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.
Concentrated Solar Power pre-feasibility study now being finalised at Port Augusta
The transition from fossil to renewable energy The Fifth Estate, Graham Davies, Engineers Australia | 13 July 2015“…………It is encouraging that Alinta, with financial support from ARENA and the SA Government, is currently finalising a pre-feasibility study into concentrated solar thermal power at Port Augusta – a project that has the full support of the community. At present the capex of CSP is too high for a company to meet what is required for shareholder returns, but costs will decrease as the technology develops further. If government were to contribute an amount equivalent to saved externalities (such as adverse health effects associated with continuing the coal power station) it is probable that the project would be economically viable now.
CSP is of particular value to a renewable grid, as it has the ability to efficiently store energy, be despatchable and provide synchronous generation and grid stability. These capabilities will circumvent the need for inflexible base load generators such as coal, CCGT and nuclear, with their many externalities. Port Augusta is an ideal location for CSP and presents a great opportunity for the future.
The closure of the Port Augusta Power Station may initially appear as bad news, but it may galvanise South Australia in becoming the iconic turning point for a new future – a future in which Australia again leads in solar development and export; where energy security is based on the sun and not the fossil reserves; where long-term thinking is built into economic analysis; and where prosperity is not measured by GDP but by net wealth and wellbeing.
Graham Davies is incoming chair of Engineers Australia’s Sustainable Engineering Society. http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/spinifex/the-transition-from-fossil-to-renewable-energy/75484
SCARCELY ACCURATE: NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION ‘ISSUES PAPER’ INACCURATE
Nectaria Calan, 13 July 15, Friends of the Earth have informed Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission of a significant inaccuracy in Issues Paper 1, regarding the current and future legal framework for the nuclear industry in South Australia. According to the Royal Commission, the Issues Papers are intended to provide factual information and background to assist the public in making submissions.
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.
“This is not the case for BHP Billiton, South Australia’s biggest miner,” explained 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 also apply to any future expansion of uranium mining by BHP Billiton at Olympic Dam or in the surrounding area.”
“This inaccuracy is significant as it misrepresents existing regulatory and legal arrangements and potential arrangements in the future, issues on which the Issue Paper invites public comment,” said Ms Calan. “The largest of the two operating uranium mines in the state is exempt from the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, alongside a further 15, 000 square kilometres of South Australia. BHP Billiton is also the most likely candidate for the expansion of uranium mining, also the subject of Issues Paper 1. It is negligent to omit that this company is subject to a different legal framework than other companies operating in the state.”
“We have requested that the Royal Commission address this mistake, adequately publicise the required corrections, and extend the upcoming deadline for submissions to allow people to consider the new information that the Royal Commission should provide. The public cannot make submissions based on inaccurate information.”
N.B. Legal details are provided as an appendix.
For comment contact: Nectaria Calan 0432 388 665 Friends of the Earth Adelaide
Appendix
Legal details: Continue reading
Submission Points to Issues Paper 4 – Nuclear Royal Commission
Submissions Issues Paper 4 (Storage and Disposal of Waste) are due by 24 July, 2015
4.1 Are the physical conditions in South Australia, including its geology, suitable for the establishment and operation of facilities to store or dispose of intermediate or high level waste either temporarily or permanently?
Earthquake hazard: For either temporary or permanent storage of radioactive wastes, South Australia poses great risks. While the whole State has a small earthquake hazard zone, there are large sections which have an increased earthquake hazard. Particularly in the South of the State (1)
Risk to precious artesian water. While the South of the State has earthquake risks, almost the entire of the rest of the State covers the Great Artesian Basin. (2)
Effectively, this means there is almost no part of South Australia that could safely store radioactive trash for decades, let alone for thousands of years.
- 3 What would the (overseas) holders of radioactive wastes be willing to pay for disposal and storage of radioactive wastes in South Australia?
This question really has no answer. At present every country with nuclear facilities is struggling with the unanswered question of what do do with their radioactive trash. Even Finland, which has built a 500 metre deep burial place, will not have enough space for their accumulating radioactive trash. So far, there is no room for Fennovoima’s waste in the Onkalo repository in Olkiluoto. (3)
At this stage there are no proposals for exporting nuclear waste. Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce, in his recent report on the Commission’s overseas visit, said “We haven’t done the financial study”. When anyone does do the financial study, they will need to factor in the financial costs of insurance, of security for hundreds, thousands, of years, as well as of environmental degradation.
Another factor would be the comparison of the commercial value of renewable energy not pursued, tourist and agricultural opportunities lost as government money went into fostering nuclear schemes rather than South Australia’s more positive activities.
4.4 What sorts of mechanisms would need to be established to fund the costs associated with the future storage or disposal of either Australian or international nuclear or radioactive wastes?
