AN ALTERNATIVE: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16
“……..An Alternative We are told Secure Base load Electrical Power is a certainty upon which our civilization rests. Not withstanding the constantly falling price of off grid generation and storage of domestic and industrial power.
As each day passes, alternatives grow in attractiveness. As usual old industries, such as nuclear industry, bemoan the competing technology as inadequate. The odds are by the time today’s five year child is twenty five they will generate, store and use their own off grid power simply, easily and at a cost that would make TEPCO and Westinghouse executives go green. At the moment though the nuclear industry remains a dedicated future-phobe. Those who call for a nuclear revival merely confirm, in the shrillness of their demands, the proven failures of the industry over time, all over the globe.
A large solar power plant, used for both day time power generation and day time sea water electrolysis, could provide 24 hour base load power. An onsite hydrogen fuelled generator station, generating at night or as required, fuelled by solar produced Hydrogen, could transform the SA economy. The benefits would not have to be weighted against risks spread population wide. This is 2016. Hydrogen is in daily use around the world. In SA there are potential energy sources as yet resolutely untapped.
A hybrid solar hydrogen power plant could be constructed with current knowledge and hardware. But of course, it would be an inappropriate icon in a state dominated by the nuclear promise.
A far thinking Parliament would not be bound to digging holes in the ground for a living. It might actually originate and facilitate something that actually could save the planet. Sadly it won’t. It does not have the creative will to do so. Such things would already be done if it had.
Such ideas are deemed crazy ones in the halls of nuclear power, in that place where thinking differently seems to be a sin against the prayer book of a compulsory religion.
No thanks, I do not wish to buy this product. It sucks very badly. Have you got anything else? Preferably something sensible and compatible with the future. Not some rust belt thing that the children of all tomorrows curse us for giving them. https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Excellent previous submissions to #NuclearCommissionSAust
The website of South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, is not all that user friendly – hard to find the previous submissions. However they are at
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?query=&cat=View+all&search=Submissions&max_page_items=50&sort_by=
some of the best submissions are on THIS website, even if not complete.
Here they are, not in any particular order:
SUBMISSIONS FOCUSING ON NUCLEAR WASTE IMPORTATION
Sisters of St Joseph make a powerful case against radioactive trash dumping
NGOPPON TOGETHER INC – Management, Storage and Disposal of Wastes. also on impact of unclear waste import on Tourism etc
Christine Anderson – nuclear waste no bonanza for South Australia
Environmental Defenders Office (SA)
Noel Wauchope – Answer Points on Importing Nuclear Waste
BHP not interested in nuclear waste import
Bill Fisher spells it out on nuclear waste
Plans for radioactive trash dumping on Aboriginal land ?
West Mallee Protection – an Aboriginal Perspective
Clean Bight Alliance Australia
MORE GENERAL SUBMISSIONS
Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle
South AustraliaEnvironment Groups
South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission Issues Paper 4 – misleading and serious omissions
Dr Helen Caldicott’s Submission on all 4 Nuclear Royal Commission Issues Papers
Dr Caldicott’s submission concerning radiation
Medical Association for Prevention of War & Public Health Association of Australia
Annie McGovern Addressing questions of WATER
Construction Forestry & Mining. Also Uranium Free NSW.
Rebecca Keane Renewable Energy way ahead of nuclear
Electrical trades Union of Australia dispels the hype about Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
John Quiggan demolishes the case for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in South Australia
Ally Fricker & Bob Lamb for ENuFF
Yurij Poetzl scrutinises Questionable Integrity of the Royal Commission
City of Port Adelaide Enfield notes poor prospects for New Nuclear Technology
Until 18 March, South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission will accept responses to its Tentative Findings
It’s a well kept secret from the whole of Australia, but the nuclear lobby plans to invite in the world’s most toxic nuclear trash – to poor old South Australia – the State with the greatest potential to be a world – leading renewable energy hub.
This plan can be stopped – as it has been before.
One step in exposing and stopping this noxious plan by a few greedy people is to RESPOND TO the ROYAL COMMISSION’S TENTATIVE Findings. their Guidelines are here
It’s not that difficult. The Commission put up fewer obstacles this time. Say what you really think.
You can find good advice on sending a response at Action Australia
By the way, the COVER SHEET has to be signed, which implies that the comments should be posted. I am posting mine, but because of concerns about the postal service these days, I am sending it by email, too. It’s not as hard as last time – much as the Royal Commission would probably like to intimidate us all into not bothering. Please bother! Comments can be lodged via email to: enquiries@nuclearrc.sa.gov.au
South Australia to weaken Aboriginal Heritage Act -(nice for the nuclear industry)
Aboriginal Heritage Act changes give traditional owners less say: Indigenous groups ABC News By Nicola Gage 10 Mar 16 Proposed changes to South Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage Act will reduce powers of traditional owners, according to Indigenous groups.
