Queensland launches solar storage battery trial
Queensland installs Australia’s first Powerwall battery for solar trial, 
Guardian, Joshua Robertson, 18 Jan 16 Energex, which is owned by the state government, launches a 12-month trial of solar batteries to investigate ways to integrate them into electricity supply
A Queensland government-owned power company has installed the country’s first solar battery storage system from Tesla as it begins a year-long trial into how it can reward consumers who cut their reliance on the electricity grid.
Energex, which has installed a Tesla Powerwall and another storage system from Californian company Sunverge at its Brisbane training facility, will collect data to work out how to integrate solar batteries into the network with financial incentives for customers.
The trial, which will extend monitoring of systems in Energex employees’ homes to those in outside consumers’ in coming months, follows lobbying by the Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, of Tesla executives in the US six months ago.
Queensland boasts one of the highest rates of household solar panel systems in the world, although uptake in recent years has been inhibited by a dramatic cut in the rate consumers are paid for power that they return to the grid.
The commercial release of the Powerwall this year is widely expected to drive popular take-up of a system that at best would supply about seven hours of nightly power for televisions, air-conditioning and other appliances……..
Terry Effeney, the chief executive of Energex, said information about the effect of solar batteries on peak demand could allow power network operators to defer costly infrastructure investments or reduce generation where possible.
Contrary to the idea of consumers being able to quit the grid, Effeney said the 12-month trial would “demonstrate that in fact the best way to use batteries and solar is to integrate them into the grid to deliver the best possible outcome to the customers”. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/18/queensland-installs-australias-first-powerwall-battery-for-solar-trial
The Ugly Australian – Peninsula Energy uranium mining in South Africa
Already today, the environment around Beaufort West is contaminated close to the previous mine sites. First field studies by the author show unprotected nuclear wastes with 10 to 20 times the background radiation.
Dust and Radiation – Two Deadly Impacts…… a particular direct relationship between occupational exposure to uranium and its decay products and lung diseases.Mining uranium ore in the Karoo will invariably create huge plumes of contaminated dust. Dust clouds are unavoidable during drilling, blasting and transporting.
Dust suppression by spraying water is only partially effective and creates new problems with contaminated slimes, adding to the environmental cost of groundwater abstraction
The Karoo has long been known to harbour substantial sedimentary uranium deposits. Now an Australian company [Peninsula Energy , through it’s wholly owned subsidiary Tasman Pacific Minerals Limited] with Russian funding is planning to get the radioactive mineral out of the ground on a major scale.
The company has quietly accumulated over 750 000 hectares of Karoo properties and concessions around Beaufort West and plans to set up a large Central Processing Plant just outside that town.
While the nation is still debating the pros and cons of fracking, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as the precursor to mining licences is nearing finalisation. During 2016 the Department of Mineral Resources will make a decision on the industry’s application……….
extensive studies on the risks of uranium mining over many decades are available today….yet so far there is no public debate, no strategic assessment process in place in the Karoo.No advocacy groups balance the glossy claims of the industry against sobering experiences on the ground….. Continue reading
Queensland moves to solar energy in a planned way
Queensland searches for a solar fix, THE AUSTRALIAN, JANUARY 18, The acid test for governments, here and everywhere, in the post-Parisian energy environment is turning talk in to meaningful action……Annastacia Palaszczuk’s regime in Brisbane is embarking on a year in which it must put its policies where its mouth was in January 2015, when it scored an upset win in the state elections.
Committed to being the nation’s standard bearer on advancing solar power, the government has sensibly thrown the ball to its new Productivity Commission before it acts…..
The commission’s official role is to come up with a “fair price for solar exports” — that is, the surplus power from householders’ rooftop PV arrays flowing in to the southeastern Queensland grid.
The commission’s draft report is due next month and the final version in May.
Its impact will be felt beyond Queensland’s borders as policymakers elsewhere also have a keen interest in riding the wave of solar enthusiasm that sees the number of Australian homes with PV on their rooftops creeping up towards 1.5 million, a penetration rate of 16 per cent nationally…….
