Premier Jay Weatherill’s not really honest pro nuclear article
23 Sept 16 In today’s Advertiser, Jay Weatherill writes about the Finland nuclear waste project.( Jay Weatherill: South Australia can learn valuable lessons from nuclear waste facility at Eurajoki, Finland)
Weatherill’s article completely ignores the negative side of the project – over time, over budget, possibly too small even for Finland’s requirements. Meanwhile he spouts deceptive nonsense about it being so similar to the South Australian plan. He implies that it is already functioning, which is not true. He praises the supposed “transparency” and “community consultation”, which is also incorrect. (See When haste makes risky waste: Public involvement in radioactive and nuclear waste management in Sweden and Finland http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/radioactive-waste-and-spent-nuclear-fuel/2016-08-21710)
Premier Weatherill accompanied to Finland by pro nuclear advocates
Dan Monceaux to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 22 Sept 16 On his current delegation to Finland, Premier Weatherill has been accompanied by Bill Muirhead (Agent-General for South Australia), Madeleine Richardson (CE of CARA) and John Mansfield (chair of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Consultation and Response Agency (CARA) advisory board).
Muirhead is an advertising man with a political bend who has been busy promoting SA as a destination for defence and mining investment since his appointment as Agent-General in 2007.
Some timely comments on theSouth Australian govt’s “Your Say” nuclear site
Leon Ashton 21 Sep 2016
The government has the last say on the decision so as most people before me have said, no matter how many people are against it, the whole nuclear consultation process is a farce. The Know Nuclear displays tell half truths and make nuclear storage sound incredibly safe without adding any of the negatives. For a state which is struggling economically there seems to have been a helluva lot of money already spent in the name of nuclear. I don’t trust the government. We only need to look at the bungled RAH project and our useless desalination project to realize how inept the state government is. If SA becomes the world nuclear dumping ground, it will be the WORST decision an Australian government has ever made.
Steve Charles 20 Sep 2016
The article in today’s Australian demonstrates that the consultation process is a farce. Weatherill decided long ago that he wanted to turn SA into the world’s nuclear waste dump, and the “consultation” that has been going on is all for show. We are all being led by the nose to a conclusion that he wants, and the taxpayer pays for it all. Weatherill should be treated with the contempt he deserves.
It would be a disaster for SA to have a nuclear waste dump here.
Kay Dl 18 Sep 2016
Jay Weatherill will never get consent to go ahead from the South Austrlain public, to consent to a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. We know better despite what the media is reporting about the statistics. He must lose his position as Premier if the rest of the Labour Party has any sense.
Peter Lazic > Kay Dl 18 Sep 2016
I agree, but hot to get him kicked out before he takes the next step down the path of a nuclear waste dump.
The decision was made long ago. We are all being led like lambs to the slaughter. Weatherill must be stopped.
Steve Ingham 13 Sep 2016
Looks as though ourgov has lost interest in this discussion board. Ourgov’s rep last commented on 15 Aug. Maybe we are being very dull and boring. Any suggestions on how to spice this board up a bit.
Mary-Ann Lovejoy > Steve Ingham 16 Sep 2016
They were too busy at the Royal Show, handing out pretty “Nuclear” balloons to little children. True! I’ve had several reports from unhappy grandparents and parents, who thought it was an outrageous piece of propaganda on the government’s behalf. Every day, it seems that more people are being made aware, and they are not happy about this proposal. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-community-discussion-consent
“Your Say” Has Jay Weatherill the right to spend #millions promoting nuclear waste dump?
Peter Lazic 16 Sept 16 What consent does Jay Weatherill have to spend $600 million dollars of taxpayer money to plan a nuclear waste dump, when the proposed dump may never get approved. This and the money spent to date on the Royal Commission, the road show, now TV advertisements, etc, is obscene and immoral
Noel Wauchope > Peter Lazic 16 Sep 2016
Especially as the SA Law says:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or
operation of nuclear waste storage facility Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000/CURRENT/2000.68.UN.PDF
and the link http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-community-discussion-consent
Would we benefit from a giant nuclear waste dump in SA? – James Glenday
In an era where short-term populist thinking prevails, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill is pushing forward a project that is not only ridiculously long-term but has proven to be political dynamite.
