Kalbar’s exotic minerals mine a toxic risk to Victoria’s food bowl
Kalbar’s exotic minerals mine a toxic risk to Victoria’s food bowl, Michael West Media by Elizabeth Minter | Jun 18, 2021 | A hearing into the Environment Effects Statement for Kalbar’s mineral sands project on rich Victorian farmland has been told about competition for billions of litres of water, high levels of uranium, untested technologies and a strange backflip by the project’s “independent experts”. Elizabeth Minter investigates.
For exactly 100 years, Kane Busch’s family have farmed the fertile soils of the Lindenow Valley in East Gippsland, Victoria. After leaving Denmark in 1913, Kane’s great-grandfather Eiler Busch settled in the Valley, buying in 1921 the land that is now the home of Busch Organics.
Kane’s grandfather, also called Eiler, was behind the push for more environmentally friendly farming while experiencing the devastating droughts of the 1990s. The farm gained official organic certification in 2000. Grandson Kane is following in those footsteps, and was recently a finalist for a national award for “Young Grower of the Year”.
The Lindenow Valley produces the salad greens and vegetables – broccoli, green beans, cauliflower, celery, beetroot, cabbage and carrots – that help feed the nation. The Valley produces nearly one-third of the state’s vegetables; employs up to 2000 people at peak times; and is worth more than $150 million to the local economy.
The area also has huge environmental significance, with the heritage-listed Mitchell River, the Ramsar-protected Gippsland Lakes wetlands, and the Perry River’s unique Chain of Ponds, which is home to many threatened plant and animal species. Once ubiquitous across south-eastern Australia, “chain of ponds” systems are now rare.
But this is all now in jeopardy thanks to a mineral sands mining proposal from Kalbar Operations Pty Ltd (Kalbar), a company that was established as an investment vehicle and that has never operated a mine. It would be almost comical were it not for the potentially deadly consequences.
There’s monazite, which contains rare earth metals plus radioactive uranium and thorium and is thus potentially dangerous to residents, the waterways and the vegetables growing by the mine’s boundary; the competition for billions of litres of water; and the untried technology being proposed to tackle the mining waste. Nowhere in Australia is a mineral sands mine located so closely to, and upwind of, a major vegetable growing industry.
Kalbar is proposing a 1,675-hectare open-cut mine just 350 metres from the Mitchell River, which flows into the Gippsland Lakes wetlands. The mine will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 15 years. A public hearing is under way as part of the inquiry into the Environment Effects Statement (EES). The following information has been revealed during the hearing.
Big miners walk away, lack of water the key risk
The multinational miner Rio Tinto originally owned the mining exploration licences. In 2011 Oresome, a subsidiary of Metallica Minerals, entered into a right to explore and option to purchase agreement with Rio for the licences.
A scoping study it commissioned showed a mine could be viable only if there was a dependable water supply. The risk of not finding a reliable source of up to 6.2 billion litres annually for an acceptable price received a Category F rating, defined as a problem with possibly “no viable solution” and a “fatal flaw”.
Water supplies
Kalbar’s proposed mine will sit on the plateau high above the Mitchell River with the vegetables growing just metresfrom the river.
The mine is 3.5 kilometres from the main source of the region’s drinking water (other than tank water). The mine and the horticultural industry will be in direct competition for water, with both relying on the Mitchell River and the same groundwater………….
Treatment of mine waste
Also controversial is access to how mine waste will be managed. The mine’s original design included a 90-hectare tailings dam.
But when government agencies and others highlighted the extreme danger such a dam posed to the Perry River and the Chain of Ponds, Kalbar changed its proposal.
The mine now plans to use giant centrifuge machines to remove water from the tailings waste, and then reuse that water.
The East Gippsland Shire Council, which unanimously opposes the mine, was not convinced of the viability of centrifuges, which are untested in mineral sands mining. The council commissioned a report from an independent mining industry consultancy, Ausenco.
Ausenco’s report raised concerns and advised that many more centrifuges would be required than Kalbar proposed. Then just weeks later, of its own volition, Ausenco issued a new report …………..
