ANSTO’s dodgy classification of nuclear wastes.
When the re-processed material is returned to Australia invariably the processing country refers to that material as high-level waste but ANSTO reclassifies it as intermediate level on the very weak argument of the classifications in Europe being different to Australia…… it seems ludicrous that it should assume its own manner of classification and against the treaty adopted classifications of IAEA and adhered to by other countries.
(b) the intermediate level waste should even when stored on a temporary basis be geologically buried at appropriate depths.
The prescriptive codes of IAEA have been fully adopted by ARPANSA12 as its standards for the classification and treatment and management of nuclear waste in Australia.
It is interesting that a new subsection 3(2) of the Bill gives effect to Australia’s obligations as a party to the Joint Convention for the safe and secure management of what is defined as decontrolled material and in particular Australia’s obligations under Chapters 3 and 4 of the Joint Convention.
The government has always stated that the facility at Kimba would only be used for the permanent disposal of low-level waste and indefinite storage of intermediate level waste with that storage period being up to 100 years.
The government has described the facility at Kimba as being a central one for Australia with the implication that it would dispose of or store as required all the present legend or stockpiled waste in Australia and all waste generated locally in the future.
After accepting Napandee as a nominated site the government engaged AECOM to carry out what is described as a characterisation study of the site at Napandee which concluded with a technical report dated 23 July 2018.
That summary added little to the technical nature of both Kimba sites and dealt principally with community consultations and the results of a recent ballotWhile all three reports were colourful presentations with elaborate artwork and photographs in reality by technical standards they contained little proper information to support and satisfy the selection of Napandee as the site for the waste management facility.
environmental hazards such as seismic and flooding events, can be mitigated via design solutions.
This conclusion again shows that the Napandee selection was both premature as to its choice by the government due to the lack of a full assessment and investigation of the site and completely unsuitable for the facility.
Resources Minister Pitt changes nuclear waste Bill in the effort to gain Labor’s support.
Nuclear waste storage facility legislation changed in bid to gain Labor support, secure Kimba site” – The Advertiser 14th June 2021.
“A nuclear waste storage facility in regional South Australia is one step closer, [really?] with the Federal Government making changes in a fresh bid to get the controversial plan through parliament.
Napandee Farm near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula was named as the preferred site in February 2020 but draft laws to establish the facility have been stalled in parliament for months .
The federal Opposition won’t back the bill in its current form because naming the site in legislation, rather than declaring it by a ministerial decision, prevents a possible future legal challenge to the location.The federal government is now proposing changes that would reinsert the possibility for a judicial review, in a bid to win Labor’s support and get the laws through the Senate.
Under the changes, a site would no longer be specified but three previously short-listed locations – Lyndhurst in New South Wales, Napandee near Kimba, and Wallerberdina in the Flinders Ranges – would be included in the bill and the minister would then be required to declare the site…….
Opposition leader Anthony Albanese’s frontbench is due to consider the amendments on Monday night and the bill may go before the Senate in the next two weeks.
Indigenous associations, including the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, have been opposed to the site because traditional land owners who did not live in the area were excluded from a 2019 ballot to gauge community support for the site.
Kimba Mayor Dean Johnson said the community just wanted a decision.“We just look forward to a resolution so our community can move forward,” Mr Johnson said. He welcomed changes to the draft laws if it would secure Labor’s support, and said the minister should declare the site “as soon as possible”…
Australian Conservation Foundation Nuclear Free Campaigner David Sweeney said Mr Pitt had “finally accepted the reality” the proposal did not have support and needed to be revised.
“The return of legal review is important but it is extraordinary that the Minister ever thought its removal was reasonable,” Mr Sweeney said.“A day in court is a fundamental right and to seek to remove this was deeply flawed – as is the government’s wider plan.”…….
Mr Sweeney said there was no compelling case to move intermediate level waste from ANSTO’s site to Kimba, and it had been opposed by the traditional owners.He added the reintroduction of Wallerberdina, which was ruled out in 2019, showed the government was “making policy on the run”.
Most South Australians “don’t want the country’s nuclear waste dump in our backyard,” Senator Hanson Young said.She also raised concerns the amendments opened the door to the minister selecting the Flinders Ranges site.Greens senator Sarah Hanson Young said it appeared the Federal Government and Labor had done a deal to pass the bill.