ARIUS ASSOCIATION’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust confuses ethics with greed
AriusAssociation Submission to the Royal Commission on Management, Storage and Disposal of Nuclear and Radioactive Waste
Arius is a a non profit body, (but friendly to the nuclear industry). It addresses nuclear waste disposal. It details structures and measures needed. Arius relies heavily on information from [the failed South Australian] Pangea Project. Its purported aim is for an “ethical project” – ‘to fulfil our ethical responsibilities to future generations’
Arius is upbeat about economic advantages, upbeat about safety and security. It appears to be complacent about a safe uneventful future for nuclear industry.
Nowhere does Arius discuss the historic disasters of the nuclear industry, its intrinsic connection with nuclear weapons proliferation, not the increasing risks of terrorism.
In discussing nuclear waste from an ethical point of view, the option of just stopping making the stuff is not considered.
Despite Arius’ confidence in nuclear industry waste disposal technology, they are ware of the implications:
” The Extremely Long Times that must be considered Repository safety analyses are routinely carried out for a million years into the future. These time scales challenge the conventional basis for the design of technological systems. Designs for such systems are usually based on a combination of past experience and theoretical projections, which can be supported by testing and observations of performance on relevant time scales. Because it is not possible to test and observe the engineered components of a repository over representative time scales, a repository’s safety would ideally be guaranteed by natural processes that have already demonstrated their performance over millions of years.”
However, their central theme seems to be to enthuse over the financial benefits to South Australia.
David Bowman’s Pro Nuclear Submission – Nuclear waste dump to help wildlife!!
Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Professor David Bowman, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania
EXTRACT
“I believe there is scope to use uranium mining and nuclear waste storage as a source of funding to tackle the urgent challenge of biodiversity, and particularly the threats to our unique and threatened Australian mammal fauna in the longer term
…….Australia’s insularity, tectonic and political stability make it an ideal setting for high-level nuclear waste storage. Uranium mining and waste storage could potentially provide a funding base for an internationally significant conservation intervention throughout outback Australia. To provide this capital and revenue, I suggest the expectations of mine site restoration are changed from attempts to restore mined areas to their original condition, and instead focus on containing pollution from these sites.
Savings should be invested in establishing at least ten very large predator-proof exclosures (> 500 km2) in the surrounding unmined landscapes in outback Australia. Further, exhausted sites associated with mining in geological stable and arid areas like Olympic Dam could be used for high-level nuclear waste disposal. Income associated with storage of nuclear waste, and the requirement they are managed over the long term (> 100 years), would provide funding for ongoing Aboriginal ranger programs to manage country throughout outback Australia…..”
Golder Associates – another pro nuclear Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
You can access this one from http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?search=Submissions.
Golder Associates Submission on Management, Storage and Disposal of Nuclear and Radioactive Waste. An engineering company, its aim is to show how they have designed and developed projects, and worked with Indigenous and local communities.
Worked with Pangea , ANSTO , AREVA, Ontario Power Generation, They set out an Adaptive Phase Management approach. Set out process for building support with indigenous communities.
Highly misleading to say that Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is mainly for medical uses
it would be highly misleading to attribute this predominantly to medical isotope production given the broad range of uses of the HIFAR and MOATA reactors over the last 60 years.
waste will be deposited in the repository? Less than 1% is medical waste (leftover radium and some disused sources). Most states and territories each only have a few cubic metres of low level medical waste.What materials will go into waste repositary for Lucas Heights nuclear trash?
Radioactive waste in Australia, Medical Association for the Prevention 
of War (MAPW) 18 Jan 16 …………….Where does the radioactive waste to be deposited in this repository come from? The repository is designed for “low level” and “intermediate level” waste; as of 2014 a total of 4,906 cubic metres (m3 ).The planned repositary for Lucas Heights returning nuclear waste
Radioactive waste in Australia, Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW) 18 Jan 16 What will the repository look like? “……The low level waste will be permanently disposed of in a shallow trench covered by 5 metres of soil with plastic and clay lining to prevent water and other materials entering. The nuclear fuel waste, which is intermediate level waste, is too hazardous to be managed in this manner, so will be placed above ground in a temporary purpose-built store3 . Is the repository a permanent management solution? No. This is merely an interim repository for the intermediate level waste. There is no timeline set for a permanent solution. Permanent disposal of intermediate level waste requires deep geological burial. So the Commonwealth repository follows IAEA recommendations only for the low level waste (see below). It does not meet the permanent disposal needs of the intermediate level waste, and defers accountability indefinitelyBHP not interested in nuclear waste import – Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
BHP’s Submission on wastes is very short. Two major points –
- reiterates call to remove uranium mining from being listed as a Matter of National
Environmental Significance 9NES) in the Federal Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). - doesn’t want to have any involvement in storage or disposal of nuclear waste.
