Warning on threat posed by nuclear waste plan to South Australia’s clean agriculture image
Agriculture and Water Resources Assistant Minister Anne Ruston warns SA nuke plan mustn’t come at expense of clean, green image, The Advertiser, June 7, 2016 FEDERAL Agriculture and Water Resources Assistant Minister Anne Ruston has warned concerns about the country’s international reputation for exporting clean and green food must be addressed before proposals for nuclear waste storage in the state could be approved.
Senator Ruston today appeared for the Liberals at an Adelaide City Council debate of candidates for the federal seat of Adelaide, after her party’s David Colovic declined to appear……..
Senator Ruston said the Coalition was open to considering the prospect of nuclear waste in SA, but stressed it should not come at the cost of the state’s reputation for premium produce. “I am the assistant minister for agriculture and water resources. I believe that SA, but also the whole of Australia, has a competitive advantage in the international marketplace because we’re clean, we’re green and we’re safe,” she told the audience…….
Nick Xenophon Team candidate Joe Hill said the state should vote before approval was given.
“Certainly glad that we’re having a discussion around this and remain open-minded.
“We do support a referendum because of the magnitude and significance of this,” he said.
Speaking on FIVEaa radio this morning, Labor Leader Bill Shorten said: “Consultations around that have got a long way to go, so I’m going to concentrate on winning the election and prioritising jobs rather than get into that debate at this point.”……http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/agriculture-and-water-resources-assistant-minister-anne-ruston-warns-sa-nuke-plan-mustnt-come-at-expense-of-clean-green-image/news-story/baf27ae82b2098a613609d8131fe3e4f?sv=501bdd53a265db7876b5905830257d73
First a propaganda push for nuclear waste importing, then one for nuclear submarines
Federal election 2016: nuclear-powered subs needs discussion, PETER JENNINGS, THE AUSTRALIAN, JUNE 7 “……..Readers will appreciate the irony of Australia selecting the French-designed Shortfin Barracuda — a nuclear submarine that will be adapted to conventional propulsion……….
[2016 white paper] –
“During the long life of the new submarines, the rapid rate of technological change and ongoing evolution of Australia’s strategic circumstances will continue. As part of the rolling acquisition program, a review based on strategic circumstances at the time, and developments in submarine technology, will be conducted in the late 2020s to consider whether the configuration of the submarines remains suitable or whether consideration of other specifications should commence.”
This could be hinting that nuclear propulsion may be considered a decade or more from now. However, no Australian government in the 2030s or later will be in a position to adopt nuclear propulsion unless earlier decisions have been taken to prepare the ground for such a major development…….
After the 2016 election, the government should start to scope out what steps might sensibly be taken to create a realistic option for nuclear propulsion at the end of the 2020s. A key part of this strategy should be to have an open discussion with the Australian people explaining the basis for the submarine design decision. Government should consider the following steps:
1. Commission an expert panel to evaluate the necessary steps to position for a nuclear propulsion option. The panel should produce a public discussion paper setting out the challenges, risks, opportunities, financial cost and industry requirements necessary to support this technology. Continue reading
Fantastic news! Port Augusta’s opportunity to become a world class solar energy hub
Revealed: Proposal for $1.2bn solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta June 4, 2016 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/revealed-proposal-for-12bn-solar-thermal-power-plant-at-port-augusta/news-story/58e18b826e4ecedfb57a9d11dc5fe7ba Sheradyn Holderhead Tory Shepherd A NEW proposal for a $1.2 billion solar thermal plant at Port Augusta, backed by former federal Liberal leader Dr John Hewson, can be revealed by The Advertiser just weeks after the city was hit with the closure of its power station.
Solastor Australia will next week unveil its plans to build a solar thermal power station with a generation capacity up to 170 megawatts and energy storage capabilities, The Advertiser has discovered.
While details of the project remain secret until an official announcement on Tuesday, a similar proposal from US company SolarReserve would create up to 1000 jobs during construction and about 50 permanent jobs.
Solastor Australia chairman Dr Hewson will reveal the company intends to build a fully integrated, solar thermal power station and energy storage system to provide SA with “24/7 base load and peak load generation”.
“We’ll be announcing it all on Tuesday,” he said last night. “This is world-class. We think this is something we can roll out not only across Australia but internationally. It’s Australian technology, it gives Australia a real edge … in actually being able to turn sunlight into effective baseload energy.”