“We will use all mechanisms available in the Senate over the next two weeks to stop this bill passing, and I suspect our fellow crossbenchers will do the same,” she said.”
Change in Resource Minister Keith Pitt’s strategy: what’s next for his Kimba nuclear dump project?
On Tuesday 15th June, Resources Minister Keith Pitt is introducing a revision to the the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
The purpose of the original Bill was to make sure that a site near Kimba, South Australia, would become the dump for nuclear waste from ANSTO’s nuclear reactor in Sydney. AND that there could not be any court action taken against it. That site would be ”set in stone”
Mr Pitt has chickened out a bit, seeing that the Senate was likely to reject that Bill. Hence the change – this new amendment The amendment restores the three shortlisted South Australian sites (Lyndhurst, Napandee, and Wallerberdina) as being open for consideration. (This is despite Wallerberdina (the Flinders Ranges site) having been ruled out of consideration in December 2019 by former Minister Canavan. )
”The Bill No longer specifies a site” – listed in supplementary explanatory memorandum https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6500&fbclid=IwAR2F-HOZX_TNR1r_kYXbB8sM3R-UwZNZRQ7X1hU34z9MTnLot3aRJcEFKVs
‘‘New section 34A ensures that the payment of the Community Fund is linked to a site declaration, rather than to a site specified in legislation” This would appear to cast some doubt on the ambitions of the Kimba District Council etc?
How does this amendment affect the chances of the Bill being passed in the Senate?
Well, Federal Labor being traditionally wishy washy on nuclear issues, this change might be enough to win the support of Labor, and thefore be passed.
Once the Bill is passed, what then?
Minister Pitt can then exercise his power to formally declare the site at Napandee, Kimba, as the site for the radioactive waste facility.
What then?
Well, various possibilities.
Concerned citizens in the the local Kimba community could seek some government grant to pay for their own independent assessment and review .
The plan still requires, and might not qualify for, a licence from ARPANSA, to ensure that the site meets the requirements, geological etc, for interim storage of nuclear wastes, and more permanent storage of low level radioactive wastes.
The Barngarla people, and perhaps others, will file a legal challenge to the site selection.
An outline of the recent years in the history of South Australia targeted for an international nuclear waste dump.
Brett Burnard Stokes No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia,14 June 21,
Some info on the nuclear waste importing plot. South Australia has been the target of nuclear fanatics for 25 years or more, with several serious attempts to make SA the nuclear waste dump for other states and also for the whole world. The history is long, with Mike Rann making “we won” noises in 2006.
There is a law in South Australia which is still on the books, specifying ten years jail for importing or plotting to import nuclear waste into SA,Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/…/NUCLEAR%20WASTE…
In 2014 there was a state election and Jay Weatherill (Labor) won the election and quickly did a surprise announcement of a royal commission into nuclear “opportunities” for SA.The commission was headed by ex navy ex governor Kevin Scarce.There were dodgy “economic reports” saying we should import the world’s nuclear waste and make a fortune.There were propaganda campaigns and eventually a citizens’ jury in late 2016 which rejected the nuclear waste import plans and upheld the SA law.
Jay W was upset and mumbled about having a referendum and spent another million dollars on polling before shutting up about nuclear in the lead up to the 2018 state election.
(Liberal) Marshall promised to not support a nuclear waste dump.Marshall won the 2018 election.
Meanwhile the Aussie nuclear mob ANSTO were spending a lot of money and telling a lot of lies in two areas of the state, trying to manufacture community consent for import into SA of nasty nuclear waste from Lucas Heights in suburban Sydney.
The Flinders area soundly rejected the idea (after a lot of community conflict).
So ANSTO (and the fed gov department DIIS under Matt Canavan at the time) went hard on Kimba.A devious process followed where first nations people were excluded from voting and a few hundred people voted.A bare majority supported the plans and Canavan and co claimed they had community support.
Now we have had a weird year or so of waiting for the libs in federal parliament to put up a bill for voting, about the Kimba dump plans.And we have an office being established in Adelaide and ads for more jobs in the new bureaucracy.
And we still have the SA law specifying jail for plotting these things and for doing the things that are planned.There are several relevant people fighting the good fight — perhaps the best is Dave Sweeney at ACF.
