South Australia as radioactive trash dump our best nuclear bet – Kevin Scarce
Nuclear power option years away: royal commissioner Kevin Scarce http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/nuclear-power-option-years-away-royal-commissioner-kevin-scarce/story-e6frgczx-1227556819827?sv=631d9f761d476c7a142e1be7add844b1
OCTOBER 5, 2015 Michael Owen SA Bureau Chief Adelaide There is a decade of regulatory and legislative change required before any real work can begin on establishing a nuclear energy industry in Australia, royal commissioner Kevin Scarce says.
Those changes would require federal and state bipartisanship, meaning tangible economic benefits of expanding nuclear activity would not be apparent until at least 2030. We need to be realistic about what the opportunities will be,” Mr Scarce, a former South Australia governor, told The Australian. “If we do decide to participate (in the nuclear cycle), you’d want to grow some jobs, some expertise, and grow the technical know-how to go into other elements of nuclear — it has to have some economic benefits, and part of this royal commission is to look 10-15 years into the future and see what else is being developed to see if there is a need for nuclear in our power-generation mix.”
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was established by Labor Premier Jay Weatherill to look at South Australia’s involvement in the mining, enrichment, energy and storage phases in the life cycle of nuclear fuel, given the state has one of the world’s biggest uranium deposits and has been involved in uranium production for more than 25 years.
Mr Weatherill’s government is grappling with the worst unemployment rate of any state amid the decline of manufacturing. The Premier is keen to explore the economic benefits of a deeper involvement in the nuclear sector.
Mr Scarce said it might be that, given Australia’s energy demand was decreasing, coupled with an abundance of renewables, nuclear generators were not necessary. This would leave a nuclear waste dump as the most likely source of economic benefit.
Mr Scarce said it was “absolutely” the case that there was a decade of bipartisan legislative and regulatory change that had to occur before any nuclear industry could be up and running. “One should not think that if we turn the switch on at the end of this royal commission after the government has had a look at it that benefits will be delivered within the decade — they won’t be,” he said.
“In order to provide the investment certainty that would be required, because of the length and cost of this industry, if you don’t have bipartisan support at both the state and federal level, an industry will not go anywhere.”
Mr Scarce said the state opposition had been very supportive, as had the government, which established the inquiry. However, there could be major hurdles under any future federal Labor government. A decision to change the ALP national platform opposing a nuclear industry has been delayed until after the release of the commission’s report, due on May 6.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott has said there was no need for Australia to pursue nuclear energy because of the nation’s large coal and gas reserves, although he said nuclear energy would help cut carbon pollution.
Mr Scarce, who has visited several countries on fact-finding missions this year, will begin 30 days of public hearings until December.
#NuclearCommissionSAust – An Aboriginal group slams its processes
monetary compensation via Native Title is not the solution – don’t insult us by simply hying to buy our consent and silence our concerns
SUBMISSION TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION.
FROM: ANGGUMATHANHA CAMP LAW MOB
Extract Why we are not satisfied with the way this Royal Commission has been conducted: Yaiinidlha Udnyu ngawarla wanggaanggu, wanhanga Yura Ngawarla wanggaanggu?
always in English, where’s the Yura Ngawarla (our first language)?
The issues of engagement are many. To date we have found the process of engagement used by
the Royal Conuuission to be very off putting as it’s been run in a real Udnyu (whitefella) way.
The lack of an intelpreter service means we are forced to try and engage using English (or rely on the goodwill of caring community members), and often this means we cannot be part of the engagement process. Even a Plain English summary of the four papers would have been helpful, and more opportunity for people to give oral submissions in their first language with a translator to interpret. We say that govemment and industry have a moral and ethical obligation to include us as citizens of Australia, and as Traditional Owners of our Country. We suspect that many other Australians would have benefited from a Plain English version of the papers and this was suggested by many people who went to the first lot of community meetings held by Kevin Scarce and his team. Not everyone has good English literacy.
