South Australia’s proposed nuclear waste import dump would be massively larger than Finland’s
Kim Mavromatis, 10 June 16 THE NUMBERS TELL A STORY
At the Royal Commission NFC event at the Hawke Centre in Adelaide (Wed June 1), Kevin Scarce made reference to Finland’s permanent underground high level Nuclear Waste dump, currently being built at Onkalo, which will have a capacity of 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes. Onkalo is featured in the must see doco “Into Eternity”(https://vimeo.com/111398583). The Royal Commission NFC final report specifies a capacity of 138,000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste for the proposed Nuclear Waste dump in SA and Kevin Scarce highlighted this figure at the Hawke Centre Nuclear event.
Comparing the Nuclear Royal Commission numbers with Onkalo, it’s clear that the proposed Nuclear Waste dump in SA will be of mammoth proportions.
Onkalo (Finland), permanent underground high level Nuclear Waste Dump :
• Capacity 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste,
• or 2,500 to 5,000 high level nuclear waste canisters.
Proposed SA Nuclear Waste Dump :
• Capacity 138,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste or 69,000 high level nuclear waste canisters.
• Capacity 390,000 m3 intermediate nuclear waste.
• Capacity 81,000 m3 low level nuclear waste.
• Above Ground Temporary facility Capacity 72,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste.
• Above Ground Temporary facility Capacity 175,000 m3 Intermediate nuclear waste.
Just for high level nuclear waste alone, it will require a waste dump 14 to 28 times the size of Onkalo (69,000 high level nuclear waste canisters). And for decades, half of the high level nuclear waste will be stored above ground in a temporary facility. Imagine the risk of nuclear holocaust with all that high level nuclear waste in the one location?
And the preferred site for the proposed Federal govnt’s low and intermediate level nuclear waste dump, in the Flinders Ranges, is in an area where there is regular earthquake activity.
How smart are these people?????
I suspect if the state govnt say yes to one Nuclear Waste Dump (low, intermediate, high), the floodgates will open and there won’t just be one Nuclear Waste Dump site in South Australia, there will be many (50, 100 ????). And saying yes in SA will also open the floodgates to the rest of Australia. And I question whether they’ll stop at 138,000 tonnes (69,000 canisters) of high level nuclear waste????? If the state govnt takes us down this path and we become the world’s nuclear waste dump, there is no turning back
South Australia’s Labor and Liberal leaders for nuclear jaunt together to Finland
Weatherill, Marshall to make bipartisan trip to permanent nuke waste dump in Finland June 9, 2016 , Daniel Wills and Luke Griffiths,The Advertiser
PREMIER Jay Weatherill and Opposition Leader Steven Marshall will make a bipartisan trip to Finland in August and visit the world’s first long-term nuclear waste storage facility……
The bipartisan delegation to Finland will also include members of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency Advisory Board, which is overseeing statewide consultation on the proposal as the State Government considers whether to proceed.
It will visit the Onkalo nuclear waste facility in northern Finland, where the country plans to bury its own spent fuel in a labyrinth of tunnels 520m under the ground for permanent storage. Onkalo is expected to accept fuel for 100 years before being sealed for eternity. The facility is currently under construction is expected to become operational within a decade.
Mr Weatherill said it was critical to see first-hand the kind of facility SA could build.
“The research and evidence shows SA can safely deepen its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle,” he said. “I want to see first-hand what this might look like and see what lessons Finland can share with us, should this be something South Australians want to consider.”
“To make an informed decision later this year, it’s important that I understand the concept of deep geological disposal. This bipartisan visit to the Onkalo site will allow us to learn valuable lessons from the Finnish experience, which we will share with the SA community.”
Mr Marshall said it’s important there is a bipartisan investigation of the opportunity and co-operation during the community consultation process.
Also on the panel was Greg Ward, chief of staff to the Nuclear Royal Commission…….http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/weatherill-marshall-to-make-bipartisan-trip-to-permanent-nuke-waste-dump-in-finland/news-story/8a1be359682fb154b4fdccd48cc36dca
Record wind energy output last month kept electricity prices down
Wind energy’s biggest month, and how it keeps prices down REneweconomy, EBy Giles Parkinson on 8 June 2016 Wind energy in Australia has enjoyed its biggest every month in May, producing nearly a quarter more electricity than its previous record month, and overtaking hydro to provide 8.5 per cent of electricity demand in the country’s main grid.
The record output came, coincidentally, in the same month that the last coal fired power station in South Australia was closed (May 9). And a new analysis from energy consultants Pitt & Sherry points to how wind generation is keeping a lid on wholesale electricity prices.