The Advertiser understands behind-the-scenes work on the proposal has been underway for months. The company has a plant in China and has been working in the Middle East.
And Solastor believes that it can produce affordable energy from the plant. In a statement, Solastor Australia said the proposed power station would cost about $1.2 billion and would have a generation capacity of 110mW in winter and 170mW in summer.
“Once completed, it will generate approximately 1.25 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per annum, which is sufficient to provide power to more than 200,000 Australian homes,” the statement said.
Both Federal and State governments are aware of the plans — and consider it to be a legitimate proposal.
Last month, Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt promised financial support for the 110mW SolarReserve project, which until now was the only publicly known proposal for a solar thermal plant at Port Augusta.
Port Augusta mayor Sam Johnson said the second proposal was “fantastic news” and, along with four other renewable energy projects, was the “saving grace” for the town and the state’s economy.
“This reinforces comments in the past that Port Augusta will be the renewable capital of Australia,” he said. “This would be South Australia and Australia transitioning to a new world and would be a saving grace for Port Augusta and the SA economy.”
Mr Johnson said this proposal was the fifth renewable energy power station plan, which also included two 100mW solar panel farms, and a combined wind turbine and solar panel farm, the approval of which was expected to be announced next week
These projects will support Arrium and the skilled workforce we have, as well as benefiting small business throughout the region,” Mr Johnson said. “All up these projects would replace the generation from the coal-powered plant.” Repower Port Augusta campaigner Dan Spencer said it was great news that more companies were coming forward with proposals.
“Port Augusta really has the opportunity to become a renewable energy hub,” he said.
“More and more proponents are coming forward and saying they want to invest which is really exciting.
“There’s no reason we couldn’t see both these solar projects get built. The more projects, the more investment, the more clean energy.”
In April a Repower Port Augusta-commissioned ReachTEL poll of 1195 people showed that three-quarters believed the Federal Government should help fund the construction of a solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta.
Submission time again – this time to South Australian Parliamentary Committee
JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINDINGS OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
South Australian ‘Citizens’ Jury’ to kick off expensive nuclear publicity juggernaut
Jay Weatherill launches a nuclear propaganda juggernaut, Independent Australia 1 June 2016, Noel Wauchope examines Jay Weatherill’s elaborate publicity campaign featuring so-called “citizens’ juries” ahead of a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN Premier Jay Weatherill is launching an all out campaign to inform the public about the recent Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission‘s plan for a global nuclear waste importing industry.
This is all going to be terribly democratic, we are told. There will be “citizens’ jury” meetings on 25-26 June and 9-10 July.
I am, in fact, in favour of the citizens’ jury idea. Instead of us being “talked down” to by experts (who are likely to have a vested interest in the nuclear waste import plan), ordinary non-experts hear all the evidence and opposing opinions, discuss these and come up with a sensible verdict……
My first problem with the South Australian citizens’ juries on nuclear waste importing is that the first jury isn’t given a true jury role.
The letter sent to potential jury participants says that their task will be to:
‘… produce an independent guide to help every South Australian understand the recommendations raised by the Royal Commission’s report.’
This jury will not produce a verdict on whether or not the jury thinks that the nuclear waste import plan should go ahead….It is going to provide material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission‘s information campaign. And how will this jury gather this information? Well, it will presumably be informed by the newly created Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency — about which nobody seems to know anything. Who are the members?……
There are other questions as to its role. A citizens’ jury is supposed to have an independent advisory panel. Who will be on this panel? It’s also supposed to have an independent monitor supervising its meetings. Who will this be? The jury will hear expert witnesses. Who will they be? And where will the jury get its documentary information? How transparent will this citizens’ jury be?
One comforting thought is that newDemocracy’s reputation is at stake if their jury process is seen to be unfair. However, will they be able to withstand the pro-nuclear pressure from the Weatherill Government and Kevin Scarce‘s Royal Commission crew?……
Meanwhile, Jay Weatherill has wasted no time in setting out the rest of the process that will follow this first Citizens’ Jury meeting….
This again raises those questions about just who will be informing the public, with what materials and so forth. And there’s another great question that nobody seems keen to answer.
How much is this nuclear publicity juggernaut going to cost taxpayers? https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/jay-weatherill-launches-a-nuclear-propaganda-juggernaut,9055
Nuclear ‘Citizens Jury’ will be a farce if it relies solely on that biased South Australian Royal Commission
A big limitation of this so called first “Citizens’ jury is that it will take its information from the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission. But there are important aspects that are almost completely glossed over in that Commission. For example – they barely mention the dangers of transporting radioactive trash. That is an issue of high concern internationally.