Requiring a JP’s signature is a barrier to participation and suggests that ordinary people cannot
be trusted; not everyone has easy access to a JP, and the timeline puts pressure on people to do
this. We feel this is likely to intimidate people and discourage many from participating.We strongly recommend that the Royal Commission do more work on the following issues:
- Provide the public with better understanding of the health, cultural, and social impacts in other
countries of an expanding nuclear industry (including public anxiety, contaminated areas, effects 0n public health); - Provide adequate resources to enable all Australians to be part of an informed process – put
people before profit; - The lack of advertising, and very short notice on several occasions suggests that government and
industry and not serious about wanting to engage with public opinion and don’t value our input. - Many people think this suggests the proposal is ‘a done deal’ and that it will go ahead anyway.
- Timelines are short, information is hard to access, there is no interpreter service available, and
the meetings have been very poorly advertised. - Engagement opportunities need to be fair and equitable (readily available to all people) and the Native Title interest is no more important than the wider community.
- A closed and secretive approach makes engagement difficult for the average person on the street, and near impossible for Aboriginal people to participate.
- Government continue to use an assimilatory process; they ignore us by refusing to translate
information into our first language, and they make no effort to understand our views in our
languages as the First Australians. The lack of a well-thought out engagement strategy tells us that our views are not important, that government and industry will do what they want regardless of public wishes. - Develop a compensation package for the likely economic impacts from the negative associations of nuclear industry on local and regional economy – ego Loss of prices in crops, housing, land, as a result of contamination threats, accidents and breaches of EPA regulations;
- Develop actual measures to counter threats from terrorist organisations re: protection to avoid nuclear site attacks, and local capacity to deal with emergency situations;
- Tell the public what risk management plans need to be developed for communities impacted by transportation along the travel routes – for example, who will respond to a truck accident and are they equipped to deal with it; Informed awareness among communities that live along the designated travel routes so they can make decisions about their future.
- The nuclear industry must find ways to show respect for the rights of Traditional Owners who are concerned about or opposed to the nuclear industry – monetary compensation via Native Title is not the solution – don’t insult us by simply hying to buy our consent and silence our concerns;
Provide means for ongoing and independent monitoring of dangerous levels of airbome and water-based contaminants in groundwater, along transportation routes, after accidents, and among food sources used by Aboriginal people ego Nguri, urdlu and warratyi varlu, awi. We have a right to measure and monitor levels of radiation like other people do in countries such as the USA. We know from the Kakadu mine in NT that there is a major problem there with water management that is yet to be resolved.
Coming refugee crisis as sea levels rise on Pacific Islands
Fiji PM Warns Of Syria-Style Refugee Crisis If Rich Nations Don’t Do More On Climate, Thom Mitchell, New Matilda, 2 Oct 15 Frank Bainimarama has taken aim at advanced nations for ignoring the plight of Pacific Islanders in pursuit of short-term economic growth. Thom Mitchell reports.
The Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama has hit out at developing nations for their “unacceptable” progress in reducing carbon emissions as part of a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, in which he warned of a humanitarian refugee crisis on the scale of the current migration out of Syria if more is not done.
The talks come as Foreign Minister Julie Bishop seeks a place for Australia on the UN Security and Human Rights Councils, but Bainimarama warned that developed nations like Australia are not listening to the voice of Pacific Island nations, whose human rights are threatened by rising seas and hostile weather patterns.
“It is simply not acceptable for advanced economies to build a high standard of living on the degradation of the earth and the seas,” Bainimarama said.
The choices we face may be politically difficult in the short run, but the consequences we are already seeing – environmental degradation, unbearable heat, drought, powerful tropical storms and unpredictable weather patterns – are simply unacceptable,” he said.
“[Fiji] plans to move some 45 villages to higher ground, and we have already started.
“We have committed to resettle people from other low-lying, South Pacific Island States that face the prospect of being swallowed up by the rising ocean and falling inexorably to oblivion.