There are many facebook groups.Premier Marshall promised to not support a nuclear waste dump in SANo Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba DistrictNuclear Waste Information Sharing – WhyallaStop nuclear waste threats in South Australia
Remote communities affected by uranium in drinking water
Uranium in Australian Drinking Water Snapshot, Friends of the Earth Australia, JUN 12, 2021
THOUSANDS OF REMOTE RESIDENTS EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF URANIUM ABOVE GUIDELINE LEVELS. The recently published WA Auditor Report “Delivering Essential Services to Remote Aboriginal Communities” has raised more concerns regarding water quality in remote Aboriginal communities in three regions of Western Australia: The Goldfields, the Pilbara and Kimberleys……….
Uranium is a radioactive heavy metal where exposure has been associated with kidney damage. Uranium has also been linked to reproductive problems and DNA damage.
Impacted Western Australian communities
The total number of WA remote residents impacted by uranium above guideline levels in drinking water probably now totals around 500 people (with perhaps an additional 500 – 1000 people in the Northern Territory). There have also been hundreds more people in Queensland and New South Wales exposed to relatively high levels of uranium in their drinking water over the past few years. The majority of people impacted will be Aboriginal.
Uranium in drinking water can be difficult to treat if no alternative supplies can be found. The source of the uranium in impacted communities is sourced from local geological formations and groundwater………
Uranium breaches were confined to four communities in the Pilbara in 2018/20: Pia Wadjari (8), Burringurrah (5), Parngurr (3) and Kiwikurra (1). Crocodile Hole in the Kimberley also reported one breach. …..
Despite problems in Western Australia, the Northern Territory also continues to suffer from uranium in drinking water in a number of communities. Chronic breaches have occurred in 3 communities, Laramba, Willowra and Wilora over the past decade and probably much longer.
The three communities where uranium levels consistently exceed Australian drinking water guidelines in the Northern Territory. Laramba residents have most likely been exposed to uranium at levels 2-3 times higher than the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines for many years. The highest recorded levels at Laramba each year also appear to be increasing……
Uranium in drinking water has also recently occurred in three Queensland communities. The highest levels were detected in January 2021 at Dajarra (population 200 located 1000km west of Mackay) in western Queensland at 0.046mg/L, almost three times higher than the safe guideline…….
In October 2016 uranium above guideline levels was also detected in the New South Wales communities of Kootingal, Moonbi and Bendemeer. Tamworth Regional Council apologised for the “oversight”, which had left residents’ drinking water with high levels of uranium for at least two years…..
Radionuclides or radiating emitting elements in drinking water (breaching 1mSv/yr) over the past decade or so have included the communities Kings Canyon, Alice Springs, Borroloola and Binjari in the NT. The Victorian community of Goorambat also recorded levels of Alpha activity for radionuclides over guideline levels in 2012/13.
Wilmington SA, had radon (a radioactive gas produced from decay of radium 226 in soil and minerals) detected in the community above guideline levels of 500Bq/L in October 2018. In South Australia uranium guidelines were breached at Saltia Creek (October 2019) and Woolshed Creek over 2016/17, however at both of these locations water is deemed to be non-potable.
Existing and “Decommissioned” uranium mines also continue to leach radioactive water into the environment and will continue to do so for thousands of years. BHP’s Olympic Dam mine has a history including seepage from tailing impoundments into underlying groundwater. Ranger Uranium Mine (where toxic tailings are currently being dumped into pits) has leached contamination into Kakadu National Park, Rum Jungle uranium mine (1954-71) caused Acid Mine Drainage pollution to the East Finniss River where 640,000 tonnes of tailings were discharged damaging 100sqkm of floodplains. Mary Kathleen Mine and Ben Lomond Mine in Queensland have also caused downstream pollution. Anyone downstream of these leaking mine sites could also be jeopardised through exposure to waterways downstream of the mines. Nuclear blasts at Maralinga and Emu Field in the 1950’s also lead widespread contamination of Australia through nuclear fallout, including drinking water reservoirs and water tanks. https://www.foe.org.au/uranium_in_australian_drinking_water_snapshot
Australia’s News Corpse, Nine media, and Resources Minister Keith Pitt have been duped by the Minerals Council of Australia.