Radioactive dust a hazard
Kalbar plans to mine for and partially refine zircon, titanium-bearing rutile, ilmenite and rare earths minerals.
Airborne dust generated from mineral sands mines not only contains toxic heavy metals and radioactive monazite, thorium and uranium but also respirable crystalline silica, which leads to the deadly lung disease silicosis……………
Reputational damage to growers…… https://www.michaelwest.com.au/kalbars-exotic-minerals-mine-a-toxic-risk-to-victorias-food-bowl/
No uranium or thorium mining for Victoria
Victoria blocks prospect for uranium mining, Australian Mining, Salomae Haselgrove
According to the report, the current Australian market for uranium or thorium products is receiving enough supply via international imports and the Lucas Heights open-pool Australian lightwater (OPAL) reactor in Sydney.
“In this report, the committee makes no recommendations and does not take a strong position on nuclear power as an alternative energy source in Australia and particularly in Victoria,” the committee stated…..
The committee is not convinced that uranium and thorium exploration activities are economically or technologically viable in Victoria.
This was backed up by comments from the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) infectious diseases physician Tilman Ruff, who said export earnings did not even cover employment costs for miners.
“The industry has for over a decade never cracked close to $1 billion a year in export income,” Ruff said.
“They are a relatively small cohort. It employs, on the most recent estimates I have seen, a maximum of about 700 people.”
From the three operational uranium mines in Australia – Olympic Dam and Four Mile in South Australia and Ranger in the Northern Territory, which is closing in January – all uranium products are exported.
At present, the assessment and approval process for ministerial permission to develop a uranium mine takes at least three years.
With Victoria’s solid uranium mining ban, the Minerals Council of Australia stated that “Victoria effectively sends a message there is no point in investors considering Victoria in relation to uranium”…. https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/further-uranium-mining-unlikely-to-be-taken-up-in-australia/
Victorian Inquiry finds nuclear power costly and risky
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s [‘proven risks’] https://www.miragenews.com/inquiry-confirms-nuclear-energy-s-proven-risks/ A Victorian parliamentary inquiry has found nuclear power is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ and remains economically unviable without subsidies.
The inquiry has confirmed nuclear energy’s ‘identified and proven risks’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) welcomed comments made at the tabling of the inquiry that the Victorian government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the state’s long-standing nuclear ban.
The upper house inquiry into the prospects for nuclear power and uranium mining in Victoria has found:
- Nuclear energy is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ (finding 3) and without subsidies, a nuclear power industry is economically unviable in Australia (finding 5).
- Supposed advantages to nuclear energy put forward by nuclear proponents are speculative and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks (finding 9).
“This long-standing protection has served Victoria well and its retention is prudent and positive.
“ACF welcomes comments by inquiry member Nina Taylor that the Andrews Government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the nuclear ban.
“Nuclear power is high cost and high risk and a distraction from the real energy choices and challenges we face. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s ‘proven risks’
Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s ‘proven risks’
A Victorian parliamentary inquiry has found nuclear power is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ and remains economically unviable without subsidies.
The inquiry has confirmed nuclear energy’s ‘identified and proven risks’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) welcomed comments made at the tabling of the inquiry that the Victorian government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the state’s long-standing nuclear ban.
The upper house inquiry into the prospects for nuclear power and uranium mining in Victoria has found:
- Nuclear energy is ‘significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation’ (finding 3) and without subsidies, a nuclear power industry is economically unviable in Australia (finding 5).
- Supposed advantages to nuclear energy put forward by nuclear proponents are speculative and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks (finding 9).
“In 1983 the Cain state Labor government introduced the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act which prohibits uranium mining, nuclear power and waste facilities in the state,” said ACF campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“This long-standing protection has served Victoria well and its retention is prudent and positive.
“ACF welcomes comments by inquiry member Nina Taylor that the Andrews Government has an ‘unequivocal commitment’ to retain the nuclear ban.
“Nuclear power is high cost and high risk and a distraction from the real energy choices and challenges we face. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
A broad coalition of faith, union, environmental, Aboriginal and public health groups, representing millions of Australians, last year declared nuclear power has no role in Australia’s energy future and is a dangerous distraction from the pressing climate challenges. Their united statement demonstrates widespread community opposition to nuclear power.
