Exposing Michels Warren and Nuclear Waste Dumping in South Australia
Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission WEEK 11 – MANAGEMENT, 
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE, Jim3 17 Sept 11115
Michels Warren is a PR company working for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. The company was involved in the Howard government’s failed 6-year attempt to impose a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia. A great deal of information is available about the role of Michels Warren in this controversy thanks to documents released under Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation.
A September 27, 2000 email written by Stephen Middleton from Michels Warren talked about the need 
to “soften up the community” and “sell” the repository: “We will lose ground once again unless we can soften up the community on the need for the repository and the reasons why SA has been identified as the best location. The prospect of the Minister announcing the preferred site before we can get to the community with something that explains what it all means makes my head spin. The wider research into issues such as Lucas Heights, uranium mining, the nuclear fuel cycle etc etc can be tackled as a separate issue. It should not hold up anything we are doing in terms of selling the repository to South Australians. The rest of the country probably doesn’t care less about the repository, but it is a big issue in SA. Further delays could be potentially disastrous.”
Why was a South Australian company willingly involving itself in the federal government’s nuclear dump plans? After all, Michels Warren itself acknowledges that the dump is an unwanted imposition on SA.
A 2003 Michels Warren document released under FoI legislation stated: “The National Repository could never be sold as “good news” to South Australians. There are few, if any, tangible benefits such as jobs, investment or improved infrastructure. Its merits to South Australians, at the most, are intangible and the range and complexity of issues make them difficult to communicate.”
So why was Michels Warren dumping on its home state? Money, of course. In total, Michels Warren was paid at least $487,000 to dump on SA … and possibly much more. Michels Warren staff were paid at rates up to $192.50 per hour for their work on the nuclear dump campaign.
An August 16, 2000 “high priority” email reveals that Caroline Perkins, a senior official in the 
Department of Industry, Science and Resources – at that time under the direction of Senator Nick Minchin – was asked to compile information on protesters. “[T[he minister wants a short biography of our main opponents in the Ivy campaign by about 11am our time (pre-rally)”, the email said. The rest of the email is blacked out under FoI provisions. The email refers to a Michels Warren employee – no doubt Michels Warren helped compile the biographies. Continue reading
Transport and storage of nuclear spent fuel is just too dangerous
Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission WEEK 11 – MANAGEMENT,
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE, dan 17 Sept 11115 Any risk assessment for the management of spent nuclear fuel should firstly consider the current management practice internationally. In considering the possible establishment of a new facility, it should firstly be accepted that transportation of spent nuclear fuel to any centralized facility presents risk which could be avoided entirely if waste is managed at or near its present locations.
In some cases, spent nuclear fuel is currently stored in closer proximity to human populations than desirable, so I can understand some host nations’ desire to export their spent nuclear fuel liability to a distant receiving country like Australia. I also acknowledge the position presented by Barry Brook and Ben Heard that future reprocessing technology may be able to separate uranium and plutonium from the spent fuel and produce electricity as a by-product of this process. The risk associated with this vision of the future is that such technology currently expressed in theory may never eventuate, and the spent nuclear fuel may thus prove to be an extremely long-lived management liability.
Risks which Australia should consider if considering the prospect of importing spent nuclear fuel include the possible appropriation of shipments by terrorist groups either in transit or after receipt. Similarly, a transport vessel may be attacked and join the number of sunken nuclear-fuelled submarines slowly corroding on the seabed around the world, destined to have unknown ecological impacts. As this Commission is no doubt aware, spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to obtain plutonium and uranium, both of which can be then repurposed as weapons material. This has serious implications for nuclear weapons proliferation risk.
Following receipt of spent nuclear fuel, the responsibility for protecting this material would presumably become Australia’s and would remain so for centuries (pending some technological breakthough in speculative technology). Should Australia enter war during the course of the life of the radioactivity contained in the stored spent fuel, or otherwise become a future terrorist target, any centralized repository of spent nuclear fuel represents a potential air-strike or bomb target.