So, Mr Weatherill would have to pull off something that has never been done anywhere else, a project even Finland thinks is too hard, one that could prove a major political headache, all to dump hazardous spent radioactive fuel Australia does not even use?
Why Jay Weatherill is in Finland to investigate Australia’s nuclear future, ABC News ANALYSIS By Europe correspondent James Glenday In case you missed it, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill is in western Finland.
Why?
To investigate whether his state should build a high-level international nuclear waste dump to store radioactive uranium deep underground for at least 100,000 years.
The industry aficionados call it a “final repository”, but basically it is a big tomb-like system of tunnels built into solid bedrock where spent fuel rods are encased in steel, copper and clay.
Why should you care?
In an era where outrage is the cheapest commodity and short-term populist thinking prevails, the Premier is pushing forward a project that is not only ridiculously long-term but one that has proven elsewhere to be political dynamite.
A number of scientists believe a dump could be safely built and many economists think it could make South Australia $100 billion.
But it is also important to point out there is no pressing national need for this facility.
Australia does not produce high-level nuclear waste.
So, why is he in Finland?
Somewhat by chance, Finland is leading the world in the construction of a high-level waste facility 420 metres below Olkiluoto Island on the country’s west coast.
The company building it, Posiva, has been working on the idea since the 1970s, but quite reasonably assumed bigger nations like the United States, Britain, France, Sweden or Germany would come up with a solution they could copy.
But community opposition and controversy has killed, crippled or delayed plans for several radioactive dumps.
So, despite a couple of cost blow-outs, Finland has found itself at the front of the line.
And why do the Finns love the idea?
On a national level, opinion is actually mixed.
But around the “final repository”, the tax cuts, welfare increases, community facilities and jobs the nuclear industry has funded got the dump over the line.
Locals near Olkiluoto Island said, because they have benefited from nuclear energy, they also have a responsibility to safely manage the waste.
Currently, it is in a series of pools.
So, why not build an international dump then?
Ah, here is where we hit Finland’s “red line”.
According to Posiva executives, it would be “politically impossible”.
“Finland doesn’t want to become the waste dump of the world,” one said.
It is also against federal law.
Is it not also against Australian law?
Yes, it is.
But putting the politics aside, Posiva thinks it could help South Australia design and construct a high-level facility within 15 to 20 years.
Unsurprisingly, they are keen to try to sell their success to the world…………
OK. Is Jay Weatherill really likely to push on with this project?
He is likely to keep making positive noises, consulting and talking about how the waste facility discussion “must be led by the community”.
But the Labor Premier knows the biggest political threat to its development comes from his own side of politics…….
To realistically get a dump built in Australia, it will require the enthusiastic backing of a local community, industry, the South Australian Government and the Commonwealth for a period of at least 20 years, probably longer.
It is worth remembering proposals for many previous nuclear projects have proved controversial in Australia.
Also, you would have to convince a majority of people it is completely safe.
So, Mr Weatherill would have to pull off something that has never been done anywhere else, a project even Finland thinks is too hard, one that could prove a major political headache, all to dump hazardous spent radioactive fuel Australia does not even use? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-20/why-jay-weatherill-is-in-finland-to-investigate-nuclear-future/7859812
Finland companies keen to market their nuclear waste technology to South Australia
Finland’s Onkalo nuclear waste disposal facility want to export the technology to South Australia, The Advertiser Daniel Wills, Helsinki, Finland, The Advertiser September 21, 2016 OPERATORS of the world’s most advanced nuclear disposal facility want to export the technology to South Australia and form an alliance to help the state develop its own commercial facility to take waste from around the world.
At a briefing with Premier Jay Weatherill at Finland’s Onkalo nuclear waste disposal facility, Posiva Solutions Oy managing director Mika Pohjonen said his company would be willing to licence intellectual property and engineering solutions to SA if it were to proceed with expanding the local nuclear industry.