Australia’s major media organisations, News Corp and Nine Entertainment, have been duped by the mining lobby’s false claims about its contribution to Australia. The industry peak body, Minerals Council of Australia, has failed to include in its analysis the more than $72 billion in GST rebates the industry has received between 2010 and 2018, and an estimated $80.6 billion over the past 10 years.
The Australian, the Australian Financial Review, and the Minister for Resources Keith Pitt have consistently repeated the misleading claims provided to them by the mining lobby via the firm the MCA hired to conduct its reports, Deloitte Access Economics.
Deloitte found that the minerals industry had contributed more than $238 billion in company tax and royalty payments since 2010, with $132 billion from company tax alone.
However, the report avoids mentioning that the mining industry, as an exporting industry, receives a huge GST rebate every year…………. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/murdoch-media-nine-entertainment-mining-lobby-busted-for-record-bullartistry-go-into-hiding/
Australian group writes to Japanese Ambassador, calls for halt to plan to empty Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the Pacific.
ACE Nuclear Free Collective . Friends of the Earth Australia, 14/06/21
To Ambassador YAMAGAMI Shingo,
We, the undersigned, are sending this letter to express our concern at the recent decision of the Japanese government to release around 1.25 million tons of treated wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi site into the Pacific Ocean. Treatment cannot remove all radioactive contaminants from the wastewater. We join international calls for the Japanese government to reconsider its decision and pursue alternative options for long term storage.
We are concerned that Japanese government claims that the treated wastewater is “safe” enough to drink, ignores the inability of the Multi-Nuclide Removal Facility used for treatment remove radioactive materials such as tritium. Plans to dilute the wastewater to solve this issue do not change the amount of radioactive material that will be released and could accumulate in parts of the marine environment.
We are concerned about the effects of the wastewater on the wide Pacific region as the Pacific accounts for around 58% of the world’s fisheries, and many of the region’s nations are dependent on these resources. In addition, many of these states have long suffered from the effects of nuclear testing and illicit dumping of nuclear waste by wealthy nations.
We the undersigned call on the Japanese government to:
・Withdraws its plan to release wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi site into the Pacific Ocean.
・Disclose all relevant information about the wastewater issue in a transparent fashion.
Dr Jim Green gives an update on the Australian government’s new strategy to get a nuclear waste dump at Kimba, South Australia.
Dr Jim Green, Friends of the Earth, 12 June 21, After being deadlocked in the Senate for exactly twelve months Resource Minister Pitt is introducing a revised radwaste amendment next Tuesday morning (June 15) that seeks to negate key objections to the federal governments approach to the siting of a national radioactive waste facility near Kimba in regional SA.
The changes mean that the Minister – rather than the Parliament – will choose a site and that choice will then be subject to legal review through Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1979 (ADJR) processes.
In some ways this is a positive campaign outcome – the federal agenda has been effectively stalled since Feb 2020 and the Minster has had to abandon his push to remove the right of legal recourse, an important reaffirmation of a (limited) check and balance. However, it does mean that the federal effort and momentum to advance the facility will soon significantly escalate.
The amendment restores the three shortlisted SA sites (Lyndhurst, Napandee, and Wallerberdina) as being open for consideration. This is despite Wallerberdina (the Flinders Ranges site) having been ruled out of consideration in December 2019 by former Minister Canavan.
The last listed supplementary explanatory memorandum on the right hand side of the below link outlines the main changes to the revised amendment.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6500
<https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6500>
I have not had formal confirmation but it is likely that this revised approach will satisfy federal Labor and that the Bill will be passed. After this it is expected that Minister Pitt will move to formally declare the Napandee site, near Kimba.
Once this happens it is expected the Barngarla lawyers (the Adelaide based firm Norman Waterhouse) will file a challenge to the site selection. This development will require a re-calibration – but not a fundamental change – of our strategy and an increased public face to the campaign for responsible radioactive waste management.
Murdoch’s NewsCorpse trying hard to get the Australian Government to privatise the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
Privatising the ABC: What’s the Scam? https://www.michaelwest.com.au/privatising-the-abc-whats-the-scam/Michael West | Jun 11, 2021 | What’s the scam?
Murdoch’s maddies at Sky News and The Australian have been banging on, more shrilly than ever, about privatising the ABC. What’s the scam?