“Should that happen, the people of those Island States would be refugees as desperate and lost as the hundreds of thousands fleeing conflict in Syria and Iraq,” he said.
As New Matilda reported in June, experts in migration law, like those at the University of New South Wales’Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, are already warning that the “disasters on steroids” climate change will bring is likely to create a need for special refugee visas.
It is clear by now that international pledges nations have made through the United Nations climate change process will not be enough to keep the global rise in temperature to less than two degrees, which is the level accepted as ‘safe’ by Australia and around 200 other nations: https://newmatilda.com/2015/10/01/fiji-pm-warns-syria-style-refugee-crisis-if-rich-nations-dont-do-more-climate#sthash.hk0kghO3.dpuf
Dr Arjun Makhijani explains why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are doomed to fail
PUBLIC HEARING, SA NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION DR ARJUN MAKHIJANI, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research ADELAIDE , THURSDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2015
Excerpt “…….the core idea of an SMR is that you have smaller reactors. Of course you lose the economies of scale, reactors are big because cost of materials goes according to surface area, and power production goes according to volume, and the larger the reactor the smaller the material needed per kilowatt.
That is the theory and that is why there were small reactors in the fifties, they were proposed and we went to bigger reactors because they were cheaper, all other things being equal. So you go back to smaller reactors, the underlying technology will tell you that the costs per kilowatt, in terms of materials and labour, the number of wells you need per kilowatt, the amount of steel you need per kilowatt will all go up.
The proposal is that all of these costs would be offset by assembly line manufacturing. So you won’t have to set it up on site. And in theory it is a fair idea to evaluate and you ask what is the size of the assembly line you need? And who is going to create this assembly line and the required supply chain, the vessels and the pumps and valves and all of it? So if you look at what the Department of Energy has said, what the industry itself has said is that you can’t – so you are really displacing the heavy capital cost upstream from the reactor sites……
so now instead of having a 10 billion dollar problem, you have got a 50 or a 100 million dollar problem because to .SA Nuclear 01.10.15 P-431 Spark and Cannon set up a supply chain for say 100 or 150 reactors a year, you need that scale of investment……
you need a supply chain investment that is about the same order of kind of an assembly line for airbuses or (indistinct) So it’s very, very huge. So who is 5 going to make all of these orders that will cause some private party to make that investment in the assembly line? With airbuses we know they get advance orders of hundreds of aircraft and they set up their assembly lines. The answer to that question is, no one other than governments…….
How you would handle such a system from a regulatory point of view is 15 mysterious to me because when you have assembly lines, as I note in my paper, you have recalls. Today we have got an 11 million car recall, one of the most reputable companies from perhaps the most technologically reputable country in the world, Germany. What are we going to do if we have 2,000 assembly line reactors that are found to have a fault through design? By design I mean 20 as not properly conceived, or through some cover up, like what happened with Volkswagen. How are we going to deal with it? Are we going to shut them down? Are we going to send them to the manufacturer? Are we going to – it’s unclear…..
the fine 25 print of small module reactors is much, much more complicated economically and in terms of the risks and investments, than their performance have led you to believe. That’s why they’re not – I mean I think – at least two of the four companies that are embarked on it, are already not pursuing it in the United States. Fallen apart before anything was built…. ” http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/mp/files/videos/files/151001-topic-4-day-2-transcript-full.v2.pdf
The pro nuclear front group Breakthrough Institute joins push for nuclear power in South Australia
The Breakthrough Institute (BI) was notorious for its attacks on Al Gore and climate scientists.It has a long history of trying to discredit renewable energy, in particular, attacking Germany’s Energiewende. More recently, BI has discovered climate change, as that is a useful tactic in their long-running promotion of new nuclear technology
the promoters of new nuclear reactors for South Australia certainly include idealistic and altruistic people, some of whom have bought the BI’s message.
Who wants to be a nuclear billionaire? Independent Australia, 1 Oct 15 Noel Wauchope navigates the complex web of ambiguity behind submissions to South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.. Some promoters of nuclear industry expansion have very altruistic motivations.