Posiva is a joint venture owned by two of Finland’s biggest energy companies — Teollisuuden Voima Oyj and Fortum Power and Heat. It is set to become the first organisation in the world to bury a canister of spent nuclear fuel when they begin inserting them into the bedrock from 2020. Mr Pohjonen said SA could hope to move from site selection to burying canisters within about 15 years, less than half the time taken by Finland, because the Scandinavians had already undertaken the slow work of proving the technology………
The Onkalo disposal site is about 10 times smaller than that conceived by SA’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.……
Mr Weatherill will by the end of the year declare a formal State Government position to Parliament on expansion of the industry………
“The next major step is a threshold question about whether we maintain our prohibition against a facility for spent fuel or whether we take a step to explore it further.”- Mr Weatherill said ….
80 % of ABC North and West listeners oppose South Australia’s nuclear waste import plan
Nuclear waste storage proposal draws ire of SA regional community on the ground ABC North and West By Angela Smallacombe, 20 Sept 16, Plans for a high-level nuclear waste dump being touted by the South Australian Government have found strong opposition at ground level, according to an unofficial ABC poll.
The ABC North and West breakfast program, based in Port Pirie, asked listeners whether they were for, against, or undecided regarding the State Government’s proposal to import nuclear waste from other countries and store it in South Australia.
Eighty per cent of respondents were against the nuclear plans, 15.29 per cent were for the plans, and 4.71 per cent were undecided.
Votes were taken via text messages and phone calls, with 85 responses to 10am, but the “no” responses continued for hours afterwards.
The results came from listeners in the regional area that holds nuclear sites Maralinga, Radium Hill, Roxby Downs and Beverly Uranium Mine.
Listeners were also in areas previously mooted for nuclear waste facilities at Kimba, Woomera and aproperty near Hawker that is still being considered for a federal project to house domestic nuclear waste……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-21/port-pirie-community-reacts-to-nuclear-waste-dump-proposal/7865200
Our Sceptical Observer scrutinises the South Australian govt’s Know Nuclear roadshow
As of last week there were one million, one hundred and thirty five thousand and seven hundred and eighty one voters on SA roll.Day one of Roadshow coincided with the publication the day before of The Advertiser 24 p “Nuclear Dossier” hugely pro-nuclear using much of the info as used in roadshow and much much more.Token short pieces by Ian Lowe, Craig Wilkins,Mark Parnell. Free Copies of this available in the cafe area of Know Nuclear booth.
Cover-up of Australia’s Hiroshima -like story – Maralinga
This March, documents obtained exclusively by news.com.au revealed that hundreds of children and grandchildren of veterans exposed to radiation were born with shocking illnesses including tumours, Down syndrome, cleft palates, cerebral palsy, autism, missing bones and heart disease.
Other veterans posted to the Maralinga nuclear test site blamed the British Nuclear Test for an unusually high number of stillbirths and miscarriages among the group.
“The rest of the Aboriginal people in this country need to know the story as well,” “This one’s been kept very quiet.”
Nuclear will be on show at the National Aboriginal Cultural Institute in Adelaide, South Australia from 17 September to 12 November.
The secret destruction of Australia’s Hiroshima, http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/the-secret-destruction-of-australias-hiroshima/news-story/9eabf722dbe2f87e03a297c2a348a8e1 news.com.au, SEPTEMBER 17, 2016 WHEN nuclear explosions tore through Australia’s vast, arid centre, some people living there didn’t even know it was coming.
It devastated the country for miles around, annihilating every bird, tree and animal in its path.
Even today, the effects of our very own Hiroshima are still felt by the families it ripped apart, and those suffering horrific health problems as a result.
The British military detonated seven nuclear bombs in remote Maralinga, around 800km north-west of Adelaide, plus two at Emu Fields and three off the coast near Karratha, Western Australia.
