South Australian Govt’s “Simplify Day” – aimed at removing nuclear restriction laws?
The Premier has announced that the first ‘Simplify Day’ will be held on 15 November, 2016 to repeal out-dated and redundant legislation that impacts on the Government’s ability to deliver on its 10 Economic Priorities.
In the lead-up to Simplify Day a consultation process is being held to seek the views of businesses and the community on how red tape can be removed for businesses, including any legislation that may be outdated or unnecessary.
Should you wish to know more about this initiative or make a submission visit the YourSAY website at www.yoursay.sa.gov.au.
The consultation period is open until 13 August, 2016.”
What’s the Australian govt doing – buying pro nuclear opinion in the Flinders Ranges?
Hookina Newsflash 4th August 2016
Cindy K. Hoskin Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/ August 2 Here is the latest from port pirie. Tonight there is a paid invited meeting for nuclear in port pirie. A business man was rang on his moble and offered payment to attend, they asked his age which is 48, their reply was that they had enough over the 45 age limit and were seeking people under that age. Has any one else heard this? I have the number that this call came from if any one is interested.
World’s largest ‘virtual power plant’- 1000 battery systems for solar energy in Adelaide
Adelaide charges ahead with world’s largest ‘virtual power plant’ AGL project to roll out 1,000 battery systems to homes and businesses will operate like a 5MW plant, and optimise energy produced from solar panels, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 5 Aug 16, Adelaide will be home to the world’s largest “virtual power plant” – AGL is rolling out 1,000 battery systems to homes and businesses, with backing from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena).
AGL and Arena say the project will improve network security and dampen a volatile wholesale electricity price in South Australia. However, an energy expert says that at the current size, the system will have a minimal impact on network security or wholesale prices, but might pose a challenge to the revenues of companies that own the poles and wires.
Offered to homes and businesses with solar systems, the $20m AGL project, backed with $5m from Arena, will operate like a 5MW peaking power plant, providing power to homes and businesses during periods at optimal times.
The chief executive of AGL, Andy Vesey, told Guardian Australia: “The beauty of the project is it’s being done over 1,000 batteries, and that’s how we deliver an aggregate benefit to the grid itself.
“But for the consumer, it will have the value of the battery. And it’s being priced at a way that a good investment decision could be made. We’re viewing that the average savings for someone who has rooftop solar right now would be $500 a year. It’s really a way of optimising the energy produced out of their solar panel.”
The system will cost $3,500, and AGL estimates it will take about seven years for solar customers to recover the costs.
Arena’s chief executive, Ivor Frischknecht, said the project would boost grid stability, reduce power price volatility and support the expansion of renewable energy……..
As a demonstration of something that could be bigger, McConnell said one of the biggest impacts of the business model could be on how the networks recover the costs of the poles and wires.
About half the cost of a home energy bill is linked to the network’s cost recovery of its poles and wires. McConnell said that meant a lot of the money being saved by consumers was actually done by avoiding paying the network costs. And that’s what AGL is relying on for its business model.
But this “virtual power plant” isn’t moving people off the grid. Instead, it’s relying on the grid, while avoiding the charges the distributors use to pay for the grid…….https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/05/adelaide-charges-ahead-with-worlds-largest-virtual-power-plant
Festering doubts on impartiality of Nuclear Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce
Kevin Scarce, head of SA’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle RC, also has a conflict of interest, 
Independent Australia, 4 August 2016, Given the public outcry over Brian Martin’s conflict of interest as head of the Royal Commission into Juvenile Justice in the NT, Noel Wauchope asks why Kevin Scarce’s suitability as head of SA’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle RC wasn’t questioned……..
Brian Martin did not think that he had a conflict of interest in relation to his previous role as a Northern Territory judge. He did not doubt his “capacity to be both independent and competent in the role of the commissioner”. However, he recognised that a community perception of his having a conflict of interest would compromise the Royal Commission and its results.