If such an attack were to occur, storage vessels may be ruptured and release radioactive material to the atmosphere, essentially functioning as a ‘dirty bomb’. Wherever spent nuclear fuel is stored, it is my opinion that every measure should be made to protect it from air-strike or terrorist attack. The fallout from such an event would lead to the establishment of a new sacrifice zone, akin to those surrounding stricken Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants. Consequences for human health would take years to manifest and be demonstrably linked to such an event- meanwhile displaced persons would suffer anguish and may, as in the case of Fukushima, lead to people taking their own lives. Should such a facility be located in the South Australian outback, those most directly affected would likely be indigenous Australians, who would mourn the event as a colossal, cultural loss as their connection to country is severely damaged.
Obviously wartime or terror attack-proofing of spent fuel storage is not achieved in many locations where spent nuclear fuel is currently stored. I would assume that the quantity of these stores would be smaller than any proposed new facility, dedicated exclusively to the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Perhaps there is a case for improving management of spent nuclear fuel at or near existing storage.
Should a new facility be constructed, it should (in my opinion) be secure and underground, in a position where water infiltration is extremely unlikely. Examples of corrosion and water infiltration proving problematic for nuclear waste storage facilities include Orchid Island (Taiwan) and Yucca Mountain (USA).
When all is thoroughly considered, it might be concluded that the improvement and standardisation of current storage practise at or near locations where spent fuel is currently held provides an alternative pathway to proceed down if the objective of this exercise is risk minimisation.
Crisis of confidence in the process of #NuclearCommissionSAust
Submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, by Senator Scott Ludlam
Extract The Australian Greens have cautiously welcomed the idea of a Royal Commission to settle the issue of the nuclear industry in Australia once and for all.
For decades there have been the protagonists for and against the industry. There have been reports and case studies, public debates, political debates but nuclear power always comes up as unfeasible and hugely unpopular.
It is disappointing that this opportunity to examine the industry has been designed to exclude so many important issues and many voices on those issues. The process, independence and good fa ith of the Royal Commission has been damaged by narrow terms of reference, an unbalanced expert panel and consultation failures in remote and regional communities.
The terms of reference have been designed to exclude any review of the existing problems with uranium mining and waste management, the ongoing costs and liabilities from closed mines and processing facilities- costs that are left to the tax-payer.
The panel is in no way independent or balanced; it has been dominated by the nuclear industry and their advocates. We note complaints from Aboriginal communities in South Australia about the first round of ·engagement. Many people did not know about hearings or had limited warning about hearings. Others have not been given access to documents and or do not have access to the Internet, or do not speak English. We have had reports that hearings have been held in pubs at 11am – completely inappropriate for working people, and those who wouldn’t set foot in a pub.
There have been significant barriers put up for people in remote and regional communities. Inaccessible meetings and information, language barriers and the added constraint of getting submissions approved by a justice of the Peace all serve to exclude participation in the process. People in remote areas of SA have been most affected by South Australia’s involvement in the nuclear industry, and they are also the ones who are most likely to be affected by any future industrial nuclear activities. We are at a point where is a crisis of confidence in the process…..”
#NuclearCommissionSAust – a preliminary analysis of submissions
Companies and individuals who sent in submissions (as published so far at http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?search=Submissions)
- they bundle people’s submissions together under whatever heading (i.e Issues Paper number) they feel like.
- If separate submissions were sent in, as I did – sending 4 separate, they don’t necessarily all appear, or if they do appear, not under the heading they were intended for.
- While companeis and agencies like ANSTO are listed alphabetically, individuals are listed under their first name, not surname – alphabetically. (makes it hard to find e.g if you looked for Dr Diesendorf)
- It is difficult to work out how many individuals and organisations actually sent in submissions, as many people have put in several. My list below is just of those who sent in submissions, whether they sent in just one submission or several, I have counted each only once.
- Anti -nuclear total 75
- Pro nuclear total 66
- Pro nuclear – something to gain – business, career,and
- Anti nuclear – for the public good
Nuke power too expensive, too inflexible: energy expert
14 Sept 15 Leading energy expert Dr Mark Diesendorf will be in Adelaide today to give evidence before the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
“Nuclear power is simply not a practical option for South Australia. It’s hugely expensive compared to the alternatives and its inflexibility, like coal, makes it a poor partner for your state’s high proportion of renewable energy,” said Dr Diesendorf.