The scam is they have no idea what they are talking about. Nor apparently do they want to know what they are talking about. The latest set of ABC financial statements show an enterprise which costs $1bn to fund each year and ABC itself recorded income of just $65m last year.
In the event of a sale therefore, the buyer would have to come up with a cool $900 odd million to fund the ABC. A privatised ABC would then burst into the advertising market and crush the commercial networks which are already financially stressed. It would cost thousands of jobs and send the networks bust. They can ill afford to lose $100m in ad revenue to the ABC, let alone $900m.
The only positive outcome would be that Sky News’ own tiny ad revenue would also be walloped.
Samantha Chard, General Manager, Australian Radioactive Waste Management Agency – doubletalk about nuclear waste transport.
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia ,11 June 21.
“Ms Chard also noted that aside from the TN81, other intermediate level waste will not look substantially different to the low level waste packages.
It is likely that transportation of intermediate level waste will be discrete to avoid someone potentially doing something they should not; however all trucks need to note if they are transporting a hazardous substance.”
Short post today – but something I have been meaning to address….
…..”to avoid someone potentially doing something they should not”…..WTF is that???? Are they only NOW ADMITTING how SERIOUS the TRANSPORT of this waste is SECURITY WISE???????
Then….”however all trucks need to note if they are transporting a hazardous substance”….Again – WTF – or are they trying to REWRITE THE AUSTRALIAN DANGEROUS TRANSPORT CODE????
“Mickey Mouse Operation” are the words which spring to mind
Predictably transport of intermediate waste will be done under the cover of darkness, just like the whole process has been. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929
ANSTO’s desperate and dishonest spin to promote the nuclear industry
Kazzi Jai No radioactive waste dump anywhere in South Australia 10 June 21 “Desperate times call for desperate measures”….seems to be the apt phrase used to describe the Nuclear Industry more and more these months!
Seems Australian taxpayers are yet again footing the bill for the Nuclear Industry and its associated waste yet again – and our Environment and Future generations will suffer for it!
“It is likely that every Australian will need nuclear medicine in their lifetime for diagnosis of a variety of heart, lung and muscular-skeletal conditions, or treatment of specific types of cancers,” Mr Griffiths said.“
Where is the reference for this claim? It was NEVER ADDRESSED when it was first claimed that 1 in 2 Australians will need nuclear medicine a number of years ago…..then last year 1 in 3…..then suddenly now EVERY Australian will need nuclear medicine!! Or do we just TRUST Mr Griffiths on his word??
Is this “nuclear medicine” as a generic term…including LINAC Radiotherapy treatment which does not use radioactive isotopes? – Or is this addressing only “nuclear derived isotopes”? Is it only “isotopes” sourced from ANSTO….or cyclotron derived isotopes from private practises using cyclotrons/imaging partnership centres??
Too many questions, not enough answers…..A case of Blurred Lines much!!
Ah, but there’s more!
“….”To support this, ANSTO’s new nuclear medicine facility delivers thousands of doses of nuclear medicine to more than 220 hospitals and nuclear medicine centres each week.”
He said the new facility, which was announced in 2012 and commenced production in 2019, had already become a “critical part of the nuclear medicine supply chain“.
So….ANM is the ANSTO Nuclear Medicine Facility which comprises of an export scale Mo-99 Manufacturing Facility and Synroc Waste Treatment plant for the liquid component of Mo-99 manufacture waste product. Why do they insist on dropping the “Molydenum-99” term in the name for the facility – when that is what was applied for in 2012 to ARPANSA for licencing……Australian Nuclear Medicine Molydenum-99 Facility (ANM Mo99) ??
.And notice NO MENTION of becoming one of the MAJOR EXPORTERS FOR Mo-99 GLOBALLY – ramping up to 10 million doses per annum…..those paltry POSSIBLE doses of 10,000 available doses for Australian Hospitals per week pales in significance!
“….A by-product of that is the 30 litres of intermediate-level radioactive waste produced at the site each week.
The waste is being held in tanks while the new SyMo facility is constructed, but once it is complete, the waste will be solidified using ANSTO’s Synroc technology.