They also staged hundreds of minor trials investigating the impact of non-nuclear explosions on atomic weapons, involving tanks, gun, mannequins in uniforms and even tethered goats. In many ways, these smaller tests were equally dangerous, spraying plutonium in all directions.
Yet most Australians know very little about the blasts that shattered communities, and the dramatic story now buried under layers of dust. Continue reading
Unpleasant consequences for Australia in setting up international nuclear waste dump?
Paul Richards No High Level International Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia 17 Sept 16
What are the probabilities this futurist scenario will unfold via TPP international treaties, setting up a nuclear industry here in Australia controlled by the United States?1) Strip out State & Federal legislation prohibiting a nuclear industry
2) Legislate to allow US & foreign nuclear submarines to port
3) French Sf/Barracuda sub diesels drive swapped out for reactors
4) Stakeholders in sub reactors to train nuclear engineers
5) Sovereign Capital to fund waste repository and enrichment plant
6) Enrichment plant built next to waste storage [for the world’s unspent fuel including plutonium & weapons grade nuclear material]
7) Commission environmental reports for deployment of reactors
8) Fund reprocessing of unused fuel to fire experimental reactors
Be mindful, defunding of cheap alternative energy systems has already started, as the Federal Government has reduced the ARENA budget; while maintaining carbon energy subsidies and encouraging the nuclear industry sales executives to promote their product
A scenario where the acquisition of nuclear weapons is an obvious long-term objective of our government. Where Australia becomes a platform for not our own Foreign Policy or our sovereign interests, but US sovereign interests, deferring to US Foreign Policy
In doing so, becoming the 52 State of the United States of America by proxy for the Southern Hemisphere
Be aware, the UN Security Council P5; China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA police all international nuclear treaties on weapons & reactors
The IAEA answers nuclear weapons, energy and health issues only to the UN Security Council P5.
The World Health Organisation-WHO, sit’s below this chain of command. Since it’s inception in 1946 the WHO, has always sat outside the then WWII Allied “Big Four”; China, Soviet Union, the UK, the and the US hierarchical structure.
This information is on public record easily found scanning the United Nations Portal https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
South Australian Premier off to Finland to visit unfinished and costly nuclear waste facility
SA premier in Finland to see nuclear dump SEPTEMBER 17, 2016 news.com.au Australian Associated Press South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has left for Finland to visit the world’s first deep disposal facility for used nuclear fuel as his government continues to grapple with the idea of establishing its own nuclear waste dump.
The facility at Eurajoki is still under construction and is due to open in the early 2020s……..
Mr Weatherill has pledged to outline the government’s final position on the proposal by the end of the year.
Greens MP Mark Parnell said as the premier visits the Finnish facility he should note that it is already
nine years behind schedule and 300 per cent over budget.
“Having already wasted $10 million of taxpayers’ money on this folly, the premier needs to seriously consider at what point he allows economic reality rather than fanciful dreaming to enter this debate,” Mr Parnell said. http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/sa-premier-in-finland-to-see-nuclear-dump/news-story/2d96fb49559906a7a162ca58f8710b55
Jay Weatherill dithering on when to make a decision about nuclear waste importing for South Australia
Daniel Wills: Final decision on nuclear waste repository in South Australia could be years away, Daniel Wills, The Advertiser, September 16, 2016 “………A year and a half ago, Mr Weatherill stunned the state and turned decades of Labor orthodoxy on its head by calling the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
Four months ago, it delivered a final report that concluded an almost unimaginable amount of wealth could be bestowed on SA if it chose to take high-level nuclear waste from around the world and store it for all time.
If a decision to proceed is eventually taken, it would stand as second only to the arrival of whites on this land 180 years ago as the most dramatic moment in SA’s living history.
