Pro nuclear South Australian Premier sides with Liberals, against federal Labor
‘We don’t need federal ALP’
SOUTH Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill has dismissed Bill Shorten’s rejection of his royal commission.(subscribers only)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/weatherill-dismisses-shorten-on-nuclear-energy-royal-commission/story-e6frgczx-1227215197031
S.A. Premier Jay Weatherill says nuclear power ‘not viable’ (he prefers nuclear waste import?)
Nuclear likely not viable in Aust: Weatherill THE AUSTRALIAN AAP FEBRUARY 10, 2015 A nuclear power plant is unlikely to be built in South Australia despite the government reviving debate about the industry, Premier Jay Weatherill says……..
He said he was open to the prospect of remote parts of the state hosting a nuclear waste deposit but played down the prospect of a power plant being built.
“I think that’s the least likely outcome of the royal commission,” he told ABC radio on Monday.
“I think what’s most likely is that it will be regarded as not viable for either the state or the nation.
“There is no doubt that there are some technological changes that are occurring which are bringing small reactors into play … (but) these are highly speculative matters.”
The premier is expected to reveal further details of the royal commission on Monday but it’s not yet clear who will lead the investigation…….http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/nuclear-likely-not-viable-in-aust-weatherill/story-e6frg90f-1227214183408
South Australia has a shameful nuclear history and the Royal Commission must be allowed to investigate it.
Mr Weatherill says “storing of nuclear waste” will be on the Royal Commission’s agenda. South Australians fought hard to defeat Canberra’s proposal for a national dump for low- to medium-level waste — so an international high-level nuclear waste dump is a non-starter.
The Premier says the Royal Commission will not be used to “look backwards at things that have gone wrong.” But failing to learn from the mistakes of the past makes it all the more likely that they will be repeated.
South Australia has a shameful nuclear history and the Royal Commission must be allowed to investigate it.
Examine SA’s shameful nuclear legacy Advertiser Dr Jim Green, 9 Feb 15 THE first test with Premier Jay Weatherill’s proposed Royal Commission into nuclear issues comes with his statement that it will be carried out by independent experts.
Is that what he really intends? Or does he plan a re-run of the Switkowski commission established by the Howard federal government in 2006? That commission was comprised entirely of “people who want nuclear power by Tuesday” according to comedian John Clarke. Continue reading
Nuclear royal commission – likely to be just free PR for the nuclear industry
A company called South Australian Nuclear Power Systems Pty Ltd has been lobbying the South Australian and federal government to remove the significant legal and political roadblocks to advance nuclear power in the state. The group is headed by former News International director Bruce Hundertmark and includes veteran American nuclear spruiker Richard Cherry, a former executive of the secretive General Atomics that operates South Australia’s Beverley uranium mine; Ian Kowalick, the former head of Premier and Cabinet; and professors Tom Wigley and Stephen Lincoln from the University of Adelaide, home to a chorus of atomic fellow travellers.
Adding to this push has been the repeated promotion of the money to be made by storing the world’s 
radioactive waste. Senior executives of the World Nuclear Association have joined 
with former prime minister Bob Hawke, Warren Mundine and others to talk up the dollar signs while covering up the danger signs. Their approach ignores South Australians, particularly Indigenous South Australians’ sustained and successful efforts to oppose radioactive waste dumping in their country.
Dave Sweeney The nuclear royal commission is a response to South Australia’s poor fortune, the nuclear lobby, and concerns over climate change. It must remain independent. e announcement this week of a Royal Commission into the nuclear industry in South Australia has raised both stakes and eyebrows around the nation.
Many South Australian politicians have been enamoured with the economic allure of nuclear power. After all, the world’s biggest mining company sits atop the world’s largest uranium deposit at BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam mine, 500km north of Adelaide. But opening the door to talk of uranium enrichment, domestic nuclear power and international nuclear waste is a major escalation in radioactive rhetoric.