Just who are the people who want South Australia to be a nuclear industry hub? The submissions to the Royal Commission give some indications, though it is not easy to work this out……
The pro nuclear submissions on the whole, come from interested parties, where a commercial or career motive can be discerned: that is often clearly shown, but sometimes is not apparent. There are also some pro nuclear submissions that are quite cautious about promoting development, and a few who are inclined towards sitting on the fence.
Of the 94 pro nuclear submissions published, 46 come from companies or organisations connected with the nuclear industry. But who knows how many nuclear companies really did send in submissions, as theirs were allowed to not be published, due to ‘commercial in confidence’?
….most favoured topic, as with the organisations, was Issues Paper 3, “ELECTRICITY GENERATION”…
Their backgrounds? 20 of the [pro nuclear] 48 individuals are now, or were formerly, employed in a nuclear or nuclear-related company, government or university department.(1) In some cases they state this clearly, in other cases it is not apparent…..
Then there are the 2 career politicians, Sen Sean Edwards and MP Tom Kenyon, who have hitched their political future to the nuclear star.
Then there are nuclear publicists, who are not necessarily engineers or involved in the nuclear industry, but who have become well known for their pro nuclear articles or lobbying. There are only 4 listed names that could be described as pro nuclear publicists (2)
….the majority of the pro nuclear submissions enthuse about new nuclear reactors – “Generation IV” Small Modular Reactors” “Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors”.
When you add those individual submissions to the 46 from nuclear-related organisations, it looks as if the overwhelming support for new nuclear reactors comes from interested parties – nuclear related companies, or individuals connected to the industry, who seek profit or career advancement. Continue reading
Australia’s uranium industry looks to Paris Climate Conference to save it
Read between the lines, as BHP makes some of the right noises about climate change, in its oh so worthy portfolio analysis of climate change. BHP warns about the need for action and supports carbon pricing. It says it supports renewable energy, and does indeed support carbon capture and storage.
BHP says little about uranium – but I suspect that this is the main game.
However, it is interesting that BHP makes a quite revolutionary statement, for a nuclear company, in for the first time, publicly acknowledging that the next nuclear disaster might be a damaging blow to the industry.
Perth Now reported, Oct 1 :
“Mining giant BHP Billiton said this week it expected uranium would be the biggest winner in its portfolio, as the world comes under pressure to cut carbon emissions and limit global warming to two degrees celsius.
Australia holds the largest share of uranium resources globally. The ongoing South Australian royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle is an important opportunity for Australia to review its contribution towards development of nuclear power, Dr Guthrie told mining industry executives in Sydney.”
- Governmental support of nuclear programs
- Successful implementation of small scale reactors
- Renewables capacity additions for power generation
- Less public acceptance following another nuclear power accident ” http://www.bhpbilliton.com/~/media/bhp/documents/investors/reports/2015/bhpbillitonclimatechangeporfolioanalysis2015.pdf
Western Australian Wiluna uranium project in the doldrums for the forseeable future
WA’s first uranium mine likely to be delayed as Toro Energy puts Wiluna on hold WESTERN Australia’s first new uranium mine is likely to be delayed due to the ongoing downturn in demand and prices, Perth Now, 1 Oct 15
Toro Energy has put its Wiluna uranium project on hold as it waits for market conditions to improve. The company began drilling at the project in 2014 and had expected to start operations in 2017.
“We will get to build Wiluna when we get the price that makes Wiluna economic. We are not seeing that price today,” managing director Vanessa Guthrie told AAP.
Wiluna, 960 kilometres northeast of Perth, is the first new uranium mine in WA to receive federal 
government approval since the lifting of a ban on uranium mining in 2008.
The project will require prices between $60 and $70 a pound to make money, Dr Guthrie said.
Long term uranium prices currently hover around $45 per pound, almost half the levels of five years ago. Prices are expected to dip further because of large stockpiles……..
