A Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust raises objections to its whole modus operandi
Submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Ally Fricker & Bob Lamb for ENuFF (Everyone for a Nuclear Free Future)
A few introductory objections about the RC:
* The 4 Issues Papers provided by the RC became available throughout the early part of May 2015, and the RC was still holding information meetings until the 3rd week of May, thereby, limiting the time available in which people could, reasonably, be expected to respond to the complexities of the nuclear fuel cycle
* The highly structured format required in which to respond including the unnecessary requirement for a statutory declaration
* The bias in the “objective” information provided followed by “questions to be answered”; indeed, the questions are so loaded that frequently they, in themselves, determine the answer – or hope to. We noted information only from industry and/or government sources. No authors critical of the industry were cited
* The timing of the federal government’s adverts calling for tenders for long-term disposal for Lucas Height’s waste concurrent to the commencement of the RC
* The likelihood that the mining lobby and other pro-nuclear interests had prior notice – a couple of high-profile conferences were held in Adelaide at the time of the announcement of the RC which gave first Tim Stone (March 12) and shortly after Barry Brook timely and extensive media opportunities to spruik their pro-nuclear arguments and
* The timing of Premier Jay Wetherill’s enthusiastic comments about opportunities for SA which could come from an expansion of the nuclear industry in SA in stark contrast to previous concerns expressed by him and former Premier Mike Rann.
For these and other reasons we consider that there is little likelihood that the RC will come to any conclusion that is not in the interests of the military/civilian nuclear industry in collaboration with SA and federal governments.
The history of this industry leads us to have zero trust in its statements, its modus operandi and its motivation in South Australia, at this time…… http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/09/ENUFF-30-07-2015.pdf
Ross Garnaut not up to date about uranium enrichment
Philip White 11 Sept 15, So Ross Garnaut says nukes are too expensive for Australia. We didn’t need a Royal Commission to tell us that. Just look at the fiasco of the way over budget, way behind schedule new nuclear plants being built in France, Finland, and the US, not to mention the exorbitant subsidies being offered for the planned new plant in the UK.Ross Garnaut tells Royal Commission of ever cheaper solar photovoltaic electricity
Nuclear power Royal Commission told renewables are main game for future energy needs. ABC Radio The world Today Nick Grimm reported this story on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 DAVID MARK: South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission has heard that uranium enrichment and nuclear energy could become an increasingly important part of Australia’s effort to reduce its carbon emission in response to climate change.
That’s the view of one of Australia’s leading authorities on the impact of climate change, the economist Professor Ross Garnaut. He was speaking on day one of the commission’s first public hearings.
But the Australian Conservation Foundation says the royal commission is focussing on the wrong area.
It’s arguing that rapid advances in renewable energy technologies is the main game when it comes to finding a sustainable solution to the world’s energy needs.
Nick Grimm reports..…….
The question of whether nuclear energy should be regarded as friend or fiend is the focus of a royal commission set up by the South Australian Government.
KEVIN SCARCE: Today’s the commission’s public sessions commence.
NICK GRIMM: It began its first public session today in Adelaide, led by royal commissioner Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, the former South Australian governor.
KEVIN SCARCE: Subsequent sessions will explore a range of other issues, including the threat posed by radiation to humans and the environment.
As he acknowledges he’s no climate scientist, but he was tasked by the former Labor federal government to write the 2008 Garnaut climate change review and its 2011 follow-up review, entitled ‘Australia and the Global Response to Climate Change’.As he told the royal commission, the need for Australia to reduce carbon emissions is an urgent one……..
NICK GRIMM: On the upside, Professor Garnaut says the cost of fossil fuel alternatives has fallen faster than he’d ever anticipated, boosting hopes that the world can be weaned off its reliance on coal, oil and gas.
ROSS GARNAUT: This is most spectacularly so in the case of photovoltaic solar; the last time I looked, the capital costs of photovoltaic panels had fallen 80 per cent.
NICK GRIMM: And Ross Garnaut says as wind and hydro-electric turbines become more efficient, he expects renewable will become ever-increasingly a more important part of the solution.
But he doesn’t dismiss a role for nuclear energy as part of the mix.
ROSS GARNAUT: You may actually see a larger role for Australia in other parts of the nuclear cycle, particularly uranium enrichment.
