Coalition compares wind and solar to “dole bludgers”, pushes for coal, nuclear
Coalition compares wind and solar to “dole bludgers”, pushes for coal, nuclear https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-compares-wind-and-solar-to-dole-bludgers-pushes-for-coal-nuclear-41714/ Giles Parkinson, 10 February 2020 The wind and solar industries are bracing for another verbal assault and an extended period of policy indifference from the federal government, after a senior Coalition MP likened renewable energy to “dole bludgers’, the government funnelled $4 million into a study for a new coal fired power station in Queensland, and so-called government “moderates” declared their support for nuclear.
Despite the plunging costs of solar, wind and storage, the war against renewables is accelerating dramatically as the government comes under pressure to improve its climate policies, and even consider re-instating the long term zero carbon pledge for 2050 that it scrapped, along with the carbon price, in 2014, and which all states have since adopted.
But the language against wind and solar is now being scaled up to levels not seen since the Abbott government, when the prime minister, the then Treasurer Joe Hockey and others railed against the sight of wind farms, including on their drive down to Canberra.
Barnaby Joyce, the former deputy prime minister whose electorate of new England hosts some of the state’s biggest wind and solar projects, ranted against both wind and solar last week after losing his bid to regain the leadership of the LNP.
Matt Canavan, the former resources minister who backed Joyce in that failed leadership bid, and resigned after revealing his membership of a sports club that received a $20 million loan from a government fund that Canavan had responsibility for, went one step further on Monday.
“Renewables are the dole bludgers of the energy system, they only turn up to work when they want to,” Canavan wrote in an opinion piece in the Courier Mail that also got a page one headline. The opinion piece – from the man who likes to describe himself as “Mr Coal” – argued that only coal would support Australia’s mining and manufacturing industries.
The views of the LNP and the hard right of the Liberals are well known, but even so-called “moderate” Liberals are now arguing that wind and solar cannot be relied upon to power a modern economy, and nuclear should be open as a low carbon choice.
Katie Allen,the MP for Higgins, wrote as much in Nine Media over the weekend, repeating a claim she made in her parliamentary debut. Those views are reportedly supported by other Liberals also described as moderates, including Trent Zimmerman, and Tim Wilson, whose previous job was climate policy director for the climate-denying Institute of Public Affairs.
The demonisation of wind and solar also extends to the media. The Murdoch position against wind and solar is well established, but it is infused also into the ABC, which – appallingly – ran as its headline story on radio National on Monday morning a split in the Coalition between “cheap” coal and low emissions technology, as though it was matter a fact.
This is either the result of ignorance, or stupidity. In either case, it is inexcusable, although sadly not atypical. There is no study that points to new coal generators being the cheapest option to replace Australia’s ageing coal, polluting and increasingly decrepit fleet.
AEMO, in its Integrated System Plan, also makes it clear that renewables can power Australia’s modern economy and manufacturing sector. Its 20 year blueprint assumes a 74 per cent share of renewables in Australia’s grid as a minimum by 2040, and up to 90 per cent – a level that will dramatically reduce emissions – by around 90 per cent. The lights will stay on.
The ability of wind and solar to lower prices is now being witnessed in Australia’s main grid, with AEMO citing a 39% increase in wind and solar output in the last quarter, along with a fall in coal output due to outages and coal shortages, for a significant fall in prices to their lowest level since 2016.
The claim that renewables cannot power industry also flies in the face of the experts, including chief scientist Alan Finkel, who has mapped out a hydrogen strategy that could, and should, be fuelled by wind and solar. Others point to the potential of the country going “700 per cent renewables” to give it a global advantage in clean fuel exports and “green metals”.
Those supporters include Professor Ross Garnaut, who says Australia could likely reach 100 per cent reenables by the early 2030s, thereby slashing electricity costs and creating the base for more industrial growth.
Billionaires Mike Cannon-Brookes and Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest are investing tens of millions in one of several massive projects designed to export solar, or wind, to Asia countries. Forrest’s iron ore company Fortescue is investing huge amounts adding solar and battery storage to the Pilbara grid to lower the cost of electricity for his mines and improve reliability.
But it is impossible to name a single federal Coalition MP that recognises the potential of wind and solar, even though the state Liberal government in South Australia, for instance, has a target of “net 100 per cent renewables” by around 2030, and sees its economic future built on becoming a wind and solar energy powerhouse.