Quoting a recent UK report on the dangers of a radioactive accident or of a radioactive attack – “The report on nuclear security, compiled by Dr David Lowry, a senior research fellow with the US Institute for Resource and Security Studies, argues that nuclear materials transported by road, rail, sea and air are also potential targets.”
If the “Agenda Setting Jury” is going to rely only on that biased pro nuclear Commission for the topics for discussion, then the whole thing will be a farce
New DemocracyCo’s co-CEO Emily Jenke says Citizens’ Jury not about manufacturing nuclear consent
Nuclear jury about the big picture, not manufacturing consent. InDaily, Tom Richardson, 3 June 16 The citizens’ jury beginning this month to debate South Australia’s nuclear future is not an attempt to manufacture the “social consent” alluded to by Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce, but a bid to establish whether it exists, says one of the architects of the forum.
InDaily can reveal that SA-based startup DemocracyCo has won the tender to deliver the first of the two planned Citizens’ Juries, to be held over two weekends, beginning on June 25.
The company, which also convened last year’s forum on dog and cat management, will oversee a randomly-selected congregation of 50 South Australians to ponder issues surrounding the prospective local establishment of a high-level nuclear waste dump. The jury selection process was conducted by a separate company, the Sydney-based New Democracy Foundation.
New DemocracyCo’s co-CEO Emily Jenke told InDaily the process was part of a broader body of work whose aim was not to engineer public support, but to “get an understanding by the end of the year as to whether the community are comfortable continuing this discussion”.
“This process… is about understanding; it’s not trying to build social consent, but understanding whether it’s there or not,” Jenke said. Continue reading
Nuclear port in Australia to receive and store High level Nuclear Wastes
The first high level nuclear waste shipment imposes untenable & unfunded liabilities on Australia, without a disposal capacity or even a site, and facing proposed decades of above ground storage.
David Noonan, 3 June 16 Nuclear port in Australia to store High level Nuclear wastes and receive waste ships every 24 to 30 days for decades:
The SA Nuclear Royal Commission Final Report (9 May 2016, 16 Mb) recommends a deep sea Nuclear port in Australia to receive an average 3 000 tonnes of high level Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) waste per year throughout the first three decades of proposed operations.
“In summary, the report recommends: Management, storage and disposal of waste, Recommendation: Pursue a purpose-built waste storage and disposal facility for used nuclear fuel. … The Commission’s firm conclusion is that this opportunity should be actively pursued, and as soon as possible.” (Nuclear Commission, Report Delivered, 9 May)
The Nuclear Commission report is based on a desk top nuclear waste consultancy “Radioactive waste storage and disposal facilities in SA” (Feb 2016) by Jacobs MCM, stating baseline requirements for:
the proposed Nuclear port is to take a total of 138 000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste (equivalent to 1/3 of total global SNF waste) over some 70 years from Project Year 11;
a “dedicated port facility specifically developed to transfer the canisters from the delivery ship to rail for transportation to the facility site” stating a “greenfield port is proposed”, with an allowance of A$100 million in baseline costs for the development of the port.
(Jacobs MCM, Enabling infrastructure, Port facilities, p.136);
“…estimated receivals of 3,000 tonne of SNF per year. With typical capacity per cask of 10 tonnes , this translates as 300 casks per year, requiring 12-15 sailings (nuclear waste shipments) per annum, meaning one ship each 24-30 days on average.” At 200 – 250 tonnes SNF waste per ship.(Jacobs MCM, Immediate port receival laydown area, p.170);
the proposed Nuclear port is to store high level nuclear waste on site, with a “minimum immediate port storage capacity for casks unloaded from ships suggested as 28 waste casks” required a storage capacity of some 280 tonnes of high level SNF waste, at an average timeline of 10-12 days to clear a shipment of 20 waste casks from the port (p.170). A loaded high level nuclear waste transport cask weighs in range of 100 to 140 tonnes (by type);
In addition, the proposed Nuclear port is required to receive some 390 000 cubic metres of intermediate level nuclear wastes. At a rate of 10 000 m3 per year for the first 28 years of operations (equating to circa 600 x OSO shipping containers per year) stepping down to circa 4 000 m3 per year over the following proposed 24 years of port operations (p.161 and 172).