Mr Griffiths said Synroc was an innovative, cost-effective, low-risk way to reduce waste volume by taking it from liquid form and solidifying it into a synthetic rock so it is suitable for permanent storage.“
Now, a “by-product” is a product that is produced as a secondary product of a product in my books. How EXACTLY is this nuclear waste classified in any realm as a “by-product”?? It is nuclear waste!
Again – slippery terms to cover what the reality is!
And finally – Synroc is NOT a cost-effective way to reduce volume – OTHERWISE OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD HAVE ALREADY EMBRACED IT – WHICH THEY HAVEN’T!!
Seems Australian taxpayers are yet again footing the bill for the Nuclear Industry and its associated waste yet again – and our Environment and Future generations will suffer for it! https://www.theleader.com.au/…/radioactive-waste…/…
The unrealistic push for nuclear reactors helps the coal and gas industries to hang on
Nuclear power is a stalking horse for gas https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/nuclear-power-is-a-stalking-horse-for-gas,15174
By John Quiggin | 9 June 2021, The recently appointed Chair of the Climate Change Authority, Origin Energy boss Grant King, has yet again raised the idea that nuclear energy is an important policy option for Australia.
This idea has been a staple of rightwing politics for years, in spite of (or rather because of) steadily accumulating evidence that solar PV and wind are the most efficient alternatives to carbon-based fuels.
Australia has had a long string of inquiries into nuclear power, going back to the Switkowski review in 2006. All have concluded that nuclear power is unlikely to be a feasible option for Australia any time soon.
The most recent comprehensive assessment was the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission which concluded, in 2016, that nuclear power was unlikely to be commercially viable in the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, the world has moved on from nuclear power. There are still around 50 nuclear plants under construction around the world, mostly way over time and over budget. But, outside China, there hasn’t been a new project committed since the UK Government committed to the Hinkley Point C reactor in 2013.
Hinkley Point C will almost certainly be the last nuclear plant built using the European EPR design. Two more, in France and Finland, are many years behind schedule, but will presumably be finished, or left unfinished, in the next couple of years. China built a couple of EPR reactors but hasn’t commissioned any more.
Other designs which seemed promising have also been abandoned. The AP1000, which once seemed to be the leading contender, sent its designers (Westinghouse) broke. The rights to the CANDU reactor, produced by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, were sold for a pittance a decade ago. South Korea has stopped new nuclear construction, effectively killing off KEPCO’s APR-1400 design, though a few projects remain to be completed.
The result is that only two large-scale nuclear designs are available for new projects: Russia’s VVER-1200 and China’s Hualong One. Neither is approved for construction by Western authorities like the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In view of concerns about safety standards and broader geopolitical tensions, neither is likely to be.
These points have been implicitly accepted in recent discussions of nuclear power. Large-scale nuclear reactors like those constructed over the last 50 years or so have quietly disappeared from discussion.
Instead, attention has been focused on the new idea of “small modular reactors” (SMRs). There is nothing new about small reactors. They are used routinely in nuclear submarines, for example. The problem is because they cannot capture economies of scale, small reactors are uneconomic as sources of electricity for general use.
The “modular” idea is that, if plants can be constructed in batches in a factory, economies in manufacturing will outweigh the loss of economies of scale.
This idea remains untested.
The leading contender for the construction of small modular reactors is Nuscale, which plans to build a prototype plant, consisting of 12 60 MW reactors by 2030. That’s a big blowout from the target date of 2023 announced in 2014 and from an even earlier target date of 2018, proposed around 2008.
In fact, the announced deployment data has been eight to ten years in the future ever since the project began in the early 2000s.
As well as constant delays, the Nuscale project has experienced the same cost escalation as larger nuclear projects. Over the past two years, the cost of the pilot project has risen from $3 billion to $6 billion, partly offset by a $1.4 billion injection from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Even if there are no further delays and cost escalation, it will take at least until 2035 before the pilot plant can be properly evaluated. The establishment of large scale manufacturing and the first installations in the U.S. will take at least ten more years. Even in the most optimistic scenarios, there is no prospect of SMRs operating in Australia before 2050.
To be fair, King couched his discussion in terms of options for the next 30, 40 or 50 years. But even Scott Morrison concedes that we should be aiming to reach zero net emissions by 2050. That entails completely decarbonising electricity generation well before 2050.
