Why take the risks of polluting South Australia with nuclear wastes?
why take the risk(s)? Well, the short answer is that it would be worth taking the risk by the few and their families who would profit from the proposed venture in the short-term; but not the rest of us. Additionally, it will not be their families and their descendants that will suffer the consequences of a poor decision at this time since they will be able to afford to move elsewhere: the same may not be possible for future generations of Australians.
So, (hypothetically) what would Australia end up with should a nuclear industry go ahead in a self-promoting process? There would likely be many disused mining sites and disused nuclear reactors, the largest radioactive nuclear dump in the world, possibly a compromised water table and ecosystem and a few wealthy individuals (who may not be based in South Australia 😉
Saving the Environment or Centralized Control of a Monopoly in Power (Electricity)? Pan Chemistry, Gareth Lewis 03/03/15“……….Domestic and global transporting of nuclear waste is inherently risky and ocean, rail and road accidents do occur. Additionally, security in the transport of such waste would have to be assured to prevent the misuse of waste in our age of terrorism (would risks of nuclear weapons or dirty bombs increase in our attempt to curb global warming using nuclear energy?): such security would be complicated and expensive………
The Royal Commissioner commented that the notion of establishing a nuclear industry and waste dump in South Australia was ‘an emotive issue…’ Well, yes it is, and why shouldn’t it be based on the track records in Chernobyl, the Fukushimadisaster (with ongoing environmental pollution of the sea ecosystem) and a near miss in Long Island (there may be ‘other events’ that students could research).
What is also an issue is the destructive power of nuclear weapons and ‘dirty bombsthat can be manufactured from uranium and its radioactive waste products. Such devices could be made ‘anywhere’ in the world that may operate beyond the political term of any one local government that may initiate a nuclear industry in South Australia.
The Proposed South Australian Storage Depot
The grade and amount of waste will depend on the type of nuclear reactor. So, what then happens to radioactive waste? It would likely arrive in steel or
plastic drums and then be stored in geologically stable strata within
South Australia. The strata would have to be stable since radioactive nuclear waste takes thousands of years to reach safe levels (or levels that are unlikely to cause harm to
biota).
South Australia is well known for being one of the ‘driest places on the driest continent,’ but that’s not always been the case. We also get flooding events that may increase in intensity and severity as global weather pattern change, caused in part by our use of fossil fuels? Well, the vast majority of scientists seem to think so, and so do many politicians.
Let’s play ‘what if’ at this point, since it’s just a hypothesis or ‘one of those ideas.’ What if an extreme weather event caused massive flooding in the northern parts ofSouth Australia as often occurs in Queensland? That would mean that salts would be dissolved to create a hypersaline corrosive liquid. If this solution came into contact with the steel drums that contain radioactive waste they would begin to corrode. Alternatively, even plastic drums will deteriorate over time as their inner surfaces are bombarded by particles emitted from the
decaying radioactive waste. At that (hypothetical) stage, which may take thousands of years,
it would not be possible to move such a large mass of radioactive waste accumulated from throughout the world, it would simply be too risky. There is the argument that spent radioactive waste can be recycled and then reused, however the remaining residue (on reprocessing) will also provide another source of waste. Additionally, by that time other sources of energy (maybe even fusion) may provide economic benefits that far exceed the reclamation and reuse of fissionable material that has been accumulated over time and the original radioactive waste may simply remain where it was initially stored.
The northern parts of South Australia has a large Artesian Basin of fresh water deep beneath its surface which may then be put at risk from contamination by global radioactive nuclear waste that may have been stored over the millennia…….
why take the risk(s)? Well, the short answer is that it would be worth taking the risk by the few and their families who would profit from the proposed venture in the short-term; but not the rest of us. Additionally, it will not be their families and their descendants that will suffer the consequences of a poor decision at this time since they will be able to afford to move elsewhere: the same may not be possible for future generations of Australians.