“My research shows that South Australia has a real opportunity to get to 100% renewable energy generation before any nuclear power plant could ever be built here,” he said.
The Conservation Council of SA commissioned Dr Diesendorf from the University of NSW to research whether SA could reach 100% renewable energy generation by 20301. His team found that it was feasible and affordable.
“Australia’s National Electricity Market could be operated reliably on 100% commercially available renewable energy technologies”, Dr Diesendorf said. “Such an ecologically sustainable, renewable energy system would be affordable and could create thousands of new jobs in manufacturing and installation.”
Distinguished economist Professor Ross Garnaut told the Royal Commission last week that nuclear power is unlikely to become economically viable in South Australia as the state’s “exceptional” renewable energy sources become cheaper.
Conservation SA chief Craig Wilkins said “As each day passes, the gap between the cost of renewables and the cost of nuclear power grows. Renewables are getting cheaper, while the cost of nuclear power – already massive – rises ever higher.
“Just last week, French nuclear giant Areva conceded that the cost estimate for a new reactor at Flamanville has reached a staggering $16.8 billion – three times the initial estimate.”2
“When we’re already a world leader in renewable power. nuclear power simply doesn’t make sense for our state,” he said.
1www.conservationsa.org.au/images/100_Renewables_for_SA_Report_-_Dr_Mark_Diesendorf_-_web_version.pdf
2 www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Flamanville-EPR-timetable-and-costs-revised-0309154.html
Media Contacts: Dr Mark Diesendorf, University of NSW: 0402 940 892 Craig Wilkins, Conservation SA: 0417 879 439
A Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust raises objections to its whole modus operandi
Submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Ally Fricker & Bob Lamb for ENuFF (Everyone for a Nuclear Free Future)
A few introductory objections about the RC:
* The 4 Issues Papers provided by the RC became available throughout the early part of May 2015, and the RC was still holding information meetings until the 3rd week of May, thereby, limiting the time available in which people could, reasonably, be expected to respond to the complexities of the nuclear fuel cycle
* The highly structured format required in which to respond including the unnecessary requirement for a statutory declaration
* The bias in the “objective” information provided followed by “questions to be answered”; indeed, the questions are so loaded that frequently they, in themselves, determine the answer – or hope to. We noted information only from industry and/or government sources. No authors critical of the industry were cited
* The timing of the federal government’s adverts calling for tenders for long-term disposal for Lucas Height’s waste concurrent to the commencement of the RC
* The likelihood that the mining lobby and other pro-nuclear interests had prior notice – a couple of high-profile conferences were held in Adelaide at the time of the announcement of the RC which gave first Tim Stone (March 12) and shortly after Barry Brook timely and extensive media opportunities to spruik their pro-nuclear arguments and
* The timing of Premier Jay Wetherill’s enthusiastic comments about opportunities for SA which could come from an expansion of the nuclear industry in SA in stark contrast to previous concerns expressed by him and former Premier Mike Rann.
For these and other reasons we consider that there is little likelihood that the RC will come to any conclusion that is not in the interests of the military/civilian nuclear industry in collaboration with SA and federal governments.
The history of this industry leads us to have zero trust in its statements, its modus operandi and its motivation in South Australia, at this time…… http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/09/ENUFF-30-07-2015.pdf
Ross Garnaut not up to date about uranium enrichment
Philip White 11 Sept 15, So Ross Garnaut says nukes are too expensive for Australia. We didn’t need a Royal Commission to tell us that. Just look at the fiasco of the way over budget, way behind schedule new nuclear plants being built in France, Finland, and the US, not to mention the exorbitant subsidies being offered for the planned new plant in the UK.Ross Garnaut tells Royal Commission of ever cheaper solar photovoltaic electricity
Nuclear power Royal Commission told renewables are main game for future energy needs. ABC Radio The world Today Nick Grimm reported this story on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 DAVID MARK: South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission has heard that uranium enrichment and nuclear energy could become an increasingly important part of Australia’s effort to reduce its carbon emission in response to climate change.