Victorian Parliament: Legislative Council Committee finds that nuclear ban should stay
Parliament of Victoria
Inquiry into nuclear prohibition
Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee
November 2020
Findings
FINDING 1: Regardless of technology development, priority should be given to the security, stability and accessibility of energy supply and the need to lower carbon emissions due to climate change and to ensure affordable energy.
FINDING 2: Current estimates of the cost of nuclear energy in Australia are unreliable and accurately costing the full cost is not possible without a detailed business case being undertaken.
FINDING 3: Notwithstanding the ambiguities of the costings, the Committee received substantial evidence that nuclear power is significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation and it is recognised that, currently, nuclear is at the high end of the cost range across all technologies.
FINDING 4: A business case is unlikely to be undertaken, given its costs and resources required, while a prohibition of nuclear energy activities remains and there is not likelihood of a plant being able to be built.
FINDING 5: Without subsidisation a nuclear power industry will remain economically unviable in Australia for now.
FINDING 6: Discussion about Victorian participation in the nuclear fuel cycle is entirely theoretical while the Commonwealth prohibitions remain in place.
FINDING 7: Until there is a change in the Commonwealth position, detailed discussions about emerging technologies in Victoria related to the nuclear fuel cycle and power generation are unlikely to advance.
FINDING 8: The success of any radioactive waste strategy relies on a level of acceptance and confidence across government, industry and the broader community of its legitimacy, effectiveness and integrity in its ability to deal with all facets of waste management, storage and disposal, including the long-term health and safety of workers, affected communities, particularly First Nations Peoples, and the environment.
FINDING 9: Those who propose a policy shift have not presented any argument, data or proof in support of their position that cannot be nullified by those arguing against. Any advantages are speculative in nature, and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks.
FINDING 10: The nuclear medicine industry is not hindered significantly by the current prohibitions against uranium or thorium exploration and mining. Current legislative prohibitions only prohibit mining and the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities, such as nuclear reactors. This does exclude Victoria from hosting a nuclear research reactor or other nuclear facilities which could be used to increase supply of radioisotopes for medical or industrial purposes. The Committee notes that if Victoria did seek to establish a research reactor, Victorian and Commonwealth prohibitions would need to be repealed to allow this to happen. Therefore, a repeal of just Victorian legislation would not be sufficient to expand
our involvement in nuclear medicine beyond what is currently permissible.
FINDING 11: The current market for this material is receiving enough supply from international import and the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights. The Committee does not believe that fully repealing the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 would have a material influence on the nuclear medicine sector, as it is unlikely Victoria’s involvement would increase beyond its current capacity.
FINDING 12: The Committee is not convinced that thorium exploration and mining is economically or technologically viable.
Contents…….. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4350
Killing the virus comes at enormous cost — doing nothing will cost more.
Killing the virus comes at enormous cost — doing nothing will cost more.
|
Why harsh COVID-19 lockdowns are good for the economy https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-21/why-harsh-covid-19-lockdowns-are-good-for-the-economy/12683486, By Ian Verrender
It has been a pile-on for the past few months as Team Australia has splintered right down the political divide.
Border closures in Western Australia and Queensland have been called out as unnecessary while the Victorian lockdown has been labelled an overreaction that has angered business leaders and drawn the ire of Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The restrictions, we are constantly told, are costing the nation dearly, delaying a return to normal activity and pushing out the timetable for an economic recovery. While some argue state governments are milking the pandemic for political gain, pointing the blame at regional and state governments for our current predicament ignores two important points. The first is that the restrictions have been imposed to limit the spread of a pandemic. It is the virus that is the fundamental cause, not the restrictions. And the second is that, while it’s almost impossible to measure the true cost of the lockdowns and the shutdowns, most critics look only at the costs and completely overlook the economic benefits the shutdowns have delivered. How could lockdowns have helped the economy?Here’s one good example. Continue reading |
‘Nuclear will never happen in the Latrobe Valley’
Nuclear discussion is a hot topic in the Latrobe Valley, Latrobe Valley Express, Michelle Slater, 26 Aug 20, “……..