So, (hypothetically) what would Australia end up with should a nuclear industry go ahead in a self-promoting process? There would likely be many disused mining sites and disused nuclear reactors, the largest radioactive nuclear dump in the world, possibly a compromised water table and ecosystem and a few wealthy individuals (who may not be based in South Australia ;-)……… http://www.gareth-panchem.com/347345675?pagenum=2
Kevin Scarce buys expert pro nuclear opinions from Switzerland and Belgium
Swiss and Belgian experts to front nuclear commission as green light looms. by Simon Evans, Financial Review, 31 Mar 16 Experts from Switzerland and Belgium will give South Australia’s nuclear royal commission advice on whether nuclear waste can be safely stored underground in Australia.
Royal commissioner Kevin Scarce has just visited both countries to scrutinise high-level waste disposal sites and their licensing regimes. All three places have similar soil, which means Swiss and Belgian experts should be able to give him detailed information about the danger of storing nuclear waste in the South Australian outback.
Mr Scarce said on Thursday his final report due on May 6 on whether the state should expand from just being a uranium miner and venture into nuclear waste storage was unlikely to differ greatly from his preliminary findings in mid-February.
He rejected suggestions that it was inevitable that South Australia would undertake some form of nuclear expansion……..
Mr Scarce said he had received 170 direct responses in the past few weeks to his tentative findings unveiled on February 15 in which he concluded that a nuclear waste storage facility housing spent nuclear fuel rods and other waste could deliver $5 billion in revenue annually over 30 years.
He said some of those submissions had accused him of exaggerating the economic benefits, but he said he was confident that his economic modelling had been robust and said he had taken a “conservative” approach.
Mr Scarce said he had visited Sweden and Finland earlier in his commission’s work but in the wake of the tentative findings had made a special visit to Belgium and Switzerland because they had similar sedimentary soil structures to South Australia………http://www.afr.com/news/policy/swiss-and-belgian-experts-to-front-nuclear-commission-as-green-light-looms-20160331-gnv15s
Anti-nuclear opinions don’t count for much with SA’s elitist Royal Commission
Comments today from Nuclear Royal Commissioner, Kevin Scarce, show that the elitist and dismissive 
processes that dominated the Commission’s early days are still alive and well.
“Clearly the Commission doesn’t want to hear from ordinary South Australians. At the outset, they refused to accept submissions that weren’t sworn before a JP (including mine) and now they are devaluing submissions from concerned South Australians.” 
said Greens SA Parliamentary Leader,
Mark Parnell MLC.
On radio today, Mr Scarce described 850 submissions to the Commission’s Tentative Findings as “computer-generated views” and “spam”. He also said “you can’t do anything with them because they’re expressing opinions as opposed to going with the tentative findings”.
“What the Commissioner conveniently ignores is that the ONLY rationale for an international nuclear waste dump in South Australia is its supposed economic advantages. The economic case for the dump is derived from the assumptions and opinions of consultants. However, if ordinary South Australians dare to present “opinions”, then the Royal Commission “can’t do anything with them”.
“Barely two weeks after the close of public submissions and six weeks before handing down its final report, the Royal Commissioner appears to have already locked himself into the waste dump idea saying, “I’m convinced it’s safe”.
“When it comes to economic criticism, the Commissioner appears to value the number of economists involved and the number of pages they write as key considerations. He promised to “take apart piece by piece” the economic analysis of The Australia Institute, whilst acknowledging that the Commission’s own economic analysis was based on assumptions because there is no equivalent operating facility to compare it with and after 50 – 60 years of nuclear waste, “no one has found a solution yet.”
“Commissioner Scarce has consistently emphasised the need for community support, yet seems oblivious to the elitist approach taken by the Commission which devalues those South Australians whose support is needed if any of the Commission’s ideas are to be taken seriously”, concluded Mark Parnell.
Scarce determined to recommend nuclear waste import and dump for South Australia
Scarce final report not for turning on nuclear dump, INDaily, Tom Richardson, 30 Mar 16 The former South Australian Governor and retired naval officer has flagged a conclusion largely in keeping with his tentative findings, which found a compelling business case for a high-level nuclear waste dump to be based in SA, arguing it would contribute billions of dollars annually to the state’s economy.