UNSW scientist Matt Edwards laments the government’s insistence that lower emissions could only be accompanied by either higher taxes or higher electricity costs. In an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald, he said the Coalition is being “wilfully blind” to the economics of renewables, which “wipe the floor” compared to coal, gas and nuclear.
Edwards pointed to the conclusions of the CSIRO and AEMO studies mentioned above.
“One of the greatest frustrations as a scientist is to see interpretations of data misrepresented by politicians,” he writes. “Unfortunately in Australia, much of this bluster has come from the far-right side of conservatives, part of our broad church, whose members have traditionally prided themselves on prudence and level-headedness.
“We must fight the political expediency of appealing to a voter base spooked by fossil fuel scare campaigns and the denialists in the media, while avoiding getting rolled by rogue elements within the party, those whom Malcolm Turnbull labelled “terrorists” at our Climate Conversations event on Wednesday night, “willing to blow the joint up if they don’t get their way”.
“Our conservative politicians should ideally act according to conscience, free market principles and prudence. They should also seize upon the opportunity for Australia to become a renewables export powerhouse, alleviating global emissions reduction well beyond the 1.6 per cent often quoted as our share, and providing vast economic stimulus at the same time.”
We’ve been waiting for that to happen for more than two decades. There’s still no sign of it.
Why can’t the Australian government do the right thing by the persecuted Julian Assange?
Bravo Alison Broinowski and Independent Australia . I am utterly fed up with the Australian government, and the mainstream media’s abject failure to even consider the plight of Australian citizens speaking truth – especially re Julian Assange. I did admire Ita Buttrose’s spirited defence of the freedom of the press – UP TO A POINT. But she, and the rest of the media pack were completely hypocritical in pretending that the persecution of Julian Assange had nothing to do with them.
|
Assange, Collaery, Snowden, Smethurst: criminalising truth https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/assange-collaery-snowden-smethurst-criminalising-truth,13573#.XkDpbKeRTRw.twitter
By Alison Broinowski | 9 February 2020 Truth-tellers and whistleblowers need our support in Australia and across the globe, says Dr Alison Broinowski.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. You’ve often heard that from leaders clutching at their last straw. Australia, you would think, has had enough this year and it’s only February. Enough of a scorched, smoky summer. Enough eviscerating loss of family. Enough people fleeing for their lives from infection. Enough inaction in the face of existential threats. Enough excuses made. Enough blind eyes turned. Enough lies. But no. There’s more to come. In Australia, telling the truth is now a crime. At least four Australians who did so face secretive trials in the coming weeks, three of them in Canberra. Another is imprisoned in the ACT without you knowing what for or at whose orders. You aren’t allowed to know his name, nor the name of Witness K. You are familiar with the other two: Bernard Collaery, K’s lawyer, and Annika Smethurst, a Newscorp journalist whose home was raided by police last July. The fourth Australian is in pre-extradition detention in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison, also for telling the truth. Evidently, this is now a crime in your allies’ system as well, even though the U.S. has its First Amendment and the UK has a Bill of Rights. Revealing the embarrassing truth is what Chelsea Manning is back in a U.S. gaol for, what Edward Snowden is exiled in Russia for, and what Julian Assange did in 2010 when WikiLeaks published documents selected from more than 700,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, assessment files of Guantánamo Bay detainees, military incident logs, and videos from Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s why Assange, having been in diplomatic exile for seven years in London, faces 175 more years for espionage in a U.S. gaol. The absurdity of such a sentence, when the worst war criminals get 45 years, reflects the fury of the U.S. security state at being caught out and the subservience of its UK colleagues. Those on both sides of the Atlantic determined to get Assange are unrelenting and his extradition hearing begins on 24 February. Almost too late, the Guardian has re-discovered its editorial conscience and begun opposing extradition, not wanting justice for Assange, but press freedom. Professor Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture supports that, but has gone further, deploring Assange’s mental and physical state. He has written to the UK and U.S. governments pointing out their responsibility for his treatment. He is to raise Assange’s case this week with Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6 during the Iraq invasion. Good luck with that. Since Kevin Rudd, Australian prime ministers have been silent if not virulently negative about Assange. In recent months prominent individuals, including Bob Carr and Dick Smith, have pointed to the urgency of his case and advocated his release. In November the Greens’ Peter Whish-Wilson presented a petition with 200,000 signatures to the Senate, calling for Assange to be brought back from the UK to Australia. Late last year, Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie formed the “Bring Assange Home” Friendship Group, which he co-chairs with George Christensen of the Liberal-National Party. It has no Liberal Party member. Wilkie and his supporters are seeking appointments in London this week to make the case for Assange. He says UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and U.S President Donald Trump have made Assange their “political plaything”. Why can’t Morrison ask Trump, as a favour, to ‘do the right thing by this Australian’? |
|
SUBMISSIONS 122 Australians want Victoria’s Nuclear Prohibition Laws to stay
Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support.
Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters.
SUBMISSION TO VICTORIAN PARLIAMENT INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITION
Jessica Lawson and 122 others (list is available) Dear Standing Committee on Environment and Planning,
Victoria’s Nuclear prohibition laws Inquiry – these are the Committee Members
The members of the Environment and Planning Committee are:
Cesar Melhem (Chair)
Clifford Hayes (Deputy Chair)
Bruce Atkinson
Melina Bath
Jeff Bourman
David Limbrick
Andy Meddick
Samantha Ratnam
Nina Taylor
Sonja Terpstra
The participating members of the Committee are:
David Davis
Georgie Crozier
Catherine Cumming
Tim Quilty
Bev McArthur
If you would like any further details on the Committee members or the Inquiry please see: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/inquiries/inquiry/983
Climate action distracted by talk of uncosted, unbuilt, unproven and unpalatable technologies such as nuclear.
|
SMH, February 10, 2020 – Chris Danckwerts, Turramurra I thought we’d all realised by now that the nuclear power option was never going to be viable, until I read Katie Allen’s article (“Keep an open mind to nuclear“, February 8-9). She ignores a number of crucial facts. First, the timeframe to build nuclear (a decade at least). Second, the cost (many billions). Third, safety. She says that smaller, more modern reactors will only “moderate” the risks, not eliminate them as most of us would wish. Finally, there would only be “less” nuclear waste to get rid of, which will still continue to be a problem. The sooner we eliminate nuclear, coal and eventually gas power options and move to 100 per cent renewables, pumped hydro, hydrogen et cetera the better off we will be.
Christopher Hill, Kensington, It seems Katie Allen has been electorally charged with selling us nonexistent new-nuclear power technologies and asking us to spend time and taxpayer money on something we never asked for. Sounds familiar. Given the continuing fallout from this government’s self-interested spending of taxpayer money, why not go nuclear? Well, the plea for open minds is all well and good. However, real movement on national energy policy and transition is now on the table. We are at that table and we are hungry for a workable energy and climate change policy. Sure, keep an open mind, but fill it with well-informed realistic debate anchored in the present, not on distracting unwanted promises of uncosted, unbuilt, unproven and unpalatable technologies such as nuclear. – Helen Lewin, Tumbi , If, as Peter Hartcher suggests (“Be amazed by our masters of delusion“, February 8-9), Allen is voicing her pro-nuclear stance in order to drag her conservative Coalition confreres into a world free of fossil fuels, I respectfully suggest she dumps this minority group of Luddites rather than tempting them with nuclear energy. She admits in her article that the “concerns” around the development of nuclear have only “moderated”. I’m afraid that won’t be enough to drag me along with her or many other Australians. – Umbi https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/argument-goes-nuclear-in-search-for-energy-solution-20200209-p53z2c.html |
|
Nuclear Stigma is, and will continue to be the cancer that erodes Kimba future.
“Them or us, a shit town and a policeman on the fence.”
Kimba farmer / nuclear profiteer, Andrew Baldock who has recklessly fueled the ongoing promotion to degrade a agriculture region is now pleading for the community to reunite. This maybe seen as Baldock’s failed solicitation to procure redemption, forgiveness or clemency for the irremediable damage ignorantly portrayed upon what is mostly a nobbled and unwilling community.
Sunday the 2nd of February anti-nuclear rally, portrayed attending people as welcome contributing visitors to the town until their views of nuclear were apparent only to find they were treated no better than a leper in Kimba’s colony. One local person and yes I say one, that being of the local constabulary claimed to be on the fence and treated people with regard, where the nuclear embracing dichotomy has failed to welcome.