‘Nuclear will never happen in the Latrobe Valley’
The call to lift the state’s prohibition on nuclear is not being backed by all unions, as some community groups come out swinging against any nuclear proposal in the Latrobe Valley.
Many concerns surrounded the region’s geographical instability, the use of water, dangerous waste and the need to forge ahead with large-scale renewables.
The Victorian branch of the Electrical Trades Union doubled down on its opposition in its submission into the Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition.
It instead called for large scale renewables such as the Star of the South offshore wind farm off the Gippsland coast to provide a just transition for workers and communities.
“Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean, and popular. Nuclear is simply not,” the ETU submission said.
“Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive and our government must plan for and support a fair and just transition for energy workers, their communities and the Australian people.”
Voices of the Valley convenor Wendy Farmer backed the ETU stance, rejecting claims from the CFMMEU that nuclear would provide a “just transition” for the Valley.
Ms Farmer also rigorously argued that there was no social licence from within the local community to go ahead with nuclear.
She said any nuclear plant in the Valley, particularly if it was built on the former Hazelwood site, would be too close to homes in a seismically unstable location.
“Nuclear will never happen in the
Latrobe Valley, it’s too expensive and will take too long to build. Do we just care about jobs and not a healthy community? This would impact all of Gippsland,” Ms Farmer said.
“Yes, we need a proper transition and secure energy, but nuclear is not the way to go when we need the federal government’s will to build more renewables.”
Community over Mining spokesperson Tracey Anton has voiced her concerns about using water to rehabilitate the Latrobe Valley’s coal mines.
The community advocate said nuclear was unsuitable for the region due to the volume of water it would require, creating a burden on downstream agriculture and environmental needs.
“We’ve already over-allocated our ground and surface water, how do you fit in another industry that needs more water when we don’t have enough as it is,” Ms Anton said.
“The (state) government can’t even figure out how to rehabilitate the existing coal pits, or even how to transport asbestos safely, never mind nuclear.”
Friends of the Earth’s Yes2Renewables campaigner Patrick Simons has been working with the local proponents for the proposed Delburn wind farm, helping campaign for renewables in Gippsland.
Mr Simons said the conversations around nuclear were a “distraction” from discussing rolling out renewables in a decentralised grid.
“There is surplus grid capacity in Gippsland,” he said.
“Renewable energy built in the region will complement wind power operating in western Victoria, where the grid is constrained, making the energy system overall more resilient.”……..
nuclear power remains unlawful in Australia under federal legislation.
The Victorian government has no plans for a nuclear power industry, which has been banned since 1983 and is instead focusing on “cheaper, safer and more sustainable alternatives in the form of renewable energy and storage”.
A state government spokeswoman pointed to Victoria’s ambitious 50 per cent renewables targets by 2030, creating more than 24,000 jobs, “particularly in regional areas”…….. https://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/6896995/nuclear-discussion-is-a-hot-topic/
Parts of Victoria’s Bellarine Peninsula, Melbourne suburbs, at risk from sea level rise
important for local communities to know whether they were at risk so they could decide whether to invest in adaptation strategies, such as infrastructure, to protect the coastline, or simply retreat from the danger zone.