The Pitt & Sherry analysis notes that four states recorded record monthly totals in May – South Australia (where wind met 49 per cent of demand), Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. (There is only one very small wind farm in Queensland and Western Australia operates on a separate grid).
The 3.9GW of wind generation in the month of May operated at a capacity factor of 49 per cent, according to Pitt & Sherry, meaning that it produced 22 per cent more than it did in its previous record month (July, 2015). (See this story for more details, and how most wind farms in NSW operated at a higher capacity factor than some of the biggest coal plants).
South Australia has the biggest share of wind farms, with 1.5GW, and this accounted for 49 per cent of its electricity demend in the month. On some occasions, wind energy provided more than 100 per cent of electricity demand in the state.…….http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/wind-energys-biggest-month-and-how-it-keeps-prices-down-69687
South Australia’s nuclear waste dump money mirage
Real juries hear both the Prosecution and Defence cases in open court. What I fear is that my fellow citizens selected for citizen’s jury duty will get to read and hear only what the State Government wants them to read and hear, so that they will give Premier Weatherill the “social licence” he wants in order to proceed with the dump.
South Australians do not need to mortgage their descendants’ future by building a high level nuclear dump in order to make ends meet. The alleged riches that the dump has been claimed to bring are a mirage, but the long-term risks are not.
How a high-level nuclear waste dump could lose money http://indaily.com.au/business/analysis/2016/06/07/how-a-high-level-nuclear-waste-dump-could-lose-money/ June 7 2016 The economic case for a high level nuclear waste facility in South Australia is far from convincing, writes Richard Blandy.
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission delivered its report early in May. I submitted my InDaily article on the Royal Commission’s tentative findings to the inquiry for its consideration. I received no acknowledgement, but I know that the article was discussed within the royal commission’s processes. It does not appear to have had any substantive effect on the report.
Having read the relevant sections of the report, I continue to believe that South Australia should not use part of its land mass as a dump for highly radioactive used fuel from overseas nuclear reactors (sp-called “high level waste”) which, in the royal commission’s own words, “requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”.
The only reason why most South Australians would give a high level nuclear waste dump even a second’s thought is because it is being sold to them as a financial bonanza – a no-risk economic lifeline to a state down on its luck. Something for nothing.
In the summary of its report, the royal commission says that a high level waste dump “could generate more than $100 billion income in excess of expenditure over the 120-year life of the project (or $51 billion discounted at 4 per cent)”. Note that the report says “could”, not “would”.
But, in Appendix J, the report says that “applying a commercial pre-tax discount rate of 10 per cent the net present value of profits to the State would amount to $11.5 billion”. This is a big reduction from the headline number in the summary of $100 billion. Continue reading
Rushing the South Australian nuclear waste discussion will be a failure
Royal commission engagement expert says nuclear opportunities will disappear if decision is rushed http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/royal-commission-engagement-expert-says-nuclear-opportunities-will-disappear-if-decision-is-rushed/news-story/f1bc0cf254e6b9d934669704a1b7196c June 8, 2016 Luke Griffiths The Advertiser THE person responsible for the Nuclear Royal Commission’s regional engagement says that if community consultation is rushed to meet political deadlines, the whole process will fall over.
Jon Bok, a former stakeholder engagement adviser to Santos, visited more than 50 SA communities over the course of 12 months. He told attendees at an Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy uranium conference in Adelaide yesterday that if the State Government is to develop a high-level nuclear waste repository, the “fundamental threshold issue of safety has to be addressed”.
“For many people, it’s going to take a long time to get from where they are now to have a sufficient level of trust and confidence in government and industry that this can actually be done safely and taken forward,” he said.
Resistance remained strong in many areas, which Mr Bok said can be attributed in part to legacy issues that include the British government’s nuclear tests in Maralinga and issues at Radium Hill uranium mine in the state’s far east.
Royal Commission head Kevin Scarce delivered his final report to Premier Jay Weatherill in early May. His key finding was that a high-level waste storage facility would generate economic benefits in excess of $250 billion and that its development should be pursued by the State Government.
Mr Weatherill has since established a consultation and response agency, overseen by an advisory board, and a citizens’ jury to facilitate further community feedback.
He told Parliament on May 17 that, guided by the outcomes of this engagement, he will provide the Government’s response to the Commission’s report by the end of the year.
While unwilling to criticise the Government, Mr Bok said a timeline must not be set on the education of “dubious and curious” residents.
“There’s simply not going to be enough information in the public domain to make a yes or no decision in the next 12-18 months,” he said.
“The Government wants to be in a position to know where to take this by the end of the year, which is a very short time frame. But all of the international evidence suggests that rushing this process will lead to failure — it cannot be rushed. Continue reading
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.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 