000 tonnes of waste, only 4,000 tonnes, at most, would be reprocessed for fuel. The remaining 56,000 tonnes would remain in temporary storage, with no funds left for future generations to deal with the problem.
 Even if the world fell into line just as Senator Edwards hopes, the plan fails to consider the obvious question: if Australia can generate free electricity from this spent fuel, wouldn’t other countries want to do the same? The plan makes no allowances for competition.

 Even if the countries of origin chose not to implement the miraculous technology proposed for South Australia, other countries could compete with Australia to provide this service. A plan predicated on monopoly profits of over 400 percent is, therefore, unrealistic.

The idea that an expanded nuclear industry in Australia will produce thousands of jobs and generate so much money that South Australians will be provided with free electricity is a wonderful dream. But like so many dreams, it is an impossible one.
The first section of this report outlines the key elements of the Edwards plan. 
The second section of the report provides a reality check. It shows that the plan fails to deal with over 90% of the imported waste, and then exposes the chief technological and economic risks in the scheme.
 The third section will consider a world in which the assumptions contained in the Edwards plan come true, and explores the possibility that other countries might go on to use the same technologies as Australia.
This paper will analyse the mid-scenario modelled in the Edwards plan – that is, 60,000 tonnes of spent fuel to be taken by Australia, with payments received of $1,370,000 per tonne – and follow the convention of using Australian dollars at their 2015 value, except where otherwise noted. Similarly, costings and claims are taken directly from the Edwards paper, except where otherwise noted. ………..

February 12, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia, Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Greens ready for #NuclearCommissionSAust report “all about waste dumping”

greens“It’s all about the dump”: Greens gear up for nuclear war, IN Daily, 12 Feb 16 The South Australian Greens are preparing for a sustained public relations assault from next week, in the assumption that the Royal Commission into the state’s nuclear fuel cycle will recommend the viability of a nuclear waste dump. The commission, headed by former Governor Kevin Scarce, will detail its “tentative findings” on Monday morning, preceding another round on consultation.

Greens MLC Mark Parnell told InDaily the party had prepared a variety of options for leaflets and online material, with staff “putting out a call to Greens members for volunteers to hand out flyers”.

“What we’re doing is trying to anticipate what the Royal Commission might come up with, so there will be no surprises that the waste dump is front and foremost in our thinking,” Parnell said.

“That’s on the basis that nuclear power is incredibly expensive and slow [so] they might recommend it but I always thought that was less likely. The processing and value-adding stuff – my understanding is economically it doesn’t stack up [and] of all the different things they’re looking at, it keeps coming back to the dump.”

He said insiders he had spoken to insist “it’s all about the dump”.

“That’s the impression that we’ve had since about a week after the Royal Commission was announced, once the terms of reference were announced… but we’re preparing for a few different scenarios so we can respond on Monday,” he said.

“We have several different versions ready to go.”

He said his party’s position on nuclear waste storage “hasn’t really changed over the past many years”, and suggested Labor should maintain the position it took in 2004, when it went to the High Court to kill off a federal proposal to establish a repository at Woomera. Continue reading →

February 12, 2016 Posted by | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Traditional Owners vow to fight nuclear proposals ahead of the Royal Commission’s draft report

logo ANFA

 Ahead of Monday’s release of the draft report of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, SA Traditional Owners are once again voicing strong opposition to proposals for expanded uranium mining and proposals for nuclear waste dumps and other nuclear projects.

Sue Coleman-Haseldine, co-chair of the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, is a Kokatha-Mula woman from Ceduna and winner of the 2007 Premier’s Award for excellence for indigenous leadership in natural resource management.   Ms Coleman-Haseldine said: “I was born on Koonibba Aboriginal Mission in 1951. Atomic bomb tests began in the desert areas north of my birthplace in 1953 when I was two years old. First at Emu Fields and then Maralinga. I grew up under the Maralinga nuclear cloud. Do I want to see my state known worldwide as a nuclear waste dump? No. Do I have the right to subject our future generations to a life of nuclear fear? No. Accidents happen, be it at a uranium mine or on a nuclear freeway or at a nuclear reactor or a dump site.”

Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna elder and President of the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance said:  “We will fight this industry across the country, whether it be the expansion of uranium mining or a nuclear waste dump. It is our cultural obligation and responsibility to care for our land.  It’s time the government and nuclear industry acknowledge and listen to us.  There are and have been so many sick people as a result of this industry.  Why has there not been a Royal Commission into the intergenerational health impacts of this industry? How will this Royal Commission measure the risks and impacts on culture and country? You cannot put a number on these things.”

Copied below is a statement from SA Traditional Owners.

 

 

handsoffSouth Australian Traditional Owners say NO!

 Statement from a community meeting held in Port Augusta on Saturday 16 May, 2015 to discuss the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
We oppose plans for uranium mining, nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps on our land.
We call on the SA Royal Commission to recommend against any uranium mining and nuclear projects on our lands.
We call on the Australian population to support us in our campaign to prevent dirty and dangerous nuclear projects being imposed on our lands and our lives and future generations.
Endorsed by members from the following groups, Kokatha, Kokatha-Mirning, Arabunna, Adnyamathanha, Yankunytjatjara-Pitjanjatjara, Antikirinya-Yunkunytjatjara, Kuyani, Aranda, Western Aranda, Dieri, Larrakia, Wiradjuri

 

February 12, 2016 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia | Leave a comment

Senator Scott Ludlam backs 6 Australian communities opposing nuclear waste dump

Ludlam-in-SenateGreens senator wants towns off shortlist for waste dump site    A Greens senator has backed six Australian communities campaigning to stop a nuclear waste dump being established in their areas. The Weekly, Mudgee, NSW, 10 Feb 

Scott Ludlam addressed the Upper House on Thursday, drawing his colleagues’ attention to the strong opposition to the proposed waste dumps in Hill End; at Omanama in Queensland; Hale in the Northern Territory; and Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie and Barndioota in South Australia. e
 He moved that the Senate calls on the federal government to:
  • Acknowledge the opposition and lack of community support at all six sites, respect previous commitments on non-imposition and the importance of community consent, and remove all six sites from further consideration.
  • Initiate a genuinely independent inquiry to investigate long-term stewardship options for spent fuel, reprocessing waste, and other categories of radioactive waste, including drawing on international examples and experience.
  • Investigate options for active waste minimisation, including increased use of non-reactor based methods for radioisotope production.
  •  Clearly reaffirm policy and legislative prohibitions on the importation and disposal of international radioactive waste.
 Mr Ludlam’s call came just days after Calare MP John Cobb spoke in the House of Representatives about the level of opposition to the proposed waste dump in his own electorate. “The Hill End community … are, and will remain, united against the establishment of such a facility,” Mr Cobb said in parliament. “Hill End have requested that they be immediately ruled out and not have to wait until March for the government’s response as to which communities might continue dialogue over the placement of the facility.
“Minister Frydenberg has stated that those communities that the government will continue discussions with will be announced some time after March 11. I ask for the voices of Hill End to be listened to.”
Bathurst Regional Council also took a stand against the proposed dump last week, calling on the government to remove Hill End from the short list of sites before the March 11 deadline.