The assumptions underlying that conclusion were scoffed at in a response by left-wing think tank the Australia Institute last week, which believes the prognostications of wealth beyond measure are grossly exaggerated.
But Scarce says despite heated backlash since his initial report was published last month, “I don’t think I’ve changed my fundamental findings” in the subsequent community consultation……..
he insists: “I’m convinced that it’s safe.”
“I’ve been now to five countries, I’ve been to facilities, I’ve been to organisations that assure the communities of those countries that this is safe to do,” he said.
“What I always expected I had to do in the final report is explain how countries come to that conclusion that it’s safe to do over these long periods of time.”……
He denied the economic merits of his conclusions were predicated on providing “cheap, above-ground storage for nearly a century”.
“That’s not what the scenario is: we do put it in an interim storage site to collect the revenue to enable us to build the deep geological storage, but it’s not there for hundreds of years,” said Scarce.
He said he would “put more work [into] the financial analysis” for his final report, but added: “I don’t believe that will change the magnitude of the positive [impact] – you know, the revenue versus the cost.”……..http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/03/31/scarce-final-report-not-for-turning-on-nuclear-dump/
Desert Liberation Front to rally outside Olympic Dam
Anti-uranium protesters Desert Liberation Front to rally outside Olympic Dam again http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/antiuranium-protesters-desert-liberation-front-to-rally-outside-olympic-dam-again/news-story/90234853dc42563677ee190b87da3841#load-story-comments March 28, 2016 ANTI-URANIUM protesters who want to shut down the Olympic Dam site are planning a “party at the gates of hell”, four years after a similar event forced police to send 500-plus officers to monitor the dangerous situation.
The Desert Liberation Front has issued an open invitation to artists, musicians, activists, community groups and media wanting to attend the protest festival to be held from July 1-3.
Under the banner “The Lizard Bites Back” the group is encouraging people to learn moves to a Zombie Lizard Flash Mob dance for its “party at the gates of hell” outside the BHP Billiton site.
Hundreds of police and protesters are expected to travel to Roxby Downs for the event, four years on from similar protests which police at the time estimated had cost the state $1 million.
During the 2012 protest more than 500 police — including STAR Group and mounted officers — worked around the clock for more than a week to monitor protesters.
Eighteen people were arrested for offences varying from loitering to resisting arrest.
South Australia’s changes to Aboriginal Heritage Act – a precursor to nuclear waste dumping?
Minister rejects nuclear dump spectre in Aboriginal heritage overhaul , INDAILY 29 Mar 16 Tom Richardson The State Government insists changes to the Aboriginal Heritage Act pushed through parliament last week will have “absolutely no impact whatsoever” on the debate over a potential future nuclear waste dump, which indigenous communities fear could end up on traditional lands.
Aboriginal advocates and the Greens expressed concern at the haste with which the bill was passed, arguing there was inadequate consultation on its final draft.
Legislation to amend the Heritage Act passed parliament with Labor and Liberal support, despite opposition from the South Australian Native Title Services and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, who argued the changes “have not been put before Parliament with the support of Aboriginal People”.
Sue Tilley, an indigenous social policy advocate, told InDaily: “One has to wonder about the rush to get this bill through parliament and the critical timing of this.” “South Australia is currently facing a number of contentious developments that may significantly impact on Aboriginal land and on the protection of heritage, such as the consideration of potential sites for a nuclear waste dump, and the development of the Northern Connector Road Project, amongst others,” she said in a written statement.
“Was the motivation driven by the need to have the seemingly constraining Aboriginal Heritage Act out of the way to enable these and other developments to proceed unhindered?”
But Aboriginal Affairs Minister Kyam Maher rejected the suggestion, insisting the changes safeguarded Aboriginal communities ……..
Advocates are unconvinced, particularly with the minister ceding his authority to delegate his decision-making powers to traditional owners of a site.
“This provision gave traditional owners a powerful tool to make decisions and enter into agreement-making about protecting their heritage,” Tilley said. “The amended legislation deletes this all-important provision.”