That’s the view of one of Australia’s leading authorities on the impact of climate change, the economist Professor Ross Garnaut. He was speaking on day one of the commission’s first public hearings.
But the Australian Conservation Foundation says the royal commission is focussing on the wrong area.
It’s arguing that rapid advances in renewable energy technologies is the main game when it comes to finding a sustainable solution to the world’s energy needs.
Nick Grimm reports..…….
The question of whether nuclear energy should be regarded as friend or fiend is the focus of a royal commission set up by the South Australian Government.
KEVIN SCARCE: Today’s the commission’s public sessions commence.
NICK GRIMM: It began its first public session today in Adelaide, led by royal commissioner Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, the former South Australian governor.
KEVIN SCARCE: Subsequent sessions will explore a range of other issues, including the threat posed by radiation to humans and the environment.
As he acknowledges he’s no climate scientist, but he was tasked by the former Labor federal government to write the 2008 Garnaut climate change review and its 2011 follow-up review, entitled ‘Australia and the Global Response to Climate Change’.As he told the royal commission, the need for Australia to reduce carbon emissions is an urgent one……..
NICK GRIMM: On the upside, Professor Garnaut says the cost of fossil fuel alternatives has fallen faster than he’d ever anticipated, boosting hopes that the world can be weaned off its reliance on coal, oil and gas.
ROSS GARNAUT: This is most spectacularly so in the case of photovoltaic solar; the last time I looked, the capital costs of photovoltaic panels had fallen 80 per cent.
NICK GRIMM: And Ross Garnaut says as wind and hydro-electric turbines become more efficient, he expects renewable will become ever-increasingly a more important part of the solution.
But he doesn’t dismiss a role for nuclear energy as part of the mix.
ROSS GARNAUT: You may actually see a larger role for Australia in other parts of the nuclear cycle, particularly uranium enrichment.
NICK GRIMM: For others though, nuclear is not the way to go……..
NICK GRIMM: And as far as the ACF is concerned, the nuclear fuel cycle royal commission is merely a costly exercise by the South Australian Government to justify the establishment of a nuclear waste dump inside the state, something past Labor governments there have firmly opposed.
DAVE SWEENEY: There’s four terms of reference, one’s on uranium, one’s on enrichment and reprocessing and one’s on nuclear power and one’s on radioactive waste.
Increasingly we’re seeing the commission and the discussion scoping down to hosting radioactive waste, because the other ones do not stack up economically and make no sense in the South Australian or Australian context. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4308966.htm
Questionable Integrity of #NuclearCommissionSAust scrutinised in 22 questions – Submission by Yurij Poetzl
Submission To The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Regarding Issues Papers 1 and 4 by Yurij Poetzl http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/09/Yuri-Poetzl-24-07-2015.pdf
I’m a private citizen and have no vested interest in the nuclear industry; however the nuclear industry does direct ly impact me, my family and my friends As a member of the public I wish to give evidence and express my concerns in regard to the issues being examined by the Royal Commission.It is valid to examine economics and risks relating to the nuclear industry; however is the Royal Commission a fair and objective examination of the Nuclear Cycle? It has been disclosed that Kevin Scarce Is a shareholder in the Rio Tinto Group,who own and operate uranium mines in Australia and internationally. ls this a conflict of interest for the Royal Commissioner? It is of great concern that the Royal Commissioner has selected predominantly pro-nuclear experts for the R.C’s Advisory Committee (the single exception being Professor lan Lowe). See Appendix 1.
It also seems remiss that there isn’t any health or medical professionals engaged in the R.C’s Expert Advisory Committee or Key Commission staff. It’s well documented that by-products of the nuclear industry can have adverse effects on the health of the global community for many future generations. The omission of health experts makes me question whether the R.C is truly considering what is in my and the general public’s best interest.
The Public Health Association of Australia have made their position clear in regard to the R.C and the Nuclear Industry, see http :1 /www .phaa. net. au/ documents/item/51 0 or http://www .phaa.net.au/documents/item/264 The Royal Commission could prove to be pivotal in South Australia’s future having significant and far reaching consequences, affecting many future generations; however, was the process leading toward the establishment the Royal Commission flawed?