 How coastal communities on Victoria’s Bellarine Peninsula are dealing with the reality of sea level rises, ABC, By Nicole Mills, 26 Jul 20, As Vicki Perrett plays with her granddaughter Rachel on the beach in front of her home on Victoria’s Bellarine Peninsula, she knows she has to cherish these moments.Key points:
And not just because children grow up so fast. She also knows the beach they play on may not be there forever. “The beach is coming closer towards us, towards the road and towards our property,” Ms Perrett says. “It’s very prone to sea level rise here and to storm surges.” This stretch of coastline at Indented Head has already been earmarked as at risk of going underwater by 2100. Ms Perrett’s house is also in the danger zone………… Councils ordered to plan for sea level risesThe Victorian Government has instructed all councils to plan for a 0.8m sea level rise by the year 2100. That figure is based on a 2007 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which agreed on the projected rise, but could not rule out larger increases. Although the worst impacts of sea level rises may still be decades away, this bayside community, about an hour-and-a-half south of Melbourne, has already had a taste of what is to come………. Dr McInnes leads the CSIRO’s climate extremes and projections group, which has contributed to the mapping of high-risk areas. Publicly available mapping tools, such as Coastal Risk Australia, allow anyone to find out how their local area would fare under different sea-level rise scenarios. Dr McInnes said it was important for local communities to know whether they were at risk so they could decide whether to invest in adaptation strategies, such as infrastructure, to protect the coastline, or simply retreat from the danger zone. “Land subject to inundation is land that is low-lying, that is potentially at risk from inundation during extreme sea-level events or even potentially high-tide events in the future,” Dr McInnes said. Dr McInnes says while the worst impacts will be felt during storm surges, there might be some areas that will suffer more permanent flooding. “If [the land] is low enough, it could be permanently inundated,” she said. “Parts of Swan Bay [on the Bellarine Peninsula] could potentially become quite affected by inundation, certainly high-tide inundation, in the future.” And it’s not just regional areas. Dr McInnes says Melbourne suburbs such as Elwood, Aspendale and Mordialloc are also at risk of more-regular flooding in future……….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-26/climate-change-sea-level-rises-prompt-action-in-coastal-towns/12383968
|
|
Keep Australia’s nuclear prohibition laws: it appears that nuclear is no part of climate action, not necessary
The most important group of nuclear power advocates who have consistently promoted concerns about climate change as the main reason for their advocacy have been the self-described ‘eco-modernists’. The main organizational focus of ecomodernism is the
Breakthrough Institute, established by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in 2003.Darebin Council, Melbourne – a world first on Climate Emergency
This Melbourne council declared the world’s first climate emergency – now 28 countries are on board, Local and national governments in 28 countries have declared climate emergencies since Melbourne’s Darebin Council in 2016. Many now hope after this summer’s bushfires, Australia may declare a national emergency. SBS, BY EVAN YOUNG 1 Mar 20, On 5 December 2016, Melbourne’s Darebin Council made history.
Councillor Trent McCarthy put forward a motion that the council vote on declaring a state of climate emergency.
Though it would be merely symbolic, it was thought a declaration could still have practical use.
“Before the vote, residents were very much telling us climate change mattered more than anything else to them,” Darebin Mayor Susan Rennie told SBS News……..
Since 2016, Ms Rennie said Darebin Council has begun work on a number of green initiatives, including programs to subsidise solar panels for residents and businesses, working to make all council operations carbon-neutral, introducing a food waste recycling program and resurfacing roads with recycled material.
Making the declaration in 2016 “set the council on a path” to develop a climate plan, she said.
“Staff in all different parts of the organisation understand that looking at their work through the lens of a climate emergency is critical and it’s a core part of their jobs.”
“Our community expects action … so we also invite them to be much more vocal in what responses they want to see.”……
Where have climate emergencies been declared?
Ninety-four Australian jurisdictions have declared a climate emergency, according to Climate Emergency Declaration and Mobilisation in Action (CEDMA).
The ACT parliament declared a climate emergency in May 2019, becoming the first Australian state or territory to do so, while South Australia’s Upper House followed suit four months later.
More than 800 million citizens across 28 countries are estimated to live in jurisdictions that have declared climate emergencies, according to CEDMA.
Britain, France, Portugal and Argentina are among the national governments to make climate emergency declarations.
Pope Francis also made a declaration in June 2019, while in November, more than 11,000 scientists around the world signed a scientific paper stating that the planet was facing a climate emergency, “clearly and unequivocally”.
Could Australia declare a national climate emergency?
In October 2019, an e-petition calling on the federal government to declare a national climate emergency reached a record-breaking 404,538 signatures.
It received more than three times the number of signatures on a petition which held the previous record, calling for the removal of GST on menstrual products.
