A French Farce indeed – South Australia’s Nuclear Royal Commission in Paris – talking to AREVA
It would be funny if it were not so serious. Australians hear little about this secretive Royal Commission. But France’s failed nuclear giant AREVA was invited to put in a submission to the Commission.
The SA Royal Commissioner and some support staff will be in Paris this weekend – at the end of a week that saw the French government confirm that they will take apart the nuclear ‘global leader’ AREVA and give some failed pieces to EDF, which subsequently fell by over 6% on the stock market – let’s hope they read the papers.
“Normalising” radioactive trash – Maralinga as tourist attraction
The indigenous people who used to wander these lands called the radioactive plume the “puyu,” or black mist, and still are reluctant to visit despite having fought hard for the land to be returned.
“They deem it as a bad place, what they call ‘mamu,’ like a devil country,” says Mr. Matthews, whose wife is indigenous to the area…….
Australia’s Newest Tourist Attraction: Nuclear Test Zone At Maralinga, Australia, visitors are given an unusual welcome: Don’t stay too long and never, ever dig. WSJ, By
Maralinga, a deserted former military base in the Outback, has become ground zero for an unusual type of vacation Down Under. In a country best known for its white beaches and coral reefs, Mr. Matthews wants vacationers to wish they were here: on land once used for nuclear-weapons explosions.
Nearly 2,000 warning signs ring the red soil around Maralinga, displaying a Ghostbuster-style graphic prohibiting camping ……
The stark beauty of the hills here, on the edge of the vast Nullarbor Plain where the sun sinks in the same ocher color of the desert, belies its notorious past. Continue reading
South Australia the renewable energy leader- and now with battery storage!
Plans for Australia’s first non-hydro renewable storage project move forward http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/plans-for-australias-first-non-hydro-renewable-storage-project-move-forward-52911 By Giles Parkinson on 4 June 2015 The potential site for what will be the first large-scale, non-hydro storage project for renewable energy in Australia has identified three possible sites in South Australia, and received more than 40 different storage proposals and ideas. The project – known as Energy Storage for Commercial Renewable Integration South Australia (ESCRI-SA) – is a ground breaking project for Australia because it will be first and biggest of its type.
South Australia has already reached 40 per cent generation from variable renewable energy sources such as wind (33 per cent) and solar (7 per cent). It is one of the highest penetrations of variable renewables in modern industrial economies.
Up to now, that share of wind and solar has been relatively easily accommodated, but as this share grow, battery storage will be required as yet more coal-fired generators are retired, and even the need for gas plant diminishes.
The storage will be needed to soak up excess generation (such as wind at night-time or solar during the day) to be stored for use at peak time. It will also be used to provide ancillary services such as frequency – a critical component of the grid. In Germany, battery storage is being used for the same purpose.
Paul Ebert, from Worley Parsons who is leading the project lead funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and with support from AGL Energy, and transmission group ElectraNet says the storage is likely to be located in one of three locations – near Port Lincoln on the Eyre Peninsula, near the Monash sub station on the Yorke Peninsula, or the Dalrymple sub-station in the river land area of the state. Continue reading
The Nuclear Fuel Chain Cost Calculator
John Mecklin: Introducing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Calculator http://thebulletin.org/introducing-nuclear-fuel-cycle-cost-calculator8361
… Over the last two years, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the University of Chicago have created an online tool that will help countries understand the true cost of choosing the reprocessing route—and perhaps also help limit the spread of nuclear reprocessing.
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Calculator estimates the full cost of electricity produced by three configurations of the nuclear fuel cycle. This calculator is the first generally accessible model to provide a nuanced look at the economic costs of nuclear power, particularly in regard to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Among many other things, the calculator clearly demonstrates that in most cases, reprocessing results in electricity that is considerably more expensive than other nuclear power, when all costs are added in.
Dr Helen Caldicott dissects the propaganda for South Australia’s Nuclear Chain Royal Commission
This article was posted on Saturday 30 May. I have “upped” it to the top of this page, because it is the clearest and most comprehensive discussion of the very fraught South Australian nuclear fuel chain plan.
Clearly this whole disastrous process is financially beyond the reach of little South Australia. However
Premier Jay Weatherill has been persuaded to establish a flawed royal commission to assess the viability of incorporating the entire nuclear fuel chain in the state.
this is a carcinogenic industry that must be halted immediately in the name of public health. The people advocating a nuclear South Australia have no comprehension of genetics, radiation biology, oncology and medicine. Or they are willing to ignore the risks.