NICK GRIMM: For others though, nuclear is not the way to go……..
NICK GRIMM: And as far as the ACF is concerned, the nuclear fuel cycle royal commission is merely a costly exercise by the South Australian Government to justify the establishment of a nuclear waste dump inside the state, something past Labor governments there have firmly opposed.
DAVE SWEENEY: There’s four terms of reference, one’s on uranium, one’s on enrichment and reprocessing and one’s on nuclear power and one’s on radioactive waste.
Increasingly we’re seeing the commission and the discussion scoping down to hosting radioactive waste, because the other ones do not stack up economically and make no sense in the South Australian or Australian context. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4308966.htm
Tony Abbott has ‘a very good story to tell’ Pacific Islanders, about climate change
‘I’ve got a very good story to tell’: Tony Abbott confident of placating island leaders on climate change September 10, 2015 Michael Gordon Political editor, The Age Tony Abbott has entered a retreat with leaders from Pacific island nations confident he can reassure those who say their survival is threatened without a stronger commitment to reduce carbon emissions.
“I think I have got a very good story to tell on climate change to tell the Pacific Islands Forum,” the Prime Minister said before entering a day-long meeting with 15 Pacific island leaders.
Led by the president of Kiribati, Anote Tong, several of the leaders have warned that anything short of a commitment to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5 per cent would represent a betrayal of their people.
…..Both Mr Abbott and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key will resist the push led by the smaller island states to go beyond a commitment to the goal of limiting the global rise to 2 degrees.
Fairfax Media has seen successive drafts of the leader’s declaration where a reference to a 1.5 degree commitment is removed. The final draft will be released after the leaders’ retreat. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ive-got-a-very-good-story-to-tell-tony-abbott-confident-of-placating-island-leaders-on-climate-change-20150910-gjj93v.html#ixzz3lOo0rT8H
Abbott’s attempt to stop legal action by green activists is likely to fail in the Senate
BUT with Labor and the Greens adamantly opposed, Environment Minister Greg Hunt faces a tough lobbying job to get it through the Senate.
The measure follows a Federal Court order, sought by a local environmental group, setting aside Mr Hunt’s approval of the proposed Carmichael coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin.Mr Hunt on Thursday told parliament the change would prevent people with no connection to a project except a political agenda from using the courts to disrupt and delay.However the rights of farmers and other impacted landowners to go to court would not be affected………http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/greens-court-options-being-limited/story-fni0xqi4-1227521109153
Questionable Integrity of #NuclearCommissionSAust scrutinised in 22 questions – Submission by Yurij Poetzl
Submission To The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal 
Commission Regarding Issues Papers 1 and 4 by Yurij Poetzl http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/09/Yuri-Poetzl-24-07-2015.pdf
I’m a private citizen and have no vested interest in the nuclear industry; however the nuclear industry does direct ly impact me, my family and my friends As a member of the public I wish to give evidence and express my concerns in regard to the issues being examined by the Royal Commission.It is valid to examine economics and risks relating to the nuclear industry; however is the Royal Commission a fair and objective examination of the Nuclear Cycle? It has been disclosed that Kevin Scarce Is a shareholder in the Rio Tinto Group,who own and operate uranium mines in Australia and internationally. ls this a conflict of interest for the Royal Commissioner? It is of great concern that the Royal Commissioner has selected predominantly pro-nuclear experts for the R.C’s Advisory Committee (the single exception being Professor lan Lowe). See Appendix 1.
It also seems remiss that there isn’t any health or medical professionals engaged in the R.C’s Expert Advisory Committee or Key Commission staff. It’s well documented that by-products of the nuclear industry can have adverse effects on the health of the global community for many future generations. The omission of health experts makes me question whether the R.C is truly considering what is in my and the general public’s best interest.
The Public Health Association of Australia have made their position clear in regard to the R.C and the Nuclear Industry, see http :1 /www .phaa. net. au/ documents/item/51 0 or http://www .phaa.net.au/documents/item/264 The Royal Commission could prove to be pivotal in South Australia’s future having significant and far reaching consequences, affecting many future generations; however, was the process leading toward the establishment the Royal Commission flawed?
