Aboriginal women will fight on against nuclear waste dumping in South Australia
Aboriginal women reaffirm fight against nuclear waste dump in South Australia ABC Radio National, The World Today By Natalie Whiting 16 Oct 15 The first shipment of Australia’s nuclear waste to be returned from re-processing in France has now left a French port, and will arrive on our shores by the end of the year. The return of the 25 tonnes of nuclear waste is putting renewed pressure on the Federal Government to find a location for a permanent waste dump.
The shipment began its journey just a day after senior Aboriginal women gathered in Adelaide to mark their fight against a proposed dump in South Australia in the 1990s.
The women say they will fight against any new move to put the waste on their land…..
SA Aboriginal women remember waste dump victory A Federal Government plan to build a 
nuclear waste dump in the South Australian outback in 1998 attracted fierce opposition, especially among local Aboriginal people.
An event in Adelaide last night celebrated the work of a group of women called kupa piti kungka tjuta, who campaigned against the dump. Emily Austin from Coober Pedy was one of them. (centre in picture)
The women campaigned for six years until a Federal Court challenge from the South Australian government put an end to the dump. Ms Austin said she could remember the day the court found in South Australia’s favour.
“I was out in the bush hunting and I heard it on the radio in the Toyota. We were all screaming, ‘We won’.
“All the kungkas (women) were happy.”
While the Federal Government is in the midst of a voluntary process for finding a site for a dump, South Australia’s outback is still seen as an ideal location.
The South Australian Government’s attitude to the industry has been shifting.
It has launched a royal commission to investigate possible further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.The royal commission is looking at everything from mining uranium, processing, waste storage and nuclear power.
The organiser of last night’s event, Karina Lester, is the granddaughter of one of the women who campaigned and her father was blinded by the British nuclear tests at Maralinga half a century ago.
She said the Aboriginal people in South Australia’s north have a long and tortured history with the nuclear industry. “Maralinga’s had a huge impact because people speak from first-hand experience,” she said.
“People like the amazing kupa piti kungka tjuta, many of those old women who are no longer with us today, they were there the day the ground shook and the black mist rolled.
“It’s an industry that doesn’t sit comfortably with Anungu community.”
Ms Lester said it was good to see the royal commission consulting with people before a decision is made.”Credit to the royal commission that they’ve made an effort to engage with a broader community of Aboriginal communities,” she said.
“But how many of those Anangu are really understanding he technicality of this royal commission and what industry really means?” Ms Austin said she was ready to fight any future attempts to set up a waste dump in the region.
“Oh yeah, I’ve still got fight yet. They might stop yet, they might listen, I dunno,” she said. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-16/aboriginal-women-fight-against-nuclear-waste-dump-in-sa/6861012
Small Nuclear Reactors lobby turns to Australia, as safety rules too strong in USA
Why Australia is important to the Small Nuclear lobby. Independent Australia
the nuclear lobby’s spiel to Australia is something different, and very original. No dispute — because the argument is that small reactors would further the large reactor industry.
First articulated by Oscar Archer on ABC RN, March 2015, the idea is that Australia, in setting up small nuclear reactors, would enable the conventional nuclear industry and uranium mining to flourish:….. As Archer says, Australia would indeed be the pioneer for the new technology.
And that’s what the USA “new nuclear” lobby desperately needs. They need this, because they’re finding it impossible to go ahead in America. Why? Well it’s those pesky safety regulations imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
What the “Small Nuclear” lobby needs is a “nuclear friendly” country – one with less stringent safety
regulations – to set up their nuclear reactors on a test site. Hence the enthusiasm of those lobbyists for the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, as shown, for example, in a recent Royal Commission hearing speech by Thomas Marcille of Holtec International nuclear company.