February 12, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Strong opposition to Hill End nuclear waste plan- petition

Protest-No!sign-thisPetition calls to halt Hill End waste plans  By ELLE WATSON , The Weekly, Mudgee, NSW, 10 Feb 16 Campaigners against a proposed nuclear waste dump at Hill End have taken to the streets of Mudgee to gather support for a petition to be presented to parliament later this month.
No Central Waste Nuclear Dump chairwoman Robyn Rayner collected signatures on Monday afternoon and will return before her February 29 deadline.  Since a public meeting at Hill End less than two weeks ago she has collected 15 pages of signatures.
 “We can’t say no any more or any stronger than what we’ve already done and yet when they [government representatives] were asked what their next step was they said that they were going to do a phone survey or pay for an independent survey and then they were going to come back and visit the directly affected neighbours one on one,” Mrs Rayner said.
“How much more of our time are they going to waste? Because we’re all farmers and when you’re dealing with animals there’s always something you have to be doing especially this time of year.
“They say it’s a process but why are they continually wasting money. Ok if they can’t make a decision until after the 120 days why are they still going about what they are doing … when it is 100 per cent unanimous against it and not one person has come out in favour of it other than the landowner.”
 Mrs Rayner said all direct neighbours attended the January 30 meeting bar one and all gave a show of hands objecting to the proposal.  The one neighbour who did not attend the meeting due to business commitment sent an email confirming his objection.
 A spokesperson from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said “with 120 days set for a formal public consultation period, the department will continue to run its consultation with the Hill End and the other sites until the close of the consultation period on March 11”.
 “The department is sending information on the project to all sites in February, including to the Hill End, Mudgee and Bathurst communities and stands ready to answer any questions to ensure communities are fully informed.   “At the end of this initial consultation period an independent survey company will survey the views of the community and provide this input to the department.”
Mid-Western Regional Council, Bathurst and Lithgow City Councils have all opposed the proposal.
 At a meeting last week Mudgee Chamber of Commerce members were unanimous in their opposition to the facility.
Submissions on the project can still be made by sending an email to radioactivewaste@industry.gov.au

February 12, 2016 Posted by | New South Wales, Opposition to nuclear | 2 Comments

Senator Edwards’ fantasy of free nuclear electricity for South Australia

Free nuclear power is a fantasy: Report http://www.tai.org.au/content/free-nuclear-power-fantasy-report# A new report from The Australia Institute shows that a proposal to establish a global nuclear waste industry in South Australia would fail to secure 90% of the imported waste, leaving an expensive and risky legacy for the state.

The report was commissioned by the Conservation Council of South Australia to analyse the submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Liberal Senator Sean Edwards. The Royal Commission is due to release tentative results next week.

“The Edwards plan is deeply flawed. It is a plan funded by taking thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste, but would fail to process over 90% of that waste, leaving it to future generations to deal with,” said report author, The Australia Institute’s Dan Gilchrist.

Senator Edwards is proposing that South Australia imports 60,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from other countries, and then leaves most of it, 56,000 tonnes, in dry cask storage which is designed for temporary use.

Edwards,-Sean-trash

Report: The impossible dream: Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is.

“The plan relies on technology that has never been deployed commercially – not with all the expertise in France or Germany or Japan or the United States.

“Indeed, logically, if a viable solution emerges, other countries will no longer pay Australia billions to hand over the waste.

“The plan fails to consider a basic economic principle: if Australia can generate free electricity – why wouldn’t other countries?

“Nothing in the plan explains what our great-great grandchildren are meant to do with this legacy. Indeed, the plan never mentions the leftover waste, as if it was not worth worrying about. Worse, all the money is spent in the first 50-60 years. Nothing is left to deal with the leftover waste.

“In many ways it is like a vastly complex loan. Australia will ‘borrow’ many billions of dollars, spend the lot, and leave it to future generations to pay it back. Indeed, a loan would be better, since it would not require South Australia to store tens of thousands of tonnes of radioactive material in the meantime.

“It is no wonder that Senator Edwards has been able to promise free electricity and reduced taxes. He is spending someone else’s money. Eventually, however, the piper must be paid.”

February 12, 2016 Posted by | politics, South Australia, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Sean Edwards proposal for nuclear pot of gold – a myth, says South Australia’s Conservation Council

Nuclear Pot of Gold is a Myth Conservation Council of South Australia, 11 Feb 16  The state’s peak environment body has welcomed today’s release of a new report that questions grandiose claims of an economic bonanza arising from the creation of a global nuclear industry in South Australia.