The S.A. public (and wider global communit y) deserve a balanced and unbiased assessment of the issues raised Appendix 2. Contains questions regarding issues papers 1 and 4 Yours sincerely Yurij Poetzl
Appendix. 1 4 of the 5 Royal Commissions Expert Advisory Committee appear to be pro nuclear. They are Professor Barry Brook, Dr Timothy Stone, John Carlson AM and Dr Leanna Read. Below is a brief summary oftheir involvement in the nuclear industry Professor Barry Brook is an active advocate of the Nuclear Industry. The self described”Promethean Environmentalist” is openly critical of people who have concerns regarding the Industry. Professor Brook is the author of, or contributor to several pro nuclear publications such as; Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation, Australia’s nuclear options and, An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy. To name a few.
Dr Timothy Stone is an advocate for nuclear power generation and nuclear industrial expansion in Australia. In the UK Dr Stone has held the position of Expert Chair ofthe Office for Nuclear Development and he is currently on the board of Horizon Nuclear Power as non-executive Director John Carlson AM has been Director General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office. In part 6 of the introduction to Mr Carlson’s paper “Nuclear power for Australia”- an outline of the key issues he claims “Nuclear has a major advantage over other energy sources”. Later in the same document Mr Carlson states “Currently both major parties say that nuclear power is “offlimits”. While this is disappointing, at least it ensures neither side is making statements tlhat will later be embarrassing to retract” It is clear that Mr Carlson is pro nuclear providing the appropriate safeguards are met
Dr Leanna Read has publicly stated that she “has an open mind” regarding the Nuclear Industry. Dr Read is a Fellow of the Australian Academy ofTechnological Sciences and Engineering, which advocated for nuclear power in Australia in August 2014. This seems to contradict Dr Read’s claims of impartiality toward the nuclear industry Given the information in Appendix 1, can the Royal Commission be considered truly independent?
Appendix 2 Continue reading
Kevin Scarce sees “a long journey” ahead to get the nuclear fuel chain happening in South Australia
Our nuclear future needs national support: Scarce http://indaily.com.au/news/2015/09/07/our-nuclear-future-needs-national-support-scarce/ ADELAIDE | South Australia will not be able to increase its role in the nuclear fuel cycle without bipartisan support both locally and federally, according to the former governor overseeing a royal commission into the industry’s prospects.
Kevin Scarce’s inquiry will this week begin a series of public forums, with electricity network operators and the Australian Energy Regulator’s market analyst set to front the commission in coming days.
Senior executives from Electranet and the Australian Energy Market Operator will give evidence next week, along with Craig Oakeshott, the national regulator’s Wholesale Markets Director, as Scarce tries to paint a picture of the state’s future power needs and likely costs.
But he insists: “Really nothing can happen until we have bipartisan support both at state and federal level.”
“Because these projects have such long gestation periods, if there’s not certainty there’s very little likelihood of us moving forward,” Scarce told InDaily ahead of the first hearing, to be held on Wednesday at the Science Exchange in the Royal Institution of Australia building in Adelaide.
And he says even with political consensus, it would be at least 10 years before any construction work began. “The overseas experience says a decade, and that’s probably optimistic,” he said.
“Should we decide to go ahead, and should the (Weatherill) Government accept our recommendations, the first part is to engage the community in specific terms about what’s proposed to happen. That takes some time; it’s not going to happen overnight.”
Federal Labor has already baulked at the Weatherill Government’s nuclear inquiry, with Bill Shorten’s office re-stating the party’s “longstanding position (against) nuclear power based on the best available expert advice”.
The royal commission has awarded tenders to four firms – Ernst & Young, WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Jacobs Australia and Hatch – to model the business case for each of the inquiries terms of reference, which take in nuclear power generation, enrichment and waste management. “We need to model the costs of developing the infrastructure, because we do have a great disparity of views (in submissions) from roughly the same technical evidence,” Scarce said.
“What we’re doing with the public sessions is using the information we’ve got in the submissions, using our own examination both overseas and here in Australia and drawing out the major issues of contention to help us write our final report.”
The electricity market analysts will be asked to detail both current needs and capabilities, as well as forecasting future trends.
“We’ve asked them a series of questions about the market: what will the market look like? What assets in the market will continue to operate, and what will need to be replaced?” Scarce said.
“We need to understand from them where demand is going in future and what’s happening with supply… We’ve got ageing coal power plants – when do they need to be replaced? What’s going to happen in the world when they get together in December in Paris (for the United Nations Climate Change Conference)? All of those issues are long-term issues that fit into questions of whether nuclear power is an option for us in future.”
Scarce says however he adjudicates, his inquiry is at most the first step in a long journey.“I think a lot of people think this is the only engagement that’s going to happen – it’s not,” he said.“It’s the start of the process.”
Public hearings with #NuclearCommissionSAust
Nuclear commission in public hearings http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/09/03/36/nuclear-commission-in-public-hearings Economist Ross Garnaut will be the first witness to appear at public hearings for South Australia’s royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle.
Mr Garnaut will appear in Adelaide on Wednesday with his evidence to centre on climate change predictions and the opportunities that presents for future energy policy.
He will be followed by Anna Skarbek, from climate change research group Climate Works Australia, and University of Queensland economics professor John Quiggin, a member of the Climate Change Authority.
The royal commission is examining every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle from the mining of uranium to the use of nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste.
Commissioner Kevin Scarce will continue his public hearings until mid-December and then present his report to the state government next year.
Geoff Russell: Falls from solar rooftop a bigger danger than Fukushima?
Geoff Russell, Extract from Submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission “……The Royal Commission is uniquely placed to learn from the past, but it will need to deal with the drivers of nuclear fear in the community. To build confidence in the community, the Commission’s report will need to convince both sides of politics to speak with one voice about the misinformation that drove (and drives) the Fukushima evacuation.
Appeasement, in the form of more and more levels of safeguards and protocols to attempt to say that “it can’t happen here” isn’t the answer. There will always be accidents despite every effort to avoid them. Planes still crash, but people understand the relative risks and board them regardless of personal fear.
They understand that fear is their personal problem and not a function of the objective facts. So it’s time to put nuclear accidents into perspective and stop treating them as something fundamentally different.
The fear and irrationality at Fukushima saw people die to avoid a trivial risk. Governments are supposed to protect people from nutters, not act on their behalf.
All energy sources have risks and in a rational world they’d be compared according to proper measures of suffering and disability; the simple trigger sequence logic (“nuclear -> cancer -> end of civilisation”) of decades past shouldn’t be allowed to influence decision making in 2015.
In Australia in 2010-11 there were 7730 Worker’s45 Compensation claims for serious injury resulting from falls from a height. How many were associated with rooftop solar panels? As far as I can see, nobody is even counting, but a million solar rooftops means more people on ladders; many of them amateurs. This is real danger, the kind that can put you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life. A proper comparison of nuclear risks with those of other energy sources will measure and include such risks along with the considerable risks associated with not avoiding continued climate destabilisation because we acted too slowly. We need safe clean energy and climate scientists say we need it fast. The Royal Commission will need to break with past traditions and confront nuclear fear head on and call it for what it is.
City of Port Adelaide Enfield notes poor prospects for New Nuclear Technology
City of Port Adelaide Enfield Submission Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Extract. “…….Council notes the Issues Paper’s reference to the international research into the development of Generation IV Nuclear power generators. The research is aiming to design smaller capacity generators for potential use in regional areas or high energy demand sites, and with significantly less production of hazardous wastes.
As the Paper notes, however, this technology is still decades away – and is not supported by current markets and strong investment trends toward renewable energy, or recent major international policy commitments to move away from nuclear power generally.”
Adelaide Hills Climate Action Group unanimously opposes all nuclear industries
ADELAIDE HILLS CLIMATE ACTION GROUP -Submission Issues Paper 3 – Further processing and Manufacture
(Extract) The Adelaide Hills Climate Action Group reaffirms its commitment to eliminating the combustion of fossil fuels and our strong endorsement of clean, renewable energy systems.