As Mark Kenny wrote in The Age on 2 August 2016:
‘Indeed, Martin acknowledged this [public confidence] was the crucial factor — irrespective of the facts. He observed if any public doubts about the impartiality or commitment to the unvarnished truth were allowed to “fester” during the commission’s long months, its outcomes would be compromised.’
Why no outcry about the conflict of interest in appointing Kevin Scarce as head of SA’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle RC?
Apparently, while it’s not OK to have a conflict of interest in a National Royal Commissioner, this has not yet been a problem for a State one…….
Unlike the situation with Brian Martin, this is not a case of a perception of conflict of interest by some special sections of the community. It looks more like a choice of a royal commissioner that is unusual and inappropriate and involving a much more obvious conflict of interest.
The general practice in royal commissions is to appoint a serving or retired judge, due to the quasi-legal nature of the process…….Kevin Scarce with no legal background, was a most unusual choice as royal commissioner for South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Furthermore, his military career and close involvement with defence agencies, raises questions about his impartiality…….
There is a strong defence lobby pushing for Australia to acquire nuclear powered submarines. Kevin Scarce was previously the head of Maritime Systems at the Defence Materiel Organisation.
Kevin Scarce is a shareholder in Rio Tinto Group, the owner and operator of Ranger and Rossing uranium mines in Australia and Namibia
Prior to his appointment as Royal Commissioner, Kevin Scarce advocated a nuclear industry for South Australia. Speaking in November 2014 at a Flinders University guest lecture, Scarce acknowledged being “an advocate for a nuclear industry”. ……
2014 Investigator Lecture – Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN Rtd
Will the outcome of the SA nuclear RC be compromised, given the criticisms so far?…..
The selection of pro nuclear advisers and speakers continued through the Royal Commission’s year-long proceedings and subsequent Citizens’ Jury sessions, as Independent Australia has shown in recent articles. ..
Numerous well researched criticisms sent to this Royal Commission seem to have been ignored. Kevin Scarce has dismissed opposition as based on emotion or opinion, rather than on facts,saying: “The debate has been formed upon fear…”
in South Australia, the outcome of its Nuclear Royal Commission may well be compromised, as public confidence in Kevin Scarce might fester amongst Australians in general, and even amongst South Australians, despite that State’s government now bombarding them with pro nuclear propaganda. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/kevin-scarce-head-of-sas-nuclear-fuel-cycle-rc-also-has-a-conflict-of-interest,9310
Quite secretively organised, the plan for a federal nuclear waste dump at Hawker, Flinders Ranges, South Australia
https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/ This secrecy is outrageous. It would not happen in America. The whole bs about “medical wastes” is one big cover-up for the transport of a tiny amount of intermediate to high level nuclear wastes returning from France. The plan is to continue to take in such returning nuclear wastes, so that Lucas Hieights’ reactor can continue to produce them. After that, how convenient for the global nuclear lobby, if South Australia is already taking in ‘Australian’ high level wastes. What a lovely precedent for the global nuclear waste import plan.
Australia’s Secret Shipment of Radioactive Nuclear Waste Arrives !
This will be the tick the box and no-one is concerned b.s.
Gavin Smith Joy Engelman It is a national project and we should all be given a fair go . It is not in the Council Region but Outback Lands . My blood is near boiling point about this.
Goodbye and good riddance to nuclear stooge Senator Sean Edwards
Outgoing senator Edwards lost his seat after winning the fifth spot on the Liberal ticket.
“I’ve lobbied heavily for South Australia’s expanded involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, producing a substantial submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in the process, and it now appears the state will do just that. This will deliver hundreds of billions of dollars in sovereign wealth to South Australia.”– http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/bob-day-wins-12th-senate-spot-for-south-australia-labor-and-liberal-senators-out/news-story/ab561f14c51aebce726b9852fb7b52b6
Manufacturing social licence – South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
The concerns that this approach is focussed more on manufacturing social license or acceptance of the dump plan, rather than forensically and objectively analysing the full range of risks and opportunities, have increased following news that a key adviser to the nuclear Royal Commission was an industry “true believer” linked to a failed attempt to open a global radioactive waste dump in Australia in the 1990s.