The S.A. public (and wider global communit y) deserve a balanced and unbiased assessment of the issues raised Appendix 2. Contains questions regarding issues papers 1 and 4 Yours sincerely Yurij Poetzl
Appendix. 1 4 of the 5 Royal Commissions Expert Advisory Committee appear to be pro nuclear. They are Professor Barry Brook, Dr Timothy Stone, John Carlson AM and Dr Leanna Read. Below is a brief summary oftheir involvement in the nuclear industry Professor Barry Brook is an active advocate of the Nuclear Industry. The self described”Promethean Environmentalist” is openly critical of people who have concerns regarding the Industry. Professor Brook is the author of, or contributor to several pro nuclear publications such as; Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation, Australia’s nuclear options and, An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy. To name a few.
Dr Timothy Stone is an advocate for nuclear power generation and nuclear industrial expansion in Australia. In the UK Dr Stone has held the position of Expert Chair ofthe Office for Nuclear Development and he is currently on the board of Horizon Nuclear Power as non-executive Director John Carlson AM has been Director General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office. In part 6 of the introduction to Mr Carlson’s paper “Nuclear power for Australia”- an outline of the key issues he claims “Nuclear has a major advantage over other energy sources”. Later in the same document Mr Carlson states “Currently both major parties say that nuclear power is “offlimits”. While this is disappointing, at least it ensures neither side is making statements tlhat will later be embarrassing to retract” It is clear that Mr Carlson is pro nuclear providing the appropriate safeguards are met
Dr Leanna Read has publicly stated that she “has an open mind” regarding the Nuclear Industry. Dr Read is a Fellow of the Australian Academy ofTechnological Sciences and Engineering, which advocated for nuclear power in Australia in August 2014. This seems to contradict Dr Read’s claims of impartiality toward the nuclear industry Given the information in Appendix 1, can the Royal Commission be considered truly independent?
Appendix 2 Continue reading
Kevin Scarce sees “a long journey” ahead to get the nuclear fuel chain happening in South Australia
Our nuclear future needs national support: Scarce http://indaily.com.au/news/2015/09/07/our-nuclear-future-needs-national-support-scarce/ ADELAIDE | South Australia will not be able to increase its role in the nuclear fuel cycle without bipartisan support both locally and federally, according to the former governor overseeing a royal commission into the industry’s prospects.
Kevin Scarce’s inquiry will this week begin a series of public forums, with electricity network operators and the Australian Energy Regulator’s market analyst set to front the commission in coming days.
Senior executives from Electranet and the Australian Energy Market Operator will give evidence next week, along with Craig Oakeshott, the national regulator’s Wholesale Markets Director, as Scarce tries to paint a picture of the state’s future power needs and likely costs.
But he insists: “Really nothing can happen until we have bipartisan support both at state and federal level.”
“Because these projects have such long gestation periods, if there’s not certainty there’s very little likelihood of us moving forward,” Scarce told InDaily ahead of the first hearing, to be held on Wednesday at the Science Exchange in the Royal Institution of Australia building in Adelaide.
And he says even with political consensus, it would be at least 10 years before any construction work began. “The overseas experience says a decade, and that’s probably optimistic,” he said.
“Should we decide to go ahead, and should the (Weatherill) Government accept our recommendations, the first part is to engage the community in specific terms about what’s proposed to happen. That takes some time; it’s not going to happen overnight.”
Federal Labor has already baulked at the Weatherill Government’s nuclear inquiry, with Bill Shorten’s office re-stating the party’s “longstanding position (against) nuclear power based on the best available expert advice”.
The royal commission has awarded tenders to four firms – Ernst & Young, WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Jacobs Australia and Hatch – to model the business case for each of the inquiries terms of reference, which take in nuclear power generation, enrichment and waste management. “We need to model the costs of developing the infrastructure, because we do have a great disparity of views (in submissions) from roughly the same technical evidence,” Scarce said.
“What we’re doing with the public sessions is using the information we’ve got in the submissions, using our own examination both overseas and here in Australia and drawing out the major issues of contention to help us write our final report.”
The electricity market analysts will be asked to detail both current needs and capabilities, as well as forecasting future trends.
“We’ve asked them a series of questions about the market: what will the market look like? What assets in the market will continue to operate, and what will need to be replaced?” Scarce said.