Nuclear Stigma is, and will continue to be the cancer that erodes Kimba future. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
Barngarla Native Title Holders excluded from vote on Kimba nuclear waste dump
Coalition nuclear stooge MPs line up to push for removing Australia’s prohibition on nuclear activities
Support for nuclear energy heating up across government, SMH, Mike Foley, February 8, 2020 — “……. Coalition MPs have spoken out on nuclear energy as a solution to the need to decarbonise the economy, arguing the government can maintain Australia’s long-held moratorium on nuclear power and take modest steps in early stage research and development of new technologies.
Dr Allen, a paediatrician and medical researcher with a PhD, said “question marks remain” over the potential to use renewables as the sole source to power Australia’s energy grid……
Queensland LNP MP Ted O’Brien, who represents the Fairfax electorate on the Sunshine Coast, chaired a parliamentary committee which last year tabled a report titled Not without your approval: a way forward for nuclear technology, calling for a partial lift in Australia’s 20-year-old nuclear moratorium.
Rather than a total and immediate lift of the moratorium, only a partial lift for new and emerging technologies is proposed, subject to the results of a technology assessment and a commitment to community consent as a condition of approval for nuclear facilities,” it said.
Mr O’Brien said without lifting the moratorium the government could commission assessments recommended by his committee into “economic, technological and readiness assessments” for nuclear energy.
Among the Coalition MPs on the government-dominated committee who endorsed the report were Trent Zimmerman, from inner-city electorate North Sydney, Bridget Archer from Bass in northern Tasmania, Nationals MP for Lyne David Gillespie, West Australian MP Rick Wilson and North Queensland Nationals MP Keith Pitt, who was this week promoted to cabinet as Resources Minister.
Former deputy prime minister and Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce has also promoted nuclear energy.
However, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Energy Minister Angus Taylor have said they’re not considering lifting the nuclear moratorium due to lack of bipartisan support for nuclear energy.
Mr Taylor said the government is “taking the time to thoroughly consider the [committee’s] recommendations” and it had “no plans to lift the longstanding moratorium”.
Advocates argue nuclear power production costs can fall with new technology, highlighting the emerging technology of small to medium-sized reactors. However, there are no commercial examples of the new technology in operation.
Labor MPs issued a dissenting report which said the inquiry heard from experts who argued renewable energy offered better prospects to replace fossil fuels and the safety record of nuclear energy made it too risky to consider.
“In fact the events [like Fukushima], innovations and advances in renewable energy, and emerging climate and energy system developments of the last ten years have made nuclear power even less relevant and appropriate in the Australian context at a time when nuclear power is already in decline elsewhere,” the report said. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-nuclear-energy-heating-up-across-government-20200207-p53yru.html
Liberal MP Katie Allen touts nuclear energy for Australia
Katie Allen, a government member of parliament (MP) representing inner-city Melbourne, wrote in a column for Nine Entertainment newspapers that Australia has an opportunity to lead the way on developing “safer and more effective” nuclear energy.
Australia has had a blanket moratorium on nuclear energy for 20 years, but a parliamentary committee chaired by coalition MP Ted O’Brien in December tabled a report calling for it to be partially lifted…….
In December, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Angus Taylor, the minister for energy and emissions reduction, declared that they were not considering exploring nuclear options.
Any move to lift the moratorium would require the support of the opposition Labor Party, which has previously declared an anti-nuclear stance.
The report from December said that a partial lift would allow the government to conduct recommended “economic, technological and readiness assessments” for nuclear energy.
“Rather than a total and immediate lift of the moratorium, only a partial lift for new and emerging technologies is proposed, subject to the results of a technology assessment and a commitment to community consent as a condition of approval for nuclear facilities,” it said. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/08/c_138765779.htm
Zali Steggall , independent MP for Warringah, luring Liberals towards climate action
A matter of conscience’: Zali Steggall unveils plans for climate change act, https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/02/10/zali-steggall-plans-climate-change-act/ Samantha Maiden She stole Tony Abbott’s blue-ribbon seat out from under the Liberal Party’s nose and now Zali Steggall is hoping to lure party dissidents to cross the floor and vote for climate change action.
|
The legislation is modelled on the UK’s Climate Change Act and is designed to provide a national framework for action and mandatory annual reporting of Australia’s trajectory towards meeting reduction targets. “We need to set out a road map for Australia to become a low-carbon economy without all the fear-mongering and misinformation,” Ms Steggall said. “The big question all sensible Australians are asking is how? This is why we need a climate change act to set out a legislative framework.” |
|
Private investors won’t touch new Coalition-backed coal plant, Labor says
Private investors won’t touch new Coalition-backed coal plant, Labor says, Morrison government to spend up to $4m in grant for feasibility study into coal-fired power plant in Queensland, Guardian, Australian Associated Press, Sat 8 Feb 2020 The federal Labor opposition says private investors will not touch “with a barge pole” the Morrison government’s plan to support a coal-fired power plant in Queensland.
