S.A. Nuclear Royal Commission to Mt Gambier: note the issues that will NOT be on the agenda
They don’t mention the health and environmental aspects of the nuclear fuel chain. They don’t mention the national laws that will have to be overturned. They don’t mention the existing problems from Australia’s history of uranium mining.
And then there’s the continuing nuclear radiation crisis at Fukushima – you can bet that will not be on the agenda. Nor will they be talking about the global nuclear decline in the nuclear industry, and the fact that the new geewhiz nuclear reprocessing reactors (a) don’t exist yet and (b) nobody wants to invest in them
17 APRIL 2015 – NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION VISITS MOUNT GAMBIER The first public forum of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission will be held in Mount Gambier on Monday 20 April – the formal start of a three month state-wide community engagement program.
The public meeting to be held at City Hall at midday is an opportunity for community, industry and other interested stakeholders to hear more about the Royal Commission and how they might take part in the process. It will also be the first time the Commission’s Issues Papers will be presented to the public for comment.
While in Mount Gambier, Royal Commissioner Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RANR (Rtd) will also meet with city representatives and community leaders.
Key areas of discussion will include those activities relating to the potential for the expansion of exploration and extraction of minerals; the undertaking of further processing of minerals and manufacture of materials containing radioactive substances; the use of nuclear fuels for electricity generation; and the storage and disposal of radioactive and nuclear waste……http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/media-centre/17-april-2015-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission-visits-mount-gambier/
David Noonan’s Submission to the South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission, proposed Terms of Reference
Monday 9 March 2015, David Noonan, B.Sc., M.Env.St
To: The Attorney-General’s Department of South Australia
Re: Public submission to the SA Nuclear Royal Commission, proposed Terms of Reference
Nuclear is not ‘peaceful’. Nuclear waste imposes unique risks and unacceptable impacts. Nuclear actions before this Commission are National issues affecting the rights and interests of all Australians. No State administration has a right to impose nuclear risks and impacts on others.
Proposed Term of Reference to direct the Nuclear Royal Commission:
“To inquire into and report on the Democratic and Legal Rights, and the Civil and Human Rights, including to Environmental Protection, to Sustainability, to Health and to Non-Imposition of Nuclear actions, that are at stake and subject to nuclear actions before this Commission.”
Political Leadership in South Australia by Liberal Premier John Olsen in 2000 prohibited International and key National nuclear wastes. Nuclear waste proposals before this Commission are illegal in SA.
Under the “Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000”, the import, transport, storage and disposal of any wastes derived from nuclear reactors, or uranium enrichment plants, or from the conditioning and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, is prohibited. The construction and operation of such nuclear waste facilities is against the law in our State. The Objects of this important Act are:
“to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.”
Continue reading
South Australian government gives funding for mining exploration
SA Government commits $2 million to mining exploration projects
The South Australian Government says now is the time to invest in exploration projects, after granting a range of mining companies funding for exploration drilling. …
Resources and Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis said it would enable those companies to stimulate the next crop of greenfield discoveries.
Media player: “Space” to play, “M” to mute, “left” and “right” to seek.
“This is the way to build our extensive knowledge of what deposits we have in South Australia, we spend a lot of money on pre-competitive data, going out doing geological surveys to try and understand where the copper is, where the uranium is, where the iron-ore is,” he said. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-13/sa-government-mining-exploration-grants-drilling/6389166
Federal funding for South Australia’s remote Aboriginal communities
Future of remote Aboriginal communities secured by deal between SA and federal governments ABC Radio The World Today By Natalie Whiting, 13 Apr 15 Nicola Gage & staff The future of remote Aboriginal communities in South Australia has been secured by a deal between the state and federal governments.
There were concerns communities could close because of Federal funding cuts to essential services, including rubbish collection, sewerage, power and water.
However, a compromise announced this morning will see the Federal Government continue to pay for services in the APY Lands, for the time being. Continue reading
Senator Sean Edwards spruiks for the South Australian nuclear lobby
Yesterday, I wrote about the media publicity given to Senator Sean Edwards, a former estate agent, who is going very public in support of South Australia getting the entire nuclear fuel chain (around its necks). Meanwhile, Dr Helen Caldicott, a world authority, was denied publicity to put the counter case.
Today, I learn that Sen Edwards has now set up a website to promote this theme. It’s a corker.
He starts with an attack on the Greens – they should be “morally and philosophically compelled to support advanced nuclear energy”
Moves quickly on to the argument for nuclear power as “free energy” and the $billions of revenue for South Australia, in importing the world’ radioactive trash.