“We need to understand from them where demand is going in future and what’s happening with supply… We’ve got ageing coal power plants – when do they need to be replaced? What’s going to happen in the world when they get together in December in Paris (for the United Nations Climate Change Conference)? All of those issues are long-term issues that fit into questions of whether nuclear power is an option for us in future.”
Scarce says however he adjudicates, his inquiry is at most the first step in a long journey.“I think a lot of people think this is the only engagement that’s going to happen – it’s not,” he said.“It’s the start of the process.”
Will Tony Abbott ignore the cautionary message of committee on uranium sales to India?
India uranium red-light a test for Tony Abbott, SBS News, 8 Sept 15, While Prime Minister Abbott and Foreign Minister Bishop have been strong supporters of selling Australian uranium to India, many others, including key Australian diplomats and insiders, remain far more circumspect. By Dave Sweeney
The JSCOT report followed a detailed examination and expert testimony and states that while the federal government can ratify the deal it must not advance uranium sales or supply to India before key checks and balances are put into practice and proven to work.
In short, the committee charged with advising the government on Indian uranium sales has reached the unambiguous conclusion that the government can sign but not sell.
The question now is whether the Abbott government will follow due parliamentary process and act in the public interest or will it ignore these concerns and JSCOT’s advice and seek to fast-track the agenda of the under-performing uranium sector?
When Prime Minister Tony Abbott signed a uranium deal with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi in September 2014, he praised India’s “absolutely impeccable non-proliferation record”. Yet India’s record on nuclear proliferation tells another story. India acquired its nuclear arsenal by breaking a promise not to use a Canadian reactor for military purposes. It remains outside the globe’s key non-proliferation frameworks and the region remains on nuclear high alert amid tensions with nuclear rival Pakistan.
Instead of addressing real questions about India’s nuclear weapons program and inadequate nuclear safety standards Mr Abbott resorted to cricketing clichés, declaring that Australia and India trust each other on issues like uranium safeguards because of “the fundamentally ethical principle that every cricketer is supposed to assimilate – play by the rules and accept the umpire’s decision”.
The JSCOT process received strongly critical submissions from a who’s who of nuclear arms control diplomats and experts including John Carlson (former long serving Director-General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office from 1989 to 2010), Ron Walker (former Chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Prof. Lawrence Scheinman (former Assistant Director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency). These are veteran players in global nuclear diplomatic and regulatory regimes, not anti-nuclear activists.
Nuclear arms control expert Crispin Rovere noted that “this treaty appears less like the deepening of a bilateral partnership and more like one of a client state being dictated to in an expanded Indian empire. It is a major display of weakness on the part of the Australian Government, and a failure to stand up for Australia’s national interests in this area”.
One thing we can all agree on is that Australia has a key role to play in supporting India’s legitimate energy aspirations, but this cannot be advanced by a retreat from responsibility on nuclear safeguards and security. The government must read and heed the JSCOT report and Australia’s uranium must remain away from India’s nuclear reactors and weapons – to do otherwise would be profoundly irresponsible.
JSCOT has just clean bowled this dangerous and deeply deficient sales plan. Mr Abbott must now heed his own words, “accept the umpire’s decision” and start the long walk back to pavilion for a serious re-think. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/09/08/comment-india-uranium-red-light-test-tony-abbott
Public hearings with #NuclearCommissionSAust
Nuclear commission in public hearings http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/09/03/36/nuclear-commission-in-public-hearings Economist Ross Garnaut will be the first witness to appear at public hearings for South Australia’s royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle.
Mr Garnaut will appear in Adelaide on Wednesday with his evidence to centre on climate change predictions and the opportunities that presents for future energy policy.
He will be followed by Anna Skarbek, from climate change research group Climate Works Australia, and University of Queensland economics professor John Quiggin, a member of the Climate Change Authority.
The royal commission is examining every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle from the mining of uranium to the use of nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste.
Commissioner Kevin Scarce will continue his public hearings until mid-December and then present his report to the state government next year.