The government says it will spend up to $6m in grants for two new Queensland electricity generation projects, including a coal-fired power plant, as part of a bid to lower power prices……..
Labor’s climate change and energy spokesman, Mark Butler, said private investors would not touch a new coal-fired power station “with a barge pole”.
“The government still has no energy policy – just ideological flights of fantasy,” he said in Adelaide on Saturday. The private investment sector had made it very clear it had no appetite for building expensive coal-fired power stations, he said.
Victorian govt Nuclear Inquiry – published Submissions
First published results on the Inquiry website are strongly ANTI-NUCLEAR. But we must remember that there could be many confidential submissions, that we don’t know about.
PRO nuclear
1. Don Hampshire
2 Robert Heron – vaguely
3 Terje- Petesen
116 Leah McDermott
122 Simon Brink
123 CFMMEU Mining and Energy Division
ANTI nuclear
4 Jessica Lawson
5 Pro Forma list of 122 contributors probably anti-nuclear
48 Jaznet Nixon 49 Karen Furniss
63 Graeme Tyschsen
68 Barbara Devine
76 Vivien Smith
77 Lachklan 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
see https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4348 -to read the submissions
Submission to INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITION (focussing on thorium etc)
Submission to INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITION
Introduction
I read the very narrow Terms of Reference (TOR) with some amazement. It is certainly made clear that the goal is to remove Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 (1)
The very first TOR makes the mining of uranium and thorium as the prime concern. After all, Victoria could presumably have nuclear power with these minerals sourced from elsewhere. I conclude that the underlying goal of this Inquiry is, under the relentless pressure of thorium lobbyists such as John White, indeed to remove that legislation, which effectively prohibits the exploration and mining of thorium and uranium in Victoria. John White has a long history of promotion of the nuclear industry (2), and previously owned the massive 3,700 sq km mining exploration lease EL4416 [picture attached] right across Southern Gippsland’s prime coastal and tourism region, and runs the entire length of the spectacular 90 Mile Beach.(3)
Clearly, the Victorian legislation was brought in to protect this State’s precious agricultural land, and iconic ocean coast from polluting mining industries.[picture attached]
The Terms of Reference are clearly 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 (4)
Meanwhile, renewable energy technologies, 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. (5)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_Council
- https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/ia-investigation-victoria-goes-dirty-brown,3788
- https://www.fool.ca/2020/01/31/the-death-knell-for-nuclear-and-the-end-of-cameco-tsxcco/
- https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wind-solar-and-storage-beat-coal-gas-and-nuclear-57530/
on potential benefits to Victoria in removing prohibitions enacted by the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983
Now, turning to each TOR
(1) investigate the potential for Victoria to contribute to global low carbon dioxide energy production enabling exploration and production of uranium and thorium; through enabling exploration and production of uranium and thorium.
Nuclear power is no solution to climate change. This 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.
But there is no point in this “exploration and production” as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power is no solution to climate change.
Even if nuclear power really could combat climate change, it would take decades to get enough reactors in operation. It would be too late, whereas renewable energy, solar and wind, and also energy effiiciency strategies, can be set up quickly. This means that to establish nuclear power would be counter-productive, as time, energy, and money would be diverted away from those genuine solutions. Dr Paul Dorfman, et al (6)
Nuclear power is vulnerable to climate change. Increasing temperatures can result in reduced nuclear reactor efficiency by directly impacting nuclear equipment or warming the plant’s source of cooling water. (7) Nuclear power is uniquely vulnerable to increasing temperatures because of its reliance on cooling water to ensure operational safety within the core and spent fuel storage. As the most water-intensive energy generation technology, (8) nuclear reactors are located near a river or the ocean to accommodate hefty water usage, which averages between 1,101 gallons per megawatt of electricity produced to 44,350 gal/MWh depending on the cooling technology.