Nuclear power ceased to be a realistic option at least a decade ago. The only reason it keeps being raised is to obscure the necessity of a rapid and comprehensive shift to solar and wind energy. Nuclear power is not a realistic energy source. Rather, it has been a stalking horse for coal and more recently, gas.
It’s not surprising, therefore, to see it being promoted by a leading figure in the gas industry.
John Quiggin is Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland. His new book, The Economic Consequences of the Pandemic, will be published by Yale University Press in late 2021.
Australia’s incompetent leadership – continued subservience to American militarism
Australia is in denial over one-way relationship with U.S. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/australia-is-in-denial-over-one-way-relationship-with-us,15171#.YMBaWGL2H14.twitter By Bruce Haigh | 9 June 2021, Tensions with China resulting in economic sanctions are the result of Australia’s blind allegiance to the USA that began decades ago, writes Bruce Haigh.
AFTER THE AMERICAN defeat by the Japanese in the Philippines, it needed a base from which to regroup, resupply and take the fight back through the Pacific. Australia was a bread bowl, training camp and aircraft carrier. Its north was intersected with airfields used by American bombers and fighters in attacks against Japanese bases and shipping on and around Papua New Guinea, the Solomons and other nearby Islands.
Australia was fearful of attack by the Japanese after their rapid advance through south Asia and the Pacific. The Americans arrived as the Japanese were advancing over PNG toward Port Moresby. The Australian Army had been conducting a successful fighting retreat in order to shorten their supply line, extend that of the Japanese and organise a major offensive. Douglas MacArthur, the arrogant American general in command, sacked a number of Australian generals and ordered the retreat to stop.
Instead of being angry with MacArthur, the average Australian thought he was a hero. The myth was born that America had saved Australia, whereas America came to Australia purely for self-interest. Australians were impressed with American largesse and technology. Many bought into the American “dream”. This was the point at which America could do no wrong. The ANZUS Treaty came into being at the time of the Cold War and hostilities in Korea. America was seen by Australians as the protector against Russian and Chinese expansionism.
Australia was also seduced by American consumerism, Hollywood, Nashville and Detroit. A common language facilitated the absorption of American culture. Military, academic and business exchanges grew. However, it was largely a one-way street, although that went mostly unnoticed in Australia given the sycophantic nature of the relationship. Australians were in awe of American power and wealth.
They undertook no foreign policy initiatives without first checking with the Americans. The exception being the recognition of China by the Whitlam Government in 1972, which many junior diplomats welcomed with pride and pleasure. Australia bought into the American line on the civil war in Viet Nam, much to its subsequent but unacknowledged regret. That did not stop the “provincial” Prime Minister, John Howard, from buying into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a favour to the equally limited George Bush.
Australia bought military hardware from the Americans, under pressure, to increase U.S. force structure in the region. We bought the F-111 which took forever to iron out the cracks (pun intended), the single screw FFGs, the next to useless Abrams tanks, the F35 flying lemon and to boost the alliance, Australia has ordered 12 submarines from the French which it does not need.
America has a highly sophisticated spy base, Pine Gap, in the Northern Territory, but from which Australia is excluded from sharing sensitive information. They have access to Tindal Airbase from which B52s, in theory, could bomb submarine pens in Sanya and they have established a military base in Darwin for 10,000 American marines.
None of this offers any advantage for Australia, although the Americans have convinced the conservative governing establishment that it does. They believe that no matter what, Australian interests are best served by remaining in lockstep with American interests. The Australian Government lacks emotional intelligence and courage. They are “provincial” politicians who know and understand very little of the wider world. To illustrate the point, the Government does not believe in climate change, at least insofar as believing in the efficacy of fossil fuels.
As products of the Howard-era Prime Ministers, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and, most recently, Scott Morrison have all demonstrated blind faith in the American alliance. They have placed a great deal of trust in the word of Americans. Morrison has possibly been the most naive and gullible. He took Trump at his word — a big mistake. Trump fired up Morrison over China and convinced him that not only did the COVID-19 virus originate in Wuhan, but he should unilaterally make a demand that an international investigation take place. Morrison took Australia way out in front with an unsustainable and undiplomatic demand — the U.S. and Trump stood in the background and grinned.