……… the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) has proved to be real nuisance since it tightened regulations for the licensing process after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The new nuclear marketers have had to go overseas, first to China, then perhaps to Australia?…. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/why-australia-is-important-to-the-small-nuclear-lobby,8263
South Australia: subsidy for large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) projects
Rooftop solar subsidies for SA business http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/rooftop-solar-subsidies-for-sa-business/story-fni0xqi4-1227569000315
CLIMATE Change Minister Ian Hunter says the subsidy for large-scale photovoltaic (PV) projects, between 10 and 50 megawatts, will help businesses take advantage of a $100 million commonwealth funding pool aimed at increasing the uptake of solar panels.
“This is a great opportunity for potential developers to bring the cost of solar PV down to a price comparable to wind energy,” Climate Change Minister Ian Hunter said on Wednesday.
Eloquent Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – an Aboriginal Perspective
Submission to: Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission South Australia Prepared by Breony Carbines on behalf of West Mallee Protection“West Mallee Protection are a conservation group made up of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginalmembers based in Ceduna on the west coast of South Australia. Our On country work includes cultural maintenance of water rock holes and monitoring of biodiversity in the last stretch of intact stunted mallee country. WMP also works to ensure that this area is protected now and well into the future.”
I found it very hard to select an extract from this submission, because I didn’t want to exclude any of it. This submission is expressed with clear and forceful logic: it contains excellent references and recommendations.
Here’s what they had to say about the Commission’s question onsetting up a nuclear waste dump:
#NuclearCommissionSAust’s plan to bring radioactive trash to Australia – by Leasing
Next Thursday’s (Oct 15) Adelaide public hearing at the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission (NFCRC) could be an interesting one.
It will be about the concept of leasing uranium – the idea that Australia continues to “own” uranium , so contracts to take back all radioactive trash.
It’s not a new idea – pushed for decades by Dr John White
and by the former Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and the current International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC)
Topics to be addressed at this public session: Concept of nuclear fuel leasing and potential demand for those services. The international and commercial arrangements necessary to establish a fuel leasing operation
Dr Caldicott’s submission concerning radiation #NuclearCommissionSAust
Dr Helen Caldicott Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission http://www.helencaldicott.com/submission-to-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Excerpt – Types of ionizing radiation
- X-rays are electromagnetic, and cause mutations the instant they pass through the body.
- Similarly, gamma radiation is also electromagnetic, being emitted by radioactive materials generated in nuclear reactors and from some naturally occurring radioactive elements in the soil.
- Alpha radiation is particulate and is composed of two protons and two neutrons emitted from uranium atoms and other dangerous elements generated in reactors (such as plutonium, americium, curium, einsteinium, etc – all which are known as alpha emitters and have an atomic weight greater than uranium). Alpha particles travel a very short distance in the human body. They cannot penetrate the layers of dead skin in the epidermis to damage living skin cells. But when these radioactive elements enter the lung, liver, bone or other organs, they transfer a large dose of radiation over a long period of time to a very small volume of cells. Most of these cells are killed; however, some on the edge of the radiation field remain viable to be mutated, and cancer may later develop. Alpha emitters are among the most carcinogenic materials known.
- Beta radiation, like alpha radiation, is also particulate. It is a charged electron emitted from radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131. The beta particle is light in mass, travels further than an alpha particle and is also mutagenic.
- Neutron radiation is released during the fission process in a reactor or a bomb. Reactor 1 at Fukushima has been periodically emitting neutron radiation as sections of the molten core become intermittently critical. Neutrons are large radioactive particles that travel many kilometers, and they pass through everything including concrete and steel. There is no way to hide from them and they are extremely mutagenic.
So, let’s describe just five of the radioactive elements that are continually being released into the air and water at Fukushima. Remember, though, there are over 200 such elements each with its own half-life, biological characteristic and pathway in the food chain and the human body. Most have never had their biological pathways examined. They are invisible, tasteless and odourless. When the cancer manifests it is impossible to determine its aetiology, but there is a large body of literature proving that radiation causes cancer, including the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Continue reading
#NuclearCommissionSAust hearing – is the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) a lemon?
Plough your way through the transcript of the October 7th hearing of the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, and amidst all the technical hype, you will find some sobering points.