In the late 1990s, public outrage forced Pangea to abandon its dumping plan. Today, a pro-nuclear Royal Commission is using public funds to facilitate Pangea’s inheritors to rewrite the proposal.
Big bucks, radioactive waste and a biased SA Royal Commission https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/big-bucks-radioactive-waste-and-a-biased-sa-royal-commission,9304 1 August 2016 Following SA’s nuclear fuel cycle Royal Commission, a publicly-funded PR campaign is attempting to make the largest ever radioactive waste dump in the world, a tepid topic, writes Dave Sweeney.
A STATE-BASED Royal Commission unleashed a plan with massive national implications when it recommended, in May, that South Australia should move to import, store and bury around a third of the globe’s high level radioactive waste ‘as soon as possible’.
The Royal Commission, initiated by PremierJay Weatherill in 2015 and presided over by former governor and self-proclaimed state salesman Kevin Scarce, has unsurprisingly generated column inches, congratulations and critics.
With its pro-nuclear terms of reference and advisory panel, and its often oblique process, the exercise has been a case study in issue management. Radioactive waste may be hot but a well-funded series of rolling roadshows, a citizens’ jury, and a social media initiative are all part of a state campaign working to make the topic tepid and the “conversation” constrained. Continue reading
Credibility of South Australia’s Nuclear Royal Commission in tatters?
Today’s Age discusses the planned Australian Royal Commission into Juvenile Justice in the Northern Territory. The appointed Commissioner, Brian Martin, has resigned because he recognised a perception of bias by the community, however well qualified he might be for the position.
The South Australian Royal Commissioner, Kevin Scarce, was not only not qualified, with no legal background, but IS clearly perceived as biased.
Kevin Scarce has a conflict of interest, as a shareholder in Rio Tinto, and as a member of CEDA (the Committee for Economic Development In Australia). CEDA’s Policy Perspectives of Nov 2011 clearly supports and promotes the growth of South Australia’s nuclear industry. The Royal Commissioner selected predominantly pro-nuclear experts for the Commission’s Advisory Committee.
Speaking in November 2014 at a Flinders University guest lecture, Scarce acknowledged being an “an advocate for a nuclear industry”.
Mark Kenny, writing in The Age today says:
Indeed, Martin acknowledged this [public confidence] was the crucial factor – irrespective of the facts. He observed if any public doubts about the impartiality or commitment to the unvarnished truth were allowed to “fester” during the commission’s long months, its outcomes would be compromised.
South Australians unlikely to support nuclear dump plan, as global anti nuclear sentiment grows
Valdis Dunis Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/ 1 August 16
Given polling for just nuclear reactors is so negative now worldwide, the chances of the majority in SA bucking the trend and supporting something nuclear is low I suggest, especially for something more negatively perceived than just a reactor – the world’s biggest high-level nuclear waste dump.“”Eight of these countries were also polled in 2005 by GlobeScan about their views, and the results suggest that there has been a sharp increase in opposition to nuclear power in five of them.
The proportion opposing the building of new nuclear power stations has grown to near-unanimity in Germany (from 73% to 90%), but also increased significantly in Mexico (51% to 82%), Japan (76% to 84%), France (66% to 83%), and Russia (from 61% to 80%)
In contrast, while still a minority view, support for building new nuclear plants has grown in the UK (from 33% to 37%), is stable in the USA (40% to 39%), and is also high in China (42%) and Pakistan (39%). These countries thus emerge as the most pro-nuclear of the countries surveyed with current nuclear plants, by some distance. Among the countries polled that do not have active nuclear plants, support for building them is highest in Nigeria (41%), Ghana (33%), and Egypt (31%).
