AUSTRALIA – NATIONAL « Antinuclear

Solar thermal plant at Forbes, New South Wales,has great potential

“This sort of technology will put massive amounts of money into regional Australia if it takes off “.

“It could be very significant here in Australia but also, there are significant overseas opportunities for Vast where Australia could earn export dollars.”

Developer of $20 million Australian-first solar thermal pilot plant predicts sunny future under Turnbull ABC Central West By Melanie Pearce 23 Dec 15 After hours of steady rain, there is not a ray of sunshine in sight and the mud is thick on the ground at the $20 million Jemalong pilot solar thermal plant near Forbes in central west New South Wales.

But in a way, the fact it is overcast helps to explain the importance of this technology, which enables both capture and storage of energy from the sun, according to James Fisher, chief technology officer of Vast Solar.

The engineer, who formerly worked in the fossil fuel industry and said he never thought renewables could compete with coal, now has a much sunnier outlook on the subject.

Technology behind solar thermal power plant

The Australian company has developed what it hopes will be a low-cost, high-efficiency Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) generation technology.

The Jemalong pilot plant will be ready for commissioning in mid-January and is designed to prove the technology works. Continue reading →

December 27, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | New South Wales, solar | Leave a comment

Australian media ignored the indigenous achievements in opposing a nuclear South Australia

Dennis Matthews 24 Dec 15 In response to Dave Sweeney’s “good nuclear news” – on the leadership of indigenous Australians in opposing the nuclear industry and nuclear waste dumping in South Australia

It’s correct, in December Karina and Rose Lester shared the Conservation Council of SA (Conservation SA) 2015, $1000, Jill Hudson Award for environmental protection for their opposition to the nuclear industry, but, apart from a small column in The Advertiser which didn’t mention the nuclear industry I’ve seen no mention of this important event.

I looked for a media release on the Conservation SA website but couldn’t find anything.

Perhaps someone could put the media release on this website?

PS. The first winners of the Jill Hudson award were Adnyamathanha activist Dr Jillian Marsh and ABC journalist Rose Crane. I understand that Jillian is involved in fighting attempts to put the proposed national nuclear waste dump on Adnyamathanha land.

December 23, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, media, South Australia | Leave a comment

South Australia power networks cannot impose tariff on solar homes

Federal Court rejects SA Power Networks’ proposed charge on solar-powered households http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/federal-court-rejects-solar-household-charge/7050600 The Federal Court has dismissed an appeal by SA Power Networks to charge a tariff on homes with solar panels.

The electricity distributor wanted it to approve a tariff of about $100 a year.

It argued that solar-powered houses have different energy consumption patterns and are effectively subsidised by houses without panels.

SA Power Networks took the matter to court when the Australian Energy Regulator rejected the proposed charge.

The distributor said that it was “disappointed by the appeal decision” and maintained that its application was about “fair and equitable cost-sharing among customers”.

“This was not about additional revenue,” SA Power networks said in a statement.

December 23, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | solar, South Australia | 1 Comment

Solar farm for Parkes, could double as sheep farm

French company plans 240ha solar farm for Parkes http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-18/240ha-solar-farm-planned-for-parkes/7035218 Landholders adjoining a proposed solar farm near Parkes in central west New South Wales are being assured they will not be adversely affected by the development. The proponent Neoen is planning a 240-hectare plant west of the town that will include about 245,000 solar panels.

Cattle producer John Smeaton plans to lease his land to the company and says planting trees around the site will address any concerns about glare.

He said he was confident the area would remain productive and become ideal for grazing sheep.”These panels, cattle would wreck them, the only thing they could run there could be sheep,” Mr Smeaton said.

“Some of the other neighbours might be interested in running sheep there.

“From a fire prevention point of view I think it’s necessary for something to take the grass down, because it’s fertile farm land and the grass can grow a metre or more high and it grows hot when it burns.”

The company plans to create 120 jobs during construction if it is successful in getting grant funding and planning approvals next year. Mr Smeaton said it would also have tourism potential.