The speaker was Mr Thomas Marcille, of Holtec International, developer of the SMR-160, who enthused about that SMRs future, and explained its safety features etc.
Yet there were bits that would make even a greedy Australian nuke enthusiast pause:
“COMMISSIONER: Would it be fair to say that you’re expecting SMR or the 30 application of them outside the US more than inside?
MR MARCILLE: No question ……As a data point, I think that would suggest that the vast market is outside of the United States………, it’s possible for a national regulator outside the United States to first licence the SMR-160.”
He goes on to explain that the USA’s now more rigourous licensing process “part 52 or design certificate” is “far too arduous in terms of time and cost and risk.”
[translation – nobody in USA wants to buy the SMR, and it can’t get licensing there]
“our concept is to develop a preliminary design specification and a preliminary safety analysis report and to then achieve an opportunity with a commercial client to submit that preliminary safety analysis report under the review of a competent regulator for consideration of granting a construction permit. At such time the design will matriculate through the engineering specifications, the procurement specifications and the construction drawings. It’s unlikely that Holtec will continue to develop towards final safety analysis and final design unless a client steps forth.”
[translation – we’re not going ahead with licensing until after we’ve signed up an overseas buyer, such as Australia] [Holtec will] “continue the investment in the business and the technology if and as the marketplace develops”
The Commissioner asked Mr Marcille about “ comparison to larger plants the cost economies and the advantages of small modular reactors.” and about “the extent to which companies expect to have an order book of plants to manufacture and the extent to which they can enjoy economies of scale 25 because they’re manufacturing multiple versions of the same item “.
MR MARCILLE: Let me help by saying that – let me liken a large light-water reactor to a large apple and suggest that a lot of people think of small modular reactors as little apples. I would ask you to think of a small modular reactor like the SMR160 not as a little apple but a little orange. So now I’m comparing a big apple to a little orange and they’re entirely different. The apple is sweet, 40 the orange is sour. You get the picture…….
Mr Marcille continued with a lengthy and complex answer to this question, which included stressing the large costs of large reactors. I did not find it convincing .
Today’s Royal Commission Hearings – on financial viability of nuclear operations
Today’s royal commission hearings are about the financial viability of enrichment, electricity and a waste dump.
South Australia as radioactive trash dump our best nuclear bet – Kevin Scarce
Nuclear power option years away: royal commissioner Kevin Scarce http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/nuclear-power-option-years-away-royal-commissioner-kevin-scarce/story-e6frgczx-1227556819827?sv=631d9f761d476c7a142e1be7add844b1
OCTOBER 5, 2015 Michael Owen SA Bureau Chief Adelaide There is a decade of regulatory and legislative change required before any real work can begin on establishing a nuclear energy industry in Australia, royal commissioner Kevin Scarce says.
Those changes would require federal and state bipartisanship, meaning tangible economic benefits of expanding nuclear activity would not be apparent until at least 2030. We need to be realistic about what the opportunities will be,” Mr Scarce, a former South Australia governor, told The Australian. “If we do decide to participate (in the nuclear cycle), you’d want to grow some jobs, some expertise, and grow the technical know-how to go into other elements of nuclear — it has to have some economic benefits, and part of this royal commission is to look 10-15 years into the future and see what else is being developed to see if there is a need for nuclear in our power-generation mix.”
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was established by Labor Premier Jay Weatherill to look at South Australia’s involvement in the mining, enrichment, energy and storage phases in the life cycle of nuclear fuel, given the state has one of the world’s biggest uranium deposits and has been involved in uranium production for more than 25 years.
Mr Weatherill’s government is grappling with the worst unemployment rate of any state amid the decline of manufacturing. The Premier is keen to explore the economic benefits of a deeper involvement in the nuclear sector.
Mr Scarce said it might be that, given Australia’s energy demand was decreasing, coupled with an abundance of renewables, nuclear generators were not necessary. This would leave a nuclear waste dump as the most likely source of economic benefit.