Global uranium production has stalled in the past two years as depressed uranium prices have curtailed exploration activities and the opening of new mines……http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/was-first-uranium-mine-likely-to-be-delayed-as-toro-energy-puts-wiluna-on-hold/story-fnhocr4x-1227552733503
Report shows opportunity for clean energy jobs worth $370 bn
Australian clean energy jobs could be worth $370 bn in 10 years http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/australian-clean-energy-jobs-could-be-worth-370bn-in-10-years-39526 By Sophie Vorrath on 29 September 2015 Australia’s renewable energy industry could generate $370 billion worth of jobs over the next 10 years using current technology, a new report has found. The report, released on Tuesday by Beyond Zero Emissions, aims to illustrate how Australia can transition from coal-fired power to renewables, shifting the economy along with it.
“Our research with Melbourne University into energy generation in Australia shows that we can create $370 billion of green energy jobs with current technology, instead of using coal-fired power stations,” said Beyond Zero Emissions CEO Stephen Bygrave.
When you add to this smart homes and buildings, as well as low-carbon land use, high speed rail and electric vehicle options, the green jobs climb towards $1 trillion dollars in value, Dr Bygrave says.
The report’s findings coincide with a new policy proposal from the Greens that calls for a levy to be imposed on coal mining companies to help pay for the transition away from fossil fuels, including for the rehabilitation of retired mines and retraining workers for clean energy jobs.
BZE is also set to launch a new book on October 2, at the Smart Future Cities Conference showing how easily existing Australian homes can be retrofitted to eliminate electricity and gas bills – a follow-up to its Zero Carbon Australia Buildings Plan, that was researched over 3 years.
“The Buildings Plan showed that all residential and commercial buildings in Australia could be converted to generate as much energy as they consumed, creating $270 billion of green jobs in the construction industry,” Bygrave said.
“The new book, The Energy Freedom Home, shows how every home can produce more energy than it consumes. And with rising electricity and gas prices and falling rooftop solar prices, Australian households can affordably revolutionise the way they power their homes.
“Our research shows that millions of ordinary Australian homes can be transformed to be high performing, comfortable and cheaper to run. The transformation is easy since 1.4 million homes already have rooftop solar.”
To illustrate their theory, BZE along with the University of Newcastle have retrofitted a brick veneer family home in North Lambton, Newcastle, that was originally built in 2000.
The retrofits, which began in 2009 and are based on the guidelines provided by the Energy Freedom Home program now save the household $1,200 a year on power bills, with credits during the year. By 2013 the house was transformed into a comfortable, passive solar house, generating more energy from the PV system in the year than it uses.
“We removed the gas systems for health, safety and cost reasons, and have found we use less energy now than when we had both electricity and gas,” said the house’s owner, who monitors it for energy, water, temperature and humidity.
As part of the Smart Future Cities conference, the home in North Lambton will be open on 10am and at 10:30am on Saturday 3rd October for free limited tours.
Australian govt to promote battery storage, through ARENA and CEFC
Coalition to accelerate battery storage in Australian households. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/coalition-to-accelerate-battery-storage-in-australian-households-75760 By Giles Parkinson on 1 October 2015
Environment minister Greg Hunt says he wants the two institutions that have been brought within his department – the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) – to bring forward the widespread deployment of battery storage. “Australia has the highest rate of household solar in the world,” Hunt said in emailed comments toRenewEconomy. “This makes Australia an ideal place to develop storage and battery technology.”
Indeed, the battery storage market in Australia is widely tipped to take off in the next year. One of the triggers will be the arrival of the first Tesla Powerwall products in Australia in the next two months, although other international manufacturers such as Panasonic, LG, and Kokam already have products in the market.