Amendments to the act were introduced to Parliament a fortnight ago and today passed the Legislative Council.
South Australian Native Title Services chief executive officer Keith Thomas believed amended language in the act would give traditional owners less say over their heritage. “This is going to help people who want to access lands and destroy heritage, rather than improving the protection of Aboriginal heritage,” he said.
There are tens of thousands of sacred Indigenous sites across South Australia, from ancient song lines and springs to burial grounds.
The act is in place to protect them from different activities, including mining operations. Mr Thomas said the proposed changes would make it harder to prosecute companies if they had disturbed a site without approval.
“At the moment they’re very concerning, because it’s diluting Aboriginal rights, whereas the Aboriginal Heritage Act should be strengthening Aboriginal rights to protect their heritage,” he said. Mr Thomas said the changes would also remove clause 6-2 in the act, which stipulates the minister must delegate his or her powers to the traditional owners of a site.
Aboriginal groups from Lake Torrens have been trying to use that clause over recent years to stop a mining operation from going ahead. “I think the amendments are being rushed through for some reason,” he said. “It means that the minister doesn’t have to delegate his powers and it paves the way for the miners to come back and have another go.”
Some Aboriginal groups said they had not been properly consulted over the amendments.
Traditional owner Karina Lester grew up on South Australia’s Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands and did not know the bill was in Parliament. “That was quite concerning for us as native title [holders] because we hadn’t been informed,” she said.”Therefore, we didn’t know what changes were being proposed.”…..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-10/changes-aboriginal-heritage-act-give-traditional-owners-less-say/7236302
Genetic damage to later generations from Maralinga radiation fallout
New generations of Australian families suffering deformities and early deaths because of ‘genetic transfer’,news.com.au MARCH 10, 2016 [EXCELLENT PHOTOS] PEOPLE who worked at Australian atomic bomb test sites claim they have produced generations of children with severe deformities and suffered a high number of stillbirths.
Documents obtained exclusively by news.com.au show hundreds of children and grandchildren of veterans exposed to radiation were born with shocking illnesses including tumours, Down syndrome, cleft palates, cerebral palsy, autism, missing bones and heart disease.
One veteran, who was posted to the Maralinga nuclear test site in South Australia in the 1950s as part of the British Nuclear Test (BNT) program, says the radiation contaminated his sperm and is to blame for the death of a child he never got to know.
But he is not alone, with the documents detailing a litany of miscarriages and stillbirths that has allegedly passed the devastation from generation to generation.
Australian ex-servicemen and their families originally made submissions to a Federal Government review in 2003 over deaths and disabilities they believe were caused by exposure to radiation from nuclear testing in South Australia and Western Australia in the 1950s and 60s.
The submissions were later compiled to use in a class action against the British Ministry of Defence, but the case was not allowed to proceed because it was deemed impossible to prove radiation caused their illnesses. Continue reading
Nuclear Royal Commission findings agree with French report: Nuclear power is prohibitively expensive
The Nuclear Industry Prices Itself Out Of Market For New Power Plants, Climate Progress, BY JOE ROMM MAR 8, 2016 “……… in newly-released findings, South Australia’s nuclear royal commission found that the price of electricity from new nukes greatly exceeded not only business-as-usual projections for electricity prices but also prices in a “strong climate action” case. The Commission concluded “it would not be commercially viable to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant in South Australia in the foreseeable future.”
The Commission explicitly looked at plausible electricity prices for a new reactor in 2030 based on both current designs and possible fourth-generation ones, such as small modular reactors (SMRs). The Commission estimated the cost for the most viable nukes at US$7 billion for a typical large 1125-megawatt reactor and $2.8 billion for two 180-megawatt SMRs. The smaller SMRs would be providing electricity for a whopping US$0.17 a kilowatt-hour!
A study done for the Commission found that both large nukes and SMRs “consistently deliver strongly negative NPVs” (net present values) for both 2030 and 2050 — even for the strong climate action scenario. The Commission Chair noted that given how Australia’s National Electricity Market works, renewables are “the first energy that goes into the market” because they have the lowest costs.
The Commission’s findings are consistent with a 2014 Energy Policy study, “The cost of nuclear electricity: France after Fukushima.” Using cost data released by the French government after the Fukushima disaster, the study found the cost of French nuclear plants steadily escalated over the past four decades. Further, it projects “the future cost of nuclear power in France to be at least 76€/MWh (US$0.084/KWh) and possibly 117€/MWh (US$0.129/KWh),” which “compares unfavorably against alternative fuels,” such as wind……..”http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/08/3757281/nuclear-industry-prices/
Rail upgrade Adelaide to Tarcoola – convenient for the nuclear industry?