Mr Scarce said it was “absolutely” the case that there was a decade of bipartisan legislative and regulatory change that had to occur before any nuclear industry could be up and running. “One should not think that if we turn the switch on at the end of this royal commission after the government has had a look at it that benefits will be delivered within the decade — they won’t be,” he said.
“In order to provide the investment certainty that would be required, because of the length and cost of this industry, if you don’t have bipartisan support at both the state and federal level, an industry will not go anywhere.”
Mr Scarce said the state opposition had been very supportive, as had the government, which established the inquiry. However, there could be major hurdles under any future federal Labor government. A decision to change the ALP national platform opposing a nuclear industry has been delayed until after the release of the commission’s report, due on May 6.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott has said there was no need for Australia to pursue nuclear energy because of the nation’s large coal and gas reserves, although he said nuclear energy would help cut carbon pollution.
Mr Scarce, who has visited several countries on fact-finding missions this year, will begin 30 days of public hearings until December.
#NuclearCommissionSAust – An Aboriginal group slams its processes
monetary compensation via Native Title is not the solution – don’t insult us by simply hying to buy our consent and silence our concerns
SUBMISSION TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION.
FROM: ANGGUMATHANHA CAMP LAW MOB
Extract Why we are not satisfied with the way this Royal Commission has been conducted: Yaiinidlha Udnyu ngawarla wanggaanggu, wanhanga Yura Ngawarla wanggaanggu?
always in English, where’s the Yura Ngawarla (our first language)?
The issues of engagement are many. To date we have found the process of engagement used by
the Royal Conuuission to be very off putting as it’s been run in a real Udnyu (whitefella) way.
The lack of an intelpreter service means we are forced to try and engage using English (or rely on the goodwill of caring community members), and often this means we cannot be part of the engagement process. Even a Plain English summary of the four papers would have been helpful, and more opportunity for people to give oral submissions in their first language with a translator to interpret. We say that govemment and industry have a moral and ethical obligation to include us as citizens of Australia, and as Traditional Owners of our Country. We suspect that many other Australians would have benefited from a Plain English version of the papers and this was suggested by many people who went to the first lot of community meetings held by Kevin Scarce and his team. Not everyone has good English literacy.
Requiring a JP’s signature is a barrier to participation and suggests that ordinary people cannot
be trusted; not everyone has easy access to a JP, and the timeline puts pressure on people to do
this. We feel this is likely to intimidate people and discourage many from participating.We strongly recommend that the Royal Commission do more work on the following issues:
- Provide the public with better understanding of the health, cultural, and social impacts in other
countries of an expanding nuclear industry (including public anxiety, contaminated areas, effects 0n public health); - Provide adequate resources to enable all Australians to be part of an informed process – put
people before profit; - The lack of advertising, and very short notice on several occasions suggests that government and
industry and not serious about wanting to engage with public opinion and don’t value our input. - Many people think this suggests the proposal is ‘a done deal’ and that it will go ahead anyway.
- Timelines are short, information is hard to access, there is no interpreter service available, and
the meetings have been very poorly advertised. - Engagement opportunities need to be fair and equitable (readily available to all people) and the Native Title interest is no more important than the wider community.
- A closed and secretive approach makes engagement difficult for the average person on the street, and near impossible for Aboriginal people to participate.
- Government continue to use an assimilatory process; they ignore us by refusing to translate
information into our first language, and they make no effort to understand our views in our
languages as the First Australians. The lack of a well-thought out engagement strategy tells us that our views are not important, that government and industry will do what they want regardless of public wishes. - Develop a compensation package for the likely economic impacts from the negative associations of nuclear industry on local and regional economy – ego Loss of prices in crops, housing, land, as a result of contamination threats, accidents and breaches of EPA regulations;
- Develop actual measures to counter threats from terrorist organisations re: protection to avoid nuclear site attacks, and local capacity to deal with emergency situations;
- Tell the public what risk management plans need to be developed for communities impacted by transportation along the travel routes – for example, who will respond to a truck accident and are they equipped to deal with it; Informed awareness among communities that live along the designated travel routes so they can make decisions about their future.