Australia refused to back down and apologise, so China imposed sanctions on a range of Australian imports in order to obtain a change of attitude on the part of Australia. The loss of income has not been felt because of unprecedented levels of borrowing by Australia to meet the economic challenges of COVID-19. And Australia has allowed itself to be lulled into a false sense of security by words of reassurance from U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who guaranteed that America had Australia’s back.
It does not and it never did. America acts purely in self-interest. Australia, because of its long love affair with the U.S. and its inferiority complex, is in denial. Australia seems blind to the fact that the U.S. has stepped in to supply China with many of the goods denied through trade sanctions.
China does not seem to understand the extent of the incompetence and naivety of the Australian leadership. Thinking people and intellectuals in Australia are appalled at Morrison and his Government. However, tough Chinese sanctions and harsh words have only given Morrison the domestic ammunition he needs to bolster his claims that China is aggressively expansionist and seeks to dominate the region. Bruce Haigh is a political commentator and retired diplomat.
Your G7 greenwashing guide: How Australia will feign climate ambition — RenewEconomy
Instead of focusing on reducing emissions, Australia’s government is putting great effort into greenwashing and twisting statistics. Here’s how. The post Your G7 greenwashing guide: How Australia will feign climate ambition appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Your G7 greenwashing guide: How Australia will feign climate ambition — RenewEconomy
Australia’s Climate Change Authority now taken over by the nuclear lobby, and influenced by ”secret society” of nuclear promoters.
Grant King flags “secret society” working to lift nuclear power ban, https://reneweconomy.com.au/grant-king-flags-secret-society-working-to-lift-nuclear-power-ban/ .
Michael Mazengarb 7 June 2021 The recently appointed chair of the Climate Change Authority, Grant King, has spoken of his support for nuclear power, and the presence of a ‘secret society’ preparing to lobby governments to lift the ban on nuclear power in Australia.
In a speech to the Minerals Council of Australia, one of his first since his appointment to the CCA was announced in April, King also indicated that he would advocate for clean energy technologies that are compatible with continued fossil fuel use, such as carbon capture and storage.
Everything that reduces emissions is good,” King told the conference. There is no good or bad reduction of emissions. If we are storing carbon safely, that is as good as reducing emissions in some other location, and you cannot get to net zero any other way than recognising that duality exists,” King said.
“There is an enormous amount of sunk capital in old technologies, and their ability to be adapted and evolved and to make a difference today is far greater than people estimate.
“But we like the shiny new stuff, because we think new stuff is better than old stuff, even if you’ve got to wait ten or 20 years for it to be competitive.”
Interestingly, King – a former CEO of Origin Energy – indicated he would use his new position at the CCA to reinvigorate the debate around nuclear power, saying that he believed the economics of small modular reactors could be feasible.
“If we want to get into a debate, it is important that we throw nuclear into the mix and say Australia is going to have to come to grips with that issue and is going to have to decide whether or not it lifts that regulatory prohibition and allows the innovation and investment that is now happening, particularly for modular reactor technology, to be applicable here in Australia,” King said.
“The story is good in terms of risks and the things that we as a generation grew up fearing, we were taught to get under the desk just in case, that is all going to go away.”
King said there was something akin to a “secret society” that had been working in the background to advocate for legislative reforms to lift the prohibition on nuclear power.
“The prohibition has to be lifted and there is a secret society of people out there trying to figure out what conversation needs to be had with the government to lift that prohibition.”
Nuclear energy projects are currently prohibited in Australia under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and suggestions of any lifting of the ban have long been politically contentious, even if many in the Coalition, and some in Labor, support the ban’s removal.
Small modular reactors have been touted as a potentially lower cost and safer way of producing electricity from nuclear fuels, but have had no real-world deployments as a commercial technology.
US-based TerraPower, which has received financial backing from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, is looking to deploy one of the next-generation nuclear reactors in the state of Wyoming. The project will replace a coal-fired generator and is expected to take at least seven years to get up and running.
As CEO of Origin Energy, King oversaw the company’s significant push into the LNG gas market, and was later the president of the Business Council of Australia.
King was also commissioned to undertake a review of the Morrison government’s Emissions Reduction Fund, recommending that the fund be opened up to providing support for carbon capture projects and to pay large-industrial firms to cut their emissions.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 