The proposed Nuclear port is itself to become a high level nuclear waste dump holding SNF wastes (280 tonnes) equivalent to some 14 years operations of a nuclear power reactor. “A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel” (US Nuclear Energy Institute).
The first high level nuclear waste shipment imposes untenable & unfunded liabilities on Australia, without a disposal capacity or even a site, and facing proposed decades of above ground storage.
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill launches nuclear propaganda campaign
Premier Jay Weatherill Sunday, May 29, 2016 Consultation on nuclear future to extend across all of South Australia http://assets.yoursay.sa.gov.au/production/2016/05/29/01/29/06/0cee3e94-ed82-4dfa-992e-a44d25cec636/nuclearconsult.pdfCoober Pedy headed for 70% renewable energy
Local jobs out of Hydro Tasmania project in Coober Pedy http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3934449/local-jobs-out-of-hydro-project/ Toli Papadopoulos 29 May 16.
A new project will inject millions into the Tasmanian economy and create local jobs, according to Hydro Tasmania CEO Steve Davy.
Mr Davy said the new project will use local manufacturing suppliers, and aims to turn South Australia’s Coober Pedy into a renewable township.
Hydro Tasmania’s manager off-grid solutions Simon Gamble said a number of Tasmanian companies would be involved in the project, including Doric engineering and Southern Prospect out in Wynyard.
He said the containerised systems and electrical equipment would be designed and tested in Tasmania.
Hydro said it was engaged by project developer Energy Developments Limited to develop technologies previously used in King Island.
They said Energy Developments Limited received a grant of $18.4 million by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency for the project.
“This is second project using this containerised modular system, the first was Flinders Island, but this one is by far the largest project we’ve done,” Mr Gamble said.
Mr Gamble said Hydro had already invested in projects in South-East Asia and the Pacific, and this was really just the beginning.
Hydro said 70 per cent of the town’s energy will be drawn from renewable sources once the technology is in place, with a goal of eventually making Coober Pedy completely renewable.
Doubts about the integrity of South Australia’s “Citizens’ Jury” nuclear waste plan
I am in fact, in favour of the Citizens’ Jury Idea. Instead of us being ‘talked down to’ by experts, (who are likely to have a vested interest in the nuclear waste import plan), ordinary non experts hear all the evidence and opposing opinions, discuss these, and come up with a sensible verdict.
After all, that is what we expect in a criminal trial. We do not trust the verdict to “experts” although we do expect their opinions to be heard.
My problem with the South Australia’s Citizens’ Jury on nuclear waste importing is that it doesn’t seem to be given a truly jury role.
The letter sent to potential jury participants says that their task will be to produce an independent guide to help every South Australian understand the recommendations raised by the Royal Commission’s report.
No mention of a verdict on whether or not the jury thinks that the nuclear waste import plan should go ahead.
The organisation running the process, newDemocracy, is using a trademarked definition of ‘Citizens’ Jury’ That trademark belongs to the Jefferson Center. They define the term;
The Citizens Jury convenes diverse groups of citizens to study an issue deeply, discuss different perspectives on the issue, and recommend a course of action or craft their own solutions to address the issue at hand.
I would like to give newDemocracy the benefit of the doubt. Their all too brief notes on this plan do end with this statement:
The first stage of the project will run from May through November 2016, and results in a gateway decision as to whether or not there is broad social consent to continue to pursue opportunities related to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
Will the Citizens’ jury be able to say NO to nuclear waste importing for South Australia?
Just how strictly controlled the process is becomes obvious when it emerges that the task of those 50, during two weekend meetings in June and July, will be to produce ‘a short independent guide to help every South Australian understand the recommendations raised’ by the report.
ABC news dubbed this whole process the Premier’s ‘public relations exercise’, and surely they’re not wrong.
The Premier is urging all South Australians to remain ‘open’ about the proposal. But are they, including the Citizens’ Jury, allowed to be open to refusal?
SA Premier coopts democracy for nuclear nefariousness http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=48345#.V0eKYTV97Gg Michele Madigan | 25 May 2016
I was trying to think what the invitation reminded me of. It took me a moment, but then I had it: the Project for the New American Century, the neo-conservative think tank and ‘educational’ organisation that went on to play a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration.