- The nuclear industry must find ways to show respect for the rights of Traditional Owners who are concerned about or opposed to the nuclear industry – monetary compensation via Native Title is not the solution – don’t insult us by simply hying to buy our consent and silence our concerns;
Provide means for ongoing and independent monitoring of dangerous levels of airbome and water-based contaminants in groundwater, along transportation routes, after accidents, and among food sources used by Aboriginal people ego Nguri, urdlu and warratyi varlu, awi. We have a right to measure and monitor levels of radiation like other people do in countries such as the USA. We know from the Kakadu mine in NT that there is a major problem there with water management that is yet to be resolved.
Dr Arjun Makhijani explains why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are doomed to fail
PUBLIC HEARING, SA NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION DR ARJUN MAKHIJANI, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research ADELAIDE , THURSDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2015
Excerpt “…….the core idea of an SMR is that you have smaller reactors. Of course you lose the economies of scale, reactors are big because cost of materials goes according to surface area, and power production goes according to volume, and the larger the reactor the smaller the material needed per kilowatt.
That is the theory and that is why there were small reactors in the fifties, they were proposed and we went to bigger reactors because they were cheaper, all other things being equal. So you go back to smaller reactors, the underlying technology will tell you that the costs per kilowatt, in terms of materials and labour, the number of wells you need per kilowatt, the amount of steel you need per kilowatt will all go up.
The proposal is that all of these costs would be offset by assembly line manufacturing. So you won’t have to set it up on site. And in theory it is a fair idea to evaluate and you ask what is the size of the assembly line you need? And who is going to create this assembly line and the required supply chain, the vessels and the pumps and valves and all of it? So if you look at what the Department of Energy has said, what the industry itself has said is that you can’t – so you are really displacing the heavy capital cost upstream from the reactor sites……
so now instead of having a 10 billion dollar problem, you have got a 50 or a 100 million dollar problem because to .SA Nuclear 01.10.15 P-431 Spark and Cannon set up a supply chain for say 100 or 150 reactors a year, you need that scale of investment……
you need a supply chain investment that is about the same order of kind of an assembly line for airbuses or (indistinct) So it’s very, very huge. So who is 5 going to make all of these orders that will cause some private party to make that investment in the assembly line? With airbuses we know they get advance orders of hundreds of aircraft and they set up their assembly lines. The answer to that question is, no one other than governments…….
How you would handle such a system from a regulatory point of view is 15 mysterious to me because when you have assembly lines, as I note in my paper, you have recalls. Today we have got an 11 million car recall, one of the most reputable companies from perhaps the most technologically reputable country in the world, Germany. What are we going to do if we have 2,000 assembly line reactors that are found to have a fault through design? By design I mean 20 as not properly conceived, or through some cover up, like what happened with Volkswagen. How are we going to deal with it? Are we going to shut them down? Are we going to send them to the manufacturer? Are we going to – it’s unclear…..
the fine 25 print of small module reactors is much, much more complicated economically and in terms of the risks and investments, than their performance have led you to believe. That’s why they’re not – I mean I think – at least two of the four companies that are embarked on it, are already not pursuing it in the United States. Fallen apart before anything was built…. ” http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/mp/files/videos/files/151001-topic-4-day-2-transcript-full.v2.pdf
The pro nuclear front group Breakthrough Institute joins push for nuclear power in South Australia
The Breakthrough Institute (BI) was notorious for its attacks on Al Gore and climate scientists.It has a long history of trying to discredit renewable energy, in particular, attacking Germany’s Energiewende. More recently, BI has discovered climate change, as that is a useful tactic in their long-running promotion of new nuclear technology
the promoters of new nuclear reactors for South Australia certainly include idealistic and altruistic people, some of whom have bought the BI’s message.
Who wants to be a nuclear billionaire? Independent Australia, 1 Oct 15 Noel Wauchope navigates the complex web of ambiguity behind submissions to South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.. Some promoters of nuclear industry expansion have very altruistic motivations.