BHP Billiton Submission to Royal Commission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/BHP-Billiton-03-08-2015.pdf
EXTRACT “Management, Storage and Disposal of Nuclear and Radioactive Waste BHP Billiton’s experience with radioactive waste management and storage at Olympic Dam is limited to the storage of tailings and other low level contaminated materials generated during the treatment of ore……
Tailings storage and management is common in mining operations throughout the world, and in this respect the management of tailings at Olympic Dam is no different to that of other BHP Billiton operations not involving uranium (e.g. copper or nickel), or indeed other mining operations worldwide.
Given this similarity, the demonstrated level of environmental management and the low level of radioactivity involved, the treatment of tailings from uranium operations should be considered as akin to that of other metal mining operations. Correspondingly, it does not warrant being considered a matter of national environmental significance that triggers the requirements of the EPBC Act.
BHP Billiton does not handle or manage intermediate and high-level radioactive wastes. Nevertheless we understand that current thinking is toward long term storage rather than disposal, as it is foreseeable that the contained energy may be able to be harnessed in the future.
Irrespective of whether storage or disposal is preferred, BHP Billiton considers that either option would be inconsistent with our core business of mining and the production of high quality copper and associated by-products at Olympic Dam.”
Change Australia’s Environmental Protection Laws – ANSTO”s submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
EXTRACT from ANSTO Submission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Australian-Nuclear-Science-and-Technology-Organisation-03-08-2015.pdf
Legislative and regulatory
Significant legislative changes would be required in order to develop a South Australian nuclear power industry. At present, nuclear power is prohibited in Australia. At the Commonwealth level, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) effectively prohibits the construction or operation of nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power plants, enrichment plants or reprocessing facilities.
In addition, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (Cth) prevents the CEO of ARPANSA from licensing the siting,construction or operation of such facilities by Commonwealth entities. At the South Australian level, there is a conditional ban on conversion and enrichment (see section 27 of the RadiationProtection and Control Act 1982).
In addition to the removal of those legislative barriers, legislation would also be required in order to upgrade the existing regulatory structure or create new a regulatory structure capable of performing the functions required for the licensing of nuclear power reactors. There would
also need to be legislation governing nuclear liability in order to bring Australia into line with international norms……..
BHP’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – “No particular health risks from uranium mining”
A not very exciting Submission, in which BHP outlines its work at Olympic Dam. The major point is that BHP wants to remove uranium mining from being listed as a Matter of National Environmental Significance 9NES) in the Federal Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act).
BHP maintains that the health risks from uranium mining are not really different from the risks in any other type of mining.
On the future for the uranium market, BHP is cagey, pointing out that copper is the major money-spinner from Olympic Dam
BHP Billiton – Submission to RC ISSUESPAPER 1 Exploration, Extraction and Milling http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/BHP-Billiton-03-08-2015.pdf
EXTRACT
“…..We believe this Commission to be an important opportunity to seek changes that will reduce barriers to entry into uranium extraction and exploration. We make two important recommendations: Continue reading
Australian Workers Union complacent about health, sends pro nuclear Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
Not surprisingly, the AWU Submission concentrates on JOBS. They quote (to my mind) some rather ambitious and over-confident forecasts on the employment future, with the nuclear fuel chain.
AWU enthusiasm focuses on the opportunities in uranium mining, – says little about o the other phases of the full nuclear chain. Confident of the economic benefits of that chain, and keen for nuclear waste importing.