Next week, Enphase will launch its “plug and play” battery storage product into Australia. Like Tesla, Enphase is targeting Australia because of the unique nature of its markets – high electricity prices driven by soaring grid costs, particularly to meet “peak” demand, the world’s biggest penetration of rooftop solar, and lots of sun. Continue reading
#NuclearCommissionSAust paying lip service only to renewable energy as “low carbon’ option
South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission seems to be focused on electricity generation from low carbon sources, but is paying lip service only to renewable energy, Noel Wauchope 30 Sept 15 - Climate Change and Energy Policy
- National Electricity Market
- Geology and Hydrogeology of South Australia,
- Low Carbon Energy Generation Options,
- Estimating Costs and benefits of Nuclear Activities
- Environmental Impact: Lessons Learnt from Past SA Practices
- EXPLORATION EXTRACTION AND MILLING
- FURTHER PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURE
- ELECTRICITY GENERATION
- MANAGEMENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTES.
- Mr Donald Hoffman, President and CEO of EXCEL Services Corporation, which provides specialist advice and support services to nuclear facilities in the US and internationally. Mr Hoffman served as President of the American Nuclear Society from 2013-2014. He currently provides presentations on the benefits of nuclear science and technology to the US Congress and is chairing a committee to support all the US Governors on implementing the US Clean Energy Act and addressing the Climate Control Acts.
- Mr Andrew Stock, director of energy companies Horizon Oil Limited and Alinta Holdings, and past director of Silex Systems, Geodynamics, Transform Solar and Australia Pacific LNG
- Mr Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, President of the IEER and holds a Ph.D. in Engineering, specialising in nuclear fusion
- Dr Keung Koo Kim and Dr Kyun S. Zee, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute . The Institute (KAERI) has a history of over 50 years of research and development in nuclear energy. . Dr Kim is the Director of Advanced Reactor Development.
- Mr Thomas Marcille, of Holtec (US) Holtec International is an energy technology company with a focus on carbon-free power generation, specifically commercial nuclear and solar energy. Mr Marcille is Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at Holtec International and is involved in the development of Holtec’s small modular reactor, the SMR-160. He has provided nearly three decades of service in senior engineering positions in the nuclear industry in the US.
A while back, nuclear power was being touted as “renewable”. That was patently untrue, and the phrase went out of fashion as far as nuclear power was concerned. It seems that it has been replaced now by “low carbon”. The nuclear lobby still quite often condemns renewable energy as inadequate, as “not a base load source”, as too expensive, etc. However, nuclear promotion today is more sophisticated, and will include renewable energy, along with nuclear, as “part of the energy mix”. So “low carbon” is the preferred term for nuclear promotion, and it looks to me as if this is the way in which the Royal Commission is using that term, and paying only lip service to renewable energy. .Nuclear lobby aiming to overturn an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ban
The first target of the lobbying push is to overturn an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ban on the nuclear development process.
Jim Green, an anti-nuclear campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said it was unlikely that nuclear would ever be feasible in Australia. “We don’t need a bridge from fossil fuels to renewables, we just need renewables. It’s viable and affordable. There is a lot of rhetoric around a nuclear renaissance, but not much else.”
Nuclear industry to push for Australia to adopt ‘clean, affordable power’
Australian Nuclear Association plans to lobby Turnbull government to embrace the technology ‘to create jobs and economic opportunity’ Oliver Milman , Guardian, 29 Sept 15 The nuclear industry will lobby for nuclear energy in Australia, saying the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, should embrace the technology as a way to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
The Australian Nuclear Association (ANA) will accompany Danny Roderick, chief executive of the leading US nuclear technology firm Westinghouse, to talk to government ministers and business leaders in Canberra and Sydney next week.
Roderick said nuclear power could help produce “clean, reliable, affordable electricity for more people”.
“We’d like to help Australia explore ways to create jobs and economic opportunity that are also good for the environment,” he said. South Australia’s nuclear inquiry is ‘a gale of commonsense’, Tony Abbott says
The ANA is optimistic that the change in Australia’s prime ministership will mean nuclear will be looked at “on its merits”.
The move is the latest attempt to overturn legal obstacles to nuclear energy generation in Australia.
Federal environmental law bans building nuclear reactors, and an attempt by the Family First senator, Bob Day, to scrap a separate law that blocks building reactors and uranium enrichment plants was halted in August by the Tony Abbott government……..