The poll also indicates that the belief that conservation and renewable energy can fill the gap left, if there is a move away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy, is now the consensus view. Respondents were asked to say whether they thought that their country “could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the sun and wind,” and more than seven in ten (71%) agree that it could.”
http://www.globescan.com/…/127-opposition-to-nuclear…
South Australia’s dysfunctional National Electricity Market (NEM)
Dennis Matthews, 1 August 16 Once again, South Australia’s electricity supply is in trouble. The transition to solar and wind electricity has not been well managed, but this has as much to do with the National Electricity Market (NEM) and privatisation as it has to do with the technology.
The basic issue is one of supply and demand. Previously there was a surge in demand during heat waves, recently we had a plunge in supply. The summer surge in demand was met by gas-fired peaking power stations. A privatised electricity industry operating in an electricity market meant that these suppliers were in a monopoly position; they could and did command exorbitant wholesale prices, typically 100 times the average. Because of the NEM rules, these prices then automatically flowed on to all suppliers in the NEM.
The recent winter plunge in supply was met, under political pressure, by gas-fired power stations. Once again, the suppliers were in a monopoly position and commanded exorbitant wholesale prices.
South Australia is being held to ransom by socially irresponsible companies operating in a dysfunctional market.
Nick Xenophon – only a referendum is adequate to resolve South Australia’s nuclear waste decision
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill says a final decision on a nuclear waste dump is still years away. SBS World News, AAP 29 JUL 2016
The state government on Friday launched a three-month community consultation program on the recommendations rising from a Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle…….Mr Weatherill says whatever the outcome of that process, a final decision on the dump is still some way off, and will be proceeded by a series of “gated decisions” to move ahead cautiously…….
But South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon said only a referendum of all South Australian voters would be adequate for such a momentous decision.
“Because once we have a nuclear dump, that’s it. We will be known as the nuclear dump capital of the world,” he said.
South Australian Greens MP Mark Parnell also criticised the consultation process which he said had ignored the history of failures, cost overruns and risks associated with waste storage.
“The government says it wants South Australians to have the facts, but it has chosen just some of the facts to present,” he said. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/07/29/sa-dump-decision-years-away-says-premier
Three jeers to Today Tonight Adelaide reporter, Hendrik Gout
100% Renewables for SA Three jeers to Today Tonight Adelaide reporter, Hendrik Gout, turning the people he interviewed – fans of solar power in to seeming solar dislikers. Never let the truth get in the way of good fear-mongering story?
Could Mr Gout’s former job have something to do with it?
On Monday, the Adelaide branch of the Seven Network’s daily current affairs program, Today Tonight, ran with a similar anti-renewables slant, as it has done before. And, like much of the Murdoch media’s reporting, its chock full of errors.
The program opened by recalling South Australia’s November 2015 black-outs – a predictable starting point for a renewables witch hunt, considering that was the reaction of the mainstream media back when the outages occurred.
According to Today Tonight Adelaide reporter, Hendrik Gout, “the November night the lights went out” happened because of the “state’s reliance on ‘unreliant’ energy”.
Never mind that this is simply not true. As we reported at the time, “there was only one technology that abandoned its post on Sunday evening, and that was the massive transmission line linking Victoria and South Australia.”
And, as the Australian Energy Market Operator later concluded in a report, the black-out caused by a switch failure lasted much longer than needed because a gas-fired generator failed to follow instructions, causing the system to trip again. The blackout had nothing to do with renewables at all.
That claim should not be a surprise coming from Gout, who was a former senior staffer for South Australia Liberal David Ridgway, the party’s leader in the upper house.
The Coalition in South Australia is notoriously anti-wind, feeding rubbish data to The Australian last week that had to be retracted. Ridgway is also the instigator of an ongoing upper house inquiry into wind energy.