What’s the bet that today’s announcement by Turnbull of a plan to “bring forward by some years” the upgrading of 600km of rail line from Adelaide to Tarcoola just happens to fit in nicely with the Weatherill plan to expand the nuclear industry in SA.
South Australian Government pro-nuclear waste dump PR campaign set to roll
The Premier’s announcement today that the State Labor Government will move to repeal part of the 
Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, indicates that a taxpayer-funded pro-nuclear waste dump public relations campaign is on its way.
The Government says the repeal is necessary in order to consult with the community over the Nuclear Royal Commission’s findings.
“That’s just not true”, according to SA Greens Leader and environmental lawyer, Mark Parnell MLC.
“The Act only prohibits the use of public money to “encourage or finance any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this State”. It doesn’t preclude genuine public consultation that asks South Australians whether or not they believe SA should host a high-level nuclear waste dump. Genuine consultation with the South Australian community is allowed, even if it uses Government resources. What isn’t allowed is a biased or one-sided PR campaign that “encourages” the construction or operation of a nuclear waste dump.”
“If the Government’s intentions were honourable, it wouldn’t need to repeal this legislation.”
“What is most galling is that the Premier isn’t even prepared to wait for the Royal Commission’s final report in May before legislating to be able to spruik a nuclear waste dump. The Government had said it would wait until the end of the year before deciding what to do with the Royal Commission’s findings. Rushing now to repeal this legislation suggests that it’s mind might already be made up.
“If this legislation is repealed, the Government will be able to legally spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to promote SA as the Nuclear Waste State. It will also be able to conduct detailed planning and design work for a nuclear waste dump, with only the final consent requiring Parliamentary approval,” concluded Mark Parnell.
South Australia nuclear law repeal opens door to taxpayer funded spin
Conservation Council of South Australia 7 Mar 16 The move by the Weatherill Government to repeal parts of the SA Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act even before the Nuclear Royal Commission hands down its final report is deeply disappointing.
“This move is cold comfort for communities in Kimba and the Flinders Ranges who are currently in the frame for a national radioactive waste facility,” said Conservation SA Chief Executive, Craig Wilkins.
“With the Royal Commission months from handing down its final report, Premier Weatherill is clearly jumping the gun.
“The South Australian public now has every right to question how genuine the ‘listening’ process in response to the Royal Commission will be over the coming months.
“They will rightly be outraged if the Government intends to free up taxpayer funds to spin an unpopular nuclear waste dump proposal,” he said.
The object of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (prohibition) Act is to ‘protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this state.’ The Act expressly bans the use of public money ‘for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this State’. This clause is now set for repeal.
Rose Lester, Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman said: “When many Anangu people have clearly expressed opposition to nuclear industry, weakening any protection is not a step in the right direction for reconciliation. It is very disheartening that people who don’t have strong connection to country change laws to suit their ideology rather than acknowledging and respecting the law of the land.”
South Australian Laws to be repealed to allow tax-payer funding for nuclear activity
The State Government will move this week to repeal laws that prevents it from consulting on the merits of a nuclear waste storage facility once the Royal Commission hands down its final report to Government due in May.
Section 13 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, states: “Despite any other Act or law to the contrary, 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.”
Solar thermal power push to keep jobs in Port Augusta
THE “dominoes” are lined up for Port Augusta to switch from coal-fired to solar thermal power generation and advocates are urging governments to summon the “political will” to secure the project….(subscribers only)
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/solar-thermal-power-push-to-keep-jobs-in-port-augusta/news-story/dd0e42df6d28e5e0bb5959966ac676be
Communities fight Turnbull government nuclear waste dump plan
Aboriginal woman Regina Mackenzie said the proposed Barndioota site in the Flinders Ranges threatened important cultural heritage sites. “There was no consultation whatsoever … we just feel it’s an attack on our belief system,” she said.
Greens nuclear spokesman senator Scott Ludlam said communities were told the dump would not be built if locals largely objected. “There’s strong opposition in all six communities [and] the government needs to abandon this idea,” he said.
Nuclear waste dump: Sleepless nights, tears and stress as communities fight Turnbull government plan, SMH March 1, 2016 – Nicole Hasham Environment and immigration correspondent When Peter Woolford’s son died in a motorbike accident 12 years ago, the rural community of Kimba united to help the farmer and his wife through their personal cataclysm.