The same month, Greens MP Adam Bandt brought a vote to the House of Representatives on whether to declare a national climate emergency. His motion was defeated 72-65, with Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor labelling it a “grand symbolic gesture”…….HTTPS://WWW.SBS.COM.AU/NEWS/THIS-MELBOURNE-COUNCIL-DECLARED-THE-WORLD-S-FIRST-CLIMATE-EMERGENCY-NOW-28-COUNTRIES-ARE-ON-BOARD
In Victoria the goal of the nuclear lobby is to remove Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act
Nuclear lobby takes aim at Victoria to tackle prohibitions, Michael West Media, by Noel Wauchope | Feb 26, 2020 Having dithered on real action to tackle global warming, some in the Coalition are now taking a keen interest in solving it — by going nuclear. Noel Wauchope investigates what’s behind the sudden push to overturn legislation prohibiting the exploration and mining of thorium and uranium and puts a definitive case against a nuclear industry in Australia.
A batch of Coalition MP’s are pushing nuclear power as Australia’s answer to climate change. The group includes Katie Allen inner-city Melbourne Liberal, Ted O’Brien, Queensland LNP, Trent Zimmerman, North Sydney Liberal, Bridget Archer Tasmanian Liberal, David Gillespie Nationals NSW, Rick Wilson West Australian Liberal, and Keith Pitt, LNP from North Queensland, who was this week promoted to cabinet as Resources Minister. Former deputy prime minister and Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, is also a staunch proponent of nuclear power.
Arguing that nuclear power is the answer to bushfires and a heating climate when these are conversely nuclear’s greatest threat is akin to an argument by the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. The US National Academies Press compiled a lengthy and comprehensive report on risks of transporting nuclear wastes. They concluded that among various risks, the most serious and significant is fire. And indeed, climate change, in general, carries serious threats to nuclear reactors and the entire nuclear fuel chain.
But any port in a storm when you’re trying to sell a product that is expensive, unpopular, illegal in Australia and has the problem of long-lasting toxic wastes.
The Australian public’s renewed enthusiasm for action on climate change was timely. The nuclear lobby had, coincidentally already geared itself up for a campaign to overturn Australia’s State and Federal nuclear prohibition laws. The current Victorian inquiry is the latest in a spate of Parliamentary Inquiries aimed at removing these laws. Submissions are due by this Friday, 28 February.
The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference (TOR) are narrow:……..
It is clear the goal is to remove Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983. The very first TOR makes the mining of uranium and thorium as the prime concern. Given Victoria could run a nuclear power station with uranium/thorium sourced from elsewhere, it is clear that, after years of pressure by thorium lobbyists, the underlying goal of this inquiry is to overturn the legislation prohibiting the exploration and mining of thorium and uranium in Victoria.
The Victorian legislation was brought in to protect this State’s precious agricultural land and iconic ocean coast from polluting mining industries. South Gippsland is particularly rich in thorium.
Nuclear lobby tries to water down Victorian prohibition
The Terms of Reference are overtly biased: with no qualification, they promote the nuclear industry as undoubtedly beneficial to Victoria. This is ludicrous, as the global nuclear industry is in a state of decline.
Meanwhile, the renewable energy technologies of wind, solar and storage are now recognised by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator as, by far, the cheapest form of low carbon options for Australia, and are likely to dominate the global energy mix in coming decades
This first Term of Reference assumes that the “exploration and production” will result in nuclear power plants for Victoria, otherwise why do it? It also assumes that nuclear power will be effective in lowering C02 emissions.
However, there is no point in this “exploration and production” as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power is no solution to climate change as in Dr. Paul Dorfman et al’s response to James Hansen on 20 December 2019 in the Financial Times.…….
The Terms of Reference are overtly biased: with no qualification, they promote the nuclear industry as undoubtedly beneficial to Victoria. This is ludicrous, as the global nuclear industry is in a state of decline.
Meanwhile, the renewable energy technologies of wind, solar and storage are now recognised by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator as, by far, the cheapest form of low carbon options for Australia, and are likely to dominate the global energy mix in coming decades
This first Term of Reference assumes that the “exploration and production” will result in nuclear power plants for Victoria, otherwise why do it? It also assumes that nuclear power will be effective in lowering C02 emissions.