The move comes in stark contrast to the current run of play in relation to the domestic and international status of the nuclear industry. Continue reading
Now wonder the nuclear lobby targets South Australia
The USA and UK nuclear lobby has worked on gullible South Australians for decades – happily encouraging fame-seeking pretend environmentalists like Barry Brook and Ben Heard, as well as career academics like Stefan Simons and Pamela Sykes. Then there are the pack of straight out greedy business people.
But why did they pick South Australia?
Because South Australia already has the ignominious nuclear history of Maralinga, and the great white elephants of the uranium industry – Olympic Dam, Beverley, FourMile (with its military connections)
Why are they pushing nuclear power now?
Because South Australia has been, and continues to be a dazzling success in 
renewable energy.
Panic is no doubt setting in – and there are plenty of Aussie politicians glad to get on the well-funded nuclear bandwagon.
Clean energy vs nuclear: the battle intensifies http://safeenergy.org/2015/02/06/clean-energy-vs-nuclear/ Michael Mariotte February 6, 2015
“…../The war on solar, which is real, is really a war over what kind of energy system we will have in the 21st century. Will it be the 21st century model we at GreenWorld and NIRS advocate, based on clean renewable energy, distributed generation and the rest?
Or will it be a continuation of the 20th century model of large baseload power plants, whether they be coal or nuclear? That’s the fundamental issue and how it is resolved may well determine the future of our planet….”
The greedy people who want to make money out of importing radioactive trash
These are some of the people behind the push that got South Australia’s Premier Jay Weatherill to change his tune and open the door to the toxic nuclear chain in Australia. Note that I write “chain” – not “cycle”
Directors at SA Nuclear Energy Systems Pty Ltd – the list includes former Labor federal MP Bob Catley, Ian Kowalick, a former head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet during John Olsen’s Liberal Government and later an information technology consultant to the Rann Labor Government, and climate scientists Professor Stephen Lincoln and Professor Tom Wigley
The nuke lobby would have us believe in a cycle, whereby suddenly, by magic – radioactive trash is no long trash. It becomes a “valuable resource” – recycled into gee-whiz new (exiting only in blueprint) innocuous little nuclear reactors.
Apart from all the disecoomics, and health and environment aspects – the promised new reactors themselves create highly toxic radioactive wastes, and eventually themselves become highly toxic radioactive corpses.
South Australian Business and Premier want to import radioactive waste
Business groups embrace nuclear industry debate in South Australia ABC News 9 Feb 2015,The prospect of a nuclear industry in South Australia has been embraced by the state’s peak business group as a multi-million-dollar industry. Business SA chief executive Nigel McBride said it would be good for the state and could result in reduced carbon emissions.
“We’re talking about a massive, potential nuclear recycling industry,” he said.
“We’re talking about low energy costs and a huge rise in job opportunities through cheaper manufacturing, cheaper water.” SA Chamber of Mines and Energy chief executive Jason Kuchel said it was “about time” options for the future were discussed.
“One of those things that we would be hopeful for is that we might able to consider enriching uranium in South Australia,” he said.
Mr Weatherill …. indicated that he did not think the establishment of a SA nuclear power plant was on the horizon but said a nuclear waste dump and the creation of a nuclear enrichment industry should be considered……
But the Conservation Council’s chief executive Craig Wilkins described any use of nuclear energy in SA as “unwanted” and “unsafe”.
“It’s old thinking, rather than new thinking and it’s so frustrating to spend time, energy and resources investigating this when we are on the cusp of an energy revolution in renewable,” he said….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-09/business-lobby-embraces-nuclear-debate/6079348
A warning on greedy businessmen’s push for nuclear chain in South Australia
South Australia takes first step to nuclear power GEORGE LEKAKIS The New Daily, Financial Services Editor 9 Feb 15 “……..The setting up of the Royal Commission follows lobbying by prominent South Australian business figures for an independent evaluation of nuclear power and enrichment proposals for the state……..South Australian Nuclear Energy Systems has been discussing its business proposals with Federal and State politicians, with a view to amending laws that ban nuclear power generation.