“Polling proves South Australians want this and they want it yesterday” – says Edwards. Actually – no! Polling shows that South Australians voters reject expansion of the nuclear industry.
He asserts that “nuclear reactors produce no emissions that contribute to global warming”. (That’s untrue, but especially untrue if you ignore the entire nuclear fuel chain)
They “deliver abundant energy without any mining”. Hey – he doesn’t count the mining required for the conventional reactors to produce the wastes to put into the reprocessing reactors that he is touting! Edwards must be a bit confused. One of the main arguments for the South Australian expansion, as put by nuclear proponent Oscar Archer, is that it will give a strong boost to Australia’s uranium mining and uranium export industry.
Edwards tells us how very safe the nuclear industry – except for 3 what he calls “incidents” (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima).
And without any evidence at all, he asserts that – for the new non existent untested reprocessing nuclear reactors – “The science is sound, the business case has been made and the public is behind us”
Abbott government to help South Australia remove restrictions on the nuclear industry
Federal Gov White Paper on Energy prepares way to cut red tape on nuclear industry http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/federal-government-white-paper-on-energy-prepares-way-to-cut-red-tape-on-nuclear-industry/story-fni6uma6-1227296081932
by: CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL BUSINESS EDITOR From: The Advertiser, 8 Apr 15
THE Federal Government is positioning itself to cut red tape blocking development of a nuclear industry in South Australia.
The Federal Government’s White Paper on Energy, launched on Wednesday by Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, says the Commonwealth will consider the findings of SA’s royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle.
“The royal commission will allow for a considered and informed community discussion on nuclear industries and energy, examining the opportunities and the risks,” the White Paper says.
It adds the government wants to work with states by “responding to technical developments and the streamlining and removal of any unnecessary regulation”.
Mr Macfarlane has said the Federal Government will not lead a push for nuclear energy. His spokeswoman said yesterday this remained the case but the Federal Government wanted to ensure it had the expertise to deal with any change advocated by SA.
SA Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis welcomed federal co-operation. “A lot of the imports and exports of this industry are regulated by the Commonwealth,” he said. “Having Canberra on side with our royal commission is a great boost.
“It’s important to understand exactly what impediments there are to the importation of spent fuel rods.
“It’s important to understand the impediments to exporting uranium through all of our ports around the country; understanding exactly what grade of uranium can be exported and imported.
“So the red tape reduction is all about making sure that whatever industry we want to build in this state can be accomplished.
Bette health for Port Augusta with solar thermal power plant
Port Augusta solar thermal power promises better health SA Conservation Council says http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/green-group-makes-fresh-calls-for-port-augusta/6377670 South Australia’s peak environment group says the need for solar thermal power in Port Augusta is an urgent health issue, as well as having climate change implications.
A study by Alinta Energy has found solar thermal technology is currently economically unviable.
Conservation Council of South Australia chief executive Craig Wilkins said a solar thermal plant at Port Augusta would not only help with jobs but improve local health.
Mr Wilkins said Port Augusta residents had suffered the health impacts of coal for decades.
He is calling for greater government support.
“We’ve got a dirty industrial plant which could be transferred to a cleaner technology which would help with jobs and the community’s health and that is a shift to the solar thermal as quickly as possible,” he said
RePower Port Augusta explain how Solar thermal power plant project could be economically viable
Solar thermal power plant project at Port Augusta ‘economically highly unviable’, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-01/solar-thermal-project-at-port-augusta-hits-a-cost-barrier/6366388Alinta Energy says A group lobbying for a solar thermal power plant to be built at Port Augusta in South Australia says Alinta Energy may have overestimated the project’s cost.
The company’s latest report into the potential for a solar thermal power plant near the Upper Spencer Gulf city has found the project to be “economically highly unviable”.
Alinta owns the coal-fired Northern Power Station and the disused Playford Station but a study report found that a funding gap and falling electricity demand meant a conversion of the station to solar thermal was unlikely to happen.
But Lisa Lumsden, from the group RePower Port Augusta, said the finding was unsurprising given the uncertainty around the federal Renewable Energy Target (RET).
The Federal Government is yet to decide on the figure set for a national target on the amount of energy coming from renewable sources by 2020.”As we continue to have no decision and no action and certainty around the RET, the prospect of solar thermal happening in Port Augusta becomes less and less,” Ms Lumsden said.