Just who are the people who want South Australia to be a nuclear industry hub? The submissions to the Royal Commission give some indications, though it is not easy to work this out……
The pro nuclear submissions on the whole, come from interested parties, where a commercial or career motive can be discerned: that is often clearly shown, but sometimes is not apparent. There are also some pro nuclear submissions that are quite cautious about promoting development, and a few who are inclined towards sitting on the fence.
Of the 94 pro nuclear submissions published, 46 come from companies or organisations connected with the nuclear industry. But who knows how many nuclear companies really did send in submissions, as theirs were allowed to not be published, due to ‘commercial in confidence’?
….most favoured topic, as with the organisations, was Issues Paper 3, “ELECTRICITY GENERATION”…
Their backgrounds? 20 of the [pro nuclear] 48 individuals are now, or were formerly, employed in a nuclear or nuclear-related company, government or university department.(1) In some cases they state this clearly, in other cases it is not apparent…..
Then there are the 2 career politicians, Sen Sean Edwards and MP Tom Kenyon, who have hitched their political future to the nuclear star.
Then there are nuclear publicists, who are not necessarily engineers or involved in the nuclear industry, but who have become well known for their pro nuclear articles or lobbying. There are only 4 listed names that could be described as pro nuclear publicists (2)
….the majority of the pro nuclear submissions enthuse about new nuclear reactors – “Generation IV” Small Modular Reactors” “Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors”.
When you add those individual submissions to the 46 from nuclear-related organisations, it looks as if the overwhelming support for new nuclear reactors comes from interested parties – nuclear related companies, or individuals connected to the industry, who seek profit or career advancement. Continue reading
#NuclearCommissionSAust paying lip service only to renewable energy as “low carbon’ option
South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission seems to be focused on electricity generation from low carbon sources, but is paying lip service only to renewable energy, Noel Wauchope 30 Sept 15 - Climate Change and Energy Policy
- National Electricity Market
- Geology and Hydrogeology of South Australia,
- Low Carbon Energy Generation Options,
- Estimating Costs and benefits of Nuclear Activities
- Environmental Impact: Lessons Learnt from Past SA Practices
- EXPLORATION EXTRACTION AND MILLING
- FURTHER PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURE
- ELECTRICITY GENERATION
- MANAGEMENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTES.
- Mr Donald Hoffman, President and CEO of EXCEL Services Corporation, which provides specialist advice and support services to nuclear facilities in the US and internationally. Mr Hoffman served as President of the American Nuclear Society from 2013-2014. He currently provides presentations on the benefits of nuclear science and technology to the US Congress and is chairing a committee to support all the US Governors on implementing the US Clean Energy Act and addressing the Climate Control Acts.
- Mr Andrew Stock, director of energy companies Horizon Oil Limited and Alinta Holdings, and past director of Silex Systems, Geodynamics, Transform Solar and Australia Pacific LNG
- Mr Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, President of the IEER and holds a Ph.D. in Engineering, specialising in nuclear fusion
- Dr Keung Koo Kim and Dr Kyun S. Zee, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute . The Institute (KAERI) has a history of over 50 years of research and development in nuclear energy. . Dr Kim is the Director of Advanced Reactor Development.
- Mr Thomas Marcille, of Holtec (US) Holtec International is an energy technology company with a focus on carbon-free power generation, specifically commercial nuclear and solar energy. Mr Marcille is Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at Holtec International and is involved in the development of Holtec’s small modular reactor, the SMR-160. He has provided nearly three decades of service in senior engineering positions in the nuclear industry in the US.
A while back, nuclear power was being touted as “renewable”. That was patently untrue, and the phrase went out of fashion as far as nuclear power was concerned. It seems that it has been replaced now by “low carbon”. The nuclear lobby still quite often condemns renewable energy as inadequate, as “not a base load source”, as too expensive, etc. However, nuclear promotion today is more sophisticated, and will include renewable energy, along with nuclear, as “part of the energy mix”. So “low carbon” is the preferred term for nuclear promotion, and it looks to me as if this is the way in which the Royal Commission is using that term, and paying only lip service to renewable energy. .New nuclear energy is an expensive fantasy – Dr Mark Diesendorf
The fantasy of cheap, safe nuclear energy http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2015/09/28/the-fantasy-of-cheap-safe-nuclear-energy/ Back in the 1970s and 80s, solar and wind energy were expensive and their supporters were criticised by the nuclear industry for dreaming of a renewable energy future.