The committee members of the Adelaide Hills Climate Action Group wish to record their unanimous opposition to all nuclear energy and nuclear weapons related industries – no uranium or thorium mining – no processing – no re-processing – no nuclear power stations – no high level nuclear waste dumps.
There are fundamental moral objections to imposing a burden of risk and the cost of perpetual maintenance, defence and surveillance of high level nuclear waste on to multiple future generations for geological time.
We acknowledge there is a valid role for a properly managed low level nuclear waste dump suitable for the safe long term storage of low level nuclear waste materials used for medical and research activities.
[ I was unable to copy the clear argument put here on the unfeasibility of siting nuclear facilities on the South Australian coast]
“……..There is no northern area suitable for the nuclear industry. Previous nuclear failures such as at Fukushima have demonstrated that when all systems break down, the fall back plan to deal with nuclear accidents is to cool and flush with water, despite this resulting in the spreading of pollution. In northern areas of South Australia, access to water is limited, even where this may be sourced from the Great Artesian Basin.
There is no agricultural region or southern area of South Australia suitable for nuclear power generation as no community would be prepared to tolerate nuclear power. Failures such as the Windscale fire, Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown that impacts on livestock and risk of picking up contamination result in the total shutdown of food and grown product industries in such regions with poor recovery prospects.
It is understood that approximately half of the electricity generated in South Australia is now coming from around $5 Billion of renewable energy investment made in the state since 2002. It is therefore reasonable to assume that further investment of another $5B would enable South Australia to produce towards 100% of its electricity from renewables for much of the time. Periods of shortfall would initially be made up by existing gas infrastructure and the interconnector (as they are now). However, increasing deployment of storage technologies and diversity in renewable sources will also significantly reduce the demand for gas and for electricity from other states.
Given that this is achievable at a cost that is below the cost of nuclear power, and that renewables do not have the inherent risks of contamination that nuclear technologies have, there is no financial place for nuclear power in South Australia.
The previous Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Review referred to nonreferenced industry estimates that ”suggest wind could meet up to 20 per cent of demand without undue disruption to the network” (Commonwealth of Australia 2006). However, an example observed in Renew Economy – South Australia hits 100% renewables – for a whole working day (Parkinson, 7 October 2014), shows that South Australia regularly has periods where wind electricity is generating more than 80% of the state’s electricity needs. Contrary to the UMPNER Report, the management of the grid copes with the very high levels of renewables, and the coal fired power plants are not required as there is ample gas generation to meet residual needs. As other storage technologies are deployed, the dependency on gas generation can reduce even further.
The Royal Commission should investigate what level of gas generation would be required to back up renewables in South Australia should there be a doubling of wind capacity plus 100 MW of large scale Concentrated Solar Thermal capacity. The option for localised storage of thermal energy at the CST power plant should also be considered…..”
Rosatom now selling uneconomic Honeymoon uranium project in South Australia
Rosatom sells Honeymoon uranium mine in South Australia, SMH September 1, 2015 Simon Evans Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy company Rosatom has finally lost patience with the Honeymoon uranium project in northern South Australia and is selling it off to an ASX-listed minnow called Boss Resources.
Honeymoon is one of the five Australian uranium mines in Australia, four of which are located in South Australia, but it has been in mothballs for the past two years because of the plunge in uranium prices which made it uneconomic to continue mining from the site.
The Honeymoon mine is located about 75 kilometres north west of the town of Broken Hill and has been through a series of changes in ownership, the last being a buyout of the Canadian firm Uranium One by the Russian state-owned nuclear company Rosatom. This gave Rosatom ownership of Honeymoon.
Boss Resources chairman Evan Cranston told Fairfax Media on Tuesday that one of the big attractions was the 2600 square kilometre tenement package which came with the project…….
The complex buyout by Boss involves several components including a $2.4 million cash payment, a $200,000 “site access” fee and several milestone payments into the future if the mine does go into production again. http://www.smh.com.au/business/rosatom-sells-honeymoon-uranium-mine-in-south-australia-20150901-gjci9k.html#ixzz3kWS1eIJQ
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 