Gout’s program went on to interview two different South Australian business operators: one a farmer/irrigator in the Riverland region who complained – not without reason – that the state’s high power prices had made his business less competitive; and one a micro-brewer on the Murray, who similarly seemed to suggest that power supply difficulties had restricted the growth of the business.
But something didn’t quite gel with these interviews, so we decided to talk to the people ourselves……….
When we asked Beavis why the 30kW PV system wasn’t mentioned in the Today Tonight report, he told us in an emailed statement: “Our solar project was one of the main points I was aiming to get across. But from viewing the piece, it seemed to get lost in the edit.”
Beavis also told us that the solar system offsets 100 per cent of the brewery and houseboats’ power consumption……..http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/today-tonights-misleading-report-renewables-south-australia-85014
Electricity industry in a panic about renewable energy’s success
Disruptive power, The Age, Richard Denniss , 29 July 16 The Productivity Commission is 
criticising the Trans Pacific Partnership, the head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is criticising privatisation, and the electricity industry is worried that competition from renewables might deliver lower prices to consumers. What on earth is happening to the Neo-liberal “agenda”?
We are witnessing a watershed moment in Australia’s economic and political debate. The grand narrative of “market good-government bad” is dead. Killed by the rent seekers and vested interests that couldn’t resist overselling the benefits to the same consumers and taxpayers they were busy gouging.
The mining industry can’t help asking for taxpayers to subsidise their rail lines…….
It’s hard to maintain the argument that government spending is bad for the economy when even the Institute of Public Affairs supports taxpayer funding for dams and coal railway lines in far northern Australia…….
The PC, which now refers to so-called “free trade agreements” as “preferential trade agreements”, recently said that the TPP includes provisions of “questionable benefit” to Australia. It was once heresy to suggest that a document called a ”free trade agreement” could do anything other than facilitate trade, but now the Lefties at the PC are encourage us to scrutinise the detail. Rules matter…….
the banks, the mining companies and the media moguls that shouted the loudest about “free markets” have always spent up big on lobbyists to ensure they got the rules they wanted. But now the cat is out of the bag. …….
As more and more batteries are installed in homes and businesses the peak load on the transmission network will be reduced, meaning that we will be able to save billions of dollars on line upgrades within and between towns and cities. Should that windfall accrue to those with an obligation to maintain the network, to the people who install the batteries, or be shared in some way? Rules matter……..
South Australia has cheaper electricity today than it had in 2007. There were no black outs during the so-called “crisis” and the vast majority of residential and industrial customers who are on long-term contracts didn’t even notice the five-minute surges in the wholesale spot price. When the interconnector upgrade is complete, and if a new interconnector with NSW is built, not only will SA be able to rely on more power from other states when the wind is calm, but SA will be able to export a lot more cheap energy when the wind does what it usually does in SA which is blow hard.
The fear that SA may soon be an even bigger exporter of cheap wind power is what is behind the recent “debate”. Their best chance to protect their profits is to ensure that the “market regulations” restrict the growth prospects for their main competitors. Rules matter. After years of getting the rules they wanted by arguing that they simply wanted “free markets” Australian rent seekers are now forced to win public debates about why we should give them the rules they want. It’s not going well for them.
Richard Denniss is the chief economist for The Australia Institute. http://www.theage.com.au/comment/disruptive-power-20160728-gqgazk.html
Nuclear Weathervane Weatherill wavers on his anti – referendum stance
SA nuclear waste dump referendum vote still possible, Premier Jay Weatherill says http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-28/referendum-on-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-still-possible/7668412 By political reporter Nick Harmsen The South Australian Government may not be in a position to make a final decision on whether to pursue an international high-level nuclear waste dump this year, Premier Jay Weatherill has said.
The Premier has previously said the Government’s plans to make a decision clear to parliament in November.
But Mr Weatherill today told a budget estimates committee any decision this year was likely to be just the first step. “I’d like to be in a position to make a decision about whether we’re able to pass the first threshold,” he said.
“And there is an important go/no-go threshold that needs to be considered by the parliament.”