December 21, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ACT, solar | 1 Comment

Research into wind turbines and their role in reducing carbon emissions

The effect of increasing the number of wind turbine generators on carbon dioxide emissions in the Australian National Electricity Market from 2014 to 2025, Australian policy Online

EEMG Working Paper 5-2015 – Version 13

William Paul Bell, Phillip Wild, John Foster, Michael Hewson

18 December 2015……

Source:

University of Queensland This report investigates the effect of increasing the number of wind turbine generators on carbon dioxide emission in the Australian National Electricity Market’s (NEM) existing transmission grid from 2014 to 2025. This report answers urgent questions concerning the capability of the existing transmission grid to cope with significant increases in wind power and aid emissions reductions. The report findings will help develop a coherent government policy to phase in renewable energy in a cost effective manner. ……..

We find increasing wind power penetration decreases carbon dioxide emissions but retail prices fail to reflect the decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. ……

We find that uncertainty in electricity demand and the renewable energy target are hindering the deployment of wind power. …..

The recent reduction of the LRET from the 41 TWh to 20% of demand reflects both permanent and cyclic changes. Both the recent reduction and the annual review of the RET induces investment uncertainty for wind power generators. Introducing a 100% RET and making the percent a moving average of the demand of the last 10 years would encourage retailers to purchase the LRET certificates, help reduce investment uncertainty and accommodate the structural changes in electricity demand. ………..http://apo.org.au/resource/the-effect-increasing-the-number-wind-turbine-generators-carbon-dioxide-emissions-the

December 21, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, wind | Leave a comment

Bill Fisher spells it out on nuclear waste – Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust

Bill Fisher Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission – Submission – All Issues

Introduction I frequently make submissions to parliamentary enquiries on matters nuclear: most recently the Enquiry into Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and the Enquiry into expansion of the Roxby mine. My submission is usually among the large majority (about 90%) opposed to uranium mining and export. The usual 90% majority is usually ignored! The 10% who are listened to are uranium industry representatives, governments and government departments, and a few scientists who are on the payroll of the uranium industry or the government. While this is a significant problem in the case of federal governments, it is far worse in South Australia, where the Roxby Downs Indenture Act is designed to override virtually all other legislation, and government departments which are supposed to monitor mining and export also act as promoters and protectors of the industry…..

(On nuclear wastes)

Fuel leasing Even BHP Billiton admits there is no commercial case for fuel leasing or front-end processing (submission to the Switkowski Review, 2006). Even the promoters and industry-boosters admit there is a risk of proliferation. Dangerous, unwanted – any belief in short-term financial gain is delusional……..

Radioactive Waste Spent nuclear fuel is massively more radioactive than mined uranium. It takes 200,000 years for that spent fuel to decay to the radioactivity of the original ore. Every year, power plants worldwide produce 12,000 tonnes of spent fuel. The mass and volume matter very little compared to its toxicity, longevity, heat-generation and plutonium content. For over 60 years the industry has been promising a method for safe disposal of this waste. It has always been ‘just around the corner’, ‘about to be developed’. Only some delusional governments have continued to believe these broken promises; like, apparently, the South Australian Government.

After 60 years of broken promises, there is not one repository anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level waste. There is one deep underground repository for long-lived intermediate- level waste, in New Mexico, USA. In 2014, a heat-generating chemical reaction ruptured one storage barrel, the air filter system failed, 22 workers were exposed, the repository is shut for 4 years and will cost $500million to restore. Safety analysis predicted one radiation-release accident in 200,000 years; now it looks more like an (estimated) 13,000 such accidents in 200,000 years. And that has to be just a wild guess. How many barrels last 200,000 years? My guess is none at all. Hell, the average barrel doesn’t even last 200 years (as a handy benchmark, that is about how long white settlers/invaders have been destroying the environment which had been better managed by the indigenous people for thousands of years) – and the average barrel isn’t expected to contain material of this toxicity. How long can we expect governments to keep us and our environment safe from this extremely toxic stuff? Based on the experience at WIPP, New Mexico, USA, about 10 to 15 years. That is how long it took from the opening of the repository to the beginning of complacency and cost-cutting.