SA’s short-sighted view of uranium and nuclear options https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2015/05/30/sas-short-sighted-view-uranium-and-nuclear-options/14329080001942#.VWjSBtKqpHw Something quite extraordinary is happening in South Australia, the state that initiated the national movement against French atmospheric nuclear tests in 1971-72, and where the movement against uranium mining began in 1975, which ultimately led to a five-year ban by the ACTU on the mining, transport and export of uranium. Forty years later, it is the ultimate irony that the French nuclear industry is interested in becoming involved in South Australian uranium enrichment and nuclear reactors.
In 2010, the University College London (UCL) established its School of Energy and Resources, Australia, in Adelaide. The school partnered with pro-nuclear and pro-shale gas corporations, including BHP Billiton and Santos. On the surface this may seem harmless enough, but the school and its well-connected backers has had a profound impact on the nuclear debate in South Australia, particularly as the state begins a royal commission into “opportunities and risks” in the “nuclear fuel cycle”.
Professor Stefaan Simons, who is the director of the International Energy Policy Institute and UCL’s 
BHP Billiton chairman of energy policy, has been strongly promoting construction of nuclear powered submarines in South Australia, as well as a repository in the state for radioactive “waste streams”. Dr Tim Stone, a businessman and visiting professor to the UCL’s Adelaide campus, was expert chair of the British Office for Nuclear Development and sits on the board of British energy company Horizon Nuclear Power. James Voss, the former managing director of Pangea Resources, the company that originally proposed a nuclear waste dump in Australia in the late 1990s, is also part of the UCL fold, as honorary reader at the International Energy Policy Institute.
Outside of UCL, support has come from the likes of Professor Barry Brook, former professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide, and now professor and chair of environmental sustainability at the University of Tasmania. Brook has vigorously promoted the whole nuclear fuel chain, from uranium mining and enrichment to reactors and storage of radioactive waste in the desert of South Australia. He and Tim Stone have been appointed to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s Expert Advisory Committee.
The arguments put for nuclear power are many and specious. As South Australia continues to be seduced by them, it is worth pointing out the flaws that too often go uncorrected. Continue reading
Call to allow clear participation for Royal Commission submissions – Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Congress
The motion below was passed at Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Congress yesterday. It was moved by the CEPU (Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union) and seconded by Unions SA.
Nuclear Fuel Cell Cycle With regards to the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cell Cycle currently underway in South Australia, Congress notes with alarm the Commission has decided to require that all public submissions to be typed and sworn under oath in front of a Justice of the Peace before they will be accepted.
Requiring members of the public to take the time and resources to type and swear an oath before they can lodge a submission is an unnecessary and surprising restriction that will serve as a huge barrier to participating in what is supposed to be an open, public, inclusive and democratic process.
To be required to type a submission then swear an oath just to have your say is simply not necessary, and will have a disproportionately large effect on regional and remote communities, a majority of which are Indigenous. Additionally, in many remote communities English is not a first language, so along with the typed and sworn oath requirements means that many Indigenous voices will not be heard in the Royal Commission
The requirements means that if you live in a community that does not have a Justice of the Peace or other authorised witness, you would need to drive (assuming access to car or transport) up to an hour or more to the nearest community that does.
This runs contrary to the spirit of having an open public inquiry and is particularly unacceptable given that it is indigenous communities that will be most impacted should the Commission make recommendations for the establishment of a nuclear waste facility because they will have the facility placed on their land.
Congress calls on the Royal Commission to:
1- Restore and encourage the broadest possible public participation by removing the requirement for public submissions to be sworn under oath.
2- Accept oral and written submissions from members of the public.
3- Ensure that any activities in regional and remote indigenous communities are done in a culturally appropriate manner, including the provision of interpretation services at public meetings and ensuring that written materials are available in local languages.
Examining the nuclear lobby’s hype about “planned construction of reactors
If we had a list of renewable projects that were planned and under construction, it would look like the renewable sector was 1000 per cent of what it actually is. That’s because there are a lot of planned wind farms and even more solar farms.
In fact in interviews of Australian households beyond the 10 per cent who already have solar on their roof (25 per cent in South Australia), more than 75 per cent have a plan to get solar on their roof at some point in time. A similar number believe or are “planning” to get batteries to deliver their solar power as a cheaper alternative to the grid at night.