However, there is no point in this “exploration and production” as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power is no solution to climate change as in Dr. Paul Dorfman et al’s response to James Hansen on 20 December 2019 in the Financial Times.……… .https://www.michaelwest.com.au/nuclear-lobby-takes-aim-at-victoria-to-tackle-prohibitions/
How would nuclear benefit Victoria?
|
Nuclear lobby takes aim at Victoria to tackle prohibitions, Michael West Media, by Noel Wauchope | Feb 26, 2020 “…………..The Terms if Reference ask for the “economic, environmental, and social benefits to Victoria.” Victoria is moving towards a renewable energy revolution, with a significant uptake of renewable technology by the State Government. Victoria has set a renewable energy target of 50% by 2030 and Melbourne’s iconic tram network is to be powered by solar energy. The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) revealed that thorium-based nuclear energy plants – once vaunted as a clean alternative type of nuclear energy – is not an environmentally safe alternative. Thorium leads to highly radioactive nuclear waste. Consequently, the risk of accidents will always be present the report said. Uranium mining has widespread effects, contaminating the environment with radioactive dust, radon gas, water-borne toxins, and increased levels of background radiation. As to the “social benefits”, the introduction of any part of the nuclear fuel chain into Victoria would particularly impact rural Victorians. The effect on tourism and farming industries has not yet been adequatley analysed, whereas solar and wind technologies can be developed alongside agriculture and tourism. Economist John Quiggin told Michael West Media last week that he’d support the removal of Australia’s ban in exchange for the establishment of a carbon price. Quiggin believes that this would put the nuclear proponents on the spot and open up the subject of the poor economics of the nuclear industry. You can read Quiggin’s submission here. This Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry may not succeed in promoting the thorium or the pro nuclear cause. However, it is part of what looks to be a co-ordinated national attack on nuclear prohibition laws. The mainstream media, particularly the Murdoch press, seems to toe the nuclear industry line that the way to fix global warming is to go nuclear. This Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry may not succeed in promoting the thorium or the pro nuclear cause. However, it is part of what looks to be a co-ordinated national attack on nuclear prohibition laws. The mainstream media, particularly the Murdoch press, seems to toe the nuclear industry line that the way to fix global warming is to go nuclear. Nuclear power is not supported by either Labor or the Greens.https://www.michaelwest.com.au/nuclear-lobby-takes-aim-at-victoria-to-tackle-prohibitions/ |
|
Frank Simpson warns against the pollution of Victoria’s agricultural land by thorium/uranium mining
Risk in contaminating a prime green food producing region of Victoria. (3) This implies all stages of the fuel cycle from exploration to waste repository storage.143 Anti-Nuclear, 10 Pro Nuclear Submissions (published) to Victorian Parliament
Submissions published so far to the Victorian Government’s Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition are running strongly ANTI NUCLEAR https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4348
There are currently 143 submissions opposing the nuclear industry.
There are 10 submissions favouring the nuclear industry. (You can bet that vested interests have sent in confidential submissions)
PRO nuclear
1. Don Hampshire ( with attack on ABC, The Age )
2 Robert Heron – vaguely
3 Terje- Petesen
116 Leah McDermott
122 Simon Brink
123 CFMMEU Mining and Energy Division 21 Azark 26 Buchanan, Bill 27 Murphy, Barry 28 Patterson, John
ANTI nuclear
4 Jessica Lawson 5 Pro Forma list of 122 contributors 48 Janet Nixon 49 Karen Furniss 63 Graeme Tyschsen 68 Barbara Devine 76 Vivien Smith
77 Lachlan Dow 81 RVS Industries 92 Alan Hewett and Joan Jones 103 Anne Wharton 106 John Quiggin vague 107 Amy Butcher 109 Nick Pastalatzis 112 Philip White 22 Friends of the Earth 23 Derek Abbott 24 Simpson, Frank 25 Wauchope, Noel 29 Wissink, Bart 30 Sharp, Robyn 31, Smith, Colin
Philip White shows folly of nuclear activities for Victoria: Submission No.112
Submission 112 Philip White to Victorian govt INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITION
A very brief summary of conclusions that can be drawn from the attached submission with respect
to each of your inquiry’s terms of reference are as follows:
(1)investigate the potential for Victoria to contribute to global low carbon dioxide energy production through enabling exploration and production of uranium and thorium The notion that nuclear energy is low carbon is superficial. A deeper analysis shows that nuclear energy is an obstacle to realisation of a low carbon economy (refer “c. environmental
impacts” in the attached submission). Hence the idea that uranium and thorium exploration and production could make a useful contribution to global low carbon
dioxide energy production is mistaken.