A mechanism has been put forward by Oscar Archer. (4) In Archer’s words “it goes like this. Australia establishes the world’s first multinational repository for used fuel – what’s often called nuclear waste” he wants the funding to be provided by “our international partners”, on condition that “This is established on the ironclad commitment [my emphasis] to develop a fleet of integral fast reactors to demonstrate the recycling of the used nuclear fuel” This would be a highly unsatisfactory arrangement. As the nuclear industry now struggles to fund these as yet not developed Generation IV reactors – South Australia would find itself locked in – in a sort of blackmail position, to buying a technology that very likely has no future.
4.5 What are the specific models and case studies that demonstrate the best practice for the establishment, operation and regulation of facilities for the storage or disposal of nuclear or radioactive waste?
The massively expensive 500 metre deep bunker being developed in Finland is so far the only facility that has appears to have relative safety, but that can accomodate only some of Finland’s radioactive trash . Meanwhile in USA, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant has been as disaster. (5)
4.6 What are the security implications created by the storage or disposal of intermediate or high level waste at a purpose-built facility?
In the short term (i.e a period of decades) the above ground concrete containers are vulnerable to terrorist attack. In the long term , i.e. thousands of years, deep waste reposiitories run risk of climate and seismic events, as well as possible terrorism. They need to to be guarded virtually forever, or else, as they are forgotten, pose risks to future generations.
4.9 Bearing in mind the measures that would need to be taken in design and siting, what environmental risks would the establishment of such facilities present?
Climate change continues to increase risks of extreme weather events, and it is possible that seismic activity, already a risk, would increase.
4.10 What are the risks associated with transportation of nuclear or radioactive wastes for storage or disposal in South Australia?
Extreme weather, transport accidents that would spread ionising radiation , terrorist attack.
4.12 Would the establishment and operation of such facilities give rise to impacts on other sectors of the economy?
In the past, countries like France accepted the risks of nuclear power, and their other industries thrived. Now, even in France, there is concern about polluting industries. For some time after the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe, the French wine industry was severely depressed., because the wine growing regions were squarely in the path of the ionising radiation fallout. (6) There is concern in Washington State about the impact of Hanford nuclear waste facility on the wine industry. (7)
(1) https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/17168/Earthquake_hazard_zones_SA.pdf
(2) http://www.environment.gov.au/water/environment/great-artesian-basin
(3) http://yle.fi/uutiset/battle_for_nuclear_waste_disposal_site/5097360
(4) http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem/pgJrGaLDL7.
(5) 1 6 June 2014, ‘Fire and leaks at the world’s only deep geological waste repository’, Nuclear Monitor #787,www.wiseinternational.org/node/4245 222 27 Nov 2014, ‘New Mexico nuclear waste accident a ‘horrific comedy of errors’ that exposes deeper problems’, The Ecologist,
(6) http://wineeconomist.com/2008/01/26/the-science-of-unintended-consequences/
(7) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/hanford-nuclear-site-could-be-threatening-washington-state-s-best-vineyards.html
radophilia = the irrational love of radioactive poisons that harm children.
Brett Stokes, 10 July 15 Kevin Scarce is challenged over the “fuel cycle” deceptive language and Scarce responds with a straight face, academy award stuff – I could not help coughing, something caught in my throat.
Scarce was challenged by an audience member at Flinders Uni in May 2015, regarding the diagram showing reprocessing as though that part of “the nuclear fuel cycle” was fully happening
Scarce’s response was a bold denial of the obvious, saying “we’re not trying to make it sound better than it is. We’re not trying to gild the lily” at 1:15:40 to 1:15:46 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2rexEyELig&feature=youtu.be
South Australia’s Just About Impossible Submission Process For Nuclear Royal Commission
Submission Impossible: SA Royal Commission into nuclear fuel cycle, Independent Australia, 10 July 2015, The SA Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle is calling for submissions but the mechanics involved have made it Submission Impossible, writes Noel Wauchope.
THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN Labor government has ordered a Royal Commission, to inquire into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: ‘Investigating opportunities and risks for South Australia’. This fast moving Royal Commission will receive submissions on this topic
All sounds good, doesn’t it? And who is supposed to send these submissions in? Well, any person or organisation in South Australia. As the Royal Commission (RC) has received little or no publicity outside South Australia, then it is likely that submissions will not be appreciated nor forthcoming from the other States.
However, the RC has invited nuclear technology companies from overseas, to put in submissions.
The RC has published four Issues Papers, with points for discussion. I could digress here, into the wording of these points, which are very much geared to receive input from nuclear companies. But my interest here is not so much in the content of submissions, but rather in the mechanics of actually writing, and sending in a submission. Submissions are due by 24 the July (for two Issues Paper topics) and by 3rd August (for the other two)
This is what is required:
- First, go to the RC’s website, Click on ISSUES PAPERS, and read the papers for each Issue………
Well, I’m thinking that the mechanics of this exercise pretty well trumps the content.