The Government has assembled a series of citizens’ juries to help inform its decision.
Mr Weatherill told the committee he would not rule out holding a referendum on the nuclear issue.
But he said a referendum would not provide the level of nuance required. “In particular, some green groups are calling for a referendum,” he said.
“Of course they’re the same green groups that don’t want a referendum on gay marriage. But leaving aside that little internal inconsistency for the moment, I think I [a referendum] tends to close down debate rather than allow it to be developed.”
Philip White reports onNuclear Royal Commission’s presentation to TAFE students
Philip White, 28 July 16 A video consultation session for TAFE staff and students was held on July 28 from 12-1pm. Below is a brief report.
The session started with a 15 minutes Scarce presentation video. I think it was from the press conference for the release of the RC report, but am not sure. One thing that struck me was how Scarce used words like ‘trace’ to imply that the amount of radionuclides after 1,000 years would be negligible.
John Phelan of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency (CARA) followed up with comments about process.
I was one of only two knowledgeable participants, the other being a nuclear proponent who wanted the dump to go ahead quickly and thought the costs were exaggerated. He thought in a few years we would need nuclear reactors.
A couple of regional TAFE lecturers complained about the lack of notice (meaning they hadn’t read the email sent to all staff and students) and lack of information (meaning they hadn’t been picked up in the RC’s regional propaganda tours). One lecturer confused this with the Commonwealth dump, thinking it would be located near her property in Quorn. John Phelan clarified that this consultation was just about an international dump.
2. Process
I made the following points about process:
(1) These consultations (and also the educational materials they apparently plan to provide to schools) should include presentations both for and against the proposal. Without that the public does not have a basis for thinking critically.
(2) The first Citizens’ Jury was flawed because it was inappropriate for it to be tasked with summarising the RC report.
(3) Referring to the forthcoming second “Citizens Jury”, a 350 person group should not be called a Citizens Jury.
Re (2), Phelan had said in his initial presentation that summarising the RC report was a (the) role of the first Citizens Jury, encouraging people to read this wonderful synopsis.
Members on this email list may recall that I have previously pointed out this flaw of the first citizens jury. I went to the trouble of ringing Iain Walker of NewDemocracy about this. He said the jurors were told to “prioritise” not to “summarise”. I then pointed out that the first sentence of their report says “summarise”. Walker said it was not the organisers’ role to change what the jury wrote, implying that the jury members had misinterpreted their role. But in today’s video conference Phelan was completely clear that they were asked to “summarise”. In my view, asking a Citizens Jury to summarise (or even prioritise) an official document is an abuse of the Citizens Jury method. Citizens Juries are a method of gaining incite into the judgements of informed citizens. They should not be used to help the government (or the Royal Commission) communicate its message.
Re (1), Phelan showed no interest in taking on board my suggestion that all consultations should include presentations from both pro and con perspectives. He responded that they were trying to present facts not opinions, claiming that the RC report was factual. I pointed out that the RC report was not a factual document. It is a selection of facts and perspectives, that there were lots of facts and perspectives that were left out, and that the report reflected the biases in the makeup of the RC.
I suspect that there is some confusion in the government about what it is trying to do with this public consultation process—whether it is trying to stimulate an informed debate, or whether it is just trying to persuade the public to let it build the international nuclear waste dump that it already knows it wants.
It is counter-intuitive for governments and bureaucracies to promote critical thinking among the public, but I suggest we challenge them to give equal time to critics and proponents. When they refuse, then we can call them out. We will have proof that their process was a sham. In the unlikely event that they agree to this demand, we should accept it in the confidence that we can win this argument. Of course, it would be difficult for critics to resource such a project, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
3. Waste dump
I pointed out that cost estimates for nuclear projects are generally gross underestimates and that SA would be left with a huge financial and nuclear burden if the costs end up exceeding the revenues. There would be no way of sending the waste back to the countries of origin.
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
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