Mr Hundertmark told The New Daily last year that the company had identified international capital sources for funding local nuclear projects and had formed connections with global players.
“The funding of the things that need to be done is not a real problem – the problem is to get the legislative changes needed,” he said at the time.
Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman David Sweeney warned that the Royal Commission could merely be a pretext for conditioning South Australians to the prospect of establishing a nuclear waste dump.
“There’s no doubt that a large part of this inquiry is to de-sensitise people to the idea of creating an international radioactive waste dump in the state,” he said.“People need to be wary of the possibility that the inquiry is just a Trojan horse for getting a waste dump built.”
Mr Sweeney said any independent inquiry would find that the economic case for nuclear power did not stack up. “As far as nuclear power is concerned, this is a fanciful exercise because of the outstanding growth of renewable alternatives,” he said.
Mr Weatherill said the government would finalise the terms of reference for the Royal Commission in consultation with experts.
In June last year, The New Daily revealed that a group of high-powered businessmen and scientists led by former News International director Bruce Hundertmark had formed a new company to prepare business proposals for nuclear power stations in South Australia.
Apart from Mr Hundertmark, the board of South Australian Nuclear Energy Systems Pty Ltd, includes Ian Kowalick, the former chief of staff to ex-Liberal premier John Olsen. http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/02/08/south-australia-takes-first-step-nuclear-power/
The Adelaide Advertiser is in the grip of the nuclear lobby
Dennis Matthews, 9 Feb 15 From its comments denigrating would-be opposition to the nuclear industry whilst at the same time paying lip service against radical pro-development forces it’s pretty obvious that The Advertiser has already made up its mind about Jay Weatherill’s opportunistic so-called independent Royal Commission into the nuclear industry (The Advertiser, 9/2/15).
With subjective comments like those from the media, business communities and pro-nuclear politicians why waste taxpayers money on window dressing a foregone conclusion?
Once again the public is being led like lambs to the slaughter in the name of development, which in truth is nothing less than a proxy for narrow-minded, regressive, vested interests.
South Australia could make “$billions” out of nuclear power – Adelaide Advertiser
DANIEL WILLS STATE POLITICAL EDITOR THE ADVERTISER FEBRUARY 09, 2015CONSTRUCTION of a uranium enrichment plant could inject billions of dollars into the South Australian economy and modern waste-treatment facilities could double as cheap power generators if the state’s nuclear capacity is expanded, industry says.
Premier Jay Weatherill has reversed decades of Labor opposition to the state taking a greater role in the uranium industry, yesterday announcing a royal commission to investigate opportunities for nuclear storage, uranium enrichment and power creation.
It has raised immediate ire from the green lobby and been dismissed by the Opposition as a backflip and tactical distraction from health controversies.
Mr Weatherill conceded the announcement was a major reversal from his previous stance on the nuclear industry. He said he now had an “open mind” amid opportunities for jobs and investment, and growing fears about climate change.
“I have in the past been opposed to nuclear power, all elements of it,” he said. “I now have an open mind. “When the facts change, people should change their minds.”
Bob Hawke and Jay Weatherill – Labor fans of nuclear power and radioactive waste dumping
Bob Hawke supports SA nuclear dump The Australian, 9 Feb15 FORMER prime minister Bob Hawke has backed siting a nuclear waste dump in South Australia after Premier Jay Weatherill revealed he would hold a royal commission into the state’s deeper involvement in the nuclear industry.
The commission’s findings could also open the door to opportunities for nuclear generation and construction of nuclear-powered submarines in the state, said nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, who led the 2006 commonwealth government inquiry into the viability of a domestic nuclear 
power industry.
Consultation on terms of reference begin today, and are expected to cover the state’s further potential for mining, enrichment, energy generation and storage phases of the nuclear cycle for peaceful uses.