That would never happen here, of course(?) It has already. In the late 1990s, the Australian government ‘cleaned-up’ the Maralinga nuclear test site. The government called it ‘world’s best practice’. It breached Australian standards for the management of long-lived nuclear waste. The truth always seems so elusive when we look at the nuclear industry. In 2011 – yes, that is 10 to 15 years after the latest ‘promise’ – a survey found 19 of the 85 contaminated debris pits had suffered erosion or subsidence.

There are basically 2 ways radioactive waste could be ‘dumped’ in outback South Australia: in a deep underground repository or at or near the surface. Given the lazy thinking and eagerness for easy financial returns characteristic of current governments, digging a deep underground repository – with the expense that involves – is very unlikely. That at least should save our groundwater, already so massively threatened and abused by allowing the Roxby mine free access to trillions of gallons of fossil water. The mound springs I was able to drink from and swim in 20 years ago no longer exist. That’s the fault of the South Australian Government & its Indenture Act. That leaves a shallow or surface repository. Presumably, we and our environment will be ‘protected’ from this extremely toxic waste by some kind of substantial building. Last time I looked, the longest surviving man-made buildings were the pyramids in Egypt – about 3,000 years old. Most modern structures are not intended to last anywhere near that long – and they don’t!

The plight of hapless authorities trying to contain the radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima should warn us not to trust any snake-oil salesman telling us this stuff which remains deadly for 200,000 years can be kept isolated from our environment for anything like that long. We live in an age our parents could hardly have imagined where governments routinely renege on firm commitments made by previous governments. An age where our environment and its protection is of such little account that landholders in the Murray-Darling river system who are upstream from poor South Australia are permitted to build dams big enough to retain more fresh water than the capacity of Sydney Harbour.

Has the South Australian Government even heard of the precautionary principle? Briefly, it says if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or the environment, unless there is scientific consensus that it is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. …………. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Bill-Fisher-03-08-2015.pdf

December 19, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Biased South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission

Royal Commission vs Community Permission: Environment groups assess performance of SA nuclear Royal Commission

National and state environment groups have today released an assessment of the state Royal Commission into the nuclear industry in SA. The report – commissioned by Conservation SA, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth Australia – looks at the Commission’s progress since its surprise unveiling by Premier Jay Weatherill ten months ago.

The report raises serious concerns about the Royal Commission, from the unrepresentative and unbalanced composition of the Expert Advisory Committee, conflicts of interest, the Royal Commission’s unwillingness to correct factual errors, to a repeated pattern of pro-nuclear claims being uncritically accepted and promoted.

“The nuclear industry embodies unique, complex and long lasting safety, security, environmental and public health challenges,” said Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins. “The sector lacks a secure social license and it is imperative that any consideration of an expansion of the industry is predicated on the highest standards of evidence, rigour, transparency and inclusion. Sadly this report shows these standards are not being reflected in the current Royal Commission.”

The Royal Commission has been criticised by civil society groups including environmental, public health and Aboriginal organisations for its restricted processes and limited information flows.

“Unlike most Royal Commissions this one was not a response to a pressing public issue, but rather it is a calculated political initiative with a pro-nuclear agenda,” said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney. “As a result the Commission looks less like an objective risk-benefit analysis and more an industry feasibility study. Environment groups and others will continue to closely track this deficient process.”

The Royal Commission is set to make an interim report in February 2016 with a final report due no later than 6 May 2016.

“We are concerned about skewed and inaccurate information and assumptions, especially in relation to nuclear growth and reactor longevity and so-called small modular reactors,” said Friends of the Earth Australia’s Dr Jim Green, a co-author of the report. “The Royal Commission praises the United Arab Emirates for the speed of its nuclear power program without making any mention of the elephant in the room: undemocratic countries can build reactors more quickly than democratic countries. Statements by the Royal Commission regarding the impact of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters are incorrect – and the list goes on.”

The groups have called for an expanded Advisory Committee, increased Aboriginal access to information and decision points and dedicated studies into the potential for growth in SA’s renewable energy sector as important steps to bring some much needed balance into the Commission’s deliberations.

The report is posted at: http://www.foe.org.au/rc-critique

Direct download: http://www.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/RC-critique-16Dec2015-final.pdf

__._,_.___

December 18, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

Aboriginals fight nuclear dump plan, but they’re up against complete stupidity!