(2) identify economic, environmental and social benefits for Victoria, including those related to medicine, scientific research, exploration and mining.
Nuclear energy related facilities tend to create host communities which are economically dependent
on these facilities and which are therefore under huge pressure to overlook the safety and environmental risks associated with these facilities (refer “b. health and safety” in the attached submission). The safest approach is not to build these facilities in the first place. (I assume the phrase “including those related to medicine, scientific research, exploration and mining” is not meant to exclude nuclear power plants and other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.) It is doubtful whether exploration and mining could generate significant
economic benefits given that the long‐term prospects for nuclear energy are so uncertain. Refer
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2019‐Assesses‐Climate‐Changeand‐the‐Nuclear‐Power‐Option.html
(3) identify opportunities for Victoria to participate in the nuclear fuel cycle The attached submission provides many reasons why it would be unwise for
Victoria to participate in the nuclear fuel cycle.
(4) identify any barriers to participation, including limitations caused by federal or local laws
and regulations.
There are many legitimate barriers to nuclear fuel cycle activities, including safety, environmental protection, non‐ proliferation concerns and lack of public acceptance, but ultimately the barrier that is most likely to
stick is that nuclear energy is not economically viable (refer “d. energy affordability and reliability and economic feasibility” in the attached submission- below).
Submission to the Inquiry into the Prerequisites for Nuclear Energy in Australia …….
For reasons outlined below, nuclear energy is not and will not in the foreseeable future be a desirable option to supply Australia’s energy needs. The specific terms of reference are addressed below, with particular attention to issues and perspectives that proponents of nuclear energy are inclined to neglect or downplay:
a. waste management, transport and storage ………
b. health and safety ……
c. environmental impacts …….
d. energy affordability and reliability, and e. economic feasibility …….
f. community engagement and i. national consensus ……..
g. workforce capability …….
h. security implications ……
j. any other relevant matter
Based on the above analysis, it would be unwise for Australia to embark on a nuclear energy program and it is very sensible to declare this in the clearest possible terms. In this regard, I am encouraged to see in the Terms of Reference for this inquiry the statement that “Australia’s bipartisan moratorium on nuclear energy will remain in place.” https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4348
1.This month
For updates: see Adelaide group Don’t Dump on SA https://www.facebook.com/dontdumponsa
No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District https://www.facebook.com/noradwastekimba
And https://www.facebook.com/nodumpalliance
Please Sign: the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) sign on letter to federal Minister Pitt
Support the Barngarla People:
“Barngarla: Help us Have a Say on Kimba” to fund a legal challenge (judicial review)
Fundraiser by Barngarla People : Barngarla: Help us Have a Say on Kimba (gofundme.com)
Barngarla need as much support as we can to say NO to the Nuclear Waste Facility for KIMBA
Mahalia Bilney started this petition to Ken Wyatt (Minister for Indigenous Australians) and 1 other
Our Barngarla Mob need as much support as we can to say NO to the Nuclear Waste Facility proposed for Kimba! Help us fight to be heard and included in the importance of such a decision �� We won our native title to then be told we have no say and to go through this process all over again.
We don’t want the nuclear waste facility as they can’t guarantee it’s going to be safe and it will be a huge risk to the wildlife and environment. Not to mention the proposed areas are sacred and hold significance to my people and we don’t want more major damage to be caused, we want to try and preserve what we have left.
Research into this for yourselves, they say it’s low level but it’s technically high level! but our country marks it as low as our standards aren’t the same as the countries we’ll receive the waste from. It’s appalling and not wanted! So help us fight for our right to vote and hopefully stop it from happening
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net
Appeal for Australian Government’s Actions on Japan’s Dumping Nuclear Wastewater into Sea
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
—
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