Andrew Beckworth, the principal legal officer with South Australian Native Title Services, provided advice to Greens MLC Tammy Franks that “this bill will come as a shock to many Aboriginal People in SA, as it has done for us”.
“This bill flies in the face of what previous governments or ministers have attempted and does so without any respect for the primacy of Aboriginal people’s voices and their rights and interests in managing and protecting Aboriginal Heritage,” the submission argues.
“This is against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”………http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/03/29/minister-rejects-nuclear-dump-spectre-in-aboriginal-heritage-overhaul/
Uncertainty created by Australian govt’s new Clean Energy Fund
Clean Energy Fund creates uncertainty for existing renewable proposals, SA Energy Minister says ABC News 24 Mar 16 Changes to the Federal Government’s energy agencies have created uncertainty in South Australia’s renewable energy industry, State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says.
Key points:
- Changes ‘turn grants into loans’
- Business models to be affected, SA Energy Minister warns
- Union says clean energy fund is ‘too little, too late’
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday announced he would retain the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which former prime minister Tony Abbott tried to dismantle.
The agencies will manage a $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF) using money previously allocated to them.
But Mr Koutsantonis said the changes meant funds administrated as grants would now be considered loans.
He said this would affect business models for proposals such as solar, wind, tidal or hot rocks energy generation.
“That has to be changed now because the money has to be paid back, so they [the Federal Government] are creating a lot of uncertainty,” Mr Koutsantonis said.
Clean energy fund ‘too little, too late’
The Australian Services Union said the clean energy fund was “too little, too late” to help SA’s Alinta Energy workforce………http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/clean-energy-fund-changes-creates-uncertainty-sa-energy-minister/7272472?section=environment
Valdis Dunis – a caution on #NuclearCommissionSAust’s enthusiasm for nuclear waste importing
Valdis Dunis comments on important aspects of #NuclearCommissionSAust’s enthusiasm for importing nuclear wastes and storing them in South Australia – on soil behaviour, seismic risks, poor history of waste disposal world-wide, delays and cost overruns, and problems of financing and insurance.
“Limited Financing and Insurance Sources for Nuclear Projects: As nuclear programs in Europe, Japan, China and USA have shown, commercial banks usually decline funding nuclear programs due to the risk factors of repeated technical problems, delays and construction and maintenance cost rises seen in many projects involving nuclear fuel. Funding thus falls to government, government-linked banks and the companies building the projects themselves (such as EDF in China and Europe). This limits who funds can be sourced from.
Similarly, commercial insurance companies do not insure nuclear installations, with the risk falling on governments”
Valdis Dunis’ Response on NFCRC’s Tentative Findings, 17 Mar 16 “………My comments below apply to the one area where your initial findings found that our state has a chance to have a significant profitable business, namely storage of high-level nuclear waste from other countries. Continue reading
South Australian voters will not be taken in by nuclear lobby spin
if South Australia will commit to taking international nuclear waste, it will be easier to sell new nuclear programs to investors, and easier to renegotiate the debts of existing nuclear companies. The nuclear industry will make more sales and pay lower interest rates up front, if South Australia is willing to spend $145 billion and have nuclear waste stored in ‘temporary’ storage for the next hundred years
SA’s media and political elite think it’s a great idea. Fortunately, South Australia’s voters are not quite so easy to spin.
A Hundred Years Of Ineptitude And A Century Of Nuclear Spin https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/24/a-hundred-years-of-ineptitude-and-a-century-of-nuclear-spin/ By Rod Campbell on March 24, 2016 The numbers around a nuclear waste economy don’t add up, writes Roderick Campbell. And then there’s the history….
The idea of a nuclear waste dump in South Australia is sold as a saviour for South Australia’s economy. SA’s former governor and Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce has joined the chorus:
Financial assessments suggest that [a nuclear waste facility in SA]could generate total revenue of more than $257 billion, with total costs of $145 billion.
Wow, that means we’ll make over $100 billion! Break out the Banrock Station! Have a holiday in Hahndorf! Take trams to Mt Gambier!
But what if this was just a little too good to be true? What if the benefits of this proposal go not to ordinary South Australians, but to the big companies involved in the nuclear industry?