The report The impossible dream. Free electricity sounds too good to be true – it is was prepared by leading economic think-tank The Australia Institute.  The Conservation Council of South Australia commissioned The Australia Institute to analyse the submission of Senator Sean Edwards to the SA Nuclear Royal Commission.

Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins said the analysis presented a much-needed dose of reality.

“There’s been a lot of grandiose claims made about a nuclear waste-led economic boom for our state, including free power and the scrapping of all state taxes,” Mr Wilkins said.

“The reality is there is no magic pot of gold.

“The Edwards proposal manages to ignore basic economic laws of supply and demand while leaving tens of thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste for future generations to deal with.

“Either way you look at it the Edwards proposal contains high risk and fuzzy logic.

“Either South Australia solves the problem of long-term safe storage of toxic nuclear waste – a problem that no other country has yet been able to fix despite decades of research and failed proposals – in which case other countries will simply follow our lead and we quickly lose our monopoly position that underpins the economic case Senator Edwards is making, or we don’t solve it and are left with a social, economic and environmental nightmare for our state.

“This is not a legacy we should be leaving for our children.”

The Royal Commission is due to release tentative results Monday morning at 11am.

The Australia Institute Report can be found here and attached below. The Edwards submission can be found here. The Conservation SA submission to the Royal Commission can be found here. A critique of the Royal Commission can be found here.

February 11, 2016 Posted by | South Australia, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Senator Sean Edwards’ Impossible Nuclear Dream

Edwards,-Sean-trashThe impossible dream: Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A new report from The Australia Institute shows that a proposal to establish a global nuclear waste industry in South Australia would fail to secure 90% of the imported waste, leaving an expensive and risky legacy for the state.

The report was commissioned by the Conservation Council of South Australia to analyse the submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Liberal Senator Sean Edwards. The Royal Commission is due to release tentative results next week.

Senator Edwards is proposing that South Australia imports 60,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from other countries, and then leaves most of it, 56,000 tonnes, in dry cask storage which is designed for temporary use.

February 11, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Telstra to rollout solar and battery storage technologies

Aust-sunTelstra takes on energy utilities with home solar and storage plan, Independent Australia Giles Parkinson 11 February 2016  Telstra’s rollout of solar and battery storage looks to be a game-changer in the home energy market. RenewEconomy‘sGiles Parkinson reports. 

AUSTRALIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS giant Telstra plans to accelerate the rollout of solar and battery storage technologies, and is looking to offer home energy services to millions of consumers in the first sign it will take on the major energy utilities.

Telstra has established a dedicated project team to be led by Ben Burge, the feisty CEO of Powershop and Meridian Energy Australia,which has made major inroads into the Australian energy oligopoly, and which has been a keen proponent of wireless technology and smart-phone apps.

The arrival of a giant corporation such as Telstra into the home energy market signals massive change in the industry, as new technologies such as solar and battery storage, and the “internet of things” offer new avenues to the consumer market.

Telstra is flagging the possibility of offering home energy services – including solar and battery storage – as part of its bundled services that includes internet and telephone.

Telstra’s head of new business, Cynthia Whelan says in her corporate blog:

We see energy as relevant to our Connected Home strategy, where more and more machines are connected in what is called the Internet of Things.

We are looking at the opportunities to help customers monitor and manage many different aspects of the home, including energy……..

Analysts have predicted for several years now that the traditional energy industry would come under attack from new players such as telcos, and IT giants such as Google.

Mark Coughlin, the head of utilities at PwC, says electricity utilities, are facing their “Kodak moment” as the emergence of rooftop solar, in combination with battery storage and smart software, shift the power from the utility to the customer.

And, he says, telcos such as Telstra are better at consumer service than energy utilities, which will struggle to maintain their right to survive. …….https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/telstra-takes-on-energy-utilities-with-home-solar-and-storage-plan,8666

February 11, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, solar, storage | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »