Nuclear Royal Commission back from overseas jaunt
Nuclear commission takes overseas experiences on board as SA considers uranium industry expansion, ABC News By Nicola Gage, 24 July 15, South Australia’s nuclear royal commissioner Kevin Scarce says he is “nowhere near” making a recommendation to government on the potential for an expanded industry in the state after a research trip to Asia, Europe, the United States and Canada…….The commission received 90 submissions from companies and individuals in its first round of public feedback, which has now closed…….[n.b second round of submissions closes on August 3rd]
Public hearings are expected to commence from September, with a final report due in May.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-24/sa-nuclear-commission-takes-overseas-experiences-on-board/6647018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6swqTljXeE
Points for #NuclearCommissionSAust Submission to Issues paper 2 – “Further Processing” – theme for this week
Submissions on this Issue are due by August 3rd. Check tips on submitting.
Questions.2.2 and 2.4. – (feasible for South Australia to make more radioactive substances? What will be future demand for conversion, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel processing?)
It would not be economically, socially or environmentally feasible for South Australia to further manufacture radioactive substances.
On economics, South Australia would be producing a product whose market is declining.
In Canada, Cameco’s failed laser uranium enrichment project added to its losses in 2014.(1).
“The nuclear industry is in decline: The 388 operating reactors are 50 fewer than the peak in 2002, while the total installed capacity peaked in 2010 at 367 GW before declining to the current level, which is comparable to levels last seen two decades ago.” (2)
Socially, people are becoming more aware of the hazards of uranium enrichment plants. Even in China – Jiangmen residents protested against proposed uranium processing plant (3)
Massive amounts of depleted uranium are created by uranium enrichment, causing social concern a social problem as well as an environmental problem.
Most of the byproducts (garbage) “from uranium enrichment (96%) is depleted uranium (DU)… There are vast quantities of depleted uranium in storage. The United States Department of Energy alone has 470,000 tons.[1] About 95% of depleted uranium is stored as uranium hexafluoride (UF6).” (4)
2.5. (South Australia to get involved in emerging nuclear technologies)
As to new and emerging technologies, it is becoming ever clearer that the untested technologies, such as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, will not be developed for very many years, during which time renewable energy technologies, including battery storage, are racing ahead. By the time the “Generation IV nuclear reactors are developed, (if they ever are), they will have no appeal in the 21st Century modern energy scene. Even now, their cost is astronomic, and they cannot attract investment. Their only hope is tax payer funding. No Generation IV nuclear reactor will be ready before 2050 (5) .
2.6 (What are the specific models for best practice in these activities?)
As to specific models – there is the failed Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX facility) at USA’s Savannah River site – an environmental and financial disaster (6)
2.11 (What are the security implications?)
From uranium enrichment, and further processing, danger arises not only from the depleted uranium waste produced, but also from the transport of enriched uranium, – the danger of accidents or of terrorist attacks:
“The transportation of UF6 is dangerous, both because of what it is – a hazardous chemical and radioactive substance; and what it is a part of – the production process of nuclear reactor fuel, nuclear bombs, and uranium ammunition. It is documented that a release of UF6 in a populated area could have catastrophic consequences. Cylinders used to transport UF6will result in quantities of uranium and hydrofluoric acid (HF) in the immediate vicinity far exceeding levels dangerous to health (both chemically and radiologically).
Despite the danger, the dominant belief within governments and the nuclear industry is that UF6 transport is safe. This belief, regrettably, is mainly based on two assumptions shown to be false. These assumptions are that UF6 does not present a significant radioactive hazard, and cylinders used to transport UF6 are built strong enough to survive accident conditions. It is noted, however, that deciding whether or not the transportation of UF6 is dangerous involves qualitative moral and ethical decisions as well as analysis of quantitative, technical data.” (7)
2.13. (How to estimate the financial benefit to South Australians?)
This question is a joke. Given the unfathomable costs and the disastrous history of U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) , it is ludicrous to expect any accurate assessment of the costs, let alone the very hypothetical benefits.(8)
2.14.(What impacts on other sectors of the economy?)
Whereas in the past, countries like France and USA were complacent about setting up nuclear industries, and not worried about the effects on clean industries – farming, vineyards, fisheries, those days are over.
“The increased exposure of contaminants to crops and livestock, and the natural environment and cumulative “food chain” events of unregulated agricultural products, have the potential for significant safety and health risks to consumers. Perhaps more importantly, the public perception of risk or danger from uranium may also result in serious negative repercussions for the marketability of agricultural products from the nearby regions” (9)
“A nuclear facility in Washington State’s prime wine country is leaching radioactive groundwater….the DOE report released last year that indicated trace amounts of the radioisotope tritium were found in wine samples collected”. (10)
Any nuclear facility – from uranium mining through to waste facility poses a real impediment to tourism, as well as to agriculture. In England, the Lake District is currently facing this threat – Tourism, Milk and Cheese or Nuclear? (11)
All uranium/nuclear activities bring the danger of radioactive leakage to groundwater, with impacts on all agricultural industries. (12_)
So far, I have considered only the effects on industries of the normal operations of advanced uranium and fuel fabrication processes. But what if there’s an accident? (13) Chernobyl and Fukushima give an illustration here, of what happens to farming and fishing industries.
Fukushima’s fish industry is yet to recover. (14) Chernobyl: “Agriculture was hardest hit, with 784 320 hectares taken from production. Timber production was halted in 694,200 hectares of forest. Remediation made “clean food” production possible in many areas but led to higher costs in the form of fertilizers, additives and special cultivation processes.
Even where farming is safe, the stigma associated with Chernobyl caused marketing problems and led to falling revenues, declining production and the closure of some facilities. Combined with disruptions due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, recession, and new market mechanisms, the region’s economy suffered, resulting in lower living standards, unemployment and increased poverty. All agricultural areas, whether affected by radiation or not, proved vulnerable”. (15)
- http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20141103/ARTICLES/141109942/-1/topic24?Title=Uranium-producer-Cameco-reports-a-third-quarter-loss-
- http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2014.html
- The Standard July 12, 2013
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
- http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo74.pdf
- http://io9.com/failed-nuclear-weapons-recycling-program-could-put-us-a-1586851270
- Some Problems And Hazards Associated With The Transportation Of Uranium Hexafluoride by Miles Goldstick
- http://ecowatch.com/2013/uranium-titan-tumbles/
- Maggy J. Lewis http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=wmelpr
- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/hanford-nuclear-site-could-be-threatening-washington-state-s-best-vineyards.html
- https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/tourism-milk-and-cheese-or-nuclear/
- . SLAC Scientists Search for New Ways to Deal with U.S. Uranium Ore Processing Legacy New Field Project Tests Link Between Organic Materials and Persistent Uranium Contamination http://www.newswise.com/articles/slac-scientists-search-for-new-ways-to-deal-with-u-s-uranium-ore-processing-legacy
- Possible Effects of Nuclear Radiation Accidents on Agriculture http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1439&context=utk_agbulletin?
- http://www.unisdr.org/archive/43503
- http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html
Inaccurate information in #NuclearCommissionSAust’s Issues Paper 1
the public are making submissions based on inaccurate information provided in the Issues Paper. The dismissive response of the Royal Commission undermines any confidence that the Issues Papers are accurate overviews of the nuclear industry.”
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS BASED ON MISINFORMATION:
ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE FAILS TO CORRECT FACTUAL ERROR IN ISSUES PAPER
Friends of the Earth Adelaide have recently informed the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle of a factual error in Issues Paper 1, concerning the regulation of Aboriginal Heritage matters in South Australia. Issues Paper 1, which deals with the exploration, extraction and milling of uranium, states that Aboriginal sites of significance are protected by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.
“The Royal Commission was informed in writing that this is not the case for BHP Billiton, South Australia’s biggest miner,” said Nectaria Calan of Friends of the Earth Adelaide. “Under the Indenture Act, which applies solely to BHP Billiton, the company’s Olympic Dam mine and some 15, 000 square kilometres of the surrounding Stuart Shelf are exempt from the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988. This exemption would carry through to any future expansion of uranium mining by BHP Billiton at Olympic Dam or in the surrounding area.”
In his recent response to Friends of the Earth Adelaide Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce insisted that in the event of an expansion of uranium mining Aboriginal Heritage matters would be regulated by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.
“This is simply not the law throughout the state,” said Ms Calan. “Friends of the Earth Adelaide have supplied the Royal Commission with referenced information regarding the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Act 2011, which amends the current Indenture Act to apply to any expansion formally announced by the company up until October 2016. If it was an honest mistake to begin with, it is negligent not to correct it.” Continue reading
Bjorn Lomborg’s Climate Consensus Centre for Flinders University?
The Abbott government has held talks with Flinders University about hosting a major policy centre in Adelaide based on the methodology of controversial Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg.
Education Minister Christopher Pyne has been searching for an institution willing to host the so-called Australia Consensus Centre, with $4 million in federal funds, since the University of Western Australia pulled out of its contract in May………
Dr Lomborg has attracted controversy for suggesting that the dangers of climate change have been overstated and that the world faces more pressing challenges, such as poverty.
A spokesman for Mr Pyne confirmed last night that talks with Flinders were at an early stage.
He said that the Adelaide-based university had recently approached the government about the establishment of the Copenhagen Consensus methodology in Australia.
A Flinders spokeswoman confirmed the approach and said the university was yet to make a decision……..
Flinders is led by vice-chancellor Colin Stirling, who took up the position in January. Professor Stirling was formerly the senior deputy vice-chancellor at Curtin University in Perth and a research fellow at the University of California, Berkeley.
The university’s chancellor — or chairman of the board — is leading Adelaide businessman Stephen Gerlach, a former chairman of oil company Santos……..
The federal opposition has questioned the political motivation of the $4 million government grant to set up the centre. It questioned how the centre was given the grant at a time when other universities were facing significant funding cuts.
In May, Professor Johnson said that many UWA academics had complained about Dr Lomborg’s integrity in the area of climate change research and were concerned that these alleged shortcomings might extend into other policy fields to be examined. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/flinders-university-in-talks-on-lomborg-plan-for-consensus-centre/story-e6frgcjx-1227454548253
Labor pro nuclear heavies will keep pushing to overturn Labor’s anti nuclear policy
Gary Gray, the ALP’s shadow resources minister, is very clear on the importance of the Royal 
Commission as very much connected to Federal nuclear policy — even though the Commission pretends that it is only about the State of South Australia.
Gray and the other nuclear enthusiasts will continue to push for pro-nuclear changes to policy.
Labor veers towards the nuclear option https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/labor-veers-towards-the-nuclear-option,7965 21 July 15 The SA Nuclear Royal Commission, the ALP’s postponement of its National Conference nuclear debate and the machinations of the Nuclear For Climate Declaration could herald Australia’s deeper involvement in the nuclear industry, writes Noel Wauchope.
1. July 24: Closing date for Stage One submissions to SA Royal Commission on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle… … on the subject of ‘Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Wastes’ (for South Australia) We can be confident that the global nuclear lobby will have put in wonderful submissions proposing South Australia to lead the world in inviting in nuclear wastes and setting up the (as yet non-existent) “Generation IV” nuclear reactors.
2. July 24: ALP’s National Conference begins in Melbourne There was a plan to hold a vigourous debate on reversing the party’s anti-nuclear policy. Australia is contractually bound to take back the very small amounts of wastes that originated from the Lucas Heights research nuclear reactor. That is being used as a “foot in the door” for expanding our uranium industry and taking back more radioactive wastes, plus getting the promised (geewhiz!) Gen IV reactors.
In a last ditch move to avoid a possible uproar about this, Labor’s pro-nuclear push has pulled back from this plan. For the moment only, one suspects.
3. Signing of the Nuclear For Climate Declaration This was done by Australia’s Rob Parker, President of the Australian Nuclear Association, in Paris. Continue reading
Do not let the Nuclear Industry ruin beautiful South Australia’s Tourist Industry
Wilderness and nature photographer Steve Parish rates South Australian landscape best in country 891 ABC Adelaide By Brett Williamson 22 July 15 Celebrating more than four decades as a freelance nature photographer, Steve Parish rates South Australia as the best place he has ever shot.
Mr Parish, who grew up in the eastern Adelaide suburbs of Norwood and Burnside, said he found his love of nature when exploring the local coastlines…….
After leaving the Navy at 29, Mr Parish joined the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Services as a wildlife photographer for five years before working freelance across the country.
“My favourite landscape is northern-central South Australia, [Kati Thanda] Lake Eyre up to Innamincka, that beautiful channel country, the Gibber Desert,” Mr Parish said.
“The most glorious light and aerial photography I have done in my whole life was around [Kati Thanda] Lake Eyre in 2010, the second time the lake filled.”
Mr Parish said South Australians were spoilt by the beautiful, natural light experienced across the state during winter as weather systems rolled across the state……..
“Instead of bland, empty skies that we tend to get more in the north in the different times of the year, you get that wonderful shafting, golden light,” he said.
“You have the wonderful granite coasts, Kangaroo Island, thethe Flinders Ranges– you get that wonderful light, and photography is very much connected to your emotions, feelings and the light that paints the scene.”……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-21/photographer-steve-parish-rates-south-australia-landscape-best/663423
Some points on #NuclearCommissionSAust Issues paper 3
Roger Sowell , Sowell’s Law Blog 22 July 15 .It is interesting indeed that the questions for Paper 3 did not specifically mention renewable energy as providing supply to the grid. It is perhaps not surprising, given the Commission’s charter to examine the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. However, questions 8, 12, 15, 16, and 17 have wording that is sufficiently broad that one could include renewable energy in the answer.
A more encompassing grid planning study would (and many do) include various forms of energy generation. The advantages and disadvantages of each form are assessed. An excellent example is from the California Energy Commission, at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF, Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation, published in 2010. However, even this study is confined to a comparison of costs, both initial and operating costs. Safety, impacts on the grid, fuel supply and price volatility, environmental impacts, and reliability are not included.
I would not anticipate the nuclear power industry being able to kill renewable energy, in fact, quite the opposite is very likely to occur. Most forms of renewable energy have a decreasing unit cost over time, most especially wind turbines over the past decade. Meanwhile, nuclear-based power has an increasing unit cost. The only examples I can find where nuclear power plants can be built for approximately $4,000 per kW are those countries where labor rates are still very cheap, such as China. But, labor costs increase over time so that small advantage will disappear. Finally, the grid-storage problem has been solved technically, with under-sea storage and hydroelectric power as described by MIT. As offshore wind-turbines decline in installed cost, and the under-sea storage costs also decline with experience, truly sustainable and inexhaustible clean power on demand will finally exist. The electricity may not be too cheap to meter (the big lie of nuclear power), but it will be relatively cheap and not subject to price increases due to fuel availability. http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com.au/
Nuclear Power Reactors large or small for South Australia Not Justifiable
South Australia Invites Comments on Nuclear Power, Sowells Law Blog,Roger Sowell, 21 july 15 Nuclear Power for South Australia Not Justifiable”………I have been invited to prepare and submit responses to the questions and issues posed in Paper 3 for Civilian nuclear power plants. There are 17 questions, shown below [on original] . I plan to formally submit detailed answers to most, if not all, the questions.
The short, summary answer to the over-arching question of Should South Australia build and operate nuclear power plants, is no. The basis for that conclusion is the facts and particulars of South Australia’s power grid both at present and the foreseeable future. The grid is small, with 5,000 MWe total installed capacity. The demand is low, with typical daily maximum 1,500 MWe although demand peaks on hot summer days at approximately 3,000 MWe. More importantly, minimum demand at night is approximately 700 MWe. Finally, South Australia has access to abundant coal and natural gas for fuel.
Given the small grid loads, and small minimum night demand, a nuclear power plant that is operated at baseload to provide maximum efficiency and minimum power price, must be a small size at perhaps 300 MWe. Small nuclear reactors suffer from reverse economy of scale and are very expensive for the amount of power produced. Conversely, a larger plant would achieve some economy of scale, but the plant must have its output reduced at night to ensure grid stability. A larger plant would be more costly to allow load changes, and the sales price for electricity produced must increase accordingly. (see Truth About Nuclear Power, part 2 for details — see link) The usual safety concerns also apply: operating upsets and radiation releases, evacuation plans, spent fuel storage or reprocessing, and sabotage and terrorist attacks, to name a few. http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com.au/
Don’t let the nuclear lobby shut you up! Submissions to Royal Commission due by 3rd August
If you’ve been thinking of making a submission, I hope that you have not been intimidated by the Royal Commissions Issues Papers – by either their ambiguous and confusing content, or by their complicated process for submitting. These submission procedures are set up to be easy for AREVA, EDF, Toshiba, Lavalin SNC, Terrestrial Energy, Bill gates’ Terra Power – or any other international nuclear company.
And – hard for the ordinary person.
However,
- you can send in a submission on paper, if the Internet process is not convenient for you.
- You don’t have to make comments on every question on the Issues Paper – just ones that you are interested in.
- You can add your own ideas, outside of their set questions, though the Commission wants them to be at the end, in an Appendix.
Issue Paper 2. FURTHER PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURE. Issue Paper 3. ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Your submission doesn’t have to be long. They want you to download and use a Cover Sheet
They want you to have your signature witnessed, and signed by a JP or a Commissioner for Affidavits. A member of the police force will do. In some States, pharmacists, teachers, and others will qualify. This is a hassle, but not that hard to do.
If you don’t want the hassle of scanning it all into the computer – to send via the internet, to submissions@nuclearrc.sa.gov.au, you can post it to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission GPO Box 11043 Adelaide SA 5001. You can even phone them, and arrange a verbal submission o8 8207 1480
More information at the Commission’s website
Labor Party nuclear enthusiasts will postpone their push until after the National ALP Conference
Nuclear power on the backburner as ALP awaits review THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 18, 2015 Rebecca Puddy and Michael Owen
A national push within Labor ranks to change decades of opposition to nuclear energy has been shelved while South Australia conducts a royal commission into the controversial power source.
Gary Gray, the federal opposition’s resources spokesman, told The Weekend 
Australian a move within the ALP to end the party’s opposition to nuclear energy was on hold until the royal commission reported to the Weatherill Labor government next May.
This means that delegates at the ALP national conference in Melbourne next weekend will move a motion unopposed for Labor to continue its prohibition of the “establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia”.
Nuclear lobby targets rural South Australia for an international radioactive trash dump
“Outback SA is a target for both International and National Nuclear Wastes”, Coober Pedy Regional Times, by David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St. Environment Campaigner 09 July 2015 The Abbott government are short listing sites in SA for a National Nuclear Store as Premier Weatherill’s Nuclear Royal Commission investigates High Level International Nuclear Waste Storage in Outback SA.
Outback South Australia is again a target for Nuclear waste dumping despite the law in our State since 2000 prohibiting the import, transport, storage and disposal of any wastes derived from Nuclear reactors. Liberal Premier John Olsen passed the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000″ to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia, and to protect the environment in which they live” by prohibiting a range of Nuclear wastes.
Political leadership by the Honourable John Olsen AO valued Outback SA more than the vested interests of Nuclear advocates who were trying to push Nuclear wastes on to our State. In the late 1990’s a company Pangea targeted both WA and SA for International Nuclear Wastes and Prime Minister John Howard targeted Arcoona Station for a National Nuclear Store for Spent Nuclear Fuel wastes from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney.
Today, both Prime Minister Tony Abbott and State Premier Jay Weatherill should respect and not seek to over-ride or over-turn long standing key legislation that protects the public interest in our State.
The Federal government are about to announce shortlisted sites in Outback SA and in WA for a National Nuclear Store for Spent Nuclear Fuel wastes from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney and a co-located National Repository to bury other radioactive wastes from across Australia.
The Lucas Heights reactor itself will be decommissioned and cut up and trucked across Australia to be dumped at this Repository site if it goes ahead in our State. Continue reading
Ill-considered, unconstructive and divisive Nuclear Royal Commission
To date, the Royal Commission has failed to credibly inform or engage the public on these key issues.
This International Nuclear waste agenda appears premised on interim but open ended storage as a pecuniary interest to irrevocably bring nuclear waste to SA without a capacity to dispose of it.
Further, this Commission is failing to address key nuclear waste siting issues and related transport routes and the question of which South Australian port is to be targeted to bring in nuclear wastes.
The Commission fails to address the fact that the north and west of SA is targeted for International Nuclear waste dumping and the country of traditional owners is at the forefront of this agenda.
Overview by David Noonan on the SA Premier’s Nuclear Royal Commission 05 July 2015
Dear Commissioner Kevin Scarce
Proposed Nuclear actions before this State Commission are National issues affecting the rights and interests of all Australians, are illegal actions under State and/or Federal law, and lack social license.
This overview presents over-arching reality tests and public interest questions for the Commission. Continue reading
South Australia’s Premier Jay Weatherill embraces nuclear lobby, in desperate bid to stay in power
Social Democracy and the nuclear fuel cycle Nick G. (I regret that I have lost the link to this article, and its source)
SA Premier Jay Weatherill’s Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle is a gift to the big mining and energy corporations.
It is also a sign of the desperation of a state Labor government facing growing state debt and the nation’s highest unemployment rate…….
Weatherill is typical of a Labor leader who identifies the immense problems besetting his state and who wants to be seen to be providing a solution so as to justify remaining in office. This is particularly so of Weatherill whose team failed to get a majority of the votes in the last election. The result was a hung parliament in which Labor had 23 seats, the Liberals 22 and with two independents, one of whom died shortly afterwards. The remaining independent went with Labor, the by-election for the now vacant seat of Fisher went to Labor by a handful of votes, and the government picked up one extra seat when the former Liberal leader Martin Hamilton-Smith defected and was given a Cabinet position. To say that there is no guarantee of a re-election next time around is an understatement.
Grasping at straws to “manage” capitalism
In the face of the collapse of the car industry in SA and the uncertainty around the shipbuilding and submarine contracts, Weatherill sought straws to grasp……..
Nuclear fool cycle
In between the Forrest Report and NPC address lies the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
Although previously an opponent of the nuclear fuel cycle and a strong supporter of renewable energy (SA leads the nation in energy generation from wind and solar which together account for 39% of the state’s electricity generation), Weatherill has been lured by the pro-nuclear lobby with the twin carrots of income from the storage of Australian and international nuclear wastes, and release from carbon dependency through the allegedly “clean” nuclear alternative.
It appears not to matter that a nuclear waste dump is illegal under SA laws introduced and strengthened by former Premiers Olsen (Liberal, in 2000) and Rann (Labor, in 2003), nor that nuclear reactors, uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing are illegal under Australian law and therefore outside SA’s jurisdiction.
What matters is that this Labor “Left faction” premier can paint himself as a business-, energy- and mining-friendly state premier prepared to rewrite policy on the nuclear fuel cycle via a supposedly independent and impartial Royal Commission.