Inland reactors that use rivers as a source for cooling water are the most at risk during heat waves, which according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are “very likely” to occur more often and last longer in the coming decades. (9)
Especially Australian climate impacts on nuclear technology. In view of Australia’s bushfire crisis, it just seems ludicrous that anyone would contemplate introducing nuclear power technology of any type to this country. The Lucas Heights research nuclear reactor is already enough of a worry. Bushfires have occurred in its vicinity.(10) The transport of nuclear wastes would be threatened by bushfires (11)
Nuclear power would place an intolerable burden on Australia’s precious, but limited water supply. Nuclear power plants require huge amounts of water to prevent fission products in the core and spent nuclear fuel from overheating (incidentally making nuclear the most water intensive energy source in terms of consumption and withdrawal per unit of energy delivered).
Uranium mining and nuclear facilities are highly water intensive, while solar and wind power can alleviate water stress. (12)
Why thorium exploration and production? Thorium nuclear reactors do not exist yet, and quite possibly never will. Thorium itself is not a fissile material. It can only be transformed into fissile uranium-233 using breeder and reprocessing technology. Its development entails a complex processes, bringing risks of weapons proliferation and smaller but highly toxic, amounts of long-lasting radioactive wastes. After reaction, the thorium blend leaves dangerous wastes like U-232, a potent high-energy gamma emitter that can penetrate one meter of concrete and will have to be kept safely out of our air, food, and water forever. (13)
In January, the Climate Council ‒ comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists and other policy experts ‒ issued a policy statement, noting that nuclear power plants “are not appropriate for Australia – and probably never will be” as they are “a more expensive source of power than renewable energy, and present significant challenges in terms of the storage and transport of nuclear waste, and use of water”.(14)
- https://medium.com/@albertbates/john-wayne-squares-off-against-jim-hansen-42a258b2260d
- The Effect of Rising Ambient Temperature on Nuclear Power Plants http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/duboc1/
- https://theatlas.com/charts/H1scYH_H7
- Future Climate Changes, Risks and Impacts https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_futurechanges.php
- https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/residents-warned-not-to-leave-sydney-fire-worsens-20180415-p4z9os.html
- https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/transporting-nuclear-wastes-across-australia-in-the-age-of-bushfires,13465
- https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/energy-commodities/solar-wind-power-can-alleviate-water-stress
- Thorium ‒ a better fuel for nuclear technology? Nuclear Monitor, by Dr. Rainer Moormann
- https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/godfather-of-australian-science-warns-government/
(2) identify economic, environmental and social benefits for Victoria, including those related to medicine, scientific research, exploration and mining;
Economic benefits? Victoria is right now on the cusp of a renewable energy revolution, with all sorts of exciting developments, for example, Melbourne’s iconic tram network to be powered by solar energy. (15) Victoria has a renewable energy target of 50% by 2030. (16) Why imperil that progressive transition to clean energy, by the distraction of the expensive and dirty industry, with its connection to nuclear weapons development?
In 2017–18, the state’s temperate climate, high quality soil and clean water helped the industry produce $14.9 billion worth of agricultural product from 11 million hectares. This makes Victoria Australia’s largest agriculture producer.(17). In Gippsland, John White’s Ignite Energy Resources holds a huge mining license, in an area with exceptional resources of monazite, a source of thorium.(18) the same area that is renowned for both its tourist attractions and its agriculture. Gippsland farms account for at least one quarter of Victoria’s milk, vegetable and beef production with a number of Gippsland’s businesses exporting food across the world (19)
Why would anyone in their right mind imperil Victoria’s successful and continuing agricultural and tourism industries for a gamble on a fantasy about thorium nuclear reactors? Those reactors are currently nonexistent, and likely to remain so.
The Australian nuclear hype focusses on “Generation IV” technologies, especially Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs – they leave out the unpopular word “nuclear”)
No-one wants to pay for SMRS
No company, utility, consortium or national government is seriously considering building the massive supply chain that is at the very essence of the concept of SMRs ‒ mass, modular factory construction. Yet without that supply chain, SMRs will be expensive curiosities.