Mr Hawke’s decades-long lobbying for Australia to take the world’s nuclear waste had been a no-go zone with the state Labor government, despite South Australia being a prime storage candidate with a vast, geologically sound backyard. The former Labor PM called the commission a “hell of a good idea” and said the ALP, which has a platform forbidding the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other states of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia, had previously been open to altering its nuclear policy.
“The Labor Party has shown that it has a degree of flexibility in the nuclear debate, particularly with export of uranium,’’ he said……….
Mr Weatherill said his personal anti-nuclear stance had changed and he was “well along the journey” Continue reading
Australian Youth Climate Coalition condemns South Australian government’s proposal on nuclear issues
Nuclear issues to be examined by SA royal commission, Premier Jay Weatherill announces //www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-08/nuclear-issues-royal-commission-jay-weatherill/6078260Sun 8 Feb 2015,
A royal commission will look at the future role South Australia should play in the nuclear industry, Premier Jay Weatherill says.
The SA Premier called a news conference to make the surprise announcement, telling reporters the inquiry would be a first for Australia.
He said the inquiry would look at SA’s involvement in the mining, enrichment, energy and storage phases in the life cycle of nuclear fuel.
“We believe South Australians should be given the opportunity to explore the practical, financial and ethical issues raised by a deeper involvement in the nuclear industries,” he said.
Mr Weatherill said SA had one of the world’s biggest uranium deposits and had been involved in uranium production for more than 25 years.
“It is now the time to engage in a mature and robust conversation about SA’s future role in the nuclear industry,” he said.
He said consultation would start in the coming day on the terms of reference.
“We need to understand all these issues so that the community can make an informed judgment,” he said.
A number of independent experts would be engaged to support the royal commission’s work, Mr Weatherill said.
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition was swift to condemn the Government’s announcement.
It said the state needed to focus on its renewable energy potential rather than nuclear potential.
ABC political reporter Nick Harmsen said it put the proposition of a nuclear waste dump in South Australia back on the political agenda, after a previous Labor administration fought federal moves.
South Australia held to ransom with privatised electricity distribution
Dennis Matthews , 7 February, 2015 South Australia’s electricity consumers have been held to ransom ever since the Olsen Government privatised the monopoly electricity distribution arm of ETSA and Rob Lucas gave the new owners a guaranteed return on investment. Chief beneficiary of this folly is a billionaire Chinese businessman (The Advertiser, 2/2/15) who must be wishing the whole of Australia was as naive.
It’s time to do a Playford and nationalise monopoly essential services that are holding SA to ransom. Sure, the SA Government might try to do the same as a private owner but there is a big difference. The SA Government is answerable to the consumer every four years and, as shown by the defeat of the Olsen Government and two successive Queensland governments, the public will not stand for such ideologically-driven nonsense.
The sooner we buy back the monopoly electricity distribution system the sooner confidence will return to both public and private consumers.
Friends of the Earth Adelaide: Submission on TOR of ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
SUBMISSION ON THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
To the Attorney-General Department submissions@agd.sa.gov.au
Friends of the Earth Adelaide urge you to consider the following Terms of Reference to be included for the Royal Commission into nuclear energy.
The Royal Commission will be undermined if it does not include the following Terms of Reference:
1. Balanced and fair representation in the Royal Commission
(a) provision must be made for qualified anti-nuclear people on the royal commission, so all evidence is public; including
(b) funding for anti-nuclear people to make their case (since the industry will be spending lots of money presenting their side).
2. Environmental impacts of uranium mining in South Australia The terms of reference should explicitly look at:
(a) long term worker health and safety (why are no lifelong records of exposure kept);
(b) Roxby’s record of tailings dam collapses/breaches;
(c) damage to underground aquifers and the loss of biodiversity;
(d) net economic subsidy of mining and exploration, as opposed to actual income for the state (rather than big mining companies).
3. Enrichment The Terms of Reference should include any requests from industry for subsidies industry to build and operate any enrichment facilities, as well as power and water requirements, worker health, transport safety and security, and waste management.