The Royal Commissioner’s numbers are based on a study by Jacobs MCM, a company:
With more than fifty years of experience across the complete nuclear asset lifecycle, we support client delivery and the associated infrastructure requirements at every stage of a project.
The SA Royal Commission unquestioningly repeating the findings of a consultant with a deep interest in the nuclear industry is just the latest in South Australia’s rich tradition of nuclear propaganda.
Guess what year this was written in the Adelaide Advertiser:
It must be seen by any moderate thinking person that the radium mining field of Olary [South Australia] must eventually become the greatest and richest mining centre of the globe, and the sooner 
the Commonwealth Government awake to this fact the sooner will the positive prominence of Australia, be recognised by the nations of the world.
That was written in 1913. A century later, the ‘tizer is still glowing on about nukes:
BILLIONS of dollars from the nuclear industry could deliver free power to all South Australians and the abolition of state taxes, [SA Liberal Senator Sean Edwards] says.
Hardly anyone actually reads economic reports like the one Jacobs wrote, even commentators and ‘experts’ and probably not the Royal Commission. These reports are hundreds of pages long, full of impressive graphs, jargon and econobabble – they’re meant to be hard to read.
But if you can wade through the mud, you find gems/radioactive waste like this: Continue reading
Dispute in South Australia, as Labor govt wants to scrap law against expenditure towards nuclear waste dumping
State Parliament has backed removing a law against investigating nuclear dumping, with dispute over when it should take effect, The Advertiser, March 22, 2016 Daniel Wills State Political Editor The Royal Commission’s tentative findings were that a nuclear dump could be constructed safely in SA STATE Parliament has taken its first step toward supporting nuclear waste storage, with bipartisan support to repeal laws that ban spending money on investigating its establishment.
However, a dispute has emerged over State Government plans to make the changes effective as of several weeks ago amid Opposition questions about if the law has already been broken.
Premier Jay Weatherill a fortnight ago announced plans to change laws enacted under the former Liberal government which stop public money being spent on encouraging a dump.
He said the move did not signal support for a dump in SA, but the laws could prevent robust debate and investigations once the final Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission report is released.
The existing law states: “no public money may be appropriated, expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this state”.
Mr Weatherill said legal advice found the Commission did not break existing law……..
Greens MP Mark Parnell has previously told Parliament he believes the law may have been broken by commissioning telephone interviews with citizens seeking their views on storage.
Conservation SA today released a report from left-leaning think-tank The Australia Institute which cast doubts on the economic benefits of nuclear storage in SA.
Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said it “confirms what many South Australians suspect”, in that “the dump proposal being pushed seems way too good to be true”.
“Because there is no international market for high level nuclear waste, any prices, or costs underpinning any possible return for our state are pure guesswork based on assumptions and modelling,” Mr Wilkins said. “The consultants have made some extraordinarily optimistic assumptions about the price other countries will be willing to pay.
“They assume South Australia will be able to do something that even experienced nuclear countries have never managed to do, at a cheaper price.
“They also ignore the very real possibility that SA could take a cut in its GST revenue if this project did manage to make money.
“A project with this level of risk to future South Australians needs to stack up on economic grounds as well as safety and ethical ones. Our concern is that this fails on all three.” http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/state-parliament-has-backed-removing-a-law-against-investigating-nuclear-dumping-with-dispute-over-when-it-should-take-effect/news-story/a9bb5ee604fc4f7e850e4a9116cbdd0d
Turnbull suggests Port Augusta solar thermal plant for federal clean energy plan
Port Augusta solar thermal plant likely to be funded by $1 billion federal clean energy fund March 23, 2016 PETER JEAN POLITICAL REPORTER The Advertiser A LARGE solar thermal plant at Port Augusta is likely to be one of the first projects supported by a $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund, to be announced by the Federal Government today.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Environment Minister Greg Hunt will today reveal plans for the fund, which will invest up to $100 million per year in emerging technologies.
The announcement comes after the federal and state government were urged to back the development of a solar plan at Port Augusta, where hundreds of jobs will be lost when two coal-fired power stations close in May.