Notably, their Submission says very little about health: it is very complacent about radiation safety.
AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION SUBMISSION TO SA Nuclear Royal Commission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Australian-Workers-Union-03-08-2015.pdf
Scott McDine- National Secretary The Australian Workers’ Union Level10, 377-383 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: 02 8005 3333 1 Fax: 02 8005 3300 Website: www.awu.net.au I Email: members@nat.awu.net.au
EXTRACT
“……This submission asserts that the potential economic and employment benefits of the nuclear fuel cycle are vast, and that failure to act would represent a lost opportunity for South Australia. It also acknowledges Australia’s capacity to manage the safety, environmental and security risks associated with the nuclear industry…… Continue reading
AREVA’s published Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
The RC published only one Submission, from AREVA Australia I think that we can be pretty confident that AREVA sent in other Submissions , including one on waste management.
The published Submission is pretty boring – deals only with uranium mining and exploration. AREVA does acknowledge the current poor uranium market, but looks to future growth, without any convincing reason. I list some extracts below, – they are not very notable.
I thought that the relatively large time that the RC spent with AREVA was more interesting. Ironically, the RC in France met with AREVA on the day after President Hollande ordered AREVA to merge with EDF, to save it from bankruptcy.
4 June 15 Visit to AREVA Tricastin, France.
- Explanation of AREVA’s conversion plant and the development of the project;
- Tour of conversion plant construction site;
- Explanation of AREVA’s Georges Besse II operating enrichment plant;
- Tour of GB II enrichment plant facilities.
Visit to AREVA Melox, France.
- Explanation of AREVA’s operating mixed oxide fuel fabrication plant and the use of mixed oxide fuels;Tour of mixed oxide fuel fabrication facilities.
5 June 15 Visit to AREVA La Hague, France.
Visit to EDF Flamanville, France.
8 June 15 Meeting with AREVA.
- Discussion of future nuclear energy demand, barriers to investment in the nuclear fuel cycle and the economics of investment.
SUBMISSION SOUTH AUSTRALIA: NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
ISSUE PAPER #1 EXPLORATION EXTRACTION AND MILLING
IAN JOHN (JOE) POTTER RP GEO 24 JULY 2015
AREVA Resources Australia Pty Ltd A.B.N. 44 009 758 481 68 Greenhill Rd Wayville SA 5034 Tel: + 61 8 8292 9300 Fax: + 61 8 8377 7903 Email: infoARA@areva.com
“INTRODUCTION
AREVA is at present the world’s largest, integrated company in the nuclear cycle”…. (Ed. note. -That’s no longer true)
“CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS Continue reading
ANSTO’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – not keen on Thorium
Thorium fuelled nuclear power reactors are often put forward as a possible alternative to uranium 
fuelled reactors on the basis of a number of arguments, not all of which are accurate. For example, proponents of thorium reactors often claim that the thorium fuel cycle is resistantto proliferation risks.
However, the production of uranium‐233 during the thorium fuel cycle presents a potential proliferation risk that would require similar safeguards to those in place for the uranium fuel cycle today (ANSTO 2013).
Although the thorium fuel cycle is a theoretically feasible source of energy, there is limited evidence that significant investment in future thorium technologies would improve on the well established technologies and systems in place for the uranium fuel cycle, for which Australia is already one of the world’s largest exporters…..
ANSTO’s Submission (on all 4 Issues papers) says surprisingly little about nuclear waste management. It directs those remarks to how expert ANSTO itself is at managing nuclear waste.
It is enthusiastic about the future for nuclear power, but I note that it uses that “escape” word “potential” when predicting that good future. No author is named.
ANSTO Submission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Australian-Nuclear-Science-and-Technology-Organisation-03-08-2015.pdf EXTRACTS
“nuclear power, in countries with limited potential for hydropower, is the most efficient and cost‐effective low emissions fit‐for‐service base‐load electricity generation option……
new generation nuclear power plants under construction across the world represent a mature and safe technology; and future nuclear technology has the potential to further improve safety while reducing cost and up‐front capital investment requirements…..
“Safety Continue reading
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 