There has been a strong push from the local community in recent years to convert the coal-fired station to renewable energy.Ms Lumsden said new technologies and plant configurations meant the project could actually be much less expensive than Alinta predicted.
“If they take that all into account over the next two or so months, and bring that information to the fore, we know that some of that will bring the costs down significantly, like more than half,” she said.”We know some of those technologies have the capacity to do that.”
Alinta Energy said that even under the most optimistic scenarios, it would fall short of the $570 million capital cost by about $150 million.
Ms Lumsden said the State Government should step in and fund the $150 million shortfall.
The company is continuing to investigate the project’s potential.
Disappearance of Submissions from the Nuclear Royal Commission website
The very short time allowed for people to submit for the draft Terms of Reference nevertheless was enough for over 1000 submissions to be sent – the overwhelming majority raising issues that I bet the
nuclear lobby would not want raised. No surprise then that the promised web page of all these submissions just vanished within a day or two.
However, here below is a sample of some of these excellent submissions. It is from DR. PETER BURDON ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ALEXANDER REILLY MR. PAUL LEADBETER of the University of Adelaide
To Whom It May Concern, RE: Royal Commission – Our role in nuclear energy
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into South Australia’s nuclear industry potential. Continue reading
NARROW Terms of Reference for Royal Commission on South Australia’s further participation in the nuclear fuel chain
Below are the Terms of Reference. You will note how very few related issues are included.
The Terms cover:
- feasibility of expanding mining of radioactive materials
- feasibility of conversion, enrichment, fabrication or re-processing in South Australia
- feasibility of generating electricity from nuclear fuels
- feasibility of establishing facilities in South Australia for the management,
storage and disposal of nuclear and radioactive waste - and a little nod to the impact on economy, environment, and community
(TO WIT)
HIS EXCELLENCY THE HONOURABLE HIEU VAN LE, Officer of the Order of
Australia, Governor in and over the State of South Australia:
TO
REAR ADMIRAL THE HONOURABLE KEVIN JOHN SCARCE, AC, CSC, RANR
GREETING Continue reading
Nuclear lobby influence – Australian Industry Group Defence Council wants nuclear submarines
Nuclear submarine option pushed by industry Financial Review by John Kerin, 24 Mar 15, Australia’s peak defence industry group has urged Prime Minister Tony Abbott to reconsider buying or leasing a nuclear submarine fleet to replace the ageing Collins class, saying the absence of a supporting domestic nuclear power industry no longer presents a hurdle.
Australian Industry Group Defence Council chairman Chris Jenkins, who is also the Australian chief of French industry giant Thales, said today’s submarine nuclear power plants were so efficient and required so little maintenance that an onshore nuclear power industry was hardly a requirement.
He said nuclear submarine powerplant technology was constantly improving and you would need a trained workforce but not necessarily a power industry to support it.
The defence council is the peak body representing the’s $8 billion 24,000 strong defence sector. “That’s been said [you need a nuclear power industry] but I think nuclear energy these days is much more modularised than people think….like anything else [the submarine] powerplant is manageable,” Mr Jenkins said.
“The idea of a nuclear industry as a fundamental necessity, I am not convinced, but I did think it was quite a good thing that there was a call for a really deep review from South Australia in to nuclear energy,” Mr Jenkins said.
Mr Jenkins was referring to a royal commission called by South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill into the development of nuclear power.
Defence Minister Kevin Andrews will deliver the opening address at a major two-day summit on Australia’s Future Submarine, where experts are expected to fiercely debate the competitive evaluation process given ongoing concerns over the future of Adelaide based ASC and jobs in Adelaide……..
the French firm DCNS has offered a diesel powered version of its 5000 tonne Barracuda submarine.The nuclear version of the Barracuda will be in service with the French Navy from 2017.
But its understood DCNS could offer the nuclear version of the Barracuda from around 2030 if Canberra wished to go down that route……..
Mr Jenkins said. “Given the concern over jobs, South Australia should be as keen to know the answer as anyone because it would undoubtedly be the centre of Australia’s nuclear industry,” he said. http://www.afr.com/news/politics/nuclear-submarine-option-pushed-by-industry-20150324-1m5cpx
Family First Senator Bob Day gets Senate support for SA nuclear commission
Senate backs SA nuclear commission http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/senate-backs-sa-nuclear-commission/story-fni0xqi4-1227268345280 AAP MARCH 18, 2015
THE Senate has backed South Australia’s royal commission into expanding the nuclear industry.
SA Premier Jay Weatherill launched a royal commission to investigate if the state, home to world’s largest uranium deposits, should embrace production, enrichment and storage of nuclear power.