The first key date will be December this year, because Mr Weatherill has said the Government will reveal a position to State Parliament before the Christmas break. This week, some flesh was put on the bone about what that will be. Likely, a decision to keep talking, if everyone agrees. Continue reading
Your Say – comments on the diseconomics of the nuclear waste dump plan
Paul Laris 31 Aug 2016 I am very concerned that SA may be placed at environmental and/or financial risk if the nuclear waste storage project goes ahead. The business case rests on the assumption of continuing demand for storage over several decades. This cannot be assured. If, over that period there is another nuclear power station catastrophe, or the cost of other renewable sources of baseline power falls significantly, then demand for storage, and income, will shrivel. These are both highly plausible scenarios. I note that Germany is committed to closing all nuclear power stations by 2022.
The business case involves temporary surface storage until there is a sufficient accumulation of income to build the very costly underground infrastructure required for safe millenial storage. If demand and income faulters during the next 30 years or so, there is a major risk that we will be left with a large amount of inadequately surface-stored waste – a stranded liability. To leave it that way will be environmentally iresponsible. To store it safely will be financially crippling.
Due dilligence demands we do not proceed to burden our children and suceeding generations with such high levels of risk.
Claire Catt 08 Aug 2016 There is a simple principal question, one needs to ask how a venture relaying on a once off payment of an uncertain amount could be viable when costs are unknown but certainly lasting for thousands of years. How could that ever add up.
I would speculate the money won’t last to actually pay for any underground storage many years hence.
There is certainly no precedent of any Government ever being able to manage a large amount of money responsibly so far into the future. And most certainly not this Government.
So even to the average person, the economics look shonky. The risks however are crystal clear! Several above ground ‘temporary’ storage sites all over our state for a very very long time to be guarded and somehow kept from all forms of life for thousands of years.
Really, it’s unbelievable our own Government is even thinking about it. Money, even if it was there, doesn’t come into it. The nuclear industry needs to get out of this country and stop spreading their horrendous problems all over this world.
Claire Catt 14 Aug 2016 It is utterly unpredictable what the longterm maintenance and security costs of such a large and dangerous dump would be. All figures in the Royal Commission’ Report are speculative and untested. The optimistic promises of riches reek of bias and manipulation.
There is far more opportunity in South Australia in a clean and green future with a healthy, involved and participating population. We don’t want a dirty secretive industry here which will endanger the longterm well being of us all.
Mary-Ann Lovejoy 29 Aug 2016 The economics of this proposal IMO seem highly speculative. I understand they have not even been costed by someone reputable and independent of ANY bias (pro or con.)
I understand not even Treasury have been permitted to examine the figures – perhaps Belinda could answer that question definitively? Or tell us if that will happen, before we go any further in the debate of economics?
Nick Xenophon responded to my query on his nuclear position – he replied he did not support this proposal as the “alleged” benefits were outweighed by the potential risk. Given it’s such an important topic for his/our state, I’m sure he will have examined the figures well, prior to his statement of position.
What runs often through my mind, in discussion of nuclear, is the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster off the USA coast, where the technology that was stated to be beyond reproach caused a huge disaster. The costs, (environmental, economic and social) were devastating, and the company responsible did its best to avoid liability for the cleanup. That frightens me, as not only would our state be devastated by such an event (nuclear waste accident, terrorist attack, human error, equipment failure, whatever the cause) , but how could it be cleaned up? Is it even possible to do so? And what of the resultant cost? Surely it would bankrupt our state?
Like Xenophon, I think the benefits are speculative, and the potential risks too great.
I demand a vote of all citizens before this proceeds any further, to test community consent. If there’s not initial consent, how on earth can there be “on-going consent”? important.http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey
Your Say. Nuclear Commissioner Kevin Scarce biased: supporter of nuclear waste dumping
Your Say: Nuclear waste deal – stealthy plan to get nuclear submarines?
Steve Charles 13 Sep 2016 I suggest the real reason behind turning SA into a high level nuclear waste dump is that the SA Government knows that the submarines to be built in Adelaide are already a nuclear design and will need to be converted to diesel, but this is difficult and costly. Perhaps they are wanting to get nuclear submarines by stealth, but will need somewhere to dump the spent fuel. We cannot trust this government. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/dick-smith-questions-submarines-project-over-nuclear-power/7837946 important.
http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 