Tim Mickel – “the effects on the environment of any dump at the site would be negligible.”

“The pharaohs managed to bury their dead for 3,000 years and they come up intact, so why can’t we do it with nuclear waste and have the same or nil effect to the environment?

Nuclear waste dump: Aboriginal traditional owners vow to oppose proposed radioactive facility near Alice Springs, ABC News, By Tom Maddocks, 17 Dec 15 The Federal Government has rejected claims that consultation for a proposed nuclear waste facility near Alice Springs has been a rushed process.

Key points about proposed dump:

Dump estimated to cost $110 million to build, would employ 30 people
Area to be used would be 100ha, waste contained in concrete blocks with steel and cement seals
Storage capacity of 4250 cubic metres of low-level waste, 650 cubic metres of intermediate waste
Low- level waste has to be stored for 300 years, intermediate waste stored on an interim basis (30-50 years) pending permanent solution

The owner of the date farm shortlisted for the dump has said if the Egyptian pharaohs were buried for thousands of years with no ill-effects on the environment, the same should be possible with nuclear waste.

The farm south of the town is one of six locations around Australia being considered to house low and intermediate level radioactive waste.

Around 50 people turned out at a public meeting in the community of Santa Teresa, near the proposed dump, where opponents of the plan directed their anger at officials from the Commonwealth’s Department of Industry……

Tim Mickel, owner of the AridGold date farm shortlisted as a location for the nuclear waste facility, said he wanted to stay involved in the process.

He said he believed the effects on the environment of any dump at the site would be negligible.

“I really don’t think there’s going to be any effect to the water table, the aquifer, even the environment, and during the process there’s going to be monitoring,” he said.

“The pharaohs managed to bury their dead for 3,000 years and they come up intact, so why can’t we do it with nuclear waste and have the same or nil effect to the environment?

Santa Teresa local Christopher Wallace said he had hoped more people would turn up and show their opposition to the plans.

“We just don’t want that rubbish on our land, it would damage our land, our bush tucker, our story lines for our kids and their generation,” Mr Wallace said.

“This is our home. We want to live here. We just don’t want that contamination going into our water.”

Aboriginal traditional owners said they were sad and in shock following the meeting.

“[The meeting] made us really upset. We’re thinking about the land and our ancestors, they are still floating around the land and [the Government] is trying to destroy it,” traditional owner Sharon Alice said.

“It’s going to destroy the land forever. We’re thinking about our future. Dump it somewhere else, not in our backyard.”

Barbara Shaw from the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance said it was bad timing for consultations.

“A lot of our mob have cultural obligations and activities coming up soon, we have a lot of people going into town for health reasons and because it’s Christmas, a lot of people go away for holidays,” she said.

Jimmy Cocking from the Alice Springs-based Arid Lands Environment Centre said it was clear traditional owners, the people of Santa Teresa, Oak Valley and Titjikala do not want the nuclear waste site in their backyard.

“They’ve got concerns about the nuclear industry, there’s a lot of mistrust of government as well, I think there’s been a lot of broken promises in the past,” Mr Cocking said.

“People have seen the impact that these proposals have on communities, look at Muckaty, and I think while people appreciate the opportunity to be consulted I think they would much prefer not to be having to turn up to this thing at all.”

Mr Cocking said those nominating their land for proposed sites were doing so for financial gain.

“It’s not that they’re making some sort of altruistic attempt for a nuclear future.”

Mr Cocking said if the date farm is shortlisted he will stand by traditional owners in continuing to fight against it.

“If that means demonstrations and protests, we’ll be there. But in the meantime, we’ll engage in this process and hope that sense comes to the Federal Minister and they realise the error of their ways.”

The Federal Government has said it will return to the region for more consultations early next year.

A meeting was scheduled at the nearby community of Titjikala this week but it was postponed due to sorry business (Aboriginal mourning).

Public submissions on the plans close on March 11, 2016. “A lot of our mob have cultural obligations and activities coming up soon, we have a lot of people going into town for health reasons and because it’s Christmas, a lot of people go away for holidays,” she said.