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) not happy with plan to sell uranium to India
Caution urged on uranium sales to India, Herald Sun September 8, 2015 THE government needs to consider greater safeguards and stronger diplomatic efforts before Australia sells uranium to India, a new report says. THE treaties committee report, tabled in parliament on Tuesday, said India should be encouraged to become a party to the comprehensive test ban treaty and separate its civil and military nuclear facilities.Uranium should not be sold to India until it puts in place an independent nuclear regulator and best practice safety inspections of nuclear facilities, the report said.Committee chairman, Liberal MP Wyatt Roy, said in the report there were some “significant risks” to selling uranium to India.India was outside the “nuclear non-proliferation mainstream” and Australia should use all diplomatic steps to ensure it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.There were weaknesses in the way India’s nuclear facilities are regulated “that jeopardise nuclear safety and security”.
“The committee has made a recommendation that the sale of uranium to India only commence when these weaknesses have been addressed,” Mr Roy said……..Two Labor members of the committee said the full separation of India’s civil and military nuclear facilities and the setting up of a new independent watchdog should be done before the treaty is ratified.The majority committee view was that these two matters should be addressed after ratification.”We consider it essential that any nuclear agreement with India should be at least as rigorous as all the agreements Australia has concluded with other countries,” Labor’s Melissa Parke and Sue Lines wrote.Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the deal should not go ahead.”It puts the interest of a small and marginal industry ahead of global security,” he said……..http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/australias-india-uranium-deal-report-due/story-fni0xqi4-1227517124640
Big Solar Power: Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation
Large scale solar plants get $350m push, The Age, September 9, 2015 –Mathew Dunckley BusinessDay Editor Australia will get up to 10 new large solar power stations as part of an unprecedented $350 million tie-up between two major government renewable energy agencies.
As part of a new funding round the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will collaborate to offer, respectively, grants and loans to get major solar projects off the ground to feed into the energy grid.
It is understood some state governments have also signalled they will financially support bids for projects in their jurisdictions potentially through long term offtake agreements. Continue reading
Geoff Russell: Falls from solar rooftop a bigger danger than Fukushima?
Geoff Russell, Extract from Submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission “……The Royal Commission is uniquely placed to learn from the past, but it will need to deal with the drivers of nuclear fear in the community. To build confidence in the community, the Commission’s report will need to convince both sides of politics to speak with one voice about the misinformation that drove (and drives) the Fukushima evacuation.
Appeasement, in the form of more and more levels of safeguards and protocols to attempt to say that “it can’t happen here” isn’t the answer. There will always be accidents despite every effort to avoid them. Planes still crash, but people understand the relative risks and board them regardless of personal fear.
They understand that fear is their personal problem and not a function of the objective facts. So it’s time to put nuclear accidents into perspective and stop treating them as something fundamentally different.
The fear and irrationality at Fukushima saw people die to avoid a trivial risk. Governments are supposed to protect people from nutters, not act on their behalf.
All energy sources have risks and in a rational world they’d be compared according to proper measures of suffering and disability; the simple trigger sequence logic (“nuclear -> cancer -> end of civilisation”) of decades past shouldn’t be allowed to influence decision making in 2015.
In Australia in 2010-11 there were 7730 Worker’s45 Compensation claims for serious injury resulting from falls from a height. How many were associated with rooftop solar panels? As far as I can see, nobody is even counting, but a million solar rooftops means more people on ladders; many of them amateurs. This is real danger, the kind that can put you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life. A proper comparison of nuclear risks with those of other energy sources will measure and include such risks along with the considerable risks associated with not avoiding continued climate destabilisation because we acted too slowly. We need safe clean energy and climate scientists say we need it fast. The Royal Commission will need to break with past traditions and confront nuclear fear head on and call it for what it is.
Pacific Island Forum will be dominated by Australia’s Inaction on Climate Change
Australia’s inaction on climate change set to dominate Pacific Island talks, Guardian, 6 Sept 15 Australia and New Zealand are expected to face strong criticism from Pacific Island leaders disappointed the nations are not doing more to combat climate change.
The issue will likely dominate this week’s Pacific Islands Forum leaders summit in Port Moresby, ahead of the United Nations climate change conference in Paris later in the year.
Pacific leaders want the world to work on restricting the global warming temperature rise to 1.5C, fearing a 2C target will risk the survival of many tiny islands.