So if we put all the planned nuclear reactors that never get built against all the planned solar installs and wind installs around Australia and the rest of the world, the nuclear proposals would be so dwarfed to be completely irrelevant.
If you’re hearing another one of these countless stories such as those being hawked at the pro-nuclear “Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission” being held in South Australia, just remember there are people who want their uranium penny stocks to take them from rags to riches or riches to even more riches that are creating most of the hype.
In the west, a second generation nuclear reactor is unacceptable and no third generation reactors have ever successfully been built.
What if we all adopted the nuclear industry’s interpretation of a ‘planned’ project?MATTHEW WRIGHT , HTTP://WWW.BUSINESSSPECTATOR.COM.AU/ARTICLE/2015/5/27/RENEWABLE-ENERGY/WHAT-IF-WE-ALL-ADOPTED-NUCLEAR-INDUSTRYS-INTERPRETATION-PLANNEDIf you search the definitive list of reactors on Wikipedia, you’ll find that reactors are being decommissioned globally at a rate of knots, and many more are set to be decommissioned in the not too distant future. This includes the entire fleet in Germany and a significant portion but unspecified number of reactors in Japan.
If you looked further, you’d find that you could count the total number of reactors built in 2014 and 2015 on just one hand. In that period there was activity predominately in China — with its centralised state control avoiding the scrutiny the technology gets everywhere, outside a lone reactor in Argentina being the exception — but you could hardly get excited as that project was started when first of the Generation Ys were still in nappies in 1981.
So you’ve got a few plants getting built at a much slower pace than planned in China, and a bunch of plants ‘planned’ all over the place. But as is the case with almost all nuclear plans in the last 25 years, they’ve gone nowhere. They are plans (if a dream is a plan), but are not likely to be plants.
So why do we hear about these so called plans over and over? Continue reading
Assessment of Kevin Scarce’s Royal Commission forums
My impression is that the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission community forums are pretty formulaic. Kevin Scarce has got it all down pat , and does not stray from his agenda of the 4 Issues in the Terms of Reference. A bit of lip service is paid to Renewable Energy, but it is clear that this will not feature in the serious examination of energy technologies. There is complete avoidance of legal issues.
The thing that gets me about Kevin Scarce and the Royal Commission, and the media coverage – is the
pretense that this is all just a South Australian affair – despite the fact that these nuclear developments are illegal under national law. Of course this whole idea of making South Australia the world’s nuclear hub and waste dump concerns all of Australia.
The meeting at Coober Pedy (14/5/15) was quite a lively one, and the audience showed a degree of knowledge and sophistication that The Royal Commissioners might not have expected to find, in such a remote location. Concerns aired in questions included the problems of nuclear wastes – problems handed over to future generations, environmental concerns, and support for renewable energy rather than nuclear .
At University of South Australia – Mawson Lakes, (19/5/15) about 50 people attended. I have no report on this, other than that at least one University lecturer was worried that harmful affects of tourism and agriculture and food would not be properly addressed, and small businesses would not put in submissions about the potential harm to their business.
At Adelaide University(22/5/15) around 250 people attended, and pro nuclear people were slightly in the majority – as evidenced by a show of hands when asked for this. David Noonan of Wilderness Society didn’t get to ask his question – that the proposed activities the RC is investigating are currently illegal in Australia!
At Flinders University (20/5/15) – (see report on this page) there was some pretty lively questioning. Kevin Scarce was able to deflect very deftly any difficult questions. His two best techniques – to point out that matters are “not in the Terms of Reference” and to urge the questioner to seek the answer and “put in a submission”.
A concern that showed up in Adelaide meetings was that of bias – questioners wanted to know about the agendas, the interests of the staff and expert advisers on the Commission. They also wanted to know about the companies involved, and their submissions to the Commission – will the Commission be transparent about this?
Report on Royal Commission meeting at Flinders University 20 May 2015
Presentation of Royal Commission to meeting at Flinders University/Tonsley Campus, 20 May 2015
Kevin Scarce outlined purpose of the Royal Commission to examine the 4 issues set out in the Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission.- to look at the opportunities and costs of expanding the nuclear fuel chain in South Australia – for the community, environment and economy.
He discussed each of the 4 Issues :
1 Exploration, Extraction and Milling – should this be expanded? Australia has about 30% known U deposits; SA has about 80% of that.
thorium – will consider sources, possible use of this, too.