The ANA says nuclear is a better option to cut emissions from electricity than renewable sources such as solar and wind…….
Parker denied that nuclear was prohibitively expensive, estimating that Australia could build 29 reactors for $160bn with companies such as Westinghouse “lining up” to invest.
He also claimed “strong community support” for nuclear despite the Fukishima disaster in Japan…… Continue reading
At least Turnbull is getting rid of Maurice Newman as govt adviser
Climate sceptic Maurice Newman not reappointed as government adviser, Guardian
Newman, whose term as chairman of PM’s business advisory council has expired, repeatedly questioned climate science in columns for the Australian Lenore Taylor 29 Sept 15 Outspoken climate sceptic Maurice Newman’s term as chairman of the prime minister’s business advisory council expired last week and he has not been reappointed, a spokesman for prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott appointed Newman as one of his first acts after winning government in 2013.
Newman has used a weekly column in the Australian to expound private views on climate change, including that the world was ill-prepared for a period of global cooling and that the United Nations was using debunked climate science to impose a new world order under its own control.
He also called for a government-funded review of the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to “dispel suspicions of a warming bias” in its temperature record-keeping, something freedom of information documents have recently revealed was under consideration by the prime minister’s department.
Turnbull’s spokesman said the new prime minister, who has strong personal links to the business community, was still considering whether he needed a formal business advisory council. He said Newman had not been reappointed.
The two-year terms of the other 11 members of the council expire in December because they were appointed by Abbott after he had named the chairman…….http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/28/climate-sceptic-maurice-newman-not-reappointed-government-adviser
Australia’s Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg will help Adani’s coal mine with tax-payer money
Frydenberg signals $5 billion taxpayer frolic with Adani’s unwanted fossil flop https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/frydenberg-signals-5-billion-taxpayer-frolic-with-adanis-unwanted-fossil-flop-,8193
IF AUSTRALIA’s new Prime Minister and refreshed front bench are showing signs of being more progressive about renewable energy investment and R&D, it looks like they are also going to be far more candid about coal, and their plans to invest heavily there, too.
In an interview with Fairfax media on Wednesday, the newly sworn in energy and resources minister Josh Frydenberg was crystal clear on the government’s intent to use taxpayer money from its $5 billion Northern Infrastructure Fund to help get the Adani-owned Carmichael coal mining project off the ground.
And he was equally clear that the Turnbull Government’s attitude to developing new coal projects – despite the smart money being on all untapped fossil fuel resources staying in the ground, and despite the fact that most banks and institutional investors won’t touch the Galilee Basin project with a 10 foot barge pole – remains the same as the Abbott Government’s. Frydenberg told the AFR, repeating the mantra of his former boss:
[Carmichael coal mine is] a very important project, which will see significant investment in Australia and provide electricity to millions of people in the developing world,”
Anti-development activism can create major delays in projects and send investment offshore, and you have to be very conscious of that when there are such large time frames involved and we are competing internationally for investment in this country.
AUDIO: Australia world top in household solar panel installations
AUDIO: Australia leads world in household solar panel installations, ABC RadioThe World Today By Samantha Donovan Australia has the highest rate of household solar panel installation in the world, according to a new report from the Energy Supply Association of Australia.
“We’re clearly leading the world in rooftop solar,” said the association’s chief executive, Matthew 
Warren.
“There’s literally daylight [coming in] second.”
The report found about 15 per cent of Australian homes had solar panels………Installation rates are highest in South Australia and Queensland, and in some Brisbane and Adelaide suburbs more than half of all homes have solar panels.
Mr Warren attributed that to more generous schemes in those states.
“South Australia has 25 per cent of dwellings, which is the highest in the world, and Brisbane’s not far behind with 23 per cent, and then Perth and WA at 18 per cent.”
Media player: “Space” to play, “M” to mute, “left” and “right” to seek.