It is likely to cause tension with conservative elements in the Coalition, particularly those who have aligned themselves with former prime minister Tony Abbott.
“We are promoting innovation and new economic opportunities, enhancing our productivity, protecting our environment and reducing emissions to tackle climate change,’’ Mr Turnbull said last night.
“An example of a project could be a large scale solar facility with storage in Port Augusta.
“By offering innovative equity and debt products, the Clean Energy Innovation Fund can accelerate the availability of new technologies to transform the energy market, and deliver better value for taxpayers.”
American company SolarReserve had been seeking support for the development of a large solar thermal plant at Port Augusta.
Similar projects in the United States have created about 1000 construction jobs, 50 ongoing roles and 4000 indirect jobs.
A delegation of federal MPs visited a large solar power station built by SolarReserve in the American state of Nevada last year…….http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/port-augusta-solar-thermal-plant-likely-to-be-funded-by-1-billion-federal-clean-energy-fund/news-story/7be66ebf70e864e8a1a9cb9a95bd83bc#load-story-comments
Nuclear waste import idea – economic optimism is unjustified
Nuclear waste storage plan based on optimistic assumptions, Australia Institute warns ABC News, 891 ABC Adelaide 22 Mar 16 A South Australian proposal to build a storage facility for nuclear waste is being based on very optimistic assumptions, an economic think-tank has warned.
Key points:
- Australia Institute warned any benefits to taxpayers were speculative
- It questioned stockpiling waste for years if the business ran into future financial issues
- Business SA said royal commission’s role was not to analyse the economics in detail
The Australia Institute, backed by funding from Conservation SA, analysed the waste storage proposal raised in the early findings of SA’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
“If you get into the waste disposal business in the way proposed at the moment, what you’re going to get is a big loss to taxpayers in the short term and the potential, but not certain, benefits in the future,” the institute’s chief economist Richard Denniss told 891 ABC Adelaide.
“They’re based on very optimistic prices that the world will be willing to pay for nuclear waste.”Dr Denniss urged South Australians to think carefully about where future taxpayer dollars were spent.
“What I’m anti is people who need to exaggerate the economic benefits of mines in order to convince taxpayers to fund them,” he said.”I’m not anti-mining, I’m anti-propaganda being pushed as economic fact.
“If you spend billions of dollars on this project then that’s billions of dollars you won’t put into schools, roads, hospitals, transport — it’s up to you as residents of SA how you want to invest your money.”
Stored waste might create future worries The economist questioned what might happen if a waste storage project ran into future economic problems. “The question is what happens to SA if, after stockpiling high-level nuclear waste above ground for 20 years, what happens if the project falls over after you’ve imported all the waste?” he said.
Dr Denniss also said the storage of nuclear waste might only create a few hundred local jobs……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/australia-institute-questions-nuclear-waste-storage-plan/7265744
Unlike Britain,Australia is, at present, easily able to avoid a very bad nuclear deal
Secret deals: Australia’s nuclear waste plan and the UK’s Hinkley project, Independent Australia 21 March 2016, The South Australian Government scheme to import international nuclear waste has a major flaw in common with the UK’s Hinkley Point C project — secret contracts with foreign organisations, writes Noel Wauchope.
THESE TWO PLANS have something in common. Both the UK’s Hinkley Point C plan and South Australia’s nuclear waste plan are grandiose and very expensive to set up.
But, more than that, they both require the involvement of foreign governments and companies, in secret arrangements.
The South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission‘s plan for importing international wastes already involves confidential communications from foreign companies. Put into operation, the plan will mean secret contracts — South Australia being beholden to the provisions of foreign laws regarding disclosure, shipping and transport security, insurance and other matters relating to a client nation’s high level nuclear wastes (HLNW).
Plans have been suggested for foreign companies paying up front towards the setting up of the waste facility, in exchange for “ironclad contracts”to later set up “Generation IV” nuclear reactors. With foreign governments and companies involved, South Australia is very likely to become locked in to a deal from which it cannot escape. A later decision to pull out of the scheme would certainly entail heavy compensation payments to foreign companies.