Small nuclear reactors are not economically viable. The main priority preventing safe deployment [of small nuclear reactors] is economics. Most commercial proposals for SMRs involve cost-cutting measures, such as siting multiple reactors in close proximity. This increases the risk of accidents, or the impact of potential accidents on people nearby. (20)
The world wide effort by the nuclear industry to hype up small nuclear reactors is not resulting in any sign of success, given their disastrous economics, among other problems. (21)
Thorium and uranium mining? Given the decline in the nuclear power industry, and the glut in uranium, the uranium market is in permanent doldrums. (22)
Thorium nuclear reactors – there are many sources that detail the problems that make these reactors unlikely ever to become a commercial reality. They are in essence really uranium fuelled, as they require plutonium or enriched uranium to start the process. Their major problem is of course their very high cost. Other disadvantages, safety risks, toxic long-lasting wastes, weapons proliferation risks. (23)
Environmental benefits? Are they kidding? The environmental consequences of using thorium-based nuclear power will result in the same problems the world faces today with uranium bases reactors. (24)
Uranium mining has widespread effects, contaminating the environment with radioactive dust, radon gas, water-borne toxins, and increased levels of background radiation. (25) The industry’s use of water is huge, making it a very unwise industry for for water -scarce Australia.
Social benefits? What social benefits? The introduction of any part of the nuclear fuel chain into clean, green Victoria would bring conflict, division and distress especially to rural Victorians. All for the faint hope of riches for a few mining entrepreneurs, and the promise of jobs, jobs jobs in mining, an industry that is becoming increasingly and rapidly automated. The effect on the tourism and farming industry would be loss of jobs, whereas solar and wind technologies can be developed alongside agriculture, bringing many more jobs.
(3) identify opportunities for Victoria to participate in the nuclear fuel cycle; and
If the well-being of the farming and tourist communities is ignored, well, some enthusiastic nuclear entrepreneurs might be able to get hold of tax-payers’ money , and get their almost certainly futile dream started.
(4) identify any barriers to participation, including limitations caused by federal or local laws and regulations.
Apart from the barriers of extremely bad economic outlook for nuclear activities in Australia, apart from the environmental, health and safety risks, apart from damage to agriculture and tourism, -yes there are legal and regulatory hurdles for the nuclear lobby to overcome.
Victoria’s laws are not haphazard whims of a few latte-drinking tree huggers.
They have been developed to protect the public from the very sorts of dirty nuclear industries that are now being touted by the nuclear lobby
Kimba nuclear waste dump: PM and South Australia Premier Marshall must step in
“South Australians have greater ambitions for our state than to be someone else’s nuclear waste dump.”
|
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges
Kimba nuclear waste dump: PM and SA Premier Marshall must step in – Dr Jim Green 01 Feb 2020
Federal resources minister Matt Canavan has today announced his intention to move ahead with plans for a national nuclear waste dump near Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula. Dr. Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: “Mr. Canavan has decided to ignore the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners. That decision must not be allowed to stand.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison should intervene to reverse the decision.
“SA Premier Steven Marshall should make it clear that imposing a facility against the will of Traditional Owners is unacceptable and unconscionable and that the SA government will fight the dump proposal, just as the Rann government fought and eventually convinced the Howard government to back down.”
SA Labor argues that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto. Deputy Leader of the Opposition Susan Close said in Oct. 2019 that SA Labor is “utterly opposed to the process” leading to today’s decision. She described the process as “appalling”.
Shamefully, the federal government refused a request from Barngarla Traditional Owners, native title holders of the area, to be included in the community ballot held last year. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) engaged an independent ballot agent to conduct a confidential postal ballot. Not a single Barngarla Traditional Owner voted in favour of the dump. BDAC wrote to Mr. Canavan calling on him to abandon the nuclear dump in light of their unanimous opposition, and stating that “it is BDAC’s responsibility to continue to give voice to the profound concerns Barngarla traditional owners have and to take whatever steps are necessary to oppose the NRWMF being located on Barngarla Country.”
Dr. Green said: “Mr. Canavan not only ignores the opposition of Traditional Owners, he also ignores local division in Kimba. The result of the government-initiated community ballot fell short of his own benchmark of 65% for ‘broad community support’ so Mr. Canavan shifted the goalposts. And he ignores the opposition of a majority of South Australians.”
A 2018 poll found that 55% agreed that SA should stop the federal government from building a national nuclear dump in outback SA while 35% disagreed; those who strongly agreed with stopping the dump outnumbered those who strongly disagreed by a factor of three (41:14). A 2016 Sunday Mail-commissioned poll found that support in SA for a national dump (39.8%) was well short of 50%. A 2015 Advertiser-commissioned poll found just 15.7% support for a nuclear waste dump in SA.