4. Nuclear waste The Royal Commission must look widely at nuclear waste management in South Australia, including uranium tailings. The Commission should examine proposals to host international nuclear waste and status of the waste industry globally.
5. Nuclear waste dump
(a) the commission should examine the full cost of maintaining and guarding a waste-dump for 30, 50, 100, 1000 years or more, factoring in real world cost experience of testing potential waste dump sites; (b) South Australia’s legacy contaminated nuclear sites include Maralinga, the Port Pirie Uranium Treatment Complex, and Radium Hill. There are unresolved concerns over the status of these sites in relation to public health and environmental impacts, and the Royal Commission provides an opportunity to finally resolve these issues.
6. Nuclear Power The economic analysis should:
(a) compare cost of nuclear energy to renewable energy, in terms of real world, not theoretical estimates; (b) proper analysis of cost of building a power plant, including the cost of water, electricity etc, versus the returns to the state and taxpayers (not the big companies);
(c) potential cost of an accident during transport or storage, and cost of cleanup;
(d) the record of the global nuclear industry’s optimistic predictions and its failure to live up to those predictions (in relation to issues such us global demand, global capacity, construction costs, facility start-up dates, technological difficulty, and safety);
(e) the reasons for the nuclear industry’s failure to live up to its predictions and the likelihood that that pattern will be repeated in Australia.
7. Climate Change solutions and Renewable Energy The Terms of Reference should include
(a) an analysis of alternative energy sources to address the challenge of climate change, including the potential for growth in renewables and other low carbon technologies; (
b) compare nuclear reprocessing/power generation ( including insurance!) to solar thermal plants; to large solar PV arrays; to building windfarms; to adding storage to the grid;
(c) consider probability of major floods/droughts from climate change displacing assumptions of dry, geological stability, and
(d) the developmental status and economic viability of proposed technologies (in light of past failures to accurately estimate costs and delivery times).
8. Negative impact on other export industries The terms of reference should include a thorough analysis of the opportunity costs of a further embrace of the nuclear cycle, including the impact on our clean and green food and wine reputation, and the tourism and international student markets, particularly if South Australia were to host an international repository for high-level nuclear waste
9. Insurance, financial risk, public liabilities and subsidies; The terms of reference should include:
(a) A comprehensive examination of the potential liability of the SA Government in the case of an incident or accident;
(b) tax-payer subsidies required to support each proposed role in nuclear energy (in light of past failures to accurately estimate costs and delivery times);
(c) risks of transport of radioactive materials, both within Australia and on the high seas.
10. Proliferation of nuclear weapons The terms of reference should address the nuclear proliferation and global and regional security implications of Australian involvement in nuclear fuel cycle activities. Progress in halting proliferation, spread of nuclear technology, terrorist attacks etc should be reviewed.
11. International Geopolitical response The terms of reference should also include likely foreign government reactions to each proposed role in the nuclear energy cycle.
12. Public participation Friends of the Earth Adelaide call upon the royal commission to canvass public attitude to each proposed role in nuclear energy, nationally, regionally, and locally and to ensure an appropriate public participation process is undertaken before any decisions are finalised.
South Australia and ACT are ahead in renewable energy
Hitting the Renewable Energy Target, Robin Mellon Chief Operating Officer, Green Building Council of Australia Souceable, 3 Feb 15 “……..The Climate Council’s recent report, The Australian Renewable Energy Race, finds that those states with a favourable policy environment and with established renewable energy targets winning the renewables race. South Australia, having already met its 2020 renewable energy target of 33 per cent, now sources more than a third of electricity from renewable sources and a quarter of homes have solar PV panels. South Australia has installed more large-scale renewable capacity since 2001 than any other state, and has now set a 50 per cent target.
The report finds the ACT is also “punching above its weight” with a target of 90 per cent renewable energy by 2020, and a feed-in tariff scheme attracting investment in large-scale project 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 