Britain’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project is thoroughly embroiled in complicated negotiations with the government-owned companies of China and France. The major backer, Electricite De France(EDF) is in grave financial trouble and its financial director Thomas Piquemal has resigned, over this Hinkley project. EDF is being bailed out by the French government, so that the £18bn plan can go ahead. UK has had to agree to a contract with EDF, amounting to about £40bn in real terms, and providing State guarantees on insurance, among other matters. The plan locks the UK in, with compensation costs in the event of it being shut down, as shown in an unpublicised departmental “minute“:…….
Professor Catherine Mitchell, an energy policy expert at the University of Exeter, comments in The Guardian:
The £22bn “poison pill” effectively reduces the risk to zero for EDF and its backers, which is great for them. But from an outside perspective, it smacks of desperation.
There could be so many reasons over 35 years that you would want to close the plant, including rising costs, changes to the UK’s energy system or loss of public confidence……..
However, in two important ways, the Australian situation is very different from that of the UK.
Firstly, although the UK Hinkley project is big, the South Australian nuclear waste plan is ginormous. Potentially sourcing high level nuclear wastes (HLNW) from around the world – USA, Canada, Europe, Asia – would be a massive operation, many decades in the setting up, many thousands of years in carrying it out. The money involved would be not dozens of billions of dollars in costs but hundreds of billions.
Secondly, for all the millions in dollars now being spent on the Royal Commission project – the trips abroad, forums, research, public relations and so on – the plan is nowhere near the point of agreement, whereas the UK plan is well advanced…….
It is vitally important for Australia to pay attention to the Royal Commission plan and to the scrutiny of South Australian radiation expert Paul Langley. and others. Unlike Britain, Australia has the opportunity to prevent this plan, while it’s still only a gleam in the eyes of Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce and the nuclear lobby. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/secret-deals-australias-nuclear-waste-plan-and-the-uks-hinkley-project,8797
NO TO NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP – say women and Labor voters
Women and Labor voters opposed to international nuclear waste dump in South Australia, poll finds Adelaide Now, March 21, 2016 PREMIER Jay Weatherill will need to win the support of women and his own Labor voters if the State Government decides to back the construction of an international nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia.
The results of a new opinion poll show almost 60 per cent of women and most Labor voters are opposed to a global nuclear waste facility being located in the state.
The ReachTEL Poll of 1077 SA residents conducted on March 10 found that 37 per cent of voters supported of voters supported an international nuclear waste dump, 48.5 per cent were opposed and 14 per cent were undecided.
The poll was commissioned by left-wing think tank The Australia Institute, which will tomorrow release a report critical of the international nuclear waste proposal.
Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said South Australians were increasingly aware of the risks posed by the project, including the damage it could do to the state’s reputation.
“I think people are increasingly wise to the projects that are jobs-rich, versus those that are expensive, likely to involve a large upfront government subsidy and won’t produce long-term jobs,’’ Mr Oquist said.
Those industries that are jobs-intensive are potentially put at risk by South Australia’s brand being threatened by a global nuclear waste dump.’’
Almost 49 per cent of Liberal, 28 per cent of Labor, 12 per cent of Greens voters backed the proposal.
But 52 per cent of Labor, 38 per cent of Liberal and 71 per cent of Greens were opposed……http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/women-and-labor-voters-opposed-to-international-nuclear-waste-dump-in-south-australia-poll-finds/news-story/35d4ad38cadbaae4798ca89e91c74f5f
The ethics of burdening future South Australians with nuclear wastes?
A high-level nuclear waste dump for SA What is our moral obligation?
The argument goes: surely SA has a moral obligation to import nuclear waste…
…because we mine uranium?
…because we are more geologically and politically stable than other places?
…because we benefit from x-rays?
If we want this decision to include moral considerations (as it should), we might ask ourselves about the ethics of burdening thousands of generations of future South Australians with the cost and risk of managing highly radioactive waste, when any economic benefits are long gone.
1 This month.
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
Antinuclear 