- processing/manufacturing
- conversion – uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride
- enrichment –to concentration suitable for reactors
- enriched conversion to nuclear fuel/rods
- medical/scientific isotopes – ANSTO produces these at reactor in Sydney. 10-15% from cyclotrons – one in SA.
3 nuclear reactors/power generation
- storage/disposal of nuclear wastes
- low/intermediate level waste – radioactive materials (clothing, instruments etc) associated with energy generation – can be treated to assist storage e.g. vitrification; synroc/ceramics;
- to storage – encased steel & concrete
- high level – heat produced so stored in wet storage pool to cool – encased in steel & concrete – intended to go to deep geological storage – Finland –developing only one at present 400m underground – operate from 2022 onwards
- reprocessing of spent fuel rods can recover fuel –large infrastructure & complexity of process
He outlined the process of the Royal Commission. For Any questions needing detailed answer, people can consult the Issues Papers.
There is a Royal Commission team of 15, who will be seeking national & international expertise. At present – framing ways to examine costs & opportunities. The Commission will be getting balance in talking to experts.
- The Commission will examine the issues papers , questions raised on complex processes, and the Submissions in response to the Issues Papers by – early August response date. The Submissions will be made public later in the year.
- not clear here – I think there’s to be release of & consultation about responses to issues papers– Adelaide & regionally to December
- Commission will then develop findings – take back to community Feb
- Final report to SA government – early May 2016
Questions from audience; Commissioner response Continue reading
Australia’s Aboriginals again threatened by nuclear radiation
Nuclear-hit Aborigines again in radiation danger https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/144304 Verfasst von: Diet Simon, sourcing from beyond nuclear news roundup (Account: Nuclear Worrier). Verfasst am: 25.05.2015
Darren Farmer, a burly middle-aged Martu tribal man, told VICE online magazine that “the Martu people do not want this uranium mine. Everybody has said no.” But that hasn’t stopped the federal environment minister Greg Hunt from givingKintyre the green light.
The VICE article explains how poverty prompts some Martu to agree to mining on their country and how Darren Farmer and others are physically assaulted for opposing it.
Meanwhile four decades after test explosions of atom bombs in the Maralinga desert area of South Australia, which killed and maimed Aboriginal people, Indigenous people face barriers as they try to contribute to a parliamentary inquiry whether the state should start a nuclear fuel cycle industry.
A requirement for all submissions to be sworn in front of a justice of the peace makes it particularly difficult for Aboriginal people, people from remote areas and those with language issues to present their views.
The former Governor [Queen Elizabeth’s representative] of South Australia, Kevin Scarce, who heads the inquiry, is to inspect the Fukushima region of Japan,ravaged by nuclear reactor explosions.
One of the things the inquiry will consider is the storage of nuclear waste from other countries. The federal government is currently looking for a site to dump six cubic metres of nuclear waste that must return to Australia from France for processing this year.
The federal government had previously targeted Aboriginal-owned sites in the Northern Territory, including Muckaty Station, where agreements with Aboriginal governance fell through or stalled. Aboriginal women’s resistance also stopped a 2003 plan by the federal government to dump nuclear waste in South Australia.
The French state-owned nuclear giant Areva is offering to sell its ‘world leading’ nuclear technology to South Australia. “The offer is being reported in the South Australian media without a hint of irony,” comments leading anti-nuclear Australian activist, Jim Green. “A reality check is in order.”
Two former Australian prime ministers, one each from the Liberal [in name only, actually right-of-centre conservative] and Labor [only nominally left] parties have said it would be a good idea for Australia to take in all the world’s nuclear waste. Guess on whose lands.
Iodine pills for South Australians- is that in the Nuclear Royal Commission’s planning?
Will South Australian communities and nuclear workers get iodine pills, once the State launches into its role as the international nuclear hub?
Canada’s communities near nuclear facilities ware getting them. Kevin Scarce’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission will be getting Submissions from Canadian nuclear companies. Perhaps the 
Commission will be visiting Canada, as part of its international junket.
Presumably the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Commission will be keen to keep up with all the safety requirements that Canada has.
Greedy businessmen just can’t wait for the Royal Commission’s final report
Nuclear Royal Commission urged to fast-track storage talks DANIEL WILLS STATE POLITICAL EDITOR THE ADVERTISER MARCH 03, 2015 BUSINESS has urged South Australia’s nuclear Royal Commission to fast-track consideration of hosting the nation’s first major waste dump, amid fears the state could miss out on a lucrative opportunity to take a foothold in a future storage industry.