Imagine the scene … scenario 1:
You’re an executive of the French nuclear company AREVA, or of the Canadian nuclear company,SNC-Lavalin. (AREVA is in desperate financial straits and SNC-Lavalin in strife for corrupt practices). See report in the Financial Times 4 June 2015 ‘AREVA loses its reactor heart to EDF under French state plan’. Both companies are absolutely dependent on selling their nuclear technology overseas.
You have access to highly paid top lawyers, nuclear lobbyists and strategists, and access to top electronic equipment and computer skills. Indeed, this sort of thing is their job, and the company is well pleased to give them time to do this submission very thoroughly.
Submissions from a nuclear company do not need to be published. The Royal Commission deems that they can be kept private.
Imagine the scene … scenario 2:
You’re an ordinary citizen of South Australia, perhaps living in a rural area. Do you have access to the Internet, for a start? Well, you could make the effort, using a town library’s facilities. Then there’s the printing off of the ISSUES PAPERS, with those required question points. Then there’s the typing and printing of your Submission …. the JP …. the scanning … the PDF …. and so on. Your Submission will be published on the Internet, with your name.
What if you’re an Aboriginal, and your command of English is not great? No problem. The RC will send an officer to guide you. Mmmm … is there a problem in this?
I haven’t even touched on the content. I wonder … do I really need to?
Most of the questions appear to me to be squarely aimed at the nuclear companies…….. Some people have criticised the plentiful graphs and diagrams in the Issues Papers as sometimes inappropriate. I don’t know. It hardly matters. Many ordinary people, who are worried about the prospect of the entire nuclear fuel chain being established in South Australia will be sufficiently intimidated by the whole process anyway — never mind the graphs, or even the written content.
Perhaps that was the Royal Commission’s intention? https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/submission-impossible-sa-royal-commission-into-nuclear-fuel-cycle,7917
Is #NuclearCommissionSAust ignorant, or conflict of interest, as it goes to America?
Kevin Scarce sometimes scarce on nuclear reality, Online opinion, Noel Wauchope, 7 July 15 “……..The Royal Commission next goes to USA and Canada for 8 days, from July 9th. They’re particularly interested in the Small Modular Reactor idea. I hope that they’re aware that Westinghouse abandoned their Small Modular Reactor project, and that Babcock and Wilcox pulled back from this – unable to get any contracts or investors.
What I’m worried about, is that the Commission will end up recommending the plan explained recently by Oscar Archer, on ABC Radio National – that South Australia make an “ironclad commitment [my emphasis] to develop a fleet of integral fast reactors to demonstrate the recycling of the used nuclear fuel”
As for the Commission visiting Canada, Kevin Scarce enthused about the similarity between Canada and Australia. Really? What about the difference in climate, in the amount of sunshine, that surely makes Australia ideal for solar power?
Worst of all, as Scarce enthused about Canada’s “very productive nuclear industry” I wondered if the Commission is aware that the World Bank has Canada at the very top of its Corrupt Companies Blacklist, and that this dubious honour is due entirely to its nuclear industry. In particular SNC Lavalin is the culprit – the very company that is trying to sell thorium reactors overseas.
I would like to think that South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Commission is both well informed and impartial. I really would. But, listening to Kevin Scarce, I am not reassured. Nor is it reassuring to read the background nuclear industry links of Scarce and his research team. Kevin Scarce is a shareholder in Rio Tinto Group – the owner and operator of Ranger and Rossing uranium mines in Australia and Namibia. His prominent team leader is Greg Ward – Ward is also the director of two companies:Prism Defence (for which he is also CEO) and Protegic. The latter is a project management service provider with clients including the Rio Tinto Group, BHP Billiton and Endeavour Energy. Four of the five members of the research team named on the NFCRC website have known prior or current associations with nuclear industrial entities. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17489
Aboriginal elder Kevin Buzzacott speaks at strong anti nuclear protest in Adelaide
Nuclear dump would destroy our land: elder http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/07/09/15/23/elders-students-protest-sa-nuclear-dump Aboriginal elders from across the country have joined scores of university students camping out in a stand against the storing of nuclear waste in Australia.
Protesters from far and wide have set up a tent community at Flinders University in Adelaide in protest against plans for a nuclear waste dump, in South Australia or anywhere else.
“To the South Australian government, to the federal government, to the mining giants – don’t worry about trying to put the waste dump here,” Arabunna elder Kevin Buzzacott said on Thursday.
It also coincides with South Australia’s royal commission into nuclear power, which is looking at whether the state should expand its involvement in the nuclear industry.
At least one SA Liberal senator says it should, with Sean Edwards recently urging the state to cash in by becoming a global player in the spent nuclear fuel recycling industry.
But Mr Buzzacott said a storage facility would destroy the sacred land of the country’s traditional owners. “We’ve lost a lot of sacred sites as it is,” he said. “We don’t want to lose any more. “We’ve been here 40,000 years. We’ve never touched the land – we love the land.”
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
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