SA Family First senator Bob Day won enough Senate support to formally welcome the commission, with his motion passing 34 to 33.
Nuclear Royal Commission will ignore the elephant in the room
| 20 Mar 15, The biggest hole in the nuclear Royal Commission isn’t the proposed open cut pit at Olympic Dam, but rather the omission of any consideration as to whether South Australia should be LESS involved in the nuclear industry, rather than MORE involved, according to Greens SA State Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
“Despite the Premier’s assurance that he has an “open mind”, the most fundamental question of SA’s role in the global nuclear industry won’t be considered at all. The Royal Commission is only charged with considering NEW ADDITIONAL involvement or expanding our existing involvement; it won’t be looking at whether SA should extract itself entirely from the nuclear cycle.” said Mark Parnell. “If you don’t ask all the questions, you won’t get all the answers. “Clearly, there are many South Australians who are opposed to South Australia’s involvement in the nuclear cycle. With our natural advantages and nation-leading performance in wind and solar, South Australians see that the future is to embrace clean renewable energy, rather than flirting with dangerous, dirty and expensive nuclear power. Becoming the nation’s or world’s nuclear waste dump is not most people’s vision for our State’s future or the legacy that we want to leave our children.”
Now that the Royal Commission is underway, the next critical decisions will be around the selection of key staff including “Counsel assisting the Royal Commission” and any technical or other research staff. “Choosing people who are partisan or have vested interests will be seen by the public as evidence of a biased process and the credibility of any findings will be diminished.” The Royal Commission also needs to announce how it intends to conduct its inquiry, including opportunities for personal submissions, public hearings, site visits and how all South Australians can engage with the process. “The Greens will engage with the process, but we won’t hesitate to publicly criticise the Royal Commission if it becomes secretive, biased or otherwise limits the ability of South Australians to have their say on their State’s future.” said Mr Parnell. |
1000 submissions to S. Australia’s Nuclear Royal Commission. Kevin Scarce accused of pro nuclear bias
Nuclear royal commissioner officially appointed, denies bias ABC Radio National PM 19 Mar 15 DAVID MARK: The newly appointed royal commissioner for investigating the nuclear industry in South Australia says he is not biased towards the industry. The former South Australian governor, Kevin Scarce, has been accused of speaking in favour of the industry in the past.
The royal commission officially started today.
Mr Scarce says the commission will hold public hearings around the state. In Adelaide, Natalie Whiting reports.
NATALIE WHITING: In the lead up to the start of South Australia’s royal commission into developing a nuclear industry, there has been some criticism of the man selected to lead it. Some people opposing the inquiry, including Doctor Jim Green from Friends of the Earth Australia, say former governor Kevin Scarce had spoken out in favour of the industry before.
He was officially given the role of commissioner today and has hit back at those suggestions……..
Craig Wilkins from the Conservation Council has welcomed that.
CRAIG WILKINS: We actually do have a significant history already in this industry and it’s really important that if the commission is to do its work properly it considers where we’ve come from as well as where we’re going. So we very strongly welcome the fact that the terms of reference have been broadened to include that history.
NATALIE WHITING: But he says he would have liked the terms to also look at minimising the state’s involvement in the industry. South Australia already mines uranium.
CRAIG WILKINS: Surely any decent investigation of an industry should mean that all options are on the table. If there are concerns, which many people do have concerns already with this industry, surely this commission should be looking at what our appropriate role should be in it and that may well be a reduction rather than an increase.
NATALIE WHITING: Kevin Scarce says that has been ruled out……
Weatherill’s Royal Commission hides the connection between nuclear industry and nuclear weapons
Dennis Matthews, 20 Mar 15 It’s not difficult to find out that the world’s nuclear waste is not neatly segregated into “military” and “non-military”. The processes that create the waste, such as separating out the various isotopes of uranium, chemical processing prior to this separation, and the processing of spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors all occur at facilities that service both the nuclear weapons and the nuclear power industries.
Weatherill’s Royal Commission has been charged with looking into importing nuclear waste but has been explicitly told not to include nuclear use for military or defence purposes. If the Commission doesn’t study the close physical connection between the military and non-military uses then it is closing its mind to one of the reasons why South Australia shouldn’t have anything to do with the nuclear industry.
It’s pretty obvious that Weatherill and the nuclear lobby don’t want to look into this because it would inevitably lead to a result that they don’t want to know about. More the pity for South Australia.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 