It’s a different time and different circumstances, but there was something about this invitation — a joint missive from the Premier of South Australia and the newDemocracy Foundation — that seemed to resonate with that ominous American institution; a sense that democratic ideas such as consultation and partnership were being co-opted for nefarious ends. In the address section of the envelope, in beautiful script, the partnership was emphasised: ‘An Invitation from the Premier and the newDemocracy Foundation’.
The gold and black lettered document was an invitation ‘to take part in the Citizens’ Jury of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s report’. This Citizens’ Jury will take place now that Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce has handed down his final report, with the primary extraordinary recommendation that South Australia invite high-level radioactive waste from overseas. Continue reading
Xenophon wants nuclear waste referendum, but only AFTER a dump site is selected
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon might vote against company tax cuts, seeks referendum on nuclear waste dump, The Advertiser May 26, 2016 Political Reporter Peter Jean INDEPENDENT Senator Nick Xenophon wants a referendum to decide whether South Australia should be home to a nuclear waste dump……
After a South Australian Press Club election debate on Thursday, he told The Advertiser that a waste dump referendum should happen once a location was decided.
“The people of SA should have a direct say on it,” he said. If the state referendum passed, it is likely the federal Parliament would pass the legislation needed at that level…..http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/independent-senator-nick-xenophon-might-vote-against-company-tax-cuts-in-senate/news-story/0207bb0fe9c9fd5761d2ab8b474942
Federal Liberal and Labor support nuclear waste import: Xenophon suggests referendum
Xenophon calls for SA nuclear referendum http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/26/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon South Australia should hold a referendum on whether to host a high-level nuclear waste dump, independent senator Nick Xenophon says.The decision to host the dump would have far-reaching consequences, Senator Xenophon told an SA Press Club debate on Thursday.
“If we had a high-level dump it will be around for tens of thousands of years,” he said.
Premier Jay Weatherill has consistently rejected the idea of a referendum, saying the government will instead pursue “qualitative” consultation.
The government will receive feedback from two citizen juries and a bipartisan parliamentary committee.
A decision to host a high-level dump appears likely to be supported at a federal level regardless of who wins the July election.
Education Minister Simon Birmingham said the Turnbull government would change laws to facilitate a dump if the state government wanted to host one.
Labor Senator Penny Wong expressed misgivings about a nuclear dump but praised the state government’s public consultation.
“I share some of the concerns which have been raised in the community about this,” she told the debate.
“I think the process Jay and the government are going through and the way in which they’re approaching it is the right one. That process itself will yield the outcome. It will have community support or it won’t.”
The Greens remained strongly opposed to a nuclear dump, South Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young said. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/26/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon#lR58JolbQ0ZlvYfC.996/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon#lR58JolbQ0ZlvYfC.99
Indigenous owners put Minister Frydenberg on the spot about nuclear waste dump
Indigenous owners appeal to Minister’s ‘human side’ to shelve proposed nuclear waste site, ABC News By Alex Mann, 27 May 16
Wallerberdina Station part-owner Grant Chapman did not consult the neighbouring Adnyamathahna community before nominating his land as a nuclear waste site. Opposition to the Federal Government’s proposed nuclear waste facility in the Flinders Ranges is heating up, with traditional owners travelling to meet with Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg to demand the Government shelve its plans.
Traditional owner Regina McKenzie said she hoped travelling the more than 1,000 kilometres to Melbourne would appeal to the Minister’s “human side” and get him to change his mind.
“It’s always, every waste dump is near an Aboriginal community,” she told 7.30.
“Don’t you think that’s a bit confronting for us? When it happens to us all the time?”
Ms McKenzie is also a member of Viliwarina Yura, the corporation that was granted the land neighbouring the proposed waste site in 2000. Now she has teamed up with veteran anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney to take her message across the country.
Mr Sweeney told 7.30 that as the national anti-nuclear campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation, and with more than 20 years experience in nuclear issues, he would use his connections, contacts and ability to amplify the story.
“It just feels disturbingly familiar, and disturbingly like we’re replicating past mistakes,” he said.
Mr Frydenberg declined 7.30’s request for an interview but acknowledged in a statement that “legitimate issues have been raised about the Indigenous heritage in the broader area”. As a result, he said the Government would undertake a “comprehensive and independent heritage assessment and further consult with key stakeholders before any final decisions are made”.
But the traditional owners maintain that nowhere would be acceptable.
Local Indigenous owners not consulted
This is just the latest front in a battle around nuclear waste that has raged for decades…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/local-indigenous-owners-protest-hawker-nuclear-dump/7449124
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 