But that was then. Now, old friends in the community no longer speak, and people on the streets of the South Australian town are afraid to talk about the issue that has driven a wedge between neighbours: a proposed nuclear waste dump.
Cortlinye, near Kimba, is one of six sites across Australia the federal government has shortlisted to host the nation’s first permanent nuclear dump for low-level and intermediate waste.
The others are at Sallys Flat near Hill End in NSW, Hale in the Northern Territory, Pinkawillinie and Barndioota in South Australia and Oman Ama in Queensland.
If sites are approved, landowners who volunteered their property would receive up to four times the value of their land, and the community would receive about $10 million for infrastructure or services.
But this fight is “not about money”, said Mr Woolford, who was in Canberra on Tuesday with waste dump opponents from the other five communities to voice their concern. They say Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg refused to meet them, however they met other senior officials. Continue reading
Could renewable power be Port Augusta’s saviour?
THE “dominoes” are lined up for Port Augusta to switch from coal-fired to solar thermal power generation and advocates are urging governments to summon the “political will” to secure the project….(subscribers only)
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/solar-thermal-power-push-to-keep-jobs-in-port-augusta/news-story/dd0e42df6d28e5e0bb5959966ac676be
Port Augusta community keenly concerned about renewable energy versus nuclear industry developments
Key points:
- Regional job losses and nuclear royal commission findings have some locals worried
- Government minister Geoff Brock says no nuclear decisions have been taken
- Tomato greenhouses using desalinated water are praised for creating local jobs
Hundreds of residents are expected at Port Augusta’s Central Oval complex to quiz visiting Government ministers on a range of issues including jobs.
The regional city is gearing for an imminent closure of Alinta’s Port Augusta power stations.
Mayor Sam Johnson expressed hope a range of options including hydroponic farming and renewable energy projects would create a secure future for the Port Augusta region.
“There is an area around Port Augusta which is clearly one of the world’s best sites when it comes to wind … also [ideal for] solar virtually from just south of Port Augusta right up to Roxby Downs,” he said.”As you go over towards Whyalla and Cowell, [that area] has been identified for anyone that wants to invest in wave technology.”
Government ministers are expected to tour Sundrop Farms’ vast tomato greenhouses at Port Augusta, which use desalinated sea water for crop production in the arid region. State Regional Development Minister Geoff Brock praised such ventures at a time of job losses elsewhere. “They will have around 200 people working there full-time and the good thing about this [is] Sundrop have just won an innovative award in Germany on an international scale,” he said.
“They’re going to have the research and development [functions] located at Port Augusta, so this is state of the art.”
Radioactive nuclear waste worries for northern SA residents
Nuclear concerns will also be high on the agenda for the public forum and for Cabinet as it meets in the far north region. The Port Augusta Mayor said there was significant local concern about the future prospect of radioactive waste being transported through the northern region.
Mr Johnson said talk of a possible nuclear waste facility for the state’s north was a hot topic among residents. He said if any high-level waste was ever shipped in via Whyalla or Port Pirie, it would also be likely to be transported through Port Augusta.
“The only way to go … is through Port Augusta, which has a two-lane bridge which has been in need of a little bit of work,” he said.
“There’s effectively no alternative detour access route and should there be an incident that occurs on that bridge then that has significant impacts not just for Port Augusta but also potentially the eco or marine environment.”…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-28/jobs-nuclear-waste-port-augusta-forum-country-cabinet/7205842
Will the Australian govt impose a Lucas Heights nuclear waste dump on a South Australian community?
We will soon see how much in a rush the government is with the issue. Will it try to find a site by any means, even if this implies imposing it on a community or will it take its commitment not to do so seriously and maybe take the steps necessary to find a long-lived solution to a long-lived problem?| By Anica Niepraschk , 29 February 2016 The federal government – once again – is looking for a place to dump its nuclear waste. All attempts over the last twenty years have failed – and so might this one, at least if the government is sticking to the promises it made in its new approach.The process is to be voluntary and no dump is to be located anywhere without community consent. These are the words at least. 28 sites across Australia had been nominated by landowners last year and were reduced to a shortlist of six by the Department for Resources.
The six sites are in Hale (NT), not far from Alice Springs, Hill End in NSW, Oman Ama in Queensland and three sites in South Australia: two in the Kimba region (Cortlinye and Pinkawillinie) and Wallerbidina/ Barndioota, outside Hawker. The South Australian shortlisted sites also get increasingly entangled in a debate as to whether the state might offer itself up as the world’s nuclear waste dump, accepting high-level nuclear waste from power reactors around the world. This was the key prospect outlined in the tentative findings of the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, released last week. All six sites are so far highly contested by the local communities, Continue reading |
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 