Natural disaster recovery will be fresh on their minds. The summit starts on Monday, six months after Cyclone Pam, which flattened much of Vanuatu and caused heavy flooding on Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands.
Host nation Papua New Guinea is grappling with the opposite problem – what could be its worst drought in 20 years and a potential food crisis.
The prime minister, Peter O’Neill, has said El Niño conditions have been exacerbated by the effects of climate change.
The Solomon Islands and Vanuatu are also experiencing a dry spell………
The Pacific Island Forum runs from 7-11 September. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/australias-inaction-on-climate-change-set-to-dominate-pacific-island-talks
City of Port Adelaide Enfield notes poor prospects for New Nuclear Technology
City of Port Adelaide Enfield Submission Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Extract. “…….Council notes the Issues Paper’s reference to the international research into the development of Generation IV Nuclear power generators. The research is aiming to design smaller capacity generators for potential use in regional areas or high energy demand sites, and with significantly less production of hazardous wastes.
As the Paper notes, however, this technology is still decades away – and is not supported by current markets and strong investment trends toward renewable energy, or recent major international policy commitments to move away from nuclear power generally.”
Adelaide Hills Climate Action Group unanimously opposes all nuclear industries
ADELAIDE HILLS CLIMATE ACTION GROUP -Submission Issues Paper 3 – Further processing and Manufacture
(Extract) The Adelaide Hills Climate Action Group reaffirms its commitment to eliminating the combustion of fossil fuels and our strong endorsement of clean, renewable energy systems.
The committee members of the Adelaide Hills Climate Action Group wish to record their unanimous opposition to all nuclear energy and nuclear weapons related industries – no uranium or thorium mining – no processing – no re-processing – no nuclear power stations – no high level nuclear waste dumps.
There are fundamental moral objections to imposing a burden of risk and the cost of perpetual maintenance, defence and surveillance of high level nuclear waste on to multiple future generations for geological time.
We acknowledge there is a valid role for a properly managed low level nuclear waste dump suitable for the safe long term storage of low level nuclear waste materials used for medical and research activities.
[ I was unable to copy the clear argument put here on the unfeasibility of siting nuclear facilities on the South Australian coast]
“……..There is no northern area suitable for the nuclear industry. Previous nuclear failures such as at Fukushima have demonstrated that when all systems break down, the fall back plan to deal with nuclear accidents is to cool and flush with water, despite this resulting in the spreading of pollution. In northern areas of South Australia, access to water is limited, even where this may be sourced from the Great Artesian Basin.
There is no agricultural region or southern area of South Australia suitable for nuclear power generation as no community would be prepared to tolerate nuclear power. Failures such as the Windscale fire, Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown that impacts on livestock and risk of picking up contamination result in the total shutdown of food and grown product industries in such regions with poor recovery prospects.
It is understood that approximately half of the electricity generated in South Australia is now coming from around $5 Billion of renewable energy investment made in the state since 2002. It is therefore reasonable to assume that further investment of another $5B would enable South Australia to produce towards 100% of its electricity from renewables for much of the time. Periods of shortfall would initially be made up by existing gas infrastructure and the interconnector (as they are now). However, increasing deployment of storage technologies and diversity in renewable sources will also significantly reduce the demand for gas and for electricity from other states.
Given that this is achievable at a cost that is below the cost of nuclear power, and that renewables do not have the inherent risks of contamination that nuclear technologies have, there is no financial place for nuclear power in South Australia.
The previous Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Review referred to nonreferenced industry estimates that ”suggest wind could meet up to 20 per cent of demand without undue disruption to the network” (Commonwealth of Australia 2006). However, an example observed in Renew Economy – South Australia hits 100% renewables – for a whole working day (Parkinson, 7 October 2014), shows that South Australia regularly has periods where wind electricity is generating more than 80% of the state’s electricity needs. Contrary to the UMPNER Report, the management of the grid copes with the very high levels of renewables, and the coal fired power plants are not required as there is ample gas generation to meet residual needs. As other storage technologies are deployed, the dependency on gas generation can reduce even further.
The Royal Commission should investigate what level of gas generation would be required to back up renewables in South Australia should there be a doubling of wind capacity plus 100 MW of large scale Concentrated Solar Thermal capacity. The option for localised storage of thermal energy at the CST power plant should also be considered…..”
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 