The Federal Government has announced a new tender process for a national radioactive waste management facility and is seeking site nominations until May 5. However, South Australia’s Royal Commission is not expected to conclude until late this year or early 2016.
“Maybe we need to fast track that. Maybe that’s the part of the Commission that needs to come out first. “We can’t just wait until the Commission is over. They’re calling for it now….
Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said an independent advisory panel has been established to assess nominations and advise on the suitability of applicant sites.
The Federal Government has promised “a package of benefits” for the tender winner……..
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear free campaigner Dave Sweeney called for the tender to be delayed amid fears a rushed process could harm communities and the environment….
Nuclear business lobby geared up to make submissions to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
Mr Hundertmark said it was not simple to “overcome the anti-nuclear feeling” but that modern nuclear technology was far safer than older reactors, such as Fukushima in Japan
Kevin Scarce, who is in favour of a debate on nuclear and is heading up the Royal Commission, has said he was sick of hearing politicians say they’re not opposed to nuclear power then doing nothing about it.
The $20bn blueprint to create a nuclear industry in SA TORY SHEPHERD POLITICAL EDITOR THE ADVERTISER FEBRUARY 22, 2015 A $20 BILLION blueprint to create a South Australian nuclear industry that turns around the state’s fortunes by employing tens of thousands of people has been developed by a panel of experts.
The draft plan says the project would make the state a “world centre” for nuclear energy by offering storage for radioactive waste, enriching our uranium and building nuclear reactors, creating a new industry.
SA Nuclear Energy Systems Pty Ltd, chaired by Bruce Hundertmark, comprises a range of nuclear experts and hopes to work with the US Department of Energy and other major international entities in its quest to make the plan a reality.
The group, which has an office in Wayville, hopes to make a submission to the Royal Commission into a nuclear industry. Continue reading
Nuclear Royal Commission puts up barriers to community participation
Conservation Council of South Australia, 22 May 15 The SA Nuclear Royal Commission is putting huge barriers in the way of the community to formally participate in the current submission process, with Aboriginal people, people from remote, regional or rural areas, youth, and those with language difficulties particularly affected.
The Royal Commission is currently calling for public input in response to a series of Issues Papers. However, in the Submissions Guidelines they insist that submissions must be typed (not hand-written), and before lodging, a person has to swear in front of a Justice of the Peace (or equivalent) that it is their work.
“This requirement to find a JP will make it very difficult for many in remote areas, and especially for Aboriginal people of South Australia,” said Karina Lester, Yankunytjatjara Anangu Traditional Owner.
“How many JP’s live on the APY Lands or Maralinga Tjarutja Lands. How far does one have to travel to track down a JP?
“This is very unfair of the Commission to put these requirements in place as this will disengage the community and it will be all too hard to put in a submission.
“All South Australians need to contribute into this Royal Commission and feel that they have been consulted the right way.
“Anangu and the Aboriginal people of South Australia have been the ones directly impacted by the Nuclear Industry in the past. The Government of SA are not learning from the past and hearing and respecting the voices of those who have lost loved ones, lost their sight, skin infections, cancers, and the list goes on,” said Ms Lester.
A sworn oath in front of a Justice of the Peace to lodge a submission is:
– NOT required under the Royal Commissions Act 1917
– NOT required for equivalent Federal or State Parliamentary inquiries
“ Requiring a member of the public to travel to a JP and swear an oath in front of them before they can lodge a submission is a highly unusual, unnecessary and surprising restriction which will stop people getting involved,” said Conservation Council SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins.
“If they are concerned about fake or spam submissions, all they need is for individuals to self declare and sign a coversheet. To be forced to swear an oath in front of a JP just to have your say is simply not necessary.
“Rather than creating a genuine community conversation as the Premier hoped, barriers like this will directly prevent a large number South Australians from participating and submitting their views.
“We urge the Commission to change their rules to allow as many South Australians as possible to participate, ” he said.
The last of 3 public information sessions about the Royal Commission will be held today at Adelaide University at 1pm. Media Contact: Meg Sobey, Communications Officer, 0411 028 930 meg.sobey@conservationsa.org.au
South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission Community Consultation Coober Pedy 14 May 2015
Transcript by Noel Wauchope, 20 May 2015 This transcript is a reliable account of the proceedings, but is not word for word accurate. As far as possible, I have used the exact words.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 