Nuclear Royal Commission needs balance – Jim Green
20 Apr 15 The SA government’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission kicks off in Mount Gambier today Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia, said:
“Kevin Scarce promised a ‘balanced’ royal commission but three of the five members of his ‘expert panel’ are pro-nuclear, with just one critic. There’s nothing wrong with including nuclear advocates on the panel but there should be balance.
“One way or another Kevin Scarce needs to act to restore credibility to the Royal Commission. Otherwise it will be treated with the same ridicule as the Switkowski Review, which was comprised entirely of ‘people who want nuclear power by Tuesday’ according to comedian John Clarke.”
Despite its bias, the 2006 Switkowski Review was sceptical about proposals to expand Australia’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle, as was BHP Billiton in its submission to the Switkowski Review (see attachment below). Conditions are no more favourable now than in 2006. Despite the hype about a nuclear ‘renaissance’, the number of reactors has declined over the past decade.
Dr Green said: “Presumably the Royal Commission sees Mount Gambier as a potential site for a nuclear power reactor. The local community should consider the legacy of high-level nuclear waste that would remain in the Mount Gambier region indefinitely since there is no disposal site for high-level nuclear waste in Australia − or anywhere in the world for that matter. The only deep underground nuclear waste repository in the world − in the US state of New Mexico − has been shut down following an underground chemical explosion that spewed radiation to the outside environment and contaminated 22 workers.
“Nuclear power is incredibly thirsty − a single reactor requires 35−65 millions litres of cooling water daily. The huge water intake pipes destroy marine life by the tonnes.”
The local community should also consider scientific research linking nuclear reactors to increases in childhood leukemias. UK radiation biologist Dr Ian Fairlie notes that over 60 studies have examined cancer incidence in children near nuclear power plants and more than 70% of those studies found increased cancer rates. Dr Fairlie concludes that “the matter is now beyond question, i.e. there’s a very clear association between increased child leukemias and proximity to nuclear power plants”.1
“The community of south-east SA also needs to consider the small risk of a catastrophic accident. The costs of the Fukushima disaster in Japan will probably exceed $500 billion − more than enough to ruin not only the local economy but the entire state’s economy,” Dr Green concluded.
Contact: Jim Green 0417 318 368, jim.green@foe.org.au
——————————————–
ATTACHMENT Continue reading
Be aware of the Pro Nuclear Royal Commission’s publicity meetings in South Australia
The Commissioner will be undertaking a series of community engagements during the Royal Commission.
The first of these community engagement visits are listed below.
- 20 April 2015: Mount Gambier
- 30 April 2015: Port Augusta
- 01 May 2015: Port Augusta/Port Pirie
- 05 May 2015: Berri
- 11-14 May 2015: Remote Aboriginal Communities (locations to be confirmed).
Further information will be posted on this site when available.
Guide to submissions to South Australia’s Pro Nuclear Royal Commission
Submissions to the Royal Commission have to be in by July 24.
Well, they seem to be making this as difficult as possible for the ordinary peasant. You have to register at the website, you have to read the Issues Papers, and abide by their guidelines. (So far, only one Issues Paper is available Exploration, Extraction and Milling, with 3 more supposed to come later – Further Processing and Manufacture Electricity Generation Management, Storage and Disposal of Waste) Anything you want to say outside of their stated questions must not go into your submission, but be attached as an Appendix.
The submission must be in their stated form, as an affidavit, witnessed as a legal document.
Most of the stated questions are worded in such a way that they invite positive opinions about the industry. Having said all this – there still is scope to raise some pertinent questions to the Commission. For example – these 3 curly ones:
1.7 Is there a sound basis for concluding that there will be increased demand for uranium in the medium and long term? Would that increased demand translate to investment in expanded uranium production capacity in South Australia (bearing in mind other sources of supply and the nature of South Australia’s resources?). Figure 4: World Uranium Production and Demand 10 Figure 5: Traded price for uranium
1.10 Would a future expansion of exploration, extraction and milling activities create new environmental risks or increase existing risks? If so, are current strategies for managing those new risks sufficient? If not, in what specific respects? How would any current approach need to changed or adapted?
1.13 Would an increase in extraction activities give rise to negative impacts on other sectors of the economy? Have such impacts been demonstrated elsewhere in Australia or in other economies similar to Australia?”
Kevin Scarce kicks off the SA Nuclear Royal Commission with a warning about people being “emotional”
Kevin Scarce expects debate around the future of the nuclear fuel cycle in SA to be ‘emotional’ CAMERON ENGLAND THE ADVERTISER APRIL 17, 2015 “……. Commissioner Scarce said he expected there to be a lot of “emotion” associated with the debate, and he was committed to running a transparent process.
“Today really is the start of business,’’ Commissioner Scarce said. “We are issuing our first issues paper which covers the opportunity to expand mining and exploration, and also the risks and costs of doing that……..
“I think there’s going to be a lot of emotion about the nuclear industry. We can’t walk away from the fact
that when there are accidents they are catastrophic and I would expected there will be a lot of emotion about the risks, the impact on the environment, and I want to encourage people, again in an evidence-based way, to give us their views on that, but at the end of the day, the purpose of a Royal Commission is to inquire and to get evidence-based information back…….
The issues paper addresses issues around exploration, mining and milling uranium, and poses 13 questions for discussion around what could be done to foster more activity, whether that is economically viable, and what the environmental and social costs might be.
Three further issues papers will be released over the next two to three weeks, looking at fuel management and storage, fuel enrichment and power generation.
Commissioner Scarce said once all of the issues papers were released there would be 90 days for companies, organisations and individuals to make submissions.
“The we’ll take all of that evidence, bring it together in a report, and then we will engage the community in the outcomes of all of the reports that come to us through the issues papers.’’
Commissioner Scarce will spend the next month travelling to areas such as Aboriginal communities including the APY Lands, and Maralinga and regional areas including Port Pirie and Whyalla……http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-scarce-expects-debate-around-the-future-of-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-in-sa-to-be-emotional/story-e6frg6n6-1227307853022
Jetsetting for South Australia’s Pro Nuclear Royal Commissioner, and who else?
International nuclear-site visit on cards for royal commissioner MEREDITH BOOTH THE AUSTRALIAN APRIL 18, 2015
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/international-nuclear-site-visit-on-cards-for-royal-commissioner/story-e6frg9df-1227308901763
South Australian Commission chief Kevin Scarce already aligns himself with the nuclear industry
Dennis Matthews 17 April 15 Commissioner Kevin Scarce has made an unconvincing start to his inquiry into the nuclear industry, now officially “The Nuclear Fuel Cycle” Royal Commissioner.
By accepting the nuclear industry spin that it is a nuclear fuel cycle he has immediately identified himself with the nuclear industry. Do we talk about the coal fuel cycle or the gas fuel cycle? No, like nuclear fuel these are one way processes – fuel in, heat and waste out.
It is typical of the nuclear industry that they would like to give the impression that it is otherwise – fuel in, more fuel out – a mirage fostered by its so-called fast breeder programme, itself another example of nuclear spin. The only thing fast about fast breeders is that they use fast neutrons to attempt to slowly produce nuclear fuel in a nuclear reactor. This technology has not only failed to produce significant amounts of nuclear fuel but has rapidly consumed huge amounts of tax payers money.
If Kevin Scarce and the SA Government want to retain any skerrick of credibility then they will take immediate steps to change the name to the “Nuclear Industry” commission.
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
1 This month.
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
Antinuclear 