Dr. Green said: “The federal government’s claim that the nuclear waste dump will generate 45 jobs is a dishonest fabrication which is wildly inconsistent with job creation at comparable facilities overseas. At least when Prime Minister John Howard tried to impose a nuclear dump in SA, he had the honesty to acknowledge that no jobs would be generated.”
“The claim that the waste is low-level medical waste is a dishonest fabrication. Measured by radioactivity, well over 90% of the waste is long-lived intermediate-level waste that the federal government wants to store above ground at Kimba until such time as a deep underground disposal facility is established. No effort is being made to find a location for such a facility so this long-lived waste would remain stored above ground in SA ad infinitum.
The SA Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act ‒ an initiative of the Olsen Liberal government ‒ should be used by the state government to halt this unacceptable proposal. The SA government should also initiate a parliamentary inquiry to thoroughly investigate the issues and the options.”
“Mr Canavan acknowledged last year that 93% of the radioactive waste is located at the Lucas Heights facility south of Sydney, operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. That is where Australia’s nuclear expertise is concentrated and that is where the waste should remain.
“South Australians fought long and hard to prevent the Howard government turning SA into the nation’s nuclear waste dump. We fought and won the campaign to stop the Flinders Ranges being used for a national dump. We fought and won the campaign to stop SA being turned into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump. And now, we will fight until the Morrison government backs off.
“South Australians have greater ambitions for our state than to be someone else’s nuclear waste dump.”
|
|
|
The shambles of the Australian government’s Kimba nuclear waste dump plan
Craig Wilkins: This waste will be temporarily parked in above-ground sheds at Kimba https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/craig-wilkins-this-waste-will-be-temporarily-parked-in-aboveground-sheds-at-kimba/news-story/064782c0e3da8ec896aafd01c8422775
A nuclear dump at Kimba will not just see low level radioactive medical waste introduced to the Outback, writes Craig Wilkins. It’s time to tackle the misinformation.
There is clearly a lot of misinformation about the proposed nuclear waste dump at Kimba.
Caleb Bond thinks it’s a mystery that anyone can oppose a low-level nuclear waste dump (“Opinion”, The Advertiser, 4/2/20). The real mystery is how Mr Bond can think it’s just a low-level waste facility.
It’s not.
In fact, there are two separate proposals located side by side. As Mr Bond says, one is for low-level, lower-risk waste. But the other is for long-lived, intermediate-level waste – a far more dangerous proposition.
The intermediate-level waste includes spent fuel reprocessing waste from nuclear reactors at the Lucas Heights site south of Sydney, which needs to be kept safe from humans for 10,000 years. To put it in context, that’s twice as old as the great pyramids in Egypt.
It’s the genuine health and environmental risks from this intermediate-level waste that people are concerned about.
Not just a few hospital gloves and gowns. In fact, the risk is so acute that some countries actually classify this waste as “high-level”.
International best practice is for intermediate and high-level waste to be permanently buried deep underground. But that’s not what is proposed for Kimba. Instead, this waste will be temporarily parked in above-ground sheds while the authorities then start working out the best site for permanent burial.
Surely it makes sense to decide on the final resting place first before shifting the waste.
Especially as there is no particular urgency to remove it from its current secure storage at Lucas Heights.
Alongside this lack of forward planning, the promises of jobs and money go up and down like a yoyo, and the consultation process has excluded many – including the Barngarla traditional owners who hold native title over the land.
Shamefully, the Federal Government refused a request from Barngarla traditional owners to be included in a community ballot held last year. And when the Barngarla conducted their own poll, not a single traditional owner voted in favour. Moreover, the proposal itself is illegal under South Australian law.
For these reasons, many people remain deeply concerned. As so many questions remain, it makes sense for the SA Parliament to conduct a full, open inquiry into the proposal to clear up exactly what is proposed. And how much benefit, if any, will flow to the Kimba community.
Until then, organisations such as mine will support the community as it seeks answers from a process that has so far failed them. And we will continue to support the Barngarla traditional owners, whose opposition has been ignored.
CRAIG WILKINS IS CONSERVATION SA CHIEF EXECUTIVE
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 