But the report found lower rates of solar panel installation in affluent suburbs. “It’s very popular with retirees,” Mr Warren said. “It’s more popular with mortgage-belt consumers who are probably more price conscious. “It hasn’t been in the trendy inner-city suburbs. There’s not much roof space and there are more renters, but it just hasn’t appealed to that demographic.”
Australia lags with large-scale solar projects
While Australians are taking to small-scale solar projects enthusiastically, the report found large-scale solar projects are less common than in other countries……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/australia-leads-world-in-installation-of-household-solar-panels/6813532
New nuclear energy is an expensive fantasy – Dr Mark Diesendorf
The fantasy of cheap, safe nuclear energy http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2015/09/28/the-fantasy-of-cheap-safe-nuclear-energy/ Back in the 1970s and 80s, solar and wind energy were expensive and their supporters were criticised by the nuclear industry for dreaming of a renewable energy future.
Nowadays the situation is reversed. Several countries are well on their way to their targets of 80-100 per cent renewable electricity while global nuclear energy generation ceased growing nine years ago.
In northern Europe and the USA wind energy is about half the price of nuclear. In South America contracts to deliver electricity from big solar photovoltaic (PV) power stations are being signed at 8 US cents per kilowatt-hour, already less expensive than nuclear, and the price of solar PV is still declining. In many places, including mainland Australia, rooftop solar is much less expensive than retail electricity from the grid.
The current fantasy is that nuclear energy is cheap, safe, CO2-free and necessary, and that South Australia could make a profit storing the world’s nuclear wastes. All of these claims by enthusiasts for the nuclear fuel cycle, made in submissions to the current Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, are poorly based.
In theory, the geologically stable regions of South Australia could provide a location for storing high-level nuclear wastes. But as yet there are no permanent repositories operating anywhere in the world. It would be crazy for Australia to attempt build one when the USA has failed.
Apparently recognising this, South Australian Liberal Senator Sean Edwards has proposed an even greater fantasy: that South Australia could earn huge revenue from storing the world’s high-level wastes temporarily in dry casks. He claims that the revenue would be sufficient to fund a nuclear power station.
Unfortunately, this scheme fails under basic economics. Why would a nuclear power country pay the additional costs of shipping and storing high-level waste in Australia when it can store its own wastes temporarily in dry casks? Indeed, several nuclear power countries are already doing this.
Senator Edwards’ fantasy is that Australia could convert the long-lived component of the nuclear wastes into nuclear fuel in an Integral Fast Reactor. However, this technology is not commercially available. It has only ever existed as a pilot plant in the USA. Proposing that SA buy unproven technology at huge expense is a poor prescription for the economy.
Australia could not convert the contents of the dry casks to nuclear fuel. We would be stuck with managing them while they corrode and release their deadly contents. It’s far better to leave the source countries to handle the huge costs and risks of managing their nuclear wastes for 100,000 years or more.
Turning to nuclear power stations, both the Australian Energy Market Operator and our own research group at UNSW have shown independently that the National Electricity Market, which includes South Australia, could be operated reliably and affordably on 100 per cent renewable energy. The UNSW research uses only scaled-up commercially available renewable energy technologies. The results of the computer simulations, now spanning eight years of hourly data, are supported by practical experience in South Australia where at times renewable energy provides up to three-quarters of electricity.
Nuclear power is very inflexible in operation, unable to follow the variations in wind and solar PV output. It would be an inadequate partner for a SA electricity supply system that will soon be predominantly renewable. Instead, flexible peak-load plants are required: biofuelled gas turbines, concentrated solar power with thermal storage, and, in appropriate locations, pumped hydro.
Furthermore, under current market rules, wind and solar, with their tiny operating costs, would have priority in supplying base-load demand. Nuclear power would be displaced from operating as base-load power, just as coal is currently being displaced in SA. Then, nuclear energy would have even greater difficulties in repaying its already exorbitant capital costs.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Associate Professor in Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at UNSW. He gave evidence to a hearing of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission on 14 September.
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 