Nowadays the situation is reversed. Several countries are well on their way to their targets of 80-100 per cent renewable electricity while global nuclear energy generation ceased growing nine years ago.
In northern Europe and the USA wind energy is about half the price of nuclear. In South America contracts to deliver electricity from big solar photovoltaic (PV) power stations are being signed at 8 US cents per kilowatt-hour, already less expensive than nuclear, and the price of solar PV is still declining. In many places, including mainland Australia, rooftop solar is much less expensive than retail electricity from the grid.
The current fantasy is that nuclear energy is cheap, safe, CO2-free and necessary, and that South Australia could make a profit storing the world’s nuclear wastes. All of these claims by enthusiasts for the nuclear fuel cycle, made in submissions to the current Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, are poorly based.
In theory, the geologically stable regions of South Australia could provide a location for storing high-level nuclear wastes. But as yet there are no permanent repositories operating anywhere in the world. It would be crazy for Australia to attempt build one when the USA has failed.
Apparently recognising this, South Australian Liberal Senator Sean Edwards has proposed an even greater fantasy: that South Australia could earn huge revenue from storing the world’s high-level wastes temporarily in dry casks. He claims that the revenue would be sufficient to fund a nuclear power station.
Unfortunately, this scheme fails under basic economics. Why would a nuclear power country pay the additional costs of shipping and storing high-level waste in Australia when it can store its own wastes temporarily in dry casks? Indeed, several nuclear power countries are already doing this.
Senator Edwards’ fantasy is that Australia could convert the long-lived component of the nuclear wastes into nuclear fuel in an Integral Fast Reactor. However, this technology is not commercially available. It has only ever existed as a pilot plant in the USA. Proposing that SA buy unproven technology at huge expense is a poor prescription for the economy.
Australia could not convert the contents of the dry casks to nuclear fuel. We would be stuck with managing them while they corrode and release their deadly contents. It’s far better to leave the source countries to handle the huge costs and risks of managing their nuclear wastes for 100,000 years or more.
Turning to nuclear power stations, both the Australian Energy Market Operator and our own research group at UNSW have shown independently that the National Electricity Market, which includes South Australia, could be operated reliably and affordably on 100 per cent renewable energy. The UNSW research uses only scaled-up commercially available renewable energy technologies. The results of the computer simulations, now spanning eight years of hourly data, are supported by practical experience in South Australia where at times renewable energy provides up to three-quarters of electricity.
Nuclear power is very inflexible in operation, unable to follow the variations in wind and solar PV output. It would be an inadequate partner for a SA electricity supply system that will soon be predominantly renewable. Instead, flexible peak-load plants are required: biofuelled gas turbines, concentrated solar power with thermal storage, and, in appropriate locations, pumped hydro.
Furthermore, under current market rules, wind and solar, with their tiny operating costs, would have priority in supplying base-load demand. Nuclear power would be displaced from operating as base-load power, just as coal is currently being displaced in SA. Then, nuclear energy would have even greater difficulties in repaying its already exorbitant capital costs.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Associate Professor in Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at UNSW. He gave evidence to a hearing of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission on 14 September.
Professor John Quiggin dismisses the CANDU nuclear reactor at the #NuclearCommissionSAust
SA NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS, WEDNESDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2015, Excerpts from the transcript
Prof Quiggan: “……..I think we’ll go back to carbon pricing and we’ll go down essentially a renewable (indistinct) perhaps already well-established industry. With popular acceptance – there’s obviously a little bit of objection to wind but broad 40 popular acceptance and essentially all we need is the price signal and some policy certainty and that’s the path we’ll take……..
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 