Weatherill’s problem is that his choice of Royal Commissioner was derided from day one: Kevin Scarce is 
a retired Rear-Admiral and former State Governor, and current Chancellor of the University of Adelaide who in December 2014 suggested that South Australia consider developing nuclear industries to compensate for the downturn in manufacturing. He was addressing the SA Chamber of Mines and Energy at the time. When Scarce was appointed on February 9, 2015 to head the Royal Commission, he brazenly declared: “I come to this with no preconceived views”! ……..
(The author here failed to mention Kevin Scarce’s ownership of shares in uranium miner Rio Tinto)
Nuclear Royal Commission a promotional exercise for Nuclear Industry vested interests, targeting rural South Australia
BHP Billiton looked into uranium enrichment and so called ‘value adding’ and ‘fuel leasing’ and rejected these ideas, stating to the Federal government’s Switkowski Nuclear Review in 2006, that: “Enrichment has massive barriers to entry “ including access to technology and approvals under international protocols… We do not believe that conversion and enrichment would be commercially viable in Australia… Nor do we believe any government imposed requirement to lease fuel, as distinct from acquiring uranium would be acceptable to its major customers…
Community are being misled by claims these Nuclear actions are viable. The conduct of this Nuclear Commission risks a promotional exercise for Nuclear Industry vested interests and in effect targets Outback SA and custodian’s country for Nuclear waste dumping. This is an ill-considered and unconstructive Nuclear Commission into Nuclear actions that pose unique and unprecedented long term risks and present significant unacceptable impacts that run contrary to our public interest
“Outback SA is a target for both International and National Nuclear Wastes”by David Noonan B.Sc., Coober Pedy Regional Times, by David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St. Environment Campaigner 09 July 2015 “……..International Nuclear wastes were made illegal in WA (1999), SA (2000), NT (2004) and Qld (2007). The Parliament of Australia has prohibited nuclear power reactors, uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication, and Spent Nuclear Fuel reprocessing under multiple key legislative powers, in the: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 Section 10 Prohibition on certain nuclear installations; AND Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) Section 140A No approval for certain nuclear installations.
Nuclear actions are “Matters of National Environmental Significance” under the EPBC Act. The ALP and Australian Greens are committed to retain these Decision powers at the Federal level. Further, the ALP National Platform presents policy commitments for the 2016 Federal election: “Labor remains strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste in Australia that is sourced from overseas”.
International Nuclear wastes would involve a range of Federal powers and decisions that are outside of SA’s jurisdiction, including under the Customs Act, the EPBC Act, and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act.
To date, the Nuclear Commission that is supposed to be investigating risks and opportunities has itself failed to credibly inform or engage the public on key legal and public policy issues. Information Papers provide only passing reference to ‘prohibitions’ and meetings held at Universities and elsewhere fail to even mention the fact that our State laws prohibit an array of Nuclear wastes that the Nuclear Commission is considering.
The Premier’s Nuclear Commission is arguably an International Nuclear waste storage agenda. Continue reading
South Australian government says wind and solar power are sources of jobs
Wind and solar a source of jobs in SA http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/wind-and-solar-a-source-of-jobs-in-sa/story-fni0xqi4-1227439666671
JULY 13, 2015 THE South Australian government says a commonwealth ban on supporting solar and wind energy scheme will make it harder to create jobs.
THE commonwealth has directed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation not to back any further wind energy projects as well as rooftop solar schemes.
But South Australian Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis says wind energy is a source of immediate and future jobs and putting barriers in the way of investment will make it more difficult to cut SA’s unemployment rate, which climbed to 8.2 per cent in June.
“South Australians are told by the commonwealth government that we are not allowed to build cars, we’re told we are not allowed to build submarines, now we are being told we shouldn’t build wind farms when we have investors ready to spend their money and create jobs now,” he said.
Climate Change Minister Ian Hunter will meet his interstate counterparts this week and says they will call on the federal government to end its ideological opposition to renewable energy.
“The message being sent to renewable energy investors by our federal government is `look elsewhere – don’t spend your money in Australia and don’t create jobs here’,” he said.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 